city:leicester

  • The Strange Case of the Woman Who Gave Birth to a Demon Cat | Mysterious Universe
    https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2019/03/the-strange-case-of-the-woman-who-gave-birth-to-a-demon-cat

    There was a time in our history when demons roamed the earth. It was a time when even the most educated believed there were sinister supernatural forces lurking among us, while the uneducated huddled in their darkened homes at night, fearful of the witches, warlocks, demons, and spirits that prowled their world. From this age of superstition and myth, this era when monsters were very real to the people who feared that dark unknown, come many strange stories of encounters with demonic forces. These are stories of magic and monsters, taken as real at the time, and one such odd account has managed to be rather persistent over the centuries is a tale of a humble peasant woman, her Devil lover, and her demon cat baby.
    For this strange tale we go back in time to the year 1569, where in Leicestershire, England, there lived a woman named Agnes Bowker. There was nothing particularly remarkable about the then 27-year-old Bowker, the humble daughter of a butcher who worked as a family servant at an estate, and she may have remained a nobody lost to history if it weren’t for a series of very bizarre events that would unfold. It began when Bowker suddenly became pregnant, a sinful situation as she was not married at the time, but this was apparently the least of her worries. On January 17th, 1569, it was reported that Bowker had given birth to some sort of cat-like monster, and the news at the time spread like wildfire, whispered under the breath of fearful locals. After all, this was an era in which myths and magic were very real, demons and the devil a very present threat, and superstition ran rampant. Many locals feared that the creature was a demonic abomination from Hell or a portent of incoming catastrophe, and Bowker did little to calm these fears, claiming that it was the child of some shapeshifting supernatural creature, which she had had sexual relations with on several occasions. David Cressy says of this in his book Travesties and Transgressions in Tudor and Stuart England: Tales of Discord and Dissension:

    She now said ‘that a thing came unto her as she was in bed and lay the first night very heavy upon her bed but touched her not. The next night she saw it and it was in the likeness of a black cat. By the moonlight it came into her bed and had knowledge of her body’ on several occasions.

    Word of the anomalous birth made it all the way to Queen Elizabeth’s Privy Council and the Bishop of London, and rather than being written off as a hoax, the birth was actually seriously investigated. Among the first to be questioned on the incident were Bowker’s midwives, who were allegedly present at the birth, and amazingly they seemed to support the woman’s wild claims. One of the midwives, named Elizabeth Harrison, claimed that she had seen the alleged father of the creature, which she described as “the likeness of a bear, sometimes like a dog, sometimes like a man,” and explained that six other midwives had been present for the ominous birth. Another midwife named Margaret Roos claimed that, while she hadn’t actually seen the baby, it had “pricked” her with its claws while still in the womb, and although none of them had seen it actually come out of the body, it was claimed that they had gone to fetch what they needed for the birth and come back to the room to see the monstrosity on the floor at Bowker’s feet. Making it all the more bizarre is that Harrison also testified that Bowker had told her of meeting a woman in the countryside who had cryptically told her the portent that she would give birth to a beast called the “Mooncalf.”

    In the meantime, other witnesses were also questioned, including townsfolk and clergy, and there was even a body produced that was claimed to be the foul creature itself. Some local men claimed to have actually dissected it and examined it to find food and straw within its stomach, and in their opinion it had just been a regular cat. They even accused Bowker of having stolen a neighborhood cat in order to pull off a hoax. The Archdeacon’s Commissary, Anthony Anderson, was able to examine the cat himself, and not only made sketches of it, but also compared it with a normal cat. Anderson would come to the conclusion that the supposed “Bowker’s Cat” was just a normal cat, saying “It appeareth plainly to be a counterfeit matter; but yet we cannot extort confessions of the manner of doings.” Indeed, the Bishop of London, Edmund Grindal, would also concede that this was likely a hoax, but also admitted there was no way to prove it either way. London physician William Bullein would express doubts as to the veracity of the whole tale as well, but there were still plenty of scared people who believed it all.

    This expert opinion seems to have cast some doubt on the veracity of the whole story, and it did not help that Bowker seemed to be increasingly derailed, telling all sorts of conflicting stories. Sometimes she would expound on her night time visitations with a shapeshifting demon, at other times she said that she had been told to marry the Devil by a schoolmaster who had sexually abused her repeatedly, and that the demon had come to her in the form of a “greyhound and a cat” sent by him. Even the whereabouts of the baby were inconsistent, with Bowker at one point claiming that the child was being nursed at Guilsborough, and at another time saying that it had been stillborn, while still on other occasions she said that she had no memory of the actual birth, only being told after the fact by her midwives about the monstrosity that had come forth from her womb.

    However, even when the whole case was brought before a special ecclesiastical court in front of the Archdeacon of Leicester Bowker, her midwives remained adamant that the whole surreal story of the cat monster and the demon father was true. The case even went to a secular court, and one thing no one could ever figure out is just what had happened to the actual baby, because demon cat or not, it was widely known that Bowker really had been pregnant. It is unknown to this day whether it had been stillborn, as she often claimed, or whether it had really been sent away to be nursed, as she also claimed. It was also suggested that she may have killed her baby, not necessarily because it was a cat, but because she sought to escape the grave stigma of having a child out of wedlock. Of course there was also a contingent of people who believed that she really did have the cat abomination, and that the one that had been dissected was not the real one at all, although where it had gone was anyone’s guess. Whether there was anything supernatural or not going on here, a lot of people of the time believed there was, and Cressey would write:

    It mattered little whether Agnes gave birth to a bastard or to a beast, or whether she had murdered her baby; but it became a matter of public concern when people saw threatening portents in this apparent violation of nature, and when credulous Catholics gained ground by exploiting a dubious story. Abnormal births and bestial instrusions were shocking reminders of the unpredictability of the universe and of the power of hidden forces to subvert everyday routines. At times of crisis they assumed political dimensions, as augeries of ‘alterations of kingdoms’ and portents of ‘destruction of princes.’ It should come as no surprise, then, to find the government attempting to control or neutralize such reports in 1569.

    A sketch of Agnes Bowker’s cat

    In the end, Agnes Bowker was not found guilty of any crime, but that is about all we know about her life after that, and as soon as all of the court cases and investigations were over she just sort of evaporated into history. Regardless of what happened to Bowker, it is all rather fascinating and testament to the absurd weirdness of it all that her story has managed to remain talked about and remembered centuries later. Such is its utter bizarreness and its unique nature of having been given so much investigation and court time by the highest officials of the time that it has become nearly legendary. What happened to Agnes Bowker? Was this a wild tale spun by a possibly mentally unstable woman trying to escape the shame of a child out of wedlock, mixing with a mass hysteria fueled by the superstitions and fears of the supernatural at the times? Or did she really give birth to a demon child? Indeed, what happened to the child, demon or not? Why did the authorities spend so much time and manpower on this case? These are questions for which we will not likely find answers to, and the bizarre case of Agnes Bokwer’s cat manages to remain an intriguing historical oddity.

    #femme #accouchement #demon #chat

  • Apologists for Assad working in British universities | News | The Times
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/apologists-for-assad-working-in-british-universities-2f72hw29m

    Senior British academics are spreading pro-Assad disinformation and conspiracy theories promoted by Russia, The Times can reveal.

    They are founders of a self-styled Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (SPM) and hold posts at universities including Edinburgh, Sheffield and Leicester.

    Members of the group, which includes four professors, have been spreading the slur, repeated by the Russian ambassador to Britain yesterday, that the White Helmets civilian volunteer force has fabricated video evidence of attacks by President Assad, who is backed by the Kremlin.

    Bien que datant d’avril dernier, cela me paraît mériter une petite mention. En France les moyens de pression sont tout de même un poil plus subtils.

    #syrie #médias

  • The curious case of Harriet Moore, alias John Murphy – All Things Georgian
    https://georgianera.wordpress.com/2018/11/22/the-curious-case-of-harriet-moore-alias-john-murphy

    Harriet was born in Sligo, Ireland in the early 1800s. Her mother died in 1816, leaving her an orphan. It is reported in one account that she was put out to service, in another, simply that being orphaned, she put on her brothers’ clothes and, dressed as a boy, changed her name to John Murphy (her mother’s maiden name) as she feared travelling alone as a female and set off to seek employment.

    Her first job was as a cabin boy during which time she accidentally fell overboard, and fearful of being discovered she escaped to shore and ran away. She then took employment as a footboy to a Rev. Mr Duke where she remained for a year, during which time one of the maids, assuming Harriet was a boy, fell in love with her. The maid told her employer that she had discovered John was really a woman. Upon questioning, Harriet swore that the maid was mistaken and that he was a male but Harriet/John had no option but to move on.

    She sailed on board a ship to Liverpool and assisted a Mr Lowther with driving his cattle to Leicester. Having travelled as far as Shardlow, Derbyshire she left Lowther and took up employment at the Navigation Inn, Shardlow, working for a Mr Clarke. After only a couple of months, still masquerading as a man, she was beaten up by one of the other servants for being Irish.
    Shardlow Hall
    Shardlow Hall

    Harriet then moved on and worked as a groom to James Sutton Esq. at Shardlow Hall. This was a good position, and all went well until there was some sort of altercation and Harriet left under a cloud.

    During her time in Shardlow, Harriet gained employment at the local salt works and lodged in the nearby village of Aston-on-Trent, with a Mrs Jane Lacey who had a daughter, Matilda (born 1808). Matilda found herself pregnant by the village butcher, a married man, but she was also in love in love with John aka Harriet.
    A Derbyshire Landscape by William Turner of Oxford.
    A Derbyshire Landscape by William Turner of Oxford. © The Trustees of the British Museum

    Somehow, Mrs Lacey discovered that John was actually Harriet – blackmail began. Mrs Lacey told Harriet that if it was discovered that he was a she, she would be transported. Mrs Lacey arranged for Matilda’s child to be raised as if the child were John’s and that John should marry Matilda.

    In a state of distress at the prospect of marriage, Harriet sought employment just over the border in Nottinghamshire. At Chilwell, near Beeston, just 8 miles away, she worked for a bricklayer and first learnt to carry the hod, which she was very successful at since she had become accustomed to doing manual work. She was well-respected by her master and fellow workmen. This peace was shattered when Matilda’s mother wrote a letter to the master, saying that John had abandoned Matilda. The employer, a moral man dismissed John.
    Bricklayer’s labourer, c.1820
    Bricklayer’s labourer, c.1820

    Worried about being discovered, Harriet agreed to Mrs Lacey’s demands and married Matilda at the parish church at Aston-on-Trent on 25th August 1823. John didn’t find it easy trying to maintain a wife, child and Matilda’s mother and began to seek work away from home and this often drew the attention of the parish officers towards him, until eventually, he left.

    John went on to meet a woman who became his confidante, and upon telling her the story, she procured for him suitable female clothing and Harriet divorced herself from her matrimonial troubles. Harriet was described as short, stout, good-looking and stated to be in her twentieth year but was perhaps somewhat older.
    Image of Harriet engraved from a painting held by a Mr Oakley via UCD Special Collections on Twitter.
    Image of Harriet engraved from a painting held by a Mr Oakley via UCD Special Collections on Twitter.

    It is interesting to note that another child, Mary was born in 1826, with no father’s name being given, the child being described as a bastard.

    Then a son, George, who was baptised in the north of the county at Hayfield, 19th August 1827, this time both parents, John and Matilda Murphy were named. We’re not totally certain that this was their child though.

