Drone Programme for Real

 Drone Programme for Real

I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

Few of the politicians who so brazenly proclaim the benefits of drones have a real clue how it actually works (and doesn't)

Whenever I read comments by politicians defending the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Predator and Reaper program – aka drones – I wish I could ask them a few questions. I'd start with: "How many women and children have you seen incinerated by a Hellfire missile?" And: "How many men have you seen crawl across a field, trying to make it to the nearest compound for help while bleeding out from severed legs?" Or even more pointedly: "How many soldiers have you seen die on the side of a road in Afghanistan because our ever-so-accurate UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] were unable to detect an IED [improvised explosive device] that awaited their convoy?"

Few of these politicians who so brazenly proclaim the benefits of drones have a real clue of what actually goes on. I, on the other hand, have seen these awful sights first hand.

I knew the names of some of the young soldiers I saw bleed to death on the side of a road. I watched dozens of military-aged males die in Afghanistan, in empty fields, along riversides, and some right outside the compound where their family was waiting for them to return home from the mosque.

The US and British militaries insist that this is an expert program, but it's curious that they feel the need to deliver faulty information, few or no statistics about civilian deaths and twisted technology reports on the capabilities of our UAVs. These specific incidents are not isolated, and the civilian casualty rate has not changed, despite what our defense representatives might like to tell us.

What the public needs to understand is that the video provided by a drone is not usually clear enough to detect someone carrying a weapon, even on a crystal-clear day with limited cloud and perfect light. This makes it incredibly difficult for the best analysts to identify if someone has weapons for sure. One example comes to mind: "The feed is so pixelated, what if it's a shovel, and not a weapon?" I felt this confusion constantly, as did my fellow UAV analysts. We always wonder if we killed the right people, if we endangered the wrong people, if we destroyed an innocent civilian's life all because of a bad image or angle.

It's also important for the public to grasp that there are human beings operating and analysing intelligence these UAVs. I know because I was one of them, and nothing can prepare you for an almost daily routine of flying combat aerial surveillance missions over a war zone. UAV proponents claim that troops who do this kind of work are not affected by observing this combat because they are never directly in danger physically.

But here's the thing: I may not have been on the ground in Afghanistan, but I watched parts of the conflict in great detail on a screen for days on end. I know the feeling you experience when you see someone die. Horrifying barely covers it. And when you are exposed to it over and over again it becomes like a small video, embedded in your head, forever on repeat, causing psychological pain and suffering that many people will hopefully never experience. UAV troops are victim to not only the haunting memories of this work that they carry with them, but also the guilt of always being a little unsure of how accurate their confirmations of weapons or identification of hostile individuals were.

Of course, we are trained to not experience these feelings, and we fight it, and become bitter. Some troops seek help in mental health clinics provided by the military, but we are limited on who we can talk to and where, because of the secrecy of our missions. I find it interesting that the suicide statistics in this career field aren't reported, nor are the data on how many troops working in UAV positions are heavily medicated for depression, sleep disorders and anxiety.

Recently, the Guardian ran a commentary by Britain's secretary of state for defence, Philip Hammond. I wish I could talk to him about the two friends and colleagues I lost, within a year of leaving the military, to suicide. I am sure he has not been notified of that little bit of the secret UAV program, or he would surely take a closer look at the full scope of the program before defending it again.

The UAVs in the Middle East are used as a weapon, not as protection, and as long as our public remains ignorant to this, this serious threat to the sanctity of human life – at home and abroad – will continue.

• Editor's note: Heather Linebaugh does not possess any classified material and has honored her non-disclosure agreement since the time of her discharge.

Source: theguardian

Rendlesham Forest Incident

The Bentwaters UFO Incident
By Nick Pope

December 2010 marked the 30th anniversary of Britain’s best known and most compelling UFO case, known in the UK as the Rendlesham Forest incident, though often referred to by Americans as the Bentwaters incident.  In this article I intend to give an overview of the case, focus on the official Ministry of Defence (MoD) and United States Air Force (USAF) investigations, and then assess some of the theories that have been put forward to explain what happened.
The First Night
In the early hours of 26 December 1980, military personnel at the twin bases of RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge (UK bases operated by the USAF) in Suffolk saw a strange light in Rendlesham Forest, which lies between the two bases.  Acting on the possibility that an aircraft might have crashed, three men were sent out to investigate.  Two of them approached the light and encountered a small, triangular-shaped craft that had landed in a clearing.  Nearby farm animals were going into a frenzy.  One of the security police officers, Jim Penniston, got close enough to touch the side of the object.  He and another of the airmen present, John Burroughs, attached sketches of the craft to the witness statements they subsequently made.  Penniston’s sketch includes strange symbols that he saw on the craft’s hull, which he likened to Egyptian hieroglyphs.
The Second Night
Two nights later, the UFO returned.  The Deputy Base Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Halt, was informed, and together with a small group of men went out into the forest to investigate.  As they progressed, radio communications were subjected to interference and powerful mobile generators (called light-alls) that Halt had brought to illuminate the forest began to cut out.  Despite his initial plan to “debunk” the UFO sighting, Halt and his team then encountered the UFO, which at one point fired beams of light down at his party and – later on – at the Woodbridge facility.  "Here I am, a senior official who routinely denies this sort of thing and diligently works to debunk them, and I'm involved in the middle of something I can't explain", he subsequently commented.
Halt had taken a hand-held tape recorder into the forest with him to document his investigation.  This tape is now in the public domain and one can hear the rising tension in his voice and the voices of his men, as the UFO approaches:
"I see it too ... it's back again ... it's coming this way ... there's no doubt about it ... this is weird ... it looks like an eye winking at you ... it almost burns your eyes ... he's coming toward us now ... now we're observing what appears to be a beam coming down to the ground ... one object still hovering over Woodbridge base ... beaming down".
The MoD Investigation
Charles Halt reported the various incidents to the MoD in a memorandum dated 13th January 1981.  Despite the innocuous title “Unexplained Lights”, the document described the UFO as being “metallic in appearance and triangular in shape ... hovering or on legs”.  In what may have been either a typographical error or a slip of the memory, Halt gave incorrect dates for both sightings, recording each as having taken place a day later than was, in fact, the case.
The MoD’s investigation included an inconclusive search for radar evidence that might have corroborated what was seen, but the error in the dates meant the wrong tapes were checked.  Of far more interest was an assessment of radiation readings that had been taken from the landing site with a Geiger counter.  The readings had peaked in three holes in the ground which formed the shape of an equilateral triangle, which had been found at the spot where the craft landed.  The Defence Intelligence Staff stated that the readings seemed “significantly higher than the average background”.  Their report suggested that the radiation was between seven and eight times what would have been expected for the area concerned.  This official assessment is now in the public domain, as the MoD’s case file on the event was released to author Georgina Bruni and to other UFO researchers in 2001.
The USAF Investigation
In parallel to the MoD investigation, Charles Halt undertook his own inquiry, interviewing Penniston and Burroughs and taking formal statements from them and three other airmen who had been involved in the first night’s activity.  However, some of the USAF witnesses have claimed that other senior officers, including Base Commander Colonel Ted Conrad and Chief of Security Police Major Malcolm Zickler, were undertaking separate investigations.  It is also alleged that the Air Force Office of Special Investigations was involved, along with other unidentified agencies. Shortly after the event, General Gabriel, Commander in Chief, United States Air Forces in Europe, visited the bases and took possession of Charles Halt’s tape recording.  This is confirmed in a document in MoD’s case file, but it is not known if other material relating to the incident was involved or what further action was taken.

Cold Case Review
In 1994 I undertook what police would call a ‘cold case review’ of the Rendlesham Forest incident.  What I found shocked me.  It was soon clear that the original investigation had been fundamentally flawed by procedural errors, delay and poor information-sharing.  The USAF had not cordoned off the landing site, taken soil samples or used a metal detector to search the area.  The incident was not reported to the MoD until nearly three weeks after the events and when it was, the dates in the official USAF report were incorrect.  The USAF didn’t pass the witness statements (including Jim Penniston’s sketch, which would have made it abundantly clear to everyone that a structured craft was involved) to the MoD, nor did they tell MoD until some time later that General Gabriel had been given evidence relating to the case, which had not been passed to MoD.
MoD too had committed errors.  The Defence Intelligence Staff assessment of the radiation levels at the landing site had not been passed to the USAF.  Critically, no follow-up interviews were conducted with Halt or any of the witnesses.  The fact that the USAF had been so slow to report to the MoD may have been a factor here, as the clear implication was that the events were not judged to be of any concern.  In fact, the delay was a consequence of Halt’s uncertainty about how to proceed, given the unprecedented nature of the events.  The person who he needed to ask – the RAF Liaison Officer, Squadron Leader Donald Moreland – was on leave. Most of these failings resulted from confusion about jurisdiction, though my assessment was that both the US and the UK had jurisdiction (jurisdiction can be concurrent – i.e. shared) but that the UK had primacy – i.e. should have led the investigation. In fact, each party thought the other should take (and was taking) the lead.  The MoD view seemed to be that the USAF had matters in hand.  But when the senior USAF officer in the UK, General Robert Bazley, was briefed on the incident by the officer in overall command of the twin bases, Colonel Gordon Williams, he stated “It’s a Brit affair”, on the basis that the incident had occurred off base. It’s well-documented that policy – both in MoD and in the USAF – was to ‘play down’ the UFO phenomenon and the extent of official involvement with the subject.  Therefore, it suited each party to drop the matter, on the assumption that the other had lead responsibility.
The Believers
A number of exotic theories have been suggested in an attempt to explain the Rendlesham Forest incident.  These include extraterrestrial visitation, inter-dimensional activity and even the involvement of time travellers from the future.  Intriguingly, this latter theory has found favour with two of the key witnesses, Jim Penniston and John Burroughs.  Even the ever-cautious Charles Halt, while choosing his words carefully, states “I still have no idea what we saw that night.  It must have been beyond our technology ... I do know one thing, without a doubt: these objects were under intelligent control”.
Exotic theories are put forward on the basis that no conventional explanation seems to satisfactorily explain what occurred.  However, as I know from my own official UFO investigations, when a sighting cannot be explained in conventional terms, it can only ever be legitimately categorised as “unknown”.  Anything else is only a guess.
The Sceptics
A number of theories have been put forward by sceptics, in an attempt to provide a conventional explanation for what happened.  The most serious allegation is that alcohol and/or hallucinogenic drugs had played a part in this.  It would be foolish to suggest that excessive drinking and illegal drug-taking never occurred at Bentwaters and Woodbridge.  However, there is no evidence to suggest any of the witnesses were drunk or had taken illegal drugs.  Moreover, security police and law enforcement personnel are routinely checked for any indications of drink or drugs before going on duty.
Two other suggestions are that the incident was caused by a prank involving a police car with its flashing lights being used to spook personnel on guard duty, or a stolen truck of manure that was set on fire in Rendlesham Forest.  In evidential terms, both theories hang on unsubstantiated claims from a single individual.  There is no evidence that such a prank or a crime ever occurred, let alone evidence that such events – even if they did take place, as claimed – had anything to do with the Rendlesham Forest incident.
Astronomical events such as meteors, fireballs and rocket re-entries have also been proposed, but such events are short-lived and it is very difficult to see how any such events would be compatible with what the witnesses saw and the time period over which their experiences occurred. The best-known sceptical theory is that the witnesses misidentified the Orford Ness lighthouse (or possibly the nearby Shipwash lightship).  This idea was first proposed by local forester Vince Thurkettle, but seems unlikely.  The lighthouse was a well-known local feature and not one likely to confuse the witnesses.  Furthermore, it isn’t visible from most of the locations where the witnesses actually were.  The lighthouse cannot possibly explain Charles Halt’s sighting of a UFO firing beams down at them from above (“lighthouses don’t fly” was his terse response to the suggestion) or hovering over the base at Woodbridge.  Indeed, at one point Halt stated he saw the lighthouse to one side of the UFO – proving that they were not one and the same.  On a personal note, I have filmed in Rendlesham Forest several times for various TV documentaries and news features.  Where the lighthouse is visible from the forest at all, it appears in the distance, as a tiny pinprick of light.

