Joanne Cox: Political Class gets priorities right,

as a miner dies in relative obscurity

by Les May

EARLY last Friday morning, a miner called John Anderson was killed in an East Cleveland potash mine.  His death was relegated to page 13 of the 'i' newspaper and merited just a quarter of a page of newsprint.  Last Thursday an MP called Joanne Cox was killed in the street.  So far the same newspaper has devoted eleven pages to her death which today included the fact that £800,000 has been donated to a charitable fund set up by her friends.

For the families of both of these people their deaths are an ongoing tragedy.   But that is all that they have in common.  Mr Anderson's death has been reported to HM Mines Inspectorate and no doubt there will be an inquest.  That may merit a few lines in the national press or it may not.  Local Labour MP, Tom Blenkinsop, has spoken of his concerns following the death and intends to meet the mine owners ICL Ltd and the mine unions.  There is no reason to suppose that Mr Anderson's death was anything other than a tragic accident.  But history suggests that if that presumption were to prove to be wrong no one would appear in the dock charged with causing his death.  A man has already been charged with the murder of Joanne Cox.

There's a bandwagon rolling and lazy journalists are determined to scramble aboard before its too late.  A particularly inept sub-editor at the 'i' managed to confuse Joseph Priestley who in 1733 was born in Birstall where the murder happened, with author J. B. Priestley who was born in Bradford in 1894.  A day before in the same paper Joan Smith in an otherwise sensible article decided there was a bit of mileage in referring to 'an apparent normalisation of the most grotesque misogyny' and Andrew Grice took yet another opportunity to have a go at Jeremy Corbyn just as he did the day after.  It seems no one can resist the temptation to use this tragedy to further their own agenda.

But it's not just the media which have tried to use the killing to their advantage.  The organisation 'Unite Against Fascism' which sees a climate of 'racist discussion' on immigration having been 'stirred up' during the EU referendum campaigning.  Whilst the Tories, Lib Dems and UKIP all announced they would not contest the seat at the forthcoming by-election the Liberty GB prospective candidate, a former BNP member, announced his intention to stand by saying 'We cannot let Jo Cox's death be in vain'.  The North-east branch of 'National Action' took the opportunity to post on Twitter, '#JoCox would have filled Yorkshire with more subhumans'.  I usually think that invoking the word Nazi means you know you are losing the argument, but for this comment it seems entirely appropriate.

Eager not to be labelled as 'Stirrer up in Chief' Nigel Farage turned psychiatrist saying the killing was the act of 'one man with serious mental health issues'. This line will no doubt play well with those papers which have done so much to use immigration to stoke up resentment against the EU,  'It wasn't me gov it was him'.

Even the usually excellent Al Jazeera news channel managed to use it as an excuse to ask why the killing had not been labelled 'terrorism' when this epithet is so frequently attached to incidents involving Muslims.

Whatever this killing was it was not terrorism.  The whole idea of 'terrorism' is to terrorise the population at large by causing panic and uncertainty about whether you are going to be the next casualty.  Like the killing of Lee Rigby in 2013 Joanne Cox's killing was a carefully targeted attack.  Terrorists see the whole population of a country as a legitimate target.  The IRA Manchester bomb of 1996, the Twin Towers attack of 2001, the London Bombings of 2005, can all be accurately described as 'terrorism'.  By the same token the targeted killing of secular bloggers and academics in Bangladesh isn't terrorism either.

I find it distasteful that after her untimely death Joanne Cox is being given the 'Sleb' treatment by some sections of the media.   It's an old trick.  Lavish praise on what someone has done.  Associate yourself with similar views, which are of course the views of all 'right thinking people', and hey presto, a nice bit of self praise emerges.

Whatever Joanne Cox's qualities personally I'd like to see fewer MPs with a background of university, working for a charitable organisation, then the House of Commons, and more from John Anderson's background.

