Merseyside police attack demonstration at Town Hall

Today, as Liverpool City Council met in the Town Hall to implement the city's budget cuts, a small number of protesters gathered outside in opposition. It started as a decidedly muted and tame event. But it would not end that way, thanks to the violent intervention of Merseyside Police.

Police force a protester to the ground, photograph by Michael Kirkham

When I arrived, the police had blocked off the road at the side of the Town Hall, by the entrance that councillors and members of the public (who needed a ticket and ID) would be entering. Steel barricades were erected around the doorway. A small number of police and City Watch, supplemented by two officers on horseback, lined the road whilst demonstrators mostly just milled about aimlessly and almost silently.

There were a very small number of Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party paper sellers hanging about, as well as several comrades I recognised from a number of events. The Socialist Labour Party had their banner out as well. However, overwhelmingly, those present were from Occupy Liverpool and the majority of them were also young, late teens to early twenties, with a few who were older. Of the Trades Council, who called the demonstration, and other unions there was no sign, whilst the Socialist Party also disappeared after about an hour.

Soon enough, with a megaphone to hand, the demo warmed up somewhat. There was chanting, a bit of piss-taking about how the City Watch would be "doing an impression of real police," and lots of jibes at Joe Anderson. After a while, we move towards the windows where the meeting was taking place and chanted and heckled at those inside. The police intervened a number of times to ask people to stop climbing the railings, but were quickly enough told where to go.

After a while, a few of us took note of a van load of police reinforcements who arrived to join a flank around the small demonstration. Mindful of being kettled in a side-street, I announced over the megaphone that we were "going for a stroll," and we marched around the front of the building. This coincided happily with the lights stopping traffic, and so we proceeded into the road in order to block the traffic.

This brought the police hurrying towards us, with the two horseback officers trying unsuccesfully to drive us back whilst those on foot forced enough of a gap to let a bus and a cab through. After a short while, though, they appeared to give up and withdrew to form a line across the road.

The horses stuck around, though, and there was an incident where one of the animals bumped into a comrade who was facing the other way. The copper on its back then accused him of hitting the horse with his flag and she moved to grab it and/or him. In response, I switched on the megaphone siren, startling the horse and allowing him to stay out of her reach. She later warned me that my flag would have out her horse's eye and, even when I shifted it so that wasn't the case, threatened to take it off me. When challenged as to why, all she could do was scowl.

At this point, a couple of the younger Occupy members decided to sit down, and one of them began rolling a cigarette. They were quickly advised to stand up again, and when they did the police line charged. The police dived at one young lad, prompting an attempt to de-arrest him. This unfortunately wasn't succesful due to lacking numbers, and more police screamed in, hitting people and pinning the lad to the ground under their collective weight.

What followed was chaotic, to say the least. But the result was that around seven people were arrested, whilst one comrade came out of it with a bloody nose. The police refused to say what the charges were or even where those arrested would be taken, justifying this only with "I don't have to answer to you." My querying whether the officer who punched someone in the face would also be arrested (asked with no illusions of such happening) was met with "that's none of my business." The demo had now devolved into an uneasy stand off, with police on one side and a gang of pissed off protesters on the other.

Some of the younger ones present decided that this was the best time to consider what to chant at the police, whilst I decided to inform the public of what had just happened in an obviously angry rant over the megaphone. The police didn't bat an eyelid as I described them charging peaceful protesters andpunching someone in the face.

Ultimately, we reached the conclusion that numbers had dwindled too much to maintain the stand off indefinitely, and that the result would be a bloodbath. People were urged to leave as one group, to avoid further arrests or attacks. We marched, via Liverpool ONE, to the Occupy building, with the police in tow. As we moved, those in hi viz coats shrunk to the back, whilst those all in black, with tasers prominent on their belts took the lead.

There was also one surreal moment where a female comrade, travelling on a bike with her child strapped to the seat behind her, was confronted by three police. This was apparently just to tell her not to cycle on the pavement, but it was a clear intimidatory tactic and the protesters surrounded the police until she was allowed to move on.

After leaving the Occupy building, the police eventually gave up following when it became apparent that we were simply getting people home. This allowed everyone to disperse in groups to buses, trains and cars.

The questions raised by this incident are serious ones. It is clear that the police were in the mood for violence, perhaps after they failed to evict Occupy just over a week ago. However, following on from the attack by private security on UK Uncut, this is the second use of violence against protesters in Liverpool this month alone. And as a result of diminished numbers, no serious defence against it was possible, essentially resulting in those arrested being left to fend for themselves.

I've previously posited that this suggests a serious need for militant stewarding, and though the details of such have yet to be worked out I stand by that assertion. With luck, this will also offer a harsh lesson in the role played by the police in society, and of the need to work back from the assumption that they are all violent goons out to cause you harm.

Call for a national week of action against privatisation

The following statement has been issued by PCS Bootle Taxes Branch after members voted to support it during walkouts against privatisation that took place today. Please share it amongst your contacts and urge your union or organisation to support the initiative.

PCS Bootle Taxes Members during a previous walk-out in June

HM Revenue & Customs are engaging in a 12 month pilot with two private contractors, Sitel and Teleperformance, to handle calls alongside existing staff at contact centres in Bathgate and Lilyhall. The department claims that this is merely to look at ways they can address call backlogs during peak times. However, this is a transparent attack on the jobs, terms and conditions of PCS members.

PCS has been arguing consistently for long-term investment in HMRC. With a £120bn tax gap that would erase the alleged need for public sector cuts, and significant backlogs and delays in call handling, cutting jobs and outsourcing work to private providers simply does not make sense. By preserving existing jobs and recruiting more staff to address the shortfalls in the department, HMRC can help ease unemployment and provide a better service to beleaguered taxpayers.

In order to fight for this alternative – and against the government’s drive to cut jobs and privatise the public sector – PCS members in HMRC have been taking strike action. This has so far taken the form of short walkouts, which have been succesful in causing significant disruption to HMRC with minimal cost to staff.

However, PCS Bootle Taxes Branch believes that the campaign needs to be escalated and the fight against privatisation broadened for the maximum possible impact. To that end, we are calling for a national week of action against privatisation on 13-19 February.

We call on other PCS branches, including those outside of HMRC, other trade unions, anti-cuts groups and all who oppose the privatisation of the public sector to take the following action:

• Organise pickets outside any Sitel or Teleperformance sites in your area;
• Hold lunchtime demonstrations against privatisation at HMRC offices in your area, in support of staff fighting privatisation;
• Contact Sitel and Teleperformance by telephone, email, fax and post to complain of their involvement in HMRC’s privatisation trials;
• Contact HMRC by telephone, email and post to let them know of your opposition to privatisation.

We further call on the PCS Revenue & Customs Group Executive Committee to support the national week of action, to publicise it on the PCS website and to supplement it by calling further industrial action through the week.

The fight against privatisation is a fight that affects all of us. We urge everyone to show their solidarity with workers in HMRC during this fight and to take part in the national week of action in February.

PCS Bootle Taxes Branch


Contact HM Revenue & Customs

Locations: Find your nearest HMRC Office through this contact list of PCS Branch Secretaries – http://pcs.org.uk/en/revenue_and_customs_group/contacts/Branch-Secretaries.cfm

By email: Chairman Mike Clasper – Mike.Clasper@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk
Personal Tax Director General Stephen Banyard - stephen.banyard@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk

By phone: 0845 300 0627

By post: HM Revenue & Customs
Pay As You Earn
PO Box 1970
Liverpool
L75 1WX

Contact Sitel

Watford (Head Office)
Building 600 Leavesden Park
Hercules Way
Watford
WD25 7GS
Tel: 01392 889 200
Fax: 0192 324 2555

Exeter
3 Manor Court
Dix’s Field
Exeter
EX1 1ST
Tel: 01392 889 200

Kingston upon Thames
Mitre House
Canbury Park Road
Hampton Wick
Kingston Upon Thames
KT2 6LZ
Tel: 020 8784 1000
Fax: 01795 438953

Newcastle upon Tyne
Sitel House
Balliol Business Park
Benton Lane
Newcastle Upon Tyne
Tyne and Wear
NE12 8EW
Tel: 0191 3502000

Stratford upon Avon
Sitel House
Timothys Bridge Road
Stratford Enterprise Park
Stratford upon Avon
CV37 9HY
Tel : 01789 299622
Fax : 01789 292341

Phone: 01923 689 600 | 0800 444 221

Email: uknewbusiness@sitel.com | pr-EMEA@sitel.com

Contact Teleperformance

Bristol (Head Office)
Teleperformance
St James House, Moon Street
Bristol BS2 8QY
Tel: 0117 916 8000
Fax: 0117 914 0000

Bangor
Teleperformance
Clandeboye Business Park
West Circular Road
Bangor, County Down BT19 1AR
Tel: 02891 474 500
Fax: 02891 474 505

Birmingham
Teleperformance
Teleperformance House
1 Duchess Place, Hagley Road
Birmingham B16 8NH
Tel: 0121 410 5000
Fax: 0121 410 5001

Ashby
Teleperformance
Coalfield Way, Ashby Park
Ashby-De-La-Zouch
Leicestershire LE65 1JF
Tel: 01530 419 500
Fax: 01530 419 501

Newry
Teleperformance
The Quays
Newry
County Down BT35 8QS
Tel: 02830 831 250
Fax: 02830 831 299

Gateshead
Teleperformance
Keel Row
1 The Watermark
Gateshead
NE11 9SZ
Tel: 0191 493 5000

Electronic complaints: http://www.teleperformance.com/en/contact-us/sales-rfirfp-inquiries.aspx

The work programme privacy invasion

On Wednesday, I attended a meeting to thrash out the details for Liverpool Solidarity Federation's strategy to organise against workfare. With luck, this will get off the ground within a month or so, with the emergence of the first local Unemployed Workers Union in the city. In the meantime, the programme rolls on - with the injustices going beyond the core question of unpaid labour.

Via Jay O Doom, I've been led to a website about the invasions of privacy that the work programme foists upon claimants;

The following is the personal data given to the provider at the point the customer is referred to the Work Programme –

The customer’s Title (Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms or Other)
The customer’s Forename
The customer’s Surname
The customer’s NINo/Reference number
If held the customer’s Address (up to 4 lines) and Postcode
The customer’s STD code, Telephone Number and Alternate Telephone Number and STD code
The customer’s Disabled Person status (Disabled/Not Disabled)
The customer’s Signing Day, claim Cycle, and claim Pattern
The Referral Date
An indication (yes/no) of whether an Incident has been recorded relating to the customer on JCP premises
An indication of a customer’s Childcare Requirements (Yes/No/Not Known/Not Disclosed)
If the customer has expressed a preference for Written and/or Verbal communication in Welsh
An indication if the referral to the Provider is Mandatory/Non Mandatory

The following items from the customer’s Action Plan:

Aims (free text);
Job Preferences (1 to 3);
Preferred Hours of work;
Employment History (free text);
Last Job 1;
Last Job 1 Start and End Dates;
Last Job 2;
Last Job 2 Start and End dates;
Driving Licence(s) held;
License Endorsements; and
Additional Info relating to Action Plan (free text).

The following items from the customer’s Jobseekers Agreement (JSAg)

Other Activities (free text); and
Agreed Restrictions (free text).

The following information about the customer’s recorded Qualifications:

Subject of Qualification;
Level (e.g. GCSE etc);
Outcome achieved;
Date Started;
Date Completed; and
Whether the Qualification relates to a Basic Skills Assessment.

During the currency of a customer’s time with the Work Programme provider their
circumstance may change. The provider will be notified of the following changes –

Name
Address
Telephone number
Status, for example joint claim identified, lone parent, changes to partner details.
Signing day / cycle
Appointee / Power of Attorney
JSA Permitted Period
Available hours, for example attendance at court
Caring responsibilities
Sickness / accident – Only the details of when the claimant may be unavailable to attend
interactions face to face or training courses etc
Admission to hospital – Only the details of when the claimant may be unavailable to attend
interactions face to face or training courses etc
Holiday
Part time working (starting /ending or change of hours)
Part time education
Voluntary work, for example Territorial Army, Reserve Forces
Employment Support Allowance / Incapacity Benefit Permitted Work
Incidents – unacceptable customer behaviour
Employment Support Allowance, Work Capability Assessment appeal received form the
customer or outcome of appeal received
Customer moves to live abroad, whether payment of benefit continues or ends
Death
Benefit claim terminated
New claim to Jobseekers Allowance or Income Support
New Work Capability Assessment outcome known
Customer is at or over the age at which they are eligible for Pension Credit
Employment Support Allowance, Work Related Activity Group lone parent whose youngest
child reaches 5 and starts school
Employment Support Allowance, Work Related Activity Group lone parent is now responsible
for a child under 5
Becomes or ceases to be Employment Support Allowance credits only
Employment Support Allowance safeguard measures (vulnerable customers) identified
Imprisonment
Special Customer Record Case
Transfer to another Jobcentre Plus District

The extent of the disclosure is only known due to a Freedom of Information request, whereas the "customer" (whose custom is guaranteed through menaces) is only told "we have passed your contact details on" to the provider. Clearly, this is much more than contact details and offers a glimpse at the level of control being exerted over claimants.

Fortunately, there is a way out. Claimants are advised to never sign the consent form, as this essentially waives your rights under the data protection act. There is also a standard letter to withdraw your consent if it has already been given, and as there is no legal requirement to provide any of the above information no action can be taken against you. Unfortunately, most claimants will be blissfully unaware of all of this, and so the information along with tips on enacting your rights are all helpfully compiled here.

As noted above, this is just one front in the attack that workfare as a whole represents. Through collecting and retaining such information, the DWP can monitor and control you effectively, and most people will be too afraid of losing their only means of support to speak up. But beyond that, the programme itself remains something that must be organised against.

The Boycott Workfare website helpfully lists the companies gaining from workfare in various areas. This list (.xls download) contains all public, private and voluntary sector organisations involved.

All of these providers, including charities such as Barnados and the PDSA, are benefiting from the exploitation of the unemployed. In essence, they get free labour which allows them to boost their own profits on the taxpayer's dime, at the same time undercutting the security of those actually employed in such roles and diluting the job market for those whom workfare is supposed to provide with opportunities. In essence, it is a way of funneling tax money into private profit.

For those who actually do the jobs, it is even worse. Sure, all employment is exploitation, and those of us who've worked in retail (as one example) will know how demeaning and dehumanising the whole experience is. But we at least get an actual wage out of the experience. A shit wage, to be sure, but one that far out-weighs £67.50 (or £53.45 if you're under 25) a week in JSA.

This is why organising against workfare is all important. As Liverpool Solfed's campaign builds momentum, hopefully we will be able to see the results. One of the easiest, but most important, things to do is to make claimants aware of their rights - as with the specific issue of privacy and data protection described above, this is the most vital aspect of any campaign. It is claimants themselves who should be at the heart of any actions and demonstrations that emerge, and we will be striving to see that this is what transpires.

But those already in employment are also affected, and their solidarity is also important. This goes for workers in the Department of Work and Pensions, who are best placed to offer practical support through their jobs to those facing the work programme. But it also applies to those who work for providers, who can form a direct link with any campaign of protest and disruption against those companies which use workfare.

The House of Lords may have defeated the Welfare Reform Bill, but the attacks on claimants will continue. Only through solidarity and working class self-organisation can we defeat workfare and related initiatives. To end the exploitation of the unemployed, we must make it unprofitable through direct action.

Sacked shop workers occupy La Senza

Update: the occupation has now ended in a victory for the workers, who have been paid all monies owed.

Workers at lingerie retailer La Senza in Dublin have been occupying their workplace since Monday. The 25 members of staff taking part took over the store after losing their jobs, as the company has refused to pay out any redundancy pay. Importantly, they are refusing to leave the store until all 100 redundant staff receive every penny that they are owed.

La Senza applied for administration just before Christmas, citing "trading conditions" and "the overall macroeconomic environment." As a result, 1,300 jobs are set to go in the UK. For the Irish workers already sacked, this means that the fruits of their labour over the past month are also being robbed from them. A report from the Irish Socialist Workers Party explains that "within the [Irish] laws of liquidation the workers are considered to be creditors and wages owed are bottom of the list" to be paid back. As such, the most viable option seems to be applying for statutory redundancy pay.

However, whilst the law offers scant protection and the Mandate trade union gives the matter a single sentence on its website, the workers aren't giving in that easily.

As former supervisor Tara Keane put it;

We’re not going down without a fight. We've been told that La Senza will not be giving us a cent. We’ve worked hard for the company, especially over Christmas, even with the threat hanging over us. Some of us have worked for the company for a long time. We don’t want a lot. We’ll be here as long as we can be here.

This willingness to take direct action by low paid shop workers reflects a growing awareness that it is those at the bottom who will bear the brunt of the bosses' economic failings. We are, after all, just another cost and in times of difficulty we can be dropped as such. Thus, the only recourse that workers have is to organise and defend our own interests.

It is important, too, to note that this won't happen through the channels of trade union officialdom. The retail workers' union Mandate may be "discuss[ing] issues of concern to our members," but there is no indication that it is doing much else. By contrast the workers, taking matters into their own hands by way of a sit-in, have forced the issue into the limelight and put up a real struggle against what's going on. As one worker told the Irish Times, "we have to stand up for ourselves because it doesn’t look like the Government is going to."

This offers a powerful example to other low-paid retail workers - who are disproportionately women - about the need to self-organise. It's not just the government who won't stand up for us, but the trade union leadership too. Workers can only win real victories and concessions when we stop looking to others to save us and take direct action.

Questions raised by private security attacks on UK Uncut

I've already shared this video with friends on Twitter and Facebook. However, I'm posting it here because the events relayed within raise serious questions. In particular, in my mind it begs the question of stewarding at this kind of action.

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of stewarding at demonstrations generally. With good reason, I might add, since on a march or at a demonstration the role of the guy in the hi viz jacket has long been to collaborate with the police and keep protesters to a designated route. In some instances, this role of policing the demo has even gone so far as handing people over for arrest. It is a collaborator's role and thus one typically shunned by demonstrations not organised by trade union or left leaders.

However there is another, far more positive, role that stewards can potentially play. In this instance I'm thinking of the kind of militant stewarding groups that Anti Fascist Action used to operate - their role being not to police demonstrators but protect them, whether that be from fascists or from the equally thuggish bastards that populate police units and private security firms.

The video above shows events that took place at the end of Saturday's UK Uncut action in Liverpool City Centre. This was after I and others had left, so unfortunately I don't have a first hand account to offer. However, what I have heard from a comrade is pretty damning. He and others who tried to intervene were told by one goon in uniform that he would "bite your fucking face of next time I see you," as well as being assured that bouncers "run this town." These people clearly think of themselves as a cut above, and so of kicking the shit out of students and kids during a protest as sport.

As more and more people are drawn into such actions, an increasing degree of political inexperience leaves people vulnerable. The choice for those of us who support more radical and direct action then becomes one of shouting indignation from the sidelines, or taking action.

For me, the latter course of action is the only one that can be justified. These people are nothing but jacked up bully boys, thinking they're hard because they can punch a teenager or a pregnant woman. With the possibility of their being violent stand alongside the long time threat of attacks by the far-right and police brutality, the case for stewarding groups and the physical defence of radical protest and direct action has never been more forceful.

Demonstration in support of sacked Liverpool Mutual Homes workers

At the end of August, I wrote about how a group of workers had been sacked by Liverpool Mutual Homes (LMH) as a result of their age. They have been protesting at their workplace and at LMH offices in town near constantly since then. Alongside them, 200 of their colleagues are facing the sack.

It was last June that the council saved 273 jobs by bringing the company back "in-house." However, with the council now in full gear implementing multi-million pound cuts, it appears that this was only a temporary reprieve. LMH claim that there is not enough work and are therefore making redundancies. The union reject this on the basis, as elsewhere in the public sector, that the workforce is already understaffed. They also have evidence that LMH are addressing this issue, whilst still getting rid of staff, through the use of subcontractors.

The workers have commenced a ballot for industrial action and are hoping for a positive result. This will allow them to go beyond the protests that have gained considerable sympathy over the last few months and hit the bosses where it hurts - in the pocket. Once strike dates are announced, I'll be publicising those here as well in a similar call for support.

In the meantime, if you can get into Liverpool City Centre, come along. Show your solidarity with the 11 workers already sacked and the additional 200 facing redundancy - send a message to LMH that they do not stand alone.

Assemble 12pm, Friday 13th January, at Steble Fountain on William Brown Street.
Bring flags, placards and banners.
RSVP on the Facebook event page, here.

Running around Liverpool with UK Uncut

Yesterday, I headed into Liverpool City Centre to take part in a UK Uncut day of action. It turned out to be one of the most successful recent actions by the group. Working Class Self Organisation's write up of the afternoon is here, and what follows is my take.

The assembly point for the action was the Liverpool Social Centre, in the basement of News From Nowhere. Having already been in town on other business, I arrived early and was there when Anna - the organiser of the event and a fellow member of Liverpool Solidarity Federation - arrived, camera crew in tow. It turns out that she was the subject of a documentary by Al Gore's Current TV channel, and thus the day's action was to be filmed.

This created a weird dynamic in the Social Centre, to say the least. The camera crew set about filming the smallest details of their surroundings whilst the presenter Andrew Mueller asked about the significance of the Centre to radical movements. Even I was weirded out by the way one of the cameras was following Anna around - even when she was literally doing nothing.

Once more people started to arrive, most from Occupy Liverpool, there was an incredibly staged unveiling of the banner that had been created for the occasion. Mueller interviewed one member of the Occupy camp about how their organisation worked and his role as a figurehead since he was more visible than many others during actions. He then interviewed me and I offered an anarcho-syndicalist perspective on UK Uncut, from how its actions were far more radical than its politics to the need to cause economic disruption in order to force any change of direction from the government on austerity.

With a few initial interviews done, the target of the day's action was announced as HSBC and the group left the Social Centre on mass. Moving down Bold Street, it soon became apparent that the police were expecting something to happen, though they clearly didn't know where had been targetted yet. For them, it would clearly be a case of reacting to the situation as it happened.

Three people got into HSBC and announced themselves before the doors were closed, leaving the rest of us to picket outside. The banner and cardboard signs were unveiled, and a gathering crowd were informed that the aim of the protest was to highlight the tax dodging by banks and corporations and how this money could prevent public sector cuts. A few people moved around, engaging with the public or taking pictures, whilst others milled about, holding up signs and talking amongst themselves.

During the time we were there, a number of security guards gathered and looked on. They kept their distance, but some were clearly itching for a fight, and it had been established from previous UK Uncut actions that they would seize any opportunity for a melee with the demonstrators. Their interest in confrontation was confirmed by the sight of two men, who turned out to be guards from Vodaphone in Liverpool One, observing the picket from a shop on the opposite side of the street almost for the entire time it was there.

At three o'clock, with HSBC shut down for the day, the protesters moved off. An instruction had already been passed around discretely, and the group charged back down the street and into Topshop. Not long after this, the doors were closed and shoppers ushered out. This occupation lasted about twenty minutes, with any shoppers wanting to make purchases being taken through the tills and leaving by the fire exit. Outside the shop, a considerable crowd had gathered, and once more another group of security were milling not too far away. Some Uncutters remained on the outside, explaining to passers by and the gathering throng - many of them kids excited by the hubbub and disruption - what it was all about.

Eventually, the occupiers all left in a procession via the front doors, to cheering and applause. They then moved into the middle of Church Street, to rally people together. Across the road, Vodaphone had already shut down in anticipation and Burtons had its shutters half way down. This was followed by a spontaneous march down Church Street and through the Liverpool One shopping centre, where both the other Vodaphone branch and Natwest closed in anticipation of protest.

It was not long after this that I had to leave because of a prior engagement, although I understand that Tescos and Starbucks were among other stores targeted. My suspicions about the security were also confirmed by news that one was arrested for assault, along with a member of Occupy Liverpool on the same charge. This suggests a potential need for stewarding on demonstrations such as these - not stewarding in the sense of wearing a hi-viz jacket and acting as lackeys for the police to keep people in line, but in the sense of being there specifically to provide security for the demonstration against police, security or fascist violence as the case may be.

Nonetheless, the day was ultimately a successful one. Such actions cannot be measured individually in terms of the impact they have on the broader issue, but it is pretty much a guarantee that they have greater effect if they impact upon trading than if they are reduced to a passive protest - as the last demo at Topshop was. Yesterday, at least six businesses closed as a result of this action, an undoubted win.

The Stephen Lawrence verdict

On Tuesday, Gary Dobson and David Norris were found guilty of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. For Lawrence's parents, this was the vindication of an 18-year hunt for justice, perhaps some closure over the death of their son. For others, it has proved another occasion to promote their own agendas and to re-awaken old vendettas.

The most significant fallout from the Stephen Lawrence murder is that - via the MacPherson Report - it exposed the institutional racism of the Metropolitan Police. The recommendations that came with this revelation can be seen as one of the main drivers of an institutional focus on diversity and race relations, and thus the "political correctness" that would become the bug bear of both the conservative and far right. The Lawrence verdict, particularly as a counterpoint to other events, has become an excuse to wheel out the same arguments.

For example, one article doing the rounds - re-blogged by BNP supporter Centurean2 and ex-BNP, now British Freedom Party supporter Lee Barnes - is this one over at the Libertarian Alliance. In it, Robert Henderson "contrast[s] the elite response to [Richard Everitt's] death and that of Stephen Lawrence." He notes that whilst Everitt's murder was also racially motivated, "there has been no public inquiry into Richard’s murder," "there has been no concerted media campaign stretching over nearly two decades" and "pressure was put on Richard’s parents at the time to go along with the usual Maoist pc line that they were not racist and so on." This proves that "in really important matters such as the administration of justice [political correctness] was already solidly entrenched two decades ago."

However, presuming that use of the phrase "Maoist pc line" hadn't already set alarm bells ringing, there are glaring holes in this narrative. For one, as Henderson himself points out, "the gang were arrested the same night for a separate incident" which saw Richard's blood found on them. "After nine months the police had arrested 11 people in connection with the murder," and two people were jailed in connection with the crime in 1997 - three years after the murder.

It is true that the entire gang involved did not face trial, let alone sentencing, and that there appear to be serious problems with the way in which this issue was dealt. But, in trying to prove that somehow Lawrence's murder was taken more seriously, Henderson is on to a loser. Let's not forget that the Lawrence murder took eighteen years to see any kind of resolution, and that the killing wasn't the result of a mass campaign and parliamentary inquiry on the basis of being a racist murder - it was so because of a mishandled police investigation, rooted in the Met's institutional racism.

Casuals United take issue with the fact that the Attorney General considers the sentencing in the Lawrence case "unduly lenient." Trotting out cases of white people being killed where they consider the sentence lenient, they thus conclude "our legal sytem is dominated by political correctness and is not there for white people, except to persecute them." Thus, the fact that bad things also happen to white people with shitty redress (and that Stephen Lawrence's parents were able to build a campaign with considerable momentum and support) becomes proof that non-white people are somehow privileged and political correctness has run rampant. Though, if you want to see what that argument boils down to with all sophistry removed, I'd suggest a quick glimpse of this Facebook thread.

As an example of how far this ridiculous, desperate scramble to salvage white victimhood goes is in the response to what Diane Abbott said on Twitter. In fact, the only mention on the BNP website of the Stephen Lawrence verdict is the briefest of references when bemoaning Abbott's turn as an "anti-British bigot." Which is, of course, an utterly ridiculous comment coming from someone with as long and proud a history of bigotry as Griffin has.

What Abbott said was "White people love playing 'divide & rule' We should not play their game." This, as Adam Ford points out, was not offered as a reference to the tactics of colonialism - tactics that remain in force today. The ruling class have long played off one section of the working class against another in order to avoid being challenged themselves, and racism is just one example of this. It is true that "by couching her Tweet in purely ethnic terms, Abbott has laid herself open to easy and convenient accusations of racism," but that doesn't mean that it was racist.

If anything, the context of her tweet actually leaves her open to criticism from the opposite direction. Namely, that she was incorrectly referencing the divide-and-rule tactic in order to silence a legitimate criticism of official, state multiculturalism by another black person. Journalist Bim Adewunmi had tweeted "I do wish everyone would stop saying 'the black community'," clarifying that "I hate the generally lazy thinking behind the use of the term. Same for 'black community leaders'."

This was a legitimate point, since the liberal habit of referring to imaginary, homogeneous "communities" has long been used for political capital, with "community leaders" having funding thrown at them in exchange for votes. Meanwhile, it serves only to emphasise ethnic separation (albeit from a "progressive" point of view) and over-write issues such as class. In defence of this practice, Abbott responded to Adewnmi's criticism by declaring "you are playing into a "divide and rule" agenda" and later, "ethnic communities that show more public solidarity & unity than black people do much better," with the hashtag #dontwashdirtylineninpublic - in other words, shut up and accept the official line.

Ultimately, Abbott was herself playing divide and rule - in its multicultural rather than colonial guise. But to suggest that it is racist, thus equating a reference to colonial tactics to suppress non-whites with the insinuation that all blacks are criminals or all Muslims terrorists, is a nonsense.

Returning to the Lawrence case itself, here too there are serious criticisms to be made about how it was handled. For example the cynical opportunism with which people attached themselves to the cause - not least the Daily Mail, who have claimed an enormous amount of credit yet started out with a considerably more hostile editorial line. Yet this is nothing new, nor exclusive to cases of racist murder. We might remember how Tony Blair used the murder of James Bulger to raise his profile, as David Cameron exploited the case of the "torture brothers", or tabloid hysteria over any number of high profile murders and disappearences. Cynical political maneuvering doesn't equal political correctness.

