whoyg813 - Blog

Ready for a Riot, a Channel 4 Dispatches take on the policing of protest, was expected to cause a minor disturbance. The makers of the film had boasted of unprecedented behind-the-scenes access at the Metropolitan police in the wake of the controversy over the G20 demonstrations. We were going to see protest from a pearl jewelry cop's point of view.

The programme turned out to be more nuanced, and some senior Yard officers would have spat out their popcorn in disgust. But I should probably start with the opening scenes, laced with shots of Molotov cocktails and baton charges.

The last time police were firebombed by protesters was of course at the Broadwater Farm riots in 1985, so these pictures are not really representative of a modern-day march. But all the hot air makes good TV.

The Met might have approved of the following scene, it could had been written by one of its press officers: when we watched footage of cops whacking protesters at the G20, the narrator calmly informed us not to worry; police were in fact "diligently following procedures".

That is a little premature ¡§C or wrong, in biwa pearl fact, given that inquiries by the Independent Police Complaints Commission suggest rules of engagement were breached. Does following orders mean ending up in court for assault?

Much airtime was given to commander Bob Broadhurst, who spouted the line that the G20 operation, of which he was chief architect, was a great success. His strategy may have resulted in widespread condemnation, hundreds of complaints to the IPCC, two parliamentary inquiries, a review of policing tactics by the government inspectorate and, most importantly, the death of an innocent bystander who was attacked by a police officer as he was trying to walk home from work but ¡§C wait for it ¡§C Broadhurst reckons he did "a pretty good job".

What would a bad day in the office look like?

Finally, the documentary regurgitates the Met's claim that, if you don't kettle a crowd of protesters for hours on end without food or water, then the inevitable outcome is they will transmogrify into a marauding mob determined to smash every window in sight. It says something that they had to go back to the J18 protests in 1999 for footage of this. This theory of crowd control was elucidated by the French psychologist Gustav Le Bon in 1986, and largely discredited thereafter.

Anyhow, perhaps Dispatches knew all this PR-guff was part of a trade-off.

And if it allowed their film-makers inside access, from which they could mount a stinging, though at times veiled critique, then perhaps it was worth it. It was all about allowing the Met to show its true colours.

Take the Robocop problem, the fact that police regularly turn up at protests looking like a invading force of astronauts. The film-makers point this out with a gem of a line from a riot police trainer who tells his class: "All of a sudden you put on a Darth Vader outfit and it's 'let's go'. And that's what we're trying to avoid."

Some will say the uniform was an easy target, like the debate over badge numbers after the G20. But the point was well made. It will be hard to forget a line from a teacher of police cadets in Hendon. He was explaining why one strike is better than several. "The more you hit them, the more it looks like it's over the top."

But where Ready for a Riot really excelled was in tracing the rupture caused by the G20 protests at the top of police ranks.

As it is put to me: one side is the Met's old school, led by the battle-weary Broadhurst and his boss at the Yard, assistant commissioner Chris Allison, who helped formulate the Met's public order tactics during the May Day protests. I'm told they see the akoya pearl controversy over protest as a media storm and believe if they hide behind their riot shields for long enough, it will eventually go away.

Their opponents, the reformers, although according to protesters these are hardly knights in shining armour, include Sir Hugh Orde, the new president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, who has received acclaim for his policing of protests in Northern Ireland, and Denis O'Connor, the chief inspector of constabulary who, in about 10 days, will release his final report into where policing of protest goes next.

Not all the cast of characters appeared in the film, but their deputies did, and it nonetheless hinted at the real debates over how to change the policing of protest.

The Dispatches film rightly saw the policing of the Climate Camp in August as trial run of a more intelligent and diplomatic style of policing advocated by the likes of Orde and O'Connor.

The operation was orchestrated ¡§C adeptly, I thought ¡§C by the Met's superintendent Julia Pendry, who at periods was shadowed by the documentary crew. They were upfront about the fact that, except for a few mouthy types who were upset at police on their campsite, Climate Camp caused virtually no trouble.

Except at the Yard, that is, where Broadhurst confided he was at times "spitting feathers" at softer approach to policing.

Similar fault lines were teased out in the film when Jane Gordon, a human rights expert advising O'Connor, made clear that a police duty to ensure lawful protest was misguided ¡§C their real obligation is to facilitate peaceful protest which might, at times, be technically breaking the law.

