Every year since I've done this blog, I've done a round-up of the CDs I've bought that year and handed out the "D-Notice Album of the Year Award".
I'm not sure if I'll be doing one this year, due to apathy and lack of time.
However, most of my albums have been listed on a Spotify playlist. Unfortunately, not every album is on there, but the missing one are mentioned here.
UPDATE: Just noticed that I forgot to link to my Spotify playlist of various tracks I've liked throughout the year.
27 December 2010
London 2012 Zion Olympics
Yesterday, I stumbled upon Conspiracy Science.
It seems to be a good critique of various conspiracy theories.
While I was looking at their "America" category, I noted a post about London 2012 Olympic conspiracies!
I mentioned on Twitter that I'd never come across this sort before.
In response, @RooftopJaxx gave me a link to a post which has a few YouTube clips which go into more detail about the conspiracies, which shows how they are The Truth (TM) about it is an NWO and Zionist plot, to take over the world in 2012.
It seems to be a good critique of various conspiracy theories.
While I was looking at their "America" category, I noted a post about London 2012 Olympic conspiracies!
I mentioned on Twitter that I'd never come across this sort before.
In response, @RooftopJaxx gave me a link to a post which has a few YouTube clips which go into more detail about the conspiracies, which shows how they are The Truth (TM) about it is an NWO and Zionist plot, to take over the world in 2012.
Labels:
humour,
london,
public stupidity,
you tube
25 December 2010
The Na-Twivity
Yesterday 10% decided to update the Nativity story on Twitter, to give an impression of what would happen nowadays.
He's now combined the posts into a blog post.
I recommend that you read the whole thing.
He's now combined the posts into a blog post.
I recommend that you read the whole thing.
Labels:
humour
24 December 2010
The Winterval Myth
A few weeks ago, Kevin of the Angry Mob published a thesis covering the media myth of "Winterval".
There is the document itself, plus a 55 page appendix!
It makes for essential, albeit thoroughly depressing reading.
There is the document itself, plus a 55 page appendix!
It makes for essential, albeit thoroughly depressing reading.
Labels:
intelligent public,
media
20 November 2010
Video Nasties: The Definitive Guide
Jake West, 2010. BBFC rating: 18.
The BBFC, which certifies TV and film into age appropriate categories, doesn't have much of an impact on the watching habits of most adults in this country these days. Although it refused Grotesque an 18 certificate last year, anyone with an interest was able to acquire a digital copy with little effort. It also refused certificates to two other films: NF713 and My Daughter's a Cocksucker were rejected for, respectively, eroticising sexual torture and 'being likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity'. Regardless of your views on censorship in general, these reasons are at least thoughtful and serious.
This seems to be the case for most, if not all, the BBFC's recent decisions. Often they exhibit a wry sense of humour, as in this excerpt from their most recent annual report:
Anyone who speaks fluent bureaucratese will see the grin and sneer suppressed beneath this polite choice of words. I highly recommend reading the report in full (pdf) - it's full of this sort of thing, particularly delightful when describing the complaints received from teenagers about decisions to certify games and films at 18, and is in any case a fascinating insight into film classification and censorship.
The fact that the complaints about Antichrist were made by people who had not even bothered to research the film's content, much less see it, should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the moral panic about video nasties in the early 1980s. As Video Nasties explains, the moral panic may have been spurious, ill-informed and hysterical, but the distributors of the films in question didn't help themselves. By rebranding Day of the Woman as I Spit on Your Grave (admittedly evocative, though not of the film's contents), they were appealing to paternalistic politicians along with excitable teens. Mary Whitehouse and The Daily Mail went thorugh the roof and survey statistics were deliberately misinterpreted and put to good use in lies fed to the public and Parliament.
Moralisers and politicians working together behind closed doors soon led to the introduction of the Video Recordings Act, which required the BBFC to certify any video recording before it could be legally distributed, and the director of public prosecutions compiled a list of films thought to breach obscenity laws - the soon-to-be-infamous list of video nasties.
Video Nasties is rare as a documentary that allows those with opposing views to defend themselves. Alongside the talking heads of academics and producers of modern horror movies sit interviews with and clips of contemporaneous footage of those who opposed the video nasties. The director of public prosecutions and the MP who introduced the Act remenisce about and are clearly proud of the roles they played. The forces of good don't need to lie to make the other side look bad; they're perfectly capable of doing that for themselves, and the story speaks for itself.
