Variant issue 43    back to issue list

If…. On Martial Values and Britishness
Emma Louise Briant

Shaking the Pyramid

Back in 2008, the now Foreign Secretary William Hague assured the US that he, “David Cameron and George Osborne were ‘children of Thatcher’ and staunch Atlanticists”.1 Hague said while he recognised this was at odds with British public opinion, politicians “sit at the top of the pyramid”.2 This autocratic approach extends beyond foreign policy and, it seems, among those being ‘sat on’ at the bottom are thousands of people who rioted in England last August, 2011. These disturbances were ultimately seen to result from marginalisation and resentment felt in communities experiencing joblessness and aggressive policing.3 66% of those charged with related offences were from neighbourhoods that got poorer between 2007 and 2010.4

It is perhaps unsurprising that the Tories are feeling their pyramid rather unstable. Worsening economic deprivation and lack of opportunity are the foundations of young people’s alienation in Britain, paucities exacerbated by policy measures including, but not limited to, the scrapping of Education Maintenance Allowances; the arbitrary suspensions of benefits5; and ‘workfare’ programmes demanding the free labour of benefit recipients in return for their continued state welfare provisions.6 Two years into Coalition government, PM Cameron’s brand of Thatcherite7 ‘there is no alternative’ government has had quite the impact. And yet somewhat ironically, the government diagnose the resulting riots as symptomatic of behavioural issues, weak morality, poor schooling8, criminality and gangs.9

Autocratic martial values and a deepening militarisation of state and civil society are the mortars used in an attempt to patch-up the now-Tory pyramid – a neoliberal system of governance, after all, spanning all the dominant political parties. Michael Gove, the Education 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.10 In so doing he appeals to a fear and populism that turns humanity against itself, instead of against government policies. As the theorist Slavoj Zizek argues “the cause of the troubles is ultimately never the system as such, but the intruder who corrupted it (financial manipulators, not capitalists as such, etc.); not a fatal flaw inscribed into the structure as such, but an element that doesn’t play its role within the structure properly”.11 Following Zizek’s analysis, and in this case: the rioters. The lack of real media debate during the period allowed the favoured of moral panic to prevail; fuelling a reactionary thrust of public anger used to justify the continuity of significant state restructuring. One petition calling for rioters’ benefits to be revoked gained at least 60,000 signatures in the 24 hours after the riots.12 Such malice and demagoguery may be startling, but isn’t all that new. Successive governments have emphasised vigilance to threats at home and abroad, creating scapegoats to distract from domestic and foreign policy and drum up support. The solution to Gove’s redefined problem is now, as before, being presented to the public as a return to old-fashioned discipline and martial values, starting with the ‘moral decay’ of the imagined nation’s amassed children.

Discipline the Youth

‘Citizenship’ has been securing the foundations of this pyramid in schools in England since 2002. These compulsory classes set out to nurture cohesion through socialisation, implicitly minimising any questioning of societies’ institutions. That pupils did gain a more complex understanding of contemporary laws and political systems from such classes is something clearly undesirable to the Coalition. In favour of more subtly-integrated propaganda delivered through history teaching Gove’s curriculum review has scrapped these compulsory classes. Gove has said the emphasis will now be on “our island story”, the value of ‘Britishness’, national pride and cohesion.13 It’s the return of the ‘Kings and Queens’ approach, the rote boredom of yesteryear. Under advice from ‘Better History Group’ think-tank and ‘history tsar’, Simon Schama, British-centred history will strengthen our “national memory”.14 Elsewhere Gove’s policies have been criticised by Cambridge History Professor, Richard Evans, who said they would deliver “self-congratulatory narrow myths of history” to schoolchildren.15 Quintessentially English myths of ‘Britishness’ on which martial values can be better built.

Coalition plans sunk lower still in August, when Cameron announced his goal to militarise schools in England and Wales. Initiating a wider project for 10 state-run military academies, the ‘Phoenix’ school opens in September 2013.16 Conservative Party think-tank ResPublica recommended “a chain of academies sponsored by the Armed Forces” and “using their practical experience and existing governance support”.17 They will institutionalise militarism; the schools will be entirely operated using ex-military personnel, or ‘civilian teachers’ “recruited with an intention of joining the Reserves”. The priority will be for ‘vertical grouping’ of children. This will instill a hierarchy with lower-ability children held back in lower grades regardless of increasing age; a demoralising teaching structure that reflects the pyramid society itself, ensuring children become familiar with their place in its structure.18 ResPublica calls the schools a MoD and DfE “partnership in the delivery of education”.19 This despite criticism during MoD governance of privatisations (QinetiQ was undervalued leading to massive profits for its executives20 and losses for the public).21 The Phoenix school’s ‘zero-tolerance’ approach is 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 the need to develop enquiring minds. The initiative is directed at those in poverty, and claims to be “tackling disadvantage” and “social ills”.23 Effectively, it seeks to mould the poor and oppressed into a more compliant population. The question remains, what ‘opportunities’ will be offered to young people in disadvantaged areas, many of whom already see few choices beyond ‘economic conscription’ into the military? – the creation of another captive market for the privateers.

Increasing authoritarian discipline is in reality a political trajectory of the last few decades. The Guardian criticised the harsh policies of New Labour and its “immediate predecessors”, revealing that “between 1992 and 2001, the number of children being jailed every year soared by 90% […] The number of children under 15 sent to custody increased by 800%” and despite “around 80%” of these having “at least two mental disorders”, this course continued.24 Furthermore, the sort of ‘preventative’ repression we’re now seeing actually began under Labour, when they announced that through surveillance they could predict which children would become criminals.25 Since 2004, police have added the DNA of children over 10 to a database identifying those ‘at-risk’ of becoming criminals with 87,459 samples taken from 10-16 year olds in 2005-2006 alone, and the DNA of 24,000 youngsters aged 10-18 who had not even been convicted of an offence remaining held in 2010.26 Hundreds of these young people were arrested in Camden, only for it to be revealed in 2009 that police were arresting these young people, who had committed no crime, just to get them on the database. The purpose of this blatant harassment was said to be to deter future crime, and to make it easier to catch them if they did do something.27 Perhaps unsurprisingly, Camden and Tottenham were areas in which the riots kicked off, in part triggered by increasingly oppressive policing. Phoenix School head-teacher, Captain Affan Burki, told The Telegraph, without intended irony, that “All the old remedies for poverty, underachievement and alienation have been tested to destruction. The consequences were starkly before us on the streets of Tottenham and Croydon”.28 And the subsequent Government response? A military approach to educational discipline (Camden was flagged 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 England to record all instances of ‘physical restraint’, and effectively welcomed harsher disciplinary measures in all schools.31 He’s keen to be seen as deploying discipline in and out of schools across England; extending headteachers’ powers to punish children for any public misdemeanour, and employing former-military male personnel as ‘mentors’.32 Conceivably, Gove needs to explain why “former soldiers and military personnel are the highest single former occupational group serving sentences in British prisons”33? And also, to explain whether these troubling statistics are part of the reason why this growing former occupational group are securing preferential state-backed employment at the expense of existing professional teachers?

