Wednesday, 7th October, 5.30pm in the JCR
Friday, 2 October 2009
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Why people are demonstrating against the Labour Party
We've heard a series of dismal speeches by Gordon Brown at the Labour Party conference in the last few days. Here's why people hate the Labour Party and its neoliberal ways.
A snippet of the demo by Ady Cousins.
A snippet of the demo by Ady Cousins.
Sunday, 20 September 2009
Lowkey speaks at Stop the War Student Conference
Extraordinary speech by Lowkey at Stop the War Coalition's student conference over the weekend.
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
Why Afghans have no hope in this week's vote
by Malalai Joya, Member of the Afghan Parliament, 19th August 2009
(Republished here because it's worth remembering! www.stopwar.org.uk)
Like millions of Afghans, I have no hope in the results of this week's election. In a country ruled by warlords, occupation forces, Taliban insurgency, drug money and guns, no one can expect a legitimate or fair vote.
Among the people on the street, a common sentiment is, 'Everything has already been decided by the U.S. and NATO, and the real winner has already been picked by the White House and Pentagon.' Although there are a total of 41 candidates running for president, the vast majority of them are well known faces responsible for the current disastrous situation in Afghanistan.
Hamid Karzai has cemented alliances with brutal warlords and fundamentalists in order to maintain his position.
Although our Constitution forbids war criminals from running for office, he has named two notorious militia commanders as his vice-presidential running mates -- Qasim Fahim, who was, at the time of the 2001 invasion, the warlord who headed up the Northern Alliance, and Karim Khalili.
The election commission did not reject them or a number of others accused of many crimes, and so the list of candidates also includes former Russian puppets and a former Taliban commander.
Betraying women of Afghanistan
Karzai has also continued to betray the women of Afghanistan. Even after massive international outcry and brave protesters taking to the streets of Kabul, Karzai has implemented the infamous law targeting Shia women. He had initially promised to review the most egregious clauses, but in the end it was passed with few amendments, leaving the barbaric anti-women statements untouched. As Human Rights Watch recently said, "Karzai has made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in return for the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election."
Deals have been made with countless fundamentalists in Karzai's maneuvering to stay in power. For example, pro-Iranian extremist Haji Mohammad Mohaqiq, who has been accused of war crimes, has been promised five cabinet positions for his party, and so he has told the media he's backing Karzai. A deal has even been done with the dreaded warlord Rashid Dostum -- who has returned from exile in Turkey to campaign for Karzai -- and many other such terrorists. Rather than democracy, what we have in Afghanistan today are back room deals amongst discredited warlords.
The two main contenders to Karzai's continued rule, Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai and Abdullah Abdullah, do not offer any change; both are former cabinet ministers in this discredited regime and neither has a real, broad footing amongst the people. Abdullah has run a high profile campaign, in part due to the backing and financial support he receives from Iran's fundamentalist regime. Abdullah and some of the Northern Alliance commanders supporting him have threatened unrest if he loses the vote, raising fears of a return to the rampant violence and killing that marked the civil war years of 1992 to 1996. All of the major candidates' speeches and policies are very similar. They make the same sweet-sounding promises, but we are not fooled. Afghans remember how Karzai abandoned his campaign pledges after winning the 2004 vote.
We Afghans know that this election will change nothing and it is only part of a show of democracy put on by and for the West, to legitimize its future puppet in Afghanistan. It seems we are doomed to see the continuation of this failed, mafia-like corrupt government for another term.
Rampant corruption
The people of Afghanistan are fed up with the rampant corruption of Karzai's "narco-state" government -- his own brother, Wali Karzai, has been linked to drug trafficking in Kandahar Province -- and the escalating war waged by NATO. In May of this year, U.S. air strikes killed approximately 150 civilians in my native province, Farah. More than ever, Afghans are faced with powerful internal enemies -- fundamentalist warlords and their Taliban brothers-in-creed -- and the external enemies occupying the country.
Democracy will never come to Afghanistan through the barrel of a gun, or from the cluster bombs dropped by foreign forces. The struggle will be long and difficult, but the values of real democracy, human rights and women's rights will only be won by the Afghan people themselves.
So not be fooled by this façade of democracy. Your governments in the West that claim to be bringing democracy to Afghanistan ignore public opinion in their own countries, where growing numbers are against the war. President Obama in particular needs to understand that the change Afghans believe in does not include more troops and a ramped up war.
If the populations of Afghanistan and the NATO countries were able to vote on this military occupation it could not continue indefinitely, and peace would finally be within reach.
(Republished here because it's worth remembering! www.stopwar.org.uk)
Like millions of Afghans, I have no hope in the results of this week's election. In a country ruled by warlords, occupation forces, Taliban insurgency, drug money and guns, no one can expect a legitimate or fair vote.
Among the people on the street, a common sentiment is, 'Everything has already been decided by the U.S. and NATO, and the real winner has already been picked by the White House and Pentagon.' Although there are a total of 41 candidates running for president, the vast majority of them are well known faces responsible for the current disastrous situation in Afghanistan.
Hamid Karzai has cemented alliances with brutal warlords and fundamentalists in order to maintain his position.
Although our Constitution forbids war criminals from running for office, he has named two notorious militia commanders as his vice-presidential running mates -- Qasim Fahim, who was, at the time of the 2001 invasion, the warlord who headed up the Northern Alliance, and Karim Khalili.
The election commission did not reject them or a number of others accused of many crimes, and so the list of candidates also includes former Russian puppets and a former Taliban commander.
Betraying women of Afghanistan
Karzai has also continued to betray the women of Afghanistan. Even after massive international outcry and brave protesters taking to the streets of Kabul, Karzai has implemented the infamous law targeting Shia women. He had initially promised to review the most egregious clauses, but in the end it was passed with few amendments, leaving the barbaric anti-women statements untouched. As Human Rights Watch recently said, "Karzai has made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in return for the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election."
Deals have been made with countless fundamentalists in Karzai's maneuvering to stay in power. For example, pro-Iranian extremist Haji Mohammad Mohaqiq, who has been accused of war crimes, has been promised five cabinet positions for his party, and so he has told the media he's backing Karzai. A deal has even been done with the dreaded warlord Rashid Dostum -- who has returned from exile in Turkey to campaign for Karzai -- and many other such terrorists. Rather than democracy, what we have in Afghanistan today are back room deals amongst discredited warlords.
The two main contenders to Karzai's continued rule, Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai and Abdullah Abdullah, do not offer any change; both are former cabinet ministers in this discredited regime and neither has a real, broad footing amongst the people. Abdullah has run a high profile campaign, in part due to the backing and financial support he receives from Iran's fundamentalist regime. Abdullah and some of the Northern Alliance commanders supporting him have threatened unrest if he loses the vote, raising fears of a return to the rampant violence and killing that marked the civil war years of 1992 to 1996. All of the major candidates' speeches and policies are very similar. They make the same sweet-sounding promises, but we are not fooled. Afghans remember how Karzai abandoned his campaign pledges after winning the 2004 vote.
We Afghans know that this election will change nothing and it is only part of a show of democracy put on by and for the West, to legitimize its future puppet in Afghanistan. It seems we are doomed to see the continuation of this failed, mafia-like corrupt government for another term.
Rampant corruption
The people of Afghanistan are fed up with the rampant corruption of Karzai's "narco-state" government -- his own brother, Wali Karzai, has been linked to drug trafficking in Kandahar Province -- and the escalating war waged by NATO. In May of this year, U.S. air strikes killed approximately 150 civilians in my native province, Farah. More than ever, Afghans are faced with powerful internal enemies -- fundamentalist warlords and their Taliban brothers-in-creed -- and the external enemies occupying the country.
Democracy will never come to Afghanistan through the barrel of a gun, or from the cluster bombs dropped by foreign forces. The struggle will be long and difficult, but the values of real democracy, human rights and women's rights will only be won by the Afghan people themselves.
So not be fooled by this façade of democracy. Your governments in the West that claim to be bringing democracy to Afghanistan ignore public opinion in their own countries, where growing numbers are against the war. President Obama in particular needs to understand that the change Afghans believe in does not include more troops and a ramped up war.
If the populations of Afghanistan and the NATO countries were able to vote on this military occupation it could not continue indefinitely, and peace would finally be within reach.
Sunday, 30 August 2009
Bush shoe thrower to be freed
Al Jazeera.net, Sunday, 30th August 2009
Al-Zaidi was sentenced to one year because he had no prior criminal history [AFP]
An Iraqi journalist jailed after hurling his shoes at George Bush, the former US president, will be released in September.
Muntadhar al-Zaidi's sentence was reduced for good behaviour, his lawyer said on Saturday.
Karim al-Shujairi, a defence attorney, said al-Zeidi will now be released on September 14, three months early.
Al-Zaidi was initially sentenced to three years after pleading not guilty to assaulting a foreign leader, then the court reduced it to one year because the journalist had no prior criminal history.
The act of the 30-year-old reporter during Bush's last visit to Iraq as president turned him into a folk hero across the Arab world amid anger over the 2003 invasion.
The incident, which took place on December 14, embarrassed Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, who was standing next to Bush at the time during a joint news conference.
Neither leader was injured, but Bush was forced to duck for cover as the journalist shouted in Arabic: "This is your farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq."
Al-Zaidi was sentenced to one year because he had no prior criminal history [AFP]
An Iraqi journalist jailed after hurling his shoes at George Bush, the former US president, will be released in September.
Muntadhar al-Zaidi's sentence was reduced for good behaviour, his lawyer said on Saturday.
Karim al-Shujairi, a defence attorney, said al-Zeidi will now be released on September 14, three months early.
Al-Zaidi was initially sentenced to three years after pleading not guilty to assaulting a foreign leader, then the court reduced it to one year because the journalist had no prior criminal history.
The act of the 30-year-old reporter during Bush's last visit to Iraq as president turned him into a folk hero across the Arab world amid anger over the 2003 invasion.
The incident, which took place on December 14, embarrassed Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, who was standing next to Bush at the time during a joint news conference.
Neither leader was injured, but Bush was forced to duck for cover as the journalist shouted in Arabic: "This is your farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq."
Friday, 14 August 2009
Monday, 3 August 2009
The Good Fight
Brendan Montague, 31st July 2009, Counterfire
Lance corporal Joe Glenton went Awol rather than return to Afghanistan. Earlier this year, Joe married Clare. This is her story.
Joe Glenton, 27, is Lance Corporal for the Four Logistics Support Regiment and served in Afghanistan until the end of 2006. He was due to be posted back into the theatre of war in mid 2007 but went Awol. He joined the army in 2004 aged 23 and was based at Dolton, Abingdon, Oxfordshire. Born in Norwich, he was raised and now lives in York.
Yesterday, he handed a letter to Downing Street explaining why he went Awol and is opposed to military operations in Afghanistan. On May 23 this year, Joe married Clare, 32, a trainee lawyer from Prestwich in Manchester. This is her story.
We first made contact through Facebook because we had a mutual friend. I got a message telling me that Joe was coming to Australia from Asia and asking if we would like to meet because he didn't know anyone in the country. Dan Markham, who introduced us, just said: "I want you to just meet up with this guy and show him around, I think you would get on." I had gone out to Australia by myself and I knew what it was like to be a stranger in a strange place. So in August 2007 I just met him in a bar for a few drinks - so we are now coming up for two years together.
I had no idea about his army background. I didn't fancy him in the least. He was just a sweaty backpacker with a beard and scraggy hair. He seemed very quiet and introverted - but at the same time he was really interesting. Initially we just talked about what we had in common, which at the very beginning was just the fact we both knew Dan. Dan was an old friend of mine from London and he had met Joe in Vietnam. I think Joe was just lost, drinking quite a lot.
It was probably only a week after we met that we first slept together. We were immediately spending a lot of time together and talking about the traveling we had done. I invited him to an event which was providing free drinks and by the end of the evening it was just to two of us. He had a few drinks he just blurted it out and told me that he had joined the army, had served in Afghanistan and then while back in the UK had just gone Awol - jumped the fence.
Attraction
I was a little shocked at first - I felt sorry for him. I didn't see how he had done anything wrong. I had no opinions about Afghanistan at the time, I was closed to it all. It is only since we have been together that I can understand what it all means. It's certainly been an education for me. That evening I was more impressed that he had been a soldier than anything. I thought that was wonderful, he was a man in uniform which is what so many girls tend to like.
He still had a great sense of humour and because he trusted me I felt like he was someone I could trust. He came across as a very caring person. I was also quite fascinated by his situation. The fact we had a mutual friend helped because there was always something light we could talk about. It was about a week after meeting that we became a couple. It was so intense. We both started to feel this real attraction. I moved into my own flat in October and he came to stay just before Christmas, just for a few days. He never left.
But for Joe it was a very stressful occupation, it was very difficult for him. There were times when he would just shut me out. The more I tried to help and support him, the more he would just rage and shout at me. He was constantly having nightmares, he felt really guilty about the lads he had left behind and he was always questioning if he had made the right decision. He was scared of going back, of going to prison. But he couldn't justify the war to himself, he couldn't be involved because he didn't think British troops should be out there.
At first I was asking myself what I was getting in to. I thought Joe was going to travel back to the UK to hand himself in to the army. He was determined to hand himself in but he just couldn't do it. He was in a bit of a hole. He was obviously very depressed. Having just met him I just thought that was who he was, that he was just very angry all the time. He was so volatile. He didn't like meeting new people. He found it very difficult because he didn't want to lie to people about his situation. He obviously couldn't tell people he was Awol because of the fear of being found out, of being deported from Australia.
It was a very big battle. He felt guilty and ashamed. Initially I thought he was completely lost. When he was in Asia he had no idea what he was doing. He was just wondering around. I was very much stable in Australia. I had a job as a personal assistant working for a legal firm. I was single at the time. I had just been through a very hard time myself. I had a big split from an ex two years earlier and I was quite vulnerable.
Awe and shock
I had re-evaluated all my friendships. I had been seeing Paul for 10 years when he decided to end it and we lived in the same friendship circle. I was extremely hurt and decided to make a clean break and move to Australia. So I was lost and lonely myself. I was certainly looking for a new friendship and probably a new relationship. Joe helped me come to terms with a lot of things and he was a great listener - working through my problems gave him a break from worrying about his own situation. Then when he told me what was really going on, I was able to help him.
There was part of me that felt at the time that I didn't deserve to have to deal with Joe's emotional baggage as well as my own. We did split up a number of times because I couldn't cope with his behavior. He was just so angry. He was suffering from depression. We had spent a lot of time together and it all happened so quickly. When he got angry he just wanted to be left alone, which I found very difficult to do because I could see that he was suffering and I wanted to help. He would reject me which was very hard. He found it incredibly hard to talk about what had happened to him in Afghanistan. He would talk about the mortars flying over head. And the fact he had to shift coffins around. I was just in awe and shock of what he was telling me.
For me life started to feel normal. We had a home and I was doing well in my job. Joe was doing odd bits of work, landscaping mainly. But it was never normal for Joe. He was still very confused about what he was doing. It was a large part of our lives and difficult for both of us to come to terms with the fact he was Awol. We were falling more in love but we couldn't stay in Australia for ever.
Apart from anything, Joe's visa was due to run out this year so he knew he would have to come back to the UK. He only really started to come to terms with everything after Christmas last year. He made contact with the army's welfare support services and started to receive counseling. I was doing some research on the Internet and I am convinced he was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, he was showing all the symptoms.
But the only solution was for him to hand himself in and we decided to come back to the UK. This was a huge step for both of us, we knew he could go to prison for two years. We got married in May after he proposed in February. We decided we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together and marriage was very important to me. It was something to show our level of commitment to each other. Whatever happened to Joe, we wanted to make the journey together.
We had a very private ceremony because we didn't want a big fuss and we had a lovely celebration afterwords with some friends. Our families were not able to come out so there was some disappointment. We were fortunate to be married in Sydney because it is such a beautiful city and the weather was incredible. The whole day was beautiful in every way - apart from this big dark cloud hanging over us.
It was very nerve wracking the whole plane ride home because we didn't know what to expect. We assumed that customs officials would stop us or the army would be there to arrest Joe and take him away. That's what we assumed would happen. We thought there would be an intervention. But on the day it was only our families that were there to greet us. Joe's mum Sue, 57, a PA, and my sister Louise, 29, a photographer were waiting in arrivals. I just collapsed into their arms. There were lots of hugs.
Even when we arrived at the airport my sister didn't know what was going on so we were trying very hard not to reveal our emotions. We didn't do very well. I have always been very close to my mother and my sister. But for the whole time I was with Joe I had never told them he was Awol, or how stressed he had been. They knew something was wrong. So when we finally told them our situation I think they were just relieved that he wasn't a murderer. When I told my mum she just said: "Okay, you are both adults and you're married so we respect your privacy." Everyone was so amazing.
I am very nervous about Monday. There's a very real possibility that Joe could be sent to jail for up to two years. At this stage I can't even bear to think about that. When I do think about it I find myself getting very upset and emotional. I have a gut feeling. I just trust the fact that Joe is going to be okay. As a couple we will battle through it. I'm going am going from my instincts, I believe we will be fine and he will not be taken away from me.
Proud
The irony is this is the time when I am finally getting to know the real Joe. He is much less angry and at ease with himself. He is very thoughtful and considerate. He is not naturally an angry person. I have always seen what Joe was inside but ever since Christmas when we decided what we would do and that we would do it together this has shone through in every way. Since we have been in the UK he has been amazing. He has proved to me more than I had ever hoped for. Our relationship has become even more intense and intimate. There has been more emotion and enjoying each other's company. It's been brilliant.
If Joe walks free after the hearing, Joe wants to go to university to read political science or international studies and I want to finally move on with my career. However, I am now 32 and we do want to have a family. Some of those involved with our legal team from the army were diabolical, but a family friend, John Tipple, is now helping us with our case. He has been an inspiration. He has been really supportive of Joe.
The last few days have been incredible. After keeping everything a secret it is amazing watching Joe tell the world about what he feels about the war. His loyalty will always be with the lads, but he is haunted by what is happening to the Afghan people. The children who are being killed. He cannot find any justification for it. For me, it has been like being married to a celebrity, we've been in and out of television studios and everyone has been texting saying "what are you doing on the news!" But most importantly, Joe is finally everything I knew he could be. He is incredibly brave to make this stand and I am just proud that I can be here to support him.
Lance corporal Joe Glenton went Awol rather than return to Afghanistan. Earlier this year, Joe married Clare. This is her story.
Joe Glenton, 27, is Lance Corporal for the Four Logistics Support Regiment and served in Afghanistan until the end of 2006. He was due to be posted back into the theatre of war in mid 2007 but went Awol. He joined the army in 2004 aged 23 and was based at Dolton, Abingdon, Oxfordshire. Born in Norwich, he was raised and now lives in York.
Yesterday, he handed a letter to Downing Street explaining why he went Awol and is opposed to military operations in Afghanistan. On May 23 this year, Joe married Clare, 32, a trainee lawyer from Prestwich in Manchester. This is her story.
We first made contact through Facebook because we had a mutual friend. I got a message telling me that Joe was coming to Australia from Asia and asking if we would like to meet because he didn't know anyone in the country. Dan Markham, who introduced us, just said: "I want you to just meet up with this guy and show him around, I think you would get on." I had gone out to Australia by myself and I knew what it was like to be a stranger in a strange place. So in August 2007 I just met him in a bar for a few drinks - so we are now coming up for two years together.
I had no idea about his army background. I didn't fancy him in the least. He was just a sweaty backpacker with a beard and scraggy hair. He seemed very quiet and introverted - but at the same time he was really interesting. Initially we just talked about what we had in common, which at the very beginning was just the fact we both knew Dan. Dan was an old friend of mine from London and he had met Joe in Vietnam. I think Joe was just lost, drinking quite a lot.
It was probably only a week after we met that we first slept together. We were immediately spending a lot of time together and talking about the traveling we had done. I invited him to an event which was providing free drinks and by the end of the evening it was just to two of us. He had a few drinks he just blurted it out and told me that he had joined the army, had served in Afghanistan and then while back in the UK had just gone Awol - jumped the fence.
Attraction
I was a little shocked at first - I felt sorry for him. I didn't see how he had done anything wrong. I had no opinions about Afghanistan at the time, I was closed to it all. It is only since we have been together that I can understand what it all means. It's certainly been an education for me. That evening I was more impressed that he had been a soldier than anything. I thought that was wonderful, he was a man in uniform which is what so many girls tend to like.
He still had a great sense of humour and because he trusted me I felt like he was someone I could trust. He came across as a very caring person. I was also quite fascinated by his situation. The fact we had a mutual friend helped because there was always something light we could talk about. It was about a week after meeting that we became a couple. It was so intense. We both started to feel this real attraction. I moved into my own flat in October and he came to stay just before Christmas, just for a few days. He never left.
But for Joe it was a very stressful occupation, it was very difficult for him. There were times when he would just shut me out. The more I tried to help and support him, the more he would just rage and shout at me. He was constantly having nightmares, he felt really guilty about the lads he had left behind and he was always questioning if he had made the right decision. He was scared of going back, of going to prison. But he couldn't justify the war to himself, he couldn't be involved because he didn't think British troops should be out there.
At first I was asking myself what I was getting in to. I thought Joe was going to travel back to the UK to hand himself in to the army. He was determined to hand himself in but he just couldn't do it. He was in a bit of a hole. He was obviously very depressed. Having just met him I just thought that was who he was, that he was just very angry all the time. He was so volatile. He didn't like meeting new people. He found it very difficult because he didn't want to lie to people about his situation. He obviously couldn't tell people he was Awol because of the fear of being found out, of being deported from Australia.
It was a very big battle. He felt guilty and ashamed. Initially I thought he was completely lost. When he was in Asia he had no idea what he was doing. He was just wondering around. I was very much stable in Australia. I had a job as a personal assistant working for a legal firm. I was single at the time. I had just been through a very hard time myself. I had a big split from an ex two years earlier and I was quite vulnerable.
Awe and shock
I had re-evaluated all my friendships. I had been seeing Paul for 10 years when he decided to end it and we lived in the same friendship circle. I was extremely hurt and decided to make a clean break and move to Australia. So I was lost and lonely myself. I was certainly looking for a new friendship and probably a new relationship. Joe helped me come to terms with a lot of things and he was a great listener - working through my problems gave him a break from worrying about his own situation. Then when he told me what was really going on, I was able to help him.
There was part of me that felt at the time that I didn't deserve to have to deal with Joe's emotional baggage as well as my own. We did split up a number of times because I couldn't cope with his behavior. He was just so angry. He was suffering from depression. We had spent a lot of time together and it all happened so quickly. When he got angry he just wanted to be left alone, which I found very difficult to do because I could see that he was suffering and I wanted to help. He would reject me which was very hard. He found it incredibly hard to talk about what had happened to him in Afghanistan. He would talk about the mortars flying over head. And the fact he had to shift coffins around. I was just in awe and shock of what he was telling me.
For me life started to feel normal. We had a home and I was doing well in my job. Joe was doing odd bits of work, landscaping mainly. But it was never normal for Joe. He was still very confused about what he was doing. It was a large part of our lives and difficult for both of us to come to terms with the fact he was Awol. We were falling more in love but we couldn't stay in Australia for ever.
Apart from anything, Joe's visa was due to run out this year so he knew he would have to come back to the UK. He only really started to come to terms with everything after Christmas last year. He made contact with the army's welfare support services and started to receive counseling. I was doing some research on the Internet and I am convinced he was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, he was showing all the symptoms.
But the only solution was for him to hand himself in and we decided to come back to the UK. This was a huge step for both of us, we knew he could go to prison for two years. We got married in May after he proposed in February. We decided we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together and marriage was very important to me. It was something to show our level of commitment to each other. Whatever happened to Joe, we wanted to make the journey together.
We had a very private ceremony because we didn't want a big fuss and we had a lovely celebration afterwords with some friends. Our families were not able to come out so there was some disappointment. We were fortunate to be married in Sydney because it is such a beautiful city and the weather was incredible. The whole day was beautiful in every way - apart from this big dark cloud hanging over us.
It was very nerve wracking the whole plane ride home because we didn't know what to expect. We assumed that customs officials would stop us or the army would be there to arrest Joe and take him away. That's what we assumed would happen. We thought there would be an intervention. But on the day it was only our families that were there to greet us. Joe's mum Sue, 57, a PA, and my sister Louise, 29, a photographer were waiting in arrivals. I just collapsed into their arms. There were lots of hugs.
Even when we arrived at the airport my sister didn't know what was going on so we were trying very hard not to reveal our emotions. We didn't do very well. I have always been very close to my mother and my sister. But for the whole time I was with Joe I had never told them he was Awol, or how stressed he had been. They knew something was wrong. So when we finally told them our situation I think they were just relieved that he wasn't a murderer. When I told my mum she just said: "Okay, you are both adults and you're married so we respect your privacy." Everyone was so amazing.
I am very nervous about Monday. There's a very real possibility that Joe could be sent to jail for up to two years. At this stage I can't even bear to think about that. When I do think about it I find myself getting very upset and emotional. I have a gut feeling. I just trust the fact that Joe is going to be okay. As a couple we will battle through it. I'm going am going from my instincts, I believe we will be fine and he will not be taken away from me.
Proud
The irony is this is the time when I am finally getting to know the real Joe. He is much less angry and at ease with himself. He is very thoughtful and considerate. He is not naturally an angry person. I have always seen what Joe was inside but ever since Christmas when we decided what we would do and that we would do it together this has shone through in every way. Since we have been in the UK he has been amazing. He has proved to me more than I had ever hoped for. Our relationship has become even more intense and intimate. There has been more emotion and enjoying each other's company. It's been brilliant.
If Joe walks free after the hearing, Joe wants to go to university to read political science or international studies and I want to finally move on with my career. However, I am now 32 and we do want to have a family. Some of those involved with our legal team from the army were diabolical, but a family friend, John Tipple, is now helping us with our case. He has been an inspiration. He has been really supportive of Joe.
The last few days have been incredible. After keeping everything a secret it is amazing watching Joe tell the world about what he feels about the war. His loyalty will always be with the lads, but he is haunted by what is happening to the Afghan people. The children who are being killed. He cannot find any justification for it. For me, it has been like being married to a celebrity, we've been in and out of television studios and everyone has been texting saying "what are you doing on the news!" But most importantly, Joe is finally everything I knew he could be. He is incredibly brave to make this stand and I am just proud that I can be here to support him.
Thursday, 30 July 2009
Nationalise the energy sector to combat climate change
Elaine Graham-Leigh, Tuesday, 28th July 2009, Counterfire
It would be difficult to find a politician who would openly disagree with the idea of green jobs, but the workers’ occupation of the Vestas wind turbine factory in the Isle of Wight is a demonstration of the gap between theoretical support and practice.
The workers are in occupation to defend 600 of the greenest jobs, making wind turbine parts, against the Vestas management, who want to close the plant.
Some of the mainstream press coverage of the demonstrations and meetings in solidarity with the Vestas workers gives the impression that the trade unionists and climate campaigners brought together in this fight have never encountered each other before. This of course isn’t entirely true, as anyone who went to the two Campaign against Climate Change trade union conferences, or the meetings at various climate camps involving the NUM, RMT etc would know. However, the dispute clearly marks a significant step forward for the climate movement, as a fight for real, existing green jobs brings the issue to the forefront in the run up to the global demonstrations during the climate talks in Copenhagen in December.
The Vestas workers are not only fighting to save their jobs but also to have a say in what happens to their industry. The bosses might assume that workers are only interested in their pay packets, but that clearly isn’t so. Just as the Visteon workers saw that their factory could move from van parts to greener production like electric cars or indeed, wind turbines, so the Vestas workers are exposing the parlous state of the renewables sector.
The coincidence of the Vestas occupation and the launch of the government’s Low Carbon Transition Plan should be hugely embarrassing for them. Ed Miliband, the Environment minister, has after all just proclaimed plans to get up to 30% of Britain’s electricity from renewables, particularly from wind power, by 2020 and predicted up to 1.2 new green jobs, 500,000 of them in renewable energy sector. The Renewable Energy Strategy is full of self-congratulatory talk of the ‘rapidly growing’ renewables sector, which in the light that the Vestas occupation has shone on the industry, seems hollow, to say the least.
Miliband has tried to defend himself by casting the Vestas closure as evidence of problems with which his Transition Plan was created to deal. The problem, apparently, is the planning system, with delays in approving wind farms, and the frequency of rejection for onshore installations, making the UK wind turbine market uneconomic. This echoes Vestas’ stance – their CEO commented that the UK is ‘one of the most difficult places in the world to get planning permission’. The Isle of Wight factory was actually making turbine blades for the US market, as the UK market was not profitable enough to enter.
Changes to the planning laws are supposed to make it easier to get projects like wind farms (and nuclear or coal-fired power stations) approved, and for some greens, this is a significant step forward. Mark Lynas, for example, recently argued that now that the government has provided what he views as a decent climate strategy, NIMBY objections to wind farms are all that are standing in the way of renewables. However, this argument misses the key lesson of the Vestas fight: that the market can’t provide the solutions to climate change.
The Low Carbon Transition Plan itself admits that the market has failed to provide renewable energy generation on the scale required. There is no inherent reason why we couldn’t get all our electricity from a mix of renewable sources. The government is aiming for a conservative 30% by 2020. The current figure is 5.5%, one of the lowest figures in Europe. The Transition Plan states proudly that this is a threefold increase, ignoring the fact that three times a tiny percentage is still a tiny percentage. The problem with the Transition Plan is that, having identified the problem with using the market to develop renewable energy generation, it then proceeds to rely completely on incentives for market mechanisms to develop renewable energy generation.
Even with a steamlined planning process, wind farms in this plan will still depend on the whim of private energy companies or landowners. They will still be more about generating profit than renewable energy. The Vestas workers are right to call for their factory to be nationalised, so that it can start producing turbines for UK wind energy generation. It is in fact the whole energy sector that needs to be nationalised, if we are to get a shift to renewable energy on the scale needed to bring down carbon emissions.
Defenders of the Transition Plan would no doubt point to the 2008 Climate Bill, in which the government, alone of all the governments in Europe, enshrined its emissions reductions targets in law. This is supposed to be a guarantee that, if energy companies’ need for profits are found to be standing in the way of renewables, the renewables will have to come first. Since so far, Ed Miliband’s action over Vestas has been limited to hand wringing and offering Vestas a handsome payment for R&D, this is less than convincing. After all, for an indication of this government’s respect for the law, we have only to remember Iraq.
It would be difficult to find a politician who would openly disagree with the idea of green jobs, but the workers’ occupation of the Vestas wind turbine factory in the Isle of Wight is a demonstration of the gap between theoretical support and practice.
The workers are in occupation to defend 600 of the greenest jobs, making wind turbine parts, against the Vestas management, who want to close the plant.
Some of the mainstream press coverage of the demonstrations and meetings in solidarity with the Vestas workers gives the impression that the trade unionists and climate campaigners brought together in this fight have never encountered each other before. This of course isn’t entirely true, as anyone who went to the two Campaign against Climate Change trade union conferences, or the meetings at various climate camps involving the NUM, RMT etc would know. However, the dispute clearly marks a significant step forward for the climate movement, as a fight for real, existing green jobs brings the issue to the forefront in the run up to the global demonstrations during the climate talks in Copenhagen in December.
The Vestas workers are not only fighting to save their jobs but also to have a say in what happens to their industry. The bosses might assume that workers are only interested in their pay packets, but that clearly isn’t so. Just as the Visteon workers saw that their factory could move from van parts to greener production like electric cars or indeed, wind turbines, so the Vestas workers are exposing the parlous state of the renewables sector.
The coincidence of the Vestas occupation and the launch of the government’s Low Carbon Transition Plan should be hugely embarrassing for them. Ed Miliband, the Environment minister, has after all just proclaimed plans to get up to 30% of Britain’s electricity from renewables, particularly from wind power, by 2020 and predicted up to 1.2 new green jobs, 500,000 of them in renewable energy sector. The Renewable Energy Strategy is full of self-congratulatory talk of the ‘rapidly growing’ renewables sector, which in the light that the Vestas occupation has shone on the industry, seems hollow, to say the least.
Miliband has tried to defend himself by casting the Vestas closure as evidence of problems with which his Transition Plan was created to deal. The problem, apparently, is the planning system, with delays in approving wind farms, and the frequency of rejection for onshore installations, making the UK wind turbine market uneconomic. This echoes Vestas’ stance – their CEO commented that the UK is ‘one of the most difficult places in the world to get planning permission’. The Isle of Wight factory was actually making turbine blades for the US market, as the UK market was not profitable enough to enter.
Changes to the planning laws are supposed to make it easier to get projects like wind farms (and nuclear or coal-fired power stations) approved, and for some greens, this is a significant step forward. Mark Lynas, for example, recently argued that now that the government has provided what he views as a decent climate strategy, NIMBY objections to wind farms are all that are standing in the way of renewables. However, this argument misses the key lesson of the Vestas fight: that the market can’t provide the solutions to climate change.
The Low Carbon Transition Plan itself admits that the market has failed to provide renewable energy generation on the scale required. There is no inherent reason why we couldn’t get all our electricity from a mix of renewable sources. The government is aiming for a conservative 30% by 2020. The current figure is 5.5%, one of the lowest figures in Europe. The Transition Plan states proudly that this is a threefold increase, ignoring the fact that three times a tiny percentage is still a tiny percentage. The problem with the Transition Plan is that, having identified the problem with using the market to develop renewable energy generation, it then proceeds to rely completely on incentives for market mechanisms to develop renewable energy generation.
Even with a steamlined planning process, wind farms in this plan will still depend on the whim of private energy companies or landowners. They will still be more about generating profit than renewable energy. The Vestas workers are right to call for their factory to be nationalised, so that it can start producing turbines for UK wind energy generation. It is in fact the whole energy sector that needs to be nationalised, if we are to get a shift to renewable energy on the scale needed to bring down carbon emissions.
Defenders of the Transition Plan would no doubt point to the 2008 Climate Bill, in which the government, alone of all the governments in Europe, enshrined its emissions reductions targets in law. This is supposed to be a guarantee that, if energy companies’ need for profits are found to be standing in the way of renewables, the renewables will have to come first. Since so far, Ed Miliband’s action over Vestas has been limited to hand wringing and offering Vestas a handsome payment for R&D, this is less than convincing. After all, for an indication of this government’s respect for the law, we have only to remember Iraq.
Nationalise Vestas to save jobs
Tom Walker, Isle of Wight, Thursday, 30th July, 2009, Socialist Worker
Labour's green hypocrisy exposed. Victory to the Vestas workers.
The government must nationalise the Vestas wind turbine company to save jobs and begin to stop climate change. Gordon Brown and energy secretary Ed Miliband have refused to save the jobs.
The 25 workers who have occupied the company’s factory in Newport, the Isle of Wight, were facing the threat of a court injunction when Socialist Worker went to press.
They have been in occupation for over eight days. The protesters are fighting to save 600 jobs which are at risk – despite the fact the company will pocket £6 million in taxpayers’ money for research and made £575 million in profits last year.
Ian Terry, who is in the occupation said, “The government must take this factory under its wing. They should get rid of the management and guarantee our jobs. It’s disgusting that the government can rush through nationalising busted banks, but won’t even think about nationalising renewable energy firms which are good for everyone.”
The occupation is an inspiration to workers facing attacks in of the recession.
Ian added, “I’m backing the demonstration at the Labour Party conference in September. It’s time to stand up and not let the government make decisions without listening to the people.”
Labour's green hypocrisy exposed. Victory to the Vestas workers.
The government must nationalise the Vestas wind turbine company to save jobs and begin to stop climate change. Gordon Brown and energy secretary Ed Miliband have refused to save the jobs.
The 25 workers who have occupied the company’s factory in Newport, the Isle of Wight, were facing the threat of a court injunction when Socialist Worker went to press.
They have been in occupation for over eight days. The protesters are fighting to save 600 jobs which are at risk – despite the fact the company will pocket £6 million in taxpayers’ money for research and made £575 million in profits last year.
Ian Terry, who is in the occupation said, “The government must take this factory under its wing. They should get rid of the management and guarantee our jobs. It’s disgusting that the government can rush through nationalising busted banks, but won’t even think about nationalising renewable energy firms which are good for everyone.”
The occupation is an inspiration to workers facing attacks in of the recession.
Ian added, “I’m backing the demonstration at the Labour Party conference in September. It’s time to stand up and not let the government make decisions without listening to the people.”
Heartbreaking letter from Lance Corporal Joe Glenton to PM Brown
The Prime Minister
10, Downing Street
London
SW1A 2
30th July 2009
Dear Mr. Brown,
I am writing to you as a serving soldier in the British army to express my views and concerns on the current conflict in Afghanistan.
It is my primary concern that the courage and tenacity of my fellow soldiers has become a tool of American foreign policy. I believe this unethical shortchanging of such proud men and women has caused immeasurable suffering not only to families of British service personnel who have been killed and injured, but also to the noble people of Afghanistan.
I have seen qualities in the Afghan people, which have also been, for so long, apparent and admired in the British soldier. Qualities of robustness, humour, utter determination and unwillingness to take a step backwards. However it is these qualities, on both sides, which I fear will continue to cause a state of attrition. These will only lead to more heartbreak within both our societies.
I am not a General nor am I a politician and I cannot claim any mastery of strategy. However, I am a soldier who has served in Afghanistan, which has given me some small insight.
I believe that when British military personnel submit themselves to the service of the nation and put their bodies in harm’s way, the government that sends them into battle is obliged to ensure that the cause is just and right i.e. for the protection of life and liberty.
The war in Afghanistan is not reducing the terrorist risk. Far from improving Afghan lives it is bringing death and devastation to their country. Britain has no business there.
I do not believe that our cause in Afghanistan is just or right. I implore you, sir, to bring our soldiers home.
Yours sincerely,
Joe Glenton
L/Cpl
10, Downing Street
London
SW1A 2
30th July 2009
Dear Mr. Brown,
I am writing to you as a serving soldier in the British army to express my views and concerns on the current conflict in Afghanistan.
It is my primary concern that the courage and tenacity of my fellow soldiers has become a tool of American foreign policy. I believe this unethical shortchanging of such proud men and women has caused immeasurable suffering not only to families of British service personnel who have been killed and injured, but also to the noble people of Afghanistan.
I have seen qualities in the Afghan people, which have also been, for so long, apparent and admired in the British soldier. Qualities of robustness, humour, utter determination and unwillingness to take a step backwards. However it is these qualities, on both sides, which I fear will continue to cause a state of attrition. These will only lead to more heartbreak within both our societies.
I am not a General nor am I a politician and I cannot claim any mastery of strategy. However, I am a soldier who has served in Afghanistan, which has given me some small insight.
I believe that when British military personnel submit themselves to the service of the nation and put their bodies in harm’s way, the government that sends them into battle is obliged to ensure that the cause is just and right i.e. for the protection of life and liberty.
The war in Afghanistan is not reducing the terrorist risk. Far from improving Afghan lives it is bringing death and devastation to their country. Britain has no business there.
I do not believe that our cause in Afghanistan is just or right. I implore you, sir, to bring our soldiers home.
Yours sincerely,
Joe Glenton
L/Cpl
Friday, 24 July 2009
Malalai Joya calls for international solidarity against the horror in Afghanistan
Last night the Stop the War Coalition held one its most electrifying rallies in its eight year history. The inspirational anti-war Afghan MP Malalai Joya was joined on the platform by Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, a serving British soldier who was speaking in public for the first time against the horror caused by the war in Afghanistan.
Malalai Joya really is one of the bravest women in Afghanistan. She told the 300-strong audience at Conway Hall in central London that she’s survived five assassination attempts and is still not safe with personal security guards or by wearing a burkha to cover her identity. Yet she continues to campaign against foreign occupation and fundamentalist warlords, and for women’s rights and education. She believes all NATO troops must leave Afghanistan immediately.
In her first speech to the National Assembly in 2003, she told the new Afghan government that the warlords and criminals present should be prosecuted in the national and international courts. But she had barely started her speech when her microphone was cut off, angry men were raising their fists towards her and she had to be escorted out by a human chain of supporters and UN officials around her. In 2005 she told the assembled parliament that it was “worse than a zoo.” Two years ago she was expelled from parliament altogether.
She told the audience last night of the suffering of Afghans, and in particular women, at the hands of both occupation forces and the warlords who benefit from the occupation. If the war was ever about eradicating opium, 93% of global opium production now comes from Afghanistan, and £500m goes into the pockets of the Taliban every year because of the drug trade. Afghans have lost almost everything, she said, except that they have gained political knowledge. And they are against the occupation.
She holds little hope for the upcoming elections in August. She said the ballot box is controlled by a mafia of warlords and criminals, and that even if the democrats in Afghanistan could put forward a candidate, they would inevitably become puppets of the US and NATO, or they wouldn’t survive in office. NATO could not possibly provide a solution because the troops are despised for the carnage they have brought to the country. As Malalai repeated a number of times in the meeting, no nation can liberate another nation, and only the oppressed can rise up against their oppressors. The only solution, she said, was for the anti-war movement internationally to speak out and demonstrate against the war in their own countries, “because our enemies are afraid of international solidarity.” It will be a prolonged and risky struggle, she continued, but the Afghans must liberate themselves.
The other highlight of the meeting was the testimony of a serving British soldier. While Malalai fights against the war in Afghanistan, more and more British troops – who equally risk their lives fighting in Afghanistan – are realising the futility of this project. Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, who fought in Kandahar in 2006, told the audience that he came back ashamed and disillusioned. He said the army and the politicians never explained why they were there or what was going on, only that British troops were helping the Afghan people. When he found that the Afghans were fighting against them, this came as a real shock. He spoke of the discontentment in the ranks, which he described as dangerous, and the need for Britain to withdraw its troops.
Two years ago when Glenton heard he was being posted back to Afghanistan, he decided the only sensible thing to do was to leave the army, even illegally, as he did not believe that Britain was doing anything constructive in Afghanistan. He now faces up to two years in a civilian prison. Stop the War Coalition declared it would support Glenton and any other soldier who faced the courts on account of being against the war.
Andrew Murray, Chair of Stop the War, opened the meeting by reminding us that the Stop the War Coalition was founded in response to the threatened invasion of Afghanistan. Now that the British government has shifted its focus to Afghanistan – discussing the possibility of sending more troops, as the death toll rises past that in Iraq – so the anti-war movement will step up its campaign to mobilise public opinion to demand that all the troops are brought home as soon as possible.
Public opinion in Britain has indeed shifted against the war in Afghanistan. Whatever support the war had initially – for reducing opium production, for the reconstruction taking place, for keeping the Taliban in check, for defending women’s rights and bringing democracy – people are now cutting through the media spin. They know this is an unwinnable war, that there is no reconstruction taking place and that the longer we stay the more death and destruction we cause. As Malalai put it, the war being waged by the British government in Afghanistan not only causes untold suffering for the Afghans, but it takes away from our humanity too.
Stop the War Coalition is calling on all its local groups to organise protests on the streets to mark the 200th British soldier that is killed in Afghanistan. The current death toll stands at 188 and is rising at an average of about one per day. It will also call a major national demonstration in October to mark the anniversary of the invasion in 2001.
Malalai Joya really is one of the bravest women in Afghanistan. She told the 300-strong audience at Conway Hall in central London that she’s survived five assassination attempts and is still not safe with personal security guards or by wearing a burkha to cover her identity. Yet she continues to campaign against foreign occupation and fundamentalist warlords, and for women’s rights and education. She believes all NATO troops must leave Afghanistan immediately.
In her first speech to the National Assembly in 2003, she told the new Afghan government that the warlords and criminals present should be prosecuted in the national and international courts. But she had barely started her speech when her microphone was cut off, angry men were raising their fists towards her and she had to be escorted out by a human chain of supporters and UN officials around her. In 2005 she told the assembled parliament that it was “worse than a zoo.” Two years ago she was expelled from parliament altogether.
She told the audience last night of the suffering of Afghans, and in particular women, at the hands of both occupation forces and the warlords who benefit from the occupation. If the war was ever about eradicating opium, 93% of global opium production now comes from Afghanistan, and £500m goes into the pockets of the Taliban every year because of the drug trade. Afghans have lost almost everything, she said, except that they have gained political knowledge. And they are against the occupation.
She holds little hope for the upcoming elections in August. She said the ballot box is controlled by a mafia of warlords and criminals, and that even if the democrats in Afghanistan could put forward a candidate, they would inevitably become puppets of the US and NATO, or they wouldn’t survive in office. NATO could not possibly provide a solution because the troops are despised for the carnage they have brought to the country. As Malalai repeated a number of times in the meeting, no nation can liberate another nation, and only the oppressed can rise up against their oppressors. The only solution, she said, was for the anti-war movement internationally to speak out and demonstrate against the war in their own countries, “because our enemies are afraid of international solidarity.” It will be a prolonged and risky struggle, she continued, but the Afghans must liberate themselves.
The other highlight of the meeting was the testimony of a serving British soldier. While Malalai fights against the war in Afghanistan, more and more British troops – who equally risk their lives fighting in Afghanistan – are realising the futility of this project. Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, who fought in Kandahar in 2006, told the audience that he came back ashamed and disillusioned. He said the army and the politicians never explained why they were there or what was going on, only that British troops were helping the Afghan people. When he found that the Afghans were fighting against them, this came as a real shock. He spoke of the discontentment in the ranks, which he described as dangerous, and the need for Britain to withdraw its troops.
Two years ago when Glenton heard he was being posted back to Afghanistan, he decided the only sensible thing to do was to leave the army, even illegally, as he did not believe that Britain was doing anything constructive in Afghanistan. He now faces up to two years in a civilian prison. Stop the War Coalition declared it would support Glenton and any other soldier who faced the courts on account of being against the war.
Andrew Murray, Chair of Stop the War, opened the meeting by reminding us that the Stop the War Coalition was founded in response to the threatened invasion of Afghanistan. Now that the British government has shifted its focus to Afghanistan – discussing the possibility of sending more troops, as the death toll rises past that in Iraq – so the anti-war movement will step up its campaign to mobilise public opinion to demand that all the troops are brought home as soon as possible.
Public opinion in Britain has indeed shifted against the war in Afghanistan. Whatever support the war had initially – for reducing opium production, for the reconstruction taking place, for keeping the Taliban in check, for defending women’s rights and bringing democracy – people are now cutting through the media spin. They know this is an unwinnable war, that there is no reconstruction taking place and that the longer we stay the more death and destruction we cause. As Malalai put it, the war being waged by the British government in Afghanistan not only causes untold suffering for the Afghans, but it takes away from our humanity too.
Stop the War Coalition is calling on all its local groups to organise protests on the streets to mark the 200th British soldier that is killed in Afghanistan. The current death toll stands at 188 and is rising at an average of about one per day. It will also call a major national demonstration in October to mark the anniversary of the invasion in 2001.
British soldier interviewed: ‘I realised the Afghan war was wrong’
By Yuri Prasad, Tuesday, 14th July 2009, Socialist Worker
Lance Corporal Joe Glenton is 27 years old and has been in the army since 2004. For the last two years, after he was told that he would have to return to Afghanistan, Joe has been absent without leave and on the run. He spoke to Yuri Prasad about his experiences.
"In 2006 my regiment was posted to Afghanistan for seven months. And if I had to describe my feelings about the tour in one word, I would say “confused”.
We were never really told what was going on, and the whole campaign seemed to be suffering from “mission creep” – the goals just seemed to be changing all the time.
Around the time that we arrived in Afghanistan the fighting with the Taliban revived and it got pretty rough. I was based at Kandahar airport and although we weren’t on the front line, the base was attacked frequently.
My regiment was there to support Three Para with all their logistical needs. We were told that the British army was there to keep the peace. But we actually ran out of artillery shells because they were calling it forwards to the front lines in such large quantities.
There was so much shelling there were periods when we would work solidly for 20 or 30 hours at a time.
There was an undercurrent of fear as well. I was fighting alongside people that ranged from just 18 years old to guys in the their mid-40s. We were hit by mortars and rockets.
Luckily, I never had to see one of my colleagues injured but the constant shelling does have an effect on people. A lot of guys, especially the younger ones, really struggled to cope.
Politicians
Afghan people were attacking us, even though our politicians said we were going in to help them. It came as a real shock. We kept asking ourselves, why are they doing this? That’s when I became aware that there was something seriously wrong with the war.
Initially we were told that we were in Afghanistan to put an end to the opium crop. Then we were told that it was to rebuild infrastructure. Then it was about bringing democracy – but none of this really seems to have happened.
Maybe there was an initial plan, but it kind of snowballed. By the end of my tour it was attrition and war fighting.
That had a massive impact on the Afghan civilian population who were put in a lot of danger. There’s no way you can fight a war without ordinary people getting caught up in it.
When I got back from my tour of Afghanistan I was quite shaken by the whole experience. But there’s a definite feeling running through the army that they just expect you to get on with it no matter what’s happened to you.
While I was still struggling to come to terms with my experiences in Afghanistan and adjusting to returning home, I was promoted and posted to another regiment. And from that point on things started to go very wrong.
I was singled out by a senior officer who started bullying me – and there is very little support for someone in the army who finds themselves in that position. I tried to go through the army’s formal procedure but it didn’t resolve the problem.
I realised at this point that I could no longer trust my chain of command. I felt like a victim of the “old boys’ club”.
Around the same time I was told that my regiment wanted to deploy me to Afghanistan again – even though this is against the harmony guidelines which stipulate a minimum time between tours of duty.
I’d only been back in Britain for about six or seven months.
At that point I decided that to protect myself my only course of action was to go absent. I was having some kind of a breakdown and I got away as far as I could to Asia, where I knew I could live cheaply for a couple of months.
My initial plan was to stay there for a while then come back to Britain and prepare to be courts martialed and kicked out of the army – but I just couldn’t deal with it.
So I pushed on to Australia, stayed there for two years on a working visa and met my now wife. Together we decided that I should come back and deal with things.
Fast track
I’ve handed myself into the army, and I’m now on a fast track courts martial. As far as the army is concerned I’m guilty and it doesn’t matter what I’ve been through.
They’ve just upped the charge against me from absent without leave to desertion. In the worst case scenario I face two years in a civilian jail.
Meanwhile, the politicians who send us to Afghanistan don’t even seem prepared to spend the money that’s needed to keep us safe.
Looking at the way the war has developed, I don’t think Britain is doing any good there and I think our troops should come out.
All we’re doing now is stacking up casualties. The Afghan people will probably go with whoever is winning, and right now we’re not."
Lance Corporal Joe Glenton is 27 years old and has been in the army since 2004. For the last two years, after he was told that he would have to return to Afghanistan, Joe has been absent without leave and on the run. He spoke to Yuri Prasad about his experiences.
"In 2006 my regiment was posted to Afghanistan for seven months. And if I had to describe my feelings about the tour in one word, I would say “confused”.
We were never really told what was going on, and the whole campaign seemed to be suffering from “mission creep” – the goals just seemed to be changing all the time.
Around the time that we arrived in Afghanistan the fighting with the Taliban revived and it got pretty rough. I was based at Kandahar airport and although we weren’t on the front line, the base was attacked frequently.
My regiment was there to support Three Para with all their logistical needs. We were told that the British army was there to keep the peace. But we actually ran out of artillery shells because they were calling it forwards to the front lines in such large quantities.
There was so much shelling there were periods when we would work solidly for 20 or 30 hours at a time.
There was an undercurrent of fear as well. I was fighting alongside people that ranged from just 18 years old to guys in the their mid-40s. We were hit by mortars and rockets.
Luckily, I never had to see one of my colleagues injured but the constant shelling does have an effect on people. A lot of guys, especially the younger ones, really struggled to cope.
Politicians
Afghan people were attacking us, even though our politicians said we were going in to help them. It came as a real shock. We kept asking ourselves, why are they doing this? That’s when I became aware that there was something seriously wrong with the war.
Initially we were told that we were in Afghanistan to put an end to the opium crop. Then we were told that it was to rebuild infrastructure. Then it was about bringing democracy – but none of this really seems to have happened.
Maybe there was an initial plan, but it kind of snowballed. By the end of my tour it was attrition and war fighting.
That had a massive impact on the Afghan civilian population who were put in a lot of danger. There’s no way you can fight a war without ordinary people getting caught up in it.
When I got back from my tour of Afghanistan I was quite shaken by the whole experience. But there’s a definite feeling running through the army that they just expect you to get on with it no matter what’s happened to you.
While I was still struggling to come to terms with my experiences in Afghanistan and adjusting to returning home, I was promoted and posted to another regiment. And from that point on things started to go very wrong.
I was singled out by a senior officer who started bullying me – and there is very little support for someone in the army who finds themselves in that position. I tried to go through the army’s formal procedure but it didn’t resolve the problem.
I realised at this point that I could no longer trust my chain of command. I felt like a victim of the “old boys’ club”.
Around the same time I was told that my regiment wanted to deploy me to Afghanistan again – even though this is against the harmony guidelines which stipulate a minimum time between tours of duty.
I’d only been back in Britain for about six or seven months.
At that point I decided that to protect myself my only course of action was to go absent. I was having some kind of a breakdown and I got away as far as I could to Asia, where I knew I could live cheaply for a couple of months.
My initial plan was to stay there for a while then come back to Britain and prepare to be courts martialed and kicked out of the army – but I just couldn’t deal with it.
So I pushed on to Australia, stayed there for two years on a working visa and met my now wife. Together we decided that I should come back and deal with things.
Fast track
I’ve handed myself into the army, and I’m now on a fast track courts martial. As far as the army is concerned I’m guilty and it doesn’t matter what I’ve been through.
They’ve just upped the charge against me from absent without leave to desertion. In the worst case scenario I face two years in a civilian jail.
Meanwhile, the politicians who send us to Afghanistan don’t even seem prepared to spend the money that’s needed to keep us safe.
Looking at the way the war has developed, I don’t think Britain is doing any good there and I think our troops should come out.
All we’re doing now is stacking up casualties. The Afghan people will probably go with whoever is winning, and right now we’re not."
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
Afghanistan deaths: Is it still worth it?
Bill Rammell and Lindsey German, Monday, 13th July, The Mirror
The loss of eight soldiers in just 24 hours last week was the British Army's darkest day in Afghanistan. As yet more families mourn their loved ones calls are intensifying to end the bloody conflict. Here, two leading figures argue for and against the war.
YES - Bill Rammell
The task we face in Afghanistan is immensely difficult.
It is a dangerous mission in a hot demanding environment.
In the Taliban we face a ruthless enemy. They are prepared to plant improvised explosive devices in civilian areas leave them there for days at a time.
They are prepared to attack indiscriminately and kill both civilians and our troops.
When we have seen the number of deaths we have had this week my heart goes out to the families of the troops who have been lost. Nothing can compensate for the loss of their loved ones. We owe them a debt of gratitude.
I also totally understand when people see these deaths and ask, "Is it worth it?".
But we need to be clear - our forces are serving our national interest.
In 2001, the Taliban were allowing terrorist training camps to operate out of Afghanistan.
Those terrorists targeted this country as well as other nations. We must never let that happen again.
Our mission today is still to take on the terrorist threat at its source. It is what our troops are doing.
And I have no doubt whatsoever that without the professionalism and heroism of those troops we would be at greater risk of terrorist attacks today.
We will achieve that mission by, alongside the military strategy, rebuilding Afghanistan.
We will build up the capacity of the Afghan army. And we will help ensure they have the right justice system, the right police.
We have to stop their economy being driven by the drug trade.
But the mission has been clear and true. It is to make the Afghans and ourselves safe from terrorist attack. I accept we have to explain that mission constantly to British people. People need to understand why it is so important to us.
I have been to Afghanistan three times. I have seen the real professionalism, real commitment and bloody bravery of our troops. It is phenomenal.
They know why they are there and they know why it is important.
But some of the debate in this country is always about what is going wrong.
It won't undermine troops' morale. They are dedicated professionals.
But, frankly, I think they could do without the constant sniping and criticism.
People also need to understand this is not just about Britain.
We are there as a joint effort. We are there as part of a 42-nation coalition. We have increased our troop levels from 5,500 to 9,000. And the Americans have increased their commitment by 20,000.
We have to see this through - that is absolutely essential for us as well as the Afghan people.
NO - Lindsey German
The Stop the War Coalition is saddened by the tragic deaths of young soldiers in Afghanistan.
These deaths were unnecessary as is the increasing toll of the people of Afghanistan killed by indiscriminate aerial bombardment.
It is time that the politicians of this country told the truth about this war.
It is not a "good" war to liberate the people of that country.
It is a war now being fought to prop up one of the most corrupt governments in the world. Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai is no democrat - he is supported by some of the most brutal warlords in that country.
The biggest deceit about the war and the one now repeated by Gordon Brown and, sadly, US President Barack Obama is that the war is necessary to prevent terror attacks in Britain. The opposite is the case.
Our continued occupation of Afghanistan is destabilising that country and also neighbouring Pakistan. It makes more likely continued terrorist activity throughout the world.
There is now pressure for even more troops to be sent to Afghanistan.
Our politicians have not learnt the lessons of Vietnam, where more and more troops were sent and more and more were killed.
That war nearly broke the US army and nearly bankrupted America.
Eventually the US was forced to withdraw. Who now supports the conflict in Vietnam as a "good" war? Senior military figures admit that the war is unwinnable even if we stay in that country for another decade. The cost of this futile fight will double this year at a time when public services are under threat. Schools, hospitals and homes are in desperate need of new resources and we face a situation where billions of pounds are going into a war with no end.
This is a pointless conflict and that is why the deaths of these young soldiers are tragic because they are not fighting to defend their country.
They are fighting and dying to salvage the reputation of politicians who lack the courage to say publicly what they mutter to themselves behind closed doors.
Many of the soldiers killed in the past few days were teenagers with their whole lives ahead of them.
They deserve better than to be sent on an impossible mission with no clear political strategy. The political class in this country has a lot to answer for.
They have taken us into a war with no thought for the consequences for the people of Afghanistan or for the British soldiers. This is why our campaign to bring the troops home will continue.
The loss of eight soldiers in just 24 hours last week was the British Army's darkest day in Afghanistan. As yet more families mourn their loved ones calls are intensifying to end the bloody conflict. Here, two leading figures argue for and against the war.
YES - Bill Rammell
The task we face in Afghanistan is immensely difficult.
It is a dangerous mission in a hot demanding environment.
In the Taliban we face a ruthless enemy. They are prepared to plant improvised explosive devices in civilian areas leave them there for days at a time.
They are prepared to attack indiscriminately and kill both civilians and our troops.
When we have seen the number of deaths we have had this week my heart goes out to the families of the troops who have been lost. Nothing can compensate for the loss of their loved ones. We owe them a debt of gratitude.
I also totally understand when people see these deaths and ask, "Is it worth it?".
But we need to be clear - our forces are serving our national interest.
In 2001, the Taliban were allowing terrorist training camps to operate out of Afghanistan.
Those terrorists targeted this country as well as other nations. We must never let that happen again.
Our mission today is still to take on the terrorist threat at its source. It is what our troops are doing.
And I have no doubt whatsoever that without the professionalism and heroism of those troops we would be at greater risk of terrorist attacks today.
We will achieve that mission by, alongside the military strategy, rebuilding Afghanistan.
We will build up the capacity of the Afghan army. And we will help ensure they have the right justice system, the right police.
We have to stop their economy being driven by the drug trade.
But the mission has been clear and true. It is to make the Afghans and ourselves safe from terrorist attack. I accept we have to explain that mission constantly to British people. People need to understand why it is so important to us.
I have been to Afghanistan three times. I have seen the real professionalism, real commitment and bloody bravery of our troops. It is phenomenal.
They know why they are there and they know why it is important.
But some of the debate in this country is always about what is going wrong.
It won't undermine troops' morale. They are dedicated professionals.
But, frankly, I think they could do without the constant sniping and criticism.
People also need to understand this is not just about Britain.
We are there as a joint effort. We are there as part of a 42-nation coalition. We have increased our troop levels from 5,500 to 9,000. And the Americans have increased their commitment by 20,000.
We have to see this through - that is absolutely essential for us as well as the Afghan people.
NO - Lindsey German
The Stop the War Coalition is saddened by the tragic deaths of young soldiers in Afghanistan.
These deaths were unnecessary as is the increasing toll of the people of Afghanistan killed by indiscriminate aerial bombardment.
It is time that the politicians of this country told the truth about this war.
It is not a "good" war to liberate the people of that country.
It is a war now being fought to prop up one of the most corrupt governments in the world. Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai is no democrat - he is supported by some of the most brutal warlords in that country.
The biggest deceit about the war and the one now repeated by Gordon Brown and, sadly, US President Barack Obama is that the war is necessary to prevent terror attacks in Britain. The opposite is the case.
Our continued occupation of Afghanistan is destabilising that country and also neighbouring Pakistan. It makes more likely continued terrorist activity throughout the world.
There is now pressure for even more troops to be sent to Afghanistan.
Our politicians have not learnt the lessons of Vietnam, where more and more troops were sent and more and more were killed.
That war nearly broke the US army and nearly bankrupted America.
Eventually the US was forced to withdraw. Who now supports the conflict in Vietnam as a "good" war? Senior military figures admit that the war is unwinnable even if we stay in that country for another decade. The cost of this futile fight will double this year at a time when public services are under threat. Schools, hospitals and homes are in desperate need of new resources and we face a situation where billions of pounds are going into a war with no end.
This is a pointless conflict and that is why the deaths of these young soldiers are tragic because they are not fighting to defend their country.
They are fighting and dying to salvage the reputation of politicians who lack the courage to say publicly what they mutter to themselves behind closed doors.
Many of the soldiers killed in the past few days were teenagers with their whole lives ahead of them.
They deserve better than to be sent on an impossible mission with no clear political strategy. The political class in this country has a lot to answer for.
They have taken us into a war with no thought for the consequences for the people of Afghanistan or for the British soldiers. This is why our campaign to bring the troops home will continue.
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Saturday, 13 June 2009
SOAS immigration raid
Without any advance warning from their ISS bosses nor the university management, SOAS cleaning staff were confronted by a hefty team of immigration officers at 6.30am this morning (Friday 12 June).
Fearful cleaners were detained on SOAS premises as the officers demanded to see their papers. Some were taken into rooms of the university to be interviewed. A shocked witness said that someone had to intervene when a heavily-pregnant cleaner was being manhandled by immigration officers.
Nine cleaners were taken away by Immigration Officers.
SOAS staff and students, many who had been at a protest at the sacking of another cleaner and UNISON Branch Chair, Jose Bermudez Stalin, were shocked and outraged by the raid and fear that the cleaners may be deported very soon.
There has been widespread support amongst lecturers, staff and students for the successful campaign for the living wage and union recognition led by mainly migrant cleaners.
Graham Dyer, SOAS UCU Branch Chair said: “It is no co-incindence that there is an immigration raid at a time when the UCU ,Unison and the NUS are fighting against the victimisation of a migrant worker who has been at the heart of a fight that has improved the pay and conditions of workers here at SOAS. It is also not coincindental that ISS had only just signed a union recognition agreement with UNISON last week Our fight has united lecturers, staff and students and has rocked SOAS management. Those managers are now lashing out. It is a disgrace that SOAS management saw fit to use a seat of learning to intimidate migrant workers. This is their underhand revenge and we will do all we can to stop migrant workers paying the price.”
Ken Loach, director of the film Looking For Eric, stated:
"This raid is the action of a bully. Migrant workers are amongst the most vulnerable - poorly paid and far from home. Recent action by Unison to secure better wages and conditions at SOAS was good news. Now we wonder if the SOAS cleaners are being targeted because they dared to organise as trade unionists. We should all stand with them in solidarity in the face of this victimisation."
The living wage campaign has had the support of John McDonnell MP , who said:
““As living wage campaigns are building in strength, we are increasingly seeing the use of immigration statuses to attack workers fighting against poverty wages and break trade union organising. The message is that they are happy to employ migrant labour on poverty wages, but if you complain they will send you back home.
It is absolutely shameful.”
Press Enquiries/messages of support to Dr. Graham Dyer : gd1@soas.ac.uk 07940 539 027
Fearful cleaners were detained on SOAS premises as the officers demanded to see their papers. Some were taken into rooms of the university to be interviewed. A shocked witness said that someone had to intervene when a heavily-pregnant cleaner was being manhandled by immigration officers.
Nine cleaners were taken away by Immigration Officers.
SOAS staff and students, many who had been at a protest at the sacking of another cleaner and UNISON Branch Chair, Jose Bermudez Stalin, were shocked and outraged by the raid and fear that the cleaners may be deported very soon.
There has been widespread support amongst lecturers, staff and students for the successful campaign for the living wage and union recognition led by mainly migrant cleaners.
Graham Dyer, SOAS UCU Branch Chair said: “It is no co-incindence that there is an immigration raid at a time when the UCU ,Unison and the NUS are fighting against the victimisation of a migrant worker who has been at the heart of a fight that has improved the pay and conditions of workers here at SOAS. It is also not coincindental that ISS had only just signed a union recognition agreement with UNISON last week Our fight has united lecturers, staff and students and has rocked SOAS management. Those managers are now lashing out. It is a disgrace that SOAS management saw fit to use a seat of learning to intimidate migrant workers. This is their underhand revenge and we will do all we can to stop migrant workers paying the price.”
Ken Loach, director of the film Looking For Eric, stated:
"This raid is the action of a bully. Migrant workers are amongst the most vulnerable - poorly paid and far from home. Recent action by Unison to secure better wages and conditions at SOAS was good news. Now we wonder if the SOAS cleaners are being targeted because they dared to organise as trade unionists. We should all stand with them in solidarity in the face of this victimisation."
The living wage campaign has had the support of John McDonnell MP , who said:
““As living wage campaigns are building in strength, we are increasingly seeing the use of immigration statuses to attack workers fighting against poverty wages and break trade union organising. The message is that they are happy to employ migrant labour on poverty wages, but if you complain they will send you back home.
It is absolutely shameful.”
Press Enquiries/messages of support to Dr. Graham Dyer : gd1@soas.ac.uk 07940 539 027
Thursday, 11 June 2009
British troops take brunt of huge rise in Taliban attacks in Afghanistan
Richard Norton-Taylor, Thursday, 11th June, The Guardian
A huge increase in insurgent activity has been recorded in Helmand, the Afghan province where British soldiers are based and where the Taliban is concentrating its attacks, according to Nato figures released today.
Deaths of foreign troops across Afghanistan rose by 78% over the first three months of this year compared with the same period in 2008. The number of British soldiers killed continued at a high rate, with 12 killed last month.
During the first quarter of 2009 there was an average of more than 11 attacks in Helmand a day, many of them improvised explosive devices (IEDs). This was far more than anywhere else in Afghanistan. Neighbouring Kandahar province accounted for the second highest number with just over four daily attacks on average.
"The Taliban's principle military effort is directed at Helmand," a senior British defence source said. He added that British attempts at countering IEDs were improving, with more expert countermeasures.
More than 50% of the devices placed by insurgents were now being detected, he said. However, military commanders expect attacks to continue at a high rate throughout the summer.
To meet a threat which shows no real signs of lessening the US is deploying thousands of its soldiers to Helmand to help out the British. There will soon be about 12,000 US troops in the province, more than the number of their British counterparts there.
Many of them will be based in the south of the province, in Garmsir district, towards the border with Pakistan.
There will be about 9,000 British soldiers in Helmand when an extra 700 are deployed to cover for the Afghan presidential election period this autumn. The US want the extra British troops to stay there. But under present plans the 700 will return to the UK by the end of the year.
British defence chiefs, sensitive to suggestions that the US is taking over control from them in Helmand, insist that the UK will still be responsible for liaising with the Afghan civil authorities in the province. Officials suggest there is some evidence that "moderate" Taliban fighters are contemplating joining community forces being set up by the Afghan government.
Plans drawn up by UK defence chiefs for an extra 2,000 British troops to be deployed to Helmand have been rejected by Gordon Brown, partly because of Treasury concern about the cost, and partly, say Whitehall officials, because the plans were not convincing.
A huge increase in insurgent activity has been recorded in Helmand, the Afghan province where British soldiers are based and where the Taliban is concentrating its attacks, according to Nato figures released today.
Deaths of foreign troops across Afghanistan rose by 78% over the first three months of this year compared with the same period in 2008. The number of British soldiers killed continued at a high rate, with 12 killed last month.
During the first quarter of 2009 there was an average of more than 11 attacks in Helmand a day, many of them improvised explosive devices (IEDs). This was far more than anywhere else in Afghanistan. Neighbouring Kandahar province accounted for the second highest number with just over four daily attacks on average.
"The Taliban's principle military effort is directed at Helmand," a senior British defence source said. He added that British attempts at countering IEDs were improving, with more expert countermeasures.
More than 50% of the devices placed by insurgents were now being detected, he said. However, military commanders expect attacks to continue at a high rate throughout the summer.
To meet a threat which shows no real signs of lessening the US is deploying thousands of its soldiers to Helmand to help out the British. There will soon be about 12,000 US troops in the province, more than the number of their British counterparts there.
Many of them will be based in the south of the province, in Garmsir district, towards the border with Pakistan.
There will be about 9,000 British soldiers in Helmand when an extra 700 are deployed to cover for the Afghan presidential election period this autumn. The US want the extra British troops to stay there. But under present plans the 700 will return to the UK by the end of the year.
British defence chiefs, sensitive to suggestions that the US is taking over control from them in Helmand, insist that the UK will still be responsible for liaising with the Afghan civil authorities in the province. Officials suggest there is some evidence that "moderate" Taliban fighters are contemplating joining community forces being set up by the Afghan government.
Plans drawn up by UK defence chiefs for an extra 2,000 British troops to be deployed to Helmand have been rejected by Gordon Brown, partly because of Treasury concern about the cost, and partly, say Whitehall officials, because the plans were not convincing.
Saturday, 16 May 2009
MP David Chaytor admits £13,000 mortgage error as expenses crisis grows
Patrick Wintour, Saturday, 16th May 2009, The Guardian
A fresh wave of damaging allegations over MPs' lavish expenses lowered Westminster's reputation still further last night when it emerged that another Labour backbencher, David Chaytor, had wrongly claimed £13,000 in mortgage interest payments even though the loan had already been paid off.
Chaytor, the MP for the highly marginal seat of Bury north and a specialist in education, last night admitted the error.
He is almost certain to be suspended from the parliamentary Labour party pending inquiries, in common with Elliot Morley, the former environment minister who has been suspended for the same offence. Downing Street said it regarded the claims as a serious matter and that Chaytor will be interviewed by the whips as soon as possible.
Chaytor said last night he had made an unforgiveable error and unreservedly apologised. He said the mistake was caused by stressful changes in his personal circumstances. He added he would immediately repay the money.
Chaytor's admission came as the Daily Telegraph alleged that the deputy leader of the house, Chris Bryant, had flipped his second home twice in a year and claimed £20,000 in expenses.
Bryant said the claims were unfounded and that he had to move house after a series of attacks on his first home, and insisted he had followed the advice of the Commons fees office.
It is not necessarily wrong to flip a second home so long as there is a genuine change in the MP's circumstances, but there is little sign that the fees office saw it as their duty to check to see if there had been such a change.
A third MP, the Tory backbencher Anthony Steen, claimed tens of thousands of pounds for his country mansion, including expenses for looking after 500 trees. The Commons rules allow for the upkeep of gardens, but state the expenses should not extend to luxury items.
It was also disclosed by the Telegraph that the former shadow foreign secretary Sir Gerald Kaufman had charged £1,851 for a rug he imported from a New York antiques centre and tried to claim £8,865 for a television. He also put in a claim for £28,834 – of which £15,329 was paid – for improvements to his London flat, telling officials that he was "living in a slum".
With MPs increasingly realising that some of their specific expenses claims are scorned by the electorate, Richard Younger-Ross, a Liberal Democrat culture spokesman, agreed to repay £4,333, which included claims for a stereo system that cost more than £1,100, and a bookcase called the "Don Juan".
In May 2004 he put in an invoice for a £1,475 chest of drawers and a £725 free-standing mirror bought at John Lewis. They were made from solid cherrywood by the French furniture maker Brigitte Forestier.
But for the Freedom of Information act, MPs would never have been required to itemise what they had spent taxpayers money on. Younger-Ross said he had been given no advice on how much to claim.
The Conservative MP Nadine Dorries was also facing questions over her second home, and whether it had been legitimate to claim it represented a second home.
In the most damaging revelation of the ninth night of expenses stories, the Telegraph established that between September 2005 and August 2006, Chaytor claimed £1,175 a month for mortgage interest on a Westminster flat. However, Land Registry records showed that the mortgage on the flat had already been paid off in January 2004.
"In respect of mortgage interest payments, there has been an unforgivable error in my accounting procedures for which I apologise unreservedly," he said in a statement. "I will act immediately to ensure repayment is made to the fees office."
Since 2004, he has claimed for five different properties, flipping his designated second home between London, Yorkshire and Bury. He claimed for one home where his son was the named occupant on council tax bills.
A fresh wave of damaging allegations over MPs' lavish expenses lowered Westminster's reputation still further last night when it emerged that another Labour backbencher, David Chaytor, had wrongly claimed £13,000 in mortgage interest payments even though the loan had already been paid off.
Chaytor, the MP for the highly marginal seat of Bury north and a specialist in education, last night admitted the error.
He is almost certain to be suspended from the parliamentary Labour party pending inquiries, in common with Elliot Morley, the former environment minister who has been suspended for the same offence. Downing Street said it regarded the claims as a serious matter and that Chaytor will be interviewed by the whips as soon as possible.
Chaytor said last night he had made an unforgiveable error and unreservedly apologised. He said the mistake was caused by stressful changes in his personal circumstances. He added he would immediately repay the money.
Chaytor's admission came as the Daily Telegraph alleged that the deputy leader of the house, Chris Bryant, had flipped his second home twice in a year and claimed £20,000 in expenses.
Bryant said the claims were unfounded and that he had to move house after a series of attacks on his first home, and insisted he had followed the advice of the Commons fees office.
It is not necessarily wrong to flip a second home so long as there is a genuine change in the MP's circumstances, but there is little sign that the fees office saw it as their duty to check to see if there had been such a change.
A third MP, the Tory backbencher Anthony Steen, claimed tens of thousands of pounds for his country mansion, including expenses for looking after 500 trees. The Commons rules allow for the upkeep of gardens, but state the expenses should not extend to luxury items.
It was also disclosed by the Telegraph that the former shadow foreign secretary Sir Gerald Kaufman had charged £1,851 for a rug he imported from a New York antiques centre and tried to claim £8,865 for a television. He also put in a claim for £28,834 – of which £15,329 was paid – for improvements to his London flat, telling officials that he was "living in a slum".
With MPs increasingly realising that some of their specific expenses claims are scorned by the electorate, Richard Younger-Ross, a Liberal Democrat culture spokesman, agreed to repay £4,333, which included claims for a stereo system that cost more than £1,100, and a bookcase called the "Don Juan".
In May 2004 he put in an invoice for a £1,475 chest of drawers and a £725 free-standing mirror bought at John Lewis. They were made from solid cherrywood by the French furniture maker Brigitte Forestier.
But for the Freedom of Information act, MPs would never have been required to itemise what they had spent taxpayers money on. Younger-Ross said he had been given no advice on how much to claim.
The Conservative MP Nadine Dorries was also facing questions over her second home, and whether it had been legitimate to claim it represented a second home.
In the most damaging revelation of the ninth night of expenses stories, the Telegraph established that between September 2005 and August 2006, Chaytor claimed £1,175 a month for mortgage interest on a Westminster flat. However, Land Registry records showed that the mortgage on the flat had already been paid off in January 2004.
"In respect of mortgage interest payments, there has been an unforgivable error in my accounting procedures for which I apologise unreservedly," he said in a statement. "I will act immediately to ensure repayment is made to the fees office."
Since 2004, he has claimed for five different properties, flipping his designated second home between London, Yorkshire and Bury. He claimed for one home where his son was the named occupant on council tax bills.
Saturday, 2 May 2009
Victory at Visteon
Visteon workers at Enfield celebrate the offer on Friday morning
by Sadie Robinson, Socialist Worker, 1st May 2009
Visteon workers have won a major victory against one of the biggest and most powerful multinational companies in the world – Ford.
The workers used to be employed by Ford until 2000 and were sacked at the end of last month. Ford tried to avoid its responsibilities, claiming that it owed the workers nothing.
But workers’ action has forced Ford to offer hundreds of thousands of pounds in redundancy packages. Many workers will get £40,000 or more. It is one of the biggest payouts that Ford has ever offered.
Unite union reps are recommending that workers accept the offer. They are due to vote on it later today.
Levent Adnan worked at the Enfield site for over 17 years. “This is a massive result for us,” he told Socialist Worker. “We’ve managed to beat a massive corporation. Ford and Visteon have had their fingers burnt.
“The threat of taking action to Ford was the turning point. This offer sets a new benchmark too – if Ford try to sack workers elsewhere they won’t be able to just do it and give people nothing.
“People can see now that if you put up a strong enough fight you can win. This is a victory for workers and it’s about time we won something.”
Around 600 workers across plants in Enfield, north London, Basildon in Essex and Belfast have been fighting back since the end of March, when they were sacked with no notice, no redundancy pay or pensions.
Workers occupied their plants in protest and held 24-hour pickets outside to stop Visteon or its administrator, KPMG, from removing any equipment. They refused to give in until they got justice – and they have shown that militant action is the best way to get it.
Ford employed the workers until 2000 and many were still on Ford contracts.
When the dispute began, Ford claimed it had no responsibility for the workers.
But the determination of the workers – combined with threats to spread action across Ford that could have cost the company millions – meant that it couldn’t continue with this lie.
Ford was on the defensive and more could have been won. If the national leadership of Unite had mobilised the whole union behind the occupations, it could have got Visteon workers their jobs back.
But the fact that it has been forced to pay up is a fantastic victory that shows the power that workers have when they fight.
Many workers are ecstatic that they have forced Ford to pay up. But they are not complacent.
“I’m not moving from here until we’ve got the money,” said Marcia, on the picket line in Enfield today. “They can’t be trusted. We’ve embarrassed Ford and that’s why they had to come back to the table.”
The struggle has had a lasting impact on the workers.
“The offer has lifted us all,” said Wez Ullah, a Ford worker of 14 years. “We know now that we can fight and win, and we’ll have a more positive attitude in the future.
“The thing that made the difference is threatening to pull out other Ford workers – the only thing companies care about is their profits. I hope this will have an impact on other workers. So many people are going to the wall and it was the norm for them to just accept it.
“But this has opened people’s eyes and shown that you don’t have to accept it."
“We have realised our power now,” added Marcia. “At first when we were sacked, we just went home as we thought we couldn’t do anything. But then you get home and look at your kids and think, how am I going to feed them?
“You realise you have to fight. When we’re in a group we can move mountains.”
by Sadie Robinson, Socialist Worker, 1st May 2009
Visteon workers have won a major victory against one of the biggest and most powerful multinational companies in the world – Ford.
The workers used to be employed by Ford until 2000 and were sacked at the end of last month. Ford tried to avoid its responsibilities, claiming that it owed the workers nothing.
But workers’ action has forced Ford to offer hundreds of thousands of pounds in redundancy packages. Many workers will get £40,000 or more. It is one of the biggest payouts that Ford has ever offered.
Unite union reps are recommending that workers accept the offer. They are due to vote on it later today.
Levent Adnan worked at the Enfield site for over 17 years. “This is a massive result for us,” he told Socialist Worker. “We’ve managed to beat a massive corporation. Ford and Visteon have had their fingers burnt.
“The threat of taking action to Ford was the turning point. This offer sets a new benchmark too – if Ford try to sack workers elsewhere they won’t be able to just do it and give people nothing.
“People can see now that if you put up a strong enough fight you can win. This is a victory for workers and it’s about time we won something.”
Around 600 workers across plants in Enfield, north London, Basildon in Essex and Belfast have been fighting back since the end of March, when they were sacked with no notice, no redundancy pay or pensions.
Workers occupied their plants in protest and held 24-hour pickets outside to stop Visteon or its administrator, KPMG, from removing any equipment. They refused to give in until they got justice – and they have shown that militant action is the best way to get it.
Ford employed the workers until 2000 and many were still on Ford contracts.
When the dispute began, Ford claimed it had no responsibility for the workers.
But the determination of the workers – combined with threats to spread action across Ford that could have cost the company millions – meant that it couldn’t continue with this lie.
Ford was on the defensive and more could have been won. If the national leadership of Unite had mobilised the whole union behind the occupations, it could have got Visteon workers their jobs back.
But the fact that it has been forced to pay up is a fantastic victory that shows the power that workers have when they fight.
Many workers are ecstatic that they have forced Ford to pay up. But they are not complacent.
“I’m not moving from here until we’ve got the money,” said Marcia, on the picket line in Enfield today. “They can’t be trusted. We’ve embarrassed Ford and that’s why they had to come back to the table.”
The struggle has had a lasting impact on the workers.
“The offer has lifted us all,” said Wez Ullah, a Ford worker of 14 years. “We know now that we can fight and win, and we’ll have a more positive attitude in the future.
“The thing that made the difference is threatening to pull out other Ford workers – the only thing companies care about is their profits. I hope this will have an impact on other workers. So many people are going to the wall and it was the norm for them to just accept it.
“But this has opened people’s eyes and shown that you don’t have to accept it."
“We have realised our power now,” added Marcia. “At first when we were sacked, we just went home as we thought we couldn’t do anything. But then you get home and look at your kids and think, how am I going to feed them?
“You realise you have to fight. When we’re in a group we can move mountains.”
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Monday, 20 April 2009
Sign the petition against fieldwork fees for SOAS research students
SOAS failed to communicate its new fee structure to MPhil/PhD students starting 2008/09. Most students thought they would be paying £2,045 - and budgeted for that amount - but SOAS wants them pay the new fees next year - £4,000. So they have to come up with this extra cash by September. They refuse. Support SOAS research students and sign the petition here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/fieldfee/petition.html
In March 2008, SOAS management decided to implement a new fee structure for research students enrolling from September 2008. The most significant change was that the new structure no longer includes a provision for reduced fees for students on full-time fieldwork. While the overall cost of the degree varies for different students, fees for the fieldwork year increase by over 195% for UK/EU students and nearly 500% for international students.
Having taken this decision, SOAS failed to effectively communicate these changes to new research students, who continued their financing and budgeting plans on the basis of the fee structure communicated to them during the application process. The result was that students under-budgeted their fees for 2009/10.
SOAS’s inadequate communication around this issue was only discovered in March 2009, leaving many full-time research students with the near impossible task of raising the shortfall (£1,955 for UK/EU students and £7,955 for international students) before September 2009 i.e. in four months, or face disastrous consequences: deferring their degrees, transferring to another university, or abandoning their degrees altogether. Part-time students face the same consequences.
This issue is critical for the entire SOAS research community because it goes to the heart of how research is conducted at SOAS and the value that SOAS management places on research students. SOAS is effectively discouraging students from undertaking fieldwork, yet SOAS prides itself on developing fieldwork expertise.
Graham Furniss, Pro-Director, has acknowledged SOAS management’s failures in communicating the new fee structure, describing the communication as “less than ideal.” However, SOAS management’s proposed solution is to reschedule the fees for Year 2, allowing students to pay in installments. Students have also been invited to apply to the hardship fund to cover shortfalls, which has no guarantees of having sufficient resources. Research students and others at SOAS believe this offer is inadequate and amounts to an attempt to shift the cost of SOAS’s failures in communication onto students.
Research students and others at SOAS call upon SOAS management to retain the reduced fee provision for students going on fieldwork in 2009/10 and ensure that fee schedules are properly communicated to students in the future. Students refuse to pay for SOAS management's failures in communication.
http://www.petitiononline.com/fieldfee/petition.html
In March 2008, SOAS management decided to implement a new fee structure for research students enrolling from September 2008. The most significant change was that the new structure no longer includes a provision for reduced fees for students on full-time fieldwork. While the overall cost of the degree varies for different students, fees for the fieldwork year increase by over 195% for UK/EU students and nearly 500% for international students.
Having taken this decision, SOAS failed to effectively communicate these changes to new research students, who continued their financing and budgeting plans on the basis of the fee structure communicated to them during the application process. The result was that students under-budgeted their fees for 2009/10.
SOAS’s inadequate communication around this issue was only discovered in March 2009, leaving many full-time research students with the near impossible task of raising the shortfall (£1,955 for UK/EU students and £7,955 for international students) before September 2009 i.e. in four months, or face disastrous consequences: deferring their degrees, transferring to another university, or abandoning their degrees altogether. Part-time students face the same consequences.
This issue is critical for the entire SOAS research community because it goes to the heart of how research is conducted at SOAS and the value that SOAS management places on research students. SOAS is effectively discouraging students from undertaking fieldwork, yet SOAS prides itself on developing fieldwork expertise.
Graham Furniss, Pro-Director, has acknowledged SOAS management’s failures in communicating the new fee structure, describing the communication as “less than ideal.” However, SOAS management’s proposed solution is to reschedule the fees for Year 2, allowing students to pay in installments. Students have also been invited to apply to the hardship fund to cover shortfalls, which has no guarantees of having sufficient resources. Research students and others at SOAS believe this offer is inadequate and amounts to an attempt to shift the cost of SOAS’s failures in communication onto students.
Research students and others at SOAS call upon SOAS management to retain the reduced fee provision for students going on fieldwork in 2009/10 and ensure that fee schedules are properly communicated to students in the future. Students refuse to pay for SOAS management's failures in communication.
Saturday, 18 April 2009
Stop the War on the resistance
Chris Nineham from Stop the War, UK, on the resistance in the Middle East, at the anti-NATO conference in Strasbourg.
Friday, 17 April 2009
Anti-NATO protests in Strasbourg
This is what happened in Strasbourg...
Here's a slightly better and more succinct video/photo collage:
More importantly, a very good speech by Olivier Besancenot - soon to have English subtitles.
Here's a slightly better and more succinct video/photo collage:
More importantly, a very good speech by Olivier Besancenot - soon to have English subtitles.
Monday, 13 April 2009
Thai Red UK condemns the arrest of redshirt leaders
Giles Ji Ungpakorn and Watana Ebbage, on behalf of Thai Red UK, 12th April 2009.
Thai Red UK, the association of Redshirts in Britain, condemns the declaration of a State of Emergency by the illegitimate government of Abhisit Vejjajiva. We condemn the Military’s use of tanks and live ammunition against protestors. We say no to another coup. We also condemn the arrest of Redshirt leaders and demand that all of them be released. We are concerned by the creation, by pro-government politicians, such as Newin Chitchorp, of armed Blueshirted thugs, who have attacked pro-democracy demonstrators. The government should resign immediately to allow genuine democratic elections to be held as a matter of urgency. This would be a first step in allowing for a peaceful resolution of the long-running crisis.
Why the Redshirts are not merely a mirror image of the Yellowshirt Royalists
It is tempting for those watching the Thai events to merely conclude that the Redshirt protests are merely a mirror image of the Yellowshirt Royalists who seized the international airports late last year. There can be nothing further from the truth.
The Yellowshirts
The Yellowshirt Royalists built the PAD, a movement with worrying fascist tendencies. Since 2006, they have demanded that Thai Democracy be scrapped in favour of a “New Order” dictatorship. They have consistently claimed that the majority of Thais, especially the poor, are too ignorant to be allowed the right to vote. They welcomed the 2006 military coup, seized Government House and blocked Parliament with armed gangs claiming to be “fighting for the King”. Late last year, with the collusion of the Army, they took control of Thailand’s international airports and nearly caused a war with Cambodia. They are an integral part of the present (mis-named) Democrat Party government. This government does not represent the democratic wishes of the majority of Thais. It only came to power after the courts were used as political tools of the Yellowshirts to twice dissolve the most popular political party. The Army then bribed and threatened shady politicians like Newin Chitchorp to change sides. (This politician was named after the Burmese military dictator Newin!)
The Yellowshirts represent an elite, reactionary, alliance between the Army, the Palace and Privy Council, the PAD and the Democrat Party. They are fearful that their privileges will be jeopardised by further empowering the poor, who make up most of the electorate. The Democrat Party has never succeeded in winning a majority of the popular vote. Unfortunately the majority of Middle-Class academics and many N.G.O. leaders also support the Yellowshirts and welcomed the 2006 coup which ripped up the democratic Constitution of 1997.
During the violent Yellow shirt protests of 2008, the entire Thai state apparatus and media supported them. The PAD wrecked the interior of Government House, staged violent attacks on the police and created much damage to the economy by blockading the airports. Yet no PAD leader has been punished for this use of violence and none have been condemned by the Thai mainstream media or by academics and N.G.O. leaders. The Military have never been punished for their illegal coup or their rampant corruption. Talk now of “respecting the law” by Thai PM Abhisit, is therefore hypocritical nonsense.
The Redshirts
The Redshirts are a pro-democracy movement. Many support the policies of former PM Thaksin Shinawat because his government provided the first ever Universal Health Care system and other pro-poor measures. His party has repeatedly won elections, even after the coup. However, the Redshirts are not just supporters and puppets of Thaksin. They are ordinary citizens, most of whom believe passionately in freedom and democracy. There are many Redshirts who are not supporters of Thaksin. It is also a movement of the urban and rural poor, people who have had their democratic rights stolen from them by the Yellowshirts.
Today, in addition to fighting for democracy, the Redshirts are starting to question the “silent dictatorship” of the King’s advisors in the Privy Council. They have broken a decades old taboo about the Monarchy. Significant numbers are also becoming Republicans, while many still want a genuine Constitutional Monarchy which is not involved in politics.
The Redshirts do not have an armed guard like the Yellow or Blue shirts. They are not rich people who can protest for days on end without going to work. They have made great efforts to avoid violence, despite being attacked. The behaviour of Redshirts in surrounding the Prime Minister’s car or breaking into the hotel in Pattaya to close down the Asian Summit, did not result in serious injury or serious damage to property. This is in contrast to the actions of the Yellowshirts.
Both in terms of “means” and “ends” the Red and Yellow shirts are opposites. We call on all freedom-loving people throughout the world to support the fight for Democracy in Thailand. We support the recent comments by Redshirt Jakrapop Penkair, when he says that the Thai people have the right to mount a Peoples’ Struggle for Democracy.
Thai Red UK, the association of Redshirts in Britain, condemns the declaration of a State of Emergency by the illegitimate government of Abhisit Vejjajiva. We condemn the Military’s use of tanks and live ammunition against protestors. We say no to another coup. We also condemn the arrest of Redshirt leaders and demand that all of them be released. We are concerned by the creation, by pro-government politicians, such as Newin Chitchorp, of armed Blueshirted thugs, who have attacked pro-democracy demonstrators. The government should resign immediately to allow genuine democratic elections to be held as a matter of urgency. This would be a first step in allowing for a peaceful resolution of the long-running crisis.
Why the Redshirts are not merely a mirror image of the Yellowshirt Royalists
It is tempting for those watching the Thai events to merely conclude that the Redshirt protests are merely a mirror image of the Yellowshirt Royalists who seized the international airports late last year. There can be nothing further from the truth.
The Yellowshirts
The Yellowshirt Royalists built the PAD, a movement with worrying fascist tendencies. Since 2006, they have demanded that Thai Democracy be scrapped in favour of a “New Order” dictatorship. They have consistently claimed that the majority of Thais, especially the poor, are too ignorant to be allowed the right to vote. They welcomed the 2006 military coup, seized Government House and blocked Parliament with armed gangs claiming to be “fighting for the King”. Late last year, with the collusion of the Army, they took control of Thailand’s international airports and nearly caused a war with Cambodia. They are an integral part of the present (mis-named) Democrat Party government. This government does not represent the democratic wishes of the majority of Thais. It only came to power after the courts were used as political tools of the Yellowshirts to twice dissolve the most popular political party. The Army then bribed and threatened shady politicians like Newin Chitchorp to change sides. (This politician was named after the Burmese military dictator Newin!)
The Yellowshirts represent an elite, reactionary, alliance between the Army, the Palace and Privy Council, the PAD and the Democrat Party. They are fearful that their privileges will be jeopardised by further empowering the poor, who make up most of the electorate. The Democrat Party has never succeeded in winning a majority of the popular vote. Unfortunately the majority of Middle-Class academics and many N.G.O. leaders also support the Yellowshirts and welcomed the 2006 coup which ripped up the democratic Constitution of 1997.
During the violent Yellow shirt protests of 2008, the entire Thai state apparatus and media supported them. The PAD wrecked the interior of Government House, staged violent attacks on the police and created much damage to the economy by blockading the airports. Yet no PAD leader has been punished for this use of violence and none have been condemned by the Thai mainstream media or by academics and N.G.O. leaders. The Military have never been punished for their illegal coup or their rampant corruption. Talk now of “respecting the law” by Thai PM Abhisit, is therefore hypocritical nonsense.
The Redshirts
The Redshirts are a pro-democracy movement. Many support the policies of former PM Thaksin Shinawat because his government provided the first ever Universal Health Care system and other pro-poor measures. His party has repeatedly won elections, even after the coup. However, the Redshirts are not just supporters and puppets of Thaksin. They are ordinary citizens, most of whom believe passionately in freedom and democracy. There are many Redshirts who are not supporters of Thaksin. It is also a movement of the urban and rural poor, people who have had their democratic rights stolen from them by the Yellowshirts.
Today, in addition to fighting for democracy, the Redshirts are starting to question the “silent dictatorship” of the King’s advisors in the Privy Council. They have broken a decades old taboo about the Monarchy. Significant numbers are also becoming Republicans, while many still want a genuine Constitutional Monarchy which is not involved in politics.
The Redshirts do not have an armed guard like the Yellow or Blue shirts. They are not rich people who can protest for days on end without going to work. They have made great efforts to avoid violence, despite being attacked. The behaviour of Redshirts in surrounding the Prime Minister’s car or breaking into the hotel in Pattaya to close down the Asian Summit, did not result in serious injury or serious damage to property. This is in contrast to the actions of the Yellowshirts.
Both in terms of “means” and “ends” the Red and Yellow shirts are opposites. We call on all freedom-loving people throughout the world to support the fight for Democracy in Thailand. We support the recent comments by Redshirt Jakrapop Penkair, when he says that the Thai people have the right to mount a Peoples’ Struggle for Democracy.
Friday, 10 April 2009
Thursday, 9 April 2009
Guardian video of Ian Tomlinson
The video of Ian Tomlinson being beaten by the police at the G20 protest, shortly before he died.
G20 demo in London
Protests at the G20 demonstration in London, outside the Bank of England, 1st April.
Thursday, 2 April 2009
Monday, 23 March 2009
NATO GAME OVER: peace activists close NATO headquarters
[From activists in Belgium...]
From all over Belgium, by bus, bike, taxi, public transport and even by walking, hundreds of activists came to NATO's headquarters in Evere, Brussels. They tried non-violently to enter the NATO terrain and seal gates, windows and doors. At the same time, the NATO has been symbolically buried during a farewell ceremony. Today, this burial is still a symbolic act, but the will to turn this symbol into reality is very high.
Despite the massive presence of police forces equipped with water canons, helicopters, horses, kilometres of barb wire, ... several activists managed to enter the military base to seal gates, windows and doors. 450 peace activists have been arrested and showed clearly that Vredesactie and the Bombspotters do not let the NATO keep going with its business as usual.
"I left Liège this morning and we joined the group from Brussels. We have left the bus on the east side of NATO headquarters and we have spread in smaller groups. There was a lot of police there. I have been arrested very quickly while I was walking towards the fence, but I have seen at least one person who managed to climb over the fences with the support of other participants. Anyway, we have been able to send our message very clearly: NATO must be shut down and the NATO nuclear weapons must disappear!", said Fabien, one of the many participants.
NATO GAME OVER is an action of civil disobedience. We commit an offence trying to prevent severe crimes. We are justified by international law. All over Europe, people campaign against NATO. Today, not only Belgium, but also the Netherlands and Germany have seen actions. In the Netherlands, activists occupy the military terrain of Nieuw Milligen, where DARS is deployed, NATO's mobile air surveillance and command system. In Germany, people have protested at Büchel nuclear weapons base and NATO's headquarters in Heidelberg.
NATO: which future?
NATO is on the threshold of a fundamental reconfiguration. The Strasbourg NATO summit will not only be NATO's 60th anniversary celebration, it will also be the official start of the discussion on a new Strategic Concept. This document will define the direction of NATO for the years to come. This will be a crucial period for the alliance, and hence for Belgium's foreign and defense policy as well.
Due to NATO membership, Belgium fights a war in Afghanistan. Eight years after the start of the war we don't see any progress. In Afghanistan, NATO is stuck in a dead end. Nevertheless, our government does not hesitate to send extra troops and jet fighters. NATO agreements make Belgium and other European countries a logistic hub for the US army. The American war machine is transported on our roads, harbours and airports to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, NATO deploys 150 to 240 US nuclear weapons in Germany, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Turkey. According to international law, these weapons are just as illegal as elsewhere. The removal of the US nuclear weapons out of Europe would mean an important boost to the multilateral non-proliferation process and a significant step towards nuclear disarmament worldwide.
With the NATO GAME OVER campaign, we give our government, two weeks before the Strasbourg summit, a message that's hard to ignore: a military alliance which intervenes worldwide, which deploys nuclear weapons and is prepared to use them, is a threat to world peace. 60 years of NATO is more than enough.
International campaigning against NATO
The Strasbourg NATO summit itself will not go unnoticed. From April 1st to April 5th, an international action camp will be organised as a home base for actions and demonstrations. An international counter summit will start on April 3rd. It will be a platform for a broad range of speakers and groups to express their opposition and criticism against NATO and military globalisation.
This conference will be interrupted for the actions on Saturday, to continue on Sunday April 5th. Early morning April 4th, hundreds of activists will try to prevent NATO from meeting with massive street blockades. This action is organised by a coalition of German, French and international groups, one of which is Vredesactie. In the afternoon the broad coalition 'No to war - No to NATO', who also organises the conference and, calls for a big demonstration in the city of Strasbourg.
From all over Belgium, by bus, bike, taxi, public transport and even by walking, hundreds of activists came to NATO's headquarters in Evere, Brussels. They tried non-violently to enter the NATO terrain and seal gates, windows and doors. At the same time, the NATO has been symbolically buried during a farewell ceremony. Today, this burial is still a symbolic act, but the will to turn this symbol into reality is very high.
Despite the massive presence of police forces equipped with water canons, helicopters, horses, kilometres of barb wire, ... several activists managed to enter the military base to seal gates, windows and doors. 450 peace activists have been arrested and showed clearly that Vredesactie and the Bombspotters do not let the NATO keep going with its business as usual.
"I left Liège this morning and we joined the group from Brussels. We have left the bus on the east side of NATO headquarters and we have spread in smaller groups. There was a lot of police there. I have been arrested very quickly while I was walking towards the fence, but I have seen at least one person who managed to climb over the fences with the support of other participants. Anyway, we have been able to send our message very clearly: NATO must be shut down and the NATO nuclear weapons must disappear!", said Fabien, one of the many participants.
NATO GAME OVER is an action of civil disobedience. We commit an offence trying to prevent severe crimes. We are justified by international law. All over Europe, people campaign against NATO. Today, not only Belgium, but also the Netherlands and Germany have seen actions. In the Netherlands, activists occupy the military terrain of Nieuw Milligen, where DARS is deployed, NATO's mobile air surveillance and command system. In Germany, people have protested at Büchel nuclear weapons base and NATO's headquarters in Heidelberg.
NATO: which future?
NATO is on the threshold of a fundamental reconfiguration. The Strasbourg NATO summit will not only be NATO's 60th anniversary celebration, it will also be the official start of the discussion on a new Strategic Concept. This document will define the direction of NATO for the years to come. This will be a crucial period for the alliance, and hence for Belgium's foreign and defense policy as well.
Due to NATO membership, Belgium fights a war in Afghanistan. Eight years after the start of the war we don't see any progress. In Afghanistan, NATO is stuck in a dead end. Nevertheless, our government does not hesitate to send extra troops and jet fighters. NATO agreements make Belgium and other European countries a logistic hub for the US army. The American war machine is transported on our roads, harbours and airports to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, NATO deploys 150 to 240 US nuclear weapons in Germany, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Turkey. According to international law, these weapons are just as illegal as elsewhere. The removal of the US nuclear weapons out of Europe would mean an important boost to the multilateral non-proliferation process and a significant step towards nuclear disarmament worldwide.
With the NATO GAME OVER campaign, we give our government, two weeks before the Strasbourg summit, a message that's hard to ignore: a military alliance which intervenes worldwide, which deploys nuclear weapons and is prepared to use them, is a threat to world peace. 60 years of NATO is more than enough.
International campaigning against NATO
The Strasbourg NATO summit itself will not go unnoticed. From April 1st to April 5th, an international action camp will be organised as a home base for actions and demonstrations. An international counter summit will start on April 3rd. It will be a platform for a broad range of speakers and groups to express their opposition and criticism against NATO and military globalisation.
This conference will be interrupted for the actions on Saturday, to continue on Sunday April 5th. Early morning April 4th, hundreds of activists will try to prevent NATO from meeting with massive street blockades. This action is organised by a coalition of German, French and international groups, one of which is Vredesactie. In the afternoon the broad coalition 'No to war - No to NATO', who also organises the conference and, calls for a big demonstration in the city of Strasbourg.
Thursday, 19 March 2009
UK unemployment passes two million
Britain's economy has fallen into recession, as the global economic crisis deepens.
More than two million people are out of work in Britain, the country's highest unemployment rate in 12 years, official data has shown.
Unemployment rose to 6.5 per cent in the three months ending in December, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said, as Britain weathers its first recession in 18 years.
The number of unemployed people increased by 165,000 over the quarter and by 421,000 over the year, the ONS said, reaching 2.03 million.
The news has hit British stocks, with the FTSE 100 index of leading shares and the pound falling on Wednesday.
The pan-European FSTEurofirst 300 index of top shares was also down 0.1 per cent at 715.48 points by 0941 GMT on Wednesday, after being up to 725.29 points earlier in the day.
Grim predictions
Howard Archer, a European economist at IHS Global Insight, a financial forecaster, said the unemployment figures could increase fears about the "potential depth and length of the recession".
"Unemployment smashed through the two million barrier with ease ... and it seems set to head up towards three million pretty rapidly over the coming months as the economy contracts sharply and struggling businesses look to contain their costs," he said.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has forecast that the British economy will contract by 3.8 per cent this year, and shrink a further 0.2 per cent in 2010.
It said unemployment is also likely to rise further.
David Blanchflower, a policymaker at the Bank of England, believes the jobless rate could climb up to 10 per cent by the end of the year.
The central bank has attempted to alleviate the effects of the recession by slashing interest rates to a record low of 0.5 per cent.
[From Al Jazeera English, 18th March 2009]
More than two million people are out of work in Britain, the country's highest unemployment rate in 12 years, official data has shown.
Unemployment rose to 6.5 per cent in the three months ending in December, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said, as Britain weathers its first recession in 18 years.
The number of unemployed people increased by 165,000 over the quarter and by 421,000 over the year, the ONS said, reaching 2.03 million.
The news has hit British stocks, with the FTSE 100 index of leading shares and the pound falling on Wednesday.
The pan-European FSTEurofirst 300 index of top shares was also down 0.1 per cent at 715.48 points by 0941 GMT on Wednesday, after being up to 725.29 points earlier in the day.
Grim predictions
Howard Archer, a European economist at IHS Global Insight, a financial forecaster, said the unemployment figures could increase fears about the "potential depth and length of the recession".
"Unemployment smashed through the two million barrier with ease ... and it seems set to head up towards three million pretty rapidly over the coming months as the economy contracts sharply and struggling businesses look to contain their costs," he said.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has forecast that the British economy will contract by 3.8 per cent this year, and shrink a further 0.2 per cent in 2010.
It said unemployment is also likely to rise further.
David Blanchflower, a policymaker at the Bank of England, believes the jobless rate could climb up to 10 per cent by the end of the year.
The central bank has attempted to alleviate the effects of the recession by slashing interest rates to a record low of 0.5 per cent.
[From Al Jazeera English, 18th March 2009]
Campus fury at vice-chancellors’ windfalls
Joanna Sugden, The Times, Thursday, 19th March 2009.
University vice-chancellors are enjoying some of the highest salaries in the country, while lecturers and students are struggling to cope in the economic downturn.
One vice-chancellor earned more than £500,000 including benefits, and 63 are on salaries of more than £200,000. Their average pay rise was 9 per cent, bringing the average wage to £194,000.
Other academics and student leaders reacted furiously to the results of a survey of salaries of university academic and administrative chiefs by Times Higher Education magazine.
The details emerged days after a report published by vice-chancellors said that universities may double tuition fees to deal with a funding crisis and that they could not afford huge pay hikes for their staff. Lecturers can expect an average wage of £43,686 after a pay rise of 5.7 per cent last year, which vice-chancellors said was the limit of affordability.
Sir Colin Campbell, who stepped down as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nottingham last year, topped the league and made £585,000 — an 89 per cent salary increase on the previous year. He had a pension contribution of £38,000.
John Hood, the outgoing Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, received £238,000 in salary and benefits after a 12 per cent pay rise.
The survey of 156 universities in Britain found that the average pension contribution for vice-chancellors was £26,129, a 16 per cent increase. At Cambridge, Alison Richard receives £227,000 in salary and perks for overseeing the administration and academic business of the university.
Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and Colleges Union which represents lecturers, said: “It is quite incredible and rather distasteful that vice-chancellors again have enjoyed such exorbitant pay rises.
“That vice-chancellors were pocketing close to twice the pay rise they begrudged staff at the time is extraordinary.”
Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: “One has to wonder how far the drive to push up tuition fees is being driven by universities’ need to find the money to pay their vice-chancellors’ salaries.”
Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students, said: “Vice-chancellors need to practise what they preach. They work incredibly hard for their institutions but so do the frontline staff who they are asking to take minimal pay increases.”
But Diana Warwick, head of Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors, said: “The remuneration packages for vice-chancellors reflect what it takes to recruit and retain individuals able to run complex, multi-million pound organisations, which are operating in an increasingly competitive, global market. These particular figures relate back to 2007-08 and it’s important to note that the average increase shown here reflects a period in which overall pay rises for higher education staff were broadly similar.”
Top ten earners
1. University of Nottingham: Sir Colin Campbell £585,000
2. Imperial College London: Richard Sykes/Sir Roy Anderson £429,000 between them
3. London Business School: Laura Tyson £364,000
4. University of the Arts London: Michael Bichard* £307,603
5. University College London: Malcolm Grant £295,621
6. University of Birmingham: Michael Sterling £292,000
=7. Thames Valley University: Peter John £291,000
=7. University of Manchester: Alan Gilbert £291,000
=9. University of Liverpool: Drummond Bone £285,000
=9. University of Surrey: Christopher Snowden £285,000
* Since stepped down
Source: Times Higher Education magazine
University vice-chancellors are enjoying some of the highest salaries in the country, while lecturers and students are struggling to cope in the economic downturn.
One vice-chancellor earned more than £500,000 including benefits, and 63 are on salaries of more than £200,000. Their average pay rise was 9 per cent, bringing the average wage to £194,000.
Other academics and student leaders reacted furiously to the results of a survey of salaries of university academic and administrative chiefs by Times Higher Education magazine.
The details emerged days after a report published by vice-chancellors said that universities may double tuition fees to deal with a funding crisis and that they could not afford huge pay hikes for their staff. Lecturers can expect an average wage of £43,686 after a pay rise of 5.7 per cent last year, which vice-chancellors said was the limit of affordability.
Sir Colin Campbell, who stepped down as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nottingham last year, topped the league and made £585,000 — an 89 per cent salary increase on the previous year. He had a pension contribution of £38,000.
John Hood, the outgoing Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, received £238,000 in salary and benefits after a 12 per cent pay rise.
The survey of 156 universities in Britain found that the average pension contribution for vice-chancellors was £26,129, a 16 per cent increase. At Cambridge, Alison Richard receives £227,000 in salary and perks for overseeing the administration and academic business of the university.
Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and Colleges Union which represents lecturers, said: “It is quite incredible and rather distasteful that vice-chancellors again have enjoyed such exorbitant pay rises.
“That vice-chancellors were pocketing close to twice the pay rise they begrudged staff at the time is extraordinary.”
Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: “One has to wonder how far the drive to push up tuition fees is being driven by universities’ need to find the money to pay their vice-chancellors’ salaries.”
Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students, said: “Vice-chancellors need to practise what they preach. They work incredibly hard for their institutions but so do the frontline staff who they are asking to take minimal pay increases.”
But Diana Warwick, head of Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors, said: “The remuneration packages for vice-chancellors reflect what it takes to recruit and retain individuals able to run complex, multi-million pound organisations, which are operating in an increasingly competitive, global market. These particular figures relate back to 2007-08 and it’s important to note that the average increase shown here reflects a period in which overall pay rises for higher education staff were broadly similar.”
Top ten earners
1. University of Nottingham: Sir Colin Campbell £585,000
2. Imperial College London: Richard Sykes/Sir Roy Anderson £429,000 between them
3. London Business School: Laura Tyson £364,000
4. University of the Arts London: Michael Bichard* £307,603
5. University College London: Malcolm Grant £295,621
6. University of Birmingham: Michael Sterling £292,000
=7. Thames Valley University: Peter John £291,000
=7. University of Manchester: Alan Gilbert £291,000
=9. University of Liverpool: Drummond Bone £285,000
=9. University of Surrey: Christopher Snowden £285,000
* Since stepped down
Source: Times Higher Education magazine
Friday, 6 March 2009
National Demonstration against the G20 in London
YES WE CAN NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION
WEDNESDAY, 1 APRIL: ASSEMBLE 2PM
US EMBASSY, GROSVENOR SQUARE, W1A 1AE
The anti war movement will be marching from the US embassy on Wednesday, 1 April, the day Barack Obama and the other world leaders arrive in London for the G20 Summit.
The march will be in support of Gaza and against the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and for the abolition of nuclear weapons. It will assemble at 2 pm at the US Embassy, Grosvenor Square, London.
Our message will be: YES WE CAN end the siege of Gaza and free Palestine, get the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, abolish all nukes, create jobs not bombs and stop arming Israel.
We are calling for the biggest possible mobilisation for this national demonstration. We are asking all local Stop the War groups to book transport for the day.
We will also be protesting at the G20 summit at the Excel Centre in East London on Thursday, 2 April at 11AM.
For flyers, posters and other publicity phone the Coalition office on 020 7278 6694 or e-mail office@stopwar.org.uk.
WEDNESDAY, 1 APRIL: ASSEMBLE 2PM
US EMBASSY, GROSVENOR SQUARE, W1A 1AE
The anti war movement will be marching from the US embassy on Wednesday, 1 April, the day Barack Obama and the other world leaders arrive in London for the G20 Summit.
The march will be in support of Gaza and against the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and for the abolition of nuclear weapons. It will assemble at 2 pm at the US Embassy, Grosvenor Square, London.
Our message will be: YES WE CAN end the siege of Gaza and free Palestine, get the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, abolish all nukes, create jobs not bombs and stop arming Israel.
We are calling for the biggest possible mobilisation for this national demonstration. We are asking all local Stop the War groups to book transport for the day.
We will also be protesting at the G20 summit at the Excel Centre in East London on Thursday, 2 April at 11AM.
For flyers, posters and other publicity phone the Coalition office on 020 7278 6694 or e-mail office@stopwar.org.uk.
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Dundee workers occupy over factory closure
Socialist Worker, Wednesday, 4th March, 2009
Workers at a packaging firm in Dundee are occupying their factory after being told they were sacked and that the company had no money to pay their redundancy.
One of the workers, Matthew, spoke to Socialist Worker from the occupied factory.
He said, “We are staying here to make the point that it is not acceptable to treat long-serving employees in this way. We demand some respect.”
Matthew explained that the 12 employees at Prisme Packaging came to work as normal on Monday. At around 9am the managing director resigned and the workers were told to phone the company secretary if they wanted to find out what was going on or what to do next.
The workers were later told that the company secretary was on holiday.
This morning someone the workers had never met before turned up at the factory and said that he was a company director. He brought a lawyer and told the workers that the company was ceasing trading.
“They had no documentation so we sent them away,” said Matthew. “They came back later in the day with redundancy letters for each employee detailing redundancy entitlement. At the bottom of the letters it said that there was no money to pay this entitlement and that we should go to the Citizens Advice Bureau for help.
“This is devastating news – there are some people who have worked here for 12 or 14 years.
“The mood was growing throughout the day that we had to do something about the situation so we decided to stay put. We need some more answers about what is going on. We want to get the word out about what is happening and we want what is legally ours.”
Messages of support to the Prisme workers can be sent to: prismeworkerssolidarity@googlemail.com
Workers at a packaging firm in Dundee are occupying their factory after being told they were sacked and that the company had no money to pay their redundancy.
One of the workers, Matthew, spoke to Socialist Worker from the occupied factory.
He said, “We are staying here to make the point that it is not acceptable to treat long-serving employees in this way. We demand some respect.”
Matthew explained that the 12 employees at Prisme Packaging came to work as normal on Monday. At around 9am the managing director resigned and the workers were told to phone the company secretary if they wanted to find out what was going on or what to do next.
The workers were later told that the company secretary was on holiday.
This morning someone the workers had never met before turned up at the factory and said that he was a company director. He brought a lawyer and told the workers that the company was ceasing trading.
“They had no documentation so we sent them away,” said Matthew. “They came back later in the day with redundancy letters for each employee detailing redundancy entitlement. At the bottom of the letters it said that there was no money to pay this entitlement and that we should go to the Citizens Advice Bureau for help.
“This is devastating news – there are some people who have worked here for 12 or 14 years.
“The mood was growing throughout the day that we had to do something about the situation so we decided to stay put. We need some more answers about what is going on. We want to get the word out about what is happening and we want what is legally ours.”
Messages of support to the Prisme workers can be sent to: prismeworkerssolidarity@googlemail.com
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
Protest against unfair sacking at SOAS
WEDNESDAY, 4TH MARCH 2009, 9.30am - SOAS STEPS
Stalin, the chair of Unison at SOAS, was told at 5pm today that he has been sacked from SOAS. His dismissal is a clear attack on trade union organisation and the successful Living Wage campaigns that he helped instigate.
A protest has been organised on the steps of SOAS 4th March at 9.30am. The decision follows a solidarity rally of 80 people last week to coincide with his hearing.
At the Bloomsbury-campus living wage meeting at Birkbeck this afternoon it was unanimously decided to make the statement below in support of Stalin and the protest. Please circulate!
At the meeting, which included representatives of Living Wage campaigns and unions from 6 universities, it was decided to call a joint demonstration to be held on May Day, 1st May. Details in the coming weeks.
STATEMENT
We the undersigned condemn the sacking of José Stalin Bermúdez, SOAS Union Branch Chair, by SOAS management. We believe this to be a victimisation due to his prominent role in the successful SOAS Living Wage Campaign. We call on SOAS management to immediately reinstate Stalin.
Please send messages of complaint to Paul Webley, Director and Principal of SOAS, at pw4@soas.ac.uk, and join a public meeting/protest on SOAS steps, Wednesday, 4th March at 9.30 am.
Julia Rapkin, Birkbeck Unison
Liam Taylor, Institute of Education student
Johnny Darlington, SOAS UCU
Ben Sellers, co-president, SOAS SU
Janet Lucitt, Birkbeck law student and London teacher
Dermot Bryers, English for Action
Luke Stobart, campaigns officer, Birkbeck Students Union
Katie Boothby, SOAS student
Sam O'Neill, UCL student
Richard Carabine, Birkbeck UCU
Sebilio Lillo, SOAS student
Naomi Bain, Birkbeck UNISON
Jesse Oldershaw, Birkbeck student and UCL UCU
Christophe Josiffe, Senate House Unison
Stalin, the chair of Unison at SOAS, was told at 5pm today that he has been sacked from SOAS. His dismissal is a clear attack on trade union organisation and the successful Living Wage campaigns that he helped instigate.
A protest has been organised on the steps of SOAS 4th March at 9.30am. The decision follows a solidarity rally of 80 people last week to coincide with his hearing.
At the Bloomsbury-campus living wage meeting at Birkbeck this afternoon it was unanimously decided to make the statement below in support of Stalin and the protest. Please circulate!
At the meeting, which included representatives of Living Wage campaigns and unions from 6 universities, it was decided to call a joint demonstration to be held on May Day, 1st May. Details in the coming weeks.
STATEMENT
We the undersigned condemn the sacking of José Stalin Bermúdez, SOAS Union Branch Chair, by SOAS management. We believe this to be a victimisation due to his prominent role in the successful SOAS Living Wage Campaign. We call on SOAS management to immediately reinstate Stalin.
Please send messages of complaint to Paul Webley, Director and Principal of SOAS, at pw4@soas.ac.uk, and join a public meeting/protest on SOAS steps, Wednesday, 4th March at 9.30 am.
Julia Rapkin, Birkbeck Unison
Liam Taylor, Institute of Education student
Johnny Darlington, SOAS UCU
Ben Sellers, co-president, SOAS SU
Janet Lucitt, Birkbeck law student and London teacher
Dermot Bryers, English for Action
Luke Stobart, campaigns officer, Birkbeck Students Union
Katie Boothby, SOAS student
Sam O'Neill, UCL student
Richard Carabine, Birkbeck UCU
Sebilio Lillo, SOAS student
Naomi Bain, Birkbeck UNISON
Jesse Oldershaw, Birkbeck student and UCL UCU
Christophe Josiffe, Senate House Unison
SOAS cleaner faces dismissal
Kat Lay, London Student, Monday, 2nd March 2009.
A SOAS trade union activist was waiting to hear the outcome of a disciplinary hearing as London Student went to press.
Supporters say Jose Stalin Bermudez could face losing his job after he took part in the campaign for a living wage for cleaners at the School. SOAS management have angrily refuted the claim.
Students and staff stood outside SOAS last Tuesday February 24th in a show of solidarity, as Joseph Stalin Bermudez went in to the hearing.
In a statement they said: “Stalin, an Ecuadorian immigrant and himself a former cleaner, helped launch a campaign for the London Living Wage after Latin American SOAS cleaners approached him for support, as some of them had not been paid for 3 months by SOAS’s cleaning contractor.
“Stalin, along with other staff and students, organised a series of protests which would see cleaners raise their wages from £5.52 to £7.45 per hour and gain trade-union recognition! This important victory has encouraged similar campaigns to be set up in other London colleges.
“We believe that his suspension is groundless.”
A SOAS spokesperson said: “We regret that the School’s unions have chosen to breach confidentiality by airing this issue in public in a biased and inflammatory way, which can only be intended to intimidate the other member of staff involved in the case and the School managers charged with taking this matter forward.
“This is a confidential staff matter and it would be wholly inappropriate to discuss it whilst the School’s formal processes continue. UNISON HQ staff have been fully involved in this process and have formally disassociated themselves with the SOAS branch campaign.
The disciplinary concerns a complaint made against Stalin by a colleague. SOAS UNISON says that despite previous problems between the pair, management failed “to either reconcile the two employees or separate them in their duties.”
They further question the handling of the complaints, saying that a cleaner who witnessed events was questioned in front of his cleaning firm’s supervisor and, despite his imperfect English, was read a long quote allegedly made by Stalin and asked to agree to it. Although he initially agreed, when he was able to read the words himself he withdrew his comments.
The SOAS spokesperson added: “Suggestions that the School is victimising the member of staff in question because he is a UNISON member and because he was involved in the Justice for Cleaners Campaign are preposterous.
"The School was fully supportive of the Justice for Cleaners Campaign and School management worked with UCU, UNISON and the Students’ Union to secure a new cleaning contract which sees SOAS as one of the few HEIs in London which pays all its cleaning staff the GLA London Living Wage. This has resulted in significant improvements to cleaning staff morale.”
As of 3rd March, Stalin has been sacked from his job. There will be a protest on the steps of SOAS on 4th March 2009 at 9.30am.
A SOAS trade union activist was waiting to hear the outcome of a disciplinary hearing as London Student went to press.
Supporters say Jose Stalin Bermudez could face losing his job after he took part in the campaign for a living wage for cleaners at the School. SOAS management have angrily refuted the claim.
Students and staff stood outside SOAS last Tuesday February 24th in a show of solidarity, as Joseph Stalin Bermudez went in to the hearing.
In a statement they said: “Stalin, an Ecuadorian immigrant and himself a former cleaner, helped launch a campaign for the London Living Wage after Latin American SOAS cleaners approached him for support, as some of them had not been paid for 3 months by SOAS’s cleaning contractor.
“Stalin, along with other staff and students, organised a series of protests which would see cleaners raise their wages from £5.52 to £7.45 per hour and gain trade-union recognition! This important victory has encouraged similar campaigns to be set up in other London colleges.
“We believe that his suspension is groundless.”
A SOAS spokesperson said: “We regret that the School’s unions have chosen to breach confidentiality by airing this issue in public in a biased and inflammatory way, which can only be intended to intimidate the other member of staff involved in the case and the School managers charged with taking this matter forward.
“This is a confidential staff matter and it would be wholly inappropriate to discuss it whilst the School’s formal processes continue. UNISON HQ staff have been fully involved in this process and have formally disassociated themselves with the SOAS branch campaign.
The disciplinary concerns a complaint made against Stalin by a colleague. SOAS UNISON says that despite previous problems between the pair, management failed “to either reconcile the two employees or separate them in their duties.”
They further question the handling of the complaints, saying that a cleaner who witnessed events was questioned in front of his cleaning firm’s supervisor and, despite his imperfect English, was read a long quote allegedly made by Stalin and asked to agree to it. Although he initially agreed, when he was able to read the words himself he withdrew his comments.
The SOAS spokesperson added: “Suggestions that the School is victimising the member of staff in question because he is a UNISON member and because he was involved in the Justice for Cleaners Campaign are preposterous.
"The School was fully supportive of the Justice for Cleaners Campaign and School management worked with UCU, UNISON and the Students’ Union to secure a new cleaning contract which sees SOAS as one of the few HEIs in London which pays all its cleaning staff the GLA London Living Wage. This has resulted in significant improvements to cleaning staff morale.”
As of 3rd March, Stalin has been sacked from his job. There will be a protest on the steps of SOAS on 4th March 2009 at 9.30am.
Monday, 2 March 2009
Lenin in 1905
"It horrifies me - I give you my word - it horrifies me to find that there has been talk about bombs for over six months, yet not one has been made! Go to the youth! Form fighting squads at once everywhere, among students, and especially among the workers... Let groups be at once organised of three, ten, thirty, etc., persons. Let them arm themselves at once as best they can, be it with a revolver, a knife, a rag soaked in kerosene for starting fires etc. ... The evil today is... our senile fear of initiative. Let every group learn, if it is only by beating up policemen..."
Friday, 27 February 2009
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
FREE EDUCATION FOR ALL
NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION FOR FREE EDUCATION - WEDNESDAY 25 FEBRUARY 2009, LONDON
Assembling from 12 noon at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1 (Nearest tubes: Russell Square, Euston, Goodge Street)
* SCRAP ALL FEES - FREE EDUCATION FOR ALL
* A LIVING GRANT FOR EVERY STUDENT
* EDUCATION NOT PROFIT
This academic year could see the lifting of the £3,000 cap on tuition fees in higher education. Meanwhile, student debt and poverty are already spiralling, students face soaring costs of living, and the market dominates our education system from school to college to university.
After years of underfunding for post-16 education, the Government brought in tuition fees and then top-up fees. Worsening the already existing inequalities in higher education, fees are greatly accelerating the development of a competitive market between universities, with a tier of well-funded and prestigious institutions and another of less prestigious, underfunded ones. Along with the absence of decent student grants, they rule out the possibility of seriously expanding access, force most students who do get to university into debt and push many into casualised, low-paid jobs. Lifting the cap will, of course, make all this worse. Meanwhile most further education students have always paid fees and never had grants.
Top-up fees will be in the headlines this year, but fees are not the only issue. Even those who do not have to pay fees, such as Scottish students and FE students under 19, do not receive a living grant and are also forced into poverty and debt. Nursing, midwifery and other students who have to work as a large part of their course receive a bursary as an on-the-cheap substitute for a living wage.
International students are exploited to subsidise higher education institutions through higher and higher fees, while postgraduate study is limited to a small elite through a more and more restrictive funding system.
Women, black, LGBT and disabled students are affected and disadvantaged disproportionately by the growth in student poverty and debt.
As our education is commodified and most institutions are run more and more for profit, the wages, conditions and rights of our teachers and other education workers are also coming under attack.
We also note that, as the economic crisis bites, the Government has announced that it plans to cut student numbers and further limit eligibility for grants.
We believe that NUS is allowing the Government to get away with these deeply unpopular policies. This year, despite the review of the cap on fees, NUS is not organising a national demonstration – not even one for its needlessly bureaucratic “alternative funding model”, let alone the abolition of fees and living grants that students need. Its “day of action” – which took place on 5 November, the day after the US presidential election, hardly the best time to get attention – was a start, but totally inadequate.
That is why we, students’ union officers and student activists, are seeking to organise a national demonstration in the first three months of 2009, around the following demands:
* No raising of the cap on top-up fees; halt and reverse the growth in international students’ fees; abolish all fees in HE and FE – free education for all;
* A living grant for every student over 16 – at least £150 a week; and a living wage for nursing and other students who have to work as part of their course;
* Stop and reverse marketisation in our schools, colleges and universities – tax the rich and corporations to fund education.
We are seeking to organise this demonstration in alliance with trade union activists fighting back against wage freezes, job cuts and privatisation; with other anti-cuts and privatisation campaigns; with young people’s and children’s organisations; and with others who believe that education should be open to all as a human right, not a privilege open to a minority based on wealth.
We call on NUS and autonomous campaigns within NUS to support the demonstration.
Supporters include:
NUS Women’s Campaign
NUS LGBT Campaign
NUS Black Students' Campaign
University of Bradford Union
Union of UEA Students
Birkbeck College Students' Union
Essex University Students' Union
Coventry University Students' Union
University College London Union (indicative vote)
Aston Students' Guild
Staffordshire University Students' Union
Cranfield Students' Association
Wadham College Students' Union
Edinburgh University Students' Association (indicative vote)
Goldsmiths College Students' Union
Dunstable College Students' Union
University of Sussex Students' Union
University of East London Students' Union
Middlesex University Students' Union
Cambridge University Students' Union
SOAS Students' Union
Southampton University Students' Union
Huddersfield University SU LGBT society
Education Not for Sale
Sussex Not for Sale
Another Education is Possible
Campaign to Defeat Fees
Invited speakers at opening rally:
Ed Maltby (Secretary, Education Not for Sale)
Mark Bergfeld (German student activist, Another Education is Possible)
Laura Fitzgerald (Irish student activist, Free Education for Everyone)
Becky Crocker (RMT London Transport young members officer)
Sasha Callaghan (UCU executive)
Baljeet Ghale (NUT executive)
James Greenhalgh (Youth Parliament)
Introduced by Rosie Isaac (Southampton Campaign to Defeat Fees)
Assembling from 12 noon at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1 (Nearest tubes: Russell Square, Euston, Goodge Street)
* SCRAP ALL FEES - FREE EDUCATION FOR ALL
* A LIVING GRANT FOR EVERY STUDENT
* EDUCATION NOT PROFIT
This academic year could see the lifting of the £3,000 cap on tuition fees in higher education. Meanwhile, student debt and poverty are already spiralling, students face soaring costs of living, and the market dominates our education system from school to college to university.
After years of underfunding for post-16 education, the Government brought in tuition fees and then top-up fees. Worsening the already existing inequalities in higher education, fees are greatly accelerating the development of a competitive market between universities, with a tier of well-funded and prestigious institutions and another of less prestigious, underfunded ones. Along with the absence of decent student grants, they rule out the possibility of seriously expanding access, force most students who do get to university into debt and push many into casualised, low-paid jobs. Lifting the cap will, of course, make all this worse. Meanwhile most further education students have always paid fees and never had grants.
Top-up fees will be in the headlines this year, but fees are not the only issue. Even those who do not have to pay fees, such as Scottish students and FE students under 19, do not receive a living grant and are also forced into poverty and debt. Nursing, midwifery and other students who have to work as a large part of their course receive a bursary as an on-the-cheap substitute for a living wage.
International students are exploited to subsidise higher education institutions through higher and higher fees, while postgraduate study is limited to a small elite through a more and more restrictive funding system.
Women, black, LGBT and disabled students are affected and disadvantaged disproportionately by the growth in student poverty and debt.
As our education is commodified and most institutions are run more and more for profit, the wages, conditions and rights of our teachers and other education workers are also coming under attack.
We also note that, as the economic crisis bites, the Government has announced that it plans to cut student numbers and further limit eligibility for grants.
We believe that NUS is allowing the Government to get away with these deeply unpopular policies. This year, despite the review of the cap on fees, NUS is not organising a national demonstration – not even one for its needlessly bureaucratic “alternative funding model”, let alone the abolition of fees and living grants that students need. Its “day of action” – which took place on 5 November, the day after the US presidential election, hardly the best time to get attention – was a start, but totally inadequate.
That is why we, students’ union officers and student activists, are seeking to organise a national demonstration in the first three months of 2009, around the following demands:
* No raising of the cap on top-up fees; halt and reverse the growth in international students’ fees; abolish all fees in HE and FE – free education for all;
* A living grant for every student over 16 – at least £150 a week; and a living wage for nursing and other students who have to work as part of their course;
* Stop and reverse marketisation in our schools, colleges and universities – tax the rich and corporations to fund education.
We are seeking to organise this demonstration in alliance with trade union activists fighting back against wage freezes, job cuts and privatisation; with other anti-cuts and privatisation campaigns; with young people’s and children’s organisations; and with others who believe that education should be open to all as a human right, not a privilege open to a minority based on wealth.
We call on NUS and autonomous campaigns within NUS to support the demonstration.
Supporters include:
NUS Women’s Campaign
NUS LGBT Campaign
NUS Black Students' Campaign
University of Bradford Union
Union of UEA Students
Birkbeck College Students' Union
Essex University Students' Union
Coventry University Students' Union
University College London Union (indicative vote)
Aston Students' Guild
Staffordshire University Students' Union
Cranfield Students' Association
Wadham College Students' Union
Edinburgh University Students' Association (indicative vote)
Goldsmiths College Students' Union
Dunstable College Students' Union
University of Sussex Students' Union
University of East London Students' Union
Middlesex University Students' Union
Cambridge University Students' Union
SOAS Students' Union
Southampton University Students' Union
Huddersfield University SU LGBT society
Education Not for Sale
Sussex Not for Sale
Another Education is Possible
Campaign to Defeat Fees
Invited speakers at opening rally:
Ed Maltby (Secretary, Education Not for Sale)
Mark Bergfeld (German student activist, Another Education is Possible)
Laura Fitzgerald (Irish student activist, Free Education for Everyone)
Becky Crocker (RMT London Transport young members officer)
Sasha Callaghan (UCU executive)
Baljeet Ghale (NUT executive)
James Greenhalgh (Youth Parliament)
Introduced by Rosie Isaac (Southampton Campaign to Defeat Fees)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
