Pupil Barrister

Month: April 2009 (Page 1 of 3)

Ordinary People

Yeah yeah, whatever100 “Single Ladies” in Picadilly Circus:

This is a mash-up to two 21st Century crazes, made possible by new technology. The first is the practice of making a tribute to a song you love, by lip-syncing to the track while parodying the video. Beyoncé’s ‘Single Ladies‘ is the current world leader in such pastiches. The second is the public Flash Mob (see Liverpool Street Station, or Antwerpen Centraal).  Combining the two phenomena would seem like an instant win, right?
Wrong.  Why?  Because both practices are entertaining because they are created by what we might call ‘normal’ people:  Volunteers, of all shapes, ages and sizes, not from central casting.  The Public.  The Users.  The People.  Meanwhile, the Single Ladies dancers in Picadilly Circus are an exclusive, homogenised clique of conventionally pretty people.  The overall effect lacks the surprise of the T-Mobile/Antwerp stunts, and the freedom we see in the home-made homages to Beyoncé.  It is less than the sum of its parts, and will never become part of digital folklore.

Update (30th April 2009)

According to Chris, there is going to be anopther flash mob tonight in Trafalgar Square.

Kafka would have had a Twitter feed

Kottke writes in defence of Twitter and quotes Geoff Manaugh of BLDGBLOG:

Kafka would have had a Twitter feed! And so would have Hemingway, and so would have Virgil, and so would have Sappho. It’s a tool for writing. Heraclitus would have had a f***ing Twitter feed.

Tee-hee.
Since I am finding my job particularly fascinating at the moment, I am using Twitter as an online diary of my work activities.  Meanwhile, my relentless, commentless blogging about Internet Philosophy was vindicated yesterday, when I was able to instantly call up several links for the gentleman running Livefiction.co.uk (which has obvious similarities to what we did with Sweet Fanny Adams).  For anyone who is not famous, and doesn’t have the time to make themselves famous (or infamous) online, I think blogging-as-scrapbook is probably the easiest way to justify an online presence.
This is all old ground of course.  And Orwell would have had a blog.

Police, Camera, Action

David at Minority Report offers some words of warning, regarding the slow trickle of citizen generated footage of alleged brutality at the G20 protests earlier this month:

Reconstructing events by using any number of restricted viewpoints is no replacement for vital missing facts. If I present you with a black box that contains a photo I made of a scene, I’ll happily let you make as many pin holes as you like – you will still struggle to make out whats going on. Especially if I choose the image.

Different circumstances, but I felt this way after Saddam Hussein was executed.  There is a real danger in allowing snippets of grainy amateur footage to act as the definitive account of an event.  The result in this case has been yet another trial by media, only this time the police seem to be on the receiving end.  In reality, we have no way of knowing precisely what killed Ian Tomlinson, and the account of the Nicky Fisher assault makes me uneasy (although admittedly this feeling is entirely based on her sightly spaced-out media interviews).
Was it inevitable that the police would lose this PR war?  Or is that some kind of optical illusion brought about by 20:20 hindsight?  My feeling is that these stories, which trickle out over a few days, played to our preconceptions, feeding into an easily understood narrative.  Clearly, the public have lost trust in the police.
This is a desperately dangerous state of affairs, of course.  However, I think the vilification that the police now receive is a delayed punishment for earlier and more egregious clusterfucks.  Despite the fact that no-one in authority was punished for the Jean-Charles De Menezes killing, it is not unreasonable to draw a line between that incident, and the current debate.  Although neither Sir Ian Blair or Cressida Dick (or for that matter Tony Blair or his Home Secretary Charles Clarke) lost their jobs over the incident, the security services certainly lost credibility as a result.  They were ‘punished’ in the sense that they lost the public’s trust, a vital form of political capital.
There should be a bittersweet satisfaction to this: we’ve learnt that institutions simply cannot maladministrate, or violate our civil liberties, with total impunity.  We’ve learnt how to ‘police the police’, and some thuggish elements will be brought to prosecution through evidence collected by citizen photographer.  However, its also true that the men and women currently tasked with policing our capital city were not the ones who ordered a policy of violence upon us.  Those people who made such decisions still walk free, and unaccountable.  This latest success for citizen journalism is a Pyrrhic victory.
Continue reading

Filming the Police, Filming Us

Riot Police at the G20 Protests, London, 1st April 2009

Riot Police at the G20 Protests, London, 1st April 2009. Photo by PublicCCTV.


At the CentreRight blog (via LibCon), Graeme Archer has posted some ideas for reform of the police in light of the appalling Ian Tomlinson incident.
He begins

The police, particularly in London, appear to have forgotten that they police only with our consent. They are not the armed wing of the state. Some reforms are therefore long overdue

Of the suggestions he lists, I have mixed feelings about this pair:

  • Just as the storage of DNA from wholly innocent citizens is an outrage, so is the routine video-ing of members of the public by police officers. This must stop.
  • In contrast, members of the public must never be prevented from recording the activities of police officers.

I recall a point made by the former pedant Cleanthes, commenting on my Notes for Michael, who cited Robert Peel’s principles for policing:

An agent of the state???? That, Robert, in one succint phrase is the most daming indictment of the damage that has been done to the ethos of the Police over the last few decades.
Read Peel’s Principles here. Especially no.7:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Libertarian Ian Parker-Joseph made a similar point in the comments to the CentreRight post.
On the issue of filming, it seems to me we can’t have it both ways. If the police are indeed simply citizens in uniform, then they surely have the same rights to film people in public, as the rest of the citizenry? If we are allowed to film them, surely they should be allowed to film us, no? Placing a different set of restrictions on the police on this issue would violate Peel’s principle.
And before anyone brings up CCTV, Cleanthes and I have already discussed the difference between automated and eyeball policing at The Select Society.

Cycle Mounted Police at the National Theatre. CC Licence.

Cycle Mounted Police at the National Theatre.

« Older posts

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