The obvious omission from #LushPolice #SpyCops story that no-one is mentioning


The Lush retail chain has taken down its ‘Paid to Lie’ ad, claiming it has been intimidated into doing so by ex-police officers – even though whistleblower ex-‘spycop’ Peter Francis has stated that it is completely accurate:

pf spycops.png

The supposed ‘public outrage’ about the ad seems to have been largely Establishment outrage and police officers have admitted deceiving women with whom they had relationships while under cover.

But there’s a glaring omission in mainstream media discussion of the case.

In every ‘paid to lie’ case that has come to light, the undercover police had infiltrated left-wing groups.

The Guardian has stated that over a thousand political groups were spied on and says that the operation, which started by infiltrating left-wing, anti-war groups, was later ‘expanded’ to include the far right – but so far only details of left-wing infiltrations have emerged.

Perhaps the police infiltrating right-wing groups were simply more disciplined in their undercover abstinence…

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. ‘The Lush retail chain has taken down its ‘Paid to Lie’ ad, claiming it has been intimidated into doing so by ex-police officers’

    Nevermind the corrupt practices of ALL* plod the press are shrieking about someone highlighting it.

    *Anbody convinced it’s ‘Just a few bad apples’ are deluding themselves. There isn’t ONE of them wouldn’t or hasn’t lied in court to secure a conviction – no matter how petty the crime.

    Deaths in custody far outweigh deaths of on-duty police. More off duty police deaths than on-duty. Prosecutions for police deaths (on or off-duty) NEVER fail to secure a conviction; it’s a different story altogether when it comes to the death(s) of John Q Public at their hands.

    And every time one of theirs gets it, it’s: ‘Arm the old bill NOWWWW!’

    But they’re alright shooting dead unarmed ‘suspects’ or tasering blind people and saying they thought their white sticks were samurai swords, or tasering kids for a full 45 seconds etc…

    And where were the cries of ‘hang him’ for that inspector what killed his WPC wife recently? Nope – wasn’t any. Copper himself, see.

    Policing by consent? No – Policing by fear. Bunch o’ legalised gangsters.

  2. A police officer tried to intimidate me once but he soon backed down when he discovered that I was not having any of it.

    Lush should have stood their ground.

    But this infiltration of protest groups does tell us something: Protest works.

    Carry on protesting!

    1. The Establishment don’t have their spycops infiltrate groups because protest works, as you suggest, but to create suspicion and mistrust within those groups that one or more of their number could be a spycop. THEY of course claim that it’s to detect crime, or the planning of some illegal activity, but its not. And you can be certain of two things – ie that the infiltration was much, much more extensive than they have led us to believe, and contrary to having us believe that it no longer takes place, it DOES, and I can vouch for that.

      1. What we have is a situation where the so-called Elite spend hundreds of £millions each and every year of taxpayers money to infiltrate groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth soley for the purpose of sowing mistrust and suspicion within those groups. And as for the spycops themselves, the vast majority of them are psychopaths to whom deviousness and duplicity and deception come naturally, and they get a buzz from their deception and duplicity, and they are selected precisely for that reason.

        And if you ever happen to read Undercover – which I highly recommend – don’t believe a word about how some of these spycops were traumatised by what they did, as THAT is just more lies and fabrication designed to evoke sympathy for them, and I’m surprised the authors fell for it, given that it was obviously fed to them by those running the program.

        That said, I have every respect for the undercover cops who infiltrate criminal gangs, and really DO risk life and limb doing so.

        And by the way, well ‘spotted’ skwawkbox, although it is of course possible that they infiltrated a few hard right groups, but even if they did, 99.5% were groups and organisations and individuals on and of the left. And as far as I’m aware, that is also the case for those who they labelled ‘Domestic Extremists’, and I think we can be pretty certain that just about ALL the ‘Participants’ in the undercover police inquiry – farce that it is – are of a left persuasion – ie Empaths.

      2. .”.. to create suspicion and mistrust within those groups that one or more of their number could be a spycop.”

        Yes, and the reason they bother to do that is because they know that protest works. Why else would they bother?

    2. Only just seen your response (to my post) Tony, so I don’t know if you’ll see this, but I just wanted to clarify one or two things. I realise that you are using the term ‘protest’ in a general sense, and of course what these groups are mainly doing is creating awareness about numerous issues, whether it be fracking or GM crops or the destruction of the rain forests etc, etc, etc. And infiltrating these groups isn’t going to have any effect on the success, or failure, of their campaigns. So my point was that if an undercover cop infiltrates a group, it isn’t for the purpose of trying to sabotage whatever they are campaigning about, which is what I understood you to mean – ie that because, as you put it, protest works, they therefore have spycops infiltrate these groups so as to try and disrupt their campaigns. Yes, they can keep abrest of what they are doing and what they are planning, but generally speaking that’s about it.

      That said, I’ve just this second thought of one major campaign that was undermined by having a spycop on the inside, and that was the Greenham Women, who were set up, but it would take far too long to relate it all, so excuse me if I don’t. But it led to them being falsely accused by most of the press of dragging down Michael Heseltine (the then defense secretary) at a meeting of the local conservatives at Newbury Town Hall, which was a private meeting, but the Greenham Women just happened to find out about it – somehow! – and held a lay-down protest immediately outside the town hall. The whole episode is related in The Press and Political Dissent by Mark Hollingsworth, which I highly recommend.

  3. over the years we have had a succession of odd men asking for help or offering work some with better coverstories than others all treated with politeness and s ympathy
    s pying is norma l so deal with it

    1. Deal with it HOW exactly Ian? Or are you in fact saying: accept it (cos it’s normal)?

      And who is “we” just out of interest?

    2. And what was “odd” about these men (who asked for help or offered work)?

      All sounds very ODD to me.

  4. Re the comment about right wing infiltration:
    “Never shagged a Tory (despite being ordered to go deep undercover in right wing groups)”

  5. Just came across this:


    And in an article in The Times by Melanie Philips headlined ‘Victims can’t dictate how justice is dispensed’, with the sub-headline ‘Former judges chairing inquiries are under siege from protesters who know the verdicts they want’, she starts by saying the following:

    What do Sir Martin Moore-Bick and Sir John Mitting have in common? Both are distinguished former judges. Both head public inquiries. Moore-Bick chairs the one dealing with the Grenfell tower fire; Mitting chairs the one looking at claims that undercover policemen who infiltrated various groups deceived women members into sexual relationships.


    The bit about the Mitting inquiry “looking at claims” is completely false, as it is an established fact that a number of women were deceived into sexual relationships by spycops, and a spokesman for the police has officially apologised as such. But Philips never misses an opportunity to distort reality and misinform and mislead her readers.

  6. Pehaps Left wing activist females were more attractive than those on the “Right”!!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: