Spanish Civil War talk in Ashton-under-Lyne

LAST NIGHT Dr Mercedes Penalba-Sotorrio of Manchester Metropolitan University gave an exquisite talk on the Spanish Civil War at a crowded event at Ashton-under-Lyne Central Library.   Ashton has been the scene of several such events since the unveiling of a Blue Plaque on behalf of  a local lad, James Keogh, who died in the hills of Aragon in 1938 fighting for the freedom of Spaniards on the 25th, November 2011.

Dr. Mercedes Sotorrio gave a very interesting detailed account of the struggle to defend democracy in Spain of the 1930s.  She described the contribution made by working-class volunteers such as James Keogh, a tailor and the son of a local binman.*   But James Keogh, as she showed in her talk last night was one of a vast number of northern workingmen, who were so inspired that they fought in many battles on the Spanish peninsula, throughout the war.  People went from Ireland and as she pointed out fought for both sides.

She referred particularly to the Battle of the Ebro which occurred between July and November 1938.  Fought on the banks of the Ebro; the longest river in Spain, it became a slaughter house for the republic.  It was a folly described so well by Antony Beevor the military historian in his book 'The BATTLE for SPAIN':

'To continue the battle in such circumstances had no military justification at all, especially when the Republic was so vulnerable there was no hope of achieving the original purpose of the offensive.  But instead of withdrawing with their best troops in good order to fight again, the republican command continued to send more men across the Ebro.  And all this was because Negrin believed that the eyes of Europe were upon them and he could not acknowledge a defeat.  Once again, political and propaganda considerations led to yet another self-inflicted disaster.'

Dr. Sotorrio said:  'Some 35,000 people went to Spain to fight with the volunteers, mostly, but not only,  in the International Brigades and some 10,000 died in the conflicts'.   She agreed during the question time which followed that the Soviet Union, like the Fascist Axis powers, 'had its own agenda'; which sometimes contrasted with that of the Spanish Republic.

There was some criticism during the questions about the non-intervention of the British and French governments in the Spanish Civil War, and Dr. Sotorrio said 'it seemed that some of the British public had more understanding of the likely danger presented by Fascism to Europe'.  There were also queries about the role and relevance of British Gibraltar to the conflict.  In the early stages of the war the British authorities on Gibraltar had tended to assist the supporters of General Franco rather than the legally elected Spanish Republic.  Some Spaniards who supported the Republic, who sought refuge in Gib. were sent back to Spain and imprisoned by Franco's supprters, and a Republican ship that sought British protection was threatened  by the British that if it didn't leave the port of Gibraltar the authorities would illuminate it so that it would by vulnerable to nationalist bombers at night.

Meanwhile, although it wasn't mentioned  last night, in 1937, it is worth mentioning that during the Spanish Civil War, the British Governor of Gibraltar was successful in obtaining permission from Franco to continue the Hunt.^[23] The tradition of the Royal Calpe Hunt continued for more than a century. The last Hunt took place on 4 April 1939.  It could not be resumed the following autumn due to the outbreak of the Second World War.  Although the horses and the pack were maintained in the hope that the Hunt would resume, and the Hunt Committee remained active until 1973, the Second World War brought the end of the Royal Calpe Hunt.^[4][5][7]

After the questions to Dr Mercedes Penalba-Sotorrio, the archivist who organised the event thanked the speaker and expressed his delight at the turn-out having originally worried that perhaps the subject was not sufficiently local. 


*  See more:   www.northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com › 2011/12 › james-keogh-commemoration

**********************

THE BLACKLIST & LABOUR MANIFESTO

Page 48 of the Labour Manifesto:

"We will establish public inquiries into historical injustices including blacklisting and Orgreave, and ensure the second phase of the Grenfell Inquiry has the confidence of all those affected, especially the bereaved families and survivors. We will also consider a public inquiry in the case of Zane Gbangbola.

We will require judicial warrants for undercover operations and retain the Mitting Inquiry into undercover policing.

We will release all papers on the Shrewsbury 24 trials and 37 Cammell Laird shipyard workers and introduce a Public Accountability Bill".

Blacklist Support Group are proud to have stood shoulder to shoulder on shared platforms for more than 10 years with campaigners fighting for justice for Orgreave, Grenfell, Zane Gbangbola, victims of undercover political policing, the Shrewsbury Pickets and Cammell Laird ship workers.  We have demanded and fought for a public inquiry for over a decade - its is our campaigning that has led to this manifesto commitment. We therefore whole heartedly support this pledge towards getting the truth we, and other working class miscarriages of justice, deserve.  But working people should never place dewy eyed trust in politicians, lawyers or union leaders to solve our problems for us; continuing to build a movement remains essential.  

