Northern Voices

Tuesday, 20 January 2015

Charlie Hebdo & War for Civilisation

15 January 2015:

Charlie Hebdo And The War For Civilisation

IN 2003, a top security expert told filmmaker Michael Moore, 'there is no one in America other than President Bush who is in more danger than you'. (Michael Moore, 'Here Comes Trouble – Stories From My Life,' Allen Lane, 2011, p.4)

Moore was attacked with a knife, a blunt object and stalked by a man with a gun. Scalding coffee was thrown at his face, punches were thrown in broad daylight. The verbal abuse was ceaseless, including numerous death threats. In his book, 'Here Comes Trouble', Moore writes:

'I could no longer go out in public without an incident happening.' (p.20)

A security company, which compiled a list of more than 440 credible threats against Moore, told him:

'We need to tell you that the police have in custody a man who was planning to blow up your house. You're in no danger now.' (p.23)

But why was Moore a target? Had he published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad?

The problem had begun in the first week of the 2003 Iraq war when Moore's film 'Bowling For Columbine' won the Oscar for best documentary. At the March 23 Academy Awards ceremony, Moore told a global audience:

'I've invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us. They are here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction, yet we live in fictitious times. We live in a time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts: we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you! And anytime you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up! Thank you very much.' (p.5-6)

About halfway through these remarks, Moore reports, 'all hell broke loose'. On arriving home from the ceremony, he found three truckloads of horse manure dumped waist-high in his driveway. That night, Moore witnessed for himself the extent to which US corporate journalism defends the right to offend:

'...as I flipped between the channels, I listened to one pundit after another question my sanity, criticise my speech, and say, over and over, in essence: "I don't know what got into him!" "He sure won't have an easy time in this town after that stunt!" "Who does he think will make another movie with him now?" "Talk about career suicide!" After an hour of this, I turned off the TV and went online – where there was more of the same, only worse – from all over America.' (pp.9-10)

This is the reality of respect for free speech in the United States. If, on Oscar night, he had held up a cartoon depicting President Bush naked on all fours, buttocks raised to a pornographic filmmaker, would Moore still be alive today?

War - Total, Merciless, Civilised

In stark contrast to the campaign of near-fatal media vilification of Moore, journalists have responded to the Charlie Hebdo atrocity in Paris by passionately defending the right to offend. Or so we are to believe. The Daily Telegraph's chief interviewer, Allison Pearson, wrote:

'Those that died yesterday did so on the frontline of a war of civilisations. I salute them, those Martyrs for Freedom of Speech.'

Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy agreed, describing the attacks as 'a war declared on civilisation'. Joan Smith wrote in the Guardian:

'I am feeling sick and shaky. I have been writing all day with tears running down my face. I don't suppose I'm alone in reacting like this to the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, which is an assault on journalists and free speech.'

New York Times columnist Roger Cohen tweeted:

'I am shaking with rage at the attack on Charlie Hebdo. It's an attack on the free world. The entire free world should respond, ruthlessly.'

The Western tendency to act with ruthless, overwhelming violence is, of course, a key reason why Islamic terrorists are targeting the West. Glenn Greenwald asked Cohen:

'At whom should this violence be directed beyond the specific perpetrators, and what form should it take?'

Sylvain Attal, editor of new media at TV station France24, replied:

'response must be both merciless and respectful of our legal system. Period'

End of discussion. American journalist and regular Fox News talk show host, Geraldo Rivera, raved:

'The French extremists say they are committed to Jihad and are willing to die for their cause. We should make their wish come true. No mercy'

The 'entire free world', then, should resort to ruthless, merciless violence to defend 'civilisation', a term some naïve souls have associated with compassion, restraint, and even the bizarre exhortation:

'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.'

Cohen retweeted Anand Giridharadas, who writes for the New York Times:

'Not & never a war of civilizations or between them. But a war FOR civilization against groups on the other side of that line. #CharlieHebdo'

Thus, we live in a time when a 'war for civilisation' is seen as something more than a grotesque contradiction in terms.

Much, but thankfully not all, media coverage has been this extreme. To his credit, former Independent editor Simon Kelner managed a rather more nuanced view.

Journalism - Part Of 'The Murder Machine'

In The Times, the perennially apocalyptic David Aaronovitch wrote:

'Yesterday in Paris we in the west crossed a boundary that cannot be recrossed. For the first time since the defeat of fascism a group of citizens were massacred because of what they had drawn, said and published.'

The Guardian took a similar view:

'Wednesday's atrocity was the... bloodiest single assault on western journalism in living memory.'

But, in fact, the bloodiest attack on journalism in living memory, at least in Europe, happened on April 23, 1999 when Nato bombed the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television, killing 16 people. The dead included an editor, a programme director, a cameraman, a make-up artist, three security guards and other media support staff. Additional radio and electrical installations throughout the country were also attacked. The New York Times witnessed the carnage:

'The Spanish-style entrance was ripped away by the blasts, which seemed to hit the roof just under the large girder tower that holds numerous satellite dishes. Although the tower and blackened dishes remained, the control rooms and studios underneath had simply disappeared.' (Steven Erlanger, 'Survivors of NATO Attack On Serb TV Headquarters: Luck, Pluck and Resolve,' The New York Times, April 24, 1999)

Presumably this had been some kind of terrible mistake by the civilised West crossing a boundary that could not be recrossed. No, Nato insisted that the TV station, a 'ministry of lies', was a legitimate target and the bombing 'must be seen as an intensification of our attacks'. A Pentagon spokesman added:

'Serb TV is as much a part of Milosevic's murder machine as his military is. The media is one of the pillars of Milosevic's power machine. It is right up there with security forces and the military.' (Erlanger, op.cit.)

Amnesty International responded:

'The bombing of the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television was a deliberate attack on a civilian object and as such constitutes a war crime.'

In all the corporate press discussion of the Paris killings, we have found no mention of Nato's bombing of Serbian TV and radio.

In August 2011, Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO, condemned Nato's bombing of Libyan state broadcasting facilities on July 30, killing three media workers, with 21 people injured:

'I deplore the NATO strike on Al-Jamahiriya and its installations. Media outlets should not be targeted in military actions. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1738 (2006) condemns acts of violence against journalists and media personnel in conflict situations.'

