Can you tell what it is yet? [1984 Version]

Factoring this trusty little quote from the MoD in to the equation:

The Middle Class Proletariat

The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite. Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.

Who would ever suspect that the story behind a nice gentle headline such as NUS starts campaign to oust leading Lib Dems might contain a confirmation of the State's virtually tacit declaration of war on anyone with half a conscience? Probably not many - but it does.

As police face continued criticism for failing to control the march, the Observer has learned that defence firms are working closely with UK armed forces and contemplating a "militarisation" strategy to counter the threat of civil disorder.

The trade group representing the military and security industry says firms are in negotiation with senior officers over possible orders for armoured vehicles, body scanners and better surveillance equipment.

The move coincides with government-backed attempts to introduce the use of unmanned spy drones throughout UK airspace, facilitating an expansion of covert surveillance that could provide intelligence on future demonstrations.

Derek Marshall, of the trade body Aerospace, Defence and Security (ADS), said that such drones could eventually replace police helicopters.

He added that military manufacturers had discussed police procurement policies with the government, as forces look to counter an identified threat of civil disobedience from political extremists.

Meanwhile police sources say they have detected an increase in the criminal intentions of political extremists and are monitoring "extreme leftwing activity" in light of last week's student protest.

The office of the National Co-ordinator for Domestic Extremism (NCDE) said it was feeding information to Scotland Yard's National Public Order Intelligence Unit, which holds a database of protest groups. NCDE, which in turn works closely with the Confidential Intelligence Unit that monitors political groups throughout the UK, said it had already recorded a rise in politically motivated disorder.

- The Guardian

Delightful to learn that these private military corporations have identified the general public as their new targets, an added bonus that State officials think so too. More wonderful still to learn of the rapidity with which "senior officers", such as the lovely fellows of the Association of Chief Police Officers, have tendered a sympathetic ear or two.

The police even shut down a web site -- which sort of backfired somewhat, what with the Internet being the way it is for now -- but it's very important everyone remembers that censorship only takes place in China or Iran, and probably Somalia too. That'd never happen here.

Not long ago, you'd have been a 'conspiracy theorist' if you thought there was the remotest possibility of the State censoring web sites or arming itself in earnest against the people that happen to live under its jurisdication.

It might be fascism, but is it still a 'conspiracy theory'?

Jean Charles de Menezes - gone, but never forgotten

There follows a copy of a missive issued by Justice4Jean, the Jean Charles de Menezes' family campaign for justice after the extra judicial execution of an innocent man at Stockwell underground station. The police have murdered others since and, as with the killing of Jean, have done so with impunity.

* Please circulate widely *

Dear all,

The Justice4Jean Campaign has launched an online petition today, on the 4th anniversary of Jean's death, calling on Transport for London and London Mayor Boris Johnson to allow the Mosaic of Jean Charles de Menezes to be erected outside Stockwell Tube station as a permanent memorial.

The petition reads as follows:

"We the undersigned call on Transport for London and the Mayor of London to allow the Mosaic of Jean Charles de Menezes to be erected outside Stockwell Tube station as a permanent memorial.

Jean Charles De Menezes was an innocent man who died in tragic circumstances after being shot dead by police in 2005. His story has touched people worldwide. The family and local community have maintained a temporary shrine for 4 years, outside Stockwell station, to express the huge amount of public sympathy about the manner and circumstances in which he died. We believe the mosaic, made by the family of Jean Charles with local artists, represents the best and most fitting replacement to this shrine - it celebrates his short life whilst ensuring his tragic death is never forgotten."

Please join us in signing the petition. It takes just 30 seconds, but can truly make a difference.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/120/justice-for-jean---never-forget

Once you have signed, you can help even more by asking your friends and family to sign as well.

Thank you!
Justice4Jean Campaign

When fascism comes to town....

It will probably look a little something like this.






The expression, "a captive audience", redefined.

Welcome to the prison ship.

--
Edit: Compare and contrast (via amtte).

Another miscarriage of justice averted by brave jury: Alleged "7/7 helpers" cleared and found Not Guilty

From J7....

"Injustice upon injustice, many others in a similar position || have not been so lucky."

-- Lawyer, Imran Khan

The second trial of the so-called "7/7 helpers" reached its conclusion today. Waheed Ali, 25, Sadeer Saleem, 28, and Mohammed Shakil, 32, were all cleared of the charges of assisting in 7/7 at Kingston Crown Court. After nearly seven days of deliberation a jury of seven men and five women cleared the 3 accused of helping to plan the events of 7th July 2005.

The not guilty verdict comes as little surprise given the QC for the prosecution, Neil Flewitt, was reduced to admitting that the case centred on purely circumstantial evidence, circumstantial evidence which he alleged created a compelling picture of guilt. Aside from perhaps wondering when circumstantial evidence suddenly become "a compelling picture of guilt", the brave jury appears to have thought the "compelling picture" was far from conclusive.

The prosecution failed to do so much as produce CCTV footage which purported to show the three men on the alleged "hostile reconnaissance mission" and, furthermore, no proof, nor even any evidence, was produced to support the notion that the accused had even been on the underground during the sightseeing visit to London.

