In an article for the London Observer (19.07.09), Tristram Hunt posited that " Suburbs are derided by snobs, yet they are the best hope for our future."
In this, he completely missed the point. Hatred of suburbia is not snob-driven. It is in our nature to live in high-density surroundings, from the nest to villages to industrial cities. This is how animals function. We are happiest and least stressed when everything and everyone we need to make our life complete are within touching distance, and cities work because the citizens are able to come out of their homes, assemble and exchange ideas.
Suburbs, the enormous swathes of miniature manor houses, which largely grew with the spread of private car ownership, are the antithesis of human nature, and are only attractive to those who actively court alienation, a life spent zooming between work and the telly with no danger of connecting to society.
The current vogue for second houses (and even first ones) in the countryside for city workers shapes up as the vanguard of Antisociety. Try taking a walk along any 'quiet' country road in England and parts of Wales, but especially in the so-called Home Counties, and you will be overwhelmed by the new country people, roaring back and forth in their tin boxes between their little hidden homes and town work, the pub or a supermarket. This pattern of life is repeated in suburbia.
But easily the worst aspect of suburbia is that unlike the Great Mistake of the Sixties, the high-rise blocks (many now being thankfully dynamited), these interminable rows of little castles with their lovingly tended little gardens are 'facts on the ground'- the castles are places, no matter how cut off from their neighbours and society, which resemble real homes. Prefabricated boxes in the sky weren't able to exert such a sense of proprietorial belonging.
Unlike the natural high-density growth of villages and cities, suburbs swallow up huge chunks of greenery, too. As the glaciers retreat, the suburbs advance.
The most disturbing, and saddening, tendency in urban planning now is for cities to raze their ancient terraces, the infrastructure of community; and high streets with homes, shops, pubs, businesses, cafes all rubbing shoulders, to replace them with randomly scattered low-density inner-city suburbia. Often living streets, part of the 'internet' of the city, have been replaced with the town planning equivalent of the apple-pie bed: tiny, worming cul-de-sacs. Someone must have thought this would redress the balance after the high-rise Sixties; but the truth is that those old schemes or estates had so much empty space between the blocks, space with no pubs, shops, cinemas, or shelter of any kind, that in effect this is a repeat of the old disaster. Leave your car behind, if you have one, and go for a walk through suburbia. You will see how vast and bleak it is. This has nothing to do with snobbery.
Sunday, 26 July 2009
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Control order causes suicide risk
Mahmoud Abu Rideh, Palestinian refugee, who has been imprisoned in the UK for 71/2 years unlawfully without trial before being placed under a 'control order', while his wife and children left to move to Jordan, has three times attempted suicide in despair that he may never see his family again.
His mental and physical health have been severely damaged through his treatment by British authorities; he is confined to a wheelchair.
Under the terms of the order, he has to remain inside his home for 12 hours per day and to phone a monitoring company three times a day. Any visitors must first be approved by the Home Office and he is not allowed to use the internet.
Any breach of these restrictions is considered a criminal offence.
On 10th June, 2009, the Law Lords ruled unanimously that we have the right to know the information used against us to impose control orders. They said that if such information is kept secret, we are unable to challenge the allegations against us.
Write to Home Secretary Alan Johnson, calling on him to lift the control order on Mahmoud Abu Rideh and ensure he continues to receive any medical attention he needs.
www.amnesty.org.uk/aburideh
3rd July update: The Home Office has deigned to allow Mahmoud an exit visa.
Amnesty International UK counter-terrorism campaigner Sara Macneice said:
'It is very welcome news that Mahmoud Abu Rideh will now be able to leave the UK and seek entry to a safe country, and will no longer be subjected to the repressive measures of his Control Order, which have driven him to utter desperation.
'I have spoken to Mr Abu Rideh and this decision has given him real hope that he may now be reunited with his wife and children, and be able to rebuild his life.
'Amnesty is supporting Mahmoud Abu Rideh's application for a UN travel document, to which he should be entitled as a refugee. However he seems willing to apply for an inferior document in order to leave the UK as soon as possible. The Home Office should issue this document to him promptly, rather than subjecting him to yet more delays.
'This is a minor victory for one man, but the pernicious system of Control Orders, which has driven him and his family out of the UK, remains in place. Amnesty continues to call for an end to the Control Order regime and its replacement with measures which respect people's basic human rights.'
His mental and physical health have been severely damaged through his treatment by British authorities; he is confined to a wheelchair.
Under the terms of the order, he has to remain inside his home for 12 hours per day and to phone a monitoring company three times a day. Any visitors must first be approved by the Home Office and he is not allowed to use the internet.
Any breach of these restrictions is considered a criminal offence.
On 10th June, 2009, the Law Lords ruled unanimously that we have the right to know the information used against us to impose control orders. They said that if such information is kept secret, we are unable to challenge the allegations against us.
Write to Home Secretary Alan Johnson, calling on him to lift the control order on Mahmoud Abu Rideh and ensure he continues to receive any medical attention he needs.
www.amnesty.org.uk/aburideh
3rd July update: The Home Office has deigned to allow Mahmoud an exit visa.
Amnesty International UK counter-terrorism campaigner Sara Macneice said:
'It is very welcome news that Mahmoud Abu Rideh will now be able to leave the UK and seek entry to a safe country, and will no longer be subjected to the repressive measures of his Control Order, which have driven him to utter desperation.
'I have spoken to Mr Abu Rideh and this decision has given him real hope that he may now be reunited with his wife and children, and be able to rebuild his life.
'Amnesty is supporting Mahmoud Abu Rideh's application for a UN travel document, to which he should be entitled as a refugee. However he seems willing to apply for an inferior document in order to leave the UK as soon as possible. The Home Office should issue this document to him promptly, rather than subjecting him to yet more delays.
'This is a minor victory for one man, but the pernicious system of Control Orders, which has driven him and his family out of the UK, remains in place. Amnesty continues to call for an end to the Control Order regime and its replacement with measures which respect people's basic human rights.'
Is Obama weaseling out of his commitment on Guantanamo?
As we hear yet more news items suggesting that Barack Obama's declared intention to close that obscenity, the Guantanamo Prison, by 2010, may be delayed, and with still no mention of reparations for the innocent victims who were banged up there or tortured in other countries as part of the same systematic terrorist scheme, less still of any prosecution of those grunts who carried out the tortures, and their superiors (up to G W Bush and his wee pal Tony) who told them to do it, this short film made by the BBC is worth a look.
[unspeak alert:] Note that even here, the 'impartial' BBC voice-over refers to "dangerous detainees" as being a greater problem when it comes to deciding how to set them free. As if untried, uncharged citizens abducted at random may be in any way described as dangerous. If ever there were a prime example of begging the question, this is it.
A former prosecutor, a true believer, wised up fast when he saw Guantanamo for himself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7762430.stm
[unspeak alert:] Note that even here, the 'impartial' BBC voice-over refers to "dangerous detainees" as being a greater problem when it comes to deciding how to set them free. As if untried, uncharged citizens abducted at random may be in any way described as dangerous. If ever there were a prime example of begging the question, this is it.
A former prosecutor, a true believer, wised up fast when he saw Guantanamo for himself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7762430.stm
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
After 7/7: more liberties lost
That excellent and vital documentary, Taking Liberties, unfortunately unseen by most of its target audience as its UK distribution deal restricted it to out-of-town multiplexes and the ungrateful popcorn masses, has a worthy successor in 'Ludicrous Diversion', a new 20 minute film, which you can see at:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719
Although it's basically about the London Bombings, it goes on to cover the moves made by the State and police using 7/7 as an excuse for yet more incursions into our liberties.
The self-interested behaviour of the police is documented back to the torture of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and others, to extract false confessions on the basis of which they were imprisoned for the most precious years of their lives, and the list of new police powers is examined in depth. One particularly interesting point is that officers are now permitted to arrest you only to ascertain your name.
I should add that I write as a witness to the fabrication by police officers of a spurious 'lost' CCTV recording, which appeared to exonerate an 'interested party' from criminal activity. I have also watched as officers committed acts of daring, nay, death-defying acts of perjury. There is hardly any need for further comment from me; the film says it all quite succinctly.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719
Although it's basically about the London Bombings, it goes on to cover the moves made by the State and police using 7/7 as an excuse for yet more incursions into our liberties.
The self-interested behaviour of the police is documented back to the torture of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and others, to extract false confessions on the basis of which they were imprisoned for the most precious years of their lives, and the list of new police powers is examined in depth. One particularly interesting point is that officers are now permitted to arrest you only to ascertain your name.
I should add that I write as a witness to the fabrication by police officers of a spurious 'lost' CCTV recording, which appeared to exonerate an 'interested party' from criminal activity. I have also watched as officers committed acts of daring, nay, death-defying acts of perjury. There is hardly any need for further comment from me; the film says it all quite succinctly.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
When aliens stalked Bournemouth
In 1985, Bournemouth became the first UK town to be invaded by CCTV. Shortly afterwards, the cameras picked up an unidentified foreigner...
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Nokia profits from Iranian surveillance, UK next?
Rory Cellan-Jones, Technology correspondent at BBC News, has reported on the latest moves by the Iranian State to curb dissent:
'As protests continue in Iran, details are emerging of the technology used to monitor its citizens.
Iran is well known for filtering the net, but the government has moved to do the same for mobile phones.
Nokia Siemens Network has confirmed it supplied Iran with the technology needed to monitor, control, and read local telephone calls.
It told the BBC that it sold a product called the Monitoring Centre to Iran Telecom in the second half of 2008.
[ Nokia provides what it calls 'next generation' network 'solution' for Cellcom Israel. Although on Nokia's website map, Palestine is clearly not included as part of Europe, 'Israel' is defined as being in south-west Europe]
Data inspection
Nokia Siemens, a joint venture between the Finnish and German companies, supplied the system to Iran through its Intelligent Solutions business, which [in turn] was sold in March 2009 to Perusa Partners Fund 1LP, a German investment firm.
The product allows authorities to monitor any communications across a network, including voice calls, text messaging, instant messages, and web traffic, but Nokia Siemens says the product is only being used, in Iran, for the monitoring of local telephone calls on fixed and mobile lines.
Rather than just block traffic, it is understood that the monitoring system can also interrogate data to see what information is being passed back and forth.
A spokesman described the system as "a standard architecture that the world's governments use for lawful intercept".
Iran is also struggling to compete with an opposition that call on the skills of one of the world's most vibrant blogging communities and plenty of tech-savvy folks.'
It's here already
He added: "Western governments, including the UK, don't allow you to build networks without having this functionality."
One useful source of information about the watchers is The Open Net Initiative (ONI).
The ONI is a collaborative partnership of four leading academic institutions: the University of Toronto, Harvard University, Cambridge University and Oxford University. It recognises Israel as a legitimate state, although it places it in the Middle East rather than Europe. Here are pieces of their research into the possibilities of state surveillance on the net:
Political Blocking
There are no examples in Europe of filtering carried out to silence political opposition such as those that the Open Net Initiative has documented in other regions. There are, however, examples of filtering that seeks to maintain the legitimacy of government institutions and preserve national identity. In December 2002 a local Swiss magistrate, Françoise Dessaux, ordered several Swiss ISPs to block access to three Web sites hosted in the United States that were strongly critical of Swiss courts, and to modify their DNS-servers to block the domain appel-au-people.org. The Swiss Internet User Group and the Swiss Network Operators Group protested that the blocks could easily be bypassed and that the move was contrary to the Swiss constitution, which guarantees “the right to receive information freely, to gather it from generally accessible sources and to disseminate it” to every person. However, there was strong enforcement, as the directors of noncompliant ISPs were asked to appear personally in court, failing which they faced charges of disobedience.
In their current form, defamation laws at the country level, particularly in Britain, have been criticized for leading to a “Web takedown” culture where ISPs immediately remove content that is allegedly defamatory when brought to their notice, for fear of facing law suits. The concern in Britain, as in other nations, is that this can have a “chilling effect” on lawful online content and behaviour.
For up-to-date information on this, see http://opennet.net/research/regions/europe
see also: http://hanleyexpress.blogspot.com/2009/08/surveillance-guidelines-are-not-enough.html
...and here's a word from our sponsor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNvHl9Uy1Nw
'As protests continue in Iran, details are emerging of the technology used to monitor its citizens.
Iran is well known for filtering the net, but the government has moved to do the same for mobile phones.
Nokia Siemens Network has confirmed it supplied Iran with the technology needed to monitor, control, and read local telephone calls.
It told the BBC that it sold a product called the Monitoring Centre to Iran Telecom in the second half of 2008.
[ Nokia provides what it calls 'next generation' network 'solution' for Cellcom Israel. Although on Nokia's website map, Palestine is clearly not included as part of Europe, 'Israel' is defined as being in south-west Europe]
Data inspection
Nokia Siemens, a joint venture between the Finnish and German companies, supplied the system to Iran through its Intelligent Solutions business, which [in turn] was sold in March 2009 to Perusa Partners Fund 1LP, a German investment firm.
The product allows authorities to monitor any communications across a network, including voice calls, text messaging, instant messages, and web traffic, but Nokia Siemens says the product is only being used, in Iran, for the monitoring of local telephone calls on fixed and mobile lines.
Rather than just block traffic, it is understood that the monitoring system can also interrogate data to see what information is being passed back and forth.
A spokesman described the system as "a standard architecture that the world's governments use for lawful intercept".
Iran is also struggling to compete with an opposition that call on the skills of one of the world's most vibrant blogging communities and plenty of tech-savvy folks.'
It's here already
He added: "Western governments, including the UK, don't allow you to build networks without having this functionality."
One useful source of information about the watchers is The Open Net Initiative (ONI).
The ONI is a collaborative partnership of four leading academic institutions: the University of Toronto, Harvard University, Cambridge University and Oxford University. It recognises Israel as a legitimate state, although it places it in the Middle East rather than Europe. Here are pieces of their research into the possibilities of state surveillance on the net:
Political Blocking
There are no examples in Europe of filtering carried out to silence political opposition such as those that the Open Net Initiative has documented in other regions. There are, however, examples of filtering that seeks to maintain the legitimacy of government institutions and preserve national identity. In December 2002 a local Swiss magistrate, Françoise Dessaux, ordered several Swiss ISPs to block access to three Web sites hosted in the United States that were strongly critical of Swiss courts, and to modify their DNS-servers to block the domain appel-au-people.org. The Swiss Internet User Group and the Swiss Network Operators Group protested that the blocks could easily be bypassed and that the move was contrary to the Swiss constitution, which guarantees “the right to receive information freely, to gather it from generally accessible sources and to disseminate it” to every person. However, there was strong enforcement, as the directors of noncompliant ISPs were asked to appear personally in court, failing which they faced charges of disobedience.
In their current form, defamation laws at the country level, particularly in Britain, have been criticized for leading to a “Web takedown” culture where ISPs immediately remove content that is allegedly defamatory when brought to their notice, for fear of facing law suits. The concern in Britain, as in other nations, is that this can have a “chilling effect” on lawful online content and behaviour.
For up-to-date information on this, see http://opennet.net/research/regions/europe
see also: http://hanleyexpress.blogspot.com/2009/08/surveillance-guidelines-are-not-enough.html
...and here's a word from our sponsor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNvHl9Uy1Nw
Monday, 22 June 2009
Arrested for taking a photo
As part of the stand against the corruption of our liberties and the gradual mission-creep taking place in the Police Force as it takes on the appearance and function of an army of occupation in many situations, we are encouraged to use our cameras, as the police use theirs against us.
As this video assembled by the Guardian shows, the officers of the Force do not take kindly to having a taste of their own medicine. If you carry a camera, make sure you have access to a lawyer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/kingsnorth-protester-arrests-video-complaint
The police paranoia about anonymity, extending here to blurring out their own faces in their own video, is understandable, as it took three of these big men to subdue a defenceless woman.
Update, 22nd July: This Guardian link kindly sent in by my correspondent:
Woman cuffed by Boys-in-Blue for filming boyfriend being searched:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/21/police-search-mobile-phone-court
As this video assembled by the Guardian shows, the officers of the Force do not take kindly to having a taste of their own medicine. If you carry a camera, make sure you have access to a lawyer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/kingsnorth-protester-arrests-video-complaint
The police paranoia about anonymity, extending here to blurring out their own faces in their own video, is understandable, as it took three of these big men to subdue a defenceless woman.
Update, 22nd July: This Guardian link kindly sent in by my correspondent:
Woman cuffed by Boys-in-Blue for filming boyfriend being searched:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/21/police-search-mobile-phone-court
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)