Who Controls What Exactly?

I have been asked my views on the internet many times, and for what my opinion is worth have given it. Examples are mostly about questions as to should there be websites that give details of drugs or self injecting, Euthanasia, how to create graffiti, abortion websites, and anti abortion websites, Sexual forums and those for people who are straight, bisexual, gay, transgender etc, or those on assisted suicide. Ocaisionally ones about politics and political parties that some people do not agree with, along with faith and self determination. Sometimes it is about  the contents or a particular bit of content on such sites, I have learned one thing from the internet. The internet is not state controlled it is privately owned. Individuals own their own copyright and individuals moderate themselves, as they are ultimately responsible for what they put onto it.

Bearing all that in mind I was surprised when I was asked for my views on a clip on Youtube.com and talkswindon.org  This is a bit of a surprise because as a user of that forum it was the first time I have been asked for my view on the moderation of it. I must say it caused me to have some reflection about being asked it is always a case of trying to think clearly and objectively rather than emotionally.

People I have spoken with/contacted me who have viewed it have commented on it as a low brow satire, for others it is a parody, one was more the other way and thought it should be taken down and more consideration given to it.  However as I was asked for my views as they say; so here I go in what Chris may call a “Diatribe”?

My personal view is it is both parody and satire and in the form of Lowbrow, it is for some humour that is gleeful, others sarcastic, or occaisionally impish.  I personally see nothing sinister in a group of actors being voiced over for a comedic reaction. It is not even an original idea there are many similar ones lampooning everything from fast food outlets to computer games, software manufacturers and wi-fi schemes provided by other companies on Youtube.com. None imply that anyone is a Nazi or supports that criminal regime. Charlie Chaplin actually parodied a political figure in the Great Dictator, Mel Brooks has done it before in his films. I have not been offended by any of these parodies and portrayals of a period of history. In contrast mimicary and portrayal are part of the artistic nature of films. Titanic did the people in that drama portray the people and values of that time? I think that is subjective on your own personal view.

I am always cautious about subjecting people to my views on what offends or does not offend me or what I think offends others. Especially if I was in a position of power to exercise that power based on my own tastes and preferences. People probably do not know but a decade after the first film screenings in Britain, the Government introduced the first legislation specifically covering cinemas.

The 1909 Cinematography Act brought cinemas under local authority control and required them to be licensed. The Act was designed to regulate public screenings of films and to ensure that cinemas were in a suitable physical state to screen films safely. The Act was created in the first place because highly unstable nitrate film stock had caused several serious fires. However, the Act had unforeseen consequences in that many local authorities stretched the definition of “inflammable films” to cover not just their physical nature but also the images they contained.

The Thin End of the LA Wedge?
Although there is nothing in the Act that specifically mentions the content of films, local authorities seized on the suitably vague phrase “such persons as they think fit” to launch a crackdown on controversial films by threatening cinema owners with the loss of their licenses even if they had otherwise fully complied with the Act’s requirements.

To make matters more complicated, because the Act did not mention the content of films, local authorities took it upon themselves to establish individual guidelines – with the result that material permissible in one region might well be censored in another.

British Board of Film Censors was set up in 1912 to act as a bridge between their interests and local government, and to establish a nationwide set of standards. Although local authorities still technically had the final say, in the vast majority of cases they were happy to accept the BBFC’s verdict – and this arrangement remains in some form or other today.

However in the early 1970s some LAs could not resist the pressure being put on them by a voiceful group and   became  embroiled in film classification and banning films such as Exorcist, Clockwork Orange etc. As a youth that made me think who are councillors to tell me what I can or cannot see! I have always vowed I would never become involved in censorship, if I attained public office. If thine eye offends thee pluck it out I think that means do not pluck out others? I just switch off, change channel or don’t go to see something its all about personal choice. As adults we can all make our own informed choice. I was a police officer but do not get offended when I see DI Gene Hunt in Life on Mars or Ashes to Ashes or Red Riding being corrupt or brutal set in a realistic time frame using factual information I can determine between a reality and a parodic drama.

Some people would be offended if a Postman Pat clip is put to a modern day story. Much has been said about Parody and Satire and have been referred to.  Anybody can place an item on Talkswindon and could do it about any person in the town or universe. There are conditions. In the final analysis before you press send, it is down to you. The overwhelming majority of posters are private individuals who are not bound by ethical or standards/code of conducts and are not in public life. They are free to engage as private individuals in Public life by attending public meetings and questioning those in Public Life.

Lawful Moderation, Censorship or Self Moderation?

If any private individual breaks the criminal law or transcends a civil law then anyone can challenge them with those lawful bodies. Private individuals can if they choose to reproach other individuals but it is just a difference of opinion between two people when all is said and done.

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/livingstone-not-budging-on-concentration-camp-remark-$30009.htm

An example is Ken Livingstone he was defiant see the link above. When he was dealt with by the Standards Board he appealed to the high court and the judge said “Freedom of speech is not limited to polite observations. Anybody can be as offensive as they wish, provided they do not break the law of the land,” He quashed it. Article here

http://www.politics.co.uk/News/domestic-policy/london/livingstone-cleared-misconduct-$455113.htm

I am no expert and I am very clear about this if thine eye offends thee turn over or off, the choice is yours. I enjoy satire and parody, but my interpretation of either may be different to yours. I do believe in the right to free speech and freedom of expression, in literature art and the media. I support people who speak out and those that entertain by video, writing, painting, poetry and sculpting. I am not going to condemn posters on here for their views that is down to them to moderate themselves. But I will defend their rights just as the law would.