Andy Hayman, the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police -- who was forced to resign from his senior position with the police ranks after various improprieties came to light about his claiming large amounts of cash in expenses for trips abroad with a woman police sergeant -- said:

"The end of this trial probably represents the last throw of the dice for the police investigation into 7/7. It is extremely frustrating to reach this milestone knowing that people who aided and abetted the murders of 52 innocent people remain at large. || But at the end of that investigation the evidence that could be put before the court was largely circumstantial. That was the only evidence that was found because, perhaps, that was the only evidence there was to be found."

A report on the verdict by the BBC suggests that the decision "raises questions about the evidence gathered in one of the largest investigations ever run by Scotland Yard." In the almost four years that have passed since 7/7, the State has touted a factually inaccurate and twice amended Official Report issued by the Home Office, questionable investigative tactics by the police, and a prosecution brought by the Crown Prosecution Service on the basis of what was known to be purely circumstantial evidence.

Following the verdicts lawyer Imran Khan issued a statement on behalf of Sadeer Saleem, calling for an inquiry into why the prosecution was brought. J7 fully support Sadeer Saleem's call for an inquiry into why this prosecution was brought. Video below courtesy of the BBC.

J7 also fully supports the demand by the bereaved for fully open and public inquests for the victims to be held immediately, before the new Coroners and Justice bill passes through Parliament.

Reporting restrictions that were imposed on the trial have now been lifted and J7 expect further information to be revealed about the trial proceedings, the events alleged to have occurred on 7/7, and the wealth of links and interconnections between various alleged terror plots and individuals.

When considered in conjunction with the lies told in the ongoing attempts to cover up the hitherto unknown truth about various events in July 2005, including 7/7, 21/7 and the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, today's verdict raises yet more questions about the behaviour of the government, police and 'security' services. More recently we have witnessed: The rioting police brutality tactics that led to the death of Ian Tomlinson at the London G20 protests, complete with a stream of lies from the police, the IPCC and even the coroners; and the high-profile, armed mass-arrests of 12 Pakistani students against whom the most compelling piece of evidence appeared to be a bag of sugar, all of whom were eventually released without charge and immediately threatened with deportation.

Consequently, one might begin to suspect that the UK has fallen victim to something of a dictatorial State in which any and all members of the general public are guilty, to be held accountable until they can prove themselves innocent, while provably mendacious and guilty public officials are barely even challenged, much less ever justly held to account for their actions.

For updates on the verdict as they happen, please see the J7 People's Investigation Forum thread.

J7 again reiterates its call for an independent public inquiry, to be held outside of the remit of the shameful Inquiries Act 2005, and once again calls on the government and police to Release the Evidence which they continue to claim provides "a compelling picture of guilt" for those that stand accused of being responsible for the events of 7th July 2005.

Please show your support for J7's campaign for truth and justice and sign the J7 Release The Evidence petition.

Onwards.

Rioting Police Physician, Heal Thy Self

Smokey mirrors policing

It would be eminently possible to pen a big long rant about the entirely staged smashing of a few RBS windows during the G20 protests that occurred in the city, perhaps asking why it might have been that their windows weren't boarded up when just about every other financial-related building was, all in anticipation of a level of violence that, on the part of the human beings labelled as 'protesters' and 'anarchists', never materialised.

But what's the point?

You can search for photos of the RBS window smashing incident yourself and note the way in which in a crowd of thousands of people the RBS window smashers coincidentally happened to be surrounded by professional film and camera wielders, all eagerly lapping up the minimal faux devastation of an empty building for a few front page headlines about how ordinary people are everything that is wrong with the world.

Cameras at the ready, Staged Media Operation Fred the Shred is underway

Who knows, you might even find a few of the photographs that show fully tooled-up riot police with cameras already inside the building and filming out, almost as if they were waiting for the incident to occur at a predetermined time and place. They might even look like a bit like this.

Peek-a-boo Rioting Police Operation

There will also always be those who, under the banner of "Telling you what they won't", will endeavour to pass such things off as nothing of any great concern. In doing so, the last vestiges of their credibility melts into air as the pretence of "telling you what they won't" manifests itself quite clearly as "telling you exactly the same thing they will".

It would be entirely possible to wax lyrical about the rioting police 'kettling' tactics -- detention without charge, en masse -- as practiced for decades and which followed the carefully stage-managed RBS window smashing incident, mentioning how one of the main functions of kettles is to boil.

But what would be the point of that?

Subjugating the general population at the behest of propertied and financial interests is the job of the police. It's what they've always done. This is nothing new and it is now clearer than it has been in recent times. The police were established to protect the property and interests of the haves from the have-nots. It's what they were created to do and it is all that they continue to do while seemingly completely oblivious to the notion that, when it comes to the crunch - credit or otherwise, they are as expendable as the rest of us.

Under capitalism, protection of property is of greater concern than the protection and well-being of human beings. When was the last time the police arrested a war criminal, particularly any British war criminals who are a part of whatever the current ruling administration might be? Or even the benefit thieving MPs who think nothing of living a life of luxury at the expense of honest, decent, hard working people who pay the money demanded with menaces usually referred to as 'tax'? The reality of the situation is that you're more likely to find police protecting war criminals.

G20: The fascism of the few manifested as the subjugation of the many.

"The country's biggest force, the Metropolitan police || believe that large sections of the population have become increasingly politicised, and there is a growing sense that the current restrictions on demonstrations are too light." -- The Guardian

On the basis that a picture tells a thousand words, the Metropolitan Police seem to be pioneering radical and revolutionary new 'alternative medicine' techniques with regard to assisting people at protests, as the photograph below clearly demonstrates.

Police medic wielding magical healing stick

We need more photographic and video evidence to make its way into the public domain and to create a media gallery of State employed thugs, FitWatch style. This gallery should be available to the public in the same way other common thugs and criminals are named and shamed to the world, so the public can protect themselves from them in times when it is blatantly clear that the police aren't on the side of humanity. We need the names of the thugs and their numbers and we need justice for the crimes committed in the defence of a system of operation that led to the battering of ordinary, peaceful, defenceless people and ultimately the murder of an innocent man, Ian Tomlinson, who wasn't even part of the G20 protest.

When police or government representatives endeavour to pass the murder of Ian Tomlinson off with a casual, "Sometimes it's difficult to tell ordinary people from protesters", they must be challenged on the issue of whether brutalising an ordinary member of the public for no valid reason is acceptable behaviour in any situation. For an ordinary member of the public is what Ian Tomlinson was before his murder at the hands of rioting police, and human beings are what every other ordinary member of the public in attendance at the G20 protests were and still are, excluding the already identified agents provacateurs responsible for a few media headlines. Labelling human beings as 'protesters' and/or 'anarchists' is no justification for any of the actions of the rioting police.

Below is the video footage obtained by The Guardian showing the big, fearless, hard-man assault from behind, on a man with his hands in his pockets, of those operating under the banner of "Working together for a safer London". A valid question might be, "A safer London for whom?"

Full marks to The Guardian for obtaining footage of the police brutality that led to the death of Ian Tomlinson and full marks to whomever filmed the footage in the first place. Now wait for the whitewash.

--
Update 09/04/09@01:28 Oh look, another of those lovely full-face mask wearing, rioting police types, hiding inside the otherwise empty RBS building. (Thanks@amtte)

Fancy seeing you here

The Rioting Police occupation of RBS seems to be fairly well documented, elsewhere in the world.

Welcome to prison ship Britain, TSG RBS computer says no.

Surprise, surprise. It's the Territorial Support Group doing what they're best at, again.

Met chief faces quiz over 'SAS involvement' in Menezes death

Of course, the title of this post, taken from a Daily Mail headline of yesteryear, is an impossibility. There is no full-time Met chief to face a quiz over SAS involvement in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes any more. This is because one of the queen's most crafty relatives, bendy-bastard Boarish Johnson, decreed it must be. Johnson did so dictatorially, after first seizing control of the Metropolitan Police Authority, to, as he claimed, resolve a "democratic deficit" in the way in which Met chiefs are appointed. Dictatorship is certainly one way of resolving a "democratic deficit", if only through its complete removal of any process that is remotely democratic.

Moving forward, looking back. Stories from the past, where are they now? History rewritten in the blink of an eye.

The headline "Met chief faces quiz over 'SAS involvement' in Menezes death" could, however, have been true at the time of its publication. And indeed it was. On 9th September 2007 a most off-message news alert appeared featuring the very same headline:

Met chief faces quiz over 'SAS involvement' in Menezes death
Daily Mail - UK

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair is facing questions today over whether the SAS was involved in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. ...

Naturally, that's the sort of bombastic announcement that demands immediate attention. Except, in the brief period of time between the story being published, the email alert being received and visiting the page containing the story, the historical revisionists had struck in a bid to suppress another piece of history's jigsaw.

Sir Ian Blair's future in doubt as political critics renew attack
Daily Mail - UK

Sir Ian Blair faced growing questions about his future today as London politicians expressed new concerns about the way he runs the Met.

A somewhat tamer headline and no mention at all of any SAS involvement in the events of July 2005. The Times though was less repentant when it posed the question shortly after what Oxford Professor of Jurisprudence, John Gardner, called "the police’s Mossad-style execution of a ’suspect’ (who turned out to be a completely innocent passer-by) on Friday 22 July"

July 31, 2005
Could Stockwell 'police officer' be a soldier?
BRITISH special forces soldiers took part in the operation that led to the shoot-to-kill death of an innocent Brazilian electrician with no connection to the London bombings, defence sources said last week. Jean Charles de Menezes was tailed by a surveillance team on July 22 as he caught a bus to Stockwell Underground station in south London. He was shot eight times when he fled from his pursuers at the Tube station.

The Ministry of Defence admitted last week that the army provided “technical assistance” to the surveillance operation but insisted the soldiers concerned were “not directly involved” in the shooting.

The Guardian was also happy to confirm the use of a "New special forces unit" that apparently tailed de Menezes, highlighting the involvement of the unit descended from Northern Ireland's notorious 14 Int, the Special Reconnaissance Regiment. Would 14 Int send out surveillance teams without armed backup in their day? What about its "new normal" equivalent, the SRR, when dealing with the potential threat of alleged "suicide bombers"? It was even reported by the Sunday Herald that, "SRR personnel are also believed to have been on the tube train when he was shot".

