By Dude Swheatie of Kwug, now resident in Hereford
Today, in trumpeting the biases of the mainstream UK press, the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) summarises today's Daily Mail 'Web giants with blood on their hands' front page:
|Daily Mail, 16 September 2017: "PM to confront web giants with blood on their hands"|
For the 'threat terror level' declared by UK Government to be 'critical' is nothing new. Why though do the BBC etc not broadcast the lowering of the 'threat terror level' that occurs? And what impact does that have on the mainstream public psyche?
Over three months ago, the BBC website reported on "What is the 'critical' terror threat level and what [it means]":(2)
The UK terror threat level has been raised to "critical", following the Manchester Arena bombing which killed 22 people.
This is the highest terror threat level possible and means an attack is "expected imminently".(2)
The announcement of 'critical terror threat' level leads to knee jerk reactionsIt was against that sort of backdrop that on Wednesday 14 June the news came out on televised and Internet news channels, of a blaze that consumed a North Kensington tower block in a matter of hours, before 'Grenfell Tower' became a 'household name' — ie, a label that required no introduction.(3) It was also against that backdrop that the 40 year old woman who accompanied me to my Housing Benefits registration interview in Hereford declared instantly that it was obviously the work of 'Islamic terrorists'.
I had heard however in the early hours of that day in 'live' reporting from the Grenfell Tower site that a Grenfell survivor had reported their neighbours issuing the warning, "My fridge has just exploded! Get out now!" or words to that effect. Indeed, I recalled having heard that a Southwark tower blaze a few years ago had been the result of a faulty Beko fridge component (4) and so I was more skeptical about my companion's 'knee jerk' response that was obviously linked to the post-Manchester bombing raising of terror threat level to 'critical'.
After an enquiry into the cause of Grenfell Fire too, it was confirmed that white goods were yet again to blame.(5) Of course, there is also the fact that the Grenfell Action Group had been campaigning on the matter of fire safety in the Grenfell Tower area since at least 2012.(6) This was despite a five-year London Fire Brigade campaign regarding the safety of white goods.(7) LFB reports:
"Nearly one fire a day in London involves white goods. Most fires caused by these appliances are not down to the owner but by faults beyond the control of the householder." (8)The solution to this problem, the LFB concludes, involves total recall of dodgy white goods.
The solution to the problem of wide availability of information about how to make 'home made bombs', Theresa May and the Daily Mail declare, is to clamp down on 'web giants with blood on their hands' for helping to service Internet searches in responses to queries about how to do terrorism. In that 'solution', I am reminded of the collusion that such 'web giants' engaged in with the Chinese government in order to suppress freedom of information as they 'broke into the Chinese market' as a new territory.
I would argue that it is in their tax dodging practices and resultant denial of support to the UK economy for essential services to vulnerable people that the 'web giants have blood on their hands', and that in reality Theresa May and her crew have raised the threat level to economically vulnerable people from 'severe' under Labour to 'critical'. This fact can currently be gleaned from perusal of such sites as Disability News Service,(9) especially with regard to its coverage of UK Government reneging on its United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities duties.(10) There is also Kate Belgrave | Talking with people dealing with public sector cuts,(11) and Taxpayers Against Poverty.(12)
|Prospective Kwug placard design: T May & Co, State Terrorists|
In conclusion, by colluding with the suppression of information about the State Terrorism that occurs under Theresa May's government, under a State of Theresa May & Co-mandated Internet, 'web giants' really would have 'blood on their hands' through the suppression of such information, just as the BBC's subservience to denial of the statutory abuses to benefit claimants lays the taint of 'blood on their hands' to that establishment.
What legitimate authority does a Government with blood on its hands have to dictate what information should and should not be available on the Internet? Who are they to do the prescribing of truth?