Tweets from ex-Mayor of Lambeth mock ‘hairy arabs, Muslim women and big black men’

[BusLanes]

It's easy to do superficial vetting of Twitter at least, or so I discovered with Philip Normal. As searching on terms is quite easy. More sophisticated searching where ones looking for problematic behaviour that doesn't involve key words presumably is far slower.

No idea about Facebook

 

[CH1]

I wondered about Urban - as regards past indiscretions.
If you look at the first post on the Coldharbour Lane thread (2014) it starts with one of my pictures - apparently rebadged as an editor picture


My actual full posting is still there in a dormant thread with many more photos London Queer Social Centre opens in squatted Joy store, Coldharbour Lane, Brixton

The reason I'm posting this is because at the time my posting attracted several likes - plus a storm of people saying did you have permission to take these photos?
Which in a way links back to the Brixton thread today, where friendofdorothy has asked whether it was appropriate to publish a photo of a person who is apparently a calligrapher, but also looks derelict - situated somewhere near the tube entrance.

Of course being gay did not give me the right to publicise the Joy gay squat. I was just a gay nosey parker, not signed up to the aims and objects of the House of Bragg who organised it.

I wouldn't dream of posting nasty tweets about people because I was pissed of with my tube journey - but I do think that having to get a release every time you took a photo in a public area might be a chill too far for me.

 

[muscovyduck]

It's easy to do superficial vetting of Twitter at least, or so I discovered with Philip Normal. As searching on terms is quite easy. More sophisticated searching where ones looking for problematic behaviour that doesn't involve key words presumably is far slower.

No idea about Facebook

The quickest way to do a deep dive would presumably be to get the person involved to download their archive then just go through it all chronologically. Facebook would be a lot more complicated because it's existed for so much longer and evolved so much - ie a lot of things that seemed inconsequential and ephemeral to even the most social media savvy person at the time suddenly become easy for the public to access later down the line, with some of these things completely changing into something else in the meantime. Thinking of "liked" pages and stuff like that

 

[Gramsci]

Of relevance to Lambeth and how canditates/ Cllrs are selected and got rid of if their politics doesn't fit I see erstwhile Leader of Lambeth Council Steve Reed is up to his same old tricks in Croydon.

Those of us with long memories will remember how he hounded out the sole remaining left Lambeth Cllr out - Kingsley Abrams.

All to familiar behaviour from the right of the party. Now back in and hammering the "left" ie anyone who isn't a worshipper of Tony Blair. Her crime was to be a Corbyn supporter.

This is ‘democracy’ in Steve Reed’s Croydon Labour Party

CROYDON LABOUR IN CRISIS: Just 56 days until the local elections, and selection stitch-ups are still being carried out in poorly-attended meetings across the borough, with a serious effort to oust …

insidecroydon.com

The source said: “It’s as simple as this: Steve hates Patsy, and he wants her out.

“They’re doing it now because they know Patsy won’t be able to find another Labour ward to get selected in. If they succeed in this, she’s out,” the source said.

“This is what democracy looks like in Steve Reed’s Labour Party.

 

[Gramsci]

And this.

( BTW this is being done with little or no say from party members.)

“And they’re doing it in the one ward where we have 100per cent black female representation. It’s hardly a good look for the modern Labour Party, is it? This is all about taking out Patsy.

 

[editor]

I wondered about Urban - as regards past indiscretions.
If you look at the first post on the Coldharbour Lane thread (2014) it starts with one of my pictures - apparently rebadged as an editor picture

The article clearly states "[All photos by © CH1]" and I would have asked permission from you at the time.

And as you say, you don't need permission to take photos in a public place. Notably no one complained to urban75 or made adverse comments on the page either.

 

[CH1]

The article clearly states "[All photos by © CH1]" and I would have asked permission from you at the time.

And as you say, you don't need permission to take photos in a public place. Notably no one complained to urban75 or made adverse comments on the page either.

Actually you have several times asked me for permission to publish over the years. And I never refuse!
Glad we agree on the issue of street photography. Reviewing my original posting on the "London Queer Centre opens in Coldharbour Lane" thread, there were multiple complaints from just one poster - DrRingDing - and you yourself did answer their point, but they just went on and on.
ddraig also chipped in commenting that such photos can be problematic if they get to an employer for example.

So thank you for moral support - but perhaps a lesson that sensitivity needs to be exercised. As I have always tried to do.

 

[ddraig]

wut??
where have I done that??

 

[hitmouse]

wut??
where have I done that??

It is a post from 2014, so fair enough if it wasn't at the front of your mind.

 

[ddraig]

It is a post from 2014, so fair enough if it wasn't at the front of your mind.

ta, not on this thread then

 

[friendofdorothy]

I wondered about Urban - as regards past indiscretions.
If you look at the first post on the Coldharbour Lane thread (2014) it starts with one of my pictures - apparently rebadged as an editor picture


My actual full posting is still there in a dormant thread with many more photos London Queer Social Centre opens in squatted Joy store, Coldharbour Lane, Brixton

The reason I'm posting this is because at the time my posting attracted several likes - plus a storm of people saying did you have permission to take these photos?
Which in a way links back to the Brixton thread today, where friendofdorothy has asked whether it was appropriate to publish a photo of a person who is apparently a calligrapher, but also looks derelict - situated somewhere near the tube entrance.

Of course being gay did not give me the right to publicise the Joy gay squat. I was just a gay nosey parker, not signed up to the aims and objects of the House of Bragg who organised it.

I wouldn't dream of posting nasty tweets about people because I was pissed of with my tube journey - but I do think that having to get a release every time you took a photo in a public area might be a chill too far for me.

Bit off topic of this thread? sorry I really don't want to get into any row about public photography.

 

[CH1]

Bit off topic of this thread? sorry I really don't want to get into any row about public photography.

Maybe even more off topic in that presumably under bulletin board etiquette a councillor ought not to be identifiable and therefore could publish comments about penguins or Muslim extremists drinking Capri-sun with impunity. Then again one is also expected to stay on topic.

Ergo I would say any aspiring Mayor is free to say what they like on boards like Urban75 - and indeed to publish such pictures as they choose.
Because of the off topic restriction this might be impossible.

Which leaves the question - why do people broadcast racial or anti-Muslim insults on Twitter?
Be quite interesting to know how may followers Philp Normal had at the time of offending - and also whether he amplified this by Tweeting out to people with large numbers of followers.

The pictures in the first post on this thread do not allow us to know.

I admit that it is almost 24 years since I held public office - but having been threatened at that time with libel litigation (by the then owners of the Dogstar and two sets of their lawyers) because of remarks I made at a council meeting I am surprised actually that posters on bulletin boards and Twitter seem to live charmed lives.

Just to round off - there is a concept in 20th century psychoanalysis and art criticism called "The Gaze"
There are various forms of gaze, which could be objectifying, oppositional, whatever.
I assume in the case of a photo of say someone begging or drunk for example the viewer gets drawn into a process of judgement and perhaps guilt.
One can identify with the subject and actually feel guilty at looking - for violating their right to privacy.

But all these things are variations on offending third parties and being offended on behalf of third parties.

 

[friendofdorothy]

not sure what has Cllr Normal has got to do with the Joy Gay centre/ public photography / me questioning ettiquette on the brixton chiterchat thread. CH1 You are losing me here...

Surely urbz have the right to comment on our elected representatives? or anyone in public office, public figures or people in the news? Very different from the ettiquette of discussing individuals who just happen to be minding their own business in a public place.

 

[CH1]

not sure what has Cllr Normal has got to do with the Joy Gay centre/ public photography / me questioning ettiquette on the brixton chiterchat thread. CH1 You are losing me here...

Surely urbz have the right to comment on our elected representatives? or anyone in public office, public figures or people in the news? Very different from the ettiquette of discussing individuals who just happen to be minding their own business in a public place.

I guess the issue is whether a photo without apparent negative verbal comment can be construed as intrusive/unwelcome/hostile along the lines of Philip Normal apparently Tweeting because a Muslim woman came into his carriage and he tweeted "penguin".
It's more complicated than you think - because Philip Normal seems to have tweeted his disapproval of a group (Muslim/minority/women).
The person who posted a photo of a calligrapher might have been thinking good or bad thoughts. Not clear.

How about the incredible Vivian Maier - the Chicago "street photographer" who produced tens of thousands of photo negatives, but never showed in her lifetime?
I wonder what the subjects of "Christmas Eve" would have thought if she had? Vivian Mairer died in 2009 - but her photos are difficult to find online. These days the dead are covered by copyright - even if their subjects are not.