UK : East : local media report on thwarted rave (2006-04-29) what I find worrying is that Archant have gone to all the trouble to pay people (presumably) overtime rates to file this story on a weekend - these raves really must be big news in the area...
BTW convoys are old hat.
1980s and 1990s style.
They worked when there wasn't much CCTV, less people had phones (even in the 1990s some peopl still had dial telephones!) at weekends and cops would ignore non-emergency phone numbers other than 999 (nowadays there are call centres staffed by civillians to ensure every call does get answered as much as possible )
People in Britain have changed their attitude and just as ravers stand up for themselves by putting on events; the locals are more prepared to call the cops and grass people up rather than just turn a blind eye to things such as large groups of vehicles (particularly if people are driving round late at night).
The big multiriggers in this area have happened often and other than ravers loads of people aren't happy. If these parties are going to continue, crews need to be a bit more subtle..
Quote:
Police disrupt illegal rave in Elveden
30 April 2006 09:46
More than 100 people attended an illegal rave at Elveden near Thetford earlier today.
Police were alerted after receiving calls from the public at about 2.30am reporting a convoy of vehicles seen in the A11 and B1106 area.
When officers arrived at King's Forest, they found about 80 vehicles and started turning more people away from the event.
After negotiations with the organisers people started to leave at about 6am.
A Suffolk police spokeswoman said they took "positive steps" to disrupt the event.
She added: "A quantity of sound equipment was seized and police will now examine video footage of the incident with a view to proceedings against the organisers of the illegal event."
No arrests were made and no one was injured.
New Tory book says legalising drugs is the way forward.. Taken from the Scotsman Monday 27th February.
New Tory book says legalising drugs is the way ahead PETER MACMAHON
RADICAL libertarian ideas - including legalising drug-taking - should be at the heart of policies aimed at reviving the Tories' electoral fortunes in Scotland, according to a new book endorsed by Annabel Goldie, the party's leader.
In one of a series of essays in The Blue Book, edited by Murdo Fraser, the Tories' deputy leader, Iain Catto, a lawyer and former Tory councillor, argues that politicians ban drug-taking because they are "fearful of being seen as soft on drugs".
[IMG]http://d.m3.net/lg.php?bannerid=373&campaignid=182&zoneid=95&source=&block=0&capping=0&session_capping=0&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.scotsman.com%2Fpolitics.cfm%3Fid%3D298642006&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2Fsearch%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Ddrugs+in+scotland%26btnG%3DSearch%26meta%3Dcr%253DcountryUK%257CcountryGB&cb=63f5869ade[/IMG]
In the book, published today, Mr Catto argues that Tory policies should be based on individual choice and only permit intervention by the state when there is "overwhelming necessity".
He writes: "If an individual is aware of the risks involved in taking drugs - which makes education vital - and if the individual has the capacity to consent, then surely it should be left to the individual to make that choice?"
Mr Catto adds that if the state criminalises a drug like marijuana because of health fears and stops young people using it "the state is deciding that is knows better than individuals what is right for them, in essence claiming to protect us from a so-called dangerous product."
Mr Fraser said he was "relaxed" about Mr Catto's ideas but they were not official Tory policy. Under Miss Goldie, who welcomes the contribution the book makes to developing policies, the Conservatives have taken a hardline anti-drugs stance.
Iraq war has cost US $320-bn – analysts Iraq war has cost US $320-bn - analysts
http://www.iol.co.za/
By Rupert Cornwell
Washington - The Iraq war has already cost the United States $320-billion, according to a new authoritative report here - and even if a troop withdrawal begins in 2006, the conflict is set to be more expensive than the Vietnam war, a generation ago.
The estimate, circulated this week by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), can only increase unease over the US presence in Iraq, whose direct costs now run at some $6-billion a month, or $200-million a day, with no end in sight.
The Bush administration has refused to provide any specific overall figure for the war's cost. But the Senate is set to approve another emergency spending bill in May, meaning that Iraq will have consumed $101-billion in fiscal 2006 alone, almost double the $51-billion of in 2003, the year of the invasion itself - and all at a time when the federal budget deficit is running at near record levels.
Vietnam claimed 58 000 American lives, far more than the almost 2 400 lost in Iraq thus far
But these figures pale beside what lies in store, the CRS says in its analysis. The Bush administration is desperate to announce a significant reduction in the 130 000 strong US force before November's mid-term elections, where public disillusion with the war threatens disaster for the Republicans.
However even if everything goes relatively smoothly, costs until a phase-out is complete could top $370-billion (£206-billion). This would make the Iraq conflict, now into its fourth year, more expensive in financial terms than the Vietnam war, which lasted eight years.
Vietnam claimed 58 000 American lives, far more than the almost 2 400 lost in Iraq thus far. But in today's dollars it cost 'only' $549-billion, much less than the $690-billion for Iraq, and a projected combined $811-billion bill of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is a far cry from the weeks before the war, when a White House official was rapped on the knuckles for suggesting the cost might be between $100-billion and $200-billion, and Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, was touting "a number that's somewhere under $50-billion."
Paul Wolfowitz, now president of the World Bank but then Rumsfeld's deputy at the Pentagon, even theorised before Congress that the post-invasion period might pay for itself as Iraq's oil revenues soared.
The US fought almost for free
But the CRS analysis is restrained compared to other non-official figures.
Scott Wallsten of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank here, has estimated an overall cost of $500-billion thus, with as much again possible. Most, he says, will be paid for by the US (unlike the first Gulf War in 1990/1991 which the US fought almost for free, thanks to contributions from Saudi Arabia, Japan and other allies).
In January a study by Joseph Stiglitz, the Columbia University economist and former Nobel Prize winner, and the Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes reckoned the conflict could ultimately cost $2-trillion (£1.1-trillion), if all factors are taken into account.
These include the long term healthcare costs for the 16 000 US soldiers already wounded in the conflict, and other indirect or hidden costs such as the rise in the price of oil, the need to finance larger budget deficits, higher recruiting costs and losses to the economy caused by the wounded.
The Pentagon has treated such outside estimates with disdain. But it resolutely refused to give a detailed picture of its own. The CRS report lists various "key war cost questions" and "major unknowns" such as future troop levels.
Some experts however suggest the Pentagon may have deliberately inflated its financial needs now, fearing that as the war becomes ever more unpopular, Congress will grow less willing to provide funds for them in the future.
Abolition of Parliament? Hello.
I got directed to this story from another board, and it looks a little worrying.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-2049791,00.html
there's a Schnews version of the story, too.
http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news534.htm
The one sentence which instills the most fear in me is in the Times article which says (and I quote) "The Government claims that there is nothing to worry about..."
Run for the hills.
Govern ourselves locally Who thinks the globalist elite wish to kill us with bio weaopns?
What do we do to stop em
We need a revolutionary constitution which will allow us to democratically control the policys of our goverment and local immunity if we dont want to go along with national or global policies
?
free speach in USA – doesn’t exist In the UK we've had the terrorism act used to remove an elderly hecker from the Neo Labour conference... and this in the USA
when did free speech become terrorism / criminal?
Hu heckler on harassment charge
A woman has appeared in court in Washington after heckling visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao at the White House.
Wang Wenyi, 47, was charged with harassing, intimidating and threatening a foreign official.
Ms Wang, who had a press pass for the event, had shouted at Mr Hu not to oppress the outlawed Chinese spiritual movement, the Falun Gong.
An embarrassed President George W Bush apologised to Mr Hu for the outburst.
If convicted, Ms Wang could face six months in jail and a fine of $5,000 (£2,800).
First Amendment
Ms Wang, a doctor, had about 40 supporters at her hearing on Friday.
She was released on condition she remained in New York City, did not approach the White House and came only to Washington for legal reasons.
Her lawyer argued she was entitled to free speech under the First Amendment.
Prosecutors said the amendment did not allow her to break the law.
The judge did not rule on the free speech issue.
Ms Wang had received a press pass for the White House event on behalf of the English-language Epoch Times, which has strongly supported Falun Gong in the past.
She shouted in Chinese: "Stop oppressing the Falun Gong" and "Your time is running out".
She also shouted in English: "President Bush, stop him from killing."
She was ushered away after a few minutes by Secret Service agents.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4931914.stm
never underestimate the power and attraction of war… in most communities where there are a fair amount of elderly people you often see old soldiers, sailors and airmen wheeled out on the anniversaries of significant battles in World War II, as well as comrades' meetings for those involved in special missions/projects.
when Europe was ablaze and Britain under attack they fought hard as they all could and now in their final years want to remember those days, particularly to reminisce about the bravery of fighters and the ingenuity of the military-industrial complex.
Now what did surprise me though, is nowadays the Germans are very often invited to these gatherings! This shocked me TBH; for one thing I would have thought many Germans many not to want to attend (they did lose after all!)
Furthermore, I would have expected after a few drinks that old hatreds would be re-ignited; the air would echo with the crack of walking stick across zimmer frame and arthritic knee, teacups and saucers would be smashed into wrinkled faces, knobbly noses would break under the impact of dimpled beer mugs, and false teeth would go flying across the village hall floors..
But none of these things happen. The former enemies admire photos and preserved aircraft/equipment, they reminisce about skirmishes, and discuss each others tactics without the fear of being called traitors. Many actually become good friends!
But behind all this friendship; you get the feeling that even when it comes to stuff like the bombing of civillian areas and/or the concentration camps; both sides feel they did what they had to do and would do it all one more time if it their had their youth again.
But it does make you wonder about some of the storys they (on both sides) tell their sons and grandsons.
Consider the amount of racism and Europhobia about even today; and the rise in neo-fascism in some European countries. Perhaps we are all still fighting the war across the generations, but with a few more enemes added today?
The Euston Manifesto
The Euston Manifesto
Norman Geras and Nick Cohen
Monday 17th April 2006
It started with some like-minded progressives meeting in a London pub. Disenchanted with what they saw as the wrong-headed thinking of the anti-war movement, they began to talk of a new left movement. By Norman Geras and Nick Cohen
On a Saturday last May, right after the general election, 20 or so similarly minded people met in a pub in London. We had no specific agenda, merely a desire to talk about where things were politically. Those present were all of the left: some bloggers or running other websites, their readers, a few with labour movement connections, one or two students. Many of us were supporters of the military intervention in Iraq, and those who weren't - who had indeed opposed it - none the less found themselves increasingly out of tune with the dominant anti-war discourse. They were at odds, too, with how it related to other prominent issues - terrorism and the fight against it, US foreign policy, the record of the Blair government, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, more generally, attitudes to democratic values.
At that first meeting our discussion focused on our common sense of discord with much current left-liberal thinking. We talked of how the prevailing consensus had ample representation in the liberal press, on the BBC and Channel 4, whereas the viewpoint of our own segment of the left was significantly under- represented in the mainstream media. We had, however, found a place on the internet and in the blogosphere, which had helped to connect people who might otherwise have felt isolated and had given expression to the voices and debates of a left other than the one heard loudly everywhere: from TV screens and newspapers, in universities and other workplaces, in theatres, at dinner tables and at every kind of social gathering. Its ideas were so much perceived as conventional wisdom that many found it difficult to allow that there could be an alternative left-liberal view.
The group that took informal shape that Saturday decided to continue meeting, with the aim of getting its political arguments out beyond the internet, of winning for those arguments a greater space within more traditional forums of public discussion. We have met twice more (at a pub near Euston Station, as it happens); others who were not at the initial meeting have become involved.
We have now produced a manifesto, in advance of a public launch some time in May. In it we set out our basic commitments. In the nature of what it is, a document of orientation, the manifesto may, in some of its points, appear to state the obvious. We make no apology for this. Part of the problem with much contemporary left-liberal opinion is that too many things that should be obvious in the light of the history of the past hundred years seem not to be so.
We hope that this manifesto will serve as an encouragement to others who, like ourselves, bel ieve that some of the most important values of a progressive politics have lately been lost sight of, subordinated to wrong-headed political priorities and insubstantial tactical considerations.
Beyond socialism
In the preamble to the Euston Manifesto, we announce our broad aim:
We are democrats and pro-gressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the left that remain true to their authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.
We then go on to a statement of principles. There is no space here to present them in detail, but this is a brief summary:
We value the traditions and institutions of the liberal, pluralist democracies, and we decline to make excuses for, to indulgently "understand", reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy. We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal. Equally, violations of these rights are to be condemned whoever is responsible for them and regardless of cultural context. The manifesto speaks of our attachment to egalitarianism in all domains.
We reject the anti-Americanism which is infecting so much left-liberal thinking. We support the right of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution. There are paragraphs opposing racism and identifying the resurgence of anti-Semitism; on terrorism and against the excuses made for it; on humanitarian intervention when states violate the common life of their peoples in appalling ways.
We argue that the time is long overdue to break with the tradition of left apologetics for anti-democratic forces and regimes; that there is a duty of respect for the historical truth; and that it is more than ever necessary to affirm that, within the usual constraints against incitement, people must be at liberty to criticise beliefs - including religious be liefs - that others cherish.
Justice for everyone
The left now has to fight two battles simultaneously. We defend democracies against all who make light of the differences between them and tyrannical regimes. But these democracies have shortcomings. Their social and economic foundations are marked by deep inequalities and unmerited privilege. In turn, global inequalities are a scandal to the moral conscience of humankind. Millions live in terrible poverty, an standing indictment against the international community. In keeping with our traditions, we on the left fight for justice and a decent life for all. In keeping with the same traditions, we have also to fight against powerful forces of tyranny, which are on the march again.
The supporters of the Euston Manifesto took different views on the war in Iraq, both for and against. We recognise that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justifications for the war and the manner in which it was carried through. We are, however, united in our judgement of the reactionary, murderous character of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, and we recognise its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, from the day this occurred, the proper concern of the liberal left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to create, after decades of brutal oppres-sion, a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted - rather than endlessly rehearsing the arguments over intervention.
This puts us in opposition not only to those on the left who have actively spoken in support of the gangs of jihadist and Ba'athist thugs of the Iraqi "resistance", but also to others who manage to find a way of situating themselves between such forces and those trying to bring a new democratic life to the country, or who pay lip-service to this aim, while devoting most of their energy to criticism of their political opponents at home and observing a tactful silence about the ugly methods of the Iraqi "insurgency".
The violation of basic human rights at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of "rendition", must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles (for the establishment of which the democratic countries bear the greater part of the historical credit). But we reject the double standards by which too many on the left consider the violations of hu man rights perpetrated by democracies to be more serious than far worse infractions committed by other countries - about which they have little to say.
It is vitally important for the future of progressive politics that people of democratic outlook should now speak clearly against those for whom the entir e progressive agenda has been subordinated to a blanket and simplistic "anti-imperialism". The values and goals which properly make up that agenda - the values of democracy, human rights, solidarity with peoples fighting against poverty, tyranny and oppression - are what most enduringly define the shape of any left worth belonging to.
The Euston Manifesto is only a preliminary step. It is a work in progress - its purpose is to establish a position around which we hope others will rally and to generate a debate more fruitful than much of what has lately taken place. The Euston Manifesto Group is a loose association of bloggers, journalists, academics and activists who write and discuss and argue. Besides the pre-sent writers, they include Jane Ashworth, Brian Brivati, Damien Counsell, Eve Garrard and Shalom Lappin. The manifesto has attracted the support of others in Britain and abroad, including John Lloyd, Paul Berman, Pamela Bone, Anthony Julius, Kanan Makiya, Michael Walzer and Francis Wheen. We hope there will be many more in the run-up to our public launch and after it.
To read the Euston Manifesto in full go to: [http://www.newstatesman.com/eustonmanifesto
Video for download at screenings – new site I'm looking to let people know about a place where you can download Videos for screenings. http://clearerchannel.org
There is a network23 section which is designed to me videos that would work well for a free party posse.
Let me know if you can imagine future collaborations - or if there are publications that would be interested in the project -
It's a video podcasting idea [media rss] - copy left content - and all designed to be worth showing to an audience of people.
How this last paragraph makes sense!
The New Axis of Evil & the Return of the Sith! just came across this telegraph article via google news (last time i go there) and it boils my blood. the sheer hypocracy. i am constantly getting branded an anti-semite just for thinking that britain and american government and media is clearly on the side of the jews. probably directly controlled by it.
theyre basically sayign that the palestinians who have been bombed and depossesed by the israeli (US/UK sponsored) war machine for teh last fifty years who are trying to make a stand against having their people and culture destroyed are the justification for the israeli aggression. which came first the chiken or the egg? well in this case, the palestinians were quite happy untill the western powers turfed then out of their own country and gave it to the jews. since then the greedy israelis have been pshign the palestinians further and further back, destroying their villages, killing their citizens and also any one who trys to help them (including british peace activists), undermining theri economy and generally fucking them over.
for ages the israelis wouldnt even talk to teh arabs, the palestinians dont even have their own army, and yet still teh israelis massacre the palesinians. then a few plucky palestinians who are sick of being pushed around sort themselves out some AK47's, convince a few desperate people to blow themselves up in retaliation, to take the fight back to israel (nto because they want to, cos its the only option they have left) and these palestinians are branded as the evil ones. it takes the fucking biscuit it really does.
if i was in palestine having the people who stole my home and killed my family push me around, i'd be voting for the militant group and id being getting my AK and shooting me some fucking israeli troops.
i hope our governing leaders are all captured and tortured to death. i am ashamed to be british.
:you_smart :you_smart :you_smart :you_smart :you_smart :you_smart :you_smart :you_smart :you_smart :you_smart :you_smart
someone tell me im wrong. i know im wrong on some of it, cos i havent payed attention to the news in a while. but i defy people to sympathise with israel.
new york must dance http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4880390.stm
Court floors Big Apple's dancers
Dancers in New York have been told their pastime is not an expression that is protected by the constitution.
A group of dancers had challenged a Prohibition-era cabaret law banning dancing in venues that do not have a special licence.
Judge Michael Stallman dismissed the dancers' claim, although he said New York should be "big enough to find a way to let people dance".
Authorities say the law is meant to protect residents from excess noise.
Under the 1926 legislation only venues with a special licence can allow dancing. Private, social dancing in restaurants, clubs and bars which do not have the licence is banned.
Appeal
The Gotham West Coast Swing Club had claimed that the law unconstitutionally infringed on its right of free expression.
But Judge Stallman of New York County's Supreme Court dismissed the case for "a lack of any viable constitutional claim".
He also said clubs and restaurants that permitted dancing led to increased traffic and noise around the establishment.
However, he did concede that city authorities should re-examine the law to reflect current social norms.
"Surely the Big Apple is big enough to find a way to let people dance," he said.
Norman Siegel, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said his clients were considering an appeal.
"We continue to believe that social dancing is expressive activity and should have state constitutional protection," he said. "We continue to believe the cabaret law is unconstitutional."
The plaintiffs claim that the number of places that legally allow couples to dance has fallen from around 1,000 in the 1960s to fewer than 300 today.
Wake up and Smell the Concrete "Wake up and Smell the Concrete"
Hierarchy and control are created by ourselves; we only fall under control when we allow it.
If you believe a foot soldier or person of Babylon is superior to you or in control of you, then that is the reality you will create.
We have all started on the path to setting ourselves FREE as we have created this world we "LOVE". Breaking the chains of control and replacing them with unity consciousness, weakening the illusion of the Babylonian Brotherhood and their control over the world!
We need to break these chains forever so we can truly be free, and in control of our lives, allowing us to evolve to a higher state of consciousness.
You are the ONE who creates your destiny, your inner thoughts and feelings are your outer reality.
WAKE UP AND BREAK FREE.
We don't need the materialistic things in this life that control us, all we need is the air that we breathe and the Earth we walk on, for life is in the land (SO RESPECT IT!!).
This can never be taken from us, our right to live and be free. Stand-up! for that right, and don't let anything blacken your road to FREEDOM!
(This may not make sense now, but it will do later!)
With thanks to my friends Nick and Laura :cool:
Rate of Suffolk Asbos Rate of Suffolk Asbos
31 March 2006 | 07:34
http://www.eadt.co.uk/
REBECCA SHEPPARD
THE rate of anti-social behaviour orders handed out to troublemakers in Suffolk has fallen, new Home Office figures have revealed.
Statistics released yesterday show that 32 banning orders were issued between January 1 and September 30, 2005.
They brought the county's running total of anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos) to 130 since April 1, 1999.
But if the average monthly rate of Asbos imposed has continued in the county since the end of September, around 42 would have been handed out by the end of 2005 - which would be a drop of 50% on the previous year.
The greatest number of restrictions were imposed in the Ipswich Borough Council area last year, where 11 were handed out in the first three quarters of the year, bringing the total over the five-and-a-half year period to 45.
This was closely followed by Suffolk Coastal District Council, where 33 were given out, with 11 between January and September 2005, and Waveney, where 28 were imposed with six in the first nine months of last year.
Rachel Tucker, Asbo officer for Waveney District Council, said she was not surprised the numbers of orders being issued appear to be falling.
She explained that authorities now meet on a monthly basis to see what can be done with individuals who cause harassment, alarm or distress.
.The first port of call is to divert them away from doing that. Asbos are seen as a last option,. she said.
A total of 46 Asbos were given out to juveniles in the county between April 1999 and September 2005. Eleven youngsters aged between 10 and 17 received the bans from courts in the first three quarters of last year, compared to 12 in the same period the previous year.
The figures, which showed that nationally 43% of the 7,356 ASBOs in England and Wales were given to juveniles, come after a former top Home Office civil servant launched an attack on the Government's use of child Asbos.
Martin Narey said too many youngsters were being locked up as a result of the orders and suggested the Government had gone back on its word to only use Asbos on under-18s in .exceptional. cases.
But Jim Manning, Ipswich council's head of community safety, said the borough currently has 46 Asbos on its records but only seven are on juveniles, bucking the national trend.
He said the fact Ipswich had the highest rate of Asbos was to be expected, as a third of all crime in the county is in the town.
.There is a lot more preventative work going on now to stop certain people get to that stage where they are the subject of an ASBO but also I think the message getting out to people is that if they do misbehave then it will result in proceedings against them,. he said.
Applications for Asbos can be made to magistrates by a police force, local authority, housing action trust or registered social landlord.
The orders, which are tailored to each individual, are designed to tackle low level crime that blights communities and can ban people from certain locations or stipulate a curfew.
Troublemakers face jail if they persist with behaviour barred under the orders.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.YesNoPrivacy policy
You can revoke your consent any time using the Revoke consent button.Revoke cookies
