The passing of wood through glass is a remarkable feat. There are those who believe that royalty can perform miracles – there is a well developed cult around the vain and vicious Charles I, for example. It now appears that the presence of the future Charles III also has the ability to suspend the laws of physics.
The police have now issued extensive CCTV footage of the attack on the vehicle of Charles and Camilla on the fringes of the anti-tuition fee demonstrations, and the media have been replete with more nonsense about Camilla being poked with a stick. Yet of all the CCTV footage and numerous photographs, there is no evidence at all of this attack and all the images show the car windows to be closed – as they would be. One gets cracked but not holed.
There is in fact no evidence at all of any intent to harm the persons of the expensive royal layabouts, as opposed to discomfiting them and damaging their vehicle. It is fascinating that the media continually repeats the “Camilla attacked with a stick” line when it is so blatantly untrue. There appears to be a closing of ranks by the whole Establishment to perpetuate the myth – both the Home Office and St James Palace have deliberately fostered the myth by refusing to confirm or deny.
Personally I would not touch Camilla with a bargepole. I dislike violence at demonstrations. Demonstrations, good, riots, bad is my basic mantra. Attacks on people in a civil demonstration are always wrong, including attacks on the police unless in self defence. I did not join in the outrage at the prosecutions of violent demonstrators after the big Lebanon demonstration in London, because I personally witnessed the group hurling dangerous missiles at police who were neither attacking, threatening nor kettling them. That is absolutely unacceptable.
But a policy as appalling as the withdrawal of state funding from university teaching, carried out by Nick Clegg by one of the most blatant political breaches of fatih with the public in history, , is bound to provoke huge anger. The government reaps what it sows. Demonstrators should not set out to hurt people. But all the evidence shows they had no intention of hurting Charles and Camilla.
I have personally worked closely with the royal family’s close protection officers in organising two state visits abroad, and plainly they too could see there was no intent to injure – that is why weapons were not drawn. They deserve commendation rather than the crap spouted out by Sky News, who seem to think they should have gunned down the odd student.
All of which serves to take the focus off vicious police attacks on students and the use of kettling to detain people who were seeking peacefully to express their views. Kettling people in extreme cold and with no access to toilet facilities raises questions on illegal detention which genuine liberals in government would wish to address. What is it? Is it a form of arrest? What is the status of the fenced pens into which people are herded? Should they not be formalised as places of police detention, and individuals booked in and given access to lawyers? If that is not possible, this detention – which can be for many hours – is not lawful.
Clark
Of course their is scrutiny of commanders in control rooms but and a big but they never give tactical commands only stategic. An example is I want the crowd stopped from entering this area. The police use Gold, Silver, Bronze command structure. Gold being stategic and silver and bronze tactical. Senior officer at Gold level have been on numerous courses and are very careful what orders are given and how they are worded on logs etc.They sre far from the violence and heat in a very calm enviroment. Being in the Public order control room is like being in a video game full of monitors and computers. Everyone in there is hand picked and very well trained to make decisions in a very clinical manor. Every word and decision is logged on computer on paper and via CCTV. All hell is breaking out out side but inside is a sea of calm. No raised voices no panic. This is not a criticism it has to be this way.
Then you have the poor tactical commanders on the ground the silver and bronzes. Bloodied battered and stressed. Cant see through your steamed up visor in your helmet cant hear your radio due to noise and health and safety crap that limits head phones to a whisper in case I sue for going death. They have to make the tactical decisions on the ground complying with the strategic goals that have come from above. Dont get me wrong they are trained and professional aswell and have advisors and logists to write down decisions actions and non actions should something go wrong. Then you have at the bottom the poor bloddy infantry the PC he has been working since 4am left home at 2:30 am fed a fried breakfast 8 or 9 hours previously if he or she is lucky had a kit kat and a bottle of water since. He has been pelted with bottles filled with piss, Dodged bricks and fire extingushers. Running on pure adrenolin. By this stage he just wants to go home. When someone gets hurt or tempers snap who is in a better situation to defend their actions and decisions a commander in an air conditioned office or a tactical commander with an advisor and a logist. Or a poor Sgt or PC with a baton in his hand a a screaming mob in front of him??? When you criticise the police or judge the officer who pushed poor Tomlinson think of all the facts not just the 10 second video clip.
Wonder what Nick Hurd (son of Douglas Hurd) would be saying now if he was still the Minister responsible. He seems to have a non-jobas Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Charities, Social Enterprise and Volunteering at the Cabinet Office in the Liberal-Conservative Coalition Government.’ That’s a laugh when those functions have such a low priority in the ConDem coalition.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7043822/Households-face-1000-fines-from-officials-with-police-powers-if-they-refuse-to-fill-in-their-census-forms.html
Steve – thanks for that info. I don’t know much about police operations in detail, so it’s good to get a solid insight. I have some friends who are PCSOs, but it’s not the same as having done the front-line job oneself.
There is a psychological theory on the Left, which I tend to subscribe to – which is that a proportion of police officers are +keen+ to undertake riot duty. Those officers are overwhelmingly male and may have Authoritarian-type personality traits, which means that they believe society should be strongly ordered and controlled, and there is a extra willingness to use violence to this end. The idea of genuine democratic involvement is anathema to such a personality type, since it would make society less hierarchical. In general, I would assume such persons either to be apolitical, or to be attracted to parties that are militarist or overly violent (on the scale +towards+ the Far Right, though not usually openly fascist).
Are there any internal studies on these topics within the forces, I wonder? Or are you aware of any anecdotal evidence that some officers have a pattern of excessive violence, or been cautioned/withdrawn for the same? (Either presupposes that the upper echelons of the police are in favour of minimising violence at demonstrations, which of course may not be the case.)
Jon
The public order officers are categorised as level 1 and level 2. level 1 officers are specialised officers who primary job is public order and train extensively. level 2 officers are normal officers who volunteer to undertake additional training and duties. People volunteer for many reasons some for the money and overtime some to do something different and break the routine and some I am sure because they enjoy the rush. By definition police tend to be from the right of society probably because they see the mess that the country and law and order is in. We are restricted and lawed to death but real criminals dont get any sanctions. But leave your bin lid open and all hell breaks loose!
Police are members of the public and as such have all types of views. No profiling is completed prior to training. But officers have to be experienced and sponsored by their supervisors. I am not sure what the alternate is. If you only let left wing anarcists in the police who dont believe in state control then society will be in trouble. The police service is very disciplined and complaints are taken seriously officers get very few complaints and if they do and it is a serious complaint they would be suspended from front line duty. Sterotyping all coppers as right wing brown shirts is a bit insulting. Many officers are far more sympathetic to protestors than you might think but they have a job to do like everyone else.
That wasn’t how I saw it as a witness at the Gaza Cast Lead protests at the end of 2008. The brutal and methodical kettling there resulted in the multiple savage sentences imposed at Isleworth Crown Court.
Somebody
Read my original post it explains the reason for police actions at that protest.
Police tried giving a long rope unfortunately the protestors hung themselves.
Not true. I have the evidence of my own eyes.
I dont like people who are so blind to others views I am not going to trade stories with you I dont lie and I dont apologies for police actions I tell how I see no more no less. And criticise whoever deserves criticism
regardless of who they are.
Not all police are facist thugs not all protestors are anarchists.
Thanks Steve. Yes, I wasn’t proposing an alternative – whilst societal inequality and injustice is in the ascendant, social unrest and police action to counter it is inevitable.
I wasn’t stereotyping all officers as brown shirts, certainly – I was at pains to say a +proportion+ of officers, not all of them. And I think my thesis was rather more subtle than suggesting that, of the officers I +am+ talking about, they all enjoy goose-stepping to BNP meetings. (Perhaps my reference to the Far Right was not helpful, though I did say +towards+ this direction, rather than at it).
“By definition police tend to be from the right [wing] of society”
Yes, I guess that was one of my points. I suppose it is relevant also that people of a more liberal hue are not attracted to the police force in the first place, thus worsening this imbalance. One couldn’t presumably be an anarchist and want to join, I should think 😉
I am also interested in the psychological aspects, as I say, and wonder if this is an avenue that is not yet substantially explored academically.
My motivation is that I’ve seen officers, built like marble toilets, using their substantial body weight to push non-violent protesters together, such that the protesters would fall over each other. On one demo, when I repeatedly questioned one particular officer about his aggression, he had a peculiar ability to rotate his neck over 90 degrees, and would hold his position in the line, thus avoiding any questions or responsibility for his unjustified violence. Many activists have similar stories, of course – large and small acts of violence that get lost in the melee, and go unreported.
“complaints are taken seriously”
I believe you mean what you say, but we may have to differ about that!
Steve: You have a remarkable ability to see it as entirely a one-sided event, with the poor, poor copper who’s always doing his honest best etc. etc., with bricks and fire extinguishers (plural!) flying constantly. Poor, poor bastards. No wonder they beat someone to death occasionally who had done nothing wrong, drag a disabled person from a wheelchair, punch a woman in the face and beat people over the head with batons. And then try to deny them medical treatment by bullying ambulance workers.
There’s another side too – that faceless mass of lawless mad animals are actually mainly citizens, exercising a democratic right to protest. It’s a democratic right regardless of whether the authoritarian state gives permission, by the way. The protestors are not wearing body armour and helmets, not spraying CS gas, not wielding clubs, nor are they riding horses. They are not being centrally controlled and organising themselves with constant communication, nor are they privy to CCTV which festoons this open prison we call our country. They are not being paid for being there, either.
Those protesters don’t get to decide they’ll “kettle” the police forces, deny them water, toilets and liberty for half a day, and don’t get to grab one and haul him off for prosecution if it takes their fancy. They don’t get any of the evidence of CCTV, which conveniently goes away whenever the police commit crimes of violent aggression.
Maybe the police would like to protest the up-coming cuts to their numbers, pay and conditions? You’d finally get to see the state apparatus as it truly is. Perhaps the protesting police (out of uniform, of course) should put down their riot shields, and march on Westminster to put their case. Then the army could move in and beat the crap out of you, since that’s the only language your lot understands.
@Steve – regarding @somebody’s comments above, I am sure he was not calling you a liar. I suspect he is suggesting that if you had personal experience on the other side of the riot line, your perspective might be different.
Sorry I do not buy it either Steve, what you are painting here, the humane man behind the tazer, might be a fact in case, still it is no excuse for bending the law, conspiring to pervert the cause of justice, or fopr enticing, planning and carrying out eco terrorims, I believe now that they actaully coined this term for themselves.
Why do we have to make do with third parties pathetic excuses all over the media, its an utter outrage.
Where are the Chief Constables and other law protectors speaking out against this?
why are they stumm, not even trying to justify their pathetic actions that undermine the law, state and its institutions? Cowards utter cowards.
Here is an interesting bit from a chap called Droomtear on Simon Jenkins artcile today, the video link is two eyars old, but I suspect not many have seen it. Enjoy the PFI bonanza report.
“On the subject of ACPO & similar private organisations of this type a viewing of this video:
http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/video/john-harris-its-illusion
provides anyone interested &/or concerned with some interesting & perhaps even alarming facts.
– That members of Parliament are actually Directors of a Corporation.
– That Political Parties – Like the Labour Party are actually PLC’s
– The UK itself is a registered Corporation.
– All UK Police Forces and the Courts, and this includes the Ministry of Justice, are all registered private corporations trading for profit.
– The House of Lords is a registered private corporation.
– The General Registery (where Births, Marriges & Deaths are recorded & registered) is a registered private corporation.
– The Social Services are a registered PLC
– The Department of Transport is a registered PLC.
– There is a fundemental difference between a Policeman (a human being) & a Police Officer (a corporate employee – a fictional legal status).
– Statutory Instuments – Secondary Legislation enacted and derived from Primary Legilsation – are not actually law but a private contract.
– Whenever you register anything – a car, your child, your house, whatever – you are legally handing over the ownership of whatever you are registering.
The issue which Jenkins highlights about ACPO – & which many posters have expressed concern is merely the tip of the iceberg so to speak.
And the key underlying issue about what sort of island – & society – we have become is that between the public (The Commons) & the private (for inidividual profit of a minority at the expense of the majority).
Because at the heart of the statement about what sort of island/society we have become is that more & more aspects of our lives are being privatised at the expense of the public common good.
And it manifests itself in many different ways.
One poster had a problem with the use of the term “Stockholm Syndrome” – the use of which is something I’ve picked up on over the past few months.
This objection from this poster misses the fundemental point. Which is that the stockholme Syndrome is merely a specific manifestation of a general observed behavior – the identification of a powerless person or group of people with those who have power over them.
It does not matter whether this is hostage/kidnapper (terrorist?); worker/boss; or (to use the terms highlighted in the video link above) person/Police Officer.
It’s the same relationship which Orwell’s Winston Smith had with O’Brian & Big Brother at the end of his incarceration where he was eventually “cured” & identified totally with the BB society he was previously rebelling against.
And what we are talking about here is the fact that as a society we are impoverished as a whole by certain sections of the population made up of many individuals who are actually suffering from this problem; in which they will bend over backwards and perform the most intiricate and complex acts of doublethink to attempt to fool not only those they are arguing with but also themselves; because they suffer from this “Stockholm Syndrome” in which they, like Winston Smith at the end of 1984, default to identifying with power and submit to it.
It impoverishes us as a socity because it makes it harder for the those trying to break out of this straitjacket to do so.
We see and experience this when we try to resolve a “problem” with a corporates public face – the call centre – when we try to adopt “common sense” solutions which are refused and refuted by those at the other end because it does not fit the simplistic robotic alogrithm script they are told to follow.
We see and experience this in the example post above where a supposadly “intelligent” human being makes a fatuous point in support of these kind of activities by arguing that if activists succeed in cutting off a power station this would cut off power to people in hospitals on life support equipment.
An argument that does not stand any form of scrutiny with reality.
What is the intent and motivation here if not to identify with existing power relationships where the individual or individuals arguing that line have no power in this relationship and therefore choose to identify with those with the power?
Ironic really, as it is the “goats” who put their head above the parepet who win progress for the “sheep” who simply stand at the sidelines and criticise and identify with those who have power over them and the goats but who are the cfirst in the queue when the concessions are won.
The historical record clearly demonstrates that there is nothing we enjoy today that was freely given by those who have power over those who do not. Not the Universal franchise; not votes for women; not shorter hours, holiday pay, trade union rights; nothing.
All achieved by the activism sneered at by the sheep in our midst.”
Steve is to the “manor” born it seems. That, and the many other errors, say something about the standards required to join the force. Why is it that people who can’t spell correctly don’t even have the sense to take advantage of a spellchecker?
Remember the firearms officer who killed another policeman while on a TRAINING EXERCISE for God’s sake, because he said his “training just took over when the adrenalin kicked in”! With such trigger happy morons roaming the streets, who shoot first and lie about it afterwards, we are supposed to feel they are there to “protect and serve” us. Instead, they publicly announce that they are “up for it”, (meaning violence), before a lawful demonstration, and think that it is not only acceptable to swear in court during an inquest after a fatal shooting but actually try to see how many song titles they can drop into their statement just for a laugh/bet. These sickoes are out of control, but the government is happy to use such sociopaths as their private attack dogs to intimidate protesters.
‘The historical record clearly demonstrates that there is nothing we enjoy today that was freely given by those who have power over those who do not. Not the Universal franchise; not votes for women; not shorter hours, holiday pay, trade union rights; nothing.’
I absolutely agree. We’re given sops only when our rulers have their backs against the wall. And then the sops look shiny but they are in fact worthless. All it is is a matter of containment. We live on the outside in the main obeying the law. On the inside is a vast apparatus living beyond the law with their own economy subsidised through crime and leeching off the taxpayer.
Clark
Thanks for the info on Lockheed Martin. My belief has been thoroughly beggared.
I am impressed – Yes, I am very impressed with Ken Livingstone on PressTV. Ken was host to a program discussing a book, a story of the personal journey of one man witnessing and feeling the oppression in Palestine.
I witnessed in Ken an intelligence, a flair and an acute sensitivity to the wide unfair perception that Palestinians are inferior to the Israelis.
A crucial point raised was the need for unity between the West Bank and Gaza, in fact a unified front must be achieved to uplift and move the plight of all Palestinians forward in the direction of a separate state living in peace with its neighbours.
The bigger picture, the wider view, if we try and expand our consciousness; think clearly and rationally we begin to enter a new world of hope, clarity and truth.
I can prove we have been deceived, cleverly deceived, into believing we have to exist in a world of perpetual war, of terror, of fear, of lies and dishonesty on a grand scale. I cannot put this proof in words on a screen however because I will be immediately ridiculed and abused. That’s not paranoia or delusional that is a sad reality folks.
It is huge hurdle that must be crossed to begin to bring a light into the darkness of now and only we, not I, can do this – do this for our children and their children; for the future.
I look at a baby, a young child, and think, ‘sweet child, you will develop in a dark world of terror unless somehow I can do something to change that. That is not unsoundness of mind, that is absolute. I am being – but I cannot be alone, change is a combination of minds.
