March 16, 2010 by bpwilliams72

UrbEx – the art of urban decay #urbex

There is something excruciatingly emotional about the loneliness of buildings abandoned to decay. I touched on it in my previous post Cold War ghosts: legacies in concrete and film and thought it a fairly solitary interest of mine.

I was completely wrong.

Sitting on the train tonight, and casually flicking through the Evening Standard, I came across an article on the UrbEx movement – UrbEx short for ‘Urban Exploration’. UrbExers combine a passion for adventure and exploration with a love of crumbling urban landscapes, testing the boundaries of the law in terms of trespass and safety. Regardless of your view of this last particular aspect, the results of their efforts can be startlingly beautiful and moving, capturing that sense of past lives that haunts abandoned buildings.

The Standard’s definition of UrbEx is succinct:

“Urban Exploration is the art of gaining access to parts of the city that are off-limits, including catacombs, tunnels, abandoned industrial sites and old municipal buildings. This often involves trespassing but rarely breaking and entering, as true UrbExers make their way in through existing breaches and frown upon theft. If caught, they will usually be escorted from the premises without prosecution. Dangers such as rotting floors, asbestos and faulty electrics are set against the adrenaline of discovery. Most UrbExers are keen photographers, drawn to the beauty of decay and, as Scott Cadman says, “being as far away from other people as possible”.

Cadman is a seasoned UrbExer with a stunning gallery of photographs. His series on West Park Mental Hospital are particularly amazing – click on the corridor picture below to see his UrbEx collection:

Corridor - West Park Mental Hospital, Scott Cadman

Flickr is host to dozens of UrbEx collections, many of which are pooled. Both urban explorers and UrBexer’s (Urban Exploration) are two such pools worth checking out if you find yourself mesmerised as I do by these broken, empty buildings.

Thierry Buysse is a Belgian UrbExer whose website is simply stunning. Closer to home, urbex|uk is a stylishly minimalist site that highlights some of the UK’s most striking abandoned buildings. There are even UK forums such as 28dayslater where enthusiasts can discuss different sites.

And the cross-over into art doesn’t end with photography.

Urban Explorers: Into The Dark is an award-winning U.S. documentary. Even if you never get around to watching the film, you can see it clipped on CBS:

March 16, 2010 by bpwilliams72

Sajovic exhibition: “Be-Longing” is in its final week #sajovic #gyspies #roma #travellers

Be-Longing: Travellers’ Stories, Travellers’ Lives, the ground breaking exhibition from Slovenian photographer Eva Sajovic, is in its final week at the 198.

There are two events being held.

On Thursday 18 March 2010, 7-9pm, there will be a film screening of Romano Hip Hop:

The final day of the exhibition is Saturday 20 March, 11am-5pm, with music provided by DJ Damian Le Bas, 6-9pm.

Don’t let the opportunity to see this ground-breaking exhibition from a highly talented artist pass you by.

March 15, 2010 by bpwilliams72

The woeful political illiteracy of ‘sock jock’ Peter Oborne #toryfail #mailfail

There is something remarkably gratifying about your politics becoming the subject of a doolally rant from Peter Oborne.

His comment piece in today’s Mail is both astonishing and embarrassing in its swivel-eyed political illiteracy – riddled with hackneyed clichés to such an extent that you can almost see his words foaming on the page like some twenty-first century incarnation of a nineteenth-century pamphleteer.

Of course on one level he can be simply dismissed as a slightly dotty commentator who, whilst perhaps a little too spiky to be regarded a lovable eccentric, nevertheless fulfils a role in the media as a vocal representative of a certain small-minded, right-wing conservatism. Of course, whilst in US politics the right has radio ‘shock jocks’, Britain, despite an increasing pace of life, still conducts its politics in a comparatively leisurely fashion, better suited to writer-provocateurs in our newspapers. These I always imagine to be sartorially-challenged individuals given to flamboyant or eccentric dress – ‘sock jocks’ if you will.

On another level, however, Oborne’s flailing around is a fascinating indication of the rising panic on the part of Britain’s conservative politicians and commentators who have coasted along for years, relying on a ropey strategy perhaps best summarised as opportunism bolstered by a confidence born of entitlement. Oborne, whether as ‘sock jock’ or unofficial Tory mouthpiece, reveals how politically confused and contradictory the right-wing of British politics has become – grasping out in a vacuum of principle for a policy to justify this strange sense of entitlement to power.

