Thirty years ago the establishment were so fearful of what dastardly deeds and disruption climate change activists were planning they instructed the Police (the Police don’t make their own policies) to go deep undercover and infiltrate such groups and report back. Methods of infiltration it seems were left to the individuals concerned and some began families (it is alleged) with female activists to cement relationships, thereby avoiding suspicion. Their roles became public knowledge however when they abandoned their ‘partners’ who consequently became single parent families. These mothers then began their own detective work, hunted down their ex-partners with some success, discovered they’d been deceived on a grand scale, and sued those ‘partners’ in the civil courts. All very unseemly; one wonders if lessons have been learned.
Fast forward to 2019 and Whitehall has established a complete and highly dubious volte face. In Stroud, Gloucestershire where I live, residents woke one Saturday morning about nine months ago to discover that climate change activists, “Extinction Rebellion” (XR), had advertised their arrival on the political scene by spray-painting overnight many items of street furniture with their then unfamiliar logo across a wide area.
Readers will no doubt be aware that “XR” claimed responsibility for the minimum five days of infuriating disruption around Oxford Circus beginning Monday April 15th. Just another demonstration of Leftie fury one might imagine but I believe it was more than that – and had a dual purpose. The first purpose – against climate change – was obvious, the second not so.
This is a personal opinion but I think that the group was actively encouraged by the Establishment and the demo was a manifestation of this coupling. What alerted me to the probable involvement of others in the Oxford Circus circus (sic) was a photograph in The Guardian. The centrepiece of the event was a pink boat which had been towed to the site and was used as a podium by many activists and supporting “celebrities. The boat (causing obstruction) was not taken away by the authorities to ensure traffic in central London was restored to near normality, but rather was moved to one side and then surrounded by a double circular phalanx of Police to specifically guard it against damage.
This was not an ad hoc arrangement – it was carefully choreographed, as was the whole show. This lavish love and attention continued until the boat was removed some days later via a sizeable low-loader which was flanked as it left the scene by two long lines of London’s finest. A couple of questions spring to mind: who paid its congestion charge and where is the boat now? I suspect that it’s in secret storage waiting to be used again, Royal Barge-like, in the next grandiose protest when it will become an icon of the movement, and then regularly feature on ‘merch’ produced for devotees. Its final resting place will be in London’s first “Climate Change” Museum. This is not fanciful: the recent Trump blimp flown over Westminster was destined for a London protest museum had it not been punctured. This is the beginning of the UK’s alt-history.
What was the second purpose of the encampment lasting five days? It seems fairly obvious to me. Two weeks on from the disruption on 2nd May, local elections were to be held in the UK and as the two main parliamentary parties appeared to have been doing little recently but unnecessarily argue about Brexit, seats would be vulnerable to persuasive argument from others. But argument – however persuasive – requires exposure, and exposure requires finance. The Green Party lacks that finance but my conspiratorial mind believes that the staging of this highly organised protest received at least five days of constant national promotion of their policies via the MSM, absolutely FREE.
The protest appeared to be well organised and details were widely circulated on the internet at least a week before it started. The ‘XR’ jamboree went so smoothly (for promotors and participants), its surely clear that definitive approval of the event was received from the Lord Mayor and the Met Police Commissioner who, for her minor input into the capital’s many recent problems, may as well be circulated as a “missing person”. She has stated, somewhat disingenuously (The Guardian, 25.5.19): “The Met were caught off guard by the scale and tactics of the protest (really? -no undercover officers deployed here then!!) and the “Protesters passivity and non-violence had meant that Commanders could not send in riot (sic) Police to clear the area”. No reasonable person would have expected ‘riot police’ to be sent in but areas can be cleared by Police of protesters causing mass disruption to the capital’s traffic without violence. It’s what Police are employed to do. Would it have been beyond their capabilities to move a pink boat within, say, 12 hours of its arrival at Oxford Circus? It may be said in the Commissioner’s defence however that it’s reassuring to know she is able to safely predict that in an impromptu crowd of thousands, no protesters (not one) will need to be quelled by force because her astute reading of the situation tells her as much. Or, as seems likely, the deal had been struck: we’ll guarantee to protest peacefully, if in return you allow us to do so for as long as we like, without let or hindrance. Fanciful? – possibly. Free publicity for the Green Party before upcoming elections? – Hmmm, leave that with me.
In late May, the Met announced (Guardian 25th May) that files in respect of those arrested had been completed and would be forwarded to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Shadow Attorney General, Shami Chakrabarti, rather amusingly accused the Met of “stepping out of line” (Guardian, 25.5.19) by prosecuting those arrested. The numbers detained suggest that the situation in charge rooms across the Met during this period was hectic to say the least (without considering arrests for knife crime, acid attacks, rape, burglaries, theft, assaults etc, all of which don’t serendipitously cease because a large demonstration has manifested itself), so one wonders why the Met didn’t offer those detained the option of accepting a formal caution for their behaviour.
No mention of such action has been reported in the MSM nor hinted at in the Met’s statement, so the preparation of the required files will take up many further hours of form filling thus keeping officers away from street patrols and fighting the crime emergency which is currently blighting London. Of course, if the free publicity worked (a climate emergency was declared shortly afterwards in Parliament –wow!) and the Green Party increased their vote at the local elections, it could be expected that that support would continue in the Euro elections to be held, fortuitously, on 25th May. Euro-vote results suggest that it did, but this Green Party publicity was not free – it was paid for by the British taxpayer. Maybe The Electoral Commission should investigate.