Off with his head

As a matter of course none of us condone acts of violence or destruction of property, it is the code we all choose to live by. Equally none of us should condone the Police's control, barricading and kettling of the protester's march. In a civilised society you do not attack your citizens with an militarised and organised force nor bludgeon the head of your citizens with a truncheon. Yes it is very irritating, inconvenient and a highly volatile situation when groups of our citizens get together to protest against some perceived miscarriage of justice. What would you rather have? That anyone with a contrary view and opinion is stifled, given no voice, prevented from joining up with like minded people to discuss the grievances as seen? Suppress all non-conforming opinion? No of course not, the majority is not always right and certainly those given power do not as a matter of course exercise it wisely. There has to be a vital, lively vehicles for dissent.

The problem is that when there are no channels for voicing and debating what to one side seems self-evident wrong ideas then frustration build up. Supporters gather around that frustration and when, as is the norm now, they are denied access to the places and the people that count in making those wrong decision, our elected representatives after all, no some magical remote elite, then understandably frustration can well up into violent reaction. The Police have to take responsibility for this outcome. Since that woman used the Police as an armed force to break the Union Movement they have lost touch of their true role. To be our elected force to police conduct between ourselves, not an arm of the government to ensure the establishments will over its populace. So by brandishing its total control, by denying access, dictating terms and limits, by bottling up groups so they can control and retain dominance, all this just adds fuel to the fire of frustration. There is a wrong that is not being addressed. There has to be an outlet, a safety valve to express the passion and quantum of the dissent. A protest march is one of the few vehicles left to the populace but even this the authorities want to control and dictate form to.

Of course in any democratic society there is always dissent, by definition not everyone can be pleased and satisfied. But that never was the objective. The objective remains as always that all opinions are seen by all to have been fairly considered and weighted and a resolution arrived at that acknowledges contrary concerns, puts them into a context and a rationale offered for why the majority have chosen a contradictory position. The common goodsense of the country will then see and understand why the dissidents are nothing more than trouble makers and can be safely ignored. Gagging dissent, railroading perceived minorities and attempting to demonise any group that does not agree with your agenda is only going to exacerbate a grumbling disbelief and lead to ever more and more violent protests to break out of the increasing authoritarian chains trying to contain them. Reasoned discussion, even passionate argument is the only viable answer.

So when the occupants of that stretched chav display vehicle, the Royal car, are picked on, it is only fitting. They of all people represent the affluent, self-indulgent, smug, disproportionately influential members of society indifferent to and remote from the harsh economic realities that everyday citizens actually experience and struggle to cope with on a day by day basis. What a more fitting accolade than to call for, symbolically, his head.


.

Celebrity endorsements

It is not my personal bag, but I do understand there is wide spread interest and fascination in the doings of those considered celebrities. The BBC in catering for the wider public has to provide a constant supply of items about celebrities. Understood, but I do take considerable exception when, over the course of a couple of days, you follow the celebrities progress from one studio to another to appear on a succession of TV or radio programme, with varying degrees of reluctance to talk about themselves and can scarcely hide their impatience to push their products, film, book, DVD or whatever. There is a delicate dance to be done here. The celebrities will not make themselves available, unless needing to promote a failing career, without being given an opportunity to promote their latest offering. The BBC is unable to maintain a supply of non-altruistic celebrities to be consumed by the public without allowing that product promotion. Have you noticed, the bar has lowered considerably over the latter years?

There is a greater reluctance to speak off product by the celebrities, there is a much more blatant display of the product and the BBC has slipped well into the mire of commercial advertisement. The stakes are very high, without access to high volume audiences the commercial enterprises fail, there are no sales. Gain access to a large audience and your commercial product can take off astronomically, if packaged right. None of this is any place where the BBC should be, their charter is not about the promotion of commercial products. What really gets my rag and I do mean really, when a supposed world celebrity dictates terms to the BBC as to the when and how! They want free access to the best and biggest audiences in this country then they have the temerity to specify terms and cannot be bothered to attend a studio. Come off it! Often to then fail to deliver a plausible off product performance. Where has the BBC parked its balls?

The BBC must get back its belief in itself and trust that is able to deliver interesting product. So okay some supposed high-lister does not get to appear in a programme. Whose loss is that in the long run? Not the BBC's and that is for sure. They are able to give access to large audiences across all the age ranges, they can actually call the shots. They can actually call the tune and decide whether the product is or is not displayed and the extent of product promotion to off product discussion takes place. I really do not think this is a youth or a changing media issue. One of the many BBC roles is to provide entertainment and that includes opportunities for celebrities to show off their talents, aires and graces or lack off them as may be. Other alternative outlets will provide for exhaustive product promotions. Get it right and I know where the benefit of audience viewing figure will lie! Just sell a product and the audience either buys into it or switches off mentally. Rather seize the opportunity of public exposure, on a non-commercial platform, to enhance the image making that supports and sustains the cult of celebrity and you are on a winner and in for the long ride. That is what the media savvy celebe understands.

The BBC in offering so many different audience platforms does have problems of tripping over its own feet. Just which audience to make available and what role the appearance is to follow. Not easy when a celebrity can be appealing to a wide audience range. Providing they keep well in check any tendency to hold a celebrity in awe, to be too overtly grateful that their flagging show is going to be boosted by this celebes appearance, I actually believe they do have the necessary skills. Skills to keep using the celebrities in a number of varying ways extracting differing tibbits from them to appeal to the appetite of their audiences and keep the product promotion as a very secondary issue. It is a dance after all of two consenting adults. both with shared and contrary objectives.

Which point does the courtier pass beyond and becomes a whore?