BBC revolt: Britons pledge to cancel TV licence as they reject ‘liberal elite’ broadcaster
THERE is a growing revolt against the BBC, according to a Conservative MP, who revealed that his own constituents are overwhelmingly in favour of scrapping the TV license fee.
BBC: Broadcaster slammed for being ‘liberal elite’ by Anderson
Sign up for FREE now and never miss the top politics stories again.
We will use your email address only for sending you newsletters. Please see our Privacy Notice for details of your data protection rights.
Conservative MP Lee Anderson has exposed a growing rebellion against the BBC across the country. Speaking to Defund The BBC, the Ashfield MP remarked that his own constituents had turned away from the broadcaster because it is run by “the liberal elite”. Mr Anderson, who is one of the so-called Red Wall Tory MPs, went on to criticise the BBC for being anti-Brexit and anti-working class.
- BBC revolt: Britons pledge to cancel TV licence as they reject ‘liberal elite’ broadcaster
- Furious EU claims UK offered Japan BETTER deal – but anger has ‘unlocked’ Brexit talks
- Coronavirus map LIVE: NHS ‘not able to cope’ as hospital COVID deaths surge across UK
Defund the BBC campaign chairman Calvin Robinson asked Mr Anderson: “You’ve been out there and asked your constituents what they think of the BBC.
“You turned to social media and asked do you think the BBC represents great value for money.
“You asked whether the BBC offers an unbiased media outlet, and if you think the license fee needs scrapping. What was the response?”
Mr Anderson said the response from his Ashfield constituents was “overwhelming,” and that “90 percent of people agree with me” that the license fee should be scrapped.
Conservative MP Lee Anderson has exposed a growing rebellion against the BBC across the country (Image: DEFUND THE BBC)
Defund the BBC campaign chairman Calvin Robinson questioned Mr Anderson (Image: DEFUND THE BBC)
He continued: “You look back to the BBC when I was growing up in the 70s, it was a place of safety.
“It was a place of education, of unbiased news. It was a part of our lives, a part of growing up.
“It has gone on to become anti-government, anti-Brexit, anti-working class, and its because you have this liberal elite that work for the BBC, who say we have to spend £100m of taxpayer money on diversity training.”
Mr Anderson blasted the broadcaster for “peddling left-wing nonsense” and being run by “champagne socialists”.
The Ashfield MP remarked that his own constituents had turned away from the broadcaster (Image: GETTY)
BBC: Broadcaster accused of ‘alienating leave voters’ by MP
The staunch Brexiteer also accused the broadcaster of treating Leave voters in his constituency as “thick and stupid”.
He went on to warn the BBC that viewers are “switching off in their droves” from the broadcaster after he has cancelled his own licence.
Mr Anderson revealed he will not be “paying another penny to the BBC” amid a heated debate on the TV licences.
Queen and Prince William to hold crunch Megxit talks without Harry [INSIGHT]
Sadiq Khan savaged after Mayor accused of costing London £11bn [VIDEO]
Furious BBC Question Time clash erupts as Nicky Morgan shames Rayner [INTERVIEW]
- ‘Rip it up!’ Boris Johnson MUST dump EU deal to save Brexit – MEP
- Brexit LIVE: Macron to cave on hardline fishing demands –deal in sight
Anderson, who is one of the so-called Red Wall Tory MPs, went on to criticise the BBC for being anti-Brexit (Image: DEFUND THE BBC)
The MP explained “I don’t know what they’re playing at because let me tell you, people are switching off in their droves.
“They’re ripping their TV licences up. I’ve cancelled mine. I won’t be paying another penny to the BBC.
“As far as I’m concerned, they can take a running jump.”
This comes a week after Culture Secretary said he does not want to send a signal that it is legitimate to not pay the TV licence.
Oliver Dowden made the comment to MPs as the Government prepares to publish its response to a consultation on decriminalisation.
The establishment uncovered: how power works in Britain
In an exclusive extract from his new book, Owen Jones explains how the political, social and business elites have a stranglehold on the country
Tue 26 Aug 2014 18.00 BST First published on Tue 26 Aug 2014 18.00 BST
Shares 4,931 Comments 999
How the establishment connects all areas of life in modern Britain. Photograph: Christophe Gowans/The Guardian
Definitions of “the establishment” share one thing in common: they are always pejorative. Rightwingers tend to see it as the national purveyor of a rampant, morally corrupting social liberalism; for the left, it is more likely to mean a network of public-school and Oxbridge boys dominating the key institutions of British political life.
Here is what I understand the establishment to mean. Today’s establishment is made up – as it has always been – of powerful groups that need to protect their position in a democracy in which almost the entire adult population has the right to vote. The establishment represents an attempt on behalf of these groups to “manage” democracy, to make sure that it does not threaten their own interests. In this respect, it might be seen as a firewall that insulates them from the wider population. As the well-connected rightwing blogger and columnist Paul Staines puts it approvingly: “We’ve had nearly a century of universal suffrage now, and what happens is capital finds ways to protect itself from, you know, the voters.”
Back in the 19th century, as calls for universal suffrage gathered strength, there were fears in privileged circles that extending the vote to the poor would pose a mortal threat to their own position – that the lower rungs of society would use their newfound voice to take away power and wealth from those at the top and redistribute it throughout the electorate. “I have heard much on the subject of the working classes in this house which, I confess, has filled me with feelings of some apprehension,” Conservative statesman Lord Salisbury told parliament in 1866, in response to plans to extend the suffrage. Giving working-class people the vote would, he stated, tempt them to pass “laws with respect to taxation and property especially favourable to them, and therefore dangerous to all other classes”.
The worries of those 19th-century opponents of universal suffrage were not without foundation. In the decades that followed the second world war, constraints were imposed on Britain’s powerful interests, including higher taxes and the regulation of private business. This was, after all, the will of the recently enfranchised masses. But today, many of those constraints have been removed or are in the process of being dismantled – and now the establishment is characterised by institutions and ideas that legitimise and protect the concentration of wealth and power in very few hands.
The interests of those who dominate British society are disparate; indeed, they often conflict with one another. The establishment includes politicians who make laws; media barons who set the terms of debate; businesses and financiers who run the economy; police forces that enforce a law that is rigged in favour of the powerful. The establishment is where these interests and worlds intersect, either consciously or unconsciously. It is unified by a common mentality, which holds that those at the top deserve their power and their ever-growing fortunes, and which might be summed up by the advertising slogan “Because I’m worth it”. This is the mentality that has driven politicians to pilfer expenses, businesses to avoid tax, and City bankers to demand ever greater bonuses while plunging the world into economic disaster. All of these things are facilitated – even encouraged – by laws that are geared to cracking down on the smallest of misdemeanours committed by those at the bottom of the pecking order – for example, benefit fraud. “One rule for us, one rule for everybody else” might be another way to sum up establishment thinking.
These mentalities owe everything to the shared ideology of the modern establishment, a set of ideas that helps it to rationalise and justify its position and behaviour. Often described as “neoliberalism”, this ideology is based around a belief in so-called free markets: in transferring public assets to profit-driven businesses as far as possible; in a degree of opposition – if not hostility – to a formal role for the state in the economy; support for reducing the tax burden on private interests; and the driving back of any form of collective organisation that might challenge the status quo. This ideology is often rationalised as “freedom” – particularly “economic freedom” – and wraps itself in the language of individualism. These are beliefs that the establishment treats as common sense, as being a fact of life, just like the weather.
Not to subscribe to these beliefs is to be outside today’s establishment, to be dismissed by it as an eccentric at best, or even as an extremist fringe element. Members of the establishment genuinely believe in this ideology – but it is a set of beliefs and policies that, rather conveniently, guarantees them ever growing personal riches and power.
As well as a shared mentality, the establishment is cemented by financial links and a “revolving door”: that is, powerful individuals gliding between the political, corporate and media worlds – or who manage to inhabit these various worlds at the same time. The terms of political debate are, in large part, dictated by a media controlled by a small number of exceptionally rich owners, while thinktanks and political parties are funded by wealthy individuals and corporate interests. Many politicians are on the payroll of private businesses; along with civil servants, they end up working for companies interested in their policy areas, allowing them to profit from their public service – something that gives them a vested interest in an ideology that furthers corporate interests. The business world benefits from the politicians’ and civil servants’ contacts, as well as an understanding of government structures and experience, allowing private firms to navigate their way to the very heart of power.
Yet there is a logical flaw at the heart of establishment thinking. It may abhor the state – but it is completely dependent on the state to flourish. Bailed-out banks; state-funded infrastructure; the state’s protection of property; research and development; a workforce educated at great public expense; the topping up of wages too low to live on; numerous subsidies – all are examples of what could be described as a “socialism for the rich” that marks today’s establishment.
This establishment does not receive the scrutiny it deserves. After all, it is the job of the media to shed light on the behaviour of those with power. But the British media is an integral part of the British establishment; its owners share the same underlying assumptions and mantras. Instead, journalists and politicians alike obsessively critique and attack the behaviour of those at the bottom of society. Unemployed people and other benefit claimants; immigrants; public-sector workers – these are groups that have faced critical exposure or even outright vilification. This focus on the relatively powerless is all too convenient in deflecting anger away from those who actually wield power in British society.
To understand what today’s establishment is and how it has changed, we have to go back to 1955: a Britain shaking off postwar austerity in favour of a new era of consumerism, rock’n’roll and Teddy Boys. But there was a more sinister side to the country, and it disturbed an ambitious Tory journalist in his early 30s named Henry Fairlie.
Henry Fairlie, the journalist who popularised the term ‘the establishment’ in the 1950s. Photograph: Associated Newspapers/Rex
Early in his career, Fairlie was mixing with the powerful and the influential. In his 20s, he was already writing leader columns for the Times. But, at the age of 30, he left for the world of freelance writing and began penning a column for the Spectator magazine. Fairlie had grown cynical about the higher echelons of British society and, one day in the autumn of 1955, he wrote a piece explaining why. What attracted his attention was a scandal involving two Foreign Office officials, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, who had defected to the Soviet Union. Fairlie suggested that friends of the two men had attempted to shield their families from media attention.
This, he asserted, revealed that “what I call the ‘establishment’ in this country is today more powerful than ever before”. His piece made “the establishment” a household phrase – and made Fairlie’s name in the process.
For Fairlie, the establishment included not only “the centres of official power – though they are certainly part of it” – but “the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised”.
This “exercise of power”, he claimed, could only be understood as being “exercised socially”. In other words, the establishment comprised a set of well-connected people who knew one another, mixed in the same circles and had one another’s backs. It was not based on official, legal or formal arrangements, but rather on “subtle social relationships”.
Fairlie’s establishment consisted of a diverse network of people. It was not just the likes of the prime minister and the archbishop of Canterbury, but also incorporated “lesser mortals” such as the chairman of the Arts Council, the director general of the BBC and the editor of the Times Literary Supplement, “not to mention divinities like Lady Violet Bonham Carter” – the daughter of former Liberal prime minister Herbert Asquith, confidante of Winston Churchill and grandmother of future Hollywood actor Helena Bonham Carter.
The Foreign Office was, Fairlie claimed, “near the heart of the pattern of social relationships which so powerfully controls the exercise of power in this country”, stacked as it was with those who “know all the right people”. In other words, the establishment was all about “who you know”.
But important facets of power in Britain were missing from Fairlie’s definition. First, there was no reference to shared economic interests, the profound links that bring together the big-business, financial and political elites. Second, his piece gave no sense of a common mentality binding the establishment together. There was one – although it was very different from the mentality that dominates today, despite the fact that, then as now, an Old Etonian Conservative (Anthony Eden) was in Downing Street. For this was the era of welfare capitalism, and an ethos of statism and paternalism – above all, a belief that active government was necessary for a healthy, stable society – was shared by those with power.
The differences between Fairlie’s era and our own show that Britain’s ruling establishment is not static: the upper crust of British society has always been in a state of perpetual flux. This relentless change is driven by survival. History is littered with demands from below for ruling elites to give up some of their power, forcing members of the upper crust of British society to compromise. After all, unchecked obstinacy in the face of demands for change risks bringing down not just individual pillars of the establishment, but the entire system of power with them.
The monarchy is a striking example of a traditional pillar of power that, faced with occasionally formidable threats, has had to adapt to survive. This was evident right from the origins of a power-sharing arrangement between crown and parliament struck in the aftermath of revolution and foreign invasion in the 17th century, and which continues to exist today. Many of the monarchy’s arbitrary powers, such as the ability to wage war, ended up in the hands of the prime minister. Even today, the monarchy’s role is not entirely symbolic.
“The Crown is a bit of a vague institution, but it is kind of the heart of the constitution, where all the power comes from,” says Andrew Child, campaign manager of Republic, a group advocating an elected head of state. The prime minister appoints and sacks government ministers without needing to consult the legislature or electorate because he is using the Queen’s powers: these are the Crown’s ministers, not the people’s. In practice, too, members of the royal family have a powerful platform from which to intervene in democratic decisions.
Prince Charles, as next in line to the throne, has a powerful platform from which to intervene in democratic decisions. Photograph: Picasa
Prince Charles, the designated successor to the throne, has met with ministers at least three dozen times since the 2010 general election and is known to have strong opinions on issues such as the environment, the hunting ban, “alternative” medicine and heritage.
In contrast to other European countries, Britain’s aristocracy also managed to avoid obliteration by adapting and assimilating. In the wake of the industrial revolution it absorbed – much to the disgust of traditionalists – some prospering businessmen into its ranks, such as the City of London financier Lord Addington and the silk broker Lord Cheylesmore. The aristocracy continued to wield considerable political power throughout the 19th century, supplying many prime ministers, such as the 1st Duke of Wellington, the 2nd Earl Grey and the 2nd Viscount Melbourne. But following parliament acts passed by MPs in 1911 and 1949, this power was curtailed when the elected House of Commons enshrined in law its own dominance over the aristocrats’ House of Lords. The legacy of centuries of aristocratic power has not vanished, though: more than a third of English and Welsh land – and more than 50% of rural land – remains in the hands of just 36,000 aristocrats.
Although less influential today than it has ever been, the Church of England retains the trappings of its old power. Indeed, the word establishment is testament to its one-time importance: the term is likely to derive from the fact that the Church of England is the country’s “established church”, or state religion, with the monarch serving as its head. The church’s most senior official, the archbishop of Canterbury, is appointed by the prime minister on behalf of the monarch.
Even though Britain is one of the most irreligious countries on Earth, with just one in 10 attending church each week and a quarter of Britons having no religious beliefs, the Church of England still runs one in four primary and secondary schools in England, while its bishops sit in the House of Lords, making Britain the only country – other than Iran – to have automatically unelected clerics sitting in the legislature.
The establishment is a shape-shifter, evolving and adapting as needs must. But one thing that distinguishes today’s establishment from earlier incarnations is its sense of triumphalism. The powerful once faced significant threats that kept them in check. But the opponents of our current establishment have, apparently, ceased to exist in any meaningful, organised way. Politicians largely conform to a similar script; once-mighty trade unions are now treated as if they have no legitimate place in political or even public life; and economists and academics who reject establishment ideology have been largely driven out of the intellectual mainstream. The end of the cold war was spun by politicians, intellectuals and the media to signal the death of any alternative to the status quo: “the end of history“, as the US political scientist Francis Fukuyama put it.
All this has left the establishment pushing at an open door. Whereas the position of the powerful was once undermined by the advent of democracy, an opposite process is now underway. The establishment is amassing wealth and aggressively annexing power in a way that has no precedent in modern times. After all, there is nothing to stop it.
Comment In short, British people are incredibly ignorant. Easy GCSE’s easy A levels and easy passage into ‘Uni’ makes them believe they are clever. All the Black History bullshit leaves the arrogant shapeshifting aristocracy out of the picture, free from blame.
The picture is clear and simple. Blacks and women painted as victims, no mention of class, the elite who control the media paint the oppressed long exploited and deluded working classes as far right baddies if they don’t bend the knee to blacks.
Toe the line or the police state police lackeys will call and ruin your life. Same will go for the U.S if the Democrats and British elite get their way. It is pretty bad there already.
Police State New Powers To Abuse Public October 17th 2020
Police Will Abuse Their New Powers just as they abuse the powers they already have. October 17th 2020
The House of Commons rejected an amendment that aimed to limit the kind of crimes that can be authorised under a new law.
The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill went on to pass its third reading by 313 votes to 98, sending the unamended legislation off to the House of Lords for further scrutiny.
It would allow public authorities, ranging from police and MI5 to HMRC and the Food Standards Agency, to authorise agents and informants to commit crimes while undercover.
The proposed authorisations would not only be issued in the interests of national security or preventing and detecting crime, but also preventing “disorder” and in the “interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.
An amendment tabled by Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer would have stopped the authorisation of serious offences including causing death or bodily harm, torture, violating the sexual integrity of a person and detention. It was defeated by 317 votes to 256 on Thursday.
Conservative former minister David Davis, who proposed a similar amendment, pointed out that allies US and Canada have “specific limits” on the crimes their agents can commit.
He said the amendments “would give the intelligence services the protections they need but stop short of giving them the carte blanche authorisation to carry out the heinous crimes in the name of the state that have happened too often in the past”.
But he denied that it was a licence to “commit any and all crimes” because of human rights laws and codes of practice.
MPs also voted against an amendment that would have required authorities to apply for judicial warrants for criminal conduct authorisations, and set out the reasons why they were needed.
Several MPs complained that time to debate the law had been severely limited, amid accusations that the government was rushing the bill through ahead of potentially damaging findings in the forthcoming Undercover Policing Inquiry.
Labour whipped its MPs to abstain from the vote, prompting a flurry of resignations from Labour frontbenchers from the left of the party – including shadow financial secretary Dan Carden, who resigned his post ahead of the debate.
He told the Commons the bill “paves the way for gross abuses of state power against citizens” and accused the government of taking the Labour leadership “for a ride” with loose assurances.
Officials have argued that the Human Rights Act must be considered in authorisations and would prevent the most grievous crimes, but several MPs questioned that assurance.
Sir Bob Neill, a former Conservative minister and chair of the Justice Committee, told the Commons: “If that’s the case, given the importance of the subject, why not put that on the face of the bill? And should there be at any time a future government… that derogated from the Human Rights Act, it would be better to have that protection here.”
Sir Bob also raised concern over the redress open to victims of authorised crimes, but Mr Brokenshire said the bill was not a barrier to judicial review or scrutiny by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, called for an amendment to prevent children and vulnerable informants being subject to criminal conduct authorisations
The government said the proposal was covered by separate guidance on the law but she called for it to be contained in the bill itself, adding: “It is right to see them as children first.”
Liberal Democrat former minister Alistair Carmichael suggested a series of changes to implement further safeguards, including to prevent crimes on economic grounds being authorised unless there is a national security justification.
“If it’s decided we maybe need a different governor of the Bank of England, can we authorise a Chis (Covert human intelligence source) to wipe him out?” he asked.
The independent chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Julian Lewis, asked for a commitment to oversight in the bill, which Mr Brokenshire said he intended to provide.
His amendment, which was also defeated, would have mandated annual reports to the committee containing statistics on the number and category of criminal conduct authorisations by the intelligence services.
The bill was drawn up after MI5 narrowly won an Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) ruling over the lawfulness of agents’ crimes, while a separate challenge over the use of children as informants and spies continues.
Maya Foa, director of the legal charity Reprieve – which brought the legal challenge against MI5 – said: “Without limits on the crimes agents can commit this bill is wide open to abuse – and history suggests this will result in terrible harm.
“We are hopeful the House of Lords will amend this legislation to make clear MI5 cannot say what is and isn’t lawful, nor authorise torture, murder, or sexual violence.”
Mr Brokenshire, the security minister, told MPs that there would be “deep and retrospective oversight” of the powers, including through regular inspections by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
He added: “A covert human intelligence source is not able to commit any and all criminality.
“There are limits to the activity that can be authorised under the bill and they are contained within the Human Rights Act 1998. The covert human intelligence sources code of practice also sits under this legislation and provides additional guidance and safeguards that apply to the authorisation of such activity.”
Comment Britain’s police have always abused their powers, covering up their corruption and crimes by closing ranks. Hillsborough said it all. As for enabling HM Inspector of Revenue and Customs – plain H.M Inspector of Taxes or Inland Revenue when I worked for them – they have always employed undercover agents. The one specialist in my office was the scruffiest member of staff, always with a dog end roll up stuck to his lip, an ill fitting cheap suit, looking like a half wit, a shuffle rather than a walk, but with a mind as sharp as a butcher’s knife.
He looked the part, answering ads in the local Portsmouth News and newsagents, replying very innocently then asking for cash deals. Once he got such a deal, the trader’s card would be marked. Have to admit I liked the scruffy funny looking undercover inspector, and the public hated all of us – why do modern public servants have to winge so much ? An investigation and audit followed – and possible legal proceedings. I have to admit that my colleague and I did rout out a corrupt pyramid selling business in Fratton, Portsmouth. That’s another story and covered by Official Secrets Act, as will these undercover officers will be- which we all signed.
Undie Cover Police October 17th 2020
As someone labelled paranoid for being under police observation for nearly 13 years, even receiving a PNC Criminal Marker and related records which they still won’t explain in spite of serious harm done, I find news that the Tory Government have formalised and legitimated the British Police’s right to break the law, allegedly to keep all the good people safe, very alarming.. I was told, after being forced to see a psychiatrist about my suspicions in 2018, that I am paranoid, don’t need hospital yet and would be very upset if I saw all the records the State has on me.
The first milestone in legitimating these Draconian intrusive police powers came in the wake of 9/11. Then prime Minister Tony Blair announced that new anti terror law was applying to all of us, where necessary, taking our freedoms to protect our freedom – classic Orwellian ‘Double Speak.’
Given the British Police, in cahoots with a corrupt target driven CPS, have a record for fabricating evidence and withholding evidence that might be helpful to defence lawyers, legitimating these intrusive powers should alarm anyone who wants a free society.
Ironically, free movement of labour and open borders has enhanced the State argument for removing freedom of thought and expression. Protest is a major concern of the State, so Covid 19 Lockdown is further excuse for these powers. The police had de facto rights to mislead women into sex – effectively state approved rape -during animal rights protests, even fathering children.
So protests like anti lockdown and against HS2 are obviously legitimate targets for more of the same. Reasonable suspicion is a vague term, with evidence easily invented to support these Police gut feelings.
Undercover police cleared ‘to have sex with activists’ October 15th 2020
Promiscuity ‘regularly used as tactic’, says former officer, contradicting claims from Acpo
Mark Kennedy had sexual relationships with several women while serving as an undercover policeman and infiltrating a ring of environmental activistsMark Townsend and Tony ThompsonSat 22 Jan 2011 21.00 GMT
Undercover police officers routinely adopted a tactic of “promiscuity” with the blessing of senior commanders, according to a former agent who worked in a secretive unit of the Metropolitan police for four years.
The former undercover policeman claims that sexual relationships with activists were sanctioned for both men and women officers infiltrating anarchist, leftwing and environmental groups.
Sex was a tool to help officers blend in, the officer claimed, and was widely used as a technique to glean intelligence. His comments contradict claims last week from the Association of Chief Police Officers that operatives were absolutely forbidden to sleep with activists.
The one stipulation, according to the officer from the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), a secret unit formed to prevent violent disorder on the streets of London, was that falling in love was considered highly unprofessional because it might compromise an investigation. He said undercover officers, particularly those infiltrating environmental and leftwing groups, viewed having sex with a large number of partners “as part of the job”.
“Everybody knew it was a very promiscuous lifestyle,” said the former officer, who first revealed his life as an undercover agent to the Observer last year. “You cannot not be promiscuous in those groups. Otherwise you’ll stand out straightaway.”
The claims follow the unmasking of undercover PC Mark Kennedy, who had sexual relationships with several women during the seven years he spent infiltrating a ring of environmental activists. Another two covert officers have been named in the past fortnight who also had sex with the protesters they were sent to spy on, fuelling allegations that senior officers had authorised sleeping around as a legitimate means of gathering intelligence.
However Jon Murphy, Acpo’s spokesman on serious and organised crime, said last week that undercover officers were not permitted “under any circumstances” to sleep with protesters.
He added: “It is grossly unprofessional. It is a diversion from what they are there to do.”
Mounting anger among women protesters will see female activists converge on Scotland Yard tomorrow to demand that the Met disclose the true extent of undercover policing. The demonstration is also, according to organisers, designed to express “solidarity with all the women who have been exploited by men they thought they could trust”.
Climate campaigner Sophie Stephens, 27, who knew Kennedy, said there was fury among women who felt violated by the state: “We know women have been abused by men posing as policemen and it’s becoming clear this was state-sanctioned. These women did not know they were forming a relationship with policemen. It’s appalling – and now we want the full details of the undercover officers to be made public.”
The protest will be followed on Tuesday by the appearance before the Commons home affairs select committee of the acting Met commissioner, Tim Godwin, and Commander Bob Broadhurst, who is responsible for public order in the capital. Both will be asked to explain why Scotland Yard gave false information over the use of covert operatives during the London G20 protests in 2009. The issue of sexual activity by operatives is also likely to be brought up.
The former SDS officer claims a lack of guidelines meant sex was an ideal way to maintain cover. He admitted sleeping with at least two of his female targets as a way of obtaining intelligence.
“When you are on an undercover unit you were not given a set of instructions saying you could or couldn’t do the following. They didn’t say to you that you couldn’t go out and drink because technically you’re a police officer, that you shouldn’t go out and get involved in violent confrontations, you shouldn’t take recreational drugs.
“As regards being with women in very, very, very promiscuous groups such as the eco-wing, environmental movement, leftwing, or the Animal Liberation Front – it’s an extremely promiscuous lifestyle and you cannot not be promiscuous in there.
“Among fellow undercover officers, there is not really any kudos in the fact that you are shagging other people while deployed. Basically it’s just regarded as part of the job. It’d be highly unlikely that you were not [having sex].
“When you are using the tool of sex to maintain your cover or maybe to glean more intelligence – because they certainly talk a lot more, pillow talk – you would be ready to move on if you felt an attachment growing.
“The best way of stopping any liaison getting too heavy was to shag somebody else. It’s amazing how women don’t like you going to bed with someone else,” said the officer, whose undercover deployment infiltrating anti-racist groups lasted from 1993 to 1997. Two years later the SDS became the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, the secretive organisation that employed Kennedy and whose activities are the subject of three investigations.
The officer added that undercover police were strictly encouraged not to form a bond with women they were sleeping with and said that he knew Jim Boyling, the undercover officer who married an activist he was supposed to be spying upon.
Boyling, a specialist operations detective constable with the Met, was suspended on Friday pending an investigation into his professional conduct.
The former SDS officer, who has now left the Met, said one stipulation by senior commanders was that undercover officers should be married, so that they had something to return to. He said the move was introduced when a spy never returned after five years undercover.
Covert officers can have sex or take drugs with suspects only when ‘necessary and proportionate’ under new guidelines
Mark Kennedy, who was exposed as a police spy by his ex-girlfriend after a six-year relationship. Photograph: Philipp EbelingPress AssociationWed 29 Jun 2016 00.01 BST
Last modified on Tue 28 Nov 2017 18.53 GMT
Undercover police officers can never be authorised to start sexual relationships with those they are targeting under official guidelines published for the first time.
The instructions, in an 80-page document, also state that taking drugs cannot be approved as a tactic for covert units.
National guidance on undercover policing, which is being made public by the College of Policing, the professional standards body for the police service, states that it is “never acceptable” for an undercover operative to have sex with those they are investigating.
Launching a consultation on the guidance, Alex Marshall, the chief executive of the College of Policing, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It’s never acceptable for an undercover officer to form an intimate sexual relationship with the people they’re targeting or they meet while carrying out these duties.”
Marshall said undercover policing should only be used for “people who represent a risk to the public”.
The guidance prohibits officers to “form an intimate sexual relationship with those they are employed to infiltrate and target or may encounter during their deployment”.
It adds: “This conduct will never be authorised, nor must it ever be used as a tactic of a deployment.”
Undercover policing was subject to increased scrutiny following revelations in the Guardian about a secretive Scotland Yard unit known as the Special Demonstrations Squad (SDS).
Undercover officers have been found to have formed long-term intimate relationships with women during their missions, gathered intelligence about the relatives of the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence and other grieving families campaigning for justice, and concealed evidence in court cases.
Many of the undercover spies secretly stole the identities of dead children to help develop their fake personas, without consulting or informing the children’s parents.
Scotland Yard has made payouts to several women who unwittingly became involved in relationships with undercover officers. A judge-led inquiry into undercover policing in England and Wales was launched last year.Woman who was engaged to police spy sues Met over ‘psychological torture’Read more
The guidance says that if an undercover officer engages in unauthorised sexual activity for whatever reason – for example, they perceive an immediate threat to themselves or others if they do not do so – then this “will be restricted to the minimum conduct necessary to mitigate the threat”.
This would then be recorded, reported and the circumstances investigated. The position set out on sexual activity was described as a “much stronger and unequivocal statement” compared with previous guidelines.
Conduct may be authorised that involves “communications of a sexual nature” where the authorising officer believes it is “necessary and proportionate to operational objectives”, the guidance adds.
Taking controlled drugs “will not be authorised as a tactic of a deployment” but if an officer does so because they perceive an immediate threat this should be limited to the minimum extent necessary to mitigate the threat.
The document also says that for an undercover deployment to be effective it may be necessary for personnel to participate in criminal activity about which they have been tasked to report. It warns all undercover unit staff should be aware of the dangers posed through “exposure in true identity” on social media.Undercover UK police spy apologises after being tracked down by woman he deceivedRead more
Undercover policing is used by forces across England and Wales to obtain evidence and intelligence. “Foundation” operatives carry out low-level infiltration, for example buying drugs on the street. An “advanced” operative is trained to undertake higher-level infiltrations in which they must be able to withstand intense scrutiny, such as counter-terrorism work.
The draft guidance is being published at the start of a consultation, with the final version released later this year.
It says operatives can only work once they have been accredited and should undergo psychological or personality assessments.
Marshall described undercover policing as an “essential tactic” to protect the public, save lives and bring serious criminals to justice.
He said: “By publishing the vast majority of the guidance, withholding only operational tactics which would no longer be viable if shared, we want the public to see the measures we have in place to ensure undercover policing is used in a way that is proportionate, lawful and ethical.”
Lawyer Jules Carey, of Bindmans, who is representing individuals affected by undercover policing, said: “It is disappointing that the guidance fails to spell out that in a democracy the first consideration should be whether it is necessary to use an undercover officer at all, or whether the intelligence could be obtained through some other means.
“The guidance should also make it clear that the degree of intrusion should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime being investigated.”
Comment What sort of revolting animals could do this ? Says a lot about the British Police State – and the revolting police mindset. Charles Close
A world built on bribes? Corruption in construction bankrupts countries and costs lives, says TI report
16 March 2005
Re Posted here as European Police State October 11th 2020
Transparency International’s Global Corruption Report 2005 shows how corruption in the construction sector undermines economic development, and threatens to hamstring post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq and beyond
“Corruption in large-scale public projects is a daunting obstacle to sustainable development,” said Peter Eigen, Chairman of Transparency International (TI), launching the TI Global Corruption Report 2005 today. “Corruption in procurement plagues both developed and developing countries,” Eigen added. “When the size of a bribe takes precedence over value for money,” he said, “the results are shoddy construction and poor infrastructure management. Corruption wastes money, bankrupts countries, and costs lives.” TI is the leading international non-governmental organisation combating corruption worldwide.
“Funds being poured into rebuilding countries such as Iraq must be safeguarded against corruption,” Eigen said today. “Transparency must also be the watchword as donors pledge massive sums for reconstruction in the countries affected by the Asian tsunami,” he added. The Global Corruption Report 2005, with a foreword by Francis Fukuyama, includes a special focus on construction and post-conflict reconstruction, and highlights the urgent need for governments to ensure transparency in public spending and for multinational companies to stop bribing at home and abroad.
“The unfolding scandal surrounding the UN sponsored oil-for-food programme in Iraq highlights the urgent need for strict conflict-of-interest rules and transparent and open bidding processes,” said Eigen. As Reinoud Leenders and Justin Alexander write in the GCR 2005, much of the anticipated expenditure on building and procurement in Iraq has not yet been spent. “If urgent steps are not taken,” they write, Iraq “will become the biggest corruption scandal in history”.
To mark the publication of the Global Corruption Report 2005, today TI launched its Minimum Standards for Public Contracting, setting out a blueprint for transparent public procurement. According to Juanita Olaya, TI Programme Manager for Public Contracting, “international donors and host governments must do more to ensure transparency in public procurement by introducing effective anti-corruption procedures into all projects. Tough sanctions are needed against companies caught bribing, including forfeiture of the contract and blacklisting from future bidding.”
The TI Standards call on public contracting authorities to ensure that contracts are subject to open, competitive bidding. Other measures include maintaining a blacklist of companies caught bribing; providing public disclosure of the entire process; and ensuring monitoring by independent oversight agencies and civil society. The TI Standards also advocate the use of a TI Integrity Pact, which commits the authority and bidding companies to refrain from bribery. The Integrity Pact is a tool that has already been successful in reducing corruption and cutting the costs of dozens of procurement procedures around the world, and most recently has been agreed to be deployed in the EUR 2 billion development of the Berlin-Brandenburg International Airport in Germany.
TI also urged the private sector to do more to curb bribery. “Companies from OECD countries must fulfil their obligations under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and stop paying bribes at home and abroad,” said Eigen. “With the spread of anti-bribery legislation, corporate governance and anti-corruption compliance codes, managers have no excuse for paying bribes,” he said. A promising sign, he said, was the addition of a tenth anti-corruption principle to the UN Global Compact, signed by close to 2,000 international companies, and the endorsement of a public anti-corruption pledge by 63 companies from the energy, metals and mining, and engineering and construction sectors at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2005. The challenge now for companies is to enforce tough anti-bribery policies.
The costs of corruption
The scale of corruption is magnified by the size and scope of the construction sector, estimated globally at some US$3,200 billion per year. The Global Corruption Report 2005 presents detailed case studies of large-scale infrastructure projects that have been plagued by corruption – including international bribes paid to secure contracts for the Lesotho Dam, and the implication of politicians in corruption concerning the purchase of a waste incinerator in Cologne, Germany.
The Global Corruption Report 2005 finds that a lack of transparency in large-scale projects can have a devastating impact on economic development. “Corrupt contracting processes leave developing countries saddled with sub-standard infrastructure and excessive debt,” said Eigen today. Corruption raises the cost and lowers the quality of infrastructure. But the cost of corruption is also felt in lost lives. The damage caused by natural disasters such as earthquakes is magnified in places where inspectors have been bribed to ignore building and planning regulations. Corruption steers money away from health and education programmes towards large capital-intensive infrastructure projects. Corruption can also have disastrous environmental consequences – the Yacyretá dam in Argentina, the Bataan nuclear power plant in the Philippines and the Bujagali dam in Uganda have all been subject to allegations of the improper diversion of money.
Taking action to prevent corruption
To coincide with the publication of the Global Corruption Report 2005, Transparency International is launching an international initiative aimed at preventing corruption in construction projects. Neill Stansbury, Project Director for Construction & Engineering at TI-UK, who is leading the initiative, said that “corruption in construction projects can be avoided if all parties put into place the necessary preventive measures. This requires coordinated international action by governments, banks, export credit agencies, project owners, contractors and other relevant parties.” TI has produced a series of risk assessments, action plans and anti-corruption tools for this sector, and it will use these to lobby relevant organisations to take action to prevent bribery.
The Global Corruption Report 2005 also includes detailed assessments of the state of corruption in 40 country reports written by Transparency International’s national chapters and other experts. The book contains the findings of the latest research into corruption and ways to combat it, including studies on the links between corruption and issues such as pollution, gender and foreign investment.
‘Monuments of corruption’ from the Global Corruption Report 2005:
- The Lesotho Highlands Water Project, in which US$2 million were allegedly paid in bribes by Acres International and 11 other international dam-building companies.
- The Cologne incinerator project in Germany, where US $13 million was allegedly paid in bribes during the construction of a US$ 500 million waste incineration plant.
- The Yacyretá hydropower project on the border of Argentina and Paraguay, built with World Bank support, is flooding the Ibera Marshes. Due to cost overruns, the power generated by Yacyretá is not economic and needs to be subsidised by the government. According to the head of Paraguay’s General Accounting Office, US$1.87 billion in expenditures for the project ‘lack the legal and administrative support documentation to justify the expenditures’.
- The reservoir of the Bakun dam in Sarawak, Malaysia, which will submerge 700 km2 of tropical rain forest. The mandate to develop the project went to a timber contractor and friend of Sarawak’s governor. The provincial government of Sarawak is still looking for customers to consume the power to be generated by the project.
- The Bataan nuclear power plant in the Philippines, built at a cost of more than US $2 billion. The contractor, Westinghouse, admitted paying US $17 million in commissions to a friend of former president Marcos. The reactor sits on an active fault line, creating a major risk of nuclear contamination if the power plant ever becomes operational.
- The Bujagali dam in Uganda, which is currently being investigated for corruption by the World Bank and four different governments after a British subsidiary of the Norwegian construction company, Veidekke, admitted paying a bribe to a senior Ugandan civil servant. The cumulative environmental impacts of Bujagali and other dams on the Nile have never been assessed.
Transparency International’s Minimum Standards for Public Contracting Public procurement authorities should:
- Implement a code of conduct that commits the contracting authority and its employees to a strict anti-corruption policy. The policy should take into account possible conflicts of interest, provide mechanisms for reporting corruption and protect whistleblowers.
- Allow a company to tender only if it has implemented a code of conduct that commits the company and its employees to a strict anti-corruption policy
- Maintain a blacklist of companies for which there is sufficient evidence of their involvement in corrupt activities. Debar blacklisted companies from tendering for the authority’s projects for a specified period of time
- Ensure that all contracts between the authority and its contractors, suppliers and service providers require the parties to comply with strict anti-corruption policies.
- Ensure that public contracts above a low threshold are subject to open competitive bidding
- Provide all bidders, and preferably also the general public, with easy access to information about all phases of the contracting process, including the selection and evaluation processes and the terms and conditions of the contract and any amendments.
- Ensure that no bidder is given access to privileged information at any stage of the contracting process, especially information relating to the selection process.
- Allow bidders sufficient time for bid preparation and for pre-qualification requirements when these apply.
- Ensure that contract ‘change’ orders that alter the price or description of work beyond a cumulative threshold are monitored at a high level, preferably by the decision-making body that awarded the contract.
- Ensure that internal and external control and auditing bodies are independent and functioning effectively, and that their reports are accessible to the public. Any unreasonable delays in project execution should trigger additional control activities.
- Separate key functions to ensure that responsibility for demand assessment, preparation, selection, contracting, supervision and control of a project is assigned to separate bodies.
- Apply standard office safeguards, such as the use of committees at decision-making points and rotation of staff in sensitive positions. Staff responsible for procurement processes should be well trained and adequately remunerated.
- Promote the participation of civil society organisations as independent monitors of both the tender and execution of projects.
The Global Corruption Report 2005 is published in London by Pluto Press (ISBN 0 7453 2396 0). The book can be ordered (£19.99 / $29.95 plus postage and packing) through online booksellers, local bookshops or the publisher ( www.plutobooks.com). The report is published in French by Economica (ISBN 2-7178-5025-2).
Battle of Trafalgar September 26th 2020
Given the terrifying nature and developments in Britain’s Police State, the Police State page is now full up. So here is a new page, opened on the day of an appalling display of police oppression during an anti lockdown demonstration in London’s Trafalgar Square.
Curiously these protestors were not given the freedom to march around London as the BLM protestors have been. So there apears to be a strong element of race and class war going on here.
Government has not made a case for lockdown. Their well so called scientists are well paid government officials. People thinking more police are the solution to Britain’s problems should think again. This country ticks every box to qualify as a dictatorship -that is why the authorities keep telling us what a wonderful democracy Britain is. Charles Close
- 3:36The Captains and the Kingsyoutube.com
- 3:34The Dubliners – Captains and the Kingsyoutube.com
- 3:30Ronnie Drew With The Dubliners – The Captains and the Kings [Audio Stream]youtube.com
- 3:36The Captains And The Kingsyoutube.com
- 4:04Captains and the Kingsyoutube.com
- 3:35The Captains & The Kingsyoutube.com
- 3:15The Captains and The Kings by Jimmy
- Dubliners Rising The Moon – Video Results
- 2:55The Rising of the Moon – The Dublinersyoutube.com
- 3:13The Rising Of The Moon – The Dubliners: 50 Years Celebration Concert, Dublin (2015)youtube.com
- 2:37The Dubliners – The Rising Of The Moonyoutube.com
- 2:38The Dubliners – The rising of the moon [Lyrics]youtube.com
- 2:39The Dubliners–Rising of the Moonyoutube.com
- The Rising of the Moon – The Dublinerspopscreen.com
- 2:39The Dubliners – The rising of the moonyoutube.com
- 2:40The Dubliners – The Rising of the Moonyoutube.com
- The Dubliners-Rising of the Moon – YouTube www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2M4usgh8Ss A great song sang by the Master himself. Luke Kelly. This song is very Famous and is about 1798 rebellion
- Video Duration: 3 min
- Views: 1.8M
- Author: darrin42
- The Dubliners – The rising of the moon – YouTube www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpt6Sh-LW3M 16/08/2016 · The rising of the moon, sung by Luke Kelly and The Dubliners. Enjoy! And don’t forget to like!
- Video Duration: 3 min
- Views: 81
- Author: minadjo Ait yahia
- The rising of the moon-The Dubliners – YouTube www.youtube.com/watch?v=3388VcL5CKA excellent
- Video Duration: 3 min
- Views: 294.7K
- Author: BigShowToDamax
- Dubliners – The Rising Of The Moon Lyrics (Video) www.stlyrics.com/songs/d/dubliners6611/therisingofthemoon249331.html The Rising Of The Moon by Dubliners. And come tell me Sean O’Farrell, tell me why you hurry so. Hush a bhuachaill, hush and listen and his cheeks were all aglow. I bear orders from the captain, get you ready quick and soon. For the pikes must be together at the rising of the moon. At the rising of the moon, at the rising of the moon . For the pikes must be together at the rising of the moon …
What Is The Most Corrupt Country In Europe? Posted October 11th 2020
» Subscribe to NowThis World: http://go.nowth.is/World_Subscribe While many Europeans believe that corruption in the continent is increasing, which country actually has the highest rate of corruption? Learn More: RAND Corporation: The True Economic Cost of Corruption in Europe: Up to €990 Billion Annually http://www.rand.org/blog/2016/03/the …youtube.com 3:06 3 years ago
Covid: Clashes as police shut down protest over new rules
Police have clashed with demonstrators at a protest in central London against coronavirus restrictions.
Officers used batons to control the crowd, after bottles and water were thrown by demonstrators massed in Trafalgar Square.
At least three protesters and four officers were injured, while 10 people were arrested.
The Met Police said the protest was being shut down because the crowd was not social distancing.
Thousands had gathered in central London to protest against the latest government rules, with very few wearing masks.
Protests are exempt from the rule-of-six restrictions, but demonstrators must social distance.
Organisers must also submit a risk assessment.
Rules in England limit indoor and outdoor gatherings to six people, with some exceptions.
Officers penned the crowd in Trafalgar Square as water and bottles were thrown at them by demonstrators – with some chanting “pick your side”.
Police removed sound equipment and used batons against protesters, leaving some with visible injuries.
The majority of demonstrators in Trafalgar Square have now been dispersed by police but the Met said some had moved to Hyde Park. Image copyright EPA
Demonstrators were asked to leave and the force said anyone who stayed could be subject to enforcement.
In a statement, the Met said: “Crowds in Trafalgar Square have not complied with the conditions of their risk assessment and are putting people in danger of transmitting the virus.
“This has voided their risk assessment and we have informed the event organisers they are no longer exempt from the regulations.
“By leaving now, you can keep yourself safe and avoid any enforcement action being taken by officers,” the statement added.
Earlier, police confiscated a makeshift riot shield from one man. Image copyright EPA Image caption Large crowds gathered in Trafalgar Square earlier.
The “we do not consent” rally came a week after a separate event which saw more than a dozen officers injured when a “small minority” targeted police and more than 32 arrests were made.
Commander Ade Adelekan, who is leading the Met operation, previously said that while there was “great frustration” at the regulations, they were designed to keep people safe from the virus.
“By flagrantly gathering in large numbers and ignoring social distancing, you are putting your health and the health of your loved ones at risk,” he said.
He added that he would not tolerate police being targeted during protests and officers would “respond quickly to any scenes of violence”.
Several people have been seriously injured by Police State Police.
Wales’ first town-only lockdown has come into force.
Llanelli in Carmarthenshire had restrictions imposed from 18:00 BST on Saturday, making it the first town hit with restrictions which do not apply to the rest of the surrounding county.
Wales’ two biggest cities – Cardiff and Swansea – will follow suit on Sunday evening following Covid-19 spikes.
Llanelli MP Nia Griffith said lockdown would be “a tricky time… but it’s better to do it sooner than later”.
“What we don’t want is to leave things too late and then wish we’d done more,” she said.
“It will impact on different people in different ways but the general feeling is we that need to get on top of this.”
Wales’ Health Minister Vaughan Gething told BBC Breakfast on Saturday the situation was “very serious” and comparable with cases in February.
“We ended large parts of NHS activity about two weeks later. We had a full lockdown three-and-a-bit weeks later,” he said.
People in 13 ward areas in Llanelli cannot now leave town, or mix indoors with anyone outside their own household.
The town has seen 85 coronavirus cases over the past week – compared to 24 across the rest of Carmarthenshire.
- What can I do during local lockdowns?
- Figuring out the stats on coronavirus in Wales
- Where do the 14.6 million people under new rules live?
Carmarthenshire council leader Emlyn Dole said it was “worrying to see how sharply the number of positive cases has risen in the Llanelli area”.
“Action has had to be taken to help stop the spread and break the chain of infections concentrated in this area to prevent a whole county lockdown,” he said.
Mr Dole told BBC Radio Wales Breakfast he thought the spike in cases was down to pubs and bars not “paying as much heed to the restrictions as the rest of us” in terms of social distancing. Image copyright Ordnance Survey/Carmarthenshire council
The rate of infection across Llanelli has leapt to 152 cases per 100,000 of the population – it is just 18 per 100,000 for the rest of Carmarthenshire.
It places the town in the top three weekly infections rates across Wales, alongside Blaenau Gwent on 202 per 100,000 and Merthyr Tydfil at 169 per 100,000.
Maria Battle, who chairs the Hywel Dda University Health Board serving south west Wales, said: “Our local community has given us such tremendous support during the past few months.
“To protect the health of our people, including the most vulnerable, and to ensure our NHS resources are available to provide people with the care they need, we need the help of our Llanelli population and wider community now more than ever before.”
Comment Governement propaganda. Charles Close