So the grubby little piggies have been caught with grubby little snouts this week. They've been poking their greedy little noses in things that they've no right to, and I'm not talking about grandma's secret stash of truffles. No, this has the distinct flavour of hypocrisy, and which has no legal basis, but they've still managed to coin a name for their new hobby. It's called 'spot the domestic extremist' and you might already be playing without even realising it.
The police been sneakily taking pictures of people going about their law-abiding business peacefully protesting and have been creating 'potential criminal' profiles, gathering information on thousands of protesters' personal information as well as 'spotter cards' to help the swine's identify the 'potential dissenters'. All this information is linked to a secret database run by the Nation Public Order Intelligence Unit, which shares it's information with the England and Wales police forces and is responsible for policing rallies, protests, and political meetings.
In another misuse of police powers, automatic number plate recognition cameras are being used to track the vehicles of 'domestic terrorists'. One man with no criminal record was stopped over 25 times in 2 years after attending a protest to stop duck and pheasant shooting. This means if you've ever protested the war in Iraq, felt strongly about ducks, or were present at the G20 summit, chances are your name and photograph is on their database, and they could come for you, at any time, for any reason.
This has been made infinitely worse by recent legislation that has been clearly contorted and taken way too far. It started in 1997 with the Protection of Harassment Act, originally passed to protect women from stalkers. Now crafty players such as lawyer Harrovian Lawson-Cruttenden, have been working closely with firms to extend that law to apply (originally to animal rights demonstrators deemed to be an extremist) to any, and all protesters. This coupled with another law imposing bail conditions on suspects without charge means they can order protesters to stay away from any site and have even banned people from communicating with the public and handing out flyers.
All this of course, was done covertly. Until now...
The busybodies at the Guardian have been busy blowing the lid of this whole dirty little plan this week; a scheme costing the public a cool £9 million in public money. I wonder how they managed to justify that one in a recession? Individuals such as Dennis O'Connor, chief inspector of constabulary, have been pushed against the wall and now have the uncomfortable job of producing findings on their little project next month. A list of files that were 'not easy to count'. The home secretary was also backed into a corner and remarked 'I haven't issued any guidance [to police] on the definition of that phrase. The police know what they are doing, they know how to tackle these demonstrations, they do it very effectively'. Wriggle wriggle, squirm squirm.
This is just another step towards to the 'Orwellian' future the government is so desperate to push for. Whether it's in the form of sweeping injunctions, or the 'super-secret-super-injunction', it's clear there is an invisible force like a fat woman slowly trying to park herself on the British public. It's a good thing there is a push back from other 'information gatherer's' like the Guardian or we'd all be smelling crack right now.
In recent years we've seen a systematic whittling-down of our domestic freedoms. You can't walk to the shops in your dressing-gown these days without catching at least 5 minutes of fame. But does it really take an innocent man walking home to be clubbed to death to open the public's eyes? The wool is down my friends, and the big bad wolf is holding the sweater.
Posts
