Mark 'Stone/Kennedy' exposed as undercover police

Published: October 21, 2010 20:57 by friend

comments and ongoing discussion at https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/10/466477.html

Published: October 22, 2010 10:16 by somecommonsenseleft

I can not tell whether the above article is spreading news or rumours. What I can tell is that if the claims made here are true then the whole approach of the article doesn't serve the cause of spreading reliable and important information about informants within our movements. Whereas if it's just an attempt to spread rumors about an activist then it's quite easy to see through - which makes it hard for me to understand why it is highlighted on the first page. This is anything but a thoughtful or responsible outing. There has been a long history of counter information tactics directed against radical movements and designed to discredit and divide people and structures. Therefore, any group with even the slightest bit of experience or reflection on the issue of outings will at least make sure to heed the following points:

- If you are suspecting someone of being an informant you have a responsibility (for the structures that person is in but also for the person itself and the effect false rumors can have on that persons activism and life) to start some serious research to either substantiate or dispel that suspicion.
- If you find your suspicions substantiated by your research you should make the facts public in order to protect radical movements and stop the person in question from causing more harm.
- Although it may not be possible or desirable to publish all the information you have about an informant or how you managed to collect information about him/her, you should be going to great length to make it transparent to others that your claims are based on facts. Don't expect people to just believe you. If we just believe and spread any claims we are making it very easy for state agencies to manipulate and damage our activities and tructures.
- An outing should be published or supported by a known group that can be contacted and held accountable for the published claims or asked questions. If you are not a known or open group yourself go find one to support your outing (if your research was any good, then this shouldn't be difficult since all radical groups have a self-interest in stopping informants. If you don't know any known or open groups then local antirepression groups are a good place to start. They can also give you advice on dealing with suspicions and doing responsible research). Of course, any supporting group needs to check the research they are asked to support and not just embrace it because the people that made it seem genuine at first glance.
- As in any useful report, make sure you answer the Five W's - Who? (Who was involved?), What? (What happened (what's the story))? Where? (Where did it take place?), When? (When did it take place?), Why? (Why did it happen?), How? (How did it happen?).

Ofcourse anyone reading an outing also has a responsibility. So, if the supposed outing basically says "This sucker is an informant. We know. We won't tell you who we are or how to get in touch. We just know, trust us, believe us. Here's some photos. Go spread the word. Trust us. We are in control." you should NOT spread this, rather help to make sure that everyone in our movements understands why it is irresponsible and damaging to spread claims that have not been substantiated.

That also goes for indymedia editors. Ok, so anyone can post on indy and that's good. What I don't understand is why the indymedia uk team decided to put this on the promoted newswire, even highlighting it. People, please learn to act responsibly - don't just rush and promote any information that may seem urgent because you might find yourself spreading disinformation designed to destroy people or movements. Or, if the indy team has reliable information that this article is based on facts rather than suspicions or sheer libel, then please go and help the authors write a useful piece of news about it.
The way it is this posting should be removed both from the promoted and from the open newswire because it may be a serious attempt to effectively destroy a persons life and activity.

Published: October 22, 2010 12:26 by anonymous

Please notice that Bristol indymedia removed these articles from their website and instead published the following statement:

<quote>
Article regarding undercover policeman

The recent article regarding a certain individual being an undercover policeman has been removed due to at present their being no concrete factual evidence to support this claim.

Please do not repost this article.
</quote>
Source: http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/696056

I believe all indymedia portals should do the same and anyone who helped distribute this disinformation should stop and think before they help to spread rumors next time. Otherwise you might find yourself doing the police's work yourself - without even getting paid for it (see http://shawnewald.info/aia/sec_cointelpro.html for an overview of typical police counter intelligence tactics to spread rumors, divide and destroy radical activists and movements).

Published: October 22, 2010 13:06 by Stroppyoldgit

You should read what has been published properly. He has not been accused of being an "informant". No doubt we have those in our midst, and that is a different problem. In such cases, the facts are often much harder to establish.

In this case, it has been established that he WAS A SERVING POLICE OFFICER at least up to last year, and he may still be. His real identity has been uncovered and HE HAS ADMITTED THE ESSENTIAL FACTS. He has been active in our circles, whilst a police officer, for at least nine out of the last ten years.

What more do you want?

Published: October 22, 2010 13:34 by anonymous

@stroppyoldgit: What is needed here (and in every case of this kind) is pretty straightforward: to stop just anyone from going around and making claims which may be true or may be false, movements need accountable and reachable groups to support any evidence that has been brought up by research and research should be as transparent as posible. And they need information to be published in trustworthy publications and not in an open forum like indymedia where anyone can publish anonymously.

Published: October 22, 2010 16:34 by An IMCer

Nottingham IMC are convinced that this is not a malicious rumour but is in fact the truth. We have heard first hand reports from some of those who confronted Mark. That is why our collective has published a feature confirming the allegations.

Transparency and accountability are certainly good things to aim, for but in this case the precise evidence could not be made public. We hope that people who are genuinely worried that this is an unsubstantiated rumour will have an appreciation of why this might be the case. Those who are trying to spread further mistrust and fish for details are going to have to remain disappointed.

Published: October 23, 2010 17:41 by somebody

Following a meeting at the anarchist bookfair where the evidence was explained and discussed in detail the following groups are convinced enough to endorse the original statement regarding Mark Stone/Kenndy

scottish activist legal project
now or never
nottingham indymedia
anarchist teapot
NETCU watch www.netcu.wordpress.com
Activist security.org
CEntral Animal Liberation Intelligence Unit
Veggies
uk actionmedics

Published: October 29, 2010 01:15 by commonsense

Thanks to everyone who made the effort of checking and validating the above information, organising the meeting at the @bookfair and finding known groups to check and support the outing, thus putting an end to the uncertainty and uneasyness some of us like myself felt after the first publication.

Sadly, many of us will be confronted with having to deal with informers or undercover cops at some stage in their life and activism. Therefore, here is a slightly revised version of the tips for groups and individuals in the sad situation of having to deal with outings (originally published earlier in this thread of comments):

There has been a long history of counter information tactics directed against radical movements and designed to discredit and divide people and structures. Therefore groups that have to deal with outings should make sure to heed the following points:

- If you are suspecting someone of being an informant you have a responsibility (for the structures that person is in but also for the person itself and the effect false rumors can have on that persons activism and life) to start some serious research to either substantiate or dispel that suspicion.
- If you find your suspicions substantiated by your research you should make the facts public in order to protect radical movements and stop the person in question from causing more harm.
- Although it may not be possible or desirable to publish all the information you have about an informant or how you managed to collect information about him/her, you should be going to great length to make it transparent to others that your claims are based on facts. Don't expect people to just believe you. If we just believe and spread any claims then we are making it very easy for state agencies to manipulate and damage our activities and structures.
- An outing should be published or supported by a known group that can be contacted and held accountable for the published claims or asked questions. If you are not a known or open group yourself go find one to support your outing (if your research was good, then this shouldn't be difficult since all radical groups have a self-interest in stopping informants. If you don't know any known or open groups then local antirepression groups are a good place to start. They can also give you advice on dealing with suspicions and doing responsible research). Of course, any supporting group needs to check the research they are asked to support and not just embrace it because the people that made it seem genuine or are friends.
- As in any useful report, make sure you answer the Five W's - Who? (Who was involved?), What? (What happened (what's the story))? Where? (Where did it take place?), When? (When did it take place?), Why? (Why did it happen?), How? (How did it happen?). Or, if for some reason (i.e. security of those doing the research) you can not answer some of these questions, include a comment on why this is so.
- Take some time to think about where to publish an article outing an informant first. Certainly, a medium where anyone can publish anonymously such as indymedia is not a good choice, because no-one will be able to tell immediately if any claims made concerning identity, group or organisational affiliations of the authors are true and therefore whether one can trust that claims made in the article have been well researched and checked. Choose a publication with an editorial process or publish in co-operation with a well-known group i.e. on their website. This way people will have much less cause to speculate whether what they are reading is real or fake. Once an outing has been published by a reliable and accountable source, it can be spread via channels that have a larger readership such as indymedia quoting the original statement.

Ofcourse anyone reading or hearing about an outing also has a responsibility. So, if the supposed outing is anonymous and basically says "This sucker is an informant. We know. We won't tell you who we are or how to get in touch. We just know, trust us, believe us. Here's some photos. Go spread the word. And the photos. Trust us. We are in control." you should NOT spread this, rather help to make sure that everyone in our movements understands why it is irresponsible and damaging to spread claims that have not been substantiated or well sourced. Or, if you do know the information to be true, help those publishing it to spread it in a manner that is more safe from manipulation.