John Harris

Journalist & Author

Archive for June, 2011

| Newer Entries »

Faith at Liverpool’s frontline: The ‘big society’ in action – video

Tuesday, June 14th, 2011

Anywhere but Westminster: John Harris visits a fast-growing evangelical church whose members are offering help to sex workers and drug addicts in Wavertree, Liverpool

John Harris
John Domokos

Posted in Guardian RSS | No Comments »

School surveillance: how big brother spies on pupils

Thursday, June 9th, 2011

Cameras in the toilets; CCTV in the classroom; pupils’ fingerprints kept in a database . . . Can’t happen here? Think again, because the surveillance state is quietly invading our schools

‘Every day in communities across the United States, children and adolescents spend the majority of their waking hours in schools that increasingly have come to resemble places of detention more than places of learning. From metal detectors to drug tests, from increased policing to all-seeing electronic surveillance, the schools of the 21st century reflect a society that has become fixated on crime, security and violence.”

So reads a passage from the opening pages of Lockdown High, a new book by the San Francisco-based journalist Annette Fuentes. Subtitled “When the schoolhouse becomes the jailhouse”, it tells a story that decisively began with the Columbine shootings of 1999, and from across the US, the text cites cases that are mind-boggling: a high-flying student from Arizona strip-searched because ibuprofen was not allowed under her school rules; the school in Texas where teachers can carry concealed handguns; and, most amazingly of all, the Philadelphia school that gave its pupils laptops equipped with a secret feature allowing them to be spied on outside classroom hours.

Just about all the schools Fuentes writes about are united by a belief in that most pernicious of principles, “zero tolerance”. Their scanners, cameras and computer applications are supplied by a US security industry that seems to grow bigger and more insatiable every year. And as she sees it, their neurotic emphasis on security has plenty of negative results: it renders the atmosphere in schools tense and fragile, and in coming down hard on young people for the smallest of transgressions, threatens to define their life chances at an early age – because, as she puts it, “suspensions and academic failure are strong predictors of entry into the criminal justice system”. There is also, of course, the small matter of personal privacy.

It would be comforting to think of all this as a peculiarly American phenomenon. But in the UK, we seem almost as keen on turning schools into authoritarian fortresses. Scores of schools have on-site “campus police officers.” One in seven schools has insisted on students being fingerprinted so they can use biometric systems for the delivery of lunches and in school libraries. Security systems based on face recognition have already been piloted in 10 schools, and on-site police officers are now a common feature of the education system. Most ubiquitous of all are CCTV cameras: in keeping with our national love affair with video surveillance, 85% of secondary schools are reckoned to use it, even in changing rooms and toilets.

Just as the US is home to such school-security firms as ScholarChip and Raptor Technologies, so we have an array of companies who can equip schools with a truly Orwellian array of kit. BioStore offers fingerprint-based ID systems to schools and assures any potential takers that children’s dabs are encrypted into “a string of numbers”, that “cannot be used to recreate a fingerprint image” nor “used in a forensic investigation”. CCTVanywhere’s website features a hooded youth with a spraycan straight out of central casting and a claim that its cameras can help with help with everything from bullying to settling legal claims against staff. There is also Classwatch, a CCTV firm which claims it can “produce dramatic improvements in behaviour”. Until recently, its chairman was a Tory MP called Tim Loughton. As if to signal the links that run between such firms and our policymakers, he is now under-secretary of state for children.

Now, as the surveillance state embeds itself in the lives of millions of children, the education bill currently making its way through parliament promises to extend teachers’ powers to search pupils to the point that, as the pressure group Liberty puts it, they will be “proportionate to terrorism investigations”. Teachers will be able not just to seize phones and computers, but wipe them of any data if they think there “is a good reason to do so” – a move of a piece with new powers to restrain pupils and issue summary expulsions.

Not entirely surprisingly, education secretary Michael Gove casts all this as a matter of copper-bottomed common sense. “Our bill will put heads and teachers back in control, giving them a range of tough new powers to deal with bullies and the most disruptive pupils,” he said last year, before he used a very telling phrase: “Heads will be able to take a zero-tolerance approach.”

For many people, the idea of school discipline will still be synonymous with Victorian images of cane-wielding teachers, but we now seem to be headed for something much more insidious: authoritarianism for children, sold to students and staff using the dazzle of technology, and the modern vocabulary of the security crackdown.

And all this, you may remember, from a government whose coalition agreement promises “a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour government and roll back state intrusion”.

Only for grownups, perhaps.

In March 2009, Sam Goodman and Leia Clancy were sixth-formers at Davenant Foundation school in Loughton, Essex – as they both tell me, a safe and largely trouble-free place. One Monday morning, they turned up for an A-level politics lesson and found that the room they were using had been newly equipped with CCTV cameras, mounted to a silver dome attached to the ceiling. Horrified, they led a spontaneous walk-out, involving all the members of their class bar one.

“If the school had warned us, maybe we’d have been more willing to the idea of them being there,” says Clancy, now an anthropology undergraduate at the LSE. “But if you come back from the weekend, and there are cameras in the classroom . . . well, that changes everything.”

Goodman, then 18, was never likely to accept the cameras’ presence: a staunch civil libertarian and son of a barrister, he had already refused to use his school’s new fingerprint-scan system for serving lunch. He is now a politics student at Leeds University. “I just thought enough was enough, really,” he says. “We got a petition together and I spoke to the headmaster about it. But we hit a dead-end. His excuse was teacher-training: that they wanted to record lessons and watch them back.”

Soon enough, the class was told that lessons would resume in the room in question, but that the cameras would be turned off. “People were very, very wary,” says Clancy. “And the atmosphere was completely different. Having a massive camera over your head is incredibly distracting, so no one was very comfortable with their learning environment. It really had an impact on how we participated.” Worse was to come: having gone back into the classroom, Clancy and Goodman claim they then discovered an audio recording system, hidden in a cupboard. “We worked out that that was on the whole time, even if the cameras were switched off, which made us even more angry,” says Clancy. “It seemed suspiciously covert, and they never really answered our questions about that. But we switched it off.”

Having amassed dozens of signatures on a petition, with advice from Goodman’s father, they then made an official complaint to the Information Commissioner.

Two years on, they have heard nothing back.

Jason West is a 38-year-old father of three from Ash, near Aldershot. All his children are students at Ash Manor school, a specialist technology college. On 28 April this year, his youngest son came home from school, and told him about a CCTV camera installed above urinals in one of the school’s toilets. “When he told me, I couldn’t believe it,” he says. It turned out there were cameras in both boys’ and girls’ toilets: Ash Manor’s head, West says, explained that they had been put there as part of a drive against bullying, smoking and graffiti, and assured him that they were only focused on nearby washbasins.

West told him he was shocked about the absence of any warning about the cameras’ installation and would be withdrawing his children from the school unless he was allowed to come and see them for himself. Under the Data Protection Act, it should be noted, schools must tell pupils where cameras are and the purpose they serve – though as one teachers’ union officer told me: “There are lots of schools that install CCTV and don’t know the rules – and the companies who supply it don’t feel the need to tell them. “When West visited the school the following week, he says that he saw exactly what his son had told him about, and was enraged. “I thought to myself: when my kids went to that school, I signed a document saying that no images or video footage would be taken of them,” he says. “I think it’s sick to put something like that in there; it’s intrusive and I don’t agree with it.” He says he was given a guarantee that his children could use a toilet with no CCTV, though he contacted the local newspaper and the county’s police – who, he claims, insisted the cameras were removed.

The police will say only that they received “a number of calls from concerned parents”, that the school had not committed any offence, and that “advice” was given to the head. When I contact the school, I get an email explaining that the cameras were “temporary”, put up “as part of our ongoing commitment to ensuring safeguarding” and there to “take a still image of what would be shown if we were to install CCTV, in order to allow parents to be fully confident that they were totally decent and appropriate”.

No final decision, they assure me, has been made to put cameras in the toilets, and a consultation with parents is under way (though their text contains one possibly telling caveat: “other local schools already have this in place”). West is adamant that if the cameras return, “I’ll take my kids out of school again and start a petition.” In other respects, Ash Manor is fully on board with where schools seem to be headed: they are, for example, about to introduce a fingerprint system for the delivery of school meals.

Which brings us to one part of the story in which Britain is actually ahead of the US: the use of biometrics in schools, which has been snowballing for the past five years. It is explained to me by 42-year-old Pippa King, a mother of two from Hull and a staunch children’s rights advocate, whose campaigning dates back to a morning in 2006 when she glimpsed a new fingerprint scanner in a primary school library, supplied by a company called Micro Librarian Systems.

Her children were then seven, and six. “I asked the headteacher when she was going to ask for our permission to fingerprint the kids, and she told me point blank she didn’t need permission,” she recalls. “I was flabbergasted. I thought, there’s only 160 kids in this school – can book-crime be that bad that you need to biometrically scan primary-school children?” She quickly began blogging about the tangle of issues with which she had suddenly been confronted (her fascinating output is at pippaking.blogspot.com).

In her case, the school eventually sought parents’ consent, and 20% refused permission, so the system could not be used. But in the meantime, King and the equally worried parents with whom she made contact had started to get a sense of how widely fingerprinting was being rolled out. “We heard from people all over the country,” she says. “But it’s a difficult thing, being a parent who objects to what a school is doing. We spoke to people who’d been told: ‘If you don’t like it, take your child somewhere else.’ And don’t forget: confronted by the biometrics industry, anyone who doesn’t like what’s happening is going to be at one end of a very imbalanced argument.”

From time to time, there have been other stories of low-level resistance: the kid from the Wirral given a detention – for “defacing school property” – after he stuck Blu-Tack on the lens of a camera in the school toilets; the parents who protested outside Charlestown primary school in Salford after their children had been filmed by CCTV, changing their clothes for PE lessons; the father from High Wycombe who formed a pressure group after his six-year-old son was fingerprinted at his primary school. Meanwhile, research proves that no matter what happens, a seemingly oppressive level of in-school surveillance is increasingly becoming the norm.

Emmeline Taylor is a Mancunian academic who has been following the onward march of school security for the past five years. When I speak to her, she talks me through the British side of the story, which takes in rampant fear about knife-crime, the fall-out from the Dunblane massacre of 1995, and a very British tendency to concentrate on the most innocuous aspects of technology, while blithely ignoring its more sinister side.

In-school surveillance, she says, is sold to parents and pupils as a panacea for bullying, vandalism, truancy and more, but its implications for privacy are too often ignored. Similarly, though schools fingerprint their pupils so they can borrow library books and get their lunch without recourse to anything made of paper and issue no end of assurances about what can and can’t be done with biometrics, Taylor thinks the practice creates the possibility of “a database by the back door”.

For the most part, she acknowledges, all this is waved through without much thought, let alone any protest. “The schools love it, because it supposedly avoids truancy and saves teachers’ time,” she says. “And the pupils tend to love it, because it seems to be all about being futuristic and exciting.”

At the pressure group Liberty, they are starting to try to realign public understanding of all this, away from efficiency and technology, towards much more fundamental stuff. “There’s a very important point of principle to be made,” says Isabella Sankey, Liberty’s policy director. “What kind of message are you sending kids about the value of their privacy and dignity if you start putting CCTV up in schools? Our preference would be for schools not to use it. We certainly need much better safeguards and criteria relating to where it’s appropriate. For example, putting it in the classroom is particularly offensive. It has very clear implications for teaching and free expression.”

