Covert Human Intelligence Sources Act (CHIS)

The kids being coerced to commit crimes undercover for the state

I originally wrote an article on the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Act for the Lightpaper here Issue 12 The Lightpaper back in 2022 and in the light of recent atrocities committed in Britain, I am producing the article again here with some added thoughts about it.

The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 is a green light for crime to be committed by the regime. It allows the state to recruit others, including children, to commit crime as undercover CHIS. Extensive powers have been given to numerous bodies including police forces, the intelligence agencies, the armed forces, the department of health and social care, the competition and markets authority, the environment agency, the financial conduct authority, the food standards agency and the gambling commission to commit crime.

You might assume that this would be little misdemeanours like taking part in a banned protest, or chucking paint over some statue, but think again. Serious crimes like torture are not ruled out because members of parliament argued that a gang member might want a CHIS to prove himself by raping someone. These same useful idiots also came up with the flimsy excuse that the Human Rights Act would protect against abuse. In other words, after being raped, murdered or tortured, the victim could decide to face the hell and costs of taking a public authority to court in a civil suit, with no actual possibility of punishment for the offender or handler.

During the debate on amendments in the House of Lords Lord Paddick, a retired police officer and life peer, pointed out:

‘If ever there was evidence of a government simply giving its operational partners whatever they ask for, whatever the consequences, this Bill is it’

Existing investigatory powers under RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) have been altered to legitimise the current regime’s widespread disregard for the laws and customs of the land. Wording is deliberately vague:

‘A criminal conduct authorisation is an authorisation for criminal conduct in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of a CHIS’

We are supposed to feel fine about this because the officer must believe that the criminal conduct is either:

necessary for national security,

necessary for preventing or detecting crime or disorder, or is

in the economic interests of the UK.

Belief that this is the case must be ‘reasonable’. But what is reasonable to the regime is idiocy to most. When they passed this CHIS Act they thought it was reasonable to lock down society causing immense psychological damage, including to children and imprisoning the elderly and vulnerable, refusing to let them see their families and leaving them to die alone. Withdrawal of medical assistance caused an untold number of deaths and their were many suicides. I personally knew two vulnerable adults, one in their thirtees and another in their forties who committed suicide as a direct result of lockdown. Some parents lost children to suicide because of the totalitarian covid diktaks. Hardly surprising when the Behavioural Insights Team were experimenting on us with psychological techniques using emotive terms suggesting that those without masks were ‘killing granny’.

Its pretty clear who was really killing granny and it wasn’t some kid without a mask.

It is overwhelmingly obvious that the cult running the show have a pretty warped idea of ‘reasonable’ which gives CHIS officers carte blanche to go off the scale with whatever filthy business they wish to conduct. The legislation allows for a child or vulnerable adult to wind up not only as a perpetrator, but also as a victim of crime. As Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb has pointed out:

‘This is child abuse by the government, using children as spies, it is obvious this government does not care about the rule of law... it protects its own while throwing others to the dogs’

The lame excuses our lords and masters use for their crimes against children and vulnerable adults, which includes manipulating those same children/vulnerable adult to commit crimes themselves, go something like this:

1) If we don’t use and abuse children/vulnerable adults and get them involved in crime, then criminal gangs will abuse them more

2) Children will only be used in ‘exceptional circumstances’ where no harm can be reasonably foreseen and all this is in the best interests of the child.

Harm is defined as physical injury or psychological distress, but psychological damage is not specified. This leaves the possibility of trauma for the child which might only become apparent later. Lord Bishop of Durham has pointed out:

‘How can using a child as a CHIS, and in doing so placing them at greater risk of harm, ever be in their best interest? Allowing these children to act illegally only worsens this’

Sixteen and seventeen year old teenagers do not even have a right to have an appropriate adult present at meetings. And if a judicial commissioner rules that the criminal conduct authorisation is against the law, an officer can ignore this decision and keep the operation going.

Likewise, there is no protection for vulnerable adults that the state wants to use and abuse. The only requirement is to identify and evaluate the possibility of harm to the individual and then do nothing about it, other than making sure that vulnerable adult understands the risks. Given the subjective nature of this vague assertion about the risks, I’ve got to assume that they make sure that a vulnerable person understands something by using threats, bribery, beating them senseless or worse. There is nothing to stop a vulnerable person having to take part in terrorist activities or become coerced to become a suicide bomber. Anyone who is injured or harmed, including the vulnerable adult himself or herself, has no route to redress because the Act prevents access to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 and the Criminal Injuries (NI) order 2002 from taking effect for authorisations involving this group.

There is no excuse for making children or vulnerable people into criminals, or using them as undercover operatives at all. This unconstitutional legislation gives carte blanche for crimes to be committed against anyone the regime dislikes, for example protesters or even their children and family members. As with the Coronavirus Act, here we have more written powers that are unlawful. The Tory party did not include their intention to legalise abuse of children and vulnerable people in its manifesto. Nobody voted for that.

Axel Rudakubana who has been convicted of the Southport dance class murders, was a child with a diagnosis who is now by definition ‘a vulnerable adult’. Just saying …

https://www.legislation. gov.uk/ukpga/2021/4/ section/1#section-1-4 https://www.legislation.gov. uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/26 Covert Human Intelligence Sources, draft revised code of practice, January 2021