Social Items

TPQ
People And Nature ☭ In this speech to a Russian military court, Anton Khozhaev, a trainee officer accused of desertion to Ukraine’s side, urged Ukrainians to fight on and scorned the “bio-trash” that the Russian army had become.


Khozhaev is one of dozens of protesters who used their final speeches in court to denounce the war, and are now serving long prison sentences.

An event marking the publication of Voices Against Putin’s War, a book comprising English translations of some of the speeches, will be held next Thursday 20 November in London, and streamed on line (see details below).

Khozhaev was studying unmanned aviation at the Zhukovsky-Gagarin academy, where he started after graduating from the Military Aviation Technology University in 2020.

Anton Khozhaev in court. Photo from Sotavision

In 2022, in the days after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he denounced the war and tried unsuccessfully to sever his employment contract. Prosecutors said he was arrested trying to cross the border to Ukraine.

Khozhaev’s speech, on 16 July in the Second Western District Military Court in Moscow, was reported by Sota Vision, an independent news outlet, and republished on the Poslednee Slovo (Last Word) web site. In this translation I have omitted some lines of poetry that he read out.

Khozhaev was sentenced to 23 years, the first five to be served in prison and the remainder in maximum security prison camps, for treason, terrorism, desertion and money laundering, all of which he denied. He is recognised by Memorial as a political prisoner. SP.

✹✹✹✹✹

Esteemed participants in the trial,

I believe that during this whole hearing, the prosecution have failed to prove my guilt, and, on the contrary, justified my actions.

Let’s take Article 205.5 [of the Russian criminal code, on participation in a terrorist organisation]. I really was the initiator of a shahid [Arabic, meaning “witness” or “martyr”], an intellectual organisation. I made contact with personnel of the Security Service of Ukraine, who took me on for training.

I just wanted to help the people of our brotherly nation to return peace to their land. I was neither an occupier nor a state terrorist of my country. My intentions were the most peaceful possible.

What’s more, it’s no secret to anyone that, at present in Russia, everyone who speaks out against aggression and against the country is called a terrorist.

As for Article 275 [on treason]: my action was in no way treacherous to my homeland. On the contrary, it was aimed at stopping a criminal government, at preventing the deaths of peaceful civilians, including citizens of Russia. The sooner this criminal war ends, the fewer financial and human resources will be needed for the difficult task of reconstruction.

Now you can charge anyone, for anything, under Article 275 if you feel like it. But what I have admitted to, including cooperation with the Security Service of Ukraine, should be treated not as a betrayal of the motherland, but as helping it.

What about Article 174.1 [on the legalisation of property acquired by criminal means]: it’s just funny to accuse me of receiving money – all 12,500 rubles of it [about $80] – especially given the scale of corruption at all levels of state power, including among military officers. This charge has just been added to pile on the accusations.

And this proves, once again, that we are not talking about a justice system, but about a system for vengeance against ordinary people.

Now Article 338.3 [on desertion]. I didn’t desert. Desertion is when a person willingly abandons his battle position at a time when support and defence is needed. But no-one has attacked Russia, no defence is required.

Moreover, the Russian authorities themselves declare that the Russian army is on the attack, that aggression is underway in all directions, and there are only victories. And I just did not want to take part in murdering Ukrainian people who have done me no ill.

Murder is a serious crime. And I am not to blame for the fact that it was impossible to resign [from the army] of my own accord, or by ending my contract. I had no other choice, except simply to quit, in order not to participate in murder.

As for Article 275.1 [on confidential cooperation with a foreign state]: to consider the Ukrainian people as some sort of enemy for defending themselves is criminal. I want to help our brothers, the Ukrainian people. That is not treachery, that is following my conscience, my upbringing, my parents’ teaching. That is love for my fellow human beings.

And when it becomes clear to everybody that my actions were not criminal, but, on the contrary, were deliberately conceived and honest – then, truth will prevail.

I was given beatings, and tortured, by the Federal Security Services. All the investigators’ actions that followed were fabrications. According to the Criminal Code of the Russian federation, and the constitution, all these breaches [of the law] mean that the entire process after my arrest is invalid. Including the sentence passed by the court. I ask the court to bear this in mind.

[For a brief time, Khozhaev’s words were inaudible on the courtroom recording. Then he continued.]

It’s funny to see how they hate me: “He lied, he got carried away, he took the vows.” Don’t forget, I wanted to become an officer. And sometimes, if you want to teach someone, you need to deal with emotions.

To all those who talk about spiritual values and patriotism, I say: I first tried to reach out to Russians, and only then passed on information to Ukraine and went to fight for Ukraine. And in this I am more patriotic than most Russians. Excuse me for saying so, but that’s the truth.

You are all so fond of talking about your love for the motherland: well, this shows that I really do love her.

And please stop calling me a soldier. I do not want to associate with bio-trash. Because trash is what the Russian army has become, a long time ago. That was proven on the 24th of February 2022.

I also want to explain that I did not lie, when I told the Federal Security Service officers that I don’t personally know anyone from Ukrainian law enforcement. It wasn’t necessary to arrest me.

At the end of my final statement I want to address the Ukrainian people. My friends, don’t be afraid. Be brave. Keep fighting.

I am not guilty. Glory to Ukraine.

🔴 Anton Khozhaev’s case is just one link in the chain of repression that continues to grow as the assault on Ukraine grinds through its fourth year. Those such as Khozhaev who try to help Ukraine are singled out for the harshest treatment, but a system has been built to return tens of thousands of other deserters, who simply want to survive, back to the front lines.

Media attention has focused this week on Stoptime, three street musicians from St Petersburg, who were arrested and jailed for 12 days after referring to Ukraine in their songs – and then dragged back to court twice more.

Such repeat prosecutions are being used, far more savagely, against Ukrainian soldiers, especially in the illegally annexed “republics” in eastern Ukraine. The reign of terror against civilians in those republics was detailed in a recent UN report.

=
Event announcement

Try Me For Treason

Readings from anti-war protesters’ speeches in Russian courts and book launch for Voices Against Putin’s War.

Thursday 20 November, 7.0pm, Pelican House, 144 Cambridge Heath Road, London E1, and on line.

Please register on eventbrite. If you register to watch on line, we will send you a link by email, before the event starts.


Thousands of people – Ukrainians, Russians and others – are serving lengthy jail sentences for protesting against Russia’s war on Ukraine. Some were jailed for actions, such as firebombing military recruitment centres (when they were closed, injuring nobody). Some were jailed for writing a few words on social media. We will tell the story of some who used their final statement in court not to appeal for mercy, but to call on their fellow citizens to take action against the war.

We will hear a semi-staged reading of translations of the speeches and hold a discussion about the book, followed by a social, with refreshments. We will also invite attendees to write letters or messages to political prisoners in Russia: our Russian friends will give guidance and help with translation.

Admission free. Donations welcome: any proceeds will go to prisoner support organisations. Organised by the Ukraine Information Group.

🔴Order copies of Voices Against Putin’s War from Resistance Books here.

🔴More about anti-war protesters in Russia here, here and here.

☭ People & Nature is now on mastodon, as well as twitter, whatsapp and telegram. Please follow! Or email peoplenature@protonmail.com, and we’ll add you to our circulation list (2-4 messages per month)

Russian Anti-War Prisoner 🪶 ‘I Just Did Not Want To Murder Ukrainian People Who Have Done Me No Ill’

Róisín McAleer of Social Rights Ireland ðŸŽ¤ interviews Colm Lynagh, Barry Murray and Tommy McKearney about their contributions to the Jim Lynagh Winter School organised recently by the Peadar O'Donnell Socialist Republican Forum.



Reflections On Jim Lynagh Winter School

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Eight Hundred And Ninety Three

 

A Morning Thought @ 2973

 

A Morning Thought @ 2972

Pádraig Drummond  ✊ By the time the news broke, the machine was already spinning. 


A ten-year-old girl, in the care of the State, God help her, had been assaulted in Saggart. The headlines came out polished and bloodless, carefully worded by editors; “She absconded,” they wrote, like she’d escaped from a boarding school dormitory and not from the yawning hole of a broken child-protection system.

