‘We had no idea whether these were police, whether they were terrorists, whether they were somebody else’

The above quote comes from a comment under cross-examination made at the inquest by one of the commuters on the same tube as Jean Charles de Menezes was shot.  Both of the commuters who gave evidence state that they heard no warning given by the cops.

Nicholas Hilliard QC, counsel to the inquest, asked him: “Had you heard anything said about police?” Mr Livock replied: “No, certainly not.

This contradicts the evidence given by the firearms cops who claim they shouted, “armed police”. And as we know, British police never ever lie, do they…..

Further criticism of the Green Paper on welfare reform

Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) have “major reservations” about the Green Paper on welfare reform (No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility).

Many of the building blocks for the proposed further advance of welfare reform are untried, and will be establishing themselves at a time of economic uncertainty and rising unemployment. The whole background against which ESA is rolled out, lone parents transfer from income support to JSA and the Flexible New Deal is introduced, may be substantially different to that against which these changes were planned.

They also argue that the Green Paper is a major departure from the principles of Beveridge, the importance of social security. The Green Paper, they maintain, puts forward policies and initiatives without being based on evidence. Their conclusion states close monitoring, evaluation and calls for a commission looking at benefits for working age people.

TUC’s comments on the Green Paper.

Darling: spend, spend, spend

Seems like Darling is going to spend, spend, spend……

But what will this investment consist of? More fat juicy contracts to featherbed Britains’s rubbish corporate sector? Where is the publivc debate on how this money will be spent?

Ordinary people who work long hours slogging there guts out need to know that this investment will be in the green industries of the future, in housing, in childare and in the myriad neglected things than will build a better future for all and not just for a privleged elite. So the other thing we need is proper accountability for both the political class and for their corporate paymasters.

Larry Elliott argues that the economy is more “unbalanced” after 11 years of a Labour government. Well, one thing is for certain, more rich people have been created under NL:

And after the deluge, what then? It would be nice to report that lessons have been learned and that the future promises tougher controls on credit creation, the renaissance of the industrial base to meet the environmental challenge, the permanent cageing of the City. But do you honestly believe that is going to happen, whoever is in charge? No, me neither.

Rampant unfettered free market capitalism has crashed the economy and is dragging us all into a recession. But somehow the bankers and Brown won’t be “feeling” the pain we will be facing.

Who is gonna be the next Dr Who?

So after a Xmas special and four further episodes, David Tennant will be handing back his sonic screwdriver and keys to the Tardis as he will be leaving the role of Dr Who.

The universe won’t be the same without the manic plimsoll wearing Dr who used to shout “run” a lot.

 

So who will take over the baton and became the next Dr….?

Isn’t it time we had a woman?

What can be done about child poverty?

These reports commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on child poverty make interesting reading. They explore every aspect of poverty, not just the financial and how this impacts on a child’s wellbeing and the knock on effects.

Child poverty’s consequences are wide-ranging and long-lasting. Children from low-income families are less likely to do well in school, and more likely to suffer ill-health and to face pressures in their lives that help to explain an association with anti-social behaviours and criminality.

Harpymarx as said before and will say again: we need programmes of work to provide affordable housing and childcare. We also need more people employed in health and education. We do not need tax cuts to fund SUV’s, fancy holidays and private schools.

One demand which could make a difference would be to have a progressive taxation system. Put bluntly, tax the fecking rich! These are basic social democratic demands.

Hat tip: The F Word

Michael White on welfare reform

Michael White in today’s Guardian gives his own impressions of welfare reform.

They fear punitive tabloid language and money-saving motives, reinforced by coercion, all based on slender evidence. Nonsense, reply the loyalists. Is the glass half full or half empty?

I chose the quote at the end of the article because it sums up concerns about welfare reform. Fanning the flames of hate by blaming the most powerless in this society along with NL playing right-wing populism i.e. getting those workshy scroungers off the dole and into any old job. NL is in a quandary and also contradictory. Is welfare reform about, in all honesty, getting people into work by supportive mechanisms based on their terms and choices? No, not in a million years, it is also supply side economics and non compliance gets you penalised and benefit sanctions (that will lead to increased poverty).

More stress. More despair. More fear. That is missing from White’s article as he doesn’t tackle the impact these pernicious reforms will have on people. What else is missing is NL’s love-in with the private sector, contracting out public services by throwing good money after bad. Milllions of pounds has been spent to encourage and incentivise the private sector to take on the contracts.

Chucking good money after bad. Supporting people shouldn’t be about making profits, bonuses and incentives. It should be about what is in the best interests of the indivudual not whether you can “park” or “cream” them. Again, White doesn’t mention NL’s worshipping at the altar of free-market capitalism and inviting the likes of David Freud to advise on welfare reform.

Unfortunately, Michael White, the glass is most definitely half empty.

Employment and Support Allowance: a contradiction?

So today is the brave new dawn of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and Incapacity Benefit is no more. Gordon Brown was meeting with business leaders talking tough about welfare reform.

Welfare reform will be intensified and, as we do, we should also match the right to additional support with the responsibility on people to do all they can to help themselves.

But what of this new benefit, ESA? NL insisted that the amounts paid to people going from IB to ESA would remain the same. But, according to CPAG, this has been reneged upon.

Government commitments that claimants would not receive lower amounts on the new benefit have not been kept for all groups.

Disability Alliance highlight that in the Green Paper, No one written off, IB claimants on higher rates of benefit will have their benefit rate gradually brought into line with the rate they would be entitled to under ESA. This means in reality means a cut.

… a freeze of ESA rates [that] may increase the poverty experienced by many disabled people.

But one man is pleased as punch at the arrival of ESA and the fanfare he thinks it deserves. Indeed, James Purnell has this to say:

In the 1990s people were written off on incapacity benefit with no help to overcome their problems or support to get them into work. It is even more important during an economic downturn that we increase support for people not take it away. The introduction of employment and support allowance … will offer the help and support disabled people and people with ill health are telling us they want in order for them to get back to work.

ESA is undermining and will create more fear, a fundamental attack on social democracy. NL claims to support people back into employment but are punished through increased conditionality and penalties. And if they don’t attend work focussed interviews further sanctions await. Employment and Support Allowance has one massive sting in its tail.

Jean Charles de Menezes inquest: C12 under cross-examination

C12, one of the shooters who shot Jean Charles de Menezes being cross-examined by Michael Mansfield:

Under cross-examination by Michael Mansfield QC, for the Menezes family, C12 said he had been sitting in an unmarked car outside Stockwell station awaiting instructions when De Menezes arrived on the bus.

“Did you hear any radio traffic from the firearms team saying, ‘We can’t do it [intercept him] – we’re not there’?” Mansfield asked.

C12 replied: “No, sir.”

Mansfield continued: “Because the truth was, you were there and you could have done it, couldn’t you?”

C12 answered: “Yes, sir.”

C12 then apologised for failing to tell his superiors he had been in a position to intercept De Menezes. “You are correct: the onus was on me in that situation,” he told Mansfield. “I was listening to the radio, waiting to pick up what I could and waiting for a decision to come through.

“The only explanation I am offering to you is that things happened so quickly as we came closer. Why I did not tell them where I was, I just cannot tell you. I was trying to listen to the radio, I had a lot going on, and if that is an error, then, you know, I apologise for it.”

Again, this throws up some many questions such as why C12 didn’t tell his superiors that he was sitting in an unmarked car outside the tube station. Also, Rick at Ten Percent asks (in the comments box) a very pertinent question about:

what kind of culture these shooters live in, what movies books, tv, what political/racial attitudes, because it was their decision in that carriage after a completely botched briefing/surveillance and what informed that is important.

The core of their ideology is to take orders without thinking for themselves and not to question their surroundings or to use their initiative. Instead C12 was waiting for those instructions to be explicitly given over the radio before he took action. He coulda intercepted but chose not to. And apologies are just not enough.

Nitin Sawhney: Days of Fire

I unfortunately missed seeing Nitin Sawhney playing live on television the other night, seeing the post on the Justice4Jean reminded me. A song from his new album London Undersound, Days of Fire, is about the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and which was sang live by Natty, who, along with other members of the band were wearing Justice4Jean t-shirts.

I saw Nitin Sawhney live around late 2001 at the Albert Hall. He was fantastic, his set is both musical and visual. He fuses different styles of music together and is eclectic. His lyrics are poignant, powerful, haunting and political set to beautifully crafted music. And he wrote the music for the play Fallujah by Jonathan Holmes. He is playing live in London again early 2009.

UFFC procession

I remember marching through the snow and blizzard in Wolverhampton’s town centre in early 1987 protesting at the death of Clinton McCurbin, a young Black man, who had died as a result of being restrained by two cops.

At the UFFC procession yesterday stewards were handing out leaflets with the names of people who have died in custody in the UK during the past 40 years. Around 2,533 have died whilst in the “care” of the cops, prisons, secure hospitals and immigration detention centres. List isn’t complete. On that list was the name of Clinton McCurbin.

Twenty years on we are still marching for justice for the people who have died in the “care” of the state. Janet Alder spoke about the death of her brother, Christopher Alder. Family members spoke about Leon Patterson and Sean Rigg. This is the tenth year of this procession. I saw a banner remembering Joy Gardner, placards remembering Joseph Scholes and the family of Jean Charles de Menezes walking alongside his banner.

I attended last year and recall Pauline Campbell holding the banner that remembered Sarah. She too spoke about Sarah and the way she died. And that justice was being denied. Janet Alder mentioned Pauline in her speech yesterday. The loss was palpable along with her vibrant and dynamic spirit missing. The banner remembering Sarah was being carried by friends and supporters of Pauline, and it was good to speak Pauline’s friend Joan. I spoke briefly to the family of Sean Rigg’s family.

Walking from Trafalgar Square to Downing Street to lay flowers at the gate (it is appalling that the families aren’t allowed to walk through the gate and place the flowers outside 10 Downing Street!!). Walking along I remembered women I had known who had died through neglect while in the “care” of the state. Wasted lives and the attitude shown by the state seemed to say their lives were meaningless. Lynne, died in a psychiatric hospital in 1989 and Monika died in the special hospitals regime in 2000. I knew them both well. Their deaths were seen a tragic loss but no more. Or as one mental health professional responded to my shock of Lynne’s death: “Life’s a bitch and then you die, Louise”. That callous comment was made 20 odd years ago and it is still itched in my mind!

 No responsibility or accountability, no light shed on the actual events and circumstances as to how and why Lynne and Monika died. Just cover-ups and lies.

The procession is in silence, no chants just silence. I did feel overwhelmed and engulfed by my own personal grief, sadness and loss but it felt like collective grief. People coming together to remember people personal to them who have died at the hands of the state and to fight for justice. To fight for remembrance. When we got to to the gates of Downing Street that was when the chanting started. Anger at the justice denied, the cover-ups, lies and constant stonewalling: “No justice, No Peace” summed it up.

Majority of people who have died in police custody are Black. It is coming up to10 years since the Macpherson report and institutional state racism is alive as ever. And issues such as using police cells as “places of safety” (a contradiction if there ever was!) under section 136 of the MH Act. The Annual General Meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Mental Health is meeting in early November to discuss Places of Safety? Avoiding the use of police cells for people detained under Section 136 the Mental Health Act.  

People need real answers, responsibility, accountability and transparency and democracy. People want to know how and why their loved ones died along with what will happen to the individual(s) who have caused the death. Put simply, justice. How many more people have to die?