Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Divide et impera

It's one of the oldest strategies in the book: divide and rule. And few governments in living memory have been so adept at it as NuLabour: it has been at the heart of many of their policies. They have divided the peoples of the Union; they have divided, through QUANGOs and censuses emphasising differences, black, brown and white peoples of the Union. Through jealousy they have divided rich and poor.

"Fear not," says the government, "for the state—and only the state—can save you!" And then they proceed to divide some more. Devolved governments (but with little power), harsher sentences for "racist" crimes, and the stealing of more money from "the rich" to hand out as gifts to the poor.

The brilliant bit about this tactic, as applied by NuLabour, is that it encourages people to think of each other group not as fellow human beings, but as people below or different from them. "They aren't a person like I am, they are just a toff/darkie/Muslim/Scot/Sassenach/Taff/idiot, etc."

And so people get angry and demand solutions, they demand concessions for their own particular group and guess what?—the state can help you, friend, for the state is the friend of everyone. The state is the righter of all wrongs, the great arbiter, the generous donor of largesse. And as each group is appeased so the jealousy and resentment of the others are inflamed and they demand special treatment for themselves and more shoddy treatment for "those others".

And so it is that the government have been able to put through some disgusting laws, by aiming them at groups that the other groups dislike. 42 days detention without trial?—well, it'll only apply to terrorists, and they're all Muslims or at the very least darkies, eh?

The scrapping of double jeopardy, habeas corpus and trial by jury?—well, that'll only apply to the eeevil criminals (no matter that they have yet to be proven such). Oh, and the darkies, of course. And the poor.

The confiscation of your assets before you are even found guilty, or reversing the burden of proof for the confiscation of assets? Well, that'll only apply to drugdealers and the like.

And none of these people are really human, are they? Not like me.

And that's how they get us; that's how they pass those laws. And, they say that they won't use them except in the most exceptional circumstances, and only against those people who aren't really human.

Except that, by the time that the laws have passed and everyone has forgotten about them, suddenly you find that they are not quite so exclusive as you might have thought—that they might, in fact, be used against you and not just against those nasty, inhuman drug-dealers. [Emphasis mine.]
When the Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) caught the last three Thames Estuary fishermen with boats just over 10 metres long committing comparatively minor offences against the regulations, it invoked a law designed to confiscate the assets of drug dealers and other serious criminals to punish the men so severely that they stand to lose all they possess.

Because the agency, ignoring its own rules, had denied them a quota sufficient to earn a modest living, Victor Good, 68, of Harwich, Trevor Mole, 56, of West Mersea and Steve Barnes, 48, of Whitstable, had landed 19 tons of sole for which they had no EU quota.

When they were caught by a year-long agency "entrapment" operation, Judge Neil McKittrick not only imposed crippling fines totalling £42,500, with costs of £27,646, but also agreed to confiscations of their assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act, to a total of £213,461. Unless this is paid within months they face two years in prison.
...

Steve Barnes, in particular, was anxious to co-operate, on the understanding that the charges against his 20-year old son Matthew would be dropped. He is an unusually keen and capable young fisherman who held his first skipper's ticket when he was only 16.

The men expected fines. What they did not expect, at the second hearing, was that the agency would also invoke the Proceeds of Crime Act, designed to penalise major criminals such as money launderers and drug barons.

The MFA trawled through the fishermen's bank statements, and they were told it was up to them to prove that each of thousands of payments was legal: otherwise the payment would be deemed "proceeds of crime" and confiscated.

Steve Barnes admits that paperwork is not his strong suit. In his case, the judge ordered that £70,000 of his assets should be seized - far above any income he says he made from illegally selling sole.

This would amount to nothing less than his house (left to his wife by her mother) and his boat, the Our Sarah Jayne, which he has owned for seven years - neither in any way the "proceeds of crime".

I have delayed writing about this simply because it makes me so viciously angry that I was unsure whether I would be able to type. This is a fucking travesty: this is so far beyond reasonable punishment that it would be a joke, were it not so serious.

In allowing the agency to invoke the Proceeds of Crime Act, the judge should be beaten to death with a fucking hammer. In passing the law, the lying, treacherous scum that make up the NuLabour goverment should be killed very slowly and excruciatingly painfully.