Bizarrely, he decides that the key point of political differentiation is not principle, policy or even political message, but rather election slogan. Sadly, I suppose his obsession with slogans is not unexpected from someone who is part of a media industry that seeks in its own condescending way to portray British voters as supine – unable to make political choices based on more substantive criteria without the benefit of the media intervening to interpret and translate.

Oborne, interestingly, also accuses the Lib Dems of opacity on the big issues. This seems to be one of his odder comments, reflecting more the fact that his preferred emperor is clearly wearing no clothes and, I presume, hoping that by shouting loudly at as many people as possible, no-one will notice.

It is also contradicted by his admiration of Nick Clegg’s stance on Afghanistan and civil liberties. In the same piece!

Add in the fact of the Liberal Democrats’ four key election commitments and Oborne’s article is reduced to simple, ignorant bluster.

This is confirmed by his dependence on a tiresome and dull confusion between campaigning and political positioning in a dismal attempt to justify an accusation of hypocrisy:

“For example, one internal campaigning document – called Effective Opposition – hypocritically advised the party’s candidates to face in both directions at the same time.

It urged them ‘to secure support from voters who normally vote Tory by being effectively anti-Labour and similarly in a Tory area secure Labour votes by being anti-Tory’.”

Oborne, like many ‘sock jocks’, appears to think that politics should occur in a vacuum of activity. The reality is any party looking to win a seat will be looking to maximise its support from voters by differentiating itself from other parties. To do that well, you need to present your policies in a way that is both relevant and effective. If you believe in the importance of local community politics that is going to be different in different parts of the country. It is basic campaigning common sense.

Fortunately, voters realise that, even if armchair media pundits – who lack accountability and often comment without any sense of responsibility – do not.

All of this adds up to one important thing: this election is still wide open and in the hands of the British electorate.

And the Tories know it…

March 15, 2010 by bpwilliams72

Cameron: the iPhone limitations of iDave #toryfail #cameron #iphone

There is something very uncanny about the iDave whose limitations are, to my mind, increasingly analogous to the iPhone. The obvious counter-charge is “but the iPhone is so popular!”. However, I’d suggest that this is a superficial gloss that doesn’t reflect the way in which the iPhone’s rivals do a rather less impressive job of countering the propaganda than those of the iDave’s – certainly the Liberal Democrats.

So what are the iPhone limitations of the iDave?

As already hinted, and despite a slick marketing operation, its design flaws are coming to light and are being highlighted by increasingly confident competitors.
In terms of real life experience, it has majored in self-promotion rather than real work in the real world.
Despite large sums of money having been spent on development, it has proved entirely incapable of multi-tasking, something that later iterations have failed to address.
More worryingly, after stress-testing the product develops significant faults.
When it comes to engaging the community in developing its operating systems and applications, it is strictly not open-source. Collaboration and participation are prohibited in favour of central prescription by corporate wonks. (And to be clear, there are definitely no custom ring-tones – potentially frustrating for European customers.)

So where does that leave the iDave?

Ahead of the iPhone in at least one respect. On the Apple site is the following unanswered question:

“I’m moving to Belize Central America if i just use a local antenna will this product work for me?”

Whilst Apple might be able to provide no comfort, Lord Ashcroft – developer, majority shareholder and strategist for the manufacturers of the iDave – should be able to reassure…

The iDave has an app for that.

March 15, 2010 by bpwilliams72

Ashdown on Cameron #toryfail #cameron

In today’s Independent, Paddy Ashdown answers a fascinating array of questions on a wide range of topics. One of those is from a Cathy Saunders in Bath. She asks: “Is David Cameron the most impressive Tory leader since Churchill?”

Paddy’s response is a splendidly blunt reminder of Cameron’s background:

“David Cameron isn’t even the most impressive Tory in the current Conservative Party. I find the idea of comparing him with Churchill so absurd as to be laughable. In David Cameron we have a man who went straight from Oxford to the back rooms of Tory Central Office, the highlight of which was his role in the catastrophe of Black Wednesday, and then straight into PR. And not just any kind of PR, PR for the media industry.

“His real-world experience is seven years as the spin doctor’s spin doctor. He’s then parachuted into a safe seat, from which he writes for Michael Howard the most right-wing manifesto his party has had for generations. His greatest success for the Tories has been giving it a cosmetic makeover. Most impressive since Churchill? Come on.”

March 15, 2010 by bpwilliams72

Nick Clegg’s Birmingham speech: fair taxes, a fair chance, a fair future and a fair deal #libdemwin

My twenty-ninth conference working for the party was very different to my first.

My heart wasn’t in my mouth.

Like many seasoned conference goers and professional staff I know the routines and the requirements. In any event, the party is generally a more organised and self-disciplined organisation these days. That has dangers of its own of course, with the chance that people might get complacent.

That wasn’t the case in Birmingham. And two very different veterans – one a senior national politician and the other a senior local politician – both said privately, and quite separately, that Nick Clegg’s was the best leader’s speech they had seen in years.

I agree.

Clegg was passionate, a fact not overlooked by writers such as Ann Treneman. He was also angry – angry at the way public expectation has been so trodden down that the public now demand less of our politicians and our country than they are entitled to.

With a relatively short speech by modern political standards, his message was sharp and to the point: ignore the pundits warning you of this outcome or that. If you like what you see, have the confidence to vote for it: vote Lib Dem and get Lib Dem.

At the last election one in four voters voted Lib Dem. If that were raised to one in three, the Lib Dems would be the next Government. Put like that it makes you realise how much the political landscape has shifted since 1951 when over ninety per cent of the population voted either Labour or Tory.

The policy pledges for this election are clear and to the point – and bear repeating so that there is no mistaking the Lib Dem’s commitments:

Fair taxes that puts money back in your pocket

The first £10,000 you earn tax-free: a tax cut of £700 for most people
3.6m low earners and pensioners freed from income tax completely
Paid for by closing loopholes that unfairly benefit the wealthy and polluters

A fair chance for every child

Ensure children get the individual attention they need by cutting class sizes
Made possible by investing £2.5bn in schools targeted to help struggling pupils
Cut student debts and make a degree affordable for all

A fair future: creating jobs by making Britain greener

Break up the banks and get them lending again to protect real businesses
Honesty about the tough choices needed to cut the deficit
Green growth and jobs that last by investing in infrastructure

A fair deal for you from politicians

Put trust back into politics by giving you the right to sack corrupt MPs
Restore and protect hard won British civil liberties with a Freedom Bill
Overhaul Westminster completely: fair votes, an elected House of Lords, all politicians to pay full British taxes.

As I left Birmingham, looking out of the train window at a landscape that has at different times been at the heart of our industrial economy, I felt a genuine excitement at being a member of a party that was making a firm commitment to helping Britain start building things again – turning Britain into a world-leader in green industries such as hi-tech wind-turbine production. It was a real revelation to think that our economy needn’t be reliant on the service industry of the city, with all its old boy networks and incomprehensible lexicon of hedge funds and futures and trades. It could instead witness a 21st Century reinvention of our manufacturing industry, with vital plant and equipment made in Britain for the benefit of our economy as well as benefiting the wider environmental interests of the international community.

Exciting, too, to hear the clear ambition to help people back into work and break the humiliation and hopelessness of trying to make ends meet on benefits, by proposing a radical and costed overhaul of taxation to lift the income tax threshold to £10,000. Is there a bolder commitment from any other party to put real cash back into the pockets of those who need it most?

If you missed the speech, but are interested in seeing what Nick Clegg said, look at the clip below or take a moment to read the text.

March 14, 2010 by bpwilliams72

Cervical cancer: a colleague’s appeal

A colleague of mine in the Liberal Democrats recently sent me a message regarding the death of her cousin. A few hours before she died, her cousin’s daughter took a few private minutes to record Paolo Nutini’s Autumn into her mobile phone, without accompaniment. She forwarded the following email, I presume from another close relative:

A few hours before Debbie died, Sarah went into her bedroom and recorded a song onto her mobile phone with no music. A few days later, Charlie Mole added an accompaniment. As many of you saw, it was played as we carried Debbie into the Church and it was part of the video tribute to Debbie.

Sarah’s song, with its film tribute can now be seen on You Tube. This is the link:

Please go to it, listen and enjoy.

We have set up the Debbie Phillips Cervical Cancer Research Fund under the UCL Cancer Research Trust. In terms of research, as we found out during Debbie’s illness, cervical is the “poor relation” to many other cancers, and we want to change that. The more people who listen to Sarah’s song, the more likely that we will receive some money from YouTube. With that in mind Please, Please, Please forward the link to all your friends, workmates and colleagues wherever they may be. We are looking for millions of hits here, so help! There is also a link enabling people to make donations directly from Sarah’s page. If we can, we want to make this a tool to raise a lot of money.

I am sorry that there are so many addressees to this e-mail. I did choose you all individually – I didn’t hit the “send to all” button. I think that what happened with Sarah that night was very special. I hope you agree.

Thank you.

Mark

If you feel moved to, please make a contribution to the Debbie Phillips Cervical Cancer Research Fund. And tell as many people as possible.

March 10, 2010 by bpwilliams72

Chequeing up on the Payments Council

A couple of weeks ago I decided to write to the Payments Council regarding the future of payment options for those such as voluntary organisations and the less well-off. It was not my best-written email, despite its brevity, but it is a correspondence that speaks for itself and so I am publishing it here. Please feel free to offer your comments.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would be grateful if you could let me know what work you are aware is being done in either the public or private sector on the issue of cheque replacement, especially for 1.) families on lower incomes and 2.) for those who are uncomfortable and resistant to a technology-based solution.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Williams

The Payments Council

Mr Williams

Thank you very much for taking the time to write to the Payments Council to register your concern about the decision to set a target date for the closure of cheque clearing in 2018. Firstly I must apologise for not responding to you earlier but it is taking me longer than I’d expected to answer all the emails and letters that we have received. There have been over 450 of them and I want to ensure that I respond to as many points raised as possible so that we understand people’s different issues.

One thing I’d like to stress from the outset is that in the short term this means no change to how we use cheques, as 2018 remains eight years away. We have made very clear commitments that the Board will only decide to go through with closure in 2018 if, by 2016, suitable alternatives are in place and being successfully used. Obviously removing cheque books now would not be feasible as so many people rely on them but that is not what was agreed. Importantly we completely recognise that as things stand there are not enough easily accessible alternatives to cheques for a range of individuals (as well as charities, small businesses and schools). That’s one of the reasons that the target date is enough of a way off to ensure that the necessary work is done on alternatives, that they are bedded in and that they meet everybody’s needs.

The Payments Council first started looking at the future of cheques two years ago and undertook a public consultation but felt that more information was required before making any decision on this issue in 2008. All parties that we have consulted recognise that the number of cheques we use is in terminal decline: cheque use has declined 40% in five years and only half of the cheques written in the UK are personal cheques with businesses writing the other half. In many ways we really had no choice but to completely review the future of cheques taking into account the changing pattern of use by individuals, businesses and retailers. Without us putting a plan in place for the future, we could see a number of banks moving away from cheques and customers suffering but there being no work to develop an industry alternative. This way there will be a concerted effort to ensure that alternatives exist.

Since the publicity over the decision, a number of representative groups that we have not discussed this with so far have got in touch to refer their specific issues to us. These range from the impact that stopping cheques will have on the level of donations amongst the myriad of small clubs and societies that exist, through the impact on those people that group represents to the need to provide dual signature authorisation for existing transactions. In the latter case, there are online solutions available and we would expect banks to explore other alternatives to those functions that cheques currently offer. This year we want to concentrate on this area and we will be arranging a series of workshops to explore solutions with the voluntary sector.

One aspect that has proven useful over the last couple of months is that a number of people have got in touch to highlight the key areas where alternatives to cheques will be really required. You won’t be surprised that these mirror the issues that you mention. Obviously there are some alternatives already in existence – not all of these, however, suit everybody and there is certainly more work that can be done by the Payments Council to demonstrate what options suit which type of existing cheque use.

A number of people have asked what they would use instead of cheques for small gifts and personal payments and an alternative will need to exist if the proposal to close the cheque clearing is to go ahead. One option that will be reviewed is whether a paper voucher – that can be electronically processed – would be practicable.

I can see how paying sole tradesmen is a concern but there are alternatives already and with some additional work, these issues can be tackled by banks. Mobile card machines are easily available although they may not be priced as attractively as they need to be to encourage their use, but they are increasingly used by very small outlets. One of the problems with cheques for small tradesmen is that they have to pay them in to the bank and wait for them to clear so they can get their money. In all cases, electronic transfers and card payments are quicker; and we expect to see more use of direct electronic transfers not just between individuals but between small businesses too. Increasingly people use the Faster Payments service to transfer money between individuals or to pay small service providers – actually that’s how I paid a recent bill from the plumber.

We completely understand the concerns this proposal may cause some who are older themselves or have elderly relatives and I would like to reassure you that we are not trying to force people who feel uncomfortable banking online down that route.

I appreciate that my comments may not assuage your overall concern but I would like to re-assure you that we’re talking about gradual change and helping people understand what options exist rather than suddenly finding in 7-8 years time that cheques aren’t accepted. The Payments Council was set up to look at what type of payments we need overall as a country for the kind of business (as individuals and businesses) we all do and the payments we make. It is not a purely banking industry body: to that end, there are four independent Directors sitting on the Board and I’ll ensure that they receive a copy of your correspondence. Three of the independent Directors chair the User Forums covering consumer, corporate and small business interests and have been discussing the issues on cheque use for some time.

You may have no interest in reading how we came to this decision but we have published a report The Future of Cheques in the UK on our website along with two fact sheets for consumers and small businesses http://www.paymentscouncil.org.uk/media_centre/press_releases_new/-/page/855/. If you would prefer a paper copy, please let me know and I’d be happy to send on a copy (my telephone number is at the bottom of this email). As alternatives to cheques for different types of use become clearer, we will be updating the fact sheets and ensuring we communicate as widely as possible about any developments.

I hope you don’t mind me writing such a detailed response but obviously you raise important issues that we need to take into account.

Again thanks for writing and apologies again for my dilatory response.

Kind regards

Sandra Quinn

Director of Communications

March 10, 2010 by bpwilliams72

Progressive reformers desert Labour: John Kampfner on why he’s now backing the Lib Dems

The journalist John Kampfner has established a formidable reputation as broadcaster, writer, political campaigner and commentator.

In 2002 he won awards for Journalist of the Year and Film of the Year from the Foreign Press Association for his documentary on the Middle East, The Dirty War. Under his editorship from 2005 to 2008, The New Statesman reached its highest circulation figures in thirty years. In 2006 The British Society of Magazine Editors gave him their award for Political Editor of the Year. Both the Observer and the Evening Standard listed his book Freedom for Sale as one of their books of the year for 2009.

Yesterday, Kampfner published an article in the Guardian and a pamphlet through CentreForum, “Lost labours”, both of which address Labour’s record of failure and its betrayal of the British people’s trust. He explains his difficult decision to switch his political allegiance away from Labour to Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats, arguing that only they can ensure a fairer Britain and urging other reformers on the centre left to acknowledge the Liberal Democrats as the most progressive force in British politics.

If you are uncertain of the case that politicians make for themselves, take a moment to read Kampfner’s coherent and compelling account.

If you are interested in finding out more about John Kampfner, check out his listing on evri where you will find a number of video clips of debates and commentaries on a range of political issues.

March 7, 2010 by bpwilliams72

Eva Sajovic seminar – “The future of travelling communities” #sajovic #roma #travellers #gypsies

Eva Sajovic’s “Be-Longing” exhibition is still running at the 198.

On Tuesday there is an all-day seminar on the future of travelling communities, chaired by Brian Foster of the Inner London Traveller Education Consortium.

Those taking part include:

Thomas Acton, Professor of Romani Studies, University of Greenwich
Rocky Deans, Head of Traveller and Gypsy Education Brent
Dada Felja, Roma Support Group
Patricia Knight, National Coordinator for GRTHM
Damian Le Bas Jr, Romany Journalist and Dramatist
Tricia Bowie Philips, STAG (Southwark Traveller Action Group)
Judith Okely, International Gender Studies Centre, Oxford
Bobby Rostas, Roma Actor

The programme is set our below:

Programme

10.30 – 11.00 Registration and Coffee

11.00 – 11.10 Introduction

11.10 – 11.30 Prof. Thomas Acton

11.30 – 11.50 Rocky Deans

11.50 – 12.00 Bobby Rostas

12.00 – 12.05 Brian Foster

12.05 – 12.45 Panel Discussion

12.45 – 1.00 Q&A

1.00 – 1.45 Lunch

1.45 – 2.00 Patricia Knight

2.00 – 2.15 Dada Felja, RSG

2.15 – 2.30 Tricia Bowie Phillips, STAG

2.30 – 2.50 Prof. Judith Okely

2.50 – 3.10 Damian LeBas

3.10 – 3.15 Brian Foster

3.15 – 3.45 Panel Discussion

3.45 – 4.00 Q&A

Better community understanding depends on people being prepared to take an interest in things that at first seem one removed from their immediate environment.

Book yourself a place by emailing info@198.org.uk.