2010 in Dicks

2011 has started and seems disappointingly familiar, but it gives us all a chance to look back at the year just gone. And I felt that I'd look back at all the dicks who have made the world slightly worse. And where better to start than...

THE CONSERVATIVE-LEAD GOVERNMENT: We all knew it was coming. There was no way that New Labour could hold on any longer, but the popularity of the Liberal Democrats (a phrase that is as laughable now as it was last January) just kept the Tories from a majority. And then gave them the MPs they needed anyway. Much of the anger has been (rightly) directed at Nick Clegg for backtracking on virtually every promise that made him so popular in the first place, but let's not forget that to bend to the every whim of the Conservative Party, there needs to be Conservative policies to begin with. So whilst Cameron and Osborne are happily pissing on everyone, let's not take out all of our anger on the guy pointing and laughing.

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: This was the year when Paul Chambers was convicted for an illegal use of irony, but at least he was fortunate enough not to end up in hospital at the hands of the police (allegedly, of course). Surely the worst injustice of the year is of the rape victim jailed for eight months for retracting her genuine allegations. Though she has since been released, she still has to fight for her children. The husband had all the charges against him dropped, begging the question: How can they convict someone of falsely retracting allegations of sexual assault, and yet not convict the (therefore genuine) rapist? It saddens me that the organisations that are suppose to protect me -- the police and the CPS -- have shown themselves to be thuggish and shockingly misguided.

JULIAN ASSANGE: Not for his work with WikiLeaks, an organisation which I support and I believe has done a remarkable amount of good work in revealing what it has, but for his entirely dick-ish remarks following the recent allegations against him. Sunny Hundal has compiled a brilliant piece on whether the accusations of conspiracy stand up, but regardless of his guilt or innocence (neither of which have yet been proven in court, and I would not like to speculate on it), he has recently said some phenomenally unpleasant things, such as claiming he fell into a "hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism", that Switzerland is the "Saudi Arabia of feminism", and that these women had got into a "tizzy" about something as trivial about the very serious subject of STDs. WikiLeaks would do very well without him.

KAY BURLEY, ADAM BOULTON AND BEN BROWN: 3 journalists, two working for Sky and one for the BBC. Boulton and Burley provided us with such shoddy journalism that people were compelled to shout at them in the street, but then at least you would expect that of Sky "News". Ben Brown's treatment of Jody McIntyre was a different matter, with the supposedly "impartial" BBC doing all they can to pin blame on a victim of a violent and horrific incident. The official statement from the editors completely misses the point. Would they really interview anyone in the same way? Is Crimewatch an interrogation of the victims, ascertaining whether they were "rolling towards" the criminals, perhaps? It was not a balanced view, but a disgusting display of victim-blaming.

NADINE DORRIES: I have tried several times to write a post about Dorries, about her 70% fictitious blog that she uses to make personal attacks on her constituents, but every time I begin I realise that Tim Ireland has said it earlier and better than I ever will (and been the victim of some vicious and nasty smearing as the result), so I'll just point you in his direction.

DANNY DYER AND ZOO MAGAZINE: Oh how we laughed back in May when Danny Dyer joked about cutting women's faces. Except we didn't, because it was deeply unpleasant. Dyer initially claimed to have been misquoted, but has since offered this apology, in which it becomes clear that the problem was that he was quoted, albeit an off-record aside. He has since resigned, and released the film Pimp to huge box-office takings of £205. Zoo magazine, however, which approved and printed the column, continues to be published to a wide readership.

THE POPE: An inevitable inclusion on this list, the Pope currently feels more like the head of SPECTRE than the Catholic Church. Accusation after accusation after accusation of child abuse and subsequent cover-ups have been leveled at Catholic Priests (too many to link to, but the length of this Wikipedia article is startling in itself), and yet all Ernst Stavro Blofeld and his lot have done is attack homosexuals, secularists, and women. I said back in September that

I will never be able to put into words the horror and sadness that I feel, knowing that there are millions of people who hold this hateful, bigoted, misogynistic homophobe in the highest regard possible.

