Why is there a Corporate-Media Complex Sponsored Police Prison State?

Through subliminal programming embedded in the product of the entire 'corporate-media complex', everything necessary for guided modern living is instilled: not just how to behave in a prison state. Its sum is indoctrination of the finest quality - nothing happens by accident, if it happens you can bet it was planned that way.

So if it is planned this way: what is the plan? The plan cannot just be for a 'police/prison state', as that alone is a pointless, non-productive, endeavour. The fact is: if the police are not held in check, they will enter this cycle of 'absolute power corrupting absolutely'. That alone does not serve a greater purpose, true it will happen if not kept in check, but in isolation it will rapidly become detrimental to the state as a whole. At a critical point, the whole state will be seen as having become unnecessarily onerous whereas it may, in fact, be that only the police have become 'careless' and oppressive to no good aim other than for their supposed own ends and foolish interpretation: of just being a club for bullies and for apparently achieving optimal policing effectiveness.

There must be more to 'the state' allowing its police to be become oppressive than just simply failing to prevent runaway oppressive police standards. To my eyes, the day the 'worm turned' was when in 2007 University of Florida student Andrew Meyer was assaulted and Tasered by campus police whilst he was poignantly questioning Senator John Kerry at an official student Q&A session. It was a disgraceful for such an inappropriate use of force to take place in the presence of this ex-Presidential candidate and for him to have not fiercely reacted at the time, or subsequently, to this violent infringement on legitimate discourse.

I say the ever worsening levels of police oppression and their apparent unaccountability is a symptom of the ever burgeoning tyranny at the core of government. Plato wrote: The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant. The corporate-media complex not only normalises the actions of the police but obfuscates the illegitimacy and corruption that is at the very heart of 'the state'.

My view on YouView

"YouView will be everything you've ever wanted from TV in one easy-to-use box: Freeview, catch-up TV, High Definition and a personal video recorder (to pause, rewind and record live TV). It means the programmes you love will be ready to watch whenever you want. Simple."

 Telegraph:

Lord Sugar blow over YouView delay

It was supposed to revolutionise the way we watch television, blazing onto our screens in 2010 and doing for every broadcaster what the iPlayer has done for the BBC.

I am confused. How technically difficult is the YouView objective to achieve? Not so very me thinks.

I think there is a sub-plot behind the endless delays that is more about not being accused of launching a platform that is so easy, agreeable to the public and focal of free content that it all but corners and stifles the market. Pay to view and cable content providers can see the monster on the horizon. A platform that works, that is stuffed with free content and potentially provides an open pathway to each and every independent provider will kill 9/10th of their lucrative captive market.

YouView is the BBC: disguised in the outfits of its slowly dying terrestrial broadcast mates. Sky begrudgingly appeared at the table late on and apparently declined to join-up, but until the News International Murdoch 'phone hacking' debacle reaches its termination and the wooden stake is finally hammered home, they will not risk a launch; for fear it will all end-up in court where the international media power players may well then rule the day.

Between times they will stall even at the apparent cost of market share: if only because by allowing the market to commence and develop they cannot stand accused of monopolising and stifling it from the outset.

Perhaps the show will get smartly onto the road when it is clear the last nail has been hammered home to the door of the Maxwell Black Murdoch family mausoleum.

Fat little worms sitting in a tin - the time is nigh

In matters of 'hacking'.  However hard it looks like this shower will all eventually come tumbling down, police, press and government, I suspect there remains a can of really big juicy worms that will never be opened. That can is tucked away on a top shelf out of view. The one being kicked down the street, for all to wonder and gloat at, is a decoy.

Just one of these fat worms is hinted at with a story in The Sunday Times: ‘Apps spy on phone messages’ (which you cannot access without a subscription).
But the gist of it below is at this link : http://www.theweek.co.uk/daily-briefing/45566/ten-things-you-need-know-today-sunday-26-feb-2012
3. PHONE APPS SPY ON MESSAGES
Companies, including Facebook, are using smartphone apps to spy on users’ phone messages and gather information about their lives. A Sunday Times investigation also found that some apps can access users’ internet history which is transmitted to third party advertisers, while other apps can remotely control a phone’s camera.

My reading of the publication of this item is to set the ground for if and when it comes out that Screws Indigestible has been doing a lot more than just hacking mobile answer-phones or even computer e-mail. It is to say ‘look folks; everybody’s doing this stuff, its not really so bad and scary. It's the new normal’.
See here an idea of what else is possible when actually 'hacking' mobiles: http://eubrainwashing.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-to-phone-hacking-than-accessing.html

But the effect of such revelation still has the potential to be devastating for NI and the Mudoiks.

The can chock full of juicy worms could well go deeper still. That would be who helped, who allowed powers reserved for the highest levels of police investigation and state security to be usurped for ‘third-party’ surveillance. Surveillance not only of a meaningless celebrity’s toilet habits but such that could compromise national security and those in positions of real power and authority. And yet deeper; is it only the news rooms of NI that benefited from such knowledge and leverage that may have resulted or could this spying network have a darker beneficiary than just pennies on a news-stand.

Trust that such would not occur, just because it should not occur, is misplaced.

Transnational Corporalisation

There may well be those, ideologically lead perhaps, who believe globalisation and a corporatised world governance utilising 'scientific control' is the best, or perhaps only, solution for mankind; they are drawn to this conclusion through a variety of means. Those who recognise, and act against, the falsehood of this Machiavellian momentum to global union are doomed to be sidelined, ridiculed, ignored or eradicated.

This 'business plan' is an inextricable self-perpetuating monster, the head of which is so obstructed from view it is hard to resoundingly identify with certainty; the elites have patsies, their patsies have their patsies too. But those we take to be the elites may themselves just be patsies, permitted to act in relatively plain view, acting for and on behalf of behalf a entirely concealed ruling oligarchy.

Whichever way it is the goal cares not one jot for humanity; humanity is just the livestock. The nations are just the tax-farms; a system designed just to optimise the yield from the tax-slave herd. The problem is 'rogue' nations. Nations who base their currencies in gold. Nations that have sovereign central banks. Nations who oppose the ambitions of the global corporations, the elites and their prospective master. 

Humanity can be allowed suffer. To the motives of this monster it matters not. Only suffering which causes resistance to their ambitions will be moderated. The in excess of one million innocent civilians of Iraq who, according to the well founded Lancet report, died as a result of the Bush/Blair/NeoCon illegal war against their nation understand what this means. But their voice will not be heard. They will not be recognised in the propaganda system we can broadly identify as 'mainstream media'. 

Why should the Iraqis count any less than the people of (so called) western democracies. They do not. We are spared only so long as our governments keep moving in the prescribed direction. All resistance and threat, one way or another, ends-up 'dead in the woods'.

And whilst this system is allowed to progress its Fabian agenda it is only to become more dangerous, more oppressive more controlling. It will progress until we are all under the cosh and till we do not understand or recognise what has become of Humanity.

Coroner's Inquest Must Return a Verdict on the Death of Dr David Kelly

It was Mr Blair who immediately called for an urgent inquiry following the death of Dr David Kelly. Lord Woolf subsequently demanded a veto over the appointment of judges to conduct public inquiries and now the Commons Public Administration Committee call for public comment on inquiries terms of reference.

It was the findings of this inquiry which ultimately supplanted the process of the coroners inquest. Dr Kelly is the only British citizen who has been a single victim of an incident resulting their sudden death and yet not had a coroners inquest return a verdict.

The Hutton inquiry was not the appropriate means by which to conclude the cause of Dr Kelly's death. Lord Hutton's remit was to 'urgently' examine the 'circumstances surrounding' the death of Dr Kelly. An inquiry of this type usually relates to an incident - such as a rail disaster - where individual's cause of death is not so much at question but rather to question the cause of the incident itself. The terms of reference given to Lord Hutton are no wider in their scope.

The coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, should have been allowed to concluded his inquest before the Hutton inquiry commenced. Failing this the coroner should not have subsequently waited for Lord Hutton's findings. His delay in reconvening the coroners inquest anticipated Lord Hutton may drawn a conclusion in his report as to the probable cause of death. Lord Hutton should not have attempted to draw a conclusion as to the cause of death as this was outside of his remit and the "rigours that are normally undertaken at a coroner's inquest simply were not fulfilled" (I quote coroner Dr Michael Powers).

Nothing obvious was to be gained by so very 'urgently' commencing Lord Hutton's inquiry. Indeed it was inappropriate to have urgently commenced the inquiry without the coroner having first confirmed how Dr Kelly died. From the outset this was a prejudicial conclusion of the Hutton inquiry. An inquest's verdict of suicide and murder has to be established beyond reasonable doubt. If the coroner had returned an open verdict the thrust of the Hutton inquiry would have been wholly different or perhaps not occurred at all.

There are a great deal of very disconcerting facts surrounding the circumstance and nature of Dr David Kelly's that need further politically independent detailed examination, with evidence taken under oath, by a coroner in an inquest.

This is because the standard of proof applied at an inquest is usually the civil standard – the coroner and jury must be sure that it was more likely than not (on the balance of probabilities) that the facts have been found proven to support the verdict. There are exceptions: if the verdict of suicide or unlawful killing is reached, it must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt (this is the criminal standard).

Therefore there remains a reasonable doubt: The finding of suicide should have been proven beyond reasonable doubt but as the evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry was not given under oath a reasonable doubt consequentially must remain.


Hence I remain focused on this legal aspect. All other matters are far more speculative and open to cheap-shot criticism; at least until such time they have been fully examined in a court under oath.

The War We Don't Bother To Look For

A few scribes line-up to let St John of Pilger take their confession and, by way of attempting to purify (or perhaps indemnify) themselves, in penance have their contrition open for all to see, for all to pour scorn or forgive.  I say; hang the dogs!

We cannot complain about Bush, his NeoCon masters, the CIA, Mossad, Blair (spit), the shower of MP's and senators who should have asserted their power, the military, the MOD, the UN, the Hutton & Chilcots and even the hoods who are allowed to own or control the worlds media (including the BBC).  Such human faeces will always float to the surface and it is the duty of the news' commentators to help clean such foul detritus away.

I am just an everyday fellow but one who has taken serious note of events, studied and learnt, since the, so called, attacks of 9/11 and have since reached solemn conclusions, available to all who take the trouble to seek it out, about the nature of world leadership - especially today.

The War You Don't See?  If any of this documentary is news to you you are a mainstream-media junky; you need to start to develop your own understanding and opinions.  People are dying at the hands of those who are acting in our name; don't you know?

The keystone in the success of those who command a plethora of hidden and conspiratorial agendas is a contrite, muted, compliant press.  We need journalists (not reporters) who will seek-out the truth and write it no matter the consequence.  They fear the truth will, at the least, finish their careers.  And at the worse, of cause, fear much more serious threats too. The alternative, the continued failure of the media/press, will be very tough indeed for all but the ultra elite - not just some easily forgotten foreign johnnies.

In unison there is a tough challenge before journalists and commentators.  I am sure John Pilger could speak far more plainly than this documentary portrays, speak of how this outrageous violence has come about, but if he did the program would not be on TV.  So he gets what part of the message he can across in the best way he can - the rest is up to you.