Metropolitan police’s Patricia Gallan gives evidence to MPs following Guardian revelations about undercover policing – along with victims’ lawyers and reporter Paul Lewis

The identities of an estimated 80 dead children have been used by undercover police. A police operative who used the alias Pete Black to spy on protest groups explains how they did it

Hello and welcome to live coverage of the Commons home affairs select committee’s hearing into the Guardian’s revelations about undercover policing.

Patricia Gallan, a deputy assistant commissioner in charge of the Metropolitan police’s investigation into the controversy, faces questions from MPs about the scandal, which this week widened to include the stealing by police of the identities of dead children.

Before Gallan appears, the public hearing will begin at 3.15pm with evidence from solicitors for women who feel they were duped into having relationships with undercover officers. Eleven women are currently bringing legal action against the Metropolitan police for damages. The lawyers appearing before the committee today are:

• Harriet Wistrich, solicitor, Birnberg Peirce & Partners
• Jules Carey, solicitor, Tuckers Solicitors
• Marian Ellingworth, solicitor, Tuckers Solicitors

Also speaking will be my colleague Paul Lewis, who along with fellow Guardian reporter Rob Evans two years ago broke the story that led to these hearings when they reported that police officer Mark Kennedy had lived for seven years undercover in the environmental protest movement, establishing sexual relationships with activists during the course of his work. One woman was his girlfriend for six years.

Lewis and Evans went on to report that, of nine undercover police identified by the Guardian over the past two years, eight were believed to have slept with the people they were spying on. In at least three cases, relationships between police and the women they were spying on resulted in the birth of children.

Kennedy will also give evidence today – but in private.

In a further development, this week Lewis and Evans reported that police secretly authorised undercover officers to steal the identities of around 80 dead children over three decades. (Kennedy is not thought to have done this.) In this video, a police operative who used the alias Pete Black to spy on protest groups explains how they did it.

Keith Vaz, the chair of the home affairs committee, has said he is “shocked” at the “gruesome” practice, and has said the police should inform parents whose children’s identities were used. Scotland Yard has announced an investigation into the controversy, and has said the practice is not “currently” authorised. Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, has called for a public inquiry into undercover policing following the revelations.

We’ll be covering the hearing live here, and you can watch it on the parliament website.
Updated at 3.21pm GMT
3.21pm GMT

The committee seems to be running late – or the live broadcast is not working. Apologies.
Updated at 3.30pm GMT
3.36pm GMT

The live stream has begun. Sorry for the delay.
3.38pm GMT

Keith Vaz, the committee chair, says the committee has sat in private to take evidence from witnesses.

Now the lawyers are here to speak in public.

He starts with the issue of police using dead children’s identity.

Lawyer Jules Carey says he has been instructed by one family whose son Rod Richardson’s name was used by an undercover police officer, who infiltrated various political groups.
Updated at 3.38pm GMT
3.39pm GMT

Carey says his client wants to understand why he child’s name was used. He says he is also representing a number of women who are concerned that such operations are still carrying on.

He says he has submitted a written complaint to the police, which he believes is the complaint that has triggered a police investigation.
3.40pm GMT

Vaz asks lawyer Harriet Wistrich if there is any justification for police to use undercover tactics.

She says there is no justification for them to use sex in their work.

That is the issues she is concerned with: the “overwhelming damage” that has been caused.

All the women involved have been “very, very seriously psychologically harmed” as a result of what the police did to them, Wistrich says.

The police were aware of this, she says.
3.46pm GMT

Vaz quotes from Mr Justice Tugendhat’s recent judgment about undercover police, in which the judge used James Bond as context for police using sex during undercover work.

Wistrich asks what controls we can put on undercover police.

She says MPs could not have meant sexual relationships to have been part of the Regulation of Investigatory Practices Act.

Does the law need to be changed, Vaz asks lawyer Marian Ellingworth.

Ellingworth says sex should not be sanctioned.

Carey says RIPA cannot approve sexual relationships. The structure of the act does not envisage sexual relationships, he says. The words “personal and other relationships” cannot have been meant to include sex – they are too vague for that.

You cannot legislate to breach a fundamental right such as “bodily integrity”, Carey says.
3.49pm GMT

Tory Lorraine Fullbrook asks what the absolute legal limit should be on undercover police officers’ behaviours.

Wistrich says you have to completely stop before a sexual relationship.

Fullbrook tries to pin her down on the “absolute legal limit”, but Wistrich says that depends on the circumstances.

Vaz says Fullbrook is looking for a list of what is and isn’t acceptable.

Wistrich says again there are circumstances when different things are acceptable – for example to stop a child trafficking ring.

Carey says undercover officers shouldn’t be deployed unless it’s necessary and proportionate – political groups wouldn’t be covered, he says.
3.51pm GMT

Tory Michael Ellis repeats Tugendhat’s point that undercover policing wouldn’t surprise the public.

These kind of sexual relationships “probably happen more often to men” than to women, he claims, citing the example of Mata Hari.

He accuses the lawyers of wanting to tie the police’s hands unreasonably.
3.54pm GMT

Wistrich says using sex in this way is massively beyond the bounds of a civilised society.

Labour’s Bridget Phillipson asks if police were directed to form these relationships or did so of their own volition.

Ellingworth says the police won’t even confirm that the men in question were undercover officers, let alone say whether they were following orders.

Wistrich says the police have not yet tried to come up with a circumstance that they say are justified.

Phillipson asks if female officers have had relationships with men.

Carey says they are aware of one female officer who has been deployed in this way. None of the lawyers are instructed by males.

Wistrich says there are always exceptions, but this is really a form of “institutionalised sexism”.

The impact is massively upon women, she says.
3.57pm GMT

Labour’s David Winnick asks if it’s naive to believe the police were not aware sexual relationships were taking place involving undercover officers.

Wistrich says she believes they were, officially or unofficially.

Carey says there is a striking similarity in terms of how many of these relationships started and ended. Many of their clients felt these relationships were entered into by design by the officers. That suggests senior officers were aware of it.

Carey says the public would expect police officers to behave like James Bond if we lived in a world full of Dr Nos. But we don’t, he says.

There is no necessity for these actions, Carey says.
3.59pm GMT

Winnick raises the adopting of the names of dead children. Was this authorised?

Wistrich says she felt this would have been authorised.

Winnick asks if the lawyers consider that a particularly despicable act.

Carey says every aspect of this policing operation is “utterly depraved”. It’s very hard to quantify particular aspects.

“It’s utterly despicable,” says Wistrich.

Ellingworth agrees.
4.02pm GMT

Labour’s Chris Ruane asks how the police can be held to account here.

Wistrich says that’s what the lawyers are aiming to do.

They have met with “a complete barrage of obstacles” from the police. The police have asked for information from them but given none in return.

Wistrich says she has written to the IPCC, which is supervising an investigation into some of these issues, but got no response.

Ruane asks what the key questions that need to be answered. Wistrich suggests:

Why were the police involved in these people’s lives? What information did they gather? How can this be stopped from happening in the future?
4.05pm GMT

Carey says the principal question he would ask is whether they have read the nine principles of policing from 1828.

He reads one out: the police’s actions depend on public approval of those actions.

They’ve lost public respect through these actions, Carey says.

Tory Mark Reckless asks whether the deception by the officers means the sex they had with activists was non-consensual.

Wistrich says that’s a very good point. She’s written to the CPS but got no reply.

Vaz asks for copies of all these letters.

Carey says he is representing a client who had a child from one of these relationships.
Updated at 5.31pm GMT
4.11pm GMT

The Guardian’s Paul Lewis takes his seat.

Vaz asks how Lewis and Rob Evans discovered all this information.

Lewis says they spoke to police officers while working on a book related to this. He says the police officers were not just using the names of dead children, they were adopting many aspects of that person’s identity.

Where does the figure of 80 officers using this tactic come from, Vaz asks.

It’s an estimate, says Lewis. He’d like to hear from the Met police about this. It’s possible it could be fewer or more than 80 officers.

Carey’s complaint comes from 2003, he says.

Vaz says it’s a “pretty gruesome practice” and that it must be “heartless and cruel” for the parents not to have been informed.

Lewis ask if this was limited to the Special Demonstration Squad or was used more widely.
4.13pm GMT

Lewis says he has spoken to people whose children’s identities have been used in this way.

He says the Met police have placed the families of these children at some risk. Other activists could try to track down the undercover officers and seek out the family of the child whose identity was stolen. Far right groups were infiltrated in this way, Lewis says.

Vaz asks if the Met police have asked Lewis for this information.

Lewis says he has an obligation to protect his sources. He’s confident that the police know all the children’s identities.
4.15pm GMT

Vaz asks him to accept that in some circumstances the police are justified in using undercover agents.

Lewis says some undercover operations are justified, but raises the issue of proportionality. He mentions far right groups and violent animal rights groups. But in the main we are talking about non-violent activists, he says.
4.18pm GMT

Tory Michael Ellis asks if the public have a human right to be protected from crime and suggests senior officers are best-placed to decide when it’s right to use undercover officers.

He says he agrees with that.

But he begs to differ that the public would be unsurprised by officers using sex in this way.

Ellis says it was Tugendhat who said the public would be unsurprised, and he has great experience.

Lewis says Tugendhat was not referring to the public’s view, but to MPs’ view when they passed the relevant law.
4.21pm GMT

Ellis asks if Lewis has heard any account of absence of consent in these sexual relationships – discounting the overall deception.

Lewis says men and women have had sex with undercover police officers. They may argue that they did not have the necessary information to give informed consent – although Lewis says he doesn’t agree with that.

He says police say this behaviour was only happening among “bad apples”.

But he and Evans have identified nine undercover officers, and eight were having sexual relationships with activists. One officer was a woman, he says.

One undercover policeman told Lewis that of a team of 10 nine were having sexual relationships with activists.

Fullbrook asks if senior officers knew about this. Lewis says it’s likely. One undercover officer says he was told by a senior officer to use contraception. That implies the senior officer knew.
4.24pm GMT

Labour’s Bridget Phillipson says the length of the relationships involved shocked her.

Lewis says having met the victims he has found it difficult to convey their pain. He suggests the committee’s MPs think about how they would feel if their own partner turned out to be an agent of the state.

At least four children have been born as a result of these relationships, Lewis says.

Lewis says he does not believe MPs intended this in the RIPA, and would have used the words “sexual relationships” rather than “personal relationships”, and he certainly does not think they would have imagined children resulting from these relationships.
4.25pm GMT

Winnick asks if undercover agents could have done this job without embarking on sexual relationships with activists.

