Marai Larasi, Jacqui Hunt, Anna Van Heeswijk and Heather Harvey gave evidence to the Leveson enquiry yesterday

By Koos Couvée

The press remained relatively quiet about the goings on at the Leveson enquiry yesterday, and the journalists I usually follow for updates were not offering their live tweet services. Perhaps it had something to do with the topics of the day – the representation of women and Muslims in the media.

Witnesses at the morning session were headed by Marai Larasi of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, who said:  “The media creates, reflects and enforces attitudes.  Those who work in the media should be conscious of this and should actively seek not to reproduce attitudes which condone violence against women and girls.  Too often this is done through inaccurate reporting — for example, on the law on rape – intrusive reporting on victims and their families and misrepresentation.”

The afternoon session saw Inayat Bunglawala from Engage, a Muslim advocacy organisation which seeks to encourage greater civic participation on the part of British Muslims, take to the witness stand. Bunglawa told the enquiry:

“At Engage we believe that as a society in recent years we’ve moved away from overt racism.  We recognise that racism is wrong, we recognise that stereotypes of people are generally wrong, you know, to propagate these. The one glaring exception, it seems to us, is that in recent years the coverage of Muslims has not improved. Sometimes we come across some very disturbing headlines which seem to us to be aimed at fermenting prejudice against Muslims. Rather than reporting facts, it’s aimed at stirring up prejudice towards the British Muslim community.”

On Monday, a letter was published in the Guardian calling for a proper enquiry into the anti-Muslim press. The letter was signed by a large number of lawyers, public figures and lawmakers including human rights solicitor Imran Khan, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Ahmed Versi of The Muslim News, blogger Sanum Ghafoor, Labour activist Sunny Hundal and many others. The letter read:

“The Leveson inquiry has so far failed to adequately address unfair media coverage as it relates to less prominent cases, including those relating to Muslims and Islam, focusing as it does on the impact of phone hacking on celebrities and other high-profile individuals.

An alternative inquiry is necessary to investigate what many regard as widespread and systematic discriminatory practices in reporting on Muslims and Islam in the British media.”

Three months after its launch, the Leveson enquiry is thus devoting a single session to issues many find much more important than the phone hacking of Jude Law or Hugh Grant; people who have actively seek media attention and reap the benefits of this attention every day. What is more, large settlements for 37 prominent victims of phone hacking totalling £1m were agreed by News International last week.

I am sure the family of Mark Duggan, killed by police in September last year, would like to testify to the Leveson enquiry the fact that the press uncritically reported the police’s statement that Duggan had shot at police first, a claim that later proved to be a blatant lie. The press also engaged in a smear campaign portraying Duggan as a gangster, implying this compromised the father-of-four’s right to a fair trial. On the day of his father’s funeral, a tabloid journalist asked Duggan’s 10-year-old son if he was in the same gang as his father.

The fact that the Leveson enquiry is not addressing these questions, and not turning to these communities for evidence in its assessment of media ethics, speaks volumes about the state of the media in Britain today.

The full letter published in the Guardian on Monday calling for an enquiry into the anti-Muslim press can be read here.

By Robert Kazandjian / @RKazandjian

I mentor excluded, marginalised, vulnerable teenagers in North London. I work for an organisation that enables them to achieve educational qualifications and provides pastoral care and support.

These teenagers encounter obstacle after obstacle in their development; abuse, neglect, poverty and systems that appear destined to fail them. I’ve worked as a mentor for three years and I have no doubt that in relation to young black males, the police are an equally obstructive obstacle.

My father was a victim of racist treatment by the police when he arrived in England from Lebanon in the 1970s. I will never forget the raw anger and emotion in his voice as he described his experiences. My parents lived through the Broadwater Farm riots in the 1980s and educated me on the wider context of police racism.

I grew up in Edmonton and a significant number of my friendship group were black. We were subjected to dehumanising and disrespectful stop and search exercises on a regular basis. These were not intelligence-led exercises, nor were they random stops. They were deliberately targeting young black males because of their race. It was no coincidence that when I went out without my black friends, I had significantly less contact with the police.

A significant proportion of the teenagers that I mentor are young black males. During our lunch breaks we regularly go out in my car to get some food. This is when I find the teenagers at their most open and relaxed, therefore the ideal time for any important discussions that need to be had.