The army was "not directly involved" in the execution of de Menezes, said the MoD. But then, it has long been established that MoD policy dictates that "it would never confirm SAS involvement in any operation." Further lack of detail from the MoD was elicited by Tom Griffin in September 2006.

Back to standing on the square whose number is one.

Meanwhile, the inquest into the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes by unknown, unnamed and guaranteed anonymous killers continues at the Oval cricket ground. Daily transcripts of the inquest proceedings are published on the inquest web site which was established to the same template as that of the Diana Inquest. Submitted evidence exhibits are also available here.

Marvel as the legendary Michael Mansfield QC, acting on behalf of the de Menezes family, repeatedly falls short of pursuing potentially interesting and revealing lines of questioning. Then wonder why.

Additional information and commentary is available at the Justice4Jean web site and the J4J Inquest blog. There is also extensive coverage of the proceedings over at the J7 Jean Charles de Menezes forum and the dedicated J7 Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest forum.

--
Edit: So far, there's no mention of Anthony Larkin and his infamous "bomb belt with wires" quote, nor Mark Whitby and the "padded jacket", nor has there been any mention of another apparent eye-witness, Sue Thomason, an early source for the idea that 11 shots had been fired.

J7 Exclusive: Peter Power's CV Fakery

According to recent figures, approximately half of jobseekers tell lies on their CVs and the figure is up 10% on the results of a similar survey last year. So prevalent is the problem of CV lies that, in January, Channel 4 dumped their TV nanny, Claire Verity - previously accused by viewers of child cruelty, after she failed to prove that she hadn't faked her qualifications.

Following the events in New York on 11th September 2001, one woman, Tania Head, emerged from the debris with a distinctive tale of woe. Ms Head claimed to be on the 96th floor of the south tower when the first 'plane' struck. Her husband, Dave, was apparently on the 100th floor of the north tower. Head claims that the impact of the second 'plane' rendered her unconscious and badly burnt. Her account made her one of only 19 survivors who had been at or above the point of impact when the planes hit. In time, Head became no less than President of the World Trade Centre Survivors' Network.

Shortly after the 6th anniversary of the day that has come to be known as 9/11, the Telegraph announced that Tania Head, like half of all jobseekers, had lied on her CV:

"[For] it emerged yesterday that the big, bubbly lady with the brave smile and the most heart-rending of tales may have invented the entire story. Consciously or unconsciously, disaster victims will sometimes confuse a few details but the enormous question mark hanging over Head is whether she was ever in the Twin Towers at all when the planes struck.

Multiple inconsistencies in her story emerged after the New York Times said it tried to interview her in recent weeks about her experiences to coincide with the sixth anniversary of the attack."

When pressed, a lawyer hired by Ms Head said, "With regard to the veracity of my client's story, neither my client, nor I, have any comment", and the Telegraph article further noted:

"What became clear yesterday was that no one has ever bothered to verify the key details of Head's remarkable WTC story or asked her to elaborate on others...."

When an event of such significance occurs, the verification of key details is of the utmost importance. Yet, as the case of Tania Head amply demonstrates, this verification is not something that mainstream news and media organisations can be trusted to perform, not even with an event often billed as 'the day the world changed'. Consequently, a liar can become the president of a prominent survivors group, despite their story never having been verified by anyone, and with no questions being asked for a good number of years.

On 7th July 2005, London's transport network was rocked by what were reported to be a series of up to seven explosions staggered over the space of an hour. In time the number of explosions was reduced to four, three Underground (as opposed to six) and one on a bus (as opposed to the reports of three exploded buses) and the staggered Underground blast timings became, "almost simultaneous". It was a full two days before the story of staggered blast timings on the Underground morphed into "almost simultaneous" blasts.

Oddly, on the day of 7/7, two men were to introduce bouts of jarring cognitive dissonance into the proceedings.

One of these men was the ex-Chief of Mossad, Efraim Halevi, who published an article on 7th July 2005 in the Jerusalem Post which spoke of, "the multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place today on the London transportation system" with "near pefect execution". How Halevi knew of "multiple, simultaneous explosions" two days before the Metropolitan Police and the companies charged with running London's transportation network is still a mystery. Quite how he knew of the "near perfect execution" is also a mystery.

Another bout of cognitive dissonance came when another man announced on BBC Radio Five Live (MP3) that, at the time of the explosions, he was, "running an exercise" for "a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning". He later confirmed somewhat dismissively of his exercise, "it was based on bombs going off, to the time, the locations, all this sort of stuff." The source of these quotes was Peter Power, the Managing Director of a private 'crisis management' firm, Visor Consultants, and a former Metropolitan policeman for 19 years.

It now transpires that Mr Power has, like half of job applicants and the president of a prominent terrorist attack survivor group, been a little creative with the facts that constitute the truth of the matter. In the public domain there exists an overview of Mr Power's working history which goes a little like the one promulgated by the BBC as part of their London Under Attack Panorama programme:

PETER POWER
Crisis management specialist & government adviser
Visor consulting 1995- present
Director BET Group Security 1992-1994
Senior Officer Metropolitan Police 1971-1992

However, the sterling cooperative research efforts of the July 7th Truth Campaign have uncovered quite an anomaly in what would otherwise be a fairly standard CV for a senior Metropolitan Policeman.

The problem with the version of Mr Power's history is that between 1990 and 1993 Peter Power was working neither for the Metropolitan Police, nor for BET, but instead for the Dorset Police.

Ignoring for a moment the apparent sideways and backwards step to a rural police force from a prominent role with the Metropolitan Police, but pausing for a moment to reflect on why such a step may have occurred, one can only wonder why someone with a bent for shameless self-promotion might be so reticent about the three years of his career with the Dorset Police.

Perhaps it has something to do with the circumstances in which he left Dorset Police? After all, if your career history included you being suspended from your job as a policeman, for a period of six months, before you retired on the grounds and pension of "ill health" after a file about you, compiled during an 'internal investigation', had been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, maybe you wouldn't want to make a song and dance about it either.

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign have the full details of Peter Power's CV Fakery here and here.

Additional commentary here and here.

---

Update: Some post-Valentine's Day love regarding the Peter Power Wikipedia WikiWar™ here. Watch real live Internet sock puppets, as opposed to the tired, old and worn very thin sock puppets in the press and on TV, on Peter Power's Wikipedia page.

Note: The New York Times says:

This digital-age deception has a name, “sock-puppeting,” and a precise definition — the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company.

Funny that. Fake history, fake survivors and fake online identities, all in one story, all at the same time.

British Oppression Downing Street protest - the usual suspects strike again

Well, well, well, or not, as the case may be. Friday 15th June appears to have a "Muslim" protest organised at which Muslims are urged to "Respond to the call of Allah and the Messenger." This, apparently, means that Muslims should protest against British Oppression outside Downing Street, although this is likely to have to be outside the fortress gates of Downing Street, rather than immediately outside the front door of number 10, if it even gets that far because Downing Street happens to be part of an exclusion zone that prevents the population of the UK from protesting against anything, much less British Oppression, anywhere near Parliament or Downing Street without first having obtained express permission for so doing. Of course, there is nothing oppressive about having to obtain express permission from the very State against whom you wish to protest, unless it happens in some far off land such as Uzbekistan. Doublethink is good for you and better for your country.

Pickled Politics, aptly named as its politics often appears somewhat pickled, picked up on the forthcoming event earlier this week, and suggested that the protest is being organised by Hizb ut-Tahrir. Curiously though, the post's author noted that there was no information available on which to base such an allegation about who is behind the event, other than circumstantial evidence. A distinct lack of information about something always piques The Antagonist's interest in much the same way as do high-profile individuals who portray themselves to be something other than they really are for profit, publishing deals, and personally and politically expedient self and State serving agendas.

Top billing on the britishoppression.com links list (most of which weren't working) is "Man made law", along with "Anti Islam" both of which subliminally convey the message that British oppression is solely a Muslim issue and that only Muslims are subject to the raft of laws to which every subject in this country is subjected and by which every subject is subjugated. This piqued The Antagonist's interest still further for an approach that portrays Muslims as the sole targets of British oppression denies the history of British imperialism such as we know it to be as well as the material conditions of existence. Yes, Muslims are suffering, and have suffered, at the hands of British and, more recently, American oppression but so too has just about every other race, colour and creed known to man, and that includes the white, working-class British people more commonly referred to as 'chavs' and 'hoodies'.

In the last few days posters for the British Oppression protest have started appearing and getting people's backs up in various parts of the UK, including London and Birmingham and it was correct of Pickled Politics' Sunny to pick up on the lack of information about the organisers, although perhaps a little misguided to postulate that the event may be organised by Hizb ut-Tahrir without first conducting some further research.

In fact, a spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, Dr Imran Waheed, has expressly denounced the notion that Hizb ut-Tahrir has anything to do with the protest and is quoted in the Birmingham Mail:

"We have no link whatsoever to the material that has been fly-posted in Birmingham. We believe that the posting of such material damages community relations and does nothing to create harmony between the city's residents. In Birmingham our activists work in the local community, encouraging the people of Birmingham to speak out against injustice and oppression at home or abroad through peaceful political means."

So, if Hizb ut-Tahrir are not behind the British Oppression protest, who is?

Given that the only information that exists about the organisers of the protest is the domain name on which it appears, britishoppression.com, a littler further investigation is required. A WHOIS query turns up the following:

Visit AboutUs.org for more information about BRITISHOPPRESSION.COM
AboutUs: BRITISHOPPRESSION.COM

Registration Service Provided By: LO-39482k
Contact: domains4@anonymousmails.org
Visit: domainsgolive.com

Domain name: BRITISHOPPRESSION.COM

Registrant Contact:

Faruk Miah (faruk.miah2000@yahoo.co.uk)
+44.07745 388 220
Fax: +.
24 Little Green Terrace, White Road,
Manchester, Manchester M90 9JH
GB

Administrative Contact:

Faruk Miah (faruk.miah2000@yahoo.co.uk)
+44.07745 388 220
Fax: +.
24 Little Green Terrace, White Road,
Manchester, Manchester M90 9JH
GB

Technical Contact:

