Archives for posts with tag: terrorists


Last week a parliamentary candidate was censored and silenced at a hustings by Amber Rudd. Following the attack in London Theresa May once again blamed cyberspace as a safe space for terrorists to breed and a former Metropolitan Police Senior Investigating Officer, Peter Kirkham, stated on Sky News that Theresa May was lying about Police numbers.

There are plenty of other examples I could have used, like the dementia tax, the right wing media attacks on Jeremy Corbyn, but what all these highlight about the Conservatives and the establishment ruling elites is, just who do they think they are?

At the hustings, Amber Rudd was not the first among equals, nor even someone in an especial position of power which gave her any authority to silence fellow candidate Nicholas Wilson, she relied on an assumed and presumptuous position of privilege which was only carried out by the chairman because he deferred his democratic authority to her. This highlights the enormous problem of inequality we have in Britain. It is so normalised that many ordinary people (probably the majority) cannot even see it and still others become incensed by the ‘presumption’ of those who dare raise any challenge to their ‘betters’.

Just as the poor are blamed for poverty, so the democratic space for ordinary people, the Internet, is blamed as a breeding ground for terrorism. Anyone who suggests, as Jeremy Corbyn has, that western wars in the Middle East create a breeding ground for extremists which in no way condones the actions of those extremists, is vilified as a terrorist sympathiser. We might just as well rewrite history and call the French Resistance in WWII terrorists, indeed, they were doubtless regarded as such by Hitler, regardless of whether they struck out against Germany or the German occupation forces in France.

Were the boot on the other foot, and Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria were striking against Britain and sending in occupying forces I would expect to be a part of the resistance and would also expect them to consider me a terrorist. I would consider it my moral duty to resist, but, and here’s the question, would it be morally right to strike like for like in revenge attacks against civilians? I would hope not, but then I am not in a war zone and have no concept of what effect the widespread devastation of my country would have on me. Without living it I cannot know how radicalised I might become.

Cyberspace is neutral, just as phones are neutral, as is writing paper, as is language itself. The vast majority of people are not using methods of communication for radical or extreme purposes, although clearly the media and government do just that, as is all too clear in the current election campaign. Theresa May is pointing the finger and calling for allied governments to “regulate cyberspace”, whilst avoiding any hint of responsibility for her and her governments role in domestic and world events herself.

What was shocking about Peter Kirkham speaking out and doing it on the mainstream media is that he was speaking to power and highly critical of it, calling Theresa May a liar, and Sky News actually had the courage to broadcast it. To put it simply and perhaps tritely, that’s just not the done thing. It bloody well ought to be, but Britain is so riddled with deference and cap doffing, such a thing, whilst refreshing, is rare.

The Amber Rudd incident sums it up. She was effectively saying to Nicholas Wilson, ‘Who do you think you are?’ What the chairman failed to do when Rudd passed a note to him to silence Wilson was demand of Rudd, ‘Who do you think YOU are?’

This normative state of deference is exactly what the Conservatives rely on to hold power. It is not the rich and powerful who keep the Conservatives as a credible main party, but the deference of those they seek to dominate and rule. This hide bound, deeply entrenched, historic deference will, I would argue, be the single most decisive factor in this election.

Interestingly, the Dorset Eye, to which I am a contributor, received a Tweet today which said, “I’ve unfollowed you I am only interested in promoting Dorset & hardworking people & businesses not lending my support to plebs”.

Well, quite. We can’t have people getting above themselves, now can we? Just who do we think we are?

‘We’, ‘they’, ‘people’, ‘some’, talk about equality… but as Mohandas Gandhi is reputed to have said when asked, “What do you think of western civilization?”, I can only say, “I think it would be a good idea.”

I doff my cap to you, dear reader, and thank you for your time, and lovingly ask only this, who do YOU think you are?

KOG. 04 June 2017


05_september_2015A letter a day to number 10. No 1,194

Saturday 05 September 2015.

Dear Mr Cameron,

The refugee situation. Well, that sure made the headlines eh? Osborne blames Isis for the death of the little boy on the beach. Really? Was he there?

You know, since Bush and Blair decided to bring democracy to the Middle East and invented the new Bogey Man, ‘Terrorists’, to replace Reds under our beds, and pursued wars of aggression as the western way of intervention in the Middle East, we have been rewarded with endless strife in countries we have no business warring against and the toll of innocents has been utterly appalling. All the technology of modern warfare has resulted in many hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, not so much smart wars as blunt brutality.

Of course, all these acts of western aggression have not been in response to invasion, so it is hardly any wonder that refugees seek to find haven in countries like ours which are not experiencing armed conflict within our shores? Osborne pointing the finger at Isis is rich coming from someone who, like you, must have known that UK pilots were involved in US-led bombing missions of Isis targets in Syria.

Your response to the situation in Calais was to send extra fencing and sniffer dogs, hardly aid for what were still despicably being called ‘migrants’.

It seems, as ever in this beleaguered world, we can afford war but we cannot afford peace, with those most in need, at home and abroad, at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to aid.

Shame on you, and shame on every strident, petulant, voice saying, ‘charity begins at home, we can’t afford the aid’. Britain isn’t poor, you can give tax breaks to the rich and to corporations, you have the money to replace Trident, you can live, wine and dine in luxury, MP’s can fiddle their expenses and Lords can book in for a £300 giveaway for not a stroke of work, but Britain can’t help the poor, the distressed and those fleeing for their lives from bloody war.

Shame on you!

09_march_2015A letter a day to number 10. No 1,023

Monday 09 March 2015.

Dear Mr Cameron,

Teresa May, in her speech to the Police Federation in 2014, invoking the words of Sir Robert Peel said that, “the police are the public and the public are the police.” May also said “in this country we believe in policing by consent’. In order for consent to be in any way meaningful it must be informed consent, something that is increasingly absent in the UK.

May has said she wants to see “new civil powers to target extremists who stay just within the law but still spread poisonous hatred”, which means we’re all terrorists now, it’s just a matter of who decides. In your relentless war on the poor, accusing us of having “something for nothing” culture, I cannot see that as anything other than a baseless supposition designed to incite hatred, but whether I think that is an act of domestic terrorism is clearly irrelevant to you and the police.

As the treatment of Occupy protesters in Parliament Square showed, May was not talking about “the police are the public and the public are the police” because the Police are being used as the heavy hand of the state to oppress and suppress peaceful protest on entirely spurious grounds even confiscating pizza boxes as ‘sleeping equipment’ and extending more rights for grass to grow by fencing the entire Square and attacking protesters.

What has happened in the UK is that we are policed and ruled by the consent of the bludgeoned and by brutal coercion, stripping people of choice, rights, access to law, and even the means of survival leading, in too many cases, to people choosing to take their own lives driven by terror and despair.

Even worse is that this is being driven by lies, political deceit, greed and hatred and a political agenda to bring about the end of all state provision and hand it over to profit hungry privateers.

The consent of the bludgeoned is a national shaming tragedy in those who think it is happening to someone else and applaud this inhuman treatment of their fellow human beings little realising it is their own freedoms they are applauding the end of and, in far too many cases, gloating as those less fortunate than themselves are vilified and sacrificed for greed. In a twisted sense maybe the police are the public and the public are the police after all, driven by ignorance, prejudice and hate, but certainly not what Peel meant at all.—what-4970214