Lewis says some officers did not do this, so the answer is yes.
4.28pm GMT

Was it a rogue operation?

Lewis says some senior officers were unaware of the existence of the Special Demonstration Squad.

How can the police clean up this matter and restore confidence?

Openness and transparency, says Lewis. Over the last two years, the Met police have offered “very little help”.

We are heavily reliant on sources who have the courage to come forward, Lewis says.

At some stage the Met police will have to think about the best strategy to regain trust, he says.

The truth tends to come out eventually, he says.
4.30pm GMT

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan of the Met police takes her place next.
4.33pm GMT

Vaz says there will be an open session and then a private session.

He says he was pretty shocked to learn about the use of dead children’s identities. Was she equally shocked?

Gallan tries to outline her role instead.

Vaz insists she answers the question.

Gallan says we are investigating something that has been going on since 1968 and it is important to understand the context.

She says she is overseeing the operation examining past practices relating to this.

She says she does not know if the figure of 80 children’s identities being used is accurate. She knows of two cases. More evidence will probably come to light, but she does not want to prejudge the investigation.

But she is very concerned at what she has heard, she says.

That is why the Met have asked the IPCC to supervise.
4.35pm GMT

Gallan says it is looking at the activities of the SDS over 40 years.

There are more than 50,000 documents to sift through and retired officers to speak to. They want to hear from anyone who has any evidence, she says.

But was she shocked, asks Vaz.

Gallan says she was “very concerned” because “it is not practice as I know it”.

That doesn’t sound very condemnatory, Vaz says.

It isn’t still happening, Gallan says. It has been confined to the SDS and the NPOIU (National Public Order Intelligence Unit).
4.38pm GMT

Vaz asks who is dealing with the operational matters regarding undercover policing. The commander of cover policing, Richard Martin, she says.

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley is above him, she says.

She can’t give a date when the practice of using dead children’s identities stopped, she says. But it is not sanctioned today among the Met or any other police force in the country, she says.

Should the children’s parents be informed, Vaz asks.

Gallan says it’s important to find out all the circumstances and whether they are accurate.

She says ethical and legal issues also need to be considered.

Would it affect any operatives whose positions would be exposed, she says.

Vaz says some members of the committee have heard this kind of thing regarding phone-hacking.
4.39pm GMT

Vaz stresses that where the police have names and addresses now, they should inform parents now.

Gallan says she can’t give a blanket yes or no.
4.42pm GMT

It has never been practice within most areas of undercover policing to take identities in this way, she says. Only the SDS and National Public Order Intelligence Unit did this.

Thirty-one staff are working on Operation Hearn, looking into the issue of undercover police regarding the SDS, including 20 police officers.

The estimated cost to date is £1.25m.

Vaz says that sounds like a lot of money and a lot of officers, implying that they can probably get through all those 50,000 documents more quickly than they are.

Vaz asks if when she has completed her operation she will inform the parents.

Gallan says she needs to consider all the issues and can’t give a yes or no answer.
4.44pm GMT

Vaz asks if she would like to apologise for this scandal.

Gallan says at the appropriate time statements would be made.

Until she knows all the facts she can’t do anything like that, she says.
4.46pm GMT

The admission that a second unit, the NPOIU, has used dead children’s identities is very important, since that unit was only formed in 1999.
4.48pm GMT

Vaz asks if the Guardian revelations broke the news to her of the use of children’s identities. She knew of one example in September last year.

Since then has she informed the parents, Vaz asks. She says she hasn’t and she’ll explain why in closed session.

Gallan is asked again about apologising. She says there are live proceedings ongoing and the Met police will decide at the end.
4.49pm GMT

Michael Ellis asks what rank of officer was in charge of the SDS or the NPOIU.

Superintendent, Gallan says.

Were they rogue units?

Gallan says from what she has seen the practices in place weren’t following national guidelines. We need to get all the evidence, she says, so she doesn’t want to go further than that.
4.51pm GMT

Ellis asks if taking children’s identities was not accepted practice even at the time.

Gallan says it was not standard procedure.

Ellis says these were unauthorised practices even at the time. He suggests these were rogue units or units operating outside their protocols.

That’s one of the things we’re investigating, Gallan says.

A senior officer cannot authorise something that is outside of procedures at the time, Ellis says.
4.53pm GMT

Winnick asks if Gallan thinks it was in the public interest for the Guardian to give the names of some of the dead children?

She says she believes in the free press.

Has the reputation of the press been harmed?

Gallan says when used appropriately undercover work is very important, and they are worried about anything that undermines confidence in that.

Asked the same question again, she says: “I think it is.”

I’ll take that to be a yes, says Winnick.
4.55pm GMT

How far is it possible for undercover work to take place without sexual relationships, Winnick asks.

Gallan says she doesn’t believe you can authorise such activities, morally.

If something like that does happen it should be reported immediately.

Winnick asks if it’s right to assume the officers were not not told to engage in sex.

Gallan says she might be able to explain that in closed session, but it was not authorised.
4.59pm GMT

Metropolitan police commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe has said it is “almost inevitable” some undercover officers will have sexual relationships in this way although he wouldn’t encourage it, Vaz says. Doesn’t that contradict Gallan’s view?

Nick Herbert, the policing minister, has said that to ban such actions would provide a ready-made test for the targeted group, Vaz says.

What is her view?

Gallan repeats that there is a moral issue. Legally, the law is silent on that, and she will explain that in closed session, she says.

The Met police does not authorise that conduct, she repeats.

She says she cannot envisage under any circumstances a commander authorising this kind of behaviour.
5.02pm GMT

But was it prohibited, asks Vaz.

In the closed session, she will explain more, says Gallan.

Tory James Clappison suggests that some of these relationships went on for so long that senior officers must have known what was happening.

Vaz says he is disappointed that Gallan has not sent out a message that the Met police is sorry that the practice of using dead children’s identities has taken place.

Winnick adds that the committee is disappointed.

Vaz says he is concerned that she has known about one incident since September and still has not got to the bottom of it.

One of the victims followed the trail and turned up at the house of the dead child’s parents. They weren’t there, but imagine their grief if they had have been, Vaz says.

Gallan repeats her “concern” and says she is keeping an open mind about the facts.

It would be inappropriate to rush to make statements in haste, Gallan says.
5.03pm GMT

Does she have a timetable for the conclusion of Operation Hearn, Vaz asks.

Gallan says it would be wrong to put a timescale on it.

We are determined to go where the evidence takes us, she says.
5.03pm GMT

With that the committee goes into closed session.
5.36pm GMT
Summary

Here is a summary of what we have learned from that committee session.

• The use of dead children’s identities by undercover police officers was not confined to the Special Demonstration Squad, but was also a practice employed by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, a unit that was only set up in 1999, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan of the Metropolitan police revealed to the Commons home affairs committee.

• Gallan knew about one case of a child’s identity being used in this way in September last year. The practice is not sanctioned today among the Met or any other force in the country, she said.

• Including the case that came to light in September, she knew of only two cases of this happening, she said, and did not know if the Guardian’s estimate of 80 cases was accurate. But she felt that more cases would probably come to light.

• Keith Vaz, the chair of the committee, said he was “disappointed” that Gallan would not apologise for the police’s actions, saying only that she was “very concerned” at the allegations and wanted to wait until all the facts had been established before rushing to make a statement.

• Vaz was also extremely concerned that Gallan had not informed the parents in the case discovered in September last year, and wanted her to promise she would inform all the parents involved as soon as possible. Gallan would not agree to this.

• Police officers having sex with activists in groups they infiltrated was not authorised, and could not justified morally, Gallan said. She could not envisage any circumstances under which a commander would authorise this.

• She admitted the Metropolitan police’s reputation had been harmed by the scandal.

• Thirty-one staff are working on Operation Hearn, looking into the issue of undercover police, including 20 police officers. The estimated cost to date is £1.25m.

• Lawyers for women who feel they were duped into having relationships with undercover officers attacked the practice as being “depraved”, “dispicable” and beyond the bounds of a civilised society. MPs on the committee broadly seemed to agree, although Tory Michael Ellis drew attention to Mr Justice Tugendhat’s contention that such relationships would not surprise the public, accused the lawyers of wanting to tie the police’s hands unreasonable. He asked if the public had a human right to be protected from crime and suggested senior officers were best-placed to decide when it was and was not right to use undercover officers.

That’s all from me. Thanks for all your comments.
Next
Previous
Blog home
Related information
UK news
Police ·
Politics
House of Commons · Keith Vaz ·

Police must inform parents of children whose IDs were used by spies, says MP

4 Feb 2013

Keith Vaz says it would be heartless not to tell affected parents, and asks Theresa May to investigate whether practice was legal

4 Feb 2013

Police spy: ‘How we stole dead children’s identities’ – video

30 Jan 2013

Chief police officers criticise recruitment and promotion reforms

30 Jan 2013

If China lifts its game console ban, what will adults panic about next?

Should outsiders be allowed fast-track entry into the police?

30 Jan 2013

Home secretary Theresa May will today announce plans to allow police forces to recruit senior officers from outside the service, meaning business leaders, for example, could quickly move into top jobs rather than having to start as constables pounding the beat. Many police are opposed. Do you support the move?

Paul Owen
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 5 February 2013 14.17 GMT

Find this story at 5 February 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

In England hatte ein Undercover-Polizist regelmäßig Sex mit Frauen aus der überwachten Szene. In Deutschland wäre das unzulässig, beteuert das Innenministerium.von Christian Rath

Die Berichterstattung des „Guardian“ über Mark Kennedy brachte den Stein ins Rollen. Bild: screenshot guardian.co.uk

BERLIN taz | Verdeckte Ermittler von Bundeskriminalamt und Bundespolizei dürfen keine sexuellen Beziehungen eingehen, um Informationen zu erlangen. Das erklärte jetzt das Bundesinnenministerium auf eine parlamentarische Anfrage des Linken-Abgeordneten Andrej Hunko.

Anlass der Nachfrage ist der Fall des englischen Polizisten Mark Kennedy, der mit falschem Namen, langen Haaren und Ohrringen einige Jahre lang militante Umweltschützer und Globalisierungskritiker in ganz Europa ausspionierte. Auch in Deutschland war Kennedy aktiv: während des G-8-Gipfels in Heiligendamm 2007 sowie beim Nato-Gipfel in Baden Baden 2009.

