That one main purpose behind Notes From the Borderland is seeking the truth, however unpopular, is exemplified by our ongoing coverage of the 1999 London nail-bombings--including a desire to bring to book those in the secret state who have successfully resisted scrutiny hitherto. We are not saying Copeland wasn't involved in the bombings--he patently was. But the case that he acted entirely alone is debatable, as too the argument the third (and fatal) bombing could not have been averted.
That is why we placed this article in this site's 'secret state' section, not the fascist corner...The piece below was originally published in NFB 6 (p.43-48), and is part of an ongoing investigation, and while it hopefully makes sense on its own, essential detail can be found in other NFBs--issue 3 (p.14-38 is very detailed & reproduces lots of relevant documents), issue 4 (p.35), issue 5 (p.16-19) issue 8 (p.48-9) and issue 11 (p.55) [CLICK ON NFB MAGAZINE ABOVE TO SEE WHAT ELSE IS IN EACH ISSUE, VISIT THE SHOP TO BUY EITHER PDFs or HARD COPIES]. It goes without saying we view with contempt those who rather than look at something so mundane prefer fairy tales about the New York Twin Towers on 9/11/01, or even London 7/7/05. In the event there are any aspiring 'imvestigative journalists' about, this is a subject crying out for documentary treatment--though we'll not hold our breath. We are pleased to report however that a US Radio Station (the Ed Opperman show) has taken an interest and on 15-6-18 interviewed Larry O'Hara about lots of things, but the Copeland scandal most of all: follow the link--http://borderland.co.uk/component/k2/item/137-dr-larry-o-hara-interviewed-on-ed-opperman-show-15-6-18.html. Closer to home, Richard D Hall (of the web-site richplanet.net) has recently issued a film ('Kill Jill') linking the April 1999 murder of TV Presenter Jill Dando to the Copeland case. We will review this in a future issue of NFB. Heidi Svenson 17.6.18
THE COPELAND SCANDAL SUMMARISED & UPDATED
by Larry O'Hara
In December 2000, over four years ago, NFB first examined the 1999 nail-bombings carried out by 22 year old neo-Nazi David Copeland. This article in issue 3 (p. 14-38) was followed by an exchange with Met Police mouthpiece Graeme McLagan in issue 4 (p.35) and an update in issue 5 (p. 16-19). I again recommend readers consult those back issues, especially 3, which explores some aspects (notably the fascist milieu Copeland moved in) in greater detail than subsequently. Precisely because NFB is an investigative magazine, not conspiracy theory outlet, our understanding has developed, and views shifted. Yet more developments since NFB 5 ensure this story continues to sizzle. That said, it is my firm belief questions we raised from the outset remain valid. While some matters indistinct in issue 3 have become clearer, others have not yet been fully explored-but will be.
After reminding (or informing) readers about the 'official' version of those 1999 bombings and Copeland's capture, I will summarise what perturbs me about all three bombings. Subsequently, this article seeks to
1) In the light of fresh information, revisit the question of when Copeland was identified as the bomber.
2) Reprise the current state of play about whether Copeland worked alone.
3) Reiterate what is wrong with the state/media cover-up of those events.
4) State just who, individually and institutionally, needs to honestly answer questions over this affair.
On 17/4/99 David Copeland, member of Combat 18 faction the 'National Socialist Movement' left a nail-bomb in Brixton, heart of a vibrant predominantly Afro-Caribbean community in South London. Exactly a week later he left another device in Brick Lane East London, the centre of another community, the formerly Huguenot/Jewish but now mainly Bengali 'Bangla Town'. Six days later, (30/4/99) Copeland changed modus operandi and planted a nail-bomb inside the Admiral Duncan pub Soho, Central London. This gay bar was the scene of three fatalities-John Light, Nick Moore and Andrea Dykes (who was pregnant). Copeland was arrested at home in Cove, Hampshire, the next day (1/5) at 1.20 am. On 30/6/00, he was sentenced at the Old Bailey to life imprisonment.
The above facts are not in dispute (unless David Icke proves Lizards did it), but at this point we move onto contested ground. The predominantly accepted version of events is questionable in a number of ways >>
1) The claim Copeland was only arrested due to work-mate Paul Mifsud identifying him from CCTV pictures released 30/4/99. I do not doubt Mifsud identified him--but believe the authorities knew Copeland was the bomber significantly earlier. This means the last (fatal) bomb could have been prevented, but wasn't.
2) Linked to this, it has been argued Copeland was tailed by Special Branch on his way to plant the Soho bomb, but they 'lost' him half an hour before it was put in position.
3) The official claim Copeland worked on his own. Since 2000 evidence has flowed in undermining this assertion, but none to further support it.
4) The state, especially MI5, knew in advance that gay venues in Soho were a likely bombing target-information not communicated with the requisite clarity, urgency or specificity to Copeland's intended victims.
5) A disgraceful disinformation campaign during the bombings and subsequently, carried out by 'usual suspects' the police and the Searchlight organisation, sadly aided by certain individuals within the lesbian & gay community who should have known better. On this last point new evidence has come to hand since NFB 5, including a brave, and crucial, internet piece by gay activist Simon Forbes exploring the police investigation, or rather cover up .
(1) HOW SOON WAS COPELAND IDENTIFIED AS THE BOMBER?
According to the Metropolitan police, Copeland was identified as the Brixton bomber (17/4/99) from CCTV footage filmed inside the Iceland store. By 19/4 police had a first 'smudge' identification, which was so poor the film had to be sent to NASA in the USA, who took a further 12 days to produce a picture clear enough to enable a positive identification . I stated in 2000 that this was barely credible, and still think so. I don't doubt the film went to the USA. However, the whole concentration on this piece of film was a red herring-the footage eventually released of Copeland wasn't from Iceland's CCTV at all, but a street camera. The crucial point is that footage was deliberately suppressed that would have enabled Copeland to be fingered earlier than he was. Chillingly, this indicates days (or hours) after his first bomb, if not before, some within the state were taking active measures to prevent his arrest. There can be no acceptable motive for that, or at least none that occurs to me-or indeed Copeland's subsequent victims/their loved ones. If Copeland was known to be the bomber early on, it would explain a 40 minute gap in footage from Brick Lane, and indeed general police disinterest in that bombing (24/4) as recounted to me by then editor of local paper The Eastern Eye . The secret state would not want any operatives identified. It would also account for the total absence of footage from Copeland's visit to Soho that same day, immediately after depositing the Brick Lane bomb. Or indeed the cab-driver who took him there not coming forward. Even if that driver wasn't a spook operative, Copeland is likely to have been tailed to, in and from Brick Lane. Those doing the tailing are in principle identifiable, as too anyone following (or even meeting?) Copeland in Soho that day or on 30/4. This is a hardening of perspective from earlier NFBs because of new information that police identified Copeland as a result of "human intelligence" . To have released footage of Copeland undertaking reconnaissance in Soho a week before that bomb would have raised the question of fore-knowledge, so it didn't happen.
Secret state elements must have known Copeland was the bomber prior to the Soho explosion-otherwise, he would not have been tailed, revealed last NFB . Simon Forbes 'Outrage' piece underlines the fact Copeland was followed. Membership of the Met LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual & Transgendered) Advisory Committee, makes Forbes a most credible witness. First, he names Outrage founder-member John Beeson as having heard (and reconfirmed recently) Chief Superintendent (Bunn) admitting of Copeland "we were tracking him, unfortunately he gave us the slip". Second, Forbes refers to a taped July 2002 LGBT Advisory Group meeting where this was raised and as he puts it "not specifically disputed". Third, he mentions the meeting was left with the general "impression that he [Copeland] was under some kind of surveillance, including CCTV surveillance, on the day". All adding weight to the Tatchell email about Special Branch following Copeland reproduced in NFB 5 (p.18).
There is yet more, which Forbes did not say, in print here for the first time. In particular, at a pre-trial briefing in June 2000, Steve Greenwood (Co-Chair of LGBT Advisory Group), Linda Bellos (also Co-Chair, and ex-Lambeth Council Leader) along with Gerry Gable (Searchlight publisher) were shown, by police, extensive footage of Copeland being monitored in Soho 30/4/99. The Met line was (I understand) that Copeland was being 'passively monitored' by CCTV, not tracked on the ground. In one way, this contradicts Tatchell's informant, who stated SB "had lost [Copeland) in or near Broadwick Street". In another way, however, this confirms that Copeland was being surveilled. Indeed, the two methods (physical and technological) are not necessarily exclusive. Whatever the tracking method, the fact of surveillance is common to both accounts.
Forbes alludes to this confidential briefing when he writes of "three advisers" (not named) attending a "special 'hush hush' briefing...at New Scotland Yard". He recalls an "exchange of views about the case between one of those three advisers and myself", when that "person denied a number of allegations I raised". That person was Gable. Interestingly, LGBT minutes refer to Bellos & Greenwood's "involvement in numerous briefings throughout the Copeland trial", and that "three independent advisers staunchly defended the Met and its actions during a press conference held after the trial" (a classic oxymoron) .
(2) DID COPELAND WORK ALONE OR NOT?
While it does not diminish one iota the horror of what Copeland did, a wholly legitimate question is whether he worked alone or not. In that respect, others working with him also need to be called to account, whether state assets or straightforward fascists. This is not just to assuage the ongoing anguish of the bereaved and injured, but to send a loud and clear message that state licensed bombing of non-combatants is as unacceptable in Soho as it is (or should be) in Fallujah.
This is not the place to rehearse in detail my initial thoughts about whether Copeland worked alone , although a summary, plus relevant fresh evidence, is called for. Detailed references, again, to be found in NFB issues 3 and 5 To new readers, I should point out 5 communiques accompanied the bombings, released using the name 'White Wolves'. The original White Wolves were a post-1945 German Nazi resistance, and the term took on new life in UK neo-Nazi circles by a strategy document of that name (hereafter WW) advocating racial violence for political ends which first surfaced in 1993-4. It was still widely circulating when Copeland conducted his campaign.
To start with the case Copeland worked solo, the arguments are:
1) He initially said he did, starting with the moment he was arrested, stating to detectives "I did them on my own".
2) Copeland's actions were not easily copiable, contrary to the WW strategy.
3) He kept his explosives at home, ordered some components mail order to his home, and brought some home by taxi!
4) His flat was full of relevant news-cuttings and Nazi paraphernalia, counter to WW.
5) Copeland persistently stated he didn't trust anyone else, indeed also claimed when questioned he wanted to get caught.
6) There was no evidence, then or subsequently, that the 'White Wolves' have ever existed in the UK.
Nothing new has come forth to augment this list since his trial and conviction, whether evidentially or analytically. Not so for the case Copeland worked with others.
1) He could plausibly have initially claimed to work alone to take the heat off other cell members. After all, when in Broadmoor Copeland later retracted this claim, and stated he was a White Wolves cell member.
2) In early 1998 Copeland claims to have undergone unspecified 'military training' in Poland. Undertaking such training, whether in Poland (or the Hampshire New Forest) undermines the 'lone nut' argument.
3) He certainly had some contact with sympathisers, whether it be local squaddies or recruiting somebody called 'Anthony' into the National Socialist Movement.
4) Copeland even had difficulty changing a fuse-it defies common sense to think someone so inept could construct three bombs with a 100% detonation rate just by cribbing off the internet alone. Yet he not only did that, but even had the savvy to change his MO between bombs two and three to produce fatalities.
5) It has not been proven Copeland sent the WW communiques, so whoever did that may have worked in concert with him.
6) While the prosecution did not contend Copeland carried out bomb preparation work between 19-21/4, he had a travel ticket starting 20/4/99, Hitler's birthday. An active neo-Nazi, Copeland probably met others that night--who, where, what did they discuss? Reports reaching me stated neo-Nazi circles discussed little else but the ongoing bombings at this time.
7) The same day as the Soho bomb, police chased a car in Chesterfield, Derbyshire, and found bomb-making equipment. This a week after local paper the Mansfield Chad received a White Wolves communique threatening Saturday's Chesterfield May Day rally. If the communiques could have been Copeland, the escaped car occupants could not.
8) On 1/5/99 a man was pulled off a train at Woking in connection with the bombings. This indicates that even after Copeland was in custody police were acting on the assumption he was not the only bomber in Hampshire.
9) In the 4-6 weeks preceding/including the bombings, Copeland spent £1500 on materials-when his total income in the period only came to £1800. Yet he not only paid all bills on time, but had been unemployed for some months previous to that. Did Copeland finance everything from his own resources? Possible yes: likely no.
10) Last NFB (p.17) drew attention to the strange route Copeland took, going to the Admiral Duncan in a very indirect manner. Now we are aware that the police claimed to have been tracking him by CCTV at least, the paucity of footage showing Copeland in Soho becomes even more suspicious. At trial the only film used depicted him passing 62-64 Old Compton Street with a bag and without a bag-before and after planting the bomb. Yet the 'straight' pub Copeland went out of his way to visit is not only when he is alleged to have been 'lost' by those tailing him, but also where he could have met accomplices. A rendezvous arranged by phone the previous day?
