London Rolling

#notallcompletecunts

You'd never have suspected it, he was just your typical complete cunt, kept himself to himself, the prick.

More from Khadijh Sherazi,

"We didn’t think nothing of it. He seemed a normal bloke, a normal family, normal kids, happy go lucky. I would see him out walking with his two spaniels. He would also shout quite a lot but the kids seemed happy. I wouldn’t have said he was someone with mental problems."

The Daily Mail and the tabs in general humanise a terrorist if he is white. Its not hard.

This needs to be called out for time and again. For ever and ever.

Unfortunately it is hard.

The problems with terrorism are bigger than how the Daily Mail covers it, and the problems with how the Daily Mail covers events are bigger than its approach to terrorism.

I wouldn't describe their approach to this latest event, or any other, as "humanising", and as already stated, the rhetorical approach of angrily wishing the Daily Mail was equally awful to everyone seems a failure.

I am not saying this is the most problematic aspect wrt terrorism but papers like the Mail can shape public response and ultimately policy (via polls)

The bits I'm reading above are somewhat emphasizing that he is like you or me (Jo Cox's murderer was a quiet retiring chap iirc). I don't think anyone is wishing the Mail does anything different because everyone knows what it is - that's what they do. But it has to be called for every inch of the way. It certainly is, and long may it continue.

i just think it's too complicated, none of these crimes are the same, no two violent crimes can be the same and on multiple levels the crime last night and say, manchester or london bridge or whatever are wildly different. there are definitely some cliches around how the criminal is described but i don't think the solution is to seek equal demonisation of "radicalised terrorists" and furiously denounce any narrative that includes someone's history of mental health problems.

I was having a conversation about this with a Muslim dude earlier. The guy who murdered Jo Cox was barely literate and the group he was affiliated with couldn't draw more than 40 people on a good day. They usually got outnumbered by the police for local gatherings - which isn't very austerity, but how it was. We came to the conclusion that this current government are the real dangerous extremists.

Obv there are ongoing investigations on the attacks in Manchester and both attacks in London so it will be a while before any conclusions can be drawn on how similar or different these are. Having said that you do see the way sections the media jump the gun and simplify - nothing is too complicated for them - for their readers and what I see on my TL is people pulling them up on it.

I haven't seen many people saying "be equally awful to everyone". What I have seen is pointing out the discrepancy in the coverage with a desire for balanced, better reporting.

I am sympathetic to LG's view but the Times headline which, prior to any investigation describes him as a "Jobless 'lone wolf' " is o_O.

afaict, the only person who has definitively marked him as a 'lone wolf' is Tommy Robinson, so maybe that's who they are quoting.

Yeah I saw that front page last night, it is incredibly cliched but I guess I don't see "lone wolf" as a specific form of exoneration, it just seems to be a different codeword or media genre for this, a fairly silly cliche. I guess people find it hard to think of a terrorist acting without affiliation to an organisation - I don't think that's entirely misguided or damaging at a basic level, like I'm not convinced terrorist is specific enough for an act like Finsbury Park. Plus there is a long history of white terrorism in the UK, i think the bogeyman of the organisation is a big part of how people think of terrorism and I guess how the media talks about it. But also how it should be dealt with, tbh. Brendan Cox said yesterday we should treat attacks like this exactly the same way as we treat London Bridge etc, that's a good soundbyte but I don't agree. Racism is not the same as Islamic fundamentalism. It starts to get into an absurd territory.

By the dictionary definition of terrorist a huge number of crimes could be deemed as terrorism, like almost crime which has fear or violence as an element, I guess I don't see why "hate crime" is not more specific for an incident like this, even if a general acceptance that terrorist is not confined to specific races or religion is welcome.

It's terrorism because the attack was against a specific community and was carried out by someone who wanted to take lives and breed fear in that community. The attacker, in common with the Westminster Bridge van driver, does not have to be a joined-up member of an extremist group for the wider public to judge this as terrorism.

Terrorism, to me, is defined by the relationship to authority - unless it's, theoretically at least, designed to influence the direction of capital-P politics it's usually something else. The growth in near-nihilistic ISIS attacks and mass hate-crimes like Dylann Roof and this guy does blur that boundary but part of the reason hate crimes have elevated sentencing is because they're recognised as an attack on communities, not just individuals.

The semantics of public discourse are important and i totally get why this is being widely defined as terrorism but i think there'd be as much value in defining it as a hate crime, and treating the two as equally serious, as there would in recalibrating what we think of as terrorism.

This is good imo:

I understand - completely - the place that this comes from. But I question the political utility of calling Darren Osborne a terrorist.

— Ash Sarkar (@AyoCaesar) June 20, 2017

The thread, rather than just that tweet...

... and particularly how elevating it to 'terrorism' potentially decontextualises it from a long history of racist murder in the UK.

it's interesting to me how quietly and completely the "self-radicalisation" element has now entered the definition: by contrast the entire purpose of the "terrorist narrative" of the 70s and 80s was to argue that it was a phenomenon created planned and controlled by enemy states (mainly the USSR; sometimes also iran)

i somewhat assume this is why some ideologues need the caliphate not to be the "so-called" caliphate: ie to argue it has a concrete geographical existence at the hub of all terror "so-called" -- but this now seems an old-fashioned outlier

(certainly in the early 2000s, an element in left fightback was that "bush is the real terrorist" -- justifiably i think making the link between say "shock and awe" and terror as a desired tool of modern statecraft. i tend to agree with SV and LG that expanding the definition, esp.if i'ls being expanded upwards AND downwards this way, is more obfuscatory than useful… moreoever, my inclination is to suggest that better storymaking is not a matter of angrily tweaking the meaning of specific words, least of all as if it were for consistency's sake: the "consistency" if achieved may well be at cost of other things we want to change)

(i also think a good story to be emphasising is that the reach of these newspapers is beginning to fail: i actually slightly resent how long we've spent treating them as a seriously implacable force across all the land; they're not, any more)

"Brendan Cox said yesterday we should treat attacks like this exactly the same way as we treat London Bridge etc, that's a good soundbyte but I don't agree. "

I'd imagine some of the women who complained about his behaviour at Save The Children would contest his credibility as a campaigner for equality. There is something really off about that guy, all the platitudinous "more in common" soundbites remind me of Blairites that talked the good talk and then abstained on every damaging Tory austerity bill that maintained people have fuck all in common. Sorry for o/t derail for personal bugbear*

*probably mostly my m.o. tbh

i think there'd be as much value in defining it as a hate crime, and treating the two as equally serious, as there would in recalibrating what we think of as terrorism.

Semantically I think "hate crime" is such a dogwhistle for the right - "minorities getting special treatment" - while terrorism is, in a way, "their" word, not something they can mock or wave away. So yeah, playing their game to an extent.

fwiw I feel like this and London Bridge certainly felt like the same thing - similar methods, lack of apparent ties to any organisation. Motivation less easy to ascertain, but if you'd ask me to guess I'd probably think that, behind the ideological trappings, the attackers were probably suffering under a lot of the same conditions

(i also think a good story to be emphasising is that the reach of these newspapers is beginning to fail: i actually slightly resent how long we've spent treating them as a seriously implacable force across all the land; they're not, any more)

― mark s, Tuesday, 20 June 2017 08:13 (fifty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Side question- is there something in ilxs demographic makeup that causes it, or has caused it til now, to overstate (to whatever extent) the importance, influence, whatever of the media in this fashion?

Some combo of idk higher participation in the industry, greater makeup of users with media-related education or interests, whatever?

Does being politicised lead to it, perhaps? It's a big element of the game, not necessarily of the reality outside of that?

tbf the media itself has played up its importance for years - the Sun wot won it etc

but it's probably always been the case that the proprietors of popular newspapers are in the game for political influence rather than because it's a profitable industry - right back to Beaverbrook and Harmsworth - so this idea is long-standing and widespread. and now more than ever the vast majority of people are saturated in media, its language and perspectives and values. it's just that that media has become more diffuse in its sources, maybe.

of course the effects of cultural discourse on individuals are nebulous but I think the two extremes of "it has no effect" and "people are brainwashed" are both untrue positions

I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the media in shaping the pre-election view of Corbyn, Brexit, immigration, Islam, etc - i think the key takeaway from the election is that those narratives can be challenged effectively.

The problem with tabloid orthodoxy is that, until now, politicians have pretty much accommodated it rather than really believing it was possible to push back.

The semantics of public discourse are important and i totally get why this is being widely defined as terrorism but i think there'd be as much value in defining it as a hate crime, and treating the two as equally serious, as there would in recalibrating what we think of as terrorism.

That's p much exactly my view. Hate crime treated as seriously specifically highlights the fact it's targeting minority groups. Terrorism by definition is not necessarily against minorities - to say otherwise would require us to come up with a new word to describe much of what has been defined as terrorism historically.

I also think, and maybe I'm going too far, that there may be injustices at the heart of the causes of some terrorism, distinguishing it is helpful in exposing the fact that that's not true for hate crimes.

ISIS and their nihilism probably challenge that but again, that's a case for narrowing our definition of terrorism to exclude them, not broadening it beyond all meaning to score a point.

On the media stuff, I find it a tricky issue in that it seems hard to say when the media is responsible for someone's views or actions or just reflecting them. Do we think the media is capable of directly inspiring violence but not say, videogames or violent movies or whatever? I feel like in the left we used to reject entirely the idea that people acted based on what they consumed culturally but perhaps times have changed, I don't know.

People being told that their irl neighbours pose a direct security threat, are the reason they can't get a job / housing, are trying to erode their way of life, etc is pretty different from the the idea that abstract violence in media promotes violence in society.

Isn't the usual leftist stance - and the reason there can be so much debate about gender, representation, etc. in media - that it's not about directly influencing ppl's actions but molding the culture and discourse we're in?

xpost

I think we can allow for an Overton window-ish effect without going full "video nasties will turn you into a psycho", and that includes presentations of violence and its role in conflict resolution imo

fwiw I feel like this and London Bridge certainly felt like the same thing

The more obvious parallel is the Westminster Bridge attack.

Worth pointing out that many of the men who commit these acts are domestic abusers.

i think part of my objection is as follows:

i) the thing deems rightly asks abt is IMO quite a recent development! it wasn't considered implacable even in the 90s -- formidable maybe, but not implacable (blair's ceasefire treaty with murdoch maybe somewhat changed this, by virtue of blair's early success: but it still came across as deft pragmatism, not bowing to the utterly inevitable)
ii) it belongs to a historical period now over! which is thatcher's successful wooing of a key part of the soon-to-be ex-urban working classes via pruchase of council houses etc-- which as of course totally screwed things up for those that came after! those who came after -- for whom higher ed is available only as a kind of indentured debt -- don't read it at all
iii) so yes, there was a period -- you can doubtless trace it with some kind of bell-like curve -- where the sun especially was able to act as the voice of a dynamic element within the working class, within a particular age-cohort… the amplification of which shut out or anyway muffled many *other* working-class elements
iv) a think abt post-grenfell news stories is seeing kinds of ppl speaking on my TV (actually more often my computer) screen who i see and hear all around me EVERY DAY, *except* on-screen -- bcz somehow compared to yaxley-lennon and the foax john harris likes to seek out, they are "not properly working class" or something (hackney is quite hipstery! and the gentrification sorta-kinda includes me! but it is predominantly poor and working class and this element has not yet been cleansed and god-willing will not be)

to answer deems, i am going to theorise that it's almost an offshoot of the "likes of us" (*vaguely handwaves the social make-up of the thread/uk ilx generally*) doing our elective affinity thing: an overstated other that we had recoiled from (but needed to affirm our "usness") -- what's fun abt RIGHT NOW is that this dynamic is maybe breaking up into something less cocooned and hermetic

part two of my theory is: this is why posting tweets is good not bad *runs away*

booming thread i love you guys

...by contrast the entire purpose of the "terrorist narrative" of the 70s and 80s was to argue that it was a phenomenon created planned and controlled by enemy states (mainly the USSR; sometimes also iran)

What?

Yes, doesn't account for IRA, ETA, RAF, Red Brigades...

Part of the practice of deriding pernicious media influence stems from the fear of the prospect of the extremist language and behaviour found within it as not otherwise requiring 'policing' (and the attention paid to 'what the papers say' thru TV News and social media both enabling that and perhaps distorting its importance). It seems like the resulting effect has been headlines, editorials and columnists getting more hysterical and trollish as their reach (on individual bases) dwindles and understandably the urge has been to try and shame that harder rather than treat it as a sign of any actual progress.

Was actually agog at The Times rolling with 'jobless', 'lone wolf' and 'mental illness' re the Finsbury Park attacker. End up preferring the idea that's deliberate and self-ware of them rather than that no-one putting that together is seeing a problem.

my formulation is compact and perhaps therefore not clear (sorry not sorry, my brand is my brand) but *ridiculous* as it now sounds, all of those (RAF, ETA etc) were routinely described/dismissed in mainstream outlets in the late 70s as being funded and directed FROM MOSCOW -- viz not "freedom fighters" but "terrorists"

this framing is now so dated it is hard to bring sensibly back to mind (but luckily i am dated too, and remember it quite well)

I don't really know how the mainstream media was reporting the groups in question at the time but I do know the Provos were rabidly anti-Marxist for most, if not all, of the 70s - it was only the advent of younger leaders like Adams that pushed them leftwards.

... that and members drifting across from avowedly Marxist groups like the Official IRA and INLA.

that came thru when I read some of the INLA pieces that people have shared recently

but details aside, I remember the kind of media-think that mark is talking about. the 70s 'Ra are a possible exception but the globalisation of terror was definitely a thing, iirc Ludlum's original Bourne novel hinges on this kind of worldview

and I strongly doubt the mainstream English audience knew or cared much about the political distinctions between NI paras then or now

yes my formulation wasn't to do with how these groups thought of themselves: it was abt how they were winkled into geopolitics as then understood by the pundits of the day

(deems posted a badly proofed but v interesting 1985 guide a couple of days back to the internal histories of the NI orgs on the ira thread, which backs up what you said -- tho the non-provisionals were very extremely marxist at that point) (and much attention was paid to e.g. where the armoury was being purchased)

tho lol of course the guns which weren't bought from gaddafi's libya were bought from the US

I just saw a Hate Crime Reporting Centre in Keighley, Maybe it was always there and I didn't notice before

Good answers to my halfmusings thanks

Think mark is otm about it more of a seeming powerful monolith post-blair that maybe hasn't been challenged by politicians since as they've all been hyperaware of the benefits of said ceasefire.

Corbyn not having been afforded same and yet succeeding over a continued period serves as a reminder. Maybe his best service throughout his time is how he stands as a refutation of that type of compromise.

An aside, the definition of terrorism that puts front and centre the definition of "controlled by a foreign power" very comfortably describes the IRA/INLA imo but perhaps not sufficiently either

Isnt the other legacy of Blair in terms of the power of the media, or at least the perception of it, the way in which the new labour government made their whole information delivery system so hyper-coordinated with the news cycle? Announcements were timed and leaked with media narratives in mind, and an accommodating knowledge of the requirements of journalists and news organisations to deliver content for particular time-slots (6 o'clock, 9 o'clock, etc.) We're very used to so many elements of this, the advance notice of the content of speeches ("the prime minister is expected to say...") for instance, its easy to forget that the Blair government forged a fairly novel relationship with the press in this country. I think this has encouraged a sense of mutual dependency between press and government, that has given a sense that the press are very much a part of the workings of governmental power. And also an increased desire for government to cater to the desires of the news outlets. You see this very much in the panicked way that Theresa May has sought to assuage Mail-ers all the way, despite the fact that less and less people read the daily mail and those that do are mostly focussed on salacious celebrity gossip where somebody steps out wearing something specific just after divorcing/cheating on/ getting engaged to/ having a fight with somebody else.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/25/demonstrators-confront-police-in-east-london-over-da-costa-death

every police car in SE London is heading to Greenwich, shutting down the entire road network

I got caught in it but was able to get a train. tt is braving the Jubilee to NG right now

its so arbitrary, why this particular grudge?

I've seen it in Leather Lane - childish handwriting "george micheal is evil man" - that sort of thing?

sounds like one obsessed weirdo.

yeah that's the same stuff, handwritten in black on white backgrounds, things like "george michael's mum is stripper".

"george michael's mother has hepatitis" "george michael takes fists up the arse"

like what?

Seems like time can never end the brainless witterings of some bell ends.

ridgeley has fallen far

there's a similar guy in brooklyn who uses crayon in the stations on the subway ads on the wall and he likes to write about how evil michael jackson "is"

Let's hope they don't find out about this...

https://www.timeout.com/london/news/london-is-getting-a-nine-metre-tall-mural-of-george-michael-finally-081220

We've just stayed in an airbnb near elephant and castle, had a great three days playing in the brand new free splash park for kids and enjoying the multiple international food options available, all built on the backs of displaced residents and communities of the old heygate estate and environs :/