| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Prole
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
http://www.thefridayproject.co.uk/hi/tft/politics/002015.php
From A blogger called Chicken Yoghurt (who obviously attended the Firends House meeting)
| Quote: | 'False Flag' Fundamentalism: Tilting at Tube Trains
14 April 2006
'There is a central question: how young men born and bred in Britain, with all the rights and freedoms a British citizen enjoys, could decide to blow themselves up on London's public transport system, killing fellow citizens.'
- Milan Rai, introduction to '7/7'
'7/7: WHO REALLY BOMBED LONDON?... Inside job frame-ups are routine operations when ruling fraternities want another war or more police-state powers... these 'black ops' are also known as 'false flag terrorism' because they throw the blame onto innocents *allegedly* linked to the enemy of today.'
- Leaflet from 'The Independent People's Investigation into July Seventh'
....
Milan Rai wasn't sure if he'd make it to his own book launch. He's been in court this morning, charged with organising an unauthorised demonstration in the vicinity of Parliament - this was when he and Maya Evans read out the names of dead soldiers by the Cenotaph last year. However, he's here (having been fined, although he's refusing to pay) for the launch of his measured, analytical book '7/7: The London Bombings, Islam and the Iraq War' and a public meeting at a Friends Meeting House in central London. Evans, a member of the group Justice not Vengeance, is the chair, and the speakers are Iraqi activist academic Nadje al-Ali, 7/7 survivor and writer Rachel North and 'radical historian' Mark Curtis. The room is filled with thoughtful people who want to listen and discuss the issues, and as it transpires, some who are convinced that a lack of CCTV footage proves that Tony Blair personally Sellotaped exploding wombats to the underground tracks.
The speakers are excellent. Iraqi Londoner Nadje al-Ali explains that 'In Iraq, people say goodbye every morning as if for the last time, because it could be.' She herself is 'scared by Bush's policies and Islamic extremism alike'. She's insistent that peaceful activists have to examine what they have achieved and what they haven't, and have to ask 'What is our failure?' Just as the people at the meeting are not the ones who need convincing, the people who ask these hard questions are the ones who least need to. Governments rarely ask this of themselves. But there's a solid self-awareness about these panelists which can be used; they openly acknowledge that you can't just preach to the converted. We get a niggling sense, though, that the consistent willingness to acknowledge failure and shortcoming, although only the right thing to do, is seen as a weakness itself by those who disagree. Still, what else can you do?
Mark Curtis is especially thoughtful and eloquent, saying it's 'entirely rational' for Iran to be acquiring nuclear weapons, as military intervention is sending a clear message that countries need to protect themselves. Well, yeah. He reels off interesting and terrifying interconnecting facts about British arms exports, alliances with oppressive elites, and how the 'foreign policy boomerang' is making us less safe. Rachel North talks about how it's possible to eke positive things out of the atrocities. She's written copiously in the press and on her blog about the sense of unity and solidarity felt by the victims and the people of London, and is also tireless in pressing for a public enquiry and stressing the need to put constant bugs in the government's ear. This evening she firmly stresses the need for insight, insisting that 'we need to understand what made [the bomber on the King's Cross train] do it, then we can engage with it and attack it at the source'. She understands that 'ideas can't be made war on' but we've got to do better than 'fighting violence and fear with more violence and fear'.
Rai himself is engaging, funny and impassioned. He explains with a deliberate drawl that he's 'a living demonstration of the misnomer that the Serious... Organised... Crimes... Act... has become.' He goes on to say that there's pretty much unanimous agreement on the part of the government, the Home and Foreign Offices and the British people that there's a link between the attacks and the war on Iraq, but Blair is doing his best to deflect it with nifty lawyerly pronouncements. He speaks about media self-censorship and complicity, the hardening of attitudes towards Muslims - all heavy and depressing stuff, but it's heartening to hear it aired with a view to attempting to alter it.
Then questions are taken, and the fun really begins after the first one or two. An imperious voice says something about Rai's book being, with all due respect, wrong. Maya Evans gets heavy. She is aware that 'some people have come to disagree', and gives the speaker three minutes to talk. Although this is a public meeting, there is an agenda of sorts which this speaker isn't aligning himself with - since the agenda isn't completely clarified, there's immediate tension. A tall middle-aged man in a crinkled cream suit comes to the front and explains that 'the purpose of 7/7 was to abort the G8 summit - there were no Muslim terrorists - the bombs were maybe strapped underneath the trains...' The hot, stuffy room goes still - any incipient boos and tuts are suppressed, exasperation released only in barely-audible sighs. It's standard-issue conspiracy theorist tripe, and yet there's a discomfort felt in hearing it which may come from the knowledge that if he believes this, others will, and the search for truth is put into further needless jeopardy by people who loftily claim to be the only real seekers of it. He continues with strident pronouncements as to train time discrepancies and other details he considers evidence of governmental skulduggery, and insists that 'synthetic terror' is being created. Wonderful phrase, but unfortunately anchored in nothing but hubris. He sits down to a mighty clatter of applause from one row. Nadje al-Ali wearily responds that 'your anger is misplaced. Mil is trying to expose government lies - we are not polarised. But in saying there were no bombers, you're not helping me, you're not helping anyone.' North, the subject of some colourful theories herself (apparently, she's a whole team of MI5 operatives), merely says, 'I think you can probably guess my response.'
There's further fuss from the Independent Enquiry contingent. Maya Evans has a formidable presence but struggles a little, veering between allowing free speech to show its silly arse as well as its fresh face, and insisting that the subject must be closed because it's not on the agenda. We veer along with her. On one hand, yes, let them give themselves enough rope to hang themselves with, and don't give them an excuse to cry 'suppression of information'. On the other hand, they're wasting time, souring the atmosphere; and although they're civilised enough and there's no risk of a chair-hurling saloon brawl erupting, the small group are a dominant presence. One man behind us in a loud and clear Brian Sewell tone asks 'if Milan Rai believes in "innocent until proven guilty", and if so, why is he presuming the guilt of these three lads without trial?' Rai looks down at the table. Evans says that they've covered this and won't answer the question. 'If you won't answer then we'll draw conclusions,' huffs the man. Evans backs up a bit. 'If we answer this, can we have a promise from you that we'll move on?' The man says he can't promise for the rest of the group, and besides, 'You're the chair - you decide when we move on.' He's right, of course - she does, and he's just niftily pointed out how she's undermined her own authority. b*. But like most of the people in the room, Evans wants more than anything to be reasonable, to have reasonable debate. She's torn, like the rest of us, between letting the loons let rip and shushing them like a schoolmistress. 'Would you like to sit down?' she asks the man. 'I wouldn't *like* to,' he retorts, 'but I shall'. It's all petty point-scoring, and the assumption that a refusal to answer a silly question speaks simply *volumes*, when in fact it's the only sensible thing to do. Start bickering with conspiracy theorists and you begin to eat into what's already been achieved - the fragile establishment of rationale and a tentative way forward for debate. You might as well just down tools and have a custard pie fight - y'know, to relieve the tension.
The meeting breaks up amicably enough, with acknowledgement of the 'tension in the room' and relief that it's been resolved peacefully enough for now. It's been something of a microcosm of the situation being discussed. The difficult struggle to reach a consensus and a solution through civilised discussion, in order to avoid further violence (or in this case shouting, and more plaintive bleats of 'that's *censorship!*'). The importance of hearing everyone's view versus the strong instinct to block some unpleasant voices out. There's also the sad realisation that people will always scrap amongst themselves whatever common ground they have; and also that people's beliefs, whether in the absolute imperative of jihad and martyrdom or in the perpetration of black ops and the non-existence of suicide bombers, become unshakeable fast. Conspiracy theorists are still fundamentalists of a kind, and it's too late to convince them they're wrong, but thankfully it is safe in their case to ignore them. Still, they're fascinating, with their obsessive attention to superfluous detail, their misplaced paranoia and twisting of the words of witnesses to fit their agenda. It's sad when they actually want many of the things the rest of us do, as was pointed out. The problem they create is that they give questioning officialdom a bad name, making it easy to write everyone off who raises a hand and says, 'No, I don't think that's a good enough explanation.'
Then again, as we walked to the tube full of Quaker tea and flapjacks, it did occur to us that there never *has* been any official explanation as to why the bombed number 30 bus carried an advertisement for the horror film 'The Descent', including the review quote 'OUTRIGHT TERROR... BOLD AND BRILLIANT'. Perhaps we should be told?
|
What is interesting is that he adds this link to the end of the article:
They Did It In America Too, You Know.
http://www.policestateplanning.com/loose_change_ii.htm
_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I sent "The Friday thing" the following letter:
Dear Madam/Sir,
I read with interest the story/blog entry on "'False Flag' Fundamentalism: Tilting at Tube Trains" regarding the meeting at which Milan Rai's book was discussed. This was a pithy article with some incisive commentary. However, it lacked the research to make it as accurate as it could've been. (Do you strive to be "rarely fair and never balanced" I am given to wonder.)
As regards what really happened on 7/7 the pattern of events and lack of real evidence and suppression of public enquiry, along with a number of other factors, to use a cliché "bore all the hallmarks" of a false-flag operation.
I think it is important that articles like yours, when presented with a subject like this should check certain basic facts before using acerbic wit to mis-represent or ridicule, even, a group of people's position, which is based on testable evidence. As regards 7/7 it should make reference to these facts, rather than "misplaced paranoia and twisting of the words of witnesses to fit their agenda" (the actual words of witnesses can be read and heard by downloading from the link below).:
1) Bruce Lait's clear statement that "there was a hole in the floor of the train", "where the bomb was" - no suicide bomber.
2) Peter Power's recorded, clear and unequivocal statements of exercise where "bombs were going off at exactly the same stations and exactly the same time" as the real event.
3) Daily mail picture showing damage which looks more consistent with a bomb under the train.
4) No moving CCTV images (time lapse) of any of the bombers.
5) Extremely dubious and possibly photoshopped picture released of all 4 bombers on 1 picture (and only 1 picture as far I am aware).
6) Mark Honigsbaum's (Guardian reporter) recounting of witnesses saying the Edgeware road bomb caused tiles to "fly up and rise up" from the floor.
Most of this evidence can be downloaded using this link:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/7-7PortfolioOfEvidence.zip
The real issue is that all of this evidence (and more) makes the government's story look extremely questionable and all victims and their relatives have a basic right to examine this evidence and have it presented and argued in a court of law. Should this ever come to pass, however, it will be very difficult for a fair trial or analysis ever to take place, due to the enormous bias that has been introduced by media coverage rich in graphics and commentary but poor in analysis and impartiality.
Someone committed a crime - a group of people have been accused, but the fact that they actually did it has not yet been proved in a court of law. A public enquiry or something like it might give an opportunity for this to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt".
I must also advise you of the formation, a few months ago, of another group of people - Scholars For 9/11 Truth (www.st911.org). This group (of which I am a member) rejects the official story of 9/11 and presents scientifically testable evidence (not twisted words) to back up their position. This group includes 2 former US Republican Administration members (Prof Morgan Reynolds and Dr Paul Craig Roberts) as well as a Professor of Physics, a Professor of Theology and a Professor of Philosophy. Check the website to find out all about our group. and other members of our UK 9/11 Truth movement (www.nineeleven.co.uk) have had something of a dialogue with BBC News Director, Helen Boaden, for failing to cover the formation of our group, or the substance of our press releases. As there are senior and respected people in our group, I have argued that the BBC are in breach of their charter for not covering our statements. I am now investigating legal action against them for not covering this significant development.
As regards 7/7 particularly, when I was a kid, we used to play pranks on each other. I remember one kid's favourite saying, when he was strongly suspected of being the perpetrator of the prank, but no one had seen him do it, he would quote the "law of the land" and say "Well, innocent until proven guilty!" Whatever happened to that law? It seems it was repealed sometime around Sept 11, 2001.
If you have a letters section, I would be surprised to see this letter published in it - and even more surprised if it was published without editing.
Thanks for reading.
Yours Sincerely,
Andrew Johnson
British 9/11 Truth Campaign (www.nineeleven.co.uk)
Scholars for 9/11 Truth (www.st911.org)
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:58 pm Post subject: Brian Sewell |
|
|
Comparing me to Brian Sewell!! That's unforgivable.
ROTFLMAO  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Reflecting on the week's events, of this was one, in retrospect I have to say this probably wasn't our finest hour! but hopefully at least some of the points that concern us got across, which is probably the best we can hope for at this early stage, 7/7 being still such a raw issue and relatively few people as yet being able to see the connections with other similar events or the 'bigger picture'.
Thanks to my having extracted from an already wary Maya (chair) prior to the meeting an agreement to allow us 3 minutes to put our case to the floor, then keeping her to that! Nick K was able to give an excellent if brief presentation which got across the main points and was furthermore delivered in an entirely gracious and sincere manner; but after that things fell apart somewhat, as others battled to overcome the chair's obvious determination to restrict further input from us.
The final absurdity was that Annie, who politely had her hand up the whole time was roundly lumped with "your bunch" and not allowed to speak, despite one of the panelists, Mark Curtis, a foreign policy expert having specifically referred to David's work on British intelligence, false-flag operations, state-terrorism and the Elite!!!
But I certainly didn't register any actual shouting, as reported by Rachel, any more, that is, than she herself indulged in when she hijacked the 9/11 London meeting a few weeks ago and rudely interposed herself between David (chair) and the floor.
To those who like myself hadn't met this person before and weren't aware of her significance in the scheme of things (I'm one of those still more focused on 9/11, while having of course some very strong concerns about 7/7) she came across as a very angry and possibly even disturbed person. Then it was explained to me that she'd actually been involved in the incident, which I took to be the reason why she was like that.
So again that was perhaps why she wasn't up to speed on all the BBC and other coverage that morning, she hadn't physically heard Peter Power ex Metropolitan Police talking about the simultaneous terror-drill exercise going on at the precise locations as those where the bombs then went off (we played her an actual live recording of the interview he gave to the BBC).
But really she should by now be catching up with some of these and other facts since she is taking such a public role as spokesperson for the victims. Her vitriolic attitude therefore to any who dare to raise such perfectly legitimate concerns, including simply, from the safety and security point of view, why no CCTV cameras at all were working that morning?? is really quite curious - if anything is guaranteed to excite the suspicions of us 'conspiraloons' (lovely word, that!) it's to be met with such a degree of rank hostility by someone who surely if anyone must have the interests of the victims at heart, being one herself.
The annals of human tragedy are full of victims and those close to them seeking truth about who has hurt them and how and why, and sometimes it takes years for the truth to come out and for those wrongly charged to be proven innocent, q.e.d. but the majority of the British population - particularly I like to think, the British population - are keen on truth and justice, hence would sympathise with the spirit of what we are trying to do, however ineptly we may at times be doing it.
And, we have a national taste for 'whodunnits' and getting to the bottom of mysteries and conundrums, do we not? It is interesting that, in the wake of other atrocities (Omagh, Lockerbie, Bloody Sunday, numerous train disasters) victims and their families usually start from a position that at the very least corporate negligence is being covered up, and in the case of the major terrorst attacks, that there is state involvement, corruption, and collusion. After years of victims' support networks fighting to get at the truth, this has subsequently been found to have often been the case. Yet with many 7/7 victims there seems to be a determination to adhere to the official version and scorn other evidence as it emerges.
I don't care that the 4 lads involved were from poor ethnic minorities and Muslims to boot, they and their families are as much human beings and part of our society as anyone and have as much right to have proper process under the law before being declared guilty of the crime - even if they were guilty (and as I said I'm not that much of an expert on 7/7 as some around me so I actually still have an open mind).
It's a shame we appear to have fallen out over this quest for truth and justice when there should have been a strong link-up with Milan, Maya and the other panelists, even with Rachel herself, if she would be disposed to be helpful rather than being aggressive and derisory by turns.
All of us in our several ways are similarly at pains to defuse this unpleasant blanket demonisation of Muslims that has resulted from 7/7 and to help promote justice, healing and harmony.
As I believe has already been suggested (?), as a sign of Rachel's good intention generally to "build bridges" as I believe she put it, we would be very happy to meet and talk with her or any others who have problems with what we're doing, to discuss the various points at issue in a non-confrontational way.
Perhaps this could happen after the government report comes out in a few weeks' time.
Belinda
PS Rachel's describing as "obscene" our alleged demand to see CCTV coverage inside the trains of the actual bombs going off & the carnage etc. is scoring a very cheap point and it's inaccurate anyway as there are no cameras inside the trains. We want to see the footage of the bombers on the platform waiting to board the trains, they might have had to wait at least a couple of minutes or jostle their way on, etc. Such footage which is apparently missing would be the clinching evidence. The only shot of the 4 at Luton station is said to have been taken some days earlier and to have been doctored. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great post Belinda!
| Quote: | | We want to see the footage of the bombers on the platform waiting to board the trains, they might have had to wait at least a couple of minutes or jostle their way on, etc. Such footage which is apparently missing would be the clinching evidence. |
Yep just like I would like to see the footage of the Boeing 757 (the official account of 911) hitting the Pentagon recorded by the CCTV cameras around the external perimeter of the building as well as the videos from the filling station/garage and hotel opposite which the FBI confiscated.
In one of my questions to Milan at Kendal I asked him why the authorities would not release the footage to prove their allegation that 911 truth campaigners are conspiracy theorists.
After a few moments of silence his response was this:- if I stole this door
and walked off with it without anyone seeing me do it..........sorry cant exactly recollect the rest (anyone else there remember, Sinkey?). I thought about his statement and it was as clear as mud! I should have challenged him on it but by this time the waters were getting rather choppy!
Peace & truth
_________________
Pikey
Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
insidejob
Validated Poster
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 475
Location: North London
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:39 am Post subject: Anti-war 7/7 arguments a threat to UK Muslims |
|
|
As a member of the anti-war movement I used to say that the Iraq invasion made the UK a target for terrorism. Nonetheless, I didn't for a minute believe that UK Muslims would be the perpetrators. This remains my main objection to the Left/MI5 explanation of 7/7. Their explanation is:
poverty+racism+anti-establishment politics+a dash of mad religion = UK Muslim suicide bombers blewing themselves up on tube trains.
This calculation turns UK Muslims and black people into a potential 5th column requiring repressive methods to address. And, of course, we've seen more stops and searches used against black people and Asians as a result. To argue that a few/ some/ lots of (take your pick) UK Muslims are now planning to blow up innocent Brits is conspiracy, paranoid fantasy.
I think this should be our main argument against Rai, Rachel and the rest of them ie. that they are turning UK Muslims into a 5th column. According to the 'official story', there was nothing about the four that was different to other UK Muslims other than a brief contact with mad Muslim clerics.
The Islamic fundamentalist arguments are ridiculous. One minute we are supposed to believe that 'the Umma' (world community of Muslims) means that an injury to one Muslim in one part of the world is an injury to all. And this explains why some Muslims engage in 'Islamic terrorism' against the West who cause the injury. The next minute we are supposed to believe that Sunnis hate Shias, Zawari hates all Muslims apart from fundamentalists and that's why Iraq is descending into civil war.
Rai's explanation of why the four turned into suicide bombers is not an explanation. He says they brainwashed themselves - what does that mean?
Rai/the anti-war movement/MI5 arguments about 7/7 and Iraq is a threat to UK Muslims.
insidejob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: Milan Rai meeting, London |
|
|
I was at this meeting and asked one question that was not mentioned (and therefore not sneered at) in the FridayProject blog. I asked Mark Curtis why, as he had just described the policies and actions of the British goverment as wicked, lying etc (and all-but evil), how come the panel were comfortable accepting the unproven narrative of events that this government had presented to everyone on the very next day. It makes no sense that they should do so.
There was some confusion at the top table and I can't remember anyone actually answering this.
I though everyone (from our group) behave well enough. Annie was ignored. It is all described in the posts above.
I am writing this to say that something about people who take Milan Rai's position really puzzles me. I have no right to assume that they are insincere but...how can you take up an ultra-critical position on government actions and policies....... and then rubbish the evidence that really puts it on the spot?
I don't get it. I really don't. God put the spark of truth in us all. Evidence IS evidence. What is going on?
If this group refuse to take up the offer that Noel is putting to them through his Quaker friends then I will become actively suspicious of them. If they can show me I am wrong on 9/11 I will difinitely listen. I would love to let go of these awful issues.
Explain the collapse of WTC7.
Show us how you know that the Asian lads carried out the London bombings.
If you've got the evidence I and all of the 911 group (I believe) will accept it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian T. Gaston
New Poster
Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| insidejob wrote: | | Rai/the anti-war movement/MI5 arguments about 7/7 and Iraq is a threat to UK Muslims. |
None of the 'anti-terror' laws are reserved for use solely against Muslims.
The threat of incorrect analysis of the issue is a threat to UK Muslims, as stated, and also to the entire population of the country, all of whom are subject to the law of the land.
To assume the threat is only to UK Muslims seriously underestimates the scope of the law and the threats that we all face. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ian T. Gaston wrote: | | insidejob wrote: | | Rai/the anti-war movement/MI5 arguments about 7/7 and Iraq is a threat to UK Muslims. |
None of the 'anti-terror' laws are reserved for use solely against Muslims.
The threat of incorrect analysis of the issue is a threat to UK Muslims, as stated, and also to the entire population of the country, all of whom are subject to the law of the land.
To assume the threat is only to UK Muslims seriously underestimates the scope of the law and the threats that we all face. |
I don't wish to derail this thread completely, but Ian T is right in his comment about the whole population being effected
I repeat the whole of Simon Carr's article from the Independent below, because the link only leads you to one of those pay-for articles
Note that Carr suggests readers sending in further relevant items and starting a little website on these issues. I don't suppose for a minute he's serious about that but am compiling a list off the top of my head to try him out
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/simon_carr/article3577 76.ece
| Quote: | Simon Carr: If you still think you live in a liberal and democratic society, then please read on
It's a list that dramatises to any disinterested observer how much Britain has changed
Published: 15 April 2006
The Government is said to be giving up on that remarkable new law known as Leg and Reg. They had been, until very recently, fighting like cats for it. Disguised as a device to allow burdensome regulations to be easily abolished, the Bill had hidden in it a few clauses that allowed ministers to change any law they liked without going through onerous procedures. The burden ministers needed relief from was Parliament.
The fact that this can only be scored a draw should encourage us to remember the many other losses suffered by civil society in the past eight years. These measures and effects listed below are justified by the war-without-end against terrorism, criminals, immigrants, drug dealers and overweight women opening their front door in their unappealing underwear. But it's a list that dramatises to any disinterested observer how Britain has changed in the past eight years.
1) As from the beginning of this year, all offences are arrestable.
2) There are three million DNA samples held on file (rising to four million in two years).
3) People can protest in Parliament Square only with the written permission of the police. Where "reasonably practical" six days' notice must be given.
4) Damaging GM crop fields is defined as a terrorist act.
5) In 2001 two peace campaigners were prosecuted for causing "harassment, alarm and distress" to US servicemen at their base in Britain by standing at the gate holding a placard reading "George W Bush? Oh Dear".
6) A minister can declare a state of emergency and suspend all legal proceedings, including Parliament.
7) The penalty for breaking an anti-social behaviour order can be five years in prison.
8) Anyone's internet history - the sites you've visited, who has e-mailed you and whom you have e-mailed - can be called up by public servants in a dozen departments, as well as all local councils.
9) A journalist's second e-mail requesting information from a council press officer was designated "harassment" and sent to the police.
10) The presumption of innocence is no longer a fixed legal principle.
11) People wearing satirical T-shirts in a "designated area" may be arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The City of London is a permanently "designated area".
12) Police may take, and retain indefinitely, DNA samples (by force, if necessary) from people who have been arrested but neither charged nor cautioned.
13) Profiles of 37 per cent of all black men are held by the police.
14) The existence of an interception warrant (to monitor internet activity) is a state secret, and the penalty for revealing its existence to the person concerned is five years' imprisonment.
15) It is a criminal offence to prevent an inspector from entering a nursery school for the purposes of inspection and punishable by up to two years in prison.
16) Of 3,069 Asbos issued to the end of March 2004, only 42 requests were turned down by the courts.
17) Foreigners detained under the 2001 Terrorism Act are able to appeal only to a new court (SIAC), which has no jury. The court isn't obliged to inform the detainee of the case against him, and any appeal against the court's judgment is heard by the same court that passed the judgment.
18) The Law Lords advised that the Act was illegal as foreigners were being sanctioned in a way that British citizens could not be. The Government responded by applying the sanctions to British citizens as well.
19) Trial by jury is abolished for certain fraud cases.
20) A judge may direct a jury to infer guilt if a prisoner claims his right to silence.
21) Hearsay is now permitted in court.
22) "Double jeopardy" has been abolished.
23) "Bad character" can now be produced as evidence of guilt.
24) Britons can be extradited to America without any evidence of wrongdoing being presented.
25) "Control orders are not designed to punish people for having done something wrong, but to prevent people from doing something wrong." Hazel Blears.
26) "Where the court of first instance or appeal court quashes a control order ... this does not prevent the Secretary of State exercising his power to make a new control order - even if it is to the very same effect, and it is based on the same evidence, as the original order."
27) Under the Inquiries Act 2005, the powers of independent chairmen to control inquiries has been removed and given to government ministers.
28) The state can sue for the proceeds of crime under civil law (where the standard of proof is "balance of probability" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt").
29) Under the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 it is an offence to recommend the violent overthrow of national dictators such as Saddam Hussein.
30) The Serious Organised Crime Agency can obtain a warrant for the forcible entry and search of anyone's premises, whether or not they are suspected of an offence.
31) A person hosting a British website auctioning Nazi memorabilia can be extradited to France to face charges of "inciting racism" - even though the site is legal in Britain.
32) The National Identity Register may be used to record every sort of personal information - such as withdrawing more than £200 from the bank, getting prescription drugs, voting, applying for a mortgage, taking out an insurance policy, applying for a fishing licence.
33) Officials can demand access to any bank account or financial records (credit cards, utilities, mobile phone companies) without a warrant for the purpose of detecting benefit fraud.
34) Any cabinet minister may make "emergency regulations" if he believes that an emergency has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur.
Many of these items you could defend, if you were inclined that way, by referring to safety, security and efficient modern administration. This is particularly plausible when the people targeted are undesirables. However, the Government has a penchant for introducing an unattractive principle and then extending it to the rest of us (see item 18).
If anyone has any pungent examples to add to this list, please do so at the e-mail address below and we'll start a little website.
simoncarr75@hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prole
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've just checked out Rachel's blog and it seems that she has deleted her offensive 'book launch' post.
Interesting.
_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:05 am Post subject: Reports captured |
|
|
| Prole wrote: | I've just checked out Rachel's blog and it seems that she has deleted her offensive 'book launch' post.
Interesting. |
But never mind; we've captured both her report and that of Chicken Yogurt which will be good to demonstrate to the Quakers what kind of people we are dealing with.
Noel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prole
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/
The book launch posting on Rachel's blog is back, it doesn't appear to have changed from the original and the comments are still there.
_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numeral
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:37 pm Post subject: Brown Windsor |
|
|
| Prole wrote: | http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/
The book launch posting on Rachel's blog is back, it doesn't appear to have changed from the original and the comments are still there. |
contrition's last submitted comment is missing. It involved Brown Windsor soup, asking fjl to get him into one of her canteens and waterboarding as I recall. It probably did not make it through comment moderation.
_________________
Follow the numbers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
insidejob
Validated Poster
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 475
Location: North London
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:13 pm Post subject: Threat to UK Muslims |
|
|
The suppression of civil liberties will be used against white people but it will be used against radical/left activists. It will also be used against non-political white people who become active on an issue such as airport development. But the real target is the non-political white population. That is, people will be oppressed with little regard for their human rights so that the non-political white people will fall into line. The oppressed people, as I stated, will be the white left, other active white people and black people in general. Black people do not have to be active for repression to be used against them. This explains the Asian who was detained because he was listening to 'London Calling'. THis would not have happened to a white person.
The Muslim terror threat is being used to get the non-political white population to accept a reduction in civil liberties. They will accept the idea that black people should arrested for a long time and charged with accusations that don't stand up. They will accept legal changes and more powers and resources to the security services so this happens. By the time it is used extensively against non-political white people, it'll be too late to object. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pen who also attended the event has asked me to post her remarkable personal report. Some much needed female energy input on our website forum to get a balance! Thanx Pen:-
| Quote: | Milan Rai Talk April 11th. 2006 Castle Street Centre, Kendal, Cumbria
Brief Background.
Peace activist since 1990 and author of four books.
Co-recipient of 'Frank Cousins Peace Award' in 1993.
Founded British branch of 'Voices in the Wilderness' in 1998.
First person to be arrested for taking children's medicines to Iraq without an export licence.
Co-founded 'Justice Not Vengeance' - an anti-war group.
Imprisoned three times for anti-war work.
(prison diary - www.j-n-v.org/Mil_Prison_Diary.htm)
First person to be charged with an unauthorised demonstration in the vicinity of Parliament and tried on March 16th. 2006. (Latest news is that he was fined £300 and not sent to prison.)
About three weeks before the talk, I phoned up the organiser and introduced myself as a member of a local 9/11 Truth Group and expressed interest in Milan's peace work. I asked if some of our publicity could be put out at the back of the room and was given an affirmative and so Justin, Steve and I happily arranged our contribution to the noble cause of peace near to Milan's leaflets and books he was selling.
I nearly forgot to report a huge highlight of the evening! We met two 9/11 supporters from Liverpool who had driven up especially for the evening. Welcome to Pam and Adrian and I hope that this is the beginning of a happy time of campaigning for us all. They had been to the Jimmy Walter Manchester presentation last June and we all managed to have a brief chat before the talk began.
I was pleased that we were also able to give out to everyone who came in, Justin's special sheet of 9/11 info. which was directly related to supporting the Muslim community, plus a pink 7/7 sheet.
These people were certainly going to take home an overview of the real picture, as we all forecast that Milan would be viewing the situation from a limited perspective. However, his previous activities showed determination to set an example of peaceful, non-violent protest and his willingness to be arrested for breaking the ever increasing laws which compromise our civil liberties, were very impressive.
The three of us sat at the back, looking forward to his presentation and hoping to learn how he became involved at this level as well as enjoying lively discussion at the question and answer time. Personally, I find people's personal stories fascinating and never tire of listening to them.
The small figure remained seated throughout the talk and with two video cameras running, he began to talk in a rather monotonous voice lacking in enthusiasm and vitality, which really is essential when dealing with topics such as the Muslim issue in relation to the 7/7 event.....!
He showed us several pages from the Observer newspaper and read pieces out and with sinking hearts, we realised that not only did was he talking from a very limited perspective indeed, but that he believed the media and official story!
Oh dear! Adrian was the first to interrupt with salient comments re 7/7 and 9/11 and this was met with no response from Milan, apart from a polite, yet firm request to refrain from speaking and that he would deal with the issues raised later on in the evening.
Milan's voice droned on and on and I found myself losing interest and wishing he would liven things up. This happened, but not in the way which I expected as Justin could not contain himself and he began to interject with increasing intensity - ignoring Milan's irritated requests to wait until it was his turn to speak. This turned into requests for Justin not to speak at all and that he would deal with all the issues he raised later on in the evening.
Mmmmm! The atmosphere was distinctly changing to one of the audience wanting to listen to Milan and not Justin and the organiser's partner who was sitting near me as I was on the end of the row, glared and asked in a despairing tone, "Why are you doing this?"
A few questions were asked by a couple of other members of the audience, but our group spoke the most and I bet Milan Rai wished we weren't there!! One question I asked was in connection with the altered photo of the alleged 4 'bombers' in the train station, which had obviously been digitally manipulated, as an iron bar was literally superimposed through the arm of one of the men!!
To my disappointment, Milan ignored it completely!! I thought that was a reasonable question as well..... There was no discussion as it was obvious that we were there to listen to him and that didn't help things along at all, as you can imagine.
The gist of his talk was one of acceptance of the official story and never questioning any of the anomalies of the event - or indeed that of 9/11. He said he had seen some of the evidence pointing to conspiracy re twin towers disaster and had come to the conclusion that there was simply no compelling evidence which pointed to the American government's involvement!! (Justin, Adrian and Steve nearly left their seats and I gasped with surprise.)
He concentrated on attempting to explain why Muslim extremists feel and act in the way that they do, although he told us he wasn't a Muslim. (I wonder what he is then? Does anyone know?)
He didn't think it worth kicking up a fuss at the new law that is going through via the back door which will give Tiny Blur even more powers and this is one which I will definitely follow up. In my opinion, it is easy to concentrate too much on the 'big picture' and neglect really important things which are being hidden behind smoke screens such as 'bird flu' and the like.
I will finish now by reporting that in spite of the problems, a lovely chap who agreed with everything we said, came up to us and introduced himself as Brendan from Southern Ireland. He lived in Kendal and promised to be in touch with Justin. Hooray! We may have a new member.
Although a couple of our group didn't believe that Milan was authentic and that he may be a 'plant' I sensed that he was just too gentle and placid for his own good and for the good of the cause. He went away with the DVD Loose Change 2 plus David Shayler intro. and we can but hope that this will help to sway his opinions and open his mind by giant leaps.
We shall see......
I will look forward to learning how he got on in London the following day. Please let me know your feelings/reactions to this chap and his talk if you were able to be there.
In peace and friendship from Pen x
PS I have now caught up on the reports re Milan's talk in London and was not surprised..
It strikes me that people who are high profile as he is and who put out half truths, are not doing the cause any good at all!! In fact quite the opposite and the sooner Milan opens his mind to the info. which he has been given and told, the better |
_________________
Pikey
Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
