Police spies, sex and lies: report finds undercover tactics unjustified

Published

2 years ago

June 29, 2023

admin

An inquiry into undercover police operations into activist groups has concluded the deployments were unjustified and would have been “brought to a rapid end” if the public had known what was going on.

Retired judge Sir John Mitting, the inquiry’s chair, is examining the conduct of 139 undercover officers who spied on more than 1,000 mainly left-wing groups.

Male police spies were later found to have formed sexual relationships, and even fathered children, with female activists who were unaware of their true identity.

The Met has apologised for the “enormous distress that has been caused” and said undercover operations had gone through “radical reform”.

However, it refused to confirm or deny whether disruptive protest groups were still being infiltrated today.

The interim report published on Thursday looks at the period between 1968 when the Special Operations Squad (later renamed the Special Demonstration Squad) was formed, up until 1982.

It finds that some methods used, including the use of dead children’s identities “would have been bound to have given rise to legitimate public concern and to embarrassment to the commissioner and to his police authority – the home secretary”.

The report also states: “Long term deployments into political groups inevitably required the undercover officer, male or female, to befriend members of the target groups and to enter into their personal and political lives.

“Putting to one side the risk that sexual relationships might develop, this intrusion into the lives of many hundreds of people in this era required cogent justification before it should have been contemplated as a police tactic.”

Sir John says: “None of these issues appears to have been addressed by senior officers with the MPS (Metropolitan Police Service) or by Home Office officials during this period.”

He says a report in 1976 conducted by senior Met police officers into the operations concluded that the work of undercover officers was of “extreme importance” in helping to police public order functions.

However, he finds that issues around the methods used were not examined.

While it is clear the government knew about these operations, what doesn’t emerge from the report is who at the highest level knew and signed off the tactics that Sir John says would have led to them being shut down.

Undercover unit ‘would have been shut down’

Sir John says: “If these issues had been addressed, it is hard to see how any conclusion could legitimately have been reached which would not have resulted in the closure of the SDS (Special Demonstration Squad).”

The report accepts that long-term infiltration of political single-issue groups could be justified “if its purpose was to prevent or investigate serious crime, including terrorist activity”, and notes such groups existed during the Cold War-era and the ‘Troubles’ in Northern Ireland.

In this first phase of the report, mostly covering the 1970s, it suggests three groups fell into this category, two not identified to the public in ‘closed’ evidence and the other being “(Provisional) Sinn Fein”.

However, it finds “the great majority of deployments by the SDS in this period did not satisfy either criterion”.

The principal purpose of infiltrating left-wing and anarchist groups was to control public order.

Under the Heath government (1970-74) the main concern was industrial unrest, and under Callaghan (1976-79) it was the infiltration of trade unions by the Communist Party of Great Britain and of the Labour Party by Militant Tendency.

While the report finds undercover policing did “make a real contribution”, it finds the same thing could have been achieved by “less intrusive means”.

Campaigners will have to wait another three years before the full findings are published, extending over a much longer period, to at least 2010.

But speaking after the first tranche today, ‘Jessica’ – who was tricked into a sexual relationship – said in a statement that the report revealed that SDS officers had used “racist, offensive and sexist language”.

“[It] shows the contempt with which they held campaigners – they had no guardrails, whether reporting on children or making salacious comments on people’s sexual activities,” she said.

Dave Smith, a trade unionist who was spied on, said thousands of construction workers had been blacklisted by employers as a result of police infiltrating meetings and picket lines.

He said it showed more wrongdoing by the Met and that “anyone involved in genuine civic society – trade unionists, environmental campaigners, political parties, that are perfectly legal” were seen as a legitimate target for surveillance.

In his “work in progress”, inquiry chair Sir John states: “Some issues are better addressed when all of the evidence about them is in, notably the impact of the conduct of male police officers on women deceived into sexual relationships with them, and on the families of the officers;

“The impact on the surviving relatives of deceased children of the adoption of their identity; and the purpose of gathering intelligence on ‘justice’ campaigns.

