A blog detailing the abuse suffered by reporters at the Daily Mail was quickly removed this week when it was picked up on by the Guardian and a number of media-watching blogs. Reproduced here are the missing blog posts detailing life in the newsroom under conservative tyrant Paul Dacre.
The editor is prone to issuing edicts which he contradicts within hours, or sometimes even minutes. For example he said at Afternoon Conference a few weeks ago that weather stories were an absolute priority. ‘Do I need to have it written in letters a foot high on the notice board behind the back bench that we must have weather stories?’ he said. That evening the only possibility went in, a picture piece about Tewkesbury suffering floods similar to the previous year. When the editor saw it he yelled: ‘What the fuck have you put this in for? There are floods all the the time. Don’t you understand anything about journalism?’ This is a good example of what makes it such fun to work for Paul Dacre. His nimble changes of direction keep us all on our toes, and it is a privilege to learn from such a great teacher.
== Holiday blues ==
A pall of gloom hangs over the Kensington office. The editor has gone on holiday for three whole weeks (presumably to his property in the British Virgin Islands, which entirely coincidentally has a reputation of being a tax haven). How on earth will the paper come out without Paul Dacre’s wise guiding hand on the tiller? Of course he is entitled to have holidays, but the staff would be much happier if he was present all the time to tell us how to do it right.
Word has it that the editor is grievously upset about an item in the latest Private Eye which quoted an unnamed director of Associated Newspapers referring to Paul Dacre as ‘the Robert Mugabe of Fleet Street’ because of his reluctance to retire. Apparently he stayed in his office all day after it appeared. The Eye also said that Dacre had forced out anyone with a spark of originality and surrounded himself with mediocrities. This is obviously a grossly unfair way to describe such talents as Jon Steafel, Paul Carter and Ted Verity, who all demonstrate tremendous flair and wit. However I think the editor should be proud to likened to Robert Mugabe, a man who has brought torture and oppression to a fine art. We need more people like him to keep up standards.
== Post 5 ==
It is many years since the Daily Mail switched to computer-based new technology, but Paul Dacre refuses to have anything to do with screens. He believes that only lower orders use screens (that’s everyone in the office but him). If he wants to read an article he demands a paper print-out and makes any alterations in fountain pen. A minion then transfers the alterations to the article in the computer system. In my opinion it is good to see someone taking a stand against the march of computers in this time of moral decline. We all rely on them far too much, and it would be much better if everyone used fountain pens.
== Post 4 ==
Did you see that article a few weeks ago which said that people born in 1948 were the most fortunate of all? They missed the war and National Service, grew up in the Swinging Sixties, did well out of the property boom, have good pensions, etc. Guess who (to use one of Paul Dacre’s brilliant headline formulas) was born in 1948? Of course. In fact he shares his birthday with Prince Charles (Nov 14 1948). Woe betide any Mail hack who describes Prince Charles as elderly. Actually I think it’s amazing how youthful a man of 61 can look. He certainly has no need to dye his hair.
== Post 3 ==
The editor can only function with a sidekick who shadows him constantly, like sharks have cleaner fish which tidy up their orifices. The main qualification for being a cleaner is the readiness to be in the office from 9am to 10pm five days a week, if not more. You also need to say ‘Yes Paul, you’re absolutely right’ and ‘That’s a brilliant idea, Paul’ at regular intervals. Until fairly recently the chief cleaner was his deputy Alistair Sinclair, but since Sinclair’s retirement (reputedly because he was told he would never be editor, but who knows) the role has been taken on by three new cleaners, deputy editor Jon Steafel, and Ted Verity and Paul Carter, who both have some sort of title like assistant editor or associate editor. The three are always within shouting distance of the editor, prepared to do his bidding and drop someone else in the shit when necessary. The only difference between a shark and the editor is that while the shark protects its cleaner fish, the editor will turn on his cleaners and bite their heads off for any reason at all, or none. The cleaners suffer as much as anyone else from his rages. That must make them even less intelligent than a fish, though admittedly better paid. Steafel is thought to be on about half a million. Anyway full marks to the editor for the way he has improved on the shark.
== Post 2 ==
It is strongly rumoured that the editor has a nap in his office after News Conference, a half-hour entertainment which usually starts around 4pm (for a pale imitation see the Downfall link on the right of this page.) Apparently it is impossible to contact him for a couple of hours after that, but then he emerges refreshed for the evening onslaught on the Back Bench. His energy for yelling is prodigious. It all points to a power nap, and I for one think this is a very good idea.
== Post 1 ==
A lot of journalists aspire to work at the Daily Mail. But when they achieve their goal, most of them can’t wait to get out again. Why should this be? Maybe it’s the unique form of encouragement given by the editor. Every day he makes it his business to tell his subordinates that they can’t do their job and that they are useless in every way. He calls them cunts if they haven’t done too badly. Worse efforts are rewarded with five-minute tirades in which obscenities outnumber the ordinary words. This is the way in which he believes he will achieve good work from his staff, and I am sure he is absolutely right.
Comments
Aaaah - you poor thing. Such
Aaaah - you poor thing. Such unpleasantness. And from someone so famous as well. And on top of all that, probably having to endure the above article being rejected by Private Eye for being too obvious... What a terribly difficult life you lead.
But at least it sure beats the banal misery of the work of us proles not working in such a spectacularly well-known environment.
As Karl Kraus said:
eh? i don't think it was
eh? i don't think it was actually written by weeler.
Then I obviously should have
Then I obviously should have said:
Aaaah - the poor things. Such unpleasantness. And from someone so famous as well. And on top of all that, probably having to endure the above posts being rejected by Private Eye for being too obvious... What a terribly difficult life you people lead.
But at least it sure beats the banal misery of the work of us proles not working in such a spectacularly well-known environment.
As Karl Kraus said:
The working class and the
The working class and the journalistic class have nothing in common. Break the chains of tabloid oppression! No hacks no masters!
Weeler said: Quote: working
Weeler said:
blah blah blah
and the ability to deliberately misunderstand and parody ideas when others express them.
What I tried to do was point out that what you posted was utterly banal - something that might be published in Private Eye if it didn't already have thousands of stories like it, but should never have been posted on libcom because it says something that millions of others suffer everyday and worse, but don't have a famous boss that makes it apparently interesting. Apologies for repeating myself in an easy-to-read form, but clearly some people (or, at least, one person) are willfully too thick to understand irony - or much else, for that matter.