Whatever I think of Simon Danczuk's antics as an author and MP, he is surely right to draw attention to the fact that so many of his colleagues really do form a 'metropolitan elite'.  He could have added that they inhabit the same 'Westminster Village' as the journalists who write about them.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/18/thomas-mair-charged-with-of-mp-jo-cox  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestley 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Priestley

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

 

EX BNP candidate jailed for harassing German next-door neighbour. Everybody needs good neighbour's!

A former BNP candidate who stood four times for election in Dukinfield, has been jailed for 14 weeks for harassing his German-born next-door neighbour.

Roy Kevin West (48), of Glenmore Grove, Dukinfield, was found guilty of breaching a restraining order which prevented him from "making direct or indirect contact" with Mr. Bernd Kugow and Susan Holt, his next-door neighbour's. The order also prevented him from mentioning or making reference to them on the "internet, via social networking, blogging and discussion forums."

Last year, West was given a 12-week jail sentence, suspended for 12 months and subjected to a curfew order, after he subjected Mr. Kugow to verbal abuse calling him a 'Kraut', after he confronted him about a display of union flags and poppies which West had erected to face his neighbour's home.

In 2009, West pleaded guilty to racially aggravated public order offences against Mr. Kugow. The court heard that West, who had three St George's flags and a Cornish flag in his back garden, had attempted to put up a Union Jack by attaching it to Mr Kugow's shed. And when Mr Kugow objected, West flew into a rage, calling his neighbour a 'Kraut *******' and telling him to '**** off back to Krautland' before adding 'kill some more Jews'. West also told his neighbour to 'remember Dunkirk' during the 10-minute tirade.

West originally pleaded not guilty to racial abuse but shortly before he was due to take the witness stand for his trial at Tameside Magistrates' Court, he dramatically changed his mind and admitted the charge. His solicitor said West felt under pressure to deny the charge because of his position in the party.

After his arrest, the BNP leadership complained that he was the victim of a 'malicious prosecution' and tried to organise a demonstration to protest against the arrest. But the protest was called off when West said he wanted the case to remain a private matter.

 Mr Kugow said his neighbour later apologised over the incident and came to his house with a box of chocolates and a handwritten letter. He said West sat crying in his kitchen as he admitted his guilt.
West was later fined £125 and ordered to pay £200 costs and a £15 victim's surcharge. He was also ordered to pay Mr Kugow £50 compensation.

In 2012, West was acquitted at Oldham Magistates Court, by District Judge Prowse, on a charge of pusuing a course of harassment against John Taylor, the deputy leader of Tameside Council, when the Crown said it would offer no evidence if he accepted a restraining order. The two-year restraining order, prevented West from going within 50 metres of Cllr. Taylor's home in Dukinfield.

When he appeared before District Judge Craig Osborne, the following month, to answer two charges of breaching another restraining order, West told the court, that he believed that Cllr. Taylor and his neighbour had been acting in collusion and that he had been filming Cllr. Taylor, on one of his frequent visits to Mr. Kugow's home.  While the filming of Mr. Kugow washing his car was upheld as a breach, the filming of Cllr. Taylor was dismissed as a breach. The Judge said that although "West had behaved like a juvenile idiot", he was surprised that New Charter as a Registered Social Landlord (RSL), had got involved in a neighbour dispute when Mr. Kugow was an owner occupier. The Judge had also told West that if he breached the injunction again, "you will be well advised to bring your tooth-brush with you to court on the next occasion. Breach it and it's jail; or nothing."

Originally from Dewsbury, West moved to the Tameside area some years ago. Before taking up residence in Dukinfield, he lived in Hyde, where we understand he was also known to have had trouble with the neighbour's. We understand that West is currently residing in Forest Bank prison pending transfer to another jail.

Tales of Hoffman: Part Two

FURTHER to our post 'Tales of Hoffman:  Part One' on this Blog last week, Northern Voices was sent another  commentary from the photo-journalist, Mr. David Hoffman, on his involvement with Freedom Press and his subsequent claim which resulted in Freedom paying him £4,000.   Here is what he has to say on reflection; in some of this he repeats what he has already said in 'Tales of Hoffman:  Part One':

Dear xxx,
'I found the [copyright] saga depressing, a Greek tragedy.  Entirely foreseeable, entirely avoidable and entirely inevitable.  If Freedom had had the respect that I might have expected for what is my lifetime's (well over 36 years so far) work against racism none of this would have happened.  Dozens of left publications ask me for my pics, pay at an appropriate rate and we all work together generously and honestly.  Freedom pissed in the soup to save a few bob and out of a feeling of arrogant entitlement.  Just like a banker.

'This is a roughly pasted together e-mail that I've been adding to, that's why you'll find it a bit disjointed.  At some point I might flesh it out with specifics like times and dates for the numerous attempts I made to get Freedom to settle for a few hundred (NUJ rates) and the return of my stolen prints used for a book.  And there's a lot more  that I did trying to avoid this slow motion train wreck.

'I have 104 items in my "Freedom" robbers folder, that's 10 times what there should be and because I bust my balls trying again and again to find them a cheap easy way out.  I've never worked so hard trying to save an infringer from its own death wish.  Freedom just ignored me, made promises they didn't keep, wasted my time, lied repeatedly and dug themselves deeper and deeper in their own poo.

'That's why it became so expensive.  Mind you, if it had been Getty's pics they'd nicked it would have likely been five times as much.

'It seems that the current collective hasn't sufficient conviction in their own case to allow any of this on their site, so I'll leave the handful who have been cursing me to get on with it on their own.  I've had my teeth knocked out by cops, had my life threatened by a (now serving life) BNP murderer (and by a dozen others from '70s NF to 2012 EDL) and I've survived every major riot in the UK in my lifetime.  I can probably cope with a few rude tweets from people who lack the courage to use their own names.

'There's a lot more to this than Freedom are putting into the public realm.  Unfortunately you are unlikely to see it, as a response alongside the allegations on their site would expose their deceit.

'I've been a fan and supporter of Freedom since 1970.  I've been asked to speak at the Book Fair and have been to many of the events in Angel Alley.  I've rather lost touch with them over the last decade as the collective has become inward looking, defensive and irrelevant.

'I put 3 months into trying to to get a cheap, amicable resolution.  Twice, neutral, independent friends of theirs tried to resolve this.  Both said Freedom should settle.  At the start it would have been a few hundred to cover the standard NUJ recommended fees and they could have had time to pay if needed.  They were ignored.  Freedom stonewalled, lied, obstructed, refused to make any offers at all, claimed they had permission, blamed others and accused good people I know of some seriously treacherous behaviour - all lies.  They left me no choice but to walk away or go in hard.  It was Freedom who ruled out an amicable solution.

'I'm not inclined to walk away from oppressive behaviour from the right or the left.  I put a great deal of time and effort into protecting the rights of my colleagues (and myself) and I'm not about to undermine that 30+ year struggle by letting a bunch of armchair anarchists deliberately pillage work that I have put together since the'70s often at considerable risk.

'Freedom also owns a secretive holding company with the building worth well over £1m (they deny that but had it valued recently - let's see the valuation?) plus significant other assets secret.  Just like the Barclay brothers.  They are in no danger of bankruptcy - other than moral bankruptcy.

'In any case the readership of the paper has been falling for years, long before this spat.  The collective has discussed whether they can or should continue to produce it on a number of occasions.  Pretending that the doubts over its future are down to this single payment is a deliberate deceit against its own supporter.

'The [Freedom] collective pretends that using my photos "was a honest mistake" that's not the case.  The question of copyright was raised at the collective meeting that decided to publish the book and [was] just brushed aside.

'Freedom are professional publishers with more than 100 years of publishing behind them.  They know about copyright.  They mark all their own books with clear copyright notices!  Some of the photos (prints stolen from another mag.) had my name and copyright notice and contact info. on but they deliberately ignored that.

'Sometimes they claim "it was a honest mistake".  But  other times they say that they thought they had permission - yet they never even told me they were publishing my work or gave me a credit.  Why?  Because they didn't want me to find out.

'There's loads more but I've wasted enough time on this.  I've been insulted and subject  to daft allegations for 30+ years.  Let them rattle on about how evil I am if it makes them happy.  Me, I'm happy to be judged on my record.

'And some of the £4K has gone to Kiva, some to the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, some will go to other good causes and some is for me to take down to the pub with my friends.

'I might also have added that the collective were deeply split on whether to go ahead with the book (voted to publish by 1 vote).  And Dean Talent (the collective member who really pushed for publication) told me apologetically that trouble it had caused was his/ their fault.  Then they slung him out of the collective, they certainly blame him (see Dean Talent's comment disputing this beneath Tales of Hoffman:  Part One). 

'My recent claim is only the tip of the iceberg Freedom are sailing towards.  There are plenty of other photos infringed in that book and Freedom have made no attempt to head that off or try to resolve it.  There are many, many other books published by Freedom.  I'd be amazed if there were not hundreds more copyright infringements just waiting to fall in on them.'

regards,
David

'PS - The are currently 3 copyright infringements by the far right, one really major one that I'm working on.  Do you think I should just let them go?  If any of those end up in court my case would be badly weakened if it turned out that I am partisan about who I choose to take action against.'

Tales of Hoffman: Part One

Northern Voices promised to give Mr. Hoffman a fair crack, and an opportunity to put his side of the story in his dispute with Freedom Press (see post below), over their use of his photos without his permission.  Below are the ruminations and comments in an e-mail from David Hoffman about the circumstances of his copyright claim with Freedom.  Members of the Freedom Collective may well question some of his allegations here, but Northern Voices will refrain from further comment at this stage:

Sadster that I am - I am on the computer a great deal of the time.  If you wanted facts you could have had them in a 5 minute phone call.  Clearly you don't.  WGAF (Who gives a fig).  You might mention the Freedom have £1m plus asset squirrelled away in a holding company just like any City fat cat.  They don't need an appeal for money, they're just greedy.  But you won't.  You might mention that Freedom used stolen pics for the (rather crap) book ['Beating the Fascists'].  But you won't.

You might mention that I spent 3 months trying to settle this for just a few hundred quid but Freedom wouldn't negotiate.  But you won't.  You might mention that at the meeting where the publication was discussed (before they went ahead) they discussed the copyright position and knew they were ripping off myself and several other photographers.  But you won't.  You might mention that the (Freedom) collective were deeply split on whether to go ahead with this ripoff of our work (voted to publish by 1 vote).  But you won't.

I could go on but you've already decided what you want to write and have limited time.

If a handful of armchair anarchists want to be rude about me then I expect I can take it.  I've had my teeth knocked out by cops, had my life threatened by genuine BNP murderer (and by a dozen others from '70s NF [National Front] to 2012 EDL [English Defence League] ) and I've survived every major riot in the U.K..

Two more things - Jayne ... was one the best of the bunch, honest, open and a thoroughly decent woman.  And Dean Talent (the guy who really pushed for the publication [of 'Beating the Fascists'] told me apologetically that it was all his/ their fault.  They then slung him out of the collective.

To be biblical - (not my usual style) 'The giggles of fools are as the crackling of twigs under the cooking pot'.

Nobody whose opinion I care about will do anything but laugh.

David.

Former BNP candidate acquitted of harassing Tameside councillor!

When it comes to bitterly feuding rival parties, the hatred and hostility that exists between ex-BNP candidate Roy West and John Taylor (pictured), the Labour deputy leader of Tameside Council, could hardly be surpassed. The 'feudin hillbillys', the Hatfield's and the McCoys, from West Virginia, have got nothing on these two.

The slanging match between these two bitter political rivals, which usually sees them trading insults with one another on a regular basis, took a different turn recently, when West - who stood against Taylor in the May Tameside local elections as an independent candidate, - was summoned to appear before a District Judge at Oldham magistrates' court charged with "pursuing a course of harassment' against councillor Taylor, for a period of more than 18 months" which involved 'sending emails, letters and leaving comments on John Taylor's blog.'

West, of Glenmore Grove, Dukinfield, denied the charge and was due to stand trial a week last Tuesday. But on the day of the trial, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) -who were clearly desperate to avoid a trial - and Mr. West's defence solicitor, came to an agreement that the Crown would offer no evidence against him, provided he accepted a 'restraining order'. Acquitting Mr. West and dismissing the charges against him, District Judge James Prowse, then issued a two-year restraining order which prevents West from going within 50 metres of councillor Taylor's home on Jubilee Avenue, Dukinfield. The order also prohibits West from contacting councillor Taylor in any way - other than when taking part in election campaigns or at council meetings. The Judge told the respective parties:

"My thanks go to everyone for avoiding a messy trial. This is a sensible end to a long and unhappy story. I hope that's an end to it and I hope that any further exchanges can be kept within the democratic process."

This case involving Mr. West, is not the first time that councillor Taylor has gone running to the police complaining that he's been harassed by a member of the public. In 2008, Taylor complained to the police that he'd been harassed by Liam Billington, a 19-year-old Tory blogger, who ran a blog called 'Tameside Eye'. The allegation of harassment, related to three doctored images which appeared on his website. Billington was subsequently arrested and held in custody for 7 hours at Ashton police station, where he was photographed, fingerprinted and a sample of his DNA was taken. His two personal computers were also removed from his home and seized as evidence. During questioning by his police interrogators, Billington was asked about other blogs and who ran them and was told not to to let on, that he'd been asked about this. Charged with one count of 'harassment' and two counts of 'racially aggravated harassment', he was eventually released on police bail. After considering the evidence against him, the Manchester Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute him.

Councillor Taylor's complaints of being harassed go back many years. On a number occasions, he has written in the local press about receiving hate mail, and of being stalked, and of having dog excrement thrown into his garden. Only last month, Mr. West received a solicitor's letter written on behalf of councillor Taylor, and two other councillor's, warning him about his 'behaviour and conduct'. One of the things they complained about was a t-shirt that West had been wearing in public, which named certain councillor's and the amount of allowances that they had claimed. Though this information can be accessed on the council's own website, the letter stated that the councillor's "feel intimidated and harassed by your conduct."

While one can understand why these councillor's would feel vexed by Mr. West's political activities, such as wearing a t-shirt in public with their expenses claims emblazoned across it, does this sort of thing really constitute harassment? One might also ask if this law of harassment, is being used as a means by which politicians can silence their critics and political opponents.

When the 1997 'Protection from Harassment Act' was being debated, campaigners warned that a bill whose ostensible purpose was to protect women from stalkers, was so loosely drafted that it could be used by the police however they wished. This law was used against protesters outside the U.S. intelligence base at Menwith Hill who the police said were harassing American servicemen, because they held up a placard which read "George W. Bush? Oh dear!" Even more ridiculous, was the case of a protestor in Hull, who was charged with harassment on the grounds that he'd been staring at a building. The Act was also used against villagers in Oxfordshire who were protesting against a plan by RWEn power to turn a lake into a fly ash dump. They were told by the police that if they continued, they would be prosecuted for harassing the security guards on the site.

Clearly this is a law that is wide open to serious abuse by those who exercise power and control and a law, which poses a serious threat to civil liberties.

Council candidate given a 3 month suspended sentence!

Kevin Roy West (47) a former BNP candidate of Glenmore Grove, Dukinfield, who is standing as an 'independent' candidate in the Tameside elections today, appeared before Tameside magistrates on Tuesday and was given a three-month gaol sentence suspended for 12 months after being convicted of 'racially aggravated harassment' of his next-door neighbour, Mr. Bernd Kugow.

West who pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing but offered no defence, was also put under curfew between the hours of 7.00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m., and electronically tagged. The court also ordered that West undertake 100 hours unpaid community work and pay costs of £250. A restraining order was also imposed which bars West from any contact with Mr. Kugow or his partner.

We understand that Mr. West is also facing further legal proceedings - which have been adjourned - involving a complaint of harassment against a prominent Tameside councillor. The rules on sub judice prevent us from reporting further on this case which is set to go to full trial next month.