(3) WHY THE STATE/MEDIA COVER-UP IS UNACCEPTABLE
There are four reasons why it is wrong to cover up the facts surrounding Copeland's bombing campaign.
The first from which all else flows is that those allowing Copeland to continue planting bombs must beardirect responsibility for the Soho bomb. If that had not exploded, nobody would have died. In effect, and certainly for the Soho bomb, if not Brick Lane, Copeland acted under license. A general 'permission to bomb' is bad enough, but it goes beyond that.
The second charge is that elements of the secret state knew in particular where his last device was to be placed. This is not retrospective conjecture-an MI5 warning gays would be next was reported in a paper published the very afternoon of the Soho bombing! That the journalist concerned, David Northmore, quickly down-played such prescience (ostensibly to the detriment of his own reputation) does not alter the facts. He even added metaphorical insult to injury by giving MI5 an explicit plug a week after the Soho bomb . Not only Northmore was knowledgeable before the event; former naval Commander Duncan Lustig-Prean sent out an email 24/4/99~six days before Soho-stating that "intelligence sources" had told him "there is a possibility that they will also attempt to target the gay community" . Lustig-Prean flatly contradicted this the day after Soho, claiming "I know from my own contacts that even MI5 bounced by sudden change to LGBT target" .
That two people with access to 'inside knowledge' should be wise before the event and affect ignorance after is not the only pointer towards state foreknowledge of Soho. There is also the amazing fact that the Admiral Duncan was one of only four gay venues visited by police to warn about anti-bomb security before the fatal Friday. Yet there were at the time 143 more gay venues in London outside Soho, and a further 31 in Soho itself not visited. Even better (or worse) 3 of the 4 premises visited were in Old Compton street itself . It is stretching credibility to see this as mere coincidence. Instead, it hints that fairly precise 'advance intelligence' was fed into the police apparatus.
Which brings us to the third reason why the cover-up is wrong. There was, at best, police incompetence in terms of arresting possible accomplices. In other words, a hypothetical justification for letting Copeland's campaign run, would revolve around ascertaining who else was implicated. This could be at the level of ideological influence, training, planning, finance, and even sending communiques. Yet nobody has been put in the frame, despite the private police claim they got on to Copeland through "human intelligence". Of great significance here is the fact that no film of the C18 counter-demonstration on 30/1/99 has ever been released or used by any media organisation, only still photographs in 'Macintyre Undercover' . Would the film reveal Copeland's mentors, some very close to home? We shall see (or not)-either way, getting that footage would crystallise the situation.
The fourth reason why the cover-up is reprehensible concerns its effect on the lesbian/gay community. This is a delicate question, but has to be faced. On the one hand, it is entirely understandable given ongoing homophobic prejudice within society that members of the LGBT community should seek to influence police practice, especially in terms of taking crimes against these groups seriously. On the other hand, very soon after Copeland was arrested, the Met Police higher echelons must have realised the trial, when it happened, could trigger very negative PR indeed, especially if issues NFB has raised came to the fore. Therefore (and police really are this cynical) why not set up a 'consultative body' involving the LGBT community, as a means of incorporating key leadership elements therein. This would have the dual advantages of silencing potential dissenting voices and acquiring a 'gay shield' to protect police from critical questioning. Thus the LGBT Community Advisory Group came into being (1/4/00) under the aegis of DAC John Grieve-after the bomb and just before Copeland's trial . In itself, there is nothing wrong with oppressed groups seeking political influence. However, the danger is 'consultation' becomes 'co-option' whereby community 'representatives' are so keen to be non-confrontational, trustworthy and above all accepted, that they become alienated from the community they nominally speak for and instead act, for all intents and purposes, as representatives of the police. Sadly, this seems to have happened in the Copeland case. It is, of course, an intrinsically delicate question, and difficult area. For example, the Gay Police Association's 'Strategic Debrief following the trial said of the police investigation (Operation Marathon) that "until recently the perception amongst the gay community has been that it is unusual for police services to demonstrate valuing diversity. Such operations therefore offer great potential to strengthen links between the service and this community" . From serving gay police officers, employed by the Met, fair enough-from anybody else, this would smack almost of colonialism.
The important boundary between representing the LGBT community to the police and representing the police in the LGBT community seems to have been crossed by the Advisory Group themselves. In the police Press Conference after the Copeland trial ended, it is our understanding questions were asked along the lines NFB has raised, albeit without our referenced detail. These serious questions were deflected, and booted into the long grass, not just by police but also three 'lay' advisors to the Met: two of whom (Bellos/ Greenwood) were on the LGBT Community Advisory Group. To again quote the Advisory Group minutes for 13/7/00 "three independent advisers staunchly defended the Met and its actions during a press conference held after the outcome of the Copeland trial". While little better could be expected from the third-- spook errand-boy Gerry Gable-Linda Bellos and Steve Greenwood should be ashamed of themselves. After the trial, Bellos told Met Police newspaper The Job how she was "incredibly impressed and moved" by the Met's response to the bomb. Speaking about individual officers, she was undoubtedly right. But the issues perturbing NFB go beyond the role of individuals, and enter the realm of state strategy. Bellos also admitted something that looks more disturbing now than then-"members of the CAG were consulted about how the prosecution case might run and we were able to advise on some aspects of the case" . However extensive those 'consultations', participating in the secret state cover up, as the three (Gable/Greenwood/Bellos) have done, was too high a price to pay for the privilege. Although there is an important distinction between the complicity of Gable (during the bombings) and Greenwood/Bellos (only after the fact).
Bellos in particular has no time for regrets-her company 'Diversity Solutions Ltd' (established February 2002) is very busy, advising (for a price) all and sundry on how to implement 'equal opportunities' legislation. Their client list includes the Crown Prosecution Service. Home Office, Police Superintendents Association, the Metropolitan Police....and numerous other public and private sector bodies. In addition, Bellos acts as Independent (which doesn't mean unpaid) Adviser to the Met Police, CPS and Association of Chief Police Officers. Could there be, even if subliminally, a connection between the lucrative state contracts/ sinecures that Bellos has profited from and her earlier public support for the Met Police in a crisis situation? Bellos' company web-site refers to her "active involvement in voluntary and community sector which ensures that her work remains relevant and valid to grass roots concerns" . Politically unconvincing, grammatically vacuous, & ultimately dismissive of those grass roots concerns.
(4) THOSE WHO NEED TO EXPLAIN THEMSELVES--IF THEY CAN
Linda Bellos is one person who needs to answer questions over the Copeland scandal, but so do numerous others. Past NFB coverage, in issues 3 and 5, has gone into great detail, and this article is no substitute for that coverage. Nonetheless, after six years setting out facts, now is time to move to the next level, turning the heat on those with guilty secrets, and morsels of complicity to explain. If only in the interests of truth and justice, however unfashionable. One thing never ceasing to amaze is the way journalists, including the mythical 'investigative' species, slavishly follow what is on the news 'agenda', irrespective of the issues. Thus, certain things are 'hot' topics, no matter how much time has elapsed, and others brushed aside, with a world-weary "we've done that, it's old hat". So too with the Copeland case, hitherto. It is time that changed. Both individuals and institutions are under the spotlight. NFB want to help begin holding those responsible to public account. Victims, or relatives, bringing a court case might be very useful in this respect. Those in the NFB dock, in no particular order:
1) The Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Squad, headed by David Veness (now of the UN) need to explain why they suppressed footage of Copeland, and didn't arrest him earlier. Releasing all relevant film would be nice. When exactly did the ATS know it was him? Furthermore, why were no accomplices (informants or not) ever arrested. I would welcome the detailed views of Chief Superintendent Andy Bunn here.
2) Special Branch need to provide chapter and verse on how they 'lost' Copeland in Soho, and the precise nature of the 'human intelligence' that led them to tail him in the first place.
3) The police generally, and MI5, need to disclose what role was played by their assets/informants in inspiring and maybe aiding Copeland.
4) Those involved in the half-hearted police 'warning' operation in Soho, like (now Chief) Superintendent Phil Flower, need to elaborate on what intelligence they received, and why their warnings were not more specific. Also, why local police visited the premises they did--and not others.
5) Adequate explanations from David Northmore and Duncan Lustig-Prean covering what advance information was leaked from secret state contacts before the Soho bombing, and their own public about-turns in this matter of state foreknowledge.
6) MI5 need to explain their 'advance knowledge' of Soho, and cynical cover up afterwards. The then Director of Operations (now MI5 Director General) Eliza Manningham-Buller needs to account for what MI5 did and knew, and when, and why the public were not told.
7) Linda Bellos and Steve Greenwood should tell us exactly what they knew, and when, and how covering up police incompetence (at best) helped, as opposed to hindered, the LGBT community they 'represent'.
8) Gerry Gable and the Searchlight organisation he fronts for need to account not just for similar matters to Bellos/Greenwood, but additionally the extensive and atrocious disinformation put out by Searchlight to a supine media during the bombings, just after, and around the time of Copeland's trial. Not least the basis of Searchlight's insistence that Nazi Satanist Dave Myatt wrote the White Wolves document. As outlined in NFB 3 and 5, the incredible business of adding Copeland's name to a list of 261 'suspects' needs explaining. Searchlight also need to answer questions about their 'Agent Arthur'. Clarity is needed from Gable, and also Nick Lowles, Searchlight 'Director of Research' and part-time pub stripper.
9) TV journalists Andrew Bell (of Panorama) and Graeme McLagan (same) need to justify covering up for the secret state in both the Copeland documentary and the book McLagan co-wrote with Lowles 'Mr Evil'. McLagan's pathetic attempt in NFB 4 (p.35) doesn't begin to do that.
10) Perhaps former Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve, then heading C024, now Professor at the 'John Grieve Centre' (I kid you not) based in Buckingham Chilterns University College can take time out from consulting himself to disclose which friends within the secret state warned him off the Copeland case, and why.
A COMPARATIVE CONCLUSION--THE COPELAND SCANDAL IN CONTEXT
Rather than concentrate on a real life scandal with many actors still alive and in public life, some who should know better prefer endless theorising about President Kennedy's death over 40 years ago. It really is time to move on, especially this side of the Atlantic. In any event, JFK sanctioning the invasion of Cuba and his possible involvement in Marilyn Monroe's murder ensure fascination with the 'Dead Kennedys' is in short supply at NFB Towers.
COPELAND & LAWRENCE COMPARED
Everybody remembers, quite rightly, the horrific Steven Lawrence murder in 1993, and the fact his killers have still not been brought to justice. In one sense, slightly greater closure has been achieved in relation to the 1999 nail-bombings, because at least one person involved (Copeland) has been convicted. However, it seems likely he did not act entirely alone, yet nobody else has been put in the frame (unlike the Lawrence case) never mind tried. Steven Lawrence's murder precipitated the Macpherson Inquiry, exposing how 'institutional racism' pervades the Met Police, as well as gross incompetence. Yet, as we have seen, the Copeland case highlighted both incompetence and homophobia, still ongoing. If racism + incompetence is unacceptable, homophobia + incompetence should be too.
Some might doubt the extent of police homophobia, due to an incessant police/media offensive aimed at pretending all is well in relations between the police, Crown Prosecution Service and LGBT community . For some, co-opted and incorporated like Bellos, things may be going swimmingly. Yet according to Gay Police Association Chairman, Met Inspector Paul Cahill, the level of homophobic attacks by police on their own colleagues is soaring, and in the first half of 2004 equalled the number for all of 2003 . To paraphrase Wellington, if that's what they do to their own, what hope for the rest of us?
Due to the double jeopardy law, it seems unlikely that the Steven Lawrence suspects can be re-tried, but no such constraint exists if the Copeland net is widened. Furthermore, the Copeland case is not primarily about prosecutions, but holding public institutions and figures to account. If it was acceptable for Macpherson to do that in the Lawrence affair (1993), why not in the Copeland case (1999)? Equally, while acres of news-print have been (rightly) devoted to the PSNI Special Branch ignoring advance warnings of the 1998 Omagh bomb, why a virtual media black-out on far more specific information in terms of the Soho bombing?
