The Don’t Spy On Us campaign is a coalition of the most influential organisations who defend privacy, free expression and digital rights in the UK and in Europe. We’ve come together to fight back against the system of unfettered mass state surveillance that Edward Snowden has exposed. Right now, the UK’s intelligence services are conducting mass surveillance that violates internet user’s privacy and chills free speech. The impact globally may be more profound. If democracies turn a blind eye to mass surveillance, dictatorships will build ever more dystopian surveillance programmes to shut down the space for democratic activism, civil society and internet freedom.

The campaign kicks off on the 11 February with a CryptoParty to show you how you can protect your personal security and privacy. This event is FREE with a bar, live demonstrations and some big hitting guest speakers!

The evening is hosted by English PEN in association with Open Rights Group.

To sign up enter your details above or go to the ORG meetup page here.

Socialism would mean inspectors all round.

Just imagine people spying into your own private affairs!

Jobbik are a vile political party. The far-right political movement holds 3/22 Hungarian seats in the European Parliament and 47 seats in the Hungarian Parliament. As noted by Progress it is anti-semitic, anti-Roma and homophobic and allies with other European far-right movements including the British National party, Front National and Golden Dawn. Jobbik is part of Hungary’s new right-wing politics that has seen its Prime Minister Viktor Orbán clamp down on press freedom and rewrite the country’s constitution.

This weekend, the leader of Jobbik, Vona Gobor will attempt to rally his Hungarian supporters living in London. A number of Labour politicians including Camden’s Labour councillors and London Assembly Member Andrew Dismore have called for Gabor to be banned from entering the UK. They are wrong to do so.

Jobbik, like the BNP, is a legal political party. There is a significant difference between opposing fascist political parties which the excellent Hope Not Hate does, and banning political opinions (however offensive and vile) that you do not agree with. Dealing with hate speech is of course complex. But the attempt to bar political opinions you don’t like (the “no platform” policy of various student unions for instance) or prosecute them out of existence, has limited impact. Offensive opinions will regroup in the dark recesses of the internet.

In contrast, winning the argument and exposing the far-right works. As UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression Frank La Rue has pointed out in a recent report on hate speech the best way to combat hate speech is through more freedom of expression not less. The BNP is in considerable retreat because it has been given a platform, exposed and ridiculed. Subjecting the BNP’s claims to scrutiny and giving a voice to those who are victims of hate speech has neutered it. Banning the BNP would have, in hindsight, been counter-productive. The same is true of Jobbik. Let Gobor speak to a tiny hate-filled audience. Go and protest outside. Expose the anti-Semitic and hatred.

A Home Office ban would give Gobor the opportunity to tell an old lie from history – that the far-right are persecuted because only they speak the truth and the “liberal elite” are too frightened to let people to hear their message. It’s these conspiracies that fan the flames of racism.

It would also impact negatively on the situation in Hungary where free speech is in decline. Jobbik’s racism is increasingly becoming protected speech by Orban’s right-wing government. As Index on Censorship points out, the Hungarian Ambassador to Austria called for the cancellation of an anti-Jobbik art exhibition which opened in the Austrian city of Linz in October last year.

The exhibition by Roma artist Marika Schmiedt drew parallels between the Nazis and the Jobbik party. One poster shows Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on the label of “Natural Smoked Gypsy Cooked Salami” – right next to a Jobbik logo. The Ambassador, Vince Szalay-Bobrovniczky described the exhibition as “a cheap provocation, openly racist and hostile against Hungary”.

Unless we remain respectful of the right to free speech of vile anti-Semites such as Gobor, we risk strengthening the hand of the already powerful against marginalised voices such as Roma artists and Hungary’s under siege media.

You can donate to Hope Not Hate here.

The heroes of the Libel Reform Campaign

On 1 January 2014, the Defamation Act took effect across England and Wales. The Act will have a hugely positive effect on freedom of speech and better protect the public interest, fair comment and individuals from corporate bullying. But – who made this happen? This is my personal take on the individuals who are the heroes behind the Libel Reform Campaign.

My list can’t (and doesn’t) cover the 60,000 people who took the time to sign the petition, lobby their MPs and write to every newspaper in the country. Nor can it anything but touch upon the donors, 100 affiliated organisations or politicians who made the campaign a huge success. I will have no doubt forgotten hugely significant people from the list – omissions are entirely the fault of my lacklustre memory.

So in absolutely no particular order:

Victims of the law

Simon Singh @slsingh

Simon was the inspiration for and constant source of energy for the campaign. Simon’s absolute stubborn determination to do something about the state of the law during and after his case was extraordinary.

Peter Wilmshurst

A true modern hero. Dr Wilmshurst risked his family home and his professional career to speak out about a study into a medical device. Alike many of the victims of libel who joined our campaign, Dr Wilmshurst dedicated a huge amount of personal time in order to speak to politicians to persuade them to get the law right.

Ben Goldacre @BenGoldacre

Don’t talk to Dr Goldacre about vitamin pills. His case illustrated the dangers of the state of the libel law – and his unwavering support broadened the campaign considerably.

Honorable mentions: CarersWatch, Alex Hilton, John Gray, Vaughan Jones, Stuart Jones, Lesley Kemp, David Osler, Hardeep Singh.

Famous folk

Lots of famous people turn up to an event, have their photo taken and disappear. Not these lot.

Dara Ó Briain @daraobriain

My favourite Dara moment isn’t the Big Libel Gig where he gave a barnstorming performance, but him in private meetings with Ed Miliband and Lord McNally where his knowledge of the law was not only impressive, but mildly terrifying to the politicians who expected mild-mannered banter but were put on the spot.

Brian Cox @ProfBrianCox

Not only did Prof. Cox find the time to tour TV studios, but he handed in our 60,000 strong petition to Downing Street and used his Sun column to back the campaign.

Dave Gorman @DaveGorman

One of the key figures behind the Mass Rally for Libel Reform an event the then Justice Secretary Jack Straw described as the best attended he’d seen in parliament in years.

Robin Ince @RobinInce

The brilliant host (and co-organiser) of the Big Libel Gig, Robin rounded up as many of his contacts as he could to put on the greatest comedic show ever – about the law of defamation.

Honorable mentions: Marcus Brigstocke, Stephen Fry, AC Grayling, Ian Hislop, Shappi Khorsandi, Tim Minchin, Jonathan Ross, Adam Rutherford.

Journalists & Writers

Lisa Appignanesi @LisaAppignanesi

Lisa’s personal experience of the libel laws as a writer made her push for libel law reform as early as 2008 while PEN President.

Nick Cohen @NickCohen4

From the Ehrenfeld case through to Singh case and Lord Puttnam’s last minute attempt to tack Leveson into libel (and wreck the Bill), Cohen has written more than almost anyone else on why libel reform was necessary and just.

David Allen Green @JackofKent

David’s call to arms in the Wetherspoons pub (the Penderal’s Oak) in Holborn is immortalised in a plaque that now hangs on the wall. As one of the campaigning lawyers and journalists who gave impetus to the campaign he stuck with us through thick and thin.

Maya Wolfe-Robinson @mwolferobinson

Had to wade through as many op/eds on libel reform as any sane person could handle. But continued to give unstinting support to the campaign.

Honorable mentions: Jake Arnott, Guy Black, Phillip Campbell, Amanda Craig, Frances Gibb, Fiona Godley, Afua Hirsch, Natasha Loder, John Micklethwait, Alan Rusbridger, Nick Ross, John Sweeney, Craig Woodhouse, Peter Wright.

Lawyers

Robert Dougans @RobertDougans

Simon Singh’s lawyer first and foremost but also the defender of a long list of other worthy folk. Dougans is a one-man free speech engine.

Mark Lewis @MarkLewisLawyer

Defended the Owlstalk bloggers and Dr Peter Wilmshurst from libel actions. An endless source of knowledge, time and ideas for the campaign.

Adrienne Page @PageAdrienne

Gave the campaign exceptionally useful advice during the passage of the Defamation Bill especially on how to improve the public interest defence.

Gill Phillips @ladywell23

Endless good advice and practical examples of how the law chilled responsible journalism.

David Price

An enormous help to the campaign in refining our position on costs, the public interest defence and in a number of other key areas.

Stephen Sedley

Chair of the Alternative Libel Project. His sensible stewardship has made cheap alternatives to a full trial possible.

Mark Stephens @MarksLarks

Gave a significant amount of his time to the original report and subsequently to promoting libel reform within the legal profession.

Honorable mentions: Alistair Brett, Joanne Cash, Harvey Kass, Caroline Kelly, David Marshall, Gavin Millar, Brian Neill, Marcus Partington, Jonathan Price, Heather Rogers, Pia Sarma.

Campaigners

People who gave their time. For free.

The Geek Calendar @geekcalender

The nerds (as a compliment) who launched Geek Calendar not only made the must-have calender of 2011, but raised thousands of £s for the campaign. Special thanks to the organisers Mun-Keat Looi (@ayasawada); Alice Bell, Louise Crane and the production team Ben Gilbert, Greg Funnell; Cosima Dinkel; Greg Foot, Barry Gibb, Tom Ziessen.

Tracy King @tkingdoll

The co-organiser (and inspiration for) the Big Libel Gig, a huge sell out show in front of over 2,000 people in London’s Palace Theatre. Tracy’s gig was a massive success that fired a rocket up the politicians.

Honorable mentions: @noodlemaz, @rebeccawatson, @davepaton

Scientists, NGOs, campaign groups

Justine Roberts (@Justine_Roberts) & Rowan Davies (@RowanDavies), Mumsnet

Mumsnet’s Justine Roberts donated a staggering £12,500 to the Libel Reform Campaign and kept her organisation behind the campaign through the whole 4 year period.

Charmian Gooch, Global Witness

Global Witness’s evidence to parliamentarians made a huge difference in persuading the government to update and improve the public interest defence.

Honorable mentions: Emma Ascroft (Yahoo!), Kate Briscoe, David Colquhoun, Richard Dunstan (Citizens Advice), Francisco Lacerda, Antony Lempert (British Medical Association), Richard Mollet (Publishers Association) Dalia Neild, Bob Satchwell (Society of Editors).

Politicians

You only ever hear bad stuff about politicians. This group of politicians put party-politics aside and made a big difference.

Lord Lester

The “grandfather” (in his own words) of the Defamation Act. Without Lord Lester’s private members bill, none of this may have been possible. His private bill showed that placing important defences into statute was feasible and created a vehicle for the final Act of Parliament.

Dr Evan Harris MP @drevanharris

I may have an absolutely fundamental disagreement with Evan over Leveson, but frankly without his tireless commitment to the campaign and sage advice the campaign would not have been such a success. A truly fearsome campaigner.

Lord McNally

Did what he said he would — as Justice Minister he delivered the first wholesale reform of the law since 1843.

Sadiq Khan MP @sadiqkhan

Labour’s shadow Justice Secretary really kept the pressure on the government to improve the Defamation Bill throughout the parliamentary process. Sadiq scored a big victory in reducing the ease with which corporations can sue for libel.

Paul Farrelly MP @PaulFarrelly

Paul founded the All Party Parliamentary Group on Libel Reform which helped coordinate sympathetic MPs to push for libel reform.

Lord Mawhinney

As Chair of the Joint Scrutiny Committee of the draft Defamation Bill, he oversaw a scrutiny process that enhanced and strengthened the Defamation Bill (rather than, as we feared, may have weakened it).

John Whittingdale MP

His Committee’s important report (Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee) into libel significantly increased the momentum in parliament for reform.

Honorable mentions: Lord Allan, Baroness Bakewell, Lord Bew, Peter Bottomley MP, Lord Browne, Viscount Colville, David Davis MP, Paul Farrelly MP, Rob Flello MP, Lord Grade, Dominic Grieve, Baroness Hayter, Julian Huppert MP, Lord Macdonald, Baroness O’Neill, Jack Straw MP, Lord Taverne, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, every MP who signed EDM 1636 and EDM 423.

The professionals

Every campaign needs people to actually do stuff. At the core of the campaign were 3 amazing groups you should support (English PEN @englishpen; Index on Censorship @IndexCensorship; Sense About Science @senseaboutsci). Here are their humans:

Tracey Brown, Jo Glanville, Jonathan Heawood (@jheawood), John Kampfner (@jkampfner), err me Mike Harris (@mjrharris), Síle Lane and Robert Sharp (@RobertSharp59).

Honorable mentions: Chris Peters, Padraig Reidy.

Oh, and a warning from history

Just a note of caution.

The Report recites in non-technical language the general criticisms of the present law, and lists them as complication, cost, uncertainty, stifling of public discussion, undue severity upon unintentional defamation and bias in favour of ” gold-digging ” plaintiffs.

That report was not Free Speech Is Not For Sale but the Porter Report of 1948 which recommended reform to the law of libel which culminated in the Defamation Act 1952. Sixty years on, after initial progress, reform was required once more.

One sentence from the Porter Report, as noted by Selwyn Lloyd MP in The Spectator’s archive, will stand out for seasoned Leveson-watchers:

The Report abhors what it calls “Group Defamation,” for example, the vilification of a particular race or creed or party, but considers that any attempt to go beyond the present law as to seditious libel would curtail free political discussion.

The Libel Reform Campaign essential reading list

‘Free Speech Is Not For Sale’ (November 2009)

http://www.libelreform.org/our-report

‘Reforming libel – what must a Defamation Bill achieve?’ (September 2010)

http://www.libelreform.org/news/471-reforming-libel-what-must-a-defamation-bill-achieve

‘Libel Reform Campaign – Evidence to Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill ‘ (May 2011)

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/LRC_submission_to_Joint_Ctt__cover_note_2011_may_25.pdf

‘Libel Reform Campaign – initial analysis of the Defamation Act’ (April 2013)

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/Libel/Libel_Reform_Campaign_-_Initial_asssesment_of_the_Defamation_Act.pdf

Northern Ireland

‘Libel Reform Campaign – Evidence to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Finance and

Personnel Committee ‘ (July 2013)

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Documents/Finance/Defamation-Act/written-submissions/Libel-Reform-Campaign-Defamation-Act-submission.pdf

‘Libel Reform Campaign response to the proposed Private Member’s Bill on the law of defamation in Northern Ireland ‘ (November 2013)

http://libelreform.org/images/lrcmikenesbitt.pdf

Alternative dispute resolution

‘Alternative Libel Project – Final Report’ (March 2012)

http://www.englishpen.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Alternative_Libel_Project_FinalMarch2012.pdf

Media plurality is just one of the issues raised in my recent report into the European Union’s record on freedom of expression, Time to Step Up: The EU and freedom of expression.

”Currently the EU does not have the legal competence to act in this area [media plurality] as part of its normal business. In practice, our role involves naming and shaming countries ad hoc, as issues arise. I am quite willing to continue to exercise that political pressure on Member States that risk violating our common values. But there’s merit in a more principled way forward” 

— Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes

Last week, Index on Censorship released ‘Time to step up: The EU and freedom of expression’ the first analysis of how the EU protects freedom of expression within the union but also externally in its near-neighbourhood and beyond. Attention was given to our call for the EU to do more to protect whistle-blowers after the failure of EU member states to give (or even consider to give) asylum to Edward Snowden, but the report also identified a number of significant challenges to media freedom within the European Union, in particular the growing problem of media ownership patterns that are reducing media plurality.

European plurality standards

The media in the EU is more concentrated than the media in North America even after taking into account population, geographical size and income. In fact, by global standards, media concentration in the EU is high indeed. This would perhaps be acceptable if the EU was merely a trading bloc, but it is isn’t. As the report reiterates, the EU is a broader project with a clear aspiration to protect and defend human rights.

This is a legal pre-requisite of membership and as the Treaty of Lisbon has made the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding, now an on-going commitment by member states. Every European Union member state has ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and has committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Media plurality is an area the report argues where the European Commission has competency. Yet, the commission has until now left the promotion of media plurality up to member states. Now that this approach has been found wanting, the Commission is and needs to rethink its approach.

The Italian example

Italy is the most egregious example of an EU member state failing to protect media plurality. The famous Italian

“anomaly” had the country’s then prime minister Silvio Berlusconi exerting influence over the state broadcaster (which in turn was mandated by law to carry his political party’s views) alongside his personal ownership of the country’s largest television private television and advertising companies. The Gasperri Law of 2004 that was supposed to prevent media concentration may according to the OSCE have helped to preserve them.

While the European Parliament condemned Berlusconi’s personal influence over nearly 80% of the Italian television media, the Commission did not respond until July 2010 where it acted to remove restrictions placed on Sky Italia that prevented the satellite broadcaster from moving into terrestrial television.

Concentration throughout Europe

Italy is not the only EU member state where media ownership patterns have undermined plurality. The Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom demonstrated this year that strong media concentrations can be seen across the EU with large media groups holding ownership of a significant share of the domestic media in many member states. These media concentrations are significantly higher than the equivalent US figures.

The internet was supposed to drive competition in the media market, yet the Centre found the most concentration was in the online market. The reduction of the cost for new entrants to enter the media market facilitated by the internet was supposed to improve media plurality. There is alternative evidence to suggest this is happening.

Those who read their news in print in the UK, on average read 1.26 different newspapers; those who read newspapers online read 3.46 news websites. On the other hand, the convergence of TV stations, online portals and newspapers may produce even bigger media corporations.[1] New entrants to the market such as VICE Magazine and the Huffington Post have sold significant shares of their business to existing media corporations.

This process has not gone unnoticed by the Commission, with the independent High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism calling for digital intermediaries, including app stores, news aggregators, search engines and social networks, to be included in assessments of media plurality. The Reuters Institute is also concerned and has called for digital intermediaries to be required to “guarantee that no news content or supplier will be blocked or refused access”.

Match commitments with action

In a number of areas, the Index report has found the EU’s member states to be failing in their duty to protect freedom of expression adequately. Media plurality is one such area where a clear commitment by member states has not been matched by action from either the states themselves, or the European Commission. With increasing digital and media convergence, the role of the Commission will be crucial for the protection of media plurality. Unless the Commission is ready and prepared to act this convergence could have a significant impact on the range of opinions and views that European citizens are exposed to, with a chilling effect on freedom of expression in Europe. Italy may not be the anomaly in the near-future.

This blog was originally posted on the LSE Media Policy Project blog.

Here’s a presentation on the process behind the Libel Reform Campaign – how we took public anger at our archaic libel laws and used it to build support for a new Defamation Bill, which became the Defamation Act. The Act will come into force on 1 January 2014.

The presentation is a useful tool for NGOs looking at guides on how to campaign.

The number of Bonfire Night celebrations looks to be on the wane. Local authority cuts combined with the rise of Halloween as an alternative, seems to have decimated our enthusiastic for the most British of traditions. Londonist has no events listed for Greenwich, Kensington & Chelsea, Hackney or Islington. Lewisham continues our lone support for the huge Blackheath fireworks display (after Greenwich Council helpfully pulled out). Once a festival mandated by law through the “Thanksgiving Act” of 1606, are we witnessing the slow death of Bonfire Night?

This could be a reaction against what is seen as an anti-Catholic festival, out of step with contemporary multicultural Britain. A point made by historian David Cannadine:

“But although it’s been around for much longer, the prospects don’t look quite as good for Guy Fawkes and Bonfire Night once this anniversary is past. Britain is not the Protestant nation it was when I was young: it is now a multi-faith society. And the Americanised Halloween is sweeping all before it – a vivid reminder of just how powerfully American culture and American consumerism can be transported across the Atlantic.”

But is the modern Bonfire Night particularly anti-Catholic any more? My Roman Catholic primary school, for instance, celebrated Bonfire Night. As the BBC notes:

“Roman Catholic opposition to the event has never been very vocal – it’s not unusual to find fireworks displays run by RC schools or churches. In fact, fireworks night is for most people just another excuse for a party, and most of the event’s political connotations have been sloughed off. In this context, burning an effigy on a fire seems a bit, well, surplus to requirements.”

Not only do we increasingly celebrate the American importation of Halloween, the Hollywood version of Guy Fawkes has been imported back to our shores too. Guy Fawkes, the traitor who attempted to destroy our parliament, has been reborn as the heroic anti-totalitarian figure of ‘V’ from the film ‘V for Vendetta‘ (who wears a Guy Fawkes mask throughout the film). The mask, and by implication Guy Fawkes, is now a symbol of popular resistance, used by libertarian and anarchist figures from Julian Assange through to the hacking collective Anonymous. David Lloyd, the co-author of the graphic novel on which the film is based, argues: “The Guy Fawkes mask has now become a common brand and a convenient placard to use in protest against tyranny – and I’m happy with people using it, it seems quite unique, an icon of popular culture being used this way.” If Guy Fawkes is now a hero, celebrating his death and the foiling of his plans, seems questionable.

Finally, there is what we think of the act of blowing up Parliament. When Parliament burnt down in 1834, huge crowds lined the streets and by the banks of the Thames to cheer the fire that engulfed and destroyed 500 years of parliamentary history. As chronicled by Caroline Shenton’s The Day Parliament Burned Down, popular opinion saw the destruction of parliament as visible punishment for the institution’s cruel Poor Law Act of the same year. Now, only 7% of the public trust politicians and as Russell Brand has highlighted, there is a serious democratic deficit. Perhaps, 400 years on, our lack of enthusiasm for celebrating the thwarting of this act of political terrorism, reflects on our lack of faith in the current political system.

Comedian Russell Brand declared all politicians liars. Sadly, few in Generation Y will raise an eyebrow.

On BBC’s flagship Newsnight programme, aimed squarely at Britain’s fusty establishment, Russell Brand let rip: “Politicians are all liars”. There isn’t much wiggle room in “all”. Yet, Russell Brand’s interview struck a chord. With over 6,000,000 views on Youtube (and counting), the interview and Brand’s petulant call for revolution was viewed across the globe. The commentariat quickly condemned Brand’s views as dangerous, or as the ever-prescient Nick Cohen noted “artists have always made a show of being drawn towards fanaticism. Extremism is more exciting and dramatic”. If we take Brand’s comments at face value, every single sitting MP in the House of Commons is a liar. If you accept this to be true, as many young people now do, then why retain parliamentary democracy?

Generation Y’s faith in democracy is limited, at best. Asked who they trust, two-thirds of British young people say they have “little” or “no” trust in politicians. Why would they? For a generation weaned on the quick-fix e-petitions, politics is a series of cocaine highs (“By signing this - You changed the law!”) followed by crushing lows (“Why won’t they listen?”). Eli Pariser’s book The Filter Bubble identified the social media filter that surrounds young people’s conception of the political truth. A 16 year old rural Texan will, due to their friendship groups and habits, see a totally different series of news posts on Facebook than another 16 year old in New York City. Our polarised politics says these two truths can’t both be right, someone is lying.

Politicians have hardly helped themselves. Trust in the British political system has collapsed. The MPs expenses scandal exposed the fact our representatives were, alongside their staid day job of writing laws, finding common purpose in stealing lots and lots of our money. The Liberal Democrat party specifically ruled out raising student tuition fees in their election manifesto. Within a year of entering government in coalition with the Tories, they increased fees from £3,000 to £9,000. Meanwhile Britain’s housing boom (central London prices are rising by 10% per annum) is robbing a generation of any chance of owning a home of their own. As Jilted Generation co-author Shiv Malik points out, while the baby boomers got free university education, could easily get a free council house (state housing) and lived in an era of full employment, all of these things have been robbed from Generation Y.

So the anger mounts. As a councillor, I’ve experienced first-hand the hatred reserved for the political class. Public humiliation, being sworn at on countless occasions, threatening phone calls: having spoken to other young councillors it’s now commonplace to be subject to a barrage of abuse if you seek political office.  Why not – all politicians are liars, remember?

Russell Brand, a Hollywood celebrity, is no fringe figure fuelling this rage. He happily promotes HP touchpads – and Disney Parks. His personal wealth is estimated at $15 million. On Newsnight his rhetoric edged closer to that of a 9/11 truther than someone who has a sideline in promoting corporations. Brand said:

“I’m not voting out of absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery, deceit of the political class that has been going on for generations now and which has now reached fever pitch where you have a disenfranchised, disillusioned, despondent underclass that are not being represented by that political system, so voting for it is tacit complicity with that system”

Adding:

“I’m not saying – the apathy doesn’t come from us, the people. The apathy comes from the politicians. They are apathetic to our needs. They’re only interested in servicing the needs of corporations.”

The anti-politics mood fuels a strong sideline in fantasies. Whether the lone extremist such as Anders Behring Breivik, or connected conspiracists such as the LaRouche movement, the internet has allowed those on the fringes of society to connect globally and feed their conceits unchallenged. Some of this infects the body politic. When UKIP candidates (the party most likely to win Britain’s European elections) quote from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion* and describe the EU as the “EUSSR” and new Home Office Minister Norman Baker MP does a star turn on Alex Jones’ podcast to reveal he believes government scientist Dr David Kelly’s death was covered up by MI5, can we still say this is the fringe? Is Generation Y wrong to get tipsy on conspiracies when they work to elect a liberal President and he says nothing of note – nothing – when the most paranoid delusions of dystopia are made to look unambitious compared to the NSA’s system of mass surveillance buried deep in the Utah desert? Francis Fukuyama predicted the “end of history” when the Berlin Wall fell. Instead we got 9/11, Guantanamo, Iraq’s non-existent WMD and Wikileaks. My former hero Blair, promised democracy in Iraq, failed and now shills for a murderous tyrant in Kazakhstan. No wonder Generation Y is so confused.

Russell Brand’s views are merely the tip of an iceberg of hostility to the political class. The complexity of the modern world and the inability of the political system to adjust to the great leap forward of the internet and social media has led to widespread disillusionment. But they have also failed to wake up to the challenge they face. Politicians are distrusted; political parties are losing activists and money, the far-right is on the rise in continental Europe. Can we really say Russell Brand’s views are no longer the mainstream?

 

The FT’s Alphaville Blog carries an interesting article today, London as a cheapo Hong Kong. The piece analyses a report by Deutsche Bank that notes while Central London prime property prices are rapidly gaining value the rate of return on all UK property over the last 5 years still remains over 9%.

Yet the most telling paragraph taken from the Deutsche Bank report is this:

For those from China and Singapore London house prices remain less than 60% of peak, for Malaysian, Hong Kong and US$ investor’s less than 70%. This also compares to house prices in some of the investors home territories which [have] shown massive increases, eg through 2010 house prices in Hong Kong increased by 50% impacting affordability and the ability of secure attractive income returns on properties. In some Asian countries in a bid to stem house prices tax regimes have been put in place. This has also pushed investors towards the UK…

As foreign investors now make up 73% of Central London new build property buyers and a staggering 90% of prime Central London property (£2,000+ per square foot), it’s clear they are the real driving force behind the current price boom. Worryingly, if the pound’s depreciation means that real estate in the capital is a mere 60-70% of peak prices (in 2007), this suggests that foreign buyers could drive property up another 30% before it regains parity with the previous peak.

London property is now an international asset, like the dollar or bonds. We need to deassetise property from an internationally traded commodity to an asset whose primary purpose is to fulfil a basic human right in line with Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unless we begin to intervene in the market, either by government intervention to build more properties, or by making these assets less attractive to foreign buyers with stricter taxes, there is no chance that any young person today will be able to afford to own their own property (unless they are fortunate enough to be in the top 1% of earners). Public anger is growing. Politicians now must act.

Update: interesting map from Savill’s residential research on the rise of the £500,000 flat across London.

Very occasionally it’s useful to be able to reference accurate English translations of the penal codes of European countries, so you can see what the law says for yourself. From across the internet these are the translations I’ve managed to find, so far. I’ve attempted to verify each translation using the few sections of the law I know, which means they should be partly accurate at least.

France

The French government has helpfully translated whole sections of its legal code in English including the Civil Code (2006), the Commercial Code (2004), the Consumer Code (2005), the Intellectual Property Code (2006), the Penal Code (2006) and the Monetary and Financial Code (2010).

Germany

In 2009, Prof. Michael Bohlander provided an English translation of the German Criminal Code. A 1998 version is also available online here for comparison.

Greece

Selected elements of the Criminal Code of Greece have been translated into English. Many of the elements of the Criminal Code relating to defamation are available separately here.

Poland

The 1997 Penal Code of Poland has been translated into English here.

Spain

In 2011, The Ministry of Justice published an English translation of the Spanish Criminal Code. You can also buy an Android application with the Spanish version of the criminal code.