No, she didn’t abscond. She was failed by every adult, agency, and institution that was meant to protect her. The kind of failure that doesn’t happen overnight. It’s the slow, grinding, bureaucratic decay that’s been festering in this failed Republic since it decided paperwork was cheaper than compassion.

And you could smell it off the statements, the stench of arse-covering and liability management. Tusla “deeply concerned.” The Tánaiste “profoundly worried.” The Gardaí “appealing for information.” Everyone talking, no one accountable. The same theatre of solemn faces and empty condolences we get every time the State breaks another child.

But here’s the truth: this didn’t start in Saggart. It didn’t even start with this poor child. It started decades ago, when the new Republic decided to inherit the worst instincts of empire, the same institutional coldness, the same reflex to blame the vulnerable for their own suffering. We swapped the British crown for a Dublin bureaucracy and called it freedom. Now our orphans are statistics, our care homes are contracts, and our children disappear under the fluorescent lights of “partnership agencies.”

This little girl was “volunteered” into State care back in February, that bland, bloodless verb again. Volunteered, like it was a charity raffle. And then, while on a supervised trip into the city, she was left to disappear. The system’s first instinct wasn’t to save her, it was to describe her absence as an administrative glitch. “Absconded.” The word does a lot of heavy lifting when what you mean is we lost her.

Within hours, the same armchair patriots who wouldn’t cross the street to feed a hungry kid were out howling at the gates of Citywest. “This is our country!” they screamed, throwing bottles and fireworks at Gardaí. Two nights of pantomime patriotism, a carnival of cowardice disguised as revolt. You could almost admire the symmetry, a State that abandons its children and a mob that blames foreigners for it. Two sides of the same broken coin.

They called it “rioting,” but it was really theatre, the desperate playacting of a people who know something’s rotten but can’t face where the smell is coming from. It’s easier to shout about deportation orders than it is to confront the truth that our government, Irish, native-born, self-righteous, is the one failing to enforce safety, care, and justice. Not because it can’t, but because it doesn’t care to.

And sure, you’ll hear the usual chorus: “What about the man charged? He should never have been here.” Fair enough. But what about the Department that left a deportation order to gather dust? What about the agency that lost a child on its watch? What about the politicians who gut social services and then clutch their pearls when tragedy strikes? This is not one man’s crime. It’s a national disgrace, years in the making, and bipartisan in its neglect.

Violence against women and children is not imported. It is bred in every culture that values order over empathy, obedience over justice. It’s the same poison that ran through the laundries and industrial schools, now diluted and disguised under modern branding and EU funding. The Irish State didn’t learn from its cruelty; it just outsourced it to NGOs and called it progress.

Meanwhile, the girl lies in a hospital bed somewhere, recovering from a nightmare she should never have lived through. And the State will close ranks again, launch an “independent review,” shuffle papers, reassign a few middle managers, and move on. Until the next child vanishes.

We’ve been here before, Kyran Durnin, Daniel Aruebose, Vadkym Davydenko. Children dead or missing under State care. Each case “shocking,” each one “unacceptable,” and yet somehow, all of it accepted. This is not tragedy; it’s policy. Neglect on repeat, covered in the language of reform.

What we need isn’t another inquiry or a speech about “profound concern.” We need to dismantle the State’s moral cowardice. We need to remember that children in care are not problems to be managed but human beings with names, voices, and futures.

And we need to silence the vultures who circle every tragedy with their tricolours and their hate. These self-appointed patriots would burn down the city before they’d lift a finger to build a better one. They don’t care about justice. They care about spectacle, the rush of being part of something, anything, that feels like power.

But power isn’t shouting at foreigners outside a hotel. Power is holding the government’s feet to the fire until no child goes missing on their watch again. Power is compassion turned militant. Power is refusing to let fascism speak for the people while the State hides behind its failures.

The girl in Saggart was not lost. She was abandoned. And unless this country starts to look at its own reflection in the cracked mirror of its institutions, she won’t be the last.

Ireland, or rather, the 26-county fragment of a still-partly colonised nation, has built a petty empire of neglect within its own borders. A failed republic, parroting the manners of its old masters, presiding over misery with a tricolour in one hand and a clipboard in the other. And the rest of us, numbed by outrage and denial, keep pretending it isn’t happening.

Well, it is. And the only revolution worth having now is one that makes sure every child is seen, heard, and safe, no matter who they are or where they come from.

⏩Pádraig Drummond is an anti-racism activist.

A Child & A Failed Republic

Labour Heartlands ☭ Written by Paul Knaggs.

“The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.” — George Orwell, 1984

BBC Caught in Its Own Web of Newspeak: When Saying ‘Woman’ Becomes a Thoughtcrime

What does a woman need to know to understand she is a woman? According to the BBC, apparently nothing at all. Because if you know what a woman is, if you dare to say that women are adult human females, you have committed the cardinal sin of our age: you have noticed reality.

When newsreader Martine Croxall changed the phrase “pregnant people” to “women” during a live broadcast, she wasn’t editorialising. She was stating a biological fact so obvious that every civilisation in human history has understood it without needing a committee meeting. Yet the BBC found her guilty of expressing “a controversial view about trans people.” Twenty complaints were upheld. Her crime? A facial expression that suggested she knew what a woman was.

George Orwell warned us about this in 1984: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” The BBC, our publicly funded broadcaster, has become precisely the institution Orwell feared. 

The BBC’s Ministry of Truth 🪶 When Britain’s Public Broadcaster Decided Women Don’t Exist

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Eight Hundred And Ninety Two

 

Pastords @ 16

 

A Morning Thought @ 2971

Azar Majedi ✊ The uproar and excitement that Zohran Mamdani’s election as mayor of New York has caused is understandable.


In a situation where America is becoming like a dictatorship; the president has taken over virtually all the power, the masked security forces arrest people without any legal reason, and imprison immigrants, people of colour and Muslims - sometimes sending them to prison camps in El Salvador - the election of a Muslim man of colour who condemns the Israeli genocide and speaks of democracy and improving the conditions of the poor seems like an important step forward. 

This is a sign of imposing a retreat on the ruling fascist power that has with all its might attacked all manifestations of democracy and civil rights. The right-wing media calls Mamdani a socialist. Taking into account that the mainstream media brings the name of socialism into the mainstream to spread fear-mongering propaganda, is nevertheless a sign of defeat. The left movement is excited, and it is celebrating the victory of socialism.
 
Mamdani has nothing to do with socialism. Whatever the Right and Left agenda or illusions are, Mamdani is from the left of the Democratic Party. However, shouts of socialism, especially in the media prove that socialism is not dead as the capitalist ruling class has been claiming. Socialism, hope and aspiration for a socialist society is alive and kicking. This message must be taken seriously.
Elections in countries under democracy, especially in the United States, depend on various factors, most importantly money and connections with "the powerful." 

Mamdani has the support of two billionaires, and Alex Soros also donates money to organisations related to Mamdani. Mamdani has the support of Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the Democratic Party. These facts are enough to put to rest any hope or “fear” of Mamdani's socialism. 

If Mamdani is young and not well-known, we know Obama and Bernie Sanders well. The role of both is clear to us. We also know AOC. Obama needs no explanation. We all remember the vibe Obama’s campaign created. It was at the time of Wall St. occupation, a radical populist movement against poverty, inequality and injustice. Obama used this vibe to send hopeful messages to the poor and the deprived. “Yes, we can!” was his slogan. He won the election among the public euphoria. What happened? He threw the dollars at Wall Street; instead of alleviating poverty and inequality he raised the bonuses to the bosses and the CEOs. He also threw the bombs over the Middle East; leading to ruining Libya and Syria and killing and displacing millions of people. One must say: Yes, they can!


The role of Bernie Sanders, AOC, and the like is to pull the left of society behind the Democratic Party. We have seen their instrumental role in the past two elections. Mamdani is a left-liberal.

One reason for his victory, is people’s extreme anger with Trump and his government culminating in protests all over the US. The society has become extremely radical. It is said that the majority of young people in America are against Israel. This is a trend that has occurred over the past two years. New York has the largest Jewish population. A significant part of New York Jews are against Israel and have organised large demonstrations in the past two years condemning Israel and defending Palestine. These are among the factors that facilitated Mamdani's election.

It is clear that electing a left-liberal who has announced that he will implement some reforms (of course, there are no guarantees of this) is better than electing a fascist. But the important point is not to let illusion replace hope. We fight for reforms, but we do not replace reforms with revolution. What Mamdani represents has nothing to do with socialism. In the context of the widespread aggression of the world bourgeoisie, the rise of fascism, poverty, war and genocide, every retreat from this force of repression is a step forward. The lesson we must learn from this event is to rely on our organised power of struggle and to strive to push back the ruling power as much as possible.

⏩Asar Majedi is a Member of Hekmatist Party leadership & Chairperson of Organisation for Women’s Liberation.

Is Mamdani A Socialist Or An Obama Disciple?

Labour Heartlands ☭ Written by Paul Knaggs

As the BBC reels from resignations and legal threats, new evidence reveals a culture of bias and ideological capture, from politically edited documentaries to newsroom activism and “forbidden” words like women.

If you’re wondering how the BBC plans to spend your licence fee this year, here’s a clue: it won’t be on impartial journalism.

Donald Trump has threatened to sue the BBC for $1 billion (£760 million) over claims that a Panorama documentary deliberately edited one of his speeches to make it appear as though he was inciting the January 6th Capitol riot.

According to a leaked internal memo, Panorama spliced together two separate parts of Trump’s 2021 speech, misleading viewers into believing he was calling for direct action. The BBC has since admitted it was an “error of judgement”, one that gave the “impression of a direct call for violence.”

That “error,” however, came amid a pile-up of editorial controversies. A Telegraph investigation published last week revealed an internal memo by Michael Prescott, a former external adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee. His report accused the corporation of systemic bias, citing one-sided Gaza coverage, anti-Trump and anti-Israel framing, and ideologically skewed transgender reporting.

BBC Faces $1 Billion Trump Lawsuit, But the Real Question Is 🪶 What Are You Paying For?

Barry Gilheany ⚽ Documentary Of The Most Controversial European Cup Final Ever And How It Shapes The Identity Of Leeds United Supporters.


On 12 October, this year a film went on general release documenting and narrating the circumstances and controversies around the 1975 European Cup Final at the Parc des Princes in Paris in which Leeds United were defeated 2-0 by the trophy holders Bayern Muhich. 

It was a final characterised by some of the most appalling refereeing decisions ever seen in elite football competitions which provoked riots amongst Leeds United fans and led to the club’s suspension from UEFA competitions for four seasons (later reduced to two years on appeal). The film also tells the stories of five Leeds fans who travelled to Paris and shows rare footage of film taken by one of these veteran supporters, Ray Schofield. As such it is a valuable cinematic archive of a lost world of football – an era of almost umbilical relationships between club and fans; when foreign travel were rare experiences; before the hyper-monetised world of sponsorship, private equity and Sovereign Wealth Fund fuelled multi-national club ownership for whom fans are “customer” and whose ambitions are to reach the what is now the European Champions League as opposed to actually winning it; never mind the humble, bien peasant FA Cup and Football League Cups.

I must start this article with a caution to TPQ readers; I have yet to see the film for myself. It has been shown in many independent cinemas throughout the North of England and has migrated to a couple in London but not in any venues that are within each reach for me. As such it is not a full-blooded review but an amalgam of a podcast featuring a discussion between Ger Lynch of The View (an aggregated news site of Leeds United stories) and the maker of the film Harvey Marcus; recollections on the Paris 75 Facebook group and an analysis of the film by Rick Broadbent of the Times. I therefore stand corrected by anyone fortunate and privileged enough to see the film.

A few match facts to get out of the way first. Leeds United were competing in their first only European Cup Final by virtue of having won the English Football Championship in 1974 and having played four rounds of home and away matches (unlike today’s League format) – defeating FZ Zurich, Ujpesti Dosza of Hungary, Anderlecht of Belgium and Barcelona (including Johann Cruyff and Neeskens). Bayern were defending European Champions and included stars of the West German World Cup winning team of 1974 including captain Franz “the Kaizer” Beckenbauer, who will feature as a major dramata persona in this tale, and lethal goalscoring forward Gerd “Der Bomber” Muller. It was widely seen as the Last Hurrah for former manager Don Revie’s legendary team for whom wining the European Cup was a holy grail. But Revie was not around to lead his charges on their date with destiny having left the previous year to manage the England international team; that duty fell to Jimmy Armfield, a calm affable former England defender who had steered the good ship Leeds United to calm waters after the chaos of the 44 day reign of the club’s nemesis, Brian Clough.

The match took place on 28th May 1975 in the Parc des Princes which doubled up as the national stadium for the French international rugby team and is now the home for current Champions League holders PSG. Both sides had finished outside the UEFA qualifying places in their domestic leagues and so victory on the night was their only route into the next season’s European competition. The match kicked off at 8.15GMT and Leeds quickly asserted their dominance while Bayern immediately retreated into deep defence mode. In the fourth minute, in an incident that Leeds players and fans do not wish to give too much attention to, Welsh international Terry Yorath and father of famed sports presenter, Gabby Logan, committed a terrible tackle on Bjorn Andersson leaving him for three weeks in bed caked in plaster and as much as ending his career. Johnny Giles, playing his last match for the club, commanded midfield and legendary hot shot Peter Lorimer tested goalkeeper Sepp Majier’s reflexes in a few dead ball situations. Then on the half – hour came the first of the night’s controversies. Just as Leeds legendary forward Alan “Sniffer” Clarke was about to pull the trigger to give Leeds the lead; his legs were taken out from beneath him by a hopelessly late tackle by Beckenbauer. In today’s football parlance, a stonewall penalty. Yet the referee Michel Kitabjan took no notice not even consulting the linesman. Remember there was no VAR in that era. There was also a handball in the penalty area by the Kaiser but that was similarly waved away.

So, the match reached the interval scoreless. In the second half Leeds resumed their dominance, and the pressure began to tell. After 62 minutes Maier thwarted captain Billy Bremner’s point-blank effort and five minutes later, a Lorimer sweet special volley hit the Bayern net. The goal was awarded; there were no German protests and the referee marched back to the centre spot to resume the match with Leeds one nil ahead. But in that moment Beckenbauer persuaded Monsieur Kitabjan to have a word with the linesman who decided that since Billy Bremner had been in Maier’s line of vision, the goal should not stand. Never mind, that any VAR footage would rule that Bremner was not interfering with the keeper’s line of vision (Yes, VAR did get it wrong over Virgil van Dyk’s recent disallowed goal at The Etihad IMHO). Never mind that the Kaiser’s teammates on the night, Franz Roth and Rainer Zobel have admitted that Lorimer’s goal was good. Never mind that Herr Beckenbauer was to admit that Leeds were unlucky (make what you will of that morsel of sympathy) For a referee to bow to persuasion from a team captain to reverse a decision of such finality as the awarding of a goal surely invalidates their competence and integrity.

After that, in the words of Harvey Marcus, Leeds seemed to fall bark. Bayern scored in the 73rd minute with their first shot on target from Franz Roth. A typically lethal strike by arch predator Muller after an admittedly brilliant run on the right flank by Karl Heinze Rummenigge completed the scoring in the 82nd minute and the Leeds night and indeed the Don Revie era came to a crashing and distressing end.

Kitabjan’s decision to nullify Lorimer’s goal after it seemed so certain that it would stand triggered an outbreak of rioting on the terraces; the “English disease” of football hooliganism which had broken out at the 1974 UEFA Cup Final between Tottenham and Feyenoord in Rotterdam was metastasising into a plague that was attracting pathogens in the form of disaffected young and the dedicated “Ultras” of the “firms”. In the years afterwards, Leeds United fans were to earn a particularly violent, and most sickeningly, racist reputation. However, on this night there was a clear cause for the disturbances that Paris night if not legal or moral justification.

As is explained in the dialogue between Harvey and Marcus, the riots represented the explosion of a pressure cooker of frustration and grievances over injustices at the hands of football officialdom for a decade. For Leeds fans of that aera can recall a long litany of appalling refereeing decisions and hostile acts by the football authorities. Two years previously Leeds had been robbed of the 1973 European Cup Winners Cup in Salonika where referee Christos Michos, who is known to have been offered gifts by our opponents AC Milan, denied Leeds three clear cut penalties and awarded Milan the only goal of the night which came from an indirect free kick in the third minute. Michos was later banned for officiating for life by UEFA who actually offered Leeds a replay which they turned down. It is my opinion that the result of that final and of the 1975 European Cup Final should both be expunged from the records.
There was the disallowed goal from a free kick by Peter Lorimer in the 1967 FA Cup semi-final with Chelsea because the Chelsea defensive wall had not retreated ten yards. There was the offside goal scored by WBA at Elland Road in April 1971 as a result of the decision by referee Ray Tinkler to overrule his linesman while the Leeds defence stood static expecting play to stop which helped to deprive us of that season’s League title. There was the final game of the 1971-72 season at Wolves played at the insistence of the FA 48 hours after our sole FA Cup Final victory when the denial of three glaring handballs in the Wolves penalty area denied us the Double with the hosts winning 2-1.

The Paris disturbances were reportedly sparked by the roughing up of a fan who had got onto the pitch in protest at the disallowed goal by the fearsome French riot place force, the CRS, of whose number there were 200 - all martial arts trained. The mood was immeasurably worsened by the reported sight of the CRS applauding Bayern’s first goal. Things just then disintegrated into resigned defeat on the pitch and visceral anger and anarchy on the terraces. As is also pointed out on Ger’s podcast, the righteous condemnation visited upon the Leeds fans in the following days from those guardians of morality – the British tabloid media took little or no account of the manifest injustice that sparked the riots.

Alan Clarke and Paul Reaney as two surviving Leeds veterans from that night appear in the film and by all accounts their contributions in it and in accompanying Q&A sessions are passionate and outspoken. But the gold of the film is the grainy footage shot on Super 8 by the fans and it is a fan's film, the stars of which are Heidi Haigh and Margaret Clark with their recollections of just how rare it was to be a female at football in 1975. In necessary antidotes to some romanticised, nostalgia seeped accounts of terrace culture in those halcyon days, Heidi recalls how her and friends were called “slags, scrubbers and whores” on the terraces. In the sea of masculinity that was the Elland Road Kop where just a few hundred girls would have stuck out as prominently as black and brown faces among 17,500 males, bum nipping was practically a given (no hotlines to report sexist, racist or homophobic behaviour at football grounds in those pre-woke times) but as Margaret says starkly there was a real fear of being attacked and raped during the routine battles that took place in pre-segregation away ends.[1]

The legacy of Paris 75 can be summed up in one Leeds United supporters chant “We are Champions. Champions of Europe.” What to outsiders may appear to be an obsession with a long-lost cause, a denial of historical reality or a pathological inability to “move on” is a reclamation of our history, a metamorphosis of the bitterest night into a celebration of the finest team of that era, both nationally and globally. Knowing what we know now about the desperate financial need for Bayern to win on that night and of Franz Beckenbauer’s ability to win friends and influence people, history can now judge who were the real moral victors that night. Having not attended Paris 75 yet I would hope I will find it a therapeutic experience; it took me 30 years to have a full and frank conversation with a fellow Leeds fan about that night.

While this film can be of interest to any soccer fan, it has to be emphasised that it is a film made by Leeds fans for Leeds fans.

So just as we will always be The Last Champions as the winners of the last First Division title in 1992; we will always be “Champions of Europe” at least until we get a chance to defend our title, remote though that possibility is.

Visit 

To watch Ger Lynch and Harvey Marcus interview

Paris 75 - An Interview with Creator Harvey Marcus. Leeds United V Bayern Munich 1975 European Cup

References

[1] Rick Broadbent Paris 75: Brutal but poignant film of Leads’ infamous final. The Times. The Game. 3 November 2025 p.11

⏩Barry Gilheany is a freelance writer, qualified counsellor and aspirant artist resident in Colchester where he took his PhD at the University of Essex. He is also a lifelong Leeds United supporter. 

Paris 75

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)