Goodbye UKChSA

The UK Chagos Support Association (UKChSA) is in disarray as myself and three of the nine existing senior committee members have resigned simultaneously.  It is an extraordinary turn of events, and this post deals with many of the issues that have led to this unprecedented course of action.  It is, for all concerned, an entirely tragic state of affairs, but to remain in such a discredited organisation would only serve to legitimise the Association which is not fit for purpose.

My first contact with the UKChSA (or UKCSA as it was originally known in those days before a cement company objected to the use of the acronym) came in the autumn of 2004.  It was the morning after the broadcast of John Pilger’s ground-breaking documentary “Stealing a Nation” and Celia Whittaker was the first person who ever interacted with me about the cause.  Within a couple of weeks I was emailing friends to raise awareness about the cause and my journey as an activist highlighting the plight of Chagossians was born.

It was a path which would lead to me lobbying MP’s and journalists.  Social networking was exploding as a phenomenon and it was not long before I came into contact with Peter Harris and Sabrina Jean.  In the spring of 2010 I was contacted by somebody who managed a youth news agency I was part of between 1994 and 1998.  She was now living in Canada and  wanted me to write something for a website she worked on.  I leapt at the opportunity.  The piece was well received and six months later I was invited to write again for the website following the exposure of the Wikileaks scandal.

Just over twelve months later, I was elected on to the committee of the UKChSA after being asked by Celia to replace her as editor of the monthly newsletter.  She was standing down after a decade in the role. It was something that filled me with immense pride.  I had really enjoyed writing again, but this was the opportunity to utilise that passion in the most productive way possible.

I made a few initial observations during the period when I was working closely with Celia as the handover from her capable hands to my inexperienced care started to take shape.  I noted that the UKChSA was doing a wonderful job but I feared that it played a role in contributing to a picture of a divided movement.

I highlighted the roles of the various groups and felt that in the long run the best possible solution was to have one group communicating one voice.  This was so that when some politicians who oppose our objectives seek to paint an image of the Chagossian cause being characterised by several groups, with different objectives (even when there was uniform consensus across so many critical areas), this could be avoided. A significant weapon utilised by opponents of campaigners for the cause would be removed at a stroke.

The best solution is to have one group: the Chagos Refugees Group, with one leader, who handles the negotiations with the relevant parties at that level.  When you have multiple groups with multiple leaders, even if there is a consensus in some areas, it still creates a messy picture.  And critically it is seized upon by the Foreign Office who will exploit any conflicting voices, especially if they can find ones which reinforce its own hideous agenda.  Like the old DGS (which I think Sabrina tells me is as good as gone now) who thanks to saying things that David Milliband wanted to hear, held a dubious election where Allen Vincatassin was anointed the  official honour of being the President in waiting of the Chagos Islands.  This despite the fact that he led a group whose number of supporters were spectacularly dwarfed by the numbers affiliated to the CRG and Olivier Bancoult.

Celia recognised the point and agreed in principle but always maintained that such a proposal would only work if it had consensus across the board from day one.  It had been attempted at various stages over the years without success which was why we were where we were.  Celia and I were always on the same page, it is something I appreciated early on during our contact and certainly didn't change when I took over editing the newsletter full time in June 2012.

The first year was an interesting experience for me as I spent most of the time observing and gaining a greater insight into how business was managed at that level of the Association.  Roch Evenor was the Chair of the Association and I valued his contribution as a capable pair of hands to lead the organisation.  He was a reliable individual, but not necessarily someone who could perhaps inspire passion.  He lacked the vision of someone like Sabrina for example.

There was what some might describe as a negligent ignorance when it came to things like the potential of social media.  But I think this would be unfair to single out Roch on this.  It is something that I found was universal across the committee, Sabrina aside, a fact perhaps reflected by the age of the individuals.  Even the person who was tasked with managing the official UKChSA Twitter account, Robert Bain, was somebody who lacked the dedication to ensure that such a vital apparatus was being utilised to its maximum capacity.  This was the flagship Twitter account, the focal point for supporters on that particular platform.  There were times when supporters would even ask my why they should follow the account as it was so rarely updated anyway.  Not just when there was a quiet time for news related to the cause, but often at times when the cause was prominently in the media because of a significant development.

It was something which I believed was hurting the Association, so following discussions with Sabrina, we approached Robert suggesting that the role of supervising such a vital tool was perhaps too much for one person.  We offered to help, to share the load as it were.

Our polite offers of assistance were repeatedly rebuffed.

Eventually enough was enough.  Sabrina and I were very frustrated at the way in which the Association was almost sleepwalking at times, particularly during periods when we should be more active than ever in response to specific developments, courts cases or the publication of significant articles.  As an interim measure, a brand new Twitter account was born.  Within two months, it was the largest and most active account supporting the cause.

We decided that in order to ensure that the Association was best equipped to move forward, progressively, and to ensure that all tools were being utilised as effectively as possible, new leadership was urgently required.  This would need to come in the form of annual elections which would take place at the AGM.

In April 2013 the AGM was held and Sabrina became the new chair after Roch had been voted off the committee.  The AGM also included the development that the joint-patron, Philippa Gregory, had stood down in her capacity as the Press Officer on the committee.  

A couple of months later, something very unusual happened.  With no election or extraordinary AGM, Philippa Gregory became the co-Vice Chair of the Association, with the other co-Vice Chair being Marcus Booth who had been voted into his role at the AGM in April 2013.  This had followed an even more bizarre sequence of events in which it had initially been suggested for Philippa to be the vice-Chair!

Sabrina rightly rejected the proposal out of hand, but collectively as an Association we should have scrutinised this unusual course of events.  However, Philippa’s explanation that she had only wanted a “title to speak to the press” was taken at face value, although why she could not re-assume her previous role as the Press Officer is again something of a mystery.

Around the same time a new organisation was set up, which was being spearheaded by the same Philippa Gregory.  This new group was called “The Alliance”, but unfortunately the group was claiming to be something that it wasn't.  It was projecting itself as the unified voice of the Chagossian community, when it lacked the endorsement of the leader of the biggest group of Chagossians in the world: the Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) led by Olivier Bancoult.  In short, this was a faction making bogus claims which were unfounded and claimed to speak on behalf of everyone despite lacking the fundamental cross-group consensus to proclaim such bold boasts.

“The Alliance” had credible objectives, but the way it had been established amounted to something that was being imposed upon the will of the CRG as opposed to seeking their engagement and consensus from day one.  As I pointed out earlier: the principle of having a unified voice, speaking as one and communicating or negotiating with Foreign Office officials, is a fantastic concept.  It is something that all supporters should be working towards.  However it can only work if you have that crucial consensus from the very beginning.  Without consensus you do not have the authority to claim to speak on behalf of the community as a whole and in doing so you are essentially making bogus assertions.  I would actually go even further and suggest that the boasts deriving from the leadership of the new group amounted to conduct that would be described as fraudulent.

Sabrina and I took the view early on that we would not support the work of this new faction.  The sole purpose of this organisation was to drive a wedge between Chagossians in the UK and Chagossians based elsewhere, mainly in Mauritius and Seychelles.  The logic being that if you undermine the influence of Olivier, you effectively weaken his position.

Sabrina and I did not like what was going on, there were occasions when the Alliance were requesting funds from the UKChSA and we always made the point of voting against the proposal.  This came to a head at the turn of the year when Hengride Permal (by now a key member of the fledgling breakaway “Alliance” faction) the UKChSA assistant secretary, engaged in some entirely unsavoury and unacceptable behaviour during a series of abusive emails, beginning with an attack on my predecessor Celia. When I made it clear that such language was unacceptable, especially when referring to somebody who had dedicated so much time to the cause, Hengride redirected her anger towards me.

It is true that Sabrina and I did consider carefully whether the best course of action would be to stand down from the Association in protest at the appalling conduct of not just Hengride, but the silent endorsement of other committee members like Philippa, Marcus and Bernadette Dugasse.  However we decided that we would stay on, a new AGM was on the horizon and the opportunity would be available to air such issues and conduct elections to see if such senior committee members should remain in their roles.

In January 2014, emails were sent out suggesting dates for the 2014 staging of the AGM.  As with normal protocol, the information was circulated and committee members voted on the relevant dates offered.  Five of the nine committee members indicated that Sunday 6^th April would be a suitable date for the hosting of the AGM. In accordance with all normal UKChSA committee business, the decision was noted and the date was subsequently communicated to all supporters in the January edition of the newsletter.  This notice was then reposted in the February and March editions of the newsletter, the latter being just a week before the AGM date.

24 hours before the AGM, by which time many supporters had already committed travel plans to be in London the following day including one who was travelling down from Durham, Marcus and Philippa took objection to the staging of the AGM.  They alleged that protocol had not been observed, that the AGM had never been properly consulted nor called.  They decreed that the AGM taking place the following day amounted to an illegal gathering and Marcus even went as far as to suggest that legal challenges would ensue.

Following lengthy conversations, and checking over emails and newsletters, Sabrina and I were confident that we had adhered to the correct procedures and that the AGM would take place on the 6^th April as advertised.  We were confident that we had followed the correct procedures, that the required number of votes had been cast to validate the announcement and that sufficient notice had been communicated.  At one stage Marcus even went as far as to suggest that the notification of the AGM in the newsletter was “irrelevant”, which as I highlighted at the time, almost brought into question the purpose of the newsletter altogether.  Why was a newsletter being produced if senior members of the committee (the vice-Chair no less!) were not even bothering to keep up to date with the news?

On Sunday 6th April we hosted our AGM, a meeting which was attended by five of the nine members of the existing committee. This included the Chair, the Treasurer and the Secretary.  The meeting agreed that the re-election of the new committee would take place by email and that the April edition of the newsletter would confirm all of this along with the report from the AGM which was circulated shortly after the meeting.  

As usual I carried on as normal, so on the 18th April I started preparing the April edition of the newsletter as was my monthly routine.  And just like any other month I finished my draft and sent it over to the same people who checked the monthly editions of the newsletter.  So it went to Celia, George Beckham, David Snoxell- all fine and all approved.

Just before it was about to go to Sabrina for the final check, I got an email from Celia.

Celia said she had concerns over the future of the treasurer of the UKChSA and was worried that the role may go to a Chagossian (potentially limited by literacy/numeracy skills) or someone else who was under-equipped to manage the role.  I explained to Celia that Sabrina and I had spoken about this ahead of April 6th and agreed with the point because we shared a similar view.  Such an important role needed someone of a level of experience.  This is why Sabrina and  I agreed that we would support and actively encourage supporters to vote for Perri to return as Treasurer.  Perri of course was one of the committee members who also attended the AGM on the 6th April.  I duly confirmed all of this to Celia in an email

Despite this email, later that day Celia then wrote effectively the same email she had written to me earlier, repeating exactly the same concerns, only this time she copied in everyone on the existing committee.  In addition she made the completely irresponsible suggestion that the agreed proposal from the AGM to host the elections for the new committee via email should be abandoned.  This would be replaced by a new proposal which was that the existing committee be retained for a further twelve months.  With no elections.

Celia had known about the tensions leading up to the AGM- that we needed a new committee, that the existing committee had broken down, that procedures weren't being followed, that some committee members were openly abusing other committee members in a completely discourteous and inappropriate manner.  She knew that Sabrina, Gianny, Paul and myself would not stay on the existing committee without new elections.

Needless to say Celia's proposal for retaining the existing committee was endorsed and supported by five of the nine members of the existing committee.  Sabrina, Gianny, Paul and I were outvoted and could basically stay, or go.

That was the end of April.  I had a full and frank exchange with Celia by email in which I outlined everything, right back to the fact that the only reason Hengride and I fell out in the first place back in January this year was because she had been insulting Celia in the emails.  My view at the time was that there was no way I would let anybody question Celia's commitment or the amount of time she has dedicated to the cause over the years.  Celia did say that she wished she could turn the clock back, but to be honest, this was empty rhetoric.  Celia is someone I kept completely in the loop- always.  If I had kept Celia in the dark ahead of the AGM in terms of how Sabrina and I felt, our frustrations, the fact we wanted to see changes, then of course her response and ignorance would have been understandable.  But in this instance it simply didn't wash.  She knew why Sabrina and I couldn't work with the existing committee, and she knew that the four of us would walk away.

Following a number of discussions with Sabrina, it was decided that I would not publish the April edition which now had this new adopted proposal about retaining the existing committee for another year.  I wanted to resign immediately but Sabrina wanted me to wait as she had been in contact with Olivier, and he was coming to the UK soon (initially predicted to be in mid-May) and we would have an opportunity to plan our next move.  Unfortunately Olivier's mum was suddenly taken ill, I understand Sabrina also mentioned that his uncle passed away too, so naturally he won't be coming to the UK anytime in the near future.

We was just hanging on, hoping something would change and that Olivier would arrive, but as you all saw last month that all changed and the newsletter was published, despite the fact that I had never officially tendered my resignation.  In fact my intentions had only been communicated to Sabrina and Celia.   But in reality it was all a technicality, there was no possibility that we could stay after what had happened.  Another interesting development was that the newsletter was then published without being sent to Sabrina prior to release.  It was always the convention that the Chair of the Association would be the last person to view the newsletter before it was sent to supporters and campaigners.

Sabrina protested at the fact that newsletter was now being published by Steffan Donelly before she had an opportunity to approve its contents.  These concerns were apparently acknowledged when Steffan replied to Sabrina, however another edition was released again recently and again Sabrina had not been consulted prior to publication.  When Sabrina communicated these concerns to Celia, Celia proceeded to spout the most baseless lies. She claimed that the procedure had always been to send the newsletter to David Snoxell prior to publication and that it was never sent to anyone else as part of the preview process.

Sabrina knew immediately that this was untrue.  Indeed I still have the proof in my emails that during my tenure as newsletter Editor, the draft was always sent to the same individuals prior to publication.   The newsletter would go to Celia first, then to George Beckham, it would then be reviewed by David Snoxell before the Chair of the Association would have an opportunity to review its contents prior to being released to all of the supporters. Celia’s suggestion that this was not the case made Sabrina and I furious.  This was not simply a mistake, or an error or an oversight- this was a downright lie!  Celia knew this was a lie too and this was the final and definitive proof if ever was needed that people who we were once thought were decent and honourable individuals were now having their integrity rightly questioned.

When Sabrina showed me the latest emails with Celia last night, she agreed that the time had come for us to tell everyone about what was happening.  We realised that by going down this route, we were absolutely crossing the point of no return.  But as Sabrina explicitly stated to me last night: our time at the UKChSA was now at an end.  The time had come for supporters to know exactly what has been going on, which is why this post has been circulated to as many supporters as possible.

While our time with the Association has come to an end, there are still big questions that must be asked.  And it is no exaggeration to say that if the UKChSA was an official charity, I would be submitting these questions to the Charities Commission as my belief is that the UKChSA as an organisation is not fit for purpose.

Questions such as what did happen to the money that was given to Hengride Permal?  This money was given to her on the basis that it was for a football team.  But Sabrina helped to set up a football team, which she attained funds for, which she presented receipts for, and a team which was subsequently officially registered with the global umbrella body for non-FIFA affiliated nations, CONIFA.  They have played matches, they have a campaign being championed by David Vine which many of you would have seen already on the social networks.  This is all legitimate.

So what happened to the team that Hengride set up?  So far there has never been one receipt, not one football match, not even a kick about with jumpers for goalposts.  The only thing that happened is that the money was sent to Hengride.  Where it went afterwards, is anyone's guess.  And I have the emails myself from Perri asking again: where are the receipts?

If this money cannot be accounted for then surely is that not a matter for the police?  This is money which has been donated from supporters, supporters who think they are supporting the plight of Chagossians.  

There are further questions which must be answered about the nature of the relationship between the unelected Patron Philippa Gregory (who somehow ended up back on the committee with no election) and Mark Gonzalez, who has to date been the subject of payments of thousands of pounds for some kind of workshop which as yet nobody can yet quantify why such a large outlay was made for an organisation with such limited funding.  Funding which then is subsequently denied to completely deserving applications like people wanting to return to Mauritius to attend the funeral of a Chagossian relative for example.   During the financial year of 2013/14, Mark Gonzales was the recipient of a total of £2380 from an organisation (UKChSA) that in the same year only banked £3056. Almost 80% of the UKChSA’s budget was given to Gonzales, £2000 for workshops and £380 for expenses.  This must be investigated as it is completely unacceptable that such a vast outlay can be committed to an individual project when other, and possibly more worthy, applications were turned down as a result.

We now have decisions to make in terms of how we move forward. Clearly the most obvious choice would be to bolster up the UKCRG, turn it into a UKChSA and take it from there.  And let me be clear that I don't doubt for a moment we could make it absolutely fantastic and do a lot of good work through that structure.

But I do have grave concerns about that proposal and this is mainly because it undermines that fundamental principle for me personally about not wanting to add to the problem.  Starting a new group is not great when it all it does is add another element to the mix which in turn becomes another opportunity for the Foreign Office to exploit.

I am absolutely gutted on a personal level how this has all turned out.  UKChSA was such a special organisation for me, it’s heartbreaking to see what is happening now.  I would not know a single one of you at all if it was not for Celia, so this has completely knocked me for six.  But we had to communicate this post to every single supporter possible, and allow themselves as individuals to decide if they would continue to support an organisation which has such huge questions over the way in which it is being managed.

Save Us From Cyclone Yashika

It’s almost a decade since I started helping the Chagossians in their quest for justice.  It is a cause I plough many hours into with very little in the way of reward in terms of progress.  It’s a cause that touches upon the sensitivities of issues like national security so is therefore under-reported in the domestic media, and we find ourselves forever fighting against the tide. 

We keep going because it’s the right thing to do and we all care passionately enough to dedicate so much of our time to securing a fair resolution.  I once started a petition which was exclusive to UK citizens and achieved just over a thousand signatures in a year.  A White House petition which was open to citizens all over the world racked up 25,000 pledges of support in a year.

Last week a very unusual campaign managed to rack up that many signatures in a single day.  I regard it to be a very misguided crusade, which is strange when usually I’d be someone who would naturally be drawn to support such a movement.  I am the complete polar opposite of someone who is traditionally right-wing and by nature anti-immigration.

I absolutely love immigration.

I’ve always been very bitter about the restrictions which are placed on the movement of migrants wishing to settle in the UK who have originated from a country that was once a colonial outpost.  My view is that the UK should indeed be operating an “open door” policy when it comes to migrants from countries whose ancestors contributed so much to the prosperity of this country.

It’s not a popular view, but I have always maintained that the UK owes an enormous debt to parts of the world which were once part of the British Empire.  And when right-wingers revert to type with arguments like “we’re full”, I just bat them away on the basis that Britain raided these countries dry of their natural resources.  I think it is terribly unfair to deny a right of residency to descendants of people born into the British Empire.  They should have the right to share in the success which was built on the blood, sweat and tears of their ancestors.

So when I become aware of anyone from the Commonwealth struggling to attain residency in the UK, my instant reaction is to support their efforts.  If I hear of Mauritians wanting to stay in the UK, that desire to support their efforts is magnified even more because I immediately think of my late Grandparents who made the journey to the UK with my dad, aunts and uncles in tow almost half a century ago.

Unfortunately if you insinuate that Mauritius is effectively a glorified banana republic with no concept of law and order, well then I’m afraid you will quickly alienate any goodwill from someone like me.  Because it is just not true: Mauritius is not in a state of war or under martial law.  It is a normal, stable and modern democracy.  Mauritius, like Britain, does have a legal system, a judicial process, a respect for the rule of law and a police force which serves to uphold these principles. 

Yashika Bageerathi has been ordered to leave the UK after her application for asylum was rejected.  The application was based on an incident of sexual assault which is understood to have taken place in Mauritius around five years ago.  The family have stated that they are frightened to return to the island as relatives of the assailants will be waiting at the airport upon their return.  Yashika, now nineteen years of age, is in the final stages of her A Levels at a school in north London.

It is quite a story, but there are critical questions which need to be answered.

Why did the Bageerathi family travel over six thousand miles?  Reunion Island is around an hour away and is part of the French Republic and therefore part of the EU.  Their claim could have been assessed there.  Or if they were seeking more space between themselves and the perpetrators, it would have been possible to stay within the Mauritian Republic and reside on Rodrigues Island which is four hours away.

Furthermore Yashika’s mother arrived in the UK in 2009 but her children did not arrive until 2011.  If Mauritius was such a dangerous environment for the family to reside in, then why on earth would any rational thinking mother leave her children at such risk for two years?  Surely even two weeks would be too long.

This case is an insult to every individual who genuinely flees persecution, wars or humanitarian disasters in their homeland.  I don’t recall hearing about snipers on the rooftops of Pointe Aux Sables or tanks proceeding down the streets of Rose Hill.  Yashika is a Hindu-Mauritian which by definition means she cannot be a persecuted minority on the island as she is actually part of a majority who make up two-thirds of the population.

This is textbook propaganda for every anti-immigration right-leaning voter in the UK and a trophy for little Englanders: the fabled bogus asylum seeker.  It’s such an obvious case of an application that should never have been submitted in the first place.

This episode has the potential to be hugely damaging for Mauritius and will possibly tarnish its global reputation.  Mud has a tendency to stick so Mauritius will be depicted as an island where atrocities against women are rife.  This is unfair when the statistics simply do not support this claim at all.  Alarmingly the reverse is closer to the truth.

In 2012 there were 418 reported (p.47) acts of sexual offences in the Republic of Mauritius.  In the same year, England & Wales recorded 53,700 cases of the same categories of crime.  Given that Mauritius has a population of around 1.3 million compared to England & Wales which has around 56.6 million residents, the numbers can be adjusted to provide an accurate comparison.

Mauritius is broadly 44 times smaller than England & Wales in terms of population size.  Applying this rule, Mauritius would have recorded 18,392 incidents of sexual offences if it had a population in proportion to England & Wales.  Thus the number of sexual offences recorded in England & Wales is 291% higher than Mauritius per 1000 people according to the year of comparable data from 2012.

Of course such comparisons must be treated with caution and are only used as an indicator as opposed to reflecting the entire picture.  Sexual attacks against women are still amongst the most under-reported of indictable offences.  That is aside from the disgracefully low conviction rates.  However that is a global issue which shames us all from Mahebourg to Middlesbrough.  It is certainly not a problem exclusive to Mauritius.

I think it’s incredibly sad that a teenager is being detained behind barbed-wire fencing at a high-security immigration detention facility in Bedfordshire.  I also think it is tragic that a young lady can’t continue her studies and finish her education.  Yet I don’t want to pledge my support to such a campaign which has spread lies and inaccurate myths about Mauritius.

The Mauritian Government, having liaised with the local authorities, have no record of any crime being reported on the island.  This is why the Mauritian High Commissioner to Britain attempted to meet with Yashika during her detention at Yarl’s Wood in Bedfordshire in order to discuss her concerns of being returned to a country that was her home until three years ago.

When supporters of the Chagosssian cause strive to raise awareness, we do so by sticking to the facts and the truth.  We don’t spread any lies; we don’t feel we need to.  Anyone familiar with the tragedy will know that the horrors speak for themselves.  I suppose in doing so, we ensure that we maintain the moral high-ground.  I resent the “Save Yashika” campaign because it is littered with inaccuracies bordering on fiction.

The Chagossian quest for justice may not be as trendy as the latest fashionable cause, but it is a force for good and upholds the facts.  “Save Yashika” is just an ill-advised crusade which became a force of nature with a destructive and reckless power.  It resembles a cyclone flattening everything in its path, especially the inconvenient truth.

The Legacy of Kaya

I first came across Joseph Reginald Topize’s music towards the end of the Sega Club era in the early 1990s.  The name was quite a mouthful so everyone referred to him by his nickname: Kaya.  My dad was quite scornful of the sound being produced by this new wave of Mauritian artists.  This was a concoction of the traditional Mauritian music of Sega combined with a strong influence of Reggae. 

This pioneering breakthrough was called Seggae and my dad couldn’t stand it!  Almost overnight Kaya was feted as le Roi du Seggae (the King of Seggae).

15 years ago last week, Kaya was found dead in a police cell at the maximum security Line Barracks prison in Port Louis, Mauritius.  Witnesses recalled the sight four days earlier of police officers arriving to take into custody the slight but highly influential musician.

He had been arrested for smoking cannabis at a festival calling for the decriminalisation of the drug.  He had challenged the Mauritian Government’s authority publicly and was the only one of eight taken into custody who did not deny the charge when arrested.

Immediate evidence pointed to a cover-up.  Dried blood ran from his nose to his ear and had accumulated on his neck inside his hair.  As opposed to being discovered facing upwards as the trail of blood would have suggested, he was found face down.  His body had clearly been moved as it was impossible for the blood to have travelled upwards towards his neck, thus defying every accepted principle when it came to the laws of gravity.

An initial autopsy revealed he had suffered a blow to his forehead resulting in a fracture of the skull.  A dreadlock had been torn from his head.  His tongue had been trapped between his teeth in a posture that supported the theory that he had suffered a sudden (and almost certainly violent) trauma to the brain.

The uprising that followed engulfed the island and led to violence not seen for over thirty years.  Five people died and over a hundred were injured during four days of social unrest.  A Seggae artist who had joined the protests against the death in custody of Kaya, Berger Agathe, was shot dead by police.

I have heard accounts over the last few days which are still harrowing after all these years.  One was four years old at the time and on holiday in Mauritius, and remembers the sight of his mother struggling with the effects of tear gas which had entered the house where they were staying.  Another told me how her cousin was shot by police. Miraculously he survived albeit living with a stark reminder of what some referred to as the “Mauritian Revolution”.  To this day he has a bullet lodged within his head, an extraction impossible due to its precarious location.

When the roadblocks were removed, the businesses reopened and Mauritius returned back to normality, the islanders undertook a long period of soul-searching.  Once the navel gazing ended, wide reaching reforms were implemented which dragged Mauritius kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. 

It is almost impossible to comprehend that just fifteen years ago, complaints about the misconduct of police officers in Mauritius were dealt with at the front desk of the local police station.  Eight months after Kaya was killed, the Complaint Investigation Bureau was established.

It is equally difficult to remember that fifteen years ago there was no public holiday that marked the abolition of slavery, a day so closely entwined with the history and heritage of around 30% of Mauritians.  Creoles, the descendants of African slaves, were being supressed on a cultural and social level.  The social mobility of Creoles has increased faster in the last fifteen years than it had done in the proceeding thirty years.

Just six years later publications like the UK-based Mauritius News were even suggesting that communalism on the island was declining.  I think it was a slightly premature act of self-congratulation.  But to deny there had been progress would be uncharitable in the extreme.  Non-Hindu police officers were almost unheard of prior to 1999.  The island had only known Hindu Prime Ministers during its first three decades as an independent nation.  

The project is far from complete as my last post outlined and there is still so much to do.  However Mauritius is a much brighter place than it was fifteen years ago.  Kaya changed the musical landscape of Mauritius by introducing a new sound which broke new ground.  Fifteen years after his untimely passing, his influence continues, reaching far wider than probably he ever imagined would be possible.

Rainbowology

I have been spending the past fortnight in Mauritius, it is my first visit in almost two years.  It may sound strange to some, but that's rather a long time for me.  I once visited three times in eight months, although it was a necessity in order to finalise my citizenship which I acquired five and a half years ago.  To say I hold a great deal of affection for this place is as big an understatement as suggesting I have a slight passing interest for a certain football club from North London.

When I speak of my love for the island commonly referred to as the land of shooting stars and rainbows, people often think I am dazzled by the white sand and turquoise sea or the mountainous peaks which form such a striking backdrop of the central portion of the landscape.

However I believe that these are mere footnotes in terms of the real beauty of somewhere which truly does take your breath away.  Most will realise I am a proud lefty and I find it fascinating how the political debate in Mauritius takes place on the left.  I site the example of how the then opposition Labour Party had to offer free travel to schoolchildren in the 2005 general election in order to outmanoeuvre the governing Movement Militant Mauricien (MMM) Party who had already implemented extended travel concessions for the elderly.  A political debate based on who can give more to the people: beauty really does goes beyond the palm trees here.

Even the most "right-wing" faction, the  Mauritian Socialist Movement (MSM), a centre-left party, would be to the left of the ground taken by the UK Labour Party.  There is no squabbling over nasty right wing values here.  It's why I often remark that while I would align myself personally with the MMM, I can never spout the kind of vitriol I do in the UK where I despise voters of parties like the Tories, UKIP or the BNP etc.  I  believe the MMM offers the best alternative for left-wing sympathisers like myself, but the truth is that neither of the parties in Mauritius fill me with horror in terms of their views of how to run the country.  If the MSM were standing in the UK they would get my vote over the UK Labour Party every single time.

I also find it fascinating how every single religion is afforded equal recognition.  It is true that following the arrival of Indians after the abolition of slavery the number of Indians quickly assumed a position as the majority.  But to suggest that only the Hindu culture is celebrated would be a gross misrepresentation.  Every single religious festival is recognised with a public holiday.  The running joke here is that it is unusual to have more than three weeks without one.

Most who know me will appreciate that I don't really regard myself as religious.  I was brought up as a Catholic and attended eleven years within the framework of a Catholic schooling education, although it's been many years since I attended a church except for a funeral, christening or wedding.  That being said, I probably lean more towards Catholicism than any other religion.  That is to say if I was pushed to make a choice.

Some visitors to Mauritius could find the overt presence of religious symbols to be quite unsettling, but even I can recognise a unique beauty in the expressive nature of it all.  I probably wouldn't feel the same if one religion had been afforded a certain status above all others, but that is simply not the case here.

The early mornings are alive with the sounds of mosques calling to prayers, the Hindus have their various processions.  Christians celebrate the various sacraments with equal vigour and even the Chinese do not escape as the Spring festival (Chinese New Year) turns the island into a cacophony of lights and sounds as the symbolic dragon chases away the evil spirits.  And nobody is alienated from the celebrations, there is an eagerness to celebrate one another's culture in a way that I have never experienced elsewhere in the world.

Even for a religious cynic like me, I am profoundly blown away by it all.

It hasn't always been this way though.  The history of this beautiful land is littered with various race riots which dominated the first three decades following independence.  The last in 1999 followed the controversial death in police custody of the Seggae artist Kaya.  During the uprising that followed another singer Berger Agathe, was shot dead by police.

So much changed after 1999 and as this republic entered the 21st century there was a renewed acceptance that a threshold had been crossed and that there will never again be a return to our kaleidoscope of cultures clashing once again.  And in the main things have moved on.  The descendants of African slaves, Creoles (like those of my paternal heritage), for so long victims of oppression by a sizeable and powerful Hindu majority, were finally elevated to positions of authority in the national structure which would have been unthinkable only a few years earlier.  In 2003 the first non-Hindu Prime Minister, Paul Berenger, took office and again a barrier had been broken.

Yet in 2013 elements of an archaic school of thought remain.  During this visit I found myself consoling a friend, a Muslim, who was coming to terms with the end of her engagement with her Hindu finance.  It wasn't because he could not accept her, he was of a generation who genuinely couldn't care less.  But his parents rejected her on the basis of her faith.  Her acceptance of it all as if it was somehow expected was something I found deeply troubling, not to mention so disheartening.

It is perhaps something I have chosen to ignore.  I have become so used to the group of friends I have built up over the past nine years that it seemed normal to see a Chinese Mauritian in a relationship with a Creole, or a Hindu with a Muslim.  To realise that it is not as universal as I thought has been something of a wake-up call.

I refuse to accept that Mauritius is as divided as the sectarian disputes which marred the first three decades following independence demonstrated.  But there is still work to be done to finally stamp out the attitudes of the generations which contributed so much to the problems of this period.  I will still argue that Mauritius is the Rainbow Island, a term which pays homage to its unique cultural make up.  That being said we cannot afford to think that our work is done- we still need to do more to ensure that nobody should be forced to choose between the love of another person or the love of their family, purely because of a difference of religious or cultural origins.

It is still my dream that observers will one day visit Mauritius from around the world to learn how an island the size of Surrey can accommodate 1.3 million inhabitants within a harmony that the rest of the world seems light years from replicating.  And make no mistake about it: Mauritius is closer to achieving that goal than anywhere else in the world.  But as this visit has served to reinforce, we are not there yet.

Until everyone can love whoever they wish based on personal choice as opposed to rigid cultural prejudices, the fabled pot of gold at the end of the rainbow will remain a fantasy from a ladybird fairytale.

An Unpalatable Choice

Black History Month in the UK is barely three days old but already some have been left reeling at the news which will see the country’s first black radio station reach the end of the line.  Choice FM will disappear as we know it from Monday after 23 and a half years on the air.

My earliest memory of Choice FM can be traced back to February 1990 when my younger sister and I were staying overnight at our big sister’s.  She had the radio tuned into what was a test broadcast on the designated frequency for the fledgling broadcaster which was to launch the following month.  There’s a beautiful symmetry to this because it was the same big sister who I hold responsible for introducing me to the station now known as Capital FM around three years earlier.

Capital began acquiring shares in Choice in early 2003 leading to wholesale changes at the station.  The most striking of which saw the departure of Geoff Schumann who along with Martin Jay formed a formidable double-act which shattered audience records at the station.  The station’s relocation from Southwark to Leicester Square was another erosion of the unique footprint and was a symbolic gesture of a corporate juggernaut taking an alternative direction.  Other modifications included the removal of prominent reggae DJ’s from the broadcaster’s schedules between the hours of 7am and 7pm.

The end of the station was savagely as swift as the bloodbath nine years ago.  On Wednesday the Voice newspaper reported on speculation that the station was to be rebranded as Capital Xtra.  A little over 24 hours later came the confirmation of the news sparking outrage from listeners who had remained loyal to the station despite all of the betrayal and recriminations from the original transfer of ownership in 2004.

Listening to Choice over the last decade has always posed something of a moral dilemma.  The station retained a handful of DJ’s who survived the cull of the organisational restructure.  Martin Jay’s Caribbean Affair on Sunday nights was still the most listened to soca radio show on British radio.  Nonetheless it always resembled the scenario of stumbling across a copy of a rag like the Daily Mail and trying to sneak a peep at the sports section- despite knowing full well that the paper’s overall editorial line aggressively undermined everything you believed in.

That is why the discovery of internet-based stations like Large Radio has been something that I have embraced so emphatically.  It is why when my weekly favourite the Calaloo Show recently ran into difficulties, I found myself listening to its archived content via podcasts instead of catching up with the Sunday evening soca show on a station I no longer harboured any affection for.  I believe it is online that the future of radio broadcasting for minority music lies. 

Of course the nostalgic side of me does reflect on the dreams and aspirations of the founders Patrick Berry and Neil Kenlock.  Indeed Berry’s comments about “protecting the uniqueness of our programmes” ahead of the sale in November 2003 suggested that his intentions were honourable.  The demise following the sale of the broadcaster to Capital in 2004 should not diminish what the two helped to create in 1990: the UK’s first legal black radio station.  Nothing can overshadow the first thirteen years which provided a remarkable chapter for radio entertainment in this country.

I mourned Choice FM’s passing many years ago.  For almost a decade the brand was appropriated by parties who had poisoned its powerful legacy and provided us with a creation which was a world away from the community based station.  I am delighted that the Choice FM brand is being consigned to the history books.  It was obnoxiously insulting that the name used bore so little resemblance to the groundbreaking station established all those years ago.

I concede that the reaction to this week’s news has surprised me, I hadn’t realised such a sizeable proportion had stayed loyal after all this time.  Nobody I knew who listened back then tuned in anymore.  We always viewed those who did as refusing to accept that it had died and were clinging on to a corpse in a desperate attempt to turn back the clock.  An audience which was at best misguided and refused to listen to warnings of the time that eventually this week’s developments would come to pass.

It was an insatiable lust for something that had ceased to exist, worshipping a shell of its once glorious incarnation.  Necrophilia?  The dictionary suggests that the definition is not so out of context here, though probably it is an exaggeration to suggest that those who continued tuning in could be characterised as such.

However it is undeniable that a decade ago the audience had a decision to make.  It is most surprising that so many made such an unpalatable choice.

Evilisation

My dad had a habit of confusing my sister and I as kids when it came to vocabulary.  Despite only arriving in the country as a fourteen year old he had a reasonable enough command of the English language and regularly applied some of its most colourful aspects.  He could turn the air bright blue in the blink of an eye.

My sister and I were no fools; we knew we’d never get away with swearing at our dad.  We would swear at each other, but only when he wasn’t around.  But there were other less obvious examples that my dad would vigorously take exception to.  Like “destroy” or other phrases that we had picked up from cartoons like He-Man or Thundercats.  Terms like “evil” for example.

As is common for most siblings a couple of years apart, we used to fight like cats and dogs.  I never forget one occasion remonstrating with my dad and telling him that my sister was “evil”.  He flew into a rage, declaring that such a phrase was inappropriate and far too strong a term to be used so liberally.  It was made clear to me in no uncertain terms that such a word should never ever be used to describe my younger sibling.

For a phrase with such a powerful emotive impact its frequency of usage is quite astonishing.  When we hear of high profile court cases, the defendant is often depicted as evil.  It has even been used in sport reports.  When Ben Johnson was unceremoniously stripped of his gold medal in 1988 at the Seoul Olympic games, the BBC reporter Ron Pickering used the term to describe the act of cheating.  Ben Johnson has rightly been subjected to a number of condemnations for his actions over the past quarter of a century. Stupid, naïve, selfish, irresponsible and careless probably all of which could be applied, but evil is bordering on the ridiculous.

This year the phrase has been regularly utilised to describe two acts of grotesque violence: on the streets of Woolwich and a shopping mall in Nairobi.  Two incidents which were inexplicable to any balanced individual- we are unable to explain why anyone would be able to commit such acts of brutality.  What we cannot interpret or rationalise means that we have to resort to a default position as a realisation that something is “unknown” leaves us exposed and almost vulnerable.  Therefore we must have a bucket to effectively “scoop-up” and collect all these episodes which are otherwise impossible to fathom, an expression which we refer to as “evil”.

An abnormality of the mind like schizophrenia was identified barely a hundred years ago.  Prior to that medical breakthrough a schizophrenic was labelled as “evil” or “possessed” or even a “witch”. As an evolving society we continue to identify new medical conditions, it is very possible that in 2-300 years time a whole new selection of mental illnesses will be identified and treatable. 

It is not out of the question that many of those conditions will account for behaviour which today we are unable to diagnose so revert to a default position of classifying the unexplained as acts of evil. My ex’s brother was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic but in another lifetime he could have been drowned in a lake or worse.

I’ve highlighted previously about my own personal experiences of living through three murders at separate stages of my adult life and consequently debated endlessly the existence of evil.  I now think that for anyone to have the capacity to take another life only demonstrates that there is an imbalance within that individual.  It is an abnormality of the mind and as such they are ill.

We as a society may not have evolved enough yet to determine a medical condition with an elaborate name to quantify such a phenomenon, but I genuinely believe that someday it will be treatable.  And just like now, everybody will look back in history and wonder how so many could have got it so wrong.

I’m no doctor or psychiatrist.  It is just a theory based on personal experiences, but I can’t subscribe to this collective notion of a convenient category which classifies what we are unable to understand. 

Nottingham Carnival & The Carnival Tax

The longest British heatwave in seven years may be a distant memory as the unsettled spell of weather continues, but nonetheless we are of course in the middle of the summer season.  It is a period of the year which is illuminated by the festivals and carnivals which add so much character to the calendar.

I have written previously about my love of carnivals and the symbolic importance that it represents for so many including myself.  During the same piece I held up Nottingham as a shining example of defending the spirit of what carnival stands for by the decision taken in 2011 to become the first carnival to go ahead after a summer of civil unrest.  The carnival followed just days after a police station in the city was firebombed and I commended the decision as being both correct but also brave since other carnivals around the time were being cancelled.

Yet for the last five days I have been involved in a campaign of awareness regarding some quite extraordinary plans by organisers of the same carnival to introduce something truly revolutionary without any degree of public consultation whatsoever.  A concept which if successful will have ramifications for carnivals all over the UK and may one day lead to extortionate tariffs being imposed on events like the Notting Hill Carnival where such gatherings will become the preserve of an elite.

I am talking about plans for an admission fee being applied to the entry of the Nottingham Caribbean Carnival.  It is an idea I have dubbed as the “Carnival Tax”.

First let us assess the plans as they were unveiled on the 25^th July when the promotional posters were released to social networks on the same day.  The organisers have requested that attendees make a voluntary suggested contribution of £1 per day upon entry to the event.  This conjures up images of visits to museums where containers are placed within the grounds for patrons to submit contributions of their choice.  These are normally accompanied by a written instruction such as “suggested contribution £1” or other various amounts.  And the containers are usually transparent and are filled with various denominations including many banknotes far in excess of the suggested amount.  It is an indirect message that patrons should “give what they can” so that those who can afford more will contribute more and those who cannot will contribute what they can spare.

It’s a tranquil gentle image and we know it works because we have all seen those containers filled with all sorts of coins and banknotes.  However critically it is managed in a way so as to ensure that nobody feels that they are under duress to make a contribution.  There is no security guard within a few feet accompanied by police officers providing any kind of impression that they are in any way connected to the process of donations.  And most importantly of all the procedure is managed within the grounds of the museum and is not at the entry point nor could it be interpreted as being a condition of entry.

When most people heard about Nottingham Carnival’s plans for a suggested contribution of £1, the initial image many would have dreamt up would have been something broadly along the lines of the scene from the museum.  This would be the idea of patrons roaming freely into the grounds of the event and making a suitable contribution free from any pressure.  It all projects the same gentle operation which would suggest that any opposition would be completely irrational and unjustified.

Unfortunately this is simply not the case in terms of the plans that the organisers of Nottingham Carnival have lined up for next month.  I have had to press them on a number matters over the last few days, including a lengthy exchange of emails with the CEO Richard Renwick MBE but can now confirm that the romantic timid image of the example of museum contributions is a world away from what is being plotted.

Visitors to Nottingham Carnival will know that the event is staged on the Forest Fields in a section of the park which is cordoned off using tall metal temporary railings which serve as a fence.  Some observers have likened the image to “animals in a cage” and whilst I do share the sentiments, I do equally believe that it is a debate to have on a different day and most certainly as part of a different post. 

Entry to the event is solely through one point at the front of the cordoned off area.  It is a designated security point, manned by several security staff of a burly appearance, usually with a police officer or two nearby.  This is the only entry point to the grounds of the Nottingham Caribbean Carnival.

It can be quite an intimidating scene even for people like myself who always attend carnival with the essence of the spirit for which the festivities were designed for.  I have my flag, horns, whistle and vuvuzela ready for action, but even as I am ready to enjoy one of my favourite occasions in the calendar, it is an uncomfortable part of the carnival experience as security staff look you up and down, waiting for any excuse to scrutinise you further at the entry point where you are searched using various metal detectors.

It is this uncomfortable part of the carnival experience where the organisers of the Nottingham Carnival are seeking to enforce their voluntary suggested contribution.  I have requested that they relocate the collection zone to an area within the grounds of the carnival, so that it cannot in any way be misinterpreted as a condition of entry.  This request has been repeatedly declined on the grounds that they have attempted to make collections within the grounds before without any success.  I have countered that the previous collection campaigns lacked enough focus to inform the public who may not have realised just how much trouble the organisers of the event are in trying to put on the show every year.  This could easily be resolved with posters and leaflets emphasising the point, but again from within the grounds of the event itself.

Even the literature which has been produced for the event does not tally up with the message they are now scrambling to ensure is heard.  The poster does not make any reference at all to the contribution being voluntary or that it is suggested, simply that it is £1 on the day.  Oh and that kids go free.

There is little doubt in my mind that nobody from the organisation would be stupid enough to stop anyone attending the event if they failed to make a suitable donation at the point of entry.  Unfortunately there is a broader problem here which will potentially arise.  The process is managed in full view of intimidating security staff and police officers, not to mention a queue of people who are anxious to get beyond the other side of the perimeter fencing.  While the designated individuals managing the collections may not be naïve enough to prevent someone entering who did not want to make the contribution, they can still make the non-contributor’s life uncomfortable.

For example if someone did not wish (or indeed did not have) the necessary funds to cover the voluntary suggested contribution there is nothing to stop the organisers requesting the contribution from amplifying their voices to a higher decibel.   This would enable others in the queue behind to be left in no doubt that this person at the front of the queue was not paying the £1.  It could then lead to anxious queue members becoming frustrated, possibly calling out insults which are then echoed by others also keen to pass the entry point and enjoy the rest of the day.  Therefore it will have a knock-on effect as others in the queue who may also have lacked the funds to cover their contribution that day, will prefer not to be subjected to such ridicule or abuse and decide to leave the queue early to head home instead.

It is as someone described to me last week as a visual deterrent.  An almost covert strategy to prevent others who do not have the necessary voluntary suggested contribution from joining the queue in the first place.  Is it worth paying £1 to avoid the humiliation or abuse incurred by other members of the queue?  Is it not better to stay at home in order to ensure that exposure to such a situation is avoided?

What about if someone retaliates at the abuse they are subjected to?  What if a fight broke out at the entry point, in full view of police officers nearby?  Essentially the catalyst for such a flashpoint would be an apparent revolutionary idea which was implemented without any consideration for the implications it could lead to.  This in turn would damage the event as a whole because statistically the arrests would be connected to the event and would be used as ammunition by parties who are opposed to the annual festivities.

There is little doubt that Nottingham Carnival is in trouble and the amount of funding it has lost in recent years has been breathtaking.  There are severe funding issues at the core of this issue which serves as a motivation for the organisers to head down this road. However there are questions that they must in turn answer because recent actions do not reflect the responsible conduct of an organisation working under restrictions in funding.  We have all experienced the perils of the current economic depression which has engulfed this country for the past five years, so we all have experience of sacrificing luxuries in order to ensure necessities are managed.  It’s the old cliché of “working within your means”.

So why have the organisers of Nottingham Carnival responded to a reduction in funding by continuing to indulge in lavish “international acts”?  Artists which could be deemed to be extravagant, expensive and unnecessary.  Nobody could deny that the announcement that Ms Dynamite would be headlining one of the days at the event was met by near-universal approval.  But if there was any suggestion that Ms Dynamite attending would lead to such an unsavoury scenario many would have condemned such an idea unequivocally. 

It is a set of circumstances where Nottingham will make history as being the first UK carnival to charge patrons to attend, something which fills me with shame and embarrassment.  It is a fact which I highlighted to Mr. Renwick when I suggested that should his idea go ahead he might wish to contact the city council about their “Proud” campaign as such a pledge could no longer be accurate given the humiliation a lot of us will feel as residents of a city that has allowed such a travesty to go ahead.

Carnivals offer a unique experience.  Performing artists are seen more as a bonus to compliment proceedings instead of being the centrepiece of the annual celebration.  When I attended Preston and Huddersfield Carnivals earlier this summer, I was not enticed by seeing Beenie Man in Lancashire or Shy FX in West Yorkshire.  It would have been a nice surprise but it was not my motivation to attend.  I was attracted by the idea of the carnival atmosphere, in two cities that I had never visited before and provided me with enough happy memories to ensure that I will be returning to both next year too. Both were very simple events with less emphasis on huge headliners but both were delivered without the need to impose a tax levy on visitors.

When people attend festivals there is an expectation to see a superstar.  When I attended the recent Lovebox event in London I was excited by the prospect of seeing the 90s R&B legend D’Angelo.  If I had attended and found the stage was instead filled by Debbie from Dalston, I would have demanded my money back.  Thus my expectation is that the festivals will be full of established stars not “hidden gems”.

Amy Winehouse was one of the biggest artists that this country has ever produced but the story of her on the MasterMind stage in a Sainsbury’s car park in Notting Hill is one that is remembered fondly by all lucky enough to have been in attendance that day.  She was not paid a penny for her performance as at the time she was an unsigned act and was still very much a “rough diamond”.  Where are the opportunities to find the new Amy’s of Nottingham if the stages are filled with Ms Dynamite or Shy FX?  What about Stacey from Sneinton or Rachel from Radford?  This is where the true meaning of carnival has been lost amidst a ruthless strategy to turn Nottingham Carnival into some kind of festival which now charges attendees an admission fee.

I have lobbied the organisers and the CEO about having the name changed; if this farce must take place then at least they could change the name to festival.  Such an alteration may seem trivial or even cheap points scoring, but it is a highly significant amendment.  Festivals normally charge people to attend their events, in return for seeing popular headliner acts.  Carnivals do not, but equally they do not necessarily have “international acts” either.

The £1 Carnival Tax at Nottingham Carnival will not be sufficient to safeguard it's future. The 2013 event will purely be an experiment to see how many people will pay up.  Assuming enough do so, the price will almost certainly rise next year.  And the year after that.  In fact it will keep rising until the number of visitors tails off.  Ultimately it will lead to other carnivals around the UK also following suit.  Each using the current austerity measures as a smokescreen to more sinister motives.  Which will only eventually lead to the biggest of them all: Notting Hill Carnival.  Should that happen, the admission charge will be a lot more than £1.

At the time of writing the organisers behind the Nottingham Caribbean Carnival have been unwilling to offer any compromise on three crucial areas.  Firstly they have refused to cancel the £1 voluntary suggested contribution.  They have also refused to relocate the designated collection zone away from the entry point.  And finally they have refused to rename the event to a festival. 

I have asked that they give way on just one of the three areas, but this has been declined repeatedly.

Consequently I have started an awareness campaign under a slogan of boycotting the Nottingham Carnival.  This is something which has been deeply traumatic because of my own passion for carnivals as a whole and even more so because it is the carnival in the city that has been my home for eleven years.  It is a bizarre position I find myself in but one that I have sought to defend because as I have stated a lot over the past few days: this is far bigger than Nottingham.

This potentially affects carnivals all over the UK and if I do nothing then I am being complicit in a crime which will fundamentally change the events as we know them.  It will inevitably become a watershed moment in years to come and one day someone will tell me that they are unable to attend the Notting Hill Carnival because they cannot afford the £75 admission ticket.  As a result I will be forced to explain how I saw how it started and sat back and did nothing.  I can’t do that.  And if you care for the future of carnivals then neither can you.

Say no to the Carnival Tax.  On the 17^th & 18^th August boycott Nottingham Carnival.