Redacted

The BBC has lost sight of why TV was created and became so popular. The visual image adds so much more depth to the story that is told. A moving image enhances and expands that depth allowing the viewer to interpolate the sequences with all their own life experiences. What more so than the news stories, pressing home all the varied extremes of human life. Nowadays, more and more often, in the news we are offered a background and pair of shoes! Even worse the frames are deliberately set out of focus so nothing can be seen, just vague impression of, of nothing really. Just the denial of visual media. What is the worst of all are scenes where selected faces are pixelated to ensure that that person cannot be identified. This is all so wrong. If a story is important enough to be told tell it straight.

The news scenes we are shown are recorded in the public domain, out in the open. All observers at that location can readily see what we are prevented from seeing. Why? What are we so afraid of as a Society that we must hide our children away? For fear of what? What tangible dreadful act can be unleashed by showing the faces of our children? Is the location really going to be descended on by hordes of what, to do what, abuse them, vilified them, sneer at them for their social position, ridicule their fashion? No. If adults are out an about behaving in totally inappropriate manners, why should they be protected and obscured out of focus? If you are in public, no matter what the provocation or excuse, you have to conduct yourself with restraint. Incase Society will judge you. If you are empowered by the state to carry out official functions, policemen, prison guard, nurse, border controls, bailiffs, what ever role, why should you need or require to have your identity pixelated out? You are lawfully doing your work within the limits placed on you and carried out with integrity.

In this ever increasing rush to Totalitarianism just pause. Think back to East Germany and the Stasi reign of terror over the cowered a population, ever afraid of who was overhearing or reporting back on your every action. This rush to ever more define, regulate and consequentially reprimand for non-compliance all aspect of human activity obscures the core principle of all societies. What binds us together, are not laws, not GCHQ snoopers, not law enforcers, you cannot coerce citizens into becoming better citizens. What binds society together is our need for acceptance and the fear of disapproval from our social peers within our community. Not what the top dog of the day declares, just the nod of agreement from that neighbour. So faces do matter. They, not shoes, not body movement, not locations, faces are what we scan for clues to belonging, for hanging some sort of relationship onto. Do we know these children or can we relate to them? Are those misbehaving adults part of our group, if so can we express our disapproval? If not can we draw clues as to who in our network may too be inclined to stray. Faces are key. Even more so for officials going about their lawful business. Yes we do need to see them and to be able to recognise them. Yes we do need to be able mix their off-duty life with their official activities. To pass appreciation or reprimand on how they choose to discharge their duties. We should all be in fear of anonymous officials who do not need to account for their actions, are free to officiate without any constraints. When a policeman can choose to refuse to comment or worse lie about actions clearly taken yet still have their superiors support we are in deep trouble. If the face is known, their social peers will make it perfectly clear what behaviour is unacceptable. Quick, salient, efficient and so effective far beyond what rule books, tribunals, inquests, enquiries, reports, all the paraphernalia of top down control can possibly achieve.

Redaction in modern speak is the blackout of evidence which is deemed a risk, legal or security. Just a highfalutin word used to obscure a very nasty truth. Someone with a secret wants to hide what is actually going on because they fear adverse reactions. They wish to set themselves aside from the society they are part of so their society is not able to judge them. Frightening. Openness and having to account to your immediate social peers is the only thing that keeps us on the right track. Everytime you encounter someone deliberately concealing their identity shout out aloud, for all to hear, imposter!

What Commonwealth?

It seems like it should be a major and significant alliance of Nations from around the World, a driving force for good. The Commonwealth, 56 Nations with a shared history, working together. Helping our friends to raise their game whilst being challenge by them to exceed their expectations. Brilliant, or so you would think. Not if the BBC broadcast of the Commonwealth Games is anything to go by. Came across to me as totally imperialist. Look how good we the White Man is, we won all these Gold Medals, look how clever we are, GB is top dog. The air time given to non UK competitors was minimal. Considering the 56 Nations were competing, you would scarcely have realised. UK, Australia then a few also ran's. I was so looking forward to getting an insight into the sporting achievements, the trials and tribulations to be overcome, the progress even the setbacks across all of the competing Nations. Instead all I got was England's Gold count. A primary focus on UK entrants where a good medal was anticipated. The sense of taking part being more important than the winnings completely subsumed to this unsporting and immoral gloat of the winner takes all. So unBritish.

What shameful missed opportunity to glorify in our differences and celebrate that shared together. My head hangs in shame, the Commonwealth is dead, just a mocking shell of a long forgotten past.