Campaigners from groups including Stop The Expansion at Manchester Airport and The Campaign Against Climate Change the will stage events in London and Manchester to highlight the environmental destruction caused by unnecessary air travel between the two cities’ airports. With around 38 flights every day travelling between them, opponents argue that these flights pose an high carbon emission output that could easily be reduced through alternative modes of transport, such as trains.

Phil Thornhill from Campaign against Climate Change said: “Aviation symbolises the high-emission lifestyles of the developed world that are threatening billions, especially in the most vunerable communities, around the world. We can start to get to grips with the growth in aviation by eliminating the shorter journeys that can be made in other, less carbon intensive ways”.

The day of action will see activists demonstrating outside City Airport in London in the morning, before travelling through London on an open top “End Domestic Flights” bus to spread awareness of the campaign. Meanwhile the afternoon will see a second demonstration outside Manchester Airport’s Terminal 3.

Manchester Airport have however faced criticism for stifling the demonstration by denying an appropriate space to stage the protest. Chloe Simmons, from Stop Expansion at Manchester Airport said: “We approached Manchester Airport to arrange where the demonstration could take place effectively in sight of the public and airport management.  Instead we were offered a number of outdoor spaces where the travelling public would not be able to see us.

“It seemed to us that Manchester Airport wanted to make our protest invisible to diminish it’s impact.  At a time when climate chaos threatens us all, the right to assembly and peaceful protest is crucial.”

A site near the entrance to Terminal 3 has now been agreed upon after campaigners rejected the airports original offers.

A party for will be held in the evening at Hasty Lane near Manchester Airport, an area threatened by the expansion of a new terminal featuring food, drink and live music from ceilidh band “The Fig Band”. Protesters have been fighting proposals this year which could see four homes in Hasty Lane replaced with a cargo unit.

Joe Beech

The current memorial plaque at Free Trade Hall

It will have pride of place in the newly-renovated St Peter’s Square which is due to be completed next year. The last sculpture commemorating the event was located in Ancoats but was demolished over 100 years ago.

Why it has taken so long for a replacement to be erected to an historical event of national importance is unclear. Campaign organiser Paul Fitzgerald shed light on the matter: “You can see why previous administrations have resisted a ‘monument to democratic protest’ in the past, we sincerely hope that isn’t true today”.

The massacre took place in what was then St Peter’s Field, the area which now includes the G-Mex and Free Trade Hall, when approximately 60,000 people assembled to protest about living conditions in the country as part of a broader social movement.

15 of the protesters were killed and over 400 wounded after local magistrates, fearful of the large crowd present, ordered the cavalry to charge on the masses. Eyewitness accounts told of the people being cut down outside the city as the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry unleashed a brutal attack on the unarmed demonstrators. In the aftermath the incident was dubbed “Peterloo” – an amalgam of ‘Peter’ and ‘-loo’, drawing an ironic comparison with the bloody patriotic battle of Waterloo in which the French forces were defeated at great human cost.

The political backdrop in Britain at the time was of deep financial ruin following the Napoleonic wars. Starvation and dire living conditions ravaged the country, while gross inequities in representation characterised the political system. The existence of so-called “rotten boroughs” – geographically small and low populated areas which returned disproportionately high numbers of MPs compared to densely inhabited urban industrial centres – and suffrage dependent on ownership of property led to the rise of a popular movement across the north of England calling for parliamentary reform.

The massacre is seen as playing a key role in the struggle for democratic rights and instrumental in the rise of the later trade union and Chartist movements. However currently there is only one reference in the city to the massacre – in the form of a plaque on the Free Trade Hall. Campaigners and local historians hope that the new memorial will emphasize the atrocity’s significance in British political history.

Paul Fitzgerald said: “We think Peterloo is the message in itself, there for all to interpret as they see fit. All we demand is that the memorial meets some basic criteria- it should be prominent, informative, realistic and respectful.”

The competition was launched on the 191st anniversary of the atrocity on 16 August. For more information or to take part in the competition go to http://www.peterloomassacre.org/ or http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=146735302012540 .

Tom Evans

Image taken from apol3's photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/apol3/with/4103899973/

The Greater Manchester Health Commission (GMHC) is currently compiling a report on the feasibility of a bye-law prohibiting the sale of drinks at prices less than 50p per unit of alcohol contained. This will be subsequently presented to the Executive Committee of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA).

The potential bylaw would set the lowest price for a litre bottle of 40% spirits at £20, while the least you could pay for a pint of 5% lager would be £1.50.

The development has been met with accusations of paternalism by civil liberties campaigners, who claim that the Council are presuming the right to make choices for individuals. Alex Deane, Director of Big Brother Watch, a group which campaigns against intrusions into privacy and civil liberties, said: ‘People should be free to choose to eat or drink whatever they want, without interference from a nannying council.”

Mike Jones, who will head the review, was keen to stress that minimum pricing is exclusively a health issue: ‘Greater Manchester is disproportionately affected by alcohol and therefore we have to look after our residents and promote a healthy lifestyle.’

However despite its critics the plan does have the backing of the medical community, with broad support across the professional sector coming from The British Medical Association and The Royal College of Nursing.

Government-funded research conducted by the University of Sheffield backs up the idea of the effectiveness of minimum pricing in reducing alcohol consumption and related harms. A report concludes:

‘General price increases were effective for reduction of consumption, health-care costs, and health-related quality of life losses in all population subgroups.’

Support has also been voiced by charity organisations with deal with abuse. Don Shenker, Chief Executive of Alcohol Concern, said:

‘With practically every health body in the country now backing the move on alcohol minimum pricing, the new government needs to accept the evidence and introduce a minimum price urgently before thousands more lives are affected’.

While the North West is below the national average for the amount of alcohol consumed in general, it has the second highest number of ‘binge’ drinkers. The GMHC estimates that most of this occurs in Greater Manchester. Furthermore doctors in the region sign the highest number of prescriptions for alcohol dependency in the country, and the NHS bill for alcohol-related illness in the region stands at £400 million a year.

The consequences of alcohol misuse cast a long shadow over the UK. The BMA estimates that the combined loss to the national economy in terms of costs to the NHS, criminal justice services and effects on productivity stand at around £55 billion.

Nevertheless the proposal has been attacked for its potential social implications. One of these is voiced by Alex Deane of Big Brother Watch, who criticises the plan as financially regressive:

‘Not only is the principle wrong, but these schemes always fail in practice too: “Sin taxes” don’t stop people doing what you want to stop them doing: they just pay more, thus disproportionately harming the budgets of poor people”.

Another cogent criticism is that the plan for minimum alcohol pricing symbolises a modern form of social engineering. A parliamentary health report from 2009 which looked at alcohol indicated that the poorer in society are the most afflicted by liver disease; despite drinking less on average than those in higher income groups, the ‘unskilled’ socio-economic band has double the rate of alcohol-related mortality of that of the ‘higher’ social strata. The proposal seen in this light would therefore signify an attempt to alter and influence the behaviour and habits of certain socio-economic classes.

In light of the manifest public health problem, those in favour of progressive education and information state that authorities appear more keen on using punitive market mechanisms and disincentives rather than addressing root causes of alcohol abuse. How the proposals will be met by the public in the city remains to be seen.

The report will be submitted to the AGMA Executive Board for its consideration at its meeting on 29 October.

James Legge

Just minutes from the metal barriers of the Manchester Pride march, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer (LBGT/Q) activists will be offering a free and radical alternative this weekend writes Sian Bradley.

Reclaim the Scene’s (Out of the) Village Fête – with free food, live music and speakers – is being organised against a backdrop of increasing commercialisation and de-politicisation of Pride marches. The organisers aim to reinvigorate the politics of Pride, creating an inclusive event, catering for everyone regardless of gender, physical ability, age, orientation and most importantly the size of their pay-packet.

Since Manchester’s first Mardi Gras in 1990, the city’s August bank holiday Pride events have always had charity fund-raising at their heart. The annual celebrations raised impressive amounts of cash for HIV/AIDS and LGBT groups while remaining free for over a decade. But as Pride celebrates its 20th anniversary this year, many are now left excluded by closed-off streets, ticketed entry and high prices.

“Manchester Pride excludes lots of LGBT people who simply cannot afford to go.” says Jennie O’Hara of Reclaim the Scene. “In effect, it makes some people too poor to be gay.”

Lacking Charity

The introduction of an entry fee in 1999 coincided with the only year the event raised zero money for charity, leaving some groups in financial turmoil. While Pride’s fundraising credentials have improved there are still concerns over how the wristband money is spent.

In 2007 only 12% of Pride’s proceeds went to charity with some calling into question its charitable status. A large proportion of what is raised is used to pay for the event itself, and according to g7uk.com’s Manchester Pride Investigation, the figures released by Pride are consistently unclear.

Further more the amounts raised by Pride pale in comparison to the benefit to businesses who made £17,000,000 even in recession-hit 2009, in comparison just £135,000 went to good causes.

Less than 1% of 2007’s charity money went to organisations other than the Lesbian and Gay Foundation and the George House Trust. Similar figures for other years have meant that smaller, community-based organisations are continually left out. Indeed, even as far back as 1999, a spokesperson for campaigning group OutRage! said: “[Most] of the weekend was largely directed at young drinkers and clubbers… So nowhere did we actually see the whole LGBT community out in all its diversity.”

Critics of this creeping commercialisation are not confined to the margins. Distaste was voiced at the top in 2008 when Village Business Association Chair Phil Burke resigned, saying that the event had “betrayed its roots” and was “just about making money”.

High Costs

A prime example of this pattern of putting profit before people is seen in the £50 charge to groups wishing to partake in the parade. This entry fee hits small groups hardest. Jennie O’Hara believes this reveals a lack of inclusivity in stark opposition to the movement’s founding principles, she told MULE “Pride has very little politics and almost nothing for children”.

Reclaim the Scenes event aims to combat this exclusivity. Organisers hope the event will embody three main aims: that pride events should be free; that pride and the ’scene’ should be accessible, inclusive and welcoming to all LGBT/Q people; and that rights need to be at the top of the agenda.

The day is set to include entertainment on stage, political and craft stalls, as well as activities for children such as games, workshops and face-painting. The location for the event – the former UMIST campus on Sackville Street which cuts through the ‘Village’ – was chosen so that both those with and without wristbands are free to attend.

History of Dissent

Reclaim the Scene is not the first group to pose a challenge to Manchester Pride. In 2007, Get Bent put on a series of alternative pride events. Organised on a shoestring budget, it featured debates, poetry nights, films and club nights. Yet such opposition has not always been well-received: in 2008, when Queer Youth Network marched in the main Pride parade carrying “Pride not Profit” placards, organisers attempted to remove them but were resisted by the protesters.

This year the theme of the Pride parade is “through the decades”. While the official website asks attendees to dust off their mullets while remembering LGBT heritage, activists fear that the focus on the past victories and struggles distracts us from the fact that the battle is not yet won. Pride marches have the potential to be celebrations that unify LBGT and queer people in all their diversity, as well as a powerful statement of strength and protest. To ignore this potential is a big mistake: for cutting the community in half will only serve to cripple its strength to drive change.

Sian Bradley

The walls are talking...

The first works displayed quite fittingly play with the idea of home and domesticity.  Hayley Tomkins’ ‘Cry Baby’ sees walls covered in repetitive screwed up baby faces on a pastel background, while Kelly Mark’s ‘12345 Wallpaper’ is a hand drawn dash tally which draws comparisons between the tedium of home life and prison.  Both pieces convey feelings of suffocation and distress: a rarely represented side of routine and domesticity.  The choice of mundane images on what is usually a comforting medium make the uneasy piece more confusing.

Some of the artists play with motifs and ideas from historical wallpapers.  Francesco Simeti for example uses old fashioned ornate wallpapers as a backdrop on which to superimpose images taken from newspapers, a kind of subversion of the original form.  In ‘Acorn’, images of menacing figures in bio-hazard suits clearing toxic waste are combined with a beautiful landscape: this contrast of the idyllic with the apocalyptic conveys a discomfiting message about our relationship with the environment and nuclear science.  Such juxtapositions bring issues often thought of as outside the home into the realm of wallpaper.

On display are also many commercial prints which probe accepted societal gender norms and roles.  A key example is seen in children’s Barbie and Batman wallpapers side by side; these bring home quite how powerful wallpaper can be, in this case by subconsciously reinforcing gender stereotypes.  Moreover, using prints so familiar in a different context helps illustrate the medium’s insidious power as well shredding the assumption of wallpaper as a benign backdrop; for in terms of dominating the space in and time of a child’s room it is pervasive.

Francesco Simeti's 'Acorn'

The choice of form of display is another nuanced factor of the presentation which attracts comment. Thomas Demand’s Ivy wallpaper is pasted over an entire high-ceilinged room, creating a hallucinatory effect of the creepers rippling and crawling up the walls as the viewer walks backwards; while other prints are hung up on the roll or cover just a small canvas.  Obvious logistical limitations make it impossible to display such an extensive array otherwise, however the result is that for many the full effect is lost. Even General Idea’s ‘AIDS’ is not as impressive as in previous exhibitions. The print, created in the early 1990s, is a subversion of Robert Indiana’s famous 1960s ‘Love’ screenprint which replaces the letters to spell AIDS; but occupying a mere section of the wallspace at the Whitworth its impression is far less striking.

Overall the volume of works and the significance of their social commentary outweigh the minimal space that some are afforded. Despite the depth of works not always being instantly apparent, the collection is a thought-provoking and challenging one.

Nasreen Hunaina

The Walls are Talking is on until the end of August

A year on and still nobody is brought to justice

Tomlinson, a newspaper seller, was struck from behind by a policeman while he was making his way home during last April’s G20 protests.  The decision not to prosecute was taken despite police watchdog the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) backing a prosecution for manslaughter and advice to the CPS from the pathologist who carried out the second post-mortem that the evidence supported a charge of actual bodily harm.

Tom, a demonstrator from Manchester, witnessed Tomlinson moments before he died.

“I gave evidence to the IPCC enquiry and stupidly believed them when they said no one could get away with this, especially when they had been caught on video.

“My reaction [to the decision not to prosecute] was one of absolute incandescent anger. I had been lied to.”

Testimonies from individuals who attended the demonstrations indicate that the aggression shown towards Tomlinson was not an isolated incident.

One Manchester resident who did not wish to be named said: “The police were antagonistic the entire time. They were so charged up – almost as though they wanted to clash with protesters – so in a way it is a surprise that nobody else was killed. I can’t believe that nobody is going to face justice after an innocent man – who wasn’t even involved in the protests – was murdered. It is an outrage”.

Joanna Gilmore, assistant lecturer in Law at the University Of Manchester, was present at the G20 protests in the capacity of legal observer. She warned that the affair has wider ramifications for the policing of protests.

“The CPS decision was disgraceful yet unfortunately unsurprising. No police officer has ever been charged following the death of a protester or suspect in custody at the hands of the police.

She added, “What was expected to make a difference here was the fact that the whole incident was caught on camera, however no prosecutions were brought. The police are therefore effectively immune from the law in public order situations.”

The continuation of that historical trend has been lambasted by campaigners who accuse the institutions of a cover-up. Previous high-profile cases which went unprosecuted were the death of anti-fascist protester Blair Peach in 1979 and the more recent killing of Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005, following which a series of orchestrated lies were released by the Met regarding the incident and the victim’s personal circumstances.

Other aspects of police conduct in protests are now the targets of scrutiny. The use of “kettling” by the police, where protesters are physically prevented by police from leaving a restricted geographical area and, in some cases detained for hours on end, has been highlighted as a tactic of political policing.

While the police claim that the tactic neutralises public disorder, some protesters argue that it is used intentionally to prevent genuine expression and demoralise. Tom’s experience reveals such intimidation:  “When you are surrounded and attacked repeatedly for up to 8 hours by a cordon of very large heavily armed men it is not just the physical injuries but the sheer stress of the situation, combined with heat exhaustion, dehydration, the need for the toilet and the lack of food that can be utterly crippling.

“It is an awful way to treat other humans.”

And a direct link can be drawn between the use of kettling and the perpetration of violence against protesters such as the death of Ian Tomlinson, as argued by Gilmore.

“The problem was not simply that people were deprived of their liberty without justification, but that the police used this opportunity of control to subject protesters to periodic and indiscriminate baton charges.

“The problem, therefore, did not lie in the hands of a few ‘rogue officers’ as the Tomlinson coverage would suggest, but was instead a coordinated attack by the police on anyone who happened to be in the area at the time.”

Critics remain unconvinced of kettling’s legality and say that it conflicts with provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights. A case is now awaiting appeal at the European Court of which could signal the end of the use of kettling, if Strasbourg deems that it is an unlawful restriction on the right to liberty.

The impression the episode made on some will not fade away any time soon. While the police may hope that the public memory is short, faith in the supposed independence of public institutions has taken a heavy battering and those from Manchester will not be quick to forget what they witnessed. In the words of Tom: “It was the most appalling thing I have ever seen. Anyone who watches The Bill and believes it really needs to wake up; [the police] are not accountable to anyone but themselves”.

James Cassidy

Farhand Zahra Vahidi

On June 30, the Vahidi family received a letter from the Home Office declaring that unless they chose to return to Iran themselves arrangements would be made to remove them. Two weeks later officials from the Home Office told the family that they would be removed by July 30. The family were informed that officials would arrive at 6:30am to take them to the airport, with only half an hour permitted for packing their belongings if they were not yet ready.

The initial removal date was cancelled following a statement to the Home Office from Mrs Vahidi’s brother, who on returning to Iran in January this year was arrested and interrogated about the whereabouts of Mr Vahidi.  According to supporters Mr Vahidi was forced to flee Iran in 2007, following unknowing involvement in the leaking of sensitive information connected to his workplace. Despite this initial reprieve the family has since been issued with new removal instructions for Friday August 20 under the same conditions.

Farhad worries that his life could be in danger due to his and his brother’s attendance of a protest against the Iranian government last year outside the BBC building. Supporters say this, along with his father’s fugitive status in Iran, means the family will be under threat of persecution and even death upon returning to Iran.

“We are afraid of returning to Iran”, said Farhad, “If we went back, we would be arrested or tortured or worse. Iran is a battlefield; innocent people are being arrested all the time. Here in the UK, all my friends use Facebook but anyone who uses Facebook in Iran is risking arrest.

“People involved in protests against the Government have been denied access to lawyers. When my father approached a lawyer in Iran to ask if he would represent us if we were deported, he refused saying that he could not take our case because my father is a fugitive from the Government”.

The developments have been met with dismay by refugee rights groups and campaigners. A spokesperson for Manchester-based organisation Refugee and Asylum Seekers Action and Participatory Research (RAPAR) warned “the procedure for removing the family implies they are part of the north west [deportation] pilot scheme”.

The apparent targeting of the family under the scheme highlights a contentious area of new immigration policy brought to public attention in recent weeks.

In a leaked briefing paper drawn up on 27 June by Nicola Rea, head of Refugee and Migration Services at Manchester City Council, a scheme being piloted in the north-west and London proposes to give families denied asylum two weeks to leave the country voluntarily before being served with ‘removal directions’ by the UK Border Agency (UKBA).  The document was intended as a briefing to fellow members of the consortium of local authorities in the north-west carrying out the trial on behalf of the UKBA.

According to the document, migrant families are subsequently to be informed that they will be forcibly removed within two weeks, after which “the family are removed from the property and taken to the airport to board the plane”.

The brief outlines issues which the pilot could pose for public services including the police, healthcare providers and schools. Hard-line solutions to potential public backlash should families “try and build up a form of community protest” are anticipated in the document in the form of advice to agencies involved in the deportation: “The alternative is to not inform the family of the exact time and date of removal, so that they are not prepared.”

The scheme, which apparently fast-tracks the deportation of families, is – according to Rea’s briefing – being piloted under the government review on finding an alternative to child detention.  Part of the coalition agreement contained a provision for the immediate end to the detention of children and recently Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg condemned the practice as a “moral outrage” before the House of Commons.

RAPAR are asking the Home Office to put on hold the removal instructions until the fresh evidence in support of their case has been looked at.

They have also made urgent representations to the family’s MP Sir Gerald Kaufman as well as launching a petition as part of an appeal run by family friends asking the Home Secretary to allow them to stay.

The campaigners say that RBS should not be subsidising oil companies and gas firms which act to the detriment of the environment. The company is 84% government owned and largely funded by taxpayers money, which critics say should not spent on funding environmental destruction with the threat of climate change looming.

Activist groups from Manchester including Stop The Expansion of Manchester Airport and Manchester Climate Action will be present north of the border and the camp expects to reach over 1000 members over the coming week.

Speaking to MULE, Manchester-based climate activist Dave Cullen who is attending the camp, said: “it’s really important that climate camp this year is looking not just at the immediate corporate criminals who are causing climate change, but the network empowering them like financial institutions that are driving so much of this catastrophic industry.”

A spokesperson from No Borders told MULE: “[We're] transcending the borders of genre to unite all those with an interest in activism, music, cake and radical literature – with four amazing punk bands, a poet, and a man who sold his soul as five lane ends – Captain Hotknives! As well as that, there will be Vegan Cake, Zapatista Coffee plus Radical books and zine distro”.

The night will open with musical poetry duo Thick Richard and will also feature performances from Autonomads, ICH, 2 Sick Monkeys and Dead Subverts.

No Borders is a theory and action group set up to demonstrate against migration controls. They believe that the harsh conditions faced by migrants and refugees  are the result of government and private companies’ agenda of maximising profits, while there is little regard to thousands of lives affected around the world by stringent migration controls.

Find out more about Manchester No Borders here: http://nobordersmanchester.blogspot.com/

Manchester City Council chief executive Howard Bernstein

Leech argues that instead the money should go towards benefiting locals affected by the polling fiasco that left over 200 residents of Fallowfield unable to vote in his constituency back in May’s general election.

Troubles arose when contingency measures to deal with the increased turnout in the final hours of election night were not followed by polling station staff or station inspectors. The measures were designed to ensure that extra staff would be sent to polling stations where queues had formed, but as more voters turned up without polling cards the decision was made to turn people away in order to meet the 10pm deadline.  Some voters had queued for over 2 hours in order to cast their vote in time.

A spokesperson for the returning officer for Manchester said at the time that “the law states that the doors to polling stations must be closed at 10pm exactly, and no-one may be issued with a ballot paper after 10pm”.

However, it was later revealed in a report by the Electoral Commission that a number of issues including IT system failure and staffing problems led to an inability to sufficiently handle the high voter turnout. The report states that there was “evidence of poor planning assumptions in some areas” and “use of unsuitable buildings”.

It was reported in June that Bernstein would not accept his £19,250 bonus as a result of the shambolic running of the polls. However he later offered to donate £4,000 of his fee to the Lord Mayor’s charity, which provides holidays for families affected by poverty in Manchester.

John Leech has argued that this is not sufficient compensation, declaring: “all those affected by the polling fiasco were of course living in the area surrounding the polling stations; therefore I firmly believe this £4,000 should go towards the local community, so those who were unable to vote can benefit from an investment into their local area and hence feel compensated in some way”.

Sir Howard Bernstein receives an annual salary of £199,000 as chief Executive of Manchester City Council, but has decided to keep £16,000 of his bonus despite the problems. In Sheffield, City Council Boss John Mothersole declined his £20,000 returning officer fee after admitting that his council had “got things wrong”. Leech meanwhile has proposed that Bernstein should “follow suit”.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights campaign group Liberty, appealed to Withington voters in May to mount group action against the City Council on the grounds of civil rights, declaring: “Shameful scenes of hundreds of voters turned away from polling stations are unworthy of a mature democracy like ours”.

The Electoral Commission has proposed that legislation should be amended to allow voters present in the queue at the time of closing to cast their votes. David Monks, leader of Britain’s returning officers, lambasted the rules for the voting system as an “immensely Victorian system that’s way past its sell by date”.

A Withington resident who didn’t wish to give their name shared their thoughts with MULE: “It is disgusting that a man who already earns so much money in the public service should profit from this. People were denied their democratic right and the buck should stop at the top. If this were in central government there would be calls for his resignation, never mind not merely accepting a bonus.”

Joe Beech