Boston Bombings Come After Omen For “Crash Two”

Gold has seen its biggest falls for thirty years.  The last big drop came just before Lehman and the current everlasting financial crisis.  Shares are taking big hits too.  Assets of all kinds have been pumped up by QE and other measures for a long time and the world economy has not recovered in more than 5 years.  A full description of what has been going on is difficult because issued figures confuse and are intended to do so.  The situation in economics is similar to that in police statistics, governed by gaming and performance management targets.  Ask yourself if selling insurance to someone you know can never pay off for the individual sold and whether you think this is fraud.  I certainly do.  Record each instance and loads of other financial crime and we’d see crime figures rising.    This type of thinking escapes inclusion in police recorded and BCS systems.

We lack real figures across what goes on in our societies.  Whenever we sneak a few undercover reporters and cameras into situations we are told are rock solid we find an unholy mess.  One could do a statistical analysis based on such investigations.  I suspect the correlation between smiling politicians and regulators singing from hymn sheets and unholy mess realities would be very high.  The big step statistically would be demonstrating the likelihood of unholy mess realities across the board.  One could do something similar in the financial system with a small number of full-blown investigations on a random sample.  The same is true for victims in anti-social and other criminal situations.  This work does not get done.

One can only feel sorrow for those killed and injured in Boston.  Rumours are already out in US press that a Saudi national is in custody.  One hopes the perpetrators are caught and upcoming events in the UK are not targeted.  We may be back in some dire crash in the next few weeks (charts predict this – but then the always do), but what should be striking is that we really don’t seem to be able to free ourselves from very peculiar politics (including terrorism on all sides) and an economics so difficult to follow most give up.

Boston is hopefully not related to a group seeing an opportunity to make its point in coordination with sophisticated market analysis.  I just wonder why, with all our technology, we live in a dangerous world worrying about our jobs and now, following Cyprus on whether any money we have would be better mattressed rather than banked (the Germans are proposing a ‘wealth tax’).

Most of the terrorists we catch have done us much less harm than international banksterism (fancy being a Cypriot for the next couple of years?) – which excuses none of the idiots, zealots and associated wide-boys.  Five years on, none of us in the UK know just what debts our banks are holding, why we went into Iraq (other than that Bliar’s account is false) and yet still think we live in a democracy.  My guess is we won’t feel that if Britain becomes a victim in ‘crash two’.  Key in that will be whether our banks actually own anything real, whether they really are our banks and whether the financial merry-go-round is a zero sum game with losers balanced by winners.  I suspect the latter is really a Ponzi and any tickets held worth as much as betting slips with a bookie last seen speeding from the track.

Many of our banksters should clearly be in jail and would be if our cops we allowed to investigate no-holds-barred and put the cases to juries unhampered by our legal establishment.  That we’re seeing civil fines suggests government collusion to keep the real issues under wraps.  In turn this suggests things are worse than we think and the powers that be cling to a belief ‘we’ can still be winners if crash two is handled properly.  There’s strong evidence to suggest French and German banks we able to delay ‘Cyprus’ for two years in order to get their money out.  It’s all scary and could come in the next three weeks if the gold price crash before Lehman and the current one are linked.  This gold price crash is worse, at least in ‘paper gold’.


There Is No Alternative?

When it comes to history the following is a plausible story.

“WW1 started in 1913 with the British invasion of Iraq.  This followed much jostling with Germany, led by Kaiser Wilhelm, the man who would have been King Of Britain under today’s inheritance rules.  The Imperial powers (roughly Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Japan and USA) all had trade interests supported by big armies and navies and had even engage in joint actions, such as that against China in 1906.  Britain, France and Russia had intended to invade the USA in 1861.  The USA had War Plan Red until WW2, which was concerned with invasion by Britain, and even built some air bases near Canada, fearing invasion through Halifax.

Millions protested before WW1 but could safely be ignored.  This war left Germany with reparations it could never pay.  It’s people were generally poor in comparison with the British, though the country was clearly leading in science and culture.  Money poured in under Hitler, with large investments from the USA and banks such as JP Morgan (who had financed much of UK war effort).  The US and UK continued a policy against Japan, starving it of oil and imposing tariffs on its textiles.  WW2 broke the imperialism of France, Germany, Japan, UK and USSR, with the only victors being the USA – who then prevented Franco/British attempts at a ‘come back’ in 1956.”

I’ve always found the American victory difficult.  One can hardly doubt the spirit of its peoples’ war effort – the questions would concern the extent to which the victory was actually the unfolding of a plan and whose plan this was.

In more recent times, Iraq is invaded again, Saudi is controlled by a freak monarchy under US “control” and the invasion of Iran is only an Israeli away.  Bliar is JP Morgan’s bag man out there, and led us into an illegal, unwanted war that has killed in hundreds of thousands, despite being protested by millions.  The excuses for going into the Iraq war look as ludicrous as those for the War of Jenkin’s Ear.  China is now the eastern power with vast manufacturing capacity and a shortage of oil and other commodities.

I’m fairly sure history is repeating itself.  Both Churchill and Bliar may have been plants in our political system to do American bidding – but I doubt ‘American’ is quite the right term.  The increases in productivity in agriculture, manufacturing and even such matters as domestic cleaning should, by now, have produced a world of material plenty for all and much greater freedom from ‘disciplinary government’ and such sanctions as unemployment and poverty.  Instead, we are on the road to serfdom and find we have no democracy ‘because of global competition’.

I can support this historical version and expand on it.  I remain to be convinced of it myself, but the gist of it seems more likely than not.  I’m well aware of the alternatives and the standard model that has WW1 starting because some toffs were shot at by a guy outside a butty shop, or the irreversible German railway play (AJP Taylor).  One should be able to engage in speculation and I’ll even speculate our view of E = MC2 is wrong.

And this is where we have gone wrong as a society – we can’t engage in practical, speculative, scientific dialogue.  The history above may be wrong – but it isn’t as wrong as the political-economic bullshit that holds us in fealty and which just happens to be the only political-economic bull that holds wages down, makes the rich richer and leads to war and planet burning.  How the fuck did we get this stupid? – it must have taken an awful lot of practice and schooling!

The idea of TINA (there is no alternative) is utterly stupid and passed off by ruthless bastards who would do anything to retain their privilege and the means to get their jollies – whether Thatcher through lapping up the Iron Lady adulation or some bwankster flashing out mega-cash on drugs and prostitutes.  If we can create viable alternatives (at least in narrative) to Churchill as our great hero, we can clearly come up with alternative economic-political propositions on how to change things that aren’t either lunatic rich or lunatic leftie.

I don’t care whether Churchill or Bliar were good guys or the most appalling war criminals working at the behest of foreign interests.  I do care we are so dumb we believe in TINA or even organise public dialogue against it.



IPCC Bungle On At Tortoise Speed

Whatever might the following mean?

“The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is to independently investigate the steps undertaken by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officers in relation to an investigation of an alleged assault, involving a firearm, in late July 2011.

As a result of the MPS investigation, an individual has been charged with offences relating to the firearm and alleged assault.

The MPS voluntarily referred the matter to the IPCC after tests suggested the non-police issue firearm recovered from the scene of the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan on 4 August 2011 could have been the one used in the earlier alleged assault.

 IPCC Commissioner, Sarah Green, said:

“Our investigation will consider whether all investigative lines were promptly identified and acted upon by officers from the Metropolitan Police Service and to what extent, if any, the conduct of this investigation may have impacted on the supply of the firearm found at the scene of the shooting of Mark Duggan.

“We have informed Mr Duggan’s family of the situation today and IPCC family liaison managers continue to be on hand to support Mr Duggan’s family while investigations continue.

“As an individual has now been charged with offences in relation to that police investigation, we cannot provide any further information at this time.”

The MPS referred the matter to the IPCC on Monday 14 November 2011 and an assessment has been concluded resulting in the decision to undertake an independent investigation”

I thought the IPCC was investigating the Duggan shooting – obviously so badly that the Met have had to refer a relevant matter to them?  Surely one would expect this to simply be a matter uncovered by the IPCC investigators?  It happened before the Duggan killing – who didn’t tell them straight away.  It’s time for some sackings now, but who can say not cooperating with the IPCC is wrong after Blair denied them access at Stockwell?.

There are any number of possibilities on the non-police weapon, from Duggan carrying it about after it has been used in another criminal incident (dumb but done) to it having been planted at the scene of the Duggan killing.  What I detest and can see no reason for is the manner in which this kind of information is released.  Our notions of sub judice are long past sell by date and in need of review.  The IPCC or police can’t flout them as they stand, but the ground itself is dangerous.  Just as Duggan’s killing led to the march that led to the riots, this could too.  One hopes not.

It is now more than three months since the Duggan killing – one that almost killed a police officer from assumed friendly fire too.  One appreciates matters do not proceed at all like CSI (which is crass nonsense) – yet we do not seem to have any means to properly investigate in an appropriately open manner, reported in a way we can trust.  This is in part the British disease of secrecy and across the world a problem with enquiries into potential police wrongdoing and incompetence.

What’s at issue in matters like this is less the probable fantasy that Mark Duggan was gunned down and a ‘Saturday night special’ left to confuse any evidence trail, but the general problems we have with fair ways of getting truth out and for us to be able to trust in fair investigation.

We have had enquiries into Iraq and yet another one is yet to conclude.  This is years on and I have never understood why we went in to Iraq or Afghanistan and don’t meet anyone else who does either,  As someone who teaches economics in universities I don’t have a full understanding of what I think is looting by rich people, though I’d say I do know enough to say the economics presented by politicians and media is based on a quasi-religious farce that is a cover-story for the looting.

One might say that we should be able to rely on court reporting and the various inquiries and should just have patience.  This barely fits with history in any depth, other than that written by victors etc.  I suspect the real problem is we can demand nothing from democracy.  We now demand those arrested tell their story against not being believed in the future (oversimplification) – yet allow those in authority to delay and deylay until “enquiries” are complete – a point often ever deferred with enquiries in secret and conducted by people with interests and bias we are expected to take as ‘objective’.

There are better and faster ways.  We need to establish and build them into a working constitution.  That we can’t wake up and smell the coffee over matters from nearly four months elapsing with us no further enlightened on the death of one person and the near death of a police officer, are waiting until January over a Border Agency farce and have so little conception as a populace on how reasonable equality went so badly wrong in the hands of paid-for politicians and banksters – or have so much coverage of a soccer player calling someone black and so little about vulture funds stealing millions from poor people who live in the Congo (also black) through banks in Jersey – all strike me as to do with a justice system that is intentionally inaccessible, expensive and slow. I suspect the reasons for wanting to restrict what can be said to courtrooms and equivalents are a problem for democracy.

It seems we can’t trust the public, when acting as jurors, with information such as Tabak looking at the pornography of strangling women the night before he put his hands round Jo Yates’ neck – yet could expect them to exclude ‘Duggan the hood’ reporting on deliberation of his killing and the near killing of a police officer by another police officer.  My sense of it is we need something less archaic in place on what can and should be in public scrutiny.  There is no scientific evidence I know of to suggest judges’ instructions and the system of evidence in courtrooms makes anyone more objective – rather the opposite.  We still allow eyewitness evidence and credibility, knowing both are highly likely to be wrong.  Where is the independent assessment of IPCC reports?

The legitimisation crisis continues.  I have no idea whether the officer who shot Mark Duggan and nearly killed his fellow officer is culpable of anything.  I’m happy for courts to decide.  I’m not comfortable with, have all these been traced an investigation that has taken so long to decide where charges lie and seems to have missed relevant material or had this hidden from it.  Given the non-police issue weapon found being previously subject to likely police seizure from criminal activity or amnesty, have all these been traced?  Was this basic enquiry done at all given the way this chestnut seems to have been passed on? We could be told about this and should be.  The rest needs social and legal changes, including to the IPCC remit – but is essentially about the secrecy we have made habitual.

If Mark Duggan has survived and was subject to criminal charges, one line of enquiry essential to his defence would be the discovery of similar weapons handed-in to police that cannot be reliably traced to destruction, or worse, the actual weapon turning up in police hands and supposedly destroyed.  One would expect a paper trail.  Has this been done?  It would seem not on the basis of the IPCC having to be informed about this other matter.


Good Luck To Our Cops In Coming Difficulties

American friends tell me the protests seen as the Battle of Brooklyn Bridge are going national.  All my political sympathies lie with the protesters, though I never forget the cleft stick police are stuck with.  Something has to be done about the loss of our democracy and the looting rich.  The facts on this are now clear and anyone mooting the old left-right arguments as out of it in ideological denial.

Briefly, production per hour has trebled since 1980 – wages should have doubled and have, in fact, gone down across the board except for a 15% of ‘high fliers’ and a growing super-rich.

Money (banksters) has routed democratic control and it’s not worth most of us voting for anyone.  The vile Blair is the paradigm case of politicians we don’t want.  Name me one we do.  In the States, each side will spend over a billion USD on the 2012 elections. Politicians have to buy positional power – a bit like Ms May having to put up half-a-million to be Home Secretary.

The bulldung around on ‘the economy’ is as feckless as any ‘new paradigm, empowerment, digitise the penguin, learning lessons, strategic mission’ dross witless managers use.  The bankster problem is as big across Europe as the US.  We don’t want to believe our politics as corrupt as there but I sense it is.  The problem is broadly mass unemployment and that we are prepared to tolerate it and pretend their are educational solutions.  There aren’t – 50% of any population won’t benefit from ‘academic’ teaching and we can’t teach ‘smarts’ (though we could do more to prevent damage by ‘parents’).

We need a “New Deal” based in direct work with day-release or sandwich exposure to college.  No one is presenting one and the danger is they’ll offer Nulabour drivel and promises on private-sector innovation and all the old chestnuts.  Times have changed. We can do all the really necessary work much more efficiently – or could if we could invest in it.  The money has instead been going into speculative gambles and property bubbles that leave many without decent housing.  Research shows most so-called wealth since 1980 has mostly come in the stuff waiting for a pin-prick.

The Arab revolts have been portrayed as ‘bread riots’ but this isn’t true.  Their middle classes have been key, ripped off by stockmarket scams and sick of terror and non-representation.  We should all be occupying our streets demanding new politicians and a completely new system at the bottom of guaranteed work.

None of this is going to happen because our politicians are cowardly and more or less bought up by the rich – they talk to the banksters behind closed doors despite supposedly representing us.  They are already divided and ruled, scared to break ranks.  They deliver inept economics through a gullible ’embedded’ media on an austerity plan that can’t reduce debt as they claim and only make things worse.  Freezing council tax equates to about average spending on tinned soup.  What we need is a conspiracy of western governments against the banks, making them and their shareholders take bankruptcy in coordination with private (mortgage) debt relief and new 60-80% GDP public debt ceilings.

We will, instead, see street protest.  One hopes this will quickly become a mass movement across the US and Europe, but we are now idle, lack solidarity and are apathetic.  It’s likely all we’ll see to start with will be on the fringe around public sector strikes.  I fear police will be instructed to go in hard against this and the results will be violence and long-lasting distaste as the truth creeps into the public gaze.  I firmly believe we should not put our cops in this situation, but we are back in post-WW1 economics and the record from then is shameful.  Cops were on the wrong side and we lurched into the worst war of all.  Churchill was JP Morgan’s bag man then, as was Blair in the Iraq farce. We don’t give enough thought to who funded the Nazis and what the massive excess of the rich funds now.

I’m glad to be out of what may be coming for our police and the last thing I want is their politicisation – though this is what I see happening by default.  The political class know the bricks and injuries won’t be coming their way and police will be left to ‘defend order’.  I wish the blue line would give way when the time comes but it’s likely to brave for that. Strangely, much as most cops are decent people, they will not be protecting democracy, but the people who sold it for their own purposes.  I would, incidentally, still stand in the ranks myself if fit and take what comes.  We can’t have rule by brick.  But we shouldn’t have rule by banks and debt either.  What a bloody awful situation.  An American colleague has just been involved in a foreclosure of a former colleague’s house.  He went himself to offer a spare room to the family.  God save us and I hope to be proved wrong.

Are Police In the UK Bent?

My over-riding feeling is we don’t have many bent cops – this despite knowing even in local dealings they can provide very shabby service and will lie to protect themselves at the expense of severe distress and unlawful conspiracy against victims.  The real problem is how to get the majority into a position to do the better job they want to do.  The constraints that have grown against this are probably typical of the work most of us do.  The biggest lies outside of our jobs in economic matters.

Whether you think police or other agencies are corrupt will largely depend on what happens in direct dealings with them and what you glean from ‘admass’ reporting, literature and any contact you have with more academic material.  I’m not aware of an objective reporting or body of knowledge to refer to as I might refer to books and papers on molecular biology.  There is academic work and in that you will find reference to a ‘rotten orchard’ and a lack of accountability.  This is not material I would regard as scientific, though I’ve seen some good arguments made.  Jack Regan and Dirty Harry figures were unknown in the reality of my police work, but dubious practices like those in Charlie Owen’s novels and his characters strike a chord.  I’m sure I worked ‘Horses Arse’, GMP’s missing ‘H; Division.  GF Newman wrote long ago, and is worth a retrospective.

The IPCC have just published a 36 page interim report on corruption – it;s on their website and converts to less than a side of A4 – once you strip away the undergraduate dissertation part it says little  and manages a few lies in the form of bureaucratic-speak. They aren’t up to the job and even say 87% of us think they should investigate police corruption – a classic of village idiot consultancy.  We would be unlikely to ask members of the public who should conduct hot fusion research and this area is as complex in its own way.  The public have as little idea on the requirements of major corruption enquiry as of the technologies of a tokomak (and I don’t know how to spell it).

The thing about corruption is that perpetrators can usually only practice if they can hide what they are doing, though there are counter-examples.  And who better at hiding evidence than police officers (bankers? accountants? lawyers? politicians? press?)  The Americans prided themselves on having no moles as we were being embarrassed by Philby, MacClean and Burgess, but in reality weren’t finding them.

My own view is we get off already off-kilter in trying to bring accountability in our public sector.  We are generally failed by our public enquiries, judge-led this and that and so on.  One tedious enquiry after another on Iraq hasn’t even really the full scale of the Blair-concocted horror – we can’t get past secrecy and closing ranks.  The Murdochs and others put up the standard CEO excuse recently – that what went on went on without their knowledge.  They never make this admission when taking bonus payments.

In a sense we have no right to dare ask for investigations into police corruption when there are no police investigations worth speaking of into much wider banking and other business-financial corruption.  It is quite likely that our privilege and selection systems prevent the kind of people we need to do ‘regulation’ having any access to the work, and there is much evidence around the world of a ‘political class’ of jobsworths dominating them.

We need fresh ideas and to take into account of such realities that the kind of bureaucratic structuring of organisations around corruption prevention as a focus will be a disaster – and that there are plenty of examples of this to learn lessons from.  Elected police commissioners seem a good idea until you look at the politicians we already get.  We’ve had them on police authorities with no good effect I’m aware of.  Most of us already hold politicians in much greater disapproval than our cops.

One big problem in the mess is getting proper investigation done and done under open challenge.  Judicial review is open only to the rich (with a few token counter-examples) and it is possible to think of (cheaper) expansions of this that could organise new forms of enquiry with high degrees of power to demand evidence and get to it before cover-up opportunities, and reversing normal credibility issues and police or other organisational players colluding.  Much ‘corruption; is not criminal, but comes about through poor cultures, supervision and so on.  I would guess this is the biggest problem in our police, but we shouldn’t have to guess on the extent of criminal corruption.  The figures should be listed in the police record of recorder crimes as a special appendix and cases of miscarriages of justice should be available, in full, for public scrutiny – the opposite is the general case.  The idea, of course, is for the question of whether our police are bent not to arise because we would have reason to know either way.

The general way to prevent corruption is to involve countervailing interests.  I would put forward Nico Bento as the paradigm case of our failure to do this with almost everyone involved duped or corrupt (who knows which in the absence of full public scrutiny?).  Welsh officers are on trial at the moment for a case dating to 1988 and I heard interview tapes being played the other day.  It now appears we throw away relevant evidence ‘as a matter of course’ in considerable haste. There is no reason in this digital age, and this hardly helps us believe our CJS wants to come clean..


Obama fails to plead the 14th – we move closer to doomsday

The hype over the Us debt ceiling in our media has been witless.  There is now a deal and it’s one that makes no economic sense.  What it demonstrates, like our own Condemlibbers, is that the rich are running the show and none of the rest of us matter. Austerity is a mug’s game, other than in household budgeting or corporate housekeeping.  Obama could have shown some balls and used the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling and forced the barking Republicans into war with the Tea Party clowns.  The great black hope is now laid as waste as all the under-sized heavyweights until Klitscho.

Much as we have come to hate welfare dependency and the evil poor, this is not the reason for economic decline.  The bottom 10% in our country hardly make a blip on the wealth of our country (see the ONS figures) and they (have to) spend whatever they get and thus help keep businesses afloat.  The problem everywhere is the rich, a bunch of thieving swine who are playing crooked games made legal.

I’d be all for austerity if it was coupled with structural changes like a genuine greening of the economy, the way we relate with each other and the production of social capital and new forms of entertainment and leisure.  Instead, we have a clown form that cuts the number of cops, slashes services, charities and hardly produces a decent job.

This is all happening at a time when we have truly amazing technologies to produce energy, food, housing, communities and a genuinely educated society.  I’d put it in terms of this thought experiment.

“Would we be better off losing the bottom 10% of our people or the top 10%”?

The sad truth now, I suspect, is that we would easily survive either, but be much better off if we could redistribute the wealth of the top 10% into radical social and work change.  Of course, if the wealth of the top 10% just went to government we’d see very little change.  The wealth needs to be in circulation paying people to do stuff and re-invest wages in change.

We won’t get any sense from the goon-class of politicians that serves the rich.  This is the Doomsday road to serfdom, led by the country we once thought the beacon of democracy and capitalism – now become the military fiefdom of robber barons.  Even America can’t produce jobs and has one in seven on food stamps and half its population poor.

The infamous double-dip is more or less with us, and as cops line up for decimation, we’ll find many other jobs disappear, inflation making families unable to pay bills and even food shortages in some homes.  The IMF is predicting £1500 a year lost per family over the next five years.  That’s about the same as we’ve spent in Iraq and Afghanistan in money, before we count the lives taken and those of our own lost.

It won’t be long before one set of clowns or another start venting spleen against the newly thinned blue line.  The brick flying in Toxteth is linked to Obama’s failure to plead the 14th.  Nothing in the politics in polemic here justifies any violent action against police officers.  I personally abhor the juvenile crap.  It’s all a long way from a couple of us in uniform facing 10,000 pickets and being offered butties and tea.  NI looks likely to kick off again too.

One might think, by now, our democratic leaders would do more to head off street demonstrations with alternatives the other voices in our society could deem fair and worthwhile.  I know none.

Why Do We Wealth Distribution Like This?

Breakdown of aggregate wealt: by deciles and components, 2006/08

This is how ONS illustrates who owns Britain’s wealth.  I gave up thinking the world was fair or that I was being told the truth about it as a teenager.  Clearly, the economics that distributes wealth as unevenly as this relies on lots of people stupid enough to think it’s a good idea to let 10% own nearly everything.  Dupes that dumb are unlikely to know any economics, but there are lots of economic reasons why this state of affairs isn’t healthy.

It’s time for real change, or we’ll be off to war.

In the USA, they now spend more than $650 million on their prison system (which is often in private ownership).  This is more than they spend on medicare and medicade – what arsewipes could think that a good idea.  Britain has probably spent more than £30 billion on the wars around Iran (Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq) – which is about half the cost of the new high speed train link that might happen between London and Manchester.  The Yanks are probably in for three trillion.

War is coming more likely than you think.  Uncle Sam is as broke as Nazi Germany and for much the same reasons.

Whatever interests lie behind wealth distribution in the chart and through the more complex processes of financial propaganda and war, we should be sorting them out instead of going to war to allow real looting now no one believes in money anymore.  We’re too lazy to take notice.

So we’re off to war.  Where?  Well we’re already at war with Iran.  The Yanks have surrounded Iran as surely as any set of film Injuns the wagon train.  The powerful financial interests don’t care much about where the war happens.

It strikes me that ‘we’ are a pathetic set of know-all teenagers when it comes to wealth distribution.  I didn’t find a single person in three pubs earlier tonight who knew how little of our own country’s wealth most of us don’t own!

We’re going to war.

Who knew what when is not about micro-managing.

Many of the questions being pointed at senior managers in the hacking charade seem to lack much understanding of what senior management is and to make assumptions that they are expected to “micro-manage”.  It’s hard enough as an SIO in a criminal enquiry to get a full-picture – indeed this often is not achieved even in successful investigations.

We had an allegedly full public investigation into the Iraq farce and yet Andrew Gilligan, castigated over telling us the blatantly obvious fact that the WMD nonsense was nonsense, revealed recently that senior MI6 officers are now contradicting evidence given by the “figures of great integrity” to Hutton.

Gilligan points out that this is much more important than the current hacking performances.  The story emerging is that the security services did feel pressurised to support the case for war.  One could reasonably conclude the “people of integrity” colluded and lied.  I think this is true – but the obvious issue is why the people coming up with evidence now were not those giving evidence then.

Stephenson, Yates and all others paraded on hacking are all giving Nixon’s famous line about not knowing at the time – sadly there are no tapes with the expletive deleteves.  There are, of course, others down the food chain who know who they told what and what was being talked about in the system.

As I write, ‘Bill the Burglar’ is being nicked across the road – there are indeed police officers doing what we pay them to do.  Peter Fahey no doubt does not know what they are doing and is not present.  It’s a ludicrous to suppose GMP’s CC should do everything himself as it is to suppose Stephenson or Yates should not have been able to trust officers like the guys doing their job across the road.  These lads might miss a bin bag full of evidence and we could not blame that on Peter Fahey.

Any senior manager is entitled not to take the fall for wrongdoing by others in her organisation on the grounds you can’t and should not have your fingers in all pies.  This isn’t the point.  You can always say you did not know what was going on because of delegation.  A crime boss can say this on jobs he has organised but others have been caught doing.  Generally the blaggers don’t blow our Mr.Big.  The point is that our general organisations are behaving like the criminal ones – that is as though there is something to hide from public scrutiny.  The truth is not enough because this might give the wrong impression.

The farce with the Murdoch’s has just ended with a ‘custard pie’ and an apparent assault by a woman on the perpetrator.  Only one has been dragged away in chains.  Had my neighbour rushed out and dealt such a blow to Bill the Burglar (who has done her far more harm than shaving foam) whilst he was being carted off, I would hope the cops granted her such immunity,  I would certainly have given an ‘I saw no assault’ witness statement had she done the deed.  “Integrity”  is such a difficult thing!  And I would have blanked my security camera.  It appears that Rupert Murdoch’s wife Wendy is allowed to break the law on camera and take the law into her own hands in a manner not allowed us mere serfs.  The press has not noticed.  Before thinking of the perpetrator as scum, we should wait and see if he brings charges.  He should not have to as Wendy has contributed to an affray.  No doubt the Met will ignore this – they have form for selecting crimes they do process!  The law is the same as for a pub fight.

Bill was subject to an attack in the street last week – by an accomplice’s munter.  There was much shouting along the lines of ‘don’t you f****** (ten) well get my man involved in all this’ (she was even less literate).  Cops will now be hearing claim and counter-claim.  What they won’t do is parade these claims – they will investigate and try to find the convincing evidence.  This is what is so unconvincing about the current parade.  Plenty of investigation could have been done, but we are getting is equivalent to stories put up by chummies.  All of them have been shown not to have been telling the full truth and are now relying on stories they did not tell before.  None of them have come forward voluntarily and laid out what they knew in any straightforward manner.  The pattern throughout is giving limited information, bringing into question problems under PACE – relying now on information not given then.  They are all giving excuses no chummy would get away with.

What is plain is that the chiefs are all responsible when things go right – as though the changes they make or their brilliance networks right down, say, to the nicking of Bill today.  This network evaporates as soon as something goes wrong.  More than 80% of oirganisational communication is informal, and what is not presented to us is any notion of this ‘structure’.  Without this, and I have built many such structures, the proceedings are child-like.  All the worthies seem to have been wandering about in dubious networks wearing a shield of innocence.  This is nonsense.  And it’s not what people claim in other forms of communication.

I think we may have learned more from the shaving foam and Wendy Murdoch’s treatment in comparison with what happens to ‘ordinary folk’ who take a pot at someone being arrested.  There’s one law for them and another for the rest of us.  If I was sure my treatment would have been as lax as Wendi’s, I’d have nipped out, jumped over someone’s back and landed one on Bill for all of us.  Not only has Wendi got away with it, none of our press seem to have noticed she broke the law.  Perhaps this is why they find it so hard to think of bank bonuses (£14 billion seen, another £20 billion hidden) as stealing.  My left hook is much better than Wendi’s and Burglar Bill so much more deserving than the security breach chap.  I’d just be seen as a thug, even though ‘Saint-like’ I’d face him square on and not from behind.  The clown may try and bring these matters up at his trial.  Look again at what Wendi did.  Whilst 99% of us would have approved of letting her give the clown a kicking, she contributes to affray.  That’s if it is Wendi in the pink top – she may have a defence of mistaken identity.

When we nick blaggers and tea-leafs we hit hard, quick and seize evidence – this is also the case in fraud and tax evasion.  This lot are being tipped-off and allowed to destroy evidence and create defences.  Very sloppy.  And we always expect crooks to make claims about not knowing.  This lot all seem to know nothing about anything that matters.  We should never have asked them before ensuring they couldn’t erase traces.  Perhaps we should now be treating them as having gone ‘no comment’ and treat the baffle coming out now as unreliable?

Sending in the Apaches

In 1956 we had a sound grasp of Middle East politics.  Send in  the Israelis, then invade the whole shebang with the French in a policing action and steal the oil.  We’d left an 80,000 strong army over there since WW2 on the off-chance.

There was something more honest about this depravity than current aspersions about spreading democracy.  The Apaches were inevitable.  What we seem short of is any public dialogue about what we are up to and how we can afford this, but not 20,000 needed police officers.

Our politics and media deserted the price of fish long ago.  It was ‘news’ yesterday that Americans can’t understand Cheryl Cole.  Human communication is mostly noise – it’s my belief we need a control theory algorithm to understand anything in it.  The situation in world affairs seems reported a bit like a joke with no punchline – the beer in here reminds me of making love in the bottom of a punt – which only makes sense when  you add ‘fucking close to water’.  Afghanistan, Iraq  and the Arab Spring make as little sense as yet.

Science’s grasp of what it is to be human, is that we are social animals and our thinking is predominantly unconscious, a bit like a blender whirring away with its lid off.  When people lack emotion, they don’t become like the Vulcan Spock, but psychopathic.  Perhaps this helps explain how we come to such ‘rational’ decisions to send in Apache engines of death to bring democracy and such general madness such as ‘foreign policy’?  The argument I envisage would take several books I can’t be bothered to write, which in turn would be written in a conscious form lacking the very stuff with which we’d need to engage to learn to change anything.  By then the Apaches will have done their work.

I don’t doubt we should send in the Apaches.  But I don’t doubt the unholy mess that requires this either.  What I find untenable is that we seem to accept and play our lives in such crap politics.  Our public-conscious form is almost entirely disgusting to me.  I might well care for Cheryl Cole the person, but cannot abide what the image does to me.  I can barely ‘see’ our politicians and media personages as people at all.  I ‘hear’ no public argument at all, witnessing just a drossed-out noise and a smell of air-freshener acting like that stuff that is supposed to direct my buying and drives me out of shops.

The Macht-Politik is a form of chimpanzee politics with words.  When Hollywood produces the definitive history of Apache success, Cheryl will be doing the flying.  Libya will be free of Gaddafis and oil bought through their successors at the right price.  Quite how free Libyans will be from the bread line will matter as little as now.

There is no news of any sustainable, human world that might justify our Apaches.  Just Dave, playing at being Bliar. who played at being Thatcher in drag, who played Churchill in drag, who was half-American and played such an important role in ensuring world wars only the United States could win, long before the CIA could plot its sleepers into Number Ten  … in the absence of facts my mind wanders to conspiracy.  So why are the Americans letting us share Libya’s oil with France after all this time!  Perhaps they hope the cheese-eating surrender monkeys will turn on us and they can turn up, late as usual, to pick up the spoils and technology to save the dollar!  Pan to Cheryl’s face and it’s a wrap …