Full manifesto available to view here: https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/

Blacklist Support Group

book: http://newint.org/books/politics/blacklisted-secret-war/

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNcgrNs6pB8

facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/blacklistSG/

blog: www.hazards.org/blacklistblog

TIK TOK: Did they Ban this?

A 17-year-old Muslim girl's TikTok — which started as a makeup tutorial and bait-and-switched to a quick lesson on China's Muslim concentration camps — went viral over the weekend.
People were outraged when TikTok banned Feroza Aziz, who is from New Jersey, days later. They said the app's Chinese developer, ByteDance, was censoring views that went against the Chinese Communist Party, indicative of the delicate balance the company finds itself in. But TikTok told BuzzFeed News that Aziz was actually suspended for another video — one with a meme about Osama bin Laden.

ADVERTISEMENT

"So, the first thing you need to do is grab your lash curler, curl your lashes, obviously," Aziz begins in the TikTok about China. "Then, you're gonna put them down and use the phone you're using right now to search what's happening in China, how they're getting concentration camps, throwing innocent Muslims in there. ... This is another Holocaust, yet no one is talking about it."

⚠️ @badboyyeehaw

i always wondered how girls get they eyelashes so curled up and everything

10:33 AM - 24 Nov 2019

Reply Retweet Favorite

An estimated 1 million Uighur Muslims are currently imprisoned in internment camps in northwest China's Xinjiang region. The camps have been widely condemned by the United States and other nations.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the camps, Uighur Muslim families are separated from each other, and those imprisoned have reportedly been beaten, tortured, and forced to study communist propaganda and sing songs of praise to the government.
On Monday, Aziz was banned from using TikTok on her phone, prompting widespread outrage and accusations that the Chinese company was censoring criticism about the country.

TikTok denied that Aziz’s ban had anything to do with her videos on the internment camps, but she doesn’t quite believe it. “I still find it suspicious that TikTok took down my video right when my posts on China’s concentration camps were made. Doesn’t sound right to me,” she said.
The incident comes just a month after Congress raised questions about whether the Chinese app poses "national security risks."
“With over 110 million downloads in the U.S. alone, TikTok is a potential counterintelligence threat we cannot ignore,” wrote Sens. Chuck Schumer and Tom Cotton. “Given these concerns, we ask that the Intelligence Community conduct an assessment of the national security risks posed by TikTok and other China-based content platforms operating in the U.S. and brief Congress on these findings.”
Responding in a blog post last month, the company said it does not “remove content based on sensitivities related to China.”
“We have never been asked by the Chinese government to remove any content and we would not do so if asked. Period,” the company said.

Noga Tarnopolsky @NTarnopolsky

.@x_feroza says #TikTok capitulated to China & blocked her account after she posted this fab clip [sound on]

10:33 AM - 26 Nov 2019

Reply Retweet Favorite

ADVERTISEMENT

But a spokesperson for TikTok told BuzzFeed News that Aziz wasn't suspended for that video, but another: one that sexualized Osama bin Laden, they said.
The spokesperson's representation of the video was not entirely accurate. Aziz has posted about the dead al-Qaeda leader and mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, but in an interview with BuzzFeed News she said the offending video was a dark spin on a TikTok meme — not a sexualization of him.
"There’s a trend on TikTok where you post like, ‘The type of boys or girls I liked when I was little,'" Aziz said. "Mine was like, ‘I liked a lot of white guys, but now I like brown people’ and at the end was [bin Laden] as a joke."
She added, "It was a dark humor joke that he was at the end, because obviously no one in their right mind would think or say that."
In the TikTok, Aziz shows images of the white male celebrities — such as Justin Bieber — she had crushes on in middle school. "Whatcha Say" by Jason Derulo plays over the short video as she reveals she now has crushes on nonwhite and Muslim celebrities like Zayn Malik. The last photo in the video is of bin Laden.

video-player.buzzfeed.com

ADVERTISEMENT

Aziz did not know why she was banned before her interview with BuzzFeed News, despite having reached out to TikTok about it.
"I emailed them about this, and they never got back to me," she said. "I woke up on Monday and saw [I was banned], and was like, wow, okay."
This isn't the first time Aziz's account has been taken down or had videos removed, she said. She believes many of them got reported by other users; her previous account was banned too. (The video about China was posted on Saturday from a new account.)
"For my last account, I had multiple videos taken down, and all the videos taken down were my Muslim videos — me making jokes Muslims could laugh about, relatable Muslim content," she said. "That’s just how TikTok is. There’s always people that report things."

ADVERTISEMENT

Aziz's new account and videos are still up, but she said she cannot access her account from her phone. A TikTok spokesperson said it was because her device was banned the last time she had her account removed, but that her current account remains active — though not usable from the same phone.
All in all, it equates to an exceptionally 2019 story. Aziz said she's frustrated and confused that she could get banned for what she believes was clearly a joke.
"Everybody has dark humor, and there are people on TikTok who post explicit things about murder and very intense stuff, and that’s not taken down," she said. "My thing that’s a joke that my group can laugh at, that Muslims and brown people can laugh at, that’s taken down."
Still, she's also glad so many people now know about the human rights crisis in China.
"As a Muslim girl, I’ve always been oppressed and seen my people be oppressed, and always I’ve been into human rights," she said.
She added: "I’ve known about this [crisis] since 2018, and I’ve always talked about it, but whenever I talked about it, no one would care to listen. Everyone just cares what people are wearing, what’s the new style, who’s the new YouTuber, who’s doing this. So I wanted to make a TikTok about it.
"I just wish I could do more to help. I hope something can be done from this."

• 
  Julia Reinstein is a reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in New York.

  Contact Julia Reinstein at julia.reinstein@buzzfeed.com.

  Got a confidential tip? Submit it here.

Pro-Beijing camp’s landslide loss

SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST:

Politics

Time for Beijing to rethink Hong Kong script after pan-democrat landslide, Chinese analysts say

• The results of the district council elections will boost the power of the non-establishment camp and possibly influence the race for the city’s leader, observers say
• A central government official agreed that Beijing was surprised by the landslide win for the pan-democrats

Josephine Ma  

Echo Xie  

William Zheng  

Linda Lew  

Published: 6:01am, 27 Nov, 2019

The results of

Hong Kong’s district council elections

on Sunday were worse than expected and Beijing should start considering how the outcome will affect the 2022 race for the city’s chief executive, mainland specialists on Hong Kong affairs have warned.

“Beijing was psychologically prepared, but it did not expect [that the pro-establishment camp] would suffer such a severe defeat,” Wuhan University law professor Qin Qianhong said.

A central government official agreed that Beijing was surprised by the landslide win for the pan-democrats.

“We know it was going to be a tough fight as some pro-establishment candidates said they faced verbal abuse when they walked the district, but the number of seats [the pro-establishment camp] won was below our expectation,” he said.

A record 2.9 million voters, representing 71.2 per cent of the registered electorate, cast their ballots in the weekend polls, up from 47 per cent in the 2015 district council election and 58.3 per cent in the 2016 Legislative Council election.

The pan-democrat camp won 392 of the 452 seats to control 17 out of the city’s 18 district councils.

The results mean the pan-democrats look set to take up all the 117 seats for district councillors in the 1,200-member Election Committee that selects the chief executive.

Tian Feilong, an associate professor at Beihang University’s law school in Beijing, said that as a last resort Beijing could exercise its right to refuse the appointment of an “unacceptable” chief executive candidate.

“[The results] will boost the direct or indirect political power of those not in the pro-establishment camp,” Tian said.

“[But] if a candidate that is not acceptable to Beijing has emerged, Beijing would not appoint them.”

Qin agreed that the Basic Law gave Beijing the power to turn down undesirable candidates, but that there were risks.

“The result could be another massive street movement,” he said.

Hong Kong’s crushed pro-government camp faces up to new challenges

Li Xiaobing, a Nankai University academic specialising in Hong Kong politics, said it would be a concern if pan-democrats allied with different sectors in the Legco and chief executive races over the next few years.

“If it was just a few people, then it is easy to handle. But now they have formed a group and become a power,” Li said.

“If they join hands not only among themselves but with different sectors, then it would have … an impact on the Legco and chief executive elections. Beijing would have to address it with countermeasures.”

The pro-establishment bloc ended up with about 40 per cent of the votes on Sunday but an additional 800,000 voters turned out on the weekend, compared to the 2016 Legislative Council elections, and more than half of them voted for the pan-democrats.

“The election has polarised politics in Hong Kong. It has forced those in the middle to take sides. I think most of these people opted to take the extreme side [of pan-democrats who did not denounce the radical protesters]. It is a big political lesson,” Tian said.

In their campaigns, the pro-establishment bloc promoted the need for stability and a return to social order after more than five months of protests in the city but the strategy appeared to have little impact on the new voters.

“Hundreds of thousands of young people were new registered voters … These people were those affected the most by what happened in the past five months,” Nanjing University law professor Gu Su said.

Gu said Beijing might now have to agree to chief executive nominations that were acceptable to both camps.

Hong Kong election result draws cautious response from Beijing

Song Sio-chong, a professor at the Centre for Basic Laws of Hong Kong and Macau at Shenzhen University, said many middle-class people who did not vote in the past also came out to support the pan-democrats this time.

“This election is entirely politicised and there was no mention of community affairs. It prompted the middle class, who were sympathetic to the democrats, to vote. The extensive work by the pro-establishment camp at the community level in the past has become ineffective. What should we do next? It is a big question,” Song said.

He said Beijing should reconsider its strategy and give the pro-establishment parties more flexibility.

