There is a phrase being bandied about by the Labour party whenever Gordon Brown does something stupid. The phrase is “well, that’s Gordon” and we are hearing it practically every day now.
The reaction we are supposed to have is, oh well, he may be a bit clumsy and irascible but he is really very good with economics and, well, he’s like your mate who can be a bit of a prat sometimes but he has a heart of gold and you wouldn’t swap him for the world.
This is BOLLOCKS!
Mr. Brown may well be irascible and clumsy but this does not mean that he has sound judgement or that he is a good leader of th British economy. Let me restate some of Mr. Brown’s blunders.
Taxing dividend payments depressing pension funds
Selling the nations gold at the bottom of the market because he thought he had abolished boom and bust. (and announcing his intention first to drive the price lower)
Setting up a Tripartite system of financial regulation which resulted in no clear responsibility for regulation of the banks.
Deluding himself that inflation was low because cheap Chinese imports kept high street inflation low while gigantic asset price inflation took place in the stock and property markets.
Running a budget deficit even during the boom years
Dithering while Norther Rock collapsed.
There is another little myth that Mr. Brown himself propagates. This is that the financial crises is global in nature and therefore he cannot be blamed for any of it. This, also, is bollocks. The reason the crises is global is because each responsible government member around the world was, to a greater or lesser extent, imprudent and incompetent. If a group of people go into a bar and drink beer and all get drunk it is not an excuse for one of them to say: well, we were all doing it.
And the leaders of the hyper-capitalist trend which lay behind the crises were the United States and the United Kingdom. Remember Brown preaching sanctimoniously about “light touch” regulation to the other countries in the EU?
Yes the fact that Gordon Brown is an unpleasant character is beside the point.
I’ve been away for two weeks in Rome. Working. Yes it was nice but it was nice to get home and on Saturday afternoon I ate breakfast at a café in Trafalgar street. While I waited I read a Daily Mirror and on page 4 I was flabbergasted to see that two of the headlines implied that the New Labour nightmare may continue for some time to come. The first said “Blair Up for President of Europe.” And the second “Mandy for PM?”
Has the world gone mad?
blair to be president
Perhaps while I was away the whole country has been brain washed and we have forgotten that the the three stooges of Blair, Brown and Mandelson ran down British industry in favour of a speculative bubble while Brown promised “an end to boom and bust”.
As there had been so much publicity over Brown’s disastrous interview with Sky TV I watched it on Youtube. Amazing. He seemed to think that he had avoided global financial meltdown single headedly yet completely ignored his own part in causing the crisis. And let’s get this straight, the crisis may have been world wide but the ideological underpinning behind the speculative bubble can be traced to the disconnect between UK/US spin and the real economy. Blair and Brown believed that if they just spent money and told lies then the lies would come true.
In the interview Brown whinges that the interviewer wants to talk about personalities while Brown wants to talk about policies. This is rich. Just last week Brown had to get his wife to speak up for him at The Labour Conference in Brighton telling us what a good man he is. For God’s sake! Why not get his mum there too? The problem is that the wife’s opinion is merely that Brown’s heart is in the right place. Well great, so he meant well while he made a cock up of the British economy. That’s nice.
The point is not whether he meant well, the point is that he is arrogant and incompetent. A mixture that I personally find particularly unforgivable.
And Blair as president of Europe! Well, I guess the Europeans have not had to suffer the smug, grinning, amoral, imbecile the way the British have. Recall that this man was the peace envoy to the Middle East that couldn’t even bring himself to call for a ceasefire while the Israelis bombed the crap out of Lebanon. Then he went silent when the Israelis bombed the crap out of Gaza. If the only requirement for becoming the peace envoy to the Middle East is keeping your mouth shut then Blair is obviously the man for the job.
Mandy for PM
And Mandelson for PM? Has nobody noticed the reinjection of deception which has accompanied the return of Mandelson?
I guess we should not really be surprised that New Labour care more for media manipulation than they do for action. It’s all they understand. It seems that most of them have a background in public relations or the media. Just today I heard that Brown’s wife worked for a “brand consultancy”.
There seems to be a school of thought that, as bad as New Labour have been, people must vote Labour to stop the Tories getting in.
Why?
In what way have New Labour been better than the Tories? Firstly I suggest that New Labour have got away with more market orientated, hyper capitalist idiocy than the Tories ever could and secondly I ask what is the point of voting for a party whose policies are at odds with your wishes merely because it used to be left wing in the old days?
If Labour were kicked out at the next election and the Tories elected then at least Labour would be forced into a rethink of their media centric approach to politics and might start spending less time on presentation and more time on achievement.
Let us hope that The Daily Mirror is Talking Bollocks.
In a BBC article on the police assault on Ian Tomlinson during a G20 protest in The City of London after which Mr. Tomlinson died from a heart attack Peter Smyth, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said some physical confrontation was inevitable during a large protest.
According to the BBC article he told Radio 4′s Today programme: “On a day like that, where there are some protesters who are quite clearly hell-bent on causing as much trouble as they can, there is inevitably going to be some physical confrontation.”
“Sometimes it isn’t clear, as a police officer, who is a protester and who is not.”
Peter Smyth, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation
“I know it’s a generalisation but anybody in that part of the town at that time, the assumption would be that they are part of the protest.
“I accept that’s perhaps not a clever assumption but it’s a natural one.”
Mr. Smyth states that some protesters are clearly hell-bent on causing trouble. He states that it is not clear who is a protester and who is not. He states the police assume that anyone in that part of town at that time would be a protester and then goes on to say that this is perhaps not a clever assumption.
It is not only not clever it is entirely irrelevant. Whether Mr. Tonlinson was a protester or not is no justification for him to be attacked by a policeman.
Mr. Smyth is quite obviously TALKING BOLLOCKS and I wonder how a man with such illiberal, anti-democratic and dangerous opinions could become chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation.
The assault on Mr. Tomlinson became newsworthy because the poor man died but I wonder if we would have heard of him had he lived. We must also wonder how many other people the police assulated that day who’s story has not hit the news.
Last Friday I listened to Any Questions and I think it was Hazel Blears (though I’m not sure) who said that there were a small minority of protesters out to cause trouble and sited this as a justification for the police using heavy handed and, to my mind, illegal tactics such as “kettling”. Kettline is at beast the denial of the right to protest and at worst borders on abduction.
If we pan back a bit here we might consider that the Blair/Brown New Labour catastrophe that overtook Britain has pandered to a powerful elite who became rich off the back of Gordon Brown’s imprudent and arrogant management of the economy. Now that the ghastly hyper-capitalist edifice has crashed around their ears New Labour are using police in riot gear to intimidate protesters while blaming the protesters for the violence.
So far we have seen little violence from protesters but blatant aggression from the police.
Considerring that most crimes committed in Britian’s streets are captured on CCTV and that this crime was committed in an area that is, presumably, seething with CCTV, it will be interesting to see the footage. Either that or some lame excuse about how every single CCTV camera just happened to be pointing the wrong way.
The first head to role from this crime should be the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, Peter Smyth for assuming that all protesters are fair game for the police to assault.
The Guardian newspaper’s timeline of Mr. Tomlinson’s walk home from work
The Guardian also has footage from a different angle.
Below is the response by Peter Smyth to a protest registerred at the web site of the MPF.
Thank you for your e-mail.
If you listened to the BBC broadcast from which Press
Association cherry-picked a couple of quotes, you will recall that I had specifically
declined to comment upon the events surrounding Mr Tomlinson.
I was instead invited by the presenter to voice observations
on the sort of occurrences which are encountered policing large protests in
general.
Reports about my comments should be seen in this context.
In numerous interviews yesterday I explained that I
am not allowed to make any comment in relation to an ongoing investigation,
I also repeatedly asked for the officers involved to come forward and to cooperate
with the investigation.
I read an article on the BBC web site today quoting
an interview with Peter Smyth, your chaiman, where he stated that some protesters
are hell-bent on causing trouble, that it is not clear who is a protester
and who is not and that the police assume that anyone in that part of town
at that time would be a protester.
Your chairman has completely missed the point. Whether
Mr. Tonlinson was or wa not a protester is no justification for him to be
assulated by the police.
I wonder how a man with such illiberal, anti-democratic
and dangerous opinions could become chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation.
Regards
Here is another video showing police hitting a woman during the same G20 protest. If you watch the video, in the background you can see that just before the woman is hit a yong man is being pushed around by police.
And we should not forget previous police assaults on the general public: Kettling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kettling is a police tactic wherein protesters are prevented from leaving an
area by cordons of police. Peaceful protesters, potential rioters and bystanders
alike are corralled once they have congregated into one or more larger group(s).
Although large groups are difficult to control this can be done by concentrations
of police. The tactic is to prevent the large group breaking into smaller splinters
which have to be individually chased down and for the policing to break into
multiple small battles.[1] Once the kettle has been formed the cordon is tightened
including with baton charges to restrict the territory occupied by the protesters.
The cordon is then maintained for a number of hours in which those within the
cordon are denied food, water and toilet facilities, the aim is to leave would
be violent protesters too tired to do anything but want to go home.[2]
Used in the UK in the may-day riots and the G20 summit, kettling has been criticized
as irritating otherwise-peaceful protesters to the point where they will riot
to break free of the ‘kettles’ (some of which were held in place for several
hours) and for detaining law-abiding citizens.[
Art Photography
Police consider physical confrontation with protesters inevitable
Tags: anti-democratic and dangerous opinions, Blair/Brown, CCTV, chairman, City of London, containment, G20, heart attack, hyper-capitalist, Ian Tomlinson, kettling, Metropolitan Police Federation, mpf, New Labour catastophe, Peter Smyth, physical confrontation inevitable, police violence, protesters, TALKING BOLLOCKS illiberal, who is a protester and who is not, woman hit by police, woman slapped by police
In a BBC article on the police assault on Ian Tomlinson during a G20 protest in The City of London after which Mr. Tomlinson died from a heart attack Peter Smyth, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said some physical confrontation was inevitable during a large protest.
According to the BBC article he told Radio 4′s Today programme: “On a day like that, where there are some protesters who are quite clearly hell-bent on causing as much trouble as they can, there is inevitably going to be some physical confrontation.”
“Sometimes it isn’t clear, as a police officer, who is a protester and who is not.”
Peter Smyth, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation
“I know it’s a generalisation but anybody in that part of the town at that time, the assumption would be that they are part of the protest.
“I accept that’s perhaps not a clever assumption but it’s a natural one.”
Mr. Smyth states that some protesters are clearly hell-bent on causing trouble. He states that it is not clear who is a protester and who is not. He states the police assume that anyone in that part of town at that time would be a protester and then goes on to say that this is perhaps not a clever assumption.
It is not only not clever it is entirely irrelevant. Whether Mr. Tonlinson was a protester or not is no justification for him to be attacked by a policeman.
Mr. Smyth is quite obviously TALKING BOLLOCKS and I wonder how a man with such illiberal, anti-democratic and dangerous opinions could become chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation.
The assault on Mr. Tomlinson became newsworthy because the poor man died but I wonder if we would have heard of him had he lived. We must also wonder how many other people the police assulated that day who’s story has not hit the news.
Last Friday I listened to Any Questions and I think it was Hazel Blears (though I’m not sure) who said that there were a small minority of protesters out to cause trouble and sited this as a justification for the police using heavy handed and, to my mind, illegal tactics such as “kettling”. Kettline is at beast the denial of the right to protest and at worst borders on abduction.
If we pan back a bit here we might consider that the Blair/Brown New Labour catastrophe that overtook Britain has pandered to a powerful elite who became rich off the back of Gordon Brown’s imprudent and arrogant management of the economy. Now that the ghastly hyper-capitalist edifice has crashed around their ears New Labour are using police in riot gear to intimidate protesters while blaming the protesters for the violence.
So far we have seen little violence from protesters but blatant aggression from the police.
Considerring that most crimes committed in Britian’s streets are captured on CCTV and that this crime was committed in an area that is, presumably, seething with CCTV, it will be interesting to see the footage. Either that or some lame excuse about how every single CCTV camera just happened to be pointing the wrong way.
The first head to role from this crime should be the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, Peter Smyth for assuming that all protesters are fair game for the police to assault.
The Guardian newspaper’s timeline of Mr. Tomlinson’s walk home from work
The Guardian also has footage from a different angle.
The Metropolitan Police Federation
Visit the MPF web site and register your protest: http://www.metfed.org.uk/contact
Below is the response by Peter Smyth to a protest registerred at the web site of the MPF.
Here is another video showing police hitting a woman during the same G20 protest. If you watch the video, in the background you can see that just before the woman is hit a yong man is being pushed around by police.
And we should not forget previous police assaults on the general public:
Kettling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kettling is a police tactic wherein protesters are prevented from leaving an
area by cordons of police. Peaceful protesters, potential rioters and bystanders
alike are corralled once they have congregated into one or more larger group(s).
Although large groups are difficult to control this can be done by concentrations
of police. The tactic is to prevent the large group breaking into smaller splinters
which have to be individually chased down and for the policing to break into
multiple small battles.[1] Once the kettle has been formed the cordon is tightened
including with baton charges to restrict the territory occupied by the protesters.
The cordon is then maintained for a number of hours in which those within the
cordon are denied food, water and toilet facilities, the aim is to leave would
be violent protesters too tired to do anything but want to go home.[2]
Used in the UK in the may-day riots and the G20 summit, kettling has been criticized
as irritating otherwise-peaceful protesters to the point where they will riot
to break free of the ‘kettles’ (some of which were held in place for several
hours) and for detaining law-abiding citizens.[
Rate this: