Join 3,516 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


If You See George W. Bush, Email or Text The Time and Location To...
November 14, 2003 5:30 AM   Subscribe

If You See George W. Bush, Email or Text The Time and Location To... Chasing Bush.

"A special online diary, designed to track George W. Bush for the duration of his visit to the UK.... If he wants to make a state visit that isn't marred by protest, he should do it on another island. He's not welcome on this one; and we're determined to let the world see that."
posted by grabbingsand (54 comments total)

 
He's not welcome on this one

Damn! I was kinda hoping he could stay there!
posted by LouReedsSon at 5:56 AM on November 14, 2003


Bush said London isn't allowed to protest. Be careful!
posted by the fire you left me at 6:16 AM on November 14, 2003


A note -- I was flying out of Fort Myers yesterday and Shrub held us up a good 45 minutes on the runway.

Yes I got a shot of AF1 as it rollllllled by and we waited.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Bush afraid or confused by the protests I wonder? Or perhaps the administration keeps up this Man in the Bubble effect so that we can more easily stay the course. Lord knows we cannot lose our dear leader in such times of trouble.

SUN
posted by RubberHen at 6:27 AM on November 14, 2003


Sad that the Brits will have more of a chance to protest in view of George than those in his own country.

If I had the money I'd wing on over to London and participate.
posted by birdherder at 6:29 AM on November 14, 2003


Is Bush afraid or confused by the protests I wonder?

If people are allowed to protest, they might realize the president has no clothes. And if he's got no clothes, people might see that he has a bald headed dick that does his thinking for him....
posted by ElvisJesus at 6:32 AM on November 14, 2003


This is just being done so bush can cling to his "protestors are just a minority" theory. In government its called plausible deniability, he can honestly say "protesters, I saw no protesters"!
posted by hoopyfrood at 7:03 AM on November 14, 2003



posted by Witty at 7:06 AM on November 14, 2003


This is just being done so bush can cling to his "protestors are just a minority" theory.

Please refer to protestors by their correct name: focus group.
posted by alou73 at 7:28 AM on November 14, 2003


Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive. --Henry Steele
posted by rushmc at 7:36 AM on November 14, 2003


"If there is hope it lies in the proles" -Orwell

"Dispense with the proles!" - Blair/Bush
posted by skallas at 7:47 AM on November 14, 2003


Just find those guys who were giving David Blaine a hard time a few weeks back, and sic'm on Shrub. ...Or are we talking about the same blokes?

Corny as it sounds, those protesting the Iraq situation are just playing into the hands of the terrorists. It's not that annoying "if we don't do X the terrorists already win" thing again. The terrorists honestly can't win in a literal sense, but they can cause us to lose the stomach for the fight, and forfeit.

I agree it sucks that Shrub got us in this mess, but we can't back out now. That goes not only for America, but England, Italy, and even the countries which oppose terrorism but aren't directly participating in the fight against them. We've already stepped in the minefield. Sometimes, the only way out is through.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:07 AM on November 14, 2003



rushmc, your quote is from Henry Steele Commager.
posted by the fire you left me at 8:22 AM on November 14, 2003


I agree it sucks that Shrub got us in this mess, but we can't back out now...We've already stepped in the minefield. Sometimes, the only way out is through.

I'll just bet that those who pushed us in were counting on people like you saying that. So the moral of the story is, "just get your foot in the door any way you can, preempting all disagreement and establishing a fait accompli, then you can do anything you want."
posted by rushmc at 8:23 AM on November 14, 2003


zachsmind:those protesting the Iraq situation are just playing into the hands of the terrorists

What the hell are you talking about? Your misuse of the word terrorists is highly disingenuous. Bush et al promised WMD and AlQueda terrorist conspiracies and what we got was NO TERRORISTS but a nasty guerilla war consisting of many, many different factions taking pot shots at Americans.

I'd say your 'criticizing your leader only helps the terrorists' argument helps debase democracy all around the world.
posted by skallas at 8:23 AM on November 14, 2003


rushmc, your quote is from Henry Steele Commager.

So it is. Thanks for the correction!
posted by rushmc at 8:25 AM on November 14, 2003


Also, Zachsmind, using your reasoning the Soviet pull-out from Afghanistan in the 80s was a bad thing, correct? The "terrorists" won that fight, right comrade?
posted by skallas at 8:26 AM on November 14, 2003


When I read this my heart just sank. They really think we're idiots.
posted by Summer at 8:27 AM on November 14, 2003


I dunno. From Summer's link,
A senior Scotland Yard source told The Times: “We are not so concerned about some anti-war protester throwing rotten fruit at the President. Our worry now is the more dangerous elements who may be here.”

