FORNICATING HIPPIES

Let's see if we can jazz Boris Johnson's slur up a little shall we?

Those who look at others as simple, two-dimensional caricatures fuel the rage of the dispossessed.

So London Mayor Boris Johnson has flung more mud at London's Occupiers. It seems the protesters now accrue "fornicating hippies" to their ever-expanding set of identities. As Patrick Kingsley observes, this latest flurry is hardly the most scathing of Johnson's attacks. His commentary is laughably out of touch. I'd be tempted to leave his bigotry for humour to expose were it not for his standing as a high-profile public official. Given the man's position there is nothing funny to be seen in his words. Much the opposite.

One wonders if the caricatures often painted of Boris aren't enough in themselves to discourage his small-minded, quick-tongued venom.

Who knows what is said between consenting adults in corridors

The government is set to rule whether to approve News Corporation's bid for complete control over BSkyB. The culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has it on his head to navigate the crevices of this particular conundrum.

It is right that such important decisions - ones that could widely affect the balance of power in the media - are made off the back of cold, hard deliberation. The decision falls on Jeremy Hunt's shoulders after Vince Cable's position became untenable by his overt bias in opposition to News Corp.

Let us hope that Hunt's positioning does not suffer equal bias; albeit one on the opposite end of the political divide. This could be a difficult one to sell however when Cameron has recently been spotted accepting party invitations from Mr Murdoch himself.

We cannot watch Mr Hunt 24/7 so it would be mere wild speculation to suggest that Mr Cameron is intercepting his cabinet colleague on occasion to beg a small favour for a friend...

YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT TIME HAS GOT IT IN FOR, HONEY

A NOISY, SCRUFFY AND COLOURFUL CHALLENGE TO THE WAR-WAGING TENDENCIES OF THREE PRIME MINISTERS.

Brian Haw, 1949 - 2011

YOU CANNOT HAVE A SITUATION WHEN HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DIE BECAUSE THEY ARE EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO PROTEST

Do you still feel younger than you thought you would by now?

Bonus points for spotting whose advert I have appropriated for this - rather unnecessary - Love Is A Laserquest lyrics poster.

BRIAN SHOWED US WHAT A QUIESCENT AND SUPINE COUNTRY WE'VE BECOME

Mark Wallinger on Brian Haw, the peace campaigner, who died on Saturday.

On social media as a double-edged sword to spur political and social change.

I need to be able to find a positive arising from the Syrian "Gay Girl in Damascus" blog hoax fiasco. It's too upsetting to see the good-nature of people being exploited without some good coming from it. For every ounce of effort made in this particular case, the same has been denied from a cause of genuine worth.

Is it enough to rely on the generosity and inherent goodness in people to involve themselves time and time again in appeals that they cannot be certain are genuine? No, it is not.

The real progress will be in seeing this particular case in a wider context. It will involve closer scrutiny of our own international actions and convictions. Given the amount we have already invested into helping the people of Libya liberate themselves; is it not correct that we continue to hold our intervention up for questioning, testing our belief that we are truly helping enact the will and aim of the majority?

Would it also be correct to suggest that part of this process would involve our own media's ability to report truths? Given the sway they command, it is right that they install more robust controls on what they send to the front page unqualified.


(Regarding the poster: allow me the "Irrelevant Actor" visual joke.)

THERE'S NOTHING PAST THIS

My original concept for the recent Death Cab For Cutie inspired poster.

THE ROLE THAT THOUSANDS PLAYED IN THIS DISGUSTING EVENT NEEDS TO BE SCRUTINIZED

I would normally shy away from using remarks that strongly convey an abject opinion. I fear a cementing of subjectivity as fact. Sometimes it becomes a necessity, especially when human behavior breaches through into the undeniably wicked.

I sat with mouth agape as the news reports filtered through on Wednesday evening and Thursday morning. It appears that many of the ice hockey fans who had gathered in downtown Vancouver to watch the Stanley Cup final laid waste to the city following the Canucks' defeat to the Boston Bruins.

The images of shopfronts being smashed and looted; cars upended and set alight; police trying to contain the situation; all seemed very familiar. These were identical examples of the mob mentality that has frequently marred many a day's political activism in Central London over the course of this past year.

I find Wednesday's destruction much more contemptible. Regardless of the sinister nature of much of London's recent violence, it remains - in the most part - politically motivated (however stretched this definition becomes). Mass criminality in the name of sporting losses has no justification. It is mindless, and in cases where innocent people were injured: evil. I wholehearted support the sentiments of Gary Mason printed in The Globe and Mail on Thursday.

POLITICS SHOULD NOT BE LEFT ONLY IN THE HANDS OF POLITICIANS

These words, made yesterday by Nobel laureate Mario Vargas Llosa, were removed from Chinese state media broadcasts.

It is a simple statement that should resonate for everyone, regardless of nationality or political culture and ideologies.

IF THE DAILY MAIL IS SO WORRIED ABOUT THE SEXUALISATION OF CHILDREN, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS HIT 'DELETE'

Charlie Brooker makes some interesting points in a piece in today's Guardian. Whether one can be quite as blasé as he about the dangers posed by exposing children to images of a sexual nature is a matter of opinion; his comments regarding the hypocrisy of the Daily Mail are undeniably true however.

How the Daily Mail can point fingers at broadcasters and celebrities while its website openly contains graphic examples of the type of image they object to is a clear case of double standards (putting it lightly). The sinister issue of the Mail's false accusations directed at ITV for broadcasting material that it did not is simply icing on the cake.

They suffered another scathing critique last week too, where this same publication was labelled in the House of Commons by speaker John Bercow as a "bigoted comic". Whether or not such comments should have been made in Parliament is a different issue of course; but it sure is a good quote for a poster...

WANTED FOR CRIMES IN FAVOUR OF DEMOCRACY

Self explanatory really.

Ai Weiwei is still in the custody of Chinese officials. No one has heard from him since his arrest on April 3rd 2011.

A DEGREE OF SECRECY

A report released today detailed the expected shortfall of the government's tuition fee funding budget. The Public Accounts Committee says that more universities are planning to charge students the top-rate fees of £9,000 than was originally expected. It goes on to forecast the consequences of such developments, suggesting that the government will be hit with a bill far higher than they had originally planned.

Part of the difficulties for the government comes from the fact that they have to pay the money upfront to provide students the loan. With potentially more students requiring a larger down payment on their education, and with true numbers remaining unknown until the beginning of the new academic year, there is little that can be done to find out exactly how big the deficit will be in advance.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills says the government will not know the full cost until students have enrolled and received their loans. There are still some universities yet to declare what they intend to charge students in 2012-13.

With these uncertainties and potentially ballooning financial outgoings, it is highly suspected that the government will have to do something drastic to plug the gap. For a sector that has already received a harsh round of funding cuts recently, another might begin to crumble it significantly.

The chair of the committe, MP Margaret Hodge, has spoken this morning of her worries for the implications for students. She predicts a dark scenario which could either see budgets being slashed again or a cap being put on the number of student places.

More alarmingly, she detailed the current practice to disguise from students the financial security of institutions. At present, a struggling university is protected from its bank balance being made public by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). If the practice of doing so continues into the following few years then the implications for individual students appears nasty.

Should students be warned of impending doom before they choose into which university they place their education, trust, and - perhaps more crucially now than ever - money? Or would alerting students as to which universities are facing difficulties simply tie the noose and create a self-fulfilling prophecy as they watch applications dry up from underneath them?

Tricky questions for tricky times.

WOMEN HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW FROM WHOM THEY ARE SEEKING ADVICE

There would be two very unwanted effects of introducing the amendments to law that are currently being touted by certain MPs under the banner of the Right to Know campaign. These amendments primarily involve changing the process a women must undergo previous to her being allowed to have an abortion. Introducing the recommendations could easily lead a collapse in faith of patient trust and become a signifier that political agenda is covertly feeding some of the health service reforms.

MPs Nadine Dorries and Frank Field - amongst others - forward their belief that women do not currently have enough guidance or information made available to them before undergoing the operation. Under their suggestions, women would have to seek council before legally being allowed to have an abortion performed.

This amendment smacks of a sinisiter adgenda in itself. Rather outrageously, it suggests that a group of MPs have a secret moral imperitive to denote women's freedoms under a darker definition.

This last concern of mine isn't simply a fundamental opposition to the wielding of an opinion that clashes with my own (for it is true that I view a woman's right to choose as being of equal importance to the rosta of human rights that govern all of our ethical standards). No, mine is a position borne of the stipulations that accompany the proposed parliamentary bill; namely that any organisation offering guidance to women would be required in law to be seperate from any who offer the proceedure itself.

On initial glance the bill seems to wield a sickly arrogance to suppose that women do not already have the tools and effeciency to investigate the health implications under their own steam. This is not a proposition that reveals its benefits easily and requires a thorough thinking through; not least because there is an unquestionably humanitarian concern that underpins the sentiment.

I can see the obvious welfare implications in wanting women to have all of the facts to hand. I do not believe for one moment that it is worth supposing that every single woman has access and/or the impetus to investiagate themselves into the psychological and physical afteraffects of abortion. It seems entirely justifiable to patronise the majority if it means that an uninformed and at-risk few get the help and support they need.

It is in the nature of this help that my worries lie. If we remove from the equation the help and advise of groups directly involved in providing terminations (and obviously somewhat clouded by financially-vested interests) you end up with a select remainder of people who by definition do not. This pool of lendable ears - it is fair to assume - could largely be compiled from people who are involved in related dialogue from an opposing agenda. As an example of this, a group touted this week as being a potential beneficiary of patients is linked to a figure known to have both significant governmental influence and a personal commitment to the preservation of life from the moment of fertilisation.

By withdrawing the opinion of those who do advocate abortion, we might find ourselves entirely under the influence of those who do not. To give a such a stance full and unopposed reign during such a distressing and confusing time for a woman, we would be performing them a gross misservice on a personal level. Nationally we may also discover a collective hoodwinking by those advocating impartiality and responsibility, but who act under private religious or political predelictions.

(Edited Monday June 6th at 16:41 GMT)

THERE'S NOTHING PAST IT.

Beyond the newly-bolstered sonic strength of Death Cab For Cutie on their new album Codes And Keys, Benjamin Gibbard's celebrated lyrical poignancy retains its heart. On the track St. Peter's Cathedral we also are afforded a brain.

DO YOU STILL FEEL YOUNGER THAN YOU THOUGHT YOU WOULD BY NOW?

Alex Turner's lyrics are always so tasty, and they are no less so on Suck It And See. The band is slinkier and so are his sentiments.

I couldn't resist this opening line after a few days spent reminiscing and very much feeling my age. Both a perennial problem and a universal one. A striking enquiry I'm hoping; shoved on the front of a poster.

NO ONE HAS MENTIONED THE ARMY'S FAILURE HERE

And now we have reports about Bradley Manning's mental state previous to his deployment in Iraq.

How this information alters the legality of his treatment by the American government or Manning's own security breaches is blurry. Perhaps it is possible to consider the faults of many in relation to this whole schebockle, and this should certainly include the US Army itself.

Regardless of the specifics of this case, we should not allow the plight of this man to fall from the news agenda. It is a priority that this mess should be resolved up to (at least) the mere observance of human rights.

SENTIMENTALITY IS A FORM OF FATIGUE

I stumbled upon the writings of Leonora Carrington on the recommendation of a friend. Considering her surrealist tendencies, I found her more prescient and sagely than most, and often in the oddest turn of phrase. Balance this with her knack for the fantastical and you have a surefire combination for success.

And if you're still not convinced: she was once rescued from a psychiatric hospital in Spain where she was being kept following a nervous breakdown. Her rescuer was her British nanny sent by Leonora's parents in a submarine to bring her back home safely. If ever she had had opportunity to pick up pen and write one, her autobiography would have rated as extremely consistent alongside her surreal fiction works.

Here's to living! (and, of course, not staring so romantically..)

Leonora Carrington, 1917-2011

The Whitehall Establishment will go to bed tonight feeling reassured

It's one thing to épater la bourgeoisie, another to hit your readers over the head with a sex toy until they beg for mercy

A lovely evocation of Philip Roth's breadth from Alex Clark (and perhaps an illumination into why people like Carmen Callil find his collected works so "tedious").

No to the No To AV Campaign Campaign

I have been joined by several other contributors for my No to the No To AV Campaign Campaign.

You can view and download the entire selection of posters HERE.

The campaign will run from now until the referendum on May 5th. Details of which can be found online at www.aboutmyvote.co.uk

Cheers.

IN THE MOST BIBLICAL SENSE I AM BEYOND REPENTANCE

Another lyrical nod to Lady Gaga, from her latest offering.

Which reminds me to mention AC Grayling's The Good Book... a far more reasonable affair by miles (to the other Good Book that is..) and nicely readable too.

Concerning the referendum on AV..

Fact and reason seem in short supply in the "No to AV" poster campaign soTopicality will be lending a hand to "Yes" in order to bolster and stimulate a healthy public debate. It is to that end that I set about making these posters after all..

Downloadable posters to celebrate the launch of Topicality's No To No To AV Campaign:

JPEG

NO TO NO TO AV POSTER 1 (GREEN) HI-RES 1.47MB

NO TO NO TO AV POSTER 1 (PURPLE) HI-RES 1.09MB

NO TO NO TO AV POSTER 1 (GREEN) LO-RES 405KB

NO TO NO TO AV POSTER 1 (PURPLE) LO-RES 301KB

PDF

NO TO NO TO AV POSTERS (A4) 317KB

NO TO NO TO AV POSTERS (A3) 585KB

To download the files, right click on link and select "Save As.."

THE "NO TO AV" CAMPAIGN INSULTS RATIONAL DEBATE AND PROVIDES THE BEST EXAMPLE OF WHY IT IS TIME TO CHANGE.

Paddy Ashdown puts it more clearly that I could.

(Sorry Paddy, I've paraphrased you a little here).

AT WHAT POINT DOES PUBLIC INTIMACY BECOME OFFENSIVE VULGARITY?

The story as it has been reported, to date:
Two men were on a date in a London pub nearby to Soho when they were asked by another drinker to stop kissing. Later, when the pair were set to go, they were asked to leave by a member of staff who cited “obscene” behaviour as her reason for their ejection. Two fellow diners who were sat on a nearby table have described the men’s actions as moderate and unworthy of objection. The matter has been referred to the Metropolitan police.

The problem I have with the discussion of this news story in its current form is that second-hand information cannot really provide enough of a picture to formulate an informed opinion. There are a number of factors to which none of us are privy; but a wealth of conclusions being drawn regardless. The lack of clarity here leaves us all to mere speculation alone. At what point does public intimacy tip over from a touching display of innocent romance into offensive vulgarity? Is it right or fair to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality?

What this event shows – along with the array of comments listed online – is the subjectivity to human experience and social behaviours that everyone inherently has. It is at the crux of the very story itself – a disagreement about what is acceptable. No pub landlord, couple on their first-date, journalist or web commentator is ever going to solve the problem that people’s ideas about how to live differ.

Until we know the motivations of the pub’s landlord and staff - and the exact nature of the couple’s behaviour - we will not be able to weigh up this event with reason or clarity. In the meantime, vilifying the people involved will only do ourselves a similar disservice.

A note regarding the planned "kiss-in" protests: Deliberately riling those whom you disagree with will not achieve mutual respect but will stoke further division.

The flurry of opinions being spouted from all quarters seem to warrant a nationwide questioning: “AT WHAT POINT DOES PUBLIC INTIMACY BECOME OFFENSIVE VULGARITY?”

WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE MONEY WE'RE BEING GIVEN?

Sir Cameron Mackintosh has unwittingly caused a stir in his commentary on art funding cuts. His affirmation of the need for change has hit many as being hypocritical and treacherous. Reading between the lines however, it becomes clear that he seeks a diminishing of a wastefulness in a sector that I myself have oft regarded as flabby, bloated and unwieldy.

The wisdom in the statement I have presented here has wider reaching truths for us all.

LA POLITIQUE POLITICIENNE?

Contrary to what some commentators are arguing, the coming referendum on the alternative vote IS of interest to the electorate. Although the specifics and the spirit of the upcoming poll don't seem to have permeated as widely as a general election, this shouldn't indicate an absolute disinterest on behalf of the general public.

If there is anything to be gained from a referendum on the voting system it should be completely the opposite. It should affirm for an increasingly unsure people that Westminster isn't a concretised and stale system, but one that is relevant and should work for us. If asking us about the voting system shores up a more comfortable response from the public - even if the available options are slight - then it is a undertaking worth embracing.

STIGMATISING A WHOLE PEOPLE NEVER GOT US ANYWHERE

And for today, a double-bill double entendre:

"Stigmatising a whole people never got us anywhere"

- Angelique Chrisafis, a French Muslim.

AN EXAMPLE FOR LEGITIMATE SOCIAL CRITICISM AND FREE EXPRESSION

Chinese artist Ai Weiwei was arrested by government authorities last Sunday.
No-one has heard from him since.

A foreign ministry spokesman claims Ai has committed economic crimes and that the arrest is legitimate under Chinese law.

How legitimate and lawful is the utter silencing of one of your citizens?

IF A MONARCHY'S ONLY JUSTIFICATION IS THE FACT THAT IT IS KEEPING SOMEONE UNDESIRABLE OFF THE THRONE THEN THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

IF THE PEOPLE ARE ON YOUR SIDE, WHY WORRY?

Taken from David Aaronovitch's comment in today's Times. No link though because of the paywall.

In summary of (and in agreement with): If the Chinese government feel the need to crackdown on those who support a different political agenda; how can it claim to truly speak for its people?

IF THE MONARCHY'S ONLY JUSTIFICATION IS THE NUMBER OF TOURISTS IT BRINGS IN... THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH

THIS IS NOT IMPERIALISM

THE PEOPLE OF LIBYA MUST BE PROTECTED

From the lips of Barack Obama.

It is important to hear a simple, definitive focus after so much disagreement over method.

WE SHOULD NOT ARRIVE TOO LATE

It is with a heavy heart that I concede to the necessity of military intervention in Libya. My only hope is that by acting early enough, order and the will of the Libyan people can be achieved without too much bloodshed.

On the topic of blood: enough already has been spilt.

I would love to adopt the unilateralist rhetoric of the German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle: "Considering alternatives to military engagement is not the same as doing nothing."

But what else will dislodge the madman?

THIS ACCIDENT COULD PROVE NOTHING, BUT SIGNIFY EVERYTHING

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU LOVE HIM OR CAPITAL H-I-M

Reason and diplomacy delivered provocatively (Courtesy Miss Gaga).

Source: Born This Way

A SNUB TO HISTORY? CERTAINLY. AN AFFRONT TO JOURNALISM? MOST DEFINITELY!

I’m amazed that it takes the resignation of one of its journalists to bring the sly antics of one of Britian’s red top rags to the fore. Writing in his letter to its owner, Richard Peppiatt is entirely correct when he invokes the effect of Daily Star reportage as inciting hatred: I am definitely overcome with hatred and rage whenever I see its front page glaring at me from newsstands.

My anger is mainly directed toward the people who would peddle and masquerade such filth, but not exclusively. As the written testimony of one of its journalists suggest, there is no smoke without fire. The fact that people buy the newspaper in their droves points towards a wider set of concerns.

I think it is a shame that Mr Peppiatt’s resignation letter should solely grace the pages of other news outlets and be omitted from the very one which it references. I therefore advise anyone who shares this same concern to print copies of Peppiatt's resignation letter and slip them inside the pages of as many copies of The Daily Star as you should see as benefiting.

Incidentally, the passage that I have extracted was made in reference to the front page headlines on the day that Egyptians took to the street to demand an end to Mubarak's rule. I do not entertain a desire for reductionism nor do I demand that we all follow a single historical narrative. I am even happy in the knowledge that we all entertain varying levels of interest in certain topical affairs. What I do find hard to swallow is that a widely consumed news outlet would snub such a significant international development in favour of the latest installment in the soap opera life of Katie Price.

"FOR GOD'S SAKE" IS USED TO EXPRESS URGENCY AND NOT TO INVOKE A DEITY

From The Guardian: Humanist census posters banned from railway stations.

You can join the British Humanist Association's Census Campaign here.

GOVERNMENT ISN'T SOME HAMPSTEAD DEBATING SOCIETY: YOU NEED TO MAKE CONTEMPORARY JUDGEMENTS

He was once in a similar position...

I guess what Sir John Major really means is "sometimes plans change". What use would our leaders be to us and the country if they could not respond to unforeseen events as they happen? What mandate do they have for violent action if they have not previously been pressed on the issue?

The Falklands.

Afghanistan.

Iraq.

Libya?

If violence could be ended by his leaving, it might be a good step.

I have winced at recent comments made by international politicians denouncing Col Gaddafi and his regime. It isn't because I don't endorse their sentiments (I do), it is their stark terminology that worries me.

Libya is fractured. Endorsement for change is not so clearly cut as the recent calls delivered by the peoples of Tunisia and Egypt. An international narrative which seeks to push a single agenda could be an alienating alternative to a very sticky problem.

These words, served by America's Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, are exemplary of a softer reasoning. They could very well be the way to progress. Sticking to sentiments of rationality and concern, an argument can be crafted that is incontrovertible.

Ask the Libyan people to open their eyes to the violence and they will understand Gaddafi's sinister grip on them, regardless of his own broadcast absolutes to the contrary.

MUSCULAR LIBERALISM

Prime Minister David Cameron recently spoke on his concerns about terrorism and the integration of various religious groups into British society. His speech offered a view that an erosion of definitive national social principles has allowed the rise of distinct separations in the manner in which we conduct our lives. He argued that without providing robust expectations of its citizens, our country will not tackle the threads of unrest that are slowly boiling beneath its surface. He explicitly refers to extreme religious factions that adopt life principles that are incompatible with the aspirations of the greater UK populace.

Cameron used the terminology "muscular liberalism" to give shape to his image of a nation that holds certain democratic qualities as defining cornerstone principles.

It is easy to imagine liberalism as a compelling way to describe the desires for a population. It is a strong statement of will that declares in grand tones a giddy freedom. Several hints of force that creep into Cameron's rhetoric (economic sanctions for example) are surely contrary to such a vision of a truly liberalised nation? Freedom, after all, moves beyond governance: to enshrine it in doctrine would be an opposition to allowing it to truly flourish. The lingual predominance of this particular point - with the stark adjective "muscular" - only dents the sentiment further with imagery that sounds (if only slightly) violent.

What do his words really mean?

OPPOSITION OR OPPORTUNISM? [2]