Violence
Breaking video: LA police smash UCLA camp, violently arrest peaceful students
US state mobilises to break protest after taking hours to act against violent pro-Israel mob last night
Los Angeles police have stormed the pro-Gaza protest camp set up by peaceful student protesters at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA).
Riot-clad police are violently arresting students and faculty taking part in the protest against the university’s complicity in Israel’s genocide – which has killed well over 40,000 civilians, mostly women and children – and is smashing up tents and makeshift buildings, despite free speech and association rights being guaranteed by the US Constitution:
Video by Middle East Eye
Solidarity with the people of Gaza and with students everywhere demonstrating against genocide and for peace.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Without Mothers, There Is No War
50 years of feminist scholarship also demonstrates that war does not occur without sexual assault, just as it cannot be prosecuted without civilian casualties. The idea that you can have war without rape, on all sides, is historically implausible....
Racist Labour uses Tory racism against Abbott (to whom they’re also racist) to raise money
Starmer’s repulsive party has no shame or morals and is taking members for fools
Keir Starmer’s Labour party – that gives impunity to just about every type of racism rampant among the Labour right – is using a Tory donor’s racism against Diane Abbott, Britain’s first Black woman MP, to try to milk cash from gullible members.
In an email to members, Starmer criticises the blue-Tory version of the anti-Abbott racism as an excuse to beg for donations:
Starmer’s letter was dishonest as well as shameless – his party fawns over billionaires for their donations
The email does not mention that Ms Abbott is suspended from the Labour party for fighting anti-Black racism, which Labour disregards under Starmer who, in today’s PMQs, brazenly tried to score political points against the Tories for their racism toward Abbott.
While Starmer and a string of white MPs discussed racism toward Diane Abbott, Starmer’s pet Speaker Lindsay Hoyle prevented Ms Abbott getting a word in, ensuring that she was unable to point out the abuse of Starmer’s front bench toward her or the foul racism exposed by the leaked Labour report and barrister Martin Forde’s inquiry into it, which Starmer continues to ignore despite commissioning it.
The red-Tory version of racism is a non-issue to Keir Starmer, who has presided over wholesale deselection of Black candidates, suspended and sacked Black and Brown MPs like it’s going out of fashion – and has driven yet more to resign in disgust:
Some of the Black and Brown MPs sacked or driven out by the Starmer regime
While Starmer’s party drones protect racist councillors and functionaries, Starmer himself welcomes racist MPs back into the party – including one with an extra side of sexual harassment – with impunity and promoted Wes Streeting, whose ‘disgusting’ and ‘disgraceful’ rant in Ms Abbott’s face left her ‘shell-shocked’.
And he and his Shadow Cabinet did not even bother to contact Abbott when the news of Tory donor Frank Hester’s disgusting racism and threatening words toward her broke – but that did not (of course) prevent him using the situation to try (not very competently) to score points.
Labour is a racist and opportunist cesspit under the rule of its hard-right faction.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Video: ‘unfounded, unverified’ – what UN really said about Israel’s ‘Hamas rape’ claims
Pro-Israel spin and complicit mainstream media claim UN report upheld Israel’s claims – it didn’t and even the UN’s political collusion collapses under scrutiny
Israel’s supporters, compliant ‘mainstream’ media and a host of professional and unpaid amplifier accounts have spent the past few days trumpeting the supposed ‘confirmation’ by the United Nations of Israel’s claims of rapes, mutilations and sexual violence by Hamas during the 7 October raid.
In reality, while they claimed ‘evidence’ was ‘clear and convincing’ of sexual violence ‘committed against captives’, this evidence appears to be purely the claims of captives, since there was no mention of – and no realistic possibility of collecting – forensic evidence from the period and locations of captivity.
Such claims are, of course, at odds with the testimony of female captives that they were treated well and even ‘like queens’. And Pramila Patten added her finding that even if such violence was occurring, it in fact delegitimises Israel’s use of violence, which is preventing the return of captives.
Patten then claimed there were ‘reasonable grounds’ to think that sexual violence took place at the Nova rave and on the road back toward Gaza – already demonstrably farcical when Israeli helicopter gunships are well known to have been firing constantly and repeatedly at anything that moved. And Patten even linked her claim of reasonableness to the mass killing and burning of bodies – killings and burnings which have been firmly linked to the mass chain-gun and missile ‘friendly fire’ of Israeli helicopters known to have fired indiscriminately at Israeli and Palestinian alike under the ‘Hannibal directive‘.
