Monday, June 02, 2008

Cop it! / Southpawpunch is

Cop it!

A security guard, probably on minimum wage (or thereabouts), threatens to kill you.

How do you react to him? The best response is to point out that your argument isn’t with him, personally. You might also stand your ground and ignore him; decide to beat a tactical retreat or go on the offensive and threaten something back. It all depends on the circumstances.

What you don’t do is go to the cops to try and get the guy prosecuted for what he has allegedly done.

But that’s just what Andy Newman, proprietor of the Socialist Unity blog, is doing. Indeed he’s also trying to get the support of his MP, the Leader of the Council and others to help out with this dirty work.

He alleges that a security guard made a threat to kill him - a serious criminal offence - when he was recently handing out political leaflets in Swindon, and that this guy did this in front of witnesses. Such an incident would be pretty unpleasant although it also hardly sounds like a credible threat.

I can understand, to a degree, how someone may think all sorts, with the adrenalin rushing, in the immediate aftermath of such a moment. I can also appreciate how someone may act initially in an unthinking manner, in an aggrieved response to a nasty incident.

But writing coldly later about such an occurrence; and reporting how you are taking the issue up with the state - including with the cops - suggests at least a serious misfiring in any socialist DNA sequence.

Cops - no and yes

There can be reasons why you do need to report incidents to the cops - such as if your ex-partner makes a credible (or possible) violent threat towards you.

A few times I’ve had to call the cops myself, such as when yet another violent affray broke out in the nether world that's the heaving mass of bodies in the bend of an overfilled bendy nightbus.

For want of a telephone number for a 'Workers Militia - Psychiatric Wing', I also dialled 999 not so long ago when I spotted a bloke sat on the very top of a sloping roof - and who was babbling away incoherently.

In general though, you don’t go to the cops to put other workers in the soup.

You don’t shop workers to managers either. The enemy is the bosses - those who give the orders. It’s tragic that Jobcentre workers, council staff, ticket inspectors, debt collectors and many more workers are obliged to work against the masses to protect the millions of their masters but workers such people remain - and deserving of our basic solidarity.

I remember once being astonished, in a supermarket with whom I thought was a rather hardcore red, when she took umbrage with an error made by the person working on the checkout. She then insisted on making a formal complaint about him to management, despite my strongly expressed disdain for what she was doing.

Andy Newman

I’ve disagreed with Newman before, but in his defence, he’s no Left hobbyist (those many bloggers who think that tap tap tapping away their bon mots gives them a pass on having to do any trade union, single issue campaigning - or other left activity that involves doing more than just arguing the toss with like thinkers).

He does stuff. A leaflet distributed (and organised?) by him as part of the Swindon Stop The War Group and that is aimed at convincing young people not sign up for the armed forces is a great initiative.

I’m not sure whether such a record makes his error worse or better.

Left malaise


But it’s not him that’s the issue; it’s the basic lack of awareness by British Lefts of a class approach towards the state, its representative and those obliged to work for same.

What’s more alarming is that no reader of his article about the Swindon incident, on what is reputed to be the most widely read Left blog in Britain (claimed near 200,000 unique visits last month) has pointed out what's wrong with Newman’s actions.

The comments left even include advice on what law he can use against the hapless security guard! Is it the herd mentality of many witless blog reader and writers; the lack of capacity for independent thought amongst the Left or just sheer rightward thinking that provokes such dross - or a combination of all of these?

One commentator even wonders whether the security guard is ex-forces, as though that makes his conduct more explainable and with the implication of ‘what can you expect from such?’

It’s a socialist viewpoint to consider volunteer soldiers (and pigs) to be the inveterate enemy. But when they (or cops) ditch that uniform, they (nearly always) rejoin the ranks of workers. It’s certainly true, that brutalised and indoctrinated as they will be, they'll often maintain reactionary views - but then so do millions of others.

In uniform


I’ve been thinking about the position of some others working for the cops, such as Police Community Support Officers or civilian police photographers, in the class lines. My view is that if, at least, they wear the uniform, they are fair game. More fool them for signing up for the brickbats without getting the pay and benefits of the standard cop.

But security guards are fellow workers (in a uniform). Maybe Newman can do a victory post if he gets the security guard sacked or convicted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Southpawpunch is"

I often list comments made about this website - good and bad - on the right, under "Southpawpunch is".

My favourite comment has to be one I found recently appended to a block of text that had been copied from one of my articles here by Call me Jim

“WHEN I TRY TO READ ABOUT FORIEGHN POLITICS IT MAKES ME FEEL STUPID. but i do it anyways becals it make me feel smart to know i tryed. :)”a nd that is a sumery of my entire life. god bless my brain, it'll need it by the time i'm done with it.“

7 comments:

Jim Jay said...

I don't think it's as simple as this.

It's that very problem that you point to ("For want of a telephone number for a workers militia - psychiatric wing, I also dialled 999") that makes life difficult.

So when you say that "you don't shop workers to managers" it's far too hard and fast. In my time as a shop steward I've had to deal with sexual harrasment, racism and abuse of the disabled - all by workers. If we're talking about a minor incident that you think could be dealt with behind the bike sheds that's one thing - but when push comes to shove in order to protect some workers you need to ensure others are disciplined sometimes.

We have no workers council to do that for us.

And this isn't an abstract issue. I've seen union officials fight tooth and nail to protect a worker who has been a persistant harrasser of women from any management action what so ever.

Guess what - those workers didn't want anything to do with the union after because it has conspired to make them more vulnerable in the work place, not less.

Now - unless we want to live in a police state where security guards can threaten to kill leftists with no fear of the law I'd suggest that we should argue that the law does apply in that case.

Or are we to take matters into our own hands? Duff the guy up? Blow up his car? In some situations that might be appropriate - but it would be a disproportionate response in this case.

You don't win the *right* to distribute left wing literature by pretending that problems do not exist. I don't know about the specifics here but it should not be regarded as a principle that we ignore the servants of big business when they threaten to kill us.

Southpawpunch said...

I was saying there is no hard and fast rule - as I said I’ve called the cops myself and given just two examples when one should. But trying to get a guy done for a spurious threat like this - indefensible.

Nor did I say there is a hard and fast rule for not shopping workers to bosses - but it would be a very rare exception. A worker, for example, discriminating against people with disabilities, and who won’t change their conduct after being approached, should suffer sanctions from their fellow workers (e.g. no contact beyond work obligations) rather than have the bosses involved.

As a shop steward I once had to defend a worker who had been binning job applications because he was too damn lazy to process them. When he was found out I had no qualms in defending him (unsuccessfully - he was sacked) against the bosses; that is against those who don’t just bin job applications but the jobs themselves.

All this isn’t just socialist principles; it’s tactically clever as well. I was once refused union representation when my (non union) female bosses’ boss accused me of sexism for completely spurious reasons - as she put it, “for failing to give proper respect (to a woman)” and “denying management’s right to manage with two of those mangers being women”. The ‘sexism’ bit was as fake as the current completely bogus attack by Unison on several Socialist Party Unison militants on a manufactured charge of ‘racism’ (sic).

But like those comrades, such a charge meant the union could provide itself with some ‘Left’ (sic) cover. My Labourite union branch secretary was only too keen to see me up for a disciplinary and was pleased to spread baseless smears – ‘Southpawpunch is a sexist, don’t defend him’. This, of course, is bad tactics. It weakens the union organisation generally when one of the branch’s militants is attacked.

But then as a Green, a proponent of a capitalist party, you are caught between two stools, at best, when it comes to grasping socialist principles.

Jim Jay said...

Well I'm glad we have some agreement then - thanks for the clarification.

I do want to emphaise that sometimes people should not be doing their jobs and, basically, should be sacked. Someone who is charged with helping disabled people but actually hits them cannot simply be sent to conventry but should be out on his ear. At the moment it is the bosses who do this.

I totally agree that it should not be a rule not to defend people against charges of sexism, because they might not be right, but if the union conducts it's own investigation (which it should) and sexual discrimination/harrassment is taking place then it should take a firm line to protect its female members.

Or are you saying that no accusation of sexual harrassment should be taken seriously?

The end jibe is silly as it rather misses the point that we agree on quite a bit.

Jonny Favorite said...

Many skaters and goths are being attacked by feral youth (also EMOs in some places bu that is mainly name calling) what is the alternative to calling the Police? Apart from Crime Stoppers?

Southpawpunch said...

Depends what you mean by a 'union investigation' - the branch secretary deciding or something legitimate; but yes I agree.

I haven't said anything to suggest sexist (or other) discrimination shouldn't be countered (but again by workers, not the bosses).

Bosses don't neutrally investigate, I'd have thought the text quoted above show that my example was just a boss trying to strap on some further (spurious) allegations to a charge that arose from me defending a trade union member (or "denying management’s right to manage" as they put it). Being the public sector the bosses were sussed enough to add such dirt, it would help their case e.g. in an appeal to councillors.

(I'll tell you some other time about the failed attempt to stick the same charge on me, by a manager, for just shouting the word 'scab' three times at a woman, er, scab during a GLC strike).

Skaters, surfboarders, sailors, sunbathers etc. being attacked by feral (wolf/human cross breeds?) - call the cops or post me the details and I will.

But goths, hmmm, they probably deserve it. Tempus fugit.

Jim Jay said...

I agree with all of that - except the goth bit. Bless them.

Renegade Eye said...

The guard must have made what sounded as a serious threat. It seems like a threat with capital T.

There is such a thing as professionalism in security work, that prevents an episode going on to this level.