NFB's desire to see the secret state and their media outriders squirm has been especially fuelled by the murder of Soho nail-bombing survivor David Morley. The story was certainly newsworthy , but used by police for their own PR purposes. That is my reading of the swift Met declaration of intent to act on homophobic reggae lyrics . Even giving the Met the benefit of the doubt on that one, an earlier piece by Met representative on earth Jason Bennetto sticks in the craw. He announced in July 2004 that the Met Police's 'Racial & Violent Crimes Task Force' have "established an inquiry to examine whether past prejudice among officers influenced its investigation of anti-gay murders" . Interestingly, one murderer to be scrutinised, Colin Ireland, has a past neo-Nazi association (with C18). The Copeland case, however, is not among six cases to be reviewed--too close to home of course. Yet uncovering the truth here, in all its gory detail, would go further than any amount of platitudes to show the Met Police are serious about tackling homophobic crime. I'll not be holding my breath though. There is a 'hierarchy of oppression' whereby some crimes do not rank highly but others do. The 'gesture politics' practised by chameleon Mayor Ken Livingstone  help little here. Resisting persecution of gays (as opposed to embracing homophobic Islamic preachers) is low down Livingstone's actual rather than symbolic priority list, which has understandably annoyed former long-term ally Peter Tatchell . A typically evasive and abusive Livingstone self-defence against Tatchell's charges disgracefully likens the latter's argumentative methods to anti-semitic police forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion . Yet as his deliberate likening of a Jewish reporter to a Nazi camp guard shows, Livingstone has not a scintilla of sincerity when it comes to opposing anti-semitism . Typical too, that Livingstone (formerly employed by the Standard) pretended this was a matter of principle. Fundamentally, the reptile believes in nothing but power and influence for himself/his cronies. He affects synthetic rage over Westminster Council banning rainbow flags outside gay pubs (including the Admiral Duncan) . Yet neither Livingstone, Jasper, Bellos or other gravy train travellers have raised the Copeland case. Nor has 'celebrity' gay policeman Commander Brian Paddick, even on 'Urban 75'. Tatchell, by contrast, has done so, and given Simon Forbes space on the 'Outrage' web-site. That shows the difference between apparatchik and visionary. I'm with the visionary. My vision involves justice in the Copeland case, whatever it takes.
1) Simon Forbes piece "Admiral Duncan Bomb--The day the unthinkable happened" can be accessed here: http://www.flameout.org/flameout/presentday/unthinkable.html
2) Full references in NFB 3 footnotes 7 8 & 9 p.37.
3) NFB 3 p. 17-18.
4) University of London Union briefing for Met Police LGBT Advisory Committee 1/6/00
5) NFB 5 2003 p. 18
6) Record of LGBT Advisory Group Meeting, New Scotland Yard 13/7/00.
7) set out in NFB 3 2000 (p.34-5), also p.32-4 assesses how Copeland's actions relate to the 'White Wolves' strategy document.
8) NFB 3 p. 19 has all references
9) email to Digital Diversity list quoted in NFB 5 2003 p. 16
10) www.diversity.org.uk [link now defunct], summary of Scotland Yard meeting 1/5/00.
11) NFB 5 p.15-16
12) NFB 3 p.6 reproduces C18's own account of that day.
13) that the LGBT Group came into existence because of the nail-bombings is referred to in Stonewall Society Archives (Vol 1 Issue 10 5/5/00) on-line at www.stonewallsociety.com, and Broken Rainbow Conference Proceedings 12/5/02 p.17
14) 'Operation Marathon' Gay Police Association August 1999 p.4
15) The Job 30/6/00 'Copeland Case Special'
16) www.diversity-solutions.com [which in 2010 redirects you to a new site with more of the same: the equality business is clearly lucrative. Some are patently more equal than others..]
17) see The Job 14/1/05 'Winning Back Trust' and Gay Times January 2005 p.73-4 (Joseph Galliano)
18) The Big Issue 13/9/04 (Damienne Sheehan)
19) see (London) Evening Standard 1/11/04 (Flora Stubbs/Patrick McGowan), The Independent 2/11/04 (Terri Judd/Jason Bennetto) & The Pink Paper 5/11/04 (Simon Swift).
20) (London) Evening Standard 2/11/04 (Andre Paine), and also the Sunday Times 1/11/04-just time for this to make the front page.
21) The Independent 5/7/04
22) see NFB 3 (2000) p.55-58 'Livingstone, His Politics & The Secret State' (Harry Ainsworth).
23) Peter Tatchell 'An Embrace that shames London' New Statesman 24/1/05 p.24-5.
24) Labour Left Briefing February 2005 p.13--but also see Ramzi Isalam (p.12).
25) Evening Standard 14/2/05
26) Livingstone letter quoted in (London) Evening Standard 18/1/05
IN-DEPTH COVERAGE OF THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE IS IN "NOTES FROM THE BORDERLAND ISSUES 3, 5 AND 8"