Only Terrorists Fear Surveillance
James Bovard,
March 26, 2009
The London Police department is launching a new ad campaign to keep people frightened and submissive.
The campaign includes a bizarre poster which encourages people to view as a terrorist suspect anyone who looks closely at government surveillance cameras.
Here is the link the ad. sheet_road_cctv [[I could not figure out how to get this to open up on this page of the blog -- If anyone has any suggestions, I'd be obliged..]
h/t boingboing
Andy
March 26th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
The degenerate Labour party has turned Britain into an Orwellian nightmare of a police state. They have also flooded Britain with third world undesirables, thus increasing tensions in this small, densely settled country.
corkey
March 26th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
When in doubt, falsely accuse.
James Bovard
March 26th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
It is difficult for me to have confidence in British surveillance when their system permitted someone like me to enter their country to appear on Al Jazeera.
http://jimbovard.com/blog/2006/05/25/a-cheery-welcome-to-britain/
scott
March 26th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Al Jezeera: “What do you think of the progress the Bush administration has made in their project to spread democracy to the Middle East?”
Jim Bovard: “AH, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!”
R. Nelson
March 26th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
That’s right, ye merry olde English. Avert your eyes whenever you pass a surveil-cam, keep your heads down and your faces blank, entertain no thought that could possibly play across your expressions and betray you. Use the Magna Carta to wipe your bottoms. Start dreaming up excuses now for why your submission to the Total State still didn’t buy you security in the future.
And guess what? The next step will be brain scans done en masse in real time, the which will tattle on you to the Authorities whenever you have an ungood thought. You’re already the home of the idea that every vehicle in England should be monitored constantly, and that idea has already been picked up for America by one of Sean Hannity’s boot-licking substitutes. As English liberty goes so goes America’s? Heaven forfend.
Joe
March 27th, 2009 at 7:14 am
It seems to me that Britain is taking its security measures right from the Kim Jong Il dictatorial playbook. I wonder what is next? Minders perhaps?
liberranter
March 27th, 2009 at 9:58 am
“Only Terrorists Fear Surveillance”
That’s certainly the best explanation I’ve seen to date of why cops and military personnel go ballistic whenever they’re photographed or recorded without their knowledge or consent.
Brad Smith
March 27th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
CONFORM COMPLY!!!!! Better yet REFUSE RESIST http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsfA-7ot2k4
Peace!
L. Reichard White
March 27th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Hi mr. Bovard!
If you use this code into your post, it should show the image:
img src=”http://craphound.com/images/3385178966_9b4f2bb57a.jpg” alt=”CCTV, London” /
BUT:
1. ADD opening and closing HTML brackets
2. You would be hitch-hiking on the server where the picture currently resides (which may be welcome or not)
If you want another way, I can probably mess with things and, dending on copyright, send you a copy you could use from your own server.
Health, happiness, & long life,
L. Reichard White
Flame The Cameras
March 27th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
the british know what to do. they’re torching the traffic cams, it’s time to start taking sledghammers and pellet guns and slingshots to the other goddamned things wherever they see they have a reasonable chance to take those surveillance cams out too.
next, the brits will have to consent to ‘colon cams’ to see what’s up their kazoo’s.
enough is enough! and MI-5/MI-6 were involved in the London Underground ‘false flag’ bombing, which could never have been prevented by 24 hour, seven day a week ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE!
Brian Otten
March 28th, 2009 at 2:32 am
British people concerned about liberty and creeping totalitarianism at least have a democratic choice:
Brian Otten
March 28th, 2009 at 2:32 am
VOTE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT!!!!
http://www.libdems.org.uk/
James Bovard
March 28th, 2009 at 6:44 am
Mr. White -
Thanks for the help and the insight on how to copy the image into the blog post.
The link you suggested leads to a website of an excellent British group fighting these kind of abuses. The photo is actually a parody of the original UK police poster. BoingBoing also did some great parodies on the ad.
I have not come across a photo of the original ad that could work as a JPG insert into a blog. (The ad itself was PDF).
I hope the same spirit of mirth can become more prevalent on this side of the water.
Jim
Lear K
March 28th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Some US states have installed traffic camers on the “freeways!” supposdly to cut down on speeders,and insure public safety.
liberranter
March 28th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Several protestors in my neck of the woods have discovered that these cameras can be instantly disabled by a single 30.06 round. I’m sure even smaller calibre rounds will work just as well.
Tim R.
