Thread for discussing SOCPA lone mass demo with Mark Thomas
- Thread starter TeeJay
- Start date
TeeJay said:
I'm not. Mark Thomas making a career out of taking the piss out of protest while actually doing fuck all to put himself in danger or actually make a difference (and making money by filming it all) makes me more angry than you can imagine.
Mainly because he COULD do a fuck load of good - if you know what I mean.
My mate - a comedian (relatively good and well known) of MT's generation, is equally pissed off with him for trivialising protest.
Flashmob and this do that.
"making a career out of taking the piss out of protest while actually doing fuck all to put himself in danger or actually make a difference (and making money by filming it all)"
I don't think Mark Thomas 'takes the piss out of' protesting at all, nor do I think he 'trivialises' it.
I fail to see what the connection is between real demos about a real issues and a "flashmob" which isn't a demo and isn't 'about' anything.
As for the 'making money' bit - you could say the same about writers, journalists, campaigners and others involved in political activity. Maybe you only respect people who have another job or independent income and are purely absolute 'amateurs' - although how they would end up having any time to do any writing, campaigning or other political activity is a bit of a puzzle. Surely a more realistic approach is to demand a 'reasonable' (ie modest) income rather than none at all? I don't get the impression that MT is a millionaire or has 'sold out' or a 'cashed in' - he hasn't as far as I can see compromised his shows or political activities for the sake of making more money or to avoid upsetting businesses etc.
I don't think Mark Thomas 'takes the piss out of' protesting at all, nor do I think he 'trivialises' it.
I fail to see what the connection is between real demos about a real issues and a "flashmob" which isn't a demo and isn't 'about' anything.
As for the 'making money' bit - you could say the same about writers, journalists, campaigners and others involved in political activity. Maybe you only respect people who have another job or independent income and are purely absolute 'amateurs' - although how they would end up having any time to do any writing, campaigning or other political activity is a bit of a puzzle. Surely a more realistic approach is to demand a 'reasonable' (ie modest) income rather than none at all? I don't get the impression that MT is a millionaire or has 'sold out' or a 'cashed in' - he hasn't as far as I can see compromised his shows or political activities for the sake of making more money or to avoid upsetting businesses etc.
TJ: MT admits to being both a millionaire and selling out. Hence he says he'd join an anarchist group if he was poor enough.
Please don't be such a tool, but maybe ask him on your demo. Still not sure what good it will do. You can enjoy it and congratulate yourselves though.
The connection is this demo is about and means 'nothing' except for MT getting a lot of people to do what he wants them to, like when he got 200 people to buy shares in Balfour Beattie and attend their AGM. Great. It embarrassed the directors. He filmed it and he used it in 'comedy' shows for a year.
The day after they voted 'no' as shareholders, the directors voted 'yes' on the executive. It was to build some damn in Turkey. Long story about complications he took credit for - which were nothing to do with him or any protest. He didn't say that in his show. I know it, and he knows me - ask him - because I pointed it out to him and he told me to 'fuck off because I'll stop him earning money' (clue, my name is in the profile).
Don't be a tool of a celebrity anarchist.
Please don't be such a tool, but maybe ask him on your demo. Still not sure what good it will do. You can enjoy it and congratulate yourselves though.
The connection is this demo is about and means 'nothing' except for MT getting a lot of people to do what he wants them to, like when he got 200 people to buy shares in Balfour Beattie and attend their AGM. Great. It embarrassed the directors. He filmed it and he used it in 'comedy' shows for a year.
The day after they voted 'no' as shareholders, the directors voted 'yes' on the executive. It was to build some damn in Turkey. Long story about complications he took credit for - which were nothing to do with him or any protest. He didn't say that in his show. I know it, and he knows me - ask him - because I pointed it out to him and he told me to 'fuck off because I'll stop him earning money' (clue, my name is in the profile).
Don't be a tool of a celebrity anarchist.
chrisshapland, do you have anything to say about SOCPA and the people who want to protest about it? In fact do you have anything to say at all, apart from bitching about Mark Thomas because he isn't enough of an anarchist for you (and what does anarchism have to do with people demanding the right to protest outside parliament in any case?)
If anyone is actually curious about things MT has achieved, his "CV" is here: http://www.markthomasinfo.com/info/biog.asp
If anyone is actually curious about things MT has achieved, his "CV" is here: http://www.markthomasinfo.com/info/biog.asp
Yes, link to his site.
Now, do you actually have a reply to my post, or is my criticism of MT not relevant to a discussion thread about a media stunt he is organising?
Now, do you actually have a reply to my post, or is my criticism of MT not relevant to a discussion thread about a media stunt he is organising?
A reply to your criticisms?
He is in fact "a millionaire"? Even if true, not much of an issue for me. I do notice that he does a fuck of a lot of gigs, writes books and produces (?) TV shows, all of which he does well and gets paid for.
Re. "selling out" - care to explain what he meant exactly?
"he says he'd join an anarchist group if he was poor enough" - and? So what? What am I meant to reply to here?
Re. your anecdote about Balfour Beattie: what am I meant to reply to here? You don't like how he described the campaign in his show? You think he simplified things maybe? I don't know the details either of either the campaign or the show, but yoiu have failed to raise any significant points of concern IMO.
...I don't really put much store by celebrity or like it much, but there are several things here:
1) Even if someone is a 'celeb' they are still a person. Leaving aside what I feel about his 'celeb' status and 'cheeky chappy' screen persona, I don't have much of an issue with someone who choose to campaign or work on worthwhile issues, or make a living out of it, as opposed to the millions of people whop make a living out of rubbish.
2) MT's approach is just one angle on things: I see him as just another another journalist/writer/campaigner/activist. Just like anyone else he has his own angle on things and brings his own style to what he does. It isn't the only way and isn't necessarily 'better' than other approaches, but this isn't a problem for me.
3) In this 'media age' it is useful to have someone using a 'media tart' approach. In a post-ironic age it is useful to have someone using sardonic humour. I feel that his approach punches above its weight because of this.
4) Why do you call him an 'anarchist'? I have never noticed him going on about it.
He is in fact "a millionaire"? Even if true, not much of an issue for me. I do notice that he does a fuck of a lot of gigs, writes books and produces (?) TV shows, all of which he does well and gets paid for.
Re. "selling out" - care to explain what he meant exactly?
"he says he'd join an anarchist group if he was poor enough" - and? So what? What am I meant to reply to here?
Wrong. The demo is about SOCPA.
Re. your anecdote about Balfour Beattie: what am I meant to reply to here? You don't like how he described the campaign in his show? You think he simplified things maybe? I don't know the details either of either the campaign or the show, but yoiu have failed to raise any significant points of concern IMO.
I can't see how anything much you say would stop him earning money, seeing as you haven't really said much at all.
Sounds like sour grapes and/or envy to me...
...I don't really put much store by celebrity or like it much, but there are several things here:
1) Even if someone is a 'celeb' they are still a person. Leaving aside what I feel about his 'celeb' status and 'cheeky chappy' screen persona, I don't have much of an issue with someone who choose to campaign or work on worthwhile issues, or make a living out of it, as opposed to the millions of people whop make a living out of rubbish.
2) MT's approach is just one angle on things: I see him as just another another journalist/writer/campaigner/activist. Just like anyone else he has his own angle on things and brings his own style to what he does. It isn't the only way and isn't necessarily 'better' than other approaches, but this isn't a problem for me.
3) In this 'media age' it is useful to have someone using a 'media tart' approach. In a post-ironic age it is useful to have someone using sardonic humour. I feel that his approach punches above its weight because of this.
4) Why do you call him an 'anarchist'? I have never noticed him going on about it.
Yep, he says he's an anarchist.
And he organises stunts so he can film them and make money.
There's no row here. I just want you lot to know what you're doing. Maybe you'll enjoy being on tv. Great
If it's not that, do you really think that you are changing anything, and if so, what?
And he organises stunts so he can film them and make money.
There's no row here. I just want you lot to know what you're doing. Maybe you'll enjoy being on tv. Great
If it's not that, do you really think that you are changing anything, and if so, what?
My mistake:chrisshapland said:
"Like most satirists, Thomas has been accused of attacking the system without having an alternative. That's not entirely fair. On individual issues - like his current bugbear, the arms industry - he does have proposals. But he happily admits he has no over-arching political vision. He once spent a year as a member of the Labour Party, but only because he planned to subvert the organisation from within. And although he voted Labour at the last election, the memory is a painful one. "I very rarely vote, but I told myself, "It's important we get rid of the Tories just to show that we can." But I knew the Labour Party were complete crap. "I suppose I'm a libertarian anarchist. I believe that so long as anyone's in power, there will be someone who isn't, which will lead to conflict and people being ripped off, exploited, blah blah blah blah blah. I know that's incredibly simplistic, but it's a fact.""
link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,323027,00.html
So anyone who does anything professionally (journalist, writer, campaigner etc) is suspect because it is part of how they earn a wage?
If that isn't your argument maybe you are simply saying that demos are pointless?
In any case most of the people likely to take part in something like this already know who Mark Thomas is and don't have a problem with going on a demo (or 'stunt' as you put it) that they agree with which is also going to be filmed. In fact, having it boradcast to an even wider audience than the people who happen to be in parliament square at the time is probably an added bonus to anyone wanting to get their point across.
By the way, do you have any constructive and postive contribution to make to the debate about the right to public protests outside parliament? Maybe you don't think any such rights exist? Maybe you think people should wrote a polite letter to their MP? Maybe you think something else entirely - but so far you haven't even bothered making any comment about this at all, just slagged off and sneered at people who are about to do a demo.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
chrisshapland said:
intresting so you haven't heard of the ilisu damn project then http://www.ilisu.org.uk/
his work in getting certain well know knobs and sods to actually pay tax on certian thigns previously asigned as pubic works of art (which had no public access) his work in dsie or the work against the credit and export guarentees department... you see you are a charliton with no actual experince, or knowledge, tell us what is it you do...
your chqatting shit to try and self agrandise aren't besides bernard manning isn't of mark thomas's age....chrisshapland said:
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
chrisshapland said:
unmitigated bollocks and and actually quite liablious too...
tell me what is it that you do?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Leaving aside the role that MT has had raising awareness of the issues he does the whole situationist thing with to a non-activist audience, I've been following him for years and years and like him because he's
A. Funny
B. Gets off his arse and organises something.
Besides, I'm doing this because I feel that SOCPA is a load of bollocks - I know that this one protest is unlikely to get it changed, just like all the 00s of micro-attended anti-war protests the SWresPect have achieved precisely fuck-all, and with more aggrieved and angry people...
A. Funny
B. Gets off his arse and organises something.
Besides, I'm doing this because I feel that SOCPA is a load of bollocks - I know that this one protest is unlikely to get it changed, just like all the 00s of micro-attended anti-war protests the SWresPect have achieved precisely fuck-all, and with more aggrieved and angry people...
winjer
holocene death beat
Would this be the same Mark Thomas who got an Indonesian General to admit torture on camera? The same Mark Thomas who publically called for George Bush to be assassinated? Who D-locked himself to a bus of arms dealers at DSEi? Who has twice organised demonstrations in support of the PKK, a proscribed terrorist organisation in the eyes of the UK government? Who remortgaged his house to take the government to court over the Iraq war? What a play-it-safe sell-out cunt.chrisshapland said:
Shit, your mate is pissed off with him? Hold the front page!
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
winjer said:
Hahah excellent "I don't need a Tory politician to further my career matey!"
So, if I understand this right, everyone notified the police of their demonstrations ... and the police wrote back approving them all ... but did they add all these draconian conditions that everyone was expecting?
Badger Kitten
oof
So it sounds like some of the assumptions about the law being made early on in this thread (such as "The police will refuse permission" and "The police will impose ridiculous conditions so as to make the protest impossible") are simply not true then.Badger Kitten said:
I appreciate the "We should be able to demonstrate without having to give the nice policeman 6 days notice and get a chitty" argument, but it seems the exercise has shown it to be far less of an issue that many people believed beforehand. I wonder if Mark Thomas was hoping for (a) lots of refusals; (b) lots of ridiculous conditions and / or (c) lots of arrests / moving on of protesters. If so he must be rather disappointed.
(It also seems that we've discovered a department of the Met which is pretty efficient. Nice to see there's at least one other apart from the speeding ticket one ...
)Badger Kitten
oof
It was made clear that we should scarper at 7pm.
I think Mark was chuffed to bits, he had good coverage, a good turn out and he made excellent points ofr 3 minutes on BBC news.
I think Mark was chuffed to bits, he had good coverage, a good turn out and he made excellent points ofr 3 minutes on BBC news.
detective-boy said:So it sounds like some of the assumptions about the law being made early on in this thread (such as "The police will refuse permission" and "The police will impose ridiculous conditions so as to make the protest impossible") are simply not true then.
I appreciate the "We should be able to demonstrate without having to give the nice policeman 6 days notice and get a chitty" argument, but it seems the exercise has shown it to be far less of an issue that many people believed beforehand. I wonder if Mark Thomas was hoping for (a) lots of refusals; (b) lots of ridiculous conditions and / or (c) lots of arrests / moving on of protesters. If so he must be rather disappointed.
(It also seems that we've discovered a department of the Met which is pretty efficient. Nice to see there's at least one other apart from the speeding ticket one ...
It wouldn't be in the Met's interest to come down hard on a protest like this with all it's accompanying media coverage, would it, though?
Gotta say I thought that from the start.
I don't think it proves anything that this went off without a hitch.
The whole point was to highlight the absurdity and unjust nature of having to apply for a protest license, and that it did, imo.
So, basically the police cannot ever apply the law properly then?llantwit said:
Make loads of conditions, nick people for breaches, and you would use it to prove how they are breaching the right to protest.
Do it this way, and you claim it is a PR stunt.
Badger Kitten
oof
It is not the police's fault that the law is crap. That was the point, the law is stupid, not the police.
Which was my point on the day
Which was my point on the day
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
Similar threads
