Do keep up at the back

By | | , ,
Comments Off on Do keep up at the back

Just a shy of two years after Henrietta Williams mapped out the ring of steel to high light the social engineering taking place in the City of London and Eighteen months after the London Assembly started debating the privatisation of public spaces, the Guardian has finally noticed that public spaces are being quietly eroded. One thing I think the Guardian (and possibly Henrietta Williams) fails to differentiate is between places where a right of public access has been removed and where a right of public access never existed. Whilst there are an increasing number of pseudo public places that are privately owned I fear that lumping them all together would actually weaken the case against the instances where public land has actually been removed*. To consider the Guardians example does it matter if a shopping centre is enclosed or not? Does the fact that a developer decides that open air and plaza type developments make more sense, make that property any less private? Likewise a private road or square that has been so for centuries getting new fences or signs or even closing isn’t an erosion of liberty is merely a removal of largesse. However the selling of public roads to private ownership, the privatisation of public rights of way and the encroachment of security architecture to control our movements is and should be resisted. Confusing one with the other though either weakens our fight against the panopticon state or gives the state excuse to remove the rights of property owners on the grounds that they’ve allowed people use of space in the past. The latter actually happens unless private property is closed to the public on an annual basis, something most modern estates at least are careful about.

However having noticed that public spaces are being increasingly eroded, they’ve started a mapping project to record where such spaces have been created. Interestingly (to me at least)the map doesn’t include some of the places mentioned in the article and some of the public submitted locations are private locations to which the public have for a long time been given access, rather than being public locations which have been privatised.


View Larger Map

Oh and I’d also notice that the Guardian have a quote from the “Charity” – London Sustainibility Exchange, who judging by their supporters page seems to be a prime candidate for being labelled as a fake charity.

* Yes I’m arguing for rigour in protests yet again, yes I know this is doomed.

0

The forbidden history of unpopular people

By | | , ,
2 Comments

You’ve probably already seen this elsewhere, but on the off chance you’ve missed it do take the time to watch this excellent defence of free speech from the antipodes (The Forbidden History)

0

A Jubilee round up

By | | ,
Comments Off on A Jubilee round up

How dare you celebrate? I’m afraid this is another Jubilee related post, but probably my last one honest. One thing which has struck me about a lot of the commentary about the celebrations is the amount of double think involved, and the amount of anti-British sentiment kicking about. To listen to those that have taken so hard against the Jubilee celebrations I can but conclude that the Queen is an idle parasite born into privilege who’s done nothing of note whilst at the same time being responsible for everything the Government has done in the last 60 years that the commentator dislikes and personally in charge of every single aspect of the celebrations, which shouldn’t have taken place/cost nearly as much as there’s still poverty and we’ve not yet achieved utopia. Meanwhile the people celebrating have been cast as mindless brainwashed plebeians who should be entrusted with choosing an elected head of state. The whole thing has left me quite confused, especially as people complaining about the spending last week were saying the Government should spend more – of course it all depends what is being spent on, just as our still increasing spending indicates massive cuts deliberately targeting the most vulnerable (as the powerless figurehead of the queen really hates the poor – presumably). Anyway enough from me here’s some of the blogs and articles you were hopefully too busy enjoying yourselves to have noticed:

Samizdata QOTD on “today’s shallow republicans are way snobbier than royalists”

Archbishop Cranmer eulogises but doesn’t forget her treasonous behaviour

Captain Ranty certainly doesn’t forget her breach of oath.

Sigillum on the other hand doesn’t really consider her “Royal” at all and speculates who we might end up with as head of state if we became a republic tomorrow.

Long Rider wonders why the Queen is considered out of touch for not making a song and dance about things most people don’t make a song and dance about.

Tim Stanely has a politically incorrect guide to the greatest Monarchs of all time.

James Higham over at Orphans of Liberty confesses to being a closet Monarchist.

For all those grumbling about unearned privilege Criminonymous has food for thought.

As a final thought here’s a quote from Sigillum’s article incase you didn’t read that one:
“Of course, logically Monarch cannot be justified, can it? How can a mere accident of birth grant status, great wealth, and privilege? Perhaps because it works. It just does, and like an old car or trustee vacuum cleaner that just keeps rattling along, the worst thing one can do is try to fix it. It is a system which although bizarre, is the least worst. It keeps us in touch with our history and past, and most importantly it keeps THEM away from yet more status and away from the pinnacle of the constitution and power.”

Normal lack of service shall resume shortly.

0