When the UK dared Scotland.

Tell you what, let’s all really patronise Scotland. Scotland – Scotland, what are you thinking. Snot dripping from your nose from all that cold. Listen, take a seat. – No, not over there; away from your oil. Right here, at our knee. Scotland, look at the state of you. All poor and banged up. Pimpled from your poor diet. Scrabbling south for our scraps now and then. Look – stop eyeing the door over our shoulder. It’s freezing out there, you’d never have the guts to run for it. – What’s that? You’d rather risk death by exposure than being smugly smiled at in the comfort of our log fire? No, no you wouldn’t. Tell you what, we’ll even open the door, turn our backs and count to three, and when we turn back you’ll still be curled up right here. You’ll see. – Here goes: One. Two. Three. -

Scotland?
Scotland?
Scotland?

The LMA’s statement: a power move that may backfire.

They are laughing at us. I am beginning to think that, in some boardroom in some part of London, behind tinted windows and a table decorated only with a bowl of untouched imperial mints, they are laughing at us; they being whoever at the League Managers Association (LMA) carefully put together their statement in defence of the comments of Malky Mackay. What other conclusion can be drawn? When the final text of that press release was approved and dispatched, it may as well have been accompanied with a collective cackle from the assembled group of male white heterosexual Gentiles. There’s just no other way that the LMA’s strategy makes sense. To state a case so boldly as this, in the face of predictable public outrage, is nothing other than a supreme power move.

A brief paragraph to bring anyone up to speed who is not aware of the story in question. The former Cardiff City manager Malky Mackay has just been reported to the Football Association for allegedly sending text messages that have been construed as offensive to gay people, black people, Asian people, Jews and women.  The LMA, in the words of its website, is “the collective, representative voice of all managers from the Barclays Premier League, the Sky Bet Championship and Sky Bet Leagues 1 and 2″. As that voice, one of their key six aims is to “protect the rights and privileges of its members.” In offering such protection, they described Mackay’s messages as “letting off steam to a friend during some friendly text message banter”. The statement has been superbly dissected by two football writers, Henry Winter and Seb Stafford-Bloor (the owner of the Premier League Owl website), and you can read their analyses at @henrywinter and @premleagueowl or at the footnotes below this post.

Let’s now consider the further implications of the LMA’s statement – which reads as an expression of contempt not only for gay people, black people, Asian people, Jews and women, but for absolutely anyone who cares about them. That’s a lot of people to offend and think that you can get away with it. It’s a spectacular level of entitlement, of belief in your infallibility. The LMA seems to think, given its representation of all those managers and given all those commercial partnerships that it apparently enjoys, that its position is unassailable. It has gambled that each of its members – whose voice it after all claims to be – will agree that: “nothing like a Jew that sees money slipping through his fingers” is just the kind of thing that you casually come out with when faced with the pressures of football management. It has bet that none of its members will be offended by the LMA’s dismissal of the phrase “fkn Chinkys” as “friendly banter”.

Well, that’s a big wager; and it’s a wager that will doubtless be put to the test by a range of journalists at press conferences or in private correspondence over the next few days, or as long as this news cycle lasts. One wonders, too, how the LMA’s sponsors – themselves multinational companies with diverse workforces – will view all this. And as if that wasn’t enough, the LMA has one other thing to worry about. Its statement seems to be a perfect representation of what the Macpherson report, in considering the murder of Stephen Lawrence, described as “institutional racism”. In that report, institutional racism was defined as:

“The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.”

The LMA’s sixth and final major aim on its website – mentioned last of all, as if an afterthought – is “to encourage honourable practice, conduct and courtesy in all professional activity”. Yet its most recent pronouncement appears to be doing precisely the opposite. It may well be that this all blows over soon enough. But in their boardroom, or wherever they are, they might not be well-advised to smirk just yet.

——–

References:

1. Mackay messages: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2731219/Malky-Mackay-s-text-message-victims-What-said-response-followed.html

2. LMA statement on Mackay messages: http://www.leaguemanagers.com/news/news-7418.html

3. Henry Winter analysis of LMA statement: http://t.co/a5C1X1CLXx

4. Premier League Owl analysis of LMA statement:

5. LMA’s six major aims: http://www.leaguemanagers.com/about/aboutlma-2.html

 

A growing fear for Captain Ronald Johnson.

Captain Ronald Johnson, by most accounts and all appearances, is a brave, decent, and compassionate man: and that’s why I fear for him. Over the last few days, Johnson has emerged as a key figure in the standoff between the mostly aggressive police and the mostly peaceful public, hugging here, speaking and mediating there. It is an example of which his fellow officers should be proud. Unfortunately, recent events suggest that he is the exception to the rule. Whilst he calls for calm, his colleagues behave with an unbridled belligerence. He has therefore become the reasonable face, the acceptable face, of his region’s police force, a role which has an inherent danger. He is the proud, eloquent, dignified African-American to whom the protesters’ critics can now point and, however inaccurately, can say: “Look at the dignity with which he turns the other cheek.  Look how commendable he is under fire. He is the standard by which your dissent is now judged.”

I fear for Captain Johnson because, given his prominent role in Ferguson, he may become a focal point for discontent if a detailed investigation into Mike Brown’s death is not forthcoming. Part of the reason that he has been trusted to dissipate tension is that there is a sense that his actions are part of a march towards justice, or at least a clarity as to what happened that afternoon when an unarmed black teen was gunned down. Yet I suspect that there are those in Johnson’s police force who see his efforts not as a catalyst for progress, but as an end in themselves: that if he merely stands in front of enough crowds, if he makes enough beautifully empathetic appeals, then the problem will go away.

I do not envy Captain Johnson his role. He is surely not naive as to the difficulties expressed above, seeing his intervention as vital to alleviate his community’s concerns but also wary that he may be seen merely as the front for an organisation burrowing itself ever further into national disrepute. He must also be aware that, in a twist of irony, his name and face are far more readily identifiable with the events following Mike Brown’s death than the name and face of Mike Brown’s killer.

For this reason, I was happy to see that some people defied the curfew imposed by Ferguson’s police last night. Not because I wish Captain Johnson any professional embarrassment, or any ill to the protesters who stayed out after midnight: but because these activists further exposed the feral obstruction of justice by police for whose deceit Captain Johnson’s humanity has become the unwitting shield. As those police withhold Darren Wilson, the man who shot Mike Brown dead, from the scrutiny of the law, Captain Johnson’s role looks increasingly forlorn, which is exactly as many of them seem to want it: that he should be one more blast of tactical tear gas, one more strategic smoke bomb, that prevents us from staring unrestrained at the truth.

For Mike Brown: The black boy is the new nuclear deterrent.

The black boy is the new nuclear deterrent.

Rogue states have been watching America with interest,
Where it seems that a young Black man can be weaponised
Just by walking home.
The black boy is so terrifying to America,
That now all of its enemies want one.
North Korea has just put in an order,
Offering twenty thousand black boys and their families
Free schooling, room and board,
In return for their promise that, when America next threaten sanctions,
They will march to the centre of Pyongyang, put on their hoodies,
Look into CNN’s quivering cameras, and scowl.
The black boy is the new nuclear warhead.
He is so dangerous that American police will try anything to stop him going off,
Every time he steps outside.
To stop him, these brave, brave policemen,
Working deep under the cover of anonymity,
Will leave no bullet unfired,
And after he has been defused
No grieving parent will be left unharassed,
No community left unteargassed.
The black boy is the new nuclear deterrent:
Nuke is the new black.
Now black women are becoming a threat too:
Each womb of theirs, an undeclared arsenal.
Iran are sending cheques to African-American mothers pregnant with sons,
Along with notes saying that, “look, when the boy grows up,
Come with him to us, we’ll never need to set off another bomb again.
We’ll give you a nice villa in Tehran,
And every day the overhead US drones
Will quake at the sight of him merely falling in love, or shooting hoops.”
So black boys can relax, since their deaths are not in vain;
For at least they’re now a weapon
Their own suburbs can’t contain.

 

 

 

 

 

A World War One post: “Lights out; but also, lights on.”

Lights out; but also, lights on.
Lights should be shone into every corner,
Into every corner of each battlefield
and each soul of those sending them to die.
Lights should go on in our minds,
when we recognise the pattern of all this happening again.
Lights on in Israel-Palestine, Ukraine; in Iraq, Syria, Nigeria;
Lights on in South Sudan, in Congo;
Lights on in the regions of our globe
That our tongues and our history books do not yet know,
but soon will.
So lights on for the Central African Republic,
For the Rohingya and for West Papua,
Because this is War;
A virus in endless search of new hosts,
Settling on those who have not yet developed resistance,
Whilst those who survive it
Are not yet eager enough to share the cure.

Inspired by Israel-Palestine, 1948: The Sailor and The Farmer.

Having read about Israel and Palestine a great deal of late, I thought I would post this piece, “The Sailor and The Farmer”.  If of interest, please share.

———–

The sailor, stunned, started to shake;
By Fate’s grace, he had just escaped
From a scene of matchless horror
Since he had acted upon a
Hunch and forced some friends to board
His vessel, whilst some who’d ignored
Warnings that they were in danger
Were condemned to taste death’s flavour,
Gas and ash, in sombre chamber…

They’d all been rounded into herds,
The sailor’s friends, and then one-third
Of them had disappeared within
That tomb – but two-thirds came with him…
Previously, they’d lived happily
With people they now had to flee;
That’s why the sailor was struck dumb
That those that they’d once lived among
Could turn on them: but he had dreamt
Of such a day; yes, it was meant
To end like this – or start like this;
That, heartlessly, they’d be dismissed
And, as survivors, set adrift
To find another, safer part
Of Earth. And so, this sailor’s ark
Set sail. The waters were rocky
The crew’s members murmured softly
In a circle, heads bowed, hoping
They’d find homes across the ocean…
Yet this vessel’s journey was hard;
Their flesh was burned by sun, they starved
Halfway to death, and they implored
Their Lord that he’d reward their faith –
The sailor, praying for this grace
Looked out across the shoreless sea
And pleaded: “Please, there ought to be
Some land where we can rest our souls –
Our soles…” The sailor’s forlorn thought
Was that he’d never known a port
Where he’d been welcome: throughout time
There’d been suspicion of his kind -
The script, timeless, had never changed:
They’d come ashore, and they’d remain
There for a while, put down some roots;
They’d swap their sailor’s clothes for suits
Of good, land-bound professionals,
Then some would have exceptional
Careers, leading to jealous hosts
Who’d chase them from their lands, their coasts;
Or worse. The sailor knew of friends
Whose entire bloodlines had been cleansed,
Whose family trees had the sap
Ripped from their veins; he’d seen all that,
The sailor. Coping with this nomad’s
Life was often difficult,
Yet easier than getting caught,
Stranded on dry land at the hands
Of angry clans…yet as he made
His slow progress across the waves
He vowed, both wary and weary:
“My people’s eyes will be tear-free
One day; I will turn the servant
To the served; yes, I’m determined
That the next place where my anchor’s
Shade cascades, will see us anxious
No more; there will be an ending
To the terror we’ve been feeling…”
Then, as if the wind was heeding
Him, it gave wings to his craft,
Which harnessed the storm; came at last
To harbour on a continent
Most of whose folk were competent
At working all day in the fields…
As they landed, a plan revealed
Itself to this smart sailor, who
Barked some sharp orders to his crew.
The first order was “Burn the boat”:
The sailor intended – not hoped –
To stay here, and would not be swayed
By fear; he would cower in shade
No more. The sailor ordered, secondly –
As result of the heavenly
Instructions he’d received in dreams –
That all vacant homes should be seized:
See, there were plenty of empty
Homes, since they were owned by farmers -
All of whom – kids, mothers, fathers –
Toiled between the dawn and dusk
In deep soil that adorned Earth’s crust.
Thirdly, he told them all to strip.
When some refused, the sailor ripped
Their garments from them, shredded them;
Told them they had ahead of them
A future where they wouldn’t need
Sea-gypsies’ clothes. A chilly breeze
Then struck them, left them shivering;
Although they were still listening
To what their leader had to say
They weren’t keen on this naked state;
They felt exposed, humiliated.

“Finally”, ordered the sailor,
“You must all assume behaviour
Of people who are entitled
To live here; this is your tribal
Stomping crowd from here on in.”
They thought that they weren’t hearing him
Correctly; some of them had doubts;
They were guests; was it right to pounce
Upon houses of those who’d left
For work, to leave them dispossessed?
Though, in breasts, they felt uncertain
They felt, in same place, a surge of
Pride – they’d claimed the upper hand,
They’d made their mark upon these sands…

The farmers trod their routes home.
Keen to enjoy fruits of their stoves,
They drove their toothless mules down roads
Towards their towns, streets far from smooth
Beaten anew by horses’ hooves;
The adults, in their sweaty droves
The children in scuffed, dusty clothes,
Shuffled to their front doors, and stopped
In shock: since their front doors were locked.

To start with, each of the fathers
Thought that this was just a harmless
Prank. They never locked their doors.
They laughed. There was even applause:
Then, of course, they slowly took note
Of fact that this was not a joke.

“Open up!” they cried in despair.

“I will not. I live in this lair
Now,” the sailor said. “Who are you?”
Asked the farmers. “We’ve not harmed you.
Why have you chased us from our homes?”

The sailor’s people, in abodes
That they’d chosen, felt pangs of shame;
But they were anxious to remain
Inside, because if they now moved
Then they would be seen in the nude:
So they blocked all entrances,
Imposed on themselves sentences
Of long confinement. Now and then,
For food, they’d sneak out, grab a hen
And run back in before the stones
Were thrown by angry farmers whose
Returns to homes were overdue.

The sailor grew older, and died:
But storm he’d caused did not subside;
Some of his descendants, restless,
Charged out as if with a deathwish,
Went to live among the farmers
Naked, but clad in the armour
Of faith that was absolute:
Some sailors, though they at the root
Of themselves knew they’d crossed a line
Pretended all was fine, and slept
Uneasily, whilst farmers stepped
Slyly past their guards by night
So that, in vengeance, they might strike;
Most farmers camped out in the fields,
Becoming deaf to all appeals
For peace by sailors, and increased
In rage with each passing decade
Until once-succulent olives
Of that land’s trees tasted horrid,
Watered as they had been by the
Sour tears of those inside the
Farmers’ homes, those trapped outside…
Even now, you’ll hear the outcry
Of both tribes: cries of the sailors,
Who for years were homeless, aimless,
Who are now landlords, with tenants
Of extraordinary menace;
And you’ll hear cries of the farmers,
Wandering through their vast pastures,
Scared they’ll find no place to rest:
Feelings the sailors once knew best.

An ode to the World Cup, for the BBC World Service: “Rio”.

With the World Cup drawing to a close, the BBC World Service asked me to write a poem about the time that I had spent in Rio during the tournament. You can hear it at 24:32 of the following link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0224gvd

The text is below:

“Rio: an ode to the World Cup”

It makes sense that the heart of this World Cup,
Of this country, is Rio,
Because this city might just be
The most beautiful team the world has seen:
Each of its areas, beaches and bays
Sounds like it bears the name
Of an elegant Brazilian footballer;
Reading a map of Rio
Sounds like a list of squad members
Selected by God:
Gloria, Urca, Lapa, Leblon,
Santa Teresa, Laranjeiras,
Ipanema, Copacabana,
Flamengo, Maracana;
Long before football arrived in Brazil,
This country knew it was coming;
It made sure the sand was soft long in advance,
So that feet could dribble across it all day:
Brazil made sure that its cliffs, fields and forests
Were more spectacular than any goal that might ever be scored,
So that even if Neymar or Messi summoned up glorious deeds
Their surroundings would inspire them
To even greater feats.
Or perhaps Rio is a dressing-room
Through which, each day, parade millions;
Through the stench of steak and sweat and salt
As workmen’s tools clatter like studs against tiles
And buses disappear off into the night,
Like dreams;
And high above the door
Is Christ the Redeemer,
Standing on his mountain mantelpiece,
With the best view of each of us -
Of the beach, and, of course, of the football;
And he waves us all welcome, bem-vindos,
Welcome.

Brazil-Germany: the Neymargeddon.

Brazil-Germany: a half-time full-time match report.

Some people are on the beach. They think it’s all over: it is now.

I wandered down to Copacabana Beach this afternoon, since it’s probably only once in this lifetime that I’ll see Brazil play at home in a World Cup semi-final. When I arrived, the weather was in reasonable health: but then, as if dramatically foreshadowing the carnage to come, an iron-grey diva of a stormcloud slowly smothered the Rio skyline. When the match started, it quickly became clear that Brazil were still stranded by the side of Neymar’s hospital bed. They certainly weren’t present in midfield or defence, as Germany tore through them like shark’s teeth through sinew. This was brutal: an utter bloodletting, a spectacular massacre. Five goals within twenty-five minutes; three of those goals arriving within five minutes of each other: and countless new nightmares for a whole new generation of Brazilians. Perhaps the horror of 1950 was bad, but the 2014 sequel, for sheer humiliation, may run it close. At least Barbosa and co. kept the margin of defeat within a single goal.

And here’s a thought, just a wholly futile suggestion: maybe it’s time for
Brazil to somehow stop taking football so seriously. Because it’s miserable to care this much and lose this badly: and, what’s more, if you care too much – and these players did, and given the pressure it was no surprise – then this happens, and it’s no good for anyone.

Out on the beach, there were a handful of distinct and terrifying close explosions, a stampede began, and some people could have been trampled: so I and hundreds of others took the hint and headed away, as riot police both in vehicles and on foot made their way in to patrol the space we had vacated. “Cinqua-zero”, said my cab driver, as we both headed somewhere safer. A contest so mismatched that it felt fitting to file a match report by half-time.

Modern Britain: child abuse and playground trauma.

This morning, I read of child abuse allegations surrounding a series of prominent UK politicians. I then thought of several previous institutional scandals in Britain where those seeking justice were initially sneered at, scoffed at, or entirely ignored; specifically, of Hillsborough, of Stephen Lawrence and Daniel Morgan, of Jimmy Savile and the North Wales’ children’s homes. And then I thought of the constant cry from several of those institutions that public mistrust is not good for governance, that this cynicism and political apathy has a corrosive effect on democracy.

And then I wondered: but what of the counter-argument that trust must be earned, not given freely? Particularly when it involves the lives of the vulnerable, the marginalised, the invisible? The scandals that I have mentioned above are by no means an exhaustive list, but in each case they either hinted at or revealed a level of systemic abuse of power that was utterly breathtaking. In each case, the people whom our society has appointed to protect us have achieved precisely the opposite. What’s more, they have done so with an efficiency of horrifying ruthlessness, and are typically exposed a decade or two after the event.

The child abuse cases are perhaps the most disturbing of all, particularly because they involve such a carefully orchestrated betrayal of trust. When such stories finally break, the widespread public disbelief is quite striking. It reveals a fundamental conviction that most people are good; that ultimately, we Brits are mostly OK. And this reaction is understandable, to some extent. But it is incomplete; in other words, it is a reaction based upon denial.

It seems that so many of us in Britain are afraid to look our institutions unwaveringly in the eye. The collective scepticism towards so many would-be whistleblowers has created an environment where abusers roam free and flourish for years. When people ask “why now, why now are they coming forward with these allegations after all this time”, the answer, more often than not, is “because that’s precisely how long it takes in the current culture to build the support networks and the mental strength to speak publicly about what was done to them”.

Looking at the relationship between British citizens and some of our institutions, it seems at times to be characterised by a curious form of trauma, perhaps best expressed with reference to the playground. Every so often, the bully steals our lunch and kicks us sobbing into the undergrowth, but he’s too terrifying to confront; and so we divert that anger, that frustration, that broiling aggression, towards those nearest and apparently weakest. Towards the immigrant, towards the disabled, and so on.

And meanwhile, some of us comfort ourselves with the stereotype that paedophiles are exclusively those lonely men in white vans who wait opportunistically outside primary schools; that they cannot be our entertainers, our leaders.  Yet this denial is a luxury that children cannot afford. Perhaps it’s time, then, to be much less sceptical about these allegations when they arise, and to greet them not with staggered incredulity but an open mind: particularly when they are of this scale. After all, in recent years, our country has been creating quite the track record.

This World Cup: my short interview with Blade Runner’s Roy Batty.

image

A few moments before his death, I was fortunate enough to catch up with Blade Runner android Roy Batty for his thoughts on this World Cup. Though he was in excruciating discomfort, he was very kind to oblige with the following statement, after which he tragically passed away.

“I’ve seen a World Cup you people wouldn’t believe.  Van Gaal’s tactics on fire against Chile, Mexico and Spain.  I’ve watched Algerian tears glisten in the dark in Porto Alegre. All those moments will be lost in time…like tears in rain…Time to die.”