Category Archives: English Defence League

Tories concentrate firepower on peace campaigners by calling them antisemitic

Posted on 4 July 2012 | 2 Comments

In recent months the Brighton & Hove Conservative Party has devoted much time to criticising some local peace campaigners. That the Tories would disagree with such people is hardly surprising. The long standing mutual aid relationship between the Tories and the arms traders, whose business is dependent on peace not breaking out too often, is plain to see. David Cameron visiting Egypt soon after the success of their revolution to promote British arms sales was just the last stark example of this. The surprising thing is the amount of time and effort that the Tories have devoted to their attack on key peace campaigners in Brighton.

Although a tweet is easy to fire off, professional tweeting and becoming embroiled in conversations on twitter can require quite a bit of effort. It’s too easy to say something stupid due to failing to properly follow all the links out of the conversation, or even all the relevant dialogue itself. It seems that no amount of effort is too small for the Tories, when they can bait some of Brighton’s peace campaigners.

Normally, the peace movement is the political constituency making all the effort in this argument. To the casual observer, this odd role reversal seems to suggest that the Tories have become rattled somehow by the peaceniks and are fighting back. We’d expect  politicians sure of their ground ignore people like this. Perhaps the campaigners have begun to worry EDO, the Brighton arms factory they campaign against? Were that the case, we could expect EDO to lean on the Tories for some tactical support and the Tories to respond by launching a diversionary assault, to distract the focus of the attack on their important political supporters and funders. This analysis not only makes sense, it also flatters the campaigners with a previously unacknowledged strength, such as may beguile them and their potential recruits into thinking that they are close to victory. If only it were so simple.

Whilst there can be little doubt that the Conservative Party would prefer the peace campaigners to give up altogether, in Brighton & Hove they’ve chosen a novel ideological battleground. They’ve played the race card but not in the conventional way. We’re well used to the Tories’ racist campaign against the Travellers’ community and their complete silence when the EDL marched “for England” in the City centre. Ever since Peter Griffiths’ shock victory against the national trend in 1964 (he campaigned on the slogan, “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour“), the Tories have carefully cultivated the bigots in our communities, to win their votes. A few years later, Enoch Powell made his infamously inflammatory speech. Insisting that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist was the public face of their active support for apartheid – they consistently worked against the anti-apartheid movement. These days, a new generation of Tories may lack the deep seated fear of difference that their elders had but they still want those votes. Rather than lead on the issue, they are generally led, regarding the immigration issue as home territory. Despite all that history and tradition, the Brighton & Hove Conservative Party now make the startling claim that it is the peace campaigners who are racist. Specifically, they allege that the peace campaigners are antisemitic.

Until recently, this allegation has been fostered by certain Conservative Party activists, notably Robert Németh and Linda Freedman. Németh The Unelectable (so-called for his habit of losing very winnable elections) is the Deputy Political Chairman of the local Tory Party. Plenty of other Tory activists have joined the charge led by Németh:

Conservative Party activist Linda Freedman speaks out

Conservative Party activist Linda Freedman alleges anti-semiticism. Click to enlarge image.

Conservative Party supporter Rob Buckwell claims anti-semiticism.

Conservative Party supporter Rob Buckwell claims anti-semiticism. Click to enlarge.

There are dozens and dozens of tweets like this. For the record, here’s a whole bunch of them from Németh:

Robert Nemeth leads campaign claiming peace campaigners are anti-semitic.

Robert Németh leads campaign claiming peace campaigners are anti-semitic. Click to enlarge.

A recent political stunt by some activists, upset by Mike Weatherley Tory MP for Hove and Portslade) championing a new law to criminalise squatting, involved Németh being showered with pink glitter. The local Tories regard the squatters’ movement and the peace movement as being only populated by the same people. Of course, that’s a simplistic view which overlooks the number of perfectly respectable property owners who distrust the radical left but would still like to see the EDO factory closed. Brighton & Hove is stuffed with people like that. The City Council’s official statistics reveal we’ve got more graduates than anywhere else in the country. There’s plenty of psephological evidence to suggest that the more highly educated a population is, the more likely it is to vote for progressive candidates, which goes a long way to explain the number of Green voters here. Here’s how Németh described the glitterer:

Robert Németh describes man who threw glitter on him as "Some insane squatter thug".

Robert Németh describes man who threw glitter on him as “Some insane squatter thug”. Click to enlarge.

Personally, I dislike glitter very much. My wife sometimes goes to parties where it gets spread around. Several times, when I was a practising barrister, I found myself on the receiving end of odd judicial glances and later discovered that it had transferred itself to me, doubtless in our affectionate moments. The three piece black suit look is somewhat undermined by a dusting of shiny metal particles. Clearly, this was stunt was designed to grab the headlines rather than intimidate anyone. It is on a par with cream pie throwing. Describing the glitter merchant as a thug is ridiculous. Describing them as insane is risible. The day after his glittering, Németh publicly associated the incident with SmashEDO, the campaign against the arms factory:

Robert Németh links glitter attack to SmashEDO

Robert Németh links glitter attack to SmashEDO. Click to enlarge.

Presumably, in his mind there cannot be a separation between the two completely separate issues of housing and war. Having persistently characterised SmashEDO as an antis-emitic campaign, this rather looks like Németh attempting to tar all his political opponents with the brush of anti-semiticism. Reading through Tory activists’ public pronouncements on the SmashEDO campaign, you’d believe this was a brutal underground front organisation for the Iranian mullahs, hell bent on the genocide of the Jewish people. They’ve propagated unsubstantiated claims that SmashEDO has driven out Jewish members. At best that allegation reveals a chronic lack of attention to detail. At worst, it amounts to a smear campaign. Incidentally, I’ve been reliably informed that the glitter wielding thug, Alex Cline, is Jewish himself.

These allegations are simplistic in the extreme. The debate about the behaviour of Israel towards territories it has illegally occupied was for many years dominated by overly simplistic analysis like this. However, in recent years the issues have broadened out in mainstream debate. Clearly, the fault lines are complex. One thing is clear though: criticising a country for bombing innocent civilians does not amount to a racist campaign against the dominant demographic inside that country. Scrutiny and objective investigative enquiry are hallmarks of our democratic values. Refusing to acknowledge the merits of critical dissent is not. Despite wanting the votes of our highly educated population, the local Tories’ obsession about this one small apolitical peace group has become a long running theme in their local profile. Yesterday, they issued the following statement on their website:

Official Brighton & Hove Conservative Party statement on 3rd July 2012 which links peace campaign with attacks on local Jewish community.

Official Brighton & Hove Conservative Party statement on 3rd July 2012 which links peace campaign with attacks on local Jewish community. Click to enlarge.

This statement completely ignores the fact that there has been a rise in hate crimes since the recession began. There have been attacks against the disabled. The Tories are not particularly bothered about organisations which explicitly promoted racial hatred – if they were, they would have made a public statement condemning the EDL’s parade around Brighton on St George’s Day.

All of this amounts to a deliberate smear campaign. The question is why are the Tories doing this? If they carried on like this elsewhere in the country, they would risk alienating loyal voters. The sort of people who swung from Labour to them in Griffiths’ consituency. The sort of people who still praise Enoch Powell. These people regularly turn out for the Tories, although in recent years some of them have gone over to UKIP instead.

The answer lies in Brighton’s unusual demographic. SmashEDO’s analysis of the smearing rests on the fact that the Tories no longer regard the Green Party as purely Labour’s problem. Certainly, the Greens have been winning votes in areas normally associated with the Tories. Doutbless, this unexpected development has rattled them. SmashEDO argues that the Tories are seeking to scare voters away from the Greens. The idea here is that the Greens support for the SmashEDO campaign will prove that they are extremists too. In other words, not the sort of people the peace loving population of Brighton & Hove can afford to love.

There’s a lot of truth in this analysis but it’s only part of the picture. The bigger part relates to the fact that Brighton & Hove has an unusually large community comprised of gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gender people. The Tories are desperate to win these votes. With them onside they believe that they can eradicate both Labour and the Greens from local politics. It’s worth remembering that Brighton had a Tory council for 154 years before the graduates of Red Sussex (the University of Sussex’s nickname of old) changed the political map. They know that this community is well aware of the persecution that they would face in places like Iran, Zimbabwe & Syria. Therefore, it is convenient to the Tories to establish a link between the peace campaigners and the ‘mad mullahs’ of Iran, by means of the anti-semitic slur. Similarly, they relentlessly criticise SmashEDO for failing to oppose tyrannical regimes like Mugabe’s and the current Syrian dictatorship.

That last point is absurd. SmashEDO are a single issue campaign. They want to close down a factory which makes parts for weapons systems which are used to commit crimes against humanity. That’s it. That’s all the campaign is interested in – that one factory. In fact, last night I tried to persuade one of the campaign’s founders to join the Green Party but he point blank refused. He believes that his campaign would be weakened if he was involved in any political party. The EDO factory does not supply Syria, Zimbabwe or Iran. Why should SmashEDO launch campaigns against these regimes? There’s plenty of other campaigns tackling those tasks. Though you’ll not find the Tories championing them.

The whole thing is a sign of the Tories’ political desperation. They can no longer described as the natural party of government. They failed to win the last general election and look unlikely to win the next. Our local Tories have failed to win power in Brighton & Hove. The average age of the Tory associations is said to be 68 years old and rising. Without so many young recruits, it is increasingly hard for them to manage elections. Although their traditional canvassing methods focuses on mail shots, which they can easily afford, they lack the bodies on the ground who actually get the walking (as opposed to the postal) vote out. This is a long term problem for them, with no easy solution in sight. In times like these, people are not flocking to join them. Our local Tories know that if they don’t recruit a new generation, they will be doomed. This problem has become so acute for them that in March of this year, they publicly announced that they would accept non-party members to stand as candidates for them!

Brighton & Hove Conservative Party asks for non members to become election candidates.

Brighton & Hove Conservative Party asks for non members to become election candidates. Click to enlarge.

For years there’s been a power struggle inside the Brighton & Hove Conservative Party. There are two camps. On one side there is the older generation, which would prefer that the internet would somehow just go away and the old ways will come back. The younger generation recognise the futility of this way of thinking. Németh The Unelectable leads the youthful upstarts. Determined to live down his nickname, it is he who makes most use of social media and other modern communication strategies. It is he who realises which parts of the local community the Tories must convert to their cause. The trouble is, he’s got less experience of community life than he does of policy wonkdom. Knowing where he wants his party to go, he’s adopted ruthless tactics to get there. Free from attention to awkward details, he’s able to adopt any means necessary to achieve that ambition, including a smear campaigns.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Brighton, Egypt, English Defence League, English Defence League, Green Party, Hove, March for England, Peace Movement, Politics, Politics in the Cave, Racism, Robert Nemeth, SmashEDO, Thieving Tory Bastards

No place on our streets for violent demonstrators

Posted on 2 July 2012 | Leave a comment

Yesterday I discussed the evolution of the policing of political protests, particularly in Brighton, noting that much improvement had been made but that there was still a considerable distance to go before the police performed their job properly in this regard. Today’s post is concerned with the tactics of those who would turn various public political events into a physical fighting ground for Their Revolution. Sometimes the established media calls these people Anarchists but that’s a slur on some of our greatest philosophers and some of my best friends. The people I’m discussing are just thugs really and, frankly, there isn’t a great deal of difference between them and the various fascist and racist groupings which they love to hate the most.

Not everyone who acts violently is a thug. Sometimes it is necessary, in self-defence or the defence of others. This is not only recognised in law but also our culture generally and rightly so. Therefore any discussion of violence by the public, as opposed to the police, at political events is fraught with complication. Clearly, there are more numerous occasions than would be appropriate to mention in a short blog post like this when the police have either started the violence or deliberately created situations where it would become inevitable and people have reacted accordingly. The most infamous example in recent times was the Poll Tax Riot of 1991 in London. This video is contains a record of how the day’s events unfolded and is narrated by some the demonstration’s organisers:

I wasn’t in London that day but I knew plenty people who were. The chronology of events described in that video and others like it (better ones, which I couldn’t locate this morning) prove beyond doubt the culpability of the police that day and the complete lack of investigative journalism by the mainstream media at the time. Regardless of the inflammatory policing before the events narrated from 22m onwards, anyone caught in or near the path of the police vans driving at speed directly into the crowd was, in my clear opinion, legally fully entitled to attack the vans, their drivers and supporting police in self-defence and the defence of others. Of course, at the time, the press coverage was such that the courts took a different view.

With the benefit of hindsight, the view that the police started the riot that day is generally accepted. This scenario has been so common and its consequences so serious that any discussion along the lines of today’s post can too easily be taken as a criticism of all unruly and/or riotous crowds. There are so many examples of the mainstream media failing to report events properly close to the time, that people on the ground often feel extremely defensive towards any critical point of view. With that context properly acknowledged, we can turn back to those who attend public demonstrations with the intention of physically attacking the police.

These people turn up at almost every demonstration which has a left-wing point to make. That’s hardly surprising. Traditionally, right-wing political views were not demonstrated on the streets, largely because they are already manifested in the rules by which our society is governed. That changed with the emergence of the Countryside Alliance. The joke that they were the armed wing of the Tory Party was funny because was obviously untrue. Since then other right-wing groups have exercised their democratic right to assemble and protest their views. Campaigners against the right to choose abortion have followed in the footsteps of their political cousins across the pond and taken to harassing women entering termination clinics, by holding static demonstrations outside. People bent on violence against the police do not join those groups. In the last few years an ultra right-wing group called the English Defence League (EDL) has begun to hold provocative marches. Although undoubtedly responsible for much covert violence, they themselves do not attract into their own ranks the sort of people being discussed here. However, they always attract large crowds of all sorts of people opposed to their racist views. The people looking for a fight with the police routinely join the resistance to the EDL and use the occasion to attack the police without prior provocation.

In the various political events I have attended, my worst experience of these people was in Plumstead, in October 1993. Earlier that year a racist gang had murdered Stephen Lawrence. There had been a rising number of racially motivated attacks in South-East London. It seemed clear that the British National Party (BNP) was behind these crimes, either directly or indirectly. Consequently, various community groups, trades unions, sections of the Labour Party and various other left-wing parties, came together and organised a demonstration against the BNP. The BNP had it’s headquarters in a bookshop in Plumstead. The march was billed under the title, “Close Down The BNP”. At least, that was the official title. There were plenty of leaflets circulating (we didn’t have a workable internet in those days) with the title, “Burn Down The BNP HQ”.

I cannot imagine any civil society which would permit a march with those intentions to get anywhere near its target. Any community which wants its police force to turn a blind eye to that sort of behaviour hasn’t got a police force as we understand the term. Nevertheless, I went along to the protest. I was young and, like many other people at the time, I was very angry about the lack of a clear crackdown on these racist thugs by the authorities. The police banned the march but the coaches were hired anyway and we all descended on London.

As usual, it is difficult to obtain accurate figures for the numbers on the day. The organisers claimed that there were 60,000. I think the figure was probably closer to between 8-12,000. Numbers do tend to fluctuate at this sort of thing. It’s not a football crowd watching a match. My estimate is based on me counting a section of the crowd when it was densely packed and then multiplying it up by physical space, from a vantage point on a wall in Wickham Lane. Whatever the true figure, the vast majority of people were not intent on violence against the police. To what extent they were intent on violence against the BNP was unclear. However, it’s fair to assume that had the crowd got anywhere near the so-called bookshop, it would have been dismantled, brick by brick. More than likely, anyone inside would have been murdered. We wanted revenge for the violence they had visited on our communities.

Faced with substantial numbers of people attending an unlawful demonstration, the police sensibly chose to route the march along a route which they could control. We marched down this picturesque suburban lane:

Wickam Lane, Plumstead, London.

Wickam Lane, Plumstead, London.

If the residents of Wickham Lane didn’t previously know about the proximity of the BNP’s headquarters before that day, they certainly did afterwards. Those that were in that day must have been staggered by the sheer weight of numbers and deafened by the noise.

At the end of Wickham Lane the police made another sensible decision and chose a spot that was easy to defend and provided us with an exit route to our left up Lodge Hill, where they had directed our coaches to take park up ready to take us home. Here’s the cross roads:

Scene of the Plumstead Riot on a quiet day

Scene of the Plumstead Riot on a quiet day

Of course, at the time it looked very different. The police blocked the road straight ahead, which took the most direct route to our destination. The road to the right, going up hill was also blocked and the road to the left is Lodge Hill. The police allowed us to walk a little way down the road straight ahead (Okehampton Crescent) and made their stand there. During the stand off between the crowd and the police, dressed in riot gear, I walked up and down the gap between the two sides. It was about two yards wide. I remember wishing I’d brought a camera because it would have made for some excellent photography. For a while, everything was calm.

However, the protestors were determined to make progress. When the pushing began, I found myself pressed up against a riot shield, with the pressure of thousands of people behind me and thousands of police officers in front. It was a frightening crush. I remember realising that the front row of a rugby scrum turned out to be little more than a cuddle compared to it. Somehow I managed to get back from the front line.

Then someone in the crowd made a clever announcement through their megaphone. He said, “There’s a couple of thousand of them and twenty thousand of us. If we coordinate ourselves, they won’t be able to resist our great force. Link arms and a-left!” Without any warning, we all spontaneously cried out, “Left!” As we did so, we put simultaneously put our left foots forward. The megaphone man cried out, “… and a-right!” We all cried out, “Right!” In this manner we walked effortlessly up the road. There was no shoving or violence in the normal sense of the word. The police could not resist the physics of the situation. We advanced ten or twelve steps like this. Suddenly it was going to be easy. The megaphone man called out again: “Now, untangle your legs!” That was a good idea, below waist height in the crush we were all caught up with one another. After 30 seconds, he started coordinating us again and again we were on the move.

This was obviously a tactic which the police had not foreseen. They reacted to it by charging the crowd with horses and arresting the man with the megaphone. Without him it was harder to manage the process but the idea had taken root and we took it in turns to call out the coordinating commands. It worked because we all took each step in unison. Although force was being used, it didn’t feel like a violent situation. However, it was getting increasingly dangerous. The pressure was immense. I felt an arm slip through the nook of my elbow and heard a short woman next to me asking if I could hold help her stay upright. This sort of situation is how people get trampled underfoot. Without warning the police horses broke though their side of the front line and charged us. We ran back to the junction and regrouped. The police regrouped and there was another stand off, this time with a wider gap between the two sides.

Whilst charging mounted officers into the crowd was dangerous, I could see why the police had done it. They couldn’t allow us to break through their ranks and burn down the BNP headquarters. They had allowed us space to the left at the junction to escape through. We weren’t taking that option. Instead we were clearly capable of overwhelming them, without resorting to an actual attack.

I was about two or three lines from the front of the protestors, when suddenly a brick dropped out of the air right beside me. It landed on someone’s head, gashed it and took them down. The crush had collapsed the wall of the old cemetery on Wickham Lane. Masked men, dressed in black had started to break the remnants of the wall up and were throwing them.

I suppose they meant to throw them at the police. I could understand their anger towards the police. We all knew that the police were racist. Even today, there’s evidence that large sections of the police still are institutionally racist. Back then, we knew that they had deliberately bungled investigations into racist crimes. If they’d have done their job properly, we wouldn’t have had to wait 20 years for Stephen Lawrence’s murderers to be convicted.

However, they weren’t throwing them at the police. They were throwing them at us. Plainly, they couldn’t throw their missiles far enough to reach the police lines. They stood behind those of us at the front and threw large bits of masonry into our own numbers. We called out, with increasing desperation, for them to stop. They shouted back that we should join them. Someone shouted a suggestion that they throw their bricks from the front of the crowd and not at the crowd but they weren’t interested. They just wanted to hurt people.

The person on the ground next to me was helped up Lodge Hill by various people, some of whom were holding their hands in the air to show that they were covered in blood. As soon as they had fled the scene, the police charged again. This time, it wasn’t a controlled maneouvre. It was a violent attack on us. As they charged in, they lashed out with their batons at anyone they could reach. They weren’t trying to get specific individuals, they were after all of us. To be fair, we had all chosen to take them on and push them back.

The stone throwers turned and ran with the rest of us. Then the police retreated to the junction, which again provided us with an escape route to up Lodge Hill. This episode became repetitive for the next few hours. During this time the stone throwers injured many people in our crowd and rarely hit a police officer or contributed to the general effort to push the police back. In my view, they created the riot themselves. Without their antisocial behaviour the police may have attacked us anyway but these people didn’t wait for that. Responsibility for the injuries and fear that day lies firmly with them. I’d estimate their numbers at no more than 30. That a group so tiny could cause so much trouble and not be held back by the vast numbers of ordinary people mystifies me.

Eventually the police must have decided that they had to move us out of the lane and towards where our coaches were. Another contingent pushed us from behind and we were corralled up Lodge Hill. They repeatedly charged us with horses. Although I’d had more than enough fear and loathing for one day, I was keen to stay put. I felt strongly that we had to make our mark, we had to make sure that the issue made the news. That certainly happened but not in a good way:

Incidentally, a word to the wise. I discovered that a crowd’s sudden unity can evaporate equally quickly. During one of the final stand offs, I called out to the crowd on Lodge Hill and asked them to recall that scene in the film Ghandi, where the protestors lay down in front of the British mounted officers. In the film, the horses refuse to trample on the people on the ground. I suggested that this was true and suggested that we all lie down. About a hundred people, maybe more did precisely that. I lay down at the front, looking towards the horses and thought, “this had better work.” Having encouraged this form of peaceful resistance, I didn’t feel able to abandon it when the horses charged again. Unsure of the film’s veracity, at the last moment I turned my head to cover it with my arm. I saw everyone else get up and run. I was lying down on my own directly in front of a dozen charging horses. They ran around me.

Occupy London made many mistakes but it did work out a solution to the problem caused by the thugs bent on getting punch drunk fighting the police. Immediately that we had occupied St Paul’s Churchyard, we received messages of support from various shady groups who declared that if the police came into clear us out, they would turn up and defend us physically. Privately, the activists who took on most responsibility for the various essential features of camp life asked them not to. Right from the start, there was much talk about how to deal with these people. We regarded them as agents provocateurs. The consensus view was that if anyone saw anyone being violent (without reason), we would stand back from them and point at them. Early on myself (and others, it wasn’t just the legal team doing this) spoke to as many officers as we could to inform them that we would facilitate their arrests. We made these communications as official as possible by tweeting the numbers of the police we had spoken to or videoing the conversations. From time to time, I’d hear someone say that if the police came in to clear us out, he’d attack them. Every time I heard that, I’d hear other people immediately tell them that if they did that, they would stand back, point at them and assist the police in arresting them. There was no violence.

At the recent so-called March for England by the EDL in Brighton on St George’s Day, more than a thousand people from all walks of life turned up to line the streets and boo and harangue the racist protestors. Me included. Amongst our numbers there were about thirty young men dressed in black and masking their faces. Doubtless some of these people were just worried about losing their jobs. Not all the objects thrown at the EDL came from their ranks (I saw one man open an upstairs window and throw a bottle at them). However, it is fair to say that yet again there was a tiny group of people who deliberately used violence against both the EDL and the police. They threw bottles and fireworks. Yet again, they weren’t too fussed about who they hit with their missiles. The EDL have persistently complained that a young girl was hit by a bottle. This claim has embarrassed the anti-racists organising the counter-protests that day. By and large they have been silent about it. Those bottles were gifts to the racists. They were thrown on several occasions. Some of them sailed directly over the thick heads of the EDL supporters and into the large crowd of Brightonians on the other side of the moving police kettle. More than once, I had to duck a flying bottle and a firework landed close to my feet. Whilst walking down North Street, I spotted my local MP, Caroline Lucas, and suggested that she stand back a little to avoid the flying glass. “We need you to be able to work hard for us in Parliament, not go to hospital“, was what I said.

We were rightly proud that both the then Leader of Brighton & Hove City Council (Bill Randall) and our local MP turned up in person to oppose the racists on our streets. What on earth was the point of throwing bottles at them? At anyone? As Plato famously put it, cui bono?

Clearly this tiny minority of thugs benefits. They get to have their excitement, in much the same way as football hooligans fighting have theirs. Previously, those parts of the police and our political classes who want ever stronger powers to control us, also benefit from this behaviour. That begs the question of how many of them are actually undercover police agents? Perhaps we’ll never know. Although the law on self-defence permits someone to strike first, the facts of the situations I witnessed in Plumstead and in Brighton do not give rise to that defence. In neither situation were we being attacked or under immediate risk of attack by the police (or anyone else) until these people became violent.

I’m heartily sick of having our rebel culture hijacked by these troublemakers. I’d like to see the Left discuss the issues involved far more readily. We must adopt solutions to the problems these people cause us. If we don’t, we’ll be permanently stymied in our ability to recruit others to our cause. For all its failings, the good people in Occupy London have provided us with a tactic which works. When we film trouble at demonstrations, we should unequivocally film all of it and make it all available publicly. If the police cannot or will not arrest the thugs and we don’t feel able to do so, we should stand back and point at them, so as to distance their behaviour from our beliefs. If we can do that on every occasion, it won’t take long before they stop trying to railroad our beautiful peace movement. Our inactivity shelters them and encourages them.

No wonder the vast numbers of people angered by the current crisis of capitalism still don’t join the ranks of political activists, socialist, Green, or otherwise. How on earth can we recruit if we can’t root out this systemic problem? Seven years after the Plumstead riot, I was working as a law reporter in London. During a pub lunch myself and the editor were encouraging the rest of the staff to become more politically active. One fellow declared that he would never get involved in any public demonstration because they so often turned violent. He told us a story about such an occasion in the road he grew up in. He told us that the protestors had broken up a graveyard wall to throw the constituent bricks at the police! I asked if he had lived in Plumstead and he said, yes, near there. I blurted out that I had been there that day and tried to explain what happened. He wasn’t interested. After our crowd had gone, the rain had come and the skeletal residents of the graveyard had emerged from the earth which had previously been hidden by the broken retaining wall. We hadn’t just broken the wall that day, we’d broken any chance of recruiting him and his neighbours to an active political life. Whether it is broken windows or dead bodies we leave behind, neither is a good calling card.

Brighton has long been at the forefront of the peace movement. That’s why the EDL want to parade around on our streets. They hate us and want to provoke us. Although this year we humiliated them, we also allowed them to argue that they have good reason to hate us. We need to tackle that issue properly before next year’s confrontation. The confrontation isn’t the problem, it’s the manner in which we handle it. We must raise our game. We need to stop avoiding our own issues about how we handle ourselves and the misguided people amongst us. Next year, the police may want to kettle the anti-racists again, as they did two years ago. We need to be clear that the violent idiots will be treated as the criminals that they are. Practical steps must be taken to ensure that Sussex Police understand there has been a definite change in our strategy. They’ve been making efforts recently to build trust with our activist communities. We’ve got to make some effort too.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in 1993, 2012, Brighton, easy to be scared, English Defence League, English Defence League, Fascism, Fear, Fighting, Green Party, March for England, Occupy London, Occupy London Stock Exchange, Plumstead, Police, Police Violence, Politics, Politics in the Cave, Poll Tax, Protest Liaison Officers, Protests, Racism, Riots, Sussex Police, Thieving Tory Bastards

How far has policing political protest evolved in Brighton?

Posted on 1 July 2012 | 3 Comments

Sussex Police wantonly attacked a peaceful political demonstration on 24th August 1996 in Brighton. The occasion was billed as a Reclaim The Streets. For the uninitiated, that’s a celebratory protest against car culture, which makes its mark with peaceful protestors physically standing in the road. It was intended to be a beach party. As far as I could tell, the word was to attend dressed for the seaside and be ready for beach games.

That morning I had a wisdom tooth extracted. Head full of anaesthetic and minus one large tooth, I strolled into town to join in with the fun. I was expecting a nice fluffy event and a rare break from my legal training. I had returned home to live with my parents so as to be able to afford my studies and this was exactly the sort of thing I imagined that they most feared – me apparently returning to old party driven lifestyle. Nowadays, I look back on the rock ‘n’ roll years of being a fire-eater and fondly call them The Soft Years. Back then, I was as keen as my folks were to see the back of them. All the same, I chose not to mention this protest party to them, lest they got the wrong idea.

When I arrived in Churchill Square, there was a rather tense atmosphere. There were a lot of police. Hundreds of them. There were also a few hundred people standing in a loose group some distance from the police. I asked someone what was happening. They explained that a couple of Legal Observers had just been arrested and the others had been warned that they would be arrested too. That resulted in all of them taking off their orange bibs and concealing them. One of them had apparently been arrested for handing out leaflets explaining a person’s rights on arrest. I didn’t like the sound of that.

Whilst I was digesting this information and wondering what to do about it, someone else told me that the people with the sand had been arrested in a pre-dawn raid. Their idea had been to arrive at the Clock Tower with a massive truck and tip a huge quantity of sand onto the road around it, so that we could have a genuine beach party. I was never all that convinced by the merits of this plan. It would have been a very dramatic form of defiance. It could easily have created dangerous road conditions in the wet. Drivers could hardly be expected to foresee slippery sand on this junction, on a hill or deal with it competently in busy traffic. Overall, although I could see that it would grab the headlines and probably get a photographs onto the front pages (we still read newspapers in those days), it was very provocative. Having sniffed the story out, the police were bound to come down hard on those they perceived responsible.

The sand boys had been frustrated but the police were probably wondering what other ideas were up which sleeves. Reclaim The Streets, Critical Mass and similar events were a direct response to legislative changes designed to curtail demonstrations. Since official organisers would get into serious trouble in so many scenarios, people just abandoned any attempt at official organisation for anything. The resulting chaos was and is much harder for the police to cope with. Like the original Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it was a classic knee-jerk law-making; arguably it created more problems than it solved. These days, the police have become a little used to the idea that we do not trouble ourselves with organising committees. Back then, they found our new methodology simply incredible. Their view seemed to be that the organisation had gone underground: organisers had become conspirators. Instead, an idea was launched and people made their own arrangements around that.

The police and the protesters continued to eye each other nervously. I borrowed a Legal Observer’s bib. Various people, none of whom I knew, urged me not to put it on. I didn’t know anyone there. I crossed the physical space between the two groups and spoke to the police officer in charge: Chief Inspector Streeter. I told him my name and address. I told him that I was about to start the Bar Vocational Course at the Inns of Court School of Law and asked him why the Legal Observers had been arrested. He declined to comment. I said that in the absence of any explanation as to why a Legal Observer should be arrested, I intended to become one there and then. I explained that I had borrowed a bib from a stranger. I suggested that if he wanted to arrest me, perhaps he could let me know. He said, “So long as you don’t play any part in the demonstration, you won’t be arrested.” I put the bib on and walked back.

The police moved to the other side of Western Road. The crowd exhorted itself to get the show on the road. We collectively tiptoed after the police. Just as we got to the kerb, someone shouted, “They’re not going to stop us!” Suddenly beach balls were being thrown in the air, the traffic was blocked and there was partying on the road.

It was a short lived party. The police lined up into ranks and advanced. West Street seemed to have been closed off for our benefit. Looking back now, I wonder whether the people who shouted that we were being allowed to take over West Street were in fact undercover officers. We were corralled down West Street. As we did the police at the bottom advanced towards us. Then the police appeared on both sides of us. The police on all sides pushed and shoved us into an increasingly small rectangle until there was only just room to turn on the spot. I didn’t know to call it a kettle then.

People were shouting and asking for more room. It got very ugly, very quickly. Pleas to leave were ignored. Between us and the police was a thin strip of space. It was as wide as the length of a copper’s arm. Anyone straying into this region was attacked by the police, physically. Realising that this was not going to end well, I decided to ask a police officer if I could leave. Hands by my side, I asked the nearest officer. His neighbouring colleague drew his truncheon and stabbed it into my chest repeatedly.

The standard issue truncheon had just been replaced. He stabbed me four or five times and only stopped when I pushed the tip of his weapon away. I said, “There’s no need for that, I only asked to leave. You could just say no.” Whatever was going through that man’s mind is anyone’s guess. Perhaps he was worried about being obliged to defend himself from having to articulate a response with his extendible rod? He raised it and tried to beat the top of my head with it! I caught the end of it in my hand and said, “What do you think you’re doing? If you can’t talk, you could just ignore me. There’s no need to try to kill me. You must know the risk of death or serious injury involved in hitting someone on the head?” As I said those words, we played an absurd version of unbreakable crackers. He yanked his end of the truncheon and I pulled back at the offensive end. When I let go, he knew it was because I had chosen to. He looked sheepish and put his weapon away. I asked him again if I could leave and he ignored me, avoiding eye contact.

One of his colleagues ordered me to move away. “Where am I supposed to go? You’ve left me no room to move.” He could see my point. There were people standing directly behind me and people behind them. At this point I felt someone tap me on the shoulder from behind. I turned around. A large furry microphone was pushed in my face. Next to the boom operator was a man holding a large video camera. A woman asked me if I wouldn’t mind being interviewed for French television. “Sure, I don’t have anything else to do.“

She asked me if I was hurt. I said no. Then she mentioned that they had seen the police hitting me with his truncheon. I said something about him not wanting to let me leave and go home. She pressed her point and asked, more insistently, that it must have hurt me. Although not keen to help the police at this point, I didn’t want to lie either so I said, “Oh no, it was nothing.” Her face was incredulous, as if she was annoyed that I hadn’t immediately complained of maltreatment by the heavy hand of authority. She pressed again, saying that I looked really badly hurt and I replied that I wasn’t, that there was nothing to worry about. She pointed to the blood running down my chin. Wiping my chin, I discovered that I there was blood on it. I felt the back of my mouth. Realising that this wasn’t too hygienic, I pulled my hand out and wiped it on my hankerchief, which I then wiped my lips with. It turned from white to red. The interviewer said something like, “Look, you are bleeding quite badly! You are hurt!” My reply must have reinforced every cultural stereotype possible about the British stiff upper lip: “I’m telling you, this blood has got nothing to do with anything. I’m not hurt.” Her face was complete confusion.

I realised that I could use the blood as a means to escape the inevitable fracas. I approached the police again. I pointed out that I was bleeding, took off my bib and asked to be allowed to attend hospital. That worked. On the way home, the anaesthetic wore off and the pain kicked in. Sitting in my kitchen at home, my Mum asked me what I’d got up to that afternoon. “Nothing much“, I replied. Then she told me that one of our neighbours had seen me on BBC South Today in the middle of a riot. Oh dear. The neighbour had related the whole incident to her. “Better not tell your Father“, was all she said.

Now that’s my personal recollection of the events on the day. Luckily, there were people taking a proper record of what actually happened. I’m the Legal Observer mentioned at 14:50 at that link. The following day there were extensive press reports, focussing in particular on the exceptionally high arrest rate. The police broke the law repeatedly that day. The demonstrators did not. Although the Human Rights Act had not yet been drafted, the UK was a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights: it was the first country to sign it and the last to legislate. The legislation made remedial action swifter and clarified the relationship between the Convention and all our other laws to some extent but it didn’t actually introduce any new rights. The police broke those rights over and again. Let me be completely objective about this: the policing was a bloody disgrace.

I knew no-one at the protest. I went back to my studies. I kept my newly acquired bib. Since then I’ve moved house over sixty times. I’ve given away all my possessions, lost stuff, sold stuff and been separated from stuff. I’ve treasured the bib. When I was completing my barristerial training in London I sometimes turned up at events like Critical Mass. I put my bib on and watched the police very very carefully. I would hear people say things like, “Who’s he? The other observers don’t know him.” Other people would note that a few words from me and the police would change their behaviour. A little. Normally Legal Observers have training to ensure they remain in role. I never did. Effectively, I acted as a freelance observer. I’m not pretending to have saved any days but I did contribute to keeping the peace on a few occasions. I wish I could say the same for the police. I’ve observed them breaking whatever laws they want until they heard me recording everything into a time stamped dictaphone.

At Occupy London the police attacked us on the first night. However, a combination of events kept them at bay after their initial foray. One was the fact that the City of London Police had little experience at dealing with civil disobedience. Another factor was that man of the cloth turfing them off the Cathedral steps first thing in the morning, creating the possibility of a political crisis between the City and the Church of England. There are more factors than I care to name in this essay but one of them was the fact that they knew that right from the start we had an excellent legal team. Once more I had turned up on my own and put my legal head to work. On the first night I recruited John Cooper QC (to advise me on behalf of Occupy London). I suggested warning them via twitter that there were children asleep in the tents and that they ought to read the Children Act before piling in. The tweet went out. A moment later, their lines pulled back. It could have been a coincidence, of course.

The biggest factor was almost certainly their knowledge that no matter how much they filmed and photographed us, we were capturing their every movement and streaming it directly to the world. Probably with better cameras than them. The name Ian Tomlinson was doubtless on every officer’s mind. His death was a tragedy. It was also part of a pattern. The police have form for injuring and killing people at protests. People they are supposed to protect. Previously, they got away with murder because they could cover up the evidence and we couldn’t collect it ourselves. There’s no point stopping people handing out leaflets explaining your rights on arrest any more because everyone has a video camera.

Back to Brighton. Sussex Police have recently developed a new approach to policing protests. They deploy protest liaison officers. We first saw them used when they turned out in force at Brighton Uncut‘s Never Mind The Jubilee Street Party in Churchill Square. Elsewhere in the town, large numbers of officers kept a close eye on a day trip to the seaside by the EDL. Afterwards, Sussex Police made attempts to discuss this new form of engagement with people interested in the protests, by talking to them via twitter. Some of us, myself included, tried to engage with them. Others rejected the approach out of hand. Others still were indifferent. After all, the police have a lot to prove. It is them who have to win trust, not the people.

Although there is a long way to go before this new initiative could be described as a turning point in the relationship between the police and people protesting their rights and their political views, we have also come a long way since 1996. The Brighton Uncut street party was just as unlawful as the ‘beach’ party, yet the police did not just pile in, beat anyone who dared to speak to them and arrest as many people as their cells could hold. Instead they talked to us. That looked like an improvement to me.

Unfortunately, after that the new look protest policing faltered. The protest liaison officers were next deployed at a demonstration by the SmashEDO campaign, which protested against the possibility of war with Iran on 4th June 2012. Sussex Police have been coy about the behaviour of the protest liaison officers on this occasion. It has become clear that they tried to mingle with the protesters and only left the crowd when the protesters mocked them so much that their continuing presence had become inflammatory. Having already discussed the new strategy with the police via twitter, shortly after that protest I asked them whether those reports were true. Instead of replying that they were waiting for reports to be filed and would answer later or admitting it or denying it, instead the police tried to duck the question. (10th paragraph at that link & screenshots of conversation below it.)

These people work for us! They are public servants. I’ve paid tax. I’ve paid their wages. Why they think that they should treat any enquiry much as a politician treats a journalistic question is baffling. I fear it reveals much about police culture. Close ranks, cover up and kill the story. When will they understand that these old tactics won’t work? We have video. We own the internet. The more intelligent approach would be to get straight to the point and admit the truth. Then the merits of the facts could be discussed.

Let’s park the issue of Sussex Police being unable or unwilling to just confirm the facts on the ground. The decision to deploy officers charged with engaging with protesters uninvited inside the protesters’ ranks must be categorised under “Undiplomatic”. There is a deep seated suspicion amongst many political activists that these officers are simply on an intelligence gathering mission. For my part, I suspect that even the police would realise this technique would be an utter waste of resources. Last year’s half a million plus requests to snoop on our communications was much more likely to bear fruit than donning a uniform and walking amongst us. Film is more useful than individual personal recollection. Undercover agents who are still allowed to rape their way around the activist community will certainly acquire more information than watching people wave donuts on sticks at you. The average plod may not be the brightest soul in the force but surely those further up the chain of command cannot have really intended these particular officers to gather intelligence? It’s much more likely that the decision to deploy them like that was a bungled attempt at public relations and the slowness to withdraw them a reflection on the reflexes of the command structure. After being pinned down on this issue, Sussex Police later implied to me that their officers had as much right to the public space as anyone else. That’s true but it isn’t the way to develop new community relations. It’s like the landlord turning up at your birthday party and telling you he owns the house.

Many local political activists point to the officers wearing the liaison bibs being the same people employed on more pernicious tasks. There’s not much mileage in that point. These liaison officers are not a completely separate unit from the rest of the police. They’re just performing a role on the day. Performing different roles is a feature of professional life. Rather than picking on the people involved, we should point out the problems with the new role in the hope that they can be ironed out.

It is early days still. The gap of understanding between the two sides is wide. There is too much distrust on both sides. There will always be some political activists who view the police as a front line in their battle for regime change. There will always be some police who regard anyone who isn’t shopping for retail therapy to be a troublemaker. In between, there are many who would like to find a better approach. The problem is that the police have all the power. The ball is in their court. My guess is that they get a few more chances to serve us properly but only a few. If they fail to get those right, this new initiative will crash. They’ve come a long way from mindlessly attacking everyone in sight but that’s happened because we have empowered ourselves. As Marx argued, a change in technology has ushered in a change in the relationship between the powerful and the weak. Therefore, the police don’t get any credit for abating their traditional methods. They need to win credit by backing off.

At Occupy London the City of London police won much sympathy with the protestors by keeping their distance. Sure, they walked through our camp but only in ones and twos and even then only occasionally. They stood back. I knew when they followed me through the streets because they weren’t that clever about it. I expected them to anyway. Often they followed me and other conspicuous people whilst others took on more important tasks, online. These days we don’t talk to the people we’re standing next to by using our voices. We use direct messages on twitter, off the record encrypted channels, the tor project and various other methods.

Brighton & Hove is now officially a City. It is run by the Green Party, which openly welcomes citizens’ asserting their democratic rights to protest. The City Council has explicitly stated that everyone has the right to protest and they expect the police to facilitate those protests. Thus the EDL was allowed to march under the cover of the so-called “March for England“, even though every member of the local administration is deeply opposed to everything they stand for. That event was bound to carry big risks of trouble. There were people determined to disrupt the march, themselves exercising their lawful right to a static demonstration without advance permission. There was trouble. Bottles were thrown at the racist EDL. Some EDL supporters attacked local people (myself included). The police had a complicated job to do that day and on the whole they managed it very well, which is why I have not pursued a complaint against them for failing to arrest the man who attacked me. They probably didn’t deploy sufficient numbers to cope with the predictable stress lines across town that day. No doubt lessons are being learnt for next year.

The point the police have to grasp is that it is not for them to control demonstrations, let alone become involved in them to any extent. Their job is to maintain the peace. Nothing more, nothing less. If a protest group doesn’t want to engage with them, there’s nothing they can do about it. Without any threat of violence, there’s no need whatsoever for more than half a dozen police officers. Two at the front, two at the back and one walking along either side. If they want to park greater numbers around the corner, to be ready for spontaneous trouble, fine. Barging in on a political demonstration which they cannot support is not engagement, it is incitement. If the police don’t understand this, they need to take a long hard look at themselves and their role in our society. We all know what it should be – to keep the peace, not to keep control.

Rather than try to stop political protests, the police should allow people to make their point and, if necessary, use their power to arrest people for a breach of the peace. Peaceful activists will not resist that type of arrest. Activists will make more impact by getting arrested for civil disobedience than for fighting. The police need to make a judgment call on when such arrests are justified. We can have the arguments in court later, rather than on the ground. If an activist is released, they should be allowed to move freely again. If the police lack the resources to deal with large numbers of protestors in this way, then they have a political argument with the government.

People must be able to talk to any police officer, without fearing violence. If there is a role for specific protest liaison officers, the police need to spell out how it differs from all other police officers. Having justified that distinction, it must be maintained cogently. Bibs on bobbies is meaningless unless there’s a properly understood role. At the present time, the purpose of the new role is far from clear. I’d like to see Sussex Police complete their journey from their nasty behaviour in the nineties, to transform themselves from being political tools to being the protectors of the peace. To promote the chances of their success, several sections of the activist community are giving them the benefit of the doubt, for now. The next outing of the new protest liaison officers will be watched very closely indeed. The pressure is on the police to behave like concerned citizens, not control freaks.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Abuse, Accidents, Brighton, Brighton Uncut, Church of England, English Defence League, English Defence League, Fascism, Fighting, Green Party, Hove, Human Rights, John Cooper QC, Karl Marx, Law, March for England, Occupy London, Occupy London Stock Exchange, Police, Police Violence, Politics, Politics in the Cave, Protest Liaison Officers, Protests, Racism, Road Traffic, Sussex Police, Tech, Tech Outside The Cave, Technological Change, Twitter, Video Evidence, Videos, Witnesses

Guest Post by Ian Beck: If You’re Not Pissed Off You’re Not Paying Attention

Posted on 21 June 2012 | 15 Comments

So the youth of Worthing are restless. The UK creeps towards a police state, with public order measures concocted to combat terrorism and riot deployed to stop the yeomen of Worthing congregating after dark. Or at least an order under Section 30 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, providing for “dispersal of groups and removal of persons under 16 to their place of residence.” I’ve been to Worthing many times, generally just passing through on the A27. It’s no hotbed of sedition. I’ve always thought of it an elephants’ graveyard, where the well-heeled bourgeois of conservative Sussex buy expensive coastal retirement bungalows to quietly await the inevitable. Of course this is a caricature, and unfair. I’ve also heard, anecdotally, of a small but seething youth counter-culture down there; if you know the right people, you can have a surprisingly good time. After all it’s not far from Brighton, most people there have money. Apparently Worthing’s not as dull as it looks.

I heard about the Worthing Freedom Campaign on Twitter from @SchNews, the Twitter account of an organisation known to have a nifty line in radical political satire, and to be supportive of direct action against the kind of criminality and immorality that the rightwing and mainstream media don’t tend to highlight. Their by-line: “If you’re not pissed off you’re not paying attention.” Well, I too am disturbed, not to mention angry, at the way things are going in this country. Those responsible for the current, worsening, financial and economic crisis have not been held to account. They appear to continue as if nothing has changed, for they are insulated from the consequences of their mistakes, indeed these same mistakes would seem to result, for them, in ever larger bonuses and other rewards. Austerity is clearly failing, the coalition’s mandate is uncertain. A lot of other bad stuff is going on here and in the wider world that needs to be challenged. There’s a big international crisis, on several fronts (in case you weren’t paying attention.) Though I’m no spring chicken these days, have a job to hold down, and live far from Sussex, I would hope to make common cause with a lot of what SchNews do.

Surely to win any challenge from a position of material weakness you must win the argument first? You must choose your weapons carefully. I wasn’t that impressed with the Worthing Freedom Campaign’s blog, with its links to other news sheets sporting brutish satire. Not terribly edgy, not terribly original, not terribly funny, and not awfully constructive. Perhaps I shouldn’t be so harsh? The authors of Pork-Bolter could well be kids; at least they take an interest, exercise creativity and are asking questions. But in my experience the police are far more open to negotiation and reason when treated like the human beings they in fact are. A respectful and constructive attitude tends to be reciprocated, though you may take issue with the laws the police are enforcing, or whether their methods are always proportionate and lawful. But a report from the Brighton Evening Argus – it has to be said a paper not noted for political neutrality or detailed factual accuracy – linked to by @SchNews caught my eye, the reported use of the Nazi swastika by this Worthing Freedom Campaign.

At this point I should confess that I think about the Nazis a lot. More than most people do, and possibly more than is healthy. But that’s a function of my day job as a history teacher, and because a lot of dark, evil and perverted stuff happened during the brief but spectacular period the Nazis inhabit. So what sort of “Freedom Campaign” deploys the swastika? To me, that’s an interesting question. Hitler’s concept of “freedom” was somewhat different to that understood by @SchNews, and, one would hope, the Worthing Freedom Campaign. What Hitler meant by freedom was, in the first instance, the freedom of ethnic Germans and other “Nordics” (if they were up for it, though in the end choice would not apply) to join the same big or “Greater” Germany, regardless of the wishes of other peoples who happened to dwell thereabouts. To achieve this collective “freedom” Hitler’s people would need an invincible war machine that would ultimately enslave or exterminate their enemies and rivals. Individual Germans wouldn’t have any choice about participating in this “freedom” project either. Hitler’s idea of freedom was not freedom at all.

A side issue, then, to the main event, but an important one to this interested party. @SchNews did not at first respond to my questions. Snubbed and disappointed, I provoked them to respond. I’m new to Twitter. Once their “hive mind” had worked out what on earth I was on about, they said the story wasn’t true, they wrongly blamed the Argus. @SchNews did then concede that the swastika had been used on a leaflet which was “not the cleverest we’ve seen” but in the end no big deal. The image itself is no longer available but reportedly the swastika had been used in juxtaposition with a Sussex Police badge, so as to suggest, ironically or not, that Sussex Police are Nazis. Soon @Sussex_Police were in touch too. They said that this Nazi emblem had appeared on the Worthing Freedom Campaign’s website too, but had been removed. The message left by Sussex Police to complain had been deleted. The police account made the glib but fair point that censorship was hardly in the spirit of freedom too.

Scrapper Duncan has blogged about all this already, and very well. My point with @SchNews was that this use of the swastika was at best inflammatory and hysterical, hardly likely to help the credibility of the campaign. At worst, it’s lot more disturbing than that. Their defence was that the use of the swastika was by a couple of silly individuals not representative of  the campaign, and was a bit of an irrelevance. Worthing’s Freedom Campaign seemed to have thought better of it, which must be a good thing? Just when I thought I was making some progress with @SchNews, edging them towards a condemnation of this sort of imagery, they made the questionable assertion that the meanings of these symbols change over time. The hive was perhaps not in harmony. My understanding of the symbols of Nazism is no longer current, then. It doesn’t really matter. These days the Nazis aren’t so bad.

Here’s how they responded to Scrapper Duncan’s post (unfortunately Jo Makepeace’s remains incomplete, and seems set to remain so. Two further comments in response by Scrapper Duncan and by me are also reproduced):

Jo Makepeace 11 June 2012 at 12:45 pm

Wow – our first Twitter row! #welcome to the 21stCentury.

Thanks for the fulsome praise in the first few paragraphs by the way!

Our remit is definitely to defend grass-roots groups trying to resist authority, although it seems unfair to charge us with ‘fundamentalism’ on this basis. We stated that we didn’t think it was the cleverest of leaflets, although no doubt we’ve been guilty of equally crass behaviour in the past in pursuit of some splendidly satirical objective or other.

Ian’s point struck us as nitpicking – having a go at a small group trying their best to stand up to over-weening police power by pointing out an exaggerated claim in a single leaflet.

Ian seemed to be suggesting that an ‘even-handed’ approach be taken between the Worthing Freedom Campaign and Sussex Police, which given the power imbalance between them is laughable. The fact that the cops have the power to sweep you off the streets and incarcerate you (with increasingly little redress) is precisely why they shouldn’t be welcomed into the rhizomatic world of twitter and blogging as equals. Certainly they shouldn’t be shedding crocodile tears about hurt feelings!

There may have been a point in the past when Naziism wasn’t trivialised but that’s long ago now. I don’t think that the Worthing Freedom Campaign are responsible for Allo, Allo, the Download spoofs etc etc. The meanings of symbols do change and the power of the Swastika emblem to shock has been eroded over time.

Cultural saturation with the idea that Naziism represented some black hole sui generis apex of evil that effectively stands outside history has ironically aided that erosion. Without an…

Scrapper Duncan 11 June 2012 at 2:07 pm

Thanks for your comment. You seem to have been interrupted by the character limit? Imposed to stop time wasters, which are definitely not one. Still, same rule for everyone! If you finish elsewhere, I’ll publish your pingback.

@ian_bec 11 June 2012 at 3:29 pm

Thank you Duncan for this post and your support in this matter. My interest here was purely to query and challenge the use of the swastika by no doubt a small minority of these protesters in Worthing. I was not attempting to question or pass judgement on the basis of the protest, nor the tactics of Sussex police. From the point of view of Schnews this is not an important issue and I was “nitpicking.” This would explain why my first two questions to Schnews about this were ignored. Neither is the association of protesters – who no doubt would regard themselves as on the left and supporters of liberty -the narrative Schnews would want to propagate.

The fact that the swastika was deployed on a single leaflet only, and quickly removed from the website of these protesters, indicates that they thought better of it. Good. Though there’s enough in Jo Makepeace’s response here to take issue with, I’d rather see the whole comment before responding item by item. It was just getting interesting, though I’m not sure the Latin (or Greek?) adds to its clarity. So I’ll leave it a few hours in the hope that the full comment is published.

If you want to debate Nazism, its implications, and the real meaning of their symbols I’m happy to do that, Jo Makepeace. If you don’t, then just say, clearly and unequivocally, that the deployment of the swastika in this context was wrong.

Ian Beck

More than a few hours later, I’ll continue. Jo Makepeace here concedes that this use of the swastika was “crass“, but then in mitigation implies that this is the sort of oversight anybody (radical left activists?) “in pursuit of some splendidly satirical objective or other” could make. It remains a bit of a joke. I was “nit-picking” and “having a go at a small group” trying to stand up against “over-weening police powers“. I’m not disputing that incidents where the police obtain restrictive public order powers, on what appear slender justifications, need to be questioned or challenged. The authoritarian trends initiated by the New Labour government continue, as society becomes more unequal our privacy and our rights to protest are increasingly curtailed. This is not in dispute. But by saying this use of Nazi symbolism was “an exaggerated claim” Jo Makepeace also implies that the police in Sussex are not so very far from Nazism, that the problem is one of emphasis. You do not condemn the use of this imagery, Jo. You think the right of kids to assemble as they please in Worthing is the more important issue. Ultimately, you do not get it.

Jo Makepeace may believe that by discussing issues with the police I’m siding with them. I’m accused of failing to acknowledge the “power imbalance” between police and protesters by advocating an “even-handed approach.” Why not discuss the swastika in an even-handed way? I do not buy the implication that because I’m criticising the protesters I’m taking sides with the cops, and by extension buying into “their” value system by being shocked at the swastika. You assert that the “power of the swastika to shock has been eroded over time.” I’m not sure that’s true, and if it is, it needs to be challenged. You also contend that I shouldn’t be communicating with the police on social media “as equals” even in serious discussion, however constructively. A superficial grasp of the historiography leads you to argue that because ‘great minds’ have ‘discovered’ that Nazism does not stand “outside history” (whatever that means), and because of ‘Allo, ‘Allo and the “Download spoofs” (sic), Nazism is now “trivialised” and has been for some time. You say that ultimately the Nazis were a pretty normal sort of evil, nothing unique (which is how I understood your “sui generis apex of evil“). Summary: I don’t hate the police enough, and I hate the Nazis too much.

Well, for my part I was just saying people should treat each other with respect. It’s an essential component of resolving any dispute without force. Further, that this trivialisation of Nazism is problematic, and in this case counter-productive for your protest, and your credibility. It’s ridiculous, wrong and offensive to excuse the use of the swastika in this way. I would say that if you had paid any attention to the Nazis, Jo Makepeace, you would be a good deal more “pissed off” with them. For a “hive” of radicals @SchNews is really nowhere near angry at the Nazis enough. I think you should get your ideas in order. There’s a lot more to the symbolism of the swastika than the abuse of authority. To throw that symbol around is to cheapen it further, and to cheapen yourself.

In a very clumsy way, I suppose you are accusing the police of fascism. If the Worthing Freedom Campaign had chosen a symbol of fascism to associate with Sussex Police I wouldn’t have agreed, but also wouldn’t have bothered to query it with @SchNews. The symbols of “fascism” do not quite resonate like the swastika. Meanwhile fascism is notoriously difficult to define, partly because it doesn’t, in the end, make a lot of sense nor stand up to very much scrutiny. We should perhaps pay heed to Mussolini, who coined the term. He defined fascism as “state power plus corporate power”, a marriage of capitalist and state interests in which the concerns or ambitions or rights of individuals had no intrinsic value. Into the mix also: a bellicose, imperialist nationalism and obsessive militarism, a fondness for uniforms, command hierarchies, discipline, machismo, aggression, hardness, strength, self-sacrifice, traditionalism, and obviously violence.

Perhaps this is a persuasive definition? If you consider the way the USA conducts its foreign policy, or the way the London Olympics is being organised, you could soon be peppering your after-dinner conversation with “fascism”, and sounding quite authoritative. There’s always the narrative of the threat to civilisation, too, to justify the restriction or suspension of civil liberties. For Mussolini and Hitler the primary threat was communism. The Bolsheviks and their enemies had indeed brought catastrophic upheaval and millions of unearned deaths to a society already strained to crisis by the First World War in the wake of the Russian Revolutions of 1917. Communism was and is an international conspiracy against the capitalist order. What little was known about events within Russia in the early 1920s made Revolution a frightening prospect to those with wealth or status or values to lose. In our time the primary recent threat has been Islamic terrorism. But there are always others: organised crime, the internet, mass immigration, the collapse of the banking system and so on. These are all in some ways threatening. The fascist way is to exaggerate the gravity and to lie about the nature of the threat, then ignore human values in pursuit of a forceful and total victory.

Scrapper Duncan blogged some bad photographs I took a few weeks ago. The Olympic Torch relay passed directly outside my home. At 6.30 am there was no ignoring it. It was certainly an “event” as the Council had even swept the streets in this unglamorous neighbourhood. So I suppressed my principled reservations and went to take a look. Now, like Scrapper, I’m all in favour of the sport but have misgivings about a lot of the other stuff that’s going on. As we all know the Torch relay is no ancient Greek ritual but a practice invented for the Berlin Games of 1936, an event the Nazis used to showcase their achievements to the world. The Nazis were very good at this sort of thing. It would be facile to suggest those taking part in the Torch Relay were pro-Nazi. But, overall, the parade, lasting a good 20 minutes, was a distinctly hostile spectacle. In cocktail terms maybe 4 parts police, 1 part Corporations, and a dash of athletics – a single runner near the back, who’d probably paid for the privilege, and appearing late in the parade as if an afterthought. A terrorist threat to the Torch could be real enough, who knows? I suppose we must trust that the Torch needs such an impressive police guard, and be glad that they are very careful indeed to look after it. The torch relay looked like fascism to me. It did not make me feel good about the Olympics. But even in early morning there were people cheering and waving flags so it was popular, and mine was the minority view.

I don’t dispute that there are valid reasons to be concerned about policing matters in this country. On the corporatisation front, our esteemed Home Secretary’s plans to open more policing and prison services to private companies smells of fascism, certainly. But the police themselves are hostile to and angry at that prospect, and in common with all other public sector workers other than regime itself and its corporate donors and cosseted beneficiaries, are up in arms about jobs, pay, pensions, and the insidious process the politicians call “reform.” (This word could do with re-definition.) Meanwhile, and specifically with regard to the Metropolitan Police, the Leveson Enquiry continues to cast light on the corruptible nexus between political leaders, the right-wing media, and the police. The cases of Daniel Morgan, Stephen Lawrence, and Ian Tomlinson are amongst a number of open wounds for the Met’s credibility. Of course there are also the important issues surrounding the policing of protest. SchNews will know about those.

In the real world, at our current stage of ethical development, we need police. There are bad people out there who do bad things, and it’s definitely necessary to stop some people from mixing freely with the general population. Be realistic: there are accidents, horrible crimes, acts of terrorism, tragic events. Policing is a tough job, and stressful, who else should deal with this stuff? We should not be surprised that the police defend the rights of property and companies, of those who produce wealth and provide jobs. Neither should we be surprised that from their perspective, more sweeping powers would make their task easier. Would SchNews suggest instead a force of ordinary citizens as right-on vigilantes in some ‘Big Society’ dystopia? Or, people more to their liking doing much the same service, in a similar structure, and vulnerable to the same institutional and cultural problems as the current police? If you have an ideological objection to capitalism or the government or the law or whatever, fine. Don’t confuse that with a justification for hating every individual police officer. Don’t be stupid. Really – and I admittedly bear fewer grudges against the police, based on personal experience, than some – any opportunity for constructive dialogue in any media should be used to persuade them of the justice of your cause, and to display humanity and respect. Are those not the values you stand for?

But we’re being self-indulgent building this argument that the police are a bunch of fascists, and serve a fascist system. We are letting fascism off the hook. To really “get” fascism we have to see it on an emotional level, the vast number of its adherents could never be accused of thinking too hard. We see this in the EDL. The ‘original’ fascists in Italy and Germany and elsewhere had some sort of excuse, as they were veterans of the Great War of 1914-18 and many were quite frankly unhinged by the things they had experienced. In the modern parlance many had PTSD. Suffering in defeat, as the Germans did, and believing the defeat and the chaotic aftermath to have been born of conspiracy was particularly traumatising. The root of fascism is a mess of boiling fears and hatreds, an urge to destroy. There was hatred of communists, obviously. Also hatred of socialists, anarchists, liberals, free-thinkers, eccentrics, homosexuals, feminists, protesters, the workshy, the poor, the weak, smart-alecs, non-conformists, uncooperative priests, foreigners, and anybody they took a dislike to, even each other. They would certainly hate SchNews and work to destroy the hive. Getting beaten up – in Italy perhaps they would have made you drink castor oil and stab you playfully in the backside – would be the very least you could hope for. If Sussex Police really were fascist this is what they would be doing. If SchNews has evidence of this, publish it.

But the swastika is not actually a symbol of fascism. The Nazis shared the superficial characteristics of fascism, certainly, but they were actually something different, and far worse. Jo Makepeace takes her cues on the Nazis and their meaning these days from ‘Allo ‘Allo and from Downfall spoofs. I’m no fan of the former, though clearly many have differed, but for a while the Downfall spoofs could be funny. “Every joke is a tiny revolution,” as Orwell said, and in telling good jokes about difficult topics we are asserting our freedom, and examining assumptions that need to be tested. I’m not above a snicker at Herr Flick or a titter at Bruno Ganz ranting about the football dressed as a late-period bunker-bound Hitler. But neither of these are actually about Nazism, they’re about the war, and in losing the war the Nazis become ridiculous, mad, defeated, no longer a threat, denatured, emasculated, pathetic, a joke. This image does not describe what the Nazis actually were. It’s more about us.

We British are obsessed with the Second World War. The point of “cultural saturation” was reached long ago, before my time. We have to keep on reminding ourselves that we won. 1940 is the British national foundation myth: the Dunkirk spirit, Churchill, standing against Hitler alone though massively outgunned, Spitfires and Hurricanes the blitz and all that. We should indeed be proud of the stand we took in 1940 and our broader contribution to victory, and what it hopefully says about us. Hitler could not believe we would be so stupid as to risk our Empire, suffer austerity and terror bombing from the air, maybe end up a bankrupted satellite state of the USA if we survived at all. Hitler was right about something then, but he was wrong to believe the UK would make the sensible play and fold. He saw no pressing need to invade Britain, though for obvious reasons he was keen for us to believe he would. Beginning new conflicts against the USSR and the USA in 1941 without first neutralising our little stepping-stone on the edge of Europe was a catastrophic strategic error. Hitler was wrong about Britain because he, like Nazism, was blind to morality and incapable of ethical judgment.

There does come a point when all this forced British jocularity about the Nazis hits the wrong note, causing offence to those who do not share our smug view of the war, and becomes morbid. The villagers of Haworth must still be scratching their heads at why members of a German delegation from their twin town burst into tears upon sight of some clown prancing about in an SS uniform. No doubt they’re still chortling down at the Golf Club. Obviously there is a long history now of the misappropriation of more specifically Nazi symbols, like the fine Hugo Boss tailoring of the SS uniform (which was certainly a selling-point for aspirant SS at the time). The Nazis did look kind of cool by the standards of 1930s paramilitary couture. There is certain brand of Russian neo-Nazi who in their ignorance forgets that Hitler tried to wipe out the people of that land, and all sorts of nutters in the USA of course, but let’s restrict ourselves here to stupid British people. We all laughed at Prince Harry’s notorious Nazi fancy dress incident. We’re not laughing with Harry, or because the Nazis are amusing these days, are we? We’re laughing at Harry because of his lack of knowledge and awareness, and what he may be unconsciously revealing about the values of his class and his family. Edward VIII’s sorry little clique were not the only Windsors enamoured of Hitlerian order and dynamism before 1940. What did those communists and those Jews matter anyway?

Sid Vicious Wears Nazi Swastika in Jewish Quarter in Paris

Sid Vicious

If these incidents provoke ironic detachment, what of Aidan Burley MP (Conservative, obviously), and that unfortunate stag party? There are laws about this sort of thing in France, it’s not such a triviality over there. And what peculiar company Mr Burley keeps. Company Jo Makepeace might find convivial, perhaps, as they too would have it that Nazism and its symbols are trivial these days, or irresistibly cool? Or a punk statement of irreverence? I hope you’re not going to tell me it was cool for Sid Vicious to stumble around the Jewish quarter of Paris sporting a swastika t-shirt? There was nothing cool about Sid, actually. He was a derelict heroin addict, he used to attack people in nightclubs with a bicycle chain, couldn’t play the bass, was culpable – along with the idiotic management who put him in the band and egged him on – for the swift derailment of one of the greatest English rock’n’roll bands. Worse, Sid was responsible also for the death of his girlfriend, most probably, and his own demise at the tender age of 21. He tarnished the punk movement with violence, heroin, racism and neo-Nazism. Not cool, but at least Sid had the integrity to preserve the association of the swastika with death. Make no mistake, the Nazis brought death in unimaginable quantities.

Like our humour, British myths about the war don’t always translate too well. At root, we were white people from the north, Nordics with a strong Saxon strain, not a priority in the Nazi order of things. As a result we were fortunate to not experience Hitler’s war in the same way it was experienced on the Continent, and worst of all by the peoples then resident in Poland, Russia, the Baltic States, Ukraine, and ultimately Germany too. We did not suffer occupation and repression, armies fighting through our landscape, the horrors of forced labour, mass starvation, racial extermination (beyond the indefensible Channel Islands at any rate). Just compare the figures, brutally: the UK lost 0.94%, just under half a million, of its pre-war population; Belarus, to pick just one area of intense combat and lengthy occupation lost 25.3%, more than 2 millions. Then check the figures for the whole Soviet Union as was, for Poland, and Germany. The large majority of these deaths are civilians, people who did not always choose to fight but were unfortunate to be in the way as across Eastern Europe the Nazis made war against humanity itself, indiscriminately. Perhaps I should apologise for linking to the Daily Mail? But I make no apology for linking to Wikipedia. On controversial subjects like the Nazi crimes of WW2 it’s reliable, because (ahem) it is ‘policed’.

“A single human death is a tragedy, a million a statistic” said Stalin, who knew quite a lot about this topic, as a prolific mass-murderer himself. We do not have the ability to process the truth of the destroyed human beings represented by these numbers, and we’ve heard it all before. Maybe we are lucky that we can’t feel this flood of human misery and tragedy as those who lived then did. We forget, too, that the truth of the war cannot be simply measured in deaths. There were refugees by the tens of millions, displaced people, traumatised people, people who fought and people who suffered, people who survived. We forget, too, that many of this generation remain alive. We forget that this is the living past. We seek respect for our own youthful preferences without a care for this dying generation’s memories, sacrifices, and struggles. We forget respect is a two way street. We would pretend that the rights of kids to assemble in Worthing are on a par with all this. What savage injustice.

The swastika is also a symbol of the most pernicious and destructive racism. Hitler’s radical Social Darwinism not only normalised war and conflict, but also established a racial hierarchy in which those adjudged inferior were not merely deprived of rights, but of the right to exist. The swastika is specifically anti-semitic, anti-Gypsy, and anti-Slav. This is reason enough to refrain from its careless use. During Hitler’s war the Nazis and their allies conducted a quite insane industrialised mass murder campaign against Europe’s Jews, wiping out between 6 and 8 million of them by means of starvation, forced labour, mass shootings, and the gas chamber. The legacy of this baleful tragedy lives on, it is a key motor of the most intractable and dangerous conflict in the world today, in Palestine. Without the Nazis, there would be no Israel. Every year thousands of young Israelis visit Auschwitz and they are told: “this is what happens when we don’t fight back.” It’s not so very long ago either that millions of Eastern Europeans lived under repressive communist regimes, as a direct result of Nazism. When you deploy the swastika you are directly insulting those who were destroyed, those whose families were destroyed, those who struggled to defeat this thing, and those whose lives were determined or blighted by the consequences of this destruction.

We can draw banal lessons from Nazism: be nice to minorities, be tolerant, don’t invade Poland. Or we can draw more disturbing warnings much more relevant to the now. You can go read Ian Kershaw and discover that as a result of a disorderly system of government, a lazy leader who did not deal in detail and spoke in visions, the abrogation of humane values, and problems on an ever-increasing scale, they were making a lot of it up as they went along; the lesser bods were “Working towards the Fuehrer.” It’s been a long time since Hans Mommsen identified a unique vector of “cumulative radicalism” in Nazism: the longer it lasted, the madder it got. From 1933 they murdered communists, socialists, trade unionists, people like SchNews; at this stage usually murder wasn’t necessary as a short spell in Dachau would often get the message across. After all the communists would have done the same. Nazism progressed to destroy Protestant sectarians, turbulent priests, some Jews; disobedient women were sterilised and died under the knife by the thousand. By 1939 German doctors were murdering disabled people in hospitals on their own initiative, more or less, finding their own little work-arounds to make life less bureaucratic. During the war itself the really big crimes occurred, and very large numbers of people made them happen. Go read Zygmunt Bauman on the role of a modern bureaucracy, not so different from our own, in this, and how responsibility was spread so thinly that nobody really had to feel guilty as an individual, and through a process of double-think could even claim a clear conscience or that they were just following orders. Or go look in the street at the Mercedes and BMWs and ponder the amorality of capitalism. How with barely a step-change these corporations went from dealing in mass murder and the machines of destruction back to making luxury cars for rich people.

SchNews should be standing against all this and not excusing, humorising, or normalising its symbolism. Even if you accept that it ever went away, this kind of sickness is on the way back. In Greece at the weekend the vote for Golden Dawn held up. It takes an economic crisis, an authoritarian mindset, a normalisation of violence, a scapegoating of immigrants and foreigners to set this ball rolling. Golden Dawn are not yet Nazis, though we can see their contempt for humanity in the behaviour of Ilias Kasidiaris in that well-publicised TV incident. We should be disturbed too, that Kasidiaris was not quickly arrested and that the police in Greece are playing, reportedly, a big part in their electoral success and legal impunity. We cannot say where Golden Dawn will go. We cannot be sure the same conditions that have brought them to the forefront of Greek politics will not, in time, happen here. We must be watchful. There can be no accommodation, no normalisation, no negotiation with the likes of Golden Dawn because we know where this road can lead. We should remember.

No kid in my class will get too hard a time for footwear or a hairstyle or even the odd expletive, if they treat me and their peers right. But if they draw a swastika on their exercise book I’m going to remind them what it means, and whether they understand what they’re doing. If they do, it’s a whole different set of problems for us all.

Ian Beck, Cardiff, June 2012
Follow @ian_bec on Twitter

From Scrapper Duncan: I’ve located a copy of the image used by the Worthing Freedom Campaign, which comprised of a Nazi Swastika superimposed on the Sussex Police Logo and included it in my previous post on this topic.

→ 15 Comments

Posted in Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003, Brighton, Corporations, Crime, English Defence League, English Defence League, Fascism, Fighting, Guest Post, Human Rights, Ian Beck, Jokes, Law, Nazis, Police, Politics, Politics in the Cave, Protests, Racism, SchNews, Section 30, Sussex Police, Swastika, Symbols, Thieving Tory Bastards, Trades Unions, Worthing, Worthing Freedom Campaign

Fascist makes false complaint to police against victim of assault

Posted on 4 May 2012 | Leave a comment

Along with hundreds of other Brightonians, on St George’s Day I helped prevent the English Defence League from holding a successful fascist rally in Brighton – they were barracked throughout their entire parade and called off their speeches due to the background noise we created. I wrote extensively about the event before it occurred, encouraging people to stand up to the fascists. During the rally I was assaulted by one of the fascists so afterwards I complained to the police about that and later posted on the question can three police officers arrest someone whom they’ve wrestled to the ground? The answer, that day, was apparently not.

Since one of the fascists assaulted me, you’d think that they would know what I looked like on the day. That hasn’t stopped them from using twitter to make a false allegation against me:

Click on all these images to enlarge them. Anyone who knows me, knows that I don’t look anything like the chap this picture shows throwing a bottle. It’s a screen dump from a video, which I have seen. I don’t recognise him, which is a shame because I would gladly assist the police with their enquiries. A few bottles were thrown at the fascists on the day in question and I hope the police prosecute the criminals who did that.

The police were filming extensively on the day. I had a chat with a nervy looking police officer who was filming the people in face masks. She gave me a series of stock responses until I asked if she had filmed me earlier – I wasn’t wearing a mask. She confirmed that she had and so I asked if she would like me to identify myself. She said yes and I gave my name directly into her camera. Therefore, the police will know that none of the footage shows me throwing any bottles. Not only that, they will know what clothes I was wearing on the day – they were rather different than the ones worn by the fellow in this photograph. Finally, I was clean shaven for once!

The particularly bizarre part of this allegation is that the fascists know that I was using a megaphone on the day to express my disgust at them. I explained that in my complaint to the police and in the post I wrote about that, which is what has upset them and focussed their attention on me.

Therefore, they could narrow down what I look like because there weren’t that many people using megaphones – maybe half a dozen. I think they do know what I looked like on the day because I saw several of them photographing and filming me. Clearly this is a false allegation. Arguably, it is a deliberate attempt to waste police time.

The only point of making false allegations like this is to somehow intimidate people who campaign against fascism. As a political strategy it is both shabby and highly sophisticated for the English Defence League.

Let’s get the facts clear. Bottles were thrown at the fascists. The police filmed everything. There were children in the fascist contingent; I counted three who looked like teenagers and one much younger girl. The fascists later said that a child was hit on the head with a bottle but that her parents chose not to take her to hospital. Whilst that is completely possible, it is also a bit weird. If I saw anyone hit on the head by a bottle, I would insist that they got themselves checked out!

These images are from one of the main twitter feeds for a grouping of football hooligans who have answered the fascist call. On one hand it complains about what happened to the so-called “March for England” in Brighton and on another hand it calls it fun.

This must be some new definition of the word “fun”, which I wasn’t previously aware of. Why anyone would describe being “attacked by scum” as fun, I do not know. It sounds like this person enjoyed their outing in Brighton. It sounds like they enjoy violence.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Brighton, English Defence League, Fascism, Politics, Politics in the Cave, Protests

Occupy St George’s Banks

Posted on 27 April 2012 | Leave a comment

Can’t see the English Defence League going for this one. Odd though because they could really make some headway if they did just take on the banks.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in English Defence League, Occupy Movement, Politics, Politics in the Cave

English Defence League – the ‘Mighty Brighton Infidels’

Posted on 26 April 2012 | Leave a comment

I guess these people were the technical host behind Sunday’s shouting match. Definitely the hundreds of people united against fascism won the utter freedom of speech competition, scored with the traditional volumonitor. Probably that’s why the so-called Brighton Mighty Infidels declared “no surrender” to a picture on their facebook page which appeared to suggest that they had set up something called Anti Anti Fascist Action.

“No surrender” seems to be a bit of buzzword with this lot. Actually, it’s more of a general greeting, appearing on every post, usually on its own.

Remember, the English Defence League insists that it is purely motivated by fear of Islam rising up and dominating them. Their worst nightmare is turning up in Brighton on St George’s Day next year only to face spectacularly huge sound systems blasting them with the call to prayer. What better way to declare everyone welcome?! If you can’t quite get your head around it, put your headphones on, turn it to 11, and listen whilst watching the Mighty Brighton Infidels parading around town.

We’d need something extraordinarily powerful to blast these hauntingly lovely vocals into the fascist ears. Not a problem, we’ve got every DJ on earth in town just now. I digress.

As they’ve established themselves, the English Defence League does not trust Muslims. It would seem that they also distrust people with left-wing opinions.

That’s one solution to the age old fascist problem of lacking the necessary equipment for a decent rhetorical flourish. Something tells me that the Mighty Brighton Infidels have got a bit of an issue with the Green Party in Brighton & Hove. The man photographed can answer for himself with far more eloquence than me: Ben Duncan blogs – here’s him on the EDL demonstration in Brighton.

Here’s another Green councillor, this time representing Hove.

Oh and that’s Bill Randall over on the right. Not much explanation of the political analysis these images represent, aside from the bit about “no surrender”. So far, we’ve got “no surrender” to anti anti fascist action, “no surrender” to a vegan marathon running councillor, “no surrender” to another councillor and her with friend the witch and “no surrender to Bill Randall”.

What’s missing? Is it any collection of political policies? Perhaps even some ideas for change? Praise for someone who has done something worthwhile, something positive? No… clearly there needs to be a David Icke style suggestion that our Green Party Brighton & Hove City overlords have used their lizard powers to shape shift and subvert democracy, thus proving that it needs to be taken away for ever! Of course…

That’s better. Now the local division of the English Defence League can truly live up to their name! You’d have to be, very literally, the Brighton Mighty Infidels to stand up to the awesomely frightening lizard Queen from outer space who befuddles English minds with her alien chattering.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Brighton, English Defence League, English Defence League, Fascism, March for England, Politics, Politics in the Cave, Protests, Racism

Can three police officers arrest a violent protestor, whom they’ve wrestled to the ground?

Posted on 24 April 2012 | 4 Comments

The answer would seem to be not on Sunday. At some point between 12:30pm and 1:55pm, when myself and hundreds of other Brightonians were escorting the fascist English Defence League as they marched down Church Street, one of their number burst through the police ranks and attacked me by grabbing my wrist. I presume it was an attack and not a desperate bid for the attentions of an alpha male like myself from a lonely and repressed retard. I think it’s safe to assume that he acted out of malice. Immediately that he grabbed me, I pulled back and he was detained by three police officers. They brough him to down to the pavement on the southern side of Church Street. At 2:11pm I tweeted thanks to @sussex_police for the speed of their officer’s reaction. At 6:05pm that day I telephoned the police to inform them that I wished to give evidence about this attack and arranged an interview for this morning.

At 8:30am I made a formal crime report to the Brighton Police. Here’s how the conversation went. I’m unsure of the correct spelling of the interviewing officer’s name, it just sounded like “hold”.

PC: Hello there, I’m PC Hold. How are you?
Me: Alright. Bit early in the morning.
PC: Which hand was it.
Me: It’s er, er, neither hand anymore but I was grabbed on this wrist…
PC: OK
Me: … so er I got er when I phoned up, embarassingly, being a Brightonian, I got North Road and Church Street muddled up. Obviously it’s Church Street isn’t it?
PC: Yeah
Me: Unless there’s some parallel protest going on then yeah
PC: Erm, basically, from the gist of the initial information I’ve got on the report, it says that erm, were you involved in the protest?
Me: Er, I was one of the people opposing the march, yes.
PC: Right, right, okay, and someone’s come up and did you have a megaphone or something like that?
Me: I did have a megaphone, red and white, yes.
PC: And somebody’s grabbed it off you. Did they take it out of your hand?
Me: No. What happened was that, er, probably too much detail, I’m walking along with my megaphone at chin height.
PC: mm hm.
Me: At the precise moment that they grabbed my wrist, I was looking that way [indicates left]
PC: Right
Me: I felt my wrist and my right hand, the hand holding the megaphone being pulled and as I turned around I saw that someone – it happened all very fast – someone was trying to grab either my arm or my megaphone or whatever.
PC: mm hm.
Me: It was just, I pulled back and gripped the megaphone hard… and three of your colleagues jumped on him very fast indeed but he must have come through their lines. I don’t think he was one of us. He came through their lines from his direction of travel…
PC: Okay
Me: … and your colleagues were two or three deep at the back end as they were heading down Church Street, before they got to, say, the junction with Jew Street, er, but not immediately before but it’s somewhere down there I think. Pretty sure its towards the top end of the road rather than towards the bottom end but you’ll know where it is because you… you… I didn’t see him for very long and suddenly you…
PC: The issue that we have is that although police managed to grab him, detain him or whatever they happened to do, I’m aware because I was on duty that day that only two people were actually arrested as a result of the protest on that day…
Me: I heard that as well, yeah.
PC: … and so I know that this person hasn’t been arrested for any type of assault or anything like that.
Me: Why would that not happen when he’s brought to the ground for… with three, three police officers pull him to the ground after they see him lunge…
PC: yeah
Me: … I mean it’s prima facie a convictable case isn’t it?
PC: Well I don’t know because I wasn’t there.
Me: Okay but…
PC: But if they were specifically involved in the protest and that they’re actually …
Me: You mean your colleagues, yeah?
PC: and they’re following the procession as it’s going down, if, for example, one of these people have jumped out of the protest
Me: Yes
PC: Rather than being actually on the protest. You have different people doing different roles. You have police doing the lines and you have the police on the procession
Me: Yeah
PC: If, for any reason, three people have brought that person down, detained him and brought him down, erm, they then make the decision that they don’t have the resources to take three officers out with that person because it leaves the rest of the people in the march not adequately prepared.
Me: Yeah, I understand. Is that the reason?
PC: I don’t know, it could be. Obviously the EGT teams that have their video cameras for the police, that monitor it, may well have videoed this person, which I should imagine they may have done. If he’s jumped out they will have videoed it for evidence so I can check with them for that footage…
Me: Sorry to interrrupt, immediately after this happened I was also not in the mood for standing by this chap who was, so far as I was concerned, was now arrested and I carried on walking down the street, erm, behind the police cordon which in turn was behind the EDL bunch and I cried out through my megaphone something along the lines of, ‘if the police wish to take my details, I was the person just assaulted. My name is Scrapper Duncan. You can find me on twitter. You can find me online. I would like to see this man in court. I would like to see him prosecuted. He just attacked me. It was through a megaphone.
PC: Yeah, but you must appreciate…
Me: They were still on the pavement at that point so they’ve got someone
PC: Like I said, I can’t justify their actions. I don’t know what they heard. I should imagine it was absolute chaotic where they were and people shouting, screaming left, right and centre.
Me: Well at that moment, I was the loudest voice with my megaphone. I hear what you’re saying. I’m not asking you to make a comment [inaudible] what you’re doing is confirming that the man wasn’t arrested and presumably because he wasn’t arrested, no details were taken?
PC: That’s correct, yeah.
Me: So we don’t know who he is.
PC: We don’t know who he is and the only way we would be able to find out is through the use of CCTV, whether it be the cameras that were monitoring the event from our control room here or whether it would be the officers on the ground who had the EGT teams who would have been monitoring.
Me: Then you have to match him up…
PC: Exactly but if this person is involved in the protest then it is more than likely that we will know or somebody will know who these specific people are, erm…
Me: Really?
PC: Well we have teams that are aware of who protestors are and such. It may well be that we do know who he is or we may not.
Me: There were about a hundred of them, I suppose. I suppose there’s what a certain proportion that are the hardcore trouble-makers…
PC: Exactly. Obviously this is something that I can investigate. Basically, I need to take the initial details from you. A final report will be generated and then its down to our secondary lines of enquiry which will be CCTV. That will be my only line of enquiry. Erm, there’s no other way that I can identify who the three officers that took hold of the male. Firstly, it wasn’t just Sussex Police Officers involved.
Me: I know
PC: It’s Hampshire Police and Kent Police. There’s no other way I can find out who those officers are.
Me: Its a thankless task I know, if you don’t end up with a conviction, its a thankless task but for what it’s worth they all had high visibility jackets on so that rules out the officers that did not.
PC: Which everybody on duty had.
Me: There were officers without high visibility jackets on.
PC: Okay, well, I didn’t see any of those but… right I need to take a few details. Your date of birth please?
Me: [gives date of birth]
PC: And do you have a contact address?
Me: [gives home address]
PC: Got your contact telephone number, do you have a landline?
Me: No. Well, I do but I’m about to get rid of it.
PC: Do you have an email address?
Me: [gives email address]
PC: Was any injury sustained?
Me: My wrist was throbbing for an hour. I’ve obtained a small scratch.
PC: What time was it:
Me: I’m not too sure because I wasn’t paying close attention to the time but you’ll know exactly when it was because it’s the time that the protest started…
PC: … started walking down Church Street at the junction with Jew Street.
Me: Nah, no, no. It wasn’t at the junction. I was saying that we hadn’t got as far as that. It was higher up the road but it wasn’t at the very top. It was somewhere in between. …
PC: What building were you at on Church Street?
Me: Erm…
PC: Were you at LA Fitness or further down?
Me: I think a wee bit further down.
PC: Near the Post Office or further down than that?
Me: I’m not sure. I’m really not sure.
PC: What side of the road were you on?
Me: I was in the middle of the road.
PC: Right, okay.
Me: Bang in the middle.
PC: In front, did you say?
Me: What do you mean, ‘in front’?
PC: In front of the march?
Me: No, behind.
PC: Behind.
Me: I was walking behind them, behind your colleagues.
PC: Can you give any description of what this man looked like?
Me: ‘Fraid not, no. I mean, I presume it was a man. All I saw, it was very very fast, I was aware of my wrist being grabbed and someone coming forward at the same time as the officers were pulling him away. You know, I was grabbed quite strongly so I tend to – maybe a bit unreconstructed – tend to assume that’s a man.
PC: Right, okay.
Me: It felt like a man’s strength but I don’t know.
PC: Right, okay, that’s fine.
Me: And I only saw his legs after that because three of you lot were sitting on top of him.
PC: Okay, that’s fine. I will do the necessary lines of enquiry that I need to do to try and identify who this person is. Like I said,
Me: Yeah, you haven’t arrested him so we’re not going to prosecute, I understand.
PC: Unless I can find out who he is.
Me: Sure.
PC: I do everything I can to find any CCTV footage as such. Erm, a crime number will be generated for common assault and you will be emailed with a crime reference number.
Me: [comment about email]
PC: It takes at least two days for a crime reference to be generated. As it stands at the moment, it is likely that the crime report will be filed.
Me: Yeah, I know.
PC: Based on the fact that all I have is CCTV to go on.
Me: Exactly.
PC: I will look through the serial numbers because it is possible that when the three officers did detain the male they called up and said, ‘we have a male detained, can we have CCTV or whatever’. That is possible. If that has taken place, the officer’s warrant number will be next to the radio call that has taken place and I’ll be able to make contact with that officer…
Me: Oh right
PC: … depending on whether it is Sussex, Kent or Hampshire, that changes how quickly I can get the answer back from them, to find out if anything was taken down in their notebook. Again, I can’t explain their actions…
Me: I’m not asking you to.
PC: I will do what I can do to find out who this person was.
Me: Had I realised that he might just be immediately released I would have just abandoned the crowd myself, stood by their side and said ‘I want this man prosecuted’, making it even more clear for them…
PC: Yeah
Me: … but even then they’ve still got a resources issue and I might even have added to the problem.
PC: What they can do in that circumstance is that they can take that person’s details and deal with the incident slow time. It doesn’t necessarily have to happen that just because they’ve got hold of him there, they have to deal with him there. They don’t have to take him to the custody suite and be taken down that route, as long as we have the person’s details then we can slow time it.
Me: Yeah, you’re right.
PC: I will do what I can do and figure out what has happened.

After PC Hold ended the interview, I informed him precisely what I was wearing on the day.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Brighton, English Defence League, English Defence League, Fascism, March for England, Politics, Politics in the Cave, Protests, Racism

Bedwetters march for England

Posted on 22 April 2012 | Leave a comment

Bedwetters

The “March for England” in Brighton today is going to be humiliated. The idea and name is an failed attempt by some particularly unpleasant fascists to rebrand themselves. Their ‘march’ is supposed to begin at Brighton station this morning (circa 11:30am) because most of these bigots are travelling from elsewhere to attend. Here’s an hilarious account of local bedwetters last effort, when the Brighton Division of the English Defence League mustered as many as eleven fascists at one point. If we were naive about what these people’s intentions, we’d feel sorry for them. They probably never knew a Mother’s love.

Fascist Quacking

The “March for England” is fanatical in its denial that it is connected with or shares the racist ideology of the English Defence League. United Against Fascism points out that the “March for England” began an an EDL splinter group, contains many of the same prominent fascists and is supported by all the same hooligan groups which support the EDL. “March for England” walks, looks and sounds like a bastard child of the fascist movement in Britain.

Uglies v Beautiful People

The uglies have come to Brighton because they are jealous of us beautiful people. This morning, every ugly fascist will be heavily filmed and photographed and later on the beautiful people will comparing mugshots and laughing over who is the ugliest. We’ll also be publicising all the photos so other beautiful people can see the uglies coming. If you would like to discourage ugly fascists from coming to Brighton in future, meet on Queens Road, at the top of Gloucester Road at 11.30am today.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Brighton, English Defence League, English Defence League, Fascism, March for England, Politics in the Cave, Racism

Breivik comes to Brighton (in spirit).

Posted on 18 April 2012 | Leave a comment

Unusually, the world is not envious of Norway right now. Their very public trial of a mass murderer is a testament to the strength of their society. It is dangerously easy to imagine that the perverted fundamentalism that drove Brievik to mass murder could never happen here. Unfortunately, it was inspired by an organisation born in the UK. It is an uncomfortable thought. It is natural to avoid thinking about our collective responsibility in this matter. We’d all much prefer to think about something else instead, especially in our economic crisis. We want entertainment, not hard politics. We want something to laugh about and then forget, like a stupid satirical video. Like this one:

or this one:

Unfortunately, we know what happens when people ignore fascists like the English Defence League (EDL). They grow bolder. They recruit more idiots like the fellow above. People with nothing going for them are attracted to simplistic causes, people who have been easily divided from society at large, people looking for someone else to blame. The EDL is an old style fascist street army. Wherever they go, there is violence. They create it deliberately and overtly, knowing that their arrogance will inspire others to act covertly. Their mission is to create the conditions of a crisis.

The Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik has praised the EDL. Their creed is indistinguishable from the twisted ideology which drove him to kill so many people in cold blood and injure hundreds more.

Today the fascists attack muslims, just as last century they attacked jews. They try to focus their message to one target at a time. Look closer and you’ll see that they attack everyone who doesn’t agree with their particularly violent culture. Having made no serious headway in Britain ever since Mosley’s heyday in the 1930s, they have recently adopted new tactics. One of these is to deny, publicly atleast, most of their own belief system. Consequently, they have generated some front organisations. One of these is called the “March for England”. Analysis of the people behind this comparatively new group reveals them to be prominent supporters of the EDL.

The “March for England” is coming to Brighton on Sunday 22nd April. Although they are a dangerous and frightening group of fascist thugs, they are basically cowards and will back off if Brighton is inhospitable towards them. United Against Fascism (UAF) has already persuaded their usual watering hole to turn them away (the Brighton Belle, by the station). Yesterday evening UAF held a public meeting, which this blogger attended. The meeting attracted activists from various political parties, trades unionists and some other socially active people. Notably absences were the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party.

The consensus of the meeting was that there must be two strategies to combat the EDL’s arrival in Brighton, under the guise of “March for England”. Firstly, we need to oppose them in person on the very streets they intend to march along. Secondly, we must make it clear to any pubs, shops, hotels and other businesses serving them they will lose substantial amounts of business due to them being associated with the EDL. That second strategy will be adopted immediately after Sunday’s march, so as to prevent another next year. This year is the fifth occasion the “March for England” has turned up in Brighton.

This is serious. If you take politics seriously, this is the time to act. If you don’t, this is the time that you do. Please, everyone, turn up and meet on Queens Road, at the top of Gloucester Road at 11.30am on Sunday 22 April.

Last year, the police shamelessly kettled the anti-fascists and allowed the “March for England” to drink the afternoon away in a pub. This year the police have apparently complained to the local media that they have not had any contact from the anti-fascists. There are two reasons for that lack of contact. Firstly, police permission is not required for a static demonstration. We will be lining the route of the “March for England”, to mock them, to drown them out with noise and to ensure that their visit to Brighton is an unpleasant experience for them. Secondly, the police would have a much easier job to do if the two groups are kept apart. However, demonstrating against fascism in a different location from the fascists would be a pointless and futile gesture.

It is a question of numbers. We need to have more people than the fascists. If we do, the media will report the fact that the EDL’s “March for England” was tiny in comparison to the community of people who turned out to oppose them. That will weaken their morale. It will also make it harder for the police to prevent us from spoiling the fascists’ trip to the seaside. You can’t have a serious debate about political ideas with these people. They’re not interested in intellectual discourse.

Please come and join us opposing these vile people. All political differences can be laid aside, to prevent these people from encouraging violence in our community. Please bring your video cameras and film them. Please bring your friends. Please bring home to the EDL the idea that they are not welcome in Brighton.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Brighton, English Defence League, March for England, Police, Politics, Politics in the Cave, Protests, Racism