A Must-WatchPlease Circulate Far and Wide!
http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/21844
This interview has now had more than 100,000 plays on YouTube alone.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
The Hollow Earth Theory
This Graph shows the answers to a survey asked around the world starting with the closest country to the Polar openings and ending with the farthest. The quetion asked was - Do you believe humans evolved over time from animals? 
The Two Faces of Barack Obama
One for the masses, one for the power elite
by Justin Raimondo, April 06, 2009
The news from Europe, if you listen to our infatuated media, is that the Euros love President Obama: according to the American reportage, his recent trip there was a cavalcade of photo-ops, cheering crowds, and hugs from the queen of England. Even the French were in awe of him! However, if you look beneath the surface, not that far beneath the gloss and the glam there runs a current of irritation, and, dare I say it, resentment.
Take, for example, his stop in the Czech Republic, where he declared that he was seeking a nuclear-free world – that is, a world free of nuclear weapons. This is a goal the United States has a special moral responsibility to seek, he averred, because we are the only nation that has actually used these weapons. The crowd loved it. What they didn’t at all love, however, was his announcement that
“‘As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies.’”
"The governments of the Czech Republic and Poland, he added, are ‘courageous’ for ‘agreeing to host a defense against these missiles.’"
One supposes it takes a fair amount of courage to defy the wishes of your own people and obey the dictates of a foreign power, albeit not the sort of courage appreciated by Obama’s audience. As the London Telegraph put it:
"The crowd enthusiastically cheered the more idealistic parts of Mr. Obama’s speech but was relatively subdued when he spoke about his backing for missile defense.
"Petr Sramek, 33, was among those disappointed that Mr. Obama had not dropped a policy that was opposed by more than two thirds of Czechs. ‘I really liked the clear message on nuclear disarmament but I am against the missile defense system. It is more about geopolitical influence then defense against missiles.’
"Arena Protivinska, 30, described herself as a ‘big fan’ of Mr. Obama but accused him of ‘hypocrisy’ for urging world peace while also pushing forward with the missile shield. ‘He sounded like George W Bush saying that we should be afraid in order to justify missile defense.’"
Like Americans, the Europeans want to believe – but they see the two faces of Barack Obama too clearly, and the contrast is too apparent to be denied. The gullible Americans, who take things at face value, still believe their new president represents a real change, a challenge to the status quo, while the more sophisticated Europeans are quick to pick up on Obama’s inconsistencies – made all the more glaring by his habit of pairing two mutually contradictory stances on the same issue.
This includes not only coupling missile "defense" in Eastern Europe with the prospect of a nuclear-free world, but also the recent launching of his "Af-Pak" initiative. Although dressed up as a diplomatic offensive, this is essentially a military offensive aimed at widening the war in Afghanistan to include portions of Pakistan.
The administration and its media lapdogs portrayed the Af-Pak rollout as a definitive break with the bad old days of the Bush White House, when it was all about troop movements. The new regime, we’re told, will initiate substantial diplomatic and humanitarian aid efforts, notably an effort to reach out to dissident elements of the Taliban. However, the real core of the Af-Pak strategy is a radical escalation of the military element, in effect an Afghan "surge" spilling over into Pakistan’s tribal areas: it means the addition of some 21,000 soldiers to U.S. forces, with the prospect of more to come.
The Janus-faced American hegemon speaks out of both sides of his mouth, and in two voices: one for the masses, who delight in his soaring idealism and seeming ability to express their deepest aspirations, and one for the elites, who hear a promise of continuity rather than change.
This two-track narrative framed even his Prague declamation of a nuclear-free world. According to a top White House aide, we are not to take this idea all that seriously:
"Gary Samore, a White House adviser on arms control, indicated that Mr. Obama’s call for ridding the world of nuclear weapons should not be taken too literally. ‘In terms of a nuclear-free world, we recognize this is not a near-term possibility,’ he said. Rather, the call was an attempt to ’seize the moral high ground’ in order to increase pressure on countries such as North Korea and Iran."
Obama giveth with one hand, and taketh away with another – smiling that oil-slick grin the whole time. Although I agree with the sentiments of the Czech woman cited above, the Obama method goes way beyond mere hypocrisy. It is a conscious technique of inverting the true meaning and intent of his policies.
Thus, his launching of an intensified military campaign in Central Asia is portrayed as an effort to "stabilize" the region. His provocation against Russia in Eastern Europe is paired with a call to abolish nuclear weapons. And, of course, this ploy carries over into the domestic arena, as well, where – in the process of giving certain favored sectors of the financial industry trillions in subsidies – he has launched a campaign against "corporate greed" and outrageously extravagant executive salaries and perks. He rails against corporate irresponsibility, yet he has appointed to his administration the very corporate insiders who got us into this mess in the first place.
Obama ran for president as the spokesman for the underdog – the little guy just managing to make ends meet, whose volunteerism and contributions over the Internet catapulted the Illinois senator into the running. Yet the reality is that Obama was corporate America’s candidate from the very beginning, and they showed it by lavishly financing his campaign: the money emanating from Goldman Sachs was quite impressive, and, together with the DNC, Wall Street buried the Republicans, who were outspent by three-to-one [.pdf] (and out of gas in any event). Unsurprisingly, the top echelons of the president’s economic team are filled with former Goldman Sachs officials – and, not coincidentally, that firm is the primary beneficiary of the AIG/bank bailout.
The ruling elites of this country, confronted by the specter of a rising populist anger, have found in President Obama a subtle and skillful anger-management expert. For years they’ve been frustrated in Washington, as their efforts to fight a spreading war met increasing resistance from the American people. Divine Providence smiled down on them, however, as Obama suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Here was an "antiwar" candidate who said we’ve been fighting the wrong war all along – and, upon taking office, immediately rectified that by sending 21,000 more troops to the wilds of Central Asia.
What a godsend to the War Party Barack Obama is! As he moves toward confrontations with Iran, Russia, and Pakistan, and continues to unnecessarily irritate China, Asia’s sleeping giant, the media portray him as the Great Peacemaker. As the mask slips, however, and the reality becomes all too apparent, how will his "progressive" supporters react? Will they rise in protest, or sign on to Obama’s war?
Stay tuned to this space for the answer…
by Justin Raimondo, April 06, 2009
The news from Europe, if you listen to our infatuated media, is that the Euros love President Obama: according to the American reportage, his recent trip there was a cavalcade of photo-ops, cheering crowds, and hugs from the queen of England. Even the French were in awe of him! However, if you look beneath the surface, not that far beneath the gloss and the glam there runs a current of irritation, and, dare I say it, resentment.
Take, for example, his stop in the Czech Republic, where he declared that he was seeking a nuclear-free world – that is, a world free of nuclear weapons. This is a goal the United States has a special moral responsibility to seek, he averred, because we are the only nation that has actually used these weapons. The crowd loved it. What they didn’t at all love, however, was his announcement that
“‘As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies.’”
"The governments of the Czech Republic and Poland, he added, are ‘courageous’ for ‘agreeing to host a defense against these missiles.’"
One supposes it takes a fair amount of courage to defy the wishes of your own people and obey the dictates of a foreign power, albeit not the sort of courage appreciated by Obama’s audience. As the London Telegraph put it:
"The crowd enthusiastically cheered the more idealistic parts of Mr. Obama’s speech but was relatively subdued when he spoke about his backing for missile defense.
"Petr Sramek, 33, was among those disappointed that Mr. Obama had not dropped a policy that was opposed by more than two thirds of Czechs. ‘I really liked the clear message on nuclear disarmament but I am against the missile defense system. It is more about geopolitical influence then defense against missiles.’
"Arena Protivinska, 30, described herself as a ‘big fan’ of Mr. Obama but accused him of ‘hypocrisy’ for urging world peace while also pushing forward with the missile shield. ‘He sounded like George W Bush saying that we should be afraid in order to justify missile defense.’"
Like Americans, the Europeans want to believe – but they see the two faces of Barack Obama too clearly, and the contrast is too apparent to be denied. The gullible Americans, who take things at face value, still believe their new president represents a real change, a challenge to the status quo, while the more sophisticated Europeans are quick to pick up on Obama’s inconsistencies – made all the more glaring by his habit of pairing two mutually contradictory stances on the same issue.
This includes not only coupling missile "defense" in Eastern Europe with the prospect of a nuclear-free world, but also the recent launching of his "Af-Pak" initiative. Although dressed up as a diplomatic offensive, this is essentially a military offensive aimed at widening the war in Afghanistan to include portions of Pakistan.
The administration and its media lapdogs portrayed the Af-Pak rollout as a definitive break with the bad old days of the Bush White House, when it was all about troop movements. The new regime, we’re told, will initiate substantial diplomatic and humanitarian aid efforts, notably an effort to reach out to dissident elements of the Taliban. However, the real core of the Af-Pak strategy is a radical escalation of the military element, in effect an Afghan "surge" spilling over into Pakistan’s tribal areas: it means the addition of some 21,000 soldiers to U.S. forces, with the prospect of more to come.
The Janus-faced American hegemon speaks out of both sides of his mouth, and in two voices: one for the masses, who delight in his soaring idealism and seeming ability to express their deepest aspirations, and one for the elites, who hear a promise of continuity rather than change.
This two-track narrative framed even his Prague declamation of a nuclear-free world. According to a top White House aide, we are not to take this idea all that seriously:
"Gary Samore, a White House adviser on arms control, indicated that Mr. Obama’s call for ridding the world of nuclear weapons should not be taken too literally. ‘In terms of a nuclear-free world, we recognize this is not a near-term possibility,’ he said. Rather, the call was an attempt to ’seize the moral high ground’ in order to increase pressure on countries such as North Korea and Iran."
