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