Whether it is councils snooping on parents using anti-terrrism laws, or the Labour Party throwing old men out of their Conference, these laws are being abused far and wide. They are not used in extremis, as Timmy points out.
That’s what we’re told about all of those scary laws aren’t we? 42 days detention, trials without juries, RICO in the US, all to be used only when other measures mean that we can’t get known and obvious baddies.
...

When we talk about these laws though, they way in which they’re promised as exceptional measures, experience tells us that they will indeed be gradually extended out to more minor crimes and criminals. And thus we all become helots of the State once again, after all those hundreds of years of struggle by our forefathers to stop being so.

Yes, I’ll drag out that Larry Flynt story again. When found not guilty because of the First Amendment the pornographer said that if the law protected bastards like him, you can be sure that it’ll protect you. Which is why yes, we should protect the freedoms, liberties and property of drug dealers, of child pornographers, terrorists, of murders and those we know in general to be wrong uns. Because if we don’t protect their rights to a fair trial, to the presumption of innocence, to the prosecutorial burden of proof, to habeas corpus, there’s no fucker out there who is going to protect the same things for us.

Remember, these rules do not exist to protect criminals from righteous punishment. They exist to protect us all from the State: and as Perry points out repeatedly, the State is not your friend.

Quite. But, of course, everyone is too busy hating those other people, and denigrating them, and then looking to give their own group a boost to consider that they themselves might one day be affected by those punishments that they have wished on others.

As EU Referendum says...
Thus, even now, Booker's story in the print edition is history and the stories of those of us who have commented on it will shortly be consigned to our archives, picked over occasionally when they show up on a Google search but otherwise ignored.

But, while the story might fade, the black hatred does not. One fantasises about running amok with a Kalashnikov in the offices of these dank, foul officials but it remains fantasy. More to the point, it would be a waste of time. Those slaughtered would so easily be replaced and the injustice would go on unchecked.

Sooner or later, though, the dam will break. It always does – history tells us that. It may not happen in my lifetime but, when it does, it will be very messy, very nasty and a lot of innocent people will get hurt. But it will happen and it will do so because a lot of people did nothing about the things of which Booker reports so lucidly.

A lot of innocent people will, indeed, get hurt: but in this case, there really are a group of people who are inhuman, who are lower than the low and should be shown no mercy whatsoever. Those people are the politicians, the civil servants and the rest of the hangers-on who have allowed all of this to happen (when they have not actively encouraged it).

The people of this country have been divided by the politicians but, eventually, those very same politicians will become the saviours of this country; for, one day, those politicians will be the focal point that unites everyone in Britain (if not the world).

One day, everyone will band together and realise that we are all human, that the politicos have played us like expendable pieces in a game of chess—I will not say pawns, for no decent chess player views pawns as expendable—and deliberately divided us.

When that day comes, the politicos will sit there, quaking in their Chamber, soiling themselves as the doors boom and shake under the united onslaught of the army of humanity, driven by their righteous wrath and the desire to tear their tormenters limb from limb...


The sweet sights and sounds of freedom...

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

That movie is still crypto-fascist bullshit.

wildgoose said...

I must say that Jim Bell's idea of Assassination Politics begins to look more and more reasonable...

frankfisher said...

when?

Dave said...

And those who claim to rule us will say that the law does not apply to them- only to others.

That's what gets me most angry

Old Holborn said...

"Multiculturalism" was the key to divide and rule. Give each minority just enough of a shout to make them an "interested party" but give them no real power. Result? A fragmented, spiteful, unequal, self interested mass of ghettos.

UK2008

Roger Thornhill said...

The act is another "fencepost", slotted in seemingly harmless to those who wander by. All of a sudden, the panels are slotted in and voila! Prison.

monoi said...

Those fishermen were probably amongst those of thought that it would never apply to them.

Patrick said...

A very good analysis of the current situation... people will never understand this until it happens to them or someone close to them... of course if this happens to often to too many people, then the riots will ensue... How productive they will be of course, remains to be seen... And if your divide and conquer theory is correct, the rioting may well be limited to 1 or 2 groups for which the usual moral outrage can be hoisted by the govt...