Im Rahmen seiner Spitzeltätigkeit unterhielt der Polizist Kennedy auch zahlreiche Liebschaften. Wie die englische Zeitung Guardian aufdeckte, war es durchaus üblich, dass verdeckte Ermittler sexuelle Beziehungen in der von ihr überwachten Szene knüpften. Jetzt klagen zehn Frauen und ein Mann vor dem englischen High Court auf Schadensersatz. Sie hätten ein emotionales Trauma erlitten, nachdem Menschen, mit denen sie „tiefe persönliche“ Beziehungen eingingen, sich als Spitzel entpuppten.
Die Lustfrage

Der Bundestagsabgeordnete Andrej Hunko wollte deshalb von der Bundesregierung wissen, ob sie es für zulässig hält, wenn Verdeckte Ermittler „Sexualität oder sonstige emotional tiefgehende Beziehungen mit ihren Zielpersonen oder deren Kontaktpersonen praktizieren“. Antwort: Die Bundesregierung ist der Auffassung, „dass das Eingehen derartiger Beziehungen aus ermittlungstaktischen Gründen in aller Regel unzulässig ist“. Und Innenstaatssekretär Klaus-Dieter Fritsche, von dem die Antwort stammt, fügt hinzu: „Dies gilt auch für den Einsatz von Mitarbeitern ausländischer Behörden in Deutschland mit deutscher Zustimmung.“

Die Auskunft klingt eindeutig, enthält aber eine wichtige Einschränkung: Unzulässig ist der Ermittler-Sex nur, wenn er „aus ermittlungstaktischen Gründen“ stattfindet – sprich: Wenn der Polizist eigentlich keine Lust hat. Wenn der Verdeckte Ermittler aber aus Lust und/oder Liebe gerne mit einer Ziel- oder Kontaktperson schlafen will, scheint dies nach Ansicht von Staatssekretär Fritsche rechtlich nicht ausgeschlossen.

Dagegen hatte der auf Geheimdienstrecht spezialisierte Anwalt Udo Kauß 2011 im taz-interview gefordert: „Genauso wie ein Verdeckter Ermittler keine Straftaten begehen darf, darf er mit den Zielpersonen und deren Umfeld auch keine Liebesbeziehungen führen.“ Wenn ein Einsatz „aus dem Ruder“ laufe, müsse er abgebrochen werden.
Der deutsche Fall Bromma

In Baden-Württemberg hatte die Polizei 2010 den jungen Beamten Simon Bromma in linke studentische Gruppen eingeschleust. Er sollte herausfinden, ob im Umfeld der Antifaschistischen Initiative Heidelberg (AIHD) Gewaltakte gegen Polizisten und Nazis geplant waren. Er erschlich sich mit seiner freundlichen und hilfsbereiten Art in den Kreisen um die studentische „Kritische Initiative“ zahlreiche Freundschaften, flog dann aber auf, als ihn eine Ferienbekanntschaft erkannte.

Sieben Betroffene aus der bespitzelten Szene erhoben im August 2011 Klage beim Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe. Sie verlangen die Feststellung, dass der Undercover-Einsatz gegen die linke Heidelberger Szene generell rechtswidrig war. Sie seien keine „gewaltbereiten Gefährder“. Außerdem seien die Privatsphäre und die Menschenwürde verletzt, wenn den Aktivisten „ohne eigenes Wissen eine Freundschaft/Bekanntschaft zu einem polizeilichen Ermittler aufgezwungen“ werde.

Das Verfahren kommt allerdings nicht voran, weil der baden-württembergische Innenminister Reinhold Gall (SPD) alle Spitzelberichte Brommas gesperrt hat. Die Arbeitsweise Verdeckter Ermittler müsse geheim bleiben, da die Undercover-Agenten sonst leicht enttarnt werden könnten, argumentierte Gall. Dagegen klagten die Betroffenen in einem Zwischenverfahren und erzielten nun einen Teilerfolg.
Teilweise rechtswidrig

…

04.02.20133 Kommentare

Find this story at 4 February 2013

© der taz

Anthony Barker says police could have put family in danger by using identity of brother John, who died aged eight

John Dines, a police sergeant who adopted the identity of John Barker to pose as an environmental campaigner, pictured in the early 1990s

Undercover police were “reckless” when they stole the identity of an eight-year-old boy who had died of leukaemia, according to his brother, who is demanding an apology for putting his family at risk.

Anthony Barker, whose brother John Barker died in 1968, said he was shocked to discover the boy’s identity was resurrected and adopted by undercover police spying on political groups.

The Metropolitan police has admitted that two of its undercover units appear to have used the identities of dead children, a practice which has lasted four decades and was still going on in the 2000s.

The identity of John Barker was adopted by a police sergeant called John Dines, who posed as an environmental campaigner between 1987 and 1992.

“The danger the police put my family in – and all the other families this has happened to – is horrendous,” Barker said. An investigation by the Guardian has established police used the identities of dead children so their undercover agents could pose as real people. Barker said that in doing so, they placed innocent families at risk.

“In our case, we now discover, there was a girlfriend who was left behind when the policeman pretending to be my brother disappeared from the scene,” he said. “Apparently she was so worried about him that she tracked him down to the house we had moved out of a few years earlier.

“Now, imagine that policeman had infiltrated a violent gang or made friends with a volatile person, then disappeared, just like this man did.

“Someone wanting revenge would have tracked us down to our front door – but they wouldn’t have wanted a cup of tea and a chat, like this woman says she did.”

Although many police spies using dead children’s identities were infiltrating peaceful leftwing and environmental groups, many were also deployed in violent far-right groups.

“If we had told those sorts of people that the man they thought they had known for so many years has died as a little boy, they would have thought we were lying,” Barker said. “Who knows what would have happened to us then?”

He added: “These people could have found our family in a heartbeat. That was an absolutely reckless thing for the police to do.”

Anthony Barker, who was born the year after his brother died, said: “My parents always said he was a lovely lad. They could not afford more than one child. They only had me because John passed away.

“It totally shattered my parents when he died. You can see from photographs how much his death aged them. When I was a toddler they looked like my grandparents.”

Barker described the use of dead children’s identities as a “clinical, mechanic way of policing” and morally “horrific”. He believed his parents, who are now deceased, would have been appalled to discover a police officer was posing as their beloved son.

“In my view, these were politically motivated undercover operations. That is what I cannot understand. What kinds of crimes did these political activists commit? We’re not talking about drug dealers or terrorists. These operations must have cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, and all the while my parents were living in poverty.”

He added: “Not only is it horrendous to steal the identity of a child but by taking that identity into an unpredictable and potentially dangerous situation, they’re putting entire families at risk.”

The Met has declined to say how many dead children’s identities it believes have been used by covert agents, although the force has stressed that the practice is not currently in use.

A document seen by the Guardian indicates that the Special Demonstration Squad, one of two police units known to have used the practice, used the identities of around 80 dead children.

On Tuesday the Met’s deputy assistant commissioner Patricia Gallan told a parliamentary inquiry that a second unit involved in spying on protesters appears to have used dead children’s identities.

The second unit, the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, was founded in 1999 and operated throughout the 2000s.

It suggests the total number of dead children’s identities used by police could exceed 100.

MPs expressed their disapproval when Gallan, who is overseeing a £1.25m review of protest spying operations, refused to apologise for any hurt caused until her inquiries were complete.

She also refused to say whether she would contact the families involved, saying there were “legal and ethical issues” to consider.

Barker said: “I strongly believe all the families who this has happened to need to be told. They have been placed at risk. That is the bottom line. These were undercover operations. Anything could have happened.”

…

Amelia Hill, Paul Lewis and Rob Evans
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 6 February 2013 16.55 GMT

Find this story at 6 February 2013
© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Renaat Landuyt (justitiespecialist sp.a): “We kunnen beter het federale parket en andere opsporingsdiensten versterken. Die zullen in elk geval nuttiger werk verrichten.” © belga.

Sp.a-justitiespecialist Renaat Landuyt pleit voor een afschaffing van de Belgische inlichtingendienst. “Die harkt toch maar krantenknipsels en roddels bijeen.” PS-senator Philippe Moureaux ziet alvast geen graten in het voorstel van de Vlaamse socialist.

Landuyt is sinds begin dit jaar burgemeester van Brugge. Maar de advocaat staat vooral bekend als justitiespecialist van zijn partij. De Staatsveiligheid functioneert na enkele hervormingen volgens hem al iets beter dan vroeger. “Maar niet in die mate dat ik ervan onder de indruk ben”, klinkt het.

“Ik vraag mij echt af of we een instelling zoals de Staatsveiligheid nodig hebben. In een democratie is er nood aan transparantie. Geheime organisaties zoals onze inlichtingendienst zijn niet meer van deze tijd. De dienst dateert nog uit een tijd dat staten in de eerste plaats vijanden van elkaar waren. Concurreren met die paar inlichtingendiensten in de wereld die er wel toe doen, kunnen we niet.”

Het argument dat je een inlichtingendienst nodig hebt om gevaarlijke organisaties en potentiële terroristen op te volgen, houdt volgens de Vlaamse socialist geen steek. “Net alsof we een Staatsveiligheid nodig hebben om ons tegen terrorisme te beschermen. Dat is eigenlijk opsporingswerk. Het federale parket kan en moet dat doen.”

Door de Staatsveiligheid af te schaffen, kunnen het federale parket en andere opsporingsdiensten worden versterkt. “Die zullen in elk geval nuttiger werk verrichten dan een dienst die toch maar krantenknipsels en roddels bijeenharkt.”

Moureaux, PS-senator en minister van Staat, zal naar eigen zeggen niet minder goed slapen als de Staatsveiligheid verdwijnt en het parket meer macht krijgt. “Ik ben destijds als minister van Justitie verantwoordelijk geweest voor de instelling. Veel respect heb ik nooit voor die mensen gehad”, klinkt het. “Ze werken vaak op basis van geruchten en zijn altijd aan spelletjes te spelen. Ik heb dat eerlijk gezegd altijd een beetje miserabel gevonden.”

Door een gebrek aan middelen zijn de agenten van de Staatsveiligheid eigenlijk niet meer dan veredelde scouts, stelt de Franstalige socialist. “Het beste voorbeeld daarvan is het rapport over politici die betrokken zouden zijn bij Scientology.”

…

Door: Steven Samyn en Martin Buxant
13/02/13 – 06u47

Find this story at 13 February 2013

© 2013 De Persgroep Digital

De beelden van het interview met Alain Winants, de administrateur-generaal van de Staatsveiligheid, die maandag werden uitgezonden in het tv-journaal van de RTBF, tonen een dossier dat de naam van Filip Dewinter draagt. ‘Het betreft in feite een oud dossier betreffende een juridische procedure die door betrokkene opgestart werd’, aldus de Staatsveiligheid dinsdagmiddag in een reactie.

Bart Debie, de gewezen veiligheidsadviseur van Vlaams Belanger Filip Dewinter, zei maandag dat hij drie jaar lang als “mol” van de Belgische Staatsveiligheid binnen de partijtop van het Vlaams Belang heeft gefungeerd.

De RTBF draaide maandag beelden tijdens een interview met Winants. Op het moment dat de topman van de Staatsveiligheid benadrukt dat zijn diensten zich niet bezighouden met politici, filmde de tv-ploeg van de Franstalige openbare televisie een dossier op zijn bureau. Op de farde was te lezen “Dewinter Filip”.

…

dinsdag 12 februari 2013, 13u04 Bron: rtbf

Find this story at 12 February 2013

© De Standaard

ABart Debie, ancien commissaire de police et conseiller de Filip Dewinter au sein du Vlaams Belang, affirme avoir été “une taupe” au sein du parti flamand d’extrême droite. Il aurait en effet fourni durant trois ans des informations sur le fonctionnement interne du parti à la Sûreté de l’État, a-t-il déclaré aux quotidiens De Standaard et Het Nieuwsblad. Filip Dewinter se dit trahi. La ministre de la Justice a rappelé à l’ordre la Sûreté quant à son devoir d’information à son égard.
Et aussi
Sûreté de l’Etat: le dossier “Dewinter Filip” est un “ancien dossier juridique”

“J’ai été recruté comme informateur en 2007. Jusqu’à ma démission du parti en 2010, j’ai rencontré presque tous les mois une personne des services de renseignements”, a déclaré Bart Debie qui était à cette époque une figure-clé du Vlaams Belang.

Bart Debie aurait notamment fourni des informations concernant les soutiens financiers du Vlaams Belang.

Il a décidé de s’exprimer quant à son rôle d’informateur à la suite de déclarations de la ministre de la Justice, Annemie Turtelboom, qui a affirmé récemment que la Sûreté de l’État n’était pas impliquée dans l’espionnage de parlementaires.

Annemie Turtelboom rappelle la Sûreté de l’Etat à l’ordre

La ministre de la Justice, Annemie Turtelboom, a rappelé lundi, dans un communiqué de presse, avoir demandé récemment à la Sûreté de l’Etat de vérifier si l’obligation d’information à son égard était bien respectée dans les cas de surveillance de parlementaires.

Une circulaire de 2009 prévoit que le ministre de la Justice doit être immédiatement informé chaque fois que le nom d’un membre actif du parlement fédéral apparaît dans un rapport de la Sûreté. Début février, après plusieurs affaires de surveillance impliquant des politiciens, Mme Turtelboom a demandé au Comité R, chargé de superviser la Sûreté, de vérifier que cette instruction était bien suivie.

Dans un communiqué diffusé lundi, Mme Turtelboom a répété ses demandes.

“A la suite de la fuite de l’analyse de phénomène, la ministre de la Justice a demandé à la Sûreté de l’Etat si toutes les instructions concernant le fonctionnement de la Sûreté de l’Etat sont rigoureusement appliquées”, selon le communiqué.

“Vu l’importance d’une organisation de l’information correcte par les services de renseignements, (elle) a également demandé une enquête de contrôle au Comité R, qui est responsable légalement du contrôle parlementaire sur le fonctionnement de ces services”, est-il précisé.

“Annemie Turtelboom doit s’expliquer”

Colère de Filip Dewinter qui se dit “trahi par un bon ami”. Il fait remarquer qu’il avait aidé Bart Debie par le passé, lors de son procès, que le parti a payé ses amendes et qu’il a été salarié du Belang pendant des années.

L’ancien président du parti d’extrême-droite a également indiqué lundi attendre de la ministre de la Justice, Annemie Turtelboom, de “très sérieuses explications”. Cette dernière avait affirmé que la Sûreté de l’État ne pistait par les parlementaires.

“Soit elle ment, soit elle n’est pas au courant. Dans les deux cas, c’est problématique”, a-t-il dit.

Au-delà des moyens juridiques dont il envisage de faire usage, le sénateur VB entend placer le débat sur la scène politique. “Utiliser la Sûreté comme un service de renseignement politique, selon le régime en place, cela va beaucoup trop loin. Qui plus est, l’objectif, ici, était clairement de déstabiliser un parti ou un homme politique”, a-t-il souligné.

M. Dewinter exige de pouvoir examiner son dossier à la Sûreté. Il demande également que la Sûreté fasse étalage de ses méthodes et qu’on fasse savoir si d’autres taupes ont infiltré le Belang.

“S’il était informateur, ce serait un délit pour lui de le révéler”, rappelle le patron de la Sûreté

Alain Winants, le patron de la Sûreté de l’Etat, a confirmé lundi qu’il ne souhaitait donner aucune information sur l’éventuel rôle d’informateur qu’aurait joué l’ancien membre du Vlaams Belang Bart Debie. “Je ne peux pas vous parler de nos éventuelles sources, cela serait un délit”, a-t-il dit à Belga. “Mais si Debie était effectivement un informateur, cela serait un délit pour lui aussi” d’en parler, a-t-il ajouté.

Alain Winants a répété lundi que la Sûreté ne suivait aucun politicien pour ses activités parlementaires. “Mais nous sommes compétents pour enquêter sur un certain nombre de menaces, notamment l’extrémisme. La collecte de fonds à l’étranger pour la création de mouvements anti-Islam pourrait tomber sous cette catégorie”, a-t-il dit, sans pour autant confirmer les propos de M. Debie.

Certaines affirmations sont “totalement erronées ou fausses”

“Un certain nombre d’affirmations de monsieur Debie sont totalement erronées ou fausses”, a encore fait savoir la Sûreté de l’Etat dans un communiqué de presse diffusé lundi soir, en réaction à l’aveu par l’ancien membre du Vlaams Belang, Bart Debie, de sa collaboration avec l’agence de renseignements. Elle n’en dit toutefois pas davantage.

“Avant toute chose, nous souhaitons clairement indiquer que le service ne souhaite en aucun cas faire de déclaration concernant le fait que l’intéressé soit ou non un informateur de la Sûreté de l’Etat, étant donné que communiquer à ce sujet est un délit, aussi bien pour les membres du service que pour toute personne qui offre sa collaboration en application de la loi organique des services de renseignement et de sécurité du 30 novembre 1998”, rappelle la Sûreté.

Elle insiste par ailleurs “fermement sur le fait qu’elle ne suit pas, ne screene pas, ne file pas – etc – en tant que tels des partis politiques, des mandataires, des politiciens dans le cadre de l’exercice de leur mandat parlementaire et/ou ministériel”.

“Notons par ailleurs que monsieur Debie, pour peu que l’on croirait son récit, déclare que l’initiative de la prise de contact serait venue de lui-même. En outre, il faut également noter qu’un certain nombre d’affirmations de monsieur Debie sont totalement erronées ou fausses”, ajoute encore la Sûreté, sans préciser lesquelles.

Le Comité R va enquêter

Les “récentes révélations sur des informateurs éventuels dans le milieu politique seront reprises” dans l’enquête que mène actuellement le Comité R sur la manière dont les services de renseignement s’intéressent, le cas échéant, à des mandataires, a indiqué lundi le président de l’organe de contrôle, Guy Rapaille.

“Le Comité permanent R a reçu, ces derniers jours, tant du Sénat que du ministre de la Justice, des missions d’enquêtes relatives aux documents de la Sûreté de l’Etat qui, malgré leur caractère secret, ont été diffusés dans les médias. Il s’agit d’une part d’une note relative à l’infiltration de la communauté congolaise de Bruxelles par le mouvement de la Scientologie, et d’autre part d’un rapport concernant une analyse de phénomène sur des activités d’ingérence non étatiques. Le Comité permanent R a repris les diverses questions de ces autorités dans deux enquêtes de contrôle distinctes”, a-t-il indiqué dans un communiqué.

La première enquête, qui a déjà démarré, mais dont la portée est à présent étendue, traite de la manière dont les documents susmentionnés ont été “préparés et diffusés”, ainsi que de leur “conformité aux règles en vigueur”, a confirmé Guy Rapaille. “L’enquête sur les fuites en tant que telles est en premier lieu du ressort des autorités judiciaires, étant donné qu’il pourrait s’agir de délits”, a-t-il toutefois précisé.

Une seconde enquête, plus générale, traitera “la manière dont la Sûreté de l’Etat et le Service Général du Renseignement et de la Sécurité recueillent, le cas échéant, des informations sur des mandataires politiques, la manière dont ils conservent et utilisent ces informations et la manière dont ils en font rapport aux ministres de tutelle ou à d’autres autorités”, a ajouté M. Rapaille. “Il va de soi que de récentes révélations sur des informateurs éventuels dans le milieu politique seront reprises dans cette enquête”, a-t-il précisé.

Bart Debie et les méthodes musclées

…

BELGIQUE | lundi 11 février 2013 à 4h37

Find this story at 11 February 2013

© RTBF

De Belgische Staatsveiligheid heeft jarenlang een ‘mol’ gehad binnen de top van het Vlaams Belang. Dat zegt Bart Debie, ex-politiecommissaris en gewezen veiligheidsadviseur van partijkopstuk Filip Dewinter. ‘De Staatsveiligheid deed onderzoek naar de financiering van de partij en naar de contacten van Filip Dewinter’, zegt Debie. ‘En ik was drie jaar lang hun informant.’

‘Wat ze met andere politici doen, weet ik niet. Maar de Staatsveiligheid heeft het Vlaams Belang jarenlang met héél véél aandacht gevolgd. En ik kan het weten, want ik was er zelf bij betrokken.’

Bart Debie (38) was eigenlijk van plan zijn werk als informant voor de Staatsveiligheid voor altijd geheim te houden. Maar na de uitspraken van minister van Justitie Annemie Turtelboom (Open VLD) vorige week dat de Staatsveiligheid ‘zich niet bezighoudt met het bespioneren van parlementsleden’ doorbreekt hij het stilzwijgen. Turtelboom deed haar uitspraken nadat twee rapporten van de Staatsveiligheid waren uitgelekt. Daarin werd een hele resem politici genoemd die gecontacteerd waren door sekten zoals Scientology. Turtelboom zei dat de Staatsveiligheid geen dossiers bijhoudt van parlementsleden.

‘Van Vlaams Belang alleszins wel’, zegt Debie. ‘In 2007 hebben ze me ingelijfd als informant. Tot mijn ontslag bij de partij in 2010 heb ik bijna elke maand op zijn minst één ontmoeting gehad met mijn vaste begeleider bij de inlichtingendienst.’

