G4S and Police are given equal status at Bilderberg

Anti-Terror Zones

When Operation Discuss was launched 18 months ago, it sought to design and implement a completely new tactical concept for the modern police state we now know thanks to Bilderberg 2013… as “anti-terror zones”. 

The transition in language from ‘security zone’ to a much more shrill ‘anti-terror zone’, is a disturbing development however. If the last decade has taught us anything, it’s that once a new security position is put into place, the state will not remove it – even if the real threat level is proven to be not present, but rather, it will continue to build upon it. Beyond all the soothing talk and mitigating rhetoric from behind the government pulpit, this obvious incrementalism is a reality in 2013.

These new public terror directives were also confirmed by the Guardian this week: 

“The same threat of “terrorism” was used to justify the no-pedestrian, no-stopping zones near the venue. The police laid out their logic: they had “no specific intelligence” regarding a terror threat. However, in recent incidents, such as Boston and Woolwich, there had been no intelligence prior to the attack. Therefore the lack of any threat of a terror attack fitted exactly the profile of a terror attack. The lack of a threat was a threat. Welcome to 1984.”

Police terror bylaws for Bilderberg included a series of ‘No Trespassing’ signs around Watford. Incredibly, the outer ring of warning (see image below)  puts corporate security firm G4S on the same legal authority level as the British Police, stipulating that:

“G4S and the Police consider any person who crosses this line to be intent on disrupting, obstructing or intimidating others from going about their lawful business… By Order Chief Inspector Caveney, Hertfordshire Constabulary, June 3, 2013″

The “lawful” business line is of course highly debatable with regards to the dozens of public officials meeting in secret inside at Bilderberg (something Chief Inspector Caveney should maybe consider when approving the legal language of his signage).

Screen shot 2013-06-08 at 14.35.14
PHOTO: The first line of legal defense for G4S and the police, the outer ring ‘no trespassing’ warning at the Grove.

So welcome to 1984 in Watford, back to the future, as it were. A more stringent inner layer of warnings signs could be encountered past the outer ring, which warns that crossing the inner circle could be construed as a type of terrorist act. The legal teeth for this layer of signage has been derived  from the UK government’s Road Traffic Regulation Act of 1984 (Section 22C),which states that:

(1)An order may be made under section 1(1)(a) for the purpose of avoiding or reducing, or reducing the likelihood of, danger connected with terrorism (for which purpose the reference to persons or other traffic using the road shall be treated as including a reference to persons or property on or near the road).

(2)An order may be made under section 1(1)(b) for the purpose of preventing or reducing damage connected with terrorism.An innovative use of vintage terror legislation in the 21st century, even when the police have admitted in public that there was ‘no specific intelligence’ about any terror threat in Watford.

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.