Mark 'Stone/Kennedy' exposed as undercover police officer‏

This is a statement from a group of people who have considered Mark 'Stone' a friend for the last decade.

Mark 'Stone' has been an undercover police officer from 2000 to at least the end of 2009. We are unsure whether he is still a serving police officer or not. His real name is Mark Kennedy. Investigations into this identity revealed evidence that he has been a police officer, and a face-to-face confession has confirmed this. Mark claims that he left the police force in late 2009, and that before becoming an undercover officer he was a Metropolitan police constable.

Please pass this information on to anyone who may have been in contact with Mark in the last decade, both in the UK and abroad.

Original article, with comments: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/10/466477.html

AttachmentSize
466478.jpg73.96 KB
466479.jpg40.6 KB

Comments

Dealing responsibly with suspected informants (this article does

By somecommensenseleft

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.

Re: Mark 'Stone/Kennedy' exposed as undercover police officer‏

By Anonymous

 somecommensenseleft statements are obviously part of the debrief actions of Mark's organisation in an attempt to discover how Mark was outed (outed being part of their language!) and whether any other people such as Mark are at risk. Fabbri stick to your guns here do not buckile to pressure or threat's. We know they know Mark know's

Fabbri wrote:

As an editor, I can tell you all that I have had personal conformation that this is true.

Re: Mark 'Stone/Kennedy' exposed as undercover police officer‏

By Anonymous

In the future rather than outing these people, It might prove useful where concrete evidence has been gathered to authenticate their exact position and motivations to use them in a bid to feed false information back to their handlers!! or sending them on wild goose chases to the expense of their organisation.   

Fabbri wrote:

As an editor, I can tell you all that I have had personal conformation that this is true.

Re: Mark 'Stone/Kennedy' exposed as undercover police officer‏

By CH

Scotland-based activists are likely to have encountered Mark in 2004-5 at Dissent!-related anti-G8 activities. He was one of the main drivers getting infrastructure to the Stirling camp, with a nifty pick-up truck.

no concrete evidence - indymedia editors: please remove this art

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).

Do not remove

By Anonymous

Please do not go around telling people to hide this. We need to make sure people are aware of the facts. A confession has been given, calling this 'disinformation" is intentionally false.

Anonymous wrote:

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).

but

By Anonymous

I don't think this should be hidden. It's out there now. There does need to be more information about this, and more explanation of the evidence, and the confession. Anyone could write that he has made a confession to them. Mark told me yesterday that before becoming a cop he was a ballet dancer. And as well as being a cop he's a secret agent for Al Qaeda. See? I don't even know the guy but I could write what I want here.

The most important thing in this is showing respect and solidarity with the people who have been close to him, because if this is true, a lot of people will be incredibly hurt, personally. The effects on the movement will be difficult to deal with, the resulting fear and paranoia, people being reluctant to continue with direct action, losing trust in their comrades. But most importantly there are people who trusted this guy on a personal level. Within activist communities, we go through so much with people that relationships are so important to us. This guy had friends, lovers, and they are the most important people right now.

DO remove and do it quickly, please

By Anonymous

If this is the case, then get your act together - it shouldn't be hard. If people have done good and thorough research on this, then known groups will have been involved with that or will support it. Go publish a report about with one of those groups and on their website - unlike an anonymous indymedia posting that is a form of publication people can trust, cite and ask back. Second, if you think this information needs to get out so quickly that you can't wait another 24h necessary to write a useful report you should say so in the first report, and make especially sure that there will be no mistaking this first report for counter information or malicious intent by having it backed up by known and reachable groups and publishing it on a website without anonymous posting.  And you should come up with a back-up article that has some useful information damn quick.

If you are real (and you're not making it easy to believe you are), then what you are doing now is hurting radical activism in more than one sense. If your claims are true then the way you are going about this is not helping to remove a potentially dangerous individual from our structures because anyone can see that at the moment all of this is just a matter of "believe it or not". If you want people to believe something, join a religious movement. Otherwise, present facts and groups that can testify your research. Also, think: You want people to just believe you although you are providing absolutely nothing to substantiate your claims of having done good research. Now if everyone went about outings like this, no-one would be able to tell whose claims are genuine and whose are preposterous. That's why outings need to be transperent, based on evidence and be backed up by accountable groups.

Currently you are creating a precedent which, if copied by others, can be absolutely destructive for all radical movements. It has been in the past, it is in the present and it will be in the future.

Anonymous wrote:

Please do not go around telling people to hide this. We need to make sure people are aware of the facts. A confession has been given, calling this 'disinformation" is intentionally false.

 

Re: Mark 'Stone/Kennedy' exposed as undercover police officer‏

By A well known, well networked, trusted activist

I've been in touch with the people who posted this originally re: the "How to deal responsibly with outings" comment above, and they wished to add the following:

The points raised are valid concerns.

Sorry but those closely involved are not willing to take on dealing with enquiries - as you can imagine things are incredibly hard for them right now and they're just not up for reading through everyone's comments on the subject.

The situation here is unique as far as we know because Mark was outed while he was still embedded, and had been involved not just with one campaign or group but with networks of close friends on a personal level.  There's no rule book for this, and there's no one group who would have been the appropriate vehicle for verifying the research.

What happened was that someone close to Mark became suspicious.  They did a little research and became more suspicious.  They asked a friend to help, did further research together, and became even MORE suspicious.  Both people kept this incredibly quiet, they didn't even let their partners or closest friends know they were doing this, precisely to stop any unfounded rumours starting about someone before they were absolutely sure.  But all the evidence was stacking up in the same direction.  

A very small group of people together did enough research to gather overwhelming, incontrovertible, documented evidence.  Then six people confronted him and he confessed.

Sorry the evidence cannot be shared because it would put others at risk, but if you have doubts then try to contact Mark to ask him yourself.  All known phone numbers aren't working and his profile disappeared from Facebook early yesterday.  

Anyone and their granny could be made to look suspicious with circumstantial evidence.  Thorough research was done here in the most covert and sensitive way, leading to A CONFESSION from Mark.  This really is not rumour, much as we wish it was.

Others can help by passing on only ACCURATE information and avoiding speculation, which is what I'm trying to do here.

Hope this helps.

Re: Mark 'Stone/Kennedy' exposed as undercover police officer‏

By Fabbri

As an editor, I can tell you all that I have had personal conformation that this is true.

randomness