UK police agent provocateur trained Irish anarchists

[JihadJane]

"The undercover policeman Mark Kennedy was in the vanguard of militant anti-capitalist protesters who attacked Irish police officers at an EU summit in Dublin marking the accession of eastern European states to the union, Irish anarchists have told the Guardian.

Protesters who took part in actions with him allege that his involvement went further than just observing. They allege that he also made visits to Dublin to help train protesters and encouraged other activists to attack the police. This raises further questions about his role as an undercover officer and backs up suggestions he acted as an agent provocateur.

The latest revelations have prompted one leftwing member of the Irish parliament to brand the UK police's secret operation akin to the illegal activities of British state agents operating on the island during the Northern Ireland Troubles."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/14/mark-kennedy-eu-summit-protest

 

[zooterkin]

He was Bono?

ETA:

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, agent provocateur tends to imply a certain intent of the state in this.

Whereas this could be just one crazy guy who did stuff beyond the scope of his assignment. Or basically a bad cop who did entrapment to get some results.

Especially the latter is basically why we all have laws against entrapment and make all sorts of rules that the police has to follow. And it's obviously not enough. Some people just have to get results at all cost, whether by torturing a suspect to get a confession, or by coaxing someone to commit a crime, or by just plain old planting a packet of Marijuana in someone's car. Others seem to get a sort of jaded view in which everyone around them is a criminal, and basically turn into some sort of vigilante in which they just know a suspect (or indeed any given suspect) is guilty, they just have to make something stick. Yet others seem to basically lose the idea of their own fallibility, and just can't accept that some gut feeling isn't definitive proof that someone is guilty and again they just have to make something stick. Etc.

We don't know yet what the case is with this guy. Jumping to the conclusion that he's an agent provocateur is concluding that the government or police actually give people the order to do something like this. Which is popular among CT nuts, but personally I think I'd want to see some evidence first.

 

[JihadJane]

He was Bono?

No, but his Flash boner was one of the tools of his trade.

 

[JihadJane]

Well, agent provocateur tends to imply a certain intent of the state in this.

Whereas this could be just one crazy guy who did stuff beyond the scope of his assignment. Or basically a bad cop who did entrapment to get some results.

Especially the latter is basically why we all have laws against entrapment and make all sorts of rules that the police has to follow. And it's obviously not enough. Some people just have to get results at all cost, whether by torturing a suspect to get a confession, or by coaxing someone to commit a crime, or by just plain old planting a packet of Marijuana in someone's car. Others seem to get a sort of jaded view in which everyone around them is a criminal, and basically turn into some sort of vigilante in which they just know a suspect (or indeed any given suspect) is guilty, they just have to make something stick. Yet others seem to basically lose the idea of their own fallibility, and just can't accept that some gut feeling isn't definitive proof that someone is guilty and again they just have to make something stick. Etc.

We don't know yet what the case is with this guy. Jumping to the conclusion that he's an agent provocateur is concluding that the government or police actually give people the order to do something like this. Which is popular among CT nuts, but personally I think I'd want to see some evidence first.

The "bad apple" argument.

 

[Cleon]

TD Higgins's main concern seems to be that the UK is sending undercover cops into Ireland.

I imagine if Canada found out that cops from Detroit were egging on violent protesters in Ottawa, Parliament would be similarly peeved.

 

[JihadJane]

We don't know yet what the case is with this guy. Jumping to the conclusion that he's an agent provocateur is concluding that the government or police actually give people the order to do something like this. Which is popular among CT nuts, but personally I think I'd want to see some evidence first.

"Mark was instrumental in forming activism in Iceland," said one activist who knew Kennedy for many years. "He made himself indispensable. He was one of the key people in the early years. He helped nurture what was an embryonic movement and helped it evolve. He played a big role in furthering the movement.

...

"He was very keen to play a very decisive and key role in all aspects of organisation and participation. He was always more likely than the average member of the group to suggest radical actions that could be perceived as aggressive by the mainstream media and the police."

Mark Kennedy 'played key role in forming green movement in Iceland'

 

[Delscottio]

Is this the bloke who went 'native' leading to the collapse of a recent trial when he withdrew his statement?

 

[Beerina]

He was Bono?

ETA:

Neither.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Is this the bloke who went 'native' leading to the collapse of a recent trial when he withdrew his statement?

Yes he was "found out" by some of the activists when they discovered his real passport, and now another goup is appealing their conviction as a result of this.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=72311

Sorry for the daily mail link, it was the first one i found.

 

[Delscottio]

Yes he was "found out" by some of the activists when they discovered his real passport, and now another goup is appealing their conviction as a result of this.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=72311

Sorry for the daily mail link, it was the first one i found.

Not sure what's going on with.your link but as its about my part of the world we'll say no more!

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Oops - must be more careful when I'm doing 2 things at once in the early hours of the morning.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ters-convicted-power-station-demo-appeal.html

 

[foxprorawks]

Is this the bloke who went 'native' leading to the collapse of a recent trial when he withdrew his statement?

If he withdrew his statement, that wasn't what led to the collapse of the trial.

Last night it was reported that the trial of six campaigners accused of trying to shutdown a power station at Ratcliffe-on-Soar collapsed because police had withheld secret recordings featuring Kennedy and the activists.

The Times said the Crown Prosecution Service abandoned the trial when it was informed that Nottinghamshire police had suppressed tapes that "fatally undermined the case against the protesters".

A third undercover officer has now come to light:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/14/third-undercover-police-spy-cardiff

 

[Darat]

The "bad apple" argument.

Er no it wasn't - reread it.

 

[JihadJane]

Er no it wasn't - reread it.

Okay:


"Well, agent provocateur tends to imply a certain intent of the state in this.

Whereas this could be just one crazy guy who did stuff beyond the scope of his assignment. Or basically a bad cop who did entrapment to get some results.

Especially the latter is basically why we all have laws against entrapment and make all sorts of rules that the police has to follow. And it's obviously not enough. Some people just have to get results at all cost, whether by torturing a suspect to get a confession, or by coaxing someone to commit a crime, or by just plain old planting a packet of Marijuana in someone's car. Others seem to get a sort of jaded view in which everyone around them is a criminal, and basically turn into some sort of vigilante in which they just know a suspect (or indeed any given suspect) is guilty, they just have to make something stick. Yet others seem to basically lose the idea of their own fallibility, and just can't accept that some gut feeling isn't definitive proof that someone is guilty and again they just have to make something stick. Etc."

Still looks like a bad apple arguement.

 

[Darat]

Okay:


"Well, agent provocateur tends to imply a certain intent of the state in this.

Whereas this could be just one crazy guy who did stuff beyond the scope of his assignment. Or basically a bad cop who did entrapment to get some results.

Especially the latter is basically why we all have laws against entrapment and make all sorts of rules that the police has to follow. And it's obviously not enough. Some people just have to get results at all cost, whether by torturing a suspect to get a confession, or by coaxing someone to commit a crime, or by just plain old planting a packet of Marijuana in someone's car. Others seem to get a sort of jaded view in which everyone around them is a criminal, and basically turn into some sort of vigilante in which they just know a suspect (or indeed any given suspect) is guilty, they just have to make something stick. Yet others seem to basically lose the idea of their own fallibility, and just can't accept that some gut feeling isn't definitive proof that someone is guilty and again they just have to make something stick. Etc."

Still looks like a bad apple arguement.

That explains it - you didn't read his entire post, these are the bits you need to read to understand the post.

...snip...


We don't know yet what the case is with this guy. Jumping to the conclusion that he's an agent provocateur is concluding that the government or police actually give people the order to do something like this. Which is popular among CT nuts, but personally I think I'd want to see some evidence first.

What his post was saying is that there could be other conclusions one could jump to but based on the current evidence there is no way to distinguish between the "coulds".

 

[JihadJane]

That explains it - you didn't read his entire post, these are the bits you need to read to understand the post.



What his post was saying is that there could be other conclusions one could jump to but based on the current evidence there is no way to distinguish between the "coulds".

I addressed the second part of HansMustermann's post in a later post.

The emphasis of HansMustermann post is on the tired old "bad apple" argument, which he/she supports with a series of hypothetical, unsubstantiated speculations. This is an argument generally favored by the authoritarian mindset, which seeks to maintain the illusion that , institutionally, the police behave ethically and honestly. HansMustermann's speculations assume that Kennedy's behavior was unsupervised and invests no energy in exploring the agent provocateur option. The currently available actual evidence, however, is that Mark Kennedy played a leading role in organizing and financing actions and groups he infiltrated.

 

[Darat]

I addressed the second part of HansMustermann's post in a later post.

The emphasis of HansMustermann post is on the tired old "bad apple" argument, which he/she supports with a series of hypothetical, unsubstantiated speculations.
...snip...

Which is the same as you do with your opening post and choice of the title.

This is an argument generally favored by the authoritarian mindset, which seeks to maintain the illusion that , institutionally, the police behave ethically and honestly.

That is an ad-hom so doesn't weaken the argument you are trying to argue against.

HansMustermann's speculations assume that Kennedy's behavior was unsupervised and invests no energy in exploring the agent provocateur option.

Again you do not understand his post - he very clearly states that we require more evidence before we can form any opinion as to whether your conclusion is correct or not. The evidence you have so far put forward does not support the conclusion you seem to have "jumped to" nor your speculations. Now obviously you may have access to further information that you have not shared but I would have thought you would agree that we should not go beyond the evidence we have?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I think once we find out more about the other two undercover officers and the roles they played it will be a bit more clear whether this was a case of a "bad apple" or something more sinister.

 

[Darat]

My speculation is that it is more likely to be a combination of him not following the "rules" he was meant to and the police's tendency to go too far when running such operations. My speculations are based on past events, such as say "Operation Ezdell" and my observations of human behaviour over the years which leads me to believe that people often get carried away when they start to live "another life" - for example this type of activity: http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/clinical-negligence/rogue-doctors-clinical-negligence.htm