Danny Robins has a voice like Tony Blair and loves Sweden with the same intensity as does David Cameron and his "free" school sidekick, Michael Gove.

Like me, Danny is married to a Swede. Yet the Sweden that he conjures up in BBC Radio 4's The Swedish Invasion is no place that I've ever visited.(1)

But then again, unlike Danny Robins, I've never exterminated an elk in Eksjö...

In his programme Danny salivates about the land that "gave us IKEA, Volvo and Abba". It is, of course, also the country that rocks our world with top-design products like Saab AB's Carl Gustav 84mm Recoilless Rifle: "The best multi-purpose weapon there is".(2)

This globally exported grenade launcher is in fact so potent that it shares its name with the king of Sweden.

Alas, there was no time for Danny to discuss Sweden's burgeoning weapons export industry.(3) This is a real pity because, if he had focused on this aspect of "the Swedish invasion", he might have squeezed in an interview with Sweden's former defence minister, Sten Tolgfors. Mr Tolgfors resigned yesterday in the wake of reports that he had sanctioned covert Swedish support for the construction of a weapons factory in Saudi Arabia.(4)

But why should we trouble our pretty blonde heads with such things? It's far nicer to seek out a snug, "mysig” IKEA-furnished corner and lose oneself in Steig Larsson's cosy world of rape and murder.

Pure fiction, Danny, eller hur?

____
Notes

(1) Jo Wheeler (producer), The Swedish Invasion, "An Unique" production for BBC Radio 4, broadcast 30/03/2012 and available to listen for seven days. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010k2f6.
(2) "Carl-Gustaf M3 - Weapon System: The best multi-purpose weapon there is", http://www.saabgroup.com/Land/Weapon-Systems/support-weapons/Carl_Gustaf_M3_weapon_system.
(3) Read more about this explosive aspect of the "Swedish Invasion" in my soon-to-be-published paper, "Banal Nordism: Recomposing an Old Song of Peace".
(4) "Swedish Defence Minister Tolgfors quits over Saudi deal", BBC News, 29/032012, accessed 30/03/2012 at, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17548390.

jerrican | jerrycan, n.
http://oed.com/view/Entry/101102
"A five-gallon (usu. metal) container for petrol, water, etc., of a type first used in Germany and later adopted by the Allied forces in the war of 1939–45."

pasty, n.
http://oed.com/view/Entry/138659
"Originally: a pie of seasoned meat, esp. venison, enclosed in a pastry crust and baked without a dish (obs.). In later use: a small pastry case folded to enclose a (usually savoury) filling, similar to a turnover."

I am a republican with little interest in the pharmaceutical industry. This summer will therefore be a testing time for me, what with London hosting the Olympic Games and the British monarch celebrating her diamond jubilee.

Fortunately these two events are only temporary. They will, however, leave lasting legacies. One such is the 175,000 m2 Westfield Stratford City shopping centre. Britain’s gold medal haul would really rocket if the "Retail Relay" were to become an Olympic event.

Heaven on earth is now a reality for the shoppers of London.

Meanwhile, another legacy project has yet to be accomplished. And, in an effort to help ensure that it remains that way, I have rushed to my keyboard with the same zeal as a drug-fuelled athlete reacting to the boom of the starting pistol.

For it grieves me to report that a group of cretinous politicians are proposing to turn the Houses of Parliament's "Big Ben" into the "Elizabeth Tower" in honour of our dear old queen.(1)

Now, a number of arguments can be deployed to support this obsequious suggestion.

Firstly, the name change wouldn't really matter. The vast majority of locals and visitors would continue to mistakenly refer to it as "Big Ben". Its proper – and far more mundane title – is simply "the Clock Tower". Big Ben alludes to its great bell, which in turn is probably a reference to the politician and engineer, Sir Benjamin Hall (1802-67).

Secondly, the re-christening would bring this iconic symbol in line with the Victoria Tower on the other side of the building. This erection takes its name from Queen Victoria, Britain's erstwhile longest-serving monarch.

Ditching Ben in favour of Liz would add yet another royal epithet to the Houses of Parliament – or, to give it its formal designation: the New Palace at Westminster. This title reflects the fact that Sir Charles Barry's architectural fantasy arose from the ashes of the old palace. Only Westminster Hall survived the inferno that engulfed this ancient edifice in 1834.

The centuries-old Westminster Hall is skilfully integrated into Barry's neo-gothic design. Earlier this month the queen paid it a visit in order to witness the unveiling of a stained-glass window to mark her jubilee.(2)

As she looked up at this glittering tribute, I wonder if she spared a thought for Charles I? For it was in that very same building way back in January 1649 that this soon-to-be-beheaded monarch was put on trial – and sentenced to death.

Charles's nemesis was Oliver Cromwell.

Cromwell was still causing a right royal rumpus two centuries later. This was in relation to the decorative scheme planned for the New Palace at Westminster. If you look carefully you'll see that parliament's façade is festooned with statues of the various kings and queens that have ruled England and Britain through the ages.

This carved history posed a dilemma to its designers: what should be done about Cromwell?

For the sake of historical accuracy and completeness he ought to have been slotted in between Charles I (executed in 1649) and his son, Charles II (restored to the throne in 1660).

But placing a regicide in a royalist pantheon proved to be a commemorative step too far.(3) Cromwell was sculpturally excised from British history. Not until the very end of the 19th century was the Lord Protector rewarded with a statue. He stands there to this day: at one remove, deep in thought and with his back turned to parliament.(4)

So, whether you like it or not, Cromwell is part of Britain's political and monarchical history. If "Big Ben" must have new nomenclature, then it should from this year on be known as "Cromwell Tower".

What better way to mark Queen Elizabeth's jubilee? A silent admonition not only to this monarch but to all her heirs: they occupy positions of privilege and power not by right but by accidents of birth.

Other, far less anachronistic and slightly more democratic systems are possible.

The Cromwell Tower will remind the House of Windsor and all their subjects that we should not take the status quo for granted.

God Save the Queen!

____
Notes
(1) James Chapman, "Bong! Will Big Ben tower be renamed after the Queen? MPs call for the London landmark to be renamed for the Diamond Jubilee", Daily Mail, 23/03/2012, accessed 25/03/2012 at, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118999/Big-Ben-renamed-Elizabeth-Tower-Queen.html.
(2) Jon Craig, "Westminster To Honour Queen's Diamond Jubilee", Sky News, 20/03/2012, accessed 25/03/2012 at, http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16192187.
(3) The phrase "A regicide in a royalist pantheon" appears in the fifth chapter of my PhD, which concerned the commemorative history and symbolism of parliament and the adjacent square. See Stuart Burch, On Stage at the Theatre of State: The Monuments and Memorials in Parliament Square, London (Nottingham Trent University, 2003).
(4) The stupendous statue of Cromwell - with bible in one hand and sword in the other - was made by Sir William Hamo Thornycroft RA (1850-1925) and completed (without an unveiling ceremony) in 1899. Ever since 1950 he has stood face-to-face with a lead bust of Charles I inserted into a niche on the façade of St. Margaret's Church opposite...
     ... as can be seen below:

"Every day is a new day.
Tomorrow isn't that important,
yesterday wasn't that important.
I really am thinking about today."

Andy Warhol,
The Philosophy of Andy Warhol:
From A to B and Back Again
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975, p.6

Yesterday I commented on one of the ways in the British government's budget for 2012 "limits use of tax reliefs and tackles [tax] avoidance."(1) There now exists a cap of 25% of income on those seeking tax relief of more than £50,000.

Included amongst these nasty tax-avoidance scams is charitable giving.

This, I argued, contradicts the government's clearly stated wish to see large increases in the amounts of money wealthy philanthropists give to the arts.

A day later and this contradictory state of affairs becomes even more perplexing. It has been reported that Jeremy Hunt - the culture secretary - has decided to get rid of the current chair of Arts Council England, Dame Liz Forgan.(2)

Hunt wants to appoint someone better suited to "increasing the amount of private giving to the arts".(3)

Rather than jettisoning the Labour-appointed head of the Arts Council, perhaps Mr Hunt would be wiser to look for scapegoats amongst his specious colleagues at the Treasury?

____
Notes
(1) Stuart Burch, "Biting the hand that feeds", 22/03/2012, available at, http://www.stuartburch.com/1/post/2012/03/biting-the-hand-that-feeds.html.
(2) Charlotte Higgins, "Liz Forgan asked to quit Arts Council England when term ends", The Guardian, 23/03/2012, accessed 23/03/2012 at, http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2012/mar/23/liz-forgan-arts-council-england.
(3) "Jeremy Hunt to appoint new chair of Arts Council England", press release 035/12, 23 March 2012, available at, http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/8936.aspx.

Yesterday was budget day. How thrilling!

George Osborne, the British chancellor of the exchequer (i.e. finance minister), has now delivered his annual budget to the braying mob in the houses of parliament.

In the light of my own particular interests, I searched his report for sexy words like "museums", "culture" and "heritage". The welter of problems facing the economy meant that these were hardly likely to feature very heavily.

However, one aspect of note did crop up. This concerned charitable donations made by wealthy philanthropists. It transpires that tax relief on this sort of giving is now capped at £50,000, or 25% of the giver's annual income.

Why do this? The answer, it appears, is in order to "curtail... excessive use of [tax] reliefs."(1)

And yet, mindful of the negative impact this might have, the Budget Report is quick to add:

      The Government will explore with philanthropists ways to ensure that this measure
      will not impact significantly on charities that depend on large donations.(2)

Let's hope that their exploration is a fruitful one! The Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) fears that the measure might "strangle" major donations.(3)

Given recent reductions in state support for culture and the present administration's supposed interest in non-governmental "big society" initiatives, it is surely bewildering that a disincentive of this nature should be introduced at this time.

Can any charitable soul kindly explain the logic behind this sort of political schizophrenia?

Please note, however, that they must not under any circumstances devote more than 25% of their time to coming up with a plausible answer.

____
Notes
(1) Budget 2012, §1.192 (available at http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget2012_complete.pdf).
(2) Budget 2012, §1.193.
(3) "Budget 2012: Charities could lose big donors", BBC News, 21/03/2012, accessed 21/03/2012 at, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17458362.

william C burroughs
william U burroughs
william T burroughs
william    burroughs
william U burroughs
william P burroughs

We're all copyright criminals.

I can't imagine anyone reading this blog could put hand on heart and claim to be completely innocent of contravening the laws governing intellectual property. How many of us can say with any confidence that they actually understand what the rules are anyway? What percentage of the material on this website is unlawful? Am I at risk of being dragged off to the United States like Mr Dotcom, the founder of the now deceased Megaupload?

The rise of an entity such as Megaupload must make the publishing industry look back longingly to the lost innocence of the analogue age. Yet even those more tranquil times were plagued by dastardly pirates. As a young boy I spent many hours recording my brother's LPs onto audio cassettes. Occasionally I would come across the dire warning that "home taping is killing music". This struck me as absurd then. It sounds even more contemptible today.

Nevertheless, copyright has always been a deeply contentious issue. A recent case reported in The Art Newspaper captures this perfectly. A British judge has apparently ruled that a photograph used on packs of a certain brand of delicious tea has broken the law. The guilty illustration shows a red London bus driving harmlessly across Westminster Bridge with a desaturated black and white image of the Houses of Parliament in the background. This is similar yet really very different to an existing photograph that uses the same sort of effect.

The Art Newspaper has been quick to criticise this judgement "for moving into the realm of protecting ideas, rather than the expression of ideas" and fears that "[t]he ruling could have serious implications for artists who reproduce parts of other photographs."(1)

I am indeed fearful for my namesake, Stewie Griffin who adopts a similar technique in the gorgeous video accompanying his quite stunning cover of Bryan Adams' power ballad, "(Everything I Do) I Do It for You"(2).

                                                             *

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reports on the popularity of Pinterest, a resource that allows its nearly 18 million users to "pin" web images to their own virtual scrapbook. This, as the newspaper rightly points out, is a legal minefield.

The newspaper characterises how Pinterest works as follows:

        Each subscriber [to Pinterest] curates a board or boards of photos, and then other users can
        click on the links to the original source and choose to re-pin the image on boards of their own.(3)

This has very strong echoes of John Berger's Ways of Seeing, in particular Berger's thoughts on children and adults "curating" museum postcards on a bedroom or office wall.(4) Berger argued provocatively and persuasively that, "[l]ogically, these boards should replace museums"(5).

And so, forty years after the publication of Ways of Seeing, technology now allows Berger's vision to become a reality.

Let's just hope that none of the resulting collages of "curated" collections feature iconic red objects set prominently against a familiar black-and-white background. Otherwise the copyright cops will be kicking down bedroom doors in search of seditious scrapbooks, curatorial criminals and the occasional tea leaf.(6)

More tea, Stewie?

____
Notes

(1) Anny Shaw, "Landmark ruling to be challenged: Why a British judge decided that an image of a bus on Westminster Bridge infringed copyright", The Art Newspaper, Issue 233, 14 March 2012, accessed 18/03/2012 at, http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/-Landmark-ruling-to-be-challenged/25891.
(2) Family Guy, "Ocean's Three and a Half", season 7, episode 7, first broadcast 15 February 2009. See http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Ocean%27s_Three_and_a_Half, accessed 18/03/2012.
(3) Therese Poletti, "Is Pinterest Like Napster on Copyrights?",  The Wall Street Journal, 15 March 2012, p. 19.
(4) See Emily McEwan's synopsis of Berger's Ways of Seeing at, http://emilymay.wordpress.com/research-papers/john-bergers-ways-of-seeing/, accessed 18/03/2012.
(5) John Berger, Ways of Seeing, BBC & Penguin, 1972/2008, p. 30.
(6) With this in mind, Sweden's Moderna Museet ought to watch out when it comes to its black, white and red photography collection. See Stuart Burch, "Seeing red", 25/09/2011, accessed 18/03/2012 at, http://www.stuartburch.com/1/post/2011/09/seeing-red.html.