Mary Whitehouse it has been claimed was parodied by all and sundry and a BBC series Swizzlewick was a drama/comedy about a council, she complained about that so strongly it brought it into the spotlight for all to scrutinise.

I worry that now in these enlightened times that a few people are becoming trainspotters of political correctness every little nuance etc is noted and then complained about or challenged.

My radar picks up and starts to sound alarm bells when I am asked to comment on what is offensive. I still believe that as humans we have to be provoked and placed in uncomfortable situations from time to time.

Am I offended? Sometimes, am I sensitive? Sometimes, Do I have a sense of humour? Sometimes, but at all times if I want to use it  I have the choice  to  switch off, change channels, and do not go to see the play or film, read the book, turn the page  etc. Being around in the Internet age has made me far more open to what is going on around me in a world without borders than ever before. I watch the struggle between state and individual with a dash of political correctness lobbed in here and there. I can comment/respond accordingly freely and express myself in any way by video, written word,  spoken word, art or poetry.

May art, media, writing and comedy continue to bring enlightenment fun and laughter into all our 21st Century lives. I know you may not agree with anything I have said and that is ok if you want to leave a comment, or pop over to talkswindon.org and join in there. Ultimately you can do what I say to others including politicians get your own blog and join the blogosphere

The Quangocracy Spread its Arms at Length Around SBC

What has happened in the last few months is that the council, has started 3 arms length companies. Swindon Commercial Services (SCS) on January 1st, a wi-fi  company a sort of public private partnership with the private bit being the 60% share holder, and Forward Swindon a regeneration organisation. Now some may want to split hairs about the actual status of these three organisations, as they join their long established much older sibling Thamesdown Transport (bus company).

SCS was the old direct labour organisation. Forward Swindon was the old New Swindon Company. It appears to some councillors that speak to me on this matter that more and more of the council’s functions are being placed under dust sheets away from the influence scrutiny of back bench councillors. I do not necessarily agree with them on this one but it is a point that they are free to raise. Capita are the strategic partner and contracted in so it is much easier to monitor their performance.

If housing is transferred then perhaps back bench councillors will be made  responsible for something more relevant to their ward case wok etc. I believe that we should be more involved in policy formulation and perhaps we should formulate/review or change policies from the ground up, through the clusters?

Here is an interesting link into cllr call for action a power given to back bench councillors.

http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=9410176

Here is how Wolverhamption do it http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk/council/decision_making/action/

Central Cluster Meeting and Volutary Groups.

Today I was asked to chair a meeting of voluntary groups at the council offices. This meeting was organised by the central cluster and cllr Bob Wright and Derique Montaut were in attendance  as well. It was a meeting looking at how groups can work together to maximise funding opportunities and to assist each other. I found it one of the most enjoyable meetings I have attended for some time. It inspired my faith in the community groups in Swindon. I do appreciate the time they give up and the efforts they go to to help the community. I would like to thank all those that attended.

Political Election Leaflets and Recording Democracy at Swindon Borough Council

The threat to newspapers and leaflets is that they were King until the end of the 20th Century. Today other media has taken over. One only has to look at Prescott he is very good and has adapted well to the change. Leaflets work for some, but are part of the Quill Pen Democracy that scratches around in the dusty committee rooms of SBC.

Why do I have to rely on a leaflet to find out How Good Cllr Nick Martin is at keeping council tax under control? This was Cllr Edwards Council Tax and Cllr Nick Martin had nothing to do with it, standing there grinning on the leaflet is saying what exactly? People want to know more but unless they attend the meetings all we get is a form of “Churnaganda”. Robert Buckland photographed along side conservative flagship projects hoping/implying/decorating the photo/picture painted tells a story or is worth a thousand words is now wearing thin. Robert is intelligent, outgoing, thoughtful and able articulate himself expertly. His blog gives a slight insight into his ability.

Robert Buckland should be promoting that himself, his own message crafted from his own hands. Now back to the Quill Pen Democracy of Euclid Street. This morning I googled Lord Bassam and found his Hansard record of a debate in the Lords on Taking Photographs in Public Places. I was able to read exactly his words and those of the others involved in that debate and I thought what a great bloke, he has a view on it and I understand that view, his view is recorded word for word.

I saw my MP Anne Snelgrove and Barbara Follett, in the House and I have that on You Tube talking of Swindon Wi-fi. I have the debate in its entire form. I can scrutinise it and use it to question them and the issue. Now what have I from SBC? a report and a few lines in the minutes, which I have asked to be amended to clarify what I said. There is no YouTube of Cllrs questioning it, scrutinising it, supporting it. There is the council leaders column. Its time that the public demanded real time 21st Century recording of the whole process.

Thomas Caxton let the Genie out of the bottle in the days before watches existed and SBC is just a quill pen up from that. When can we have live streamed video? When can we have the leader of the council being questioned in an open formum or more importantly him explaining his decisions to us all, so that we can watch it several times, pause it come and come back to it?

It will happen, it is already happening in the commons and the Lords and some council’s are now doing that as well.