Also of concern is the change in the law which resulted in this conviction - the removal of "double jeopardy." In essence, where once people were protected from being tried for the same crime twice, they are now not. This is something with potentially far-reaching civil liberties implications, and a point that I can't claim to have an answer to. It could be said that this is the inevitable result of campaigning for the state to intervene on your behalf - especially given the government's form in this area.

This is not something that can be laid at the feet of the Stephen Lawrence campaign or of "political correctness." The lesson here is only that a racist murder doesn't change the interest of the state to consolidate its own power. Meanwhile, beyond the fury, opportunism and right-wing propaganda, the verdict may bring a sense of closure and justice to at least two people.

Call for an international week of action against Ryanair

The Ryanair Don't Care campaign, supported by Liverpool Solidarity Federation, is calling for an international week of action against exploitation and recruitment-scamming by Ryanair starting on March 12th 2012.

The Ryanair Don't Care Campaign was started by John Foley when his daughter was sacked as a flight attendant mid-flight and abandoned abroad, penniless. This would lead to the exposure of a cynical and highly exploitative recruitment scam by the airline.

Ryanair’s current policy of recruitment-for-termination is part of the massive exploitation of people who apply to work for the company. As it stands potential cabin crew have to pay a fee of 3000 Euro through an agency to undergo training for Ryanair. As many as 60 people are sacked at any one time after this initial training period, up to 200 people a month. Those who survive are put on a 12 month probationary period on a lower rate of pay than normal cabin crew and Ryanair pocket the difference, as much as £20m a year.

Liverpool Solidarity Federation have already put their full backing behind the campaign, and behind John, who has been arrested six times for his direct action activism against the airline. We are now calling on others to do the same in support of the campaign's call for an international week of action against Ryanair in March.

We call on other Solidarity Federation locals, the International Workers' Association, and all who support the struggle of workers against exploitative employers, to take the following action:

Support the call-out for an International Week of Action against Ryanair, on the 12-18 March

• Hold pickets of airports where Ryanair put on flights, offices of Ryanair and agencies / recruitment fairs through which they hire staff
• Picket the Cheltenham Festival, which Ryanair sponsors, and particularly the Ryanair Chase on Thursday 15 March
• Phone, fax and email Ryanair to complain about exploitative recruitment practices

End recruitment scamming! End the exploitation of workers at Ryanair! Support the week of action against Ryanair!

To contact Ryanair and complain about their practices, below are the easiest ways to contact them. More are listed here.

Phone: +353 1 812 1212
Fax: +353 1 812 1676
Email: http://frd.ie/complaints/?language=en

Follow the Ryanair Don't Care Campaign online: Blog | Facebook | Twitter

UK antifascist prisoners Sean Cregan and Andy Baker released

Some truly brilliant news, reposted from Leeds Anarchist Black Cross.

We are very pleased to be able to announce that two of the UK antifascists sent down last year were released on 30/12/11 on ‘Home Detention Curfew’ (electronic ‘tag’). We wish sean Cregan and Andy Baker the very best of luck and hope that they can successfully rebuild their lives. Thank you to the many groups and individuals who have allowed us to properly support these comrades. For the moment, the other three antifascists sentenced in relation to the same case remain inside and in need of support.

A recent article by Sean Cregan:

Freedom’s Fight

“Mick, Sean’s up at the bloody window!”

My dad took the stairs three at a time and caught me just before I fell. The window was nailed shut with six-inch nails… That was my earliest bid for freedom. I was not yet a year old but somehow I had made it up to that ledge, as my folks nattered to the neighbours downstairs.

Looking from that point to this, my own struggle for freedom has been and still is a major factor in who I am as a person today. Indeed it is the reason why I write this from a prison cell.

Born to Irish parents, growing up on south London’s housing estates was always going tbe a challenge. I loved my Irish roots but to other “real” Irish I was just a “plastic Paddy”. The English hated me for being Irish. I couldn’t win. My feeling of always supporting the underdog, the downtrodden, probably took root at that early age and has never waned. If a human or animal had no voice and was being mistreated, I’d be there to fight for what I believed to be right.

In my late teens the world of punk rock opened up a whole new world for me. I listened to bands that sang with anger and passion about the way humans and animals were treated. The “safe” music in the charts didn’t rock the boat and that’s how the authorities liked it. Punk music had such a profound impact. It made me aware of things I’d been ignorant of. I was inspired to form my own band to add my voice to the call for freedom and justice.

I naturally gravitated toward like-minded people: people who questioned everything they were told; people who did not blindly accept what they were told; people that cared for others outside the immediate circle of family and friends. These were heady days for me and I felt alive and part of something good and exciting.

In time I moved into the squatting “scene” and started to attend demos and actions, from CND marches to animal rights and anti-nazi demonstrations. I met punks, hippies, crusties and junkies! Many colourful people, some from privileged backgrounds and from all over the world. I found lots of common ground as well as uncommon ground. My working-class roots found some of the people a bit rich. Literally!

Most of my new-found friends considered themselves as anarchists/activists. After a while it became clear that many of these folk used that label to look the part but actually do little more than take drugs and do nothing; a part of the problem not the solution. I remember one time at a squat in Tooting we were sat smoking weed and putting the world to rights when the doorbell rang. I swear not one of us would-be revolutionaries could be bothered to answer the door! I never smoked another joint. It made me paranoid anyway. There were other drugs that I liked better; speed and acid, mushrooms and pills. We were having the time of our lives, squatting rent free, going to gigs and travelling the country to actions of every description. It was a bit hedonistic but I was happy.

The feeling of living in those squatted communities was one of belonging. It was as if I’d found my second family, my tribe even. We believed in freedom of expression, mutual respect and activism against the oppressive system. We shared a common hatred of the state; the futile wars fought in our names, the corrupt politicians, the greed of big business and the sad consumer materialistic society that had grown in the wake of the Thatcher era. What really was free? Not much as far as we were concerned unless you were part of the privileged few.

We live in this western “democracy” and believe we are truly free, and compared to some countries it may well seem that we are, but that is a skewed way of looking at things. In our society today we are more controlled, restricted, spied upon and monitored than at any time in our history. The last twenty years have seen more

and more of our rights taken away from us under new laws that the government stealthily introduce, by for instance telling us it’s for our own protection in the case of powers granted to the police in the fight against terrorism. It may

initially be used for one section of society but could have a range of implications for the public as a whole. We have more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in Europe. We are constantly watched and tracked, and with “smart” phones the authorities can pinpoint you to a place in seconds while Oyster cards keepa handy record of where we have been.

Our mainstream media is largely run by a handful of millionaires that feed us whatever party line they support through their papers; a nice cosy arrangement with the politicians who in turn get their media mates to bury news they don’t want us to know about. We are given a set of rules, laws to abide by. They claim to be for the common good but we are constantly shown that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. A truly fair and equal society would indeed be free. Free from injustice and a place where we could all meet and live as equals sharing our collective wealth, but that is just not the case. Something like five per cent of the population own ninety per cent of the land! How did these people get to own land in the first place? By taking it by force manyyears ago. I’ve personally always thought that owning the land is a ridiculous notion but their laws ensure that we have no freedom to roam where we choose.

We are told it’s wrong to steal and yet we are robbed every single day by landlords, banks, big business marking up huge profits, taxed to death by the government – the list is endless. Most working people are lucky to have enough to get them through to the next week and once they’ve paid out the bills there is preciouslittle left. And that’s just the way the state wants the lower classes to be: reliant wage slaves, given just enough but not nearly enough!

We are also bombarded with the lives of the rich and famous. The TV and magazines like OK and Hello sell us glimpses into their luxury lifestyles. The ever-pouting Posh Spice and her gormless jet-set equals Paris Hilton et al

flaunt their unbelievable wealth in our faces while doing absolutely nothing to earn it. The poor lap it all up and long to be them, knowing the likelihood of that ever happening is zero. The uber-rich live in countries where they can

avoid paying their taxes – so it would seem freedom is obtainable at the right price. If you have the money you can buy it!

Violence, we are told, is not permitted in a civilised society. Yet we watch as those in power sell masses of arms to corrupt regimes around the world that end up in the slaughter of innocents. When there is money at stake and oil to be controlled it would seem that people’s freedom is way down the list where the men of Mammon are concerned. How many indigenous people have been crushed, uprooted and in some cases eradicated in the name of oil, timber or whatever commodity it is that they desire?

There is only the freedom that tyrants and despots around the globe allow us to have. Their double standards and hypocrisy are disgusting and how they still manage to pull the wool over the masses’ eyes is a mystery to many.

As the years passed my involvement in direct action increased. I became a hunt saboteur and regularly attended hunts in defence of the animals’ liberty. The rich and infamous took exception to their “sport” being disrupted and violence was never far away. Arrests inevitably followed with the law firmly on the side of the well-to-do hunters.

I lost my freedom after being sent to prison for kicking a police riot shield on a May Day protest demo. The police had held us for over six hours using the new “kettling” tactic for the first time. We had been crushed and bashed with batons all day and my temper broke loose with one kick. I was sentenced to six months. This did little to deter me and only underlined the injustice of law and order. Losing my liberty was the worst feeling ever.

In recent years my political life has been dominated by the fight against the rise of the far right. On a wet weekend in March 2009 myself and fellow anti-fascists tried to stop a concert by the extreme nazi organisation Blood and Honour. Given the chance, these fascists would deny many of us our freedom. Their message is one of intolerance and hatred. As the police seemed indifferent we felt it was our duty to try and stop these vile people preaching their politics of hate.

I was involved in a fight with one of the “master race” and myself and twenty-two others were arrested in dawn raids in a massive operation by the authorities.We were charged with conspiring to commit violent disorder. Six were found guilty and sentenced to twenty-one months.

I try to make some sense of why I am sitting in this cell. It seems that those who are prepared to stand up for what is right are treated as criminals. I don’t know if losing my own freedom in defence of others’ freedom is too high a price, but I will always believe freedom is worth fighting for. How I carry on that fightremains to be seen.