In the wake of fascism… part two

Whether you like it or not, the BNP have now been on Question Time; unfortunately, the reaction to the show after it was shown maybe a bit ill-judged and short-sighted.

Of course Griffin made a right idiot of himself. When asked about why he used to say what he said about the Holocaust he mentions that ‘I can’t explain why I used to those things’, when discussing with Jack Straw the Second World War and the different ethnic backgrounds fighting for Britain, Griffin launched into a personal family attack on Straw. The panel were dumbfounded by what is a schoolboy tactic by resorting to personal attacks when threatened by a tangible attack on your ideology. Nearly everybody on the panel and in the studio were prepared and firmly against Griffin. And this is the problem.

Griffin knew what he was going to be facing. Sure, he looked like a dimwit, but at the same time he has come across (in the eyes of BNP supporters at least) as misrepresented. The BNP will turn what happened and Question Time as a personal attack on Griffin, the BNP and the ‘indigenous’ British public. They will argue that Griffin never really got to represent what his party stood for. They will argue that he will look like a martyr. And looking back over the show you can see their point. For example, when asked a question not about race or immigration, Griffin said that the sight of two men kissing is ‘creepy’ – we could argue for days on end the extent to which this comment was homophobic, but as soon as he said that there was heckling from the audience. Now I understand this reaction to Griffin, but at the same time this plays into his hands.

What also play into his hands are the protests outside the BBC and the build up to the show. It has to be said that the BBC will, and did, exploit the publicity surrounding the show in order to increase its viewership (around 8 million according to the Guardian). This at the same time gives the BNP so much more publicity than they would of if it was just the show and nothing else. It does not matter that the publicity surrounding the show was opposition to the BNP, as the saying goes, any news is good news. The BNP grow support from exploiting the idea that politicians and elites are out of touch with the ‘common folk’ in Britain, and the strength of opposition will be used by the BNP as examples of how the BNP are the only party that stand for what the ‘common folk’ believe. This is not to say that the ‘common folk’ they are appealing to are racist as you’d notice from last night that issues of race stemmed fully from the panel and the people asking the questions – Griffin, as I have said previously, is a PR man, he knows focusing on race will not win him support. This is supported by a video from YouTube I posted on this blog a few months back which was quoted last night; talking with members of the KKK, Griffin explained that you have to focus your efforts on things such as security and democracy, that if you go out publicising your ideas on race then you will never gain mass support.

Now, I am not suggesting that protestors should stop. I like the idea of wherever the BNP are, UAF or some other group will be as well. However, there was a very interesting interview on BBC News 24 during the day yesterday from the President of YouGov. He suggested that protests should not be based around anger (despite anger being the obvious emotion in this case) but that protests should be based around showing people that Griffin is a pillock. They should be based around custard pies and eggs. They should satirise and embarrass Griffin. This he would argue will make it harder for the BNP to turn the protestors’ anger around to their advantage.

So whilst many of the Twitter and Facebook generations will rejoice at how ridiculous Griffin came across (Twitter and Facebook are not the BNPs target audience), we have to proceed with caution before declaring a victory. It’s too soon to say a battle has been won, but it is safe to say that the war is far from over.

To abstain or not to abstain, that is the question

It’s only fair that in a debate or argument that both sides should be able to put their point of view across or defend their position or to hit back at other people’s claims. In this spirit, i would like to post here the response by Cllr Emma Webster to reports that she abstained. This is her comment on an article on a popular local blog site:

Please note I did not abstain from the vote, I was unable to participate because the company that I work for are promoting another site being considered as part of the consultation.

After taking legal advice I was advised that it would be inappropriate for me to be involved in the vote and I therefore removed myself from the meeting and the vote. I did not as you have reported abstain.

I am in the process of taking further advice so that I am in a position to be able to speak against the proposal when it comes before a later meeting.

Okay, so didn’t abstain… and still didn’t vote, or amend, or propose, or voice opposition. Let’s see what direction her campaigning over Pincents Hill will take- or will a conflict of interests plague her at very attempt to stop this development taking shape?

I have just noticed that on the Reading Chronicle Website the article about the Tory councillors being accused of bottling it has been removed. It was posted on the website on 30 April 2009, whereas other articles about Pincents Hill going back to 28 August 2008 can all still be accessed. What? I’m not hinting at conspiracy! *rings lawyers*

Who does their homework now?

From: http://blogs.amnesty.org.uk/ (http://blogs.amnesty.org.uk/blogs_entry.asp?eid=2994) By Me!

Following on from previous blog posts about the media coverage our Reading AI group have been getting concerning the lack of specialist services for women in the Reading area, the coverage came to a head when our local MP, Martin Salter (former Amnesty member) got involved.

To remind people of the press release and the premise of the campaign, check out these two links: http://www.box.net/shared/pvpco4d5ue and http://www.mapofgaps.org/

Our main local paper, the Reading Evening Post jumped on this story and went straight to Martin Salter MP for his reaction. To see the article go here: http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2047102_mp_hits_back_at_amnesty_claims

So…. apparently we don’t do our homework. Riiiiight.

There are a few points of this article that stand out. The first is that we are talking about specialist services for women who have suffered any kind of violence. For example, a women’s refuge without the prescence of men. So it is funny to see the article talking about Crossing Bridges, an important service, that helps both men and women… Go to http://www.mapofgaps.org/ to see why specialist (i.e. women only services) are important.

Our press release, along with the MofG findings say that there is only one service in Reading that specially caters for women, and that is Berkshire Women’s Aid (BWA), so it is amazing how everything that the article/Martin Salter talks about is run/co-ordinated by or have an involvement from BWA. Even if you read the comments at the bottom of the article, the first comment from janestheone (a pen name for former Reading East MP Jane Griffiths) mentions the group Sahara… scroll up a bit and there is a comment from Kitty K that confirms this has been taken over by BWA.

Comments from people/contacts i have strongly suggest that BWA struggle some years with the funding they do have- yet considering that nearly every service in Reading for women involves BWA (as Martin Salter and the article point towards) it is surely a strong indication that they need more funding.

I have saved the best till last though. In the article Martin Salter says, “I am more than happy to support their EDM” (EDM 653). We are still waiting to see his signature on the list though. Anyway, i would like to point out that the EDM states “That this House welcomes the `Map of Gaps’ report and website by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the End Violence Against Women coalition” http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=37703&SESSION=899. Our press release used parts of this report to point out the lack of services in Reading for women, and it was from this that we were accused of not doing our homework. Well, in actual fact it looks like Martin Salter had not done his homework in not reading the EDM, as although i am sure he would had supported it regardless, i doubt he would had said what he said if he had read it.

Political win? I think so.

To view our full response to the article in full then check this out: http://www.box.net/shared/qi1jzh350q

Next stop is Reading East MP Rob Wilson who has told us that he is not supporting the EDM…

A day in the life of a voluntary local media officer

From http://blogs.amnesty.org.uk/ (http://blogs.amnesty.org.uk/blogs_entry.asp?eid=2771) Written by, me!

I had one old hectic day on Friday 6 March while I was at work.

I won’t admit on here that I actually spent a good proportion of my work morning working hard for my local Reading Amnesty Group. I didn’t admit it, did I?

Anyway, late on Thursday 5 March I adapted a recent letter I received as part of the media officer’s email list about the map of gaps (http://www.mapofgaps.org/) and services in local areas dedicated to supporting women who are victims of abuse. I then proceeded to send this out as a press release to all the media contacts I have in my local area; newspapers, radio etc. I thought nothing more once I clicked send and rested my little head on my pillow for a night of slumber.

I hadn’t a chance before work to check my emails, oh boy, I wish I had…

My normal routine is that when I get to work, I log onto my computer (takes about 10 minutes!) and while it is logging on I make myself the first of about 20 cups of tea I have each day and then log onto my email account on my phone (I have a huge phone bill as they don’t let me on facebook/hotmail at work). There I found an email from one of my local radio stations, 2ten fm. I won’t write out the email on here, but the gist was, we want an interview!

Ahhhhhh! Panic!

I panicked not because of the prospect of an interview- in fact my vanity obviously craves such attention (tongue in cheek). But firstly, I was at work, and secondly (and more importantly) I shamefully admit that my knowledge of services in Reading for women who have suffered abuse is rather limited, in fact, it is limited to what I put on the press release!

After scrambling around for a few minutes trying to organise my work load for the day I thought of my next plan of attack- should I try and cram in some research from the internet before my big interview? No, too risky, my managers sit behind me. Should I just tell them I am rubbish and can’t do the interview? No, getting the message out is the important thing, it doesn’t necessarily matter how it comes out. Or should I ring up fellow RAI group members and get support? Yes! Perfect!

Then it dawned on me…. I don’t have our Stop Violence Against Women campaign co-ordinator’s number, and furthermore, she works at a school, being able to contact her was hard enough, let alone organise for her to do an interview!

The phone rings *ring ring, ring ring*, I answer….. “Hello I’m XXX ringing from the Reading 107 fm news desk it is about your recent press release…. we would like an interview”

What! Two interviews!

I really needed to get in touch with our SVAW co-ordinator; what to do, what to do! Then it dawned. Alex!! I’ll ring our chairperson, I admit his is the only number I had in the group (yeap, and I’m the group’s media officer!).

I could feel my manager’s eyes burning into the back of my head as I made my third phone call of the morning where I talked about violence against women (something which is in no way a laughing matter, but as an outsider expecting me to be doing my work must had sounded unusual).

Alex was free! He said he’d make some phone calls and see what he can do. Brilliant!

*ring ring, ring ring*

My phone goes again… unknown number

“Hello?….Hi, it’s XXX from BBC Radio Berkshire….”

They wanted me to send the PR again, all they could see was the title and they were very interested in reading what it said….. Hmmm, slight problem; I sent it from my hotmail address, and that is blocked at work.

Second by second crept by until it hit me, my phone! I hate to think of my next phone bill…. I logged onto my email and managed to find my message and forwarded it to my work email (not that I am doing any of this while I am meant to be working…).

My phone stopped ringing for the time being, but now came the messages to my work email. I hope our IS department were not snooping in… I used the words violence and abuse quite a bit, let’s hope they don’t pop up in my work’s filters!

I still had the problem of these two interviews and the possible third interview.

Words and phrases that these radio station’s news desks had used on the phone to me included ‘important’, ‘big news’, ‘a lot of interest’, ‘most listeners’ and ‘major local interest story’. Nice.

*ring ring, ring ring*

It was Alex with some amazing news. He had been in touch with Heather from Amnesty UK who works on the SVAW campaign who has agreed that she would organise for the interviews to be done! Fantastic! This way we would have the best possible person being interviewed who knew what they were talking about!

I have been informed that 2ten fm and Reading 107 fm were planning on running this story on air today (9 March), but unfortunately a mixture of being at work and going straight from work to the local pool place meant I have not had a chance to listen to the broadcasts yet. Despite this, a quick click onto the Reading 107 fm website revealed this as the main story: http://www.reading107fm.com/female-victims-of-violence-need-more-support-446236

There are still 3 hours left of the day, with at least 4 news bulletins on each station, I wonder if they are still broadcasting the story…..?

If you want to have a nosey at the press release then you can see it here: http://www.box.net/shared/pvpco4d5ue

Gaunty Watch 21/6/2008

It has been a couple of years since i first started becoming more aware of outside influences on how i live my life, and started to care about them.

I feel i can put this down to one person: Jon Gaunt.

For those of you who know about Jon Gaunt, can i just say, i do not like his politics, i do not agree with his debating style, and i think he is a scar on the face of the ‘White Van Man’ (TalkSPORT’s terminology for the white working classes).

For those who do not know who Jon Gaunt is, let me fill you in.

Jon Gaunt has been around the radio circuit for many years, working for several BBC stations including London 94.9 and BBC Coventry. However now we can find him on the popular TalkSPORT station where he hosts his own talk show between 10am-1pm every weekday. You can also find him writing for The Sun (i think on Tuesdays).

I would advise people to listen to him on TalkSPORT; it is fascinating.

The reason Gaunt (known affectionately as Gaunty) helped smash my apathy was because of his attitude with running debates, his views, and the way his views are shockingly being aired across national radio. To give an example of how shocking some of his views are, he has been accused in a few circles of helping the BNP gain support- although it should be pointed out that Gaunt is not a BNP supporter, and the BNP actually do not like Gaunt either.

There are two aspects of Jon Gaunt’s debating style that annoy me. Firstly it is his use of the phrase “Tom, Dick and Abdul”. He uses this in different contexts to refer to who can claim benefits, who can come into this country, who can get social housing ahead of British people etc. By putting Abdul into the phrase, he is seamlessly targeting men of Middle Eastern appearance (and/or Muslims). This is helping to ignite anti-Muslim feelings, in a time when there needs to be clarification on the issues surrounding terrorism and the Middle East. He claims that multi-culturalism has failed, but he does not give it a chance by deliberately highlighting (most of the time falsely) how the White Working Man is becoming a minority within this country by having a go at all foreigners, especially those who are Muslim.

The second point that really whines me up is his facilitation of debates. On many occasions when i have listened to his show he voices how listeners should contribute to the show to add to the debate that the Government are not having with the public. Okay, all good so far. However, at the same time, there have been callers who phone up, voice their opinion and either get cut off by Gaunt because he disagrees, or they get spoken over while in the middle of their piece by Gaunt who rouses anti-British and do-gooder statements about that person and then cuts them off. One example would be a debate on drugs that was held sometime last year. Gaunt’s view, i believe, was that anyone who takes drugs are the scum of society and should be jailed. However, there was a caller who started speaking about legalising all drugs and how this could control drug use. Well Gaunt cut him off while he was putting his view across and called him a “hippie” and “druggie”. He also cut of callers who voiced their opinion of greater help at rehabilitating drug users- oh no, he could not have that, they need to be locked up for good apparently…

Now to be fair, there are times when i do agree with what Gaunt says. It would be bitter of me to disagree with everything he says just because most things he says and does annoys me. One such example is how the welfare state should not be a lifestyle (as i believe it has become for some Britons) and should instead be a safety net. However, while Gaunt was arguing this in his Sun column a few weeks back, he notes how more British youngsters should be taught trades and pushed into plumbing and electrical work, and how we should get rid of the situation that immigrants take the jobs the British do not want and force British people to take these jobs. To note the trade work; it is good for youngsters to learn a trade and be efficient in a practical skill, but at the same time, we can not force more people into these trades when there is already high competition, not caused just by an influx of Eastern European workers, but also by a fall in demand in plumbers and electricians- there is not enough work out there. On the forcing British people into jobs that immigrants take, my fear here is that Gaunt did not say this to try and decrease unemployment, but to instead try and force out immigrants. This is an attempt to destroy the safety net of those preaching we need immigrants by saying they take the jobs we do not want, and to instead start preaching that we need to start kicking immigrants in this country out. It is easy to see why there are fears that Gaunt opens the door to fascist views.

My intention within this blog is to now create a ‘Gaunty Watch’, not in an attempt to belittle the man, his loyal listeners would say that is not physically possible, but to instead offer my opinion on the issues that Gaunt talks about. It is time to try and win back the ‘White Van Man’ from the clutches of the far right, and bring them back into where they belong in the left.