If…. On Martial Values and Britishness
Emma Louise Briant
Shaking the Pyramid
Back in 2008, the now Foreign Secretary William Hague assured the USthat he, “David Cameron and George Osborne were ‘children of Thatcher’and staunch Atlanticists”.1 Hague said while he recognisedthis was at odds with British public opinion, politicians “sit at thetop of the pyramid”.2 This autocratic approach extendsbeyond foreign policy and, it seems, among those being ‘sat on’ at thebottom are thousands of people who rioted in England last August,2011. These disturbances were ultimately seen to result frommarginalisation and resentment felt in communities experiencingjoblessness and aggressive policing.3 66% of those chargedwith related offences were from neighbourhoods that got poorer between2007 and 2010.4
It is perhaps unsurprising that the Tories are feeling their pyramidrather unstable. Worsening economic deprivation and lack ofopportunity are the foundations of young people’s alienation inBritain, paucities exacerbated by policy measures including, but notlimited to, the scrapping of Education Maintenance Allowances; thearbitrary suspensions of benefits5; and ‘workfare’programmes demanding the free labour of benefit recipients in returnfor their continued state welfare provisions.6 Two yearsinto Coalition government, PM Cameron’s brand of Thatcherite7‘there is no alternative’ government has had quite the impact. And yetsomewhat ironically, the government diagnose the resulting riots assymptomatic of behavioural issues, weak morality, poorschooling8, criminality and gangs.9
Autocratic martial values and a deepening militarisation of state andcivil society are the mortars used in an attempt to patch-up thenow-Tory pyramid – a neoliberal system of governance, after all,spanning all the dominant political parties. Michael Gove, theEducation Secretary, is currently polarising the population into a“hard-working majority” and a “vicious, lawless, immoral minority” –reconstructing the problem of the riots as one of culture,rather than one of inequality and unbounded capitalism.10In so doing he appeals to a fear and populism that turns humanityagainst itself, instead of against government policies. As thetheorist Slavoj Zizek argues “the cause of the troubles is ultimatelynever the system as such, but the intruder who corrupted it (financialmanipulators, not capitalists as such, etc.); not a fatal flawinscribed into the structure as such, but an element that doesn’t playits role within the structure properly”.11 FollowingZizek’s analysis, and in this case: the rioters. The lack of realmedia debate during the period allowed the favoured of moral panic toprevail; fuelling a reactionary thrust of public anger used to justifythe continuity of significant state restructuring. One petitioncalling for rioters’ benefits to be revoked gained at least 60,000signatures in the 24 hours after the riots.12 Such maliceand demagoguery may be startling, but isn’t all that new. Successivegovernments have emphasised vigilance to threats at home and abroad,creating scapegoats to distract from domestic and foreign policy anddrum up support. The solution to Gove’s redefined problem is now, asbefore, being presented to the public as a return to old-fashioneddiscipline and martial values, starting with the ‘moral decay’ of theimagined nation’s amassed children.
Discipline the Youth
‘Citizenship’ has been securing the foundations of this pyramid inschools in England since 2002. These compulsory classes set out tonurture cohesion through socialisation, implicitly minimising anyquestioning of societies’ institutions. That pupils did gain amore complex understanding of contemporary laws and political systemsfrom such classes is something clearly undesirable to the Coalition.In favour of more subtly-integrated propaganda delivered throughhistory teaching Gove’s curriculum review has scrapped thesecompulsory classes. Gove has said the emphasis will now be on “ourisland story”, the value of ‘Britishness’, national pride andcohesion.13 It’s the return of the ‘Kings and Queens’approach, the rote boredom of yesteryear. Under advice from ‘BetterHistory Group’ think-tank and ‘history tsar’, Simon Schama,British-centred history will strengthen our “national memory”.14Elsewhere Gove’s policies have been criticised by Cambridge HistoryProfessor, Richard Evans, who said they would deliver“self-congratulatory narrow myths of history” to schoolchildren.15Quintessentially English myths of ‘Britishness’ on which martialvalues can be better built.
Coalition plans sunk lower still in August, when Cameron announced hisgoal to militarise schools in England and Wales. Initiating a widerproject for 10 state-run military academies, the ‘Phoenix’ schoolopens in September 2013.16 Conservative Party think-tankResPublica recommended “a chain of academies sponsored by the ArmedForces” and “using their practical experience and existing governancesupport”.17 They will institutionalise militarism; theschools will be entirely operated using ex-military personnel, or‘civilian teachers’ “recruited with an intention of joining theReserves”. The priority will be for ‘vertical grouping’ of children.This will instill a hierarchy with lower-ability children held back inlower grades regardless of increasing age; a demoralising teachingstructure that reflects the pyramid society itself, ensuring childrenbecome familiar with their place in its structure.18ResPublica calls the schools a MoD and DfE “partnership in thedelivery of education”.19 This despite criticism during MoDgovernance of privatisations (QinetiQ was undervalued leading tomassive profits for its executives20 and losses for thepublic).21 The Phoenix school’s ‘zero-tolerance’ approachis presented as a direct response to the riots, seeking to halt‘indiscipline’, instilling martial values such as “self-discipline,respect and an ability to listen”.22 Unmentioned goes theneed to develop enquiring minds. The initiative is directed at thosein poverty, and claims to be “tackling disadvantage” and “socialills”.23 Effectively, it seeks to mould the poor andoppressed into a more compliant population. The question remains, what‘opportunities’ will be offered to young people in disadvantagedareas, many of whom already see few choices beyond ‘economicconscription’ into the military? – the creation of another captivemarket for the privateers.
Increasing authoritarian discipline is in reality a politicaltrajectory of the last few decades. The Guardian criticised theharsh policies of New Labour and its “immediate predecessors”,revealing that “between 1992 and 2001, the number of children beingjailed every year soared by 90% […] The number of children under 15sent to custody increased by 800%” and despite “around 80%” of thesehaving “at least two mental disorders”, this course continued.24Furthermore, the sort of ‘preventative’ repression we’re now seeingactually began under Labour, when they announced that throughsurveillance they could predict which children would becomecriminals.25 Since 2004, police have added the DNA ofchildren over 10 to a database identifying those ‘at-risk’ of becomingcriminals with 87,459 samples taken from 10-16 year olds in 2005-2006alone, and the DNA of 24,000 youngsters aged 10-18 who had not evenbeen convicted of an offence remaining held in 2010.26Hundreds of these young people were arrested in Camden, only for it tobe revealed in 2009 that police were arresting these young people, whohad committed no crime, just to get them on the database. The purposeof this blatant harassment was said to be to deter future crime, andto make it easier to catch them if they did do something.27Perhaps unsurprisingly, Camden and Tottenham were areas in which theriots kicked off, in part triggered by increasingly oppressivepolicing. Phoenix School head-teacher, Captain Affan Burki, toldThe Telegraph, without intended irony, that “All the oldremedies for poverty, underachievement and alienation have been testedto destruction. The consequences were starkly before us on the streetsof Tottenham and Croydon”.28 And the subsequent Governmentresponse? A military approach to educational discipline (Camden wasflagged as a priority military academy location29),nationwide surveillance and still more aggressive policing.
In fact, Burki argues that Army discipline, integrated into teaching,will instil “selfless commitment”.30 Upping the pressure,Michael Gove recently scrapped the requirement for teachers in Englandto record all instances of ‘physical restraint’, and effectivelywelcomed harsher disciplinary measures in all schools.31He’s keen to be seen as deploying discipline in and out of schoolsacross England; extending headteachers’ powers to punish children forany public misdemeanour, and employing former-military male personnelas ‘mentors’.32 Conceivably, Gove needs to explain why“former soldiers and military personnel are the highest single formeroccupational group serving sentences in British prisons”33?And also, to explain whether these troubling statistics are part ofthe reason why this growing former occupational group are securingpreferential state-backed employment at the expense of existingprofessional teachers?
After the public was, and continues to be, repeatedly lied to aboutconsecutive illegal invasions and occupations – from the Balkans toIraq, from Afghanistan to Libya – why are we allowing this governmentto further embed the military into our lives, our schools and ourculture with such little resistance? They argue it is positive toinstil the culture of the military in our children. But, according toa former Army Officer, the culture nurtured within the British ArmedForces holds that “they are good at Colonial warfare, […] at turningout in Nyasaland, talking to the Chiefs, getting the natives in line,lining people up with a picture of Queen Victoria, and giving them alla Martini-Henry rifle”.34 This was reflected in the conductof British Officers in Iraq. Human rights lawyer Phil Shiner claimsBritish abuse of Iraqis could not be dismissed as “one-offs” but was“colonial savagery” reflective of a wider systemic problem.35It is a problem in the way Britain is constructed and propagandised,at home and abroad, as a nation. Eminent US critic of themilitarisation of education, Henry A. Giroux argues that, “as aneducational force, military power produces identities, goods,institutions, knowledge, modes of communication and affectiveinvestments – in short, it now bears down on all aspects of sociallife and the social order.”36 The fabrication of theBritish pyramid is being reinforced through intimidation or force, andthe intended and unintended impacts of this across our whole culturecannot be underestimated.
Police at War
After the London riots, Affan Burki claimed that, “…before we puttroops on the streets we should consider putting them in our schools”– yet, militarisation does not stop at the pyramid’s foundations.37The attempt to insert martial values into the psychology of how publicspace is to function as a site for political encounter is reinforcedby the militarisation of domestic policing and harsh social controlmethods on streets throughout the UK. Images of police ‘kettling’protesters (including children and young people) in 2010 and chargingat students resisting education cuts shocked many.38 Andyet the state-corporate media opted to rage at the (surelyunsurprising) response of a group of protesters when a car carriedflustered royals travelled through their midst, whilst the reportingof protestors trapped without food in horrendous conditions for 10hours remained scant in comparison. Cameron, of course, called for the“full force” of law against the group (the individual now held to becollectively responsible39) and the police denied kettlingcontributed to the frustrated actions.40 This supposedly‘violent’ incident (only property was actually damaged) was used todistract public and media attention from actual injuries to 43protestors – Alfie Meadows required brain surgery after being hit by apolice baton.41 Since the August 2011 riots, the focus of,and resistance to, government policies and imperatives has shiftedfrom the social advancement appeals of young people wanting access toeducation, to the disenfranchised of our cities – even easier todismiss as a “vicious lawless, immoral minority”.42 It wasa smooth transition of narrative, barely noticed in our media, but wesee the same rhetoric used to justify the extension of‘counter-terrorism’ measures; ever-harsher actions against the new‘enemy to stability’ in Britain.
It’s not just rhetoric. ‘Anti-Terror’ legislation was used againstprotesters in England and Wales as early as 2003, with extended stopand search powers (ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rightsby 2010) used against protestors demonstrating outside an armsfair.43 The Tories in opposition were posturing on endingstate intrusion – Tony Blair’s Labour government having created morethan 3,000 new offences44 – while the then Labourgovernment’s Policing and Security Minister, David Hanson, justifiedit saying: “Stop and search […] is an important tool in a package ofmeasures in the ongoing fight against terrorism.”45 Policehave faced continued pressure to subdue public protests, whileportraying them as a public threat. The tactic of ‘kettling’ “alsoattempts to incite the crowd”.46 The Coalition has taken alead in extending police powers further.47 The media rolehas been crucial in framing protest to justify this build-up ofdomestic ‘security measures’, extending the rhetoric of ‘terrorism’into their coverage of what are largely ‘crimes against property’,e.g. trespass (by refusing to leave a department store) which is beingfurther criminalised. During the public sector cuts protest back inMarch 2011, one Daily Mail byline read “extremistshijack anti-government cuts demonstration” [my emphasis].48 The Mail leapt on a group of protestors in“the Queen’s Grocer” Fortnum and Mason, arguing they “terrorisedstaff and customers” [my emphasis], though 109 charges were dismissedby the Crown Prosecution Service.49 TheMail of course doesn’t mention that five months before thisarticle, the police had already admitted misleading protesters intothinking they would let them leave Fortnum’s peacefully, beforedetaining all 150 in custody (five minors were in cellsovernight).50 Less peaceful attacks on property came withthe London riots in August and Cameron then promised to abandonrestraint completely, “Whatever resources the police need they willget. Whatever tactics they feel they need they will have legal backingto do so.”51
Eager attempts to bring in US ‘zero-tolerance’ expert William Brattonas Commissioner at London’s Metropolitan Police followed.52There’s been a gradual militarisation in approach with ministerssaying (despite the debacle of the ‘War on Terror’), that Armyofficers having served in Afghanistan should be fast-tracked intohigh-ranking police positions. Support for a Sandhurst-style policetraining college was also suggested, mixing former soldiers andintelligence officials with police in Theresa May’s vision of aBritish FBI.53 (A rolling out of Special Branch, BritishArmy, and Security Services’ actions in Northern Ireland more widely?)Then, in February 2012 the government ordered a police crackdown onprotests and demonstrations against its controversial ‘workfare’scheme. Police and intelligence are to further target “extremeleft-wing activity”.54 Furthermore, the media, particularlythe BBC, are facing government attack for having voiced the concernsof those opposing workfare, and other authoritarian policies. Criticshave been dismissed as “hard-left militants”, echoing Thatcheriterhetoric.55 Even critics, it seems, are the new terrorists. Asthe ‘War on Terror’ fades from dominant media memory, if not theday-to-day realities of millions across the globe, the ‘War onCritics’ escalates; the infrastructure of counter-terrorism becomes aninfrastructure of counter-criticism, an anti-politics, and our streetsand our culture are battlefields on which it’s being fought.
In the wake of riots brought on in large part by massive austeritymeasures and oppressive policing, it is unsurprising the governmenthas been jittery about the run up to the London Olympics.Militarisation strategies and martial values are strongly influencingOlympic planning. Philip Hammond MP promised us a “peacefulcelebration of sporting achievement and a cultural celebration – not asecurity event”.56 It’s depressing to observe that theGovernment’s vision of ‘cultural celebration’ in London takes the formof an intimidating 13,500-strong uniformed military presence.57We are brazenly told there will be surface to air missiles, a largenumber of aircraft, and SAS units floating on the Thames ready todeploy.58 In addition to pulling in what is, according toThe Guardian, more uniformed military than deployed inAfghanistan, the Navy’s largest ship will be based in Greenwichthroughout the games, though it was ‘accidentally’ airbrushed fromposters displayed throughout the London Underground network.Expectedly, The Daily Mail decried this as organisers ashamedof our “proud military history” 59 whereas this “history”as a carrier of martial values is being promoted at every opportunity,down to Tower of London-inspired Olympic uniforms.60
Unsurprisingly the FBI have stated that they have established a “closeworking relationship” with the UK’s Olympic security.61Most reports put the FBI numbers at 500 agents, who may or may not bearmed.62 To a large extent heightened security is anattempt to justify responses to public protest being portrayed ascounter-terrorism in a domestic context. This all has a horribleresonance with the 2008 Olympic Games. The Chinese authoritiessimilarly increased security and deployed its Navy during theirhosting of the Games, also in fear of their own people’s massprotests. The UK government similarly wants to prevent the Games beingused as an opportunity for public protest, and it is prepared to dothis through a demonstration of power. If anything, such measureswould appear more likely to guarantee unrest.
Giroux argues that, “what appears new about the amplifiedmilitarization of the post-9/11 world is that it has becomenormalized, serving as a powerful educational force that shapes ourlives, memories and daily experiences.”63 In one recentworrying development in militarisation, the government has been tryingto exploit a loophole in the Chemical Weapons Convention to sanctionthe use of nerve-agents for “domestic law enforcement”, orriot-control.64 There was international criticism when, in2002, 115 hostages died from a mystery gas used by Russian SpecialForces to end the Moscow Theatre Siege.65 But a group ofneuroscientists, commissioned by the Royal Society, concluded that theUK Government’s position on the use of “incapacitating chemicalagents” for domestic use has been relaxed in recent years, allowingdevelopment of nerve-agents of the kind used during Russiansieges.66 China has also been criticized for use of nerveagents against its own people and it is terrifying that thepublic are not more active in holding to account a UK government thatwould consider similar authoritarian tactics.67 There is adegree of public complacency or ‘selective inattention’68,one even tinged with imperial superiority, concerning the voyeurism ofrepression elsewhere – be it Tahrir or Tiananmen Square – and it nothappening here. At times of emergent dissent a narrative of embattledcontinuity in taking a ‘great nation’ with a ‘rich past’ into thefuture is often engaged, and this is clearly being used today toreinforce the edifice of Cameron’s pyramid, through an even morecompliant culture.
Contracting in Control
Beyond controlling mass unrest, there are political and commercialinterests that benefit from criminalising dissent and manipulatingfear. The rhetoric of an ‘ethical foreign policy’ and public fear weremanipulated throughout the ongoing ‘War on Terror’ to make defencecontracting at home and abroad seem acceptable; another part of normalgovernance. An ‘ethical foreign policy’ never emerges in reality, butit justifies martial values among our new generation, people raised ina country in a state of continuous war since before Desert Storm. Ofcourse, Blair made ‘liberal interventions’ in Sierra Leone and Kosovo.The UK leadership continues to use this international role to maintainits interests and power on the world stage (with Blair’s ongoingprominent involvement ). Actually, the UK Government has beenrepeatedly criticised for unethical policies; in its dealings withChina, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Libya,amongst others.69 After Robin Cook said Labour would buildan ‘ethical’ foreign policy, the Foreign Office scrambled to coverthemselves; its then minister Peter Hain said “we don’t live in anethical world” and it was a “mistake” to allow “policy to be presentedas if we could have perfection”.70 In 2011 the depth ofForeign Office involvement in UK citizens’ torture in Guantanamo Baywas revealed.71 But having normalised contracting in‘ethical interventions’ abroad it was not hard to extend this practiseback home, increasing private sector deployment for domestic‘interventions’. British experience in imperial policing, according toCassidy, a major in the U.S. Army, has “made internal security thenorm and conventional war the exception” for Britain, and ‘creatingstability within’ has long been seen as a crucial part of Britishsecurity strategy.72 This is a permanent war in whichBritain is engaged. It invokes a climate of fear in which martialvalues are seen as ‘of value to the nation’, our culture comes toemphasise security and conformity against ‘political extremists’ whodare to question. Terming it “the shock doctrine”, Naomi Klein arguesthrough numerous examples that the disorientation that follows naturaland man-made crises has been systematically exploited for politicaland economic gain.73 We’re seeing an acceleratingencroachment of the private sector (of its interest, narratives, andimperatives) into the area of public control (boosting privateinterests of politicians and their hangers-on). Indeed, formerConservative party treasurer Peter Cruddas recently showed thatpolitical influence is being sold to the highest bidder.74Offerings are made at the top of Cameron’s pyramid to the gods ofcommerce, impoverishing the lives of those at its base, who still mustrespect its traditional command. The party of ‘law and order’ is nowregularly caught being cavalier with its uneven application – adisdain that might be described as neo-feudalist.
Great swathes of British defence are moving into the hands ofprofit-seeking companies, including Trident. Despite criticism ofLockhead Martin’s record managing large-scale U.S. public projects, itwill lead a consortium responsible for missile “processing, handlingand storage”; “radiological safety” and “nuclear emergencyresponse”.75 AWE, its partner within the consortium, hasbeen criticised on safety, and MSP Michael Russell has called theplans “foolhardy and reckless”.76 With other privatisationsincluding explosives, ammunitions, small arms, air search and rescue,aircraft maintenance and weapons procurement, data collection andprocessing, martial interests can be seen to have an immense hold inpublic and private sectors, consolidating the ‘value’ of ‘security’ insociety. Society is coming to function as a means to invest and expandthis lucrative system. Research by The International Campaign toAbolish Nuclear Weapons recently demonstrated that “teachers’ pensionfunds […] invest heavily in companies involved in the nuclearweapons industry” including BAE Systems and Babcock Internationalthrough Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and Royal Bank.77 The UKUniversities Superannuation Scheme, the “principal pension scheme” ofUniversity and College employees also invests in war production.78As Michael Gayer observes, with militarisation, civil society comes tosupport and organise itself behind this new driving force “for theproduction of violence”, resulting in a steady erosion of civilliberties and the encroachment of defence on other aspects of nationallife.79 Privatisation and militarisation together createvested interests in continuing threats alongside fear of, and actual,unrest and violence.
The contracting trend has brought the gradual blurring of public andprivate in policing. ACPO, set up as a PLC in 1997 and replacing aninformal network of police chiefs, decides on national policingstrategies and consequently both influences and shapes governmentpolicy. ACPO has grown in power, influence and snowballing financialprofit even though it claims to be a ‘not for profit’ organisation –having lucrative subsidiary commercial companies, some of which haveeither an unfair advantage or a complete monopoly over their market.In addition, local authorities are inviting ‘security’ bids for “awide range of services, including criminal investigations, patrollingneighbourhoods and detaining suspects”.80 Brian Paddick,the former Scotland Yard deputy assistant commissioner, toldThe Guardian, “The British tradition of policing by consent,rather than by force and weight of numbers, is being eroded” and theseplans “will accelerate that process.”81 The PoliceFederation also called this radical shift towards private policing “anextremely dangerous road to take”.82 Those benefiting fromthe lucrative business of police militarisation, are manufacturers –supplying armoured vehicles, body scanners and surveillance equipment,including unmanned spy drones proposed for covert surveillancethroughout UK airspace during future protests.83 Steelcordons designed for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclearemergencies have been bought in; they kept parliament ‘uninfected’ byprotest in London.84 This equipment, designed for extremequarantine situations, was used to keep politicians distant from thosewanting to question them. Boxing-in protest with 10ft high steel wallsis as much a statement about state weakness and distancing us fromdecision-making as it is about explicit control over the public. Itphysicalises the divides of inequality on which the pyramid society’slayers are constructed.
With so much investment in new security technologies, securitycontractors will be showcased throughout the Olympic Games,celebrating industry’s role in the militarisation of UK society. RayMey, from the UN International Permanent Observatory on Security forMajor Events, recommended ‘lessons’ be drawn from China for LondonOlympic security resource planning.85 US-based SecurityIndustry Association regarded the 2008 Olympics a great opportunity asthey “not only showcase world-class athletes, they showcaseworld-class security technologies and services from our industry”.86Showcasing British ‘security’ will be “twice the number” of media asathletes, and the focus is Chinese investment, encouraged through a‘China Business Day’ during the Games and £25m spent on internationalinvestment campaigns.87 Minister for the Olympics HughRobertson said Olympic ceremonies represent a “once-in-a-generationopportunity to showcase the very best of our country to four billionpeople around the world and have a potential advertising value of £2-5billion”.88 But British power is what’s beingdemonstrated and here it seems, for the Government, “the best of ourcountry” is social control and security technology.
Britain’s ‘security showcase’ will occur in a London where businessconfidence was recently shaken by mass public protest, and theGovernment have promised to ensure London is a ‘clean city’ during thegames – one free of any product or advertisement rivalling Olympicsponsors. Volunteers will target anyone wearing a T-shirt with acorporate logo; putting masking tape over it or forcing them to removetheir clothes. Apparently, “sponsors pay a lot of money for theOlympics and they are entitled to protect their investment”.89In many ways, Cameron is also protecting his own investment, bringingin a ‘clean city’ for marketing his vision of Britain; a ‘clean city’free of alternative political messages provided by protesters. Helpingre-package the city for international consumption are G4 Security,whose contract shot from 10,000 to 23,700 personnel in December.90Police powers were extended ahead of the games, including “the rightto enter private homes and seize political posters”.91There will be fast-track removal of un-approved protests, with‘exclusion zones’, probably utilising steel cordons.92 And,protecting Cameron’s investment, the Met has acknowledged the UK willspend whatever it takes to keep the Olympic venues ‘secure’.93The Olympic budget was doubled in December, with a ‘security’ rise to£553m expected.94 The London Olympics are being used as amanufacturing and investment opportunity – where the private sector isreliant on significant public outlay – one that helps instil compliantvalues in British culture. Indeed security trade organisations usecontacts in the media to emphasise the existence of a threat, andstress the value of contractors in maintaining order.95
Now at the University of Bath, following the University ofStrathclyde’s closure of its Sociology department due to its “toocritical”96 stance, David Miller and Tom Mills have chartedthe rise of the ‘terrologist’; a community of security ‘experts’ withbackgrounds in government or contracting who dominate our media.Having few academic credentials, 73% of these ‘experts’ were found toreproduce ‘orthodox’ statements supportive of official rhetoric andfocused on violence directed at states, not state-sponsoredviolence.97 The study cited Paul Wilkerson from theUniversity of St. Andrews ‘Centre for the Study of Terrorism andPolitical Violence’98 whose counter-terrorism expertisehelped the Government rationalise permanent anti-terrorlegislation.99 A trend toward close supportiverelationships between academics and government or industry is beingimported from the US. America has a strong tradition of ‘think-tanks’producing politically-skewed ‘research’ with conclusions that reflecttheir political or commercial sympathies. Conflicts of interest resultfrom increasing ties between academic institutions and the Governmentor security industry.
Influential military experts Maj. Gen. Mackay and Commander Tathamhave argued that this networking of “civilian and military” in the USis “urgently required” in Britain. 100 In the US, academicsassist in, among other things, psychological warfare101 andconcern has been raised over the affects of military-sponsoredresearch on academic freedom and curriculum.102 The fatherof PR, Edward Bernays, once said, “If you can influence the leaders,either with or without their conscious co-operation, you automaticallyinfluence the group which they sway”.103 Anthropologicalwritings were used to engineer oppression, blackmail and psychologicaltechniques in Abu Ghraib.104 The US ‘Network of ConcernedAnthropologists’ has therefore been encouraging the discipline topledge against attempts to “militarize anthropology in a way thatundermines the integrity of the discipline and returns anthropology toits sad roots as a tool of colonial occupation, oppression, andviolence”.105 Efforts are similarly threatening UKacademia; proposals have included bringing social scientists intocounter-terrorism and intelligence. Due to criticism, this strategyentitled ‘Combating Terrorism by Countering Radicalisation’ failed tohave the impact of similar US programmes.106 But since itwas withdrawn in 2006, the ESRC (“the UK’s largest funder of[academic] research on economic and social issues”) has channelledfunding into studies of ‘security threats’ and “new securitychallenges”, incentivising research that contributes to securitypolicy107 – PhDs producing militarised knowledge for thewar industries. More direct efforts are also still under activepursuit. Mackay and Tatham, both influential figures in this area,recommended that plans to put researchers at the employ of defence beadapted for trial by the MoD.108
Some charities are also used to socialise war into notions of‘Britishness’, through reinforcing war as a noble institution initself, and making ‘sacrifice’ something to be worshipped. Theysustain a system in which, the 112 years since the 20th Century beganhave seen only one in which no British military personnel were killedin action (1968).109 In praising what veterans have ‘given’rather than criticising what was taken from them, groups, likethe ‘British Legion’ and ‘Help for Heroes’, conceptualise militaryintervention as an always necessary sacrifice. The BritishLegion, being devoid of critique of any of ‘our’ wars, serves tomediate and even excuse the impact of this system. Past meaning of thepoppy emblem largely forgotten, fundraising drives support the notionthat the costs of war in general are sad but legitimate andacceptable. They conflate images of recent wars with those of WWI andWWII which saturate the TV viewing schedule. All war, viewed as‘sacrifice’, is seen as the same. A dangerous education promotedthrough the military’s expanding engagement in British schools. Since2009 the British Legion has organised a drive for children to sendpostcards to soldiers bearing messages such as, “Thank you forfighting for our country and risking your life for us. It must havebeen very scary and a difficult task to do. I’m sure it was hard toleave your friends and family behind. You were very brave.”110The Legion draws on public sympathy for the millions injured or killedby war, without questioning its causes. It frowns on any criticism ofmilitary institutions or policy. One soldier spokesman calls theprogramme “a great way to get youngsters to connect with what themilitary has done. Anything which brings civilians and the militaryclose together is a good thing and these cards do that.”111
Manufacturing Martial Culture
This brings us to the cultural consequences; the ripples throughoutour day-to-day lives. Militarism has gone commercial with the use ofcontractors now barely questioned in domestic or internationalcontexts. And British popular culture is being carefully adapted tosupport this policy through its culture industry. The idea of a‘Culture Industry’, first introduced by Theodore Adorno and MaxHorkheimer, was popularised in the 1960s and ’70s as a way ofthinking about the rising industries of mass-produced culture, and itsability to create conformity.112 Guided by Governmentpolicy, the media have an increasingly dominant role in marketingmilitarism and war, as apparent through the ‘War on Terror’.113Robin Beste at Stop the War Coalition claims that Rupert Murdoch’smedia “supported all the US-UK wars over the past 30 years, fromMargaret Thatcher and the Falklands war in 1982… [right] up to thepresent, with Barack Obama continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraqand now adding Libya to his tally of seven wars.”114 TheBritish Legion also nurtures strong media partnerships, buildingsupport by populist appeals for ‘our boys’. We are now targeted acrosstelevision during poppy appeals in a way unprecedented before 9/11.The X-Factor has become a particular vehicle for this with 2011’sbling-factor poppies; finalists covering first Mariah Cary’s ‘Hero’ in2008, then a cover of David Bowie’s ‘Heroes’ in 2010, which sold100,000 copies in three days.115 War charities’ abilitiesto fundraise rest on their promoting martial values and the conceptthat war, and ‘defence’ expenditure, are ‘necessary’. This media poweris also used to target economic or political ‘problems’ at home,through a collaboration of different government agencies from MI5 toDowning Street’s Press Office.116 The modern era of thisbegan with Margaret Thatcher, Bernard Ingham and the Miners’Strike117, accelerated throughout ‘The Troubles’ inNorthern Ireland,118 and continued to gather pace throughBlair’s ‘spin Britain’.119 Now, a veteran and adaptiveculture industry is increasingly seductive for those withmillion-pound PR budgets – a process facilitated by the revolving doorbetween government, the PR industry and the media. It is playing animportant role in presenting the Government’s latest ‘crisis’ to eachlevel of the pyramid; facilitating the Government response to dissentby manufacturing an edifice of martial values out of our culturalfabric.
Returning to the case study of the London Olympics, we can see howefforts stretch beyond physical military presence, intorepresentations of wider national culture that associate ‘Britishness’with conservative values and militarism. There will, for example, bethe usual Adidas-clad volunteers and staff. But this is no ordinarysportswear; the 76,000 organisers will be sporting military-styleuniform. Adidas have based the Olympic uniform style upon the Beatles’‘Sgt. Pepper’ uniforms. This iconic image from popular culture, nowdetached from its original context, makes the authority ofmilitary-wear seem more palatable for the event. Uniforms had greatsignificance in ’60s counterculture; their popularity rooted inthe shock value of a “parody of treasured cultural icons” or“conservative values”.120 Such items were not manufacturedby Adidas, but genuine symbols of power, used in protest – CarnabyStreet shop ‘I was Lord Kitchener’s Valet’ fed a growing demand forgenuine military paraphernalia. The challenge to mainstream valuesinspired attempts to make military wear look ‘effeminate’ (as day-gloBeatles uniforms would have appeared).121 The Olympicuniforms, in contrast, disassociate the use of uniforms fromcounterculture. Indeed, 2012 Olympic chief executive Paul Deightonstated their intent was to be “traditional” and “non-divisive” – a‘regal’ purple and Grenadier Guard “poppy red”.122 Withnostalgia, the popularity remains, but meaning is reassigned toconservative social values in our collective memory.
More widely, the military/royal iconography of ’60scounterculture, is being referenced throughout mainstream culture, butredefined in contemporary marketing. Memorabilia has swamped UKstores. A flurry of press attention celebrated Kate Middleton’s tastein choosing a vintage McQueen wedding dress. But there was nodiscussion about the way her and Will’s nuptials were marketed as alogical extension of the ‘Vintage’ movement in the UK. What has beeninteresting is that manufactured regalia is being aggressivelyassociated with the past through its very design. The bunting thatwent on sale in Tesco Superstores ahead of the Royal wedding –‘pre-crumpled’, faded and aged – should be making a reappearance forthe Queen’s upcoming jubilee. Those seeking to capitalise on the RoyalWedding attempted to sidestep the outright jingoism and uncomfortableconnotations that have commonly become associated with the Union Jackflag. Instead, we are to buy into an invented past of the cricketgreen and garden parties – the same implicit England,ironically, of unapologetic imperialism.123
The Vintage movement was borne out of ‘pop-up shops’; an effort ofculture in resisting dominant retail monopolies, reacting againstoverconsumption and disposability through an ethic to reuse. Butincreasingly vintage is becoming another mass-produced commodity. TheRoyal Wedding and Olympics demonstrate how ‘Vintage’ has gone fullcircle, moving beyond simple appropriation to the promotion ofconservatism. Overpriced vintage shops seized on the wedding withgusto, filling shelves with mis-matched tea sets and 3-tier china cakestands that granny would love. Vintage Shop ‘Beyond Retro’ staged a‘Royal Wedding Party’ as a marketing scheme unquestioningly embracingimages of ‘royalty’ within a readily accepted aesthetic of ‘retro’products. Apparently, the event was “Right royal fun, whether you’re amonarchist or an anarchist”.124
Interestingly, the largest-selling item at ‘I was Lord Kitchener’sValet’ was the WWII Lord Kitchener poster that read ‘Your CountryNeeds You’. These yesteryear public information posters were broughtback into mass manufacture in recent years. But no longer do suchitems represent an attempt to “subvert conventional ideas”,125as their former ’60s counterculture appropriation did. Thosereproducing the ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’ poster say it represents“nostalgia for a certain British character, an outlook”; an idea of‘national character’ as ‘not making a fuss’ over austerity.126The recession hit in 2009, and their sales soared. The slogan evenappeared on ‘environmentally friendly’ shopping bags – a must-havestudent shopping accessory. In a mood of ‘keep your chin up’ the‘Nectar’ loyalty scheme even urged us to ‘Keep Calm and CarryOne’.127 Psychologist Lesley Prince claimed that “peoplehave been sold a lie since the 1970s. They were promised the earth andnow they’re worried about everything […] This is saying, […] it’llbe all right”.128 In contrast to the sentimental Britishstereotype through which it’s seen now, Lewis points out that the‘Keep Calm’ poster was never released during WWII, because one with asimilar message caused quite a “fuss” of public opposition, it beingseen as “condescending” and “authoritarian”.129
In invoking a mythical and nostalgic notion of what is, essentially,an affected Englishness, the Olympics, according to organisers,is unashamedly making a tribute to “Britian’s Royal, military andsporting history”. 130 Technical staff uniforms, an evenmore formal ‘flannel, blazer and trilby’ affair, nods at the HenleyRegatta. 131 According to organisers they represent“heritage with a modern twist”132 – but whose heritageexactly? The ‘British’ sporting heritage used in the design is theexclusive, conservative style of the Henley Regatta and Wimbledon. Butthen the tickets have mostly gone to bureaucrats, politicians andcorporate sponsors. Maybe blazers with Big Ben buttons are aconsolation to Londoners, who pay 38p a week more than the rest of usthrough their council tax for the Games despite unavailabletickets.133 It is no coincidence that organisers havechosen to celebrate ‘royal’ heritage, with its inferred deference.Immediately prior to the Olympics will be the pageantry of the Queen’sDiamond Jubilee134, a fitting vehicle for engenderingmartial values and overlaying cohesion onto an uneasy population.Jubilee merchandise was available to buy in the stores months ago.135Moreover, the Queen will be marketing herself in person – we are tolda lead-up royal tour of Britain is planned; and more sprightly membersof the family will be reminding the Commonwealth of her eternalreign.136 Indeed, we’ve already had Prince William’sheavily publicised military tour of the Falkland Islands (IslasMalvinas) in a run up to celebrating the 30th anniversary of theFalklands’ war, just having had ‘major celebrations’ to mark the 25thanniversary.137
By creating objects of nostalgia, such as uniforms for the Olympics,in our culture we commodify, glamorise and romanticise power. Forimmediate political reasons, conservative forces are adjusting ourperspective on the past, sanitising our real-world associationsthrough the manufacture of nostalgic folk memory. With carefulattention to image, the Royal family has undergone a completeturnaround from the status of (according to The Guardian) a“repressed memory” at the end of the 1990s, to the reborn popularfigureheads being celebrated in 2012.138 The Coalition’shistory tsar Simon Schama claims the Royals can “be a cheer-up panaceafor our tough times, an emblem of Britishness, optimism and thecommunity coming together”.139 Or, as it’s otherwise beendescribed, “an attempt to promote ‘dreamlike constructions’ of earlier‘golden ages’ by recourse to an invented past of imperial greatnesswhen ‘Britannia ruled the waves’ and the English were not ‘beaten attheir own game’ of cricket” as “a way of managing ‘contemporarypolitical, economic and social problems’”.140
Shaking the Foundations
Back in 2006 a Nordic festival of art and social criticism voiced awarning (now poignant, in the wake of Breivik’s Utoeya killings) thatif we try to forget or romanticise our colonial past this “continuesto reproduce itself as waves of intolerance, xenophobia, andnationalism”.141 Simon Jenkins has critically pointed tothe huge representation of WWII imagery saturating Britishinstitutional culture, arguing that only “insecure nations” would needthe psychological support of clinging to stories of themselves asvictors.142 Britain’s island and colonial histories are ofcourse more complex than this, but so much of the state that has beenand remains violently exploitative is gradually being erased fromrepresentations of the institutions responsible. The racism of empireis rewritten and fed back to us in the more palatable forms ofentrepreneurialism and ‘national security’. Paul Gilroy argues that,“without the removal of the cultural and psychological screens thatblock access to [the past], Europe has no chance”.143Martial values are becoming the mortar of unthinking cohesion;infiltrating the meaning of the habitual and familiar, andprioritising superficial reactions over complex understandings in ourculture.
Furthermore, they are used to justify authoritarian repression a full18 years after Margaret Thatcher waved her fist at “the enemy without”(in the Falklands) and the “enemies within” (protesting miners andtrades unions).144 We can see the Coalition governmentengaged in an internationally provocative talking-up of amilitarisation of the Falklands, and Cameron readying to crush anyopportunity for protest in a constitutionally unravelling Britain. Theperiod of the Falklands War propelled the public image of Thatcherfrom “inexperienced young girl” to “formidable leader”. At a time ofunrest, David Cameron similarly seeks to appear decisive, and bolsterhis own strength by reawakening populist images of colonial power –this, remember, when only in 2003 a million marched in Londonexpressing opposition to the then-imminent war against Iraq. WhenPrince William took up an ‘entirely routine’ posting to the FalklandIslands the political build-up made for a strong statement.145MP Penny Mordaunt told parliament she approved of William deliveringthe message of ownership and that “his destiny as the future king” towhom “the islanders will owe their allegiance should not go unnoticedin this jubilee year’”.146 As in Thatcher’s time, theFalklands episode for Cameron offers a media opportunity to distractattention from austerity and persistent unease in Britain; focussingmartial values behind a distant ‘defence of British subjects’, soattacks can be made on civil liberties on the home front.
The martial values seeking further purchase on popular culture talk of‘interventions’ rather than war in a misrepresentation of itspermanency and its principal aggressor, yet seek justification withreference to WWII and a partial, heavily romanticised nationalnarrative. They extend beyond foreign ‘interventions’ into civilsociety; commercial interventions, interventions in childhood, inacademia, in culture, in debate and democratic process… Theexperience of young people in Britain today is of a country that’sbeen continuously at war, conduct which sets out to seize ‘informationspace’ too; they have witnessed an increase in oppressive domesticpolicing, and are now to be aggressively trained not to questionauthority. Evidently the youth of Britain must know their place, ifthey are to be the reproductive force of an authoritarian pyramid.It’s a pyramid that may be weighing greatly on our backs, but onesuspects it will continue to be resisted, shaken from itsfoundations…
Notes
1 LeBaron, R. (1st April 2008) ‘William Hague Says “Near DeathExperience” Has Improved Tory Chances’Leaked Cable in Wikileaks, Available from:http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/04/08LONDON930.html,Accessed on: 10th February 2011.
2 Ibid.
3 Lewis, P (5th February 2012) ‘Joblessness and “toxic relations” withpolice are blamed for Tottenham riot’ in The Guardian:
4 Taylor, M; Rogers, S & Lewis, P (18th August 2011) ‘EnglandRioters: young, poor and unemployed’ in The Guardian:
5 See: Domokos, J (1st April 2011) ‘Claimants “tricked” out ofbenefits, says Jobcentre whistleblower – video’ inThe Guardian:
6 See:www.boycottworkfare.org/
7 Although we might be careful about using the word ‘Thatcherism’since it runs the danger of personalising a set of global materialdynamics.
8 Wintour, Patrick and Mulholland, Hélène (23 March 2012) ‘BorisJohnson says poor schools helped cause riots’ in The Guardian:
9 Sparrow, Andrew (7 August 2011) ‘Politicians condemn Tottenhamriots’ in The Guardian:
10 Vasagar, J (1st September 2011) ‘Michael Gove slackens rules on useof physical force in schools’ in The Guardian:
11 Zizek, Slavoj ‘Against the Populist Temptation’ inLacan dot com:www.lacan.com/zizpopulism.htm
12 D’Arcy, M (10th August 2011) ‘Riot Criminals Should Lose BenefitsSay Thousands’ in Public Service:www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=17131.
13 Kelly, Tom (16th November 2011) David Starkey – ‘Britain is a whitemono-culture and schools should focus on our own history’ inThe Daily Mail:
14 Rahim, Sameer (20th November 2010) ‘Simon Schama Interview’ inThe Telegraph:
15 Kelly, Tom (16th November 2011) ‘David Starkey – Britain is a whitemono-culture and schools should focus on our own history’ inThe Daily Mail:
16http://phoenixfreeschool.org.uk/
17 ‘Network of military schools could help to tackle educationalfailure in deprived areas’ – New ResPublica Green Paper,‘Military Academies: Tackling disadvantage, improving ethos andchanging outcome’:
18 See:
19 Smith, L (8th February 2012) ‘UK Government Supports Plans forMilitary Schools’ in World Socialist Website:www.wsws.org/articles/2012/feb2012/mili-f08.shtml
20 Particularly investor Carlyle Group, who have substantial links togovernment in the US and the UK.
21 See ‘Geeks with Guns’, Corporate Watch:www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2065
22 The Telegraph (2nd September 2011) ‘New Free School to berun by Ex-Soldiers’ in The Telegraph:
23 Smith, L (8th February 2012) ‘UK Government Supports Plans forMilitary Schools’ in World Socialist Website:www.wsws.org/articles/2012/feb2012/mili-f08.shtml
24 Davies, Nick (8th December 2004) ‘Special Investigation: WastedLives of the Young let down by Jail System; Concluding hisinvestigation into mentally disordered prisoners; Nick Davies looks atthe number of children in prisons which cannot deal with their mentalhealth problems’ in The Guardian, p12. & Solomon, E &Garside, R (2008) ‘Ten Years of Labour’s Youth Justice Reforms: anindependent audit’ in Centre for Crime and Justice:
25 Johnston, P (27th March 2007) ‘New Child Checks to Identify FutureCriminals’ in The Telegraph:
26 ‘Juveniles’ DNA Recording Defended’ in BBC News:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4633918.stm& Penna, S & Kirby,S (2009) ‘Children and the “new biopoliticsof control”: identification, identity and social order’ inYouth Justice. An International Journal, 2009, vol 9 (2).
27 Wardrop, M (4th June 2009) ‘Police Arrest Innocent Youths for theirDNA Officer Claims’ in The Telegraph:
28 The Telegraph (2nd September 2011) ‘New Free School to berun by Ex-Soldiers’ in The Telegraph:
29 ResPublica (2012) Military Academies:
30 Smith, L (8th February 2012) ‘UK Government Supports Plans forMilitary Schools’ in World Socialist Website:www.wsws.org/articles/2012/feb2012/mili-f08.shtml
31 Vasagar, J (1st September 2011) ‘Michael Gove slackens rules on useof physical force in schools’ in The Guardian:
32 Ibid.
33 Treadwell, James (Part of Howard League for Penal Reform ‘Inquiryinto ex-military personnel in custody’) Ex-soldiers in Prison:
34 Briant, Emma (Manuscript for Forthcoming Publication)Special Relationships: How Britain Tweaked the Propaganda Machine,US-UK Coordination during the Information ‘War on Terror’.
35 Cusick, J (24th October 2010) ‘Wikileaks fall-out reaches UK’ inSunday Herald: p6.
36 Giroux, H, A (20th November 2008) ‘Against the Militarised Academy’in Truthout:http://archive.truthout.org/112008J
37 Captain Affan Burki quoted in The Telegraph (2nd September2011) ‘New Free School to be run by Ex-Soldiers’ inThe Telegraph:
38 Gabbatt, A & Lewis, P (26th November 2010) ‘Student Protests:video shows police charging crowd’ in The Guardian:
39 Regarding the peaceful Fortnum and Mason sit-in, “The prosecutioncase is that each defendant did take part by encouraging others withhis or her presence”. Malik, Shiv (17th November 2011) ‘Fortnum &Mason protesters convicted of aggravated trespass’ inThe Guardian:
40 Meikle, J & Dodd, V (10th December 2010) ‘Royal Car Attack:Cameron calls for “Full Force of Law”’ in The Guardian:
41 Meikle, J (10th December 2010) ‘Student Protester Operated on afterbeing “Hit by Police Baton”’ in The Guardian:
42 Gove, M in Vasagar, J (1st September 2011) ‘Michael Gove slackensrules on use of physical force in schools’ in The Guardian:
43 Travis, A (12th January 2010) ‘Stop and Search Powers IllegalEuropean Court Rules’ in The Guardian:
44 Morris, Nigel. ‘Blair’s “frenzied law making”: a new offence forevery day spent in office’, The Independent, 16 August 2006:
45 Cheesman, Chris (15th April 2010) ‘Conservatives tellphotographers: We will end stop and search “abuse” (update)’,Amateur Photographer:
46 “…Aiming to control the crowd, kettling also attempts to incite thecrowd. By creating difficult and unpleasant conditions (sub-zero orwarm temperatures without food, water, toilets, or freedom ofmovement) and by preventing people from leaving the demonstration, thepolice aims to provoke the crowd into action. What appears to betargeted is the possibility of a violent act to the police. The logicwhich underwrites this is rather simple: by provoking the crowd,violence is inflamed by kettling itself. The exercise of kettling istherefore incitatory in that it creates the threat in order to dealwith the threat. In colonizing the imaginary of the protester,kettling strives to make this imaginary real. Thus the crowd isaddressed affectively as it is rendered controllable and manageablefor the stable unity of the order. What is at work here is a mutationof control/neoliberal governance as a referent object: the affectivesubject of ‘action’ is rendered governable and manageable.” Taskale,Ali Riza (23rd March 2012) ‘Kettling and the Fear of Revolution’ inCritical Legal Thinking:
47 Allen, A (11th August 2011) ‘We will use water cannons on them: Atlast Cameron orders police to come down hard on the looters (some agedas young as NINE)’ The Daily Mail:
48 Gallagher, I & Arbuthnot, G (27th March 2011) “200 arrested ashardcore anarchists fight police long into night in Battle ofTrafalgar Square after 500,000 march against the cut” inThe Daily Mail:
49 Greenwood, C (18th November 2011) ‘Outcry as judge praisesprotesters who invaded Fortums’ in The Daily Mail:
50 Malik, S (18th July 2011) ‘Fortnum & Mason protest: CPS dropscharges against 109 UK Uncut activists’ in The Guardian:
51 Allen, A (11th August 2011) ‘We will use water cannons on them: Atlast Cameron orders police to come down hard on the looters (some agedas young as NINE)’ in The Daily Mail:
52 Dodd, V & Wintour, P (12th August 2011) ‘Cameron facesobstacles in bringing in US police chief to head Met’ inThe Guardian:
53 Daily Mail (24th July 2011) ‘Army Colonels who have served inAfghanistan should be parachuted in to run police’ inThe Daily Mail:
54 Asthana, A, Townsend, M &Helm, T (13th November 2012) ‘NUSstarts campaign to oust leading Lib Dems’ in The Observer:
55 Philip Davies quoted in Walters, S & Owen, G (26th February2012) ‘Tories order police to halt workfare demos as MP makes formalprotest to BBC over bias in favour of hard-Left militants’ inThe Daily Mail:
56 Gibson, Owen (15th December 2011) ‘London Olympics security to beboosted by 13,500 troops ‘ in The Guardian:
57 Gibson, Owen (15th December 2011) ‘London Olympics security to beboosted by 13,500 troops ‘ in The Guardian:
58 MoD ‘Defence Secretary Observes Olympic Air Exercise’ inDefence IQ:
59 Eccles, Louise (10th November 2011) ‘Are Olympics chiefs ashamed ofour proud military history? Just days before Remembrance Sunday, HMSBelfast is airbrushed from poster’ The Daily Mail:
60 Shortcuts Blog (23rd November 2011) ‘The 2012 Olympics uniformdeconstructed; Thumbs up for the Beefeater red cuffs – but golferbeige trousers?’ in The Guardian:
61 Thomas-Peter, Hannah (15th November 2011) ‘US working closely onOlympic Security’ in Sky News:http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16110377.
62 Thomas-Peter, Hannah (15th November 2011) ‘US working closely onOlympic Security’ in Sky News:http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16110377.
63 Giroux, H, A (20th November 2008) ‘Against the Militarised Academy’in Truthout:http://archive.truthout.org/112008J
64 Connor, Steve (7th February 2012) ‘Government “may sanctionnerve-agent use on rioters”, scientists fear’ in The Independent:
65 Strauss, J & Aris, B (28th October 2002) ‘Rage at Secrecy asGas Kills 115 Hostages’ The Telegraph:
66 Connor, Steve (7th February 2012) ‘Government “may sanctionnerve-agent use on rioters”, scientists fear’ inThe Independent:
67 Wong, G (23rd January 2011) ‘Haimen, China, Protests: Nerve GasFired at Protesters’ in Huffington Post:
68 ‘Postcard From The Precipice – An Appeal For Support’,Media Lens, 29 March 2012:www.medialens.org/
69 Mark Curtis, M.Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam,Serpent’s Tail, 2012:
70 MacAskill, E (31st March 2000) ‘Hain Backtracks on Ethical ForeignPolicy’ in The Guardian:
71 Bowcott, O (13th July 2011) ‘Secret Files that Revealed theGovernment’s role in Torture’ in The Guardian:
72 Cassidy, Robert M. (2004)Peacekeeping in the Abyss: British and American PeacekeepingDoctrine and Practice After the Cold War, Westport: Praeger: p59.
73 Klein, N (2008) The Shock Doctrine, London: Penguin.
74 (25th March 2012) ‘Tory Peter Cruddas quits after donor accessclaims’ in BBC News:www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17503116
75 Edwards, R (28th May 2011) ‘Anger as US Arms Dealer Takes OverRunning of Scottish Nuclear Bomb Base’ in The Herald:
76 Newsroom (29th May 2011) ‘UK Government intend to privatisehandling of nuclear weapons at Coulport: Michael Russell MSP says No’in Argyle News:
77 Stanton, J (9th March 2012) ‘Banking on the Bomb’ inCounterpunch:www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/09/banking-on-the-bomb/& Also See:www.dontbankonthebomb.com/
78 International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, ‘Don’t Bank onthe Bomb’:www.dontbankonthebomb.com/whos-financing-them/
79 Quoted in: Giroux, H, A (20th November 2008) ‘Against theMilitarised Academy’ in Truthout:http://archive.truthout.org/112008J
80 Travis, Alan & Jowitt, Juliet (4th March 2012) ‘PolicePrivatisation Plans Defended by Senior Officers’ inThe Guardian:
81 Travis, Alan & Jowitt, Juliet (4th March 2012) ‘PolicePrivatisation Plans Defended by Senior Officers’ inThe Guardian:
82 Travis, Alan & Jowitt, Juliet (4th March 2012) ‘PolicePrivatisation Plans Defended by Senior Officers’ inThe Guardian:
83 Asthana, A, Townsend, M &Helm, T (13th November 2012) ‘NUSstarts campaign to oust leading Lib Dems’ in The Observer:
84 Hancox, D (7th December 2011) ‘Kettling 2.0: The Olympic State ofException and TSG Action Figures’ in Games Monitor:http://gamesmonitor.org.uk/node/1456
85 Zellen, B (15th February 2009) ‘Securing the Olympics: Lessons ofBeijing: China’s huge investment in time, resources and manpower paysoff’ in Security Innovator:
86 Bristow, M (12th March 2008) ‘China’s Olympic Security Dilemma’ inBBC News:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7292025.stm
87 May, Theresa (21st November 2011) Olympic Security ConferenceSpeech: Prisk, (1st February 2012) Hansard:
88 BBC News ‘London 2012 Olympic Budget Doubled’ :www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16030785
89 Bose, M (19th February 2010) ‘Why Perrier will be off limits in the2012 Olympics’ in This is London:
90 BBC News ‘London 2012 Olympic Budget Doubled’ :www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16030785
91 Brady, B (20th November 2011) ‘Demonstrations to be banned duringOlympics’ in The Independent:
92 Brady, B (20th November 2011) ‘Demonstrations to be banned duringOlympics’ in The Independent:
93 Sky News (22nd November 2011) ‘Cost of Protecting Olympic VenuesRevealed’:http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16115059.
94 BBC News ‘London 2012 Olympic Budget Doubled’ :www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16030785
95 Blowe, K (14th November 2010) ‘NETCU uses friendly journalists tosend message to Government’ in Random Blowe:
96 The new Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, Tony McGrew,according to Principal Jim McDonald:
97 Miller, D & Mills, T (2009) ‘The Terror Experts and theMainstream Media: the expert nexus and its dominance in the newsmedia’ in Critical Studies on Terrorism, Vol 2, No 3: pp414-437.
98 CSTRV have links to RAND Corporation in the US, a hugelyinfluential think-tank with strong ties to both Government and thedefense industry.
99 Miller, D & Mills, T (2009) ‘The Terror Experts and theMainstream Media: the expert nexus and its dominance in the newsmedia’ in Critical Studies on Terrorism, Vol 2, No 3:pp414-437.
100 Mackay, A & Tatham, S (December 2009) ‘Behavioural Conflict -From Generic to Strategic Corporal: complexity, adaptation andinfluence’ in The Shrivenham Papers, No 9.
101 For more on this see: Briant, Emma (Manuscript for ForthcomingPublication)Special Relationships: How Britain Tweaked the Propaganda Machine,US-UK Coordination during the Information ‘War on Terror’.
102 Kirby, Jane. (7th September 2009) ‘Military Ties at Dalhousie’sCentre for Foreign Policy Studies’ in Halifax Media Co-op:http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/story/1874,Accessed on 25th February 2010.
103 Bernays, Edward (2004) Propaganda, Brooklin: Ig Publishing.
104 McFate, Montgomery (March/April 2005) ‘Anthropology andCounterinsurgency: The Strange Story of their Curious Relationship’ inMilitary Review, pp24-38.
105 Network of Concerned Anthropologists:http://sites.google.com/site/concernedanthropologists/faq
106 Marrades, Addaia (2006-7) ‘Anthropology and the “War on Terror”:Analysis of a Complex Relationship’ in University of Sussex Theses:www.sussex.ac.uk/anthropology/documents/marrades.pdf
107 Ibid.
108 Mackay, A & Tatham, S (December 2009) ‘Behavioural Conflict –From Generic to Strategic Corporal: complexity, adaptation andinfluence’ in The Shrivenham Papers, No 9.
109 ‘Timeline of the British Army’ in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_British_Army
110 See, The Royal British Legion (4th November 2009) ‘School childrensend postcards to the Armed Forces community’:
111 Ibid.
112 Adorno, T. W., with Horkheimer, Max. – Trans. Jephcott, E (2002)Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress.
113 Briant, Emma (Manuscript for Forthcoming Publication)Special Relationships: How Britain Tweaked the Propaganda Machine,US-UK Coordination during the Information ‘War on Terror’.
114 Beste, R (12th July 2011) ‘Rupert Murdoch: Gotcha!’ inStop the War Coalition:
115 Duncan, A (24th November 2010) ‘X-Factor Charity Single Set forNumber One Chart Glory’ in The Metro:
116 See: Briant, Emma (Manuscript for Forthcoming Publication)Special Relationships: How Britain Tweaked the Propaganda Machine,US-UK Coordination during the Information ‘War on Terror’.
117 Jones, N (11th March 2009) ‘Miner’s Strike Anniversary: Freedom ofInformation Exposes Margaret Thatcher’s Secrets’ in Spinwatch:
118 Miller, D (1994) Don’t Mention The War, London: PlutoPress.
119 Jones, N (2002) The Control Freaks, London: Politico &Jones, N (2000) Sultans of Spin, London: Gollancz.
120 Craik, Jennifer (2005)Uniforms Exposed: From conformity to transgression, Oxford:Berg: 214-215.
121 Ibid.
122 Paul Deighton in Gibson, Owen (15th December 2011) ‘LondonOlympics security to be boosted by 13,500 troops ‘ inThe Guardian:
123 “In his [then heavily satirised, eve of St. George’s Day] addressto the nation [reported in The Guardian 23rd April 1993], JohnMajor deliberately used cricket to ‘invoke a mythical, nostalgic andimplicitly white notion of England’, an essentially rural country fullof ‘invincible green suburbs’, with Englishmen drinking warm beer tothe distant sounds of cricket being played on the village green(Carrington 1998: 102). Carrington (ibid.: 102) argues that theimagery within Major’s speech represented an attempt to promote‘dreamlike constructions’ of earlier ‘golden ages’ as a way ofmanaging ‘contemporary political, economic and social problems’ byrecourse to an invented past of imperial greatness when ‘Britanniaruled the waves’ and the English were not ‘beaten at their own game’of cricket.” Wagg, Stephen (ed., 2008)Cricket and national identity in the postcolonial age: FollowingOn, London: Routledge.
124 Greig, R ‘Beyond Retro’ in Time Out Magazine:
125 Craik, Jennifer (2005)Uniforms Exposed: From conformity to transgression, Oxford:Berg: 215.
126 Walker, R (1st July 2009) ‘Remixed Messages’ inNew York Times:
127 Sweney, M (22nd June 2010) ‘Nectar ad plays on wartime poster fornew era of post-budget austerity’ in The Guardian:
128 Quoted in Henley, J (18th March 2009) ‘What Crisis?’ inThe Guardian:
129 Walker, R (1st July 2009) ‘Remixed Messages’ inNew York Times:
130 Beard, M (22nd November 2011) ‘A touch of the guardsman’s tunic tomake 2012 volunteers stand out’ in Evening Standard:
131 Sportsbeat (22nd November 2011) ‘LONDON 2012: Military feel forOlympic volunteer and officials uniform’:
132 Paul Deighton in Gibson, Owen (15th December 2011) ‘LondonOlympics security to be boosted by 13,500 troops ‘ inThe Guardian:
133 Waugh, P (13th May 2010) ‘Cost of the 2012 Olympics could soar’ inThis is London:
134 See:
135 See:www.justforfun.co.uk/theme/Diamond-Jubilee/&
136 Bates, S (26th December 2011) ‘How the Royal Wedding Boosted theMonarchy’ in The Guardian:
137 Press Association (26th June 2006) ‘Major celebration’ to markFalklands war anniversary’ in The Guardian:
138 Bates, S (26th December 2011) ‘How the Royal Wedding Boosted theMonarchy’ in The Guardian:
139 Rahim, Sameer (20th November 2010) ‘Simon Schama Interview’ inThe Telegraph:
140 Wagg, Stephen (ed.)Cricket and national identity in the postcolonial age: Followingon, quoting Carrington, B. (1998) ‘“Football’s coming home” but whosehome? And do we want it? Nation, football, and the politics ofexclusion’ (in A. Brown (ed.)Fanatics: Power, Identity and Fandom in Football. London:Routledge)
141 Rethinking Nordic Colonialism:www.rethinking-nordic-colonialism.org/
142 Jenkins, S (22nd September 2012) ‘Britain’s Nazi Obsession Betraysour Insecurity – It’s Time We Moved On’ in The Guardian:
143 Gilroy, P ‘Colonial Crimes and Convivial Cultures’, inRethinking Nordic Colonialism:
144 Thatcher, M in Wilenius, P (5th March 2004) ‘Enemies within:Thatcher and the Unions’ in BBC News:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3067563.stm
145 BBC News (5th February 2012) ‘Prince William Falklands DutyEntirely Routine – Hague’:www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16896591.
146 Portsmouth News (31st January 2012) ‘Britain is Right to SendWilliam to the Falklands This Year’ in Portsmouth News: