So Nick Clegg, leader of the LSD and deputy PM in the Con Dems, has been on Desert Island Discs. Dunno how much his choices say about him, although David Bowie "Life On Mars" is kinda appropriate - after all, he doesn't seem to live on this planet :P
It got me thinking, what records do we think could be dedicated to this lover of capitalism and lap-dog of Cameron? Well, here's a few suggestions:
Phats & Small "Turn Around" - he's certainly done a 180 on his pre-election promises!
Crazy World of Arthur Brown "Fire" - like the bonfire of public services he is overseeing.
Carol Bayer Sager "You're Moving Out Today" - could be dedicated to the council house tenants who will be shafted by the Con Dems' ending of council homes for life.
Soul II Soul "Keep On Movin'" - on a bus, dedicated to the unemployed :/
Jonathan Butler "Lies" - he told enough of those prior to the election!
Luther Vandross "I Really Didn't Mean It" - what he could now say about his pre-election promises!
Simply Red "Money's Too Tight To Mention" - well, unless you're a banker, boss or Con Dem fat cat!
Kaiser Chiefs "I Predict A Riot" - well, I certainly can, the way this government's pissing on us.
Finally, I think a certain record by Ivor Biggun kinda suits him. I think you know which one ...
Sunday, 24 October 2010
Sunday, 17 October 2010
A plague on both houses
Well, when asked why I'm so pissed off with the Con Dems, I don't really know where to start. So I'll start with their policy on housing, notably their stupid idea of forcing out of council houses people who they think don't need social housing anymore.
On the one hand, it is true that the lack of social housing is a problem. But it's not the fault of people who currently live in social housing. I'll take this opportunity to clear up a few other myths while I'm here; the shortage of decent housing is also NOT caused by:
In any case, forcing people out of social housing, and into the clutches of anti-social private landlords, will not solve the problem. And I don't use the term 'anti-social' lightly; I have personal experience of private landlords accusing tenants of non-payment of rent (despite payment being easily provable), and even borrowing money off their own tenants!
It will be even worse for people in oppressed minorities who are turfed out of their council house, on a whim by the Con Dem scum. I have experienced overt disability prejudice while looking for accommodation, and know of gay people who have been evicted by homophobic landlords. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Private landlords fall well within the middle class, and it the middle class have a far greater interest than workers, in perpetuating ideologies which benefit the capitalist system - such as prejudice. One of the reasons why the bulk of the Nazi BNP's membership is made up of the middle class.
At the same time, I certainly don't expect the Con Dem gits to do anything to mitigate this prejudice. Even before the election, Tory bastard Chris Grayling said that guest house owners should have the right to turn away gay people. And John Major's Tory government deliberately scuppered the Disabled People's Civil Rights Bill, so we instead ended up with anti-disablism legislation which is so weak and pitiful, I'm surprised it's not the star of Children In Need :P
The only answer to the lack of social housing is to increase the supply of decent, affordable council housing. Apart from the obvious funding solutions, such as taxing the rich and scrapping Trident, I have a few additional proposals:
Only by fighting on this issue, and against every attack on our living standards, can we make sure that people get to stay in their homes, as well as their jobs.
And make sure the Con Dems get chucked out of the House Of Commons !!!
On the one hand, it is true that the lack of social housing is a problem. But it's not the fault of people who currently live in social housing. I'll take this opportunity to clear up a few other myths while I'm here; the shortage of decent housing is also NOT caused by:
- immigrants - who too often are forced into substandard, overcramped and overpriced accommodation.
- asylum seekers - the lucky ones who are not in detention centres, end up in hostel accommodation.
- disabled people - we don't cause any more damage than the average person, and most damage to properties is due not to the tenants, but to neglect and cost-cutting by the landlord.
- gay people - I'm not even sure what excuses landlords give for discriminating against gay people. And whatever excuses they do have, I don't wanna hear them anyway :P
In any case, forcing people out of social housing, and into the clutches of anti-social private landlords, will not solve the problem. And I don't use the term 'anti-social' lightly; I have personal experience of private landlords accusing tenants of non-payment of rent (despite payment being easily provable), and even borrowing money off their own tenants!
It will be even worse for people in oppressed minorities who are turfed out of their council house, on a whim by the Con Dem scum. I have experienced overt disability prejudice while looking for accommodation, and know of gay people who have been evicted by homophobic landlords. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Private landlords fall well within the middle class, and it the middle class have a far greater interest than workers, in perpetuating ideologies which benefit the capitalist system - such as prejudice. One of the reasons why the bulk of the Nazi BNP's membership is made up of the middle class.
At the same time, I certainly don't expect the Con Dem gits to do anything to mitigate this prejudice. Even before the election, Tory bastard Chris Grayling said that guest house owners should have the right to turn away gay people. And John Major's Tory government deliberately scuppered the Disabled People's Civil Rights Bill, so we instead ended up with anti-disablism legislation which is so weak and pitiful, I'm surprised it's not the star of Children In Need :P
The only answer to the lack of social housing is to increase the supply of decent, affordable council housing. Apart from the obvious funding solutions, such as taxing the rich and scrapping Trident, I have a few additional proposals:
- A supertax on empty properties (which would also encourage landlords to rent out their housing at a lower rate, to get tenants in). And a superdupertax on properties which have been neglected to the point of dereliction, such as those left boarded-up for months on end.
- The ending of privatisation of social housing, in the form of PFI or ALMO's. Since privatisation adds the extra cost of profit for parasitical bosses, it is far cheaper for councils to build the housing themselves.
- The compulsory nationalisation, without compensation to the owner, of all properties belonging to landlords who abuse their position - whether by overcharging tenants or by discriminating against oppressed minorities.
Only by fighting on this issue, and against every attack on our living standards, can we make sure that people get to stay in their homes, as well as their jobs.
And make sure the Con Dems get chucked out of the House Of Commons !!!
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
Use your Ed, Miliband!
Well, it's been a year since I last posted on this blog. A hurricane of a year, both politically and personally. But now the dust has (sort of) settled, it's time to look at where we stand now politically ...
Considering the viciousness of the Con Dem attacks on our benefits, services and civil rights, it's easy to forget that the Con Dems really have no right to have power, let alone abuse it like they have. Despite the massive unpopularity of New Labour under Brown, the Tories did not get a landslide - more like a slight fall of dust :P In fact, the election results weren't a massive move to the right; the Nazi BNP failed to win a single seat, as did the hard-right UKIP. In fact, in some areas there was a shift to the left; Labour regained Chesterfield from the Liberal Democrats and, probably more importantly, the Green Party won their first MP in Brighton Pavilion.
Back to the point, the Tories did not win a majority, and can only govern with the collaboration of the LSD, sorry, Lib Dems. And many, possibly most, people who voted Lib Dem did so because they thought the Lib Dems were actually to the left of Labour, let alone the Tories. Indeed, some of the Lib Dems' election promises - which have now been thrown out of the top window of a tower block - were quite left wing, such as scrapping Trident. Many Lib Dem voters will now be bitterly disappointed.
While this disappointment is perfectly understandable, an analysis of the Lib Dems shows it is probably misplaced. After all, the Lib Dems are the result of a merger (back in the 1980's) between the nakedly capitalist Liberal Party on the one hand, and the proto-blairite SDP wich consisted of ex-Labour members who split because they considered Labour too left-wing. Hardly the credentials for a progressive anti-capitalist party :\
Following the election fiasco, came the contest for the new Labour leader. Although I personally backed Diane Abbott, I was glad Ed Miliband beat the nakedly Blairite David Miliband. So it is a shame that, having become Labour leader, Ed seems more interested in pandering to the same middle class, and kow towing to the same right wing, that Bliar et al pandered to, rather than standing up for the unions and for socialism.
Small wonder, then, that Ed's idea of opposing the Con Dems' proposed hike in tuition fees involves him reaching out to Lib Dem MPs who may rebel. Yet the Lib Dems have so far been no more than the Tories' lap dog, allowing the Tories to get away with slashing and burning jobs and services, forcing sick and disabled people to look for work, while continuing to squander fortunes on the bankers and Trident. With this in mind, at best, hoping for disaffected Lib Dems to stop a hike in fees seems to be like watering the lightning tree :(
What Ed should really be doing is not reaching out to a bunch of opportunists who would sell their @$$ for a tiny slice of power. Instead, he should be reaching out to the unions who built and continue to fund Labour. He should unconditionally support strikes by the students' NUS union, the lecturers' UCU union, and the unions of all workers affected by this attack on the right to education. And less of the carp (typo) about "irresponsible" strikes, when strikes are the only thing which can now stop this utterly irresponsible Con Dem government!
Indeed, it is imperative that we support all strikes by all unions, and all protests by all community groups and organisations, against all cuts and attacks by this coalition of Tory vermin and Lib Dem backstabbers :P
The recent protest outside the Tory Party conference in Birmingham must be just the beginning. The Con Dem government aims to ramp up its attacks on workers, students, immigrants, disabled people, etc etc. So we must ramp up our resistance to the Con Dems. And condemn the Con Dems to hell !!!
Considering the viciousness of the Con Dem attacks on our benefits, services and civil rights, it's easy to forget that the Con Dems really have no right to have power, let alone abuse it like they have. Despite the massive unpopularity of New Labour under Brown, the Tories did not get a landslide - more like a slight fall of dust :P In fact, the election results weren't a massive move to the right; the Nazi BNP failed to win a single seat, as did the hard-right UKIP. In fact, in some areas there was a shift to the left; Labour regained Chesterfield from the Liberal Democrats and, probably more importantly, the Green Party won their first MP in Brighton Pavilion.
Back to the point, the Tories did not win a majority, and can only govern with the collaboration of the LSD, sorry, Lib Dems. And many, possibly most, people who voted Lib Dem did so because they thought the Lib Dems were actually to the left of Labour, let alone the Tories. Indeed, some of the Lib Dems' election promises - which have now been thrown out of the top window of a tower block - were quite left wing, such as scrapping Trident. Many Lib Dem voters will now be bitterly disappointed.
While this disappointment is perfectly understandable, an analysis of the Lib Dems shows it is probably misplaced. After all, the Lib Dems are the result of a merger (back in the 1980's) between the nakedly capitalist Liberal Party on the one hand, and the proto-blairite SDP wich consisted of ex-Labour members who split because they considered Labour too left-wing. Hardly the credentials for a progressive anti-capitalist party :\
Following the election fiasco, came the contest for the new Labour leader. Although I personally backed Diane Abbott, I was glad Ed Miliband beat the nakedly Blairite David Miliband. So it is a shame that, having become Labour leader, Ed seems more interested in pandering to the same middle class, and kow towing to the same right wing, that Bliar et al pandered to, rather than standing up for the unions and for socialism.
Small wonder, then, that Ed's idea of opposing the Con Dems' proposed hike in tuition fees involves him reaching out to Lib Dem MPs who may rebel. Yet the Lib Dems have so far been no more than the Tories' lap dog, allowing the Tories to get away with slashing and burning jobs and services, forcing sick and disabled people to look for work, while continuing to squander fortunes on the bankers and Trident. With this in mind, at best, hoping for disaffected Lib Dems to stop a hike in fees seems to be like watering the lightning tree :(
What Ed should really be doing is not reaching out to a bunch of opportunists who would sell their @$$ for a tiny slice of power. Instead, he should be reaching out to the unions who built and continue to fund Labour. He should unconditionally support strikes by the students' NUS union, the lecturers' UCU union, and the unions of all workers affected by this attack on the right to education. And less of the carp (typo) about "irresponsible" strikes, when strikes are the only thing which can now stop this utterly irresponsible Con Dem government!
Indeed, it is imperative that we support all strikes by all unions, and all protests by all community groups and organisations, against all cuts and attacks by this coalition of Tory vermin and Lib Dem backstabbers :P
The recent protest outside the Tory Party conference in Birmingham must be just the beginning. The Con Dem government aims to ramp up its attacks on workers, students, immigrants, disabled people, etc etc. So we must ramp up our resistance to the Con Dems. And condemn the Con Dems to hell !!!
Monday, 7 September 2009
ASBO's all round!
Much comment has been made on Drinking Banning Orders, also known as 'booze asbos', which recently came into force (BBC News: New 'booze Asbos' come under fire). This legislation has been under fire from across the political spectrum, for various different reasons.
Some of the criticisms can be easily dismissed, notably the plaintive cry that the law should instead be targeting young / teenage / underage drinkers yet again. As if 'underage' drinkers haven't already had endless crackdowns upon them, for donkeys' years. And as if yet another crackdown on said will, by now, have a significant impact upon underage drinking - let alone, upon problem drinking as a whole.
If anything, it does make a refreshing change for the Establishment to finally be looking beyond the usual scapegoat of young people, and be trying a different approach to the problems associated with excessive drinking. But here my praise for the measures ends. And is outweighed by genuine criticisms of the legislation, as made by groups such as Liberty.
Most obviously, like any ASBOs, the Drinking Banning Orders are another way of 'short circuiting' the process of law by using civil orders to criminalise behaviour. ASBOs are also tainted by their reliance on unreliable, even hearsay, evidence. And by their use in petty circumstances - pirate broadcasters, kids playing football, even pensioners feeding birds, have all been subject to ASBOs. Can we really be certain that Drinking Banning Orders will not be used in similarly petty circumstances?
And how will these orders be enforced? The only way I can see them being enforced is by every pub and off licence checking the identity of every customer, of any age, to check they're not on a 'banned' list. Yes, everyone who is or appears to be under 25, already has this to put up with. But I really don't see 'levelling down' our civil liberties as a step in the right direction! Then, there's going to have to be a register of banned drinkers, which would have to be accessible to every alcohol outlet and the workers therein - with all the privacy issues that entails.
It is also ironic that the Drinking Banning Orders can be used on anyone aged over 16, despite the legal drinking age being 18. Seems yet another case of the Establishment's double standards, which mean someone aged 16 is deemed responsible enough to be punished for alcohol-related offences but not responsible enough to be allowed to buy alcohol in the first place.
But perhaps the most important point to make about Drinking Banning Orders, is that much of the anti-social behaviour associated with binge drinking can already be dealt with by existing laws. Violence, threatening behaviour, criminal damage, harassment (including racial and sexual harassment) were all criminal offences, the last time I checked! If these laws are not being enforced, how would yet another gimmick like booze asbos make us any safer ???
Then again, I guess it all comes down to the system's priorities. Violence - whether drunken or otherwise - tends to be a crime against the individual. And crimes against the individual tend to be, in the eyes of the system (which includes the law and its enforcers), a poor cinderella compared with crimes against the Establishment and crimes against the system itself.
Small wonder, then, we now have the grotesque situation where soldiers returning from Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder, are told by their Army bosses to 'get pissed and have a fight' rather than seek counselling (Daily Mirror: The scandal of our troops who are left with no support for traumas). Maybe, among the laws the Armed Forces have opted-out from, are the laws banning common assault :P Seriously, though, it is telling that violence is sometimes encouraged as a way of 'letting off steam'.
And not just within the Army. Every community is blighted by recession, job insecurity and hyper-unemployment, and many poople are only too eager to drink as a means of escaping the stress. At the same time, the Establishment would much rather see workers batter each other after a few drinks, than see us unite against them and their capitalist system which is ruining our lives.
We must not fall for the Establishment's crocodile tears about lives 'ruined by drink'. But at the same time, we must realise that drinking can never be a permanent solution to our problems. Only unity against the capitalist system can truly make things better. And leave the Establishment, rather than us, suffering the following morning!
Some of the criticisms can be easily dismissed, notably the plaintive cry that the law should instead be targeting young / teenage / underage drinkers yet again. As if 'underage' drinkers haven't already had endless crackdowns upon them, for donkeys' years. And as if yet another crackdown on said will, by now, have a significant impact upon underage drinking - let alone, upon problem drinking as a whole.
If anything, it does make a refreshing change for the Establishment to finally be looking beyond the usual scapegoat of young people, and be trying a different approach to the problems associated with excessive drinking. But here my praise for the measures ends. And is outweighed by genuine criticisms of the legislation, as made by groups such as Liberty.
Most obviously, like any ASBOs, the Drinking Banning Orders are another way of 'short circuiting' the process of law by using civil orders to criminalise behaviour. ASBOs are also tainted by their reliance on unreliable, even hearsay, evidence. And by their use in petty circumstances - pirate broadcasters, kids playing football, even pensioners feeding birds, have all been subject to ASBOs. Can we really be certain that Drinking Banning Orders will not be used in similarly petty circumstances?
And how will these orders be enforced? The only way I can see them being enforced is by every pub and off licence checking the identity of every customer, of any age, to check they're not on a 'banned' list. Yes, everyone who is or appears to be under 25, already has this to put up with. But I really don't see 'levelling down' our civil liberties as a step in the right direction! Then, there's going to have to be a register of banned drinkers, which would have to be accessible to every alcohol outlet and the workers therein - with all the privacy issues that entails.
It is also ironic that the Drinking Banning Orders can be used on anyone aged over 16, despite the legal drinking age being 18. Seems yet another case of the Establishment's double standards, which mean someone aged 16 is deemed responsible enough to be punished for alcohol-related offences but not responsible enough to be allowed to buy alcohol in the first place.
But perhaps the most important point to make about Drinking Banning Orders, is that much of the anti-social behaviour associated with binge drinking can already be dealt with by existing laws. Violence, threatening behaviour, criminal damage, harassment (including racial and sexual harassment) were all criminal offences, the last time I checked! If these laws are not being enforced, how would yet another gimmick like booze asbos make us any safer ???
Then again, I guess it all comes down to the system's priorities. Violence - whether drunken or otherwise - tends to be a crime against the individual. And crimes against the individual tend to be, in the eyes of the system (which includes the law and its enforcers), a poor cinderella compared with crimes against the Establishment and crimes against the system itself.
Small wonder, then, we now have the grotesque situation where soldiers returning from Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder, are told by their Army bosses to 'get pissed and have a fight' rather than seek counselling (Daily Mirror: The scandal of our troops who are left with no support for traumas). Maybe, among the laws the Armed Forces have opted-out from, are the laws banning common assault :P Seriously, though, it is telling that violence is sometimes encouraged as a way of 'letting off steam'.
And not just within the Army. Every community is blighted by recession, job insecurity and hyper-unemployment, and many poople are only too eager to drink as a means of escaping the stress. At the same time, the Establishment would much rather see workers batter each other after a few drinks, than see us unite against them and their capitalist system which is ruining our lives.
We must not fall for the Establishment's crocodile tears about lives 'ruined by drink'. But at the same time, we must realise that drinking can never be a permanent solution to our problems. Only unity against the capitalist system can truly make things better. And leave the Establishment, rather than us, suffering the following morning!
Sunday, 21 June 2009
British workers must support Stalin
There are at least two important industrial struggles taking place in the UK at the moment. One is the brave fight of the Lindsey Oil Refinery constuction workers, who were sacked following a wildcat strike against redundancies. (Socialist Worker 20th June 2009: The sacking of the Lindsey workers is a challenge for the whole working class) All socialists must give our full backing to the Lindsey strikers, and to all sympathy walkouts across the UK - such as those at several power stations, other oil refineries and a biofuels plant (BBC News 19th June 2009: Oil plant sackings spark walkouts).
At the same time, however, we should be sceptical about the slogan used by some (by no means all!) supporters of the strike, of "British jobs for British workers". Such slogans pander to nationalism, and risk exacerbating the problem of racism towards immigrants. This is especially unwelcome following the rise of the Nazi BNP - I'm not saying the Euro Election results were frightening, but after watching the Euro election broadcast I had to watch A Nightmare On Elm Street for a bit of light relief ...
We must always remember that immigrant workers are never the problem. Where British workers' pay and conditions are being undercut - whether by foreign workers or by other British agency workers - the problem lies with the fat cat bosses who are cutting costs and boosting their fat profits by employing the cheapest labour possible. So the answer - far from attacking immigrant workers - is to fight for immigrant labour to be employed alongside British labour, on exactly the same, decent, pay and working conditions. This would not only eliminate the under-cutting of existing workers' pay and conditions, it would also eliminate the ruthless exploitation of new workers.
The key to this being achieved, is the struggle by immigrant workers for decent pay and conditions, as seen in another important struggle - that of the SOAS cleaners in London. A strike has been taking place against the sacking of Jose Stalin Bermudez, a Unison union official who was sacked by management. Stalin invoked the wrath of SOAS' management after he helped low paid Latin American cleaners demonstrate against non-payment of wages and for a London Living Wage (Socialist Worker 6th June 2009: Strike in defence of victimised union activist at Soas). Since then, the SOAS cleaners have been treated just as, or even more, diabolically than the Lindsay strikers; SOAS management gave no resistance to, perhaps even collaborated with, a raid by immigration officers which led to the arrest and deportation of several cleaners - who had taken part in action for decent pay and conditions and in support of Stalin (Socialist Worker 20th June 2009: Soas: Did bosses target their cleaners for deportation?). On a positive note, this raid and its aftermath led to occupations by SOAS students in support of the cleaners.
What we need is for the white working class, such as those striking at Lindsay against redundancy, to link with immigrant workers, such as the SOAS cleaners striking against low pay and exploitation. The workers' struggles must then be linked to struggles by students fighting against education cuts and tuition fees, and unemployed and disabled workers fighting against cuts in benefits and unreasonable conditions for claiming benefits.
If such unity could be forged, not only could it undercut racists such as the Nazi BNP. It could create a perfect storm which could sink not only the so-called Labour government and its plastic opposition in the form of the Tories, but the entire capitalist system.
At the same time, however, we should be sceptical about the slogan used by some (by no means all!) supporters of the strike, of "British jobs for British workers". Such slogans pander to nationalism, and risk exacerbating the problem of racism towards immigrants. This is especially unwelcome following the rise of the Nazi BNP - I'm not saying the Euro Election results were frightening, but after watching the Euro election broadcast I had to watch A Nightmare On Elm Street for a bit of light relief ...
We must always remember that immigrant workers are never the problem. Where British workers' pay and conditions are being undercut - whether by foreign workers or by other British agency workers - the problem lies with the fat cat bosses who are cutting costs and boosting their fat profits by employing the cheapest labour possible. So the answer - far from attacking immigrant workers - is to fight for immigrant labour to be employed alongside British labour, on exactly the same, decent, pay and working conditions. This would not only eliminate the under-cutting of existing workers' pay and conditions, it would also eliminate the ruthless exploitation of new workers.
The key to this being achieved, is the struggle by immigrant workers for decent pay and conditions, as seen in another important struggle - that of the SOAS cleaners in London. A strike has been taking place against the sacking of Jose Stalin Bermudez, a Unison union official who was sacked by management. Stalin invoked the wrath of SOAS' management after he helped low paid Latin American cleaners demonstrate against non-payment of wages and for a London Living Wage (Socialist Worker 6th June 2009: Strike in defence of victimised union activist at Soas). Since then, the SOAS cleaners have been treated just as, or even more, diabolically than the Lindsay strikers; SOAS management gave no resistance to, perhaps even collaborated with, a raid by immigration officers which led to the arrest and deportation of several cleaners - who had taken part in action for decent pay and conditions and in support of Stalin (Socialist Worker 20th June 2009: Soas: Did bosses target their cleaners for deportation?). On a positive note, this raid and its aftermath led to occupations by SOAS students in support of the cleaners.
What we need is for the white working class, such as those striking at Lindsay against redundancy, to link with immigrant workers, such as the SOAS cleaners striking against low pay and exploitation. The workers' struggles must then be linked to struggles by students fighting against education cuts and tuition fees, and unemployed and disabled workers fighting against cuts in benefits and unreasonable conditions for claiming benefits.
If such unity could be forged, not only could it undercut racists such as the Nazi BNP. It could create a perfect storm which could sink not only the so-called Labour government and its plastic opposition in the form of the Tories, but the entire capitalist system.
Friday, 20 March 2009
Economic League, economic hooligans
I'm very glad to see the shutting down of the Consulting Association, an employment blacklisting organisation which kept files on political activists and trade unionists, and even people who raised health and safety concerns (Socialist Worker: Construction blacklist: Bosses pay £2.20 to destroy lives). And I will be very interested to see what legal action is taken against those who ran, and those companies which subscribed to, the Consulting Assholeciation.
If you think you may be on the Construction Association blacklist, you can check with the Information Commissioner's Office. Their Consulting Association info page tells you not only how to check your details, but also lists the companies which suscribed to the CA.
Personally, I'd like to see every company who subscribed to them raided, and their bosses prosecuted for not only blackisting but also for aiding and abetting a blacklisting organisation. Let's face it, 'just looking' is absolutely no excuse in the case of, for example, kiddie porn. And a number of organisations, including the NSPCC, have cited a link between unemployment and poverty - the end result of blacklisting! - and child abuse. So I'd just love to see all involved locked in a cell with Gary Glitter, Ian Huntley et al. And the key recycled!
I know, that's hardly likely to happen. Especially when you bear in mind that the state has an unhappy history of keeping files on political dissidents; back in the 1980's (and probably more recently), MI5 kept numerous files on socialists and even used to infiltrate left-wing political parties.
At the same time, the laws passed in 1999 banning blacklists are welcome - even if it did take a f***ing decade for them to be enforced! Back in the 80's and before, a blacklisting organisation called the Economic League used to operate legally. And, whereas the Consulting Association seems to have most of its subscribing companies in the construction industry, the Economic League had a much larger range of subscribing companies, including Ford motor cars, Tate and Lyle sugar (who also subscribed to Caprim, the first 'son of Economic League'), and McDonalds (citation on McSpotlight).
One of the major factors which brought down the Ecch-onomic League in the early 90's, was consumer boycotts of products made by subscribing companies. In the case of large construction companies, direct consumer boycotts are less practicable. But that does not mean there is nothing we can do.
Pressure must be put on councils and public service bodies, through the unions, to stop using the services of companies which use blacklists. Such companies should especially be banned from PFI projects - such as Academies. If such a company ends up running an Academy (construction firms have already sponsored academies), how would we know that kids attending such schools, who showed signs of not agreeing with the capitalist Establishment (and who could blame them ???), wouldn't end up on such a blacklist ?!?
Apart from anything else, this is yet another argument against academies and the creeping privatisation of education! And we shouldn't stop at re-nationalising our schools, hospitals, etc.
Every company which has used such a blacklist should also be nationalised. Without compensation to their criminal bosses!
If you think you may be on the Construction Association blacklist, you can check with the Information Commissioner's Office. Their Consulting Association info page tells you not only how to check your details, but also lists the companies which suscribed to the CA.
Personally, I'd like to see every company who subscribed to them raided, and their bosses prosecuted for not only blackisting but also for aiding and abetting a blacklisting organisation. Let's face it, 'just looking' is absolutely no excuse in the case of, for example, kiddie porn. And a number of organisations, including the NSPCC, have cited a link between unemployment and poverty - the end result of blacklisting! - and child abuse. So I'd just love to see all involved locked in a cell with Gary Glitter, Ian Huntley et al. And the key recycled!
I know, that's hardly likely to happen. Especially when you bear in mind that the state has an unhappy history of keeping files on political dissidents; back in the 1980's (and probably more recently), MI5 kept numerous files on socialists and even used to infiltrate left-wing political parties.
At the same time, the laws passed in 1999 banning blacklists are welcome - even if it did take a f***ing decade for them to be enforced! Back in the 80's and before, a blacklisting organisation called the Economic League used to operate legally. And, whereas the Consulting Association seems to have most of its subscribing companies in the construction industry, the Economic League had a much larger range of subscribing companies, including Ford motor cars, Tate and Lyle sugar (who also subscribed to Caprim, the first 'son of Economic League'), and McDonalds (citation on McSpotlight).
One of the major factors which brought down the Ecch-onomic League in the early 90's, was consumer boycotts of products made by subscribing companies. In the case of large construction companies, direct consumer boycotts are less practicable. But that does not mean there is nothing we can do.
Pressure must be put on councils and public service bodies, through the unions, to stop using the services of companies which use blacklists. Such companies should especially be banned from PFI projects - such as Academies. If such a company ends up running an Academy (construction firms have already sponsored academies), how would we know that kids attending such schools, who showed signs of not agreeing with the capitalist Establishment (and who could blame them ???), wouldn't end up on such a blacklist ?!?
Apart from anything else, this is yet another argument against academies and the creeping privatisation of education! And we shouldn't stop at re-nationalising our schools, hospitals, etc.
Every company which has used such a blacklist should also be nationalised. Without compensation to their criminal bosses!
Saturday, 7 March 2009
Radio pirates and Establishment raiders
It seems to be open season again on pirate radio, or free radio as I prefer to call it (BBC News: Pirate radio 'puts lives at risk').
The allegations of pirate radio causing interference go back to at least the 1980's, probably before that, and are as grossly exaggerated now as they were then. Besides, the constant crackdowns on free radio stations can, if anything, have a counter-productive effect where it comes to the elimination of interference. As penalties for 'illegal broadcasting' increase and the severity of studio raids increase - now even records and CDs can be confiscated, as well as broadcasting equipment - free radio operators take steps to avoid the studio being located. One is the use of 'link transmitters' on non-broadcast frequencies, which massively increases the risk of them being on a frequency used by emergency services or aircraft. As is the case with drugs, criminalisation has created a risk which really need not have been there.
In any case, the Establishment are being hypocritical, whining about free radio 'putting lives at risk' while, at the same time, the maintenance of emergency service radio equipment is being cut back. For example, one of the companies involved in the maintenance of radios for the emergency services, Arqiva, has just made a large number of people redundant (including myself :-( ). I fail to see how scaling back the maintenance of such vital radio equipment can increase the reliability of emergency services' communications :-P
There are also constant - again grossly exaggerated - reports from the Establishment media, about pirate stations being involved with illegal drug-related rave parties. Again, when the mainstream broadcasters continue to irresponsibly promote alcohol, which kills more people and causes more violence than illegal drugs, the stench of hypocrisy is overpowering!
The real reasons for the crackdown on free radio are twofold. The most obvious one is that the legal stations - which, despite calling themselves 'local radio', are increasingly owned by a handful of medis giants - don't want competition eating into their fat profits.
The less obvious, but maybe more important, reason for the Establishment's hatred for free radio, is also to do with competition - for ideas. The mainstream broadcasters have, over the past few years, increasingly become a mouthpiece for Establishment propaganda. For example, the broadcast media played an important part in encouraging people to support the Iraq war in 2003, and during the Gaza conflict, the mainstream news reports were heavily biased in favour of Israel. Then there's the endless adverts for military recruitment, against 'benefit fraud', etc. The last thing the Establishment want is alternative broadcasters eroding the ability of their media to indoctrinate the masses.
Not that all pirate radio is inherently progressive. In my time on the free radio scene, I came across a few characters who were just as alienated and brainwashed as many in wider society. But at their best, community-based pirates can and have given a side of the news not generally heard on the mainstream stations, and helped promote local activity against racism. For example, in the 90's, the Birmingham pirate PCRL had a phone-in programme about the threat of the BNP and how to deal with it.
What we need is broadcasting by the community, aiming to inform and serve the community. Not by big business, aiming to promote the Establishment's agenda and maximise profits.
The allegations of pirate radio causing interference go back to at least the 1980's, probably before that, and are as grossly exaggerated now as they were then. Besides, the constant crackdowns on free radio stations can, if anything, have a counter-productive effect where it comes to the elimination of interference. As penalties for 'illegal broadcasting' increase and the severity of studio raids increase - now even records and CDs can be confiscated, as well as broadcasting equipment - free radio operators take steps to avoid the studio being located. One is the use of 'link transmitters' on non-broadcast frequencies, which massively increases the risk of them being on a frequency used by emergency services or aircraft. As is the case with drugs, criminalisation has created a risk which really need not have been there.
In any case, the Establishment are being hypocritical, whining about free radio 'putting lives at risk' while, at the same time, the maintenance of emergency service radio equipment is being cut back. For example, one of the companies involved in the maintenance of radios for the emergency services, Arqiva, has just made a large number of people redundant (including myself :-( ). I fail to see how scaling back the maintenance of such vital radio equipment can increase the reliability of emergency services' communications :-P
There are also constant - again grossly exaggerated - reports from the Establishment media, about pirate stations being involved with illegal drug-related rave parties. Again, when the mainstream broadcasters continue to irresponsibly promote alcohol, which kills more people and causes more violence than illegal drugs, the stench of hypocrisy is overpowering!
The real reasons for the crackdown on free radio are twofold. The most obvious one is that the legal stations - which, despite calling themselves 'local radio', are increasingly owned by a handful of medis giants - don't want competition eating into their fat profits.
The less obvious, but maybe more important, reason for the Establishment's hatred for free radio, is also to do with competition - for ideas. The mainstream broadcasters have, over the past few years, increasingly become a mouthpiece for Establishment propaganda. For example, the broadcast media played an important part in encouraging people to support the Iraq war in 2003, and during the Gaza conflict, the mainstream news reports were heavily biased in favour of Israel. Then there's the endless adverts for military recruitment, against 'benefit fraud', etc. The last thing the Establishment want is alternative broadcasters eroding the ability of their media to indoctrinate the masses.
Not that all pirate radio is inherently progressive. In my time on the free radio scene, I came across a few characters who were just as alienated and brainwashed as many in wider society. But at their best, community-based pirates can and have given a side of the news not generally heard on the mainstream stations, and helped promote local activity against racism. For example, in the 90's, the Birmingham pirate PCRL had a phone-in programme about the threat of the BNP and how to deal with it.
What we need is broadcasting by the community, aiming to inform and serve the community. Not by big business, aiming to promote the Establishment's agenda and maximise profits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