’Ik zocht zelf contact’

Debie is jarenlang een sleutelfiguur geweest bij Vlaams Belang. Hij is een voormalig commissaris van de Antwerpse politie die bekend werd met zijn harde aanpak van de criminaliteit op het Falconplein. Maar in 2003 kwam hij in opspraak na een gewelddadig verhoor van vijf Turkse arrestanten. Hij werd geschorst, nam later ontslag en werd in 2007 veroordeeld voor buitensporig geweld en vervalsing van pv’s. Filip Dewinter bood een vangnet: in 2004 lijfde hij Debie in bij Vlaams Belang als veiligheidsadviseur.

‘Voor alle duidelijkheid: het contact met de Staatsveiligheid is er op mijn initiatief gekomen’, zegt Debie. ‘Waarom ik contact zocht? Ik had het al langer moeilijk met bepaalde praktijken binnen de partij. De directe aanleiding was een stunt die Filip Dewinter wilde opvoeren. Ten tijde van de rellen in Brussel, waar met een kalasjnikov-geweer op de politie was geschoten, riep Dewinter me bij zich. Bart, kun jij via je contacten een aantal kalasjnikovs kopen? Hij wilde die op een persconferentie presenteren. Ik heb hem duidelijk gemaakt dat ik dat niet zag zitten, omdat het om strafbare feiten ging. En ik had al een strafblad, door die affaire in Antwerpen. Toen heb ik contact gezocht met de Staatsveiligheid. Deels om mezelf wat in te dekken, deels omdat ik dat soort praktijken binnen de partij kotsbeu was.’

Een paar dagen nadat hij zelf contact had gezocht, kreeg Debie telefoon van iemand die zich voorstelde als commissaris bij de Staatsveiligheid.

…

Lees de rest van het artikel in Het Nieuwsblad van maandag 11 februari.

Joris van der Aa en Tom Le Bacq

Find this story at 11 February 2013

© Nieuwsblad.be werkt samen met De Standaard en L’Avenir

When the man known to his activist girlfriend as John Barker disappeared, she embarked on a journey that led her to the former home of a child whose name he used as an alias

John Dines taking part in a race in the early 1990s when he was serving as an undercover sergeant in the Metropolitan police’s special branch

John Barker was an eight-year-old boy who died of leukaemia in 1968. Nineteen years later his identity was quietly resurrected by the police. The man who adopted the boy’s identity, claiming it as his own, was John Dines, an undercover sergeant in the Metropolitan police’s special branch.

In 1987 Dines was tasked with posing as an anti-capitalist protester, feeding intelligence to his handlers in a secret unit called the special demonstration squad (SDS). It was a controversial and morally dubious deployment that lasted five years and will now return to haunt him.

Like many SDS officers, Dines had a long-term girlfriend who was a political activist. She does not want to be identified and has asked to be referred to as Clare.

Her story lays bare the emotional trauma experienced by women whom police have described as “collateral” victims of their spy operations, as well as the risks police were taking by adopting the identities of dead children.

In 1990 the man Clare knew as John Barker asked to borrow money so he could fly to New Zealand for his mother’s funeral. “The night before he got the flight to go there, he stayed at my place and kind of poured his heart out. We became emotionally close. When he got back, we got together.”

There was no funeral in New Zealand and Dines had no need to borrow money. But Clare had known Dines as a fellow protester for three years and had no reason to suspect him. The couple would end up in an intimate relationship for two years.

“He said he wanted to spend the rest of his life with me and I was madly in love with him,” she said. “He said he wanted us to have kids. He used to say he had once seen an elderly Greek couple sitting on a veranda gazing into the sunset, and that he pictured us growing old like that.”

By the summer of 1991, as part of an exit strategy, Dines began exhibiting symptoms of a mental breakdown.

“He kept talking about how he had nobody left apart from me,” Clare said. “His parents had both died. He had no brothers and sisters. The only woman that he had ever loved before me, a woman called Debbie, had left him. He said he was convinced I was going to do the same to him.”

Dines gave the impression he wanted to run away to escape inner demons. “I saw him crying loads,” Clare said. “He told me that he had thrown all of his mother’s jewellery into a river because he thought she never loved him. He told me his parents had abused him.”

In March 1992 an emotional-sounding Dines called from Heathrow airport saying he was about to fly to South Africa. After that, Clare received two letters with South African postmarks. Then her boyfriend vanished altogether.

Clare was left distraught and confused. “I was very worried about his mental state,” she said. “I was also sick with worry that he might kill himself.”

Clare contacted the British consulate in South Africa and frantically phoned hostels she thought he may have stayed in Johannesburg. She later hired a private investigator who could find no trace of Dines.

It was the start of a journey for the truth that would last almost two decades and eventually take her to New Zealand. It was not until 2010 that she found out for sure that the man she had loved was a police spy.

For some of the time that Clare thought her boyfriend was missing abroad, he was actually working just a few miles away. When his undercover work finished, Dines changed his mullet-style haircut and returned to a desk job at the Met headquarters in Scotland Yard where, according to a colleague, he appeared “very miserable”.

In her search for clues, one of the first things Clare did was locate a copy of what she assumed was her boyfriend’s birth certificate. The document confirmed the details he had always given her: it named a city in the Midlands where he was born in January 1960. She had no idea that the identity was a forgery, or that the real John Barker had died as a boy.

In April 1993, desperate after a year of searching, Clare decided to visit Barker’s family home in the hope of finding any surviving relatives, but when she knocked on the door of the terrace house there was no answer. She went back later but the occupants said the family no longer lived there.

Looking back, she wonders what would have occurred if the dead child’s parents had opened the door. “It would have been horrendous,” she said. “It would have completely freaked them out to have someone asking after a child who died 24 years earlier.”

It was another 18 months before Clare decided to inspect the national death records. “I just suddenly got this instinct. It was a whim: I thought, I’m going to go in there and look through the death records.”

She recalls her horror when she discovered the real John Barker was dead. “It sent a chill down my spine,” she said. “When I got the certificate itself, it was so clear. The same person. The same parents. The same address. But he had died as an eight-year-old boy.”

The Guardian has been unable to find surviving relatives of the child.

The discovery turned Clare’s world upside down. “It was like a bereavement but it was not something I could talk to people about. Now suddenly he didn’t exist. This was a man I had known for five years, who I had lived with for two years. How could I trust anybody again?”

Clare now knew her boyfriend had lied about his identity, but still had no idea who he was. The idea that he might have been a police spy crossed her mind, but he might also have worked in corporate espionage or had a hidden criminal past. It was another 10 years of searching before she got closer to the truth.

Clare had two clues to go on. One was the name of a woman in New Zealand who Dines had told her was an aunt. The other was a letter in which he had made a curious reference to his biological father being a man he had never met, called Jim Dines.

The woman in New Zealand was not his aunt but, bizarrely, the mother of Dines’s real wife. Stranger still, Jim Dines was, in fact, the police officer’s real father and had brought him up in London.

Clare has no idea why the undercover police officer chose to compromise his deployment by giving Clare cryptic references to people in his real life. Perhaps he was psychologically traumatised by his dual identities and wanted to leave a trail that would allow Clare to find him.

Whatever his reason, the clues led Clare to a public archive in New Zealand. It was there, in 2003, that she made a crucial connection: a document that linked Dines with the woman he married, Debbie.

Clare instantly realised they must have been a married couple. Back in London, she ordered the couple’s wedding certificate. “What hit me like a ton of bricks is that he listed his occupation as a police officer,” she said. “When I read that, I felt utterly sick and really violated. It ripped me apart basically, just reading that.”

Clare was now agonisingly close to the truth. She knew that Dines was a police officer when he married his wife in 1977. But there was still a possibility that he gave up his job before becoming a political activist.

She shared the evidence with friends and family. Some cautioned her against concluding Dines had been a police spy. “I remember my dad and others said: ‘You’re being paranoid – that would never happen in this country.'”

…

Paul Lewis and Rob Evans
The Guardian, Sunday 3 February 2013 19.21 GMT

Find this story at 3 February 2013
© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Deputy assistant commissioner Pat Gallan summoned before MPs to respond to revelations officers used IDs of children

John Dines, an undercover police sergeant, as he appeared in the early 1980s when he posed as John Barker, a protester against capitalism. Dines’s alternative identity used that of a child who had died. Photograph: Guardian

A senior police chief has been summoned to parliament to explain why police secretly authorised undercover officers to steal the identities of around 80 dead children.

Pat Gallan, the Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner in charge of the complaints department, will respond to the revelations at a parliamentary committee hearing on Tuesday.

An investigation by the Guardian has revealed that police infiltrating protest groups have for three decades adopted the identities of dead children, without informing or consulting their parents.

Two undercover officers have provided a detailed account of how they and others used the identities of dead children.

Keith Vaz, chair of the home affairs select committee has said he is “shocked” at the “gruesome” practice.

“The committee will hear from those who have been involved in undercover operations as well as their victims,” he said. “I have asked the deputy assistant commissioner Pat Gallan to deal with the issues that have arisen.”

Gallan is head of the Met’s department for professional standards.

The Guardian has established how police officers were equipped with fabricated identity records, such as driving licences and national insurance numbers, in the name of their chosen dead child. They also visited the family home of the dead child to familiarise themselves with the surroundings and conducted research into other family members.

Scotland Yard has already announced an investigation into the controversy. It said it had received one complaint – believed to be a reference to a suspected police officer who was undercover in 2003 – and said it could “appreciate the concerns that have been raised”. The force said that the practice of using the identities of dead children is not currently authorised.

The operation is known to have been orchestrated by the Special Demonstration Squad, a secretive Met unit disbanded in 2008. Dozens of SDS officers are believed to have searched through birth and death certificates to find a child who had died young and would be a suitable match for their alias.

The officers then adopted the entire identity of the child as if the child had never died. One police officer has said the process was like “resurrecting” a dead person’s identity.

The disclosure comes after two years of revelations concerning undercover police officers having sexual relationships with women they are spying on. Eleven women are currently bringing legal action against the Met for damages.

Vaz said: “The activities of undercover police officers caused disbelief when they were revealed in 2011. These revelations [about the use of dead children’s identities] are shocking. I congratulate the Guardian on their investigation. To have used the identities of dead children without the knowledge or consent of their parents astonishes me. It sounds gruesome. ”

…

Rob Evans and Paul Lewis
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 February 2013 12.36 GMT

Find this story at 4 February 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

The Metropolitan Police covertly stole the identities of about 80 dead children for use in operations by undercover police officers, according to a new investigation.

The practice, condemned as “gruesome” by Keith Vaz, the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, carried on for three decades as a means for police to infiltrate anti-racist, anti-capitalist and far-right protest groups. Officers obtained passports, driving licences and national insurance numbers under their new identities.

…

Tim Hume
Monday, 4 February 2013

Find this story at 4 February 2013

© independent.co.uk

Exclusive: Undercover officers created aliases based on details found in birth and death records, Guardian investigation reveals

John Dines, an undercover police sergeant, as he appeared in the early 1990s when he posed as John Barker, a protester against capitalism

Britain’s largest police force stole the identities of an estimated 80 dead children and issued fake passports in their names for use by undercover police officers.

The Metropolitan police secretly authorised the practice for covert officers infiltrating protest groups without consulting or informing the children’s parents.

The details are revealed in an investigation by the Guardian, which has established how over three decades generations of police officers trawled through national birth and death records in search of suitable matches.

Undercover officers created aliases based on the details of the dead children and were issued with accompanying identity records such as driving licences and national insurance numbers. Some of the police officers spent up to 10 years pretending to be people who had died.

The Met said the practice was not “currently” authorised, but announced an investigation into “past arrangements for undercover identities used by SDS [Special Demonstration Squad] officers”.

Keith Vaz, the chairman of parliament’s home affairs select committee, said he was shocked at the “gruesome” practice. “It will only cause enormous distress to families who will discover what has happened concerning the identities of their dead children,” he said. “This is absolutely shocking.”

The technique of using dead children as aliases has remained classified intelligence for several decades, although it was fictionalised in Frederick Forsyth’s novel The Day of the Jackal. As a result, police have internally nicknamed the process of searching for suitable identities as the “jackal run”. One former undercover agent compared an operation on which he was deployed to the methods used by the Stasi.

Two undercover officers have provided a detailed account of how they and others used the identities of dead children. One, who adopted the fake persona of Pete Black while undercover in anti-racist groups, said he felt he was “stomping on the grave” of the four-year-old boy whose identity he used.

“A part of me was thinking about how I would feel if someone was taking the names and details of my dead son for something like this,” he said. The Guardian has chosen not to identify Black by his real name.

The other officer, who adopted the identity of a child who died in a car crash, said he was conscious the parents would “still be grief-stricken”. He spoke on the condition of anonymity and argued his actions could be justified because they were for the “greater good”.

Both officers worked for a secretive unit called the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), which was disbanded in 2008.

A third undercover police officer in the SDS who adopted the identity of a dead child can be named as John Dines, a sergeant. He adopted the identity of an eight-year-old boy named John Barker, who died in 1968 from leukaemia. The Met said in a statement: “We are not prepared to confirm nor deny the deployment of individuals on specific operations.”

The force added: “A formal complaint has been received which is being investigated by the DPS [Directorate for Professional Standards] and we appreciate the concerns that have been raised. The DPS inquiry is taking place in conjunction with Operation Herne’s investigation into the wider issue of past arrangements for undercover identities used by SDS officers. We can confirm that the practice referred to in the complaint is not something that would currently be authorised in the [Met police].”

There is a suggestion that the practice of using dead infant identities may have been stopped in the mid-1990s, when death records were digitised. However, the case being investigated by the Met relates to a suspected undercover police officer who may have used a dead child’s identity in 2003.

The practice was introduced 40 years ago by police to lend credibility to the backstory of covert operatives spying on protesters, and to guard against the possibility that campaigners would discover their true identities.

Since then dozens of SDS officers, including those who posed as anti-capitalists, animal rights activists and violent far-right campaigners, have used the identities of dead children.

One document seen by the Guardian indicates that around 80 police officers used such identities between 1968 and 1994. The total number could be higher.

Black said he always felt guilty when celebrating the birthday of the four-year-old whose identity he took. He was particularly aware that somewhere the parents of the boy would be “thinking about their son and missing him”. “I used to get this really odd feeling,” he said.

To fully immerse himself in the adopted identity and appear convincing when speaking about his upbringing, Black visited the child’s home town to familiarise himself with the surroundings.

Black, who was undercover in the 1990s, said his operation was “almost Stasi-like”. He said SDS officers visited the house they were supposed to have been born in so they would have a memory of the building.

“It’s those little details that really matter – the weird smell coming out of the drain that’s been broken for years, the location of the corner Post Office, the number of the bus you get to go from one place to another,” he said.

The second SDS officer said he believed the use of the harvested identities was for the “greater good”. But he was also aware that the parents had not been consulted. “There were dilemmas that went through my head,” he said.

The case of the third officer, John Dines, reveals the risks posed to families who were unaware that their children’s identities were being used by undercover police.

During his covert deployment, Dines had a two-year relationship with a female activist before disappearing from her life. In an attempt to track down her disappeared boyfriend, the woman discovered the birth certificate of John Barker and tried to track down his family, unaware that she was actually searching for a dead child.

She said she was relieved that she never managed to find the parents of the dead boy. “It would have been horrendous,” she said. “It would have completely freaked them out to have someone asking after a child who died 24 years earlier.”

The disclosure about the use of the identities of dead children is likely to reignite the controversy over undercover police infiltration of protest groups. Fifteen separate inquiries have already been launched since 2011, when Mark Kennedy was unmasked as a police spy who had slept with several women, including one who was his girlfriend for six years.

…

Paul Lewis and Rob Evans
The Guardian, Sunday 3 February 2013 19.13 GMT

Find this story at 3 February 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

ATTAC Switzerland has taken notice with great satisfaction of the civil court’s president Jean-Luc Genillard’s decision of 25 January 2013 in the case «Nestlegate». The Court has convicted NESTLE and SECURITAS AG of spying activities directed at ATTAC. It has recognized that these parties conducted illegal infiltrations. The claimants have been entitled to a financial compensation, since their personal rights have been violated. NESTLE and SECURITAS AG have been ordered to pay a financial compensation of 3.000 Swiss francs (3.238 US dollars) per claimant (a total of 27.000 Swiss francs – 29.145 US dollars).

ATTAC Switzerland has taken notice with great satisfaction of the civil court’s president Jean-Luc Genillard’s decision of 25 January 2013 in the case «Nestlegate». The Court has convicted NESTLE and SECURITAS AG of spying activities directed at ATTAC. It has recognized that these parties conducted illegal infiltrations. The claimants have been entitled to a financial compensation, since their personal rights have been violated. NESTLE and SECURITAS AG have been ordered to pay a financial compensation of 3.000 Swiss francs (3.238 US dollars) per claimant (a total of 27.000 Swiss francs – 29.145 US dollars).

Both a criminal and a civil case were filed after Swiss television revealed on 12 June 2008 that an ATTAC workgroup in Canton Vaud, which was preparing a book on NESTLE’s policies («Attac contre l’empire NESTLE», 2004), had been infiltrated and spied on by a SECURITAS employee on behalf of NESTLE. The woman had joined the ATTAC workgroup in 2003 under the false name of “Sara Meylan”, had attended private meetings (sometimes at the members’ homes), gathered confidential information and prepared detailed reports on the authors as well as on third parties for NESTLE. On September 26th, 2008, ATTAC discovered and denounced to the examining magistrate another SECURITAS spy, who was still active in ATTAC in 2008 under her real name.

The criminal proceedings were dropped on July 29th, 2009. The investigating judge mainly relied on the statements made by NESTLE and SECURITAS AG and found that the only infringement that may constitute an offense – a violation of the federal law of data protection – falls under the three-year statute of limitation. We regret the superficial investigation conducted during this criminal investigation, which Alec Feuz has well documented in his book « Affaire classée».

We are very satisfied that the civil court has now condemned NESTLE’s and SECURITAS AG’s spying activities. Nevertheless we’d like to point out that we are continuing to critically observe the worldwide activities of multinational corporations like NESTLE, especially concerning its hostile trade union policies and the excessive pumping of groundwater in different parts of the world.

Through a general increase of espionage and spying activities, basic democratic rights like the freedom of opinion, the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly are called into question. The activities of NGOs, trade unions and critical political organizations are limited by private corporations, which perceive non-violent campaigns and action from civil society as a threat to their commercial interests. These transnational corporations thus try to reduce basic democratic rights and often profit from the fact that the State turns a blind eye to these infringements.

It is important to be able to fight for a just and egalitarian society, to oppose injustice around the world by means of free and independent research into the dealings of transnational corporations, without being surveyed or spied on.

Find this story at 28 January 2013

De Zwitserse afdeling van Attac heeft op 20 juni 2008 de autoriteiten van het Kanton Vaud, Zwitserland, gevraagd om de infiltratie van Attac door de multinational Nestlé te onderzoeken. Nestlé is het bedrijf van onder andere KitKat, After Eight, Bros en Nespresso. Acteur en regisseur George Clooney is de belichaming van het hippe kopje koffie. Attac heeft een aanklacht ingediend tegen een onbekende persoon wegens schending van de persoonlijke levenssfeer van de auteurs van het kritische boek over Nestlé: ‘Nestlé – Anatomie eines Weltkonzerns’ (Nestlé – Anatomie van een multinational) en van de overtreding van wetgeving ter bescherming van persoonsgegevens. Volgens Attac, een wereldwijde organisatie die het economische systeem wil veranderen met onder andere de slogan ‘de wereld is niet te koop’, vond de infiltratie plaats van september 2003 tot en met juni 2004. Nestlé lijkt met de infiltratie geprobeerd te hebben op de hoogte te blijven van het onderzoek van Attac naar de betrokkenheid van Nestlé bij genetisch gemanipuleerde gewassen, de privatisering van water en de behandeling van de vakbonden door het bedrijf.

Het zal geen verbazing wekken dat in de aanloop naar en tijdens de G8 in Evian, Zwitserland, in de zomer van 2003, infiltraties in organisaties van anti globalisten door politie en bedrijfsleven plaatsvonden. Zo geeft de politie van Waadtland in een uitzending van het televisieprogramma Temps Présent toe dat zij op de hoogte waren van infiltratiepogingen door het private recherchebureau Securitas AG (Zwitserland) in allerlei solidariteitsgroepen. Of Nestlé ook daadwerkelijk de opdracht heeft gegeven blijft een misterie. Securitas AG zou ook de infiltratie in Attac hebben uitgevoerd. Deze begon echter pas na de G8 top in Evian. Securitas AG is overigens niet onderdeel van het internationale bedrijf Sercuritas waartoe het Nederlandse bedrijf met dezelfde naam behoort.

Securitas AG zou een vrouw, met de schuilnaam ‘Sara Meylan’, hebben ingehuurd om deel te nemen aan de redactievergaderingen voor het boek ‘Nestlé – Anatomie eines Weltkonzerns’ (Nestlé – Anatomie van een multinational). Het boek is uiteindelijk in 2005 verschenen. ‘Sara Meylan’ meldde zich in de lente van 2003 en deed mee aan de protesten tegen de G8 voordat ze in het schrijversteam infiltreerde. In de uitzending van Temps Présent van 12 juni 2008 willen beide bedrijven niet op de concrete beschuldigingen van het televisieprogramma ingaan. Nestlé gaf wel in een verklaring aan dat zij Securitas AG had ingehuurd voor de beveiliging van haar staf en faciliteiten tijdens de G8. Het bedrijf verwachtte een confrontatie met de demonstranten. Securitas AG baas, Reto Casutt, gaf toe dat medewerkers van het bedrijf onder valse naam aan bijeenkomsten van verschillende solidariteitsorganisaties hebben deelgenomen. Hij noemt het zelf ‘niet sympathiek’, maar ook ‘niet verboden.’ Een maand later beweerde Casutt dat de omstandigheden van de G8 top in Evian te vergelijken waren met militaire omstandigheden en dat de inzet van de agent voor hun cliënt Nestlé slechts noodweer was. Securitas AG moest een informatievoorsprong hebben in verband met toekomstige acties. Casutt voelde zich gedwongen om te reageren op de negatieve berichten in de media.
‘Sara Meylan’ had maandenlang aan het boek van Attac meegewerkt en was na de publicatie spoorloos verdwenen. In e-mails aan de schrijvers meldde de agente dat ze het ‘super vond wat ze deden.’ Of ze veel aan het onderzoek en het boek heeft bijgedragen valt te betwijfelen. Zij deed niet mee aan discussies en kwam op de vergaderingen vaak laat en ging eerder weg. Wel kwam ze te weten met wie Attac contact onderhield in bijvoorbeeld Colombia waar Nestlé de vakbonden niet in haar fabrieken toelaat. Toen de publicatiedatum naderde begon ze afstand te nemen en wilde niet op de foto. Plotseling was ze toen verdwenen en onbereikbaar.

De agente van Nestlé werkte een jaar mee aan het boek. Ze kwam bij de zeven onderzoekers over de vloer, las de verschillende proefdrukken en hoorde de namen van de mensen die Attac van munitie voorzagen tegen het Zwitserse bedrijf. Volgens Jean-Philipp Ceppi van het televisieprogramma Temps Présent dat het nieuws in juni 2008 bracht, vond er een ontmoeting plaats tussen de agente ‘Sara Meylan’ en haar ‘runner’ (coach/begeleider) van Securitas AG en het hoofd beveiliging en het hoofd van de communicatie afdeling van Nestlé in maart 2004. Volgens Ceppi duidt dit erop dat het voor Nestlé een zaak was van veiligheid en van beeldvorming. Volgens hem zou dit verklaren waarom de infiltratie van Attac pas na de G8 top in Evian begon, want enige relatie tussen de redactievergaderingen van Attac voor het boek en de protesten tegen de G8 in Evian was er niet.

Nestlé heeft al een imago van een brute Zwitserse chocoladebeer, maar het bespioneren van een onderzoeksgroep die een boek over het concern schreef, lijkt iedereen te ver gaan. Naar aanleiding van de televisie uitzending schreef de privacy waakhond van Zwitserland Schweizer Datenschutz Securitas AG aan over de activiteiten van het beveiligingsbedrijf voor en tijdens de G8. “Nestlé geeft aan maatregelen te hebben getroffen voor de veiligheid van personen en faciliteiten met het oog op een eventuele terroristische aanslag tijdens de G8. De strijd tegen het terrorisme is echter een staatsaangelegenheid en niet een zaak van een privéonderneming,” vertelde woordvoerder Kosmas Tsiraktsopulos de SDA nieuwsdienst. Over de spionage van de schrijversgroep van Attac merkt hij op dat het om een “problematisch geval” gaat.

Niet alleen de privacy waakhond is verbolgen over het optreden van Securitas AG en Nestlé. Ook de VSPB, de vakbond van Zwitsers politiepersoneel, haalde hard uit naar Securitas AG. De vakbond vraagt zich in een schrijven af of Securitas AG wel een acceptabele partner voor de politie kan zijn. De politie heeft echter zelf ook geen schone handen. Terwijl in de uitzending van Temps Présent de politie aangeeft op de hoogte te zijn geweest van de activiteiten van Securitas AG in de aanloop en tijdens de G8 top, verklaarde een week later de veiligheidscoördinator van het kanton Waadt, Jacqueline de Quattro, dat de politie op de hoogte was van de infiltratie van een vrouwelijke medewerker van Securitas AG in Attac. Enkele maanden later wordt duidelijk dat de Dienst für Analyse und Prävention (DAP), de dienst voor analyse en preventie, in 2003 rond de G8 top bij toeval op de infiltratiepoging was gestoten. De baas van de DAP heeft toen aan de directie van Securitas AG gemeld dat de infiltratie problematisch was.

Op 23 juli 2008 zag Nestlé zich genoodzaakt na een hoorzitting een verklaring af te leggen over haar samenwerking met Securitas AG rond de G8 en Attac. Hans Peter Frick stelde dat Nestlé in de toekomst zulke maatregelen niet uitsluit. Aanleiding voor het opereren van Nestlé en Securitas AG rond de G8 top was een manifestatie op 28 maart 2003 bij het hoofdkantoor van Nestlé. Bij die manifestatie was ook José Bové aanwezig, de Franse boer die tegen de globalisering ten strijde trekt. Attac nam ook deel aan de manifestatie. Tussen de honder en vier honderd boeren uit verschillende landen wilden het hoofdkantoor van Nestlé binnendringen. Het liep enigszins uit de hand volgens Nestlé. Er sneuvelde een ruit van een voordeur en er werden leuzen op de ramen geschilderd. De politie verhinderde dat de demonstranten het hoofdkantoor betraden en de actie duurde niet lang. Frick vond dat deze manifestatie genoeg reden was om hardere maatregelen rond de G8 top te nemen. Blijkbaar was het bedrijf bang dat de media de verkeerde conclusie zou trekken uit de opmerking dat het bedrijf ook in de toekomst zulke maatregelen zou treffen. Het concern liet enkele uren later een woordvoerder duidelijk maken dat Frick niet de infiltraties voor ogen had bij zijn opmerking. Volgens hem behoort infiltratie niet tot de standaardoperaties van het bedrijf, maar het bedrijf sluit infiltratiepogingen echter ook niet uit.

In dezelfde verklaring legde Frick de verantwoordelijkheid voor het optreden van ‘Sara Meylan’ bij Securitas AG. Het beveiligingsbedrijf was met het idee gekomen en Frick had slechts zijn fiat gegeven. Tijdens de hoorzitting van 23 juli 2008 speelden beide partijen een slim spel. Nestlé bezat een dossier van 77 pagina’s over de opdracht aan Securitas AG. Securitas AG zelf had geen enkele documentatie met betrekking tot de zaak aangezien zij alle stukken aan het levensmiddelenbedrijf hadden overlegd. De advocaat van Nestlé stelde dat het dossier bestond uit alle stukken die de beveiligingsafdeling van het bedrijf van Securitas AG medewerkster ‘Sara Meylan’ heeft gekregen van september 2003 tot en met mei 2004. Attac liet het daarbij niet zitten en vorderde alle documenten. Volgens de organisatie zaten in het dossier van Nestlé niet de belangrijke stukken. Vooral het eindrapport van ‘Sara Meylan’ ontbreekt volgens Attac. Dit rapport moet volgens Attac aantonen dat de persoonlijke levenssfeer van de schrijvers van ‘Nestlé – Anatomie eines Weltkonzerns’ is geschonden. Op 15 augustus 2008 wees de rechtbank van Lausanne deze vordering af, daarmee ook een schadevergoeding. De rechtbank oordeelde dat de documenten die beide bedrijven op tafel hadden gelegd voldoende waren.

Op de dag van de uitspraak van de rechtbank in Lausanne zag Peter Brabeck, voorzitter van de raad van commissarissen van Nestlé, zich genoodzaakt te reageren op alle beschuldigingen aan zijn bedrijf. Hij onderstreepte nogmaals dat het initiatief voor de infiltratie niet van Nestlé was gekomen, maar van Securitas AG. ‘Als iemand mij vertelt dat wij een infiltratiepoging gaan uitvoeren, dan zal ik de nodige maatregelen nemen, want dit is niet in overeenstemming met ons beleid,’ vertelde Brabeck Radio RSR. Wat het beleid van Nestlé precies is wordt door de afgewezen vordering niet duidelijk, maar dat Nestlé de laatste jaren flink onder vuur ligt is wel duidelijk.

Vooral de activiteiten van het bedrijf in Colombia zijn een punt van kritiek. En in 2003 startte de Verein Multiwatch de voorbereidingen voor een hoorzitting van de Colombiaanse vakbonden over Nestlé. De hoorzitting vond op 29 oktober 2005 plaats, maar voordien vond er een inbraak in het kantoor van Multiwatch plaats waarbij geen waardevolle artikelen werden ontvreemd. Ook werd een van de vakbondsmensen vlak voor vertrek naar Zwitserland om deel te nemen aan de hoorzitting, vermoord. Beide gebeurtenissen kunnen toeval zijn en niets met Nestlé te maken hebben. Een inbraak kan altijd plaatsvinden en in Colombia zijn moordaanslagen eerder regel dan uitzondering.

De hypothese van Jean-Philipp Ceppi van Temps Présent dat Nestlé aan contra spionage doet om imagoschade af te wenden, is echter niet geheel onlogisch. Bij de voorbereidingen voor de hoorzitting over Nestlé in Colombia door Multiwatch zag het bedrijf zich genoodzaakt geregeld te reageren op de mogelijke beschuldigingen. Nestlé vond de beschuldigingen of uit de duim gezogen of getuigen van een gebrek aan kennis over de Colombiaanse situatie.

De kou lijkt echter niet uit de lucht voor Nestlé. Mensenrechtenactiviste Marianne Aeberhard nam deel aan twee conferentie in Freiburg en Vevey waar ook Colombiaanse vakbondsleden spraken. Aeberhard was niet een van de auteurs van het boek van Attac. Op grond van de Zwitserse wet op de bescherming van persoonsgegevens eiste zij van Nestlé de documenten die op haar betrekking hebben. De agente ‘Sara Meylan’ had namelijk over beide bijeenkomsten gerapporteerd. Nestlé weigerde Aeberhard de informatie zonder opgaaf van reden, wat er op zou kunnen duiden dat Attac toch gelijk heeft dat het dossier dat bij Nestlé ligt dikker is dan 77 pagina’s. Ook van Franklin Frederick, een activist in Brazilië, zijn e-mails door ‘Sara Meylan’ onderschept ten behoeve van het snuffelen voor Securitas AG. Frederick is vooral interessant gezien zijn rol in de strijd tegen de privatisering van water in Brazilië. Hij is erg succesvol en onderhoudt contacten met zowel kerkelijke als niet kerkelijke organisaties in Zwitserland en Brazilië in de strijd tegen de privatisering.

De rol die Securitas AG speelt is er een van informatiemakelaar. Het bedrijf zegt de volledige verantwoordelijkheid voor de infiltratiepoging te dragen. De agente was echter niet alleen geïnteresseerd in de schrijversgroep, maar bezocht ook bijeenkomsten van andere Attacleden en fora van andere organisaties over de activiteiten van Nestlé in Latijns Amerika.

En niet alleen Attac had last van een agente, ook de Gruppe Anti-Repression (GAR) uit Lausanne maakte gewag van een informante. GAR komt op voor het demonstratierecht en is een politieklachtenbureau. Op 8 september 2008 rapporteerde het programma ‘Mise au Point’ over de infiltratie van GAR. Ook GAR diende een klacht in tegen een onbekende persoon in verband met schending van de persoonlijke levenssfeer. Het zou gaan om de agente met de schuilnaam ‘Shanti Muller’. Zij was werkzaam voor Securitas AG en zij was tussen 2003 en 2005 actief binnen de anti-repressiegroep en andere alternatieve groepen zoals organisaties die zich verzetten tegen het Wereld Economisch Forum in Davos. Ook de dierenrechtenorganisatie LausAnimaliste stond op het lijstje van Muller. Ze zou tot in 2008 betrokken zijn geweest bij de organisatie. Het bedrijf zou informatie aan de politie hebben doorgespeeld. In wiens opdracht ‘Shanti Muller’ infiltreerde is nog niet bekend. ‘Muller’ had haar identiteit wel verder uitgebouwd. Ze zou de dochter van een Franse ontwikkelingswerker in Djibouti zijn en zelf 20 jaar in India met straatkinderen en Lepra slachtoffers hebben gewerkt. In de zomer van 2005 verdween ze plotseling, net als ‘Sara Maylan’ Attac plotseling Attac de rug toekeerde. ‘Muller’ gaf wel een reden aan voor haar vertrek. Ze zou haar ernstig zieke moeder in Frankrijk moeten verzorgen.

Om aan alle speculaties over de betrokkenheid van de politie bij de infiltratie pogingen te ontzenuwen was een oud rechter, François Jomini, aangesteld om de rol van de politie te onderzoeken. Zijn conclusie was simpel. De politie heeft geen privébedrijf ingehuurd om te spioneren en de informatie is ook niet bij de politie terechtgekomen. Het onderzoek van Jomini maakte in ieder geval duidelijk dat de politie wel degelijk op de hoogte was van de infiltratie. Tijdens de G8 top was er een speciale politie-eenheid die de informatiestromen coördineerde. Tijdens een bijeenkomst met het hoofd beveiliging van Nestlé is de politie ingelicht over de infiltratie van groepen die zich tegen de globalisering te weer stellen door Securitas AG. Volgens Jomini is de politie niet verteld over welke organisaties het precies gaat en over de infiltratie na de G8 wist de politie in het geheel niets. Of toch wel, want de DAP, dienst voor analyse en preventie van de politie, was op ‘Shanti’ gestoten en had Securitas AG op de vingers getikt. Of niet? Jomini schrijft in zijn rapport dat de politie de informatie over de infiltraties via de media moest vernemen. Dan blijft het wel vreemd dat Securitas AG na 2003 informatie over organisaties die kritisch staan tegenover globalisering aan de politie probeerde te verkopen. De politie ontkent dit weer niet. Volgens Securitas AG heeft zij in de herfst van 2005 de eenheid die verantwoordelijk is voor de infiltraties opgeheven. Deze beëindiging zou samenhangen met opmerkingen van de politie dat deze activiteiten niet behoren tot de taken van particuliere beveiligingsbedrijven.

En dan duikt plotseling in november 2008 de naam van een derde agente van Securitas AG op. ‘Le Matin Blue’, zoals haar schuilnaam luidt, zou ook in opdracht van Nestlé in Attac zijn geïnfiltreerd. Zij schreef rond de tien rapporten voor Securitas AG en Nestlé over Attac. Securitas AG weerspreekt het verhaal niet, maar verweert zich door te stellen dat de vrouw onder haar eigen naam aan openbare bijeenkomsten van de organisatie heeft deelgenomen. De derde infiltrant lijkt de publieke verontwaardiging te hebben aangewakkerd. Op 28 november 2008 ondertekenden 76 prominenten een manifest dat Nestlé en Securitas AG oproepen op te houden met het besnuffelen van mensen die gebruik maken van het recht op vrijheid van meningsuiting. De autoriteiten worden opgeroepen het Nestlé Securitas AG schandaal grondig te onderzoeken.

Find this story at 20 January 2009

Nestlé, the world’s largest food company, has been found guilty of spying on Swiss activists in 2003 with the help of Securitas, a private security company. Jean-Luc Genillard, president of the Lausanne civil court, told the two companies to pay 3,000 Swiss Francs ($3,267.55) to each of nine victims.

Vevey, Switzerland, based Nestlé sells $91 billion worth of products a year such as Nescafé coffee, KitKat chocolates and Maggi noodles. The company has frequently been criticized for marketing baby food in poor countries in violation of a 1981 World Health Organization code that regulates the advertising of breast milk substitutes. It has also come under fire from Greenpeace for using palm oil grown on deforested land in Borneo and buying cocoa beans from plantations that used child labor in Cote d’Ivoire in a film entitled “The Dark Side of Chocolate.”

In 2003, a group of activists with the Association pour la Taxation des Transactions pour l’Aide aux Citoyens (ATTAC) in Vaud, Switzerland, started working on a book on the global policies of Nestlé. A Securitas employee infiltrated the group under a false name (Sara Meyland) in order to attend the ATTAC meetings about the planned book.

In June 2008, Temps Présent, a Swiss TV program, revealed that the Securitas agent had briefed Nestlé security personnel as well as corporate communications staff about the meetings that she attended including ones held in private homes. Securitas also provided this information to the local police.

ATTAC members sued Nestlé after the news report was aired. “We are revolted by this practice, which overturns the principles of freedom of expression and basic democratic rights,” a press release from the group stated. “We condemn the role played by Securitas. This private security company, whose activities traditionally consist of guarding buildings and car parks, accepted a contract to spy on a group of people who in no way represented a threat or a danger, except for the fact that the results of their research activities could not be controlled by the transnational Nestlé.”

In recent years Nestlé has started to respond directly to some complaints of activist groups like Greenpeace, according to the Financial Times. “For a company like ours to prosper over the long term we have to create value for the communities in which we operate,” Janet Voûte, Nestlé’s global head of public affairs, told the newspaper. “And we fundamentally believe we cannot create shared value – not just for shareholders but for society – alone.”

Despite the new public relations strategy to contain activists, the company has been unable to quash the Vaud group. Although ATTAC dropped a criminal case against the two companies in 2009, it continued to press a civil claim in Lausanne courts which it dubbed “Nestlégate.”

“We are very satisfied that the civil court has now condemned NESTLE’s and SECURITAS AG’s spying activities,” ATTAC said in a press release issued after the judge ruled against the companies last week. “Nevertheless we’d like to point out that we are continuing to critically observe the worldwide activities of multinational corporations like NESTLE, especially concerning its hostile trade union policies and the excessive pumping of groundwater in different parts of the world.”

Nestlé reacted to the court ruling “with disappointment” although it added that “incitement to infiltration is against Nestlé’s corporate business principles.”

by Pratap Chatterjee, CorpWatch Blog
January 30th, 2013

Find this story at 30 January 2013

Press release issued by ATTAC Switzerland, 26 January 2013

(English translation provided by ATTAC Switzerland – click here for German version)

ATTAC Switzerland has taken notice with great satisfaction of the civil court’s president Jean-Luc Genillard’s decision of 25 January 2013 in the case «Nestlegate». The Court has convicted NESTLE and SECURITAS AG of spying activities directed at ATTAC. It has recognized that these parties conducted illegal infiltrations. The claimants have been entitled to a financial compensation, since their personal rights have been violated. NESTLE and SECURITAS AG have been ordered to pay a financial compensation of 3,000 Swiss francs (3,238 US dollars) per claimant (a total of 27,000 Swiss francs = 29,145 US dollars = 18,570 pounds sterling).

Both a criminal and a civil case were filed after Swiss television revealed on 12 June 2008 that an Attac workgroup in Canton Vaud, which was preparing a book on Nestle’s policies («Attac contre l’empire Nestle», 2004), had been infiltrated and spied on by a Securitas employee on behalf of Nestle. The woman had joined the Attac workgroup in 2003 under the false name of “Sara Meylan”, had attended private meetings (sometimes at the members’ homes), gathered confidential information and prepared detailed reports on the authors as well as on third parties for Nestle. On September 26th, 2008, Attac discovered and denounced to the examining magistrate another Securitas spy, who was still active in Attac in 2008 under her real name.

The criminal proceedings were dropped on July 29th, 2009. The investigating judge mainly relied on the statements made by Nestle and Securitas AG and found that the only infringement that may constitute an offense – a violation of the federal law of data protection – falls under the three-year statute of limitation. We regret the superficial investigation conducted during this criminal investigation, which Alec Feuz has well documented in his book « Affaire classée».

We are very satisfied that the civil court has now condemned NESTLE’s and SECURITAS AG’s spying activities. Nevertheless we’d like to point out that we are continuing to critically observe the worldwide activities of multinational corporations like NESTLE, especially concerning its hostile trade union policies and the excessive pumping of groundwater in different parts of the world.

Through a general increase of espionage and spying activities, basic democratic rights like the freedom of opinion, the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly are called into question. The activities of NGOs, trade unions and critical political organizations are limited by private corporations, which perceive non-violent campaigns and action from civil society as a threat to their commercial interests. These transnational corporations thus try to reduce basic democratic rights and often profit from the fact that the State turns a blind eye to these infringements.

It is important to be able to fight for a just and egalitarian society, to oppose injustice around the world by means of free and independent research into the dealings of transnational corporations, without being surveyed or spied on.

Find this story at 26 January 2013