When the police shoot to kill is it still considered murder? If so then why don’t they just say that instead of trying to make it sound politically correct or implying there was no choice but to use deadly force?  Is not a shot to the kneecaps or thigh or shoulder just as debilitating as a slug to the chest or gut? Why don’t they utilize rubber bullets or other types of weapons which effectively neutralize without killing? If the object is to shoot to wound, is it necessary to fire several rounds?  Many regard abortion as legalized murder so why does it seem like nobody is as fired up to put a stop to institutionalized murder, like the death penalty? Could it be that some lives hold more value than others?

Slapshock – Agent Orange

Greyhoundz – Shoot To Kill

Rico Blanco – Yugto

Bamboo – Noypi

Sandwich – Procrastinator

Queso – Trilogy

Parokya ni Edgar – Buloy

Wolfgang – Halik ni Hudas

Sponge Cola – Pasubali

More on the next post…

This is a slightly longer version of a column published under the slightly odd title of “Protect us please”, in City Press on Sunday, 22 November 2009. It is a response to the death of a toddler at the hands of two policemen who shot the boy, who was sitting in a car with his paternal uncle, outside an aunt’s house because “he was carrying a pipe” which the police officers then “mistook for a gun”. This is one of a range of civilian deaths at the end of police officers since attempts by the Police Ministry to tighten legislation which governs when police officers may use deadly force. Ostensibly, this is to equip the police force to deal decisively with violent criminals, but it is open to abuse. Deputy Minister of Police, Fikile Mbalula, is the figure most closely associated with instuctions to “shoot to kill”.

I was not then, nor am I now, convinced that civilian deaths are unavoidable as Mbalula claims. I think the response from police heads has been completely unacceptable.

So here is the long version:

I cried when I saw the picture of a toddler killed by the police this week. I don’t know him or his parents, but I wondered what difference it makes to them whether their child was killed by criminals or police officers. This was a little boy who brought laughter to his parents’ faces even when they did not necessary want to laugh at his antics. Atlegang Aphane was a little boy whose father wanted to play many more games with in the future. His mother cradled him protectively as he kept her up at night. This is part of the experience of love; we had this effect on our parents and the children we love have it on us. As I pondered all of this, I wondered how long the police heads had taken to think about how it would feel if their little children were unsafe from the very people that were supposed to protect them.

No matter what he did, no three year old can look that menacing. There are conflicting stories about a parked car, a child sitting inside it with an uncle, the pipe that little Atlegang may or may not have had in his hand. But no matter what the little boy held in his hand, he must have looked like a little boy to the same eyes that were so attentive as to notice that he was holding something.

Is a three year old the face of violent crime?

I am sure that some police officers, like many other ordinary people, buy guns as toys for their children to play with. Little boys and girls all over the country should throw those toy guns away lest they may be mistaken for violent criminals. Being gun free will not render them safe. Atlegang did not have a gun when he was killed. Even if s/he has a real bomb in his hand, a three year old should not die at the hands of the police. There is no justification for what happened this week.

Newspapers say he did not have a pipe in his hand. But he is dead nonetheless. Somebody needs to take responsibility for this, and not just the two police officers on whose hands his blood is. It will not bring Atlegang back or heal his family’s pain, but it will be a world apart from the insensitivity of justifying a child’s death with talk of innocents caught in the cross-fire.
This child was not hit by a stray bullet between shooting grown men.

What kind of people are we that can accept such a thing as the trivialisation of human life as normal?

A friend of mine remarked this week that she was no longer sure whom to fear more: criminals or the police. She and I have had countless conversations about crime over the years. We have not always agreed on its causes and whether the government is doing enough to address is. She was frequently infuriated by what she called Mbeki’s side-stepping of the issue, as was I. Now the media reports that Zuma speaks about how ‘our’ crime is different from that experienced in other countries, and I honestly don’t know what this means. I suppose that if our crime is more violent, then our police officers should also be more violent and less cautious. But how are we as ordinary people supposed to know the difference in the absence of consideration for the fact that all lives matter, especially those of us who are not shooting at the police?

Yes, I know that there are many outstanding men and women in the police force, many of whom have lost their lives to violent criminals. I doubt that they feel recognised in the glossing over the unnecessary death of unarmed children and adults.

The yearning for more reliable and visible policing is one of the few calls that unite South Africans across the political landscape. When we hope for safety we imagine that we can tell those we can trust apart from those we dare not.

A few weeks ago, in this paper, Mathata Tsedu wrote movingly to Shadi Rapitso’s parents about the horror of losing a child and to a senseless violent act. We cannot accept that the unnecessary loss of life is unavoidable. Giving hope to people who live in this country cannot mean that we have to first fear the police when we think about our own and our families’ safety.

Zuma, Mbalula and Malema Support tough new law.

Take cover. The government is racing to enact the promised shoot-to-kill law – and it will probably apply to civilians making a citizen’s arrest as well as to police, as a government minister warned yesterday: “Innocent people are going to die.”

For more than a decade people have complained about rampant violent crime in South Africa. In that time nearly a million of our smartest and most productive citizens have left — the heartache of family members, divided by oceans, a necessary sacrifice for the sake of the young and as yet unborn.

So many of us never got to see our grandchildren grow up — a tragedy for us, and a tragedy for them.

But it was worth it. Our nearest and dearest now live in safety, citizens of countries that hold paramount, the safety and security of their people.

I don’t believe affirmative action on its own played a significant part in the exodus. Rational, thinking people know that for the sake of all South Africans the disparities of the past must be addressed (we could argue that the implementation of AA is not being done correctly, but that’s another debate for another time).

Crime drove away most of those South Africans who left.

Never, during the Mbeki era, was there so much as a glimmer of light at the end of the crime-wave tunnel, and it was reflected in the mass migration of South Africans that occurred during his stewardship. Now, with the advent of the Zuma administration, there is change. Dynamic change, even, in the approach to crime.

We should be celebrating, dancing in the streets.

But, but, but, predictably, the bleeding hearts brigade is at it again, singing a mournful song:

Gauteng Inkatha Freedom Party leader Petros Sithole, in my view, went to extremes when he said the ‘sad reality of this situation is that police, who are supposed to protect and respect our communities, are the ones now killing innocent South Africans’.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it does seem as though Mr Sithole is suggesting that now our cops are out there, busy as bees, killing innocent people with impunity, bodies piling up everywhere, and all because of the shoot-to-kill-armed-criminals — let’s not forget the armed-criminals part — statements of the top cop and the minister of police, endorsed by the president.

For Mr Sithole’s information — and others of like mind — cops all over the world sometimes kill innocent people. Here’s an example from one of the First World’s foremost human right’s countries:

Trigger-happy Canadian cops

NANAIMO, B.C. – Cops have shot dead a fourth B.C. resident in less than five weeks.

On Sept. 18, police fired at a 40-year-old motorist and critically wounded him during a traffic stop near Duncan on Vancouver Island. The man was ordered to sit down near his car and apparently shot while he was seated on the ground. A policeman involved in that shooting has been assigned desk duties while an investigation continues.

War against crime, like any war, produces collateral damage, which is what Fikile Mbalula, the deputy minister of police meant when he ‘told reporters in Cape Town that civilians would inevitably be killed as police take the battle against crime to the streets..’

Surely by now it is self-evident that the softly, softly approach to crime is getting us nowhere. Criminals thumb their noses at such puny attempts to enforce law.

The new government realises this. And we should all be thankful.

I want to close with the words of President Jacob Zuma:

“The crime in South Africa is different from other countries, who have probably, in terms of quantity, the same crime. It’s different from the point of view that this one is violent in South Africa – more violent than in any other part of the world,” he said.

“Criminals here act differently. If they break into somebody’s house in other countries, they steal and run away. Here they wait for the person to come and demand keys – where is the safe and everything – and they kill and they have been killing people. That is why the crime is characterised as violent.”

Amen to that, Mr President.

Éirígí general secretary Breandán Mac Cionnaith has condemned the stalling tactics of the PSNI in relation to an inquiry into several cases of shoot-to-kill by the force.

Between November 11th and December 12th 1982, the RUC murdered six people in the north Armagh area.

IRA Volunteers Gervaise McKerr, Eugene Toman and Seán Burns were shot dead in Lurgan on November 11th; 17-year-old civilian Michael Tighe was shot dead near Craigavon on November 24th; and INLA Volunteers Séamus Grew and Roddy Carroll were shot dead close to Armagh City on December 12th.

The British investigation into the murders was carried out by former Greater Manchester Police Deputy Chief Constable John Stalker and Colin Sampson of the West Yorkshire Police. However, their reports were suppressed as the British government attempted to cover-up the truth behind the killings.

On Tuesday the PSNI announced it wanted until next year to release the secret reports into the killings despite corner John Leckey giving the force until November 9th to hand the material over to him.

Mac Cionnaith said: “The PSNI is intent on withholding as much information as possible from inquiries into its actions when it was known as the RUC.

“Hugh Orde became notorious for obstructing inquiries and inquests, including the shoot-to-kill and Pearse Jordan cases. Now Matt Baggott seems determined to follow in his footsteps.

“Éirígí has consistently pointed out that the PSNI remains as unaccountable as ever. Not only are the Six County Policing Board and the District Policing Partnerships incapable of holding it to account in the here and now, the force is also determined to prevent itself being held to account by other bodies for past actions.”

Mac Cionnaith continued: “Even if the PSNI is forced to hand over the Stalker and Sampson reports, it has rolled-out the usual ‘national security’ caveat to ensure that the most damning evidence is withheld from scrutiny.

“It is impossible to believe that all this is going on without the complicity of the British government.

“The RUC grievously hurt six families when it carried out its shoot-to-kill operations in north Armagh in 1982. That hurt is being added to by the obstinate refusal to co-operate with this probe.

“In the interests of truth and justice, the Stalker and Sampson reports should be released to the general public, not just to coroner John Leckey.”

Three recent incidents of cops arbitrarily opening fire on suspects, all but one of whom turned out to be victims of mistaken identity, and another, a street vendor who wasn’t a suspect — who allegedly was murdered by two drunk off-duty cops who had refused to pay him after eating the foodstuff he sold — have been cited as proof that the ‘shoot-to-kill’ directive by Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa, backed by National Police Commissioner Bheki Cele and endorsed by President Zuma, was ill-conceived.

Gauteng Inkatha Freedom Party leader Petros Sithole, in my view, went to extremes when he said the ‘sad reality of this situation is that police, who are supposed to protect and respect our communities, are the ones now killing innocent South Africans’.

Without a doubt the cops in two of the incidents, in using their firearms, acted with extreme, perhaps even criminal, recklessness. The third incident had nothing to do with cops acting in the course of duty; those two cops allegedly were thieves and murderers.

It escapes me how anyone can point to these incidents, tragic though they were, as justification to condemn the shoot-to-kill directive of the minister. No one can say with certainty that it had anything to do with the actions of these cops.

The minister’s directive was clear as daylight: shoot to kill armed criminals who pose a deadly threat to the lives of cops or innocent citizens. And it was emphasised over and over by the national police commissioner as well as President Zuma.

Cops who don’t follow to the letter that directive, and shoot indiscriminately, are guilty of breaking the law and must suffer the consequences.

Cops with itchy trigger fingers have been around for a long time, who needed no shoot-to-kill directive to spur them on.

And let’s look at First World countries.

As far as I know, there have been no directives in First World countries to their cops to shoot to kill criminals. Yet you need only Google trigger-happy cops to realise that South Africa doesn’t have a monopoly on trigger-happy cops.

Violent crime is the biggest threat there is, to the future of South Africa. It is an extreme situation that calls for extreme measures. Criminals don’t hesitate to use their weapons and neither should our cops when confronted by them.

Read the article that prompted me to write this piece.

Sandi’s experience with Metro Police Fri 9 Oct

Sandi’s story:  I was driving in my car at 12.45 Friday afternoon in Kenilworth, Cape Town, South Africa and turned left off Belvedere Road into Chichester Road (the road down the side of Kenilworth Centre where the Toyota dealership is) driving approx 40 or 50km per hour with my 16 year old daughter Dani and friend in the back of the car.  A police officer of the South African Police force ran into the road wielding and waving a gun at us.  At first I thought we had been caught up in an armed robbery and my daughter said “Mommy please pull over he’s going to shoot us”.  So I pulled over and the policeman (who later identified himself as Officer Strydom) was shouting aggressively at me to open my window and he said words to the effect of “You are lucky you pulled over otherwise you would have been dead by now”.  None of us in the car saw any signs or indication of a roadblock so I asked him for the reason he pulled us over.  Officer Strydom (who we now know is from the Claremont Police Precinct) continued aggressively shouting at me and said he was an officer of the law and I must do what he tells me to do.  Then he asked me for my drivers licence and continued shouting at me, more words to the effect of “When I tell you to pull over you pull over – you do what I tell you to do”.  He put his gun back into its holster, half out and half in and kept his hand on the gun.  Another officer came to the window on the other side of the car and stood against the window with his hand on his gun.  The policeman continued to talk abusively to me.  I said to Officer Strydom I was focusing on the road and didn’t see any one pulling me over.  I asked if I could go and he said “You will go when I tell you to go”, “I’m the person in charge here”.  He gave me no reason for pulling me over.  There was no flashing light, no cones, no stop sign, nothing to indicate that I should stop.  I felt that Officer Strydom was behaving very aggressivley towards me.  I asked him his name and he identified himself as Officer Strydom.  I dropped my daughter and her friend off at Kenilworth Centre and went to report the police incident to the South African Police at the Claremont Police Station.  After half an hour someone attended to me and the person said I must wait until Monday and come and speak to Inspector Bock about my complain.  So went back to collect the girls from Kenilworth Centre.

About two weeks ago I posted a blog, deploring the South African President’s support for amendments to the law which would give police officers the right to shoot to kill. In that time, an innocent young women has become the unfortunate victim of this insane policy proposal, while two other innocent citizens were injured in the same incident.

Earlier this week, police officers shot at a vehicle suspected of being hijacked, killing the young women and injuring two others who were all passengers in the car. And just to highlight the incompetence of the seven police officers involved, the driver of the car, an Air Force pilot who was the only one to exit when it stopped, was also the only one who was not shot. He later claimed that the police opened fire indiscriminately and without provocation.

Considering the unbelievably stupid shoot-to-kill remarks made by senior police chiefs, politicians and even the President, to (poorly trained) police officers, only two weeks earlier, this incident was bound to happen. Earlier this year, the Deputy Safety and Security Minister, Susan Shabangu was reported as saying: “You must kill the bastards if they threaten you or the community. You must not worry about the regulations. That is my responsibility. Your responsibility is to serve and protect.” If the Deputy Minister does not understand the concept of serving and protecting, what hope is there for ordinary police officers, weaned on serving the former apartheid state against the majority of citizens.

The police officers who were involved in the shooting can claim that it was as a result of the mixed messages that they received from their bosses, but unfortunately (and rightly so) will have to face the full brunt of the law for their actions. As usual, the politicians will literally get away with murder.

But wait; it gets worse. Yesterday the Minister of Police, Nathi Mthethwa not only claimed that the shoot-t0-kill stance was a fabrication by the press, he proclaimed that laws concerning the  police’s right to enter  private premises would be changed, to apparently, wait for it…. save lives. The Minister was quoted as saying:

There is a lot of woman and children abuse and we can’t seek permission from abusers to enter their houses.

If the police cannot competently identify a model of car (as in the shooting incident described earlier), how can we trust them to identify an abuser, and not barge into the wrong house shooting wildly at innocent people?

Are politicians that thick that they do not learn from the mistakes of their idiot peers? The draconian measures instituted by George Bush against the citizens of the USA to curb their constitutional freedoms, in response to the 9/11 disaster is still very much in the periphery of political and social discourse. Can our public representatives not see the danger of a repeat here, or are their objectives more sinister? Are South Africans, with a history of abuse of rights and freedoms, prepared to allow our politicians to drag us back into the past?

Personally, I need the assurance that my home will remain inviolate; free from the clutches of grubby politicians and the threat of invasion by incompetent police officers. Any attempts to diminish our freedoms must be resisted.

I read with utter dismay the other day that our President, Jacob Zuma supports an amendment to Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which will give the police the power to “shoot to kill.”

The crime situation in South Africa is without doubt, very severe. No one denies this; except the criminals, off course, and a few idiot politicians. But then, politicians are no better than criminals; probably worse. And criminals from all over Africa, even the world are flocking to this country because they’ve all heard how ineffective our police are; how our police hire security guards to protect their police stations, how easily our police can be convinced to co-operate in criminal activity (note that I’m not saying all our police, but far too many for comfort). Oh yes, they’ve also heard that in South Africa crime does pay – very well too, and if common thievery and other criminal acts gets too rough for the criminal, there’s always public office!

But instead of solving the root problems that make criminal activity so attractive in this very attractive country of ours, the government responds emotionally by saying “let’s give them the power to shoot to kill.” How unimaginably dumb is that. The last thing the citizens of any country want to do is give more power to the state or its organs. Power belongs to the people, not the state. Allowing the police to shoot indiscriminately can only lead to the unfortunate loss of innocent lives; not to mention potential trigger-happy, power-drunk policemen and women having more power over me, than I care to tolerate.

I’ve searched deeply for answers to our crime situation, and I always come back to the same conclusion – the police are incapable of protecting and serving the public; the knowledge and familiarity of which empowers criminals, and entrenches criminality and lawlessness. Why are our police so powerless to alleviate the crime problem? Here again, I am always led to the same conclusion – poor training, and the reprehensible belief that the badge confers special powers and rights to the wearer.

The police in this country were trained originally, in the arts of propping up illegitimate governments. I’m referring to the apartheid system. The police back then, were taught to enforce laws that kept this apartheid government in power – they were trained to protect and serve the old government, not the people. I know what it sounds like. The old apartheid scapegoat! It’s just too easy to blame apartheid again, isn’t it? But I’m not blaming apartheid; I’m blaming poor training and a mentality that has endured past it’s acceptability date (not that it ever was acceptable).

This legacy lives on – it is perpetuated in the training today, and that mentality has not been eradicated. Our police just want to fill jail cells, and show how powerful they are - they don’t seem to want to put in the effort required of detective work, and respecting the public that pays their salary. But then again, I suspect these guys have never properly, been shown how to.

And then there is the question of poor pay. But properly skilled police will (and should) be remunerated according to the levels of skill they acquire – just moving through the ranks with time, as is obviously customary at present, should cease. A well-trained, well-paid and motivated police force who… well, solve crimes, apprehend the perpetrators and ensure that the courts can prosecute successfully, will eventually send a strong message: do the crime and we’ll ensure you do the time. Off course, realistically this isn’t going to happen overnight; it’s a plan for the long term security of the country.

President Zuma was quoted, during a speech on Tuesday to police station commanders, as saying:

We have an abnormal criminal problem in South Africa. We must therefore apply extraordinary measures.

Yes, Mr. President we do have an abnormal criminal problem in South Africa, but until you also acknowledge that we have an even more abnormal police problem in this country, you or your shoot-to-kill cops are not going to wrest back control from the criminals. I sincerely hope that you issue some pen, paper and a few training courses with those extra bullets that you will be distributing.

Hi everyone,

Our VIBE E.P has just been reviewed in manchestermusic.co.uk, read below for all the juicy bits

The 66
BILLY’S LAST STAND – UNSIGNED SINGLE OF THE WEEK

28 September 2009 / White Label / 3 Trk CDR / Download 
By JA 

I’ve been a long time admirer of The 66, so this latest demo from Warrington’s finest was very much anticipated. Already renowned for their modern take on loose limbed retro rock n roll, “Billy’s Last Stand” is maybe The 66’s best track to date. The song is riddle with pop highlights and embraces their stadium sized sounds and ambitions. “I have a fire inside me…” sings Daniel Rimmer before dragging you onto a rollercoaster of chanting melodies. It seems an almost impossible task, but they have somehow snatched the spirit of 60’s psychedelic rock n roll and crammed it into another juggernaut bout of 21st century rock.

“Shoot To Kill” finds the band exploring another favourite avenue — clambering, epic, spaced out rock with a thudding beat and melodic mantras. Without breaking much of a sweat, they’re in top gear and broadcasting their magnificent sounds from mountaintops. As if to underline what The 66 : 2009 are, their previous standout demo track “Firefly” is re-recorded with even more finesse and added bits of dazzling electroinica. Bigger, better, action packed stratospheric stuff from the north’s best.

MMMM 1/2
 
—

Here is the direct link to the review on the website

http://www.music-dash.co.uk/releases/release.asp?item=6444

—

If you’d like to check out Billy’s Last Stand please head to,

http://www.myspace.com/the66uk
the 66 x

http://www.returntothepit.com/concert.php?date=2009-08-01

Please, spread this link (repost a blog, forward on as a bulletin, etc…)
If you want to use them for anything else, message me back.
you can write reviews or read them here
Deep Cover (57)
Ignorance (121)
Pitfall (89)
Randomshots (169)
Shoot To Kill (156)
The Bonus Army (132)
Think Again (181)
Villain (79)
Watchfire (53)
Yellow Stitches (55)


Some Images:

I like the attitude brother.Having just been appointed as new chief(national commissioner) of police in South Africa,Bheki Cele, has already laid down the law and said that crime will not be tolerated and criminals will be severly dealt with.He told a press conference yesterday that :

“You can’t be soft and you can’t be moving around kissing crime. You need to be tough, because you’re dealing with tough guys”

Eloquent…isn’t he?

So how is he gonna solve the problem..well for starters he stands by his call for police to “shoot to kill”.He said he wants to see South Africa as a country where women and children could walk alone without fear of attack or rape.Me too…lets make it happen..without any corruption charges please.

"please...call me Shaka"

I know it is our constitutional right to be able to own a gun. I know that it is the person who pulls the trigger and that a gun simply cannot act on its own accord to shoot a living being. There is no denying that the people who use guns kill. And yes, people can also die in a car accident, with an overdose of medicine, of a bad medical procedure, and of course, of natural causes.

But we just have to realize that after a person is found dead, lying on the ground, riddled with bullet holes, it was the bullets from a gun that was shot that killed that person.

And when it comes to the case of Thomas Barrera, a man who was shot in a foot pursuit two years ago in Oxnard, somehow, for some reason, that officer deemed it necessary to shoot another living being THREE times. Not once in his knee to cripple him, not once in the arm or the shoulder to make it impossible for that person to arm himself and hurt the officer, but three times to make sure that person was no longer a living threat.

Unfortunately, what happened that day two years ago will remain between that offier and the assailant.

I personally don’t believe in punitive damages. I don’t think money will ever replace a loved one, EVER. But I do believe that the family is justified in trying to uncover more information about what happened that day, to understand why their loved one was shot THREE times as an act of self defense. I have rarely heard of one person being able to do much with two bullets lodged in his rear end and back.

And what bothers me the most about this case is that EVERY shot entered through the back of Barrera. The officer said the assailant swung at him with a knife, but got shot in the rear and twice in the back?

I really don’t see how that is justified.

But then again, I am not a police officer. I just feel that if you are going to use a deadly weapon that could be used instead to disable someone, that is ALWAYS the best option.

Just a sad reality that we have come to a point where the use of guns to kill someone is common place–justified or not.

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith Freemasons

… kindly provides “Law” Enforcement Officers with clues on spotting dangerous “Extremists”. Unfortunately, they failed to let cops know how to spot Freemasons — their secret handshakes and garbled Hebraisms and occult incantations and such-like. As a public service, I’ve decided to pass along their helpful suggestions, with my comments in square brackets.

If you enjoy seeing the US Military etc murdering innocent civilians, see:

• WACO: The Big Lie
  
• WACO: The Big Lie Continues

From your friends at B’nai B’rith:

Officer Safety and Extremists: An Overview for Law Enforcement Officers

Ideological extremists [excluding Zionists] have added to law enforcement officers’ dangers. Extremists willing to break the law already view the police as the enemy. A number of extremists, particularly those who adhere to various conspiracy theories, may believe that the police are deliberately targeting them because of their beliefs, and consequently may be unpredictable or violent in situations involving law enforcement, even when they have not broken any laws.

The focus of this officer safety overview is primarily on the dangers posed by those groups and individuals that are often called “right-wing” extremists, specifically members of hate groups or anti-government groups.

Even if members of hate groups are less common than spouse abusers, officers will eventually encounter them. Extremist criminals pose all the same risks to officer safety as other criminals. However, because of their beliefs, extremist criminals also pose additional risks and concerns.

Extremists who commit criminal acts may be lazy, careless, stupid, or cowardly. Yet because their ideology motivates them differently than more common motives such as greed or anger may motivate typical criminals, police officers cannot afford to assume that extremist criminals they encounter are going to act or react in familiar ways.

Extremist criminals are often very angry; in fact, it is their anger—against the government, people who are different from them, creditors, spouses or relatives—which may attract them to extreme ideologies in the first place. These ideologies exacerbate their anger, while providing a rationale for its existence and targets for its expression. Thus while almost any criminal, from a spouse abuser to a drunk driver to a drug dealer, may react violently out of spontaneous anger, extremist criminals are often more likely to do so.

One example of such anger involved Kim Lee Bonsteel, a “sovereign citizen” from North Carolina. Bonsteel was sent to prison, where he described himself as a political prisoner of the New World Order.

New World Order Conspiracies

Members of many fringe movements are susceptible to belief in one or more conspiracy theories. Many such theories describe shadowy, behind-the-scenes figures secretly manipulating and ruling the entire world.

The most common conspiracy theory among anti-government movements such as the militia and “sovereign citizen” movements is the New World Order conspiracy, which involves an imminent takeover of the U.S. by the United Nations in order to establish a socialist, authoritarian, one-world government.

Other popular conspiracy theories are antimasonic, targeting Freemasonry. Many extremists mix and match among these differing theories.

Many extremists adhere to ideologies so anti-government in nature that they insist that they have “constitutional” or “God-given” rights to do virtually anything without any interference from the government. When the government does try to interfere, anti-government extremists can become extraordinarily hostile.

Many members of the “sovereign citizen” and militia movements believe that they have a legal or biblical right to travel completely unregulated by the government. In practice, this can include driving without a license, license plates, tags, registration, or insurance. Some believe that they must follow traffic laws if driving a commercial vehicle, but not if they are driving a “private” vehicle. Others may simply claim that the Bible gives them a right to travel unhindered. Such people can become extraordinarily confrontational when pulled over for a traffic stop.

A similar source of anger that may cause extremists to lash out at law enforcement officers involves children. Many members of hate groups and anti-government groups argue that the government has no right to interfere in any way with the family. In the past, many conflicts arose when members of such groups tried to take their children out of the school systems in violation of state laws.

Some extremists go so far as to claim that no government has any authority over them whatsoever. Many will claim that they will follow only “God’s laws,” not “man’s laws.” Some may even call themselves “Ambassadors of the Kingdom of Heaven” and claim diplomatic immunity. Not surprisingly, people who acknowledge no governmental authority over them at all have the potential to react violently when a representative of such a government attempts to assert authority over them in some way.

The “Ruby Ridge” Factor

The well-known standoffs at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and Waco, Texas, in 1993 significantly agitated and galvanized the extreme right-wing in the United States. Some extremists have expressed a desire for another such event to re-energize the extreme right. Consequently, there is a danger during any standoff or confrontation, perhaps even those not involving extremists, that one or more extremists on the outside might attempt to precipitate “another Ruby Ridge.”

Paper Terrorism

Paper terrorism is a tactic perfected by the “sovereign citizen” movement. It involves the use of bogus legal documents and filings, as well as the misuse of legitimate legal documents and filings, in order to harass and intimidate law enforcement officers, public officials, and sometimes private citizens. The most common of these include filing bogus liens against the property of law enforcement officers, filing frivolous lawsuits against them, filing bogus IRS 1099 and IRS 8300 forms in the hopes of raising IRS suspicions about officers, and issuing bogus arrest warrants from “common law courts” or similar bodies. [Therefore, officers must be on the lookout for lawyers, especially ACLU types!]

Extremist Identifiers

Perceptive officers may often be able to detect visual and verbal clues that help them recognize that the person with whom they are dealing may adhere to an extreme ideology. Visible extremist identifiers are often observed on motor vehicles and may be noticed at a person’s residence as well. Verbal identifiers may present themselves during conversations with such persons.

Vehicular Identifiers: Vehicles belonging to extremists often display clues as to the ideological convictions of their owners or drivers. These include, but are not limited to, the following identifiers.

Bogus license plates or driver’s licenses: Homemade plates range from crude cardboard plates sporting terms such as “Militia” or “UCC1-207″ to realistic looking metal plates with fictitious countries on them such as “Washitaw Nation” or “British West Indies.” An identifier that sometimes appears on driver’s licenses is the use of strange phrases or abbreviations following someone’s signature. Common terms used in this way include “UCC1-207″ and “TDC” (the former indicates that they are not giving up their rights by signing; the latter indicates that they have signed under “threat, duress, or coercion”). Similarly, the complete absence of plates, license and registration might also be a sign.

Bumper stickers, placards, stickers: Many people use bumper stickers to indicate their political or cultural beliefs. Extremists will often do this to an unusual degree, displaying so many that they turn their vehicles into what some call “ideology-mobiles.” They might also have offensive or simply very unusual bumper stickers, such as “Americans Don’t Wear U.N. Blue.”

Unusual modifications to their vehicle: Officers should pay attention to strange or unusual modifications to vehicles. Some extremists have been known to turn the whole tailgate of their pickup truck into the equivalent of a huge bumper sticker; others paint their vehicles with homemade camouflage patterns. Some vehicles may even display warnings to “government agents.” Any drastic and odd modification to a vehicle, especially in order to express some political view, ought to be a warning sign.

Residential Identifiers: Just as extremists sometimes adorn their vehicles with items that serve as warning signs to law enforcement, they can also do the same to their residences. 

Some extremists display “No Trespassing” signs on their property that are noticeably different from normal “No Trespassing” signs: they are directed specifically at law enforcement officers or government agents. Sometimes these notices are homemade, but several places sell manufactured versions of these signs. Officers have also observed signs and placards that included warnings to burglars that the residence is protected by the “militia.”

Unusual banners or flags: Extremists may display a sign with a red line through a United Nations logo or an upside down American flag. An upside down flag is traditionally a sign of distress and extremists sometimes use it to indicate that the country is in distress.

Signs of “fortification”: Some extremists may reinforce walls, store weapons in every room of a house, or in other ways prepare for some sort of violent conflict. Boarded up windows in an occupied house, slits that could be used to fire weapons through, cleared “fields of fire,” metal plating on walls—these are all possible signs of homemade fortifications.

Verbal Identifiers: Conversation with extremists may provide clues to officers that they are dealing with a member of an extremist group or movement. The extremists who are most likely to offer identifying verbal clues are those involved in anti-government movements or groups. Members of such groups have evolved a wide variety of verbal and other tactics to use against police officers.

Asking for “Oath of Office”: Some anti-government extremists will demand to see a law enforcement officer’s “oath of office.” Some may demand to see other documents during a traffic stop such as “arrest warrants.”

Giving particular documents to officers: Some extremists have produced warnings, questionnaires, and other items designed to be handed to police officers who have pulled the extremist over. These include special “Miranda Warnings” for officers as well as “Public Servants Questionnaires” that list more than twenty leading questions officers are ostensibly supposed to answer and sign their name to. People who ask that officers read or sign certain documents before agreeing to speak or answer questions may be giving verbal clues that they adhere to extreme ideologies.

Unusual references to Bible/Constitution: Many anti-government extremists have developed elaborate religious or political justifications for why they can ignore traffic laws and regulations. A person without a valid driver’s license or registration who gives unusual Biblical or Constitutional rationalizations for his or her actions, such as “this Bible is my driver’s license,” may be identifying themselves with verbal clues.

Use of strange/pseudolegal language [such as that used by the US Supreme Court or Barack Obama]: Members of extreme anti-government groups believe in a plethora of unusual pseudolegal theories. Officers who are subjected to a torrent of language about the Uniform Commercial Code, “martial law,” “emergency war powers,” the common law, or similar topics should consider it as a warning sign.

Contesting authority or jurisdiction: Many extremists will simply tell an officer who has pulled them over or is at their front door that the officer simply has no authority or jurisdiction over them. Members of extremist groups are often taught to refuse to roll down windows for officers, or only to roll windows down an inch. Extremists may demand that an officer provide some sort of “proof of jurisdiction” before the extremist will cooperate.

Extremists have the potential to transform a minor situation into a major one. They may react out of fear, mistrust, or simply anger. Their beliefs may provoke them into confrontations that under ordinary circumstances would never occur.

If an officer realizes that he or she is in a potentially dangerous situation involving an extremist, one of the first things to do is to call for backup. 

When an extremist spouts outlandish theories or makes outrageous statements, it is entirely natural to try to argue against those views. However, this is almost invariably counterproductive, as there is little chance that the extremist will change his or her mind, and a much greater chance of raising the agitation level of that person.

Act dumb: This is a specialized defusing technique. Rather than argue with extremists, officers can simply hear them out or respond with noncommittal answers such as “I never thought of it that way before” or “that’s a little too complex for me right now.” Officers should always accept literature offered to them by extremists.

Sometimes an officer may spot an opportunity to distract an extremist or derail their train of thought. If an extremist hands literature to an officer, the officer can start asking questions about the literature and the group or movement that promotes it.

Law enforcement officers must recognize that people who have extreme views are sometimes motivated by those views to commit criminal acts.

Law enforcement officers must make sure that they protect themselves.

If law enforcement officers are to uphold their oath to “protect and serve,” they must be able to protect themselves as well.

This must have been part of a first draft:

Other Things the Neo-Militiaperson Believes In?

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, March 26, 1996

Commentators have often had a hard time characterizing the neo-militia movement because of a lack of hard data. For instance, who knows how many people might belong to neo-militia groups in the United States? No one. Some groups are secretive, while others inflate their numbers: getting a solid estimate is an almost fruitless task. Are there 30,000 nationwide? 50,000? No one can say.

For much the same reasons, there have been no opinion polls of the militia. Other than what their leaders publish, put on videotape, or say in interviews, how can one get a feeling for what the neo-militia movement believes? While it is possible to come away with a reasonably coherent view of their political ideology through these sources–and this is covered in another essay–other elements of the militia mindset remain obscure. To get at these elements requires a few tricks, a little peripheral vision, and a sharp eye. But some of the results might be surprising.

Alternative Opinions

The pro-militia magazine Media Bypass offers us one way to catch a glimpse of the mindset. For its November 1995 issue, this right-wing magazine conducted a poll of its membership. Because virtually everybody who responded announced that they were in favor of the neo-militia movement, it is not a wild leap to assume that their answers to other questions will also reflect the opinions of the militia. Here are some of the results:

1. “If the presidential election were held today, who would you vote for?”

Pat Buchanan		48%
Charles Collins		11%
Phil Gramm		 5%
"Bo" Gritz		 4%
Alan Keyes		 3%
Ross Perot		 3%
Irwin Schiff		 1%
Colin Powell		.5%
Pat Robertson		.5%
Others/no preference	24%

Here respondents exhibit a preference for the extreme right, with Pat Buchanan the only major candidate getting any sizable percentage of the vote, extremist Charles Collins coming in second. The low showings for Phil Gramm and Colin Powell are noteworthy; Bob Dole, the Republican frontrunner (as of November 1995) does not even make the list.

2. “Favorite talk-show host”

Chuck Harder		15%
Tom Valentine		 8%
Rush Limbaugh		 8%
William Cooper		 6%
G. Gordon Liddy		 6%
Derry Brownfield	 5%
"Bo" Gritz		 5%
Jaz McKay		 5%
Others/no preference	42%

Again, a telling set of replies. Note that tied for second with Rush Limbaugh–the most popular radio commentator in America–is Tom Valentine. Haven’t heard of Valentine? This is hardly surprising, for Valentine largely inhabits the world of “patriot” shortwave radio, although his show is heard on a couple AM stations. Valentine hosts Radio Free America, that is, when he isn’t selling his “alternative” health messages such as “The Truth About Shark Cartilage.” Valentine’s broadcasts are sponsored by the anti-semitic (and pro-militia) publication The Spotlight.

3. “Would you abolish the IRS?”

Yes		91%
No		 1%
No response	 8%

This shouldn’t turn many heads, I suppose. The neo-militia movement–and its tax-protester forebears–have long claimed that the 16th Amendment was foisted illegitimately upon the American people.

4. “I would replace the income tax with…”

A National Sales Tax	41%
A Flat Tax		32%
Tariffs			 8%
Retain income tax/other/none listed	19%

5. “Do you favor…”

The death penalty	92%
The federal reserve	 1%
School prayer		88%
Citizen militias	99%
The United Nations	.5%
Foreign aid		 2%

Again, not a surprising list. Many “patriots” believe the federal reserve is run by a clique of moneyed interests, largely Jews, while most all of them believe that the United Nations intends to take over the United States and impose a socialist tyranny.

Alternative Advertising

One sneaky way to get at what the movement believes in is to look at what people who try to sell to the movement think they believe in. In other words, who advertises to the movement?

In short, the answer to this message is: cranks. Publications that cater to the neo-militia movement and related “patriot” groups tend to be chock-full of advertising aimed to attract people who–to put it charitably–are susceptible to the notion that mainstream repositories of information are keeping secrets from them. Less charitably, the ads target people who are a few bricks shy of a load.

Illustrating this point is not only easy but highly entertaining. Here are some summaries of ads from among the larger pro-militia publications such as The Spotlight and Media Bypass:

Comments from the author of this essay are in bold.

• 30 Ways IRS Controls Preachers videotape, only five dollars.
• Surviving the New World Order four-videotape set, only $49.95.
• Precious Metals Quote Line. (Ads dealing with gold and silver are common among these people, who are suspicious of paper money)
• Greatest Bible News in 396 Years; banned 1599 Geneva bible back in print.
• Lee Oswald, JFK & Me, a videotaped interview with Ron Lewis, “the man Lee Oswald recruited into the Bannister/CIA cabal,” only $23.95.
• Viking International Trading, “the Patriot’s Hard Asset Authority.” Ostensibly re-invests one’s money “back into the Patriot Movement.”
• Get Paid for Reading Books, $100 per book.
• If you want to know more about Dehyrdoepiandrosterone tablets….(You’ll be sending your hard-earned $60 to Tijuana, Mexico)
• Get Free Cash Now. (I hardly need to expound upon the likelihood of this one, now do I?)
• Three audiotape special on the “Roswell (Alien) Autopsy.” (Your perfect Fox TV Home Companion)
• Tom Valentine’s Search for Health book.
• Swanson Health Products, which promote various concoctions such as Montana Big Sky’s “Pure Energy,” a combination of Bee Pollen, Gotu Kola, Siberian Ginseng and Royal Jelly.
• “Scarlet and the Beast,” a 1343 page, three volume set of books on how Freemasonry is ruling the world.
• Latest suppressed news from “Amerika’s Patriot Undergound.” A 900-number you can dial for patriot news.(Now only if they had Patriot phone sex numbers: “Ooh, baby, how big is your new world order?”)
• The Welfare Game, which comes complete with the bonus game Capital Punishment: “Bring your Celebrity Liberals out of the Ivory Tower, and use them to knock your opponent’s Celebrity Criminals back on the Street to prey upon his 14 Innocent Citizens.”
• Just the Facts video series, which tells you that income tax is voluntary.
• The American Institute of Theology, which holds bible correspondence courses that can earn you a “prestigious Certificate in Christian Education.”
• The book The Great Snow Job, which tells you that you can legally stop paying income taxes because they are voluntary.
• A book on the real cause of AIDS, which, as it turns out, is not HIV, but rather “another deadly factor” which “has been covered up because politically powerful gay rights groups don’t want the public to know about it.”
• The newest work of Jordan Maxwell “and other prominent New World Order researchers.”
• The Free American magazine, which urges you to support Charles Collins for president.
• The book The Federal Mafia, which tells you that you don’t have to pay income taxes because they are voluntary.
• The book How to Get the IRS Out of Your Life, which tells you that you don’t have to pay income taxes because they are voluntary.
• A book on the “murder” of Vince Foster.

These advertisements are generally aimed at people who will believe anything. Health supplements that will cure cancer, ways not to pay your income tax, revelations about the New World Order or various other conspiracies; in short, crackpot products. Presumably these ads actually have a modicum of effectiveness, or they would not keep reappearing. Knowing this provides a little more insight as to why these people might believe that there is a “New World Order” conspiracy with designs to take over the United States.

You would think with the eye on the RCMP over the Dziekanski inquiry, that both RCMP and city police would be on better behavior in Greater Vancouver. Note that some municipalities use a local police force while others use the RCMP.

Now, granted there have been a helluva lot of gang shootings to date, with at least 18 dead so far, so probably the police are a little jumpy. And we already know based on testimony by the four very fit RCMP officers who taser Robert Dziekanski to death that they’ll take raised hands or a desk stapler as a threat of deadly force and use it in kind. Oh and that they didn’t panic. These guys might have looked better if they said they had panicked but that they were cool and calculating about taking down an unarmed man and tasering him four more times while he writhed in pain is even more scary.

So, just maybe everyone wants to use caution more. Police once upon a time used to be trained in ways to take a person down using just their hands. And if the criminal was carrying a dangerous weapon, well disarm them. Shoot to kill was the last resort. However, that’s now changed and shoot to kill, ask questions later is the order of the day.

In March a homeless man was approached by police for stealing from a car. Later it turns out he wasn’t the thief but he supposedly advanced on them wielding an X-acto knife. Now it could be the police have misnamed it but many X-acto knives are tiny, with a wedge-shaped blade of about an inch. They are very sharp and potentially lethal at close range. You’d have to get very close and personal to inflict damage. This image of a range of X-acto blades was taken from www.dickblick.com with the most common being the triangular shape.

So the police shot the guy in the stomach and killed him. Sure it was two women police officers and maybe they were scared. But they could have backed up, I think. And why couldn’t they shoot the guy in the arm or the leg, thereby giving him a lot of pain and disabling him from advancing? There was no need to shoot him in the stomach. Were they bad aims. Or was the X-acto blade much larger and being hurled at them?

On April 5th the police shot a guy in a Ford F350 truck who was allegedly stealing it. It seems that when they tried to block the truck the guy gunned it at the police car. The police shot at him, one shot, and wounded him. The car thief is expected to recover. In this case most people agree the police had a right to shoot. I doubt they had time to react with more than that with the truck coming at them. And it’s pretty hard to shoot to disable when someone is sitting in a vehicle with tinted glass. They could have tried to shoot out the tires but at that point it was probably not obvious what the guy had planned. I should note here that in Vancouver, up until recently it’s extremely rare that a police officer would shoot anyone. Once a year is more often than normal.

So we’ve had two shootings in four months. Not to mention the three off-duty cops that beat up and robbed a delivery driver. Sure, they’re the exception and yahoos from three different cities. But what this all points to is that there is a perceived image that the police forces (municipal and RCMP) are out of control. Police departments need to take a proactive stance and see if their training is adequate. As well, training needs to start with immobilizing a threat in the safest way possible to everyone. That means trying to take down a person with minimal physical violence, moving from  hands to taser to guns only when lives are threatened. That means not a perceived threat as the RCMP somehow saw in an office stapler. A deadly threat means being shot at or run down.

These departments also need to look at who they’re hiring. Bigoted, snobby and racist police will be more likely to prejudice a situation with their perspectives. What suitability tests are run on these candidates to ensure they stay calm, level-headed, use reasoning to assess a situation and don’t let prejudices get in their way. (I won’t do more than mention the many women of the downtown East side who disappeared over the years withouth the police doing anything because the women were drug addicts and prostitutes.) They need to have some basic psychology and counselling courses and learn how to verbally diffuse a situation as well.

I’m not saying all police are bad and they have a tough job. Some are probably nervous with all the shootings. But I do think a reassessment of training procedures is in order. We’d like to know that the next time we lift up a piece of paper or even give a cop the finger that we won’t be shot for it. Otherwise, we’ll probably all tow the line as we move into a police state of mind.

An addendum to yesterday’s post: With all three incidences mentioned above, the police have confiscated video or film taken at the scene. At the shooting of the homeless man, the police went through the guy’s phone and he said they erased the footage of the shooting. We all know what happened with the footage from the Dziekanski tasering. With this last one, they manhandled and threatened to arrest a newspaper photographer if he didn’t relinguish his camera. There is a disturbing trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and the police taking, tampering or trying to hide evidence of questionable investigations. Even if they haven’t tampered they are giving the impression by confiscating materials in such a way. And if we don’t have freedom of the press, we don’t have checks and balances. Again, retraining seems to be needed here.

Surveillance officer ‘Tango Ten’, aka ‘Frank’, fails to video Jean Charles De Menezes as he leaves his flat in Stockwell due to a call of nature in the back of his van.

From the Archives this week is us two newsletters from the early 1990’s produced by a group called ‘Justice For All’. Justice For All describes it self as ‘a non sectarian, non political group which exists to raise injustices from a Loyalist Point of View’. The editorial suggests that Loyalists were muzzled from voicing injustices for fear of being called traitors and concludes by paraphrasing the line ‘an injustice to one is an injustice to all. The newsletters originate from the Shankill Road and the articles are written with an emphasis on loyalist prisoners/paramilitaries.

The first newsletter, the July 1990 edition focuses on the ‘Shoot To Kill’ policy, a sceptical look at the Stevens Inquiry (dealing with collusion) and a brief mention of the campaign for segregation inside the Crumlin Road Prison. One article uses the then recent release of the Guildford Four as an opportunity to raise several cases in which Justice For All claim Loyalists were convicted wrongly.

The second newsletter comes from early on in 1992 returns to the campaign for Segregation within the Crumlin Road Prison (the prison was abandoned a few years later). It also looks at allegations of torture at the hands of the R.U.C. in Castlereagh, a walkout in Shorts-Bombardier, the need to reclaim Gaelic culture and weighing in support of the still debate provoking Brooke Clinic.

The politics of both newsletters are similar to the PUP’s outlook and there are broad swipes taken at the four main parties throughout. However the newsletters are not overtly party political and stick to raising issues of concern to loyalist paramilitaries. The article on the Shorts-Bombardier displays a class awareness which is touched upon throughout both magazines. The issue of the Brooke clinic is treated delicately, almost conceding that the author’s perspective is in the minority.

Time is totally owned by concepts!!(not that it’s a bad thing, but breathing would be nice once in a while @_@…)
So a brief little update on the blog, to let you all know there’s movement in this little group of gears and springs!
First a sort of added welcome to 2009, trying to psyche us up to keep the good brain juices overflowing with positivity!

↑↑↑Click for the full version!♥

It was supposed to welcome the Winter -hence the snowflake shapped spell- but ended up being just your random glowing ground effect… so yay!…

And next comes sort of a self-discipline plot into pixel and spriting again (I almost forgot how much I delve into details when doing this if I’m not careful!)

After the result, me and Gi are plotting to go more into this colour scheme this year for STK colours, spiffier!

Keep posted!!♥♥♥

• Home
• What Is A Nation?

Comment at end

“I think, therefore I am” (Descartes)

13th December, 2008

JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES

Yes, it was tragic.

Yes, there were mistakes made by the Police.

Yes, it shouldn’t have happened.

Yes, the family are angry and upset, as would we all be.

BUT

No, the Police did not leave their HQ that morning with the aim of killing an innocent man.

No, it does not prove that we live in a “Police State”.

No, the Police should not have told us and the terrorists there had been a “shoot to kill” decision.

No, the Police did not over-react if they believed the man was a terrorist.

And why such ‘independent’ rags as The Independent feel they have to devote several pages to this story is beyond me.  Unless, it is to prove that they “think, therefore they are”.

[Don't worry, I haven't actually BOUGHT a copy of the Indie! This information - on their lengthy coverage - is from early morning Radio 4's run-down of today's newspaper content.]

More thinking please, Indie and less re-playing of old theories of what others thought – “therefore they were ...”

If this is too subtle for some readers, let me explain:

A TALE OF TWO BLAIRS

I believe The Independent is on a mission. A mission to prove personal and political corruption of Tony Blair & Sir Ian Blair (the former MET Police chief.) The police’s role in the De Menezes case under political direction, adds ammunition to their guns. And their guns are aimed at Blair, Tony first, then Ian. This, even though both of them are already face-down in the gutter, largely victims of the press and civil/human righters.

From the beginning of the Iraq invasion the Independent “views”paper sought to prove that Tony Blair was at least misguided by ‘wrong thinking’ over Iraq.  Perhaps, they argued, he was influenced by his religious beliefs, of which he spoke little although it was always part of what he was and is. Perhaps he was influenced by an onerous and unprincipled desire to “suck up” to America. Perhaps he was driven by a simplistic view of “good and evil” as referred to here in Defeat: Why America and Britain Lost Iraq by Jonathan Steele (They haven’t lost, as history will show, but that analysis does not sell books, does it?) Quote: ‘Blair, in a clearly detached mood, exclaimed, ‘‘But the man is uniquely evil, isn’t he?’‘ in a reference to Saddam.’

I, as you might expect, don’t agree with any of Blair’s opponents “perhapses”. They can multiply exponentially, and no doubt will, and I am still unlikely ever to accept them.

Why? At least four reasons:

1 JOURNALISTS ARE NOT ELECTED TO RUN THE COUNTRY

I have come to understand that the Iraq invasion was, despite the consequential murder by insurgents of thousands, a good thing, the right thing to do. Journalist are not elected to make these decisions, politicians are. The actual practice of politics is for elected politicians. Journalists are not at the cutting edge of decision-making much as they like to think they are. They, like me, have opinions but not power. It is time they got off their high horses. You can break a lot of bones when you don’t know how to ride properly.

2 WE TRUST JOURNALISTS EVEN LESS THAN WE TRUST POLITICIANS

Oddly enough, I trust elected politicians to make the right decisions as far as they humanly understand them. I used to trust journalists and newspapers to balance their output. Not any more. And America’s Time magazine reports inaccurately here where they fail to point out that the Police guilty verdict on November 2007 was on breaching health & safety laws, NOT murder, as they imply by their headline and the tone of their article.

3 TO ERR IS HUMAN

If mistakes were made over Iraq and over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, to err is human. Ergo, if they erred, they are human.

4 TONY BLAIR IS NOT AN EVIL MAN

In fact I believe that he is a GOOD man. Probably one of the most principled and honest politicians we have had serve our country.

AND AS FOR SIR IAN BLAIR & THE POLICE?

They had an impossible task in June, 2005. A day after a second failed terrorist attack in London and three weeks after the 7/7/05 attacks which had left 52 dead and hundreds injured, if they had failed to stop a third perceived attack, the Police and government would have been under attack by all of us.

With all the outpouring of sympathy and empathy towards the de Menezes family, and of course they deserve a certain amount of balanced sympathy, this story has been over-inflated by those who wish to make political points on civil rights and police/political powers.  Would the de Menezes family have received as much care and attention over this unfortunate incident if it had happened in Brazil? I doubt it somehow. Not all countries’ journalists enjoy the freedom to pursue a political agenda dressed up as principled if semi-detached superiority of judgement and immature idealism (still strangely attractive to the naive.)

Walk a mile in the shoes of those entrusted with democratic power and upholding the law, Indie.

SIR IAN BLAIR, former MET Police Chief

• Sir Ian Blair on lack of support from Mayor Boris Johnson
• Ken Livingston on Boris Johnson, the Tory mayor’s ousting of Sir Ian Blair – because he was “TOO inclusive”
  
• Wikipedia on Sir Ian Blair

JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES inquest

• Jean Charles de Menezes: Brazilian commentators noted that incidents such as Menezes’ killing are more typical of a developing country such as Brazil than a developed nation like the UK.^[22] The level of Brazilian protest raised criticism with some British commentators who noted that extra-judicial executions by the police in Brazil are far from rare.
• Guardian “Open Verdict” on de Menezes. So, jury decides, “not lawfully killed”
• Independent on de Menezes inquiry

COGITO & SOLIPSISM

• Philosophical thoughts on “I think therefore I am“
• More prosaic interpretation of the ‘cogito’ – perhaps even nearer Descartes’ original meaning
• Wikipedia on cogito with further links to scholastic interpretation

TONY BLAIR

• Tony Blair: Reaction from The Independent to his ‘feral beasts’ speech, June 2007 when he singled out the Independent for criticism. The list of comments proves he was right. They knowingly assert that all sorts of evil goings-on were down to Blair and Blair alone, from David Kelly’s “murder” to the deaths of thousands in Iraq. How weak-minded and susceptible to brainwashing are these commenters in their swallowing of the Independent’s political stance.
• The Independent’s Andrew Grice, May 2007 with a more nuanced and empathetic look at Blair on the announcement of his date of retirement as PM. So, they don’t ALL always get it wrong.  Sometimes the Indie’s reporters cease opining and actually report.
• The Independent’s relentless pursuit of Tony Blair over the Honours debacle was shameful, imho. Are they pursuing Damian Green too, while Police are investigating him? Don’t be silly.  Today, in a co-incidental link to the cogito, a Labour MP suggests in The Guardian, the Indie’s partner-in-disparagement, that solipsism has consumed his fellow parliamentarians. The Guardian too has been the avowed enemy of Mr Blair in their Left angles on Iraq, the Honours debacle and other matters. They have traduced Mr Blair personally on numerous occasions. And now, Labour MP Gerald Kaufmann is driven to pointing out that perhaps the House of Commons is somewhat unhinged in its reaction to the Damian Green affair. Those who were content to see the previous prime minister dragged to the Tower for his pre-judged “crimes” now scream in indignation when one of their own number is questioned. The corrupt Police state? But of course!
• Blair on “palaver” if he had admitted to his practising catholicism while PM (with many links to Tony Blair story)

A native of London, Mad Lion was raised in Jamaica. Shortly after moving to the Bronx, New York, he met reggae performer Super Cat at Super Power Records. At Super Cat’s suggestion, he adopted his professional name, an acronym for Musical Assassin Delivering Lyrical Intelligence Over Nations. Mad Lion’s earliest success came in the mid-1980s when he applied his hip hop rhythms to Shabba Ranks’ hit single “Jam”. He later appeared, along with Queen Latifah, on Salt-N-Pepa’s 1997 album Brand New.
Mad Lion – Shoot To Kill

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – 25.10.08. Jean Charles de Menezes’ mother Maria Otone de Menezes attends a protest outside 10 Downing Street, Whitehall on Saturday 25th October 2008. Maria Otone de Menezes joined family members and supporters of United Families and Friends who demand justice for those who have been killed in police custody, prisons and mental health institutions. There have been 182 deaths in custody over the past year. (Photo by Marc Vallée/marcvallee.co.uk) (c) Marc Vallée, 2008.

Clients : Click on the  image above to view a slideshow from the set and click on the link below for rights managed editorial licensing. High resolution images are available on request.

Images: “Custody Death Protest – 25.10.08″

Archive Link : www.archive.marcvallee.co.uk