Suspicious minds

What with cosy rodents and cops going native, the new year has begun promisingly enough for those of us who would rather laugh than cry.

I didn't know that police helicopters roamed the skies looking for hot spots on suburban roofs in their 'intelligence' led search for cannabis factories. Mrs Hardcastle of West Yorkshire was just as surprised when she was phoned at work to be told the police were at her house, in force, with a search warrant for dangerous drugs. And it was all the fault of Pinky and Perky (not their real names '“ I have anonymised them for their own protection) her son's guinea pigs, who had a heater rigged up over their cage to keep them warm.

The police explanation, given between gritted teeth by inspector Darren Brown, was: 'A majority of operations of this nature are intelligence-based and often rely upon swift action. Due to the location of the garage, we could not make further observations without alerting the occupants. On this occasion, it transpired that the significant heat source coming from the property was not connected to the production of cannabis.'

'Not connected to the production of cannabis'! The inspector would have been better served joining in the joke rather than trying to justify a total balls-up. As for 'intelligence led', the information they had which triggered a search warrant and a raid by six officers was only that there was a hotspot on the roof.

A roof, moreover, which belonged to a primary school learning mentor of impeccable character and reputation. That is not 'intelligence' '“ it is not even 'gossip', which often finds its way onto the Crimintel databases where it stays in perpetuity.

It is merely an observation of a heat source within a garage, in a cold winter '“ and thus consistent with something being kept warm, which could have been anything in the animal, vegetable and mineral line, from drying out the damp after a burst pipe to incubating a batch of eggs, as well as supplying the thermal requirements of our furry friend cava porcellus.

What is wrong with our society that a) an immediate conclusion of serious criminality was drawn by West Yorkshire's finest, and b) their first step was what ought to be the last resort, an actual police raid complete with a search warrant given by magistrates who seem not to have queried its issue at all?

Why couldn't a police officer go to the house and ask why the garage roof is warm? If the answer was 'Guinea pigs, would you like to see them?' there would have been a local titter rather than a nationwide guffaw. If the answer was hostility and a slammed door then that would justify further police action, as there would then be reasonable suspicion that all was not well. Obviously, this Dixon of Dock Green approach would not suit many situations '“ but it would have suited this one. Why can't local police tell the difference?

The thin blue line

The shenanigans of deep cover are, nearly, as amusing. What is the difference between an undercover cop and a climate change protestor? The undercover cop can pay for the van. Joking aside, six decent and well-intentioned people could have been convicted of conspiracy to aggravated trespass had the CPS not dropped the case, after the defence in the

Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station case had discovered that PC Kennedy, aka Mark Stone, had been masquerading as a political activist in deep cover for seven years.

The line between an undercover police officer and an agent provocateur is thin, often vanishingly so. There is also a morally disreputable angle to their frequent use in drug purchases: the law condones it, but it never feels right that an addict nagged by someone he thinks is another addict to sell a wrap or two of class A should get arrested and imprisoned for it.

And it seems that PC Kennedy went way beyond even that hazy line: encouraging, supporting, providing equipment, organising transport, geeing people up, volunteering himself to climb bridges and wave banners. And all this while he fed everything back to the police, at a reported cost of 250,000 quid a year. For what? So that another £300,000 could be spent on the prosecution of protestors who had in fact done no harm.

That does not take into account his other activities over the years '“ god knows how many other convictions he has engineered, or how many other principled people anxious about the future of the damaged world have been harassed, criminalised and marked down as the enemy within because of him.

UK institutions take a great deal of reflected credit from something they call 'the right of peaceful protest'. It is one of our ancient liberties, apparently '“ judges refer to it in oleaginous tones as a precious right, politicians behave as if they invented it, and police officers assert that they protect it. But actual protesting is increasingly seen as an abuse of that precious right: planning a protest is conspiracy, shoving back a police officer who is shoving you can be, and is, charged as violent disorder.

And sentences for violent disorder, even where no actual harm is caused, are increasingly severe. One gets less prison time for broken teeth and gushing blood than the two to three years doled out to demonstrators who however abusively they behave have hurt no living thing. The moral for the new year is: let us discriminate correctly '“ not every demonstrator is an enemy of the state, nor is every guinea pig a cannabis farm.