I Intend To Escape ......................And Come Back

Politicians, Soap Operas and The Kitchen Sink

Clearing some old papers recently, I came across this little gem from The Times of 4 June 1998:

"Caught in the act

Frank Field. the Minister for Welfare Reform, is to appeal to makers of television soap operas and of "kitchen sink" movies to show benefit fraudsters being caught and prosecuted. Mr Field said he wanted to promote an anti-fraud culture".

Frank Field watches over an Eastenders script meeting at Elstree Studios in Hertfordshire.

The Socialist Workers Party As Perfect Democracy?

I missed Judith Orr, the editor of the SWP's Socialist Review, who was at the University of East Anglia on 17 January to speak to the Feminist Society.

Given the storm over rape allegations and the SWP's response to them, the meeting's timing was apt. The UEA's student paper, Concrete, gives an account of the meeting here. I was particularly drawn to Orr's reported comments on the SWP and accountability:

"Orr maintained that the SWP were "more accountable than any other organisation", being entirely intolerant of sexism, racism, homophobia, or any other hateful prejudices within the party.
The decision to go through the party's disputes committee, which Orr noted was elected yearly to ensure fair representation, was entirely the decision of the victim and expressed sadness on behalf of both parties involved that the matter, which was meant to be "utterly confidential", had come out against their wishes."

Judith Orr's description of SWP internal democracy will produce a wry smile from anyone active in left wing politics over the last few decades, or indeed anyone who has been in the SWP. Elections in the party have traditionally meant voting for a slate of candidates, with no opportunity to cast votes outside of that, and a system of powerful regional organisers and full time staff advising members on how to vote.
That is perhaps what you would expect in a Trotskyist organisation, which models itself on the successful seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in 1917. That worked for Lenin, but hardly fits with 21st century demands for accountability and bottom up organising.

The SWP's current crisis is rooted in more than the poor treatment of a rape victim - it is rooted in its own ideology.

Spooks? A Cheeky Little Dig From The Telegraph

All of today's newspapers have full coverage of the Algerian hostage crisis, where Jihadists held workers captive in an attempt to free Aaafia Siddiqui and the 'Blind Sheikh' Omar Abdul-Rahman from jail in the United States.

Picking through it, I was rather tickled  by this line in the Sunday Telegraph's coverage, courtsey of Robert Mendick, Patrick Sawer and Patrick Hennessy:

"Offical sources told Algeria's El Watan newspaper, a journal known for its close contact with the country's secret services, that the terrorists had tried to set fire to the gas facility's installations on Friday night after their demands - including safe passage and the release of al-Qaeda terrorists in the US - remained unmet."

I have never read El Watan, but wonder if its journalists may amuse themselves in future by writing something along the lines of  "British newspaper the Daily Telegraph, whose defence correspondent Con Coughlin is known for his close links to the country's external security service MI6...."

The Consequences of a Three Minute Culture?

Students think I'm an old git when I tell them to read books, rather than web articles or YouTube clips. 

I'm not really sure anyone really knows the long term effects on our brains of the immediacy of information, the range of formats it is available in, or the short timescale of so much of it. A further suggestion of the dangers posed by what I refer to as the three minute culture, comes from Sir Alex Ferguson's press conference at Old Trafford on Friday 11 January:

"Perhaps the most remarkable of the United manager's observations was that players no longer have the powers of concentration to sit down and watch a full 90-minute match video. "Going back 20 years, we gave them a full video of the game" he said. "We don't do that now because the concentration of players watching a full game is not there. But if you condense it into various aspects of our opponents then it works and that's what we do".

Quoted in Ian Herbert's "Ferguson: It's A Long Road For Liverpool", The Independent 12 January 2013.

The Rapier Thrust of Student Politics

As students return to University following the Christmas holidays, those at the University of East Anglia can be assured that their student union is at the cutting edge of political relevance in these hard times:

"The Union of UEA Students has passed policy to introduce gender neutral toilets in Union House in order to accomodate for those who do not identify within the male-female gender binary."

Concrete, UEA's Student Newspaper, Issue 276, Tuesday 4 December.

The article goes on to state that the budget for this is not confirmed. That is perhaps not surprising - the UEA Students Union has a deficit of £132,000, although this is expected to fall to £114,500 over the course of the academic year.  

There's a whole world outside of your University campus boys and girls - and it looks very, very different to the one some of you are cocooned in.

Giving Ex-Offenders A Chance

I was very impressed with the quote below from John Timpson, Chairman of  high street chain Timpson, in the business section of yesterday's Telegraph:

"....our biggest achievement is the way James and his team have employed people from prison in a way that works brilliantly both for them and our business - 8% of current Timpson colleagues joined us from prison. One week during November all the customer compliments I received were praising service given in shops run by ex-offenders.
My big disappointment is that so few companies have followed our example. Greggs the Bakers is the only other business to embrace the concept with real zeal." 

Well done Timpson's! There is more on their work in this field here. 

Pluto Plus Penny Provides Pap

I have just been reading the Pluto Press new books catalogue for January - June 2013, which I picked up last month at the Anarchist Bookfair in London.

Amongst their bestsellers is "Penny Red: Notes From the New Age of Dissent" by Laurie Penny. Counting the hours and minutes until pay day, I raised a wry smile at this line:

"Selected writings from a prominent voice of the new activist left. Reflections on being young, broke and angry in the 21st century".

Laurie Penny went to one of the UK's leading independent schools - Brighton College, and then to Wadham College, Oxford. She now writes opinion pieces for the New Statesman and the Independent. Lots of things could be said about her - that she is or ever has been 'broke' is not one of them. To paraphrase Ivor Bulmer-Thomas' famous quote about Harold Wilson - if Laurie Penny has ever gone without boots, it is because she is too big for them.

Why do Pluto insult potential readers with this rubbish?

Reasons Why Islamo-Anarchism Will Never Catch On

Hard to know where to start with this little gem:

 

 

 

We should punish Labour and Condem for their support of zionist barbarians by voting them out at by-elections #gazaunderattack #rotherham

— themuslimanarchist (@muslimanarchist) November 15, 2012

One wonders how long any 'Anarcho-Islamists' would have survived in any territory being run by Ahmed Jabari? Rotherham is probably considerably safer. 

Where A Generation of Identity Politics Has Got Us

Well, you can't say the identity politics of left and right didn't bring results.

"It is depressing to think that 82  per cent of all non-whites in America voted for one political party, regardless of their age, economic status and social views."

Peter Foster, US editor of the Daily Telegraph, 8 November 2012. 

The Sun's Final Interview With Jimmy Saville

Full marks to Sun scoop Kate Jackson, who's 15 April 2011 interview with Jimmy Saville will probably not be at the top of her CV. Try this quote for size:

"Jimmy, one of seven children, says one of the perks of TOTP (Top of the Pops) was giving free tickets to his groupies. He says: "I'm so pleased they have brought back Top of the Pops because I can see all the ladies I got tickets for, who all rushed to stand by me on the programme. I think 'I wonder how she's getting on?'
"Tickets for Top of the Pops were like gold and as a single fella I would not miss the opportunity to ingratiate myself with the ladies."
A lifelong bachelor, he is still a compulsive flirt. It's harmless enough, though slightly unnerving when you're told to "walk away slowly" by a man old enough to be your grandad."

Do check the full article out on The Sun website before they take it off. The hard copy even comes with the 'Tickets for Top of the Pops' quote emboldened in red. Crazy times indeed.

Did the SWP Grumble About Saudi Arabia's Treatment of Bin Laden in 1994?

I am currently reading Chris Harman's 1994 article "The Prophet and the Proletariat" published in issue 64 of the Socialist Workers Party's theoretical journal, International Socialism. 

Discussing radical Islam as a social movement, Harman sketches the position that in the 1980s the CIA and Pakistani intelligence worked with Middle Eastern states to send fighters to Afghanistan to fight to Red Army. Harman argues such fighters are now returning home to find that they were fighting, not for 'Islam' but for the USA. In Saudi Arabia:

".... the opposition now claims the support of “thousands of Afghan fighters”, disgusted by the hypocrisy of a royal family that is increasingly integrated into the world capitalist ruling class. And the royal family is now retaliating, further antagonising some of the very people it encouraged so much in the past, cutting off funds to the Algerian FIS for supporting Iraq in the second Gulf War and deporting a Saudi millionaire who has been financing Islamists in Egypt." (p.21)

Could this be the SWP's very first reference to Osama Bin Laden? Whilst it is not strictly true to say that Bin Laden was deported from Saudi Arabia in 1994, he was stripped of his Saudi citizenship and had his assets frozen that year, having left the country in 1991. Or is there another Islamist financing Saudi millionaire who got his marching orders from the Kingdom in 1994?

At Home Everywhere, and At Home Nowhere

My quote of the day comes from the Twitter account of The Free Association.

"At home nowhere (and everywhere), The Free Association is an ongoing experiment. A reading group, a writing machine, an affinity group…"

And that arguably is the core characteristic of the British middle classes. They are at home everywhere, precisely because they are at home nowhere. 

Luton Calling (Again)

For a please with a rather grim reputation, Luton appears to produce striking memoirs.

In 2008 Sarfraz  Manzoor gave us "Greetings From Bury Park: Race Religion Rock 'n'Roll" a reminder of the days when young people in Luton were, at least in his case, as likely to be influenced by Bruce Springsteen as Salafism. This weeks Camden New Journal has a delightful feature on Colin Grant's third book "Bageye at the Wheel".  A Farley Hill man, Grant focuses on his father, known as Bageye, and the Caribbean migrants of 1970s Luton. A car worker who could not afford to buy one of the Vauxhall's he made, Bageye hoped to make it make playing poker.......

One thing such local history gives us is the hope that what we have now, is not what we will always have. That is one thing I take from Manzoor, but consider this quote from Grant on 1970s Luton:

"I'd say that all the groups in Luton mostly rubbed up alongside each other without much tension, he adds. "In any event, we were taught always to take things on the chin and move on. Looking back at the relative racial harmony in the 1960s and 1970s in Luton the recent rise of the EDL there seems an enigma". 

'Inspired' by Owen Jones' Chavs..........

The October issue of Hackney Today, the Hackney Council propaganda sheet, lands on my doorstep.

It contains the usual Hackney People feature, which this month features Hackney actor Hywel John. He is behind the play Joe/Boy, a two part upcoming feature at The Last Refuge theatre in Peckham Rye. The play was commissioned in response to Owen Jones' book "Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class."

I am not sure Hywel John really gets class, which perhaps makes a play by him on the subject, whether inspired by Owen Jones or not, rather redundant. To quote from Hackney Today:

"Although admitting he went to public school himself, Hwyel adds "I'm not a massive fan of the traditional working and middle class thing, I think they are meaningless, especially in places around here where everyone is trying to get by".

I have not seen Hywel John act, but all I can hear in that quote is someone saying 'we're all in this together' in a very posh voice. Class may be meaningless to you Hwyel, as you 'struggle' to get by, but it is not to millions of other people.

Who do you think is buying those new build properties going up all around us in Hackney, Hywel? Judging by the prices in estate agents windows, they are not bought by people 'struggling to get by'. For many Hackney residents though, those properties may as well be on the moon.

The First European Government?

I found this little gem in Niall Ferguson's "The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West".

150 years before the technocrats, it seems we had monarchical European government:

"The key to understanding European royalty is thus that it was genuinely European; conventional national identity was fundamentally incompatible with an essentially multinational monarchy. Queen Victoria, for example, always thought of her family as 'our dear Coburg family' and regarded Saxe-Coburg as the royal family's proper surname. She liked her children to converse in German  as well as in English, as her 'heart and sympathies' were, in her own words, 'all German." (p.97)

Ferguson continues on the next page:

"Partly as a result of this cosmopolitanism, the European royals were, literally, in a class of their own. Despite being spread across the continent, the various branches of the family were held together by correspondence and by frequent meetings. State visits by one monarch to another were an integral part of nineteenth-century diplomacy. But behind the formalities, these were genuine family gatherings."

It should be noted this integrated leadership, far from making conflict impossible, was followed by the First World War.

Old Smears Never Die - Harold Wilson

In the 1960s and 1970s, a section of the British security apparatus, mostly within MI5, believed that Labour Party leader Harold Wilson was a Soviet spy.

They never proved their case (presumeably because there was no case in the first place) although the disruption and damage this belief caused was considerable. For anyone with even a passing interest in the security services, Robin Ramsay and Stephen Dorrill's 1992 book 'Smear: Wilson and The Secret State' is a must read.

It was not however, the last word. Proof of this comes via the spy writer Nigel West (actually the former Conservative MP for Torbay Rupert Allason) who penned 'When the KGB sought seats in the Commons' in The Daily Telegraph of 30 June. West/Allason wrote:

"Concern about Eastern European intelligence personnel ensaring MPs dates back to suspicions in 1962 that an Opposition leader had been assassinated to make way for a Soviet agent to take his place, and the best candidate was Harold Wilson, who succeeded Hugh Gaitskell following his mysterious death. Wilson became the subject of a highly secret MI5 investigation codenamed "Wheatsheaf", that remained unresolved."

Surely, in that it proved nothing, that meant the case was resolved? And Harold Wilson was not a Soviet asset?

*Hat tip to KM in Yorkshire for passing the West article down to me.

 

The Worst Definition of Secularism Yet?

Jean-Yves Camus is a researcher at the French think tank IRIS.

A columnist on Hope Not Hate magazine, Camus' debut in Issue 1 of Hope Not Hate back in March saw him examine the rise of Marine Le Pen of the Front National, and her attempts to repackage the party founded by her fascist father. In France the rise of Islam over the past three decades has arguably been even more controversial than it has in the UK, due to French concepts of laicite - a historical form of secularism that seeks to keep religion out of the state. 

Camus should be well placed to explain this to English readers, and how (allegedly) the French far-right has begun to make use of this concept for its own aims. Instead, Camus writes of Ms Le Pen:

"Unlike her father, Marine Le Pen focuses on Islam much more than the old French colonial and anti-black and anti-Arab racist stereotypes. Also she opposes Islam in the name of secularism, a very French concept that is hostile to religions having an influence on people's minds. Traditionally promoted by the Left, this has been taken up by the FN (and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and the Swiss Oskar Freysinger) as a way of promoting Islamophobia in a subtle way".

Two problems here. Firstly it is not hard to see how others will use such an analysis to contaminate secularism per se. Follow UK Islamists like Mo Ansar on Twitter, and that is already part of his game.  Secondly what is Camus talking ablout when he offers the definition of secularism that he does - what else is religion for other than to influence people's minds? Is it supposed to influence people's shoulders or their feet instead?

Lets hope Camus' original meaning has been somehow lost in translation.

 

Audley Harrison Reinvented?

Saturday's Daily Telegraph magazine had a section on British Olympians who had won Gold.

Audley Harrison, who won Boxing Super Heavyweight gold at Sydney in 2000, is true to form unintentionally hilarious. First there is the usual hyperbole such as 'the Audley Harrison show' and the curious statement 'I'm a bit of a showman' - not in the ring you are not Audley. This gem though takes the biscuit:

"Boxing is still an amateur Olympic sport, but I hope it becomes professional so boxers will go back and try for Olympic gold a second time rather than just reinvent themselves in the professional field".

Given Audley has had the best part of 12 years to invent himself in the professional field (and is still to do so) the prospect of him returning to the amateur game to do so is - well, hilarious. It is almost a shame that the rules don't allow it..............

On Blair and Religion

There was a marvellous letter in the Evening Standard of 28 June by Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society.

In a wider critique of the return of Tony Blair to our political discourse, Sanderson opened fire not just at one of Blair's inherent contradictions but one of the key problems facing multi-culturalism in the UK:

"What is really unhelpful is the inherent contradiction in Blair's approach, shown up in his opinion piece and your interview, by which he recommends stronger secular democracy in countries riven with religious conflict at the same time as greater reverance for religion in the secular West. This is no way to win support from doubters from either culture"

Bingo!

You Can Eat Whatever You Want, As Long As Its Vegan

This morning I was filling out the on-line registration for the Anarchist Studies Network conference at Loughborough University in September.

Check out this gem as a great example of the false choices that permeate contemporary society:

"Do you have any special dietary requirements? Please note that the conference food will be vegan"

If only one choice of food is available, why does it matter what my dietary requirements are?

 

 

Offshore Windfarms: More Hot Air

The Sunday Times Business pages on 24 June had a feature on off shore wind developers, and the financial crisis facing Vestas, the market leader in making turbines. Vestas has pulled out of a plan to build a factory in Sheerness that would have made offshore turbines.

I was struck by this quote from Maria McCaffrey, Chief Executive of trade group Renewable UK.

"....as the world leader in offshore wind, the UK remains an attractive place for manufacturers and members of the supply chain to have a base. It is vital that all sectors of government work together to secure the tens of thousands of jobs and billions of investment the UK is set to achieve in the next 5-10 years".

Hot air indeed! The basic problem with this method of energy production is........ it does not actually produce much energy. And on cold, damp, still days when electricity is needed most - it may not produce any at all. Organisations like Renewable UK are however great at producing fine sounding green rhetoric. If only that could keep us warm. Oh - and does anyone have any guesses as to where the 'billions' of pounds of investment is likely to come from?

I make no claims to predictive ability - but I am guessing the tax payer, with a little (involuntary) help from consumers.

 

Scotland: Signing The Pledge?

Last month the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, launched the Scottish National Party's campaign for a Yes vote in a 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. As part of this, Scots (and presumeably Scots in exile) are being encouraged to sign an on-line declaration that they support Scottish independence.

Salmond aims to get a million such signatures, and has the suppport of the Scottish Greens and Scottish Socialist Party (readers may insert their own joke about Tommy Sheridan here). Interestingly at the start of this campaign Scotland's First Minister has attempted to drape himself not just in tartan but in the cloak of class struggle stating:

"“Our enemies, of which there are many, are rich and powerful. We intend to take our case to the people by community activism and online wizardry".

I can't say that I am rich and powerful, but I do disagree with Mr Salmond - the peoples of these islands are stronger together than we ever will be separate.
Any attempt to portray Scots as in some way a discriminated against or subject people has always been faintly ludicrous (even in the 1980s) and not something in my experience too many Scots themselves take seriously. Until comparatively recently the SNP website was using Iceland, Norway and the Republic of Ireland as examples of neighbouring countries for whom independence brought good times economically in the twentieth century - two of those three are of course now basket cases - and it may well be in economic terms Scotland needs Britain more than Britain needs Scotland.
Ultimately though the independence vote it is a matter for Scotland. I do hope however, that when considering the 'rich and powerful', and who they stand by, voters take a good look at Alex Salmond and some of his backers:

The Queen: Bringing Peace To All Men?

No big posts or rants about the Jubilee here - sometimes it is just better to let the other side have their day, knowing there will be other times to fight on an issue. Roll on King Charles!

One of the sillier claims I spotted about the Queen as a force for political good deserves a hearing however. Lord Alan Watson is Chair of the Council of Commonwealth Societies and author of 'The Queen and the USA'. He has an interview in the May 2012 issue of Surrey Downs Magazine, entitled 'The Queen's Reach.' Try this gem on how marvellous Lord Watson thinks the Commonwealth is:

"The great thing about the Commonwealth is that it links North and South, gives small nations a voice and is inter-governmental, not federal, in nature. A lot of diplomacy goes on behind the scenes and the Queen is instrumental in that.
Take South Africa under apartheid. This Queen has an instinct for racial equality, as did Queen Victoria, and her quiet influence was undoubtedly significant".

Historians and scholars have usually explained the end of apartheid in terms of the ANC reaching a deal with the main white parties in South Africa. This centred on Mandela accepting political, if not necessarily full economic power, on the basis of few, if any recriminations. That deal has endured, even if it has not brought significant economic change to many black Africans, nor has it prevented the sustained (and greatly under reported in the UK) murder of rural white South Africans.  

It seems that history needs to be ripped up. We now need to add to the story the Queen's instinct for racial equality and its 'quiet influence'.......

 

 

 

London Met: Common Sense Bites Back

Ever since the Vice Chancellor of London Metropolitan University, Prof Malcolm Gillies, spoke of the need to respond to the rise in numbers of Muslim students by reducing the presence of alcohol and portrayl of sex on campus, a backlash was due. I am pleasantly surprised at how sophisticated, and encouraging, it has been.

All of the quotes below are taken from the Times Higher coverage of the case, and in particular the comments area below the article. One interesting response, from the trades union the UCU, is to see Gillies intervention as softening up London Met for cuts, using some old fashioned divide and rule tactics:

"Gillies is currently selling off large sections of the university estate, including 'The Hub' - the student union facility (inc student bar) at the City Campus. The VC's comments need to be seen in that light - i.e., they are simply a convenient cover for reducing student social facilities."

Similarly it seems London Met is hardly awash with wall to wall drinking anyway. From Rob Thoyts:

"Alchohol is currently offered for sale in only two of the University's eleven or so buildings, the "two fantastic (Student Union) bars" according the the Londonmet website, "which are regularly featured in the London Time Out magazine". Therefore the only part of the University where the sale of alcohol could credibly be banned would be in these SU bars. Umpteen canteens exist in the University which do not sell alcohol, therefore any suggestion that students who may disapprove of alcohol have nowhere to go, is entirely false."

Prof Gillies claim that some female students attend London Met only with an escort from a  chaperone also met a firey response:

"I find the sight of women in headscarves and veils who have to be chaperoned everywhere by men offensive. However, I would not expect them to be banned from certain parts of campus so that my strong political and moral sensibilities can be protected."

What seems so needless about this story is that there does not appear to be any evidence  Muslim students are agitating for any ban or restriction on alcohol. Instead this change is being offered to them, (and imposed) on others by the management's interpretation of cultural sensitivity. This is Niall:

"A great lesson, if you want one, in how to foster resentment, division and confusion. Muslims and other minorities so often get the blame for being 'over sensitive' but it's the ridiculous policies of institutions and politicians that are stirring up problems. I really hope all Met students stand up against this hideous proposition."

Dr David however feels a policy does need to be stated: 

"To be fair having areas which don't serve alcohol seems reasonable. For instance you could serve alcohol in bars but not in the lecture theaters. Or the other way round."

Perhaps the oddest section in Gillies quoted remarks was when he decided to talk about sex. Or rather he didn't:

The vice-chancellor also said that London Met was "much more cautious" about the portrayal of sex on campus than universities had been 30 to 40 years ago. "Now we've got a younger generation that are often exceedingly conservative, and we need to be much more cautious about [sex] too," he said.

No sex please we're British (and Muslim!) All of this is too much for sadtoworkatLondonMet

"Under what circumstances is Londonmet "portraying" sex on campus. I can think of only two possibilities; discussion of sex-related issues in classes, and sexual health information provided to students. So, in both of these areas we are supposed to exercise greater "caution" (whatever that means) than would have been the case in 1972? Yes, very progressive Malc!"

All too often discussions about race and religion (especially Islam) leave almost any reader feeling depressed and isolated. I have to say Prof Gillies has removed that depression at a stroke.  Reading the Times Higher comments I feel both invigorated and hopeful for the future - there actually seems to be a silent, sensible majority out there, and when pushed, they push back.

For that at least, we need to thank the Vice Chancellor!

 

 

 

Terrorism and the Olympics: Let The Silly Season Begin

The first in a series commenting on media stories about terrorist and public order 'threats' to the 2012 Olympics in London.

An impressive one to start with from the Sunday Telegraph of 1 April (and no it was not an April fool). Firstly the Telegraph's David Barrett did have the basis of an actual story. He reports that MI5 believe Akhmed Zakayev, who styles himself as the exiled Prime Minister of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria,  is under threat of assassination in London. They understand his death has been ordered by Chechnya's Prime Minister Ramzan Kadyrov, and are attempting to deport a suspect, named only as E1, who was also involved in the plot. 

Then it gets silly. Firstly we have the move to attach Venessa Redgrave to the story, as she is apparently friends with Mr Zakayev. This leads to the tabloid style heading "MI5 warns of death plot against Redgrave friend", and a picture of Zakayev and Redgrave that corresponds nicely with Telegraph policy of having posh totty on the front cover at least once a week.
As a general rule of thumb I adopt the political position that it is nearly always correct to be on the opposite side, on any issue, to Vanessa Redgrave, so will say no more about the politics of Zakayev. What is noticeable however is that despite this being an explicity Chechen story - all those directly involved - Zakayev, E1 and Kadyrov being Chechens, Barrett decides that this is a story about Russia, and Russians in London.

This gets particularly silly when Barrett not only connects (albeit loosely) this alleged plot with the actual shooting of Russian banker German Gorbuntsov in east London last month, but worse, the Olympics. Try this nonsense on for size:

"And it comes amid growing concern among the security services over the number of Russians in Britain who could present a danger to security, particularly with the London Olympics, identified as the biggest single target for terrorists in British history, fast approaching".

No suggestion is actually made that Russian gunmen (or Chechen?) pose a direct threat to the Olympics - probably because to attempt to do so would make Barrett look even more silly. Instead possible targetted acts of violence amongst one or two exile communities in London are  placed in proximity to an entirely seperate issue - that of Olympic security - with the hope that readers will put two and two together and get 76.

There is now 114 days left until the Olympics. I am going to do my best to log and comment upon silly stories of this type - it surely cannot be long until the Evening Standard dusts off its usual scare stories about Anarchists and public order and places them somewhere in the direction of Stratford - and we can no doubt expect an English Defence League 'threat' to be hyped out of all proportion.

I would be grateful if readers could send me examples of silly season stories that you spot. David Barrett and the Sunday Telegraph have made the early running - plenty of other lame old nags will no doubt follow.

 

Why Trades Unionists Should Not Vote For Ken Livingstone

The quote below is taken from the Rail Maritime  and Transport Union's official history "Never on Our Knees: A History of the RMT, 1979-2006" (London: Pluto, 2006) by Mike Berlin:

"The issue of PPP became bound up with an increasingly acrimonious Labour party wrangle over the choice of candidate for the newly created office of London's mayor. The front-runner, former Greater London Council leader Ken Livingstone, was excluded from the post of Labour's candidate for the mayoralty by a mixture of chicanery and backroom manoeuvring and ran for the post and won as an independent on a ticket which explicitly rejected part privatisation of the London tubes. Livingstone's victory usehered in a year long battle with the government to stop the implementation of PPP in which the RMT gave him vocal support. It was even willing to work with Livingstone's transport czar, Bob Kiley, who had reputedly 'saved' the New York subway system but who also had a reputation for union busting and once worked for the CIA. The RMT gave fulsome support to Livingstone's camapign for the mayoralty and against PPP. Livingstone was to prove a false friend to the union, and on being readmitted to the Labour Party in April 2002 he moved rapidly to the right, calling on members to cross picket lines during the strikes on the Underground of July 2004." (p.139)

 

The Olympics Then And Now

From the interview in today's Sunday Times with Jimmy McColl, who played for the Great Britain football team at the 1948 London Olympics:

"For the 3rd/4th placed playoff with Denmark, the manager, Sir Matt Busby, asked the entire squad if those players who hadn't yet been picked could be in the starting XI, even if it was to the detriment of the result. Everybody, respectful of Busby's intentions, agreed with this, meaning we all had the chance to play at the Games".

For the record, Denmark won 5-3 at Wembley, to take the Bronze medal.

Wot No Anarchists?

The quote below is from today's Telegraph Review, where amongst the book reviews Dan Jones considers Paul Preston's work on the Spanish Civil War and its fascist butchery, The Spanish Holocaust.

Jones writes:

"Ernest Hemingway, George Orwell and the rest sent back graphic dispatches from the front line, and their work has left the historical impression that Europe's first open war between fascists and the combined forces of communism, socialism and social democracy was well covered and understood. Yet away from the eyes of the war reporters, argues Paul Preston, there was another Spanish Civil War, in which thousands of civilans were systematically murdered, and their deaths subsequently obscured".

Whilst accepting his latter point, the former is a re-writing of history. In this analysis, all those Anarchists in Barcelona and much of southern Spain must have been a figment of the imagination. I do hope that Preston's book is considerably better than Jones' summary above!

The Tommy Robinson Show

Some comments on last nights Proud and Prejudiced documentary on Channel 4, which profiled local Islamist Sayful Islam, and English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson, in their home town of Luton.

Whenever I want to know about events in Luton, I usually phone some of the old Class War members in the town. After the 2009 booing of the Royal Anglian Regiment by Al-Mujihiroun I was quickly told that shariah was not about to be declared in the town "its the same 20 idiots who have been giving out leaflets in Luton town centre for years".

The description of Tommy Robinson is also one that has stayed with me:

"The problem with Tommy Robinson is that you and me could do Tommy Robinson far better than he does Tommy Robinson" - in other words the act of merely being opposed to Islamist extremism is good, but not what it could be.

In last nights programme, he probably did Tommy Robinson as well as it ever could be done. At times his arguments were sophisticated - talking (albeit clumsily) about that must uncomfortable of subjects demographics for example. Claiming that multi-culturalism has not failed, it is just religion that has failed, outflanks at a stroke a whole series of political actors from David Cameron and Angela Merkel to Nick Griffin (who was grumbling away on Twitter about that very point)
The claim that multi-cultural society actually works pretty well save for areas like Bury Park is one with its adherents - all usually unrepresented by mainstream political discourse.  The difficulty is that including most EDL members in those with a broadly positive view of multi-culturalism is being generous.

Sayful Islam was interesting in that his focus was on his religion and obtaining shariah. We should be wary of those trying to style al-Mujihiroun and its successor groups as solely political actors - their goals and the core of their practice are religious, and they are just as much a part of British Islam as its nice, cuddly adherents that get invited inside the big political tent. Whether they remain a tiny minority remains to be seen - as on any issue it is all to play for in the future. 

There are plenty of criticisms to be made of Proud and Prejudiced. Whilst Robinson's racism eventually bubbled through the surface in his stupid comments about Anders Brevik or as he fled from to Limehouse to avoid arrest, the EDL's proposed hook up with those well know purveyors of multi-culturalism the British Freedom Party went unexplored. It is possible that may well be the death knoll for the EDL - social movements tend to lose some of their magic when they enter into the formal political arena.

Equally Tommy Robinson was allowed to make the curious claim he had been to a BNP meeting in 2004 but was unhappy at them not admitting black people (presumeably from Luton's football firm) yet the EDL's origins in those who provided security for Luton BNP meetings has been well discussed by the likes of Larry O'Hara in Notes From the Borderland magazine. Disappointingly Qadeer Baksh from Luton Islamic centre was styled as a 'moderate' - compared to how Sayful Islam presents himself he may be, but they could just as easily have been portrayed as  competing sides of the same Salafi coin. Indeed some of the deeply unpleasant views circulated from Luton Islamic centre are in the public domain.

I have long argued that the EDL are a distraction from what will become one of the big issues in British public life - the role - if any - for Islam in this society. Those debates will intensify - with or without Tommy Robinson.

 

The British Liberal and Religion: A Paradox

Battling through yesterdays Telegraph Review, I came across a two page feature on Lloyd Newson's "Can We Talk About This" a dance production scheduled to run at the National Theatre from March 9th to 28th.

Newson's work looks at the clash between Western values of freedom of expression and the rise of Islamism in the West, and covers the era from the Rushdie affair to the murder of Dutch artist Theo Van Gogh. What struck me about the article was how closely Newson's experiences matched some of my own, both around the British left and within academia. He states:

"A lot of my liberal friends are very happy to criticise Catholicism, Christianity and Judaism but when it comes to Islam, it feels as though all the same principles are disregarded."

And that is one of the great paradoxes of our age......

The 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission: An Apology of an Organisation

The quote below is a couple of weeks old, but nothing sums up the IPCC more than its practice.

As an entity, it should not have survived the De Menezes affair in 2005. It then proved itself incapable of dealing with the killing of Ian Tomlinson in 2009. Come the shooting of Mark Duggan by the Metropolitan Police in August 2011 - hey what a surprise, the IPCC was in over its head. To know why, we should perhaps consider the quote below, from Andy Halliday, the team manager of the GB Men's Hockey team. Halliday was formerly a public order training and firearms training instructor with the Metropolitan Police, and was part of the team of officers who shot dead Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station in 2005.

Profiled in The Sunday Times on 22 January 2012, Halliday said this:

"It seems extraordinary, looking back, that I had my interview with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), where I expected a grilling for a number of hours on the Menezes case, on the same day in 2005 as I had my interview for the England hockey under-21 manager. I was in with the IPCC for about five minutes and I was with hockey for about an hour and a half thoroughly grilled by the performance director. "

So the IPCC spoke for just five minutes to an officer who entered the tube train where De Menezes were shot, and he faced tougher grilling for a job teaching jolly hockey sticks.

The IPCC should be abolished.

Egypt: Rewriting History?

History is written by two groups - the victors, and the middle classes.

I am reminded of this following an interview/book review with Egyptian author Ahdaf Soueif, by Julie Tomlin, in the current issue of the Camden New Journal. Ms Soueif, who divides her time between Cairo and London has a book to promote "Cairo My City, Our Revolution" and talks wearily of the 'betrayal' of the Egyptian revolution by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF).

What did annoy me was this little quote from Ahdaf Soueif's interview, where she states:

"The fact that people could act with such unity; that a civilian population could, unarmed and non-violent, force the removal of the head of a corrupt and brutal regime was a general cause for optimism."

She was a lot closer to the action than I was. But anyone following the news this time last year could see that the Egyptian people were anything but non-violent. How else can you describe the pitched battles in and around Tahrir Square between Mubarak's supporters and those who wanted change? How else do we account for the presence and perhaps critical involvement of Egyptian football hooligans in the fighting in Cairo against forces loyal to the dictatorship?

The good news is that the anti-Mubarak forces won, at least in terms of the battles of Tahrir Square. As the dust settles, it seems probable that they won the battle but lost the war. But that is no need to re-write history. I do hope Ahdaf Soueif's book is better than the interview suggests............

 

Lets Hear No More From The Bishops

In 2011 we saw the Church of England divided about the issue of Occupy protestors on church land at St Pauls Cathedral. We have also seen the Bishop of London and Archbishop of Canterbury criticise the excesses of the City and bankers.

Let us hear no more from these hypocrites in 2012, and let us loudly denounce those gullible fools, from Occupy to Terry Eagleton, who would include sky pilots in the struggle for a better world. Lets us consider yesterday's Evening Standard, and its excellent City Spy column which talks of:

...the Church Commissioner's investment strategy of an "acceptable level of risk" to achieve "the best possible total return for the shares" they own which are worth £3.2 billion. They hold another £1.6 billion in commerical property.

As with any good capitalist institution though, the Church of England now concentrates its investment abroad (those English workers want too much money!)

In recent years they have scaled down their holdings in UK company shares and invested more in global company shares and private equity.

With assests of £4.8 billion, the Church of England could wipe out poverty in Britain at a stroke. They don't - because they don't want to. Having a rich and a poor, having 'good' works to do, is for the religious actor as natural as day and night. And as such, it is high time we realised they are not part of the solution - they are part of the problem.

 

 

 

Don't Worry, 2012 Will Be OK

Amongst my Christmas gifts was a hagiography of Barack Obama for teenagers, written by Tim Alexander.

I am assuming 'Barack Obama Hope For The World: Everything you wanted to know about the President, and more!' (Orion, 2009) was written as a deliberate attempt to provoke heart attacks and haemorrages across the US right - it is impossible to see what other purpose it serves. Think of a combination between a Jackie annual and the manifesto of a student union candidate, and you are about half way there.

As we enter 2012, there are a lot of things to be fearful of. Take your pick from continued recession, debt, the rise of restrictive technologies and new laws, the lack of credible political alternatives to the Con-Dems, the prospect of conflict between Israel, the US and Iran, religious extremism, ongoing climate change and overpopulation. But, it seems I am being pessimistic:

"Behind us there stands years of war, global warming, economic difficulties and inequality. Ahead there is the hope of peace, freedom and a world where men and women of different colours, beliefs, and religions can live in harmony. A genuine change is taking place and we have a front row seat. One man has stepped forward to bravely lead the world towards our future." (p.5)

Not My Cup Of Tea

Leonard Zeskind and Devin Burghart have a big article on the US occupy movement in the November issue of Gerry Gable's Searchlight magazine. I think it best to use the term Gable's Searchlight, as we know that former Searchlight editor Nick Lowles is launching his own magazine in the new year............

Zeskind and Burghart cover what they see as as the threat posed to the occupy movement by the Tea Party, supporters of Ron Paul and the conspiracy theories of Texas snake oil salesman Alex Jones. What is noteable about this thesis is however just how overpowering an organisation as diverse (and some might say contradictory) as the Tea Party is viewed as being by the authors. Take the hyperbole of this opening:

"For the past two+ years, the Tea Party movement has had a death grip on the American political discourse. The Tea Parties strangled any move towards an equitable system of single-payer health care. They dominated the November 2010 congressional elections. They came within a hair's breadth of driving the United States itself into insolvency".

And there was me thinking Barack Obama had been President of the United States since 2009! Indeed many of his supporters were at one point insisting Obama had delivered on healthcare, and that this would be seen as the key success of his Presidency!
This approach is a classic example of how political commentators give the ruling elite a get out of jail free card. Any failure of Obama to deliver in the United States is not the fault of the man himself, the Democratic Party or even the US economic system - we can instead blame those on the right who are criticising Obama, for 'impeding' change!

As important as it is to be aware of the likes of distractor flares like Ron Paul or Alex Jones, it should not mean people take leave of their critical faculties. If the US neared bankruptcy, perhaps Obama (and Bush before him) should have spent a little more wisely and a little less on defence projects? And perhaps Zeskind and Burghart could consider where the buck stops in the American political system, rather than attacking easy targets?

Is it too hard to accept that if President Obama has not been 'radical' in office, it might actually be because he was never radical in the first place?

Anarchism: It's About Laughing and Crying

What else can you do when you read a statement like this:

"Turritopsis Nutricula is a multi-gendered, multi-cultural, multi-generational collective of individuals with varied sexual orientations, subcultural affinities and favourite foods.  We are a
Revolutionary household.  By this we mean that we are opposed to police, prison, borders, racism, sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, ageism, body-policing, speciesism, fascism, capitalism and any other form of oppression."

Apparently this collective is a week in to a squatted occupation in Seattle. You can read more details here. Oh, and a Turritopis Nutricula is apparently a jellyfish. They look a little like this:

A Tribute to Socrates

The first World Cup I can really remember, and certainly the first World Cup where I watched the majority of the games, was Spain in 1982.

The highlight of that tournament was Italy's fabled 3-2 victory over Brazil, and the highlight of that match, to my twelve year old's football brain, was the Brazilian goal where Socrates beat Dino Zoff at his near post. Socrates seemed incredibly exotic. This was an era where English footballers were 'over the Brian' in interviews, our World Cup mascot was a bulldog that would not have looked out of place as an illustration in National Front News, and our two best players, Trevor Brooking and Kevin Keegan, injured more than they were fit.

Socrates seemed improbably, impossibly exotic. The idea of a footballer who was also a Doctor was in the English context, unthinkable. But a footballer named after a Greek philospher, and who chain smoked when not on the football pitch? This interview, with Mancunian journalist Andy Mitten, not only gives us the mark of the man, but the following examination  of Brazil's defeat to Italy:

"Our loss to Italy was not simple," Socrates says. "It was like achieving the conquest of the most beautiful woman in the world, but then being unable to do what matters with her. But it can happen, in life and in sport. "Some say that we were the greatest side never to win the World Cup. They tell us that to this day ... People remember our team because we lost, not won. But nobody tried to copy Italy, the pragmatic team which lifted the World Cup. The beautiful team, with the art and creativity, lost."

 

LSE Interns: Where Gadaffi's Money Did Not Go

The London School of Economics Middle East Centre is recruiting for an intern.

This is a person required to provide administrative support, handle enquiries about the weekly public lecture series, write articles for a forthcoming blog and and help prepare a conference. Applicants will need to have a strong interest in the region, and will have the opportunity to interact with world renowned experts on the Middle East.

So far - so good. Now we get down to the brass tacks.

"This position will involve 10-15 hours work per week, 7 hours of which will be paid."

There are only two explanations for this. Either times really are hard at the LSE, and everyone is expected to take home half their pay, or the LSE Middle East Centre is looking to exploit its interns.

 

Saving Dale Farm? Do Not Expect Morality From The State

Amongst the coverage of the Dale Farm eviction yesterday, I was struck by this quote from Jake Fulton, which appeared at 1503 on the Telegraph's live blog:

"They're torturing people up there. We are trying to resist peacefully."

I am assuming Jake Fulton was one of those activists 'locked on' to the tower that was constructed by the travellers supporters. Locking on, often using bike locks, has been a common method on environmental protests for years. A workshop covering it is shown in the recent Just Do It film about environmental direct action, and it is standard tactic when occupying buildings, or trying to prevent evictions.

Locking on is a stupid, dangerous tactic that places the security, health and safety of the individual in the hands of their supposed enemy - the police and bailiffs. Anyone with a basic knowledge of pressure points or who remembers how to do a 'chinese burn' from childhood, will be able to inflict severe pain on the individual who has 'locked on'. Is this the 'torture' to which Jake Fulton refers? If so, he and a few others need to wise up, and actually start believing their own hype about police riot squads and court appointed bailiffs.

I can't imagine too many Irish travelling men would voluntarily lock themselves in a position where they can be made to suffer by the police. Quite why environmental activists are putting themselves in that position, on their behalf, is beyond me. It is easy to portray such activists as naive, gullible middle class dreamers, because in cases like this, that is how they behave.

Do not expect morality, or fair treatment, or the Queensberry rules, from riot police. Because if you do, you may end up being 'tortured'.

Cameron and Faith: Where Is The Big Society Going?

An interesting insight into the vision David Cameron has for Britain comes from an article he has written for issue 68 of Keep The Faith magazine.

For the uninitiated, Keep The Faith styles itself, according to its blurb on Google, as 'Britain's leading magazine about black faith'. Personally I am not sure how 'faith' can be black or indeed any colour, and I feel rather perturbed by the suggestion that it can be. Then again I have always been a staunch atheist, so what do I know?

In a way, Cameron's approach to Keep The Faith is far from unique. Issue 68 is devoted to a series of condemnations of this summers riots, and Cameron makes it clear that he sees faith as a way of countering such violence. Underwhelmed as I was by the political content of the riots, it is hard not be reminded of the way the 1980s urban clashes were followed by politicians embracing multi-culturalism, community leaders and religious figures in the inner-cities - all to buy off future problems. Put simply, the Prime Minister does not want to see young black kids on street corners, but in church. Here Christianity remains in its traditional role as far as British political leaders are concerned - it is for civilising black people.

What is also interesting, and deeply disturbing, is how Cameron sketches the big society to this audience. Consider this quote:

"I don't agree with people who say there is no place for faith in society and public service. Just look at the good work of faith schools - including the one my own son and daughter attend - or the work of Street Pastors and the Salvation Army. In every town and every city, there are charities and voluntary organisations of all faiths doing teriffic things. And through the new Localism Bill, they are freed up like never before to transform their local communities. This revival is at the heart of what I want to achieve."

The privatisation or reduction of public services, with religious organisations filling the gap, was envisaged in the US by the neo-Conservative right and by George W Bush. In Britain, it picked up pace in London with Ken Livingstone's funding of East London Mosque's welfare programmes, and is set to continue with the big society. On this issue at least, the right, the left and the centre-right appears in harmony.

Several problems emerge with this approach. Firstly, what about those who don't want their local community 'transformed' by the church down the road? When Cameron praises faith schools, is he really unaware of the division they have fostered in Northern Ireland, and to a lesser extent Scotland? Why is their promotion in England going to be different, especially when we already see significant differences between, to take one example, Muslim and non-Muslim communties in places like Birmingham and east Lancashire? What if traditionally antagonistic faiths compete for influence in the same area, both looking to 'transform' the community?

Writing for Shift magazine in 2010, I warned that the big society was likely to end up as an Islamist beanfeast. The reality now appears worse - a beanfeast for any religious current going.

 

Meg Hillier: Now Representing Hackney South?

A curious tweet earlier today from Meg Hillier, MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch, who lost her place in Ed Miliband's shadow cabinet re-shuffle:

"Thank you twittersphere for kind comments. I have freedom to speak for Hackney freely for first time in five years"

I am sure those who elected Meg Hillier in 2005 and 2010 will be interested to know that her Ministerial and then Shadow cabinet careers came first, her Hackney constituents second.

Brendan O'Neill On The Conservative Party Conference

This article from Spiked is easily the best summary I have found discussing the never-never land of contemporary British politics, as evidenced by the party conference season.

Whilst the economy continues to go down the plug-hole, Cameron was to be found styling himself as a sort of PC version of England's 1982 World Cup mascot Bulldog Bobby, demanding we show some pluck. When O'Neill writes of Cameron's apology to women for perceived laddish language, we see a commentator who actually grasps what is happening in the world:

In effect, he was bowing to pressure from minuscule numbers of influential women – primarily highly paid newspaper columnists and expert pollsters – who have been warning him to speak in a way they consider to be ‘appropriate’. That such a dinner-party spat can take centre stage at a party conference in an era of recession is a searing indictment of the hermetically sealed nature of modern British politics. This unedifying clash between professionals over how the fairer sex should be addressed brings to mind the old court system, in which mannerisms of speech and the depth of one’s curtseying were also treated as the be-all and end-all, elbowing aside burning political issues. The return of speech ritualism is further evidence of the isolation of the political class.

More please.

Don't Do It

There is little doubt about the most understated publicity campaign of the year so far. Step forward posh girl environmentalist Emily James:

"JUST DO IT lifts the lid on climate change activism and the daring troublemakers who have crossed the line to become modern day outlaws. Emily James' film follows these activists as they blockade factories, attack coal power stations and glue themselves to the trading floors of the international banks despite the very real threat of arrest."

Apparently a nationwide day of campus screenings is planned for October 18.

As one old comrade used to say, I'm pro cheese, pro coal. Count me out.

Tower Hamlets: Does Martin Bright Know Something We Don't?

The current Jewish Chronicle has an odd piece of analysis by editor Martin Bright.

"Ken needs to show a profound change" presents the hardly startling argument that Ken Livingstone needs to greatly up his game, dropping his alliance with Islamism, to win back voters who abandoned him in the last Mayoral election.

More curious though, is Bright's analysis of Ken's chum, Lutfur Rahman, Mayor of Tower Hamlets. Discussing Ken's appearence at the Mela in Tower Hamlets, Bright states:

"...he appeared alongside the highly divisive Mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman, who left the Labour Party for Respect, a body which brings together the socialist hard left and the Islamic far right.
Ken has calculated that backing Mr Rahman's brand of Islamism-lite will win him enough support to justify sacrificing the votes of Jewish, gay or more moderate Muslim Londoners."

I don't have any problem with the second sentence - I suspect that is exactly how Ken Livingstone's mind works. But Martin Bright greatly weakens his case by getting into a terrible muddle over Mayor Lutfur. Rahman certainly left the Labour party, but with the block vote of East London Mosque behind him, actually stood as an independent. There was no need for him to join Respect - the section of the mosque vote that had previously gone to Respect rather than Labour would follow him, and the leftists who made up the minority in Respect would follow as soon as they were told Labour's opposition to Rahman was based on Islamophobia. He remains an 'independent' to this day.

As for Bright's description of Respect bringing together the 'socialist hard left and Islamic far right', it is a neat soundbite. Placing some of the actors involved in this process however is slightly harder. Islamist politics in Tower Hamlets may well find individuals on the left on economic issues and the right on social issues (perhaps mirroring Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party more than the very far right)
As for those 'socialists' in Respect, the likes of Carole Swords and Kevin Ovenden long since shelved notions of class to cheerlead Islamist actors full time - be it Hamas and the Palestinian 'resistance' internationally, or East London Mosque locally.

Placing such individuals on the left/right scale is tricky - perhaps the best historical analogy is the old West European Communist parties during the Cold War. If you were a member of the French Communist Party in the 1970s, your job, by and large, was to support the Soviet Union. The role of a non-Muslim member of Respect is to 'support' the Muslim community locally and the ummah internationally.

Is that too nuanced for Martin Bright to understand?

Who Writes Nick Fielding's Captions For Him?

Catching up on some back reading, I have been flicking through Eye Spy magazine.

The March/April 2011 issue 72 had a four page piece by Nick Fielding 'Kidnap of the Godfather' about the 2010 kidnapping and murder of Brigadier Sultan Amir Tarar - Pakistan's 'Colonel Imam' a long term conduit between Pakistani intelligence and the Taliban. The British journalist Asad Qureshi was also kidnapped in the same incident, but escaped with his life.

Reading Fielding's piece it is not clear who his sources are for this article. It is very clear however that he has been badly let down by whoever writes the captions for Eye Spy. Beneath a picture of the Red Army in Afghanistan, on p.45, are the words:

"Russian soldiers pictured during Moscow's withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1988. The Taliban now ruled"

This is so bad it is hard to know where to start. Firstly the Soviet Union was a lot more than Russia. The Soviet Union left Afghanistan in 1989, not 1988. The government they had been backing, that of President Mohammed Najibullah, actually outlived the Soviet state, surviving until 1992. As for claiming the Taliban 'now ruled', they did not even exist as a distinct entity at the time, with most analysts charting their rise in Kandahar in the period 1994 to 1996, thanks largely to a mixture of local conditions and Pakistani support.

I am assuming a writer of the status of Nick Fielding knows all this, so the question has to be - who proof reads Eye Spy, and in particular who writes the captions?

Thank You Wills and Kate

Amongst the explanations for stagnant levels of political growth on Wednesday, was this little gem in the Telegraph:

"The royal wedding was said to have cost the country £1billion in lost economic growth." 

My opposition to the royal family is ideological, not economic. No one has the right to reign over me, especially not an aristocratic family who have never been ever elected to do anything. We have heard far too much over the years from those who would lecture us on the economic benefits the monarchy brings to Britain, tourist booms, what good value the Queen is, or how other alternatives are worse.

Read that quote again. It comes from a Conservative newspaper, perhaps the most staunchly royalist in England. Wills and Kate - your overdraft to the British people now stands at one billion pounds. Time to get grafting............

 

 

 

The Hatred That Dare Speak Its Name

This little gem comes courtsey of Adam Deen, a former presenter on the Islam Channel, who now styles himself as an Islamic philosopher.

On 21 July, Mr Deen tweeted:

People talk about immigrants costing this country money What's draining this country is the cost of policing our chav population.

 

Adam's other tweets this week include a complaint that women are so brainwashed they go to the gym dressed as strippers (although it is hard to see what business it is of his what women wear when they exercise) Clearly he is more bigot than philosopher.

Still, as long as he only attacks white working class people, he will go far.

And Freedom Means?

Browsing the programme for the Socialist Workers Party's forthcoming Marxism festival, I was entertained by this little snippet:

Kemal Abu Aita to Speak at Opening Rally

Kemal is a leader of the Egyptian tax collectors' union - the first independent union to be founded in Egypt for decades. Kemal has been a lifelong opponent of Mubarak and supporter of the Palestinian struggle.

I am not sure what it tells us that the first trades union to be tolerated in Egypt is one for tax collectors, but it sure as hell tells us something!

 

 

Class War Chanelled and Reinterpreted?

Way back in 2006, Robin Ramsay of Lobster magazine beautifully pulled the rug from under David Icke's feet.

Ramsay started with this quote from Icke in The Observer of 22 January 2006:

"In 1989, before the European elections, I was asked to go on Sky News. I went into make-up and sitting next to me was Ted Heath. He turned and scanned me and the whole of both his eyes went jet black. Was he part of the reptilian cabal? Absolutely."

Ramsay then added:

"1989 it should be noted, was two years before Icke had his encounter with the 'channeller' which began his journey towards the alien reptile thesis. He is reinterpreting his earlier life in the light, not of experience, but of his more recent beliefs"

I am reminded of the tendency for people to do the above, when reading the article by David Harvie about Class War on the Freely Associating blog. Harvie was one of those involved in Leeds Class War in the mid-1990s, and writes of the split in Class War in 1997:

"In short, we decided that Class War was incapable of making sense of the changed social and political terrain of Britain in the 1990s. It was incapable of understanding new movements, such as Reclaim the Streets and the anti-roads struggles more generally, not to mention the problematics and possibilities opened up by the Zapatistas."

I was as active as anyone in Class War in that period, and barely missed a London CW or national Federation meeting. It simply is not true to say that people fretted about 'the problematics and possibilities opened up by the Zapatistas'. The issues cited were not present in the debates at that moment in time. If anyone had wanted to hear about the anti-roads movement, they could have spoken to the London CW members active in Leytonstone in the campaign against the M11 link road.

David Harvie is reinterpreting his earlier belief, in the light of his more recent experiences. Rather like David Icke.

 

A Question For Anti-Fascist Historians

I am currently reading, and greatly enjoying, Diary of a Man In Despair by Friedrich Reck-Malleczewen. Regarded as the classic Conservative critique of Nazi Germany, the diary runs from the 1930s through to 1944, a few months before the author's execution in Dachau.

One particularly intriguing line raises an interesting nugget for those with an interest in anti-fascist history. On 9 September 1937, Fred Reck wrote of Munich:

"The outlying districts of Haidhausen and Giesing, Munich's lively and alley-filled versions of Whitechapel, have for some time been made unsafe by a group of adolescents banded together under the sign of the 'Red Anchor', who have launched a campaign of terror against all wearing Nazi uniforms. Providing one does not break the taboo against speaking north German dialect here, he can with a quiet heart traverse Giesing wearing a fur coat and top hat, and he will not be troubled - the 'Red Anchor' lays hands only on uniformed Nazis, and especially members of the SS. All this is in no wise to be dismissed as harmless rowdyism, since the 'Red Anchor' is said to be responsible for a number of killings". (p.65).

I have never heard of the Red Anchor. Such a description may fit with the Edelweiss Pirates, but the timescale is not really correct. Does anyone have any further information on anti-fascism in Munich in this period, and the Red Anchor in particular?