Well obviously we need more surveillance and special powers to deal with this threat. Come on, you can see that coming.
Organised crime infiltrated and compromised UK courts, police, HMRC, Crown Prosecution Service, prisons, and juries
Now was this before or after the Murdoch Press joined in the game?
I wonder if any of this spilled over into the military.
And I thought Spain was the most corrupt country in the EU...
Sir, I take my hat and bow to your majesty.
Stories like these make you wonder about the inquest on Mark Duggan.
Isn't it funny in this context that british politicians are constantly complaining about corrupt EU politics....
I would imagine the same thing for Greece, but at this point, I do not think there is any reason to hold a contest.
I guess its a matter of whether its known or not and we can just as well assume that in most cases its just well hidden.
Spain isn't the worst, it's just the worst at hiding it.
The UK establishment, like most other countries, works on a system of kickbacks and back scratching, and worse. I'll just leave this here:
even the straightest man plays a little fiddle
One of my neighbours in very rural England is a cop. He said the other day that if he wanted to cut crime in the area he could simply arrest most of his colleauges
Whistle blowing is the only remaining option.
That would be a serious scandal. If the police in effect conducted a hit on behalf of a criminal gang under the guise of a 'hard stop'. How did the Police get their information that Duggan would be driving through London carrying a weapon at the precise moment they attempted his arrest? Were the Police manipulated into getting rid of someone inconvenient - e.g. an enemy of Duggan chose to arm him and at the same time inform the police about him?
What were the terms of reference for the investigation into Duggan's death - the reporting I'd heard focused on the fact that the police knew he was armed in the car, and then the question was whether it was legitimate to send an armed unit after him. Maybe the question should be: was Duggan set up to be caught with a firearm in front of an armed response team - and if so were any of the police aware of the complicity?
Cynicism aside, a central part of the US Constitution is that nobody has absolute power - even a corrupt President can be stopped by either one of the other branches.
We do still remember this idea - it's still taught in our schools. My hope is that maybe in the 20-teens leaders will come forth who can pull us back to some basic accountability before it's too late. However... Citizens United says no.
Creating laws that give police and magistrates the power to declare anything anyone does illegal, storing massive DNA databases, allowing for secret courts and warrantless surveillance, creating unaccountable systems of censorship, and letting spies run wild are all examples of systems designed on the presumption that the establishment is both uncorrupted and perpetually uncorrectable.
No, those laws are a direct result of that corruption. A state that corrupt is going to be none too secure in its "mandate of heaven". Exposure and the dissent that results from it are the biggest threats to such a state, hence laws that hide information and control the population.
+1 @PatRx2 - this Orwellian bogosity is one of the first signs corruption is about to kick into full swing.
This story simply underlines a darker part of human nature--screw everyone else, I'm gonna get mine. Also, I like the obligatory authority-mouthpiece quote at the end of the article is awesome:
Scotland Yard said: “[We] will not tolerate any behaviour by our officers and staff which could damage the trust placed in police by the public. We are determined to pursue corruption in all its forms and with all possible vigour. All such allegations and intelligence are taken extremely seriously.”
Those accusations are taken seriously unless they're contained in reports dated within the last twenty years, I guess.
The use of the word "infiltrated" seems to suggest a previously pure state that has been sullied. That seems unlikely, and it seems more likely that this is just a public realization that the project of democracy hasn't made it as far away from brutal feudalism as we'd hoped. I doubt the line between the corrupting and the corrupted is very bright. Certainly the line between the lobbied and the lobby aren't, or corporate leaders and elected ones. One would hope that the government at the very least is in concept different for having built in accountability and transparency, but once corrupt (or having always been less un-corrupted than what we'd hoped) the laws that set these conditions can be dismantled or sabotaged from the inside.
Perhaps a previously more honest, more pure state, driven by less systematic corruption?
Rule #1: Write about what you know!
If you're just hoping that someone's going to come along and make it all right you've been watching too many 'hero-movies'. The more that come along, the further they entrench it.
next page →