Who Polices The Police?

For the following essay I am indebted to Benjamin Zephaniah, Samantha Rigg-David, Jody McIntyre, Merlin Emmanuel, Logic MC, and all those who spoke at or were in attendance of the Equality Movement’s ‘Who Polices The Police? – Public Meeting’ event, which I attended last night in Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, as much of what follows is inspired by their words.

So, who does police the police? The short answer is, we do. Through our attitudes, through our actions, and through our social consciousness, it is up to us as citizens to police the police, to regulate the regulators, to enforce our collective will upon the agents of our sociality.

The police are an institution who supposedly serve the people through popular consent, and act as a deterrent to committing social crimes, thus protecting each member of society from one another, and the society as a whole from itself.

In reality, what they actually do is serve the state, and protect elite interests. They do this by making private property sacred and deterring people to rise up in a popular movement and enact social change.

This has been proved time and again over the last year of protests and industrial action. Written into British law is that any man, woman, or child, has the right to free protest in the UK. We have the right to free speech, and the right to free action. Yet the police, backed by the state, has criminalised protestors, ‘kettling’ them for hours (depriving children as young as 12 of water, food, and toilet facilities for up to 8 or 9 hours, in the middle of winter), beating them with truncheons, and arresting them in their hundreds, even when (as was the case with the 145 students and young people arrested after the occupation of Fortnums and Mason in March) there is video evidence of police officers describing the occupiers as “peaceful” and “legal”.

But let us not be surprised, for these are the same police officers who seek to criminalise and deligitimise any person they come in contact with, including – but not limited to - the human beings who die in their custody, the families of these victims who seek justice for their loved ones, and in fact anyone who dares speak out against the tyranny and brutality of these racist, imperialist thugs. I could name one hundred names here, but I will cite the case of just one, of which I first heard last night.

It is the story of Sean Rigg, a young black man with no criminal record, who was arrested, violently restrained and bundled into the bck of a police van. When he was removed and thrown onto the cold floor of the yard at the back of Brixton Police Station, he was in a collapsed state, and the Brixton police force stood around and watched as he slowly lost his life. His family’s two-year battle for evidence of what happened to him that night, a struggle which is not nearly over, was emotionally described to those at the meeting by his sister last night in Brixton.

In the last ten years, over 400 people have died in the cutody of the Brtish police, which is almost one a week. That means that once every 7-10 days a human life is taken, either through direct force or neglect, by the very people who are supposedly there to serve and protect us.

The Metropolitan police claim they are working together with us to make a ‘safer London’. Yet, as a young boy I met yesterday (who had more knowledge, awareness, and revelation than many a university graduate I know) pointed out, the crime rate has not dropped since the highs of the 1950s. And, like the openly racist society of this era, it is black and minority ethnic groups who are still by far suffering the heaviest at the hands of this brutal police state.

Benjamin Zephaniah yesterday said “People ask me where I got my socialist politics from. Well I’ll tell you – once when I was locked up in a police cell, being kicked in by some big black boots, I grabbed a hold of one of the boots assaulting me and thought ‘hold on, who’s paying for these boots?’”

And this is where the insult is added to the injury. Not only are we oppressed, abused and intimidated by a highly paid, indoctrinated, equipped and motivated gang of thugs, but the wages, equipment, and indoctrination of these gang members is paid for out of our taxes, out of our parents taxes, and out of our childrens’ future taxes. It is our money that will pay for the tools necessary to oppress and intimidate our children.

But what if there were no police? What if we had to deal with each other then? What if we actually had to live in a society ruled by consent and democracy? Isn’t anarchy an extremely frightening prospect?

Well, as Jody McIntyre eloquently put it last night, who are you more scared of? The person next to you, your neighbour, your fellow demonstrator, the man you cross paths with on the high street? Or the racist, brainwashed agent of the state who openly wields weapons and threatens to physically or psychologically cause harm to you, and who is effectively above the law? And who believes that the garments he wears are more important than the human inside, and the actions he takes, rather than vice versa? Which of these two characters scares you more?

Many people here might argue that the police are not above the law, and in theory, they aren’t. But in practice, they are above the law - to the extent that only 2% of all complaints made against the police force are upheld as ‘legitimate’ complaints (by the police themselves, as they have the right to investigate themselves). And this, despite over 400 people dying from their hands or in their care in the past 10 years, none of which have resulted in a single criminal conviction – even though these are investigated by the so-called ‘Independent’ Police Complaints Commission, the IPCC.

So who would you rather make a decision with, or have make a decision about you? I know which group of individuals I would rather interact with. As citizens of late capitalism, we are obligated to stand up for our rights, because in the end that is all we have.

I would encourage everyone reading this blog to keep in mind the following when dealing with the British Police Force;

1) Under no circumstances should you ever trust the police. They are not there to help, protect, or serve you. They are there to help, protect and serve private property and vested interests. They are institutionalised racists. They do not believe in equality before the law, they believe in capitalism and inequality of wealth and therefore resources. They will always protect their own, and will always choose to pursue the end goal of any situation that most benefits them.

2) The reason that the police can get away with a lot of the injustices and inequalities they inflict upon the general public is because the vast majority of people are uneducated on the law and on their rights. The British legal system is one of the oldest and most complicated ever devised by humankind. But there is a lot in there which can be used to the layman’s advantage, over the power of the police. Educate yourselves, and others around you, about your rights, about the police’s obligations to you, and about the limits of their power.

3) Every interaction with an officer of the state (such as a police officer), is an interaction with an agent of the state. During these interactions, make sure you keep the power balance in your favour. When they ask you a question, respond with the same question. When they talk down to you, remind them politely that you are both equals on the eyes of the law, no matter what uniform you are both wearing, and therefore they should interact with you as equals, and not as masters. When they ask you to do something, ask why they have asked you to do it, and under what law must you consent to doing it. The police rule by power of consent. Law in Britain is based on consent. Do not give your consent for any officer of the law to violate your rights as a free-willed individual. Withhold all of your rights, all of the time, and explicitly say so.

4) The legal system, and the actors within it, are biased in favour of the police, and against you as an individual. But indisputable proof is indisputable proof. If you can, record any interactions you have with any police officers. Be this via recording phone calls, recorded delivery letters, or by recording face-to-face interaction through the camera and voice recorder on your phone, don’t let the lies which the state (and the officers of that state) continually tell, and will tell if any case which comes against them, overpower and overwhelm the truth.

5) The police and the legal system are not independent, they are not impartial, and they are not governed by democracy or popular consent. They are the armed wing of an imperialist, racist, elitist state which values the accumulation of personal wealth over the wellbeing, happiness, health and life of human beings, both within and outside of its boundaries. The current cuts facing higher education and the public sector, the war on drugs, the oppression and degradation of the most economically poor in our society, the bombing campaign in Libya, the racist British empire in Africa and Asia, and the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, are all extensions of the same programme which we are resisting and writing against here. Resist the police, the legal system, and all that they stand for, because they stand in front, and behind, all of the dehumanising and murderous regimes of late capitalist Britain.

Check out and support http://defendtherighttoprotest.org , The Sean Rigg Justice and Change Campaign, The Network for Police Monitoring and The Equality Movement for more information.

A Glimpse of the Alternative?

Yesterday (March 26^th 2011), between 300,000 and 600,000 people took to the streets of London for a national demonstration against the government. Each individual, of course, has different reasons for protesting – but it is not unfair to say that everyone was against the ConDem government’s economic and social policies in one form or another; whether it was because they are cutting your job, or because you don’t want a capitalist state at all.

The main demonstration, organised by the TUC, was billed as a ‘March for the Alternative’. This saw trade unionists, families, public sector workers, students and many others marching along an officially sanctioned route through central London, passing via Westminster and Downing Street before finishing at a rally in Hyde Park, at which academics, union leaders, politicians and community workers gave speeches encouraging the government to reconsider their economic policies and scale back or slow down their planned plethora of cuts to the state and public services.

Students, of course, have been marching since last November against the proposed cuts to education, and raising of the fees cap for universities, and have been pretty proactive in organising actions throughout 2011 (in London at least). However, TUC leaders decided to wait until March before staging their national demonstration, after the budget was announced last Wednesday. This, in my opinion, was a mistake – the burning anger and desire for change so present in November and December has inevitably dampened and subsided through a lack of mass public actions in the early months of 2011. The TUC should have seized the initiative, and organised mass action earlier on in the year, and then again in March.

The TUC were born out of a desire for a union who could organise militant direct action and social transformation, so it frustrates me that they are now so middle-of-the-road. When did ‘Leftist’ become such a dirty word? They described yesterday as ‘Middle Britain’ coming together to effect change, and now cannot bring themselves to call a general strike, or even to give protestors advice that differs from official Met guidelines. I can understand that things have changed since 1868, but why are they suddenly so against direct action?

Their ‘Senior Stewards’ (in their pink high-vis vests) were yesterday making themselves very busy, trying to make sure no-one dared do anything which might disrupt their big day out. In fact, a rather appropriate new label for them was being thrown around yesterday – the Tory’s Unofficial Cops. Do the TUC actually want change, or do they just want it to appear as though they do?

The most depressing thing is that everyone seems to have simply swallowed the ConDem propaganda, and accepted that cuts are inevitable. Even Ed Milliband, supposed leader of the ‘opposition’, decided to take the opportunity yesterday, when speaking at a March for the Alternative, to admit that the only difference between this government and Labour’s policies would be to slow the cuts down. Well that’s wicked – thanks Ed. As long as you take your time destroying British society, that’s fine then.

Of course, the speed and depth of the proposed cuts are a massive part of the problem with the ConDem’s economic policy. But is no-one in mainstream politics willing to even discuss the various alternative economic policies which have been put forward by those outside Westminster? Like the Robin Hood Tax? Or the Green New Deal? Or the corporation tax put forward by UKUncut? All of these are extremely viable options, which aren’t even massively radical.

But the government won’t hear out the debates over these policies, and as I have written before, they will not listen to marches and mass demonstrations. And don’t take my word for it - take Vince Cable’s, who told the BBC today that their economic policies would not budge; “No government - coalition, Labour or other - would change its fundamental economic policy simply in response to a demonstration of that kind".

There it is, as official and in writing as you will ever see – public opinion does not matter to this government. I would normally encourage peaceful protest and demonstrations, but what is the point in walking around central London shouting slogans and waving banners if it doesn’t affect anything? I am not an extremist, but I am a pragmatist. To actually effect the changes everyone was talking about wanting yesterday, or at least to stop all of the cuts we are faced with, we must use direct action.

Which is why I am incredibly disappointed by the TUC, the general public, and by many of my friends’ Facebook statuses and comments over the past 24 hours. Back in November and December, at the beginning of this movement, most people recognised that merely marching and protesting wasn’t going to be enough. However, the matter was still up for debate, and I don’t blame people for being optimistic about the possibilities of influencing policy through peaceful means. However, it is now past all reasonable doubt that non-violent action is a viable option. The only viable options are for direct action against the cuts, and/or to try and bring this government down by force.

When will people in the country wake up and realise this? The (unelected) Tory government is determined to seize this opportunity of power to push through economic policies which are driven by ideology and which have not been voted on or put in any manifesto. Marching won’t stop them. Peaceful protest won’t stop them. They already know they are unelected and unpopular – and they don’t care. They are seeking to protect their own personal interests, to enact their own personal ideologies, and are more than willing to force these upon an unwilling and unhappy electorate. They are either convinced that they are right, or convinced that they can get away with it. But the British public is too reserved, too submissive, or perhaps too comfortable to actually do anything about it. We should take heed of the recent revolutions across Africa and the Middle East, and force the government to listen to us.

So if peaceful protesting won’t effect change, then what to do? Well, first off – the TUC needs to call a general strike, now. Brendan Barber has the power to do this, as he said outright in a speech last week. So why not do it? What is he, and the rest of the TUC, waiting for?

For everyone else, what we must do is to participate in other direct actions. I’ve said it before, and I will say it again – we must strike, occupy, and resist. And we must support those who take direct action against this government, and the evil corporations who profit from and sustain it. As we saw yesterday, David Cameron (also read: the TUC)’s ‘small minority of anarchists’ determined on ‘hijacking’ the protests are no longer a small minority, but are rapidly becoming a majority; particularly amongst the youth. But we cannot leave it to others to change policy or bring down this government for us – we must all play our part in enacting change. Which is why I refuse to denounce the violence we saw yesterday, and why I will continue to actively encourage direct action against this government’s ideological assault against not just the least advantaged individuals and communities in Britain, but against the overwhelming majority of our society.

Sam Bailey

Is it Justified?

First a preamble: this article has taken rather a long time to see the light of day. This is due to the fact that (A) my production of written work is rather slow and (B) that I have dug myself into a hole which I am finding it rather difficult to get out of. However;

I have a problem. It occurred to me about a week after the demonstrations on the 12th of December against the increase in tuition fees, and the problem is thus; On the day of the protest, I broke a law. That law was the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act of 2005 (SCOPA), which has a clause in it which states that no-one may protest within (approximately) half a square mile of Parliament.