That sounds like an invitation to me. I'll bring the tomatoes..
posted by salmacis at 8:37 AM on November 14, 2003


mefi/mefi login for Summer's link.
posted by ginz at 8:40 AM on November 14, 2003


Wow. I don't understand why any nation would go through this much trouble to have a vistor. Thanks for the Times link.

Few people will see Mr Bush, who no longer risks walkabouts or unscheduled stops.

At least he realizes he's pissed enough people off to have to watch his ass.
posted by LouReedsSon at 9:10 AM on November 14, 2003


Wow. Keeping track of the President's movements. What a fiendishly clever way to...to...uh, what exactly is the point? Does it really matter that certain Brits who are unhappy with the U.S. President know exactly where he is as he travels in their country?
posted by davidmsc at 9:20 AM on November 14, 2003


Does it really matter that certain Brits who are unhappy with the U.S. President know exactly where he is as he travels in their country?

In a word, yes. Given that both Tony and Georgie like stacking the deck, by having 'genuine members of the public' in close focus ('take off your ties, chaps') while genuine members of the public are stuck a few miles away, it's only polite to keep the masses informed so that they can mingle with the pre-selected pseudo-proles.

Of course, keeping Bush's itinerary secret is done under the auspices of 'security', but if Dear Tony does try a photo-op with Bush in his Sedgefield constituency, as is rumoured, there might just be a few people from nearby Hartlepool who'll pop along to show their objections to being treated as the US's toxic dumping ground. And we wouldn't want genuine complaints to get in the way of all those nice pre-election publicity shots, would we?
posted by riviera at 9:48 AM on November 14, 2003


Wow. Keeping track of the President's movements.

Exactly. Who cares about that? What gets me is that it seems the English are spending a lot of money and going out of their way to accomodate.
posted by LouReedsSon at 9:49 AM on November 14, 2003


If I were a Briton, I'd be tempted to "text" in false reports. Hell, if I were on Bush's staff, I'd have the same temptation.
posted by kindall at 9:59 AM on November 14, 2003


What a fiendishly clever way to...to...uh, what exactly is the point?

To know where to protest. Are the words in the article to big for you?
posted by badstone at 10:04 AM on November 14, 2003


This island you speak of, grabbingsand - can he be voted off of it?

Chalabi did talk a bunch of shit at Tribal Council, y'know.
posted by trondant at 10:06 AM on November 14, 2003


SKallas: "Bush et al promised WMD and AlQueda terrorist conspiracies and what we got was NO TERRORISTS but a nasty guerilla war consisting of many, many different factions taking pot shots at Americans."

Well gosh darnit those pesky terrorists are just not wearing their colors, are they? I mean the military went with green and tan. I told the terrorists to go order jerseys and padding from a sporting goods store but did they listen to me? Noooo. They can't even agree on what their colors are. I suggested blue and gold cuz that's my school colors from way back when and I've just always loved that combination, but them terrorists all got minds of their own. They said the blood might stain so they were gonna go with red and something, but couldn't agree on the something part, and now they're not even wearing consistent uniforms at all! How can anyone run a decent war when nobody can tell who's on whose side? And they keep making up where the playing field is. You'd think they wouldn't play where the spectators are, cuz people might get hurt, but you just can't buy good umpires these days to keep track of the rules and regulations for terrorist ball. I swear. We need to fire the commissioner. Well actually we'll need to find one first, if he hasn't gotten himself blowned up.

Dude! Terrorists ARE "nasty guerilla fighters consisting of many different factions taking pot shots at Americans" and other Iraqis and anybody who stands between them and what they believe to be what's right. Where you been? I'm not saying we're the good guys here. We're not. There are no good guys anymore, but the terrorists don't have to defeat us militarily. They just have to scare us away, so they can continue with business as usual: the oppression of the Iraqi people.

The real question is: who is oppressing who? Two hundred years ago, the colonists in the New World were considered the equivalent of terrorists to the British army. From our perspective, we were patriots defending our homeland. From the redcoats' perspective, we were terrorists betraying the crown. War's a very subjective thing. Do you brits honestly want to admit we annoying colonists were right after all?

Fast forward back to the present: You think Saddam was bad? Think what is happening now is bad? Yeah maybe a small number of the Iraqi people now fighting alongside the terrorists are sincerely the equivalent of patriots for their homeland, and we honestly can't tell the difference between an Iraqi patriot and an Al Quaeda terrorist or a mercenary paid by some unknown force to gum up the works. However, do you honestly believe if we walked out now, the Iraqi people would then be given control over their own government? Or would the guns remaining that are presently pointed at us just get turned back on to the Iraqi people, where Saddam had them pointed not long ago?

Of course, you can't force democracy on people. The Iraqis have to want it, and have to be willing to risk more than they already have to achieve it. Unfortunately, Shrub didn't bother to learn that while he was smoking grass in one of those ivy league schools.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:11 AM on November 14, 2003


Jonathan Freedland suggests the Whitehouse was the dtriving force behind this visit. (Guardian link)
posted by salmacis at 10:13 AM on November 14, 2003


he real question is: who is oppressing who? Two hundred years ago, the colonists in the New World were considered the equivalent of terrorists to the British army. From our perspective, we were patriots defending our homeland. From the redcoats' perspective, we were terrorists betraying the crown. War's a very subjective thing. Do you brits honestly want to admit we annoying colonists were right after all?

Invalid argument. There was no such country as America until the Europeans arrived. Thus the Europeans can hardly be said to be an invading force, in the way that the Allies are in Iraq. Now if the Native Americans had launched attacks against the Europeans, I think the term "freedom fighters" would have been applicable.

Still, you're still going on about Al Qaeda, when there's no evidence they are operating in Iraq at all. If they are, they certainly weren't before the invasion. The evidence from the CIA is that the number of attacks is increasing, and the number of people involved is increasing. Even the CIA don't believe the attacks are the result of a few disaffected Ba'athists.

America doesn't really want democracy in Iraq. It know as well as I do that as soon as the Iraqis gain proper democracy, they will vote in an Islamist, anti-American government.

Why I'm typing all this, when it has little to do with Bush's visit to Britain I don't know. Suffice to say that I hate the man, and I don't want him here.
posted by salmacis at 10:25 AM on November 14, 2003


Suffice to say that I hate the man, and I don't want him here.

Oh, get over it already.

Waaa Waaa Waaa.
posted by Witty at 10:52 AM on November 14, 2003


Salmacis: "Invalid argument. There was no such country as America until the Europeans arrived."

Your rebuttal is invalid and immaterial. There had been settlers in the colonies that eventually became the eastern seaboard of the USA for well over a century prior to the Revolutionary War. True there was no 'America' yet, but some of the colonists were already born on this soil, and didn't view themselves as subjects of any empire on the other side of the Atlantic. Especially to the younger colonists but in general to anyone who had come to claim the colonies their heart's home, King George was very much an invader, taxing the colonists and then taking the money out of the colonies to fill his own pockets.

"Still, you're still going on about Al Qaeda..."

I so was not. I don't even know if that's the proper spelling for Al Qaeda, so I use the phrase 'terrorist.' Besides Al Qaeda is just one brand of terrorism. I refer to Tide as laundry detergent, cuz I don't always use Tide. I use whatever's on sale.

As for evidence of Al Qaeda, they're not gonna leave a calling card. Besides, it's not just Al Qaeda. There's several terrorist organizations worldwide, few of which think highly of one another. That's like saying there's no charity organization in Anytown X, USA unless someone from The United Way claims there is. Just cuz they don't call themselves Al Qaeda, doesn't mean they're not terrorists. I just love double negatives, don't you?

If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck, chances are it's a duck, but it may not be Daffy Duck. If they use terror, they are terrorists.

"America doesn't really want democracy in Iraq. It know as well as I do that as soon as the Iraqis gain proper democracy, they will vote in an Islamist, anti-American government."

Like I said, the Iraqi people have to want democracy, which means they have to want a separation of church and state because you can't have a democratic gov't without it. They want a man who will pose as their god. They don't want what America's trying to shove down their throats.

"Why I'm typing all this, when it has little to do with Bush's visit to Britain I don't know. Suffice to say that I hate the man, and I don't want him here."

Well. Posting to MeFi is a generally futile endeavor. Not like we can change the world in here.

This has everything to do with Bush's visit to Britain. Blair is forcing the war down British throats just like Bush is forcing it down American throats. However, personally I don't hate Blair and I'm sure he's a great guy with which to down a few Guiness. Like me, he just sees there's no backing down now.

We were supposed to stop Shrub back in the last election. We didn't. I knew he was gonna go to war with somebody back when he was allegedly elected. Nobody ever listens to me.

I hope those who didn't vote last time have learned their lesson, but let's face it: over half the American people don't vote, so apparently WE don't want a democracy either.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:54 AM on November 14, 2003


Everybody I know here in London will be protesting Bush's visit. Several small companies, including me own, are closing for the day, so we can make our views known.

I think the Met are going to be pretty surprised if they really think only 10,000 punters are going to turn out.
posted by influx at 11:03 AM on November 14, 2003


Point to skallas.
Penalty to Zachsmind?

Those battling against an occupation of their land are NOT defiened as terrorists but as insurgents, guerillas, 'freedonm fighters' , patriots, etc. Just not terrorists.

There were no terrorists before the occupation and terror groups currently supporting the Iraqis cannot accurately characterized as terrorists. Fighting an occupation is not part of the definition.

I think that was what skallas was saying. Other than that you make some good points Zack.
posted by nofundy at 11:05 AM on November 14, 2003


'People who kill soldiers are not, at least not by definition, ‘terrorists’. They’re guerillas or insurgents. This isn’t a matter of cutting them slack, but one of precision. And precision is required to know what we’re doing, what we’re trying to do, and how we can get from clarifying what our goals are to finding effective means to pursue their implementation.'
posted by riviera at 11:21 AM on November 14, 2003


The terminology is subjective. A terrorist sees himself as a freedom fighter. To a person losing freedom at the expense of the freedom fighter's actions, he's a terrorist. You're arguing semantics, Nofundy. Objectively, it's all the same, but subjectively it's a matter of opinion.

From the perspective of an Iraqi insurgent, the occupation on the part of America and her partners is an act of terrorism. There were terrorists before the occupation. They were working for Saddam, and were terrorizing anyone who disagreed with his policies. Terror makes no distinction between Al Qaeda and non Al Quaeda, any more than a bomb makes a distinction between Iraqi and American. If an individual or organization is using terror to make their points known? They are a terrorist. There is no distinction between whether or not they're good guys, or which side they happen to be fighting on at the moment.

There are no good guys.
posted by ZachsMind at 11:28 AM on November 14, 2003


As for evidence of Al Qaeda, they're not gonna leave a calling card.

Hey, what ever happened to the days when a terrorist group couldn't wait to take credit for it's madness?

Those battling against an occupation of their land are NOT defiened as terrorists but as insurgents, guerillas, 'freedonm fighters' , patriots, etc. Just not terrorists.

That reminds me of a George Carlin bit:

“Israeli murderers are called commandos, Arab commandos are called terrorists, Contra killers are called freedom fighters…

"…so if crime fighters fight crime, and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?” :)
posted by LouReedsSon at 11:30 AM on November 14, 2003


Dude! Terrorists ARE "nasty guerilla fighters consisting of many different factions taking pot shots at Americans" and other Iraqis and anybody who stands between them and what they believe to be what's right. Where you been?

A terrorist is classically defined as someone who uses military-style guerilla warfare tactics against a civilian population to bring about political change. Using the logic that anyone who doesn't-strap-on-a-uniform-and-march-in-line is a terrorist, one could say that the colonists during the revolutionary war were terrorists. Which is of course, ridiculous.

If the word terrorism keeps getting thrown around the way it is, it's going to lose all of its meaning, and simply become the panacea-language to use when we want to get something done politically.

Objectively, it's all the same, but subjectively it's a matter of opinion.

No it's not. You can use the word terrorist to spice up your rhetoric, and it may work, but it sure as hell doesn't meet the classic definition of a terrorist.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:36 AM on November 14, 2003


Zachsmind: There are no good guys.

Yes fine for the sake of argument lets accept that,but there are lots of bad guys, especially over-opinioned media "pundits" making the point you just made a few posts up - Protesters are helping terrorists. Instead of accepting mass-demonstration as a tool for democracy you decry it AND claim it helps terrorists. If you truly believe that then I have no response, as you are truly fargone.

