4 ms·

this seemed a lot worse until the paragraf describing one of the infiltrated parties as "a Trotskyite party of a few thousand members that advocates the aboliti

this seemed a lot worse until the paragraf describing one of the infiltrated parties as "a Trotskyite party of a few thousand members that advocates the abolition of capitalism through revolutionary means" It doesn't seem entirely out of place for the police to infiltrate a group that openly instigates revolution. The article also goes into repeated occurrences of romance between undercover agents and members of the infiltrated organizations. sounds like pretty awkward family reunions.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
That's a handful of openly revolutionary groups vs hundreds of others whose only interest was legitimate protest. And the "romance" was deliberate misrepresentation of sexual interest for political purposes.
vidarh 8y ago
They've infiltrated the SWP for nearly 40 years and yet have found no evidence of the organisation itself pushing violence or other crimes. It doesn't seem entirely out of place to keep an eye on them. It does seem a bit odd to consider there to be a need to infiltrate them continuously for ~40 years when neither your infiltration or their actions shows evidence they're a threat. You'd think after a couple of years they'd scale things back. Keep an eye, maybe check in on them if they see worrying signs. It's the amount of resources put into tiny, mostly ineffectual, fringe groups that is most staggering. I mean, in a way these groups should be flattered that they were taken so much more seriously than their activity would suggest.
- Joeboy 8y ago
  Actually though, the SWP isn't a tiny ineffectual fringe group. They (or their satellite organizations) been key organizers of pretty much every big lefty demo for the last 2-3 decades. Back when I was more involved with this sort of thing, we used to find the SWP's enthusiasm for appropriating other people's issues quite annoying. This is why I find the extent of police involvement in the SWP rather startling.
  - vidarh 8y ago
    They were good at making noise and hijacking attention and demonstrations. But they were still tiny, and they're tinier by far now (as for 2014, some ex-members estimated there was a core of 200 or so left, after the Comrade Delta mess caused multiple splits). And they achieved very little: As you point out they were enthusiastically appropriating other peoples issues. They rarely did much of any consequence on their own.
    - Joeboy 8y ago
      They have / had tentacles in lots of lefty causes, which I would speculate is what made them interesting to the police. I think they largely managed this by being fairly well resourced and organized, notably they organized transport to demos for huge numbers of people. I haven't really kept up with the gossip recently though. I imagine things like the recent Stop Trump demo had a lot of input from SWP or former-SWP people, but I don't really know who organizes what these days.
- vkou 8y ago
  > It doesn't seem entirely out of place to keep an eye on them. Should the police also infiltrate the Labour party? The Republican party in the United States? Just to, you know, make sure that they aren't doing anything improper. Keep an eye on them.
  - vidarh 8y ago
    Neither of those groups as a matter official policy want to overthrow the current government. Even if one believe the current government deserves to be overthrown, it seems relatively normal to keep an eye on them. Note that what I would consider an appropriate level of keeping eye on them would be to pay attention to their pamphlets, occasionally send someone to a meeting, reading up on who is who to make sure you know if something is changing. I think infiltrating them for decades was just a ridiculously over the top.
    - vkou 8y ago
      Is the official policy of all the groups that were spied upon 'the overthrow of the current government through violent means'? Some of them, surely, but all of them? If not, then filling them with fifth columnists hardly seems proper.
      - vidarh 8y ago
        I was specifically addressing the SWP. I absolutely agree with you that for many (and maybe the vast majority) of the others, it probably was much less justified.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > They've infiltrated the SWP for nearly 40 years and yet have found no evidence of the organisation itself pushing violence or other crimes. How do we know that they haven't found evidence? EDIT: I should have RTFA more carefully.
  - vidarh 8y ago
    Because a Scotland Yard assessment have said so, combined with the fact the organisation remains legal and no members have been arrested for anything related to the SWP. Of course they could be lying, and have left a dangerous organisation continue operating, but that seems rather more far fetched to me.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

That's a handful of openly revolutionary groups vs hundreds of others whose only interest was legitimate protest. And the "romance" was deliberate misrepresentation of sexual interest for political purposes.

vidarh 8y ago

They've infiltrated the SWP for nearly 40 years and yet have found no evidence of the organisation itself pushing violence or other crimes. It doesn't seem entirely out of place to keep an eye on them. It does seem a bit odd to consider there to be a need to infiltrate them continuously for ~40 years when neither your infiltration or their actions shows evidence they're a threat. You'd think after a couple of years they'd scale things back. Keep an eye, maybe check in on them if they see worrying signs. It's the amount of resources put into tiny, mostly ineffectual, fringe groups that is most staggering. I mean, in a way these groups should be flattered that they were taken so much more seriously than their activity would suggest.

Joeboy 8y ago
Actually though, the SWP isn't a tiny ineffectual fringe group. They (or their satellite organizations) been key organizers of pretty much every big lefty demo for the last 2-3 decades. Back when I was more involved with this sort of thing, we used to find the SWP's enthusiasm for appropriating other people's issues quite annoying. This is why I find the extent of police involvement in the SWP rather startling.
- vidarh 8y ago
  They were good at making noise and hijacking attention and demonstrations. But they were still tiny, and they're tinier by far now (as for 2014, some ex-members estimated there was a core of 200 or so left, after the Comrade Delta mess caused multiple splits). And they achieved very little: As you point out they were enthusiastically appropriating other peoples issues. They rarely did much of any consequence on their own.
  - Joeboy 8y ago
    They have / had tentacles in lots of lefty causes, which I would speculate is what made them interesting to the police. I think they largely managed this by being fairly well resourced and organized, notably they organized transport to demos for huge numbers of people. I haven't really kept up with the gossip recently though. I imagine things like the recent Stop Trump demo had a lot of input from SWP or former-SWP people, but I don't really know who organizes what these days.
vkou 8y ago
> It doesn't seem entirely out of place to keep an eye on them. Should the police also infiltrate the Labour party? The Republican party in the United States? Just to, you know, make sure that they aren't doing anything improper. Keep an eye on them.
- vidarh 8y ago
  Neither of those groups as a matter official policy want to overthrow the current government. Even if one believe the current government deserves to be overthrown, it seems relatively normal to keep an eye on them. Note that what I would consider an appropriate level of keeping eye on them would be to pay attention to their pamphlets, occasionally send someone to a meeting, reading up on who is who to make sure you know if something is changing. I think infiltrating them for decades was just a ridiculously over the top.
  - vkou 8y ago
    Is the official policy of all the groups that were spied upon 'the overthrow of the current government through violent means'? Some of them, surely, but all of them? If not, then filling them with fifth columnists hardly seems proper.
    - vidarh 8y ago
      I was specifically addressing the SWP. I absolutely agree with you that for many (and maybe the vast majority) of the others, it probably was much less justified.
forapurpose 8y ago
> They've infiltrated the SWP for nearly 40 years and yet have found no evidence of the organisation itself pushing violence or other crimes. How do we know that they haven't found evidence? EDIT: I should have RTFA more carefully.
- vidarh 8y ago
  Because a Scotland Yard assessment have said so, combined with the fact the organisation remains legal and no members have been arrested for anything related to the SWP. Of course they could be lying, and have left a dangerous organisation continue operating, but that seems rather more far fetched to me.