I broke this (SOCPA) law because I do not accept this law. I do not feel bound by it; indeed I would argue that I am not bound to obey such a law. At no point in my life have I accepted this law, at no point has anyone asked me for my opinion on this law, or allowed me to have a say in its construction. However, in the eyes of the state I am bound by it, and may legitimately* be punished if I break it.

To return to my point - the state considers that I am bound by this law, and in breaking said law it may legitimately punish me. As I have said, I refute this law on the grounds that I have never accepted this law. This argument entitles us to disobey any law that the state should proclaim.

Fine, this is an excellent conclusion - one which many Anarchists have come to - and is valid. We shall then assert that a person has the right to disobey any law which they did not give their consent to. Whether or not they may retract this consent is another discussion.

Now if I (and by degrees the rest of the populace) am not bound by this law, and by the same token persons are not bound to follow any law which they have not expressed their consent to - then under what grounds can I require of them that they should subsidise tuition fees?

The reason I was marching was that I wanted the persons in this country, many of whom don't go to university and have no interest in going to university, to financially support higher education. What right do I have to attempt to force them to pay for tuition fees? Even if 99% of the population wanted the state to subsidise higher education, this argument still stands for the 1% who would be against such a subsidy.

First, one might say that the general population have to pay taxes (whether or not they think it is right or wrong), and that these taxes fund many services that the individual may not wish to support, for example; nuclear weapons, MP's expenses and bank bailouts, to name some current contentious issues. Certainly, many people, if given the choice, would not wish to pay for such service. However, they are forces into doing so by the state, which certainly does not make it right. Even if (as noted above) the majority of the population advocate such taxation, such a scheme still forces the individual to capitulate.

So let us say that the bill had not been passed, and let us say that my protesting had a direct effect upon the vote. My actions would have then ensured that an individual was forced against his or her will to pay for a service they did not want. By breaking this law, they would then face a punishment for refusing to pay their taxes.

So how can I justify my breaking a law when my actions have resulted in another individual being forced to adhere to a law they have not voluntarily agreed to? Indeed, how can I support any action which infringes upon the rights of others?

You probably don't like this conclusion. I don't like it either. If you can prove it invalid please post your response.

*A note on legitimate; even though the practice of kettling is widely considered to be illegal, this is of no importance here. Were I arrested under SOCPA (or for any other crime), the argument still stands.

Richard Trist

TATTOOS, DRAWINGS AND BARRICADES ZINE

Click on the link below to check out a pdf of a new zine called 'Tattoos, Drawings and Barricades' by Elbowdesigns.

http://elbowdesigns.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/tattoosdrawingsbarricades.pdf

Particularly worth a look are the drawings inspired by the recent student protests, and the satirical adverts for university courses and post-graduate internships.

Check out more of El's work here:

http://elbowdesigns.wordpress.com

When Should We Occupy?

At my university (Goldsmiths) we have an active student's union which supports minority rights, including LGBTQ, Women’s and Disabled rights. Recently it has been campaigning on the rights of the young, a group that is being discriminated against in the worst way; their future is being attacked on many fronts. It is not just the youth; even worse, it is the youth of the lower classes. In a society where elitism still exists, the new coalition government is attacking those without the real power to fight back.

When we look at the cuts that are being made by the ConDems, we can only truly see a really catastrophic attack on the education of the people (the people being anyone who is under the jurisdiction of the state). When 20,000, 30,000 or 60,000 people are on the streets protesting, breaking the law, making a point in our capital, how can any government ignore this direct action and still vote on a motion that may cripple the education system in this country for years to come?

Back to my particular university. Recently there was an occupation of the library; one that was morally correct in its demands:

Dear friends, We are students from Goldsmiths College who have occupied our library in opposition to the wave of cuts currently threatening our education system, and our local community, being imposed upon us by the current government. We have released a list of demands to the senior management team of our university. However we also think it’s vital that our actions don’t take place in a bubble, separated from the local community. The events of the last few weeks have proven that South East London is a hub of radical political action against this social vandalism. With this in mind, we want to open up our occupation to all local residents- both as a library, and as a resource and organising base for community groups and actions that share our goals of fighting against welfare and education cuts and government attacks on the vulnerable. As such, we would like to open a channel of communication with your group in order to help us work together. We are hosting a community wide meeting of local groups tomorrow (Wednesday 8th December) at 7:30pm in the main foyer of the Library in order to discuss our shared goals and practical ways we can work together. We realise that is short notice but we only occupied our library yesterday night, and we want to start using the space as soon as possible! Please let us know if you’re able to attend- or please circulate this e-mail around your e-mail lists as you see fit. Hope to see you on Wednesday- although the community is welcome to come and talk to us, and use our facilities, at any time- we’re now open 24 hours through student power. Yours in solidarity, the Goldsmiths Occupation Goldsmiths, University of London
, Lewisham Way, 
New Cross
, London SE14 6NW

Most students accepted these demands; but the actual occupation of the library was seen as an attack on the education of current students of Goldsmiths. Most Goldsmiths students are actively campaigning at national demos, yet felt alienated by this action.

