« in fact, your kung-fu is pretty crap | Main | fun with empires »

January 10, 2011



Jamie, Wired thinks you're four foot deep (titter).


Or this one?

Chris Williams

There was a marvellous article on Stone/Kennedy in _Freedom_ a few months ago, written by someone claiming to have been at on the 'we thought he was a mate' table, as they twigged that they were next to the 'so you slept with him too' table.

Given the dates, I doubt that I met him, but I suspect I know several people who have, and I rather think he might have had something to do with some of them getting roadblocked on the way to Derby a couple of years ago, on a trip which, when they cut down the numbers, went off well.


Was this a case of the CP withholding evidence that would free the defendants, or the guy acting as an agent provocateur?

I have to confess that I'm a bit mystified by this. Everybody knows that the police do this, and while they shouldn't [cue analysis of the police role in the state], its not a huge secret. The police have been known to boast about it on occasion after all. Obviously the lawyer is trying to put pressure on the police, which is great. More power to him. But I don't really understand what the CPS is doing? What the hell are they trying to cover up? Was this an attempted fit up? Was he acting illegally?


ACPO has a domestic extremism unit? I am a little concerned, given ACPO is a private limited company, which I have observed giving out "ACPO approved" things to security items in catalogues. Can anyone see the obvious conflict of interest in having a private company running law and order issues across the spectrum?
It also habitually campaigns for more authoritarian approaches to things like detention without trial.
Looking at their statement of purpose, they're basically a national police future's organisation, but because they are a private company they aren't covered by freedom of information requirements, which means that I see no reason to trust them further than I can throw them.


"because they are a private company they aren't covered by freedom of information requirement"

Supposedly bringing this in is one of the more enlightened Coalition changes. However, we rather have to rely on Nick Clegg here.

Chris Williams

FoIing ACPO (practically, brigning it under Schedule 1 of the act), was a decision taken by the last lot, which ACPO had begun to implement before the election. Day job knowledge.


What, you mean things have changed for the better and nobody told us plebs?
That still leaves my concerns about incentives and bias when you have such a setup.

Chris Williams

I'm not sure if things have changed for the better or not, as yet. I do know that since early last year ACPO have been counting down to a date when they will be FOIable, and I think that if it's not already passed, that date will arrive by June. If not, then someone in the govt will have taken a positive step to stop them moving onto Schedule 1.

The comments to this entry are closed.

friends blogs


Blog powered by Typepad

my former home