beyondclicktivism

By Tom Chance

In the days since I wrote my first blog post on the Rothamsted GM wheat controversy I’ve spent more time reading up on GM than in the past nine years. It’s been a tortuous few days for me. As a big fan of the Bad Science movement who was loosely involved with improving the Green Party’s science policy; as the author of the 2012 London manifesto on which Jenny Jones and others stood, and somebody who has put a lot of my life in the last four years into helping her achieve great things on the London Assembly and Southwark Council; and as somebody who slightly sits on the fence on the GM debate; I’ve found myself agreeing with all quarters.

On the eve of the protest I thought I’d put down a few more thoughts following the debate.

There is a lot of nonsense from all quarters (but it’s not the end of the world)

The Sense About Science petition really took off because Take The Flour Back appeared to carry a number of misleading or false scientific statements on their web site. For example, wheat isn’t wind pollinated, as they claim. It looked like an open and shut case of Bad Science, one that many anti-GM campaigners remain unwilling to accept or engage with.

Robert Wilson sent me a particularly egregious case of mendacious attacks on GM. This report, signed by major environmental organisations and hosted by Friends of the Earth, makes repeated mention of the tragic suicide rate amongst Indian farmers and the adoption, post 2001, of GM crops. Yet when the report was published in October 2011 there appears to be plenty of research showing that hypothesis has been debunked. It’s slapdash at best, irresponsible and appallingly disrespectful at worst, to repeat this theory if it is false, and is typical of the approach that too many anti-GM campaigners seem to take.

But then the Rothamsted researchers, ably assisted by a remarkable online campaign from Sense About Science, went too far in debunking that claim. One of their researchers (I think it was Prof. John Pickett) went onto BBC news to say there was “zero” risk of contamination. This contradicts his statement to the Telegraph that it is possible but unlikely. Their claim that wheat is only “1% self-pollinating” also looks suspect when you consider that this EU-funded public information web site states the risk is up to 9.7% depending on climate and the type of what. The researchers have certainly put in place safeguards. But perhaps any risk is too great?

Too often campaigners on any issue can be their own worst enemy.

The “pro science” tweeters have also been willfully naive and amazingly one-sided on a number of issues…

The silver bullet

There is a tendency among some people who care about science to believe technology is a silver bullet. Any cursory study of the history of technology will quickly unearth a more complicated picture. Just as anti-GM campaigners can overstep evidence when they suggest there is absolutely no need for GM anywhere, so it is daft to think GM is a silver bullet and essential to our future food security.

GreenFacts have an official summary of a major 2008 World Bank study, in which over 400 experts looked at options to secure our future food supplies. The full study was called the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development. It’s a very good place to start if you want to understand the place of GM.

They concluded should be part of the solution. But they also think that dealing with problems with patents, land ownership and many other issues need to be part of the picture.

Anti-science?

One of the most depressing charges made against the Green Party is as follows: Jenny Jones, a prominent Green politician, is going to a demonstration that will attempt to damage a scientific research project. Therefore the Green Party is anti-science.

This is just simplistic nonsense. If you are really against all forms of non-violent direction action that involve damage to property; if you really think allegedly dangerous or unethical scientific research should be able to proceed without any interference from politicians or the public; then you may think Jenny are “anti-science” in a limited sense.

But Jenny hasn’t gone around destroying the many other GM research projects in the UK. The Green Party is fine with research, but in the case of this particular open air trial Jenny – and many others – think they have reasonable evidence that it is unsafe and so think it better to stop it going ahead than to sit back and wait to see if the disaster of contamination takes place.

Another possible charge is that in reprinting scientifically inaccurate statements, the party is anti-science. But that’s equally daft. It just shows the party hasn’t got sufficient processes to weed out these statements, and perhaps subscribes to some ideas that it needs to drop. Being wrong about the science doesn’t equate to being anti-science.

The Green Party, like any loose association of likeminded people, is bound to accommodate a wide variety of views. When journalists dug up scientifically inaccurate material in our policy documents a few years ago, we took steps to address that. No doubt this recent debate will reverberate through conferences and policy discussions for the next year or two. Like all political parties with strong principles and beliefs that overlap with areas of scientific controversy, we have a complicated relationship with scientific evidence. That isn’t going to change, not for us or any other political party.

This is an extract from a longer post  by Tom Chance licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

By Occupy Oil

On the 22nd of May #OccupyOil will be holding a funeral procession for Dutch Shell Oil. In a turnaround we are calling for the end of Shell’s destructive behavior throughout the world, from the west coast of Ireland to the Niger Delta.

Many people have lost their lives resisting the behavior of this unethical company.

It time we said “Rest in Peace Shell”.

Shell makes nearly £1.6m profits every hour. Help us say farewell to this 1% company.

When and where

St Paul’s Cathedral
Arrival 815am
The Shell Corpse will leave at 845am.

Strict dress code: BLACK

Follow @OccupyOil or visit www.occupyoil.co.uk.

Bring noise, banners, black umbrellas and more importantly yourselves.

Guest post by @OccupyOil www.occupyoil.co.uk.

By Tim Hardy

The Christian anarchists Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin founded the Catholic Worker movement in the midst of the Great Depression in 1933. They rejected war and pledged support for workers and the dispossessed, maintaining these views even in the face of growing persecution from a state that wanted to destroy what it perceived as a red menace. The Catholic Workers branded the profit motive immoral. They condemned capitalism because it led to grotesque inequality. They worked directly to help those in need, providing food and shelter.

Over 150 of the soup kitchens the Catholic Workers founded are still going around the world. Each is autonomous. There is no central authority. Each refuses to accept grants or to pay taxes or to accept any of the bureaucratic restrictions imposed by the state such as the need to apply for permits or for non-profit status. The food they provide to the homeless is donated by people in the neighbourhood not the government.

I am comfortable in my atheism. I should have no problem with other people believing whatever they like but at times I do. Like many ex-Catholics, I have a problem with faith.

I am genderqueer and not exclusively heterosexual. In an ideal world that should concern nobody but me and those with whom I am intimate. Unfortunately I grew up in the era of the homophobic legislation Section 28 that had a chilling effect on discussions of sexuality. Gay-bashing tabloids and Christian bigots were unchallenged in their abuse of anyone who was not straight or cis-gendered and young queer people were left alone, sweating in the dark.

These days the Conservatives pretend they have changed and the tabloids have switched to baiting Muslims and the disabled. The Catholic Church still stands unrepentant, gladly allying itself with tyrants to block measures in the UN to make discrimination on the grounds of sexual or gender identity a crime and condemning hundreds of thousands to abuse as a result, abuse that can escalate to serious violence and murder.

My support for a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion is another issue that frequently puts me at odds with some faith groups.

Sadly there are many religious bodies that promote intolerance and harmful attitudes. I am ashamed, however, that my instinctive reaction when faced with such religious intolerance is to respond in a way that is not that different to the behaviour of the racist who generalises to make judgements about all members of an ethnic group or nation.

Many Christians, like Day, would agree with Gandhi’s judgement, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

When you listen to Prime Minister David Cameron justifying selling arms to tyrants or former Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner John Yates making excuses for a regime that tortures and murders dissidents, it is worth recalling that, for these men and for many others,  ”It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” Men without morals, they capitulate to the false necessities of a brutal world view that warns if they don’t do it, someone else will and that one can only get ahead by getting one over on someone else. So we sell weapons that will be used to kill innocents in order to stop other nations doing it and profiting from the same deal. That’s what moral, responsible capitalism demands.

For religious people, on the other hand, “That’s how things are” just doesn’t wash. They have a faith at odds with the blind faith of capitalist realism.

For this reason alone, however challenging, those of us who wish to build a better world should embrace people of faith in solidarity and resist the divide and conquer tactics of those who do not want change because they profit from the way things are.

