Category Archives: Riots

No place on our streets for violent demonstrators

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.

A tale of two bankrupt countries: Greece and Iceland, and a lesson for the UK

Whilst these two countries have many differences, they also have much in common: neither can pay their debts without severe measures being imposed on them by the international banking ‘community’. It’s difficult to show quality footage from the Greek streets without showing the overly partisan propaganda from the political rioters or borrowing the gloat-fest from Russian TV or certain channels in autocratic states but here’s a taste of what went down on the streets of many cities on Sunday evening when the Greek Parliament agreed to another round of austerity measures six years into their recession. If you don’t want to watch it, this shows five minutes of attacks on police motorcyclists. It begins with them racing through a crowd, which responds aggressively. One of the police officers swerves to kick a protestor, loses control and then the violence really kicks off. This scene has been repeated throughout many cities in Greece for months.

As with most riots, there is much confusion and much that is clear. Large numbers of Greeks are now in contempt of anyone connected with official politics. There have even been reports of opposition MPs being attacked in the streets! They voted for the austerity measures too. Talk of choosing which taxes to pay has become commonplace and it seems likely that serious social unrest will continue in a chaotic manner for months to come. Huge numbers of people are now sleeping in the streets in Athens, not because they have joined some sort of new version of the Occupy movement. They have become homeless in the relentless recession.

Compare and contrast this situation with Iceland. Relative to the size the country, Iceland’s banking collapse is the largest in history. Curiously the UK’s elderly middle class played a key role in Iceland’s economic woes. They invested heavily in the Icelandic banks, having been attracted by interest rates that were too good to believe. There’s an old proverb for purchasing, which applies as much to investments as anything else – if a price appears to be good to be true, it probably is. Nudged on by trusted commentators like Robert Peston (who can hardly be blamed for reporting the facts), when the UK’s elderly middle class realised their mistaken financial adventure they commenced a run on the Icelandic banks, which failed. This is, of course, a crude summary. The point is that when their banks failed, instead of pumping the people’s money into them to keep them afloat, the Icelandic government just closed them down. The Icelandic government ignored the warnings from the apparently all powerful ratings agencies and let the banks fail. International Capital issued all sorts of dire threats and made various menacing remarks but look what has happened: the Icelandic economy has recovered, they’ve been able to get loans again on reasonable terms and there has not been a massive wave of social unrest. In fact they all got together and rewrote their country’s constitution instead, crowd sourcing the details. Sure, there have been protests but of a rather different nature. Here is a video of the Icelandic government walking close to a booing crowd. Apart from a few egg throwers it is very civilised. In fact the President’s wife peels off from the politicians and joins the crowd!

In the UK our biggest bank failed. Our government bailed it out with our money. Whether they had our consent or support to do that is definitely arguable. The banks then turned on the people that had bailed them out by raising interest rates and refusing credit left, right and centre. Time and again David Cameron talks about the ‘benefit’ the City of London has for the British economy. The political consensus between all the three main political parties makes listening to the news similar to being in Stalinist Russia – there is no longer a meaningful political debate. Even the journalists have bought into the new political hegemony. They don’t challenge those in charge.

Bankers have continued to receive enormous pay packets and the poor get poorer. Same old story, except that previously there was a labour movement which had the spunk to complain about this vast inequality and demand action for change. The Green Party has not yet obtained sufficient mass support to seriously challenge the political status quo. Essentially the UK’s economy is mired in scam-ridden financial services which exploit the rest of the world and cause much of the economic problems. Ever since the dark days of Thatcher, we have been relentlessly told that businesses which fail cannot be protected by the state even if their unmanaged disintegration will cause massive social upheaval. The hypocrisy with which our established politicians protect the banking industry is starkly obvious. We are told that these companies are too big to fail, that too many jobs are at risk, that too much is invested in them. Yet Iceland’s banks failed in a much bigger and more spectacular manner than the UK’s and the country let them go without suffering the problems that the UK economy has had.

The truth of the matter is that the major banks are now holding much of the world’s population to ransom. They pretend to own the world. The Greek situation demonstrates this very clearly – there were a series of secret derivative deals between their government and Goldman Sachs over much of the last decade, which lawfully circumvented financial reporting rules. Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world. Give a nation an unpalatable political option and there will be riots. Give them a choice and they will take sensible decisions.

Democracy requires there to be a choice of political options for people to choose between. Sure, there is a choice – anyone in the UK is free to vote for the Green Party but the fact is that the traditional big three parties have abandoned their democratic duties. There should be a meaningful opposition in the UK. Traditionally the opposition to the worst excesses of capitalism was provided by the Labour Party and, when they were in power, by the Liberals. Now they all sleep in the same bed. They compete only to show off what efficient managers of capitalism they can be. This situation does not lead to better political ideas emerging, it leads to people distrusting politicians even more. It leads to riots. We had some of those didn’t we? Our political class was quick to dismiss socio-economic factors as being causative of the riots. Our journalists weren’t quite so sure but generally went along with the established body politic. The rioters themselves were not offering alternative visions of society, apart from shopping with violence, but they were definitely contemptuous of political and moral authority which for many years has been a blanket smothering all opposition. The people who Newsnight spoke to (in the video below) repeatedly talk of wanting revenge on the police for the daily inconveniences they visit on people. Their world has become polarised into stark choices, where you’re either able to afford material goods and are treated properly by the police or you’re poor and are treated like shit.

Occupy London and other encampments around the UK attracted a huge mount of popular support but did not offer a coherent alternative vision to the status quo. My support for the Green Party is pretty obvious – even the background colour of this blog is Green! However, this is an appeal to all political parties and interested groups (except the thieving Tory bastards, of course). We need a choice of political ideas for our economy and society to tick properly. Without options, people feel straight jacketed and make their own rebellions: they stop paying taxes, they stop other forms of economic activity because to be without choices is to be without hope. This truth has been much adopted by modern capitalism. Our markets are bombarded with endless choices. Hundreds of types of shampoo do not enlighten our lives but the prospect that there might be a genuine debate between competing visions for society does act to preserve societal values. The present political hegemony pits us all against anyone powerful.

Prophecies, predictions and gambles for 2012

This is the time that everyone makes their predictions for 2012. Keen to go one better, I’m making prophecies instead. Mark my words – the prophesies you are about to read are guaranteed to happen. Kicking off with a fairly obvious one, I prophesise that in 2012 an unremarkable woman whose name begins with the letter K will get knocked up by her high status husband. Despite being really rather plain a combination of the finest fashion advisers, oodles of wealth to fritter away on one modest dress after another and obsequious journalists will contrive to make her the prettiest wife in Christendom. Multitudes of people who really should know better will quit their woes for an afternoon or two and vicariously share her supposed radiance.

Early in the New Year Occupy London will claim that it is in good health despite having lost 99% of its activists. The remainder will divide into two parts upon the promulgated judgment in their eviction case. The bigger part will decide to quit the scene before they are forcibly removed; the smaller part will make the headlines resisting the inevitable clearance of the churchyard, their numbers bolstered by the London Anarchist Federation who haven’t been involved in the protest until that point in time. Both will claim the legacy of the protest but only the latter will be associated with it in the public’s eyes. I prophesis that the great schism will occur within 48 hours of the judgment.

My next prophecy is a bit bolder. There will be a UK general election in 2012. My bet is in March. The thieving Tory bastards have played the Liberals as perfect stooges. Clegg knows he is Cameron’s bitch. That was why his New Year message grovelled and scraped to the right-wing agenda of his mistress. His real message was to Cameron – dumping us Liberal Democrats will look like Cameron would sack the most loyal of servants when opportunity struck. The insinuation being that that we, the public, are the loyal servants. Clegg lives up to his name (for foreign readers: a clegg is a parasitic insect which lives on horse shit) with these remarks. He has been nothing but an irritant to the bigger party who are determined to impose their will on the country and sense that their popularity is rising. Their current 6% lead will not last forever. They must have a plan, surely? The EU veto cast by Cameron was the opening salvo, which the great British public lapped up mainly because they haven’t got a clue about Cameron’s European strategy of sidling up with the neo-nazi groups. British hatred of European politics is born out of a folk memory of being obliged to fight in two world wars started by Germany. That’s as far as the analysis goes. Therefore anyone who says no to anything European plays well with British voters, even if they say yes to the very people who are most likely to start more wars. Forgive me, I digress. The general election will be in either March, April or May. The precise date is outside the range of my prophecies but if I were a betting man, I’d put £100 or more on 22nd March 2012. The thieving Tory bastards will win the election and be returned to government with a modest majority. The blue rinse brigade will be masturbating over Cameron, their poster boy, for the rest of the year. Ed Miliband will resign but even his brother won’t want to run for the job this time around. The Green Party will pick up a second MP, also in Brighton. The Liberals will be almost wiped off the political map, resulting in an old style two party system in Britain. Turnout in this election will be at a record low (which is why Cameron’s crowd will win).

Whereas 2011 was the year of viral protests, 2012 will be the year of viral flash mob riots. In other words, there will be more riots. This time around they will be coordinated better. The street gangs in the UK will get together to pick dates and times. Early signs of this coordination will be a drop in young black men dying of knife wounds. The government will claim that some non-existent policy of theirs should get the credit, although they’ll be sure not to crow about the figures too much. Then crowds of innocent shoppers will suddenly turn into rampaging mobs after a short visit to the M&S changing rooms to get their masks on. Masks will be banned and there’ll be a resurgence in radical street theatre. Old hands like me will be tempted to hit the streets again. Cameron will use the opportunity of the riots to beef up security laws and once again demonstrate his inability to understand what the internet actually is by threatening to close it down. The mere threat will drive many more people into communicating Off The Record through Jabber, which the government apparently can’t listen in on.

The world will step nearer to carbon related catastrophe as its people’s fail to grapple with the problem. In the summer some low lying islands will be wiped off the map. Governments around the world will invest in nuclear rather than properly sustainable energy. Food prices will continue to rise. 2012 will be a watershed year for people growing their own food in the countries which previously bought it from other countries. That might be less of a prophecy and more of a general prediction.

The UK Olympics will take place under the constant threat of bomb attacks. There will be no explosions anywhere near the event but there might be – not a full prophecy this one – some bombs in London at the same time. British people will suddenly show an interest in the sports we do okay at but lose interest in them when the summer draws to an end. By the end of the summer we’ll be livid about the lavish cost of the games – that one is a prophecy.

Also by the end of the summer, the regime in Syria will fall. A Lebanese fellow I got to know at Occupy London explained much of middle-east politics to me. Amongst many fascinating conversations I had with F, where for once I was just listening and being educated, he pointed out that Syria was the one country which the crusaders never attempted to conquer. F said that was because of the Syrians legendary resilience. The people there have obviously found their voice again and, despite not receiving any assistance from any quarter and facing enormous bloodshed, they keep on coming. In September 2012 there will be a full-scale revolution in Syria.

Israel will launch missile strikes on Iran in the late summer with the aim of debilitating its nuclear plants. America will not condemn Israel but will make various noises about Iran getting what it asked for. Obama’s eye is on one date: 6th November 2012, when he is up for election or the boot. I predict that Obama will win the election because the Republicans cannot muster a sufficiently statesman like character as an alternative.

The conceit of power and the just punishment for murder

“Every man has a right to be conceited until he is successful.”
~ Benjamin Disraeli

This morning we awoke to the news that an influential body of legal experts has called for the mandatory life sentence for murder to be abolished. The Homicide Review Advisory Group has published a report that calls for judges to be given complete discretion when sentencing those convicted of murder. The report suggests that with “appropriate education”, the “already receptive public mind could develop in the general direction long favoured by legal experts and the judiciary”. The case for this reform rests on there being many shades of murder and, in particular the concern that those guilty of murder for reasons of euthanasia should not be dealt with in the same manner as those committing acts of mass terrorism.

For centuries, murder was punished by the death penalty. Capital punishment was abolished in 1965. Consequently those convicted of murder were given what was officially called a life sentence but wasn’t anything of the sort, at least not in the way that the great British public understands the term. A life sentence is commonly understood to mean spending the rest of your life in prison. Instead murderers have been given a minimum custodial term chosen by a judge and then, if they were no longer a danger, released on a life license, which meant that their liberty was very slightly restricted and could be recalled to prison if they misbehaved.

In recent years, there has been much debate about the merits of changing the punishment for euthanasia. The arguments rage on both sides of the debate, with one side claiming that the intended assistance in the killing of and with the consent of another is a new human right in an age when medical science extends life beyond any natural comfort zone and the other side warning of the risks of mistaken verdicts and defending the basic morality that says that all killing is wrong.

There has also been much debate about the merits of judicial discretion. The tabloid press makes hay out of the fact that judges routinely sentence light for heinous crimes. Partly this reportage misinforms the public as to the true factors involved. Certainly no newspapers attempt to report all of any particular criminal trial. They report the barest facts, the headline grabbing evidence, the jury’s verdict and the sentence, often mixed up with much commentary. So much commentary that proceedings have launched against various newspapers for contempt of court, for prejudicing trials.

We are responsible for the press we get. If we didn’t buy the tabloid press it would not exist. Murdoch’s titles are not sold on Merseyside because of the scandalous way in which they reported the Hillsborough Tragedy. The people there simply stopped buying them, en masse. The rest of us could take the same action if we cared enough. The truth is that we do not. We prefer scandal and tits to analysis and facts.

The problem will not be resolved by learned people calling for law reform and attacking the public for its lack of education. The general standard of education amongst our citizens is woefully inadequate, true. Successive governments have simultaneously attacked our teachers and imposed ludicrous educational reforms. Look at the numbers of people who now attend a University but still prefer to read tabloid trash or follow celebrity culture. There is now a fundamental divide between the public and those in the body politic. The chasm in between is filled with a cultural void. On one side, there are those of us who are highly educated. For the most part, they hold liberal ideas on various topics, are well informed (or so they like to think) and they do not mix with people on the other side of the tracks. On the other side, there are those who have education suited only to their working lives, they do not consider themselves to be well informed (when in fact they are, thanks to online social networks) and they do not mix with the powerful.

When these legal experts call for educating the public, they do not intend them to become well versed in history, law and politics. They want the press to run a campaign which bends “the public mind” to their own personal preferences. Not only is this the wrong approach nowadays, it is also a dangerous one. These particular law reformers imagine that once judicial discretion is unleashed all will be well because they are very close to the judiciary, in culture and in companionship. If their preferred reform were introduced, there would inevitably be a series of appalling decisions, which would further alienate the public at large from the powers that be.

To imagine that this divide is not already very close to ruining our civil society is a dangerous conceit. Neither the people who wrote this report, not the judges, nor the overwhelming mass of our elected politicians spend their time with people whose sons and daughters went out rioting earlier in the summer. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that behaviour, there were many thousands of young people involved, many more who were tempted and even more parents who thought no crimes worth punishing were committed.

Those with power should make the case themselves, instead of preparing a propaganda offensive, which is what they really mean when they talk about educating the public. They won’t find it an easy argument to win.

Presently, there is no Act of Parliament prohibiting murder. It has just always been regarded as wrong. Not only wrong but a wrong against us all. That has been the position of English common law since time immemorial. The law makes a distinction between murder and manslaughter. The time has come to make a distinction about the degrees of murder. Euthanasia (or mercy killing as its proponents would prefer to rebrand it), could be charged alongside a higher degree of murder. A jury could be left to decide after a trial. Parliament could pass law which says that those convicted of Euthanasia are not subject to mandatory life sentences.

In other words, someone charged with euthanasia could be indicted on two alternative counts: firstly, murder and secondly, euthanasia. The facts of the case would then be argued by both sides in front of a jury, as happens in every serious criminal case already and the jury would make the decisions as to whether to convict and, if so, whether there had been murder plain and simple or euthanasia.

The advantages of keeping euthanasia a crime and leaving the crucial decisions of fact to the jury are firstly, that anyone thinking of committing murder but disguising it as euthanasia would know that they run the jury gauntlet and, secondly, that the democratic view of the jury is much more likely to be closer to the public view of events that the alienated judicial view. The press would find it much harder to inflame public opinion about a jury’s decision than it does about a judicial decision made by someone completely out of touch with life on our council estates and police no go zones. There are many more of these areas than our authorities will ever admit: a police no go zone is a place where they will only every appear in strength of numbers. (Incidentally, that does not apply to any of Occupy London’s encampments.) You have to live in one to understand the situation on the ground because the press does not report these ugly truths either, lest it harms circulation.

Euthanasia could remain a crime but its sentence be within the remit of judicial discretion. Sentencing should not be in the hands of the mob. This approach would not risk judicial discretion running riot with the criminals we so sorely want to punish.

Spurred by St Paul’s Cathedral, English Defence League member makes threat to kill people in London Occupation.

Over the last week the authorities at St Paul’s Cathedral have deliberately misled the public as to the effect of the London Occupation on religious worship. Although they are in charge of one of the most prestigious buildings in the possession of the Church of England, they a possess a shockingly bad grip on how to tell the simple truth. Yesterday, I listed who is in charge of St Paul’s Cathedral. Today I’m urging you all to get in touch with these specific individuals to urge them to reconsider their approach towards campaigners for the poor, especially in the light of the inevitable consequences of their disingenuity. The Occupation has not closed the Cathedral, these individuals have. They have closed it to the general public but are still allowing private events to continue. They have closed off dialogue with the Occupation’s Cathedral Liaison Team and refused to give any detail of their perceived health & safety concerns to the Occupation but instead, apparently, are supplying detailed information in private to the Daily Telegraph. Whilst all the routes to their Cathedral remain unblocked, they have claimed that their people cannot get access. Instead of acting moderately when faced with completely peaceful protestors, they have turned their backs on the gospel of Christ and whipped up an emotive atmosphere by falsely claiming that their Remembrance Sunday and their Christmas have been cancelled by the Occupation.

The Cathedral’s inflammatory publicity was bound the provoke dire consequences. All people involved in public life have a clear duty to be moderate in their deeds and in their language. The Cathedral authorities cannot plead ignorance of these basic requirements of a civil society. By whipping up sentiment against the Occupationists in this manner, they have inevitably encouraged others to take diabolical steps. They bear full responsibility for their own publicity. Their media have created a situation where violent people now feel justified in being violent towards us.

Greg Bingham, a member of the English Defence League’s London Division, has called on his fellow racists to attack the Occupation camps. He seems particularly upset about the Cathedral’s cancellation of its Remembrance Sunday services. He created a Facebook page (since removed) entitled, “Get rid of the Lefties up town”. It described itself as a public event on the 30th October 2011 between 1pm and 4pm. The page said, “About 2/300 unwashed are holding up London. The majority of us want them to fuck off. So why do we not go and tell them to do one. Join me.” These people have a track record for violence. It is clear what he is asking people to do here. Following the recent riots various people were arrested and prosecuted for similar calls to violence online. This information is all available to the police but Mr Bingham does not seem to have been arrested yet.

EDL call out

On his own Facebook wall Mr Bingham goes further than the appeal above. He states, “well i am going next Sunday to tell them to fuck off and set fire to tents”. A few moments later he states that he has, “3 names in his head and is fed up with bollox. In the next 36 hours I am gonna kill one of them.”

I’m assuming that the names he has in his head are not any of those I have listed above. I’ve been one of the Occupationists who has not chosen to be anonymous. I think it is important to stand up and be counted. I don’t intend to stand down in face of vile threats. However, I do now find myself imagining that perhaps I am one of the people that Mr Bingham is threatening to kill. I am worried about my own safety and the safety of my loved ones.

The police must arrest Mr Bingham immediately, take him to court, ask for him to be remanded in custody and the Crown Prosecution Service must prosecute him for threats to kill. More importantly, the Cathedral authorities must publicly and very conspicuously oppose any violence towards the Occupationists. If any of these threats are carried out, the blood will be on their hands.

The Occupation itself will debate these issues today in General Assembly. This debate needs to take place in a calm and tranquil manner. We have committed no crimes. We speak for the vast majority of the English people and poor people everywhere. We should not be surprised that the rich and powerful control the Cathedral and cause it to be used against campaigners for the poor. We should not follow the example of Jesus Christ in this instance – he violently threw the money lenders out of the temple. Let them have their temple. Let us continue to make our peaceful stand outside.

Street fighting boys, not politics

Lot’s been written this week about our feral youth gangs. The songs are being written but we’re not listening. We’re wondering why several thousand kids decided to rampage regardless of the consequences. We knew their lives were pointless but couldn’t see much point of bothering about about them…

No point in me adding to the literary burden already produced on the subject. Life is pointless. We all know that. In earlier ages and other places, we take refuge in religion. Camus taught that the trick of life is to find meaning. Generally we find this wisdom in others and our relationships with them, thus the appeal of charitable endeavour.

The thieving Tory bastards scream their pleasure at this apparent proof of party policy. These people need punishment! Too many rights! Insufficient family values! Sadly, people who become politicians to rant about family values know little of family life across urban UK. If they really cared about family life (as opposed to power, which is the business of politics) they would be working in social services, the church or some such thing.

The rest of us stand in broken glass and lives, fired by the established description of the problem as complex and, simultaneously not being a problem at all. Even Orwell couldn’t have dreamt up this piece of political gymnasticism. It’s pretty obvious what the problem is – the Blackberry issue is a sideshow – there are lawless gangs of would be thieving Tory bastards of whom the police had little control. That’s the first part of the problem. The second part is that whilst large numbers of these youths have seemingly now been removed from the streets, presumably leaving a big gap in the social fabric they’ve left behind. These teenagers have taken up these roles because there was room for them to do so. Refusing to engage proactively in these neighbourhoods and families will inevitably allow gang culture to persist. Yet is commonly undoubted that gangs caused the problem.

All this is common sense. It is almost trite to restate it. The thieving Tory bastards hold dear policies which cause this kind of anti-social behaviour writ large. As for the girls and boys involved, I’m as lost as anyone else as to how they can be better organised than us. They’ll have their songs but they won’t be speaking of the heroism of other times.

Talking about heroism, I’ll wind up today’s post with a link to Abram A Heller’s tale, an uplifting tale from one of favourite cheerier uppers: Badass of the Week.

 

Blackberry picking comes early this year, in England’s green and pleasant land (and also in shopping malls)

We awake this morning wondering how different our society is from the one we had last week. The established media has  announced that our kids have invented a new kind of rioting. In reality, they just begun to shop with violence. Much else hasn’t changed. There’s been knee-jerk reactions from politicians on all sides, Nick Clegg still has to introduce himself on the streets because of his low recgonition factor and the British bobby still isn’t armed. Ironically, Clegg warned about the dangers of riots if the thieving Tory bastards were elected. He didn’t mention that he would help them into power back then!

There’s so much that is the same as last week that it’s difficult to identify what has changed. The police appear determined to remain in charge of our streets. The right-wing of the thieving Tory bastards appear determined to bring the army in but I can’t see them performing too well against children. The police say that they can manage without the army, thank-you very much to the politicians for suggesting it. The politicians say, that’s alright, would you like plastic bullets and we’re sorry for criticising you. What a very nice difference of opinion.

The differences between the political world and the world of the streets have never been so large. How many politicians got around to using Blackberry’s private messaging system to communicate? They exist in the same world as the celebrities. Perhaps if this media hungry crowd had taken some business advice, their phones wouldn’t have been hacked… on the streets, the need for untraceable communications is obvious… if you’re in a gang. Consequently, no-one in authority knew what was about to happen and the spark – the death of Mark Duggan – was incidental to what followed.

I’ve often wondered how many people I know with Blackberries actually needed that level of security? How many private businessfolk are even aware of the level of security involved and realised that was where most of their phone’s price tag went? Perhaps they bought them because of their superior battery life, their robust construction (for the business traveller to repeatedly throw them into scanning bins) or the stability of the OS in general. Did they install Blackberry Enterprise Software in their office? No? Then they’re not getting the benefit of the security on offer.

There are plenty of countries around the world where Blackberries are banned. Saudi Arabia is just one. One obvious knee-jerk solution for the politicians would be to ban these devices from the UK. Instead they talk about banning our public social media, eg Facebook and Twitter! These methods of communication have been used for good, rather than ill. They’ve been employed to clean up the mess, rather than create it. It’s another classic gaff from the thieving Tory bastards and very much in keeping with their general modus operandus: to ban what we don’t understand. There’s a reason they can’t mention banning Blackberry in Britain: most of their chums in big business use the damn things.

I remember the established news media in 1981 claiming that the rioters used pagers to communicate with each other but also that people were running to street to street with information. Why does our media glorify obvious and common place information with an air of specialty? This is their routine approach to new information about nothing. When did rioters not communicate with one another? It wouldn’t be possible to do anything without talking about it. They’ll use whatever means come to hand. The big question is why couldn’t the police follow the info being messaged across the Blackberry systems, when the Guardian’s reporters were able to do so?

The established media is the playground of the middle classes. Once again we have blanket reportage of one point of view. No adult can be found to justify the riots. It is as if there is only one point of view in the country. Obviously this is not true. Obviously a tiny minority disagree but none of the youths on the middle class media represent this point of view. The youths who are prepared to appear on TV did not riot. They present the view the non-riotous journalists expect them too.

As per usual, there is another conversation taking place but the official media, the middle classes who run the country and the journalists who pander to them do not want to know about this other conversation. It is a conversation Bernie Grant once took part in when he said the police got a bloody good hiding. The riots in 1981 are very different from our recent violence. There’s nothing to connect them but there is still an unofficial conversation going on. If you want to know what’s coming next, you should listen to this conversation.

Where to hear it? I’ve been listening to it at a friend’s house. A drug dealer runs the conversation and it goes like this: questions are asked about whether boys are still playing cricket in school because none of the rioters appear able to throw anything to hit a target. Have you noticed? Suggestions are made that DNA tainted water cannon be used, so that youths could be rounded up later. Other people point out that their appears to be a connivance between the rioters and the police, with the latter warning of riots earlier in the year and then apparently refusing to intervene when it kicked off. Political pressure to end cuts to the police service isn’t such a surprise. This is an intelligent, humorous and well-informed conversation. Shame the BBC et al can’t manage it.

Organised Nihilism

See what you get? No political choice, thus it’s not about politics. These kids, they’ve got fuck all to look forward to, plenty of kit and they’re better organised than us. Perhaps we should get them to run the government?

How much juice in an orange?

Every day in the cave, the question is asked. Oranges squeezed fresh do something to you which the stuff in the bloody cartons does not seem to. Even if the oranges in your bowl and manky, even if the skins are a little hardened. You gotta get this stuff into your system. It can make you feel well again.

It’s a big question! It might just seem like the biggest waste of trivia that you’ll ever get on the web but believe me it is not. That category is clearly reserved for other stuff. This minor piece of half-knowledge contains some value, not quite tiny at the vanishing point. Time for some orange juice! Watch the video, count the oranges, watch the measuring jug and send your answers to Uncle Dave, Capitalism Ltd, London with a photograph of yourself wearing all the new kit your thieved in the riots.