On Wednesday a former prison worker and two former policemen were jailed for selling information to the papers, and the information the prison worker passed on concerned one of the murderers of James Bulger, Jon Venables (he is now known by another name, which cannot be revealed to protect his safety). Richard Trunkfield was at that time in debt and had been caring for his mother who had cancer in 2008 and 2009. However, we know the reason the Sun would have wanted this information: because the story sells.
The above is an editable open letter — it is editable so that you can add your name to the bottom of it. I would be particularly interested in signatures from anyone with a position of authority — anyone who has written a book, edits or writes a well-known blog, runs or has a position of responsibility in a relevant organisation or who runs an online forum or mailing list related to these issues, but if anyone else wants to sign, the more the merrier. The letter is an appeal to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, to appeal the sentence given to a man, Jordan Sheard, who inflicted a horrific and painful death on a vulnerable young man, Steven Simpson, in June 2012. The sentence was 3 1/2 years; I believe it ought to be at least double that. The letter, and the rest of this entry, contain the details and a trigger warning applies.
I need to get some signatures fairly quickly, because there is a time limit for appealing a sentence on grounds of undue leniency.
Barely a month ago I responded to an article in the Daily Telegraph, by a contributor to the Salisbury Review, moaning that Acton (in west London) was full of foreigners, or at least people who look like foreigners, who wear hijab or cover their faces and don’t talk to her in the street. This month it’s the turn of Merton, the borough that starts just down the road from me, to get the treatment. David Goodhart, former editor of Progress magazine and director of the think-tank Demos, complains that it has gone from 90% white to over 50% minority today, and that a particular neighbourhood is “dominated” by what the headline calls a “mega mosque” that attracts “thousands of men in Pashtun dress” who come to listen to a man they regard as “the holiest man on the planet”. He alleges that Merton is symptomatic of the “polite apartheid” which has taken hold, “an accommodation rather than an integration”, in which the “white population has more or less reluctantly shuffled along the bench and allowed others to sit down”.
Samuel Johnson famously asked, in an essay written during the American war of independence, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”. These days, we hear the loudest yelps for free speech among a group of corporate bodies who act like the thuggish and brazen secret police of a tin-pot dictatorship. They harass members of the public who have the gall to be talented or otherwise famous, or who are unlucky enough to be a victim of a serious crime or to have some detail in their lives that these self-appointed Mukhabarat deem to be of interest to their customers; they rummage through their rubbish, they talk to their friends if the prey themselves will not talk, they hack their mobile phones and illegally access their voice-mail, they camp outside people’s houses and follow them down the streets, and they rely on gangs of photographers who have been known to pursue motor vehicles down roads and cause fatal car crashes. This week, these organisations have been loudly protesting a new form on press regulation that is meant to cut off the sharpest edges of their tyranny, while more moderate publications have announced that they will not be signing up to it or suggesting that it should not be the focus of an early-hours political deal. For once I agree with them: this new régime is the wrong way to go about it.
Jessica Taylor has severe ME, and has been bedridden for seven years. She has previously made another video, “The World of One Room”, in which she describes how the disease has affected her life: among the years spent bedridden, she has spent several in hospital, unable to speak, paralysed and fed by tube. She improved somewhat, but recently suffered a setback because of another hospital admission during which she suffered neglect. This video shows her first time sitting in a chair in those seven years. Her story is a good example of ME almost at its worst, and should make anyone who still believes that it’s a primarily psychological condition sit up and notice, as well as emphasise the need for serious biomedical research.
Point Blank Music College, a well-regarded college which seems to specialise in modern music (teachers include DJ Pete Tong, alumni include Goldie and Leona Lewis) has lost its licence to sponsor students from outside the European Union, meaning that students they already sponsor have weeks to find a new college to sponsor their studies or leave the country. The reason is that more than 20% of the college’s applications for sponsorship over the period from June 2011 to June 2012; the number refused was 14 out of 33, which was 42% of the total, and the total refusal rate must be below 20%. Last year London Metropolitan University in east London also lost its permission to sponsor foreign students (known as highly trusted sponsor status), and 2000 students were affected.
Stephen McPartland, Tory MP for Stevenage, has been putting pressure on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to declare that Barbados is “not a safe place” until the police there properly investigate the rape of two British women in 2010. The police there responded by arresting the wrong man, which prompted the two victims to come forward and say that the man was in fact innocent. One of the victims, Dr Rachel Turner, originally comes from Letchworth (which is not in McPartland’s constituency but in NE Hertfordshire, which is held by Oliver Heald), but lives in Barbados and holds a post at the University of the West Indies.
Yesterday, in response to the abstention by most Labour MPs (and the party itself; forty Labour MPs voted against, including John McDonnell and Dennis Skinner) on the retrospective legislation to excuse the government for compensation to people stripped of their Jobseeker’s Allowance over refusal to do unpaid job “experience” placements, at least one erstwhile Labour member and voter said she was no longer going to keep her membership and would not vote for them, if at all, at the next election. This sense of disenchantment with Labour has been a factor since the election of Tony Blair, and that party’s refusal to challenge Tory policies and the demands of the Tory press has been the main reason I let my membership lapse in 1995 and have never once voted for them in a general election. However, I’ve always lived in constituencies where there there is a serious alternative (e.g. Plaid Cymru in Aberystwyth in 1997) or where they are not the biggest or second-biggest party. If your constituency is one where Labour and the Tories are the main challengers, that is not an option in 2015. (More: Latent Existence, Sue Marsh.)
Laurie Penny: Feminism is the one F-word that makes eyes widen in polite company (from this week’s New Statesman)
The other week, one of my Facebook friends (who has severe ME) wrote that it made her sad that only one in seven women called herself a feminist, as being a feminist did not mean you could not be feminine. Laurie Penny, in the most recent New Statesman, notes that while touring the world “giving talks about anti-capitalism and women’s rights”, she’s met men who called themselves “equalists” rather than feminists, and young women who said “that despite believing in the right to equal pay for equal work, despite opposing sexual violence, despite believing in a woman’s right to every freedom men have enjoyed for centuries, they are not feminists. They are something else, something that’s very much like a feminist but doesn’t involve having to say the actual word”. She suggests that people regard feminism as angry, man-hating and unfeminine, and quotes bell hooks as saying, “most people learn about feminism from patriarchal mass media”.
Last week it was reported that the Lib Dem party conference had condemned the government’s plan for “secret courts” (as the BBC describes it, “some civil proceedings held in private for fear of damaging national security”), and yesterday the Scottish Lib Dem conference had also condemned the proposals. The parliamentary party’s support for the Tory proposals (which would, most likely, also be supported by Labour) also led to three high-profile resignations from the party. I am not sure resigning is the answer, however: for people who are in the party, the right way to proceed is to fight to unseat MPs who have betrayed their principles and those who voted for them.
Note: Further enquiries reveal that “Bethan Jones” is in fact Beth Tichbourne, and that her offence was not only to hold up the placard mentioned, but also to attempt to scale a barrier. Her account, reproduced uncritically on various websites, does not reveal that detail.
This morning I saw a post on Facebook by a woman who had been arrested during a protest aimed at David Cameron during the switching-on of the Christmas lights in Witney, Oxfordshire (the chief, albeit small, town in his constituency) last November. Bethan Jones had held up a placard saying “David Cameron has blood on his hands”, for which she was charged, and yesterday convicted, for causing “harassment, alarm or distress”, the magistrate reasoning that “I can think of nothing more alarming than the statement that ‘Cameron has blood on his hands.’”. To any reasonable person, this would sound like the normal stuff of political protest, and fairly tame compared to the lurid and defamatory material published in the commercial press every day. Jones also wrote that she had been beaten up by the police while the “celebrations” were going on. (Beth’s statement also republished at Bright Green Scotland, Liberal Conspiracy.)
The other day, Justin Welby, the new archbishop of Canterbury, defended the welfare system that the present government are busy ripping up, describing it as a duty of a civilised society to support vulnerable people or those in need: “When times are hard, that duty should be felt more than ever, not disappear or diminish. It is essential that we have a welfare system that responds to need and recognises the rising costs of food, fuel and housing. The current benefits system does that, by ensuring that the support struggling families receive rises with inflation. These changes will mean it is children and families who will pay the price for high inflation, rather than the Government.” The Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, responded, according to the Daily Mail (from which I quoted the above) by claiming that the changes were about “fairness”, claiming that “hard-working” people had seen hardly any increases in their salary, yet the welfare bill had risen by some 60% under the last government:
That means they have to pay for that under their taxes, which is simply not fair. That same system trapped huge numbers, millions, in dependency, dependent on the state, unable, unwilling to work.
What is either moral or fair about that?
‘There is nothing moral or fair about a system that I inherited that trapped people in welfare dependency. Some one in every five households has no work – that’s not the way to end child poverty.
‘Getting people back to work is the way to end child poverty. That’s the moral and fair way to do it.’
Hadley Freeman on Sheryl Sandberg, feminism and intersectionality (from today’s Guardian)
The above is an article by Hadley Freeman, who is one of the Guardian’s fashion columnists who also writes increasingly about feminist issues in her other column, about the responses to a book by one Sheryl Sandberg, a former US Treasury chief of staff who has also worked at Google and now works at Facebook, titled “Lean In”, which she describes as a “sort-of feminist manifesto”. I haven’t heard of her before and haven’t seen or read the book, but what interests me is Hadley Freeman’s take on “intersectionality”, the notion that people may be disadvantaged in multiple or different ways rather than simply by virtue of their sex:
The tendency to dismiss a woman discussing feminism because of her background is not a new development. Intersectionality in feminism – which argues that any feminist theory that does not take into account the different levels of oppression experienced by minority groups, such as women of colour and gay women – has been around since the 1980s and is, to a large extent, beneficial. Second-wave feminism in its early incarnation was notoriously bad at looking beyond the white middle classes and clearly greater representation is a positive development. But there comes a point when a well-intentioned move for greater inclusivity becomes an excuse for bullying exclusivity and a way for women to shut one another up. When Donald Trump writes a book about how to get ahead in business – which ultimately is what Sandberg’s book is about, but with a female emphasis – men don’t write articles claiming he is being elitist (they might write articles claiming he is an idiot, but that is another story.) No, Trump is not attempting to speak for all men in his book but neither is Sandberg attempting to speak for all women.
A month or so ago I bought a second-hand Samsung Galaxy Nexus phone — I had intended to get a Nexus 4, but there were the usual supply problems at the time, and I bid on the Galaxy on eBay and won (much to my disappointment as the N4 came back on sale hours before the auction closed). Prior to that I had been using a Samsung Galaxy S, which I had upgraded to Jelly Bean using the third-party firmware CyanogenMod. This had produced a dramatic performance boost, but had also led to much reduced battery life, although this could be remedied by turning off mobile Internet except when I actually needed it. Last week, CyanogenMod released their latest milestone for Android 4.2, and after some inquiries I decided that was the time to install it. There was also a feature in the UK’s Android magazine, in the “Hacker Zone” section, on how to install CyanogenMod on a rooted phone; however, it gives no indication as to how to root in the first place.
Boris Johnson’s bold thinking could change the future of London cycling | Environment | guardian.co.uk (also see this in today’s Observer)
I’ve been a cyclist since I was a child, although these days I mostly use public transport and I drive small goods vehicles for a living (when I can get the work). Boris Johnson has recently announced ambitious plans for cycling lanes in London, including a lane of the Westway, so-called quietways on residential roads, and an expansion of 20mph speed limit areas. I am not wholly convinced that any of this will make London a safer place to cycle, and is more likely to be a distraction from the rising cost of public transport.
Recently I’ve been hearing a lot about the newly revamped BlackBerry 10, which has been appearing in various phone shops (shops like Carphone Warehouse as well as the carrier franchises). It’s also appeared on the homepage for Qt, because you can develop applications for the new BlackBerry using Qt, which I use myself (it’s the basis for KDE on Linux, but you can run Qt apps on Windows and the Mac, and there have been numerous attempts at getting mobile Qt going but none of them have come to much). There is one thing missing, however: any means of testing them out using what most people will be using them for — networking.
This Venn diagram by Paul Bernal has been doing the rounds on Twitter, and follows the announcement from the Conservative party that at the next election, their manifesto will include a commitment to changing this country’s relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights, an agreement of the Council of Europe (not, contrary to popular opinion, the European Union) enforced by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and enshrined in British law in the Human Rights Act, passed by the Labour government in 1998. Since then, it has become a major headache for governments of both parties as it has been used to challenge such policies as deporting suspected terrorists to countries which are ruled by dictators and where torture is common. It is also unpopular with the Tory tabloid press, which portrays it as a means by which stupid cases can be brought by people who are clearly in the wrong, to demand benefits off the government or to be allowed to stay in the country where they should really have no right to be here. Selling this policy depends on the assumption that human rights are only for the weak and the unworthy, and defending them, much as with defending the NHS and what is left of the welfare state, depends on making people realise it is for them as much as anyone else.
This “sketch” appears next to a large feature on UKIP and their plans to target northern England in the upcoming general election, and allows Farage to make some dubious claims about “rural” England and the attitudes of the people who live there, based on his “village pub in Kent”. The pub in question is the George and Dragon in Downe, the village best known as the home of Charles Darwin, when he wasn’t out sailing around South America on the Beagle, and claims:
Farage’s persona as an ale-drinking man of the people appears uncontrived, and the drinkers at the George are happy to serve as a weekly informal focus group.
They can also be deployed as firepower in Ukip’s perpetual battle against metropolitan liberalism. Last year on the subject of gay marriage, Farage said: “The division between city and rural is absolutely huge. In my village pub in Kent they are just completely against.”
Ten years ago I participated in the demonstrations in London against the invasion of Iraq, or more particularly, British participation in it. It was the biggest demonstration in London for a long time, one that was airily brushed off by Tony Blair, who had always been unwilling to say no to George Bush (regardless of what his defenders, who claim “he believed the intelligence”, claim — he would have believed anything), claiming that a similar demonstration against a government policy would not have been possible in Saddam Hussain’s Iraq. The invasion led to a long occupation and a brutal civil war, and may have been a factor in motivating the group that bombed three London Underground trains and a London bus in July 2005. For all that, Nick Cohen, which responded to the demonstrations with a denunciation of “enemies of freedom” in the New Statesman in July 2003, responds with a series of straw men and irrelevant questions. (More: David Wearing @ New Left Project.)
Last Friday it was reported that City University in London had locked the room used by Muslim students for Friday prayers, having asked the organisers to let them screen Friday sermons, which they refused. The University claimed that it needed to be satsfied of the “appropriateness” of sermons at what are authorised campus events and had, according to the Huffington Post:
“repeatedly” asked the students leading the Friday prayers to work with the university’s Imam to “ensure that the process for selecting students is transparent and that the content of sermons is made known to the University in advance and is freely available afterwards for those unable to attend”.
The university’s spokesperson added: “Despite repeated requests and assurances, the information from those students leading Friday prayers was not forthcoming. Whilst this was a disappointment, the university could not continue to condone an activity taking place on its premises where it cannot exercise reasonable supervision.”
The University has also published a list of other places supposedly nearby where Muslim students could pray Friday prayers. The Muslim students affected have formed a group called Muslim Voices on Campus and have responded: “when you start submitting your sermons to be monitored and scrutinised then there’s a chance for it to be dictated what’s allowed and what’s not allowed”.