AVT001 - AUD007 Victoria Derbyshire talks to Tarique Ghaffur and Guy Taylor about undercover police on the Victoria Derbyshire show, BBC Radio Five Live, 28 June 2013. ▪ ▪
Programme page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01by1t0 Audio source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE0dZ3VORao
Speakers: VD = Victoria Derbyshire TG = Tarique Ghaffur GT = Guy Taylor === VD: There are fresh claims this morning about the activities of undercover police officers, as almost 9,000 people reportedly described as ‘domestic extremists’ are being monitored by a special police unit. The figure has been obtained by The Guardian through a Freedom of Information request. The Metropolitan Police’s National Domestic Extremism Unit took over some of the work of the Special Demonstration Squad, which was disbanded in 2008. The unit uses undercover officers, paid informants and other surveillance techniques to monitor campaigners ranging from right wing groups like the English Defence League, animal rights protesters to anti-capitalist protesters and anti-war demonstrators. It’s work does not involve monitoring people in relation to terrorism. It’s not known whether activists on the database of this unit have a criminal record. On its website, the Association of Chief Police Officers says the aim of the unit is to reduce and potentially remove the threat, criminality and public disorder associated with domestic extremism in the UK. ACPO point out that unlike terrorism, which is defined in the UK by the Terrorism Act of 2000, it’s hard to define what we mean by domestic extremism, because the crimes committed by those considered domestic extremists already exist in law. ACPO says the term is generally used to describe the activity of individuals or groups carrying out criminal acts of direct action to further their protest campaign. Offences might range from blackmail and serious intimidation in the name of animal rights; bombing campaigns by violent and racist individuals associated with far rightwing groups; violent disorder from left wing or anarchist individuals; to large scale criminal damage against scientific GM crop trials. There is also mass aggravated trespass or unlawful obstruction of lawful businesses associated with the national infrastructure of the UK, like power stations or airports, by those whose stated aim is to stop any business perceived to harm the environment.
In a moment we’ll speak to someone who is on the database but first let’s speak to Tarique Ghaffur, who was an Assistant Commissioner at the Metropolitan Police between 2001 and 2008. You were in the Met when this unit was being set up, tell us why it was set up: TG: I think it was set up for quite legitimate reasons, I mean people remember that there were attacks on Huntingdon Life Science research project, threats, significantly to the scientists, so I, at that time, rather than just peaceful protest bordered into serious criminality, and some of it quite organised, so it’s often the case when there is a problem of that sort - and you’ve just summarised some of the work of this particular unit - a unit set up to look at and start to map out, in fact, in the first instance intelligence, and then prioritise and develop that intelligence into something more significant so that the cases then could be put before the Crown Prosecution Service in these matters. VD: And this figure of 9,000 people being monitored by it, first of all, what do you think of the figure of 9,000, and what might the Met mean by monitoring? TG: I think we shouldn’t get alarmed in the sense that in the first instance, there is no way the police service or any other agency has resources to actually, kind of, put 9,000 people on constant surveillance or to actually develop intelligence into evidence against them. What normally happens is that, you know, the first stage of any, any inquiry, any investigation, is that you collect, you know, who is actually involved in this particular activity, you create a database. You then start to look at how organised it is, and kind of map the hierarchy of these criminal groups are, who’s involved directly, and who’s, who’s actually funding it, you know, the fact that they have 9,000 names is to a professional like me, who kind of understands this particular aspect would not be a problem, and there is proper codified information in terms of what you can retain, under the law anyway. But then they would prioritise based on risk and threat, and direct action that takes place would be subject to what is called ‘significant evidence gathering’, so frankly, you know, to some, would say, ‘no, hang on, all these people…’ Well, I think that a lot of those people would be on a database, but I think there would be no significant activity around them. VD: What legislation would it work to, would it adhere to? You already alluded there to there are laws on what data can be, what kind of information can be kept on people… TG: I think there has to be, you know, limits to suspicion, in terms of people on whom you are collecting information and intelligence, and all of this properly, as ACPO mentioned, you know, and you’ve actually alluded to, they would, that is properly codified in what are called ‘operational manuals’, and frankly, you know, if there is no requirement, and there is no evidence against, or no suspicions against, the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which actually gives authorities for certain acts to be carried out, all those aspects, under those
legislations, would, would be very seriously looked at, and, and, if, if the people are not in any way engaged then there are, there are specific regulations that allow people to be expunged from those particular databases. VD: And the purpose of the unit is to prevent criminal activity taking place? To stop it before it happens? TG: Entirely, entirely to be honest, the purpose of the unit basically, you know, is to gather information, develop that information into intelligence, build that intelligence into evidence, and then if necessary to put together to, you know, prosecution files for the prosecuting of some those people who were engaging in some very, very serious and organised criminality, so the whole purpose is actually to make the communities, and make society safe, and frankly, you know, some of that work is quite painstaking, quite difficult, but to say, that you know, there would be 9,000 people on, you know, evidence would be built, and they would be kind of snooped on, etc, there simply isn’t the resources to actually do that, so it’s very much based on risks and threats and particular evidence that becomes available, that then needs to be scrutinised independently by the Crown Prosecution Service. VD: I know that you were an undercover officer back in the 1970s, what changes would you say you’ve seen over the last few decades, in terms of how undercover officers operate? TG: Well, let me say, what has come out in relation particularly to Doreen and the Stephen Lawrence family, really, is pretty serious and really, really outrageous, and I’m really pleased it is being looked at with the seriousness it actually deserves. Now, when I joined the police in 1970s, and I used to be an undercover officer where I used to buy stolen paintings and antiques, there were no rules governing - I was just plucked out from a group of officers to actually, you know, work with a policewoman who was an expert, to do this. But then, progressively, what I have seen is very very significant professionalisation, and to be honest every operation has to have an operational plan, there were minders behind them to make sure they acted within the law. And what seems to have gone wrong in recent revelations is quite clearly a very significant - or a small group of people who have acted completely against the procedures and to a certain extent against the laws. So I think my kind of plea is that there are many, many dozens of officers who work undercover who are extremely professional, who work under difficult circumstances, and often, you know, under danger, sacrificing themselves, and I think, you know, it would be entirely wrong to kind of tarnish the whole, the whole group of people who actually have put many, many good hours in making us all safe. And secondly this is a legitimate tactic, but has to be done within the law and the procedures, and that is why I think, you know, the examination of what terribly went wrong here, and the lessons that can be learned, has to be learned. VD: Let’s talk to Guy Taylor, who is from a group called Globalise Resistance, one of
those on the data base of this domestic extremist unit… GT: Hello. VD: Guy Taylor, you have the police file on you… GT: Yes. VD: You’ve read it. Describe it to us - describe the file and the kind of information it has on you. GT: Basically it’s six sides of A4 paper, with lists of various protests and meetings and different times I’ve been stopped and searched by the police listed. And, you know, it’s pretty descriptive. It’s erroneous in some parts - I mean, it says I’m at G20 protests a few years back, that I took a few photographs then left the protest, when in fact I was kettled until 11 o’clock that evening. So, a lot of the information is a bit wrong, and certainly, it goes between 2006 and 2011, but I know for a fact that I was being followed and, you know, monitored way before that, so it’s pretty incomplete. I asked for, in my Data Protection Act request, I asked for any photographs, videos or information they held on me, they didn’t provide any photographs at all. And so they hold a lot back, and give you what they think they can get away with, really. VD: And what do you think of this information that’s held on you? Apart from the fact that some of it you say is inaccurate? GT: I think it’s really intrusive, I mean, you know, it’s, it’s got me attending a Stop The War Coalition meeting in Camden, 2009 I think it was… I mean the Stop The War Coalition meetings, why are they monitored? Has the Stop The War Coalition ever had a violent protest? Have they, all these things the police officer beforehand was there describing, describing all this serious crime and what have you, doesn’t tally with what my experience. I’ve got one conviction, for painting a slogan on a builders’ hoardings once. And that’s all I’ve got. So why am I being monitored as such? Why is there such, as, you know, when we talk about animal rightists and all the rest of it, there’s very, very different tactics to what most protesters in the anti-capitalist movement or wherever, used, and I just think it’s, it’s the hallmark of quite a paranoid state, having to look at people who oppose them, but also, just goes into huge amounts of detail. It must be vastly expensive. And there was one instance in 2005 where I was followed around London from Whitehall to Oxford Circus to Euston to Bank to Liverpool Street to Brick Lane by two uniformed coppers. I was on first name terms with them by the end of it. You know, the expense of that, and all I was doing was going about my daily business. So I think it’s crazy idea to think this is justifiable. VD: And when you asked them why they were following you, what did they say?
