Be Optimistic

My first blog of the New Year and I am more optimistic than I have felt in a while.  On a purely personal level, I got an unexpected surprise on my travels and ended up returning with something far more than I imagined when  I danced through the arrivals terminal at Plaisance Airport just under six weeks ago.  But I am also noticing something is changing or perhaps did change in Britain while I was away, and that is driving this new found hope.

On reflection quite a lot happened while I was away, although I only watched the evil Dr Khan being tricked by Zainab to go back into the fire yesterday.  I had access to the BBC via the local station MBC3 but unfortunately there was to be no Eastenders.

However thanks to BBC World I was able to remain relatively in the loop.  There was a changing of the guard in North Korea, Luis Suarez being found guilty and banned, justice at long last for Stephen Lawrence and a savage witch hunt against Diane Abbott.  All while Nigeria lurches towards civil war. 

That’s before we even mention the deserved crowning of Melanie Amaro as the inaugural winner of X Factor USA.  Anyone who has followed me on twitter will know she had me the moment she gave that unforgettable performance of “Listen” during the audition stages.

With regards to Suarez and Lawrence I have to concede that the news did surprise me.  I held a view that neither process would result in anybody being found guilty.  I was wrong and I am delighted to witness this day arrive.  Yes it has been long overdue, but welcome nonetheless.  It’s been a very long time since there was a day that made me say that I was proud to be half-British, but on both days I felt that pride return.

Its unusual in some ways that I should even have this sudden feeling of enthusiasm. Especially given that my near 7,000 mile journey was in the company of a copy of the Evening Standard newspaper.  An edition which contained a piece regarding the possibility of Lord Adonis or David Lammy becoming the Mayor of London in 2016.  So you could imagine how I was feeling: I hadn’t even stepped foot in Mauritius yet and I was already dreading coming home!

Add to this the deteriorating economic situation both domestically and in Europe, and Labour falling behind the Tories in the polls. The answer is you have the very foundations for a vast cloud of doom that should throttle my new found confidence before it was even born.  And like a beacon of light, there it stood amidst the rubble of misery and pessimism.

Ken Livingstone has edged ahead of Boris Johnson in the race to be Mayor of London in May.  Another one of those nice surprises I seem to have been getting lately, but quite possibly the most significant of all.  Though it must be said not immediately obvious perhaps to readers who unlike myself have no personal affiliation to London.

The election of Boris Johnson in 2008 was crucial in leading to the mess of the current administration which took national control in 2010.  It was a key milestone in the cycle of the rebranding of the Conservative party from its annihilation in 1997 to becoming the largest political party thirteen years later.  It was a milestone when the shackles of being the “nasty party” were unleashed resulting in the social taboo of voting Conservative disappearing.  Should Boris win again in 2012, a final nail in the coffin for Ed Miliband appears almost inevitable.

Ken has been written off time and time again, but its significant that he is still trusted by more Londoners.  I will never understand how Boris won in 2008- an offensive editor and part time TV Presenter who had no business holding the keys to the Capital.  His management of the industrial disputes on the London Underground has been appalling as I have pointed out previously.  Yet as the incumbent he was the front runner and until this recent poll nothing had been suggested that he was in any danger of losing later this year. Until now that is.

It is good news for seven million Londoners, it is good news for Labour and it is good news for Britain too.  More hope and optimism for 2012 to fuel the belief that this is the start of the process of change to send the Tories back to the political wilderness.  They may only have been in power for 18 months but the last 12 months alone have felt like 18 years. 

It’s a New year and I can feel a new hope: Suarez banned, Lawrence gets justice, and Ken is coming back.  Its definitely time to feel optimistic.

Shock! Horror! The Met have been telling porkie pies

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) have been investigating the circumstances surrounding Mark Duggan's death and their report is due early next year.  The Guardian newspaper have obtained excerpts which reveal that there is evidence he "was not holding a gun at the time he was shot.". 

The Guardian reveals that the gun which was recovered at the scene did not contain forensic evidence which could be linked to Duggan.  Critically it also revealed that the weapon had not been used and was not in his possession at the moment he was killed. 

While possessing a firearm is a criminal offence in the UK, there is a judicial process which must be followed and the ultimate sanction is a custodial sentence.  The UK does not have the death penalty as a punishment.  This flies in the face of anyone who attempts to explain away the actions of the police that day with the suggestion that this operation can be justified. 

I am just about old enough to remember the storm which surfaced almost 24 years ago when three unarmed IRA members were shot dead in Gibraltar in March 1988.  Then as now, a debate ensued which questioned whether the actions of British authorities in Gibraltar, in the form of SAS agents, had the law on their side when they opened fire on three unarmed people suspected of plotting a criminal act. 

Later that year it was ruled that the agents had acted lawfully but the decision was seen as hugely controversial at the time.  It was also the subject of an ITV documentary called "Death on the Rock".  The programme makers, Thames Television, angered the UK government with the broadcast, the consequences of which eventually resulted in the company losing their licence to broadcast at the end of 1992.

Interestingly the Guardian's revelations came just a few days after Tottenham MP David Lammy called for the officer involved in the shooting to be suspended pending the outcome of the IPCC investigation. 

"The officer involved in the Mark Duggan case hasn't been suspended and is still working...members of the community I represent find that quite incredible."

I find it incredible too, but on two levels.  Firstly it is a rare moment when I find myself in agreement with the ineffective local MP, and he is right to call for the sanction.  However I also find it incredible and hypocritical for him to use this platform now.  Lammy you may recall was busy condemning disorder in his constituency than showing any real conviction to ask any questions of the police.  This was of course a marked contrast with the actions of community leaders such as Stafford Scott who were asking these valid questions in the immediate aftermath of Duggan's death.

I warned in August that many were making a terrible error taking the Metropolitan Police's version of events at face value.  I highlighted previous examples and suggested that everyone needed to look at the circumstances in the context of remembering that we were dealing with a police force who had a colourful history of dishonesty and deliberate attempts to mislead the public.

An awful lot of people had far too much to say about Mark Duggan three months ago.  As the truth slowly emerges from that tragic Thursday summer's evening, their increasing silence serves as a stark reminder the next time anyone attempts to rush to endorse a shooting executed by the most corrupt police force in the land.

Fobbed off with broomsticks

Aside from my ritualistic devotion to the Gunners, I enjoy following other sports, albeit only in international competitions.  What frustrates my friends is the fact I support England/Britain at every single sport, except the one I have the most passion for- Football.  I’ll happily sing “swing low” when the Rugby is on, but when it comes to Football I’ve been a France fan since my teenage years, before the arrival of Monsieur Wenger in London I might add.

There are a few reasons for this. 

I watched a Panorama documentary about England fans at Euro 2000.  Unfortunately no videos of the broadcast are available online, but the scene which still sickens me 11 years on was the one involving England fans singing a song about World War 2 against local Dutch fans. 

I also despise the arrogance of the typical England fan, the table thumper, the one who recalls the events of July 1966 as if he was in the stadium; despite the fact he wasn’t even born. 

I detest the ignorance that because England invented the game they naturally must be the greatest and have an expectation to win World Cup’s or European Championships.  Of course this is amplified even more by the British media, but I don’t accept that this alone justifies the crude nature of England football fans.  It’s certainly not what I have found with followers of Rugby or Cricket.  Even when England lifted the World Cup in 2003, there was a humility which you just wouldn’t get with the England football fan base.  Likewise, more recently this can be seen as England have attained the status of best Test Match side in the Cricketing world.

Yet for me personally the story begins on a cold November night in 1994 at Wembley in North London where me and my father watched an England game for the very first time, an International friendly against Nigeria.  We were in the family enclosure which happened to be directly below a significant contingent of Nigerian fans.  What ensued was one of my most traumatic experiences as a football fan.  I witnessed one after another as England fans in our section, parents of accompanying young children too, racially abused the Nigerian fans sitting above.  Eventually enough was enough and as if fate would have it, an intervention from match day stewards came at the precise moment David Platt scored the only goal. 

Instead of some of the more decent fans applauding the worst antagonist of the abuse being led away, the occupiers of the Family enclosure were more concerned as to what they perceived to be an overreaction, a fuss over nothing no less.  I can still vividly recall a supporter who had also engaged in the abuse telling my Dad that it was “no big deal” and that “the stewards have nothing better to do”.

That was 17 years ago.  I have been to many football grounds since and it is true I have never experienced that level of racism since.  Yet in other ways football has not evolved from that horrid evening.  There is still a reluctance to face down this problem in England.  England fans and the English football establishment are legendary for patting themselves on the back about campaigns such as “Kick it Out” and finger wagging towards the rest of the world whenever there are incidents of racism elsewhere.  But when the problem rears its ugly head at home, there is a remarkable tendency to either look the other way or attempt to sweep the issue under the carpet.

I accept there is a bigger problem abroad; Eastern Europe resembles a time warp to a poisonous era at times.  Equally I am not for a minute suggesting that we are back in the 1980s with Bananas on the pitch as John Barnes runs down the wing. However there is now a culture that England has got rid of the problem, and cannot bear for a moment to consider the prospect that there are still elements to tackle today.  It is for this reason that people like Aragones can sneer when anybody from England attempts to offer any lectures.  A lot like my last post about people in glass houses.

When Dwight Yorke complained that he was racially abused against his former club Blackburn during a match for Birmingham in 2004, his Chairman David Sullivan had his broomstick ready for action.  Arguing that Yorke’s grievance had stemmed from an incident which had been “blown out of proportion” and then compounded his ignorance with the stereotypical response of every modern day racist- “I've got black friends, Indian friends and Jewish friends.”   At the time I reworked a well known football song to capture the events of the Spain v England match and the race row involving Yorke, Sullivan and Blackburn:

“Chim-Chiminey, Chim-Chiminey, Chim-Chim Cherrooo. The Spanish have racists, but England has too!”

It went down like a lead balloon amongst my England supporting friends, but I stand by the song today as I did in 2004.  Two recent incidents involving very high profile players threaten to rock the English football family to its very foundations.  Luis Suarez and John Terry are both alleged to have been responsible for making racist insults during two separate fixtures this month against Patrice Evra and Anton Ferdinand respectively.  Incredibly Gordon Taylor has suggested he would be ready to offer mediation services.  Mediation?  If this were not so offensive in itself it would be laughable!

Another attempt to cover up the problem as opposed to finally confront the issue head on.  I’ve had enough of English football chastising the rest of the world regarding racism in the game only to pathetically resort to a broom when it comes to its own issues.  Fans of all colours should reject the tedious act of being fobbed off with broomsticks.

People In Glass Houses...

My island of Mauritius was back in the news last week.  The MedPoint scandal took an unprecedented twist as Pravind Jugnauth, leader of the Militant Socialist Movement (MSM) and son of the President Aneerood, was arrested and subsequently charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act (POCA).  This followed the award of a £3.8m contract to MedPoint Limited while Finance Minister, a company his relative had a 29.59% interest in.

Mauritius has a chequered history of corruption, a number of which during the late 1990’s brought down the first tenure of current Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam.  The rainbow island has endured a cruel stigma as being a rogue state where people in authority are influenced by bribes and unsolicited gifts, part of which sadly is warranted, the rest of which possibly a lazy and ignorant stereotype of African countries in general which is totally unwarranted.

Jugnauth is not going down without a fight, and there are a number of fascinating sub-plots playing out with an increasing probability that an early election will be called.  This in turn introduces the intriguing prospect of Paul Berenger returning as Prime Minister.

What has been interesting to note as ever has been the attitudes of British based ex-pats, what you might describe as a condescending glance of disgust.  A resignation  that this is typical of Mauritius, that things will never change and they will always be that way.  A sad and incredibly damaging indictment it must be said.

Former colonial republics like Mauritius look to nations like Britain to set an example, and despite replacing the Queen as head of state nineteen years ago still have the Privy Council as the highest point of appeal within the Mauritian legal system.  Like several Commonwealth nations, it’s almost a reinforcement of the idea that even after independence, there is still a nod to the former colonial powerhouse as the figure of guidance when administering their own affairs.

It’s perhaps this status as a position of guidance that provides ex-pats with a confidence in Britain, an unquestionable faith that it can teach Mauritius a few lessons in responsible governance.  But we all know what happens to people in glass houses.

For all the criticisms of Mauritius, there must at the very least be an acknowledgement that it is a country which is attempting to address the problem of corruption.  It’s open to conjecture as to how much more it could be doing of course, and critics will rightly argue that there is a long way to go. 

That being said I’m deeply troubled when British based ex-pats feel assured enough to take the moral high ground over Mauritius, I feel it is essentially a flawed position.  Britain is far from perfect, from “Cash for Questions” to “Cash for Honours”, and lest we forget the military scandals involving the sales of weapons to Iraq and Sierra Leone.  The biggest police force in the UK is currently working hard to bury a corruption scandal that saw the two most senior officers resign earlier this year.  Central to the controversy was the figure of Andy Coulson, who having left the newspaper at the centre of the allegations, went on to become the Director of Communications for British Prime Minister David Cameron. 

As things stand nobody has ever been charged with any offence in Britain related to any of these scandals.  A few low level MP’s were successfully prosecuted following the expenses scandal, but all of the scandals involving senior figures have all followed the same tired pattern.  A scandal arises; people are hauled in for questioning which is later followed by more questioning.  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will consider the case before reporting back several months later when the furore has evaporated and subsequently announce that there is a lack of evidence to proceed with any charges.

The next time somebody from Britain would like to lecture about the never ending web of corruption in Mauritius, try asking them this: whatever happened to “Lord Cashpoint”?

Good Riddance Gaddafi- Now Get Out Of The Chagos Islands!

Its always been fascinating watching Britain join other nations in the last six months intervening in the Libyan civil war, a mission said to prevent genocide and uphold human rights.  I shed no tears for the demise of Gaddafi, but equally do not hold much aspiration that the motives of the British like her allies have been sincere.  Libya is home to some of the world’s largest oil reserves and one only has to look at Bahrain, Yemen & Saudi Arabia to witness regimes with some of the worst human rights records being supported by the same allies because their leadership is regarded as being in line with Western interests.

Of course there is no such hope of a taskforce being set up to liberate the Chagos Islands.  No such banging of the tables at the UN to demand the adoptions of resolutions condemning the illegal occupation and depopulation of an indigenous community.  So instead we are left to increase the pressure through alternative methods.

In July the long awaited verdict was delivered in the Al-Skeini v UK case which stated that the European Convention on Human Rights applied wherever the UK exercised “effective control”.  This ruling is being seen as potentially crucial to determining the outcome of the Chagos Islanders v UK case where a judgment is due before the end of the year.

Britain has long maintained that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had no jurisdiction over the depopulation and subsequent policy towards the Chagos Islands due to the fact that the Islands are located in the Indian Ocean, thousands of miles from the European Union.  This you may remember is the latest episode of a legal battle which has dominated the last decade and the impending verdict is seen as the final ruling as there are no further avenues of appeal open to either party.

It has been a ruling which the British have been determined to undermine by creating the worlds largest Marine Protection Zone, so as to prevent the return of the Chagossian people back to their Islands if the ECHR were to rule in their favour.

Much has been made of the recent introduction of the Government’s E-Petition website which suggests that any petition which accumulates 100,000 signatories will trigger a debate in Parliament.  The significance of this for anybody who has followed this story is that it is very rare for Parliament to discuss this particular issue, even Early Day Motions have been few and far between.  An opportunity to force this back on to the political agenda is always welcome and should be seized upon. 

The link to the petition can be found here.

We are seeking 100,000 signatures in 12 months, a very difficult challenge when you remember that the most successful petitions accumulated for this cause have made barely 10% of that figure.  Anybody in the UK can sign this petition, please circulate among your friends- let us stop this hypocrisy of the British interpretation of human rights and force this back up the political agenda.

It is indeed good riddance to Gaddafi, but its also now time for a rebellious community to get out of the Chagos Islands.

Why We Should All Be Scrutinising Corrupt Capital Cops

The recent disturbances in England affected me on a personal level for several different reasons.  Firstly because I spent 14 years of my life living in Tottenham, secondly because I have personally been distressed by realising what the Metropolitan Police were capable of and thirdly because I was visiting Tottenham the night Mark Duggan was shot dead by police.

I arrived in Tottenham roughly 18 months after the events of October 1985.  I was an inquisitive child and was always aware of significant watershed moments during my childhood.  So it was no surprise when I quickly established that my new neighbourhood had achieved national notoriety due to the guilty verdicts of Winston Silcott, Mark Braithwaite and Engin Raghip, referred to as the Tottenham Three, over the murder of PC Keith Blakelock.

Four years later our school was visited by a local Police Constable with a question and answer session thrown in for good measure.  This visit had coincided with the recent news that the Tottenham Three had been acquitted of Blakelock’s murder.  So I queried the PC about the revelation that evidence had been fabricated, how he felt about it personally and what he thought should happen to the police officers involved.  The questions were of course never answered, but I was assured that “Winston Silcott was a thoroughly nasty piece of work”. 

I think it would be fair to say that this innocuous exchange had not left me with a positive impression of the Metropolitan Police.  Although young, I could see what had happened.  Somebody had been framed, a fact finally recognised by the legal process of this country.  Yet rather than concede that mistakes had been made, I was instead being subjected to overt indoctrination in the hope I would overlook the errors which had occurred in the first place.  The presumption being that since Silcott was a horrible man he deserved everything he got.  This didn’t sit well with me.

Two years later Joy Gardner was killed by immigration officers attempting to deport her from the country back to Jamaica.  Sadly this was another case which affected my local community.  The case came to trial in May 1995 and three police officers were acquitted a month later at the Old Bailey- two weeks before the commencement of my work experience placement there.

Reading about almost 3 metres of tape gagged around her mouth doesn’t quite have the same impact as finding the photographs of Joy Gardner in the registry of the Old Bailey.  They were the images you would associate with a battered wife, not the deportation of a woman by immigration officers.  It was impossible for me to comprehend that the three people who did this had not only been acquitted but had also retained their careers.  It was a complete contradiction of the smear campaign that had been deployed immediately after her death that she was a violent and dangerous woman.

From that day I was suspicious of the Metropolitan Police.  I didn’t buy into the reforms of the Macpherson report.  The case of Jean Charles De Menezes genuinely scared me and for the first time I feared for my own safety simply for having Brown eyes!  So I really should have known better when I heard that somebody had been shot by police about 15 minutes from where I was.  The line doing the rounds was that someone had shot at police and was killed.  The indication being Mark Duggan was incredibly stupid and paid the price. 

By Friday morning the story had evolved to now suggest that there had been a car chase, implying a getaway car, and that Duggan had been a drug dealer.  There is no doubt in my mind that all of these snippets of information were part of an agenda to reduce interest in the story, as I am sure I was not alone when I reacted to the news with a shrug of the shoulders.  All of the clues added up to a sense of inevitability, and no reason to suspect any foul play.  Echoes you might recall of the initial deliberate misinformation regarding the mistaken shooting of De Menezes.

Barely 24 hours later, the story took a very different angle.  There was no car chase.  Duggan was in a minicab.  Duggan had not fired at police.  The gun which was recovered from Duggan was in a sock and unprepared for use.  Duggan was a father of four and had never been convicted of a criminal offence.

We all know what transpired next and the chain of events which unfolded and spread from this corner of North London to the rest of the country.  I simply do not believe that the police were unable to contain these outbreaks of disorder.  We had seen them do it time and time again in more prestigious areas of London such as the Student and anti-globalization riots.  Surely it cannot be a coincidence that the two most iconic images of the disturbances were of two very old buildings burning to the ground, apparently because it was too dangerous for fire crews to approach due to a fear of violence from rioters.  As my cousin pointed out at the time, had the Olympics Stadium been on fire, they would have found a way to put it out, danger or otherwise.

Furthermore the Metropolitan Police have a track record of regularly policing far larger gatherings of people such as concerts, sporting events and rallies.  So the idea that they were overwhelmed simply does not add up.

My theory is it was an orchestrated attempt by the Metropolitan Police, involved in a dispute against their own cuts, to provide a backdrop of chaos and loss of control to support the assertion that their budget must not be cut.  It worked beautifully as politicians lined up to denounce the austerity drive against the police.  How anybody could fall for it given that it was the very same police force drowning in corruption allegations only weeks earlier is even more astonishing.

I’m not a fan of the Metropolitan Police and probably never will be, but isn’t time we all start scrutinising this force a little bit more?

Defending the rights of the Far-Right

Jeremy Paxman caused something of a stir this week when his interview on BBC Television’s Newsnight with Tommy Robinson from the EDL was deemed to be out of step with his traditional interrogation style he built his reputation on.  Some even questioned the idea of providing airtime to such a provocative individual, only three days after last week’s atrocities in Norway by the far-right extremist Anders Behring Breivik. 

I have always felt it is important in a democracy to provide a platform to people I don’t necessarily agree with.  I celebrated the appearance of the BNP’s Nick Griffin on Question Time for example and the manner in which he was taken apart by fellow panelists and the studio audience. 

I will defend the right of people like Griffin and Robinson to have a stage to air their unusual views of the world.  But I also feel we need to look closer at what this freedom should entail.  If we are going to uphold the freedom’s of far right extremists, then we cannot screech in horror when some people decide to burn some poppies during a demonstration.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.  Some may say that Tommy Robinson’s appearance on the BBC amounted to inciting racial hatred and should not have been broadcast.  I disagree; I feel that it is right that he is provided an opportunity to share his political perspective, even if in doing so he makes me personally feel very uncomfortable.  Disturbed even.  Perhaps almost as disturbing as paying your respects during Remembrance ceremonies and hearing of somebody mocking the event by burning poppies.  Yet we cannot have a situation where we selectively defend and uphold the freedoms in some cases, while utilising the full force of the law to remove the right from others.

It is time we have a full and frank debate about what freedom of speech actually means.  And let me reiterate again, I do not want to see people like Robinson or Griffin banned, however I would like to see better consistency so that they have their stage, but that equally if some people wish to express their opposition to military campaigns around the world (and I do believe there are far better ways of doing this nonetheless) they should have the freedom to do so.  And if they want to purchase some flowers and burn them at the same time then that should be their right to do so.  I don’t expect you to agree with it, I’d be troubled personally if you did, but we must enable people a right to express their views, irrespective of how uncomfortable they may make us feel.