Wednesday, 3 August 2016

Robo-Cops on Motor Bikes Hit the Capital.

Rather strangely images of them assembled in a police yard 'somewhere in London' are hard to locate. This one from the Express Newspaper will have to do.

Armed motorbike police


"Hundreds more firearms officers will be deployed on London's streets to help combat the threat of terrorism, it has been announced today (Wednesday). Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, made the pledge alongside Mayor of London Sadiq Khan.
The strategy, titled Operation Hercules, will see 600 additional firearms officers deployed in visible roles in the capital. The first are now fully trained and operationally ready.
Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, said: "Anyone who's been following events in Europe over the past few weeks will understand why we want to show our determination to protect the public. We are deadly serious about the protection that we are offering the people of London and we will never be complacent."
"Despite the fact they are carrying guns they are still police officers and I want the public to approach and talk to them, they are out on our streets to reassure and help the public," he said.
Sadiq Khan said, ""We will see more armed officers on our streets, but there is no reason to be alarmed. All of our police officers are playing their part and working closely with all of our communities to prevent the possibility of an attack."

Another step towards a military police state, the objective of the Zionists, all or most based on the risk of manufactured and fraudulent 'terrorist events'.

The Guardian repeats the now disproved myth of the four Muslim terrorist bombers on 7th July, 2005. Subsequently private investigators - not the police - proved that it was impossible they were on the tube trains, as their connecting trains from Luton did not run! I have demonstrated similar inconsistencies and anomalies to ALL of the French murderous events PLUS invariably links to Israel or Israeli assets!

Yet it is these very suspect events that are used to ratchet up the hype and fear to support a militarised police force. This you note is common to virtually all westernised country as if they were all imitating an invisible template. Is it because they are?

"London was hit by coordinated suicide bombings on 7 July 2005, when four Islamist extremists targeted three underground trains and one bus, killing 52 people.
Since then, numerous plots have been foiled and there have been smaller-scale attacks, such as the killing of an off-duty soldier on a street in south London by two extremists in May 2013."

Armed-police-backed vehicle checks? Where is the justification for this? Where is the proportionality? Why do policemen need to wear masks? Where was the consultation? Where is the debate? Is this not turning mainland Britain into IRA Britain - but worse - on a total fabrication?

See how 'false flags' are used to pursue policy objectives and how powerful they are at shaping the public consciousness? This is all presented as 'kit' for 'public reassurance'. Well it doesn't reassure me!

See also:

In a CNN report here:

The Police Commissioner states his opinion that a terror attack in London is "not if but when", so that's very 'reassuring' - not.

"(CNN)London's top police officer warns that the risk of a terror attack in the United Kingdom is a case of "when, not if."
In light of the recent wave of worldwide terror attacks, Met Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said on the police's official blog Sunday he believes the threat from terrorism is very real and expresses "a greater sense of fear that Britain will be the next victim."
    In the event of a terrorist attack, he wrote, the police advise the public to "Run, Hide, Tell."
    He elaborated on this guidance in comments to the London Evening Standard newspaper.
    "It may seem blindingly obvious, but some people don't run, they will duck down where they are, do all sorts of different things in the panic," he said.
    "So let's be really clear -- run as far away as possible and when you can't run any further, hide, and then tell -- call the police because we've got the people, the resources, the firearms to deal with it," he told the paper. "It's very straightforward.""
    This advice is just about as relevant and helpful as what we were told to do in the case of a nuclear attack in the 'cold war'. He just repeats what is the instinctive human 'fight or flight' reaction to any obviously dangerous scenario, embedded hundreds of thousands of years ago, and common to all sentient beings. 
    Not only are we being misled about terrorist events, the threat of them and where they emanate, but this is all part of a very warped world view, promulgated by virtually all media outlets: that we are being uniquely targeted; that the threat is a Muslim one; that we have nothing to do with its creation; that it necessitates a revolution in policing methods and mind-set. 
    The New Stateman has this in an article by Maria Norris here:
    "Unfortunately, most of the official responses to terrorist attacks reinforces this belief about two civilisations clashing. This is evident not only in military responses like Hollande’s, but in the way we in the West respond to terrorist atrocities that happen in the Muslim world.
    For example, fewer than ten days ago, IS attacked Baghdad, with a suicide bomber killing 250 people. On 5 July, IS attacked three sites in Saudi Arabia, including the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina. In May, IS killed 40 people in Yemen as they stood in line to enlist for national military service. IS kills countless people every day in Syria. These attacks have been met with mostly silence in the West. Social media tributes and hashtags have been scarce. The fact that ISIS kills more Muslims than non-Muslims is rarely explored. This is an example of a divisive boundary at work, where lives have different values depending on their geographical location."
    In reality these 'terrorist events' have been created on European soil, by deep state agencies, specifically to promote the ends stated. They are closely alligned to the situation in the Middle East and the objectives of Israel. How else can you explain consistent and unique links in virtually all terrorist events as follows:
    Paris Hebdo: video of shooting by Jewish man.
    Paris Bataclan: owners sell and move to Israel immediately before
    Brussels Airport: Security by Jewish firm. Video of escaping crowds Jewish journalist in place prepared.
    Nice: German journalist married to prominent Israeli in place to capture video of lorry half way on its journey unchallenged by police.
    Munich: Same two Israel-connected journalists in place and reporting the moment it kicks off.
    St Etienne: ISIS statement accepting responsibility issued the day before (!) picked up by an American, Jewish-controlled channel 'monitoring' ISIS output yet not international security agencies including the French ('apparently').
    These are in addition to all the Israel links to 9/11 and 7/7 now widely circulated and well known. Can there now be any doubt that Israel and its terrorist agency Mossad, is deeply implicated in these events - at the very least having proven foreknowledge of them? How otherwise is it able to have its assets in place, on site, in time to capture and disseminate the highly emotive and iconic (but probably staged) images?
    Yet of course this in NEVER discussed in the media. As with 9/11 and 7/7, the events could not take place without the active participation of secret units within government itself. That these tactics exist within the British State has been proved by revelations from Northern Ireland. Nor are we reassured by the actions of armed police in France and America, where shooting dead rather than arrest appears to have become the norm, whether the circumstances require it or not.
    The Commissioner states, that "still only 10% of the Met Police are armed". By my reckoning that is about 3000 roaming around with guns, and a new mind-set that they are at war with the population. As with tasers, the more they are supplied, the more their use will be considered 'essential'. With so many armed are we to see them deployed to domestic incidents, drunkenness and protest marches?
    Surely we need to make a clear distinction between 'terrorist events' and traditional crime and not use the one as an excuse for a different approach to the other? That it would be much better if we used the armed forces in real cases of terrorism - as we did with Iranian Embassy siege - when necessary, rather than change the whole ethos and methodology of British policing? A few armed and highly trained units, strategically located, on permanent stand-by with helicopter provision would surely be more effective and proportionate for the REAL 'Mumbai-2008' thing, should it occur?
    For further information on the very dubious nature of many of the recent 'terrorist attacks' in European cities, just use the placename in the search box top, right of the page.


    1. BEWARE! We are heading this way. The psychological conditioning comes first.

    2. Clearly the French are already there.

    3. The problem is the Commissioner has 'operational independence', meaning he can make this decision effectively without the public that it affects, knowing what it is based on and without consultation. The most worrying aspect is that it is predicated on a 'threat', which itself is predicated on events in Paris, Brussels, Nice, Munich and elsewhere, about which there are huge questions as to both the claims and who is actually behind them. Further NO-ONE appears to challenge them or the underlying rationale. The police are being transformed in stages from a civil force to a quasi-military one on a false and misinformed premise, because the risk ultimately eminates from a source different to the one claimed and is basically a criminal fraud to achieve the profound societal changes we are witnessing. How easy it is for a small group of terrorists, with the active backing of the media, to so frighten the population, it is prepared to not only to acquiesce to the changes, but welcome them. Not even in the Second World War, with London under total barrage, or during more than two decades of IRA activity was this considered necessary, yet now it is? What has happened to our 'moral fibre'? What has happened to our assessment of risk? What has happened to our cherished sense of policing by consent. As I have said before, if there is a REAL terrorist threat (and sadly in the past it has been internal to government not external to it) the best way of dealing with it would be military back-up by men trained to kill, not to make all our policemen trained killers.

    4. I wrote the piece below almost a year ago. Looks like it was a pretty good prediction: " 21 Aug 2015

      You speak very eloquently and passionately for a lot of us Ken. The word is gradually getting out and becoming more mainstream almost solely down to the internet. You can see why American/British politicians issue threats of control because of its effectiveness in undermining the official narrative in the control of a few. For too long the media and political parties have cleverly kept a lid on the truth but slowly things are changing and people (at two extremes) like Brand and Corbyn may be its indicators. The 'tin hat' slur may be wearing thin, but the majority still appear under the anti-Muslim terror threat spell. When it fails completely watch out world for more conjured 'terrorist events' to concentrate the public mind."

    5. In reply to Jim McMenamin on Facebook re. the police:

      No doubt countless policemen and women do countless good deeds to protect the vulnerable and chase those individuals that have hurt others. There may be something in their claim that they are the 'thin blue line' (between order and chaos) - I wouldn't like to say.

      There certainly seems to be a significant section of the population that appears to think nothing of robbing, stealing, selling dangerous addictive drugs and doing violent things to others to the point of rape and murder.

      If we didn't have an organised police force, it would presumably be back to 'every man for himself', tribal loyalties and vendetta. To some extent in parallel sub-cultures, this already exists.

      The more brutal the society, the more brutal and physically forceful the police necessarily become. It is a trend that sadly we have witnessed, particularly in the large urban areas but no part of the country has been unaffected.

      When a gang member in a television documentary last night claimed it was easy to obtain illicit firearms brought in from the east, and that everyone who was anybody (in that crime world) had them, all citizens have cause for concern.

      For the police who are charged with confronting them, it is a real and present danger from which we are largely protected. We cannot ignore this fact when viewing the increasing militarisation of the police or the often dubious circumstances when individuals have been shot dead.

      So we should not underestimate the idealism that may inspire a young person to join the police force. But neither should we ignore that power seldom comes without attendant corruption.

      In some forces there has been little to distinguish between those that break the law and those expected to uphold it. Policemen learn to be realistic and pragmatic about the human condition and society.

      It is perhaps one of the biggest reasons for the insouciance towards the exploitation of young people in various towns and institutions.

      It may even be a partial, but far from complete explanation, for the way the Hampstead children's allegations were dealt with. Another is the deep seated reluctance by the police to admit incompetence or fault. All the other possible reasons for the obvious incompetence displayed in that case have been discussed at length previously.


    Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.