UPDATE Social media has got very excited over the fact the young woman is apparently an actress. But why should she not be? In my extensive contact with actors, they are particularly likely to be politically engaged. I should also note that I have received quite a lot of abuse for pointing out that the reason this one person got on the front page of all the newspapers is that she is young and pretty. That is simply true- it is what newspaper editors do. I am criticising the media for this. Opposing the prioritising of media exposure by physical attractiveness is in fact a classic feminist stance, so I have no idea why feminists are attacking me on it. END OF UPDATE.
In one sense, I am delighted that the heavy-handed police action at the vigil for Sarah Everard has brought about public revulsion at the attack on free speech and the right of assembly, just as Priti Patel prepares to bring in the dreadful policing bill which represents the biggest single threat to freedom of assembly in the UK for 200 years. Its foundational principle is that the right of freedom of assembly is subordinate to the right to drive a SUV anywhere and any time you please, without having to detour around people taking part in democratic expression. It has a subsidiary principle that all public manifestations of political dissent will be intimidated by massive police presence, and that the cost of that massive intimidatory presence will in itself be reason to ban the demonstration. Which would be delightfully Kafkaesque were it only a joke.
The excuse for breaking up the Everard vigil was of course Covid. In all but the most extreme circumstances, where public health management conflicts with the most fundamental of human rights, then human rights should avail. The Patel legislation is not a response to Covid, it is a response to Extinction Rebellion. I remain wholly supportive of ER; the need to jolt people out of their complacency and inaction over climate change is a massive political priority, and I certainly hope Extinction Rebellion will be back with a bang in the summer.
But I am afraid to say it could not escape my notice that the protest over the Everard vigil was in stark contrast to the lack of protest at the police breaking up the Assange vigil in Piccadilly Circus, which was much smaller and less intrusive and much better social distanced. Unfortunately the police ,arrested 92 year old Eric who is not a young and pretty woman, so it got no media coverage.
The sad truth is of course that among those vying to be seen in both mainstream and social media to express outrage at the police disruption of the Everard vigil, are many fierce proponents of cancel culture. The outrage over which speech is limited is highly selective. That free speech also extends to Julian Assange or Piers Corbyn is not intuitive to the mainstream media at present. There seems to be a real danger that British society is losing all notion of the idea that free speech is for everybody, not just those you agree with or who are deemed respectable by the media and political class.
I was going to make a joke about freedom of speech extending even to protests without any Duchesses, which led me to recall that there was in fact a bona fide Duchess on the last Assange demonstration I participated in!
Scotland has of course just contributed to this general atmosphere of repression by passing a completely unnecessary Hate Crime Bill. Not only does this outlaw politically incorrect speech even within your own home – and in film and theatrical performances – there is every reason to believe it will lead to an increase in the political prosecutions for which the Scottish Crown Office is becoming renowned. At which point, it is worth noting it is now nearly seven weeks since my hearing for contempt of court, with no sign of a judgement, which seems to me very extraordinary.
—————————————————–
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
“the police ,arrested 92 year old Eric who is not a young and pretty woman, so it got no media coverage.”
No idea of what’s going on over there, as regards the concentration of attention on this particular issue – the sensation “du jour”.
But I have known many a “pretty young woman” get roughed up by Crown enforcers, which has never caused so much as a blink in the MSM, when they were reclaiming the streets, fighting for the freedom to dance, protesting poll tax, ecocide, structural wealth inequality, Israeli & FUKUS war crimes, etc.
Similarly, had Eric been wearing tweed and protesting his right to terrorise & slaughter wildlife or to wave a flag and send our armed forces off to their deaths obo BP & Exxon, he may well have been the MSM’s darling child of the day similar to the woman you’ve mentioned.
I understand gender is the underlying identity division currently being formented and exploited, at the expense of anything else that might perhaps be more worthy of our attention in these times, but I’m not sure it’s very becoming to fall into the trap of playing the MSM game and reiterating their binary points of reference.
I’m struggling to get to the root of what I what I want to say, but something about Craig’s point/language, in the quote I pulled out, doesn’t sit well.
Not that I think it’s deliberately offensive or redolent of any kind of unsavouryness, it just seems a bit ‘icky’.
Perhaps it just seems to conform too readily to the skewed & limited points of reference that this latest “hate thy neighbour” psyop feeds off.
Also, it oughtn’t be contentious to imagine that growing up in a societal structure characterised by centuries of patriarchal’ism (?) might not have left us with some subconscious flotsam & jetsom worth being aware of. Just as centuries of societal racial supremacy might have left similarly damaging ….. things (?)….within us that we do well to seek out & pay attention to (even when we’re essentially ‘lovely’ open minded, kind hearted people).
Again, not casting aspersions on Craig as I can barely work it out in my own head. But I have, over the years, come to see the value of analysing & picking at these unpleasant facets of my own self as I began to learn of the world through the experiences of people other than me.
I’m also happily aware that, at least half the time, I haven’t got a clue what I’m talking about :-)))
Btw, when I say “more worthy of our attention”, I dont mean to suggest the gender issues in discussion are not worthy, probably a poor choice of words on my part (I blame the b@stard mossies terrorising my ankles & distracting me during my morning coffee!).
I just find the MSM dynamic of headlining one thing to the nth degree whilst largely sidelining a host of other things to be quite indicative of where Perception Management is trying to steer us, so I’m as curious of what’s not being said as I am by what is being said and by what is being misrepresented, cynic that I am!
Josh R
Icky. Surely the icky sub-narrative is clear.
Those who express opinions outside the Thatcherite prevailing view of this country are being fitted up with imaginary Woke political.incorrectnesses against women.
Alex Salmond, bouncing about hair curls in a lift. Myself, talking with students at work.
The ickiness is in the preposterous suggestion that joking, or talking comprise a threat, while bombing oil-rich sovereign nations flat present absolutely no threat whatsoever. Glue is sticky, I know , I’ve been tiling my bathroom. Honey is sticky, and the state is manufacturing honey traps for its critics.
The idea that Craig is creating the stickiness is absurd. It is pure, political innuendo stickiness of the deep state desperately trying to cover its tracks.
Giyane,
“Craig is creating the stickiness”
Really not thinking that, even if I’ve suggested it in my “ham fisted” OP.
Think I was just wondering if it was inadvertently “symptomatic” of the stickiness*
*I know, stupid word, but I’m struggling with my own brain over all this, so don’t judge me too harshly :-[
Hi Josh, you make some good points about “Eric”, and your tentative approach and humility are to be admired. I guess your unease stems from the prevailing cultural consensus that any middle aged man who calls a young woman attractive is a pervert.
As a middle aged man myself, I find this attitude itself makes me feel uneasy – it feels “icky” if you like. I have seen so many left wing friends who believe passionately in justice become fooled into supporting bombing, slaughter and fascism, because they were swept away by the zeitgeist. And there is a schizophrenia in a society in which women are so ruthlessly sexualised in the media whilst the same media fuels the woke mob. The rules about whether you are censured as a pervert for calling someone attractive or censured as a prude for disliking soft pornography in the press seem completely arbitrary. On the other hand, as the father of a 20 something daughter I am shocked at the level of casual sexism, and it would certainly feel icky if politicians habitually referred to the attractiveness or otherwise of the people they meet.
