The press, in particular the London evening papers, are at the moment running a big campaign against mugging" (robbery with violence). This campaign has included a vicious attack on Black youth, who are supposed to be centrally involved in this kind of activity. What is strange, however, is that the 'victims" in many of the incidents involving Black youth have turned out to be ...... police officers!
On 18 February this year police attacked and brutally beat six Black people at Oval tube station for supposedly not having tickets. When found to have tickets they were charged with trying to rob a police officer whilst in the company of six other police officers. Subsequently they were found guilty in the courts and all were sent to prison.
On 16 March four young members of the Fasimbas (a South London black organisation) were returning home after attending a meeting in Haringey to co-ordinate defence activity for black militant Tony Soares. At the Oval tube station they were set upon by nine white men, whom they took to be a bunch of racist thugs. A fight followed, but when the police arrived it turned out that he group of white men were in fact plainclothes Transport policemen. As a result the Black youths were confronted with a grand total of 17 charges, ranging from attempted theft, robbery and conspiracy to steal.
The four, who are pleading not guilty to all the charges, are now on trial at the Old Bailey. It is obvious that the prosecution is trying to cover up the real nature of the case by making it look like just another "mugging', for which heavy sentences are NOW TOROLE As such it will also reinforce the present law and order campaign, which is designed to soften up "public opinion' for an all out attack on the trade unions.
Only by defending the victims of all such instances of repression can we, in fact, defend ourselves.
Incident during 2000-strong anti-racist demonstration in Leicester last Saturday, 21 October. Only a dozen or so National Front members turned out in opposition despite threats of a counter-demonstration beforehand. (Photo: Paul Salveson) EDITORIAL COMMITTEE: Tariq Ali, Robin Blackburn, Peter Gowan, Alan Jones, Martin Meteyard, John Weal, Judith White.
DISTRIBUTION: Phil Sanders Published by Relgocrest for The Red Mole, 182 Pentonville Road, London N.I. 01-837 6954 Printed by F.l. Litho (T.U.) Ltd., 182 Pentonville Road, London N.I. 01-837 9987 German Distributor: ISP-Verlag, D-2000, HAMBURG 50. Julius-Leber-Str. 32 SUBSCRIBE!
I enclose £1.50/£3.00 tor 6/12 months.
RED MOLE
Name:
Address:
Money Orders to Red Mole, 182 Pentonville Road, London N.1. The Students' Union at North London Poly has inflicted a humiliating defeat on the college authorities. When the term began, business studies students found that Miller, the Principal, had suspended the head of their department, Mr. Jenkins. Miller had thrown together a list of charges, such as the fact that Jenkins had shown "pliability in the face of student opinion, and a willingness to lower standards in the interests of students'". After a two week sit-in an emergency Governors' meeting was called on Monday 23 October. At this meeting Miller and the Chairman of the Board - a certain Roberts who edits the Sunday Telegraph - first tried to prevent the attendance of a national ATTI representative. They were out-voted. They then tried to stop a vote being taken on the issue of Jenkins" suspension. Their manoeuvres were defeated. Pressing on to make the suspension a point of honour, they found themselves in a 9-12 minority on a motion to re-instate Jenkins pending the results of an inquiry into the whole business. These two gentlemen are now, as they put it. "reconsidering their position".
The Poly's long history of struggle has produced a large revolutionary left within the union, whose executive is now led by the I.S. group. Last year, when the union claimed its right to full autonomy over its internal affairs, the college authorities froze the union funds. They remain frozen.
STRUGGLE The struggle began spontaneously in the Business Studies Department with a three day strike for Jenkins' re-instatement. The issue was then taken up by the Union which EICESTE OMMUNIST, SAY began an occupation of the Camden Town building under the two main demands of "re-instate Jenkins" and immediately unfreeze union funds". The students' union action immediately threw the staff into a turmoil. Against the policy of their union, the ATTI, some staff went to meet Miller, while others picketed outside. The left got a strike motion through the ATTI in one building, but the right counter-attacked and the strike was voted out by ballot. Then a general meeting of the ATTI passed a motion that Jenkins should be re-instated without waiting for the results of an inquiry. After one week, the union extended its occupation to a second building. Lectures there stopped and students moved out from it to other unoccupied buildings to organise teach-ins and general agitation.
Miller himself was on the defensive. He made a bid for the moderates by offering to negotiate "immediately" on the question of student union autonomy or any other matter of common concern" His threats had to be covert: he issued a confidential letter to heads of department telling them to spread the rumour that the college would be shut down if the occupation continued.
But by this time the authorities had taken more than they could stomach and the Governors at their meeting re-instated Jenkins.
FLABBINESS However the decisions of the Union meeting which took place on Tuesday 24 October, the day after Miller's defeat at the Governors' meeting, highlight what has been a continual theme of the struggle: the flabbiness of the Union executive's tactical line.
At Tuesday's Union meeting, the debate hinged around two alternative proposals: one from the IS lead executive, the core of which was: "Union notes the timely (sic) letter from the Director offering to negotiate with the Executive on the issue of funds and mandates the executive to negotiate with the Director and report back to the next General Meeting." The other motion, proposed by members of the International Marxist Group, argued that the union was quite prepared for negotiations with a committee of the court of governors including Miller, "with the proviso that prior to this Mr. Miller unfreezes the Union funds, and recognises the union as an autonomous body". The executive's motion was carried.
This decision is certainly a "timely" one for the college authorities. The Director found himself isolated on his own board of governors, with a substantial section of the staff against him, and with massive militant opposition from the students. In this exposed position he was still in the position of trying to crush the Students' Union's autonomy by keeping the funds frozen. Of course, in a situation where the union has been badly defeated it may be necessary to retreat temporarily. But in the Poly, the union is in a politically very strong position with the authorities divided and isolated. And yet we have the IS. offering Miller "timely" negotiations over the funds.
OPPORTUNISM The answer of the IS leadership in the Poly has been twofold. First they insist that they have no intention of negotiating away the principle of student union autonomy and indeed had it written into the Executive's resolution. But then they say, we must recognise that the students want negotiations because they feel that Miller may be serious. This is a dangerous muddle. Either the IS comrades want to genuinely negotiate on the funds, in which case they consider the question to be one for give and take rather than principle. Or they are trying to engage in a foolish trick: pretending to students that they are serious about negotiations, but behind the scenes refusing to take negotiations seriously. The only result of that will be for Miller to expose the executive as people who educate the students to take negotiations seriously and then just fool around at the negotiating table.
This opportunism appeared first during the summer vacation. The IS comrades on the executive agreed to enter negotiations over the question of the funds and autonomy at that time, on the grounds that the union was very weak and needed the money. It knocked around various compromise formulae with the authorities and these will undoubtedly re-appear in the current negThey then collaborated in an executive document explaining the situation at the college to the new students, which failed to prepare the stucents politically for the autonomy struggle, and even argued that there was no difference between the union's policy on autonomy and that of the NUS leadership!
The IMG issued a counter-report at the start of the term, and wrote a letter to the IS comrades privately criticising their opportunist line on the funds and autonomy (so far the IMG has received no reply). The question has now become a burning issue. in the Students' Union which must be fought out in the coming weeks. With the victory •in their grasp, the students' union has been led by the IS comrades into providing the authorities with a "timely" breathing space to re-group their forces for a counter-attack against the students. which suppressed those figures", said the
----- pull-quotes -----
TRENT P