It's not often I complain about a film being too short, but this documentary is only 70-odd minutes long and it seems a shame they didn't say more about ongoing controversies, a brief mention of the controversy surrounding A Serbian Film aside. (Of which more should be expected soon, as the movie is slated for a theatrical release in December. Expect Christopher Tookey to hit the roof.) Regardless, anyone interested in video nasties should buy this DVD boxset quickly, before the limited run of 5000 sells out. They should also check out the Video Nasty Project.
The documentary ends with the grim prediction that the current lack of online censorship - of youtube and the like - will likely one day seem distant and utopic, and a reminder that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. All it takes is The Daily Mail to write a couple of stories spuriously linking a horrible crime or manufactured teenage trend to a subset of films for our politicians to blindly grasp for the parchment. Recent reactions to drug policy critics demonstrate that they cannot be trusted to seek evidence or balance before speaking or legislating. Is it too optimistic to predict they'd have a tougher time stamping on creative and expressive freedom in the age of web 2.0? I hope not.
Packaged with another two DVDs featuring trailers for each of the 72 video nasties, along with introductions by academics and filmmakers as well as a series of postcards featuring lurid promotional artwork, Video Nasties is a great coffee table item as well as an essential reference for these era-defining films.
Cross-posted to Chaos, Hostility and Murder.
The BBFC, which certifies TV and film into age appropriate categories, doesn't have much of an impact on the watching habits of most adults in this country these days. Although it refused Grotesque an 18 certificate last year, anyone with an interest was able to acquire a digital copy with little effort. It also refused certificates to two other films: NF713 and My Daughter's a Cocksucker were rejected for, respectively, eroticising sexual torture and 'being likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity'. Regardless of your views on censorship in general, these reasons are at least thoughtful and serious.
This seems to be the case for most, if not all, the BBFC's recent decisions. Often they exhibit a wry sense of humour, as in this excerpt from their most recent annual report:
Despite the widespread media coverage of our decision to classify Lars von Trier’s Antichrist ‘18’ with no cuts, we only received 10 complaints. The film was described by correspondents as an “abomination”, “pornographic” and “common trash”. All the comments were made in response to the media coverage; none of the complainants had actually seen the film. Indeed, there was some confusion about the actual nature of the film, with some people believing it to be a film about religion or Jesus Christ.
Anyone who speaks fluent bureaucratese will see the grin and sneer suppressed beneath this polite choice of words. I highly recommend reading the report in full (pdf) - it's full of this sort of thing, particularly delightful when describing the complaints received from teenagers about decisions to certify games and films at 18, and is in any case a fascinating insight into film classification and censorship.
The fact that the complaints about Antichrist were made by people who had not even bothered to research the film's content, much less see it, should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the moral panic about video nasties in the early 1980s. As Video Nasties explains, the moral panic may have been spurious, ill-informed and hysterical, but the distributors of the films in question didn't help themselves. By rebranding Day of the Woman as I Spit on Your Grave (admittedly evocative, though not of the film's contents), they were appealing to paternalistic politicians along with excitable teens. Mary Whitehouse and The Daily Mail went thorugh the roof and survey statistics were deliberately misinterpreted and put to good use in lies fed to the public and Parliament.
Moralisers and politicians working together behind closed doors soon led to the introduction of the Video Recordings Act, which required the BBFC to certify any video recording before it could be legally distributed, and the director of public prosecutions compiled a list of films thought to breach obscenity laws - the soon-to-be-infamous list of video nasties.
Video Nasties is rare as a documentary that allows those with opposing views to defend themselves. Alongside the talking heads of academics and producers of modern horror movies sit interviews with and clips of contemporaneous footage of those who opposed the video nasties. The director of public prosecutions and the MP who introduced the Act remenisce about and are clearly proud of the roles they played. The forces of good don't need to lie to make the other side look bad; they're perfectly capable of doing that for themselves, and the story speaks for itself.
It's not often I complain about a film being too short, but this documentary is only 70-odd minutes long and it seems a shame they didn't say more about ongoing controversies, a brief mention of the controversy surrounding A Serbian Film aside. (Of which more should be expected soon, as the movie is slated for a theatrical release in December. Expect Christopher Tookey to hit the roof.) Regardless, anyone interested in video nasties should buy this DVD boxset quickly, before the limited run of 5000 sells out. They should also check out the Video Nasty Project.
The documentary ends with the grim prediction that the current lack of online censorship - of youtube and the like - will likely one day seem distant and utopic, and a reminder that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. All it takes is The Daily Mail to write a couple of stories spuriously linking a horrible crime or manufactured teenage trend to a subset of films for our politicians to blindly grasp for the parchment. Recent reactions to drug policy critics demonstrate that they cannot be trusted to seek evidence or balance before speaking or legislating. Is it too optimistic to predict they'd have a tougher time stamping on creative and expressive freedom in the age of web 2.0? I hope not.
Packaged with another two DVDs featuring trailers for each of the 72 video nasties, along with introductions by academics and filmmakers as well as a series of postcards featuring lurid promotional artwork, Video Nasties is a great coffee table item as well as an essential reference for these era-defining films.
Cross-posted to Chaos, Hostility and Murder.
15 November 2010
Legal Aid cuts will lead to greater costs
The government has said that it will make significant cuts to legal aid.
It will remove legal aid from areas such as divorce, welfare benefits and school exclusion appeals; employment cases; immigration where the person is not detained and clinical negligence and personal injury.
This is a terrible idea.
The current legal aid rates are as available as a (pdf), from section 7 onwards.
As you can see, the maximum hourly rate is £58.50/hour, for London-based law firms attending Court.
For non-Legal Aid cases, the High Court provides guidelines as to what hourly rates would be considered reasonable for a solicitor to charge for their work.
These are the 2010 guideline hourly rates:
The Bands and locations aren't particularly relevant for our purposes, but they show how much of a difference there is compared to what a solicitor can claim from legal aid.
As you can see, the Legal Aid rates are significantly lower than the guideline rates; even the lowest-level lawyer working in some rural area can claim almost double the maximum allowed on a legal aid basis. Presumably any gaps in the market place caused by the cuts would be covered by Conditional Fee Agreements - the "No-win, no-fee" ones - which will have a success fee (a solicitors bonus fee for winning the case) of up to 100%.
Leaving aside any "Access to Justice" arguments, it's a terrible idea from a legal costs, i.e. taxpayers', point of view.
It will remove legal aid from areas such as divorce, welfare benefits and school exclusion appeals; employment cases; immigration where the person is not detained and clinical negligence and personal injury.
This is a terrible idea.
The current legal aid rates are as available as a (pdf), from section 7 onwards.
As you can see, the maximum hourly rate is £58.50/hour, for London-based law firms attending Court.
For non-Legal Aid cases, the High Court provides guidelines as to what hourly rates would be considered reasonable for a solicitor to charge for their work.
These are the 2010 guideline hourly rates:
The Bands and locations aren't particularly relevant for our purposes, but they show how much of a difference there is compared to what a solicitor can claim from legal aid.
As you can see, the Legal Aid rates are significantly lower than the guideline rates; even the lowest-level lawyer working in some rural area can claim almost double the maximum allowed on a legal aid basis. Presumably any gaps in the market place caused by the cuts would be covered by Conditional Fee Agreements - the "No-win, no-fee" ones - which will have a success fee (a solicitors bonus fee for winning the case) of up to 100%.
Leaving aside any "Access to Justice" arguments, it's a terrible idea from a legal costs, i.e. taxpayers', point of view.
Labels:
laura norder,
stupid government
14 November 2010
Article 10
This is a cross-post from an article on Law Seen From The Cheap Seats, which was written in response to the ludicrous conviction of Paul Chambers over his Twitter "bomb threat":
This first appeared as a series of messages on Twitter, and that’s probably where it is best seen. But for those who asked (thank you!) here are my thoughts on Article 10:I guess this also links in with the on-going #TweetDelete discussion which is on Twitter, which I mentioned back in July.
A lot of what is going on this week, Aung San Suu Kyi, #twitterjoketrial, @baskers, all comes down to one thing. Freedom of speech.
Now we have members of the London Assembly saying they will suspend the right to protest because they can’t afford to police it.
So I just wanted to say this. My name is David Wales. That doesn’t mean a thing to any one of you.
My name is Gaijin-san. I have a right to freedom of speech. It is not a gift you may revoke if you find it inconvenient or costly.
It is my right and it is guaranteed to me by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It therefore supersedes your authority.
I will not use disclaimers. Article 10 does not require that I use disclaimers.
I will not tell you when I am making a joke. Article 10 does not require that I tell you when I am making a joke.
I will not moderate my language. FUCK THAT SHIT. Article 10 does not require that I moderate my language.
I will not be intimidated out of my rights by poor application of the law. Article 10 protects me from poor application of the law.
I will not allow you to propagate bullshit about terrorism to keep me scared. I will use my Article 10 rights to inform myself and others.
Freedom of expression is my right, guaranteed to me by Article 10. If you want it you can take it from my cold dead hands.
But if you try, remember #IAmSpartacus. Because my name is Legion, and I am many.
3 November 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)