What they tried to hide from Mandela

So ashamed are Ken and the GLA of our government's war record and its slaughter of thousands of innocents, including children, they tried to hide Brian Haw's anti-war display from view.

A FIT phographer decided to get in on the act by targeting the audience.

Not content with cramming the tents of Brian's supporters into a tiny area they then proceeded to hedge his pitch around with a large banner, a media stand, and an assortment of barriers, etc., to prevent Mandela from seeing it. This was followed up by the police hassling Brian and some of his supporters while Mandela was giving his message of freedom. So, you may well ask, why is Brian still free to even have a pitch? The answer is simple, Members of Parliament, in trying to get rid of him with some ridiculous knee jerk legislation, fell foul of their very own laws. Instead they ended up limiting the freedom of expression of just about everyone else except Brian and his supporters. You can learn more about it here:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/actions/2006/socpa/

Doug

Additions

No surprise

30.08.2007 09:32

Mandela is now an icon and everyone respects him. Back in the 1980s when he was in prison and City of London Anti-Apartheid Group were camped outside the South African Embassy, we were treated much the same way as Brian is.

Non-Stop Picketer

Comments

Hide the following 8 comments

You gotta laugh!

30.08.2007 10:41

Ken gave his staff the morning off to attend the event so some of them must have been captured by the FIT police photographer's lenses. Now they will be on record along with all the alleged troublemakers.

Amused.

And no surprise either.

30.08.2007 10:45

Mrs Thatcher once described Mandela as a terrorist. No surprise that she wasn't invited to this event.

Doug

that is mental!

30.08.2007 14:10

fuckinell. Thanks for posting that.

What a bunch of utter twats.

anarchist

totally insane!

30.08.2007 17:36

For once I can agree with you anarchist.

This is just the beginning unless we expose the wunch of worldwide bankers running us all into a fascist nightmare, real soon now.

A nightmare that went into overdrive on 11/9/2001...

BonChance

FIT

31.08.2007 03:01

...they do actually delete the bulk of their photographs. They only keep the ones 'of interest' -- usually the ones where familiar faces (and friends of familiar faces) crop up. They no longer bother with FitWatch regulars, choosing only to keep images that could support court cases. So...a good way of 'avoiding' the FIT is to make yourself known to them...and take up all the space on their memory cards.

Now exactly what the point was in photographing more of Brian Haw's drone-tourage I shall never know. Nice to see the Met complicit in the cult of Brian.

FIT?

31.08.2007 07:30

How do you know they delete any of their photographs, do you seriously imagine they have any shortage of memory cards funded by the taxpayer? If a good way of avoiding the FIT is 'to make yourself known to them', why do they keep photographing me and others over and over again? Is it just to intimidate or is to show that I was at a particular event at a particular time along with all the other people they photograph there, such as Ken's staff?

As for photographing Brian's supporters, that is to gain evidence for future court cases, along with the prolific notes taken at the time, as well as to intimidate.

AntiFIT

More FIT -- and comparing Haw to Mandela

31.08.2007 20:29

"How do you know they delete any of their photographs, do you seriously imagine they have any shortage of memory cards funded by the taxpayer?" -- My kid brother is Birmingham CID.

"why do they keep photographing me and others over and over again? Is it just to intimidate or is to show that I was at a particular event at a particular time" -- yes. It's seen by the police as a deterring weapon...to make people feel uneasy about always being watched.

"As for photographing Brian's supporters, that is to gain evidence for future court cases, along with the prolific notes taken at the time, as well as to intimidate." -- yes again. But I also sense a misplaced hubris along the Brian line. Comparing him to Mandela is a bit off. Mandela was banged up for 27 years, mainly on Robben Island where he was 'interrogated', allowed one letter every six months, and given the most basic accomodation due to his skin. Apartheid SA was in a constant state of violence and oppression if you happened to have too much melanin in your skin. Madiba founded and became head of the ANC's armed wing (MK)after discovering the sham of non-violent mass disruption. His roots are founded in a time where the 'active' bit of 'activist' meant something...when people fought for their human rights because everything else was taken away from them. In our cushy little worlds we can claim we have no rights but the sheer fact we don't live under the threat of constant violence and death shows how misguided we are. In the grand scheme of things, we are nothing compared to those who live with the spectre of death and poverty hanging over them. Regardless of our own leanings and convictions, we are all complicit in their murders and suffering.

What Brian does is admirable, but it's not comparable to the likes of Mandela or Ghandi or Martin Luther King.

Comparing Haw to Mandela?

03.09.2007 06:03

"What Brian does is admirable, but it's not comparable to the likes of Mandela or Ghandi or Martin Luther King."

I wasn't comparing Haw to Mandela but surely you can see the irony in Mandela being feted by war criminals while war protesters are screened from his view and are being intimidate by our police? Anyway, at least Mandela is still alive, unlike Jean Charles de Menezes, to draw yet another comparison.

AntFIT