This vital time of our day together is regularly interrupted by police stop and search. I explain to the police that I am the teenager’s mentor. The police look at my shaved head, my tattoos and doubt me. They ask me to provide evidence. They call my line manager and ask her to confirm my identity. Despite confirmation they search me. They search the teenager. They are and heavy-handed and provocative.

I’ve never been stopped when out with any of the young white males that I mentor.

Conflict between teenagers is inevitable. Our body of staff is trained to identify and diffuse any potential issues before they escalate. If all institutions functioned as they should do, then we should be able to contact the police if a situation becomes unmanageable and they can assist us with the conflict resolution.

The reality is we do not have a working relationship with the police, largely a consequence of one particularly disgusting incident of police brutality towards a young black male.

I pulled in to the car park of our site on a mundane, grey morning. A group of my colleagues were outside. Amongst them was Boy A, I’m his key worker. He had removed his shirt. His mouth and nose was bleeding heavily. He spat blood and threw wild punches at my colleagues who were trying to contain him without making physical contact. He is prone to extreme rage and physical contact makes him anxious, often inflaming his anger.

My line manager explained that Boy A and Boy B had a fight. Boy B had got the better of Boy A before my colleagues intervened and separated them. She pointed out that Boy A had put his foot through a glass door and ripped a window from its hinges in an attempt to get to Boy B who was inside the building.

Her voice filled with defeat, she told me that the police had already been called.

I have an excellent relationship with Boy A. He is a brilliant artist and chess player. He is brave, honest and loyal. He lives in abject poverty, his parents are battling drug addictions and consequently he has a wide range of psychological issues. We use time together at the boxing gym to address these issues. He respects and trusts me.

I approached Boy A. I mirrored his movements. I paced when he paced. I stopped when he stopped. His eyes were glazed and unfocussed. I asked him to explain exactly what had happened. He told me that he didn’t start the fight, that he thought Boy B and him were friends. He was adamant that retribution was needed. By engaging with him I was able to de-escalate him. He now mirrored my less animated movements. I explained that the police had already been called. I told him that everything would be o.k.

A lone policeman arrived. He was a big, red-faced, fair-haired man who carried an air of impatience about him. I asked the policeman if I could tell him what had happened. I wanted to inform him that Boy A was now clam and the atmosphere less explosive. It was important that he was made aware of the type of teenager Boy A is in order for him to adapt his behaviour accordingly.

‘Fuck off and let me do my job’, the policeman told me as he shoved me out of his way.

He approached Boy A aggressively and demanded he give him his hands. Boy A said calmly that he didn’t want to give him his hands because he didn’t want them to be cuffed.

‘I will ask you one more time, give me your fucking hands’

Boy A refused. The policeman grabbed him in a bear hug and slammed him down on to the ground, landing heavily on top of him. The bare flesh of his back tore into the concrete. He cried out in pain. The policeman placed a large forearm across his throat.

‘How do I fucking know you’re not concealing a weapon? That’s why I need your fucking hands.’

Boy A was clearly not concealing anything. He had already removed his shirt. The policeman could see his hands. The policeman rolled Boy A on to his front, pushed his face in to the concrete and was victorious in handcuffing him.

As a body of staff we were appalled. I was furious. I lost control and tried to intervene. My colleagues restrained me. More officers arrived in a van and Boy A was removed from the scene, the respect and trust he had developed for me undoubtedly damaged and in need of repair.

Boy B, a young white male was treated very well by the police.

Originally posted on his blog - makemymark

by @justinthelibsoc

The callout came late on Thursday night, I received a text message forwarded from a friend stating Steve Hedley from the RMT has called for a counter-demo to oppose the English Defence League in Barking.

UAF made a similar callout on Friday, I was surprised that staunch anti-fascists were apparently either caught unaware until short notice or decided only belatedly to hold a counter-demo. I suspect the reason was the latter. Barking & Dagenham Council, formerly the electoral stronghold of the British National Party had allowed the English Defence League to march through the Town Centre, assemble in front of the Town Hall and loudly play music in a residential area.

The anti-fascist mobilisation led by Unite Against Fascism on the day was small but significant, around 60-70 people, surrounded and matched in number by the police. We gathered at the front of the market, distributing leaflets and catching up with old comrades. While I bought a pasty, a shop worker asked me what was happening. I explained that the EDL were marching and I was part of the group to oppose them. She replied:

“Good, I’m glad someone is standing up to them. They are not welcome here.”

While we waited in the cold for the EDL to march, the racists were drinking in the Wetherspoons whilst equally surrounded by the police. At around 1:30, English flags with the EDL logo emblazoned in the centre were hoisted into the air and we started chanting and singing as the racists came down the hill.

“E-D-L go to hell! Take your Nazi mates as well!”

“Follow your leader, shoot yourself like Adolf Hitler!”

“We’re black, white, Asian and we’re Jew!
We’re black, white, Asian and we’re Jew!
We’re black, white, Asian and we’re Jew!
And we’re gay!”

“Unemployment and inflation
Are not caused by immigration
Its bullshit, come off it
The enemy is profit!”

The EDL were mostly composed of white, ageing skin-heads, however their stewards were mostly middle aged smiling women from (according to their fluorescent bibs) Berkshire. In total there were around double our number, as we taunted them, you could see quite a few welcomed it, though a number were angered at the suggestion that they were being called racist while marching with clear British National Party organisers.

As they walked past, we then moved to the town centre, where Weyman Bennett led us into a nice cage that had been arranged for us by the police. The EDL were about 50 metres away and we were both outnumbered by the police who filled the chasm between us. Locals watched bemused by two chanting groups cordoned off from each other. I left our cordon to talk to some of the youth and they joined our section to swear and shout at the EDL and have a laugh while doing it. Our contingent though small seemed to have a diverse array of Britain was made of Asian local councillors, young African, African-Caribbean and Asian teenagers, female trade unionists of varied backgrounds,  white and Sikh students and the odd anti-racist skinhead.

After 15 minutes, Weyman suggested that we join a Stephen Lawrence vigil that was away from the demonstration. Others expressed their desire to stay until the EDL had left the Town Centre. This caused a split and reduced our small number into half, to the cheer of the EDL. I guessed this was the local Labour Party’s attempt to draw attention away from the EDL and reduce the likelihood of confrontation, though with our small number I believed it would appear like we were running away and conceding defeat. So our resident skinhead started another song:

Can you hear the Nazis sing?
No, No
Can you hear the Nazis sing?
No, No
Can you hear the Nazis sing?
I can’t hear a fucking thing!

Their only audible chant was “E-E-E-D-L”, in the usual football hooligan-cum-man-ape manner and with not much humour. The anti-fascist contingent that stayed and sang “Cheerio” to the racists as the English Defence League were escorted back to the rail station by the police. Weyman shortly after reappeared to inform us that we were to stay behind in the town centre, until it was considered “safe”.

As we waited, around 5-6 police officers, one of whom was of African origin decided, in a somewhat provocative manner, to stop and search two black teenagers, plus “stop and account for” two other non-white teenagers who joined us from the street. Some of us started shouting “SHAME! SHAME!” to officers as we witnessed one teenager being thoroughly padded down for weapons. As tensions we’re clearly rising we were then asked to stop chanting by a local councillor.

I obliged and went around to see the police officers faces and asked if this was happening under Section 60, one officer looks at me and shook his head. The Met are currently reviewing its use of that power and so are probably under orders to use it sparingly. This meant that they were likely being searched by section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

At this point the approximately 10 police officers were surrounded by activists and locals who were predominately women of African and African-Caribbean origin, watching with disgust and outrage.

I asked the officers what crime were these young people suspected of, one officer calmly replied that his superior heard one of these youths “talking about finding articles to throw as missiles at the other demonstration”, so where being searched for having offensive weapons on suspicion of causing an affray.

“So you think its plausible that these young people have the Herculean strength to throw a missile from the back of our demonstration over our heads, across 50 metres and into the EDL demonstration? Ridiculous.”

Whilst seething with anger, we watched the search take place. As I looked at the young men, only the non-African kid, who may have been of Central Asian/Eastern European heritage appeared the most upset by it. The others were anything but angry or annoyed. Indifferent, numb and even possibly bored are more accurate descriptions of  the procedure which they may have had some familiarity with.

Later that day I went on to Whitechapel for a meeting and coincidentally this happened. A bunch of anti-fascists were on hand to intervene but it appeared that the locals dealt with what was suspected to be a dozen or so white teenagers eager for a fight.

By Koos Couvee / @kooscouvee

Over two hundred people gathered at the steps of St Pauls cathedral today to celebrate the birthday of Reverend Dr Martin Luther King, commemorate his life’s work and share their views on how Dr King’s legacy is relevant today.

The event, a collaboration of community activists, church members, trade union representatives and OccupyLSX, was co-hosted by Lee Jasper.

Speakers included Bishop Wayne Malcolm, Zita Holbourne (Black Activists Rising Against the Cuts), Lee Jasper (Black Activists Rising Against the Cuts / Operation Hope and Recovery), Selma James, Bellavia Ribeiro-Addy (Black Lawyers Association) and Tanya Paton from Occupy LSX amongst others. And the spirits were raised by the energetic Lee Jasper, comedy from Ava Vidal, and a gospel choir.

Selma James, founder of the International Wages for Housework Campaign and author of The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community, met Dr King in the 1950’s. Her husband, the legendary marxist CLR James, had invited King to join him for lunch in London when the pair met in Ghana at the 1957 Independence celebrations. James drew a number of historical parallels between neoliberalism, riots and war in the present and what Dr King faced when he attempted to cool off the rioters in Watts, LA, 1965. King was jeered off and subsequently accepted the argument that perhaps riots were the only way black voices were going to be heard. A day later, he invited Stokely Carmichael to church and came out in opposition to the Vietnam War. James spoke of King’s further swing to the left, for instance when he supporting striking dustmen in Birmingham.

There was a contribution from Mario Joseph, a Haitian human rights lawyer who spoke about his country’s legacy – the first independent black republic in the world in 1804. Joseph went on to speak of his country’s present struggle against cholera, and the ongoing occupation of Haiti by UN forces – there to impose and maintain neoliberal policies on the island.

The crowd heard from community activists Stafford Scott (Tottenham Defence Campaign), Merlin Emmanuel (Campaign for Justice for Smiley Culture)  and Marcia Riggs (United Families and Friends Campaign).

Merlin Emmanuel, who lost his uncle Smiley Culture, aka David Emmanuel, at the hands of police last year, spoke about the issue of deaths in custody, double standards of the criminal justice system and the importance of giving young people hope for their futures. On the Lawrence verdict, he said:

“Although I was happy with the Stephen Lawrence verdict, I maintain that the full measure of justice is yet to be served. There will be some closure for his family of course, but the conviction of two murderers when there were at least five involved shows that justice still has to be procured. Further to that, the individuals involved were expendable in my opinion, a gang of rogue racist thugs that the system decided to sacrifice to give the false impression that everything is ok and well here in Britain.”

We also heard from Marcia Rigg, whose brother Sean died in Brixton police station four years ago.

The Rigg family is still waiting for a proper enquiry and crucial evidence from the IPCC. The  United Families and Friends Campaign (UFFC) will be launching an e-petition on the 20th of January to demand a public enquiry into deaths in custody. Please sign!

Despite a relatively low turn-out, the atmosphere at today’s event was great and it was clear from the variety of voices and the sense of unity at the event that increasingly, different groups and campaigns are talking to each other. Whilst prominent trade union campaigners like Zita Holbourne and Lee Jasper were present, the language used was very much that of the Occupy movement. Martin Luther King’s birthday thus provided the opportunity for a variety of campaigns to join forces, commemorate Dr King’s legacy and celebrate its continued relevance.

The presence of the OccupyLSX camp continues to provide the movement with a site of resistance in the heart of London. A large number of tourists stopped by to listen to today’s speeches.

Occupy London will be in the High Court at 2pm on Monday 16 January to hear judgement regarding the injunction requested by the London Stock Exchange. Eviction is expected within days of the court judgement if the injunction is served.

No Justice, No Peace.

Wednesday 25th January 2012, 7pm – 9pm
The Bread and Roses Pub, 68 Clapham Manor Street, SW4 6DZ

Speakers confirmed:

• Dr Jane Holgate – Co-founder of Hackney Unites
• Paul Stott – Anti-Fascist Activist & Academic
• Performance by The Ruby Kid

The British National Party may be imploding but they achieved 5% at the last GLA elections. At this meeting we will elect our officers and decide if we should broaden our focus to community organising. We’ll also discuss the new British Freedom Party how to tackle the English Defence League. Following the conviction of two of Stephen Lawrence’s murderers, there is a lot to reflect on at this year’s AGM.

Find the event on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/events/340585399301466/

South London Anti-Fascists Group are supported by Battersea & Wandsworth TUC

By Koos Couvee

The media storm Hackney MP Diane Abbott caused last week as a result of her ‘divide and rule’ comment on Twitter is indicative of the ways in which Britain’s political elite is still able to turn issues of race and racism to its advantage and brush the lived reality of so many black Britons under the carpet.

When Diane Abbott tweeted: “White people love playing ‘divide & rule’ We should not play their game #tacticasoldascolonialism”, she was not referring to 19^th century colonialism, which is what she later said to defend her comment. Firstly, if that were the case she would have put the sentence in the past tense. Secondly, the tweet came as part of a conversation about present day politics with Hackney based freelance journalist Bim Adewunmi, who had expressed concern to Abbott about what she perceived to be the red herring ‘black community’.

Conservative blogger Harry Cole, who at times also refers to himself as a journalist, eloquently summed up the deep pain and outrage felt by white people as a result of Abbott’s tweet in his debate with race and human rights activist Lee Jasper on Sky News. He told viewers that Abbott’s comments were derogatory to an entire ethnic group, based on the colour of their skin. Indeed, Cole pointed out, racism works both ways and should not have been used as a political tool by the opportunistic Hackney MP.

Whilst Lee Jasper did a good job of defending Diane Abbott’s record as anti-racist campaigner, he did not attack Cole’s positioning as a victim of a racist jibe, or the notion that white people can also be the victims of racism. He simply laughed, shook his head and said: “Dear, oh dear, oh dear”, which perhaps, in that setting, was the appropriate reaction to Cole’s phony outrage.

But the point needs to be made. In a society where whiteness is the norm and racial otherness – being black, Asian, or Muslim – is still seen as irreconcilable with mainstream Britishness, the notion of anti-white racism rings hollow.

Because its wording is so much more lucid than I could ever put it, I will quote a definition of racism as it appeared in an article in the Guardian last week.

“Racism is the systemic discrimination of whole groups of people cast as outsiders, deemed incapable of full incorporation into society, and treated with suspicion on this basis. It has a deep and lasting effect on individuals’ life chances and consequent wellbeing, and is damaging to the social fabric as a whole.”

The crucial bit follows:

“For all the equivalences drawn between clumsy and prejudicial references to skin colour, racism is inherently political; it requires the power to contribute to racial oppression.”

Do people of colour in Britain have the power to exercise racial oppression over whites? No. Can a black person generalise about white people? Obviously. Is the hurt caused by such a generalisation felt by a white person equivalent to that felt by a black person? Most definitely not.

Diane Abbott’s tweet must be read not as a generalisation about white people, but as coming from a place of honesty and anger over the present state of race politics in Britain. The choice of the term ‘white people’ was far from smart for an MP whose constituency is 61 per cent white, but surely the general idea behind the tweet was historically accurate?

It is unfortunate that those defending Abbott in the media did not make this point. And it is a shame that Abbott, in the media storm that ensued, was forced to backtrack and apologise. Because rather than using this opportunity to talk about racism, its history and its current manifestations, the political establishment posited themselves as victims of a crude generalisation without regard to the context and sentiment of Abbott’s comment. The underlying context of racism Abbott was referring to in her tweet was neatly brushed under the carpet.

The Abbott affair shows that people of colour are in a no-win situation when it comes to getting racism discussed as a lived reality in Britain today. In the case of Stephen Lawrence, there was an acknowledgement of racial injustice, but it was is partial and served after 18 years, largely because of the determination of a single woman, Doreen Lawrence. It is unknown to most Britons that there are countless black mothers like Doreen out there, like those seeking justice for the deaths of sons and daughters at the hands of police officers – singer Smiley Culture and Tottenham’s Mark Duggan being prominent examples of the last year.

The media hype dubbed ‘Abbottgate’ revealed that when a black MP, in her position as community leader, speaks from a place of anger and honesty to one of her constituents, she is hung out to dry and accused of exactly the thing she has been campaigning against all her life.

Diane Abbott merely pointed to the fact that Britain today is still a racist place. The question is – what would it mean to have an actual multiculturalism where the grievances of people of colour around racism are acknowledged and discussed in the same way as issues around education, housing and healthcare? It would certainly upset existing racial hierarchies in society. We are a long way off that scenario, but a good look into divide and rule strategies in British society today may be a good place to continue that process.

Twitter: @KoosCouvee

A video by UpshotTV, commentary by @Nabilu

Doreen Lawrence

“This has been a very difficult time for me and I would like to thank all those people that have expressed kindness and support for me and my family over the last 18 years.

I would also like to thank the jury for their verdicts today. However, despite these verdicts, today is not a cause for celebration.

How can I celebrate when my son lies buried? When I cannot see him or speak to him? When will I see him grow up and go to university or get married or have children? These verdicts will not bring my son back.

How can I celebrate when I know that this day could have come 18 years ago if the police who were meant to find my son’s killers (had not) failed so miserably to do so. These are not a reason to celebrate.

All I now feel is relief that two of my son’s killers have finally been caught and brought to justice; relief that these racist men can no longer think that they can murder a black man and get away with it; relief that despite the defence being able to raise issues of contamination, the jury saw through it.

I feel relieved that, to some extent, I can move forward with my life. But mixed with relief is anger – anger that me and my family were put through 18 years of grief and uncertainty, not knowing if or when we would ever get justice.

Had the police done their job properly, I would have spent the last 18 years grieving for my son rather than fighting to get his killers to court.

Anger that despite the police saying that this case was so important to them, the exhibits were treated in such a way the defence could suggest contamination.

This result shows that the police can do their job properly but only if they want to. I only hope that they have learnt their lesson and don’t put any other family through what we have been put through.

The fact is that racism and racist attacks are still happening in this country and the police should not use my son’s name to say that we can move on.

Now that we have some sort of justice, I want people to think of Stephen other than [as] a black teenager murdered in a racist attack in south-east London in April 1993.

I know that’s the fact but I now want people to remember him as a bright, beautiful young man who any parent of whatever background would have been proud of.

He was a wonderful son and a shining example of what any parent would want in a child. I miss him with a passion. Hopefully now he can rest in peace.”

Neville Lawrence

“My life was torn apart by the senseless murder of my son over 18 years ago. Unfortunately no one was brought before a court at that time as they should have been.

The loss itself, together with the lack of justice, have meant that I have not been able to rest all this time. I’m therefore full of joy and relief that today finally two of my son’s killers have been convicted for his murder.

They will be sent to prison and forced to face the consequences of their actions – consequences which my family and I have been living with all these years.

I would like to thank the police and prosecutors for their faultless preparation and delivery of the case.

I would like to thank the judge for the work he has put in to ensure that the suspects had a fair trial. I thank the jury for their careful attention to my son’s case day after day and the verdicts they have delivered.

Something has happened over the last seven weeks – I have watched justice being done. As for me, I’m not sure where I will go from here. I will let this good news sink in for some time.

However, I’m also conscious of the fact that there were five or six attackers that night. I do not think I’ll be able to rest until they are all brought to justice.”

Between 5.00 – 7.00 pm on Friday 9^th December 2011 campaigners will assemble at Speakers Corner and make their way via Marble Arch and Oxford Street to the US Embassy London.  They will be there to demand the unconditional and immediate release of Mumia Abu Jamal.

Mumia Abu-Jamal

This date marks 30 years since Mumia Abu Jamal was arrested and imprisoned in Philadelphia, USA.   Accused of murdering a police officer, the journalist and former Black Panther Abu-Jamal has always stated his innocence.  Following his conviction he languished on death row under a sentence which has now been ruled unconstitutional.

Earlier this year US Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Philadelphia, USA set aside Abu-Jamal’s death sentence because of procedural irregularities during his trial. This decision has since been upheld by the Supreme Court, automatically reverting the sentence to life imprisonment.

In order to reinstate the death penalty at this point, the District Attorney would have to call for a new penalty-phase trial, with a new jury having to decide on whether to reinstate the death sentence. Otherwise, the sentence of life in prison (without parole) remains.

UK campaigners are joining others in France, Africa, US and internationally who are actively calling for his immediate and unconditional release.

The  My Tram Experience video stirred lots of debate about multiculturalism in London, and if London really was as racist as this woman.

Though a wannabe mini-Nick Griffin applauded that troubled woman’s rants, at TMP Towers, this video has won our award of best response to the racism:

Though many regard this tragic experience as a rarity, unfortunately more videos of racist abuse on public transport have emerged including this one by a different woman who declares herself a BNP supporter.

Racism has a long history in Britain, and under the present economic environment these ideas may become more prevalent and gain more sympathy as it did in 2008.

Also if you are a South Londoner and want to organise against racism in your local community come to South London Anti-Fascist Group Meeting on Monday 12th December in Clapham Junction from 6 – 7pm. Full details here.