After the public was, and continues to be, repeatedly lied to about consecutive illegal invasions and occupations – from the Balkans to Iraq, from Afghanistan to Libya – why are we allowing this government to further embed the military into our lives, our schools and our culture with such little resistance? They argue it is positive to instil the culture of the military in our children. But, according to a former Army Officer, the culture nurtured within the British Armed Forces holds that “they are good at Colonial warfare, [...] at turning out in Nyasaland, talking to the Chiefs, getting the natives in line, lining people up with a picture of Queen Victoria, and giving them all a Martini-Henry rifle”.34 This was reflected in the conduct of British Officers in Iraq. Human rights lawyer Phil Shiner claims British abuse of Iraqis could not be dismissed as “one-offs” but was “colonial savagery” reflective of a wider systemic problem.35 It is a problem in the way Britain is constructed and propagandised, at home and abroad, as a nation. Eminent US critic of the militarisation of education, Henry A. Giroux argues that, “as an educational force, military power produces identities, goods, institutions, knowledge, modes of communication and affective investments – in short, it now bears down on all aspects of social life and the social order.”36 The fabrication of the British pyramid is being reinforced through intimidation or force, and the intended and unintended impacts of this across our whole culture cannot be underestimated.

Police at War

After the London riots, Affan Burki claimed that, “...before we put troops on the streets we should consider putting them in our schools” – yet, militarisation does not stop at the pyramid’s foundations.37 The attempt to insert martial values into the psychology of how public space is to function as a site for political encounter is reinforced by the militarisation of domestic policing and harsh social control methods on streets throughout the UK. Images of police ‘kettling’ protesters (including children and young people) in 2010 and charging at students resisting education cuts shocked many.38 And yet the state-corporate media opted to rage at the (surely unsurprising) response of a group of protesters when a car carried flustered royals travelled through their midst, whilst the reporting of protestors trapped without food in horrendous conditions for 10 hours remained scant in comparison. Cameron, of course, called for the “full force” of law against the group (the individual now held to be collectively responsible39) and the police denied kettling contributed to the frustrated actions.40 This supposedly ‘violent’ incident (only property was actually damaged) was used to distract public and media attention from actual injuries to 43 protestors – Alfie Meadows required brain surgery after being hit by a police baton.41 Since the August 2011 riots, the focus of, and resistance to, government policies and imperatives has shifted from the social advancement appeals of young people wanting access to education, to the disenfranchised of our cities – even easier to dismiss as a “vicious lawless, immoral minority”.42 It was a smooth transition of narrative, barely noticed in our media, but we see 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 against protesters in England and Wales as early as 2003, with extended stop and search powers (ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights by 2010) used against protestors demonstrating outside an arms fair.43 The Tories in opposition were posturing on ending state intrusion – Tony Blair’s Labour government having created more than 3,000 new offences44 – while the then Labour government’s Policing and Security Minister, David Hanson, justified it saying: “Stop and search [...] is an important tool in a package of measures in the ongoing fight against terrorism.”45 Police have faced continued pressure to subdue public protests, while portraying them as a public threat. The tactic of ‘kettling’ “also attempts to incite the crowd”.46 The Coalition has taken a lead in extending police powers further.47 The media role has been crucial in framing protest to justify this build-up of domestic ‘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 being further criminalised. During the public sector cuts protest back in March 2011, one Daily Mail byline read “extremists hijack 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 “terrorised staff and customers” [my emphasis], though 109 charges were dismissed by the Crown Prosecution Service.49 The Mail of course doesn’t mention that five months before this article, the police had already admitted misleading protesters into thinking they would let them leave Fortnum’s peacefully, before detaining all 150 in custody (five minors were in cells overnight).50 Less peaceful attacks on property came with the London riots in August and Cameron then promised to abandon restraint completely, “Whatever resources the police need they will get. Whatever tactics they feel they need they will have legal backing to do so.”51

Eager attempts to bring in US ‘zero-tolerance’ expert William Bratton as Commissioner at London’s Metropolitan Police followed.52 There’s been a gradual militarisation in approach with ministers saying (despite the debacle of the ‘War on Terror’), that Army officers having served in Afghanistan should be fast-tracked into high-ranking police positions. Support for a Sandhurst-style police training college was also suggested, mixing former soldiers and intelligence officials with police in Theresa May’s vision of a British FBI.53 (A rolling out of Special Branch, British Army, and Security Services’ actions in Northern Ireland more widely?) Then, in February 2012 the government ordered a police crackdown on protests and demonstrations against its controversial ‘workfare’ scheme. Police and intelligence are to further target “extreme left-wing activity”.54 Furthermore, the media, particularly the BBC, are facing government attack for having voiced the concerns of those opposing workfare, and other authoritarian policies. Critics have been dismissed as “hard-left militants”, echoing Thatcherite rhetoric.55 Even critics, it seems, are the new terrorists. As the ‘War on Terror’ fades from dominant media memory, if not the day-to-day realities of millions across the globe, the ‘War on Critics’ escalates; the infrastructure of counter-terrorism becomes an infrastructure of counter-criticism, an anti-politics, and our streets and our culture are battlefields on which it’s being fought.

In the wake of riots brought on in large part by massive austerity measures and oppressive policing, it is unsurprising the government has been jittery about the run up to the London Olympics. Militarisation strategies and martial values are strongly influencing Olympic planning. Philip Hammond MP promised us a “peaceful celebration of sporting achievement and a cultural celebration – not a security event”.56 It’s depressing to observe that the Government’s vision of ‘cultural celebration’ in London takes the form of an intimidating 13,500-strong uniformed military presence.57 We are brazenly told there will be surface to air missiles, a large number of aircraft, and SAS units floating on the Thames ready to deploy.58 In addition to pulling in what is, according to The Guardian, more uniformed military than deployed in Afghanistan, the Navy’s largest ship will be based in Greenwich throughout the games, though it was ‘accidentally’ airbrushed from posters displayed throughout the London Underground network. Expectedly, The Daily Mail decried this as organisers ashamed of 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 “close working relationship” with the UK’s Olympic security.61 Most reports put the FBI numbers at 500 agents, who may or may not be armed.62 To a large extent heightened security is an attempt to justify responses to public protest being portrayed as counter-terrorism in a domestic context. This all has a horrible resonance with the 2008 Olympic Games. The Chinese authorities similarly increased security and deployed its Navy during their hosting of the Games, also in fear of their own people’s mass protests. The UK government similarly wants to prevent the Games being used as an opportunity for public protest, and it is prepared to do this through a demonstration of power. If anything, such measures would appear more likely to guarantee unrest.

Giroux argues that, “what appears new about the amplified militarization of the post-9/11 world is that it has become normalized, serving as a powerful educational force that shapes our lives, memories and daily experiences.”63 In one recent worrying development in militarisation, the government has been trying to exploit a loophole in the Chemical Weapons Convention to sanction the use of nerve-agents for “domestic law enforcement”, or riot-control.64 There was international criticism when, in 2002, 115 hostages died from a mystery gas used by Russian Special Forces to end the Moscow Theatre Siege.65 But a group of neuroscientists, commissioned by the Royal Society, concluded that the UK Government’s position on the use of “incapacitating chemical agents” for domestic use has been relaxed in recent years, allowing development of nerve-agents of the kind used during Russian sieges.66 China has also been criticized for use of nerve agents against its own people and it is terrifying that the public are not more active in holding to account a UK government that would consider similar authoritarian tactics.67 There is a degree of public complacency or ‘selective inattention’68, one even tinged with imperial superiority, concerning the voyeurism of repression elsewhere – be it Tahrir or Tiananmen Square – and it not happening here. At times of emergent dissent a narrative of embattled continuity in taking a ‘great nation’ with a ‘rich past’ into the future is often engaged, and this is clearly being used today to reinforce the edifice of Cameron’s pyramid, through an even more compliant culture.

Contracting in Control

Beyond controlling mass unrest, there are political and commercial interests that benefit from criminalising dissent and manipulating fear. The rhetoric of an ‘ethical foreign policy’ and public fear were manipulated throughout the ongoing ‘War on Terror’ to make defence contracting at home and abroad seem acceptable; another part of normal governance. An ‘ethical foreign policy’ never emerges in reality, but it justifies martial values among our new generation, people raised in a country in a state of continuous war since before Desert Storm. Of course, Blair made ‘liberal interventions’ in Sierra Leone and Kosovo. The UK leadership continues to use this international role to maintain its interests and power on the world stage (with Blair’s ongoing prominent involvement ). Actually, the UK Government has been repeatedly criticised for unethical policies; in its dealings with China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Libya, amongst others.69 After Robin Cook said Labour would build an ‘ethical’ foreign policy, the Foreign Office scrambled to cover themselves; its then minister Peter Hain said “we don’t live in an ethical world” and it was a “mistake” to allow “policy to be presented as if we could have perfection”.70 In 2011 the depth of Foreign Office involvement in UK citizens’ torture in Guantanamo Bay was revealed.71 But having normalised contracting in ‘ethical interventions’ abroad it was not hard to extend this practise back home, increasing private sector deployment for domestic ‘interventions’. British experience in imperial policing, according to Cassidy, a major in the U.S. Army, has “made internal security the norm and conventional war the exception” for Britain, and ‘creating stability within’ has long been seen as a crucial part of British security strategy.72 This is a permanent war in which Britain is engaged. It invokes a climate of fear in which martial values are seen as ‘of value to the nation’, our culture comes to emphasise security and conformity against ‘political extremists’ who dare to question. Terming it “the shock doctrine”, Naomi Klein argues through numerous examples that the disorientation that follows natural and man-made crises has been systematically exploited for political and economic gain.73 We’re seeing an accelerating encroachment of the private sector (of its interest, narratives, and imperatives) into the area of public control (boosting private interests of politicians and their hangers-on). Indeed, former Conservative party treasurer Peter Cruddas recently showed that political influence is being sold to the highest bidder.74 Offerings are made at the top of Cameron’s pyramid to the gods of commerce, impoverishing the lives of those at its base, who still must respect its traditional command. The party of ‘law and order’ is now regularly caught being cavalier with its uneven application – a disdain that might be described as neo-feudalist.

Great swathes of British defence are moving into the hands of profit-seeking companies, including Trident. Despite criticism of Lockhead Martin’s record managing large-scale U.S. public projects, it will lead a consortium responsible for missile “processing, handling and storage”; “radiological safety” and “nuclear emergency response”.75 AWE, its partner within the consortium, has been criticised on safety, and MSP Michael Russell has called the plans “foolhardy and reckless”.76 With other privatisations including explosives, ammunitions, small arms, air search and rescue, aircraft maintenance and weapons procurement, data collection and processing, martial interests can be seen to have an immense hold in public and private sectors, consolidating the ‘value’ of ‘security’ in society. Society is coming to function as a means to invest and expand this lucrative system. Research by The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons recently demonstrated that “teachers’ pension funds [...] invest heavily in companies involved in the nuclear weapons industry” including BAE Systems and Babcock International through Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and Royal Bank.77 The UK Universities Superannuation Scheme, the “principal pension scheme” of University and College employees also invests in war production.78 As Michael Gayer observes, with militarisation, civil society comes to support and organise itself behind this new driving force “for the production of violence”, resulting in a steady erosion of civil liberties and the encroachment of defence on other aspects of national life.79 Privatisation and militarisation together create vested interests in continuing threats alongside fear of, and actual, unrest and violence.

The contracting trend has brought the gradual blurring of public and private in policing. ACPO, set up as a PLC in 1997 and replacing an informal network of police chiefs, decides on national policing strategies and consequently both influences and shapes government policy. ACPO has grown in power, influence and snowballing financial profit even though it claims to be a ‘not for profit’ organisation – having lucrative subsidiary commercial companies, some of which have either an unfair advantage or a complete monopoly over their market. In addition, local authorities are inviting ‘security’ bids for “a wide range of services, including criminal investigations, patrolling neighbourhoods and detaining suspects”.80 Brian Paddick, the former Scotland Yard deputy assistant commissioner, told The Guardian, “The British tradition of policing by consent, rather than by force and weight of numbers, is being eroded” and these plans “will accelerate that process.”81 The Police Federation also called this radical shift towards private policing “an extremely dangerous road to take”.82 Those benefiting from the lucrative business of police militarisation, are manufacturers – supplying armoured vehicles, body scanners and surveillance equipment, including unmanned spy drones proposed for covert surveillance throughout UK airspace during future protests.83 Steel cordons designed for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear emergencies have been bought in; they kept parliament ‘uninfected’ by protest in London.84 This equipment, designed for extreme quarantine situations, was used to keep politicians distant from those wanting to question them. Boxing-in protest with 10ft high steel walls is as much a statement about state weakness and distancing us from decision-making as it is about explicit control over the public. It physicalises the divides of inequality on which the pyramid society’s layers are constructed.

With so much investment in new security technologies, security contractors will be showcased throughout the Olympic Games, celebrating industry’s role in the militarisation of UK society. Ray Mey, from the UN International Permanent Observatory on Security for Major Events, recommended ‘lessons’ be drawn from China for London Olympic security resource planning.85 US-based Security Industry Association regarded the 2008 Olympics a great opportunity as they “not only showcase world-class athletes, they showcase world-class security technologies and services from our industry”.86 Showcasing British ‘security’ will be “twice the number” of media as athletes, and the focus is Chinese investment, encouraged through a ‘China Business Day’ during the Games and £25m spent on international investment campaigns.87 Minister for the Olympics Hugh Robertson said Olympic ceremonies represent a “once-in-a-generation opportunity to showcase the very best of our country to four billion people around the world and have a potential advertising value of £2-5 billion”.88 But British power is what’s being demonstrated and here it seems, for the Government, “the best of our country” is social control and security technology.

Britain’s ‘security showcase’ will occur in a London where business confidence was recently shaken by mass public protest, and the Government have promised to ensure London is a ‘clean city’ during the games – one free of any product or advertisement rivalling Olympic sponsors. Volunteers will target anyone wearing a T-shirt with a corporate logo; putting masking tape over it or forcing them to remove their clothes. Apparently, “sponsors pay a lot of money for the Olympics and they are entitled to protect their investment”.89 In many ways, Cameron is also protecting his own investment, bringing in a ‘clean city’ for marketing his vision of Britain; a ‘clean city’ free of alternative political messages provided by protesters. Helping re-package the city for international consumption are G4 Security, whose contract shot from 10,000 to 23,700 personnel in December.90 Police powers were extended ahead of the games, including “the right to enter private homes and seize political posters”.91 There 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 will spend whatever it takes to keep the Olympic venues ‘secure’.93 The Olympic budget was doubled in December, with a ‘security’ rise to £553m expected.94 The London Olympics are being used as a manufacturing and investment opportunity – where the private sector is reliant on significant public outlay – one that helps instil compliant values in British culture. Indeed security trade organisations use contacts in the media to emphasise the existence of a threat, and stress the value of contractors in maintaining order.95

Now at the University of Bath, following the University of Strathclyde’s closure of its Sociology department due to its “too critical”96 stance, David Miller and Tom Mills have charted the rise of the ‘terrologist’; a community of security ‘experts’ with backgrounds in government or contracting who dominate our media. Having few academic credentials, 73% of these ‘experts’ were found to reproduce ‘orthodox’ statements supportive of official rhetoric and focused on violence directed at states, not state-sponsored violence.97 The study cited Paul Wilkerson from the University of St. Andrews ‘Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence’98 whose counter-terrorism expertise helped the Government rationalise permanent anti-terror legislation.99 A trend toward close supportive relationships between academics and government or industry is being imported from the US. America has a strong tradition of ‘think-tanks’ producing politically-skewed ‘research’ with conclusions that reflect their political or commercial sympathies. Conflicts of interest result from increasing ties between academic institutions and the Government or security industry.

Influential military experts Maj. Gen. Mackay and Commander Tatham have argued that this networking of “civilian and military” in the US is “urgently required” in Britain. 100 In the US, academics assist in, among other things, psychological warfare101 and concern has been raised over the affects of military-sponsored research on academic freedom and curriculum.102 The father of PR, Edward Bernays, once said, “If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious co-operation, you automatically influence the group which they sway”.103 Anthropological writings were used to engineer oppression, blackmail and psychological techniques in Abu Ghraib.104 The US ‘Network of Concerned Anthropologists’ has therefore been encouraging the discipline to pledge against attempts to “militarize anthropology in a way that undermines the integrity of the discipline and returns anthropology to its sad roots as a tool of colonial occupation, oppression, and violence”.105 Efforts are similarly threatening UK academia; proposals have included bringing social scientists into counter-terrorism and intelligence. Due to criticism, this strategy entitled ‘Combating Terrorism by Countering Radicalisation’ failed to have the impact of similar US programmes.106 But since it was withdrawn in 2006, the ESRC (“the UK’s largest funder of [academic] research on economic and social issues”) has channelled funding into studies of ‘security threats’ and “new security challenges”, incentivising research that contributes to security policy107 – PhDs producing militarised knowledge for the war industries. More direct efforts are also still under active pursuit. Mackay and Tatham, both influential figures in this area, recommended that plans to put researchers at the employ of defence be adapted 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 in itself, and making ‘sacrifice’ something to be worshipped. They sustain a system in which, the 112 years since the 20th Century began have seen only one in which no British military personnel were killed in action (1968).109 In praising what veterans have ‘given’ rather than criticising what was taken from them, groups, like the ‘British Legion’ and ‘Help for Heroes’, conceptualise military intervention as an always necessary sacrifice. The British Legion, being devoid of critique of any of ‘our’ wars, serves to mediate and even excuse the impact of this system. Past meaning of the poppy emblem largely forgotten, fundraising drives support the notion that the costs of war in general are sad but legitimate and acceptable. They conflate images of recent wars with those of WWI and WWII which saturate the TV viewing schedule. All war, viewed as ‘sacrifice’, is seen as the same. A dangerous education promoted through the military’s expanding engagement in British schools. Since 2009 the British Legion has organised a drive for children to send postcards to soldiers bearing messages such as, “Thank you for fighting for our country and risking your life for us. It must have been very scary and a difficult task to do. I’m sure it was hard to leave your friends and family behind. You were very brave.”110 The Legion draws on public sympathy for the millions injured or killed by war, without questioning its causes. It frowns on any criticism of military institutions or policy. One soldier spokesman calls the programme “a great way to get youngsters to connect with what the military has done. Anything which brings civilians and the military close together is a good thing and these cards do that.”111

Manufacturing Martial Culture

This brings us to the cultural consequences; the ripples throughout our day-to-day lives. Militarism has gone commercial with the use of contractors now barely questioned in domestic or international contexts. And British popular culture is being carefully adapted to support this policy through its culture industry. The idea of a ‘Culture Industry’, first introduced by Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer, was popularised in the 1960s and 70s as a way of thinking about the rising industries of mass-produced culture, and its ability to create conformity.112 Guided by Government policy, the media have an increasingly dominant role in marketing militarism and war, as apparent through the ‘War on Terror’.113 Robin Beste at Stop the War Coalition claims that Rupert Murdoch’s media “supported all the US-UK wars over the past 30 years, from Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands war in 1982... [right] up to the present, with Barack Obama continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and now adding Libya to his tally of seven wars.”114 The British Legion also nurtures strong media partnerships, building support by populist appeals for ‘our boys’. We are now targeted across television during poppy appeals in a way unprecedented before 9/11. The X-Factor has become a particular vehicle for this with 2011’s bling-factor poppies; finalists covering first Mariah Cary’s ‘Hero’ in 2008, then a cover of David Bowie’s ‘Heroes’ in 2010, which sold 100,000 copies in three days.115 War charities’ abilities to fundraise rest on their promoting martial values and the concept that war, and ‘defence’ expenditure, are ‘necessary’. This media power is also used to target economic or political ‘problems’ at home, through a collaboration of different government agencies from MI5 to Downing Street’s Press Office.116 The modern era of this began with Margaret Thatcher, Bernard Ingham and the Miners’ Strike117, accelerated throughout ‘The Troubles’ in Northern Ireland,118 and continued to gather pace through Blair’s ‘spin Britain’.119 Now, a veteran and adaptive culture industry is increasingly seductive for those with million-pound PR budgets – a process facilitated by the revolving door between government, the PR industry and the media. It is playing an important role in presenting the Government’s latest ‘crisis’ to each level of the pyramid; facilitating the Government response to dissent by manufacturing an edifice of martial values out of our cultural fabric.

Returning to the case study of the London Olympics, we can see how efforts stretch beyond physical military presence, into representations of wider national culture that associate ‘Britishness’ with conservative values and militarism. There will, for example, be the usual Adidas-clad volunteers and staff. But this is no ordinary sportswear; the 76,000 organisers will be sporting military-style uniform. Adidas have based the Olympic uniform style upon the Beatles’ ‘Sgt. Pepper’ uniforms. This iconic image from popular culture, now detached from its original context, makes the authority of military-wear seem more palatable for the event. Uniforms had great significance in 60s counterculture; their popularity rooted in the shock value of a “parody of treasured cultural icons” or “conservative values”.120 Such items were not manufactured by Adidas, but genuine symbols of power, used in protest – Carnaby Street shop ‘I was Lord Kitchener’s Valet’ fed a growing demand for genuine military paraphernalia. The challenge to mainstream values inspired attempts to make military wear look ‘effeminate’ (as day-glo Beatles uniforms would have appeared).121 The Olympic uniforms, in contrast, disassociate the use of uniforms from counterculture. Indeed, 2012 Olympic chief executive Paul Deighton stated their intent was to be “traditional” and “non-divisive” – a ‘regal’ purple and Grenadier Guard “poppy red”.122 With nostalgia, the popularity remains, but meaning is reassigned to conservative social values in our collective memory.

More widely, the military/royal iconography of 60s counterculture, is being referenced throughout mainstream culture, but redefined in contemporary marketing. Memorabilia has swamped UK stores. A flurry of press attention celebrated Kate Middleton’s taste in choosing a vintage McQueen wedding dress. But there was no discussion about the way her and Will’s nuptials were marketed as a logical extension of the ‘Vintage’ movement in the UK. What has been interesting is that manufactured regalia is being aggressively associated with the past through its very design. The bunting that went on sale in Tesco Superstores ahead of the Royal wedding – ‘pre-crumpled’, faded and aged – should be making a reappearance for the Queen’s upcoming jubilee. Those seeking to capitalise on the Royal Wedding attempted to sidestep the outright jingoism and uncomfortable connotations that have commonly become associated with the Union Jack flag. Instead, we are to buy into an invented past of the cricket green and garden parties – the same implicit England, ironically, of unapologetic imperialism.123

The Vintage movement was borne out of ‘pop-up shops’; an effort of culture in resisting dominant retail monopolies, reacting against overconsumption and disposability through an ethic to reuse. But increasingly vintage is becoming another mass-produced commodity. The Royal Wedding and Olympics demonstrate how ‘Vintage’ has gone full circle, moving beyond simple appropriation to the promotion of conservatism. Overpriced vintage shops seized on the wedding with gusto, filling shelves with mis-matched tea sets and 3-tier china cake stands that granny would love. Vintage Shop ‘Beyond Retro’ staged a ‘Royal Wedding Party’ as a marketing scheme unquestioningly embracing images of ‘royalty’ within a readily accepted aesthetic of ‘retro’ products. Apparently, the event was “Right royal fun, whether you’re a monarchist or an anarchist”.124

Interestingly, the largest-selling item at ‘I was Lord Kitchener’s Valet’ was the WWII Lord Kitchener poster that read ‘Your Country Needs You’. These yesteryear public information posters were brought back into mass manufacture in recent years. But no longer do such items represent an attempt to “subvert conventional ideas”,125 as their former 60s counterculture appropriation did. Those reproducing 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.126 The recession hit in 2009, and their sales soared. The slogan even appeared on ‘environmentally friendly’ shopping bags – a must-have student shopping accessory. In a mood of ‘keep your chin up’ the ‘Nectar’ loyalty scheme even urged us to ‘Keep Calm and Carry One’.127 Psychologist Lesley Prince claimed that “people have been sold a lie since the 1970s. They were promised the earth and now they’re worried about everything [...] This is saying, [...] it’ll be all right”.128 In contrast to the sentimental British stereotype through which it’s seen now, Lewis points out that the ‘Keep Calm’ poster was never released during WWII, because one with a similar message caused quite a “fuss” of public opposition, it being seen 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 and sporting history”. 130 Technical staff uniforms, an even more formal ‘flannel, blazer and trilby’ affair, nods at the Henley Regatta. 131 According to organisers they represent “heritage with a modern twist”132 – but whose heritage exactly? The ‘British’ sporting heritage used in the design is the exclusive, conservative style of the Henley Regatta and Wimbledon. But then the tickets have mostly gone to bureaucrats, politicians and corporate sponsors. Maybe blazers with Big Ben buttons are a consolation to Londoners, who pay 38p a week more than the rest of us through their council tax for the Games despite unavailable tickets.133 It is no coincidence that organisers have chosen to celebrate ‘royal’ heritage, with its inferred deference. Immediately prior to the Olympics will be the pageantry of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee134, a fitting vehicle for engendering martial values and overlaying cohesion onto an uneasy population. Jubilee merchandise was available to buy in the stores months ago.135 Moreover, the Queen will be marketing herself in person – we are told a lead-up royal tour of Britain is planned; and more sprightly members of the family will be reminding the Commonwealth of her eternal reign.136 Indeed, we’ve already had Prince William’s heavily publicised military tour of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) in a run up to celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Falklands’ war, just having had ‘major celebrations’ to mark the 25th anniversary.137

By creating objects of nostalgia, such as uniforms for the Olympics, in our culture we commodify, glamorise and romanticise power. For immediate political reasons, conservative forces are adjusting our perspective on the past, sanitising our real-world associations through the manufacture of nostalgic folk memory. With careful attention to image, the Royal family has undergone a complete turnaround from the status of (according to The Guardian) a “repressed memory” at the end of the 1990s, to the reborn popular figureheads being celebrated in 2012.138 The Coalition’s history tsar Simon Schama claims the Royals can “be a cheer-up panacea for our tough times, an emblem of Britishness, optimism and the community coming together”.139 Or, as it’s otherwise been described, “an attempt to promote ‘dreamlike constructions’ of earlier ‘golden ages’ by recourse to an invented past of imperial greatness when ‘Britannia ruled the waves’ and the English were not ‘beaten at their own game’ of cricket” as “a way of managing ‘contemporary political, economic and social problems’”.140

Shaking the Foundations

Back in 2006 a Nordic festival of art and social criticism voiced a warning (now poignant, in the wake of Breivik’s Utoeya killings) that if we try to forget or romanticise our colonial past this “continues to reproduce itself as waves of intolerance, xenophobia, and nationalism”.141 Simon Jenkins has critically pointed to the huge representation of WWII imagery saturating British institutional culture, arguing that only “insecure nations” would need the psychological support of clinging to stories of themselves as victors.142 Britain’s island and colonial histories are of course more complex than this, but so much of the state that has been and remains violently exploitative is gradually being erased from representations of the institutions responsible. The racism of empire is rewritten and fed back to us in the more palatable forms of entrepreneurialism and ‘national security’. Paul Gilroy argues that, “without the removal of the cultural and psychological screens that block access to [the past], Europe has no chance”.143 Martial values are becoming the mortar of unthinking cohesion; infiltrating the meaning of the habitual and familiar, and prioritising superficial reactions over complex understandings in our culture.

Furthermore, they are used to justify authoritarian repression a full 18 years after Margaret Thatcher waved her fist at “the enemy without” (in the Falklands) and the “enemies within” (protesting miners and trades unions).144 We can see the Coalition government engaged in an internationally provocative talking-up of a militarisation of the Falklands, and Cameron readying to crush any opportunity for protest in a constitutionally unravelling Britain. The period of the Falklands War propelled the public image of Thatcher from “inexperienced young girl” to “formidable leader”. At a time of unrest, David Cameron similarly seeks to appear decisive, and bolster his own strength by reawakening populist images of colonial power – this, remember, when only in 2003 a million marched in London expressing opposition to the then-imminent war against Iraq. When Prince William took up an ‘entirely routine’ posting to the Falkland Islands the political build-up made for a strong statement.145 MP Penny Mordaunt told parliament she approved of William delivering the message of ownership and that “his destiny as the future king” to whom “the islanders will owe their allegiance should not go unnoticed in this jubilee year’”.146 As in Thatcher’s time, the Falklands episode for Cameron offers a media opportunity to distract attention from austerity and persistent unease in Britain; focussing martial values behind a distant ‘defence of British subjects’, so attacks 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 its permanency and its principal aggressor, yet seek justification with reference to WWII and a partial, heavily romanticised national narrative. They extend beyond foreign ‘interventions’ into civil society; commercial interventions, interventions in childhood, in academia, in culture, in debate and democratic process... The experience of young people in Britain today is of a country that’s been continuously at war, conduct which sets out to seize ‘information space’ too; they have witnessed an increase in oppressive domestic policing, and are now to be aggressively trained not to question authority. Evidently the youth of Britain must know their place, if they are to be the reproductive force of an authoritarian pyramid. It’s a pyramid that may be weighing greatly on our backs, but one suspects it will continue to be resisted, shaken from its foundations...


1 LeBaron, R. (1st April 2008) ‘William Hague Says “Near Death Experience” Has Improved Tory Chances’ Leaked Cable in Wikileaks, Available from:, Accessed on: 10th February 2011.

2 Ibid.

3 Lewis, P (5th February 2012) ‘Joblessness and “toxic relations” with police are blamed for Tottenham riot’ in The Guardian:

4 Taylor, M; Rogers, S & Lewis, P (18th August 2011) ‘England Rioters: young, poor and unemployed’ in The Guardian:

5 See: Domokos, J (1st April 2011) ‘Claimants “tricked” out of benefits, says Jobcentre whistleblower – video’ in The Guardian:

6 See:

7 Although we might be careful about using the word ‘Thatcherism’ since it runs the danger of personalising a set of global material dynamics.

8 Wintour, Patrick and Mulholland, Hélène (23 March 2012) ‘Boris Johnson says poor schools helped cause riots’ in The Guardian:

9 Sparrow, Andrew (7 August 2011) ‘Politicians condemn Tottenham riots’ in The Guardian: De Castella, T (16th August 2011) ‘England Riots: What’s the Evidence Gangs were behind the Riots?’ in BBC Magazine:

10 Vasagar, J (1st September 2011) ‘Michael Gove slackens rules on use of physical force in schools’ in The Guardian:

11 Zizek, Slavoj ‘Against the Populist Temptation’ in Lacan dot com:

12 D’Arcy, M (10th August 2011) ‘Riot Criminals Should Lose Benefits Say Thousands’ in Public Service:

13 Kelly, Tom (16th November 2011) David Starkey – ‘Britain is a white mono-culture and schools should focus on our own history’ in The Daily Mail:

14 Rahim, Sameer (20th November 2010) ‘Simon Schama Interview’ in The Telegraph:

15 Kelly, Tom (16th November 2011) ‘David Starkey – Britain is a white mono-culture and schools should focus on our own history’ in The Daily Mail:


17 ‘Network of military schools could help to tackle educational failure in deprived areas’ - New ResPublica Green Paper, ‘Military Academies: Tackling disadvantage, improving ethos and changing outcome’:

18 See:

19 Smith, L (8th February 2012) ‘UK Government Supports Plans for Military Schools’ in World Socialist Website:

20 Particularly investor Carlyle Group, who have substantial links to government in the US and the UK.

21 See ‘Geeks with Guns’, Corporate Watch:

22 The Telegraph (2nd September 2011) ‘New Free School to be run by Ex-Soldiers’ in The Telegraph:

23 Smith, L (8th February 2012) ‘UK Government Supports Plans for Military Schools’ in World Socialist Website:

24 Davies, Nick (8th December 2004) ‘Special Investigation: Wasted Lives of the Young let down by Jail System; Concluding his investigation into mentally disordered prisoners; Nick Davies looks at the number of children in prisons which cannot deal with their mental health problems’ in The Guardian, p12. & Solomon, E & Garside, R (2008) ‘Ten Years of Labour’s Youth Justice Reforms: an independent audit’ in Centre for Crime and Justice:

25 Johnston, P (27th March 2007) ‘New Child Checks to Identify Future Criminals’ in The Telegraph:

26 ‘Juveniles’ DNA Recording Defended’ in BBC News: & Penna, S & Kirby,S (2009) ‘Children and the “new biopolitics of control”: identification, identity and social order’ in Youth Justice. An International Journal, 2009, vol 9 (2).

27 Wardrop, M (4th June 2009) ‘Police Arrest Innocent Youths for their DNA Officer Claims’ in The Telegraph:

28 The Telegraph (2nd September 2011) ‘New Free School to be run by Ex-Soldiers’ in The Telegraph:

29 ResPublica (2012) Military Academies:

30 Smith, L (8th February 2012) ‘UK Government Supports Plans for Military Schools’ in World Socialist Website:

31 Vasagar, J (1st September 2011) ‘Michael Gove slackens rules on use of physical force in schools’ in The Guardian:

32 Ibid.

33 Treadwell, James (Part of Howard League for Penal Reform ‘Inquiry into 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’ in Sunday Herald: p6.

36 Giroux, H, A (20th November 2008) ‘Against the Militarised Academy’ in Truthout:

37 Captain Affan Burki quoted in The Telegraph (2nd September 2011) ‘New Free School to be run by Ex-Soldiers’ in The 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 prosecution case is that each defendant did take part by encouraging others with his or her presence”. Malik, Shiv (17th November 2011) ‘Fortnum & Mason protesters convicted of aggravated trespass’ in The 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 after being “Hit by Police Baton”’ in The Guardian:

42 Gove, M in Vasagar, J (1st September 2011) ‘Michael Gove slackens rules on use of physical force in schools’ in The Guardian:

43 Travis, A (12th January 2010) ‘Stop and Search Powers Illegal European Court Rules’ in The Guardian:

44 Morris, Nigel. ‘Blair’s “frenzied law making”: a new offence for every day spent in office’, The Independent, 16 August 2006:

45 Cheesman, Chris (15th April 2010) ‘Conservatives tell photographers: We will end stop and search “abuse” (update)’, Amateur Photographer:

46 “…Aiming to control the crowd, kettling also attempts to incite the crowd. By creating difficult and unpleasant conditions (sub-zero or warm temperatures without food, water, toilets, or freedom of movement) and by preventing people from leaving the demonstration, the police aims to provoke the crowd into action. What appears to be targeted is the possibility of a violent act to the police. The logic which underwrites this is rather simple: by provoking the crowd, violence is inflamed by kettling itself. The exercise of kettling is therefore incitatory in that it creates the threat in order to deal with the threat. In colonizing the imaginary of the protester, kettling strives to make this imaginary real. Thus the crowd is addressed affectively as it is rendered controllable and manageable for the stable unity of the order. What is at work here is a mutation of control/neoliberal governance as a referent object: the affective subject of ‘action’ is rendered governable and manageable.” Taskale, Ali Riza (23rd March 2012) ‘Kettling and the Fear of Revolution’ in Critical Legal Thinking:

47 Allen, A (11th August 2011) ‘We will use water cannons on them: At last Cameron orders police to come down hard on the looters (some aged as young as NINE)’ The Daily Mail:

48 Gallagher, I & Arbuthnot, G (27th March 2011) “200 arrested as hardcore anarchists fight police long into night in Battle of Trafalgar Square after 500,000 march against the cut” in The Daily Mail:

49 Greenwood, C (18th November 2011) ‘Outcry as judge praises protesters who invaded Fortums’ in The Daily Mail:

50 Malik, S (18th July 2011) ‘Fortnum & Mason protest: CPS drops charges against 109 UK Uncut activists’ in The Guardian:

51 Allen, A (11th August 2011) ‘We will use water cannons on them: At last Cameron orders police to come down hard on the looters (some aged as young as NINE)’ in The Daily Mail:

52 Dodd, V & Wintour, P (12th August 2011) ‘Cameron faces obstacles in bringing in US police chief to head Met’ in The Guardian:

53 Daily Mail (24th July 2011) ‘Army Colonels who have served in Afghanistan should be parachuted in to run police’ in The Daily Mail:

54 Asthana, A, Townsend, M &Helm, T (13th November 2012) ‘NUS starts campaign to oust leading Lib Dems’ in The Observer:

55 Philip Davies quoted in Walters, S & Owen, G (26th February 2012) ‘Tories order police to halt workfare demos as MP makes formal protest to BBC over bias in favour of hard-Left militants’ in The Daily Mail:

56 Gibson, Owen (15th December 2011) ‘London Olympics security to be boosted by 13,500 troops ‘ in The Guardian:

57 Gibson, Owen (15th December 2011) ‘London Olympics security to be boosted by 13,500 troops ‘ in The Guardian:

58 MoD ‘Defence Secretary Observes Olympic Air Exercise’ in Defence IQ: & Sky News, (15th November 2011) ‘Surface-to-air missiles for Olympic Games’:

59 Eccles, Louise (10th November 2011) ‘Are Olympics chiefs ashamed of our proud military history? Just days before Remembrance Sunday, HMS Belfast is airbrushed from poster’ The Daily Mail:

60 Shortcuts Blog (23rd November 2011) ‘The 2012 Olympics uniform deconstructed; Thumbs up for the Beefeater red cuffs – but golfer beige trousers?’ in The Guardian:

61 Thomas-Peter, Hannah (15th November 2011) ‘US working closely on Olympic Security’ in Sky News:

62 Thomas-Peter, Hannah (15th November 2011) ‘US working closely on Olympic Security’ in Sky News:

63 Giroux, H, A (20th November 2008) ‘Against the Militarised Academy’ in Truthout:

64 Connor, Steve (7th February 2012) ‘Government “may sanction nerve-agent use on rioters”, scientists fear’ in The Independent:

65 Strauss, J & Aris, B (28th October 2002) ‘Rage at Secrecy as Gas Kills 115 Hostages’ The Telegraph:

66 Connor, Steve (7th February 2012) ‘Government “may sanction nerve-agent use on rioters”, scientists fear’ in The Independent:

67 Wong, G (23rd January 2011) ‘Haimen, China, Protests: Nerve Gas Fired at Protesters’ in Huffington Post:

68 ‘Postcard From The Precipice - An Appeal For Support’, Media Lens, 29 March 2012:

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 Foreign Policy’ in The Guardian:, Accessed on: 12th February 2011.

71 Bowcott, O (13th July 2011) ‘Secret Files that Revealed the Government’s role in Torture’ in The Guardian:

72 Cassidy, Robert M. (2004) Peacekeeping in the Abyss: British and American Peacekeeping Doctrine 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 access claims’ in BBC News:

75 Edwards, R (28th May 2011) ‘Anger as US Arms Dealer Takes Over Running of Scottish Nuclear Bomb Base’ in The Herald:

76 Newsroom (29th May 2011) ‘UK Government intend to privatise handling of nuclear weapons at Coulport: Michael Russell MSP says No’ in Argyle News:

77 Stanton, J (9th March 2012) ‘Banking on the Bomb’ in Counterpunch: & Also See:

78 International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, ‘Don’t Bank on the Bomb’:

79 Quoted in: Giroux, H, A (20th November 2008) ‘Against the Militarised Academy’ in Truthout:

80 Travis, Alan & Jowitt, Juliet (4th March 2012) ‘Police Privatisation Plans Defended by Senior Officers’ in The Guardian:

81 Travis, Alan & Jowitt, Juliet (4th March 2012) ‘Police Privatisation Plans Defended by Senior Officers’ in The Guardian:

82 Travis, Alan & Jowitt, Juliet (4th March 2012) ‘Police Privatisation Plans Defended by Senior Officers’ in The Guardian:

83 Asthana, A, Townsend, M &Helm, T (13th November 2012) ‘NUS starts campaign to oust leading Lib Dems’ in The Observer: 

84 Hancox, D (7th December 2011) ‘Kettling 2.0: The Olympic State of Exception and TSG Action Figures’ in Games Monitor: 

85 Zellen, B (15th February 2009) ‘Securing the Olympics: Lessons of Beijing: China’s huge investment in time, resources and manpower pays off’ in Security Innovator: 

86 Bristow, M (12th March 2008) ‘China’s Olympic Security Dilemma’ in BBC News:

87 May, Theresa (21st November 2011) Olympic Security Conference Speech: Prisk, (1st February 2012) Hansard:

88 BBC News ‘London 2012 Olympic Budget Doubled’ :

89 Bose, M (19th February 2010) ‘Why Perrier will be off limits in the 2012 Olympics’ in This is London:

90 BBC News ‘London 2012 Olympic Budget Doubled’ :

91 Brady, B (20th November 2011) ‘Demonstrations to be banned during Olympics’ in The Independent:

92 Brady, B (20th November 2011) ‘Demonstrations to be banned during Olympics’ in The Independent:

93 Sky News (22nd November 2011) ‘Cost of Protecting Olympic Venues Revealed’:

94 BBC News ‘London 2012 Olympic Budget Doubled’ :

95 Blowe, K (14th November 2010) ‘NETCU uses friendly journalists to send 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 the Mainstream Media: the expert nexus and its dominance in the news media’ in Critical Studies on Terrorism, Vol 2, No 3: pp414-437.

98 CSTRV have links to RAND Corporation in the US, a hugely influential think-tank with strong ties to both Government and the defense industry.

99 Miller, D & Mills, T (2009) ‘The Terror Experts and the Mainstream Media: the expert nexus and its dominance in the news media’ 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 and influence’ in The Shrivenham Papers, No 9.

101 For more on this see: Briant, Emma (Manuscript for Forthcoming Publication) 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’s Centre for Foreign Policy Studies’ in Halifax Media Co-op:, Accessed on 25th February 2010.

103 Bernays, Edward (2004) Propaganda, Brooklin: Ig Publishing.

104 McFate, Montgomery (March/April 2005) ‘Anthropology and Counterinsurgency: The Strange Story of their Curious Relationship’ in Military Review, pp24-38.

105 Network of Concerned Anthropologists:

106 Marrades, Addaia (2006-7) ‘Anthropology and the “War on Terror”: Analysis of a Complex Relationship’ in University of Sussex Theses:

107 Ibid.

108 Mackay, A & Tatham, S (December 2009) ‘Behavioural Conflict – From Generic to Strategic Corporal: complexity, adaptation and influence’ in The Shrivenham Papers, No 9.

109 ‘Timeline of the British Army’ in Wikipedia:

110 See, The Royal British Legion (4th November 2009) ‘School children send postcards to the Armed Forces community’:

111 Ibid.

112 Adorno, T. W., with Horkheimer, Max. - Trans. Jephcott, E (2002) Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

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!’ in Stop the War Coalition:

115 Duncan, A (24th November 2010) ‘X-Factor Charity Single Set for Number 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 of Information Exposes Margaret Thatcher’s Secrets’ in Spinwatch:

118 Miller, D (1994) Don’t Mention The War, London: Pluto Press.

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) ‘London Olympics security to be boosted by 13,500 troops ‘ in The Guardian:

123 “In his [then heavily satirised, eve of St. George’s Day] address to the nation [reported in The Guardian 23rd April 1993], John Major deliberately used cricket to ‘invoke a mythical, nostalgic and implicitly white notion of England’, an essentially rural country full of ‘invincible green suburbs’, with Englishmen drinking warm beer to the distant sounds of cricket being played on the village green (Carrington 1998: 102). Carrington (ibid.: 102) argues that the imagery within Major’s speech represented an attempt to promote ‘dreamlike constructions’ of earlier ‘golden ages’ as a way of managing ‘contemporary political, economic and social problems’ by recourse to an invented past of imperial greatness when ‘Britannia ruled 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: Following On, 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’ in New York Times:

127 Sweney, M (22nd June 2010) ‘Nectar ad plays on wartime poster for new era of post-budget austerity’ in The Guardian:

128 Quoted in Henley, J (18th March 2009) ‘What Crisis?’ in The Guardian:

129 Walker, R (1st July 2009) ‘Remixed Messages’ in New York Times:

130 Beard, M (22nd November 2011) ‘A touch of the guardsman’s tunic to make 2012 volunteers stand out’ in Evening Standard:

131 Sportsbeat (22nd November 2011) ‘LONDON 2012: Military feel for Olympic volunteer and officials uniform’:

132 Paul Deighton in Gibson, Owen (15th December 2011) ‘London Olympics security to be boosted by 13,500 troops ‘ in The Guardian:

133 Waugh, P (13th May 2010) ‘Cost of the 2012 Olympics could soar’ in This is London:

134 See:

135 See: &

136 Bates, S (26th December 2011) ‘How the Royal Wedding Boosted the Monarchy’ in The Guardian:

137 Press Association (26th June 2006) ‘Major celebration’ to mark Falklands war anniversary’ in The Guardian:

138 Bates, S (26th December 2011) ‘How the Royal Wedding Boosted the Monarchy’ in The Guardian:

139 Rahim, Sameer (20th November 2010) ‘Simon Schama Interview’ in The Telegraph:

140 Wagg, Stephen (ed.) Cricket and national identity in the postcolonial age: Following on, quoting Carrington, B. (1998) ‘“Football’s coming home” but whose home? And do we want it? Nation, football, and the politics of exclusion’ (in A. Brown (ed.) Fanatics: Power, Identity and Fandom in Football. London: Routledge)

141 Rethinking Nordic Colonialism:

142 Jenkins, S (22nd September 2012) ‘Britain’s Nazi Obsession Betrays our Insecurity – It’s Time We Moved On’ in The Guardian:

143 Gilroy, P ‘Colonial Crimes and Convivial Cultures’, in Rethinking Nordic Colonialism:

144 Thatcher, M in Wilenius, P (5th March 2004) ‘Enemies within: Thatcher and the Unions’ in BBC News:

145 BBC News (5th February 2012) ‘Prince William Falklands Duty Entirely Routine – Hague’:

146 Portsmouth News (31st January 2012) ‘Britain is Right to Send William to the Falklands This Year’ in Portsmouth News: