Kicking Off and Ideology

January 27, 2012
Activism, Politics
Leave a Comment

“The new technology underpins our ability to be able to be at the same time more individualistic and more collective; it shapes our consciousness, magnifies the crucial driver of all revolutions – the perceived difference between what could be and what is.”

Paul Mason, ‘Why It’s Kicking Off Everywhere’, 2012

What is it to be revolutionary if not ideological? The importance of this question should not be underestimated; especially in what Paul Mason describes as the ‘the network revolution’ in his new book, ‘Why It’s Kicking Off Everywhere’. Criticisms for being ideological – often rendered as being obsessed with dogma – are levied at those who dare to conceive the ‘what could be’ that Mason is speaking of above. As the capitalist crisis – or at least its latest incarnation – threatens the material conditions of those more attuned to the years of boom, these criticisms are brought more and more by those who would seek a reformist or reactionary solution when faced with the self-destruction of capitalism. The strange thing is, in Mason’s analysis, the revolutionaries and the disavowers of ideology are one in the same, proclaiming ‘I had no politics. I still don’t subscribe to any’. This is your modern day revolutionary of Tahrir, Athens, New York or London. The networked individual.

What does it mean to be this individual? Mason provides an image familiar to some:

“If you’ve ever seen somebody transfixed by their BlackBerry in the middle of a riot, you’ve seen a networked individual.”

This immediately reminds one of the Arab spring, the London student demonstrations and the riots of August 2011. In all of these instances technology played its part in allowing crowds to organise effectively when they were on the street, but also in how it mediated their relationships before the protest even began. Mason argues that the net has allowed people who had been led to believe that they were only self-interested individuals by neo-liberalism – Thatcher of course spewed: “there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women”– that they were in fact capable of taking collective action. It however also brings about an understanding of wider social relations – ones of power, authority and exploitation. Mason quotes Manuel Castells as saying:

“The emergence of mass self-communication offers an extraordinary medium for social movements and rebellious individuals to build their autonomy and confront the institutions of society in their own terms and around their own projects.”

Manuel Castells, ‘Communication, Power and Counter-power’

Can we conceive of anything more frightening for a state than those with an understanding of exploitative social relations and the means to take collective action against them?

However, there is another common characteristic of the networked individual – the rejection of ideology. The network can give one an understanding of negative power relations and even the means to organise collectively to challenge these. Yet, struggles purely characterised by the individual’s antagonism towards authority contextualised by non-hierarchical web networks rather than a – dare I say – dogmatic critique of society are clearly somewhat problematic. Let us take as an example the Occupy movement. In its first incarnation as Occupy Wall Street – which itself had drawn on the tented square meme seen in Tahrir and Spain earlier in 2011 – it represented individuals and groups of individuals such as Anonymous leaving – or perhaps simply taking with them – the organisational space of the net in order to take collective action in the flesh. This of course, mediated by the network, soon became a global movement. In its language it identifies the authority it seeks to challenge, the 1%, but there is a distinct lack of critique beyond this. As Mason points out:

“… the networked protest has a better chance of achieving its basic goals because it is congruent with the economic and technological conditions of modern society – it mirrors social life, financial structures and production patterns. It speaks to the mental conceptions that flow from the networked life we live. And to an extent, as we will see, it is satisfied with the conquest of space within the system rather than seeking to smash the system.”

This description of the networked protest sounds hauntingly like the Occupy movement and to my mind is why movements defined solely by the politics of ‘the network’ are dangerous. Clearly, the tented city protest has gained popularity – and success if you would define it in those terms – but, without a fully developed conception of class systems and antagonisms the Occupy movement has had to satisfy its search for an enemy in creating the 1% caricature. Further, in mirroring the ‘social life, financial structures and production patterns’ of what we currently have, it simply perpetuates social relations such as capitalism and patriarchy, never challenging them and quickly moving to the least antagonistic position: ‘Democratise Capitalism’ . If a movement is to create an alternative society, as Occupy has attempted to do, it cannot be one developed in the image of the broken and disturbed one it seeks to provide an alternative for; it is otherwise doomed to negate itself faster than what becomes the host society rather than the enemy. Without what is often termed as ‘ideology’ this is inevitable.

Mason draws attention to the French Marxist André Gorz, to find a definition for revolution that may be pertinent when looking at networked protests. It demonstrates precisely why these are not revolutionary – at least when it comes to redefining social relations:

“Taking power implies taking it away from its holders, not by occupying their posts but by making it permanently impossible for them to keep their machinery of domination running. Revolution is first and foremost the irreversible destruction of this machinery. It implies a form of collective practice capable of bypassing and superseding it through development of an alternative network of relations”.

André Gorz, ‘Farewell to the Working Class’, p.64

Those holding out for the revolution the Occupy movement will bring are in for a short wait before it soon destroys itself, but what of the other ‘networked revolutions’ that we saw in 2011? The Egyptian revolution, whilst removing Hosni Mubarak and improving conditions through this, suffers from the same problem as Occupy in that it does not develop any alternative social relations. The Egyptians will likely continue to suffer under systems of oppression and exploitation. There has been no liberation from the capitalist means of production and there shall continue to be patriarchy. It is unreasonable to presume that alternative social relations shall develop from social movements that simply seek to challenge authority or power in its caricatured – or perhaps in the case of Hosni Mubarak, personified – form, but we should recognise that unless we are ideological about our approach to social change, we are doomed to rehash the very things we seek to destroy.

Is it an inherent part of networked revolutions and protests to be adverse to ideology to the detriment of any real change? The network of course only facilitates our ability to take collective action – this is partly why movements that spring from it allow themselves to reproduce without coherent critiques – and is therefore subject to the will of the actors involved. It is not hard to conceive that a network that can help normalise non-hierarchical means of organising can also allow for the development of the alternative social relations necessary for the societal change that we desire. The much loved form of dissemination of ideas for radicals on the internet is of course the anonymous communiqué which is often free of the adoration awarded to the theorists ideologies tend to draw upon. Mason himself cites a number of these in his book and for the ‘networked individual’ who “would rather read new stuff” than the Negri, Debord, Foucault or even Marx that ideologues may do, there is nothing to say that the huge amounts of user generated content produced on the net each day do not provide valuable resources for forming a coherent ideology.

The network is not an enemy of ideology, but networks with no ideology are certainly enemies of the consciousness required for revolution. Ideologues who believe they have developed the alternative social relations required for revolution must of course use the net and share these; it has become impossible not to. Whilst ideology may be the change that you want to bring about, it has become clear the only way to move towards achieving it through collective action is to go where social movements are now brought together: the net. Similarly, one must be fully conscious of the difference between ‘what should be and what is’ if they are to do anything but aid in the reproduction of age old – and corrosive – social relations. It is in the amalgamation of these two – the network and the ideology – that you will realise the destruction of vulgar social relations.


An account and warning to all those who may find themsleves in a room with the Met Comissioner

January 19, 2012
Politics
1 Comment

Hogan-Howe

It is not often that you get to be in the same room as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (unless you are a politician or other bureaucrat). Not least one where the Commissioner is ready to engage in a debate with you. My meeting with Bernard Hogan-Howe at the London School of Economics’ debate on ‘Total Policing’ on Monday night was no different to this. Despite claiming on numerous occasions to be willing to ‘debate’ the intricacies of his policing policy with the public, he dismally failed to do this throughout the entire session. But what legitimacy is there in the Commissioner debating with the public in any case?

In suggesting that he can debate with us he assumed an antagonistic position where the public must convince him to not carry on with whatever draconian policing tactic he feels is tenable. The Metropolitan Police Service has now officially come under the control of the ‘democratically’ elected London Mayor, yet Hogan-Howe does not see himself in any way democratically accountable to the public, but rather in a position where he is able to debate with them. This of course assumes that democracy as we face it is in any way about accountability, that our police do in fact police by consent and that the invitation to debate is in any way genuine. All of these things we are told to take as fact. I am under no illusion that this is the case.

Unfortunately, the facts were far from what Mr Hogan-Howe was interested in. When asked about why the figures for section 60 (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act) stops and searches showed black people were thirty times more likely to be searched, he admitted that he was unable to provide an explanation. This is not a new issue and it is clearly something he has been questioned on previously, but perhaps the Commissioner saw it as so inconsequential that it didn’t warrant any thought – leaving him unprepared when challenged on it.

Fortunately, a fair number of questions from the audience continued to be challenging from here on in, but often left the Commissioner, a man supposedly at the top of his profession, unable to provide adequate answers beyond vapid filibustering and occasional invitations to agree to disagree. After waiting through several rounds of questioning and having to stand and indicate vigorously to the chair that perhaps he should get the final question, an audience member who identified himself as Liam, was able to ask the Commissioner the following question:

“Could you just explain to me why you’ve undertaken this strange exercise of reifying abstracts such as ‘crime’? For example your ‘War on Crime’ rehtoric that you like to wheel out. Is this an attempt to abstract away from criminality within your own police force, such as the 333 deaths in police custody in the last 13 years? I’m sorry if I got this figure wrong because it has increased since the last time it was last reported.”

In true form, Hogan-Howe was unable to grasp the very concept of the question and seemed positively happy to jump straight in to questioning the figure quoted. Unfortunately, the figure is not a ‘nonsense’ as he put it, but rather the very brutal truth from the IPCC . Not only did he dismiss the figure out of hand however, but he also admitted that he was unable to provide an alternative one.

Again, it is very clear why the Commissioner was unable to provide an alternative figure and explanation but dismissed the questioners. It is because he simply does not care. The policing that he is concerned with is based on a normative view which he hopes to see achieved. The right to protest (which another questioner tackled him on), victims of police brutality and facing up to the realities of crime are not even on the periphery of this man who saw it as some sort of victory that the numbers of people incarcerated had doubled to over 80,000 in what is a massively over crowded prison system. Ironically, for a man who is so ready to interrogate figures, it seems he has taken this one as some sort of invitation to see even more people locked up, without the foresight to consider the inevitable result.

Despite the complaints of those in the audience who were somewhat more favourable towards the Commissioners, football game inspired, ‘Total Policing’ campaign, Hogan-Howe was given ample chance to explain himself and perhaps even engage in the debate that he was so ready to have. Yet through a mixture of both ineptitude and marketing spiel he managed to leave the entire event devoid of any substance.

Having been offered his chance, it is my view that he should only ever be addressed in chants of ‘No Justice, No Peace, Fuck the Police’ as many of the audience did as he exited the stage. The Commissioner indicated he would repeat the futile excercise monthly in different parts of London; don’t waste a journey to spend an evening being patronized by him. You won’t change the Met or even Bernard Hogan-Howe’s opinion by subjecting yourself to this.

A video of the full event can be found here: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=1303

Occupying is a tactic, not a brand

December 20, 2011
Activism, Politics
1 Comment

The tented encampments that are the face of the global #Occupy movement’s outlet in the United Kingdom have begun to slowly move indoors to the warmth, either as a replacement for the old camps or as a supplement to the very public nature of a tented city. There is an inherent radicalism in taking abandoned buildings that do not belong to you (more so than areas of public/semi-public land) but what has this meant for the politics of a movement that, at least in London, has often been criticised for a somewhat confused critique of what it is supposedly fighting against. There is scope here to consider both the right and left’s response to the recent developments in #Occupy’s housing situation, but I shall allow the right to make their own case and will develop my response from an anti-capitalist position and one that is ultimately friendly towards some of the expressed and unexpressed goals of these occupations.

Right up until a week into the inception of the Bank of Ideas I tried to engage with the occupy movement as much as possible, helping where I could. It certainly wasn’t an awful experience, but I soon found that with other commitments looming and my tolerance for the politics of the group wavering that I would no longer be able to participate as I had done before. Thus for the past four weeks I have not been to any of the #Occupy London camps or buildings. Though not entirely on purpose, it has given me an opportunity to see how the movement presents itself to those who are not there and are not experiencing it – primarily through varying forms of media (including the national press) but also through speaking with people who are still at the camps and in the buildings of the #Occupy movement.

What I hear all too often is a frustration that people do not understand what the occupiers are trying to achieve. People have given up time, energy and in some cases jobs and possessions in order to be part of the #Occupy movement, yet their message just isn’t getting out the way they want it to. Why not? Well it is unsurprising when the occupier in the next tent doesn’t exactly share one’s politics. This is more than understandable, especially when people have only recently been forced to be politically engaged because of the necessity of a crisis. The exchange of views is how people’s politics develops, but playing this out in front of the world’s media is not entirely the best way to do this. But even more frustrating for individual occupiers is that the, often self appointed, spokespeople tend to represent a contingent who are the most liberal minded and willing to engage in the media game. The politics of the camp thus becomes diluted into what is most palatable for the BBC journalist and about the next spectacle which will keep the cameras coming back for more.

The latest of these spectacles, the occupation of the abandoned Old Street Court is exactly what is wrong about a movement which has been dubbed anti-capitalist yet insists on a branding exercise that misses the value of what it is doing. There is nothing inherently wrong about occupying a court house at all, in fact, it is a wonderful resource and should be put to use. But the constraints of branding it as the fourth #OccupyLondon site has been obvious in all of the reportage about the site. It is to become the site of trials for the 1%. Not capitalism. The 1%.

I find a lot problematic about this indeed. Firstly, the 99% vs. 1% argument is an awful class analysis that fails to admit that the issue of capital spreads far further than the few right at the top of the system. Anti-capitalism is about being against a social relation which means that an entire class of people are exploited for their labour by another class of people who control the means of production. In Marxist lexicon these are the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, there are of course questions that need to be asked of the Marxist critique in order to square it with modern incarnations of capital, however, it provides a much better analysis than one which lumps the majority of those who exploit in with the great oppressed 99%. Furthermore, the notion of putting individuals on trial for the wrongs of capitalism, though tempting, plays into the society that occupy seems to be trying to reimagine through its processes. By using the courts, jails and vengeful ‘justice’ system of the type of society you disagree with, you may provide a nice story for the media to grab on to (and inevitably mediate and dilute for public consumption) but it dooms the movement to carry on in the exact same vein as what it is campaigning against.

Without the constraints of the assumed set of politics that come with the #Occupy brand, there is so much potential for spaces like the Old Street court. There is no doubt a community of workers and residents around the site of the old court that have lost their spaces and would relish the opportunity for a space to organise against exploitative bosses in their work places. It isn’t about a grand plot against the 1%, but about real fights that workers need to have in order to improve their material conditions. It may not be as glamorous, but may strangely be more popular than the stunts which have been the main form of action for occupy thus far.

Some would congratulate occupy for their media prowess, but I would rather it took the time to develop its politics and consider the views and well-being of its participants than provide stories for a media that could not care less about its cause.There are many people involved in the camps and buildings that have either been recently made redundant, are graduates in a market where there are no jobs or work in extremely precarious conditions. I am sure these people have much to say about what #Occupy could be organising and campaigning around, and it is these people that the movement should be developing it’s politics around – not the media. It is dangerous to be populist when you do not quite understand what you are popularising and have very little control over how is is mediated.

Taking buildings is beautiful, but the squatting community who are helping #Occupy take these building are more than experienced in doing it – perhaps their time would therefore be better spent sharing the skill with those who are soon to find themselves on the streets not through choice, but forced by neo-liberal economics which has yet again gone wrong. Students, tenants, home owners, community groups and others can all do with abandoned buildings, and whilst there are some to go around, having access to them is not a common skill and shouldn’t be the preserve of the #Occupy brand development working group.

Occupying is a tactic, not a brand.

A future for strikes

November 30, 2011
Activism, Politics
Leave a Comment

It is now officially the day of what is arguably the biggest strike since 1926, which will happen to be the first strike I take an active role in. As a student I cannot withdraw my labour – I after all pay for the privilege of even attending the institution that I do – but I feel a real sense of obligation to stand in solidarity with staff who are taking industrial action in not only my university, but in fact the facilities of the public sector that we all come to rely upon.

You are probably aware of the issues that people are striking over. Pension schemes are certainly not the most glamorous of workers’ struggles, but one that most people have a vested interest in and will inevitably come to rely on when the time comes. This was reiterated to a lot of my peers as we received an email on Monday reminding us of the strike action and cancelled lectures; but also pointing out that pensions are an issue that many of us will soon be worrying about when we begin to work – especially as it becomes increasingly necessary for students to take on employment as they study. Yet, several decades dedicated to the erosion of the power of unions has meant that a culture for collective action simply does not exist for many.

This may be hard to come to terms with, but we won’t see a general strike in the immediate future, especially when there is a trade union presence in only half of work places around the country.

But this is an important opportunity to introduce basic concepts of industrial action to an audience that has never before played a part in it, including myself. Tomorrow will be the first picket line that I ever stand on, but I have at least been privileged enough to look into the nature of these things myself and gain a basic understanding of what to expect. But, consider for a moment that you are a first year student who arrives at the picket line to find one of your lecturers in the cold, losing a day’s pay because of a fight to save their pensions. You will no doubt be sympathetic and will hopefully make this known to them, but then you still feel compelled to cross the picket line to do the reading for the lecture you are missing in the library. It would seem that this is not an unreasonable position to take, but when you consider the wider importance of striking in order to cause disruption to the employer by withdrawing the labour the work place needs to function, it becomes clear that even a step over the imaginary line in fact counter acts the cause you may seek to support.

We cannot students for this as many will never have even encountered a picket line before – but I will be trying my upmost to reiterate to people that support expressed as you enter a work place where an industrial dispute is taking place is simply is no support at all. Pretending any different is disingenuous at best and selfish at worst.

We should not dominate the discourse with overly worrying about state of workers’ struggle because of this strike, but should also recognise that it is an extremely exciting prospect and an opportunity to construct important structures for the continuance of the workers struggle. When head teachers who had previously been praised by the prime minister for breaking a strike and keeping their school open decide that they will join their colleagues in taking strike action, it is clear that the political landscape is rapidly changing. The narrative of ‘There Is No Alterative’ is being fundamentally challenged by even those who have voted for the conservatives all their lives, but will nevertheless be engaging in strike action along with workers more than a few pay grades bellow them.

It is somewhat glib to draw comparisons between events in Greece and the UK, but clearly the backlash against austerity and cuts there is a sign of what is to follow when such severe attacks are made on a public infrastructure that so many are reliant on. This aesthetic of several day general strikes coupled with riot and attempted reappropriation of state property for the commons is not limited only to Greece as this is but one manifestation of where the failures of a Eurozone neo-liberal agenda threatens to collapse entire world markets and sends financiers everywhere into sheer panic. The inevitability of yet more popular strike action is clear to see in this context.

But as I have already said, it would be mad to assume that a general strike would be at all tenable, or indeed necessary, in the context of the UK trade union movement. If this is the kind of action that we are looking for, then there is much left to be done in order to make it happen. Luckily we do indeed have the biggest strike action since 1926 to build upon and should take this opportunity with gusto. Newly unionised workers and those taking their first strike action must not be allowed to walk away from this action with a sense that it was all for nothing. The public sector may indeed lose the battle for pensions with the government. Unfortunately this is a point we may need to accept, but that should not easily translate into a wider failure of organised workers. Nor should we allow unionisation to be the reserve of those who are easily unionised as has been the way of late. Around 17% of the private sector is unionised, much less than the public sector, thus if we are ever to counter the narrative that attacks on the public sector are being made to bring them in line with the private sector, workers in this group must have the voice to make clear that they are not content with their conditions either.

Moreover, groups such as students who are more often than not failed by their unions must be able to see unionisation in the work place an effective political tool. Being able to change your material conditions when you are working in extremely precarious conditions to be able to sustain yourself through a student lifestyle places the battle for cheaper drinks at the union bar into a clear context and means that more and more students will see actions such as November 30th as the model for their struggles; or at the very least the fact that an organised group of workers can have a direct effect on their employer.

This is all novel and exciting for me, but I do not underestimate the magnitude of this particular day of action. I hope that trade union bureaucrats do not either, or that at least rank and file trade unionists are able to bring about organisation in the work force without the blight of bureaucrats.

Teach #Occupy a lesson

November 6, 2011
Activism, Politics
1 Comment

Whether it is a troll on twitter, a disgruntled passing banker or the media commentators, there are a couple of questions that come up again and again in relation to the occupy movement and #OccupyLSX in particular (as this is the one I have the most experience with).

What are their demands?
What is their solution?

Simply put, these are entirely the wrong questions and not the way to critically engage with #Occupy debate.

Let us first look at the call for demands. You would be mistaken for thinking that the occupation had taken the patch of land it inhabits hostage and that the media and critics are so enraged by this that they would like a list of demands issued so they can begin negotiations to get the precious land back. Yes, it is an occupation, but for the most part it is of land freely used by the public each day – that a section of the public have politicisced the space to encourage debate doesn’t seem to me to warrant such an over the top need for demands.

It is even more weird that demands are expected when seen in the context of the second question often posed. ‘Where is your solution?’ the critics often cry. If you recognise we haven’t got a single homogenous solution, why the expectation for a single mutually agreed list of demands. I have never known a diverse group of people to come together and agree on anything instantaneously, not least how best to address an issue such as ‘capitalism’ or even more simply what should be done about the finance sector.

Why then expect a united solution from the occupation? Your view on something is not irrelevant because you haven’t yet figured out how to stop it. I whole heartedly know capitalism to be an evil and brutal system and just because I may not agree with other anti-capitlists on how to get rid of it, or what to replace it with, does not, for me at least, mean that the fundemental problem with capitalism doens’t exist.

But perhaps the critics are looking for an argument they can engage critically with and that is why the insist on asking the wrong questions again and again. That is absolutely fine. In fact, for me, it is the only reason the camp holds any importance. There is probably no one in the world who I entirely agree with and if it were possible I would hope to encounter every single person and discuss what it is we disagree on so I could be exposed to their ideas. The occupation is a way of coming closer to encountering the huge number of ideas that exist. The media is simply not nuanced enough to facilitate the debate required to discuss these ideas and that is why you will only find your answers if you come to the camp and enage with it. Do so critically by all means – that is the only way in fact – but do so with a view to both teaching and learning.

I would love to have the debate, but ill thought out demands and solutions will get us nowhere.

Clever hints for going on a demo

September 2, 2011
Activism
Leave a Comment

Edit: The information from this post can now be found on the Protest Tips page.

Tomorrow is the big EDL demonstration in Tower Hamlets. Though the thugs of the league are likely to be your primary concern, we shouldn’t forget that the recent behaviour of police has been just as, or perhaps more, brutal. So what follows is just a few reminders that I couldn’t fit into the 140 characters of twitter.

Before the demo:

  • Pack your bag:This means making sure you have everything you need and not having stuff you don’t need. Water, spare phone batteries, a bust card and food are all useful. Incriminating stuff that police officers who are out to get you can use as evidence are not.
  • Plan your journey: It is a weekend and there is likely to be station closures or line closures so make sure you know how to get there. But just as important is knowing how you could get back. Stations which were open during the day may not be later if there is disruption or they are ordered shut by police or station management.
  • Buddy up: Let friends know where you are planning on going and try to go with some other people. You should meet up somewhere it will be easy to find each other at the start and try to stay together and keep an eye out during the day.
On the demo:
  • Stop and search: It is very possible that a section 60 will be authorised for tomorrow. This means that police officers can search you. However there are several important points to remember:
  1. They still have to tell you what they are searching for. For example, if looking for weapons, there is no reason for them to look through your phone.
  2. You can get a friend to film the search. If you don’t have a friend nearby, put a recording device on and allow it to record dialogue at least.
  3. If practicable you should be searched by an officer of the same sex as yourself. Feel free to make a fuss if there is an officer of the same sex watching whilst one of the opposite sex conducts the search.
  4. They should provide you with a receipt once the search has been conducted.  Ask for it if they don’t.
  5. DO NOT give them your name – you don’t have to. In this scenario they will just write down  description of you, which is effectively useless to them.
  • Legal Observers: Whilst you are on the demonstration look out for legal observers. They are likely to be wearing a high visibility jacket and jotting notes down about police behaviour. Most will be happy to answer a legal question you might have if they have the knowledge and aren’t busy documenting some police activity – but be considerate if you use their service. Legal observers are usually volunteers and are not often qualified legal professionals. They are extremely helpful, trained and dedicated however.
  • Kettles: Police may well try to ‘contain’ you, but it is usually easy to see when one of these kettles is about to start. The idiots in yellow high-vis and NATO helmets will start forming what start as pretty loose lines and progressively make the containment smaller coming together and adding more officers. Most of the time you are allowed to leave a kettle as long as your not in a big group. If the officer refuses do argue your case as a human being who has done nothing wrong and is therefore being unfairly detained.
  • Masking up: If you feel as though you want to cover your face for any reason, feel free to do so. Though police can force you to remove these in public order situations (which is what the police call a group of people).

In a police station:

If for some reason you end up in police custody, then the following is important to remember.

  • Details: You do have to give the duty officer (the one behind the desk) your details.
  • Contacting people: You have the right to let someone know that you have been arrested, as well as the right to free legal support. Feel free to use your own solicitor and not the one the station offers you. Good firms with experience in dealing with protest cases include:
  1. Bindmans: 02078334433
  2. Hodge Jones & Allen: 07659111192

Feel free to write either of these on your arm before the protest.

  • Medical assesment: If you are injured you have the right to see a medical professional.
  • In a cell: There won’t be much to do in a cell so if offered accept the offer to read the PACE code of conduct. If not offered, ask.
  • Interview: DO NOT say anything in an interview. They often mean police are lacking evidence. An interview is not your opportunity to explain what happened, it’s only for the benefit of the police. You will be able to explain what happened in a court room – that is where justice is meant to happen. You have the right to silence in your interview so feel free to ‘no comment’ the whole way through or not say anything at all.

After the demo:

  • Relax: Whether you had a police free day or spent a night in a cell, make sure you relax. It’s probably been a stressful day for you to varying degrees and it is only fair that you take this time to do something which you consider fun.
  • Precautions: If you weren’t arrested, but are worried you may be for whatever reason, feel free to do what you want to prevent any nasty knocks at your door. Dye your hair, get rid of clothes stay and away from home. Whatever you feel is necessary to avoid that knock.

There are a number of helpful organisation that will do what they can to support you if arrested or if you fear arrest. A few are:

(I’m no expert, so I may have got stuff wrong. Please let me know if I have and I will change it. Also, feel free to suggest information that I should add to this – I’m thinking of making it into a fully fledged page so I can link to it before important protests.)

Good and bad isn’t black and white

August 13, 2011
Politics
7 Comments

I am outraged, hurt and fearful. Not particularly for myself, but for this country. For many the riots engendered a feeling of fear that manifested itself in positive community action and solidarity. But the racists hope to capitalise on this for much more sinister purposes.

After the third day of rioting, when the public had well and truly caught on to what was happening, I wondered into my local town centre, Ealing, to assess the damage and offer my support in the cleanup efforts. I saw many familiar faces (including an old singing teacher that I hadn’t seen for a few years) and could definitely tell that this was the Ealing community that I knew well which had come together. But I felt a strange apprehension. That people were looking at me slightly differently, because I was young, because I was black. You may think this was no more than an irrational feeling; this is certainly what I thought, but I know for sure that even I had irrational feelings towards the young black boys hanging around on their bikes.

Why on earth should we assume that members of our very own communities are criminal or worthy of caution because of their race, class, sexuality or gender? That isn’t a sentiment I allow myself or others to hold. But in those days after the riots it seemed that irrational fears based on these very criteria were somehow justified. That we were able to make assumptions not only about those who had been on riots or looted, but used those very same assumptions to tar anyone identifiably similar to them.

Black community leader after community leader were dragged in front of the camera to say their piece, almost having to condemn the riots on behalf of the black communities that they apparently represented. Often they obliged and ran with a narrative in line with what David Cameron wanted the public to think of the riots, yet when Darcus Howe appeared on the BBC with a new view, one that didn’t simply blame criminality, but visited the issue of why these riots started, he found himself being shut down and accused of being “no stranger to riots”.

Perhaps the reporter meant that he shouldn’t have stood up to racism from the police at the Mangrove restaurant? I doubt it. Instead it seems as though this was simply an ignorance in the way the interviewer pursued their question, but yet a dangerous mistake that plays into the hands of those who wish to describe an entire group of people as violent and characteristically criminal in nature.

People like David Starkey who was invited on to Newsnight to take part in a debate, but ended up using this as a platform to spew what I would describe as bigoted at best. Those who have had the misfortune of seeing Starkey speak before will be well aware that he is ignorant and out of touch with modern Britain, but in this interview it seemed that he wanted to add incitement of racial hatred to his list of accolades. To know that he quoted Enoch Powell as he began his point is to recognise that this man had deliberately chosen to drag our social narrative back to a far worse time.

When he said ‘the chavs have become black; the whites have become black’ he essentially made two distinctions: Firstly, that the white working class, or ‘chavs’ as he says, is distinct from the black working class. Secondly, that criminality and violence of this nature is something blacks do, not whites. He references ‘a Jamaican patwa’ as the new fashionable language of ‘black and white, boy and girl’ and dismisses rap as a form for the glorification of riots. Now this is clearly a man who is deeply out of touch, and whilst I would love to agree with calls to simply ignore his vile hate speech, it has not been seen in isolation the last few days.

I found the BBC repeating an ‘interview’ where a man blames Polish migrants for the rioting. In reporting the tragic deaths of Haroon Jahan, Shahzad Ali and Abdul Musavir the BBC interviewed some who said they had to protect their communities from elements of the black community. The EDL arrived in Eltham and disturbing scenes were videoed of a blatant attack on a bus carrying black youths.

It is widely recognised that the EDL’s nonsense is born out of ignorance. But if we simply continue to disregard every bigot as ignorant and fail to tackle vile hate mongering head on, we may find ourselves in a position where ignorance becomes the blissful mainstream. Our multiculturalism hasn’t fail, our society hasn’t been infiltrated by evil blacks and we certainly aren’t about to see rivers of blood. We do however need to curb a terrifying narrative that seeks to destroy the equality so many of us stand for. A shock doctrine of hate cannot be allowed to commence.

The fear of the riot

August 10, 2011
Politics
Leave a Comment

As the riots reached more and more town centres, including my own, those previously apathetic woke in rage and fear at burning buildings, smashed windows and looted shops. When a riot is around the corner it is hard not to be fearful whatever your political view point. Yet, anger and condemnation will not get us anywhere in the next few days.

These riots were not ‘mindless’, as they had been described time and time again by media commentators. They are symptomatic of wounded communities that never truly recover from the last disaster. Whilst the individual motives of those involved may not have been that of a political message, there is always a politics behind these things, and as some have pointed out there has been a long history of socio-economic problems in many of the communities that have flared up in anger; a poignant backdrop to the disturbances that has been ignored for too long.

The Arab spring revolution was sparked by the death of a single Tunisian street vendor, Mohammed Bouazizi, after sustained attacks on his livelihood by local officials he took his life in order have a voice. Riots, looting and wide spread civil disobedience quickly spread throughout the Arab world and was met with international solidarity. People were finally making a stand for true democracy and this country offered both military and diplomatic support to revolutionaries all over the Middle East. Yet, as the riots moved closer and closer to home through Greece, Spain and now our own streets, it has been all too easy to let fear and shock stop us from making the same judgements that we have again and again the last few months; austerity did not work there and it certainly isn’t working here.

In fact, there is little difference between this scene filmed earlier this year in Egypt and this scene filmed in Brixton on Sunday evening. Even more similar are the root causes. Austerity and inequality are issues that would be recognised in Sidi Bouzid, Bouazizi’s home town, just as they would in Tottenham and, though months apart, both communities have come to the same realisation: if the world shan’t listen, we must give them something to listen to.

One young man from Tottenham asked an ITV journalist ‘You wouldn’t be talking to me now if I didn’t riot, would you?’ The sad truth is that the journalist certainly wouldn’t be. Nor would the police or the IPCC, and for that fact, neither would his democratic representatives in parliament. Talking to disenfranchised communities in Tottenham, Enfield, Hackney, Peckham, Ealing and Croydon is something that stopped many decades ago as MPs and the police have been less and less accountable. Something that was increasingly obvious as journalist after journalist expressed their shock at how ‘affluent’ Ealing could see rioting, ignoring the poverty many of its residents live in only minutes from the centre.

But as people realised they did’t have to wait for those in power to listen to them, community organising took over. Through social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, people were able to play their role in the healing process and organise when and where to meet to clean up after the nights of rioting.

Just as Egyptian’s formed groups to take over where the government had left them during their revolution, many in the UK , still angry that much of the government remained on holiday through the weekend,took to their streets to claim back the concept of ‘community’. No longer is it acceptable that someone else will help the neighbours clear up the glass, or that the scared old lady is left on her own. No longer is it acceptable that our press, politicians and police have been unaccountable for far too long. No longer is it acceptable to not be political. Communities are instead turning fear into positive action.

An anarchist is no terrorist

August 1, 2011
Politics
Leave a Comment

What has become known as the ‘student movement’ was born out of the protests over tuition fees last year. The lasting legacy of these protests was not a u-turn from government in response to a mass of pressure, but rather a new understanding of how a collective could organise without permission from figures of authority or dominant voices stifling debate. When students were severely let down by those who had been democratically elected to represent their interests, it does not take a leap of imagination to understand why for many the tools of anarchism became the only way to express a voice.

Direct action was used in the form of university occupations where consensus based decision making was the norm, a far cry from the single vote you receive every five years In what is far too forgivingly termed a ‘democracy’, but is all too often an excuse for governments to introduce ideological policy changes regardless of the opinion expressed by the public.

How insulting is it therefore to find that the ‘counter terrorism focus desk’ of City of Westminster police saw fit to essentially criminalise all of these students and every other person who have become disenfranchised with a limp democracy by instructing the public that “Any information relating to anarchists should be reported to your local Police.” This was nestled between other counter terrorism warnings, including a report on the terror attacks in Norway and warnings about a flag “Often seen used by Al-Qaeda in Iraq” which should also be reported to local police.

Yet, this representation of anarchism is not surprising when you consider how it is often reported in mainstream media, particularly before large scale protests. The Evening Standard for example ran a piece with the headline ‘Anarchists plot to wreck Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding celebration’ and used information obtained from a so called ‘anarchist organiser’ to reveal plans for disruption at the Royal Wedding that to most anarchists I know were simply laughable. But all too often media coverage such as this seems to come as a precursor to violent policing which is justified justified and ignored by the press as otherwise hoards of violent anarchists may have run rampage. This narrative, which has largely gone unchallenged, leads to a public image of anarchists as nothing more than a ‘black bloc’ that needs beating into line.

However, as the anthropologist and anarchist David Graeber describes in his article ‘Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you!’, to be an anarchist takes little more than examining your daily life and recognising that much of how we already behave and think is anarchic in nature. He asks ‘If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?’ The answer is common sense and yet when the concept is applied to how we organise ourselves politically, it is suddenly labelled as a terrorist view point which we should be vigilant for.

What exactly would we be reporting? That a group of friends decided on where to go for dinner collectively rather than someone making a authoritative decision? That some people are playing a game like Ultimate Frisbee without the need of a referee? Or perhaps that people think politicians are greedy and don’t listen to public opinion? These aren’t alternative views after all, and certainly not those of terrorists, but very mainstream thoughts held by many. If it wasn’t hilarious to think, we may worry that the millions who decided not to vote in the last general election would end up in jail for fear they were anarchists. Would it be criminal to think that with so many refusing to take part in our democratic process, perhaps that process may well be flawed?

It is, at best, misleading to portray anarchists as a terror group that needs watching and at worst propaganda designed to discredit a legitimate political ideology for fear that the view may become more widely accepted as many suffer through austerity.

In Conversation With Barclays

April 26, 2011
Activism
3 Comments

Today I was bored and researching the boring, yet vital, world of financing yourself through your degree when I happened upon Barclays’ web chat service which allows you to speak to one of their advisers via a pop-up messenger style application. Why not take this opportunity to question Barclays on what their financial practices?

Below is the transcript of this conversation. I got some things wrong I’m sure and I can’t say how productive of an ‘activist’ activity this was, nor whether it was actually the right thing to do (Should I have wasted this adviser’s time?). Decide for yourself below.

(P.S. I adopted the name Ursula Cut as I wanted it to sound like Uncut. I later thought Una Cut would have been better.)

Never give out your password or credit card number in an instant message conversation. Please wait while we find an agent to assist you…
You have been connected to Jason AM.
Jason AM: Thank you for using Barclays Webchat Service. My name is Jason, may I take your name?
Customer: Ursula Cut
Jason AM: Hi, how are you doing Ursula?
Ursula Cut: I’m fine thnks
Ursula Cut: I’d like to ask a few questions
Jason AM: Yes, please go ahead with the questions.
Ursula Cut: I’ve heard rumours that Bob Diamond walked aay with a pay packet of £11.3 million when he became boss. That’s 1000 times more than the average cashier! Is Barclays the kind of company I want to bank with!?
Jason AM: Ursula, we’ve been in banking industry for over 300 years now. And banking with Barclays mean, peace of mind and reliable banking indeed.
Jason AM: I guess, you’re looking at switching your accounts over to us.
Jason AM: Aren’t you?
Ursula Cut: Yes, it’s a possibility.
Jason AM: Great! Would you like me to discuss the options on offer?
Ursula Cut: What share of the £2.3 billion bonus did you get last year? I think the answer would influence whether I choose to bank with you!
Jason AM: I’m not a share holder, instead am a salaried employee. A Barclays Webchat Advisor.
Ursula Cut: So your company doesn’t pay you a bonus, whilst Mr Diamond walks away with millions. This is after he (and the company of course – but not you individualy (you’re nice)) helped create the global finanical crisis of 2007.
Ursula Cut: Barclays are still involved in speculating on world food prices – a contributor to the Arab spring revolutions. If you guys stop this, I could consider banking with you!
Jason AM: Ursula, I wish the major decisions were in my hands. And honestly, you’re much knowledgeable than I am. Because, even I didn’t know all that. So, I cannot comment on anything because, I have no knowledge and could barely understand what you’re talking about.
Jason AM: Ursula, it’s advisable for you to visit a Barclays branch and have a word with a personal banker.
Jason AM: He/she will be able to assist you accordingly.
Jason AM: Please carry two forms of your ID to confirm who you are and where you live when you visit the branch.
Ursula Cut: Thank you. Despite your limited knowledge, you have been very helpful. It may be of benefit to you to look up the financial details of the company you work with. You may decide to think twice about who you work with. But of course a pay check is a pay check and I can’t blame you for living. (Perhaps if you were likeJohn Lewis and all employees were stakeholders you would have more say and make Barclays an ethical company!) Thank you!
Ursula Cut: By the way, I don’t think I can bank with Barlcays with a clear conscience at the moment.
Ursula Cut: I may reconsider when the company pays UK tax on it’s billions in profits. And stops speculating on global food prices which is simillar to the American housing crisis speculation.
Ursula Cut: Please share with your colleagues!
Ursula Cut: Workers and Students! Unite and Strike!
Jason AM: Ursula, I could see your frustration on such things. But, Barclays have prove themselves best in the market, we offer best and competitive products (in banking) and you may like to discuss about global food prices with a manager. They will be able to give you a better explanation how these things work and may OR may not affect market.
Jason AM: If you wish to make a complaint, please follow the attached link.
The agent is sending you to http://www.personal.barclays.co.uk/BRC1/jsp/brccontrol?task=articlegroup&site=pfs&value=3657&menu=3134.
Jason AM: And yes, will share your thoughts with colleagues around.
Ursula Cut: Thank you very much Jason!
Ursula Cut: Wish we could debate further on the issue of financial speculations and the evils of capitalism!
Jason AM: It’s been lovely chatting to you (an extra ordinary and brilliant person), Ursula.
Ursula Cut: But alas if you could pass me on to a manager that would be great!
Ursula Cut: And the same to you Jason!
Jason AM: Ursula, you can leave your comments on the feedback e-mail page (the page is tagged on the link given above).
Ursula Cut: Okay!
Ursula Cut: Thank you and goodbye!
Jason AM: People around me are just salaried employees, just like myself. But, if you wish to book an appointment with a manager at a Barclays branch, you can contact our Customer Services Team.
Jason AM: Would you like me to forward you their number?
Ursula Cut: No thank you. But I do sympathise with salaried employees!
Ursula Cut: I’m sure many of you strugle while there are people at the top screwing us al lover!
Jason AM: Ursula, I understand. But, honestly, have enjoyed working with Barclays as of now. And work place is quite employee friendly and yes, good.
Jason AM: It’s been three and a half years, I’ve been working for Barclays. So, overall experience was good working with Barclays.
Ursula Cut: Ahh, it is all part of their money making schemes. I’m sure you as employees are treated moderately kindly. But as a worker who is part of the global movement, they are putting in place mechanisms which effect us profoundly on class boundries whilst the UK government protect Mr Diamond’s interests.
Jason AM: That’s called an ideal business strategy, isn’t it? Most people involved in business would treat their employees and customers fairly kindly to retain their clients and loyalty of their employees.
Jason AM: Indeed, I don’t have much idea about global movements and all that. But, when we research in depth, we may find it helpful in market improvements in some or the other way.
Jason AM: That’s one of the possibilities.
Ursula Cut: Indeed. Whilst putting in place an economy which is prone to the failures we have recetly seen.
Ursula Cut: We face austerity because of the practices of business’ such as Barclays
Ursula Cut: I can’t see a benefit to being one of the largest investors in the arms industry.
Ursula Cut: I think even as employee of Barclays you would think that funding weapons that are used for internal agression and opression of states such as Palestine is not a good thing.
Jason AM: Yes, I understand. But, like I said above, I don’t have much knowledge about that. So, won’t be able to comment anything on that.
Ursula Cut: I understand.
Ursula Cut: I wouldnt want you to jeapordise your positino either.
Jason AM: Thanks.
Jason AM: Ursula, like I said above, you may reconsider Barclays as a bank to bank with. We’ve been in banking industry for over 300 years now, offer best deals in market and are well-known for their best level of customer service.
Jason AM: Are there any other questions for me?
Ursula Cut: No thank you. This has been iluminating. I have learnt a lot about Barclays business practice!
Ursula Cut: Good bye.
Jason AM: It’s been great chatting to you and wish you well, Ursula.
Jason AM: Thank you for using Barclays Webchat Service. You’ve a lovely evening!
Jason AM: Take care. Bye.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 794 other followers