by Stewart Cowen
http://www.realstreet.co.uk/2014/07/drip-and-tricks-of-the-political-trade
DRIP and Tricks of the Political Trade
The real reason for the drastic Government reshuffle, according to many commentators, is to deflect our attention from the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers (DRIP) Bill which has been rushed through the Commons after the European Court of Justice decided the current measures were ‘illegal’. But according to The Freedom Association:
With the Snoopers’ Charter already having been widely rejected by the public and parliamentarians – the DRIP Bill looks far too similar. While the Home Secretary has claimed this is “merely status quo” legislation – a short glance at it clearly shows that it will grant the security services and police carte blanche access to the emails, telephone calls, texts and internet usage of all UK citizens at home and abroad.
Hat-tip to Leg-iron, who writes,
It’s how stage magic works. While you watch the fancy moves of the left hand, you don’t notice the casual slip of the right hand into a pocket.
It’s like that lesser-used trick made famous by Labour ‘spin doctor’ Jo Moore, “A good day to bury bad news” while thousands had just been killed on 9/11.
Miss Moore’s memo, written at 2.55pm on September 11, when millions of people were transfixed by the terrible television images of the terrorist attack, said: “It is now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury. Councillors expenses?
The first shock is that she’s not a ‘Ms’. The second shock is that such a callous, heartless female was not put on one of those all-women MP shortlists.
But – and this is my point – the U.S. security services were passed intelligence from various governments’ security services about an imminent attack pre-9/11 and ignored them (I wonder why!).
Secondly, if it’s the paedophilia they’re concerned about re. the need for data retention – it seems endemic in Westminster, the judiciary and the upper echelons of the police and is well known about (among themselves and by MI5), but gets covered up.
No. The data retention is for us. If not for now, for the future. Not for terrorists or paedos, but to intercept anti-government talk and catch manmade climate change ‘deniers’, etc. and probably for other reasons, like sifting ‘chatter’ for evidence of tax evasion and benefit fraud.
Re. Jo Moore’s comment in 2001:
But around Westminster, where there was shock and distaste at her cynicism, it was thought that she would have to go.
Sure. You can imagine the ‘shock’ among the heartless and the brain dead in Westminster, can’t you? I can picture them laughing their heads off while they down another subsidised G&T.
The Rev David Smith, whose cousin died in the attack, told the BBC that Miss Moore’s attempt to exploit the tragedy represented the very worst in modern politics.
Now that IS funny. Considering New Labour had recently won their second general election and routinely dumped on us all for years.
But the thought occurs that all this paedomania has been engineered, not only as a sleight of hand to distract us from what the right hand is doing (or the other left hand), but to bring in more surveillance. It could be why, decades later, hundreds of women (and a few blokes) have appeared as if by magic to accuse all manner of people – the living who have mainly managed to defend themselves and been found ‘not guilty’ and the dead Jimmy Savile, where the claims of his alleged abuses are being systematically exposed as fabrications by Anna Raccoon as Savile routinely seems not to have been at the hospitals at the periods in question or he was not left unaccompanied at all when the ‘victims’ were subjected to his hand up their blouse, etc.
So what we need is more surveillance. More intrusion. Scotland’s “Named Person” police state nannyism.
Another famous trick that the best illusionists can do is to make an elephant disappear. That’s why so many people fail to see the elephant in the room.
Or rather, the herd of elephants…
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
Powered by YARPP.
I don’t agree. The tragedy is that most people welcome this increased surveillance as it ‘helps keep us all safe from terrorists’.
The purpose of the paedohysteria is fairly straightforward. It’s not a conspiracy to bring in more general surveillance. It’s a fierce reactionary response to the sexual revolution, spearheaded primarily by the most sexually conservative force in Western society, the Feminist Movement. The current “narrative” of it is to show that allowing people some sexual freedom- as occurred in the period covered by the “historic” “crimes” leads to such abuse and misery that it must never be allowed again. It is thus intended to reimpose the fierce sexual controls and peer pressures of First Wave Feminism- or, “Victorian Values” as we call them now.
The second wave values are not indentical. For instance, it includes a powerful right to “be” gay. But it must be apparent by now to any rational observer that what is happening at this moment is a witch hunt against historic gay behaviour, as with the denunciation in the press today of two dead gay men- one as a generalised “predator”, the other, astonishingly Lord Tonypandy- as a child rapist.
But anyway, catching paedos isn’t a cover for an attack on political enemies. It is what it says it is.
It can, of course, serve more than one agenda.
Feminism is conservative? It’s part of the Left’s arsenal of destroying the family and subverting our culture, along with the homosexual agenda.
Yes it is. The Feminist Movement (first wave) was the centre of “Victorian Values”; the Suffragettes were basically the militant wing of the Social Purity Movement (the white dresses were SP’s “team colours”).
It has been given a marxist-style rebranding, but it is nothing at its heart but fierce reactionary puritanism. They’re not trying to “destroy” our culture per se, they’re trying to purify it.
Feminism as we know it (since the 60s) is far from puritanical. If they were trying to ‘purify’ society they would be supportive of marriage and a patriarchal society, not ‘my body is my own’ and ‘a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle’. Feminism is divisive, anti-family and a huge danger.
“I wonder why” intelligence services would ignore information about 9/11.
Actually intelligence services in the United States were divided from each other – and often internally, by lots of crazy regulations, They were also run by incompetents.
And, do not forget, that President Clinton had gutted the CIA (and so on) – which had only been built up again by President Reagan (having been hit very hard in the 1970s).
Never assume conspiracy when cock-up is a sufficient solution.
You’re kidding. Politics is run on conspiracies, often by very nasty people. http://www.ae911truth.org/
9/11 “Turther” ism is like “Birther” ism in relation to Barack Obama – it discredits the person who pushes it (which is a pity – as often other stuff they say is TRUE).
I would not be surprised if “Truther” ism was not invented by elements of the intelligence and security forces themselves (now there is a conspiracy theory for you) as it makes their opponents look like nutters.
Ian – as I believe you have said before, you are a Restoration man at heart.
No National Debt or Central Bank – and little taxation and government spending.
And no censorship of the theatre (Sir Robert Walpole, in many ways you are a hero of mine, but bleep you for doing that) – or efforts to FORCE men and women to be chaste if they did not wish to be.
However, for once I agree with Sean Gabb – it was not stable (both Charles II and James II dreamed of a fundamentally different state of affairs and tried to bring it about – hence their alliance with the Sun King).
It is very depressing – they had a good situation (yes I know there was plague and the Great Fire, and the stealing of the money the gold smiths had, very unwisely, left with the government – but I am talking about the great mass of England), but they wanted something else.
Still even Victorian England was a lot more laid back than a lot of people think – yes there was the Social Purity League (and so on), but there was also the Personal Rights Association (and the rest of what Greenleaf in “The British Political Tradition” calls the “Libertarian Strand”) highly respectable people (in their private lives rather more respectable than some of the people involved in the “Purity” campaign) who held that such matters were simply NONE OF THE STATE’S BUSINESS.