My question is, at what point is direct action in the form of occupation OK? I saw when the senior management of an organization is affected - hopefully in an adverse way - but when it becomes an attack on the education of students themselves, we may as well forget the fight against the government cuts, as that will be the start of a civil war within the student body.

The NUS is not radical enough for me, but at least they are a unifying body for all student unions. Once we dispose of the careerist Aaron Porter maybe the NUS may once again become a hub for real student activism, within which students can fight together for education.

Jack Perry

Another Brick In The Wall: The Coalition's White Paper on Education

Back in Year 12, I asked my History teacher Mr. Liston, "Did any Nobles join the middle classes during the French Revolution?" This, I thought, was a simple enough question, particularly as the lesson was focused on what the Nobles stood to lose if the revolution was successful. However, Mr Liston was unable to provide an answer. Instead, the next day he asked me to stay behind after the lesson. This was much to my horror, as I could not for the life of me think what I could have done to warrant this. Of course, the reason for me staying behind was not to be told off but to answer the question he had not been able to answer the previous day. He not only gave me a rather extensive answer to the question, but also some advice on where I could found out more about Nobles during the French Revolution if I was interested.

My point is that the best teachers are not always the cleverest. In my opinion the skill of teaching is not what knowledge you have, but how you impart that knowledge. Mr. Liston’s willingness to help, enthusiasm, ability to make the topic accessible and knack of relating to students ensured that we all excelled in history, and drove me on to apply to read history at university. It didn’t matter that he did not know the answer to every question asked of him, or that perhaps he wasn’t the smartest teacher I ever had. Speaking to friends recently I have heard similar tales of the best teachers not always being the best educated and we came to the (perhaps obvious) conclusion that teaching requires a completely different skill set to academia.

This leads on me on to my predominant qualm with the Education White Paper that has just been announced by Education Secretary Michael Gove. Gove is suggesting that the state will no longer help fund aspiring teachers who received less than a 2.2 in their degree.

It is my prediction that this bill will mean that many potentially great teachers who receive thirds will be put off going into teaching due to financial constraints, as they are hit by high fees magnified by the loss of earnings through a year out of work. This is particularly ironic considering that Carol Voderman, the head of the Coalition’s 'Maths Teaching Taskforce', graduated with a third. You may have thought that being such a maths ‘whizz’ Voderman may have been able to make this calculation, but apparently not.

In most schools in this country teaching is not only about delivering knowledge, but it is also an ongoing battle to inspire children to want to be educated. If a teacher cannot inspire young people to learn then it doesn’t matter how academically bright they are, the students will not be interested.

Even if you were to argue that quality of teaching is directly related to academic achievement, being able to inspire young people and the ability to be a positive role model has nothing to do with whether someone received a first from university.

The coalition seem to be showing a complete misunderstanding of what teaching involves in 90% of the country's schools; perhaps unsurprisingly considering well over half of them went to very privileged fee-paying schools, in which different skills are required by teachers.

The merits and downsides of cutting EMA, increasing teachers’ ability to lay their hands on pupils, and ensuring anonymity to staff accused of harassment (all of which, by the way, I also vehemently oppose) are all measures that could be argued either way. However, it is indisputable that how well someone did at university does not correlate to how well they teach.

The basis of improving schools undoubtedly comes from having a better standard of teaching. This new measure of only funding teacher training for those who receive certain degrees will only serve to discourage people who would make excellent teachers from entering the profession.

Commentators are calling this White Paper 'the biggest overhaul of education in decades'. However, by depriving Britain's schools of a whole generation of potentially great teachers, I fear that the Coalition are falling at the first hurdle in what is a long road towards driving up standards in education.

Tom Bateman

We Lost The Vote, But The Fight Is Far From Over

It wasn't a surprise for those who had been doing the research (or, as in my case, who knew someone who had been doing the research). The plan to raise tuition fees to £9000 was passed by a measly 21 votes. But that number comes nowhere near representing the battle which has surrounded these plans.

MP's (and not just Lib Dems) have apparently been staggered by the reaction to the proposals, though I fail to see why. Debates raged over whether the proposals were fair or not, and we won the argument. Thousands of students, teachers, and members of the general public came out to display just how angry they were about the cuts.

I won't bore anyone with a long-winded rant on why these cuts are a shameful, ideologically-driven and ill-advised move to a less equal future for educational opportunities. I won't even underline the fact that Romania are the only other country cutting further education in these times, when 'austerity' seems to be the new fashionable buzzword of policy. I won't point out that there are five countries with worse deficits than us, and recently 'bailed-out' states such as ireland and Greece have not cut higher education budgets, least of all by 80%.

These debates have all been had, and these points have all been made, and they have been made much more eloquently than I could wish to make them. Instead, I will briefly lay out the situation now, as I see it.

Part of me feels sorry for Nick Clegg, and the rest of the Lib Dems (no, really I do). I don't believe that Clegg set out to deceive, or that they secretly love the Tories. As I see it, they were a political party with admirable ideals, who were not used to having power; and when they did have it, they fluffed their lines.

Essentially, they played the whole coalition agreement badly. What the Lib Dem's failed to capitalise on was the fact that the power rested with them. Without them, there was no government. They held all the cards. Clegg and co are now playing the 'we didn't win, we can't implement our ideas' card; but neither did the Tories win. So why are they implementing their ideas? The answer is an obvious one; because the Lib Dems let them do so. What the Lib Dems should have done is stick to their guns, put an offer on the table to the Tories (including a 'no raise on tuition fees' and 'AV referendum' clause), and told the Tories to take it or leave it. If they took it then great, the Lib Dems get to keep their two main pledges and be in government. If not then fine, hold another election. The Lib Dems' support probably would have increased, as the public admired Clegg sticking to his principles. They were on an upward trajectory anyway, why not let this carry on?

But they didn't do that. They sold out too easily; perhaps they let the Tories bully them, or perhaps they just didn't negotiate hard enough. Either way, they are stuck with the agreement now, as are we. All the Lib Dems can do when it comes to tuition fees is abstain completely, or water down an essentially Conservative policy. They chose the latter, which was the lesser of two evils (though still very much an evil). We campaigned as hard as we could, we mobilised more students than have been mobilised since 1968, we made our voices heard, and our presence felt. We still lost the vote, because there are too many Lib Dems who had to vote 'yes' to keep their jobs.

So, what now? Well for a start, we should keep up the momentum of this movement, and keep the flame of anger which is alight in so many young people, burning. We must not succumb to apathy, or dejection. We have suffered a massive injustice, and have an ideal opportunity to right this wrong.

Next Tuesday the vote goes to the house of Lords, and on Monday mass-protests over the scrapping of EMA are planned. This issue is particularly dear to me; without EMA, I would have probably had to take on a second job whilst doing my A-Levels, and with all of that coupled with my sporting commitments my studies would definitely have suffered massively, which may have meant me not getting into Goldsmiths. For others it is even more important, being the difference between many people I know staying in education or not.

Equally importantly, we must recognise that this Government is far from stable. It is close to collapse, and with an extra push it can be brought to its knees. They have taken a battering over this tuition fee row, and the cracks are already there to see. There will be more rows to come, more splits to exploit, and more strikes and protests to support. All the debates over whether the violence was justified or not, whether the police are human beings just doing their job or power-hungry thugs, and why Charles and Camilla were rollin' through a riot like drug lords at the end of a Jason Statham film are irrelevant.

What is important is to keep in mind that this coalition are pushing through ideologically-driven cuts which will fundamentally change the face of British society without any public consultation, and without previously including them in any manifesto. They have no power to rule, and we must not lie down and let these cuts go ahead. We must continue to take to the streets, to march, to protest, and to fight these cuts. The war is not lost, and the fight is far from over.

Sam Bailey

Postscript - An open note to the Met's High Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson. KETTLES BOIL THINGS. As a friend of mine said yesterday, I'm not sure if the police realise how often it is up to them whether a protest turns violent or not. It is a vicious cycle - the over-enthusiastic use of kettles leads to violence, which leads to the police justifying the use of kettles. Stop kettling us. Democratic protesting is a legal act in the UK, last time I checked. Start treating it as such.