An Exercise in Double-Speak

Well, I've been trying to resist writing this blog, as a fan of Liverpool Football Club I did not want to be accused of bias. The ever so sensitive issue of racism at the centre of the debate has been causing so many people a problem with actually discussing what is really at the heart of the issue and it's current outcome. However, I feel we have come to such a point of idiocy and self deception that this blog can no longer be avoided.


For those of you who have been living in a cave, the basics of the matter are, a black, French, professional footballer, Patrice Evra, has accused another footballer, Luis Suarez, a Uruguayan of mixed ethnicity, of making racial remarks towards him during a game earlier this season. The F.A. have "investigated" found Suarez guilty, banned him for eight games, and fined him £40,000. Now, on the face of it, to somebody unfamiliar with the facts of the case, the whole thing may seem fair, however, a closer examination reveals quite how ludicrous the whole situation is.


Firstly, the only evidence presented to the tribunal as to the guilt of the accused, has come from the mouth of the accuser. No corroborating evidence whatsoever has come to light, that means, the alleged slur was not heard by anybody else, match officials, team mates of either player, fans; nothing was picked up by the microphones or captured by any of the hundreds of TV cameras covering one of the most watched games in the footballing world. This is a little strange, wouldn't you say, given that Evra claimed that the accused used the slur at least ten times during the course of the match, on one occasion in a crowded penalty area at a corner, with eighteen fellow professionals and match officials in very close proximity. Stranger still when you realise that the game was watched live by approximately a billion people round the world, however still nothing was picked up, and after scrutiny of the tape at the hearing, still nothing!


So one man's word against another's, never been much of a basis to convict somebody of a crime, even if the alleged victim is an angel, the vast majority of people would have difficulty pronouncing judgement on such a flimsy basis. The alleged victim in this case is no angel though, in fact he has been in front of an FA panel before, in just such a case, although that time it was against a member of Chelsea ground-staff, not a fellow professional. At the end of that hearing, the FA panel stated that the testimony offered by Evra was "unreliable and exaggerated", making it even stranger that this time around the FA would rely so heavily on his statements.


We are all fully aware that England and by extension English football has a had a sickening history of racism, the police investigation against John Terry and the horrendous chants of the Chelsea fans, "Anton Ferdinand you know what you are", only go to further reinforce this point. However, it is my contention that given this shameful history of racism, coupled with the FA's desire to get one over Sepp Blatter (FIFA President) for perceived corruption over their failed  World Cup bids and his own careless remarks, "racism should be settled with a handshake", the Football Association are themselves guilty of failing to try understand cultural differences, failing to investigate the matter adequately, jumping to the wrong conclusion and handing out a punitive sentence purely for their own political reasons. 


Why cultural differences? The accused volunteered to the tribunal and the investigators when asked, that he had said to Evra on one occasion, "porque negrito". In English, negrito does not have one, direct translation, in fact it can mean any number of things, it may look close to the word negro, however, it is not that word. The word negrito can mean, black, but only black, not n***** or any other pejoritive term for somebody of dark skin, just a descriptive-black. More importantly to note however, is that the word negrito is much more commonly used in the accused's dialect as a slang word for friend, irrespective of colour, like mate, pal, buddy, mucker. How many times have you sworn at a driver who's cut you off by saying something like, up yours mate? Easily done isn't it? Now, imagine that driver came from a society where the word mate was regarded as racially intolerant. Through no fault of your own, you'd be in a lot of trouble from which you might find it very hard to escape. But officer, I only called him mate. Yes sir, that's the problem! You see what I'm getting at.


As I mentioned earlier on, the accused is of mixed race, he has a black grandfather. He has starred in FIFA videos before the 2010 World Cup promoting the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic points of football, he plays for Uruguay, which has a proud history of fielding black players, long before other South American countries began to do so, and he has captained Ajax Amsterdam, probably the most multi-cultural, multi-ethnic club side in the world. Suarez, while he's been accused of several things during his career, some fairly, some unfairly, he has never ever been accused of something of this nature. If you look around the world of football since the verdict was passed, you will see that outwith England, Suarez is held in very high esteem right the way across it, and messages of support and disbelief have come from far and wide. It seems to me, very clear, that this would not happen, if the accused had ever shown racist tendencies.


In a blatent exercise in "double-speak" both the FA and Patrice Evra made written statements saying that they do not believe Suarez is a racist. Explain that to me please, given that Evra accused him of making racist comments "at least 10 times", and that the FA panel found the accused guilty and handed out an eight game ban. Naturally what people will take away from this is that the accused is a racist, it is already happening, Paul Mcgrath says that Liverpool's show of support for the accused on Wednesday Night (the whole squad and Manager wore Suarez T-shirts during the warm up) is condoning racism. Well how could it be if by the FA's and Evra's own admissions, Suarez is not a racist? Of course it isn't condoning racism, it is showing support for a colleague and a friend who is having his name, his family's name and his character dragged through the mud, on the basis of one man's dubious testimony and a linguistic misunderstanding. Jason Roberts (BBC pundit) says he was offended by the show of support and that "some things are bigger than football", well Jason, you are right some things are bigger than football, ie. having your name and reputation soiled forever with no real evidence at all. That is pretty big!


Gordon Taylor (PFA head) has said this week, "of course referring to someone's skin colour is offensive, it's self evident". It is my contention that it is only offensive to refer to somebody's skin colour if it's done in a racist sense, ie. the person saying it believes in the superiority of one race over another, and means it as an insult in this way. For example Rohan Ricketts (professional footballer) tweeted in response to hearing Alan Hansen (BBC pundit) use the word "coloured", "is this guy taking the f****** piss?..... We are black Alan. Clearly then, the use of black, or white for that matter, is acceptable as a descriptive adjective in this sense. It seems  to me that the only thing "self evident" is the inherent racism in the statement made by Mr. Taylor, and this is in fact the problem within the FA, football, and England as a whole, while talking tough and writing rules, has England really done much to fundamentally change attitudes? Tackling racism can not just be done with rules and laws, racism comes from inside, it breeds through fear and segregation, and can only be tackled through integration from an early age, a broad education that informs about the differences and similarities between races and cultures, and a willingness to embrace and accept the diversity which exists on earth.


I have seen and heard many times this week, that this case, and judgement show how far England and English football has come in tackling racism. To me it shows the exact opposite, how little progress has actually been made by the English and the English FA in understanding the cultures and attitudes of others who have come to live and work in the U.K.. How so? The FA have not chosen to check Suarez background in this matter, they have not spoken to his former managers, team mates, opponents, members of his national side, linguistic experts, or anyone else who may have been able to shed some light on his character and the true meaning of his comment. They have not tried to investigate the cultural and linguistic obstacles and differences that the accused may have faced, in short, they have in effect said: Never mind where you're from, never mind what it means in your culture or language, you are in England now, so you do it our way! Not a very multi-cultural attitude is it? Instead, the FA and most of the media have been quick to listen to the testimony of an unreliable witness, quick to dismiss the perfectly reasonable explanation of the accused, and with no other evidence available, have condemned a professional footballer publicly and left him blowing in the wind.




 They have done so for two main reasons, and in no particular order, firstly, to get back at Blatter for their failed World Cup bids, the FIFA bribery scandal and Blatter's remarks surrounding racism. Secondly, because of the history of racism in English football, the FA have acted through fear of being seen to condone racist activity. They have heard the word "negrito", and ignoring the subtleties and nuances of what it actually means or how it was intended, in spite of the fact that there is no real direct translation, have decided on the meaning themselves. In this case, the overwhelming lack of credible evidence against the accused, and the confusion surrounding translation has counted for absolutely nothing, as for purely political reasons, they want to be seen to be tough on racism, and Suarez is their scapegoat. I feel this is an issue for all professional footballers, they should not allow one of their own to be besmirched in such a way without seeing the evidence and knowing the facts, and they should not allow the FA to open the doors for any unscrupulous footballer to play the race card whenever they feel like it. The one thing that has been proven, beyond any doubt, in this case, is that this can happen to anyone, because the sign above the door at FA headquarters reads: NO EVIDENCE REQUIRED.

Beany with the Gold Chain 
 

Calling "Red Ed"

Sitting here as I am, taking in  the protests occurring in London, and to a lesser degree, across other parts of the U.K. today, I can't help but wonder what the future has in store for Britain. The police have taken unprecedented meaures to try and dissuade demonstrators from turning out on the streets today but they don't seem to have made the slightest bit of difference. These measures included writing to certain individuals who took part in the previous student protests earlier in the year, even those cleared of any wrong doing whatsoever, warning them not to participate today or else! Another, more shocking measure undertaken by police involved issuing plastic bullets to their riot units and announcing publicly their threat to deploy them on protesters, for the first time on the soil of mainland Britain. Despite these scare tactics, thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of citizens are pouring out on the streets today to voice their anger at the horrific rises in tuition fees and the wider package of austerity measures being forced down our throats. The question this throws up is, will Britain carry on ignoring the voice of its citizens using ever more draconion means to stifle and control protest, ensuring the implementation of a hugely unpopular, hotly disputed economic theory, or will somebody on the political spectrum listen to the people and offer us a choice?


Listening to the facts and hearing the numbers, it is no wonder there is a rapidly spreading anger brewing within the nation that's growing in intensity. Britain now sits with an unemployment figure swiftly approaching three million, that is 8.1% of the working population. Amongst the young, the situation is vastly worse, over 21% of 16-25 year olds are without work and that statistic is bound to get much worse over the next three to four years as a direct result of the government's tuition fee policy. Quite clearly, what is going to happen is that the students already in the system will graduate and emerge into an already saturated job market thereby finding it nigh on impossible to find work, whilst during this period fewer and fewer people will attempt to enter the university system because of the fees, and will emerge into an already saturated job market and ....  You see where I'm going with this. In the same week, it has emerged that the Royal Bank of Scotland, a bank bailed out by taxpayers in the midst of the banking crisis, is paying over £500 million in bonuses this year, how can that be, where is the justice in that?


The series of "austerity measures" which the Con/Dem coalition is set to begin implementing in the very near future is going to make the situation inconceivably worse. The forecast is that at least a million more jobs will be taken out of the market altogether, and, the cancellation of schemes such as the Education Maintenance Allowance (E.M.A.),- which is paid to pupils from poorer backgrounds to enable and encourage them to stay in school and complete their A Levels- will mean ever more young people will be fighting over an ever decreasing number of jobs.


These cuts, we're told, are absolutely necessary to solve Britain's "sovereign debt crisis"-a term that we've become so familiar with over the past year, most of us are muttering it in our sleep- but it is not working! The economy is stagnating badly as consumer confidence has dried up, and I can't see how we're going to remedy that situation by putting a million and a half more people in the dole queue over the next three years. Meanwhile, because of the nature of the global financial system, Britain is as threatened by the Greek or Italian "sovereign debt crisis" as it is by its own, so what's the difference? This approach to economic problems has been used before in Britain, during the first four years of the Thatcher government, the Tories massively cut public spending in an attempt to revitalise the economy resulting in soaring unemployment, a then shocking two million people. The reason given then was to curb inflation, however, it was a total failure, inflation was not curbed in the slightest and the economy lay in ruins.  What it succeeded in doing was killing what was left of British industry, destroying entire communities, disenfranchising the old working classes permanently, and, creating widespread acrimony and social unrest across Britain.The policy might have cost Thatcher dearly,  it helped her achieve the lowest public approval ratings ever recorded by a British Prime Minister, but the conflict in the Falklands conveniently dug her of that hole, leaving the policy to be shelved after the i983 general election.

This is economic terrorism, make no mistake about it, it's a war, not on drugs, not on terror, but on you; it's not taking place in Afghanistan, it's not in Iraq or Libya or any of those far flung places, it's happening right here, at home! It will affect your home, your job, your pension, your childcare, care for the elderly, your hospitals, your education, your kids' education, your benefits, your transport system and just about everything else we rely upon in life.It is being perpetrated by people at the very top of of the corporate and banking sectors, including financial institutions such as the I.M.F., through politicians that are in hock up to their necks  in creating a dependent, subservient nation, and it's being sold to us through their allies in global media. It is the optimum method for consolidating the wealthy elite's grip on power and it will be felt by all, all, that is, except for those in the top 1%.


The worst thing though, in Britain, is that we don't have any option. Yes we have elections, but now, more than at any other time since the second world war, we live in an "elective dictatorship". Not in the sense that one party has all the power and the others don't get a say, no, worse than that, all the major parties seem to follow the same principles and come up with the same policies, it is a dictatorship of concensus. What use is a vote without a choice? It is to be expected that the Tories would have this policy of agressive spending cuts, it's part of their make up, lower taxes, cut back on public spending, help the rich, preserve the status quo. The Lib Dems, well, they nailed their colours to the mast with their volte face on the tuition fees issue, and those colours are most definitely blue. Clegg sold their souls for the merest hint of power, and that's what it is,  a hint.  After the next general election, the Liberal Democrats are likely to cease to be of any real political significance, to become a minor party or to be absorbed by the Conservatives, I don't  expect them to be a force in British politics again for a very long time.


Where are Labour in all this, and more importantly, Ed Miliband? Dubbed "Red Ed" by some sections of the right wing press upon his selection as Labour leader, so far Ed's proven to be about as red as a New York city cab. That's right, yellow! The New Labour era is over, people now realise that New Labour was an empty vessel, a hollow promise, things did not get better, as their victory song promised, in fact things got the same and then worse for most us. Yes, we bought more stuff, but we didn't really own it, we bought most of it on easily available credit, it was an illusion, and when the bubble burst, we were left with the bills.  The vast majority of people are aware that the financial boom was built on fraudulent activity by bankers, operating under a don't ask don't tell policy employed by the Labour government. People are also aware that consequently the bust was an unavoidable scenerio, exactly the same as the boom and bust epic that played out during the late 1980s. Whoever the singer, the song remains the same.  What we now need is an alternative, a third way, a different way of thinking, a fresh approach, politically and economically.


