Comment of The Day

I see that anarchist rag The Sunday Times (prop. R. Murdoch) is featuring more video of police brutality at the G20.

Rupert Murdoch’s the champion of the oppressed masses now? Who knew? Fight the power, Rupe!

As if.

Commenter GnosticMind responded to Henry Porters’ column on public order policing in today’s Observer and he hits the bullseye when he says:

19 Apr 09, 5:36am (about 2 hours ago)

What is also interesting here is the media treatment of those attacked by the police : The second victim to come forward, the woman from Brighton, has now hired Max bloody Clifford of all people, to represent her : Anyone well versed in Situationist dialectic and critique will see exactly what is happening here — the state media machinery absorbs the threat to the status quo, by repackaging the threat — and selling it back to its own people — as spectacle and entertainment.

The society as spectacle wins yet again — if , that is, most people are fooled and pacified by it yet again.

All that Situationist theory is old hat by now, and very overdone, years ago — but by God they got it right.

They certainly did.

I bet TimesOnline’s hitcount is well up. The management (R. Murdoch) and the advertisers must be loving it. Do I smell an advertising revenue spike?

Dissent and violent repression;not only poliitical theatre but the saviour of the economy.
.

How Is A Prime Minister Like A River In Brazil?

Gordon's Amazon wishlist
Gordon's Amazon wishlist

Both are up shit creek for a start.

Global online retail giant Amazon, now embroiled in its own internet related scandal – the #amazonfail list is now at 1,582 books and other products, and rising – has much in common with New Labour.

Both are omni-bloody-present, both collect huge amounts of info about us and our habits; both believe that a] they alone control the internets and b]computers are only a powerful when they use them. Both suffer from megalomania, control freakery and a refusal to accept they could ever have done anything wrong, or even just immoral – even when it’s quite clear that they have.

Zoe Margolis:

According to one author, Amazon stated a few days ago that it was now its “policy” to exclude “adult” material from appearing in some searches and bestseller lists, but his book had no “adult” material in it. It seems that books written by lesbian or gay authors, or with lesbian or gay themes, were being classed as “adult”, actively removed from searches, and de-ranked, alongside the books featuring erotic content.

Now both Amazon and Gordon Brown are deep in the proverbial, one for censoring a website, the other for planning one and then continuing to pretend he knew nothing, despite persuasive evidence that he must have:

“This is a den within Westminster. We’re talking about a house in Downing Street, with an office and in that office sits Gordon Brown, Damian McBride and Tom Watson.

“We are talking about three people in this marriage at the heart of this scandal.”

Corporations like Amazon tend to think a computer’s a powerful political tool, but only when they use it. Amazon’s wrong:

Barely an hour after the amazonfail tag first appeared, it was being mentioned four times a second on Twitter search – thousands of people were talking about it; but none of the tweets were positive. Calls for Amazon to be “googlebombed” were acted upon and people were commenting on the politics of “cyberactivism” – contributing to lists of the books that had been affected – and calling for a boycott of the site. Amazon, it appeared, had started to dig its own grave.

New Labour’s wrong too. Daniel Hannan:

A blog has just done something that I thought no one could do: elicited an apology (or as close as we’ll ever get to an apology) from Gordon Brown. Indeed, according to The Guardian, the McBride-Draper scandal might cost Labour the next election. If so, Guido Fawkes would have succeeded where his baleful namesake failed 404 years ago: he would have brought down a government. Even if you think the Guardian story is a bit de trop, the idea that one man with a laptop could do so much damage would, until very recently, have seemed risible.

Both are now desperately trying to spin paddle their way out of the river of cack that attitude’s got them into.

Good luck with that, Amazon and Brown: there’s millions of us, but only one each of you.

What Did I Tell You?

This is just one of the reasons why I’ll never live in England again if I can help it.

london-police

Remember those student activists in Plymouth I posted about a week or so ago? The teenage graffiti artists arrested under terror legislation ahead of the G20?

Guess what, they’ve been released without charges:

All five were detained for a number of days under the Terrorism Act as police carried out a number of searches. At the time it was suggested those arrested were planning to travel to London to protest along with thousands of others at the G20 summit.

All five have now been released without charges under the Terrorism Act. One of the women must answer police bail pending inquiries regarding a drugs offence. The other woman was also on police bail pending what police have called “other criminal matters.”

The schoolboy was on bail until May “in connection with a separate criminal investigation” while the 19-year-old was released with no further action to be taken against him.

As I said at the time it hardly matters to police that no charges resulted. They’ve got what they wanted – potential dissidents intimidated and plenty of ‘intelligence’ against anyone else who might be so foolish as to protest:

“Computers have also been seized for examination.” say Plymouth police. ).

Yes, multiple computers with multiple users, not to mention multiple mobile phones, in 2 shared student houses. Since when have students been guilty of what their housemates read online or text to their mates?

But how very handy for the police to be able to hoover up who knows how many innocent yet politically inconvenient email or facebook friends or bloggers or LJ readers for Jacqui Smith’s handy little database of dissidents (if her husband hasn’t left the USB stick at Spearmint Rhino already

Late edit Sunday am:

I’ve been a bit absent lately and only just realised I’d put the blockquote in the above para in the wrong place. Changed it. Mind you, it’s not as though anyone noticed .

Coppers, Cock-Ups and Provocateurs

urbanwarfaresegwayMartin was working at home last week, so I broke my invariable rule on no sinful daytime tv and we watched the G20 demo live for several hours on both News 24 and Sky.

I mentioned at the time that I thought the supposed ‘black bloc’ looked very well-equipped and well-dressed; I mentioned too that from overhead shots it seemed that police cordons were being placed so as to force the front of the crowd – those suspiciously smart anarchists, conspicuous in their new black hoodies – right into the plate-glass windows of the only unboarded-up RBS branch in the City of London.

This story from last year, via Ten Percent, might shed some light on exactly how it was a small group of masked people bent on violence found themselves perfectly placed to attack a symbolic yet oddly unprotected building and potentially provoke a riot :

The man in the T-shirt was tall, well-built and handsome, smiling but with a hint of menace. He pushed aside children and elderly people. He continued to shout slogans such as: ‘Pigs Out.’

On his back was a black rucksack and he carried a professional-looking camera with a large telephoto lens. Hardly the sort of kit for a few snaps of his day out. My friends and I, standing a few rows back, asked him a couple of times to calm down, but he ignored us.

I wondered why I was drawn to him. Was it his dark good looks or was I worried for the safety of my 70-year-old friend and children nearby? Then it dawned on me. I had met this man at a party. I tapped him gently on the shoulder and said: ‘Have we met before?’ Instantly he recognised me. ‘Hi, how are you? It’s really nice to see you here.’

My puzzlement grew. This chap wasn’t really the sort you’d expect to see shouting abuse at police officers at an anti-war demo. He was, after all, a policeman himself – and a high-ranking one at that. I’d met the police inspector at a party around last Christmas. The local mayor was there, along with councillors from other parties and journalists. I’d been asked along by a friend.

Later, we went to a local gay club, where I danced with him and a few others until 3.30am. He had a bolshie charm, was cocky and a little manipulative. He was also highly entertaining, bragging about his work in the police and how important he was.

I remained bemused about his presence at the demo. I asked if he would send me copies of his demo photos. He replied: ‘No, they’re to put on my bedroom wall.’ I then casually asked why he was shouting anti-police slogans. ‘Funny you chanting that,’ I said, ‘when you’re a policeman.’

‘They don’t have my sort in the police, love,’ he said camply, so I would assume he was referring to being gay. A few seconds later, he melted into the crowd. I wondered whether he was at the demo undercover, deliberately whipping up trouble that he could capture on camera. That would then be used to malign anti-war protesters as dangerous and violent subversives. Of course, it is possible he was there off-duty to support the anti-war cause, but it is hardly likely he would enjoy chanting slogans against the police.

More…

Of course the protestors at the G20 didn’t riot, despite deliberately targeted overt (and covert) provocation. There was no mass riot, even though a man was killed. The police, wound up to a fine pitch of nervous anticipation by their political masters in ACPO and the Labour government, had to get their jollies later elsewhere.

When the cameras are gone no provocateurs are required, just fists, boots and batons.

Deborah Orr in the Independent says that the Met is dangerously out of control, but negates her own point by saying that:

…the foul-ups of the Met have one thing in common. The police go into a situation with their minds made up, their strategies already laid out, and their justifications rehearsed in advance. They never acknowledge their mistakes, but always protect the officers who make them. So they never, ever, learn anything. The amazing thing is that they keep on getting away with it.

Police nationwide, not just the Met, certainly appear out of control – but they aren’t, as much as nicely brought up newspaper columnists might think so. Police harassment and violence against dissenters is not abberation, it’s policy; so why be amazed that violent police get away with it?

British police are the paramilitary wing of the political and economic regime. Their continued existence is predicated on the maintainance of the status quo. A lot of undereducated and otherwise unemployable plods, rank and file and senior officers alike, would have a lot of future mortgage payments to lose should the system that supports them in maintaining a compliant populace ever be successfully challenged, so they’ll do whatever it takes to protect that, human rights be damned.