Twitter

How many ‘centrists’ are there? (On Twitter and off it)

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 23/06/2018 - 5:41am in

‘Centrists,’ Jeremy Corbyn’s former official spokesman tells us, ‘love being talked down to by people in power as it provides false reassurance that they must be better than them.’ The centrist, another Corbynite B-lister explains, ‘has the weary, lecturing tone of a frustrated parent absolutely nailed on.’ But why be so mealy mouthed? As the man who came closer than anyone to embodying the spirit of the ongoing neo-Tankie renaissance memorably put it, ‘better a thousand honest fascists than some glistening sleaze who’s “neither left nor right.”‘

Is it wise to alienate voters who don’t identify with the left or the right? Some have taken last year’s general election result to demonstrate that it is. The Hammer of the Moderates himself, Owen Jones, has argued that an appeal to moderation can make no electoral sense ‘at a time when more than 80% of the electorate voted for a left-led Labour party or the Brexiteer Tories.’ But given that Labour lost that election by a wider margin of seats than it did under Gordon Brown, that argument seems a little odd. Surely losing an election to the Conservatives after publicly abandoning the centre doesn’t indicate that publicly abandoning the centre was the right thing for Labour to do?

But I think I’ve got it figured out now. These people live their lives on Twitter, where the best way of getting your voice heard is to start a fight that others will want to join in. Moderation never gets much traction there. It’s not like in the outside world:

left-right-self-identification-twitter-users-and-non-twitter-users

Data courtesy of the British Election Study.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Hope Not Hate on Anti-Semitism, Homophobia and the Islamophobes Speaking in Support of Tommy Robinson

On Saturday the islamophobic far right held a march to protest against the arrest and jailing of Tommy Robinson, the founder of the EDL, and former member of the BNP and Pegida UK, for contempt of court. Robinson had been livestreaming his coverage of the trial of a group of Pakistani Muslim men accused of child abuse. There are very strict laws governing press coverage of trials, which Robinson broke, just as he had broken them a year or so before in Canterbury. This had earned him a suspended sentence, which automatically kicked in when he repeated the offence last week in Leeds. Robinson was arrested, convicted and jailed.

The laws Robinson broke are there to make sure that everyone gets a fair trial, and apply to all cases, not just those of Muslims accused of paedophilia. But Robinson’s supporters decided that he had been the victim of state censorship and imprisoned for his political beliefs by an establishment determined to protect paedophile Muslims and persecute Whites, hence the march. This was addressed by some of the most notorious islamophobes in Britain and the Netherlands.

Hope Not Hate have an article at their site identifying the speakers, and giving a brief description of their political careers and their very racist views on Islam and Muslims. They included the notorious anti-Islamic Dutch politician Gert Wilders; Anne-Marie Waters, who was formerly a Labour party member before joining Pegida with Tommy Robinson. In October last year, 2017, she launched another far right party, the For Britain Movement; Raheem Kassam, a former advisor to Nigel Farage and editor of Breitbart’s London branch. He’s also the direct of Student Rights, which claimed to be a campus monitoring group dedicated to combating extremism. In fact, it has no student members or links to student unions, though it is linked to the extreme rightwing American group, the Henry Jackson Society. It has also been criticised by several London student unions for targeting Muslim students, and the Institute of Race Relations also noted that its work was used by far right groups to target a Nuslim student event. He’s also the editor of another, Neoconservative news site, The Commentator.

And then there’s the extremely islamophobic UKIP MEP, Gerard Batten, who in 2011 addressed the Traditional Britain Group, the far right outfit that invited Jacob Rees-Mogg to their dinner. Mogg attended, but now claims he only did so because he didn’t really known what they were like. Which sounds very unlikely to me.

As well as vile views on Muslims, the article also describes the vicious hatred towards other groups of some of those associated with the speakers. Like Mandy Baldwin, a member of Waters’ For Britain Movement, who posted homophobic material from a Nazi website on a social media site. For Britain also includes several former members of the BNP and other Fascists, such as Sam Melia, who was a former member of the banned terrorist group, National Action. Another member, Stuart Nicholson, posted extremely anti-Semitic material on his Twitter account before it was withdrawn. In one of these, he retweeted a post that read “National Socialism is the alternative to degeneracy we currently face. It is a pathway to freedom and prosperity. It is an escape from Jewish Tyranny. It is the Future of our people.”

https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/2018/06/08/march-tommy-robinson-extreme-anti-muslim-activists-line-speak/

It’s probably no surprise that some of those, who joined the anti-Islam movement also have a bitter hatred of gays and Jews, and openly support Nazism. All the stuff Nazis write about ‘Jewish tyranny’ is a vile lie, responsible for justifying the Holocaust under the Nazis. And Nazism never brought freedom and prosperity. For the German working class, is meant low wages and complete subordination of the workforce to the bosses as part of Hitler’s Fuhrerprinzip, or Leader Principle. Just as it meant the absolute political, social and economic dominance of the Nazi party and the proscription of all competing parties and organisations, whose members were rounded up and sent to the concentration camps.

I don’t doubt that not all members of the anti-Islam movement have views as extreme as these. But it does seem to show that if these people have their way and ban Islam and persecute or expel Muslims, sooner or later they will move on to attack other groups. Like gays and Jews.

How was social media cited in 2014 REF Impact Case Studies?

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 8:00pm in

In their previous Impact Blog post, Katy Jordan and Mark Carrigan considered whether institutions have invested too much hope in social media as a solution to the problem of demonstrating research impact. Here they report on research analysing how social media was cited in impact case studies submitted to the UK’s REF 2014. Around a quarter of case studies contained […]

RT: Muslim Council Demand Inquiry into Islamophobia in the Tory Party

Here’s a political development that the Tories really won’t welcome. They’ve been trying to present themselves as a new, anti-racist party, ever since David Cameron made a great show of cutting links with the Monday Club, and throwing out members connected with the BNP and the rest of the Fascists. They’re now trying to present themselves as completely untouched by racial or religious prejudice, unlike the terrible Labour party, which is infested with anti-Semites.

In fact, the Labour party is not infested with anti-Semites. The incidence of anti-Semitism under Corbyn in the party has gone down, whatever spurious poison Gideon Falter and the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, Frankie Boyle, David Baddiel, John Mann, Ian MacNichol and the rest may utter to the contrary. And very many of those accused of it, as I’m heartily tired of saying, are anything but. They’re decent people, who’ve fought against, and often suffered genuine anti-Semitic abuse and assault. Their real crime is that they despise the Israeli government and its persecution of the Palestinians. Or have made the point, as Jackie Walker did, that other nations and ethnicities have also endured genocides comparable to the Holocaust under the Nazis, and these should also be commemorated. The Tories and their allies in the press and in the Blairite right in the Labour party are weaponising such accusations in order to unseat Corbyn. Whom they fear and despise as someone, who genuinely wants to do something for the poor, rather than wreck this country and its great people with more neoliberalism.

And the Tories are as nasty as ever. There’s the same racism there. In fact, the levels of it in the Tories are much higher than in Labour. And Mike put up a post the other day, reporting on the suspension of a number of Tory candidates in the run up to the council elections for racism. Many of those were suspended for Islamophobia.

Now the Muslim Council has stepped in, and demanded that the Tories launch an investigation into it. In this video from RT, the terrible Russian propaganda outfit reports that they have a called for an independent inquiry due to Islamophobic incidents within the party now occurring weekly. Their letter to the Tories lists three council candidates, who were suspended. They are:

Mark Payne, suspended for Islamophobic tweets on social media.
Alexander van Terheyden, for the same.
And Darren Harrison, who had links with Generation Identity, which RT describe as an anti-Islamic organisation.