Comments ( 0 ) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Nov. 11, 2009 - I cheered out loud when

The best news story for working mothers for a decade is all about men. It's today's report on how working dads struggle to combine kids and career: they want more time with pearl jewelry their children, and they're frustrated with the long-hours culture and inflexible working practices.

I cheered out loud when I read it. Because, erroneously and long ago, the world of work was divided into two breeds ¡§C "working mothers" and "other workers". The two were pitted against one another: one breed (no need to spell out which) turned out to be horribly discriminated against, ground down, stereotyped and exploited. The other breed scurried on by, busily getting on with the job and trying not to think too hard about how things could be just a bit easier for their disadvantaged colleagues.

But the real divide of the workplace was never between working mothers and other workers: the real divide was between working parents and working non-parents. Workplaces weren't conceived or designed with parents in mind: the myth of the workplace has long been that when workers rolled up at the factory or the office, they left their parenting alter egos firmly at home. And for many years that was okay, because the people who did paid work were mostly men, and the people who did parenting work were mostly women.

When things started to biwa pearl change, and women who were parents began to join men in the workplace, they tried doing what male workers had always done, which was forgetting they were parents between the hours of 9am and 5pm. That became increasingly difficult, which made mothers look bad ¡§C whereas in truth it was the myth that was the really bad thing, the myth about work being a place where you're not a parent.

So what this report tells me is that some men ¡§C dads ¡§C are (hurrah!) having a rethink. They're thinking that they love their kids, and could do with seeing a bit more of them. They're thinking that they see a bit more of them if they changed the way they worked... and then they're going to go on to realise that there's no reason on earth why they shouldn't change the way they work.

The tragedy of much of the angst of akoya pearl what's hitherto been called working motherhood is that today's technology should have made this the golden age for anyone who's both raising children and doing paid work. Instead, we've been like a bunch of dinosaurs: so hell-bent on following the Victorian definitions of what work is all about that we've failed to grasp what amazing tools we've now got to help us combine raising our kids with enjoying our careers.

But what happens next will be interesting, because what today's dads are saying is what yesterday's mums were saying ¡§C and what we went on to believe was that we could Have It All, and be supermums and superworkers at the same time.

So learn from us, all you dads. We couldn't, and you can't, Have It All. But what we can all do is Have A Lot. And the sooner you dads realise that too, the better it will be for all of us.

Comments ( 0 ) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Nov. 11, 2009 - And in case you think an all-black

Is this what black power looks like? Smiling faces around a table posing for the camera may not be what most people have mind ¡§C no clenched fists, no leather gloves, no berets, no Afros. But this is no ordinary table, and this is no ordinary gathering of black people. This is the cabinet room in No 10 Downing Street, and the occasion was the launch of Powerlist 2010, which lists "Britain's 100 most influential black people".

The prime minister hosted the event, which brought together the country's top black business executives, entrepreneurs, economists, lawyers and public servants. "Each of you and your contribution makes me proud of our country, and each of you deserves the thanks of the whole of the British people for what you have done to pearl jewelry make sure that our society is better," said Gordon Brown.

In attendance were Mo Ibrahim, the African mobile phone magnate who each year awards £3m, the world's largest philanthropic prize, to former African heads of state who have governed well; Baroness Amos, former leader of the House of Lords and soon to be British high commissioner to Australia; Damon Buffini, head of the leading private equity company Permira; and Patricia Scotland, the attorney-general, who topped the list.

After the speeches were over, guests went to the cabinet room, where this photograph was taken. Sitting in the prime minister's chair is, suitably enough, Diane Abbott, Britain's first black woman MP. To her immediate right is Trevor Williams, chief economist at Lloyds TSB; and directly opposite Abbott, in the chancellor of the exchequer's seat, is Claudine Moore, head of a New York-based PR consultancy.

In 1968, Enoch Powell predicted: "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man." Well, it may be his worst nightmare, but those of biwa pearl us around the table couldn't help wondering what it would be like if Britain had an all-black cabinet. We would certainly be a lot more aware of social inequality than recent British governments; of how powerful cliques exclude women and minorities from real power; of the barriers to social mobility which have blighted the nation; of the increasing marginalisation felt by many communities, including the white working class.

The difficulties faced by Barack Obama in the US show just how tough it is for one person, however gifted, to overcome deep-rooted inequalities. So maybe, at a time when Britain is calling out for change following the MPs' expenses scandal and the financial collapse, a completely non-white government is what's needed to sweep away the biases and inertia of the current system ¡§C starting with the unelected House of Lords, and the ludicrous first-past-the post voting system. (Maybe the Queen could stay, to provide a bit of long-term stability; but that could go to the vote too.)

And in case you think an all-black cabinet simply wouldn't be good enough, well, let me tell you: I once challenged my wife to a season of fantasy football. With my longstanding expert knowledge of the game, and with my keen eye for developing talent, I selected the top-performing players in each position. She just chose an all-black team, starting with David James in goal, all the way to Emile Heskey in akoya pearl attack. The end-of season result? She beat me by a mile.

I can see only one more possible objection to rule by a black government ¡§C that a small minority wouldn't want to see Abbott as prime minister. If that's the case, though, then why not try that guy to her left? And, I promise, no Afros.

Comments ( 0 ) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Nov. 11, 2009 - The MEF countries must take

The world's major economies ¡§C and also the world's largest polluters ¡§C met in London this week. Some of these countries of the Major Economies Forum (MEF) are long-term, hardcore fossil fuel addicts ¡§C rich countries including the US, UK and the rest of Europe ¡§C while developing countries are only just getting a taste for pearl jewelry high-carbon development. Gordon Brown is right that world leaders must engage seriously in securing a strong and fair agreement and that action must be taken now. The question, of course, is how.

It is clear what needs to happen to get things moving again. The main sticking point is cash. The rich countries of the MEF have already accepted they must provide money to enable developing countries to grow cleanly and adapt to the effects of climate change already putting millions of lives at risk. It's time for them to stop shirking their responsibility to do so and put real money on the table ¡§C at least $200bn annually ¡§C to show we're serious about enabling the massive transformation to the clean future we'll be in deep trouble without.

So far, the government has pushed for much of this money to be supplied by a global market in carbon credits ¡§C yet this will allow rich countries to offload the burden of cutting carbon emissions on to the world's poorest while generating huge profits for biwa pearl banks, investment funds and financiers piling into a "climate cash cow".

At the same time, rich countries have been pushing for these funds to be managed by the World Bank ¡§C an institution that they control, as well as the largest multilateral lender for fossil fuel projects in the world. Developing countries are right not to trust that this will deliver finance fairly. Providing this money through a UN framework is the only fair and transparent way to ensure this money makes a real difference on the ground.

The MEF countries must take responsibility for the fact that they have caused climate change, and lead in cutting their emissions first and fast, by at least 40% by 2020 ¡§C and without carbon offsetting, a con that just means avoiding taking real action through dodgy accounting.

It's now only a matter of weeks before the UN talks in Copenhagen begin. The price to pay for failure to the akoya pearl world's poorest people is vast and growing daily. The cost to the culprits for climate change, the world's richest, is not. Money talks ¡§C and right now cold, hard cash will go further than anything else to get us the strong and fair agreement we need.

Comments ( 0 ) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Nov. 11, 2009 - company mumbles an excuse

Today Hillary Clinton has a chance to do what the BBC, most British newspapers and the rest of the political class have singularly failed to akoya pearl necklace do: she can confront the Conservative party over its noxious new alliances in Europe. When she meets William Hague in Washington she can ask him why the Tories now share a Brussels bed with far-right allies most Americans would consider beyond the pale.

As the Guardian reports today, pressure on the issue is building in the US. If only we could say the same here. Not that there's been a shortage of information on either Michal Kaminski, the Polish politician who leads the new Conservatives and Reformists grouping in which the Tories sit, or its Latvian affiliate, the For Fatherland and Freedom party. We have heard Kaminski first deny, and then admit, that he wore an infamous fascist and antisemitic symbol. We have heard him explain that Poles should apologise for the horrific 1941 pogrom at Jedwabne only once the Jews have apologised for all that they inflicted on the Poles. We know that he began his political journey in a neo-Nazi organisation.

As for Latvia, no one can claim not to know that the Tories' new allies are prime movers behind the annual parades which celebrate the Latvian legion of the Waffen-SS ¡§C a band of brothers that included men who roamed the country gunning down Jewish men, women and children in their tens of thousands. For Fatherland and Freedom admire the Waffen-SS so much, they tried to get its veterans rewarded with a military pension ¡§C a move too far even for pearl jewelry Latvia's other nationalist parties.

We know all this, yet where is the outrage? Where is the revulsion at David Cameron becoming partners with men who cheer those who fought for Hitler and against Churchill? The Guardian, the Observer, the New Statesman and now the Jewish Chronicle have been shining a light in this dark corner, but from the rest of the media there has been little more than silence.

How to explain this? Politics provides a small answer, in every sense. People can sense that power is shifting to the Conservatives, and many are anxious not to offend the new masters.

But two larger explanations are possible. First, Kaminski and the Latvians are merely the tip of a large and ugly iceberg, one that has itself been ignored for several years.

It's become bad form to mention it, because we are meant to be friendly towards the newest members of the European Union. But the truth is that several of these "emerging democracies" have reverted to a brand of ultra-nationalistic politics that would repel most voters in western Europe. It exists in Poland and Latvia, but also Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary, Romania and beyond. During the long decades of the Soviet era this chauvinistic, often racially supremacist politics was buried; but in 1989 it was exhumed, shook off the dirt, and breathed once more.

It shows itself in two ways. One is in a biwa pearl loathing for those deemed "other". Sometimes that's Roma people, often it's Jews. And this is not in the past, but the immediate present. Just this month Oszkar Molnar, an MP from Hungary's main opposition party ¡§C on course to form the country's next government ¡§C told a TV interviewer that "global capital ¡§C Jewish capital, if you like ¡§C wants to devour the entire world, especially Hungary". His party leader said there was no need to discipline him because he'd broken no rules.

But the more obvious manifestation of this old-new nationalism is its desire to rewrite recent history. Steadily, eastern European governments have sought to craft a new, internationally accepted narrative in which the crimes of Nazism and Stalinism are regarded as equal, with, if anything, the latter as the greater evil. It is the theory of the "double genocide", and it manifests itself in places like the Vilnius Museum of Genocide Victims which lingers on the 74,500 Lithuanians who suffered under Moscow rule but dedicates no exhibit to the 200,000 Jews murdered by their fellow Lithuanians in the 1940s. When the state prosecutor decided to chase up those guilty of war crimes from that period, he promptly investigated a quartet of Jewish survivors of the ghettoes who had escaped to fight the Nazis as partisans.

This is not the work of extremist parties on the lunatic fringe. The "International Commission for the Evaluation of the Crimes of the Nazi and Soviet Occupation Regimes in Lithuania" ¡§C whose very name implies moral equivalence and which omits the actions of Lithuanians themselves ¡§C sits inside the prime minister's office. The akoya pearl motive is not hard to fathom. These are ultra-nationalists who want to clean up their past, recasting themselves as victims ¡§C and forgetting the years in which their forebears were, in fact, the bloodiest perpetrators. Remember: the killing rate in the Baltics was among the highest in Europe; the percentage of Jews murdered was in the mid to high nineties.

Sadly, none of this really figured as we contemplated EU enlargement in 2004. We ushered in these new states without properly checking their baggage. They were pro-American and signed up for the "war on terror" and, for many on the right, that was good enough.

That blind eye has continued. In July, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which includes Britain, the US and Canada, issued a Vilnius declaration including much of this "double genocide" language. "The western mainstream has been tricked," says Prof Dovid Katz of Vilnius University, who after official pressure was forced to teach his truthful account of the Holocaust in students' homes this summer rather than on campus.

Which leaves that second explanation for our blindness. It's easy to imagine that the place of the Holocaust is almost sacred. It is taught in schools and has a national memorial day. It is, we imagine, a rare moral absolute in our secular age.

But that's in the abstract. When it becomes concrete, a real event committed by real people, suddenly we become hazy. "It was all a long time ago," the Tories say when confronted. "It was terribly complicated." Or, as Ken Clarke put it, airily brushing aside concerns about the party's EU chums: "It's all an anorak issue."

It seems we care about the Holocaust when we imagine it as an episode of historical science fiction, in which faceless "Nazis" belonging to no time and no place staged a terrifying horror show. But when anyone tries to anchor it in the real, to say that this happened in this place, with the enthusiastic participation of these people, polite company mumbles an excuse and shuffles for the exit.

Surely, by any moral standard, we cannot let this assault on historical truth stand. We owe at least that to the victims. If nothing more, it means demanding that the man set to be our prime minister ditch his friends in Europe ¡§C and find some new ones.

The strange thing is, I always knew that one day, when every last survivor was gone, there would be "debate" about the shell pearl jewelry Holocaust. Claims that were once deemed shameful ¡§C questioning the veracity of documented events ¡§C would become somehow acceptable. But I never imagined that I would live to see that grim day for myself. Yet here it is: right here, right now.

Comments ( 0 ) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link