911 and 77 (21)
Reading the several reports of an incident in Bournmouth around 6pm on Saturday 5th July which you can also read for yourself by searching for Bournmouth + armed +police, I note enough to be suspicious that this is not quite what it is made out to be.
The excuse for the police drawing guns is supposedly that they were informed by the neighbouring force (ie Dorset police force informed by Hampshire police force) that an armed incident had taken place.
Meanwhile on the train that the innocent man is on, a transport police officer supposedly recognizes the traveller from a police description that he also happens to have obtained somewhere along the line. We are not told which force he contacts.
At Bournmouth the train is met by around ten armed police that arrived in black police cars (Police cars in the UK used to be either clearly marked as such or were non descript); a minor observation.
After getting him to lie flat on the ground the police approach him, handcuff him and frogmarch him to a disabled toilet cubicle. One newspaper, the Metro, says this is to search his rucksack. I can tell you that is totally false information and entirely reprehensible reporting. The police would not bother taking him out of witness sight to search his pockets, his rucksack, his clothing, the contents of his wallet. I know that from personal experience; they will do it out in the open in plain view without the slightest qualm.
So that leaves a big question. Why take him out of witness sight?
Maybe to strip him. Maybe to torture him. Maybe to drug him. Maybe to inject him. Maybe to inflict pain or punishment.
I don't know.
The public don't know.
We are never likely to find out.
Assume for the moment that he was genuinely under suspicion of involvement in one of the TWO supposed Basinstoke incidents, two distinctly different, alleged, incidents. Let us suppose one of these two incidents was actual despite the clear lack of information about them.
At worst it was considered to be an armed incident. So they search him for guns. You don't take someone into toilets to do that - not even the nazis did that!
But the alleged incident at Basingstoke was apparently one involving imitation firearms. I don't know what the truth of this is but I already know enough to realize that the UK police are being nazified and have been at least since 9/11. To award the 'benefit of doubt' in favour of the police is utterly stupid and dangerous.
The other, totally different excuse used was that of an incident on Friday in which a man made violent threats but there is no insinuation of him being armed.
The two entirely different supposed incidents that gave rise, supposedly, to a 'wanted' description being issued by the Hampshire (Basinstoke) police would have been entirely constructed by the police. The mere fact that there is more than one incident is suspicious. The fact that either incident on it's own does not justify the excessive force and behaviour, is suspicious. The fact that the officers drew their weapons without any reason existing to suspect the man was armed (let alone displaying a gun, holding a gun for example) is suspicious. The fact they took him into a toilet cubicle is suspicious.
The failure of the media to tackle each of these suspicious facets is a very bad sign - it shows we are getting used to this kind of police behaviour, not just the public but the supposedly 'on guard' media, is a very bad sign.
It may have been incompetence and ineptitude or it may have been a deliberate show of armed police aggression designed to soften the public in to accepting this kind of police behaviour as entirely normal and therefore entirely acceptable.
Regardless of the truth of this particular incident we can all be sure that we will be seeing much more of this kind of thing, more often and more widespread too.
By Paul E. Coughlin
SaneThinking.com
8 July 2008
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
