Imagine discovering that a police officer, sworn to protect the public, allegedly tried to push activists into committing a violent crime. This shocking revelation has emerged in a UK inquiry, where three anti-fascist activists claim an undercover officer attempted to incite them to firebomb a shop suspected of being a front for far-right activities. But here's where it gets even more unsettling: the officer in question, Carlo Soracchi, spent six years infiltrating anti-fascist and left-wing groups, and now faces accusations of not only inciting violence but also fabricating reports about the very people he was spying on.
Soracchi, who posed as an anti-fascist and socialist campaigner from 2000 to 2006, has denied these claims. However, the activists’ testimony paints a different picture. They allege that Soracchi twice suggested firebombing the shop, a proposal they immediately rejected, emphasizing their commitment to non-violent activism. This isn’t just about one officer’s actions—it’s part of a larger inquiry examining the conduct of approximately 139 undercover police officers who spied on tens of thousands of campaigners, mostly left-wing, between 1968 and at least 2010.
And this is the part most people miss: Soracchi’s alleged role as an agent provocateur. Activist Joe Batty recounted how Soracchi brought up the idea at a New Year’s Eve party in 2002, mentioning Roberto Fiore, a fascist suspected of bombing a railway station in Italy and hiding in the UK. Soracchi reportedly suggested it would be ‘terrible’ if the shop Fiore was linked to were firebombed. Days later, while driving with Batty and fellow activist Dan Gillman, Soracchi allegedly repeated the suggestion. Both activists insist they never considered acting on it.
Soracchi has not only denied the allegations but also accused Gillman of proposing the firebombing—a claim Gillman vehemently denies as an ‘absolute lie.’ What’s more, Soracchi never reported Gillman’s supposed suggestion to his superiors, which Gillman finds suspicious, given Soracchi’s habit of filing detailed reports on even minor conversations. ‘There is no bigger event of public disorder than someone petrol bombing a charity shop,’ Gillman told the inquiry, highlighting the inconsistency.
The third activist, Steve Hedley, testified that they warned Soracchi against ‘being so stupid’ when he made the suggestion. Hedley believes the police were desperate to entrap them in serious criminality after years of infiltration yielded no evidence of wrongdoing. This raises a critical question: Were these officers crossing the line from surveillance to provocation?
The inquiry’s chief barrister, David Barr, has noted that Soracchi’s surveillance reports have been challenged for accuracy, and Soracchi will face questioning on these alleged fabrications. Additionally, he will be asked about his deceptive relationships with three women, whom he misled about his identity during his deployment.
This case isn’t just about one officer’s actions—it’s about the ethics of undercover policing and the potential for abuse of power. Is it ever acceptable for police to incite illegal acts to justify their surveillance? We invite you to share your thoughts in the comments. The inquiry continues, and the revelations so far are a stark reminder of the complexities and controversies surrounding law enforcement’s role in political activism.