“A major reason for the defeat of the pro-establishment is that it was tied to the Hong Kong government in the anti-extradition bill campaign. There was not enough room for the pro-establishment camp to have its narrative and to respond. They could only respond passively in line with the government’s position.”

Gu agreed. “The way the pro-establishment camp supported the government was too direct. Some changes are expected in their relations with the Hong Kong government.”

Politics

Pro-Beijing camp’s landslide loss in district council elections ‘a chance for reflection’ on Hong Kong

• Commentators in mainland China say the poll might kick-start some deeper thinking on public opinion and the central government’s approach to the city
• High-profile tabloid accuses the West of helping opposition forces in the race

Kinling Lo  

Published: 6:00pm, 25 Nov, 2019

Prominent mainland Chinese commentators called for reflection on Beijing’s handling of Hong Kong after the

pro-democracy camp’s landslide win

in local elections on the weekend.

Hong Kong’s district council elections are traditionally low-key events to choose representatives for community office, but Sunday’s poll was seen as a de facto referendum on more than five months of

anti-government protests

that have gripped the city.

The pro-democracy camp, defined by their general support for the protests, won control of 17 out of the 18 district councils, all of which previously had a pro-establishment majority.

Beijing has accused the West, especially the United States and “opposition parties and politicians” in Hong Kong, of fuelling protests triggered by a now withdrawn extradition bill that have since developed into calls for democratic reforms and an investigation into police use of force against the protesters.

Mei Xinyu, an economist affiliated with the Ministry of Commerce, said on Monday morning that “the landslide defeat in the Hong Kong district council elections could be a good thing if it resulted in deep reflection”.

“The mess in Hong Kong and a big defeat in the district council elections will hopefully kick-start rumination on its own Zunyi Conference,” Mei said in an online post, referring to a meeting of Communist Party leaders in 1935 that resulted in a personnel reshuffle and endorsed Mao Zedong’s leadership of the party and military.

In an opinion piece published after the election results, state tabloid Global Times said the outcome should not be understood as a sign of support for “mobs”.

“It is both inconceivable and totally impossible that most Hongkongers would encourage violence, support political confrontation against the mainland, and back the city to become a bridgehead for US political forces to pressure China,” the article said.

But it also accused “Western forces” of backing the opposition in the elections.

“It must be pointed out that the West has been helping the Hong Kong opposition in district council elections in the past week,” it said.

The article cited various overseas media reports last week as evidence of that help, including reports that

Simon Cheng Man-kit

, a former employee of the British consulate in Hong Kong, claimed to have been tortured during 15 days of detention on the mainland amid the protests.

It also referred to Australian media reports about

Wang Liqiang

, who claimed he was a mainland spy but was described by Shanghai police as a fraud.

Global Times

editor-in-chief Hu Xijin

urged pro-Beijing supporters not to be discouraged by the results, saying they should see them “as a foundation for the country to face the practical issues in Hong Kong and a focus to improve future work”.

“With the country so strong, the happenings in Hong Kong will not turn things upside down … staying united is most important,” Hu said.

As the ballot count continued into Monday morning, influential mainland commentator

Ren Yi

compared the elections in Hong Kong to a “referendum”, calling it “the only credible opinion poll”.

“Both the pro-establishment and pro-democracy camps have been politicising the elections, asking people to vote to have their voice heard on the political unrest … All parties [in Hong Kong] are driving people to vote in the ‘referendum’,” Ren wrote on his Chairman Rabbit WeChat account.

Ren, who has more than a million followers on Weibo, is regarded as very influential among Chinese officials.

“Hong Kong has been lacking a credible opinion poll, there has not even been a credible exit poll, so presumably both camps have no clear understanding of the election results and need to understand public opinion through this election,” he said, adding it would be necessary to study the demography of voting results.

Ren has published frequently on Hong Kong with a hawkish view towards the protesters.

Flint Street Nativity: A Review

by Les May

I WAS looking forward to first night of the second offering of the season from Rochdale’s Curtain Theatre, Flint Street Nativity.  Did it live up to my (high) expectations?  Well, almost.

An adult theatre group, playing children to an audience which had a fair sprinkling of Primary School teachers amongst its members, who between them must have been involved in dozens of such happenings, was always going to be a challenge, especially as many of the cast had to appear a second time as their parent later in the play.

The first twenty minutes or so I found baffling.  I much prefer to laugh with children not at them.  It was I suppose intended to ‘set the scene’ by recapitulating the rehearsals and introducing us to the different personalities of the children.  I found myself longing for Michael Winner to rise from the grave and say ‘Calm down dear’ or an Ofsted inspection to take place.

Things changed once ‘The Christmas Story’, or at least the Flint Street version of it, got underway.  There was the expected humour of the ‘child’ cast being in the wrong place on the stage, being too shy to speak their lines, bizarre farm animals and upside down babies.  But some of the funniest pieces were from the innocent honesty of some of ‘the children’, verbal misunderstandings, and new words to old carols.

After the one king with two presents, bath salts and myrrh, had found her way to the baby Jesus, who by this time was looking rather the worse for wear, it only needed Herod and his cardboard castle to round off the story.   But it didn’t finish there.

In the final scene we were invited to the meet the parents over glasses of punch and hear the prejudices they had handed on to their children.  And what a bunch they were!

But that wasn’t really the end, because Tim’s dad appears in the playground and we are fleetingly invited to the darker side of Christmas for some parents.   If you are unfortunate enough to recognise him, just remember miracles do sometimes happen at Christmas.  Honestly they really do.

*****************

Pastor NIEMOLLER for OUR TIME

“First they came for the Communists
 And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews

And I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then the Jews came for the Palestinians

And I didn’t speak out, afraid of being labelled “Anti-Semite””.

 

Christopher Draper, 2019

**************************

Blue Story Film Ban Dispute

  Slag-off of Cinemas for ditching film after Birmingham brawl

 by Brian Bamford

RONAN Bennett, the Northern Irish novelist, screenwriter and one-time anarchist, today criticised the decision of a cinema chain to shutdown showings of the film Blue Story following a brawl between warring gangs in which teenagers armed with machetes in Birmingham fought.

Since the shutdown there have been claims of an overreaction to clash as police say decision not based on official advice.

Two leading cinema chains are now facing a backlash over their decision to withdraw a film about warring street gangs, 

Ch Supt Steve Graham stressed that the force did not ask for the movie to be withdrawn by Vue and Showcase cinemas after the disturbance at the Star City leisure complex on Saturday night.
Footage on social media appeared to show people fighting in the foyer area of the cinema, where families and children were queuing to watch Frozen II, while witnesses said some of those involved tried to force their way into screening rooms without paying.


Showcase said it would no longer show the movie at its 21 venues in the UK after Vue withdrew the movie from nearly 100 cinemas on Sunday.  Six teenagers, including a 13-year-old girl and 14-year-old boy, were arrested after what West Midlands police described as “maybe the worst thing” its officers had seen.

 But following mounting criticism, Showcase has since said tonight that it was reinstating the film “supported with increased security protocols”.

BBC Films described Blue Story as an “outstanding, critically acclaimed debut feature, which powerfully depicts the futility of gang violence. It’s an important film from one of the UK’s most exciting new filmmakers which we’re proud to be part of.”

Its distributor, Paramount Pictures, said though it was “saddened” by events at Star City, Blue Story was “an important film” that had had “incredibly positive reaction and fantastic reviews”.

************************

Comments on the Bolton Fire

— Grenfell United (@GrenfellUnited) November 16, 2019

The Pressure Group Grenfell United said the fire in Bolton 'brings back memories' of the Grenfell Tower fire, which claimed 72 lives in 2017, and called for Government action.
“Devastating to see images of such quick fire spread last night in #Bolton,” tweeted the group, which represents bereaved and survivors from the fire.

Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) said it was “deeply troubling” to see fire spread rapidly up a building’s exterior again and called for a “complete overhaul” of fire safety in the UK.

***********

STATEMENT on Bolton student residence fire

STATEMENT  by GREATER MANCHESTER

TRADE UNION COUNCIL EXECUTIVE  

– Saturday 23^rd November, 2019

THE meeting of the Greater Manchester Association of TUCs [GMATUC] Executive (Saturday 23^rd November, 2019), was the first opportunity after the Bolton student residence fire to support the FBU statement (16^th November) and the Bolton TUC statement condemning the ‘complete failure’ of the UK fire safety system and relieved that no one was killed.

The fire at The Cube student residence was a disaster that should never have happened.

Along with Bolton TUC there are two points we want to make:

First, there is the question of flammable cladding and the unacceptable delay in enforcing the removal of all flammable cladding in all buildings, following the Grenfell tragedy.

The second point we want to make [the public aware of our] concerns of cuts to the Greater Manchester fire services. The fantastic response of fire fighters to the conflagration at The Cube would have been less effective if the proposed cuts across Greater Manchester had taken place. All cuts to fire services must be shelved.

Stefan Cholewka the GMATUC secretary said: “GM Mayor Andy Burnham on TV said that the building was red flagged previously as it did not conform fully to fire safety regulations even though it was not classified as a high rise. However, he still proposes to go ahead with additional Greater Manchester fire service cuts… Thankfully, Greater Manchester fire service had learned lessons from Grenfell and swiftly evaluated the building with the help of a students residents committee. It seems that everyone is learning lessons from the Grenfell tragedy EXEPT Andy Burnham!”.

…We fully support Les Skarratts, FBU North West executive council member, when he said: "Greater Manchester has lost more than 600 fire fighters since 2010 alone and, alarmingly, Andy Burnham is trying to cut another six fire engines, including one in Bolton. 
"We need to stop the senseless cuts to our fire and rescue service before we see another awful incident like this.”

**************************

Swinson would press the nuclear button!

This is a disgraceful response from @JoSwinson. Not for the 1st time in this general election, she confirms she's ready to press the nuclear button. Not even a moment's hesitation about the prospect of killing millions of people. We need better than this#ITVDebate #VoteOutNukes pic.twitter.com/W84cuLTuoy

— CND (@CNDuk) 19 November 2019

*****************

THE Lib Democrat leader Jo Swinson has been heavily criticised by CND and others for saying that she would press the nuclear button if she became the next Prime Minister. During an interview with itvNEWS, she was asked:  "Would you ever be prepared to use a nuclear weapon?"  Without any hesitation, Swinson says "Yes." 

The female interviewer then replies:  "That was a brilliant short answer, thank you very much." 

She was then asked:   "Which world leader would you call first, if you became Prime Minister?" 

Swinson, replies:  "Jacinda Ardern".

Jacinda Ardern, the New Zealand Prime Minister, opposes the use of nuclear weapons and supports nuclear disarmament.  Despite the serious consequences of nuclear war  and being capable of killing millions of people at a whim, Swinson still managed to keep a smile on her face.  Is this clueless numpty head, fit to be Prime Minister?

************

Tameside Remembers The Spanish Civil War

Click on image to enlarge

 

Unite drop dishonesty allegation against Turley.

Anna Turley

UNITE the UNION have withdrawn the allegation of 'dishonesty' that they made against Anna Turley who has brought a High Court libel action against Unite and Stephen Walker, who runs the blog, Skwawkbox.  Unite has now withdrawn a claim that Ms Turley lied about receiving union mail.

Anthony Hudson QC, representing the union and Mr Walker, told the judge that he had been instructed to withdraw an allegation that Ms Turley had lied about receiving mail from the union.

Turley, the then Member of Parliament for Redcar, had  incorrectly applied to join the union under a Community membership category, which is for people not in paid employment. Mr Hudson, told the court that Turley would have known this, but she has told the court that she thought she was entitled to join.

Ms Turley said:  'My reputation for honesty and integrity are of the upmost 'importance to me.'

*****************

CWU STATEMENT:ON COURT JUDGEMENT

Royal Mail Dispute – High Court Judgement

CWU members will be and are extremely angry and bitterly disappointed that one judge has granted Royal Mail an injunction to invalidate our ballot for strike action.

We balloted over 110,000 members and they voted by over 97% in favour of strike action in a massive 76% turnout.

Not one single person out of 110,000 who were balloted complained to Royal Mail that their right to vote was interfered with. Not one single person out of 110,000 who were balloted complained to the independent scrutineers that their right to vote was interfered with. The electoral reform society who conducted the ballot confirmed it was run in full accordance of the law. And after over seven weeks since the ballot commenced, not one single person has complained to the certification officer who is appointed by the government to regulate trade unions.

Yet despite all of this – with no evidence supporting their claim from any employee – Royal Mail can come to this court in what is a cowardly and vicious attack on its own workforce – and through a witness statement of one manager can be granted an injunction to stop our right to strike in defence over 100,000 jobs and the very future of UK postal services.

We have run a fantastic modern day campaign that combines face to face meetings with use of social media to engage willing members to maximise the yes vote and turnout. Members participated and cast their vote of their own free will. To suggest otherwise is to insult the intelligence and the integrity of thousands and thousands of good hard-working people.

We will be considering the judge’s detailed reasons for this but we want to make it clear that the only thing this union, its representatives and its members have done – is to run a fantastic modern day campaign to engage and encourage workers to defend their jobs.

We want our members to know that we will not be moved and we will be doing everything in our power to oppose the company’s industry destroying plans and this decision, including appealing against the judgement once we have taken guidance from our lawyers, re-balloting and launching a huge leverage campaign with major shareholders against the company’s actions.

This injunction is not only a massive injustice to our members it’s also an injustice to every worker in the country.

We all need to wake up and recognise that this Tory government has deliberately stacked the rules against workers in favour of the constituency they were born to serve – which is big business and the establishment.

We appeal to the TUC and workers everywhere – in what is a call – to arms that it’s time for us to fundamentally shift the balance of forces in this country back to working people and remove these draconian laws once and for all.

To Rico Back and the Royal Mail Board we say you cannot face away from the reality that your victory in this court will be short-lived. You cannot face away from the reality that you have completely lost the confidence of the workforce and as a result there is no way you will ever be able to fully implement your plans for the future.

This union and our members will not be moved.

We will be communicating further on this issue directly to our members and representatives prior to the end of this week.

Any enquiries on the above LTB should be addressed to gsoffice@cwu.org.

Yours sincerely

Dave Ward
General Secretary

Tony Kearns
Senior Deputy General Secretary

Terry Pullinger
Deputy General Secretary (Postal)

19LTB659 – Royal Mail Dispute – High Court Judgement

View Online

INTERNAL TRADE UNION DISCIPLINE

Union Disipline, Free Speech & Dissent? *
by Brian Bamford

PAUL EMBERY, has been a trade union member since he was 16, but Andrew Penman in the Daily Mirror on 27 JUN 2019 wrote that he:  'was kicked out after speaking in favour of Brexit at a Leave Means Leave rally.  The official policy of the FBU is to oppose leaving the EU.'

Paul, who represented the London region of the FBU on its national executive, seems to have paid a high price for publicly disagreeing.


Now the London Regional Committee has issued a statement saying his sacking from the national executive “is wrong and goes against the entire ethos of our union” and has demanded his immediate reinstatement.

'Having considered the evidence, it is clear to us that Paul has been debarred from office because of the content of a speech that he made at a pro-Brexit event organised by Leave Means Leave on the evening of 29 March 2019,' it wrote:
'People are, of course, free to agree or disagree with Paul's personal opinions on this and other matters, but the London Regional Committee recognises the right of all officials to hold and express political views that are not necessarily the views of the FBU.'

And it quoted the FBU general secretary Matt Wrack previously claiming to support free speech, saying:  'To address the huge challenges our movement faces today, we need to build a culture of debate and democracy which accepts that there will be different views and sharp difference of opinion. Democracy must include the right to express those differences.'

Andrew Penman writes:  'That sentiment does not seem to apply when it comes to his members who oppose the EU.'

To be consistent in its support of freedom Northern Voices supports this statement although I do prefer the remain option mainly because I identify with Europe as my eldest lad was born there in the 1960s.   I also believe that the UK will be drawn into the orbit of NAFTA and the USA if it is not inside the EU.

******************

*  INTERNAL UNION DISCIPLINE – EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEMBER: BROTHER PAUL EMBERY

It is not usual for the Union to report matters in respect of an Internal Union Discipline case via an All Members’ circular, but I feel on this occasion it is necessary to provide some limited information in order to ensure that the members are provided with accurate details. This is because Head Office has been in receipt of a number of email communications from members, the content of which indicates that the material that has been circulated is resulting in a false perception of what transpired at the hearing.

An Executive Council-level Internal Union Discipline hearing took place on Wednesday 12 June 2019 to consider a report concerning Executive Council member Paul Embery, where the standard process of presentations and deliberations took place before decisions were made. Evidence in respect of six complaints was heard in accordance with the rules, over a period approaching 12 hours. The outcome was the award of a range of penalties in respect of a total of four complaints by the Executive Council. In the case of one of those complaints, it was resolved to award a debarment lasting two years.

As was explained when making this finding known to Brother Embery on 12 June, the rules allow for an appeal to the Union’s conference which may be an ordinary meeting or an especially recalled conference. It was made clear that the rules require that the sanction, i.e. the debarment, shall not be implemented until:-

• Either, where there is no appeal e.g. the date of the period for the appeal to be lodged has expired;
• Or, where an appeal is lodged, the outcome of the appeal has been determined.

Finally, it was made clear that the rules require that in the meantime, Brother Embery’s suspension from office, which took effect in May, shall remain in place until:-

• Either there is no appeal to be heard;
• Or, where an appeal has been lodged, the findings of the appeal have been determined.

The period for an appeal to be lodged is 14 days from the date on which the letter confirming the outcomes of the first hearing was sent to the Brother Embery.

This is a factual account.  We do not intend to make further comment.  We intend to respect the due confidentiality required by the process and indeed, Brother Embery has asked for such confidentiality to be observed.

Yours fraternally

ANDY DARK
Assistant General Secretary                                                                                                              

Labour candidate sues Unite & Skwawkbox for libel in High Court.

The Dartford Warbler - Anna Turley MP

Anna Turley (40) is hoping to retain her parliamentary seat of Redcar in the forthcoming general election on 12 December. Turley has been the Member of Parliament for Redcar since 2015.  A former Home Office civil servant from Dartford in Kent, Turley was elected to stand in the Redcar constituency in 2013, from an all-women shortlist.

Three years ago she made the headlines after calling Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, an 'arsehole' on twitter. Turley has now made the headlines because she's suing Unite over an article published on Skwawkbox that related to an application she made for union membership. She's also suing Stephen Walker, a journalist who writes, edits, and publishes Skwawkbox, and says that Unite also misused her private information. Unite and Walker are fighting the case at a High Court trial in central London.

