Frankfurt's Forgotten Riots

“Look at you, stood protecting your blood money! You’re no better than politicians. You’re bribed by the money that is making your nation weak and is stealing from us every day and you don’t even realise it!”

Over the past two years, the Arab Spring has seen revolutions and demonstrations sweep Northern Africa in a hot fury that has both shocked and been viewed in awe within Europe. Corruption, economic hardship, and threat of wars all contributed to the radical movements that have unseated governments and autocrats alike.

This fire seems to have sparked a new European movement in itself, and this was certainly ablaze in Frankfurt last weekend. Whilst Turkish riots in the corner of Europe spread across the news as the most interesting and harrowing examples of recent protest in the Western world, the demonstrations at the Economic Central Bank of Europe went seemingly unreported in comparison.

There is no doubt that there is an economic boss in Europe, and she wears the name Angela Merkel. Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe, has earned her place to dictate economic measures across the Eurozone, providing the backbone of the European economy. But disruption and distrust of the system sow seeds of further weakening across Europe.

Riots in Greece and Turkey are no mere trifle. The countries face growing rates of unemployment, restricted economic growth and limited financial trades. The former is set to accept a set of stringent measures by which it is to be provided with a bail out that by no means appeases the nation, who are baying for European blood amidst the onset of a further downturn.

However, when the Germans themselves come to contest the Euro, the writing really is on the proverbial wall. Here, where Berlin is seen as a symbol of democracy, the population is not likely to sit and be ignored regarding the running of their country a second time. Whether a wall is physical or fiscal, the outpouring of resentment from within the European banking capital in Frankfurt is concerning.

The force of the German police certainly took the threat seriously, regardless of the world opinion. Shutting the main financial district and sending in excess of 70 police vans to line the boulevard, forces were armed in full riot gear, lining the streets with barbed wire, and sending water cannons in to assist on the ground, helicopters to monitor from the air.

European economy is not just centred on Germany, it arguably thrives from Germany. While there have been numerous capitalist crises in the past, the gravitas of the current financial situation has still to show its boundaries. This permanent state of crisis has now come to disillusion new generations of activists and unemployed as the central countries of Europe and the US see credit ratings slash and further recession despite never ending political will to slow the rate of cuts and boost markets.

The austerity measures proposed by the so-called troika, consisting of the ECB, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Commission have not reduced the national debts of the European countries. An increase of taxes and cuts of governmental social programs they promote have actually worsened the situation, deepening recession and increasing unemployment in the EU dramatically.

Since protests are now igniting not as isolated European events, but increasing in frequency and local, it shows that there are deep roots to these problems. The ‘fad’ of Occupy London is called to mind. At once, the threat doesn’t seem so unique: removed from isolation, the plight of all those that were at once both strong and desperate enough to ‘siege’ the London banking district for weeks in search of resolve is both revered in new merit and feared in equal measure.

In previous years, riots have all too often appeared incoherent and inchoate. With all but limited aims and reasons, most of these disruptions have garnered little support. But the controversy begun with ‘Occupy’ continues to threaten in new forms. The controversial 2011 riots in the UK may have started as a peaceful protest against a shooting, but an abhorrent mix of social problems ignited the violence that followed.

Sweden now faces nights of unlawful action, as the unemployed take to the street to violently protest at the state of the economy in their nation. Despite being amongst the richest nations in the EU, there has been a significant increase in the level of youth unemployment here, as with many other parts of Europe. As with the London riots, the trigger seems to have been a police shooting that has opened the floodgates of national resentment. Once topping OECD rankings for low poverty, the country is now slipping further and further down the table, with Europeans crying out for change.

Of course, things could be worse. Sweden has the EU’s lowest percentage of low-wage earners. The honour of largest low wage earners goes to Germany, with 22.2% of employers receiving minimum wage. This is possibly part of the reason for the massive outburst in Frankfurt.

There appears large discrepancy between the image of Germany, the European Powerhouse, and the economic wellbeing of its residents. Looking in, the country surely has fared better than most in the recession. But the cracks are self-evident. Low wages coupled with increasing inflation and continued bailouts, funded by the German public en masse if protesters would be believed, seriously weakens the economic standing of the EU giant and its residents.

Austerity measures on EU citizens are just scratching the surface of the potential violence of the masses. When the 99% drive the economy itself, their voices can certainly impact the future of fiscal measures, but would 99% control solve any problems in itself? Probably not, and the face of uncertainty only makes us worry and riot all the more.

That Budget is Crackers, Gromit!

Following the (unsurprising) budget announcements last Wednesday, there has been a great deal of debate as to whether it is a budget for the millions or for the millionaires, the effect of the supposed ‘granny-tax’ and heated divisions regarding the 50p tax rate.

However, there has been little talk of what the budget may mean for students and the younger generations, whose job prospects are bleak and whose applications are riddled with the ‘experience vs qualifications’ conundrum that blights so many in the 16-25 age bracket.

Indeed, the budget announcements appear to do little in the way of helping these frequently marginalised groups of society. So often do people talk of clichés that the young are the decision makers of tomorrow, and yet this truth does very little in our favour. In fact, the budget just serves to make us all the more cynical.

With the increase in the price of alcohol and cigarettes, no longer are the old havens of retreat safe: rather the stress-relief of students nationwide is in jeopardy of becoming another ill-affordable luxury. Alright, it may ensure a few less damaged livers and a couple of higher-capacity lungs, but these items symbolise a retreat from the embittered adult world that students sooner or later have to enter. So it stands to reason that many young adults may opt to still purchase the alcohol at the expense of proper foodstuffs. In an increasingly saturated graduate market, forgetting the misery of an ever more ‘worthless’ degree, spiralling debts and fewer job prospects is only facilitated by the odd pint or seven.

Besides, students will be all the more inclined to stay inebriated with the introduction of the pasty tax: no more sobering cheap foods to end the night out. That questionable imported meat, at questionable prices, that smells so aromatic at 3am will no longer linger around dorms the next day. Perhaps the next move would be to add extra taxes to beans and bread so as to capitalise off the staple beans on toast?

If sobriety sticks, the lonely nights in deliver the promise of, well, Wallace and Gromit, which is ever so entertaining and pivotal in the lives of 16-25 year olds. That’s smashing, Osborne (or crackers. Pick one).

However, rentals of everyone’s fave pooch inventor and his gullible owner may be all the pockets will stretch to with the freeze of minimum wage for 18-20 year olds. Of course, this decision follows the logic that with a stopper on increasing wages, more jobs will be created for the young people. Newsflash: The UK is back in recession. Scrap that last.

So dust off the old bottles of Jack for some measly measures that will hopefully make cartoon capers all the more appealing. Resounding cheers from the ‘enfranchised’ under-25s everywhere.

That is cheers from the under 25s when London is vandalised once again. Essentially, amidst the squashed bottom and the squeezed middle, there is the forgotten generation and this budget does little to help any of these groups. This is all the more concerning this week because inquests have ruled  overlooked families and youths as one of the key contributors to last year’s UK riots. And following this, some Westminster MPs decided that all of the above tax changes were a proper course of action. With growth in reverse and prospects for youths few, it’s no wonder this government is thought of as backwards.

At least we’re of a generation that deems the stamp irrelevant…

Work out the tax changes to your life here.

My Tram Experience: Racism vs the people

The appalling and shocking views of the woman on the Croydon tramlink have led to controversy over the past week.

The viral video received thousands of hits after being uploaded and rose to prevalence through the trending and sharing of social network users. In a whirlwind domino effect, widespread news outlet took a hold of the piece, broadcast the video, slammed the mother and police were informed.

Now, 34 year old Emma West, whose views about immigrants were extremely racist to say the least, is in police custody and awaiting a trial for her foul and abusive language used to attack other innocent passengers on the rush hour London tram service.

West has been remanded in custody until Tuesday December 6^th, but her comments are much more the subject of debate than the sentencing.

The difficulty of the hearing hangs on the crux of freedom of speech. Whilst I by no means condone the harsh opinions of Ms West (following my own viewing of the video, I sat in a stunned silence for some time), her words are surely safeguarded under human rights acts. Freedom of speech and of opinion are constitutional requirements in this country and it in order to maintain such standards, it would appear the case should be laughed out of court.

And here, the phrase is quite hurtful. Because why should such a case be laughed out of court? In moves to avoid dictatorship, it would be in the interest of all peoples to be able to speak freely without consequence.

However, no law goes untested and restrictions need ensure that freedom is managed and controlled: otherwise, we would all be at liberty to abuse other members of society: and such fragmenting is all too reminiscent of the August riots across the country.

Indeed, Ms West’s misunderstanding and lack of prowess regarding those of foreign origins is probably much more widespread than we would care to admit and the views of racial superiority that were once commonplace are certainly subsurface factors in tensions between different groups.

Of course, there comes a point where such tensions boil over and not only were Ms West’s allegations proof of this, but the fellow passenger who was quickly aggravated by her onslaught adds to our comprehension of the problem. Thankfully, another commuter calmed the retaliator with some speed: for otherwise, the focus of the video may have been overshadowed by a supposedly unprovoked violent attack.

Balancing public protection and freedom of speech comes with a fine line. However, due to the incompatibility of the two, it is common that free speech come first, lest further action and civil unrest take place.

Yet this only leaves malcontent to breed. Won’t somebody please think of the children? One of the more distressing aspects of the video for myself was watching the toddler sat on Ms West’s knees, apparently oblivious to the shouting mother. Either oblivious, or numb to its consistency as a feature in his life. Hopefully, the child is being placed with other family members in order to ensure a much more rounded and happier youth – the difficulties in impoverished London boroughs are known all too well by any city residents.

However, what next for Ms West? Rehabilitation of sorts? Counselling? Social service intervention? Whatever a judge determines is satisfactory course of action to educate the woman of a proper sense of community… even if that is just to keep xenophobic comments to oneself on the public tram.

Nonetheless, this uncomfortable experience is the most daily and frequent occurrence of casual racism. For ‘unlucky’ Emma West, one fast-thinking commuter recorder her, thousands of other people brand and scorn without a comeuppance.

More, do we judge without knowing the facts? Had Ms West had an unfortunate incident with some person of foreign origins herself? Was she drunk or drugged? Is she recently bereaved? Or was it simply a bad day?

Our understanding of such people is key for social unity. Otherwise, we risk widespread riots on repeat. Of all the reasons suggested for the summer riots, this is but one of a never ending list of possibilities. 

I (Do Not) Agree With Nick: The Latest Economy Stance.

Amidst continuing financial woes, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg stated earlier today that the government will not change course on spending cuts.

Of course, the long mocked slogan ‘I agree with Nick’ from the previous electoral campaign rings ever more true, as the Lib Dem defence of the cuts outlines how far they have backed from original party politics in order to hang on to the coattails of power.

Despite declaring that his party would stand up for themselves more openly in May, Clegg has reiterated that the cuts will continue as projected, amongst growing concerns of a double dip recession.

Following moves from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) earlier this week, there are rumours that £5bn could be released to deal with boosting economy infrastructure. Within the past few days, the IMF cut its growth forecast for the British economy not only for 2011 but subsequently for 2012 too, despite the prospect of being the Olympic host. In addition, the organisation said the government should delay its deficit reduction programme if growth slowed further, or risk loss of consumer confidence and a deeper recession.

Ministers pushing for such a move believe it would not be seen as a U-turn as the money would be capital spending, on infrastructure projects like roads, rail and broadband, rather than current spending.

However, Nick Clegg insists that the ruling coalition is not about to alter the course of its plans over any of the concerns. It is thought that such a move would again raise eyebrows and threaten already stalling growth figures.

Of course, this is not likely to help Clegg’s tumbling popularity figures, which in turn could lead to a situation by which the nation would want to ratify a different route of recovery.

In the wake of the widespread riots that overran various UK cities last month, there was a perceived understanding that the government would alter several of its policies in response to such an unpredicted outcry of sentiment. Whilst various reasons have been attributed to the sudden unleashing of fervour, one of the most resounding put forward is that many people believe that they have little money and little leisure time and space, whilst a capitalist economy boasts the many luxuries that are outside swaths of Britons’ pockets.

Remembering a time when election politics foretold a riot if Tory cuts were implemented, it seems as if Clegg has not fully appreciated the wisdom of his own words.

Yet in spite of such scenes, Clegg presents the recovery as it stands as “the right thing, not the easy thing”.

It appears that it is a game of nerve and cheek. Reflecting on the economy as ‘a game’ firstly is not going to install any confidence. But it would seem that here lies the government’s wish that the city hold firm in the face of probing questions and concerns over the state of finances in Italy and Greece.

The aim is to continue with the outlined plans so as to “build a new economy. An economy for the whole nation.”

However, Clegg’s bravado does not muster the same feeling of unity that it did in May 2010. Such idealistic views are no longer heeded with the same anticipation and there remains a great unease that this latest government has made little headway into resolving the deficit crisis over its 16 months in Westminster.

Cries of ‘I agree with Nick’ are now few and far between.

To Punish or Not to Punish.

Certain incredulity is surely abound amongst the British population tonight as MPs argue back and forth over the level of punishment suitable for the rioters that ruled several important cities across the country last week.

Coming to terms with the extent of last week’s devastating loots, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, last week publically pledged that all those found to have been involved in the illicit actions would be met with the full force of the law: a sentiment that was supported by the vast majority of the nation. Mr Cameron added “If these people are old enough to commit the crime, they are old enough to face the punishment.”

However, as it emerged that some of the participants were as young as eight years old, there begs the question of the age of criminal responsibility. Moreover, this issue is one clearly within the public spotlight and mind frame. Unlike the daily sessions in court, specific interest has caused a commotion and tense atmosphere under which jurors are expected to pass harsher sentences than normal.

Of course, these are no normal conditions. Law should be considered as a measurable tool for each individual and not haphazardly applied in blanket fashion across all those who are not law abiding citizens.

Yet it is somewhat disparaging and deeply concerning when people are faced with this comparison: 18 year old, David Atto, pleaded guilty to the theft of two Burberry T-shirts. With no previous convictions against his name and an honest plea, he was sentenced to a day in custody. Meanwhile, Nicolas Robinson, 23, of Borough, south-east London, was jailed for six months for burglary. Of course, whilst the nature of the offense is similar to that above, Robinson took a £3.50 bottle of water from a Lidl Supermarket. The difference is astounding to say the least.

Some judges cite the difference of the level of crime as meriting the change in sentence strength. The natural response is an onslaught of appeals to what many feel constitute a miscarriage of justice. 

However, if the perpetrators were so moved to action in a frenzy trusting that they would only receive trivial punishment, then the system need not cave on the level of severity introduced thus far.

Now that more than 1,000 people have been sentenced in association with the disturbances, the murmurs of discontent on both sides are spreading. As changeable and extreme as the punishments first appear, ex-Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell has urged MPs not to pass comment. Any attempt by MPs to influence judges' decisions was "not consistent with the rule of law", he told the BBC. In a radio interview, he elaborated by explaining, “What I don't think is right is that politicians should have a league table in which they approve of some sentences and disapprove of others. It's none of our business.”

Unprecedented opinions however are sure to spill over and whilst Sir Campbell’s comments make sense so as not undermine any law system, these, the most powerful men and women in the country, are looked toward first and foremost from a populous so dumbfounded.

Technological twists only further tangle the trials and thought on relevant sentence. With many now being brought to court for Facebook and Twitter comments as inciting violence, there is a difficulty with how to justify any extended action if the person was not directly involved or foolishly made a passing jibe. In almost a sci-fi fashion, we could be advocating courts to follow through on pre-crime solutions. 

Level of justice and level of crime. Scales that constantly need be measured to ensure a smoothly running country have here seemed to see-saw back and forth. But as a public we must remember, we are no more qualified to say what is suitable punishment than the MPs. Politicians make law; police and courts enforce and implement law.

Britain Burning: Cause and Consequence

With a certain apprehension, I write from just outside Manchester City Centre as the riots that have spread widely across the country are mounting for a fourth night of action: today, the first in which my city has been involved.

London and the rest of the UK are now under siege from within. Personal vendettas and localised looting is dominating cities nationwide with subsequent apparent anarchy. What began as an isolated incident in a London suburb on Saturday night (6/08/2011), has quickly and ferociously developed into the most diabolical scenes of rioting witnessed in this country in some decades. 

Trouble in Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Liverpool has been labelled ‘copycat’ behaviour, following the unparalleled waves of violence seen in London boroughs. The catalyst for this widespread outpouring of feeling was the shooting of one Mark Duggan. Whether one describes the actions as disaffected or a fuelled release of pent up frustration, there can be no apologies for the violence which has been directed at innocent members of the public, small business owners, and other people doing their daily business who now are incapacitated in some form.

Peaceful protests provide persons with an ample forum in which to highlight and showcase their grief and issues with public administrations. In general, they help in not only quelling dramatic attacks, but reflect nationwide sentiments that can be taken into account. Therefore, the march in Tottenham on Saturday afternoon was an event with justified merit that was later tarnished by mere opportunists and vandals. 

However, we need closer analyse underlying unrest that has plagued both the capital and certain national suburbs over the immediate period prior to these disasters. In Tottenham, the original focus of the violence, residents were becoming increasingly begrudging of police stop and search actions that are reported to have been widely unjustified and yielded few results for public safety. With the mounting power abuse that the police actioned in the surrounding areas, there became a unilateral belief that the scaremongering tactics were introduced to reduce crime and yet had intruded on lives to such an extent that police were subject of ridicule.

Of course, continual mistreatment and suspicion of youths in the past has led to a mounting air of mistrust that has featured predominantly as the violence has spread. In blaming a great deal of social problems as rising solely from those of young adult status, the support of those under-25 is understandable, even if not condonable. 

Moreover, Tottenham is an area that suffers rife unemployment. Together with later targeted Lewisham and Peckham (which were featured in a recent newspaper editorial as amongst the top 25 areas in the country for people out of work), onlookers are able to establish that the dissatisfaction is also fed off both lack of job prospects and the subsequent idle and sedentary lifestyle that comes hand in hand. Sparking of other social injustice only provided a platform for this plethora of misfortunes to manifest in physical outbursts.

In addition, spending and budget cuts amidst global recession, Eurozone crises and worldwide credit down-gradings only adds to the country’s financial woes. The widespread effects are that as well as unemployment, local facilities and amenities shut down so there are further disruptions and lack of distractions in daily life. Ironically, for all the attacks, no one has launched a mounted assault on big businesses at Canary Wharf. 

More to the point, the number of destroyed independent businesses is completely inexcusable: almost as if vengeance for those few in the area who were struggling with small enterprise pressures already. Two teenage girls speaking to a BBC reporter this morning said that “This is to show the rich that we can do what we want.” However, there appears no distinction between the rich and those who have private, small businesses that do not make the mega-buck revenue of which the girls naively spoke. 

Reverse dichotomy: this is certainly not the image of the Big Society that Cameron had in mind.

Although the public are being heard, this is no way to reverse any standing belief of disenfranchisement: but rather provides reason that tighter measures need be in force to govern the public. 

Army drafting, water cannons, tear gas, Tasers. Over the past 72 hours, there has been a great deal of social debate as to how the country’s management should proceed in order to restore order and maintain livelihoods for the majority. Options are many and certainly diverse.

However, it is not so much dealing with the immediate onslaught as the subsequent aftermath. Perhaps one of the poignant comments after pictures from London fires have been circulated was that “it looks as though London has been bombed, in a war”. Irrevocable damage has been incurred and the mounting costs are certainly a serious issue and concern for all involved. 

Already a country dealing with daily money misery, the cost of the cleanup will cause national taxes to be increased. The unprecedented need for extra dependence on the emergency services will rise the amount of money needed to be paid to the state. Stockbrokers will invest less as millions is wiped off those businesses who are unable to deal with the continued clashes, whilst insurance prices will rise in supposedly troubled cities, such as those aforementioned.

In an already struggling economy, the sense of any such riots is lost (if, for that matter, it existed in the first place). Despite this entry having acceded money issues as facilitating events while they were first brought before the public, there is only a continual problem in our nationals thus wasting their own money in the long run: ergo constructing a continuum of debt generation.

Taking a different slant, government officials convening emergency Cobra meetings and recalling parliament will for a long time yet have an image of an unruly mob in their mind when putting forward any changes to country legislation. While some may argue that it is government action which has caused unrest, these scenes have only served to further widen the divide in trust between those in Westminster and their citizens: tougher rule would appear a more democratic action in the interests of the majority.

Information released just today details that the bullet found wedged into a police officer’s radio, at the scene where Duggan was shot on Thursday, was in fact police issue. The most recent statement at this time is that there is no evidence of the victim having shot at the met. Since violence had pre-empted such a finding, there is no sense how this may yet effect the public feel towards the riots. Yet, this is also a crucial piece of information regarding how police will be viewed within their constituencies: little trust being honoured with unjustified action.

But more than these monetary and bureau escapades, the real consequence will be a loss of public sentiment and compassion, especially toward youths (as earlier mentioned, blanket punished). Living with the shells of buildings and lost businesses haunting high streets across the country will always conjur images of a week where citizens, in “a moment of madness” according to lawyers convening in courts today, simply took to wanton destruction to prove a public power without direction or motive. 

What began as a moving and socially meaningful demonstration, now a marred public effigy to anarchy.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-incident-map

The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility.
Martin Luther King, Jr.