Obama giveth with one hand, and taketh away with another – smiling that oil-slick grin the whole time. Although I agree with the sentiments of the Czech woman cited above, the Obama method goes way beyond mere hypocrisy. It is a conscious technique of inverting the true meaning and intent of his policies.
Thus, his launching of an intensified military campaign in Central Asia is portrayed as an effort to "stabilize" the region. His provocation against Russia in Eastern Europe is paired with a call to abolish nuclear weapons. And, of course, this ploy carries over into the domestic arena, as well, where – in the process of giving certain favored sectors of the financial industry trillions in subsidies – he has launched a campaign against "corporate greed" and outrageously extravagant executive salaries and perks. He rails against corporate irresponsibility, yet he has appointed to his administration the very corporate insiders who got us into this mess in the first place.
Obama ran for president as the spokesman for the underdog – the little guy just managing to make ends meet, whose volunteerism and contributions over the Internet catapulted the Illinois senator into the running. Yet the reality is that Obama was corporate America’s candidate from the very beginning, and they showed it by lavishly financing his campaign: the money emanating from Goldman Sachs was quite impressive, and, together with the DNC, Wall Street buried the Republicans, who were outspent by three-to-one [.pdf] (and out of gas in any event). Unsurprisingly, the top echelons of the president’s economic team are filled with former Goldman Sachs officials – and, not coincidentally, that firm is the primary beneficiary of the AIG/bank bailout.
The ruling elites of this country, confronted by the specter of a rising populist anger, have found in President Obama a subtle and skillful anger-management expert. For years they’ve been frustrated in Washington, as their efforts to fight a spreading war met increasing resistance from the American people. Divine Providence smiled down on them, however, as Obama suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Here was an "antiwar" candidate who said we’ve been fighting the wrong war all along – and, upon taking office, immediately rectified that by sending 21,000 more troops to the wilds of Central Asia.
What a godsend to the War Party Barack Obama is! As he moves toward confrontations with Iran, Russia, and Pakistan, and continues to unnecessarily irritate China, Asia’s sleeping giant, the media portray him as the Great Peacemaker. As the mask slips, however, and the reality becomes all too apparent, how will his "progressive" supporters react? Will they rise in protest, or sign on to Obama’s war?
Stay tuned to this space for the answer…
LAUREN BOOTH: Wake up and smell the pepper spray. These 3,609 new laws are to control us, not protect us
^^^A woman is attacked by an officer during the G20 protests in London earlier this month ^^^
I was outside the Bank of England during the G20 protest, not far from where passer-by Ian Tomlinson died after being assaulted by a police officer.
The police presence was as excessive as it was provocative.
The Metropolitan Police’s Territorial Support Group (TSG) are the aggressive offspring of the disgraced Special Patrol Group of the Eighties
The police presence was as excessive as it was provocative.
The Metropolitan Police’s Territorial Support Group (TSG) are the aggressive offspring of the disgraced Special Patrol Group of the Eighties
When policing events, they are issued with ‘Nato’ helmets, flame-retardant overalls, stab vests, gloves, balaclavas and boots. All carry the standard batons, pepper spray and cuffs.
Yet let’s try to remember the last full-on riot in Britain that resulted from a political rally – ah yes, the Poll Tax riots almost 20 years ago.
But the police are still authorised to use Tasers and firearm-trained TSG officers carry pistols or sub-machine guns.
My God, when did we accept that armoured cars, special snatch squads and armed police were the right level of policing for protests against Government policy?
How did we sleepwalk into a situation where our movements, all of our electronic data, even our DNA, is stored on a massive central database?
In fact, it was easy for Blairites to con us into accepting the 3,609 new offences they have created since 1997.
They tapped into our fears and prejudices so we simply ignored the repeal of our rights.
Anti-terror legislation was not too subtly sold as being aimed at evil, dastardly Jihadi-types – not ‘us’.
Yet let’s try to remember the last full-on riot in Britain that resulted from a political rally – ah yes, the Poll Tax riots almost 20 years ago.
But the police are still authorised to use Tasers and firearm-trained TSG officers carry pistols or sub-machine guns.
My God, when did we accept that armoured cars, special snatch squads and armed police were the right level of policing for protests against Government policy?
How did we sleepwalk into a situation where our movements, all of our electronic data, even our DNA, is stored on a massive central database?
In fact, it was easy for Blairites to con us into accepting the 3,609 new offences they have created since 1997.
They tapped into our fears and prejudices so we simply ignored the repeal of our rights.
Anti-terror legislation was not too subtly sold as being aimed at evil, dastardly Jihadi-types – not ‘us’.
Presumably this legislation was intended, then, for people such as my friend Farukh. Farukh is as Brummie as Spaghetti Junction and Tony Hancock.