I ask you sincerely to think hard about this unity.
Whoa! Lots of catching up to do. Steve, thanks for replying, and sorry I’ve only just got back to answer. “We are restricted and lawed to death but real criminals dont get any sanctions. But leave your bin lid open and all hell breaks loose!” – Classic!
Steve and Somebody, are you talking about the 10th January 2009 demonstration? Craig blogged about it:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/01/zionism_is_bull_1.html
“I had marched in the body of the massive demo, which had been fine but for the extraordinary decision by the police to close the pavements and narrow the route to a bottleneck at exactly the point where it passed the Israeli Embassy. In consequence three score hotheads who wanted to kick off there could block the whole thing. The police reacted to that by penning in many thousands into just this narrow point, and donning riot gear”.
I was there, and that is what I saw. Yes, trouble did kick off, right outside the embassy, in a corner created by barriers going two thirds of the way to the other side. The procession all bunched up, no one knew why, it got quite crushed and was scary. Some people were saying to move to the right hand side of the road; I went that way and found people slowly getting through.
I assume that blocking two-thirds of the road was a strategic (“Gold”) decision, and was a complete bastard to implement at copper-on-the-street level, creating havoc. I’d like to know whose decision that was.
Yes Clark and I agree with your version. There was no room to get out as the road was blocked as were the side streets and as darkness fell, the riot squad and the handlers with the barking dogs were moving in from the westerly direction. The police helicopter was overhead to add to the very tense atmosphere. There were many videos taken.
I was quite close to the commanding officer and watched him on his walkie talkie taking and giving instructions. I wasn’t involved in the melee but managed to get home eventually feeling very angry at what was happening in our illusory democracy.
Several lads I’d known at school became policemen, and continued as teammates in the local rugby club. It was very saddening to see normal boys (there were about four of them) mutate fairly quickly and without exception into paranoid thugs. They faded quickly from the mainstream social scene, where their conduct was too often unacceptable.
Many years later I had a policeman as a neighbour. He spoke openly of the brutalising effect of policework (although he blamed society, not the force). He had tried hard to resist it, and was a very troubled person.
In a post above I mentioned the Stanford Prison experiment – I think this is very relevant now, when we are seeing the normalisation of much higher levels of open violence towards the public. I have to say ‘open violence’ as the covert sort has always been there. I have heard officers boast of beating suspects in the back of police vans – apparently considered fair sport.
Something the powerful understand about power is its application at critical points. To make a demo more like a riot, you don’t need a campaign to have all police officers trained like attack dogs. You just need to influence one decision at a senior level to create a potential conflict situation; human nature does the rest, and helps brutalise the police officers as an added bonus.
“Kettling” should be stopped because it is unlawful detention of protesters, but it also makes police officers act illegally, robbing police of their legitimacy. To fight crime effectively the police need the trust and support of as broad a section of the population as possible.
But is fighting crime the primary use the powerful have for the police? It doesn’t seem so. Police complain of stifling bureaucracy, politically imposed “achievement targets”, and lack of support from the courts, all interfering with ordinary policing. Maybe prestige and influence in the police force have accumulated around “security”, anti-terrorism and surveillance, all of which are politicised.
Vronsky, our posts crossed. “He spoke openly of the brutalising effect of policework (although he blamed society, not the force)” – it’s both and neither, it’s the conflict between them. So the more representative your democracy, and the more inclusive your society, the less brutalised your police will be.
The drugs laws are hugely damaging in this regard; millions of people needlessly criminalised and hence alienated from the police. And who loves the drug laws so much? Why, politicians, of course!
Clark
No I was talking about the first March about two weeks before that was only meant to be a peaceful march hastily arranged and as far as I could see the demonstrators were entirely from the Gazan region mostly families women and children elderly men no containment was put on the march and it all went terribly wrong when a nasty element of younger lads a minority but a large minority of 40 to 50 from a march of maybe 250 suddenly broke away from the march masked up and surged on the embassy as I mentioned only about 11 officers were on the march as it was hastily arranged and the organisors assured police it would be a peaceful respectful family protest. When it went wrong and the embassy surge happened a large number of demonstrators mostly young arab lads appeared from the Edgware Road area the police were struggling to stop persons breaching the embassy perimiter I hate to think what would happen if they did get in. These youths were extremely violent smashing cars and windows on Kensington High Street and scaring the women and kids numbers swelled on both sides from 250 to about 2000 with a violent element of about 200 mixed in the group. Police called for assistance and all local units not facist riot police came in patrol cars to assist they managed to get the majority of the protestors violent passive and resistive out of Kensington palace Gardens not the park the road at the end. A stand off ensued with police flanking the gates stopping the group going through the gates.Police were taking bottles and other missiles no helmets just normal uniform and flat caps. Groups of arab youths masked up were smashing cars up and putting starbucks windows in. No containment was put in as police numbers were still very low maybe 35. The original march continued to swell with a sizeable violent group of kids from 15 to 25 smashing stuff and pushing for the Embassy. No one was stopped from leaving at this stage and the only restrictions put on them was no one was allowed up Kensington Palace Gardens.
It was freezing cold and after about 2 hours a number of police units that had been policing the football arrived and containments were placed in. The young thugs continued to kisk off for the next couple of hours. No protestors were hurt a number of parked cars were damaged with youths jumping on the roofs smashing windows etc and some shop windows were smashed. A few police sustained minor injuries,
The same thing happened at Millbank when a march was lightly policed.
If the yobs on the Gaza march were police rent a mob then the police must have recruited about 40 or 50 young arab students recently.
You might say well identify and arrest the rogue element within the group before the protest and violence happen.So you can allow peaceful protest? Oh! that was tried and the undercover cop was an agent provocateur.
If you ask anyone on that march that day the ordinary peaceful protestors they would say everything was peaceful then the police stopped us demonstrating outside the embassy. Its all about perception if we would have allowed the group to trash the embassy like millbank firstly somone would have been shot and secondly you have a legal obligation to protect the sovereignty of foreign missons it a quid pro quo that all nation do.
Not all marches lead to violence but when people are very passionate about a cause it dosnt take much for a crowd to become a mob just a spark and if police do not stop it who will?
Maybe they dont always get it right and sometimes they get it very wrong but their is no big political agenda for the copper on the street he does what he is told and mostly dosnt enjoy it. You do get some over keen cops who get off on the power. But the majority are just paying the mortgage.
I am getting fed up with this Met Police propaganda.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/policing-and-crime/policing-palestine-demo-like-hillsborough–$1258583.htm
and
http://www.politics.co.uk/news//opinion-former-index/policing-and-crime/police-gear-up-big-gaza-protest-$1259461.
I will not post anymore on this black=white thread.
Vronsky, yes, the Stanford Prison Experiment is relevant, as is the BBC re-run of it, and Milgram’s experiment. Rosenhan’s experiment is also relevant, as regards the assumptions and classifications made by people holding authority:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
Somebody
You are a complete prick you cant see that you are more guilty than I am of propoganda. I have said on numerous posts that police actons go wrong but you refuse to put any blame on any protestor ever its always the polices fault. You are a blinkered idealistic prick.
Steve
you ought to apologise and re-phrase that (3.28 PM). Seems abusive to me.
Steve, Somebody cares deeply about injustice in our world, and is no “prick” in my opinion.
Somebody, Steve has admitted some police failings. I’ve conversed with him before, he must find something at this blog.
As a matter of interest I was made aware of the National Public Order Database, and police undercover agents from a Naval submariner friend stationed at the Faslane nuclear submarine base where nuclear protesters gather despite the presence of armed officers. An integral face recognition database contains thousands of images from protest groups. I had learnt that particular attention has been paid to any Muslim activists or ‘dark skins’ in the data as early as 2003.
My son Kieron was stopped and searched at Climate Camp in Hoo some years ago.
An interesting report in 2009 is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/06/police-surveillance-protesters-journalists-climate-kingsnorth
Controlling dissent is a central role of intelligence units, as reported by Andrew Gilligan in 2005:
“Spooks on the trail of ‘Captain Gatso'” by Andrew Gilligan, Evening Standard, 12 September 2005
“Steve, Somebody cares deeply about injustice in our world, and is no “prick” in my opinion.
Somebody, Steve has admitted some police failings. I’ve conversed with him before, he must find something at this blog.”
Seems to me, Steve has been trying hard to talk like a human, and not always meeting the same courtesy in return.
It’s perhaps, a verbal equivalent of the on-the-streets situations that is what’s being talked about, where some people want to see the situation as “our team right, everybody else other team therefore bad”, and those who don’t see it like that get a bit swamped in the shouting ?
What’s the use of a moderator, unless people want to converse ?