Above, launchers supplied to Ukraine by Denmark in June 2022, with missiles provided by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in response to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The US announced the supply of two of these systems in the same month.


Below, list of military equipment available to the Armed Forces of Ukraine:




The academics who signed the document against the 'Defence and Security Equipment' event, described as the 'Arms Fair,' have shown shocking ignorance.  Liberal democracies which make no provision for defence and security will be defeated by totalitarian or semi-totalitarian regimes which will pay absolutely no attention to the naive and superficial views of the signatories. The Defence and Security Equipment event was making available advanced weapons which reduce the chance of killing or injuring unintended targets.


Precision strikes conducted by Ukrainian forces using high-tech weapons supplied by democracies are undermining Russia's ability to fight and Moscow is turning to outdated arms as its stocks of more modern armaments become exhausted. The inspiring resistance of Ukraine to unprovoked aggression - only effective because it makes use of advanced armaments, not the ridiculous rhetoric of the signers, is one of a very large number of other counter-examples which comprehensively demolish the false claims of the signers. I provide other examples on this page.



Any pretence that the signers had the advantage of expert knowledge is undermined by the evidence of the profiles here - I intend to add more - as well as other evidence. The signers acted as ideologists, not fair-minded academics. They have surely damaged their own reputations and potentially the reputations of the University departments where they work -  the ones who do work in University departments. The document supplied with the list of signatories made claims that were obviously false as regards their backgrounds.


I also provide some context, and some relevant, miscellaneous matters, with a few surprising inclusions. I include criticism of 'anti-woke' people and organizations. I see no reason why they should be immune from criticism There aren't nearly as many  linkages between 'woke' and 'anti-woke' as contrasts, but the linkages exist and haven't been sufficiently recognized.  The entries here - very few as yet -  already vary widely in tone. I intend to add much more material in this category, of course. This is the newest page on the site. For the time being, the material is restricted in scope.

List of sections (to be extended) with links

Quack doctors with PhD's


Wittgenstein, 'Philosophical Investigations:' the unbalanced diet of the signers


Israel and armaments


'Anti-woke' people and organizations


The terrorist group Al-shabaab and armed anti-terrorist action

Professor Matthew Flinders, Sheffield University Department of Politics and International Relations


Quack doctors with PhD's


 Quack: a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess; a charlatan ...'


The medical quack



Above, William Hogarth, 'The Visit to the Quack'



Above, Jan Steen, The Quack'


Quacks in University departments of politics, international relations, etc


Learn how to STOP ALL WARS. How? It's easy - with our MINUMUM WORK METHOD of guaranteeing PEACE IN OUR TIME - in fact, even sooner!  How it works, in detail: (1) deprive people of ACCESS TO ARMAMENTS  (2) reduce / eliminate gender disparities and other inequalities. (3) Essential: the proper language. We can't use ordinary language to put an end to war, obviously. We have to use the proper words, such as 'heuristic' or 'operationalize.' Don't worry! Having some idea of what a word means is enough. You'll learn the proper words and how to fit them together (Listen to the people who teach you and imitate them. Learn to speak like them, write like them and think like them - that's the best way of learning). We guarantee no hard work needed at all!


Learn all the other stuff you need in the comfort of our tutorial rooms, seminar rooms, lecture theatres and libraries!!!  All our teaching is FUN teaching! We believe in putting the FUN back into War Studies! Not all our SUPERPROFS teach our FUN-IN-WAR courses, but whatever field they're experts in, they all know how to stop all wars.


Apply NOW for a place on one of our prestigious courses at Centres of Fun and Excellence throughout the country! Our universities need you!


BONUS! Get the chance to become a  PROFESSOR yourself one day at one of our prestige Universities (they're ALL prestige places, places where THINGS HAPPEN.) Perhaps much sooner than you think. You can be a Prof in your twenties and enjoy long, long holidays and most important of all, earn £££ (or $$$ or €€). You'll be earning just as much as people who've had a hard time, slogging their way to a Professorship by learning Quantum Theory, Thermodynamics, Organic Chemistry or Linear Algebra.


How do you become a Prof?  It can be as easy as 1-2-3 -


(1) BA
(2) MA
(3) PhD


with a few years after that sending articles for publication to what we call 'journals' (we'll give you all the information you'll need -  journals to choose, journals to avoid, the easy journals and the journals that are too much like hard work!) The key to success here is to use the right language for your article.  You need to use a form of language that SENDS THE RIGHT SIGNALS. Standard English doesn't send the right signals, usually. We'll teach you all you need to know. Again, imitate us, follow us, learn to speak like us, write like us and think like us and you won't go far wrong!!!


How not to get ahead: Write a book on war with a title like 'On War' (title of an old-fashioned book by a man called 'Carl von Clausewitz') and send it to a non-progressive publisher.


The right way to get ahead: Write a piece with a title like this: 'An illocutionary text: ethnographic approaches to theorizing Deleuze's problematized heuristic on socialized interaction and its praxis appled to inter-generational and trans-generational conflict situations.' (Not an actual title, although it's hard to be sure about that. Be sure to carry out an Internet search to make certain that your title hasn't already been used.) Send it to a cutting-edge journal that ONLY  publishes PROGRESSIVE pieces or you're wasting your time!


An exercise for those intending to submit to a (progressive) journal for the first time. Can you identify the deliberate mistakes in this very short, hypothetical title which I've just written - it took me very little time? If you can't find them you're risking rejection by the journal!


'The geocentrics of testimony: the dilemma of ends and means.'

The mistakes, very bad mistakes:


(1) the etymology of 'testimony' is gendered, sexist, phallogocentric.  'testimony' is from Latin 'testimonium,' from testis, meaning witness. The plural of 'testis' is 'testes,' that is, male reproductive organs. Either avoid all use of the word 'testimony' or make sure the word is preceded by 'gendered,' 'phallocentric' or 'phallagocentric.'


As is common knowledge, 'phallagocentric' is a neologism coined by Jacques Derrida  and used by Hélène Cixous and post structural feminists. Whatever your journal submission may be about, you should insert references to post structural feminists or similar thinkers. In the same way, whatever may be the issue which has prompted the action of an activist - defence, terrorism, gun crime, vaccination, allotments, cruelty to animals, drought and water shortage, for instance, - the activist should always - and I mean always - insert a reference to the 'gender pay gap' or a similar issue. In fact, the activist could consider the advisability of starting a campaign at all on any of these issues and concentrating all of his or her time and energy on the gender paygap and similar issues. The gender pay gap is certainly one of the central issues of our time and supremely important.

(2) 'Dilemma' is an ordinary word, common in written texts. It refers to two alternatives. Better by far to use 'trilemma,' which is much more impressive and which refers to three alternatives. But there are only two in the hypothetical title - you can easily think of a third. If you can't, I give you help later.

(3) Similarly, 'ends' and 'means' belong to ordinary language, not the language of the journals whose published authors you are hoping to join. Remember, without publication in one of these journals you are nothing! The solution is easy to find. Change 'ends and means' to endings and meanings.' These are still ordinary words, but are unexpected. They have more of that all-important making-an-impression factor.


'Meanings' doesn't have the same meaning as 'means' at all, but that's no reason to be concerned. The title is now taking the reader into the realm of semiotics, the relationship between spoken or written signs and their referents in the physical world or the world of concepts. (Better not to dwell upon the physical world - you should be theorizing, not giving thought to that mundane world of obstacles and technology.)


You'll recall that a third alternative is needed. Provided it looks good and will impress the journal, there's no need to worry too much about whether the word is suitable, just make absolutely sure that you choose a word which isn't plain and ordinary in the least.


The word I've chosen, for no particular reason but the reason I've just given, is 'prolepsis,' the rhetorical device by which objections are anticipated and answered in advance.' This is with the strong warning that submissions to progressive journals should pay no attention whatsoever to possible objections, just as the journals themselves pay absolutely no attention whatsoever to possible objections. Here, our interest is in the sound of the word, not its meaning.


It's easy to deflect attention from the meaning of the word by changing the noun 'prolepsis' to the adjective 'proleptic' and by adding the word 'imaginings,' which has the advantage of having a third term which has the same ending as the first and second terms. It can suggest that if objections are made, they belong purely to an imaginary world and can be discounted.


As for 'geocentrics,' no objection can be taken to this word at all. 


So, our hypothetical title, transformed by these critical comments, now becomes this, a vast improvement on the original:


'The geocentrics of phallagocentric testimony: the trilemma of endings, meanings and proleptic imaginings.'


What is the purpose of a submission to a progressive journal? Is it for altruistic reasons, to achieve political or other change? Hardly. The submission will be read by someone at the journal, some of it, anyway, perhaps by more than one person. If accepted, the piece will be read by very, very few people. Is it for altruistic reasons of a different kind, to aid understanding of an issue, to bring clarity, to give possible explanations? Hardly. Altruism isn't the main motive of the publishers or the readers in this field, surely.


The main reasons for submission are far mare likely to be these: (1)  To demonstrate that the writer is progressive, an all round wonderful person. In particular, to consolidate the writer's reputation in this small community. (2) To get one step higher on the career ladder, for promotion, more money and possible fame, fame as perceived by this community of like-minded academics.


I want to offer encouragement, not to deepen despondency. Provided a person follows the unwritten rules and shows absolutely no spirit of independence, provided a person writes for conformists rather than for readers with independent minds, then the difficulties are few - after all, these are journals prepared to publish anything, bad as well as indifferent, provided, again, that the unwritten rules of the game are followed. And it is a game rather than an activity  to be taken seriously, or 'seriously' in the wrong sense, not the right sense.


It may be helpful to have a visual image of an author of a submission which has made it, which has received the accolade of publication. I sometimes think of the writer not as a person but as a poor firefly, a firefly in a bad way or even dead - a low wattage or no wattage illuminator, casting next to no light on things or, more likely, no light at all. That firefly is the person you're competing against for space in that insignificant journal.


If you like the idea of writing pieces with a bit of bite, you could imagine yourself as a midge, biting people who don't have your advanced ideas and your insights into stuff.


Here, the advice ends. I'll make this comment:


I think of these people  in these terms - not as people who contribute nothing to the problems the world faces and the problems of the intellect and emotions but as actively harmful, disastrously misguided, their harm only lessened by the fact that these people are outnumbered - but not in all societies - by people who have far more sense.


Israel and armaments


There's more on Israel and its opponents in the profile on this page of one particular determined, ineffectual opponent, Mona Baker.




Above, from a pro-Palestinian event in New York


The Open Letter was general, not in the least specific. Israel wasn't mentioned as a manufacture, buyer, seller or user of armaments. It wasn't mentioned at all. The Open Letter was about an Arms Fair but it was clear that there was general opposition to the manufacture, buying, selling or use of armaments, by any country.


If the academics (and others) who protested against the Arms Fair in person had brought a wide range of placards or banners, each one naming (and, they would have us believe) shaming a particular country, one or more would certainly have been directed at Israel. The Arms Fair wasn't an isolated event but one in a series. There will be future Arms Fair and almost certainly protest against them. If the conflict in Ukraine is still raging at the time of the next arms fair, nobody, I think, would dare to bring a placard or banner with this slogan:




But objecting to the supply of weapons to Ukraine so that Ukraine could defend itself against unprovoked Russian aggression would be completely in accordance with the views o the signers. They were disastrously misguided in signing up to this futile, farcical but very disturbing Open Letter.


A suggestion for a realistic placard, a lengthy message::




A suggestion for sloganizing on two hypothetical placards, unrealistic, deluded (and quite long):






Academics (and non-academics) who share the views of the signers quite often mention 'resistance.' They seem to think that the only possible response to their views (if a person shares their 'enlightened' view of things) is to accept their views. I think very differently. On this page, and in other places on the site, I show some resistance.


I'd add this, a question for the academics (and non-academics) who signed. Palestinians make use of armaments. From time to time, they fire rockets at Israel, and it gets them nowhere. Do you include Palestinians in your attempted prohibition of armaments?


Anyone who thinks that Israel can defend itself without armaments is deluded. Gay Pride events in Israel can only continue because Israel has the weapons to defend itself and is willing to use them if necessary.




















See also

Universities excellence mediocrity stupidity


Academics against the Arms Fair: an Open Letter

In this column, introductory material on the Open Letter. In the column to the right, profiles of some of the academics who signed the letter, an extract from the site 'The disorder of things' and a full list of the signatories.


The signatories to the profoundly disturbing - more exactly, shallowly disturbing 'Academics Against the Arms Fair: An Open Letter,' published September 18, 2017, that is, well before the Russian aggression against Ukraine,  these Sheffield University academics. By signing this naive letter, these academics haven't enhanced the reputation of Sheffield University in the least, as a place where there's some appreciation at least of realities to do with defence.


The academics:


Adam Ferhani

Jonna Nyman

Owen Parker


Melanie Richter-Montpetit (a member of Sheffield University at the time of signing, now at Sussex University.)

Jonathan Silver

Liam Stanley


Joanna Tidy

The list of signatories is preceded by a fatuous and misleading introduction. Amongst its distortions, the claim that 


'As academics working on topics related to war, conflict, security, human rights, and international relations, we are opposed to the presence of this arms fair in London ... '


This is an inflated claim. I haven't checked all the signatories, of course, but already, I've found many signatories who are academics but not in the least working on topics relating to these issues. To give just one example, Dr Sita Balani, Lecturer in Contemporary Literature and Culture at King's College, London. I


I've found many signatories who aren't academics at all,  including a number of signers described as 'independent,' Dr Al Williams of 'Rewilding Wales,' Hazel Perry of the 'Anarchist Studies Network,' Neil Stamper of Wordpower, Colin Millen of the 'Campaign for Unity in Practice and Self-Governance'  and Sanaz Raji of an outfit called 'Unis Resist Border Controls.' I look forward to reading the organization's arguments and evidence for doing without border controls. I haven't made the attempt so far. I haven't found out more about the 'Independents.' The may be Independents, but are the conformist or non-conformist Independents?


It can't possibly be assumed that academics who do work on 'topics related to war, conflict, security, human rights, and international relations'  are reliable in their pronouncements on armaments and war in general, that they are incapable of overlooking fundamentals or the most elementary objections to their views, or that their views are based on wide-ranging argument and evidence. Again and again, I've found that they give their attention to matters which are far removed from central issues to do with war studies as usually understood. A reading of the profile of Signatory Dr Lola Frost on the King's College site is recommended:




In the section 'Art Practice and Research Interests we find this:


Lola Frost’s painting practice lays claim to an anti-identarian ethos that contests the demands and values of the phallogocentric order. For more information please visit www.lolafrost.net


and this, 'Working with Dr Aggie Hirst KCL and with Prof Fiona Jenkins ANU on the role of practices of recognition within aesthetic sociality.


Lola Frost could consider this consideration: that victory in the Second World War, the liberation of the occupied countries of Europe and other countries, the liberation of the prisoners at Nazi concentration camps, the ending of the Nazi genocide, owed nothing to considerations to do with contesting the demands and values of the phallogocentric order or work on the role and practices of recognition within aesthetic sociality, that Ukraine will not drive the Russians from their country by paying any attention to this playing with language, that no conflict at all - I concentrate all my attention here on conflicts where the better cause can be distinguished from the worse cause, the far worse cause - could possibly be won by using the 'research' of people who are poor theoreticians, people with apparently no appreciation of realities.


Immersion in this pretentious world ('My painting practice, I understand, contests such phallocentric regulation by mobilising a transformative, subversive and affectively saturated aesthetic process ... ') Anyone who disagrees is welcome to offer their own appreciative analysis but her writing and the images I've seen give no support to the view  that Lola Frost has an appreciation of the tools and technology and the organized use of power to win a war against an aggressor. The Ukrainians would surely treat here views as a complete irrelevance. That's my opinion of her views too, but again, I intend to offer a more thorough set of comments eventually. Commenting in detail can't possibly be a priority of mine.


The mention of 'institution' prompts this thought: so many academics, but mainly in certain subject areas, seem 'institutionalized.'


The letter was published on September 18, 2017, and so, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has led for many requests from Ukraine for provision of weaponry to defend itself against the unprovoked attack. These requests are surely fully justifiable.


The introduction to the Open Letter includes these claims:


'Last week, about 1500 weapons manufacturers and representatives of more than 100 states descended on London for Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) – the world’s largest arms fair. The companies have exhibited products ranging from crowd control equipment and ammunition to fighter jets and military vehicles, which they displayed to militaries, police forces and border agencies from around the world. DSEI is a major event for the international arms trade, and the deals done there play a major role in reinforcing Western militarism, fuelling conflict, repressing dissent and strengthening authoritarian regimes.'


To suppose that weapons are always used 'in reinforcing Western militarism, fuelling conflict, repressing dissent and strengthening authoritarian regimes' is a shockingly naive generalisation.


The resistance of Ukraine to Russian aggression shines a very harsh light on the deluded fallacies of the open letter. Deterring aggression and opposing aggression and reducing and ending the human costs of aggression are impossible without armaments. Amongst the innumerable instances of the human costs of the unprovoked Russian invasion is this well-known example, from the site



A pregnant woman pictured being carried from a Ukrainian maternity hospital after it was badly shelled by Russian forces has died along with her unborn baby, Ukraine's Foreign Affairs Ministry said Monday.


The woman, who hasn’t been named publicly, was photographed Wednesday on a stretcher as she was being taken to an ambulance in the devastation and ruin of the besieged city of Mariupol.


Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called the attack “an atrocity” ...  It is unclear whether the unnamed woman was one of them ...

Dr. Timur Marin, the surgeon who tried to save the woman’s life ... said her pelvis had been crushed and a hip had been detached. The baby was delivered by cesarean section but showed “no signs of life,” he said.

“More than 30 minutes of resuscitation of the mother didn’t produce results,” Marin said told the AP. “Both died.”


Deliveries of weapons to Ukraine markedly increased after NATO member states announced they would send weapons such as these to Ukraine in early July: HIMARS multiple rocket launchers, M777 howitzers, PzH 2000 howitzers, Zuzana and Krab self-propelled artillery, and Harpoon anti-ship missiles.


From the site


https://ecfr.eu/article/immediate-impact-how-western-heavy-weapons-are-already-helping-ukraine-halt-russia/  (5 July, 2022)


'It appears, the new supplies are starting to swing the balance of military power in Ukraine’s favour.'


In fact, the effect was almost immediate: following receipt, the Ukrainian military soon began to hit military targets located at a fairly significant distance. It had rarely managed to do this prior to the arrival of the modern heavy Western weapons. Until recently, most Ukrainian artillery could strike at a distance only of up to 30-40 km. The longest-range weapon – the Tochka-U missile complex – had a range of up to 120 km. However, Ukraine had only up to two dozen Tochka-U complexes in service.


But in the last week alone, in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions Ukraine’s armed forces destroyed two Russian army ammunition depots in occupied Zymohirya, Perevalsk, Snizhne, Popasna, and Donetsk. These cities are approximately 50 km from the front line and sources suggest they were destroyed using HIMARS. Moreover, according to military observers, Ukraine used HIMARS against the Russian air base in the occupied city of Melitopol in the Zaporizhzhia region. The United States’ provision of just four units of this equipment has therefore already enabled the destruction of a substantial part of Russian army logistics in its rear.'


At the time that this open letter was published, there were countless uses of armaments which demonstrated that weapons are not just important in defeating a barbaric enemy and restoring peace but essential, fundamental. The use of weapons by the allies to defeat the Nazis should be obvious - but perhaps not obvious to the signatories, or most of them.


Before commenting on the vastly more precise equipment and techniques available now and their uses to deter and prevent terrorist action, I'll mention some uses of Mosquito bombers to release prisoners held by the Nazis. When these operations took place, bombing was vastly more precise than at the beginning of the war. The developments in technology enabled Nazi targets to be hit with far less risk of hitting people and places which were not targetted, but in war, risk of varying degrees is almost always inevitable. The academic (and other) signers may not to be able to grasp the fact that war zones are very different places from the settings for academic (or pseudo academic) activities.


In the Aarhus Air Raid of 31 October 1944,  after meticulous planning, 25 Mosquito aircraft bombed the Gestapo headquarters at the University of Aarhus, Denmark. The RAF described the mission as the most successful of its kind during the war.


There were civilian casualties but they were far exceeded by Nazi casualties. The Danish underground press estimated that 150 - 200 Gestapo members were killed in the attack. Most of the Gestapo archival material, including many files on the Danish resistance, were destroyed. The loss Gestapo members and Gestapo files had a severe, and very welcome, impact on Gestapo activity in Denmark.


A later raid, on 21 March 1945, on the Copenhagen Gestapo, was far less successful. The raid was requested by members of the Danish resistance to free imprisoned members and to destroy the records of the Gestapo, to disrupt their operations. The RAF at first turned down the request as too dangerous, due to the location of the target, the Shelhus, the Gestapo headquarters, in a crowded city centre and the need for low-level bombing but after repeated requests they agreed.


This image shows on the left side a Mosquito bomber pulling away from its bombing run on the Shelhus:




Operation Jericho took place on 18 February 1944, an action intended to release prisoners held by the Nazis.  As the action took place, the French resistance was waiting outside, ready to take prisoners released by the bombing damage and take them to a place of safety. Mosquito bombers were used with Typhoon fighter escorts. Of the 832 prisoners at the gaol, 255 men escaped. They included half of the men due to be executed by the Nazis. Resistance prisoners who escaped gave information which exposed over 60 Gestapo agents and informers. There has been controversy concerning some aspects of the raid but it remains an immense feat of daring. The raid was filmed by one of the Mosquito bombers. Images from the raid:





Above, smoke rising from the prison during the raid




Above, Mosquitoes over Amiens prison, set in a snow-covered landscape



Above, a photograph taken two days after the raid, showing damage to the prison and a hole in the perimeter wall


The Mosquito bomber was a remarkable aircraft. Its development, its engineering achievement and its achievements in action are well worth investigating. The signatories should realize, of course, that to do just that would take them away from, leave less time for, the network of beliefs which for some reason they find so fascinating and I find so stale.


From the page


219 DSEI brought together 36,000+ arms buyers and dealers from 114 countries to network and make deals.  In 2021, governments and military delegations will be browsing the wares of 1,600+ arms companies selling everything from guns and bombs to fighter jets and warships, with live action demos promised to take place in the Royal Victoria Dock.


They will be joined by companies selling surveillance equipment, drones and other tools of repression to police and state agencies, as Counter Terror Expo takes place alongside DSEI. 'Bombs kill people, isn't that so?' an academic (or other) signer of the Open Letter thinks, 'so sales of bombs should be stopped. Our protests are intended to stop DSEI so that bombing can be stopped.' The organizers of this fatuous and futile protest hadn't the least chance of stopping the event from taking place. Action with no chance of success have an honoured place in the history of authentic struggle, but actions which are based on the values of a dream world are in a different category completely.



Counter Terror Expo is in red for emphasis in the original. Do the academics (and others) who signed have difficulties with deterring and preventing terrorism? If they do, but not just for this reason, then I would maintain that they're too limited as people to take on the responsibility of educating the young people (not forgetting the mature students) who throng the lecture theatres and seminar rooms of universities. What can students learn of real value from people whose ability to distinguish sense from garbage is drastically limited. Their senses are far less acute than those of many, many ordinary people, non-academic people. Many of these academics give a convincing show of being thoughtful people who are capable of energetic action when called for, according to their view of things - such as the hopelessly misguided, ineffectual, doomed action to STOP!!! the arms fair.


What would be the result if the arms trade were stopped? Of course, it would only be stopped in the case of buyers of arms in liberal democracies. Authoritarian regimes would go on sourcing and buying arms without the least difficulty - and would then use the weapons on their own people and on other countries.


In very little time, the liberal democracies which stopped buying arms would be invaded by ruthless very well-armed countries. Why would young people (and mature students) study politics and other subjects at university departments which are surely in a state of denial? (Allowing for academics in the department with far more sense.) Why listen to such people as the ignorant academics? Why be examined by them? What do they hope to achieve? Massive, far reaching transformation of societies, leading to a semi-utopia, no doubt. Have they the least chance of achieving it? Based on the sobering list of historical failures, disappointments, catastrophes, no chance at all. So why indulge the fantasies of these narcissists? Aren't they indoctrinators rather than educators? Students - they need you but you don't need them. This is for the benefit of future students, people who still have to make a decision as to what to study and where to study, not people already in the system, with no obvious way out.

Counter-terrorist action is impossible without the equipment to conduct counter-terrorist action. The idea that counter-terrorist action is repressive and that sales of counter-terrorist equipment should be stopped obviously appeals to the academic (and other) signers of the Open Letter. Policing - effective policing, policing with the right equipment - to stop violent criminals and terrorists doesn't meet the approval of the signers.


Any idea that drones are always used for repressive purposes is contradicted by events such as this:


A U.S. missile launched from a drone in Afghanistan killed al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri, a founding member of the jihadist movement and one of the trategists behind an international campaign of terror that culminated in the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. The U.S. strike targeted a safe house in a residential area in central Kabul on Sunday morning, in what was the first known counterterrorism operation in the country since U.S. forces withdrew last year. The Biden administration said the Taliban was aware that al Zawahiri was hiding in Kabul, the clearest display of the continuing alliance between al Qaeda and the group now ruling Afghanistan. Speaking from the White House balcony on Monday, President Biden announced the strike, describing al Zawahiri as a terror leader who for decades 'was the mastermind behind the attacks against Americans.” Those attacks included the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, which killed 17 sailors and wounded dozens of others and 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people and injured more than 4,500.'


My page on Israel gives arguments and evidence that if Israel were unable to defend itself with advanced armaments - but this is not a situation which the Israelis would ever allow to occur - then this would quickly lead to the incursion of forces into Israeli territory. Palestinians would enter in large numbers but a Palestinian state would not emerge, or if it did, would not survive for long. ISIS or similar ruthless terrorist groups would move in and, the plight of women and non-heterosexuals would be extreme, the plight of other groups also.


The role of weapons in protecting the right to dissent, in preventing authoritarian regimes from destroying democratic societies, is obviously something which the signatories prefer not to dwell upon. The supposition that only the West should be regarded as militaristic, or that only the West engages in militarism of the worst kind, is profoundly ignorant - or rather, shallowly ignorant. The actions of China, including China's threats against Taiwan, which may one day lead to invasion, should have been taken into account by the signatories before they signed this grossly distorted document.


I think that hard questions need to be asked about some aspects of politics education at Sheffield University, as wall as some wider issues at Sheffield University, as well as at other universities, including the general issue of academic ideologists, academic indoctrinators, academics who select students carefully and who are also very careful in their use of argument and evidence, very, very selective in their use of argument and evidence. Fashion-conscious academics, academics who put academic fashions and fads first, have to be seen for what they are.


The coat of arms of Sheffield University:



The motto of Sheffield University, and of various other organizations, as well as the German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel, comes from ''Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas,' verse 490 of Book 2 of 'Georgics' by the Roman poet Virgil. A literal translation, 'Fortunate, who was able to know the causes of things.' A translation of the motto: 'to know the causes of things.'


A translation of the words in the open book, also in Latin: 'Learn. Teach.' Unless I'm mistaken, many academics would take the view that the student knows far less about the subject being taught than the academic who does the teaching - a completely justifiable view in so many cases. Quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, organic chemistry - in science, engineering, medicine, law and other fields, the teacher does know more.


In Arts and Social Science subjects, subjects where value judgements are an intrinsic part of what is conveyed by teaching, the supposition may be wide of the mark. It may happen that it's a poor student who isn't superior to the teacher - vastly superior, even.


There are many examples of the pitiful rubbish which academics sometimes produce in the pages of this Website, not just on this page, which is all about Academia, of course, but not just about Academia. 


The white rose of Yorkshire also appears on the coat of arms. This too calls for comment. Yorkshire folk are often thought of as straightforward, straight talking folk who can be relied upon. This is sometimes the view of people outside the county and more often the view of Yorkshire people. This is sometimes true, sometimes not true at all.


If Yorkshire universities such as Sheffield University benefit at all from this common perception, if they are thought of as straightforward places which can be relied upon, then this perception would be erroneous in many, many cases. Sheffield University academics may be subject to gross illusions, they may lack any awareness of their faults, they may not have the sense which so many ordinary Yorkshire people have. If they did have that basic sense, it would save them from some of their ridiculous mistakes.


All this is written with awareness of the massive strengths of Sheffield University. I don't have nearly as much knowledge of other Yorkshire Universities but I've no the least reason to suppose that they are without massive strengths too.




 List of profiles of academics (and others) who signed, with links to the profiles below


The profiles (other profiles to follow)

Complete list of academics (and others) who signed  the Open Letter against the Defence and Security Equipment event


Extract from document giving supposed reasons for signing

List of profiles


Some entries in the list of profiles have a
Trigger Warning:  Gobbledygook
to signal an academic's 'obscure and pretentious language,' a dictionary definition of  the word. The profile will comment. on the Gobbledygook.

Mona Baker, Professor of Translation Studies (Emerita), Manchester University: Mona Baker and half-baked monomania.


Catherine Baker, Hull University on jihad and peacekeeping: her pure and putrid view


Adam Ferhani, Postdoctoral Fellow, Sheffield
 University Department of Politics and International Relations

Professor Claudia Aradau, King's College London: deployment of conceptual toolboxes


Professor Luke Martell, University of Sussex: dystopian


Dr Liam Stanley, Sheffield University Department of Politics and International Relations



 Dr Sarah Bulmer  Exeter University: 'an attempt to go beyond using notions of “embodiment” as a heuristic device, and to operationalize this analytic in a challenge to the limits and possibilities of academic forms of representation.'

Dr John McTague, Bristol University Department of English: a false claim


Dr David Wearing, SOAS

Professor Lou Harvey, Leeds University Department of Education:

 The Translator:
A public intercultural performance
pedagogy of solidarity?



Lola Frost, Visiting Fellow, Department of War Studies, King's College London: 'the role of practices of recognition within aesthetic sociality.'



Cody Jackson, Texas Woman's University: Slavery, the American Civil War, armaments in the American Civil War, Texas the Executioner: 'working toward a liberatory praxis that necessitates a constant self-reflexive mode of accountability.'


Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, Loughborough University, and 'the right to silence'


Jon Bigger, Loughborough University: Degree collector and Superprof


Professor Ruth Kinna, Loughborough University: anarchism, anarchy, chaos, confusion, inefficiency, incompetence and their role in the triumph of totalitarianism, genocide and gross injustice


An extract from the article  which was published, with the List of Signatories, on the sites 'The Disorder of Things' and 'Campaign against Arms Trade Universities Network.'

Profiles of academics (and others) who signed the Open Letter

Mona Baker, Professor of Translation Studies (Emerita), Manchester University: Mona Baker and half-baked monomania.

Monomania: 'exaggerated or obsessive  preoccupation with one thing.'
Example of usage: 'Although Mona Baker has a wide range of interests and prejudices, her preoccupation with Israel and its actions amounts to monomania.'

Half-baked: not fully thought through: lacking a sound basis.
Examples of usage: 'A half-baked conspiracy theory. By failing to take account of a wide range of evidence, such as the legality of same-sex relations in Israel, gay pride events in Israel and the criminality of same sex relations in Gaza and the execution of individuals for same sex relations in Iran, Mona Baker demonstrates that again and again, her thinking is naive, distorted and half-baked.'

Some background information from Wikipedia followed by background information of mine.


In 2002, Mona Baker removed two Israeli academics, Dr. Miriam Shlesinger of Bar-Ilan University and Professor Gideon Toury of Tel Aviv University, Israel, from the editorial boards of her journals Translator and Translation Studies Abstracts, based on their affiliation to Israeli institutions.


Subsequently, Baker announced that Translator will no longer publish any research by Israeli scholars and will refuse to sell books and journals to Israeli libraries.

Response from Professors

In an email sent to Professor Toury on 8 June 2002, Baker asked him to resign and warned him that she would "unappoint you" if he refused. Baker justified her action by stating that "I do not wish to continue an official association with any Israeli under the present circumstances", although she also stated that her decision was "political, not personal" and that she still regarded Professor Toury and Professor Shlesinger as friends.

Professor Toury subsequently responded that "I would appreciate it if the announcement made it clear that 'he' (that is, I) was appointed as a scholar and unappointed as an Israeli." Toury also stated that "I am certainly worried, not because of the boycott itself but because it may get bigger and bigger so that people will not be invited to conferences or lectures, or periodicals will be judged not on merit, but the identity of the place where the author lives."

Dr Shlesinger responded that: "I don't think [Israeli prime minister] Ariel Sharon is going to withdraw from the West Bank because Israeli academics are being boycotted. The idea is to boycott me as an Israeli, but I don't think it achieves anything."


Baker's actions were sharply criticised by Professor Stephen Greenblatt of Harvard University and the president of the Modern Language Association of America, who called the firings "repellent", "dangerous" and "morally bankrupt". Greenblatt described Baker's actions as an "attack on cultural cooperation" which "violates the essential spirit of scholarly freedom and the pursuit of truth" ...

In the British House of Commons, an Early Day Motion (EDM 1590) condemning Baker's actions was passed, stating that Parliament "deplores discrimination against academics of any nationality, as being inconsistent with the principle of academic freedom, regards such discrimination as downright anti-semitic while pretending simply to be opposed to Israeli government policy... and calls upon UMIST to apologise for this disgusting act and to dismiss Professor Baker."


The National Union of Students (NUS), in addition to condemning academic boycotts as a whole, specifically condemned Baker's sackings of the two Israeli professors as "racist." Mandy Telford, president of the NUS, stated that "The National Union of Students stands firmly against all forms of discrimination. This is an abuse of academic freedom that can only have a negative impact on students at Umist...

In 2002 the European Society for Translation Studies condemned the ousting of Toury and Shlesinger, both members of the Society, arguing that "in their intellectual work they are not representatives of their country but individuals who are known for their research, their desire to develop translation studies and to promote translation and intercultural dialogue."


From my page on Israel:

An extract from an article by Robert L. Bernstein published in the 'New York Times,'


'As the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.

'At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them — through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.


'That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by drawing attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and those in the Soviet gulag — and the millions in China’s laogai, or labor camps.


'When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.


'Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.


'Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world — many of whom are there expressly to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


'Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.


'Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

'Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields.'


Above, gay pride event in Tel Aviv. The events are attended by about 250,000 people annually.

In Gaza, 'homosexual activity' (fully legal in Israel) is illegal and can be punished by imprisonment for ten years. In Iran, it can be punished with death by hanging.

Professor Baker and other signers: if Israel were unable to defend its borders with advanced weapons, it would be invaded by ISIS or another radical group that would make the situation for gay people impossible, with arbitrary killing not just of these people but of other Israelis, including Israelis of Arab origin. Advanced weaponry protects Israel. The signers, with no weapon but words (and platitudes) offer no protection to anyone. Their claim that only something amounting to a revolution of ideas offers effective protection is simply false. When the protection of weapons is removed, there is no chance at all for their words to have any impact at all. The signers' ability to make their pleas would be at an end. If anyone wants to come to the aid of Mona Baker, to argue in her defence, then I'd be glad if they could publicize their arguments. I'd be glad to make this site available for the purpose but this shouldn't be necessary, given the resources available to the signers and other people who share their views.

Catherine Baker, University of Hull on jihad and peacekeeping: her pure and putrid view

Above, screen shots from the LSE Sociology video published on YouTube, 'On Jihad, Empire and Solidarity,' published March 30, 2021. Top left, Mahvish Ahmad. Top right, Catherine Baker. Bottom left, Tarak Barkawi. Bottom right, Darryl Li. The faces have been blocked out here for one reason only: so as not to infringe copyright. I take the view that the images here amount to 'fair dealing.'

The text in the images comes from the sub-titles to the video. Watching a video with subtitles turned on - when the option is available - can be an instructive way of watching. The extract / transcript below of what Catherine Baker had to say comes from the imperfect subtitles, making corrections where the subtitles are obviously in error about the wording.

I've promoted the video in a very restricted sense by watching it, taking the page views to the current total of 141 views but this is a video which has to be criticized very severely: amongst other things, Catherine Baker finds an equivalence between jihadis and peacekeers. This video shown vividly, depressingly the debased values, distortions and illusions to be found in some sectors of 'higher' education.

But I'd have to put it much more strongly than that: Dr Baker talks and talks and talks, in a calm and measured way, giving the impression, but only for people who are easily fooled, that this is a person with a pure, uncontaminated vision. Her 'vision' is uncontaminated by messy and harsh realities, certainly, but this is someone with a hideous view of these issues, foul and putrid, not in the least pure. As becomes clear at the end of her contribution, whilst showering praise on the ridiculous Tarak Barkawi, she has been steadily promoting herself. She may not have the skills of a self-publicist but that is what she is, a self-publicist - pure and simple, or not in the least pure and simple-minded in her distorted approach to these realities.

This is the transcript, followed by material on jihadism in Bosnia which is very, very different from the version supplied by Catherine Baker, ideologist.

From the introduction to the video:

No contemporary figure is more demonized than the Islamist foreign fighter who wages jihad around the world. Spreading violence, disregarding national borders, and rejecting secular norms, so-called jihadists seem opposed to universalism itself. In a radical departure from conventional wisdom on the topic, Dr Darryl Li's new book, The Universal Enemy: Jihad, Empire and the Challenge of Solidarity argues that transnational jihadists are engaged in their own form of universalism: these fighters struggle to realize an Islamist vision directed at all of humanity, transcending racial and cultural difference. In this event, Dr Li discusses his new book with Prof Tarak Barkawi (LSE) and Dr Catherine Baker (Hull), with questions and answers from the audience. The discussion is moderated by Dr Mahvish Ahmad (LSE).

The video promotes a view of people engaged in violent jihad as people struggling 'to realize an Islamist vision directed at all of humanity, transcending racial and cultural difference.' This is a despicable view, not one I share in the least or the people whose lives have been damaged by jihadi terrorism would share.

Catherine Baker, the signer of the Open Letter which opposes arms and armaments, is also the  Catherine Baker who makes excuses for violent jihad, who seems to find no objection to their use of arms and armaments. This blatant contradiction is surely obvious. The peacekeepers she never praises in the video have to be armed to defend themselves and to defend the people they are trying to protect. Are the peacekeepers to be denied arms? She's oblivious to the implications of her views. Recommended: a viewing of the video. Look at the expression on the face of Darryl Li. Doesn't he look utterly bored?

Transcript (hesitations, repetitions, awkward phrasing, copying of fashionable phrases as in the words spoken):

16.36: 'First of all, Daryl, I really need to congratulate you on this book. This is the kind of book I've wanted to exist for many years.' [At the end of the transcript is one reason for welcoming the book: so congratulations on this book and may it inspire others as I've found that my work has been able to help inspire yours.' Catherine Baker as inspirational thinker, or Catherine Baker the self-promoter.]  I think I thought if I make a contribution to theorizing this step where I try to do in that book it makes status like this more possible' this particular theoretical contribution together  'so you know this was one of the many questions which was sort of eating away at the veiling kind of frameworks for the anthropology of post-socialism and you know of course the mujahid whose mobilities you explore so sensitively here are another example of mobilities which even the new anthropology of post-socialist post-conflict Bosnia and the rest of the region we're still being slow to recognize even a decade or so ago despite all the advances that has been made in deconstructing the politics of ethnicity which of course was such an essential step in de-centering the primacy of ethnopolitics in how researchers understand the region when we're only looking for ethnic relations between South Slav ethnic groups in Bosnia we miss these global connections and we miss as well the ability to connect the region into the contemporary racialized global politics of security which has been so urgent to do or indeed into the global history of anti-colonialism which connected Yugoslavia and the countries of origin of many of the M. through the non-line movement and we see this in the book's first example you know of Iraqi and Baghdadi former M. who came to Bosnia not as   Marzan Guatanamo

What's the difference indeed between foreign mujadin travelling to a region and foreign peacekeepers travelling to a region who do both exercise power across boundaries. Do both have visions of social transformation to implement and do both get into awkward and asymmetric intercultural and interlinguistic encounters with the local population. I'm so glad you're asking by the way well where is all the translation and interpreting happening because that's you know one of the most basic everyday questions you know that we need to ask you know about peacekeeping or you know any other kind of military contact so we know if we find you know that kind of juxtaposition unsettling between mujadin and peacekeepers as we might do we need to ask ourselves why and perhaps we might reply well the difference lies in the legitimacy and statehood of the entities which sent their troops as peacekeepers or the endorsement of the u.n. security council gave to these peacekeeping operations but we can't deny once you've put it in these terms that non-alignment international peacekeeping and the international jihad in Bosnia all invoked universalism of a kind and how we morally regard each one forces us to articulate what we believe are tacit principles of international order are now these are only some of the contributions of this frame-changing book it does so much more than document the mobilities of the jihad and bosnia even though it does that with incredible richness and nuance it globalizes how we can think about mobilities of security in the post-Yugoslav space and it de-centres western order? how we think about peacekeeping there it makes non-white peacekeepers from the global south central to the history of  ? it helps write religious mobilities back into the non-aligned movement it creates more space for future scholars who aren't racialized as white to see themselves as potential ethnographers in Bosnia and it explicitly names coloniality and the global hierarchies of race as part of the context of the Yugoslav wars and what happened next in Bosnia so congratulations on this book and may it inspire others as I've found that my work has been able to help inspire yours.'

Another perspective, from Wikipedia:

The jihadis quickly attracted heavy criticism from people who claimed their presence was evidence of violent Islamic fundamentalism in Europe. The foreign volunteers even became unpopular with many of the Bosniak population, because the Bosnian army had thousands of troops and had no need for more soldiers, but rather for arms.

US intelligence and phone calls intercepted by the Bosnian government show communication between Al-Qaeda commanders and Bosnian mujahideen.Several of the mujahideen were connected to Al-Qaeda.Osama Bin Laden sent resources to the Bosnian mujahideen.Two of the five 9/11 hijackers, ... had fought in Bosnia in 1995. Bosnian Salafi leader and mujahideen veteran Bilal Bosnić was in 2015 sentenced to seven years in prison for public incitement to terrorist activities, recruitment of terrorists to fight with ISIS in Syria.

In a 2005 interview with U.S. journalist Jim Lehrer, Richard Holbrooke said:

There were over 1,000 people in the country who belonged to what we then called Mujahideen freedom fighters. We now know that that was al-Qaida. I'd never heard the word before, but we knew who they were. And if you look at the 9/11 hijackers, several of those hijackers were trained or fought in Bosnia. We cleaned them out, and they had to move much further east into Afghanistan. So if it hadn't been for Dayton, we would have been fighting the terrorists deep in the ravines and caves of Central Bosnia in the heart of Europe.

Evan Kohlmann wrote: "Some of the most important factors behind the contemporary radicalization of European Muslim youth can be found in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where the cream of the Arab mujahideen from Afghanistan tested their battle skills in the post-Soviet era and mobilized a new generation of pan-Islamic revolutionaries".

Adam Ferhani, Postdoctoral Fellow, Sheffield University Department of Politics and International Relations

I've done my best to find out as much as I possibly can - or as much as I practically can - about Adam Ferhani. I've had an exchange of emails with him, which has confirmed the adverse view in the heading above. All the same, this is a tentative judgement. He may have many strengths, but I've not been able to find many and none of them distinctive or far greater than the ordinary skills to be expected of any academic in his field. His abilities as a speaker and explainer are poor. This video,

Simon Rushton and Adam Ferhani on Bordering Practices and Global Heath Governance During Covid-19




gives evidence. He's far less accomplished than Simon Rushton. He stumbles often and repeats himself often:


'I mean ... you know ... you know ... you know ... if that makes sense... I'm not sure I've explained that very well.


He wasn't very articulate in giving answers concerned with his specialism, border controls during the Coronavirus epidemic. He has opinions on other issues to do with border controls, surely, such as management of migration. (This is supplementary material, before I come to the issue of borders and armaments.) I'd be interested to hear his answers if asked direct questions such as these: should the people who cross the channel in rubber dinghies, people who fail to claim asylum in the first country of safety, all be allowed to stay in this country? If not, what criteria should be used to determine who is allowed to stay? The cross-channel journey has obvious dangers. Should people be deterred from risking the journey? If so, what methods would you suggest?


When it came to the issue of signing up to the Open Letter, like all the people who signed, he didn't need to answer direct questions, questions he might find difficult to answer. He obviously felt he knew enough about military matters and armaments and this further aspect of border security to sign. What would be his answer to these direct, difficult questions?


Are there effective ways of deterring an aggressor from crossing the border into a country which make no use of armaments?

Are there effective ways of deterring an aggressor from crossing the border into a country which make no use of armaments?

Is transforming attitudes throughout the world, including attitudes in totalitarian countries so that the leaderships of these countries in future decide never to invade?
Is it an achievable objective to ban armaments throughout the world so that the leadership of these countries aren't able to obtain armaments even if they wanted them?
Is Ukraine justified in fighting Russian forces - using, of course, armaments?

Would Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland be justified in opposing a Russian incursion into their borders using armaments?

Would Israel be justified in using armaments to oppose an incursion into Israeli territory through their border with armaments - assuming the invading force to be ISIS or an Iranian-backed terrorist force, which would impose a radical fundamentalist regime if it got the chance?


I wonder how effective Adam Ferhani would be in answering questions like those. I wonder how the other signers would cope.

The expertise which is valued in universities is necessarily in limited areas. In such fields as quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, atomic and molecular structure, biosynthesis and all the other fields which contribute to the massive, overwhelmingly impressive achievement of science, extreme specialization is essential. In the social sciences too, academics have their specialisms, perhaps with the hope that one day, it will be their claim to fame, or at least wider recognition by the academic community.

Many of the contributions of these social science academics are impressive for one reason or another,  or for many reasons. The analytic skills on display may be substantial. Sometimes, their contributions are genuinely useful.

But in science, impressive achievement in one minute area isn't usually taken as an indication that the scientist has anything of value to contribute to science generally or to the world of value judgments, political decisions, ethical issues. In the social sciences, all too often, people with achievement in one limited sphere are eager to show that they can 'make a difference' in the wider world.

All too often - very often - the expert in one field is shown up as a dilettante in another. War studies - an intensely demanding field, demanding a detailed knowledge of military history in modern times, surely. This is a golden age of military history writing, and has been for a long time. There are many non-academics in the field but the achievement of academics has been massive.

The academic dabblers who wander into the field and who think they can stake their claim are deluded. They underestimate the scale of the challenge.

Whatever gave Adam Ferhani the idea that he should sign up to this deluded manifesto? His specialism, or one of his specialisms, is in a field far removed from the harsh world of military realities.

This is from one of his publications (written in collaboration with Professor Simon Rushton):

The International Health Regulations, COVID-19, and bordering practices: Who gets in, what gets out, and who gets rescued?




Bringing insights from critical border studies and exploring the varied ways in which the response to the COVID-19 crisis has been “bordered,” we argue that a much broader understanding of “borders” is required in the IHR and by the WHO, given that much of the exclusionary bordering we find takes place away from physical points of entry.


The language of this, ' ... much of the exclusionary bordering we find takes place away from physical points of entry' is far removed from the extremities of language and experience necessary to do justice to such events as the Battle of Stalingrad, the bombardment of Ukrainian cities by the Russians, the mass executions which have taken place in their millions when a state has not had the necessary military power to withstand the actions of aggressors. And those aggressors obviously aren't open to persuasion by anything that appears in 'The Disorder of Things' or by such trivial-disturbing events as the Signing of the Open Letter.

I'll give my conclusion: Adam Ferhani was one of seven people from Sheffield University who signed the Open Letter. Sheffield University, in particular, the Department of Politics and International Relations, contributed a larger number of signers than any other institution apart from King's College, London. Given the gross irresponsibility of the manifesto, its refusal to recognize realities - the case argued on this page - I think that anyone thinking of applying to this Department would be well advised to think of again.

Professor Claudia Aradau, King's College, London: deployment of conceptual toolboxes

Above, screenshot from a video promoting the MA in International Conflict Studies - Dept of War Studies at King's College London


Professor Aradau's face has been blocked out here for one reason only: so as not to infringe copyright. I take the view that the image here amounts to 'fair dealing.'

King's College, London provided the greatest number of signors to the naive / disturbing Open Letter which invited the democracies of the world in effect to abandon armaments - which are, the introductory material accompanying the Open Letter claims - 'part of the problem, not the solution.'

Various people took part in the video. I confine my attention to Professor Aradau. Watching Professor Aradau's contribution with subtitles turned on - not possible with all videos, of course - makes the occasion even more informative and off-putting. I found the content very off-putting, and not because I have an aversion to theory - but I do have a knowledge of the kind of theoretical approach she uses.

A transcription of Professor Aradau in action at two places in the video. Did she have to repeat herself to such an extent, did she have to make the false claim to uniqueness, did she have to give so much Standard Stuff, did she have to give routine information served up in such a routine way? And did she have to produce an insipid offering of almost complete generality?

This is it:

'What makes the programme in international conflict studies unique is the way in which it brings together innovative conceptual and theoretical approaches with an understanding and practice of method. So basically how do you deploy conceptual toolboxes, how do you deploy concepts that you learn about in particular empirical sites of conflict, violence and insecurity?

And later:

'In this programme you will be introduced to a whole series of innovative and critical methods to give just a few examples ethnographic methods, discourse analysis, visual methods, historical methods. These are skills of analysis that you can deploy that you can use in your future careers.'

But no matter how off-putting this is, the most off-putting thing by far about Professor Aradau is the fact that she, and so many others at King's College London signed a letter which raises very disturbing questions about  King's College London - not all of its teaching and  research but some of it, a very important part.

Students of biological science, in such branches of the subject as ecology, often go on field courses to give them practical experience. It's often unthinkable for King's College Students in the Department of War Studies to go on fieldwork - to a battlefield or an active conflict zone, where opposing forces are on active service, or to territory subject to severe terrorist action. But if, hypothetically, they ever did, what lessons they would learn! Lessons about harsh realities and the naive irrelevance of a substantial part of what the curriculum has served up. I put it cautiously. It may well be that most of what they have been expected to take seriously has none of the seriousness of witnessing life and death in these places, that the 'conceptual toolboxes' they have taken with them are stuffed full of irrelevancies.

Professor Luke Martell, University of Sussex: dystopian

Blocking of part of the image is for one reason only - to comply with copyright. The image comes from a You Tube video, 'University of Sussex Professorial Lecture: Luke Martell - Alternative Societies.' Watching videos of this kind with subtitles (where available) turned on can be recommended - not so as to appreciate more fully the nuances, so as to miss any of them - there are no nuances - but to realize even more fully the mediocrity of the performance. It can't be claimed that this is any more than a performance, a poor performance. There's drudgery here, no exhilaration at all. It would be pleasant to report that there was a trace of exhilaration, the exhilaration of ideas which had at least a trace - even a faint trace - of originality, but I couldn't find any. However, I must admit that I didn't stay until the end. I gave up, I'd had enough.

This is yet another academic falsely claimed by the organizers of the Open Letter to have expertise in matters to do with security.

Professor Martell's exploration of utopianism is extraordinary. He seems not to realize the difference between 'difficult to achieve' and 'impossible,' between thought experiments and actions in the real world.

Signing a letter which in effect calls upon democracies to do without armaments to defend themselves isn't an optimistic move, undertaken in the hope of creating a much better world. It would abruptly lead to a world in which the democracies go under and the victory of tyrannies. His utopian hopes are futile. If he and the other signers had any power to influence events, they would be very harmful. Their actions - if you can call signing a letter and play-acting, trying to acting the part of responsible academics outside the venue of the Arms Fair- are much closer to dystopian than utopian.

From Karl Popper's 'Conjectures and Refutations,' Chapter 18, 'Utopia and Violence'

'I consider what I call Utopianism [this is surprising and unnecessary, since the term  'utopianism' was one with a long history before Karl Popper wrote - this was obviously not a term he coined himself] an attractive and, indeed, all too attractive theory; for I also consider it dangerous and pernicious. It is, I believe, self-defeating, and it leads to violence.' [the expression is obviously too strong: 'it may lead to violence' would be preferable.]

'That it is self-defeating is connected with the fact that it is impossible to determine ends scientifically. There is no scientific way of choosing between two ends. Some people, for example, love and venerate violence. For them a life without violence would be shallow and trivial. Many others, of whom I am one, hate violence. This is a quarrel about ends. It cannot be decided by science. This does not mean that the attempt to argue against violence is necessarily a waste of time. It only means that you may not be able to argue with the admirer of violence. He has a way of answering an argument with a bullet if he is not kept under control by the threat of counter-violence ... you cannot, by means of argument, make people listen to argument, you cannot, by means of argument, convert those who suspect all argument, and who prefer violent decisions to rational decisions. You cannot prove to them that they are wrong ...


'That the Utopian method, which chooses an ideal state of society as the aim which all of our political actions should serve, is likely to produce violence can be shown thus. Since we cannot determine the ultimate ends of political action scientifically, or by purely rational methods, differences of opinion concerning what the ideal state should be like cannot always be smoothed out by the method of argument. They will at least partly have the character of religious differences. And there can hardly be tolerance between these different Utopian religions.'

Recommended: a reading of the complete chapter, which includes these recommendations:

'Work for the elimination of concrete evils rather than for the realization of abstract goods. Do not aim at establishing happiness by political means. Rather aim at the elimination of concrete miseries ... fight for the elimination of poverty by direct means ... or fight against epidemics and disease by erecting hospitals and schools of medicine ... But do not try to realize these aims indirectly by designing and working for a distant ideal of society which is wholly good.'

Te return to the superficial video. The slogan to the right in the image above reads,
you + us
Making the future
Help us attract the best people, deliver world-leading programmes and create inspiring places to learn, work and live.

These are weary aspirational platitudes that you find again and again. Is Professor Martell is one of those 'best' people, able to play a part in delivering world-leading programmes and creating inspiring places, on the evidence of this lecture? Surely, not. His plodding style does put him at a disadvantage but the vacuous content is a much greater disadvantage.

However, this is an impression based on his public face and on the evidence of one video. I don't discount the possibility that he has hidden depths, that he has had to work hard and to struggle against disadvantages, that he has many virtues.

Dr Liam Stanley, Sheffield University Department of Politics and International Relations


In this video, Dr Stanley introduces his book, 'Britain Alone: How a decade of conflict remade the nation.' His presentation is impressive: a thinker in action, a clear and incisive thinker with obvious strengths in analysis - on the evidence of the video.


Another video


introducing the MA in International Political Economy at Sheffield gives a very different impression, of a presenter of routine academic platitudes which may fool a prospective student and get one more paying student to sign up but which don't enhance the academic's reputation in the least. But his own signing up to the disastrously misguided Open Letter on the Armaments Fair calls his reputation into question more fundamentally. Can he really have been so naive? He really was, it seems. This is one piece of evidence, one of many, that should discourage thoughtful students from studying Politics and International Relations at Sheffield, I believe. Here, as often, the combination of strengths and weaknesses is very striking - almost grotesque.

Dr Sarah Bulmer, Exeter University: 'an attempt to go beyond using notions of “embodiment” as a heuristic device, and to operationalize this analytic in a challenge to the limits and possibilities of academic forms of representation.'


If the fragmentary sentence embedded in the heading here stirs the imagination, rouses the passions, if it appeals strongly to your analytical faculties and makes you determined to find out more about the author so that you can read more of their work and know the unalloyed joy that comes from discovering new insights, finding fresh opportunities for intellectual, ethical - aesthetic - exploration, then you're in the right place. I give the information that there's not just one author but two. You'll already have surmised, perhaps, that work of this quality often requires more than a single author. To expect a single author to carry out strenuous intellectual labours of this importance would be asking too much.

The authors are Sarah Bulmer of Exeter University and David Jackson. Here, I address only Sarah Bulmer, since it was Sarah Bulmer who signed the Open Letter: Academics against the Arms Fair. You'll be eager to know the title of the piece. It's this, in its stark simplicity a contrast with the dense prose of that resonant, fragmentary sentence I've quoted: ' 'You do not live in my skin: ' Embodiment, voice, and the veteran.' It was published in 'Critical Military Studies.'

This  will cause deep disappointment, I'm sure, but all I can make available here is a brief abstract, too brief by far to satisfy the demands of Dr Sarah Bulmer's readers, followers and admirers.

I have to concede that the use of the word 'fundaments' in the first sentence of the Abstract is perhaps unfortunate, a slight flaw in an otherwise finely judged piece in an inimitable prose style. 'Fundaments,' in its euphemistic or facetious sense, refers to the buttocks. The authors meant, no doubt, 'the fundamentals of academic engagement ... '

That slight quibble, however, led to more deep seated dissatisfaction with the abstract.  In the event, dissatisfaction grew: the incoherent wording, the mangling of English, the traces of derangement in the tone of the whole. Here, I've highlighted the parts of the Abstract which give me cause for particular concern. Other readers are free to draw their own conclusions.

So, the Abstract:

In this paper we challenge the fundaments of academic engagement with, and representation of, veterans’ embodied experiences. Drawing on work we have undertaken at a number of recent conferences to open up the format of academic discourse to a more dialogue-oriented form of engagement, we try to bring the same principles and problems into written discourse. This paper weaves between the monologic form of academic argument, and the open explorative form of the dialogue, in an attempt to question core assumptions about veteran identity. Both of us are concerned with the politics of claims to “know” the veteran experience by researchers, policymakers, and the media. The paper is an attempt to take seriously a politics of embodiment, of voice, and of listening as a way of fundamentally reorienting what we think we “know” about veteran experience and how we go about our research. Above all, this paper is an intervention. It is an attempt to go beyond using notions of “embodiment” as a heuristic device, and to operationalize this analytic in a challenge to the limits and possibilities of academic forms of representation. We argue that we need new ways of generating knowledge about embodied experience and a different understanding of what knowing means in this context. We propose “the conversation” as an alternative mode of research praxis.

Is there any possibility that the abstract is a hoax and that the complete paper is a hoax? Before I give my answer to this question, I'll outline the story of the celebrated 'Sokal hoax.' (But the editors of the 'learned' journal which published the piece submitted by Alan Sokal won't have 'celebrated' it.) Another possibility - that the abstract is the product of a Paper Generator.' I'll give my view after I've outlined the uses of a Paper Generator. For information on the hoax, I make use of the account in Wikipedia


The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax,[was a demonstrative scholarly hoax performed by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor, specifically to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies—whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross—[would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."

The article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was published in the journal's spring/summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. 

Sokal reasoned that if the presumption of editorial laziness was correct, the nonsensical content of his article would be irrelevant to whether the editors would publish it. What would matter would be ideological obsequiousness, fawning references to deconstructionist writers, and sufficient quantities of the appropriate jargon. After the article was published and the hoax revealed, he wrote:  The results of my little experiment demonstrate, at the very least, that some fashionable sectors of the American academic Left have been getting intellectually lazy. The editors of Social Text liked my article because they liked its conclusion: that "the content and methodology of postmodern science provide powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project" [sec. 6]. They apparently felt no need to analyze the quality of the evidence, the cogency of the arguments, or even the relevance of the arguments to the purported conclusion:

Content of the article

"Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity"[3] proposed that quantum gravity has progressive political implications, and that the "morphogenetic field" could be a valid theory of quantum gravity. (A morphogenetic field is a concept adapted by Rupert Sheldrake in a way that Sokal characterized in the affair's aftermath as "a bizarre New Age idea.") Sokal wrote that the concept of "an external world whose properties are independent of any individual human being" was "dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook."

After referring skeptically to the "so-called scientific method", the article declared that "it is becoming increasingly apparent that physical 'reality'" is fundamentally "a social and linguistic construct." It went on to state that because scientific research is "inherently theory-laden and self-referential", it "cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counterhegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities", and that therefore a "liberatory science" and an "emancipatory mathematics", spurning "the elite caste canon of 'high science'", needed to be established for a "postmodern science [that] provide[s] powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project."

Now for some information on the Paper Generator. 

A paper generator is computer software that composes scholarly papers in the style of those that appear in academic journals or conference proceedings. Typically, the generator uses technical jargon from the field to compose sentences that are grammatically correct and seem erudite but are actually nonsensical. The prose is supported by tables, figures, and references that may be valid in themselves, but are randomly inserted rather than relevant.

Examples include the Postmodernism Generator.

Many papers generated in this way have been accepted for publication.

So, do I think that the abstract is a hoax or the product of a paper generator? I've reasons for thinking that the production of the abstract by a computer program which has been supplied with the necessary arcane jargon is far more likely than the abstract as someone's hoax but I have to make it clear that I believe that the abstract was actually written by human agency. Although the information isn't supplied on the Web page where the abstract is published, I have very good reason to believe that Sarah Bulmer was the Lead Author.

Dr John McTague, Bristol University Department of English: a false claim

The false claim wasn't made by him. I'm referring to this, from the introductory verbiage appended to the Open Letter: Academics against Armaments.

'As academics working on topics related to war, conflict, security, human rights, and international relations ... '

Many, many of the academics who signed are doing no such thing. His field is English literature and his specialities include Restoration and 18th Century literature. He does have an interest in politics but politics in the era of the musket, cannon and hand weapons. He declares an interest in British politics between 1660 and 1740.

Many academics who do work on topics related to war, conflict and the rest signed the letter. They were naive and thoughtless and showed not nearly enough awareness of the threats faced by this country and countries all over the world. He too was naive and thoughtless and showed not nearly enough awareness of the threats faced by this country and countries all over the world. He should be ashamed.

Dr David Wearing, SAAS

There are realities and contradictions - I list some below - which undermine some convictions of Dr David Wearing, which falsify them or show how limited is his scope.  It isn't that he  can't come to terms with, can't bear to think about, finds it difficult to understand these realities and contradictions it's simply the fact that his ideology doesn't allow these issues to be raised at all. His understanding of what's possible and impossible in politics, his understanding of possible solutions and solutions which are overwhelmingly unlikely to to succeed, of solutions which have next to no chance of being implemented, are all too obvious, but equally obviously, I need to give evidence. I'd say that on this site, I've already given a great deal of evidence, in my pages on Israel and Palestinian issues, feminism, Universities (the page Universities: excellence, mediocrity and stupidity, as well as this page.) In so many places, there's evidence which challenges his thinking and writing and actions, such as the action of signing the Open Letter. All I'm going to do now is supply a few more instances, A profile like this isn't the place for a long and detailed discussion of the issues.

Next, some assorted issues, some realities and contradictions which David Wearing overlooks and some reasons why David Wearing's view in his article


is so limited - he overlooks so much. His leaving out and overlooking amount to persistent distortion, making his proposed remedies hopelessly wrong-headed. Again, what's here is just a very brief reminder of issues I've discussed in far more detail in other places on the site.

For twenty years, I was the death penalty co-ordinator for Sheffield Amnesty International group but in that time I worked on issues to do with general human rights. I'm not homosexual / gay but I have a strong interest in the protection of homosexual / gay people. I regard slavery as one of the worst injustices of all - as my page on feminism will make clear. My page on Christian religion has similar material on slavery which makes clear the strength of my feeling. I regard Nazi Germany as the worst oppressor of the twentieth century. I regard Stalinist Russia as second only to Nazi Germany as the worst oppressor of the twentieth century. I make it clear that I regard the Iranian regime as barbaric, despicable, that I loathe the Saudi Arabian regime and regard the treatment of homosexual / gay people in Gaza as unjust, badly in need of reform. I regard the invasion of Ukraine by Putin's forces as abhorrent. Then there are central human needs and threats to humanity of a different kind - threats to food supplies as a result of drought, for example, the need for safe drinking water and the crisis of increasing water shortage.

To begin with a conflict which doesn't fall within David Wearing's academic specialities but which has relevance to them, the Second World War.

Nazi Germany was opposed and defeated by countries which were flawed or very flawed democracies and included a country which was a tyranny itself, Stalinist Russia. Without Stalinist Russia, it would have been impossible to defeat Nazi Germany. The choice for the democracies was stark - accept Stalinist Russia as an ally or reject Stalinist Russia and allow Nazi Germany to go undefeated. Accepting or rejecting Saudi Arabia as an ally for limited purposes poses the same dilemma, but Saudi Arabia's power is too great to be ignored.

At the time of the Second World War, Great Britain was no safe haven for LBQT people. Homesexuality was punished severely. After the war, Alan Turing, the mathematician of genius who almost certainly shortened the war by his contribution to breaking the German codes, was subjected to chemical castration. A factor which is important to me but not to many people - Great Britain's system of criminal justice made use of the death penalty by hanging.

The United States was a prolific user of the death penalty too, but executions carried out in Great Britain and the United States were completely eclipsed by the number carried out by Nazi Germany.

Of course, the issue of armaments has a close linkage with the issue of defence of Israel against the threats it faces. Israel is a manufacturer of advanced armaments and advanced armaments are an absolute necessity for Israel if it's to withstand those threats. It has withstood those threats for a long time and it's overwhelmingly likely that it will in the future.

All the posturing, all the anti-Israel demonstrations, the collected writings of Dr David Collier on the issues, will have absolutely no impact.

From a report in 'Morning Star' ('For peace and socialism')


'Members of the Palestine Action group joined forces with Animal Rebellion — the animal-rights wing of Extinction Rebellion — to storm the Elite KL factory in Tamworth this morning.'

Activists 'occupied the roof while others chained themselves to the gates ... as part of an escalating campaign to kick Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons firm, out of Britain.'

The effect of this action on the  problems of this part of the Middle East will have been precisely none, likewise the action of the naive academics who signed or held mock academic activities by the site of the Arms Fair.

There's an account of my experiences of the world of protest, demonstrations  and activism in a page of this site:


The title gives a clue about some of the content. The cause is a different one - animal rights is the common description but I describe it as animal welfare.


Professor Lou Harvey, Leeds University School of Education


Professor Harvey in full flow:

 The Translator:

A public intercultural performance
pedagogy of solidarity?

Lou Harvey
School of Education, University of Leeds

Does language have anything to do with education?
Does misuse of language, meaningless language,
have anything to do with education? Does the
School of Education at Leeds University have any
interest in the misuse of language, in meaningless

You Tube video



Lola Frost, King's College London


Extract from



Art Practice and Research Interests:

Lola Frost’s painting practice lays claim to an anti-identarian ethos that contests the demands and values of the phallogocentric order. For more information please visit www.lolafrost.net

Lola Frost’s research interests for this Visiting Fellowship extend to:

Working with Dr Aggie Hirst KCL and with Prof Fiona Jenkins ANU on the role of practices of recognition within aesthetic sociality.


Extracts from the Website of Lola Frost:


' ... or conversely where Deconstructive aesthetics are implicated in the crisis of representation, experiential affect is side-lined. Instead for O’Sullivan affects occur in an a-signifying register, operating at an intensive ‘molecular level’ beneath and parallel to signification.'

'I am interested in how processes of traversal and attunement motivate this practice: both in relation to mobilising a transformative matrix through the interplay of multiple oppositions, but also towards the disaggregation of the self/other, subject/object anthropocentric distinctions ...'

With grateful thanks to 'Roget's Thesaurus,' including the antique charms of an older version of 'Roget's Thesaurus.' Reading too much Gobledygook can give a yearning for prose of much greater variety, with a much wider choice of words:


Gobbledygook, the ludicrous, risible, bombastic,  funny-peculiar, farcical, flaunting, excessive, overdone, beyond the pale, crass, ersatz, gross tawdry, uninteresting, dreary, tedious, vapid, insipid, uninventive, derivative, clod-hopping, ponderous, stodgy, pedestrian, turgid, stale, banal, inane, wearisome, irksome, repetitive nonsense, utter nonsense, gibberish; jargon, jabber, mere words, hocus-pocus, fustian, rant, bombast, balderdash, palaver, flummery, verbiage, babble, twaddle, garbage, humbug; poppy-cock, stuff and nonsense moonshine,  absurdity of many academics who use Gobbledygook - their posing, posturing, attitudinizing, affectation, grandiloquence, theatricality, charlatanism, have to be criticized very severely.


These academics should be ignored,

 the reputable studies supported. These are the majority and thoroughly deserve to be supported, with massive achievements to their credit, and to lessen the influence of the gobbledygookers on the reputable studies, to put them at a disadvantage, to reduce drastically the habitats of the gobbledygookers. And to disadvantage similarly the academics who are not  gobbledygookers, or not that often, but who use meaningful language to convey  meanings which are grossly distorted and unsupported by argument and evidence. Argument and evidence not supplied at this point but supplied in other parts of the page and other parts of the site.


Lorna Frost may not have followed the typical career path of her fellow Gobbledygookers but she seems to be as fond of Gobbledygook as they are. I'd claim that it's a lazy way of writing, using a selection of ideologically-charged words without the need for much thought, by a kind of 'reflex' thinking or automatic thinking which makes too little demands on the mind.


Lola Frost's makes this claim for some paintings of hers, 'shimmering, beautiful and challenging paintings:' Unfortunately, her lavish praise is accompanied by by images of some of these paintings and I for one find the claim impossible to take seriously:



 'Double Desire 2018

Shimmering, beautiful and challenging paintings, whose energies, folds and intensities shape an embodied, subliminal inwardness, and invite a process for becoming undone by the play of differences.'


Here, the first part is in normal English -  used, of course, for flagrant, shameless self-promotion. She quickly turns to something milder than typical  Gobbledygook but just as meaningless.


Cody Jackson, Texas Woman's University: Slavery, the American Civil War, armaments in the American Civil War, Texas the Executioner



Above, an American slave, mid-nineteenth Century: after a flogging. From  Chapter 2, 'The Colonial Era' of 'American Slavery' by Peter Kolchin, one of the vast number of exemplary publications by academics which have contributed to our understanding of people, societies, events as well as to our knowledge of science, technology, a vast range of subjects:


' Born in violence, slavery survived by the lash .. Slaves who transgressed could look forward to a wide range of gruesome punisments ... including branding; nose slitting; amputation of ears, toes, and fingers (and less often of hands and feet): castration; and burning at the stake.'


Some forms of punishment were inflcted well after the colonial era, as in the case of flogging, and, in some cases, burning alive.


President Abraham Lincoln issued The Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. At once, the legal status of three million slaves in designated areas of the Confederacy, which included Texas, of course, from 'slave' to 'free.' If a slave could escape and reach the forces of the advancing Union army, then the slave became legally free, actually free.


By June 1865, the Union Army  By June 1865, the Union Army  controlled all of the Confederacy and had liberated all of the designated slaves.


Nearly 200,000 African-American men served with the Union forces. Most were escaped slaves. The Confederacy was outraged and usually refused to treat them as prisoners of war. They murdered many and re-enslaved others.


The Civil War was one of the earliest 'industrial wars,' wars which are won by technological superiority. The Civil War was fought in the firs.t phase of a process which has developed enormously. A major reason for the success of the Union army against the Confederacy was the technological superiority of the North, reliant upon the economic superiority of the North.


The train speeded up delivery of munitions, armaments and soldiers. The telegraph made communications easier and more efficient and was a powerful means of communicating information of military significance.   Reconnaisance balloons were used, the first stage in the developmen of aerial warfare, which, of course, has had incalculable effects since then, beneficial and harmful. Use was made of firearms of revolutionary design, including machine guns such as the Gatling gun. 


Now, as then, armies and navies,  armaments and explosives can be used for good purposes, purposes unachievable in many cases by means other than military action, and for bad purposes. Examples of the first, the Union forces in the American Civil War, the Allied forces fighting Nazi Germany. An examples of the second, obviously Nazi Germany.


If reliance had been placed upon persuasion in the first part of the 19th Century in America, the slaves would have remained enslaved for much, much longer. Persuasion would have failed. The slave owners had too much to lose to give up their 'property' voluntarily. Similarly, the terrorist organizations which inflict such suffering aren't open to persuasion. Putin's Russia is not open to persuasion. They won't give up their weapons voluntarily and if this country and other democracies gave up their means of defence - means of defence which rely upon advanced technology necessarily - then they will go under, they will be overwhelmed. Utopia, a World Without War will never come. Non-proliferation treaties and other ways of reducing conflict or attempting to reduce conflict are not a waste of time - but the demands of utopians, insatiable, unachievable, are a waste of time.


Cody Jackson, what do you think? I don't, of course, expect reply to that. Do you still think it was worth your time signing that Open Letter? Do you think you and the others had any chance of achieving anything? Or was it no more than a token gesture?


I would say that you should give some thought to an issue in your State of Texas. Making a stand, working for this cause, would have more chance of making a difference than signing a futile letter. I'm referring to the death penalty in Texas.


For twenty years, I was the death penalty co-ordinator for Amnesty International in Sheffield. (I worked on a wide variety of other cases which had nothing to do with the death penalty.) I was shocked and angered - I still am shocked and angered - by the fact that Texas has been the most prolific executioner in the United States.

The only country in Europe which still executes is Belarus. In all the other countries, the death penalty was last used long ago. It isn't so long ago that Texas was executing juvenile offenders, people under the age of 18 at the time of the offence.


I won't write much more here. I've a page on the death penalty:




Looking at some writings of Cody Jackson, his mind is on other things, on a range of issues which are distant from the extinguishing of a life in the execution chamber of Huntsville Penitentiary, Texas. Isn't he shocked, ashamed when he hears about an execution due to take place in the state where he lives? Academics who get enraged about gender disparities and the issues that preoccupy him can be completely complacent - are completely complacent, more often than not - about the persistence of these barbaric acts. Are you complacent, Cody Jackson?


Cody Jackson certainly qualifies for a trigger warning for gobbledygook, even if generally, it's not difficult to understand what he's getting at, or trying to.


Examples from the page




I understand (and misunderstand, at times) intersectionality to be, more than anything else, a method or tool of analysis that resists essentialist notions of identity and foregrounds the racialized mobilizations of power relations that impact multiply-marginalized bodyminds, 


How can we continue to learn from and work alongside the Combahee River Collective in working toward a liberatory praxis that necessitates a constant self-reflexive mode of accountability? 


Cody Jackson has taught courses in 'Written Communication' at a university in recent years. Amazing! Depressing!


Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, University of Loughborough, Christian anarchist


There must surely be many adolescents, young people, struggling with personal problems, perhaps,  not yet in a position to give much thought to the problems of the wider world, perhaps, whose political maturity is far greater than the political maturity of Alexandre C., a cipher who earns his living at a university - if it can be said that he 'earns' his living. I don't suppose for one moment that he does.


 I take the view that anarchism is a viewpoint that can't be taken seriously. I've no material on this site setting out my reasons. I could easily give wide-ranging arguments against anarchism but to do that wouldn't be a good use of my time, as I see it. I take the view that Christianity is a viewpoint that can't be taken seriously but here, I've taken the trouble to argue the case, thoroughly, in various pages of the site.


 There's a short anti-Christian section on this page.  I won't give objections to A.C.'s anarchist beliefs here. I won't give objections to A.C.'s Christian beliefs here. There would be no need. Pages such as



make the case. Is A.C. able to answer objections? He's obviously a big believer in Christian religion. Is he a believer in answering objections to his views? Not impossible, but unlikely.


Dr A.C. is the author of Christian Anarchism: a Political Commentary on the Gospel.' It takes further the 'theorising' that resulted in  his PhD thesis, which had the title 'Theorising Christian anarchism : a political commentary on the Gospel.  Extract from the Abstract provided by



'Christian anarchist thinkers' critique of the current order and appeal to follow God's radical
 commandments echoes the voices of the prophets of old, calling society to return to God's covenant. By weaving their scattered voices together -
by theorising Christian anarchism - this thesis provides a political commentary on the Gospel which contributes as much to political theory as it does to political theology
.' He's still theorising, still contributing just as little to political theory.


As for 'political theolgy,' I find it difficult to imagine what would count as a substantial contribution. That would be a contradiction in terms.


Jon Bigger, Loughborough University: Degree Collector and Superprof


His degree collecting, in various branches and aspects of politics, must have taken up at least 8 years. Was it worth it? Did he gain substantial knowledge from all those years of effort? He has been described as possessing 'knowledge of the British and American political systems [which]is second to none.' Is this a claim to be taken seriously, a claim about a serious scholar? A relevant fact: it was Jon Bigger who made the claim, about himself, on the Website 'Superprof.' More about that very soon.


A summary of his academic career:


J. Bigger Esq studied Politics at London Guildhall, becoming J. Bigger BA, then worked for an MA in Democratic Studies at Leeds University. Not content with a single MA, he worked for yet another MA, in International Labour and Trade Union  Studies, at Ruskin College, Oxford. After that, he worked for a PhD at Loughborough University.


From the page




I'm Dr Jon Bigger. On top of my doctorate, researching anarchism and elections, I have a degree in politics and two MAs, one in democracy and the other in international trade unionism.


'I help students understand the syllabus and crucially interpret events in the news for extra marks.'


'I have taught at Loughborough University in their Politics department. My knowledge of the British and American political systems is second to none.' I also tutor undergraduates in politics too.


[The 'too' is obviously superfluous. It adds nothing to 'also.']


His hourly rate for lessons by Webcam is  given as $54.


From the Superprof page 'About us,'




a community of20738668tutors

a community of20738668tutors

'A community of 20738668 tutors.'
The Superprof team: 'Passionate, Dreamy, Utopic, Caring, Involved, Serious ... '


See also




 which gives the information that Loughborough University admitted Jonathan Bigger to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.




This is from a Website page of 'International Relations, Politics and History on Jonathan Bigger as Postgraduate Researcher:


'Jonathan is researching the British anarchist group Class War with a specific focus on their approach to the general election of 2015. Class War stood seven candidates in the election, one of whom was Jonathan, who is now studying them from the inside. As anarchists tend to shun concepts like representation, even within their own ranks, as well as working towards the ending of the state, the groups' electoral behavior is worthy of close investigation. The study is ethnographic in nature providing a detailed account of how the group operates, its norms, values, structure and methods of organising.
'The thesis considers the notion that true liberation comes from below, from the people acting collectively to challenge authority rather than being handed from above by an elite who retain power. It investigates Class War's direct action and assesses their effectiveness in achieving liberation. In this context it considers their election campaign as a form of direct action in itself; one that ruptures the norms of electoral campaigning, providing the group with new avenues for activity.

Below, 'Class War' propadanda stunt in Downing Street in 2016, the year after the general election and the year after the Signing of the Letter.




The extracts below were written by a supporter of Class War, not by an opponent of Class War ridiculing Jon Bigger and Class War.



Class War had decided to stand candidates in the 2015 General Election, and among those who volunteered to stand was Jon Bigger, now Dr John Bigger and the publisher of The Journal of Anarchy 



(Croydon South was one of the lucky seats, so the Class War Warriors descended in South Croydon),  'one of the Conservatives' safest seats in London.'


It wasn’t a very successful visit as although we went to what was considered to be the centre of Purley there were very few people about, and Bigger’s campaign speech was delivered to the small group of Class War supporters and one rather confused elderly gentleman at the Conservative Party Office. We found only a few more outside a nearby supermarket, where most customers seemed to be in two much of a hurry to get back into large cars to hear anything political.


Class War made the best of it, handing out their election flyer to the police posse still devotedly following their progress (though mainly sitting in their van enjoying the overtime), the occasional local youth and elderly demented.” Perhaps some of them were among the 65 who voted for Jonathan Bigger, but somehow 31,448 came out of the woods to vote for the Tory.


List of Signatories to the Open Letter


I point out in the introductory material in the column to the left that the claim made by the organizers of the open letter that the signatories were all academics is false. Scanning the list will show that this is so. The majority of the people who signed the list were academics but the claim that they are all 'academics working on topics related to war, conflict, security, human rights, and international relations' is false.

Signed by,

Professor Sara Ahmed, Independent

Professor Nadje Al-Ali, SOAS

Professor Judith Butler, University of California, Berkeley

Professor Boaventura de Sousa Santos, University of Coimbra

Professor Lisa Duggan, New York University

Professor Cynthia Enloe, Clark University

Professor Arturo Escobar, University of North Carolina

Professor Lewis Gordon, Global Centre for Advanced Study; UCONN-Storrs; Rhodes University

Professor David Graeber, LSE

Professor Derek Gregory, University of British Colombia

Professor John Holloway, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla

Professor Richard Jackson, University of Otago

Professor Laleh Khalili, SOAS, University of London

Professor Saskia Sassen, Colombia University, New York

Professor Vron Ware, Kingston University

Siân Addicott, Swansea College of Art

Dr Linda Åhäll, Keele University

Dr Kirsten Ainley, LSE

Hilary Aked, University of Bath

Simona Alexandra, Demilitarise King’s

Mehmet Ali, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna

Dr Jamie Allinson, University of Edinburgh

James Angel, King’s College London

Dr Leonie Ansems de Vries, King’s College London

Dr Claudia Aradau, King’s College London

Dr Gordon Asher, University of the West of Scotland

Dr Grietje Baars, City University of London

Dr Catherine Baker, University of Hull

Professor Mona Baker, University of Manchester

Dr Sita Balani, King’s College London

Dr Victoria Basham, Cardiff University

Mareike Beck, University of Sussex

Dr Laurie Benson, King’s College London

Professor G. K. Bhambra, University of Warwick

Jon Bigger, Loughborough University

Dr Ira Bliatka, Independent

Professor Lindsey Blumell, City University London

Dr Shannon Brincat, Griffith University

Dr Maria Brock, Södertörn University College

Dr Christopher Browning, University of Warwick

Dr Ian Bruff, University of Manchester

Mirjam Büdenbender, KU Leuven

Dr Sarah Bulmer, University of Exeter

Olimpia Burchiellaro, University of Westminster

Dr Rosalind Carr, University of East London

Dr Veronique Chance, Anglia Ruskin University

Dr Catherine Charrett, Queen Mary University of London

Dr Simon Choat, Kingston University

Dr Alex Christoyannopoulos, Loughborough University

Dr Chris Clarke, University of Warwick

Rosalie Clarke, NTU

Dr Thomas Clément Mercier, King’s College London

Professor Cynthia Cockburn, Retired

Lydia Cole, Aberystwyth University

Sam Cook, University of California, Santa Cruz

Amy Cooper, Birkbeck, University of London

Amy Corcoran, Queen Mary University of London

Clare Coultas, LSE

Thomas Cowan, King’s College London

Dr Ruth Craggs, King’s College London

Dr Rhys Crilley, University of Warwick

Dr Giran A. Cutanda, University of Granada

Ida Danewid, LSE

Kelcy Davenport, Anglia Ruskin University

Lou Dear, University of Glasgow

Dr Carl Death, University of Manchester

Dr Maria del Carmen Garcia Alonso, University of Kent

Dr Helen Dexter, The University of Leicester

Sam Donaldson, Solidarity

Jack Doyle, University of Oxford

Dr Synne Dyvik, University of Sussex

Elizabeth Eade, Brighton University

Dr Cassie Earl, University of Bristol

Dr James Eastwood, Queen Mary University of London

Dr Nathan Eisenstadt, University of Bristol

Dr Emmy Eklundh, King’s College London

Professor Miriam Estrada-Castillo, United Nations University for Peace

Catrin Evans, University of Glasgow

Dr Jonathan Evershed, Queen’s University Belfast

Syada Fatima Dastagir, Birkbeck, University of London

Adam Ferhani, University of Sheffield

Peter Finn, Kingston University

Kathrin Fischer, Queen Mary University of London

Dr Adam Fishwick, De Montfort University

Matthew Flinders, UCL

Dr Ludovic Foster, Independent

Dr Maria Fotou, University of Leicester

Guillaume Foulquie, University of Worcester

Dr Sylvia C. Frain, University of Otago & University of Guam

Dr Lola Frost, War Studies, King’s College London

Dr Sol Gamsu, University of Bath

Santiago García de Leaniz, EFA European Film Academy

Craig Gent, University of Warwick

Dr Jill Gibbon, Leeds Beckett University

Professor Emily Gilbert, University of Toronto

Dr Ciaran Gillespie, University of Surrey

Dr Rebecca Gould, University of Bristol

Leslie Gonzalez, University of Bristol

Dr Uri Gordon, University of Nottingham

Chloe Gott, University of Kent

Dr Sofa Gradin, Queen Mary University of London

Dr Harriet Gray, University of Gothenburg

Savannah Green, University of York

A Gregg, Independent

Dr Thomas Gregory, University of Auckland

Dr Mark Griffiths, Northumbria University

Dr Sandy Hager, City University of London

Jo Hague, Independent

Joseph Haigh, University of Warwick

Professor Janet Hargreaves, University of Huddersfield

Dr Sophie Harman, Queen Mary University of London

Dr Jason Hart, University of Bath

Dr Lou Harvey, University of Leeds

Dr Susanna Hast, University of Helsinki

Josefin Hedlund, King’s College London

Sita Hidayah, University of Freiburg

Dr Andy Higginbottom, Kingston University

Dr Peter Hill, Christ Church, University of Oxford

Dr Michael Hirsch, STFC

Dr Aggie Hirst, Kings College London

Jennifer Hobbs, University of Manchester

Dr Stephen Hobden, University of East London

Professor Jana Hoenke, University of Groningen

Dr Alison Howell, Rutgers University

Professor Jef Huysmans, Queen Mary University of London

Dr Marta Iñiguez de Heredia, Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals

Cody Jackson, Texas Women’s University

Louisa Jane Di Felice, Autonomous University of Barcelona

Professor Christina Jarvis, State University of New York

Dr Jamie M. Johnson, University of Leicester

Dr Katharina Karcher, University of Cambridge

Dr Oliver Kearns, Independent

Dr Paul Kelemen, University of Manchester

Margareta Kern, University of the Arts London

Professor Ruth Kinna, Loughborough University

Dr Paul Kirby, University of Sussex

Dr Sara Koopman, Kent State University

Dr Daniela Lai, UCL

Imane Lauraux, Independent

Dr Andrew Law, Newcastle University

Dr Sophie Lewis, University of Manchester

Matheus Lock Santos, Queen Mary University of London

Dr Matt Lee, Free University Brighton

Iris Loukopoulos, TansActional Athens

Dr Paulette Luff, Anglia Ruskin University

Julian Mair, MCI Management Centre

Dr Nivi Manchanda, Queen Mary University of London

Dr Tracy Marafiote, State University of New York

Professor Luke Martell, University of Sussex

Dr Maria Martin de Almagro Iniesta, University of Cambridge

Nicholas Martindale, University of Oxford

Dr Rachel Massey, University of Manchester

Dr Cristina Masters, University of Manchester

Dr Lauren McCarthy, Royal Holloway University of London

Dr Trevor McCrisken, University of Warwick

Dr Kevin McSorley, University of Portsmouth

Dr John McTague, University of Bristol

Angus McNelly, Queen Mary University of London

Rasika Meena Kaushik, Tata Institute of Social Sciences

Dr Akanksha Mehta, University of Sussex

Dr Isabel Meier, University of East London

Dr Katharine Millar, LSE

Colin Millen, Campaign for Unity in Practice and Self-Governance

Amanda Mills, London College of Communication

Dr Laura Mills, University of St Andrews

Dr Lara Montesinos Coleman, University of Sussex

Lena Moore, University of Cambridge

Dr Dalia Mostafa, University of Manchester

Professor Josepa Munoz, Artist

Professor Peter Newell, University of Sussex

Dr Marijn Nieuwenhuis, University of Warwick

Dr Kerem Nisancioglu, SOAS, University of London

Dr Jonna Nyman, University of Sheffield

Dr Ronan O’Callaghan, University of Central Lancashire

Dr Kieran Oberman, Edinburgh University

Dr Louiza Odysseos, University of Sussex

Sofia Olsson, University of Brighton

Dr Ajay Parasram, Dalhousie University

Dr Owen Parker, University of Sheffield

Dr Katy Parry, University of Leeds

Dr Ruth Pearce, University of Leeds

Hazel Perry, Anarchist Studies Network

Dr Simon Philpott, Newcastle University

Dr Veronique Pin-Fat, University of Manchester

Dr Nicola Pratt, University of Warwick

Dr Kandida Purnell, University of Aberdeen

Nat Raha, University of Sussex

Sanaz Raji, Unis Resist Border Controls

Dr Elisa Randazzo, University of Hertfordshire

Dr Rahul Rao, SOAS University of London

George Renshaw, Reading University

Dr Matthew Rech, Plymouth University

Henry Redwood, King’s College London

Anastasia Siniori, Westminster University

Professor Dee Reynolds, University of Manchester

Hannah Richter, University of Hertfordshire

Dr Melanie Richter-Montpetit, University of Sheffield

Dr Judith Roads, Retired

Professor Bruce Robbins, Columbia University

Dr Roberto Roccu, King’s College London

Dr Chris Rossdale, LSE

Professor Eugene E. Ruyle, California State University, Long Beach

Dr Caitlin Ryan, University of Groningen

Dr Myriam Salama-Carr, University of Manchester

Dr Leon Sealey-Huggins, University of Warwick

Paschal Somers, Coventry Justice and Peace Group

Neil Stamper, Wordpower

Lucy Stroud, Aberdeen University

Professor Paulette Swartzfager, Rochester Institute of Technology

Dr Thomas Swann, Loughborough University

Dr Meera Sabaratnam, SOAS, University of London

Dr Elke Schwarz, University of Leicester

Professor Lynne Segal, Birkbeck, University of London

Rasha Shaheen, Academy of Contemporary Music

Dr Laura J. Shepherd, UNSW Sydney

Dr Jonathan Silver, Sheffield University

Dr Tom Smith, University of Portsmouth

Dr Nick Srnicek, King’s College London

Dr Liam Stanley, University of Sheffield

Dr Anna Stavrianakis, University of Sussex

Dr Maurice Stierl, University of California Davis

Dr Henrique Tavares Furtado, University of the West of England

Dr Nicholas Taylor, Goldsmiths, University of London

Sahra Taylor, City, University of London

Diana Teggi, University of Bath

Dr Lasse Thomassen, Queen Mary University of London

Professor Charles Thorpe, University of California, San Diego

Dr Joanna Tidy, University of Sheffield

Dr Lisa Tilley, University of Warwick

Dave Tinham, Kingston University

Dr Rebecca Tipton, University of Manchester

Dr Alen Toplisek, Queen Mary University of London

Dr Cornelis van der Haven, Ghent University

Mijke van der Drift, Goldsmiths, University of London

Sara Van Goozen, University of Manchester

Tom Vaughan, Aberystwyth University

Professor Stellan Vinthagen, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Eliana Voutsadakis, London Southbank University

Dr Dereck Wall, Goldsmiths College

Dr David Wearing, Royal Holloway University of London

Alister Wedderburn, King’s College London/Australian National University

Dr Julia Welland, University of Warwick

Dr Ben Whitham, De Montfort University

Professor Annick Wibben, University of San Francisco

Dr Jeremy Wildeman, University of Bath

Dr Joanie Willett, University of Exeter

Dr Al Williams, Rewilding Wales

Dr Elisa Wynne-Hughes, Cardiff University

Jakub Zahora, Charles University, Prague

Dr Chris Zebrowski, Loughborough University


Extract from the article published on the site 'The Disorder of Things' and 'Campaign Against Arms Trade Universities Network'






Before giving an extract from the introductory material published on those sites, a short extract from Karl Popper's 'Conjectures and Refutations' (Chapter 18, 'Utopia and Violence.) Karl Popper, one of the most influential writers on scientific method, best known for his work in the philosophy of science and in particular for his book 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery' ('Die Logik der Forschung') wrote on many other subjects, including social and political issues. This is from his book 'Conjectures and Refutations:'


' ... we must not allow the distinction between attack and defence to become blurred. We must insist upon this distinction, and support and develop institutions (national as well as international) whose function is to discriminate between aggression and resistance to aggression.'


The organizers of the Open Letter, the two sites which publicized and promoted the letter and the naive signers of the letter overlooked this crucial distinction.


Academics Against the Arms Fair: An Open Letter

Last week, about 1500 weapons manufacturers and representatives of more than 100 states descended on London for Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) – the world’s largest arms fair. The companies have exhibited products ranging from crowd control equipment and ammunition to fighter jets and military vehicles, which they displayed to militaries, police forces and border agencies from around the world. DSEI is a major event for the international arms trade, and the deals done there play a major role in reinforcing Western militarism, fuelling conflict, repressing dissent and strengthening authoritarian regimes.

Two weeks ago, the Stop the Arms Fair coalition held a week of action in an attempt to prevent the arms fair from taking place. Anti-militarist groups, working in solidarity with activists from countries which have suffered the brutal consequences of the arms trade, held a series of events to disrupt the setup of DSEI. One event during this week was ‘Conference at the Gates’, an academic conference held in front of the arms fair, where participants debated ideas about militarism while taking action to resist it.

We support this week of action and Conference at the Gates, and call on the UK government to end its support for DSEI. As academics working on topics related to war, conflict, security, human rights, and international relations, we are opposed to the presence of this arms fair in London, and to the substantial support provided by the UK government to make it happen. It is wrong to argue, as the government does, that the arms trade contributes to security – it fuels conflict, facilitates repression, and makes the world a more dangerous place. In a world of complex challenges militarism should be regarded as part of the problem, not the solution.














In this column, images of some  people taking part in the 'Festival of Resistance' followed by a different issue: migration and asylum. 










Below, from the YouTube video on the 'Festival of Resistance' (aka the 'Festival of Fun and Futility.')




 The caption, 'We are War Resisters, we don't believe in war, we believe in alternatives to conflict.' Part of the image blocked so as not to infringe copyright.



Recommended, viewing all the video and viewing other videos on the event. Using the search term YouTube arms fair festival of resistance will uncover more fun-filled / dismal and depressing documentary evidence. The title of the video




is 'Stop DSEI [Defence and Security Equipment International] Day 1: Stop Arming Israel.' On this page, in various places, argument and evidence to show the crucial importance of Israel in protecting this part of the Middle East against terrorist action. A question for the anti-Israel protestors: Why are same sex relations (completely legal in Israel} illegal in Gaza and punishable by imprisonment for up to ten years?


Short term aim of the Festival of Resistance: stopping the Defence and Security Equipment event from taking place. Long term aim: to bring peace to the world. Some of the methods used: holding placards, chanting slogans, lying down in the street, in general, methods which haven't the slightest hope of success. The organizers have to realize that their methods need to be used in conflict zones. Perhaps they could consider Rapid Alert Stop War Missions to places in imminent danger of invasion, to active war zones, to places devastated by ISIS and other terrorist organizations, to see if signs and slogans have any effect at all, if lying down in a road where tanks are advancing stops the tanks or simply results in the crushing of protestors.


Profile of Professor Matthew Flinders, Sheffield University Department of Politics and International Relations


Let them come.' Open Democracy Document: Refugees and Asylum seekers


Why the Open Democracy Document is grossly unfair


Migration Watch Document: 'What is the problem?'

Open Democracy Document: List of Signers

'Let them come.' Open Democracy Document: Refugees and Asylum seekers


The current government position is bad policy, bad politics and a betrayal of what is best in Britain's history of providing sanctuary to those in need.


14 September 2015

Dear Prime Minister and Home Secretary,

We the undersigned are dedicated to creating a socially just world.  We spend our working lives supporting and promoting research, initiatives, and projects which will create a fairer and more equitable society for everyone.  Among our number are many leading experts on community cohesion, asylum, refugees, migration, politics, public opinion, policy and law.  We believe the Government’s current position on the European refugee crisis is misguided and requires urgent change.


Britain has a long and proud tradition of providing sanctuary to those in need. Thousands of European Jews were taken in by the governments of the 1930s and 1940s, saved from the horrors of fascism and Nazi extermination. Britain was one of the founding signatories of the post-war Geneva Convention on refugees in 1951. Tens of thousands of Ugandan Asians were saved from the tyranny of Idi Amin in the 1970s, while in the 1980s we accepted thousands of boat people fleeing Vietnam. More recently, we have given sanctuary to thousands of refugees fleeing conflicts in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere in the world.


You do not need to look far to find the beneficiaries of this proud tradition. Some sit with you on the benches of the House of Commons. Priti Patel, your employment minister, whose parents fled the tyranny of Idi Amin's Uganda. Nadeem Zahawi, the MP for Stratford-upon-Avon, who came to Britain as a nine year old child from Iraq, one of many families escaping Saddam Hussein. On the opposition benches, your former sparring partner Ed Miliband, whose father caught the last boat to Britain when the Nazis invaded Belgium. In the House of Lords, Lord Finkelstein, Lord Howard and others are the children of refugees given sanctuary by previous British governments.


Refugees and their descendents have made great contributions in all walks of British life. Some are famous on the national and international stage, others quietly contribute to British society and build lives for themselves and their families. All of them owe everything to the principled generosity of past Prime Ministers. That generosity is urgently needed again now.


You are right to point to our significant financial contribution of £900 million to help the governments of Syria, Lebanon and Turkey cope with the regional refugee crisis, a contribution you have recently increased by a further £100 million. Yet on the urgent issue of providing sanctuary to those who have arrived in Europe, it is clear we are failing to do our part. Germany has shown real leadership in response to this crisis, unilaterally lifting the Dublin regulation requiring refugees to be accommodated in their country of first entry, pledging to resettle up to 35,000 Syrian refugees under the Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme (VPRS) and leading efforts to build a co-ordinated European response. While Chancellor Merkel has responded with bold leadership, our own government response has been reluctant and insufficient. We have accepted only a tiny handful of VPRS refugees and, while your recent pledge to increase this commitment to several thousand is welcome, it is not equal to the task before us. For every refugee we currently accept, Germany accepts thirty five.


Some have argued that the British public are opposed to a larger effort to help, and that in any event such efforts are futile as we cannot hope to support all those displaced by this conflict, nor can support for refugees resolve the crisis that has led them to flee in the first place. We reject these arguments. Opinion polling shows that British voters backed the principle of asylum even before the current crisis - in a May poll by YouGov supporters outnumbered opponents by a margin of two to one. The terrible images of recent days can only have further reinforced this public support. The argument that we should not help anyone because we cannot help everyone is illogical and a historical betrayal. The governments of the 1930s and 1940s could not hope to help everyone displaced by global conflict, but they did what they could, saving thousands of lives. The situation is no different now. There is also no logic of refusing to help those fleeing conflict because doing so will not resolve the conflict. It is akin to leaving people in a burning building because rescuing them won't help put out the fire. We do need to do more to resolve the conflicts in the region. But first we must help more of those put at risk by these conflicts.


The chorus of political voices calling for greater action is growing rapidly, and crosses all traditional party lines. Conservative MPs Nicola Blackwood, David Burrowes, Jonny Mercer, Tom Tugendhat, Nadeem Zahawi and Jeremy Lefroy have all called for us to do more as a nation, as have Boris Johnson, Mayor of London and Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, former party chairman. Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, has joined SNP First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale in calling for more to be done. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, has joined these calls, as have the interim Labour Leader Harriet Harman and all the candidates in the Labour leadership contest.


The current government position is bad policy, bad politics and a betrayal of a proud British tradition. It shames us as a nation that we have done so little, and there is clear support for a change of stance from across the political spectrum. We urge you to live up to Britain's proud humanitarian traditions, and increase Britain's commitment to give sanctuary to those in urgent need on Europe's borders. This crisis is a chance to challenge the growing cynicism of voters who feel that politicians are crooked and politics doesn't matter. Show those who are pouring out their support for those in desperate need but feel powerless to help them that the British government is still a force for good in the world. We can do more. We should do more. We must do more. Prime Minister and Home Secretary, listen to the voices of your colleagues in Europe, the voices of colleagues in your parties and other parties, and the voices of your voters when we say: Let them come.


Why the Open Democracy Document is grossly unfair


The current government position is bad policy, bad politics and a betrayal of a proud British tradition. It shames us as a nation that we have done so little, and there is clear support for a change of stance from across the political spectrum. We urge you to live up to Britain's proud humanitarian traditions, and increase Britain's commitment to give sanctuary to those in urgent need on Europe's borders. This crisis is a chance to challenge the growing cynicism of voters who feel that politicians are crooked and politics doesn't matter. Show those who are pouring out their support for those in desperate need but feel powerless to help them that the British government is still a force for good in the world. We can do more. We should do more. We must do more. Prime Minister and Home Secretary, listen to the voices of your colleagues in Europe, the voices of colleagues in your parties and other parties, and the voices of your voters when we say: Let them come.


Migration Watch Document: 'What is the problem?'


From the page


(Figures provided with the document omitted.)

  • The issue is the huge scale of immigration (para 2)

  • It is now massive compared to the past (para 6)

  • It is adding more than a million to the UK population every three years (para 11)

  • Mass immigration places major pressure on public services. There were an average of 2,000 new GP registrations by migrants per day in 2016/17 (para 15)

  • Current levels of immigration to England will require a home to be built every six minutes, night and day (para 16)

  • Immigrants overall were a net fiscal cost to the Exchequer of £4.3 billion in 2016/17

  • Nearly three-quarters of the public supports a large reduction in immigration levels, according to a 2018 Deltapoll (para 20)

  • Demos found that about three-quarters of the public considered that immigration had increased divisions (para 23)


1. Immigration is a natural part of an open economy and society. The problem for the UK is that the current level of immigration is much too high. There needs to be a significant reduction in the level of international net migration (the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants) which has averaged nearly 300,000 per annum since 2014 – equivalent to the population of Newcastle arriving each year.

2. Opponents of tighter immigration control often try to present the debate as being either ‘for’ or ‘against’ migration. That is quite wrong. The issue is with its scale and with the dismissal of the public’s views on a matter of vital importance. A country has the right to decide who to allow in. Accordingly, all countries have border controls and all face legitimate questions over who to admit and who to turn away. The key question is who and how many people are good for our economy and society. Immigration policy, like any other policy, needs to be managed in the best interests of the UK and of its citizens.

3. As is befitting an organisation that is chaired by a first-generation migrant, we at Migration Watch UK know only too well that most migrants come here for an admirable reason, to try to better their lives. A huge number of those from overseas make a positive contribution to our society. However, as many migrants themselves recognise, the current pace of immigration-driven population growth is placing serious pressure on our roads, trains, hospitals, GP surgeries, schools and natural resources – all of which are struggling to cope.

4. Many people are also concerned about the way in which immigration is leading to rapid cultural change. Indeed, some communities have been transformed forever and the local way of life has now been largely displaced.

5. Many also believe that the ongoing process of mass immigration is having a harmful impact on fundamental British values such as freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and equality of opportunity for women and those in the LGBT community.

The scale of immigration

6. The scale of immigration over the past 20 years is unprecedented in our history. The UK has always experienced periods of immigration never on remotely the same scale as that which we have witnessed over the past two decades or so (see a history of immigration to the UK here).

7. In 1997, net migration was just 47,000. In the years that followed it rose to well over 200,000 and reached 320,000 in 2005. Under the last Labour government (1997-2010) an extra 3.6 million foreign migrants arrived, while one million British citizens left. (Read more about Labour’s record on immigration from 1997 to 2010).

8. The coalition government elected in 2010 pledged to reduce net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’ (a promise that was repeated in 2015 and 2017). However, overall net migration rose to a third of a million – even higher than under Labour. This is largely because net migration from the EU doubled over the last Parliament due to the ongoing disparity in wealth between Eastern Europe and the UK together and the impact of the Eurozone crisis on Southern Europe (See here). This no doubt contributed significantly to the June 2016 referendum result

9. The current Conservative government has failed to reduce immigration as it has promised to do. According to the most recent estimates, net migration stood at just over 250,000 in the year 2018. Although EU net migration has fallen substantially in recent years, non-EU net migration remains at historically high levels (over 230,000 per year). See figure 1 below and read more about the latest net migration estimates.

Why is the current level of immigration a problem?

10. The UK (and especially England) is already densely populated by international standards. At 430 people per square kilometre, England is nearly twice as crowded as Germany (227) people per sq/km) and more than three times as crowded as France (117 people per sq/km).

11. High immigration is driving rapid population growth. Immigration added one million to the population every three years during the period 2001-2016. The current rate of UK population growth is higher than in 47 out of the past 65 years (read this paper on immigration and population growth).

12. In 2016, nearly three-quarters of people said Britain was already crowded (YouGov, May 2016). In 2018, 64% of the public said the level of projected population growth was too high (YouGov, July 2018).

13. The UK population stood at 66.4 million in mid-2018 (see figure 2 below) and has risen by more than 7.7 million over the past twenty years.

14. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) projects that, if net migration remains at about the current level of nearly 250,000 per year, the UK population will increase by a total just under 400,000 per year until 2041. In the long term this would lead to growth of 9.7 million people over a 25-year period. We would surpass 70 million in 2026. ONS projections show that around 82% of the total increase by 2041 would be the result of immigration (see the official ONS population projections).

15. The ONS has said that ‘in addition to the direct impact of migration on the size of the population, current and past international migration also has indirect effects on the size of the population as it changes the numbers of births and deaths in the UK’. In 2017, 28.4% of all births in England and Wales were to mothers born outside of the UK. Meanwhile, in 2016/17, there were 730,000 new registrations with GPs by those from overseas in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – or an average of 2,000 per day. While a note of caution is required in that some migrants may have been here short-term or could have moved between homes in the UK and been double counted in the statistics, most registrations were more likely to have been new arrivals, here for protracted periods.

16. To cope with this population increase huge amounts will have to be spent on the expansion of school places, roads, rail, health and other infrastructure (read more about the impact of immigration on public services and infrastructure). Well over half of the public (58%) think immigration already places a large amount of pressure on public services (Ipsos MORI, 2017). There is one new GP registration by someone from overseas every minute (ONS statistics).

17. Mass immigration is clearly worsening the housing crisis. It has ‘increased the overall demand for housing’ (says the ONS) and ‘increases house prices’ (according to the Journal of Housing Economics - July 2019). One home will have to be built every six minutes, night and day, just to cope with the current level of net immigration to England (ONS projections). Unless immigration is brought sharply down the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, largely to the detriment of our young people. At the same time the UK’s precious green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of the extra housing required (Read more about the impact of immigration on housing).

Little benefit for the UK population and harmful for the poorest

18. Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are false (for more here is our economics briefing). The academic research points to immigration resulting in a clear fiscal cost to the UK. Between 1995 and 2011, immigrants in the UK cost at least £114 billion, or about £18m a day (University College London research, 2014). More recently, for the year 2016/17, a 2018 report for the Migration Advisory Committee estimated that immigrants overall cost the Exchequer £4.3 billion, adding to the UK's fiscal deficit (with a net contribution of £4.7bn by EEA migrants considerably outweighed by a cost of £9bn for non-EEA migrants - - see par. 4.11 of MAC report). On this evidence, immigration does not generate the tax receipts needed for migrants to 'pay their way' let alone to finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth.

19. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that the UK economy will continue to grow at a modest rate into 2021 (see Financial Times report). Mass immigration is a factor in this because more people make for a larger economy. However, immigration does not seem to have had any clear beneficial impact the UK’s GDP per head so has not necessarily made for a better economy. Indeed, growth in GDP per capita has effectively stalled over the past decade. Additionally, despite the number of immigrant workers growing by over two million since 2006, productivity (key to economic performance) has essentially flat-lined (for more, read this May 2019 paper: ‘Immigration and UK productivity’). As the MAC has said: “The impact of migration on aggregate productivity may be mixed”.

20. The numbers of both UK-born and non-UK born people in employment continues to grow (see ONS statistics). However, the availability of a large pool of labour from abroad has taken the pressure off employers to raise wages (see Blanchflower, National Institute Economic Review, 2015). Mass immigration is likely to be holding back wages for those in direct competition for work, which is often those who are already on low pay – both UK-born and previous migrants. A 2015 Bank of England studyfound a negative impact on the wages of those in the lower skilled services sector in which millions of UK workers are employed. Meanwhile, the Resolution Foundationfound in 2016 that immigration over the period 2009-2016 ‘resulted in native wages for those in skilled trades occupations [electricians, plumbers and bricklayers] being 2.1% lower’ (pp. 16-17 of their report).

Public Opinion 

21. While the public have a nuanced view on different types of immigration, Ipsos MORI have found that three in every five UK adults supports a reduction in immigration levels. Deltapoll finds that nearly three quarters of those surveyed in 2018 wanted a significant reduction. In addition, a 2019 YouGov-Cambridge Globalism poll found that 72% of respondents did not say that the benefits of immigration outweighed the costs (read more about public opinion regarding immigration).

22. In its 2017 election manifesto the Conservative Partystated (see p.48) that it would bring net migration down ‘to the tens of thousands’ and ‘bear down on immigration from outside the EU’. A failure to deliver on such promises has undoubtedly contributed to public disillusionment and distrust on this topic. Only 17% of the public think that the government tells the truth on the issue either all or most of the time (British Future). Only by delivering a major reduction in immigration can the government begin to remedy what has become a huge credibility gap. In a democracy, it is essential that public policy is responsive to the public’s wishes and that election promises are honoured.

The unity of our society

23. “Too many people coming too quickly into a society makes it difficult to retain a sense of cohesion and stability” (Policy Exchange, 2017): This suggests that immigration levels needs to be reduced. In 2016, Dame Louise Casey reported that some areas of the UK were struggling to cope with the pace and scale of change while pointing to a growth in ‘regressive ideologies’. These included religious and cultural practices targeting women and children (female genital mutilation, forced marriage, 'honour' based crime, educational segregation and stultification) and the ‘hate and stigmatisation’ of LGBT people.

24. Polling also indicates that UK society is becoming more fractured as the result of immigration. Demos foundthat around three quarters of the public said in 2018 that immigration had increased divisions. According to Eurofound, around half of the public believe immigration has led to a high level of tension. Bringing the level of immigration down by a large amount is crucial to ensuring a cohesive community in which all are treated with dignity and British culture and values are protected and enriched.

25. Our paper “What should be done” explains what steps need to be taken to bring immigration down.

Updated 11 July 2019


Open Democracy Document: List of Signers


Dr Robert Ford, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Maria Sobolewska, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester

Professor Matthew Flinders, Chair, Political Studies Association and Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for Promoting the Public Understanding of Politics

Dr Rosie Campbell, Vice Chair, Political Studies Association and Reader in Politics, Birkbeck College

Dr Vicky Randall, Vice Chair, Political Studies Association and Emeritus Professor in Politics, University of Essex

Helena Djurkovic, CEO, Political Studies Association

Professor Francesca Gains, Head of Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Manchester

Dr Tariq Modood, MBA FAcSS, Founding Director of the Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship and Professor of Sociology, Public Policy and Politics, University of Bristol

Dr Liz Frazer, Head of Department of Politics and Official Fellow of New College, University of Oxford

Frances O'Grady, General Secretary, Trades Union Congress

Dr Ailsa Henderson, Professor of Politics and Head of Department of Politics and International Relations

Dr Simon Hix, Head of Department of Government and Harold Laski Professor of Political Science, London School of Economics and Political Science

Dr Mike Savage FBA, Head of Department of Sociology and Professor of Sociology, London School of Economics and Political Science

Professor Emma Murphy, Head of School of Government and International Affairs, University of Durham

Dr Nick Vaughan-Williams, Professor of Politics and Head of Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick

Dr Melissa Mills, Head of Department of Sociology and Nuffield Professor of Sociology, University of Oxford

Professor Claudio Radaelli, Director, Centre of European Governance, University of Exeter

Dr Anthony Heath FBA CBE, Director of the Centre for Social Investigation and Professor of Sociology, University of Oxford

Dr Michael Keith, Director of the Centre on Migration Policy and Society (COMPAS) and Professorial Fellow, Merton College, Oxford University

Dr Patrick Sturgis, Director of ESRC National Centre for Research Methods and Professor of Research Methodology, University of Southampton

Dr Andrew Sanders, Head of School of Law, Politics and Sociology Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology,  University of Sussex

Moira Sinclair, Chief Executive, Paul Hamlyn Foundation

Debbie Pippard, Head of Programmes, Barrow Cadbury Trust

Nick Perks, Trust Secretary, Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust

Omar Khan, Director, Runnymede Trust

Michael McTernan, Director, Policy Network

Don Flynn, Director, Migrants' Rights Network

Sunder Katwala, Director, British Future

Will Somerville, Director, UK Programme, Unbound Philanthropy

Andy Gregg, Chief Executive, Race on the Agenda

Jehangir Malik OBE, UK Director, Islamic Relief

Nero Ughwujabo,  Chief Executive , Croydon BME Forum

Jabeer Butt, Deputy Chief Executive, Race Equality Foundation

Alexandra Runswick, Director, Unlock Democracy

Patrick Yu, Executive Director, Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities

Nick Lowles, Chief Executive, Hope not Hate

Dr Edie Friedman, Director, Jewish Council for Racial Equality

Ratna Lachman, Director, JUST West Yorkshire

S Chelvan, Barrister, No5 Chambers

Rabbi Herschel Gluck OBE, Chairman, Arab-Jewis Forum

Mark Tilki, Chair, Irish in Britain

Michael Newman, Vice-chair, Discrimination Law Association

Dr Anoush Ehteshami  Joint Director of the RCUK Centre for the Advanced Study of the Arab World and Professor of International Relations, University of Durham

Dr Saladin Meckled-Garcia, Senior Lecturer in Politics and Director of the UCL Institute for Human Rights, University College London

Dr David Feldman, Direct, Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism and Professor of History, Birkbeck, University of London

Dr Bridget Anderson, Deputy Director of COMPAS and Professor of Migration and Citizenship, University of Oxford

Dr Virginia Mantouvalou, Co-Director of the Institute for Human Rights and Reader in Human Rights and Labour Law, University College London

Dr Patrick Baert, Head of Department of Sociology and Professor of Sociology, University of Cambridge

Dr Simon Parker, Director of School of Social and Political Sciences and Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of York

Dr Fiona Mackay, Head of School of Social and Political Science and Professor of Politics, University of Edinburgh

Dr Claire Annesley, Head of Department of Politics and Professor of Politics, University of Sussex

Dr Valsamis Mitsilegas, Head of the Department of Law and Professor of Law,

Queen Mary University of London

Dr Dibyesh Anand, Head of Department and Reader in Politics and International Relations, University of Westminster

Dr Albert Weale CBE FBA, Emeritus Professor of Political Theory and Public Policy, University College London

Dr Ben Bowling, Deputy Dean and Professor of Law, The Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London

Dr Colin Clark, Professor of Sociology & Social Policy, Research Director of the Public Policy, Governance & Social Justice hub, The University of the West of Scotland

Dr Patrick Hayden, Director of Research, School of International Relations and Professor of Politics, University of Edinburgh

Dr Reenske Doorenspleet, Director of the Centre for Studies in Democratisation and Associate Professor of Politics, University of Warwick

Dr Alan Ware, Professor of Politics and Emeritus Fellow, Worcester College, University of Oxford

Dr Robin Cohen, Emeritus Professor of Development Studies and former Director, International Migration Institute, University of Oxford

Dr Deborah Johnston, Head of Department of Economics and Reader in Economics, SOAS, University of London

Dr Ben Clift, Deputy Head of Department of Politics, and Professor of Politics, University of Warwick

Dr Sally Munt, Director, Sussex Centre for Cultural Studies and Professor of Cultural Studies, University of Sussex

Dr Ben Rogaly, Head of Department of Geography and Professor of Geography, University of Sussex

Dr Alan Lester, Co-Director of Centre for Colonial and Post-colonial studies and Professor of Historical Geography, University of Sussex

Dr Harris Beider, Head of Social Relations Team and Professor of Community Cohesion, Coventry University

Dr Phil Henry, Director, The Multi-Faith Centre at the University of Derby

Dr Alison Phipps, Director of Gender Studies & Reader in Sociology, University of Sussex

Dr Eleonore Kofman, Co-Director Social Policy Research Centre and Professor of Social Policy, Middlesex University

Professor David Held, Master of University College, Durham

Dr Sam Raphael, Co-Director, The Rendition Project and Senior Lecturer, Politics, International Relations and Human Rights, Kingston University

Dr Jennifer Van Heerde-Hudson, Director, UCL Q-Step Centre and Senior Lecturer in Political Behaviour, University College London

Dr Navtej Purewal, Deputy Director, South Asia Institute, SOAS, University of London

Dr Margaret Greenfields, Director: Institute for Diversity Research, Inclusivity, Communities and Society (IDRICS) and Professor of Social Policy & Community Engagement, Buckinghamshire New University

Dr Louise Ryan, Co-Director of the Social Policy Research Centre and Professor of Sociology, Middlesex University

Dr Daniel Butt, Director of the Centre for the Study of Social Justice and Associate Professor in Political Theory, Oxford University

Dr Stuart White, Director of the Public Policy Unit, Associate Professor in Politics and Fellow of Jesus College, University of Oxford

Dr Vanja Hamzic, co-Chair, Centre for Ottomoan Studies, SOAS, University of London

Dr Ana Contandi, Head of the School of Arts, SOAS, University of London

Dr Francesco Billari FBA, Professor of Sociology, University of Oxford

Dr Cecile Laborde, FBA, Professor of Political Theory, University College London

Dr Edward Fieldhouse, Director of the British Election Study and Professor of Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Hermann Schmitt, Director of the British Election Study and Professor of Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Jane Green, Director of the British Election Study and Professor of Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Heaven Crawley, Professor of International Migration, Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations

Dr Anand Menon, Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs, Kings College London

Dr Andew Thompson, Professor of Public Policy and Citizenship, University of Edinburgh

Dr Colin Talbot, Professor of Politics, University of Manchester

Dr David Richards, Professor of Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Andrew Russell, Professor of Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Ludi Simpson, Professor of Population Studies, University of Manchester

Dr Sarah Childs, Professor of Politics, University of Bristol

Dr Joni Lovenduski, Professor of Politics, Birkbeck College University of London

Dr Gerry Stoker, Professor of Politics and Governance, University of Southampton

Dr Paul Whiteley, Professor of Politics, University of Essex

Dr Andrew Geddes, Professor of Politics, University of Sheffield

Dr Jan Toporowski, Professor of Economics, SOAS, University of London

Dr Guy Standing FAcSS, Professor in Development Studies, SOAS, University of London

Mr Chris Bertram, Professor of Social and Political Philosophy, University of Bristol

Dr Satvinder Juss FRSA, Professor of Law, King's College London

Dr Mike Smith, Professor in European Politics, University of Warwick

Dr Peter Fitzpatrick, Anniversary Professor of Law, Birkbeck College University of London

Dr Ian Law, Professor of Sociology,  School of Sociology and Social Policy University of Leeds

Dr Yunas Samad, Professor of South Asian Studies, University of Bradford

Dr Shirin Rai, Professor of Politics, Warwick University

Dr Peter Humphreys, Professor of Politics, Manchester University

Dr Eleanor Nesbitt, Professor Emeritus, Warwick Religions and Education Research Unit

Dr Peter Ratcliffe, Professor of Sociology, University of Warwick

Dr Anthony Good, Emeritus Professor of Social Anthropology, University of Edinburgh

Dr Marie-Benedicte Dembour, Professor of Law and Anthropology, University of Brighton

Dr Raminder Kaur, Professor of Anthropology, University of Sussex

Dr Rachel Gibson, Professor of Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Bernard Ryan, Professor of Migration Law, University of Leicester

Dr Gideon Calder, Professor of Social Ethics, University of South Wales

Dr Clive Jones,  F.R.Hist.Soc, Professor of Regional Security, University of Durham

Dr James Fairhead, Professor of Anthropology, University of Sussex

Dr Salwa Ismail, Professor of Politics with Reference to the Middle East, SOAS, University of London

Dr Alan Renwick, Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit, University College London

Dr Stephen Fielding, Professor of Politics, University of Nottingham

Dr Colin Hay, Professor of Politics, Sciences-Po, Paris

Dr Matthew Goodwin, Professor of Politics, University of Kent

Dr Julia Strauss, Professor of Politics, SOAS, University of London

Dr Francesca Bray, Professor of Anthropology, University of Edinburgh

Dr Les Back, Professor of Sociology, Goldsmiths College University of London

Dr Ben Highmore, Professor of Cultural Studies, University of Sussex

Dr Anshuman Mondal, Professor of English, College of Business, Arts and Social Sciences, Brunel University

Dr Hakim Adi, Professor of the History of Africa and the African Diaspora,University of Chichester

Dr Jane Cowan, Professor of social anthropology at the University of Sussex;  also Professor for the International Summer School, 'Cultures, Migrations, Borders' in Plomari, Lesbos,

Dr Gill Crozier, Professor of Education, University of Roehampton, London

Dr Floya Anthias, Professor of Sociology and Social Justice (Emeritus), Roehampton University

Dr David Owen, Professor of Social and Political Philosophy, University of Southampton

Dr Simon Caney, Professor in Political Theory, Magdalen College, Oxford

Dr Ben Highmore, Professor of Cultural Studies, University of Sussex.

Dr Peter Muchlinski, Professor in International Commercial Law, The School of Law, SOAS, University of London

Dr Christina Boswell, Director of Research and Professor of Politics, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh

Dr Nicola McEwen, Professor of Territorial Politics, University of Edinburgh

Dr Alfredo Saad Filho, Professor of Development Studies, SOAS, University of London

Dr Christopher Cramer, Professor of the Political Economy of Development, SOAS, University of London

Dr Marc Stears, Professor of Political Theory and Fellow of University College, University of Oxford

Dr Mark Hobart, Emeritus Professor of Critical Media and Cultural Studies, SOAS, University of London

Dr Nadje Al-Ali, Professor of Gender Studies, SOAS, University of London

Dr Michael Jennings, Senior Lecturer in Development Studies, SOAS, University of London

Dr Oliver Heath, Reader in Politics, Royal Holloway University of London

Dr Maria Koinova, Reader in International Relations, Warwick University

Dr Miriam Ronzoni, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Eddie Bruce-Jones, Senior Lecturer in Law, Birkbeck College University of London

Dr Piers Robinson, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Matthias Thaler, Chancellor's Fellow in Politics, University of Edinburgh

Dr Louiza Odysseos, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Sussex

Dr Martin O'Neill, Senior Lecturer in Political Philosophy, University of York

Dr Sian Hawthorne, Director of Studies MA Religion and Global Politics, SOAS, University of London

Dr Delwar Hussain, Chancellor's Fellow in Social Anthropology, University of Edinburgh

Dr Gerard McCann, Senior Lecturer in International Studies, St Mary’s University College, Belfast

Dr. Theofanis Exadaktylos, Lecturer in European Politics, University of Surrey

Dr Tereza Capelos, Lecturer in Politics, University of Surrey

Dr Liz Richardson, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Christian Schemmel, Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Marta Cantijoch, Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Aoileann Ni Mhurchu, Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Alistair Clark, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Newcastle

Dr Liam Shields, Lecturer in Political Theory, University of Manchester

Dr Helena Wray, Associate Professor in Law, Middlesex University

Dr Jonathan Seglow, Reader in Political Theory, Royal Holloway, University of London

Dr Bridget Byrne, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of Manchester

Dr. Leandro Vergara-Camus, Lecturer in Theory, Policy and Practice of Development, SOAS, University of London

Dr Nicola Pratt, Reader, International Politics of the Middle East, University of Warwick

Dr Ana Lindley, Lecturer in Development Studies, SOAS, University of London

Dr Vicki Squire, Associate Professor of International Security, University of Warwick

Dr Steve Bastow, Director of Teaching and Learning, School of Economics, History and Politics

Kingston University

Dr Nicola Furrie Senior Lecturer in Political Communication and Public Affairs, Aberdeen Business School

Dr Ben Gidley, Associate Professor,  School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, University of Oxford

Dr Sundari Anitha, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lincoln

Dr Peter McLaverty, Reader in Public Policy, Aberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon University

Dr Elizabeth Evans, Lecturer in Politics, University of Bristol

Dr Barbara Zollner, Lecturer in Politics, Birkbeck College

Dr Kieran Oberman, Chancellor's Research Fellow in Politics, Edinburgh University

Rebecca Parto, Chair, Political Studies Association Postgraduate Network

Professor David Owen, University of Southampton

Dr Meera Sabaratnam, Lecturer in Politics, SOAS, University of London

Dr Amrita, Senior Teaching Fellow in History, SOAS, University of London

Dr Mihaela Mihai, Lecturer in Politics, University of Edinburgh

Dr Paul O'Connell, Reader in Law, SOAS, University of London

Dr Ian Bruff, Lecturer in European Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Lars Laamann, Lecturer in History, SOAS, University of London

Dr Hedi Viterbo, Lecturer in Politics, SOAS, University of London

Dr Upamanyu Pablo Mukherjee, Professor of English and Comparative Literary Studies

Dr Michael Buehler, Lecturer in Comparative Politics, SOAS, University of London

Dr Judith Bara, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Queen Mary, Univerity of London

Dr Louise Thompson, Lecturer in British Politics, University of Surrey

Dr Leslie Vinjamuri, Senior Lecturer in Politics, SOAS, University of London

Dr Pontus Odmalm, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Edinburgh

Dr Pierre-Philippe Fraiture Head of French Studies and Professor of French, University of Warwick

Dr Mulaika Hijjas, Lecturer in South East Asian Studies, SOAS, University of London

Dr Kevin Millar, Teaching Fellow in Politics, University of Durham

Dr Frauke Urban, Senior Lecturer in Environment and Development, SOAS, University of London

Lucy Hatton, PhD researcher in Politics, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick

Dr Elizabeth Kahn, Lecturer in Political Theory, School of Politics and International Affairs, University of Durham

Dr Carly Beckerman-Boys, Lecture in the International Relations of the Middle East, School of Politics and International Affairs, University of Durham

Dr Kamran Khan, Lecturer in Politics, University of Leicester

Eloise Bertrand, PhD researcher in Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick

Dr Julia Welland, Teaching Fellow, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick

Dr Laia Becares, Joint ESRC/Hallsworth Research Fellow, Centre on the Dynamics of Ethnicity, University of Manchester

Dr Carl Death, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Federico Mucciarelli Reader in Financial Law SOAS, University of London,

Dr James Caron, Lecturer in Islamicate South Asia, Faculty of Languages and Cultures, SOAS - University of London

Dr Lucy Lowe, Lecturer in Social Anthropology, University of Edinburgh

Dr Robert Jump, Lecturer in Economic, University of Kingston

Dr Nick Turnbull, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Stuart Shields, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Olga Onuch, Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Anastasia Taryn, Lecturer in Law, University of Liverpool

Lauren Tooker, Erasmus Mundus Doctoral Research Fellow, University of Warwick

Dr Steve Ketterell, Associate Professor in Politics, University of Warwick

Dr Veronique Pin-Fat, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Daniel Fitzpatrick, Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Neophytos Loizides, Reader in International Conflict Analysis, University of Kent

Dr. Bridget Cotter, Lecturer in Politics, University of Westminster

Dr Nic Cheeseman, Associate Professor in African Politics, University of Oxford

Dr Vikki Boliver, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of Durham

Dr Anita Schrader-McMillan, Senior Research Fellow, Warwick Medical School

Dr David Hudson, Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, University College London

Dr Tom Dannenbaum, Lecturer in Human Rights, University College London

Dr Christina Achinger, Associate Professor in German Studies, University of Warwick

Dr Edyta Roszko, Marie Curie Research Fellow in Politics, University of Durham

Dr Sarah Fine, Lecturer in Philosophy, Kings College London

Dr Sam Freiedman, Assistant Professor in Sociology, London School of Economics and Political Science

Dr Anita Schrader-McMillan, Senior Research Fellow, Warwick Medical School

Dr Sara Dorman, Lecturer in Politics, University of Edinburgh

Dr Richard Child, Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Laura McLeod, Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Gunvor Jónsson,  Departmental Lecturer in Migration and Development

Dept. of International Development University of Oxford

Dr Adrienne Roberts, Lecturer in International Politics, University of Manchester

Dr Rainbow Murray, Reader in Politics, Queen Mary University of London

Dr Robin Pettit, Lecturer in Politics, Kingston University

Dr Naomi Wells, Research Fellow, Italian Studies, School of Modern Languages and Cultures, University of Warwick

Dr Subir Sinha, Senior Lecturer, Development Studies, SOAS, University of London

Dr Oz Hassan, Associate Professor in National Security, University of Warwick

Dr. Rashmi Varma, Department of English and Comparative Literary Studies

Dr Stephanie Collins, Lecturer in Political Theory, University of Manchester

Dr Cristina Masters, Lecturer in International Relations, University of Manchester

Dr Alexandra Homolar, Associate Professor of International Security, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick.

Dr Stephen Dr Wizje, Senior Lecturer in Political Theory, University of Manchester

Dr Rachel Seoighe, Research Fellow in Law, University of Warwick

Dr Claire Blencowe, Associate Professor of Sociology University of Warwick

Dr Samantha Ashenden, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Birkbeck College University of London

Dr David Cutts, Reader in Politics, University of Bath

Dr Trevor McCrisken, Associate Professor, School of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick

Dr Ruvi Ziegler, Lecturer in Law, University of Reading

Dr Emily McTernan, Lecturer in Political Theory, University College London

Dr Fiona Adamson, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, SOAS, University of London

Dr Avia Pasternak, Lecturer in Global Ethics, University College London

Jennifer Brown, PhD Researcher, University College London

Dr Manjeet Ramgotra, Senior Teaching Fellow in Politics, SOAS, University of London

Anca Gheaus, Doctoral Researcher in Philosophy, University of Sheffield

Alan Anstead, UK Race and Equality Network

Dr Khursheed Wadia, Principal Research Fellow in Ethnic Relations, University of Warwick

Dr Ugur Ozdemir, Lecturer in Quantitative Political Science

Dr Christopher Browning, Lecturer in Politics, University of Warwick

Dr Stephen Kettell, Associate Professor in Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick

Dr Patrick Burke, Lecturer in Politics, University of Westminster

Dr Ruth Wittlinger, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Durham

Dr Zoe Marriage, Reader in Development Studies, SOAS, University of London

Dr Zakia Shiraz, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Institute of Advanced Study, University of Warwick

Dr Madeline Fagan, Global Research Fellow, Institute of Advanced Study, University of Warwick

Dr Reem Abou-El-Fadl, Lecturer in Comparative Politics of the Middle East, SOAS, University of London

Dr Ian O'Flynn, Lecturer in Politics, Newcastle University

Dr Simon Choat, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Kingston

Dr Carmen Gebhard, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of Edinburgh

Dženeta Karabegović, PhD Candidate, Politics and International Studies
Department, University of Warwick

Dr Loredana Polezzi, School of Modern Languages and Cultures, University of Warwick

Dr Khursheed Wadia, Principal Research Fellow in Ethnic Relations, University of Warwick

Dr. Juanita Elias, Associate Professor, Politics & International Studies, University of Warwick

Dr Lena Rethel, Associate Professor, Politics & International Studies, University of Warwick

Dr Sutha Nadarajah, Lecturer in International Relations, SOAS, University of London

Dr Dalal Stevens, Director of Research, School of Law and Reader in Law

Dr Ingrid Storm, British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre on the Dynamics of Ethnicity, University of Manchester

Dr Nissa Finney, Reader in Human Geography, University of St Andrews

David Wearing, Doctoral Researcher, SOAS, University of London

Dr Chege Githoria, Senior Lecturer in Swahili, SOAS, University of London

Dr John Harries, Teaching Fellow in Social Anthropology, University of Edinburgh

Ragnar Wielandt, Doctoral Research Fellow, University of Edinburgh

Tufyal Choudhury , Lecturer in Law, Director of Student Support, School of Law, Durham University

Dr Mohammed Alam, Lecturer in Sociology, University of Bradford

Dr. Catherine Goetze Senior Lecturer in International Relations, School of Global Studies, University of Sussex

Dr Patrick McGovern, Department of Sociology, London School of Economics & Political Science

Dr Francesca Salvi, Lecturer in Childhood Studies, School of Education and Continuing Studies (SECS), University of Portsmouth

Dr James Hampshire, Senior Lecture in Politics, University of Sussex

Dr Tessa Lewin, Research Fellow, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex

Dr Olli Hellmann Lecturer in Politics, University of Sussex

Dr. Stephanie E. Berry Lecturer in Public Law,School of Law, Politics and Sociology,University of Sussex

Dr Sabrina Gilani, University of Sussex, Sussex Law School

Dr Elizabeth David-Barrett, Lecturer in Politics, University of Sussex

Dr Edward Guntrip, Lecturer in Law, Sussex Law School, University of Sussex

Dr Steven Colburn, University of Sussex

Dr Miranda Alison, Associate Professor in Politics and International Studies, University of Sussex

Dr Sarita Malik, Brunel University London

Dr Victoria Redclift, Lecturer in Sociology, University of Surrey

Ms Anneke Newman, PhD candidate, University of Sussex

Dr Fabio Petito, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Sussex

Dr Dinah Rajak, Senior Lecturer in International Development, University of Sussex

Ana Porroche-Escudero, Lancaster University

Dr Leon Wainwright, Reader in Art History, Department of Art History, The Open University

Dr Stefanie Ortmann, Lecturer in International Relations, Department of International Relations, University of Sussex

David Axelsen, Doctoral Researcher, London School of Economics and Political Science

Dr Nicola Montagna, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, School of Law, Middlesex University

Dr. Pamela Kea, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, School of Global Studies, University of Sussex

Dr Zahidul Quayyum, Health Economics & Health Technology

Assessment Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow

Suzanne Hall , Assistant Professor in Sociology , London School of Economics and Political Science

Andy Pennington, Research Fellow, Department of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool

Dr Erica Consterdine, Research Fellow, Department of Politics and Contemporary European Studies, University of Sussex

Dr Jennifer Diggins, Lecturer in Social/Cultural Anthropology,  Oxford Brookes University.

Dr Lauren Greenwood, University of Sussex.

Tereza Germanova, doctoral researcher in Politics, University of Warwick

Dr Paul Warmington, Senior Lecturer in Education, Centre for Research in Race & Education, University of Birmingham

Dr. John Filling, Lecturer in Political Theory and Fellow of King's College, University of Cambridge

Oula Kadhum, doctoral research fellow in Politics, University of Warwick

Dr Jamie Allinson, Lecturer in International Relations (Middle East), University of Edinburgh

Dr Andrea Birdsall, Lecturer in International Relations, University of Edinburgh

Dr Philip Cook, Lecturer in Political Theory, University of Edinburgh

Dr Elizabeth Cripps, Lecturer in Political Theory, University of Edinburgh

Dr Jens Lerche, Reader in Agrarian and Labour Studies, SOAS, University of London

Dr Lynn Dobson, Senior Lecturer in Political Theory, University of Edinburgh

Dr Claire Duncanson, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Edinburgh

Dr Oliver Escobar, Lecturer in Public Policy, University of Edinburgh

Dr Kristen Hopewell, Lecturer in Political Economy, University of Edinburgh

Dr Meryl Kenny, Lecturer in Gender Politics, University of Edinburgh

Dr Luke March, Senior Lecturer in Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics, University of Edinburgh

Dr Andrew Neal, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Edinburgh

Dr Tanya Palmer, Lecturer in Law, University of Sussex

Dr Ghazala Mir, Associate Professor, University of Leeds

Varun Uberoi, Senior Lecturer in Political Theory and Public Policy at Brunel University

Dr Charlotte Helen Skeet, Sussex Law School, University of Sussex

Elizabeth Dowler, Emeritus Professor in Food & Social Policy, University of Warwick

Andrea Brock, Associate Tutor and Doctoral Researcher, University of Sussex

Dr Barbara Crossouard, Senior Lecturer in Education, University of Sussex

Dr Claire Moon, Associate Professor, London School of Economics and Political Science

Dr Jonathan Havercroft,  Associate Professor, Politics and International Relations, University of Southampton

Carrie Friese, London School of Economics and Political Science

Dr Emily Robinson , Lecturer in Politics, University of Sussex

Martin Hedemann-Robinson, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Kent

Dr Cristiana Olcese, Fellow in Sociology, London School of Economics and Political Science

Dr Ipshita Basu, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Westminster

Dr Keith Hyams, Associate Professor in Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick

Dr Cosimo Zene, Reader in the Study of Religions, SOAS, University of London

Dr Diego Acosta Arcarazo Senior Lecturer in European and Migration LawUniversity of Bristol.

Dr Nick Vivyan, Lecturer in Politics, University of Durham.






  {}  Academics against armaments and academics and migration