SIDEBAR
»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
About this website

SydWalker.Info is a personal website. I live in tropical Australia near Cairns. I oppose war, plutocracy, injustice, sectarian supremacism and apartheid. I support urgent action to achieve genuine sustainability and a fair and prosperous society for all. I rely upon - and support - free speech as defined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see below).

with the dawg

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers"

Blog Issues

Unless otherwise indicated, material on this website is written by Syd Walker.

Anyone is welcome to re-publish material sourced from this site, as long as the source is acknowledged with a hyperlink.

Material from other sources reproduced here is presented on a 'Fair Use' basis. I try to cite references accurately. Please contact me if you have queries, comments, broken link reports, complaints - or just to say hello.

Boycott Apartheid!
Boycott
Misc Menu
May 2013
S M T W T F S
« Aug    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
Search this website
Why give a damn about BBC pensions?
Nov 6th, 2010 by Syd Walker

NUJ

NUJ: whatever happened to journalistic ethics?

The British National Union of Journalists is running a two day strike in support of BBC staff whose pension entitlements are under threat from government cuts.

Usually I’d feel sympathy for their campaign.

But appeals to the public for solidarity and support wear thin for BBC journalists.

Like their Australian counterparts in the ABC, BBC journalists are widely reviled for betraying their profession in one of the most serious ways imaginable: helping to frame innocents for the heinous crimes of mass murderers, whose real identity they help to protect.

More and more members of the public believe that ‘journalists’ who are willing to spin irrational lies about 9-11 and the 7/7 London bombings, presumably for the sake off a smooth career path, do not deserve any reimbursement at all from the public purse.

BBC 9-11 tweets

A selection of my tweets on the #bbcstrike hashtag

I am one of them.

I appreciate the pressures most likely brought to bear on journalists to enforce conformity. Corruption within the BBC – so serious that it fails to report accurately and with fairness on topics as crucial as 9-11 and 7/7 – clearly goes right to the top.

But journalists do have organisations to help protect against individual persecution. They are called unions. The NUJ is the key player in this case.

If the Maritime Workers Union in Victoria, Australia is able to review the evidence about 9-11 in a rational way – and support the eminently reasonable demand for a fresh inquiry – there’s really no excuse for the NUJ and its members.

BBC 9-11 tweets

More home truths for the discredited BBC Commentariat

Lies and systematic deception over 9-11 and the 7/7 bombings have been used in recent years to shred civil liberties thoughout the western world – including Britain. They have been the pretext for a massive increase in military, ‘intelligence’ and security budgets, for two illegal invasions and military occupations, the death of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions.

Do BBC journalists care so little about their fellow humanity they’re willing to tell lies that make these horrors possible?

If so, why should the public give a damn about their pensions?

Building What? (a collapse reported by the
BBC half an hour before it happened
!)

In NuLab Britain, Privacy is Spooks-Only
Jun 15th, 2009 by Syd Walker

The British Home Office has rejected a Freedom of Information request filed by the British Journal of Photography seeking the list of all areas where police officers are authorised to stop-and-search photographers under the Terrorism Act (2000).

The controversial Act of Parliament, put into force in 2001, allows Chief Constables to request authorisation from the Home Secretary to define an area in which any constable in uniform is able to stop and search any person or vehicle for the prevention of acts of terrorism. The authorisation, which can be given orally, must be renewed every 28 days and only covers the areas specified in the Chief Constables’ requests.

secure_benneath_the_eyes

Believe it or not, a genuine official poster displayed in London c. 2003

While it is common knowledge that the entire City of London, at the behest of the Metropolitan Police, is covered by the legislation, it remains unclear which other areas in England and Wales have requested the stop-and-search powers.After growing concerns from BJP readers, some of whom say they have been abusively stopped from taking pictures around the country, news editor Olivier Laurent filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office on 24 April. The request asked for a ‘full list of all areas – in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – subject to Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 authorisations, which the Home Office has a statutory duty to be aware of.’

The request was rejected in late May on grounds of national security. ‘In relation to authorisations for England and Wales, I can confirm that the Home Office holds the information that you requested. I am, however, not obliged to disclose it to you,’ writes J Fanshaw of the Direct Communications Unit at the Home Office.

The bottom line is that while the British State can now arrange for many parts of the country to be ‘photography free zones’, it won’t say where. Photographers, presumably, will find that out if and when they are stopped, searched and/or arrested. That’s if they’re lucky. The unlucky may get the news via the blunt end of a truncheon.

The British Government’s squeamishness over private photography is is sharp contrast to its own enthusiasm for photographing the population, 24×7.

