There’s this big furore going on about the infiltrator in the environmental movement. Was this police officer a victim? Did he go ‘native’ as some reports say? Are the police spying on all fringe groups?
Well, I suspect they are but, to be honest, that’s not really important. After all, if this group had decided to blow up the power station and done so, then there would be questions as to why the police didn’t know about it beforehand – a little like the 7/7 bombings in London. They are in a no win situation. Damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
No, once again, the point about all this is in danger of being missed. Whilst the concentration is on the ‘rogue’ policeman (or should that be ex-policeman), Kennedy, the focus should really be on two things:
1. Whereas ‘spying’ on a group is one thing, being actively involved in the things they have done and actively encouraging them to do these things, by assistance or providing money or, even, taking part in their ‘actions’ is another thing entirely. This makes him (and by virtue of that, his bosses), equally liable to the charges they bring against the protesters – and yet none of them are in court. This is so wrong as to be almost evil. It makes this thing more of a police state.
2. When the lawyer asked for the video evidence which would permit the defendants to be obviously not guilty, the CPS decided that they could not proceed any further. Now, this video evidence existed when the police raided the school. This evidence existed when the people were charged. This evidence existed when the people were taken to court. And, this evidence was going to be kept secret. There is a right in the UK of presumed innocence until proven guilty. And, were it not for the evidence, they would have been tried and ‘proven’ guilty – with the police sitting on ‘evidence’ that meant that they were not guilty. It is one thing to find and present evidence so that a guilty person is punished. It is another thing when you have evidence to prove their innocence but you are prepared to ignore some evidence in order to ensure that an innocent person is punished. That results in a miscarriage of justice.
And all of this begs the question: this evidence was ‘found out’ by accident – how many other convictions are unsafe – and by unsafe, I mean that the evidence which would prove them innocent has been withheld to ensure conviction?
Which leads on to: are the police to be trusted?