Breaking waves

Well, here are some pix from my time on holiday. Will at some point write more about the savage attacks on the public sector and why AV is wrong, wrong and wrong….

And why I am boycotting Iain Dale’s Total Politics Blog Awards (and regret not boycotting it from the start!!!!!)

Anyway, back to my holiday of peace, tranquility and the calming influence of the sea…..

Off on holiday……

Well, off on holiday tomorrow….. haven’t been out of London for a couple of years for a holiday other times I have it was for politics. And hopefully I will be able to get my political activist mojo back as for the past couple of months I have been feeling jaded, demoralised, numb, crisis of political direction/apathy, anti-social (just not been able that much to socialise or engage with people on any level…and feel a tad guilty letting people down by not contacting them…or returning calls… which may be due to lack of energy to depression…so apologies for that) and unenthusiastic ….and that’s not just about having a draconian right-wing lash-up of a Con/Dem in government. I do need to get away…

So I hope this week away will help but as ever I will be taking my trusty camera and ….laptop….Well, I need to keep up-to-date with the world and cyberworld….

Ian Tomlinson – 500 Days of Injustice

From Kevin’s blog

On Friday 13 August, 500 days will have passed since the death of Ian Tomlinson during last year’s G20 protests in London and yet the Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer has still failed to announce a decision about whether to bring charges against police officers involved in his death.

This continued and unacceptable delay has left the Tomlinson family in a legal limbo, worried that speaking out and demanding answers may be used to blame them for jeopardising the prospects of a fair trial. Whilst other aspects of the protests around the Bank of England and at Bishopsgate on 1 April 2009 have been the subject of reports, investigations and pledges to change the way that public order situations are policed, the DPP’s failure to make a decision also means that Ian Tomlinson’s death appears to have been all but forgotten about.

So on 13 August, I’d really like you to take action. There are a number of things you can do:

If you are a blogger or journalist – please write about Ian’s death, about how his family are still awaiting justice and about how 500 days is far too long for the DPP to sit on a decision to prosecute or not. You can find background information about the case at:

www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk

And feel free to use the badge on the right – you can download it from here.

If you use Twitter – let’s see if we can make sure that both #iantomlinson and #500days are trending, leading up to 13 August and on the day itself.

Please send letters to the press demanding that Starmer stops stalling:

The Guardian letters@guardian.co.uk
The Independent letters@independent.co.uk
The Times letters@the-times.co.uk
The Daily Telegraph dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
The Observer letters@observer.co.uk (subject field of email should say “Letter to the Editor”)
Daily Mail letters@dailymail.co.uk
Mail On Sunday letters@mailonsunday.co.uk
Daily Express express.letters@express.co.uk
Financial Times letters.editor@ft.com
The Sun letters@the-sun.co.uk
The Mirror mailbox@mirror.co.uk
News of the World your.letters@news-of-the-world.co.uk
The Morning Star lettersed@macunlimited.net

Send messages of protest to the Crown Prosecution Service on 13 August via its online feedback form

Anonymity for rape defendants obstructs justice!!

Some quotes from yesterday’s debate in Parliament over anonymity for rape defendants.

The anonymity debate has been characterised by a number of myths and misconceptions, which have unfortunately served to obscure rather than clarify matters. For example, it is alleged that anonymity for defendants would deter victims in general from coming forward. One can easily understand the argument that depriving complainants of anonymity would indeed have that effect. Their cross-examination about painful personal matters would be exposed to the public gaze, which is bound to have a deterrent effect on the willingness of others to come forward. Parliament has long recognised that reality. However, it is difficult to understand how the anonymity of a defendant could possibly have such an effect. There is an argument that reducing publicity around rape investigations and trial should make it easier for complainants. That would be an effect of protecting the defendant’s identity. The strength of that effect before and during any trial will be a matter of judgment (Crispin Blunt – Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Ministry of Justice)

Let me say to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow that, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the House earlier, there is no evidence that defendant anonymity would have an adverse impact on reporting. Victims may well be encouraged to come forward by the understanding that the criminal justice system is likely to deal with their complaint effectively and anonymously, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is difficult to understand how a suspect’s or even a charged defendant’s anonymity can have an impact. (Mr Jonathan Djanogly - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice )

I still can’t comprehend why the Con/Dem alliance is seeking to give anonymity to rape defendants. Why? Where is the need, where is the research/statistics that outlines the necessity for this dramatic change? Again, why change this? Blunt states it has nothing to do with doubting victims’ reports or repeating uninformed arguments about false allegations. Though this issue of false allegation was indeed brought up by Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) in the debate: Is the hon. Lady not also conscious of the need to prevent false accusations against innocent people and the connected wrongs?

These attempts by the Con/Dems just reeks of misogyny and it’s a dangerous move. Where’s the evidence? Why is Blunt honing in on rape defendants?  Both Louise Bagshawe and Meg Munn both made cogent points in the debate:

Will my hon. Friend expand on this a little? Does he understand the concern that is felt on both sides of the House that, by singling out rape in this way, he is sending out a negative signal about women and about those who accuse men of rape?(Louise Bagshawe)

 I am extremely puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has set out a very defensible position on why someone’s name should not be in the public domain before they are charged, but why is that desirable only in relation to rape and not to any other offence? Surely the same should apply to anyone who felt that they had been wrongly accused of theft or burglary or any other offence.(Meg Munn)

What the Con/Dem right-wing lash-up are continuing to do by putting the spotlight on rape defendant anonymity is create further misogynistic myths and lies about rape. Women have such an uphill struggle obtaining justice when it comes to rape this proposal will obstruct justice.

See as well the excellent Goriler 3B

Section 44 dies a gradual death

In this topsy-turvy world of Con/Dem alliances and where Alan Johnson MP accused the Tories of being ‘soft on crime’…. on last week’s Question Time. Strange strange and scary times… beam me up Scottie.. Anyway, since Section 44 has been rule illegal by the European Court of Human Rights, Theresa May in a Commons statement said this:

“The first duty of government is to protect the public but that duty must never be used as a reason to ride roughshod over our civil liberties.”

She said the European Court’s judgement had found the use of Section 44 amounted to “the violation of the right to a private life”.

The court found the powers were “drawn too broadly at the time of their initial authorisation and when they are used” and lacked sufficient safeguards to protect civil liberties.Mrs May said: “The government cannot appeal this judgement, although we would not have done so had we been able.

“We have always been clear in our concerns about these powers and they will be included as part of our review of counter-terrorism legislation.”

She said after taking legal advice and consulting with police forces, the use of Section 44 powers will now be restricted to searching vehicles.

So does that mean they will be using more of Section 43 as that’s about having ‘reasonable suspicion’? And as PNAT notes, Unfortunately there are still a swathe of laws that police can and will still use to harass photographers, most notably Section 43, which is similar to Section 44 but requires an officer to suspect that you are a terrorist and Section 76 which makes it illegal to ‘elicit information about a police officer’ which includes photographing them.

While there is agreement that Section erodes civil liberties and freedoms…also there hasn’t been any stopped who was engaged in terrorist activities. And that it also an excuse for cops to stop and search aka modern sus laws where a disproportionate number of Black people are stopped….. Alan ‘tough on crime’ Johnson thinks this:

“The number of stop and searches under Section 44 has reduced considerably over the last two years,” he said.

He said the decision would restrict the powers of the police.

Restrict the powers of police, eh? So it would be ok to continue to stop and search someone based on racist assumptions, someone armed with a camera, people defending civil liberties? Labour has a long way to go in getting rid of the social authoritarian monster fed by the likes of Straw, Blunkett and Johnson.

See Kevin’s post as well.

Also – Another victory for photography and civil liberties…

EDM 393 – Disability Living Allowance

Very rarely do I say this…but…. good EDM from Kate Hoey on Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

That this House urges the Government to recognise that the intention behind disability living allowance was not to award benefit based on a particular disabling condition but on the extent to which a severely disabled person has personal care or mobility needs as a result of living with their disability; understands that medical assessments and questionnaires cannot in practice be worded perfectly to reflect the legislation and case law; acknowledges that it is the role of the decision maker to determine a person’s eligibility, based on all the relevant evidence, both medical and non-medical; considers that the administrative cost of medical assessments could be better used to make the benefit application process easier for disabled people to complete and to better support the decision maker; and calls on the Government to re-consider its decision to introduce medical assessments for new and existing claimants of disability living allowance.

Jules gets stopped again this time under Sec 43

Unbelievable!!

Haven’t the cops got anything better to do than to keep stopping the same photographer?! Interesting as well they are using Section 43 now……

From BJP

Jules Mattsson, the young photographer who was stopped earlier this month, has been stopped and searched today under suspicion of being a terrorist after he took pictures of cadets.

BJP understands Mattsson was detained today under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in Central London, near Buckingham Palace, after taking photos of cadets. Mattsson had received approval from the cadets’ supervisors as he was shooting images for the cadets’ website, BJP has been told.

BJP also understands that the photographer was searched and his details recorded.
The incident comes less than two weeks after the same photographer was stopped and detained by police officers claiming he represented a terrorism risk. Mattsson, at the time, recorded his conversations with police officers. For more details and to listen to the recording, read our full report here.
Mattsson is currently unavailable for comment. The Metropolitan Police was also unable to comment as it has yet to receive an account of the incident.

Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 requires reasonable suspicion that a person is a terrorist. Its usage is more limited than Section 44, which doesn’t require suspicion. However, the European Court of Human Rights recently found Section 44 to be illegal.

The act’s Section 43 reads: “A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.”
The stop was confirmed by photojournalist Marc Vallée, whom Mattsson called, according to a Twitter post. Vallée wrote: Just had a phone call from @julesmattsson He has just been stopped & searched under Section 43. Yes 43!”

By Westminster Central Hall I sat down and despaired

The 5 Labour leader candidates were described as “high quality” and with “talent”. I was at the CSM (with other leftie groupings) hustings in London along with Madam Miaow and  Gwei Mui.  I listened for 2 hours to their views and strategy for leadership. Do you actually believe these former NL ministers with the exception of Diane Abbott who was never part of the NL machine (but I still believe her strategy in fighting the cuts is flawed)?

Do these 4 former NL ministers suffer from amnesia? Their caring and sharing language was hollow rhetoric. Ed Balls thinks it is ‘shameful’ that the poorest will be affected by the Con/Dems budget. He wants to see a written constitution which codifies protection and places obligations on the state. That he would not have raised VAT, and that he increase taxes for high earners etc. David Miliband spoke about “standing up for the poorest”… That it’s about fairness… Ed Miliband pinned the blame of the economic crisis on the banking sector’s irresponsibility and there has to be an alternative….’What kind of society do we want?’ he asked. Andy Burnham described the budget as ‘public service vandalism’ He supported a Robin Hood tax. Oh, yes, Ed Miliband couldn’t stop mentioning, ‘tax credits’….. and what a great invention they were but ‘didn’t go far enough’….. Really, Ed, you think?!!!! Same with the bureaucratic nature of tax credits, Ed?

David Miliband was king of the spin; ‘dreams and aspirations’ … ‘forge a better tomorrow’… Meaningless, meaningless and empty of anything substantial. Still NL in the language. He still believes in an ‘ethical foreign policy’… Does that include the justification of torture by the way? The words spouted time and time and time again were the importance of ‘values’. How the market was far too powerful…. and that the collective of 4 suits suffering the illness of amnesia ‘didn’t listen’,  ‘didn’t reach out’ and ‘didn’t do enough’…when they could have and should have. But don’t despair Ed (Miliband) will be there…..he said so. Must be true. And that it is about ‘changing not managing society’….That it is ‘politics of power and politics of movement’… The values of NL were of prosperity, competitiveness and flexibility…and those values were wrong. Has it just occurred to these clever suits that worshipping wealth and shafting the poor was wrong?

Andy Burnham bigged up his working class roots (they all do that..and it’s irritating beyond belief… they use it for cynical and opportunistic reasons) along with experiencing the miners’ strike…. which gave him the ‘sense of injustice’…. importance of ‘compassion’…Ironic really when you look at the former NL minister’s voting record that dished out massive doses of injustice and oppression……

When asked the question about having the highest prison population in Western Europe… the replies from the 4 just made me so angry. Have they only discovered that prisons had become the social dustbins for the powerless? Was it such a revelation to Andy Burnham that a high proportion of people in prisons had mental distress? Oh, and if he was still a minister he would do so, so, so much for vulnerable prisoners and the root causes of crime. If only, Andy, if only…. Luxury of hindsight? What was wrong with foresight! Has it just occurred to them that there are a high proportion of women in prisons, private prisons for children and that the ‘tough on crime’ mantra is bullshit….? Where have these clever men been, collective heads in the sand, perchance?

These 4 former ministers were culpable in creating an unequal society that trashed civil liberties, that worshipped the markets and wealth, that created further poverty and inequalities that supported warmongering. And yet they have conveniently minimised, downplayed and to be honest forgotten their part in the NL machine…? Interesting it was listening to Ed Balls blaming the Home Office over children of asylum seekers banged up in racist hell-holes (‘onest guv, wanted to do more but was impossible…Home Office you see’..) Same over his argument regarding youth custody and short sentences (‘couldn’t win the argument, ‘onest guv’…).

But on immigration, Balls and Burnham pandered to the racist myths. We need to ‘manage’ immigration in an ‘effective way’… But we have to be careful when it comes to low paid jobs, he warns, as they will be the jobs that migrant workers will be going for. So Ed B…picture the scene everyone scrabbling around for the shit jobs! People, including migrant workers, deserve so much better and that includes Ed Balls NOT being leader of the Labour Party….

I haven’t mentioned Diane Abbott but will now. She was right on immigration and that it is all about scape goating and that it is used as a proxy to hide real fears and concerns, at the same time whipped up by the right-wing press aided and abetted by government’s seeking the populist vote. Cynical and nasty stuff. She was the only one who mentioned the futility of Iraq and Afghanistan, withdrawal of troops. She has never been a part of the NL machine. Diane Abbott argued for 50/50 cuts and taxes, financial transaction tax, wealth tax and banking tax. Cut defence budget, troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq…and cut Trident renewal. All correct, but it kinda read like a shopping list of demands as where are the principles that underpin these demands? Also, it is abstract to state 50/50 as what precisely does that mean? Diane Abbott is the best of those 4 NL clones but …. I still have many many reservations and problems with her. As the so-called Left candidate she needs to do better.

Fundamental problems I have like this quote on the economic crisis, Weak regulation meant that financial institutions were also free to ignore the long term stability of their institutions in favour of short term profits and the size of their bonus. Now the public has to bail out those same banks. However, once the crisis erupted, Gordon was the best man to take us through the crisis and I think he served us well.

Gordon Brown got us into the mess, and to believe he ‘served us well’ is utterly delusional. People/institutions who did well in the boom should pay for the bust….NL and the 4 former ministers are culpable they were part of the machine that created this economic crisis and the ideological conditions that has led to this slash and burn budget by the Con/Dems.

Listening last night to the rhetoric and spin despaired me …. Rehabilitated NL? More of the same…. I don’t know who I will vote for or whether I give damn at this precise moment…but what I do know is that people will be devastated by this budget…spin and rhetoric will get us nowhere we need action, and organisation. And I don’t think any of the 5 has the leadership qualities to do it.

When it comes to my vote…. I really don’t know….because I am fed-up of voting for the least worst candidate. Sorry Diane…but you need to up your game and be an activist.

 More at the excellent Madam Miaow

PNAT victory flashmob

Good day was had today celebrating this victory organised by PNAT regarding Section 44 outside New Scotland Yard. I remember standing outside New Scotland Yard with countless other photographers in February 2009. Marc Vallée spoke about his own latest victory . Jules Mattsson was there.

And I saw David Hoffman. What these photographers have all in common is being stopped under various anti-terrorist legislation.

Paul Mattsson and David Hoffman

Great victory for civil liberties consigning Section 44 to the dustbin of history!

Jules Mattsson

Oh, and good to see Copwatcher aka Kevin….Hope the article goes well

Cuts bloodbath in the public sector

KennardPhillips - 'Fucking Waste of Money'... I know the pic is of Gordon Brown but it can be easily substituted for Osborne, or Nick Cameron..

So the cuts are more likely to be 40% as opposed to 25%. And this could mean one massive frenzy of cutting across the public sector, illogical and unnecessary!

The only departments not included in the Treasury trawl will be health and international development, which have been “ringfenced” for the current parliament. Education and defence will also escape lightly. Alexander has told the education secretary, Michael Gove, and the defence secretary, Liam Fox, to plan for two scenarios – cuts to budgets of 10% at best and 20% at worst over four years. All other departments – including the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Transport – have been ordered to produce plans showing the impact of cuts of 25%, and at worst 40%.

Furthermore

In addition, all departments have been asked to show how they would slash day-to-day administration costs, excluding salaries, by 33% at the lower end and 50% at the higher end. A Treasury source said: “We are determined to tackle the record budget deficit in order to keep interest rates lower for longer, protect jobs and maintain the quality of essential public services. These planning assumptions are not final settlements, and do not commit the Treasury or departments to final settlements.”

And the Con/Dems want to pass legislation changing the Civil Service compensation Scheme (CSCS) as he thinks it is “too generous”… Too generous? Bankers’ bonuses….so not generous or excessive in the least? Profits made through exploitation…ditto? There are so many lies and spin about “gold plated” pensions in the public sector that need to be counteracted. People do not get lavish payoffs…

Excluding the very high earners, the average pension in the civil service is just £4,200 a year, and more than 100,000 former civil servants receive a pension of £2,000 a year or less – 40,000 of these receive less than £1,000 a year.

Also, further grim predictions

The National Housing Federation, the body representing England’s 1,200 not-for-profit housing associations, predicts that impending cuts to housing benefit will put a further 200,000 people at grave risk of homelessness and lead to a concentration of social problems in the most deprived areas of the country. Currently 140,000 people are classified as homeless in Britain.

George Osborne is putting beggars back on the street in the same way that his hero, Thatcher, did. What a brave new society to look forward to, a very nasty and destructive one. The message people should take is organise and resist or be destroyed. The Con/Dems could have found the money to fill the deficit hole by cutting the £70bn for Trident. And the £4bn a year for futile imperialist wars. Around £130bn is lost through tax avoidance and evasion, how about the Con/Dems tackling that immense problem? Millions could be saved by ditching privatisation and consultants….Even better, tax the rich!

But somehow, as with the previous NL administration, the wealthy and corporate capitalism are exempt from the butchery of this draconian budget. But then this is an ideological attack that means every one else is being sacrificed instead.