In part one of this blog (you can read it here) I looked at some of the jobs Police Officers deal with which they are legally obligated to do but which often clash with their own personal beliefs and morals. I used real examples given to me by serving Police Officers.
In this blog I want to look at the consequences of the Police Officer going against a lawful order and standing by their morals rather than their lawful order as defined by Government.
A lawful order is an instruction from a supervising officer that is not unlawful and pertains to your duties as a Constable
When a senior officers gives a Police Officer a “lawful order” they are as you might expect LEGALLY obliged to fulfil it without question. I believe the only order that can not be given by a senior officer is to take somebodies life, that is at the sole discretion of the officer behind the trigger. If I am wrong there than I am happy to be corrected.
If a senior officer tells a Constable to move kids from a street, then the Constable must move the kids from the street or have a reasonable explanation as to why he/she did not. If a senior officer tells a Constable to arrest an individual then again, unless there is a lawful, reasonable reason to do the opposite the Constable must obey.
So if the Constable in my previous blog who didn’t want to police the fox hunt had told his supervisor “Actually Sergeant, I don’t agree with hunting foxes and quite support the people wanting to stop the hunt so I’d rather not do that”, that Constable would have been left without any doubt that he will conduct the required duty with impartiality as sworn to in his attestation
If an officer deliberately goes against a lawful order he can expect anything from a bollocking or being picked for some not so pleasant jobs in future to dismissal for neglect of duty.
Twice in my career I refused to follow a lawful order because it went against my morals and each one ended differently but thankfully did not end with me being sacked.
The first time I was still in my probation period and my eldest daughter was only 8 months old. I was told to go to custody and babysit a prisoner who was a suicide risk. This filthy creature had sexually abused a baby and killed her. I didn’t give a damn what he did to himself and certainly didn’t want to spend 8 hours sitting in his company. I asked my Sergeant if somebody else could do it as I could not guarantee that I would keep my cool, the victim was the same age as my daughter. I know this was a selfish thing to do but it struck close to home with the age of the victim and being a new dad and I personally would have handed the bastard a noose. I was pushed into the Sergeant’s office and told to get a grip of myself and do my job and warned never to question orders again.
The second occasion happened towards the end of my career when I was told to go and move a homeless man from a secluded spot under a bridge in some woods because an affluent member of the community had been walking her dog and was “horrified” to see a “grubby tramp” sitting by a fire and insisted he be moved so she can walk her dog there again. I asked why we were moving him on. I was told “because we have to”. I refused and suggested I conduct a welfare check on him instead but was told that I would “do as I was told” and move him in. I refused and headed out on patrol. I was “advised” and faced a few weeks of hard labour dealing with all the tedious jobs, sent out on foot patrol in crap weather etc but I didn’t care because I had stood by my morals and that was more important than some antiquated oath.
There have however been incidents where officers have gone against their duty and subsequently been sacked, demoted, faced disciplinary action and sometimes even charged with neglect of duty. An Officer got in touch with me recently who has asked to remain anonymous and told me how he had refused to Police a march against our troops because he was ex Army and he was told he had no choice and so he told his boss he did have a choice and went off sick. He was suspended, investigated by professional standards and barely kept his job.
The fact is, Police Officers face loosing their career, their pensions, their life and health insurance, their financial security that of their family and so it is not as simple as just refusing to do something they don’t agree with. I was a lucky one as I had something to fall back on and so when I realised my personal beliefs and morals clashed to much with my expected duty as a constable I was able to jump ship and be safe. However, for most they don’t have that luxury. With very little transferable skills acquired in the Police and very little job availability out their putting up and shutting up is quite often the much easier option.
But a question I have often heard asked and pondered over is where would a Police Officer draw the line at “just following orders”? Obviously a an order can only be followed if it is LAWFUL. But the Police do not make the laws as I have already mentioned in Part 1, they simply enforce them. The laws are written by Parliament, by people right at the very top of the hierarchical tower. So what would happen if those in charge decided to make it LAWFUL for the Police to use lethal force on protesters and for senior officers to ORDER a constable to do it, for example? Would they blindly follow orders or would their morals come into play and make them refuse to follow orders regardless of the risk of being sacked?
It is of course a hypothetical question but one that I feel needs considering. If Police Officers are expected to put their morals and beliefs to one side and follow lawful orders with impartiality, at one point does moral right and wrong supersede the lawful duty of a constable?
I want to take a moment to look at and address some of the commonly held myths, beliefs and misconceptions held by the public, perpetuated by the media and ingrained within society today in relation to the Police. The idea isn’t to defend the Police and it isn’t to patronise or “prove you wrong”. It is to raise awareness of REAL Policing. To help people see and realise that the Policing you see in the media both the negative stories in papers like the Daily Mail and the action packed scenes in TV shows like Cops With Cameras is NOT a true reflection of the work and duties of Police Officers today. Nor are the many rumours, beliefs and misconceptions you see on social media, hear down the pub or talk about amongst friends. I want to look at how the term “The Police” is used by the media as a cover-all term and how that can have impact upon public opinion. I also am going to look at some of the beliefs the public hold regarding the Police. Comments I have heard time and time again and opinions people have kindly expressed upon request to help me write this blog.
Firstly and most importantly I think it may be best to look at just some of the duties your average Police Constable is expected to deal with. I refer here to the “patrol bobby” you see (or you may argue DON’T see) on a daily basis. A Police Constable is the lowest rank in the service but is also the foundation of the service. As a PC you can move into almost any role within “The Police” providing you have completed two years probation and have the competencies needed for the role. For example, a PC upon completing their probation on patrol/Neighbourhood team (the default position for all Police Constables) can move into the dog section, mounted, roads policing, drugs team, Firearms, CID… The list is very long. Many people think if you work in one of those other roles you must be a different rank from the uniformed bobby. That is not the case. The role of the PC is very diverse but Patrol or Neighbourhood Policing is their default position.
So let’s look now at the duties of a PC on a patrol/Neighbourhood team. The list is below is just a fraction of the duties and jobs a PC is expected to deal with at any given time. They are the first responders to pretty much all 999 calls, non emergency calls and simple public enquiries.
Burglaries both ongoing and historic
Robberies both ongoing and historic
Assaults both new and old, minor (push or slap) and serious (ABH, GBH)
Theft both ongoing and historic
Neighbour disputes of varying degrees
Sudden deaths both suspicious and expected
Nuisance Youths (anything from knocking on doors, being loud, playing football)
Frauds and deceptions
Road Traffic Collisions
Poachers and Wildlife crimes
Prison crimes (Crimes actually inside prison!)
Death warnings (telling people a loved one is dead)
Preventing breaches of the peace
Assessing a scene for CSI
Guarding a crime scene
Domestic violence both ongoing and historic
Child Sexual Offences
Transporting for ambulance
Assisting mental health workers
Assisting other law enforcement agencies
Assisting other policing teams (CID, Roads Policing etc)
Assisting door supervisors
Taking alcohol off children
Dealing with public nuisances
Guarding suspects at hospital
Protecting victims at hospital
“Suicide Watch” of suspects in Police custody
Working in the Custody Suit
School fights and other school related incidents
Facebook name calling and bullying
Civil disputes (even just to inform people it’s not a police issue)
Ebay purchase disputes
Parenting kids (“My son is refusing to do homework” = true call)
Loose Peacock!! (actual call I attended)
Forcing entry to property for other agencies (ambulance)
Compiling case files
Speak with CPS
Arrange solicitors to attend
Arrange for an interpretor
Completing stop and searches
Attending community meetings
School inputs and talks
Control Room duty
Front Desk duty
Vehicle checks prior to mobile patrol
Reporting faults with patrol vehicles
Transporting paperwork, exhibits and colleagues to court
Like I said, this is just a fraction of the jobs a PC is expected to deal with. They are a slave their radio, to the orders of the higher ranks, the demands of the public and anything else they come across in the course of their shift. A lot of these jobs take up a lot of time. For example, it is not uncommon for an Officer to arrest a suspect for a simple offence such as shoplifting (simple in complexity, not seriousness) at the beginning of an 8 hour shift and for that officer to then be tied up dealing with that job for the entire 8 hours. Waiting to get into the custody area, recording the crime, writing a statement for the arrest, obtaining a statement from the victim, seizing property, possibly a house search, arranging CCTV, waiting for a solicitor, possibly arranging an interpreter, interviewing, obtaining charging advice, possibly speaking to CPS, charging, bailing or releasing the suspect, completing a file…. Bet you didn’t realise how much goes into one simple arrest for a straight forward offence did you?
Attending a sudden death can often take several hours as the officer has to wait for life to be pronounced extinct, await the undertakers, possible arrange for the door the officer has forced open to be repaired, replaced or boarded. Even reassurance call to an vulnerable victim of a crime which occurred weeks previously can take an hour or so if the victim is afraid, upset or simply wants some company for a brew.
Throw all of this in with the fact that despite what you may hear from politicians, frontline services are being massively cut. The number of Police Officers covering your home town, city or village each day and night would shock you if your force’s senior command allowed you to know the truth. The Police Officers know the true extent of the situation but they are ordered not to tell the public by the pseudo-politicians at the top of the command chain in order to “maintain public confidence”. If they disobey and reveal information which could undermine public confidence then the Officer would be disciplined at least, dismissed at worst.
Let me give you some examples of what I mean. I spoke to a friend still serving in one of our countries largest forces yesterday. He covers an area over 200 square miles in size. A rural area with a population of around 61,000 people. Normally there are 4 Police Officers covering this area. The “ward” as it is referred to, consists of miles of country side, forests, nature reserves etc and requires vehicles to be able to respond to emergencies in the many residential areas at any given moment. The 4 officers are banned from “double crewing”, that is they MUST work alone and not in pairs. They have 2 marked Police vehicles. The day I spoke to my friend he told me that of the 4 officers there was now only 2 covering the ward because the bosses had seen fit to take one of them to police a different part of force area. That left 3. Then one of the officers was sent to assist a GP gain access to a house. The Doctor was meant to be meeting a patient with mental health issues but was getting no reply to knocking. The Officer attended and was told to force entry on welfare grounds (to protect life and limb) and upon gaining entry found the man was just sleeping on the sofa. The Doctor took the patient to hospital for an assessment and the Officer was left behind to wait for the house to be secured by the council. He had been waiting over 3 hours at the time of my call which left my friend and his colleague with one vehicle and 200 square miles to cover. This meant that these 2 officers would have to prioritise any call that came in for their area. It meant longer response times. It meant 4 people’s work now split between 2. It meant that the public were not receiving the service they probably thought and expected they were. This isn’t a one off example. It is especially a problem for the rural forces or forces with rural areas. My home town is no different with contacts within telling me there are regularly not enough Officers to cover the area properly.
So a huge list of duties and expectations (some of which should not be dealt with by police officers such as ebay disputes, facebook issues, parenting difficulties, transporting people and things….) coupled with ever dwindling resources is the TRUE reason you do not see so many Police Officers on patrol anymore whether that is in a car or on foot. I will admit and agree that many Officers probably do not want to be patrolling on foot these days but that is not through laziness (although I admit there will be the odd one who is lazy) it is more because with such vast areas to cover and the enormous range of duties they are responsible for with such small numbers, walking around in one town is not practicable.
For example, when I used to walk around on foot in the town of Wetherby I was useless if a call came in at Boston Spa or if a colleague in Aberford, a 10minute drive away but part of my ward, needed assistance. If you want more foot patrols you need more police. If you want more police you need to get behind them, stand up for them and fight the Government. It is their austerity measures causing this problem. The 20% cuts to Police budgets with an impending 25-40% FURTHER CUTS to follow this November! It is not “The Police” that make the choice not to patrol or to take their time getting to your call, it is the GOVERNMENT forcing this problem onto society through drastic austerity measures. Forcing senior ranks to make difficult and possibly dangerous choices over policing priorities.
I blame the Government and the media for a lot of the myths and bad opinions of our bobbies. I agree those bad apples in the Police Service do not help in any way and if you read my other blogs you will see my opinion of those who disgrace the office of Constable. However, it seems to have become the norm now to just report negative Police stories and to link anything to do with law, order, legislation and everything crime related with the cover-all term “The Police”.
We see “The Police” and images of Police related items such as the blue and white Police tape, being used by mainstream media when reporting on things which if we were to be fair, are not the fault of the Police. For example, when a particularly horrible suspect is released from custody on bail or without charge it is reported that “THE POLICE HAVE LET DANGEROUS SUSPECT “JO BLOGS” WALK FREE TODAY…”. In actual fact, if a suspect has “walked free” on bail or without charge, that is down to the law and legal system, neither of which “The Police” wrote or has any control over. There are very strict rules regarding the bailing and remanding of suspects which the Police simply abide by, not write. The decision to charge a suspect is made by the CPS in most cases or a trained Crime Evaluator in other matters. Decisions are based on evidence, threat to victims, witnesses or even the suspect and other factors. Although it is a custody Sergeant who authorises the release of suspects, it is done by following very strict rules which leave no room for ifs or buts or any personal opinion or preference, so how can they be blamed? Unless of course the release has been caused by a failure, malpractice or mistake by “The Police”, in which case you could blame the Officer responsible, but not the entire Police Service of England and Wales, your entire force or “The Police”.
When the Government introduce controversial new laws such as their snooping charter, the media often state to the public that it is “The Police” who want to have these powers. It is NOT the Police who request these powers. It is the Security Service and the Government but because it will be the Police who are forced to enforce the laws whether they agree or not, it is “The Police” that get the blame.
When it was discovered that the national crime statistics were wrong, fiddled and manipulated it was blamed on “The Police”. That resulted in many people thinking the bobby they see patrolling, attending their calls etc is a liar and fiddles the crime stats. The Police all over the country were labelled as liars and trying to cover things up when in actual fact the crime stats were fiddled by the senior command, the pseudo-politicians and the Home Office. Why label and tarnish an entire section of society, a vital public service, based on the actions of people who are so far removed from real life and the daily good the Police do? My guess would be to keep the wedge between the public and the public servants firmly in place so that they are less likely to stand together, shoulder to shoulder against the Government. But that is just my opinion.
This desire to blame “The Police” for everything, even it is not the fault of the Police subsequently bleeds into society. We have all heard the criticisms, opinions and myths surrounding policing. Let me elaborate and start with this one…
It’s lunch time, you hear sirens in the distance, you see a Police car with blues and twos on heading into town in the direction of shops and you say/hear “There they go, off to get their lunch” or something similar along those lines. We have all heard it. The comment has been uttered since I was a young child and even before then I am sure. I can not comment on whether that actually ever happened back in the “olden days”. Perhaps in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s when Policing and life was completely different from today. However, I can guarantee you that it does not happen today and if it ever did then the Officer(s) would be disciplined and most likely sacked along with charged with any traffic offences they committed.
The reason being is that in all Police vehicles these days there is a “black box” device. This device requires the Officer to either scan their warrant card or security pass or type in a unique code in order to start the car. So long as the engine is running this device records EVERYTHING that vehicle does. It records, speed, breaking, gear, mileage and every time the sirens or lights are turned on. So if an officer has a collision in the vehicle the data is automatically looked at. If he is found to have been speeding, didnt break, using lights and sirens when he shouldn’t have been etc, then the officer is facing one hell of a problem. The control room supervisors and senior management can and do conduct spot checks on the vehicles. They can check what speed Officers are driving, they can make sure light and siren use coincides with an emergency call or other relevant and permitted incident. They are notified if the car goes over a certain speed and Officers are often called in to account for it. They can even check how long a car has been parked up with the engine running to ensure Officers are not wasting time. So the myth that Police use blue lights to get home on time, get their meal or for anything other than a lawful and permitted reason is absolutely untrue.
Another common complaint and frustration as a member of the public is that “The Police” attended a burglary, damage, theft etc and “were useless, they did nothing at all”. When the Police attend any crime scene where the suspect(s) have left they have to look for clues or evidence. They will check if there is CCTV covering the scene. Were there any witnesses to the offence? Has the suspect left any items behind? Has the suspect left any forensic evidence such as fingerprints or blood etc. Unfortunately, criminals these days are switched on and quite often do not leave any evidence behind. So if the Police Officer is unable to investigate your crime further it is NOT because they are useless or can’t be arsed, it is because there is no evidence to lead to a suspect. You can not logically or fairly call “The Police” useless for not being able to magic evidence out of thin air I’m afraid…. And if you want to use the argument that if they were patrolling more they may deter these crimes, please read the beginning of this blog again then complain to our Government.
“I told ‘The Police’ that that bloke down the road was dealing drugs last week and they’ve done nothing about it!”… This is a common complaint I hear from people or see on social media. It is so frustrating for us as members of the public that criminals in our society seemingly get away with their crimes without any Police action being taken. It is very frustrating for Police Officers that they can’t just go and search a property or a person who has been pointed out as committing crime such as drug dealing. It is THE LAW that prohibits the Police taking quicker action against suspected drug dealers. If a member of the public tells a Police Officer that “Joe Bloggs” is dealing drugs from his home address they will take that information and submit it as intelligence. They will check the Police system and if there are other recent reports of the same nature then they can look at swearing out a warrant, organising a raid at a time when they have enough resources and then searching the address….If there are no other reports or only a couple then I am afraid the information will sit there until futher intelligence gathering can be done. The courts will NOT issue the Police a warrant on one or two intel reports. They will not issue a warrant until the Officer can satisfy them that the information is viable, reliable and they know as much as possible about the address and it’s residents. This all takes time. It takes Surveillance, intelligence gathering and an operational order. These all take time. Some operations can take months to put together, especially if the suspect is switched on and smart. A lot of this information will not be passed to the member of the public who reported it and so to the unaware it WILL seem like “The Police” are doing nothing. They are doing something, just have some patience. It is hard to do all of these essential things to get a warrant when they are also doing the duties in the huge list above.
“I TOLD “THE POLICE” THAT MY DAUGHTER WAS BEING LED ASTRAY BY A BOY AND THEY SAID THEY CAN’T DO ANYTHING”… The same applies to parents worrying about the friends their kids have. The Police do not have the legal powers to instruct people, including children, who they can and can’t associate with. The law allows people to socialise with whomever they wish. This boils down to simple parenting. So long as no criminal offences are being committed or there is no immediate risk or threat to life and limb, the Police will not and can not act. It is down to parents to handle their children and there are other services around to assist if they can not. The Police will be there to deal with any crime or risk to life and limb only.
“I SAW “THE POLICE” LOCK SOMEBODY UP JUST FOR WALKING DOWN THE STREET WITH A BRITISH FLAG”… Well that simply isn’t true. I’ve seen a recent video which starts just as the Police are arresting somebody carrying a Union Flag. You do not see any of the incident before this. The title of the video is purely designed to cause unrest as it claims the Police arrested the person because the flag offended somebody. There is no law against carrying the Union Flag or any other for that matter and so it is only possible that the person was arrested for their conduct. Words or actions used whilst walking down the street with the flag. The Police can only arrest for what the LAW allows them to and no law will allow them to arrest for this. Simple as that.
“THEY ARE POLICE OFFICERS THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONTROL THEIR ANGER BETTER”… Sadly there are many reports of Police using excessive force and I will never try and justify it. I will however just try and explain why a Police officer is no more able to control their temper, adrenaline and reactions in a violent situation. It is believed and expected (and rightly so) that The Police are highly trained in dealing with violent situations. That they are trained in self defence and are skilled in controlling their adrenaline. They are not. A Police Officer will still suffer the same adrenaline rush, the “fight or flight”, reaction as anybody else. They are of course more like to choose the FIGHT reaction. This doesn’t mean they will scrap with somebody, it means they will stand their ground and deal with the situation. In training all role plays of violent situations are far too Health and Safety controlled and so they can never be realistic and officers can never really be trained for real life until they hit the streets and encounter live situations. The level of self defence training they receive is no more than a few strikes to “pressure points” on the forearm if somebody grabs you or your kit or to press the mandibular angle to try and “gain control” of a suspect. All of this impractical Unarmed Defensive Tactics training mixed with pushing back with their hand held infront of them saying “Get Back”. I studied martial arts throughout my childhood and teens and also read a lot of self defence books too. I learned more from those books than the Police taught me. There were always requests from Officers for more realistic training but it was never permitted due to “Health & Safety”. So when an Officer gets involved in a violent situation his/her natural animal instincts kick in and unless they have had sufficient training OUTSIDE of the service they simply do their very best to survive and control the situation. Unfortunately, that sometimes leads to excessive force being used or mistakes being made.
These are just a few of the gripes, misconceptions and opinions expressed to me from members of the public and friends. I am sure there will be more. I am not for one second trying to say that the Police are perfect, don’t make mistakes or that all issues are down to cuts and being under resourced. There are problems in the Police Service which are caused by individuals whether that be corruption, racism or other criminality or malpractice but on that issue I would add that again, the actions of these individuals is not reflecting or representative of “The Police”.
I hope this blog has gone some way to increase some awareness of the situation within the Police Service of England and Wales and has come across as intended.
**In my next blog I am going to look at some of the duties Police Officers deal with which clash with their morals and beliefs but which they are legally obliged to fulfil and ask where would that obligation to duty over personal morals would end.
I think it is time we took a closer look at a term some of you may not have even heard before despite the fact they occur with an ever increasing frequency.
This report will no doubt attract unwanted attention, criticism, insult and maybe worse. It is however, I believe, an important subject to look at in this day and age when all the general public want from our Governments is honesty and fairness.
Many people throughout history have sought to highlight matters such as this one and unfortunately ended up being killed in “freak attacks” or “accidents”.
The subject I am talking about is FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS (FFO).
A FFO is a military and political operation, usually a terrorist attack or similar, which is perpetrated by the Government on their own soil or establishments abroad and subsequently made to look as though they have been committed by a foreign Government or extremist organisation.
Some well known alleged FFOs include;-
Charlie Hebdo attack
When I say “well known” I do not mean that it is well known that these were FFOs, I simply mean that people all around the world are well aware that these attacks took place.
Many have alleged over the years that the western Governments were heavily involved in the 9/11 attacks, some even suggest that they were completely planned and orchestrated by the US Government or a joint operation by US and other Governments such as UK and/or Israel.
At this point you may already be switching off and thinking this is another “conspiracy theory” but please read on. I will be looking at each of the above incidents in a little more detail and pointing out some of the theories circulating about them but the idea behind this report is to look more at the FACTS and the aspects of each incident which make them less conspiracy THEORY and more of a plausible possibility.
For this who have no idea what a FFO is you may mistakingly think that they themsleves are conspiracy theories. However, they are unfortunately very real.
We are going to look at one below which was presented to President John F Kennedy in the 1960’s by the Department of Defence. Quite frighteningly this FFO was signed off on by all except the President which is the only reason it did not go ahead. When we look at it you will see why so many people believe that the incidents listed above could well have been FFOs.
Op Northwoods was put together by the US Department of Defence (DoD) in the 60’s to address a problem faced by the then Government.
Kennedy and his administration were becoming increasingly concerned about Fidel Castro and also his relationship to Russia. Kennedy was under increasing pressure from his Government to take action against Castro and Cuba, however they lacked the support from the American public to invade and go to war and also the rest of the world. Op Northwoods was the DoD’s answer to that problem.
(you can view the entire now declassified document here but I will be looking at the vital sections below)
It is described in it’s first paragraph as a description of “pretexts which could justify US military intervention in Cuba”. In otherwords, idea that would make the rest of the world and US public support a US invasion.
Throughout the document are recommendations that the document is kept away from certain aspects of US Government, military and the rest of the world, including the UN. This is because the suggestions put forward, if carried out and discovered to be a FFO, would no doubt trigger another world war and destroy the US.
The first page outlines the document contents and reasons for it and shows that it was signed off by the US Joint Chief of Staff.
Section 5 of the Operation states
“The suggested courses of action…are based on the premise that US military intervention will result from a period of hightened US-Cuba tensions which place the United States in the position of suffering justifiable grievances. World opinion and the United Nations forum should be favourably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government being rash and irresponsible and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere”
What we are hearing here is a plan for the US Government, through a series of events and incidents which we shall examine shortly, planning to falsify and concoct an image and opinion which misrepresents the Cuban government and it’s leader. They basically plan on “spreading rumours” and making the rest of the world believe Cuba is a huge threat not only to the US but to the rest of the UN too. Sound familiar yet?
Section 6 goes on to explain how it would need be rushed and a short time scale would be forced upon the rest of the world to agree by telling them that AT THE MOMENT there is no threat from Russia as there is no pact between Cuba and Russia BUT if they hold back that threat could become real.
The conclusion in Section 7 states that the plan is a suitable response to the problem of gaining and increasing public support for war with Cuba and should be carried forward to the planning stage.
It is also recommended that the overseeing of the operation, both overt and covert actions, should stay with the Joint Chief of Staffs.
The report then goes on to discuss how the Operation should be put together. It states;-
“…Such a plan would enable a logical build up of incidents to be combined with a number of other seemingly unrelated events to camoflage the ultimate objective and create the neccersary impression of rashness and irresponsibility on a large scale directed at other countries as well as the United States”
It talks of choosing plans from the attached list of suggestions which we will look at later and again emphasises the importance of making the rest of the world believe Cuba is a threat to national security of the entire western hemisphere.
So let us now look at the list of proposed actions the US Government put together to take to the President which if he had signed off on would have resulted in the US proceeding to lie to the world in order to invade another country and start a war all for their own means.
Suggestion number 1 starts by saying;-
“Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba, a cover a deception plan…could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban response. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized.”
So in a nutshell, because a “legitimate provocation” would be preferred, the US would try and orchestrate a provocation by harassing and provoking Cuba themselves until Cuba reacted.
However, knowing that suggestion 1 would most likely not work they move in quickly to the following suggestion.