“For the same reason, I have also refrained from expressing any general conclusions about the attitude of police officers and managers within the unit towards deceitful sexual relationships during deployments.”

Met admits ‘legacy of hurt’

This will be a disappointment to campaigners already frustrated at the delays in the inquiry – launched in 2015 by then home secretary Theresa May and originally expected to conclude in 2018.

At the launch of this interim report, journalists were told many of the concerns – such as the impact on women by the conduct of male officers and the tactic of using dead children’s names – become “bigger issues in later years”.

Met Police said the report acknowledged some undercover work had been valuable in preventing disorder and that most officers performed their duties “conscientiously and in the belief that what they were doing was lawful”.

However, it conceded a “legacy of hurt” had been caused by the “unacceptable and immoral behaviour” of some officers.

Commander Jon Savell said in a statement that he wanted to “reiterate the apologies made to women deceived by officers into sexual relationships, to the families of deceased children whose identities were used by officers, and to those who suffered a miscarriage of justice because of the actions of SDS officers”.

He said undercover policing had been transformed “with greater regulation, professional codes of practice, and judicial oversight” and “bears no relation” to the 1970s.

But when questioned by Sky News he repeatedly refused to say if infiltration operations are still being used today in regards to protest groups such as Extinction Rebellion.

Mr Savell insisted undercover work was a legitimate tactic that “protects people from crime”, adding: “I appreciate that people are going to want to know what is going on right now, but of course it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to confirm or deny exactly what is happening right now because it would compromise it.”

UK

Lingering dread over what else about Prince Andrew could still emerge

Published

4 hours ago

October 20, 2025

admin

Lingering dread over what else about Prince Andrew could still emerge

Just a cursory glance at the headlines, and it’s clear the disgrace and downfall of Prince Andrew is not over.

So what next for the man and the monarchy?

The King might have hoped his involvement showed direct action had been taken.

He certainly does not want any distraction from his upcoming state visit to the Vatican.

But that might be wishful thinking.

Now the Met Police has been dragged in too. Forced to look into reports in the Mail on Sunday that Andrew asked his protection officer to smear his accuser, Virginia Giuffre.

The prince allegedly wanted his officer “to dig up dirt” and told an aide at the palace what he had done.

Let’s be clear: back then, Andrew’s security was funded by the taxpayer.

So are we reaching the endgame, and what does that look like?

Andrew might have given up the use of his title, Duke of York, and other honours too.

But what about his style ‘prince’? Some want that ditched too.

It’s a complicated but not impossible process. Andrew could, of course, just stop using it voluntarily.

Some want him to give up his home, too. For a non-working royal, the stately Royal Lodge, with its plum position on the Windsor Estate, is an uncomfortable optic.

Andrew’s wider family is worried. The Sunday Times has reported that the Prince of Wales wants him cut off completely.

With the reputation of the monarchy at risk, William does not want to appear weak. He’s putting loyalty to “the firm” firmly above his familial relationships.

Prince Andrew has always strongly denied the allegations, and restated on Friday: “I vigorously deny the accusations against me”. Sky News has approached him for comment on the fresh allegations set out in the Mail on Sunday.

But with Virginia Giuffre’s tragic death and posthumous memoir due out on Tuesday, Buckingham Palace will be braced for more scandal.

When Andrew gave up his titles, there was certainly a sense of relief.

There is now a sense of dread over what else could emerge.

UK

Why Andrew hasn’t given up being a prince – amid call for him to ‘live in exile’

Published

4 hours ago

October 20, 2025

admin

Why Andrew hasn't given up being a prince - amid call for him to 'live in exile'

Sky News’ royal commentator has explained why Prince Andrew has not given up being called a prince – while another expert has said “the decent thing” for him to do would be “go into exile” overseas.

Andrew announced on Friday that he would stop using his Duke of York title and relinquish all other honours, including his role as a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.

However, he will continue to be known as a prince.

Royal commentator Alastair Bruce said that while Andrew’s other honours and titles were conferred to him later in life, he became a prince when he was born to Elizabeth II while she was queen.