Not to mention your use of a loaded-term to describe many groups.
posted by skallas at 11:37 AM on November 14, 2003


This is just being done so bush can cling to his "protestors are just a minority" theory.

This post reminds me of Bush's recent stopover in Honolulu. He squeezed into his schedule a big-ticket fundraising dinner at the Hilton in Waikiki. In anticipation of his arrival - Honolulu already warned (on somewhat short notice) of his motorcade's effect on traffic - both supporters and protesters lined the main street fronting the hotel.

They were standing there for nearly an hour past his scheduled arrival time before word broke that his motorcade had taken a private back access road to get onto the Hilton property... and had already left the same way

What really galled me was when the governor, who was riding with the president, was asked by a local TV news crew about the protesters, she said with glee, "Oh, no, on the route we took, there was nothing but smiling faces and aloha..."

Sure, 'cause on the route you took, there were two janitors and a pigeon.
posted by pzarquon at 12:08 PM on November 14, 2003


"you are truly fargone."

I'm far gone? Sure, whatever. I'm not waving guns at people and blowing up buildings to effect political change. Take out the 'shirts versus skins' B.S. here, and it's all the same. Occupier or insurgent makes no diff. Both wave guns & blow up buildings to effect political change. Anyone who uses terror to force their will on others is a terrorist.

Protesting against Shrub's presence in Britain isn't going to stop him from doing what he's doing. Either pick a side or watch the stars go out.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:21 PM on November 14, 2003


According to the American Heritage Dictionary terrorism is defined as: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Gee, given that definition, who are the terrorists in Iraq? Is the US attack on Iraq legal? Before the war there were those that argued that the invasion violated international law. If those people are right is the US engaging in an act of terrorism?
posted by whatever at 12:33 PM on November 14, 2003


Thank you Whatever. I was beginning to think I was the only one in this thread with both a mouth and eyes.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:41 PM on November 14, 2003


The terminology is subjective. A terrorist sees himself as a freedom fighter. To a person losing freedom at the expense of the freedom fighter's actions, he's a terrorist.

So if China invades the U.S. and you decide to resist their invasion, will you concede equal accuracy and validity to their choice to call you a "terrorist" as to your view of yourself as a resistance fighter or guerrilla fighter or whatever similar term you choose?

The fact that different sides use different terms to describe the same groups and activities, based upon their particular bias, does not imply that they have equal validity.
posted by rushmc at 12:55 PM on November 14, 2003


RushMC: "So if China invades the U.S. and you decide to resist their invasion..."

I concede nothing. I also insinuate no level of validity. If anything, I'm saying ALL sides of this battle are wrong, and therefore no one has validity. Validity is irrelevant to absurdity. I don't see violence as a solution to a problem. I see it AS the problem. However, my opinions about war aside, one does not forfeit at the top of the third inning, just cuz the opposing team is playing a little dirty. We gotta see it through to the ninth. Metaphorically speaking. Another metaphor - you can't throw a punch in a bar brawl, and then just stand there like an idiot with the brawl happening around you and expect not to get hit. You gotta fight, and you gotta fight with the goal of ENDING the conflict, not perpetuating it.

I said take sides or stand on the sidelines and watch the stars go out. I stand by America's position. I don't like it. The alternative though, I like far worse. Others appear to be protesting the allied partners position in the war, yet are blind to the fact that the alternative is an Iraqi people with no rights and no voice for their own future. Saddam or worse.

In your scenario, China would see me as a person "waving guns at people and blowing up buildings to effect political change" i.e., a terrorist. Their perspective. I would see them as an invading power. waving guns at people and blowing up buildings to change my livelihood, so they'd be terrorists to me. I would see myself as a freedom fighter. My perspective. Like I said. Perspective is subjective. The definition however is pretty objective. Violence is violence. Terror is terror. A equals A.

I'm not changing the definition of the word. I'm using it as it's defined. Someone who terrorizes is a terrorist. Just as someone who lobbies is a lobbyist. And as someone who protests is a protestist-- ..well a protester actually, but you get the idea.

Protest Bush all you want. Don't pull out of the war. If we pull out now, it won't end here. The line in the sand has been drawn. I want less violence in our future. Not more. Quitting now will increase future violence.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:55 PM on November 14, 2003


Lobbyists are also terrorists, of course.

If we pull out now, it won't end here.

If we don't pull out now, it won't end here.