Again, Nato confirmed that the bombing had been deliberate:

'Striking specifically these critical satellite dishes will reduce the regime's ability to oppress civilians while [preserving] television broadcast infrastructure that will be needed after the conflict.'

In November 2001, two American air-to-surface missiles hit al-Jazeera's satellite TV station in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing a reporter. Chief editor Ibrahim Hilal said al-Jazeera had communicated the location of its office in Kabul to the American authorities.

In April 2003, an al-Jazeera cameraman was killed when the station's Baghdad office was bombed during a US air raid. In 2005, the Guardian quoted the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ):

'"Reports that George Bush and Tony Blair discussed a plan to bomb al-Jazeera reinforce concerns that the US attack in Baghdad on April 8 [2003] was deliberate targeting of the media" said Aidan White, the general secretary of the IFJ.'

According to the Daily Mirror, Bush had told Blair of his plan:

'He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem. There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do - and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it.'

Similarly, during last summer's blitz of Gaza, Israel killed 17 journalists. An investigation led by Human Rights Watch concluded that Israeli attacks on journalists were one of many 'apparent violations' of international law. In a 2012 letter to The New York Times, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, head spokeswoman to foreign media for the Israel Defense Force, wrote:

'Such terrorists, who hold cameras and notebooks in their hands, are no different from their colleagues who fire rockets aimed at Israeli cities and cannot enjoy the rights and protection afforded to legitimate journalists.'

'Sorry For Any Offence'

Aaronovitch warned that 'appalling' as previous attacks on Western free speech had been, 'they were generally the work of disorganised loners', whereas the Paris attacks seemed to have been more organised. What then to say of lethal attacks on journalists conducted, not by a group of religious fanatics, but by democratically elected governments?

Given this context, corporate media commentary on the Charlie Hebdo massacre all but drowns in irony and hypocrisy. The Telegraph commented:

'But the march in Paris reminds us, at the very least, that the men of violence are not just a minority, but a fragment of a fragment. And it may be that it also acts as a turning point. The US is to hold a conference at the White House on countering violent extremism...'

In fact, as LSE student Daniel Wickham clarified, 'men of violence' were among the marchers. Certainly the White House is a good place for people to do some serious thinking about violent extremism and how to stop it.

A Guardian leader observed:

'When men and women have gone to their deaths for nothing more than what they have said, or drawn, there is only one side to be on.'

True, but if it is to be meaningful, support for the right to offend must not defer to a self-serving view of a world divided into 'good guys' and 'bad guys', 'us' and 'them'. Like the rest of the media, the Guardian protests passionately when 'bad guys' commit an atrocity against 'us', but emotive defences of free speech are in short supply when 'good guys' bomb Serb and Libyan TV, or threaten the life of progressive US filmmakers. Far fewer tears are shed for Serb, Libyan or Palestinian journalists in US-UK corporate media offices.

The Guardian added:

'Being shocking is going to involve offending someone. If there is a right to free speech, implicit within it there has to be a right to offend. Any society that's serious about liberty has to defend the free flow of ugly words, even ugly sentiments.'

The sentiment was quickly put to the test when BBC reporter Tim Willcox commented in a live TV interview:

'Many critics though of Israel's policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well.'

This mild statement of obvious fact brought a predictable flood of calls for Willcox to resign. The journalist instantly backed down:

'Really sorry for any offence caused by a poorly phrased question in a live interview in Paris yesterday - it was entirely unintentional'

A BBC spokesman completed the humiliation:

'Tim Willcox has apologised for what he accepts was a poorly phrased question... He had no intention of causing offence.'

Glenn Greenwald describes the prevailing rule:

'As always: it's free speech if it involves ideas I like or attacks groups I dislike, but it's something different when I'm the one who is offended.'

Chris Hedges notes:

'In France a Holocaust denier, or someone who denies the Armenian genocide, can be imprisoned for a year and forced to pay a $60,000 fine. It is a criminal act in France to mock the Holocaust the way Charlie Hebdo mocked Islam.'

A point emphasised by the recent arrest of a French comedian on charges of 'defending terrorism'.

The irony of the BBC apology, given recent events, appears to have been invisible to most commentators. Radical comedian Frankie Boyle is a welcome exception, having earlier commented:

'I'm reading a defence of free speech in a paper that tried to have me arrested and charged with obscenity for making a joke about the Queen'

The Guardian leader concluded:

'Poverty and discrimination at home may create fertile conditions for the spread of extremism, and western misadventures abroad can certainly inflame the risks.'

The term 'western misadventures' is a perfect example of how media like the Guardian work so hard to avoid offending elite interests with more accurate descriptions like 'Western atrocities' and 'Western genocidal crimes'.

A leader in The Times observed of the Charlie Hebdo killers:

'Their victims knew the risks they ran by defying the jihadist strategy of censorship through terror. They accepted those risks. They understood that freedom is not free, and so should we all.' (Leader, 'Nous Sommes Tous Charlie,' The Times, January 8, 2015)

Fine words, but in 2013 Times owner Rupert Murdoch apologised for a powerful cartoon by Gerald Scarfe that had appeared in the newspaper. The cartoon depicted the brutal Israeli treatment of Palestinians but was not in any way anti-Semitic. Murdoch, however, tweeted:

'Gerald Scarfe has never reflected the opinions of the Sunday Times. Nevertheless, we owe major apology for grotesque, offensive cartoon.'

In its response to the Paris killings, The Times perceived 'a vital duty for Muslim clerics who must embrace a new role actively deradicalising their followers. It also imposes an urgent responsibility on Muslim political leaders'.

Did the paper have any positive role models in mind?

'One controversial figure who appears to have understood this is Egypt's president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. In a remarkable speech to imams last week to mark the birthday of Muhammad, he called for a "religious revolution" to prevent the Islamic world being "lost by our own hands".'

The Times went on:

'Mr al-Sisi is not unique. Najib Razak, Malaysia's prime minister, has championed moderate political Islam at home and abroad.' (Leader, 'Freedom Must Prevail,' Times, January 9, 2015)

Thus, Sisi, leader of a military coup, someone who oversaw the massacre of 1,000 civilian protestors on a single day in August 2013, is hailed as a 'champion' of 'moderate political Islam'.

There is so much more that could be said about just how little passion the corporate media have for defending the right to offend. Anyone in doubt should try, as we have, to discuss their own record of failing to offend the powerful. To criticise 'mainstream' media from this perspective is to render oneself a despised unperson. In response to our polite, decidedly inoffensive challenges on Twitter we have been banned by champions of free speech like Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, Jon Snow of Channel 4 News, Jeremy Bowen of the BBC, Peter Beaumont of the Observer and Guardian, and many others.

Even rare dissident fig leaves on newspapers like the Guardian dismiss as asinine and, yes, offensive, the suggestion that they should risk offending their corporate employers and advertisers. Not only is no attempt made to defend such a right, the very idea is dismissed as nonsense unworthy even of discussion.
DE

This Alert is Archived here:
Charlie Hebdo And The War For Civilisation

High Court & Blacklist Book etc.

1. High Court:
The end of January is the deadline for the firms to disclose any documents they hold relating to The Consulting Association or Economic League blacklisting organisations. To date they have not disclosed a single set of minutes or any other document - we await to see what the firms claim to hold. The next date for the Blacklisting group litigation at the High Court has been set for Friday 13th February.

2. Dave Williams R.I.P.

Blacklisted bricklayer Dave Williams has recent passed away. He was a UCATT shop steward and member of the Laing's Lock Out Committee who were served with a High Court injunction during their struggle against blacklisting in 1985-6. Attached is an obituary by Brian Higgins who worked with Dave during the 1980s.

3. Blacklisted : the book will be published by New Internationalist in March 2015. http://newint.org/books/politics/blacklisted-secret-war/

"The book on blacklisting by Phil Chamberlain and Dave Smith could turn out be one of most important of 2015" - Rob Evans, author of Undercover & Guardian journalist via twitter

"‎This book tells personal accounts of corporate bullying on an industrial scale and how ordinary workers stood firm against some of the biggest corporations on the planet in the search for justice" - Frank Morris, blacklisted electrician.

"This book performs a major service in documenting the scale and persistence of blacklisting: a conspiracy between major employers, right-wing ideologues and the police to destroy the livelihoods of courageous trade unionists who defend the rights of their fellow workers" - Emeritus Professor, of industrial relations Richard Hyman.

"Phil Chamberlain is an individual to watch because of his involvement with Dave Smith and dedication to the unions. He also has strong abilities as a freelance journalist to make his voice and opinions heard." - Confidential profile on a Laing O'Rourke document recently disclosed under the Data Protection Act.

The Blacklist Support Group are planning a UK wide tour with the authors Dave Smith & Phil Chamberlain during March-April. The aim is to publicise the issue during the General Election campaign. BSG are asking all supporters to try an arrange a meeting local to where you live - contact your University, Trades Council, bookshop, union committee etc.. to see if they would like to host an event - please contact BSG to confirm dates & arrange the logistics. We are also looking for media opportunities.

4. Mon 19th Jan (8pm) Dispatches Channel 4 - The Umbrella Scam

lots of interviews with blacklisted workers from the construction rank & file meeting in Newcastle before Christmas.

http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/low-pay-britain-channel-4-dispatches

5. Wed 21st Jan (6pm) - London Hazards AGM

Leigh Day Solicitors

Priory House

St Johns Lane

Farringdon

EC1M 4LB (3 mins from Farringdon tube)

Blacklist Support Group

video: Blacklisting 2013 - The Workers Strike Back

blog: www.hazards.org/blacklistblog

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

Monday, 19 January 2015

Councillor Cleavage Quits Rochdale Council!

TODAY it was reported on the Rochdale-on-line website that Councillor Karen Danczuk the

Kingsway councillor, has announced that she will pack it in as a councillor at the next election.

This follows strong criticism from people in the Labour Party, such as the veteran socialist, Eileen Kershaw, that she was not suitable material as a public representative in the Borough. Others had raised concerns about her somewhat cavalier conduct both in the council chamber and elsewhere. Others among us found it all rather entertaining and she cut a rather Mistress Quiggley figure to Simon Danczuk's Falstaff in the politics of Rochdale.

She will be sadly missed!

Councillor Danczuk, was elected as a councillor in 2011, with a majority of 1,458 votes. She will henceforth be dedicating herself to delivering as landlady of Danczuk's Deli in the Walk in Rochdale town centre.

Saturday, 17 January 2015

'No Austerity' Manifesto CONFERENCE

There is an alternative

No Austerity Conference

10.30am to 5pm, Saturday 14 February

Friends Meeting House, School Lane Liverpool

WORKERS and communities fight austerity in work places, schools, neighbourhoods and elsewhere all the time. The fights in Merseyside against the Labour Council is part of this class struggle.
Liverpool Against the Cuts invite all those who want to fight Con-Dem austerity and Labour’s plan of austerity to come to the 'No Austerity' Conference to build the struggle on the streets and to stand against austerity in the elections.

We are told there is no money, that there is worse to come, while the banks, railways and many others take public money, the energy companies rip us off and the government talk of recovery. It’s time to stand up and fight, time for the cutters to be accountable to the people they claim to represent, but don’t.

Communities and workers are facing a hard struggle as both Tory and Labour increase their attacks. Economists talk of recovery but ignore the large number of poor and young households rapidly increasing debt. New borrowing reached a seven year high in November– a £1.25bn net increase in unsecured borrowing, it was the biggest rise since February 2008.

It is a “recovery” based on the interests of the one percent, while five million public sector workers continue to suffer wage freezes. Many are on zero hour contracts and low paid workers balance energy, food and rent bills, they should not have to choose between eating and heating, while unemployed people are getting sanctioned for no reason.

It means increasing the gap between rich and poor, and a culture of blaming the weakest in society in order to shift the blame from those who caused it, while Tory and Labour look towards a privatised public service to service the banks and big business and their profits.

Continuous battles have been waged in Merseyside by anti-cuts groups against the bedroom tax, for disabled people’s rights of access, for libraries and mental health services and at the same time many union members have fought for decent jobs and wages. Victories have been gained in the communities and work places. It means we can fight and we can win.

We continue to oppose ALL cuts in local services: adult social care, support for mental health, children’s centres, swimming pools and parks.

There should be no deterioration but improvement of all services, maintenance of the infrastructure and day to day running to ensure no cuts and no job loss. No to a programme of death by a 1,000 cuts because of starvation of funds.

The main parties attack our services while making deals with the rich and private companies, at local and national level. Privatised services are about profit for the rich not decent and much needed services for the people of Merseyside.

Let’s unite our struggles for all local and public services and defend the employed and unemployed. We are opposed to the policy of the union leaderships that control the many individual struggles and refuse to call a general strike in order to prevent them uniting into one powerful fight to end the government's austerity policy.

It is time to take back our services, jobs and rights. Workers need to bring the struggles together such as the NHS workers, those fighting the break-up of public education together with all the community struggles.

Stand in the elections against austerity.

We need to unite our communities and all union members to defeat Labour’s policy of collaboration with the Con-Dem government. Labour are not just implementing austerity they have plans to carry it through. Communities and the rank and file members of the unions need to stand together against the onslaught on the welfare state and all jobs.

Mobilise for local services and jobs. Anti-cuts groups will be standing in the elections in May 2015 to fight the cuts in services and jobs, to oppose the sanctions imposed on unemployed people, to fight all oppression and defend council and public services. We can work together and assist all groups who want to take a stand against austerity.

The fight in Merseyside has been on going against the attacks of the bed room tax, fracking, disabled people’s rights, for the libraries, mental health services, children’s services and much more. Some like the library campaign have been successful because they involved ever more people and mobilised on the streets and this can be repeated everywhere.

To fight the cuts means to challenge all those who support austerity: the Tories, Labour, Lib Dem and UKIP, and give Merseyside back to the people. Deepen the fights against the cuts and call anti-cuts groups to stand in the elections on a social and political struggle basis.

We will discuss and adopt a programme for elections at the No Austerity conference. All those who want to stand on such a programme can be chosen at the conference and will have the backing of the conference.

The programme so far includes the following points, which are open to be developed at the conference, all have come from those involved in community and union campaigns.
* No to austerity
* Oppose all cuts in public services
* No to privatisation
* Fight zero hour and casual contracts - for proper jobs
* For a minimum wage of £10
* End fracking
* Restore the benefits safety net, stop sanctions
* Free public transport for children and students
* For free and quality public education and health
* No discrimination against ethnic minorities
* Communities and union members unite and fight

Please apply for tickets (which are free) so we can see the numbers that are going to turn up. if want a ticket then contact liverpoolagainstthecuts@gmail.com or call / text 0752 8261016.
Donations are welcome as the conference will cost £500.

Friday, 16 January 2015

Unite Gateshead Dispute Sorted!

Dispute at J Barbour & Sons, Gateshead - Agreement reached

Dear Comrades,

This is to advise you that Unite members who have been on strike at the famous jacket and clothing manufacturer J. Barbour & Sons in Gateshead will be returning to work after accepting a significantly improved offer following talks at ACAS.

The dispute attracted media attention after a number of media personalities such as TV presenter Janet Street Porter and journalist/TV pundit Kevin Maguire published articles in support of the strikers. Other national and local newspapers and trade magazines carried news items on the dispute highlighting the “unfriendly family policies” being forced onto the workforce.

Our members were forced to take strike action following a company announcement that there would be forced changes to their contracts. J Barbour and Son Ltd had given warehouse workers a ‘sign or be sacked’ ultimatum over changes that included the removal of the unsocial hours payment and the introduction of a requirement to work until 11 o’clock at night.

But after four days of strike action in December and one week into a four week stoppage, management agreed to talks at ACAS. Our members have accepted a deal which sees substantial increases in pay and day shift working for those with family and caring responsibilities.

Commenting, Unite regional officer Fazia Huassain-Brown said: “A majority of members have accepted this improved offer which sees increases in pay and day shift working for those with family or caring responsibilities.

“This hard won outcome would not have been possible without the resolve of the workers who faced being sacked if they didn’t sign up to inferior contracts. They stood up in the face of an employer who sought to ride rough shod over their rights and won significant concessions.

“We trust that we can now move forward with the employer in a spirit of cooperation and ensure the Barbour brand continues to be a global success story.”

A big thank you to all Unite branches, activists, North East Labour MPs and international unions who sent messages of solidarity and financial support to our members during the strike.

In solidarity

Tony Burke
Assistant general secretary

Email to Channel 4 News:

Sent to Northern Voices by Trevor Hoyle

Ms Newman,

In tonights's Snowmail (1), referencing the Paris shootings, you say:

"Netanyahu visits Paris terror attack site...Some of those leaders have stayed on to pay their personal respects after last week's terror attacks".

Will you be highlighting Netanyahu's breathtaking hypocrisy be mentioning the 17 journalists killed by the IDF in Gaza in the last year alone? (2)

I guess not.
"Newman" by name, "Same old same old", by nature.

(2)These 17 Journalists Were Killed by Israel In Gaza

1. Hamid Abdullah Shehab � �Media 24″company.
2. Najla Mahmoud Haj � media activist.
3 Khalid Hamad � the �Kontnao� Media Production company.
4. Ziad Abdul Rahman Abu Hin � al-Ketab satellite channel.
5. Ezzat Duheir � Prisoners Radio.

6. Bahauddin Gharib � Palestine TV.
7 Ahed Zaqqout � veteran sports journalist.
8 Ryan Rami � Palestinian Media Network.
9 Sameh Al-Arian � Al-Aqsa TV.

10 Mohammed Daher � Editor in al-Resala paper.
11. Abdullah Vhjan � sports journalist.
12 journalist Khaled Hamada Mqat- Director of Saja news website.
13. freelance journalist Shadi Hamdi Ayyad.
14 photojournalist Mohammed Nur al-Din al-Dairi � works in the Palestinian Network.
15. journalist Ali Abu Afesh � Doha Center for Media.
16 Italian journalist Simone Camille � photographer in the Associated Press.
17. Abdullah fadel Murtaja.

Thursday, 15 January 2015

A.fed: A response to Chris Draper's History

by martin s. gilbert

CHRIS Draper has given me details of how Anarchist Federation [a.fed] (alcohol, fish and chips) gained control of FREEDOM PRESS. Much was due to our inertia. 'Our' is meant to suggest anarchists of various kinds who may not necessarily follow a 'Class War line' or any other analysis but who broadly agree with each other on a wide range of issues, both theoretical and practical. Also, this refers to a breadth of vision and tolerance of comrades, totally lacking in the Anarchist Fed (A.F.).

'Inertia' here refers to the lack of concerted, widely-organized attempts to inform each other of how their control was taking place. Where such information came to light in our blogs, publications or meetings the attitude was 'let them get on with it' hoping that the difficulty would pass. It did not. Also contributing were reasons like this guilty writer, living far from anywhere there was a friendly anarchist face or we were really too busy with things on our doorsteps to get involved in stuff hundreds of miles away. Another way Anarchist Fed. gained control was due to the insularity of people living in London showing scant concern generally for what’s happening outside of the capital. The Anarchist Fed. has no concern with 'our' needs regarding the basic tool of respecting diversity . One thing disregarded by them was that fewer people were getting involved in clearly named anarchist actions or subscribing to FREEDOM.   Climate camps came and went as did much of the ongoing OCCUPY movement. Their organizational methods were highly anarchistic but little or no credit was given to the origins of such organizational tools. FREEDOM readership continued to decline, due to the narrow approach of its editors, to say nothing of how the AF (Anarchist Federation) paper, ORGANISE left most Climate Campers and OCCUPIERS stone cold.

Other, more significant factors helped Anarchist Fed’s machinations. During the years indicated here community solidarity continued to decline. Trades union membership continued to drop. The internet took-off to the detriment of printed papers, not just FREEDOM. Also, we were not immune from increasing individuality in the wider society. It all contributed to our inertia, in that we lacked the necessary basic organisation to influence new developments or at least offer counter arguments with a collective voice.

So to repeat Chris’s question how do we start to reclaim what Anarchist Fed. have taken from us. FREEDOM at one time was a useful clearing house for ideas and notice board.

One idea, another possible useful step towards that reclamation is to request debates with the Anarchist Fed. at book fairs. Alternatively, one of us could request discussion-space at such an event, offering a specific topic of the potential speaker’s choosing. The problem with such ideas is that no such facility will  be given to non A.fed (A.F.) supporters. In true SWP fashion, they only pick such speakers from their own ranks. In the event of being offered a meeting by their book fair organisers, bet your life it would be 'packed' with their clones. It is possible that in the main, just one person Mr. N. Heath makes all this happen. We can suspect that a reason why most, if not all articles in ORGANISE are anonymous is that they are mainly from his pen.

One of our comrades recently heard that all the spaces had been taken up for discussions at the Sheffield book fair in May. It is quite possible that this was subtle deliberate obstruction.

Once enough e mails have passed around we could have a meeting, probably in Manchester, to see where we go from here. The Anarchist Federation (A.F.) in gaining control of FREEDOM took a long time, attempting to reverse that outcome will be no quick fix. Yet 150 people signed a petition defending one of our comrades who had been banned from a book fair by these people. We should be optimistic with such numbers.

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

Anarchist Fed.: Under the Pavement Politics

by Chris Draper.

LENIN urged the Communist Party to support the Labour Party 'like a rope supports a hanged man'; the 'Anarchist Federation' (AF) provides a similar facility for the British anarchist movement. AF’s conspiratorial politics are a destructive threat and an ethical affront to all fair-minded anarchists.

AF employs bans, censorship and violence to silence its critics as it pursues a 'semi-secretive' party-building strategy aimed at unifying and dominating the British anarchist movement. Fortunately AF has had limited success and its claimed membership only equals the number of libertarians that in 2013 signed a letter deploring AF violence.

The organisation’s title is the original deceit. Until 2001 AF was more accurately labelled ACF, the 'Anarchist Communist Federation', an organisation whose declared, 'emphasis was on building a Platformist style organisation in Britain'. The name change might have signalled a move towards undiluted anarchism but it didn’t, it was a cynical marketing ploy to ditch a tainted brand. 'It should be noted that the decision was not unanimous and some ACF members argued against the name change because of fears of dilution of our politics' but were reassured, 'this does not reflect a change in political direction'. 'We didn’t change our Aims and Principles!' (nb. text within quotes is taken directly from AF documents, unless otherwise indicated). 'With the name change we hope to create dialogue with those new to revolutionary ideas.'

AF hoped to conceal its continuing Platformist policies in order to attract, 'those new to revolutionary ideas' because, as members of the Direct Action Movement (DAM) observed at the time; 'The Platform was rejected by most of the anarchist movement and denounced as an attempt to Bolshevise anarchism'. AF appeared to concur as they adjusted and extended their marketing, 'to attract those disillusioned by Leninism'. The AF’s 'Platform' incorporates the 'Manifesto' of French Libertarian Communist George Fontenis, a proponent of the 'vanguard party' as well as the Council Communist politics of Anton Pannekoek despite admitting, 'the ideas of Anton Pannekoek are situated clearly within the Marxist tradition. True Pannekoek was never an anarchist but the ideas he espoused hold much in common with and have greatly influenced the ideas of the Anarchist Federation of today.'

ACF’s second, undeclared, aim in modifying its name was to establish market dominance. Neophytes would assume that this new “Anarchist Federation” embraced the whole spectrum of British anarchism, so why look elsewhere? In 2005 Dave (McLibel) Morris identified AF’s habit of airbrushing from history the work, and indeed the very existence, of anarchist activists outside AF. Responding to a typically jaundiced account published in AF’s journal, “Organise”, Morris wrote to AF to insist, 'there’s a very wide range of anarchist and anarchist-influenced activities which could and should also be acknowledged.'

The third aim in dropping the “C” was to give overseas anarchists the impression that ACF is an inclusive federation representative of the 2,000-3,000 or so anarchists in Britain (Morris’s estimate). This facilitated the organisation’s affiliation to the “International Anarchist Federation” (IAF) enabling the clique running AF to attend IAF meetings and misrepresent the views of the rest of us.

AF might have had legitimate claim to the label if those pushing the name change originated from the Anarchist rather than the Communist wing of the ACF but the founding members of the ACF in 1985 came from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Libertarian Communist Group respectively. The AF planned to establish a single, “specific, unified libertarian communist organisation…with a unified strategy and practice”. Anyone unsure whether this is Anarchy in Action or vanguardist party-building might refer to the organisations “Manifesto and Programme” (I kid you not). Inside AF’s party manifesto we learn their plan is to establish, 'semi-secretive…groups of dedicated revolutionaries'.

These self styled 'semi-secretive revolutionaries' hide their real names and operate either anonymously or behind aliases. Only the names of non-members appear in AF publications, otherwise all articles are unsigned. Their claimed logic is the threat they pose to the system would otherwise make them prime targets for the security services but if they really believe this confounds the State they are even more deluded than I think. Without names there is an obvious distancing from readers and others who come across the organisation. Hierarchies are hidden and accountability absent. The truth is that behind the scenes Nick Heath writes most the stuff and pulls most of the strings.

Ruth Kinna’s excellent “Introduction to Anarchism”, accurately identifies AF as “London-based” and “semi-secretive” but missed comrade Heath’s latest cunning plan for extending his party-building empire. Hints appeared in a 2011 edition of “Organise” where AF claim responsibility for “getting regional bookfairs off the ground in Sheffield, Manchester and Bristol”. Exploiting the well-established reputation of the London Bookfair for unsectarian promotion of all forms and interpretations of anarchism AF bankrolls local fairs to provide sectarian recruitment opportunities.

The recent Manchester Bookfair (November 2014) illustrates AF practice. Whilst a range of libertarians were allowed stalls (Vegans, Anarchist Voices, Cunningham Amendment etc) the “talks” (nb. not workshops or discussion groups) were dominated by AF and their stooges. Everyone attending the “Introduction to Anarchism” talk was handed a free 48-page booklet, not a general intro to the spectrum of anarchist ideas and organisations, such as Kinna’s book or Nicholas Walter’s pamphlet. It was an “Introduction to Anarchist Communism: The Anarchist Federation”. This isn’t anarchist consciousness-raising it’s “semi-secretive” party-building.

A member of the Northern Anarchist Network (NAN) known to be critical of AF politics was denied entry to the bookfair by a member of the venue’s (Pump House Museum) staff on the instructions of organisers “Veg” and “Dave Under the Pavement”. Staff had, apparently, been instructed to also refuse entry to another un-named anarchist. The organisers refuse to state openly the justification for these bans or their intended duration. It remains unproven whether “Veg” or Mister “Under the Pavement” are members of AF or, in Lenin’s (alleged) words, “useful idiots” but it is certain that AF is behind the ban.

At the 2012 London Bookfair an AF gang launched a premeditated violent attack on a lone anarchist tallholder that was witnessed by independent publisher, Ross Bradshaw of “Five Leaves” who reported the incident on his blog:
'Early in the day a small group from Manchester asked the one person at Northern Voices to leave. It was not clear to me at that moment why. It turned out that the magazine had some time ago written a rather unfavourable, and indeed rather unpleasant, obituary of the Manchester anarchist Bob Miller. Some time later in the morning a large group of people, from Manchester and elsewhere, returned to the stall, and when the stall holder refused to leave, wrecked it, stealing most of the material on display and covering the stall-holder and the stall (and one unrelated stall-holder behind NV) with salad cream. Though the stall-holder was uninjured, save for a bruised face when he fell and some irritation from the cream getting into his eyes, he was pretty shocked, as was anyone seeing the incident. I have no doubt that his original article was unwise and should not have been published – the best critique of it appears on NV’s own rather good blog.'

Another independent witness to the incident was a rather frail 78-year-old, Mr Ilyan Hugh Thomas of Carmarthen who happened to be passing just as the AF thugs struck. Mr Thomas kindly, and rather bravely, followed the gang back to their AF stall where he remonstrated with them and attempted to retrieve some of the literature stolen from Bamford’s stall. Despite his obvious age Mr Thomas was punched to the floor by the AF thugs.

A 'Burnley Declaration' deploring AF bans and violence was circulated and rapidly gained 150 signatures. AF characteristically failed to respond. In fact AF action immediately prior to and following the event served to further underline the organisation’s authoritarianism and contempt for the wider movement. (Incidentally I share Mr Bradshaw’s criticism of the obituary and note that NV itself published criticism of editor Bamford, a characteristically libertarian response so evidently absent from publications, organisations or events controlled by AF).

Cumbrian anarchist Martin Gilbert recalls that, on 'The day before the 2012 London Anarchist Bookfair I went to Freedom Bookshop. By chance I met Brian Bamford. After a short time Nick Heath (AF founding father) entered the shop emitting a string of verbal abuse against Brian. Freedom bookshop is visited by comrades from all over the world as well as people who are quite new to our ideas and actions. Nick’s outburst, whatever the cause could only give the worst of impressions.'

Despite this unrestrained public aggression when presented with an opportunity to politely state its case in clear rational terms so the rest of the movement could understand and judge for itself AF prove worse than unresponsive. Consider what happened when the “Burnley Declaration” was submitted to the anarchist newspaper Freedom in December 2012. Freedom’s editor emailed back:
'I am just letting you know that your statement will be appearing in the Jan issue of the paper. I am a bit behind at the moment, but would expect it to be ready to print in a week – ten days from now. I also wanted you to know that in the interests of fairness/not taking sides, I have contacted the Anarchist Federation and asked them whether they would like to write a response to your statement. If they choose to respond then that would also be included in the same issue.

Kind regards,

Matthew.'

AF responded alright but not in a nice way. Presented with an opportunity to either denounce the violence as the isolated acts of a rogue element or to justify their actions AF did neither. As veteran anarchist and member of the newspaper collective, Donald Rooum explains, Freedom 'got a nasty letter from Nick Heath saying if your letter was published, he would withdraw co-operation, including the offer of a book.' Although Donald explains he didn’t approve of AF’s conduct, along with the rest of the collective he gave in to AF threats. Freedom should have made a principled stand and gone ahead and published details of the attack and allowed the anarchist movement to judge the facts for itself but instead Freedom effectively colluded with AF. This was not Freedom’s finest hour but the rot had already set in. The paper was already on the verge of collapse having in recent years systematically driven away most of its regular writers and subscribers through its ever-increasing indulgence in crude, unthinking, confrontational AF-sponsored propaganda. The anarchist movement might have detected the writing was on the wall for FREEDOM as early as 2004 when AF boasted in their house magazine:
'FREEDOM NOW UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT! - MORE ANARCHIST COMMUNIST'!

After so cravenly caving in to Heath it was unsurprising that, the Freedom collective then bowed to his request to formally become an integral member of the editorial group. Heath had previously stated his wish to see the number of anarchist journals reduced to create a 'unified voice' and in 2014 Freedom ceased publication. Freedom continues to publish books and its most recent production is the one referred to above, by a certain Mr N Heath.

AF is not a federation of anarchists but a sectarian, vanguardist party. You are either with them or against them. Fellow travellers are tolerated, even encouraged, but anarchists who reject the revealed truths of the AF creed are fair game for anything from insults to physical attack with censorship, bans, and exclusions all part of the armoury. A disillusioned AF member revealed 'Federation members would routinely ridicule other anarchists' (nb. text in bold italics are the words of disenchanted or ex-AF members). Despite most chroniclers describing the 1960’s and 1970’s as a high watermark of anarchist influence AF characteristically denigrates, distorts and dismisses the constructive work of highly regarded anarchists like Colin Ward and Nicholas Walter; 'Of course, the humanist and pacifist elements that rejected class struggle continued to peddle their forms of radical liberalism within the pages of Freedom and Anarchy.'

'Lifestylist has become a derogatory smear for anyone who does not follow the neo-Platformist party line.' 'Sometimes people would just resort to crass stereotypes about squatters and hippies.' Mutual respect for comrades pursuing alternative visions of anarchism is alien to AF whose vanguardism is formally denied although their 'leadership of ideas' is loudly and officially proclaimed. AF also modestly claims to embody the 'memory of the working class'.

In 2011, Comrade Heath declared:
'We have to be seen as a serious movement, not one viewed as ineffectual and passive, riddled with dilettantes and cranks.'

Almost a century earlier Henry Hyndman the autocratic founder of Britain’s first Marxist party denounced the iconoclastic libertarian influence of gay pioneer Edward Carpenter and his friends in chillingly similar terms:
'I do not want the movement to be a depository of old cranks, humanitarians, vegetarians, anti-vivisectionists and anti-vaccinationists, arty-crafties and all the rest of them, we are scientific socialists and have no room for sentimentalists.'
Tolstoyan anarchist editor Charles W Daniel responded to such prejudice by renaming his own periodical The Crank and lest that title appeared too modern he later renamed it Ye Crank. As Henry George artfully observed, 'A crank is a little thing that makes revolutions.' Cranks are the very essence of anarchy and the intolerance of AF’s policy and practice the antithesis.

Not every Tom, Dick or Harriet is allowed to join this elite organisation. Although AF members conceal their own identities you can’t join unless you first email your name and address to party HQ. Then follows the vetting procedure; a member of the party faithful first visits your residence to assess whether you’re ideological sound and likely to be loyal. Then you have to sign over a sizeable, regular levy on your income to party funds. Any ideological deviation, unacceptable level of activism, disloyalty or non-payment and you’re out, expelled. 'I just tried to check my emails one day on the AF account and found out I had been deleted'.

Leaving voluntarily is akin to apostasy and much resented with one ex-AF member reporting:
'I wrote a resignation email to explain why I was leaving and share my critique of the organisation’s inactivity and informal hierarchy. The response I got was someone asking me not to post my melodramatic Shakespearian soliloquy on the list. Nice way to respond to someone who has worked in the organisation for five years.'

Fortunately the party building isn’t going too well. AF are a bit like the saloons in the old cowboy films, the frontage looks big and impressive but round the back it’s really just a ramshackle shed. 'I imagined the Anarchist Federation was a lot bigger than it turned out to be…it never seemed to grow in the few years I was associated with it.' The maximum membership claimed by AF is 150 and when 10 members attended their Scottish conference AF considered this a good result. The published list of branches appears quite extensive until you realise that AF considers 3 members constitute a branch and in terms of activism, “many branches barely exist”.

As self-proclaimed anarchists, AF won’t admit the reality of an informal but effective hierarchy but it doesn’t take recruits long to realise AF’s professed democratic structure is a fiction. AF is effectively controlled by an informal group; 'a small friendship clique of the longest serving members…these Elders seemed to have decided long ago to crush youthful initiatives… just like the Trotskyists they claimed to be so different from'.

Writing in 'Total Liberty' in 2007 Peter Good identified this approach:
'Following the collapse of global Marxism…anarchists sought meaning in class-struggle organisations. Many of which are little different from stereotypical revolutionary groups…the spirit that created them soon gets subsumed under a need to arrive at a unified orthodoxy. In doing so the organisation loses contacts with the context of the everyday. Before long a system of administration kicks-in and we are witness to all the paraphanalia of bureaucracy, subscriptions, membership, meetings, mail-outs, exclusions.'

A disenchanted AF member reports:
'I am not exaggerating when I say that the vast majority of the time spent at national conference went on discussing internal administrative problems.' A 'unified orthodoxy' is well established and an,
'overly defensive group-mentality exists in AF'. 'It would be better if the whole thing was abandoned and a new organisation formed.'

Good’s analysis shouldn’t be misconstrued as opposing all forms of organisation as he goes on to claim, “The affinity group is the fundamental unit of any Free Society”. Good’s critique does however demonstrate how the ideology of AF dovetails with its authoritarian practice. He goes on to explain, 'The great fallacy of revolutionary organisation is a belief that the root of oppression lies in defective institutions. In demanding a new set of institutions it fails to address the need to change individuals. History is replete with descriptions of how institutional practices of the former society get carried across through personalities of the revolutionaries.'

Or as Gustav Landauer put it:
'The state is not something which can be destroyed by a revolution, but it is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently.'

Contrast this approach with AF’s:
'Once capitalism has been destroyed, we can set about the exciting task of fulfilling our individual potential and shaping this new community' (AF “Manifesto”, 5th edition, pg 15).

Attacks on comrades, 'semi-secrecy' and 'Under-the-Pavement' politics have no proper place in our movement and I publish this open letter as a challenge to all members of the Anarchist Federation to come out of the woodwork and debate your politics in public. I write as an individual but know from conversations with comrades that many share my perception of AF. I challenge AF to debate, 'Semi-secret Politics versus Open Anarchism' at the next Manchester Bookfair although I suspect AF will simply add my name to the banned list and continue operating under the pavement.

For Peace, Love & Anarchy,

Christopher Draper, Llandudno (December 2014)

Spring/ Summer at Manchester Royal Exchange

MANCHESTER’s Royal Exchange Theatre has announced full details of shows in The Studio and Special Events in its Spring Summer 2015 Season.

Highlights include the world premiere of 2013 Bruntwood Prize Winner YEN by Anna Jordan; a Royal Exchange Young Company collaboration with poet and novelist, Jackie Kay and a collaboration with interactive artists Blast Theory;

The Studio programme also includes a show written and performed by newly appointed RET Associate Artist Chris Thorpe and visiting shows from Mars.tarrab, Sleepdogs, Ovalhouse & Arch 468, Warwick Arts Centre & China Plate and Grayscale.

YEN – which runs from Wednesday 18 February to Saturday 7 March – explores a childhood lived without boundaries and the consequences of being forced to grow up on your own.

It tells the story of sixteen-year-old Hench and thirteen-year-old Bobbie who live alone with their dog Taliban, playing Playstation, watching porn; surviving. Occasionally their chaotic mum Maggie visits, sometimes she passes out on the front lawn. But when Jenny knocks on the door, the boys discover a world far beyond what they know, a world full of love, possibility and danger.

Anna Jordan’s play was commended for its ‘beautiful empathy, and a humanity which stood out to all the judges’ by Chair of the Judges, Dame Jenni Murray.

The production is directed by Ned Bennett. Previously a resident trainee director at the Royal Court, whose recent credits include SUPERIOR DONUTS (Southwark Playhouse), MERCURY FUR (Old Red Lion) and PIGEONS (Royal Court schools tour).

BRINK - a Royal Exchange Young Company collaboration with poet and novelist, Jackie Kay – runs from Thursday 26 March to Saturday 28 March 2015.

Directed by the Royal Exchange’s Associate Artistic Director Matthew Xia, the show asks questions such as “What brings you to the brink in your life?” and “When you are so close to the edge - do you take the plunge or retreat?”

TOO MUCH INFORMATION - Blast Theory’s latest project in partnership with the Royal Exchange – takes place between Friday 27 February and Saturday 1 March and will allow people to take an audio walk around the streets of Manchester.

The 45 minute walk will be themed around a series of frank and funny conversations between a group of young people and a group of over 60s. Participants will use a smart-phone to find audio recordings of secrets and intimate moments hidden about the city – all set to a specially commissioned score by musician Martyn Ware of The Human League and Heaven 17.

The project is being created in partnership with the RET’s Truth About Youth programme, which is supported by the Co-operative Foundation. It follows the 2013 collaboration MY NECK OF THE WOODS.

THE LADY’S NOT FOR WALKING LIKE AN EGYPTIAN – commissioned by Ovalhouse and presented by innovative theatre makers Mar.tarrab – runs from Thursday 9 April to Saturday 11 April.

Written and performed by Rachel Mars and nat tarrab, this joyful romp of a show crosses the words of Margaret Thatcher’s speeches with all the words of every top ten hit by a female artist from the 1980s. Audiences are invited to join a quest to understand pop culture, politics, the power of love and discover what the 80s ever did for us.

THE BULLET AND THE BASS TROMBONE – a fascinating new performance piece from Bristol-based Sleepdogs – continues the Studio season from Friday 1 May to Saturday 2 May.

Written and performed by Timothy X Attack and directed by Tanuja Amarasuriya, the show is a modern hymn to people and places now lost, and has an intricate, fractured narrative and haunting soundtrack. A concert orchestra is trapped in a city during a military coup. As violence erupts, the orchestra becomes separated. The composer is left to tell the story.

This is followed by CUDDLES - the stunning debut play from Capital award-winning young playwright Joseph Wilde presented by Ovalhouse and Arch 468 – which runs from Tuesday 19 May to Saturday 23 May.

The action of this gothic tale centres on 13-year-old vampire Eva. She lives in a world without sunlight. A world where Harry Potter, Bilbo Baggins and the cast of Dante’s Inferno are real; where princes with adjectives instead of names seduce beautiful princesses against the odds. A world crammed full of story book characters but with just one living, breathing human being to cuddle.

CONFIRMATION – the critically acclaimed 2014 Fringe First winning show, written and performed by Chris Thorpe and developed and directed by Rachel Chavkin – comes to The Studio from Wednesday 27 May to Saturday 30 May.

Presented by Warwick Arts Centre and China Plate, the show is about gulfs we can’t talk across and the way we choose to see only the evidence that proves we’re right. Exploring the phenomenon of confirmation bias, it is an attempt to have an honourable dialogue with political extremism - to find out why we believe what we do and how we can end up so far apart.

Chris Thorpe is a founder member and core artist with Unlimited Theatre. He recently became an Associate Artist at the Royal Exchange. The RET’s production of his play THERE HAS POSSIBLY BEEN AN INCIDENT was seen in The Studio, as well as playing at Latitude Festival, at the Edinburgh Fringe and at last year’s Theatertreffen festival in Berlin.

The final visiting show in The Studio is GODS ARE FALLEN AND ALL SAFETY GONE, presented by Newcastle-based international theatre company Greyscale from Friday 12 June to Saturday 13 June.

Written and directed by Selma Dimitrijvic, the show is an investigation into what happens when we discover that our parents are flawed human beings, and that at some point, sooner than we think, they are suddenly going to disappear from our lives.

It is an intimate and funny exploration of the fascinating relationship between a thirty-something daughter and her ageing mother. Their honest, frank and familiar exchanges range from the everyday: tea, travel, boyfriends and more tea; to the truth of their seemingly tense relationship - a lifetime of conversations, condensed into one hour.

YOU, THE AUDIENCE - the Exchange’s year-long audience collaborative adventure which began this season - weaves through the programme for Spring Summer 2015. An epic conversation and a celebration of audiences, it explores the special relationship between the work that is made and the people it is made for.

The company is currently gathering a remarkable collection of opinions and ideas from some of the 2,000 people who helped to kick-start the project at the recent Fun Palace Open Day. The Spring Summer Season’s events will include a weekend of outdoor theatre and A NIGHT AT THE THEATRE, a giant sleepover in The Theatre and the Great Hall.

An launching in Spring this year, OPEN EXCHANGE will offer a series of attachments, master-classes and other development opportunities as part of the Exchange’s commitment to the next generation of artists and theatre makers.

Artists will have the chance to explore, play and collaborate with mentoring and support from professional teams and access to new rehearsal spaces.

Tuesday, 20 January 2015

Charlie Hebdo & War for Civilisation