Sunday, November 18, 2007

Sunday Times article

The Sunday Times article ( with silly headline not written by me) is here.

Spoke to another guy yesterday who had been seriously injured in the 7/7 explosions. We had sat next to each other at Home Office meetings before but not really chatted before. He got in touch to join the campaign for an independent inquiry and to say he didn't support the increased detention plans. ''If you hassle people, they just get angrier'', he said, remembering the ''sus'' laws that he had grown up with and their impact on black people and what used to be called ''ethnic communities'', and then how it had led to riots on the streets, riots he had watched as a teenager.

We talked about gang culture: he used to be in a street gang himself. He understood young men's rage and criminality, he had done youth outreach work with young people on his estate after he left the gang behind.

I said I was starting to wonder if 7/7 had more in common with Columbine than 9/11, and we talked about angry young men, and whether flames were being fanned rather than damped down with all the heat of publicity and plans for yet more terror laws.

The conversation left me feeling sad, but even more determined to keep saying this stuff, because over the last two years, so many people have said they want me to.
I can't do much, but I can do that, at least.

P.S: As an experiment, I'm turning off registered-users-only comments. If it gets silly again I'll turn it back on. But I am hopeful that everything has calmed down now though, so fingers crossed.

Labels: , ,


Blogger Holly Finch said...

fantastic piece misses xxx

November 18, 2007 5:47 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the riots where caused by the Police going into the 'ethnic communities' and enforcing the laws, upsetting the informal criminal infrastructure that took control.

Of course, that doesnt mean the extra detention is correct.

November 18, 2007 7:55 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good article. I particularly like your comment "Terrorism likes publicity". During the eighties and early nineties there was at least some effort to deny the IRA the oxygen of publicity. Brown is using the tactics of a beleaguered third world dictator - stiring up fear and hatred in the population to reinforce his own position and authority.

The government is also using the false dichotomy "freedom or security" arguing that we need to give up some of our freedoms for security, when it is in fact our freedoms that ensure our security.

November 18, 2007 9:45 pm  
Blogger DAVE BONES said...

Good on you. Particularly the Columbine wisdom. I didn't know you were back. Hope you are OK.

November 20, 2007 5:23 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many survivors/relatives of 7/7do you think don't agree with what you are doing on your publicity campaign?
They are more likely to keep quite and not say anything (what can they say anyway), but your argument that "I only do this because people ask me to" is playing on emotions, when in fact there may be many, many people out there who in fact don't want you to campaign for anything, lest of all in their name i.e. the Sunday Times when you were clearly, intentionally or otherwise, were presented as the voice of survivors - a title you will doubt deny and have mock-outrage with, but an image and brand you have skillyfully cultivated.

November 20, 2007 10:33 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Well, I can only go on what people tell me, and so far, I have faithfully presented what the situation is - that 2 men who lost loved ones have said they *would* support 90 days if a case was made by the polce and security services, that everyone else who has contacted me has been supportive, that I have specifically asked people, sending emails to all the survivors and families I knew, to ask them to tell me their views, that I have put posts up here to that effect, and that I made it quite clear when giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee that I was speaking in a personal capacity and that they should take my opinion no more seriously than anyone else. (Which you can watch for yourself or read the transcript.)

All this is a matter of public record, as well as stated on my *personal* blog in which I give my personal opinions.

So, I think - I know - in fact - that I have been quite fair.

And I note that you are choosing to be anonymous and uncontactable when you say what you believe - not surprising as you are being quite rude - whereas I am not anonymous, entirely contactable and have specifically asked people to give me feedback and made myself available to listen to it.

Therefore, I'm afraid I don't take your opinions as seriously as I do the many people who have contacted me and given their names and their opinions.

And if you are going to continue to be needlessly aggressive and disrespectful to me then I will consider deleting further comments from your IP, because I don't really see why I should give a platform to someone who wants to be insulting but can't even tell me their name.

Fair enough, and if you're not thrilled about that, you can email, sign in, or set up your own blog to tell me why.

November 21, 2007 2:30 pm  
Blogger Robert said...

Nice blog
Xango Juice

December 11, 2007 9:40 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home