Since the coalition took power, the bigots have been crawling out of the woodwork. The right-wing papers, apologists for the rich and powerful, are lining up articles attacking gay rights and women’s rights then under cover of this artillery barrage of bigotry start whining that Christians are being persecuted in the UK. Such an invitation to attack is hard to resist.

We have to acknowledge that there are strong anti-clerical and anti-religious tendencies on the left but the desire to eradicate religion is futile. As the Soviet minister of education Anatolii Lunacharskii realised as early as 1928, “Religion is like a nail; the harder you hit it, the deeper it goes into the wood.” But it is not just a matter of being pragmatic. Those of us who reject a faith in the spiritual realm, need to recognise the value of the human desires and dreams expressed through religious faith.

We commonly describe acts of cruelty by others as inhumane because we find it hard to accept that humanity includes the capacity for such malevolence.

Likewise some ascribe forgiveness and unconditional love to divine powers because they cannot accept humanity is capable of such greatness of spirit.

The Catholic Worker movement, like all progressive movements, is growing weaker in a society that is increasingly atomised and lacks the structures of organised labour and strong local communities. The right is on the ascendant around the world. The reaction to the greatest crisis in capitalism since the Depression has been for the rich and powerful to systematically roll back the hard-won progress of over a hundred years of struggle and to attempt to bring about an order closer to feudalism than to the ideals of democracy, a world where the elite are given special dispensation from the law and from responsibilities to others and the most vulnerable are made to pay for the mistake of their new masters.

Those who believe in a better world have a potential ally in those of faith. For Day, spirituality and the moral life were founded in the constant fight for justice and in compassion for those in need. Whether or not we believe in the gospels from which she derived her faith, these values and a refusal to accept a system that condemns some to suffer so that others may live lives of luxury are the values we need. Only this will carry us through the growing darkness of a world where those in charge seem unable or unwilling to steer the machine of civilisation away from its headlong passage down the path to total self-destruction.

(Originally published in The Occupied Times of London.)

By Tim Hardy

Trigger warning.

The livestreams and photographs coming from today’s Occupy London action are deeply distressing. The police are acting with impunity, seemingly unconcerned by the fact that their behaviour is being witnessed. There are many images to review and videos to watch but the sequence in this video from 8.52-9.22 stood out immediately.

As the policeman in the front pulls back at 8.52 you can see one of his colleagues in the background has his gloved hand clamped over the mouth of a woman who is seated. As the video continues, you can see quite clearly how distressed she is by police behaviour.

(Video by alburyj / @alburyj)

[Update: another image from a different angle via @TheJanieMac]

By kaygeeuk

We volunteered. This concept has been tainted by the Big Society rhetoric. When local services were cut to the bone or non existent those who cared stepped in. Soup kitchens. Benefits advice. Domestic violence shelters. Being there for those dying of AIDS. Either as individuals, or in groups, we looked to where the most vulnerable were in difficulty and did what we could to help.

We spread information, increasing awareness. Standing in a town centre with a make shift table, a megaphone and a pile of leaflets you photocopied at the library has a buzz all of its own. We set up tables at universities, at community events, at fairs and carnivals, anywhere people gathered. We learned it’s not just about handing out the literature, it’s about talking about your cause, whatever that may be, answering questions, getting people educated and agitated.

We created literature – no photo shop, no access to desk top publishing. Yet leaflets and zines and stickers abounded. We learned about good design through trial and error. We learned (as some today still haven’t) that vast blocks of text in small font size go unread.

We made street art, this has never gone away.

We organised events with activist speakers where you saw the same faces and heard the same sections of the left argue ideology. Not so fond of these, then or now. Get out of the circle and into the world. Increase publicity, gain support. Let people know how they will be affected, get them involved, don’t put them off. If you (as I was last night) are talking to a bin man who left school at 16 barely able to read, then adjust your language, simplify your ideas. And explain and encourage that it is never too late to access adult education – though be quick because that is also disappearing with the cuts. Any thing that brings us together and helps us think and question is vital.

We challenged complacency. We comforted those who felt defeated. And if you could go back in time to after Stop The War and comfort me, that would be appreciated. We kept commitments to our comrades. Keep yours.

We built opposition and resistance in whatever form. Don’t criticise those who sign a petition, show them, gently, where to go from there. When people are waking up they need a cup of coffee and a cigarette before they leap out of bed and onto the barricades.

We linked people together. I have problems with organised religion, but some of the most important support for the vulnerable, then as now, comes from some churches. Any action against the system that oppresses us (and make no mistake, it does) is important. The trick is to make sure we do not oppress others in our turn.

Back then we took our message into schools, through strong links with the teaching unions. If you can, take *your* message into schools. Show children another world outside of the mass produced, mass consumed version they have pumped at them.

We wrote letters and signed petitions. I have lost track of the number of letters I have written, the number of petitions I have signed. I have fond memories of my then 1 year old son covering our local MP in chocolate when we went to her office to present a petition gathered at street stalls.

In this day of email is there is a place for a well crafted hand written letter? I think so. Each individual whisper can build to a shout. Each tiny light to a flame. So, send letters and sign petitions.

Send them to your council, send them to your MP, send them to the heads of organisations which are the target of your activism. Ask for a response to your questions. Ask them to justify what they are doing. Even if you have no hope of anything changing, think of it as an obstruction – someone has to take time to respond. Tie up their resources and time.

We used direct lobbying. Much as a young mum went to her local MP then, you can now. Again, how much faith you have in a result is down to you, but you can request a meeting with your elected representative and ask awkward questions. Tell them your concerns. Ask them to support *your* position.

We allegedly have a representative democracy. They are meant to work for us…

We used the law and tried to subvert it. This still goes on, but is harder and less visible. Back then my union (NALGO at the time) brought a number of cases challenging government policies on points of law. Companies have been held to account. Spain requested the extradition of Pinochet. There is still a place for this. Iceland have just this week found their former PM guilty of negligence related to the collapse of his nation’s banking system. No punishment, but still, a powerful symbol of disagreement. Use the law.

We subverted advertising. Remade billboards, so they gave a more accurate message, an education rather than brainwashing. I love that this is becoming more and more visible. Keep complaining about offensive adverts, we did then. The News of the World had to go when it became toxic for advertisers. Thousands of complaints, steam rolling through twitter and face book, changed things.

We used mass phone ins. Tying up a company’s phone lines with complaints. Now people bombard with twitter messages as well as organising phone calls to, for example, police stations where they know their friends are held. It is another way of obstructing the system, another form of resistance.

We used consumer boycotts. Otherwise known as don’t buy stuff you don’t need. Particularly from a company that is unethical. I still don’t buy Nestle products. Boycotting South African goods was one means of bringing pressure on the apartheid regime. I know there is a debate around this (as with much of what I list here) but in terms of having a tiny bit of personal power choosing not to consume is a powerful stand for someone to make. If you still have a Vodafone account for your mobile and you’re not tied into a contract – change it – tell them why you are changing.

We (when we had money) tried to keep it in places that weren’t funding and investing in arms sales. It’s hard to operate without a bank account. Look at the cooperative bank, credit unions etc. The current move your money campaign is another area of debate but another idea.

We demonstrated. Oh how we demonstrated. Perhaps the core of activism, visible protest. Marches, strikes, occupations, sleep-ins, teach-ins, street theatre (such as the recent cyclists die-in outside Addison Lee) all vibrant, all noisy, all spreading a message. And still here and changing form – I think of the DDOS attacks that Anonymous work on now as a virtual sit-in.

We carried out acts of civil disobedience – direct action. Being on the spot. We need more of this. We’ve seen disability rights protesters locking down across roads. We’ve seen banner drops from universities. And who can forget the pie in the face of Murdoch. Direct action highlights who has the power and asks the question – When does this change. Power lies with us, if we take it.

Now, more than ever, we need to.

I may have flickered a bit over the years but, I am now and intend to keep on being, a tiny light, keeping on shining, holding back the dark. Come put your flame with mine.

Edited crosspost from Commit random acts of activism again.

Still, Boris Johnson is a laugh, isn’t he?

By Tim Hardy

However corrupt and broken our parliamentary system, I do believe that voting can make a difference and I believe that the only progressive choice is to vote Green.

Following the systematic way in which the Liberal Democrats have betrayed each of their principles, it is unsurprising that the naturally doubtful are now less willing than ever to trust the promises of politicians.

We’re all tired of the good cop, bad cop routine of Tories and Labour. Liberal Democrats have shown they can never be trusted with office again. Some argue that, given power, the Greens will do the same. I disagree but perhaps such committed cynics might also consider that they have an interest in being proved right sooner rather than later.

There are anarchists who do not believe in voting because they don’t believe in representation and believe the act of voting in the current system does nothing but validate false choices and confirm our own powerlessness over a system that is corrupt at its core. To them, since the system itself is the problem, it will corrupt even the purest of souls.

I am not an anarchist. I believe in a minimal state that would delegate as much power locally as possible while helping to coordinate transport, energy and the provision of health care at a national level. As such, perhaps I have less of an allergy to the idea of voting than many of those I admire and respect who believe in a truly stateless society.

For those who lack the conviction of my anarchist friends and are simply undecided or find voting a bit meh – remember, every vote we allow the Tories and Liberal Democrats to gain in the upcoming London elections is a slap in the face for those who have suffered already under this coalition and the millions more whose suffering has barely begun. A victory for Boris will be seen as a mandate for a fresh wave of assaults on the most vulnerable in society and a licence to hand out even more of our money to the extremely rich.

Voting for a candidate does not prevent you from also organising outside the political system and a vote for a Green candidate might even help you do that. (The same cannot be said for a vote for the authoritarian Labour party or for the Liberal Democrats who have dropped all interest in civil liberties since entering the coalition.)

The Green Party core philosophy holds:

Electoral politics is not the only way to achieve change in society, and we will use a variety of methods to help effect change, providing those methods do not conflict with our other core principles.

True to their word, Green MPs and councillors have shown a willingness to get involved in direct action outside the parliamentary system as well as working from within.

Caroline Lucas acted as an expert witness for the defence during the trial of the Brighton Uncut superglue 9, stating “There does come a point in many campaigns where you have to go beyond signing petitions.”

Green County Councillor Larry Sanders was one of the occupiers of the headquarters of the Oxford PCT Commissioning Group protesting against Lansley’s Health and Social Care Bill.

Mayoral candidate Jenny Jones has actively campaigned against the NHS reforms joining UK Uncut at Block the Bridge.

While I am very aware of the dangers of participation in the parliamentary process, I do continue to believe that at this point we need representatives within parliament who will stand up for civil rights, who will speak out when other MPs are only happy to place themselves at the head of lynch mobs of self-righteous condemnation, who will not sign away the freedom of citizens to protect us from imaginary terrors. Caroline Lucas has shown more opposition to the coalition in parliament since the election than the whole of Labour’s benches put together.

The media would have you believe the election is just another silly episode in the Boris & Ken show – but people are dying as a result of decisions made by the Mayor of London and his team.

The Conservatives are doing nothing about preventable fatalities on the roads in cycle accidents for reasons best known to themselves. They would rather team up with the far-right than debate cycle safety. Five thousand people are estimated to die prematurely every year due to the illegally high levels of air pollution in London. Boris Johnson’s response is to attempt to fraudulently distort the measurements of air quality by gluing pollution to the roads by air monitoring stations. It’s hard to quantify the effects on health caused by the stress of a housing crisis Johnson, like all Tories, has followed Labour’s lead in refusing to tackle seriously.

Let’s face it, Boris lies.

London deserves better than this pathetic clown.

Take away the distractions of personality and flagrant media bias and try this questionnaire London Mayoral Election 2012: How will you vote? You might be surprised.

Tories care only for money and power. Anyone eligible to vote who lacks the conviction of the libertarian left and fails to vote simply because they can’t be bothered is missing the chance to hit them where it hurts. It’s up to us to give the representatives of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives the spanking they deserve. Don’t miss the chance to give Cameron a bloody nose because you think Greens don’t stand a chance.

When you vote for mayor, you also get to vote in the London-wide ballot for the Assembly (the Orange ballot paper) These elections are decided under a proportional system that means there are no wasted votes. Green Assembly Members are doing their best for Londoners but they are outnumbered by self-interested Tories. A third or fourth Assembly member would make a huge difference and help make whoever becomes mayor more accountable. Every Green vote here counts.

If you care for social and environmental justice then vote Green on Thursday 3 May and help make a difference.

By Tim Hardy

“Part of the job of the prime minister is to load up an aeroplane full of business people, large and small, get out exports up, get our investment up, get out there and fly the flag for Britain,” he said.

“That is what I am trying to do this week.”

With these words, David Cameron defended his decision to take arms dealers with him on his trip to Asia.

Last year, as now, Cameron insisted on referring to the people he helps make money selling machines that kill as “business people”. Then, defending his escort of “business people” to regimes in the Middle East that are using British weapons to repress dissent, Cameron retorted:

I simply don’t understand how you can’t understand how democracies have a right to defend themselves.

It’s hard to know where to begin.

In the same way that one feels faced with a monster like Breivik, the natural instinct in the face of such behaviour is to assume that David Cameron is not of sound mind.

Criticised for choosing the time when everyone else was celebrating the promises of the Arab Spring as an opportunity to sell arms to dictators Cameron defended himself:

“Attack all you want, but do you think the Germans and the French and the Americans are all sitting at home waiting for business to fall into their lap? Of course not – they’re out there selling their goods, and so should we in this country as well.

He added: “While there are contracts to be won, jobs to be created, markets to be defended – I will be there. If it’s making sure Rolls Royce engines are in the world’s planes, I’ll be there.”

“If it’s making sure skyscrapers in the Gulf are designed by British architects, I’ll be there. I’ll be there not just because it’s my job, not just because it’s my duty, but because I passionately believe – no, I know – that this country can out-compete, outperform, out-hustle the best in the world and I’m going to make sure I use every last drop of my energy to make sure that happens for our country.”

Sanctimony, to misquote La Rochefoucauld, is the homage vice pays to virtue. As the coyness of “business people” shows – as well as the refusal to wave the flag for sales of weapons, choosing instead to highlight other items in his portfolio – Cameron is aware deep down that what he is doing is reprehensible. As a free-market fundamentalist, however, he lives his life in accordance with the holy writ of the free markets in the hope that the evil he does will one day be absolved in some kind of salvation through wealth.

Today the Guardian reports that Cameron is engaged in a sanctions-busting escort of a group of  what the paper drily refers to as “business leaders” into Burma, disguising them as tourists. Are these “business leaders” from the defence industry? The journalist doesn’t think to ask. Perhaps they are not – but what kind of man mocks the wishes of the international community to pimp British commercial interests to a dictatorship?

Here is what Amnesty says about Burma:

Human rights violations in Burma are widespread and systematic. At the end of 2008 there were more long-standing political prisoners behind bars than at any other time since the mass pro-democracy uprising in 1988. Despite the welcome release of Aung San Suu Kyi in late 2010, and four prisoner amnesties in the last year, it is estimated that over one thousand political prisoners remain.

There are laws that criminalise peaceful expression of political dissent. People are frequently arrested without warrant and held incommunicado. Judicial proceedings against political detainees fall short of international standards for fair trial and torture is common, especially during interrogation.

Despite this, ordinary Burmese people continue to call for democracy. In 2007, mass anti-government protests swept through Burma. However, the uprising was brought to an end in a violent crackdown by the military junta with some activists receiving 65 year jail terms after grossly unfair trials.

When there are contracts to be won, jobs to be created, markets to be defended, who cares about democracy or rights? That’s just more red tape to be swept away in the name of increased profits. After all, according to David Cameron, business is the “most powerful force for social progress the world has ever known.” I’m sure those killed and injured in Bahrain and elsewhere around the world by British-made crowd-control weapons such as teargas and stun grenades would agree.

By Tim Hardy

Keith Vaz told Sky News this afternoon that he found recent revelations of widespread racism in the Met depressing :

What’s depressing is that this is 2012, a generation after the Stephen Lawrence case and it’s disappointing that we, frankly, have so many police officers in the Met who are under investigation.

What is depressing is how long it has taken for police racism to come to broader public attention. For the story to finally break, it took a courageous young man recording officers calling him a nigger, boasting of how they had tried to strangle him and making veiled death threats . The CPS initially refused to prosecute the officers responsible.

The revelations of widespread racism in the ranks come as no surprise to the Newham Monitoring Project. They are already deeply concerned that the total policing measures planned for the Olympics will be an open invitation for more racial discrimination.

This evening the Guardian reveals that a secret report written eight years ago warning that police use of stop and search was fundamentally racist.

The report says officers were racially stereotyping African-Caribbean people as criminals, and thus disproportionately subjecting them to stop and search. It says officers were exercising the power without having the legal requirement of having reasonable suspicion that the person stopped was involved in crime: “Many police officers make the illegitimate step in their minds from ‘black people are disproportionately involved in crime’ to ‘the black person I am about to stop and search is likely to be a criminal’ without consideration of the other factors necessary to establish sufficient ‘reasonable grounds’.

“This completely understandable mistake amounts to racially stereotyping black people as criminals and this will be portrayed by some of our critics as deliberate police racism of the ‘racial hatred’ variety.”

African-Caribbean people are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of crime, the report adds.

Nothing in this report deliberately repressed by senior officers will come as a surprise to any young black man who finds himself stopped and searched repeatedly for no better reason than the colour of his skin.

Frequently I get stopped by the gammon

Coz my whip looks like it should be owned by

Jeremy Clarkson or Richard Hammond

Musician JME records each time he is stopped and searched by the police. Watch the videos and ask yourself – how many bad apples do we have to find before we accept that the Metropolitan police are institutionally racist and corrupt and that the CPS and IPCC are not fit for purpose?

The Green Party’s mayoral candidate Jenny Jones told the Guardian’s Dave Hill:

The Met must reduce the amount of wasteful stop and searches it currently carries out. Stop-and-search has been used so much it has alienated communities and hardened negative stereotypes. The Met need to move from the current blanket system to a more targeted approach which should hopefully go some way to reducing the racial disparity which has grown over recent years.

My personal feedback, from people who live in, for example, Tottenham and Southwark, is that this tactic is breeding resentment and even hatred in some communities. It’s a double problem of quantity and quality; when stop-and-search must be done it should be done with extreme politeness. Officers should have additional training and follow the example of the police in Northern Ireland who dramatically improved the relationship between themselves and the communities they were protecting.

This is a grown-up argument, very far from the macho posturing of Johnson who came close to blaming last summer’s riots as being caused by the police being too scared to crack heads following their murder of Ian Tomlinson.

Take the officer who allegedly pushed poor Ian Tomlinson during the G20 riots, a motion which may have been far less violent than some that have been recommended to the police over the past few days. He is facing a charge of manslaughter. That could mean life imprisonment. We need to decide at which end of the chain of events we want to be less squeamish.

Call me “squeamish” but I don’t think the police should be allowed to kill random people with impunity or harass people based on the colour of their skin. London desperately needs politicians who, rather than repeatedly sweeping the problem under the carpet, are willing to tackle the corruption in the Met.