March 28th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
If Great Britain wants to remain “Great” she will stop allowing so many Muslims into the country and stop bending over backwards not to offend them. When the ArchBishop of Cantebury says they might have to integrate Islamic law in some cases, that should have been a wake up call and alarmed everyone. Her Majesty, as “Defender of the Faith” should have stepped in and immediatly fired that guy and reminded her subjects that England is a Christian nation.
Also, when a member of the Dutch Parliament is met at Heathrow Airport and told he can’t enter the country to simply deliver a speech because it might offend the Muslims that should have also been an alarming wake up call. Hopefully England will wake up to this threat before it is too late.
Andy
March 28th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Hopefully. They should have listened to Enoch Powell. Importing a racial underclass is a most unwise thing to do.
R. Nelson
March 29th, 2009 at 12:03 am
England allowed many Muslims to enter its country.
Some of the Muslims are antagonistic to England.
Therefore all residents of England must be spied on.
Good job, Tim. You’ve got Aristotle spinning like a top.
Lear K
March 29th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Controversial Muslim cleric banned from Britain
“The government confirmed to the Guardian that Yusuf al-Qaradawi had applied to come to the UK but had been refused.
The decision could hand the Tories a small political victory as the Conservative leader, David Cameron, last week called for his exclusion from the UK, saying Qaradawi was a “dangerous and divisive” preacher of hate.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/07/religion.politics
“The United Kingdom does not have a single legal system due to it being created by the political union of previously independent countries with Article 19 of the Treaty of Union guaranteeing the continued existence of Scotland’s separate legal system.[73] Today the UK has three distinct systems of law: English law, Northern Ireland law and Scots law. Recent constitutional changes will see a new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom come into being in October 2009 that will take on the appeal functions of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.[74] The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, comprising the same members as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, is the highest court of appeal for several independent Commonwealth countries, the UK overseas territories, and the British crown dependencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom
Lear K
March 29th, 2009 at 10:57 am
The easist way to pass tyrannical laws is to find the perffect scapegoat or the bogeyman.
Lear K
March 29th, 2009 at 11:33 am
And all this time I thought England was asecular nation! But then !Some are more entitled than others!
The Archbishop of Canterbury has caused a furore with his comment that it “seems unavoidable” that parts of Islamic Sharia law will be adopted in the UK.
For many non-Muslims, the idea of a religious court holding power over British citizens seems totally alien to our mainly-secular culture.
But not to all non-Muslims. It has often been remarked on how similar Muslims and Jews are in many of their traditions, such as food laws, burial rites and language, and this case could prove no exception. Jewish courts are in daily use in Britain, and have been fhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm
or centuries.
British Jews, particularly the orthodox, will frequently turn to their own religious courts, the Beth Din, to resolve civil disputes, covering issues as diverse as business and divorce.
“There’s no compulsion”, the registrar of the London Beth Din, David Frei, said. “We can’t drag people in off the streets.”
Both sides in a dispute must be Jewish, obviously, and must have agreed to have their case heard by the Beth Din. Once that has happened, its eventual decision is binding. English law states that any third party can be agreed by two sides to arbitrate in a dispute, and in this case the institutional third party is the Beth Din.
Lear K
March 29th, 2009 at 11:36 am
And all this time I thought England was a secular nation! But then !Some are more entitled than others!
The Archbishop of Canterbury has caused a furore with his comment that it “seems unavoidable” that parts of Islamic Sharia law will be adopted in the UK.
For many non-Muslims, the idea of a religious court holding power over British citizens seems totally alien to our mainly-secular culture.
But not to all non-Muslims. It has often been remarked on how similar Muslims and Jews are in many of their traditions, such as food laws, burial rites and language, and this case could prove no exception. Jewish courts are in daily use in Britain, and have been
or centuries.
British Jews, particularly the orthodox, will frequently turn to their own religious courts, the Beth Din, to resolve civil disputes, covering issues as diverse as business and divorce.
“There’s no compulsion”, the registrar of the London Beth Din, David Frei, said. “We can’t drag people in off the streets.”
Both sides in a dispute must be Jewish, obviously, and must have agreed to have their case heard by the Beth Din. Once that has happened, its eventual decision is binding. English law states that any third party can be agreed by two sides to arbitrate in a dispute, and in this case the institutional third party is the Beth Din.
fhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm
Lear K
March 29th, 2009 at 11:44 am
For many the state is their religion and the government is their God.