Tiltshift London

I've been playing with a new app on my phone. Just a bit of fun. Here are the results when you mess about with a few photos of London.

Vive Le Tour!

It's not the right time of year, but it's never a bad time to watch this. A joyful little video about the 1962 Tour de France.

Vive le tour! from Bear Thunder on Vimeo.

Citizen Smith

In a moment of boredom the other day, I noticed that David Cameron's government have made some changes to the UK 'Citizenship Test'. I won't get into the "are we subjects or citizens" debate, but I do think this is a ridiculous idea.

The test is called "Life in the UK", and is a requirement for any new applicant for British nationality. So, you would think it would ask questions about everyday life in the UK, wouldn't you. But no. (Incidentally, British people of a more Celtic persuasion may have noticed that the test appears to apply to just one of the UK's four nations.)

I tried answering some of the questions here just for a laugh. I should declare at this stage that I was born in Hampshire, hold a British passport, and tend not to feel comfortable with bodily contact of any kind. In other words, I'm quintessentially British. Furthermore I have lived in the UK for all of my adult life, so I figured I'd be pretty good at this test. Er, no.

In fact I scored 18 out of a possible 24. Actually that's a pass - which is nice, as it presumably means I get to stay here for a while longer. But I couldn't help noticing that other people - British people, as well as foreign nationals who have lived here for some time - struggled with the test. These are intelligent people who are comfortable dealing with everyday matters in British life, so you would think that a test called "Life in the UK" would be a doddle. Again, no. An admittedly unscientific self-selecting sample of around 20 people all failed. Every single one of them.

So, I could only conclude there is something wrong with the test. Nobody needs to know when the first Census took place, or who the Queen is allowed to marry - or, indeed why the Queen is the Queen at all. What the test really needs is questions that do relate to life in the UK as we live it. Here are my suggestions, which Cameron is free to use. I won't even charge him.

If you can pass this test by scoring 50% or more, you should be entitled to claim a British passport. If you fail, you should have to give your passport back, and move somewhere more appropriate.

Question 1
Ownership of which item can protect you from deportation?
(a) A gun
(b) A copy of the Daily Mail
(c) A cat
(d) A whistleblowing website
(e) A huge pile of cash

Question 2
If you are caught exceeding the speed limit, what should you do?
(a) Admit liability and pay a fine
(b) Slow down
(c) Attempt to bribe the police officer
(d) Claim your wife was driving

Question 3
In a General Election, who controls the vote count and announces the winner?
(a) The Returning Officer
(b) Simon Cowell

Question 4
If a train leaves London at 0945 bound for Nottingham, what excuses will be offered for it being four hours late?

Question 5
Complete the following well-known phrase: "I see a little silhouetto of a man..."

Question 6
True or False: The Prime Minister is selected from the ranks of minor royalty.

Question 7
Healthcare in the UK is...
(a) Free
(b) Only available to those with expensive health insurance
The answer is (a), unless you are taking the test after 31 December 2013, in which case the answer is (b).

Question 8
Explain the rules of "Mornington Crescent" in 50 words or less.

Question 9
The correct response to "how are you?" is
(a) Very well thank you
(b) I'm fine, how are you
(c) Mustn't grumble

Question 10
Which is the odd one out?
(a) Short Leg
(b) Silly Point
(c) Deep Cover
(d) Wet Blanket

Question 11
Jammy Dodgers are:
(a) a professional baseball team
(b) one of your five a day

Question 12
Complete the following sentence: "I'm not racist, but..."

Question 13
Someone pushes into a queue ahead of you. Do you:
(a) Push back in ahead of them
(b) Protest loudly
(c) Do nothing
(d) Mutter quietly about the lack of morals in modern society

Question 14
Fill in the blank: "_______ Britain"
(a) Great
(b) Rip-Off
(c) Broken

Question 15
Explain the correct use of apostrophe's.

Question 16
Chips and _______
(a) gravy
(b) curry sauce

Question 17
_______ and chips
(a) Fish
(b) Whizzer

Question 18
What generally accompanies the phrase "you couldn't make it up?"
(a) A devastating exposé of the decline of Britain
(b) Shocking facts about the exploitation of hard-working white British families
(c) Something that is completely made up

Question 19
What is the correct name for a Snickers bar?

Question 20
You are leaving a pub after a long session of binge-drinking. What do you lose?
(a) Your phone
(b) Your clothes
(c) Your lunch
(d) Your self-respect
(e) All of the above


Welcome to Britain! Please let us know if you have any suggestions for further questions to be added to the test.

Not In My Back Yard

There has been much discussion in recent days of the Government’s plan to ‘reform’ the planning system.

Broadly speaking, on one side we have the ever-fragrant Gideon Osborne and his svelte chum Eric Pickles, claiming that planning ‘reforms’ will boost growth. On the other side, we have everyone else – except, of course, the private companies that will significantly benefit from these ‘reforms’.

At this point I’m going to stop using their word – ‘reform’ – and switch to a more accurate word – ‘destruction’. Having failed to sell off the forests earlier this year, it seems the Tories are intent on selling off the rest of the country – whatever the long-term cost to this (soon to be formerly) green and pleasant land.

It’s not just sandal-wearing lefties, and NIMBY types opposing these plans. It’s mainstream establishment organisations like the National Trust and the RSPB. But the privatisation train rolls on. Nothing is not for sale. Not the NHS, not the prisons, not the schools, and not even the very hills and fields around us. Everything, and everyone, must subordinate their own interests to those of the corporations and the wealthy. It is “key” to economic recovery, claims Osborne – the man who has so far killed what little economic growth he inherited – to enable companies to build wherever they like, without regard to the old system of checks and balances.

As is often the case with Tory policies, particularly with this seat-of-the-pants Government, this plan doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. As Martin Harper, the conservation director of the RSPB points out, “the [existing] planning system is intended to protect and represent the interests of the public in the face of complex decisions, and it will fail us all if one factor – economic growth – is set higher than any other.” Not least because, like slashing public spending down to two shillings and sixpence, it doesn’t work.

The Government claims, naturally – and correctly – that there is a severe housing shortage in the UK. But let’s not be fooled by this. There is no sudden concern on the part of the Conservative Party to help those who can’t get on the housing ladder, or those who can’t get housing at all. They’re not Tory voters, and they’re not represented by Tory policies. Never have been, never will be. You may think I’m being cynical and partisan here. I almost certainly am. But given that the Government plans to reduce the budget for building affordable homes by 60%, further exacerbating the housing shortage and driving the vulnerable into the clutches of predatory profiteering private landlords, and that the inevitable increase in rents that will ensue will have to be paid for out of taxpayer funds, it’s clear that this new policy is not driven by the shortage in housing but by the shortage in profits of those development companies who doubtless help fill the Party coffers.

All semblance of control and balance will be gone. It’s now a case of build what you like, where you like. Except, that is, if you’re an undesirable.

In the same week as the Government’s destruction of the planning law was rolled out, it was finally confirmed in the High Court that around 400 Irish Travellers living at Dale Farm in Essex would face eviction. These people have lived on this land for ten years. (Note that I don’t say they “lived illegally”, as much of the media does, as if their very existence contravened legislation.) They own it – because, when the last Tory Government removed the obligation for councils to provide pitches for Gypsies and Travellers in 1994, they were encouraged to buy land and settle on it. So they did. They bought an old scrap yard, filthy and polluted, and moved their homes there - next door to an existing Traveller settlement that already had planning permission. Technically, it’s ‘green belt’ land, but the only green on that land is oxidised copper. We’re not talking rolling hills and fields here. It was a dump. Now it’s the only home they have left. Or it was – until they were evicted for not having planning permission. If only they had been a massive corporation, instead of 80-odd families struggling to survive, and protect what remains of their culture.

The Travellers that now face eviction in the next two weeks are already starting to make homelessness applications – and, of course, the council are obliged by law to assist the elderly, infirm and very young. Which basically means all of them. Except, of course, the Government has already slashed spending on housing. So they’ve nowhere to go. No roadside. No legal pitches. Not even their own land.

One of the Government’s own Peers says the eviction is ‘stupid’. Even the UN is wading in. Those who continue to support the eviction claim, rather too often and too loudly for my liking, that it’s not about them being Travellers, it’s just about upholding the planning law. The same planning law that faces total destruction in the entire United Kingdom except this one small corner of Essex. This is disingenuous rubbish. It’s incredible to find that there are people across the country who care so much about upholding planning law hundreds of miles away, yet don’t seem to have any concerns about any other development in the entire country. Because the other developments are for profit-making companies, instead of a few families who aren’t from their culture. This isn’t enforcement, it’s a vendetta.

I have been to Dale Farm, and spoken to the families there. Like any other community, the vast majority of them just want to live their lives peacefully and within the law. Over the past ten years they have tried again and again to obtain permission for developing their small square of concrete and scrap metal, and time and time again they have been refused. This is by no means unusual. In England over 90% of planning applications by Gypsies and Travellers are turned down, compared to only 20% of planning applications from the general population.

Yet the eviction continues, despite the clear and obvious inequities involved. In 2006, the then Labour Government published a document on planning for Gypsy and Traveller sites. Notable extracts from this document include:

In some cases, perhaps involving previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land, the establishment of a well-planned or soft-landscaped gypsy and traveller site can be seen as positively enhancing the environment and increasing openness.

And:

Members of the gypsy and traveller communities have the same rights and responsibilities within the planning system as members of other communities. Planning permission is normally required for any changes of use of land. As with developments submitted by anyone the only times permission would not be required are;
i) if the land has already been granted planning permission for a particular type of land use; or,
ii) the use of the land has been established over a period of time without valid planning enforcement action having been taken by the local authority. This time period is 4 years for building or other similar physical works which do not represent a change of land use, or 10 years where the development has represented a change of land use.

It seems to me that under these criteria, Dale Farm is well within the bounds of acceptability. George Osborne claims that "sticking with the old, failed planning system puts at risk young people's future prosperity and quality of life". It’s a crying shame that the prosperity and quality of life that so concerns him does not extend to all of the population.

Reinventing The Wheel

I've been away for a little while. No time to post on Libya, phone-hacking or looting. But I did see this...



I used to cycle a bit. But not like that. Hats off to Danny.

Election 2015 - The Campaign Starts Here

I love this idea. The more I think about, the more I love this idea. Allow me to share it with you.

OK, so it's not actually a fully formed idea, as such. More of a notion, really. Or a suggestion. But it's out there now, and it can't be unthought.

During some idle chat on Twitter -- arguably that's a tautology, but we'll move on -- a chap called David Platt* suggested arranging candidates for all 650 constituencies** in the next UK General Election.

* No, not that David Platt. Or that one. Another one.

** Or however many are left after Cameron has finished his gerrymandering.

I like this idea. (I think I mentioned that already.) Many people in Britain are disillusioned about politics these days; perhaps more than ever before. The Liberal Democrats appear to be facing extinction at the next election, and Labour and the Conservatives seem just as out-of-touch as ever. So why not start our own party? (And like all good parties, this one's going to have a DJ.)

Before we get into the details of how to stand for Parliament, though, we need to cover the basics. Stuff like what the new party will be called. And, um, what it stands for. You see, we're already getting into a different kind of politics here, by actually suggesting we have policies. As far as I can recall, the two parties that 'won' the 2010 election hardly had any policies before the election - and those they did have were swiftly abandoned.

Today marks exactly one year since the Coalition Government took control of Britain, and that leaves us more or less four years to sort out how we take it back. It starts here, and it starts now.

To give us a headstart, I have shamelessly copied some policy ideas from Mark Thomas, who had a similar idea back in 2009. Perhaps some of these can be an inspiration for us to develop our own policies. Or, if we prefer, we can just steal the best policies off other people. It worked for New Labour, so why not for us?

Here are a few of my favourites.

All politicians should be forced to wear the names and logos of the companies that sponsor them or with whom they have financial links.

Anyone who opposes immigration into this country should be barred from travelling abroad.

To randomly arm OAPs with guns.

Require the Daily Mail to print the following on every front page: "This is a fictional representation of the news. Any resemblance to real life is purely coincidental."

Make clothes out of cheese.

Anyone found guilty of homophobic hate crime has to serve their sentence in drag.

There should be separate lanes for pedestrians based on the speeds they walk at. Ranging from a fast lane for people who know where they are going to a hard shoulder for window shoppers.

Anyone buying a second home in Somerset has to buy a house of equal value for someone who actually lives in Somerset. This house is to be built on a golf course.

OK, so we could have some sensible policies - you know, like a Tobin Tax, or scrapping Trident, or maybe rebuilding the nation's stock of council housing. But where's the fun in that? Let's be honest: there are few if any votes in proposing a tweak in business rates, but I'd wager there are plenty of votes to be won by any party proposing on-the-spot fines for anyone found in possession of a copy of the Daily Express.

But this isn't about me. I don't want to be Prime Minister. This is about YOU, people. The Great British Public. Here is our chance to really take control. Now I'm giving you the opportunity to get out there and change our nation for the better. All we need from you is ideas. And maybe five hundred quid for your election deposit.

Unlawful Killing

On 1 April 2009, newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson finished his shift and prepared to walk home. At the same time in Central London there was a demonstration going on, which had nothing to do with Tomlinson.

Ian never made it home. He died, without friends or family by his side, on the pavement on Cornhill. Just minutes before, he had been subjected to a vicious and unprovoked attack.... by the police.

If a passer by had not filmed this moment, the truth would probably never have been exposed, and yet another death at the hands of the police would have passed without any consequences for the guilty party.



Despite obstruction from the police throughout this process, the truth is now out there for all to see. An innocent man was unlawfully killed by the very people who were supposed to protect him.

We all now know that PC Simon Harwood is a thug and a liar. Tomlinson wasn't the first person he assaulted that day, and it seems certain that Harwood, and many others in the police Territorial Support Group, have got away with many other similar occasions simply because their victims didn't die, and their crimes were not filmed.

Now is the chance for the police, and the Crown Prosecution Service, to prove that things have changed since Blair Peach. Harwood is not the only guilty party in this episode, but if - even after the findings of the inquest into Tomlinson's death - he does not face trial for manslaughter, then any last remaining shred of trust between the public, and the police who serve them, is lost.