GT: They said ‘we’re following you because we’ve been told to’. And basically we ended up doing the Guardian crossword together, we ended up… In fact I had a bit of difficulty crossing Bishopsgate, traffic was a bit heavy,and they actually stopped the traffic for me. So I mean, quite useful in that way, but… It was pointless, it was ridiculous, it was expensive, and, you know, it was completely unjustifiable in my view. VD: You have a file, that you have been able to gain access to, it doesn’t mean you are on this specific database of the National Domestic Extremist Unit. GT: Well, if there are nearly 9,000 people on it, I’d be surprised to find out if I wasn’t. Yes, I mean there isn’t that kind of information available, I don’t think. I mean I probably put in another Freedom of Information request to find out exactly which databases they hold this information on, so… I mean, as far as I am concerned, it’s all the same operation, and it’s very intrusive, and my privacy has been, you know, invaded quite horribly. VD: You took part in the May Day protests, the G20 May Day protests of 2009. A London office of the Royal Bank of Scotland was stormed, demonstrators chucked missiles and various things into the bank after certain clashes with the police; another HSBC branch also had windows broken. There were 63 arrests that day, some protesters were injured, some police were injured. Isn’t it right that the police monitor some of the people that were taking part in that that day, for example? GT: By that stage I think the police had been following me and monitoring me for at least seven years, maybe longer. I think if they had been paying attention they might have discovered that I wasn’t, I haven’t got the muscles to be violent on protests, it’s just not my style, it’s not what I’m interested in, and I don’t think it’s a particularly justifiable or even effective way of protesting, so I don’t, I never have entered into that type of activity, so maybe by that time they’d have cottoned on that I wasn’t that type of person, I don’t know, but they were still putting a lot of attention, a lot of time and money into following me. I can’t understand it. VD: So you argue that they got it wrong with you, there was no need for them to have any information on you at all, but when you… GT: Well, it’s more than that, Victoria, you know, 9,000 people… If there’s 9,000 dangerous, left-wing… VD: Nobody’s saying that though, are they? You heard what Tarique Ghaffur said, there are 9,000 names potentially - potentially - with some information. They can’t monitor 9,000 people. GT: There is 9,000 people in this database, 9,000 people who have their privacy invaded for, you know, I can only speak for my experience, but the fact is this is happening, and there isn’t much violence on protest to actually justify that amount of expenditure. VD: What ACPO say, which is ‘we are looking for, to prevent intimidation, blackmail,
bombing campaigns, violent and racist individuals, committing criminal damage, violent disorder, large scale criminal damage against scientific GM crop studies’ for example, is that not legitimate, to monitor people who might be looking to take part in those kind of criminal activities? GT: But that’s not who they monitor. You know, Mike Catt, the artist, the pensioner artist who went to protests to paint them, was on the database. People like myself are on the database. I mean, it’s, their information, we can tell, from what they’ve written about me in their own records is, you know, completely inadequate, it’s not the full shilling, and therefore in what way is this helping this? I mean there was one other thing, was, in 2000 and, I think it was 9 [2009], they had me down as attending the festival, the Glastonbury Festival, and organising a stall there. In what way is that going to help suss out blackmail, extortion, intimidation or any of the other crimes that you’ve listed. It may be a bit of drunkenness, or maybe a little bit of talking rubbish overnight one night and listening to music, but going to the Glastonbury Festival? How can anyone justify that kind of intrusion? === Transcript by BristleKRS from scratch, 2014; corrected February 2015.