He told presenter Kamali Melbourne: “I think […] that style was quite special to the late Queen,” he said. “And perhaps the King, for the moment, thinks that can be left alone.

“It’s a matter really for the King, for the royal household, perhaps with the guidance and advice of government, which I’m sure they are taking.”

Since Andrew’s announcement, there has been speculation over whether any further measures will be taken – and one author has now called for him to “go into exile”.

Andrew Lownie, author of The Rise And Fall Of The House Of York, said: “The only way the story will go away is if he leaves Royal Lodge, goes into exile abroad with his ex-wife, and is basically stripped of all his honours, including Prince Andrew.”

Royal Lodge is the Windsor mansion Andrew lives in with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, who has also lost her Duchess of York title.

Mr Lownie continued: “He makes out he’s an honourable man and he’s putting country and family first. Well, if he is, then the optics look terrible for the monarchy. A non-working royal in a 30-room Crown Estate property with a peppercorn rent.

“He should do the decent thing and go. And frankly, he should go into exile.”

Mr Lownie added if the Royal Family “genuinely want to cut links, they have to put pressure on him to voluntarily get out”.

Andrew’s decision to stop using his titles was announced amid renewed scrutiny of his relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and fresh stories linked to the late Virginia Giuffre.

Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein, alleged she was sexually assaulted by Andrew on three occasions – which he has always vigorously denied.

The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.

UK

Families whose loved ones took their lives after buying poison online write to PM

Published

4 hours ago

October 20, 2025

admin

Families whose loved ones took their lives after buying poison online write to PM

Bereaved families whose loved ones took their own lives after buying the same poison online have written to the prime minister demanding urgent action.

Warning: This article contains references to suicide

The group claims there have been “multiple missed opportunities” to shut down online forums that promote suicide and dangerous substances.

They warn that over 100 people have died after purchasing a particular poison in the last 10 years.

Among those who have written to Downing Street is Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah was 22 when she took her own life after buying the poison from a website.

Hannah was autistic and had ADHD. She was treated in six different mental health hospitals over a four-year period.

Mr Aitken recently spoke to Sky News around the second anniversary of Hannah’s death.

He said: “Autistic people seem to be most vulnerable to this kind of sort of poison and, you know, wanting to take their lives.”

Sky News is not naming the poison, but Hannah was able to buy a kilogram of it online. Just one gram is potentially fatal.

“There’s this disparity between the concentration required for its legitimate use and that required for ending your life. And it seems quite clear you could make a distinction,” Mr Aitken said.

Analysis from the Molly Rose Foundation and the group Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms says at least 133 people have died because of the poison. It also says coroners have written warnings about the substance on 65 separate occasions.

The report accuses the Home Office of failing to strengthen the regulation of the poison and says not enough is being done to close dangerous suicide forums online.

Lawyers representing the group want a public inquiry into the deaths.

In a joint letter to the prime minister, the families said: “We write as families whose loved ones were let down by a state that was too slow to respond to the threat.

“This series of failings requires a statutory response, not just to understand why our loved ones died but also to prevent more lives being lost in a similar way.”

The group’s lawyer, Merry Varney, from Leigh Day, said: “The government is rightly committed to preventing deaths through suicide, yet despite repeated warnings of the risks posed by an easily accessible substance, fatal in small quantities and essentially advertised on online forums, no meaningful steps have been taken.”

A government spokesperson said: “Suicide devastates families and we are unequivocal about the responsibilities online services have to keep people safe on their platforms.

“Under the Online Safety Act, services must take action to prevent users from accessing illegal suicide and self-harm content and ensure children are protected from harmful content that promotes it.

“If they fail to do so, they can expect to face robust enforcement, including substantial fines.”

They added that the position is “closely monitored and reportable under the Poisons Act, meaning retailers must alert authorities if they suspect it is being bought to cause harm”.

“We will continue to keep dangerous substances under review to ensure the right safeguards are in place,” they said.

Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.