The report shows some of their posts, as well as comments from people determined that the Islamophobia in the Tory party has gone on far too long: Simon Maginn, Crumpets and Tea and Rachel Swindon. The latter’s name seems familiar. I think she may well be one of the people Mike follows on Twitter.

It’ll be interesting to see how the Tories respond to this. It was one of the Muslim Tories, who said in an interview a week or so ago that Islamophobic incidents occurred weekly in the Tories. Simon Maginn in the post RT shows in their video states that there have been demands for an investigation by the Muslim Council for two years now. The Tories have obviously ignored it, and will most likely do their best to sweep it under the carpet. While their more than willing to exaggerate the incident of racism in Labour, when it comes to them they make a great show of punishing the person responsible, quite often trivially, and then briskly declaring that the issue is over and the problem dealt with.

It isn’t. Not by a long chalk.

The Tories are a deeply racist party, and Islamophobia is only part of the problem. We’ve seen just how racist they are in their treatment of the Windrush Children, the victims of the Grenfell Tower Fire, and the rest of Tweezer’s despicable ‘hostile environment’ policy. The Muslim Council’s call for an investigation into Tory Islamophobia is to be welcomed. But this is just the tip of a very nasty iceberg.

And while we’re at it, please can we have an investigation into anti-Semitism in the Tory midst. Despite their claims that they don’t have it, and it’s only in the Labour party, Anti-Semitism does exist in the Tories. And if the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism is to be believed (they’re not, but let it go for the sake of argument) and anti-Semitism is rampant in British society, then it needs to be examined and combated in the Tories.

Except that the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism and Jonathan Arkush, the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, won’t want to do that. They’re true-blue Tories, whose interest in anti-Semitism seems simply to be to use against Jeremy Corbyn and critics of Israel. And as Tories, they definitely don’t want anti-Semitism investigated in the Tory party.

In which case, they are letting their political bias allow the real anti-Semites and Nazis to go unpunished. And perhaps, if they are unwilling to defend Jews from real, vicious persecution, they should resign. Or submit to another, genuinely impartial inquiry, to see if they are doing their job.

Torygraph Cites Roseanne to Show Need for Tory Comedy As Show Is Cancelled Due to Racism

Mike put up a piece today commenting on the Torygraph’s praise of Roseanne Barr, just as she got her show cancelled for racist tweets about one of Barack Obama’s presidential staff. Barr had described Valerie Jarrett as ‘the Muslim Brotherhood + Planet of the Apes had a baby’. She later apologised for the tweet, but it was too late. The damage had been done, and her show was cancelled.

The Torygraph, however, had issued its own Tweet, stating that Roseanne’s huge ratings showed the bad need for a Tory sitcom in Britain. Mike drew the obvious comparison between the star’s own racism, and that of the Conservative party, shown in its ‘hostile environment’ policy, which has seen 60 + Windrush Brits deported unjustly, their inaction over the Grenfell Tower fire, which seems to many to have a racial aspect, and the suspension of a large number of Tory candidates for racism in the weeks leading up to the council elections.

Mike concluded his article with the words:

So the Telegraph was right to compare Roseanne with the Conservatives – just not in the way the writer had imagined. As for it being a sit-com…

Like Ms Barr’s behaviour, some of us don’t think racism is funny.

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/05/30/the-telegraph-was-right-roseannes-racism-has-shown-us-the-shape-of-a-tory-sitcom/

In fact, there are several more things that need to be said about this incident, and not just further discussion of Barr’s own bizarre antics and insults to other celebrities and political figures. It also shows the Tory attitude towards television, and the responsibility of the British press for starting rumours about Jarrett in the first place. The Young Turks did a piece on the scandal, and reported that Barr’s comments about Jarrett linking her to the Muslim Brotherhood come from a right-wing conspiracy theory. These emerged on right-wing blogs during Obama’s presidency, and claim that she was secretly working to promote Islam in the US, and wanted it to become ‘a more Islamic country’.

And they’re completely untrue. Jarrett isn’t even a Muslim. And the ultimate source for these stupid rumours, according to Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, was ‘a British tabloid’. Well, I wonder which one that could be. Actually, at one time I would have guessed it was the Sun, but after all the right-wing newspapers libelled Mike as an anti-Semite, it could be anyone of them, including the Heil and Express.

Uygur and Kasparian go on to discuss some of the other insulting and false tweets Barr has made in the past, as well as her rapid changes of political orientation from one extreme to the other. She also made one Tweet, directed at Chelsea Clinton, which said that George Soros had sold out his fellow Jews to the Nazis and stolen their money. This is completely untrue. In fact, it’s the very opposite of Soros’ own attitude. The billionaire financier is of Hungarian ancestry, and he hates Zionism and Israel because Kasztner, the leader of the Zionists in wartime Hungary, did allow the Nazis to deport tens of thousands of Jews to the death camps because he hoped that the Nazis would allow others to emigrate to Israel. Barr also posted another tweet saying that another woman, Susan Rice, had ‘great swinging ape balls’.

Last year, Barr’s politics were extremely left-wing. At the elections she put herself up as a Green party candidate, and appeared on The Young Turks, saying that existing American politics weren’t nearly left-wing enough, and there was a need for a new left-wing party. Now she appears to have swung completely round through 180 degrees, and is a fan of Trump. At one time, she was a supporter of the Palestinians, before turning to support Israel. She’s also made some very anti-Semitic comments herself, despite also being Jewish. And she also once dressed up a Hitler to bake cakes showing people going into gas ovens. Uygur says that he doesn’t know whether that was right-wing, left-wing or what. I honestly don’t know either, except that it’s massively tasteless and offensive.

The two suggest that Barr’s weird behaviour can be explained by her having been in a severe car accident when she was 16, which so traumatised her that she spent several months in a mental hospital. If that is the cause of her strange rants and zigzagging across the political spectrum, then she’s mentally unbalanced and needs help.

But she’s been very strange for a long time. Way back in the 1990s, one of the Ab Fab team – Joanna Lumley or Jennifer Saunders, if I remember correctly – described working with her in America. According to whichever British star it was, Barr herself never acted in rehearsals. She was pushed around everywhere in a wheelchair, and watched while another actress went through her lines, until it was time for her to act on camera.

As for the Telegraph claiming that Britain needs a Tory sitcom, this seems to be linked to the Conservative press’ attitude that television is dominated by the Left. The Daily Mail in particular has published any number of articles claiming that this is the case. It’s all part of their tactic of working up rage over a non-existent issue in order to boost the Tory party and attack the Labour party and the broader Left. And I think they’ve been fans of Roseanne and other American comedy shows for some time, because of their Conservative, anti-welfare bias. I can remember when Bread, about a family where most of the characters were on the dole, was on British TV in the 1980s. It was very popular, and the Mail and Express hated it because it was about unemployed people content to be supported by the state. They praised instead American sitcoms, which saw unemployment and surviving on state benefit as a mark of shame.

I don’t think there is an anti-Tory bias in British television comedy. It either really does try to be impartial, or there’s actually a pro-Tory bias. One of the two responsible for Dad’s Army, Perry and Croft, for example, wrote a piece in the Radio Times attacking the miners during the Miners’ Strike for their hostile treatment of strike breakers. Which shows their personal political bias, even if it doesn’t say anything about that of the shows they wrote for.

The Torygraph seemed to believe that a Conservative sitcom would be popular, but that’s simply a matter of speculation. It’s not actually clear whether such a show would work in the slightly different political culture on this side of the Atlantic. And anyway, it doesn’t matter. The Torygraph isn’t interested in quality, popular programming so much as increasing the already considerable pro-Tory bias of the British media. And they haven’t yet understood that the reason why people are turning to alternative sources, is because people are increasingly fed up with that same Tory bias.

Roseanne Barr might have had a hit show on American TV, but she was clearly a deeply troubled woman with very unpleasant, racist opinions. Which don’t make her a model for anyone’s comedy, except for racists like those in the Tories.

Side Effects May Vary

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 31/05/2018 - 5:00pm in

Tags 

Racism, Twitter


Sanofi takes to Twitter to make fun of Roseanne for claiming its product Ambien makes people racist. 2018 is wild.

Trump Appoints Roseanne Barr As Official White House Tweetsperson

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 31/05/2018 - 8:23am in

American President Donald Trump has announced today that former actor/comedian Roseanne Barr will be joining his administration as the official White house Tweetsperson.

“What a great day for America to have someone of the caliber of Roseanne sending out tweets on behalf of this great nation, it’s beautiful,” said the President. “I mean sure she’s not much of a looker but what a mind. Roseanne tweets and the world reacts, she’s almost as good at me on the tweeting machine.”

“I tell you this will make America great again.”

When asked for comment on her new role Roseanne Barr said: “I apologise, wait no I don’t I blame it all on ambien, I’m going to quit taking it right now. Don’t suppose you have any ambien on you?”

“What a week huh. I have a TV show I lose a TV show. Maybe I should call Bill Cosby or Louis CK and we could get a comedy tour going. Maybe we could go to the Middle east and appall the Troops.”

Mark Williamson 

www.twitter.com/MWChatShow

You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter or like us on facebook

Book Review: War in 140 Characters: How Social Media is Reshaping Conflict in the Twenty-First Century by David Patrikarakos

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 23/05/2018 - 8:59pm in

In War in 140 Characters: How Social Media is Reshaping Conflict in the Twenty-First CenturyDavid Patrikarakos explores how social media is shifting the power balance from governments and institutions towards individuals and networks and the impact this is having on contemporary warfare. Relating the personal stories of individuals caught up in conflict, this book underscores the centrality of narratives and storytelling to understanding the changing face of war today, writes Madeline McSherry.

War in 140 Characters: How Social Media is Reshaping Conflict in the Twenty-First Century. David Patrikarakos. Basic Books. 2017.

Find this book: amazon-logo

A Palestinian girl takes to Twitter to tell her story of suffering at the hands of Israel. In Ukraine, a woman raises funds via Facebook for Ukrainian troops. On social media, a handful of individuals confront Russia over the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.

These are a new breed of ‘warriors’ in twenty-first-century conflict—the powerful, globally connected individuals that journalist Davis Patrikarakos calls ‘Homo digitalis’ (9). These individuals and their stories are on the frontlines of his new book, War in 140 Characters: How Social Media is Reshaping Conflict in the Twenty-First Century.

At its heart, War in 140 Characters explores how social media is shifting the power balance from institutions and governments to individuals and networks of individuals—and it’s having an enormous impact on how wars are being fought and won. Take Farah Baker, for instance: the Palestinian teenager whose tweets chronicling the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict went viral and helped spark international outrage against Israel. Armed with a smartphone, Farah went from powerless teenager stuck in her apartment in Gaza to citizen-journalist reporting on war for a global audience.

Communicating in ways once reserved for legacy media outlets and national governments, Farah put forth an unmediated political narrative that lent support to Hamas and helped discredit Israel. ‘Hello, I’m Farah Baker,’ she tweeted on one occasion. ‘I live in #Gaza and Hamas is NOT using me as a human shield’ (40). First circumventing traditional media then covered by them, she became what Al Jazeera America called the ‘sudden Gaza spokesgirl’ (33).

Image Credit: (geralt CCO)

As Patrikarakos explains, Farah’s story illustrates that ‘a lone teenage girl can now battle—and threaten—the institutional power of one of the world’s most powerful armies’ (23). But what impact can individuals like Farah really have on international conflicts and their outcomes? By the time the 2014 war in Gaza ended, over 2000 Palestinians had been killed and thousands more wounded, while Israel reported just 72 deaths. Sure, Farah may have helped shape a global narrative of Israeli aggression and Palestinian victimhood, but what tangible effect did she have?

Patrikarakos anticipates such questions and provides a persuasive response. In an asymmetric conflict like that between Palestine and Israel, he argues, Palestine can’t hope to win the military battle. But thanks to individuals like Farah, it can win the discursive, political battle, which, the author contends, has grown increasingly important. By triumphing in this war of narratives, Palestine gains greater international sympathy, creating a global environment in which Israeli aggression becomes less tenable.

Perhaps more convincingly, Patrikarakos also shows how Homo digitalis can have more concrete impact, helping to turn the tides not only in the discursive realm but on the physical battlefield too. Anna Sandalova, the ‘Facebook warrior’, is a prime example. She raised over a million dollars via Facebook for uniforms and equipment for the under-resourced Ukrainian army during the 2014 crisis. Able to mobilise resources in ways Ukraine’s corrupt state apparatus never could, Sandalova is living proof of the ongoing power transfer Patrikarakos describes: ‘As the state fails, Homo digitalis rises to take its place’ (92).

Nowhere is this transfer of power more evident than in the story of Eliot Higgins, the obsessive online gamer whose social media investigation challenged a global superpower. With just an internet connection, Higgins and a small group of individuals conducted an open-source investigation into the downing of MH17 more effectively than the world’s most powerful intelligence agencies.

So while individuals like Sandalova and Higgins quickly assume roles traditionally filled by nation states, how are governments responding?  Not fast enough, argues Patrikarakos. Most world leaders ‘govern like twentieth-century officials in a twenty-first-century world’ (197), unable to come to grips with the cultural, social and technological transformations of the past few decades.

But Patrikarakos identifies at least one exception, a leader he calls the ‘master practitioner’ of contemporary warfare: Vladimir Putin (166). Taking readers into a troll farm in St. Petersburg, Patrikarakos lays bare Russia’s ‘twenty-first century military doctrine’ (256), which relies on mass-produced memes, photo-shopped images and modified articles to reinvent reality. The state may be losing its power to control narratives, but Russia is striking back.

It’s on this point that Patrikarakos reveals his disdain for certain theoretical approaches, marking one of the book’s weakest arguments. He claims that ‘the rise of postmodernism within our academic institutions and its lack of belief in knowable “objective truth”’ has enabled ‘the lies of both the Kremlin and Trump to flourish’ (14). Though seemingly casual and offhanded, this statement implicates rigorous theoretical approaches in the rise of totalitarian governments.

Approaching academic research with the humility of never being fully able to grasp the truth from one’s limited human perspective should not be conflated with a flat-out embrace of ‘alternative facts’. Patrikarakos’s comment could be an interesting argument to develop, but it comes off a little condescending and potentially incendiary. It’s also ironic considering that a book like War in 140 Characters—which places words and language at the centre of the social construction of war—might not have been possible without a theoretical predecessor like postmodernism.

War in 140 Characters is, after all, a book fundamentally about the power of narratives to shape our world and our wars. And what makes it so readable is that it is a book of stories, drawing readers into the personal, poignant lives of individuals to explore some of the most important questions about the changing face of contemporary warfare.

Madeline McSherry is a writer and editor with an MSc in International Relations Theory from LSE. Her work focuses on language and representation in international politics. She is also co-founder and editor of Foreign Policy Rising, a platform showcasing women’s voices in international affairs. Find her on twitter at @madmcsherry. Read more by Madeline McSherry.

Note: This review gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics.


Windrush: the Racist Deportations Continue

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 22/05/2018 - 11:37pm in

Last Wednesday Mike put up a piece definitely showing that, whatever Theresa May said to play down the scandal, the racist deportation of Windrush migrants hasn’t stopped. Sajid Javid admitted before the Commons Home Affairs Committee that 63 more members of the Windrush generation had been deported. These would have been people, who arrived in this country before the legal cut-off point of 1973. Thirty-two had been removed because of crime, and the remainder were ‘administrative deportations’, some of which had received a letter from the Home Office telling them to leave. The admission came after Caroline Nokes said the week previously that she hadn’t found a single case of the wrongful deportation of a Windrush migrant. Her official then said that there were, but it was only a handful. Now the figure’s up to 63, and could increase, as Javid said that it was not a final figure. Those deported were ‘Caribbean nationals’.

Jeremy Corbyn said: “The responsibility for these wrongful deportations stops at Theresa May’s door. Apologies are not enough for the lives that have been ruined and the deep hurt and pain that communities have suffered.”

David Lammy declared it was “the worst human rights and home affairs crisis in my time in politics.”

And Mike also quoted Diane Abbott, who said:

“The hostile environment created by Theresa May has led to illegal deportations of lawful citizens. Their lives have been potentially destroyed and uprooted because of this Government’s immigration policies.

“Apologies and empty words of sympathy are not enough to undo the damage and great pain that has been caused to an entire community.

“Labour is demanding justice for the Windrush generation and all those that have been affected by this scandal.”

Mike and the other people commenting on this scandal on Twitter made the point that this is all due to the ‘hostile environment’ policy Tweezer created when she was Dodgy Dave Cameron’s Foreign Secretary. The best thing she could do now about it would be to resign.

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/05/16/theresa-may-wrongfully-deported-more-than-60-more-people-with-her-hostile-environment-policy/

Mike’s absolutely right, and he also posted at the time that despite all the reassuring words from May and her vile crew, the policy was still in effect and the deportations would continue. He was right.

I have also have questions about the cut-off date of 1973. First of all, I understood that until Thatcher changed the immigration law in 1979, any citizen of a commonwealth country automatically had right of residence over here. David Lammy even posted a copy of the act providing for this. Even if they arrived here after 1973, the Windrush migrants would still count as British citizens. If the 1973 cut-off date was imposed by Theresa May in 2014 or thereabouts, then it’s a piece of retrospective legislation. This is always the mark of a dictatorial government, as it criminalises actions that were perfectly legal when they were performed.

One way or another, May is responsible for a terrible injustice. Those deported should be allowed to return to Britain, given apologies and compensation, and May herself should resign.

Peter Stefanovic: Certain Members of the Government Should be Handcuffed and Charged with Criminal Negligence

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 20/05/2018 - 6:49pm in

Peter Stefanovic is one of the great critics of the government and its foul policies, whose tweets have been reposted by Mike. In this very short video from the Artist Taxi Driver, Stefanovic tells him exactly what he thinks should be done to certain members of the government.

Stefanovic and Chunky Mark are in Nottingham, and the video comes after a conference on mental health care and awareness. Stefanovic states that there is a crisis in care, and that people are dying as a result. He says that the greatest threat to mental health services today is the gross negligence of this government, combined with the massive ineptitude of Jeremy Hunt. He describes Hunt as the ‘worst (health) secretary I have ever known’, and then goes on to say that it goes far beyond ineptitude into criminal negligence. He ends by saying that if he had his way, there are certain members of the government, who would be handcuffed, charged and thrown in jail for gross negligence – manslaughter. It’s that simple.’

He’s right, except that I don’t believe the deaths and the cuts are the result of incompetence. I think they’re the result of a carefully considered policy of destroying the NHS ready for its privatisation. This is what the Tories want, ever since Margaret Thatcher, and 20 years before her, in the 1950s, when the Tory right declared we couldn’t afford it.

They hope that if they run it down and make it as error-ridden and as substandard as possible, people will happily move to private healthcare. Or at least, the affluent middle classes. And so it’s privatisation will go ahead relatively painlessly, rather than with the massive outcry and electoral annihilation the Tories would face if they privatised it immediately.

Save the NHS. Get them out. Now.

Pages