Deadline for next issue - Sunday February 29th
Articles in plain text format please, by email to news@@veggies.org.uk
Spam filter: delete one of the '@' signs in the address field.

The Open Editorial Meeting to finalise the next edition, and to discuss further the development of the project, is on Tuesday 2nd March, at 7.30pm at the Sumac Centre, 245 Gladstone Street, Forest Fields, Nottingham. (directions here).

Fliers are available to circulate in mailings or elsewhere to promote the News Service.
Please print off from http://www.veggies.org.uk/news/altnewslier.pdf and distribute.
You need the Adobe Acrobat reader to view this file, to download it for free - click logo.

The Bell is Hell - Why are Nottingham's trams so noisy?

There are two main problems - vibration and the warning bell. Residents are suffering most on Shipstone Street and Noel Street where the tram passes close to terraced houses.

The trams' bells may sound quaint as they fight their way through the city centre crowds. But these are loud bells that can be heard a quarter of a mile away. If they are sounded outside your house every few minutes from 6am to midnight they are not just annoying, they can disrupt your sleep. All other vehicles are prohibited from sounding warnings between 11.30pm and 7am. Even emergency vehicles respect that. But not trams.

The tram company has tried to claim that this is because trams are quiet. But that is not true. Trams are no quieter than buses. They main problem is that trams have very poor braking performance. No other vehicle would be allowed on the roads with such lousy brakes. So the main reason for the bells is to warn of poor braking.

However, the trams also sound their bells while stationary, which seems a bit pointless, every time they start from a tram stop or traffic lights - even though sounding audible warnings while stationary is prohibited for every other vehicle. It means anyone living next to a tram stop could hear a bell 20 times an hour at peak times. As a notice in one house opposite the Asda stop in Noel Street says, "The bell is hell".

The second main problem is noise from passing trams, particularly vibrations caused when braking. It is worst at the junction of Noel Street and Terrace Street where the lines cross to allow trams to move South instead of North along Radford Road. Nobody seems to have thought that this would cause serious nuisance to residents.

Where the lines cross, every tram wheel has to rumble over two gaps in the rails plus four non-welded joints. The result is that a whole row of houses have notices in their windows protesting about house noise. This starts at 5.45am and finishes after midnight, with around 200 trams per day.

Some residents have taken legal advice. This has suggested that the only legal redress is for owner occupiers who can claim compensation where there are reductions in house values. That has been enough to persuade the tram company to do some additional rail grinding to reduce some noise. But apart from that, they have been acting in a completely unaccountable way.

The tram operator will not publish their policy on use of audible warnings. So it is impossible to know to what extent this is due to safety policy imposed by the Railways Inspectorate, and to what extent it is local policy. That makes it impossible to focus a campaign to change the policy.

The company has also refused to engage in discussion on construction details. For example, where the track passes the Royal Concert Hall the whole reinforced concrete base was laid on a thick rubber underlay. This was not done along Noel Street where people's bedrooms are closer to the track than is the Concert Hall auditorium. Neil Bates, Executive Director of Nottingham Express Transit (NET) was asked why not. He has so far refused to provide an explanation.

Residents had a meeting before Christmas at which local councillor John Taylor, who is also on the board of NET, promised to investigate and report back. That will be at a residents meeting on 6th February. It is unlikely that he will be able to persuade the tram company to operate in a socially accountable way.

Nigel Lee

Return to contents

Sponsored Fast against Asylum Destitution

Jan 9^th (8pm) to Jan 11^th (8pm).

This event, organised by the Refugee Forum and Refugee Campaign Group was very successful. At the last count, 37 people fasted (we may hear of more) and we had 54 helpers/visitors, plus any who didn't sign in. About half the fasters were asylum seekers or refugees, and the rest were from the host community, including retired people and one person with diabetes.

Other cities – Leeds, Oxford, Sheffield - held similar events.

Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (which had been in force for one year just before the fast) denies all support to asylum seekers without dependants who do not make their asylum applications as soon as “reasonably practicable” on arrival in Britain. This ignores the fact that many people arriving do so after facing fear, trauma and violence as well as a harrowing journey, and are usually confused and frightened as well as maybe having little or no knowledge of English or our asylum system. Some people have been denied support even when they claim a few hours after arriving (although David Blunkett has recently defined “reasonably practicable” as within three days) or, for others, their arrival time has not been believed. Many people have their application denied because they are unable to complete the large (almost 20 pages) Statement of Evidence form in English within ten working days. All these people receive no support of any kind – no home, no food, no shelter. They are not allowed to work. They must depend on friends, charities or the streets.

In the same situation are people whose asylum applications have been refused, but whose country of origin the government categorises as “unsafe”. Begging the question of whether someone from an unsafe country should receive asylum, this leaves many people (e.g. from Zimbabwe) in a limbo where they neither have status here, nor can they return to their countries. These people are made destitute.

Similarly, a number of people who do satisfy all the difficult government criteria often have to go without support for a number of weeks or months because of bureaucratic incompetence. They should receive support, but don’t. Some of these have children.

The Fast

We were based in St Peter’s Centre, belonging to St Peter’s Church in Nottingham city centre. About 12 people slept there overnight both nights. The rest of us spent most of the days there, and people with commitments fasted at home, some calling in to touch base. It was very suitable accommodation, as it was warm and clean, and we had a room for activities and a quiet room where people could sleep during the day.

We had a stall in the Market Square the Saturday before the fast, and also held stalls outside the Centre for most of the daylight hours during the fast. Dried/tinned food was collected, we got a lot of signatures on the petition and handed out so many leaflets we had to have a reprint. The people who came to sign the petition and make donations compensated for the usual racist morons who stalked past or shouted. We have yet to count money donated at our stalls, signatures on the petition or collect in sponsor money. But we may well be collecting a substantial amount. (In the current situation, there can never be enough.) During the fast, two banners hung from the church railings, calling for solidarity with destitute asylum seekers.

We made useful contacts, both in Nottingham and with other cities, where people took up the idea of the fast too. Alan Simpson MP came to offer solidarity and helpful advice.

We had quite a bit of media coverage, but we were not able to monitor all of it properly. We know that we were in the local Nottingham Evening Post three times; an interview was broadcast on local radio, and a TV station visited.

We kept a diary, in which any fasters, supporters or well-wishers could write. It is in many languages. People spent their time in the Centre reading, chatting, playing board games, doing craft work (knitting, sewing, painting, glass painting, mat making etc) and giving each other back and shoulder massages. Leafleting at the stall gave some fresh air. It was a very congenial weekend, in good company, and so the fast was actually enjoyable.

At 8pm on Sunday evening, we had tea and a biscuit, and were then provided with free food by local group “Food Not Bombs”, and also by a group of Kurdish women who spontaneously decided to cook for us. It was a very sociable end to an intense 48 hours.

The event was organised mainly by email and during three open meetings. It was heartening to find such a pool of goodwill – somebody always popped up to do every job that needed doing; be it finding sponsors, media work, liaising with St Peters, writing leaflets, printing leaflets, organising the stall, leafleting, making placards, doing transport, making stickers, making banner, writing and updating website, keeping people entertained and busy, organising, spreading the word, photography, lending equipment, cleaning up at the end, and probably a lot more. Thanks to everyone. It was free organisation at its best.

Despite a personal crisis on Saturday evening, I found going without food for 48 hours easier than I expected. I was very busy most of the time, so this helped to take my mind off eating, and the smells from the doughnut and chip stalls outside served to put me off the whole idea whenever I did think of it. I got very thirsty and needed a lot of water, and guessed that this was because my body was deprived of the usual water intake we find in food. After the first two meals had been missed, half way through Saturday afternoon, it became plain sailing. I found these reactions interesting, and thought about my relationship with food, and how much of it we eat only to punctuate the day, out of habit, or because it tastes nice. Now that we are eating again, I find that my appetite is smaller – this has lasted at least three days. We all thought we’d pig out at 8pm on Sunday, but instead found that we didn’t have room for much. I did get very tired but kept going on adrenaline – probably not the healthiest way to fast, but I do feel physically better at the end of it.

However, it was not just about enjoying each other’s company and fundraising. We could choose to go without food for 48 hours. For an ever-increasing number, there is no choice. We heard of people sleeping in bus shelters and dustbins. We know of around 70 asylum seekers in Nottingham who had to apply for food parcels from a church charity during the last few months of 2003. The issue of destitution among asylum seekers is urgent, and we continue to campaign for the right of everyone to have food, money and shelter; and ultimately the vision is of a world where people don’t have to leave their families, friends, homes, jobs and all they know in order to escape from murder or torture.

A follow up meeting to discuss: “what next?” is being held.

Further information: www.nottsrefugeeforum.org.uk/fast.htm

Return to contents

Destitute Asylum Seekers in Nottingham

The asylum seekers mentioned here are only identified by their initials to preserve what little dignity that they have left.

H. an Iranian refugee, was living in London 7 months ago when his benefits were stopped due to the barbaric asylum policies of this government. He came to Nottingham as he had friends here who said that they would help him, as he had nowhere else to go. No support from social services. Not allowed to work. One of his friends let him stay with him for a few months. Then another friend for a few weeks, but on this occasion the landlord said he couldn't stay there any longer as the flat was rented out to one person only. Members of staff at the NNRF managed to get him a few nights stay in a local hotel bed and breakfast accomodation. H doesn't know where he will end up.

E. is from Kosovo. He came here in 1997 and was allowed to work. He worked for some time before his application was turned down. He had problems with the Kosovan community in Great Yarmouth, where he was living. He had to leave there and came to Nottingham, where he had friends. He slept on the streets of Nottingham over the summer, until a member of staff of the NNRF discovered he had enough National Insurance stamps to claim money. He gets £54.95 a week, but he's not entitled to Housing Benefit. He had worked here for approximately two years. He just sleeps anywhere he can. Unfortunately, asylum seekers are not eligible to go to night shelters.

T is another Kosovan gentleman who has had his support taken away. Now he stays in a corridor in a housing agency at night. The staff there allow him to sleep there as he has a serious mental illness. He is in his fifties.

D is a Palestinian genteman who has also been refused, and has no financial support. He has taken to sleeping in sheds in allotments.

H is a Kurdish gentleman. On his wedding day he was attacked with a hammer, and his wife and mother were killed. He was blinded in one eye and is partially blind in the other. He survives any way he can. Kurdish people in the Nottingham community try to help him, even though they are in no position to do so themselves really, as they are on scant benefits.

S is from Kabul, Afghanistan. He is a follower of the Sikh religion, which is why all his family members were killed, it seems, and his community displaced. He, like many others, fled for his life. He is living on the streets of Nottingham.

O is from Iraq. He's been here for 9 months, and never had any support because of Section 55. All he has are the clothes he wears. He's been staying with friends and living rough. He arrived at NNRF in a very distressed state and needed lots of calming down. He'd received a letter telling him to sign on at the police station, and was frightened that he'd be detained. This terrified him. He doesn't want to beg, doesn't want to be a charity case and ask for handouts. He wants a life. If he can't have one he'd rather die. He threatened to kill himself.

S is a young woman from the Congo. She said she'd just arrived. She was in ill health and possibly pregnant. Because of S55, she had to register at Liverpool. NNRF Destitution Fund gave her money for the train to Liverpool (the cheapest route). There, she was given another appointment a week later, also in Liverpool. Meanwhile, an agency gave her emergency accommodation and money for food, but is not allowed to give her a train ticket. The attitude was: 'If she can live off bread and milk for a week, she can save for her ticket.' It was discovered that she's under 18, and should be in the care of the social services, where she is now.

A Policy that is making people ill

As the case studies show, destitution among asylum seekers is not only extraordinarily cruel it makes asylum seekers ill. It puts workers in the health, social services and voluntary sectors in some difficult dilemmas as to how they can help – having to step outside their professional roles to help personally and informally, as best they can, as with raising money through the fast, or treating and supporting people, as best they can, in addition to their official duties. You cannot deny people the right to earn any money at all, forcing them to sleep in dustbins and car wrecks, without making them sick, physically and mentally, and/or driving them into the black economy. The government is creating problems for these asylum seekers and health and social care workers – but the politicians, and those egging them on like the journalists at Daily Mail, are not having to pick these problems, as they are not on the front line.

In my job as a mental health worker I have often quoted the following description of the effects of destitution on mental health, taken from Richard Warner's book, Recovery from Schizophrenia. It was written in another time and another place – in the USA in fact. And it was not written to describe the plight of destitute asylum seekers, who are also often traumatised by torture, loss and cultural disorientation, but its reference to American experience highlights very well the mental health implications of the government's policies.

"Clinical experience shows us that economic uncertainty is a serious stress for many patients. As social security regulations were tightened during the Reagan administration, for example, many stable psychotics whose disability payments were abruptly terminated suffered relapses of their illnesses. The mental condition of many psychotics similarly becomes worse when their most basic needs are not provided for. In the United States homeless, male, schizophrenics are admitted to hospital hungry, dirty, sleepless and floridly psychotic. When after some meals and a good nights sleep, their mental condition improves dramatically hospital staff claim that the patient 'manipulated' his way into free board and accommodation. More benign observers argue that the patients improvement is evidence of the efficacy of the dose of anti-psychotic medication he received on admission. In fact, such patients often improve as readily without medication. The florid features of their psychosis are an acute response to the stress of abject poverty and deprivation". (Warner p 132).

Section 55 is, quite literally, a sick policy by a sick government. It was enacted by a government that has set national targets for health improvement – one of which is the reduction of suicides.

Return to contents

Action against Refugee Detention and for Migrant Rights!

Saturday 31st January is a Europe Wide Day of Action against Refugee Detention and for Migrant Rights. There will be actions at Refugee Detention Centres throughout Britain. As part of this day there will be a noise demo outside Lindholme Refugee Detention Centre, near Doncaster, South Yorkshire, with transport from Nottingham.

The government's "detention estate" is a horrible human rights abuse. People are imprisoned without charge, time limit or trial, with no proper reason given.

It is part of a climate of racism and persecution of "immigrants" that is making human beings "illegal". Detention is used to try and intimidate migrants into accepting deportation and to put people off coming to Britain at all. By taking our protests to the gates of detention centres we can communicate with the people inside, sending messages of support that can break through the fences erected to keep people isolated.

Lindholme Detention Centre is a wing of HMP Lindholme, run by the prison service. It holds up to 112 men aged 21 and over. A prison inspectors' report in April 2003 revealed that staff routinely imposed random strip-searches after visits. Detainees are also strip-searched on admission to the detention centre as a matter of routine, without any reason given. Staff at this former prison treat detainees as offenders, rather than recognising that they have not been convicted of any crime. There is a prison atmosphere with detainees being made to wear prison clothes. Thier own money is withheld from them and channelled into prison-like 'incentive schemes'. The report describes poor food, heating and healthcare, and intimidation and hostility. Detainees there do not feel safe

Bring what you'd like to find: Musical Instruments, Loud Hailers, Voices, Saucepans, Things to make a Noise with; Wool, Balloons, Coloured Paper, Banners Things to Decorate the fence with.

Needed: Help with Transport.

For more details, offers of transport, or if you need transport, please contact `The Sumac Centre'

Ph: 0845 458 9595

Email: lindholme(at)veggies.org.uk
Spam filter: replace (at) with @ in the address field.

Directions:

M18 Eastbound Junction 5,

M180 Eastbound

Junction 1, A18 towards Hatfield, Take the A614 on the left towards Hatfield Woodhouse.

Tyrham Hall Hotel is on lefthand side after Hatfield Woodhouse.

Return to contents

John Heppell – Whipping in the Labour Pack in the House of Commons.

At the time of putting together this newsletter the mainstream news is full of the impending vote on university tuition fees and the imminence of the Hutton Report that, it is said, will determine Tony Blair's fate. A big Commons rebellion is promised – and working against it are the government's whips – one of them John Heppell.

This article doesn't pretend to be a review of the political ideas and biography of John Heppell, that would be difficult to do – in fact I think I would find it difficult to find anything very much to say to say about him – except that, perhaps because of his rail background with the RMT union, he played a role in getting the tram system in place. My most abiding memory of him was in the lead up to the Iraq war, when a number of constituents wanted to lobby him, and he failed to show up – he ran away, I suppose, because he couldn't argue his corner. As most observers of local politics know, you can pretty much always predict where John Heppell will stand on any question – he will support the government. This makes attempting to lobby, or have a dialogue with him, about any specific matter a frustrating exercise. What he will do is pass on your letter to the relevant government department and, eventually, you will get a reply back from a junior minister, presumably written by an official. There will be a covering letter which says that “I hope that you are reassured”. You can't grumble at getting a reply from someone a little more senior and closer to the “centres of power” , even if what they say is often rubbish – the point I am making is that you never get a response from John Heppell himself.

The one exception to this, where Heppell seems to have done something which, to my mind is of merit, is influencing the decision which led to allowing the Alpdogan family staying. However, Heppell was far less influential, or shall we say, willing to take a stand for example, with the Daoud family.

The Guardian newspaper web site, has a section where you can look up MPs and their interests and all that you will find about John Heppell is that he works at the whips office. As an ultra loyalist this is perhaps the best role for him – or it would be if the role of the parliamentary whips was positive. Sadly the role of the whips is anything but positive – indeed, in my opinion, what they do is thoroughly anti-democratic.

It would be lovely if democracy worked – i.e. the fact that we all have just one vote converted into a electoral process to collectively appoint members of parliament who represented the agendas and needs coming from all the British people. However, the world's not the slightest bit like that. We've all got one vote but some of us supremely well connected, collosally resourced and very very well informed. Some of us live in council estates and find it difficult to find the time to listen to the news, let alone think deeply about policy – others of us, can spend time lobbying the politicians and civil servants, who perhaps go to our clubs or shoots, or, perhaps, own and control media empires that keep the spotlight on their friends and contacts, and/or shifting their money and power around the world.

As a recent film at the Broadway during Democracy Week showed, the global elite of super powerful players meet regularly at places like the World Economic Forum. At their formal and informal meetings they set the agenda and control the global institutions like the World Trade Organisation, the IMF and so on. Elected governments like our own then take the starting point for their decision making, not from the ideas, needs and initiatives of ordinary people, nor from the grass roots of politically active parties campaigning for social and economic change, but from what these global players want – delivering us illegal and murderous wars, selling off the public sector, scapegoating and persecuting the victims of their policies, wrecking the environment - whether we want these policies or not.

Of course there is some inevitable friction in the very top down process. The role of House of Commons is supposedly to hold the government to account and make it answerable to people who have been elected. And this theory sometimes clashes a bit with what the government actually does in practice - delivering the assets of the country into the thieving and murderous hands of the global elite. However the whips, like John Heppell play an important part keeping that clash and any friction to a minimum. Apart from those major political crises when a Prime Minister falls – the whips, like John Heppell, manage their fellow MPs to ensure that the government of the day, gets its way. They turn parliamentary accountability upside down, ensuring that MPs do not vote according to their own judgements. The last thing the government (or opposition leadership) really wants is MPs influenced by a well informed dialogue with voters, or sticking on a point of principle to the policies and programme on which they were elected. It wants them following the leader. So how do the whips achieve this?

Presumably part of the process is arguing for the government's point of view. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the whips are not always blessed with strong skills in argument. When Paul Marsden rebelled against the Labour whips the chief whip, Hilary Armstrong, is reported to have shouted at him “the trouble with people like you is that you are so clever with words that us up north can't argue back”. On another occasion, Jeremy Paxman tells, in his book “The Political Animal”, how a debate for the Freedom of Information law ended. “ All the close and reasoned arguments about how the bill might be given some teeth ended with the whips shepherding Labour MPs into the division lobbies with the words 'Government this way. Intellectual wankers that way'.”

If the whips aren't particularly clever with words, and loath those who can out-argue them, how then, do they get their way? Trying to find out is a little difficult. According to Paxman, it is “traditional” that the whips do not give interviews. When the rebel MP Paul Marsden published an account of his row with the Labour Chief Whip, Hilary Armstrong, there was an absolute fury. He had breached this secrecy principle. For spilling the beans he was pushed and abused. Among his abusers, according to Marsden, was John Heppell, who made 'disparaging remarks' about him..

The whips' secretiveness is only to be expected – it is a sure sign that they have things to hide. Not to mince words, the key to their effectiveness, often enough, is bribery (for positions, honours, promotions etc), bullying and blackmail. In any other area of public life the way the parliamentary whips operate would, quite literally, be considered criminal – the fact that they operate in the way they do, without prosecution, and entirely legally, says a lot about the way in which our 'democracy' works.

As Paxman explains “”The whips – the term is derived from whippers in who control packs of hounds – are the keepers of parliament's dark secrets and custodians of the baubles of public life. For the average back bencher the whip is a street corner thug they need to get past on their way home from school. Treat him with respect, and life will be fine. If you cross him, watch out. Occasionally whips can get literally physical......Paul Marsden, a Labour MP unhappy with the party line on anti terrorism in 2001, found himself pushed and shoved, called an 'arsehole', and then pressed by a whip against the wall, with an arm across his throat”.

Interesting, isn't it, that if one demonstrated outside parliament against anti terrorism legislation like that, one would be up on an assault charge....

Another serious crime outside parliament, that does not seem to apply when it comes to the democractic process, is blackmail. “The 'black book' or 'dirt book' which lists all the scuttlebutt about a party's MPs (known in the Major Government as the 'Unstable List') contains details of all those in the parliamentary party with a drink problem, those who are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and those who are running second families in London. The parties retain sympathetic doctors – specialists in alcoholism and depression in particular – to whom members can be referred. But the slimmer the government majority, the nastier the whips become: then the list is a weapon of virtual blackmail.” (Paxman p 167)

The case of Tess Kingham gives a good example of the Labour whips in operation. She was elected MP for Gloucester in 1997. She refused to vote for cuts in disability benefits – in response to which whips threatened that the government could withdraw resources from her constituency. If she continued to cause trouble, she was warned, her "political career was finished". She complained to one of the papers. In response, the whips threatened to expose her private life in the tabloids. She was also given a ballot form for the national executive committee elections, only to find that it had already been filled in for her by party managers. She was told how to vote even on early day motions, which are supposed to be independent of party control.

In an article about the role of the whips a three years ago George Monbiot argued that

“It seems to me that there is also a clear case for abandoning the entire parliamentary whipping system. It should be illegal to interfere in an MP's decisions. If parties wish to persuade their members to vote in a particular way, they should do so by means of argument, not threats. Any suggestion that someone's voting record will affect the course of her career would be referred to a parliamentary ombudsman. With a written constitution, full public disclosure of all government business and an enforceable list of MPs' duties towards their constituents, the people of Britain might begin to see the point of parliament once more.”

I wonder what John Heppell thinks of that. If his constituents wrote to him about it I would assume that it's a question that he would feel obliged to answer personally for a change. His e mail address is Heppellj@parliament.uk

Perhaps the final word on John Heppell's role should go to Tess Kingham who described the pettiness of parliament as her reason for not standing again at the following election. She regarded the whipping system as an affront to democracy. It is as "an appalling, bullying system" which supports "schoolboy politics".

Brian Davey

Return to contents

Protest Camps on Eviction Alert

Nine ladies anti-quarry camp was set up back in 1999 to help stop the destruction of Stanton Moor hillside in the Peak District National Park, which is under threat from the possible re-opening of two dormant quarries. The quarries would have a disastrous impact on the Nine Ladies Stone Circle and local wildlife and camp residents have always vowed to stay until the quarry plans are shelved.

But, on 12th December quarry company Stancliffe Stone submitted a scheme for working the two quarries to the Peak District National Park Authority. Stancliffe wants to extract 3.2 million tons of rock from a site within 100m of the Nine Ladies Stone Circle. The quarry company has also told local papers that they plan to begin an eviction process against the camp almost immediately.

Campers are calling for reinforcements from around the country, “As fast as they get people out, we hope others from around the country will be getting in across fields, etc.”

To get your name on the eviction alert phone tree, please contact the site mobile: 0700 5942212

or write to: Nine Ladies anti-quarry campaign, Lees Road, Stanton Lees, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 2LQ.

Details of the Nine Ladies Campaign, photos of the temporary treehouses there, and further directions can be found on www.nineladies.uklinux.net.

Friday 23rd January : Nine Ladies Possession Court Order Obtained

Papers served this Friday morning - eviction - imminent!

If Quarrying goes ahead, a 100m deep scar will blight a beautiful, and well loved landscape. The protest camp has been protecting the site since 1999. People are needed urgently to help with defences, and resist the eviction.
If you want to be on the phone tree (to be informed when eviction starts), please get in touch via the site mobile number: 0700 5942212 or call the Sumac Centre on 0845 458 9595 for possible car pool.

See the IndyMedia report at http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284233.html.

Return to contents

Busking in Nottingham – An Era coming to an end?

After 20 years of busking on the streets of Nottingham Mogs – Mr Saxaphone – is giving it a rest for health reasons – but things aren't what they used to be anyway. In this interview he tells Nottingham Alternative Newsletter how the street entertainment scene has changed – and not for the better. Things are buzzing on the evening music scene – but there are worries there too....

NAN – First of all can you tell us what you did before you came to Nottingham?

Mogs – I did a fine arts degree at Liverpool Polytechnic and then moved to Leeds where, for a few years I was a stage hand for Opera North on and off, which gave me the time to play in a 12 piece rock band – Goff Jackson and the Huns. I remember that the name of the band caused Andy Kershaw, at that time entertainments secretary at Leeds University, some problems. He had no sense of irony – actually “the Huns” was a reference to Hunslett, a district in Leeds. That was in the late 1970s.

NAN – What sort of music was that?

Mogs – Post industrial punk we called it – despite the brass section.

NAN – So how did you end up living in Nottingham?

Mogs – That was pure chance. I took some time out in South East Asia – Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand – and when I was flying back put a pin in the map while flying into Beirut.....That was in 1982 and the American 7^th fleet was off shore. Luckily it was Ramadan and my journey continued....I went back to Leeds, collected my stuff and moved down to Nottingham, staying with someone I knew for a while before I sorted myself out. I went to live in Mapperley Park, which is where I was for many years.

NAN – So how did you come to start busking?

Mogs – I took up the saxaphone when I was 24 in 1975 and I'd busked before I came to Nottingham. I was skint on one occasion when I was in Amsterdam in 1980 and just took my saxaphone and played outside the Bulldog pub, just off Leidse Plein. It was like a duck taking to water – doing something I enjoyed and getting money for it. So I started busking when I came to Nottingham. I'd also travel to Leicester and Derby and play there. That was in the days when you could actually use public transport because the fares and the timetables were still reasonable.

NAN – How did you find it?

Mogs – At that time people received me very well. It's different from nowadays. The police moved you on sometimes – but the moving on petered out after about a year. At that time there were 7 or 8 buskers regularly playing in Nottingham. Proper musicians I mean – with varying levels of ability of course but I'd describe them all as proper musicians. At that time too there were other street entertainers – like Sally who used to do the pavement art.

NAN – And what did you play?

Mogs – When I started I only really had two tunes but playing them over and again became pretty boring so my performance widened over time. I put an emphasis on popular tunes – all sorts really – Glen Miller, Duke Ellington – they always go down well - plus rock and roll, some classical - a bit of Bizet, a bit of Bach and some Mozart.

NAN – How would you describe the streets and the city centre at that time, in the early 1980s?

Mogs – I'd say people were happier then, the streets seem to have got meaner. They've also got noisier over the years. I'm not talking about traffic noise because places like Clumber Street were already pedestrianised by then - I mean the noise of diesel generators for the take away food vans, the shops that pump out loud music all day long – like Dixons or the clothes shop that used to be on the corner of Clumber Street and Lincoln Street. Also the “Green Machines” - those motorised cleaning vehicles that the council uses. In addition to that there's more obstructions and advertising hoardings – for example the telephone boxes that appeared at one time – though there not used so much now.

And of course it's got busier. There's a lot more shoppers – every day of the week. But do they look happy? No....Retail therapy doesn't work.

Then of course there is the young people – pan handlers, beggars. There were always beggars, but they were mostly older men. But a lot of young people appeared on the streets about 10 to 12 years ago. Something happened – they cut off the benefits for young people I suppose – some of them were quite aggressive and taking the piss. Not all, but some, and that brought the feeling on the streets down too.

NAN – What do you put this aggression down to?

Mogs – I'm still trying to work that out myself. The easier availability of heroin and crack didn't help. I've always maintained that the drugs should be legalised – then people could just buy their fixes and no one would have excuses to mug old ladies – they'd just go and get it – plus being able to judge the right dose would be good.

NAN – You were also busking in other towns and cities - how did they compare to Nottingham?

Mogs – In the main the experience of busking has been less happy in all of them as time has gone on – but I've got to say it for Derby and Leicester they seemed to sort out the begging a lot quicker than Nottingham. The trend to becoming noisier has been the same in other places as well. Some buskers are trying to fight the trend by getting PA systems themselves but it's a losing battle. In general though its noticeable that other buskers are coming to Nottingham less – there used to be all sorts of musicians and street entertainers – for example a classical guitarist. I've kept in contact with some of them and they won't come to Nottingham now because Nottingham's got an edge. When I was still busking I've even had people actually coming up and taking money from my collection – or dropping the remnants of Big Macs in my case.

NAN – If you were City Centre manager what would you do?

Mogs – Manage. You don't see pavement artists any more. The things I've talked about – more street furniture, ambient noise – that sort of thing – mean that busking and street entertainment is in decline. There's only one busker in Nottingham regularly now – if that. That compares to 7 or 8 twenty years ago.

NAN – But that's not the entire local music scene. What about evening music?

Mogs – That's a total contrast. It's buzzing at the moment in the evening. There's lot of smallish venues. From my personal knowledge I can only compare Nottingham to Leeds and there's a lot more live music here than in Leeds, which is odd because it used to be the other way round. I've no idea why – though part of the reason must be the large number of venues – the Maze, the Running Horse, the Moog, the Frog and Onion, the Lion, Horse and Groom, Golden Fleece - loads of place. However, I'm waiting with baited breath to see what effect the new entertainment licencing regulations are going to have on live music when they come into force in 2005. We'll see what happens, but I'm not hopeful.

NAN – Can you explain some more?

Mogs – At the moment if one or two musicians agree with the landlord to play in a pub then they can just go ahead and do it. But from 2005 the pub will need a licence and if I played in a pub without a licence I could be fined £20,000 and get 6 months in the nick. Of course, if the pub wants to play piped music or put on big screen sports, then - no problem for doing that. In fact, there a general trend in different cities to want to licence buskers too...

NAN – Why is that happening?

Mogs – They say it's for monitoring. Part of it is about trying to pick and choose what kind of buskers that there are. The powers that be would like to keep the proper musicians but drive away the penny whistle players....but it's a dangerous game to play, trying to make that distinction. I'm against it – most of the penny whistle players don't stay at it for long, they've gone in a few weeks anyway. But there's a freedom of expression principle involved – its control freakery by the officials.

NAN – What are you doing now?

Mogs – I'm taking a rest from professional busking due to health problems. However I play as tenor saxophonist for Fat Digester and I'd like to get some recording done.

NAN - How would you sum up?

Mogs – I can't see the street entertaining situation getting better. All the street entertainers are feeling the pinch. A lot of entertainers have wanted to take people out of their humdrum existence and provide an antidote to the corporate control of music. You've got that everywhere now – piped music in the shops, in bars and cafes. It's just there as a marketing tool. As far as the evening music situation is concerned that's lively but the jury's out on how the new entertainment law will effect things.

NAN – Mogs, thanks for talking to us.

Interview for NAN by Brian D.

Return to contents

SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC DELUSIONS

“If the Labour Party didn’t exist, the Trotskyites and revisionists would have to invent it.” That’s what Marxist-Leninists used to say back in the nineteen seventies. For many decades these elements tried desperately to radicalise the Labour Party, some from within (e.g. Militant) and some from without (e.g. Communist Party of Great Britain). In, out, shake it all about. The more they tried to ginger up the Labour Party the more reactionary it became until in the nineteen nineties it abandoned any pretensions of social democracy with the adoption of Blair’s New Labour programme. This left the Trots and revisionists in a fix because the strategy of changing the Labour Party had little credibility left among people of radical inclinations.

Both the Trotskyites and the revisionists had claimed to advocate revolutionary change but somehow or other this was supposed to come about through critical support of the Labour Party in elections. What they were not prepared to do is to face up to the challenging, demanding and difficult task of building a truly revolutionary movement in an advanced capitalist society such as Britain. Given their essentially reformist politics, they needed to find or create a new version of the old Labour Party.

NEW MODEL PARTIES

The first new model brought out was Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party founded in 1996. Initially it attracted quite a few disaffected Labourites, Trotskyites and revisionists although its programme was hopelessly reactionary wanting, among other things, to reopen abandoned coal mines and cotton mills. Also, the party was very much King Arthur’s fiefdom and there was no way the already existing left organisations were going to subordinate themselves to it. The SLP stood some candidates in the 1997 General Election when they achieved very modest votes and again in 2001 when their support was derisory with Arthur being humiliated by Peter Mandelson in Hartlepool.

The next offering to come off the shelf was the Socialist Alliance formed before the 2001 General Election by a number of organisations including the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Party (formerly Militant), Communist Party of Great Britain (Mark 2), etc.. Their platform was unashamedly a reformist, Old Labour one with no pretensions to revolution. Just like the Scargillites in 1997 the votes they polled were small and it wasn’t long before they were at sixes and sevens with each other and organisations started to drop out. As a result the SWP, who initially were rather cool about the whole enterprise, have been left in the predominant position in the SA and effectively control it. Even so the performance of SA in the 2003 local elections secured only one local council seat and in the Brent East parliamentary byelection in September 2003 their candidate won less votes in a whole constituency than some SA candidates had in local wards a few months before.

IF AT FIRST YOU DON’T SUCCEED …

But the show must go on. During the last two years the Stop the War Coalition – largely led and controlled by the SWP – has galvanised many new sections of the population into political life and revived and revitalised some old ones as well. The SWP see this as an opportunity to build a new electoral alliance. Only a few months ago they were talking about launching a platform of “Peace and Justice” candidates particularly in association with elements from the Muslim population of Britain. Despite offers from the SWP of opportunistic compromises, such as on women’s rights, this failed to get off the ground. Not to worry, let’s move on to something else.

Now, in time for Christmas, we have RESPECT, a lash-up platform that stands for ‘respect’, ‘equality’, ‘socialism’, ‘peace’, ‘environmentalism’, ‘community’ and ‘trade unionism’. SWP have managed to recruit George Galloway, Ken Loach and George Monbiot as signatories to a draft declaration. This delaration is much the same as the Socialist Alliance platform, i.e. a reformist and not a revolutionary platform. It is hoped to get other left organisations, trade unions, progressive pressure groups, etc. involved. The immediate objective is to stand candidates in elections to the European Parliament and the Greater London Authority next June. But where will this lead?

ELECTORAL ILLUSIONS

It is possible, although not very likely, that RESPECT could win some seats in local, national and European elections and come to constitute a new social democratic party. It is even remotely conceivable at some stage that RESPECT could become a partner in some sort of coalition government. But this is not going to bring about fundamental changes to this capitalist society. More likely would be that RESPECT would increasingly become absorbed within capitalist parliamentarianism, as has happened with the Greens in Germany, and abandon even its mild reformist demands.

Of course, if this view is put to better infotmed SWP members and some other leftist victims of election fever then they admit that socialism cannot be brought about through capitalist parliaments. However, they say, the great majority of the people still believe that real change can be brought about by electing radical candidates to the House of Commons. People have to find out through experience that this strategy does not work. Only then will they be prepared to turn to revolution.

This is the same opportunist excuse that was used to justify supporting the Labour Party in elections. In fact, both the opinion polls and their increasing reluctance to vote show that a large section of the population do not think that real changes can be brought about under the present political system. Yet the Trotskyites and revisionists carry on pushing this reformist line that many of them know is false. They say that if they put forward an openly revolutionary line it will alienate them from the working class. Ironically, the reality is that none of these organisations have any significant presence in the working class.

The whole RESPECT enterprise is blatantly dishonest because it is trying to win support for a political strategy that its proponents know will not work. It is treating people not with respect but with contempt.

EXHAUSTION OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

Social democratic politics emerged in the Western European countries during the late nineteenth century. The aim of parties such as the German Social Democratic Party and the British Labour Party was to gradually change capitalism into socialism by means of electing representatives to parliamentary assemblies who would pass the necessary legislation. Violent revolution was held to be unnecessary and could be avoided.

Such parties did win mass support and succeeded in bringing about reforms on matters such as welfare, housing and education. The resistance of the capitalist class to such demands was considerably reduced by the threat of communist revolution following the October Revolution in Russia in 1917. The ruling class realised that capitalism and their privileged position in it could be preserved by accepting social democratic reforms that would be paid for by the working class and which would actually reduce and stabilise class conflict.

By the nineteen seventies the social democratic political programme had been more or less fully implemented in countries such as Britain, France and Germany. One consequence was that social democratic parties had become firmly incorporated within the capitalist system. Whereas at the beginning of the century they were on the margins of the capitalist political system they had become a central and generally accepted part of it. In these countries capitalism had become much more stable and secure than fifty years before and the social democrats such as the Labour Party had, whether they realised it or not, played an important part in bringing about this stability.

But just at the point where social democracy seemed to have made the developed countries safe for capitalism, a major new economic depression started to emerge. Despite the practice of Keynsian economic management advocated by social democrats, mass unemployment re-emerged and brought considerable strains to bear on the welfare state. In Britain in the nineteen eighties it was the Thatcher-led Tory governments that started to erode away and dismantle social democratic reforms. In some other countries such as Spain and France it was actually social democratic parties in government that introduced the same policies. It was only in the mid-nineteen nineties in Britain that the Labour Party abandoned a social democratic programme and adopted Thatcherism under the guise of Blair’s New Labour policies. More recently the German SDP in government have gone down the same path.

Social democracy has run its course. It is ironic that the very same political parties that advocated social reforms to capitalism are now busy setting about undermining and abolishing them.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

RESPECT is trying to drag us back to the past with its unimaginative list of traditional social democratic demands to be implemented through Parliament. At the same time large and growing numbers of people are coming to realise that fundamental changes to society cannot be brought about by means of the existing capitalist political system. This is apparent in the mass scepticism about politicians and the falling turnouts in national and local elections. The exposure of the lies that the Blair government has told about Iraq has strengthened this trend.

Certainly, we need to carry on the struggle to defend our hard-won civil liberties such as trade union rights (considerably eroded) and to defend our standard of living. Past experience – as in the cases of fighting discrimination against women, ethnic minorities and gays - shows that extra-parliamentary action can be much more effective in bringing about reforms than by trying to use the mainstream political parties. The main political parties, including the Labour Party, instead of taking the lead have reluctantly yielded to popular pressure on these issues. Environmental issues have only got onto the agenda of the bourgeois parties because of pressure from various green campaigning groups. There are some very pressing and important issues that certainly do need to be taken up such as housing and pensions which the RESPECT platform largely ignores. Certainly we should carry on with and broaden struggles such as those against imperialist war and in defence of asylum seekers. But we need to go further.

RESPECT talks about “a crisis of representation, a democratic deficit, at the heart of politics in Britain” yet by this it simply means a lack of social democratic politicians in Parliament. What this sort of reformist politics ignores is the fact that our whole society is fundamantally undemocratic, is run along authoritarian lines. The economy is not controlled by the great majority of workers but by a small minority of capitalist owners. Essentially the same authoritarian structures pervade most aspects of our lives such as the habitat, education, health care and the mass media. It is not the great majority of the people who create and are affected by these things who control them. Rather it is a small minority of capitalists and their functionaries who exercise power in most aspects of our lives not for our benefit but for their own immediate profit and privilege. The literal meaning of democracy is rule by the people and for this to become a reality instead of the present sham a revolutionary solution is necessary. Past experience around the world shows that capitalist rulers will not give up their power voluntarily so they will have to be overthrown by means of revolutionary action.

This is the most important political task facing us, building a real revolutionary movement to replace existing organisations such as the SWP that waffle about revolution but in practice pursue social democratic, reformist politics the latest manifestation of which is RESPECT.

Harry Powell

December 2003

Return to contents

Comment on “Social Democratic Delusions” by Brian Davey –

Anyone want to form the “Don't Know Party”?

When I heard that veteran Maoist Ross Longhurst had submitted two articles for the Nottingham Alternative Newsletter my emotional reaction was a bit like noticing a wasp on a picnic – my shoulders tightened up, my breathing got more difficult and, if I could have measured it, I'm pretty sure I would have discovered a rise in my blood pressure.

But then the world is like that – it keeps on chucking you situations like those unresolvable puzzles set for Zen meditators – what do you do when you want to develop an open minded internet journal that includes all points of view, without censorship - and then you get submissions which you think are likely to drive away those very open minded people that you want to involve in its production ?

I don't know, is the answer.

His article brings to mind my French teacher at secondary school in the 60s. He knew what the right answers were to every question of grammar and the gender of every word in the textbooks - that he had spent all his life going through, over and over again. I suppose he was terminally bored and he took it out on his students for not knowing what had been ingrained in his mind by years of constantly repetition. So it was that his response to the wrong answers from his students was bristling resentment, mockery and withering sarcasm. Instead of letting the language grow in us, by exposure to it through interesting topics, he presented it in an abstract and dry way, that killed all interest. The fear of him created a nervousness that was totally antithetical to learning. Grammar and words learned as technical procedures. If you got these deadly dull procedures wrong you were humiliated, if you didn't know then you were mocked. In the end you couldn't give a damn about French – and that's what I feel about Harry Powell's style of Marxism Leninism. Yawn! Who fucking cares!

Whatever is wrong with our capitalist society, and there's lots of course, I can't help but come away with the impression, having read “Harry Powell”, (presumably one of those Marxist pseudonyms) that after the violent revolution he asserts that we need, his new society would be rather like a school run by 1960s style teachers. Of course, these teachers would have all the right answers – mocking deluded idiots with the wrong way forward for humanity in its march to perfection, or condescending those who don't know where to take the banner of progress on the next cross country run. There would also be school assembly style occasions, where we'll be inspired by Churchillian intonations of the great tasks that are before us, if we all play the game right – breaking into hymns at poignant moments to the heroes of the wonderful future.

So my comment to “Harry” is, well you might be right, and the trots and everyone else might be all wrong. I don't know really. I do know that reading your article leaves me feeling bad. It brings back grim memories of being in the International Marxist Group in the 1970s. I know, of course, that the IMG was “a trot group”, but that sense of earnest certain conviction, that set us apart from lesser mortals, with their deluded, opportunistic, revisionist deviations from the true path, feels emotionally much the the same. Your text evokes the feel of those joyless weekends of my younger years spent in meetings. Outside the sun was shining but inside another day of my not-mispent youth was passing away in earnest and intense concentration on the latest arcane faction fight.

I think there are other ways of describing the world to yours “Harry”, but I can't be bothered to argue the toss, because it don't think it will make any difference at all to you or anyone else. There's no point at all in discussing with someone when they are certain. Discussion starts to become meaningful when one can explore issues together, discover things, find out together – and that doesn't seem to be in your style, at least not in this article. To me, and it's no more than what I feel personally, it's like an ideological straighjacket out of the museum of ideas and, to get involved in that style of politics again, would, I think, drive my blood pressure through the roof and my morale through the floor. So I'm excusing myself from your kind of politics on mental health grounds.

Perhaps I'm deluded, of course, like “the trots”. I frequently have been. People who didn't believe that Stalin represented the progress of humanity were regularly treated by Soviet psychiatrists for being deluded – and perhaps after your violent revolution I will need to be treated for having a personality disorder, a thought disorder or both. In fact, come to think of it perhaps that's the way to relate to the people in RESPECT. If they're deluded, get the psychiatrists onto the case Harry. Maybe their delusions are neurologically based.

“Those who speak, do not know. Those who know, do not speak.” Lao Tzu.

Return to contents

Contemporary diatribes - Lord Biro

        Eat Beans and George

        on toast for your breakfast

        and the fart you'll expel

        vill asphyxiate Texas.

A primitive visitor

has landed from Earth

Bearing a present

from something called Hirst

It's a sickly creation

all covered in spots

so they've been sent to Uranus

in case it's the Pox

        Carry on Tony

        He seeks them here

        He seeks them there

        He'd like to find those

        elusive weapons anywhere.

        Whether up Assad's ass'ole

        or the Bogs of Kirkuk,

        In-the-Shit Tony

        won't give a fuck

  I had that Kilroy-Silk

  in the back of my cab the other day.

  I said, "Oi, wot about

  Faaking Jordan

  Faaking Oasis

  Faaking Suez

  Faaking Palmolive soap

  Not to mention

  Donner Faaking Egyptian Gerbils

  Desert Faaking Orchid

  Pyramid Faaking selling

  Carry-on Faaking Cleo

  Syrup of Faaking figs

  Sultana Faaking pudding

  Fulham's Fugging owner

  Pharoah's Faaking curse

  The Garden of Faaking Eden

  and Tommy Cooper's Faaking Fez

  And if I ran out of Faaking petrol

  Are you going to piss in my Faaking tank?

  Catch a flying Faaking carpet?

  Here we are then.

                              Ye Olde Cunt Road.

  That'll be 50 quid Guv.

                                    Wot, no tip!"

                            Edited by Lord Biro

                            Resident Poet, Express Cabs

Return to contents

Other useful links

Ned Ludds News - Nottingham Free Information Network is an example of a print newsletter, published intermittently from 1997-2002 - see http://www.veggies.org.uk/neds/Ned0208.htm.

UK Indymedia : http://www.indymedia.org.uk
and Sheffield Indymedia : http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/
Indymedia is based on Editorial Guidelines, which would not neccessarily apply to Nottingham Alternative News Service : http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/editorial.html

Schnews : http://www.schnews.org.uk
Veggies Newsround : http://www.veggies.org.uk/news/index.htm
Buzzflash : http://www.buzzflash.com
Information Clearing House : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

Return to contents:

Action against Refugee Detention and for Migrant Rights!

John Heppell – Whipping in the Labour Pack in House of Commons

Eco Protest Camps on Eviction Alert

Busking in Nottingham – An Era coming to an end?

Social Democratic Delusions

Comment on Social Democratic Delusions

Contemporary diatribes by Lord Biro