I would say that i is possible to find kittens, lambs, women, and yes, even children attractive without any kind of sexual or “icky” subtext. Whether it is appropriate to express this depends on whether it is relevant. In this case I personally find nothing icky in what Craig said.
Tim,
“I guess your unease stems from the prevailing cultural consensus”.
Not so much, to be honest.
Thankfully, I’ve been quite removed from all the goings on back home for quite a few years now, so I’m more of a barely informed spectator to the “prevailing cultural consensus”, rather than being on the receiving end of it.
I’m also particularly disinclined to be cowed, brow beaten or intimidated into ideological submission, as I think most people are. It’s probably a good job that I’m wondering around in the wilderness and don’t have to experience this up close and personal, as do those like Salmond and one commenter I read on these pages who was working in education & getting a rough ride. I fear I’d get a bit truculent or simply disengage.
I more or less agree with much of the sentiment expressed throughout many of Craig’s articles and the subsequent posts, that this “political correctness gone mad!” is a dangerous & divisive pile of bullsh!t, that the “Woke” buzzword that seems to have taken the narrative by storm whilst I’ve been away is just being used as a stick with which to beat people, at the expense of any constructive debate, further dividing folk and fueling a ridiculous degree of tribal rage.
The points you mention regarding the “zeitgeist” conformity, “sexualised” women in the media & the “casual sexism” you’ve observed are completely on the mark.
I still can’t get to exactly why the “young and pretty woman” felt quite so “icky” but it is probably twofold.
Firstly, the comparison & assertion between the two arrests & the two protests doesn’t make sense to me. As someone else has already pointed out & as I imagine Craig would be one of the first to assert, the lack of coverage for Assange is purely issue based and no amount of “pretty” arrestees would have changed that, bar some ridiculous Stringfellows-BayWatch bikini photo op, which might have got the MSM slathering for 5 minutes, but for all the wrong and predictable reasons.
Secondly, in the photo I just see another regular person getting brutalised. A woman, admittedly (I assume from what little I can see), & I can’t quite work out where “pretty & young” comes into the narrative.
As Craig correctly points out, MSM are always the first to exploit a bit of titillation to sell their vacuous rags & broadcasts but, even then, I wonder if that was such an integral part of the coverage. It also doesn’t seem to be pertinent to the overarching theme of his post. Which makes me curious as to why the description slipped out.
I haven’t seen any other coverage so perhaps it was more salacious than the photo above suggests*.
Aside from all that, the fixation on what a person looks like rather than who they are or what they are doing is & has been an integral part of challenging the ‘ism’ around gender, as it is with most tribal ‘isms’, be they race, skin tone, nationality, physical ability, religion, etc. So I guess seeing the “pretty young woman” label applied & not really understanding or agreeing with Craig’s ‘why’ is probably where the ickiness arose.
*I just saw an online headline saying a student (I’m guessing it’s the same person) was on breakfast TV saying she felt “terrified” being pinned down by police.
After a disbelieving “Hah!” I couldn’t help but think of all the innumerable folk who’ve felt similarly “terrified” being kettled, sprayed & beaten at protests over the years who never get so much as a mention let alone a MSM ‘shoulder to cry on’. Stinks like a big bit of media fluff to distract anger & attention from more pressingly outrageous goings on.
Josh R,
Unless you wish to deny that pretty exists as a concept, she is plainly strikingly pretty. And if she were less pretty she would not have been on the front page of every newspaper.
Please note I am saying this state of affairs is wrong. But that it is how newspapers work is undeniable. If we are at a stage where we can’t point out such practices exist, because to notice someone is pretty is politically incorrect, that is really stupid.
I think that “pretty” is the right word to use; descriptive but not hyperbolic as the word “beautiful” would be.
How anyone can confidently assert that a person is pretty when they’re not showing their face is beyond me. The features of the victim would have been largely irrelevant anyway even if it could have been discerned. Surely its the drama of the scene that appealed: if old Eric had been photographed similarly wide-eyed, squashed by big coppers on the floor, he may well have adorned the front pages.
No, he wouldn’t. I have no doubt there were a good few less attractive possibilities from this Clapham comment incident. Newspaper editors go for the young and attractive. To deny that is frankly ludicrous.
They would not publicise police brutality at an Assange rally even if they had pictures of Pamela Anderson being garroted.
What has struck me about the public debate following the death of Sarah Everard is the total absence of common sense and fact.
Here are some “facts” about murder in the UK.
Conversely, one third of male murder victims were killed by a stranger.
To summarise, if you are a woman over 30 the odds of being murdered by a stranger like Sarah Everard are vanishingly small. Presumably you can lower those odds even further by not undertaking long walks alone at night. (Before someone calls me out for victim-blaming, they should ask themselves if they have ever felt intimidated out alone at night? If so, what did you do about it? I am a (male) ex-squaddie and was a mid-level Tae Kwon Do practitioner in my younger days and I would not have willingly ventured across Clapham Common at 10pm in the dark. As a sensible person, why would I voluntarily put myself in a potentially dangerous situation?)
What struck me most about the picture in question was not the “prettiness” or otherwise of the young lady, but the way it recalled the death of George Floyd. There are, in fact, some close correlations between the two cases:
There has, as yet, been no trial in either case, so it remains undetermined whether murders have even occurred, let alone who might have (possibly) perpetrated them.
Despite this, the world’s media, the respective Governments, even Mr Couzens’ boss Cressida Dick are talking about the accused as if they have already been convicted. What happened to the presumption of innocence? I do not know what the implications of this are for a “fair” trial.
Both cases are being used by the media to inflame tensions between groups (races, sexes).
Both key suspects are white male working class authority figures.
The speed with which the respective protest movements (BLM, Reclaim these Streets) organised a response to the incidents and the saturation media coverage suggests psy-op rather than a legitimate organic growth.
As always, if we are busy getting outraged at each other, the elite can continue their plunder of the National Treasuries unchallenged.
Craig,
Just went back over your article.
My initial comment was a bit tangential and detracts from another good article, with you flagging up more (neverending!) shocking abuses of power in evidence & in the making, so apologies for that.
But I did pull out the quote I did, because I think the “it got no media coverage” had nothing to do with Eric being old & crusty (?). It’s purely, as you’ve helped elaborate for us over the years, because the issue is so anathema to the established status quo.
The fact that Pamela Anderson was such a staunch supporter & attendee at Assange’s protests/vigils, yet didn’t manage to swing the MS coverage significantly, despite her being a fairly established MSM “pretty” over the years is probably illustrative of that point.
I’m definitely not suggesting “pretty” isn’t a valid concept, that wasn’t what I was trying to get at. As you say, the idea that you can get attacked for saying “pretty” is ludicrous. But then getting “attacked” for saying anything is perhaps not healthy.
& yes, MSM is venal enough to make editorial decisions based on a woman’s looks. Which is a point any truly feministy person would be in complete agreement with. MSM being one of the worst offenders in sexualising and/or preconceptualising our Sisters based on their appearance.
Although I couldn’t say if that was truly the case in this instance, Was she the ‘reason’ for the coverage or simply the ‘click bait’?
However, “pretty” is a word & concept much abused/misused within the subject of gender equality, depending on the context & inference, as you quite rightly point out in your comment about MSM splashing certain images around on that basis.
Expressing an opinion on whether someone is pretty or handsome can be harmless enough & quite nice – I’m not averse to being called handsome myself, mainly because it happens so rarely amongst those who can see straight.
But, it is also worth noting that it can be unwarranted and/or unhelpful in other circumstances, where it follows a tradition of reinforcing an outdated stereotype of associating a persons validity, worth or value with what that person looks like, irrespective of who that person actually is or what they are doing and saying. It can slip out unwittingly &, whilst unintended, can reinforce that association where a similar “he’s a handsome young man” comment might seem ‘odd’ or unusual.
“she is plainly strikingly pretty”
I guess we all get to an age where anyone with a full head of hair and the ability to walk unaided looks pretty.
A friend saying that could illicit a groan or a chuckle, a stranger saying that could seem a bit insulting, if it follows a pattern of comments alluding to age that someone hears in relation to not getting a job, not being taken seriously or simply not being ‘seen’ for who they are, it could seem outright infuriating.
I think that’s the point I’m feeling in relation to your reference to “pretty”.
But, having egregiously hogged so many pixels of your web space and chewed my brain into bits trying to fathom out what I’m actually thinking, sitting inside on a sunny day in front of a laptop, all for the sake of 4 words in an otherwise splendid article, I still have half a mind that thinks at least half of my OP falls into the category of “half the time, I haven’t got a clue what I’m talking about”.
But the other half of me still thinks it was an odd point that you made.
hello Craig,
Just read your update & sorry to hear you have been receiving abuse about those 4 words. Apologies if my ramblings have constituted any part of that.
Absolutely not my intention, but I realise that what I was thinking when I put finger to keyboard may not have been what was interpreted when the words were read. If that were the case, I quite happily admit that maybe I need to get out more & wind my neck in a bit.
Free speech will invariably throw up some prickly issues, but it does seem more like a minefield than a thorny briar at times, which is a shame. Hopefully you’ve got a thick enough skin not to let it mess with your mojo too much.
Your willingness to write, think & share your thoughts on such varied & important issues is invaluable, as is providing this forum for others to do likewise. In a time of intolerance, such open debate will undoubtedly draw the ire of the ranters & ragers, occupational hazard I guess. But the loudest voices are not necessarily the most representative & the ‘woke’ are quite often half asleep (me included!).
I did have a personal ‘light bulb’ moment over my fish & noodles breakfast this morning, regarding why I might have felt so inclined to explore the comment in your article that struck me as ‘odd’.
Sometimes, in the conversations about the ‘isms’, there are words spoken that seem to confer privilege on the ‘group’ (sub tribe?) experiencing an injustice, by folk outside that ‘group’, amongst whom some are actually, or perceived to be, contributing to that unjust state of affairs.
Perhaps the disdain some people express towards ‘positive discrimination’ efforts to redress historic imbalance would be an example – “s/he only got the job because s/he is A,B,C”.
Whilst there can be a literal ‘truth’ in such a thought, if it comes to dominate a narrative at the expense of the initial injustice being considered, it can be seen to exemplify the historic power imbalance being challenged which, unsurprisingly, gets peoples’ backs up.
Whilst it can be a legitimate part of the conversation, if it threatens to dominate it, that doesn’t go down well – plus, as in any conversation, there’re times for listening & times for talking.
I find the ‘positive discrimination’ groans particularly curious. I was well taught in a school that was built on positive discrimination, if you had bundles of money or were ‘connected’, it didn’t matter if you were daft as a brush, you still got an ‘in’. This ‘positive discrimination’, based on wealth rather than skin, often got missed.
These subtleties get lost amongst the mob & sensational or ‘trending’ headlines, when ‘sub tribes’ are pitted against one another rather than being allowed to work it out amongst themselves over a cup of tea & some dunk’able biscuits, when the injustices or persecutions are ongoing.
But as there’s a time for shouting from the roof tops, there should also subsequently be time for the chat, which is what happens away from the MS headlines, chest beating & public eye, in the ‘real’ rather than the ‘virtual’ world (if people can drag their eyes away from a screen for more than 5 minutes).
Those roundtable discussions back in the 60s, with Stokely, Michael & many others of varied persuasions seem so far away now.
So, what occurred to me when I read your 4 words in amongst the many others in your article, is that it sounded like a suggestion that the person being brutalised only got noticed because of some conferred privilege in being a “young & pretty woman”, rather than because she was protesting or suffering or fighting or expressing a valid principle (the MSM titillation predilection seemed too weak an argument, sorry).
And in that particular context, when people were voicing a concern, valid to a greater or lesser degree, from one person to another, from one situation to another, that being perceived as a “pretty young woman” rather than who they are on an individual/human level is part of the problem, those 4 words rang alarm bells irrespective of your intention & views, or who you are as an individual.
When I read your update, it occurred to me that perhaps this was why other people were unjustly ‘railing’ against you. Or maybe not, some people just behave like nob heads, so I’m sure that comes into it somewhere along the line too.
The ‘isms’ conversations benefit us all & I’ve no doubt you know & value them as much as any of us. In an ideal world, the conversations & methods of engagement evolve and shift as time goes on and the Tribe resolves it’s imbalances. Unfortunately, this is not a straight line, with steps forward & steps backward, huge jumps up & shaky regressions down. Outside of the natural order of things, many folk, for individual or ideological reasons, thrive off of sowing division rather than discussion, so it can get a bit mucky.
And if “freedom” & “equality” underlie all these questions of ‘ism’, that surely means that people on either side of a conversation are ‘free’ to have and express their thoughts & ideas, as they are ‘equally’ likely to be right or wrong, at one time or another.
As a bloke, on the question of gender inequalities, I was particularly struck by a survey I read about recently. In India (I know, different country, culture, etc. but still humans at the end of the day). Women were asked “what would you do if there were no men in the world for a day?”
The top answer was “go for a walk on my own”.
As long as this is a lived reality for anyone in our wider community, for anyone’s mother, daughter, sister, colleague or friend, I feel it’s a conversation I want to be involved in (but not via the skewed MS).
I know I’m shamelessly using your back, off of which to explore this question in complete disproportion to the 4 words you wrote, but like I say, I really need to get out more (and, at the end of the day, it’s only pixels?).
Peace!
I think I understand your sentiment. By implying the “pretty young woman” protestor is less deserving of our sympathy than the “92-year-old man” protestor Craig is inadvertently playing into the media’s divide and rule psyop which uses gender and race to pit people against each other.
Casting the issue of state violence against protesters exercising their democratic rights in an ‘us vs. them’ light and inviting readers to pick sides, with the “pretty young woman” and the “92-year-old man” as proxies, is extremely unhelpful.
It is difficult not to notice an underlying bitterness in Craig’s piece directed at the “pretty young woman”. He is absolutely correct in suggesting that the media has a double-standard when it comes to highlighting police repression of citizens’ democratic rights. As he of course knows, protests that threaten establishment legitimacy are ignored or presented in a negative light regardless of how photogenic the female participants are.
By needlessly bringing gender into the discussion he shoots himself in the foot and guarantees that it will be derailed and become about, well, gender. His shock that this happened and asking “is pretty not a valid concept?” seems a bit disingenuous considering how he framed the issue.
Welcome to BoraRus.
Appreciate its a different police force, but how come the big feardys did not break up the Rangers marches not only in Glasgow but in various other towns across Scotland.
It is much easier to apply firm policing to a gentle group of concerned citizens highlighting concerns about Women’s safety and to back off when dealing with knuckle dragging, alcohol fuelled bigots celebrating the trivia of a football event.
A simple explanation but I think accurate.
We also have that idiot Hannah Bardell of the SNP calling for a 6pm curfew on all men.
The same Bardell who supports men using self ID to become “women” and enter their safe spaces and that non-binary is a legal standing.
A good job any nasty man willing to attack and rape a women wouldn’t see that loop hole in her curfew plan. The Law is being twisted daily now.
Wow, I didn’t know a senior SNP figure was calling for a curfew on men, but I see you are right. And even backpeddling on twitter, she is justifying the call by saying that “isn’t it telling that people are more upset about the curfew on men than about …”. Which is utter nonsense.
Initially I thought the same regarding the 6pm curfew on men. However with a little further thought and reading I think it is rhetorical. If you think that is absurd (which it is) then why isn’t it equally absurd to advise women not to go out at night and stay at home for their “safety.” It is in the contrasting of reactions that the point is being made.
It would be fine as a rhetorical device: “to all the people saying all women should stay at home to stay safe: how about all the men stay home so that we’re safe”.
But I don’t know whether it was initially used in this way (although later it was). Bardell explicitly said “we may well be at the stage where we need to discuss all the options, even the ones that sound a bit wacky”, which doesn’t sound like a rhetorical device.
Also, a general curfew is not a bad idea in an emergency where there is a terrorist or mass murderer on the loose. But I think we’d be unhappy with a specific curfew on many demographics (e.g. all people of a certain race stay home? hideous!)
I don’t know Bardell’s motivation but if it is what you say then I believe Bardell hasn’t got it either. The original proposition came from Baroness Jones.
That men should be under curfew after 6pm is frankly absurd and rightly was met with “that’s a stupid f***ing idea.”
Contrast that with the reaction to the advice (from police) that women should stay at home and not go out at night to remain safe, effectively a self imposed curfew. The reaction should be exactly the same, “that’s a stupid f***ing idea” but it is isn’t (the same reaction). I think that is what Baroness Jones was attempting to convey or provoke.
As far as it goes I think she has a point albeit it’s a wee bit more complicated than that.
Same reason why Orange walks are exempt from our world-beating ultra-woke Hate Crime legislation.
But be incredibly careful about highlighting such screaming anomalies and hypocrisy because that in itself can easily be deemed a hate crime.
I have always been angry about the trashing of the planet, the slaughter of millions people whose resources we want, and the casual slaughter of tens of millions through exploitation. But I have never been frighted before. When I see the tide of fascism and the suppression of free speech sweeping the world, I am frightened for the first time. I guess it’s because this time, it’s me.
Seven weeks and no judgement?? wtf?
Is it legal for the verdict in a court case to be postponed indefinitely for political reasons?
right on craig.. thank you for saying what needs to be said.. i hope your message spreads far and wide..
“The Patel legislation is not a response to Covid, it is a response to Extinction Rebellion.”
ER might only exist to provide an excuse for such as Patel’s legislation.
Oh go away
Are you referring to the 200k Sir Chris Hohn donated/invested in XR, according to the i paper?
Let me assure you it has nothing whatsoever to do with his 650million interest in Heathrow and its further development.
The mpment I saw the vigil and its extraordinary inept policing, I thought of the many XR dem9nstrations that resulted in mass arrests.
Im afraid that all these hate crime and policinig bills will do is stretch the police to breaking point, drive activities away from modern communications and disentchant those who expect to see them take care of burglaries, mass accidents, ehem ..rape cases, murder and or cyber crime, etc.
This bullies bill is designed to furthet an agenda of ‘going back to normal’, oops another word thats being charged with dynamite at present, to carry on as we know and understand to carry on, no change here.
The inquiry into the coalmine up north will provide enough cover to blag themselves through Cop26 and when the focus shifts, normality of repression and carrying on will resume.
These Tories, with the help of Starmer, are here to stay. Unless, of course, a much divided nation is getting hungry and finds a united cause to force change.
“a young and pretty woman”
Was she? I didn’t notice. I noticed that she was a woman.
What women are saying is, that the very demonstration that was organised to bring attention to the violence perpetrated by men against women, itself demonstrates this violence.
I think it’s unfair to compare it to any other demonstration based on the media coverage of those arrested.
It seems to me that, still, we are not being heard
Prue,
You may have. Believe you me her appearance is why she was over every newspaper. If she looked differently she would not have been. Do not confuse yourself with newspaper editors.
And please note, I am saying this state of affairs is wrong.
Prue
You are being “offensive” by saying you noticed she was a Woman. You can be 6’4″ , 20stone with a beard and be a woman now. Do you not realise the Hate Bill is now in force in Scotland.
““a young and pretty woman” Was she?”
Well yes, by definition. If Craig says “Unfortunately the police arrested 92 year old Eric who is not a young and pretty woman, so it got no media coverage.” he is not referring to a particular young and pretty woman, he is just saying that Eric isn’t one. Given that the young and pretty woman that Eric isn’t doesn’t exist, I am surprised you noticed her.
By referring to this women unfortunately I have drawn attention away from the main point I was trying to make so I have to reiterate
“What women are saying is, that the very demonstration that was organised to bring attention to the violence perpetrated by men against women, itself demonstrates this violence.”
It is absolute nonsense to talk about violence toward women and girls as if it is only something caused by men. That shows just how violent and misandrist our culture has become, alongside the violence of mysogyny. (The solution stares us in the face: start talking truthfully about violence rather than gendering it for political ends that constitute a form of violence in itself, and we will start making progress on addressing these issues. But I don’t know of anyone who wants to make progress here, because it is very good for politics and very good for the gravy train and for all those charities willing to throw men under the bus just for a bit of funding).
I would wager that violence toward women and girls is caused just as much by women. To not acknowledge that, to pretend that such violence doesn’t exist and be silent about it, is a form of violence in itself. It is women as well as men who participate in crimes and who force marriages, FGM, religion, abortions, prostitution, etc., on women and girls, and who deny them the right to education, work, pay, livelihood, etc..
What is so shocking is that when violence is committed by females against other females, women against children, the social services, GPs, police, just turn a blind eye. I have seen this happen countless times over the last decade and a half now, whilst I have also seen men begging for help for their children in the face of female-inflicted violence.
But of course you won’t be hearing about that, as truth has become so scandalous these days, and it goes against the simpleton-feminist narrative at the BBC and The Guardian.
If anybody knows of a journalist who would take on a story about violence toward women and girls from that angle, I have lots to say, I’m sad to report.
The delayed court finding is the only punishment they could justify. It is a cruel and unnecessary act but it gives them a sense of victory.
They will still be trawling through your electronic equipment hoping to find something to be “concerned” about.
Just as long as Eric doesn’t get Baraitser sitting in judgement (if he is charged) he might escape the long arm of the plods with a caution..
Before all protest and dissent is criminalised, please consider this worldwide freedom rally against the insane and sinister lockdown on 20th March.
100% agree with this doctors take on what’s happening.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR3e06BJ_i3lRW_ZBtdwrP2qi4joJIqL28M8atjFqa46JkmCUtdK_9MBTOo&v=MRRyO9LMNWY&feature=youtu.be
The only sinister thing about the lockdown is that it was imperfectly, negligently and incompletely implemented too late.
‘I remain wholly supportive of ER; the need to jolt people out of their complacency and inaction over climate change is a massive political priority, and I certainly hope Extinction Rebellion will be back with a bang in the summer.’
So…A massive political priority but we only need to be seen and heard in the summer? Climate change is happening all year. The world is going to sh1t but ER etc only need to come out in the summer?
They get more publicity in the silly season.
I should be happy to see them back with a bang tomorrow, but my understanding is they are planning for the summer.
Extinction Rebellion (XR) shout loudly but have no message. And no answer to their own alarm call. As such they are a dangerous distraction to those who do have an answer, in particular a specific answer to XR’s exasperation over an invisible parent figure’s:-
“… inaction over climate change … ”
But what exactly does XR want that action to look like? Do its organiser know? No. They don’t. And shame on them for such ignorance. When I enquired and read around their out put, no they are technically clueless.
Not for nothing did the likes of Sydney Webb, and George Orwell, regard the majority of non trade union, middle class, socialists as cranks.
Natasha,
Excellent points.
I will point out that Gas can do most daily energy needs for cooking. Having the ability to be able to be turned on/off at will and through a gas grid all the way back to the gas well , having the same ability of control. Hence the nordtreams and south-streams in a gas grid covering two thirds of the planets landmass and half the population is such a threat to the AngloImperial monopolists.
You for some reason haven’t mentioned the possibility of A Hydrogen Economy.
My doubts on XR go beyond the debutante little elfin figurehead at Davos to where I found that the mass ‘protests’ in London were heavily funded and preplanned by months. Friends were enrolled, trained and PAID to enable the country folk to come to ‘camp’ in London and then be coordinated to be at the various planned protests over that week.
Spontaneous it was not.
“and that the cost of that massive intimidatory presence will in itself be reason to ban the demonstration. Which would be delightfully Kafkaesque were it only a joke.“
In 2013 a talk at Balliol College, Oxford, by anarchist Ian Bone, former leading light in Class War, was cancelled after the police demanded a payment of several thousands of pounds for “security”. Bone had been invited by Balliol Left Caucus, and the topic of the planned talk was how the best thing for equality would be the abolition of Oxford and Cambridge universities. The police said that if the talk were allowed to go ahead there would be a big risk to security and public order and that those responsible for the risk would have to pay for the costs of policing.
Note that the planned event was a TALK – a few dozen people would go to a room, hear an invited speaker, and perhaps there would be some questions and discussion afterwards. It was nothing to do with chucking bricks or throwing petrol bombs.
My opinion is that college authorities told the police to take the attitude they were taking, so as to avoid having to admit they were banning a student society from holding a talk. But the police said “yes sir”.
You can read about it here and here.
It is interesting, I haven’t followed up CW and the Stop The City actions as I have hoped to for years now. I always felt there was something not quite right with the ‘anarchisyndicalists’ of the early 80’s, perhaps it was the unanarchic nature of their ‘organisation’ and various ‘camps’ in the country that some of us politicising students were invited to…
In light of the SDS /Special Branch/M15 etc dead baby name stealing spies amongst our own people, there is more to come out about the Hackney HQ’d, black colour wearing anarchists that we should reveal.
Whatever the outcome of your hearing, it was the process; the indictment, the justice denying interlocutory hearings and the unnecessary delay in handing down judgment, that is the punishment.
Anyone who has been tried and acquitted knows the awfulness of it all.
The Scottish “hate crime bill” (dig the USA lingo) sounds like a Zionist effort, with the “gender bender” aspect serving only as something to talk about in the press. Which would indicate that the SNP has “friends” who have also been the “friends” of Catalan independence. See hereandhere. See the background of Pujol and Tennenbaum.
“In 2014, a year before the Catalan pro-independence political parties won the parliamentary elections, Santi Vidal – a former judge and member of the Republican Left of Catalunya (RLC) party – said in a political event that Israel was one of the possible countries that could finance an eventual independent Catalan state. But not only that, Mr. Vidal also stated that the Mossos d’Esquadra-the Autonomous Catalan Police- had contacts with the Mossad to receive advice about security issues.“
“Mr. Vidal also stated that the Mossos d’Esquadra-the Autonomous Catalan Police- had contacts with the Mossad to receive advice about security issues.“
The Mossos d’Esquadra (Catalan Police) are filmed here training in Israel (2014)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_nP79DJA48
in believe, there’s a lot more to the Clapham vigil than meets the eye.
Is there _anything_ you tin-foilers don’t see as being part of some great conspiracy?
In the days of protests against the Israeli atrocities enacted on Gaza (Cast Lead, Protective Edge and others) 2008/9 we used to have large gatherings in London, outside the Israeli Embassy and in Trafalgar Square for instance. There was no strong police presence and just a few arrests including of those young men charged and sentenced at Westminster Magistrates Court. They ended up with criminal records. Different times.
Arrests over Israeli embassy demo
Protests outside the Israeli embassy in west London
Seven people were arrested after a second day of protests outside the Israeli Embassy in west London over Israel’s air raids on Gaza.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7803733.stm
They should rename Westminster Magistrates Court. Any suggestions?
There were other very large protests. Craig spoke here –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DkldhMYlRM I seem to remember that was in Hyde Park.
Despite exoneration of Dame Cressida Rose Dick who commanded the 2005 operation that led to the shooting dead of Jean Charles De Menezes, after he was mistaken for a suicide bomber the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to strengthen police powers to tackle non-violent protests will give a senior police officer powers to impose conditions on a public assembly to “prevent disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2839
The Everard vigil, On the news, I definitely saw a copper punching a woman on her breasts.
That has to be sexual assault.
??
No, it’s not sexual assault, it’s VIOLENCE, just as rape has little to do with sex, it too, is VIOLENCE!
OK, a pretty girl was a plus for a picture: appeal vs brute police force. An elderly lady would have worked fine too. And true, an elderly gentleman somewhat less so (sorry Eric). I mean it has more to do with some tabloïd sensation than wokitude. Craig was right to point it out but I wouldn’t stick to this more than the sheer contrast of boots against a pretty face.
Come on. A picture of an old lady – no matter how sweet and kind she was – would never be splashed over front pages and shared around the world.
It sure was. On a couple of occasions when the Gilets Jaunes were dispersed with some enthusiasm by the police forces.
The freedom to drive your SUV through city centres without let or hindrance may well be a side benefit of this legislation, however I suspect it’s prime purpose is to stifle dissent – real dissent that is.
It’s not that difficult for those with eyes to see how the state through the police respond differently to different groups. The level of response indicates the level of threat to the state’s narrative – a zero tolerance, thuggish response to Assange, anti-war or anti-lockdown protesters and a relatively light hand with ER.
It appears to me that ER are aligned with what our politicians are saying and increasingly doing, with the World Economic Forum, with the “Energy” Industry, with Bill Gates and with what is being drummed into our children in school, they are no threat to the emerging Corporate State.
It is large corporations – specifically oil and fracking companies – that are overwhelmingly responsible for destroying the environment that supports life on earth. The politicians are fine with that — look at their actions rather than their words. Or in the cases of Biden and Trump just look at their words.
The constant emphasis on Global Warming or as we now have to call it Climate Change serves to obscure the very real environmental problems that exist, whether it’s plastic in the oceans, chemicals leaching into water supply, toxic industrial processes, contamination of the food supply and reckless exploitation of natural resources.
I’ve no idea why you think these concerns are mutually exclusive. How does concern for AGW “obscure” concern for other environmental problems? In my experience, those concerned about AGW are also greatly concerned about pollution, diversity, habitat and resource exploitation, and so on – including animal welfare. In addition, those who are positively unconcerned about any of these things also don’t care about the others.
Your view runs entirely counter to observed behaviour. Perhaps you could show us where someone is saying we should be concentrating on AGW, so let’s just forget about pollution?
I’m not talking about informed activists.
If a majority of the population simply think all we have to do is switch to wind turbines, solar power and electric cars then it’s an uphill struggle to convince them it’s a bit more complicated than that.
“How does concern for AGW “obscure” concern for other environmental problems?”
Very simply. Most people (and very many politicians and “activists”) like to focus on single issues, and to propose single “solutions” to issues.
To take one very obvious example: we have a problem because world population has grown much too fast, and has been allowed to reach nearly 8 billion. That has consequences, including almost all of those that environmentalists complain of. Had the powers that be focused on the issue of population in the 1890s and 1900s, and done something to reduce growth instead of indulging themselves in world wars, we might still live in a world inhabited by a manageable 3 or at most 4 billion.
The issue of population is extremely unpopular among politicians and the economists who (mostly) serve them. Because the truth is that governments have very little influence of it. The Chinese government, which has exceptional power and influence, managed to impose a one-child policy for a short time, and thus prevented the world population from reaching 10 billion by now. But it was only a temporary rearguard measure.
So instead of mentioning the “third rail” of overpopulation, politicians and others talk all around it. Pollution, soil exhaustion, unhealthy manufactured food-like substances, overcrowding, riots, territorial disputes, resource wars: all caused by overpopulation.
The public discussion of related matters has been narrowly funnelled down: from overpopulation to climate change; from climate change to greenhouse gases; from greenhouse gases to CO2; and finally, people talk casually about “carbon”. Of course carbon is the keystone of all life on Earth! Yet it is referred to as if it were some insidious poison.
That is how important issues are oversimplified – because politicians focus relentlessly on the things that (they believe) can make them look good.
I’m largely in agreement with you on this, Tom. Overpopulation is a huge problem, possibly the biggest of all.
But I’m not sure that governments are powerless to act. One of the most important ways of reducing family size and improving the lot of the individuals concerned is in the education and emancipation of women. Changes in the tax code which make larger families less attractive can have quite an effect, as would rewarding couples for remaining child-free.
Society puts a lot of pressure on couples to have children. The more the better, of course. A shift in attitude is necessary. Encouraging immigration from countries where very large families are typical is not going to help much either. When society falls over itself to cluck approval at those having large families, provides endless services free of charge and bankrolls them with benefits and larger houses, it’s hardly surprising the population will grow.
Yet child-free women are considered unpleasantly odd, and child-free couples are denounced for being selfish – despite the fact they are paying taxes for the benefit of other people’s children without complaint.
J Galt: Agreed, although any step in the right direction helps. If people think recycling cans is going to save the planet it really is uphill work.
Serious investment in cycling infrastructure would produce enormous benefits on multiple fronts. Instead, we have weak, gesture tokens in that direction, which has been the case for many years. Adopting a meat-free and drastically reduced food-miles diet is absolutely required for us to be sustainable. A government encouraged reduction in the reproduction rate is essential.
Can’t see any of that happening, though. We have a few billionaires to keep happy, little else matters.
“It is large corporations – specifically oil and fracking companies – that are overwhelmingly responsible for destroying the environment that supports life on earth.”
That’s only true if you believe that climate change is caused by changes in CO2 levels, for which there is no physical evidence.
B: “[…] for which there is no physical evidence.“
You mean, no evidence of which _you_ are aware or care to acknowledge. Which is a significant difference.
“I remain wholly supportive of ER“
Since it’s all about reducing the population I doubt they will find many non-white faces to join their actions.
They’ve been quiet during the pandemic that they obviously love so much. The controllers turn a knob here to raise this, another knob here to lower that – that’s how politics works.
Before the pandemic ER were allowed to do things like block London’s bridges for an extended period of time, which no leftwing group would ever be allowed to do. Their “demand” for a “Citizens’ Assembly” – which would be fed with Steinerite cack about “epochs” and “extinction” – to take over the government is cack that is reminiscent of say the Five Star Movement.
ER were stopping working class people getting to St Thomas’s Hospital, explaining to their victims “We’re sorry, but it’s an emergency”. Prison is the best place for them. I’d like to see ER and all other Steinerite fronts banned.
Under a new monarch ER could become mainstream. (Perhaps they could change their name to “CR”?) Watch out.
Never trust anyone with a Triodos Bank account.
What an extraordinary load of bullshit.
:-)))))))))
succinct & to the point,
beautiful!
:-)))))))))
N_, you certainly seem to have “a bee in your bonnet” over Rudolf Steiner.
No its Greens as well, anything that is not in his marxist, don’t make me laugh, short sight, he tacks with negative and derogatory connotations.
“Scotland has of course just contributed to this general atmosphere of repression by passing a completely unnecessary Hate Crime Bill”.
Rather than “the Athens of the North”, presumably Ednburgh will henceforth be called “the Sparta of the North”.
The only topics I find myself disagreeing with Craig on are scientific. I do wish he didn’t support lunatics like E R. Even by the terrible standards of official climate science they are ignorant and irrational (and mainstream climate science has been reeled in considerably over the past few years with one paper after another forcing admissions the previous modelling was overdone, good news that has of course received zero attention).
Oh? So the consensus is that things aren’t as bad as previously thought? That’s very good news. Could you refer me to your sources for this, I shall be happy to pass it around to my friends. Thanks in advance!
“So the consensus is that things aren’t as bad as previously thought? That’s very good news”.
It’s obvious that you mean exactly the opposite. If the consensus were that things aren’t too bad, you would be mortified. Well, be of good cheer: the “consensus” of the powers that be, the media, and the people at large remains that AGW is a deadly threat.
There is no point citing sources, as you would then seek to undermine or belittle them. So I shan’t bother.
Suffice it to say that global average temperatures have not been increasing recently; that in the slightly longer term they are more likely to decrease than to increase; and that, if they did increase slightly, it would be excellent news for almost everyone.
Once again, you manage to produce a post in which not a single point is correct. Your level of consistency is quite extraordinary, it must have taken a lifetime of practice, guided by those well versed in the art of denialism.
Shame you won’t be producing this evidence of yours! How rotten of you to withhold such good news from genuinely credible sources.
Don’t you mean that he has produced a post in in which you don’t agree with a single point? There is a difference, although this may be invisible to you.
The proposition is that burning fossil fuels is altering the climate in a way that is detrimental to Human Beings. I’m not saying that is the case, but let’s assume it for the purposes of this argument.
So, given the reality of climate change, what is Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg’s answer to this “crisis”? So-called Green Energy.
Solar panels made from plastics, windmills made of steel and concrete, batteries full of toxic chemicals and rare earth elements. All are difficult and expensive to maintain, have severely limited lifespans and are entirely reliant on fossil fuels for both manufacture and maintenance.
There’s also the little problem of “intermittency” – the fact that sometimes the wind stops blowing or the sun goes behind a cloud (or the Earth). Because of intermittency, every “Green” power station has to have back-up fossil fuel or nuclear capacity. Unfortunately, power stations cannot just be switched on. They can take days to reach generating capability so they have to be kept “ticking over” 24/7.
The reality is that the “Green” revolution will use MORE oil to generate the equivalent amount of energy.
The over-riding emergency that the planet is facing is not a (potential) slight increase in temperature, it is the millions of tons of useless plastic garbage and shoddily made clothes that get burnt, buried or dumped in the ocean on a daily basis. It is the destruction of the natural environment in the name of profit for the few.
Why are Greta and XR not telling us to make do with less? Why are they not telling us to stop buying iPhones? Why are they promoting a new industry that is actually entirely reliant on fossil fuel? Because they are the (mostly unwitting) tools of the Transnational Corporations and the trillionaire Oil Empires, the people who stand to make even more money from the “solution” to the problems they’ve already caused.
Stewart: I agree with much of what you say, although some of your points on renewable generation are a bit pessimistic, IMHO.
Miss Thunberg would be doing a lot more good if she demanded action from her followers, as well as the powers that be. After all, politicians will only take action if they stand to benefit as a general rule. If politicians started demanding people consume less, there will be a backlash – the demand for an end to mindless, accelerating consumerism has to come from the ground up.
Simply not buying something – as individuals – has a positive effect, frequently underestimated. Don’t eat meat and the meat industry will stop producing it, or at least reduce the supply. When enough people don’t eat meat, they might start wondering why so much of our tax money is being showered on the meat industry.
We don’t need new mobiles, computers and other such items on such a regular basis. Government could oblige manufacturers to support these products for far longer, so replacement is far more infrequent. It enrages me to throw out a perfectly good machine, because updates are no longer provided and everything becomes too insecure and out of date to function.
We need to stop thinking that a couple of foreign holidays a year, on cheap flights powered by tax-free fuel, is just a normal state of affairs which everyone is entitled to.
But this is not how capitalism works. That has to change, but unfortunately it’s a lot easier to get people to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
So you also disagree with the scientists on the matter of science.
Educate yourself and read Michael Mann’s new book, you know you want to!
P.S. Mainstream climate science hasn’t moved much in years, just an incremental gain in understanding. We are still Fu**ed.
What scientists are we talking about, real scientists, who use the Scientific Method, or climate “scientists”, who don’t?
And they don’t because you say so. No further proof required. Aren’t you a Covid-19 denialist too?
Their average age is below 25 years, Nick, and you will have to get used to seeing the police kettling school children in future, should this bill be pressed upon us. Children who are more clued up than most in this country.
If our generation would have realised what Rachel Carson and others wrote in the 1960s, and used their right to demonstrate then, if scientist for global responsibility’s messages had any input into political policy making then, we would not be in this position now.
Even by bog-standards of engineering reality – bill of materials – Extinction Rebellion are deluded – but hey, they don’t have a monoply on delusions about how and where we get energy from, and energy costs of getting it to where its needed and consumed (details posted in another comment above):
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/03/vigilant-over-vigils/comment-page-1/#comment-982348
Reclaim the Streets employed very expensive celebrity lawyers who told them the vigil was illegal and to call it off. Many still went.
What happened to these entitled individuals was no worse, in fact a lot less than what happened to decent human beings protesting lockdowns a few months ago. The Guardian classes applauded that and sneered. This is class warfare.
The BBC give favourable publicity to oil wars, fracking, and Extinction Rebellion.
Hmmm?
The BBC favourable to ER? Examples please.
BBC reporting of ER protest : images of pink inflatable octopus; sounds of happy clappy singing; interviews with smiling eloquent people.
BBC reporting of anti-war demo : images of riot police; sounds of sirens; interviews with masked screaming crusties.
The BBC is practically the PR arm of XR, if for no other reason than the profile of those attracted to XR matches almost exactly that of those who imagine the BBC to be the nations oracle.
The Labour Government created more than 3,600 new criminal offences under Tony Blair
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/more-than-3-600-new-offences-under-labour-918053.html
One of many reasons why Margaret Thatcher considered him to be her greatest achievement.
That number is an order of magnitude smaller than the ones that Tony Blair committed.
No economic system can be maintained long-term by physical repression alone, hence the necessity of “manufacturing consent”.
Before the advent of the Internet and social media, this was handled by what are now termed the ‘legacy media’, access to which was both economically (the expense of infrastructure, licensing and labour) and politically (security service vetting at the BBC, informers/agents masquerading as reporters) controlled. Combined with the censorship techniques isolated by Noam Chomsky decades ago as operating in all “democracies”, this enabled the establishment of system-friendly ‘agendas’ or ‘narratives’ which, over time, became “obviously true” (one of the fundamental characteristics of an ideology).
An important consequence of “obvious truth” was that the legacy media could use the excuse of “lack of space/time” to negate agenda-threatening narratives (there was never, of course, a lack of space/time to cover system-friendly narratives or, God forbid, advertising!). So for example, the time/space needed to maintain (and cite sources) that, during the 1960s, the CIA was the leading enabler of worldwide drug trafficking (in support of proxy anti-Communist groups) was far greater than that needed to write/exclaim “Bullshit” or “This is pure Russian propaganda” and move swiftly on.
Today, the Internet and social media threaten both the economic basis and the ideological hegemony of the ‘legacy media’ and we are seeing the results daily. Now that a majority of the population in the West do not believe what they read, see or hear in/from the MSM, establishment “journalism” is attacking, and demanding the censorship of, ‘alternative’ journalists (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-start-demanding-substack) and the State is taking the gloves off and creating Operation Mockingbird-like (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird) entities ‘in plain sight’.
Need one add that liberals everywhere are cheering on this effort.
Don’t ya know that social media is the Devil and destroyer of democracy! Full of conspiracy theorist and woke who will undermine everything we hold dear. Delete Facebook now!
The BBC and other legacy media told me.
Don’t worry though, once the Atlantic council and others have gained enough influence over Social Media content then it will become good.
What was striking, to me, was not merely that the police arrested the lady for no good reason, nor even that they felt it necessary to throw her on the ground while doing so – while disgraceful, it seems to be common practice while arresting anyone these days – but the film taken just before she was dragged off by the police, of a uniformed officer leaning in close to her face and pawing at her in an unmistakably lascivious fashion, while she seemed clearly uncomfortable but determined not to be intimidated.
Do the police not realise the immense burning hatred they inspire in all decent human beings?
Ten years for defacing a statue? What next, 15 years for calling Winston Churchill a mass-murdering c***?
“One death is a tragedy; a million are a statistic.”
To put it mildly, it’s clear the state is continuing to update the concept of “public order”, rather as Adolf Hitler did. The rulers are not satisfied with all they have achieved using “National Hygiene” ideology over the past 12 months.
As the rapidly organised YouGov poll on “the Clapham vigil” shows – it’s still Monday morning and its results have already been published – the rulers have found themselves an “edge”. “Leavers” are mostly anti-vigil, “Remainers” are pro. There is no doubt the war atmosphere will continue, regardless of how many pubs and hotels open this summer.
There will probably be some kind of prime minister-led or royal family-led equivalent of “national clapping” for the “rights of women” – some kind of symbol, hand signal, slogan, lapel badge, logo.
Just don’t ask about the ransom note. Remember, “she was only walking home”.
I didn’t understand what you meant about “ransom note”. I still don’t. Now I notice that the social media campaigns are all as if there was an assault, whereas he has actually first arrested on suspicion of kidnapping. But I don’t know much about the legal terminology so perhaps they are similar.
The Shropshire Star reported on 13 March the following information which afaik most media have ignored? They state he started a 12 hour shift on March 2nd at 7pm, which is contrary to most other media reports who state he worked a 6 hour shift at the US Embassy on 3 March from 2pm – 8pm. I suppose it’s possible he worked 18 hours during a 25 hour period. The email about the firearm is odd.
“His main job (Couzens) was uniformed patrol of diplomatic buildings, and Scotland Yard said he was not on duty at the time of Ms Everard’s disappearance.
On Saturday, the court heard Couzens is a trained firearms officer.
On March 2 he began a 12-hour shift at 7pm before going on leave.
He was due back at work on March 8 but on March 5 he reported that he was suffering from stress.
On March 6 he emailed his supervisor to say he did not want to carry a firearm anymore.”
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2021/03/13/sarah-everards-body-found-in-builders-bag-court-told/
Maybe it’s time to separate the roles of criminal police and political police. The political police would be there for political dissent like the Spanish police in Catalonia. Then it would be clear from the type of police attending the demonstration what the government’s objections were.
Why beat up the crowd if the Murder was un-political?
The government has had to face its own stupidity in passing laws that give the authorities permission to break the law. Condoning any crime completely destroys the power of the law.
The message of the vigil received by the police is therefore different to the message of those attending the vigil. The received message would have been to criticise the government’s stupidity in placing the police etc above the law, while the organisers were only protesting against male violence towards women.
The fact that the Labour leader forced his Party to vote for making the authorities above the law, basically means he is mentally unfit to be a leader. Especially as his message is that the Labour Party will only be electable if it shifts to the extreme right of traditional Tory agenda.
I very strongly believe that we as humans are not able to operate under unclear law. Starmer made a catastrophic mistake . We now have two idiots in parliament both saying that a policeman is above the law. So it’s not surprising the police themselves are confused. No wonder the press want to avoid the political issue by showing a beautiful redhead on the floor.
Sadly, in Scotland the same political sabotage of a Left wing Party has occurred. Nicola Sturgeon, by a combination of hounding Alex Salmond and the Thought crime Hate Bill, is the Foaming Right, while Ruth Davidson is the stable Conservative Party.
Are we clever enough at politics on the Left?
No. Corbyn still wrestling inside the nets of his anti semitism elephant trap. Tory grantees still wrestling with May’s soft Brexit deal.
Yes I’m a nutter. Nothing less than a nutter can beat Boris Johnson Nazi tendencies.
I immediately compared the police responses in the Vigil to the one at the Rangers supporters at both Ibrox and George Square. ie they did nothing, they allowed them to gather and to set off fireworks from within a large crowd in a public space. In light of COVID both gatherings were wrong in the sense that there was no/not enough social distancing. But what stood out to me was that the vigil, a peaceful activity, was broken up violently by the colleagues of the man accused of kidnapping and murdering Sarah Everard. It would have been entirely reasonable for them to try to ‘steward’ the event and call for participants to socially distance etc but how they behaved shows they have little idea of how to deal with people. I’ve never had a high opinion of the Met, it’s had so many problems over the years and much of it is their own fault. They have lowered their standards for recruiting to such an extent they will take people who have served prison time – is that really appropriate? Many who couldn’t be recruited by other forces will join the Met and transfer out at a later date. They’ll hire those sacked by other forces, even rehire those THEY sacked like Simon Harwood (the cop who was prosecuted for manslaughter over newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson) With their history of violence, decades of corruption in many of their departments and incompetence such as Cressida Dick’s leading the charge on the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes and then not being disciplined but promoted I am hardly surprised that this has happened. NB the outcry over de Menezes seemed to concentrate on his being the wrong person (fair enough) but missed the point that the Met had deliberately killed someone, they weren’t trying to arrest them, it was a killing plain and simple.
Sorry to rant but I feel strongly that the police should be ‘the best of us’ when actually they are far from it.
As a side note, free speech also extends to Nigel Farage, Scottish unionists, advocates of the death penalty, people who don’t believe in transgenderism, those who would like to see the return of national service and any person routinely labelled “fascist” by those of the left whose mental development arrested at 17. Just a reminder. Carry on.
Yes I agree free speech also applies to all those catagories that you mention.