Blair damage undeniable & ID cards crumbling

"THE fall-out from the Plame affair now engulfing Washington will extend to Britain. But there may be one significant difference in the way the two leaders, Bush and Blair, will be affected. Iraq has already severely damaged Tony Blair; his association with George W Bush and US foreign policy has already weakened him. Bush may still be expecting worse is to come. For Blair, Iraq and its fall-out has all but destroyed his legacy.

In Sept 2004, the United Nations, Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, publicly declared the Iraq war to be illegal. Annan was stating what many in the UK had come to accept as fact; that Blair’s government entered war knowing it was illegal..." ^{Sunday Herald}

And we talked yesterday how Tony Blair needed vital pawns in the ID plot, but the Halloween horror continues for Blair as:

"Whitehall IT chiefs may be poised to pull the rug from under the UK's ID card scheme on the basis that the technology isn't ready for prime time, and the project too unfocussed to pass Whitehall risk assessments. According to a report in the Independent on Sunday, Government CIO Ian Watmore has told ministers that the complexity and scale of the plan means that it may have to be phased in, while William Heath of Kable cites senior Whitehall sources as being on the brink of blocking the project." ^Register

Ian Blair: political corruption and insanity ?

Let us once again pick up one of our longtime favorites, Sir Ian "Order out of Chaos" Blair, the political police chief, crony, war-on-terror fanatical apostle, visible Captain Queeg, that stubborn stain who just won't seem to budge.

Despite the Times indicating he was on the edge, other sources claim the Times' quotes were out of context and he has no intention of leaving. And it's no surprise why. £225,000 of your money a year is plenty more important than being bothered with triffling issues like the abject presentation of fraudulent information to the public, covering up a state-sponsored execution, presiding over a smear campaign against the person your policies murdered while simultaneously trying to suspend accountability of your actions.

Well let's make a prediction: Blair will leave. As he deserves. Not because I say so, or the Times says so, but because the path Ian Blair and his masters are on is not sustainable.

Why ?

From everyone I have spoken to from the day of 7/7 when Ian Blair became a household name, all agreed that there was something altogether wrong with this guy, something wrong about him. The distinct impression he leaves is of someone not all there to be blunt; perhaps tragically sick, who somewhere along the line has snapped, but who, perhaps because of that 'quality' has managed to forge a sinister togetherness with some of the worst politcal debasement the UK has ever seen. Unsurprising this allows Blair to be both a powerful pawn and beneficiary of the New Labour strategies.

One blog summed the Met Chief up as:

"This man is a danger to society and should be dismissed imidiatly! And sent to an asylum for the terminally insane." ^eurealist

Another described Ian Blair's crackpot justifications for shooting arbitrarily as "English police = insane?" ^niklas

Yet another said "Long ago I lost all hope of anything of any intelligence passing Sir Ian Blair’s lips. Now, I fear, seriously, for his sanity." ^perfect

Whilst another said "he came out a block of flats and bore a very vague resmeblance to someone else and blair also said it is ok to kill the odd innocent if they kill the guilty too!?! (is blair insane - he's like the other blair trying to undrmine our system )" ^Chn4

But it gets worse than just how we see his state of mind. Blair was already known as the 'government's policeman', and reading between the lines, while his favour with the political elites is cause for concern enough, it equally describes the deep sociopathic problems Blair has long manifested in dealing with the public, the force and the real world:

"Catriona Marchant, editor of Jane's Police Review, said that although Sir Ian had a proven ability to woo politicians he still had work to do in winning over the public and his own officers." ^BBC

Bombshell news (not), Ian Blair has another job; as dangerous useful idiot for the New Labour regime. Whether or not exactly how this came to fruition will become fully exposed before or after Ian Blair could be thrown in the nut house, I don't know.

But of course this means Sir Ian (with Tony Blair's 'backing') is far more than just a damaged police chief who isn't in control. Along with Blair's perceived state-of-mind this makes him probably one of the most dangerous men, and one of the biggest threats in the UK. And I don't say that lightly. If it weren't for his blood-stained agenda and the gravity of his rot and his cronyism, his apparent desperation to cling on to the job that John Stevens snatched from his grasp once before, he may merely have remainded a curious oddball amongst the police and general public.

Even so, whether it is in the ID slavery plot, the DNA database for all arrests, 90 day internment, 'glorification or terror', shoot-to-kill extension (which Blair now denies is being extended to 'stalkers'), thought crime (PC garbage) placed round the necks of unquestioning constables, or the scandalous bloody murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, Ian Blair can always be found, rolling his eyes, eagerly pushing the shopping trolley of policies for New Labour who he enjoys an all-too-cosy relationship with.

When Tony Blair says "I must give the police what they want", he really means "I must give Ian Blair what I want because, after all Ian Blair works for us and that's what we want". The whole thing, is, once again, a massive circular deception, designed to ram through otherwise-indigestible, despotic dictatorial policy. It is fashioned to throw you off the scent, to give an impression of debate, but underneath, it would seem at least, there has been, for some time, an undisclosed arrangement between Sir Ian Blair and the New Labour regime.

Well, you know what ? It gets better (for us now), but perhaps we should take pity too. Ian Blair couldn't go (at least immediately) post-shooting because he remained vital to the New Labour plan and this tells us something massively important and uplifting:

There just aren't enough Ian Blairs within the police for New Labour to substitute him with. His characteristics and flaws made him absolutely essential in rubber-stamping crack-pot scheme after crack-pot scheme, bad policy after bad policy. With Ian Blair gone, and no similar abnormal replacement to be found, all of Tony Blair's 'law and order' policies are suddenly exposed for the rot they are and fall to pieces like a pack of cards.

Still, don't be concerned that it requires such shameless degenerates to pull it off. That should come as no surprise when considering the blood-stained reputations of those involved in the deception.

Ian Blair possibly thinks his reward for this obedient perversion comes in the form of 'ministerial backing' when, and despite, it is proved conclusively that he can't actually do his job. Of course he gets to hold onto that quarter-of-a-million pounds paycheck, but in reality he can't be allowed to go, otherwise the process of pushing more doomed police state policies like ID cards (which have a far wider scope than 'law and order' and 'identifying terrorists') will forever be out-of-reach of a fast-dwindling Tony Blair. Additionally, Ian Blair provides quite a good human-shield in this symbiotic relationship where a lot of the blood can splatter on him rather than directly on his political puppet masters.

Daily Mail journalist Melanie Philips summed it up well during the election campaign:

"Are we seeing double? For it appears that there isn’t just one Blair making Labour’s case in this general election campaign, but two.

On BBC TV’s Breakfast with Frost programme yesterday, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said that in the wake of last week’s conviction of Kamel Bourgass for trying to make poisons, there should be new measures to combat terrorism such as identity cards and a new legal offence of ‘acts preparatory to terrorism’.

This was an astonishing intervention. For the Labour party manifesto contains proposals for precisely such an offence and the re-introduction of the ID cards bill."

(Is it dawning on you how serious this is ? -j)

"At a time when the threat of terrorism requires the highest standards of professionalism, the police and security services are displaying unacceptable levels of incompetence — not least because they are increasingly politicised and paralysed by political correctness."

"Even before he assumed his current role, Sir Ian Blair was famous for putting the PC into policing. One of his first actions as Commissioner was to change the Met's logo partly because it was in joined-up handwriting and thus 'discriminated against short-sighted people'."

(Does this sound like a sane man to you ? -j)

Melanie Phillips went on:

"And barely had he got his feet under the table than he was peppering the newspapers with highly opinionated remarks — including the observation that the police, like ‘all organisations’, was ‘institutionally racist’.

For Sir Ian to enter the election arena is not only an abuse of his office. It also provides both police and politicians with the means to divert attention from the immigration and terrorism fiascos and from the urgent need to address professional incompetence which, in the fight against terror, is surely the weakest link of all."