Since then, the Pope has claimed that paedophilia wasn't a big deal in the '70s, and that child pornography is increasingly seen as "normal". Am I really expected to moral advice from a man who opposes the use of condoms more than child pornography?

So, that's why he's my Dick of 2010. Until the end of Monday you can vote for five dicks here (Cameron, Osborne, Dorries and Dyer were my other choices, by the way).

Happy New Year!

Our Side of the Occupation

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: All opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of other members of the Exeter University Open Occupation.

Anyone who has been following me on Twitter recently will probably be aware that I have been taking part in the Open Occupation of the largest lecture theatre in Exeter University. The harsh, ideological governments cuts must be fought, and so hundreds of us joined together to make a stand.

It all began on Wednesday, 8 December 2010. After a march organised by the Students' Guild, over a hundred of us continued back to the Newman A lecture theatre, taking over the room during a maths lecture, that, as with all lectures, we sat through and allowed to take place. Within an hour after this, we had a Facebook page, a Twitter feed, and a blog. It's been impossible to overstate the importance of social media and the blogosphere to publicise the occupation. Every decision, and every significant moment has been available for anyone to see, and the amount of support that came through via Twitter, Facebook and e-mail was a constant inspiration (not least the email of solidarity from Billy Bragg. BILLY BRAGG!).

The support we received from the University, and specifically the security and porters, was also incredibly heartening. We allowed all lectures that could not be moved to take place, albeit after reading out a notice at the beginning of each explaining that our aims and that we would remain silently sitting through the lecture with them. Sadly, we did not receive the support of the Guild, who claimed that they needed to act in the interests of all students. I find this confusing, given their support for the marches with the same aim. The occupation was peaceful, legal and did not disrupt lectures (some were cancelled on the first Thursday due to the University assuming we would not allow lectures in).

Friday saw a debate between Vice-Chancellor of Exeter University, and president of Universities UK, Steve Smith debate the future of HE funding with president of the NUS Aaron Porter. Since this debate was open only to University students, not students from the college, I live tweeted through it. We were not allowed signs or banners due to an alleged "health and safety risk" (a shorthand, it seems, for anything that's been banned, and I wonder where these ridiculous myths come from!) -- though, to be fair, the Guild president did apologise for this overzealous reaction (and his treatment by some was undeniably unfair). After the debate, Aaron Porter came around to support the occupation and answer questions.

Getting Steve Smith to recognise the Occupation was always going to be a priority, and so when he came round on the second Wednesday, wearing a name badge and in the circle as anyone else would be, it was a major coup. Again I tweeted through it, this time on the official Occupation feed, so you can see what he had to say here. Our research was thorough, and I at least was shocked to hear such an influential supporter of the fees rise describe the HE cuts as "ideological".

The unity and creativity in the occupation was incredible. We were all there for political reasons, but though the sleeping arrangements were tough, people seemed genuinely engaged. When we could schedule them, we had free lectures, and we were all proud to be a space on the campus where you could receive free education. We had music, storytelling, and dancing. At times, I almost felt guilty for having so much fun.

But we did get a message across. Yes, the Tuition Fee rise made it through both the Commons and the Lords, and yes, Phillip Green still isn't paying the taxes that he should be. But we have shown the government that we will not stand for its cuts, that put the burden on the poorest whilst the richest go free. When I tell my MP that I will never vote for him again, he'll know that this is no idle threat, and that I damned well mean it. We have created a tradition of peaceful protest in Exeter, one which will live on long after the end of the Occupation, and shown that the "apathetic generation", so addicted to Fecebook and Twitter, can turn those tools against those who try to remove our rights.

The occupation may be over, but the movement lives on!

The Steve Smith/Aaron Porter Debate

These are the tweets I sent from the debate between Steve Smith, president of UUK, and Aaron Porter, president of the NUS, about HE funding. They are presented in chronological order.

Smith claims we "underinvest in HE", and doesn't think it should be privatised. #smithporter #solidarity #ukuncut

Browne review "utilitarian", says Porter. #smithporter #solidarity #ukuncut

Porter: individuals, businesses and the economy should ALL contribute to HE. #smithporter #solidarity #ukuncut

Q: with a £50m forum project unrequested,how do you guarantee student fees are spent on the best interests of students #smithporter #ukuncut

Smith: openness with guild, focus on research. Porter: much opacity exists still. #smithporter #solidarity #ukuncut

Q: should the NUS put more effort into telling poorer students the debt is bot[not] as they see it? #smithporter #solidarity #ukuncut

Porter: NUS will explain system, but figure is still daunting. #smithporter #solidarity #ukuncut

Telegraph allegations of secret NUS talks were unfair - Porter #smithporter #solidarity

Cable's advisor tried to discredit us ... Disgusting. - Porter #smithporter #solidarity

£335m invested in Exeter is based on zero increase in fees. Balancing the loss. -Smith #smithporter #solidarity

Poorer universities may have to charge less, problems arise -Porter. #smithporter #solidarity

[Porter:] Universities can't just stand still with tripled fees. #smithporter #solidarity

Q: What can I do now? #smithporter #solidarity

Future governments may act, show it's unpalatable. - Porter. #smithporter #solidarity

Question on the consumerisation of education. #smithporter #solidarity

Smith: Education should not be influenced by how it's funded. #smithporter #solidarity

Smith: Important to hold universities to account. #smithporter #solidarity

Porter: Unis should be responsible without direct funding from students. #smithporter #solidarity

Porter: Recovery through growth, not just cutting. Education is key. #smithporter #solidarity

Q: Previous privatisations have required governing bodies. One needed here? #smithporter #solidarity

Porter: We can't stand back and allow this without regulation. #smithporter #solidarity

Office for Fair Access run by "two men and a dog". Needs more teeth - Porter. #smithporter #solidarity

Smith: there will be more regulation. This is the right thing. #smithporter #solidarity

Smith: Number one problem, attainment. #smithporter #solidarity

Q: how will tuition fees help science degrees when they have links with businesses? #smithporter #solidarity

Smith: businesses do not put much into degrees. #smithporter #solidarity

Porter: international students show us our future. #smithporter #solidarity

Porter: UCAS received calls from international students asking whether their fees going up 3x as well. #smithporter #solidarity

Q: Is U of E best placed to endorse a two tier system when it doesn't represent the interests of other Unis that may close. #smithporter

Smith: policy of UUK agreed unanimously at every board meeting. #smithporter #solidarity

I believe no universities will close - Smith. #smithporter #solidarity

Social mobility different at each uni -floor. #smithporter #solidarity

Porter: "No fees" tactic didn't win '98 or '06, and there was not enough scrutiny. #smithporter #solidarity

The 60% of people who do not go to university should not pay the entirety of the costs of the 40% that do - Porter. #smithporter

Q: why is this debate closed to non-uni students? Why were we denied banners? #smithporter #solidarity #ukuncut

Smith: I have no knowledge. This was organised by the Guild. #smithporter #solidarity

Final question: funding low, accessibility low. Big disparity in Unis. Will gap between Unis get worse? #smithporter #solidarity

Porter: people may have to stay local. Subject choice may be influenced by future jobs, not personal preference. #smithporter #solidarity

Smith: earnings better with degrees, fear the "elite" Unis may have to spend much to bring small group of smart poor students. #smithporter

Smith: poorer social classes attain less generally; this is the battle we should fight. #smithporter #solidarity

Steve Smith receives the pledge from @ExeterOccupied. #smithporter #solidarity

My First Official Complaint

I have never sent an official complaint before. I moan about things, blog about things, but I have never felt the need to make an official statement before. Until now.

This interview went out on the BBC News channel yesterday:

As a result of this disgusting interview, trying blame Jody McIntyre for everything that happened whilst simultaneously trying to play down the event itself, I have sent the BBC this:

The appalling treatment of disabled protester Jody McIntyre

Protester Jody McIntyre was subjected to a disgustingly aggressive attack by presenter Ben Brown, rather than a fair and balanced interview, on the BBC News Channel, 13 December 2010.

The segment seems designed to throw as much suspicion as possible on Mr McIntyre, constantly questioning his involvement with the protests, which has little relevancy given the seriousness of the incident in question. After the first question, every query seems more concerned with Mr McIntyre's character than the very serious actions of the police force. Mr Brown asks about his previous political statements, which should have no bearing on the facts of the incident, and even asks, based on no evidence whatsoever, whether Mr McIntyre was throwing missiles at the police, clearly insinuating that Mr McIntyre somehow deserved his treatment.

That such suspicion should be thrown onto the victim of violent action -- and the footage shown clearly shows the incident, despite Mr Brown stressing that it would only "appear" to show this incident -- is appalling. It shows a bias towards the police force, despite the quite overwhelming evidence against them, and it is offensive that Mr Brown should try to imply that a protester somehow deserved to be thrown out of his wheelchair and dragged along a road. As such, I feel very strongly that this is unacceptable from the BBC.

It doesn't quite get across how strongly this interview disgusts me, but then, as I said, this is my first official complaint, and I felt that just repeating the word "bastards" as many times as would fit in the box would probably render my argument somewhat invalid.

Policing the Police

Recently, I wrote about my displeasure at certain judicial decisions made in this country. But if we have learnt anything from the introduction to Law and Order: UK, in analysing justice,we should also look at the police force.

I would have thought the MSM's (Mainstream Media's) bias supporting the police force, rather than condemning it, was fairly apparent. Anton Vowl's piece here seems to sum up why that would be the case - that the authority of the police force would initially outweigh statements from the general public. Throughout Thursday's protests the only figures being relayed from Sky and BBC News were the number of police officers injured and protesters arrested -- no mention until much later of the number of protesters injured. The lack of relevance the MSM places on the wellbeing of protesters, many of whom were caught in the middle (if that is an important factor anyway), is highly troubling.

However, there is a lot of condemnation from the blogosphere, because time and time again police have been shown to be using needlessly brutal and thuggish tactics. But these are not groundless accusations. The case of Ian Tomlinson seems almost too obvious to mention, but the video footage shows clearly that he was walking away with his hands in his pockets when pushed, and regardless of whether or not this did cause his death (and it is my opinion that it probably did), this footage alone raises questions. More sickeningly, Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall was savagely beaten in a case of mistaken identity, yet only one of the three was successfully prosecuted.

These incidents are all at least few months old, but there have been so many during the recent protests. Take the case of Officer U1202, shown punching repeatedly into a crowd of students in a clearly unnecessary display of brutality. I doubt very much that the students suffering brain injuries as a result of being hit over the head with truncheons, or being pulled out of their wheelchairs would argue that they are more of a service than a force. The intimidating tactics, such as kettling or those deployed in Cambridge, only serve to make situations worse.

And charging with horses is wrong. These animals are large, fast and impossible to control entirely. The footage at London really is not as critical as it deserves, and the claims that this is the first time that this tactic has been used since the eighties are demonstrably false (despite what the Metropolitan Police would have you believe, with the official statements to the contrary).

The fact that the Metropolitan Police are happy to cover this up proves that it is not the purely the individual loose cannons that are the problem, but the organisation itself has questions to answer. Misrepresentation is everywhere, with very little being done to put it right. Were police officers "dragged off horses and beaten", as Cameron claims? No. Here the protesters are the "bad guys", and any incident must therefore been of their doing, whether it can be substantiated or not.

On the Today programme, the Met Commissioner praised the "restraint" of the firearms officers, suggesting that the shooting of protesters was an option, and only the moral judgements of individual officers saved bloodshed. This statement seems entirely contrary to the argument that it is the individuals who go wrong, whilst the force (or service) maintains the peace.

Time and again the police have shown these brutish tactics. The citations in this post are the most concrete evidence I could find of problems with the police, but the twitter feeds and live blogs from within kettles, or on the streets, go further still. I am glad that blind faith in the police is down, and if they really want our trust, then, like anybody or anything else, they must earn it.

This blog has been adapted from a comment left in response to this post. This comment is currently awaiting modification