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.

Why Take Action Now?

I have found myself recently involved in a lot of conversations about political apathy, and about how to ensure that the current student campaign against cuts can maintain it's energy and not succumb to the apathy of which our generation has been previously guilty.

But why have we, as a nation, been so apathetic for so long. For me, it is down to two main causes.

Firstly, comfort; the 90s and the 00s, for the most part, have been very comfortable for us Brits. The economy has risen, the level of living for the majority has been maintained or improved, and everyday life in Britain has generally been agreeable.

Secondly, and more importantly, there has not been much of a chance to debate. The governments of Thatcher in the 80s were deeply ideological - and openly so. Thatcher's ideas and policies were clear, and open to either agree or disagree with. The chance, and the reason, to show disagreement and air grievances was clear.

The ideology of the New Labour regime was , however, far from clear. The continuation of thatcher's neoliberal marketisation programme was intertwined with social investment, and policies such as child tax credits. This straddling of both left and right made it unclear whether to protest, and what to protest about. The ideologies of New Labour were well-hidden, and confusingly put into action. The one time we were offered a clear decision to make - whether to go to war or not - the spirit of mass-mobilisation in Britain was displayed, with the largest demonstration is British history in February 2003.

David Cameron did a fantastic job of hiding his ideology throughout both the Tory leadership campaign and the election campaign. The ConDem coalition's early murmurings also did a good job of confusing and hiding their ideologies.

However, with the announcement of these cuts, the Thatcherite ideology driving the Conservative party has become abruptly apparent. Cameron himself also seems less and less willing to act as a centrist, as demonstrated by his recent retort to the Commons that he'd 'rather be a child of Thatcher than a son of Brown'.

Discussing the cuts and fee rises last night with SOAS SU President Jasper Kain, he made an interesting point. It was that most universities in recent years (SOAS included) have been running on a profit, or at least at evens. Cuts to funding are obviously not to be encouraged - but with all sectors of the economy taking a hit, and with the long-term outlook of universities, they could be tolerated. Assuming the coalition is out of power in four years, the universities could potentially take that hit, build up a bit of a deficit, and make up the money at a later date, or through other means. Some departments and services would inevitably suffer, but a good level of programme could still be maintained.

The rising of tuition fees, however, is a measure which would lead to much more long-term damage. Not only would it put thousands of potential students from lower-income families off university all together (and financially cripple those who do go), but it is a measure which cannot be reasonably reversed. Once four years' worth of students pay £6,000, and then £9,000, how can you then lower tuition fees again for following years? It is not just a step, but a giant leap, down the road of American-style fees, and towards creating a monied 'university class' of people - those who can actually afford to attend.

The cancellation of the schedule Lib Dem meeting today was neither a victory nor a loss for the anti-fees campaign; but it did show that our actions are having an effect. The Lib Dems are running scared, and are quickly reversing their plans to vote 'yes'. If we can use both direct action and lobbying to persuade more MP's to do the same, we may just win this battle. The ConDem's are using every dirty trick available to pass the bill, including moving the vote forward a week, and holding it on a Thursday (when many of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MP's will have left to travel home to their constituencies). We must keep up the momentum, and fight until the end.

Lobby your MP to vote 'NO' to the rise in tuition fees (see link below), and come to demonstrate on the 9th December, the day of the vote. Don't let this bill pass. Don't let a generation of students from lower-income families be barred from higher education.

Sam Bailey

LOBBY YOUR MP: www.stopfees.org

FACEBOOK EVENT FOR DEC 9TH: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/event.php?eid=173878782641548

The Fundamental Role of Identification in Tackling 'Violent Radicalism'

No-one is under any illusion about the ongoing threat Britain faces through terrorism inspired by al-Qaeda. In 2007/8 alone 231 terror-related arrests were made in the UK, more than any other country in Western Europe. The threat from terrorism is unlikely to ever be solves; however, there are some fundamental alterations the UK government could make to its policy to manage violent radicalism in a far more effective manner.

The principal area in which Governments’ often go wrong is in identifying who poses the threat. This may sound like a basic point but taking a more informed stance on where the danger lies can transform policy for dealing with terrorism.

The difference that must be identified is the distinction between a ‘radical’ and a ‘violent radical’. This is important for a number of reasons: Firstly, ‘radicals’ can become valuable allies in combating terror. Secondly, you are more likely to avoid alienation and resentment by permitting reasonable debate through allowing non-violent radical opinion to be heard. Finally, it could lead to clawing back some of the basic civil liberties that have been lost through the various Anti-terrorism Acts brought in since 2001.

Demos recently produced a paper which accurately sets out the differences between ‘radicals’ and ‘violent radicals’. They identify ‘radicals’ as making up about 20% of the Muslim population in the UK and these are people who have strict conservative views, but ones which are not violent. ‘Radicals’ believe in the application of Sharia Law and the Caliphate - however, they refuse to defend violent jihad in the West.

‘Radicals’ are not a direct threat to national security, as they argue that, while Islam is not a pacifist religion, violence is only condoned when it is justified- killing innocent civilians is seen as far from justified by ‘radicals’.

‘Violent radicals’ on the other hand, through an ‘us versus them’ ideology, completely reject Western society and place pride and status in damaging it in whatever way possible. The typical way to view the actions of ‘violent radicals’ is to see their use of violence as a means to set the political agenda, an agenda rigidly influenced by Islam. However, research has shown that a better way to view terrorism is as a social epidemic.

It seems that ‘violent radicals’ are predominantly ‘angry young men’ (AYM) who feel alienated from society and see little opportunity to better themselves and, therefore, view terrorism as the only way they can articulate their grievances. This leads me to conclude that terrorism in the West is a social phenomenon rather than a theological one and that religion is simply used as a convenient device in which to frame this action in an attempt to justify it.

There are no easy solutions to dealing with violent radicalism, and it is a problem that will not be wholly solved through central government policy. However, it is through identifying who the threat is that I would recommend the following actions be taken to try and manage Islamic terrorism in the U.K.

Bearing in mind the assumption that violent radicalism is a social issue, the measures taken to tackle terrorism should be designed accordingly. Studies have found that most ‘violent radicals’ exist on the edge of communities and achieve below average educational outcomes. Opportunity for would-be ‘violent radicals’ is a key part of preventing terrorism. Muslims are the most disadvantaged faith group in the Western European labour markets and often live in areas of ghettoisation, which inevitably leads to anger and social tension. Priority should be given to employment as a key element of integration, as the Danish government currently does. Until the inequality in opportunity is tackled then anger among young males, in particular, is inevitable; this can in turn lead to violent radicalisation - not just among young Muslims, but among all social groups.

Specifically regarding young Muslims, the feeling of resentment and alienation must be curbed. More effort must be made to build trust between the police and young Muslims, many of whom feel victimised by police forces. Foreign policy decisions and military interventions have also contributed to the sense of alienation among young Muslims. While the UK government continues to carry out a foreign policy which seems to target and demonise Islam and Islamic countries, resentment is inevitable among members of the UK’s Muslim community.

The actions of the government abroad and the police at home since 2001 has only amplified the feeling of alienation which has created pockets of AYM in Muslim communities, who have grown to detest the West and the way the West seemingly treats Islam.

The approach to ‘radicals’ must also be altered, in light of the fact that they pose no security threat to the UK, but rather simply hold a different political view. By treating ‘radicals’ and their views as a security threat, as the UK currently does, this can lead to security responses against people who detest al-Qaeda’s violent methods. This further alienates the Muslim community and adds to the feeling of resentment among the AYM I have mentioned earlier.

Tackling radicalism is a social issue, not a subset of terrorism, and therefore should be tackled through open debate - not through security measures. By allowing debate you also ensure that young Muslims have a means by which to vent their anger and provide an alternative route to self-esteem.

‘Radicals’ can also be valuable allies in managing terrorism. The Demos study found that many radicals show a healthy respect and fondness towards western values of tolerance. Many accuse ‘violent radicals’ of not knowing Islam and following a warped version of the religion. They reject thinkers such as Abdullah Azzam, who called for direct violent action against the West, and it is in this position that they can play a vital role in deterring would-be ‘violent radicals’ from carrying out acts of terror.

Studies have found that many radical thinkers actively discourage violent radicalism. They are in the best position to stop terrorism, not the UK intelligence services. They have knowledge of potential would-be ‘violent radicals’, and have the authority to prevent them from carrying out violent action, through reason and superior knowledge of Islam, which is what ‘violent radicals’ use as their prism through which violent action is taken.

The UK Government has a very difficult task in tackling terrorism, but by correctly identifying who is the threat they can go a long way to finding a method of managing the problem in a more effective manner. Differentiating between those who want to cause harm to innocent people and those who simply hold a different vision of society is vital, not only in tackling terrorism, but also in upholding civil liberties, something this country used to pride itself on.

Tom Bateman

Demos Website: http://www.demos.co.uk/

Demos: 'The Edge of Violence': http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/theedgeofviolence

The Winter of Direct Action?

I recently had a discussion with my mum about peaceful protesting. She said that in her view violence was never justified. Expressing your political ideologies through violence puts you in the same bracket as suicide bombers and other extremists. She said that peaceful protest was the only civilised way to exercise your democratic rights, and to make sure that public opinion is with you. If public opinion is with you, then leaders will have to listen to you.

I agreed, and stated that in no way did I condone violence towards individuals - from either protestors or the police. I hate the met with a passion, but would not assault an officer, and would not condone anyone I knew doing so (except in very extreme circumstances - never say never, eh?)

However, I said - sometimes peaceful protest is not enough. I used the student protests as an example (as she had not yet read my blog - thankfully she is not one of those mums who comments on my facebook statuses). The point I made was this - sometimes in order to negotiate with someone, you must force them to sit at the negotiation table. I reiterated my point from the previous post about a march being too easy to brush aside. Without Millbank, I could literally imagine Cameron getting back from China to see that all was as it was, and saying to himself that "the cuts were hard to swallow, but necessary and right. These left-wing loons will protest about anything anyway, won't they?", as he continues going about the business of destroying life in Britain for the majority of people. The reports of him anxiously watching the events at Millbank unfold on TV in his hotel room encourage me that we have at least forced his attention.

When you are faced with a government who are as close to unelected as you could reasonably get in 21st Century Britain (the majority needed for parliament only being made after an uneasy and - it has now proved - completely uneven coalition with a party whose election promises are disappearing faster than housing benefits), and who seem determined to unleash the deepest, fastest, and most ideologically-driven cuts in 90-odd years upon a public who not only have had almost no say in them, but are also not even being allowed to fully know the extent of them - that is when voicing your dissent through the means of peaceful protest is no longer enough.

This government, in its short tenure, has already proved that not only is it more than willing to renege on any and every pre-election promise under the shadowy banner of the coalition 'agreement', but it is also willing to push forward with the most extreme measures seen on these shores in almost a century of governance, and it is willing to do this with little or no consultation, and with almost immediate effect.

This government, in my opinion, is not a government with whom peaceful demonstration will work. Showing this government that we do not agree with them is futile. They already know they are deeply unpopular, and do not seem to mind. They are set upon their ideological task, pushed forward by the values which they hold, certain that they are correct. What is needed is to force them into engaging with the public - and once there, to set forth a compelling enough argument so that they have no choice but to negotiate.

As Des Freedman said last week, the violence here is not in the few smashed windows, but in the destruction of the cuts. Direct action - in the form of walk-outs, strikes, and occupations - if done properly, has the potential to force the ConDem's to engage with pubic opinion. To come to an agreement. To find a middle ground.

Aung San Suu Kyi, an international symbol of peaceful resistance, was freed on Saturday after spending 15 of the past 21 years under house arrest in Burma. Upon her release, she said, "There is a time to be silent and a time to talk. People must work in unison. Only then can we achieve our goal". This is our time to talk, and this is our time to force the government to listen. We do not have 15 years. Time is not on our side. If the current government gets its way, it will be too late by midway through next year. We must organise, resist, and occupy. We must force the ConDem's hand. If they won't sit at our table and negotiate, we must put the table in front of their door so that they cannot leave without sitting at it.

I have been in and around other succesful occupations - when done properly, they work. We should re-occupy Millbank. But we should also target the Lib Dem's, who made this government possible. If we can break the coalition, we can enact change. The British may not be used to large-scale protest and direct action, and the 80's may have suffocated much of the air from this political spirit, but this government has inadvertantly breathed new life into it. Now is its time to live again. Now is the time for direct action. Now is the time to effect change.

The Power of The Press

When actors exert power in abstract ways, that is when they begin to hold sway over their target's actions, and even the target's view of itself and its own expectations. The press does this with extraordinary success.

In “The Manufacturing of Consent”, Noam Chomsky writes that the liberal western press is completely controlled by capital, because editors and press barons bow down to the demands of private share holders. Media accuracy and plurality is stifled by those who are from the thin layer of unaccountable cream that lies on top of our unequal society. The press, with their strings pulled by these tycoons, then provides smoke screens for why the economy is slumping, crime is up and tube lines get bombed. The economy is in a bad place because too much money goes to the EU. Crime is up because of an influx of immigrants. The tube lines get bombed because of Islamic extremism. This anti-historical diagnosis to why things happen is extremely dangerous and divisive, and does not examine the specific phenomena in any detail.

The power that the press wields over the identities of the public is incredible. Not even the Catholic Church exerted this amount of control over such huge swathes of people, yet this new dogma is often hailed as a transparent benchmark of the western world. When, at the end of the Cold War, Gorbachev introduced Glasnost into the crumbling USSR, he was hailed as a champion of democracy and the free press. At last, it was said, Russians would receive what they justly deserved - freedom of the press and media plurality. As Margaret Thatcher said, Gorbachev was a man who “she could do business with”. Unfortunately, in 2005 the fearless journalist Anna Politskovkaya was not someone Putin could do business with. She received four bullets at point blank range into her head and chest for her polemics on Russian aggression in Chechnya.

Many of you reading this will say, "well everyone knows that the racist, bigoted news you read in todays press comes from discredited journalists like Melanie Philips and Murdoch-moulded media news channels such as Fox and Sky, Russia merely needs time to separate its media from the state apparatus". This is completely true, but it seems to John Pilger (see link at the bottom of the page) that even the BBC is turning to the tactics of the corporate press (an argument with which I concur greatly).

The respect that the BBC garners lies in its reputation. For many of those in the generation before mine - before the age of the Internet - the BBC was their current affairs bread and butter. However in recent years the BBC has seemed to have lost its credibility and seems more and more answerable to the government. After the Hutton enquiry (which cleared the Labour government of any wrong-doing in the suspicious death of biological weapons expert Richard Kelly and the subsequent purge of possible dissidents within the corporation), the BBC swung to the right. Mark Thompson took over from the no-bullshit Greg Dyke and started to neuter any cutting edge journalistic prowess the BBC had left. To take just two examples; Panorama, a documentary series that used to cut to the very core of the inefficiencies of our government and society, has lost its panache and is currently relegated to analysing tax bureaucracy (see latest showing), and the Daily Politics show is now a platform for slobbering partisan lackeys within the government and the BBC to illustrate their admiration for the red or yellow/blue corner. My grandmother has received more incisive questions on the contents of her homemade cider than any politician has received on this show.

But is it any wonder that the status quo is never truly challenged when the BBC's director general, Mark Thompson, is on over £800k/year, and other such self-proclaimed 'guardians of media plurality' such as Andrew Marr and Fiona Bruce are on similarly stratospheric salaries? It seems Britain is reaching a Berlusconi moment, where political critique is reserved to those who have nothing to gain from turning the establishment on its head.


Nick Rodrigo


John Pilger on the BBC: http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/the-bbc-is-on-murdoch-s-side


More information on the Hutton Enquiry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry

10-11-10: The ConDemNation

It was after the last large-scale protest I attended, the G20 marches at the Bank of England last year, that I first had the wish to create this blog. I was appalled by the tactics used by the attending police officers, whose brutality led to the death of innocent bystander Ian Tomlinson. I myself was kettled for 9 hours, without access to food, water, or a toilet. More to come on that particular experience in future posts.

Two days ago I was fortunate enough to be one of the 50,000 or so protestors on the demonstration against the proposed cuts to the higher education budget. I arrived out of the tube at Westminster having missed the earlier meet-up due to a prior commitment, and immediately felt as though the atmosphere was completely different to that at the G20 march.


We were pleasantly surprised at the large turn-out, but the atmosphere for me was too jovial - a waste of such a successful student mobilisation. It was an event which was too easy to be brushed aside. Until we got to Millbank.


Now, most of the time, I am an advocate of peaceful protest. I believe that if possible, it is much better when confronted with injustice to be the 'bigger person', and to assert your rights in a dignified and educated manner. However, there has to be an impact from your actions. The non-violent resistance of advocates such as Ghandi, Vàclav Havel, and Martin Luther King Jr. worked because of their ability to succesfully mobilise and to draw positive attention to their causes. In each case, a subjugated people were emancipated through the recognition of their humanity and independence. In our media-saturated world, public opinion (as defined by the media portrayal of your cause) is extremely important, and this is why nonviolent and reasonable protest is a good way to show that "we are human too, and we deserve our rights the same as yours".


However, sometimes there is a need for direct action. Sometimes, sitting-in or peacefully demonstrating isn't going to cut it. With Cameron out of the country, and facing the deepest cuts and the hardest shafting we as a nation have ever faced, it is my opinion that our voice needs to be felt, and not just heard. We do not need a peaceful protest. This is not about emancipation or about winning public opinion. This is about showing the government that we, as the younger generation, are not willing to lie down and pay for the mistakes our elders have made, that we are not willing to face a lifetime of hardship so that they can maintain their comfortable lifestyles, that we are not willing to be lied to by a party who portray themselves as 'different' from New Labour or the Tories, and that we are willing to mobilise and to fight the impositions about to be placed upon us. For me, the difference in the type of the fight justifies a difference in the weapons used in that fight.


I am proud to see that the European spirit of direct action has not completely been washed from these shores by the English Channel. I am proud that my university, Goldsmiths, has stood up and defended the actions at Millbank (see links at bottom of page). And I am proud of the students and activists who took action on Wednesday 10th November.


I am not going to use the oft-cited line of defence that "it was only a minority" who sought direct action, and that the majority of the protest was peaceful. For me, that is a failure in the majority of the protest. If Mr. Porter and the rest of the NUS wish to distance themselves from the scenes at Millbank, then so be it. The careerists can have their careers. We will have our protest. We will have our say.


So, don't worry about the media condemnation. Do worry about the future, as outlined, in the ConDem Nation.


Sam Bailey




Statement from Des Freedman and John Wadsworth at Goldsmiths: http://hutnyk.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/todays-demo-gucu-view/


Evening Standard reaction to this: http://bit.ly/92nIoM


Guardian coverage of demo: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/10/student-protests-conservative-party-hq-occupation

Introduction

I will be using this space to document, protest against, and opine on what I have chosen to term the 'subtle fascism' which is increasingly pervading British society.

Since New Labour swept to power on a tide of optimism in 1997, life for the average individual in Britain has become less and less private, more catalogued and more recorded and documented than at any other era. The all-pervasive 'Big Brother' police state of George Orwell's 1984 has well and truly arrived, and the ConDem coalition look keen to continue this fine tradition.


I created this page a year ago, on Blogger's 10th birthday, and intended to try and use the democratising virtues of blogging to attempt to resist, in my own small way, the increasingly un-democratic society of which I am a member. Unfortunately time was not my friend last year, and so it is in November 2010 that I publish my first post here.


Jurgen Habermas, the German cultural theorist, is one major thinker to draw attention to the modern media's erosion of what he calls the 'public sphere'. Habermas describes how the first newspapers (arguably the first form the 'modern' media took) served two main purposes. One was to unite the nation as one homogenous being, through the standardisation of language and the creation of the idea of the nation as a 'community' (you should read Benedict Anderson's 'Imagined Communities' if this interests you). The second was to act as a forum for raw democracy - newspapers would be read aloud in coffee-houses, as large groups of men debated the issues raised, questioned government policy, and sought democratic change by challenging the actions of the state.


Contrast this to today's media outlets - both newspapers and television. As well as the obvious shift from factual or political content to a much more entertainment-focused media, there is also the question of whether newspapers and other media products really present us the news in order to stimulate democratic debate, or whether instead they seek to manipulate the emotions of the media consumer, and bend their will to fit the ideologies and financial motivations of the media institution. A quick flick through the Daily Mail or The Sun is enough evidence to support the latter - with the Mail forever pushing seemingly set ideologies, and The Sun twisting every story to fit the face of whichever power outfit is set to offer them assistance. It does not take me to tell you of Murdoch's perennial plays for power through the switching of The Sun's party allegiance.


There are many problems with Habermas' theory which immediately present themselves - as his image of wealthy, educated and at-leisure men negates the majority of the populace, who could not afford, or were not permitted to, participate in their coffee-house 'democracy'. However, the point he is making, about the media as a 'medium'; i.e as a reasonably impartial purveyor of information, as opposed to a mouthpiece of ideology, holds true. For me, all that has changed is that the men of the coffee-house are now the heads of the media themselves, a closed-off group of private-interest holders who force their version of events upon a public for whom supposedly 'democratic' decisions have already been made.


Submissions are always welcome, email me at shhbbailey@gmail.com if you want to submit anything.


Sam Bailey