Monthly Archives: February 2012

zenbruiser:

LEICESTR UAF – Unite Against Facism – march against EDL NOW!

Link

The Guardian’s poll in their Comment is Free section.

Or as I like to phrase it, “do transport workers deserve fair recompense for working overtime during the Olympic Games, or should we shaft them and tell them they need to take this one on the chin so that business owners can maximise their profit out of the games, while the workers who make it all happen get paid a pittance?”

“The UK got the games because it brings new jobs and excellent business opportunities to our shores” aka “our mates who run building firms, hotels etc are going to make a killing out of this lads.  Good thing I bought that hotel for Mayfair last turn!”

Coming up next week in “loaded questions” …

Should unions use London 2012 as a bargaining tool?

With a few tents and shedloads of determination, those who have huddled outside the cathedral in the freezing cold have acted as sentinels for an idea of social justice that can be found on almost every page of the Bible but which the church has too often lost sight of.

Former canon chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral Dr Giles Fraser on the latest Occupy eviction (via guardian)

trjhobo:


The Quick Brown Fox Jumps Over the Lazy Dog.

I feel like I’ve been preparing for this image all my life.

dirtysquatter:

Lords Knock Coalition Squat Plan

On Wednesday night the proposed new law to criminalise squatting in residential properties (clause 130 of the LASPO Bill) was debated in the House of Lords. This was, in fact, the first time the clause has been properly debated since it was proposed. Or rather, the first time since the 1st November when the government slipped the clause into a bill which was in its last stage in the House of Commons.

Leaving no opportunity for scrutiny by MPs, and disregarding the results of their own consultation process in which 96 percent of respondents opposed criminalization, this was a cynical and barely-democratic move by the government.

Nevertheless, in the House of Lords debate Baroness Sue Miller, Baroness Stern, Lord Judd and Lord Bach all spoke in opposition to the clause. Some key points were convincingly made by all of them.

Firstly, all the peers that spoke against the clause agreed that the existing law adequately protects property owners and that a new criminal offence would be nothing but a form of propaganda. People displaced from their homes by squatters are already fully protected by the 1977 Criminal Law Act that protects displaced residential occupiers (DROs) and protected intending occupiers (PIOs) by making it a criminal offence to squat someone else’s home.

Lord Bach (Labour’s Justice spokesman) said “It is very telling that the Metropolitan Police, the Bar Council and the Law Society, none of which are natural friends of the squatting community, all think that bringing this particular legislation is completely unnecessary.”

Baroness Stern, a cross-bencher, clearly stated that the creation of a new criminal offence, far from being a solution to an unclear issue, also contradicts the Government’s promise not to create new unnecessary offences.

Secondly, both Baroness Miller (Lib-Dem) and Lord Bach (Labour’s Justice Spokesman) argued that, given the existence of a clear law on squatting related issues, the new offence appears to be motivated by the negative and manipulative press campaign that some newspapers have been waging over the past year.

As SQUASH has highlighted, newspapers such as The Evening Standard and The Daily Mail have repeatedly printed highly distorted reports which have demonized squatters by presenting, as Lord Bach acknowledged, sad stories of people who had been deprived of their house and who were powerless in facing the situation.

What has always been omitted in these “reports” (together with the fact that, as Baroness Miller said, “the instances of squatters trying to establish themselves in someone’s home are minuscule”) is that eventually all these cases turned out to be situations in which the existing law could have been, or actually had been, successfully applied.

“Perhaps a hint [to understanding the Government’s reasons to change the law] came in the signature leaks to the media” Lord Bach said, speaking about the fact that the Ministry of Justice have played an active part in this misinformation campaign by briefing the press on these misrepresented stories.

Another controversial aspect of the law clearly expressed within the House of Lords debate is that the Government are ignoring the increasing evidence that criminalisation will hurt the most vulnerable. As Lord Bach said “we know…that there is a significant prevalence of mental health problems, learning difficulties and substance addiction among those who are homeless”, as the Government’s own impact assessment also acknowledges. Research by Crisis shows that 40 percent of single homeless people have turned to squatting.

Clause 130 proposes that criminalising homeless people, and pushing them through the criminal justice system, is an acceptable response to survival strategies deployed in the midst of a housing crisis.

This “cynical and cold-blooded approach”, as Lord Judd defined it, motivated, as Lord Bach said, by “pure populism”, is going to have terrible consequences for the most vulnerable people, and for the homelessness providers, charities, and local authorities directly involved with homelessness and housing issues. “It is demonisation of the poor by another method” added Bach.

These are some of the many problems with clause 130 passionately raised in the House of Lords debate. The Minister of State, Lord McNally, was left appearing rather confused and lacking arguments in his answers on these issues. The impression that the Government has attempted to score a few ‘populist points’ out of a delicate question is now stronger than ever.

Peers from across the spectrum seem keen to oppose the clause by endorsing the spirit of Baroness Miller’s amendment to exclude long-term empty property from the proposals.

Source.

elcuinerfoll:

Partit Obrer d’Unificació Marxista

The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph.  What did we do to upset them 😦

stickyembraces:

The Adventures of Marx and Engels, #11

fuckyeahforensics:

Vladimir Lenin wanted to be buried next to his mother; instead he was embalmed and displayed first in a wooden building until 1924, when the current black marble gallery was built. The body is kept at 16 degrees, 80% humidity, fitted with a smart new Russian suit every 18 months and given regular chemical baths of glycerol, alcohol and potassium acetate.

Jeremy Bentham wanted to be displayed at UCL once he passed on so that he’d serve as inspiration to the next generation of philosophers.  So they did.  But they botched his face and it went all gross, red and blotchy so they replaced it with a wax replica to maintain appearance.

And placed the botched real head at his feet.

Until it got stolen so many times in student high-jinx they put him behind a glass window.

Oh ant the put gloves on his hands because his fingers started going all gross.

Should’ve just buried him next to his mum.

As I have said before, the ever more sophisticated weapons piling up in the arsenals of the wealthiest and the mightiest can kill the illiterate, the ill, the poor and the hungry, but they cannot kill ignorance, illness, poverty or hunger.

Fidel Castro (via selfish-humanity)

matryoshhka:

An Arab Student Union hosts a Ron Paul event in Dearborn, the city with the largest Arab population outside of the Middle East, ten miles west of Detroit. Every white male in the state shows up. This is just the overflow room.

The guy with the sign has been reading proposals for the DSM.

“Political Apathy Disorder: Proposal for a New DSM Diagnostic Category”

tide-and-wave:

draggle:

lakrymosa:

philosophy-of-praxis:

This weeks surreal journal article discoveries …

The system failing to encourage genuine political engagement is now the fault of the people who aren’t being engaged.

I am really dreading the DSM-V.

Gross.

I hope the original post is a joke of some sort…please?

http://jhp.sagepub.com/content/44/1/47.short

It’s from 2004.  I’m open to the potential that it was an April Fools.  University students with an Athens log in will probably be able to access it, I’m really in no personal urgency to investigate further.

If you’re a leftist and have a capitalist friend you’re not dedicated enough.

lakrymosa:

philosophy-of-praxis:

iwanttheairwaves:

THEY’RE THE ENEMY!

(Sarcasm).
*sigh*

Fix’d.

😉

Also under this flimsy use of capitalist, more people are capitalist.  I mean unless someone makes the active decision to being ideologically anti-capitalist, they will probably still be in favour of capitalism of some form.  Social democrats, under this premise, are capitalist.  It’s mostly crass libertarians that use the term capitalist as a nomenclature for their ideological, rather than material, position.  But if we’re going along those muddy lines then Ed Milliband, leader of the Labour party, is a capitalist because he speaks in favour of “ethical capitalism.”*  That doesn’t mean we’re going to stop having a discussion with anybody who supports Labour … it also doesn’t mean that every conversation has to purely revolve around

“Free markets!”

“Death to the exploiters!”

I mean there are nuances within that guys …

*He’s a right funny guy.

. . I’m not allowed to have friends without constantly arguing with them and trying to change their beliefs CONSTANTLY?

uh okay

Yes.  That is exactly what I said.

tsotchke:

politics-war:

Police found the body of a woman who had been decapitated in Mexican border city on Saturday. Along with the body, police discovered a note saying that she had been killed because of the things she posted on a social networking site! The postings appeared on her local social networking site, Nuevo Laredo en Vivo,profile and trace back to a drug cartel.

Yeah see this is why you don’t even play with this shit online. Christ

juliascheeleartblog:

No Saints, No Whores. 2011.

They saw this individual not as an historical result, but as the starting point of history; not as something evolving in the course of history, but posited by nature, because for them this individual was in conformity with nature, in keeping with their idea of human nature. This delusion has been characteristic of every new epoch hitherto.

Karl Marx (via iwanttheairwaves)