Covid-19: Laurens Otter lambast's hospital food

by Brian Bamford

THIS last week N.V. was shocked to learn that the veteran anarchist Laurens Otter living in Wellington, Shropshire, and long-time supporter of the Northern Anarchist Network (NAN), had contracted Covid-19.  It seems that some months ago following an operation of his knee that he got a dose of sepsis, and that this resulted in him going into 'rehab', where he recently finished up catching the coronavirus.

When I spoke to Laurens yesterday his voice was weak but not hoarse, and he expressed his despondency that he was probably not going to be home for his 90th birthday, next Tuesday.*  Also he had not been able to get his usual copy of The Guardian, owing to his daughter, Fiona, not being able to visit him in the current climate of restrictions.

What cheered me up were his complaints about the painfully overcooked nature of hospital food.  It cheered me up as it was typical of Laurens going on about having to compromise about the dreary diet on the wards.

Today however, Fiona told me that he had had another phone call from Martin Gilbert, and that he had been moved to a cottage hospital which she thought was a move in the right direction as she said she thought that the staff felt that he was improving.  Though we both thought that he will be lucky to be out for his birthday.

Laurens has had a long history of fighting in both the anarchist and peace movements and many will wish him well at this time.  We wish both him and Fiona all the best at this testing time.

* Update 07/04/20:  Lauren is still having to spend his 90th birthday in hospital today, but if the 'powers that be' can get a care package in place, all being well he may be home by Monday next. 

Update 08/04/20: Laurens who last night was a bit groggy at 8pm is today eating his dinner according to the hospital. 

Update 09/04/20:  Laurens returned home today, and is sleeping on a special care bed tonight.

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

STALIN’S HOLOCAUST

  & 'the Falsifiers of History'

 by Christopher Draper

CLICK ON PHOTOs & ENLARGE IMAGEs

HAVING recently reviewed the film 'Mr Jones' for NV I’d now like to examine the 'Holodomor' that forms the backdrop to Agnieszka Holland’s work.  In 1953 Ralph Lemkin, the man who coined the term “genocide”, described Stalin’s Ukrainian famine as 'not simply a case of mass murder' but 'a case of genocide, of mass destruction, not of individuals only but of a culture and a nation'.  For Stalin, starving the Ukraine was the completion of unfinished business, his final solution.

Uppity Peasants

From the outbreak of the Russian revolution Ukrainian peasants fought to not only free themselves from landlords but also from domination by either Austrian troops or Bolshevik commissars.  Armed bands of guerrillas effectively liberated and defended their villages for prolonged periods with the most successful led by anarchist Nestor Makhno.  From 1917 until 1921 the Ukraine maintained its effective independence until finally overwhelmed by Trotsky’s Red Army.

Despite the Bolsheviks’ military victory they never captured the hearts and minds of the Ukrainian peasants who continued to resist forced Soviet collectivization. Determined to industrialise his Russian empire, in 1932-33 Stalin ruthlessly 'appropriated' Ukrainian grain to sell abroad in exchange for machinery.  The 'beauty' of Stalin’s Holodomor campaign was that it killed several million birds with one policy; it earned hard currency, it 'encouraged' peasants to submissively join collective farms in the faint hope of receiving basic sustenance and it offered the prospect of eradicating the last vestiges of independent Ukrainian cultural and political identity.

Saints and Sycophants

Two British journalists, Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge, reported that millions of Ukrainians were being starved to death but most of their press colleagues looked the other way, gazing in admiration at Stalin’s imaginary achievements.  'Useful idiot'  Bernard Shaw celebrated his seventy-fifth birthday at a banquet in Moscow, ridiculing those who’d given him tins of food as he left England, 'They thought Russia was starving but I threw all of the food out the window in Poland before I reached the Soviet frontier'.  As a consequence of Shaw’s pro-Soviet sycophancy, as Gareth Jones noted, 'After Stalin the most hated man in Russia is Bernard Shaw'.

Malcolm Muggeridge reported from Russia in 1932-3 as correspondent of the Manchester Guardian and after witnessing first-hand the starvation of the Ukraine, in March 1933 he contributed three damning articles on the famine. Jones’ reporting promptly echoed and magnified Muggeridge’s observations which provoked the wrath of Stalin’s apologists, led by celebrated New York Times correspondent, Walter Duranty.

Curiously Anne Applebaum in her recent magisterial tome, 'Stalin’s War on Ukraine' (page 324) insists, '…nobody came to Jones’ defence, not even Muggeridge' yet in April 1933 Muggeridge wrote to Duranty’s newspaper challenging his claims and unequivocally backing Gareth Jones.  Muggeridge’s New York Times intervention was subsequently reported in the Western Mail & South Wales News on 10 May 1933 under the headline, 'The Raging Famine in Russia'. Muggeridge couldn’t have been more explicit or outspoken, '…my own observations of the state of affairs outside Moscow…led me to come to precisely the same conclusions as Mr Gareth Jones.'  In his autobiography Muggeridge described Duranty as, 'the greatest liar of any journalist I have met in 50 years of journalism.'

Duranty’s Dad?

Duranty’s coverage of Stalin’s Five Year Plan gained him a Pulitzer Prize and the enduring gratitude of the Soviet regtime. His shady version of events is still occasionally taken at face value by modern biographers; James William Cowl ('Angels in Stalin’s Paradise') swallows Duranty’s absurd claim that he was orphaned as a child when both his parents were killed in a train crash.  Sally J Taylor ('Stalin’s Apologist') is less credulous yet writes that, in 1899 Duranty was suddenly transferred from Harrow public school to Bedford Grammar, 'for reasons never made clear, his father dropped from sight entirely, leaving his mother to take up modest lodgings on her own'(pg 20) 'His father had simply disappeared'(pg 26).  Duranty’s Wikipaedia entry explains, 'He studied at Harrow, one of Britain’s most prestigious public schools but a sudden collapse in the family business led to his transfer to Bedford College.'   

Like Duranty’s press colleagues, his biographers overlooked the elephant in the room.  The truth is that Duranty was no orphan and his father’s disappearance no mystery - on Thursday 27 July 1899 William S. Duranty, aged 52, was convicted of fraud at Liverpool Crown Court and sentenced to 'four years penal servitude', whence prisoner Z.285 was transferred to Parkhurst Prison.  It is a curious irony of Walter’s affection for Stalin, that his father’s middle name was recorded as “Steel”.

A Bed-Full of Liars

Many shared the liars’ bed alongside Duranty and Shaw. Both the British and American governments received secret intelligence of the Holodomor but kept quite, preferring to collude with Stalin for strategic and commercial advantage. Both The Economist and The Times broke undertakings to publish Gareth Jones’ Ukrainian reports.  Jones and Muggeridge were cold-shouldered by colleagues and banned from returning to Russia.  Muggeridge went off to work in India whilst Jones reported first from Germany and then the Far East where he was killed.

Murder!

On 11 July 1935 Gareth Jones ventured north from Bejing into Inner Mongolia on a trip arranged with the help of two locally based Westerners, Adam Purpis and Herbert Muller.  Muller was the North China & Mongolia correspondent of the official German news agency whilst Purpis was local director of 'WOSTWAG', a German trading company, whose firm supplied the two pressmen with a vehicle and Russian driver, Anatoli Petrewschtschew, for their long journey along a route arranged by Muller.

On 25 July they met up with Purpis at a Mongolian trading post where (according to a report Muller despatched to his press agency), 'We were to be the guests of Mr Purpis, a Latvian, “the King of Kalgan” who is the chief trader in inner Mongolia'. 

After enjoying Purpis’ hospitality Jones and Muller continued on their quest until sometime before the end of July they were captured by 'bandits' about eighty-three miles north east of Kalgan, near Paochang. After that, reliable evidence is hard to come by but curiously after a couple of days captivity Muller and the driver were both released, allegedly so they could raise a ransom for Jones’ return, however when a ransom was offered it was refused.  On 16 August Jones’s discarded corpse was discovered by Chinese troops, he’d died from two bullet wounds to the torso and another in the back of the head, the classic assassin’s coup de grace.

The Homodor’s Final Victim?

Newspapers speculated on the reasons for Gareth’s killing but recently released British intelligence files indicate a sinister truth. Jones’ associates were not as they appeared, both Herbert Muller and Adam Purpis were identified by MI5 as Russian agents and WOSTWAG was a Red Army trading vehicle organised to obtain hard currency for the purchase of armaments and also provide cover for Soviet secret agents.  It is not difficult to detect Stalin’s murderous hand in Gareth Jones’ execution but for the sake of balance I would like to conclude by noting that “The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)” have recently published their own review of the Agnieszka Holland’s film 'Mr Jones' and arrived at rather different conclusions;

“Far from exposing the crimes of Stalin and the USSR, the new film Mr Jones exposes the utter bankruptcy of modern western cinema and the thoughtless, prejudiced, virulently anticommunist propagandists who fill positions at the Guardian and other such institutions.  These real falsifiers of history need to be exposed and confronted for the barefaced liars that they are.”

Gareth died but Stalin lives on!

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

What’s a ‘Real’ Woman?

by Les May

IN recent days the ‘Twitterati’ have been busy tearing into each other about this question after an author of books for children ‘tweated’ a comment on the subject.

As anyone who reads NV will know I am a critic of the ‘Cocks in Frocks’ brigade who expect to declare they are ‘trans-gender’ and insist that everyone else accept it without question. But, as I have made clear previously, I am happy to treat any ‘trans-sexual’ person who has had gender reassignment surgery and the hormone treatment entailed, as a woman. For me the bottom line is whether they have shown the level of commitment to being a woman which is needed if they are required to lose their wedding tackle.

Is a trans-sexual woman a ‘real’ woman? Take a blood sample, send it to a cytologist, and he or she will tell you it came from someone with a Y chromosome, indicating the person was born a male. So as a biologist I must answer ‘No’ to this question. But that does not mean I cannot choose to treat the person as a woman both legally and socially, ‘real’ or not. I choose to do so because such a person would pass the ‘duck test’. (If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.) In this I differ from people like the author Germaine Greer and some of my friends.

This is a situation for which there is already at least one precedent.

Between 1965 and 1967 someone I have known all my life adopted three small children, all under 4 months of age. Three times he stood in court whilst the judge made it very clear that from the moment the Adoption Order was made he was responsible for every aspect of that child’s welfare and well being.

Is he the ‘real’ father? A DNA test would show that he is not related to any of the children, nor they to each other. So as a biologist I must answer ‘No’ to this question. (He simply says he’s their Dad.)

From the moment the adoption order was made he was treated by the state, and the organs of the state, as that child’s father. Legally that is what he now was and still is. The child acquired a new identity, its birth certificate was changed and it took his surname.

Not only is he considered for all legal purposes as the children’s father, socially he passes the ‘duck test’. For 50+ years his family and his friends have accepted that he is the children’s ‘father’, not withstanding the DNA evidence to the contrary. His children and grandchildren accept it too.

So what has this got to do with trans-sexual people? A Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) is the legal equivalent of an ‘Adoption Order’. Discriminate against people with a GRC and, to be consistent, you should declare your willingness to discriminate against people who adopt children and the children themselves.

But there is a wider lesson to be learned here. Some children are ‘difficult’ to place for adoption, wrong age, wrong abilities, wrong colour, spring to mind. Demands for amendment of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to allow ‘self certification’ centre around the stringency of the procedure and the time it takes. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever suggested that adoption law be changed to allow the procedure to be made less stringent and permit potential parents to ‘self certify’. This would no doubt make placing ‘difficult’ children much easier. It won’t happen because we recognise the potential for abuse of the system. The fear is that changes to the GRA would lead to similar abuses of the system.

If you are an adoptive parent and anything I have written above about ‘real’ parents has made you a little uncomfortable, that was not my intention. There’s more to being a mum or dad than sharing a few thousand base pairs of DNA. Families are made not born.

**************** 

Rochdale Market: Is there going to be a reprieve?

 Shy Councillor John Blundell & the Regeneration of the Town Centre
by Brian Bamford

EARLIER this week stall-holders on Rochdale Market were looking forward to a possible temporary reprieve after the Council had threatened closure of the Market next Monday, two days before the next full meeting of the Council. Since Councillor Blundell, the Cabinet member responsible for Regeneration, took the decision to give Rochdale's 178 year-old market the chop under this latest Council attempt at regenerating the Town Centre, the authorities seem to have been shocked by the local uproar among the public and in the media.

Following a slot on last week's consumer program 'You and Yours' on Radio Four, one local councillor told NV that Cllr. Blundell was under pressure and was now 'changing his tune'.

'Unlike you Brian I don’t fraternise with the opposition.'

NV contacted the good Councillor Blundell:

'as the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, can you tell me how you propose to use the former Santander Building which is now housing the current indoor market stalls. What does the council intend to do with the building after the stall-holders have departed?'

To which minutes later the e-mail reply from the Cabinet member for Regeneration & Business came back:

Councillor John Blundell:

Mon 30/09/2019 10:39

Dear Brian,

'There has been no attempt to fill that building until now due to it being occupied by the cafe and market. The council are now looking for alternative uses – I am all ears to anybody who wants to submit any proposal to the Council including a market. I will have officers look at this, to get a professional opinion, and I will then decide how to proceed.

'I will not be discussing these with you as these are private conversations that we will hold with businesses and other potential occupiers.

'I won’t be contacting Cllr Paolucci. Unlike you Brian I don’t fraternise with the opposition.'

Well! Well!  Does this not show how transparent, tribal and trite our politicians are these days?

'Why would I share any of this information with you?'

LAST Tuesday, I again e-mailed Cllr. Blundell to confirm what was going on:

Dear John,

'Yesterday, I spoke to the stallholders on Rochdale Market and they said there is to be a reprieve for the local market for a period of 6-months? I was also told that you had been down. 'Furthermore, it was said that you are awaiting the completion of the new market centre?  Does this mean that once that is finished you will be relocating the current stall-holders to that location?  As you must be aware there has been some recent publicity about local markets, has this had some impact on your change of mind?'

Yours sincerely,

Brian Bamford

And Cllr. Blundell's further reply was:

Hi Brian,

'Why would I share any of this information with you?'

John

  Followed by yet another frantic e-mail from the noble councillor:

'I have asked you to stop emailing me several times.

'Please stop.'

As the Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Business, Councillor John Blundell, is a public figure paid by local citizens. Does he not feel he ought to answer questions from a member of the public or the press?  Or is he just shy by nature?

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

Germaine Greer on 'Bad Faith' & 'career rapees'

An anthropological approach to rape in society

by Brian Bamford

YESTERDAY Germaine Greer argued on Radio Four's 'TODAY' program that we need to look at how the rape narrative is tackled and defined in society, and what this tells us about the treatment of women today.  She said, among other things, when asked to define her stance on #MeToo, Ms Greer declared: ‘I don’t actually think it’s gone too far, I don’t think its got anywhere at all.'

She then added:  ‘What we need is to sort out the law regarding rape and to sort out our concept of what it is.
‘It’s pointless now bringing up this stuff when [for] most of it no action can be taken.
‘Why wait 20 years?’

She of course neglected to concern herself here with the treatment of men or boys in society.

 Cambridge House & the abuse of boys

And yet, I live in Rochdale where it was at Cambridge House in November 2012, that the issue of the exploitation and abuse of boys by Cyril Smith in the 1960s was initially reported on this NV Blog and simultaneously on the Westminster Politics Home website.  A few hours later Simon Danczuk made his speech in the House of Commons (an earlier story about this in 1979 in Rochdale's Alternative Paper [RAP] had been squashed by a threat of legal action by Cyril Smith's solicitor).

Rape & Jean-Paul Sartre on  'Bad Faith'

Ms. Greer told listeners to Radio Four that #MeToo doesn’t work:  ‘I don’t actually think it’s gone too far, I don’t think its got anywhere at all.
‘What we need is to sort out the law regarding rape and to sort out our concept of what it is.’

To understand this better perhaps we should consider the nature of bad faith and exploitative behaviour in human relationships generally.  Ms. Greer talks about women who 'open their legs' to gain career advantages from Harvey Weinstein

In the North it was in the 1970s and 80s, and may still be, a common practice for women to hang around in  pubs using their charms in order to get men to buy them free drinks, and one (perhaps I should say second generation feminist) use to complain to me about these working-class women who boasted about it as she thought it was 'disgusting' and anti-feminist.  When I went working in London I worked with men in the sugar refinery in Hammersmith who used to chat-up women in clubs and when the women went to the toilet they would tell me how they would empty their handbags. 

Dealing with bad faith in a way which seems to relate to what Ms. Greer has said, the French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre. gave an example of a young girl on a first date:
'The young woman’s date compliments her on her physical appearance, but she ignores the obvious sexual connotations of his compliment and chooses instead to direct the compliment at herself as a conscious human being. He then takes her hand, but she neither takes it nor rejects it. Instead, she lets her hand rest indifferently in his so as to buy time and delay having to make a choice about accepting or rejecting his advances. Whereas she chooses to treat his compliment as being unrelated to her body, she chooses to treat her hand (which is a part of her body) as an object, thereby acknowledging her freedom to make choices.'

 The #MeToo Mob in Hollywood want to argue that they had no choices and had to succumb to Weinstein's wilds and that they had no power of agency. 

Another example of bad faith that Sartre gives is that of a young woman on a first date.  The young woman’s date compliments her on her physical appearance, but she ignores the obvious sexual connotations of his compliment and chooses instead to direct the compliment at herself as a conscious human being.  He then takes her hand, but she neither takes it nor rejects it.  Instead, she lets her hand rest indifferently in his so as to buy time and delay having to make a choice about accepting or rejecting his advances.  Whereas she chooses to treat his compliment as being unrelated to her body, she chooses to treat her hand (which is a part of her body) as an object, thereby acknowledging her freedom to make choices.

For Sartre, people may pretend to themselves that they do not have the freedom to make choices, but they cannot pretend to themselves that they are not themselves, that is, conscious human beings who actually have little or nothing to do with their pragmatic concerns, social roles, and value systems.

 Germaine Greer's anthropological analysis & the initiation of 'Donkey Dick'!

Germaine Greer's approach to what she calls 'career rapees' is it seems to me anthropological, while Sartre's is philosophical.

I mentioned Rochdale, and the historic case I knew about of the teenagers abused by Cyril Smith at Cambridge House, using spanking practices and 'false medicals'.  I could have dealt with the historic practices of the initiation ceremonies which took place in the factories in the North West of England in the 1950s and 60s, when I was an apprentice electrician.  Last month we had Shrove Tuesday or Pancake Tueday, and it was at that time common for young apprentices to get their balls blacked or greased, or both.  De-bagging's of lads were often indulged in on the shopfloor on the pretext that it was an ancient custom of an 'iniation ceremony', in the 1950s it was argued that this should be done when lads reached 18-years when the lads became 'improvers', perhaps owing to the advent of the Welfare State, lads were becoming too big at 21 on completion of their apprenticeship when they officially 'came out of their time'.  One lad at Tweedale & Smalley where I worked, gained the title 'Donkey Dick' and seemed to enjoy the title as well as the exploits and High Jinks.

However an outsider may view these escapades, and when I did try to protest I was made to feel like a wet blanket,

How do we consider these initiation practices?  Are they to be represented as the abuse and exploitation of young people and apprentices by tradesmen?  Or are we to see it as an ancient custom perhaps handed down to us from the times of the rural village? Perhaps even Harvey Weinstein and those who engaged with him thought they we involved in some ancient ritual or initiation ceremony.

 Jean-Paul Sartre on Bad Faith | Outre monde:

www.https://outre-monde.com/2011/03/29/jean-paul-sartre-on-bad-faith/ 
******

Are N.H.S. services in Greater Manchester safe with Andy Burnham?

'Doe-eyed' - Andy Burnham

Andy Burnham, who is standing as a candidate in the Greater Manchester mayoral elections, was recently described by one newspaper columnist, as ‘doe-eyed’ and a cross between ‘Paul McCartney’ and a ‘Thunderbird puppet’. Last week, Andy, the Member of Parliament for Leigh, was on the stump in Ashton-under-Lyne, where he was billed to be speaking at a public meeting on ‘Health and Well-being, at Clarendon Sixth Form College.

While the event was free to attend, and was advertised on ‘eventbrite.com’, it was not widely advertised or easy to register and many of the people who were attending the event, told me that they were Labour Party members who had received invitations to attend the meeting. Despite assurances from a Labour functionary, wearing a red tie, that it was indeed a public meeting, a Tameside councillor, told me that it was by invitation only.  

By all accounts, the event turned out to be less a “Policy Development Conference on Health and Well-being” and more an Andy Burnham roadshow. A health professional, who managed to attend the meeting, who is also a Labour Party member, told NV that the event was a ‘missed opportunity’ and a ‘waste of time’. Seemingly, proposals to integrate health and social care in Tameside and across Greater Manchester, “the first properly integrated National Health and Care Service”, which Burnham supports, were presented as a shining light within Greater Manchester.

While the public are told that Andy Burnham is keen to involve the public in developing policies that “will make a real and meaningful difference to people’s lives”, this turned out to be even more bullshit. According to our health professional, the people in charge of the meeting were not interested in talking about the massive bed cuts at Tameside Hospital, low staffing levels, or how tax-payers’ money is being wasted. Neither had they much to say about the fate of the N.H.S. Instead, all the speakers focused on how Andy Burnham’s career as a Labour politician, had been full of dedication to the well-being of the great British public.

Although I think that integrating health and social care could be an excellent idea, the thought of out-of-their-depth, ten-bob councillors, in Greater Manchester, having greater control over N.H.S spending and health care in the region, is something that fills me with abject horror. In 2013, the Electoral Reform Society (ERS), said that Labour dominated councils like Manchester, Salford and Tameside, were at risk of becoming the equivalent of ‘one party states’ like North Korea, China or Cuba.

Last month, Sir Richard Leese, the Labour leader of Manchester City Council- a council where almost all the council seats are filled by Labour - speaking about DevoManc, told an audience at the Greater Manchester Centre for Voluntary Organisations (G.M.C.V.O) A.G.M, that he wanted to see ward and hospital closures across Greater Manchester, including Tameside. He believes that many people who are currently in hospital, need not be there and that their needs could be better met in other ways. 

However, as part of the ‘Devolution’ agreement, the government have made it a condition that all the ten council’s in Greater Manchester, develop ‘new care models’ between now and 2020, to receive the £450 million, ‘Transformation’ fund monies agreed in the devolution agreement. Mr Leese also believes that it is the role of voluntary organisations, to “fill in the holes”, left by public service cuts.

Already, Tameside Hospital have confirmed that they are planning to close 246 beds at the hospital by 2020 and claim that this can be compensated for by the creation of five local multidisciplinary care teams. Moreover, care services are steadily being privatised - CareUK have recently been given a five-year contract for musculoskeletal services in Tameside. Nationally, some 200 N.H.S care services have also been handed over to the billionaire tax exile, Richard Branson.

Milton Peña, a retired consultant orthopaedic surgeon, who worked at Tameside Hospital for seventeen-years, told a public meeting held in Stalybridge in September:

“Such a massive reduction in bed capacity will lead to a drastic deterioration in quality of care of patients in Tameside and Glossop. Safety, effectiveness and patient experience, will be significantly affected.”

Some people are rightly suspicious about the notion of “integrated care” believing it to be a cover for cuts, deprofessionalization and the downgrading of N.H.S services. They question how private companies can provide a high standard of health and social care while making profits and point out that this is often done, at the expense of cutting staff and working conditions.

Although, Andy Burnham, failed to explain how ‘integration’ will improve health and social care, some sceptic’s in the ‘Tameside Keep our N.H.S Public’ group, believe that Labour in Manchester, have:

“swallowed hook, line and sinker current government ideology that believes publicly funded and provided health and social care services should be severely reduced, leaving a ‘safety net’ for the deserving poor, for whom no alternative is possible.”

As they point out, this would mean most of us paying for services or taking out private health insurance as is the case in America, where failure to pay medical bills, is the main cause of middle-class bankruptcy in the United States.

As a candidate for Mayor, Andy Burnham, should tell the electorate whether he agrees or disagrees with Sir Richard Leese in wanting ward and hospital closures across Greater Manchester and how “integration”, will improve health and social care.

More crappy conduct surrounding Danczuk

by Les May

The above image of the RAP front page is copyright

and Northern Voices has been given permission to use it.
******

TUCKED away in the 'Acknowledgements' section of the hardback edition of the book 'Smile for the Camera' by Rochdale MP, Simon Danczuk and his aide Matthew Baker, is a line crediting the Rochdale Observer for some of the photographs used in the book.  That's curious because there are no photographs in the book.  It seems that the authors were so keen to get the book out that they dropped the pictures.

The cynical amongst you might think this was to make sure that it appeared before the 2014 local election, and so give them a stick to beat the Rochdale Lib-Dems with, because until 1992 Cyril Smith had been the local Lib-Dem MP.  If it was, the plan rapidly backfired when it was pointed out that at the time Cyril was spanking bottoms at Cambridge House he was a member of the Labour party.  

This little mystery was solved when the paperback version came out in 2015.  Sure enough here were the photographs.  But amongst them was an image that was uncredited.  It was a picture of the front page of the first edition of the Rochdale's Alternative Paper (RAP) dated November 1971, which had a cartoon of a Cyril Smith shaped barrage balloon hanging over Rochdale Town Hall and the authors had not sought the permission of the joint editors of RAP, David Bartlett and John Walker before using it.

Unsurprisingly, John Walker wrote to Ian Dale, Managing Director of the book's publishers Biteback Publishing, to point this out.

'No permission was sought, or obtained, from the editors of RAP for such a reproduction.  I have been advised that this unauthorised and unacknowledged reproduction is a breach of copyright.  I am further advised that an appropriate reproduction fee for the use of the image - illustrative of much of the content of the book - would be £1,000.'

Now if you think that this is rather a lot money to ask for the use of an image bear in mind that Mr Danczuk appears to have made rather a lot of money from the reproduction of images of his good self, as well as from the Daily Mail serialisation rights of the book.  Also, bear in mind that the image had been published without permission being sought and that, as we shall see, Hell would have frozen over before permission would have been granted.

None of this money was set to go into the pocket of John Walker or David Bartlett.  The letter continued:
'My wife and I run a small educational charity in The Gambia ( see www.SohmSchoolsSupport.org.uk  for full details of its activities, status and legitimacy).

'It would be my intention, that after agreement with my RAP co-editor, the reproduction fee should be paid to the Sohm charity, as indeed have other small fees for articles paid to me, relating to the story.'

The first response from Ian Dale was to claim that it was a newspaper masthead, and hence was free of copyright.

So John Walker tried again:
'Good effort for being dismissive and avoiding the substance of mine of the 4th.

'I can only assume that it was a desire to respond quickly that meant you didn't fully read my letter, nor refer to the image reproduced in Smile for the Camera, before composing and sending it.

'The image reproduced was not simply the  'masthead' of the first edition of RAP, but the full front page - featuring a magazine-commissioned cartoon, that is probably four times the size of the masthead.  Are you saying that you believe this is not subject to copyright?  A strange stance from a publisher, I would have thought.

'Had it only been the masthead that was reproduced, I think that, even by the slack attention to detail standards evidenced in the book, the caption writer to the RAP image would have managed to notice that the publication's title (as clearly shown in the masthead) was Rochdale's Alternative Paper.  It was not 'Rochdale's Alternative Press', as the caption, along with such other references to the publication in the book, has it.'

This produced an apology from Ian Dale and an admission of liability in the form of an offer of £75.

The third letter from John to Biteback's Managing Director, Ian Dale, explained why this sum was inadequate:    

'Thank you for your letter of 15 March, accepting that you have been in breach of copyright and face a liability over the unauthorised reproduction of the front cover of the first edition of Rochdale's Alternative Paper, in the paperback edition of Smile for the Camera.

'I have been in contact with lawyers and IP (ed: intellectual property) specialists who advise me that your opening gesture of a settlement is inadequate, for a number of reasons:

'Firstly, the right to use the image was neither sought, nor given, prior to publication.

'Second, this transgression is aggravated by the fact that if not you, certainly the book's authors, would have known that permission would not have been given for the reproduction, had it been sought.  I won't bore you with a tedious timeline of events, or supporting documents, if you don't already know the background, but I'm sure the authors will agree that there has been a considerable rift between us over rights and potential authorship of the book.  Even they accept, begrudgingly, and in a grossly understated way, my role in the book's gestation, in its Acknowledgements section.  Should you want full chapter and verse of my disagreement with them I will happily supply it.

'Third, the now iconic cover cartoon of the first edition of Rochdale's Alternative Paper, which you reproduced, without accurate acknowledgement of source or recognition of copyright ownership, is in fact, central to the claims made in the book about Smith's dominating and all-powerful role in Rochdale politics in the 1960s and 1970s.  This, in some ways, enables them to make some pretty far-fetched claims about Smith - unverified - knowing that readers would accept them because 'The Fatman' could apparently get away with anything.

'In these circumstances my advice is that a fee of £250 would be a reasonable one, made of course, to the Gambian charity, of which I have previously written (details below).'

Three weeks later with no response from Biteback, and no money put into the account of the Sohm school charity John Walker wrote:

'I note that you have neither replied to my letter of 3 April, nor deposited a payment into the Sohm Schools Support bank account.

'Out of courtesy, I must tell you that should there have been no response by the 1st, May, I shall escalate this matter.'

Ian Dale's initial view that the sum asked for was 'above the going rate' is seriously mistaken.  Had permission been sought first such a comment would have been in order because a market would have existed.  In this case he would have been free to accept or decline the price being asked for permission to publish the image.  The price could have been quite high because of the 'scarcity value' of the image there being no other supplier.  That is how markets work.  Simply taking and using the image means that no market exists and the question changes from, 'Is this a fair price?' to  'What is my lawyers bill likely to be?'

Taking and using an image without first obtaining permission amounts to theft of intellectual property, which is hardly something one would expect an MP to want to be associated with.  Both authors had a responsibility to alert the publisher about possible copyright issues.  As they credit the Rochdale Observer for some of the photographs they were clearly aware of this.

To his credit Ian Dale paid the £250 fee requested.  I hope that he recovered it from Danczuk and Baker because by paying up he 'pulled their coals out of the fire'.

If John Walker feels a bit aggrieved at the way Danczuk and Baker have written him out of the Smith story I can understand why.  This is what he told me in an e-mail, relating to the genesis of the Danczuk/Baker book in 2012:

'I tried to get the Smith case re-opened (ed: after revelations about Savile were aired in October 2012), and as a result met up with current Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk to suggest writing a book on the subject (me to write, him to front).

'He seemed very keen. We got to the point of me drafting a lengthy synopsis and meeting up with an agent, who ended up arranging for a publication.

'It was at this point Danczuk ditched me and worked with his then press secretary to produce a book Smile for the Camera, published by Biteback Publishing.  It became quite a hit, and attracted a lengthy serialisation in the Daily Mail.

'I was more than a little upset that I had been cut out of this process and contacted Danczuk along these lines.  I suggested that by way of compensation he made a donation to a charity my wife and I run in The Gambia (Sohm Schools Support - see below for details).  He ignored this.'

Referring to the cartoon on the cover of the first edition of RAP, John Walker emphasised a point I have made repeatedly in my reviews of Smile for the Camera; that the majority of Danczuk and Baker's claims cannot be verified:

'It was clearly used to depict Smith as Danczuk wanted him to be seen, and implicitly acknowledged the source (RAP) of the ONLY independently verified bit of Danczuk's sensational claims in the book.' (see Les May's review of 'Smile for the Camera' on NV Blog)

John Walker had originally been in contact with Danczuk about making a contribution to his African charity at the time of the original publication of Smile for the Camera, in recognition of his role in its emergence.  He had suggested that if the Danczuk contribution were significant, it could result in a facility at the Sohm school being named after him, to reflect his contribution (e.g. The Simon Danczuk library, or dining room).  Danczuk ignored this, and made no contribution.

As it happens, a new toilet block is currently under construction at the Gambian school, partially funded by John Walker's charity.  With the approval of the school principal, this is likely to be formally named and branded the Simon Danczuk block, when next John visits the village

I'm promised a photo of it so I'll post it on the NV blog.

If NV readers feel they would like to make a donation to the new toilet block in recognition of Mr Danczuk's contribution to political life since he was elected MP in 2010, I am sure it will be gratefully received.  The web address is given below.  To make a dreadful pun:
'Don't just sign a petition about Danczuk, do something concrete'.

In my now distant school days it was common to hear a lad say he was 'going for a crap'.  No doubt in future, Gambian youngsters will be heard to say 'I'm going for a Danczuk!'. 
How singularly appropriate.
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/simon-danczuk-and-that-book-1.html
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/simon-danczuk-and-that-book-2.html
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/simon-danczuks-cyril-smith-book-3.html
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/simon-danczuks-cyril-smith-book-4.html
www.SohmSchoolsSupport.org.uk
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/simon-danczuk-twitter-meltdown.html

Bury Times & Bin Collections

ON Thursday, a letter in the Bury Times was critical

of a claim made by Bury Council in the previous issue
that claimed that the Council had only had '18 formal
complaints' from the public, and that this suggested that
there was customer satisfaction with the local bin collections.

THE Manchester Evening News (MEN) on the 20th, October, ran a story entitled 'More than 10,000 complaints made about missed bin collection since start of year'.  The article referred to bins left unemptied owing to refuse collectors discovering overflowing or overweight bins or simply incorrectly used bins.  But while showing an increase in complaints the article warned that the data applied  'only to Manchester, Salford, Wigan, Trafford, Stockport and Tameside councils.  Bolton, Bury, Oldham and Rochdale said they couldn’t collate their figures to respond.'

Yet, somehow Bury Council managed to rustle up some figures shortly afterwards because Sarah Yates was able to report days later in the Bury Times on the 25th, Oct. 2015, that 'Bury Council chiefs have received more positive feedback about its three-weekly bin collections than complaints.'

Thus Bury Council, the first council in England to collect rubbish bins once every three weeks, is now able to announce according to the Bury Times that 'whilst it received 18 formal complaints, there were 65 compliments registered since the grey bin collection regime began a year ago'.

Consequently, those Jeremiah's like NV, some binmen and local residents, who voiced their concerns of overflowing bins, rat revivals and insect infestations have now seemingly been proved wrong.  Indeed, now councils like Rochdale and elsewhere have eagerly followed in the footsteps of Bury MBC.

The question remains as to why Bury couldn't collate their figures in time to respond to the MEN Freedom of Information request a few days earlier?  Especially given that the number of negative complaints at merely 18, were so tiny compared with almost everywhere else?  Surely they can count up to 18?

In the current Bury Times, Ian Coates from Radcliffe, declares:

'FOLLOWING the story in last week's paper about the three-weekly collections and the council claiming to have had only 18 formal complaints, they are in cloud cuckoo land.  If they actually think people want the three-weekly collections they are deluded.  They are seeing whet they want to see.  Why do they not go on to Facebook and look what the people of Bury and Radcliffe are really saying.'

Only a week ago an ex-policeman was voted into the Tottington Ward of Bury as a conservative councillor, and he fought on the platform of restoring more regular collections of grey bins.

 



Friends of Freedom Press: Life & Death?

WHEN in 1979 the Rochdale Alternative Paper (RAP) exposed the abuse of boys by Cyril Smith at Cambridge House in Rochdale the only national publication to take the story up was Private Eye.  It was then widely known among national journalists and media outlets that Cyril Smith had abused his powers, but apart from Private Eye there was silence in the rest of the media.  Similarly, when Chris Draper did his forensic study entitled 'Who Killed Freedom: an unauthorised history'  on the NV Blog earlier this year, except for some rather corny anonymous comments there was a strange silence among the official anarchist media.  Ironically again it has been left to Private Eye to follow up and report on the goings on at Freedom Press in Angel Alley, next to Whitechapel Art Gallery in East London.   

The Freedom Website has significantly not commented on Chris Draper's diagnosis and has not covered any of serious developments regarding the meetings of the Friends of Freedom (FFP), the trustees and owners of the Freedom building, that have taken place as a consequence.  The current issue of Private Eye reports that FFP 'will meet in London' today to take some action to remedy the situation at Freedom.   

The crisis at Freedom, I suspect, is really the tip of an iceberg in not only the so-called anarchist movement, but on the British left in general.  The inability to debate and discuss difficult and inconvenient facts is widespread.  For example the historian, David Goodway, wrote a very shallow historical postscript after the demise of Freedom newspaper last year.  It all suggests an intellectual and moral bankruptcy on the British political left. 

Friends of Freedom, like the solicitor, Richard Parry, the historian, David Goodway, and the others in attendance, must today at 2 o'Clock begin to address the practical questions of what to do about the unruly Freedom Collective that closed down the newspaper last year and are discrediting anarchist politics. 

Who Killed Freedom?: an unauthorised history 4.

The End but Not for Everyone…

by Chris Draper

ON March 10^th, 2014 FREEDOM announced:

“We have come to realise that a solid hardcopy newspaper is no longer a viable means of promoting the anarchist message…An underlying problem has been a lack of capacity to sustain it. We had hoped that Freedom would be adopted as THE paper of the anarchist movement…Although Freedom Press has changed from a political group with a particular point of view to a resource for anarchism as a whole, we have not managed to shake the legacy of the past and get different groups to back it as a collective project…the shop, publishing and book distribution will continue…As will the use of Angel Alley for meetings, events, offices…”   

Four aspects of this statement deserve close scrutiny:

1. no longer viable
2. a resource for anarchism as a whole
3. not managed to get groups to back it
4. shop, publishing, book distribution…meetings, events, offices.  

I dispute all four, interconnected, elements.  

Viability

FREEDOM’s viability was adversely affected by the development of the internet but in 2000 Freedom Press published a quarterly journal, the Raven, and a fortnightly newspaper so it should now be possible to finance a monthly paper.  The premises are owned freehold (and contribute almost 6K annual rental income), Aldgate Press printed the paper free (which alone equates to a 10K annual subsidy), hundreds of subscribers paid upfront, the paper had an established brand name and distribution network so FREEDOM enjoyed huge commercial advantages over other aspiring anarchist publications but as I’ve attempted to illustrate, successive collectives took all this for granted, alienated existing writers and readers and failed to secure a new constituency.

 

Resource for All

Under Charles Crute’s editorship FREEDOM welcomed articles of every variety of anarchist thought and practice.  When two articles presenting opposite sides of an argument were submitted both were published. Until 2001 FREEDOM relished controversy and open debate, after Toby’s ascendancy a narrow class-struggle line was enforced.  The collective’s claim to be a resource for 'anarchism as a whole' whilst consistently refusing to publish material that challenges their party line exemplifies their arrogance and dishonesty. 

Not Managed to Get Groups to Back It

I lied about disputing this section of the statement, for it indicates a rare flash of insight on the part of the collective.  As I argued from the beginning, groups, like SolFed and AF have enough problems maintaining their own organisations to put much effort into FREEDOM.  It’s the bit claiming:  

We have not managed to shake the legacy of the past'  that I dispute. 

Successive editors have not just shaken the legacy; the intellectual, moral and political legacy of pre-Crowe FREEDOM has been razed to the ground. 

Spoils of Class War (shop, book publishing, offices, meeting rooms etc)

Having provided a political play-school for aspiring class warriors FREEDOM newspaper is no longer of interest.  Like the Revd Toby Crowe, several members of the collective past and present have gained other pulpits for their sermons. Political organs from libcom to Morning Star now 'benefit' from the opinions of interns schooled in Angel Alley.   The alumni’s attention is now focussed on other assets in the FREEDOM portfolio and the collective privately admit that most were always more interested in getting their hands on the building than producing the paper.   'Within the Freedom Collective only a small minority were involved in producing the paper, not so much lack of commitment as not seeing it as central to what Freedom as a building was for.'   Vernon Richards must be spinning in his grave.

Conveniently situated between Aldgate East tube station and Whitechapel Art Gallery; the premises now provide convivial clubrooms for members and friends of the FREEDOM collective. Class-struggle groups might not have done much for the paper but ironically FREEDOM now provides them with convenient London meeting rooms.

FREEDOM’s book-publishing business was initially exploited by the clique to produce the decidedly dodgy,'Beating the Fascists'.  In 2014 they reprinted John Quail’s, 'Slow Burning Fuse' with the added 'benefit' of a new introduction penned by collective member and leader of AF, Nick Heath.

The collective have grand ambitions as Andy Meinke, who now runs the bookshop explains:

'At some point we want to move out of here, somewhere on a street front to get more passing trade.'  Sale of the freehold could raise around a million pounds.

Many of FREEDOM’s lesser assets have already been disposed of to friends and associates of the collective. In 2008, former FREEDOM editor John Retty discovered classic books from the shop of no appeal to class-struggle types were being destroyed en masse.  Confiding to friends at the London Bookfair that he’d managed to salvage a few copies of his own literary works, he appeared gloomy and depressed as he reflected on the significance of the destruction.

FREEDOM’s archive of historic books and newspapers has been similarly looted:

'We have multiple copies of pretty much every issue ever printed of our august newspaper, along with a big batch of foreign publications…Multiple copies are already kind of getting promised out…With the books, we’re hoping to keep a lot of them but of the ones which are going it’ll probably be first come first served.'   'I was in Freedom this week with Iain Mckay flicking through back issues of Freedom and War Commentary…We in AF have been discussing setting up an archive…its our history and pretty interesting too'.  Pretty interesting it undoubtedly is but is it not outrageous that individuals and groups like AF and Black Flag who unceasingly denigrated FREEDOM now exercise proprietorial rights over its assets?  

Authoritarian Asset Strippers

The takeover of FREEDOM didn’t require much planning, the new boys on the block were astonished how easily they gained control, 'When Vernon Richards died (2001) he handed over FREEDOM to the “Movement” on a plate but it was too surprised to notice, it was comrades coming out of the Anarchist Youth Network (AYN) who saw the opportunity with the paper and reclaimed it for class-struggle.'

Whilst the class warriors consider this coup commendable, to me it was invasive, cynical, dishonest and exploitative. The people who piled into FREEDOM had nothing but contempt for the paper’s political outlook. FREEDOM embraced a gentle, considered, constructive range of anarchist ideas and practice that contrasted sharply with the class-struggle politics of alternative anarchist organs (Class War, Black Flag, Organise! etc).  The new regime swept into power on a triumphant wave of youthful enthusiasm. Once Simon Saunders found his feet, stopped admitting his own ignorance and started proclaiming his infallibility there was no going back.  Gainsayers were systematically treated with contempt.

In 2006 Saunders described FREEDOM stalwarts as:

'reeking of allotments, of forgetting class, of irrelevance and reformism.'   

An obvious, yet demeaning, reference to Vernon Richards who ran a commercial organic market garden and Colin Ward who wrote extensively about allotments as a model of mutual aid.

Crowe, Saunders, Talent and associates ridiculed FREEDOM’s prefigurative politics and dismissed the paper’s distinctively anarchist critique of Britain’s welfare state, characterised by David Goodway as, 'Freedom Press being unswervingly hostile to the Labour governments and their nationalization and welfare legislation.'  

As a disenchanted subscriber posted on the History Workshop web-site following FREEDOM’s demise:

'The problem is that, for many years now, Freedom has been run by dimwits.  It has had nothing of value to say for a long while.   It is such a shame that this historically important paper has been ruined…In recent years, every edition of Freedom was anti-denationalisation and pro-welfare.  It was often difficult to tell it apart from a left Labour paper except for the juvenile photos of people in masks throwing things at the police.'

In 1986 Tony Gibson could still claim:

'FREEDOM has survived while many other anarchist journals have failed, because among its many virtues it has been flexible, intelligent and able to withstand periods when this or that bunch of bone-headed zealots have striven to turn it to the service of their own narrow creed.'  

From 2001 the 'bone-headed zealots' imposed 'their own narrow creed' with predictable consequences. 

Although the zealous class warriors had a range of apparently more appropriate newspapers available in which to indulge their class struggle fantasies they latched onto the fact that capturing FREEDOM offered them unique advantages.  FREEDOM loyalists were too polite, trusting and geographically scattered to react as swiftly and determinedly as the situation demanded.  Those of us who spoke out were constantly frustrated by the censorship and evasion of the new regime.

FREEDOM was taken over by entryists with no allegiance to the organisation whose assets they have now monopolised and exploited for more than a decade.  The collective have doubtless convinced themselves of their entitlement but are living off the hard won gains of anarchists they despise.

In the end just 2 of the collective of 14 voted against ending FREEDOM. For most of them, their heart was never really in it, their allegiance lay elsewhere.

Collective member, Nick Heath dismissed the newspaper as 'a pole for liberal anarchists' and used an internet thread mourning the passing of FREEDOM not to offer condolences but to advertise his own newssheet ('if you want to spread real class struggle anarchist ideas then think about ordering a bundle' ) until informed by a fellow contributor that it was;'in bad taste on a thread about the ending of another paper.'

Collective member Meinke was always, 'very sceptical of its (FREEDOM’s) liberal bent'  whilst Jim Clarke wasn’t at all bothered about FREEDOM’s disappearance:  

'I’m not sure FREEDOM had much of an illustrious history…I’m more concerned about Black Flag to be honest'. 

The tone of Charlotte Dingle’s joyful celebration of the ending of the newspaper more befits a party invite than the passing of an invaluable institution:

' * Waves * Hello, Freedom editor here…Frankly I am overjoyed that the paper is going online…(SMILEY FACE)…'

What is to be Done?

Those of us who loved FREEDOM are not prepared to sit back and see its ideas traduced and its legacy misappropriated by authoritarians. The primary aim of this essay is to puncture the myth and challenge self-serving accounts of the downfall of FREEDOM propagated by successive editors since 2001.

This is also an extended appeal to Steven Charles Sorba (Aldgate Press); Sonia Markham (Retired Illustrator), Richard Parry (Solicitor); and even rather plaintively to Donald Rooum (Cartoonist and collective member), the directors of the holding company, FRIENDS of FREEDOM PRESS Ltd. to belatedly get a grip on the legacy, both intellectual and material, handed down to us by anarchists who didn’t hide behind aliases or enforce their own narrow political creed.  Please do not allow the collective to sell the building without yourselves ensuring that the whole anarchist movement benefits not just the current ruling clique.

Finally the destruction of FREEDOM should give all anarchists pause for thought.  The very openness of FREEDOM left it vulnerable to subversion of its political ideals. We tolerated illiberal behaviour for too long and allowed authoritarians to take over.  FREEDOM stalwart Nicolas Walter had forewarned us:

'In a sense, anarchists always remain liberals and socialists, and whenever they reject what is good in either they betray anarchism itself.'  

A Final Challenge

I challenge any, or all of the current clique that closed down the paper to leave your comfy clubrooms for the day, come up North and politely debate, 'THE FATE of  FREEDOM' at the next (2015) Manchester Anarchist Bookfair. Hopefully you will offer a positive response, though I rather suspect open debate is not your preferred medium.                         

                                                            Christopher Draper, Llandudno, February 2015