I got a new tattoo whilst on holiday in Cornwall
Monday, August 21, 2006
Monday, July 31, 2006
Hezbollocks And Israbies
HezBollocks and IsRabies (26th July 2006)
A Class War Federation statement on the War in Lebanon
Class War is appalled at the carnage that is occurring in the Middle East. We are also disappointed but not surprised at what is being said about it, especially by some "progressive" organisations.
Lebanon is being turned into a grotesque war-games board as the real protagonists - The USA and Iran use their proxies to slug it out.
Neither the Israeli army nor Hezbollah give a flying fuck about 'their' civilians, except as bloody totems to hang in front of the cameras of the world's press in order to justify their own next atrocity.
The left have adopted two approaches.
Firstly, wholesale adoption of the Islamist agenda, cheerleading Hamas or Hezbollah without qualification or criticism. This 'Idiot anti-imperialism', the trademark of today's SWP, says my enemy's enemy is my friend and any criticism of them, no matter how mild, is 'racism, islamophobia, and Zionist pro American warmongering.'
The second approach is slightly more subtle - Hezbollah is fighting back, therefore we must support Hezbollah and the slogan 'we are all Hezbollah' is an act of basic solidarity with those who are fighting back against imperialism - the slogan is compared with the Parisian students who, when Danny Cohn-Bendit was attacked in the bourgeois press as a German Jew, marched through Paris chanting 'nous sommes tout les jiufs allemands!' (we are all German Jews).
This argument is crap - Hezbollah isn't a nationality or a racial epithet, it is a political party/militia, if the slogan really wanted to fit then the SWP should have handed out placards proclaiming 'WE ARE ALL SH'ITE'.
Lebanon has a radical history, albeit one distorted by the chains of Leninist communism, but this has been written out of the Brit left's history books in their rush to embrace Islamo-trottery.
A real working class alternative is desperately needed - one that recognises that there can be no peace whilst borders are drawn by reference to the Torah, and International policy is determined in Washington by consulting the Book of Revelations.
"Israelis living in Tiberuius fund the war, and contribute bodies to the war. It's not true to say they are wholly 'innocent'... "
- that quote is from an otherwise relatively sane leftist, and is a justification for every atrocity against civilians ever. It gives an idea just how much the left loses it when the question of Israel is raised.
The Israeli state oppresses the Palestinians, driving them into the hands of the fanatics of Hamas out of despair at the failure of the secular Palestinian left. In turn the suicide bombers provide for the Israeli state 'proof' of the murderous nature of the Palestinians and drives the Israeli public to support harsher and harsher measures against the 'terrorists'.
This is a self destructive spiral and must be broken.
The Israeli state is not shaken by katyushas or by suicide bombers - it is strengthened by them.
The last real challenge to the Israeli state was the Intifada, mass popular resistance on the streets of the west bank and Gaza, and amongst the 'Israeli Arab' population, this rose up from below from the streets and spread all across the middle east and north Africa as the Arab working class drew inspiration from the bravery of the Palestinian youth, and employed the same tactics to confront their own ruling classes. Inside Israel proper the intifada created real tensions within the army, as soldiers refused to be used to gun down children and sparked a massive peace movement amongst the general population.
The Oslo peace process was designed to derail the intifada and create from the PLO a police force to keep the unruly Palestinians in line.
All the arguments of the left revolve around one state/two state. All happily accept the artificial divisions created in the twentieth century by the very imperialists that they claim to oppose, and all ignore the actual people - Palestinian, Israeli, Lebanese, Druse, Syrian, Egyptian, Jordanian, Bedouin - who live there. Re-jigging the lines on a map will create new oppressions, new grievances and new horrors, and we as revolutionaries should have no part in assisting that.
We should stand shoulder to shoulder with those struggling against the oppressors of the Israeli state and the Palestinian bantustan. We fight against our 'own' rulers who attempt to use this slaughter to their own ends and use measly words 'condemning the violence' whilst writing out the receipts for the latest arms contract.
Any state solution is a continuation of the same bullshit.
No Borders
No States
No Gods
No War but the Class War
A Class War Federation statement on the War in Lebanon
Class War is appalled at the carnage that is occurring in the Middle East. We are also disappointed but not surprised at what is being said about it, especially by some "progressive" organisations.
Lebanon is being turned into a grotesque war-games board as the real protagonists - The USA and Iran use their proxies to slug it out.
Neither the Israeli army nor Hezbollah give a flying fuck about 'their' civilians, except as bloody totems to hang in front of the cameras of the world's press in order to justify their own next atrocity.
The left have adopted two approaches.
Firstly, wholesale adoption of the Islamist agenda, cheerleading Hamas or Hezbollah without qualification or criticism. This 'Idiot anti-imperialism', the trademark of today's SWP, says my enemy's enemy is my friend and any criticism of them, no matter how mild, is 'racism, islamophobia, and Zionist pro American warmongering.'
The second approach is slightly more subtle - Hezbollah is fighting back, therefore we must support Hezbollah and the slogan 'we are all Hezbollah' is an act of basic solidarity with those who are fighting back against imperialism - the slogan is compared with the Parisian students who, when Danny Cohn-Bendit was attacked in the bourgeois press as a German Jew, marched through Paris chanting 'nous sommes tout les jiufs allemands!' (we are all German Jews).
This argument is crap - Hezbollah isn't a nationality or a racial epithet, it is a political party/militia, if the slogan really wanted to fit then the SWP should have handed out placards proclaiming 'WE ARE ALL SH'ITE'.
Lebanon has a radical history, albeit one distorted by the chains of Leninist communism, but this has been written out of the Brit left's history books in their rush to embrace Islamo-trottery.
A real working class alternative is desperately needed - one that recognises that there can be no peace whilst borders are drawn by reference to the Torah, and International policy is determined in Washington by consulting the Book of Revelations.
"Israelis living in Tiberuius fund the war, and contribute bodies to the war. It's not true to say they are wholly 'innocent'... "
- that quote is from an otherwise relatively sane leftist, and is a justification for every atrocity against civilians ever. It gives an idea just how much the left loses it when the question of Israel is raised.
The Israeli state oppresses the Palestinians, driving them into the hands of the fanatics of Hamas out of despair at the failure of the secular Palestinian left. In turn the suicide bombers provide for the Israeli state 'proof' of the murderous nature of the Palestinians and drives the Israeli public to support harsher and harsher measures against the 'terrorists'.
This is a self destructive spiral and must be broken.
The Israeli state is not shaken by katyushas or by suicide bombers - it is strengthened by them.
The last real challenge to the Israeli state was the Intifada, mass popular resistance on the streets of the west bank and Gaza, and amongst the 'Israeli Arab' population, this rose up from below from the streets and spread all across the middle east and north Africa as the Arab working class drew inspiration from the bravery of the Palestinian youth, and employed the same tactics to confront their own ruling classes. Inside Israel proper the intifada created real tensions within the army, as soldiers refused to be used to gun down children and sparked a massive peace movement amongst the general population.
The Oslo peace process was designed to derail the intifada and create from the PLO a police force to keep the unruly Palestinians in line.
All the arguments of the left revolve around one state/two state. All happily accept the artificial divisions created in the twentieth century by the very imperialists that they claim to oppose, and all ignore the actual people - Palestinian, Israeli, Lebanese, Druse, Syrian, Egyptian, Jordanian, Bedouin - who live there. Re-jigging the lines on a map will create new oppressions, new grievances and new horrors, and we as revolutionaries should have no part in assisting that.
We should stand shoulder to shoulder with those struggling against the oppressors of the Israeli state and the Palestinian bantustan. We fight against our 'own' rulers who attempt to use this slaughter to their own ends and use measly words 'condemning the violence' whilst writing out the receipts for the latest arms contract.
Any state solution is a continuation of the same bullshit.
No Borders
No States
No Gods
No War but the Class War
Saturday, July 22, 2006
criminal justice
Currently the police make some two million arrests each year.
In 2003-04 almost one million stop and searches were carried out.
And in England and Wales in 2004;
About quarter of a million police cautions, and nearly 64,000 penalty notices for disorder were issued,
There were more than two million prosecutions, with one and a half million convictions - usually for petty and trivial offences. The rate for television licence evasion conviction was 20 times that for sexual offences, and convictions for minor motoring offences were 18 times greater than for violence against the person,
100,000 prison sentences, 200,000 community sentences and one million fines were imposed.
The Prime Minister has stated that the criminal justice system is 'utterly useless for getting on top of 21st century crime.'
In response, the Home Secretary John Reid announced a 24-point criminal justice package designed to increase punishments and prison populations. In the face of record prison populations, 78,000 and rising, these provisions introduce a further 8,000 prison places and longer sentences. A Labour endorsement of Michael Howard's "prison works" policy.
The key question is, will these proposals reduce crime?
The Crime and Society Foundation (CSF) Report, 'Right for the wrong reasons: Making sense of criminal justice failure,' takes the view that it won't. It's main conclusions are that the reform of the criminal justice system and the reduction of crime are separate issues. Reform of criminal justice should not be confused with reducing crime. The role of the criminal justice system is to regulate certain types of crimes and criminals, not to resolve crime and make a safer society. Crime reduction demands the development of policies very different from those of the criminal justice system.
The report goes on to point out that the majority of the most serious and violent offences never end in successful conviction, and suggests that instead of attempting to increase the conviction rates, the social and economic causes of crime should be addressed. The real crime reduction challenge, it argues, does not lie within the criminal justice system, but social and economic change.
Richard Garside, the report's author, said: "Our levels of crime and victimisation reflect the way that we organise our society, not the relative toughness of our criminal justice system. The way to a safer and lower crime society lies in policies to reduce poverty, challenge sexism, and tackle concentrations of power. The criminal justice system is one of the least effective means of reducing and controlling crime."
Other reports echo the concerns relating to poverty and crime victims.
A previous CSF study revealed that the top 10% richest Britons are now 4% less likely to be murdered than in the early 1980s, but the poorest 10% are 39% more likely to end up as murder victims. It pointed to a link between rising murder rates and young men leaving school in the early 1980s, a time of mass unemployment. Stephen Dorling, the report author, said, 'The poorer the place you live in the more likely you are to be murdered. The rate of murder in Britain can be seen as a marker of social harm.'
The Institute for Public Policy Research reported that the residents of the most deprived areas are 2.5 times more likely to be mugged, and burgled than those living in the least deprived neighbourhoods. 59 per cent of children from ‘On Track’ areas were victims of crime in 2004, with more than 25 per cent of boys and 10 per cent of girls from deprived areas having been physically attacked.
The latest Home Office crime figures reinforce the link between deprivation and crime. In South Yorkshire there was a 35% rise in violent crime from 2004/5 to 2005/6 which contributed to a 16% increase in all crime. (11 of Doncaster's 23 council wards are amongst the 10% most deprived wards in the country).
The criminal justice system is geared to the construction and maintenance of social order. A government view confirmed by Jack Straw, who said that the purpose of the Home Office was to deal with ‘dysfunctional individuals – criminals, asylum seekers, people who do not wish to be subject to social control.’ Little wonder then that politicians look to criminal control mechanisms to tackle social problem, and unsurprising that they fail. It also explains why those ensnared within the criminal justice system are disproportionately from poor, marginalised and excluded populations.
As the Crime and Society Foundation report makes clear, 'if criminal justice tends to regulate rather than resolve social problems, it is likely to entrench rather than address the wider inequalities and imbalances that give rise to such problems.'
In 2003-04 almost one million stop and searches were carried out.
And in England and Wales in 2004;
About quarter of a million police cautions, and nearly 64,000 penalty notices for disorder were issued,
There were more than two million prosecutions, with one and a half million convictions - usually for petty and trivial offences. The rate for television licence evasion conviction was 20 times that for sexual offences, and convictions for minor motoring offences were 18 times greater than for violence against the person,
100,000 prison sentences, 200,000 community sentences and one million fines were imposed.
The Prime Minister has stated that the criminal justice system is 'utterly useless for getting on top of 21st century crime.'
In response, the Home Secretary John Reid announced a 24-point criminal justice package designed to increase punishments and prison populations. In the face of record prison populations, 78,000 and rising, these provisions introduce a further 8,000 prison places and longer sentences. A Labour endorsement of Michael Howard's "prison works" policy.
The key question is, will these proposals reduce crime?
The Crime and Society Foundation (CSF) Report, 'Right for the wrong reasons: Making sense of criminal justice failure,' takes the view that it won't. It's main conclusions are that the reform of the criminal justice system and the reduction of crime are separate issues. Reform of criminal justice should not be confused with reducing crime. The role of the criminal justice system is to regulate certain types of crimes and criminals, not to resolve crime and make a safer society. Crime reduction demands the development of policies very different from those of the criminal justice system.
The report goes on to point out that the majority of the most serious and violent offences never end in successful conviction, and suggests that instead of attempting to increase the conviction rates, the social and economic causes of crime should be addressed. The real crime reduction challenge, it argues, does not lie within the criminal justice system, but social and economic change.
Richard Garside, the report's author, said: "Our levels of crime and victimisation reflect the way that we organise our society, not the relative toughness of our criminal justice system. The way to a safer and lower crime society lies in policies to reduce poverty, challenge sexism, and tackle concentrations of power. The criminal justice system is one of the least effective means of reducing and controlling crime."
Other reports echo the concerns relating to poverty and crime victims.
A previous CSF study revealed that the top 10% richest Britons are now 4% less likely to be murdered than in the early 1980s, but the poorest 10% are 39% more likely to end up as murder victims. It pointed to a link between rising murder rates and young men leaving school in the early 1980s, a time of mass unemployment. Stephen Dorling, the report author, said, 'The poorer the place you live in the more likely you are to be murdered. The rate of murder in Britain can be seen as a marker of social harm.'
The Institute for Public Policy Research reported that the residents of the most deprived areas are 2.5 times more likely to be mugged, and burgled than those living in the least deprived neighbourhoods. 59 per cent of children from ‘On Track’ areas were victims of crime in 2004, with more than 25 per cent of boys and 10 per cent of girls from deprived areas having been physically attacked.
The latest Home Office crime figures reinforce the link between deprivation and crime. In South Yorkshire there was a 35% rise in violent crime from 2004/5 to 2005/6 which contributed to a 16% increase in all crime. (11 of Doncaster's 23 council wards are amongst the 10% most deprived wards in the country).
The criminal justice system is geared to the construction and maintenance of social order. A government view confirmed by Jack Straw, who said that the purpose of the Home Office was to deal with ‘dysfunctional individuals – criminals, asylum seekers, people who do not wish to be subject to social control.’ Little wonder then that politicians look to criminal control mechanisms to tackle social problem, and unsurprising that they fail. It also explains why those ensnared within the criminal justice system are disproportionately from poor, marginalised and excluded populations.
As the Crime and Society Foundation report makes clear, 'if criminal justice tends to regulate rather than resolve social problems, it is likely to entrench rather than address the wider inequalities and imbalances that give rise to such problems.'
Friday, July 14, 2006
Discussing discrimination
the following two posts have been shamelessly lifted from fellow CWer pauls blog, http://www.paulstott.typepad.com/
Following Peter Tatchell's speech (see below) there was a detailed discussion around discrimination, and in particular about how the left (and in particular the largest group on the UK left, the SWP) have tied themselves up in knots on the issue. Below I attempt to summarise debate, whilst making one or two comments of my own.
Several speakers pointed to the historical absurdity of the SWP, as a supposedly left wing organisation, getting into bed with Islamists. Maziar Behrooz has already documented the fate of the Iranian leftists who worked with Islamic organisations in Iran both pre and post the 1979 Islamic revolution - they were murdered, imprisoned or exiled as soon as the Islamists were securely in power.
A German comrade argued that the British left is too obsessed with "theories of imperialism" and so constantly finds the need to position itself according to what the US/UK governments are doing internationally. Whilst this has value, it was also pointed out that in the past the SWP's line of "Neither Washington Nor Moscow" was alot more credible than its current "Don't Attack Iran" - what is wrong, say, with "Neither Washington Nor Iran". I suspect however that my preferred line of "Neither Islam Nor Capital" would be a bit too strong for them!
Party TimeWhilst the "love-in" with Iran contradicts elements of the SWPs own history (one CPGB speaker made the point they said very different things on Iran in the early 80s to now) historically it is not particuarly perverse. The old CPGB managed to (wrongly) support the USSR and its satellites. In 1914 countless European socialists abandoned their principles to line up behind the first world war. The left is capable of huge blindspots when it comes to governments, particularly other peoples governments!
Being a CPGB meeting, several speakers took the opportunity to stress the need for a workers party, and that socialism comes through socialist organisations. Here I disagree - socialism, if it does come, will come through the working class, not political parties. This obsession with organisation and party permanently ties the CPGB to the trapeze act of constantly criticising the SWP, but wanting to be in their various fronts - Respect, Socialist Alliance etc - at the same time. Just as some people will stay in the Labour party no matter how far it moves to the right, some will forever shadow the SWP, no matter how absurd its behaviour.
Stating The Obvious? One interesting debate that flared was over censorship. Tatchell believes in using the law against those who incite violence or murder - a current concern is the lyrics of certain Jamaican musicians and their comments about killing homosexuals. He believes the state can and indeed must be pressed into protecting those who are victimised. Here both the anarchists and the CPGB members present disagreed, citing the dangers of giving the state more power. Indeed this applies to other sections of the establishment - calling on banks to shut down the BNPs bank accounts may have been a 'success', but the end result was the Alliance and Leicester also closing the Palestine Solidarity Campaign group's bank account. I do not believe the law and the state are the answers to our problems.
Debate closed about 7pm, and all still present adjourned to a nearby pub.
As an attack on Iran by the US/UK is likely, these issues will continue to be of importance. Should the US/UK decide that invading Iraq and occupying large parts of Afghanistan is quite enough for now, how we address issues around freedom of speech, using or not using the law, plus responding to repression in the Muslim world will remain as debates we must have.
Peter Tatchell On Discrimination
I used to dislike Peter Tatchell. I found him shrill and moralising, and thought "outing" counter-productive. Somewhere along the line though I changed my mind - a man who can pounce on Mike Tyson outside his gym in Memphis, denounce him as homophobic and actually convince him to state otherwise clearly has something going for him. Tatchell has principles, and actually believes in people working toghether to make the world a better place.
On 10 July I saw Tatchell speak on "Discrimination and the SWP" as part of the Marxism Fringe organised by the CPGB. Tatchell spoke for a good 45 minutes, which was followed by a similar length discussion. His basic position is that "the left" lacks any plan or strategy, and is instead reactive to events. Lacking relative, international values to unite around, single issue campaigns dominate. Traditional values have been abandoned - there has been next to no solidarity with imprisoned trades union leaders in Iran for example, yet massive worldwide agitation is being planned should the US attack or invade the Islamic republic.
The largest of the single issue campaigns recently has been the anti-war movement. Deeply unpleasant bedfellows have emerged - a representative of the Iraqi Al-Sadr Brigade spoke at the last major Stop The War Coalition march, whilst CND recently hosted the Iranian ambassador. At the SWP's Marxism 2006, the closing rally featured a speaker from the Muslim Brotherhood. The reactionary nature of all these characters can hardly be disputed - these are people and organisations with a long history of attacking trades unions, women and anyone else who does not fit into their narrow religious view of the world. Peter Tatchell sees this as opportunistic and unprincipled.
He is right.
Following Peter Tatchell's speech (see below) there was a detailed discussion around discrimination, and in particular about how the left (and in particular the largest group on the UK left, the SWP) have tied themselves up in knots on the issue. Below I attempt to summarise debate, whilst making one or two comments of my own.
Several speakers pointed to the historical absurdity of the SWP, as a supposedly left wing organisation, getting into bed with Islamists. Maziar Behrooz has already documented the fate of the Iranian leftists who worked with Islamic organisations in Iran both pre and post the 1979 Islamic revolution - they were murdered, imprisoned or exiled as soon as the Islamists were securely in power.
A German comrade argued that the British left is too obsessed with "theories of imperialism" and so constantly finds the need to position itself according to what the US/UK governments are doing internationally. Whilst this has value, it was also pointed out that in the past the SWP's line of "Neither Washington Nor Moscow" was alot more credible than its current "Don't Attack Iran" - what is wrong, say, with "Neither Washington Nor Iran". I suspect however that my preferred line of "Neither Islam Nor Capital" would be a bit too strong for them!
Party TimeWhilst the "love-in" with Iran contradicts elements of the SWPs own history (one CPGB speaker made the point they said very different things on Iran in the early 80s to now) historically it is not particuarly perverse. The old CPGB managed to (wrongly) support the USSR and its satellites. In 1914 countless European socialists abandoned their principles to line up behind the first world war. The left is capable of huge blindspots when it comes to governments, particularly other peoples governments!
Being a CPGB meeting, several speakers took the opportunity to stress the need for a workers party, and that socialism comes through socialist organisations. Here I disagree - socialism, if it does come, will come through the working class, not political parties. This obsession with organisation and party permanently ties the CPGB to the trapeze act of constantly criticising the SWP, but wanting to be in their various fronts - Respect, Socialist Alliance etc - at the same time. Just as some people will stay in the Labour party no matter how far it moves to the right, some will forever shadow the SWP, no matter how absurd its behaviour.
Stating The Obvious? One interesting debate that flared was over censorship. Tatchell believes in using the law against those who incite violence or murder - a current concern is the lyrics of certain Jamaican musicians and their comments about killing homosexuals. He believes the state can and indeed must be pressed into protecting those who are victimised. Here both the anarchists and the CPGB members present disagreed, citing the dangers of giving the state more power. Indeed this applies to other sections of the establishment - calling on banks to shut down the BNPs bank accounts may have been a 'success', but the end result was the Alliance and Leicester also closing the Palestine Solidarity Campaign group's bank account. I do not believe the law and the state are the answers to our problems.
Debate closed about 7pm, and all still present adjourned to a nearby pub.
As an attack on Iran by the US/UK is likely, these issues will continue to be of importance. Should the US/UK decide that invading Iraq and occupying large parts of Afghanistan is quite enough for now, how we address issues around freedom of speech, using or not using the law, plus responding to repression in the Muslim world will remain as debates we must have.
Peter Tatchell On Discrimination
I used to dislike Peter Tatchell. I found him shrill and moralising, and thought "outing" counter-productive. Somewhere along the line though I changed my mind - a man who can pounce on Mike Tyson outside his gym in Memphis, denounce him as homophobic and actually convince him to state otherwise clearly has something going for him. Tatchell has principles, and actually believes in people working toghether to make the world a better place.
On 10 July I saw Tatchell speak on "Discrimination and the SWP" as part of the Marxism Fringe organised by the CPGB. Tatchell spoke for a good 45 minutes, which was followed by a similar length discussion. His basic position is that "the left" lacks any plan or strategy, and is instead reactive to events. Lacking relative, international values to unite around, single issue campaigns dominate. Traditional values have been abandoned - there has been next to no solidarity with imprisoned trades union leaders in Iran for example, yet massive worldwide agitation is being planned should the US attack or invade the Islamic republic.
The largest of the single issue campaigns recently has been the anti-war movement. Deeply unpleasant bedfellows have emerged - a representative of the Iraqi Al-Sadr Brigade spoke at the last major Stop The War Coalition march, whilst CND recently hosted the Iranian ambassador. At the SWP's Marxism 2006, the closing rally featured a speaker from the Muslim Brotherhood. The reactionary nature of all these characters can hardly be disputed - these are people and organisations with a long history of attacking trades unions, women and anyone else who does not fit into their narrow religious view of the world. Peter Tatchell sees this as opportunistic and unprincipled.
He is right.
Monday, June 19, 2006
A Missed Opportunity
Parasites on Parade
Anybody unlucky enough to have turned on the Telly too early for the footie yesterday would have had to endure the spectacle of the 'celebrations' of Bett Windsors OFFICIAL* birthday
Part of the finale of this charade was the foie de joie, in which the massed ranks of the tin soldiers alternated singing the national anthem with setting off massed volleys from their automatic rifles.
Ninety soldiers, Ninety rifles, three rounds each,
One Hundred And Eighty rounds in total! 
And NOT ONE LIVE BULLET!
What a criminal waste
* Monarchs have birthdays like hobbits have breakfasts- one is never enough!
AIM BETTER YOU BASTARDS!
Sunday, June 18, 2006
thanks sir
AC Hayman CBE looking remorseful - he went on a police media training course to learn how to do it.
'Thank you for my CBE, I fully deserve it for all my police service in protecting the public, but it should have been a knighthood. And by the way, sorry for letting my trigger happy goons shoot whomsoever they feel like. But hey, what you gonna to do?'
Catch the Piglet
Ian Blair congratulates his Deputy on his awardAssistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, Ian Blair's right hand Mutt in charge of counter terrorism, and the man behind the police murder of Jean Charles De Menezes, and the Forest Gate fiasco has received a CBE in Betty's birthday honours list.
This is despite his distinctly sweaty appearance on the TV last week apologising to the occupants of the two houses that 250 Brave Boys in blue stormed two weeks ago in a blaze of publicity (and 9mm automatics), for "the hurt that we may have caused."
Well a bullet through the shoulder does tend to offend.
The BBC were quick to point out that the award was for Andy's handling of the 7/7 attacks, and not in any way connected to either Forest Gate or the Murder of Jean Charles, AC Hayman's part in which is still being investigated.
So having totally failed to protect Londoners from one terrorist assault, and then having gunned down one innocent on his way to work and then another in his pyjamas the man responsible is rewarded with a medal.
Is any one else reminded of Dick Dastardly's faithful sidekick Mutley and his constant hunger for medals?
Mutley, you snickering, floppy eared hound.
When courage is needed, you’re never around.
Those medals you wear on your moth-eaten chest
Should be there for bungling at which you are best.
So, stop that pigeon
Stop that pigeon (6x)
How!?
Nab him. Jab him. Tab him. Grab him.
Stop that pigeon now
Dastardly & Mutley in their Flying Machine
by Joseph Barbera & William Hanna
Sunday, June 04, 2006
The da Vinci code
Yet again, the actions of religious extremists are making headlines. Yet again, religious types are crying blasphemy. The latest mote in god’s eye is the big screen adaptation of Dan Brown’s bestselling pseudo-religious whodunit, The da Vinci code. Even the usually mild-mannered archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams has joined in, using his easter sunday sermon as a platform to condemn the book and the film for encouraging people to treat christianity as “a series of conspiracies and cover-ups.” While the church of england is able only to utter a fairly meek squeak of indignation, elsewhere in the world protests have been far more vociferous. There have been prayer vigils outside cinemas, two councillors in Italy publicly burnt copies of the book and various spokesmen from the Vatican itself have condemned it, with Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone describing it as “a sack full of lies.” Dan Brown is no doubt thankful that christians no longer burn heretics, and is no doubt equally grateful for the effect that all this free publicity will be having on his bank balance. The popularity of the book, which sold 60 million copies, always guaranteed that the film would make money, but, thanks to the faithful keeping the controversy going, The da Vinci code took a whopping £119 million at box offices on its opening weekend.
Frankly, finding out what the controversy is all about is just about the only reason to go and see the film. The da Vinci code clocks in at a bum-numbing 2 hours and 50 minutes long and is really rather tedious throughout. I found the experience akin to being stuck listening to someone who thinks that they are far more intelligent and interesting than they actually are, and is desperate for you to share their inflated opinion of themselves.
The plot itself is fairly standard fare. A man is murdered to protect a secret, and the protagonists get caught up trying to find out who murdered him and what secret he was protecting. In keeping with the worst examples of the genre, the murder victim manages to leave a series of elaborate riddles, while he is bleeding to death, for his granddaughter, played by Audrey Tautou and a expert in ‘symbology’ played by Tom Hanks, to solve. Credibility is tortured still further by a series of plot twists which are alternately so predictable you can see them a mile off, or so implausible that they qualify as deus ex machina.
Equally disappointing is the sheer amount of squandered talent. Tom Hanks and director Ron Howard have both made their fair share of stodgy films, but it takes a special knack to create such a lasklustre film featuring beautiful backdrops in Paris and London and starring the luminous Audrey Tautou, and the equally talented Jean Reno and Albert Molino. Even proficient performances by Paul Bettany as a sinister albino monk and an eccentric, camp, english knight played by eccentric, camp, english knight, Sir Ian McKellen, fail to rescue the film.
Of course, the popularity of the film and the book is arguably less to do with its artistic merit and more to do with the ‘controversial’ ideas contained within. I am sure I will not be spoiling the plot for those who have not yet discovered the joys of Dan Brown if I reveal that the central conceit is that Jesus married Mary Magdelene and had children, and that this secret has been protected by the Priory of Sion and the Knights Templar, who are opposed by the (real world) ultra-orthodox catholic sect Opus Dei who wish to wipe out all traces of this heresy. The clues are apparently all there in the works of Leonardo da Vinci (sigh).
Conspiracy theories are always popular, and the catholic church is a particularly fertile topic for conspiracy theorists: it is incredibly powerful, authoritarian and secretive, and through its reactionary dogma and the actions of some of its followers it has managed to upset an awful lot of people over the years. Iconoclasm and blasphemy are usually both fun and worthwhile, but The da Vinci code’s attacks on the catholic church seem rather clumsy. Not that it does not deserve it, but criticising catholicism for being a bit dodgy is rather like criticising George Bush for being a bit of an idiot: far too easy to be overly entertaining or subversive. The conspiracy theories that Dan Brown has reheated and served up as pop-fiction have been around for a very long time and frankly, are getting tired, not least because since the book of The da Vinci code was released in 2003 there has been an overabundance of related books and television and radio programmes that have jumped on the bandwagon. The appetite of a significant number of people for this fairly uninspiring conspiracy theory seems undiminished though.
The various church leaders that have got themselves in a tizzy over The da Vinci code seem to think that its popularity is indicative of the waning influence of christianity.
More than one commentator has quoted G K Chesterton’s adage that “once people stop believing in god, they do not believe in nothing, they believe in anything.” The sentiment expressed is an arrogant underestimation of the credulity of non-believers, with the subtext that we would all be better off believing what we are told to believe. However, it is true that while, certainly in western europe, the influence of organised religion is on the decline, the reasons behind religious belief remain and simply find new expressions. We are still products of an irrational society, and one which is confusing and where we as individuals have very little power. This is fertile breeding ground for belief structures that reassure us by offering a neatly packaged version of reality and meaning to subscribe to. Conventional religions such as christianity have not been able to evolve quick enough to continue to meet our needs as society has evolved, and so people turn to alternatives, whether it is a pick and mix approach to spirituality, incorporating aliens, or ghosts or crystals, or belief in conspiracy theories, or any number of other options. None of us is entirely immune to this impulse towards irrational beliefs, because we are all products of this irrational society. The left for example is certainly not immune to influences of the tinfoil hat brigade. There are those who consider themselves part of the left who believe that 9-11 was an inside job, or that the jewish community controls the world. The cpgb has itself routinely been the target of various rumours, some of which have the potential to be deeply harmful if anyone believes the deluded individuals that promote them. This is not to say that all fans of Dan Brown believe the conspiracy theories contained in his books, because undoubtedly most do not, but the attraction of such beliefs does perhaps suggest a part of the appeal of The da Vinci code.
There is then a certain irony that the key participants in the controversy over The da Vinci code are both promoting irrational beliefs while criticising their ideological rivals for their irrationality. Personally the person I feel sorriest for, more so even than myself for having to sit through the film, is Leonardo da Vinci. All reliable evidence would suggest that da Vinci was a man who, far from being part of a superstitious and clandestine sect, was an exemplar of the rigorous and enquiring approach that is the source of rationality.
An edited version of this review can also be read in the communist party of great britain's paper, the weekly worker, which is available online at: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/627/da%20vinci.htm
Frankly, finding out what the controversy is all about is just about the only reason to go and see the film. The da Vinci code clocks in at a bum-numbing 2 hours and 50 minutes long and is really rather tedious throughout. I found the experience akin to being stuck listening to someone who thinks that they are far more intelligent and interesting than they actually are, and is desperate for you to share their inflated opinion of themselves.
The plot itself is fairly standard fare. A man is murdered to protect a secret, and the protagonists get caught up trying to find out who murdered him and what secret he was protecting. In keeping with the worst examples of the genre, the murder victim manages to leave a series of elaborate riddles, while he is bleeding to death, for his granddaughter, played by Audrey Tautou and a expert in ‘symbology’ played by Tom Hanks, to solve. Credibility is tortured still further by a series of plot twists which are alternately so predictable you can see them a mile off, or so implausible that they qualify as deus ex machina.
Equally disappointing is the sheer amount of squandered talent. Tom Hanks and director Ron Howard have both made their fair share of stodgy films, but it takes a special knack to create such a lasklustre film featuring beautiful backdrops in Paris and London and starring the luminous Audrey Tautou, and the equally talented Jean Reno and Albert Molino. Even proficient performances by Paul Bettany as a sinister albino monk and an eccentric, camp, english knight played by eccentric, camp, english knight, Sir Ian McKellen, fail to rescue the film.
Of course, the popularity of the film and the book is arguably less to do with its artistic merit and more to do with the ‘controversial’ ideas contained within. I am sure I will not be spoiling the plot for those who have not yet discovered the joys of Dan Brown if I reveal that the central conceit is that Jesus married Mary Magdelene and had children, and that this secret has been protected by the Priory of Sion and the Knights Templar, who are opposed by the (real world) ultra-orthodox catholic sect Opus Dei who wish to wipe out all traces of this heresy. The clues are apparently all there in the works of Leonardo da Vinci (sigh).
Conspiracy theories are always popular, and the catholic church is a particularly fertile topic for conspiracy theorists: it is incredibly powerful, authoritarian and secretive, and through its reactionary dogma and the actions of some of its followers it has managed to upset an awful lot of people over the years. Iconoclasm and blasphemy are usually both fun and worthwhile, but The da Vinci code’s attacks on the catholic church seem rather clumsy. Not that it does not deserve it, but criticising catholicism for being a bit dodgy is rather like criticising George Bush for being a bit of an idiot: far too easy to be overly entertaining or subversive. The conspiracy theories that Dan Brown has reheated and served up as pop-fiction have been around for a very long time and frankly, are getting tired, not least because since the book of The da Vinci code was released in 2003 there has been an overabundance of related books and television and radio programmes that have jumped on the bandwagon. The appetite of a significant number of people for this fairly uninspiring conspiracy theory seems undiminished though.
The various church leaders that have got themselves in a tizzy over The da Vinci code seem to think that its popularity is indicative of the waning influence of christianity.
More than one commentator has quoted G K Chesterton’s adage that “once people stop believing in god, they do not believe in nothing, they believe in anything.” The sentiment expressed is an arrogant underestimation of the credulity of non-believers, with the subtext that we would all be better off believing what we are told to believe. However, it is true that while, certainly in western europe, the influence of organised religion is on the decline, the reasons behind religious belief remain and simply find new expressions. We are still products of an irrational society, and one which is confusing and where we as individuals have very little power. This is fertile breeding ground for belief structures that reassure us by offering a neatly packaged version of reality and meaning to subscribe to. Conventional religions such as christianity have not been able to evolve quick enough to continue to meet our needs as society has evolved, and so people turn to alternatives, whether it is a pick and mix approach to spirituality, incorporating aliens, or ghosts or crystals, or belief in conspiracy theories, or any number of other options. None of us is entirely immune to this impulse towards irrational beliefs, because we are all products of this irrational society. The left for example is certainly not immune to influences of the tinfoil hat brigade. There are those who consider themselves part of the left who believe that 9-11 was an inside job, or that the jewish community controls the world. The cpgb has itself routinely been the target of various rumours, some of which have the potential to be deeply harmful if anyone believes the deluded individuals that promote them. This is not to say that all fans of Dan Brown believe the conspiracy theories contained in his books, because undoubtedly most do not, but the attraction of such beliefs does perhaps suggest a part of the appeal of The da Vinci code.
There is then a certain irony that the key participants in the controversy over The da Vinci code are both promoting irrational beliefs while criticising their ideological rivals for their irrationality. Personally the person I feel sorriest for, more so even than myself for having to sit through the film, is Leonardo da Vinci. All reliable evidence would suggest that da Vinci was a man who, far from being part of a superstitious and clandestine sect, was an exemplar of the rigorous and enquiring approach that is the source of rationality.
An edited version of this review can also be read in the communist party of great britain's paper, the weekly worker, which is available online at: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/627/da%20vinci.htm
Dr Who
BBC1, Saturday May 13 Doctor who: rise of the cybermen
BBC1, Saturday May 20 Doctor who: the age of steel
Five episodes in to the second series of the new Doctor who, and it is still going from strength to strength. The series is consistently pulling in viewing figures of over 7 million, the cybermen are on the front cover of the Radio times and reviews of each episode have become a staple fixture in every newspaper and magazine from the Times to the News of the world (whose reviewer Ian Hyland offers the incisive criticism that the cybermen are “a bit gay”). Most significantly, the show has become an accepted topic of conversation in pubs, workplaces and school playgrounds. The shows success is a pleasant surprise. Although I was never much of a whovian (I was rather young when the show was cancelled in 1989, when it was already somewhat tired after having run for 35 years); I proudly self-identify as a geek (geekhood being defined as much by avid consumption of sci-fi, fantasy and comics as it is by the mild social exclusion that invariably accompanies said pursuits). Yet the past few years have seen an upsurge in the acceptability of a genre that has traditionally been the purview of social misfits. The best indicator of geekiness having become cool will surely come when Tony Blair announces that when he wasn’t watching Newcastle united, he spent his childhood playing Dungeons & dragons.
Part of the reason for Doctor who’s popularity is that the show is very good. Gone are the days of papier mache monsters, abandoned quarries doubling as alien landscapes, lacklustre plots and miserly and unsympathetic executives. The beeb have invested a lot in the new series, reflected not only in the higher standard of special effects, but also in the quality of the writing and acting. The man who deserves much of the credit is Russell T Davies, who is who’s producer and sometime writer. Davies was behind the groundbreaking Queer as folk, the controversial The second coming (which starred ninth doctor Christopher Ecclestone) and Casanova (starring the current, tenth doctor David Tennant). Davies is an inspired choice to head the project. He has been bold enough to take the series into new territory, such as the inclusion of the bisexual Captain Jack in the last series, leading to the first same-sex kiss in the series’ history and has openly considered having a woman play the next doctor. It is almost a shame that Mary Whitehouse, who repeatedly criticised the much tamer Doctor who of yesteryear, is not around to express her puritanical indignation at the new series. Yet at the same time, Davies has managed to create a show suitable for all the family, secured the adoration of old fans and introduced a whole new audience to the Doctor who experience. And, while exploring different directions, the new version of the show demonstrates a genuine affection for the earlier series. This is no doubt helped by the fact that many of the cast and crew, including the current doctor, David Tenant, were fans when they were children.
Another reason for the show’s success is, as I’ve written, that science-fiction is very much part of the zeitgeist. Although the popularity and the quality of the genre has ebbed and flowed over the years, it has always had an immense inherent potential for creativity. Freed from the constraints of trying to reflect mundane reality, sci-fi provides both the possibility of escapism and the possibility of exploring very real issues from a different perspective.
Doctor who is no exception: while it can of course be enjoyed as thrilling adventure yarn set against a backdrop of exotic locations and alien races, it has always explored deeper issues as well. This is done both overtly (the daleks in the last series were recast as religious fundamentalists) and also more thoughtfully. In the current series there has been a recurrent theme exploring lost love and past relationships. The doctor with his unnaturally long life has left a lot of people behind. In School reunion we saw him meet up with Sarah Jane, a former companion and his robotic dog K9, with his current companion Rose realising that she too will be left behind in time, and in The girl in the fireplace the doctor falls in love with a woman who he meets at points throughout her life, who lives and dies in the course of the episode.
The series as a whole is a rich source for analysis. One particularly contemporary theme present in Doctor who is that of the concept of britishness. Doctor who, both the series and the character, is of course a quintessentially british creation. By way of comparison sci-fi produced in the US is often big-budget and overtly militaristic, it presents simplistic morality and its protagonists are often professional, square-jawed heroes. Doctor who, and british sci-fi more generally, however emphasises individuality and amateurism. Part of the appeal of the series is that it is somewhat kitsch and self-deprecating. The doctor blunders from one adventure to the next. He constantly meddles in the machinations of tyrants who would crush the rebellious individuality that he represents, and triumphs through a combination of luck and wit. The doctor is in the mold of the gentleman adventurer, the explorer, the eccentric, the visionary. It is of course no less of a mythological creation than that of britishness being synonymous with the suave killer that is James Bond or the jingoistic thuggishness promoted by the BNP, but it is a far more progressive national stereotype.
The latest rip-roaring episode, Rise of the cybermen ended on a cliffhanger. The doctor has crash-landed in an alternative Britain, where would-be dictator John Lumic (played by left-winger Roger Lloyd-Pack, best known as Trigger in Only fools and horses) has created the cybermen in a bid to take over the country (bwa-ha-ha). The cybermen have been made out of homeless people who were lured to their doom by the promise of food, and stripped of their humanity and plated in steel. As the episode ended the doctor and his companions are surrounded by the menacing cyborgs. Tune in to the next episode, The age of steel, to see if he can escape and foil their nefarious scheme!
An edited version of this review can also be read in the communist party of great britain's paper, the weekly worker, which is available online at: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/625/dr%20who.htm
BBC1, Saturday May 20 Doctor who: the age of steel
Five episodes in to the second series of the new Doctor who, and it is still going from strength to strength. The series is consistently pulling in viewing figures of over 7 million, the cybermen are on the front cover of the Radio times and reviews of each episode have become a staple fixture in every newspaper and magazine from the Times to the News of the world (whose reviewer Ian Hyland offers the incisive criticism that the cybermen are “a bit gay”). Most significantly, the show has become an accepted topic of conversation in pubs, workplaces and school playgrounds. The shows success is a pleasant surprise. Although I was never much of a whovian (I was rather young when the show was cancelled in 1989, when it was already somewhat tired after having run for 35 years); I proudly self-identify as a geek (geekhood being defined as much by avid consumption of sci-fi, fantasy and comics as it is by the mild social exclusion that invariably accompanies said pursuits). Yet the past few years have seen an upsurge in the acceptability of a genre that has traditionally been the purview of social misfits. The best indicator of geekiness having become cool will surely come when Tony Blair announces that when he wasn’t watching Newcastle united, he spent his childhood playing Dungeons & dragons.
Part of the reason for Doctor who’s popularity is that the show is very good. Gone are the days of papier mache monsters, abandoned quarries doubling as alien landscapes, lacklustre plots and miserly and unsympathetic executives. The beeb have invested a lot in the new series, reflected not only in the higher standard of special effects, but also in the quality of the writing and acting. The man who deserves much of the credit is Russell T Davies, who is who’s producer and sometime writer. Davies was behind the groundbreaking Queer as folk, the controversial The second coming (which starred ninth doctor Christopher Ecclestone) and Casanova (starring the current, tenth doctor David Tennant). Davies is an inspired choice to head the project. He has been bold enough to take the series into new territory, such as the inclusion of the bisexual Captain Jack in the last series, leading to the first same-sex kiss in the series’ history and has openly considered having a woman play the next doctor. It is almost a shame that Mary Whitehouse, who repeatedly criticised the much tamer Doctor who of yesteryear, is not around to express her puritanical indignation at the new series. Yet at the same time, Davies has managed to create a show suitable for all the family, secured the adoration of old fans and introduced a whole new audience to the Doctor who experience. And, while exploring different directions, the new version of the show demonstrates a genuine affection for the earlier series. This is no doubt helped by the fact that many of the cast and crew, including the current doctor, David Tenant, were fans when they were children.
Another reason for the show’s success is, as I’ve written, that science-fiction is very much part of the zeitgeist. Although the popularity and the quality of the genre has ebbed and flowed over the years, it has always had an immense inherent potential for creativity. Freed from the constraints of trying to reflect mundane reality, sci-fi provides both the possibility of escapism and the possibility of exploring very real issues from a different perspective.
Doctor who is no exception: while it can of course be enjoyed as thrilling adventure yarn set against a backdrop of exotic locations and alien races, it has always explored deeper issues as well. This is done both overtly (the daleks in the last series were recast as religious fundamentalists) and also more thoughtfully. In the current series there has been a recurrent theme exploring lost love and past relationships. The doctor with his unnaturally long life has left a lot of people behind. In School reunion we saw him meet up with Sarah Jane, a former companion and his robotic dog K9, with his current companion Rose realising that she too will be left behind in time, and in The girl in the fireplace the doctor falls in love with a woman who he meets at points throughout her life, who lives and dies in the course of the episode.
The series as a whole is a rich source for analysis. One particularly contemporary theme present in Doctor who is that of the concept of britishness. Doctor who, both the series and the character, is of course a quintessentially british creation. By way of comparison sci-fi produced in the US is often big-budget and overtly militaristic, it presents simplistic morality and its protagonists are often professional, square-jawed heroes. Doctor who, and british sci-fi more generally, however emphasises individuality and amateurism. Part of the appeal of the series is that it is somewhat kitsch and self-deprecating. The doctor blunders from one adventure to the next. He constantly meddles in the machinations of tyrants who would crush the rebellious individuality that he represents, and triumphs through a combination of luck and wit. The doctor is in the mold of the gentleman adventurer, the explorer, the eccentric, the visionary. It is of course no less of a mythological creation than that of britishness being synonymous with the suave killer that is James Bond or the jingoistic thuggishness promoted by the BNP, but it is a far more progressive national stereotype.
The latest rip-roaring episode, Rise of the cybermen ended on a cliffhanger. The doctor has crash-landed in an alternative Britain, where would-be dictator John Lumic (played by left-winger Roger Lloyd-Pack, best known as Trigger in Only fools and horses) has created the cybermen in a bid to take over the country (bwa-ha-ha). The cybermen have been made out of homeless people who were lured to their doom by the promise of food, and stripped of their humanity and plated in steel. As the episode ended the doctor and his companions are surrounded by the menacing cyborgs. Tune in to the next episode, The age of steel, to see if he can escape and foil their nefarious scheme!
An edited version of this review can also be read in the communist party of great britain's paper, the weekly worker, which is available online at: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/625/dr%20who.htm
Friday, May 26, 2006
Saturday, May 20, 2006
vote typhoid mary
The BBC2 programme, the 'Great British Menu,' has the UK's top chefs battling it out regionally to win the right to cook a dish for the Queen's 80th birthday. I propose a late entrant for this dubious honour - the ghost of Typhoid Mary. Mary was a much maligned and persecuted character, but could do great service if she won this competition.
The Queen will celebrate her 'official' 80th birthday with the special lunch on the 17th June. A public poll will decide who does the cooking, so make your vote count, vote Typhoid Mary.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
escape from kathmandu
This is the story of Hobgoblin Rae's Nepal experience.For the past two months I have been living and working in Katmandu as a voluntary English teacher. Since the recent civil unrest made the UK news, the left has been falling over itself to offer criticism of the bumpy path to democracy in Nepal, and the maoist movement in particular. That’s not what I want to do, all I want to do is tell the story of what we saw. You can then make up your own mind.
Even before King Birendra and his close family were killed Nepal had a history of civil unrest and had trod a rocky path towards bourgeois democracy. With the ascension of Gyanendra and an escalation of the maoist campaign things have got progressively worse. Gyanendra, having ruled once before during his grandfathers exile is now the eleventh successor to Prithvi Narayan Shah, the founder of modern Nepal. Legend has it that the Shah dynasty will last only ten generations. Perhaps its time has come.
Before the Seven Party Alliance called the four day strike due to begin on 6th April 2006 we had become accustomed to the small scale strikes and roadblocks that pepper life in Nepal. Although inconvenient, the four day strike would give us opportunities to relax a little, catch up on some work and read all those books we’d never got around to. During the first few days there was virtually no traffic on the streets but people were moving freely around we saw a few taxis with their number plates removed. By the third day a curfew has been imposed by the Palace, and it turned out days one and two hadn’t been as quiet as we’d previously thought. We sat down with the Nepalese students we live with and watched the local news, it was full of reports of rioting all over the city, even down the road from us. The first protester has been shot dead by police and his body is shown on the television, images like this only serve to fuel peoples hatred of the king and the police.
Until day four we hadn’t really been able to leave our hostel, we shouldn’t have been able to today either as the curfew (now ‘shoot on sight’) was still in force. However, I had become very sick and needed to be taken to hospital, we drove through streets deserted except for tanks and burning tyres. From the rocks and bricks littering the road is was clear a riot had passed this way. We became trapped inside the hospital by a pitch battle waged between protesters and armed police outside. Despite using tear gas the police were eventually driven back. Having been suitably patched up we needed to get back to our hostel, and to safety. It would have been suicide to try to walk the three miles back so our only option was to accept a lift with the army. Crammed in the back of a jeep with armed men I questioned our choice, we had felt unsafe coming in by ambulance and now we were leaving in the vehicle of the enemy. Foreigners have occupied a strange position of privilege in Nepal for a long while, both sides fear the withdraw of tourists and tourist money. Today showed that it is impossible to remain neutral, even as foreigners we have to pick sides or they will be picked for us.
The curfews and responding riots continue through days five and six. Each morning the curfew hours are announced on the television, people then dash out to buy supplies before it comes into force. Food is running low as nothing can get into the city. We hear from our fellow volunteers working in a hospital in Banepa that gun shot victims are being brought in and that judging by the damage done, the police are not using rubber bullets like they claim to be. In Nepal, as perhaps the rest of the world, the police force is made up of poorly educated men and women subjected to a culture of violence. To the cynical eye they seem to be enjoying indiscriminately beating people.
For the next few days we are able to move a little and so head into Thamel, the tourist district of Katmandu. As the BBC says, Thamel is where tourists go to avoid politics. Walking around the police-free streets you can understand why, the shops are shut yes but the restaurants are open and showing no sign of the crippling food shortages affecting the rest of the city. However, by the following day, politics had found it’s way into Thamel by means of a heavily publicized tourist demonstration. Until this point the demonstrations had been organized by the Nepalese people with the aim of self-determination, now tourists were putting their oar in. I can’t know for sure the motivation of those who joined in but I know why I didn’t. This fight belongs to the Nepalese people, it is their country and their vision of democracy. I have no right to join their struggle unless invited, I choose to express solidarity with the views of the people I meet but to demonstrate is to demonstrate on their behalf. Instead I chose to see my role as witness, to come home and tell of the police brutality I had witnessed and of the pride and courage of the people. Several tourists are arrested and with the police breaching Thamel our status as privileged white foreigners is quite rightly shattered.
Day twelve brings a change in Thamel, the shop shutters are no longer coming down because the shop keepers are afraid of an impending demonstration but because, we realize, they are going to join in. During the morning three fellow volunteers and I are in the wrong place at the wrong time and become caught in a riot. Separated by the police charge they are caught in a stampede while I end up on the wrong end of a lathi (three foot wooden police baton). After running from the police I’m given shelter by a local hotel until the streets are quiet again. Within moments I have witnessed terrible brutality by the police and the kindness of strangers. After this it is very difficult to feel safe anymore, the policeman who hit me was fully aware that I was a white woman running away, he’d looked me in the eye. The following days bring further curfews and so much more violence. It is still however, the police and not the army committing most of the acts of aggression.
On day sixteen we watch the kings speech with some Nepalese friends and aside from the language barrier its hard to work out if they are happy or not. It quickly becomes clear that those still on the streets are not satisfied with the response. The king has offered the people virtually nothing, much less than he had originally taken away. It looks as if the struggle for democracy will continue and that the violence, curfews and shortages haven’t dampened the people’s desire for change. In the following days the mass action escalates, crowds flood the ring road and march into the city centre. Most main roads are filled with waves of men, women and children. They are risking their lives by defying curfew but they still look so happy. It’s hard to imagine a similar situation in the UK.
Eventually I had to leave Nepal, we didn’t know how long things would carry on and with impending fuel shortages if I didn’t leave then I might not have got out for a long while. As it happened on day twenty the king announced further concessions to the SPA and the maoists and allowed parliament to sit again.
It’s hard to know where things will go from here, the previous problems of corruption still dog the government and the king retains all the same powers that allowed him to seize control on 1st February 2005. All I can hope for is that the ordinary people who mobilized in the last few weeks will revel in their new found sense of autonomy. At times it was unclear as to who was calling the demonstrations and getting people onto the streets, was it the maoists or the SPA. Other times, towards then end it was clear that these were spontaneous demonstrations, without leaders and without political dogma. And why am I not advocating the push towards socialism or communism? Because thats not what the people of Nepal seem to want. Instead I wish them all the best in their ongoing struggle for democracy and once they get that, then we can all sit down as comrades and plan where we go together from here.Thanks for this article must go to David, Robin and Sarah.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
persistent poverty
The Joseph Rowntree foundation has recently produced a study report that shows that persistent poverty (poverty is defined as a family income below 60% of the median income) in Britain is on the increase.
There are approximately 3.5 million children living in poverty in Britain today. That's more than a quarter of the total child population.
Why is this so important? Apart from the obvious effects of deprivation for those children, this poverty has every chance of persisting throughout their lives, and later being passed on to their own children. Childhood poverty experience leads to adult poverty, which in turn affects future generations.
The study looked at two groups of teenagers, one from the 1970s, and one from the 1980s. The purpose was to research the link between childhood and adult poverty, and to discover if this link is getting weaker or stronger. Its findings relegate the notion of social mobility in Britain to the waste bin.
Almost 20% of 1970s teenagers from poor families were found to have grown up to be poor in later life, whilst only 10% of the non-poor teenagers had this outcome. Poor teenagers from that decade had twice the chance of staying poor throughout their life than teenagers from non-poor families. This effect has been ascribed to general background disadvantages such as parental unemployment and poor education, rather being directly attributable to poverty itself.
The results for the 1980s poor teenagers were significantly worse. This group were found to be four times as likely to remain in poverty throughout their lives. A doubling of the persistence of poverty link from the previous decade. The increasing risk has been attributed to the direct effect of poverty for 1980s teenagers. Their own adult unemployment rather than the more general family factors of the 1970s group.
There is considerable difficulty in identifying specifically the cause of persistent poverty from the numerous factors involved, but income poverty is clearly tied up with deprivation in its many guises. However, unemployment, for self and/or partner, and having a poor work history seem to be the strongest factors, and it is their direct effect that caused the massive increase in the chance of persistent poverty for the 1980s teenagers.
Although not specifically mentioned in the report, the results clearly indicate the effects of the Thatcher years in increasing persistent poverty. The 1980s teenagers first employment opportunities were blighted by unemployment which was at its highest since WWII, peaking in 1984 to more than 3 million. During this decade the richest 10% of the population more than doubled their disposable income, whilst the poorest saw little or no increase in theirs.
The concise conclusion of the report is that there is a clear link between childhood poverty and poverty in later life, and this link is becoming increasingly stronger.
There are approximately 3.5 million children living in poverty in Britain today. That's more than a quarter of the total child population.
Why is this so important? Apart from the obvious effects of deprivation for those children, this poverty has every chance of persisting throughout their lives, and later being passed on to their own children. Childhood poverty experience leads to adult poverty, which in turn affects future generations.
The study looked at two groups of teenagers, one from the 1970s, and one from the 1980s. The purpose was to research the link between childhood and adult poverty, and to discover if this link is getting weaker or stronger. Its findings relegate the notion of social mobility in Britain to the waste bin.
Almost 20% of 1970s teenagers from poor families were found to have grown up to be poor in later life, whilst only 10% of the non-poor teenagers had this outcome. Poor teenagers from that decade had twice the chance of staying poor throughout their life than teenagers from non-poor families. This effect has been ascribed to general background disadvantages such as parental unemployment and poor education, rather being directly attributable to poverty itself.
The results for the 1980s poor teenagers were significantly worse. This group were found to be four times as likely to remain in poverty throughout their lives. A doubling of the persistence of poverty link from the previous decade. The increasing risk has been attributed to the direct effect of poverty for 1980s teenagers. Their own adult unemployment rather than the more general family factors of the 1970s group.
There is considerable difficulty in identifying specifically the cause of persistent poverty from the numerous factors involved, but income poverty is clearly tied up with deprivation in its many guises. However, unemployment, for self and/or partner, and having a poor work history seem to be the strongest factors, and it is their direct effect that caused the massive increase in the chance of persistent poverty for the 1980s teenagers.
Although not specifically mentioned in the report, the results clearly indicate the effects of the Thatcher years in increasing persistent poverty. The 1980s teenagers first employment opportunities were blighted by unemployment which was at its highest since WWII, peaking in 1984 to more than 3 million. During this decade the richest 10% of the population more than doubled their disposable income, whilst the poorest saw little or no increase in theirs.
The concise conclusion of the report is that there is a clear link between childhood poverty and poverty in later life, and this link is becoming increasingly stronger.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Blair's Enforcer's
Coming to a city, town or village near you, Blair's half SS Squad.
Defence Secretary John Reid has announced the establishment of a counter terrorist elite force.
The Special Forces Support Group (SFSG). Its insignia, a dagger run through by a lightning flash, looks unsurprisingly similar to half an SS double lightning flash.
Jackboots anyone?
Monday, April 17, 2006
power to the people?
A Comment on Power to the People, the report of the Power InquiryPower is an independent inquiry into Britain's democracy established and funded by the Joseph Rowntree Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd. It was set up to determine why British people have become increasingly disengaged from formal democratic politics, and how to reverse this trend. It set about resolving three main issues;
The survival of Britain's democracy when politicians are perceived to be uncaring and unlistening.
The revival of politics when party political support is diminishing.
Increasing voter turnout despite the common feeling that elections are a charade.
It is, to all intents and purposes, a report that attempts to formulate the revival of the legitimacy of the status quo, not to revolutionise the distribution of political power. They state, 'The British parliamentary system of elected representation and considerable executive power was built in an era of very limited educational provision and in which deference and rigid hierarchy and static social relations were taken for granted. This explains why so many British citizens now no longer feel formal democracy offers them the influence, equality and respect they believe is their due.'
The power commissioners want us to become re-engaged with formal democracy. They feel this would;
Give legitimacy to government. Decreasing electorate turnout weakens the mandate of the elected party. In the last election, more people refrained from voting than voted Labour. And the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who rules by virtual presidential power, only received some 24,000 votes himself.
Improve political equality. Many people feel totally disenfranchised, their views are not represented.
Improve effective communication between the governed and the governors. Actually when I have bothered to vote in the past I've voted to be represented, not governed - a naive disappointment. Representation does not occur, which in turn leads to being disenfranchised.
Improve the calibre of political recruit.
Prevent the rise undemocratic forces.
Prevent governmental authoritarianism.
However, for all this pro-governmental tosh, it did come up with some interesting reasons for Britain's mainstream political malaise.
Contrary to the assumptions of political analysts, the public are not apathetic. There is massive involvement in pressure politics, e.g. signing petitions, supporting consumer boycotts, and joining campaign groups. It's formal politics that turn people off. Electorate turnout has declined for general elections since 1997, and has been low for other elections for many years. Political party membership is diminishing, and MPs, MEPs and councillors are distrusted.
People are not sick of formal British politics because they are apathetic, negative or inadequate human beings. They feel that the they are ignored and powerless, and that party politics restricts their options.
British parliamentary democracy doesn't work, other than to advance corporate exploitation. The ballot box offered by parliamentarians in any guise is no means for change. The reinvigoration of the status quo, as recommended in the Power Report, is not going to work, other than to delude the electorate.
Time for riot and revolution?
Thursday, April 06, 2006
may day doncaster
Monday 1st MAY
80 th Anniversary Commemoration of the Miners Lock-out and General Strike
The Woolpack Pub, Market Place, Doncaster.
3pm
Film: The Miners Film (Cinema Action)
Presentation: The bitter lock-out, Days of hope in the General Strike, and the betrayal by the TUC. David Douglass, National Union Mineworkers.
Debate and discussion.
Folk Music Social: with Toe'in'the Dark.
Organised by Mining Communities Advice Service in conjunction with The Doncaster Miners, The Industrial Workers of The World (IWW) and
Doncaster Class War
Saturday, April 01, 2006
mp's pensions
The MP's pension fund deficit currently stands at £49.5m having risen from £25.2m in 2002, and the taxpayer will pay the cost of this shortfall.
It has just been announced that contributions from public finance to this fund will rise from 24% to 26.8% to cover the deficit. Taxpayer contributions to the MP's pension fund is already more than four times the amount that currently goes into the average worker's fund.
This announcement quickly follows that on MP pay rises. An MP's salary will rise to £60,277 from £59,095, Cabinet ministers' to £136,677 from £133,997, and the prime minister's to £187,610 from £183,932.
This means that an MP, who is paid £60,277, and retires after 26 years service will receive an inflation proof £40,000 per year.
It is, however, a contributory pension. MP's will now have to contribute 10% of pre tax income for 26 years to receive this pension which is calculated as 26/40ths of final salary. They can elect to pay a reduced rate of 6% per annum, but in this case will receive 26/50th of final salary. This is in comparison with the local government worker who contributes 6% of pre tax income for 40 years to receive a pension calculated as 40/80ths of final salary.
In their fight with the unions, the government seem happy to infer that all local government workers retire at 60 on full pension. In reality the average retirement age is 64.5 years. Of those who retire early, 22% are forced to retire due to ill health. The average pension received is only £3,600, and for women this drops to £1,500. This average is more than 10 times less than an MP, and up to 100 times less than a CBI director.
The '85' rule that is currently at the centre of the public sector pension dispute does not apply to MPs. Instead they have the more favourable '80' rule. This means that they can retire on full pension at 60 years of age if their age and service years total 80 or more. This is a strange situation, since the main argument against the '85' rule is that it fails to comply with age discrimination legislation, however this does not appear to apply where MPs are concerned.
Reference 'PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSION FUND' http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmfund/979/979.pdf
It has just been announced that contributions from public finance to this fund will rise from 24% to 26.8% to cover the deficit. Taxpayer contributions to the MP's pension fund is already more than four times the amount that currently goes into the average worker's fund.
This announcement quickly follows that on MP pay rises. An MP's salary will rise to £60,277 from £59,095, Cabinet ministers' to £136,677 from £133,997, and the prime minister's to £187,610 from £183,932.
This means that an MP, who is paid £60,277, and retires after 26 years service will receive an inflation proof £40,000 per year.
It is, however, a contributory pension. MP's will now have to contribute 10% of pre tax income for 26 years to receive this pension which is calculated as 26/40ths of final salary. They can elect to pay a reduced rate of 6% per annum, but in this case will receive 26/50th of final salary. This is in comparison with the local government worker who contributes 6% of pre tax income for 40 years to receive a pension calculated as 40/80ths of final salary.
In their fight with the unions, the government seem happy to infer that all local government workers retire at 60 on full pension. In reality the average retirement age is 64.5 years. Of those who retire early, 22% are forced to retire due to ill health. The average pension received is only £3,600, and for women this drops to £1,500. This average is more than 10 times less than an MP, and up to 100 times less than a CBI director.
The '85' rule that is currently at the centre of the public sector pension dispute does not apply to MPs. Instead they have the more favourable '80' rule. This means that they can retire on full pension at 60 years of age if their age and service years total 80 or more. This is a strange situation, since the main argument against the '85' rule is that it fails to comply with age discrimination legislation, however this does not appear to apply where MPs are concerned.
Reference 'PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSION FUND' http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmfund/979/979.pdf
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
class war leaflet for the 18th march stop the war demo
TROOPS OUT NOW!Victory to the Iraqi workers!
Down with the 'resistance'!
The war in Iraq shows no sign of ending. Whilst Bush and Blair gear up for a further bloody assault, this time on Iran’s ‘Mad Mullahs’ (a war that will be paid for in the blood of thousands of ordinary working class people, Iranian and American), the ordinary people of Iraq are the bloody playthings of western generals and religious maniacs.
There is no answer for the workers of Iraq from the Fundamentalists and nationalists of the ‘Resistance’ who butcher men, women and children in the name of ‘allah’ or ‘nation’.
Neither does the puppets that dance Bush’s tune in the palaces of Baghdad offer any solution for the people of Iraq- there can be no free workers movement under the bayonets of the United States Marine Corps.
The Working Class has no country! The main enemy is always at home!
The war abroad is mirrored with the war at home. The cops who murdered Jean Charles De Menezes are still out there, guns in hand, waiting for the next poor lad to walk into their sights, meanwhile the tube workers who risked their lives to save those caught in the 7/7 bombings are forced to strike to defend safety whilst the bosses and the press drag their names through the mud.
The so-called left in Britain, who lead the STWC, hide their timidity at home with their bloodthirstiness abroad, giving full support to the religious maniacs and Ba’athist (pro Saddam) fascists that dominate the ‘resistance’ in Iraq. In doing so they reveal their contempt for the Iraqi working class in its struggle to emerge from both Saddam’s dictatorship and US occupation. Here they show their contempt for us too; for the British working class, the answer is ‘Pussy’ George Galloway, for the Iraqi working class it’s a Jihadist suicide bomb.
It is no solution to cheer the killing of US and UK working class youth who have been fooled into joining up. Stupidity and poverty are not deserving of a death sentence! We want those kids home where the real war is….. the class war
http://www.londonclasswar.org/
Monday, March 13, 2006
the hills have eyes a review
( this review has been shamelessly stolen from my mates andys excellent website)FILM REVIEW: The Hills Have Eyes
There is nothing quite as disappointing as watching a potentially fantastic horror film degenerate in front of you, and sadly this film did exactly that. I've been excited about seeing it for a couple of weeks and was genuinely expecting something that, while it might not be immensely clever, would still be a top-class scary film.
Instead, it was genuinely offensive filth! That might sound a bit strong, but I'm sure if you asked the numerous people who walked out half way through they would agree. The film got off to an excellent start, giving you a well portrayed, very emotive family who you could genuinely empathise with. By a pure unpleasent fluke they end up driving into the middle of a mutant cannibal infested desert hell where their tires are blown out and they are stranded. Up to this point the film is jumpy and very edgy, and it gets even better for a short period, until in typical American style Wes Craven goes HERES A MUTANT LOOK AT THE MUTANT MUTANT IN YOUR FACE NO MORE UNKNOWN ELEMENT MUTANTMUTANTMUTANT!!!!
From this point in the downward spiral begins in earnest and the suspense gives way to gratuitous and pornographic violence. The content becomes rapidly more offensive and, while I have absolutely no problem with the use of extreme subjects IF THEY HAVE A MESSAGE OR PURPOSE, the portrayal of rape, attempted infanticide, cannibalism etc just to shock the audience is at best lazy film-making and at worst is genuinely disgusting. Please appreciate that I am quite a fan of splat horror and am hardly a sheltered viewer, but the exploitative nature of the gore, violence and sh*t in this film has severely erroded any respect I might have had for Wes Craven.
The characterisation of the 'monsters' was equally appaling; potentially these could have been very sypathetic creatures, having been turned into what they were by the machinations of an uncaring government. Instead they were vindictive 'baddies' in the most useless 80s sense, deliberately inflicting as much brutish torment on the main characters as they could and acting in a vindictive, bullying and degenerate fashion that left the viewer totally unable to empathise with their cause, yet unable to really dislike or take seriously such 2D characters.
Finally, a special mention should be given to the pro-yankee bullsh*t that this film attempted to ram down the viewer's throat. Does anyone else find it odd that they should chose now to release a film which shows the mild-mannered democrat discovering the power of weilding an all-american shotgun to save his ravaged loved ones from the attentions of degenerate people in the desert...? The thundering electric guitar which ploughs incongrously into the background as our 'hero' discovers the importance of violence over understanding is still more of an irritant, and if I hadn't been so numbed and revolted by this point I would have laughed out loud as the 'hero' buries an American flag in the big mutant's head in order to kill it.
Wes Craven, your film is too long, it is FAR to offensive for no good reason, and it is revoltingly pro-yank pablum that should never have made the screen. Try harder. Twit.
2/10 (generously awarded for the good opening)...
Friday, March 03, 2006
neighbourhood effects of immigration
Why do government agencies and their contracted service providers send new immigrants to the most disadvantaged and deprived areas? Areas which already have crap housing, high unemployment, crime problems, poor services and few local amenities. Are they trying to increase deprivation? Are they content to see community tensions rise?
The 39 New Deal for Community Areas, which constitute some of the most deprived neighbourhoods in England, have a relatively large proportion of people seeking and granted asylum within them. And the Home Office's cluster areas for the dispersal of asylum seekers seem to have been transplanted directly onto the 88 local authority districts which, according to the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, have the highest levels of social exclusion.
The consequences of these settlement patterns is detrimental to all concerned, both the new immigrants, and the existing population. There's a clear link between a person's prospects in life, and where they live. Living in an area of deprivation will restrict access to jobs, and limit political influence. This ensures the continuation of disadvantage, poor housing, and the economic divide. The government's settlement policy only serves to compound existing deprivation and exclusion, whilst increasing community tensions.
There is a weird notion that the placement of groups of new immigrants into existing communities will enable social interaction, and consequently result in mutual understanding and tolerance. Evidence shows this to be a nonsense. In existing socially mixed neighbourhoods social interaction does not occur, so how will the adding of ethnicity to the equation change that? Regular contact does not necessarily encourage cultural exchange, in fact it can deepen prejudices.
New immigrants are more likely to be subject to harassment, abuse and violence in areas where the settlement of immigrants is uncommon. In the odd area where the resident local population was consulted and kept informed of arrangements for new immigrants, this increased risk was offset. Myth busting, adequate support for new residents (but not at the expense of the existing residents) and better community resources were issues that had to be tackled in order to aid acceptance. In other words, the local community had to be fully involved, and not have their meagre resources further squeezed. However this level of participation is an all too rare occurrence. In most cases the concerns of existing communities are not just disregarded, they are not even sought.
But the main question remains; why are new immigrants sent to areas that are already so deprived as to severely damage their resident community without the added pressures of an additional disadvantaged group of people? They all deserve so much more.
Reference
Neighbourhood experiences of new immigration
Reflections from the evidence base
David Robinson and Kesia Reeve
http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/9781859354421.pdf
The 39 New Deal for Community Areas, which constitute some of the most deprived neighbourhoods in England, have a relatively large proportion of people seeking and granted asylum within them. And the Home Office's cluster areas for the dispersal of asylum seekers seem to have been transplanted directly onto the 88 local authority districts which, according to the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, have the highest levels of social exclusion.
The consequences of these settlement patterns is detrimental to all concerned, both the new immigrants, and the existing population. There's a clear link between a person's prospects in life, and where they live. Living in an area of deprivation will restrict access to jobs, and limit political influence. This ensures the continuation of disadvantage, poor housing, and the economic divide. The government's settlement policy only serves to compound existing deprivation and exclusion, whilst increasing community tensions.
There is a weird notion that the placement of groups of new immigrants into existing communities will enable social interaction, and consequently result in mutual understanding and tolerance. Evidence shows this to be a nonsense. In existing socially mixed neighbourhoods social interaction does not occur, so how will the adding of ethnicity to the equation change that? Regular contact does not necessarily encourage cultural exchange, in fact it can deepen prejudices.
New immigrants are more likely to be subject to harassment, abuse and violence in areas where the settlement of immigrants is uncommon. In the odd area where the resident local population was consulted and kept informed of arrangements for new immigrants, this increased risk was offset. Myth busting, adequate support for new residents (but not at the expense of the existing residents) and better community resources were issues that had to be tackled in order to aid acceptance. In other words, the local community had to be fully involved, and not have their meagre resources further squeezed. However this level of participation is an all too rare occurrence. In most cases the concerns of existing communities are not just disregarded, they are not even sought.
But the main question remains; why are new immigrants sent to areas that are already so deprived as to severely damage their resident community without the added pressures of an additional disadvantaged group of people? They all deserve so much more.
Reference
Neighbourhood experiences of new immigration
Reflections from the evidence base
David Robinson and Kesia Reeve
http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/9781859354421.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)