Thread by @copscampaign

#spycopsinquiry starting again - you can watch/listen via

First thing this morning , the Inquiry will be reading out summaries of the evidence of officers: HN2152; HN350 and HN308.

ucpi.org.uk/individuals/hn…
Richard Reeves Scullly joined Special Branch in 1968, doesn't remember exactly when he was in SDS but it's thought to have been around 1977.

#spycops

He worked in the back office processing reports – sometimes making corrections but not filtering the info. He didn't decide which reports were forwarded or who the intelligence went to.

He knows that these reports sometimes went to the Security Services - “the main beneficiary of SDS reporting”
He notes that they were thanked for some of these.
He had no contact with them himself

He explains more about the file numbers that appear on these reports

He wasn't involved in directing undercovers or targeting decisions, with practical arrangements like accommodation, cover documents or overtime/ expenses claims.

He did sometime attend meetings at the safe house, and says that welfare was very important.

He has no knowledge of officers engaging in sexual relationships, public disorder or violence, being arrested...

He believed that elected politicians were not meant to be spied on

He remembers David McNee visiting the unit.

Unusually he ran an informant alongside his SDS role – this is an arrangement he'd begun during his time in C Squad so continued with – however he sees the area of interest covered by this person didn't coincide with SDS interests.

Mike Ferguson was his manager but he says they did not 'click'. They sometimes clashed – Ferguson is said to have interfered with the informant – and he felt that Ferguson unfairly wrote a poor annual report about his work.

As a result of this, he decided to leave the SDS

He says undercovers did identify “real troublemakers” and so “were able to contain the worst aspects of what could affect the public”

He has provided a Witness Statement for the Inquiry

You can now download this: ucpi.org.uk/publications/f…

ucpi.org.uk/individuals/hn…

Paul Andrew Croyden served in the SDS for two years, from July 1979 – August 1981.

He says Angus McIntosh (who he'd worked with on Naturalisation) approached him and asked him to join, in an admin role

He also knew HN45 before joining, and learnt more about the 'Hairies' from him.

DS Croyden replaced Dick Scully in the SDS office (he'd lived in the same 'section house' as him a few years earlier) and there was a handover period.

DI McIntosh and DCI Ferguson instructed and supervised him. He was usually based at the unit's new Vincent Square office.

His job was to process and correct/ improve reports – he says he was familiar with the Special Branch style, high standard and level of pedantry.

Scully taught him to sometimes include the source's cover name so that SS informants wouldn't be able to work out who the undercover was through elimination.

He would add in the SB & SS reference numbers – explaining that people's names might come back as 'No Trace, 'mentions' or 'RF' ('Registry or Record File).

The SDS has their own typist, also based at Vincent Square.

The Surveillance and Photographic Units were based in the same building.
He recalls an album of photos being taken along to safe house meetings for #spycops to identify people who appeared in them.

He also says that he had nothing to do with procuring cover documents, vehicles or accommodation, and played no part in tasking.

The undercovers had to ring in each day by 11am – he often answered the phone to them.

He suggests that the #spycops were closely supervised and would receive feedback about their reporting from the two senior managers.

He remembers going to Liverpool with Trevor Butler in 1981. They used a pager to stay in contact with deployed officers.

He and Trevor also went to Scotland, because HN155 was going to a protest at Torness.

His main job was compiling reports.

He remembers new officers helping out with admin tasks in the back office during this first 6 months, before being deployed

He left the SDS in August 1981 – he says DCI Butler asked him to stay on, but he didn't want to be tied to such an administrative job.

“I have no more evidence to give other than to say that during my time with the SDS it was a highly professional unit that acted in a proficient skilled and upstanding manner. Sadly the unit has subsequently being smirched by the poor behaviour of a few officers”

He has provided a Witness Statement for the Inquiry

You can now download this: ucpi.org.uk/publications/f…

ucpi.org.uk/individuals/hn…
Christopher Skey (HN308) served on the SDS from mid 1978 to early 1982.

He has provided two Witness Statements for the Inquiry

You can now download these: ucpi.org.uk/publications/f… and ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…

He was on duty at the demo in Grosvenor Square in 1968, and applied to join Special Branch that year.
He's not entirely sure when he joined, but the Inquiry thinks it was mid 1978.

He says he became aware of the SDS about a year before this. His role was an admin one – he dealt with expenses claims and procured vehicles for the #spycops – he sometimes liaised with the Transport dept.

He was also responsible for the SDS safe houses; a new one was organised during his time in the unit.

He went to the safe houses most weeks.
He would collect receipts from officers and pay out expenses

He was unaware of any undercover acting as an agent provocateur, reporting on elected politicians or trade unionists, engaging in sexual activity, being arrested etc...

He didn't know about various allegations that have been made about the SDS officers...

He had no role in authorising the use of deceased children's identities, but knew this practice happened.

He admits not giving much thought to it at the time.

He recalls that sometimes #spycops were required to travel outside of London, and back office staff would liaise with the local force, just in case the undercover was arrested. He travelled to Edinburgh twice (relating to Torness power station) and Liverpool.

He worked with Scully and Croyden.

He recalls that everything was written down, and typed up by the typing pool.

He sometimes had to contact the Special Branch duty officer to pass on urgent intelligence.

Decisions about the dissemination of information was always done by the 'customers' – which could be A8, the Home Office, the Security Services or other parts of Special Branch.

After leaving the SDS Skey spent several months in the role of Liaison Officer between Special Branch and A8 (the uniform public order dept).

He says there were “other channels” of communications; his role was to “assist on a day to day level”
He did have some direct contact with the SDS, but requests went through Special Branch
He recalls sanitising reports to protect sources, and sometimes collating info for A8.

He then moved to the Anti Terrorist Branch, and retired in 1990.

They Inquiry will also publish some documents associated with HN608 and HN135 (both deceased) today.

Ken Pryde
ucpi.org.uk/individuals/hn…
was DCI in charge of the SDS from Nov 1977- early 1978

and Mike Ferguson ucpi.org.uk/individuals/hn…
was head of SDS Jan 78 – Feb 1980

Now follows a break.
#SpyCopsInquiry

Today we'll be hearing evidence from Trevor Butler (HN307)
ucpi.org.uk/individuals/hn…

#spycops

He has also provided a written witness statement, which you can now download from ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

He is being questioned by Barr (Counsel for the Inquiry) about the training he received when he joined the police.
He attended courses at Hendon and Bramshill.

He confirmed that he understood that a police officer didn't have an automatic right of entry to private premises.

Asked if he understood that they didn't have an automatic right to confidential information he was less sure:
“On consideration, yes”

Going on to say “I'd never given it any thought, to be honest”

He didn't think about how these principles applied to undercover officers, or consider these issues at all while he was an SDS manager.

Unsuprisingly
He didn't have any training in human rights, or discrimination, or give much consideration to this either

He was trained in police discipline regulations, and knew that sexual misconduct was an offence contrary to these.

He was trained in police discipline regulations, and knew that sexual misconduct was an offence contrary to these.

Did he think this applied to undercovers?

No

Why not?
“Because the officers I worked on the SDS with were experienced trustworthy men, who I had no concerns about"

Barr had to ask again – did the police regulations apply to them?
“Yes, of course”

He had to be reminded what the 'Peelian principles' meant

With hindsight I would have thought the public would have been hugely grateful” for the work the #spycops did

saying that the police protected the “tranquility” of the public.

He said that the @metpolice liked to 'police by consent' and called this “a shorthand form of the Peelian objectives”

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/a…
According to this agenda, there was a lot of training on the role of Special Branch, the role of the Security Service, the meaning of 'subversion etc

Did he receive this kind of training?

Not any formal training.

@MetPolice Where did you get your understanding of 'subversion'?
“my own experience and common sense”

Was there a received understanding of this in Special Branch?
I believe so

Did the SS have any influence over this?

@MetPolice Butler spent 10 months on C Squad in 1971 and some time there from 1978-79 too.
What roles did he have?

He denied working on the Industrial desk, or preparing threat assessments for A8

@MetPolice He said he wasn't aware of any intelligence coming from the SDS, or any requests going to the SDS.

He says he knew very little about the #spycops unit back then.

@MetPolice The main public order concerns in 1971 were related to internment and Bloody Sunday?
He can't remember.

@MetPolice Asked about the death of Blair Peach in 1979, and the campaign which followed, he couldn't remember anything.

@MetPolice He could remember the bombs in Birmingham and Guilford. He believes at that time Special Branch were still responsible for dealing with Irish terrorism

@MetPolice He denied being aware of working with any intelligence which had come from the SDS.

He says he wouldn't have known about any of their dealings with the Troops Out Movement (TOM) as he didn't know about the SDS at all.

@MetPolice When he arrived at the SDS, was there a handover?
He doesn't remember exactly but thinks he spent time with Angus McIntosh, learning about the unit

@MetPolice Did you hear about an officer being presented with a death certificate matching his cover name?
No

Did McIntosh tell you about an officer marrying an activist?
No

@MetPolice Did he hear rumours of an officer's cover being compromised because he'd got involved with members of the opposite sex?
No

@MetPolice Was he given any briefing about the legality of the SDS #spycops operation?
No

Any guidance about ethics?
No

@MetPolice Did he understand what the intelligence was being gathered for?
Broadly yes – he knew it would be disseminated to A8 and “others who needed it”

@MetPolice Did the handover cover much about the relationship with the Security Services or other Special Branch Squads?
No

@MetPolice What was he told about target selection?

He said it was being done on a geographic basis

@MetPolice Was he instructed to review existing deployments?
No

@MetPolice According to the 1979 Annual Report,
"Covert policing was being subjected to increasingly close and critical scrutiny”
Can he recall what this was?
No

@MetPolice The Inquiry has seen documents suggesting that the Home Office had concerns about the relationship between the SDS and the SS at this time – he says he wasn't aware of any discussion about this.

@MetPolice He said the practice of using deceased children's identities didn't come up at that stage.

@MetPolice Most of the undercovers were married weren't they?

He agreed that this reduced the risk of them becoming involved sexually with activists, or members of the public,

and helped to “anchor them in reality”

@MetPolice Did you recruit HN155?
No

@MetPolice Did you know about officers being compromised in the past?

Were new recruits given any help or guidance in identifying a deceased child?
Not by me.

@MetPolice Where would they have learnt to do this?
From those who were already deployed

Did you ever check these cover identities for robustness?
No

@MetPolice What did he think of this practice of using deceased children's names?

He thought it was acceptable and important – he didn't consider any alternatives and was uncritical of this practice.

@MetPolice "At the time I thought it was the correct process".

Asked what he thought now, he said a lot could be improved.
"They should have had far greater support from the police and Home Office".

@MetPolice Barrr pointed out that previous officers had been issued British Visitor Passports.

Butler said he didn't know this was a possibility.

@MetPolice Was there a black folder in the office containing advice for the #spycops ?
He said he wasn't aware of this at the time

@MetPolice There was no question of the SDS being deployed to infiltrate the IRA.
Who took that decision and when?
Butler had no idea.

@MetPolice There weren't any SDS officers infiltrating the far right at this time. Why didn't you consider this?

Butler said that such consideration was done by officers senior to him – who would tell him what to implement.

@MetPolice Barr: did you have an understanding that this was a field that the SDS didn't go into?

Butler: that would be fair, yes.
day to day practice – there was very little discussion of the far right, apart from in the context of their clashes with the left.

@MetPolice Why was HN65 deployed to infiltrate CND?
This might be around the time I was leaving – I can't recall
He recalls a concern that “extremist groups on the left” would infiltrate CND

@MetPolice Was this concern coming from the Home Office, or any other Govt Dept?
He can't recall.

He was asked if any of the groups were being supported by foreign powers – eg the Maoists?

@MetPolice We moved on to anti-racist groups
HN106 was deployed to spy on the East London Workers Against Racism group.

Was Butler involved in his tasking?
He must have been involved, but doesn't recall.

@MetPolice Why was he doing that?
Unsure if this was “geographic” or direct targeting.
They must have been a threat to public order.

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
We saw a report of a meeting held in Walthamstow, following the death of Winston Rose in police custody, including details of a speech given by ELWAR member Eden.

Barr read out a lengthy quote from it.

@MetPolice What was the policing value?

Butler spoke about “elements in that report” being “of great interest” - eg the call for the destruction of the police force sounds to me a call for violence and public disorder”.

@MetPolice This is around the time of the Brixton riots; there was a lot of anger amongst the Black community

Barr asks if sending undercovers into meetings of this kind might have done more harm than good?

@MetPolice Was there not a risk that if he was uncovered, this could have acted as a catalyst and put people back on the streets?
What about Peel's principles?

@MetPolice Butler remains convinced that this is a grand report and totally justified.
Was there an attempt to monitor Black groups at this time, to work out what relationship they had with left-wing groups?
Is this why HN106 was sent in to this meeting?

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
Next we saw a report from 16 April 1981
again from HN106, about the Revolutionary Communist Tendency (RCT)

@MetPolice He says that the RCT has brought forward their plans to form a new South London Workers against Racism branch.
They plan to make contact with local community leaders.

@MetPolice They are planning to offer legal assistance, and work with legal representatives.#

Did you have concerns about reporting that sort of info?
No

He said “it gave an insight” although admitted it wasn't immediately relevant to public order

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s… The third document from 1981 was about ELWAR

Was he concerned about an undercover reporting on an anti-racist group's electoral activity, just weeks after the Brixton riots?

@MetPolice His answer was about #spycops feeling responsible to report as fully as possible

It was left to other people to analyse and decide what to disseminate...

Your officers weren't inhibited about what they reported were they?
Were there any sensitive areas which should be avoided?

@MetPolice Butler says he holds the same views now – if a group is considered worth targeting, then it's worth gathering as much info about them as possible.

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
This is a report from HN396
dated 25 June 1981
It's reported that a new branch of Brixton SWP held its inaugural meeting of 9 people at the Library.
'William Briggs' is the new branch's Treasurer – this is HN356 himself.
Any comments about this?

@MetPolice You've said you only occasionally received requests from senior managers, and the SDS was usually left to just get one with things...

Did you ever consider it your duty to consider alternative methods of gaining info, or balance the intrusion vs the benefits?
No

@MetPolice Did you ever review deployments, formally or otherwise?
No

@MetPolice Did you terminate any, on the grounds that they weren't worthwhile?
No

@MetPolice Did you alter the course of any deployments, on the grounds that they weren't worthwhile?
No

@MetPolice Did reports go to S or C Squad?
It all went to S Squad

Did specific requests come from S Squad or other Squads or both?
S Squad - he thinks

@MetPolice Was there any change in the nature of the requests after the 1979 General Election?

What about after Ken Livingston was elected to the Greater London Council in 1981?

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
Butler said he didn't recall much interaction with the Security Services, who authored this Note.
It mentions the Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP) and the SWP– they're after membership details.

@MetPolice Does he remember that their “ideal would be a permanent well-placed employee in each headquarters” ?
No

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
This is a Security Services note about a meeting between them and the SDS in October 1979, described as an “opportunity to say farewell to Angus McIntosh and meet his successor, Trevor Butler” - it looks like he met them straight away.

@MetPolice Does he recall what they talked about over food and drink?
No

@MetPolice Ferguson was asked if the SDS had sources close to the SWP, who could supply information about Flame, Womens Voice and the SWP

Was it typical of them to make requests like this?
Butler can't remember

@MetPolice Vince Harvey (HN354) is mentioned – that he's being withdrawn
Was it the norm to update SS about officers' deployments?
I don't think so

@MetPolice There was some talk about undercovers engaging in illegality – Ferguson is said to have spoken about the SDS's ability to 'insulate' officers from prosecution – can Butler recall any conversations with Ferguson about this issue?
No

@MetPolice Can he think of any instances when charges vs a #spycop were dropped?
No

@MetPolice Can Butler give us an impression of how grateful the Security Services were?
No

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
This minute contains extremely detailed info about the SWP – it mentions the SWP National Conference and the debrief of Harvey
There is a list of questions for the #spycops

@MetPolice It says:
Delegates names are being collected - “the full list would be very welcome”

It lists topics of particular interest – eg industrial disputes
questions about the Anti Nazi League, Women's Voice, Flame etc

@MetPolice Barr: are you telling me you can't remember anything now?
Butler: that is the fact

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/a… Theses terms of reference for Special Branch were sent out to Chief Constables around the country.

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/l… We saw another circular about ''subversive activities in industrial disputes'

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/l…
another circular, from 1975, asking Chief Constables to send in information about political activity in schools

@MetPolice Butler says he can't remember much – and not the group School Kids Against the Nazis (SKAN) or any concern about groups influencing school children.

@MetPolice Butler provides two reasons for the #spycops gathering information:
1) Public disorder
2) Info to update MPSB files
What was this used for? What contribution did this make?

@MetPolice In Butler's statement he uses the phrase 'latent value' of information, and is asked to explain what this means – something which come in useful later

In his own witness statement, he admits that “parts may seem unacceptable in today's context”

@MetPolice At the time he thought it was acceptable to create and maintain records of members of the public, but not #blacklisting them from employment.
He claims not to have been aware of people losing their jobs as the result of people's details being leaked

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
Having established that 'N/T' stands for 'No Trace' – it is clear that many of these names have not already come to the attention of Special Branch.

@MetPolice How well did Butler get to know his officers?
He agrees that they often played squash and ate together, as well as meeting at the safe houses.

@MetPolice He thinks he got to know them all fairly well, knew about their deployments and their home lives.

@MetPolice It was an all-male environment. Banter? Yes. Jokes? Yes. Some of a sexual nature? Probably.

He says he is sure that officers never joked about sexual contact with women.

@MetPolice Did he consider the risk of sexual activity occurring?

He says he “trusted all of them not to be so involved”

@MetPolice They all pretended to be single during their deployments.

Might they have thought that forming a relationship with an activist could enhance their cover and keep them safe?

@MetPolice He said the selection process ensured they were married men with a stable background – Butler trusted them not to act like this.
Did he ever remind them? No
Did he consider ways of mitigating the risk?
No
Looking back, might it have helped?
I'm sure it would

@MetPolice Did he hear anything about Richard Clark?
No

There is evidence that HN300 formed a lasting relationship – Butler denies hearing any office gossip about him marrying her.

@MetPolice We looked at the witness statement of HN106, who used the name 'Barry Tompkins'
ucpi.org.uk/publications/f…

@MetPolice HN106 states that he had a platonic relationship with a woman while he was undercover – he sometimes slept in her home – supposedly in her child's bedroom with a noisy hamster...

@MetPolice It goes on to say that one day Trevor Butler contacted him, after a telephone call had been intercepted, and someone had mentioned storing things at “Barry's girlfriend's place”.

@MetPolice Does he recall HN106 ever speaking of this woman? No

Isn't his recollection likely to be correct?

Butler insists “I know it just didn't happen”

@MetPolice He's told us repeatedly that he can't remember much from those days, but manages to be very categorical in telling us that he had no knowledge of an intercepted phone call or him having this girlfriend.

Butler suggests that Barry's confused him and another officer.

@MetPolice What would you have done?
My outlook was probably different then to what it is now...

He can't recall what his outlook was then, but is sure it's changed.

“It may have been different, but I can't recall”

@MetPolice Pressed, he says that now he would insist on the officer ending the relationship. In those days he might have been “more tolerant” - adding that he's got “more disagreeable” with old age.

@MetPolice Is it possible that more was going on?
Would you have investigated to find out if you were being told the whole story?
He says he would have investigated, but admits he didn't.

@MetPolice Would it have been difficult to discipline an officer in this kind of situation?
Yes

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
This contains a curious reference: “may be bedevilled by the fact that HN106 has probably bedded <blank>...”

is it possible that you shared your concerns with David Short?
No

@MetPolice Barr read from page 26 of Butler's own Witness Statement..

It mentions him thinking about HN106's wife and family, and the risk to both the SDS and the @metpolice more widely

However there is no mention of the woman involved – was this intentional?

@MetPolice What was the attitude in the day – was it that the activists were just 'wearies'?
Butler claims not to recognise this nickname for the activists.
Were they just the other side? Barr asked

Was there any consideration of the harm this might have done to the woman?
No

@MetPolice Did you ever meet Vince Harvey? For squash or a bite to eat, even?
Don't think so – I don't recall working with him

The Inquiry reckons he was coming out of the field as Butler was starting.

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/e… We saw the postcard sent by Vince Harvey

Do you know who decided to use this tactic?
No idea

@MetPolice How well did you know HN21?
Reasonably well

HN21 has told us that he had sex with a woman twice while he was undercover – after a friendship developed between them.

@MetPolice Did he ever give you the impression that he was getting close to anybody?
No

How surprised are you about this evidence?
I'm surprised

With hindsight, do you think you might have been able to dissuade him?
Possibly

@MetPolice Did HN126 ever tell you that he was getting on well with someone and getting closer to them?
No

We then took a break for lunch...

@MetPolice #spycopsinquiry back for the afternoon - listen at
for the last few hours of this round of hearings
#spycops

@MetPolice We turned to HN155, who is said to have been “living a full alternative lifestyle undercover” -
Butler asked what “full” meant.

“Getting stoned” responded Barr
Did he mention that to you?
No

@MetPolice He told the risk assessors that he was having sex with activists
Did he tell you that?
No

@MetPolice Butler says “I got to know him quite well,. I realised he was quite well in with his group, but he didn't give me any reason to suspect that his behaviour was anything to cause concern”.

@MetPolice Do you think he would have told you? Barr asked
No
Because it would have led to trouble for him?
Certainly

@MetPolice n Butler's statement, he says “the SDS provided a terrific service trouble-free”

Does that remain his view, now that he knows about the evidence of officers such as Vince Harvey (who slept with at least 4 women) and HN21 (who slept with at least one)?

@MetPolice He says his view has changed. He didn't know Vince.

He feels that he was lucky to have spent a few years working with a “very successful team who presented no problems”

@MetPolice ...saying that he would wait for Mitting's final report before making his mind up

<he may be waiting for some time - likely to be another 4 years>

@MetPolice Barr had some questions about undercovers undertaking positions of responsibility.

There's a line between what was acceptable and what was not (eg incitement)

@MetPolice HN96 says he was advised not to become too prominent in his SWP branch – he became a 'district book organiser'.

Butler says this was ok

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/f…

The same officer,in his witness statement, describes becoming the Membership and Affiliation Secretary of the TOM – adding that “normally I would have shied away from such a position” in case it drew attention to him

@MetPolice He says he didn't get a chance to discuss it with his managers beforehand, as the nomination came out of the blue, but when he did speak to them they were pleased.

Was Butler one of those managers?
He can't recall.

@MetPolice But says he doesn't see this position (which came with a seat on TOM's national steering committee) as a problem.

He repeatedly said that this would have been down to the officer to decide if he felt comfortable with it, and it didn't necessarily go against the SDS's principles.

@MetPolice HN155 obtained a position inside the SWP's headquarters

Was the product well-received?
Yes

@MetPolice HN126 obtained a seat on the NW London District Committee of the SWP.

Butler said this would be a good thing.

@MetPolice HN126 obtained a seat on the NW London District Committee of the SWP.
Butler said this would be a good thing.

Barr pointed out that on the District Committee he would be voting and influencing the direction of the group

I don't know what they did

Did you try to find out?

No

@MetPolice We moved on to talk about the officers' wives...

@MetPolice Butler took part in pre-deployment visits to these women – they were told that their partners would be doing important work, but working very long hours, including evenings and weekends, and not wearing a smart suit any more. He wanted to ensure these wives would be supportive

@MetPolice He does recall attending Xmas parties in 1980 and 1981.

Was there any other contact between him and the wives?
No

Might it have been a good idea?
Probably

@MetPolice y were often left to their own devices – he reported to Geoff Craft – there were phone calls.

This was after they moved to Vincent Square – was it remote?

Butler thought the move to Vincent Square was good for the SDS

@MetPolice Does he recall any criticism of the unit?
Only Craft's about overtime.

@MetPolice We looked at page 3 of the 1979 Annual Report ucpi.org.uk/publications/a…

Barr read out a section -
in what ways was individual intelligence valuable to Special Branch?

@MetPolice Butler: “individuals make up the group”
he said that it was important to know who the individuals in a group are

if there's disorder they can be identified

arrests may be required

@MetPolice Barr pointed out that police usually just arrested the disorderly, but Butler said that some might need to be carried out after the event.

@MetPolice Barr read more from page 10 of this Report, about the SWP and the campaign set up after Blair Peach was killed. It's claimed that SDS information was valuable.

@MetPolice It was described as a “sustained campaign to discredit and criticise the police” - is that what you thought
If I wrote it, presumably it's what I thought at the time

Do you still think that?
Haven't thought about it.

@MetPolice Were the @metpolice interested in information in campaigns of this kind?
Butler can only suppose the interest stemmed from public disorder.

Was there any public disorder following Peach's death?
I can't remember.

@MetPolice He insisted that it was only of interest in case of disorder, not because it involved criticism of the police.

Did you think the Home Office would be interested in intelligence about this campaign group?

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/s…
A photo – taken at Peach's funeral - is submitted of the woman who is the subject of this report.
He doesn't know if the police were taking photos at the funeral; he's not sure that he saw this report; it's not his signature.

@MetPolice The 1980 Annual Report
ucpi.org.uk/publications/a…

The SDS provided information about many parts of the 'revolutionary Left'

Was it right that confrontations between the far right and anti-fascists were some of the largest public order situations that the police dealt with in '80?

@MetPolice Was the far right more to blame than the far left?

Depends what you mean by blame" Butler retorted

@MetPolice In his recollection it tended to be the left wing who caused the disorder
Asked to define "cause" he said “create”
How?
By attacking those they opposed, and also the police
(who made a good target for all demonstrators”)

@MetPolice He grudgingly admitted that the far right were responsible for lots of serious street violence.

He said it wasn't the SDS's job to predict or prevent racist attacks - that was for other police units to deal with

@MetPolice He says he has never tried to view these issues from a left-wing perspective.

Nobody in the hearing room is surprised to hear this.

@MetPolice ucpi.org.uk/publications/a…
Lots of groups are listed in this document

@MetPolice Paragraph 7 on page 7 is headed 'Security'. It is described as being “of paramount importance” - both for the personal protection of the undercovers and to prevent embarrassment for the Commissioner.

@MetPolice Butler is asked to explain what is meant by embarrassment, Butler suggested that it could be taken to mean 'criticism', which could be batted off.

@MetPolice The document goes on to suggest that great care is taken and every single deployment can be fully justified on the basis of the Commissioner's responsibility for public order

@MetPolice Examining the groups:

Were Womens Voice a threat to public order?
He claims not to have heard of them.

What about the Freedom Collective?
Don't know who they are

@MetPolice What about CND – surely you've heard of them? Barr cajoles
Their demonstrations were peaceful and well-stewarded.

Butler brought up the notion of CND marches being 'infiltrated' by trouble-makers.

@MetPolice Adding bizarrely that a lot of these groups were only spied on because the SDS didn't have enough officers to infiltrate all of them.

They were reported on because they attended the same demos as target groups.

@MetPolice He says he had no involvement in HN65/ anyone reporting back on CND.

@MetPolice We looked at page 9 of the same Report
Does he recall the Right To Work campaign, and the march to the Conservative Party conference in Brighton in 1981?
Yes but nothing about it

@MetPolice Do you recall that HN155 was the campaign's Treasurer
I can't remember whether he was or not

Remember trouble outside the Tory Party Conference that year?
No

@MetPolice Butler says he has lunch with a representative from the Home Office every month; he can't remember who this was but imagines he was fairly senior.

He remembers them as social meetings – with beer and lunch – but can't remember what business was discussed?

@MetPolice Who was your colleague, who went along with you?

It would have been another manager, not one of the undercovers.

@MetPolice There has been another break in the proceedings, while the @ucpinquiry investigate another potential breach of Restriction Orders...

at least we get a break from typing "No" and "I can't remember" for a while!
#spycops

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry in the meantime, in today's Guardian: theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/m… @robevansgdn

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn We are starting again so reporting will resume in 10 mins

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn Did Mike Ferguson assume a position of responsibility within the Anti Apartheid Movement when he was an undercover?

Butler: I don't know the answer to that

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn A few more questions for Butler – the first about the #spycops expenses claims – were they allowed to claim for alcohol they'd drunk during their deployment?

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn Butler said they weren't allowed to claim for alcohol unless it formed a small part of a substantial meal – they could claim for subsistence but not for alcohol alone.

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn What was the policy about buying alcohol for other people – those they were spying on?
He can't recall those sorts of claims.
They had to submit a diary showing what they'd spent – he can't recall anyone claiming for alcohol but it might have been shown as an incidental expense.

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn How much did they drink?
Most drank regularly but not excessively

he went on to explain that all these officers drove and wouldn't want to drink so much as to be drunk, or be caught drink-driving.

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn The SDS officers “usually had a beer” when they met

Did Butler have any concerns that some of them were drinking to a level that would impair their judgement?
No

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn Or affect their welfare in the longer term?
No

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn Concerned that activists were being bought a lot of drinks?
I never gave that any thought

He says he assumed that they would have paid for rounds when out with activists,

...but not bought excessive drinks “just because you could afford to”

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn Does he recall HN67?
Yes.

Did you hear any suggestion that he had fathered a child with an activist?
Not at all

Any joking or rumours to that effect?
No
He admits to being surprised to learn about this.

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn Did he ever consider providing 'cover girlfriends' for the undercovers?
No

Did he ever expressly ask them about sexual contact while undercover?
No

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn Butler says in his statement that he was called in to the office at the end of his time at the SDS, and told that he was being moved on – it was suggested that he was getting too close to the officers and always sided with them

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn Had you found yourself fighting your corner with him or other managers?
Not with him – he was above the S Squad office.

The senior officer you had problems with – was this related to the overtime issue?
Yes
Anything else?
No

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn With that Day 10, the last day of this round of #spycopsinquiry hearings, came to an end.

#spycops

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn Join @tombfowler on twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1… for live reaction
#spycops

@MetPolice @ucpinquiry @robevansgdn @tombfowler @threadreaderapp unroll