2st Edition October 2012 Lancastertoeuston.tumblr.

com

LANCASTER TO EUSTON
The University is an Amnesiac Institution Chris Witter Adam Facebook Macarthur And why we need a Rally of The Real Ryan Flitcroft
www.garybarker.co.uk 1

The changing State and the state of change Ben Stanford

EDITORIAL:
Welcome all to Lancaster to Euston and to Lancaster University. Some of you are here for the first time, while others return to continue to sample the delights Lancaster has to offer. To many of you, this will be the first copy of Lancaster to Euston you have seen. We strive to provide a forum within which political ideas can be discussed and debated. We attempt a different ethos to other publications within campus media. Our stance is very simple. We want to provide students and non-students a space where they can be political, and they can attempt journalism in a style less available in SCAN and The Whistleblower. We appreciate longer articles and attempt at all times to respect the wishes of the author. Some articles in this publication contain references where others do not; this is wholly dependent on the wishes of the particular contributor. Hopefully, this emphasis on the importance of the writer has you hoping to contribute to Lancaster to Euston yourself in the future. All articles are published online, and the best/most current are available in the print copy currently available at the beginning of each month. In a personal capacity, I hope to see both SCAN and The Whistleblower providing more critical and political journalism in the coming year. I feel there cannot be enough mediums through which students can express their political ideals. The student population at Lancaster has been worryingly apathetic politically over the past year or two, and I hope that this lethargy can be remedied. I also hope that this publication can contribute, if only slightly, to a realisation amongst students that they

have not only an option to be politically engaged, but a duty. We live in very contentious times, and to think that students, of all people, had ceased their radical edge, upsets me greatly. On the topic of contentious times, the current talking point around campus is the restructuring process which is occurring within the college bar system. I would like to write that this is a very simple issue and simply reflects University Managements ineptitude; however, I feel it would be overly brash to do so. The issue of the college bars is a complex one and Ill try to set out concisely some of the upcoming structure along with the positives, and finish with my personal opinion, looking to provide criticism where I feel it is necessary. What were moving from is essentially a system whereby each bar has a landlord, and they are all answerable to the Director of Commercial Services, currently Jo Hardman who replaced David Peaks. The system were moving to has Lou Davies at the helm as Retail Services Manager, with three Venue Managers consisting of two former Licensees and a third spot which I believe is currently unoccupied. The bars will then have Venue Assistants at each bar. These roles will be like landlords, but not landlords; more like senior members of the bar staff with additional duties. The restructuring process is, according to Jo Hardman, aimed at bettering the colleges and getting more students into the bars. On paper this goal is exactly what one would be hoping someone in his role would be hoping to achieve.

But how does he intend to do this, and in what ways and to what degrees is this to be judged successful? Jo wishes to double the footfall in the college bars over the coming year; which sounds to me like a very ambitious target. His plan to do so relies on a full overhaul of the current process. At the moment each bar runs largely in its own capacity, and many of them specialise slightly in certain areas. The most notable ones are obviously Grad, known for its Real Ale and CAMRA status, and Grizedale, which serves a wide variety of cocktails. What we are to expect under Jo Hardmans leadership is further specialisation. Grizedale will add to its chic image by providing tapas along with cocktails. Bowland will seek to push its Real Ale credentials and hopefully gain CAMRA status. Fylde will look to serve more food, possibly adopting a grill-like style. Certain bars on campus will utilise the entertainment licence and extend their current opening hours to one oclock. County bar already has the stock in to serve Glitterbombs and Firebombs, plus, it now has the raw materials to throw together the Sugarhouses Shagga cocktail. Expect County, and presumably Lonsdale, to be turned into venues more similar to Sugarhouse than they currently are. Looking into the future, one of the aims; apparently initially proposed by Gareth Ellis former licensee of Grad Bar, now one of the Venue Managers; is to establish a microbrewery on campus. This idea would, at least in the form it is being discussed at the moment, lead to Grad bar stopping its Real Ale specialism, and instead, see Real Ale on southwest campus moved to Cartmel where the micro-brewery would be based. Cartmel would then

receive investment to improve both the bar, and the eating facilities. On top of this, Pendle would continue to push live music, but where Grad and Furness are left is currently out of my sphere of knowledge. Additionally, Jo hopes to work with other aspects of the university in order to provide an occasional overlap between the academic and the social; for instance, a poetry night, a literary festival, or an art exhibition in some of the bars. Now that youre relatively filled in, and I feel I can safely say that the above information is true, at least at the time of going to print, it is probably fairly important that we delve a little deeper. First of all, I think many of the ideas proposed by Jo Hardman and others involved with the process are excellent ideas. It has been clarified many times that the changes are in no way a cost cutting exercise. The only cost cutting I have heard of is that the move from having multiple bar licences to once centralised licence will save about 9000; which, in reality, is a very small amount of money. Spending is actually to increase in many areas. The proposed changes to the bars are likely to require investment, and real investment into the bars is something which is necessary and welcomed. The idea of integrating more with other areas of the university is nice to see. However, I feel that it is essential to point out that these positive changes are not inherently part of the restructuring process. The bars can be invested in, and can expand their scope, without any changes to the overall structure. I am not an advocate of the current (read: previous) structure, but some

change is not necessarily good change. The structure of the bars could have been changed with vastly different outcomes. They could have been handed back to their colleges and ran entirely under the governance of the licensees, allowing them to implement the changes they felt were necessary. The university could have provided an investment fund which colleges could have bid for to undertake larger changes within the bars. Alternatively, the bar management, organisation, and co-ordination could have been conducted by a centralised body made up of each licensee. They could have met on a weekly or biweekly basis to discuss policy, and then had a team of administrative staff to do the day-to-day work required to implement these changes, while the licensees ran their bars. Or there could have been a structure proposed which was neither of the above. Considering this is not a manoeuvre designed to reduce the budget, there could have been time for discussion of different potential structural ideas. This brings us on to a wider important point. Jo Hardman says that his role regarding the bars begun in June, and to implement changes in time for the coming year required it to have been done over summer and before term had properly begun. The problem, of course, is that this means the structure of the bars is radically changed, resulting in job losses, without those who work within that sector, nor the student body, having any input into the decision making process. This reflects a wider problem within the decision making of the university management as a whole. Consultation and discussion appears to be a secondary concern. This process left many licensees in a state of limbo; uncertain about their 3

job prospects in an already increasingly uncertain economy. I feel it is a great shame that college bars will no longer have landlords. They are the face of the bars, and are also key figures within college communities. The organisational structure of the catering department appears to have been thrust onto the bars without consideration that a landlord is a key figure in a welcoming community orientated bar environment. Additionally, student engagement with the restructuring has been disappointing to say the least. The press release from LUSU read like it had been sent straight down from University House. I appreciate LUSU for calling a General Meeting, but bearing in mind the General Meeting is being held after the changes have mostly been implemented; particularly the crucial decisions; it seems like it could prove an ineffective exercise. Though, I do hope I am mistaken. SCANs coverage has been useful and relatively thorough, and I cannot fault them on that. The same cannot be said for The Whistleblower, who, considering they bill themselves as the critical voice, carried out a very poor critique of Ronnie Rowlands post on LUSUs new YourVoice edemocracy website. The article fails to provide an accurate representation of Ronnies piece, while simultaneously implying support for the restructuring without any serious discussion of the issues at hand. I hope to see frank and critical discussions in student media during this academic year. This issue, alongside many others, needs considerable scrutiny.

Adam Harrison-Henshall Editor

Website: lancastertoeuston.tumblr.com Facebook Page: Lancaster to Euston Twitter: @toEuston Email: lancastertoeuston@gmail.com If you want to become part of the team, befriend To Euston on facebook.

IN THIS ISSUE
Editorial Adam Harrison-Henshall : pg.2 The changing State and the state of change Ben Stanford : pg.5 The Final Admission; Society was crazy, not you Northern Loudmouth : pg.5 A Look At Syria; Does the UN really promote peace Laura Clayson : pg.7 The University is an Amnesiac Institution Chris Witter : pg.8 Daniel Morgan; Police Corruption Hidden Away Vicky Millinship : pg.11 Motion of Support for the TUC at the LUSU General Meeting foreword by: Adam Harrison-Henshall : pg.12 Its time to De-Worm the Financial Markets Jed Bartlett : pg.14 Dont Ask, Dont Tell; No-one Blows the Whistle on The City on The Hill Northern Loudmouth : pg.15 Assanges Cult of Personality is destroying Wikileaks Northern Loudmouth : pg.16 Julian Assange; Certain Questions Need Answering The Fencesitter: pg.17 Facebook And why we need a Rally of the Real Ryan Fletcher : pg.19 Despatch from Madrid An account of the S25 demonstration: Part Two Will Taylor : pg.21

INSIGHT:

The changing State and the state of change

So we have the most expensive to run rail system in the Europe and get year-on-year above inflation fare hikes. Tell me more about how privatisation makes services more efficient and benefits the consumer.

