Sandra lived in a shared house in Paddington, back in 1971, and said she was studying at the University of London. She liked to wear jeans but no make-up and would spend many evenings at political meetings where the talk was all about building a patriarchy-free society.
The trouble is ‘Sandra’ wasn’t a student. She was a police spy who had been sent to gather information about the Women’s Liberation Movement. Sandra wasn’t even her name. One of her key targets, Diane Langford, now 79-years-old, has only now spoken publicly about how she was watched by at least six undercover cops who were part of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) formed after protests against the Vietnam war at Grosvenor Square in 1968.
SDS were set up to gather intelligence about groups that were organising public protest — ostensibly to assist with the more effective policing of such protest. But as evidence emerges it seems they served a wider purpose, gathering intelligence and potentially disrupting the activities of anyone who might be regarded as a subversive.
The way male police officers inveigled their way into protest groups was exploitative and callous: the gravest possible interference with their targets’ private lives. The officers posed as fellow activists with a lifelong commitment to whichever cause the groups were pursuing, with many forming intimate sexual relationships with the women, meeting family members and, in two known cases, even having children with the women they were spying on. In some cases the undercover officers had wives and families to return to on their days off.
It seems extraordinary that the authorities were so worried about the risk women posed to national security that they sent spies to gather information from children’s Christmas parties and jumble sales. But it would seem that this indeed was the case.
The scandal of police spy abuse broke ten years ago, when the Met tried to explain away the Mark Stone affair as the action of a lone rogue officer – he had been spying on a woman in the climate change movement who became his lover. His conduct was described by the Met as unacceptable. However, the uncovering and naming of Mark Kennedy encouraged more women who had been targeted to come forward. The overriding feeling was that the surveillance had come close to abuse. The collective battle by these women put the lie to the rogue officer theory and laid the foundations for an allegation of institutionalised sexism.
The Sarah Everard case and the ensuing public outcry about the misogyny within the police force is but one example of the failure of police to get rid of locker room culture. Last year, the Centre for Women’s Justice (CWJ) filed a super-complaint to the Police Inspectorate highlighting systemic failures women are experiencing when reporting domestic abuse perpetrated by police officers and others employed by the police.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI come here for articles by journalists, not by activists pretending to be journalists – if I wanted that I’d go to The Guardian.
When I see an article by Julie Bindel I go straight to the comments section – at least they’re generally interesting.
Why do you always think just in terms of women? You simply don’t see men as human at all do you? I don’t know whether these police were out of order or the security services, probably, but to be honest I get that someone with extreme opinions who dehumanises half of humanity would be considered a potentially genocidal threat to that half of humanity and worth keeping a close eye on.
Well said.
I have more sympathy for the undercover officers who had to form relationships with women they normally wouldn’t touch with a bargepole, as part of their job description. And for their wives, families, real-life girlfriends who had to put up with it.
???
Since when is it OK to flourbomb the public?
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/05/05/where-is-the-outrage-over-julia-james-murder/
Does anyone have a link to Ms Bindel expressing even a single word of concern or sympathy about the murder of PCSO James, who worked in the domestic violence unit of Kent police?
I will apologise should this be the case.
Bindel probablt doesn’t consider PcSO james be the right sort of woman.
Yes it’s reminiscent of “Black Lives Matter (unless they’re shot or about to be stabbed by another person of colour)”.
All about the message hence this article harps back to events of nearly 50 years ago while ignoring a murder which took place within the last two weeks.
All lives matter be they black, white, feminist or PCSO. There’s nothing wrong in believing or saying it.
Exactly.
Although she did write an Unherd article excusing serial killer Aileen Wuornos, & trying to frame her as a victim of men
I’m not surprised
Whataboutery. Why not focus on the actual issue.
Yes, why not. The issue of state spying. Period. Perhaps you could ask that same question of the author.
Wow. What a disconnect between the headline and sub-head. Are men immune to the abuses of state spying? Seriously? This incessant need to first identity by group status is a societal poison.
You must have not got the memo. Men no longer count.
No mention of the female police officer killed on a walk, in Kent, ms Bindels priorities show up once again.
Great caption photograph. The Sergeant leading from the front, proper stuff. Not a gun or water cannon in sight.
Those were the days! Dixon of Dock Green at his best.
It total contrast to today, where our and for that matters the US Riot Police resemble the Waffen-SS
the Waffen SS would not have tolerated the billions in damage or the dozens of deaths that resulted from the rioting.
They also did not tolerate lots of American, British, Canadian and Soviet POWs they captured, preferring to kill them instead. Then there were “pacification” campaigns…
The body armor and other personal protective equipment is worn to help make sure that the cops can go home in one piece at the end of their tours. If you are having nightly scrums with Antifa, you either gear up or get beat up; sometimes both.
I fully agree, however it is striking how the steel helmet (or whatever it is made of today) resembles the ‘coal scuttle’ helmet of the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS don’t you think?
Because she isn’t actually interested in any of that investigative journalism guff.
I see that Binders is described amongst other things as “an investigative journalist“. Personally, I think she is a man-hating obsessive, a record that got stuck decades ago. All she ever sees is abuse…. against women, and her forthcoming book is called Feminism for Women:…. etc. In other words it’s all about women. She would only ever be content in a world populated only by women. Mad, sad and malign. Get a life.
I’m not against the idea of police surveillance and infiltration in principle – for a start `I think it is the only reason bombs are not going off all over the place – I just question the priorities.
Since when was the women’s liberation movement a threat comparable to male dominated political movements that veered toward extremism?
I have never heard of women only groups derailing trains, driving trucks into crowds or setting off bombs with little or no warning.
I dare say such a thing is possible, but the balance of probability is surely that it is very unlikely.
So I would not only agree with the idea that is constitutes an abuse of power, but also that is constitutes a misallocation of precious resources.
“But was she really a danger to national security? Definitely not, [she] claims…”
Oh, well if she claims she wasn’t, then she can’t have been…
#believewomen (no matter what or when)
Undercover officers in the 1970s have been found to use antisemitic and homophobic language to one another?
Gad! Something must be done, and quick!
Forty to fifty years ago, but it is only coming to light now.
At this rate, an undercover cop with Nazi regalia in his locker yesterday might not be discussed until the year 2071
What an odd article. Fails even to consider why the police took the actions they did, as if they did it for no reason. Seems to think watching someone is a major thing almost the same as arresting or assaulting them. Avoids even mentioning men, except as bad guys.