It doesn't take much of a stretch to speculate that Ian Blair, like Tony may actually be praying for the next terror attack in the UK. With a new fog of war over everything he may try to resuscitate his carcass-like position, and attempt to 'redeem' himself. Then, he can set about trying unleash a new wave of devastating policy at the behest of his political masters.

Let us never forget, the Ian Blair murder/lies/cover up/shoot-to-kill horror was firmly endorsed by Tony Blair. This leaves people thinking that such public exterminations are to remain vital symbols required for this criminally insane plot to advance. But also, beneath that, which is monstrous enough, Ian Blair was still desperately needed by New Labour, no matter how stained he had become because there just aren't enough like him to pipe the poison through.

Now having said all that, we must remain confident that there will come a time where Jean Charles de Menezes no longer remains both a terrible trophy for these perverted sick killers and a test of their twisted cancerous pact. We can only hope that will happen sooner rather than later before more innocent people are slain and more of this corrupt depraved plan is enacted.

But it will happen.

Ian Blair New Labour Tony Blair Police

Blair in trouble confirmed

The Daily Mirror echoes the BBC's observations that Tony Blair is fast becoming a lame-duck and looking more and more unsound every day.

"A parliamentary Labour Party Blair ruled with a rod of iron for eight years is in open rebellion over health reforms, identity cards, withdrawing Incapacity Benefit from sick claimants and draconian anti-terrorism measures.

This week's plans to privatise schools threaten the mother of all rebellions, with one traditionally loyal minister admitting that he can't find a single Labour MP backing the proposals. He predicts a revolt bigger than the backlash against higher university fees. The splintering is an inevitable consequence of Blair's unprecedented decision before the last election to announce his retirement prior to the next election. With damaging details of a dicky heart and £3.6million retirement home about to emerge, it sounded a good idea at the time and got him through a tricky period

[...]Blair's harassed officials in the No.10 bunker played King Canute and tried to halt the tide of shocking headlines earlier this week - including those about Cherie Blair and an Aussie cancer charity"

Assuming this isn't just deliberate government spin sent to every news outlet for some other nefarious purpose, such as to warm up the seat now for Gordon Brown (which it may be) then this could be quite serious. On the one hand, you can interpret Blair's usage of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric over Israel as a desperate attempt to bolster support, particularly from the remaining factions of the Murdoch-zombified public, but once bitten twice shy. Blair's threats of military action against Iran were way too much, too knee-jerk, and came too soon on the back of accusing Iran over interfering in Iraq without proof, and damaging revelations strongly pointing to British SAS soldiers staging terrror attacks in Iraq (which was spun by Blair's aids into the usual British Bulldog drivel to the Sun newspaper). You will also notice how quickly Blair lept into discussing military action with the neocons, reminding us like a dark omen, exactly where his priorities and agenda still remain.

No matter which way you look at it, it seems that the only reason Blair is around today and could have even an ounce of political strength left in him is because of the London bombings. Blair was struggling politically before that, Robin Cook and other Labour MPs were regularly coming on TV saying he should go. Prior to that even, the election had wiped away half of Blair's majority, Blair himself was deemed such a liability that Labour spin-meisters wouldn't even allow his image on election material.

Although they won the election it was only with around 20% of the population actually voting for Labour, and it was also a symbolic disaster. George Galloway disposed New Labour poster girl Oona King (who still thinks she is an MP apparently).


Blair was put through the wringer at his own constituency result by Reg Keys, father of a son lost in the Iraq war who's speech (and Blair's exhibition) will never be forgotten.

However while the London attacks provided a little bit of political oxygen to Blair, and an interlude from the constant quesitons about when he was leaving it was never going to last. That little bit of oxygen is now fast running out.

Blair will try to use Iran now, as he used the London bombings but it seems extremely doubtful that Iran alone will make it possible for Blair to claw back enough political power to hang on for another full term, that is, without another terror attack for him to glue himself to. And probably quite a big one. If Blair actually is in some political trouble then those rogue elements within his political machine, the kinds that said 9/11 was a "good day to bury bad news" may well be grotesquely praying for just such an attrocity so that Blair may respawn himself once again.

In the meantime, back in the mundane world, everything seems to be unraveling for Blair, just as it is unraveling for Bush in the US, and perhaps that should be no surprise seeing as Blair's political fortunes are inextricably tied to Bush's.

Tony Blair New Labour

Libby indicted, wider scandal still out there

Cheney's right hand man Lewis Libby is the sacrificial lamb in the investigation thus far and he immediately quits. Rove wriggled away for the time being, his lawyers submitting a mass of last minute documentation so as to buy more time.

Still, some in the mainstream news are content to treat it more as celebrity gossip about who leaked what to who. So instead let's remind ourselves about the real issue it actually comes down to:


Fabricating intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq

Punishing critics of the policy to use such fabricated intelligence

The Yellowcake forgery earns its rightful place alongside the fabricated dossier cooked up/dug up/sexed up by Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair, the fabricated George Galloway documents implicating him as a recipient of backhanders from Saddam Hussein, and a host of other lies and spin utilized as political weapons and handed to media allies as seen fit. Quite a trend, and no one is likely to forget Dr. Kelly and the ensuing Hutton whitewash of course.

Since 9/11 we have been asked to accept this mystifying, mis-briefed, under-briefed world that the Bushes and Blairs live in. A world in which shadowy hand-picked spin doctors, marionette ministers and 'bungling' intelligence agencies can cocoon elected leaders in weighted agenda, spin and lies, thus enabling earth-shattering radical policy to be deployed unchallenged, whereby, and miraculously, such leaders are always just-sufficiently technically ignorant of the depth of lies to go on relatively unscathed. That this situation is astonishingly twisted, unaccountable, breathtakingly corrupt and exceptionally dangerous still seems to be lost on quite a number of people out there.

Of course you are also invited to accept that when credible insiders with good track records do challenge this and find themselves outed, dead or both, the inevitable whitewash inquiry that follows will be quite enough to settle all your concerns.

"At the crux of the controversy surrounding the disclosure of Plame as a CIA operative is a 2002 trip by her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, to Niger at the behest of the CIA to check out reports that Iraq had sought uranium there for nuclear weapons. He found no substance to the reports, he said, and reported that back to Washington. But in his State of the Union address nearly a year later on Jan. 28, 2003, Bush offered his now-famous 16-word assertion, since retracted, that: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Less than two months later, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, in large part to thwart what he had repeatedly declared was Saddam's intent to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons." (Mercury News)

There is no appetite for yet another false inquiry, another whitewash, another case that doesn't go quite to the root of the matter. Personally, I have no idea what will happen with Libby, or if Rove or others will yet be fingered, but this massive, gaping unresolved scandal that goes right to the hearts of the US and UK government and beyond is one dangerously infected wound which can no longer be treated by having yet another elastoplast stuck over it.

WMD Iraq Libby Plame Niger yellowcake forgery

Regimes in trouble: Bush/Blair/Ahmadinejad

Yesterday, BBC revelations illustrated how the authority of Blair in the UK may well be crumbingly as the carrot of Brownism is ever dangled over ministers, and more widely as Blair's fanatical policies remain a subject of enormous concern for MPs and the public at large.

Today, Blair tried to re-affirm his image by quickly cashing in on the Iranian president's (rather suspicious) blunder about 'wiping out Israel', but it's difficult to imagine who is even listening to Blair anymore, when all you have is one extremist lecturing another. The Iranian president's words came at an opportune time for Blair who was struggling at an EU summit and not well received, indeed there are distinct echoes of 7/7 and the G8 summit.

The London bombings, despite Blair being widely perceived to have been a factor in causing them, ironically and grotesquely gave Blair something of a slight boost in some quarters, but failed to consolidate people around new terror laws or the ID database plan, or the Prime Minister's desire to continue to push the UK into a more Nazi-like regime. Meanwhile Blair is continually dogged by concerns about his ongoing corruption and cronyism:

In a move that will trigger a fresh row over "cash for honours", Mr Blair is to elevate to the Lords four businessmen who between them have given almost half a million pounds to the party.

Of course in the United States, the authority and future of President Bush is confirmed as being in serious trouble thanks to the the Harriet Miers debacle and the impending indictments over the CIA leak case, which pertain to much more serious questions about fabricated intelligence used to justify the Iraq war:

Retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson wrote a critical op-ed in The New York Times in which he explained the nature of the documents, and the government's prior knowledge of their unreliability for use in a case for war. Days later, in a column by Robert Novak, the covert identity of Wilson's wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame was exposed. The ensuing Plame affair" (aka. "CIA leak scandal") is an ongoing political scandal and criminal investigation into the source of the leak which "outed" Plame.

None of this is helped by the realisation of so many companies deeply involved in the Iraq oil-for-food scandal, the torture shame, now revealed to go all the way to Rumsfeld, the thousands of US troops slain for a hopeless unwinable war based on a mountain of lies, and the resulting in-the-gutter approval ratings for Bush:

NYDN via Infowars:

CONFIRMED: Bush Melting Down, Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides

WASHINGTON - Facing the darkest days of his presidency, President Bush is frustrated, sometimes angry and even bitter, his associates say.

With a seemingly uncontrollable insurgency in Iraq, the White House is bracing for the political fallout from a grim milestone that could come any day: the combat death of the 2,000th American G.I.

The Guardian:

Humiliated Bush forced to retreat as moral right turns its guns on him

George Bush said one of the reasons he picked Harriet Miers for the supreme court was that he knew her so well. It says a lot about the president's current standing that the endorsement not only failed to save her: it may have helped sink her.

[...] "It's an extraordinarily unusual situation and it speaks to the fact that Bush is now a wounded president," said David O'Brien, a University of Virginia politics professor.

Arctic Beacon: Bush going nuts, 'acting like Stalin'

Chicago investigator and ‘judge buster,’ Sherman Skolnick, who once brought a former Illinois governor to his knees, putting him behind bars, is up to his old truth-telling tricks again, saying he’s received credible reports President Bush is on the verge of a psychiatric collapse over U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s pending indictments.

Other reports, circulating from Washington insiders, claim the President is “emotionally unstable, totally absorbed with the fall his of presidency and “living on cloud nine” unable to focus on anything but Fitzgerald and his indictments which are going to reveal “the lying and illegal nature” Bush plunged America into war.

And while on the one hand we should all be vigliant that these indictments are nothing but yet another distraction, like a bolt from the blue, and just as all appears lost, a wonderful gift is given to the Blairites and Neocons at just the right time. Truly Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's words are rather all too convenient.



Bush Blair Ahmadinejad Iran

Latest Galloway smokescreen hides:

US:

2000 (++) troops sent to their deaths on a pack of lies

Newsmax on NYT:

Cheney named

The New York Times reported late Monday that Vice President Cheney has been directly linked to the so-called "Plamegate" scandal involving the disclosure of the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA officer.

The paper reported that Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby "first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003."

CIA leak issue must be broadened

UK:

Independent:

Shoot to kill extended to stalkers

Scotland Yard's "shoot to kill" strategy has been widened to include other offences such as kidnapping, stalking (?!) and domestic violence, The Independent has learned.

[..]The Operation Kratos shoot-to-kill policy was adopted to deal with suicide bombers but a review has identified other types of crimes in which a firearms officer could shoot to kill without issuing any challenge. These include when an offender holding a weapon to a victim was thought to be on the brink of murder.

The use of a "shoot to kill" strategy against terrorists came under attack after police shot the innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes seven times in the head on 22 July, after mistaking him for a suicide bomber.

There has been growing criticism of the lack of accountability surrounding the police's use of the tactic. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is investigating the shooting, which came the day after failed bombing attempts.

Independent:

Blair ID cards plan collapsing, religious 'hate' and 'glorification of terror' set to follow:

Animal rights extremists who justify attacks on scientists and research centres face prosecution under anti-terrorist legislation that was drawn up after the London bombings of 7 July.

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, made the admission as he came under fire over the broad wording of the Terrorism Bill, which outlaws the glorification of terrorist attacks.[...]

Mr Clarke was accused yesterday of threatening basic human rights and undermining the constitution through his plans for a national identity card scheme.

Two parliamentary committees have denounced the plans. The Lords committee on the constitution proposed creating an independent commission to run an ID Card to take the system out of direct Government control. A report by the committee called for safeguards "to protect individuals from excessive intrusion into their affairs by institutions of the state or indeed by others".

It said: "This is all the more important when the scheme envisaged will record in a single database more information than has ever been considered necessary or attempted previously in the United Kingdom or in any other Western country."

In a separate report, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said: "It is not clear that the gathering of personal information of persons applying for a passport, for example, bears any relation to the protection of national security or the prevention of crime."

[..]The Government looks doomed to defeat in the House of Lords today over plans to create a fresh offence of inciting religious hatred. [...]

Peers of all parties, supported by comedians and entertainers, have condemned the proposals as an attack on free speech. Critics will today attempt to amend the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill by setting restrictions on when prosecutions can be mounted. It will stipulate that no one can be found guilty of the new offence unless it can be proved they intended to stir up hatred. Nor could they be prosecuted if it could be shown they were exercising freedom of speech.

Ministers are also braced for attacks from Labour MPs tomorrow over the Bill, which proposes detention without charge of terrorist suspects for up to three months.

EU vision: A compliant silenced internet

This is an article I wrote a about a week back but never published, I'll update it with this article from Slashdot: Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet, but let us go back to the Guardian article:

"A battle has erupted over who governs the internet, with America demanding to maintain a key role in the network it helped create and other countries demanding more control. The European commission is warning that if a deal cannot be reached at a meeting in Tunisia next month the internet will split apart."

So why try to fix something if it isn't broken ?

The EU is desperate for more and more internet control and that's exactly why the US shouldn't budge an inch. On technical grounds European control is hardly likely to improve anything that already exists with the internet today. Make no mistake at all though, the EU, like Blair are obsessed with information and technological serfdom.

Although there are other nations seeking influence and control in this, ultimately, an internet under EU management could well mean the end of the internet as we know it today. It would mean ultra bureaucracy, attempted EU regulation and taxation of news, blogs, media, massive licencing and red tape over media, content, streaming, music as well as adult themed sites. Enormous member-state funded quangos, think-tanks, special 'task forces' set up to police it into compliance of state prescribed acceptability.

In a short time you would see an enormous curtailing of any aspiration toward free-speech, as the intire internet will be mired in EU 'hate crime' (thoughtcrime) legislation and endless proposals to further it into new areas. The more tools the world blindly gives the EU such as data retention and DNS management all the better from their point of view.

Invention, enterprise (as in enterprising) that has characterized the internet up until this day could certainly be compromised to put it mildly. That is the reality, and we can look toward the "pounds and ounces' debacle, the 'banning' of many health and vitamins supplements as a precedent here.

Even if for some reason you think the EU is not all bad, in the case of the latter, it is well known how well funded vested interest lobby groups can pretty much buy any legislation they want, and that is something Europe is extremely involved in vulnerable to:

Speculation is rife in the natural medicine world about the extent to which pharmaceutical interests are orchestrating legislation. Back in 1987, the Campaign Against Health Fraud (Healthwatch) waged an aggressive public campaign against natural remedies, financed initially by medical insurance and drug companies. Similar campaigns were waged in the US and Canada. And in the 1990s, there was a series of well-publicised attacks on food supplements. Now, there's a persistent rumour that PR agencies working for drug firms are spinning stories to the media, casting doubt on the safety and efficacy of natural alternatives.

Drug companies have a proven track record in trying to legislate the natural health business out of existence. In 1996, for example, the Ecologist magazine revealed that, when the Codex Alimentarius (the World Trade Organisation body that sets international standards for drugs, food, supplements, etc) met, the German delegation put forward a proposal, sponsored by three German pharmaceutical firms, that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs. The proposal was agreed, but protests halted its implementation.

Clearly some of these threats are global in nature, but as feared, the EU has fully established itself as a dangerous enemy, it is desperate to cover up it's failings, real debate on it's direction and controlling the internet is a key part of the pernicious strategy. Let us not forget, the European Commision is hungry for mandatory snooping and data retention of all 'European citizens'.

"I have no intention to 'regulate the Internet,'" EU Information Society Commissioner Viviane Reding told a broadcasting conference in Liverpool, England. However, she said the European Commission(the secret unaccountable executive -jultra) had the duty to protect shared European values. (Whatever they are -jultra) (ABC News)

Plenty of nice doublespeak, 'duty', 'shared values', no surprise then, paradoxically Reding is outspoken on her vision of control:

"I am ... the Commissioner for convergence, and I am prepared to draw the regulatory conclusions from technological convergence.

Regulators in Europe will have to prepare for this new media environment. We have to make sure that a regulatory framework is in place"

I'm hardly one to speak up for members of the Bush administration, and no doubt this guy has his own politics in mind but this:

Michael Gallagher, President Bush's internet adviser and head of the national telecommunications and information administration, believes they are seizing on the only "central" part of the system in an effort to exert control. "They are looking for a handle, thinking that the DNS is the meaning of life. But the meaning of life lies within their own borders and the policies that they create [sic] there."

is about right.

Ok back to normal

Bird flu parrot in UK

MI5 torture ok



It is strange to think this revolting hideous crone is the head of MI5.

Short: limit Blair war powers, Hoon scuppers vote on bill

Religious 'hate law' deal

Britain on the very edge of Nazi hell regime

And so it here it is, we have reached the edge of the precipice and Blair is dragging the UK into a Nazi hell for his selfish ego and the dark forces that puppet him that he thinks he surfs like a wave and draws his dark strength from. Everyone turned away, pretended it wasn't happening. Everybody was told to be quiet and get on with things. But now we are on the edge of hell and Blair and his evil comrades have taken you there, laughing. This visionary politics, the big idea, the third way. Blair has pissed over every one of you and has made a declararion of slavery and control this week. He has come out of the shadows and made his move. You should be afraid...

A powerful coalition of judges, senior lawyers and politicians has warned that the Government is undermining freedoms citizens have taken for granted for centuries and that Britain risks drifting towards a police state. One of the country's most eminent judges has said that undermining the independence of the courts has frightening parallels with Nazi Germany.

Senior legal figures are worried that "inalienable rights" could swiftly disappear unless Tony Blair ceases attacking the judiciary and freedoms enshrined in the Human Rights Act.
....

"I think it is terribly important there should not be this apparent battle between the executive and the judiciary. The judiciary has been put there by Parliament in order to ensure that the executive acts lawfully. If we take that away from the judiciary we are really apeing what happened in Nazi Germany," he said.

Lord Ackner added that the Government's proposals to hold terrorist suspects for three months without charge were overblown. "The police have made a case for extending the two weeks but to extend it to three months is excessive."

Lord Lester QC, a leading human rights lawyer, expressed concern that the Government was flouting human rights law and meddling with the courts.

"If the Prime Minister and other members of the Government continue to threaten to undermine the Human Rights Act and interfere with judicial independence we shall have to secure our basic human rights and freedoms with a written constitution," he said.

Lord Carlile, a deputy High Court judge, warned against the whittling away of historic civil liberties. "We have to be acute about protecting what is taken for granted as inalienable rights. In the United States the Patriot Act included a system whereby a witness to a terrorist incident can be detained for up to a year. This is in the land of the free."
...

Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said Tony Blair was transforming Britain into an authoritarian state:

"In eight years he has dismantled centuries of judicial protection. Britain's reputation as the world's most tolerant nation is now under threat," he said.

If Mr Blair's proposed terror legislation was unamended, said Anthony Scrivener QC, "Britain would be a significant step closer to a police state". The Prime Minister spoke of "summary justice", said the lawyer: "It would be better named street justice."

This week the Law Lords will consider whether evidence obtained under torture abroad should be admissible in British courts. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said admitting such evidence would undermine one of Britain's basic freedoms.

"The Prime Minister is trying in his own words to try to tear up the rules of the game," she said. "The rules of liberal democracy are about no torture, free speech and fair trials. Every time he denigrates these he undermines the fabric of our society."

Ian Blair the Captain Queeg of policing...

Ian Blair was the Captain Queeg of policing, twiddling with his marbles, blaming everything on circumstance, on lack on unaccountability to do his job. His subordinates were the ones in the wrong, not him and they fed him faulty information. It is their fault, not his. In some way they haven't scrubbed the decks properly.

In an emergency Blair, like Queeg, fails his duties spectacularly.

Someone has been tampering with that pint of strawberries and Ian Blair felt there was a conspiracy against him from the crew, but Blair like Queeg can only go on so long:

SIR IAN BLAIR, the Metropolitan police commissioner, has admitted he may soon be forced to resign over the shooting of an innocent Brazilian man on the London Underground.

Britain’s top policeman told a private gathering of business leaders and officials last week that he might have to go “fairly soon” over the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Describing the pressure he faced over the botched operation, he said: “Where does resignation end? Of course, it might end fairly soon.”

He added: “I’d much rather resign than be pushed.”

Blair’s comments, made to the Windsor Leadership Trust, indicate his recognition that the pressure on him is building to a critical point. At the time of the shooting he considered resigning but ruled it out.

Senior police officers say the inquiry into the operation will reveal a “horror story” when it is completed before Christmas.One senior insider said: “He (Blair) has obviously been damaged. His own self-confidence has been damaged. You can see that he looks visibly older.”

Blair disclosed at the meeting that his personal role in the affair was now being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Blair tried to block an immediate IPCC inquiry into the shooting at Stockwell Tube station.

Ian Blair round up

Here's a good one from WSWS:

The release of an exchange of letters between Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair and the Home Office has shed further light on the cover-up of the events leading up to the July 22 police killing of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes in London.

The 27-year-old electrician was shot dead by police, who fired eight bullets at close range in an underground rail carriage at Stockwell station. The murder occurred one day after the bombing attempts at a number of London tube stations on July 21.

No one has yet taken responsibility for wrongly identifying de Menezes as a terrorist during the period from when he left his house to the moment that he was killed. Neither has anyone taken responsibly for the brutal execution of an innocent man whose misfortune was to live in a block of flats that were under surveillance.

The letters were released just days after police officers admitted that they knew within hours of the killing that de Menezes was not a terrorist and that he was not connected in any way with the attempted London bombings the previous day. Nonetheless, senior police officers, including Sir Ian Blair, publicly maintained for nearly 24 hours that the shooting was “directly linked” to the ongoing London bombs inquiry.

Blair has claimed that he was not told of the innocence of de Menezes until 10:30 a.m. the day after the shooting. A scenario in which senior police commanders at Scotland Yard, the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police Service responsible for policing Greater London, knew within hours that an innocent man had been shot dead but that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police did not hardly appears credible.

On September 30, the Home Office released the letters under the Freedom of Information Act. They confirm the suspicions of the de Menezes family that the Metropolitan Police were aware from the very beginning of their son’s innocence and immediately mounted a cover-up.

The first letter from Blair was written just hours after the shooting and reveals that Blair sought to prevent an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) into the killing. Since 1985, police shootings had been referred on a discretionary basis to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. In 2002 this became mandatory.

In his July 22 letter, Blair wrote that the “anti-terrorist” operation being carried out by the Metropolitan police meant that they were in a “unique” situation that negated the need for the IPCC to hold any independent investigation. He wrote that an investigation “will be carried out by the Met’s own Directorate of Professional Standards.” On this basis, the IPCC would have “no access” to the scene of the shooting. He added, “This investigation will be rigorous, but subordinate to the needs of the counter-terrorism operation.”

Blair argued that “prosecuting authorities” should “take cognisance of the pressures under which the service operates in terrorist scenarios,” and that certain legal structures holding the police accountable and requiring it to pass on information to an appointed police regulatory body should be abrogated.

Blair continued, “In a fast-moving, multi-site terrorist situation, in which suicide bombers are clearly a very strong possibility, a chief officer of police should be able to suspend [the part of the] Police Reform Act 2002 which requires us to supply all information that the Independent Police Complaints Commission may require.”

The commissioner called for a change in legislation that would essentially end the UK police force’s accountability before the law. Blair wrote, “Clearly, this is a developing situation but for the time being I seek your support for this measure, which may form the basis for amending legislation in the future.”

While Blair was not able to prevent the IPCC from beginning its investigation, his initial opposition meant that the body was not allowed to visit Stockwell tube station—the scene of the killing—for three days. Such obstruction had a serious and detrimental impact upon the probe. Last month, IPCC lawyers announced that the police breached their statutory duty by not inviting the body to begin investigating immediately. They added that the delay of several days meant vital evidence could have been lost.

The IPCC is not due to report its findings until December and will not comment on its ongoing investigation. However, leaked documents made public on August 17 have contradicted official police announcements following the death of de Menezes. The documents include critical witness statements making clear that de Menezes did not leap over a tube station barrier and that he was not wearing a padded jacket that could have concealed a bomb.

It is not expected that the IPCC will recommend criminal proceedings against the individual officers who killed de Menezes, let alone against figures such as Sir Ian Blair, members of the security services or upper echelons of the state and government who authorised the shoot-to-kill policy. On the contrary, IPCC Chairman Nick Hardwick has said he hoped the investigation would strengthen police support for the body.

Since the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, his family has demanded a full independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding his death.

On August 17, a statement from the family called for the resignation of Sir Ian Blair. Lawyers representing the family condemned what they termed a “blanket of secrecy which has covered the true facts” and the “lies and scenarios” that have surrounded the shooting.

A significant passage from the Blair letter has received little attention in the British press. In it the police commissioner states, “This is clearly a fast-time decision-making process, in which officers cannot risk the kind of containment and negotiation tactics which would normally be the case. Put simply, the only choice an officer may have may be to shoot to kill in order to prevent the detonation of a device.

“In due course, I believe we need a document similar to the military rules of engagement, but time does not permit its creation at the present time.”

Blair said that he had “raised the issue of maximising the legal protection for officers who had to take decisions in relation to people believed to be suicide bombers” with Prime Minister Tony Blair the previous day.

Blair now openly compares domestic policing with the situation facing the army during war, once again underlining the extent to which the ruling elite has abandoned any commitment to elementary democratic rights.

Subordinate Cressida Dick takes heat:(Times)

THE police chief in command of the bungled “shoot-to-kill” operation that led to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes is among ten officers who have been formally warned that they could face disciplinary action.

Police watchdogs have served Commander Cressida Dick, the Oxford-educated “gold commander” on the day of the shooting, and the other officers with notices telling them that they will be questioned, according to police sources.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has told the officers that they are under investigation and plans are now being laid for them to be questioned by investigators early next month.

Miss Dick and the other officers, who are all from junior ranks, are entitled to have lawyers present when they are interviewed during sessions likely to take some days.

The IPCC investigators are thought to have examined the roles of at least 26 undercover officers, marksmen and senior managers involved in the operation that ended with the death of Mr de Menezes, a 27-year-old electrician from Brazil. He was shot dead in a Northern Line train at Stockwell Underground station after being mistakenly identified as a suicide bomber.

On the day of the shooting, July 22, Miss Dick was in overall charge of a surveillance operation in Tooting, southwest London, as police searched for four failed suicide bombers. She took the decision to activate the Operation Kratos rules, which authorise the police to shoot to kill a suspected suicide bomber.

Two months ago, leaked witness statements from officers who took part in the botched operation revealed that Mr de Menezes was restrained by one of Scotland Yard’s surveillance team before being shot eight times as he sat on a Tube train.

Documents and photographs from the IPCC investigation also showed that one of the undercover team meant to be identifying the shot man was relieving himself as Mr de Menezes left his flat on July 22 and could not tell if the police had traced one of the alleged bombers. It is also suggested that Mr de Menezes could have been taken alive.

When Mr de Menezes was challenged by the police on the Northern Line train at Stockwell he did not make any aggressive move. Police claims at the time that the electrician was “behaving erratically” are alleged to be false.

Miss Dick and the other officers have been given what are known as Regulation 9 notices by investigators from the IPCC. The notices do not specify a possible charge, but they could range from a breach of duty to professional failings or negligence.

Miss Dick, 44, is one of the senior officers in the Yard’s specialist crimes directorate and heads a team of more than 300 officers as part of Operation Trident, which targets gun crime among black communities.

Commander John McDowall, the officer in charge of surveillance operations for the Anti-Terrorist Branch SO13, has not been served with a notice. Other officers, including the three marksmen from CO19, the specialist firearms unit, and Special Branch surveillance officers on the ground, have also been warned.

Disciplining Miss Dick would have to be overseen by the Metropolitan Police Authority, rather than Scotland Yard, because of her senior rank.

Before deciding on any disciplinary action the IPCC is expected to send a report to Ken Macdonald, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, to consider any possible criminal charges.

In normal circumstances the marksman decides whether or not to fire depending on the threat. When the Kratos “shoot-to-kill” policy was agreed by all chief constables two years ago, the police took legal advice.

They were advised that the policy was legal, but Kratos transfers some responsibility to the senior officer who authorises its use and he or she might also be held responsible for any death alongside the marksmen who pull the trigger.

Scots need talking CCTV to control them

This must be the Big Brother day of the year.

Taling cameras in Glasgow

BIG Brother is watching you - and he's about to give neds a stern telling off.

Britain's first talking CCTV cameras are set to hit the streets of Glasgow.

The armour-plated Metal Mickey cameras turn a spotlight on suspects then give them a warning.

CCTV bosses at Streetwatch Glasgow hope the new system will stop crime before it happens.

Controllers at their centre in Blochairn will issue the warnings when they spot troublemakers.

Streetwatch chief executive Frank Macfadden said: "These cameras can be used as an intervention tool either through live voice or emitting a light source on to trouble.

"It's no longer about recording incidents, it's about changing behaviour. We could stop a street fight before it escalates, for example.

"If you can intervene with voice and light then you can stop a crime." Six of the£15,000 cameras will be installed before Christmas.

One will be set up in the city centre, two in Drumchapel and others in Whiteinch.

Warnings will vary depending on the situation. They are likely to inform people they are being recorded and that police are on their way.

Research shows criminals are prepared to take their chance with current CCTV in the hope they won't be identified. The new system could change that.

Mr Macfadden added: "The aim is to make a difference at the time when something is happening, to let those responsible know the cameras are live and stop what they are doing."

Inspector Peter Macrae, of Strathclyde Police, said: "The whole concept is to change people's behaviour

New Labour declare slavery and war on UK

£90.00 with passport, £30.00 without, please..look you know...i mean come on...it's like £30.00..you know, you can trust me...I did the war...

Murdering, corrupt treacherous Tony, please take that £30.00 brick in the wall of the prison you are building, that £30.00 dog collar, that £30.00 digital yoke and shove it. Deeply.

Oh and lets see, what have we here ?

NO2ID: Leak shows ID cards mark "a secret revolution"
Thu, 13 Oct 2005

On the eve of what could be a final Commons vote on the Identity Cards Bill, Government strategy documents deliberately leaked to The Guardian shows that it intends to use ID cards as the basis of a transformation of the relationship between individuals and institutions with central government, with personal data farmed out for official use.

Phil Booth, NO2ID's national coordinator, said:

"We told you so. This shows the extent of ambition in the deceptively-named 'Identity Cards' scheme. Whitehall wants to abolish privacy - not only to observe and control every individual's relationship with any public sector organisation, but every personal and commercial relationship too. With no public awareness or backing, and with no safeguards it is a recipe for totalitarian levels of control - cyber-Stalinism."

The proposals say, "The opportunity from information sharing will be
clarified and rolled out, balancing the potential value to the customer or
taxpayer with privacy concerns." Campaigners say this is code for abolition of personal privacy as we know it. NO2ID (2) is calling for consultation to start again from the beginning, with all civil society and business groups given a fair hearing.

Matthew Taylor MP, Parliamentary spokesman for NO2ID, said:

"This potential invasion into personal and commercial privacy has just not
been discussed. We've had the public and MPs fed endless spin about
immigration, crime and terrorism, only for a much bigger agenda to emerge at the last minute.

"To admit this vast potential for intruding into private personal
information now shows the whole elaborate consultation and marketing
exercise; the Bill's presentation to Parliament has evaded the real risks
from the ID card system. Who apart from the control freaks in the Cabinet
Office, and the consultants eating through limitless sums of public money,
wants this intrusion into our everyday lives? The Government may try to
claim a mandate from one vague sentence in its manifesto, but nobody voted
for this. It is the most astonishing power-grab since Henry VIII."

First time I saw this was about 10 minutes ago, and this is what everyone has been saying for the last year.

Here's the Guardian's text:

Leak reveals Whitehall plans for data shareout

Thursday October 13, 2005

Councils, Whitehall departments and firms running public services will routinely share personal data about citizens by 2010, acccording to leaked documents seen by the Guardian.

The plans, drawn up by the Cabinet Office, could cause anger among privacy campaigners. The documents suggest that identity cards, expected to be issued from 2008, will play a big role in data sharing.

The IT strategy to be published soon also contains new measures to reduce the number of technology failures in government, which spends £14bn each year on IT.

Let me spell it out for you:

Your government is at war with you. Your government is your enemy and wants to enslave you and monitor you from cradle to grave. It wants to hurt you. That is their agenda. That is what they believe in. Their religon is: your life is their life. That is what they want to do. That is what they have always wanted to do.

However, it is now clearer than ever before that we are dealing with something well beyond New Labour.

Thought police: don't say fat

The Daily Mail delivers:

When Mary Magilton told police a hit-and-run driver was fat, she didn't think she was being rude.

To her mind, it was merely an accurate description of the woman who had run into her on the pavement before driving off.

But to the police officer interviewing the mother of three about her traumatic experience, "fat" represented inappropriate language.
And she astonished Mrs Magilton by giving her a ticking-off for using the word.

Staff in the officer's force, Greater Manchester Police, have to abide by a 16-page document listing words and phrases which they should avoid so as not to cause offence, with suggested alternatives.

Terms such as policeman and spokesman are described as sexist while phrases such as "accident blackspot" and "a black look" are deemed negative.

The Power of Language Guide was introduced five years ago after discussions between the force and various interest groups.

What a fucking joke.

Ah never mind, here are some new instructions for you to follow:





We have to reject this nonsense and not be afraid to. Here, read their shit yourself, and ask yourself is this really the best use of police time and your money ?

Page 1

Appropriate language policy
We are committed to maintaining the dignity of everyone with whom we come
into contact, and to promoting a professional and positive image of the force.
This is demonstrated by our Force Philosophy, our Equal Opportunities policy,
and now by our Appropriate Language policy. We are committed to making sure
all communications used by all our staff, both written and spoken, comply with
this policy. We will not use language which:
discriminates against or excludes individuals or groups;
displays prejudice; or
reinforces stereotypes.
Using such language is offensive, creates barriers and damages communication
between us and the people and communities we serve. We expect you to
challenge inappropriate language and will support you when you do so.
In particular, we will not tolerate under any circumstances officers or members
of support staff using terms which are:
racist or carry racist overtones;
homophobic; or
sexist.
Remember that your general demeanour and body language can give just as clear
an impression of you and of the force as the things you say or write.
Police officer or member of support staff
You should familiarise yourself with the Power of Language Guide. You should
actively challenge inappropriate language.
Manager or supervisor
You have additional responsibilities in ensuring that you:
implement and promote the policy;
actively challenge inappropriate language; and
take action if inappropriate language is used by your staff.
If you come across inappropriate language used by Greater Manchester Police
personnel you should inform the line manager of the person concerned.
Page 2

Action
If you become aware of someone using an unacceptable term you should take
action immediately. The Power of Language Guide will help you decide what
action to take.
You should inform the person that the language is not acceptable and explain
why, referring to the Power of Language Guide if necessary.
If the inappropriate use of language constitutes a racist incident, you must
complete a racist incident report form.
Monitor the person’s use of language in future and if appropriate review it as
part of the Personal Development Plan process with the aim of identifying
development needs.
If the language used is so offensive that the above action is insufficient, you
must initiate disciplinary action.
Contractors and personnel seconded from other forces or
organisations
If you are responsible for contractors or other visiting staff, you should inform
them about our standards of appropriate language.
Implementing the policy
Whilst any term which stereotypes or undermines individuals or groups is
unacceptable and will not be tolerated, there are some terms which are clearly
more offensive than others. The way you deal with incidents should reflect this.
The use of some terms may constitute a disciplinary or misconduct offence.
Member of support staff
You are under a contractual obligation to maintain acceptable performance and
conduct, and to comply with the provisions of the Code of Conduct. Greater
Manchester Police has an agreed disciplinary procedure which details the rights
under discipline, the right of appeal and so on.
Police officer
You are subject to an obligation under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 to
comply with the code of conduct.
Maintaining consistency
It is the responsibility of the Assistant Chief Constable Community and Internal
Affairs and the Force Personnel Director to ensure that disciplinary action is fair
and just. Twice a year the Assistant Personnel Director (Policy) and the
Superintendent, Discipline and Complaints Branch will review cases to ensure
proportionality and consistency in decision making. We will share this
information between branches to ensure we are maintaining consistency. The
Equal Opportunities Unit will review the policy in September 2001.

Page 3

Scope of the policy and advice
We recognise that language is continually evolving, and that the acceptability of
certain words or terms may change. It is not possible to provide a definitive list
of which terms are acceptable and which are not. If you are unsure of the
acceptability of a particular word or term and you cannot resolve the problem by
referring to the Power of Language Guide, you can get advice from the Equal
Opportunities Unit or the Discipline and Complaints Branch.
Support
If you are subjected to or challenge inappropriate language, support is available
from a number of sources, details of which can be found in the:
Bullying and Harassment Policy; and
Grievance Procedure.
Access to the policy and ‘Power of Language’ Guide
The policy and guide are available to all staff and to any member of the public.
Both the policy and the Guide will be available on the intranet for Greater
Manchester Police staff and on the Greater Manchester Police internet site for
members of the public.
If you need copies of the Power of Language Guide in other formats, such as
braille and large print, speak to staff in the Equal Opportunities Unit who will
discuss your requirements.
Feedback from the public
Feedback from the general public is valued. Members of the public will be able
to give us feedback on appropriate language using a freepost address or the
Greater Manchester Police internet site. The Chief Superintendent, Community
Affairs Branch will co-ordinate our response to the feedback.
Human Rights Act compliance
We believe this policy to be compliant with the Human Rights Act and the
principles of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Page 4

Operational guidance
Police officer or member of support staff
It is essential that we lead by example in using terminology which is acceptable
to all sections of Greater Manchester’s communities, and which demonstrates
our commitment to promoting best practice and professional conduct.
We publish this guidance to help every member of the force to understand:
what language is acceptable and what is not; and
how to respond to inappropriate language in different operational
circumstances.
General duties
As well as encouraging the use of appropriate language inside the organisation, it
is also important that we respond in the right way to the use of unacceptable
language by people outside it. If Greater Manchester Police officers or staff are
seen to ignore seriously offensive language it could be extremely damaging to
our reputation and may call into question our commitment to good community
and race relations. You should therefore be prepared to challenge unacceptable
language used by members of the public and others outside Greater Manchester
Police, and if necessary to recommend suitable alternatives.
Clearly there are circumstances where the language should not be challenged, for
example for evidential reasons when interviewing suspects, or when it is not
sensible do so, such as when you speak to distressed victims.
You should also be aware that in some circumstances your actions and words
may be recorded, for example by Closed Circuit Television, the media or by the
public. This is a powerful opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to profes-
sional and appropriate language and behaviour.
Witness statement from member of the public
When taking a witness statement from a member of the public, be aware of the
evidential need to record the witness’s exact words. Use speech marks to show
the words used by the witness, especially those giving descriptive information.
Doing this will make sure the statement is recorded in the witness’s own words.
Statement made by police officer or member of support staff
When you make a witness statement yourself you should not use inappropriate
language in any part of the statement written in your own words. To show
something said by another person, write the exact words and put them in speech
marks.

Page 5

Greater Manchester Police Computer Systems
The information recorded on Greater Manchester Police computer systems is
disclosable. If the information has evidential value, the meaning of words must
not be changed by ‘sanitising’ the language used by suspects, witnesses or infor-
mants. Enter the words in speech marks exactly as they were spoken.
Area Operations Rooms
Creating a new incident
The 'Summary Heading' field should contain a succinct but informative heading
relating to the incident. The words or phrases used in this section must comply
with our Appropriate Language Policy.
Enter further details in the 'message' field outlining the incident as described to
you by the caller. The message field must contain all the relevant information
used to describe suspects, offenders, the incident witnessed and so on, in the
exact words of the caller. If the caller uses inappropriate language, show his or
her words in speech marks, clearly indicating that the words are those of the
caller, not a member of Greater Manchester Police. If the caller uses swear
words, record them only if they are relevant to describe the circumstances or
events, and show them in speech marks. In other situations, swearing should be
covered by a comment, such as that the caller was abusive.
Radio operator, subsequent radio communications
You should not relay messages on air using the caller’s exact words if the caller
has used inappropriate language. Our radio transmissions can be intercepted and
anything said over the air may be attributed to Greater Manchester Police.
Where the context of the language used is important, best practice is for the
officers attending to:
view the incident record and then speak to you;
go to a telephone kiosk and speak to you directly; or
speak to you using a Greater Manchester Police mobile phone.
Remember that the inappropriate or prejudicial nature of any language used
might be important information that the officer attending the incident should
know.
Area Operations Room operator - inappropriate language used by
Greater Manchester Police officers and staff
Where an officer or support staff member uses inappropriate language in
communication with the Area Operations Room, you should record the language
used in speech marks. Information describing suspects or offenders may have
evidential value and should not be changed.

Page 6

Supervisor
If you come across inappropriate language used by Greater Manchester Police
personnel recorded on the computer record of the incident, you should inform
the line manager of the person concerned.
Public order situations, sporting and public events
The law provides specifically for situations where racial or indecent language is
used in public. The most common offences are listed below.
Public Order Act 1986 (Public Order Act) offences:
Causing fear or provocation of violence (s.4) or causing harassment alarm and
distress (s.4A and s.5), through the use of threatening, abusive or insulting
words, behaviour or the display of material. Clearly, words or material of an
indecent or racist nature can fall within this category. The Crime and Disorder
Act 1998 created new racially aggravated offences based on Public Order Act
offences. The new offences were:
An offence under section 4 Public Order Act (causing fear or provocation of
violence);
An offence under section 4A Public Order Act (causing intentional
harassment, alarm or distress);
An offence under section 5 Public Order Act (causing harassment, alarm or
distress).
An offence is racially aggravated if:
at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing
so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility
based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial
group; or
the offence is motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards members of a
racial group based on their membership of that group.
The Football (Offences) Act 1991 provides offences which may be committed at
a designated football match. Section 3 creates the offence of ‘indecent or
racialist chanting’. It states: “It is an offence to engage or take part in chanting
of an indecent or racialist nature at a designated football match.
'Chanting' means the repeated uttering of any words or sounds whether alone or
in concert with one or more others. 'Of a racialist nature' means consisting of or
including matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting to a person by reason
of his or her colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national
origins.

Page 7

Enforcement of these offences and compliance with the Human
Rights Act 1998
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporated in the
Human Rights Act 1998 provides for the right to freedom of expression. In
Handyside v UK (1976) it was held that the freedom of expression applied not
only to information or ideas that were favourably received or regarded as
inoffensive, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector
of the population. There is obviously a balance to be struck between the right to
freedom of expression and the conflicting rights of others in a democratic
society. In deciding whether an arrest or reporting for summons is the right
course of action you should ask yourself:
Is what I am doing legal? The offences and powers for constables are clearly
defined in statute.
Is what I am doing necessary and justifiable? Are you using the law for a
legitimate aim, such as to prevent disorder?
Is the action that I am taking proportionate? Is the interference with the
individual’s rights to freedom of expression and liberty proportionate to the
threat or problem you are seeking to prevent?
Overall, is what I am doing fair, both to the community and the individual?
You should record the reasons for your actions, whatever they are, in case you
have to explain your decisions later.
Police officers have the power to use their discretion in the exercise of their
duties. For major public or sporting events, you should refer to operational
orders and verbal briefings for guidance on the level of enforcement or discretion
that the officer in command judges to be necessary.
Meetings with the public, agency partners and people
outside Greater Manchester Police
If you attend meetings as a representative of Greater Manchester Police you
should be prepared to challenge inappropriate terminology used by others,
including members of the public, and to recommend alternatives. If the language
used is seriously offensive, you should openly challenge it.
You should handle such instances carefully to ensure that we do not lose
co-operation or damage relations with the public and our partners.
Recruitment interviews
If you interview a candidate who uses inappropriate language during the
interview, the circumstances will dictate the most appropriate course of action.
You should always probe the applicant further to clarify his or her views.
We accept that in some cases the use of inappropriate language may be due to
lack of knowledge rather than prejudice. In these cases it should not necessarily
result in disqualification, but should be recorded. If the applicant is appointed,

Page 8

you should recommend that the person is given guidance on appropriate
language as an essential part of his or her induction.
If a candidate uses extremely offensive language or uses language with malicious
intent, you should record it. The interview should continue but the applicant
should not be considered suitable for appointment within Greater Manchester
Police. You should discuss and agree this with the other members of the panel
after the interviews have been concluded.
If you are asked by a candidate for feedback following rejection in these
circumstances, you should discuss his or her use of inappropriate language and
level of cultural awareness, and offer constructive advice. Tell the person about
the importance of cultural awareness in policing the diverse communities of
Greater Manchester.
Promotion boards and assessment centres
If you sit on a promotion board, you should write down any use of inappropriate
language and raise it immediately after the board with the Assessment Centre
Manager. He or she will raise the issue with the Superintendent, Career
Development Unit, who will assess the language used, referring to the Power of
Language Guide, before either progressing it or referring it to the relevant
division or branch for action.
If a candidate uses inappropriate language, you should normally allow the board
to continue to see if further development needs are identified. If the language
used is extremely offensive, the board should be terminated.
If inappropriate language occurs during a group discussion exercise, it should be
documented and left to see if other group members responded and challenged
the language used. If the language went unchallenged, this should also be
documented and taken into consideration as part of the overall assessment of the
performance of participants. In either case, it should then be referred to the
Assessment Centre Manager and on to the Superintendent, Career Development
Unit, who will assess the language used, referring to the Power of Language
Guide, before either progressing it or referring it to the relevant division or
branch for action.
Detailed guidance on penalising unacceptable language can be found in the
National Police Promotions Board Rules and Syllabus.
Personal Development Plans and other developmental and
achievement plans
If you have concerns about the use of inappropriate language by a member of
your staff, you should raise it with the individual concerned. If developmental
needs are identified these should be included in the person’s Personal Develop-
ment Plan action plan. You should make more detailed notes and keep them for
the period of the person’s agreed action plan.

Page 9

Training
Training officer
It is vital that you in particular are fully up-to-date with appropriate language
guidance. You should use and encourage appropriate language and challenge
inappropriate language.
At the beginning of any course and while explaining course ground rules, you
should refer to the appropriate language policy and outline how the use of
inappropriate language during the course will be handled.
In some circumstances, for example role play or group discussions on diversity
issues, there may be a need to discuss or demonstrate inappropriate language. In
these cases, before the session starts, you should inform course participants that
this will apply for the purposes of that session.
If a student uses inappropriate language, other than for discussion or
demonstration in a session arranged for that purpose, you should deal with it
immediately. The way in which you deal with it should depend on the
seriousness of the language used.
If the language is extremely offensive, you should stop the class and challenge
the student’s use of language immediately, in the presence of the other course
participants. You should clearly identify the inappropriate language used, why it
is inappropriate and suggest acceptable alternatives before restarting the course.
You should arrange to see the individual outside the classroom environment, for
example during a break or at the end of the day, to discuss the matter,
considering and documenting any necessary action.
If the language is less serious, you should identify it at the time and use it as a
learning experience for the group. Refer course participants to the ‘Power of
Language Guide’ for further information. Challenges of less serious
inappropriate language should be swift and straightforward and should not
significantly affect the flow of the lesson.
If use of inappropriate language by a course participant is correctly challenged
by another course participant, you should support the challenge and provide
further information where applicable.
School liaison sessions
School liaison officer
Your role is that of an outside speaker invited by a teacher. The teacher should
remain with the class at all times while you are talking to them. Beforehand, you
should speak to the teacher about issues such as classroom control and shared
responsibilities, decide which of you will respond to inappropriate language used
by pupils and how it will be dealt with. The rules of the discussion should be
clearly explained to the pupils at the beginning of the talk.

Page 10

If, however, you are to talk about citizenship and anti-social behaviour, you
should identify and challenge inappropriate language used by pupils and explain
how its use may be a criminal offence.
Force publications and documentation
If you write any publication or documentation, whether for the force or your
local division, branch, section or unit, you should check it to make sure it does
not contain any inappropriate language. Help and advice are available from the
Equal Opportunities Unit or the Discipline and Complaints Branch.
Publications such as Chief Constable’s Orders are already checked as part of our
editorial policy.

New Labour: all your bills are belong to us

It's like an April fools joke, or the Twilight Zone...

It's official

New Labour declare all out war on any notion of privacy in the UK

CREDIT card records and fuel bills are to be checked in a blitz on benefit cheats.

Spending, or fuel use, way over that possible on benefits will trigger a fraud probe...

Under a data-sharing plan, benefits staff will have powers to inspect credit agency and utility company records. Every time a claimant is referred to a credit reference agency there will be an investigation.

Staff will make home visits to check for signs of cheating.

Fraud minister James Plaskitt said: "We will use everything in our legal armoury to keep lowering fraud in the system.

"Most people are legitimate, but we have to defeat the cheats on behalf of all law-abiding tax payers who don't see why they should pay for others who do not need it." (What about war, EU etc ? -jultra)

The Department of Work and Pensions will publish the strategy today. Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, branded it "outrageous".

She said: "Ministers are treating all benefits claimants as if they are criminal suspects.

"Today they are going for the poor, tomorrow they will be wanting access to all credit card bills.

"It is disproportionate to invade the privacy of millions to catch a few cheats - the Government should be ashamed."

The strategy document, Reducing Fraud in the Benefit System, also reveals plans to use lie detectors on telephone claimants.

A blitz on incapacity benefit claimants who have gone back to work is planned later this year.

Ministers are considering moving GPs into benefit offices to check on those people claiming to be sick.

Ok guys, we've got a real problem on our hands. How do you deal with it ? I don't know anymore. New Labour need removing, castrating. Blair needs impeaching and hanging and somehow I guess everyone has to work towards that end. The UK is living under a totally corrupt rogue regime that is out of control, I think there is little doubt about that. Easy target at first, the unemployed, easy initial criteria, benefit fraud. Maybe there is some clever political angle here, maybe they now fully understand how doomed their ID Card scheme is, how it is and will continue to be rejected.

Perhaps they are trying to put people off signing on at all. I don't know to be honest.

Never in isolation, these strategies are part of a package of hell, to degrade, to digitally enslave. We are dealing with technological and administrative slavery. Old fashioned slavery is bad, but modern techno-serfdom is 'acceptable' to fight fraud, to fight terror, to make us 'competitive' in the global age. We can add today's shameful debacle to the list (by no means complete) of ID Cards, DNA Databases, data retention, medical record spying, RIP and so on.

New Labour are obsessed with data sharing, with data collection, with databases, with redefining what privacy means. We can not let them. We have a responsibility to end this.

Blair terror plans unraveling

Guardian:

The government should not attempt to browbeat judges over its new anti-terrorism laws, the new senior judge in England and Wales warned yesterday...

[...]The clash over human rights and national security will play itself out over the autumn, when senior judges are asked to approve the deportation of terror suspects to Algeria and other countries with poor human rights records. Four appeal court judges have already warned anonymously they "won't buckle" by just rubber-stamping the "no torture" deals struck with foreign governments...

Tony Blair... warned judges - again in explicit terms - that they must not rule against the anti-terror measures that were being proposed. "When the police say this is what we need to make this country safe, you have got to have good reasons to say no to that." (You have to laugh)

Independent:

Blair and Clarke split over three-month detention plan...

[...]During fierce exchanges with the committee, Mr Clarke denied the Government was moving towards "a totalitarian Britain". He dismissed a claim by the Law Society that Cherie Blair, who has remarked that Palestinian suicide-bombers blow themselves up because they "feel they have got no hope", could fall foul of the new legislation.

"denied...moving towards totalitarian Britain" == Totalitarian Britain.

Clarke said that a "fantastic transformation" towards democracy over the past two decades (???) meant political violence could never be justified. He said: "I cannot myself think of a situation in the world where violence would be justified to bring about change."



Yes, it's difficult to believe that this barrel of shit could be so duplicitous, so full of double standards and double/triple/quadruple speak. It is truly stunning. This is the garbage you people elected. "Thhhhhhhinnnngs can only get betterrrrrrrrrrrr ooooooh".

Well sorry fatso, every free thinking person on the planet reserves the right to defend themselves from bad, corrupt, rotten, shit-stained murderous government. I'm sorry that doesn't sit well with you. I'm so sorry but it's tough shit.

You can take your wars, your endorsement of torture, your terror laws, your ID Cards, your corrupt police chiefs, your DNA Databases, your data retention, your medical record spying, your censorship, and stick them into your flabby porcine anus.

US consider(ed) striking Syria

From Aljazeera:

Senior U.S. officials debated the option of “launching military strikes” inside Syria, but the move was opposed by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a U.S. magazine reported.

Newsweek reported that Rice rejected the idea of striking Syria at a meeting of top U.S. officials held on October 1.

According to the report: “Rice argued that diplomatic isolation is working against al-Assad, especially on the eve of a UN report that may accuse Syria of the assassination of Lebanese politician Rafiq Hariri.”

Rice declined to confirm the report. “I am not going to comment on internal deliberations in the Administration," she told reporters on Tuesday.

'Extremists' threaten Financial London

The City of London (who have their own Police*) are planning a big 'anti-terror' exercise.:

City regulators are preparing to test how London's financial community would cope with a major disaster such as an attack by extremists <----(look it's now 'extremists', what happened to 'terrorists' ? -jultra)

Banks including Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse First Boston will be among 50 firms taking part in the virtual exercise, on 28 November.

It comes in the wake of the July bomb attacks on London's transport system.

The exercise is being organised by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) (hahaahahhahah -jultra), the Bank of England and the Treasury

Aw, bless.

* The City of London Police have gone on the record on TV after the London bombings saying they know the face of every person in the area and will stop and search anyone they don't recognize. That's right, you work hard protecting money.