“A year on, we still wait for answers about Ian Tomlinson’s death”

I spent late last week helping to get signatures (I was honoured to do so and wanted to help in any way I could) for the following letter in today’s Guardian regarding the CPS and Ian Tomlinson.

It has now been one year since the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests in the City of London on 1 April. While we appreciate a fair and thorough investigation takes time, Ian’s grieving family has been left in limbo for a year waiting for a full explanation about the circumstances of his death. There is now very real concern as to whether the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) proposes to charge anyone in respect of the assault and death of Ian.

The CPS has been in possession of the provisional Independent PoliceComplaints Commission investigation findings since August 2009. We understand that these findings, at least in part, will provide the basis for a decision on whether to prosecute anyone for Ian’s death. We also note that the director of public prosecutions said in a Guardian interview (21 September 2009) that he hoped the CPS would reach a decision “within a few months”.

Delays in the investigation and charging decisions increase the suffering for families of victims leaving them unable to gain closure and move on with their lives. Families are greatly concerned not to prejudice the process and are therefore effectively silenced from expressing their views publicly about the death of their loved one. They are desperate to ensure any potential future legal proceedings are not undermined nor an excuse found to abandon any cases that might be brought. The Tomlinson family has endured a year of public scrutiny unable to respond to questions about Ian’s death, with little they can do but wait for the outcome of a decision. The delay however is now intolerable.

The policing of the G20 protest caused widespread public concern around use of excessive force by police officers. Proceedings against many protestors arrested on the day, as well as a number of reviews and investigations into the events of the day, have all been concluded. In the case of Ian Tomlinson, there is a heightened need for the statutory investigating body to be seen to be carrying out justice in a robust, transparent and timely manner to address public confidence. One year later the public, like the Tomlinson family, are still left with unanswered questions about how and why Ian died at the G20.

In the absence of any updates from the CPS, we have growing concerns about the investigation into Ian’s death. There has been a complete lack of communication and transparency about the delay into concluding the investigation into Ian’s death that calls the CPS’s credibility into question.

As we have already set out, we do not wish to prejudice any investigation or potential proceedings but believe that either a decision or public explanation is due. We call on the CPS to fulfill its public duty regarding the investigation into the death of Ian Tomlinson.

Julia Tomlinson, Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign

Estelle du Boulay, Newham Monitoring Project

John McDonnell MP

Dr Caroline Lucas MEP

Jean Lambert MEP

Bob Crowe, RMT

Mark Serwotka, Public and Commercial Services Union

Shami Chakrabarti, Liberty

Deborah Coles, Inquest

Vivian Figueiredo, on behalf of the family of Jean Charles de Menezes

Samantha Rigg-David, on behalf of the family of Sean Rigg

Penny Green, professor of law and criminology, King’s College London

Samantha Patterson, sister of Jason Mcpherson

Terry Stewart, The Friends of Blair Peach

Jenny Jones, Green party Metropolitan Police Authority member

Peter Herbert, Society of Black Lawyers

Cllr Duwayne Brooks, Liberal Democrat for Downham Ward

Pete Firmin and Andrew Fisher, Labour Representation Committee

Darren Johnson, Member of London Assembly

Frances Wright, Camp for Climate Action

Val Swain and Emily Apple, Fit watch

Pragna Patel, Southall Black Sisters

Sukhwant Dhaliwal, Women Against Fundamentalism.

Christine Shawcroft, Labour Briefing

David Rosenberg, Jewish Socialists’ Group

Patrick Ward, United Campaign Against Police Violence

Estella Schmid, Campaign Against Criminalising Communities

Professor Gargi Bhattacharyya, sociology and public policy, Aston University

Councillor Romayne Phoenix, London Green party campaigns co-ordinator

Joseph Healy, Green party regional councillor for London

Andy Hewitt, co-chair of the Green party trade union group

Teresa Delaney, co-chair of the Green party trade union group

Frances Webber, human rights lawyer

Harriet Wistrich, solicitor at Birnberg Peirce

Ronan Toal, barrister, Garden Court Chambers

Hossein Zahir, barrister, Garden Court Chambers

David Watkinson, Garden Court Chambers

Anya Lewis, Garden Court Chambers

Richard J Harvey, Garden Court Chambers

David Emanuel, Garden Court Chambers

Yasin Patel, 25 Bedford Row Chambers

Rajiv Menon, Barrister, Garden Court Chambers

Professor Mick Ryan, former chair of Inquest

Zoe Mercer, When No One is Watching Campaign

Dr Emma Williamson, Research Fellow, Centre for Gender and Violence Research, University of Bristol

Professor Phil Scraton, Queen’s University, Belfast

Dr Sacha Darke, senior lecturer in socio-legal studies and criminology, Department of Social and Historical Studies, University of Westminster

Mohan Ambikaipaker, University of Texas

Yasmin Khan, War on Want

Camilla Graham Wood

Alastair Morgan

Doctor Sheila Preston

Nick Moseley

Zareena Mustafa

Jill Phillips

Guy Williams

Simon Mercer

Lochlinn Parker

Sally Stanton

Jack Gordon Harris

Rachael Horner

Chris Heatley

David Mery

Sam Walton

Fiona Harrington

Bruce Benjamin

G20 cop’s behaviour ruled ‘lawful’

I have just read that the G20 cop who was filmed hitting Nicky Fisher was found not guilty as the judge ruled he acted lawfully.

What more is there to say? Justice and accountability clearly doesn’t exist when it comes to the agents of the state.

The judgment is a major setback for the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which received almost 300 complaints about police behaviour at the G20 protests. Figures released last week revealed that despite numerous IPCC investigations, no officer has faced serious disciplinary action and none have been succesfully prosecuted.

I just hope that this won’t mean a major setback for the Tomlinson case. Any excuse it seems to drop these cases.

At the moment I am very pissed off and disappointed at the verdict but deep down I guessed this would happen.

Ian Tomlinson: one year anniversary

It will be a year tomorrow, 1st April, that was the start of the G20 protests and the day Ian Tomlinson died. Julia Tomlinson, Ian’s widow, is still waiting for justice. She feels let down by CPS regarding whether they will press ahead with a prosecution of the police officer who assaulted Ian. The CPS has stalled over making a decision. This must surely prolong the agony.

“Keir Starmer has let us down personally,” said Julia Tomlinson. “Why did he say there would be a decision around Christmas? Why are we still waiting? My kids need to move on from this. They’re left without a dad now and their lives have been turned upside down over the last year, especially the four girls. He doesn’t seem to realise the pain we’re going through.”

She added: “We feel like there was a cover-up from day one, and we didn’t see it because we were nervous about the police. Now a year on it still feels like all of that is still going on. If it had been someone on the street, a civilian, who had pushed and hit Ian just before he died, and it was all caught on video, surely something would have happened by now. The officer needs to go before a jury. Let them decide what should happen to him.”

Tomorrow the Tomlinson family will lay flowers at the spot Ian died and observe a minute’s silence at 11am. I will be there and hope to see other comrades.

No justice no peace.

The Blair is back….

You can visualise the scene, jaded retired popstar who wants to give it one last time, one last gig and one last comeback. Well, seems you can apply that scenario to a jaded warmongering former PM. Yes, Blair is back… ready to do battle with the Tories. Oh joy, the election is saved, all bow to the supreme saviour that is Tony Blair! But the question is, will it work? Will having Blair on board bolster Labour’s chances of outright victory or is it still the stark reality of a hung parliament or worst still a Tory government? Yes, Tony Blair the self-serving warmongering architect of NL… the greedy grasping liar who makes his money through private enterprise and makes a lot of it as well….will this backfire….? Will this strategy repel Labour’s core voters? And has there been a ceasefire called between the Blairite and Brownite factions.

Oh, and whatever happened to the Blairites? Well, Blair needs a sycophantic backing band. And I am desperate to say, ‘Taxi for Byers’….  James Purnell is retraining as a community organiser…..(who’d have thunk it!)… David Blunkett sending begging letters to LP members asking for cash… David Miliband with his big leader ambitions…. and well, you can see the rest of the bland nondescript clone sad Blairites. Oh, and am also desperate to use my favourite Tessa phrase, ‘cheek by jowell’… Ha! Said it now!!

The Sopranos v. The Wire

As an aficionado of The Sopranos I was interested to see this article, the main thrust of the piece pits The Sopranos against The Wire. Baltimore v. New Jersey. David Chase v. David Simon.

To be honest, and this will appal many fans of The Wire but I kinda got …erm… bored with it. Sorry guys but maybe I should buy some of the DVDs and re-assess my position. In saying that, I never got bored with The Sopranos, James Gandolfini and Edie Falco (Tony and Carmela Soprano) were electric in their performances as  well as the supporting cast. The storylines, story arcs, dialogue and writing were dramatic, creative, unique, complex (references bordered  on Greek tragedy, Jacobean revenge storylines mixed with I, Claudius look at intrigue and the role of Roman Empire style-family situations) and engrossing. I never missed an episode.

At a former work colleague’s leaving do in late 1999 I remember saying my hasty goodbyes, rudely and abruptly leaving while stating, ‘I must get home it is the penultimate episode of The Sopranos’… I confess, the first two series were magnificent and just what good powerful drama with added tension should be about.

A highwire act of writing and acting practically unique in its audacity.

In each episode there is generally one story arc on a lower level while the broader strokes operate on a far grander scale.

And of course, whatta theme tune…. Alabama 3 – Woke Up This Morning. I agree with the conclusion from the article as well.

Ultimately, much as I love the Wire, I love The Sopranos more. Truth be told. Wha’yougonnado?

So I am biased, and if anyone out in cyberspace wants to comment in a defence of The Wire then please do so the comments box is all yours…

Red cuts, Blue cuts, Yellow cuts…..Cuts galore!

Well, I watched tonight the eagerly anticipated televised debate between 3 wannabe Chancellors slugging it out like it was the political fight of their lives.

No…. ok…. I watched 3 wannabe Chancellors all politeness and kinda identikit in their proposals in cutting the public sector and shafting workers. Tories in the Osborne corner, wanting to cut, cut, cut,  and cut NOW… turbo-charged slashing and burning the public sector while in the Darling corner, NL want to cut but in a year or so time. And Vince Cable…. well… my sorry I wasn’t paying attention to him.

So here’s the question, is there a cigarette paper between them and between their policies? And were anyone of them politically inspiring? Did you marvel at their utterances, impressed by their knowledge, and honesty? Will those polished performances awaken people from the hibernation of apathy?

Anti-Poll Tax campaign: 20 years on

“Can’t Pay Won’t Pay”!

I couldn’t make the 31st March Anti-Poll Tax demo in 1990 as I was revising for exams. Recall feeling shocked when I heard the news about the riot (see Kevin’s blog for an eye witness account) and worried about the people I knew on the demo. The demo became a defining moment in the anti-poll tax campaign. Around 391 people were arrested and the Trafalgar Square Defendants Campaign came about because of the arrests, which supported and provided legal advice for those who had been arrested. It was a well organised campaign, recall as well hearing about the importance of taking video cameras onto demonstrations (though at the time very expensive) to film police violence and the importance of getting that evidence onto film as there was plenty of police brutality and violence shown by the police not just on the 31st March demo but on other anti-poll tax protests.

I think back to that time and remember the organisation and activism around campaigning against this unfair and unjust tax. My Labour Party constituency in B’ton were very involved in the anti-poll tax campaign, mass canvassing, organising meetings and protests outside and inside the local council. Walking down many roads I saw plenty of ‘Can’t Pay Won’t Pay’ posters in windows, it was a great feeling. Because of this activism it did put pressure on Labour councillors. A handful of rebel Labour councillors refused to vote for a Poll Tax levy (one was eventually pushed through) based on political principle instead of being congratulated by the Labour hierarchy they were suspended from the Party pending an investigation which meant Neil Kinnock despatched his witch-finder generals down to Brighton. And I don’t need to go into much detail suffice to say that the spineless Labour leadership at the time went against the popular demand of destroying this hateful tax. But then that was the line from the Labour hierarchy, again I recall NUS autumn conference 1989 when NOLs (National Organisation Labour Students) bureaucrats announced that they would be ‘paying their poll tax’ much to chagrin of the audience! Oh indeed heady and vibrant days…. along with the feeling of déjà vu witnessing the Labour leadership sell-out its core voters.

But undeterred the anti-poll tax campaign fought hard and strong which included protests outside (and inside) magistrates’ courts because of people being summoned to court for non-payment. And on that fateful day in late November Margaret Thatcher stepped down as leader….there was much jubilant and cheer! I am not suggesting that Thatcher was pushed out as leader due to the poll tax it was mainly over Europe (one argument that runs and runs in the Tory Party and there’s a kinda déjà vu about that) but the unjust poll tax didn’t help as it was symbolic of a loathed and hated government. I remember the cartoonist Steve Bell (he was in the same LP constituency as me) drew a cartoon to be raffled at an anti-poll tax campaign social which depicted a Thatcher et al running down a hill being chased by a  massive steam roller with the words ‘anti-poll tax campaign’ emblazoned on the front.

The anti-poll tax  campaign was dynamic and energetic, one campaign and movement I am proud to say I was a part of. In saying that, my LP constituency was shut down during the summer of 1990 because of our involvement in the anti-poll tax campaign, punishment from Kinnock and co. for defying the Labour leadership which also inspired for them another round of suspensions and expulsions. To this day I still despise Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley for the witch hunts and the damage they created at that time and for not supporting the anti-poll tax movement.

Intelligence: the mass rank ordering of the world….

I was reading Madam Miaow’s excellent post on the issue of race and intelligence especially the point she makes about the ‘Other’ (and just how dense the Daily Mail are…. indeed maybe an IQ test should be devised for journalists who write for said paper) And seeing the name Charles Murray (his views on crime and the ‘underclass’ also makes my blood pressure increase) popped up.

Ah yes, that old reactionary redneck. Murray and Hernstein wrote  the controversial “The Bell Curve” which amounted to a racist tome. And right-wing ideologue Murray also subscribes to ‘culture of dependency, no surprise there! The arguments put forward regarding intelligence by the likes of Murray in no way liberates individuals instead they oppress as they lay the blame for “inferiority” at race, class and sex. Environmental aspects don’t come into it or play any part. But it also made me think about wider issues of intelligence (and what the hell is intelligence?) and IQ (is it measurable).

The history of intelligence is seeped in reactionary ideas, theories from 19th century craniologist, Paul Broca, who believed “high intelligence” lay in the anterior region of the brain to Cyril Burt who proposed that intelligence was innate, unchangable quantity fixed by inheritance and therefore testable. The whole fabric of the educational system was based on a damn statistical lie. Galtonian Cyril Burt had his own political axe to grind and his “results” propped up his own reactionary ideology. The remnants are still seen today with the obsession of testing, selection and grading. And the continued worship of the bell curve with its “normal distribution” of intelligence.

Oddly enough IQ testing seems to carry a whole series of normative assumptions and value judgements. The development of these tests since the 1930’s reflects the social engineering that went on from that decade on. In the middle years of the last century there was a need to build up a middle class cadre of skilled workers who would be able to carry out the more complex tasks demanded of the workforce in an advanced industrial economy. This may explain the “industrial” flavour of early IQ tests.

There was no widespread need to identify the quantum physics professors or concert pianists of the future. There was and still is a need to identify the people who could, for instance organise the logistics of a company’s delivery fleet. The sort of things being tested (and coached for, there a strong directive element to IQ tests) are the sort of tasks that capitalism needed its managerial cadre to do. It also of course contributes to the ideology of middle class professionalism that you do not question the social order in your work.

As some of the tasks that corporate capital sets its managers change so the things being “measured” change. Thus the more touchy feely interpersonal aptitudes are brought to the fore as managers become more involved in psychological manipulation of workers, customers and other managers. The logistical tasks of the transport manager of yesteryear are now performed by someone’s laptop.

I think when Leon Kamin (the book, Intelligence : the battle for the mind, is an excellent book where Kamin demolishes Hans Eysenck reactionary and racist views on intelligence and race), Steven Rose and the late Stephen Jay Gould state that there’s an equation of “heritable” with “inevitable”….

Now that’s what I call Socialist demands!

If you are looking for a real radical and Socialist antidote to the neither inspiring nor radical election pledges from Labour then look no further…. as hot of the press is the LRC’s ‘A People’s Agenda’.

The pamphlet is about generating real debate and discussion at election.

LRC Chair, John McDonnell MP says in the introduction, As we go into the 2010 General Election, it is clear that much of the electorate feels it has no choice – with all the three major parties offering the same prescription for the UK: there will be cuts to your local services and to your pay – and quite possibly your job too. This document sets out some broad ideas for the society we want. But we want your ideas and responses to.

Demands include:

• Public and collective ownership of key industries
• A decent standard of living for all: a living wage for all work, and an income that provides dignity to the unemployed, pensioners, students and the disabled.
• The nationalisation of the banking sector to invest not in speculation but in the goods and infrastructure our society needs.
• We need a redistributive tax system in which the wealthy and big business pay their fair share, and to clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion.
• We want public services that people feel are theirs, that they control and that provide them with the necessary foundation for a decent life.
• Schools should be run by those with a stake in them: parents, students, staff and the local community. There should be no selection by ability or religion: schools should be secular and serve all children.
• There should be universal maintenance grants and no fees.
• A massive council housebuilding programme (which would also provide thousands of jobs) is needed immediately.
• The NHS is internationally-respected for its founding principles of universal provision, free at the point of use.
• Public transport is an essential service and cannot be run for short-term interests. Investment in public transport projects such as high-speed rail is a vital part of tackling climate change, and would create jobs.
• We need to invest in universal publicly-funded childcare.
• Personal care should be universal and free, no one should have to suffer in old age.
• Mandatory pay audits would expose institutional discrimination.
• There should be a minimum wage that provides a decent standard of living, as well as equal pay for equal work. All workers should have the right to holidays, pensions, flexible working, and trade union membership.
• The anti-trade union laws must also be repealed.
• Vital industries should be in common ownership.
• We need a politics in which everyone participates and feels that they have a voice. Under-representation of young people, women and minorities must be addressed.
• We should promote local and decentralised energy projects run along co-operative lines.
• Our society should not be launching wars of aggression against other countries and should have a foreign policy based on human rights, co-operation and justice.
• As a society we also need to challenge the discrimination that blights some people’s lives and prevents them from playing a full role in society. We should challenge discrimination against people based on gender, race, sexual orientation, disability and age. Everyone should have a right to live free from prejudice.

The Labour Representation Committee is a socialist organisation which believes in fighting for an alternative to the current unsustainable consensus.

Here’s a pledge….ditch neoliberalism!

Here are the 5 Pledges from Gordon Brown. Neither political inspiring nor radical. They actually say very little. Remember Labour have had 13 years to develop radical policies that could have transformed this society into a equitable society NL chose not to instead they chucked some crumbs from the table to appease working class people.

So before the fanfare and pomp what precisely do these pledges mean or what aren’t they saying?

• Secure the recovery and halve the deficit through economic growth, fair taxes and cuts to lower priority spending.
• Raise family living standards, keeping mortgage rates as low as possible; increasing tax credits for families with young children; providing new help for first-time buyers; and restore the link between the state pension and earnings from 2012.
• Build a high tech economy, supporting businesses and industry to create 1 million more skilled jobs and modernising our infrastructure with High-Speed Rail, a Green Investment Bank and broadband access for all.
• Protect frontline investment in policing, schools, childcare and the NHS, with a new guarantee of cancer test results within a week.
• Strengthen fairness in communities through an Australian style points-based system to control immigration; guaranteed education, apprenticeships and jobs for young people; and a crack down on anti-social behaviour.

The devil always is in the detail. These pledges are a mixture of the very specific, such as with cancer results and broadband, to very general things like “raising living standards”. Defining what is meant by  things like raising living standards and how to go about what you think is a high standard of (every household having an SUV perhaps?) living is the stuff of politics. A real pledge would be something like building a certain number of new homes. In technology it would be about creating technology investment banks or things at a similar level of generality.  In finance it would be a realistic system of regulation. Better internet service or a better system of administration of cancer results are things that are desirable but they do not represent the kind of choices that a society has to make. In terms of learning from the Tories the main thing to notice about Thatcherism in the 80′s was that it was not shy of putting forward a apparently coherent account of why certain political choices were good or bad.

Intellectually it is easy to knock the account that the Tories gave at the time to pieces. Politically for a social democratic party it is more difficult as it means getting into the bad books of some powerful sections of society. Tough though that is part of being on the Left is about: especially if you want to go around calling yourself a radical.

Also there’s this graph from the Institute of Fiscal Studies that has been bandied about on blogs like Left Foot Forward. Put in the form of a colourful graph the information that the tax/benefits outocomes for different income groups, dectiles from lowest to highest, of 13 years of NL compared to the outcomes if there had been no tax or benefit changes for 13 years.

Well you may say that no government would have left tax and benefits unchanged for 13 years. The IFS graph is an exercise in counterfactual history with all the weakness of that approach to analysing cause and effect. Apart from that fiscal outcomes are just part of the story. Yes the richest tenth may have a higher proportion of its income taxed but it’s the amount of income that has raced away so in real terms these people are vastly better off. At the other end NL has made things better with tax credits and Pension Credit. However the benefit/tax credit system is more of a minefield than before and of course with casualisation and outsourcing etc low paid workers are worse off in other ways.

Examples of real pledges:

A massive programme of energy efficient house building and renovation greening of the existing housing stock.

Re-mutualisation of housing finance.

Proper enforcement of taxation of corporations and of the very rich.

Scrapping of Trident.

Scrapping of ID cards.

Strengthening of civil liberties.

Removing the bureaucracy of marketisation and use of consulants in the health and education systems.

Abolition of student loans and fees. Return to a system of student grants.

No new wars. Ending of the involvement in Afghanistan.

All pure social democratic reformism. Some of these things imply huge savings in public spending. Energy efficiency and house building will self fund in the medium and long term. Proper tax enforcement implies an increase in income over the short, medium and long terms. More money on education now will benefit the economy of the future…a legacy for the future generations that the Taxpayers Alliance are so found of pleading on the behalf of.

Also people would vote Labour. Each of these things would be popular. Together they would avoid a crash now and boom/bust in the future.

BTW the IFS report that the graph is part of assumes that if employer national insurance contributions were less or ceased to exist that employers would hand the saving straight to the workers and not pocket the saving for themselves. Does the IFS not observe the behaviour of unregulated capitalist employers in a neo-liberal environment?