Upon inspection, it is obvious that the State is heading in only one direction. The marketstate is now creeping upon us and is developing with devastating consequences
Competition in the transport industry, the supposed ace in the hand of those who advocate privatisation, is a myth. I simply adore arriving at the bus stop and being spoilt for choice, window shopping to pick which bus provider offers the best deal to the consumer. In actuality, we need only look at Lancaster University with one bus company to shuttle students to and from town. Year upon year, prices rise. Year upon year, services stagnate or even worsen. The university in fact has to effectively bribe the bus company to run services at unprofitable times and days. In the academic year 2009-2010 I paid 199 for a Unirider. Going into 2012-2013 it is now 226. The Stagecoach website proudly proclaims that 99% of students surveyed in 2012 said that they would recommend Unirider to a friend. I can only assume that the remaining 1% of students are moronic enough to suggest taking a taxi is a financially viable alternative. Looking closer to my home, Preston, Stagecoach under-priced their services to drive out an emerging competitor, Preston Bus. Eventually, 5

arket state: The emerging constitutional order that promises to maximise the opportunity of its people, tending to privatise many state activities and making representative government more responsible to consumers1

the Competition Commission stepped in but only when it was too late to force a half-baked, halfconsidered solution. Preston Bus has ever since only ran a handful of routes, nowhere near as numerous as initially planned. Nationwide providers like Stagecoach will always have the resources to crush emerging local competitors and it seems little will be done to protect emerging competition. The same can be said of the electoral system in this country, where the cash pumped into Labour and the Tories in particular will serve to greatly limit the effectiveness of emerging parties. The AV proposals by the Liberal Democrats might have been an important step to change that, but anyway, thats another story. Most people associate privatisation with the Thatcher governments but it has continued ever since in true slippery slope style. An article written by Richard Seymour sums it up in a greater way than I could ever fashion.2 Under Thatcher, British Airways, BritOil, British Telecom, British Rail, British Steel and British Gas all went. The water and electrical utilities were also sold off despite fierce opposition, as the coal industry was crippled leading to unemployment hitting above 3.5 million. Reducing the United Kingdom to a financial services industry base has placed us amongst the most vulnerable of states in a globalized economy, another symbolic manifestation of the marketstate. The fact is that the echoes of the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 are still felt today in devastating fashion and will be for many years to come, whilst other manufacturing industries have since recovered. Today, Royal Mail is threatened more than ever, highways could soon be in the hands of private companies, as could schools, probation services and of course, our treasured NHS. Currently living in the United States of America, I can truly say how much
2

Upon inspection, it is obvious that the State is heading in only one direction. The market-state is now creeping upon us and is developing with devastating consequences, especially upon the poor and needy. The market-state is characterised by three crucial and interconnected factors; privatisation, outsourcing and cutting back the welfare state. Each will be addressed in turn to see how individuals are being frustrated on every possible level.

In the recent meme cult-phenomenon which engulfed the internet and gave students yet further procrastination ammo, one above others amused me most. We all know the one Condescending Wonka. In particular, a highly relevant portrayal depicted the current state of the rail system in the UK;

Professor Philip Bobbitt, Terror and Consent: The Wars For The TwentyFirst Century

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comme ntisfree/2012/mar/29/short-historyof-privatisation

the British people take the NHS for granted, despite the fact that has been slowly chipped away at over the years. The attempt to sell off protected national forests was defeated by a popular movement, largely led by 38 Degrees online, showing that when large numbers really do stand up then governments will listen. Secondly, consider another related manifestation of the market-state, that of outsourcing essential state services to private contractors. The year 2012 was hyped as a great year for all things British as we proudly held the Royal Jubilee and then hosted the Olympics, London being the first city worldwide to host the games three times. What it really showed was that the UK is second only to the USA in its steamrolling transition to the market-state. Security was to be the paramount consideration and it was ultimately to be the paramount failure of the games. The government, sensing a saved buck or two decided to contract Group 4 Securicor, better known as G4S, to provide basic security for the Olympics. The rest is history as soldiers and police were forced to stand in to plug the holes left by the pure ineptitude of essential state service delegation. Even if police outsourcing is off the agenda for now, it will return soon. After all, as the saying goes, if it isnt nailed down. When basic state services are contracted out, the underlying common denominator between them to provide a good service disappears. It is in fact replaced by the quest for profit. To provide a good service is at best a secondary consideration, a supplementary bonus if you will, one which is certainly not essential to the task of raking in cash. No adherent to the ruthless and often ineffective market system can deny that the approach of many companies, TNCs and brands is detrimental to infrastructure provision. Finally, the burdens placed upon every individual have never been greater. Tuition fees have risen to

9,000, meaning a student in a typical three year programme can expect a debt of 36,000-40,000 as a conservative estimate. The justification offered that people wont actually repay until earning over a certain amount simply doesnt stick. Interest soars on unpaid debts and jobs are few and far to find. Even to rebut those claims is futile in the face of the evidence that there was a drop of 8-10% in university applications this year, depending on what source you read. Elsewhere, people are expected to contribute more to the pensions and retire older. Education Maintenance Allowance has been cut, hampering a students most fundamental task of getting to school or college. The contributory employment and support allowance (ESA), provided to thousands of people physically incapable of working is being faded out or limited.

I have no problem with competition in a world of capitalism for nonessential services. That is a reluctant compromise we must perhaps make. But surely it has to be genuine to salvage any credibility in the twentyfirst century where inequality grows and worsens every year.

Ben Stanford

INSIGHT:

When basic state services are contracted out, the underlying common denominator between them to provide a good service disappears
Market states see their legitimacy founded in the maximisation of opportunity to citizens.3 When this opportunity is limited to one service provider, or severely let down by the incompetence of outsourcing, or held back by capping benefits available to the neediest, it is plainly an illusory opportunity. States should never outsource such essential services as security, education or health care provision. Indeed, as the great Anuerin Bevan once said; No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means
3

The final admission: Society was crazy, not you.

ay I take the time to congratulate Conservative MP for Croydon Central Gavin Barwell and the House of Commons MPs (something I dont think Ive ever done) for voting through the private members bill to reform this countrys, frankly mad, mental health laws. Barwells private members bill sees an end to MPs and company directors being removed on the basis of mental health problems, including problems which the sufferer may have long since recovered from. Not only did those laws put a glass ceiling on the careers of mental health sufferers but it also excluded them from serving on juries, a tacit admission by the law that society didnt see people who suffered with mental illness fit to take full part in society. The scrapping of these particular laws is the final admission that society and government were the real crazy people and not mental illness sufferers like me. Mental Health seems to be the last social stigma in our society, weve made great strides in combating

Again, see the work of Professor Philip Bobbitt and other constitutional legal scholars!

homophobia, racism, sexism and physical disabilities but mental illness, due to its nature was still stigmatized against. Mental illness is of course not always visible to the human eye. It is not simply identifying the loon on the bus and the train, mental illness can affect anyone at anytime and its symptoms differ from person to person due to the complex nature of the human brain.

should have to feel that same sense of shame for who they are. 1 in 4 of us will experience a mental health issue in our lifetime and 3 in 4 will deal with a close family member suffer with a mental illness, so the laws as they stood meant our society were completely unrepresentative. As a result some very talented people were excluded from leading a successful life, particularly when only rare, extreme cases prevent people from doing so. In my experience of mental illness, it can be drawn upon positively, allowing you to gain a unique perspective which can aid creative thinking, such as going from agony to ecstasy on a regular basis as a norm. To exclude such people is horrendous discrimination and in an increasing busy, stressing and fast developing world, it will mean excluding even more people as more people will develop a mental health issue in such conditions. The glass ceiling has been shattered now, it is time we rose above its remnants to finally do away with societys last remaining bastion of accepted discrimination.

INSIGHT:

A look at Syria; Does the UN really promote peace?

The scrapping of these particular laws is the final admission that society and government were the real crazy people and not mental illness sufferers like me.
I was only truly open about my bipolar disorder recently, a few friends and close family were made aware of my condition but no one else knew, even so I felt like I was unfairly targeted by my manager at work once he found out about my condition. Furthermore for someone of my ambition - I still want to enter the world of politics one day - I feared that it would be used against me wrecking any chance of a great career. Previously I would have been most terrified about a particular episode I had back in 2010, while at university, which saw my mind almost unravel completely and culminated with me trying to jump off a bridge one evening. I felt if anyone found out about it, I would be finished. I would never have a career, develop longterm relationships and possibly would even be locked up when another episode developed. Not only did this mean concealing my illness from almost everyone it also stopped me from seeking treatment, for fear of it going on a record which could be dug up by someone. All this did was increase my stress, paranoia and exacerbate my condition; no one

o maintain international peace and security.

The Holocaust. Cambodias Khmer Rouge. Rwandan genocide. The latter are certainly juxtapositions to the aforementioned Article 1 of the UN charter. Whilst the charters initial creation did go on to say that they are not authorized to intervene in the domestic jurisdiction of states, changes since then have granted them further powers for doing so. This is highlighted especially within the creation of the 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine by Kofi Annan in 2001. The doctrine certainly appeared to accentuate the UNs desire for peace as it states that should a country fail to protect innocent civilians then it is the role of the international community to intervene. So, the UN said we had learnt and had made concessions for future domestic issues that would allow them to display these mistakes as rectified. Yet when we observe the Middle East and the current war raging in Syria one has to take a step back and question whether the UN really do promote the peace supposedly at the heart of this supranational institution. Certainly we have seen successful

Northern Loudmouth

intervention in places such as Korea and Libya; campaigns conducted bringing back some kind of stability to the region. Indeed, this surely pioneers the UN as justified in labelling itself so? However, the use of the 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine successfully used for the first time in Libya, has seen a serious failure in its lack of application in Syria, whose civilians are now in a much worse situation. The UNs excuse? The failure of Russia to agree to a resolution. This may appear reasonable at first as all 5 members of the Security Council have to agree on a course of action before it can be taken. However, when we consider the case of Libya, China failed to agree to Western intervention and so NATO was used as a force instead. Why therefore can the same not be done for Syria?

unipolar position appears to be declining, with the rise of states such as China and India, we are progressing to a situation of multi polarity, i.e. there are now too many countries making up the poles. Therefore, stalemate ensues, exacerbated by the fact that with the five members of the Security Council all having access to Nuclear weapons, the push of a button could incite nuclear war. Thus I propose that this state of affairs and the inability to wage war between themselves has led to Middle Eastern countries being used as the stage upon which these anguishes are fought out. This can certainly be seen in Syria, where we have Russia and China engaged in a fierce battle with the Western powers, each providing assistance for the opposing side. This interpretation is supported too within the recent stopping of a Russian ship in UK waters transporting military equipment to Syria. Thus it seems to be very much a war fuelled directly by the worlds powers, as we saw these types of trade and arms embargos in the World Wars. Furthermore, recent observations from an Amnesty International Senior Crisis Response Adviser have informed us that there has been an intensification of armed confrontation on the ground as weapons reach the armed opposition. Such an interpretation certainly provides issues for those who wish to be humanitarian in their approach to the Syrian situation as unless the powers decide to change their approach it is very unlikely anything can be done until one of the members changes their focus. This too reflects badly upon the UN as a peace promoter as it appears personal interests fuel their motivations in getting involved with the domestic issues of other countries, as opposed to the wish for bringing peace back to areas of conflict; in Libya there was oil, in Syria there are only innocent civilians. Yet with crimes against humanity being committed on a daily basis in 8

this war torn country and the situation deteriorating further still, the legitimacy of perceiving the UN as a promoter of peace, as opposed to using it for confirmation of power primacy amongst the superpowers, must be questioned. With the new international mediator, saying that Syria is a global threat no longer isolated to the country alone, I believe that the global threat facing the world is Syria being used as a political pawn for warmongering among the superpowers. Yet however the situation may be interpreted nobody can refute the horrific scar this is going to leave on the UN's record, or the history of humanity, just like the scars it is currently leaving on the bodies and hearts of the innocent people of Syria while the world looks on. [To ask the Russian Foreign Minister to stop supplying arms to Syria please visit: www.amnesty.org.uk/syria ]

Yet with crimes against humanity being committed on a daily basis in this war torn country and the situation deteriorating further still, the legitimacy of perceiving the UN as a promoter of peace, as opposed to using it for confirmation of power primacy amongst the superpowers, must be questioned
I think in order to answer this question we must analyse the relations between the powers of the world. In the Cold War there was a bipolar structure of international relations, with the US and the Soviet Union constituting the two poles. This meant that the two states were locked in a stalemate, i.e. neither could act because they would be faced with the same brute force from the opposing side. Yet, as the US

Laura Clayson FEATURE:

The University is an Amnesiac Institution

e like to imagine that universities are places where different forms of knowledge and alternative histories are preserved and remembered where they might even continue to live. But, as we enter a new academic year, we should confront this basic fact: the university is an amnesiac institution. This amnesia takes many forms from professors actively rationalising, legitimising and proselytising for the state, to the specific content and form of our so-called education, which

here presents theory as fact, there fact as theory. Whether it is the neoliberal indoctrination courses that are administered by the management school or the softer, deliberately ahistorical and apolitical, postmodern ideologies that are propagandised in the humanities departments, the idea that a sense of history (which is to say, selfknowledge, learning) lies or once lay - at the heart of the university is mere myth. However, in talking about the university as amnesiac institution my subject here is specifically the way in which amnesia operates within Lancaster University with relation to its own history. In the interest of concision, let me briefly outline three of the primary means by which Lethes waters envelop us. 1. Control of information First, it seems simple enough to observe that there exists a managerial bureaucracy composed of university managers and Lancasters Student Union (LUSU) which is able to possess and control the primary means by which information about the university is disseminated on campus. Through a host of media e.g. websites, emails, posters, letters, signs and newsletters, and even the architecture of the University itself this bureaucracy disseminates the information, images and narratives that are useful to it, whilst suppressing or withholding anything controversial. Two of the major controversies of last year, the Business Processes Review (i.e. the forced cull of administrative staff) and briefly floated and rapidly aborted Lancaster-Liverpool merger, were indicative of this. Not only students, but also staff, were purposely kept in the dark in order to ease the way for a management determined to steamroller through destructive measures without consultation. The University administration is not the only culprit, however. LUSU have, over the years, been

remarkably good at failing to fill student in with regards not only their own goings on, but also all those controversial aspects of University and Government policy that they cannot be moved to oppose since doing so would threaten their own credibility. A prime example is the way that they chose last year, and continue to choose, not to inform students about national student and anti-cuts demonstrations even when those demonstrations were officially supported by the NUS. However, there are plenty of other examples, including the mysterious and never explained tussle between three LUSU Presidents over a proposed Tuition Fees Working Group; the exact specification of the controversial attempt by LUSU, last year, to take over the student bars; or the way LUSU scare and cajole first year students into accepting the awful houses and tenancy agreements of one of the worst landlords in Lancaster, their own LUSU Housing.

by SCAN. Indeed, even when information is available from alternate sources, the codes of journalistic professionalism dictate that a cover-story be elicited from the managerial bodies in the interests of objectivity, balance and in the last case - avoiding defamation suits. Thus any information from alternative sources is subjected to a process of damage-limitation, or more subtle forms of selectivity. A key example here is the way that LUSU managed to covert the push against the BPR last year into a LUSU success story (and particularly a George Gardiner success story). The buoyant SCAN coverage completely omitted the support a grassroots coalition of students and admin staff managed to build amongst staff and students prior to LUSUs General Meeting, as well as the fact that this group had initially to pressure into action a clayfooted LUSU hesitant to openly move against management. Having noted these more subtle forms of influence and manipulation, let us not forget that LUSU and SCAN can and have deliberately excluded oppositional voices. Last year, SCANs editors deliberately and vindictively censored and excluded writers from political group Lancaster University Against Cuts (LUAC) as a revenge against LUACs 2010/2011 Re-open Nominations (RON) campaign against the election candidates for LUSU Presidency, which was run on the basis that the candidates were all tuition fees apologists. In the process they demonstrated their ability to exert control over the student media - as well as the limits of this: witness the plethora of new independent newspapers that sprouted as a result. (The anarchist slogan puts it succinctly: screw us and we multiply!) Before moving on, one last point to make is that, needless to say, all of the examples Ive just given have been rapidly erased from collective memory. 2. Il n'y a pas de corps tudiant

Not only students, but also staff, were purposely kept in the dark in order to ease the way for a management determined to steamroller through destructive measures without consultation
One further source of information, of course, is SCAN the student newspaper. It would be facile to say that this is the Party rag of LUSU or the University management; it has a degree of autonomy, and may run a critical story from time to time. On the other hand, it is utterly deluded to pretend that SCAN does not have bonds of allegiance to LUSU: whether they are bonds of friendship, collegiality, and common purpose, or common structures of governance and funding. Beyond this, the paper must go to the source for information: thus the general control exerted over information by the managerial bureaucracy is reproduced 9

Beyond direct control of information, a second problem confronts any attempt to articulate a common, critical history on campus. That is, the fact that there is no coherent subject which might produce, experience and speak this history. Following this, we are correct to say that, in a very real sense, there is no such thing, at Lancaster University, as the student body. In order for such a subject-entity to emerge there must be a space for it to emerge in: forums in which it might appear and articulate itself. That is to say, such an agent must have political representation on campus if it is to exist. But, as I have begun to indicate, those bodies which pretend to represent it e.g. LUSU and University management in fact exist, not only at a remove from the so-called student body, but as forces actively blocking its emergence. If the Student Unions apparent purpose is the representation of students needs, desires and demands, the reality is that it has become an extension of the University management. In exchange for simulated authority and prestige (plus CV material and a reasonable salary) LUSU administers the student experience and manages a handsome portfolio of studentorientated businesses. If it clashes with management on rare occasions, it is always sure to respect its correct forms and procedures. The idea that it represents the student body, then, is mere ideology. In fact, only those within the LUSU Club have any sway. Beyond the yearly elections in which a minority of students votes, there are no existing means by which LUSU is able to connect with students. Only about, say, 250 students actively participate in the union: a minority group composed of LUSU officers, the JCRs, some members of clubs and societies, and their friends. LUSU does not know what students think or what students want whatever it says.

Since students do not have a forum, and therefore do not have a means of articulating themselves, they never form a student body except in the most general sense in which there exists an aggregate of students attending the university. For a student body can only emerge in its encounter with itself on the terrain of political action: that is, in establishing a forum in which it is able to articulate its common identity and will. Given that, beyond the concrete aggregate of unrepresented students, no student body really exists, we must conclude that the so-called student body is a mere projection of management and LUSU - a spectre evoked to justify plans which are really determined by and designed to suit their own interests. Examples of this include LUSUs protestation that no students are interested in attending national student demonstrations, which is frequently used to fend off pressure from LUAC to promote these and fund coaches; or the Universitys insistence that Library and Admin redundancies and cuts in fact constitute planned improvements to meet student needs. Here we non-managerial staff, as well as students - see how we are first systematically excluded from the political process, and then evoked, ex post facto, to justify actions we had no hand in. Indeed, in these examples we see that not only is the student body a mirage, but this mirage is used to combat the actual concerns and demands of any groups of students (and staff) who attempt to assert a political will.

Following from this, we can see that not only is the University an amnesiac institution because it actively suppresses and distorts history, but also because it actively suppresses the coming into being of any subject that might live and create that history: students are actively blocked from making their own history. 3. The natural rhythm One final thing to note is what I will call the natural rhythm of the university: the simple fact that new students come and old students go. As we have seen, the amnesiac process is manufactured by and geared to suit the interests of the managerial bureaucracy: it is no accident of nature. But, the fact that students tend to rapidly arrive and leave the university is certainly a major stumbling block to establishing a collective memory. What occurs to me, now, is that this year almost all of those students who were involved in the 2010 student movement will graduate: will that brief explosion of energy leave any mark at Lancaster? Here, of course, we see another sense in which amnesia benefits the managerial agenda. For the new arrivals the way things are on campus is the way theyve always been. Theres always only been one windblock above the Venue; there have always been Tesco-style self-service checkouts in the Library, rather than a team of knowledgeable and helpful staff; the plethora of interesting, tailored-to-research third year modules in humanities departments never existed. Likewise, its well known that resistance to new measures is weakened by a staggered introduction: that way change always lies in the future until it has become a forgotten event of the past. Forms 1 and 2 of amnesia feed in here: attempts to control of information can certainly take advantage of the absence of anyone who remembers, whilst emergent student collectivities (e.g. LUAC) are faced with the challenge of their own continuation beyond the allotted

If the Student Unions apparent purpose is the representation of students needs, desires and demands, the reality is that it has become an extension of the University management.

10

study-time of their core membership. Conversely, this natural cycle feeds into the forms of amnesia described above. The fact that the existing structures appear antecedent to the arrival of students aids in their naturalization, in their appearance as necessary and unquestionable, and in their detachment from the student body. To take again the instance of LUSU, the fact that it appears to precede the very body it is supposed to represent (i.e. the students attending the University at any given moment) reinforces its abstraction and detachment from the student population. Of course, a prime example of this process of using the natural cycle of the student population to help push through changes is the introduction of tuition fees in 1998 (who remembers this now?), and the fee increases of 2004 and 2010. But here, of course, we see the limits of this natural phenomenon. For students still rose up in 2010 to say no to the fees, despite the fact that they were to be imposed on future students the cohort entering the universities this year, in 2012. The question remains open as to whether or not this fight will be continued by the new students. Amnesia is the enemy What becomes clear is that amnesia is produced by the managerial bureaucracy and used to their advantage, against staff and students. Even where the natural cycle pulls students in and out of the university, it is the deliberate control of information and strategic implementation of policy that produces the amnesiac effect. Amnesia, then, is not a natural fact but a shroud pulled around the enemy: a managerial group who wish to block us from any meaningful participation in determining the form of the University and its development. The existence of this strategy leads us to the following fact: it is only necessary because the University is developing in ways which are

antagonistic towards the needs and desires of students and staff. Our University and our education is being rationalised away by managers keen only to increase profits. This whole process is premised upon finding new avenues by which to exploit students (e.g. more expensive accommodation, more expensive courses, more hidden costs) whilst cutting the cost of producing education (e.g. less course modules, less Library journals and paper books, less support, more intensely exploited staff). In this situation, we see the importance of those who keep an oppositional history alive. This includes groups such as Lancaster University Against Cuts (LUAC), as well as specific individuals and alternative media: the indispensible Subtext(http://www.lancs.ac.uk/sub text/)is worth a particular mention, as well as Lancaster to Euston and Whistleblower. We also see that we must overcome the forces of amnesia and master our own history, or we will be subjected, without our knowledge, to the whims of a bureaucracy that places itself beyond our control.

that one of the hardest hitting cases of police corruption I know of is slowly slipping into the dark recesses of history. Daniel Morgan who has been described by his brother as hardworking and intelligent was a private investigator working for Southern Investigations in South London. It is believed he was working on exposing drug-related police corruption. In March 1987, he was brutally and devastatingly murdered in a pub car park in Sydenham, Lewisham. After having met with his business partner Jonathan Rees, he was heading home when he was attacked with an axe. A watch was stolen as well as pages from his note pad, but a large sum of money was left on his person. From the start, it didnt seem to add up. Rees is not a man without blemishes. In the late 90s, he was found guilty of planting drugs on a woman so she would be deemed unfit to take sole custody of her child. More recently, he has been intimately involved in what has been described as an empire of corruption in which he sold information to the now defunct News of the World weekly newspaper. Rees has been reported to have said that no one pays like the News of the World [does]. Moreover, the links between Rees and the local police force is remarkable and it seems rather fortuitous that the detective charged with leading the murder investigation was Sid Fillery who later retired and became Morgans replacement at Southern Investigations. Sid Fillery, along with Rees, Glenn and Garry Vian and two Metropolitan Police officers were arrested without charge on suspicion of murder in April 1987. In 1988, a Southern Investigations employee, Keith Lennon, gave evidence of Morgan and Reess worsening relationship, stating that Rees had said My mates at Catford nick are going to arrange it. Those police officers are friends of mine and will either murder Danny themselves or will arrange it. It was at this point the Judge returned a verdict of

Chris Witter

INSIGHT:

Daniel Morgan; Police Corruption Hidden Away.

olice corruption is of particular interest these days, from News of the World and Ian Tomlinson to the continuing persecution of black youths and the cover up of the Hillsborough disaster. Whilst I applaud the hard work by all involved to uncover these truths and raise public awareness, it saddens me 11

unlawful killing a verdict which has initiated a cruel game of cat and mouse ever since. Despite five inquiries, police bugging the main four suspects, a mountain of evidence which has since been acquired linking the suspects to the murder, and the police still have failed to bring these men forward to a proper trial. In March 2011, the case was again pulled by a chief prosecutor, after a series of mistakes and coaching of a key supergrass witness, stating that there would never be scope for further investigation or prosecution. Tim Godwin, former Acting Police Commissioner, apologised to Morgans family and stated there was a

end to Rees empire of corruption. Perhaps it would have even led to a better and less distressing court battle for the Lawrences, whose sons murder in nearby Eltham was notoriously covered up by the police for a number of years. What really disturbs me, however, is the lack of awareness concerning this story. If I mention it to most people I know, I would have to recount the entire story. It is troubling that a story full of such obvious failures has been washed away by the annals of time, with many oblivious to the implications being made. Whilst there are a lot of police officers out there who wish to do good, how easy can it be when such thuggish attitudes pervade their line of duty? How can we allow this decent mans memory to be forgotten, and not demand that serious changes must be enforced so that the police cannot hide behind the reaches of the law? Daniel Morgan should be up there with Tomlinson, another man whose life was lost due to the dodgy world of police brutality and dishonesty, in the British publics consciousness.

INSIGHT:

Motion of support for the TUC at the LUSU General Meeting

repeated failure by the MPS over many years following Daniels murder to accept that corruption had played such a significant part in failing to bring those responsible to justiceWe recognise that we have to take responsibility for the consequences of the repeated failure of the MPS over the years to confront the role played by police corruption in protecting those responsible for the murder from being brought to justice. This story serves to highlight in the most damnable way the preservative nature of the Metropolitan Police service, or as London Assembly member Jennette Arnold has put it, a reminder of the old police culture of corruption and unaccountability. Daniel died trying to expose these all too often miscarriages of justice, dished out by those who pledge to protect society. What he knew might have led to fewer police cover ups over the years would Hillsborough ever have happened, for instance, if only a prior example had been made of this constabulary? His revelations certainly would have seen an early

Vicky Millinship

he following text is a motion of support for the TUC to be proposed at Lancaster University Students' Union's general meeting on the 8th of October. This text was initially drawn up by Sam Hale and has received endorsements from Lancaster University Against Cuts and the Lancaster University Humanists Association. Any more official endorsements from societies or bodies affiliated to either the student's union or the university will be added to the article during the lead up to the meeting.

LUSU should endorse, actively promote and to help organise transport for the Trades Union Congress (TUC) For A Future That Works Demonstration in London on October 20th, 2012 and any future anti-austerity demonstrations and strikes organised by the TUC.

This Union Notes:

- As a result of economic recession, students and young people face many

12

difficulties before, during and after higher education. - Whilst incomes have stagnated or declined, and many people face job insecurity, students are being asked to pay very high tuition fees. - As undergraduate student loans are inadequate to cover the actual cost of higher education (including living costs), students tend to accumulate large debts. - Meanwhile, as postgraduates struggle to secure funding, many of these continue to accumulate debts. - According to official figures, general unemployment levels are currently above 2.59 million or 8.2%; another 1.4 million say they are working part-time jobs because they cant find full-time employment, whilst youth unemployment levels are at over 1 million, or 21% - Therefore, young people, including students and graduates, find it very hard to find work. This affects students before, during and after university. - Those who do find work are likely to enter professions on terms that are less favourable than they once were. - Changes to pensions and salaries brought in by employers during the recession will not only negatively affect new employees, but will disproportionately affect them, as many employers bring in new, less favourable terms on a staggered basis. - In general, there is strong evidence that increased unemployment has lowered wages. - Young people will also be badly affected by new employment legislation being introduced by the Government, including plans to make it easier to fire employees. - Meanwhile, new graduates who are not able to find work face reduced benefits available to support them through this difficult time.

- Further to this, the Union should note that the strongest political force fighting against these developments i.e, public sector cuts and increased exploitation in the workplace - has been the trade unions. - The Trades Union Congress (TUC) is holding a demonstration on 20th October in an attempt to build resistance to the destructive developments listed above. - There are also discussions within the TUC about the possibility of conducting a general strike in the near future, whilst many unions have already or are currently balloting to strike. - LUSU has supported union strikes and demonstrations in the past, including the UCU strikes last year. - Students on campus particularly those involved in Lancaster University Against Cuts (LUAC) have expressed a wish to attend the demonstration on October 20th, and to see their union work effectively with trades unions to oppose the public sector cuts which have badly affected students and staff at Lancaster University. - This does not necessarily mean funding transport where this proves beyond the Unions resources. However, it does necessitate a general and active commitment.

more inclusive and better University, as well as improving the lives of our graduates. - That neither students nor LUSU exist in a bubble; our interests are intricately entwined with the general wellbeing of society. - That we a University is not a mere training centre, designed to provide new recruits to fit economic needs. Rather, it is a place that should promote inclusive learning with the aim of working towards a more sustainable and equitable society.

This Union Resolves:

- To commit to a struggle against public sector cuts and austerity.

- To endorse, actively promote and help organise transport for the Trades Union Congress (TUC) For A Future That Works Demonstration in London on October 20th, 2012. - To actively support any future antiausterity demonstrations and strikes organised by the TUC. - To work more closely with Trade Unions on campus. - To involve students in this process, keeping it open, transparent and inclusive whilst, at the same time, taking sufficient initiative to ensure that campaigns and events are successful.

This Union Believes:

- That public sector cuts and austerity have a detrimental effect on students, young people and working people more generally as well as those who cannot find work, or who cannot work, such as the disabled. - That it is in the student interest for LUSU to ally with and support trade union struggles against public sector cuts and austerity measures. - That better communication and cooperation between LUSU and trade unions would allow us to fight for a 13

LUSU's General Meeting is to be held on the 8th of October. The meeting was called initially to discuss the future of the bars, however, this meeting may have proven to be too late to stop the restructuring process even if the Union declared that its official aim. Nevertheless, it is important that students attend in order to voice their views to our

Union representatives. The restructuring of the bars could still in theory be challenged, and other issues, in particular the above motion, could also be heard. This meeting will hopefully serve an important role in helping LUSU understand, and be able to work with, you the student body.

considered the past as categorically superior to the present. Its a logic that, if drawn to some sort of natural conclusion, would surely interpret the pinnacle of human existence as being sat in a cave worrying whether a big cat was going to treat you as a light savoury snack or not. However, my firm, or maybe even dogmatic, adherence to this belief has recently started to falter. The thought that perhaps there are a few fundamental flaws with the current era that, to my understanding at least, didnt have such a presence in past eras has increasingly occupied the little thinking matter there is between my lugs.

within the last thirty years. I cant help feeling that such concentration of fiscal misfortune in the latter quarter of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty first century makes for an interesting conundrum. And to those that may argue the economics of an era are inextricably tied to an array of political and social factors that, dear boy, your comparison fails to even begin comprehending, I can only reply........that, I think, is my point. The meaning to this seemingly gobbledygook-based point being that perhaps the lack of consideration between whats considered the economic sphere and the politicalcum-social sphere could explain my conundrum. There are those who have been considerably more articulate on this than I. It was John Maynard Keynes who spoke of markets being idolised to the extent that they represented: the worm that had been gnawing at the insides of modern civilisation. My interpretation being correct, the metaphor implies that rather than people treating markets as a means to an end, the modern day market is the end. In relation to the economic model our financial markets are based on, there is arguably no shortage of evidence to see where Mr. Keynes was coming from. Interest rate rigging, endless boom/bust cycles and grotesque so-called merit-based bonuses smack of one value only; the value of unchecked accumulation that, to the majority it seems, is proof that financial markets cant be interpreted as producing or, to follow the aforesaid metaphor, existing as any kind of socially useful end. Its easy to see how the system

Adam Harrison-Henshall INSIGHT:

Its Time To DeWorm The Financial Markets

s a member of the UKs youthful population heres to hoping a year of birth that saw A groovy kind of love by Phil Collins reach number one still constitutes youthfulness- theres always been one analogy that, when spoken by those my senior, riles my inner sceptic to the nth degree. The phrase in question usually takes the following form: It was never like that when we were their age or things just arent as they used to be. The reason such analogies rile me so is that Ive always felt they explain nothing as the idea the past trumps the present seems a cyclical phenomenon as old as humanity itself! Whether from the subjects of the Roman empire who witnessed its final stages of disintegration or folk music fans predicting the downfall of their scene due to a certain Mr. Dylans adoption of the electric guitar, the one common denominator is that each aforesaid phase of human history is likely to have had those who

Rather than people treating markets as a means to an end, the modern day market is the end.
Let me put forward one argument that will hopefully begin to explain my change in mood. During the twentieth century and up to the present date, I would suggest there have been six major economic slumps: the post World War I depression; the 1929 great depression; the oil-centred 1970s depression; the early 1980s and 90s depression and the current one. What strikes me is that of these six recessionary periods, the first three occurred within eighty-ish years of the twentieth century commencing whilst the last three have all occurred

14

is perceived as having little legitimacy in terms of accepted political or social values. This begs the questions: how to we cleanse our twenty-first century financial systems of that gnawing worm? How do we reorient financial markets so that our political, social and economic values co-exist harmoniously? I would suggest that only when were prepared to backtrack in time and, in a fashion that would seem to me reminiscent of the Keynesian era, fundamentally reconsider what we want our financial markets to do, to be and to stand for, can the de-worming process begin!

his past weekend I came

Jed Bartlett

INSIGHT:

Dont Ask Dont Tell: No One blows the Whistle on The City on The Hill.

across the intriguing story of Gwenyth Todd4, a former USA naval analyst, whose career was destroyed and safety put at risk for blowing the whistle on and thwarting a rightwing, Neo-Con military plan to start a war with Iran in 2007, a war which would be disastrous for the Middle East. The crook of the matter was a Vice Admiral, with anger issues and obviously compensating for something, by the name of Kevin Cosgriff. He was (and probably still is) a man spoiling for a war with Iran by sending three aircraft carriers through the diplomatically sensitive Strait of Hormuz. This is a particularly sensitive area of water and provided a flashpoint for the IranIraq War in the 1980s, a war which irreparably damaged the Iraqi economy and killed around half a million at a time the USA was happy to support the blasphemous despot Saddam Hussein. Todd disclosed to the State Department against Cosgriffs orders about the plan so the Cosgriffs dangerous Hollywood style madness could be stopped. Todd right now resides in Australia with her husband and is too afraid to set foot on home soil due to getting on the wrong side of powerful people who evidently want to exact revenge for throwing a spanner in the works of those very incendiary plans. As exemplified by a clumsy ruse by the FBI in 2011 to try and get her to the US embassy for questioning and likely arrest her and take her back to the US. This was because she had been erroneously implicated in a money laundering and international fraud scandal orchestrated by a former
4

lover. Gwenyth Todd had absolutely nothing to do with the scandal, but the implication by the Justice Department showed the will of powerful people to punish her for showing an ugly side to a country eager to portray itself as better than everyone else. The ordeal of Todd, one which has caused her to take a form of exile to protect herself from her own government, has me thinking once again of the current ordeal of Bradley Manning and how America exacts rather petulant and dangerous revenge on its whistleblowers. It is a practice that demonstrates a rolling back of peoples liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism and with the failure of capitalism and Americas self-interested subversion of Liberal Interventionism it is a practice that I fear will be enforced more punitively as we move forward.

It is a practice that demonstrates a rolling back of peoples liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism
Bradley Manning has now been held in custody for more than 2 years without trial, for a substantial period of this time Manning was abused in custody and denied his right to due process. Mannings defense lawyer David Coombs even published the motion which showed that Manning was abused on the orders of a 3 star general at the Quantico Marine Brig. 5 Among this was 23 hour a day
5

http://m.washingtonpost.com/lifest yle/magazine/sunk/2012/08/21/962 09788-cebd-11e1-aa14708bac2c7ee9_story.html

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_z C44SBaZPoQ2hLa21jNlM0WmM/edi t?pli=1

15

confinement; told to constantly stand or sit upright away from the wall; given no hygiene items; forced to remove and hand over his clothes at the end of the day; the list goes on and on. Manning is a danger to no one, but his disclosure of cables which included abhorrent conduct of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the murder of civilians. I fear for Bradley Mannings safety because many security zealots and patriots are so eager to see him punished and it would take a brave judge to dismiss the frankly ridiculous charges against an American citizen who showed conscience in Americas War on Terror. Particularly when you consider people in America have called for Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks who published Mannings information to the public, to be assassinated. God forbid anyone tell us we have another Vietnam on our hands! Manning and Todd are not special cases either. Joseph C. Wilson was the US diplomat who, in 2003, revealed that the United States government had used the exaggerated British intelligence on Saddam 6 Hussein to justify the invasion and now disastrous occupation of Iraq. An occupation which was hurriedly ended and left the country a barely floating wreck with serious sectarian violence and possible government corruption and the emergence of alMaliki as a new Arab strongman. The price Wilson paid for this disclosure? His wife Valarie Plame had her career at the CIA ended by the Bush administration when the revealed her identity as an operative by the Bush administration; a vindictive move which actually put US security more at risk than the disclosure of the
6

phony reasons for an illegal war. Reasons which many informed observers would have seen through anyway, considering the Bush administrations connection to big corporations to companies who won contracts in the reconstruction. Of course there is also the infamous case of Daniel Ellsberg, the man who released The Pentagon Papers, which revealed how the USAs engagement in Vietnam was knowingly unwinnable yet were the government were still willing to sacrifice many innocent lives for. It also demonstrated the web of lies and subterfuge from successive administrations surrounding the war, such as lying about the amount of casualties; true long term intentions; as well as extending the war to Cambodia and Laos. The response of the Nixon administration was to carry out a campaign to shut down anymore whistleblowing and personally discredit Ellesberg, a man who recognized how wrong the war was. This campaign included wiretapping; break-ins, attempts to undermine his mental health and even an aborted plot to incapacitate Ellesberg on American soil.7 These four cases are not exceptions to the rule either, it is representative of a dark side of the City on a Hill so keen to protect its image and ideology that it will go out of its way to attack anyone who discredits it. In an era where its brand of political ideology can be seen as failing or failed already and the fact it is still so keen to spy on its own people shows America shows no sign of dropping its Cold-War style behaviour anytime soon. Maybe rather than trying to discredit, imprison and intimidate its
7

whistleblowers, America should thank them and understand where it is going wrong because: it isnt 1991 anymore and it isnt the end of history, time to learn from your mistakes America.

Northern Loudmouth

INSIGHT:

Assanges Cult of Personality is destroying Wikileaks

ell the diplomatic standoff involving 4 countries and the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange doesnt look like it will settle down soon and neither does Assanges cult of personality which is now something he has 100% bought into. Unfortunately it is something that has now fully overshadowed the excellent work of the organization he founded. First of all, I dont know whether Assange has raped these two women or not, and apart from the two women and Assange himself, neither does anyone else; despite many people, including many of you Ill wager, having made your mind up one way or the other. I for one, being a natural cynic dont completely believe everything we have been told

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/ 06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-find-inafrica.html

http://www.democracynow.org/200 6/4/27/exclusive_nixon_white_hous e_counsel_john

16

and Im naturally suspicious of the Americans, to the Assange accusers, America has a history of being underhanded against individuals who have embarrassed them, look at how they are treating Bradley Manning, a man I fear will die in custody or be executed. However Sweden cannot extradite Assange to the USA while the threat of execution hangs on. Furthermore considering the UKs rather cosy arrangement with the States it would have been much easier to smuggle him out of here to a prison in the USA, we already did it to an innocent man with a mental health condition. However, what is really bothering about this entire row, is that Assange is overshadowing the wonderful and valuable work of Wikileaks and is moving debate away from how the United States, a so called free, fair and democratic country is, via its corporations is trying to bring down Wikileaks and infringe on your liberties. Instead Assange ascended to a balcony to give a speech like Eva Peron or a deluded Emperor from the Age of Antiquity to address what are his followers. People who dont seem to be able to discern where Assange ends and Wikileaks begin. People who dont realize that Wikileaks is about the collective sending out information to the rest of us to create transparency in government, which the media have failed to do enough of in recent years, being either bullied by government or concentrating on celebrity tittletattle. Right now Wikileaks is in a situation where it needs donations urgently to prevent itself from being shutdown, due to state governments and big companies not wanting you to know their dirty little secrets, information you have a right to know, after all you elected some of those people. Now we have a situation where Assange is centre stage, where he wants to be and making himself look increasingly guilty by the day by

refusing to go to Sweden and face down and discredit his accusers. Not only is the Church of Assange and William Hagues idiotic bullishness overshadowing Wikileaks but Assanges actions discredit Wikileaks by association, which is more damaging still. Worst of all though Assange and his ego are overshadowing Bradley Manning, a man who I fear will die at the hands of his own country for showing a conscience, treatment which is against morals and laws. So next time Julian Assange stands on a balcony how about not putting cameras on him or turning up out the Ecuadorian embassy to support him, because all you are doing is taking the attention away from the people doing the real work and are a credit to the Wikileaks organization, free speech and transparency in government.

is a media-hungry, attention-seeking paranoid fantasist with messianic delusions. We cannot know the truth, whatever that is, but we should at least strive for understanding. So here are some thoughts; or, rather, some questions. First, on Assange and the alleged cult of celebrity. Why might someone seek the spotlight if not for the love of the media? Personal safety perhaps? While in the public eye, he cant go missing. Simple. Also, Id guess, the authorities know he has details of other secret wikileaks activists, locations, informers, whistleblowers, techniques, etc. It's not necessarily him they want, but his information. Hence Ecuador talk less about the death penalty and more about Assange facing torture interrogation if he does somehow wind up in CIA hands. The bigger his reputation as an egotist, the safer - hopefully - the people behind the scenes. And the likelier, one would hope, that wikileaks continues to expose lies, hypocrisies, cover ups and mistruths.

Northern Loudmouth

INSIGHT:

Julian Assange; Certain Questions Need Answering

The question, however, is what else extradition to Sweden brings into play?
Second, then, the debate about whether extradition to Sweden automatically means a handover to the States. Lets be clear: the argument that Sweden will not extradite anyone for capital offences is accurate. To have Assange moved on into the hands of the US would be lengthy and time consuming because it would have to be done through the courts. As Britain found out when trying to deport Abu Hamza, the European Court of Human Rights still has some muscle. If the Americans want him,

he Julian Assange case has polarised opinion. And then some. Some defend him as if he is the last bastion of free speech. Others accuse his supporters of being apologists for rape and argue Assange 17

they cannot legally be given him if the charges will lead to the death penalty. In addition, Im pretty sure the Americans would want least possible attention on the matter; thats especially so given there is not yet any official charge to face in the States. There are rumours of an indictment for publishing sensitive material so as to strengthen the position of the enemy, but these are just rumours. So, on the one hand, extradition to Sweden to face charges of sexual assault should be straightforward. One would hope so. The man has not done himself many favours and his public attitude towards women (remember the Time interview?) reveals a character cloaked in sexist selfaggrandising machismo. The poster boys of the Left have often been some of the most chauvinist bastards Ive met. He must face his accusers. The question, however, is what else extradition to Sweden brings into play? Deeper research reveals at least three very good reasons to be cynical. First, Sweden has in the past allowed the extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorists (google Mohammed al-Zari and how the Court of Human Rights found his handover, by Sweden, to American forces in Egypt, to be a repugnant abuse). Second, Sweden is signature to a special arrangement with the US called temporary surrender. Again, google it. Its complicated, but a simple explanation is that Sweden has an arrangement which might make it easier to move Assange into US custody from Sweden than from the UK. Third, who is Swedens advisor on international law? None other than Karl Rove, the Washington hawk thought even too hawkish for the Bush Jr regime (google up Don Siegelman for starters). That he advised the Swedes on their legal arrangements is a fact: he advertises it as one of his consultancy jobs on his website. That he is currently is bed with Obama is widely known. That

he advised on the Assange case is speculation (but Swedish media is alive to a connection). Together, thats more than enough circumstantial evidence to allow the reasonable suggestion of American influence. The third issue raised by the Assange issue is much trickier, ethically, to deal with. Ken Clarke, British Justice Secretary, got in all sorts of hot water for suggesting some rape is more serious than others. What he meant was that rape, at knifepoint, by multiple assailants required different legal procedures to child grooming, date rape, spousal rape, etc. The Swedes recognise such distinctions in law, and different cases receive different sentencing terms if the accused is found guilty. In many ways, Sweden has one of the most progressive legal systems in the world. Heres the timeline: Assange was originally questioned over sex by surprise, that is, sex without a condom. Both women (and this is in the Swedish records) have made statements to say that sex was initially consensual. From the victim statements, it is clear that Assange is accused of coercion, and not just in his refusal to wear a condom. He has a case to answer. When the authorities wanted to upgrade the charges from sex by surprise to rape, however, one of the women retracted her statement that Assange had penetrated her whilst she was asleep. Upon that public retraction, the Swedish prosecutor threw the case out in 2010. The case was reopened in 2012, by Marianne Ny (google her, especially her connection to Rove). In Sweden, the victim does not have to press charges for the authorities to pursue a criminal investigation. Why was the case reopened? What was American influence on that decision? The cynic in me thinks we need to know the answers to these questions. What I do know is womens rights are human rights and Assange needs to face the interrogation for his crimes. What 18

the cynic worries about, however, is that the case was reopened in order to bring Assange not to trial for being an alleged rapist, but to bring him to Sweden to make him more accessible to the Americans.

There are too many unanswered questions to allow for anyone to take the moral high-ground and fling judgemental statements about willynilly.
So, I dont know what to think, but I do think there are enough reasons both to want to understand more about shadowy diplomacy and more about what influenced Marianne Ny to reopen the case against Assange. If, as a result of all this, governments are forced to take rape more seriously than they currently do, then good. Britain could do with incorporating some of Swedens legislation. At the moment, only about 5% of reported rapes in the UK lead to prosecutions and the culture of not going to the police is something which needs serious attention. Too often women are the victims and men are not found responsible for their actions. In this case, Assange needs to face the charges. However, if it is found that the experience of the two victims is being used for political reasons, then there are other questions to be answered.

Finally, Ecuador was a clever country to choose. President Correa survived an American-led coup attempt in 2010 (google it, Wikipedia even has a case on the Ecuador Crisis of 2010). US activities in Latin America under Reagan and Bush Sr were some of the first examples of willful neglect of international law exposed by

whistleblowers. Look up how Ecuador is fighting tooth and nail to preserve its rainforests against the corporates. Ecuador gain from giving asylum to Assange, but also look at their human rights record: they are no angels. There's context here. Its not an either/or, black and white situation. There are too many unanswered questions to allow for anyone to take the moral high-ground and fling judgemental statements about willynilly. So, please, do a bit of research before shooting off shotgun accusations and condemnations. Were only party to a fraction of the information. For those outside the embassy, supporting Assange, the focus is the bigger picture: the US wants to shut down wikileaks and Assange has information they want. For those who claim that to support Assange is to support a rapist, put pressure on the authorities to follow up two possibilities. First, on some legal interpretations, he can be interrogated outside Sweden; its not easy, but there is precedent. Second, although Sweden cannot legally promise not to forward Assange to the States should the US put in a request, it can use the terms of the temporary surrender to ensure he has to be returned to Sweden. That would not be an unprecedented request, so I wonder why Sweden has yet to make that move?

INSIGHT:

there are others who feel the same, that the world is a better place.

Facebook And why we need a Rally of the Real

We have been pushed out of physical reality altogether

It is thoughts like these that completely undermine the entire supposed accomplishment that the era of the internet has ushered in. At the crux of this argument lies the notion that ideas, once somehow confined to reality (a domain apparently now lacking in the ability to produce creative thought if we are to believe those who staunchly defend this digitisation of people) are now free to expand, to blossom in a way totally unachievable through the traditional physical channels of which we are accustomed to. This is illusive. Furthermore this illusion ignores why we have felt the need to digitise our wants, our needs, our goals and crucially the way we organise ourselves as a society. The move to the digital world was not a natural occurrence. For many the move was facilitated not by the mere fact of this new means of communication, but by the inability of people to now organise without the internet. Our hand was forced when we lost the ability to gather at a communal area (a now mythical location, lost to both cuts and state security). A get-together of no more than a few politically active beings to discuss new modes of thoughts, to speak out against inequalities and the wrongdoings of those who abuse power, is almost universally followed by intense questioning by local police, by abuse from your friendly neighbourhood right-wingers or simply from passers-by with the age old heckle to remove ones buttocks from their seat and seek employment. Even as students in

wish to state some basic assumptions surrounding the varying usages of social media sites and my aim is to show that not only can most of these usages be achieved more effectively elsewhere, but also show how utilising sites like Facebook is detrimental to both creative thought and political cause. So without further ado I would like to jump straight into the motivation lying behind this line of thought. We have all sat scrolling through the myriad of posts that force themselves unto us as we search for something to entertain us, interest us, etc. And for many of us who are politically minded or active, this is satisfied when we come across a piece of satire or a new campaign that attempts to collect as many names under its banner as possible in an attempt to induce positive change. We smile; that lonely sense of individualism lost momentarily as we realise there are others out there that think the same as we do, that the world may not be totally lost after all. We feel a buzz, we like, and we continue our daily scroll. Some of us will sit for hours at a time, waiting for a post, a post that reflects our thoughts that we can grab onto and hold tightly; we tell ourselves that as long as we know

The Fencesitter

19

what are meant to be the hubs, the vanguard, the forefront of intellectual debate that form our crumbling education system, we are unable to even find a place to gather and exchange ideas not without following a strict procedure for booking a room with an established apolitical purpose, not without payment, not without forming an official society (one that requires strict hierarchy to exist legally within the universities walls, I kid you not). So we have been pushed off not just the streets, the parks, the coffee houses where debate and discussion were rich and rewarded by action and real change. We have been pushed out of physical reality altogether. Restricted to the bars of binary that construct this new digital world, activists from all walks of life now find themselves using social media as their new platform for debate, and yes to some degree this has had positive effects. But my argument is not absolutist; I do not wish to negate the existence of a few success stories. Instead I believe these positives are massively outweighed by the negatives. Posting on Facebook is similar to loosening a valve within some form of industrial complex. The release of pressure and steam allows those who use Facebook and the site itself to continue running smoothly without stress or risk of breakdown. But what happens to the steam itself? It is not recycled, reused, chucked back into a series of cogs and gears that may lead to some other effect. It is lost. Lost down a funnel of frustration that leads to nowhere, for we must remember that the industrial complex of Facebook is not real; a build-up of steam need not have consequence on the overall functions of the machine and merely dissipates into nothing. Unlike reality, the sideeffect of letting loose these frustrations on an ever-growing audience of people can be heard by no-one at all, and even when heard

and acknowledged, rarely manifests itself into enriching discussion. Merely name-calling and trolling follows where people are less pressed to provide rational reasoning to support themselves, for in our online prison there is no accountability; you can flee without repercussion and getaway with intellectual murder. The danger in releasing our thoughts in these bite-size chunks is the loss of the motivation behind what caused the post in the first place. After reading a news article telling us of the latest swindle or injustice we take to our digital thrones in the hope that our complaint will be met by other like-minded individuals and that (through an inexplicable process that very few of us consider in detail) will lead to a solution of the problem at hand; a campaign perhaps, or merely the belief that the noise of a few thousand angry digital personas will be enough to force the culprits into redemption. This act leaves us fulfilled when it surely should not. Back in the physical realm, one lacking in its digital counter-part, the same person who would in this situation turn to Facebook to make their voice heard is left without a funnel to yell down. They feel upset, depressed, or emotions unable to be conveyed due to the seething anger the injustice has left them in. But there is no outlet for this person and so they continue embittered as they carry on their lives hearing of further and further injustices until they are unable to bear the strain anymore. What follows is real action. This person is forced to begin campaigning against these crimes in order to relieve themselves of helpless frustration. They are forced into finding and contacting others to arrange demonstrations against the target of their anger; they are put into a position whereby to relieve their stress they must make a difference. This hypothetical being is the men and women of the world previous to our digital age. It was the inability to relieve themselves of the 20

pressures of injustice through small, ineffective gestures on the virtual plain that made these people so effective at reacting and rejecting the wrongdoings of others. Posting excuses us from making real life exchanges or activities as they quell the emotional build-up that creates action amongst both the active and the inert.

Facebook and other similar sites can act as a tinted filter that transforms even the most horrific obscenities in the world into a distant, near-mythical event
Our internal emotional struggles are the cause of the majority of our actions. Without the motivation that is raw emotion we would be left shallow husks with little desire, let alone the complex wants involved in performing an act of empathy with a person or a group who have suffered from unjust treatment. Facebook and other similar sites can act as a tinted filter that transforms even the most horrific obscenities in the world into a distant, near-mythical event. This zoo of insane social injustices and atrocities is carefully separated from us, filtered through silver glass until the target of outrage is simmered into a mass of data that appears before our eyes. It is little wonder our emotions barely flinch when such abuses are thrown at us, framed by the petty, niggling annoyances of others that share this virtual arena that surround the data. And it is of less surprise why then simply sharing or liking the data in question quickly dissipates what emotivation we would of otherwise had were we not staring down this tainted lens.

But surely, I often hear, the sheer mass of content on these social networks is proof of an increase in thought, of ideas, of communication and of creativity? I imagine most of us have witnessed posts or pictures that have thousands if not millions of views or likes or shares; surely this shows evidence of not inertia but engagement from people who otherwise may not be included in this type of activity in the physical world? Yet it is these three demons that mock and belittle our ability to be creative. Our yearning to feast upon these abstract numbers have caused our thoughts to now have a rating system applied to them that systematically dismantles any desire to produce critical or creative comments, that may not be well received or regarded by the virtual masses. This is especially so in regard to the concept of sharing. We may spot a picture or someone elses view that we agree with so much so that the like button does not appear to do it justice. Sharing then draws attention to what we believe should be in the glorious limelight of internet stardom. But why now would you want to post something closely similar or even identical? This thought prevents people from placing their own unique message online. Our subjective perspective, no matter how close we relate it to what we have seen, will never be fully accommodated by the words or pictures or wit of another. The minority post, the majority share and the rest is lost to the memory hole. The individual is lost amongst the reproduction of the same message, whereby even if the thoughts of one person seemingly fit with what you were going to say, it will never truly be an accurate expression of your mind. This in turn obliterates the uniqueness of any given person who resides in this virtual world. Yet it is in these slight differences that give birth to enriching discussion and debate, to new radical ideas and modes of thought, to artistic expression, to

entire libraries of literature; and this should be no surprise for it is in these differences that allow us to exist, each as separate conscious entities. If we continue to like or share as replacements for our own comments and thoughts then we lose an unimaginable amount of content, and risk strangling our own creativity in the process. Yes these tools work for a pleasant joke or a funny picture but not for any meaningful display of thought. Finally the destructive nature of trends in our virtual cage must be accounted for. It has been said that you can kill a person but you cannot kill an idea. Well you can on Facebook. The news feed trickles down our screens, an endless swirling mass of thoughts and non-thoughts held together by whatever algorithm Facebook uses to decide what you may wish to read; devoid of context and, too often, content. Ideas here leave the virtual world and fade away into dust and can be lost forever. They can be pulled by the Facebook admins, or left unobserved, which in the virtual world is as good as death for a thought. In reality when you are desperate to be heard you can make it so with your voice, with a scream if need be. But only on Facebook can you scream as loud as you can and it be possible for no one to hear you. And with that the silent scream follows the stream of the news feed into nothingness, left unanswered and becomes lost. We need emotion to have motivation. We cannot allow ourselves the ease to relieve ourselves of our primal instincts with miniature outbursts on the walls of our virtual prison. These feelings we have exist for a reason, and kept to the physical realm we see them manifest in real action, in real change and most importantly in true creativity. We need a Rally of the Real to sober ourselves from this most opiating of drugs.

Ryan Flitcroft INSIGHT:

Despatch from Madrid An account of the S25 demonstration: Part Two

ISCLAIMER: This is a personal account that makes no claims to be objective, the conclusions I have drawn are not necessarily correct. Furthermore, the events I am recording were chaotic and there has yet to be a single factual history that everybody agrees upon. Here you will only find my side of the story. I distinctly remember the conversation that I was having when the police began their assault. I was talking to two other people, a dreadlocked young guy and a girl who had to break off the conversation every other minute to justify wearing a face mask to rabid pacifists jabbering about bad press. We were speculating about how many people in the crowd would camp in the plaza, and how many would demonstrate the next day. Already, small numbers of people who had chanted and marched enough for one day were drifting away, fatigued after 8 hours on their feet. We need a demonstration every Friday, like in

21

Egypt said the dreadlocked man. That will bring the government down. I opened my mouth to agree with him but my voice was drowned out by a rising collective scream of alarm. Trawling through the videos later, I figured that the catalyst for the police charge was a militant bloc pushing forward into the police lines with flagpoles. The jury still isnt out yet as to whether they were plainclothes, acting to give the police a casus belli to wade in. I dont know, but it seems certain that there were some plainclothes at work amongst the crowds. The police immediately responded with massive and overwhelming violence, beating everybody in sight to clear out the plaza. After the crowd began to scream and shout, like a shoal of minnows they surged away from the cops, who then exploited this to keep up the pressure. Moving in such a large crowd is highly dangerous, with the risk of people trampling each other and getting pulled under. People began to call out !suave! (smoothly) and for people not to run, and within a few moments the panicked rout became an orderly withdrawal. Still it was very hard to move, as I could barely pick my feet up for the press of bodies and sometimes by body was being carried without actually taking steps. I twisted around to look behind me and I could see the cops getting closer, an image of Robocop visors and falling truncheons. Finally the crowd made it out of the plaza into the relative safety of the green space that divided the two traffic lanes of the Paseo Del Prado. Here the tree trunks, park benches and low fences gave us some respite from the assault and the police checked their advance. Assessing the situation, I saw that the police had driven everybody out of the plaza into the surrounding green spaces. The mood had obviously shifted completely. People were hurling abuse at the police officers. Lots more people were masking up, and beginning to throw missiles. Mostly empty bottles, but some rocks

were also coming in, as well as the occasional firework. Until now they were being used recreationally, now they were being employed as weapons. This is also the first time I saw and heard the police fire rubber bullets. The Spanish National Police issue an attachment that goes into the barrel of a standard shotgun, which looked to similar to a Mossberg 500 and they fire rubber bullets through these, rather than using a dedicated rubber bullet gun. I suppose this makes a certain tactical sense, since if they want to they can unscrew the rubber bullet launchers and start firing live ammunition. When these things fire they boom like a thunderclap and a lot of sparks emit from the launcher barrel. However despite the police violence the people were undaunted. The chanting continued, albeit with different, more militant chants. asesinos murderers hijos de puta sons of bitches que no, que no, que no tenemos miedo we are not afraid ahorras son azules, antes eran grises now you are blue, before you were grey The last chant was a reference to the grey uniforms that the police wore during Francos dictatorship, implying that the police are still a fascist force in society today. I threw in a few renditions of No Justice, No Peace, Fuck the Police! for old times sake, but it was received with bafflement. Militant tactics were now being used more. Whereas before the pacifists had dominated the mood and execution of the demonstration, they now found themselves in the minority. After a brief respite, the police advanced again, firing salvo after salvo of rubber bullets, driving people in all directions. As I ran towards the Prada museum, I heard a sickening wet slapping sound and a guy next to me went down like a sack of potatoes. It took me a while to realise what had happened, and in a 22

short space of time he was surrounded by a hoard of camera toting journalists. Eventually protesters fought their way through the journalists and dragged the casualty to safety. This took us up the side steps of the Prada Museum, where a middle aged woman was used to work as a nurse took over until the ambulance could arrive. The casualty had taken a round to the stomach, not life threatening but highly painful.

Despite the police violence the people were undaunted

The police advanced again, and at this point both the crowd and the police lost all coherence, shooting off in all directions. After a very stressful run down the Paseo del Prado with a spiked high wall utterly devoid of escape routes - on one side of me and vans of riot police on the other, I arrived at the large roundabout of Atocha, where a couple of hundred demonstrators had mobbed up after running from the police. In spontaneous move, groups began flooding off the pavements and into the main road, blocking traffic and chanting vamos piqueteros! (Picketers). The piqueteros tactic blocking the arteries of capitalism for progressive social change originated in Argentina during their struggles against IMF imposed neo-liberalism. The tactic was first employed in Spain en masse in 2011 with autonomous groups supporting strikers by blocking roads. Now it is commonly employed and has been used by Austrian miners and Madrilenian public sector workers to name a few. Some drivers honked their horns in exasperation, some slouched into their seats, resigned to waiting. A handful wound down their windows and raised their fists to wild applause. Some motorcyclists tried to creep forward and we had to physically block them from passing, although we also had to restrain some of the more enthusiastic piqueteros from

getting in fights with angry drivers. We held this position for some time, dragging dustbins into the road, until the police returned to dislodge us. The police tactics were puzzling. They advanced everywhere in small squads of about 10 agents, with riot shields to the front and rubber bullet firing marksmen behind. When they got close to demonstrators they would break out of their tight formation in order to easily beat people, but they quickly formed up again. When they needed to shift position they would call up the riot vans for hops across town. These small units would fan out across the city chasing demonstrators, beating and shooting people indiscriminately. Thus a situation that was confined to a reasonably small part of the urban fabric became generalised throughout central Madrid. If the London Met had been policing that protest, they would have kettled the largest possible amount of people for 8 hours, denied them food, toilets or water, squeezing them into a smaller and smaller space, strangling the protest, whilst dispersing the rest. The Spanish National Police swapped one big protest outside Congress for hours of running battles in multiple locations. By this point I was losing the ability to run well, as I had been no-stop on my feet from 14:00HRS of the 25th until 01:00HRS of the 26th. I lost track of the running battles, and headed for the Atocha metro station. This was also surrounded by police vans, and when I went inside I saw people running away from riot squads, who were being assisted by the truncheon wielding private security guards of the metro. I finally made it back to my hostel early in the morning, my feet in agony and my trousers in pieces, and feel asleep straight away. Since the S25 demonstration there have been more and more clashes over the preceding days, although on a smaller scale. Rumours are flying like wildfire, as they tend to do, that large numbers of riot cops are calling

in sick and that live rounds were fired into the air on the 27th. On the 29th another demonstration has been called, with marches gathering across all the cities of Spain to besiege their centres of government, rather than a single convergence in Madrid. I plan on attending the one in Bilbao. Lisbon and Paris are also answering the call out, I dont know about Athens, but knowing the Greeks I suspect they too will be one the streets. I will try and post an update after the S29 demonstration as soon as possible.

Will Taylor
Follow Wills account of Spanish protests at http://socialist-inspain.blogspot.com.es/

23

The image on the front cover is property of Gary Barker (garybarker.co.uk) used with prior consent. All other content unless stated belongs to the author responsible. Feel free to share this around! 24