 Finding himself in this situation, isn't it time that Miliband seized back some traditional Labour ground? Ok, he's come out against tuition fees, and he made vague references to disagreeing with the speed and severity of the cuts, but that is not enough. He offered no actual plan for how Labour would deal with the economy and he's refusing to support the three million or so public sector workers preparing to take strike action on November 30th. Why? He's afraid of the right wing press, he doesn't want to be seen to support the Trade Unions. This is the perfect time for Miliband to strongly oppose the cuts, argue for high rates of tax on bank bonuses, propose reform of tax laws to ensure that the super rich are forced to pay every penny they owe, to fight for job creation, to close the gap between rich and poor, to pull British troops out of foreign wars, to scrap plans to spend billions on re-vamping our nuclear arsenal and to create a better, fairer future for Britain in the manner that Labour once promised to do. In this age of monopolitik Britain needs a choice, a real choice, and if Milband has the guts, he can provide it. It depends how he wants to be remembered, as a statesman, a politician who took a broken country and set it back on the right road,  a man who had the courage of his convictions and his peoples best interests at heart, a leader of men; or a footnote, a man who couldn't find a policy, a man who blew Labour's best ever chance to deliver a better future, a man who allowed a weak coalition to defeat him at the polls because he didn't have the courage to really attack  it.


Students are not the only group protesting today, as you know, the Occupy London protest is still taking place at St. Paul's Cathedral, add to those the above mentioned upcoming public sector strike and the further industrial and protest actions planned for the new year, and you get a very large portion of the electorate who are unhappy and want to see urgent policy change. I urge all these groups to join forces, co-ordinate actions and show the politicians just how numerous and vocal the 99%  really is. Miliband claims to understand the public's anger, but does he really? If so why not harness it? The people are angry now, they're out there on the streets protesting regularly for the first time in a generation, what they need now is a political voice, someone to believe in, someone who will bring the bankers and the financiers to account, who will deliver some kind of justice, financial or otherwise. For without justice, dies hope and without hope, so goes the future. Speak now "Red Ed", or forever hold your peace.

B.W.T.G.C.

 

In Defence of Luis Suarez

It's been mentioned many times over the last few weeks, particularly by Steve Claridge on the Monday Night Club (BBC Radio 5 Live Sport), that in football, perception can mean a lot more than reality. This is, of course, true. I have been interested to note, therefore, the perception of Luis Suarez that is arising within the media and has been backed up by the Monday Night Club and, in particular, Ian McGarry. The story being concocted and proliferated is that Suarez is a "dirty player" or, as people in the game now say, a "cheat", and it is now virtually impossible to get through a Liverpool match or an episode of the Monday Night Club without some reference to this perception being made. Now, as far as I can tell,there are three main instances that are being used to furnish this belief, namely: the handball on the line against Ghana, Jack Rodwell's red card in the Merseyside derby and the penalty given against Jagielka in the same game. There were also instances that arose from the Utd game but I shall deal with them in due course.

Firstly, I can understand from Ghana's perspective how heartbroken they must have been to go out of the World Cup in the way that they did. I can also understand that from a neutral's perspective why some may have felt that they were cheated out of a place in the semi final. However in response to Ian McGarry's statement, "this is a man who put Ghana out of the World Cup with a handball and then went back to Uruguay and celebrated", meant as an indication that Suarez is of bad character, I'd like to make a number of points. Suarez is neither from Ghana, nor is he a neutral in anyway-he was a member of the Uruguay team and, as such, determined to do everything that he could to give his team/country the chance to progress in the finals. Following the handball Gyan had the chance from 12 yards to put Ghana through to the next round, the fact that he failed is not down to Suarez. The World Cup comes round every four years only and is the greatest and most important competiton on earth, he wouldn't be the first, nor even the 12th to bend the rules in order to give his team a better chance of progressing, remember Schumacher? What about Owen's dive in 2002 against Argentina? Then there's the Bilic vs Blanc incident from 1998, and there are countless other examples. As it is, Suarez made an instinctive reaction and batted the ball away with his hands, many others have done exactly the same in the past, he took his red card, sacrificing his place in a possible semi final in order to give his team a chance of progressing. As for celebrating, well who wouldn't? Uruguay finished third in the World Cup, pretty good for a team that nobody really fancied and he played a massive part in that, not just with the handball, but with his trickery, his skill, his determination and his goals. Why on earth shouldn't he celebrate? I would suggest that Suarez is of good character and plays the game the way it should be played, with a will to win, a determination to test himself against the best and absolute commitment. In contrast the player he denied on that evening in South Africa, Asamoah Gyan, came from the World Cup, signed for a Premiership club, played on and off for about a season, decided that he couldn't be bothered and set sale for a an Arab Sultanate with a vastly lower standard of football but astronomically high wages.

Concerning Jack Rodwell's red card in the Merseyside derby, to my mind, having seen the incident more than a dozen times, it's purely down to Martin Atkinson. I've seen his position, you have, we all have, he's right on top of it, and the red card is out practically before Suarez hits the ground. In response to Ian McGarrys comment "Suarez goes down like he's been shot, when in fact, no contact has been made", I urge you to look again Ian, because a blind man can see that while the Everton player's leading leg takes the ball cleanly, his trailing leg clearly comes through and catches Suarez with some force. Admittedly Suarez goes down a little theatrically, but so do all players nowadays (see Barcelona). The decision to send Rodwell off was purely down to Martin Atkinson, what he saw or thought he saw, and his interpretation of the rules and instructions given to him by the FA. Was it the correct decision? No. Was it Suarez's fault? No.

 

 

The penalty incident involving Jagielka in the same game, well, it was a pen, no question. Suarez sees the ball coming, nips in front of Jagielka and get's kicked. It's as simple as that. Jagielka was annoyed but Suarez was too quick for him, Suarez knows exactly what will happen and is waiting for it, but it does happen and it is a penalty, are we to condemn players for being clever and reading the game well now. I don't think so. Jason Roberts said recently on 5 Live Sport, "there is a massive difference between a player diving and a player going down easily", that is from the horse's mouth. Suarez doesn't dive, there is always contact, and to criticise him for going down easily is ridiculous, all players do, most of the time they have to, because if they don't, refs rarely give free kicks, and more importantly, penalties. It's my contention that defenders and managers are having a pop at Suarez publicly because he's too much for them. Their comments have been repeated in the media and this is creating a negative perception. In actual fact, the alertness that he displays and his undying energy together with his pace and skill make him a defender's worst nightmare, they can't afford to switch off for even a tenth of a second against him, and this wears them down. Rather than being criticised for upsetting defender's, his determination, desire and workrate should be applauded, isn't that what we want more of in the game?

The Man Utd allegations, I can't really comment on the racism claim, other than to say that Evra has made these claims before and they've turned out to be unproven, as I understand it. The referee didn't hear the alleged abuse and nobody has come forward to corroborate Evra's version of events. What I can say is that Suarez gave the Man Utd back four, incuding Evra, a torrid time, and in fact, ran them ragged. By the nature of the way Suarez plays the game, his speed, his close control, his ability to turn on a sixpence, his dribbling, he is naturally going to draw a numerous fouls (Woodgate resorted to rugby tackling him during the game at Stoke in the Carling Cup), so we shouldn't be surprised if he goes down a lot. As for Sir Alex Ferguson's comments concerning Suarez "diving all over the place", he know's exactly what he's doing by making that remark. He's adding to the perception that's been forming in the media, he's adding fuel to the fire, and hoping that referee's will think twice before awarding a decision in Suarez's favour in the future. It's worth remembering that this is the same man who defended Cristiano Ronaldo for all those seasons.

 

 

In conclusion, I'd like to point out that Luis Suarez is not only one of the finest players in the Premier League but also on the World stage. He played a major role in Uruguay attaining 3rd place in the 2010 World Cup, he was player of the tournament, scoring four goals, as Uruguay overcame their rivals to win the Copa America earlier this year. His performances and disciplinary record since joining Liverpool have been exemplary. Suarez brings something special to the game, the Barclays Premier League and to Liverpool, it is not only his talent that impresses, but his enthusiasm for the game, his determination, his will to win, his sheer exuberance and passion. He possesses what most don't, the ability to galvanise, inspire and lift a team to the next level, to peaks yet unclimbed. There is one player in my lifetime, that stands out for me as possessing these same qualities, played the game in the same way, with the same child like spirit, the comparisons do not end there, this player was also from South America, and coincidentally, caused a huge furore when he handled the ball at the World Cup. That was in Mexico in 1986, and he, was God!

Money-Two Justice-Nil

So yet again CSI or lack of it has yet again won the day in a high profile court case allowing Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to walk free from court, when in this blogger's opinion at least, they were in it upto their necks. What about real policework, detection and investigation eh? One thing is for sure, the police in Perugia involved in the investigation were adamant that both Knox and Sollecito were heavily involved in the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher.

There are several things that point to this, for example, the defendants changed their accounts of their whereabouts and activity on the night in question several times. When first questioned she claimed that she'd been at Sollecito's house all night , later on however, she decided that she couldn't be sure that she'd been at his house and that she may have been at the shared villa for some of the time. At one point, she even claimed to have heard Meredith screaming. It's a tad difficult to see how she confused these versions of events in her head given the circumstances don't you think? I mean surely a shock of that nature brings everything into clarity and you remember exactly what you've been doing, that is if you're not trying to forget I suppose. Sollecito for his part, confirmed that Knox had been at his home that night but that she may have come and gone, in other words, she could have been anywhere.

Then, there is the behaviour of the couple in the days immediately following the murder. This may seem harsh, but think about it, if you've just arrived home early in the morning to find your housemate, classmate and friend lying raped and murdered in the house that you shared, you would expect to have some kind of reaction, wouldn't you? Where was the shock, disgust, pity, fear that it could have been you the killer found that night or that possibly you could be next. None of those emotions or behavioural patterns were displayed by either one of the pair. In fact there is television footage showing Amanda Knox turning cartwheeels close to the crime scene and Italian police have stated that during interviews Knox seemed totally disinterested and during certain interviews sat on Sollecito's lap gazing at him and playing with his hair whilst giving evasive answers to the questions she was being asked. This does not sound like somebody whose world has come crashing down, somebody whose quiet idyllic life has been shattered by totally horrific unforeseen events. Again, it seems to me that, given the circumstances and assuming innocence, you would try to help the police in anyway possible, so that the killer would be found, your friend's family would be spared more grief and you could try to feel safe again and get on with life.

 Amanda Knox claimed in her appeal that her story changed several times because of police brutality and in fact claims that she was beaten into saying things that were not true. I find this hard to believe, and no physical evidence has ever been produced to back these claims up and in fact she had to face criminal slander proceedings because of the allegations.  During the original investigation Knox and Sollecito tried to pin the blame for the murder on Congolese bar owner Patrice Lumumba who employed Knox at the time and was known to both Meredith and the two future defendants. This lie ,however, was swiftly and openly exposed when upon questioning, it transpired that Lumumba had a cast iron alibi.

Then, there is the staged robbery at the villa, carried out to make it look as if Meredith was killed as the result of a botched burglary. Drawers were turned out, possessions were scattered, but nothing of significance was taken and most incriminatingly, the windows appeared to have been smashed from the inside. It would make sense to me that, if entering a house to rob it and encountering a resident, you then proceed to attack that resident in such a way that Meredith Kercher was attacked, making a lot of noise and a lot of mess, after the killing you might actually rob the house. Let's face it, if you are committed enough to kill the only resident (cos Knox wasn't there remember) and neither were the others, rather than flee the scene empty handed, you're gonna take anything you can carry, don't you think? Certainly there would be no reason to smash the windows from the inside, unless you committed murder and in a panic at what you had done, you made a crass attempt to cover it up by trying to make it look like robbery.  

 During the original trial an eyewitness placed Knox at the scene of the crime at around the time that the murder took place, at the appeal however, the very expensive, slick defence team attacked the credibility of this witness and therefore the reliability of the testimony. They succeeded. One man, Rudy Guede, now the only person serving a sentence for his part in the murder, has testified  under oath as to the involvement of both Knox and Sollecito in the perpetration of this atrocity. This testimony has now also been discredited. Why? It is because the Judge allowed the appeal jury to hear testimony from a "former cellmate" of Guede, himself a convicted child murderer, which stated that Guede had lied about the defendants. How can this evidence be reliable in the first place? It's hearsay, prison talk, it doesn't amount to anything! Secondly, you have to ask yourself why? Why come forward? Why, a convicted child killer, serving a life sentence, a man with no prior involvement with the case, a man with evidently no moral code at all, would come forward and offer this testimony in a court of law. What's in it for him? Why does he care? It doesn't make any sense! Unless, of course, either some kind of coercion, in the form of a threat against him, has been used, or more likely, good old fashioned bribery has been employed. The Italian police may want to check this guy's bank accounts over the next few years or check who pays his future legal fees.

The prosecution and particularly the detectives investigating at the time, made mistakes. Of that there can be no question. Some of the evidence was gathered wrongly, and cross contamination of the DNA samples may have occurred, however a request for re-examination of this evidence by the prosecution was thrown out by the appeal judge, a decision that left me baffled. The point though, that I will again re-iterate, is that while the literally blood stained knife or bra strap could not definitely prove the murderers' identities, it did not disprove them either, not only that, the police believed very strongly that they had the right people. Whilst of course they are not infallible by any stretch of the imagination, they are professionals, they deal with this type of scene on a regular basis, they deal with murderers often, and their absolute belief in Knox and Sollecito's guilt must, at least, be respected.

During questioning after the murder and during the first trial Knox displayed a tendency towards a Narcissitic personality, not only was no remorse shown, but no empathy with the victim's family, nor any kind of impassioned plea of her own innocence. Sure, she went through the motions, she said she didn't do it, but, having got that far, actually being in court, a totally innocent person would, surely by that point be beside themselves with emotion, desperately trying to make the court and the outside world believe their innocence; no? This did not happen at the original trial, in fact, it was conspicious by its absence. This time things were a little different. To Knox's hugely expensive defence team it will not have gone unnoticed that, because of her demeanour, she came across as cold and uncaring to the jury. They were not going to allow that mistake this time, Knox's perfectly stage managed final statement to the court in fluent Italian being a magnificent example. The question is ,why she was so cold and uncaring? Given the circumstances, what had just happened to somebody she had been sharing her house and, by her own admission, her life with. Why also, if not guilty, did she lie repeatedly? Changing her story from one week to the next, forgetting details and making up new ones as and when it suited her.

The vastly expensive PR machine and defence team that was constructed around the defendants, particularly Knox ,and the money and contacts used to keep that machine rolling and keep spinning Knox and Sollecito as the victims in all of this, could be matched neither by the prosecution team, nor by the Kercher family.  The skill of the defence team in focussing the entire case in the appeal on the technical evidence and problems with it over and above all else, has led to the release of the two defendants, an outcome which will sicken many. The unfortunate, in fact, tragic result of all of this is that the real victim, Meredith Kercher, and the spine chilling ordeal that she went through before her life was ended, has become a bit part, a side show, a minor detail in all of this. Naturally the Kercher family is crushed by the verdict because they realise now that they may never get justice for Meredith. Meanwhile the pair Knox and Sollecito are now free to continue their lives, in fact they'll probably make a fortune from selling their story for books and movies and the like. That is just what it will be however, a story, because, only they know what happened that night. They haven't told the truth about it yet, so I don't think they're going to start now!

Britain in the 21st Century: A Quick Recap

TURN OF THE NEW MILLENIUM
FEEL GOOD FACTOR
NEW LABOUR/NEW BRITANNIA
PEACETIME FOCUS ON BRITAIN
FIX BRITAIN/INVEST IN BRITAIN
FOCUS ON HOME AFFAIRS
MILLENIUM/LONDON DOME/HOPE/INVESTMENT
A NEW WORLD WITH NO ENEMY TO FEAR
SEPT 11TH 2001
OSAMA BIN LADEN/WAR ON TERROR
HIDDEN ENEMY/FEAR POLITICS/RACIAL PROFILING/RELIGIOUS HATRED
WAR POLITICS/AFGHANISTAN/IRAQ
ILLEGAL WARS/DODGY DOSSIERS
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS/NO UN RESOLUTIONS/WMDS
NO WMDS/NO PLAN/NO CLUE
TORTURE/BEATINGS/HUMILIATION/INTERNMENT/WAR CRIMES
GUANTANAMO BAY/CO-OPERATION/DETENTION/RENDITION
SHOCK THERAPY/ECONOMIC TERRORISM/CULTURAL INEPTITUDE/THEFT/PLUNDER
SECTARIAN VIOLENCE/TERROR/MURDER/CARNAGE
GUILT/KNOWLEDGE/CULPABILITY/SELF DOUBT
JULY 7TH 2005
HOMEGROWN ATTACKERS/THE ENEMY WITHIN/MORE FEAR/MORE WAR
CIVIL LIBERTIES?CCTV/SCREENING/RESTRICTION ORDERS/POLICE INEPTITUDE
MISTAKES/MURDER/DISINFORMATION/COVER UP/MENEZES
MPS EXPENSES/COOKING THE BOOKS/DISTRUST IN POLITICIANS
WELL THEY'RE ALL BLOODY CROOKS
FINANCIAL CRISIS/ECONOMY FALSE/FRAUDULENT BANKERS/FLAWED MODELS
GOOD BYE PROSPERITY/WELCOME AUSTERITY
MANUFACTURING GONE/RECOVERY SCANT/ PUNISH THE BANKERS? NOT A CHANCE
PRESENT DAY
BRITAIN IS BROKE/WAR CARRIES ON/NEW ENEMIES/MORE WASTE/MORE DEATH.
NO CASH FOR SCHOOLS/HOSPITALS/THE ELDERLY
MASSIVE CUTS IN SERVICES/STEALTH CUTS IN WAVES/MASS UNEMPLOYMENT
COST OF LIVING SOARS/STANDARD OF LIVING PLUMMETS
REALISATION/COMMUNICATION/RETALIATION
BREAKDOWN IN PUBLIC SERVICE/STRIKES/DEMONSTRATIONS/DISORDER
DEBATE/RESPONSE/POLICE/DECISION
MASS ARREST/PRISON INFLUX/GOVT DEAF/PEOPLE FORGOTTEN
PHONE HACKING/POLICE CORRUPTION/COMMONS ENQUIRY/MURDOCHS LYING
CAMERON/COULSON/HOW MUCH DO THEY KNOW?
WILL WE FIND OUT HOW FAR THIS THING GOES?
WHERE TO NEXT?

Wake Up & Smell the Fuckin' Coffee!

Another fine week for NATO countries/armies on their mission to "spread democracy" in far away lands. Yes, NATOS mercy mission to bring freedom and fight terror so that all brown lands may have free & fair elections and will be able to use their own resources in a way that best serves the needs of their people, has yet again been exposed as a complete fantasy!


 From Libya to Afghanistan via Iraq, this week has seen evidence come to light damning officials and soldiers representing NATO. Once again it has been laid bare for all of us to see that  our government/security services, our soldiers, and therefore our nations are not the good guys that our media and our culture lead us to believe. Rather, our armies are running amok in foreign climes terrorising, torturing and murdering the civilian populations. We send unmanned drones to drop bombs on wedding parties and murder journalists who happen to fit the description of enemy combatants ( that means anybody with a darker than caucasion skin tone by by the way). Whilst our secret services collude right until the very last with brutal dictators in the rendition, torture, and ultimate murder of hundreds of dissidents and terror suspects. In short: WE ARE THE EVIL EMPIRE!

The facts speak for themselves, and the sad but simple truth is that this indisputable evidence merely confirms what every right minded person knows already. Namely that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are illegal, were instigated under false pretences and have been conducted with such disregard for the Geneva Convention, the army codes of conduct and the general laws of human decency as to make them a permanent stain upon the soul and conscience of the so called free nations of the West.

We also now know without doubt that security services such as MI6 & CIA collaborated regularly and as a matter of course with Col. Gaddafi right up until the final weeks of the rebellion in Libya and while NATO governments were talking up freedom from tyrrany on the airwaves at home, I'm sure they were all too aware of the close collusion going on behind the scenes between their own and the Libyan secret services. These cases are not isolated, but are in fact are proof of the policies, attitudes and behaviour of our armed forces and our governments when they think they can get away with it.

Knowing is not enough I'm afraid, it is time to do something about it! If we the population of these FREE NATIONS do not demand better Government, with moral foreign policies and demand that politicians put an end to these, short term, self serving, amoral, murderous,imperialistic and ultimately, massively de-stabilising  invasions and occupations of sovereign lands. We have no right to be surprised if the rest of the world thinks of us as  weak, stupid, arrogant, decadent, lazy, callous arseholes, complicit in the crimes of our  leaders'.  We cannot afford any longer to allow these wars to be waged in our name, this cruelty to be dished out for our benefit, if we don't make them stop now, we will all be locked permanently in a perpetual state of war. Unwinnable & indecipherable, these wars do nothing but cause misery & suffering on a massive scale, drain our economies of billions-providing nothing in return, and breed hatred and resentment across the globe.  Wake up and smell the fuckin' coffee!

THIS WEEK

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOUND IN TRIPOLI DETAILING COLLUSION BETWEEN MI6, CIA AND THE REGIME OF COL. GADDAFI. COMPLICITY IN ILLEGAL RENDITION, TORTURE AND MURDER OF LIBYAN DISSIDENTS AND UNNAMED TERROR SUSPECTS.

ENQUIRY INTO THE DEATH OF IRAQI CIVILIAN BAHA MOUSSA FINDS THAT HE AND 8 OTHER CIVILIAN DETAINEES WERE THE VICTIMS OF BRUTAL BEATINGS, ILLEGAL TORTURE AND "GRATUITOUS CRUELTY AND VIOLENCE" AT THE HANDS OF BRITISH SOLDIERS, WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR COMMANDING OFFICER.

NATO ADMITS THAT AHMED OMED KHPULWAK, A 25 YR OLD BBC WORLD NEWS REPORTER, SHOT DEAD IN AFGHANISTAN EARLIER THIS YEAR WAS KILLED, NOT BY INSURGENTS AS WAS ORIGINALLY CLAIMED, BUT BY AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN A CASE OF "MISTAKEN IDENTITY". (wrong skin colour)

STATS

THE GREAT WAR                         15% OF ALL CASUALTIES CIVILIAN

 SECOND WORLD WAR             50% OF ALL CASUALTIES CIVILIAN

VIETNAM WAR                              70% OF ALL CASUALTIES CIVILIAN

IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN             90% OF ALL CASUALTIES CIVILIAN

END IT NOW!

NEED TO SEE MORE? WATCH THIS!
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/war-you-dont-see/

                                                                                                                                                                                  Artwork by JWP                                                                                                                                      

Two Documentaries Which Shed Light on Why We're In The State We're In

Individual freedom is the dream of our age. It’s what our leaders promise to give us, it defines how we think of ourselves and, repeatedly, we have gone to war to impose freedom around the world. But if you step back and look at what freedom actually means for us today, it’s a strange and limited kind of freedom.

Politicians promised to liberate us from the old dead hand of bureaucracy, but they have created an evermore controlling system of social management, driven by targets and numbers. Governments committed to freedom of choice have presided over a rise in inequality and a dramatic collapse in social mobility. And abroad, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempt to enforce freedom has led to bloody mayhem and the rise of an authoritarian anti-democratic Islamism. This, in turn, has helped inspire terrorist attacks in Britain. In response, the Government has dismantled long-standing laws designed to protect our freedom.

The Trap is a series of three films by Bafta-winning producer Adam Curtis that explains the origins of our contemporary, narrow idea of freedom. It shows how a simplistic model of human beings as self-seeking, almost robotic, creatures led to today’s idea of freedom. This model was derived from ideas and techniques developed by nuclear strategists during the Cold War to control the behavior of the Soviet enemy.

(Blurb taken from Top Documentary Films)               http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-trap/

True Stories: The Shock Doctrine

The Shock Doctrine is the latest documentary from acclaimed director Michael Winterbottom, co-directed by Mat Whitecross. Based on Naomi Klein's bestselling book, The Shock Doctrine argues that America's 'free market' policies have come to dominate the world through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.
Both the film and the book argue that governments all over the world exploit natural disasters, economic crises and wars to push through radical free market policies. Klein calls this 'disaster capitalism' and in her view, disaster capitalism is as effective as psychiatric shock therapy at wiping our collective memory.
The film concludes that the result is often catastrophic for ordinary people and hugely beneficial to big corporations. The documentary also adds to Klein's thesis - which was written before the recent market turmoil - and includes an analysis of how the financial world got into its current troubled state.

(Blurb taken from Channel 4 OD)                       http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-shock-doctrine/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1


ENJOY!! :)

'Broken Britain'

“Broken Britain”, it’s a good sound bite isn’t it? The alliteration works well and it seems to roll sweetly off the tongues of our leaders and our mainstream media, doesn’t it? Well, Britain is broken, but not in the way that Mr Cameron et al would have us believe. Britain is broken because Social Mobility is at an all-time low; the most recently released statistics make clear that, it is now virtually impossible for people to change their standing in life either upwards or downwards. On top of this lack of opportunity, which I think we would all agree is the fundamental basis for a successful, democratic meritocracy, we have returned to the days of having a ruling elite of politicians drawn from an extremely narrow, privileged and exclusive pool. These guys were born with silver spoons shoved so far down their throats, one can see them glinting in the sun when they bend over. As a consequence, the British public have virtually no choice whatsoever when it comes to electing a government, as the differences between parties and leaders are virtually non- existent, despite what the media may indicate. There are, within this CONDEM COALITION (I know it’s missing an N)  18 millionaires in the Cabinet, 18! Osborne says that “we’re all in this together” I say “PULL THE OTHER ONE GEORGE, IT’S GOT BELLS ON!”

Mr Osborne says that he will still cut police budgets, that the riots stem from deep cultural problems in Britain and that simply throwing money at police will not solve the problems. Ok, fine, but isn’t the government also cutting child benefit, childcare services, community outreach programmes, council leisure facilities (including children’s play areas), unemployment benefit, bus services, housing benefit, the education maintenance allowance for 16-18 yr olds, in fact EVERYFUCKINGTHING AND ANYFUCKINGTHING that may just help the underprivileged in our society get somewhere in life! Whilst making third level education all but impossible for those from poor backgrounds by lifting the cap on tuition fees. If you ask me, this government is abdicating its basic responsibility in a democratic society, that of providing for and taking care of the most impoverished and vulnerable members of Britain’s community and, at the same time, protecting fat cats who deserve it the least. It is essentially CUTTING THE ROPE AT THE TOP!

 I do not condone the rioting. Some of the scenes that were witnessed, for example the robbery of the Malaysian student that was caught on camera, were horrendous, and I know that certain elements do enjoy a spot of recreational rioting. However I am not so ludicrous as to blame  all the trouble on family breakdown and opportunistic thuggery. To do so would be to ignore the facts. People in these areas are unhappy, they feel disenfranchised, they feel that the police do not protect them but in fact bully and harass them, they have no jobs-1 in 4 18-25 yr olds have been unemployed for more than 12 months and these statistics are obviously much worse in the poorest areas-, and they see their chances in life as increasingly limited. Britain is divided, not by race or by class as it once was, but by cold hard cash! Since the 1980s the gap between rich and poor has grown exponentially, the difference in salaries for those at the top compared to those on the middle or ground floors has mushroomed to  obscene levels and successive governments both Tory and Labour have encouraged and perpetuated this terrible imbalance. The adage is age old; while some get fat others starve. Having played a significant role in creating this inequality and resentment I find it a bit rich (if you’ll excuse the pun) for the government to start blaming the parents with the old broken home bullshit. Haven’t we heard that before? Yes I believe we have, remember John Major and “Back to Basics”? I believe the Tories were blaming single mothers for all societies’ ills way back in 1992, funny enough, that was in the midst of a recession too. 

 I happened to catch Newsnight during the week and was fortunate enough to be party to the expert punditry of Celvin Mckenzie, the former editor of that Murdoch owned Shite-Rag, The Sun. This is definitely one of the most grotesque excuses for a human being I have ever seen, a GIANT RAT IN A SAVILLE ROW SUIT, CYNICISM PERSONIFIED! As I listened to him sneering, his blanket labelling of the protesters as “vile people” I had to scream at the television, “IT IS YOU THAT IS VILE, YOU THAT STANDS FOR ALL THAT I HATE”, and I thought to myself if we put people like him in charge of Newspapers or present him as a pundit to be listened to on the news, one doesn’t need to be a genius to see how we’ve gone wrong as a nation. However he wasn’t alone in writing off totally all who were involved in the trouble, our esteemed leader D.C. labelled those involved as “sick”. This inability and unwillingness to see the problem holistically and to take the rioting within context is criminal, it’s disgusting to see our pampered toff politicians pontificate about societal sickness from their Jags and mansions, you try living on £60 a week you FUCKWITS.

The facts are that Britain is facing some of the toughest “AUSTERITY MEASURES” in the world, and in reality, those cuts haven’t even come close to inflicting the kind of hardship that they inevitably will over the course of the next 2 years. Why do we need these cuts? This is because the Banks fucked up the International Markets by behaving fraudulently; lending money to people that they knew couldn’t pay it back and covering up losses. What happened to the bankers? They are continuing to earn 7 figure bonuses and massive salaries. What happens to the rest of us? We face cuts in healthcare, education, policing, all public services, jobs, benefits and anything else that one can think of, coupled with soaring prices of essentials such as food, fuel and energy. Meanwhile, there is virtually nothing the government can do to steady the economic ship. Why? This is a good one, because our ever wise politicos have handed total control of our lives to these “so called” self-regulating financial markets, which 99% of the population have no understanding of or connection with and which nobody can truly predict or control. Fan Fucking Tastic! Well done! On top of that, these things are more volatile than Krakatoa on a bad day, all it takes is a game of Chinese whispers to create total meltdown. Good! Seems like a sound foundation on which to structure an entire country!

Back to the trouble of last week and more particularly the police response to it. Lots of babble in the media about the police being too soft in the early stages, maybe, but they’re making up for it now alright aren’t they. The government is cracking down hard in order to show us that it isn't losing its grip on the country. Over 2000 arrests and counting, courts sitting all night, many offenders receiving custodial sentences, those “reassuring” pictures of 10 armed police smashing down a door in a council estate all to pull out one rather bemused looking suspect. Only thing is, I didn’t find those pictures reassuring at all. No, it put me in mind of Nazi Stormtroopers dragging away political opponents during the 1930s, nothing reassuring about that at all is there! Speaking of Nazis, if protests and riots increase, and I predict they will, and the number of arrests and convictions continue to rise, where will they put the prisoners, God knows our prisons are massively overcrowded as it is. How long will it be before we begin to see temporary prison camps spring up around the country to deal with the “offenders”, you may be more familiar with these camps by another name, CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Who knows, by the time the Olympics arrive in August 2012 D.C. and co might be locking up dissidents under the stadium like Hitler did in Berlin in 1936; I mean he’s already looking at ways to shut down social networking sites so protestors will find it harder to come together, tactics employed by the wonderfully open democratic regimes of Syria, Libya, Egypt and China. Good thinking David, WAY TO SHOW OFF YOUR DEMOCRATIC CREDENTIALS!

These riots were a pre-cursor; a sign of things to come, it’s right there in recent history, people can only take so much. When the level of suffering inflicted both socially and economically gets too much, and the pressure is allowed to build and build, inevitably there is a release, and if the government refuses to heed the warning and continues to bury its head in the sand then things will get much worse before they get any better. We have not seen this level of widespread social unrest and disorder really since the early 1980s when one Mrs Thatcher set about destroying vast numbers of British lives and it is no coincidence that D.C., a Thatcher devotee, is setting about doing the same thing now. As things deteriorate, which they will for most of us, make no mistake, the number of strikes and protests will increase, and if people are not respected or heard these protests will turn violent. However by that stage, it may not be quite so easy for the likes of Cameron or Mckenzie to write people off as “vile”  or “sick” because it won’t just be the fringes of society that are out on the streets but broad sections of our community voicing our anger and disgust, and then Cameron will scrambling for another Falklands.  Britain is broken, but we have it in our hands to fix it. In order for protest to achieve its goal, it must be sustained, it must be prolonged, it must involve large numbers of people from different socio economic backgrounds, it must be as peaceful as possible so that it doesn’t become easy to dismiss and the protestors must be willing to make sacrifices and be prepared to face sanctions for their actions ie. arrest. Our leaders are learning from Egypt’s Dictator, we should learn from the Egyptian people.

 

STAND UP NOW OR HAVE YOUR FACE STAMPED ON FOR ETERNITY!

 

 

 

 

Behind the Scenes at News Corp

Allo allo allo, what's all this then? News Corp and Mr Murdoch been upto to no good then have they? Journalists on their payroll been employing underhanded tactics in their pursuit of stories? Well I never! No, I'm sure none of us were  too surprised when we began to hear the first whispers about celebrities' having their mobile phone conversations and messages snooped on by the News of the World, par for the course pretty much, wouldn't you say? I mean after all they are celebrities, they put themselves in the public arena, they are very handsomely rewarded for it, it comes with the territory doesn't it? I think it's fair to say, that apart from the celebrity victims in these cases, nobody else really gave a shit!

What has emerged from these initial complaints and allegations is not new, it is something that many of us knew already and many more of us have come to suspect over the years. RUPERT MURDOCH IS A BAD MAN! If some people out there are still labouring under the mis-apprehension that people who seek domination are in any way benevolent, THINK AGAIN, the accumulation of so much power and influence over others is NEVER sought for altruistic purposes now is it. At the moment we are getting an insight into what went on at The News of the World, and its fairly fuckin' stark to say the least. Not only did they hack into the private messages and conversations of celebrities, but also top sports stars, politicians, ministers, police officers, members of the royal family, and most sickeningly of all, the family members of murder victims, HOW LOW CAN YOU GO? It may have started out as a journalist trying to get a scoop, I don't know, but it very quickly became standard practice across the paper & amongst the editors. I would suggest that if Mr Murdoch's vast empire was thoroughly and rigourously scrutinised, these kinds of practices and patterns of behaviour would be shown to permeate throughout. That includes America of course, where his channel Fox News played a major role in helping Dubya to steal the 2004 Presidential election by declaring him as the winner before the votes had been counted in full.

Now, Murdoch will say that he had no idea, he's thoroughly shocked but it was a rogue operation and it's been shut down so, after the compensation's been paid, he should be allowed to proceed in his plan for total domination in world media. I say, BOLLOCKS! The resignation by  the head of the Met over his force's repeated reluctance to investigate these allegations, shows the level of influence  Murdoch's News Corp has on the institutions of Great Britain. The fact that David Cameron, the Prime Minister, personally hired Andy Coulson as his Press Advisor, a man who was no less than the Editor of The News of the World when the hacking policy was in full effect, seems to me to suggest the gross extent to which Murdoch's influence has penetrated  British public life. What does it say to you? Coulson again says that he was unaware of the practices that his journalists were employing, but many of them have gone on the record declaring that to be TOTAL SHITE!! For the record, he knew about it, supported it and encouraged it. Anybody who believes that Murdoch, Coulson or Rebekah Brooks for that matter didn't know exactly what their underlings were upto is a far more generous soul than I'll ever be. Why? Besides being able to get the inside story, literally, always good for a paper, this hacking had other benefits; knowledge is power, and the knowledge gleaned from the hacking of the right peoples' private calls could prove very valuable to an individual seeking to influence decisions which relate to their interests but ultimately affect us all. The Americans call it LEVERAGE, on this side of the pond it's known, as BLACKMAIL!

This scandal should be a watershed in Britain. I mean it's out in the open now, we've all seen it, surely it can't be swept back under the carpet, we must not allow THAT TO HAPPEN.  The issues raised by this episode cut right to the heart of our so called democracy, of which we're all so proud, and what we actually mean by it. Do we want our government, police force & other institutions cowering under or doing favours for an all powerful multi-faceted free press and media empire presided over by a single meglomaniacal oligarch, I THINK NOT! No, I think it's about time for a change. Murdoch and News Corp's interests in Britain should be thoroughly investigated and face the full force of the law. There is no way he should be allowed to proceed with the buyout of BSKYB (funny thing, Vince Cable was stitched up like a kipper on that one wasn't he). Links between the media and all of Britain's intstutions should be thoroughly investigated, and ties between the media and the police and politicians especially, should be monitored and reviewed regularly. For our part, we must wake up IT'S TIME BRITAIN SAID NO TO MR MURDOCH!!

 

 Artwork by JWP

So Much for the Cashless Society!!

I don't know if you've noticed, I'm sure you have, being aware citizens of the modern era, how increasingly bloody hard it is becoming to purchase items and services with debit/credit cards. Weren't we supposed to be the cashless society? Advertisement after advertisement informing us how easy, quick and secure it would be to opt for payment with plastic rather than carrying that old fashioned and bothersome cash around with us everywhere, so easy to steal, and imagine having to remember to go to the hole in the wall before going out somewhere, I mean, come on haven't we got enough to remember! So we were invited to use plastic instead, and how easy it sounded, with names such as Access, Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and the ever so subtley named Switch (now Maestro).No extra fees, quicker and easier than cash, with the built in benefit of added security- when our signature wasn't enough, weren't we told that chip n pin would be the failsafe answer? Mind you, how could it be? Anyone who's ever forgotten their pin will testify that in 99% of establishments allow you just to sign, and online well, any Nora, Ethel or Barbera who has your details can use them to buy anything!

Anyway, to the main point of this rant. More and more companies are choosing to add a fee for use of a credit/debit card, these fees range from around £1.50 for a Visa Electron (which just about nobody has cos only about 3 companies in the world even take it), rising to about £2.99 for a Switch/Maestro and all the way up to about £8 or a %age of the total cost for use of Mastercard or Visa credit card. This is ridiculous, having led people down this plastic path, implying stupidity or backwardness towards anybody who still had a penchant for using cash to pay for things, now they're charging us to pay for things. What the fuck man? If this isn't enough, having practically outlawed paying for things by cheque in the last few years, a lot of places have now stopped accepting credit/debit cards altogether. This is absurd! I mean, it's is one thing for small businesses who operate on a cash basis and therefore need currency to pay suppliers and/or staff, to have a mininum charge for the use of a card; but for large companies, that have numerous branches to ban the use of credit/debit cards is just plain stupid- I mean, why make it more difficult for your customers to pay?

 I have just spent the last five and a half hrs in Ikea in Berlin, it's hard enough to get out of Ikea at the best of times, but this time, twas extra fuckin specially hard. After spending bout 3 hrs or so trapsing around, following the bloody arrow on pain of death, continuing to fill our trolley with more and more stuff that we didn't know we needed (they're good at that like aren't they),  we reached the checkout. As I've said, our trolleys were full and, of course, the queue was long, however upon reaching the front, we proceeded to have our items scanned and the bill totted up. Upon reaching for my INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED credit card to settle the account, I was informed in rather a patronising tone,

 "We don't accept credit cards, the charges are too high".

 "Really" said I "How bizarre, aren't you a Global Multi National?" Nevertheless, the reply remained the same so I reached for my INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED debit card to settle the account.

 "Sorry sir"  came the voice "We don't accept that card either, the charges are too high, we only accept this one particular card."

 By this point I was fuming, HOW FUCKING RIDICULOUS! I mean, either you have this specific card, or you are expected to carry hundreds and hundreds of Euro round with you in your wallet, you see where we are here, RIGHT BACK TO THE FUCKIN START, CASHLESS SOCIETY, MY ASS!! Now, I'm not sure if this applies to all Ikeas in the world, but it certainly applies to the German ones which is bad enough. As it transpired, the girl at the till sent us to apply for finance, which we couldn't get cos you need, wait for it..... your passport, which one obviously carries around with one when one is shopping in Ikea of an afternoon, not bloody likely! After receiving some poor advice from the "Advisor" at the finance desk, we proceeded to have our time wasted for for another three quarters of an hr before eventually re-entering the world outside. This is time we will never get back you know. As it is we shall be returning to said Ikea tomorrow morning to collect and pay for our stuff in GOOD OLD FASHIONED CASH MONEY!!

 The banks or the credit card companies may levy a charge on these businesses, and doubtless the charge is too high, but it must be taken against the fact that a credit card allows millions of customers to spend money that they don't really have, a MASSIVE BONUS FOR THE VENDOR SURELY. Pay the charges out of your end, or stand together and fight the charges, but stop punishing us because you'll lose in the long run. By not accepting  or placing a prohibitive tarriff on these cards, which have been used for decades and which we have been actively encouraged to use and even rely on, companies do nothing less than antagonise, embarass, upset, belittle and rip off their customers, make it much harder for them to buy goods and, ultimately, make it much more likely that next time they'll shop elsewhere. I know I will! What's more, if the banks that levy these fees on businesses don't start to rethink their policies, they may find that their dream of a cashless society remains such. I don't think we'll lose too much sleep over that.

You see, how it always comes back to the banks ;)

 

 Artwork by JWP