Tuesday, 11 February 2014

Local democracy in action

The bells of St Mary’s church in Ashwell chime every fifteen minutes, day and night. I can imagine that must be fun. But it is said that we don’t like to complain in this country, and maybe you can see why.

Understandably a few residents have asked for the mechanism to be disabled some of the time. Tsk, moaning minnies. The ‘Save the Bells’ campaigners – I’m not making this up – are determined to resist such prissy disregard for tradition, and will turn litigious if their precious din is threatened. Just ask ‘chimes campaigner’ Chris Pack:

"If we have a referendum that asks people if they wish the bells to remain as they are and that referendum is overwhelming, we have the support there and it is captured legally."

He added legal advice would also be sought to overturn any decision which turned the bells off.

Ah, democracy in action eh? If there is some advantage in subjecting residents to routine chiming throughout the night, it is not revealed to us and I’m unable to guess. It would be interesting to reflect on what these campaigners might do with their time, energy and determination if there were pro-social causes for them to adopt.

 

11 Feb 2014 09:56:55 | Mobility and change, Space and place

1 Comment

Sounds like a ding-dong battle could ensue!

Posted by: Martin Dudley | Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 11:39

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Welfare and the broadcast media: has something changed? The other day I was contacted by a TV production company seeking my help in recruiting children and young people for a documentary programme about their experience of poverty. Obviously contacts like these are now subtly different, post-Benefits street: but in what way? Would another production company dare to treat people who experience exclusion in the way the producers of Benefits street did? Well, yes, quite possibly. There may be a different atmosphere now, but it does feel just like the no-brainer of press regulation, with plenty of empty words spouted so that journalists can go on manipulating disempowered people in the interests of corporate profit. Against that, I would so much like there to be a broadcast of the voices and experiences of young people like those we reproduced in A series of doors. That could have some impact, and would be worth striving for. But don’t hold your breath, there isn’t going to be a TV version of A series of doors. I passed on the request in a neutral way, but I’ll be surprised if there are any takers. There’s a question here about disregarding this opportunity as being ‘wrong channel’ – in two senses. First, I won’t reveal which TV channel is expected to broadcast the documentary, but it’s one which has done nothing to accumulate trust in the quality of its programmes. Secondly, is there an argument for turning backs on mainstream broadcast media – which, with a few exceptions, have let so many people down through callous, politicised and exploitative behaviour - in favour of all-out social media? Will social media come to outplay TV, in spite of the well-known problems of trolls and trash, where issues of this kind are concerned? Does the Benefits street rumpus represent a watershed in the history of the popular politics of welfare, in which the great artilleries of the broadcast industries are finally discredited and the guerrilla style of social technologies might be seen, retrospectively at least, to right some wrongs? (OK, well let me have my moment of optimism, I need it). If you’re sceptical about the role that media companies play in the creation of an uncaring society, you might want to glance over at the Diary of a Benefit Scrounger: Sue Marsh has blogged in some detail about her experience in this respect. She makes clear that it’s not just the media companies: the government is playing a canny game by declining to debate welfare, as Marsh explains: ‘For some time now, the DWP and No.10 have refused to put anyone up against me. (and presumably other campaigners) at all. At first, 3 (all BBC) went ahead, but the various researchers were all genuinely shocked at the lack of government engagement. All said they'd never known such blanket refusals to debate an issue. Perhaps more sinisterly, they were shocked that invariably the DWP refused to take part unless the stories were edited their way. Iain Duncan-Smith has written repeatedly and furiously to the BBC...
PREVIOUS POST
So where's 'big society' when it's really needed? I fear this letter from Keith Flett in today's Independent, referring to the politics of the recent floods in England, is too easily overlooked and it really deserves not to be: A government that promotes austerity measures and claims that Big Society volunteers and the private sector will pick up what the public service can no longer do was always likely to end in a bad place, and now it has. While people in a number of areas are suffering from flooding, it is clear that cuts to the Environment Agency’s budget and staffing have made a difficult situation worse. No doubt some volunteers are helping in flood work, but there are limits. Dredging rivers and saving life and limb are jobs for professionals, and they are to be found in the public sector. After weeks of flooding in Somerset, there has been no evidence of volunteer or private sector dredging operations. Rather, it is the Army who are called into help. It is probably too much to hope that the ideologues of the present government will take the point, but one suspects that voters will. Keith Flett, London N17

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments