London Rolling

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/19/finsbury-park-suspect-named-as-father-of-four-darren-osborne-6720145/#ixzz4kT0ka3DT

"Another neighbour said: ‘He had lived on the estate for a few years. He’s always been a complete c*** but this is really surprising.’"

“This is awful. There are a lot of evil people out there but you don’t think of people like that being in somewhere like Pontyclun.”

That did jump out me.

at me

i realise there's a lot of goading the daily mail to be had when this sort of attack occurs, but i still remain unconvinced that the solution to flinging words like "terrorist" and "radicalised" around without much analysis is to do exactly the same to prove a point about the media when a perpetrator is not muslim.

it's not that i don't think the person involved in this act is a terrorist by definition of the word, it's more that adopting the tone, language, and level of anger of the daily mail, even with almost fully concealed irony, is a pretty bad road to go down. we'd be better trying to humanise all acts of violence rather than demonise some in the name of redressing the balance versus the worst publication in the country.

it also feels weird to me that one dominant reaction to horrible violent acts is this social media goading of the right wing press - but i guess that's inevitable and some part of the wider desensitisation. i mean, if people do believe the tabloids are responsible for an act like last night, then we should start getting a good theory together about who's responsible for other terrorist attacks as well.

lastly, the amount of people in a rage today about the fact the papers didn't linguistically roast the still-living perpetrator and end up in contempt of court is also disturbing, it sometimes feels like people want the same bigoted, violent and angry coverage for all criminals, not just foreign ones, rather than an eradication of this kind of language and approach.

You won't earn any points that way mayne

that could mean a lot of things as a response so i don't know if i agree!

I agree with your take

It's a lot to ask maybe. Criticism of behaviour is demonstrably as prone to partisan blinkeredness as anything else.

fully agree, but I also suspect that the individualist philosophy promulgated through neoliberal doctrine has distorted people's general notion of what constitutes "fairness." So many people I meet seem fascinated by a version of fairness that often seems incredibly punitive and petty. Seeing minor injustices everywhere between neighbours but largely accepting of macro-scale inequality. I feel like this is the basis of this kind of tit-for-tat re: holding the mail to account in this way. Its a very Piers Morgan style inquisition on hypocrisy that has no foundations in any vision of how we might actually want the world to be. I sometimes suspect that everyone just hates each other anyway.

yeah there's a really facile and childish sense of "redressing the balance" that seems to permeate issues that would benefit from a lot more effort.

i agree it's a bit idealistic and also like, fuck the daily mail in a way, i can't quite be sure if it's necessary for some people to take the fight to them or a total, total waste of time that just boosts their reach and popularity. i know a lot of the time it's the latter but maybe not always.

i mean its easy to be overwhelmed by the complacency and opportunism of the news media in its fascination with scandal and theatre

its like when the news sources were hounding corbyn up until the election, and I really wondered how much of my own bias filtered into my perception of how he was being treated. Then I saw this clip, after the election, of Laura Kuenssberg literally just heckling Theresa May. I almost have a personal vendetta against Theresa May, as she is a big reason why one of my best friends is now on a different continent, and she has done much that I believe she should be held to account for that she probably never will be. But this is not journalism, neither is it about speaking truth to power. This is literally someone shouting at the PM in the street. Still, I have to admit, I did slightly enjoy seeing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUqiczVgMG4

Reporters shouting at politicians in the street is the British way, sir!

People were talking about LK yelling like a drunk radge who'd had her drink stolen and when I saw the clip I just thought 'really?'

its just that its so without substance. is what strong and stable. what does that mean. It sounds like something you yell in some heated street encounter.

Khadijeh Sherizi, who lives next door, said the suspected attacker was "so normal".

"He was in his kitchen yesterday afternoon singing with his kids. He was the dad of the family. He has kids. He lives next door. He seemed polite and pleasant to me."

I love that, "He has kids. He lives next door."

statistically speaking that is far from normal

When it comes to descriptions of terror suspects, this, from Metro's piece on Darren Osborne, takes some beating. pic.twitter.com/GwrVNHZcwk

— Ben (@BenDunnell) June 19, 2017

This is the Britain we should rally behind, etc

#notallcompletecunts

You'd never have suspected it, he was just your typical complete cunt, kept himself to himself, the prick.

More from Khadijh Sherazi,

"We didn’t think nothing of it. He seemed a normal bloke, a normal family, normal kids, happy go lucky. I would see him out walking with his two spaniels. He would also shout quite a lot but the kids seemed happy. I wouldn’t have said he was someone with mental problems."

The Daily Mail and the tabs in general humanise a terrorist if he is white. Its not hard.

This needs to be called out for time and again. For ever and ever.

Unfortunately it is hard.

The problems with terrorism are bigger than how the Daily Mail covers it, and the problems with how the Daily Mail covers events are bigger than its approach to terrorism.

I wouldn't describe their approach to this latest event, or any other, as "humanising", and as already stated, the rhetorical approach of angrily wishing the Daily Mail was equally awful to everyone seems a failure.

I am not saying this is the most problematic aspect wrt terrorism but papers like the Mail can shape public response and ultimately policy (via polls)

The bits I'm reading above are somewhat emphasizing that he is like you or me (Jo Cox's murderer was a quiet retiring chap iirc). I don't think anyone is wishing the Mail does anything different because everyone knows what it is - that's what they do. But it has to be called for every inch of the way. It certainly is, and long may it continue.

i just think it's too complicated, none of these crimes are the same, no two violent crimes can be the same and on multiple levels the crime last night and say, manchester or london bridge or whatever are wildly different. there are definitely some cliches around how the criminal is described but i don't think the solution is to seek equal demonisation of "radicalised terrorists" and furiously denounce any narrative that includes someone's history of mental health problems.

I was having a conversation about this with a Muslim dude earlier. The guy who murdered Jo Cox was barely literate and the group he was affiliated with couldn't draw more than 40 people on a good day. They usually got outnumbered by the police for local gatherings - which isn't very austerity, but how it was. We came to the conclusion that this current government are the real dangerous extremists.

Obv there are ongoing investigations on the attacks in Manchester and both attacks in London so it will be a while before any conclusions can be drawn on how similar or different these are. Having said that you do see the way sections the media jump the gun and simplify - nothing is too complicated for them - for their readers and what I see on my TL is people pulling them up on it.

I haven't seen many people saying "be equally awful to everyone". What I have seen is pointing out the discrepancy in the coverage with a desire for balanced, better reporting.

I am sympathetic to LG's view but the Times headline which, prior to any investigation describes him as a "Jobless 'lone wolf' " is o_O.

afaict, the only person who has definitively marked him as a 'lone wolf' is Tommy Robinson, so maybe that's who they are quoting.

Yeah I saw that front page last night, it is incredibly cliched but I guess I don't see "lone wolf" as a specific form of exoneration, it just seems to be a different codeword or media genre for this, a fairly silly cliche. I guess people find it hard to think of a terrorist acting without affiliation to an organisation - I don't think that's entirely misguided or damaging at a basic level, like I'm not convinced terrorist is specific enough for an act like Finsbury Park. Plus there is a long history of white terrorism in the UK, i think the bogeyman of the organisation is a big part of how people think of terrorism and I guess how the media talks about it. But also how it should be dealt with, tbh. Brendan Cox said yesterday we should treat attacks like this exactly the same way as we treat London Bridge etc, that's a good soundbyte but I don't agree. Racism is not the same as Islamic fundamentalism. It starts to get into an absurd territory.

By the dictionary definition of terrorist a huge number of crimes could be deemed as terrorism, like almost crime which has fear or violence as an element, I guess I don't see why "hate crime" is not more specific for an incident like this, even if a general acceptance that terrorist is not confined to specific races or religion is welcome.

It's terrorism because the attack was against a specific community and was carried out by someone who wanted to take lives and breed fear in that community. The attacker, in common with the Westminster Bridge van driver, does not have to be a joined-up member of an extremist group for the wider public to judge this as terrorism.

Terrorism, to me, is defined by the relationship to authority - unless it's, theoretically at least, designed to influence the direction of capital-P politics it's usually something else. The growth in near-nihilistic ISIS attacks and mass hate-crimes like Dylann Roof and this guy does blur that boundary but part of the reason hate crimes have elevated sentencing is because they're recognised as an attack on communities, not just individuals.

The semantics of public discourse are important and i totally get why this is being widely defined as terrorism but i think there'd be as much value in defining it as a hate crime, and treating the two as equally serious, as there would in recalibrating what we think of as terrorism.

This is good imo:

I understand - completely - the place that this comes from. But I question the political utility of calling Darren Osborne a terrorist.

— Ash Sarkar (@AyoCaesar) June 20, 2017

The thread, rather than just that tweet...

... and particularly how elevating it to 'terrorism' potentially decontextualises it from a long history of racist murder in the UK.

it's interesting to me how quietly and completely the "self-radicalisation" element has now entered the definition: by contrast the entire purpose of the "terrorist narrative" of the 70s and 80s was to argue that it was a phenomenon created planned and controlled by enemy states (mainly the USSR; sometimes also iran)

i somewhat assume this is why some ideologues need the caliphate not to be the "so-called" caliphate: ie to argue it has a concrete geographical existence at the hub of all terror "so-called" -- but this now seems an old-fashioned outlier

(certainly in the early 2000s, an element in left fightback was that "bush is the real terrorist" -- justifiably i think making the link between say "shock and awe" and terror as a desired tool of modern statecraft. i tend to agree with SV and LG that expanding the definition, esp.if i'ls being expanded upwards AND downwards this way, is more obfuscatory than useful… moreoever, my inclination is to suggest that better storymaking is not a matter of angrily tweaking the meaning of specific words, least of all as if it were for consistency's sake: the "consistency" if achieved may well be at cost of other things we want to change)

(i also think a good story to be emphasising is that the reach of these newspapers is beginning to fail: i actually slightly resent how long we've spent treating them as a seriously implacable force across all the land; they're not, any more)

"Brendan Cox said yesterday we should treat attacks like this exactly the same way as we treat London Bridge etc, that's a good soundbyte but I don't agree. "

I'd imagine some of the women who complained about his behaviour at Save The Children would contest his credibility as a campaigner for equality. There is something really off about that guy, all the platitudinous "more in common" soundbites remind me of Blairites that talked the good talk and then abstained on every damaging Tory austerity bill that maintained people have fuck all in common. Sorry for o/t derail for personal bugbear*

*probably mostly my m.o. tbh

i think there'd be as much value in defining it as a hate crime, and treating the two as equally serious, as there would in recalibrating what we think of as terrorism.

Semantically I think "hate crime" is such a dogwhistle for the right - "minorities getting special treatment" - while terrorism is, in a way, "their" word, not something they can mock or wave away. So yeah, playing their game to an extent.

fwiw I feel like this and London Bridge certainly felt like the same thing - similar methods, lack of apparent ties to any organisation. Motivation less easy to ascertain, but if you'd ask me to guess I'd probably think that, behind the ideological trappings, the attackers were probably suffering under a lot of the same conditions

(i also think a good story to be emphasising is that the reach of these newspapers is beginning to fail: i actually slightly resent how long we've spent treating them as a seriously implacable force across all the land; they're not, any more)

― mark s, Tuesday, 20 June 2017 08:13 (fifty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Side question- is there something in ilxs demographic makeup that causes it, or has caused it til now, to overstate (to whatever extent) the importance, influence, whatever of the media in this fashion?

Some combo of idk higher participation in the industry, greater makeup of users with media-related education or interests, whatever?

Does being politicised lead to it, perhaps? It's a big element of the game, not necessarily of the reality outside of that?

tbf the media itself has played up its importance for years - the Sun wot won it etc

but it's probably always been the case that the proprietors of popular newspapers are in the game for political influence rather than because it's a profitable industry - right back to Beaverbrook and Harmsworth - so this idea is long-standing and widespread. and now more than ever the vast majority of people are saturated in media, its language and perspectives and values. it's just that that media has become more diffuse in its sources, maybe.

of course the effects of cultural discourse on individuals are nebulous but I think the two extremes of "it has no effect" and "people are brainwashed" are both untrue positions

I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the media in shaping the pre-election view of Corbyn, Brexit, immigration, Islam, etc - i think the key takeaway from the election is that those narratives can be challenged effectively.

The problem with tabloid orthodoxy is that, until now, politicians have pretty much accommodated it rather than really believing it was possible to push back.

The semantics of public discourse are important and i totally get why this is being widely defined as terrorism but i think there'd be as much value in defining it as a hate crime, and treating the two as equally serious, as there would in recalibrating what we think of as terrorism.

That's p much exactly my view. Hate crime treated as seriously specifically highlights the fact it's targeting minority groups. Terrorism by definition is not necessarily against minorities - to say otherwise would require us to come up with a new word to describe much of what has been defined as terrorism historically.

I also think, and maybe I'm going too far, that there may be injustices at the heart of the causes of some terrorism, distinguishing it is helpful in exposing the fact that that's not true for hate crimes.

ISIS and their nihilism probably challenge that but again, that's a case for narrowing our definition of terrorism to exclude them, not broadening it beyond all meaning to score a point.

On the media stuff, I find it a tricky issue in that it seems hard to say when the media is responsible for someone's views or actions or just reflecting them. Do we think the media is capable of directly inspiring violence but not say, videogames or violent movies or whatever? I feel like in the left we used to reject entirely the idea that people acted based on what they consumed culturally but perhaps times have changed, I don't know.

People being told that their irl neighbours pose a direct security threat, are the reason they can't get a job / housing, are trying to erode their way of life, etc is pretty different from the the idea that abstract violence in media promotes violence in society.

Isn't the usual leftist stance - and the reason there can be so much debate about gender, representation, etc. in media - that it's not about directly influencing ppl's actions but molding the culture and discourse we're in?

xpost

I think we can allow for an Overton window-ish effect without going full "video nasties will turn you into a psycho", and that includes presentations of violence and its role in conflict resolution imo

fwiw I feel like this and London Bridge certainly felt like the same thing

The more obvious parallel is the Westminster Bridge attack.

Worth pointing out that many of the men who commit these acts are domestic abusers.

i think part of my objection is as follows:

i) the thing deems rightly asks abt is IMO quite a recent development! it wasn't considered implacable even in the 90s -- formidable maybe, but not implacable (blair's ceasefire treaty with murdoch maybe somewhat changed this, by virtue of blair's early success: but it still came across as deft pragmatism, not bowing to the utterly inevitable)
ii) it belongs to a historical period now over! which is thatcher's successful wooing of a key part of the soon-to-be ex-urban working classes via pruchase of council houses etc-- which as of course totally screwed things up for those that came after! those who came after -- for whom higher ed is available only as a kind of indentured debt -- don't read it at all
iii) so yes, there was a period -- you can doubtless trace it with some kind of bell-like curve -- where the sun especially was able to act as the voice of a dynamic element within the working class, within a particular age-cohort… the amplification of which shut out or anyway muffled many *other* working-class elements
iv) a think abt post-grenfell news stories is seeing kinds of ppl speaking on my TV (actually more often my computer) screen who i see and hear all around me EVERY DAY, *except* on-screen -- bcz somehow compared to yaxley-lennon and the foax john harris likes to seek out, they are "not properly working class" or something (hackney is quite hipstery! and the gentrification sorta-kinda includes me! but it is predominantly poor and working class and this element has not yet been cleansed and god-willing will not be)

to answer deems, i am going to theorise that it's almost an offshoot of the "likes of us" (*vaguely handwaves the social make-up of the thread/uk ilx generally*) doing our elective affinity thing: an overstated other that we had recoiled from (but needed to affirm our "usness") -- what's fun abt RIGHT NOW is that this dynamic is maybe breaking up into something less cocooned and hermetic

part two of my theory is: this is why posting tweets is good not bad *runs away*

I wonder if future historians will look back at this horrendous 2015 ad for One Blackfriars as a perfect Last Days of Rome-style artefact, the hubris before the collapse https://t.co/8v75jDcNys

— Dan Hancox (@danhancox) May 27, 2020

an old tweet from D hancox featuring some demented Epstein creepo vibes in a promotional video for the £23m flats in the giant buttplug building, amazing!

That advert (aside from the fury) just makes me nostalgic for swimming pools. what a luxury they were.

not been in a swimming pool since Pond's Forge on Feburary 4th which was my son's birthday and that is probably the longest I've gone in decades without swimming. It's really not good.

My understanding is that it doesn't really transmit in water but I wouldn't set foot in a changing room right now.

lol @ that 1 blackfriars video. Every time i see it i completely marvel at the fact of it being built. It basically looks like exhibit A in a bribery and corruption case. It reminds me of that quip that the shard looks like the kind of building you don't expect to see in a functioning democracy x10.

Buildings designed by starchitects who suffer from a different kind of degeneracy than Speer and call human inhabitants of cities that aren't millionaires freeriders.

Related and good: https://theconversation.com/how-the-super-rich-conquered-london-138865?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton

what psychopaths

<Cut to Dr Laing eating his alsatian on the balcony>

otm, still waiting for everyone to realise the film was Actually Really Good

Low traffic neighbourhood / modal filters on Upwood Road, Lewisham. pic.twitter.com/qlTDP5TSYS

— Tom Edwards (@BBCTomEdwards) June 30, 2020

:(

traffic will . . . find a way.

update: a few days ago i was walking around farringdon station and there was tons of homophobic graffiti about george michael everywhere

yeah that's been there since around the start of lockdown, not all of it homophobic but all of it weird. goes as far over as old st.

My first thought was that they'd knocked something down that revealed a wall from the 90s or something. Bizarre.

its so arbitrary, why this particular grudge?

I've seen it in Leather Lane - childish handwriting "george micheal is evil man" - that sort of thing?

sounds like one obsessed weirdo.

yeah that's the same stuff, handwritten in black on white backgrounds, things like "george michael's mum is stripper".

"george michael's mother has hepatitis" "george michael takes fists up the arse"

like what?

Seems like time can never end the brainless witterings of some bell ends.

ridgeley has fallen far

there's a similar guy in brooklyn who uses crayon in the stations on the subway ads on the wall and he likes to write about how evil michael jackson "is"

Let's hope they don't find out about this...

https://www.timeout.com/london/news/london-is-getting-a-nine-metre-tall-mural-of-george-michael-finally-081220

We've just stayed in an airbnb near elephant and castle, had a great three days playing in the brand new free splash park for kids and enjoying the multiple international food options available, all built on the backs of displaced residents and communities of the old heygate estate and environs :/