TV ads instead of demos

Whilst Extinction Rebellion are trying to sell us their story, they do so by stopping traffic, apologetic, no less, they cause a disturbance.

They say, they need to do this, to make us aware of the climate agenda.

But, what about taking out a TV ad instead. You cannot reach more people than with a TV ad. XR got lots of money, they have extremely rich sponsors, so TV ads, should be affordable for them.

And as it is such a good cause, ITV or other commercial channels may even chip in and half the price?

Apparently the Chief Medical officer, constantly appears in between our favourite program to remind us of corona Virus dangers, he wouldn’t dream stopping traffic to remind a few drivers of the dangers.

Obviously XR want to use the issue to radicalise ‘rebel’s, teach them how to interrupt and feel good about it. They use and abuse us to train political resistance.

London disruptions funded by billionnaires and philanthropists

There we have it, riches are concentrated among a small minority of elitists and once they realise that their previous business enrichment has been causing serious damange to the planet – because its the rich who are in charge of all business around the world – they simply finance a protest movement that aims to change things.

Those include:

  • Sir Christopher Hohn
  • Aileen Getty (oil heiress)
  • Radiohead (band)
  • Crowd funding (6.000 people donated £600.000 in a week)

But why concentrate the actions on London? The sponsors assume that no civil disobidience took place! Is that living in dream land?

The working people of London are unable to earn a living normally and they have to cope with triple the stress than normal!

Those donations should be used to pay for the extra policing effort it took to control those demonstrations. We need police to fight crime. We hear of stabbing every day and there is little police available to patrol our streets.

Perhaps those who lost out financially through the actions should take some steps to recover their monies. Now they know whom to ask.

So that is irresponsible.

Just heard that in Manchester a criminal has stabbed several people in a horrible incident. That is what we need our police for, not for making sure that those weird looking Extinction Rebellion demos are policed.


Slash, bang, whallop

Here we have it, Boris Johnson, shows how tough he is on crime and wants to build 10.000 more prison places and increase stop and search.

We are going towards a classical double-sided society. The underlings, living in prison cells and the good people living in houses/flats.

In the old days we could see the two-way society by the way pubs were built with two entrances for the poor and the rich. The public and saloon bars.

Boris Johnson now wants to create a new society whereby everybody just gets locked up, out of the way and that creates the internment society.

Gone has the community cohesion model, the trying to build civil societies who live together in peace and harmony.

I am not against stop and search and I am not against re-introducing the 20.000 police officers that were cut from the budget but recruiting masses of police officers quickly, doesn’t exactly increase the quality control of officer that is coming to our beats.

Yet stop and search done on an aggressively large scale, can seriously push mentally instable people over the edge and we may be walking towards a new age of riots.

Whilst the new government bemoans a break-down in civil society here in Tower Hamlets all Neighbourhood Watch signs were taken down from lamp posts. Those signs were always

  • an expression of anti-crime sentiment,
  • deterrents for criminals and
  • assurance for residents.

Why remove those signs, when they are simply a positive influence on the community? And whilst removing Neighbourhood Watch signs, which always introduced a better feeling of community spirit and increased attempts of community cohesion and simply replace all by a quick lock up and shut up policy?

It seems we are trending towards the Chinese model of building internmnet centres for re-education, and assisted living.

It is totally amazing that the government suddenly can find the funds to build 10.000 new prison places but is unable to build council housing in the same scale.

Duggan conclusion misrepresented

Today a jury decided that Duggan was killed lawfully by police. I listened to the original BBC broadcast. It appears that the jury had to decide how the nearby gun, wrapped in a sock came to be over a fence and the jury decided that Duggan had thrown that gun away prior to the police having stopped the car.

However AlJazeera now reports that the jury decided that Duggan did not have a gun. I think that the finding of the jury did not conclude that Duggan didn’t have a gun but that the gun found nearby was thrown before the police stopped.

That does not mean that Duggan could not have had another gun in the car. It would be important to know how the actual stopping procedure went and if he was asked to surrender prior to being shot or how he behaved and what actually happened. We get so many bits and pieces from the press its not conclusive for me as reader.

In the meantime Sir Hogan-Howe has promised that weapons police officers will wear cameras in future to learn from this event.

Safety is still in the eyes of the beholder. An officer just has to feel that his life is threatened to be able to aim a gun. All a camera has to proof that the subject made a movement that could be interpreted as preparing to shoot at the officer. I don’t think that in the Duggan case a camera would have made any difference.

In this BBC article on 12/1/14 it says now the jury said Duggan wasn’t holding a gun when shot by police.

Rott in Jailhouse rock

As much as I agree with Dobson and Norris that they are not the killers of Stephen Lawrence, just from what I’ve read and watched about the case, I also have to agree  with the judge that turned down their appeal against their sentence.

The situation is in the real world that we would get an immense amount of public contention because if Dobson and Norris gotten off without the real killer being found, we are back to square one and the nation gets the impression that nothing is really done or doable to find the killer.

I think that Stephen’s mother’s nightmare would start all over again if those 2 got off and out of jail.

What must happen, is that the real killer must deliver a confession so that the guilt can be transferred, rather than just cancelled without a prosecutable person being caught.

Letting Dobson and Norris win an appeal without a real killer, would screw public tensions sky-high, lay the foundation for further rioting and huge public dissatisfaction. So put your thinking caps on and try to get the real killer to confess to his crime and then all your problems will be solved. Till then its rot in jail for you.  In the circumstances jail is probably a safer place because any release from jail without a proper suspect, would increase personal attacks on Dobson and Norris also.

A sentence much too lenient

I think it is completely unfair and much too lenient that the person who caused over £ 1 million worth of damage to shops and set properties alight, without giving any regard to the lives of those who lived above commercial properties during the riots, that that person only gotten 8 years of jail. It is not enough, for potentially wanting to kill residents and burnt businesses to the ground and 6 residents were left homeless.

It is not enough that he gave up his council flat voluntarily. He should not be released from jail because this person is very dangerous indeed.

The Leveson enquiry

So far I have not commented much on that Leveson enquiry, but now it seems obvious that this enquiry deals mainly with the domestic aspect of journalism and the direct effect that the media has on the private lives of the people the press considers are public property.

I miss however the hard-hitting facts of public opinion making, what effect press reporting has on that. Politically the whole mood of a country can be influenced by toned reporting. Often enough we only find out decades later how any publicity deceived its readers.

The Leveson enquiry doesn’t seem to deal with obvious press deceptions. As long as these deceptions work in favour of the British political interest the enquiry doesn’t want to touch upon it. Of course it is noble of the enquiry to call people like Guido Fawkes who openly admits that he cares very little about publishing restrictions in the UK because he uses international servers and it would be too much work for anybody to actually sue him successfully.Just to mention here that Fawkes tried to provoke me to sue him by sending me a fax in which he invited me to sue him, knowing that it would be a fruitless undertaking.

Of course the blight on the live of celebs is important for them because their private lives are constantly tainted by the Paparazzi but that is really only one aspect of publishing. There is the much more important political opinion making publishing machinery that introduces politics per stealth into our lives on a daily basis. The Freedom of Expression is responsible for allowing to introduce into our minds whole concepts of political endeavour that we have to digest without even realising what is happening to us.

Again lets just re-call in the German case we were  and still are made to belief that a group or several groups of mentally ill ex-mental patients formed into criminal groups and, whilst totally underweight and skinny,they handled heavy machine gun type weapons and organised in terror cells.

It is too obviously ridiculous to make sense that people who hardly weigh enough to wear their own clothes, should be fit enough to handle heavy weapons. Look at all the pictures of armed police officers in the media today, you can see, they are all physically strong to even just stand around and hold those weapons but in the case of the German publishing machinery we are led to belief that crazy people, who were terribly underweight carried out robberies with heavy weapons?

Leveson never asked me to testify how the German magazine Der Spiegel tried to pay me thousands to be able to continue on a false story about Baader-Meinhof. Why doesn’t he show it is possible for publishers today to print lies as long as they have the copyright consent of the persons within those stories.

Leveson never asks how it is possible that a sitting High Court judge can assume the actions of German police officers over 30 years ago when the Germans themselves have already shredded all files about the era. The Leveson enquiry never looks into the historical truth of publications today as long as they suit some obscure British political interest.

And those British political interests today are strongly interwoven with some German political tendencies as Merkel and Cameron  have some very equally wacky ideas. Whilst Germany wants to repress the rest of Europe into austerity, Cameron plays his part here in the UK to put us all into misery about it too.

We have seen how political propaganda can obscure facts and shield human rights abuses. Unfortunately the Leveson enquiry only focuses on the popular press and that is all it is good for.

There are no easy answers and no standard questions because the focus of politics  has changed completely. But Leveson completely forgets to question how ideas are sold to the public and how those ideas conceal the basic facts of what is behind those ideas.

Leveson does not emphasize why publishers do not have to declare why they publish something, what the purpose of some storyline is. Publishers are not forced to explain what they try to obtain by putting stories. They repeat what they are told to report by political parties but have no obligation to make historical comparisons. We are being presented with modern politics as if everything they tell us has no sinister reasons.

We are constantly told that everything abroad that happens in countries like Syria is bad but our own riots were not dissimilar to the situation that is happening in Syria today but the press is able to tell us that the attempts of the Syrian government to stop their riots are criminal but what would have happened if the police had not been able here in the UK to stop the riots when they did?  It was publicised that the police here in the UK would have had the right to shoot at rioters, which is what police does in Syria because things have gone completely out of hand.

We are constantly told how other countries abuse human rights, but here in the UK, we are told that the same human rights abuses are lawful and necessary.

Our right for religion is being criminalised for instance. Yet Leveson has not looked into the powerful changes press reporting can achieve, it merely scratches the surface of publicity.

More punishment for benefit recipients

You get more fine for your crime if you do not pay up on time. In future, when the new universal benefit comes in, people can be made to pay up to 37% of their present rate of job seeker’s allowance. That of course is a huge chunk of the weekly income and unmanageable for all, I dare say.  Will that send criminals on a never-ending downward spiral?

What I miss on this system of fine punishment for benefit recipients, what I miss is an equivalent measure for wealthier criminals that do not pay fines. The new measures are picking on the poor and aim to discipline them better, which is a good thing but I fail to see the overall approach that also includes richer offenders.

Only 40% of  the participants in the recent riots were benefit recipients and that is not even half. So why are there measures only now to punish the benefit recipients? 100 rioters were in receipt of Disability Living Allowance. If they received the moving about element of care, they should lose that if they went rioting alone.

But I emphasize again, not enough is being done to deter richer people from committing crimes. As we see from the statistics published not even half of the rioters were on benefits. A lot of crimes, and I think drug crime is a relevant example is committed by people not on benefits. Again we see this punishment regime that concentrates on benefit recipients but does not include working people. There is no equal treatment of benefit recipients and non benefit recipients and that is what makes it unfair. There is no equal measure to stop all people from committing crime and punishing those who are on benefits more than those who are not is not going to help at all.

If people lose 1/3 of their weekly income on fines, they will default on other bills like energy, rent, rates. The amount of homeless persons will increase. People who work and fail to pay their fines have no special measures taken up against them that are proportionally equal to the loss of income.

It will become proportionally easier for rich persons to commit crime and that is a substantive alteration to the legal principle that should exist in the UK, which emphasises that we are all the same under the law.

I strongly support and encourage methods that encourage crime reduction but feel it has to be the same difficult for all population groups to commit crimes. It does not hurt a rich person to pay a fine as it does not hurt a rich person to get a deduction in wages or other income. Working people can default on fines and what happens to them? Are their punishments kept low so that they can keep their jobs better so that their mortgage payments do not default?

Motives of rioters

The composition of the rioters puts serious doubts on any suggestions that this could have anything to do with political aims or a classical class-war or an attempted revolution to overthrow the government.  3/4 of the rioters had a previous conviction with an average of 15 offences. Those are horrendous figures that also explain why the rioters showed little care for life.

That simply puts the connection of the shooting of one suspected drug dealer being bemoaned by a load of criminals in a new perspective. Though this does not excuse the action of the CO19 unit for shooting their target who does not seemed to have had a weapon. It is not an acceptable police tactic to shoot a suspected criminal, provoke other criminals to riot so that they can all be locked up in one swoop.  Even though that might not have been the intended way of action but that is how it went.

I could not say that all social housing estates are populated by criminals. Our housing estate is almost 50% owned and we have an active TRA and also a Neighbourhood Watch scheme. But that is community inspired.

Yet the biggest weakness of our neighbourhood policing strategy is that it is policing on demand. So if you get the criminal element taking over a community they do not want to volunteer on either Neighbourhood Watches or SNT panels. they would not want to  notify the police of wrong-doing and they would not contribute to the statistics that show that there is something wrong and police involvement is needed.

Well or course the new housing policies might force people to move more often but that can have the opposite effect and unsettle already fragile communities even more because in such communities it is a long-term effort to achieve social conscience and positive change and it often works only if people remain where they are so that they can build on existing social relationships.

Union chief calls for civil disobedience

Short of calling for civil unrest, which is the slightly more radical call and would support rioting, Unite chief Len McCluskey, issued a call for “civil disobedience” to fight government cuts.

But he also said that no form of protest should be ruled out including ‘direct action’. That was published on the BBC at 9:50 today. I left the page open before I went to church.

That could include rioting and other radical activities,which are implied in direct action in my personal view. McCluskey asked for resistance against the attack on worker’s pensions and the cuts in general.

What a fine mess this government has gotten as into this time. Our Reverend recently said that chaos will reveal the truth and it has as the recent riots have shown. But they have also shown that it will disrupt the supply chain to cities and who will suffer the most from this, it is the weak, the old, the poor and the vulnerable. Mothers and children fear for their food and people will be too scared to get out of the house if there is open disorder in the streets.

It is quite sad that the government cuts and decision-making process leaves worker no choice but to become radical because they had not been vetoed on the issues and cuts. It would be a good idea to undergo a consultation process to include the ‘victims’ of such decisions but nothing like that was even proposed. A referendum on such policies would be in order. The recent cuts only hurt the people on low incomes the most. There is no legal remedy available to use and people have no time for peaceful protests because those affected are often in full-time jobs. The only victims of cuts are those who are working and some people in receipt of housing benefits, who may have to pay over the odds for their abode and some are indirectly affected my stealth taxes such as water rates and increased fuel bills.

I have put myself on a very short budget at the moment. I cannot afford anything but the most basic foods. Our local church has started a food bank, to which people on benefits can come whilst they waiting for decisions on their benefits, which can take now up to 5 or 6 weeks. The only beneficiaries from the Big Society seem to be volunters who now an claim benefits if they ‘work’ more than 16 hours per week.

Personally I think cut-backs in themselves are not a bad thing, reduce the consumer attitude and so on but and the big but must be that any cuts were not sold properly to the customers, which are we all. There was no proper consultation and people have been herded like sheep and put on austerity measures without seeking their approval and consent. That is the point that people don’t like and what’s more what they also don’t like is that they might have to borrow more and get increased interest bills and no chance of reducing that debt sensibly. Yet Barclay’s Bank has been allowed to sponsor Boris’s biking scheme but the users of the credit card indirectly finance that scheme with high interest rates. No reduced interest rates were passed on to credit card holders at all. They are not given a choice what they want to sponsor because they do not get asked what they want their card to sponsor if anything at all.

I am concerned because here in Tower Hamlets we suffer from a double whammy, which is a council that does not support Neighbourhood Watches, which in itself produces a less constructive relationship with the police, we have racial tension and we have an area that is full of people to the brim. Yet the announced forthcoming strikes and civil disobedience will bring disruption to this area and I hope that people can bring themselves to ask for a better structure of keeping order in this locality by forcing the council or the commander of the Tower Hamlets Police to support a roll out of Neighbourhood Watch schemes in Tower Hamlets, which help people to be in the driving seat for keeping order in the locality and keep the police to account in how they intend to keep civil unrest to a minimum so that people can get their basic food supplies and travel around the area without fear of attack or other hassles.

What I want from this government is a contingency plan, that will sufficiently ensure that our streets are kept safe and not just threats and increased police activity that could lead to more repressive measures that involve armed police like CO19. The recent riots have stretched police forces to the limit and if we see such repetitions throughout the land, we will get into severe problems. I do not think that it is sustainable to continue with this government for that reason. If the Liberal Democrats had any sense, they would pull out of this coalition and put their own personal prides aside and led this Conservative government try and rule the country alone, which would not last very long and they had to stand down.

There is obviously no point in having a government that nobody wants.

I do not even think that it does make much difference what has been discovered in Libya over alleged compliance with torture of the Blair government.

PS: If governments can propose and carry out such draconian cuts over such a short period of time, then a backlash an be predicted. To prevent this from happening again there should be some legislation that forbids any cuts in government spending, that affects the income of people directly or indirectly without further consultation.That might hamper industry a little bit but we are people after all and need to live in dignity.  People’s income should never be allowed to fall below a certain sum and their income must always be calculated net of costs of living. There is not much point in raising wages when costs rise even more.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,132 hits
%d bloggers like this: