21st Century Wire
This year’s Bilderberg 2013 meeting has witnessed and extraordinary culture of secrecy surrounding the event’s large security operation, at a time when the public are told that austerity is meant to be the order of the day. But that’s not all…
Police officials are maintaining that the reason for such secrecy in advance of the event, and the extraordinary security measures has all been done in order ‘to combat the threat of terrorism’. Some might feel otherwise – that this hugely expensive exercise has been hidden in order to limit the public’s knowledge and access to the Bilderberg meeting, which in turn has helped interested parties in controlling press coverage, and keeping activists from learning too much, too soon about the secretive event.
Now that may not seem like a major revelation to anyone who really follows Bilderberg, but it is significant that the group which has relied so heavily on secrecy over the years has been forced to deploy defensive tactics in order to maintain its shadowy course. This was, after all, Bilderberg’s ‘coming out’ year.
According to 21st Century Wire reports on the ground at Bilderberg this year, in addition to the Hertfordshire Constabulary, police were drafted in from Essex, Bedfordshire and up to six other regions in order to fill out the police operation for the 4 day globalist event in Herfordshire.
We can also reveal now what appears to have been a highly coordinated disinformation campaign which was rolled out through various channels: from Bilderberg, to the media, possibly through law enforcement channels, and even through alternative media channels, keeping everyone guessing in the meantime.
The Chantilly Diversion
One new thing we did learn this week, is that this year’s Bilderberg meeting was not moved from the Westfield Marriot in Chantilly, Virginia to Watford, England. The announcement in the alternative media in February that Bilderberg would be in Virginia looks to be a planned disinfo leak originating out of Bilderberg itself, and it appears to have worked. How do we know this? Because the security planning operation, code-named ”Operation Discuss” taking place in and around the Grove Hotel in Watford actually began 18 months ago, in January 2012.
The trap was sprung, with some leading alternative media outlets running with the ‘Bilderberg in Chantilly’ story – which looks very likely to be the product of a tainted leak coming out of the Bilderberg PR camp.
Interestingly, the UK Column had reported 6 months ago in January 2013, that work leave had been canceled for Hertfordshire police for a period in March which prompted speculation about what was being planned for the public March. Back then, most of the alternative media were believing the meeting would be in Chantilly, so any speculation regarding Hertfordshire would not include a Bilderberg event.
The whole operation should give the public a clear indication of how PR and slight-of-hand disinfo campaigns hatched behind closed doors from inside the Bilderberg camp, are an integral part of any large state-sponsored domestic security operation. In this case, it’s possible that both these subtle, yet effective diversions could have been designed to conceal massive security and build-up in Hertfordshire from the public view in advance – and to hide the spiraling cost from the media at a time when austerity talk was at its peak this past winter.
Do Bilderberg’s PR tentacles stretch into the media as well? It would be naive to think that they do not. Just as with government, a group that powerful and resourceful is easily equipped to do so. Another reason to look at everything twice.
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 non existent, but rather, the state will lumber ahead, continuing 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).
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.
PHOTO: Centuries-old public canal waterways were also included in the security operation.
Who’s paying for Bilderberg security?
Then there’s the issue of funding for the massive ‘anti-terror’ and public order operation to protect Bilderberg. Initial reports last week had the bill at around 2 million GBP, but that figure could higher when all aspects of the operation are accounted for.
Inevitably, questions will be directed, for a while anyway, towards PM David Cameron and Downing Street about who’s picking up the bill for this annual globalist weekend retreat. Cameron himself is reported to have crept into Bilderberg on Friday afternoon, as Downing Street defended his visit to secretive club, claiming it was acceptable because ‘the prime minister will not be accompanied by civil servants’.
Still, question remain about who is paying and how much of it is being funded by the state. A police spokesman told the BBC that police would not disclose its costs “for operational reasons” but revealed conference organisers had agreed to make a contribution:
“[We] will also be seeking funding from other sources to help cover the costs of policing and are in discussion with the Home Office about other funding sources,” a statement read.
Another new bone of contention has also reared its head over this weekend with questions surrounding the presence of private security outfit G4S,who have been inserted on the front line and interfacing with public and press around the Grove Hotel’s fringe, as well as who is actually paying the bill for G4S.
According to the police spokesperson again: “[We] will also be seeking funding from other sources to help cover the costs of policing and are in discussion with the Home Office about other funding sources”.
It turns out that some money may be coming from none other than the Bilderberg Association, a ‘charitable foundation’. Putting aside for one moment why a secret billionaire’s club should need to have a charitable foundation set-up to cover its outgoings (a tax shelter perhaps, or for something else) – it is important for the public to know exactly how much is being paid for by the public purse and how much is being covered by the Bilderberg charity.
Regardless, it’s only right here that as a private and secretive entity, the Bilderbergers should really be covering ALL of the costs for police and security – every penny in fact.
Michael Meacher, a Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton, explained on site during an interview with the UK Column, “They do have to be held to account (…) it is shadow institution to which the rest of us do not have access, but which includes people within the highest rank of the governing structure.”
“The idea they have a charity to fund G4S to keep the people out (of the Grove Hotel) I think is a wicked distortion of what charities are all about”.
Here here. At least one UK elected official was available for comment at Bilderberg this year.