1. It has been reported by other Twitter users, that when the account started there were several obviously jokey tweets from it which were later deleted. This calls into question if the user was originally intending to conduct the “experiment” or if they used it to cover themselves after the inevitable backlash.
2. The user continues to remain anonymous, which means that they are not willing to be open about or questioned on their “experiment”. Plus in my own humble opinion remaining anonymous while lecturing others on morality is the act of a coward.
3. The experiment was apparently constructed to highlight the dangers of social networking to parents. If this was in fact the original intent it is laudable although misguided. The internet can be a dangerous place for children. The user then calls for legislation to be enacted to ban all people on the Sex Offenders Register from using digital communications unsupervised. That’s all 29000 people on the Sex Offenders Register. A clearly unenforceable, highly expensive and ludicrous law, which would require vast armies of Social Workers or Police to watch every sex offender round the clock to make sure they didn’t access a computer or phone which can connect to the World Wide Web.
4. The user criticises several papers for “promoting” Glitter, while obviously oblivious to his own part in promoting the same man and creating an internet furore around him. Although I have not read all the articles that the user refers to I did at least check out the NME one. You don’t need a degree in semiotic analysis to see that it is written in a very neutral tone and is basic factual reporting rather than promotion.

What the man or woman who conducted this “experiment” did highlight was the disgusting jokes made by some people about Mr Glitters crimes. I strongly dislike rape jokes, no matter if they are about children or adults. There are very good reasons to not make or condone them. Mainly that people who rape assume that rape is normal. Every time you make or laugh at a rape joke you are confirming to rapists that their crime is normal, ok, that all men rape, etc. This in my book, is not ok. However I leave it up to you to consider this issue and if you wish to unfollow on twitter anyone who jokes about this serious crime.

Other than that the Glitter Twitter account is a troubling story, which does little to highlight the dangers to children on the internet, less to help children to stay safe, and even less for the children who have already been victims.

Paul Mason’s new book, out this month, made me laugh and made me cry. It gave me hope and helped me understand. “Why it’s kicking off everywhere” essentially does what it says on the tin. Building on his widely read blog post from early 2011 “20 reasons it’s kicking off everywhere”, the Newsnight economics editor tells the story of 2011 in a way that perhaps only he can.

Who else was on the steps of the Greek Parliament as it was stormed, in the slums of Cairo as they were mobilised and at the economic summits as dry eyed Finance Ministers struggled to understand? Mason retraces the route of Steinbeck’s Oakies to witness the new dust-bowl, travels to the slums of Manilla to meet the new urban poor, and stood on the steps of St Paul’s as they were occupied. The book tells the stories of his travels: the tales of one of the few to witness so many of the revolutions of 2011. But it does much more than that.

In his introduction, Mason insists that the book should be categorised as journalism, not social science. And it is – journalism at its analytical best, a wide angel lens on global society. To explain the uprisings, he references Marx and Engles, Slavoj Zizek , Deboard and Delius, @Ghonim from Tahrir and @littlemisswilde from the UCL occupation, The Matrix and The Truman Show, Picasso and a 1910 opera ‘so revolutionary that no one noticed’. His thesis on why its kicking off everywhere is essentially that spelled out in the blog – the interaction of changes in class structures, new technology – particularly social media and the failure of free market capitalism.

For me, most of it rings true. His macro-economic analysis of the collapse – only a small portion of the book – is as superb as you’d expect (if at times too despairing for my taste). His capacity to deftly draw parallel after parallel with uprisings throughout history shows not just his depth as a labour historian, but also his breadth of knowledge of culture and arts, and what they say about society and shifting ideologies (Wikipedia tells me that he was once a music teacher). He paints his case in academic multicolour: history, economics, social movement theory, sociology, business theory, psychology, philosophy, urban planning… And it is compelling. But one question constantly troubles me – has been troubling me for a while now.

For Mason much of the book seems to be a justification of his argument that “the network beats the hierarchy” – and to an extent that new technologies have made this possible. And I want this to be true. But I am not convinced he doesn’t slightly over state the case. Because whilst the networked protests in Tahrir square had immense power, it was when the army stepped in – with their own grievances with Mubarak’s neo-liberalism, that the old man fell. And whist much is made of twitter, little is made of the other, more centralised, information revolution in the Middle East – Satellite TV. How many more Egyptians, Tunisians or Syrians have had their world view changed by the thousands of dishes you find in any Arab city than have by their twitter feed? In Britain, he talks about the destruction of our movement that night in March that many of us slept in cells across London. Surely this shows the hierarchy of the police beating our network? At least for a moment. In Spain, in Greece, in Wisconsin, even in Egypt and Libya so far, our networks have lost either to the old enemies, or new ones. We can achieve shock and awe protests, but haven’t yet demonstrated our capacity to keep coming and coming – once attention drifts, the hierarchy swoops back. As Burns might put it:

“Or like the snow falls in the river,
A moment white-then melts for ever;
Or like the Borealis race,
That flit ere you can point their place;
Or like the Rainbow’s lovely form
Evanishing amid the storm.”

For me, this isn’t because his core thesis is necessarily wrong. It may be that our networks are, so far, too small. When he describes @littlemisswilde, introducing her as a character, he allows us to get the impression that she is typical – that there are hundreds like her. The truth is that within two sentences, I thought ‘oh, that’s Jess’. There’s only one of her. Our world is smaller than we like to admit. Our network, here in the UK at least, is weaker than we like to admit.

Mason often hints at this – in the original blog post, he talks about how “They all seem to know each other”. He implies this is good for protest movements. It isn’t. It shows how few we are, and that we are our own clique, not fingers into vast communities. In the book, he often talks about how young people in Cairo or in Britain or in Spain all speak the same language, have the same confidence, drink in identical Starbucks and have the same laptops and phones. Perhaps he is allowing us to join the dots, but he doesn’t himself. What this implies is a problem. Our networks – supposedly non hierarchical, empowering, are in fact led by the emerging international anti-capitalist elite. He writes too about the working class uprisings, about the differences in class, and how, in the 1840s, the bourgeoisie turned on the proletariat.

And so whilst the book gave me hope – it tells the tales of millions around the world who are now prepared to fight for our collective future – it also added to a gnawing fear I’ve had for a while: we don’t yet have the strength in breadth to win our struggle for humanity. That’s my worry. I may well be wrong. But I’ll return to this theme another day. Because I digress.

Here’s the point. The book is brilliant: educational, moving, sizzlingy written. If you want to understand 2011 – the year of global revolutions, then read it.

This particular one caught my attention:

@carolinelucas @jasonkitcat How wld you pay 4 ur policies on scrapping VAT + NI:£130bn, green jobs £44bn + transport £10bn?so £184bn.No rush

so I replied:

@charlottev dunno bout @carolinelucas @jasonkitcat, I’d pay for them by not trashing the economy with job cuts. #publicspendingpaysforitself

Her response:

@AdamRamsay Thanks Adam. Erm, public spending costs money and that is why I am trying to establish where it is coming from.

So I outlined the three reasons that public spending pays for itself – it is generally investments rather than diminishing value capital costs (unless it’s roads), the multiplier effect, and the fact that it’s cheaper to borrow and spend than to allow the economy to be trashed by recession:

@CharlotteV – a pretty simplistic understanding of economics. Public spending is recuperated each time its re-spent. #gpconf #keynes

@CharlotteV – a pretty simplistic understanding of economics: public spending tends to mean investments that save cash later #gpconf #keynes

@CharlotteV – a pretty simplistic understanding: public spending multiplies good bits of the economy = more cash to spend. #gpconf #keynes

Anyway, we went too and fro, with me arguing that Tory job cuts would be more expensive as they would send us into an economic nosedive, and her arguing that:

@AdamRamsay We simply do not have any more money to spend. BTW, they tried that in the 1930s – it didn’t work = Depression.

which I thought was an amusing understanding of, erm, time & chronology.

and

@AdamRamsay And doubling the annual amount to borrow – credit markets would laugh.

which is amusing given that Mervyn King has now said that Britain’s credit rating is not at risk.

But then she said something I hadn’t heard before. When I said they were going to cut jobs, she said Tories would generate an environment for more jobs. I asked how, she said:

@AdamRamsay Low interest rates, lower corporation tax, cutting red tape, increasing skills availability – good for job creation?

I was astounded. I know Tories are always wanting to cut taxes for big business, but is this really their policy when they are claiming the deficit is the biggest problem we face? Will they really cut taxes for RBS while university courses are being closed?

So, on questioning, she clarified:

@AdamRamsay Conservative policy is there will be corporation tax cuts, partic small co rate to 20%. Corp tax is disincentive to employment

So, that seems to be our answer. The Tories think there is no money. They simply have to cut universities (in whom every person employed multiplies up to an extra 2.5 jobs, according to a study by Edinburgh Uni last year) so that they can give a tax break to their mates at RBS (in whom every person employed only multiplies up to 1.5 extra jobs, according to the same study) and Tesco.

Flabbergasted, two of my Bright Green Scotland colleagues joined in:

garydunion @CharlotteV Where’s the money coming from for your tax cut? You told @AdamRamsay that “there simply isn’t any money.”

and

loota @CharlotteV @adamramsay Surely the money that funds your corporation tax cut could be used for Universities,or other public services instead

And she replied:

CharlotteV @garydunion Funded by simplication of tax reliefs and capital allowances. Leaving more money in a co will mean they employ more people.

Now, there is possibly a tiny extent to which simplification saves bureaucracy, and so a little money, but, a) again, if the Tories can save some money, are they really going to spend it on tax breaks for banks and supermarkets at the same time as they are enacting savage cuts to the vital public services our economy needs? b) If you are going to genuinely raise serious money by ‘simplification of tax reliefs’, surely this means some people getting less relief? In other words, the proposal is to introduce higher taxes for some people who currently get tax relief, and to cut public services so that they can cut taxes for big companies.

I may have got the wrong end of the stick with this. But are the Tories genuinely proposing tax cuts for big business at the same time as swinging cuts in public services? Why haven’t I heard that before?