As for the title "media workers" - well, there are media workers and media workers, but to lump most journalists in with media workers at the bottom of the pile is not just typical simplistic "oh - you're being all sociological - it's the ruling class versus the rest, don't you understand?" which I've come to expect from far too many libcom posters, but also hides your middle class guilt for doing a job that is not just shit (most of us do that) but involves producing bullshit.
Now if the same journalists did more than just "raise issues with their shitty conditions", then you might have got a slightly different response from me - but what you posted above is just "whingeing".
And, by the way, I'm not an 'anarchist' (though some of my best friends are).
Quote: what you posted was
Well, it is weeler ;-).
Of course, because your class position is determined by the concrete aspect of your work and not by your social relationship to work. This is definitely true, and explains why workers in arms factories are also middle class.
See you complain samotaf, but
See you complain samotaf, but if it's so banal why did you click in the first place?
Fact is there will be several thousand people in Britain googling the words "Paul Dacre blog" today, significantly outnumbering those googling anarchism. This sort of article serves as a draw for such people, accessibly advertising Libcom to an entire demographic which 90% of the time wouldn't touch the word communist with a barge pole.
But y'know, just keep throwing out that mindless slagging of journalists' work regardless of background, intent or impact. I'm sure that'll be really useful and not in any way numbingly tedious.
Lol, im thinking of putting
Lol, im thinking of putting up some Jordan and Pete articles to draw in the punters.
Why do you think the
Why do you think the mainstream press does it? For kicks? If it's relevant, why not use it?
Quote: No ideas and the
Clearly all's Greek to you - including everything you read, since if it wasn't you'd be able to read that I'm not Greek.
To be sure, Karl Kraus, when he was writing (post-WWI) could make an original provocative point with his aphorism that requires a certain subtle development today, pertinent though it still, "sweepingly" (i.e. generally), is. But here is not the thread to do it - though maybe I'll do it on the thread about Greece that I started, which weeler obviously can't read.
And as for the ironicly-put parody of my critique by BigLittleJ:
- these are "sweeping" equivalents, ignoring the differences between different types of ideological work and different types of manual work and different types of other work neither strictly one nor the other. This manner of making everything equivalent clearly gives him a cosy blanket idea that he understands what he's up against, but it's an inappropriate equivalent: printers producing newspapers and workers producing arms for war are closer equivalents (though I suspect most proletarians with integrity would feel that working to produce arms for war is a compromise far further than producing newspapers, though this would differ depending on levels of unemployment and desperation).
But then BigLittleJ said, in another post, making similar equivalents - about cops and screws -
Certainly soldiers who justify the war in Iraq or Afghanistan I would shun. But even they at least take greater risks than the vast majority of journalists, who - at least those in the Daily Mail offices - write bullshit from a distance. In situations of class conflict, security guards, ticket collectors, journalists, cops, screws and soldiers are on the side of the ruling class until they decide to stop performing their (very different) disgusting roles. Abstractly, ticket collectors could be defined as working class - but when you're surrounded by 5 of them giving you crap and threatening you because they declare that your ticket is invalid (as happened to me the other day), when they're acting what their role entails, then that is a class relation with the ticket collectors on the other side of the metaphorical barricades. And it's even more so with the vast majority of journos.
Samotnaf wrote: but should
Samotnaf
I didn't know that anarchists operated with a scale of suffering. I guess all of us in the Western labour aristocracy should stop complaning coz there are starving children in Africa and Haiti and stuff.
Khawaga
Khawaga wrote:
I'll deal with his/her 'points' in chronological order:
1. As I said above, I'm not an anarchist - which wouldn't normally be an important point to make at all except that it shows Khawaga's inability to read (an affliction that seems to infect virtually all of the previous posters, but then this inability isn't so much a failure to read what someone says but really comes from the fact that ideologists always ignore or distort what their opponents say).
2. More importantly, s/he takes the aside - "and worse"
- and turns it into the whole of what I said, thereby avoiding what I hoped to make clear was the essence of what I said: namely ( and yet again I'm forced to repeat myself because ideologists are so deaf you have to repeat things to them a hundred times before they hear what you say) that my point was that loads of proletarians suffer abuse, verbal, physical, financial etc. at the hands of their 'superiors' without it becoming something worth putting on libcom news, which seems to act like the mainstream media by thinking its important because it involves someone famous. I 'suffered' - along with most of my fellow marketeers, years and years of humiliation, verbal and financial, at the hands of the coke-snorting market manager where I worked, and certainly there are interesting aspects to this, but the guy isn't a celebrity so, even if I was still there today, I would hardly put it on libcom news. As an article analysing market relations, I have put it up here in the library - but weeler and his fellow miserable journos don't analyse a thing, because they'd have to have a little bit of distance from their paid ideological function; rather than justify it as just like every other alienation, they'd have to recognise a little bit of the particular
(Rob Ray) nature of their choice to pursue such an ideological career.
3. Even more importantly, all journalists ever do is complain - but Khawaga ignores my
4. If you or I said that our alienation was the same as "starving children in Africa or Haiti" and no one on libcom slagged us off for such an incredible statement then I'd seriously consider refusing to ever have anything more to do with libcom. I certainly don't think people should accept their misery at whatever "scale of suffering", but to make equivalents of all scales of suffering is intellectual abstraction at its worst, its most stupid , blind and insensitive. Obviously there are always people worse off than yourself, but saying there are no differences in alienation because we're all shitted on from different parts of the world hierarchy does nothing to contribute to the struggle against the common material base of this alienation.
RobRay:
Is this how "radical" journalistic "critique" works? About as profound as the standard "If you don't like what's on the telly, use the off switch".
Why criticise banalities? "Since all our knowledge is essentially banal, it can only be of value to minds that are not", as Vaneigem said in 1965.
As for his
as implied by allybaba, such populism is just the same as the mainstream media, whose condescending tactics Rob Ray, being a journalist, openly supports.
Sometime over the weekend, I hope, with other people's help, to develop this attack on the self-justificatory ideologies of these so-called "libertarian communist" journalists and some of the effects of their wilful ignorance of their superior position in the division of labour - in the thread on Greece, where the questions can be posed more concretely, in relation to the class struggle there.
Journalists are closer to
Journalists are closer to weapons designers in arms companies than they are to workers in arms factories, if you want to use that analogy. Daily Mail journalists deserve no sympathy (or support) until they start writing less disgusting articles, something that could only be achieved by leaving the Daily Mail.
I don't support anything, I
I don't support anything, I simply acknowledge that interest in celebrities exists and therefore have no problem with it being used to bring in people who otherwise wouldn't read libcom. Seriously how do you expect to break out of the anarchist ghetto if you only ever speak to people whose cultural interests match your own?
I'm getting very tired (hence the comment) with this baseless prejudice you're displaying about my approach to the world simply because of my job. I'm sure on some level you know perfectly well you should be engaging with my arguments straight rather than using my background as a means to try and discredit me, I'd urge you to heed that thought.
On which note, I would support trying to relate to people about things they're interested in regardless of my job, because it's simple common sense that you can't break past people's prejudices about anarchism merely by ranting about a load of esoteric political issues they have no connection to. If you think otherwise that's your lookout, but it's a nasty brand of elitism that says "you're not worth engaging with unless it's on my terms."
Wow that sounds constructive.
Actually with that attitude I can quite understand why your viewpoint would seem correct to you - it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that if you treat people like shit, they'll be disinclined to help you when you need it. Fortunately for me, most people who call themselves anarchists are able to avoid writing off thousands of people as a homogenous group all engaged in the same "ideological career" and actively distinguish between individuals.
weeler fails reading
weeler fails reading comprehension test
nd turns it into the whole of
nd turns it into the whole of what I said, thereby avoiding what I hoped to
Oh, ffs. There's plenty of articles being put up on libcom about proles with no famous bosses at all. For example, I've submitted lots of news articles about the Egyptian strikers, who for the most part are ignored by everyone. Ret Marut posts lots of news from e.g. Bangladesh. Steven (I think) put up an article detailing his experiences as a very ordinary temp-worker, and etc.
As long as you follow the submission guidelines "anything" can be submitted.
Khawaga: Quote: I've
Khawaga:
- but these are about struggles, not about journalists posting anonymously their whinges on a website.
To repeat myself a 3rd time (but this time in bold so it's easier to read):[quote]
if the same journalists did more than just "raise issues with their shitty conditions", then you might have got a slightly different response from me
[/quote]
As Frederick the Great said "Complain all you want - but do as you're told!".
Weeler thinks that because he's brief, like a good journalist having to write something snappy and quickly because there's a deadline, it's more useful than my long-winded stuff. Here's my long winded response: "whatever".
As for RobRay trying to be 'constructive' - as I said - later and probably not on this (virtually unread?) thread.
Yeah I'm looking forward to
Yeah I'm looking forward to that one, half-arsed "analysis" (see I can use sarcastic quote marks too) from the lord of the sweeping statement.
Edit: Really? Quoting celebrity nationalist warmonger Frederick the Great to back up your case during a rant about how we shouldn't use celebrities to back up our cases?
So personal accounts of work
So personal accounts of work experiences count for nothing? I guess worker inquiries are completely useless then and that groups like Kampa Tilsammans! or Kamunist Kranti just publish whinges from workers. Personal accounts can be used as a good point of departure for organizing struggles.
You mentioned nothing about struggles in your posts. You must realize that whinging among workers about how shit their situation is often how struggles start. With the internet, you know, it is possible to publish them, so why the heck not.
Btw, what about Steven's temping experiences? Is that just whinging as well?
Samotnaf wrote: - these are
Samotnaf
"Hi, I'm samotnaf, I can't tell the difference between equivalents and analogies"
Right, because a) peoples ideas about what is just or unjust are more important than their class position and b) the 'riskiness' of someone's occupation is more important than the social context of their work. You have just lowered yourself to the political level of a Liberal Democrat MP. Good work.
As to the rest of your post, I scarcely think I need to reply to it. It's farcical to suggest that ticket collectors are all ruling class. I suppose you would apply the same label to ushers in cinemas, sales assistants in shops, and so on. I have gotten grief from other workers loads of times in my life, that doesn't make them ruling class - of course their jobs involve perpetuating capitalist social relations, but that is the nature of work under capitalism.
BigLittleJ wrote: It's
BigLittleJ
Cops too, then?
Two of the best articles that
Two of the best articles that I've read on this site have been personal accounts. Jack's account of working in the sex-texting industry and Steven's accounts of his various shit jobs. IMO they're interesting whilst also being informative.
Quote: Two of the best
8-)
If that is the case, it might be worth checking out our other main sections on people moaning about their work:
descriptions of working life:
http://libcom.org/tags/work-life
Accounts of some sort of individual or collective struggle at work:
http://libcom.org/tags/workplace-activity
Quote: Cops too, then? Yes,
Yes, cops are also not all ruling class.
the point isn't whether they
the point isn't whether they are part of the ruling class
Quote: the point isn't
Yes it is.
No, the point is whether
No, the point is whether their job is to oppress other workers in the service of capital, and whether that is intrinsic to the job. So ticket collectors cannot become revolutionary unless they quit their job. Arms factory workers can, by occupying their workplace and stopping production.
I was a train guard for 3
I was a train guard for 3 years. Good to know I was 'oppressing other workers in the service of capital'.
Fucking JAILERS OF THE TRAIN
Fucking JAILERS OF THE TRAIN CARRIAGES
Quote: No, the point is
I used to work in a shop, it was intrinsic to my role there to make other workers pay for things IN THE SERVICE OF CAPITAL ZOMG.
Theres scope to be a
Theres scope to be a jobsworth, no doubt, or you can be a bit more sensible about it.
But even the most jobsworth ticket checker is not 'oppressing the workers in the interest of capital', and even the most laid back one still has to lift fucking fares if they want to keep their jobs.
Oh sorry, they have to quit their jobs, I forgot :roll:
It'd be nice to have an
It'd be nice to have an argument that didn't consist of extreme caricatures on either side.
It would be easier to resist
It would be easier to resist that temptation if everyone else wasn't always so obviously wrong.
888 wrote: It'd be nice to
888
Whos caricaturing anything? The exact phrase was...
