In these days of total cynicism with party politics and its "two-steps-
forward-two-steps-back" motion..... new political parties are seeking
to cash in on our disillusionment.

Perhaps John Lennon's time has come.

Mark Chapman be damned in hell.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op9-D3kdBiw

I'm sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
I've had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope

I'm sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mamas little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now

I've had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, egocentric, paranoiac, prima donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Its money for dope
Money for rope

Ah, I'm sick to death of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

I've had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

=======================================

PS - John was stoned as usual, and he read his own lyrics incorrectly,
singing the word "soap" instead of "hope" on two occasions, rendering
that line of the song meaningless.

What exactly would "a pocketful of soap" signify in 1971 ?

[Mr Spock raises his eyebrows and tilts his head in fascination at the
concept.]

Somehow others are afraid to correct the *usefully stoned* John
Lennon's mistakes, and the lyrics are quoted on the web with that line
transcribed as he sang it in his stoned state - mistakenly and
meaninglessly............

..... just as Hal Wallis was afraid to correct Elvis Presley, hence
the atrocious quality of those best-forgotten films from 1961
onward.....

(Sigh.)

Our fear of correcting John Lennon's and Elvis Presley's mistakes is
indicative of our general condition, and of what is preventing
progress.

Still, that song, with the lyrics corrected, is perhaps the REAL
anthem of our time..........

....the proverbial *Idea Whose Time Has Come* ...?

In these "dumbed down" times, as their brains fill up more and more
with "animal tested" [=untested] poisons, everything has to be spelled
out for them.

"Tricky Dicky" = Richard Nixon, president of USA 1969-74.

As for "Mother Hubbard" ..........................

[Mr Spock raises his eyebrows and tilts his head.]

Two years ago, I moved from a quiet street in the centre of town to a
council estate which (I only discovered afterwards) was a pretty rough
area. I soon became a target of antisocial behaviour from youths in my
neighbourhood.

Because I’m a pretty well-behaved sort, and don’t drive, I’d spent my
whole life until then having no contact whatsoever with the police.
Like most people, I just assumed they were always there for you should
you need their help, and that they’d give you good service if you ever
had to go to them.

But after two years of having to deal with them, as the victim of
crime, I have to say I’m shocked at their behaviour and attitude. What
I find especially surprising is the way they will casually lie to you
to suit their purposes.

Here’s a recent example. I was waiting at my local bus stop when a
teenager started throwing stones at me from across the street, then he
and his mate came over to me and kept intimidating and harassing me
until my bus came.

I knew from previous experience that if I phoned the police, I’d wind
up having to stay at home for two or three days waiting for them to
turn up, so I went to my local police station instead.

I told the man at the counter (I’m pretty sure he was a police
officer, as he had epaulettes on his shirt with numbers on them) that
I’d been assaulted. He asked me what had happened, and I began to say
that a teenager had thrown stones at me, but before I could finish the
sentence, he came in with “Throwing stones isn’t assault”.

I was so taken aback – he said it so confidently – that for a while I
actually thought he must be correct. It was only half an hour later,
when I was making a witness statement, that I realised how ridiculous
his statement was. I mentioned it to the WPC taking the statement, but
she just shrugged.

This has been the pattern of my dealings with the police for the past
two years. I’ve never been a cynical person, but it’s got to the point
where I feel the first thing a policeman thinks when he deals with a
member of the public is ‘are there any useful lies I can tell to save
myself some work?’

And their general attitude dismays me. I certainly don’t expect
deference, but as a respectable law-abiding citizen, with no criminal
record whatsoever, if I go to the police as the victim of a crime,
that’s how I expect to be treated: as a crime victim. Yet so often, I
get the impression that the officer I’m speaking to regards me as
potentially just as much to blame as the antisocial youth I’m
complaining about. In the past two years I’ve been patronised, spoken
to aggressively, made to feel the officer doesn’t believe a word I’m
saying, and treated in such a way that I wind up feeling almost as bad
as the original incident made me feel.

It’s almost as if, somewhere in their training, officers are taught
something like “now remember, when a member of the public reports a
crime and you visit his home, the first thing you have to do is put
him on the defensive – you can do this by being aggressive, or
patronising, or pretending not to believe his story…”

A lot of my friends who have never had to depend on the police for
help are pretty mystified when I tell them of my experiences. I think
they’re still living in that cosy world where they can believe (as I
did) that ‘the police are always there should you ever need them’.

But then, they’ve not needed them yet.

"sam"  wrote in message 
news:e9d1f04c-75f8-40a0-9675-3737532b54b4@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Two years ago, I moved from a quiet street in the centre of town to a
council estate which (I only discovered afterwards) was a pretty rough
area. I soon became a target of antisocial behaviour from youths in my
neighbourhood.

Because I’m a pretty well-behaved sort, and don’t drive, I’d spent my
whole life until then having no contact whatsoever with the police.
Like most people, I just assumed they were always there for you should
you need their help, and that they’d give you good service if you ever
had to go to them.

But after two years of having to deal with them, as the victim of
crime, I have to say I’m shocked at their behaviour and attitude. What
I find especially surprising is the way they will casually lie to you
to suit their purposes.

Here’s a recent example. I was waiting at my local bus stop when a
teenager started throwing stones at me from across the street, then he
and his mate came over to me and kept intimidating and harassing me
until my bus came.

I knew from previous experience that if I phoned the police, I’d wind
up having to stay at home for two or three days waiting for them to
turn up, so I went to my local police station instead.

I told the man at the counter (I’m pretty sure he was a police
officer, as he had epaulettes on his shirt with numbers on them) that
I’d been assaulted. He asked me what had happened, and I began to say
that a teenager had thrown stones at me, but before I could finish the
sentence, he came in with “Throwing stones isn’t assault”.

I was so taken aback – he said it so confidently – that for a while I
actually thought he must be correct. It was only half an hour later,
when I was making a witness statement, that I realised how ridiculous
his statement was. I mentioned it to the WPC taking the statement, but
she just shrugged.

This has been the pattern of my dealings with the police for the past
two years. I’ve never been a cynical person, but it’s got to the point
where I feel the first thing a policeman thinks when he deals with a
member of the public is ‘are there any useful lies I can tell to save
myself some work?’

And their general attitude dismays me. I certainly don’t expect
deference, but as a respectable law-abiding citizen, with no criminal
record whatsoever, if I go to the police as the victim of a crime,
that’s how I expect to be treated: as a crime victim. Yet so often, I
get the impression that the officer I’m speaking to regards me as
potentially just as much to blame as the antisocial youth I’m
complaining about. In the past two years I’ve been patronised, spoken
to aggressively, made to feel the officer doesn’t believe a word I’m
saying, and treated in such a way that I wind up feeling almost as bad
as the original incident made me feel.

It’s almost as if, somewhere in their training, officers are taught
something like “now remember, when a member of the public reports a
crime and you visit his home, the first thing you have to do is put
him on the defensive – you can do this by being aggressive, or
patronising, or pretending not to believe his story…”

A lot of my friends who have never had to depend on the police for
help are pretty mystified when I tell them of my experiences. I think
they’re still living in that cosy world where they can believe (as I
did) that ‘the police are always there should you ever need them’.

But then, they’ve not needed them yet.

Until just over a year ago, when I had to deal with out of control plod, I 
would not have beleived you either.. Now I can relate to you and the above 
text 100% , Plod LIED, The investigating officer at Proffesional standards 
LIED, and the IPCC backed up and supported Lying PLOD- much as they did when 
they couldn't state fast enough that I an Tomlinson had died of 'natural 
causes' .. Now I have an entirely different opinion now, and its Fu** them..

"sam"  wrote in message 
news:e9d1f04c-75f8-40a0-9675-3737532b54b4@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> It’s almost as if, somewhere in their training, officers are taught
> something like “now remember, when a member of the public reports a
> crime and you visit his home, the first thing you have to do is put
> him on the defensive – you can do this by being aggressive, or
> patronising, or pretending not to believe his story…”

They don't care about the public anymore.
They don't do the job they were employed to do.
They are nothing more than a massive drain on this country's resources.
It's high time they were replaced with an organisation that WILL do what 
they are paid to do.

On 11 Aug, 13:22, sam  wrote:

>
> I told the man at the counter (I’m pretty sure he was a police
> officer, as he had epaulettes on his shirt with numbers on them) that
> I’d been assaulted. He asked me what had happened, and I began to say
> that a teenager had thrown stones at me, but before I could finish the
> sentence, he came in with “Throwing stones isn’t assault”.
>
Try tapping a cop with your finger and see if that is assault or not.

What is or isn't against the law all depends on who is doing it and
who is suffering from it. You are obviously not important enough in
the eyes of the police. It is similar with the ramming of cyclists by
drivers. The latter are considered as more important road users by the
police, most of whom are motorists themselves anyway rather than
cyclists.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's Police State.

Doug wrote:
> On 11 Aug, 13:22, sam  wrote:
>
>>
>> I told the man at the counter (I’m pretty sure he was a police
>> officer, as he had epaulettes on his shirt with numbers on them) that
>> I’d been assaulted. He asked me what had happened, and I began to say
>> that a teenager had thrown stones at me, but before I could finish
>> the sentence, he came in with “Throwing stones isn’t assault”.
>>
> Try tapping a cop with your finger and see if that is assault or not.
>
> What is or isn't against the law all depends on who is doing it and
> who is suffering from it. You are obviously not important enough in
> the eyes of the police. It is similar with the ramming of cyclists by
> drivers. The latter are considered as more important road users by the
> police, most of whom are motorists themselves anyway rather than
> cyclists.

since shouting at someone is an assault, I am certain that stone throwing is 
too.

Sam wrote:
> "sam"  wrote in message
> news:e9d1f04c-75f8-40a0-9675-3737532b54b4@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> It's almost as if, somewhere in their training, officers are taught
>> something like "now remember, when a member of the public reports a
>> crime and you visit his home, the first thing you have to do is put
>> him on the defensive - you can do this by being aggressive, or
>> patronising, or pretending not to believe his story."
>
> They don't care about the public anymore.
> They don't do the job they were employed to do.
> They are nothing more than a massive drain on this country's
> resources.

This similarity to MP's struck me a while back now.

Mrcheerful wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> On 11 Aug, 13:22, sam  wrote:
>>
>>> I told the man at the counter (I’m pretty sure he was a police
>>> officer, as he had epaulettes on his shirt with numbers on them) that
>>> I’d been assaulted. He asked me what had happened, and I began to say
>>> that a teenager had thrown stones at me, but before I could finish
>>> the sentence, he came in with “Throwing stones isn’t assault”.
>>>
>> Try tapping a cop with your finger and see if that is assault or not.
>>
>> What is or isn't against the law all depends on who is doing it and
>> who is suffering from it. You are obviously not important enough in
>> the eyes of the police. It is similar with the ramming of cyclists by
>> drivers. The latter are considered as more important road users by the
>> police, most of whom are motorists themselves anyway rather than
>> cyclists.
> 
> since shouting at someone is an assault, I am certain that stone throwing is 
> too. 
> 
Of course it is but the police aren't interested in the law (other than the bits
they abuse) -
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481747/Police-tell-woman-bag-snatched-sorry-thats-crime.html>

-- 
Mike