So extensive was this ‘friendly fire’ that hundreds of Palestinian bodies were originally misidentified by Israel as Israelis, proving that the fire came from Israeli sources. In fact, the Israeli military knew – and has admitted to Israeli media – that it killed an ‘immense’ number of its own people on the day of the raid. Patten either ignored, or was ignorant of, this admission.
With regard to the day of the raid, the UN panel said that of all Israel’s claims, three were positively disproven – and all the rest were unverified, with many based on the ‘inaccurate’ and ‘unreliable’ claims of a group of people who didn’t know what they were talking about. This was not hinted at by the UN panel, but stated flatly and unequivocally – with the two UN women concluding that they had been unable to verify any sexual violence:
And Pramila Patten went on to admit that:
- there was no forensic evidence of rape – or ‘very very little’, with no specification of any evidence that was found
- there was no evidence of ‘systematic’ sexual violence, despite a team of scientists taking part in the UN visit
- she had not tied any sexual violence anywhere to Hamas or any group
Despite this, Israel’s mouthpieces and propagandists have stridently insisted the opposite of the women’s findings, including the political padding and leaving out the inconvenient – but very clearly expressed – reality of what Patten and her colleague said they found, or more accurately did not find.
As with every other claim by Israel so far since its genocide in Gaza began, the claim to have been vindicated by the UN findings falls apart under scrutiny. In contrast, rape, torture and sexual violence toward Palestinian women by Israeli troops and security personnel is credible and widespread.
But even if Israel’s claims didn’t collapse under scrutiny, they would be no excuse for the genocide Israel is committing in Gaza – and Patten and her colleague were absolutely clear about that.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Traumatized Heroes
Hope for the future is only possible if we choose peace by stopping the killing and resist the temptation of avenging heroism....
Starmer tries to make SNP Gaza ceasefire motion all about Israel’s feelings
Labour amendments betray Gaza’s murdered and oppressed civilians and uses classic asymmetric language to value Palestinian life less than Israeli
Keir Starmer – after days of posing to try to bring Muslim and other decent voters onside by mouthing ceasefire language – has yet again betrayed the two million people in Gaza suffering violence and starvation and the more than 100,000 people murdered and maimed by Israel.
While the ‘mainstream’ media speculated whether Starmer would order MPs to support the SNP’s motion demanding a ceasefire, which is being debated in Parliament tomorrow, more realistic observers knew it was inevitable that Starmer would do the minimum he hopes will fool voters opposed to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, while protecting the interests of the pro-Israel right.
And so he did: Labour has tabled amendments to the original motion that gut it of its impact and has gone as far as making the motion more about Hamas’s supposed guilt and the feelings of Israel and its supporters. And the amendment uses the classic tactics of politicians and ‘mainstream’ media to present Israeli lives and suffering as more valuable than Palestinian.
In Starmer’s worldview, Palestinians are not being murdered by Israel – their lives are just ‘lost’, as if to a natural disaster and not to a campaign of mechanised mass murder. The sheer number of their deaths is presented as ‘intolerable’, but the loss of Israeli lives to Palestinian resistance is ‘horror’. Israelis have the ‘right to assurance’ against attack, but there is no mention of a Palestinian right not to be murdered by the occupation regime. Israel ‘cannot be expected’ to stop fighting if Hamas does not stop – but there is no acknowledgement that Hamas’s violence takes place against a backdrop of decades of wanton violence and oppression by the occupiers. Israel must be ‘safe and secure’ – but a Palestinian state only merits ‘viable’.
The SNP motion is an exemplar of directness and simplicity and rightly focuses on the many tens of thousands of civilians slaughtered by Israel, as well as on the forced displacement of 1.5 million Palestinians into Rafah, where they remain under constant bombardment and the threat of an all-out ground assault:
Labour’s lickspittle version calls resistance ‘terrorism’ but does not mention the Israeli terror state’s genocide and other war crimes, or the fact that so many are dying in Rafah because they were forced to cram there under bomb and bullet – and clearly hasn’t even been proofread, calling for ‘the UN Security Council to be meet urgently’:
Starmer is trying to mask his support for Israel’s war crimes and hoping that the millions in this country disgusted by that support will be fooled. His disregard for the true plight of Palestinians and his complicity in the war crimes being perpetrated against them by Israel is beyond contemptible.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Reconciliation by Stealth: How People Talk about War Crimes – review
In Reconciliation by Stealth: How People Talk about War Crimes, Denisa Kostovicova considers how best to achieve reconciliation in post-conflict societies, focusing on case studies from the Balkan region. Arguing for a process-oriented, dialogic and empathetic approach, Kostovicova reimagines conventional transitional justice mechanisms, writes Ajla Henic.
As Kalyvas suggests in The Logic of Violence in Civil War, violence is better understood as a process than a discrete act; it follows that reconceptualising reconciliation as a process rather than an ultimate objective is vital to our understanding of post-conflict dynamics. In order to be meaningful, transitional justice mechanisms aimed at achieving recognition and reconciliation must consider this ongoing process comprehensively, as Denisa Kostovicova shows in Reconciliation by Stealth: How People Talk about War Crimes.
Kostovicova, an outstanding scholar in post-conflict reconstruction and post-conflict justice processes in the Balkans, raises questions and reflections regarding societies navigating the post-conflict transformation. In conflicts characterised by identity aspects, violence often serves to further solidify these identities, perpetuating an ethnonationalist understanding of post-conflict society. The prevalence of polarisation, a stark reality in societies institutionally divided by peace treaties, further complicates the journey towards reconciliation.
Kostovicova introduces ‘reconciliation by stealth’, an emancipatory concept within transitional justice processes that foregrounds the necessity for discursive solidarity. By analysing how people talk about war crimes, we can subtly advance the idea of reconciliation as a process.
Kostovicova introduces “reconciliation by stealth”, an emancipatory concept within transitional justice processes that foregrounds the necessity for discursive solidarity. By analysing how people talk about war crimes, we can subtly advance the idea of reconciliation as a process. The author is acutely aware of the various pejorative interpretations of this complex concept, ranging from moral relativism to the potential belittlement of suffering, foreign imposition, instrumentalised usage by local authors, and scholarly scepticism (126, 127). However, the author convincingly contends that truth commissions in the Balkans have failed in their purposes, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia could not function as a post-justice reconciliation mechanism, but rather as a criminal justice-seeking body with little influence on ethno-nationalist politicians.
Contrastingly, the RECOM Reconciliation Network – an initiative established in 2008 – which Kostovicova examines, introduced a consultation mechanism in transitional justice. Forming a coalition, RECOM assembled approximately 2,000 human rights groups, including victims themselves, and introduced a victim-centric, fact-based, and regionally focused approach to the human rights violations perpetrated during the Balkan wars (24,25). Over 6,000 individuals from various ethnic backgrounds who were involved in the conflicts took part in the RECOM consultation process from 2006 to 2011. Herein lies the strength of Kostovicova’s work – the operationalisation of transitional justice and reconciliation, drawing from empirical insights, and employing mixed-methods approaches to understand the potential of deliberation in divided societies.
The book is grounded in a strong theoretical framework that aligns with the empirical chapters. By operationalising the concept of “deliberative democracy” and drawing on Habermas’s theory of communicative actions and Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition, Kostovicova extends a discourse-based approach to understanding solidarity and recognition in interethnic interactions within a transitional justice framework. Chapter Two focuses on the normative qualities required to deal with mistrust and polarisation in divided and post-conflict societies, as these factors could hinder “the development of an inclusive public sphere” (36). The deliberative process, even without arriving at a final decision and without the necessity for decision-making, has the potential to restore interethnic relationships (37).
Beyond examining how people discuss war crimes, the book considers how individuals express their ethnic identities in the process of deliberation. The role of identity becomes significant in addressing the legacies of violence.
Kostovicova’s theoretical advancements centre around examining the influence of ethnic identities during the process of deliberation (39). Drawing on the concept of identity from contact theory, she demonstrates a profound understanding of the region under study, enabling the exploration of ethnic division lines through the adaptation of a social interactional perspective on identity. This move aims to leave aside an essentialist and deterministic understanding of identity common in scholarly discourse. Beyond examining how people discuss war crimes, the book considers how individuals express their ethnic identities in the process of deliberation. The role of identity becomes significant in addressing the legacies of violence (49). Given that solely focusing on civic identities may not fully capture the dynamics of the (post) conflict, and recognising that ethnic identities are post-war constructs solidified by the violence, the analytical task is to accommodate this tension.
Contrary to expectations, Kostovicova finds that ethnically mixed consultations exhibit higher deliberative quality than ethnically homogeneous ones.
Thus, the research presents the factors that predict the high quality of deliberation in transitional justice consultation, such as ethnic diversity, gender, polarisation or subjectivity in rational justifications, amongst others. The quality of deliberation, while simultaneously identifying the legacies of violence, shows that identity matters during deliberation. To measure deliberation, the study employs the Discourse Quality Index adapted for transitional justice as the dependent variable; and two independent variables are developed to measure identity in discourse: first, subjectivity in rational justification, and second, storytelling positionality (78). Contrary to expectations, Kostovicova finds that ethnically mixed consultations exhibit higher deliberative quality than ethnically homogeneous ones. The findings challenge the notion that in a divided society, approaches should centre on a nonethnic discourse; it also underlines the possibility for victims – and survivors – to express their feelings of justice in post-conflict settings, launching a critique on the “monopolisation” of victims’ agency (83,84).
Kostovicova demonstrates that deliberation in divided societies encourages questioning the hegemony of ethnocentric collective identification, which strengthens a collective narrative of victimhood.
Chapter Five discusses the empirical approach of interactivity as an attribute of the deliberative process. Operationalising interactivity allows us to move beyond post-conflict power-sharing division. Due to the macro-level divisions, we expect a pattern of isolation or confinement of identity, labelled in the book as “ethnic enclavisation” (99). However, contrary again to expectations, agreement and respect along inter-ethnic lines in addressing the legacies of war crimes are prevalent. She demonstrates that deliberation in divided societies encourages questioning the hegemony of ethnocentric collective identification, which strengthens a collective narrative of victimhood (106). This means that deliberation advances the unlinking or disconnection between collective identities, contributing to the achievement of individuality for oneself and seeing the ‘other’ separated from their group.
Addressing the legacies of war is not only about engaging with former adversaries but also about understanding one’s own multi-layered identity during and after conflict.
Kostovicova’s work finds that deliberation also occurred along intra-group lines. This shows that addressing the legacies of war is not only about engaging with former adversaries but also about understanding one’s own multi-layered identity during and after conflict. This analysis brings clarity to the insufficiently understood causes and dynamics of violence and their relationship with identity, and also on the poorly comprehended legacies of mass violence and their connection with identity, self-categorisation, and victimhood.
Balkan scholars face the enormous challenge of scrutinising identity and ethnicity, aware of their intricate constructions, the influence of violence in shaping them, and the role of identity politics in their perpetuation. They must also construct an analysis that avoids replicating the conflict solely as ethnic while considering other causes of violence and its legacies, – or, better said, how to study identities in cases where, according to Brass as cited in Fearon and Laitin, violence is “socially constructed as ethnic.” With this, I aim to highlight literature (Vukosic and Kalyvas, cited in Malesevic, for example) on violence where communal violence, even if described as such, on the ground or locally, can have other motivations, such as economic ones..
The book develops a theory centred on a “discursive perspective on solidarity in interethnic interactions, a theory that places emphasis on empathy and the acknowledgement of the “ethnic Other” with the aim of bridging gaps between deliberators (46). I’m uncertain whether this approach presents a rigid understanding of identity if the source of agency or deliberation specific to individuals (victims or survivors) is linked with abstract entities like ethnic or political groups, an analysis that Balcells advanced in the micro-level explanations of the occurrence of violence. A closer and more extended theoretical examination of intra-ethnic dynamics would have enriched the analysis, further challenging collective notions of identity and victimhood in post-conflict societies.
Max Berghoz states that, “Perpetrators may imprint ethnicity onto victims through acts of violence; victims, in turn, may internalize this externally imposed ethnic categorization and, through acts of revenge, imprint ethnicity onto the initial perpetrators and those associated with them.” This raises a crucial question: when we study victims, are we truly delving into their sense of identity? This question does not aim to undermine the agency of victims but rather emphasises the need for researchers to maintain a critical distance. As Kostovicova notes, mentioning Aida Hozic, delving into the understanding and interpretation of violence in post-conflict polities “can serve the interests of those who committed genocide” (33). Hence, it is relevant to point out that this tension regarding how we analyse identity through the victim’s perspective remains unresolved.
[The book] underscores the notion that irrespective of the duration, sustained dialogue paves the path towards reconciliation.
The book is a humane work that positions empathy and acknowledgement as epistemological guidance. Kostovicova’s endeavour to dissect and operationalise the neglected concept of reconciliation is a brave one. Her work is an essential advancement of reconciliation and can be used within academia without compromising the integrity of the Balkan region’s history. It underscores the notion that irrespective of the duration, sustained dialogue paves the path towards reconciliation.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: fizkes on Shutterstock
UN human rights office ‘appalled’ at rape and execution of women and girls in Gaza
‘Credible’ reports of war crimes against Palestinian women by Israeli soldiers detailed in UN OHCHR statement – yet ignored by western ‘msm’
The horrific treatment of women and girls by Israeli soldiers – including rape and execution – has been condemned by the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights in a damning statement today from the ‘Special Procedures’ group of human rights experts, saying that the actions of the IDF are likely to amount to prosecutable war crimes.
The statement says that the group:
expressed alarm over credible allegations of egregious human rights violations to which Palestinian women and girls continue to be subjected in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
Palestinian women and girls have reportedly been arbitrarily executed in Gaza, often together with family members, including their children, according to information received.
“We are shocked by reports of the deliberate targeting and extrajudicial killing of Palestinian women and children in places where they sought refuge, or while fleeing. Some of them were reportedly holding white pieces of cloth when they were killed by the Israeli army or affiliated forces,” the experts said.
The experts expressed serious concern about the arbitrary detention of hundreds of Palestinian women and girls, including human rights defenders, journalists and humanitarian workers, in Gaza and the West Bank since 7 October. Many have reportedly been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, denied menstruation pads, food and medicine, and severely beaten. On at least one occasion, Palestinian women detained in Gaza were allegedly kept in a cage in the rain and cold, without food.
“We are particularly distressed by reports that Palestinian women and girls in detention have also been subjected to multiple forms of sexual assault, such as being stripped naked and searched by male Israeli army officers. At least two female Palestinian detainees were reportedly raped while others were reportedly threatened with rape and sexual violence,” the experts said. They also noted that photos of female detainees in degrading circumstances were also reportedly taken by the Israeli army and uploaded online.
The experts expressed concern that an unknown number of Palestinian women and children, including girls, have reportedly gone missing after contact with the Israeli army in Gaza. “There are disturbing reports of at least one female infant forcibly transferred by the Israeli army into Israel, and of children being separated from their parents, whose whereabouts remain unknown,” they said.
“We remind the Government of Israel of its obligation to uphold the right to life, safety, health, and dignity of Palestinian women and girls and to ensure that no one is subjected to violence, torture, ill-treatment or degrading treatment, including sexual violence,” the experts said.
They called for an independent, impartial, prompt, thorough and effective investigation into the allegations and for Israel to cooperate with such investigations.
“Taken together, these alleged acts may constitute grave violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, and amount to serious crimes under international criminal law that could be prosecuted under the Rome Statute,” the experts said. “Those responsible for these apparent crimes must be held accountable and victims and their families are entitled to full redress and justice,
While Israel’s atrocity propaganda claiming ‘systematic’ use of rape as a weapon of war have been characterised by an absence of evidence and a demand to be believed regardless how lurid and unfeasible the claims have been, and have quickly collapsed under scrutiny – yet have been propagated by western media and governments anyway – the UN experts’ sober claims carry weight and a call for serious investigation, but has been entirely ignored so far by the UK and US ‘mainstream’ media:
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Video: “I lost my family in Gaza” – police aggression as protesters shame Rayner and Reynolds
Deputy Labour leader and Shadow Business Secretary confronted with their complicity in Gaza slaughter during fundraiser
Police aggressively forced protesters – including two women – out of a Labour fundraising event for the ‘crime’ of protesting against the complicity of deputy party leader Angela Rayner and Shadow Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
At least three protesters stood to confront the two front-benchers with the horrific reality of the slaughter in Gaza, with the women targeting Rayner’s ‘modern feminism’ while thousands of women are killed by Israel and more than a million undergo daily loss and humiliation. Party leader Keir Starmer has argued that Israel has a ‘right’ to commit its crimes, yet the pair continue to support him.
Reynolds has been pictured smiling during a funded visit to Israel shortly after the Israeli regime massacred peacefully-protesting Palestinians in 2018. Rayner told a pro-Israel front group earlier this month, in the middle of the ongoing genocide, that she and the party ‘completely oppose’ any boycott or sanctions against Israel.
And despite the completely non-violent behaviour of the protesters, they were forcibly – even violently – removed from the event so that the MPs could avoid being challenged for their actions:
So far, according to human rights group Euro-Med Monitor and the World Health Organisation, more than 33,000 civilians – mostly women and children – have been killed in Israel’s wanton slaughter, at least double that amount have been wounded with many maimed, and almost two million people have been forcibly displaced into ever-smaller areas as famine and disease begin to outstrip the death toll from bombs, missiles and bullets.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.