Masked cops try to provoke violent riot

This is absolutely fuggin disgusting and begs the question just how many protests that have turned violent have actually been started by undercover cops? Though it has long been suspected, this time there exists video footage that cops do actually do this. No doubt It happens all the time.

A peaceful demonstration turns violent, the TV news flashes pictures of mayhem, the issue is completely forgotten, and the protesters are entirely discredited and their cause undermined.

Is it really a surprise to know that police*engineer* these outcomes?

Here we see three masked police, posing as radicals, caught red handed trying to provoke violence at a meeting of the so called" Security and Prosperity Partnership" in Quebec. The whole episode was caught on video

Brasscheck TV comments:

It's the oldest trick in the book and the French have a phrase for it: "Agent Provocateur".

Bizarrely, US protesters NEVER seem to get their heads out of their arses and see it coming no matter how many times it gets pulled on them.

In contrast, one labor leader at the Montebello meeting of the so called "Security and Prosperity Summit" in Quebec earned the title "leader" and not only detected this crap as it was talking place, but confronted the government-employed criminals involved and forced them to stand down.

This kind of activity isn't legitimate police work. It's thug-for-hire work on behalf of fascists.

Next time you see one of these hulking morons with a mask on his face holding a rock or stick, rip off his mask and photograph him. Don't expect a shred of help from the gutless news media exposing these vermin. They'll never follow up on the story, but the photographs are a deterrent.

Police State Britain - no one can be trusted

A quick flick thorough today’s British papers shows Police State Britain is functioning well.

The Telegraph today tells us the familiar story of Jared Ahmad, 27, arrested after completing a 20-minute journey to Salford Crescent, Greater Manchester. He claims, and I don’t doubt him, having been in that predicament myself, he was unable to buy a ticket because there was no ticket machine at the station at which he got on the train, and no conductor on board his train.

In their wisdom, the ever vigilant British Transport Police arrested him, banged him up in cell and took both his fingerprints and a sample of DNA. Both will now be stored on a national police database. There again, he did have a non-British, Moslem-sounding sounding name.

The Mail informs us that two pensioners, Mr and Mrs Richards, the latter wheelchair bound, were accosted by shopping centre security guards in Hull. The guards spotted 79-year-old Anthony Richards taking a photograph of his wife at the entrance of a new £200 million retail centre and were having none of it. They were ordered to put the camera away.

Mr Richards and his wife Betty were told the ban on people taking photos was to stop terrorists gathering intelligence, and staff were instructed to follow "anyone acting suspiciously".

There you go then, how suspicious can you get? You just can’t be too careful these days. Those pensioners might well have uploaded those snaps to the internet for Al Qaeda to see.

Mr Richards rightly observed it was load of bollocks: “It's quite ridiculous. It makes you wonder what is happening to the world. They don't stop people taking photographs in Paris of the Eiffel Tower or the Millennium wheel in London.”

This said, me and another comrade, out getting stock footage for a socialist video we were planning, did get pounced on four times by cops who ordered us to stop filming or face arrest, on one occasion taking our names and radioing them in to se if they tallied – in Trafalgar Square, outside the Houses of Parliament, across the river from the Houses of Parliament and just up from Buck House.

I digress…Shopping centre manager David Laycock backed his guards' vigilance. He said: "It's our duty of care to check that all pictures taken are for legitimate reasons. Photographic reconnaissance is a proven potential risk," he said. "It is not realistic for security staff to assess who might be taking photographs innocently or otherwise. “

Again, utter bollocks. Anyone ever been on Google Earth? You can bloody well zoom into any building in Britain, and quite close up, and measure distances in feet and inches of all the alleys and back roads in the vicinity. Any terrorist wanting to attack a shoppie could get the lay-out in five minutes flat. You can even zoom into Guantanamo Bay!

Mr Richards, meanwhile should thank his lucky stars his name is not Ahmed. They’d have had him in a headlock, handcuffed and his DNA taken in a jiffy.

And closer yet again to the full surveillance society

Yesterday BBC news online reported that the Home Office had rejected calls by the police to introduce a mandatory DNA database of all UK citizens, arguing that the suggestion “would raise significant practical and ethical issues.”

Already there are £4.5 million people in Britain on the DNA database. Since 2004, the data of everyone arrested for a recordable offence - all but the most minor offences - has remained on the system regardless of their age, the seriousness of their alleged offence, and whether or not they were prosecuted. In countless cases, if you go to court and you’re found totally innocent, they still have your damned DNA, a profile of your personal genetic make up.

Not enough, say the police who, to highlight there case, point to recent solved murders thanks to their DNA database. Right wing reactionaries have backed police calls for such a database, citing that hackneyed argument that if you’re doing sod all wrong, then you have nothing to worry about. Which misses the point by a mile.

There’s nothing radical at the moment in the government resisting police pressure for a DNA database. They simply realise its gonna be one helluva palaver to get DNA samples from almost 6o billion people, a lot of whom will kick off big time were they to be threatened with penalties for failing to comply, or coercion. They'll bide their time until they come up with a better way to get around this.

So if you’re thinking that here is the British government defending our civil liberties, forget it. They're still after their surveillance society. Yesterday’s Guardian, for instance, tells us that:

“Passengers travelling between EU countries or taking domestic flights would have to hand over a mass of personal information, including their mobile phone numbers and credit card details, as part of a new package of security measures being demanded by the British government. The data would be stored for 13 years and used to 'profile' suspects.”

One thing I did not know was that last summer the EU made a deal with the US Dept. of Homeland Security to provide Washington with 19 pieces of information on all passengers between Europe and the USA, inclusive of credit card details and mobile phone numbers. The bastards!

Not enough, says the British government, who want the system extended to sea and rail travel, to domestic flights and those between EU countries. And is the reactionary British government the only one in Europe to argue for this measure? Yes! Twenty-seven member states were questioned on whether the system should be extended for “more general public policy purposes”, aside from the alleged war on terror and crime, and only Britain put its thumbs up. Britain further wants the authority to exchange the information gleaned, your most personal details, with third parties outside the EU.

Things have hotted up since the ID Cards Act was passed two years ago this March. Throughout 2007, in many cities, Identity and Passport Service (IPS) interview centres were opened to question first-time applicants, such as teenagers, before giving them a passport.

Towards the end of last year we were informed that that post offices and travel agents are likely candidates for mass ID card applications and fingerprinting. The Financial Times reported: "The Post Office said it was looking very seriously at developing the ability to record data electronically at its 14,150 outlets", whilst the IPS said that, "outlets were likely to be used to help speed up the enrollment process to obtain new biometric passports and identity cards, providing services such as application checking and finger-printing."

In October of last year we learned that General Register Office (GRO) in England and Wales, charged with overseeing the recording of births, marriages, civil partnerships and deaths, will become part of the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) from 1 April 2008. This moves it from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to become an Executive Agency of the Home Office. According to the IPS, “working as one organisation will allow us to explore the possibility of integrating passport, identity card and life event registration processes. This would reduce red tape and make life easier for people, as well as strengthen the integrity of our systems."

Under the Identity and Passport Service, the 285 registry offices in England and Wales that are owned and run by local authorities will be implicated in this change, plus the Home Office will carry out some registrations centrally and maintain the central record of registration data. So getting rid of 'red tape' really means the centralising of data originally collected for statistical purposes and policy-making for the population as a whole, which will now be used for tracking individuals as well.

And then you read today’s Mail on Sunday and wonder just what the fuck is going on!:

“Motorists will be targeted by a new generation of road cameras which work out how many people are in a car by measuring the amount of bodily fluid it contains.

“The latest snooping device on the nation's roads aims to penalise lone drivers who abuse car-sharing lanes, and is part of a Government effort to combat congestion at busy times.

“The cameras work by sending an infrared beam through the windscreen of vehicles which detects the unique make-up of blood and water content in human skin. “

Seemingly, some unscrupulous individuals have had mannequins in their passenger seats or photos in the windscreen. Interesting! How long before drivers cotton on to the idea that if the cops a have device that measures the amount of bodily fluid in a car, the simple way out is to still have the mannequin , but with eight pints of water inside of it? I ask you!!

Well, looks like this blog is gonna have a busy year keeping track of all the new legislation and moves to barcode us all. Sometime I bloody despair! They do it so slowly, so damned subtly, that the majority of people don’t realise what is going on. Little by little the workers are becoming acclimatised to the Big Brother Society, in which they will have your DNA, your fingerprints your credit card details… everything… everything will eventually be known about everyone.

They’re telling us all that we are not to be trusted, none of us, that we need to be surveilled constantly and that it is all in our own interests. As I’ve argued on here before, trust is a two-way thing, so why should we trust them one bloody inch? Lets chuck the whole damned spectacle back in their faces and destroy their damned system to boot.

Police State moves to the school bogs

School removes CCTV cameras from children's toilets after furious protest from parents

No sooner do I post a blog item about the police state moving into the classroom, than we come across news that the police state is moving into school toilets.

I had to read that headline above twice! This piece comes from the Daily Mail

But its true. Seemingly The cameras were installed at Lipson Community College in Plymouth, Devon, which has 1,400 pupils. And allegedly without the knowledge of staff and governors…which, as Chair of Governors at a local school, I find hard to fuggin believe for the simple reason that the school will have in place a definite policy authorising the Chair at least to countersign sign any contracts. And I know any contractor would have had to sign into the school, via the secretary’s office, to be issued with a visitor pass. This stuff is national school policy now. Surely then the matter would have been reported straight to the principal. It’s just utter bollocks that workmen could have entered a school to fit cameras, in the bloody bogs, too, without the governors or the head knowing in advance.

But here, we are told a member of staff was able to order the contract unsupervised.

The principal responded, when questioned: “Someone made an error…”

What!….an error!?! And no one is being reprimanded we are told.

What I find amazing is that the kids just didn’t climb up and smash the camera down. Rather, they either refused to use the toilets or stayed away from college and complained to their parents.

I can only suggest the widespread use of cameras in the UK – an estimated 4.5 million in Britain at the moment – has acclimatised kids to the surveillance society, resulting, in this instance, in kids not protesting en masse at school, or even showing the damned initiative to sabotage the bloody cameras themselves. Where the rebellious spirit that kids used to have? Where the class warriors of tomorrow?

And would any court in the land have dared challenge their right not to be surveilled whilst having a pee or a pooh, and condemned them for destroying the intrusive spy cams? I doubt it.

Cyber-police home in on Wikileaks

Wikileaks is a website running on modified MediaWiki software which allows whistleblowers to anonymously release government and corporate documents, allegedly without possible retribution. It claims that postings are untraceable by anyone attempting to do so. It was launched in December 2006 and, as of November 2007, had contained over 1.2 million documents. It provides mirrors which can be used during outages. (Wikipedia)

I’ve always believed the masterclass would perceive the internet to be too powerful a weapon in the hands of the oppressed majority, and that by hook or by crook they would close down sites that challenged their interests or, indeed, make an attempt to close down the internet system altogether. The internet is just too powerful a medium not to attract constant master class attention. In seconds you can access the most up-to-date information, disseminate it further, and contact thousands, millions at the press of a key. Out there in cyberspace are tens of millions of documents our masters would rather we did not have access to. Thousands are added everyday, shared, links posted, info downloaded. As an instrument of subversion the internet is unsurpassable. And one thing is sure, there are more sites, blog sites, forums, putting the boot into injustice, deceit and fraud than there are promoting it.

In the past, many reputable radical sites such as Znet and Counterpunch have been attacked, even by the FBI, only to reappear. Sites the world over have been hacked, closed down, only to resurface.

Counterpunch today alerts us to the plight of Wikileaks (this is the new site link). The role of the site its mission statement points out is to develop “an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking and public analysis. Our primary interests are in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we expect to be of assistance to peoples of all countries who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact.”

The site is the brainchild of a band of hardy journalists, the whistle-blowing variety. They have leaked documents, via Wikileak, such as The Secret Rules of Engagement in Iraq, the 2003 and 2004 Guantanamo Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, and evidence of serious banking fraud in Kenya that apparently swayed the Kenyan elections. The site has offended the Chinese government enough that they are attempting to censor it, as is the Thai military junta.

As you can imagine, it was not long before it attracted the attention of those with powerful interests to safeguard. Stephen Soldz, writing for Counterpunch reports:

“Today I received a message explaining that a California court has granted an injunction written and requested by lawyers for the Cayman Island's Bank Julius Baer. It seems that the bank is trying to keep the public from accessing documents that may reveal shady dealings. Wikileaks was only given a couple of hours notice "by email" and was not even represented at the hearing where a U.S. judge took such a drastic step attempting to totally shut down an important information outlet. The result was this totally unprecedented attempt to totally wipe out the existence of Wikileaks.

‘"Dynadot shall immediately clear and remove all DNS hosting records for the wikileaks.org domain name and prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court."

“There have, of course, been previous attempts by the U.S. Government and others to block publication of particular documents, most famously in 1971 when the Nixon administration attempted to block publication by the New York Times of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. But trying to close down an entire site in this way is truly unprecedented. Not even the Nixon administration, when they sought to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, considered closing down the New York Times in response.

“If this injunction stands, it will set an incredible precedent for all of us who use the web to unveil misbehaviour by the rich and powerful. Fortunately, Wikileaks is fighting this unconstitutional attack on press freedom, aided by six pro bono attorneys in San Francisco. While Wikileaks has so far not issued any particular call for support, all who value freedom should stand ready to offer whatever support they need.”

The founders of Wikileaks, knowing that governments and institutions will go to extreme lengths to censor the truth, have created an extensive network of cover names from which one can access their materials or continue leaking the secrets of governments and the corrupt rich and powerful. Thus, everything is available at Wikileaks.be, among other names.

Let the leaks continue! But for how long is anyone’s guess. In the 21st Century global police state, with governments increasingly clamping down on collective and individual freedoms, I feel its only a matter of time before the bastards pull the plug on the whole damn internet system.

The Police State moves to the classroom

I once had an argument with the head of the local comp. She was arguing that my daughter had no trust in the staff and that this was unacceptable. I argued that trust was a two-way thing, that the staff had less trust in kids, abused their positions of authority and that she, as head, was in charge of an institution based on fear and coercion. Asked to elaborate, I told her that the kids are supervised ever minute of the deay, at break in the school yard, during lunch in the dinner hall, in the corridors, changing rooms and that staff even entered kids’ toilets to check on them; that kids are told what time to start school, what time to finish; that they are penalised for having faulty uniforms, not doing homework, coming in late, answering back. Their duty was to comply with authority, to know their place and to prepare them for the labour market. Kids did not come to school dressed in uniform, adhering to all the rules, because they wanted to, but because they and, more importantly their parents, feared the consequences if they were to do otherwise.

I could have added that schools require kids to prepare themselves for life in the police state, where mistrust of the lower elements was also the order of the day and where they would continually be required to acquiesce in their own oppression every day of the year, to submit to the whims of the master class, particularly in regards to social control, but that argument took place before they began fingerprinting kids and mooted spot searches and metal detectors in schools.

I should’ve guessed it wasn’t long coming, especially after they introduced a fingerprint scanning system in the local comp and without the consent of parents, whose kids were fingerprinted.

The Independent today informs us that schools will be very much preparing kids for life in the police state, where cops have increasing powers. An article on knife crime in schools commences:

“Parents will be told that they must allow their children to be searched at any time within school premises if they want to get them into the schools of their choice, under new plans to rid Britain's classrooms of the scourge of knives.

“The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, will put the battle against illegal weapons at the top of her agenda when she unveils her Tackling Violence Action Plan tomorrow. The blueprint for tackling knife-related violence will include a radical move to give police hundreds of metal detectors to catch young people carrying hidden weapons in schools, clubs and pubs.

“The proposal to introduce "airport-style" security, particularly in schools identified as facing the greatest danger from the knife-crime epidemic, represents a remarkable U-turn for the Government, which had previously dismissed the idea as an overreaction.”

Back in January, The Independent reported that teachers had backed the introduction of metal detectors in schools.

“Although the initiative carries disturbing echoes of some US cities, where high-school pupils are routinely scanned for weapons, head teachers said it could help to tackle violence in high-crime areas

“Metal detectors are still relatively rare and hugely controversial in US schools, but they have been used, particularly in rougher inner-city neighbourhoods, for at least 20 years with some success.

“Reliable statistics are hard to gather, but studies down the years suggest that about 10 per cent of US schools use metal detectors – either the door-frame style commonly found in courts and other sensitive public buildings, or hand-held ones that school officials are able to use at their own discretion.

“The proportion is much higher in urban areas – particularly Chicago, which installed detectors in every middle and high school a few years ago.”

This is a disturbing vision of the future. Not only does your kid get to be fingerprinted at school, as now, his/her details stored and he/she having to have his/her dabs scanned before even getting a school meal (as mentioned in a previous posting on this blog), but they will face spot searches, yanked from class to be frisked by some over-zealous teacher, as well as having to go walk through metal detectors.

How long before kids are urged to report to staff on any subversive comment heard at home, being rewarded with a wee medal when they do?

If you’re gonna implement a full police state, what better way than to start with kids and acclimatise them to incessant surveillance from an early age!

Check out also Fingerprinting in schools

Would US soldiers kill US Citizens?

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." George W. Bush—Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

Class Warfare has always kept one eye on America’s slide towards fascism (yup, difficult as my photo will testify) not least because of the increasing powers vested in the president since 9/11. Indeed, two days ago I commented how Bush’s increasing powers suggested Bush and co. were preparing for insurrection.

Today. We learn, via Prison Planet: “U.S. troops are being trained to conduct round-ups, confiscate guns and shoot American citizens, including their own friends and family members, as part of a long-standing program to prepare for the declaration of martial law, according to a soldier who recently returned from Iraq.”

The piece is based largely on second-hand evidence, but stories of troops being asked if they would kill their friends and family is not without precedent. According to Prison Planet, military chiefs have been attempting to find the answer for many years:

“Its known origins can be traced back to an October 1994 Marine questionnaire out of the Twentynine Palms Marine Base in California. Recruits were asked 46 questions, including whether they would kill U.S. citizens who refused to surrender their firearms.

“Documentary film maker Alex Jones brought to light similar training programs that were taking place across the country in the late 90's which revolved around U.S. Marines being trained to arrest American citizens and take them to internment camps.

“During one such program in Oakland California, dubbed "Operation Urban Warrior," Marines refused to answer if they would target American citizens for gun confiscation if ordered to do so.”

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that devastated New Orleans, the National Guard was called in to confiscate guns belonging to residents of the city, many being manhandled when they objected

A reading of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the Unites Sates shows that troops have been used many times to arrest, inter and even to kill citizens. Consider, for instance, the Ludlow Massacre of 1914, when National Guardsmen killed 45 during an attack on a tent colony of 1200 striking miners.

If the Prison Planet story is true, and I await its verification, then you have to ask yourself just what the forces of reaction in the USA have up their sleeves. And it certainly makes the hunt for a drug to create the perfect “guilt free soldier” all that urgent.

Were troops on the streets during times of civil unrest not bad enough, preachers would be enlisted to pacify the masses:

Back in May 2006, Prison Planet reported:

“A Pastor has come forward to blow the whistle on a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for a declaration of martial law, property and firearm seizures, and forced relocation.

“…The FEMA directors told the Pastors that attended that it was their job to help implement FEMA and Homeland Security directives in anticipation of any of these eventualities. The first directive was for Pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13*, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to ‘obey the government’ when martial law is declared.

“It was related to the Pastors that quarantines, martial law and forced relocation were a problem for state authorities when enforcing federal mandates due to the ‘cowboy mentality’ of citizens standing up for their property and second amendment rights as well as farmers defending their crops and livestock from seizure. It was stressed that the Pastors needed to preach subservience to the authorities ahead of time in preparation for the round-ups and to make it clear to the congregation that ‘this is for their own good.’”

“…Pastors were told that the would be backed up by law enforcement in controlling uncooperative individuals and that they would even lead SWAT teams in attempting to quell resistance.”

None of which is surprising – the sword and the bible have been used together to quell the masses for hundreds of years.!

And a blast from the past:

"The President has the power to seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, call reserve forces amounting to 2 1/2 million men to duty, institute martial law, seize and control all menas of transportation, regulate all private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all Americans...

"Most [of these laws] remain a a potential source of virtually unlimited power for a President should he choose to activate them. It is possible that some future President could exercise this vast authority in an attempt to place the United States under authoritarian rule.

"While the danger of a dictatorship arising through legal means may seem remote to us today, recent history records Hitler seizing control through the use of the emergency powers provisions contained in the laws of the Weimar Republic."

(Joint Statement, Sens. Frank Church (D-ID) and Charles McMathias (R-MD) September 30, 1973)

*Romans 13: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation…blah, blah blah

In other words, if you resist laws passed by the president, who derives his power from God, you will go to hell and burn forever.

Bush's Bullshit the Union Address

Just spent the last half-hour reading President Bush’s State of the Union Address from last night in anticipation of writing something significant here. Cutting through all the US political jargon – much different from Labour Party speak which I’m more familiar with – it was pretty much predictable. As expected, he again defended the Iraq invasion, hyped up the troop ‘surge’ as a great success and sent a warning to Iran saying how the US will continue to defend its “vital interests” – he means oil, but somehow never managed to get the word out.

Centrepiece was the Economic Stimulus package, which is supposed to be a short term measure to stave off recession. It involves a $150 billion bribe to 170 American citizens in the shape of rebate cheques. Nothing like buying your way out of recession! Oh yeah, and there was tax cuts for the rich. Well if you’re gonna give the low-paid something, you gotta keep the wealthy sweet.

As far as this blog is concerned, with its penchant for news on the increasing global surveillance society we live in, Bush also urged lawmakers to endorse a new surveillance bill that would grant immunity to telecom companies that aided warrantless spying on U.S. citizens.

Said Bush:

“One of the most important tools we can give them is the ability to monitor terrorist communications. To protect America, we need to know who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning. Last year, the Congress passed legislation to help us do that. Unfortunately, Congress set the legislations to expire on February the 1st. That means if you don’t act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America. We have had ample time for debate. The time to act is now.”

In light of what happened on Monday - when Democrats in the Senate temporarily defeated an effort by Republicans to pass a bill that also expands the government’s authority to conduct warrantless spying powers – this reeks of emotional blackmail. Here’s Bush bullshitting at its best, and it’s got naff all to do with terrorist threats, defending America or to protect telecom companies from lawsuits from irate customers who have been spied upon. In truth, this “immunity” he hankers after is all about concealing the true level of state snooping on American citizens for the past seven years. Existing laws make it a felony for telecom companies to spy on customers on behalf of the government, handing over customers’ records, without a warrant, and which has been the case in recent years. Bush’s proposal not only saves telecom companies $billions, saves his administration embarrassment if people knew the degree to which they were mistrusted and spied upon, but also allows the Bush regime to continue with its plan for a surveillance state unmolested.

As I write, the fate of the surveillance legislation is uncertain. Though the Democrats blocked a Republican-led effort to end debate on the issue, they lost a measure that would have granted a thirty-day extension to continue discussion. But a dozen or so Democrats have joined Republicans in backing telecom immunity and from what I can make out the big vote on the issue is tonight. And it looks like the repukes are gonna have it their way. The totalitarian global state edges nearer.

Me, I prefer Bush when he told it like it is, no bullshit. Below is Bush as we best remember him and here presenting a previous State of the Union Address.

THE TAZE OF THINGS TO COME

Here we are less that two weeks after Privacy International announced that Britain was an “endemic surveillance society” and we have today’s Independent on Sunday reporting with a front page headline: “Prisoners to be chipped like dogs”. Welcome to the police state Britain!

In a bid to enforce home curfews on the more errant members of our society and to create more space in Britain’s overcrowded jails, ministers have come up with plans to implant "machine-readable" microchips beneath the skin of thousands of offenders as part of an expansion of the electronic tagging scheme.

The system is already in place for dogs and cats, cattle, cars and airport luggage, for instance, so it was really only a matter of time before someone came up with the bright idea of using ‘spychips’ on humans.

Says one senior minister: "We have wanted to take advantage of this technology for several years, because it seems a sensible solution to the problems we are facing in this area. "We have looked at it and gone back to it and worried about the practicalities and the ethics, but when you look at the challenges facing the criminal justice system, it's time has come.”

So much then for the battle cry of the Labour Party when it came to power: “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.” The latest move is tantamount to admitting Labour policies have failed, that crime cannot be controlled within the context of capitalism and that class inequality will forever throw up a “criminal element”.

The Independent observes:

"The Government has been forced to review sentencing policy amid serious overcrowding in the nation's jails, after the prison population soared from 60,000 in 1997 to 80,000 today. The crisis meant the number of prisoners held in police cells rose 13-fold last year, with police stations housing offenders more than 60,000 times in 2007, up from 4,617 the previous year. The UK has the highest prison population per capita in western Europe, and the Government is planning for an extra 20,000 places at a cost of £3.8bn – including three gigantic new "superjails" – in the next six years.

“More than 17,000 individuals, including criminals and suspects released on bail, are subject to electronic monitoring at any one time, under curfews requiring them to stay at home up to 12 hours a day. But official figures reveal that almost 2,000 offenders a year escape monitoring by tampering with ankle tags or tearing them off. Curfew breaches rose from 11,435 in 2005 to 43,843 in 2006 – up 283 per cent. The monitoring system, which relies on mobile-phone technology, can fail if the network crashes.”

The idea now is for offenders to have tags, consisting of a toughened glass capsule holding a computer chip, injected into the back of the arm with a hypodermic needle

It goes without saying that human rights campaigners would be the first to expostulate. Liberty’s Shami Chakrabarti commented: "If the Home Office doesn't understand why implanting a chip in someone is worse than an ankle bracelet, they don't need a human-rights lawyer; they need a common-sense bypass.

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, said: "This is the sort of daft idea that comes up from the department every now and then, but tagging people in the same way we tag our pets cannot be the way ahead. Treating people like pieces of meat does not seem to represent an improvement in the system to me."

One company plans deeper implants that could vibrate, electroshock the implantee, broadcast a message, or serve as a microphone to transmit conversations. What is being proposed then in some quarters, and its not long before we find Gordon Brown and co contemplating the idea, is the tazering of offenders from outer space. Step outside the confines of your curfew area and ZAP! With the government keen to have us all carrying biometric ID cards, just how many years before each and every one of us is carrying a vein deep implant, with defenders of the idea regurgitating the old line: “if you’re doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about”?

Within a minute the authorities could have the names of every person at a political rally or demonstration. Any aggro and ZZZAP, and in come the meat wagons to cart away the twitching bodies!

I’m not alone in thinking this. Consumer privacy expert Liz McIntyre said: "Some folks might foolishly discount all of these downsides and futuristic nightmares since the tagging is proposed for criminals like rapists and murderers. The rest of us could be next."

Marx on Crime

In Part 3 of his Economic Manuscripts of 1861-63, Marx noted just how productive the criminal is, just how many jobs his career creates:

“A philosopher produces ideas, a poet poems, a clergyman sermons, a professor compendia and so on. A criminal produces crimes. If we take a closer look at the connection between this latter branch of production and society as a whole, we shall rid ourselves of many prejudices. The criminal produces not only crimes but also criminal law, and with this also the professor who gives lectures on criminal law and in addition to this the inevitable compendium in which this same professor throws his lectures onto the general market as “commodities”… The criminal moreover produces the whole of the police and of criminal justice, constables, judges, hangmen, juries, etc. ; and all these different lines of business, which form just as many categories of the social division of labour, develop different capacities of the human mind, create new needs and new ways of satisfying them. Torture alone has given rise to the most ingenious mechanical inventions, and employed many honourable craftsmen in the production of its instruments…”

“…Thus he [the criminal] gives a stimulus to the productive forces. While crime takes a part of the redundant population off the labour market and thus reduces competition among the labourers — up to a certain point preventing wages from falling below the minimum — the struggle against crime absorbs another part of this population. Thus the criminal comes in as one of those natural “counterweights” which bring about a correct balance and open up a whole perspective of “useful” occupations. The effects of the criminal on the development of productive power can be shown in detail. Would locks ever have reached their present degree of excellence had there been no thieves? Would the making of bank-notes have reached its present perfection had there been no forgers? Would the microscope have found its way into the sphere of ordinary commerce (see Babbage) but for trading frauds? Does not practical chemistry owe just as much to the adulteration of commodities and the efforts to show it up as to the honest zeal for production? Crime, through its ever new methods of attack on property, constantly calls into being new methods of defence, and so is as productive as strikes for the invention of machines.”

“The earliest, crudest, and least fruitful form of this rebellion was that of crime. The working-man lived in poverty and want, and saw that others were better off than he. It was not clear to his mind why he, who did more for society than the rich idler, should be the one to suffer under these conditions. Want conquered his inherited respect for the sacredness of property, and he stole.”

We can add to Marx’s list the many advances in policing and criminal detection since 1863 and which Marx could never have envisaged: forensic science, the training of police dogs, the 3 million plus security cameras in Britain today, biometric ID cards, security marking pens, burglar alarms, tasers, tagging and spychips. The list is endless. Moreover, the criminal justice system – from prison personnel and police officers to security guards and lawyers, judges and magistrates involves many times the numbers than when Marx was writing.

At the time of writing the latest figures for the number of police officers and sergeants, special constables, traffic police and PCSOs is 184,119 (figures courtesy of a written question from the Jarrow MP Stephen Hepburn on 7th January.

Add to this every person employed in the law enforcement game, all the workers in factories producing security equipment, whether it be uniforms and handcuffs for the police or security cameras and locks and keys, and all the workers employed to maintain the same and you’re looking at a ginormous workforce centred on the crime industry. And Blair wants to get “tough on crime”. Imagine the mountain of unemployed if, by some miracle, crime within capitalist society were to vanish overnight!! Seems to me capitalism very much needs criminality. If anything it provides the master class with a perfect pretext to hone their surveillance techniques on the rest us and thus maintain their hegemony .

Telling the truth is a tazerable offence

Increasingly now, asking questions and telling the truth is looked upon in the USA as a criminal act There is pending legislation in the US that would criminalize speech on topics the government there deems "threatening." The law is called H.R. 1955. It goes by the quaint Orwellian name: "The violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism prevention act."

It quietly passed through the House of Representatives by a staggering 404 to 6 vote and at least one Congressman admits voting for it without even reading it. Darling of the Democrat election campaign, Barrack Obama, even backs the bill.

Language in this bill makes it theoretically possible for government agents to shut down websites they disapprove of by claiming that the information they share *may* insight violence.

This video is insightful, so if the second one that shows a student being tazered by US cops for questioning John Kerry and after Kerry had actually invited him to pose a question - indeed, a question that Kerry should have welcomed, considering it related to the election campaign that Bush had rigged. The link given at the end of the first video can be better accessed here.

Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said that he believes the proposed Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (H.R. 1955/S. 1959) is unconstitutional Speaking to a crowd of supporters in New York City Nov. 29, he said:

“If you understand what his bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest. This is the way our democracy little, by little, by little, is being stripped away from us. This bill, I believe, is a clear violation of the first amendment.”

Kucinich referred to the bill as the “thought crime bill,” when he explained in a joking fashion that, “We have freedom of speech. Thoughts, sometimes, proceed speech. There is usually a unity in thought, word and deed.”

The bill would create a National Commission, who would be charged with the task making legislative recommendations on how to prevent, disrupt and mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Many activists, scholars and civil liberties experts are worried that in order to prevent an act of “homegrown terrorism,” people who have radical or “extreme belief systems” would have to be monitored before a criminal act might occur. This, they say, would amount to unlawful surveillance of individuals who are critical of the Bush administration and of those who hold power in the current US economic and political system.

An interesting write up on the above can be found at NYC Indymedia.

Introducing HR 1955

Don't Ask Questions

Britain and the US are “Endemic Surveillance Societies”

Privacy International, a London based human rights group and watchdog on surveillance and privacy, reports that Britain and the US are in the lowest category when it comes to privacy and state intrusion into our lives. Greece, Romania and Canada had the best privacy records of 47 countries surveyed by Privacy International. Malaysia, Russia and China were ranked worst.

Over on Prison Planet Paul Joseph Watson writes: “The fact is that the modern implementation of the prison planet has far surpassed even Orwell’s 1984 and the only difference between our society and those fictionalized by Huxley, Orwell and others, is that the advertising techniques used to package the propaganda are a little more sophisticated on the surface. Yet just a quick glance behind the curtain reveals that the age old tactics of manipulation of fear and manufactured consensus are still being used to force humanity into accepting the terms of its own imprisonment and in turn policing others within the prison without bars.”

Watson hits out at the reason for state intrusion as offered by Privacy International, namely that it is rooted in a concern about terrorism, immigration and border security, seeing such reasons as part and parcel of “age old tactics of manipulation of fear and manufactured consensus,.”

Simon Davies, director of privacy International, believes we shouldn’t feel despondent about the results,” and that “privacy-friendly systems will emerge in coming years and that consumers will soon begin to see privacy as a political issue.”

Utter delusions, retorts Prison Planet, citing the way governments are increasingly moving toward the ultimate intrusion — surveiling and scrutinising our very physiology with biometrics and like the Mexican government, tracking people like cattle with biochip technology. Our rulers are determined to impose a scientific dictatorship on the masses and this begins with surveillance and tracking.

Argues Watson: “This is the prison without bars. This is the panopticon, a prison so constructed that the inspector can see each of the prisoners at all times, without being seen. This is a portrait of the accelerating movement by western governments to erect giant, powerful, all-pervading mass surveillance, tracking and control grids that will keep all populations firmly under the baleful and watchful gaze of Big Brother. Orwell’s 1984 was a picnic in comparison to the wielding cogs of the prison planet infrastructure that are being put in place all around us.”

On a light-hearted note, some people are hitting back

Give us yer right honourable pinkie!

Fingerprint scanners - good enough for the toiling masses, but not an overpaid, self-seeking bunch of cretins in Parliament!

I’m crediting Jimmy over at Patience and Perseverance for alerting me to this story – Jeez, I almost missed this gem.

Whilst Gordon Brown is keen as hell to create a police state, outdoing his predecessor on the issue of law and order and national security and Britishness and all that rot, it seems he and his ilk are not that happy about the idea of having state-of-the-art surveillance devices watching them – namely a hi-tech finger print scanner in the House of Commons.

Apparently, steps to use fingerprint scanners to control entry to the Commons have been dumped because of the suggestion that terrorists might pounce on an MP, cut off his finger and use it to gain access to the House of Commons. I ask you!!

Seemingly the Commons security specialists also said the available technology was also untrustworthy because it could not cope with dirty or sweaty hands. This is a bloody cop out – what the hell do MPs ever do to get dirty and sweaty hands?

As a spokesman for the No2ID protest group rightly said: "If they don't think fingerprint scanners will work for 650-odd MPs, how do they think they will cope with 60 million of us?" Indeed!

The idea now is that parliamentary pass-holders will instead have to type in a cash-machine -style PIN code. Yeah? Has nobody envisaged an MP getting mugged or kidnapped by a terrorist – who we are informed will do anything to get into Parliament – and who will scream at their trembling victim: ”right, give us yer fuggin’ pin number or we’re slitting you’re throat.” It’s a scenario every bit as valid as the “amputated finger” excuse they are using now.

Meanwhile, at my son’s comprehensive school there is a similar fingerprint scanner in place in the dinner canteen and the poor kids, who have had their fingerprints taken without parental consent, must have their dabs scanned before they get any grub. And there was no objection, when this was installed, about the scanner not being able to read the prints of 1,500 pubescent kids with visibly grubby and sweaty hands at meal time, or some hungry truant from the local catholic school lopping off one of their pinkies to get a free tuna salad and chips.

MET FOUND GUILTY

Almost every newspaper in the country gave front page coverage to the story. An Old Bailey jury found the Metropolitan Police guilty of breaking health and safety law back in July 2005 when they killed, with seven dumb-dumb bullets to the head, at point blank range, the Brazilian electrician Charles de Menezes

Were it not bad enough that it has taken more than two years to get the de Menezes case before a judge and jury, the case could only be pursued via prosecution under health and safety legislation.!! Eh?

But, what the hell. I’m not gonna diss the verdict – it’s better than nowt – and not least because it contradicts the groundless claim by the government that in its “war on terror” there are instances when it can flick the Vs to civil liberties to protect innocent lives. So fuck you too, Brown. And don’t forget that notwithstanding two investigations by the IPCC, there had been no criminal prosecution against any leading police officers who were implicated, neither Sir Ian Blair nor Commander Cressida Dick, who was in charge of operations that day.

And let’s not ignore the narrow provisos of the trial - that there would be no deliberation on the actual legality of the murder and that those cops who actually blasted de Menezes to pieces would not be giving evidence and that members of the public who witnessed the execution would not be called to testify. All that was at issue here was the chain of command and decision-making procedures that day

Hopefully now this case will lay the path for real charges to be levelled against the actual cold-blooded killers and the higher-ups they took their orders from. For this was cold-blooded killing. This was a state execution.

In his defence, Ian Blair claimed that there was no evidence of 'systemic failure' on the day in question, and he’s adamant he will not resign, despite many of his own rank-and-file believing he should throw the towel in, and despite the fact that every national newspaper is calling for his head as well as the leadership of the opposition parties. Blair’s lingering supporters insist that he should stay for the simple reason that the person who supervised the tragedy is the best placed to learn from its. Christ, howz that for reasoning? It’s like putting a captain who has just sunk an ocean liner with the loss of all passengers and crew back in charge of a similar ship on the grounds that he won’t make the same mistake twice.

Both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister Gordon Brown have said they have confidence in Sir Ian – well they have to; they depend on his boys for their security. And as for the Mayor of London? “In a situation like this,” said Red Ken Livingstone, “mistakes are just going to happen.” ‘Mistakes’, you gloopy bastard!?

To be sure, at a time when Met should have been functioning at the peak of its proficiency it quite clearly fucked up and big time – not that this is a first, for they fuck up helluva lot. Summing up, the judge cited a catalogue of the most atrocious blunders and ruled that some were “simply beyond explanation”. The jury heard of no fewer that 19 mammoth gaffes, a far cry from the case the Met presented of a couple of armed cops making a mistake that anyone could make in a similar situation.. Indeed, such was the size of the blunder that at one stage cops very nearly shot one their own, which I reckon most people would have found more acceptable – at least it could have been put down to “friendly fire”.

So I’m hoping this case is investigated further and that the arrogance and corruption in the Met is exposed and its hierarchy really called to account. The gall of Blair and his clique is unbelievable. From day one there was an attempt at a bloody cover up, a white wash, for Christ’s sake. On the very day of the execution Blair wrote to Sir John Gieve, the senior civil servant in the Home Office, arguing that any investigation should be carried out by the Met itself. He said that the IPCC should be “given no access to the scene at the present time.” What was he afraid they would uncover? A state-sanctioned assassination?

From day one the police stooped to all manner of lies in attempt to hide what they had done. We were told de Menezes had ran away from them and jumped over the turnstiles, ran down the escalator and onto the train, all of which proved to be damned lies. They then claimed that he wore a bulky jacket - again, another crock of shit. Even the mainstream media, the BBC especially, supported the same pack of lies in attempt to cover the actions of a hit squad, even allowing witnesses to speak on TV and whose imaginings, in hindsight, are unbelievable. One witness even claimed he saw de Mendez carrying a bag with wires protruding. Where are these same witnesses now?

Even as the trial continued, there were the ongoing attempts to exonerate the officers involved. Lawyer for the police, Ronald Thwaites, informed the jury that de Menezes was shot because of his suspicious behaviour, “because when he was challenged by police he did not comply with them but reacted precisely as they had been briefed a suicide bomber might react at the point of detonating his bomb." When he was challenged? Like when a cop pins you down and another rams a gun into your temple? Like there’s a way you should react in such circumstances when you’re innocent? Like someone has actually sat next to a suicide bomber and watched his reactions before he detonated the bomb

The establishment now fears that the demand by the de Menezes family and many others will result in a full public inquiry. Not only do they fear that the truth will arise out of such an inquiry, the shockwave of which will reverberate far and wide, but that the arguments for the government’s war on terror will also be challenged head on.

Well, here’s one writer who will welcome any move that will expose the deceit and hypocrisy of a corrupt system that will stoop to anything to protect its own interests. I’m eagerly awaiting a fuller independent inquiry.

One parting shot. Let’s get one thing straight. A lot more people are killed at the hands of the police than by terrorists.

Between 1997 and 2002, the first five years of New Labour rule, a total of 328 people died as a result of police action. Of these deaths, almost half -158 - happened while the victim was in, or had just left, police custody.

Labour's first year in power saw 69 deaths, including 11 during or following police pursuits and 40 in or following police custody.

During the following year, the figure fell slightly to 67, of which four were in pursuits and 41 in custody. In 1999-2000, 70 people died, including 19 in pursuits and 30 in custody.

In 2001-02, 70 people died during or following police action: 31 of these deaths occurred in pursuits and 22 in police custody

In 2003 A record 104 people died while in police custody or in accidents involving police cars.

From 2005-06 118 died as a result of contact with the police.

We are to be brainwashed again!

Sent to the local Shields Gazette

Those in charge of the political affairs of British capitalism are worried. The nationalist propaganda that their predecessors pumped out for years -- justifying the British Empire on the grounds that the colonised peoples were inferior -- has come back to haunt them. A large section of the native working class still believe this crap, long after it has ceased to be any use to the ruling class. Now that there is a large minority of workers from or descended from people from the old Empire, our rulers want them, in the interests of national unity, to be regarded as fellow Britishers. So now they are going to "educate" workers that it is nasty and wrong to go on thinking that black people are inferior and cannot be British.

Of course people who have dark skin are not, and never were, inferior. All human beings are members of the same biological species -- homo sapiens -- and we all have the same capacity to learn. There is, if you like, only one race -- the human race. We are all citizens of the world, Earthlings.

But this is not what the politicians are proposing should be taught in the schools. They want to teach working-class kids "what is means to be British" as Jack Straw put it in a speech at Oxford University. According to The Times (26 January), in true Jingo fashion he "called for a strong 'British story' to reflect the heroic nature of the country's history and foster a greater sense of citizenship".

So, although racism is now out, equally divisive nationalism is still in and is in fact to be stepped up. Schoolkids are to be taught, as before, that they are primarily members of a supposed "British nation" all of whose members allegedly have a common interest different from the subjects of other so-called "nation-States". The only difference will be that they will be taught that this British nation now includes dark-skinned people from the former Empire and that such people too can now proudly look down on "foreigners".

Socialists will try to do what we can to counter this nationalist state-propaganda by pointing out that nationalism is an ideology which ruling classes use to try to obtain the acquiescence and support of those they rule over and that wage and salary workers from all countries have more in common with each other than with their rulers. Ultimately, they have a common interest in establishing a socialist world commonwealth where there'll be no frontiers or nation-states just people speaking different languages and enjoying different tastes in dress, music, culture and the like but which everybody will be entitled to share in.

Police Brutality - UCLA Student gets tazered

An Iranian-American UCLA student was shot by UCLA'S UCPD November 14th 2006, because he could not show his Student ID. He was shot 5 times with a taser gun. Trigger-happy cops threatened to shoot students who got too close. The Student yelled out that he had a medical condition, but to no avail - zap!

"This is a long-standing library policy to ensure the safety of students during the late-night hours," said UCLA Police Department spokeswoman Nancy Greenstein.
She said police tried to escort Mostafa Tabatabainejad, 23, out of the library after he refused to provide ID and would not leave. Tabatabainejad, who was arrested for resisting and obstructing a police officer, was later released on his own recognizance."
Lessons to ber learned?


1) Carry your student ID card.
2) Join the World Socialist Movement

AIRPORT PARANOIA

From what I’m reading lately I can only assume there is some covert state plot to prepare the public mind for an all out Middle East war. It’s as if people are being psyched up to be distrustful of anyone of Middle Eastern origin.

Not a day goes by when I’m not reading, in the press, stories about suspected Arab terrorists being arrested or about the growing fear of terrorists. I well remember, shortly after 7/7 last year, sitting on Platform 4 of Newcastle’s Central Station waiting for a train to London. A Moslem family walked up the platform just yards in front of me – husband and wife and two sons, and dragging those cases with the elongated handles and awkward little wheels. You could literally feel the suspicious looks they were getting - the unease on passengers’ faces was quite visible. Undoubtedly the same has happened a million times around Britain in the past year.

Yesterday, this growing anti-Arab phenomenon took a new twist. Two Arab gentlemen were kicked off a flight from Malaga to Manchester airport, quite literally because their faces did not fit. Seemingly, fellow passengers feared they were terrorists. Apparently they were heard communicating in Arabic and were observed to be repeatedly checking their watches. So cabin crew called the Spanish police and had the poor sods carted away for interrogation. Thankfully, they were later released.

The Independent reported: “Similar incidents in which people of Asian or Middle Eastern appearances have been targeted by fellow passengers have been reported on pilots' and cabin crews' websites, including one in which two British women with young children on a flight from Spain apparently complained about a bearded Muslim man - even though he was security checked twice before boarding the plane.”

The Sunday Times yesterday reported: “Elite teams of security officers are to be trained to monitor passenger behaviour at airports in a new attempt to combat terrorism. The ‘behaviour detection squads’ will patrol terminals to monitor the gestures, conversations and facial expressions of passengers. One of their aims will be to spot those who may be concealing fear or anxiety…. The Spot teams, who are in uniform and work in pairs at US airports, use a list of more than 30 unusual behaviours against which to check passengers.”

Well, that’s me fucked. My bracket attracts the attention of cops like a steaming turd attracts flies. And I’m a bastard for looking at me watch. And when I'm anxious or pissed off I go through about 187 facial expressons.

So cops will be watching for people who look anxious? In a friggin’ airport where 5000 hungry and thirsty passengers have had flights delayed for hours, holding the hands of their children who are tired and fretty and crying to go to the toilet. And many of these will have deep tans, it being holiday time and looking non-white.

Training the officers in spotting the downright guilty is Paul Ekman, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of California.

Said The Independent: “In particular, officers are trained to recognise concealed emotion, such as fear or anxiety. These so-called ‘micro-facial expressions’ appear on a person’s face for 1/25th of a second. ‘They are so fast, that unless you’ve been trained you don’t see them,’” said Ekman.

So now they can train dip-shits in uniform to recognise 1/25th of a second of anxiety? There are more than 30 ‘unusual behaviours’ to look out for? Thirty? They want to stick one of these ‘behaviour detection squads’ outside of the House of Commons. There’s some right shifty looking bastards entering that building. Maybe even on the London Underground during the morning rush hour, when everyone looks stressed and anxious and irritable; where everyone avoids eye contact and regularly look at their watches and where many people carry bags.

Expect a wave of paranoia in the coming weeks. There’s a big war coming and the public must be psyched up for one.