Things in my pockets;
Wallet, keys. Phone, travelcard.
A picture of her.
Author: Rob
Writer. Film-maker. Cartoonist. Cook. Lover.
A Dinnertime Haiku
Onion, pepper, oil
and heat. The still point of calm;
I am in control.
A Bedtime Haiku (timeshare)
A quiet house, and bed.
I fall into the warm space
she has left for me.
A Midnight Haiku
A girl in my room,
her colour faded. My touch
will make her blush again.
An Evening Haiku
Sunset in Soho.
Revellers toast the days end;
My work awaits me.
A Morning Haiku
Sun’s up in Soho.
The streets are still and empty.
I walk home alone.
Like Etrigan chewing turd-flavoured gum
How is everyone? Hope we’re all feeling splendid. Thought I’d just post a snippet of my current mental state.
Feel free to talk amongst yourselves while my brain untangles.
Why It’s OK to have Nazi MEPs
(Pic by hughsmuse, via the #fathitler topic foaming away on Twitter).
1.
We have an actual, honest-to-god unreconstructed bogeyman in mainstream politics now. A real, proper, out-and-out hate figure. Someone we can really get behind as a nation and thoroughly despise. This is a VERY GOOD THING.
2.
Hate figures make the best funny. In under twelve hours, the #fathitler thread on Twitter has gone ballistic. It’s A VERY GOOD THING. Check it out.
3.
Wake up calls are never pleasant, but they are necessary. When was the last time you were pleased to hear your alarm clock go off? A good, hard shock to the system about the state of the country’s political landscape is just what’s needed right now. The sooner that people realise that voting a villainous fucktard into power as a protest vote is tantamount to pissing on your chips because the fish was a bit overdone, the better. A stupid, pointless and wasteful gesture.
4.
We now get a chance to take photos of ourselves looking grim, noble and defiant, and post them to a petition. It’s one sure way to make ourselves feel better. And in case you think I’m sneering here…
5.
Believe it or not, it could be worse. MEPs can’t be elected as members of parliament, so there’s no chance of seeing Griffin or Brons in the House anytime soon. Plus, at least we’re not the Netherlands, where Geert Wilder’s PVV is now the second biggest party in government. Imagine the BNP as the official party of opposition. Sends shudders through you, don’t it? We’re a loooong way away from that yet.
6. So, this is not our proudest moment. But let’s face it, Readership. This country is in the midst of the biggest political shitstorm in decades. Weird things happen in this kind of environment. Basically, Griffin and Brons have exploited our anger and frustration at a truly screwed-up state of affairs for their own purposes. That’s wrong, but it doesn’t have to stand, and they are going to find that being in the full glare of the public eye will bring some very unpleasant truths about who they are and what they stand for out into the light. I say, let’s give them the chance to talk themselves out of a job. In some cases, the oxygen of publicity can be downright poisonous.
Straight 8: The Word Is Out, And The News Is Good.
Excited texting from DocoDomsy this weekend, with a piece of very good news. Our Straight 8 short, Time Out, has been selected to be screened as part of this year’s Rushes Soho Shorts Festival, sometime in late July. Venue and screening time are yet to be confirmed, but be assured you’ll hear as soon as I do.
Obviously, I’m insanely chuffed. I was worried about this one, as it offered so many new challenges. I was working with a crew and cast I didn’t know that well, and Dom and I had never worked together on a Straight 8. Camera glitches and squiffy timings didn’t add to my piece of mind. However, it seems to have worked out, and I am now desperately eager to see how the film has come out. And I would happily work with Kiki, Lewis and Hayley again, who were inventive, cheerful and bloody hard-working. The perfect crew.
Congrats also go out to other Friends of X&HT who will be screened: Fiona Brownlie, whose film features Leading Man Clive in a cheeky cameo, first time 8er Andrew Bradley and of course Nick Scott, the man by which all our humble efforts are judged. Props, hugs and sturdy handshakes to all who have done the do and snagged a screening this year. You’re all stars!
Here’s to July. More news as I get it.
Here We Go Again
Regular members of The Readership will recall my posts late last year on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, and it’s attack on free speech as pertaining so called “violent pornography”.
Well, as expected, that bill passed and is now being used to protect us against something else that isn’t a threat.
And this time it’s really personal.
The fuckers are going after comics.
The problem arises around this Bill used in conjunction with Section 49 of the Coroners And Justice Bill, currently being reviewed before making it’s way to the Lords. Take a look:
(1)
It is an offence for a person to be in possession of a prohibited image of a child.(2)
A prohibited image is an image which—
(a)
is pornographic,
(b)
falls within subsection (6), and
(c)
is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.(3) An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
(4) Where (as found in the person’s possession) an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in
subsection (3) is to be determined by reference to—
(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.(5) So, for example, where—
(a) an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and
(b) having regard to those images as a whole, they are not of such a nature that they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal, the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.(6) An image falls within this subsection if it—
(a) is an image which focuses solely or principally on a child’s genitals or anal region, or
(b) portrays any of the acts mentioned in subsection (7).(7) Those acts are—
(a) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;
(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;
(c) an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;
(d) an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;
(e) the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);
(f) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.
Got all that? Anyone see the problem yet?
Well, as with the CJIB last year, the issue is with the distressingly vague terms with which the terms are couched. That old chestnut “must reasonably be assumed to” creeps into the text on more than one occasion. And of course “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.” That really ties it down, don’t it? My idea of grossly offensive is, I will bet you anything you like, different to my neighbour, the nice lady at the petrol station or the average copper who has to try and make sense out of this lax, lazy attempt at anti-child porn legislation.
In fact, it gets almost surreal. Please, reread section 7, subsection (e) and (f). And then shed a tear for the unicorns.
Let me make it simple for you. A drawing of a child is not a child. A drawing of a character that looks child-like is not a child. A drawing of that character engaged in pursuits and endeavours of an adult nature is still not a child. Tell you what, you tell me. How old is Astro Boy?
How about Princess from Battle of The Planets?
(incidentally, this pic was hosted on the BBC Cult website, which described it as… oh, see for yourself).
One more, as noted on the Comic Shop Voice website when mentioning the even more bothersome Section 52, which states:
(6) Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if the impression conveyed by the image is that the person is shown as a child.
and for comparison…
(which I ganked from the Daily Mail website, who seem more than happy to print this kind of pic. Actually, linky to the whole page for more pics with kid actors underneath, which viewed out of context could be seen to be highly inappropriate.)
So, yet again, another piece of badly thought out, poorly examined and potentially ruinous legislation from a government that is passing laws that seek to criminalise me with every passing month.
Seriously. I own a copy of Lost Girls. Under the new laws, that makes me a criminal. God only knows what that makes Alan Moore.
Links for you to read include Comic Shop Voice who have a more detailed and much angrier version of the argument, and The Comic Book Alliance, a force for good in the industry. The Register have a very good (ie effing terrifying) version of events here.
There’s a big meet in Brighton about the whole situation this Monday. Bleeding Cool have the details. Worth lending your support.
EXCUSES AND HALF TRUTHS 