Hooligans disunited

As the EDL prepare to come to Manchester on Saturday, I came across this article from Searchlight.

Nick Lowles reports on the mixed relationships between football hooligan gangs and the far-right parties.
Over the past few months there have been a growing number of football hooligan-led mobilisations around the country. Luton might have captured the most headlines in recent weeks but there have been protests in Birmingham and East London, with future actions planned in west London and Manchester.
Some commentators have dismissed these gatherings as fascist events. This is inaccurate and misunderstands the relationship between football hooligans, nationalism and fascism.
As reported in last month’s Searchlight there are a number of organisations currently active that derive from the hooligan world. The English Defence League (which was originally the English and Welsh Defence League), Casuals United, March for England and the SIOE.
While there are undoubtedly fascists involved in these protests they owe more to the racist and nationalist mentality of hooligans than to any real fascist undertones.
The British fascist right had its strongest influence on the hooligan scene during the mid-to-late 1970s. Racism was rife on the terraces and the revival of skinhead fashion and the birth of racist Oi music gave young violent working-class men a racist and political identity.
By the early 1980s, this was on the wane, certainly within many of the gangs associated with larger city clubs. Changing football culture, the emergence of black players and probably most significantly the growing prominence of black football hooligans pushed the hardcore fascists out.
Most gangs linked to London clubs, Cardiff, Birmingham, Manchester City and United, Leicester, Derby and the Sheffield clubs saw sizeable numbers of black hooligans emerge during the 1980s.
There were of course exceptions. Leeds and Newcastle both had strong National Front influence within their mobs, as did many of the gangs linked to smaller clubs, where either there was little non-white population or there were deeply segregated communities and little Asian interest in professional football.
Chelsea was an enigma. No club has had such a long link to the far right – from the NF and British Movement of the 1970s to Combat 18 in the 1990s. And yet, despite this, they also had black hooligans and they were generally accepted. In fact, the one falling out that the Chelsea Headhunters had with Combat 18 was when the nazi activist Mark Atkinson left a threatening message on the windscreen of Big Willy, a leading black hooligan.
The relationship between hooligans and fascists was even more fraught at Millwall, which will surprise many given that this was where the British National party had its first electoral breakthrough in a council by-election in 1993. Millwall has always had black hooligans. Even back in 1977 when Panorama documented the infamous Millwall “F-troop”, one of the central characters was a huge black hooligan called “Tiny”.
In 1993, shortly after Derek Beackon’s election victory, Combat 18 went round some of the Millwall pubs trying to recruit. They were given short shrift by the Millwall hooligans. To Millwall Combat 18 was too associated with Chelsea and they were also willing to accept anyone within their ranks as long as their loyalty was to southeast London and the club.
A bigger clash between hooligans and fascists occurred in April 1994 when England was set to play a “friendly” in the Olympic Stadium in Berlin on the anniversary of Hitler’s birth. British and German fascists hoped to join together to attack a Turkish demonstration in the city the day before. Tony Covelle, the leader of the Chelsea Headhunters and seen by many as the most important hooligan on the England scene at the time, would not consider the idea. He was English and the Germans were their key enemy.
Fortunately, the game was eventually cancelled after a campaign led by Searchlight and our German friends.
Loyalism has always been a bigger unifier for British football hooligans. During the late 1980s and more importantly during the early 1990s loyalism became central to hooligan nationalist identity. The IRA was bringing its campaign to the British mainland and English hooligans heavily adopted the loyalist cause.
In January 1993 over 600 people, including hooligans drawn from 22 gangs around Britain, met to disrupt the annual Bloody Sunday march in central London. Their intention was later to travel to Kilburn, an area with a large Irish community, in an attempt to kick off trouble with local people. Only the intervention of police and the arrest of 396 hooligans and loyalists prevented this from occurring.
The far right has never enjoyed this level of support. Hooligan gangs linked with Aston Villa, Oldham, Charlton, Swansea and Mansfield all had rightwing connections but they were easily the exception than the rule.
In more recent years the rise of the BNP has been mirrored by a growth in political hooliganism. The Oldham riots stemmed from weeks of hooligan incursions into the predominantly Asian areas of the town. The first was when 450 Stoke City hooligans rampaged through Westwood a few days after the pensioner Walter Chamberlain had been attacked by four youths.
Over the following few weeks Oldham hooligans, one of the most rightwing gangs in the country, were joined by small groups from Stockport, Shrewsbury and Huddersfield in a bid to whip up trouble. Eventually, on 26 May 2001, the hooligans succeeded. After a day when 80 hooligans and nazis had been frustrated by police a group of ten hooligans ran down a predominantly Asian street attacking people and property in what a judge later said was the “trigger” for the Oldham riots.
A week later the rightwing hooligans attempted to do it again, though this time they were stopped by Searchlight intelligence and police intervention.
A week after that Oldham and Everton hooligans tried to link up with Combat 18 Loyalism has always been a bigger unifier for British football hooligans. During the late 1980s and more importantly during the early 1990s loyalism became central to hooligan nationalist identity. The IRA was bringing its campaign to the British mainland and English hooligans heavily adopted the loyalist cause.
In January 1993 over 600 people, including hooligans drawn from 22 gangs around Britain, met to disrupt the annual Bloody Sunday march in central London. Their intention was later to travel to Kilburn, an area with a large Irish community, in an attempt to kick off trouble with local people. Only the intervention of police and the arrest of 396 hooligans and loyalists prevented this from occurring.
The far right has never enjoyed this level of support. Hooligan gangs linked with Aston Villa, Oldham, Charlton, Swansea and Mansfield all had rightwing connections but they were easily the exception than the rule.
In more recent years the rise of the BNP has been mirrored by a growth in political hooliganism. The Oldham riots stemmed from weeks of hooligan incursions into the predominantly Asian areas of the town. The first was when 450 Stoke City hooligans rampaged through Westwood a few days after the pensioner Walter Chamberlain had been attacked by four youths.
Over the following few weeks Oldham hooligans, one of the most rightwing gangs in the country, were joined by small groups from Stockport, Shrewsbury and Huddersfield in a bid to whip up trouble. Eventually, on 26 May 2001, the hooligans succeeded. After a day when 80 hooligans and nazis had been frustrated by police a group of ten hooligans ran down a predominantly Asian street attacking people and property in what a judge later said was the “trigger” for the Oldham riots.
A week later the rightwing hooligans attempted to do it again, though this time they were stopped by Searchlight intelligence and police intervention.
A week after that Oldham and Everton hooligans tried to link up with Combat 18 in an attempt to disrupt the England v Pakistan cricket match at Old Trafford. The plan had been for an Oldham hooligan to run onto the pitch during play and place a Combat 18 flag in the middle of the wicket. The hope, according to Combat 18, was for maximum media attention and a violent reaction from the Pakistani supporters in the crowd. Once again the 40 thugs failed because of Searchlight intelligence.
However, these incidents have been the exception. There is certainly a growing anti-Islamist feeling among many hooligans but this is probably just a reflection of attitudes in wider society. More hooligans are undoubtedly supporting the BNP but again this should not be of any great surprise given the growth of the fascist party in many parts of the country and the profile of the typical BNP voter. But this does not mean we are likely to witness an explosion of hooligan-based racial disorder.
The appalling turnout of hooligans in Birmingham in early August is testament to this. In smallish towns such as Oldham and Luton a local incident can quite easily incite a violent response from thugs and racists. However, there is no sign that hooligans will properly mix together for a political cause.
Football rivalry means that Watford hooligans, who might live only a few miles away, will never mix with their Luton counterparts and the return of the football season will refocus some hooligans on their traditional pastimes. In addition, heavy policing and the threat of arrest, football bans and possible prison will keep many away. It was interesting to witness the robust police response to an anti-Islam protest in East London in summer. Having been kettled for several hours and generally given a rough time, many of the hooligans who attended are hardly likely to come out again.
Finally, there is the very nature of hooligans themselves. They are a generally undisciplined, lazy group who prefer drinking and talking a good fight to involving themselves in a political battle. And those who do will be nervous about the role of the BNP and other fascist groups. Even at Luton, where the heart of the current hooligan mobilisation has emerged, there are growing voices of discontent about the presence of the BNP.
The organisers of the English Defence League and Casuals United have announced their intention to hold several more protests across the country, including in Manchester, Dewsbury and Bradford. Whether these go ahead remains to be seen but the dangers lie less in the big cities than in the smaller conurbations where tensions already exist.
Hooligans will not travel in large numbers across the country and they will be even more put off by the threat of arrest and football bans. However, in places like Luton, Oldham and West Yorkshire there are more than enough people to cause trouble without the need for outsiders. With the prospect of violence and communities tearing each other apart very real, HOPE not hate will be campaigning to get these events banned.

Tories aim to hit the poor hardest

Excerpt from the Morning Star story.

Shadow chancellor seeks to outdo Labour's attacks as he sets out public spending cuts

Shadow chancellor George Osborne revealed his Thatcherite agenda in a conference speech focused on public spending cuts, including a one-year freeze on the majority of public-sector workers.

Under his plans, only the one million earning under £18,000 would get a rise.

The Tory proposal goes beyond Chancellor Alistair Darling's call for a salary freeze for the 750,000 highest-paid public servants.

Mr Osborne repeatedly claimed that the whole country was "in this together," but his belt-tightening policies were only aimed at the poor and the vulnerable.

He confirmed plans to raise the state retirement age for men from 65 to 66 in 2016, rather than 2026 as new Labour plans. For women, the pension age will be equalised by 2020.

Left economist Andrew Fisher pointed out that this would disproportionately hit the poorest, who have a life expectancy of 72 compared with 79 for the better off.
Mr Osborne also wants to introduce means-testing to the child tax credit at a lower level in order to claw back money from better-off families.
Another tax to hit the poor was next on the agenda, as he announced plans to raise VAT from the current 17.5 per cent to 20 per cent.

Mr Osborne then promised to raise inheritance tax thresholds to £1 million and declared his opposition to the government's 50p top rate of income tax from 2011.
The endless list of spending cuts will shave a mere £7 billion a year off the record £175bn public deficit caused by the bail-out of the banks. Another £13 billion a year will be saved once the retirement age is raised in 2016.

But the Tax Justice Network pointed out that Britain could save £100 billion a year just by preventing tax dodging in tax havens which are "politically connected to Britain."
The organisation's John Christensen also defended the 50p top rate tax, saying: "The likes of Mr Osborne argue that if we tax the rich, they will threaten to leave the country.
"Let them leave - it means they weren't interested in contributing to the wellbeing of our society in the first place."

UNISON leader Dave Prentis said Mr Osborne's "commitment to the free market underlines the real Tory agenda - it's one that hasn't changed since Thatcher."
Unite joint general secretary Derek Simpson added: "This was a speech written on the back of a Bullingdon Club membership card. Osborne i

Know any children whose contribution to the city deserves recognition?

The newly re-launched Mayor’s Citizen Award moves on to its fourth month and back to the category that the revamped awards started with - children.
Now is the time to get nominating any child that you feel has really made a difference to the city.
The contribution could be:
a child who has done something to the best of their ability
a school pupil who has achieved a major improvement in their work, attendance or behaviour
So if you know of a child who deserves a pat on the back and their moment in the spotlight – now is the time to sing their praises.
The closing date for making nominations is Friday 16 October.
Further information:
To read about the format of the awards, to view the nomination dates for each category and to nominate unsung heroes:
visit the Mayor's Citizen Award web page

Ed Balls announces a review into current provisions against promoting racism in schools.

Review to be undertaken by Maurice Smith, formerly HM Chief Inspector of Schools -
Ed Balls today announced a full and detailed review of the provisions which prevent the promotion of racism in schools.
He has asked Maurice Smith, formerly HM Chief Inspector of Schools and currently Director of Education for the Church of England Manchester Diocese, to lead the review and deliver his report in January 2010.
The review will look specifically at:
 Whether existing safeguards are sufficient (taking into account current duties on schools and local authorities, and the powers of the GTCE).  Whether there is a case for further measures to maintain trust in the teaching profession and protect children and young people from indoctrination and discrimination. Particularly, whether there is a case for affiliation to an organisation that promotes racism being grounds for barring from the profession.  Whether the current safeguards, or further measures deemed necessary, should extend more widely across the school workforce.
In a letter to Maurice Smith, Ed Balls said:
“Teaching carries with it great responsibility: the education and welfare of our children and young people. That trust must be maintained.
“I have always believed that membership of any organisation that espouses racist views is fundamentally incompatible with the values and ethos of the teaching profession.
“The police and prison services have already taken the decision to ban their personnel from membership of organisations whose constitution, aims, objectives or pronouncements contradict their duty to promote race equality.
“I and my predecessors have previously set out the view that such a ban is not necessary for the teaching profession because the current safeguards are sufficient, though were evidence to emerge that this was not the case the situation would need to be reviewed.
“A number of recent events have caused me to reflect on whether the current safeguards are drawn in the right place. In the last year there have been two referrals of teachers to the GTCE concerning activities related to the promotion of racist beliefs. Further, the release of information on membership of the BNP revealed 15 individuals who identified teaching as their profession. We cannot know how many more may have chosen not to reveal their occupation.
“That is why I believe that it is right to undertake a full review of the arguments for and against strengthening the current provisions. I am grateful to Maurice Smith for agreeing to undertake this review and I look forward to receiving his report.”
There are a number of safeguards currently in place to protect children and young people from discrimination or political indoctrination. These include:
• a requirement for schools to have equal opportunities policies
• a duty to promote racial equality
• a statutory duty to promote community cohesion
• a duty on governing bodies, head teachers and local authorities to forbid the teaching of partisan political activities
• disciplinary powers of the GTCE