Showing posts with label shameful. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shameful. Show all posts

06 March, 2008

Littering London's Walls

Sometimes living in London means being subjected to heavy bombardment. And I am not talking about The Blitz or miscellaneous terrorist attacks. I am talking about billboards.

We're all pretty used to the alluring images of scantily clad models peering at us from a bus-stop and luring us into purchasing clothes or products that will never make us look like them (yet, we still delude ourselves and spend spend spend):


We're also pretty accustomed to the periodical floods of political posters during electoral campaigns, which clutter our beautiful city for a month or so, but at least are taken down as rapidly as they were put up (can't say the same about politicians, unfortunately):


What we are not used to is seeing the city covered in sinister messages supposedly warning us about security threats and giving us "friendly" advice on how to behave, should we see anything vaguely suspicious:


For a country that prides itself on respecting individual liberties, we have certainly come a long way. There are over 10,000 CCTV cameras in London (making no difference whatsoever on the authorities' capacity to solve or prevent crimes). Given their wide diffusion, it is legitimate to suggest that most will end up in the background of pictures being taken by perfectly decent citizens or tourists as they snap away at monuments, or at their friends and families.

Is the MET really serious when it asks us to report each and everyone of these individuals? If we did it, we would surely bring the whole police apparatus to a grinding halt.

Some people have the spirit to point out the absurdity of this campaign, but I wonder whether their voices are truly heard outside a few geeky sites I happen to visit regularly:


We seem to live in such a plastified era that usually intelligent people are convinced they can truly affect social behaviour by shouting poignant messages from a billboard. Personally, this campaign has left me with the uneasy feeling that the police force has absolutely no idea how to go about stopping terrorists, and is now resorting to turning London into East Berlin, where children were encouraged to spy on their parents and report any suspicious anti-Communist activity. We all know how well all that went.

I am left wondering, in this era of ever-increasing marketing bombardments, whether anything we see on a London wall has ANY effect whatsoever on our behaviour. Am I really going to stop bullying the kid next door because I see this?


The message is worthy, but fighting homophobia - just like terrorism - will take much more than a few posters. And fearmongering has never been a wise way to deal with threats. Long are the days, alas, when the authorities encouraged Londoners - who were dying under German bombs - with this kind of message:


Or this one, dramatic and reassuring at the same time, certainly one of my favourites:


I just wish citizens, politicians, policemen, terrorists and everyone else that walks around my city every day, just stopped for a moment and thought: wouldn't it be nice if - for one week, even one day - London's walls looked like this?

17 February, 2008

A question



As most people will probably know, the young Adolf Hitler lived a bohemian life in Vienna between 1905 and 1913, trying to pursue a career in the fine arts.

Now here's a question for you. Imagine you were a young artist living in Vienna at the time. Imagine you're sharing your premises with a strange man, who's habits include heavy drinking and sudden outbursts against certain ethnic or sexual groups. You spend your evenings with friends, often laughing nervously at the outrageous statements of the socially-dysfunctional housemate.

Now we all know how that ended. So it is legitimate to ask ourselves: why didn't the people living with Hitler during these crucial years do something about it? Why didn't they force him to see a psychiatrist? Or perhaps take more drastic action? We can now legitimately say that they are partially responsible for all that happened after.

With this in mind, jump to the year 2008. London. You have a group of young friends living and working closely together. One of them is this socially-dysfunctional character, who often gets drunk and has a penchant for sudden outbursts against certain ethnic or sexual groups. His career is - incomprehensibly to everyone else - going swimmingly. He soon might be given a position of relative power.

So here's the question. Should the group of friends:

A - Carry on laughing with/at him. This is after all the XXI century. Mass murder and world wars don't happen any more!

B - Force him to seek immediate professional help at the local psychiatric ward, while simultaneously alerting the police so that they start bugging his phone.

C - Kill him. There is no other way out.

I think all my readers know very well who I am talking about...

27 November, 2007

Apologies

Indeed, it seems my attention has been caught by many endeavours ranging far from this blog, thus I have subjected you all to over 3 weeks of literary abstinence.

It shall not happen again. Promise. Soon to follow: tales of Africa, Europe and everything in between (er... the Med, ed.?)

14 October, 2007

Gossiping...

Blair's father left her mother for a 31 years old male model?

Alas, Gossip Girl is one of those guilty pleasures that keep me up until 3 on a Saturday night... Sad, oh so sad...