CCTV surrounding Orwell's old London home

CCTV cameras surrounding Orwell's Islington home in 2007 (not 1984)

The Surveillance Studies Network, a group of concerned academics, conducted an international survey in 2006 which placed Britain at the bottom of the privacy league amoung western countries.  The absurd proliferation of CCTV was one reason for the UK’s dismal score. Each year, notwithstanding a paucity of hard data that CCTVs actually deter crime, the extraordinary reach of Britain’s  camera-happy surveillance State expands into new aspects of the public’s lives.

In March 2007, the London Evening Standard reported on the propagation of closed circuit TV cameras surrounding George Orwell’s old home in Canonbury Square, Islington, which are now more common than rose beds: see George Orwell, Big Brother is watching your house. The novelist’s distopic nightmare of an emergent Big Brother State has apparently come to pass, just a quarter century later than suggested in his fictional classic.

Oddly enough (or perhaps not?), just when one might like these  infernal and ubiquitous devices to actually yield copious quantities of confirmatory photographs, they don’t. Following the London Tube and Bus Bombings of 7th July, 2005, very few photos of the alleged bombers that should have been captured on CCTV were released to the public.

Chris Dreyfus

Camera shy?

A cynic might speculate that the ban on private photography is less about protecting the public from ‘terrorists’ – and more about protecting State-sponsored terror.

Perhaps it’s also about making sure no-one gets a snap of police agent provocateurs?

Their repeated use at demonstrations in London is becoming an open joke throughout the civilized world – even if the British press are too discrete to mention it?

Met Police Agent Provocateurs: Dreyfus Affair 2
May 11th, 2009 by Syd Walker

Yesterday’s Observer newspaper reports allegations that G20 police ‘used undercover men to incite crowds.

The British Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament Tom Brake is calling for an inquiry into the incident, which took place in April during the London G-20 meeting. Let’s hope there is a real inquiry that gets to the truth – and that the truth is made public.

Chris Dreyfus of London's Metropolitan Police

Inspector Chris Dreyfus of London's Metropolitan Police: a most interesting cv

Some scepticism is merited – because there has been no apparent follow-up so far to a similar, corroborated allegation made after a demonstration in London last year.

In that case, credible witnesses reported that they saw a police officer – Chris Dreyfus – inciting the crowd during President Bush’s visit in June 2008. The story made a brief stir, but there’s been official silence ever since – even from George Galloway MP, one of the witnesses who initially named Dreyfus as the suspected agent provocateur.

Are London’s Metropolitan Police – and Britain’s entire political establishment and mass media – so corrupt and/or intimidated they can no longer fulfil basic investigative roles in cases such as this?

First, the current story. The Observer reports that a British MP, who was present at last month’s G20 protests in London, will call for an investigation into whether the police used agents provocateurs to incite the crowds.

Tom Brake MP

Tom Brake MP: his eye-witness account suggested police provocateurs were active at the G-20 demonstrations

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.

These are extremely serious allegations. The British public relies on the Metropolitan Police to keep the peace at demonstrations in London. If, in reality, they work hand in glove with people deliberately stirring up trouble, a fundamental breach of trust has occured.  Any such allegations must be investigated thoroughly – in a way that leaves no room for doubt that justice has been done.

But what happened on the previous occasion when similar reports surfaced last year – a mystery that was dubbed Britain’s own ‘Dreyfus Affair’? After a few brief mentions in the blogosphere, nothing at all has happened – as far as I can see.

Here’s an extract from the explosive story by respected British journalist Yasmin Whittaker-Khan in the Mail on Sunday, published back in June 2008 following the demonstration against George Bush in London that turned violent:

Yasmin Whittaker-Khan

Yasmin Whittaker-Khan: witnessed the anti-Bush demo

These days it appears permissible to wave a gun at Britons exercising their democratic rights.

As a throng of protesters built up by the barriers, an extremely animated demonstrator in a white T-shirt caught my eye.

He was near the front screaming abuse at the police and trying to get a friend further back to join him. The second man sheepishly refused his encouragements to edge forward.

The man in the T-shirt was tall, well-built and handsome, smiling but with a hint of menace. He pushed aside children and elderly people.

He continued to shout slogans such as: ‘Pigs Out.’

On his back was a black rucksack and he carried a professional-looking camera with a large telephoto lens. Hardly the sort of kit for a few snaps of his day out.

My friends and I, standing a few rows back, asked him a couple of times to calm down, but he ignored us.

I wondered why I was drawn to him. Was it his dark good looks or was I worried for the safety of my 70-year-old friend and children nearby?

Then it dawned on me. I had met this man at a party. I tapped him gently on the shoulder and said: ‘Have we met before?’

Instantly he recognised me. ‘Hi, how are you? It’s really nice to see you here.’

My puzzlement grew. This chap wasn’t really the sort you’d expect to see shouting abuse at police officers at an anti-war demo. He was, after all, a policeman himself – and a high-ranking one at that.

I’d met the police inspector at a party around last Christmas. The local mayor was there, along with councillors from other parties and journalists. I’d been asked along by a friend.

He had a bolshie charm, was cocky and a little manipulative. He was also highly entertaining, bragging about his work in the police and how important he was.

I remained bemused about his presence at the demo. I asked if he would send me copies of his demo photos. He replied: ‘No, they’re to put on my bedroom wall.’

George Galloway at anti-Bush demonstration in London, June 2008

George Galloway, hemmed in at the anti-Bush demonstration in London, June 2008

‘Funny you chanting that,’ I said, ‘when you’re a policeman.’

They don’t have my sort in the police, love,’ he said camply, so I would assume he was referring to being gay. A few seconds later, he melted into the crowd.

I wondered whether he was at the demo undercover, deliberately whipping up trouble that he could capture on camera. That would then be used to malign anti-war protesters as dangerous and violent subversives.

Equally, he could have been legitimately monitoring the crowds, but again he surely would have been quieter.

I realise there are times when the police need to work undercover if they suspect a crime is being committed. But that is quite different to going into a crowd as an agitator to create disruption.

Police at the London Anti-war Demonstration, June 2008

Police at the June 2008 demo

I also found out that he is no mere rank-and-file officer.

Stop The War has organised about 20 marches in the past, all of which have been peaceful. This is the first where there has been violence.

I cannot say this man was responsible for the trouble, but I saw him try his best to urge the crowd forward.

It is hard not to despair at the remarks of the Metropolitan Police’s Deputy Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison

But however you look at it, the thuggish behaviour of the man I saw is hardly what you expect of someone employed to protect the public.

Our civil liberties are being eroded daily. The likes of this man are playing a part in destroying the few we have left.

If our security relies on idiots like him creating their own evidence to reinforce fear, who can we trust?

George Galloway MP, controversial leader of the Respect Party, also attended the June 2008 anti-Bush rally. Shortly after Ms Whittaker-Khan’s Mail on Sunday article, he went public with the accusation that the man mentioned in her story (but not named) was Inspector Chris Dreyfus of the Metropolitan Police.

Galloway wrote an open letter to the British Home Secretary, Jaqui Smith. It was quoted in Inforwars.com at the time and began as follows:

Dear Home Secretary,

Jacqui Smith and Gordon Brown in the House of Commons

British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith: answers, please!

As you may be aware I wrote to Sir Ian Blair and Mayor Johnson calling for an inquiry into the policing of the demonstration against George W Bush on Sunday 15 June in Parliament Square/Whitehall. I enclose a copy of my letter to him. I should say I have since been visited by Superintendent Tim Jackson and have given him an account of the basis of my original complaint.

I did tell him, however, that subsequent newspaper revelations may indicate a far more sinister involvement of the police in actual law-breaking on the demonstration which sought to provoke exactly the ugly scenes which eventually ensued.

Since my meeting with the superintendent yesterday this issue has become clearer and obliges me both as a Member of Parliament and as a close witness to these events to write to you as Home Secretary demanding a full inquiry by the government into the extraordinary events and policy decisions surrounding the policing of this demonstration.

You will be aware by now of an article in the Mail on Sunday of 22 June by Yasmin Whittaker-Khan in which she recounts her shock at meeting a man, whom she knew to be a policeman from a previous encounter, who seemed determined to bring about a confrontation between the demonstrators and the police.

This man for at least 30 minutes was stood right next to me at the front of the protest and it is inconceivable that no police photograph will confirm this. I say this because several police stills cameramen and at least one video cameraman were constantly filming.

I can now confirm that this man was Chris Dreyfus, an inspector in the police.

George Galloway

George Galloway: did his appetite for the truth suddenly wane? Why?

This man, to my direct knowledge, committed four criminal offences during the 30 minutes or so he stood next to me. First, he repeatedly chanted the arcane, antiquated Americana, “Kill the pigs!” This is a clear incitement to violence, indeed murder. If a Muslim demonstrator had been chanting it, say, outside the Danish Embassy, he would likely now be in prison. Secondly, he repeatedly (crushing me in the process) attempted to charge the crush barriers and the police line behind them. Thirdly, he repeatedly exhorted others so to do. Fourthly, he instructed a young demonstrator on the correct way to uncouple a crush barrier, which was successfully achieved and was subsequently thrown at the police, and was presumably one of the justifications for the deployment of a riot squad which eventually waded in to the protesters.

Home Secretary, there can hardly a more grave indictment of the conduct of the police force in a democratic country than this. People in the labour movement have often mythologised the state’s use of agents provocateurs throughout my 40 years experience and no doubt long before. But, to my recollection, we have never caught one red-handed before.

This inspector’s criminal actions must place all the other in themselves legitimate complaints about police tactics in a new light.

I wrote to Sir Ian – and to Mayor Johnson – questioning the competence of the policing on that day. It now seems that what happened was a deliberate conspiracy to bring about scenes of violent disorder, seen around the world and for purposes on which we can only speculate.

You, however, have clear responsibility to get to the heart of this matter. I do hope you will begin to do so without delay.

In any case,

Yours sincerely,

George Galloway MP

Perhaps most disturbing of all about the June 2008 incident – apart from the complete lack of mass media follow-up – is the way the story seems to have been airbrushed out of existence. When I checked today, the original documents have disappeared from the Mail on Sunday’s website – and even from the Respect Party website!

George Galloway does much good work. His well-publicized advocacy for the Gazan people in the last year was very welcome. But he owes the public a proper explanation about the Dreyfus Affair. Above all, London’s Metropolitan Police and the British Government owe us all a full and honest explanation.

London Bombings July 2005

London Bombings July 2005, not yet the subject of an inquest or public inquiry: what was the role of Inspector Chris Dreyfus on the day?

When, in February 2008, Chris Dreyfus first came to national attention as an openly gay policeman with an indiscreet Facebook entry, the Daily Telegraph report included some interesting details (emphasis added):

As British Transport Police’s head of royalty and government protection, Insp Dreyfus is responsible for guarding the Queen, the Royal Family and members of the Government when they are using the transport network.

Insp Dreyfus also used to head the force’s Counter- Terrorism Proactive Unit, a role in which he was in charge of 30 officers. He was involved in the police response to the London suicide bombings on July 7, 2005.

Suspicious Police Reaction to Vigay Death
Feb 27th, 2009 by Syd Walker

The campaign to keep a free internet has lost an articulate, technically-savvy advocate.

On Thursday 19th February, a man went missing overnight in Southsea, near Portsmith on the English south coast. His name was Paul Vigay. Friends and colleagues discussed his disappearance on a newsgroup. Tragically, the next morning, Paul’s body was discovered in the sea.

Paul Vijay

Paul Vigay: he would have been suspicious...

February is not swimming weather on the south coast of England. There are no reports that Mr Vigay was in any way suicidal. Yet without missing a beat, local police are reported as saying the death is “not being treated as suspicious.

The local Portsmith media, also without comment, reports“Police say they are not treating the death of the 44-year-old as suspicious, and are not looking for anyone else in connection with it”

From half a world away, it’s impossible to know what happened to this unfortunate man. But it is possible to learn that Paul Vigay had other interests, not reported in the mainstream newspaper articles (although they do like to report the IT worker’s longstanding interest in ‘crop circles’).

Vigay was a dedicated 9-11 Truth activist. He also didn’t believe the official story about the ‘no inquest, no inquiry’ July 7th bombings in Britain. He was also a passionate advocate for web freedom.

Paul Vigay wrote about these subjects and published his material on the web. His websites are still online at the time of writing:

You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes – or live in Southsea – to realise that the police comment, at such an early stage, that his death is “not being treated as suspicious” is HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS. So is uncritical acceptance of this story by the mass media.

In the words of Paul Vigay

In the words of Paul Vigay

How can police rule out foul play so early – without even mentioning Mr Vigay’s broader interests and connections? It doesn’t make sense – just like 9-11 didn’t make sense (three towerblocks collapsed at free-fall velocity because of fuel fires!) and the 7/7 London bombings didn’t make sense. Not to Paul Vijay. Not to anyone with a half a brain.

It is also clear that Mr Vigay cast a critical eye over the official narrative of World War Two history – see his history page.

An international FURORE should follow the death of Paul Vigay. There MUST be a transparent public coronial inquiry or inquest!

Solidarity, determined resistance and above all justice is what’s needed. Here’s a memorable extract from Paul Vigay’s homepage:

We must NEVER allow governments to restrict the internet or to erode freedom and democracy, especially after 9/11, the London bombings and other manipulated world events.

Indeed, every day Western governments are moving towards an Orwellian ‘big brother’ state where individuals are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

We must stop this agenda.

You can sign the online condolences book for Paul Vigay here.

See also suraci.com’s story and articles on the TheTruthseeker website.

___________________

Other articles in this blog about: [cattagart 9-11]

»  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa