Plain clothed police detained one individual on suspicion of possessing an illegal drug (a joint). After handcuffing the man he was informed that if drugs were found in the cigarette, then he would be called to attend a hearing at court.
A group of the events attendees surrounded the police to ask why he was being arrested. A few people booed, while others shouted at the police as tempers flared. The man was let go with the understanding that he may be charged in the future should illegal drugs be found.
As he was being released another gentlemen was arrested for “acting in an aggressive manner”. He was handcuffed and bundled into the back of a police van amid protest from a dozen or so of his friends. I asked the police why he’d been arrested but they told me that I would have to speak to the arresting officer who had left in the police van.
Despite the drama, the event returned to its peaceful merriment that it had enjoyed before the incident.
Today a group of likeminded individuals, from all walks of life, ages and ethnicities, joined together in an attempt to raise awareness for the legalisation of marijuana. They had previously been denied permission to use George Sq by Glasgow City Council but that did not stop them from setting up their tents. stalls and sound systems. A day of celebration was planned, a DJ performed a short set before the live music and speeches started.
However, some of the attendees viewed the event as a chance to party, smoke weed, have a drink and a bit of a dance. There was a genuine carnival atmosphere that made passers-by stop and find out what was going. I spoke to some of those who had attended to find out why they had come and what the aim of the protest was.
I also spoke to event organiser, Chris MacKenzie, who was insistent that the purpose of their demonstration was not to have a party and smoke weed, instead they wanted to spread their message and raise awareness. He did not condone people consuming cannabis at the event but said that he cannot be held responsible if individuals decide to.
Strap in for this confusing revenge flick about a stripper who goes on a homicidal rampage of vengeance when her boyfriend is murdered in front of her sending her into a fugue state, á la Walter White. There was a caveat before the film that had to explain what a fugue state was and I feel the need to do the same. When someone experiences a traumatic event it can make that person forget who they are, their psyche forces them to choose a personality that can best deal with the trauma. However, when they return to their ‘normal state’ they have no memory of their actions. Luckily for us film-goers she adopts the characteristics of a gun-toting, psycho bad ass that seeks to track down those responsible in a Memento, non-linear style until only the big boss remains.
The film stars Katherine Isabelle as mousey, ‘girl next door’ type, Gwen and her alter ego Flamingo, a sultry assassin hunting her bf’s killers. The film is given a whiff of credibility with seasoned pros such as Christopher Lloyd who plays a gang boss with psychotic tendencies (like every movie gang boss) and Total Recall bad guy, Mike Ironside, who portrays a small town cop caught up in Flamingo’s lust for revenge as he chases down the femme fatal. It’s like Pulp Fiction meets Kill Bill but without the sharp dialogue and stunning soundtrack. The story jumps from one timeline to the other as we see flashbacks of Gwen’s happy life, her murderous Flamingo side, and then a confused Gwen who doesn’t know why the cops are after her.
The writers have tried to give us a strong female lead, however, they have fallen for the trap of turning her from a weak willed, ineffectual and hysterical women, into a crazy, psycho bitch from hell – going from one end of the patronising spectrum to the other and back in one fluid motion. It could be interpreted as an analogy for ‘that time of the month’ because once she snaps out of her irrational craziness; she immediately forgets that she had acted in such a destructive manner.
I left the GFT thinking that the cleverness of the film’s set-up was let down badly by its ending. The surprise twist was hinted at throughout the film, which made it less surprising than the ending of Titanic. The writers seemed compelled to hold the audience’s hand far too much, particularly when jumping from one timeline to the other. The viewer would get a little re-cap of the previous scene so that they could follow the story, but this meant that nothing was left to the imagination and the ending was so obvious that I heard several people in room say how it was going to end ten minutes before the big reveal.
A good idea that was well acted but in the end it was poorly executed.
My working knowledge of Shakespeare is scant at best. I did very little of Shakespeare at school, and what I do remember has probably been mixed up with film and TV productions. So imagine my trepidation when my girlfriend surprised me with tickets to Filter’s Macbeth, a Shakespearian play production which relies more on driving synth than on a clear coherent narrative. I usually find Shakespeare to be a rather dry subject, even when told on the big screen. However, I did enjoy Filter’s production of the “Scottish Play”, this was despite the at times difficult to follow narrative. I was aware of the curse which is said to follow Macbeth productions but I do not believe in such backward things. Curses are usually self-fulfilling, similar to the prophecy foretold to Macbeth by the three witches at the very beginning. The seed of power gets planted and Macbeth sees the opportunity to make it so, driven on by Lady Macbeth.
I was thoroughly impressed with the score which did well to keep up with the energetic performances of the six actors who danced, stalked and ran around the stage. Ferdy Roberts plays the ever maddening Macbeth whose journey from would be king to regicidal maniac is both full of explosive prose and domineering stage presence. The musical composition became the narrative with dark and often foreboding melodies that punctuated the traditional Macbeth story.
Image courtesy of the Citizen’s Theatre, Glasgow.
The minimal stage dressing, which consisted of a mess of wires sitting under two wooden tables, atop, sat a range of musical instruments. A Theremin, electro-chimes, a synth violin and synth keyboard set the tone of each scene. The tables became the focal point for the genesis and culmination of each scene. Everything goes through the music, the actual words just coming along for the ride.
What I enjoyed best about Filter’s production was the modern twist. Some of the exposition was told through radio broadcasts, which informed us of the major plot points. This gave the production a distinctly twentieth century feel that entertained a non-Shakespeare fan like me. However, I am sure that some purists would not enjoy this twist.
Having seen Filter’s production of Macbeth, I would definitely be more inclined to see more Shakespearian plays told in a similar fashion.
To some, the BBC provides a wonderful range of quality television, radio and online content. Indeed many are happy to pay for their TV licence as it funds this long standing institution. The current licence fee is £145.50 a year and goes towards the cost of programming and the high salaried TV stars that light up our living rooms. You can pay for your licence upfront in one no fuss, no hassle fee, or if you choose, you can spread the cost by paying in monthly instalments. The BBC, a private company, employs another private company in the form the TV Licensing who, on the BBC’s behalf, arrange for collection of payment and visit unlicensed addresses to make sure that the “current occupier” is obeying the law.
Do you need a TV licence? The TV Licensing Company state that “You need to be covered by a valid TV licence if you watch or record TV as it’s being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone, or DVD/video recorder”. If you do not have a television capable of receiving a live broadcast, then you are not required to get a TV licence. However, simply informing TV Licensing of this is not enough. This private company will insist on entering your property to see for themselves. A point to be remembered is that you have no obligation to allow them access to your property, nor are you obliged to tell them your name or whether or not your are the occupier of the property. The company then has three choices, they can either accept that you do not require a TV licence and leave you alone, continue to send you harassing letters with warnings and threats, or if that fails, they will apply to a judge to obtain a warrant to enter your premises to ascertain whether or not you require a TV licence. The third option is their last resort.
I spoke with a TV Licensing representative on their customer service helpline to ask what evidence would satisfy a judge that the occupier was watching or capable of receiving live television. I was advised that:
“They could obtain any evidence to send out a warrant so that’s information they have received from service providers, even by the signals if the signals have been checked or if someone has reported yourself”.
I asked if he meant the internet service provider:
“It could be from your television service provider.”
What if you do not have a television service provider? This question seemed to cause him some consternation and he advised that he would get the customer specialist unit to call me back to answer my questions but they never did. I was intrigued by his claim that television service providers give the TV Licensing company such sensitive information. I contacted Sky, BT and Virgin but thus far only Virgin have responded.
A Virgin Media Spokeswomen had this to say:
“We’ve looked into this and can confirm we do not share customer information with TV licensing authorities. Sometimes we may release information to public authorities but only to assist with an investigation or via a court order.”
It is entirely possible that the TV Licensing representative was mistaken so I will not hold what he said to be an actual practice of the TV Licensing, although I am still awaiting a response from BskyB and BT. In the meantime, I decided to contacted the TV Licensing press office to ask what evidence a judge requires to grant a warrant to enter a premises.
A TV Licensing spokesperson said:
“We only apply for a search warrant as a last resort and we state this on our website. Each application is considered scrupulously before it is submitted, and a warrant cannot be granted by the court unless there are reasonable grounds for the application.”
In addition to the official comment the spokesperson also advised that:
“TV Licensing apply to a magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland) for a search warrant when there is reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed, evidence of the offence is likely to be found on the premises and entry will not be granted unless a warrant is produced. We’re open about the fact we only apply for a search warrant as a last resort. We don’t give out specific examples of the type of evidence we might use to support a search warrant application, because this information might be useful to people looking to avoid paying the fee.”
Below is a cleverly edited video showing how the TV Licensing company work.
Evidence is likely to be found on the premises. Just remember that statement and remember that a TV Licensing agent has no authority to enter your premises. This means that by giving an agent no details, as to your identity, and refusing them access to your property, then they are unable to gather any evidence that they might present to a judge. I have asked for further clarification on what other evidence they might use, however, as you can see they are unwilling to let that information be known. I have, as a result of this response, made an FOI (Freedom of Information) request to ascertain exactly how many warrants the TV Licensing people apply for and how many are successful. Additionally, I have requested “what other evidence” might be used in order gain entry to your property. I will also be writing to the Sheriff officer for Glasgow to get their side of it, their processes, and how they evaluate the evidence presented by the TV Licensing company. I will keep you updated once I have received another response from my FOI request and I have spoken to the Sheriff Officer.
Good things come in small packages. The old cliché seems rather apt when describing the two short plays wonderfully produced by Cardboard Fox, an emerging Glasgow-based company, who focus on bringing lesser known and under-performed work to Scotland. Directed by Helen Cuinn, the double bill at Rose & Grant’s Café on the Trongate is part of the Glasgay Festival 20 Oct – 15 Nov 2014, a celebration of LGBT culture. If you would like to see what’s on during the festival, click here.
Mr & Mrs Laughton
Michael-Alan Read’s subtle performance as troubled genius, Charles Laughton, opens up the window into Laughton’s most secret of lives. Providing the anchor to Laughton’s wayward life is his long suffering wife Elsa Lanchester brought to life through a strong, yet eloquent performance by Angela Cassidy. We find ourselves in the 1930’s with Elsa telling the tale of the relationship with Charles from her point of view. Charles, as always, is more interested in his research for the many roles he has come to play than Elsa. The crippling self-doubt that overcomes Charles is balanced out by the devoted support and reassurance from Elsa. After two years of courting they are married.
Underneath the mask of a happy marriage lay the real tale. The ethos that you have to be yourself to be happy is never truer when the secret lives of Charles and Elsa are examined. And it is a message which will resonate with many today by those struggling with their identity.
Elsa is the real victim with Charles’ inner demons taking her along for the ride. Her love for him is never reciprocated. She misses out on the love that only a lover can provide. She was the rock to his pathetic genius, constantly running and hiding from problems. Elsa was the mother and Charles was the child.
The direction of the play expertly captures and emotes the feeling of pretence. Charles is tormented by having to hide his sexuality in an oppressive era and Elsa’s need to fulfil her alternative bohemian lifestyle makes for a jarring juxtaposition, which really stands out against the backdrop of a seemingly traditional marriage. While it is clear that she adores Charles, perhaps it is safe to say that he was an unconventional choice for a life mate. Both parts are acted brilliantly, with Cassidy providing the context to Read’s moody, childish outbursts.
The fluent dialogue of the here and now of the play is punctuated by flashbacks to events in the life of the pair. From their first meeting, the films and plays they shared, through to the death of Charles the central theme of the story emerges. An account of self-loathing and struggling with identity which is interwoven with clever, witty humour in the 1930’s vernacular.
The Madness of Lady Bright
Continuing the theme of self-loathing is Lanford Wilson’s “The Madness of Lady Bright”, a story revolving around one man’s descent into madness. Michael-Alan Read returns for the second show of the night as Leslie, an over the hill, cross-dressing homosexual living in a New York apartment. Playing Leslie’s personalities are the adaptable Martin McBride as “Boy” and Lynette Holmes as “Girl”, both of whom represent the feminine and masculine side of Leslie as well as complimenting the anxious performance from Read.
At the heart of the play is a sad story about a lost love being searched for but never replaced. The pursuit of happiness for this drag queen has twists and turns that leads us down the rabbit hole with unrelenting realism. It is an examination of the psyche of a soul tormented by his inability to be fully at peace with his own identity.
Not lost on the audience was the subtle use of music which coincided with a bout of sanity for Leslie, however, as the music came to an end his mania re-emerges out of the shadow. This is further punctuated by being full of confidence in himself before descending to become a self-hating critic.
From the start of the play you get the feeling that you are in a mad house, confronted with Leslie’s split personality. The mad scribbling on the walls of his rooms are the signatures of his lovers. His memories of days past, the folly of youth and of happier times represent the thin line between madness and sanity.
I was thoroughly impressed by Read’s performance, the dexterity with which he traversed the moods of Leslie were seamless. His ability to shift from one emotion to the other so violently was the driving force of the play. It ultimately leaves you examining your own life, your own decisions and your own demons. Leslie could not face up to his and it drove him mad, hoping that one day his lost love would return.
Despite calls for Nigel Farage to stay away from Scotland, UKIP’s anti-independence rally went ahead in the heart of Glasgow’s city centre. Farage and his cronies galloped into Scotland on their white steads to save a damsel in distress from an evil overlord. UKIP’s representatives from around the UK delivered speeches on economics, health service and defence. Inside the Laphroaig lounge and lecture theatre of the Teacher’s building in St Enoch Square sat journalists and members of the public. With the action kicking off at 18:30 with a press conference, which was supposed to be led by Nigel Farage and his trusty Scottish side kick, David Coburn, which set out UKIP’s motives for their rally. However, due to delays, the sidekick was given the lead role, with UKIP’s Head of Media, Alexandra Philips, claiming that Mr Farage was only ever going to be lending a supporting role to Mr Coburn. Alongside him were Henry Reilly and Nathan Gill representing UKIP for Northern Ireland and Wales respectively.
Nigel Farage recently claimed in an interview on American TV that “Salmond has stirred, amongst 16 – 24 year old Scots, a kind of anti-English hatred.” However, public protest against UKIP is not synonymous amongst Scots. There is a plethora of examples of angry protesters attacking UKIP events in England. UKIP have even gone as far as to demand that protesters who call them fascists should be locked up, the irony being completely lost in the process. In the same interview he claims “well over fifty per cent of the people in Scotland are living on benefits of some kind.”
I was hoping to ask Nigel Farage to substantiate these claims, however, due to his absence at the press conference, I instead put them to Mr Coburn. Not only asking him to clarify Farage’s claims, but also that his statement could in turn incite an anti-Scottish sentiment. Coburn stated that “He (Farage) does not claim infallibility so he may well have got it wrong.” NI UKIP representative, Henry Reilly asserted “what Nigel actually said was that fifty-one per cent of the people in Scotland claim one benefit or another and that is pretty much the norm for NI, Wales and England. It was a statement of fact that effects most of the UK.” However, I believe that Farage’s statement was intended to portray Scotland, and Scotland uniquely, as being a drain on the UK tax payer.
Coburn went on to argue that the fifty-one per cent of Scots on some kind of benefit shouldn’t even be happening. “Scotland has been run as a socialist model state for many, many years and it has been a financial catastrophe”. He continued “the SNP have made Scotland a no-go area for capitalism and a no-go area for people with ambition, UKIP aim to to change that.” Coburn claimed that UKIP are the only true unionist party left in the UK. A ‘yes’ vote could possibly serve to galvanise unionist sentiment in Scotland and when asked how he sees UKIP in an independent Scotland, he stated that “by 2016 UKIP would be leading a campaign for another act of union, this time one which will benefit England more”.
David Coburn left to deal with the press.
Coburn faced some tough questions from the other press members. He confirmed that since being elected as Scotland’s MEP he is yet to hold any surgeries in Scotland, despite claiming his full MEP salary, and has not yet bought a house in Scotland. When asked to explain his stated admiration for Vladimir Putin, Coburn replied “Vladimir Putin is doing a good job for his country, I do not think that he is a particularly nice guy, but he is particularly effective at turning Russia from being an anarchy into some sort of order. We do not admire that he has got an expansionist policy, however, the Ukrainian problem was not caused by Putin, but by the EU.”
In order to find out the location I had to register my interest through the UKIP press office. Attendance seemed dependent on pre-screening in place of the usual rally practices, which is normally to inform as many people as possible and hope for a large turnout. Inside the Laphroaig lecture theatre there were a few spare seats still available as the speeches got underway. The majority of the audience were made up by journalists, photographers, and official UKIP members, with a scattering of the public to give it a whiff of credibility.
“flegs”
In the event of a no vote, which UKIP hope is the case, they set out a plan for England to get a better deal out of the union. Farage believes that the Scottish independence debate has largely disregarded the concerns of the English and that they may pursue a constitutional settlement of their own. He also attacked the Yes campaign’s notion of independence stating that; “what is unarguable is that you cannot be an independent nation if you are a member of the European Union.” In that respect France is not an Independent country, nor is Belgium, Germany, or the Netherlands. However, each of these nations retain entire control of their own affairs. If Scotland can be as independent as any of these sovereign states then that can only be a good thing.
Could Farage be using the referendum debate as a smokescreen to drive support for getting out of the EU? His statements certainly seem to suggest so. “They are (Scottish citizens) being told they can be independent and be members of the European Union, if you are members of the EU, their courts are supreme over yours, it really is a false proposition”. As well as attacking the EU, he also claimed that David Cameron had fumbled the referendum from the start when he stated that:
“from the beginning I was astonished that the Prime Minister allowed for the separatists to be given the ‘yes’ side of the referendum question. Far better from his point of view, you would have thought, would have been to have asked the question “should Scotland remain part of the United Kingdom?” And to keep the positive on his side. But no, on this he blundered.”
Farage also criticised Cameron’s failure to include the Devo-Max option on the ballot paper, accusing him of being as “arrogant as Edward II was at Bannockburn.” You know…that time Scotland defeated the English to retain independence. Farage continually asserts that this referendum is not about independence for Scotland but, about separation from England. His words, he claims, are really pitched at disgruntled Labour voters who are considering voting ‘yes’.
So to Nigel Farage and UKIP in general, we Scots do not object to your Englishness, nor do we object to your pride in all things British. We simply reject your policies and your ideals as being at odds with a peaceful and welcoming society.
The rest of his speech can be found here Nigel Farage speech, however, he doesn’t say anything new.
Today I attended a Radical Independence Campaign (RIC) rally in Glasgow. Supporters of Scottish Independence were scheduled to meet at the top of Buchanan Street at 12pm with an expected turnout of 1000 people. The aim of the rally was to take over Glasgow and turn the city into a hub of information, stalls, outreach, and engagement for independence. With just a few days left until the registration deadline (September 2) the RIC pushed the importance of registering to vote and even provided the necessary forms. At just after noon, the attendees were organised on the steps of the Royal Concert Hall for the waiting press to snap their pictures. At this point a crowd began to mill around speaking to each other and taking pictures of the event.
Enthusiastic Yes activists then split up into three groups. Setting up stalls on Buchanan Street, Argyle Street and Sauchiehall Street with leaflets, flyers, and voter registration forms in hand. The streets were awash with throngs of shoppers who had gathered around the information stalls to debate with the campaigners.
RIC created a carnival atmosphere with friendly activists ready to answer any questions. The streets of Glasgow were buzzing with enthusiasm, not for Alex Salmond, the SNP, or any anti-English sentiment but for the desire for social change within Scotland.
Making an impassioned and articulate speech, Falkirk born novelist and playwright, Alan Bissett, made a strong case for Scottish Independence. Highlighting the need for social change, Bissett claimed that generations of past Scots have been denied the right to self-determination. Furthermore, that the referendum was the best chance that Scotland has ever had to take power from the ruling Westminster elite.
Bissett placed emphasis on the power being in Scotland’s hands and the uncertainty that the future holds. He also admitted that the future was full of risks, but that he would rather Scotland be in full control when facing those risks.
Full control would enable Scotland to have power over the renationalisation of the railway industry and Royal Mail, the axing of the bedroom tax, and the dismantling of the Trident Missile System.
Outlining how he thinks Scotland would be viewed in the event of a no vote, Bissett Claims that the ruling elites would not allow us this opportunity again. He then compares any thoughts of a future referendum for Scottish independence to Catalonia’s fight for independence from Spain. The Spanish Government continually refusing a referendum for the Catalans.
As a happy coincidence, Labour for Independence had set up a stall in the shadow of the statue of Donald Dewar, Scotland’s inaugural First Minister. However, they were keen to inform me that they had been campaigning from that spot for the past two weekends.
Labour for Independence are a grass roots campaign set up by Labour supporters and Labour party members who are unhappy at what Labour has become. Labour for Independence campaigner, Paul Patterson, stated;
“We are about making Labour a party for the people. It’s about getting back to the soul of Labour, what it started it out as. An independent Scotland gives us that opportunity.”
I also spoke to Alex Bell, chairman of Labour for Independence, to get a feel for who they are and why they support independence. Alex spoke about the loss of Labour principles, which he believes were sacrificed at the dawn of Tony Blair’s NuLabour. Alex firmly hopes that the Independence Referendum gives Labour for Independence the platform to bring the Labour party back to its founding values.
They envision a return to social and welfare policies designed to benefit of those who need it most. They aim to restore the confidence that working people once had in Labour.
Labour for Independence also believe that the independence campaign has given the disenfranchised a voice. Those who do not feel represented by Westminster now have the chance to make a change and have their say. This, according to Bell, explains the marked increase in voter registration in Scotland.
You may have heard the old cliché that the Clyde built Glasgow, and Glasgow built the Clyde. As cringe worthy as that may sound the evidence shows just how true that statement is.
The Clyde was the life blood of Glasgow and it is what led to the development of several of Glasgow’s earliest industries. It was Glasgow’s merchants who recognised the importance that the Clyde would play in the cities future.
It was the involvement of Glasgow’s merchants in the sugar and tobacco industries of colonial Britain in the Americas and the Caribbean which led to the growth of Glasgow as a major port city.
As a result of the merchant’s success, Glasgow saw the makings of its banking industry. The Arms Bank and Ship Bank, both built in 1750, and the Thistle Bank, built in 1761 had all been directly funded by the tobacco merchants of Glasgow.
The banks made money available for starting up industries based on coal, iron and steam. Ship building and repairing as well as engineering and cotton industries were also begun.
As Glasgow’s industries grew, so did her population. Thousands upon thousands of people came to Glasgow from rural areas in search of work. This helped develop the East End of Glasgow as a predominantly working class area.
The rich merchants seized the opportunity and provided low rent homes for their new workers. However, this posed another problem. With more people inhabiting the one area, there was more human waste, disease, and death.
To escape having to live in the same area as their workers, merchants expanded to the North West of the city, firstly, along what is now Bath Street and then into the Kelvingrove.
Development of the Clyde itself was led by the tobacco and sugar merchants. The shallowness of the river had meant that ships were forced to dock further down the river at Port Glasgow.
The goods would then make their way to the warehouses and workshops by smaller boats or road. However, if the ships could get up the Clyde it would increase profit for the merchants.
So in 1768 an engineer by the name of John Golbourne was given the task of making the Clyde more navigable for the trading ships.
He built one-hundred and seventeen jetties into the river for a distance of eight miles downstream from Glasgow Bridge which narrowed and thus deepened the river which made it flow faster.
This development allowed for the developing of Glasgow’s lucrative ship building industry.
Much of Glasgow’s technological advancement in other industries, such as coal mining, steel works, ship building and the railway industry can be attributed to the fortunes brought to the city by the involvement in the colonial trades.
Furthermore, the argument made by several historians is that colonial industries such as sugar, tobacco, rum and cotton, provided a platform for Britain and particularly Glasgow to industrialise.
Today many of Glasgow’s street names point to her colonial origins. Virginia Street, Jamaica Street and the Kingston Bridge owe their names to the tobacco and sugar trade.
Andrew Buchanan, major tobacco merchant in the eighteenth century gave his name to Buchanan Street.
John Glassford, Andrew Cochrane, and James Dunlop also give their names to Glasgow streets and all three were merchants in sugar and tobacco.
These are but a few street names which highlight Glasgow’s colonial past. Evidence for this is all around us.
For example, The Gallery of Modern Art (GOMA) at the Royal Exchange Square was built by another renowned tobacco merchant, William Cunningham.
A further post will reveal that the source of the Glasgow merchant’s wealth predominantly lay in the practice of slavery.
James Owens 