We also talk about the current education bill and its draconian plans for teachers’ search powers. “The last government brought in powers to allow teachers to search kids for illegal substances, knives and sharp implements,” she says. “That was actually pretty controversial, given that they’re powers usually reserved for police officers, for very good reason – because they’ve got training and all the rest of it. But this goes a lot further. Teachers will have the power to look for anything prohibited in the school rules, which gives complete discretion to schools to dream up their own list.

“It’s important to get one thing across,” she says. “This isn’t about a teacher being able to confiscate something – something that’s always been there. This is much more invasive: it allows for a search of a pupil’s person, with all the implications that has. And it includes the under-10s. So you’re talking about people who can’t legally commit a criminal offence, but can still be searched. That goes to the heart of it.

“It also contains this other power, which relates specifically to electronic devices: the power not just to go through them, but to delete material.” This, she tells me, exceeds any power currently granted to the police.

Having had my nerves comprehensively jangled, I approach the Department of Education. It is perhaps some token of their jitteriness about school surveillance that no minister will talk to me, but I am invited to send in a list of questions, which brings forth a pretty miserable response, indicative of that ingrained tendency of people in power to respond to stuff based on matters of principle with deadening officialspeak.

The answers I get back are credited to Nick Gibb, the Tory schools minister, an old-school disciplinarian described last year by the Guardian as “an enthusiastic proponent of a crackdown on behaviour”.

My first questions run thus: Does the department have a policy on CCTV in schools – and more specifically, its limits? What about CCTV in classrooms, as against corridors and playgrounds? I also mention the controversy about cameras in toilets.

“Heads know their schools better than ministers, so it’s rightly down to them whether or not they choose to use CCTV, although great care needs to be taken to protect the privacy of pupils,” says the minister. “Clearly, pupil welfare is paramount and heads will consider local circumstances, and may wish to speak with parents and pupils first before installing such a system. All schools must comply with data-protection laws when using CCTV.”

The second bunch of inquiries relates to biometrics. What, I wonder, is his view of the use of fingerprints in schools? Are some parents right to feel that their use in, say, libraries and school catering arrangements is just not appropriate? Here, the answer has a bit more clout. “We are toughening up existing guidance on biometrics by legislating to outlaw its use in schools without parental permission – it is only right that heads consult parents before using such sensitive technology,” he replies. This is true: in the wake of warnings from the European Commission about fingerprinting in schools without parental consent, the new protection of freedoms bill insists on it for all children under 18.

But if one governmental hand is pushing things in one direction, the other is brazenly going the opposite way, as proved by the current education bill. Among other things, the text I send to send to the Department of Education highlights those new powers to delete data from electronic devices and to allow teachers to search students of the opposite sex without another member of staff present, “if they believe the student could cause serious harm”. I also cite a recent quote from Chris Keates, the general secretary of the teachers’ union NASUWT: “The extra powers in the bill to search and confiscate and dispose of electronic equipment and data are disproportionate powers that teachers don’t really want, and actually could cause more conflict and more problems for schools, rather than actually tackling discipline.”

“Improving discipline is an important priority for the government,” says Gibb’s reply. “That’s why we are giving heads and teachers the clear powers they have requested to tackle poor behaviour, so they have the confidence to remove disruptive pupils when necessary.” He goes on: “We trust teachers, as professionals, to use these new powers in an appropriate and proportionate way.”

So there you go. “Appropriate and proportionate”, as is the British way. Really, what’s anyone worried about?

John Harris

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Posted in Guardian RSS | No Comments »

The world needs a new Marx, but it keeps creating Malcolm Gladwells | John Harris

Wednesday, June 8th, 2011

The outlook is bleak for many British people. If Labour is to have any relevance, it needs some fresh thinking

If you’re old enough to remember the Thatcher years, you may have an answer to this question, but it’s still worth asking: in living memory, have thousands of us on the left ever felt so bleak? Every day, I seem to have at least one conversation that ends with sighing expressions of fatalism about where Britain is headed, and how disorganised any opposition seems to be. Cameron is supposedly triumphant, and it certainly feels like it: even if the Tories failed to win the last election and now see some of their most treasured plans tumbling into disrepute, it’s the right that is setting the terms of the argument.

Across Europe, the crisis of social democracy continues apace: now Portugal is added to the list of countries where the key effect of a supposed crisis of capitalism has been a thumping defeat for the centre-left. And what have we got even to keep us warm? In the 1980s, there was at least a fizzing counterculture of dissent, protest and alternative ideas. No longer: it’s surely some token of these blighted times that even the great anti-cuts march – remember that? — increasingly feels like one of those Diana-esque spasms, fated to create a weekend’s noise, and then evaporate.

Hats off to Maurice Glasman for trying to re-acquaint the Labour party with the imperative to think via the much-misunderstood creed of Blue Labour, but he cuts a very lonely figure. Credit also to a new organisation called GEER – “Gender, Environment, Equality and Race UK,” it says here – which seemingly wants to remind us of the questionable glories of the Labour left circa 1985, but is at least having a go. Elsewhere, though, all is either pained silence or that complacent view of things whereby evil Tories and treacherous Liberals will jointly implode, and along will come the great cure-all that is a Labour government.

As far as Britain is concerned, there is no great mystery about the basis of the centre-left’s predicament – not just last year’s defeat, but the sense of two weary factions who have fought each other to a standstill, and have precious little to say anyway. If Blair remains your idol, it’s all about chasing the supposed centre-ground as it’s dragged ever rightwards, and the necessity of addressing our chewier social problems via remaining vigilantly nasty on crime, immigration and benefit cheats. On the latter, Brownites of the Ed Balls variety are in agreement, but they shade gently into a more old Labour-ish position by holding a firmer line on the public/private debate, and sounding slightly more dirigiste about the banks – but only slightly: as ever, the basic idea is to leave the economy pretty much as it is, because stoking neoliberal capitalism and then spending the tax skim on schools, hospitals and a smidgeon of redistribution is always as good as it gets.

There is a third element, represented by the embattled Ed Miliband, which wants at least tentatively to edge towards the fundamentals, and begin talking not just about the ubiquitous squeezed middle, but “better capitalism” and “life beyond the bottom line”. Yesterday, it was good to hear him sum up the Southern Cross care homes saga as the result of treating people “merely as commodities”. But he’s hemmed in by two big problems: the hostility of his colleagues; and a pronounced aversion to risk, inculcated during those long years at Gordon Brown’s knee. The result is collective paralysis, and a mess of displacement activity – not least 20-odd policy review groups, whose apparent raison d’etre is to clutter up the foreground with so much minutiae that any conversation about the political basics becomes impossible.

I’d advise Labour’s brighter sparks to go away and read some books, if there were any around. But Blue Labour aside, on all sides of politics, the fashion is for flimsy texts that, in that rather irksome post-Freakonomics kind of way, tell us that a world whose iniquitous outlines look much the same as ever is actually much more complicated. As well as his fans on the right, there are people on the left who urge us to pick up David Brooks’s insanely hyped treatise The Social Animal, which advises us that class is bunk, and “society is a layering of networks” (p155). Yesterday morning, the postman brought me Adapt by the British writer Tim Harford, another voguish book whose blurb advises us to dump “grand visions” and “improvise rather than plan”. Every week, in fact, brings another lecture or book about the political uses of neuroscience, or what Twitter is doing to human consciousness – everything, it seems, apart from what’s actually most important. The world arguably needs a new Marx, but it keeps creating Malcolm Gladwells, pirouhetting around their flipcharts and ignoring the real problems.

