Tuesday, March 14, 2006

class war leaflet for the 18th march stop the war demo

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


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.

Neighbourhood experiences of new immigration
Reflections from the evidence base
David Robinson and Kesia Reeve