An artificial water war

David Aaronovitch, writing in today's Times (£) expresses concern at recent statements and lobbying by the Angling Trust and (allegedly) other organisations promoting angling. Their stance, he writes, is that other river users, and specifically canoeists, are damaging the riparian environment for anglers. This may of course be true, though it does seem to me that it is not canoeists who leave tangled lines on riverbanks which cause injury and death to water birds and other animals. I therefore took the opportunity to cast a cursory look at the document Aaronovitch refers to, namely 'Conflict on the Riverbank', published late last year by the Angling Trust. My attention was drawn to these words:

Angling Trust National Campaigns Coordinator Martin Salter said:
"The Angling Trust has been challenging the claims being made by militant canoeists that they should have

a right paddle up every river, stream or brook in Britain irrespective of ownership or the impact this has on wildlife or other people's enjoyment. The rights of navigation are clear in law and there are thousands of miles of navigable rivers and waterways to which canoeists have legal access. We also have well worked voluntary access agreements in place which allow canoeing on some rivers such as the Dart and the upper Wye at times of high water when fishing will not be affected.

"They should have a right paddle"? Who edits this stuff? John Howarth?

Be that as it may,there are voluntary agreements in place in respect of various of the rivers of England which aim to secure harmonious use of the rivers by various users - walkers, including dog walkers, cyclists, anglers, canoeists, and, oh I don't know, hang-gliders and aficionados of naked riverbank yoga for all I know. So it's surely possible for everyone to play nicely together. And as Aaronovitch points out, even if canoeists do damage the experience of fish-torturing that anglers enjoy, those canoeists have precisely zero influence on the leisure experience of walkers, runners, cyclists and (probably) naked riverbank yogis. So this is anglers trashing canoeists. Now I am neither an angler nor a canoeist, but I am a user of the riverside, as an occasional walker and cyclist there, and in the past few months I  have become a gardener on a riverside plot in my home country of France (where the rules are a bit different - let's not go there). I see canoeists and anglers apparently happily coexisting on my local rivers.

Anyway Aaronovitch's piece (he declares an interest as a sometime canoeist but is fairly even-handed on the whole) is helpful in drawing the nation's attention to this piece of meretricious bollocks.
The rights of navigation are in fact not very clear in respect of a great many rivers and other water bodies in England. Where they are they tend to favour canoeists, as Mr Salter knows, perhaps because canoeists have no effect on the wildlife ecology, as Mr Salter should also know. Banning canoeists from rivers, including school groups and children's holiday clubs, would be SUCH a popular cause in an election year, hein?

And "We" have well worked agreements? Who's "we"? This is a manufactured and artificial conflict. Mr Salter has form on this, going back to his time as Labour MP for  Reading West, and before. First it was "Trash the Cormorants!" (He urged mass culls of cormorants by shooting, attracting the ire of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, among others). Then it was "Trash the Otters!" (Little Tarka Must Die!) and, at least as worryingly, it was "Trash the East Europeans!" (who apparently don't torment fish for pleasure as True Englishmen do, but often fish just for some dinner (perfectly legal on most English rivers most of the time)). Leaving aside the question of how he could tell when it had been East Europeans doing Bad Things (did the fish report that a Nasty Polish Man Did It And Ran Away?), this last attracted the enthusiastic agreement of Joe ("Send 'em Back!") Baker of the Reading  Anglers' Association,  so I think we know whose vote was wanted there.

As the election approaches, what do the candidates where you live think about banning canoeists, otters, cormorants and East Europeans from the rivers?

who can you trust on race?

Labour MP Sadiq Khan is going round stirring up the notion that the Tories are a bunch of racists. But was this the wisest move? I do not think any party is immune from the charge of racist language or behaviour. Guido certainly has found plenty of evidence that the Labour party is not. Naturally he chooses, citing LibDem Voice, the racist leaflet put out in Reading in 2012, promoting their white candidate in Church ward Reading against the sitting councillor, Azam Janjua, who had been a Labour councillor but had crossed the floor after one of the most disgraceful assassination attempts it has been my misfortune to witness. I could say more.

expats

I look at, and sometimes contribute to, a couple of sites which are aimed at anglophones who live in France. Some of the threads can be very interesting, and some controversial. Most of the Brit expats in France don't live like I do - they tend to live in houses not apartments and often run gites or have things like fields with horses in them, and they don't live in eastern France, largely because the weather is crap here. People mostly don't fit the UK resident's stereotyped perception of Brits in France, ie non-French-speaking and pining for Waitrose, although those people do exist. Sometimes you get really helpful information, usually to do with the nightmare that is French bureaucracy. Below is an excerpt from a comment that shocked me rather. Fyi: there are no charity shops in France. Emmaus is a charity that collects furniture, clothing and household goods, often when someone has died, and redistributes them at low cost. It is centralised, so you have to travel to them. The FN is the Front National, and I think we all know what that party are about. I'll comment further below, but would be most interested in what especially UK-based readers think.

"...yesterday I happened to be in Emmaus in Pau and saw a Roma Gypsy family begging at the gate - literally everyone looked on them with contempt - everyone watched their every move, even when a young gypsy girl pushed me and made my drink fly in the air ( she pushed into me hard) they then went to take their old threadbare buggy up towards the buggy area and replace it with a newer version - they unnerved everyone, and were thrown out several times. It's on these occasions that you sympathise with the FN - these people have no right to be in our country of residence, they have no moral values and no allegiance towards this wonderful country we live in! They contribute nothing to our social system, and do nothing but terrorise our nation! We have many friends who believe in the National Front in France - I completely understand their stance - is this a racist thing or is it based on morale values... I'll watch this thread with interest!"

Just a few remarks. Beggars, Roma or not, are a common sight in French cities, as they are in other countries. It may well be true that on the occasion described "everyone watched their every move" - how would you feel if that was done to you? I'm not clear about the law on begging in France, they may well have been behaving illegally, or not, I don't know. If they were, why did no-one call the police? In any event, if the people described were EU citizens, as is likely, they almost certainly had the right to be in France. They might even have been born here. Many Roma people work and pay tax, and more would do so if it were not for the prejudice they face, as we see here. They certainly were entitled to go to Emmaus and get a new buggy, which would have cost them a lot less than buying one in a shop. "They have no moral values"  - how does this person know that? And as for "terrorising our nation" - at first I laughed, but really, it's not funny.

It's not so much that these attitudes are present, it is that they are expressed in a fairly public forum - you have to join this site, but you are not vetted in any way, at least I wasn't - without apparent embarrassment.

Sudhana Singh

I have posted before on the case of this former head teacher, see here. Now the BBC has this:

 A former head teacher who says she was the victim of "racist bullying" has won a Court of Appeal ruling she hopes could help her bid for compensation.

Sudhana Singh is claiming constructive dismissal over her treatment at Reading Borough Council-maintained Moorlands Primary in Tilehurst.

She says the council "forced" school business manager Sue Heath to provide a statement "riddled with lies".

Employment and appeal tribunals had ruled the claim should not be allowed.

Now three appeal judges have allowed Mrs Singh, 45, to appeal.
'Autocratic style'
Lord Justice Lewison said both tribunals had been wrong and there was "no immunity behind which the council can shelter".

The judge said Ms Singh ran into "serious difficulties" in her first year as head teacher in her relationships with parents, staff and governors.

He said she was accusing governors of endorsing a campaign of "discrimination, bullying, harassment and victimisation" against her as an Asian head teacher.

She was also accusing the council of "deliberately and unlawfully" endorsing the campaign to remove her from her post.

He added: "The council denies these allegations. It says that the serious breakdown in relationships was due to Ms Singh's autocratic style of leadership and her poor communication skills."

She may win this appeal. I hope she does. I have never met her, nor do I know the school, nor do I have any view as to her competence as a head teacher, but it seems quite clear that she has been hounded out following a non-specific campaign by a group of parents. If someone is not doing their job well enough, a noisy media campaign is not the way to deal with it. It is however Reading Labour's way, and their fingerprints are all over this. The chair of governors at the key time was a man whose day job is as the regional director of the Labour Party, South-East Region, one Malcolm Powers. Why is Labour-controlled Reading Borough Council even commenting at this moment? Given that an appeal is pending they should not be doing so. All their counsel had to say was that if Ms Singh was given leave to appeal this would "open the floodgates" to other cases. Er, only if there are crowds of teachers and others Reading Labour is trying to hound out of their jobs for being people of colour in order to appease a bunch of racists in a marginal ward, would any floodgates open. This is the same bunch who have no shame at using a racist dog-whistle to get their candidate elected against an Asian candidate, see below, "she's one of us"

that pesky election count incident again...

in May, at the election count in Reading, a violent incident was reported to have happened.  Gareth Epps it was, LibDem of this parish, who broadcast that an incident had taken place, in which he, Epps, was violently attacked, perhaps head-butted, by a Labour activist, George Loughlin.  Later, Epps apparently reported the incident to the police.  No other witness has come forward, though Epps and Loughlin were presumably not the only occupants of the room at the time.  Was has not left this alone, and posts about it from time to time.  The LibDem hierarchy appears to have taken it as true that an incident of this kind did happen, according to an email from one of them he quotes.  Other parties have not denied that an incident happened, although Labour has said things like "If an incident did happen..." Loughlin's name has disappeared from later mentions of the alleged incident, so it is my unalloyed pleasure to place in print again the name of that thuggish little git, George Loughlin, for whom a violent attack of such a kind would be entirely in character.  However, that is not to say it did happen.  Was says that Epps is a liar.  He may be right, I wouldn't know.  Was also says that the LibDem hierarchy believe Epps and do not check allegations he makes.  This is what party hierarchies tend to do in respect of their favourite sons, unfortunately.  What interests me here is that Labour has not denied it, so in the unlikely event of there having been no Labour witness to any incident, Reading Labour believe it is possible that such a thing happened.  They are right.  We do not know yet what if any view is taken by Her Majesty's Constabulary.  So this story needs to be kept alive, in my view, for what it has already exposed, and what it may yet expose.  An aside - Was informs us that Epps was intending to take a dog-whistle to the Church ward count.  Why did he not do so?  If I had been there I certainly would have done so.  Which leads us to...

Reading Labour racist dog-whistle

Oh yes, she's one of us.

dog whistle

not racist.  No.

is what is being used by the LibDems here.  The Tory candidate they are fighting is gay, and they use the words "it's a straight fight".  Which of course is perfectly innocent language, hein?  No.  Dog whistle is a very simple thing.  You use plain language about your opponent, and it contains a code word or words which indicate that you are contrasting your party's candidate with the other one by saying that person is gay, or black, or otherwise "other", and your candidate is not.  It could be a number of things.  Typically it is sexuality or race.  Reading Labour has form on this too, as recently as this year's local elections, remember? Reading Labour's white girl is "one of us", unlike the Tory candidate, who was born in Pakistan.

anti-fascist? my arse

When is the Labour Party going to stop harbouring racists and winking at alliances with, and support for, racist groups and individuals, to say nothing of racist dog-whistle tactics?  Just asking...

congratulations

to all the Labour councillors elected yesterday.  No congratulations to the Reading boys who thought a racist dog-whistle campaign in Church ward was a good idea.  Desperate men.  Especially no congratulations to George Dickhead Loughlin who, at the Reading count last night, thought it was a good idea to head-butt a former councillor from another party, who was only saved from serious injury by the physical intervention of one Dave Peasley - if there was a pub fight near me I'd be glad if Dave was minded to intervene.  And no congratulations to M. Salter for his co-authorship of the racist dog-whistle leaflet in Church ward.   Even he wasn't bragging about it when he turned up at the Reading count, unshaven and slobbish and staying well away from Church ward. Update: but he got into the victory photo, looming over her from behind, bad idea. I was especially pleased  to see Daya Pal Singh and Rose Williams elected.  Rose needs no hints from anyone on how to be a good representative.  I just hope the boys let D.P. Singh get on with the job.  I know he will do a good one.   And Tony Jones always spreads a little happiness wherever he goes in politics, so Good News.

The new Labour councillor for Caversham - if the same gang of malevolent lard-arses is still there in Caversham Labour then I wish you luck.  You are going to need it.

Azam Janjua - thanks for all your work for the people of south Reading, and Reading as a whole.  It was a privilege to work with you, and the people of Church ward were luc ky to have you as their representative.

Now, about that Labour vision for Reading ...

We're not racist, says Ed Miliband

In a shock move today some days ago (this is the dead trees we are talking about), Labour leader Ed Miliband rushed to distance himself from the furore over Reading Labour's despicable desperate racist dog-whistle campaign in Church ward.  His "We're not racist" denial was reported in the Chronicle, so it must be true. 



"We're not racist"



dog-whistle girl

So that's all right then.  The Rt. Hon. The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has denied that there is a racist dog-whistle campaign going on. Good.  Excellent.  Feel better now, Mr Howarth (prop. Public Impact Ltd, remember "Your Better Off With Labour"?)?  On to new triumphs, hein?

the Miliband in Reading - who's that girl?

although I always preferred Steve (remember "Black Panties And an Angel's Face" by the Steve Miller Band?) - anyway the pic you see has been posted by Reading Labour, well done boys, and it appears to picture 16 people, a number, but not all, of whom are known to me by sight or personally .  Now you'd think, wouldn't you, that those pictured with Ed the Glorious would be candidates for May 3rd.  Well, they are.  Except not all of them are there.  The Reading boys put the following caption to the picture on their Facebook page:

Ed Miliband outside Reading Station

 — withGaby Davies, Sarah Hacker, Henri Rapson, Ed Miliband, Paul Woodward, Rachel Eden, Richard Wood, Richard Davies, Rachael Chrisp, Paul Gittings and Tony Jones.

Which seems to be 11 people.  Those named in the caption are the ones tagged in the picture. Gul Khan, on Mili-E's left, is a candidate but not named or tagged. Tony Page, in  the background (the fate of tall people in group photocalls, as I know), is a candidate, and is not tagged or named.  Neither is Liz Terry, second from left at the front.  But I don't know everybody there.  Why were they not all named and tagged?  Seems odd.  Who is the girl on Mili-E's right?  I don't know her.  Why was she not named or tagged when others were?  She couldn't be

dog-whistle girl

could she?  and if she is, why not name or tag her?


Just asking.

the Geordie loser loses it big



born and bred, not from Pakistan

 Fresh from his triumphal penning of the racist dog-whistle leaflet for Church ward in south Reading, pictured, in tandem with Mr Salter (of whom more below), Mr Howarth (prop. Public Impact Ltd, remember "Your Better Off With Labour"?) peppers the cybersphere with barely comprehensible semi-literate ramblings on the subject of education in east Reading.  He says he is the parent of three children and something in the same sentence about east Reading - his war with the English language is turning into a bloody rout, so it is hard to see what he meant to write through the miasma of pleonasm and linguistic barbarism - and me a professional editor.  Well, maybe so, but I know for a fact that at least two of his children were driven to school in "wealthy" Wokingham  from his then home in south Reading.  He has started a new family since, I am told.  Whatever. 

Though whatever the opposition to the school, the likely opposition to the prospect of the concreting over of a key green space in east Reading’s urban environment, one which Labour politicians including myself and the former MP, Martin Salter, in his time as a local councillor pledged to protect is likely to be even greater. I wish east Reading residents well in this battle and certainly hope, whatever the outcome on the Technical Academy, the current generation of Labour politicians will honour the pledges of their predecessors.

Yes, well spotted, people.  Mr Howarth has been spending so much time with Mr Salter lately that he cannot resist mentioning his name, despite the fact that it is irrelevant to the "issue" under discussion and that Mr S was never, despite his protestations to the contrary, the MP for east Reading.  Mr Howarth knows this very well, which is why he mentions Mr Salter's time as a local councillor in east Reading - a position he left more than 16 years ago.  Current Labour politicians must, he says "honour the pledges" of their predecessors.  Unto the seventh generation?

not one of us

this is a guest post from Flashing Blade, reposted from his site with his permission.  Interesting that this is the phrase automatically chosen, hein?

I return to the despicable, desperate, ‘dog-whistle’ racist leaflet produced by John Howarth’s Public Impact Ltd for Reading Labour Party.

On my twitter feed the chief political commentator of the Independent on Sunday, John Rentoul retweeted an article in the Sunday Telegraph religion section about the favourite to be the next Archbisop of Cantebury, Dr John Sentamu. It was retweeted by Mr Rentoul to highlight the use of language in the piece but I noticed something separate:


Reading Labour racist dog-whistle



“At its best, the besmirching of John Sentamu has revealed that strand of snobbery which views outsiders as lacking class, diplomacy or civility — in other words ‘not one of us,’” said the Rev Arun Arora.

“At worst, it has elicited the naked racism which still bubbles under the surface in our society, and which is exposed when a black man is in line to break the chains of history.”

The last paragraph won the Daniel Hannan award for mixed metaphor of the day. The use of ‘one of us’ in the first paragraph quoted is interesting as showing that what is meant by the use of the phrase are “outsiders” lacking “class, diplomacy or civility” that it has highlighted “the naked racism which still bubbles under the surface” Whereas the Reading Labour Party agent tries to justify the use of the term “one of us”, in terms of a white woman candidate ‘born and bred’ on the other side of the town, in drawing a distinction with a Pakistani born, local-living candidate:

“Labour voters in Church Ward are entitled to know that their candidate is not likely to abandon her party and that she understands the issues that matter to them. In other words, she is ’one of us’,”

And the school-girlish Sarah “No Councillor” Hacker tries to justify the term thus:

“As for the statement ‘one of us’. Again, how is this racist? Who is defining ‘us’? Reading Labour are defining it as a resident, a family…”

Both of the defences mentioned above fail totally to address the racist aspect of the use of the term, the drawing of ‘the us’ against the other in the use in Church ward highlighted by the quote from the paper.

look at this (if you're one of us)

John Howarth's company's services

for which I am indebted to Was, who is good at this stuff.  I wonder (silly old me) why in the box in the centre of the page the word "labour", clearly intending to refer to the Labour Party, has a lower-case initial letter, when higher up the page, and in all other conventions, it is upper case?  Just asking, still, remember "Your better off with Labour"?  Anyway, Mr Howarth's company is still providing these services, because it gets a credit for printing Labour Party leaflets, calling cards and so on to this day.  The text is usually worked on by himself and Mr Salter, who decide the line to take.  The line they decided on for Church ward for this election was the line I have heard them both express many times, namely that the people who live in Church ward in south Reading are racist.  This is presumably why they decided on the "one of us" leaflet you see below.  I don't know how the people of Church ward are going to vote on May 3rd, and what the figures will look like, but I do know that this leaflet has had an effect - and not in a good way for Messrs Salter and Howarth

the racist dog-whistle leaflet

oh and the "one of us" story has now appeared on His Master's Voice's website here and the comments are mostly not mad, but rather considered, and, I submit, do give an idea of what readers of that organ are thinking.

the dead trees begin to take notice 2

I didn't think it would take long.  A reader has just sent me a clipping from His Master's Voice, below, which does not of course mention the breaker of the story, namely moi.  Apparently it was buried somewhere deep in the dead-tree edition on Friday.  Thanks, and glad to set the record straight.

the dead trees begin to take notice

the Reading ones that is.  Yes folks, step forward the Reading Chronicle, which has this on Reading Labour's racist dog-whistle, fairly factual on the whole, unlike His Master's Voice, which so far, on its website at least , has been silent on the issue.  Well, there's only been what looks like a criminal offence committed by a candidate a matter of days before a local election, and only a racist dog-whistle publication which has become a national disgrace, so nothing to get in the way of Whitley Dad Pissed Off With Council and Tragic Teen In Plea For Money, hein?  So big up the Chronicle, considering how poisonous the political climate is in Reading.

Word reaches me too of a late surge in the LibDem vote in Church ward.  Unlikely, you might say.  I thought so too.  And how much it will amount to on May 3rd I don't know.  But some people are saying they will not vote for a party (Labour) which has called them racist, and they have never been Tory voters, and at least the LibDems don't insult them.  Hmmm.

I've known for a long time what the Reading Labour boys think of the people of south Reading, because I've heard them say it.  Racist, they say.  That's why the local party members are not usually allowed to choose a candidate, unlike other wards, because they cannot be trusted to choose the one the boys want.  I know that the people of Church ward are not racist, and the local party members I know are not either.

There's still time to withdraw the leaflet, apologise and move on.  You will (probably) be forgiven electorally.  You weren't when at least one of your candidates was responsible for electoral fraud in Redlands - you lost every councillor there.

one of us

yes, that again.  Here is Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail:

In a ward of Reading — one of those southern English towns where Ed Miliband is desperate to make local-election gains — Labour has shipped in a white person to fight the Tory candidate, an Asian. Labour leaflets describe their woman, Eileen McElligott, as being ‘born and bred in Reading’. They add, subtly: ‘She is one of us.’

Imagine the Left’s outrage if Tory leaflets ever said such things against an Asian Labour candidate.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2129566/And-Daves-band-played-on-.html#ixzz1s0No3pHj

Imagine indeed.  National coverage in their dearly beloved dead-tree media, written by "proper" journalists - and they still think this is OK?  Putative parliamentary candidate Rachel Eden still has the possibly criminal letter on her website?  Outrage on the doorsteps in Church ward as voters rail in fury at being called racist by the Labour Party?  And just what do you imagine the other parties are saying on those very doorsteps?  The Tories are mostly too clever to put anything "difficult" in their leaflets, but will talk up a storm: the LibDem publications have splashed this story everywhere, using words like "shameful".  Only the Greens  seem to think dog-whistle tactics are OK.  Well, there you are.

east of Eden

Rachel Eden, the Reading councillor the boys want to be the parliamentary candidate in Reading West, posted something exceedingly bizarre on her blog yesterday.  You can see it here.  She appends to it the text of the letter from the Labour agent to Alison Swaddle of the Reading East Conservatives.  This is the letter which was first placed in the public domain by Tony Jones, who took it down swiftly when he realised that publicising it might be a criminal offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 - but not before his post had been gleefully screenshotted and reposted by me and several others.  So now the only Reading Labour person to have the letter in the public domain is Rachel Eden.  I commented on her blog, kindly and gently, to ask why.  Comment moderation appears not to have approved my comment.  Shame.  Never mind, you can read it all elsewhere.

the dead trees get it wrong - again

the Independent is a bit of a LibDem rag and as such of no interest to anyone really.  However, their Diary column is often rather good - it is written by Andy McSmith.  Now I've been informed on several occasions that items which appear in Diary columns don't have to be, er, true  or anything, they can be made-up slurs, and in fact usually are.  This is what they have to say today, fisking as usual mine.

Something rotten in Reading


If Oscar Wilde were alive now, he might write a Ballad of Reading East, wish I'd thought of that one in which "some grow mad and all grow bad", because something is poisoning the political atmosphere in that constituency.

A few months ago, the Tories in Reading East deselected a councillor, Jamie Chowdhary, reputedly because he was too close to the former Tory council leader Andrew Cumpsty, who was on the way out. They threatened to expel another, Mark Ralph, who publicly objected. Baroness Warsi, intervened to prevent Councillor Ralph's expulsion, but to no avail. This week, he announced that he is resigning. Reading East is also the only constituency in a generation, no, the first one, there were several Labour ones later where a sitting MP was sacked no, deselected, I continued as Reading East MP for another 15 months,  not even the Reading Labour boys could manage a sacking by the local members of the Labour Party. Jane Griffiths, who lost the seat in 2005 no I didn't, I stood down, has accused her former colleagues of being "racist"  no I haven't, I have said that the "one of us" leaflet is racist because it is using dog-whistle language.  I have not accused any individual or group of being racist. because of an election leaflet in which a Labour council candidate, Eileen McElligott, is described as "one of us" – as if to imply that there is something alien about her opponent, Azam Janjua, who, by the way, used to be a Labour councillor before he switched to the Conservatives and you don't say why he did, what was done to him by Reading Labour, and how the then Reading West Labour MP, Martin Salter, was involved

So you see, Mr McSmith. spectacularly wrong.  But it's only a Diary piece, hey, so keep the lies coming

Tony Jones- Tory Smear Tactics Won't Stick”

nope. phrase still missing

one of us?  born and bred?  don't think so