Here is where the left needs to look, and learn. The veil is being lifted on the reality of recent history by mounting evidence of how much incomes have stagnated – to put it another way, a post-Thatcher settlement based on popular prosperity has singularly failed (see also last week’s spurt of coverage about “generation rent“). Towards the end of last month, the Relationships Foundation published a report that showed that British families were the third most pressured in Europe, ahead of only those in Romania and Bulgaria – despite the fact that our national income per head is about five times as large as theirs. One family in five has either “difficulty” or “great difficulty” in making ends meet, and our working hours remain as crushing as ever (25% of British men work more than 50 hours a week; in Norway, it’s 8%). Childcare in the UK eats up twice the proportion of family income that it does for French families, three times that of German families, and four times the figure for Sweden. Our “poor living environment” – based on numbers for teenage pregnancy, as well as adolescent drink and drug use – puts us ahead of only Estonia, and poor old Bulgaria again. And all this after that supposed long boom, with austerity about to make things immeasurably worse.

All this may sound bleak but, unless we recognise it, the darkness is only going to deepen. This is not the time to be worshipping broken Labour gods, nor immersing oneself in the kind of books best left to real-life David Brents.

John Harris

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Posted in Guardian RSS | No Comments »

Google: a tiger we mustn’t feed | John Harris

Friday, June 3rd, 2011

As Google’s claws bite ever deeper, its dominance of the web should be challenged

It’s the season of cyber-panic. On iPlayer, you can watch Adam Curtis tying together Ayn Rand, the crash of 2008 and early 20th century botany into a warning about computers threatening civilisation. The aftershocks of Nicholas Carr’s admirably impactful book The Shallows ripple on, spreading an uneasy suspicion that the internet is corroding our mental faculties. Last week Nicolas Sarkozy hosted the eG8 forum, dragging the technology industry’s big players to Paris, and lecturing them with a De Gaulle-esque sweep about the inviolable supremacy of governments, and the dangers of the online realm becoming “a parallel universe outside laws and morals”.

We all know the tropes: porn, privacy, the mortal danger of Facebook for kids, and apocalyptic fears about cyber-warfare. Talking of which: on Wednesday, 24 hours after the Pentagon served notice that it would now consider any deliberate cyber-attack by a foreign state an “act of war” (that is, an action worthy of military retaliation), news broke of another assault on Google email accounts, allegedly launched from China. The targets reportedly included “senior US government personnel”, whose across-the-board use of Gmail appears to make them vulnerable to this latest spurt of online mischief, based on “phishing” – that is, directing victims to divulge passwords via fake websites.

In response, Google urged its users to spend 10 minutes “taking steps to improve your online security so that you can experience all that the internet offers – while also protecting your data”. The American government, perhaps, might also instruct its employees to make things that bit more difficult for hackers by spreading their email accounts around a bit.

That, though, is not the way our world seems to work. We seem to accept it as something as inarguable as the weather, but Google now has a terrifying dominance of the world’s internet use. In Europe, it controls around 90% of the online search market. At the last count, Gmail had 193.3 million monthly users. In 2007 Google purchased DoubleClick, specialists in the technology whereby people’s web habits are tracked, and ads are targeted accordingly. Google also owns YouTube, Blogger and the social networking site Orkut. When it comes to ownership of the smartphone operating system Android, things get complicated, but Google is effectively in charge, having acquired Android Inc in 2005.

And so the list goes on. Google’s browser Chrome now accounts for 14.5% of European web use, and is on the up. As is Google’s apparent appetite for any technology business it can get its hands on: in the first 10 months of 2010 alone, it spent $1.6bn on new acquisitions. If you have ever raged against the stranglehold practised by Rupert Murdoch, bear one thing in mind: Google’s power now threatens to make him look like a village newsagent.

Rather than trying to put jump leads on increasingly impossible ideas about copyright enforcement, or somehow subjecting the web’s endless information flows to the edicts of domestic courts, it’s this issue that merits serious attention from the world’s governments. Sarko et al should take note: compared to the old fear that Microsoft might monopolise access to the web via its software (the spark for its epic tussle with the US department of justice), we are talking about something of a completely different order. Google has a shot not at control of the means to access information, but the information itself. Potentially all information, which is something worth panicking about.

There are glimmers of hope. In one of those turnabouts that defy satire, Microsoft is pursuing Google via the European commission, claiming that it unfairly promotes its own services via web searches. In Texas, antitrust investigations by the attorney general’s office are ongoing, triggered by websites’ complaints about their lowly Google rankings. Thanks to a judge in New York, there are now very serious doubts about Google’s quest to somehow digitise every book ever published (optimistically, it has already scanned 12m of them).

Meanwhile, there are rumblings about a possible watershed investigation by the Federal Trade Commission. Yesterday, Bloomberg ran a story with the headline “Google Antitrust Probe by US Could Take Years”, and paraphrased a renowned technology lawyer: “The agency is likely to examine whether Google is using its position in internet search to subdue rivals in adjacent markets with threats and jacked-up advertising rates.” It would certainly be a start.

In the meantime, some advice, not least for employees of the US government. Don’t feed the tiger. Think back to the frontier days of dial-up, when pluralism reigned. Have a look around for alternative email providers, search engines and video-sharing sites. You can find them using Google. For the moment.

John Harris

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Posted in Guardian RSS | No Comments »

| Newer Entries »

John Harris is powered by WordPress 2.8.4 Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS). Designed by Hywel Harris

ADIDAS PERFORMANCE Galactic Elite W Blanc Cheap Womens AF Sublimation Graphic Tee 2016 Adidas Originals ZX Flux Weave Shoes Sale Mens AF Active Running Shorts Online ADIDAS PERFORMANCE Duramo 6 W Running White Ftw Metallic Silver Vivid Mint F14 Mens AF Washed Out Tee AF 2016 ADIDAS ORIGINALS Court Star Slim W Sale Mens AF Classic Taper Pants Online Adidas Running adizero XT 5 Shoes Cheap Womens AF Textured Open Cardigan 2016 Mens AF Varsity Logo Cardigan AF 2016 ADIDAS ORIGINALS Zx 700 W Sabpou Sabpou Noiess Mens AF Striped Icon Henley AF 2016 ADIDAS PERFORMANCE Duramo 6 W Earth Green S13 Tech Grey Met S14 Solar Pink Mens AF Premium Utility Jacket AF 2016 ADIDAS PERFORMANCE Response Aspire Str W Running White Ftw Pink Buzz S10 Light Grey Sale Mens AF Denim Joggers Online ADIDAS ORIGINALS Extaball W Noiess Ormeta Nuiflu Mens AF Quilted Bomber jacket AF 2016 ADIDAS ORIGINALS Tech Super W NOIR NOIR ROSSOL Mens AF Classic Chambray Shirt AF 2016 ADIDAS ORIGINALS Bankshot 2 0 W Aluminum 2 Aluminum 2 Chalk 2 Mens AF Rib-Trim Crew Sweater AF 2016 Adidas Women adidas Neo Zip Fleece Hoodie New Womens AF High Rise Cropped Flare Sateen Pants 2016 ADIDAS PERFORMANCE Duramo 6 W Running White Ftw Metallic Silver Glow S14 New Womens AF Denim Mini Skirt 2016 Adidas Men Originals Plimcana 2 0 Low Shoes New Womens AF Lace Midi Skirt 2016 ADIDAS PERFORMANCE Duramo 6 W Noiess Noiess Rosflu Men Running adizero Tempo Boost 7 Shoes ADIDAS ORIGINALS Extaball Up W Noiess Noiess Ftwbla ADIDAS PERFORMANCE Galaxy W Neon Pink Metallic Silver Black 1 Men Running Springblade Ignite Shoes