Cops threaten women wearing anti-Bliar T-shirt

Once more, the Neu Arbeit Gestapo threaten someone with "the camps" for exercising their freedom of speech to insult the Leader. Meanwhile, hundreds of former foreign prisoners who should have been deported are rampaging the streets (well, maybe)....

Can someone find me one of these garments? I really want one!

Wear an anti-Blair jacket... and you'll have your collar felt
By Patience Wheatcroft
(Filed: 30/04/2006)

Last September, an elderly gentleman was set upon by a bunch of heavies, man-handled down a flight of stairs and, stunned and frightened, thrown out of a Brighton building. His assailants were not foreign criminals who had been let loose on innocent citizens through Government ineptitude. They were actually in the pay of the Labour Party.

The incident catapulted Walter Wolfgang into the headlines, and the mistreating of the frail 82-year-old became the abiding image of Labour's 2005 conference. Mr Wolfgang, an opponent of the Iraq war, had paid the price of heckling as the Foreign Secretary spoke.

Government ministers rushed to apologise, with Tony Blair himself declaring that he was "really sorry". The verbal gestures of contrition were delivered with a degree of sincerity that failed to dispel the suspicion that what was regretted was not so much the appalling treatment meted out to Mr Wolfgang, as the fact that it had been caught on camera.

Yet there are still those who are bold enough to make clear in public their displeasure with this Government. One of them stood outside Earl's Court tube station last week wearing a jacket which proclaimed across its back "Bollocks to Blair". Not the most elegantly expressed of sentiments, perhaps, but one which was likely to resonate with many of those about to subject themselves to the vicissitudes of the London Underground.

The woman wearing the jacket, Julia Gobert, was distributing leaflets in support of the Conservative candidates for Thursday's election and her attire ensured that anyone who took her literature would have realised that she was not trying to change the complexion of Kensington and Chelsea council, where the Tories hold one of the safest majorities in the country. But she was told to change her clothes.

Two British Transport Police very politely informed her that she would be arrested unless she removed the jacket. Someone, presumably of a different political persuasion, had told the police that the slogan was offensive, and the police claimed that this left them with no alternative but to act.

It is not the first time that the police have taken action against anti-Blair clothing. Last September, Charlotte Denis was marched away from the Midlands Game Fair by police and driven to a mobile police station because of her "Bollocks to Blair" sweatshirt. She was only allowed to return after covering the propaganda with her friend's coat.

If the police are to act against offensive clothing, they would find every high street teeming with criminal insensibility. Even if they ignored the low-slung jeans and too-short skirts and restricted themselves to slogan-bearing garments, there would still be plenty of opportunity for arrest.

The lewd out-pourings of French Connection, for instance, have for years caused real offence to many who do not believe that they are suitable adornments for the chests of the nation's youngsters, yet the police have not intervened.

Perhaps that is about to change, for the move against the wearing of anti-Blair clothing is part of a creeping curtailment of our freedoms. The right to peaceful protest, whether by heckling or by T-shirt, used to be considered a cornerstone of life in Britain. Not any longer.

Only last December, Maya Anne Evans was arrested for simply standing by the Cenotaph and reciting a list of names. She was prosecuted under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act and, eventually, allowed to leave court with a conditional discharge. Her crime had been to be within half a mile of Parliament when she read out her list of those who had died in the Iraq war.

In Blair's Britain, protest is not allowed where it could offend the Government, whether that might be in Westminster or a Brighton conference centre. Elsewhere, established civil rights are being eroded. Children are not allowed to venture into streets where they have grown-up or members of their family may live, should they have caused sufficient offence to be made subject of such Anti-Social Behaviour Order. Control orders enable people to be confined to their homes although no charge against them has been proven.

The Prime Minister tells us that the changes being made to our way of life are necessary in the cause of fighting terrorism, or in order to protect innocent citizens from the worst anti-social elements in our society. More thorough policing, rather than new powers, might have been equally effective - and less dangerous to our civil liberties.

Do you want to live in a country where a T-shirt shouting "Bollocks to Blair" is banned?
Will have one made on Tuesday:

"Blair is an evil, lying scumbag"

Will were it whilst casting my anti-labour vote in South London on Thursday.
I read that story earlier - the t-shirt actually read "Boll ocks to Blair" (without the space)

Amusingly the software on this website changes the word to "balls" if you try to post it here

If the Cops recieved and complaint and had to investigate, can someone complain that the Chief Constable has violated their right to Freedom of speech and have him interviewed at 0750 in the morning.
I am surprised there is not a standard response to such abuses of the law:

Cop: 'Ello 'Ello 'Ello, get rid of the T-shirt or you're nicked!
Victim of Human Rights Abuse: No.

Action 1. Refuse to comply.

Action 2. Get the name of the arresting officer.

Action 3. Phone missus/friend/colleague/conspirator from nick, inform them of the name of the arresting officer and instruct them to follow Plan A.

Plan A.

A1. Contact obtains the phone number of every local newspaper as well as obtaining the services of a solicitor.

A2. Victim of Human Rights Abuse makes no statement at all to the police other than name and address.

A3. Contact does a quick internet search for local crime statistics and calls the local newspapers with an article along the lines of "Cops crack down on free speech whilst grannies are being robbed in the street" which names the arresting officer.

A4. Victim of Human Rights Abuse must not accept a caution or plead guilty.

A5. Chief Constable gets a nasty surprise in his morning briefing when journalists start chasing the story.

A6. Victim of Human Rights Abuse (presumably out of the nick at this stage) uses every complaint mechanism available at his/her disposal, as well as contacting their councillor and MP. Victim participates in follow-up interviews with local press as invited.

A7. Victim of Human Rights Abuse contacts all of their colleagues to bombard the press, police and local authority with letters of complaint. Victim can also contact organisations such as Amnesty and Liberty.

A8. Victim enters "not guilty" plea and, in conjunction with solicitor, does all possible to frustrate the prosecution.

A9. Victim and friends use FOI to demand all papers relating to the case, including details of the complainant.

A10. Victim and friends attempt to link the complaint to a political motivation (ie complainant may be Labour Party member).

A11. Victim's solicitor prepares lawsuit against the police force and the arresting officer.

Likely outcome: Police and prosecutors do not proceed with the case, having been made to look like fools in public.


Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Small flaw in your plan Mr PVR'd. Assuming that the victim is not a 'black disabled lesbian' (or at least one of the afore mentioned) do you really think that Liberty and Amnesty will get involved?
Both Liberty and Amnesty need little excuse to attack the organs of the British state! They have been way off-target in the past, but in these current times their efforts against the Bliar dictatorship are worthy of applause!
MrPVRd said:
Both Liberty and Amnesty need little excuse to attack the organs of the British state! They have been way off-target in the past, but in these current times their efforts against the Bliar dictatorship are worthy of applause!
Hasn't there been enough talk about organs lately?

Similar threads

Latest Threads