The only difference is that he is a Muslim. I was on the Viva Palestina convoy with him as he delivered aid directly to grieving, injured, homeless families in the Gaza Strip.
In Britain, he is a care worker who helps to rehabilitate young offenders back into society.
On his return from Palestine, Farukh was held for six hours at a UK airport.
Ever since, his work place, bank manager and other work contacts have received regular visits from Special Branch officers asking about his political beliefs and lifestyle.
Last week he told me: ‘They’re putting untold pressure on me and it just won’t stop.’
I have been shoved and filmed time and again by aggressive police officers for attending meetings such as the alternative Labour Party conference in Manchester in 2006, organised by Stop The War.
But for Muslim Britons who go on marches, raise money for Palestinian charities or dare to express political views of any kind, the consequences are far more serious.
They are monitored, put under pressure, harassed at airports and overtly threatened. I am not likely to suffer the horrors of extraordinary rendition, but Farukh is.
It’s time we all woke up and smelled the pepper spray. These new laws were not created to protect British people but to control us.
Take the case of Malcolm Sleath, chairman of his local park society in Enfield, North London, who was told by police he had breached Section 44 of the Terrorism Act.
This law, amended in February, allows police to stop and search anyone they consider a terrorist threat.
What had Mr Sleath done to warrant the threat of ten years in prison? He had filmed the officers driving their police car erratically across the park.
The 62-year-old management consultant said: ‘They are supposed to investigate things on foot, so I wanted to show the picture to their sergeant.’
Their bosses issued an immediate apology. Mr Sleath was lucky – had he been called Mr Patel he could have been subjected to a detailed, unwarranted, long-term investigation.
The question we must ask now is: are any of us ‘good’ enough to be safe from detention and harm imposed by Government bodies, out-of-control councils or bullying TSG officers?
The only difference is that he is a Muslim. I was on the Viva Palestina convoy with him as he delivered aid directly to grieving, injured, homeless families in the Gaza Strip.
In Britain, he is a care worker who helps to rehabilitate young offenders back into society.
On his return from Palestine, Farukh was held for six hours at a UK airport.
Ever since, his work place, bank manager and other work contacts have received regular visits from Special Branch officers asking about his political beliefs and lifestyle.
Last week he told me: ‘They’re putting untold pressure on me and it just won’t stop.’
I have been shoved and filmed time and again by aggressive police officers for attending meetings such as the alternative Labour Party conference in Manchester in 2006, organised by Stop The War.
But for Muslim Britons who go on marches, raise money for Palestinian charities or dare to express political views of any kind, the consequences are far more serious.
They are monitored, put under pressure, harassed at airports and overtly threatened. I am not likely to suffer the horrors of extraordinary rendition, but Farukh is.
It’s time we all woke up and smelled the pepper spray. These new laws were not created to protect British people but to control us.
Take the case of Malcolm Sleath, chairman of his local park society in Enfield, North London, who was told by police he had breached Section 44 of the Terrorism Act.
This law, amended in February, allows police to stop and search anyone they consider a terrorist threat.
What had Mr Sleath done to warrant the threat of ten years in prison? He had filmed the officers driving their police car erratically across the park.
The 62-year-old management consultant said: ‘They are supposed to investigate things on foot, so I wanted to show the picture to their sergeant.’
Their bosses issued an immediate apology. Mr Sleath was lucky – had he been called Mr Patel he could have been subjected to a detailed, unwarranted, long-term investigation.
The question we must ask now is: are any of us ‘good’ enough to be safe from detention and harm imposed by Government bodies, out-of-control councils or bullying TSG officers?
All 114 power station protesters released as arrests spark civil liberties row
By David Wilkes
Police have released all 114 environmental protesters arrested for allegedly planning to sabotage one of Britain's biggest power stations.
They had been questioned on suspicion of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass and criminal damage. All the protesters have been released on bail.
Scores of officers in 20 vans descended on a private primary school and nursery in the early hours of Easter Monday where demonstrators had gathered ahead of what police believed was a planned mass attack on Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in Nottinghamshire.
Detectives recovered specialist equipment including bolt cutters and locks which they said suggested the group represented a 'serious threat' to the safe running of the coal-fired station, which protesters say is Britain's second-largest producer of carbon-dioxide emissions.
Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal power station, near Nottingham, was believed to be the target of the protest
A police officer stands guard outside the school where the protesters were arrested
In all, 114 men and women from across the UK were detained in the joint operation by Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire forces.
A spokeswoman said: 'Police have gathered a large amount of evidence which they are now reviewing.
'From the information gathered, police believe that those arrested were planning a period of prolonged disruption to the safe running of Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station.'
Police dog handlers and other officers moved in on the protesters at the Iona School, in Sneinton, Nottingham. They have now all been released on bail
The police crackdown before a demonstration has taken place has sparked fears among civil liberties campaigners.
The power station arrests come less than two weeks after police raided 'squats' suspected of being used by protesters on the second day of the G20 summit in London before demonstrations had actually been held that day.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: 'In the light of the policing of the G20 protests, people up and down the country will want to be confident that there was evidence of a real conspiracy to commit criminal damage by those arrested and that this was not just an attempt by the police to disrupt perfectly legitimate protest.'
It is thought the protests were linked to plans for a new coal-fired power-station in Kingsthorpe, Kent, by E.on, which also runs the Ratcliffe-on-Soar station.
Witnesses saw the group being rounded up at the Iona School in Sneinton, Nottingham, one of only 30 Steiner schools in the UK.
Earlier this month officers arrested people in a London squat before a planned G20 demonstration
Steiner schools controversially advocate freeing children from a rigid educational programme, with spiritual and emotional development as important as the three Rs.
Tess Rearden, who lives near the scene, said: 'We were woken up by the sound of doors slamming and saw all these police vans and riot vans.
'It was bedlam - real bedlam.'
Neighbour Mark Hill, 44, said: 'The first thing I thought was it must be terrorism.
'I couldn't think of anything else that would need so many police. But the police were calm.
'I could hear the people singing "We'll be back again" as they were being led away.'
The school was being searched yesterday, and forensic officers were seen leaving the school with a number of backpacks.
No one at the school was available for comment.
An E.on spokesman said: 'We will be assisting police in their investigations into what could have been a very dangerous attempt to disrupt an operational power plant.'
They had been questioned on suspicion of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass and criminal damage. All the protesters have been released on bail.
Scores of officers in 20 vans descended on a private primary school and nursery in the early hours of Easter Monday where demonstrators had gathered ahead of what police believed was a planned mass attack on Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in Nottinghamshire.
Detectives recovered specialist equipment including bolt cutters and locks which they said suggested the group represented a 'serious threat' to the safe running of the coal-fired station, which protesters say is Britain's second-largest producer of carbon-dioxide emissions.
Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal power station, near Nottingham, was believed to be the target of the protest
A police officer stands guard outside the school where the protesters were arrested
In all, 114 men and women from across the UK were detained in the joint operation by Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire forces.
A spokeswoman said: 'Police have gathered a large amount of evidence which they are now reviewing.
'From the information gathered, police believe that those arrested were planning a period of prolonged disruption to the safe running of Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station.'
Police dog handlers and other officers moved in on the protesters at the Iona School, in Sneinton, Nottingham. They have now all been released on bail
The police crackdown before a demonstration has taken place has sparked fears among civil liberties campaigners.
The power station arrests come less than two weeks after police raided 'squats' suspected of being used by protesters on the second day of the G20 summit in London before demonstrations had actually been held that day.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: 'In the light of the policing of the G20 protests, people up and down the country will want to be confident that there was evidence of a real conspiracy to commit criminal damage by those arrested and that this was not just an attempt by the police to disrupt perfectly legitimate protest.'
It is thought the protests were linked to plans for a new coal-fired power-station in Kingsthorpe, Kent, by E.on, which also runs the Ratcliffe-on-Soar station.
Witnesses saw the group being rounded up at the Iona School in Sneinton, Nottingham, one of only 30 Steiner schools in the UK.
Earlier this month officers arrested people in a London squat before a planned G20 demonstration
Steiner schools controversially advocate freeing children from a rigid educational programme, with spiritual and emotional development as important as the three Rs.
Tess Rearden, who lives near the scene, said: 'We were woken up by the sound of doors slamming and saw all these police vans and riot vans.
'It was bedlam - real bedlam.'
Neighbour Mark Hill, 44, said: 'The first thing I thought was it must be terrorism.
'I couldn't think of anything else that would need so many police. But the police were calm.
'I could hear the people singing "We'll be back again" as they were being led away.'
The school was being searched yesterday, and forensic officers were seen leaving the school with a number of backpacks.
No one at the school was available for comment.
An E.on spokesman said: 'We will be assisting police in their investigations into what could have been a very dangerous attempt to disrupt an operational power plant.'
Why do the police need masks?
Ian Bell
IT'S A balaclava, apparently. No doubt it will be described as essential protective dress. But looking at the video film and photographs of the "territorial support group officer" who has just taken his baton to Ian Tomlinson minutes before the newspaper vendor's death, I'm wondering: why does a British policeman in pursuance of his duties feel the need to be masked?
There's another mystery. In one still, Tomlinson is sitting on the ground before the police line, being aided by a stranger. There are eight helmeted officers and two dog handlers in shot. Of these, only three have balaclavas. Two wear the garment normally, covering the chin. The third, having stepped aside after his attack on the passer-by, has the thing high on his face, leaving only the eyes showing. And his shoulder tabs, the tabs bearing his police number, have gone.
That's an old one. It is, of course, against all the rules. The number is there for a reason, in theory to the benefit of police and public alike should disputes arise. Traditionally, we don't much care for masked and anonymous coppers in a country said to cherish the right to protest. After all, the forces of law and order, repositories of public trust, have nothing to hide.
Last weekend, disparaging some of the G20 demonstrators, I remarked that the Met and its helpers in the City of London Police had seemed just a little too eager for trouble. They were - they said so - "up for it". The subsequent flood of complaints over policing methods was therefore not too much of a surprise. The handful of wee warriors - class, eco, whatever - who can confuse a smashed window with a smashed system were the perfect foil, Judy to Punch, for the Met's media operation. But I missed one aspect of the ritual.
Someone has to give the orders. Someone has to set the tone, plan the strategy, and lead the officers on the ground to an understanding of what is, and is not, acceptable. "Kettling", the penning of a crowd into a confined area for hours on end as though to provoke anger, does not happen spontaneously. The use of batons and shields does not happen on a whim. The planting of plain-clothes officers and fake photographers is no freelance initiative. And levels of violence - "zero tolerance", if you like - arise from operational decisions.
The alternative is to believe that our police are actually out of control. Would Sir Paul Stephenson, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, care to speak to that idea? I doubt it. Instead, we can expect to see the officer filmed striking Mr Tomlinson - other beatings of the victim that day have been alleged - become the Met's one bad apple. If found guilty of an offence, he will have "overstepped the bounds", succumbed to pressure, lost his head. He will not be identified, and will not identify himself, as part of a pre-meditated operation. Who was jailed for the wanton killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, after all?
The police officer will not be identified... Who was jailed for the wanton killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, after all?
Let's give the benefit of every doubt. It must be very difficult to police a large demonstration in which a lot of people are angry, some hate your guts, and a few are spoiling for a fight. It must be scary. Should things go wrong, you, or the public you are supposed to be protecting, could be in danger. Things are liable to be chaotic. Orders will not always be clear. No plan is ever perfect, in any case. Something always goes wrong. And, yes, people do lose their heads when adrenalin, nerves, fear and fatigue go to work.
But in the immediate aftermath of the G20, before it became clear that Tomlinson's death was something more than a small but simple tragedy, the brass at the Met were patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Their now habitual use of methods once unthinkable in this country had worked like a charm. Minimal damage to property; lots of arrests (if precious few charges); no security breaches; and nothing but the usual whining from the usual quarters: something to be proud of.
As for that unfortunate death, a quick post-mortem managed to detect a heart attack but no evidence whatever of bruising on the body of a man who had been thumped with a baton and thrown heavily to the ground on more than one occasion. Meanwhile, the "Independent" Police Complaints Commission found no need for a speedy inquiry - initially, the City of London Police were expected to investigate the City of London Police. Even now that the IPCC is on board, will any real questions be asked?
Questions such as: is this really how order is to be kept on London's streets? Questions such as: why dare to talk about the "right to peaceful protest" when peaceful environmental protesters have been clubbed? Above all, this question: can police commanders go on deploring violence when their strategies incite violence and their officers are often the worst culprits?
The brass can't dodge these issues. Is the Met a disciplined force or not? If it is, who gave the orders during the G20? If it is not, who resigns? When the riot squad begin to disguise themselves - just like the "anarchists"; lovely irony - they enjoy at least the tacit understanding of their superiors. Even that can only be excused if you fall back on the "isolated incident" explanation for violence, and that would be a lie. These are modern policing methods, the rule and not the exception.
The masking of the officer who hit Tomlinson has one simple explanation, of course. Call it the democratisation of surveillance. These days video cameras are palm-sized; every other phone can take a picture. They can even take snaps of police officers engaged in apparent crimes. So while the forces of law and order have few qualms over our privacy, and see nothing intrusive about those Google Street View vans now peering at homes across Britain, they guard their own identities when they think they must. Why? Surely "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear"? Tell that to the cop with no number.
While this controversy was unfolding, of course, another of the Met's finest was learning the value of a picture. Bob Quick, the Met's "anti-terror chief", had to quit last week after compromising an anti-terrorism operation. Apparently it is not a good idea to flash secret operational documents in front of press cameras, just as it is not a good idea to hit an apparently harmless man in front of witnesses with digital equipment. Hence perhaps the desire of the police, thwarted thus far, to make it illegal for the rest of us to film or photograph them.
Wouldn't it be simpler just to observe the first rule of home movies: don't do anything you might regret? For the Met, at least, it's probably too late. A terrorist threat, a real one, has caused the force, its multitude of decent cops included, to embrace the logic of the security state. That was the point of the response to the G20 protests: every member of the public present was regarded as suspect, just in case. No chances were taken, no exceptions made, and precious little restraint was applied to those wielding the batons.
Instead, there was encouragement. Watch the footage of the attack on Tomlinson. The baton blow looked unprovoked, spontaneous as a street brawl. The officer's body language said that this - lashing out, under no apparent threat, offered no resistance - was why he was there. And not a single one of his colleagues said a word, put out a restraining hand, or moved to help his victim. They knew the score.
The commissioner of the Metropolitan Police enjoys what all governments like to call operational independence. It is the perfect political formula. Sir Paul Stephenson reports to a committee chaired by London's mayor, Boris Johnson, and answers ultimately to the home secretary, Jacqui Smith. But the daily decisions are his alone. If he succeeds, the politicians take credit. If he fails, he takes the blame.
Stephenson issues his orders, nevertheless, within the prevailing political climate. That demands intolerance, suspicion, unaccountability, the unthinking use of force - and the corruption, finally, of any idea of democratic policing. No wonder the foot soldiers hide their faces.
IT'S A balaclava, apparently. No doubt it will be described as essential protective dress. But looking at the video film and photographs of the "territorial support group officer" who has just taken his baton to Ian Tomlinson minutes before the newspaper vendor's death, I'm wondering: why does a British policeman in pursuance of his duties feel the need to be masked?
There's another mystery. In one still, Tomlinson is sitting on the ground before the police line, being aided by a stranger. There are eight helmeted officers and two dog handlers in shot. Of these, only three have balaclavas. Two wear the garment normally, covering the chin. The third, having stepped aside after his attack on the passer-by, has the thing high on his face, leaving only the eyes showing. And his shoulder tabs, the tabs bearing his police number, have gone.
That's an old one. It is, of course, against all the rules. The number is there for a reason, in theory to the benefit of police and public alike should disputes arise. Traditionally, we don't much care for masked and anonymous coppers in a country said to cherish the right to protest. After all, the forces of law and order, repositories of public trust, have nothing to hide.
Last weekend, disparaging some of the G20 demonstrators, I remarked that the Met and its helpers in the City of London Police had seemed just a little too eager for trouble. They were - they said so - "up for it". The subsequent flood of complaints over policing methods was therefore not too much of a surprise. The handful of wee warriors - class, eco, whatever - who can confuse a smashed window with a smashed system were the perfect foil, Judy to Punch, for the Met's media operation. But I missed one aspect of the ritual.
Someone has to give the orders. Someone has to set the tone, plan the strategy, and lead the officers on the ground to an understanding of what is, and is not, acceptable. "Kettling", the penning of a crowd into a confined area for hours on end as though to provoke anger, does not happen spontaneously. The use of batons and shields does not happen on a whim. The planting of plain-clothes officers and fake photographers is no freelance initiative. And levels of violence - "zero tolerance", if you like - arise from operational decisions.
The alternative is to believe that our police are actually out of control. Would Sir Paul Stephenson, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, care to speak to that idea? I doubt it. Instead, we can expect to see the officer filmed striking Mr Tomlinson - other beatings of the victim that day have been alleged - become the Met's one bad apple. If found guilty of an offence, he will have "overstepped the bounds", succumbed to pressure, lost his head. He will not be identified, and will not identify himself, as part of a pre-meditated operation. Who was jailed for the wanton killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, after all?
The police officer will not be identified... Who was jailed for the wanton killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, after all?
Let's give the benefit of every doubt. It must be very difficult to police a large demonstration in which a lot of people are angry, some hate your guts, and a few are spoiling for a fight. It must be scary. Should things go wrong, you, or the public you are supposed to be protecting, could be in danger. Things are liable to be chaotic. Orders will not always be clear. No plan is ever perfect, in any case. Something always goes wrong. And, yes, people do lose their heads when adrenalin, nerves, fear and fatigue go to work.
But in the immediate aftermath of the G20, before it became clear that Tomlinson's death was something more than a small but simple tragedy, the brass at the Met were patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Their now habitual use of methods once unthinkable in this country had worked like a charm. Minimal damage to property; lots of arrests (if precious few charges); no security breaches; and nothing but the usual whining from the usual quarters: something to be proud of.
As for that unfortunate death, a quick post-mortem managed to detect a heart attack but no evidence whatever of bruising on the body of a man who had been thumped with a baton and thrown heavily to the ground on more than one occasion. Meanwhile, the "Independent" Police Complaints Commission found no need for a speedy inquiry - initially, the City of London Police were expected to investigate the City of London Police. Even now that the IPCC is on board, will any real questions be asked?
Questions such as: is this really how order is to be kept on London's streets? Questions such as: why dare to talk about the "right to peaceful protest" when peaceful environmental protesters have been clubbed? Above all, this question: can police commanders go on deploring violence when their strategies incite violence and their officers are often the worst culprits?
The brass can't dodge these issues. Is the Met a disciplined force or not? If it is, who gave the orders during the G20? If it is not, who resigns? When the riot squad begin to disguise themselves - just like the "anarchists"; lovely irony - they enjoy at least the tacit understanding of their superiors. Even that can only be excused if you fall back on the "isolated incident" explanation for violence, and that would be a lie. These are modern policing methods, the rule and not the exception.