Possible Military Explanations
Two suggestions have been made involving unusual military activity that might explain events.  The first is that the craft was a secret, prototype aircraft or drone, probably

American, but perhaps even Soviet – might the symbols that Jim Penniston saw have been Cyrillic script?  The second theory is that the events were caused by some sort of psyop (psychological operation) where the witnesses were used as ‘guinea pigs’, to see how they would respond to an unusual experience, perhaps involving apparently solid objects being generated by holographic technology – a so-called ‘ghost gun’.
The problem with these theories is that there’s no evidence to support them, either in terms of personal testimony or documentation.  Moreover, if a psyop or a secret US aircraft or drone was responsible, it’s most unlikely that a UFO report would have been sent to the MoD, which might have set all sorts of hares running.  If rumours of a psyop or a secret aircraft/drone were circulating among USAF personnel or among the local population, it might arguably make sense to launch a counter-intelligence operation and ‘rebrand’ the event as a UFO sighting, but there’s no evidence that any such rumours had started.
A Soviet aircraft/drone is a slightly more plausible theory.  This was a time of high international tension and the Bentwaters/Woodbridge bases were two of the most important military facilities in the UK.  Critically, all governments involved would have had good reason for saying nothing, or even developing a cover story.  The Soviets would not admit to having been conducting espionage activity of this sort, while the US and the UK would have been horrified that the UK’s Air Defence Region had been penetrated with such ease and would not wish any knowledge of such a security breach to circulate among junior military personnel (for morale reasons) or to become public knowledge.  But I should stress that this is speculation.  As I say, I am aware of no documentary evidence or personal testimony that would support this interpretation of events.
Rendlesham 30+
On the thirtieth anniversary of these events, some of the witnesses are not coping well.  Some are angry.  Others still show signs of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.  People such as Jim Penniston, John Burroughs and Larry Warren all claim they were let down by the chain of command, which failed to provide proper support after the events.  There are more serious accusations that some witnesses were subjected to interrogations in which threats and drugs were used, perhaps to uncover the truth about what they saw, or perhaps to obscure it.
Some witnesses are calling for Congressional hearings about this and there has even been the suggestion of legal action.  A Facebook group entitled “Justice for the Bentwaters 81st Security Police at Rendlesham Forest 1980” is at the heart of campaigning and as I write this article has nearly 3500 members – a figure that is rising every day.
 While talk of Congressional hearings and legal action may seem far-fetched, the door may have been opened to such an outcome as a result of an extraordinarily frank comment from Charles Halt.  Writing in a chapter of Leslie Kean’s new book UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record, he made the following statement:
 “OSI [Office of Special Investigations] operatives harshly interrogated five young airmen, some of them in shock at the time, who were key witnesses”.
 Halt went on to write:
 “Drugs such as sodium pentothal, often called a “truth serum” when used with some form of brainwashing or hypnosis, were administered during these interrogations, and the whole thing has had damaging, and lasting, effects on the men involved”.
Conclusion
The Rendlesham Forest incident remains unexplained.  This is one of the few things one can say with any degree of certainty about these events.  Theories – whether they are about extraterrestrials, lighthouses, time travellers from the future, burning trucks of manure, psyops, practical jokes or secret prototype drones – are just that: theories; nothing more.
Georgina Bruni once called Rendlesham “Britain’s Roswell”.  She was right, but not just in the sense that she meant it, i.e. in terms of the case being significant and well-known.  Other parallels can be drawn.  New witnesses will emerge, some genuine and some not.  Additional documents may come to light.  New theories will be put forward.  In time, the fortieth anniversary will come; then the fiftieth.  Witnesses will pass on, until eventually, nobody directly involved will remain.  Ultimately, like Roswell, the events will pass from history into legend.
nickpope.net

Autumn Drones

Busy Autumn on Drones Front

By Chris Cole

After a relatively quiet summer, the military use of drones is likely to hit the headlines again this autumn.

UN Drone Investigation to report in October 

Perhaps likely to garner most column inches will be the report of Ben Emmerson,  Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, to the UN General Assembly in New York on 25 October.

In January 2013 Ben Emmerson announced that he was undertaking an investigation into the use of armed drones for targeted killing at the request of several states and in response to what he called “the increasing international concern surrounding the issue of remote targeted killing through the use of UAVs.”  The investigation is focusing on 25 ‘cases studies’ from Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

During the investigation, Mr Emmerson has met with officials from “relevant States” including Pakistan, the US and the UK.  After meeting with US officials Mr Emmerson said he was expecting a  “significant reduction” in US drone strikes, while after meeting with Pakistan officials in March 2013 he put out a very clear statement on the ‘consent’ issue:

    “The position of the Government of Pakistan is quite clear. It does not consent to the use of drones by the United States on its territory and it considers this to be a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. As a matter of international law the US drone campaign in Pakistan is therefore being conducted without the consent of the elected representatives of the people, or the legitimate Government of the State. It involves the use of force on the territory of another State without its consent and is therefore a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty.”

Although not looking at the wider global peace and security implications of the growing use of armed drones, the report will examine the impact of drone strikes on civilians and the human rights and legal consequences of such technology.

Europe, drones and cash carrots

Meanwhile Europe continue to argue over whether to invest billions in developing  their own armed drone industry – and if so which countries will get prime constructor status or secondary supplier status - and  whether in the long run it would be simpler, quicker and cheaper to buy drones ‘off-the-shelf’ from the US or Israel.

The European track record on joint ‘defence’ industry co-operation is poor to say the least and so far initiatives to work jointly on developing a new armed drone are not getting very far.  Due to the delays many European countries now want to buy armed Reaper drones from General Atomics in the US.  However so far only the UK has received Congressional approval  as many in the US Congress believe that proliferation of such technology is not in the US interests.

While this impasse has been ongoing for some time, it is likely things may come to a head this autumn as the US has now signalled it is willingness to export armed Reaper drones, with a sale of Reapers to France receiving Congressional approval in late July.   Italy, German and the Netherlands also want armed Reapers and the sale to France is likely to trigger renewed efforts from them to secure approval this autumn.

If these sales go through it will be even harder for European countries to justify investing billions in developing new armed drones at a time when many key social programmes are being cut.  However the industry is fighting back with Defense News reporting that a “cash carrot” of  €100million ((US $132.7 mil­lion) is to be offered to persuade European governments to ‘invest’ in drones.  Defense News says “ The cash offer, plus an offer of technical assistance, will be made to European defense ministers when they meet in September in the hope that a deal on a common medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) program can be reached during an EU defense summit in December.”

US Review, UK Inquiry

Also this autumn the USAF will be releasing a report revealing its thinking on drone requirements over the next 25 years.  The 100-page RPA Vector Report will look at large themes and reflect on the needs of the US military in regard to the use of unmanned drones over the next quarter of a century.    

The UK Parliamentary Defence Select Committee is also reviewing the use of drones, or as they insist on calling them ‘Remotely Piloted Air Systems (RPAS).  Key questions that the Committee’s Inquiry seeks to address include

    What governance and oversight arrangements are in place for the use of RPAS in the UK and overseas?

    What lessons have been learnt from RPAS operations in Afghanistan, and elsewhere (including present and planned weapons), and how will this enable the future development of doctrine on their use?

    How dependent is the UK RPAS programme on technology, training and operational support from the USA?

    What additional capabilities will the UK seek to develop from now to 2020?

    What ethical and legal issues arise from the use of RPAS?

Campaigning

Meanwhile drone campaigners will also be busy this autumn with many events and protests planned in the US and the Drones Week of Action planned for October in the UK.  Drone campaigners are planning to challenge the drone industry at the DSEI London arms fair and there will be a two-day Information Tribunal hearing in London brought by Drone Wars UK to try to overturn the MoD’s refusal to release more information about UK use of drones in Afghanistan under the Freedom of Information Act.   CodePink are also organising an international Drone Summit in November aimed in part at forming a Global Drones Network.

All-in-all, Autumn 2013 is likely to be a busy time on the drones front.

dronewars.net

Drone Wars UK aims to be a source of information on the growing use of armed drones. As we are based in the UK we will focus on the use of British drones but also include information about armed drones in general.

Drones Week of Action 5 – 12 Oct 2013

The Drone Campaign Network is organising the third annual Week of Action on drones to promote understanding and resistance to the growing use of drones and remote warfare.  The Drones Week  of Action is also part of the International Keep Space for Peace Week.

This year, as billions of pounds are forecast to be spent on drone technology over the coming decade  we are focusing on the economic and human cost of drone warfare.

Please consider organising an event in your area focusing on the use of drones.

This may be

    a public meeting (we can provide speakers – also see below),

    a street stall in your town centre (we can provide resources),

    an awareness raising event  – last year there were walks and cycle rides against drones,

    a protest vigil at a local site connected with the drones wars

    or perhaps a fundraising event to support the on-going campaign against the use of drones.

Drones

 3 Ways That Drone Warfare Is Putting US Lives At Risk

    by Judy Molland

It’s no secret that the Central Intelligence Agency has a drone warfare campaign: the tracking and lethal targeting of Islamist radicals in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. The campaign is estimated to have killed at least 2,000 people, although no one knows exactly how many militants and how many innocent civilians have died. The death tolls are educated guesswork.

But is it making America any safer? While the drone strikes may take out some terrorists, don’t they also create serious risks for the United States?

But first, what do we know about drones?

In a time of cutbacks, Barack Obama has set aside around $5 billion for Predators and Reapers, “drones” in common parlance, signalling their growing importance as a policy instrument. The air force has struggled to supply enough crews for the multiplying hardware.

Here’s how Rory Carroll, writing in The Guardian, describes Holloman air force base in New Mexico, where pilots are trained to operate these planes not from cockpits but from trailers wedged in the sand, at a distance of 8000 miles.

The electronic cavern is dark, save for the glow of consoles, and Lt Col Mike Weaver surveys his apprentice warriors with satisfaction as they project American might halfway around the world. One crew – two young men in flight suits seated before half a dozen screens – prepares to fire missiles from a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) at a boatload of suspected insurgents in Afghanistan. Another crew circles a suspicious bulge by a roadside in Iraq and feeds co-ordinates to ground troops. Another tracks what appears to be a vehicle in Yemen.

Is this the future of US military force? If so, it’s a scary picture.

This year the base at Holloman will graduate 360 crews; each crew consists of a pilot, a sensory operator and sometimes a mission coordinator.

Is all this really keeping America safer? Critics suggest that drone warfare could actually be dangerous for the US.

1. Innocent civilians are murdered

Far from being precisely accurate, the number of civilians being accidentally killed seems to rise daily.

From The Christian Science Monitor:

A new joint study from New York and Stanford Universities, “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma  to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan,” estimates from an analysis of public records that as many as 881 civilians, including 176 children, have been killed since the US covert drone program began.

2.  No one is overseeing the campaign

Although the rules for drone warfare by the US military in a declared war like Afghanistan are clear, when the CIA is using drones for covert purposes in places like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, the extent of the oversight is far less clear.

It is traditionally the US military that wages war on behalf of the country. But what happens when the CIA is waging the wars instead, through drones whose operators may or may not be US military personnel?

London Prepares

I think I'll make this my last post about the Olympics! (For now)

London prepares for the war games

It has not even begun, but a world record has already been set for the London 2012 Olympic games. The games, which begin on July 27, are the most corporatised, militarised and draconian Olympics of all time. Every day there are fresh stories that reveal that, to British Prime Minister David Cameron, the Olympic spirit means giving corporations and governments free reign to do what they like.

These have ranged from the obscene, such as placing high-velocity missiles on people's roofs without permission, to the ridiculous. The July 11 Daily Mail said: “Olympic chiefs have banned all 800 food retailers at the 40 Games venues across Britain from dishing up chips because of 'sponsorship obligations.'”  Olympics sponsor McDonald's, however, has kindly allowed other restaurants to sell chips on the condition they are served with fish. McDonald's has built a 3000 square foot building in the Olympic Park, which will be immediately demolished as soon as the Paralympic Games finish in September. Chicken and chips are not the only thing people will not be able to eat at the Olympics. The Independent said on July 12: “Food must not be in 'excessive amounts' ― yes to sandwiches, no to picnic hampers, which would not fit through the bag scanners anyway. Other banned items include: “Balls, rackets, frisbees or similar objects or projectiles, noisemakers such as hunting horns, air horns, klaxons, drums, vuvuzelas and whistles." Presumably, though, if McDonald's were to distribute a commemorative Olympic vuvuzela, it would be fine.

However, while there was much criticism of China in the lead up to the Beijing games in 2008, the London games are shaping up to be just as draconian, if not more so. The London games, for instance, have banned "any objects or clothing bearing political statements".Supporters of Tibetan independence may not have expected to be able to wave the Tibetan flag at the Beijing games, but they won't be able to at 2012 Olympics either. Flags of countries not participating in the games have been banned (except for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). South Sudanese and Kosovan flags are definitely out as well.

Seamus Milne pointed out in an opinion piece published in the July 12 Brisbane Times: “East London has become lock down London. The Olympics are the focus of Britain's largest security mobilisation since the Second World War. “Soldiers are already on the streets. About 13,500 are being deployed, more than in Afghanistan, along with tens of thousands of police and private security guards. “Drones will patrol the skies over the Olympic park, which is barricaded behind an 18-kilometre electrified fence and guarded with sonic weapons and 55 teams of attack dogs.”
       Games officials have taken steps to be seen to include homeless people.
For instance,300 people who have experienced homelessness were given an open mic showcase at the London 2012 festival.

However, the reality of the Olympics for homeless people has been less than positive. London Mayor Boris Johnson promised to wipe out rough sleeping by the start of the Olympics. But rather than providing cheap public housing, the City of London has used “enforcement measures”. The Argus reported on July 19 last year: “Homeless people are heading to Brighton and Hove to escape a purge of London’s streets ahead of the Olympics.”

BBC.co.uk reported on April 27 on the case of Nigel Beardsley, a homeless man living in a hostel. It said that he was told to move by Westminster City Council as it cleared the streets for the Olympics, or face losing benefits. Beardsley said he was told to move to Torquay with £1000 provided by the council for accommodation. Beardsley went on to say "to be moved out to make the streets clean for the Olympics is a massive insult. London life is all I know. I know very few people here in Devon." Beardsley said he knew of at least five people to whom this also had happened.

Far from what Johnson claims, there has been a huge rise in homelessness in London. An Inside Housing article on June 29 said: The number of people sleeping rough on the streets of London has increased 43 per cent in the last year. Figures released this morning from charity Broadway’s combined homelessness and information network database show the number of rough sleepers rose to 5678 in 2011/12. This was confirmed by Viv, a homeless person who told the website InvisiblePeople.tv: “It's not a lot less, there is more homelessness. But they've moved people into different areas, that's all. All they've done is move people from one area to another, just shifted the homeless … Most of them have gone to Victoria or London bridge.”