Storm Warning! Is NOW the Time to Holdout in the Hills and Hunker Down?

Or do we say no!  We can stay in our homes, we can embrace our land, can embrace our people, can demand our good ways of living and we can hold firm.  We can tell our brothers and sisters what we can see and they too will already be feeling it, smelling it.  They will know that what they taste in their mouths today, that bad taste, is a coming death, the death of their freedom, the death of the wealth they have built themselves and that great gift given to us, TO US, by our parents and our grandparents and all our people before.  And then they will start to hear, from muffled to clear and bright.  They will hear because everyone knows, in the hearts, that this is coming but all just hope it cannot be, hope it will not be, wish they can pretend pretend and wish it all away.  But now before long they will see for themselves too, it is coming.

What will you do my friends.  Will you run and hide or will you work to spread the word we must all learn to say, to cry out, to roar.  We must learn to all say NO NO NO!

Those who know what I always have to say will have to rock back whilst I make my most important point again: we cannot beg our rulers to stop, we cannot force our rulers out only to replace them with more of the same.  That will change nothing but only perhaps just delay this inevitable decay, this decay that will only result from allowing the power of human society to be pathetically given-up to 'the state'.  No matter what limitations are imagined, if the power to rule is held in any form greater than the individual to rule himself it will always be stolen by those who would take it for their own.  We not only will be slaves but, without complete liberty, we already are.

Belief in 'the state' is indoctrinated, by every means, into human society by 'the state' in order to preserve itself but only for the advantage of whosoever always wins control.  Belief in 'the state' is a belief in a power that is illusionary, that is false.  Belief in 'the state' is not like a religion, it is a religion.  And those who are indoctrinated into following a religion are simply cult followers.  'The state' is a cult religion.  We must end the cult of the belief in the religion of 'the state' or we will not pass to our children, our grandchildren and all the right people the future of our nations.

This fine gift is a gift we were given and have been entrusted to preserve and enjoy only whilst we have our moment of time here on Earth, not to let it all be squandered.  Our one simple duty is to make it better where we can and then pass it on.  Not to strive, in every imaginable way, to do so is a failure most diabolic.

Images stolen from 

http://masksoftheworld.com 

outstanding expert in the subject and sale of fine masks

BadCop Inc - a definition of a police state

In a free society, that is in a stateless society, a free market would exist, for every kind of service, which businesses could address in whatsoever way they considered a competitive manner. Some organisations may offer policing services on a subscription basis, some may work through insurance providers and perhaps, more likely, an unimaginable solution would yet be found to whatever need for policing services existed. That model would then constantly evolve and improve; driven by demand and consumer choice.

A policing organisation that started to behave as we see cops funded via stolen money (taxation) behave, would most likley find their customers rapidly departed to a better provider - I mean, for starters: who wants to pay for a gang of bullies conducting themselves in such a inefficient and costly manner. Such poor public relations would backfire unless, that is, they come to your door and Taser you if you do not pay for their protection racket.

If they did Taser you for not paying it would be clear you needed the services of a better operation who would start their contract with you by getting the ugly Taser and theft cops, BadCop Inc, off your back. A business that intended to force you to place your business with them would need to have a far more subtle method of capturing and retaining your business.

One good way of making you stay with 'BadCop Inc' would be to provide their nasty violence based monopolistic service free of charge. That would have the effect of making it very difficult for widespread competition to get started as they would need to fund their service in some way. Conversely BadCop Inc. could fund their service through a charge made on everything everyone sells including everyone's time they sell at 'work'. BadCop could simultaneously take a slice on the earnings of everything everybody buys too.

But nonetheless people would not be happy. They would quickly realise that BadCop Inc. was just running the mother of all protection rackets. BadCop would have to take more money and provide, monopolistically, more supposed 'benefits' or their 'customers' would realise they were just being enslaved. So BadCop could open schools, to indoctrinate their public from the get-go, allow their 'customers' to vote for who, from a list, the next BadCop boss will be, BadCop could build roads so they can get about and collect their tithe. BadCop could see their friend's business' made money from the enterprise too and could tell these corporate cooperators what to do, such as making sure the papers, radio and TV never tell the enslaved public any sort of truth.

With all this enterprise at their hands BadCop would still have one big problem: it would slowly but surely rot from the inside out and the public would eventually see for themselves its ugliness and its threat. To counter this BadCop Inc. would have to continuously stupefy their enslaved public, make them believe BadCop is essential for humanity, and, whilst keeping their threat of violence always visible, cast themselves and their regime of violence as being utterly legitimate. Make people believe in them. Surround themselves with ceremony, ritual, costumes and badges. Make it a cult. This may be an inefficient and expensive business plan but it is the only viable option if BadCop wants to remain in business.

See also: The Nine Principles of Policing

PS.  Watch the Lego Movie - better: buy it!

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'.

Platitude

It's not what you know, it's not even who you know. It is what you know about who you know.

The Dark Heart of the Union

I frankly, genuinely, do not doubt the sincerity of some, many, the majority even, of those involved within the European project.

There is bound to be corruption and ineptness when a new order is devised and implemented so quickly. This is typical of all governments, all public offices, all forms of authority. There will be abuse. Cookies will get stolen. It happens.

What people do not understand, including this gaggle of well intention and committed friends, is there is a covert darkness behind the whole enterprise and all are caused to be just playing right into it hands.

Too often the meaning of 'darkness' and of especially 'the occult' are completely misunderstood. This is not unintentional. 'To occult' means simply to hide and this is the clue to understanding what the occult is really about. Clearly it is the same inference with darkness.

Truth, clarity, openness. These are the sort of words one does not readily associate with darkness and the occult.

I think the truth of the EU has been hidden in darkness, occulted, from the minds of all but those who work to seek-out the hidden truth and actual meaning.

This is how states, of all forms, have conducted themselves to control and manipulate the people from time immemorial. And this, the oldest established legacy of prehistoric-mankind to still remain, the state and its utter dependency upon deception to function, needs to be seen for what it is and cast-out, got rid-off, ended for ever.

Prism Planet

Anyone to which this flap over Prism is a surprise is, frankly, naive and ill-informed.  The only news to me was being introduced to this new name.

Five Eyes SIGINT or ECHELON has been known to exist for decades and was the feature of a European Parliament report back in 2001 where the threat of industrial espionage is understood as paramount. It is clear that every action on every phone and web based system, across the world, is possible to have been subject to intercept and likely subject of analysis.

 See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A5-2001-0264+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

The technical possibilities remain unknown but it is evident that these systems employ super-computers of gigantic capacity capable of robotic artificial-intelligence analysis of all interactions and associations, including geographic, to seek-out correlations of interest and so identify subjects for closer observation and deeper analysis.

It is also clear these automated systems have the same ability to examine actual communications content, including spoken, on a wide and random scale to further identify and analyse targets of interest.

Whilst it is comforting to think this is only done to protect society from extraordinary threats it is evident even from the synopsis of the EU report, sighted above, that this system is prospectively used for a far wider mode of operation than that: ranging from industrial espionage to the political subjugation of other sovereign states.

But rather than the EU acting to curtail these activities the closing remarks of their 2001 report demonstrates no less than a jealousy and a desire to form the same system or to even integrate and share.

See P192 - 12. The EU's external relations and intelligence gathering

So I would ask the question (but do not anticipate an answer):  How deeply involved is the EU with Prism and indeed does it benefit from the intelligence derived, especially in relation to the EU member state's sovereign governments?

Whilst for the US to risk allowing the intelligence services of each and every EU member state to draw from the intelligence and analysis they derive from their vast network is improbable it is more likely a focused EU intelligence service would be considered a less risky partner to develop.

Once all the tools desirable to a draconian and authoritarian state have been put into place all that remains is for that state to arise, to become evident, when resistance will have be made all-but imposable.

Those unsuitable for being subjected to a Taser's electric shock

The list of groups unsuitable for being subjected to Taser type shocking, in all but the most exceptional circumstance, should include:

*the elderly
*children
*people with low body-mass (small, thin and light people)
* pregnant women,
* the known to be mentally ill,
* those suspected to be under the effects of psychotropic drugs,
* the disabled,
* the deaf (if they may not understand the threat),
* people exhibiting signs of 'excited delirium',
* people suffering from or with a history of epileptic seizure,
* people carrying or soaked with flammable and explosive substances,
* people with heart conditions,
* people who are already restrained,
* people who are moving, especially running, or can fall causing injury,
* people who simply refuse to comply, are defiant, with instructions but are not posing a violent threat, 
* And people who can be restrained by an alternative means that presents less risk in the circumstances.

The misuse of Taser is a management and training issue.  If controlled correctly by the issuing authority it is a device that can contribute to good policing.  If badly deployed it is a dangerous erosion of the covenant between the Police and the people.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/mp-fears-tasers-used-on-kids-old-people/story-fn3dxiwe-1226422374526

The Nine Principles of Policing
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/policeNine.php

The Noble Cause of a Centralised World Super State

A darn good way to end the prospect of war would be end the age old paradigm of the ‘state’ altogether. People don’t wage wars, governments do – normally governments working at the beck and call of interested parties. The ‘people’ are then suckered into it.

The apparent ‘noble cause’ of working towards avoidance of the future possibility for global war continues for those acting with the authority of state. We can now all see the supposed fragility of the EU concept, economically, but the forces concerned with this construct are not stupid. They knew ever deeper political union would be essential once this path was taken; this was planned for, caused even to provide the impetus for the next step. They could see, regardless of the horrors of WWII, people would resist the end of the old paradigm of national sovereignty and so the ‘discarding of the old and formation of the new’ could not be spelt-out publicly.

The idea that war can be avoided by political union, first regionally then globally, is the greatest of the reasoning provided by the force behind both the EU and the broader drive towards an ultimate global political union the same.

And the supposed advantages are not just to end war. Through the scientific management of every aspect of human endeavour, from education, health, population control, terrorism, energy, pollution to all that of concern to a state, the root of authority will be centralised for apparent greater efficiencies and parities.

I have no doubt there are many who see this goal of world union as desirable for the future of humanity. I also have no doubt that this pup has been broadly sold for at least the last 100 years by not only the hapless well intended but also those entities who have fostered and seek to use this movement to ever consolidate their global interests regardless of any supposed general benefit to mankind.

As long as there have been states, tribal leaders, imperial monarchs and all, there have been the very few winners and the many of the rest. Why on earth would this forthcoming super state, the greatest and most controlling in all history, be any better than any of those that have gone before.

And who is to say that a global state would not wage war. They would say “but who would a one world government wage war against”. The obvious answer is: that war would be against all the people.

First a war to form and control the people by means ranging from education and propaganda to maybe genetic determination of breading stock to ensure a compliant general population type.

Secondly to suppress resistance of any sort to any dictate; from the operation of a police state to the mass extermination of the of non-compliant.

Or we could do away with the idea of a state altogether.

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.

Youngster Tasered in the back, whilst trying to run away handcuffed, falls and suffers vegetative head injury. Cop gets pat on the back.

"Had to Tezer her because she was running out of the door"


Many 'cops' are lazy and will use whatever methods they are allowed to get the result they want. That is life; that is the result of sloppy management. Perhaps that is the result of a nation state where the police are allowed to use unnecessary violent force without criticism. Perhaps the reason this sort of treatment of the public is allowed, passes without prosecution resulting, is to send a subliminal message to all that: the 'state' is the power not the people. It is not to help police do their job - breaking the covenant between the police and the people can never contribute to the successfulness of state authorised policing.
See: http://eubrainwashing.blogspot.com/2011/06/nine-principles-of-policing.html

The recommendation from APCO in the UK for the circumstances when our 'police' can use these devices was: where officers are facing violence or threats of violence of such severity that they would need to use force to protect the public, themselves and/or the subject(s) of their action. That is a fair directive (if a state monopoly on the use of force can ever be seen as such).

The actions of the cop who caused this girl to fall and suffer brain damage do not appear meet this sensible APCO directive. She was not a violent threat. The threat of harm to herself was far greater by making her fall whilst handcuffed than the officer's assertion he was concerned she could have run into traffic - what traffic? This is a LIE.

That she was running substantially increased the threat of injury from falling at speed whilst paralysed from the effect of the device. That she was handcuffed made an injury from a fall extremely likely. Injuries resulting from falls is a substantial threat resulting from the use of Tasers, even if the subject is not moving and unrestrained. This is one of many reasions why their use must be strictly limited to the parameters delineated within a directive such as that proffered by the UK APCO. Their use on a running subject should be only under extreme circumstances of violent threat - not a common situation if a subject is running away from you.


The TASER web info states:

* it is important to remember that the very nature of self-defence, use of force, and physical confrontation or incapacitation involves a degree of risk that someone will get hurt or may even be killed due to physical exertion, unforeseen circumstances, and/or individual susceptibilities.

* The TASER device is to be used only for lawful self-defence or in the defence of others.

* its use can result in injuries, including ...... secondary injuries related to falling.

* Subject may fall immediately to the ground and be unable to catch him/herself.

* see downloads manuals at: www.TASER.com

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.

More to Phone-hacking than Accessing Voice-mail with Passwords

There is far more to this phone hacking caper than simply accessing voice-mail with passwords.

Cell phones can be activated remotely, loaded with software that takes control of the phone, records text messages, records calls, uses the inbuilt microphones as a listening device/bug, takes all GPS location data, address-book data, call logs, web-history, everything - current and historic - and transmits all, as and when required, to the hijacker when it can then also receive new instructions.

The cellular network transmitter/station local to a target phone can be replaced with a decoy transmitter that relays the signal on to the real network.  The phone must give the transmitter a code to prove who it is to the network but the network does not have to give the phone any code to prove it is the real network.  The phone can be told to transmit without encryption and the false cell transmitter can gain control of the phone in such a way, to download hijack software to take permanent covert control of the phone.

A 'virus' can be sent to the phone to similarly take control of it or the phone can be infected if it is in the possession of the hacker for a very short time.  It is possible to hack a phone via it's wireless connection, blue-tooth or even via a text message.

This may be the reason why the 'authorities' do not want phone intercept intelligence used as evidence in court; because they do not want to plainly admit what can be done and what is being done.  Perhaps this is why the police have been reluctant to further investigations into this matter or perhaps there is another layer between the journalists, the cash, the police and who is doing the actual covert spying on mobile phones.

LINKS

Can cell phones be hacked? Security experts say yes, but it's not that easy.

Hijacking Mobile-Phone Data

Hacker Spoofs Cell Phone Tower to Intercept Calls

FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool

An IMSI catcher or virtual base transceiver station (VBTS) is a device for identifying the International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) of a nearby GSM mobile phone and intercepting its calls

The man-in-the-middle attack (often abbreviated MITM), bucket-brigade attack, or sometimes Janus attack, is a form of active eavesdropping in which the attacker makes independent connections with the victims and relays messages between them, making them believe that they are talking directly to each other over a private connection, when in fact the entire conversation is controlled by the attacker

Need to silently record SMS text messages, GPS locations and call info of your child or employee? Learn the TRUTH with Mobile Spy, a completely stealth monitoring program!

'Pinging': how phone hacking targets were located with help from the police  NEW!

Phone hacking: Met police to investigate mobile tracking claims  NEW!

 

 

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 Nine Principles of Policing

The following set of principles, which lay out in the clearest and most succinct terms the philosophy of policing by consent, appeared as an appendix to A New Study of Police History by Charles Reith (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1956). Reith was a lifelong historian of the police force in Britain, and this book covers the early years of Metropolitan Police following the passage of Sir Robert Peel's 'Bill for Improving the Police in and near the Metropolis' on 19 June 1829. Reith notes that there are particular problems involved in writing police history, owing to the loss or destruction of much early archive material, and, probably for this reason, the principles appear without details of author or date.

 

However, it seems most likely that they were composed by Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne, as the first and joint Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police. Rowan was a military man and Mayne, fourteen years his junior, a barrister. Rowan retired in 1850 leaving Mayne as sole Commissioner until his death in 1868. The sentiments expressed in the 'Nine Principles' reflect those contained in the 'General Instructions', first published in 1829, which were issued to every member of the Metropolitan Police, especially the emphasis on prevention of crime as the most important duty of the police.

Reith notes that Rowan and Mayne's conception of a police force was 'unique in history and throughout the world because it derived not from fear but almost exclusively from public co-operation with the police, induced by them designedly by behaviour which secures and maintains for them the approval, respect and affection of the public' (p. 140).

The Nine Principles of Policing

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Same show, different players.

Yesterday the PM's answer to a question from Peter Tapsell MP stated: On the issue of Dr David Kelly, I thought the results of the INQUEST that’s been carried out and the report into it were fairly clear and I don’t think it’s necessary to take that case forward.’

The whole point is that the INQUEST did not produce a finding, the finding of suicide was the conclusion of the Hutton INQUIRY and was not conducted under the normal legal rigours required of a coroner's inquest.  Hutton's finding of suicide was prejudicial from the outset of his proceedings as the record shows.

In a matter of this utmost gravity 'fairly clear' is a long way from being clear enough.  Remember we are dealing with a matter that comprised our nation's justification for going to war.

If you cannot beat it; join it.

There will be a new EU agency to add to the list soon: the new EU Intelligence and Internal Security Unit (read 'Committee for State Security' or 'Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti' (KGB) to give it its proper title). Anticipated by one Olivier Luyckx, who's own experience appears to start and end at his graceful expertise for riding the EU gravy train.

Since MI6 hold the business end of all the strings attached to Baroness Catherine Ashton's every move (another prime gravy surfer) we can only hope they will truss-up too our new servant proposed to head the unit, Comrade Gilles de Kerchove.

One way out of this mess is to sink it through total non-cooperation; starting with keeping as much of your money out of the hands of 'the state' by every means possible. Another technique, though less robust, is to take it over from the inside.

If you cannot beat it; join it. Joint it and then beat it to death from the inside.

Boot on Right Foot

Civil liberties stand as a defence from whatever future holds. To assure an enduringly free society the balance must always be; government must trust people and not demand legislation that requires the people to trust government.

A free society is defined by being free from authoritarian control

Will any fresh legislation be introduced with the advent of 'ID cards' to assure they can never become the manipulative and coercing tool of an oppressive illiberal government? Civil liberties are retained not only to protect from current government, they provide a defence from what government may become. Should a less benign future government or situation emerge, we would find that by virtue of the 'ID society' proposed that we are subject to a totalitarian government's strict control. A free society is defined by being free from authoritarian controls and not by just relying on a government that says it can be trusted.

My fear of ID cards and the underlying database

My fear of ID cards and the underlying database commences simply from my lack of trust in Tony Blair along with any part of this government. I accept they are not the worse government we could have, I have a powerful imagination and can think of many ways in which our national circumstance can become worse still. One way may be with an oppressive centralised European government, voted into power by a people distant to us through geography and culture, dictating a future clearly detrimental to this island and its people's interests.

From our recent experience in the hands of the Blair government, leading the nation to a war on a tissue of lies with the unmitigated slaughter and disaster that has ensued as just one clear example, we can learn a salient lesson; we are already near powerless to resist, prevent or correct the wrongful behaviour of our own instruments state.

We need to know we have the means to protest, to resist and ultimately overthrow our leaders. And they need to know this possibility is an option too. The cornerstone of totalitarian control is put into place with the ID Database. If it's social values are to be realised, it's dangerous nature has to be counterbalanced with liberal legislation offering a viable mechanism to ensure our leaders can never become tyrannical rulers or more likely puppets acting out the bidding from a hidden hand.

Civil liberties stand as a defence from whatever future holds. To assure an enduringly free society the balance must always be; government is to trust people and not demand legislation that requires the people to trust government.