“A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give the genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces”
The DoD then lists their proposed “well coordinated incidents” as
1) Start rumours (many). Use clandestine radio
2) Land friendly Cubans [those either on the CIA payroll or trained as guerilla fighters by the CIA] in uniform over the fence to stage attack on base.
3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
4) Start a riot near the base main gate (friendly Cubans)
5) Blow up ammunition on the base. Start fires.
6) Burn aircraft on airbase (sabotage)
7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or direction of Guantanamo Bay.
9) Capture malitia group which storms the base
10) Sabotage ship in harbour. Start large fires – napthalene
11) Sink ship near harbour entrance. conduct funerals for mock victims (may be lieu of 10)
MOCK VICTIMS – this is something that will crop up again and we will look at closer later!
The DoD advise that in response to these incidents which would be conducted by the US and made to look like Cuba were responsible, the US military would then launch offensive operations against Cuba!
The 3rd suggestion was referred to as a “remember the Maine” operation. The Maine was a US battleship which funnily enough in the late 1890’s was sunk off of the coast of Havana following a huge explosion on board which tore a hole in the hull. There was, believe it or not, no evidence to suggest an attack but the incident was blamed on the Spanish and the US public, angry and upset at the death of 260 soldiers, demanded a declaration of war.
The following is an extract from the website ushistory.org;-
“REMEMBER THE MAINE, TO HELL WITH SPAIN!” was the cry. On April 11, 1898, McKinley asked the Congress for permission to use force in Cuba. To send a message to the rest of the world that the United States was interested in Cuban independence instead of American colonization, Congress passed the TELLER AMENDMENT, which promised that America would not annex the precious islands. After that conscience-clearing measure, American leaders threw caution to the wind and declared open warfare on the Spanish throne.”
Could this have been an early FFO?
So what would a “Remember the Maine” operation look like? Well the first suggestion by the DoD was…
“a) We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba”
part B of suggestion 3 is to blow up a drone vessel anywhere in Cuban waters, potentially close to Havana so that it was seen a would be a spectacle. When Cuban planes flew over to see what was happening footage would be used to emphasise that Cuba attacked the vessel. The US would then stage a rescue mission to “evacuate remaining members of a non-existent crew”
Again, MOCK VICTIMS being “rescued” from a faked attack!
“We could develop a communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, other Florida cities and even in Washington.The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cubans refugees in the United States, even to the extent of wounding in instances to be highly publicised….”
Here we see the US Government actually suggesting killing or wounding Cuban refugees in fabricated “terrorist attacks” in US cities! It continues…
“…exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government”
The US Government planned to paint the Cuban Government as “irresponsible” by acting irresponsible themselves.
Suggestion 5 was to cause tension between Cuba and other Caribbean nations by staging attacks on sugar cane fields and ensuring Soviet incendiaries were found along with the discovery of “Cuban” messages and weapons shipments on that nation’s beaches etc.
Suggestion 6 involved disguising a US plane as a Cuban plane and conducting attacks on US drone vessels and other US instillations.
Suggestion 7 was to stage hijackings of US “civil air and surface crafts” and make it appear to be backed by Cuba.
Suggestion number 8 is one that sets alarm bells ringing especially when you hold Lockerbie and 9/11 in mind.
“It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers would be a group of “College students” [CIA officers] off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
[This is where the plan gets crafty and alarm bells begin to ring]
a) An air craft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA propriety organisation in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all loaded under carefully selected aliases. The actual registered air craft would be converted to a drone.
b) Take off times of the drone air craft and the actual air craft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger [CIA] carrying air craft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into and auxilary field at Eglin AFB where arrangement will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to it’s original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the plane will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack from a Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be disrupted by destruction of the air craft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.
Can you believe what you have just read? Read it again. An elaborate plan to stage the shooting down of a passenger aircraft which would then be broadcast to the entire world. Names and faces of the “passengers” would be released. Mock funerals as discussed above would take place and the world would condemn Cuba for an act actually conducted by the US government!
It has long been suggested that the planes involved in Lockerby and in the 9/11 attacks were simply drones and that the passengers and families of passengers were in fact US military and government personnel. This allegation is always understandably met with outrage and disgust but can we blame the “conspiracy theorists” for believing this when that is EXACTLY what the US government planned in 1962?
Suggestion 9 was a plan to have a CIA pilot posing as an Air Force pilot engaged on a training exercise with other legitimate fighters. He would be briefed to fly at the back of the formation, some distance behind the rest where he would then let out a distress call to say he had been attacked by Cuban MIG planes. He would then descend to low altitude and fly to Eglin AFB where the plane would be re-numbered and the CIA agent would return to his normal duty. The pilot would never be found and would be reported as shot down by Cubans. At the same time a submarine would be used to release plane parts including parachute which would then be recovered from the sea and the coast of Cuba. Presumably another mock funeral would take place.
So now we have seen just how devious, deceitful and manipulative the US Government can be and it was only due to the honesty (the US government called it “softness”) of President John F Kennedy that Operation Northwoods did not go ahead at that time.
It raises the legitimate question though of whether a Northwoods style plan was taken to Bush as a way of increasing public support for the Iraq invasion. It was no big secret that Bush wanted to go into Iraq and take down Sadam and we now know that the story of WMD was a load of rubbish. We know Iraq played no part in 9/11 but were lead to believe Sadam and Osama were both up to no good and posed a “potential risk to the western hemisphere”.
In actual fact is well known and documented that it was the Bush family who were close friends of the Bin Laden family. The presidents father was entertaining Osama’s brother the morning of the attacks!
Did Blair use a FFO on 7/7 due to the increasing demands from the pubic and others in Parliament to stop being America’s lap-dog and to withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan?
Did Cameron authorise a FFO in Paris to create support and understanding from Parliament, the EU and the public for his plans to increase surveillance and snooping laws in the UK? The same morning of the attacks in Paris the head of Mi5 was quoted in the media as saying they can not protect us from all terrorist attacks and that terrorists are using complicated communication methods such as Whatsapp, iMessage and Snapchat… by complicated he meant encrypted.
David Cameron jumped straight on the bandwagon with plans to push his already quashed plans for his “snoopers charter” and a promise to ban all encrypted communications because he states he does not think the public should be able to communicate in a way which the government can not listen in. He made sure he highlighted the fact that the Charlie Hebdo attacks MAY have been avoided if the Government had the ability and freedom to listen in to all communications.
The attacks in Paris were almost instantly examined and numerous discrepancies were discovered paving the way for more “conspiracy theories” and allegations it was a FFO. (see my previous blog the Charlie Hebdo attack for details of the discrepancies and theories)
Northwoods suggests using MOCK VICTIMS in their attacks. Using serving covert agents as pilots and civilians aswel as the “terrorists” themselves. One of the theories surrounding the Paris attack was that the attackers were agents and that the Police Officer shot was actually a serving agent from MOSAD. Hard to believe I know, until you look at Northwoods and see that it is not as outrageous as you may think.
Many aspects of Northwoods can be seen in these incidents and because we KNOW that Northwoods was a legitimate US government plan and that the DoD was more than willing to sacrifice US lives and fabricate evidence and cover up their actions people can not be blamed or criticised for believing that 9/11, 7/7, Lockerbie, Pearl HArbour and the Charlie Hebdo attacks were the works of Western Governments.
President John F Kennedy had the decency and integrity which no other leader prior or since had. He turned down Northwoods and was deemed “weak”. He made a speech about secrecy and lies at a Government level and higher and insisted that his administration would NOT tolerate such activity and behaviour and called upon the US media to help him advise and inform the American public whilst vowing to expose the sinister secrecy at the highest levels of power…. several days later JFK was shot and killed.
But that is another “Conspiracy Theory” altogether.
*In writing this blog I am not endorsing any theory about any incident which has taken place. I happen to hold my own opinions on each incident. I simply believe that more people should be aware of the existence of Operation Northwoods and the extent to which the US Government HISTORICALLY planned to take matters simply to fabricate public support for war. Read the document in full at the link I have supplied. Look deeper into attacks which have happened both historically and recently and make you own minds up. But don’t dismiss those who think outside the box and consider all possibilities rather than simply excepting what the media, controlled by the Government, tell us.
If anything happens to me any time soon after writing this then it’s no conspiracy theory, DIG DEEPER! 😉
When did whistleblowing and telling the truth become an act of terrorism?
Seemingly, if events over the last 3-4 years are anything to go by it is when it involves exposing the lies of Government. When the truths you tell can put the safety or economic security of a nation in danger because those in charge have lied or acted in a corrupt fashion in the first place. If you are brave enough to expose these acts to the public as Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange have done in recent times then it seems you are then considered a terrorist.
Mi5 state the following on their website in relation to terrorist;-
Terrorist groups seek to cause widespread disruption, fear and intimidation. They use violence or the threat of violence as a means of publicising their causes, motivating those who might be sympathetic to them and intimidating those who do not sympathise.
They go on to state that a terrorist’s actions involves or cause;-
- serious violence against a person;
- serious damage to a property;
- a threat to a person’s life;
- a serious risk to the health and safety of the public; or
- serious interference with or disruption to an electronic system.
Having read that I can see why the US Government argued that the actions of Assange when he released the so called “War Logs” passed to him by Chelsea (Bradley) Manning were an act of terrorism because they stated that the contents of the logs and the cables of high ranking Government and intelligence officials would blow the cover of numerous assets. They stated that Assange, Manning and Wikileaks “had blood on their hands”.
The fact is however that nobody was ever killed or knowingly had their lives placed under threat by this leak. Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer from The Pentagon told a court hearing into the Manning case last year that there are no known examples of this happening as a result of the leak.
With that in mind then, how exactly is Assange, Manning and even most recently Snowden considered a terrorist?
When it comes to being a “Threat to National Security” however, it is not as black and white. There is no easy definition, no explanation or guidance. Whether a person poses a threat to national security is very much a decision for the Government to decide and it does not even have to be a direct threat to the nation in question. For example, if a person is considered a threat to another nation and ministers believe that that threat could impact somehow upon the relationship or trade between ours and that nation then all of a sudden that person becomes a threat to our national security too. It all seems very vague and too easy to consider a person a threat.
The definition of the word THREAT is;-
a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger
If you disagree with me here then please say so but I would consider the following things a threat to national security;-
• An act which attacks, disables, undermines the effectiveness of our nations defence systems
• An act which threatens the life or safety of the nations leader(s)
• An act which threatens the safety of the public
• An act which interferes in any way with things such as air traffic control, the rail network, energy supplies etc
All of these things would place the nation at a security risk. But I do not believe that exposing lies, cover ups, manipulations and murder at Government level is a threat to national security.
The acts of telling lies, covering up illegal activity, manipulating people and organisations or committing murder, those act themselves when committed by those in power I would say are a matter of national security. Those individuals, those criminals, THEY are the threat to national security and NOT those who stand up and expose it.
It seems these days that causing a national or international embarrassment for Government leaders or putting them in tricky situation or under pressure have all been re-categorized as a national THREAT.
What these so called leaders need to bare in mind is that if their actions or the actions of those in their party or office would, if known to the public, cause you serious humiliation or bring your reputation into disrepute then it is you and your people who, if you are categorizing these things as threats, are posing a threat to national security.
Our Governments seem to encourage whistleblowing in areas such as education, health care, NHS and other public services but they are quick to condemn or discourage whistleblowing in the military, police service, intelligence agencies, Government and of course banking.
It is very much suspected by the general public and known amongst others that corruption exists in these areas. Almost daily we are seeing evidence, however vague, in the mainstream media and more so in the less mainstream media. We hear politicians refusing to answer difficult questions or blatantly telling lies when put on the spot so it stands to reason that they will try their hardest to stop their skeletons falling out of the closet. Even if that means targeting leaks and whistleblowers and conducting either character assassinations or even murder. Don’t believe me? See the first 12 minutes of this video – http://t.co/9IeELlOIq9
Still doubt it? Perhaps this ex CIA operative is grinding an axe?
What about Corporal Joseph Darby who revealed the fact that US soldiers were torturing Iraqi soldiers? His name was “accidently” leaked by a senior official resulting in threats being made to Darby’s life. As a result his life was ruined and he was forced to retreat into the witness protection programme.
We have already mentioned Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning) who was sentenced to 35 years in prison under the espionage act for revealing the video of US air strike massacring innocent civilians and leaking US “war logs”.
Gustl Mollath in 2003 reported his wife for malpractice at a major German bank. An internal investigation resulted in her dismissal. She in turn reports him for assault and whilst giving his evidence at court the judge interrupts Mollath, states the allegations he made against his wife were clearly paranoid hallucinations and then personally saw to it that money laundering charges being filled against his wife did not go ahead. Mollath was subsequently admitted to a psychiatric institution for seven years and upon his release the investigation against his wife was re-opened. His accusations were found to be true!
This is the incident spoken about in the video above. Professor David Kelly, weapons expert for Tony Blair blew the whistle on the Iraq war and stated documents on WMD were forged. He passed evidence and info onto the BBC who were unable to keep their source’s ID a secret and Kelly was revealed. Kelly was subsequently found dead in woods near his home his wrists were slashed. An autopsy was never conducted. Verdict suicide. However, no fingerprints were ever found on his knife and it was alleged that Kelly did not lose enough blood to bleed to death. It is suspected, even by former intel officers, that Kelly was assassinated.
In the 1950’s CIA employee Frank Olsen not only revealed to the public that the CIA were using mind altering drugs on agents, a program known as MKULTRA, but he also began a protest against the CIA. He later “committed suicide” by jumping from a 13th floor window in New York. Years later his son allowed his body to be exhumed and examined. It was discovered that Olson was actually killed by a blow to the head with a blunt object…before being “allegedly” thrown out of the window to make it look like suicide.
Convinced yet? All these people did was find their conscience and morals and inform the public on corruption and illegal activity being carried out by the people and organizations who seem to be in charge of the world.
They did not put lives in danger or threaten the SECURITY of the nation, any nation, all they did was cause embarrassment and humiliation. A few red and angry faces as the powerful were caught out and their true colours were shown to the world. This has all of a sudden become, in the Government’s eyes, grounds for ruining or taking lives.
A threat to national reputation is NOT a threat to national security. If you have secrets, if you misbehave then eventually it WILL come to bite you on the arse and when that happens it is YOU that is to blame, NOT the person who brought the matter to light.
If you have never heard of the name Julian Assange or the group Wikileaks then I have to assume that you have been living in a darkened room away from all forms of media for the last few years. Mr Assange is the founder and face of Wikileaks, a group famed with leaking news of Government and corporate corruption around the world through the use of anonymous whistleblowers.
One of the most widely known cases has to be that relating to the US Army soldier Chelsea Elizabeth (formerly Bradley) Manning. Manning was brave enough to blow the whistle on the US military and intelligence services for covering up the murder of innocent civilians in an airstrike in Baghdad by leaking video footage to Wikileaks along with half a million “war logs” from Iraq and Afghanistan. This leak caused mass panic and annoyance to the US Government, along with others, and although Wikileaks prided itself on protecting it’s sources they were unable to protect Manning from himself as Manning bragged about his whistleblowing on an online chat room and brought the entire world around him crumbling down. Manning was promptly arrested forcing Assange and the rest of the Wikileaks group to go on the run. Manning was eventually convicted of espionage and sentenced to 35yrs in prison. Assange, with the help of reporters at The Guardian media group managed to flee and escape to the UK. The US Government were keen to get their hands on Assange and many high profile politicians claimed he was a terrorist on national TV. They claimed that he had blood on his hands and that the information he leaked put valuable intelligence sources lives at risk. The corruption which Assange had leaked to the public had caused massive international embarrassment for the US and partners and they wanted revenge.
In 2010 allegations were made by two women in Sweden that Assange had raped one and sexually assaulted the other. Assange was questioned and released on bail having denied the offence. It is widely alleged by his supporters that these women were actually honey-traps paid by the US Government to smear Assange’s name and reputation as they tried a common form of character assassination in revenge for his leaks. You can read the full allegations made against Assange here…. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
Fearing that the alleged sex offences against him were fabricated and the result of honey traps in an effort to take him into custody and possibly extradite him to the USA Julian Assange fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to escape extradition and possible assassination. Assange has admitted that he did have sexual encounters with the two women but has insisted that the allegations made against him are false. Requests have been made by his lawyers for the Swedish officials to come across to London and interview him here but these have been rejected. The Swedes seem intent on getting him on their turf and Assange and supporters believe that as soon as he is then he will be transported to America or succumb to some “no good end”.
We have recently heard ex CIA operative turned political activist Ray McGovern talk about the likes of Assange and the most recent high profile whistleblower Edward Snowden being placed on a CIA/NSA “kill list” alongside Al Qaida terrorists. It is no secret or surprise (although many will say it’s conspiracy and the ravings of mad men and women) that the US and UK authorities are linked to the assassination of many people who “threaten national security” it just seems that embarrassment and telling the truth has now been categorised as a threat to national security. Call me insane but I buy into the theory that Assange would fall foul of some random accident or be found dead after committing suicide… perhaps inside a duffle bag in a bathtub or similar or by natural causes with no autopsy being conducted like in the case of Dr David Kelly?
Anyway, I digress.
Julian Assange has now been hiding away in the embassy for 18 months. He has been given leave to remain there as long as he wishes by the ambassador. He could stay there till 2022 if he so wishes as this is when the statute of limitations on his extradition request expires. He has not been able to leave that building in 18 months for fear of being arrested and extradited by British Police.
What amazes me, as an former Police Officer with plenty of experience of conducting observations and surveillance of dangerous offenders, is that for 18months the Metropolitan Police have had Police Officers positioned outside the embassy waiting for Assange to leave so that he can be arrested!
I have seen operations axed, officers pulled off of obs points and surveillance scrapped because of budgetary issues despite us knowing the subject is present inside a specific building. These are jobs targeting serious and dangerous, often armed, offenders.
However, here we have a man, who just so happens to be the man responsible for embarrassing the most powerful and power mad nation in the world seeking refuge in another nation well known for being its lapdog and because he is wanted for questioning over questionable allegations in Sweden and definitely NOT because they want to crucify him or ruin him, it appears money is no object and we can waste our vital Police resources waiting outside a building for him.
I asked on twitter today just how much it has cost to date to wait for this arrest. No answers were forthcoming. However, as if by magic, the group ANONYMOUS tweeted a report from the Huffington Post detailing the cost to date of this operation.
6 MILLION POUNDS!!!
This I am sure you agree is a ludicrous amount to spend on a suspect who has not even been found guilty of an offence and where the allegations have so many questions hanging above them that they are not even ready to charge. It reads like a classic espionage thriller. The only time such money should be spent on a suspect is if they are terrorist targets. Last I understood, “sexual misconduct” in Sweden is NOT a terrorist act. It is about time the UK and US Governments admitted this is personal. That they want to destroy the life of Assange and THAT is why this operation and waste of time is still ongoing.
Even MPs in Sweden are directing prosecutors to travel to London and put an end to this case by interviewing him as he has proposed. We are yet to see if they will.
I have asked the Met if Sweden are footing the bill for the operation alleged to be costing the British tax payer £10,000 a day. I have so far received no answer.
In no other case of alleged sexual assault or other criminal offence have I known round the clock surveillance lasting 18month and costing 6 million pounds be acceptable yet when the suspect is the founder of a group causing you a pain in your rear it appears there are no limitations.
It is time the stupidity and wilful waste of much needed money and Police resources is brought to an end. Let Assange walk out of the embassy. Let the Swedes come to London where he has said he would be questioned and let the evidence be put before an independent jury allowing justice to prevail.
If Assange is guilty then he should be punished for that offence. If not then let him be. Love him or hate him for leaking the truth, the fact is, Julian Assange is entitled to a fair trial and to be free to walk the streets until a time when he is found guilty of a crime should he wish.
The US, UK and anybody else humiliated by the truths he revealed need to accept that Wikileaks and their whistleblowers won. Harming him now in any way will only add to the beliefs and rumours of corruption held by so many. Although revenge may seem desirable, it is better to forgive and learn from your mistakes.
All around the world we see varying levels of civil disobedience ranging from peaceful gatherings and protests from groups like Occupy to the more violent and deadly civil wars we see in places like Libya. In countries around the world and even in our great EU we regularly see the citizens taking to the street in protest against its Government and the decisions they make. Recently we saw the people of Spain take to the streets in response to a government proposal to make it illegal to speak ill of Spain, protest and burn the national flag. The Government decide to implement a law which will suppress the people and make it unlawful for them to oppose and they respond by taking to the streets, blockading Government buildings and showing their Government they will not be pushed around. They disobeyed without violence, injury or death and made their point very well.
(Note that there was little press coverage of this in the UK, it was touched briefly but mainstream media like the BBC didn’t stay with the story. A point I will come to shortly)
Here in the UK our own Government is tirelessly trying to privatise the country, make massive profit from the people, implementing policy and laws which are of no benefit to the nation but make it easier for employers to sack people, housing associations to move people or make them homeless, banks to fleece billions of pounds, businesses to avoid tax and they control the media to prevent the whole truth being revealed. David Cameron and his Selfservative Party are on a mission to divide the nation, leave the poor and needy to fend for themselves or die, line their own pockets and in his own words “re-shape Great Britain”. And in response to everything he and his party do, what do the people of Great Britain do? The vast majority do nothing except have a moan at work or the pub etc. They complain over social media and say “something should be done” but then don’t bother doing anything themselves. Apathy has gotten the better of the majority of our country. We have become lazy, a nation that expects somebody else to do something about it for them instead of standing up and being heard. And it is this attitude that the Government and our tyrant leader take advantage off.
Cameron and Co are doing all they can to divide the nation. A divided nation is easier to manipulate and control. A divided nation can not and will not join together and oppose its Government. A divided nation is far more obedient than a nation which is strongly bound and willing to stand together in the face of adversity and wrongdoing. Through lies and manipulated media the Government has brainwashed the nation making the majority of people obedient, spineless followers. Only around 25% of people possess a “rebellious gene” and will naturally stand up to authority and self styled leaders. The other 75% need to find that strength to stand up and be counted. People are afraid to join together and protest because they fear the repercussions which have been drilled home to us via the news.
The only time our national media shows public demonstrations or protests is when it “kicks off” and becomes violent so that they can focus on the thugs and idiots using it as an excuse for a fight rather than the reason for the gathering in the first place.
In 2011 when we had riots throughout the country and we saw mindless morons causing millions of pounds worth of damage and people getting injured the press were all over it. We saw shameful footage, courts were ordered to operate over the weekends, there were public campaigns to find the wanted suspects, we were kept up to date with the sentences that were given and left without any doubt that behaving in that way would come with harsh consequences. We see all to often groups such as the English Defence League (now allegedly disbanded) and United Against Fascism gathering and behaving in a violent, inappropriate manner and are notified on crimes committed and arrests made. All of this is part of the effort by Government to discourage the people from protesting and disobeying.
Think I am talking rubbish? Compare the amount of press coverage given to marches and protests which have even the smallest amount of criminality involved to marches which are peaceful yet effective, for example, November’s MILLION MASK MARCH which took place in London to oppose the government imposed austerity amongst other things. This event received very little national media attention at all. It received so little in fact that although I knew it was taking place, when I searched the internet on the night in question and watched the news I saw nothing. I actually believed it had been scrapped and so took to Twitter only see that many others were commenting on the complete lack of press coverage. I actually wonder whether it would have been mentioned by the press at all had it not been for comedian/actor Russell Brand, who supports and calls for complete revolution, being in attendance and tweeting along the way.
The fact is, the Government want the nation to be spineless, obedient followers who are more than entitled to have a moan about the state of things but will thinks twice before standing up and actually DOING something about it. For that reason they control the flow of media and scare monger with tales of long prison sentences and ruined lives for people who dare disobey.
Nobody in power likes a rebel. Nobody in power wants the boat being rocked. People who speak out and stand up to the lies spouted by government are belittles and ridiculed, harassed and threatened, punished or worse. All our lives we are discouraged from questioning authority. At school all but a few would argue back to teachers. You would be punished for questioning their authority and punished again if you dared try to justify it to your parents. At work you are not thought well of if you constantly question your managers and in the military and Police you can be disciplined for questioning orders and instructions. People in power fear the rebels of society. God knows I have fallen out with my fare share of teachers and senior ranks in my time. If I disagree with something or believe somebody is acting in an unjust manner then I am not a person to sit back and obey because society dictates they are in power and we must do as we are told.
If you are tired of the lies, the hypocrisy, the corruption and the manipulation of this Government then you need to open your eyes to the games they play and the tactics they use to force you into submission and obedience and you must begin to question authority. Speak out. Publish blogs. Write to MP’s, the press and other organisations. Get involved in planned peaceful marches and demonstrations. Be brave and don’t allow your courage to be suppressed any longer. Stand up, Disobey and DO SOMETHING FOR YOURSELF.
BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD
It is not possible to make the mega rich politicians, bankers and business men and women who control this country understand the suffering they’re causing by obeying the rules and conforming to their standards and rules. The time for apathy has passed, the time for action is long overdue.
We all know that behaving like violent thugs, destroying property and attacking others is not only disgusting and inhumane behaviour but it achieves nothing. Throughout history and even today we are shown that this kind of action costs billions, loses lives and achieves little if anything at all. Just look at the last time the “peasants revolted” against similar tyranny in 1381. All were hunted down by the kings men and killed. In 2011 the “revolting peasants” were hunted down and jailed. It does very little to influence change and plays directly into the hands of the “leaders”.
Planning and partaking in large peaceful and effective protests and demonstrations however makes people sit up and listen. One of my favourite movie scenes ever is at the end of the film V FOR VENDETTA when the British public come together and march to Whitehall and Downing street and simply stand silently and peacefully in the street wearing the Guy Fawkes mask. Whenever I watch it I picture David Cameron, George Osborne and Theresa May looking out of their office windows and shaking in their boots. Effective, peaceful, makes a huge impact and there is no way on earth it could be ignored.