Wise Up Journal
By Benjamin Smith-Kavanagh
In recent weeks the UK and Ireland have experienced increased instances were protests have turned to violence. The media and authorities mostly blame the protesters but research and history shows that many cases are caused by the authorities, the police themselves.
Exhibit one: The current UK Met Chief Sir Paul Stephenson recently alleged police were under prepared for the student protests in November.
The Guardian , 25th of Nov 2010:
“Student protests: Met chief warns of new era of unrest
“Stephenson made his comments at a meeting of London’s Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA). He said that the demonstrations had been characterised by outbreaks of violence that were not typical of student protests, and he conceded police were unprepared during a march on 10 November. But he said large numbers of riot police had successfully contained disorder yesterday. In total, 109 students have been arrested in connection with public disorder this month, suggesting a scale of student unrest unseen in decades.
“ ‘We have been going through a period where we have not seen that sort of violent disorder,’ Stephenson said. ‘We had dealt with student organisers before and I think we based it too much on history. If we follow an intelligence-based model that stops you doing that. Obviously you realise the game has changed. Regrettably, the game has changed and we must act.’ “
This is simply not true for over the last couple years the UK authorities have in-fact planed for mass public unrest, which has been reported in many mainstream media outlets, such as the “Summer of rage” article published in the Guardian.
The Guardian , 23rd of Feb 2009:“Britain faces summer of rage – police
“Police are preparing for a ‘summer of rage’ as victims of the economic downturn take to the streets to demonstrate against financial institutions, the Guardian has learned. Superintendent David Hartshorn, who heads the Metropolitan police’s public order branch, told the Guardian that middle-class individuals who would never have considered joining demonstrations may now seek to vent their anger through protests this year.
“He said that banks, particularly those that still pay large bonuses despite receiving billions in taxpayer money, had become ‘viable targets’. So too had the headquarters of multinational companies and other financial institutions in the City which are being blamed for the financial crisis.
“Hartshorn, who receives regular intelligence briefings on potential causes of civil unrest, said the mood at some demonstrations had changed recently, with activists increasingly “intent on coming on to the streets to create public disorder”.
“The warning comes in the wake of often violent protests against the handling of the economy across Europe. In recent weeks Greek farmers have blocked roads over falling agricultural prices, a million workers in France joined demonstrations to demand greater protection for jobs and wages and Icelandic demonstrators have clashed with police in Reykjavik.”
During the G20 protests in London 2009 it came out that undercover police officers were used to incite the crowds to riot, just as happened in Canada which can be found in the related section under the title Guardian: G20 police ‘used undercover men to incite crowds’.
The Guardian , 10th May 2009
“G20 police ‘used undercover men to incite crowds’
“MP demands inquiry into Met tactics at demo
“An MP who was involved in last month’s G20 protests in London is to call for an investigation into whether the police used agents provocateurs to incite the crowds.
“Liberal Democrat Tom Brake says he saw what he believed to be two plain-clothes police officers go through a police cordon after presenting their ID cards.
“Brake, who along with hundreds of others was corralled behind police lines near Bank tube station in the City of London on the day of the protests, says he was informed by people in the crowd that the men had been seen to throw bottles at the police and had encouraged others to do the same shortly before they passed through the cordon.
“Brake, a member of the influential home affairs select committee, will raise the allegations when he gives evidence before parliament’s joint committee on human rights on Tuesday.
“ ‘When I was in the middle of the crowd, two people came over to me and said, ‘There are people over there who we believe are policemen and who have been encouraging the crowd to throw things at the police,’ Brake said. But when the crowd became suspicious of the men and accused them of being police officers, the pair approached the police line and passed through after showing some form of identification.”
When you look further into the actions of the British authorities you uncover the fact that police were not only given the power to spy on so-called Left-wing and Right-wing political groups but to actively infiltrate these groups. An example of this can be seen in a Mail on Sunday article published 0n 7th Feb 2009:
“Secret police unit set up to spy on British ‘domestic extremists’“A secret police intelligence unit has been set up to spy on Left-wing and Right-wing political groups.
“The Confidential Intelligence Unit (CIU) has the power to operate across the UK and will mount surveillance and run informers on ‘domestic extremists’.
“Its job is to build up a detailed picture of radical campaigners.
“Targets will include environmental groups involved in direct action such as Plane Stupid, whose supporters invaded the runway at Stansted Airport in December.
“The unit also aims to identify the ring-leaders behind violent demonstrations such as the recent anti-Israel protests in London, and to infiltrate , animal liberation groups and organisations behind unlawful industrial action such as secondary picketing.
“The CIU’s role will be similar to the ‘counter subversion’ functions formerly carried out by MI5 .”
It is no wonder then, that the Met Chief Sir Paul Stephenson has been campaigning to make it harder for the public to sue the police and authorities:
The Guardian , 10 th of Oct 2010:
“Protect police from lawsuits, says Met chief
“Sir Paul Stephenson, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, has privately lobbied the home secretary to make it harder for people to take legal action against his force, the Guardian has learned.
“Critics say the plans amount to an attempt by the police to put themselves beyond the rule of law and undermine constitutional safeguards against abuses of power. The Met’s chief says money is being wasted on speculative claims, with lawyers gaining large fees that would be better spent fighting crime.
“The proposals are contained in appendices to a letter marked ‘confidential’ and sent to Theresa May by Stephenson, who is Britain’s most senior police officer, on 22 June. In the documents, released after inquiries by the Guardian, he suggests:
“Making it harder for people to sue the police for damages in civil actions. These usually involve allegations of brutality or wrongful arrest.
“Loading higher costs on to officers and other staff suing police forces at employment tribunals. These cases include claims of discrimination and unfair treatment.
“Charging the public a fee for freedom of information requests. The Freedom of Information Act is supposed to help citizens hold public bodies to account.
“James Welch, legal director of the civil rights group Liberty, said: ‘The ability to challenge police misconduct in court is a vital constitutional safeguard against abuse of power. Under current rules, if you lose a case in the civil courts you can expect to be ordered to pay your successful opponent’s legal costs.
“ ‘A service bound to uphold the rule of law should not attempt to carve out an exception for itself.’
Since it has been documented in many instances that not only do the UK authorities lie but they also actively infiltrate and seek to incite riots, so the police will appear to be justified in heavy handed attacks on people who are supposed to have natural born human rights.The most important case in the last few years involving the UK authorities is that of Ian Tomlinson. 47-year-old Ian while walking home from work during the G20 London protests, on April 1st 2009, was attacked by a police officer and died as a result.
A police Scotland Yard post-mortem claimed Ian died as a result of a heart attack, but a video surfaced online and a second post-mortem told a different story. The death of a man changes from natural heart attack to internal bleeding after the police attack was exposed.
Daily Mail , 17th of April 2009:
“The policeman filmed shoving a man to the ground at the G20 protests could face a manslaughter charge.
“The Metropolitan Police riot squad officer was interviewed yesterday on suspicion of killing Ian Tomlinson after a second post-mortem revealed he died from internal bleeding, and not a heart attack as first thought.
“Last night the Tomlinson family’s lawyer said the new findings ‘ significantly increase’ the likelihood that the officer will now face the more serious charge of manslaughter, rather than assault.
“They have also raised serious questions about the initial Scotland Yard response to Mr Tomlinson’s death, and the delays in handing over the investigation of the case to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
“Mr Tomlinson’s stepson, Paul King, said the family hoped that the ‘full truth’ about how the 47-year-old died would be made known.
“He said: ‘First we were told there had been no contact with the police, then we were told that he died of a heart attack. Now we know he was violently assaulted by a police officer and died from internal bleeding.’ “
Despite the clear evidence that Ian’s death was a direct result of been attacked by a police officer, the Crown Prosecuting Service never brought any manslaughter charges against the officer, not because the officer did not attack Ian which caused him to collapse on the spot and die but because the second post-mortem showed Ian died of internal bleeding caused by blows to his body.
The Guardian , 22nd of July 2010:
“ Ian Tomlinson death: police officer will not face criminal charges
“The police officer caught on video during last year’s G20 protests striking a man who later died will not face criminal charges, the Crown Prosecution Service announced today.
“Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, said there was ‘no realistic prospect’ of a conviction, because of a conflict between the postmortem examinations carried out after the death of Ian Tomlinson last year.”
“ CPS decision
“It said: ‘The CPS concluded that there is sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of proving that the actions of PC ‘A’ in striking Mr Tomlinson with his baton and then pushing him over constituted an assault. At the time of those acts Mr Tomlinson did not pose a threat … There is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that his actions were disproportionate and unjustified.’
“But the CPS went on to explain the obstacles to a prosecution posed by the subsequent postmortems.
“The first police account, that he died from a heart attack, was confirmed by a pathologist, Freddy Patel, in the initial postmortem.
“But a second postmortem, conducted by Dr Nat Carey on behalf of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), found Tomlinson had died from internal bleeding.”
“ ‘Today the CPS said it could not bring a manslaughter charge because the conflicting medical evidence meant prosecutors “would simply not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a causal link between Mr Tomlinson’s death and the alleged assault on him’
“It said it could not bring a charge for criminal assault because too much time had elapsed; a charge must be brought within six months. The CPS also ruled out bringing charges of actual bodily harm and misconduct in public office.”
To add insult to injury to the family of Ian Tomlinson; despite the CPS saying there was sufficient evidence to charge the attacking officer with assault, they claimed too much time had passed to bring an assault case against him. If too much time had passed it is because they allowed too much time to pass.
The decision by the CPS effectively had told police officers if they murder they won’t be prosecuted. Murder by the state is fine by the CPS. “The Summer of Rage” the police were so sure would happen never materialised, however a few months after ruling his murder to be technically legal the British have ‘ Winter waves of unrest’ ” to look forward to.
At student protest in November 10th the chaos was screened all around the world and led to calls for the police to do more to keep people and Britain safe. But given the proven history of UK authorities in not only lying but also manufacturing riots and infiltrating protest groups you have to ask the question; is what you are seeing on TV news the whole truth? The police told the world they did not charge the crowd with horses. Who are we going to believe, the police or young protesters? A video of the protest was uploaded on the Internet, which caused newspapers to cover it. In the video you can see the scene of hundreds of young male and female students peacefully standing around waving their signs when suddenly the riot police blockade stepped to the side to allow a gang of police on huge horses to terrifyingly gallop into the crowed. It can be watched here .
If you live in a democratic country, remember; this is how the police force operate.