Preemptive Arrests Planned for Olympics Protesters?

5 Apr

By Tim Hardy

Police defend the big clock

(Img via @DSG_DSG.)

This evening’s invitation by Olympics minister Hugh Robertson to shop your neighbour if they are planning to demonstrate during the Olympics is not an isolated act of idiocy by an out of touch and arrogant Tory minister.

A month ago the police dropped very strong hints that they planned to repeat the preemptive arrests of peaceful protesters that they used during the Royal Wedding.

Chris Allison, the Metropolitan police assistant commissioner and national Olympic security co-ordinator [...] admitted it would be “very challenging” if there were a repeat of the disorder that gripped London. But while a range of factors made it less likely that the scenes of widespread rioting would be repeated, the police were planning how they would respond if they faced similar challenges during the Games.

Twitter and other social media will be monitored for signs of social disorder and, in particular, for organised protest.

“It’s about flooding the streets. It’s about making sure we’ve got the assets quickly available across London … There is a lot of work that is being done anyway [on social media] and we will piggyback on that for the Games. It’s about sensible use of intelligence, making sure we analyse it properly,” he said.

Allison said: “We’re making sure we’ve got plans so we can respond if required to do so. What I hope is that everyone will say, ‘The Games are here, they’re fantastic and this will be the only time in our lives we can feel a part of it.

“We have always planned for making sure we had resources to deal with protest and potential disorder.”

The 30 miles of Games lanes for the exclusive use of Olympic traffic could, for example, be occupied by protest groups looking to raise the profile of their cause. The torch relay, beginning on 19 May in Cornwall, could also be targeted by protesters.

“There doesn’t appear to be anyone who wants to protest against the Games. But there may be those who want to use the Games as a way of getting their cause into the public domain. We are trying to get as much intelligence as we can about the broad range of threats.”

As before the royal wedding last year, Allison said that, if there was “intelligence and justification” for taking action before the Games against potential protesters, he would do so.

“If people want to protest within the law, come and speak to us. They have a right to peacefully protest but it doesn’t give them the right to stop 10.8 million people going to watch the best athletes in the world compete in their chosen sport.”

London 2012 Olympics: police ‘have learned lessons of riots’ 

Ed Miliband’s recent desperate attempts to reclaim the word “solidarity” are a sham. He showed no solidarity for those arrested on the day of the Royal Wedding just as he showed no solidarity for those involved in the mass arrests and show trails of UK Uncut protesters who occupied Fortnum & Mason a year ago.

As for Liberal Democrat claims to be concerned about civil liberties, their silence on these matters and on the detainment without trial of protesters at their own conference says everything we need to know.

David Cameron, safe in the knowledge that the Opposition or his enablers won’t criticise police tactics that are better suited to a dictatorship than to a country that prides itself on being the cradle of democracy, is happy for his party to become even more authoritarian than Blair’s government.

Don’t expect a squeak if police acting under the orders of the Prime Minister round-up people exercising their democratic right to peaceful protest during the Games this summer. And don’t expect the BBC to report on it either.

In a time of circuses but no bread, force may be necessary to keep the people clapping during official entertainments.

Good Day to Bury Bad News on the NHS Risk Register

5 Apr

By Tim Hardy

World’s slowest hand clap for the Information Rights Tribunal who chose Friday afternoon before the long Easter weekend to explain their decision on the NHS risk register and to rubbish Lansley’s refusal to release the information:

The public interest in understanding the risks involved in such wide-ranging reforms of the NHS in the circumstances just described would have been very high, if not exceptional, in this case.

Too bad it’s only a few weeks too late to prevent the government from railroading through the Health and Social Care bill while denying MPs the information necessary for an informed debate.

Someone’s going to get a nice reward for delaying this. Keep an eye on the next honours list. I expect it’s got to be worth a knighthood at least.

Update:

The full judgement can be viewed here courtesy of Dr Éoin Clarke who draws special attention to paragraph 85:

From the evidence it is clear that the NHS reforms were introduced in an exceptional way. There was no indication prior to the White Paper that such wide-ranging reforms were being considered. The White Paper was published without prior consultation. It was published within a very short period after the Coalition Government came into power. It was unexpected. Consultation took place afterwards over what appears to us a very short period considering the extent of the proposed reforms. The consultation hardly changed policy but dealt largely with implementation. Even more significantly the Government decided to press ahead with some of the policies even before laying a Bill before Parliament. The whole process had to be paused because of the general alarm at what was happening.

New Tories, New Labour, Old Danger, New Danger

5 Apr

By Tim Hardy

Dan Hodges is infamous but that doesn’t make his masturbatory celebration of the paternalistic, ever-watching state any less chilling:

I don’t want less surveillance, I want more of the stuff. My idea of the perfect society is one where every street corner has a CCTV camera, everyone has a nice shiny ID card tucked in their wallet and no extremist can even think of logging onto a dodgy website without an SAS squad abseiling swiftly through their window.

For one thing, I have a relatively benign view of the state. There are some things it does much better than others, and I realise it’s high time it learnt to cut its coat to suit its cloth. But on balance I view the state as a force for good, rather than some giant, menacing monolith, and that’s especially true when it comes to stopping myself, my family and my friends getting blown up by crazed terrorists.

Our media rewards attention grabbing narcissists and, like all the other well-fed contrarians feeling green with envy at the success of Samantha Brick’s trolling Blitzkrieg right now, Hodges has clearly decided to up his game and take his usual silliness one step closer to self-parody. Clearly it is an exaggeration but by how much? It is still at heart a statement of the Blairite vision that continues to infest Labour.

Sadly the so-called left wing of his party feel the same. As the Home Secretary used one of the most vile parts of the Murdoch press to defend her proposals, blaming teh paedos and teh terrorists for the need to move Britain one step closer to a police state, Ed Miliband criticised the means by which the story was released but was predictably happy to back the government’s plans for increased surveillance.

In spite of admirable outrage from Conservative MPs like Steve Baker, anger from a few Labour activists and another flurry of meaningless, insincere squeaking from the Liberal Democrats,  it seems likely that these changes will be forced through by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat leadership to the glee of many on the Opposition benches. The contempt of governments for the people, even their own people, is breathtaking as ever.

As  Evgeny Morozov warns in the Financial Times (reposted here):

The idea that we need to make it easier for governments to do this, in the UK and elsewhere, is ludicrous. We need to be doing the exact opposite. It is only by anticipating the consequences of this coming unholy alliance between internet companies and intelligence agencies that our freedoms can be defended.

With police warning that they intend to arrest in advance peaceful protesters demonstrating against the Olympics – a tactic they trialled before the Royal Wedding to total silence from Labour and the Liberal Democrats and applause from David Cameron – we should be very scared indeed at any further permanent escalation of their powers.

Neil Postman warned that there were two ways of advancing dictatorship. As governments of all colours push forward with an Orwellian vision of control, our media continues to advance Huxley’s vision of dystopia by keeping us distracted and treating politics as a spectacle, a soap opera about personalities not the issues that matter.

Last night on Jeremy Paxman’s punch-and-judy show, Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson – two men who give even strutting cock Paxo a run for his money in the contest for who can be the most arrogant – squabbled over their respective tax avoidance schemes like two bald men fighting over a comb. It took the only woman on the panel, Green Mayoral candidate Jenny Jones, to calm their little temper tantrum and suggest the debate return to matters of policy. Paxman rewarded her wise intervention by continuing to keep her sidelined from the debate so that the men could have their say. Unsurprisingly the Murdoch-owned Sky News will be excluding her from their mayoral debate.

Just as it attempts to exclude alternative voices to the Conservative-Labour establishment, the media with the greatest reach will be using its influence to promote more powers for the police and real debate about the dangers will be drowned out by breathless fear mongering before cutting to the next big distraction and the story of a potato that looks like Kate Middleton.

After all, big media stands to profit. If the police are given greater powers to snoop into our private lives there will be even more opportunities for corrupt police officers to sell journalists stories about those they wish to blackmail or expose. No doubt Cameron’s friends have already had a word with him about his pre-election promises to roll back the surveillance state and made him see the error of his ways.

Labour sold their souls a long time ago and show no signs of repentance. Conservative promises never rang true. The Liberal Democrats were more convincing in their deceit: but they too have been shown to have no principles that cannot be overruled by the naked desire for power.

There’s an App for That

4 Apr

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions”. In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

A Time for Folly

2 Apr

By Tim Hardy

What better time to release a story about Britain’s latest move towards a surveillance state than April Fools’ day?

We were told yesterday – sadly it was no joke – that the threat of terrorism is to be used as an excuse to give the state the power to snoop on all our web traffic, to keep an eye on the websites we read, to note with whom we talk in email and online, to perform traffic analysis on our personal networks and, at the flick of a switch, peer inside our private communications to ensure we are being good, passive, uncritical, obedient citizens.

What the government is proposing is nothing short of the technological infrastructure necessary for dictatorship.

Jim Killock, Executive Director of the Open Rights Group, responded to Sunday’s news with the warning:

Of course the security services should be able to get a warrant to monitor genuine suspects.

But blanket collection, without suspicion, or powers to compel companies to hand over data on the say-so of a police officer would be very wrong.

The saga of complicity between senior police officers and Murdoch’s journalists should tell us how vulnerable people’s privacy can be. The government should stand by the commitments both parties made before the election to protect our privacy.

Nobody could look at the ways in which the police routinely break the law – abusing the extraordinary powers they have been given to assault, intimidate, even murder with impunity – and think that increasing the powers of the state will not lead to further corruption.

But of course the only thing of value in our sick society is the health of the financial markets.

Terror is always used as the excuse to keep the people in line but what the weekend’s leaked proposals suggest is that the apologists for capitalism in the UK have reached the point where they will no longer seek to justify their ideology as being about freedom and are instead adopting something closer to the Chinese model.

As the cascading failure of the markets continues to gain in momentum, more and more force will be used to keep the people in line.

As we see on the streets of Athens, if people are not willing to bear the yoke of supporting their new masters, then they will be beaten and gassed until they comply.

If the smooth functioning of the markets demands a police state then that is what we will get. If spying on all communication between individuals is necessary to prevent growing discontent from becoming dissent then that is what the government will do.

As Sunny Hundal notes, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were outspoken critics of New Labour’s authoritarianism while in opposition  but now they have power, they’re planning on taking things even further.

Clegg claims to be sensitive to civil liberties and to oppose the government being able to read people’s email “at will”. He claims that the changes are:

Simply updating the rules which currently apply to mobile telephone calls to allow the police and security services to go after terrorists and serious criminals.

Nothing he has done since gaining power gives me a reason to believe a single word he says. Liberal Democrats always claim to offer principled opposition then vote with the Conservatives. Their acts make their words meaningless.

Unsurprisingly, Labour are not exactly rushing to resist these measures either.

Our political system is not fit for purpose. As Mediocre Dave commented on the failure of the campaign to save the NHS:

Part of the desire to blame ineffective campaigners rather than an uncaring government may stem from a refusal to accept powerlessness within our Parliamentary system. It’s preferable to think that we just dropped the ball this time around than that we never stand a chance of winning, perhaps. The truth is, the government doesn’t need our approval to get things done. If you don’t like the government’s NHS reforms, don’t vote for them again at the next election. That’s it; that’s your democratic power; that’s the recourse that’s open to you if you work within the system. It’s in three years time. How many staff and patients will have had their lives changed in that time?

If this farcical travesty of a legislative process can be good for anything, let it be that we can no longer have any delusions about our power within a representative democracy. Stop blaming ourselves; we never stood a chance. This was their battleground, they set the terms and they always win. If we really want to fight them, we need to think, dream and act much bigger.

The three main parties have become little more than sales representatives pitching for and protecting the interests of big business. Their promises are worthless. All they care about is their commission.

You might vote for Labour in the hope they might pull the knife out a little – then get angry if they don’t – or you could start thinking about real alternatives to the good cop, bad cop routine of British politics.

As Malcolm X said:

You don’t stick a knife in a man’s back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you’re making progress.

George Galloway’s victory – whatever the rights or wrongs of his politics – shows that people will seize any opportunity to tell three identical right-wing parties that they have had enough and that the old certainties are anything but certain.

Voting day in Bradford west

(via Election Day in Far, Far Away – or – The Ego Has Landed)

There is a vacuum in politics left by the gap between a Westminster elite and the people they are supposed to represent. This is a space within which hatred might flourish as the rise of the far right worryingly suggests. But this is also the space of possibility for the real, radical alternatives needed if our planet is to survive. This is the time to make our demands and hopes more bold, not to withdraw and claim voting doesn’t change anything or to hold our noses and vote for the candidates we are told stink the least.

It is not enough to refuse to vote and believe we are creating alternative, autonomous zones, refusing to participate in the ballot for fear of seeming to endorse the status quo. It makes no strategic sense to leave the field of battle uncontested as the most rapacious elements of humanity increasingly use the powers granted by slim electoral success to criminalize dissent, step up surveillance, militarize the police and pass regulations and laws to choke off any possibility of attempts to live outside the system.

However little power voting gives us, not voting gives us nothing.

Our dreams need to be far, far bigger than electoral success but we should not shy from it as a tactic as part of a larger strategy.

What we are doing is not working. We have lost every dispute so far with a government that has no mandate for the radical changes it is pushing through.

Galloway’s crushing victory over the main three parties shows that the impossible can happen and gives hope for the NHS doctors’ campaign to unseat senior Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs at the next election.

We are going to have to engage with a system that seems to corrupt even the purest of hearts and win power so that we can give it away. Many say that such an attempt is doomed to failure but it  is no more quixotic than to believe that if we wait long enough the people will spontaneously rise up and overthrow the government and replace it with something more benign.

If the promises of the Enlightenment are not to end in a new feudalism in which the majority are forced to spend their lives working in increasingly miserable, dangerous conditions to keep the rich in luxury, then it is time for us to stop pandering to and failing to oppose parties that favour tyranny through surveillance over freedom and believe we exist to serve them, not the other way round.

The arguments of capitalist realism are always used to dismiss those who dream of a better world. We are told we need to grow up and pick only from the narrow range of political options that the bond markets will like. We must be sensible.

With these new draconian proposals giving a hint of what the future holds if we continue down this path, now has to be the time for folly.

O Cameron! My Cameron!

27 Mar

By Tim Hardy

People with money can get friendly with their local GP at a dinner party, maybe see them out of hours if there’s an emergency. In this world of restricted choice and freedom it’s the poorest who lose out.

David Cameron, 11 July 2011

For your chance to profit in this world of restricted choice and freedom visit Cash4Access  now!

Don’t forget to quote the discount code LANSLEY for money off on premium health services.

Cameron talking to party donor buying influence whose face is obscured by the words Your Face Here

(Image via Cash4Access by Tom Scott.)

The Best Hope Now for Our NHS

20 Mar

By Tim Hardy








This is going to be huge.

Miliband Pledges to Publish Risk Register, Reverse NHS Reforms

20 Mar

By Tim Hardy

Actually he doesn’t. But he did create a Facebook poll.

Miliband Shows Leadership

(via twitter.)

Labour supporters are busy right now proclaiming that Labour will reverse the Health and Social Care bill.

They won’t.

Andy Burnham has promised to do so – but he is not the leader and there is no guarantee he’ll have the health portfolio when Labour do next limp into power.

The leader of the Opposition has had countless opportunities to back the promises of his Shadow Health Minister and has significantly failed to do so.

There is only one possible interpretation to give his silence.

The Labour leadership is giving tacit support to these reforms while hoping to get a bit of credit for not being the ones pushing them through.

Opening healthcare up to markets happened under Labour. “Margaret Thatcher never privatised a fraction as much as Tony Blair.” They may lack some of the cynicism of the Tories but they’re every bit as dewy-eyed about the magical promises of the free markets.

Miliband has already backed the Conservatives on selling off council houses and restricting the power of unions. It’s just a question of time before he stands up and announces “Labour was wrong to oppose the Health and Social Care bill.”

Labour showed their contempt for the most vulnerable and a willingness to act undemocratically when they supported the Conservatives in criminalising squatting.

By all means vote for them if you genuinely believe in their policies.

However, if you love the NHS and feel sickened by what the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have done, don’t deceive yourself that a vote for Labour at the next election will make it all better.

Ed hearts Dave

(via SteveGardnerITV.)

Feeling Sad and Depressed?

20 Mar

By Tim Hardy

Feeling Sad and Depressed? You might be suffering from CAPITALISM

(via LOWLIFES & ANARCHISTS.)

If you need urgent medical attention and cannot wait until May Day, please join UK Uncut on Wednesday to let the coalition know that austerity isn’t working.

Austerity Isn't Working

Goodnight Sweet Prince

19 Mar

Goodnight Sweet Prince

(via @DSG_DSG.)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 152 other followers