Rick Perry

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” – Matthew 7:12

“And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” – Luke 6:31

“Don’t be a cunt.” - Me

Rick Perry’s latest campaign advert, “Strong”, has gathered some rather negative criticism since being posted to Youtube yesterday. It is easy to see why:

Why should it matter what the sexuality of someone is? Doesn’t the Republican party want people to just get on with their lives with less government intervention?

It is appalling that Perry can think he can run for “pressedent” based on such mindless homophobia. But he goes on – not only are teh gayz ruining the country, but those godless liberals are too. And who else is behind it other than the biggest Muslim, Non-American, Godless, <insert populist bogeyman adjective here> of them all, Barack Hussein Obama. That’s right, the openly-Christian incumbent President is waging a war on religion.

These words sound to me like the last desperate cries of a man whose campaign is about to go up in smoke. How Rick Perry can still advertise himself as a “man of faith” on the same video, whilst promoting homophobia and xenophobia all through a soft-focused lens and reconcile all this in his head as a Good Thing ^TM is beyond my comprehension.

The Republican Party needs to ditch this bunch of losers who have somehow made it to the big time fast – and America can demonstrate this by not voting Republican, by throwing them out of every singly office they still somehow cling hold of.

Woman Goes For Walk; Buys Some Stuff

Today the Daily Fail’s most-important story in the world is that Amanda Knox decided to go for a walk. She also bought some chocolate.

Just in case you didn’t catch the non-story from that, the Daily Mail decided to justify a paparazzi purchase print over 15 photographs of said outing. Don’t worry, that link is cached.

Given that she is innocent and now a free citizen, how is this considered in the public interest? This isn’t the first time the Daily Mail has published a completely irrelevant article about Amanda Knox. They were so determined to get that elusive first post that they misjudged her court ruling and got it horrendously wrong (making up quotes in the process, which is the dodgy part).

It’s safe to say the Daily Mail shouldn’t be considered a news source any more - they’re just a gossip rag happy to intrude on private lives.

It’s Political Correctness Gone Sensible!

The Daily Mail likes to target the BBC. They are too left-wing, they waste taxpayer’s money. Now I believe the BBC do try to be more inclusive and remain balanced. I accept they do get this wrong from time to time – and sometimes very wrong. Mistakes are made. Live TV, editorial pressures and personal prejudice affect the ability to remain balanced; but they try. It is much easier to maintain an ideological position and, in the words of Richard Littlejohn, “throw bottles”. This is what the Daily Mail does.

Sometimes, the target is because of a perceived editorial stance, or some decision (such as cancelling Last of the Summer Wine). Other times, they simple make stuff up.

Yesterday, the Daily Mail ran with the following front page (cached online version here):

A follow-up to the original article (cached again here) bleated:

“Andrew Marr says he will ignore BBC diktat to stop use of BC and AD.”

Take note of the language. The BBC has apparently forced its staff to stop using the AD/BC date format in favour of the secular terms CE/BCE – “to avoid offending non-Christians”. The articles contain some quotes from religious figures (the Christians say they are offended at the removal, the others say they aren’t offended by AD/BC) as well as the typical Tory rent-a-gobshites. Given that the Daily Mail is a horrendously Islamophobic newspaper – by non-Christians, they mean Muslims. They are again using the ‘them and us’ rhetoric, that implicitly racist position that other religions are coming here and imposing their values on us, to stir up a shitstorm.

For those not familiar with the way the Daily Mail writes articles, allow me to give you a tip. Don’t read the headline; just read the last paragraph. Let’s do that now, as it contains a quote from the BBC on the matter:

“Both AD and BC, and CE and BCE are widely accepted date systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams.”

Oh. That matches the headline, doesn’t it?! There is a whole can of worms relating to this writing technique, and how the PCC refuses to regulate this kind of article, where the headline is deliberately contradictory and incorrect. It is a disgrace to journalism and insulting to the readers. To me, it is like saying ‘we are going to lie through our teeth whilst obfuscating the truth to scrape through the regulatory procedure.’

Does the BBC quote say they have ‘turned their backs’? No. Did they issue a “diktat”? No. This is simply made up drivel.

The regular munch bunch of Peter Hitchens, Melanie Phillips and James Delingpole are quick to point out the liberal elite Marxist conspiracy at work here, eroding the rights of the Christians. Get real. If there really is a liberal elite ruling us (not in the economic sense, obviously) – then I suggest they should go and do some investigative journalism and find some stuff out, rather relying on made up shit to justify their incoherent, albeit well-remunerated rants.

This ‘attack on Christianity’ leads me right into another narrative. Political correctness gone mad! The use of politically-correct language, very often meaning secular language, is used as to not cause offense. We don’t say ‘nigger’, ‘paki’, ‘faggot’, ‘pikey’ or ‘spasticated’ – they are deeply offensive terms. Privilege is a bad thing – especially when based on illogical and ideological grounds. Whites, men, heterosexuals and abled people are still more privileged than their counterparts. Why is this the case? Why should any group feel a sense of entitlement, and have it reinforced through dogma, bigotry and stereotypes? Politically-correct language is aimed at a common, neutral ground. It is an attempt at showing an understanding of our differences. Secularism is about ensuring no religion has any privilege over any other religion, or over no religion at all.

In America (a country built upon wave-upon-wave of immigration) it is customary to say ‘Happy Holidays’ rather than ‘Merry Christmas’. Dates too, have cultural significance. We all know of 9/11, but that’s not how a British person would format that date. There are loads of well-documented cultural differences regarding the passage of time. Why should we continue to use a religious convention, when we have a perfectly good secular system? We don’t even know if Christ was born in the year the AD/BC system implies!*

if you believe, truly believe, that your privileges should be reinforced in our culture in favour of others, please leave a comment and say why. I genuinely want to know.

* For more fun on the year 0 and its implications – see Wikipedia.

Migration Statistics

The latest migration statistics have been released, and so the seemingly-perpetual “the foreigners are taking over” story hits the front pages of the media once again.

The Mail screamed Immigration soared by 20% last year – making a mockery of Government pledge to bring it DOWN. The Express ran with Immigration soars 20% in a year. The stories weren’t just restricted to the right, either. The Mirror and the Independent jumped on the “Immigration up 20%” bandwagon. Others such as Sky News and the Evening Standard joined in the fun.

The problem is – that is not what the statistics show.

The ONS report actually describes net migration – the number of incoming immigrants minus the number of outgoing emigrants. Net migration was estimated at 198,000, it was actually 239,000 – a 21% difference. Two further key points explain why net migration has risen:

• “Emigration is at its lowest since June 2005".
• “Immigration remains steady at 575,000”.

So what the report actually says is that the reason net migration has increased is that less people are moving out – not more people are moving in.

Funny – that’s not the impression you get from the headlines above. Read the articles, however, and they all talk about net migration. It seems the headlines do not match. Let’s see what our regulators say about that. According to the Press Complaints Commission’s Editor’s Code of Practice (not that it means much anyway):

“1 i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.”

Furthermore:

“1 iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.”

Are these newspapers doing the above? No. Will anything be done about this? No. According to the PCC:

“Given that headlines are usually only a few words in length, it can be quite challenging for newspapers and magazines to summarise what are often quite detailed or complicated stories. The editor will have to decide how much prominence to give to particular aspects of the story; some parts may be omitted from the headings altogether. The PCC's approach to headlines is that a headline should be read in conjunction with the text of the article before considering whether or not it is misleading.”

It seems fair enough that a headline should be read in context of a story, but the above advise does not reflect that a headline can be physically separate from an article. After all, the front page of the newspaper only has a shouty statement rather than a full article. A passer-by or a skimmer will pick up the headline, but not the article. How are they meant to judge if the headline is misleading? The logic is flawed. But in the eyes of the PCC this is fine. Clearly the article content undid the damage caused by the headline, just look at the comments under the Daily Mail’s online article:

As a result of the PCC’s total inability to handle the ongoing phone hacking scandal, it seems as if they will not be around in their current form for much longer, so hopefully whatever replaces it will have the strength to be able to enforce its rules, and make sensible rules in the first place.

The reason why these things matter can be found on our streets. The perpetuation of the fear of immigration is one of the causes for the rise in far-right groups such as the BNP and the EDL. Constant demonising of Muslims and immigrants in general has led to the immortal phrase “I’m not racist, but”. Immigration was one of the hot topics of the 2010 General Election. In the first live TV debate, the on-screen Tory approval ratings shot through the roof when Cameron started talking about imposing tougher border restrictions.

This “them and us” culture is a difficult one to tackle, especially when those who spread these stories have no concerns of retribution. Even when the PCC does wrangle an apology out of a newspaper it is never given equal prominence. These stories are spread like wildfire on forums and social networking sites, but the retractions and apologies never fully percolate the minds of the public.

Politicians tap into the fears of the public to gain power. We cannot say that the fear of immigration elected a Tory-led coalition, but I’m sure it contributed something. It’s time we stopped creating boogeymen and viewed the world in a different, more factual way - maybe then we'll have a better society.

Istyosty Down–Google Next?

The proxy service istyosty has had to close due to legal threats from Associated Newspapers (aka The Daily Mail). The cease-and-desist letter has been published online.

Istyosty worked by caching webpages and providing a URL to the cached version. This means that the cached website does not get hit every single time the cached page is loaded. This deprives the target site of advertising revenue, whether that be through page ads (which can be stripped by an automated script – this is what browser extensions like Adblock do), or by pay-per-hit schemes.

Obviously, the Daily Fail found istyosty either vocal enough, or popular enough to warrant it a threat to its online business. We can take that as a good thing. The Daily Mail is one of the most popular online news sites, gaining in popularity through flamebaitery articles (case in question: Facebook gives you cancer), reams of celebrity drivel supplemented by photographs, and the sheer ignorant and offensive columns of the likes of Richard Littlejohn and Jan Moir. Their bile is what causes people to take these measures – but they don’t care too much about that.

Now, the source of some of this content has been brought into question – allegations stand from multiple sources that the Mail online uses copyrighted images without remuneration or attribution; and there is also evidence of plagiarism. From a business perspective, this all makes sense. Competing on the Internet largely translates for competing for Google search rankings. The Mail is always up there at the top of the first page – an impressive feat. It seems as if they are willing to do anything to get there, whether that be rip off content or threaten

The big question is – will the Daily Mail go after Google? Google caches web pages in the same way:

Furthermore, I can link to the Daily Mail homepage using that cached link, just like istyosty. Google is considerably stronger that istyosty (both in terms of financial and server power) – and so will cache pages at a vastly accelerated rate. Surely this is a bigger threat to them?

The Daily Mail has a history of setting the lawyers on those who disagree with it – but will Google be considered too powerful to pull the same tactic on?

The Danger of Social Media is also its Strength

In the wake of last week’s riots across the UK, David Cameron announced on Thursday that the government would look into banning people from using social media “when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality”. I think this is a ridiculous, ignorant and impossible position to uphold.

What can already by done?

Social media services are provided by private companies, and by signing up to those services you agree to abide by their rules. You do not have the right to freedom of speech on their services. It is very often the case that “private” messages are rarely private – there is money to be made in mining your data and handing it over to advertisers. This kind of policy exists so that administrators can remove hate speech and graphic content.

Looking at the terms of use of Facebook, Twitter and RIM, it is pretty clear that all three services have clauses allowing them to hand information over to the authorities. Facebook asserts:

“We may disclose information pursuant to subpoenas, court orders, or other requests if we have a good faith that the response is required by law.”

Twitter similarly states that:

“We also reserve the right to access, read, preserve and disclose any information as we reasonably believe is necessary to:

(i) Satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request

(v) protect the rights, property or safety of Twitter, its users and the public”

Finally, RIM

“Reserves the right to review materials posted to or sent through a Communication Service and to remove any materials in its sole discretion.”

Furthermore,

“You hereby authorize RIM to co-operate with (i) law enforcement authorities in the investigation of suspected criminal violation”.

All of these services will aid law enforcement authorities with their enquiries – which is in their commercial interests as by doing so they will be seen as responsible organisations who do not want to promote criminal activity.

But, David Cameron was not just talking about having these companies hand over information; he was talking about going further and banning people from these sites altogether. So, let’s take a look at whether this could actually be implemented.

The Implementation

As this was just a general speech, not a lot of details were discussed on how such a policy would be implemented. There are a lot of questions to be answered; these are a few of the big ones that come to my mind:

• Will banning be a proactive or a reactive task?
  • If done proactively – how is this reconciled with the presumption of innocence?
• Will this be a blanket internet ban, or a ban on specific sites?
  • If a blanket ban is in place – how can you guarantee that person cannot access the Internet from another machine?
  • If a social media ban is in place:
    • What is the definition of a social media service?
    • Who will keep track of what social media services exist?
    • How often will this be updated?
  • Who will enforce this ban?
• When will users be allowed back on the Internet/services?
• What is the process of appeals?

This is quite a difficult area to be wrangling policy in, as actually enforcing such a ban would incur a massive and ongoing cost to the state, would require the full co-operation of all parties involved, and verges on the impossible. BBM, for example, is encrypted. To actively police this network would require the ability to decrypt a message and identify the origin, in addition to catching the criminal with enough other evidence to prosecute.

Chris Morris’ excellent film Four Lions shows the main characters communicating through a web service called “Puffin Party”. The reason I bring this to your attention is to state that not all social network activity is carried out via the larger services. Once you start heading into the obscure, you suddenly find yourself dealing with hundreds, if not thousands of places in which communications could be taking place. When Twitter and Facebook were blocked in the Middle East uprisings earlier this year, people turned to dating sites to communicate. People even get around the so-called ‘Great Firewall of China’. These systems are never perfect.

Neutral

During the riots there were various rumours going around on Twitter that riots had started in several cities when they hadn’t. Some police forces were very visual on Twitter to dispel these rumours. There is a risk in such a fast-moving story that these rumours might gain some traction and people would take to the streets, but this is not an exclusive feature of social networks. It is good ol’ scapegoating to say that social media was the cause of the riots. Sure, it might have been one of or the major means by which the message spread, but we must also consider the flipside.

Users of social media regularly use the service to do good – by linking to charities, or important stories, or in context of this article, organise a community cleanup operation (see the #riotcleanup hashtag feed). Tom Watson MP was correct in calling this technology “neutral” as the technology does not encourage this kind of behaviour. Social media is unique in that is has the ability to spread information on a scale never seen before – that is one the whole a good thing that we should not want restricted because of some bad apples.

To me, it seems as if this part of David Cameron’s speech is nothing more than populism, with the intention of gaining small-term favour from the public, and ensuring they remain in control of the media cycle by looking ‘tough’. There is clearly a fine line between the need for the Police to be able to effectively police our society, and acting in an oppressive manner. Whilst this does mean that the Police will have to adapt to new technology, we should always be wary of how much power we hand over. In times of crisis – keep a watchful eye on the government, and think critically about what they want to introduce into law.

Scum

This week, I blogged about how we don’t really know what caused these riots. Is it a response to austerity, unemployment, phone hacking or the stock market crashes? I think now is the time to start asking questions. Why did these riots happen? Why now? Why in this particular manner? If we start to open our eyes and minds to these questions, we stand a chance of improving our society.

Based on the bile spewing forth from certain sections of the Internet, it seems as if this is not happening. Rather, I’ve seen people calling for the user of rubber and real bullets, water cannon, the army, and for more out-there punishments including removing benefits. The Government are warming to these ideas too, with David Cameron expressing that rubber bullets and water cannon may be used, and that they would ignore “phoney calls about human rights.” I despair at how rapidly we call for an escalated violent response from the State in order to quell violence.

Some think that wanting to understand the causes of the violence means you condone the violence, that you are an apologist, or a sympathiser. These are mutually-exclusive states. Of course any sensible person doesn’t condone the violence, and one expresses extreme concern for the people who have been affected directly by the riots, whose houses and businesses have been burnt to the ground. Since the police have been deployed in larger numbers, there have been more arrests and less violence – something which will improve in the coming days. We have a rule of law, and I am a firm believer that those responsible for their own actions should be brought to justice.

I cannot see the logic in calling the rioters scum. It serves no purpose other than demonising, dehumanising and forcing these people further underground. Behind these calls lie ignorant assumptions, such that the rioters are all benefit claimants – something totally unsubstantiated. In my mind, by referring to people as “scum” you are essentially condemning these people, taking their actions out of their own hands and placing them on their ‘class’, if you can call it that.

Put this all together, and you get the potential for a government to enforce further crackdowns on civil liberties, backed by ‘popular opinion’. We can’t let that happen. Whilst the past few nights have been terrifying for all of us, we must remain focused on building a better society for all of us – not just the few. One step towards that is to stop calling these people scum, holding them to account, and ensuring this never happens again.

London’s Burning–Don’t Let Our Rights Burn With It

London seems to be a pretty dangerous place as of late, as I’m sure you’ve heard. It seems rather difficult to identify why people are rioting and looting – even more so for me because I’m out the country with limited internet access. The media are yet again whipped up into a frenzy, all ready with explanations that miraculously fit their ideological narratives.

I don’t think it is as simple as that.

The protests started in Tottenham over the mysterious death of Mark Duggan. That may have been the spark that kicked things off, but I don’t think it is possible to say this public disorder happened because of this reason, and this reason alone. We just don’t know. Whilst we might try and understand these events in a sentence, or a soundbite – what we have is a mix of mob behaviour, anger, opportunism and confusion; mixed together with a media frenzy, competing rationalisations and an overwhelming sense of information overload. With all of that going around - how can me make full sense of what is going on?

The Prime Minister is chairing COBRA tomorrow. Some on Twitter seem adamant the army will have to intervene in the situation. This may be due to the glamorising of the violence by the media, genuine concern, or a lust for dramatic events. Context is difficult to ascertain in 140 characters. Whatever happens, I hope that we remain aware that there is a disparity between rioting and legitimate, legal, protesting. Any sweeping crackdowns must try and remember that, and not restrict further our ability to hold our lawmakers to account. But this - what is happening right now - is not the way to do it. Stay safe.

Death Penalty

Guido Fawkes is using the government’s new, fantastically broken e-petitions site, and their pledge to consider for debate the most popular petitions, to try and re-introduce the death penalty.

I’m sure he doesn’t think this will actually go anywhere, because it won’t. What this will do is help distract from the Tories messing up in almost every single aspect of government, and from the phone hacking scandal. This seems to me like a couple of idiots stealing the limelight during the Silly Season, rather than a “real” issue.

When discussing the death penalty, one of the major points you frequently hear is that “the murderer took away the victim’s human rights!”. You also hear “It will act as a deterrent!”. The problem with both of these arguments is that when you take a good step back from the situation, these arguments aren’t aren’t the most important ones.

The death penalty is wrong, because our judicial system is not perfect. Neither is our politics, and neither is our media (who are frequently found guilty of contempt of court over their demonising of suspects). To be able to condemn somebody to death, with 100% confidence that they were the guilty party, is moronic and impossible. To have such complete confidence that all those cogs are in perfect working order is just plain silly when you think about it. Any crack in this theoretical perfection leaves room for an irreversible false conviction – it has happened before.

Looking at recent events, we know there is a problem with corruption in the police. The phone hacking scandal revealed News International regularly paid the police for information – and both the Met Police Assistant Commissioner and Police Commissioner have resigned. A police officer during the UK Uncut Fortnum and Mason protest tricked the occupiers into leaving and heading into a planned arrest. Since then, 109 of the 145 cases have been dropped. We know about police spies and what they get up to, and then there is also the well-known case of the police killing an innocent man, and using the media to spin the event in their favour.

Whilst I accept that the police are necessary for the protection of the public, you cannot deny that they are not perfect – not by a long shot. Until then, claims about whether the death penalty will work are irrelevant in all but hypothetical terms; and hopefully it will forever stay that way. We are not savages.

Superin-joke-tion

After a Twitter account revealed the (potential) details of a superinjunction, an injunction with the added clause against revealing any details, with a footballer and a Big Brother contestant a frenzy has erupted that I think is dangerous.

Twitter went crazy with people tweeting about the names of the parties involved, and eventually the press joined in as soon as their lawyers thought they could get away with it.

These injunctions exist as a way of enforcing the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act. The concept of the ‘superinjunction’ itself is being made a scapegoat here, with the media salivating at the lucrative details waiting to be published. The issue I take is that is that newspapers are a business – they exist first and foremost for profit. They know what sells, and what sells en masse. Daily Mail hysteria, tits in the Sun – these are what get the punters in. Where a famous person is sticking his dick is of paramount importance – to them.

I feel as if the public has been used. By repeating the details of the injunction, could there be a case for the injunction to come down, as it is potentially not enforceable anymore? MPs looking for political gain by abusing parliamentary privilege to embrace this name-and-shame creates a frenzy, and brings further into question the validity of such an injunction existing in our legal frameworks.

At a time when the News International phone hacking scandal is once again picking up steam, as even more allegations against corruption are being raised, questioning just what interests the media serves (itself) and what the standard of ethics they possess (very poor); there is now the perfect distraction, as Alastair Campbell pointed out.

Superinjunctions have been previously used in the past, notably by Trafigura to cover up environmental abuses. These laws are designed to protect the vulnerable from real danger – not for the rich and powerful to maintain a public image. By breaking the law and revealing the details of these injunctions, I fear we are playing right into their hands by bringing down the tone of the debate. This can’t end well.

Rapture

Ooh, look, another guy screaming “the end of the world is nigh!” and gaining worldwide media attention. Well, as I write this it is currently half-ten in the pm in the UK. So that means Australia and Japan are already well into May 22nd and guess what? No Rapture.

I personally think the concept of The Rapture is entirely disgusting and in fact unchristian. How can floating into the sky and watching everyone who doesn’t follow the same religion burn fit with love thy neighbour? It demonstrates how some are compelled to think terrible things about others; just because of what they believe in.

This end of the world stunt will be laughed off in the media for the next few days. It’s already started:

Doomsday-declarers will simply move on to the next prophesised judgement day, and never speak of this again. But if we look beyond the surface of this stunt, it gets truly depressing. Like always, these come with a human cost.

I don’t blame people for believing this stuff. That’s what faith is about, isn’t it? Why not be on winning side of Pascal’s Wager, just in case? It doesn’t make any sense, but we have stupid monkey brains whose prime instinct is for survival. People who believe this aren’t dumb – they’re misled.

Religion means something very personal to people, for whatever reason that may be. This belief is used and abused by people around the world to push their own self-interests into the public eye. The true meaning of what a religion stands for is distorted beyond belief, even so that it is contradictory to the fundamental pillars of that religion. But at what cost? There’s always a human cost. People go broke, people get ill, family connections are shattered beyond repair. People die. We’ll do good to remember that.

A is for Apathy

The noes have it, the noes have it. I don't think anyone expected otherwise.

We've put voting reform on the backburner now, possibly for another generation. All because the disgraceful multi-millionaire-funded No to AV campaign spread nothing but lies and disinformation on a massive scale.

AV is not one person one vote! AV means dead soldiers and babies! Losers win under AV! It's not fair! It's too confusing! No-one likes it! Nick Clegg!

The Yes campaign barely addressed these claims, and instead went on a mindless emotional plea, based on more exaggerations.

Referendums are supposed to be times for debate, where we can actually make progress on a subject, and even improve something. But we're going to get our first impressions on the subject from the official camps, because we're the public, we're not electoral reform experts. This is why I can't blame people for repeating the misleading claims.

To preserve a status quo when faced with a genuinely positive reform - you don't educate (that will detract from your cause) - you lie. This puts the reformers on uneven footing. If they lie, the public perceive the reform as a con. So they have to counter the lies and also educate. In these situations the public becomes overwhelmed and will infer the status quo is a simpler option. That's where their vote will go.

What I feel deeply depressed about is how people still suck this stuff up. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't come as a surprise to me, having seen people truly believe that the evil atheist immigrants are causing monthly wheely bin collections.

I've been through university and always been of a scientific nature. I've always been someone who checks things out. If I'm proved wrong on something, I change my opinion to fit the facts. There's no shame in it.

The difference between voting systems is fact. First past the post falls apart when there are more than two candidates: the winner cannot necessarily say "more people voted for me than didn't." AV addresses this, but again it has it shortcomings, in that it reinforces two-party systems and isn't proportional.

Whether we should switch to AV is opinion. Whether you think we should switch to AV or not does not necessarily have a relation to the facts. So when people say that losers win under AV, it's just an opinion - and a wrong one at that.

This is my problem. Why, as a public, we haven't seen through this, is beyond me. We have an amazing resource in the Internet. It takes 5 minutes to verify claims. We haven't done that.

I'm positive that this referendum is designed to induce apathy in the Yes voters. They weren't funded by multi-millionaire Tories, and they now know that money has again prevailed.

I'm feeling pretty apathetic now. I'm not sure what happens next.

Referendum Mail

The AV Referendum is edging ever closer, and both the Yes and No campaigns are in full swing. While the Yes camp are making some logically-unsound conclusions, the No camp are spreading downright lies, with talk of a potential legal challenge over Conservatives repeating these misleading claims.

One of the methods used by both camps is to release promotional material. I thought in this post I’ll take a look at the claims made by both camps in these pamphlets.

The No Camp

“The cost of AV is £250 million.”

Blatant lie. The most dastardly part of this figure is the claim that £130 million will be spent on voting machines. As confirmed by the Electoral Commission, AV votes will be counted by hand.

“Instead, that money could provide…”

Yes, putting a price on democracy – always a good tactic. As the £250 million claim is a lie, so are these figures.

“The second or third best can win under AV.”

Not true. This claim is based upon differing definitions of “best”. Under FPTP, best is the one who gets the most votes. Under AV, best is defined as the candidate who gets more that 50%*. The second or third best cannot therefore win under AV, unless you want to compare apples to oranges in a deliberately-misleading manner.

The example the No camp use to try and blur the fact they are comparing apples and oranges is to show an election where in the first round, candidate A has the most votes, but due to further rounds of counting, candidate B wins. Of course, in round one, this picture shows that more than 50% oppose candidate A – which is exactly why people want electoral reform.

* Under AV it is possible for a candidate to win, as under AV you can still just tick one box. In the worst-case scenario, where everyone votes in a FPTP-manner under an AV system, AV performs no differently to FPTP.

“Under AV, the votes of the least popular candidate can decide who wins the election.”

A claim from the No camp is that AV is not “one person, one vote”. That’s also a lie, everyone has one vote – that vote being an ordered list of preferences. AV actually reinforces a two-party system as minor parties have little chance of reaching the 50% mark, and so are eliminated. Their votes are then transferred to, typically, major parties. Baroness Warsi claimed on TV that AV would lead to more extremist parties being elected, despite the fact that the BNP and UKIP oppose AV. As AV is still “one person, one vote”, any logical conclusions drawn from AV not being that are incorrect.

“Under our present system, the one who comes first is always the winner.”

This is also true under AV, but again, this is comparing apples to oranges. AV and FPTP have different definitions of ‘coming first’, as explained above. The illustration they use again shows that candidate A was elected with less than 50% of the vote.

“AV is not a fair system. That’s why only three countries in the world use it: Fiji, Australia and Papa New Guinea.”

Sorry to again talk about comparing apples and oranges, but guess what this is? The number of countries who support a system has no correlation with the fairness of a given system. Using this kind of logic implies we should drive on the right-hand side of the road, because most of the world does that.

“The winner should be the one that comes first.”

This is true under AV and FPTP, just they have different definitions of coming first.

The Yes Camp

“The system we use to elect or politicians means most MPs don’t have to.”

“Vote no for more of the same – eg the expenses scandal.”

The Yes camp, rather than throwing a pile of shit, have thrown one single piece – and guess what, that’s wrong too. There is no correlation between safe seats and expense claims. There is no evidence that AV will end safe-seat culture (as I said above, it will reinforce a two-party system at Westminster).

Summary

The No camp leaflet is laughable – it is possible to find lies and misinformation in every sentence. They either seem unable to understand how the Alternative Vote system actually works; or they know fine well, and don’t want you to understand how it works. I’m going with the latter, given that the likes of Cameron, Osborne and Warsi are blindly repeating their claims on TV. The No camp is treating you like you are stupid, and are trying to frighten you with the prospect of change, and dead soldiers and babies.

The Yes camp have put all their eggs in one basket, and that’s wrong too. They are trying to appeal to the public outrage at the expenses scandal. They hope this will stir up a “stick it to your MP” attitude that will cause a yes result. I think it was a dangerous move for them to do – their claims are illogical, and it shows they can play dirty politics too.

I’m Still Voting Yes

I can only see one valid reason to vote no, whilst still wanting vote reform. This is that AV is not a proportional system. I think to vote no for this reason is a tactical mistake. If we wait for the perfect system, whilst opposing any changes which move the country a step closer to that perfect system, it is obvious that this perfect system will not arise.

The wording of the question on the referendum ballot paper is important. It is asking if you want to change the voting system to AV. It is not asking if you want voting reform at all. A no result will be incorrectly interpreted as support for First Past The Post, and justify the following argument whenever voting reform is brought back on the table:

“we tried it, and people said no.”

Now that is a misleading claim, but politicians always use misleading statistics to voice opinions. Why give them another piece of fuel?

I agree that AV is not the perfect system. I’d much prefer a proportional system rather than a system in which swing constituencies decide elections. But I also want this country to show that we are prepared to accept change, if it is change in the right direction.

In this referendum I think we should put aside the dirty politics of the Yes camp, and the even dirtier politics of the No camp. We should use a very rare opportunity to show the government just who’s in charge: us.

As an aside, take a look at the brilliant Fact-check website, who have been running a series of fact-checks on the claims made by both campaigns, the political parties and the media. They’ve went in far more detail than anyone else to my knowledge.

Discredited, on Dubious Grounds

Yesterday I blogged about the #march26 demonstration. In this world, things move quickly. 24 hours on, I feel a follow-up is necessary.

Front Pages

Sunday’s front pages were not all entirely about the demonstration – something you may find shocking until you realise the Z-list celebrity-obsessed Daily Star Sunday and News Of The World were writing about Jordan and her cohort. From the front pages, the narrative being pushed indicates the march is being discredited, overshadowed by the violence. Photographs of riot cops in full gear surrounded by an air full of flare smoke sells. It looks like hell. Today’s front pages show (aside from the Evening Standard scaremongering over the Royal Wedding) the issue was not salient. It’s old news.

The press doesn’t have much time to get their opinions out there. They are competing to get articles written which fit their pre-chosen narratives, squeezed through the editing process and out onto the printing presses in time for the morning rush hour. They don’t have the time for detailed analysis – if the issue is dropped by them, it will die quickly. Of course, this is why I like the blogging and tweeting platforms – the discussion can continue.

Boris Alert!

Boris Johnson wrote in the Telegraph (istyosty link) that:

"The sad thing is that in spite of their crocodile tears, Balls and Miliband will feel quietly satisfied by the disorder – a token, they will tell themselves, of the public feeling that is out there to exploit.”

This is nothing but flamebaiting party politics, the “us and them” logic that so often plagues discourse in the media. His views are warped. The event the Leader of the Opposition attended, like 99.996% of the 500,000 protestors, was entirely peaceful. It was a family event. Boris's comments are part of the discredit narrative – and they didn’t go down too well.

On the actual day of protests, when he didn’t have a Torygraph column to fill, this is all he had to say:

This is the same Boris, of course, who Political Scrapbook asserts is prone to violence himself. The well-publicised antics of the Bullingdon Club, an exclusive club of which Boris, Cameron and Osborne were members of, comes to mind.

In an urgent question session, the Home Secretary Theresa May refused three times to comment on Boris’s article, whilst blaming Yvette Cooper (whom raised the question) for her partisan questioning. Of course, more party politics. She also praised the demonstrations of the Countryside Alliance back in 2004. Of course, those didn’t involve a House of Commons invasion, or riot cops attacking protestors. I’ll come back to this question session in a moment. We need a bit of context first.

UK Uncut

The simultaneous protests caused the media a bit of a headache – trying to establish an accurate version of events in real-time is extremely difficult. Whether deliberately or accidentally, the portrayal of the violence with the peaceful occupation of UK Uncut has gifted them with negative attention from both sides. They are also (incorrectly) being attributed as the violent ones. Anthony Painter on Labour List had the following to say:

“How dare they unilaterally decide to conduct their own protest and divert attention from the main event.”

This view, whilst acknowledging UK Uncut were not responsible for the violence, questions why everybody shouldn’t just shuffle around in a queue. People have a right to protest, and this can be expressed in many ways. UK Uncut’s action was targeted not as a diversionary headline-grabber, but as part of a wider-scale response to the government’s claim that there is no alternative to their ideological cuts.

Likewise, Charlie Beckett condemns the timing of UK Uncut’s actions, which may be valid, although the BBC did possess leaflets regarding the situation hours before it happened. They had a chance to get their story straight. Joe Cox argues that UK Uncut partake in frequent occupations – to cherry-pick a particular event without the context of the others is misleading.

The police announced that 201 arrests were made. 145 of these arrests were on non-violent UK Uncut occupiers – 138 of which were charged with aggravated trespass. Shocking footage released by the Guardian shows that UK Uncut’s claim that occupiers were tricked into leaving with promises of not being arrested stand up to what happened in reality. The police have some serious questions to answer.

Eyewitness Reports

Eyewitness reports have been pouring in since the demonstration began. Laurie Penny’s New Statesman post was one of the more popular ones, however has been the source of both valid and unnecessary criticism (check out the comments on her article). Adam Ramsay described his arrest, and Dominic Campbell’s account goes into detail about the events at Trafalgar Square, where Black Bloc protestors became intermingled with other ongoing protests; mentioning the disproportionate police behaviour.

Eyewitness accounts, and I don’t mean to discredit them here, can be subject to hyperbole. They can even claim to see things that didn’t happen, or not see things that did. However, they are useful to get an on-the-ground view of things, and provide some more context for what I want to actually talk about.

More Powers

In the urgent question session, Theresa May said that she is prepared to look at granting more powers to the police. These powers seem to indicate the pre-emptive banning of people from protests, and the power to remove face masks. It will be interesting to see what Fitwatch makes of these powers. It will be additionally interesting to see how these powers stand up to the presumption of innocence and the right to protest. Comparing these powers to laws regarding football hooligans is like comparing apples to oranges: there’s a difference between banning people from football matches and removing their right to protest. In my mind this is reminiscent of sweeping legislation introduced by the Blair Government, such as the Serious And Organised Crime And Police Act 2005, which helped further erode our civil liberties and restricted the conditions upon which we exercise our right to protest. This coming from a Tory-led government who campaigned against Labour’s legacy of civil liberty abuse, and who have already taken positive steps into removing controversial databases (the ID card database). This is an intriguing test for the government.

Conclusion

It’s been a difficult three days to try and consume and analyse the amount of information that’s been streaming onto the internet, in a very fast moving story. I am hoping that a full debate is heard within the House of Commons with a full, independent report relating to the police tactics being on the table. The Met have questions to answer, which, when combined with their seemingly-dubious involvement News of the World phone hacking scandal, brings their credibility into question.

Whilst the violence on the day has been largely condemned and in the short term may allow the Tories breathing space to go on the offensive again, I believe that the anti-cuts message will percolate through once the cuts start to really kick in. Only time will tell – it’s just a shame we have a government willing to gamble with the lives of millions to find out whether they have the right medicine.

The Narrative Prevails?

Yesterday saw the March 26 demonstrations, a half-a-million strong anti-cuts march across London. The route, organised by the TUC in conjunction with the Met Police, was stuck to by the vast majority of people. It was peaceful, successful, and very well policed.

These protests were advertised as a family-friendly event, and that it was. The police upped their game, allowing Liberty (the legal observers for this event) into their control rooms. The TUC had employed stewards to co-operate with and assist the police. All fine, and commendable behaviour.

The Plot Thickens

Now famously, the BBC cut away from Ed Miliband’s speech to show a group (whom had diverted from the main protest group) deploying hit and run tactics, smashing windows of banks and the Ritz hotel. Sky News did a similar tactic, and the #shameOnBBC and #shameOnSky hashtags quickly did the rounds on Twitter. The nature of 24-hour news means such action was inevitable. Editors at the BBC (and Sky, in theory) must balance the need for a fair, representative coverage events with being the first to break the story. In this case, I think the BBC made an incorrect decision – and they knew it. The BBC were largely fair and representative outside of these ‘breaking news’ events, continually stressing that the ‘Black Bloc’ protestors were an extremely small minority, however, which is worth pointing out here.

When the Black Bloc broke off, suddenly the news coverage was covering two events. This later again became confused with a third simultaneous protest – that of UK Uncut’s occupations of tax-avoiding companies, including a secret occupation. At the speed these events were unfolding, it became difficult for the media to portray and understand what exactly was going on. UK Uncut’s secret occupation turned out to be at Fortnum and Mason. The store was inundated with occupiers. Video footage from the event showed that, from the inside, the occupation was largely peaceful (although no doubt extremely stressful and scary for the shoppers caught in the middle).

In came the riot cops. The entrance was blocked, with many of the UK Uncut activists being photographed, cuffed and arrested. UK Uncut is a peaceful, although sporadic and chaotic movement – a fact many on Twitter defended. Look at previous footage – they don’t destroy, they occupy and educate.

The narrative was blurred even further. The Black Bloc became confused with the UK Uncut activists at Fortnum and Mason, and additionally with the large rave going on at Trafalgar Square, organised as a 24-hour protest by the Education Activist Network. The police made 201 arrests (141 of which were at Fortnum and Masons), although the crowds at Trafalgar Square weren’t cleared until 2:45am.

Protestors I knew managed to break the police lines and escape via Charing Cross station. Others weren’t so lucky and were kept within the containment zone. The police were very often surrounded, and attacked. They also did their fair share of fighting too. Footage shows questionable force used for an arrest that I can’t seem to justify from the context of the video. Policing an operation of such a scale, with such variance is inevitably going to be hard work.

2 Cents

In my (outsider) view, the police didn’t do enough to remove the Black Bloc threat early on. Aerial photographs from the rolling news cameras showed the police attempting action, and retreating. The Black Bloc movement was highly mobile, violent and evidently difficult to police. I have no doubts in my mind their actions were deliberate to avoid being caught in a kettle. Whilst I condemn their actions, it is not them, nor the police who are the real enemies. There was violence on both sides, a riot cop punched a woman in the face live on BBC News. The Police would do well to remember they work for the people, something demonstrated in Wisconsin, where the police joined the protest. Questions will be raised about the kettling tactic again. It does not work.

That said, I also disagree with the new style of protesting brought in by the Blair Government – that of shuffling down a pre-arranged route in an orderly queue. That’s why there were simultaneous protests, each in solidarity over the government’s cuts. The protestors have a right to protest. With hindsight, it is clear that smashed windows and graffiti mean nothing to heavily-insured multinational conglomerations – although the images last. These images will (but shouldn’t) detract from the TUC’s message. They do not detract from the sheer anger people from all demographics are expressing towards the Tory’s purely ideological cuts.

Of course, the course of events has put the alternative message back on the defensive. Yesterday, the Tories could only muster Francis Maude and Matthew Sinclair to defend the establishment on BBC News. Francis Maude warned we should be wary of placing the blame for the deficit on one person, whilst in the same sentence blaming it on Gordon Brown. Am I back in May 2010?! Matthew Sinclair, head of the TaxPayer’s Alliance (a supposedly neutral pressure group, but in reality a group of out-of-touch Tory rent-a-quotes) belittled the protest, calling it a folly and out of touch with the vast majority of the public.

The strategy undertaken by the Tories is to claim there is no alternative to their cuts. Yesterday, this argument was shattered. Whilst political parties and unions are still devising their concrete alternatives, hundreds of thousands showed that there is another way. Whilst initial news reports indicate the Government don’t intend to change their course of action, I believe that change is in the air. As the new tax year starts and the brunt of the cuts begins to bite, more and more people will lose their jobs. More and more will become poorer, watching big businesses get richer as starving the beast reduces their taxes. This anger will surely be felt at the ballot box, but public opinion goes further than that. The Government will no doubt be aware of a growing movement against them. They’re only adding fuel to the fire.

For those who say protest doesn’t work, I direct you to the civil rights movement, and to the revolutions in the Middle East. To those who say protest doesn’t work in this country, I direct you to the poll tax riots, to the Suffragettes. The 26th of March march was bigger than the poll tax riots. Protesting is in our nature.

Things You Should Definitely Do On Facebook

In some parallel universe, all of the following are considered socially acceptable.

Comment and Wall Confusion

You know when someone posts a status update? Why not use this as a convenient time to recognise they actually exist by posting some irrelevant and mundane comment? Bonus points if you interrupt a comment chain during a conversation. Forget writing on their wall, where that stuff should actually go, that’s too many clicks away, and there’s a data limit to deal with!

“Checking In”

Why not update all your friends on your exact location and current activities by “checking in” on Facebook? Everybody gives a shit about what you’re getting up to, all the time. They’re just sitting there (at home, obviously. Probably crying and simultaneously masturbating because they’re not as popular as you) and just waiting to comment on your every move.

Even better, if you’re one of those people who has everything public, applications using the Facebook Graph API can see where you are too!

Spam Posts

Posting spam to your wall accidentally, say, if some rogue app got installed, is for losers. You should be publishing everything that every application you use wants you to publish. That’s just how we roll, we like to know what fun things you’re doing while we sit and eat and stalk people’s profiles. We’re all waiting for the call to arms to visit your fucking farm. Don’t bother creating friend lists so that your application wall posts are only seen by people who are genuinely interested, that’s just a waste of time. Imagine how many flowers you could have planted in that time!

Abusing Your Friend’s Trust

There is nothing funnier than somebody logging into your profile and saying you love anal sex. Decades of the LGBT community desperately trying to become less and less prejudiced against is just forgotten with that clearly well-written piece of wit. Every time it cracks me up, honestly.

Regardless of the cause, I love it when you create a group and invite me into it. I’ve pretty much given my permission anyway, what with their being no way to turn this off by default. It fills me with joy when I hear my phone chime every 2 minutes with every successive wall post on the group. All those people who become suddenly hostile to your cause to raise money for a charity are just freaks of nature, right? Weirdos.

Remember how I said I love it when people check in to places? It’s even better when you tag your friends too. Especially when they’re going to be away from the Internet for a while so they can’t remove the tag and we can all have a good lol about it. It’s just funny when they change their relationship status to single because you checked them into their girlfriend’s sister’s bed.

Seriously

Some of these annoyances, such as people starting a wall conversation on a status update and application wall posts, are a mixture of idiocy and poor usability design. Checking in to locations and updating status/profile picture/photo albums every five minutes is nothing more than a desperate plea for attention.

People create groups for genuine reasons, such as raising money for charity. The constant spam in those groups, coupled with Facebook’s “everything on by default” standard settings makes people instantly hostile to your cause (the lack of ability to disallow people inviting you to a group is disgraceful, by the way). Again, the frustration here is a mixture of bad UI design, idiocy and ignorance/oversight.

The worst abuse of trust is when people decide to take your information into their hands. Again, Facebook’s standard settings allow your friends to check you into locations, and allow their applications access to some of your personal information. That can be misjudged as you acknowledging the share. Facebook rape is so common that it takes something truly creative for anybody to find it funny anymore *, and I’m really surprised more people haven’t added the check-in scenario I posted above to their utility belts.

Privacy Is Key

Tom Scott showed us what is possible using publicly-available personal information from Facebook, and I’m sure that’s on the moderate side of what the Graph API can open. The main principle to abide by is if it’s public, Google can see it. Try googling your phone number, or even your name (if it’s sufficiently uncommon). Employers can look at that, they can see your drunk photographs, and it will affect your employment prospects. Have a look through your privacy settings and keep information private where necessary – and try to make looking through those settings a monthly/bi-monthly habit. Here’s some ones you should probably turn off.

In terms of reducing the amount of nonsense you see on your wall, I highly recommend the Fluff Busting Purity extension, which is available for Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera and Safari. It sits quietly in the background and filters out annoyances. It is fully user-customisable so you can moderate exactly how the tool works, and even remove some ads. WIN.

* I in no way condone Facebook rape (and I also believe the use of ‘rape’ does no good into affecting how we as a culture perceive the severity of actual rape) and in fact might be a crime under the Computer Misuse Act 1990; but the most ingenious one I’ve seen is to change somebody’s birthday to two day’s time. As this e-card perfectly sums up, people don’t bother fact-checking or questioning what they see:

AV Referendum: Yes or No, But Don’t Abstain!

The Alternate Vote system is currently used by Scottish and Northern Ireland by-elections, although you may be more accustomed to its workings in the Labour leadership contest. Londoners use an offspring of the AV (Instant Runoff) system called the Supplementary Vote to elect the Mayor of London. On May 5th, a referendum will be held, asking the following question:

“At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?”

The campaigns have kicked off, with the polls showing that it’s still pretty neck and neck.

I’m Voting Yes

Looking at the election data from the 2010 General Election, notice the following:

• Conservatives, 36%, 307 seats won.
• Labour, 29%, 258 seats won.
• Liberal Democrats, 23%, 57 seats won.

The first thing I notice is that the difference between 23% and 29% is 201 seats. The Conservatives have the major power advantage in the Coalition Government, outranking Lib Dems by over 5:1. It is for this reason that Labour have recently been calling the government Tory-led. To look at why this is happening, it is important to understand that Labour has traditionally held strong vote shares in urban constituencies; the opposite being true for the Conservatives. Looking at the proportional map on the BBC site I linked to above highlights this for the 2010 data. The Lib Dem support is more spread out, meaning that it translates less of its vote share into seats. This is why I believe that a proportional system is needed.

But wait, AV isn’t PR! You’re right - it’s not. The No2AV campaign, when they’re not releasing misleading statistics and publishing offensive and plain incorrect adverts, make the point that people are only using this referendum as a springboard to change the voting system to some Proportional Representation system (there are many). I think that is quite a reasonable statement actually.

The process of evolution involves making small, incremental changes, which over a longer period time constitute a larger-scale change. The phrase “Rome was not built in a day” comes to mind. The AV voting system is certainly not proportional, but it means that in any constituency the person elected can command an actual majority (i.e over 50%).

Under First Past The Post, the majority wins. Consider the Cardiff North constituency, which in the 2010 election voted as follows:

• Conservative – 37.5%
• Labour – 37.1%
• Liberal Democrat – 18.3%
• Others – 7.1%

The Conservatives won with a majority of 0.4%. In FPTP that’s a seat to the Tories, even though 62.5% of the constituency did not vote for Jonathan Evans. It’s hard to predict what the results would have been under any other voting system (and be dubious of anyone who tries!), but regardless, it is clear that FPTP is not giving us “strong, stable governments”, but the illusion of such.

That is why I will be voting yes – sure, it’s not the voting system I want, but it’s miles better than what we’ve got.

The Real Message: Get Out and Vote!

Regardless of your voting intentions, whether you agree with me, or David Allen Green’s New Statesman post on why he’s voting no; please vote. Don’t abstain. National-level referendums are rare, and they’re a chance for your own voice to be heard in Parliament, regardless of which party ‘represents’ your constituency. Don’t just join the #mehtoAV crowd, please use this opportunity. This referendum will affect the future of our Parliament. If we all abstained then we’d never get a referendum again (that’ll piss of the right-wingers who want a referendum on Europe!).

And hey, if Yes wins, you can still vote FPTP style under AV .

Not Giving Them Money

New Statesman blogger Steven Baxter, or as he’s also known, Anton Vowl, recently published a post called “Don’t Click on the Daily Mail!”. The crux of the argument is that the Daily Mail (and they are by no means alone in this) encourage millions of webpage views using a utility-belt of tactics, and we should avoid them at all cost. Some of these tactics are:

• Flamebaitery – Offensive columnists such as Richard Littlejohn, Melanie Phillips and Jan Moir attack homosexuals for being in public, dead and homosexual. Outrage drives page views.
  
• Lots of pictures – Oh my this is offensive! Let’s post lots of pictures to show you how offensive this is from every angle! Oh yeah, the offensive thing might be underage, too. Or it might be an upskirt shot that was kicking about on our image database.
  
• Celebrity Drivel – Whether they dye their hair, or you have an image of a thin woman who you want to call fat – all of it builds up into traffic-heavy non-stories.
  
• Insult Muslims – Unfortunately, these stories are far too common, far too contrived and far too easily believed by bigots. Idiots shout the loudest, and it all contributes to their traffic.
  
• Insult Facebook – At least 10% of the Mail’s traffic comes from Facebook. It is a massive revenue stream, but it’s something their older readership won’t necessarily use or understand, so it makes perfect sense to say it gives you cancer (like a lot of things, apparently). That’s one way to get a news article to virally spread across a social network!

I hate to say it, but they know what they’re doing and it’s paying for them big-style. But can we fight back? I’d like to summarise some of the tools out there that you can employ to starve their revenue streams, have a laugh at them, and avoid them altogether.

Journalism Warning Labels

Tom Scott created a set of warning labels that can be printed and stuck onto newspapers. The Newscrud tool lets you add these to websites! You can even attach a rebuking blog post or information source, which is awesome. This then gives you a newscrud link which you can send to peers, rather than the plain old Daily Mail link. However, I think this still links to the Daily Mail within an iframe, but there’s a way around that too.

Istyotsy

Istyotsy lets you view the Daily Mail, Daily Express etc by proxy. Istyotsy stores a copy (a cache) of their articles on their own servers, and provide an istyotsy web link you can use. When this link is accessed, the cached version of the article is displayed, rather than going off to the original source every time. This reduces the number of page views to one! Huzzah!

When an istyotsy link is combined with newscrud link (give the istyotsy link to newscrud; the other way around won’t work) – you attack the weak point for massive damage.

Furthermore, Istyotsy strips adverts, doesn’t perform tracking, doesn’t index to search engines like Google and Bing; so cuts off as many page view streams as possible.

AdBlock and Tracking Cookies

The AdBlock extension for Firefox and Chrome is amazing. It pre-filters web pages to reduce the amount of adverts you see online. The built-in filters work well and are regularly updated. You can create custom filters, and even make exceptions. It’s worth getting for general internet browsing.

Advert revenue can be generated in several ways:

• Revenue is paid on a per-click basis.
  
• Revenue is paid per page view.
  
• Both of the above.

AdBlock reliably denies click revenue, but won’t stop page revenue unless the adverts perform some clever trickery to check if they’re not being displayed; which is why I’ve previously suggested istyotsy .

Next up are tracking cookies. Cookies are essentially text files which store information that websites can use. Cookies are the basis of how your shopping basket is stored, or how you can automatically login to websites. They’re not evil, but can be exploited to perform tracking of your web browsing sessions. Tracking isn’t always malicious either, a website may want to track which products you’re viewing to suggest recommendations. Tracking cookies can also go and look across web sites, or even across multiple uses of your web browser. Some search engines do this to improve their search listings.

Your web browser’s options has cookie-related preferences so you can tweak how cookies are handled. If you have the option to clear all data when you close your web browser, do it. You can turn off cookies altogether, but it becomes annoying as you then have to log in to every website manually. It’s a trade-off that can take a bit of tweaking to get right, or you can get extensions to help you .

Google has released advertising opt-out cookie extensions (here and here), and the Disconnect extension for Chrome automatically blocks the big players. This can go a long way to stop websites gaining information from you which can be used to their advantage.

When In Doubt, Laugh

Comedian Chris Coltrane launched the Polljack twitter account, which suggested to its legion of followers various Daily Mail polls to hijack, for the sheer fun of it. This often produced hillarious consequences; but be warned, the Polljack account was retired after Chris realised this was driving ad revenue to them.

Abstinence

For times when someone gives you a plain old Daily Mail link, you have the choice to click or not click. I always advise not clicking, but what if you do? Don’t worry, I have your back.

Chrome users can get the Istyotsy Chrome extension, which automatically displays the article through their proxy. Handy.

Firefox users can get the Tea and Kittens extension, which automatically redirects you to teaandkittens.co.uk if you try and visit the Daily Mail or Daily Express. I hope more newspapers are added soon!

Conclusion

If you’ve made it this far, I hereby declare you King / Queen / Non-Gender-Aligned Monarch of the Internet. You can avoid giving as much money to unregulated, racist, homophobic, ableist, sexist, ill-informed, manipulative scumbags as much as possible, like a boss.

I hope you’ve enjoyed reading this (rather long) post as much as I’ve enjoyed writing it – even with the immense chest pains I’m having right now. I better see to that.

Top Gear’s Racism is Endemic

On the 30th January 2011 edition of Top Gear, Richard Hammond decided it would be funny to stereotype Mexicans as:

“lazy, feckless, flatulent and overweight.”

Clarkson and May then went on to say Mexican food is sick with cheese on it, they stand about doing nothing; and a whole load of other offensive stuff. Complaints were received over the remarks.

An apology was quickly fired off, after threats of legal action by some. Steve Coogan said that stereotyping had gone too far on the show:

"With Top Gear it is three rich, middle-aged men laughing at poor Mexicans. Brave, groundbreaking stuff, eh?”

He’s right, of course. Stereotyping is a quick gag that mercilessly divides a wide range of people into a degraded group based on uninformed nonsense. To say that Mexicans are lazy sticks two fingers up at the fact that in America they are more than prepared to work jobs that others class as “below them”.

What concerns me most about the entire episode is the line of defence the BBC took:

"Our own comedians make jokes about the British being terrible cooks and terrible romantics, and we in turn make jokes about the Italians being disorganised and overdramatic, the French being arrogant and the Germans being overorganised," it said.

"Whilst it may appear offensive to those who have not watched the programme or who are unfamiliar with its humour, the executive producer has made it clear to the ambassador that that was absolutely not the show's intention."

The BBC said stereotype-based comedy was allowed within its guidelines in programmes during which the audience knew it could be expected.

Whilst this may appear as reasonable as some, it does not to me. The argument being deployed here is a time-travel paradox, which I have blogged about before. Would a new viewer to Top Gear, expecting a light entertainment program about cars, expect the presenters to stereotype to the point of sheer racism? Highly doubt it. Only through the show constantly broadcasting these views does it become “expected”, but this is only reliably held by regular viewers.

I like Top Gear

Here’s the admission part. I like Top Gear,even though it revolves around the following format:

• Review of a car nobody can afford.
  
• A short film featuring repeated set-ups.
  
• Sucking up to a celebrity who is plugging their latest book/film/tv show.

Now I don’t care if it is scripted - you can still admire the music and visuals which are consistently outstanding. Top Gear is also a program that can be easily watched with friends. It knows its demographic and never strays outside of it.

How this is Endemic

The issue I take with Top Gear is that these stereotypical, offensive remarks don’t add anything to the program other than a cheap laugh from the audience. I wouldn’t miss them if they disappeared overnight, and I doubt anyone would in fact notice.

What most concerns me is that I am reminded of ‘Sachsgate’ – the content is very similar – offensive remarks get broadcast. Rather than form an angry lynch mob against the presenters, I ask why this was not left on the editing room floor? All of this content would presumably have been signed off by a superior. We know after the Ross/Brand outrage the BBC had tightened up – why is this stuff still getting through?

That’s the problem that needs to be addressed, rather than using a logical paradox to reinforce the current status quo. It isn’t just a couple of motormouths (like what I did there? ), it’s an institutional failure.

A Bit Of Fun

Because Stewart Lee is awesome, I present to you himself ripping Top Gear to shreds:

Star Wars is a Great Bullshit Detector

Star Wars is such a fascinating franchise. Whored to death of course. But what really intrigues me about these movies is that the context of the story is entirely dependent upon whether you watch it in its broadcast order (4-6, 1-3), or its intended order (1-6).

Episodes Four to Six

Watching the original run, we jump into a fully-fledged universe (of which I am always a fan of). The backstory is revealed eventually, but the key is that the mystery is not shown. It is up to the viewer to form this. The effect is great, you get the story, you get the inspiration for the viewers to imagine, and you get a franchise. Ker-ching.

Episodes One to Three

Let us ignore the significant drop in quality of the movies. What I find interesting about these movies (apart from the fact that filling in the backstory removed the inspiration for imagination in the audience – no wonder people got angry!) is that when you look at the overall narrative, it completely changes from a story about Luke to a story about Anakin – it has always been about Anakin.

We’ve seen the same context-switching structure in Lost – we initially think the story is about the struggles of the survivors of Flight 815. We later find out that the story is actually about the war between Jacob and his brother, with the survivors being the last battle.

The Bullshit Detector

We are constantly spoon-fed series of events which are revealed out of full context, so that they can fit a convenient period of time in a broadcast, a number of lines in a newspaper, or an established narrative. Without the full context, we must be aware that our imaginations will fill in the gaps; we will misinterpret.

Take the ‘political correctness gone mad’ narrative, which over time has carefully been interwoven with the ‘health and safety gone mad’ narrative. A lot of the stories reported in the press – such as councils banning the display of England flags on taxis – are reported and then virally spread. The councillors are not being racist, or denying patriotism. They are acknowledging that a taxi is a place of work, and more specifically a service. Health and Safety law applies. If you were to fly a German flag, you may be set upon by a drunk in a taxi rank, especially if you were flying that flag on the night England lost to Germany. Oh, injured at work? In goes a claim against the employer’s insurance – you could sue someone for something you caused, because they failed to prevent it.

The decision is therefore preventative, not just for the sake of health and safety, but for the sake of reducing insurance claims (which increase as a result of successful claims), the time spent in court and the cost to the public.

The issue of the rules and regulations regarding advertisements on taxis also arises. Again, the flag flying is a potential breach of those rules and so a preventative decision is taken to reduce the cost if the advertisers complain.

This suddenly changes the entire context of the story, and ridicules hooligan organisations who report such stories as more evidence of the Islamification of Britain.

Next time you’re being fed a narrative, such as Winterval, remember Star Wars.