WHEN IS COLLUSION CONSPIRACY?

 

The Finucane family get the de Silva Report, December 2012

WHEN is a ‘conspiracy’ only ‘collusion’? And when is collusion only normal life? Sir Desmond de Silva doesn’t answer these vital questions in his review published in December 2012 of the 1989 murder of the human rights lawyer Pat Finucane in Belfast. http://www.patfinucanereview.org/

But he does something rather potent: he publishes hitherto secret material, and in doing so he undermines his own interpretation of the evidence, that there was ‘no overarching state conspiracy.’

Almost despite himself, his report invites the conclusion that ‘conspiracy’ is a diversion.

There needn’t have been a plot: killing nationalists and threatening lawyers was normal life in Northern Ireland.

He was asked to review whether the state was involved. The answer is simple: yes, it was. If there was no conspiracy, his report confirms the evidence of overarching state collusion to kill targeted British citizens in Northern Ireland. What else can we make of evidence that the security forces poured ‘Thousands of items of intelligence material’, some of it in ‘unusual detail’ to the loyalist UDA?

De Silva discloses an alarming statistic: ‘85 per cent of this [intelligence] was drawn from security force records’. Intelligence cascaded into the UDA for a targeted programme of assassinations while it was bringing down the 1985 Anglo-Irish peace deal. This was not counter-terrorism, this was an ‘overarching’ state strategy to sponsor – a word de Silva rejects – auxiliary, unaccountable, sectarian paramilitaries who terrorised nationalists and tried to defeat the peace process.

De Silva confirms that a torrent of intelligence, photographs, maps and profiles, were delivered by the Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary direct to the UDA, and that Finucane was one of many lawyers who received the ‘black spot’ and repeated death threats.

The security services were also arresting loyalists, insists de Silva, as if this was evidence that the state was even-handed. But these arrests can be interpreted in another way: the security services were not culling the loyalist paramilitaries, they were controlling them; they were not disabling, they were directing them — by giving something more deadly than guns or bombs: information.

Those running the RUC, the Army, the Northern Ireland Office and the Joint Intelligence Committee regarded the loyalists as a vital but disreputable rabble. So the Army’s Force Research Unit (FRU) enlisted a former soldier, Brian Nelson, to streamline the UDA’s killing machine. De Silva describes Nelson as ‘to all intents and purposes a direct state employee’ – a remarkable admission. MI5 used Nelson to orchestrate arms shipments to loyalists. The state, it seems, took control of re-tooling the paramilitaries.

All this is known. Indeed the killers of Pat Finucane are known. Investigative journalists, human rights advocates and loyalists themselves boasting about their executions have told us who did it. But what else lies hibernating in the state’s dungeons? De Silva’s insistence that ministers could not have known who was being targeted is bizarre. He appears to take at face value that ‘no records have been identified’ of ministers being briefed about intelligence being delivered to loyalists. We know about ‘no records have been identified….’ We know Doesn’t mean they aren’t there and can’t be found. Records that had not been identified have been found before.

However, he records a Security Policy Meeting on 26 September 1989 – before Finucane’s murder – that was attended by the Northern Ireland secretary and the heads of the security forces, and that was called precisely to discuss the traffic in information.

De Silva confirms that the heads of the security services, the Attorney General, Defence and Northern Ireland secretaries, and Downing Street, discussed the potential damage to public confidence in ‘our attachment to the rule of law’. And the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister were told in 1991 that the potential charges against Nelson – the security services’ hidden hand steering the UDA –  were ‘as serious as they could be,’ indeed the FRU itself ‘might have to be disbanded’ if the public were told what it was getting up to.

We now need a public inquiry to discover who authorised the entire system, to ensure they face justice, and to know that Britain will not collude in such killings again.

The FRU itself, and its boss Gordon Kerr, have never been called to account, and Northern Ireland is the prototype for British so-called counter-insurgency in other wars against terror.

FRU was re-incarnated. It became the  Special Reconnaissance Regiment:

It was implicated in so-called counter-terrorism in London – notoriously the disastrous execution of the unarmed young Mexican worker, Jean Charles Menezes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/04/july7.menezes

The SRC was fielded in Iraq: http://www.scotsman.com/news/international/british-tanks-in-smash-and-grab-raid-1-1096576

There, as if to vindicate the absence of both sense and sensibility in the Iraq war and occupation, the role of Britain’s undercover ops was to fill the ‘intelligence void.’

The SRC was to be found in the havoc of Libya, too.

So,still, British secret ops in Northern Ireland are invoked as exemplary.

And Gordon Kerr is still at large. Read this, published in

The Detail

12 December 2012

                 

                                     FRU chief Gordon Kerr

BY BARRY McCAFFREY

FRU chief Gordon Kerr

BY BARRY McCAFFREY

The Stevens and Cory reports confirmed security force collusion in the killing of Pat Finucane in the shape of Brian Nelson, Billy Stobie and Ken Barrett.

Nelson was recruited by the British army’s Force Research Unit (FRU) to infiltrate the UDA in the mid 1980s.

From his position as the UDA’s most senior intelligence officer he supplied his FRU handlers with continuous intelligence on the activities of the loyalist terror group.

However, rather than this intelligence helping to save lives, Nelson and his FRU handlers actively supplied the UDA with information which resulted in up to a dozen murders.

Judge Cory found ’’worrisome’’ evidence that Nelson’s handlers passed on intelligence to him, including the registration of a car used by Sinn Fein’s Alex Maskey.

Maskey was later shot and seriously wounded.

Nelson would later plead guilty to conspiracy to murder the Sinn Fein councillor.

FRU documents uncovered by Stevens disclosed how on another occasion Nelson told a handler that he was having difficulties targeting a suspected republican.

The documents show that the FRU handler then carried out surveillance on the home of the would-be murder victim and supplied Nelson with photographs of the house so that he could produce a useful targeting package and thereby “impress” his UDA superiors.

While FRU handlers denied passing on intelligence a statement by Nelson to the Stevens team in 1993 revealed that one of his handlers had gone through his UDA intelligence files “weeding out” out of date material.

Nelson would later tell Stevens’ detectives that he had warned his FRU handlers up to eight weeks prior to the solicitor’s murder that he was to be targeted.

Through out Nelson’s role as a double agent Gordon Kerr was the officer commanding FRU in Northern Ireland.

Nelson later claimed in a prison journal that Kerr had driven a scout car to protect the agent as he moved intelligence documents for the UDA.

He further alleged that Kerr had suggested that the UDA should carry out a bomb attack on an oil refinery in Co Cork to put pressure on the Irish government at a time when it was resisting efforts to extradite republican suspects back to the north.

At Nelson’s trial in 1992 Kerr gave evidence in which he claimed that intelligence supplied by the agent had saved 214 lives, with only three fatalities.

However Kerr’s evidence was later called into question, with Cory concluding:

“Some might think that the testimony of the CO of FRU (Kerr) was, at the very least, misleading. In fact, on further scrutiny, it becomes even more questionable. During a chance meeting shortly after his testimony, (Kerr) told Chief Superintendent McFadden, of the Stevens Inquiry team, that he had made a “script” of his evidence and it was approved by others in authority.

“He later denied making such a comment. If he did make that comment one might wonder why a script was necessary and whether it indicates that something less than the truth was to be stated.”

After having visited Nelson in prison in 1992, Kerr wrote:

“We then talked a little about the Stevens interview technique and how he had been under the impression he was helping them to `clean up the UDA’ rather than talking himself into the dock.

“I summarised the position by gently reminding him that if he had obeyed the advice of his handler he would never have spoken to the Inquiry Team, would not have divulged his role, and would not have been prosecuted.”

When Nelson accused FRU of having placed him in an impossible position inside the UDA, Kerr concluded:

“It was not a very convincing excuse, but it indicated to me that he had really collapsed under the weight of his situation and once he started talking he could not stop. In fact he had been presented with a perfectly good cover story for the UDA i.e. he would tell his colleagues that he had destroyed the dump because he did not want it found by the Stevens Inquiry.”

Cory concluded that Kerr’s actions reflected a “pattern of conduct and an attitude consistent with acts of collusion taking place” and said that only a public inquiry could conclusively decide whether agents of the state were guilty of collusion in the murder of its citizens.

“In this case only a public inquiry will suffice. Without public scrutiny doubts based solely on myth and suspicion will linger long, fester and spread their malignant infection throughout the Northern Ireland community.”

What shall we make, then, of De Silva’s Finucane review? Its importance is not that he exonerates Whitehall, but that he hasopened up more truth-seeking opportunities for the Finucane family. David Cameron is misled if he believes that his admission and apology in the House of Commons in December 2012 will be the end of it.

(A shorter version of this appeared in the Guarian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/commentisfree+uk/mi5)

R-E-S-P-E-C-T me and never hit me!

Girls and boys and violence

 

We need a soul revival to spread the word of Aretha Franklin’s great 1967 hit – one of the first to cross over from black Rhythm and Blues to white pop. Or we need Anna Calvi or Lady Gaga or even Rihanna to do a new cover version of this great anthem. We need it more than ever before because too many girls think they don’t deserve it.

That is the only way to interpret the sad statistic that half of teenage boys think it is ok to hit a girl or force her to have sex. And more than a third of boys actually expect to hit a girlfriend or force a girl to have sex.

On March 5 the government announced that it is extending domestic violence offences to under18s.

This is a positive response to campaigners against men’s violence toward women, and to the evidence gathered both by the NSPCC and feminist activists over the years.

What it tells us is that teenagers’ relationships are no less at risk of violence than adults.

Perhaps this should come as no surprise. But still, it does.  Those statistics provokes a gasp, a spasm of great sadness, and a sudden loss of confidence that the present is surely better than the past, that the future will be more humane and peaceful and that boys will be better and girls will be braver.

Behind those figures there is an expectation of violence; there is the rustle of pessimism among teenagers about the very idea of respect.

For a start, there seems to be a prevailing notion that girls will provoke boys beyond reason, that they will cheat, or cheek and that they will, therefore, deserve those slaps and pushes and kicks.

This is a somewhat different – and more disheartening – worldview from the notion that men and boys are somehow hapless, out of control, or that they are – as it says on the T-shirt – trouble.

It is a view of boys that they are somehow entitled to power in a relationship, and the referee is their pride: injured pride attracts the right to retribution; it is his duty to society and himself to sort her out!

This is not a million miles off the historic defense in cases of homicide -  ‘crime of passion’: he was provoked, his reputation was affronted, and he was therefore, entitled to kill her. Two women are killed every week in Britain by the partners or ex-partners.

Worst of all, the evidence tells us something so dispiriting about our shared ‘common sense’ – the thoughts we have when we are not thinking. It is that we expect boys to be violent and girls to be vulnerable, to be victims.

This won’t do! What young men need is an unyielding zero tolerance of violence, an optimism that masculinity can become non-violent; that intimate relationships will be peaceful. We want to make a break with that historic correlation between masculinity, violence and mastery over women and the earth and everything; and between femininity and victimization.

Let’s go to it sistas, R-E-S-P-E-C-T!

 

 

 

Did the British state collude in the killing of three unarmed republicans?

Sam Marshall’s assassination in 1990

Now we know the security services were there.

 

The only people who knew that three men were signing on at the Royal Ulster Constabulary post in Lurgan Northern Ireland in 1990 were the three men themselves, their solicitor the police and security services.

It was always a dangerous visit – Sam Marshall, Tony McCaughey and Colin Duffy were Republicans, they were traveling through hostile Loyalist territory to the police station. These visits were part of their bail conditions.

Duffy noticed a familiar red Maestro circling them – these men’s lives depended on noticing everything, and he’d noticed it before.

Minutes later the three were ambushed in a torrent of bullets. Sam Marshall died, the other two escaped.

The smell of collusion has swirled around that ambush for 20 years. It was, of course denied.  Who was in that red Maestro?  And who was traveling in the maroon Rover that accompanied it? The first evidence to vindicate charges of collusion emerged during an extradition case in the US, when the police admitted that the Maestro men were security services personnel. And the weapons that fired the 49 bullets had been used in other assassinations.

Twenty-two years later we have been told by the Northern Ireland Historical Enquiries Team:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-17251032

that there were eight officers around the scene, and six cars. Two soldiers had followed the men from the police station and ‘partially witnessed’  shooting, only yards away. They did not intervene. The assassins escaped. The guns were not found.

The HET comes to no conclusion about security forces’ collusion in the killing – but does not rule it out.

 

The men’s families believe that the guns used were part of a cache of weapons smuggled from South Africa by the security services, through their agent Brian Nelson, and distributed among the main loyalist paramilitary organizations.

See a fuller account of this in my book Agreement! The State, Conflict and Change in Northern Ireland, Lawrence and Wishart 2008.

 

The British re-invigorated a campaign of assassination against republicans – just at the moment when both sides in the Northern Ireland armed conflict were contemplating peace.

 

 

Murder report opens 'can of worms'
 Sam Marshall

November 30 Pensions Strike – ‘Haves and Have-Nots’ infers wrong lesson from irrelevant comparison

Just had a head-to-head with the Tory commentator Dominic Lawson on the Jeremy Vine show: discussing the public sector pensions strike. He proposes that the problem is not the government’s attack on the public sector and its pensions it is the relationship between the ‘haves’   and the ‘have-nots’. No, this is not a Tory lamenting the cruel gap between rich and poor, it is a Tory deflecting attention away from the cruel inequalities in the private sector:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-it-is-the-haves-going-on-strike-not-the-havenots-6269308.html

Lawson’s argument was reiterated by Tory minister David Willetts on Radio 4’s The World at One. It shows a remarkable sway of denial. It is the wrong inference from an irrelevant comparison.

The public sector is not to blame for rubbish private sector pensions, it is not to blame for private employers’ abandonment of employers’ contribution to private sector pensions; nor is it to blame for the relentless march of inequality over the last 30 years – synchronising exactly with the rise and rise of neo-liberalism in the global economy.

The Britain bequeathed by the neo-liberal thrall is one of the most unequal societies in Europe – since 1980 workers’ share of the national income has declined from 45 per cent to 157 per cent.

There is an unspoken, inchoate resentment shadowing the resentment of the public sector and indeed the values of public service: it is called misogyny. Sixty-five per cent of public sector workers are women.

They aren’t to blame for the 25 per cent that was wiped off private pensions by the credit crunch, according to Ros Altman, director of Saga:  http://www.rosaltmann.com/independent_metlife_may09.htm

Nor are they to blame for the five years worth of contributions estimated by PriceWaterhouse Coopers to have been wiped off during the 2011 summer stock market crash.

There is a semantic ‘surge’ being mobilised by the deniers: a vocabulary borrowed from the language of class and privilege in Britain is being mobilised against public service. Tories now cite the private sector, hailed for three decades as the paragon of economic virtue, as a victim.

But pensions expert Ros Altman reminds who is the private sector pensions banker – it isn’t the public:

‘The idea that equity markets might not deliver over the long term was never seriously entertained by policymakers. Nobody explained to workers that they were effectively gambling their future security on the stock market without any form of insurance to protect themselves against the risks of poor equity returns and rising life expectancy.’

Society wrought in the image of the private sector, equity markets and neo-liberalism has produced Britain as one of the most unequal societies in Europe.

Since 1980 the workers/taxpayers share of national income: from 45 per cent 1980 to 157 per cent 2007.

Private sector employers have largely abandoned contributions to private pensions. The desperation felt about the declining value of private pensions has to be located alongside the declining value of the basic state pension: it is one of the lowest in Europe.

‘The entire UK pension system has been based on a bet that equities would always do well enough over the long term to deliver good pensions,’ says Altman. ‘Generous final salary schemes – as well as forecasts for good personal pensions – all relied on the equity gamble paying off. The expected strong equity returns also enabled successive governments to cut UK state pensions over time.’

 

Britain has the largest funded private pension system in Europe – and lowest level of pensions as a percentage of earnings in Europe.

Women employed in the public sector are not responsible for any of this. They probably didn’t vote for it, they certainly didn’t cause it.

 

To Be or Not to Be On Strike…

 

The strategic implications of the government’s plan for pensions take us to the re-structuring of the state itself, and to the ethics of industrial action in the public sector. They are connected.

The industrial action is vulnerable to the charge that it is about individual interests v public interest, and that charge that the victims are not big power but people dependent on public servants.

Listening to strikers it is apparent that they are very afraid of the coalition government’s surgical attack on the public sector and the culture of public service: November 30 it is about money, jobs, services and the people who need and use those services.

It is about everything.

But after all the years of purgatory into which trade unions were thrown by Thatcherism, no new idiom of ‘industrial action’ has been invented to address the historic anomaly of strikes in public service: the target isn’t profit or corporate power, it is a person; it is persons whose needs make them powerless.

Without doubt the day of action has concentrated the collective mind on the detail of the coalition’s re-distributive consequences, but it has not resolved the anxious hesitations of people who support the theory behind the strike but not its practise. If trade unions are recovering their nerve and purpose, they also need to improvise action that can inspire and engage those who need them most: the people like them – the people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cameron’s Troubles: Cowley and Stuart tell us why this is big!

Here is a terrific analysis of the Tory Euro Sceptics’ significance

The Conservative Euro revolt: 10 points to note

Oh happy days. Just when we think we’re getting a bit tired of doing this rebellions lark, along comes something like Monday’s Euro rebellion.  We knew it would be big, but we were surprised it was quite that big.  Today’s Sun has a Rebelometer, which points to: Utter Disaster.  That’s going a bit far, but not much.

 

So here’s ten points to bear in mind about last night’s rebellion:

 

0.This has not come from out of the blue.  As we’ve been saying for months now, this is the most rebellious parliament of the post-war era, with a rate of rebellion easily outstripping any other Parliament since 1945.  Cameron had already suffered multiple rebellions over Europe in particular before Monday.  This was just the latest, and  the largest.

 

0.In a broader sense, this is also evidence of an argument we have been making for years (and which was made, before us, by Philip Norton).  Contrary to the golden ageism of received wisdom – and more than one columnist who should know better – MPs have been getting more rebellious and independent-minded in recent years, not less.  This is the latest record-breaking rebellion, but it’s the latest in a long line.

 

0.It was, as everyone has said (and we wonder just how they know it so confidently?), the largest Conservative European rebellion since the war, double the size of the largest Maastricht revolt.  But because it outstrips the Labour Euro rebellion that occurred in January 1978, it is also the largest European rebellion by members of any party since the war.  Indeed, as someone pointed out last night, there weren’t an awful lot of Euro rebellions before the war, so we could just as easily say: this was the largest rebellion by members of any political party over Europe since dinosaurs ruled the earth.

 

0.It is not the largest Conservative or Labour rebellion on any issue since 1945 – both sides have seen larger rebellions in recent years.  But it comes pretty close.  Indeed, aside from the gun control rebellions faced by John Major in early 1997, the largest of which saw 95 Conservative MPs vote against their whips, we make this the largest rebellion to hit a Conservative Prime Minister since 1945.  From 1951 until 1974 the largest Conservative rebellion numbered 69; Margaret Thatcher then saw 72 Conservative MPs vote down the Shops Bill in 1986.  This outstrips the lot of them.

 

0.It took Tony Blair six years to face a revolt this big.  Indeed, he survived his whole first term as Prime Minister without facing a rebellion of 80+ MPs – and he had far more MPs to worry about.

 

0.Yes, Labour are split on this too.  But not as badly, and anyway no one cares about divisions in Opposition Parties.  During the 1992 Parliament it was Labour MPs, not Conservatives, who had been the most rebellious; even over Europe – the issue that so damaged the Major Government – it was Labour MPs who were the most divided.  No one noticed (except us).

 

0.Aside from the scale of the rebellion, two things that should concern the whips.  First, one of our rules of rebellions is that they almost always end up being smaller than the figures that were initially bandied around: deals are done, favours called in, appeals to party loyalty are made. Would-be dissidents are usually bought off by a series of concessions and compromises, by their desire not to harm their own government, and (in some cases) by the lure of self-advancement.  This probably happened here, but by nowhere near enough.  In part, this will be because of the issue – it’s a difficult one to negotiate over – but also because once rebellions hit a certain size there is safety in numbers, as happened over Trident in 2007.  But it’s also because there was no mood for compromise on the part of the rebels.  There is a Masada-like tendency developing on the Conservative benches that should worry the government’s business managers.

 

0.Our second rule is that just like domestic arguments between husband and wife, disputes between front and backbenches are almost never just about the issue being argued over.  This rebellion was about Europe, but it wasn’t just about Europe.  It was also evidence of the broader frustrations on the Conservative backbenches.  That came across strongly in many of the speeches, evidence of a lack of trust, of respect.

 

0.We have some sympathy with those who argue that the government should have made this a free or semi-free vote, and allowed MPs to let off steam, rather than whip it.   But that was hardly a pain-free option.  How big would the pro-referendum vote have been in that case?  100? 150? 200?  Does anyone really think that having rallied, say, 150 MPs to his cause, David Nuttall would have decided that he’d had his fun and then kept schtum about the issue for the next few years?  If the whip had been relaxed, then all of today’s headlines would be about how almost the entire backbench had told Cameron where to go, and all those writing pieces about how the Prime Minister had mishandled the affair would merely be writing different pieces on how he had mishandled the affair.

 

0.We’ll be publishing a more nerdy analysis of the voting later today.  But here’s one finding for now.  Of the 81 Conservative rebels, a massive 48 were new MPs, elected in 2010.  Another of the normal rules of rebellions is that newly elected MPs can more easily be kept onside.  Not this lot.

 

Philip Cowley and Mark Stuart

 

 

 

The Face of Louise Mensch – a Matter of Public Interest?

The Guardian has rendered a great public service in exposing the News of the World, mobile phone hacking and the difference between investigative journalism and inappropriate tittle tattle and  invasions of people’s privacy.

 

But what is this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/deccaaitkenhead

 

Exposing Louise Mensch for having a facelift.

 

What was brave, illuminating or newsworthy about sharing with Guardian readers little telltale signs of cosmetic surgery? I thought it was – as Omar might say –  unseemly. As it happens, Mensch gave as good as she got. But the game the Guardian interviewer played with Mensch, trying and failing to extract a denial, revealed more about faux journalistic heroism than Mensch’s body politics.

 

Are we to be enlightened by revelations of dandruff on politicians’ suits, nail biting habits, hair in ears and noses? No of course not, because that’s about blokes and who cares.

 

 

Pornographer’s Summit – not welcome in our city


a delegate "dances" for protesters at the pornographers conference

Feminists to stage ‘meat market’ outside porn trade summit

 

Feminists organised a cute  protest on  23/9/11 outside XBIZ EU, an international pornography trade summit, at the Edwardian Radisson Hotel in Bloomsbury Street – dressed as butchers and businessmen trading in women’s body parts. Delegates – some of them already, obviously, having begun their happy hour early – came out to see the kerfuffle. Perma-tans and exotic coiffure were de rigueur.  The gentleman above was very enthusiastic, as you can see.

 

Swiftly, however, the police and later Radisson staff, escorted the gentlemen back into the hotel so that the women could carry on, unharrassed, with their peaceful protest.

Speakers at XBIZ EU included porn baron Berth Milton, Chairman and CEO of Private Media Group, and Michael Klein, president of Hustler, founded in 1974 by Larry Flint, is now a major producer of pornographic DVDs and online content. In 1978 the Hustler magazine featured an infamous front cover image of a woman’s body being mutilated by a meat grinder.

The global pornography industry is estimated to be worth $97 (US) billion.

OBJECT has launched the STOP.PRESS.PORN campaign to call on the Government to end the sexual objectification of women in newspapers and to end the Page 3 phenomena – already been supported by the Lib Dem Party Conference.

Kat Banyard, Director of UK Feminista, said:

“The pornography industry butchers women. Brutal, body punishing acts are now routine in mainstream porn and women are presented merely as a collection of body parts, deserving and desiring of pain. The pimps and porn moguls gathered at this are part of a global industry ruthlessly seeking new and profitable ways to carve up sexuality and trade away women’s equality. The Radisson Edwardian hotel is hosting a brutal meat market, not a lavish corporate conference.

“For decades the pornography industry has enjoyed unchecked expansion. It’s time to wrestle power back from the pornographers. With a review into the culture and ethics of the press underway, the Government must ensure that pornographic imagery – like ‘Page 3’ – is a key part of this review.”

Anna van Heeswijk, Campaigns Coordinator at OBJECT, said:

“This is not the porn of yesteryear. Pornography today is increasingly violent, body punishing, degrading and woman hating. Hardcore porn is the norm and it is being accessed by boys as young as 11 on the internet and on mobile phones. The messages and images from porn are infiltrating every aspect of our popular culture and women and girls are bearing the brunt of increased levels of violence, sexual abuse and harassment that accompany pornification.

Our message is clear: ‘women are human, stop treating us like objects’.”

 

Julia Long from the London Feminist Network said:

“This summit is being presented as a lavish, respectable corporate event, when in fact it is a brazen opportunity for the porn industry to plan new ways of profiting from the exploitation of women. No matter how slick and sophisticated the presentation, it is the still the same old meat market just below the surface. This protest is sending an important message that Xbiz is not welcome in London.”

 

Sabinra Qureshi from Million Women Rise said:

 

“The public deserve to know the truth and reality behind the so called sex industry and the harm that underpins it, not the glamorised version the media and events like this tend to promote.”

 

 

 

 

 

Protesters meet and greet Porn Industry

 

 

 

 

 


Murdoch’s Money and Metropolitan Police Madness

There is no way that Rupert Murdoch’s proposed offer of around 3 million to the Dowler family can be anything but unsettling. The money, mighty to the family, miniscule to the Murdochs – draw attention to the contradictions swirling around the deal.

This is not to join the tendency to deride ‘compensation culture’: redress and reparation are important contributions to individuals whose wellbeing has been vitally injured, to their recovery, and to social recognition.

The cruel irony for the Dowlers is that these millions compromise their own wellbeing: this money is about someone who can never profit from it, Millie. The Dowlers will now have to manage Murdoch’s largesse. Nothing can ever be enough, and yet this is already too much.

 

They will also have to manage the meaning of Murdoch’s offer. There is no restorative justice here. Murdoch himself needed to meet the Dowlers, he needed  his face-to-face humbling because he and his empire needed forgiveness. He needed to perform virtue and to have it rewarded and recognised by his victims.

So, this offer denotes neither contrition nor conscience nor compensation – because those words imply change.

What is Murdoch giving the Dowlers? The money is peanuts for an empire that is almost the most powerful media organisation in the world. It is pennies for the man himsef, reckoned to be the 13th most powerful person in the world.

What he is not giving the Dowlers nor the other hacking victims, nor British culture, which has been so degraded by his presence, is the promise of dignified and deep reform of his media practices.

The context of the offer is salutory: in the very same week the Metropolitan police tried to mobilise the Official Secrets Act to scare the Guardian, the scourge of News International.

It was the Guardian’s revelations about the NoW hacking and interference in the Dowler investigation that detonated the hacking scandal. It morphed from a scandal about celebrity privacy to a scandal about the the breaching of any code, public or private; and it exposed a most dangerous triangulation: the intimate circuit connecting the News International, the Met and Conservative Party HQ. The promiscuous spread of NoW personnel into the police and the highest echelons of a political party secures for the Tories illicit access to information. Knowledge is power.

The Dowlers didn’t put themselves into that scandal – but they are in it, nevertherless.

The Met’s audacity in trying to terrify the press with the Official Secrets Act shows that it is still trying to lock the gates of the Temple rather than cleanse it. The Met is still trying to protect itself rather than the public and the public interest. The Met’s managers don’t seem to know what world they are living in after Dowlergate – until the outraged reaction forced withdrawal.

Not to have anticipated the calumny caused by the Dowler case and then by the Official Secrets Act caper, exposes its media department – a quarter of its staff former NoW hacks – as equally unworldly.

This week Conservative Party HQ isn’t in the narrative, but if the Met is News International’s security arm – see Jonathan Freedland: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/20/new-met-chief-u-turn-misjudgment – then the Tories are also hardwired into this circuit. This is very sinister.

Unwittingly the Dowlers found themselves positioned in this narrative and the campaign to crack hacking – http://hackinginquiry.org/news/hacked-off-manifesto – it is to be hoped that the money won’t take them out of it.

Why Not Go Green?

 

 

 

D’you know, I don’t understand why people of sound mind aren’t voting Green. The Lib Dems have been for many a tactical alternative to the dismaying trajectory of New Labour, slinking into neo-Liberalism.

For a ravishing account of that journey see Stuart Hall’s latest intervention in the new edition of Soundings, www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/contents.html  and its shorter version in the Guardian

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/12/march-of-the-neoliberals

 

For many, Ed Miliband’s election as leader of the Labour Party  seemed to promise a twinge, a flicker, of hope that Labour might renewal itself and it might achieve that by transplanting a bit of radical DNA into its bloodstream. But Miliband’s performance at the TUC this week showed a man entrapped, not a man empowered. Does he and his milieu have any  how to think positive and think progressive at the same time? This is not a leader expecting to lead. Only a man expecting to manage.

A bit of canvassing for the Greens in the Highgate local by-election this month has yielded interesting insight into the agonies of Labour voters: there are 29 Labour councillors in Camden. Unassailable. There is one Green councillor. For left of centre voters the contest is between the Greens and Labour. The Greens are seen as the progressive option, and yet the sense of Labour supporters being snared by loyalty is palpable.

In England lending support to the Greens is the hopeful thing to do, it releases the possibility of re-discovering the joys of politics as the art of the simultaneously reasonable and the radical, of engagement rather than the dismal experience of political pessimism and loneliness.

What, anywhere, is better than the Green Manifesto, as a way of thinking about how to sort stuff out.

www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/resources/EasyRead_Green_Party_Manifesto_web.pdf

 

www.neweconomics.org/projects/greennewdeal

 

What’s not to like?Â