Quitting now will increase future violence

That's an assumption, or a contention, which may or may not be correct. There are many compelling arguments on both sides of that question, and time will sort them all out. All that is known for certain at this point is that those who put us in this position where no good choices remain should be held accountable for their poor judgement.
posted by rushmc at 2:03 PM on November 14, 2003


What a fiendishly clever way to...to...uh, what exactly is the point?

Badstone: To know where to protest. Are the words in the article to big for you?

No, fuck you very much. It just seems pretty pointless. A large crowd of people who don't like the President -- wow, that'll *really* make a difference! I'm sure that it will influence both Bush & Blair's policies and principles!
posted by davidmsc at 2:36 PM on November 14, 2003


A large crowd of people who don't like the President -- wow, that'll *really* make a difference!

Well, it might, if Jonathan Freedland's GOP source is to be believed:
One Republican source, close to the White House, has a theory as to why the Queen is such an important catch for the image makers. "Look, Americans don't know shit. They're not going to recognise the prime minister of the Philippines. The only foreign leaders they could pick out are the Queen of England and the Pope - and we've already got those pictures." With the Pontiff in the can, the Queen is the co-star the president needs....

If this is the White House's thinking, some UK government officials wonder if they might have blundered. The best pictures from next week may be of a giant Bush statue being toppled, Saddam style, in Trafalgar Square. If rioters on heat, rather than a president on horseback, is the defining image of the visit, won't that be a failure? Not necessarily. So long as the protesters look like the usual suspects - multiply pierced, Genoa-style activists in torn clothes and mohican haircuts - then, I'm told, the White House will not worry. They will be able to say Bush enjoys the global support of all but a few anarchist weirdos. If the demonstrators look like the UK equivalent of America's "soccer moms", regular people of all ages, including plenty of women - tricky to bring out on a weekday - then Washington may have to rethink.

It seems incredible that the White House could breezily decide to use Britain as a backdrop for a glorified ad campaign - and be granted its wish.
The White House has proved itself cynical enough for this sort of partisan motivation to be entirely credible: it's not about influencing policy, either way, but to con an electorate that's sheltered from the outside world by its news media. You'll know when you see the pictures on the news, and know even more if the George and Brenda Show features in next year's GOP convention video. The aim of the protesters will be to show that even though the British armed forces have been whored out by Blair for Republican gain, the country itself won't bend over for Bush.
posted by riviera at 3:07 PM on November 14, 2003


You are joking? This is the same pointless, large crowd of people that will vote the wankers out next time. Or perhaps we should all just stay at home on polling day because, you know, it won't have any influence on Bush & Blair, will it?
(O.P. - What riveria said).
posted by punilux at 3:10 PM on November 14, 2003


the Queen is the co-star the president needs....
posted by homunculus at 3:31 PM on November 14, 2003


UK on second highest terror alert
posted by homunculus at 8:17 PM on November 14, 2003


Ah, democracy. What a pointless load of shit, eh, davidmsc? We're too smart and strong and righteous to countenance any of that messy nonsense!

Our Leaders will tell us what to do, and they're good and strong and fair, because, well, they're our leaders, right?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:51 PM on November 14, 2003


" According to the American Heritage Dictionary terrorism is defined as: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." [emphasis mine.]

Recently anti-GM protestors used a defence against the charge that they damaged property by uprooting crops and chaining themselves to tractors, by saying they doing so to protect the environment against harm, which is a defence available in British law.
Unfortunately that defence only applies when acting against against damaging actions which are themselves illegal. The crops were planted "lawfully" so the protestors defence was judged invalid.

And who is it that defines what is lawful again? Someone remind me.
posted by Blue Stone at 5:45 AM on November 15, 2003


"These are warnings very much for the security services, these are not warnings aimed at the public because there is not a lot the public can do about them."

Thanks for that link h... I'm reading two things here; this threat is a "leak" by the Bush people to get the security they want, or these expected protesters are the real threat and are being told about possible danger so they'll stay away.

Maybe I should stop reading conspiracy theories? :)
posted by LouReedsSon at 7:14 PM on November 15, 2003


"Home Secretary David Blunkett has refused to grant diplomatic immunity to armed American special agents and snipers travelling to Britain as part of President Bush's entourage this week."
posted by homunculus at 8:55 PM on November 15, 2003


« Older Stories of Krishna: The Adventures of a Hindu God...  |  Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) doctors t... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments