Police not all rotten and must get their house in order

[ilyan]

One spy in Freemasonry described how difficult it was for a high ranking 
regional masons to find someone honest and competent enough to replace him.

Another reported the local Police branch resigning en mass because a 
newly arrived Mason was made Inspector when there was long term local 
fully qualified and overdue for the job who wasnt.

THey are not all rotten.

Ilyan

On 16/01/2011 21:47, Tony Gosling wrote:
>
>
> The Mail on Sunday today (page 8, feature on Mark Kennedy, undercover 
> policeman who has been exposed as such) refers to the National Public 
> Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU).
>
> The paper states that the unit runs a nationwide intelligence data 
> base of political activists.
>
> It goes on: 'The unit comes under the Association of Chief Police 
> Officers (ACPO). I have always regarded ACPO as a chief police 
> officers trade union, so why are they keeping a data base on political 
> activists? In any case what is so wrong with being a political 
> activist that a data base has to be kept on them. Being a political 
> activist is not a crime, or is it?
>
> The way politics is controlled by the corporate (Fascist) cloud, as 
> Robert Francis likes to put it, has essentially consigned democracy 
> and real politics to the dustbin.
>
> Worse still, the feature goes on: '..... the Mail on Sunday has 
> previously reported [NPIOU], is a limited company that sells 
> information from the Police National Computer, among other concerns'.
>
> I would like to know:
>
> 1. What is the legal basis for NPOIU?
>
> 2. What is the democratic basis for NPOIU?
>
> 3. Who can buy data from the Police National Computer and what range 
> of data is available for purchase?
>
> 4. Does the data on the Police National Computer come under the Data 
> Protection Act?
>
> 5. What is ACPO's status and is it a trade union?
>
> 6. Who receives the proceeds from sale of this data?
>
> 7. Doesn't the idea of a police unit being a limited company that can 
> sell data obtained at taxpayer expense (presumably) come under the 
> definition of fascism?
>
>
> Any answers or comments welcome.
>
>
> Dave Davebarnby at aol.com
>
> PS: I have been reading the book (600 plus pages): 'Inside the 
> Brotherhood', it's about Freemasonry. There is a chapter on the police 
> (and judiciary) and although the book is some 20 years old, there is 
> enough on police masonry for concern (I presume nothing much has 
> changed).
>
> When you consider this murky (as MonS puts it) unit and Freemasonry in 
> the police, then the public may have serious reason to be worried, if 
> not terrified.
>
> I wonder what David Cameron knows or thinks about it?
>
>
>