Hungry56
How is it that the most
How is it that the most jobsworth ticket not 'oppressing the workers in the interest of capital', but the most lackadaisical copper is?
So the social functions of a
So the social functions of a ticket collector and a cop are the same?
Or their motivations for taking on said roles in the first place?
The only thing a jobsworth ticket collector has the power to do is be a jobsworth, as opposed to having powers to search, detain arrest, etc.
Taking money off people on a bus/tram/train, station etc is not qualitatively different to working a cash register in a supermarket...would you think a cashier was 'oppressing' you if they dared to ask you for the full amount?
Let's not forget those
Let's not forget those taxi-drivers!
Actually, one of my
Actually, one of my co-workers at the time did do a spectacular oppression on revol68 one cold winters evening,
We must recognize that the
We must recognize that the crushing domination of capital affects everyone without exception. Particular groupings cannot be designated as "the elect", exempt from and unmarked by capital's despotism. The revolutionary struggle is a human struggle, and it must recognize in every person the possibility of humanity.
:D
Quote: We must recognize that
We're all in it together maan... Who said that? The ridiculous Camatte. Presumably you don't actually believe that is a meaningful quote. I prefer
There is no one single humanity
There is a humanity of classes
Slaves and Masters
J
But you're certainly not right, if you're arguing that the only important factor here is class, as you seem to be doing: me
In that case, police and prison guards' struggles should be supported - do you agree? Or if class isn't the only factor, what exactly is it that draws the line between cops and ticket inspectors? (I do not, incidentally, believe that "ticket collectors cannot become revolutionary unless they quit their job (etc)" - that was other people.) And where should the line be drawn? Cops? Prison guards? "Asset Protection Officers"? MI5 office workers? Security guards? Ticket inspectors? Prison plumbers/electricians? Teachers? Pigeon fanciers?
Why do ticket inspectors read you the right to silence bullshit, by the way?
I wrote Quote: Abstractly,
I wrote
That is not the same as saying that ticket collectors are ruling class, a convenient caricature of my position by some of the previous posters. Bailiffs aren't ruling class - but when they perform their job they are clearly anti-working class. Soldiers aren't ruling class - but when they, for example, shoot at Palestinian stone-throwers or kill a 15 year old looter in Haiti or whatever, what are you going to do? Hand out a leaflet to them telling them not to do the ruler's dirty work for them, that they are acting against their own class interests? Try it if that's what you think you should do (it's the logic of your attitudes). Class is not just something neatly "objective" and safely abstract. It's so banal but apparently it needs repeating - class conflict is there when a section of the working class and/or middle class does their masters' bidding and when another section of the working class revolts against other members of the working &/or middle class fucking them over. It is rare to have direct conflicts with the ruling class - even the most blindly ideological of you must have noticed that it's not Jack Straw or Bill Gates or The Queen who nicks you for stealing from a shop, or for fiddling the fares.
And I have never said that people shouldn't give accounts (and analyses) of the misery of their jobs (in fact I linked to an analytical account in the libcom library of a work situation I was in for quite some time) - just that the Paul Dacre piece is pathetic Middle Class self-pitying (weeler, like the typical journo that he is, feels no embarassment in contradicting himself by accusing me of being "self-pitying") almost on a par with movie stars complaining about how difficult it is being famous; the account, like the complaints of movie stars, is not uninteresting in the sense of making me think how pathetic some people are enduring certain types of humiliation in pursuit of a relatively well-paid career, but it's utterly trapped in the standard mainstream media publicity of misery which has nothing to do with a struggle against misery. And to say that "complaining" is the first step towards struggling - rarely yes, usually most definitely not - complaining is almost always a safety valve, and there's nothing to indicate, in the mainly crappy article we're commenting on, the slightest hint of going beyond complaining.
But maybe tomorrow I'll be proved wrong and Paul Dacre will be hanged from the nearest lampost, the repulsive Daily Mail building burnt to the ground by journalists who have decided that enough's enough. .
As for quoting Frederick the Great - perhaps we shouldn't quote Machiavelli, Clausewitz, Lenin, etc. in case it's seen as supporting them. This is the logic of politicos who argue for the sheer hell of it (and sometimes internet forums, libcom included, read like disharmonic moanings from the abyss, the nasty ego-battles of people trapped in Dante's inferno, taking out their misery on each other without the slightest serious consideration of what the other person is really saying).
Quote: perhaps we shouldn't
Actually, far from denying your right to quote whichever historical despot you wish I was actively mocking your ongoing argument which appears to imply it's okay to write about a subject if it's something you're interested in, but not if it's something you're bored by or which hurts your delicate sensibilities. I'm sorry if this was unclear.
No, it's working class self-pitying, done by people you (and I for that matter) sometimes find personally objectionable because of the work they do.
What I, and others, are doing here is pointing out the weird absurdity that you'd be actively condemnatory of anything which a) puts bosses in a bad light b) undermines the reputation of one of the right wing presses' most powerful people c) will act as a draw to a libertarian communist site d) may well get other journalists thinking about their own working conditions (which you still seem to think would be a bad thing, see my earlier arguments).
What's more, Daily Mail journalists are one of the few groups of people trusted by the right wing of society. You may not like that, but it makes a difference if one of them is saying their workplace is actually run by a self-contradictory megalomaniac where a communist saying it would just be laughed at.
888 is actually stealing
888 is actually stealing words out of my mouth, so I think I'm done here. ;)
notch8 wrote: So the social
notch8
To save making a thread about this, ticket inspectors (in the UK anyway) can detain people if a name or address is witheld or made up, until police arrive. Or they have the power to caution you, believe it or not. Hardly like the indifference of a supermarket assistant, is it?
flaneur wrote: notch8
flaneur
flaneur, anyone can detain someone until the police arrive if they think a crime has been committed - it's called a citizen's arrest.
The difference in the scenario you describe is that a supermarket is big enough to have a division of labour between the till attendant and the security guard, whereas in a train carriage both of those roles are combined in the inspector/guard position.
Anyway, this is a pretty pointless discussion, as thousands of jobs have to impose aspects of behaviour necessary for capitalism on other workers.
Cheers Steven for telling me
Cheers Steven for telling me what a citizen's arrest is. :roll: Are you actually trying to say that the two are comparable? Not forgetting they're able to give out cautions.
Actually, I've only ever worked in shops where there's been no security guards. Nor any have a go hero workers. Since there is a line between those that have to impose aspects of behaviour and those who can do so but are not obliged to - not sure why the shop assistant example keeps being offered up, none of them would be compelled to run after someone, nor censured for not doing so. I'm not making any huge statement as a result but lets not kid ourselves with 'it's all the same'.
Well weeler, I did a whole
Well weeler, I did a whole paragraph with points. How it usually works is you read what is said and then take it on board, hopefully coming away with understanding. Or you could just disregard the first bit and ask silly questions. Perhaps I can spell it out using tomato spaghetti, would that make it more clearer, if not a whole heap more fun!?
There are workers that by the virtue of their job are forced to do certain things whilst there's others who are not. Shop assistants fit into the latter. Which makes the whole 'we're all oppressors in the service of capital' a load of toss. Uncommon citizen's arrests compared with far more common detainings by ticket inspectors is not the most sensible comparison. Legislation allowing ticket inspectors to caution someone makes the comparison redundant anyway.
You mean the point, that was
You mean the point, that was amongst the other points? Tomato spaghetti exhibit A.
flaneur
But why even ask? Because you're only interested in reducing an affirmative to a CAPITALS ONE LINER which might not be forthcoming.
What is the purpose of
What is the purpose of splitting the working class into subfragments with various levels of purity? Please prove that having them as part of the class struggle movement is dangerous or counterproductive. Reducing people to what they do for a living is a big mistake.
There is already a significant confusion regarding class as more and more working class people call themselves middle class. Starting to split the distinction further and further into hierarchies of approved jobs (and lifestyles?) only makes matters worse. How complicated do you want membership to be? Should people worry if their job is on the approved list? Discussions like this are damaging.
Again at a critical point in the distant future certain groups might become problematic but I question our ability to spot them in the now and why should we even try.
Why not leave the heated discussions to things that matter? If this separation out of certain groups is important please tell me what the worst case scenario is and make sure you consider the best case.
Well for such a simple
Well for such a simple revelation, you'd expect you'd get it right. And though I have an answer to where I see ticket inspectors in relation to other anti-working class roles, I don't see it fitting into your crude Paxman like, yes or no dichotomy.
As an aside, why do you even bother? You're evidently not interested in debate or whatever, only cockwaving and point scoring. Cue the boring "but I'm at work and being paid to it" spiel but that doesn't explain why you have to be such a bellend about it. I'd say nearly all of your posts are one liner little jibes or snide remarks designed to wind people up rather than anything else. No one likes a wind up merchant.
Well it's never going to be
Well it's never going to be you, is it Jeremy? What you lack in ideas, you make up in how much of a berkeley hunt you are.
Cooked wrote: What is the
Cooked
What is the purpose in lumping them in all together? As has been said in the comments already, class is not in a vacuum, there's the social role to consider. Do you not accept there are some workers that would be duty bound to smash a class struggle movement?
I said it quite clearly. It's
I said it quite clearly. It's not my fault if you can't get it. Probably not enough capitals. The fact that they do rather than can (when the opposite applies with citizen's arrest) detain people and are able to caution people makes them qualitatively different from shop assistants.
Jesus, we're really scrapping the barrel if it's chipshop anecdotes we're basing things by. Didn't know Frank Castle was working in SuperValu. Certainly wasn't in my contract to kill people shoplifting at Sainsbury's. In your view, is this what the common shop assistant is like on the whole? Otherwise, what does that have to do with the price of fish?
Didn't know my Mum was American either but considering I worked in a shop more recently than she did, I doubt she'll have much useful to add about the matter. I think you'll find all shops, for legal reasons, instruct that you shouldn't chase after a shoplifter. Infact, you're more likely to lose your job for doing so.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6409511/Security-guard-sacked-for-apprehending-shoplifter.html
http://blog.americantheftprevention.com/2010/05/27/stops-shoplifter-gets-fired/
http://t3chh3lp.com/blog/stop-a-shoplifter-get-fired-from-sprint.html
Do you have any others? Maybe
Do you have any others? Maybe they'll REALLY add to the discussion. I know loads of shop workers who didn't chase nor kill anyone. And the shoplifters didn't have guns or nowt (armed robbers???), just a pack of Pink Panther Wafers under their arm.
We'll try it again. I've run
We'll try it again. I've run out of spaghetti tomato letters so it'll have to be plain boring black ones. Do you think shop assistants are generally like how I'm saying or like your mate (maybe he was trying to get away from you?). And even if they're all generally jobworths, do you think, on the whole, they go around doing citizen's arrests and cautioning people (even though they can't by law and ticket inspectors can)? I like how your one anecdote is comparative to my months of working in different shops with no Frank Castles. I met a decent ticket inspector ONCE aswell.
Linking what's said to crude analysis of someone's mental health. I thought you was a journo, not a psychologist. ONE TRICK PONY.
It's quite offensive of you
It's quite offensive of you to suggest I'm your mirror image. :hand:
Im only sorry that in my time
Im only sorry that in my time as a nazi train guard I didnt get the opportunity to oppress flaneur. In that time I can tell you I never had any legal power to detain or caution anyone. And I never have heard of any of my co-workers carrying out a citizens arrest on anyone for fare evasion, as any staff doing so would likely find themselves on more serious charges than the fare dodger (assault, false imprisonment etc.). And anyone mental enough to do so would probably do it in whatever line of work they found themselves in; whereas most people use a bit of discretion...but there are times when you cant just look the other way without risking your own job.
I got a parking ticket today, wish I had never supported those fucking traffic wardens when they went on wildcat strike and won :roll:
Notch, it's probably a really
Notch, it's probably a really good idea to take anything said about your previous job so personally. And to make assumptions based on what I've said about whether I'd support strike action by ticket inspectors or not. I at least appreciate you're more erudite than your knobhead mate.
Quote: Im only sorry that in
A train guard is not, as far as i know, a ticket inspector - whose function is very different; notch8 - surely ticket inspectors have the power to detain or caution, no?
The 2 class theory has nothing to do with any understanding of a hierarchy of differences in how different methods of survival, different social positions in the reproduction of our alienation, actually produce very different attitudes and possibilities of revolt. All work is compromised, but some is definitely more compromised than others. And flattening everything out into some equality of misery that can produce an equality of revolt against our condition only exists in ideology - it has nothing to do with experience, with history, with what actually happens. And even the lowest in the hierarchy, when they make unnecessary (ie not forced on them, but chosen) ways of complying with their enemies, make themselves the enemies of the individual proletarian in themselves as in others.
And, btw, weeler, you'll be glad to know that, in response to this, I give you permission to indulge in an orgy of your usual contentless, and not even funny, insults & parodies of my point of view (expressive of a very deeply embittered resentment of anybody who makes an effort at making sense against this senseless world) without me feeling the slightest inclination to waste my time replying.
First result on a Google for
First result on a Google for train guard:
Nice one flaneur, incidentally, sterling job in pretending notch hasn't just torn your entire argument to shreds and has instead "taken things personally." Care to keep digging?
Rob, do you really think it's
Rob, do you really think it's conducive to suggest arguments are either there to be agreed with or "torn to shreds"? So it is about point scoring then. I imagine that'll go down a treat with people not too familiar with the site and who don't hold the 'correct' line.
As an aside, I don't think Notch has. He said that ticket inspectors can't detain people and have no more legal powers than a shop assistant when the law says otherwise. Suggesting because what I've said makes him a "Nazi train guard" isn't taking it personally at all :roll:
Your argument thus
Your argument thus far:
Notch, who actually worked as a train guard, then points out that he can't arrest OR caution people. Now with a genuine debate, as you point out...
Instead, you bawl about how notch is just pissed that you've criticised his job role and how he's misrepresented your position on whether to support train guards if they go on strike (which he wasn't actually commenting on). This is generally known as "attacking a straw man because your original argument didn't hold up." Oh and you also try and argue that you understand his job better than he does and can't possibly be wrong about the practice of the law by train guards in Britain.
Given this, I don't think you're in much of a position to accuse me of behaviour which is unconducive to decent debate.
There seems to be some
There seems to be some confusion - at certain times and places, trains have had (and may still do where 'efficiency' hasn't merged the two) guards who are not ticket inspectors (eg, London Underground in the past), and there are ticket inspectors who are not guards - many inspectors just roam train/bus lines/stations trying to catch fare dodgers, sometimes in joint operations with cops. Whereas a train guard proper may only function to ensure safety - arrival/departure, doors closing etc. So making a big issue of being able to cite one or the other as a definite refutation of any necessary distinction only shows one's poor quality of argument.
Some of the same issues came up here;
http://libcom.org/forums/news/prison-officers-unofficial-action-spreads-18112009
So this from a copper
So this from a copper regarding the caution, and this from the actual law regarding detaining is a load of shite because Notch didn't recall having the ability to do it. Right you are.
Even the TFL lot can do it CTRL + F, and search caution.
What the 1889 law actually
What the 1889 law actually says is that they can hand out a fine which would be backed by the law in the event that someone refuses to pay it.
This is NOT the same thing as a caution, which is a formal disciplinary measure if you've admitted responsibility for wrongdoing, placing you on the police's database and warning you not to do it again - it also potentially ups your punishment if you are subsequently taken to court on similar charges.
That law also allows ticket inspectors to detain people (but note there is nothing in there about using physical force), NOT arrest them, which would be done under a legal power applicable to all citizens under a specific piece of legislation from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Section 24a), or if they didn't use that power, they would need to wait for a police officer to do it formally.
So while okay, yes I suppose you're right that they can technically detain people, Steven's also right in noting that's no different to what anyone else can do and it's disingenuous to suggest it's somehow an oppressive power specific to the job.
Regardless of all this, practice is also important, and you still haven't acknowledged that maybe Notch, from having actively worked in the job, might know a bit more about what guards actually do on a day to day basis.
Red Marriott wrote: there
Red Marriott
Yes - and these people are generally in supervisory or even management positions; they arent just trying to catch fare dodgers. On trains / busses where the primary responsibility for revenue collection rests with onboard staff, they are there to see if those staff are doing their job properly, making sure they arent letting people off fares, etc. Generally snooping. Which is why the person selling tickets, unless they want to go to a disciplinary, sometimes has no real choice but to oppress flaneur and samotnaf.
flaneur wrote: So this from a
flaneur
I've seen train guards and at stations 'ticket enforcement officers' (on south east railways). Im not sure if these are different with regards to the law? The ticket enforcement officers wear police-esque uniforms.
Because some are having
Because some are having difficulty with the reading material, I'll make it easy.
How do you detain someone without force? In any case...
Both of those coming from that coppers forum. I even found an account from a ticket inspector where he says "well, it would be hard to prove on one isolated case,” says avid,“but if he does it again this week I will consider cautioning him. " Maybe that's not actual caution he's referring to, he might be meaning a pretend jokey one.
flaneur wrote: How do you
flaneur
By telling them they have to stay there until the police arrive, because the law states that if a railway official tells you to stay until the police arrive you have to stay until the police arrive. Which is not a 'power' in the sense I think you are implying.
How many people do you reckon actually say "Ok boss, I'll just wait here for them then."?
Generally the 'offender' will just leave, a description will be passed to the police, who will take the details and then do precisely nothing. Of course you're going to find examples of railway companies bigging up stories about catching fare dodgers. They're hardly going to advertise the fact thats its actually quite easy to do and get away with.
If you try to use physical force to detain someone for fare evasion (ie not in self defence against a physical threat from that person to yourself or other staff and passengers) youre on very dodgy ground.
Ground that nonetheless, a
Ground that nonetheless, a copper thinks is justified. Just searching ticket inspection detaining on google brought up a slew of instances where dodgy ground or not, they did it (and not in self defence).
notch8 wrote: Red Marriott
notch8
They often are only trying to catch fare dodgers; eg, on London 'bendy buses' where you can get on thru a door without passing the driver and can swipe your Oyster card on-board - or not, as many people choose to. Also, inspectors operate on stations and train lines where there's no one checking tickets at low staffed stations and no regular on-board ticket checkers. So they're not only in supervisory/management roles.
Yes, as I said in my post the
Yes, as I said in my post the role of those 'hop-on hop-off' inspectors differs depending on whether or not primary responsibility for revenue still rests with onboard staff. In your examples (buses where the driver just drives and trains with no dedicated onboard ticket seller) they only have passengers to police.
The problem with arguing about what exactly is whos powers to fuck with who, I think, is that the breakup of the railway into a bazillion TOCs means that they dont all go about their revenue collection/protection in the same way using the same people; the guy who hassles flaneur in one place...that job role might not even exist on a different TOC. As another example here in N. Ireland we dont even have Transport Police on trains or stations.
Also certain powers are no bad thing...I was happy to have people to removed from trains for, among other things, giving racist abuse to another passenger, smoking in the middle of a carriage, and being a man in his 50s trying to groom a girl of about 15.
Quote: Maybe that's not
Yes, it would be, because cautions handed out by third-parties (ie. non-police), including btw those offered by local authorities, are not recorded on the police database.
the National Policing Improvement Agency:
Given that the function of a caution is to scare people into future compliance by putting them on notice with the police that if they do it again they'll be formally prosecuted, it would make any "caution" on that level a pretend jokey one - certainly not one on a par with formal police powers.
---
*Police National Computer
I'll respond to this later
I'll respond to this later on.
flaneur wrote: I'll respond
flaneur
What, when you've dug up more legal jargon that doesnt really influence how most people go about the job in real life?
notch8 wrote: flaneur
notch8
... and which other posters will demonstrate is factually wrong and based either on some personal anecdote or googling something without thinking through what it actually means. Not to mention be rude to everyone.
notch8 wrote: flaneur
notch8
When I've come back from being out. Do you mean like legislation regarding detaining people, which ticket inspectors have done and continue to do so? Ah, but because you never, that means none have. Fairly astute logic in play there. What other blanket assumptions can you think of, based on what you've done/not done?
And Steven, are chipshop anecdotes allowed or are they not? They seem to be grand coming from Notch. If I'm being rude, I'm only responding in kind. You make it seem like arguments on here are done with courtesy or politeness. If you're going to moan about rudeness, at least have some consistency. Perhaps you can patronise me again by explaining what a citizen's arrest is again.
flaneur wrote: notch8
flaneur
Not just what I have done or not, but also the hundreds of other railway workers Ive worked with over the 10 years Ive now worked there. One once threw revol off a train. Another one let him go for free cos he knew me. Some are jobsworths, some are incredibly laid back. Hows that different from people you meet in any other job?
Again can you define 'detain'? The power to tell someone they have to hang about and wait for the police is not the same power as the police have to detain someone by physical force.
Rob Ray wrote: Quote: Maybe
Rob Ray
(Before anyone says owt, the TFL operate under the Railways Act) Ticket inspector/Special PC Plod here says it's the same caution as given out by a copper. Given that they're both, I'm imagine they know what they're talking about. Now you can either take that on board (no pun intended) or disregard it as another chipshop anecdote, I don't give a toss. I'm not trawling through legal shit anymore to prove a fairly obvious point. But if it makes you happy, ticket inspectors are the doppelgangers of shop assistants, it's just they wear henious uniforms and work on trains. Bundling people over is an optional and completely personal thing.
Notch, we're just going round
Notch, we're just going round in circles here. I think legislation makes the difference. You reckon no one in the history of ticket inspectors has ever used it. I'm not Mystic Meg but I can see this isn't going anywhere.
I think detain in the context means reasonable force. I really don't think it's realistic to suggest that ticket inspectors politely request the person to stay put and they do. Reasonable force is an obvious necessity. There's also cases of physicality without any recriminations to the ticket inspector to suggest the same.
Quote: Given that they're
Unlike notch, whose job apparently has nothing to do with knowing what he's talking about.
You can't have it both ways, either the word of someone who works in the field isn't good enough, in which case you'll have to back your points up with legislation (and frankly in this case I would count the official recommendation of a major police watchdog over the word of a hobby bobby), or it is and you have to respect at least some of notch's wideranging personal experience as someone who actually worked in the role.
I have backed it up with
I have backed it up with legislation. It just then becomes a boring game of "well, what kind of caution/detaining is it?". And I'm comparing chipshop anecdote for chipshop anecdote here. Whilst Notch mighn't have any personal experience with it, it seems there's plenty who have.
flaneur wrote: Notch, we're
flaneur
Well it's good that your argument here is based on fact, rather than what you "think", or what you "really don't think".
Really, your argument here is completely nuts. Everyone has the right to detain anyone, like I said above. You said it was "patronising", my pointing out that anyone can carry out a citizen's arrest (detaining someone until the police arrive), thus implying that you knew that already, but in fact it seems that you still do not understand this, if you think that ticket inspectors being able to detain people makes them qualitatively different from anyone else.
As for cautions, like Rob pointed out other groups of workers like Council workers can issue cautions as well, but these aren't stored on the criminal database, and so essentially don't mean anything (even ones on PNC aren't a criminal conviction).
For what it's worth, I have been "detained" by a ticket inspector and they didn't use any force. Probably if I had legged it I would have got away, but I, like most people, just obeyed.
In any case, apart from having a hissy fit what is your actual point here? Do you think that ticket inspectors are part of the proletariat? Yes/no. If yes, then what is the point you are trying to get at?
flaneur wrote: Notch, we're
flaneur
My point is that you are saying that 'Ticket Inspectors' all have these powers. In point of fact 'ticket inspector' covers a wide range of different jobs. In the course of my job I did ticket inspection, but did not have these mythical powers. So that shows you are generalising.
flaneur
That was my point. Thats exactly all I had the power to do. And the bad guys were supposed to 'obey' me because I was an 'official'. If I wanted anyone physically detained (or conversely removed from a train) I needed the cops; defending yourself if the other person becomes aggressive or violent is another matter obviously. And as others have pointed out, a shopworker can 'detain' a shoplifter by citizens arrest if they are that much of an idiot. steven., being in N. Ireland Id have had to wait for the regular cops to arrive, whereas with you being in England there would have been Transport Police in the station who would have done the actual physical detention.
flaneur
And I could give you anecdotes about workmates being stood down and cautioned by the police for no more than putting their hand on a persons shoulder, so what?
Yes Steven, we've got that
Yes Steven, we've got that far before. But the question is, can they do it on the job? Shop workers can't if they want to keep theirs as shops will have none of it. Ticket inspectors have actual legislation allowing them to do so. That is the difference. By the by, there is updated law that states detaining can be done by reasonable force.
With the cautions, alright they're not criminal ones but I'm not completely sure that they are meaningless as they are admissions of guilt. Especially in instances where there's prosecution. Or a repeat offence. Sorry that's not clinical enough but there's isn't much information to go on. I'd be willing to concede I may be wrong.
Not really blowing things out of proportion at all, are ya? I've already explained my point, I don't think all the "but they're the same" posts really match up with how things are. Is that okay? And I assume you're just being facetious asking if I think ticket inspectors are part of the working class.
Job description wrote:
Job description
.
Evening Standard article
(The comments under that article show just how bullying and extortionate - often backed up by cops - some Revenue Collectors are.)
There is an obvious and necessary distinction to be made between those whose job definition is primarily repressive/penal – like those chasing fare dodgers – and a bus driver who also collects fares. Similarly, between shop assistants and store detectives. One has to negotiate and be aware of these distinctions as ‘one lives one’s life’ – not as technicalities or distorted abstractions for winning arguments - but as one has to deal with the delivery agents of capitalist discipline. Yes, there are some exceptional grey areas – but it’s really pathetic how some regular posters repeatedly try to portray these grey areas as the norm – and as therefore discounting all other more clear-cut examples - in an attempt to gloss over class contradiction and opposing interests. Two class theory is total bullshit. I note it’s been sufficiently flayed here that it’s no longer referred to by name, but its sentiments remain.
Steven
That may be a convenient technicality to use, but it's not the only point. Even if one claims they are, one has to define whether their role – what they do - is anti-proletarian. Cops, screws, bailiffs can, if one wants, be classified by some measures as "proletarian" but their role is pretty much anti-proletarian - their primary role being as deliverers of ruling class discipline. Similarly one has to ignore the history of class struggle - and which groups have shown solidarity or otherwise - to ignore or gloss over that these repressive functions are the enemy of the proletariat as a class during social movements and generally of more local and individual struggles of daily life. Amazing that this has to be repeatedly spelled out whenever class is a topic on libcom, in order to combat the liberal middle class ideology (regardless of the class of those who express it – though one has to wonder if it’s related to contradictions its defenders feel uncomfortable with in their own lives) that dominates here.
It’s been debated plenty of times;
There are real grey areas and contradictions that have to be dealt with in practice if you want to challenge the hierarchical power of class society – but attempts to theoretically sweep them under the carpet are dishonest and disarming to real struggles.
Being based on a media snippet, the following is purely speculative but perhaps relevant; I saw a report last night saying that firemen had given cops a round of applause at the end of the night for their picket line policing. If true and if indicative of their present relationship, we can speculate that it suggests certain ‘contradictions’ will either hold back the firemen’s struggle or need to be confronted to advance. Firemen necessarily have an, at times, close working relationship with cops; this probably makes the cops at present a little softer on firemen pickets – but if it comes to the crunch and this dispute goes to the wire with the employers/state not giving an inch, then the firemen’s attitude to cops and legality would probably have to change to advance their struggle – seeking to maintain that ‘mateyness’ would be futile and utterly self-defeating in a situation anything remotely like, eg, the miners strike.
Similarly, any resistance to the implementation of spending cuts - public services, benefits etc - are likely to highlight the issue of how to deal with the conflict between those who impose the discipline of austerity and and their victims. Perhaps then we'll see how viable libcom's herd theoretical liberalism is.
Red Marriott
Red Marriott
That seems like the time to deal with the conflict, if and when it arises. If these people bust out their repressin skillz at the picket line you will know what side they are on. A serious premeditated conspiracy of ticket officers would have to be in place for them to do more damage from the inside than from the outside.
Or can you see an other angle where they pose a threat to the resistance to cuts?
Given that you've been on
Given that you've been on here four years as a reasonably influential poster in your own right Ret and are supporting a case being made by a number of other long-time posters, I think talking about "libcom's herd theoretical liberalism" is a really odd thing to do.
If most people on the forum are arguing a line you don't think works then fair enough, but talking down to people you don't agree with as though they're just mindlessly following a "libcom" trend is an inaccurate, patronising and insulting attitude which doesn't do you any credit.
Aimed at me? Cos so far the only time I've tried portraying "grey areas as the norm" is probably in this thread, specifically about guards. I've never even argued that most journalism acts as anything other than the reproduction of ruling class propaganda, only pointing out that this isn't the whole story and that some journalism and journalists can be (has been) useful to the anarchist movement. TGbh though I don't think it's particularly "liberal" (how are you defining this btw?) to acknowledge that most rules will have exceptions, particularly when it comes to people.
Has anyone argued anywhere that these aren't ruling class-collaborative roles? You missed the armed forces btw.
Cooked wrote: can you see an
Cooked
I wasn’t referring to ticket revenue officers when commenting on public services, benefits etc. But it may be that as subsidies to rail companies are reduced, revenue officers will be told to increase takings/quotas and so get heavier with offenders – enforcement of fare rises will be a further substantial attack on incomes. If there were more and larger ‘commuter revolts’ that challenged fare rises revenue officers would presumably be required to charge more travellers.
Rob Ray
I'm not aware of having any great influence or how one would measure it or wield it. The “number of other long-time posters” making a similar point have been a definite minority. And my consistent impression is that a core of regulars have a consensus about 2 class theory etc. I never said anyone is "just mindlessly following a "libcom" trend" but implied that an unconvincing position is being collectively adhered to for dubious/obscure reasons. I don’t think that’s “inaccurate, patronising and insulting attitude” but find some of the defences of that line to be so. Nor are you always the model of politeness yourself, so spare the moral lecture.
No, but if you’re;
...then I’ll take issue, as it seems that the grey area of guards (ie, those whose main job is not ticket enforcement) has been highlighted as a supposedly refuting grey area at the expense of how people often experience ticket enforcement; ie, intimidating revenue officers backed up by cops.
Yes, deliberately – as, unlike cops, screws, bailiffs etc, proletarians here don’t at present have to deal with armed forces as a repressive force in the struggles of their daily lives. Similarly, most of what I’m criticising seems to be abstract ideological categorisations made with out any relation to how one has to concretely interact with such forces.