Faruk Miah (faruk.miah2000@yahoo.co.uk)
+44.07745 388 220
Fax: +.
24 Little Green Terrace, White Road,
Manchester, Manchester M90 9JH
GB

Status: Locked

Name Servers:
dns1.name-services.com
dns2.name-services.com
dns3.name-services.com
dns4.name-services.com
dns5.name-services.com

Creation date: 17 Apr 2007 22:58:08
Expiration date: 17 Apr 2008 22:58:08

First off, the Registrant, Administrative and Technical contact details are false. There is no Little Green Terrace in Manchester, nor even a White Road. Nor does Manchester have a postcode of "M90 9JH", although there is an M90 postcode which happens to be Manchester Airport, a place that recently featured in the news as three men were arrested there, allegedly in connection with the events of 7th July 2005. The britishoppression.com site appears to be hosted by Pacific Internet in Hong Kong.

Secondly, note the date on which the domain britishopression.com was registered, 17th April 2007, because rather a lot has happened since and rather a curious lot at that. Despite the domain only being registered for five weeks, and the fact that fly-posters advertising the event have just started to spring up, in the five weeks that has transpired since the domain's registration, the white supremacist, neo-Nazi thugs who stand to benefit from the billed protest almost as much as the State itself have managed to pool their miniscule collective-brain resource in opposition and have rallied together to whip up a "No to British Oppression demonstration" petition addressed to the British Government and Metropolitan Police requesting that the day of action be stopped before it takes place, which is exactly the sort of thing you'd expect them to do.

The date on which the petition opposing the protest was established is not published on the petition but as the britishoppression.com domain was registered on 17th April 2007 it would be safe to assume that it was set-up at some point in the five week period between then and now. In that time, and at the time of writing, the petition has managed to gather a staggering 645 signatures, complete with the usual accompanying barrage of sickening and hideously racist diatribes.

The founder of petition, one Beverley Kerry (beverley.kerry@talk21.com) of Ilkeston, Derbyshire, has a bit of a thing for overtly racist petitions and is also running an "End religion sanctioned animal torture" petition to Asda and Walmart (443 signatures) which cleverly ignores animal torture by the global pharma, cosmetics and traditional animal slaughter industries, as well as an "End Halal" petition to Safeway supermarket (880 signatories). So, it would appear, Mrs Beverley Kerry aka odinsgal88 aka OG -- alleged to have links to the far-right group Combat 18 -- has a considerable problem with Muslims in general. Furthermore, given the similarities between the processes by which both Halal meat and Kosher meat is produced -- a method that involves the draining of animal's blood -- both petitions are, by logical extension, not only anti-Islamic but also anti-Jewish which, again, is precisely the sort of ignorant, blanket, racist nonsense the likes of which only the deficient brains of reactionary, xenophobic, neo-Nazis are capable.

Interestingly, the anti-British Oppression petition suggests that, "this [British Oppression] proposed day of action could lead to re-occurences [sic] of the devastation we saw in the northern towns of England in the summer of 2001 in which countless Muslims were involved in damage and rioting leaving a trail of devastation and a huge bill in their wake." For those with short memories, the rioting referred to was termed the Bradford Riot, a reference to the events that took place on 7th July that year, the Bradford Riot being on 7/7/2001, unlike the other devastation allegedly caused by Muslims, the London bombings, which happened four years later on 7/7/2005. Some coincidence, eh?

While all of this is interesting in and of itself, it doesn't tell us who is behind the British Oppression web site. However, Faisal Haque, writing in his Telegraph blog, A Journey Through British Islam, does and -- surprise, surprise, if you hadn't guessed already -- it's the usual suspects again, namely: Omar Bakri Mohammad, Al-Muhajiroun, Al-Ghurabaa, the Saved Sect and the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, to whom Trevor Abu Omar Brooks Izzadeen also belongs. Based on his findings Haque, quite correct in his analysis, writes:

I believe that this demo is being organised by agent provocateurs who will fuel the Government’s propaganda that the Muslim community is full of ‘radicalised’ hotheads. It will damage community relations and will be used to justify further erosion of the civil liberties of ordinary Muslims and non-Muslims. Judging by the inflammatory postings on the petition website, it is clear that the mere advertising of this demonstration is causing a wave of Islamophobia.

The question that must be asked is how the organisers have managed to secure permission for the demonstration at Downing Street, inside the exclusion zone? I hate to be sceptical, but I wonder whether the Government does not mind such events from taking place, as they can be capitalised on later, as has been seen in the past.

I certainly won’t be attending the demo and would advise my brothers and sisters to completely boycott it.

Not only must the question be asked about how the organisers have managed to secure permission for the demonstration at Downing Street, inside the exclusion zone, the question must also be asked about how racist, neo-nazi groupings have managed to rally 645 people against something that could only have been known about by anyone other than the organisers just five weeks ago, well in advance of the event receiving any publicity, long before the site contained anything more than the front page and a couple of PDFs, and long before Muslims -- in whose name the protest is allegedly being organised -- knew of its existence.

The British Oppression demonstration organised for 15th June 2007 outside Downing Street appears to be a rather clever set-up by those who seek to gain from setting up antagonisms between ordinary human beings on the basis of superficial differences. More correctly it would be a very clever set-up if the people upon whom such confidence tricks are consistently being played weren't already wise to the true nature of the tactics that comprise the State's war on people, tactics which include the State having at its disposal a handful of radical whoevers -- in this case "Muslims" -- whose core business is cropping up and making a lot of noise when it best serves the interests of the State for them to do so.

The British Oppression event and the separatist basis for its organisation is a misdirection of the highest order. Muslims would do well to steer clear of it, as they would do well to steer clear of any other event whose founding premises are based on the same divisive, divide and conquer tactics that seek to segregate people from each other and which only ever serve the interests of the State and never the best interests of the people.

Luckily for the population at large, those elements of the State tasked with pulling off such high profile media stunts have blown almost all of the radical "Muslim" resources at their disposal -- hence the resurgence of Omar Bakri Mohammad and associated groupings and hence why Herr Doktor John Reid is happy to call a State of Emergency that would annihilate everyone's human rights -- as the State endeavours to manufacture from Islam "a threat bigger than Hitler", a threat the magnitude of which only the State itself could ever represent, just as it was Hitler's own fascist state that presented the greatest threat the German people ever faced.


Update: The Cult of the Amateur strikes again as Inayat Bunglawala regurgitates some stuff he read on the Internet, strips it of analysis and meaning and puts it out as the opinion of an 'expert' two weeks after the fact - a form of professional journalism better known as plagiarism. Nor is he the first 'writer' to do so. What a truly septic isle on which we live.

Home Office Official 7/7 Account "not fit for purpose"

On 14th December 2005, after once again denying everyone the right to a public inquiry, even under the flawed legislative framework of the Inquiries Act 2005 -- a piece of legislation which, handily for the State, came into force on 7th June 2005, exactly one month before the day that was to launch a thousand calls for a public inquiry -- Prime Minister Tony Blair said of the London bombings:

“I do accept that people want to know exactly what happened, and we will make sure that they do.... We will bring together all the evidence that we have and publish it, so that people —the victims and others— can see exactly what happened..... we will publish a full account of all the information that we have.”

-- Tony Blair, Prime Minister
14th December 2005

On 11th May 2006, the Home Office published an anonymously penned document entitled, "Report of the Official Account of the Bombings London on 7th July 2005" which, apparently, was the Government's publication of "all the evidence" so "that people-the victims and others- can see exactly what happened". In other words, "a full account of all the information" the government had.

Within two months the report was discredited as a flawed and inaccurate version of events as the Home Secretary was forced to stand before Parliament and say:

“The official account that we provided to the House states that the train on which the bombers travelled left Luton station at 7.40 am. The police have now told us that that is incorrect—the train in fact left Luton station at 7.25 am. It did, however, arrive at Kings Cross at 8.23 am, as recorded in the official account. Although that does not appear to affect anything else in the official account, it is nevertheless an error, which is why I report it to the House. I can understand why this may be of concern to some. I have asked the police, as Members would expect, for a full report on how that discrepancy came about. I will ensure that the official account is amended and will write to the survivors and to the families of the victims on this matter.”

The information about the 7.40am Luton to King's Cross Thameslink train having been cancelled on 7th July 2005 was put into the public domain by J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign in August 2005. Now, over a year on from the publication of the flawed Home Office narrative and the official account is yet to be amended.

By the end of August 2006, after having already acknowledged one major error in the Home Office account of the events, John Reid was forced to write to those directly affected by the events of 7/7 acknowledging another equally egregious error:

Those who attended the Edgware Road meeting believed that there was a possibility of a second error in the Official Account. They said that Mohammed Sidique Khan was by the second set of double doors in the tube carriage at the time of the attack, whereas the Official Account states that Khan was ''most likely near the standing area by the first set of double doors.''

My officials have made enquiries of the Metropolitan Police. The police have confirmed that the wording of the Official Account accurately reflects their initial conclusions following statements they took from witnesses and their early examination of the scene. This shows that the bomb probably exploded near to the first set of doors. But where exactly the bomb exploded has yet to be established. The police are currently awaiting the final report from the Forensic Explosives Laboratory. This will be vital in determining the precise location of the bomb at the time of its detonation.

The wording in the Official Account therefore accurately reflects the police's understanding of the initial examination of the scene. The preface of the Official Account makes it clear that ''the evidence is not yet the full picture'' because it was known at the time of writing that more evidence might emerge from the ongoing police investigation. To date, none of the forensic evidence suggests that the Official Account is incorrect in stating where Khan was ''most likely'' to have been located prior to the explosion. Should the police revise their initial conclusions in the light of further information, an update will be issued.

If it's "probably" indefinite articles you want, the "not fit for purpose" Home Office are "most likely" the people to call.

Needless to say, no further information appears to have come to light. Not about the location of the blast, nor the nature of the explosives used in the attack which to date have not been identified, nor have the explosives allegedly found in the cars at Luton about which the Home Office report states, "One car contained explosive devices of a different and smaller kind from those in the rucksacks." In total, that's two lots of explosives that the official conspiracy theory has thus far failed to identify, the train the accused are alleged to have caught, and the precise location of at least one of the blasts, and still the government endeavours to portray the report as a credible document rather than the insult to everyone's intelligence that it is.

In all these cases the required updates to the Official Account have not been made, nor explanations given, and in the interim John Reid has resigned quietly from his position as Home Secretary, just in case the news were to break in more than a local paper that his nephew was convicted of possessing two deadly weapons in public, but not before suggesting once more than human rights were standing in the way of the State doing whatever it pleases.

As the second anniversary of 7/7 fast approaches, the next Home Secretary is also going to have their work cut out in connection with the government's alleged publication of "all the information that [they] have" about the London bombings.

Quoting from the Home Office Report of the Official Account of the London Bombings on 7th July 2005 which now contains at least two officially acknowledged errors:

There was at the time of the attacks, reports of a “5th bomber”. It was thought, because of witness statements and CCTV, that there was a “5th man” with the group travelling down from Luton. Inquiries showed the individual was a regular commuter and he was eliminated from the inquiry. Also in the period immediately following the attacks, one man was arrested in connection with the investigation but he was released without charge. In subsequent weeks, a further man who had claimed to be the “5th bomber” was also arrested and later charged with wasting police time. There is no intelligence to indicate that there was a fifth or further bombers.

According to the government's official conspiracy of how 7/7 came to be there was no "5th bomber", nor a "5th man" involved, save for Naveed Fiaz (the "one man [who] was arrested") who was arrested shortly after 7/7 when his brother, Ejaz Fiaz (the man originally blamed for the Piccadilly Line incident, something we're all meant to have forgotten by now) was nowhere to be found. Naveed Fiaz was subsequently released without charge and remained the only person to be arrested in connection with 7/7 until Thursday 22nd March 2007. Meanwhile, another "5th bomber" who had been foisted upon the world by the self-proclaimed News of the World was charged with wasting police time in much the same way as the News of the World wastes everyone else's time. The resounding message from all of this is clear, there was no "5th bomber".

So, if there was indeed no "5th bomber" or "5th man" as the official conspiracy theory of 7/7 would have us believe, one might then be tempted to ask what the police are doing rounding up Mohammed Sidique Khan's extended and well-respected family almost two years after 7th July 2005 and repeatedly accusing at least one of them of being the "5th bomber".

Today's Guardian has an Ian Cobain interview with Imran Motala who was recently arrested in a blaze of publicity along with Mohammed Sidique Khan's wife and Motala's cousin, Hasina Patel, and her brother Arshad Patel. All three were released without charge after seven days of questioning about 7/7 while the fourth person arrested during the high-profile early morning raids, Khalid Kaliq, remains in custody.

A few quotes from Ian Cobain's Guardian interview with Imran Motala:

"If I had been the 'fifth bomber', I could have set off an explosion in August 2005,"
....
"They didn't just think I had with-held information about the bombings, they thought I was involved, that I was to have been the fifth bomber," he said. "They asked me: 'Are you the fifth bomber? Were you meant to be the fifth bomber? Did you bottle out in the end?'"

Mr Motala says police also suspect he was the unidentified male who bought the rucksacks which contained the bombs from a Millets store in Leeds six days before the bombings.

While in custody he learned that he had been under surveillance for a year: he and members of his family had been followed, all of his previous employers had been interviewed, and he strongly suspects that his family home in the Lozells area of Birmingham was bugged when West Midlands police raided the property last year, ostensibly looking for firearms. Despite the lengthy surveillance operation, no evidence was found that would justify charges against him.

When asked about 7/7, Motala replied:

"I said it was a cowardly act, that it did nobody any good, that it ruined many people's lives. I said that my way of fighting against the Iraq war was to join the march which was held in London. Suddenly there were a million and one questions about the war and why I opposed it."

Peaceful protest and terrorism, if you thought there was a difference, you were wrong. Hitting the ground running in his new role as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair pointed out to early morning TV viewers on Sunday 6th February 2005 that, "I don't think people should distinguish Crime and Terrorism too easily." If the crime is that of having a conscience, the peaceful protest that ensues from having a conscience and acting upon that conscience becomes both a crime and terrorism in one fell swoop. With the suspension of habeus corpus, the presumption of innocence all but annihilated and replaced with trial-by-media, and the almost complete lack of legal recourse to remedy any of this, the likes of the Queen, Tony Blair and all other representatives of the State, whose existence depends on trivialities and cowardly acts like butchering a million Iraqi civilians, Afghanis, and anyone else who happens to be sitting on some black gold, along with bringing prosecutions in this country that could never have been without the State being complicit in entrapment and torturing false confessions from the defendants, aren't kidding when they proclaim that everyone should know "that they will not change our way of life."

Before long Mr Motala was being given sleeping pills each night

When was mandatory drugging of innocent suspects added to the extensive list of crimes perpetrated by the State against the population of the UK? While Mr Motala was being fed sleeping pills during his extended period of detention and questioning, the public have been doped-up for a far longer time on placebos and some considerably more potent tranquilisers.

Luckily for all of us, the effects of all the sedatives are rapidly and irreversably wearing off and a long dormant public is waking up to the extensive list of deceptions and confidence tricks that have been played upon them, as well as all the legal measures and technologies of political control that the State has been putting in place to save itself from the consequences of its own fascistic actions.

Don't despair, sign the petition and organise!