By now, there were police officers on all four floors of the building, kicking and battering. Several victims describe a sort of system to the violence, with each officer beating each person he came across, then moving on to the next victim while his colleague moved up to continue beating the first. It seemed important that everybody must be hurt. Nicola Doherty, 26, a care worker from London, later described how her partner, Richard Moth, lay across her to protect her: “I could just hear blow after blow on his body. The police were also leaning over Rich so they could hit the parts of my body which were exposed.” She tried to cover her head with her arm: they broke her wrist.
In one corridor, they ordered a group of young men and women to kneel, the easier to batter them around the head and shoulders. This was where Daniel Albrecht, a 21-year-old cello student from Berlin, had his head beaten so badly that he needed surgery to stop bleeding in his brain. Around the building, officers flipped their batons around, gripping the far end and using the right-angled handle as a hammer.
And in among this relentless violence, there were moments when the police preferred humiliation: the officer who stood spread-legged in front of a kneeling and injured woman, grabbed his groin and thrust it into her face before turning to do the same to Daniel Albrecht kneeling beside her; the officer who paused amid the beatings and took a knife to cut off hair from his victims, including Nicola Doherty; the constant shouting of insults; the officer who asked a group if they were OK and who reacted to the one who said “No” by handing out an extra beating.
But what struck me as strange was one quote about a couple of gipsy women being accused of trying to kidnap a child (my emphasis):
two Roma women were accused in Lecco for trying to steal a child. Both of them declared they were begging with no intention whatsoever of kidnapping. In order to avoid being sentenced both of them accepted the suggestion of their lawyer and pleaded guilty. Accordingly they were sentenced to 8 months and 10 days in jail. As expected the sentence was suspended. Their lawyer acknowledged publicly that the women told him they never tried to kidnap the child but they agree to follow his advice in order to avoid prosecution for begging…
You fucking what!?
A lawyer advised his clients to plead guilty to something serious they didn’t do inorder to avoid being presectuted for something very fucking minor? I’m speechless.
8 months for attempted kidnap is preferable to being done for begging. The Italians must fucking hate beggars.
The Provisional BBC is a paramilitary organisation which split from the BBC in October 2006 in protest at its toleration of poor writing and Liberal Democrats. The Provisional BBC regrets any civilian casualties resulting from posts contained within, but lays the blame squarely at the foot of the Tories. It is our duty to resist them, by any and all means necessary.
Go have a look it’s quite funny. I would post a few excerpts, but they’re only short post and so if I posted them here you’d have no reason to got there, would you.
The authors of this piece reckon we should all stop using the word ‘Chav’, because it is offensive.
Well, that is the point. It isn’t about class hatred or racism or white bashing. It’s about pissing off irksome cunts who think it’s ok to be cunts.
Would we get away with saying “faggot” on the BBC? No – there are very few circumstances where that would be acceptable. Would the Guardian print the word “pikey”? Well they have done five times this year (three times were earnest discussions about the word’s racism, and the other two were, well, a bit racist). Can you use the word “gay” as a general derogative (as in “those trainers are really gay”) on Radio 1? Well yes, it turns out that you can, according to the BBC Trust. Could we use the n-word in the Fabian Review? Well probably not,
These guys have completley missed the point, all the references in the above quote (I presume the ‘n-word’ is nigger and what the fuck is the Fabian Review?) are to inalienable qualities of a person. That person may go up or down the social ladders from posh to homeless, lower class to aristocracy, but they will always be homosexual or black. Being a chav is not dependent on where you are or where you were born into society. It’s about your attitude.
It is deeply offensive to a largely voiceless group and – especially when used in normal middle-class conversation or on national TV – it betrays a deep and revealing level of class hatred.
Voiceless? The white working class? Maybe. Maybe not. Being white and working class is probably the start point of identity politics in this country. When you want to identify a white Briton, you just call them a Briton, everyone else has other monikers added. Just because there isn’t a small group of people who claim to speak for all white working class people, doesn’t mean they don’t have a voice.
And it doesn’t betray a deep level of class hatred, it reveals a hatred of wankers.
The phenomenon of the word has grown over the last five years. Initially it was purely a term of abuse
It still is a term of abuse. It’s a term of abuse in the harshest form when used to describe proper chav fuckers and mild mocking when used to describe people like Daniella Westbrook.
We have heard it increasingly used in conversation over the last year, invariably to casually describe people “not like us”
It’s used to describe people who’re “not like us” because it’s easier to say than “ostentatious, self-important, thieving, workshy cunts”. I also say it so I don’t get a slap from my mum for swearing.
middle classes have always used language to distinguish themselves from those a few rungs below them on the ladder – we all know their old serviette/napkin, lounge/living room, settee/sofa tricks
And they always will use that kind of language. Should we stop using ‘working class’, ‘lower classes’ and ‘upper classes’? After all, even if you don’t use ‘lower classes’, purely by using the ‘middle class’ tag, you’re implicity stating there is a lower class, an under class, dare I say untermenschen? By using the word chav, you’re not describing the working class, you’re describing some of the working class as well as some of the middle class.
Let’s not replace the racist or bigoted language of the past with a new set of words that are just as hateful.
Chav is not replacing any racist or bigoted words. Anyone can be a chav.
It’s no more bigoted than using the term ‘lazy, Nova driving, fag blagging, tea-leaving shit’.
Schillings are back!
This time on behalf Iraq mercenary Tim Spicer. They have reason to believe that that horrible man Craig Murray is saying naughty things about their lovely client, who is such a sensitive soul and needs to be protected.
Schillings want to protect little Timmy so much that they are they are getting in early before they even know for sure if Timmy is featured in the book. Craig is also speaking at an event, which they also warn about mentioning anything horrible about the delicate flower that is ex-army officer Spicer.
The letter that Schillings sent to Craig is also copyrighted. Presumably to try and stop what has started to happen – the widespread publication of this little fishing expedition.
To me, what schillings has done is take craig round the back of the bike sheds, grabbed him by the collars and pinned him against the wall whilst menacingly promising to beat the crap out of craig if he tells teacher about Tims’ naughtiness.
For the same reason as Tim, I have reproduced the letter in full on my old blog which is hosted outside the UK (link) or you can download the .pdf document from craigs site (link).
Some women in countries where abortion is restricted are using the internet to buy medication enabling them to abort a pregnancy at home, the BBC has learned.
Women in Northern Ireland and over 70 countries with restrictions have used one of the main websites, Women on Web.
This is one of the best examples of why we do not need stricy abortion laws.
Women, if they want/need and abortion will have one. One way or another. By making the criteria and time limit stricter all that is happening is that these women go outside the system to back street abortionists or to these websites where the pills are of unknown provinence*.
But anti-abortion campaigners called the development of such sites “very worrying indeed”.
Yes, it is very worrying. But women are going to get an abortion, would you rather they had one in the proper surroundings, supervised by properly trained people, so that if anything did go wrong it can be dealt with properly, or women ended up bleeding to death or with kidney failure from drugs not being what they should be or other complications that otherwise wouldn’t be a cause for concern?
*That is not a direct comment against Women on Web. I do not know of them in either a good or bad way.
