Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Push-me Pull-me justice

If you’ve been paying attention over the last few years, it is clear how the elite see the rest of us.  We are little more than farm yard animals to be cajoled and compelled and banned from doing things, lectured and hectored at will, and above all taxed.  We maybe shot if it suits the government as poor old John Charles De Menezes found out, or slung in jail as any number are now finding out for speaking words the government don’t like, and above all we are to be frightened by bogey men.  Mencken once said “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

 

And thus the whole security theatre at airports (which I will take a bit more seriously when I see Obama’s daughters being abused by the TSA or Cameron being subject to a body search ~ hey who has killed more people after all?).  Terror threat?  For someone who grew up in the 1970’s when the IRA were planting actual bombs regularly, it’s hard to take this seriously.

 

But you might have hoped for some kind of intellectual consistency, if not from politicians then at least from the judiciary.

 

But in one of the most convoluted and tortured contradictions ever to vomit forth from a British courtroom, the residents who weren’t thrilled with having anti-aircraft missiles on their roofs (and from what I can make out, out there without permission, notice or compensation of any kind) have lost their case against the deployment. 

 

A judge ruled the Ministry of Defence was legally entitled to decide there was “no credible threat” and the siting of the missiles was both “legitimate and proportionate” because of the “unprecedented” circumstances of the Games.

 

Yep, you read that right, there is no credible threat and it is so severe that we need to put missiles on your roof. 

 

One of the residents has caught on, he said the clear implication of the judgment was that “the MoD now has power to militarise the private homes of any person” even when there was no war on, or state of emergency declared.

 

Yep.  Free speech is gone, the right to own handguns long gone, self-defence, forget it, wer are taxed* and regulated to death, albeit inconvenient regulations are done away with for the elite**.  Now property rights are crushed at the whim of the state because they find it convenient.

 

The Romans used to say Fiat ‘justitia ruat caelum’’ meaning “let justice be done though the heavens fall”  Not anymore. 

 

* Not for the elite obviously, for you.  They pay 8% tax on the money they extract from you at the point of a gun, while they make you pay 45%.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/331884?tw_p=twt

                                                                                                    

** I’ve read, (but cannot find a link) that some of the speed bumps in the Zill lanes are being removed, does anyone know if this is correct?

19 Comments

  1. JuliaM says:

    “I’ve read, (but cannot find a link) that some of the speed bumps in the Zill lanes are being removed, does anyone know if this is correct?”

    “Your (Google) powers are weak, old man.”

    ;)

  2. Mr Ed says:

    The case in point was a nonsense. The residents had no property rights infringed, they were arguing that their Human Rights were infringed an that a Disability Impact assessment had not been carried out.

    It was lawyers on a Legal Aid Gravy Train.

  3. Schrodinger's Dog says:

    SAoT,

    I absolutely agree with you. But apart from you, me and the people who read this and similar blogs, who really cares? The last British Labour government embarked on a systematic assault on civil liberties, some dating back to Magna Carta but, despite that, won three general elections and nearly won a fourth.

    How often do political parties talk about liberty? Not often – and when they do, their heart really isn’t in it. But if people really did want more freedom, and it were perceived as a vote-winner, surely it would be pushed far more vigorously. Rather, a typical general election campaign consists of parties vying to outdo each other as to how many freebies they will promise the electorate. And, for all the complaints from the right about big government and the nanny state, it’s what people seem to want. Throughout the advanced world the state has now been growing for over a century. During that time the right has won a few battles – think of Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Regan in the US – but we have lost the war. Nowhere has the state become significantly smaller as a result of popular pressure, and the only way it is likely to happen is if there is some kind of economic collapse and the money finally runs out.

    Ultimately, perhaps it’s what people want. They may not much like hectoring, bullying government, nor the high level of taxes required to sustain it, but they just love the benefits and being taken care of.

  4. Jobrag says:

    “no credible threat” and the siting of the missiles was both “legitimate and proportionate” because of the “unprecedented” circumstances of the Games.

    I think that the judge was saying that siting the missiles on the flats posed no credible threat to the inhabitants of the flats, i.e The provisional wing of the mothers’ union was unlikely to attack the flats because the missiles were sited there.
    But there was a credible threat from an aerial attack that the missiles might thwart.

  5. NickM says:

    Rapier and Starstreak are essentially point-defense weapons. So, any “aerial threat” they bring down would hit East London. It is all hogglewash. A Type-45 destroyer in the Thames Estuary would do the trick but it doesn’t have the “show-biz” aspect does it? And do we have one spare. How many do we have operational? I know one is prowling The Falklands and another is (was?) titting around in the Gulf to fail to frighten the Iranians so do we have any spare? And don’t get me started on the Type-45′s failings.

  6. jameshigham says:

    There was a series for TV, some decades ago, about what life would have been like had the Nazis won. I feel it’s not all that far away over here now.

  7. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    “i.e The provisional wing of the mothers’ union was unlikely to attack the flats because the missiles were sited there.
    But there was a credible threat from an aerial attack that the missiles might thwart”

    If the judge was saying that then he has failed to consider whether an attack on the missiles themselves might not achieve the same level of publicity. As to the credible threat of air attack, unless the French are getting punchy again, this is probably from a hijacked airliner, so one wonders what the point of all the security theatre is and then of course there is one more tiny flaw in the thought process. Suicide attackers don’t care if they die, so being blown to bits and chucking debris over a wide area might be almost as attractive as hitting the games themselves. So I am not clear what exactly the missile deployment thwarts ~ except directed attacks on politicians themselves and fuck the rest of us, and THAT is the real point of all of this.

  8. RAB says:

    I came back from France via the Portsmouth ferry on Saturday evening Nick, and they had a Type 45 parked up there, also a couple of older types and a Jump Jet carrier (sans jets of course). I was really pissed off I’d left the camera in the car or I’d have been up on deck snapping away.

    And like you said, this halfwitted idea is nonsense on stilts. Bringing down an airliner over London is going to kill upwards of a thousand people, but then they will just be ordinary innocent peasants, god forbid that our celebs and ruling elite in the stadium will be under the fireball from the sky!

    Fred Wigg Tower!!! Who the frigg was Fred Wigg?

    In a parallel universe I can see the Jihadis puffing and panting their way up the stairs with their RPGs and AK 47′s being too knackered to attack by the time they get to the top, cos the lift aint working again ;-)

  9. Politicians have to be seen to be doing something, anything, even if that something is a nonsense and likely to cause more damage than the threat it is allegedly directed at.

    Smoke and mirrors.

  10. Sam Duncan says:

    “Now property rights are crushed at the whim of the state because they find it convenient.”

    Oh, we know that already.

    The Glasgow incident was simple legalized theft, but what bugs me about the missiles is why? What do they know that makes the placement of SAM sites around the jamboree so important? Or is it, as Nick suggests, just security theatre? In which case, surely the negative publicity has now outweighed the positive?

    Not that it would make any difference to them of course, since they clearly couldn’t run a whelk stall during an international whelk-eating convention. Anybody who can’t make the biggest sporting event in the world pay should be down at the JobCentre, not festooned with knighthoods and peerages.

  11. Philip Scott Thomas says:

    SAOT –

    I may be talking entirely out my backside here, but I think I heard this discussed on R4′s Today programme the other day and what I understood what that the flats in question were council flats. If I understood correctly, the MoD and the council had come to an agreement; the failure was, as the programme put it, one of ‘diplomacy’, that is, that the council did not discuss it with their residents.

    If that is correct then I don’t see the problem. The MoD consulted the property owners and got their consent. If that is the case, then the real problem comes down to social housing, namely, if one sucks the public teat one has to take to one gets.

    I may, of course, be missing something.

  12. Philip Scott Thomas says:

    Crikey, what a load of typos in that comment.

    Feel free to unleash your inner editor.

  13. Mr Ed says:

    The judgment is here:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1921.html

    Paragraph 23 a terrorist attack on the flats is apparently ‘inconceivable’.

    Paragraph 44 property rights barely get a look-in.

  14. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    PST

    My understanding is that there are proposals to put missiles on both private and public sector housing. The case in question was about social housing and so your point is valid, ask the owner not the renter, albeit at law, I understand if your rental agreement exceeds several years you have some rights.

    As a libertarian-come-anarchist, of course I do not think the state should be involved in housing at all and my concern was more for the rights of private property owners although I can certainly see why people suckling at the public teat for their housing are also pissed.

  15. Mr Ed says:

    English law imputes a covenant for quiet enjoyment into a tenancy, but this was not the basis of the legal challenge. One might think placing missiles on the building roof would be disquieting for all tenants, but he who deals with Sauron does so on Sauron’s terms.

    The Royal Prerogative was the basis for placing the missiles, and the local Council as owner of the building agreed to the request.

    I am unaware of any private buildings ending up with missile batteries on the roof, but it was proposed.

  16. Furor Teutonicus says:

    XX Sam Duncan
    July 11, 2012 at 11:30 pm

    what bugs me about the missiles is why? What do they know that makes the placement of SAM sites around the jamboree so important? Or is it, as Nick suggests, just security theatre? In which case, surely the negative publicity has now outweighed the positive? XX

    Precedence.

    They have done it once, the courts found it all jolly spiffing.

    So now it is open house, not just whilst wankers are playing with their balls in the local park, to win some bit of cheap and nasty tin to take home, but at ANY time “they deem fit”.

    AND, not just for S.A.Ms. The same precedence can now be used for ANY “security related need”. They want to use your flat as an obs post? “Hey… we got precedence, you fuck off and make the nice coppers a cup of tea, whilst we set up the camers.”

    “You ain’t putting CCTV on MY house wall pal!”…. “Really? We have PRECEDENCE!”.

    The o-limp-pricks was just a usefull excuse.

  17. bloke in spain says:

    Think Nick’s version of events has it plumb. Point defence over some of the heaviest built-up land in Europe? If an air threat has got that far, they really would be in the doo-doo. The only relevant scenario I could envisage would be if some ingenious raghead managed to knock up something, could be lobbed out of the surrounding Pakilands. (You know the area, you’d know exactly what I mean) Similar to what gets fired out of Gaza. Would the missiles counter a threat like that? Security Theatre seems more likely though.
    And don’t you get a lot of it in Brenda’s tatty little Realm. Drama capital of Europe. Saw some outstanding Police Theatre last visit. Major road blocked for several hours whist ‘Accident Investigation’ took place. WTF cares why it happened? Let’s get the road cleared & get on. Of course, time before I suffered, it was a police vehicle involved. No inconvenience will be spared you for the Boys in Blue. Including shutting the North Circ for 16 hours.
    All in all, you’ve a whole West End of Theatres, with enough left over for provincial tours. To prove something, anything’s happening, no interference with the general public is too great. Need to change a lightbulb? Let’s cone off two lanes of 5 mile of motorway for a week.

  18. Lynne says:

    Now, if only those guns could be trained towards selected areas of SW1 and W1…

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: