Galloway Names police Agent Provocatuer

#1
Crap, can't believe I'm going to have to link to the websites of these two organisations:

Subsequent to Yasmin Whittaker-Khan's report in the Mail last weekend that a senior police officer in plain clothes was inciting the crowd to violence against the police at a demonstration against George Bush's visit to London, George Galloway has now named the officer as Police Inspector Chris Dreyfus in a letter to the Home Secretary, asking that she 'get to the heart of the matter'.

Pay_Mistri
 
#3
Astonishing stuff. I'm (genuflect, genuflect) with Galloway on this. Inquiry, heads roll etc.
 
#4
Heads like Sir Ian Blair's, perhaps?

It'd be remarkable, but entirely typical of Blair's increasingly hopeless tenure as Commissioner for his tenure to be brought to an early conclusion because his force's use of an agent provocateur was exposed by the Daily Mail's womens' page columnist...

While I would only urinate on a recently-ignited Galloway if my bladder were full of petrol, I also find myself sympathising with him if the allegations are correct. It is the Mail, after all, and with a reporter who apparently isn't trusted to do the news side of the paper (although, it being the Mail, she might be mistrusted because her copy is accurate).
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#6
thegimp said:
Links ???
Um....the blue words in P_M's post?

They're under 'report' and 'letter' if your monitor is playing up.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
As much as I hate the blerk, I actually hate him less than the rest of the Zanu NL cabinet and Broooooooooooon.

Amazing! I amaze myself that I can actually feel more strongly about the gobment than I do about this raving loon and pussycat extraordinair!

As for the gay police inspector - that would rather suggest either a terribly poor choice on his part, or a deliberate attempt to turn a normal protest into a violent news story that we can all get angry about.

I would suggest that the protesters at such events henceforth video and photograph EVERYONE who is inciting or actually engaged in violent and criminal behaviour. This way, after the event, provocateurs can be recognised, and if needs be, arrested by their own.
 
#8
Ditto Biped

i do wish to see that the allegations are both fully substantiated and brought too the public domain, as as much as i dispise zanu there must be a full open investigation to ensure it was definately the workings of Agent provocateur and not just a individual retarded douchbag.

Either way! Be interested to see how the stasi bliar is going to extricate both the Met and himself out of another political cluster...
 
#9
Only good can come of this. If the Mail and Galloway are right, Sir Ian Blair faces a very tough time. If they have made a mistake, huge libel cases all round, with Galloway and the Mail to pay.
 
#11
This smells like bullsh*t to me. What would the Met have to gain by inciting the crowd? If they did want to incite violence how would one officer chanting "kill the pigs" make that happen?

If any UK Police force tried this they are guaranteed to get themselves caught. Their own evidence gathering teams will have filmed it and their film cannot be altered or destroyed so any enquiry will catch them out with their own film.

Sounds to me like the organisers are embarrassed by the disorder and are trying to move the blame.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#12
I’m not so sure. Galloway is no stranger to the field of litigation and must be very aware of the law.

He’s actually named the person, with all the career stopping potential that entails, so I suspect he must be very sure indeed of his facts.
 
#13
How strange. I actually find myself really wanting this to be proved true and to see it kick off country-wide rioting and civil disobedience. Then, after a few heads have been spiked, we can blame the Police for provoking it. :clap:
 
#14
LEGZ30 said:
This smells like bullsh*t to me. What would the Met have to gain by inciting the crowd?
Perhaps to undermine the credibility of the protestors? The clue is in the title to the thread - 'agent-provocatuer' (its not just the name of an underwear retailer).

If they did want to incite violence how would one officer chanting "kill the pigs" make that happen?
Er, because chanting "kill the pigs" IS inciting violence, whether or not any of the other protestors actually become violent. And of course Galloway has additionally claimed that the police inspector showed a young protestor how to dismantle a crush barrier, which was subsequently thrown at police.

If any UK Police force tried this they are guaranteed to get themselves caught.
Really? How so?

Their own evidence gathering teams will have filmed it and their film cannot be altered or destroyed so any enquiry will catch them out with their own film.
But why should they attempt to catch their own agent-provocatuer?

Sounds to me like the organisers are embarrassed by the disorder and are trying to move the blame.
You might well be right, but much as I dislike Gorgeous George, he is not in the habit of making such strong claims when they can be easily disproved - note his insistence that the police inspector was stood right next to him for a long period, during which he also claims the inspector committed criminal offences.

Put it another way - since the Met have been caught telling porkies about so many other 'incidents', why should people not believe this of them?

As Slim_Shandy points out, this is a win-win situation. I see four possible scenarios:

(a) Galloways allegations are shown to have substance - the Met gets a public boot *********** and these sort of shenanigans are curtailed (and maybe, just maybe, the Home Sec and Sir Ian Blair have to fall on their swords).

(b) Galloway is wrong and has to make a humiliating retraction, or is sued by said officer (no parliamentary privelige, since this was not said in the house)

(c) The police inspector was acting on his own and is suspended and/or prosecuted for his actions

(d) The police inspector was acting under orders, but is hung out to dry by his masters - likely scandal all round.

Hardly hobsons choice, is it?

Pay_Mistri
 
#15
Pay_Mistri said:
LEGZ30 said:
This smells like bullsh*t to me. What would the Met have to gain by inciting the crowd?
Perhaps to undermine the credibility of the protestors? The clue is in the title to the thread - 'agent-provocatuer' (its not just the name of an underwear retailer).

and why would the Met care about the credibility of the protestors? The first thing you should look at when there is an allegation of a crime is what is the motive and I don't see one

If they did want to incite violence how would one officer chanting "kill the pigs" make that happen?
Er, because chanting "kill the pigs" IS inciting violence, whether or not any of the other protestors actually become violent. And of course Galloway has additionally claimed that the police inspector showed a young protestor how to dismantle a crush barrier, which was subsequently thrown at police.

Try looking at some of the footage on youtube. Protestors were quite happily pulling at the barriers and hitting the officers with placards. Don't think that was started by a lone officer chanting "kill the pigs"

If any UK Police force tried this they are guaranteed to get themselves caught.
Really? How so? Apart from the fact that any officers on the recieving end of the violence will either shop him or take the story to the press there are hundreds of cameras filming it from the media, the protestors and the Police. You couldn't hope to get away with it.

Their own evidence gathering teams will have filmed it and their film cannot be altered or destroyed so any enquiry will catch them out with their own film.
[But why should they attempt to catch their own agent-provocatuer? Do you really expect me to believe that every officer on duty that day knew one of their own was in the crowd inciting violence against them and they are all going to keep their mouths shut. EGT footage is treated as evidence. Any attempt to destroy it or alter it is going to be a crime
 
#18
theres enough idiots about not to bother with agent provocateurs so the met should have to explain wtf were they thinking.
if proved blair should go :evil:
we still just about have the right to call the guberment what we like and protest if we like.
50 coppers at night taking on a mad dirty tramp out side the house of commons is not living in a free country :roll:
 
#19
LEGZ30 said:
This smells like bullsh*t to me. What would the Met have to gain by inciting the crowd? If they did want to incite violence how would one officer chanting "kill the pigs" make that happen?

If any UK Police force tried this they are guaranteed to get themselves caught. Their own evidence gathering teams will have filmed it and their film cannot be altered or destroyed so any enquiry will catch them out with their own film.

Sounds to me like the organisers are embarrassed by the disorder and are trying to move the blame.
They might have wanted to rouse the rabble so that they can disperse the crowd early and go home for tea? Or as an insurance policy - If they did go in mob-handed for whatever reason, they can point to people who have been behaving violently.

Or, more plausibly, to get a few easy arrests to make up the numbers.
 
#20
LEGZ30 said:
Pay_Mistri said:
LEGZ30 said:
This smells like bullsh*t to me. What would the Met have to gain by inciting the crowd?
Perhaps to undermine the credibility of the protestors? The clue is in the title to the thread - 'agent-provocatuer' (its not just the name of an underwear retailer).

and why would the Met care about the credibility of the protestors? The first thing you should look at when there is an allegation of a crime is what is the motive and I don't see one

If they did want to incite violence how would one officer chanting "kill the pigs" make that happen?
Er, because chanting "kill the pigs" IS inciting violence, whether or not any of the other protestors actually become violent. And of course Galloway has additionally claimed that the police inspector showed a young protestor how to dismantle a crush barrier, which was subsequently thrown at police.

Try looking at some of the footage on youtube. Protestors were quite happily pulling at the barriers and hitting the officers with placards. Don't think that was started by a lone officer chanting "kill the pigs"

If any UK Police force tried this they are guaranteed to get themselves caught.
Really? How so? Apart from the fact that any officers on the recieving end of the violence will either shop him or take the story to the press there are hundreds of cameras filming it from the media, the protestors and the Police. You couldn't hope to get away with it.

Their own evidence gathering teams will have filmed it and their film cannot be altered or destroyed so any enquiry will catch them out with their own film.
[But why should they attempt to catch their own agent-provocatuer? Do you really expect me to believe that every officer on duty that day knew one of their own was in the crowd inciting violence against them and they are all going to keep their mouths shut. EGT footage is treated as evidence. Any attempt to destroy it or alter it is going to be a crime
That is a short sighted way of looking at things. The worse the protestors look at, the easier a time the police have if they eventually decide to 'engage' the protestors.

As well, the reports say he did more than incite violence. He was reported to have showed and encouraged some protestors how to undo the barriers. In anyway, crowds behaves quite irrationally at the best of times. Chanting "kill the pigs" cost nothing but could potentially reap huge dividends for the agent provocateur.

Your last point is interesting...do Coppers always follow proper procedure these days....
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
geezer466 The NAAFI Bar 16
samain11 The NAAFI Bar 78
C The NAAFI Bar 368

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top