« | Home | »

How the police talk to students

Tags: |

In January, Inspector Steve Poppitt of the Cambridgeshire Constabulary spoke at the University of Cambridge Graduate Union to a small audience who wanted to ask the police about the covert surveillance of students. He said he was interested in improving relations between students and the police. ‘It has to be a dialogue,’ he said.

The meeting was called in response to the revelations last November that the police had tried to infiltrate student activist groups. This week, three campaigners have described attempts by the police to recruit them as informants on fellow political activists. One said he was offered an envelope full of cash at a supermarket. Another said he went to the police station to discuss a report he had made about two suspicious men on his street, and was instead offered money in return for information about left-wing protests. A member of Unite Against Fascism said that an officer tried to pay her to spy on the group, and warned her she could face prosecution if she told anyone she’d been approached.

One of the people at the meeting in January asked Inspector Poppitt how much of a threat the police thought Cambridge students were to society. ‘If you ask me to talk about any particular operational policing issue that involves the actual use of any sort of covert source that refers to a particular case, then obviously I decline to answer,’ Poppitt said.

‘Do you think students have a right to be upset at what happened? That they were spied on?’

A long pause. ‘You have a right to be upset about a lot of things.’

‘What about being spied on by the police?’

‘If you want to be upset, then you’ve got a legitimate right to be upset.’

A student asked again about the threat that students posed to society. Poppitt replied that the police use three core principles to assess risk and formulate the appropriate police tactics: the facilitation of the peaceful use of public freedoms, the maintenance of public safety, and the prevention and detection of crime. The third time the question came up, Poppitt answered that some students were possibly dangerous ‘in the same way that three or four people I’ve encountered tonight walking from Park Side to here might be dangerous’.

‘Is there a reason that Cambridge students were surveilled?’

‘You’re not going find out anything that relates to any operational covert case from me.’

To a question about the ethics of using payment to persuade activists to become informants, Poppitt said: ‘There are specific protocols employed with regards to relationships between intelligence sources and those who handle them.’ This week’s allegations hint at what those protocols may be.

Comments on “How the police talk to students”

  1. rae donaldson says:

    That’s dialogue? He sounds like a speak-your-weight machine crossed with an old school union leader. The police need seriously to improve their performance in this area.

  2. alynch says:

    So that’s what you think?

  3. Joe says:

    Inspector Steve Poppitt must surely be a stooge planted by leftist agitators to discredit the police. Student protestors aren’t exactly known for their persistence – an articulate, likeable, persuasive police spokesperson could have had them dropping like flies. But a performance like that should be enough to harden even the most half-hearted.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement