1
2st Edition October 2012 Lancastertoeuston.tumblr.com
LANCASTER TO EUSTON
www.garybarker.co.uk
The
University
is an
Amnesiac
Institution
Chris Witter
Adam
Macarthur Facebook –
And why
we need a
Rally of The
Real
Ryan Flitcroft
The
changing
State and
the state of
change Ben Stanford
2
Welcome all to Lancaster to Euston
and to Lancaster University. Some of
you are here for the first time, while
others return to continue to sample
the delights Lancaster has to offer.
To many of you, this will be the first
copy of Lancaster to Euston you have
seen. We strive to provide a forum
within which political ideas can be
discussed and debated. We attempt a
different ethos to other publications
within campus media. Our stance is
very simple. We want to provide
students and non-students a space
where they can be political, and they
can attempt journalism in a style less
available in SCAN and The
Whistleblower.
We appreciate longer articles and
attempt at all times to respect the
wishes of the author. Some articles in
this publication contain references
where others do not; this is wholly
dependent on the wishes of the
particular contributor. Hopefully,
this emphasis on the importance of
the writer has you hoping to
contribute to Lancaster to Euston
yourself in the future. All articles are
published online, and the best/most
current are available in the print copy
currently available at the beginning of
each month.
In a personal capacity, I hope to see
both SCAN and The Whistleblower
providing more critical and political
journalism in the coming year. I feel
there cannot be enough mediums
through which students can express
their political ideals. The student
population at Lancaster has been
worryingly apathetic politically over
the past year or two, and I hope that
this lethargy can be remedied. I also
hope that this publication can
contribute, if only slightly, to a
realisation amongst students that they
have not only an option to be
politically engaged, but a duty.
We live in very contentious times,
and to think that students, of all
people, had ceased their radical edge,
upsets me greatly. On the topic of
‘contentious times’, the current
talking point around campus is the
restructuring process which is
occurring within the college bar
system.
I would like to write that this is a
very simple issue and simply reflects
University Management’s ineptitude;
however, I feel it would be overly
brash to do so.
The issue of the college bars is a
complex one and I’ll try to set out
concisely some of the upcoming
structure along with the positives,
and finish with my personal opinion,
looking to provide criticism where I
feel it is necessary.
What we’re moving from is
essentially a system whereby each bar
has a landlord, and they are all
answerable to the Director of
Commercial Services, currently Jo
Hardman who replaced David Peaks.
The system we’re moving to has Lou
Davies at the helm as Retail Services
Manager, with three Venue Managers
consisting of two former Licensees
and a third spot which I believe is
currently unoccupied. The bars will
then have Venue Assistants at each
bar. These roles will be like
landlords, but not landlords; more
like senior members of the bar staff
with additional duties.
The restructuring process is,
according to Jo Hardman, aimed at
bettering the colleges and getting
more students into the bars. On
paper this goal is exactly what one
would be hoping someone in his role
would be hoping to achieve.
But how does he intend to do this,
and in what ways and to what degrees
is this to be judged successful?
Jo wishes to double the footfall in the
college bars over the coming year;
which sounds to me like a very
ambitious target. His plan to do so
relies on a full overhaul of the current
process. At the moment each bar
runs largely in its own capacity, and
many of them specialise slightly in
certain areas. The most notable ones
are obviously Grad, known for its
Real Ale and CAMRA status, and
Grizedale, which serves a wide
variety of cocktails.
What we are to expect under Jo
Hardman’s leadership is further
specialisation. Grizedale will add to
its chic image by providing tapas
along with cocktails. Bowland will
seek to push its Real Ale credentials
and hopefully gain CAMRA status.
Fylde will look to serve more food,
possibly adopting a ‘grill’-like style.
Certain bars on campus will utilise
the entertainment licence and extend
their current opening hours to one
o’clock. County bar already has the
stock in to serve ‘Glitterbombs’ and
‘Firebombs’, plus, it now has the raw
materials to throw together the
Sugarhouse’s Shagga cocktail. Expect
County, and presumably Lonsdale, to
be turned into venues more similar to
Sugarhouse than they currently are.
Looking into the future, one of the
aims; apparently initially proposed by
Gareth Ellis – former licensee of
Grad Bar, now one of the Venue
Managers; is to establish a micro-
brewery on campus. This idea would,
at least in the form it is being
discussed at the moment, lead to
Grad bar stopping its Real Ale
specialism, and instead, see Real Ale
on southwest campus moved to
Cartmel – where the micro-brewery
would be based. Cartmel would then
EDITORIAL:
3
receive investment to improve both
the bar, and the eating facilities.
On top of this, Pendle would
continue to push live music, but
where Grad and Furness are left is
currently out of my sphere of
knowledge.
Additionally, Jo hopes to work with
other aspects of the university in
order to provide an occasional
overlap between the academic and
the social; for instance, a poetry
night, a literary festival, or an art
exhibition in some of the bars.
Now that you’re relatively filled in,
and I feel I can safely say that the
above information is true, at least at
the time of going to print, it is
probably fairly important that we
delve a little deeper.
First of all, I think many of the ideas
proposed by Jo Hardman and others
involved with the process are
excellent ideas. It has been clarified
many times that the changes are in no
way a cost cutting exercise. The only
cost cutting I have heard of is that the
move from having multiple bar
licences to once centralised licence
will save about £9000; which, in
reality, is a very small amount of
money. Spending is actually to
increase in many areas. The proposed
changes to the bars are likely to
require investment, and real
investment into the bars is something
which is necessary and welcomed.
The idea of integrating more with
other areas of the university is nice to
see. However, I feel that it is essential
to point out that these positive
changes are not inherently part of the
restructuring process. The bars can
be invested in, and can expand their
scope, without any changes to the
overall structure.
I am not an advocate of the current
(read: previous) structure, but some
change is not necessarily good change.
The structure of the bars could have
been changed with vastly different
outcomes. They could have been
handed back to their colleges and ran
entirely under the governance of the
licensees, allowing them to
implement the changes they felt were
necessary. The university could have
provided an investment fund which
colleges could have bid for to
undertake larger changes within the
bars.
Alternatively, the bar management,
organisation, and co-ordination could
have been conducted by a centralised
body made up of each licensee. They
could have met on a weekly or bi-
weekly basis to discuss policy, and
then had a team of administrative staff
to do the day-to-day work required
to implement these changes, while
the licensees ran their bars.
Or there could have been a structure
proposed which was neither of the
above. Considering this is not a
manoeuvre designed to reduce the
budget, there could have been time
for discussion of different potential
structural ideas.
This brings us on to a wider
important point. Jo Hardman says
that his role regarding the bars begun
in June, and to implement changes in
time for the coming year required it
to have been done over summer and
before term had properly begun. The
problem, of course, is that this means
the structure of the bars is radically
changed, resulting in job losses,
without those who work within that
sector, nor the student body, having
any input into the decision making
process. This reflects a wider
problem within the decision making
of the university management as a
whole. Consultation and discussion
appears to be a secondary concern.
This process left many licensees in a
state of limbo; uncertain about their
job prospects in an already
increasingly uncertain economy.
I feel it is a great shame that college
bars will no longer have landlords.
They are the face of the bars, and are
also key figures within college
communities. The organisational
structure of the catering department
appears to have been thrust onto the
bars without consideration that a
landlord is a key figure in a
welcoming community orientated bar
environment.
Additionally, student engagement
with the restructuring has been
disappointing to say the least. The
press release from LUSU read like it
had been sent straight down from
University House. I appreciate LUSU
for calling a General Meeting, but
bearing in mind the General Meeting
is being held after the changes have
mostly been implemented;
particularly the crucial decisions; it
seems like it could prove an
ineffective exercise. Though, I do
hope I am mistaken.
SCAN’s coverage has been useful and
relatively thorough, and I cannot fault
them on that. The same cannot be
said for The Whistleblower, who,
considering they bill themselves as
the critical voice, carried out a very
poor critique of Ronnie Rowland’s
post on LUSU’s new YourVoice e-
democracy website. The article fails
to provide an accurate representation
of Ronnie’s piece, while
simultaneously implying support for
the restructuring without any serious
discussion of the issues at hand.
I hope to see frank and critical
discussions in student media during
this academic year. This issue,
alongside many others, needs
considerable scrutiny.
Adam Harrison-Henshall -
Editor
4
Website:
lancastertoeuston.tumblr.com
Facebook Page: Lancaster to
Euston
Twitter: @toEuston
Email:
If you want to become part of the
team, befriend To Euston on facebook.
IN THIS ISSUE
Editorial – Adam Harrison-Henshall : pg.2
The changing State and the state of change – Ben Stanford : pg.5
The Final Admission; Society was crazy, not you – Northern Loudmouth : pg.5
A Look At Syria; Does the UN really promote peace – Laura Clayson : pg.7
The University is an Amnesiac Institution – Chris Witter : pg.8
Daniel Morgan; Police Corruption Hidden Away – Vicky Millinship : pg.11
Motion of Support for the TUC at the LUSU General Meeting – foreword by: Adam
Harrison-Henshall : pg.12
It’s time to De-Worm the Financial Markets – Jed Bartlett : pg.14
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; No-one Blows the Whistle on The City on The Hill – Northern
Loudmouth : pg.15
Assange’s Cult of Personality is destroying Wikileaks – Northern Loudmouth : pg.16
Julian Assange; Certain Questions Need Answering – The Fencesitter: pg.17
Facebook – And why we need a Rally of the Real – Ryan Fletcher : pg.19
Despatch from Madrid – An account of the S25 demonstration: Part Two – Will Taylor
: pg.21
5
The changing State
and the state of
change
arket state: The emerging constitutional order
that promises to maximise the opportunity of its people, tending to privatise many state activities and making representative government more responsible to consumers”1
Upon inspection, it is obvious that the State is heading in only one direction. The market-state is now creeping upon us and is developing with devastating consequences, especially upon the poor and needy. The market-state is characterised by three crucial and interconnected factors; privatisation, outsourcing and cutting back the welfare state. Each will be addressed in turn to see how individuals are being frustrated on every possible level.
In the recent meme cult-phenomenon which engulfed the internet and gave students yet further procrastination ammo, one above others amused me most. We all know the one - Condescending Wonka. In particular, a highly relevant portrayal depicted the current state of the rail system in the UK;
1 Professor Philip Bobbitt, Terror and Consent: The Wars For The Twenty-First Century
“So we have the most expensive to run rail system in the Europe and get year-on-year above inflation fare hikes. Tell me more about how privatisation makes services more efficient and benefits the consumer.”
“
Upon inspection, it is obvious that the State is heading in only one direction. The market-state is now creeping upon us and is developing with devastating consequences
”
Competition in the transport industry, the supposed ace in the hand of those who advocate privatisation, is a myth. I simply adore arriving at the bus stop and being spoilt for choice, window shopping to pick which bus provider offers the best deal to the consumer. In actuality, we need only look at Lancaster University with one bus company to shuttle students to and from town. Year upon year, prices rise. Year upon year, services stagnate or even worsen. The university in fact has to effectively bribe the bus company to run services at “unprofitable” times and days. In the academic year 2009-2010 I paid £199 for a Unirider. Going into 2012-2013 it is now £226. The Stagecoach website proudly proclaims that “99% of students surveyed in 2012 said that they would recommend Unirider to a friend.” I can only assume that the remaining 1% of students are moronic enough to suggest taking a taxi is a financially viable alternative.
Looking closer to my home, Preston, Stagecoach under-priced their services to drive out an emerging competitor, Preston Bus. Eventually,
the Competition Commission stepped in but only when it was too late to force a half-baked, half-considered solution. Preston Bus has ever since only ran a handful of routes, nowhere near as numerous as initially planned. Nationwide providers like Stagecoach will always have the resources to crush emerging local competitors and it seems little will be done to protect emerging competition. The same can be said of the electoral system in this country, where the cash pumped into Labour and the Tories in particular will serve to greatly limit the effectiveness of emerging parties. The AV proposals by the Liberal Democrats might have been an important step to change that, but anyway, that’s another story.
Most people associate privatisation with the Thatcher governments but it has continued ever since in true slippery slope style. An article written by Richard Seymour sums it up in a greater way than I could ever fashion.2 Under Thatcher, British Airways, BritOil, British Telecom, British Rail, British Steel and British Gas all went. The water and electrical utilities were also sold off despite fierce opposition, as the coal industry was crippled leading to unemployment hitting above 3.5 million. Reducing the United Kingdom to a financial services industry base has placed us amongst the most vulnerable of states in a globalized economy, another symbolic manifestation of the market-state. The fact is that the echoes of the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 are still felt today in devastating fashion and will be for many years to come, whilst other manufacturing industries have since recovered. Today, Royal Mail is threatened more than ever, highways could soon be in the hands of private companies, as could schools, probation services and of course, our treasured NHS. Currently living in the United States of America, I can truly say how much
2 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/29/short-history-of-privatisation
“M
INSIGHT:
6
the British people take the NHS for granted, despite the fact that has been slowly chipped away at over the years. The attempt to sell off protected national forests was defeated by a popular movement, largely led by 38 Degrees online, showing that when large numbers really do stand up then governments will listen.
Secondly, consider another related manifestation of the market-state, that of outsourcing essential state services to private contractors. The year 2012 was hyped as a great year for all things British as we proudly held the Royal Jubilee and then hosted the Olympics, London being the first city worldwide to host the games three times. What it really showed was that the UK is second only to the USA in its steamrolling transition to the market-state. Security was to be the paramount consideration and it was ultimately to be the paramount failure of the games. The government, sensing a saved buck or two decided to contract Group 4 Securicor, better known as G4S, to provide basic security for the Olympics. The rest is history as soldiers and police were forced to stand in to plug the holes left by the pure ineptitude of essential state service delegation. Even if police outsourcing is off the agenda for now, it will return soon. After all, as the saying goes, “if it isn’t nailed down…”. When basic state services are contracted out, the underlying common denominator between them to provide a good service disappears. It is in fact replaced by the quest for profit. To provide a good service is at best a secondary consideration, a supplementary bonus if you will, one which is certainly not essential to the task of raking in cash. No adherent to the ruthless and often ineffective market system can deny that the approach of many companies, TNCs and brands is detrimental to infrastructure provision.
Finally, the burdens placed upon every individual have never been greater. Tuition fees have risen to
£9,000, meaning a student in a typical three year programme can expect a debt of £36,000-£40,000 as a conservative estimate. The justification offered that people won’t actually repay until earning over a certain amount simply doesn’t stick. Interest soars on unpaid debts and jobs are few and far to find. Even to rebut those claims is futile in the face of the evidence that there was a drop of 8-10% in university applications this year, depending on what source you read. Elsewhere, people are expected to contribute more to the pensions and retire older. Education Maintenance Allowance has been cut, hampering a student’s most fundamental task of getting to school or college. The contributory employment and support allowance (ESA), provided to thousands of people physically incapable of working is being faded out or limited.
“
When basic state services are contracted out, the underlying common denominator between them to provide a good service disappears
”
Market states see their legitimacy founded in the maximisation of opportunity to citizens.3 When this “opportunity” is limited to one service provider, or severely let down by the incompetence of outsourcing, or held back by capping benefits available to the neediest, it is plainly an illusory opportunity. States should never outsource such essential services as security, education or health care provision. Indeed, as the great Anuerin Bevan once said;
“No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means”
3 Again, see the work of Professor Philip Bobbitt and other constitutional legal scholars!
I have no problem with competition in a world of capitalism for non-essential services. That is a reluctant compromise we must perhaps make. But surely it has to be genuine to salvage any credibility in the twenty-first century where inequality grows and worsens every year.
Ben Stanford
The final
admission: Society
was crazy, not you.
ay I take the time to congratulate Conservative MP for Croydon Central
Gavin Barwell and the House of Commons MP’s (something I don’t think I’ve ever done) for voting through the private members bill to reform this country’s, frankly mad, mental health laws. Barwell’s private members bill sees an end to MP’s and company directors being removed on the basis of mental health problems, including problems which the sufferer may have long since recovered from. Not only did those laws put a glass ceiling on the careers of mental health sufferers but it also excluded them from serving on juries, a tacit admission by the law that society didn’t see people who suffered with mental illness fit to take full part in society.
The scrapping of these particular laws is the final admission that society and government were the real crazy people and not mental illness sufferers like me.
Mental Health seems to be the last social stigma in our society, we’ve made great strides in combating
M
INSIGHT:
7
homophobia, racism, sexism and physical disabilities but mental illness, due to its nature was still stigmatized against. Mental illness is of course not always visible to the human eye. It is not simply identifying the loon on the bus and the train, mental illness can affect anyone at anytime and its symptoms differ from person to person due to the complex nature of the human brain.
“
The scrapping of these particular laws is the final admission that society and government were the real crazy people and not mental illness sufferers like me.
”
I was only truly open about my bi-polar disorder recently, a few friends and close family were made aware of my condition but no one else knew, even so I felt like I was unfairly targeted by my manager at work once he found out about my condition. Furthermore for someone of my ambition - I still want to enter the world of politics one day - I feared that it would be used against me wrecking any chance of a great career.
Previously I would have been most terrified about a particular episode I had back in 2010, while at university, which saw my mind almost unravel completely and culminated with me trying to jump off a bridge one evening. I felt if anyone found out about it, I would be finished. I would never have a career, develop long-term relationships and possibly would even be locked up when another episode developed. Not only did this mean concealing my illness from almost everyone it also stopped me from seeking treatment, for fear of it going on a record which could be dug up by someone. All this did was increase my stress, paranoia and exacerbate my condition; no one
should have to feel that same sense of shame for who they are.
1 in 4 of us will experience a mental health issue in our lifetime and 3 in 4 will deal with a close family member suffer with a mental illness, so the laws as they stood meant our society were completely unrepresentative. As a result some very talented people were excluded from leading a successful life, particularly when only rare, extreme cases prevent people from doing so. In my experience of mental illness, it can be drawn upon positively, allowing you to gain a unique perspective which can aid creative thinking, such as going from agony to ecstasy on a regular basis as a norm. To exclude such people is horrendous discrimination and in an increasing busy, stressing and fast developing world, it will mean excluding even more people as more people will develop a mental health issue in such conditions.
The glass ceiling has been shattered now, it is time we rose above its remnants to finally do away with society’s last remaining bastion of accepted discrimination.
Northern Loudmouth
A look at Syria; Does the UN really promote peace?
o maintain international peace and security.”
The Holocaust. Cambodia’s Khmer
Rouge. Rwandan genocide. The latter are certainly juxtapositions to the aforementioned Article 1 of the UN charter. Whilst the charter’s initial creation did go on to say that they are not authorized to intervene in the domestic jurisdiction of states, changes since then have granted them further powers for doing so. This is highlighted especially within the creation of the 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine by Kofi Annan in 2001. The doctrine certainly appeared to accentuate the UN’s desire for peace as it states that should a country fail to protect innocent civilians then it is the role of the international community to intervene. So, the UN said we had learnt and had made concessions for future domestic issues that would allow them to display these mistakes as rectified. Yet when we observe the Middle East and the current war raging in Syria one has to take a step back and question whether the UN really do promote the peace supposedly at the heart of this supranational institution. Certainly we have seen successful
“T
INSIGHT:
8
intervention in places such as Korea and Libya; campaigns conducted bringing back some kind of stability to the region. Indeed, this surely pioneers the UN as justified in labelling itself so? However, the use of the 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine successfully used for the first time in Libya, has seen a serious failure in its lack of application in Syria, whose civilians are now in a much worse situation. The UN’s excuse? The failure of Russia to agree to a resolution. This may appear reasonable at first as all 5 members of the Security Council have to agree on a course of action before it can be taken. However, when we consider the case of Libya, China failed to agree to Western intervention and so NATO was used as a force instead. Why therefore can the same not be done for Syria?
“ Yet with crimes against humanity being committed on a daily basis in this war torn country and the situation deteriorating further still, the legitimacy of perceiving the UN as a promoter of peace, as opposed to using it for confirmation of power primacy amongst the superpowers, must be questioned ” I think in order to answer this question we must analyse the relations between the powers of the world. In the Cold War there was a bipolar structure of international relations, with the US and the Soviet Union constituting the two poles. This meant that the two states were locked in a stalemate, i.e. neither could act because they would be faced with the same brute force from the opposing side. Yet, as the US’
unipolar position appears to be declining, with the rise of states such as China and India, we are progressing to a situation of multi polarity, i.e. there are now too many countries making up the poles. Therefore, stalemate ensues, exacerbated by the fact that with the five members of the Security Council all having access to Nuclear weapons, the push of a button could incite nuclear war. Thus I propose that this state of affairs and the inability to wage war between themselves has led to Middle Eastern countries being used as the stage upon which these anguishes are fought out. This can certainly be seen in Syria, where we have Russia and China engaged in a fierce battle with the Western powers, each providing assistance for the opposing side. This interpretation is supported too within the recent stopping of a Russian ship
in UK waters transporting military equipment to Syria. Thus it seems to be very much a war fuelled directly by the world’s powers, as we saw these types of trade and arms embargos in the World Wars. Furthermore, recent observations from an ‘Amnesty International Senior Crisis Response Adviser’ have informed us that there has been an intensification of armed confrontation on the ground as weapons reach the armed opposition. Such an interpretation certainly provides issues for those who wish to be humanitarian in their approach to the Syrian situation as unless the powers decide to change their approach it is very unlikely anything can be done until one of the members changes their focus. This too reflects badly upon the UN as a peace promoter as it appears personal interests fuel their motivations in getting involved with the domestic issues of other countries, as opposed to the wish for bringing peace back to areas of conflict; in Libya there was oil, in Syria there are only innocent
civilians. Yet with crimes against humanity being committed on a daily basis in
this war torn country and the situation deteriorating further still, the legitimacy of perceiving the UN as a promoter of peace, as opposed to using it for confirmation of power primacy amongst the superpowers, must be questioned. With the new international mediator, saying that Syria is a “global threat” no longer isolated to the country alone, I believe that the “global threat” facing the world is Syria being used as a political pawn for warmongering among the superpowers. Yet however the situation may be interpreted nobody can refute the horrific scar this is going to leave on the UN's record, or the history of humanity, just like the scars it is currently leaving on the bodies and hearts of the innocent people of Syria while the world looks on.
[To ask the Russian Foreign Minister
to stop supplying arms to Syria please
visit: www.amnesty.org.uk/syria ]
Laura Clayson
The University is
an Amnesiac
Institution
e like to imagine that universities are places where different forms of
knowledge and alternative histories are preserved and remembered – where they might even continue to live. But, as we enter a new academic year, we should confront this basic fact: the university is an amnesiac institution. This amnesia takes many forms – from professors actively rationalising, legitimising and proselytising for the state, to the specific content and form of our so-called education, which
W
FEATURE:
9
here presents theory as fact, there fact as theory. Whether it is the neoliberal indoctrination courses that are administered by the management school or the softer, deliberately ahistorical and apolitical, ‘postmodern’ ideologies that are propagandised in the humanities departments, the idea that a sense of history (which is to say, self-knowledge, learning) lies – or once lay - at the heart of the university is mere myth. However, in talking about the university as amnesiac institution my subject here is specifically the way in which amnesia operates within Lancaster University with relation to its own history. In the interest of concision, let me briefly outline three of the primary means by which Lethe’s waters envelop us.
1. Control of information First, it seems simple enough to observe that there exists a managerial bureaucracy – composed of university managers and Lancaster’s Student Union (LUSU) – which is able to possess and control the primary means by which information about the university is disseminated on campus. Through a host of media – e.g. websites, emails, posters, letters, signs and newsletters, and even the architecture of the University itself – this bureaucracy disseminates the information, images and narratives that are useful to it, whilst suppressing or withholding anything controversial. Two of the major controversies of last year, the Business Processes Review (i.e. the forced cull of administrative staff) and briefly floated and rapidly aborted Lancaster-Liverpool merger, were indicative of this. Not only students, but also staff, were purposely kept in the dark in order to ease the way for a management determined to steamroller through destructive measures without consultation. The University administration is not the only culprit, however. LUSU have, over the years, been
remarkably good at failing to fill student in with regards not only their own goings on, but also all those controversial aspects of University and Government policy that they cannot be moved to oppose since doing so would threaten their own credibility. A prime example is the way that they chose last year, and continue to choose, not to inform students about national student and anti-cuts demonstrations – even when those demonstrations were officially supported by the NUS. However, there are plenty of other examples, including the mysterious and never explained tussle between three LUSU Presidents over a proposed Tuition Fees Working Group; the exact specification of the controversial attempt by LUSU, last year, to take over the student bars; or the way LUSU scare and cajole first year students into accepting the awful houses and tenancy agreements of one of the worst landlords in Lancaster, their own LUSU Housing.
“ Not only students, but also staff, were purposely kept in the dark in order to ease the way for a management determined to steamroller through destructive measures without consultation ” One further source of information, of course, is SCAN – the student newspaper. It would be facile to say that this is ‘the Party rag’ of LUSU or the University management; it has a degree of autonomy, and may run a critical story from time to time. On the other hand, it is utterly deluded to pretend that SCAN does not have bonds of allegiance to LUSU: whether they are bonds of friendship, collegiality, and common purpose, or common structures of governance and funding. Beyond this, the paper must go to the source for information: thus the general control exerted over information by the managerial bureaucracy is reproduced
by SCAN. Indeed, even when information is available from alternate sources, the codes of ‘journalistic professionalism’ dictate that a cover-story be elicited from the managerial bodies in the interests of ‘objectivity’, ‘balance’ and – in the last case - avoiding defamation suits. Thus any information from alternative sources is subjected to a process of ‘damage-limitation’, or more subtle forms of selectivity. A key example here is the way that LUSU managed to covert the push against the BPR last year into a LUSU success story (and particularly a George Gardiner success story). The buoyant SCAN coverage completely omitted the support a grassroots coalition of students and admin staff managed to build amongst staff and students prior to LUSU’s General Meeting, as well as the fact that this group had initially to pressure into action a clayfooted LUSU hesitant to openly move against management. Having noted these more subtle forms of influence and manipulation, let us not forget that LUSU and SCAN can and have deliberately excluded oppositional voices. Last year, SCAN’s editors deliberately and vindictively censored and excluded writers from political group Lancaster University Against Cuts (LUAC) as a revenge against LUAC’s 2010/2011 Re-open Nominations (RON) campaign against the election candidates for LUSU Presidency, which was run on the basis that the candidates were all tuition fees apologists. In the process they demonstrated their ability to exert control over the student media - as well as the limits of this: witness the plethora of new ‘independent’ newspapers that sprouted as a result. (The anarchist slogan puts it succinctly: ‘screw us and we multiply!’) Before moving on, one last point to make is that, needless to say, all of the examples I’ve just given have been rapidly erased from collective memory.
2. Il n'y a pas de corps étudiant
10
Beyond direct control of information, a second problem confronts any attempt to articulate a common, critical history on campus. That is, the fact that there is no coherent subject which might produce, experience and speak this history. Following this, we are correct to say that, in a very real sense, there is no such thing, at Lancaster University, as the ‘student body’. In order for such a subject-entity to emerge there must be a space for it to emerge in: forums in which it might appear and articulate itself. That is to say, such an agent must have political representation on campus if it is to exist. But, as I have begun to indicate, those bodies which pretend to represent it – e.g. LUSU and University management – in fact exist, not only at a remove from the so-called ‘student body’, but as forces actively blocking its emergence. If the Student Union’s apparent purpose is the representation of students’ needs, desires and demands, the reality is that it has become an extension of the University management. In exchange for simulated authority and prestige (plus CV material and a reasonable salary) LUSU administers the ‘student experience’ and manages a handsome portfolio of ‘student-orientated’ businesses. If it clashes with management on rare occasions, it is always sure to respect its correct forms and procedures. The idea that it represents the student body, then, is mere ideology. In fact, only those within the ‘LUSU Club’ have any sway. Beyond the yearly elections in which a minority of students votes, there are no existing means by which LUSU is able to connect with students. Only about, say, 250 students actively participate in the union: a minority group composed of LUSU officers, the JCRs, some members of clubs and societies, and their friends. LUSU does not know what students think or what students want – whatever it says.
Since students do not have a forum, and therefore do not have a means of articulating themselves, they never form a ‘student body’ – except in the most general sense in which there exists an aggregate of students attending the university. For a ‘student body’ can only emerge in its encounter with itself on the terrain of political action: that is, in establishing a forum in which it is able to articulate its common identity and will. Given that, beyond the concrete aggregate of unrepresented students, no student body really exists, we must conclude that the so-called ‘student body’ is a mere projection of management and LUSU - a spectre evoked to justify plans which are really determined by and designed to suit their own interests. Examples of this include LUSU’s protestation that “no students are interested in attending national student demonstrations”, which is frequently used to fend off pressure from LUAC to promote these and fund coaches; or the University’s insistence that Library and Admin redundancies and cuts in fact constitute ‘planned improvements to meet student needs.’ Here we – non-managerial staff, as well as students - see how we are first systematically excluded from the political process, and then evoked, ex post facto, to justify actions we had no hand in. Indeed, in these examples we see that not only is the student body a mirage, but this mirage is used to combat the actual concerns and demands of any groups of students (and staff) who attempt to assert a political will.
“ If the Student Union’s apparent purpose is the representation of students’ needs, desires and demands, the reality is that it has become an extension of the University management. ”
Following from this, we can see that not only is the University an amnesiac institution because it actively suppresses and distorts history, but also because it actively suppresses the coming into being of any subject that might live and create that history: students are actively blocked from making their own history.
3. The natural rhythm One final thing to note is what I will call the ‘natural rhythm’ of the university: the simple fact that new students come and old students go. As we have seen, the amnesiac process is manufactured by and geared to suit the interests of the managerial bureaucracy: it is no accident of nature. But, the fact that students tend to rapidly arrive and leave the university is certainly a major stumbling block to establishing a collective memory. What occurs to me, now, is that this year almost all of those students who were involved in the 2010 student movement will graduate: will that brief explosion of energy leave any mark at Lancaster? Here, of course, we see another sense in which amnesia benefits the managerial agenda. For the new arrivals the way things are on campus is the way they’ve always been. There’s always only been one wind-block above the Venue; there have always been Tesco-style self-service checkouts in the Library, rather than a team of knowledgeable and helpful staff; the plethora of interesting, tailored-to-research third year modules in humanities departments never existed. Likewise, it’s well known that resistance to new measures is weakened by a staggered introduction: that way change always lies in the future until it has become a forgotten event of the past. Forms 1 and 2 of amnesia feed in here: attempts to control of information can certainly take advantage of the absence of anyone who remembers, whilst ‘emergent’ student collectivities (e.g. LUAC) are faced with the challenge of their own continuation beyond the allotted
11
study-time of their core membership. Conversely, this ‘natural cycle’ feeds into the forms of amnesia described above. The fact that the existing structures appear antecedent to the arrival of students aids in their naturalization, in their appearance as necessary and unquestionable, and in their detachment from the ‘student body’. To take again the instance of LUSU, the fact that it appears to precede the very body it is supposed to represent (i.e. the students attending the University at any given moment) reinforces its abstraction and detachment from the student population. Of course, a prime example of this process of using the ‘natural cycle’ of the student population to help push through changes is the introduction of tuition fees in 1998 (who remembers this now?), and the fee increases of 2004 and 2010. But here, of course, we see the limits of this ‘natural phenomenon’. For students still rose up in 2010 to say ‘no’ to the fees, despite the fact that they were to be imposed on future students – the cohort entering the universities this year, in 2012. The question remains open as to whether or not this fight will be continued by the new students. Amnesia is the enemy What becomes clear is that amnesia is produced by the managerial bureaucracy and used to their advantage, against staff and students. Even where the ‘natural cycle’ pulls students in and out of the university, it is the deliberate control of information and strategic implementation of policy that produces the amnesiac effect. Amnesia, then, is not a natural fact but a shroud pulled around the enemy: a managerial group who wish to block us from any meaningful participation in determining the form of the University and its development. The existence of this strategy leads us to the following fact: it is only necessary because the University is developing in ways which are
antagonistic towards the needs and desires of students and staff. Our University and our education is being ‘rationalised’ away by managers keen only to increase profits. This whole process is premised upon finding new avenues by which to exploit students (e.g. more expensive accommodation, more expensive courses, more hidden costs) whilst cutting the cost of producing education (e.g. less course modules, less Library journals and paper books, less support, more intensely exploited staff). In this situation, we see the importance of those who keep an oppositional history alive. This includes groups such as Lancaster University Against Cuts (LUAC), as well as specific individuals and ‘alternative media’: the indispensible Subtext(http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/)is worth a particular mention, as well as Lancaster to Euston and Whistleblower. We also see that we must overcome the forces of amnesia and master our own history, or we will be subjected, without our knowledge, to the whims of a bureaucracy that places itself beyond our control.
Chris Witter
Daniel Morgan; Police Corruption Hidden Away.
olice corruption is of particular interest these days, from News of the World and
Ian Tomlinson to the continuing persecution of black youths and the cover up of the Hillsborough disaster. Whilst I applaud the hard work by all involved to uncover these truths and raise public awareness, it saddens me
that one of the hardest hitting cases of police corruption I know of is slowly slipping into the dark recesses of history.
Daniel Morgan – who has been described by his brother as hard-working and intelligent – was a private investigator working for Southern Investigations in South London. It is believed he was working on exposing drug-related police corruption. In March 1987, he was brutally and devastatingly murdered in a pub car park in Sydenham, Lewisham. After having met with his business partner Jonathan Rees, he was heading home when he was attacked with an axe. A watch was stolen as well as pages from his note pad, but a large sum of money was left on his person. From the start, it didn’t seem to add up.
Rees is not a man without blemishes. In the late 90s, he was found guilty of planting drugs on a woman so she would be deemed unfit to take sole custody of her child. More recently, he has been intimately involved in what has been described as an “empire of corruption” in which he sold information to the now defunct News of the World weekly newspaper. Rees has been reported to have said that “no one pays like the News of the World [does]”.
Moreover, the links between Rees and the local police force is remarkable and it seems rather fortuitous that the detective charged with leading the murder investigation was Sid Fillery who later retired and became Morgan’s replacement at Southern Investigations. Sid Fillery, along with Rees, Glenn and Garry Vian and two Metropolitan Police officers were arrested without charge on suspicion of murder in April 1987. In 1988, a Southern Investigations employee, Keith Lennon, gave evidence of Morgan and Rees’s worsening relationship, stating that Rees had said “My mates at Catford nick are going to arrange it. Those police officers are friends of mine and will either murder Danny themselves or will arrange it.” It was at this point the Judge returned a verdict of
P
INSIGHT:
12
‘unlawful killing’ – a verdict which has initiated a cruel game of cat and mouse ever since.
Despite five inquiries, police bugging the main four suspects, a ‘mountain of evidence’ which has since been acquired linking the suspects to the murder, and the police still have failed to bring these men forward to a proper trial. In March 2011, the case was again pulled by a chief prosecutor, after a series of mistakes and ‘coaching’ of a key supergrass witness, stating that there would never be scope for further investigation or prosecution. Tim Godwin, former Acting Police Commissioner, apologised to Morgan’s family and stated there was a
“repeated failure by the MPS over many years following Daniel’s murder to accept that corruption had played such a significant part in failing to bring those responsible to justice…We recognise that we have to take responsibility for the consequences of the repeated failure of the MPS over the years to confront the role played by police corruption in protecting those responsible for the murder from being brought to justice.”
This story serves to highlight in the most damnable way the preservative nature of the Metropolitan Police service, or as London Assembly member Jennette Arnold has put it, “a reminder of the old police culture of corruption and unaccountability”. Daniel died trying to expose these all too often miscarriages of justice, dished out by those who pledge to protect society. What he knew might have led to fewer police cover ups over the years – would Hillsborough ever have happened, for instance, if only a prior example had been made of this constabulary? His revelations certainly would have seen an early
end to Rees’ empire of corruption. Perhaps it would have even led to a better and less distressing court battle for the Lawrences, whose son’s murder in nearby Eltham was notoriously covered up by the police for a number of years. What really disturbs me, however, is the lack of awareness concerning this story. If I mention it to most people I know, I would have to recount the entire story. It is troubling that a story full of such obvious failures has been washed away by the annals of time, with many oblivious to the implications being made. Whilst there are a lot of police officers out there who wish to do good, how easy can it be when such thuggish attitudes pervade their line of duty? How can we allow this decent man’s memory to be forgotten, and not demand that serious changes must be enforced so that the police cannot hide behind the reaches of the law? Daniel Morgan should be up there with Tomlinson, another man whose life was lost due to the dodgy world of police brutality and dishonesty, in the British public’s consciousness.
Vicky Millinship
Motion of support
for the TUC at the
LUSU General
Meeting
he following text is a motion of support for the TUC to be proposed at Lancaster
University Students' Union's general meeting on the 8th of October. This text was initially drawn up by Sam Hale and has received endorsements from Lancaster University Against Cuts and the Lancaster University Humanists Association. Any more official endorsements from societies or bodies affiliated to either the student's union or the university will be added to the article during the lead up to the meeting.
“
LUSU should endorse, actively promote and to help organise transport for the Trades Union Congress (TUC) ‘For A Future That Works’ Demonstration in London on October 20th, 2012 and any future anti-austerity demonstrations and strikes organised by the TUC.
This Union Notes:
- As a result of economic recession, students and young people face many
T
INSIGHT:
13
difficulties before, during and after higher education.
- Whilst incomes have stagnated or declined, and many people face job insecurity, students are being asked to pay very high tuition fees.
- As undergraduate student loans are inadequate to cover the actual cost of higher education (including living costs), students tend to accumulate large debts.
- Meanwhile, as postgraduates struggle to secure funding, many of these continue to accumulate debts.
- According to official figures, general unemployment levels are currently above 2.59 million – or 8.2%; another 1.4 million say they are working part-time jobs because they can’t find full-time employment, whilst youth unemployment levels are at over 1 million, or 21%
- Therefore, young people, including students and graduates, find it very hard to find work. This affects students before, during and after university.
- Those who do find work are likely to enter professions on terms that are less favourable than they once were.
- Changes to pensions and salaries brought in by employers during the recession will not only negatively affect new employees, but will disproportionately affect them, as many employers bring in new, less favourable terms on a staggered basis. - In general, there is strong evidence that increased unemployment has lowered wages.
- Young people will also be badly affected by new employment legislation being introduced by the Government, including plans to make it easier to fire employees.
- Meanwhile, new graduates who are not able to find work face reduced benefits available to support them through this difficult time.
- Further to this, the Union should note that the strongest political force fighting against these developments – i.e, public sector cuts and increased exploitation in the workplace - has been the trade unions.
- The Trades Union Congress (TUC) is holding a demonstration on 20th October in an attempt to build resistance to the destructive developments listed above.
- There are also discussions within the TUC about the possibility of conducting a general strike in the near future, whilst many unions have already or are currently balloting to strike.
- LUSU has supported union strikes and demonstrations in the past, including the UCU strikes last year.
- Students on campus – particularly those involved in Lancaster University Against Cuts (LUAC) - have expressed a wish to attend the demonstration on October 20th, and to see their union work effectively with trades unions to oppose the public sector cuts which have badly affected students and staff at Lancaster University.
- This does not necessarily mean funding transport where this proves beyond the Union’s resources. However, it does necessitate a general and active commitment.
This Union Believes:
- That public sector cuts and austerity have a detrimental effect on students, young people and working people more generally – as well as those who cannot find work, or who cannot work, such as the disabled.
- That it is in the student interest for LUSU to ally with and support trade union struggles against public sector cuts and austerity measures.
- That better communication and cooperation between LUSU and trade unions would allow us to fight for a
more inclusive and better University, as well as improving the lives of our graduates.
- That neither students nor LUSU exist in a bubble; our interests are intricately entwined with the general wellbeing of society.
- That we a University is not a mere training centre, designed to provide new recruits to fit economic needs. Rather, it is a place that should promote inclusive learning with the aim of working towards a more sustainable and equitable society.
This Union Resolves:
- To commit to a struggle against public sector cuts and austerity.
- To endorse, actively promote and help organise transport for the Trades Union Congress (TUC) ‘For A Future That Works’ Demonstration in London on October 20th, 2012.
- To actively support any future anti-austerity demonstrations and strikes organised by the TUC.
- To work more closely with Trade Unions on campus.
- To involve students in this process, keeping it open, transparent and inclusive whilst, at the same time, taking sufficient initiative to ensure that campaigns and events are successful.
”
LUSU's General Meeting is to be held on the 8th of October. The meeting was called initially to discuss the future of the bars, however, this meeting may have proven to be too late to stop the restructuring process even if the Union declared that its official aim. Nevertheless, it is important that students attend in order to voice their views to our
14
Union representatives. The restructuring of the bars could still in theory be challenged, and other issues, in particular the above motion, could also be heard. This meeting will hopefully serve an important role in helping LUSU understand, and be able to work with, you the student body.
Adam Harrison-Henshall
It’s Time To De-Worm The Financial Markets
s a member of the UK’s
youthful population – here’s
to hoping a year of birth
that saw “A groovy kind of love” by Phil
Collins reach number one still
constitutes youthfulness- there’s
always been one analogy that, when
spoken by those my senior, riles my
inner sceptic to the nth degree. The
phrase in question usually takes the
following form: “It was never like that
when we were their age” or “things just
aren’t as they used to be.”
The reason such analogies rile me so
is that I’ve always felt they explain
nothing as the idea the past trumps
the present seems a cyclical
phenomenon as old as humanity
itself! Whether from the subjects of
the Roman empire who witnessed its
final stages of disintegration or folk
music fans predicting the downfall of
their scene due to a certain Mr.
Dylan’s adoption of the electric
guitar, the one common denominator
is that each aforesaid phase of human
history is likely to have had those who
considered the past as categorically
superior to the present.
It’s a logic that, if drawn to some
sort of natural conclusion, would
surely interpret the pinnacle of
human existence as being sat in a cave
worrying whether a big cat was going
to treat you as a light savoury snack
or not.
However, my firm, or maybe even
dogmatic, adherence to this belief has
recently started to falter. The thought
that perhaps there are a few
fundamental flaws with the current
era that, to my understanding at
least, didn’t have such a presence in
past eras has increasingly occupied
the little thinking matter there is
between my lugs.
“
Rather than people
treating markets as a
means to an end, the
modern day market is
the end.
”
Let me put forward one argument
that will hopefully begin to explain
my change in mood. During the
twentieth century and up to the
present date, I would suggest there
have been six major economic
slumps: the post World War I
depression; the 1929 great
depression; the oil-centred 1970’s
depression; the early 1980’s and 90’s
depression and the current one.
What strikes me is that of these six
recessionary periods, the first three
occurred within eighty-ish years of
the twentieth century commencing
whilst the last three have all occurred
within the last thirty years. I can’t
help feeling that such concentration
of fiscal misfortune in the latter
quarter of the twentieth century and
the beginning of the twenty first
century makes for an interesting
conundrum.
And to those that may argue the
economics of an era are inextricably
tied to an array of political and social
factors that, dear boy, your
comparison fails to even begin
comprehending, I can only
reply........that, I think, is my point.
The meaning to this seemingly
gobbledygook-based point being that
perhaps the lack of consideration
between what’s considered the
economic sphere and the political-
cum-social sphere could explain my
conundrum.
There are those who have been
considerably more articulate on this
than I. It was John Maynard Keynes
who spoke of “markets” being
idolised to the extent that they
represented: “the worm that had
been gnawing at the insides of
modern civilisation.” My
interpretation being correct, the
metaphor implies that rather than
people treating markets as a means to
an end, the modern day market is the
end.
In relation to the economic model
our financial markets are based on,
there is arguably no shortage of
evidence to see where Mr. Keynes
was coming from. Interest rate
rigging, endless boom/bust cycles
and grotesque so-called “merit-based”
bonuses smack of one value only; the
value of unchecked accumulation
that, to the majority it seems, is proof
that financial markets can’t be
interpreted as producing or, to
follow the aforesaid metaphor,
existing as any kind of socially useful
“end.” It’s easy to see how the system
A
INSIGHT:
15
is perceived as having little legitimacy
in terms of accepted political or social
values.
This begs the questions: how to we
cleanse our twenty-first century
financial systems of that gnawing
worm? How do we reorient financial
markets so that our political, social
and economic values co-exist
harmoniously? I would suggest that
only when we’re prepared to back-
track in time and, in a fashion that
would seem to me reminiscent of the
Keynesian era, fundamentally
reconsider what we want our
financial markets to do, to be and to
stand for, can the de-worming
process begin!
Jed Bartlett
Don’t Ask Don’t
Tell: No One blows
the Whistle on The
City on The Hill.
his past weekend I came
across the intriguing story
of Gwenyth Todd4, a
former USA naval analyst,
whose career was destroyed and
safety put at risk for blowing the
whistle on and thwarting a right-
wing, Neo-Con military plan to start
a war with Iran in 2007, a war which
would be disastrous for the Middle
East. The crook of the matter was a
Vice Admiral, with anger issues and
obviously compensating for
something, by the name of Kevin
Cosgriff. He was (and probably still
is) a man spoiling for a war with Iran
by sending three aircraft carriers
through the diplomatically sensitive
Strait of Hormuz. This is a
particularly sensitive area of water
and provided a flashpoint for the Iran-
Iraq War in the 1980’s, a war which
irreparably damaged the Iraqi
economy and killed around half a
million at a time the USA was happy
to support the blasphemous despot
Saddam Hussein. Todd disclosed to
the State Department against
Cosgriff’s orders about the plan so
the Cosgriff’s dangerous Hollywood
style madness could be stopped.
Todd right now resides in Australia
with her husband and is too afraid to
set foot on home soil due to getting
on the wrong side of powerful people
who evidently want to exact revenge
for throwing a spanner in the works
of those very incendiary plans. As
exemplified by a clumsy ruse by the
FBI in 2011 to try and get her to the
US embassy for questioning and likely
arrest her and take her back to the
US. This was because she had been
erroneously implicated in a money
laundering and international fraud
scandal orchestrated by a former
4 http://m.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/sunk/2012/08/21/96209788-cebd-11e1-aa14-708bac2c7ee9_story.html
lover. Gwenyth Todd had absolutely
nothing to do with the scandal, but
the implication by the Justice
Department showed the will of
powerful people to punish her for
showing an ugly side to a country
eager to portray itself as better than
everyone else.
The ordeal of Todd, one which has
caused her to take a form of exile to
protect herself from her own
government, has me thinking once
again of the current ordeal of Bradley
Manning and how America exacts
rather petulant and dangerous
revenge on its whistleblowers. It is a
practice that demonstrates a rolling
back of people’s liberties under the
guise of fighting terrorism and with
the failure of capitalism and
America’s self-interested subversion
of Liberal Interventionism it is a
practice that I fear will be enforced
more punitively as we move forward.
“
It is a practice that
demonstrates a rolling
back of people’s liberties
under the guise of
fighting terrorism
”
Bradley Manning has now been held
in custody for more than 2 years
without trial, for a substantial period
of this time Manning was abused in
custody and denied his right to due
process. Manning’s defense lawyer
David Coombs even published the
motion which showed that Manning
was abused on the orders of a 3 star
general at the Quantico Marine Brig. 5 Among this was 23 hour a day
5 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_zC44SBaZPoQ2hLa21jNlM0WmM/edit?pli=1
T
INSIGHT:
16
confinement; told to constantly stand
or sit upright away from the wall;
given no hygiene items; forced to
remove and hand over his clothes at
the end of the day; the list goes on
and on. Manning is a danger to no
one, but his disclosure of cables
which included abhorrent conduct of
US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,
including the murder of civilians. I
fear for Bradley Manning’s safety
because many security zealots and
“patriots” are so eager to see him
punished and it would take a brave
judge to dismiss the frankly ridiculous
charges against an American citizen
who showed conscience in America’s
War on Terror. Particularly when
you consider people in America have
called for Julian Assange, the head of
Wikileaks who published Manning’s
information to the public, to be
assassinated. God forbid anyone tell
us we have another Vietnam on our
hands!
Manning and Todd are not special
cases either. Joseph C. Wilson was
the US diplomat who, in 2003,
revealed that the United States
government had used the exaggerated
British intelligence on Saddam 6Hussein to justify the invasion and
now disastrous occupation of Iraq.
An occupation which was hurriedly
ended and left the country a barely
floating wreck with serious sectarian
violence and possible government
corruption and the emergence of al-
Maliki as a new Arab strongman. The
price Wilson paid for this disclosure?
His wife Valarie Plame had her career
at the CIA ended by the Bush
administration when the revealed her
identity as an operative by the Bush
administration; a vindictive move
which actually put US security more
at risk than the disclosure of the
6 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-find-in-africa.html
phony reasons for an illegal war.
Reasons which many informed
observers would have seen through
anyway, considering the Bush
administration’s connection to big
corporations to companies who won
contracts in the reconstruction.
Of course there is also the infamous
case of Daniel Ellsberg, the man who
released The Pentagon Papers, which
revealed how the USA’s engagement
in Vietnam was knowingly
unwinnable yet were the government
were still willing to sacrifice many
innocent lives for. It also
demonstrated the web of lies and
subterfuge from successive
administrations surrounding the war,
such as lying about the amount of
casualties; true long term intentions;
as well as extending the war to
Cambodia and Laos. The response of
the Nixon administration was to carry
out a campaign to shut down
anymore whistleblowing and
personally discredit Ellesberg, a man
who recognized how wrong the war
was. This campaign included
wiretapping; break-ins, attempts to
undermine his mental health and even
an aborted plot to “incapacitate”
Ellesberg on American soil.7
These four cases are not exceptions
to the rule either, it is representative
of a dark side of the ‘City on a Hill’
so keen to protect its image and
ideology that it will go out of its way
to attack anyone who discredits it. In
an era where its brand of political
ideology can be seen as failing or
failed already and the fact it is still so
keen to spy on its own people shows
America shows no sign of dropping
its Cold-War style behaviour anytime
soon. Maybe rather than trying to
discredit, imprison and intimidate its
7 http://www.democracynow.org/2006/4/27/exclusive_nixon_white_house_counsel_john
whistleblowers, America should
thank them and understand where it
is going wrong because: it isn’t 1991
anymore and it isn’t the end of
history, time to learn from your
mistakes America.
Northern Loudmouth
Assange’s Cult of
Personality is
destroying
Wikileaks
ell the diplomatic
standoff involving 4
countries and the
founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange
doesn’t look like it will settle down
soon and neither does Assange’s cult
of personality which is now
something he has 100% bought into.
Unfortunately it is something that has
now fully overshadowed the
excellent work of the organization he
founded.
First of all, I don’t know whether
Assange has raped these two women
or not, and apart from the two
women and Assange himself, neither
does anyone else; despite many
people, including many of you I’ll
wager, having made your mind up
one way or the other. I for one, being
a natural cynic don’t completely
believe everything we have been told
W
INSIGHT:
17
and I’m naturally suspicious of the
Americans, to the Assange accusers,
America has a history of being
underhanded against individuals who
have embarrassed them, look at how
they are treating Bradley Manning, a
man I fear will die in custody or be
executed. However Sweden cannot
extradite Assange to the USA while
the threat of execution hangs on.
Furthermore considering the UK’s
rather cosy arrangement with the
States it would have been much easier
to smuggle him out of here to a
prison in the USA, we already did it
to an innocent man with a mental
health condition.
However, what is really bothering
about this entire row, is that Assange
is overshadowing the wonderful and
valuable work of Wikileaks and is
moving debate away from how the
United States, a so called free, fair
and democratic country is, via its
corporations is trying to bring down
Wikileaks and infringe on your
liberties. Instead Assange ascended to
a balcony to give a speech like Eva
Peron or a deluded Emperor from
the Age of Antiquity to address what
are his followers. People who don’t
seem to be able to discern where
Assange ends and Wikileaks begin.
People who don’t realize that
Wikileaks is about the collective
sending out information to the rest of
us to create transparency in
government, which the media have
failed to do enough of in recent years,
being either bullied by government
or concentrating on celebrity tittle-
tattle.
Right now Wikileaks is in a situation
where it needs donations urgently to
prevent itself from being shutdown,
due to state governments and big
companies not wanting you to know
their dirty little secrets, information
you have a right to know, after all
you elected some of those people.
Now we have a situation where
Assange is centre stage, where he
wants to be and making himself look
increasingly guilty by the day by
refusing to go to Sweden and face
down and discredit his accusers. Not
only is the “Church of Assange” and
William Hague’s idiotic bullishness
overshadowing Wikileaks but
Assange’s actions discredit Wikileaks
by association, which is more
damaging still.
Worst of all though Assange and his
ego are overshadowing Bradley
Manning, a man who I fear will die at
the hands of his own country for
showing a conscience, treatment
which is against morals and laws. So
next time Julian Assange stands on a
balcony how about not putting
cameras on him or turning up out the
Ecuadorian embassy to support him,
because all you are doing is taking the
attention away from the people doing
the real work and are a credit to the
Wikileaks organization, free speech
and transparency in government.
Northern Loudmouth
Julian Assange;
Certain Questions
Need Answering
he Julian Assange case has
polarised opinion. And then
some. Some defend him as if
he is the last bastion of free speech.
Others accuse his supporters of being
apologists for rape and argue Assange
is a media-hungry, attention-seeking
paranoid fantasist with messianic
delusions. We cannot know the
“truth”, whatever that is, but we
should at least strive for
understanding. So here are some
thoughts; or, rather, some questions.
First, on Assange and the alleged cult
of celebrity. Why might someone
seek the spotlight if not for the love
of the media? Personal safety perhaps?
While in the public eye, he can’t go
‘missing’. Simple. Also, I’d guess, the
authorities know he has details of
other secret wikileaks activists,
locations, informers, whistleblowers,
techniques, etc. It's not necessarily
him they want, but his information.
Hence Ecuador talk less about the
death penalty and more about
Assange facing torture interrogation
if he does somehow wind up in CIA
hands. The bigger his reputation as an
egotist, the safer - hopefully - the
people behind the scenes. And the
likelier, one would hope, that
wikileaks continues to expose lies,
hypocrisies, cover ups and mistruths.
“
The question, however, is what else extradition to Sweden brings into play?
”
Second, then, the debate about
whether extradition to Sweden
automatically means a handover to
the States. Let’s be clear: the
argument that Sweden will
not extradite anyone for capital
offences is accurate. To have Assange
moved on into the hands of the US
would be lengthy and time
consuming because it would have to
be done through the courts. As
Britain found out when trying to
deport Abu Hamza, the European
Court of Human Rights still has some
muscle. If the Americans want him,
T
INSIGHT:
18
they cannot legally be given him if the
charges will lead to the death penalty.
In addition, I’m pretty sure the
Americans would want least possible
attention on the matter; that’s
especially so given there is not yet
any official ‘charge’ to face in the
States. There are rumours of an
indictment for publishing sensitive
material so as to strengthen the
position of the ‘enemy’, but these are
just rumours. So, on the one hand,
extradition to Sweden to face charges
of sexual assault should be
straightforward. One would hope so.
The man has not done himself many
favours and his public attitude
towards women (remember
the Time interview?) reveals a
character cloaked in sexist self-
aggrandising machismo. The poster
boys of the Left have often been some
of the most chauvinist bastards I’ve
met. He must face his accusers. The
question, however, is what else
extradition to Sweden brings into
play?
Deeper research reveals at least three
very good reasons to be cynical. First,
Sweden has in the past allowed the
extraordinary rendition of suspected
terrorists (google Mohammed al-Zari
and how the Court of Human Rights
found his handover, by Sweden, to
American forces in Egypt, to be a
repugnant abuse). Second, Sweden is
signature to a special arrangement
with the US called “temporary
surrender”. Again, google it. It’s
complicated, but a simple explanation
is that Sweden has an arrangement
which might make it easier to move
Assange into US custody from
Sweden than from the UK. Third,
who is Sweden’s advisor on
international law? None other than
Karl Rove, the Washington hawk
thought even too hawkish for the
Bush Jr regime (google up Don
Siegelman for starters). That he
advised the Swedes on their legal
arrangements is a fact: he advertises it
as one of his consultancy jobs on his
website. That he is currently is bed
with Obama is widely known. That
he advised on the Assange case is
speculation (but Swedish media is
alive to a connection). Together,
that’s more than enough
circumstantial evidence to allow the
reasonable suggestion of American
influence.
The third issue raised by the Assange
issue is much trickier, ethically, to
deal with. Ken Clarke, British Justice
Secretary, got in all sorts of hot water
for suggesting some rape is more
‘serious’ than others. What he meant
was that rape, at knifepoint, by
multiple assailants required different
legal procedures to child grooming,
date rape, spousal rape, etc. The
Swedes recognise such distinctions in
law, and different cases receive
different sentencing terms – if the
accused is found guilty. In many
ways, Sweden has one of the most
progressive legal systems in the
world. Here’s the timeline: Assange
was originally questioned over ‘sex
by surprise’, that is, sex without a
condom. Both women (and this is in
the Swedish records) have made
statements to say that sex was initially
consensual. From the victim
statements, it is clear that Assange is
accused of coercion, and not just in
his refusal to wear a condom. He has
a case to answer. When the
authorities wanted to upgrade the
charges from ‘sex by surprise’ to
rape, however, one of the women
retracted her statement that Assange
had penetrated her whilst she was
asleep. Upon that public retraction,
the Swedish prosecutor threw the
case out in 2010. The case was
reopened in 2012, by Marianne Ny
(google her, especially her
connection to Rove). In Sweden, the
victim does not have to press charges
for the authorities to pursue a
criminal investigation. Why was the
case reopened? What was American
influence on that decision? The cynic
in me thinks we need to know the
answers to these questions. What I do
know is women’s rights are human
rights and Assange needs to face the
interrogation for his crimes. What
the cynic worries about, however, is
that the case was reopened in order
to bring Assange not to trial for being
an alleged rapist, but to bring him to
Sweden to make him more accessible
to the Americans.
“
There are too many unanswered questions to allow for anyone to take the moral high-ground and fling judgemental statements about willy-nilly.
”
So, I don’t know what to think, but I
do think there are enough reasons
both to want to understand more
about shadowy diplomacy and more
about what influenced Marianne Ny
to reopen the case against Assange. If,
as a result of all this, governments are
forced to take rape more seriously
than they currently do, then good.
Britain could do with incorporating
some of Sweden’s legislation. At the
moment, only about 5% of reported
rapes in the UK lead to prosecutions
and the culture of not going to the
police is something which needs
serious attention. Too often women
are the victims and men are not found
responsible for their actions. In this
case, Assange needs to face the
charges. However, if it is found that
the experience of the two victims is
being used for political reasons, then
there are other questions to be
answered.
Finally, Ecuador was a clever country
to choose. President Correa survived
an American-led coup attempt in
2010 (google it, Wikipedia even has a
case on the Ecuador Crisis of 2010).
US activities in Latin America under
Reagan and Bush Sr were some of the
first examples of willful neglect of
international law exposed by
19
whistleblowers. Look up how
Ecuador is fighting tooth and nail to
preserve its rainforests against the
corporates. Ecuador gain from giving
asylum to Assange, but also look at
their human rights record: they are
no angels.
There's context here. It’s not an
either/or, black and white situation.
There are too many unanswered
questions to allow for anyone to take
the moral high-ground and fling
judgemental statements about willy-
nilly. So, please, do a bit of research
before shooting off shotgun
accusations and condemnations.
We’re only party to a fraction of the
information. For those outside the
embassy, supporting Assange, the
focus is the bigger picture: the US
wants to shut down wikileaks and
Assange has information they want.
For those who claim that to support
Assange is to support a rapist, put
pressure on the authorities to follow
up two possibilities. First, on some
legal interpretations, he can be
interrogated outside Sweden; it’s not
easy, but there is precedent. Second,
although Sweden cannot legally
promise not to forward Assange to
the States should the US put in a
request, it can use the terms of the
“temporary surrender” to ensure he
has to be returned to Sweden. That
would not be an unprecedented
request, so I wonder why Sweden has
yet to make that move?
The Fencesitter
Facebook – And
why we need a
Rally of the Real
wish to state some basic
assumptions surrounding the
varying usages of social media
sites and my aim is to show that not
only can most of these usages be
achieved more effectively elsewhere,
but also show how utilising sites like
Facebook is detrimental to both
creative thought and political cause.
So without further ado I would like
to jump straight into the motivation
lying behind this line of thought. We
have all sat scrolling through the
myriad of posts that force themselves
unto us as we search for something to
entertain us, interest us, etc. And for
many of us who are politically
minded or active, this is satisfied
when we come across a piece of satire
or a new ‘campaign’ that attempts to
collect as many names under its
banner as possible in an attempt to
induce positive change. We smile;
that lonely sense of individualism lost
momentarily as we realise there are
others out there that think the same
as we do, that the world may not be
totally lost after all. We feel a buzz,
we ‘like’, and we continue our daily
scroll. Some of us will sit for hours at
a time, ‘waiting’ for a post, a post
that reflects our thoughts that we can
grab onto and hold tightly; we tell
ourselves that as long as we know
there are others who feel the same,
that the world is a better place.
“
We have been pushed out of physical reality altogether
”
It is thoughts like these that
completely undermine the entire
supposed ‘accomplishment’ that the
era of the internet has ushered in. At
the crux of this argument lies the
notion that ideas, once somehow
‘confined’ to reality (a
domain apparently now lacking in the
ability to produce creative thought if
we are to believe those who staunchly
defend this digitisation of people) are
now free to expand, to ‘blossom’ in a
way totally unachievable through the
traditional physical channels of which
we are accustomed to. This is
illusive. Furthermore this illusion
ignores why we have felt the need to
digitise our wants, our needs, our
goals and crucially the way we
organise ourselves as a society. The
move to the digital world was not a
natural occurrence. For many the
move was facilitated not by the mere
fact of this new means of
communication, but by the inability
of people to now organise without
the internet. Our hand was forced
when we lost the ability to gather at a
communal area (a now mythical
location, lost to both cuts and state
security). A get-together of no more
than a few politically ‘active’ beings
to discuss new modes of thoughts, to
speak out against inequalities and the
wrongdoings of those who abuse
power, is almost universally followed
by intense questioning by local
police, by abuse from your friendly
neighbourhood right-wingers or
simply from passers-by with the age
old heckle to “remove ones buttocks
from their seat and seek
employment”. Even as students in
I
INSIGHT:
20
what are meant to be the hubs, the
vanguard, the forefront of intellectual
debate that form our crumbling
education system, we are unable to
even find a place to gather and
exchange ideas… not without
following a strict procedure for
booking a room with an established
apolitical purpose, not without
payment, not without forming an
official society (one that requires
strict hierarchy to exist legally within
the universities walls, I kid you not).
So we have been pushed off not just
the streets, the parks, the coffee
houses where debate and discussion
were rich and rewarded by action and
real change. We have been pushed
out of physical reality altogether.
Restricted to the bars of binary that
construct this new digital world,
activists from all walks of life now
find themselves using social media as
their new platform for debate, and
yes to some degree this has had
positive effects. But my argument is
not absolutist; I do not wish to negate
the existence of a few success stories.
Instead I believe these positives are
massively outweighed by the
negatives.
Posting on Facebook is similar to
loosening a valve within some form of
industrial complex. The release of
pressure and steam allows those who
use Facebook and the site itself to
continue running smoothly without
stress or risk of breakdown. But what
happens to the steam itself? It is not
recycled, reused, chucked back into a
series of cogs and gears that may lead
to some other effect. It is lost. Lost
down a funnel of frustration that
leads to nowhere, for we must
remember that the industrial
complex of Facebook is not real; a
build-up of steam need not have
consequence on the overall functions
of the machine and merely dissipates
into nothing. Unlike reality, the side-
effect of letting loose these
frustrations on an ever-growing
audience of people can be heard by
no-one at all, and even when heard
and acknowledged, rarely manifests
itself into enriching discussion.
Merely name-calling and ‘trolling’
follows where people are less pressed
to provide rational reasoning to
support themselves, for in our online
prison there is no accountability; you
can flee without repercussion and
getaway with intellectual murder.
The danger in releasing our thoughts
in these bite-size chunks is the loss of
the motivation behind what caused
the post in the first place. After
reading a news article telling us of the
latest swindle or injustice we take to
our digital thrones in the hope that
our complaint will be met by other
like-minded individuals and that
(through an inexplicable process that
very few of us consider in detail) will
lead to a solution of the problem at
hand; a campaign perhaps, or merely
the belief that the ‘noise’ of a few
thousand angry digital personas will
be enough to force the culprits into
redemption. This act leaves us
fulfilled when it surely should not.
Back in the physical realm, one
lacking in its digital counter-part, the
same person who would in this
situation turn to Facebook to make
their voice heard is left without a
funnel to yell down. They feel upset,
depressed, or emotions unable to be
conveyed due to the seething anger
the injustice has left them in. But
there is no outlet for this person and
so they continue embittered as they
carry on their lives hearing of further
and further injustices until they are
unable to bear the strain anymore.
What follows is real action. This
person is forced to begin campaigning
against these crimes in order to
relieve themselves of helpless
frustration. They are forced into
finding and contacting others to
arrange demonstrations against the
target of their anger; they are put
into a position whereby to relieve
their stress they must make a
difference. This hypothetical being is
the men and women of the world
previous to our digital age. It was the
inability to relieve themselves of the
pressures of injustice through small,
ineffective gestures on the virtual
plain that made these people so
effective at reacting and rejecting the
wrongdoings of others. ‘Posting’
excuses us from making real life
exchanges or activities as they quell
the emotional build-up that creates
action amongst both the active and
the inert.
“
Facebook and other similar sites can act as a tinted filter that transforms even the most horrific obscenities in the world into a distant, near-mythical event
”
Our internal emotional struggles are
the cause of the majority of our
actions. Without the motivation
that is raw emotion we would be left
shallow husks with little desire, let
alone the complex wants involved in
performing an act of empathy with a
person or a group who have suffered
from unjust treatment. Facebook and
other similar sites can act as a tinted
filter that transforms even the most
horrific obscenities in the world into
a distant, near-mythical event. This
zoo of insane social injustices and
atrocities is carefully separated from
us, filtered through silver glass until
the target of outrage is simmered into
a mass of data that appears before our
eyes. It is little wonder our emotions
barely flinch when such abuses
are thrown at us, framed by the
petty, niggling annoyances of others
that share this virtual arena that
surround the data. And it is of less
surprise why then simply ‘sharing’ or
‘liking’ the data in question quickly
dissipates what ‘emotivation’ we
would of otherwise had were we not
staring down this tainted lens.
21
But surely, I often hear, the sheer
mass of content on these social
networks is proof of an increase in
thought, of ideas, of communication
and of creativity? I imagine most of us
have witnessed posts or pictures that
have thousands if not millions of
‘views’ or ‘likes’ or ‘shares’; surely
this shows evidence of not inertia but
engagement from people who
otherwise may not be included in this
type of activity in the physical world?
Yet it is these three demons that
mock and belittle our ability to be
creative. Our yearning to feast upon
these abstract numbers have caused
our thoughts to now have a rating
system applied to them that
systematically dismantles any desire
to produce critical or creative
comments, that may not be well
received or regarded by the virtual
masses. This is especially so in regard
to the concept of ‘sharing’. We may
spot a picture or someone else’s view
that we agree with so much so that
the ‘like’ button does not appear to
do it justice. ‘Sharing’ then draws
attention to what we believe should
be in the glorious limelight of
internet stardom. But why now
would you want to post something
closely similar or even identical? This
thought prevents people from placing
their own unique message online.
Our subjective perspective, no
matter how close we relate it to what
we have seen, will never be fully
accommodated by the words or
pictures or wit of another. The
minority post, the majority ‘share’
and the rest is lost to the memory
hole. The individual is lost amongst
the reproduction of the same
message, whereby even if the
thoughts of one person seemingly fit
with what ‘you were going to say’, it
will never truly be an accurate
expression of your mind. This in turn
obliterates the uniqueness of any
given person who resides in this
virtual world. Yet it is in these slight
differences that give birth to
enriching discussion and debate, to
new radical ideas and modes of
thought, to artistic expression, to
entire libraries of literature; and this
should be no surprise for it is in these
differences that allow us to exist,
each as separate conscious entities. If
we continue to ‘like’ or ‘share’ as
replacements for our own comments
and thoughts then we lose an
unimaginable amount of content, and
risk strangling our own creativity in
the process. Yes these tools work for
a pleasant joke or a funny picture…
but not for any meaningful display of
thought.
Finally the destructive nature of
‘trends’ in our virtual cage must be
accounted for. It has been said that
you can kill a person but you cannot
kill an idea. Well you can on
Facebook. The ‘news feed’ trickles
down our screens, an endless swirling
mass of thoughts and non-thoughts
held together by whatever algorithm
Facebook uses to decide what you
may wish to read; devoid of context
and, too often, content. Ideas here
leave the virtual world and fade away
into dust and can be lost forever.
They can be pulled by the Facebook
admins, or left unobserved, which in
the virtual world is as good as death
for a thought. In reality when you are
desperate to be heard you can make it
so with your voice, with a scream if
need be. But only on Facebook can
you scream as loud as you can and it
be possible for no one to hear you.
And with that the silent scream
follows the stream of the ‘news feed’
into nothingness, left unanswered and
becomes lost.
We need emotion to have
motivation. We cannot allow
ourselves the ease to relieve ourselves
of our primal instincts with miniature
outbursts on the walls of our virtual
prison. These feelings we have exist
for a reason, and kept to the physical
realm we see them manifest in real
action, in real change and most
importantly in true creativity. We
need a Rally of the Real to sober
ourselves from this most opiating of
drugs.
Ryan Flitcroft
Despatch from
Madrid – An
account of the S25
demonstration:
Part Two
ISCLAIMER: This is a personal account that makes no claims to be objective,
the conclusions I have drawn are not necessarily correct. Furthermore, the events I am recording were chaotic and there has yet to be a single factual history that everybody agrees upon. Here you will only find my side of the story. I distinctly remember the conversation that I was having when the police began their assault. I was talking to two other people, a dreadlocked young guy and a girl who had to break off the conversation every other minute to justify wearing a face mask to rabid pacifists jabbering about “bad press”. We were speculating about how many people in the crowd would camp in the plaza, and how many would demonstrate the next day. Already, small numbers of people who had chanted and marched enough for one day were drifting away, fatigued after 8 hours on their feet. “We need a demonstration every Friday, like in
D
INSIGHT:
22
Egypt” said the dreadlocked man. “That will bring the government down.” I opened my mouth to agree with him but my voice was drowned out by a rising collective scream of alarm. Trawling through the videos later, I figured that the catalyst for the police charge was a militant bloc pushing forward into the police lines with flagpoles. The jury still isn’t out yet as to whether they were plainclothes, acting to give the police a casus belli to wade in. I don’t know, but it seems certain that there were some plainclothes at work amongst the crowds. The police immediately responded with massive and overwhelming violence, beating everybody in sight to clear out the plaza. After the crowd began to scream and shout, like a shoal of minnows they surged away from the cops, who then exploited this to keep up the pressure. Moving in such a large crowd is highly dangerous, with the risk of people trampling each other and getting pulled under. People began to call out “!suave!” (smoothly) and for people not to run, and within a few moments the panicked rout became an orderly withdrawal. Still it was very hard to move, as I could barely pick my feet up for the press of bodies and sometimes by body was being carried without actually taking steps. I twisted around to look behind me and I could see the cops getting closer, an image of Robocop visors and falling truncheons. Finally the crowd made it out of the plaza into the relative safety of the green space that divided the two traffic lanes of the Paseo Del Prado. Here the tree trunks, park benches and low fences gave us some respite from the assault and the police checked their advance. Assessing the situation, I saw that the police had driven everybody out of the plaza into the surrounding green spaces. The mood had obviously shifted completely. People were hurling abuse at the police officers. Lots more people were masking up, and beginning to throw missiles. Mostly empty bottles, but some rocks
were also coming in, as well as the occasional firework. Until now they were being used recreationally, now they were being employed as weapons. This is also the first time I saw and heard the police fire rubber bullets. The Spanish National Police issue an attachment that goes into the barrel of a standard shotgun, which looked to similar to a Mossberg 500 and they fire rubber bullets through these, rather than using a dedicated rubber bullet gun. I suppose this makes a certain tactical sense, since if they want to they can unscrew the rubber bullet launchers and start firing live ammunition. When these things fire they boom like a thunderclap and a lot of sparks emit from the launcher barrel. However despite the police violence the people were undaunted. The chanting continued, albeit with different, more militant chants.
“asesinos” – “murderers”
“hijos de puta” – “sons of bitches”
“que no, que no, que no tenemos miedo” – “we are not afraid”
“ahorras son azules, antes eran grises”
– “now you are blue, before you were grey”
The last chant was a reference to the grey uniforms that the police wore during Franco’s dictatorship, implying that the police are still a fascist force in society today. I threw in a few renditions of “No Justice, No Peace, Fuck the Police!” for old times’ sake, but it was received with bafflement. Militant tactics were now being used more. Whereas before the pacifists had dominated the mood and execution of the demonstration, they now found themselves in the minority. After a brief respite, the police advanced again, firing salvo after salvo of rubber bullets, driving people in all directions. As I ran towards the Prada museum, I heard a sickening wet slapping sound and a guy next to me went down like a sack of potatoes. It took me a while to realise what had happened, and in a
short space of time he was surrounded by a hoard of camera toting journalists. Eventually protesters fought their way through the journalists and dragged the casualty to safety. This took us up the side steps of the Prada Museum, where a middle aged woman was used to work as a nurse took over until the ambulance could arrive. The casualty had taken a round to the stomach, not life threatening but highly painful.
“ Despite the police violence the people were undaunted ” The police advanced again, and at this point both the crowd and the police lost all coherence, shooting off in all directions. After a very stressful run down the Paseo del Prado with a spiked high wall – utterly devoid of escape routes - on one side of me and vans of riot police on the other, I arrived at the large roundabout of Atocha, where a couple of hundred demonstrators had mobbed up after running from the police. In spontaneous move, groups began flooding off the pavements and into the main road, blocking traffic and chanting “vamos piqueteros!” (Picketers). The piqueteros tactic – blocking the arteries of capitalism for progressive social change – originated in Argentina during their struggles against IMF imposed neo-liberalism. The tactic was first employed in Spain en masse in 2011 with autonomous groups supporting strikers by blocking roads. Now it is commonly employed and has been used by Austrian miners and Madrilenian public sector workers to name a few. Some drivers honked their horns in exasperation, some slouched into their seats, resigned to waiting. A handful wound down their windows and raised their fists to wild applause. Some motorcyclists tried to creep forward and we had to physically block them from passing, although we also had to restrain some of the more enthusiastic piqueteros from
23
getting in fights with angry drivers. We held this position for some time, dragging dustbins into the road, until the police returned to dislodge us. The police tactics were puzzling. They advanced everywhere in small squads of about 10 agents, with riot shields to the front and rubber bullet firing marksmen behind. When they got close to demonstrators they would break out of their tight formation in order to easily beat people, but they quickly formed up again. When they needed to shift position they would call up the riot vans for hops across town. These small units would fan out across the city chasing demonstrators, beating and shooting people indiscriminately. Thus a situation that was confined to a reasonably small part of the urban fabric became generalised throughout central Madrid. If the London Met had been policing that protest, they would have kettled the largest possible amount of people for 8 hours, denied them food, toilets or water, squeezing them into a smaller and smaller space, strangling the protest, whilst dispersing the rest. The Spanish National Police swapped one big protest outside Congress for hours of running battles in multiple locations. By this point I was losing the ability to run well, as I had been no-stop on my feet from 14:00HRS of the 25th until 01:00HRS of the 26th. I lost track of the running battles, and headed for the Atocha metro station. This was also surrounded by police vans, and when I went inside I saw people running away from riot squads, who were being assisted by the truncheon wielding private security guards of the metro. I finally made it back to my hostel early in the morning, my feet in agony and my trousers in pieces, and feel asleep straight away. Since the S25 demonstration there have been more and more clashes over the preceding days, although on a smaller scale. Rumours are flying like wildfire, as they tend to do, that large numbers of riot cops are calling
in sick and that live rounds were fired into the air on the 27th. On the 29th another demonstration has been called, with marches gathering across all the cities of Spain to besiege their centres of government, rather than a single convergence in Madrid. I plan on attending the one in Bilbao. Lisbon and Paris are also answering the call out, I don’t know about Athens, but knowing the Greeks I suspect they too will be one the streets. I will try and post an update after the S29 demonstration as soon as possible.
Will Taylor Follow Will’s account of Spanish protests at http://socialist-in-spain.blogspot.com.es/
24
The image on the front cover is property of
Gary Barker (garybarker.co.uk) – used with
prior consent.
All other content unless stated belongs to
the author responsible.
Feel free to share this around!