The masking of the officer who hit Tomlinson has one simple explanation, of course. Call it the democratisation of surveillance. These days video cameras are palm-sized; every other phone can take a picture. They can even take snaps of police officers engaged in apparent crimes. So while the forces of law and order have few qualms over our privacy, and see nothing intrusive about those Google Street View vans now peering at homes across Britain, they guard their own identities when they think they must. Why? Surely "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear"? Tell that to the cop with no number.
While this controversy was unfolding, of course, another of the Met's finest was learning the value of a picture. Bob Quick, the Met's "anti-terror chief", had to quit last week after compromising an anti-terrorism operation. Apparently it is not a good idea to flash secret operational documents in front of press cameras, just as it is not a good idea to hit an apparently harmless man in front of witnesses with digital equipment. Hence perhaps the desire of the police, thwarted thus far, to make it illegal for the rest of us to film or photograph them.
Wouldn't it be simpler just to observe the first rule of home movies: don't do anything you might regret? For the Met, at least, it's probably too late. A terrorist threat, a real one, has caused the force, its multitude of decent cops included, to embrace the logic of the security state. That was the point of the response to the G20 protests: every member of the public present was regarded as suspect, just in case. No chances were taken, no exceptions made, and precious little restraint was applied to those wielding the batons.
Instead, there was encouragement. Watch the footage of the attack on Tomlinson. The baton blow looked unprovoked, spontaneous as a street brawl. The officer's body language said that this - lashing out, under no apparent threat, offered no resistance - was why he was there. And not a single one of his colleagues said a word, put out a restraining hand, or moved to help his victim. They knew the score.
The commissioner of the Metropolitan Police enjoys what all governments like to call operational independence. It is the perfect political formula. Sir Paul Stephenson reports to a committee chaired by London's mayor, Boris Johnson, and answers ultimately to the home secretary, Jacqui Smith. But the daily decisions are his alone. If he succeeds, the politicians take credit. If he fails, he takes the blame.
Stephenson issues his orders, nevertheless, within the prevailing political climate. That demands intolerance, suspicion, unaccountability, the unthinking use of force - and the corruption, finally, of any idea of democratic policing. No wonder the foot soldiers hide their faces.
Children tracked by sat nav to stop bad behaviour
Pupils will use a picture swipe card to clock on and off the bus allowing parents to keep a closer check on their child via a website
The project is being trialled across the six North Wales counties to tackle anti-social behaviour on school buses.
Pupils will use a picture swipe card to clock on and off the bus allowing parents to keep a closer check on their child via a website.
It will help deal with a number of issues including truancy, drivers reporting and identifying ill-behaved children and monitoring a child's whereabouts in the event of them going missing or a bus breakdown.
The scheme include 'Bus Angels' aged 14 and above, who covertly report incidents of bad behaviour,
Peter Daniels, transport manager at Denbighshire County Council said: "The main aims are to support schools, drivers, parents and pupils on school buses to improve behaviour and enable them to understand the consequences of some of the things they do.
"I have to say in north east Wales we don't really see trouble and misbehaviour, but in the afternoon some of the pupils can be jolly and minor anti-social behaviour can occur, or from time to time something more serious.
"It's very much like the scheme in London where an Oystercard user boards a bus and taps in and then taps out when he or she gets off.
"Using GPS tracking, parents will know exactly where their pupils are on the bus."
This is just another form of big brother to quite a scary exstent, no child that attends a school will ever be free if this is implemented into all schools around the world. Do not comply with what "the powers" are trying to enforce and together we can change the world and make it a free, happy, loving and peacefull place once again.
The project is being trialled across the six North Wales counties to tackle anti-social behaviour on school buses.
Pupils will use a picture swipe card to clock on and off the bus allowing parents to keep a closer check on their child via a website.
It will help deal with a number of issues including truancy, drivers reporting and identifying ill-behaved children and monitoring a child's whereabouts in the event of them going missing or a bus breakdown.
The scheme include 'Bus Angels' aged 14 and above, who covertly report incidents of bad behaviour,
Peter Daniels, transport manager at Denbighshire County Council said: "The main aims are to support schools, drivers, parents and pupils on school buses to improve behaviour and enable them to understand the consequences of some of the things they do.
"I have to say in north east Wales we don't really see trouble and misbehaviour, but in the afternoon some of the pupils can be jolly and minor anti-social behaviour can occur, or from time to time something more serious.
"It's very much like the scheme in London where an Oystercard user boards a bus and taps in and then taps out when he or she gets off.
"Using GPS tracking, parents will know exactly where their pupils are on the bus."
This is just another form of big brother to quite a scary exstent, no child that attends a school will ever be free if this is implemented into all schools around the world. Do not comply with what "the powers" are trying to enforce and together we can change the world and make it a free, happy, loving and peacefull place once again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