    The 1827 baptism is doubly curious because, prior to that date, John had become Harriet again and married John Gardiner, a widowed silk weaver at Derby on 17th October 1825.

    In April 1830, Matilda married again too, under her maiden name, but only a few months in February 1831, an entry appears in the burial register for Aston for a Matilda Browne, so it’s relatively safe to assume that she died. Interestingly, a couple of weeks later a baby, Jane Browne, aged just 6 months was also buried, so presumably, this was their daughter.

    As to what became of Harriet and her husband we have no idea, they seem to have vanished into thin air. Perhaps after all the publicity, it’s hardly surprising?

    #femmes #transgenre #misogynie

  • Palestine.
    Le droit à l’appel au boycott reconnu par la Cour d’appel de l’Angleterre et du pays de Galles - AURDIP
    https://www.aurdip.org/le-droit-a-l-appel-au-boycott.html

    La Cour d’appel de l’Angleterre et du pays de Galles (Division civile) a rendu le 3 juillet 2018 un arrêt dans une affaire opposant l’association « Jewish Human Rights Watch » à la mairie de Leicester. La Cour estime que l’appel au boycott des produits des colonies israéliennes, même lancé par un conseil municipal, relève de la liberté d’expression politique et n’y voit aucune incitation à la discrimination raciale (texte de l’arrêt).

    L’affaire porte sur la légalité de la résolution adoptée par le conseil municipal de Leicester le 13 novembre 2014. La résolution appelle « au boycott de tout produit originaire des colonies israéliennes illégales de Cisjordanie jusqu’à ce qu’Israël respecte le droit international et se retire des territoires palestiniens occupés ». L’association « Jewish Human Rights Watch » demande à la justice anglaise d’annuler la résolution, en faisant valoir son caractère discriminatoire et les risques qu’elle comporterait vis-à-vis de la communauté juive de la ville, notamment en ce qu’elle conforterait l’idéologie du mouvement BDS.

    Dans un jugement du 28 juin 2016, la Haute cour de justice (division administrative) considère que la résolution n’a pas violé la règlementation anglaise, notamment les lois relatives à l’égalité de 2010 et aux collectivités locales de 1988 (texte du jugement). L’arrêt du 3 juillet 2018 de la Cour d’appel confirme le jugement du 28 juin 2016.

    L’arrêt rendu est commenté en anglais par le professeur Robert Wintemute (professeur de droits de l’homme au King’s College de Londres), dans un article publié dans la newsletter de septembre 2018 (p. 5) de l’association « British Committee for the Universities of Palestine » (BRICUP).

  • L’hélicoptère du président Donald Trump s’écrase aux abords du camp républicain
    Après l’attaque de Pittsburgh, le club et stade de Leicester accusés d’attiser la haine

    Rixe mortelle à Sarcelles : Les pharmaciens mis en examen pour « homicide volontaire »
    L’Assemblée rejette la possibilité pour trois adolescents de prescrire certains médicaments

    Près de 80 % des têtes de listes aux élections européennes menacées par la précampagne
    Le casse-tête des espèces d’oiseaux migrateurs anime le changement climatique d’ici 2050
    #de_la_dyslexie_créative

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hWHUHALlz8


    Warum Joe - Ballroom au Ritz

    • Le #mirage anglais : la #désillusion des migrants

      Après la périlleuse traversée de la Manche, 
des migrants déchantent au Royaume-Uni.

      Depuis plus de vingt ans et l’ouverture du tunnel sous la Manche, les camps d’infortune baptisés « jungles » se succèdent à Calais et aux alentours. Y survivent des Irakiens, des Afghans, des Érythréens, des Soudanais et des ressortissants de bien d’autres nationalités, en fonction des aléas géopolitiques, tous aimantés par cet Eldorado britannique qu’ils fantasment et aperçoivent depuis la plage, à une trentaine de kilomètres.

      D’infimes falaises obsédantes derrière les vagues grises agitées : ce paysage tempétueux est l’une des frontières européennes les plus difficiles à franchir, rendue prétendument étanche grâce aux millions d’euros versés chaque année par la Grande-Bretagne.

      Les infrastructures du port et de l’Eurotunnel, ultimes étapes avant leur escale finale – l’Angleterre – sont gardées comme des forteresses à grand renfort de barbelés, scanners, policiers...

      Les exilés tentent de passer cette lisière seuls, ou avec l’aide des cellules de passeurs souvent kurdes, implantées sur le littoral. En Grande-Bretagne, pensent-ils séduits, leur asile sera accepté, ils trouveront du travail, ou encore ils ne seront pas expulsés vers le premier pays d’Europe, responsable de leur demande d’asile, selon le règlement Dublin III.

      Une fois la Manche franchie, les migrants s’évanouissent dans la nature, s’expriment peu, par crainte d’être ennuyés par les autorités. Ils tentent de se construire une vie, dans l’anonymat. Le soi-disant Eldorado ne comble pas toujours leurs attentes.

      La majorité des demandeurs à l’asile – 30 603 en 2016, selon le Home Office (ndlr : équivalent du ministère de l’Intérieur) – sont Iraniens, puis Pakistanais, Irakiens, Afghans, Bangladais…

      Et au final, « 34 % des demandes sont acceptées, soit un taux moins élevé qu’en France – 40 % », souligne Magali Lambert, de La Cimade. Quant au règlement Dublin III, « il est appliqué comme en France. Tout migrant peut être renvoyé vers le premier pays responsable de sa demande d’asile ».

      Wira et Barzan (Kurdes irakiens)

      Le soleil transperce les nuages gris, illumine les docks.

      Le cri des mouettes couvre la respiration de la marée grise. Il est midi à Liverpool, les pintes de bières règnent sur les tables d’un pub cerné d’entrepôts de briques. Les Britanniques à l’accent scouse, typique de ce grand port du nord-ouest du Royaume-Uni, trinquent sur les quais.

      Devant leurs verres d’eau gazeuse, les Kurdes irakiens Barzan et Wira (prénoms modifiés à leur demande), eux, n’ont pas le goût à la détente. « La décision du Home Office est tombée il y a deux mois. On m’a rejeté, on ne veut pas de moi ».

      Barzan, 26 ans, détaille les justifications des autorités britanniques avec mépris.

      lls m’ont dit que maintenant je pouvais retourner en Irak, que ce n’était plus dangereux, que je pouvais être avec ma famille là-bas.

      Barzan, un Kurde irakien de 26 ans

      Son ami Wira, 36 ans, tente de le consoler, mais a peu d’arguments. « Je suis venu en Grande-Bretagne il y a quatorze ans, ma demande d’asile et mon appel ont été rejetés. Depuis, j’ai fait plus de douze demandes de réexamen [il n’y a pas de limites pour ces requêtes, il faut apporter de nouveaux éléments au dossier, ndlr]. C’est toujours non ».

      Wira est dans une zone grise : sommé de quitter le pays, il ne compte plus les années à errer, anonyme, entre les villes de Leicester, Wrexham et Liverpool.

      Wira et Barzan viennent d’Erbil et de Souleimaniye, dans la région autonome du Kurdistan irakien. L’Angleterre, ils l’ont fantasmée à plus d’une décennie d’écart. Le premier y a posé le pied en 2002, le second en 2016. « Ici, on pouvait gagner notre vie, la construire, du moins c’est ce que je pensais », résume Barzan.

      Son regard vert glacial se fait encore plus froid quand il repense au chemin parcouru. « Je suis venu par la Turquie, la Grèce, la route des Balkans en 2015 ». Il tente d’abord une première demande d’asile en Allemagne en 2015. Puis « neuf mois sans nouvelles », alors il se « reporte » sur la Grande-Bretagne.

      « Je suis resté des mois bloqué à Grande-Synthe (à 30 km de Calais) avant de réussir à passer, après une dizaine de tentatives, avec 24 autres personnes dans un camion de lots de shampoing ». Barzan se souvient : « Ce n’était pas la vie normale. Le temps était long. Tu ne savais pas combien de temps tu allais rester, ce que tu allais devenir ».

      En 2002, « tout était plus simple : ni contrôles ni policiers ni barbelés », lui répond Wira, qui a franchi la frontière à cette date. « Je suis resté trois jours à Calais et j’ai réussi dès le premier coup à passer dans un camion ». Les souvenirs de Wira sont légers et flous, ceux de Barzan tenaces et amers.

      Les deux hommes montrent leurs mains rouges et desséchées. S’ils n’ont toujours pas de statut de réfugié, ils ont un travail, l’une de leurs motivations pour venir en Grande-Bretagne.

      « On lave des voitures », explique Barzan. « Si tu es réfugié, en Angleterre, tu dois passer par le “car-wash” même si ça abime les mains, plaisante Wira, c’est dans une société de lavage de voitures que nous nous sommes rencontrés, beaucoup de Kurdes y travaillent, on trouve toujours. Au début on gagne 39 euros puis avec l’expérience 56 euros par semaine. Je travaille dans ce secteur depuis quatorze ans ».

      Et toujours non déclaré. « Trouver un job au noir, c’est facile en Grande-Bretagne, je ne me suis jamais fait prendre par les autorités. Il paraît que quelques patrons se prennent des amendes. Mais personnellement, je n’ai jamais vu aucun directeur avoir des problèmes ».

      Dans ce pays à l’économie libérale, le travail au noir représente près de 9,4 % du PIB en 2017, selon le magazine américain Forbes.

      On ne compte pas nos heures, on travaille six jours sur sept.

      Barzan, un Kurde irakien de 26 ans

      « Mais je crois qu’en fait c’est la norme, comme un cercle vicieux sans fin, analyse Wira. La Grande-Bretagne a besoin de nous, de main d’œuvre, pour les petits boulots. Mais en même temps, nous sommes rejetés, nous n’avons pas de droits ».

      Les compères remontent l’artère commerçante de Liverpool où se succèdent les magasins des grandes chaînes de prêt-à-porter. « C’est une très belle ville, mais je suis effrayé par le racisme, avoue Barzan. Tu le sens, le raciste, c’est celui qui te regarde comme quelqu’un d’inférieur ». Ils rejoignent un restaurant kurde aux murs blancs.

      Barzan déprime devant sa soupe de lentilles rouges. « Je suis perdu, je veux gagner ma vie mais dans une usine ou en tant que chauffeur de taxi, pas dans un “car-wash”, au noir ». Il songe au retour et évoque cet ami kurde qui lui « n’en pouvait plus d’attendre ». « Il est parti en Allemagne pour tenter de demander l’asile là-bas ».

      Comme lui, en 2017, quelque 966 personnes ont franchi irrégulièrement la frontière entre l’Angleterre et la France, selon l’Ocriest (Office central pour la répression de l’immigration irrégulière et de l’emploi d’étrangers sans titre). Souvent dissimulés dans les camions, ils ont finalement re-traversé la Manche en sens inverse, lassés de la dureté de ce pays dont ils avaient trop rêvé.

      Lire aussi : L’abandon des enfants migrants en France
      Ridire (Bédouin apatride)

      Ridire exhibe tout sourires ses cartes. « Ma première carte d’identité, ma première carte de crédit ». Des sésames dont il est fier et grâce auxquels il bénéficie d’une reconnaissance après un long passage à vide. « Dans tous les pays que j’ai traversés, j’étais considéré comme quelqu’un d’illégal, un terroriste, parce que j’étais un migrant ».

      Cet homme brun au teint hâlé traîne ses longues jambes sur un marché bouillonnant de Birmingham, sa commune d’adoption. « C’est une bonne localité pour recommencer une nouvelle vie, trouver un bon travail ». Entre les étals, les langues anglaise mais aussi pakistanaise, arabe ou chinoise se mêlent dans cette deuxième ville d’Angleterre qui abrite de nombreux réfugiés.

      Bédouin, Ridire est né sans papiers au Koweït.

      « Nous sommes bidoune [sans papiers, ndlr] et persécutés, le pays ne veut pas de nous ». Formant une famille d’apatrides avec sa mère et ses petits frère et sœur, ils prennent en 2010 le chemin de Damas, en Syrie, où Ridire travaille dans un hôtel.

      La guerre arrive, la fuite au Liban s’impose, dans un camp de réfugiés où l’attente devient interminable. Ils décident alors de rejoindre leur oncle, installé depuis des années en Grande-Bretagne.

      Son frère et sa sœur, mineurs, bénéficient d’un regroupement familial. Ridire emprunte la voie illégale : traversée de la Turquie, la Grèce, la route des Balkans, à l’été 2015.

      « J’ai rarement ressenti d’humanité, insiste Ridire. La seule fois c’était à Lesbos, avec des bénévoles qui m’ont parlé comme à quelqu’un de normal ». Une inhumanité qui s’accentue, d’après lui, lorsqu’il débarque à Grande-Synthe.

      « Je suis arrivé de nuit, avec ma mère. D’autres migrants nous ont dit de nous installer dans une tente. Le lendemain, à la lumière du jour, j’ai découvert le cauchemar : les rats, la boue... » Ridire est alors au camp du #Barosch de #Grande-Synthe, aux côtés de 2 000 migrants. Il y découvre le système des passeurs.

      « Des trafiquants sont venus me voir, m’ont dit “comme tu es Koweïtien, tu es riche, un passage te coûtera 2 500 euros” ». Dans le nord de la France, les trafiquants appliquent les tarifs de leurs « prestations » souterraines au faciès.

      Pour passer la Manche caché dans un camion, un ressortissant érythréen, réputé pauvre, paiera moitié moins cher qu’un Syrien, réputé riche, indique Ridire écœuré. Lui n’a pas d’argent. Les saisons passent à Grande-Synthe. Sa mère tombe malade, il parvient à la faire passer légalement en Grande-Bretagne, mi-2016.

      Seul, Ridire déchante. « Je pensais que j’allais mourir à Grande-Synthe. Un passeur qui me voyait dépérir m’a aidé. Un soir il m’a dit, “ok tu montes gratuit” dans un camion qui contenait des télévisions, de la farine, des pots en céramique… ».

      Sur le trajet, il pleure de joie. « Je me disais, je vais enfin avoir des droits. Le poids lourd s’est arrêté dans un village du centre, je suis sorti sous les yeux médusés du chauffeur – un Roumain je crois – en courant, trop heureux. Il n’a rien dit. J’ai appelé ma famille à Birmingham qui m’a envoyé un taxi ».

      Au bout d’un an, Ridire obtient son statut, le Koweït est jugé dangereux pour lui « il y a un risque d’extinction de la communauté (des Bédouins) à cause du mauvais traitement que nous subissons : pas de services, pas d’accès à l’éducation ni à la santé », justifie Ridire.

      Il peut aujourd’hui avoir accès au système de santé, étudie les mathématiques à la faculté, vit dans une maison avec sa mère. Les 42 euros hebdomadaires que lui verse le gouvernement l’aident à se nourrir.

      « D’ici quelques années, je travaillerai dans l’industrie du pétrole, je n’ai pas honte de dire que j’ai envie de bien gagner ma vie. L’Angleterre pour moi, c’est le business, c’est très différent de la France, où j’ai le sentiment que les gens sont plus amicaux ». Le pays réputé individualiste « casse quelques traditions et valeurs familiales, avoue-t-il. En ce mois de juin, c’est le ramadan, or mes frère et sœur n’ont pas le temps de venir dîner, ils disent qu’ils travaillent trop. Alors on s’appelle, mais on ne reste plus ensemble, comme au Koweït. S’il nous arrive une broutille, personne ne se déplace pour l’autre. Trop de travail, c’est souvent l’excuse ».

      Maintenant, Ridire espère obtenir d’autres droits. « J’aimerais pouvoir voter. Si j’avais eu ce droit, je n’aurais surtout pas voté pour le Brexit, qui ­m’inquiète et va nous isoler ».
      Henok (Érythréen)

      Henok chante des airs de rap en marchant sur les trottoirs bondés de Londres. Il slalome ce jour de juin entre les passants, près de la gare internationale de Saint-Pancras. Parmi la foule d’anonymes, personne ne s’attarde sur la bouille ronde du jeune Érythréen, cheveux en bataille, survêtement noir et petite sacoche.

      Sur le chemin de l’exil, Henok devait fuir les regards, « On me dévisageait alors que je voulais être discret, dit l’adolescent de 18 ans. Il était l’étranger. Aujourd’hui, je me sens libre ». Il avance serein entonnant des paroles sur Calais, qu’il a composées lui-même. La ville, jamais loin, le hante toujours. Car avec Tripoli, en Libye, Calais est l’escale de son ­parcours qui l’a le plus « choqué ».

      Parti seul d’un village près d’Asmara à 14 ans, il fuit le service militaire à vie de ce pays d’Afrique de l’Est sous la coupe du dictateur Isaias Afwerki.

      Pendant deux ans, Henok ne songe qu’à traverser les frontières. « Je voulais venir en Grande-Bretagne dès le départ. J’avais entendu par des amis déjà sur place qu’on trouvait du travail plus facilement en Angleterre qu’en Italie ou en France ».

      Son itinéraire se dessine : Soudan, Libye, Italie, France. Des milliers d’autres migrants l’ont fait avant lui, cela lui donne espoir, les photos de proches en Grande-Bretagne le soutiennent pendant son périple. Sans argent, il ne passe pas toujours avec des passeurs de frontières, « je me cachais seul dans les camions ».

      Lire aussi : Plus de cent soudanais renvoyés dans l’enfer libyen

      Henok insiste sur deux étapes qui l’ont traumatisé.

      À Tripoli en Libye et à Calais, j’ai lutté pour ma survie. Je pensais souvent à la mort.

      Henok, Érythréen de 18 ans

      Malgré sa jeunesse, elle est omniprésente dans la vie de l’adolescent. « En Libye, je suis resté bloqué à Tripoli, pendant trois mois, dans une maison de torture [les migrants nomment généralement ces bâtisses des connexions houses, surveillées par les passeurs, ndlr] ».

      Enfoncé dans le fauteuil d’un café cosy londonien, Henok exhibe une blessure sur sa main. « Ceux qui me gardaient me brûlaient, ils voulaient appeler mes parents pour avoir de l’argent contre ma liberté, mais mes parents n’ont pas de téléphone dans leur village ! ».

      Il perd la notion du temps, finit par embarquer pour l’Italie « Un jour de printemps 2015, dit-il évasif. J’avais trop peur, mais il fallait rejoindre l’Italie. C’était la mort en Libye, la mort dans l’eau ou l’Italie, pas d’autres options ». Il navigue sur la Méditerranée centrale dans un bateau en bois où s’entassent 383 personnes, avant d’être tiré des flots par un navire italien. « Le plus beau jour de ma vie, mais je n’arrive pas à le décrire, c’était trop fort ». Il marque un silence et sourit.

      Après cette frontière traumatisante, il reste à Henok une autre mer à traverser : la Manche. Et un second traumatisme, Calais. « Je suis passé facilement de l’Italie à la France par les Alpes, caché dans un camion, contre 30 euros. Calais, finalement, ça paraissait simple à franchir : la Manche est petite comparée à la Méditerranée ».

      Mais, bloqué dans la ville de la dentelle pendant un mois et deux semaines, il partage l’errance d’un sans-domicile avec d’autres Érythréens près du port de la ville, nourris par les ONG.

      Puis Henok découvre la traque, dit-il, de ceux dont tous les migrants connaissent l’acronyme à Calais : les CRS. « Presque chaque nuit, je tentais de me cacher dans des camions, avec des amis, sans passeur, les policiers n’étaient jamais loin. Au bout de quelques semaines, je me suis fabriqué un faux garrot pour faire croire que j’étais blessé et qu’ils me laissent tranquille ».

      Son ton s’accélère, il raconte nerveusement. « J’essayais de me glisser sous les châssis des camions, ou de rentrer dans les cargaisons dès que je voyais des poids lourds à l’arrêt. Je ne comptais pas les tentatives. Je me faisais prendre par les policiers, je recommençais le lendemain ».

      Cela devient un défi pour l’adolescent. « Je n’avais pas peur, je pensais à l’Angleterre toute la journée. La nuit, lors de mes passages, mes vêtements étaient déchirés à force de courir et tomber sur les routes ». Sa crainte principale : « Les chiens (renifleurs) du port qui finissaient toujours par me trouver planqué dans les camions alors que j’étais près du but ».

      Henok parvient à sauter dans un train de poids lourds qui file vers l’Eurotunnel.

      Quand j’ai compris que j’étais sous le tunnel, l’émotion était intense pas autant qu’en mer en Libye, mais presque.

      Henok, Érythréen de 18 ans

      Henok dépose sa demande d’asile dans les minutes qui suivent son arrivée à Douvres à l’automne 2015, dans un commissariat de la ville-frontière du sud de l’Angleterre.

      Le mineur est transféré vers Londres, où il est logé avec des travailleurs sociaux par le Home Office. Il obtient son statut de réfugié au bout d’un an, aidé par sa minorité car un retour en Érythrée est bien trop dangereux. « J’ai ce que je voulais, la sécurité et les études. Je veux devenir électricien et continuer le rap ».

      Mais après cette longue quête, une autre commence pour lui. « Je cherche mes parents et mon frère, dont je n’ai jamais eu de nouvelles depuis mon départ. Ils n’ont ni adresse ni Internet. Je pense à eux, ça me rend triste, je voudrais les faire venir, je ne sais pas ce qu’ils sont devenus et eux non plus ne savent rien de ma vie ».


      https://www.amnesty.fr/refugies-et-migrants/actualites/les-mirages-de-leldorado-britannique

      #dessins de #Elisa_Perrigueur

    • Arrivés en Angleterre illégalement, de nombreux mineurs isolés sont victimes des trafiquants

      Refoulés par le Home Office après des mois passés à Calais, de nombreux mineurs ont tout de même décidé d’atteindre l’Angleterre de manière illégale. Beaucoup ont disparu dans la nature et sont tombés aux mains des réseaux de trafiquants.

      Selon le quotidien britannique The Independent, de nombreux migrants mineurs dont le dossier a été refusé par le Home Office - le ministère anglais de l’intérieur - au moment du démantèlement de la « jungle » de Calais ont traversé la Manche par leurs propres moyens et sont tombés entre les mains de trafiquants au Royaume-Uni.

      Lors de la signature de l’amendement Dubs en mars 2016, le Royaume-Uni s’était engagé auprès de la France à accueillir 480 mineurs isolés présents à Calais et désireux de rejoindre l’Angleterre. Mais en octobre 2016, date du démantèlement de la « jungle », des centaines de mineurs non accompagnés ont vu leur demande déboutée par le Home Office.

      L’association Social workers without borders - qui avait mené une série d’évaluations sur plusieurs enfants de la « jungle » avant son démantèlement - rappelle que sur les 42 enfants signalés « dans le besoin », aucun d’entre eux n’a eu l’autorisation de rejoindre l’Angleterre.

      >> À lire sur InfoMigrants : Au Royaume-Uni, un migrant peut croupir des années en centre de rétention

      Bon nombre de migrants refoulés par les autorités britanniques ont donc tenté leur chance par la voie illégale. Beaucoup d’entre eux se sont ainsi retrouvés piégés dans des réseaux de trafiquants.

      Selon les dernières données du Centre d’information sur la traite des enfants (CTAC), sur les 293 jeunes arrivés en Angleterre clandestinement depuis mi 2016, seulement 103 personnes ont été localisées. Les autres - les 190 autres restants - ont tout simplement disparu dans la nature. À titre d’exemple, sur les 42 mineurs identifiés par Social workers without borders, neuf ont atteint le Royaume-Uni par leurs propres moyens et 14 sont toujours « introuvables ».

      « Quand ils n’ont pas d’argent, leur corps ou le trafic de drogue deviennent des monnaies d’échange »

      Selon le quotidien britannique, un adolescent soudanais placé dans une famille d’accueil a disparu quelques mois après son arrivée en Angleterre, en décembre 2016. « Je lui ai envoyé un message mais je n’ai pas eu de réponse », déclare à The Independent Sue Clayton, une universitaire qui lui avait rendu visite. « Il était clair que les choses ne se passaient pas bien pour lui en Angleterre. Il est probable qu’il travaillait pour le compte d’un trafiquant (…). Il m’a dit que sa mère était très malade et que sa famille avait besoin d’argent ».

      The Independent met également en avant le cas d’un garçon de 16 ans qui a été « pris en otage » par des trafiquants une fois arrivé au Royaume-Uni. Les malfaiteurs le retenaient car son père, installé en Angleterre, n’avait pas les moyens de payer les passeurs de son fils. Le jeune homme a pu être libéré grâce à l’intervention de la police.

      Swati Pande, membre du CTAC, estime qu’il est fréquent que les enfants ayant traversé la Manche disparaissent ou ne soient jamais retrouvés au Royaume-Uni. « Rien n’est gratuit. Ces jeunes ont fait un si long voyage, ils doivent toujours de l’argent à quelqu’un », explique-t-elle au journal anglais. « Au cours de leurs voyages, nous savons qu’il peut y avoir des abus. Quelle est la monnaie d’échange de ces enfants ? Quand ils n’ont pas d’argent, leur corps ou le trafic de drogues deviennent des monnaies d’échange », continue-t-elle.

      Pour la députée anglaise Sarah Jones cité par The Independent, le gouvernement britannique a « tourné le dos aux enfants réfugiés de la ‘jungle’ et continue de le faire ». « Cette année marque le 80ème anniversaire du Kindertransport, quand notre pays a sauvé 10 000 enfants du régime nazi. C’est une honte que le sentiment anti-migrant de notre gouvernement s’étende même aux enfants les plus jeunes et les plus vulnérables », a-t-elle ajouté.
      Une critique injustifiée selon un porte-parole du Home Office qui rappelle que « l’an dernier, le Royaume-Uni a assuré la protection de 6 000 enfants et a également délivré 5 218 visas de regroupement familial, dont plus de la moitié était destiné à des enfants ». Reste que seuls 220 enfants ont été transférés en Angleterre depuis fin 2016, sur les 480 prévus par l’amendement Dubs.


      http://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/13286/arrives-en-angleterre-illegalement-de-nombreux-mineurs-isoles-sont-vic

  • Sur les traces d’homo touristicus : Ah, les jolies vacances aux colonies… - CQFD, mensuel de critique et d’expérimentation sociales
    http://cqfd-journal.org/Sur-les-traces-d-homo-touristicus

    Catégorie nouvelle apparue à la fin du XVIIIe siècle, le touriste, tout en marchant sur les pas des uns ou des autres, se distingue de l’explorateur, du colonisateur, du curiste ou du pèlerin par la vacuité sociale de son loisir. À la fin des guerres napoléoniennes, la mode du voyage non utilitaire, réservé aux classes oisives, connaît un véritable essor en Europe. Le développement du chemin de fer, du bateau à vapeur et des échanges internationaux, ainsi que l’expansion coloniale et les voyages scientifiques qui les accompagnent, élargissent l’horizon du touriste au cours du XIXe. En 1841, le puritain Thomas Cook flaire le bon filon et ouvre, en Angleterre, la première agence de voyages. Le premier circuit organisé de l’histoire réunit ainsi 500 membres de ligues contre l’alcoolisme pour un déplacement en train de Leicester à Loughborough.Très vite, le pathétique de l’homo touristicus, ersatz d’aventurier qui entend jouir du spectacle du monde sans rien céder de son confort, suscite la curiosité et la caricature. Dès le deuxième quart du XIXe siècle, l’illustrateur suisse Rodolphe Töpffer dresse, dans Voyages en zigzag, une typologie sarcastique de cette engeance observée dans les Alpes. Il cible particulièrement, le « no-no », touriste anglais hautain, « un itinéraire à la main, un lorgnon sur la belle nature », qui reste dans un rapport livresque à ce qui l’entoure et cultive l’entre-soi : « Haut comme une grue, muet comme un poisson, il se salue lui-même et ceux de son espèce [...] et il méprise beaucoup les pays “ où tute le monde paarlé à tute le monde ”. »

  • In Britain, Austerity Is Changing Everything - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/world/europe/uk-austerity-poverty.html


    #austérité #pauvreté

    Britain’s Big Squeeze
    In Britain, Austerity Is Changing Everything

    After eight years of budget cutting, Britain is looking less like the rest of Europe and more like the United States, with a shrinking welfare state and spreading poverty.

    Raised in the Liverpool neighborhood of Croxteth, Emma Wilde has lost the welfare benefits she depended on to support herself and her two children.CreditAndrea Bruce for The New York Times

    By Peter S. Goodman

    May 28, 2018

    PRESCOT, England — A walk through this modest town in the northwest of England amounts to a tour of the casualties of Britain’s age of austerity.

    The old library building has been sold and refashioned into a glass-fronted luxury home. The leisure center has been razed, eliminating the public swimming pool. The local museum has receded into town history. The police station has been shuttered.

    Now, as the local government desperately seeks to turn assets into cash, Browns Field, a lush park in the center of town, may be doomed, too. At a meeting in November, the council included it on a list of 17 parks to sell to developers.

    “Everybody uses this park,” says Jackie Lewis, who raised two children in a red brick house a block away. “This is probably our last piece of community space. It’s been one after the other. You just end up despondent.”

    In the eight years since London began sharply curtailing support for local governments, the borough of Knowsley, a bedroom community of Liverpool, has seen its budget cut roughly in half. Liverpool itself has suffered a nearly two-thirds cut in funding from the national government — its largest source of discretionary revenue. Communities in much of Britain have seen similar losses.

    For a nation with a storied history of public largess, the protracted campaign of budget cutting, started in 2010 by a government led by the Conservative Party, has delivered a monumental shift in British life. A wave of austerity has yielded a country that has grown accustomed to living with less, even as many measures of social well-being — crime rates, opioid addiction, infant mortality, childhood poverty and homelessness — point to a deteriorating quality of life.

    When Ms. Lewis and her husband bought their home a quarter-century ago, Prescot had a comforting village feel. Now, core government relief programs are being cut and public facilities eliminated, adding pressure to public services like police and fire departments, just as they, too, grapple with diminished funding.

    By 2020, reductions already set in motion will produce cuts to British social welfare programs exceeding $36 billion a year compared with a decade earlier, or more than $900 annually for every working-age person in the country, according to a report from the Center for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University. In Liverpool, the losses will reach $1,200 a year per working-age person, the study says.

    “The government has created destitution,” says Barry Kushner, a Labour Party councilman in Liverpool and the cabinet member for children’s services. “Austerity has had nothing to do with economics. It was about getting out from under welfare. It’s about politics abandoning vulnerable people.”

    Conservative Party leaders say that austerity has been driven by nothing more grandiose than arithmetic.

    “It’s the ideology of two plus two equals four,” says Daniel Finkelstein, a Conservative member of the upper chamber of Parliament, the House of Lords, and a columnist for The Times of London. “It wasn’t driven by a desire to reduce spending on public services. It was driven by the fact that we had a vast deficit problem, and the debt was going to keep growing.”

    Whatever the operative thinking, austerity’s manifestations are palpable and omnipresent. It has refashioned British society, making it less like the rest of Western Europe, with its generous social safety nets and egalitarian ethos, and more like the United States, where millions lack health care and job loss can set off a precipitous plunge in fortunes.

    Much as the United States took the Great Depression of the 1930s as impetus to construct a national pension system while eventually delivering health care for the elderly and the poor, Britain reacted to the trauma of World War II by forging its own welfare state. The United States has steadily reduced benefits since the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s. Britain rolled back its programs in the same era, under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher. Still, its safety net remained robust by world standards.

    Then came the global financial panic of 2008 — the most crippling economic downturn since the Great Depression. Britain’s turn from its welfare state in the face of yawning budget deficits is a conspicuous indicator that the world has been refashioned by the crisis.

    As the global economy now negotiates a wrenching transition — with itinerant jobs replacing full-time positions and robots substituting for human labor — Britain’s experience provokes doubts about the durability of the traditional welfare model. As Western-style capitalism confronts profound questions about economic justice, vulnerable people appear to be growing more so.

    Conservative Party leaders initially sold budget cuts as a virtue, ushering in what they called the Big Society. Diminish the role of a bloated government bureaucracy, they contended, and grass-roots organizations, charities and private companies would step to the fore, reviving communities and delivering public services more efficiently.

    To a degree, a spirit of voluntarism materialized. At public libraries, volunteers now outnumber paid staff. In struggling communities, residents have formed food banks while distributing hand-me-down school uniforms. But to many in Britain, this is akin to setting your house on fire and then reveling in the community spirit as neighbors come running to help extinguish the blaze.

    Most view the Big Society as another piece of political sloganeering — long since ditched by the Conservatives — that served as justification for an austerity program that has advanced the refashioning unleashed in the 1980s by Mrs. Thatcher.

    “We are making cuts that I think Margaret Thatcher, back in the 1980s, could only have dreamt of,” Greg Barker said in a speech in 2011, when he was a Conservative member of Parliament.

    A backlash ensued, with public recognition that budget cuts came with tax relief for corporations, and that the extensive ranks of the wealthy were little disturbed.

    Britain hasn’t endured austerity to the same degree as Greece, where cutbacks were swift and draconian. Instead, British austerity has been a slow bleed, though the cumulative toll has been substantial.

    Local governments have suffered a roughly one-fifth plunge in revenue since 2010, after adding taxes they collect, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies in London.

    Nationally, spending on police forces has dropped 17 percent since 2010, while the number of police officers has dropped 14 percent, according to an analysis by the Institute for Government. Spending on road maintenance has shrunk more than one-fourth, while support for libraries has fallen nearly a third.

    The national court system has eliminated nearly a third of its staff. Spending on prisons has plunged more than a fifth, with violent assaults on prison guards more than doubling. The number of elderly people receiving government-furnished care that enables them to remain in their homes has fallen by roughly a quarter.

    In an alternate reality, this nasty stretch of history might now be ending. Austerity measures were imposed in the name of eliminating budget deficits, and last year Britain finally produced a modest budget surplus.

    But the reality at hand is dominated by worries that Britain’s pending departure from the European Union — Brexit, as it is known — will depress growth for years to come. Though every major economy on earth has been expanding lately, Britain’s barely grew during the first three months of 2018. The unemployment rate sits just above 4 percent — its lowest level since 1975 — yet most wages remain lower than a decade ago, after accounting for rising prices.

    In the blue-collar reaches of northern England, in places like Liverpool, modern history tends to be told in the cadence of lamentation, as the story of one indignity after another. In these communities, Mrs. Thatcher’s name is an epithet, and austerity is the latest villain: London bankers concocted a financial crisis, multiplying their wealth through reckless gambling; then London politicians used budget deficits as an excuse to cut spending on the poor while handing tax cuts to corporations. Robin Hood, reversed.

    “It’s clearly an attack on our class,” says Dave Kelly, a retired bricklayer in the town of Kirkby, on the outskirts of Liverpool, where many factories sit empty, broken monuments to another age. “It’s an attack on who we are. The whole fabric of society is breaking down.”

    As much as any city, Liverpool has seen sweeping changes in its economic fortunes.

    In the 17th century, the city enriched itself on human misery. Local shipping companies sent vessels to West Africa, transporting slaves to the American colonies and returning bearing the fruits of bondage — cotton and tobacco, principally.

    The cotton fed the mills of Manchester nearby, yielding textiles destined for multiple continents. By the late 19th century, Liverpool’s port had become the gateway to the British Empire, its status underscored by the shipping company headquarters lining the River Mersey.

    By the next century — through the Great Depression and the German bombardment of World War II — Liverpool had descended into seemingly terminal decline. Its hard luck, blue-collar station was central to the identity of its most famous export, the Beatles, whose star power seemed enhanced by the fact such talent could emerge from such a place.

    Today, more than a quarter of Liverpool’s roughly 460,000 residents are officially poor, making austerity traumatic: Public institutions charged with aiding vulnerable people are themselves straining from cutbacks.

    Over the past eight years, the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service, which serves greater Liverpool, has closed five fire stations while cutting the force to 620 firefighters from about 1,000.

    “I’ve had to preside over the systematic dismantling of the system,” says the fire chief, Dan Stephens.

    His department recently analyzed the 83 deaths that occurred in accidental house fires from 2007 to 2017. The majority of the victims — 51 people — lived alone and were alone at the time of the deadly fire. Nineteen of those 51 were in need of some form of home care.

    The loss of home care — a casualty of austerity — has meant that more older people are being left alone unattended.

    Virtually every public agency now struggles to do more with less while attending to additional problems once handled by some other outfit whose budget is also in tatters.

    Chief Stephens said people losing cash benefits are falling behind on their electric bills and losing service, resorting to candles for light — a major fire risk.

    The city has cut mental health services, so fewer staff members are visiting people prone to hoarding newspapers, for instance, leaving veritable bonfires piling up behind doors, unseen.

    “There are knock-on effects all the way through the system,” says Chief Stephens, who recently announced plans to resign and move to Australia.

    The National Health Service has supposedly been spared from budget cuts. But spending has been frozen in many areas, resulting in cuts per patient. At public hospitals, people have grown resigned to waiting for hours for emergency care, and weeks for referrals to specialists.

    “I think the government wants to run it down so the whole thing crumbles and they don’t have to worry about it anymore,” says Kenneth Buckle, a retired postal worker who has been waiting three months for a referral for a double knee replacement. “Everything takes forever now.”

    At Fulwood Green Medical Center in Liverpool, Dr. Simon Bowers, a general practitioner, points to austerity as an aggravating factor in the flow of stress-related maladies he encounters — high blood pressure, heart problems, sleeplessness, anxiety.

    He argues that the cuts, and the deterioration of the National Health Service, represent a renouncement of Britain’s historical debts. He rattles off the lowlights — the slave trave, colonial barbarity.

    “We as a country said, ‘We have been cruel. Let’s be nice now and look after everyone,’” Dr. Bowers says. “The N.H.S. has everyone’s back. It doesn’t matter how rich or poor you are. It’s written into the psyche of this country.”

    “Austerity isn’t a necessity,” he continued. “It’s a political choice, to move Britain in a different way. I can’t see a rationale beyond further enriching the rich while making the lives of the poor more miserable.”

    Wealthy Britons remain among the world’s most comfortable people, enjoying lavish homes, private medical care, top-notch schools and restaurants run by chefs from Paris and Tokyo. The poor, the elderly, the disabled and the jobless are increasingly prone to Kafka-esque tangles with the bureaucracy to keep public support.

    For Emma Wilde, a 31-year-old single mother, the misadventure began with an inscrutable piece of correspondence.

    Raised in the Liverpool neighborhood of Croxteth, Ms. Wilde has depended on welfare benefits to support herself and her two children. Her father, a retired window washer, is disabled. She has been taking care of him full time, relying on a so-called caregiver’s allowance, which amounts to about $85 a week, and income support reaching about $145 a month.

    The letter put this money in jeopardy.

    Sent by a private firm contracted to manage part of the government’s welfare programs, it informed Ms. Wilde that she was being investigated for fraud, accused of living with a partner — a development she is obliged to have reported.

    Ms. Wilde lives only with her children, she insists. But while the investigation proceeds, her benefits are suspended.

    Eight weeks after the money ceased, Ms. Wilde’s electricity was shut off for nonpayment. During the late winter, she and her children went to bed before 7 p.m. to save on heat. She has swallowed her pride and visited a food bank at a local church, bringing home bread and hamburger patties.

    “I felt a bit ashamed, like I had done something wrong, ” Ms. Wilde says. “But then you’ve got to feed the kids.”

    She has been corresponding with the Department for Work and Pensions, mailing bank statements to try to prove her limited income and to restore her funds.

    The experience has given her a perverse sense of community. At the local center where she brings her children for free meals, she has met people who lost their unemployment benefits after their bus was late and they missed an appointment with a caseworker. She and her friends exchange tips on where to secure hand-me-down clothes.

    “Everyone is in the same situation now,” Ms. Wilde says. “You just don’t have enough to live on.”

    From its inception, austerity carried a whiff of moral righteousness, as if those who delivered it were sober-minded grown-ups. Belt tightening was sold as a shared undertaking, an unpleasant yet unavoidable reckoning with dangerous budget deficits.

    “The truth is that the country was living beyond its means,” the then-chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, declared in outlining his budget to Parliament in 2010. “Today, we have paid the debts of a failed past, and laid the foundations for a more prosperous future.”

    “Prosperity for all,” he added.

    Eight years later, housing subsidies have been restricted, along with tax credits for poor families. The government has frozen unemployment and disability benefits even as costs of food and other necessities have climbed. Over the last five years, the government has begun transitioning to so-called Universal Credit, giving those who receive benefits lump sum payments in place of funds from individual programs. Many have lost support for weeks or months while their cases have shifted to the new system.

    All of which is unfortunate yet inescapable, assert Conservative lawmakers. The government was borrowing roughly one-fourth of what it was spending. To put off cuts was to risk turning Britain into the next Greece.

    “The hard left has never been very clear about what their alternative to the program was,” says Neil O’Brien, a Conservative lawmaker who was previously a Treasury adviser to Mr. Osborne. “Presumably, it would be some enormous increase in taxation, but they are a bit shy about what that would mean.”

    He rejects the notion that austerity is a means of class warfare, noting that wealthy people have been hit with higher taxes on investment and expanded fees when buying luxury properties.

    Britain spends roughly the same portion of its national income on public spending today as it did a decade ago, said Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    But those dependent on state support express a sense that the system has been rigged to discard them.

    Glendys Perry, 61, was born with cerebral palsy, making it difficult for her to walk. For three decades, she answered the phones at an auto parts company. After she lost that job in 2010, she lived on a disability check.

    Last summer, a letter came, summoning her to “an assessment.” The first question dispatched any notion that this was a sincere exploration.

    “How long have you had cerebral palsy?” (From birth.) “Will it get better?” (No.)

    In fact, her bones were weakening, and she fell often. Her hands were not quick enough to catch her body, resulting in bruises to her face.

    The man handling the assessment seemed uninterested.

    “Can you walk from here to there?” he asked her.

    He dropped a pen on the floor and commanded her to pick it up — a test of her dexterity.

    “How did you come here?” he asked her.

    “By bus,” she replied.

    Can you make a cup of tea? Can you get dressed?

    “I thought, ‘I’m physically disabled,’” she says. “‘Not mentally.’”

    When the letter came informing her that she was no longer entitled to her disability payment — that she had been deemed fit for work — she was not surprised.

    “They want you to be off of benefits,” she says. “I think they were just ticking boxes.”

    The political architecture of Britain insulates those imposing austerity from the wrath of those on the receiving end. London makes the aggregate cuts, while leaving to local politicians the messy work of allocating the pain.

    Spend a morning with the aggrieved residents of Prescot and one hears scant mention of London, or even austerity. People train their fury on the Knowsley Council, and especially on the man who was until recently its leader, Andy Moorhead. They accuse him of hastily concocting plans to sell Browns Field without community consultation.

    Mr. Moorhead, 62, seems an unlikely figure for the role of austerity villain. A career member of the Labour Party, he has the everyday bearing of a genial denizen of the corner pub.

    “I didn’t become a politician to take things off of people,” he says. “But you’ve got the reality to deal with.”

    The reality is that London is phasing out grants to local governments, forcing councils to live on housing and business taxes.

    “Austerity is here to stay,” says Jonathan Davies, director of the Center for Urban Research on Austerity at De Montfort University in Leicester, England. “What we might now see over the next two years is a wave of bankruptcies, like Detroit.”

    Indeed, the council of Northamptonshire, in the center of England, recently became the first local government in nearly two decades to meet that fate.

    Knowsley expects to spend $192 million in the next budget year, Mr. Moorhead says, with 60 percent of that absorbed by care for the elderly and services for children with health and developmental needs. An additional 18 percent will be spent on services the council must provide by law, such as garbage collection and highway maintenance.

    To Mr. Moorhead, the equation ends with the imperative to sell valuable land, yielding an endowment to protect remaining parks and services.

    “We’ve got to pursue development,” Mr. Moorhead says. “Locally, I’m the bad guy.”

    The real malefactors are the same as ever, he says.

    He points at a picture of Mrs. Thatcher on the wall behind him. He vents about London bankers, who left his people to clean up their mess.

    “No one should be doing this,” he says. “Not in the fifth-wealthiest country in the whole world. Sacking people, making people redundant, reducing our services for the vulnerable in our society. It’s the worst job in the world.”

    Now, it is someone else’s job. In early May, the local Labour Party ousted Mr. Moorhead as council leader amid mounting anger over the planned sale of parks.

  • Punish a Muslim Day: UK cities stand together in the face of Islamophobic threat.
    https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/punish-a-muslim-day-uk-cities-stand-together-in-the-face-of-islamophobic
    https://www.thenational.ae/image/policy:1.713403:1522649633/punish.jpg?f=16x9&w=1024&$p$f$w=1a779c7

    Communities across the UK are bracing themselves for Punish a Muslim Day after letters were sent out calling for violence against Muslims on April 3.

    Last month, letters were circulated by post in major cities and on social media suggesting ways to hurt people and awarding points for certain “punishments”.

    The letters, which are being investigated by British counter-terrorism police, appear to be in response to ISIL-inspired attacks, four of which took place in the UK in 2017.

    “They have hurt you. They have made your loved ones suffer. They have caused you pain and heartache. What are you going to about it?” read one of the letters which was circulated online.

    The Saudi Embassy in London said it had been in contact with the British authorities about the contents of the letter and advised its citizens in the UK to exercise caution and vigilance.

    In the city of Leicester, where Muslims make up 20 per cent of the population, fears of attacks are high. Last week, Paul Moore, 21, was sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in prison for attempted murder after he attacked a woman and a 12-year-old girl wearing Islamic clothing.

    Leicestershire Police have said they will be ready to take action on April 3 if Muslims feel threatened.

    “We have operational plans in place should anything happen on what will hopefully be an ordinary day,” Chief Constable Simon Cole said last week.

    “It is particularly distasteful and unpleasant and I almost don’t want to talk about it in case of dignifying it and making it something it isn’t.”

    “We take hate crime seriously, and I hope the conviction and sentence of Paul Moore yesterday proves that.”

  • The UK lecturer’s dispute and the marketisation of higher education - World Socialist Web Site
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/01/lect-m01.html

    The UK lecturer’s dispute and the marketisation of higher education
    By Thomas Scripps
    1 March 2018

    University and College Union (UCU) lecturers remain engaged in a major strike against planned cuts to their pensions. The significance of this struggle must not be underestimated.

    Contrary to what the union says, this is not simply an avoidable dispute over the single issue of pensions. The attack on university lecturers is one element in a far advanced programme aimed at the destruction of higher education as it has been known for decades.

    #royaume-uni #éducation #université

    • Diary by #Stefan_Collini

      ‘But why have they done this?’ Standing in the foyer of the National Theatre in Prague, having just taken part in a debate on ‘The Political Role of Universities?’, I had fallen into conversation with a former rector of Charles University, who was asking me to explain the dramatic and – as we both thought – damaging changes imposed on British universities in the past decade. It wasn’t the first time I had been asked some version of this question during visits to European universities in recent years. From Prague to Porto, Bergen to Geneva, puzzlement bordering on disbelief had been expressed by academics, journalists, officials and others. Diverse as their local situations may have been, not least in the financial or political pressures they experienced, they had been united in their admiration for the quality and standing of British universities in the 20th century. They weren’t just thinking about Oxford and Cambridge. These people were knowledgable about the recent past of British universities, sometimes having studied at one of them, and their view was that a high level of quality had been maintained across the system in both teaching and research, underwritten by an ethos that blended autonomy and commitment, whether at London or Edinburgh, Leeds or Manchester, Leicester or Swansea, Sussex or York. They knew this wasn’t the whole story: that the quality varied and there was an informal pecking order; that not all teachers were diligent or all students satisfied; that British academics grumbled about their lot as much as academics anywhere else. But still, British universities had seemed to them an obvious national asset, imitated elsewhere, attracting staff and students from around the world, contributing disproportionately to the setting of international standards in science and scholarship. So, I was asked again and again, why have they done this?

      I didn’t find it an easy question to answer. I couldn’t deny the accuracy of their observations (other than a tendency to neglect or misunderstand the distinctiveness of the situation in Scotland). Successive British governments have enacted a series of measures that seem designed to reshape the character of universities, not least by reducing their autonomy and subordinating them to ‘the needs of the economy’. ‘#Marketisation’ isn’t just a swear-word used by critics of the changes: it is official doctrine that students are to be treated as consumers and universities as businesses competing for their custom. The anticipated returns from the labour market are seen as the ultimate measure of success.

      Last year the government imposed a new wheeze.

      Universities are now being awarded Olympic-style gold, silver and bronze medals for, notionally, teaching quality. But the metrics by which teaching quality is measured are – I am not making this up – the employment record of graduates, scores on the widely derided #National_Student_Survey, and ‘retention rates’ (i.e. how few students drop out). These are obviously not measures of teaching quality; neither are they things that universities can do much to control, whatever the quality of their teaching. Now there is a proposal to rate, and perhaps fund, individual departments on the basis of the earnings of their graduates. If a lot of your former students go on to be currency traders and property speculators, you are evidently a high-quality teaching department and deserve to be handsomely rewarded; if too many of them work for charities or become special-needs teachers, you risk being closed down. And most recently of all, there has been the proposal to dismantle the existing pension arrangements for academics and ‘academic-related’ staff, provoking a more determined and better-supported strike than British academia has ever seen.

      My European colleagues are far from complacent about their own national systems. They are well aware of the various long-term constraints under which their universities have operated, not least in those countries which try to square the circle of combining universal post-18 access to higher education with attempts to strengthen institutions’ research reputations. Universities are further handicapped in countries, notably France and Germany, that locate much of their research activity in separate, often more prestigious institutions such as the CNRS and the grandes écoles or the Max Planck Institutes, while universities in southern Europe are hamstrung by the weakness of their parent economies. European commentators also realise that extreme market-fundamentalist elements in their own political cultures are keeping a close eye on the British experiments, encouraged to imagine what they may be able to get away with when their turn in power comes (to judge by recent policy changes, the moment may already have arrived in Denmark, and perhaps the Netherlands too). But still, Britain is regarded as a special case, and an especially poignant one: it is the sheer wantonness of the destruction that causes the head-shaking. And European colleagues ask what it means that the new policies excite so little public protest. Has something changed recently or did universities in Britain never enjoy wide public support? Is this part of a longer tradition of anti-intellectualism, only ever kept in partial check by historical patterns of deference and indifference, or is it an expression of a newly empowered ‘revolt against elites’?

      My answers have been halting and inadequate. Familiar narratives of the transition from an ‘elite’ to a ‘mass’ system of higher education fail to isolate the specificity of the British case. The capture of government by big corporations and the City goes some way to identifying a marked local peculiarity, as does the extent of the attack in recent years on all forms of public service and public goods, allowing the transfer of their functions to a profit-hungry private sector. But that general level of analysis doesn’t seem to account for the distinctive animus that has fuelled higher education policy in England and Wales, especially since 2010: the apparent conviction that academics are simultaneously lofty and feather-bedded, in need on both counts of repeated sharp jabs of economic reality. There seems to be a deep but only partly explicit cultural antagonism at work, an accumulated resentment that universities have had an easy ride for too long while still retaining the benefits of an unmerited prestige, and that they should now be taken down a peg or two.

      Visiting a variety of European universities, I have found myself wondering whether, for all the material disadvantages many of them suffer, they haven’t succeeded rather better in retaining a strong sense of esprit de corps and a certain standing in society, expressive in both cases of their membership of a long-established guild. An important manifestation of this sense of identity in the majority of European systems – something that marks a significant contrast with Anglo-Saxon traditions – is the practice of electing the rector of a university. Over time, and in different institutions, the electorate has varied: it might consist only of professors, or include all full-time academic staff, or all university employees (academic and non-academic) or, in some places, students. In Britain, by contrast, a subcommittee of the university’s court or council (bodies with a majority of non-academic members), often using the services of international head-hunting firms, selects a candidate from applicants, practically always external, and then submits that name for rubber-stamping by the parent body. (The ‘rectors’ still elected in the ancient Scottish universities, usually by the student body, have a much more limited role than the vice-chancellors or principals of those institutions.)

      In encouraging a sense of guild identity and shared commitment to a common enterprise, the Continental system has some clear advantages. First, it ensures the occupant of the most senior office is an academic, albeit one who may in recent years have filled an increasingly administrative set of roles. Second, the rector will be familiar with his or her particular academic community and its recent history, and therefore will be less likely to make the kinds of mistake that a person parachuted in from some other walk of life may do. Third, where the rector is elected from the professorial ranks, the expectation is that he or she will revert to that status when their term is over (though in practice some may end up pursuing other administrative or honorary roles instead). This makes a significant contribution to collegiality.
      It is easy to ventriloquise the business-school critique of this practice. The individuals chosen are, it will be said, bound to be too close, personally and intellectually, to the people they now have to manage. They will be unable to make the hard decisions that may be necessary. The institution needs shaking up, needs the benefit of the view from outside. Above all, it needs leadership, the dynamic presence of someone with a clear vision and the energy and determination to push through a programme of change. What is wanted is someone who has demonstrated these qualities in turning around other failing institutions (one of the more implausible unspoken premises of free-market edspeak is that universities are ‘failing institutions’). The governing bodies of most British universities have a majority of lay members, drawn mainly from the worlds of business and finance, which ensures that these views do not lack for influential exponents – and that vice-chancellors are selected accordingly.

      For a long time, Oxford and Cambridge had, as usual, their own distinctive practices. Until the 1990s, the vice-chancellorship at both universities was occupied for a limited term (usually two or three years, never more than four) by one of the heads of their constituent colleges. The system, if one can call it that, wasn’t quite Buggins’s turn – some heads of colleges were passed over as likely to be troublesome or inept, and notionally the whole body of academic staff had to confirm the proposed name each time – but in reality this was a form of constrained oligarchy: the pool of potential candidates was tiny, and anyway vice-chancellors in these two decentralised institutions had strictly limited powers. This gentlemanly carousel came to be seen, especially from outside, as an insufficiently professional form of governance for large institutions in receipt of substantial sums of public money, and so by the end of the 20th century both Oxford and Cambridge had moved to having a full-time vice-chancellor, usually selected from external candidates: it is a sign of the times that five of the last six people to occupy the post at the two universities have worked for the greater part of their careers outside the UK, even if they had also had a local connection at some earlier point.

      Across British universities generally, vice-chancellors – and in some cases pro-vice-chancellors and deans as well – are now nearly always drawn from outside the institution, sometimes from outside academia entirely. New career paths have opened up in which one may alternate senior managerial roles at different universities with spells at a quango or in the private sector before one’s name finds its way onto those discreet lists kept by head-hunters of who is papabile. The risk in this growing trend is that vice-chancellors come to have more in common, in outlook and way of life, with those who hold the top executive role in other types of organisations than they do with their academic colleagues. Talking to a recently elected deputy rector in a Norwegian university, I was struck by her sense of the duty she had to represent the values of her colleagues and their disciplines in the higher councils of the university and to the outside world. Talking to her newly appointed counterparts in many British universities, one is more likely to be struck by their desire to impress the other members of the ‘senior management team’ with their hard-headedness and decisiveness.

      These contrasts may bear on two issues that have been much in the news lately. If you think of vice-chancellors as CEOs, then you will find yourself importing a set of associated assumptions from the corporate world. As soon as you hear the clichéd talk of ‘competing for talent in a global market’, you know that it is code for ‘paying American-level salaries’. Perhaps an academic elevated for one or two terms on the vote of his or her colleagues would be less likely to be awarded, or award themselves, salaries so manifestly out of kilter with those of even the highest-paid professors. (The rector of the Université Libre de Bruxelles was at pains to emphasise to me that, as rector, he receives no increase over his normal professorial salary.) Marketisation is a virulent infection that affects the whole organism, and that includes internalised expectations about ‘compensation’. Inflated salaries for vice-chancellors are the new normal, but they are recent: in 1997 the VC of Oxford was paid £100,000; in 2013 the incumbent received £424,000.

      The other issue on which the ethos of university governance may have a bearing is the pensions dispute. Without entering into the contested question of the different ways of assessing the financial strength of the existing pension fund, and of what changes might be required to ensure its long-term viability, it is clear that Universities UK, the association of vice-chancellors, has handled the issue in a particularly heavy-handed way. On the basis of what has been widely reported as an exaggeratedly pessimistic analysis of the scheme’s financial position, they proposed, among other measures, the complete abolition of any ‘defined benefit’ element, thus removing at a stroke one of the few things that had enabled scholars and scientists to persuade themselves that their decision to become academics had not been a case of financial irrationality. It has done nothing to dampen the hostility provoked by the move that it has come from a body of people who are paying themselves between six and ten times the average salaries of their academic staff. One cannot help wondering whether a body of rectors elected by their colleagues, and not themselves in receipt of such inflated salaries, would have taken these steps.

      Britain’s vice-chancellors include many impressive and sympathetic figures, struggling to do a difficult job amid conflicting pressures. It is fruitless, and in most cases unjust, to demonise them as individuals. But somewhere along the line, any sense of collegiality has been fractured, even though many vice-chancellors may wish it otherwise. Marketisation hollows out institutions from the inside, so that they become unable to conceptualise their own activities in terms other than those of the dominant economic dogma. The ultimate criterion by which CEOs are judged is ‘the bottom line’; the operational definition of their role is that they ‘hire and fire’; their salary is determined by whatever is the ‘going rate’ in the ‘global market’. The rest of the corrosive vocabulary has been internalised too: ‘There is no alternative’; ‘We cannot afford not to make these cuts’; ‘At the end of the day we must pay our way’. Eventually it becomes hard to distinguish the rhetoric of some bullish vice-chancellors from that of Tory chancellors.
      A sense of ‘guild identity’, the ‘dignity of learning’, ‘collegiality’, ‘standing in society’: this vocabulary is coming to sound old-fashioned, even archaic, despite the fact that it is hard to give an intelligible account of the distinctiveness of the university as an institution without it. Yet such language has had something of a revival in Britain in recent weeks, at least on the academic picket lines and union meetings. One of the things that has been so impressive about the strike thus far, apart from the tangible sense of solidarity and the heartening level of student support, has been the universal recognition that this is about more than the details of the pension system. My European interlocutors have repeatedly wondered why there has not been more protest in the past seven or eight years. Students, to their credit, did protest vociferously in 2011, and in smaller numbers are doing so again now. But British academics have traditionally adopted the ostrich position when confronted with unwelcome developments. Perhaps the older notion of being ‘members’ of a university rather than its ‘employees’ still lingers in some places, making all talk of unions and strikes seem like bad form. Perhaps there is still a residual sense of good fortune in being allowed to do such intrinsically rewarding work for a living, even though the daily experience for many is that intrusive surveillance and assessment, as well as increased casualisation of employment, now make that work less and less rewarding. But the mood in recent weeks has been different. Universities UK’s clumsy assault on the pension scheme has been the catalyst for the release of a lot of pent-up anger and a determination to try to do something to arrest the decline of British universities.

      When I travelled from a Universities and Colleges Union rally in wintry Cambridge to that packed discussion in Prague, it was hard not to see the ironies in the contrasts between these two situations and between my own position in each. My contribution to the debate in Prague was a paper arguing against the romanticisation of the university as eternally oppositional, the natural home of heroic dissidence. I urged instead the primacy of universities’ commitment to disciplined yet open-ended enquiry, proposing that this did not issue in a single political role, oppositional or otherwise, except when free inquiry itself was threatened. But I was aware – and the awareness was deepened by some pressing questions from the audience – that my position could easily seem complacent to people who had heard the tracks of Soviet tanks clanking down the street. The older members of that Czech audience had few illusions about the likely short-term outcome whenever politics and universities clash head-on. Perhaps for that reason, they were all the keener to cherish the independence of universities in the good times, buoyed by the belief that these implausibly resilient institutions would always, somehow, outlast the bad times. They knew what it meant to have apparatchiks forcibly imposed on universities, just as the Central European University in neighbouring Budapest is currently feeling the pressure of Orbán’s steel fist. But the present fate of universities in a country such as Britain that had not known these spirit-crushing political extremes puzzled them. Was that good fortune perhaps a source of vulnerability now? Had universities never been really valued because they had never been really put to the test? Or was there some more immediate, contingent reason that explained why a relatively peaceful, prosperous country would wilfully squander one of its prize cultural assets? And so, again, I was asked: why have they done this? I wished then, as I wish now, that I could come up with a better answer.

      https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n09/stefan-collini/diary
      #classement #qualité #ranking

  • Arte Reportage | Angleterre : après Calais…
    https://asile.ch/2018/01/03/arte-reportage-angleterre-apres-calais

    Ils vivent dans un des quartiers qui compte le plus de réfugiés en provenance de Calais. Arab Street… ils sont des milliers de Syriens qui forment ici une petite communauté qui s’entraide, qui fréquente les mêmes lieux et qui essaie de recréer tant bien que mal l’ambiance du pays natal.

  • Des artistes anglais à #Radiohead:

    Le grand #Ken_Loach:

    Radiohead need to join the cultural boycott of Israel – why won’t they meet with me to discuss it?
    Ken Loach, The Independent, le 11 juillet 2017
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/radiohead-israel-palestine-boycott-bds-thom-yorke-ken-loach-meet-disc

    Traduction en français:

    Radiohead devrait se joindre au boycott culturel d’Israël – pourquoi ne veulent-ils pas me rencontrer pour en discuter ?
    Ken Loach, The Independent, le 11 juillet 2017
    https://www.bdsfrance.org/radiohead-devrait-se-joindre-au-boycott-culturel-disrael-pourquoi-ne-veul

    #Dave_Randall est le guitariste du groupe #Faithless:

    Radiohead are wrong to play in Israel. Here’s why
    Dave Randall, The Guardian, le 11 juillet 2017
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/11/radiohead-reject-israel-boycott-play-tel-aviv-palestinians

    La réponse de #Thom-Yorke à Ken Loach:

    Thom Yorke responds to Ken Loach letter asking Radiohead to cancel Israel concert
    Roisin O’Connor, The Independent, le 12 juillet 2017
    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/radiohead-israel-concert-ken-loach-letter-thom-yorke-boycott-tel-aviv

    Le grand #Mike_Leigh:

    Mike Leigh slams Radiohead for ignoring Palestinians
    Artists for Palestine, le 17 juillet 2017
    https://artistsforpalestine.org.uk/2017/07/17/mike-leigh-slams-radiohead-for-ignoring-palestinians

    #Palestine #BDS #Boycott_culturel #Royaume_Uni #Musique

  • Thom Yorke, this is why you should boycott Israel

    Hasn’t the time come to do away with this artificial distinction between ’nice’ Israelis and the brutal occupation they are responsible for?

    Gideon Levy Jun 11, 2017
    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.794946

    Anyone questioning whether a boycott is a just and effective means of fighting the Israeli occupation should listen to the counterarguments of Thom Yorke from British rock band Radiohead and Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid. The front men of Radiohead and Yesh Atid present: cheap propaganda. Their counterarguments could convince any person of conscience around the world – to support the boycott. Yorke, who ignores the boycott movement, and Lapid, who is an ardent opponent of the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment movement, have enlisted to oppose the movement. Their reasoning says a lot more about them than the BDS movement.
    Boycotting is a legitimate means. Israel as a state makes use of it, and even preaches that other countries should follow suit. Some Israeli citizens also make use of it. There is a boycott of Hamas in Gaza, sanctions on Iran. There are boycotts of nonkosher stores, boycotts against eating meat, and of Turkish beach resorts. And the world also uses it, imposing sanctions on Russia right after its annexation of Crimea.
    The only question is whether Israel deserves such a punishment, like the one imposed on apartheid South Africa in an earlier era, and whether such steps are effective. And one more question: What other means have not been tried against the occupation and haven’t failed?
    Yorke directs his ire against fellow rock star Roger Waters, perhaps the most exalted of protest artists at the moment, who called on Yorke to reconsider his band’s concert appearance in Tel Aviv on July 19.

  • #Air #pollution creates drug‑resistant bugs
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-creates-drug-resistant-bugs-ks9grb6cp

    Scientists at Leicester University found that the microscopic particles prompt the bugs to grow into thick structures known as biofilms that are harder for drugs to break down. Tests on mice also suggest that they help the bacteria to propagate deep into the body.

    Les #bactéries aguerries par la pollution de l’air
    http://www.journaldelenvironnement.net/article/les-bacteries-aguerries-par-la-pollution-de-l-air,80106

    La pollution de l’air ne fait pas que s’attaquer au corps humain : elle rend aussi les bactéries responsables d’infections respiratoires plus agressives, et plus résistantes aux #antibiotiques, révèle une étude britannique publiée dans la revue Environmental Microbiology.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1462-2920.13686/full

  • 5月2日のツイート
    http://twilog.org/ChikuwaQ/date-160502

    Papier is out! paper.li/ChikuwaQ/13277… Stories via @CNicoQc @GilesDuke @c3dx posted at 09:16:13

    RT @lemondefr: Leicester City se rapproche de son premier titre en Angleterre lemde.fr/1STvVNy pic.twitter.com/YmBZsLvE30 posted at 08:36:50

    RT @archillect: pic.twitter.com/eAtU4mn3cL posted at 08:35:04

    RT @TATJANASL: Ernst Lubitsch directing Gary Cooper & Claudette Colbert on the set of “Bluebeard’s Eigth Wife” (1938) pic.twitter.com/R4KxT5jSHK posted at 08:34:52

    Top story: CIA on Twitter: "To mark the 5th anniversary of the Usama Bin Ladin … twitter.com/CIA/status/726…, see more tweetedtimes.com/ChikuwaQ?s=tnp posted at 07:08:22

    Top story: Pourquoi les médias sociaux ne changent-ils pas le monde ? | Interne… internetactu.blog.lemonde.fr/2016/04/30/pou…, see more (...)

  • La femme sex-toy pour l’Obs : une bouche, un sexe.
    http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/patricjean/160915/la-femme-sex-toy-pour-lobs-une-bouche-un-sexe

    L’image évoque toute la question de la pornographie et des sex toys intelligents que permettent la vidéo immersive, l’intelligence artificielle, etc

    Le docteur Richardson (une spécialiste des robots à la De Montfort University, Leicester) vient de lancer une campagne de sensibilisation à cette question. D’après elle, les sex-toys d’un nouveau genre ne font que « renforcer les stéréotypes à propos des femmes ».

    L’article de Patric Jean n’est pas terrible pour cause d’ #androcentrisme.
    #male_gaze #publicité #bad_market #misogynie #pornographie #pedocriminel

    • D’accord avec toi @mad_meg, #bienvu c’est pénible ce glissement du texte vers un lectorat qui serait uniquement masculin, et en exclut donc les femmes autant que de la relation critique. Cette « population » qui devient ON se transforme en NOUS et passe finalement au JE. Ce n’est certainement même pas conscient chez Patric JEAN …

      Comme on le voit ici, à très bas coût, il sera bientôt possible d’offrir à la population l’illusion d’une jouissance permanente avec des tops models totalement obéissants et que l’on pourra traiter comme on le désire. Chacun selon ses goûts, on pourra donc s’isoler du monde et de ses réalités (dont d’autres s’occuperont pour nous) pour se perdre dans une constante satisfaction pulsionnelle. Ceux qui ont vu Matrix savent de quoi je parle...

      Mais c’est aussi crispant par l’oubli de rappeler les chiffres de la consommation pornographique essentiellement masculine.

    • Mais c’est aussi crispant par l’oubli de rappeler les chiffres de la consommation pornographique essentiellement masculine.

      Ben justement, si on parle de chiffres, ça ne correspond pas forcément à ce que tu dis : au niveau « qualité » (hum) on peut possiblement dire que les « scénarios », les modes de sexualité montrées, sont conçus et destinés en priorité pour des hommes hétéros (c’est assez clair quand même), mais par contre au niveau quantité : les statistiques montrent que 1/3 (un tiers !) des visites des sites porno sont des visiteuses. Donc ça reste une majorité de mec, mais c’est fort loin d’être anodin et de n’être que essentiellement masculin. Et la proportion augmente chaque année un peu plus apparemment.

    • C’est pas le manque de statistiques qui me pose problème. Moi je m’etais arréter sur l’argument « ca fait aussi du mal aux hommes » qu’utilise Partic Jean et que je trouve mauvaise. Ca me fait pensé que si le sexisme ne faisait un jour plus de mal aux hommes alors les hommes n’auraient pas à s’en occuper, ou que dans les domaines qui n’affectent pas les hommes la lutte contre le sexisme serait moins importante. J’ai pas été plus loin de son texte.

      Que les femmes soient un tiers à consommer du porno me surprend peu. Les femmes sont elevés dans la culture du regard masculin et de la sexualité masculine, le porno en fait parti.

      La chose qui me frappe dans l’extrait posé par @touti c’est la parenthèse « (dont d’ autres s’occuperont pour nous ) ». Ces Autres sont à mon avis les femmes et les personnes racisées. Le Nous c’est les hommes à qui s’adresse Patric Jean et ce fantasme de la femme robot sexuel qu’on peu brutalisé sans crise de conscience. Ce fantasme me fait l’effet d’une menace. et ce fantasme n’est pas rare.

    • Il me semble que Patrick Jean s’emploie à noyer le poisson, par rapport au texte de Kathleen Richardson, laquelle articule (ou déconstruit) un minimum cet aspect de la technolâtrie avec le masculinisme. Dans celui de P Jean il ne reste plus que la vague crainte d’un client de ce marché devant la « matrice » (tiens, encore un mot pas innocent du tout, question genre...) A se demander s’il ne cautionnerait pas quasi-ouvertement le recours à de tels ’jouets".

      En fait, je me demande pourquoi il poste ça : il me semble qu’il y avait amplement de quoi dire quant à un magazine qui prétend s’adresser aux femmes avec un tel titre et une telle couv ;
      et qu’il y avait amplement de quoi dire quant aux hommes qui auraient soi-disant « besoin » de pareils « sextoys ».

      Il me semble qu’au moins sur ce sujet, la question de la domination technologique vient en partie après, comme une conséquence de l’existence de ces hommes, et de l’entretien et du développement de leur masculinité dans ce qu’elle a de plus brutal et dominateur par des « besoins » qu’un sordide délire posthumaniste s’offre ainsi de satisfaire.

      Bref, au mieux, en le considérant avec indulgence, le texte de P. Jean me semble très mauvais, et ni fait ni à faire.
      Et je ne pense pas que l’indulgence soit ici de mise.

    • http://www.liberation.fr/economie/2015/09/18/les-robots-sexuels-dans-le-viseur-de-chercheurs-anglais_1385156

      Les robots sexuels dans le viseur de chercheurs anglais

      « Nous croyons que le développement de robots sexuels augmente l’objectivation des femmes et des enfants », peut-on lire sur la page dédiée à l’initiative. Ou encore : « Cette ambition de robot sexuel est soulignée par une référence aux échanges prostituée/client qui repose sur l’unique reconnaissance des besoins et désirs des acheteurs, les vendeurs étant réduits à l’état de choses (comme les robots). » Le groupe craint aussi une consolidation des inégalités entre hommes et femmes, du fait de la reproduction avec les robots d’un rapport de soumission.

  • Somalis in European Cities : Overview

    Somalis in European Cities presents an overview of a comparative research series developed by local experts in #Amsterdam, #Copenhague, #Helsinki, #Leicester, London, #Malmö, and #Oslo. The research aims to capture the everyday, lived experiences of Somalis as well as the type and degree of engagement policy makers have initiated with their Somali and minority constituents.

    http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/somalis-european-cities-overview
    #Londres #Somaliens #asile #migration #réfugiés #Somalie
    Pour télécharger le rapport :
    http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/somalis-europe-overview-20150803.pdf

  • Platforma Festival – Conference & International | Platforma

    http://www.platforma.org.uk/pf_events/platforma-conference

    Booking is now open for the third Platforma Conference on arts and refugees taking place from 5-6 November 2015 in Leicester, in partnership with De Montfort University and ArtReach as part of the Platforma Festival.

    Plus, we are holding the first Platforma International meeting on 4 November at the Curve Theatre in partnership with the Department of Media and Communication at University of Leicester.

    Book now (free tickets for low wage/unwaged and students): eventbrite.co.uk/e/platforma-conference-tickets-16400098135

    Platforma International (4 November, 1-5pm) – Curve Theatre, Leicester

    Platforma invites artists, organisations, academics and others (including policy makers and funders) working in the arts relating to refugees and migrations to join us for our first international event.

    The aim will be to share practice of those working entirely or in part outside England (whether based in England or elsewhere) and to explore the potential for new collaborations and networking. A full programme will be published later this summer. Attendance is free but unfortunately we are not able to cover the costs of travel or accommodation.

    #performativité #migrations #asile #art #réfugiés

  • Pour résorber les bouchons, un candidat britannique veut retirer aux chômeurs le droit de conduire | L’interconnexion n’est plus assurée
    http://transports.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/01/23/pour-reduire-les-bouchons-un-candidat-britannique-veut-retir

    Les embouteillages empoisonnent la vie de millions de Britanniques tous les jours, mais un responsable du parti populiste #UKIP a trouvé la parade. Il suffit d’interdire aux chômeurs de prendre le volant, explique, en substance, Lynton Yates, candidat UKIP dans la circonscription de Charnwood, située entre Leicester et Nottingham, à l’est de Birmingham.

    "Nous pourrions facilement enlever 6 millions de voitures des routes si les bénéficiaires des aides sociales ne conduisaient pas. Pourquoi ont-ils le privilège de dépenser au volant l’argent durement gagné par les contribuables, alors que ceux qui ont un travail se battent pour pouvoir continuer à rouler ?" , peut-on lire sur un tract distribué aux électeurs de cette circonscription. « When you drive, society becomes an obstacle », disait déjà le journaliste George Monbiot en 2005 (merci goalvolant pour l’info).

    Qu’ils prennent le bus ! Selon The Daily Telegraph, le candidat conclut son propos par cette remarque définitive : pour se rendre aux entretiens d’embauche, « ces gens-là n’ont qu’à prendre le bus ». (...)

    Do you want people bullied off benefits? Because that’s what’s happening
    The DWP denies it has targets, but the fact is that cruelty in the form of sanctions is visited on thousands of claimants a week
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/23/benefits-sanctions-bullied-dwp-claimants

    En France aussi. Ce n’est pas la première fois que des responsables politiques suggèrent, quoique moins violemment, que les personnes les plus défavorisées pourraient modifier leur manière de se déplacer [comme si ce n’était pas déjà le cas..., ndc].

    En décembre, de ce côté-ci de la Manche, un élu avait également provoqué une polémique en estimant que les plus modestes devaient « limiter leurs déplacements ». Président du syndicat mixte des transports pour le Rhône et l’agglomération lyonnaise (Sytral), Bernard Rivalta, élu (#PS) à Vénissieux, avait déclaré lors d’un entretien diffusé sur France Culture : "Quand ils n’ont pas beaucoup de moyens, il faut qu’ils ne se déplacent que dans la mesure où ils en ont besoin et non pas uniquement parce qu’ils en ont envie" .

    En octobre dernier, le ministre de l’économie Emmanuel Macron avait été brocardé pour avoir estimé que, grâce à la libéralisation du secteur des autocars, « les pauvres pourront voyager plus facilement ».

    Olivier Razemon

    Revenus et transports, les idées reçues ont la vie dure :

    En France, 8 millions de pauvres ont du mal à se déplacer quotidiennement (juillet 2014)
    http://transports.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/07/08/en-france-8-millions-de-pauvres-peinent-a-se-deplacer-quotid

    #Pauvres #chômeurs #claimants #transports #activation_des_dépenses_passives #Recherche_d'emploi #naturalisation_des_inégalités #contrôle #stigmatisation #droits_sociaux_#sanction #crapules_de_luxe

  • Entre Richard III et Elizabeth II, un bâtard se cache - Libération
    http://www.liberation.fr/monde/2014/12/03/entre-richard-iii-et-elisabeth-ii-un-batard-se-cache_1155836

    Décidément, ce roi Richard III n’en finit plus de surprendre. Non content d’avoir laissé sa dépouille se glisser sous un parking de Leicester, où elle a été découverte en 2012, voilà qu’il était blond aux yeux bleus. Et qu’en plus, sa filiation n’est pas si nette que cela. Et du coup, celle d’Elizabeth II, la reine actuelle, non plus.

    #généalogie #archéologie #Royaume-Uni #Angleterre #génétique

  • Boycott des produits israéliens par une municipalité anglaise
    Publié 27 Novembre 2014
    http://www.i24news.tv/fr/actu/israel/diplomatie-defense/52460-141127-israel-et-les-usa-tentent-d-empecher-la-tenue-de-la-4e-conventi

    (...) La motion en faveur du boycott a été adoptée sur proposition du conseiller municipal Mohammed Dawood.

    Le préambule de la motion stipule que Leicester est « renommée pour sa tolérance, sa diversité, son unité et son opposition à toute forme de discrimination, ce qui permet le vivre-ensemble de toutes les communautés ».

    Dawwod a justifié sa proposition en affirmant qu’il était important que « lorsqu’il y a oppression et injustice, le Conseil municipal de Leicester prenne une position visant à soutenir les communautés subissant de telles discriminations et c’est le cas du peuple palestinien ».

    Le Conseil a admis « le droit d’Israël à vivre en paix et en sécurité », mais a poursuivi en condamnant Israël « pour son occupation illégale de la Palestine à Jérusalem-Est et en Cisjordanie, son appropriation illégale de terres en Cisjordanie et la construction dans les colonies ».

    Regrettant que le gouvernement israélien « continue à ignorer et à violer la loi internationale, la Convention de Genève et les résolutions de l’ONU par son occupation de territoires palestiniens », les membres du Conseil municipal se voient « contraints dans le mesure où le cadre de la loi le permet, de boycotter tout produit originaire de colonies illégales en Cisjordanie jusqu’à ce que la loi internationale soit respectée et que les territoires palestiniens soient évacués ».

  • Après le jackpot en tant que sponsor avec l’Atletico et le FC Porto, le demi succès avec le RC Lens, Hafiz Mammadov s’attaque au plus gros championnat européen avec le rachat d’une vieille dame anglaise, Sheffield.
    https://www.bakchich.info/sport/2014/06/04/foot-business-apres-le-qatar-l-azerbaidjan-63407

    une histoire de mecs sympathiques

    Le vendeur n’est pas un inconnu. Milan Mandaric a un temps été président de Charleroi en Belgique, de l’OGC Nice en France avant d’aller quérir fortune en Angleterre à Portsmouth (avec Arkadi Gaydamak) puis Leicester City avant d’enfin arriver à Sheffield

    à voir ensuite si les objectifs seront atteints...

    A l’image du Qatar, les Azér[baïdjanais] achètent de l’influence

    #azerbaïdjan #sport #diplomatie_publique

  • Comment réussir (à chopper un bon emploi) dans les affaires

    “The Apprentice presents the idea that you have to be sociopathic in your relations with others in order to succeed in business," fumes Professor Martin Parker of Leicester uni.

    Le genre de télé-réalité que vous ne verrez pas de sitôt en France, puisque le Capital saybien

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/02/the_apprentice_is_a_load_of_old_codswallop_says_biz_prof