However, as you pointed out, if we were to see these groups united as one against them and armed with Kalashnikovs in their millions, a different story would be played out... Regrettably the govt has done well by removing all guns from our grasp, so this story is unlikely... (crying shame frankly)

Freedom is a pill worth swallowing, but an anathema to the unintiated, for whom at best consider it the best of a bad lot, or at worst, that freedom already exists...

The Nameless One said...

Really good post.

The government exists to perpetuate itself. And one of the ways it does that is through passing laws and other mindless regulation.

And all laws can be adapted so any citizen falls foul of them. Take 42 days detention, for example. The principles are already in place to expand which (suspected) criminals can be detained for that length of time. It will only be a matter of time before it is used against someone who is not suspected of being a terrorist.

Gareth said...

Have the Labour Party repaid David Abrahams' illegal donation yet? Let's have them suffer the same 'proceeds of crime' confiscations.

Wearysider said...

Fuck using Kalashnikovs I yearn to taser the eyeballs of these bastards, repeatedly, until they pop!

old and angry said...

Whenever i need cheering up, i go to youtube and play this,however, i choose to play it to "Ode to joy",that germanic soulless tune.
Seems somehow more appropriate.

TheFatBigot said...

Don't forget my mot du jour "community":
http://thefatbigot.blogspot.com/2008/08/todays-bad-word-community.html

Bloke on a Torquay Omnibus said...

Dear Devil'
I see you won a shed-load of trophies @ the Bloggies, incl 'Blogger Most Likely To Be Suffering From Tourette's Syndrome'. Haven't read one of your serious rants for a few days. Any chance of a really good one sometime soon? I'm getting withdrawal symptoms.....

Patrick said...

wearysider,

Indeed, your sentiments are seconded here... However, tazering govt officials for whom own nuclear weapons, puts us very much in the defenceless bracket... But I enjoyed your candour all the same...

Anonymous said...

Worth reading the local rag, which doesn't seem to comment on the confiscation issue:

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED21%20Jul%202008%2018%3A15%3A25%3A640

number 6 said...

Good post. Sadly, I do not see the British people rising up at any time.

I think most are too stupified with their daily diet of Big Bruvver, Amy tithouse, and posh and thicks, to bovver about fuck all.

I speak to many, many people in my job. Some are angry with the way the country is going, yet seem happy to blame Brown whilst remaining totally ignorant of the fact that he is just a sock puppet of the EU socialist super state, others just don't give a fuck.

Sorry to be so negative, but the Brits lost their balls years ago all they can do is piss and moan about it all over the half pint they can afford, while rushing outside the pub for a fag like naughtly litte shcoolboys sucking on an illicit Players Number 6 (calm down Mr Mandelsen that is an old ciggy, not a rent boy) lest they are told off and fined by a council inspector.

I will believe the revolution has come when I see EU offices reduced to rubble and the ringpiece of stars flag being burnt on the streets.

Terry said...

DK, though it's not your favoured group of people, a Christian preacher in Birmingham is being tried for an offence under s 5 Public Order Act 1986 in mid-August. There is no way this should be going anywhere near a court - just like the chap arrest at the Labour conference last year under the anti-terror legislation.

Carl Richardson said...

Section 5 offences are a joke.

It criminalises a person who:

'uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour' which takes place within 'the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.'

A police officer can be the person caused harassment, alarm and distress (DPP v Orum (1988)). This fact, as well as its vagueness, gives the police an arbitrary power to charge anyone they wish.

They don't seem to show any restraint in using it either.

Chalcedon said...

And the RIPA law for anti terorism gets used bu councils to spy on locals, plus the anti terroridsm legislation is invoked against parents with a child re-entering the UK, but then weirdly accused of child trafficking by some policewoman. Threatened with a 9 hour detention for qquestioning the authority (woman was a solicitor).

All these plus your examples are a gross abuse of power and these laws. They weren't very well thought out were they? A Noo Labour hallmark.

Anonymous said...

the fishing story was infact my father and myself..glad to see some other people who think like me