Metropolitan Police and Extinction Rebellion

(Dame) Cressida Dick’s Metropolitan Police (Met) oppose the human right to political protest.  Nine and a half years of Tory rule eroded legal rights to protest, demonstrate or picket politically.  Tory appointments to the most senior positions in the Met ensured that it policed political action in the interests of the government.  Changes to law and changes to police procedure were designed to be vague to allow the police to act however they want.

Two modes of operation by police when dealing with protests are wilful misuse of the law.

1) Normally, over 90% of people arrested at political protests are not charged but issued with ridiculous bail conditions.  The arrests are intelligence gathering without consent – names, addresses and photos of arrestees – and the bail conditions focus on instructions to not attend any protests which is criminal manipulation of the reason for bail conditions.  Such actions are deliberate abuse of the bail system and of the powers of arrest and exist solely to deny the right to protest.  

2) Section 14 of the Public Order Act is both a draconian anti-protest law and an excuse used by the police to do whatever the hell they like.  Police enactment of Section 14 is always outside of due legal process.  Typically, it is used in a staged way to reduce a protest size and effectiveness.  New impositions of Section 14 are declared without prior warning and at the most awkward time.  In the ongoing (October) Extinction Rebellion street protest in London the police imposed Section 14, erroneously, to restrict protest to Trafalgar Square and then turned up there late at night with another Section 14 scam to close the protest.

Both of the above police tactics are easily contested and overturned in court action but that happens after a protest was stifled by illegal police actions and it does not stop the police from repeating the tactics.  Police forces know they can break the law regarding policing of political protests with no consequences for them and no ensuing restriction on their actions.

The Met’s swift removal of the right to protest for Extinction Rebellion was not due primarily to opposition to the political message of demanding action to tackle man-made climate change.  The denial of protest was a response to how successful Extinction Rebellion has been in both numbers of people worldwide who take part and the connection made between climate change and the destructive capitalist system.  Extinction Rebellion targetted parliaments, fossil fuel industry and its financial backers, banks and media outlets that support climate destruction.  The protesters made a necessary connection between climate change and its culprits and that is what scares governments.

Almost all Extinction Rebellion protesters in Britain have not been violent but police used violence against them.  For political protests police violence is always displayed blatantly and targetted at the weakest.  The police want to be seen to be violent thugs as a means of deterring protest by frightening people from attending.  Any organised self-defence by the protesters would be sure to be met with riot police armed with a variety of weaponry and with their faces covered cowardly to avoid identification.  There is no limit to what Cressida Dick is capable of.  She was the commander responsible for the operation to execute Jean Charles de Menezes on a tube train in 2005 and was a key protagonist in the subsequent attempted cover-up.

Cressida Dick enjoys her damehood handed to her by the Tories as a thank you for her obedience.  She is an archetypal obedient servant of elitism and control.

Cressida Dick (left)

The Met is intrinsically political and none of its recent actions were surprising.

Related blog
Cressida Dick blames social media for crime

Advertisement

Commission for Countering Extremism report on far-left extremism

In Violent Extremist Tactics and the ideology of the far-left Tories’ Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE) quango concocted a flimsy attempt to create a threat of “far-left extremism.”

The authors of the paper, Siobhan McAndrew, David Hirsh and Daniel Allington, used deceptive nomenclature to malign socialism and communism such as prepending the adjective “sectarian” repeatedly to left-wing political ideology in order to deny its wide popular appeal, they indulged in absurd bounded pigeon-holing of supposed left-wing perspectives and they invented a daft misrepresentation of historical revolutionary socialism. 

The three stooges presented their inspection of revolutionary socialism from a detached pseudo-elevated position.  They discussed support for the rights of workers and for the battle against exploitation as if such concepts were alien to society.  They lied incessantly about the political perspective and intent of revolutionary socialists and combined mocking with libellous insults.  An example of the stupidity of their language was calling revolutionary socialism an “anti-civic ideology.”

The predetermined stance of the paper echoed that of an editorial in The Sun or of a typical piece of garbage from one of the many anti-socialist right-wing think-tanks like Institute of Economic Affairs, Adam Smith Institute and Centre for Policy Studies.  Throughout, it was dishonest, contradictory and snarky.

Armed with fraudulent assertions about the nature and make-up of revolutionary socialism, the authors stated hypotheses on the probability of people with far-left politics becoming violent followed by a torturous technical analysis of “data” including cod mathematics in a journey toward proof or otherwise of the hypotheses. 

A “conclusion” of their investigation of their hypotheses was interesting.

“Our findings suggest that although very few British adults identify as ‘very left-wing’ or have a ‘very positive’ view of ‘revolutionary socialist groups’, there are much larger numbers who are in a position of agreement with regard to salient components of the revolutionary workerist ideology expressed in the publications of the sectarian far left.  Moreover, our findings suggest that there is a positive relationship between sympathy for violent extremism and both revolutionary workerism and an ‘anti-imperialist’ geopolitical outlook.” (Section 8 [conclusion], page 39, second paragraph)

That is, the Tories’ own quango concluded that there are “much larger numbers” of potential revolutionaries.

In the fourth paragraph of the “conclusion” there was more good news: “Our findings suggest that opportunities may exist for political entrepreneurs to radicalise those open to revolutionary workerism and ‘anti-imperialism’.”

The authors noted also how “the possibilities that now exist for political mobilisation without the need for a conventional party structure – [online campaigning] – are helping revolutionary solidarity and organisation.”

The reason for such a seemingly positive result (for socialism) of a Tory investigation was desperation by the authors of the paper to find anything that justified their work.  They had nothing so they said something they thought might instill fear.  However, rather than fear, their contrived deductions offered hope.

Another conclusion was to find no evidence of potential for the far-left in Britain to become violent but, because there was also no evidence to the contrary, the authors said “the findings of this study give no reason to assume that left-wing ideas would be incapable of playing an analogous role [to far-right violence].”  To conclude an academic paper with such an insult to logic and reason revealed the intrinsic lack of professionalism of the three contributors.

McAndrew, Hirsh and Allington were paid by the tax-payers to do something that they and the government knew was unnecessary.  They did what they were told and produced an utterly ridiculous worthless piece of trash.  All three are an embarrassment to their respective universities whereat they teach.

Related blog
From April this year: Prediction of what the CCE report will be

Cowardice is the key facet of British politics and of British political journalism

An adequate politician needs courage to have enough confidence to address a difficult situation and seek a solution.  An adequate political journalist needs courage to have enough confidence to provide full investigation and analysis of politicians’ acts and words. 

Intellectual courage is necessary; a politician or political journalist needs to trust their capacity to inspect, analyse, deduce and conclude while not deviating erroneously.

Professional courage is necessary; a politician or political journalist needs to subdue or overcome tendencies to worry about their professional status or its longevity.

Possession of such courage is not optional.  It separates those who are able from those who merely aspire.  It also separates those who are able and suitable from those who are charlatans and liars.

Cowardice
Today (Autumn 2019), British government and British political journalism are bereft of courage.  There is not the slightest echo of courage of thought or deed anywhere in Downing Street, Whitehall, newspaper offices or television and radio studios.  Cowardice has consumed.

Boris Johnson’s predecessor Theresa May’s tenure was defined by her cowardice.  She never attempted to answer a question in House of Commons or in media interviews for fear of revealing her stupidity or her deception, she campaigned for an election (in 2017) without meeting the public for fear of having to speak off script and she chose to lie relentlessly rather than make definite statements for fear of restricting herself with her own words. 

Boris Johnson’s behaviour makes May seem courageous by comparison.  Johnson’s weak upbringing, enhanced by the Eton machine, produced a waffling streak of urine that combines extreme laziness, wilful ignorance, grotesquely misplaced arrogance and a criminal mind all of which is underpinned by a full commitment to cowardice.

Johnson dodges questions in parliament by use of incoherent waffle infused with abuse and squirrel pointing, his speeches are a cacophony of eclectic utterances barely within sentences and accompanied by arm-waving and noises, in media interviews he avoids questions and reacts like a petulant teenager and whenever a public statement is needed from the prime minister on an important issue Johnson hides behind the sofa while Dominic Cummings defecates deceptive trash disguised as a “leak” for the (equally cowardly) media to lap up obediently.

The cabinet of pleurisities beside Johnson share his embedded cowardice.  Think-tank gimp Dominic Raab, bankers’ plant Sajid Javid, “hang ’em high” Priti Patel, Institute of Economic Affairs’ employee Matt Hancock and the rest enjoy avoiding scrutiny by never expressing clear plans or responses and communicating via casual remarks.  They refuse to explicitly state their intent, conclusions of analysis or unambiguous opinions because they fear that any declared certainty would collapse immediately after the slightest inspection of veracity.  They are right to assume there would a swift collapse of their assertions because they are illusory.  Their cowardice directs them toward evasion and vacuity; in that sense their cowardice is useful.

Two faces of cowardice

In TV and radio studios and in the pages of newspapers cowardice dominates political discussion, reporting and interview style.  The inspiration for weak minds varies: Most newspapers are owned by tax-dodging towrags who use their newspapers to promote policy that favours the wealthiest elite; many TV and radio stations are owned by similar arsewhipes and their presenters and reporters are wary of damaging their career paths; at the BBC the fear is the spectre of charter renewal and this fear is passed down from Director-General Tony Hall.  

A factor that encourages lack of courage in broadcasting is the desire to acquire “exclusive” interviews.  Whenever Peston, Rigby or Marr congratulate themselves on the exclusivity of an interview with a politician then it is guaranteed the said interview will be undemanding for the interviewee.  An example of such an interview was Jon Sopel allowing a platform for extreme-right white supremacist Steve Bannon.

The flipside to exclusive interviews is banishment of broadcasters or newspapers if they dare to present a challenge to government.  Channel 4 is ostracised by the Tory government because it refused to be obsequious enough; in particular, its presenters were willing to say that Johnson and his cronies lie.  Channel 4’s lack of cowardice is uncommon in other media outlets.

A cowardly government and cowardly news media combine to leave the public without information, without analysis and without truth.  The beneficiaries are the wealthiest exploiters and tax-dodgers for whom the Tories work.

 

 

Tory antisemitism is deliberate

Antisemitism from elected Tories is always very deliberate and unambiguous.  Their language is very precise.  Tory antisemitism is never vague or open to multiple interpretations; it is spoken with clarity and purposefully.  The intent is not just to be offensive and to encourage prejudice against Jewish people but also to be seen to be doing so.  

Tories’ precise use of antisemitism is motivated by general election campaign strategy.  They are trying to ensure they do not lose too many votes to Brexit Party.  The latter’s success in the EU elections at the Tories’ expense and the creation of a very right-wing Tory cabinet meant that bigotry, prejudice, divisive language and racism will be the tools used by the Tories in an election campaign.

On October 3rd Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg invoked the name of businessman George Soros as a response to a point about Tory donors benefitting from decisions made by the government related to Brexit.  The point raised by an opposition MP was about the synchronicity between Tory decisions and statements and the ease with which Tory donors and associates made millions in market gambling.  Rees-Mogg’s decision to use Soros’ name was unrelated to the point made to him. 

In response to Rees-Mogg, Alfred Dubs, a peer in the House of Lords, said 

“Jacob Rees-Mogg’s comments are straight from the far right’s antisemitic playbook.  Like George Soros, I fled Nazi persecution, and like me, George Soros campaigns for European countries to give sanctuary to refugees today, just as I was given refuge as a child in 1939.  Boris Johnson and his government don’t want vulnerable people who they see as being different to them coming to our country.  Those are the same arguments that were used against me and other Jewish people coming here 80 years ago.”

Rees-Mogg knew he had used an antisemitic trope.  His words were deliberate.  He has form.  In 2013 he attended a business and lobbying dinner with the founder of racist, antisemitic think-tank Western Goals Institute, Gregory Lauder-Frost.  In its own words, Western Goals Institute is

“dedicated to the preservation of the cultures and identities of western nations.  We are conservatives who believe in traditional conservative values.  A multicultural society does not work.  We wish to protect the way of life we had before immigrants arrived.  It was a mistake to permit these people to come here.  Politicians must now accept this.  Large numbers of immigrants reject European culture and wish to remain alien in religion and culture.  We want European culture in European countries.  We would seek to have treaties with countries to permit resettlement.”

Jacob Rees-Mogg and Gregory Lauder-Frost

On October 1st Home Secretary Priti Patel used antisemitic trope ‘North London Metropolitan Elite’ in a speech on immigration.  Her decision to use such a precise phrase was driven by a desire to be blatantly and proudly antisemitic.  She wanted to show that the Tories are a home for antisemitism.

At a far-right think-tank Bruges Group event in March Tory MP Suella Braverman deliberately used antisemitic trope ‘Cultural Marxism’ in a speech.  The phrase was for the benefit of the Bruges Group audience.  Bruges Group‘s director Robert Oulds co-wrote a paper called ‘Moralitis: A Cultural Virus’ that depicted liberal and non-racist views as a “disease.”

The examples above show how Tory MPs used antisemitism brazenly as a display for votes from far-right voters.  Their use of antisemitism was not necessarily honest expressions of their respective views; it was an appeal to people who are antisemitic to try to persuade them to support the Tory party in an election.

Recommended reading
Nathan Boroda for Jewish News

Related blogs
Suella Braverman’s Cultural Marxism
Tory antisemitism and Viktor Orban

Pompous prince versus phone-hacking newspapers

It is difficult to decide which side to support.  In one corner are the worst British newspapers, owned by tax-dodgers, full (mostly) of bigotry, lies and stupidity and who indulged in disgusting and illegal phone hacking.  In the other corner is a pompous, thick prince lounging around in luxury at tax-payers’ expense who wants the gossip media to kiss his backside and never criticise him. 

The supercilious prince decided to take legal action against three newspapers years after every other victim of phone-hacking had sued successfully.  Validity for such legal action dissipated over the last decade.  His legal cases are a direct response to how the same newspapers reported on his wife’s separate legal action about the publication of a private letter.  That is, his decision to take action was driven by reactionary petulance.

If he were not a pampered royal then it would be easy to wish him well in his legal cases because the newspapers’ phone-hacking activities were disgusting and their general attitude to news is the opposite of journalism but it is not easy to support someone whose only bruises were to his ego as he gallivanted around the world, at British tax-payers’ expense, creating a faux persona of wise, care-giving overseer.

There is a very important facet to the prince’s legal action.  Suing is very expensive.  In such legal cases the conclusion is often an out of court settlement to cut costs.  Most of the phone-hacking cases were resolved out of court.  Even the wealthiest celebrities put a limit on how much they were willing to spend.  However, the prince has a bottomless pocket of cash to spend supplied non-voluntarily by the British public.  He could just keep going with legal cases through various courts spending money that isn’t his with no concern about fiscal cutbacks elsewhere.

The prince’s motivation is pride.  He was nurtured to believe he is above, different and worthy of praise constantly.  As a person he is an uninteresting, intellectually challenged bore.

If his cases go to court there will be a grotesque pantomime.  One of the protagonists could be professional troll Piers Morgan who was editor of the Mirror.  Morgan would relish an opportunity to raise further his thoroughly undeserved and rancid public profile.  If the prince were to give “evidence” then his performance would be vomit-inducing.

There are many problems with most British newspapers.  All the problems are consequences of their ownership.  Murdoch, the Rothermeres and the Barclays are anti-human filth who have never paid a penny of tax.  They are enemies of society.  However, problems with newspapers won’t be solved by a pompous prince spaffing millions of tax-payers’ money around a courtroom.

Democracy is an impediment to tackling climate change

Scott Morrison was elected Australia’s Prime Minister earlier this year.  He is vehemently opposed to tackling climate change and is a denier of the existence of man-made climate change.  Australia mines a huge quantity of coal, most of which is exported.  The owners of the coal industry are appreciative of Morrison’s support.

Scott Morrison (right) and a lump of coal

Australia has an unusual approach to democracy: Voting in elections is mandatory.  It is illegal not to vote.  The intended consequence of forced voting is that people who would not normally vote would, if forced to do so, tend to vote for the most visible candidate or for the party whose leader is the most visible.  Support for Morrison and his party in the Murdoch media – almost all newspapers in Australia are owned by Rupert Murdoch’s business – made him much more noticeable than his opponents.  Mandatory voting caused Morrison to be elected.

In Australia an extreme form of democracy elected an extremist climate change denier.  In countries with less extreme democracies there is always the possibility of a government elected that will undo advances in tackling climate change; for example, Trump, Bolsanaro and Orban were elected.  Countries whose current governments tackle or give the pretence of tackling man-made climate change could experience a complete reversal of progress if an election produced a climate change denying government.

Elections can change political outlook and switch fundamental policies on any issue but failure to deal with climate change and to make it worse might be irreversible.  Five years of destruction of the climate from a government focussed on enhancing the profits of fossil fuel and associated industries could be beyond repair.

Alternative structures of government could be considered to tackle climate change:

• Technocratic administrations
• Separation of climate policy from government via judicial-style quango
• International law 
• Grommunism

A technocratic administration would by nature not be radical.  Even if it had clear focus of tying to address man-made climate change its intrinsic subservience to the status quo would prevail.  On non-climate change issues a technocratic government would always choose the least disruptive policy and favour the interests of any established section of society.

An overriding judicial-style quango would be in constant combat with any elected government if the latter was reluctant to fight against climate change.  Legal battles and accusations of impropriety, from both sides, would occupy time, resources and money.

International laws can be effective only if all countries apply them.  Any government opposed to tackling climate change could simply walk away.

Therefore, we need grommunism.

Note
grommunism n. Green communism