Yesterday, Anthony Hudson QC, who represents Unite, told Mr. Justice Nicklin that Turley had been dishonest and 'regrettably' was "not fit to be an MP." He added: "Turley's dishonesty permeates through every part of the case." 

The court was also told that Turley had wanted to join a trade union with the ultimate aim of ousting her own party leader Jeremy Corbyn and had links to a WhatsApp group opposing Corbyn. The court was also told that she had broken the rules when applying to join the union at the reduced rate of 50p a week. 

The trial is due to last several days with lawyers outlining their case to the Judge.

Commemorating Norman Cornish: Pitman Painter

 

Pit Road by Norman Cornish depicts miners striding to work on a cold grey morning

A SERIES of exhibitions about a miner turned artist have been announced to mark a century since his birth. 

Norman Cornish, a former miner of Spennymoor, County Durham, was known for his paintings of life in the industrial North East.

He was a student of the Pitman's Academy at The Spennymoor Settlement set up in the 1930s to give mining families access to the arts.

Durham Council said six venues would host shows throughout the year.
One of the first shows, Norman Cornish, A Slice of Life opens at the Mining Art Gallery, Bishop Auckland Market Place on 6 April and will run until 13 October 2019.

Norman's son John Cornish said: "We are very proud of the esteem in which my father's work is held by the public and we hope the planned exhibitions and events will serve to reinforce the region's pride in its cultural heritage."
Cornish was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Arts by the university in 2012. He died in 2014.
Later this year, four further exhibitions will be announced at Gala Gallery in Durham and the Greenfield Gallery in Newton Aycliffe.
Cornish's former home from the 1950s and 60s is set to be recreated as part of the Remaking Beamish Project 1950s town, which is expected to conclude the centenary events.

Waterstones cancel the book launch

https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2019/11/book-review-for-book-zionists-tried-to.html

Book Review for the Book The Zionists Tried to Ban - Bad News for Labour UCL Backs Off Speech Restrictions at the Book Launch for  The Responsibility of Intellectuals   Reflections by Noam Chomsky and othe...

AS you may recall, this book by 5 distinguished academics – Greg Philo, Mike Berry, Justin Schlosberg, Antony Lerman and David Miller – was due to have its book launch in Brighton on September 23^rd during the Labour Party conference.

However a barrage of abuse from the Zionists and the normal accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’, ‘baiting the Jewish community’ (trans. disagreeing with Zionists) led Waterstones to cancel the book launch at the last minute.  Their Head Office took the decision to overrule the local store. The pretext was a lack of professional organisation. James Daunt, their CEO, who I spoke to during this affair, insisted that this was the only reason but it was so obviously not true that he has subsequently admitted that the cancellation was a mistake.  Waterstone’s have promised to reschedule the book launch which we await with baited breath.

What this demonstrates, along with the attempt by University College London to impose restrictions on the October 29^th book launch for The Responsibility of Intellectuals – Reflections by Noam Chomsky and other intellectuals is that freedom of speech is under attack by the Zionist lobby and its neo-liberal friends in this country. 

Professor Chris Knight, one of the authors, wrote to me two weeks before to say that the 5 restrictions below were being placed on the launch by UCL authorities.  I responded by saying that they must refuse to comply.  If necessary the book launch must take place on the steps of UCL.  The McCarthyites must be forced to back down.

I’m pleased to say that Chris and others took my advice and faced with the ensuing embarrassment the university authorities backed down.  You only have to look at the five restrictions to see how unacceptable they are.  Once again we see how the Labour Party ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign has spread outwards.  Here are the 5 restrictions that UCL were forced to abandon:

1.     Suggestions (overt or implied) that Jews as a group or particular sections of the British Jewish community invent, exaggerate or “weaponise” incidents of antisemitism for political or other benefit

2.     Suggestions (overt or implied) that Jews as a group or particular sections of the British Jewish community exploit or exaggerate the Holocaust for political or other benefit

3.     Use (overt or implied) of “dual loyalty” tropes relating to Jews as a group or particular sections of the British Jewish community and the State of Israel – for example that they are “controlled” by Israel or are working on behalf of Israel to the detriment of Britain

4.     Suggestions (overt or implied) that antisemitism is a less toxic form of racism than any other and/or that Jews are less vulnerable to discrimination than other minority groups

5.     Repetition (overt or implied) of antisemitic tropes relating to Jews and money and/or Jewish financial involvement in historical events or injustices – for example that Jews financed wars, slavery, etc

All 5 are contentious:

1.       The idea that Jews (they mean Zionists) don’t weaponise anti-Semitism is laughable.   That is all the Board of Deputies and groups like the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism do!  If you want proof you only need look as far as the front page story in the Jewish Chronicle this week which states that: 

“The vast majority of British Jews consider Jeremy Corbyn to be an antisemite. In the most recent poll, last month, the figure was 87 per cent.”