Brixton article in Evening Standard today

[dogmatique]

I think not. I don't agree with the shape or tone, or even the necessity of the article - but insinuating that he's made it up doesn't help anyone's argument.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

How many people have done that? I can only think of one. I, for instance, pointed out that practically nothing in it was verifiable, and observed that this was an editorial issue- i.e. you should be very cautious (assuming you wanted responsible journalism) about publishing articles like this.

 

[IntoStella]

Let's get this in perspective - you make yourselves sound a bit ridiculous by insisting that crime doesn't happen in Brixton. Are you really saying that it's made up?

Please - we all agree that the guy's not really helped himself, but for fuck's sake!

I've had the misfortune to have been mugged in Brixton, and an unfortunate number of my aquintences have too - don't start a Stalinist denial of the facts.

The problem is is that this was an another article about Brixton's "problems" when it could just as easily have been an article about Hackney, or fucking Hainault or Notting Hill or ANYWHERE in London, but again they choose Brixton.

Don't marginalise yourelf with crass denial and conspiracy. There's plenty of rational reasons why this story is wrong - but don't deny that it did and does happen.

What is your problem?

As WoW has pointed out, only a fuckwit would infer that I was saying there was no crime in Brixton.

If you honestly think the Standard wouldn't make up a story like this then you are terminally naive. As someone suggested to me last night, it reads like a hotchpotch of hearsay and distorted accounts of god knows how many different people's experiences over god knows how long, cooked up to look like the personal experience of one bloke and his girlfriend over a short period of time.

Everybody else has been broadly in agreement about this. Why you have to wade in with wild accusations of Stalinismm is anybody's guess.

 

[IntoStella]

Exactly. As is the Academy shooting piece. Nice blokes or not, whatever, they are both shite pieces of journalism. For that, they should both be ashamed.

For once we're completely in agreement. Reading both articles one after the other made me feel thoroughly sick.

 

[dogmatique]

Well stating that you don't think Joe Hills exists, despite having a picture of the Jimmy Carr look-a-like fop in front of you smacks of wilful denial, regardless of your opinion of his Brixton-hatchet job. It does however, rather denegrate your perfectly reasonable objections to the Sub-Standard's editorial policy of trouncing everything that isn't Kensington and Chelsea.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Hang on though, just because you've seen a photo with someone's name attached to it don't mean the name is real or that it necessarily belongs to the picture.

 

[IntoStella]

Hang on though, just because you've seen a photo with someone's name attached to it don't mean the name is real or that it necessarily belongs to the picture.

Even if the person in the photo is actually called Joe Hill, it doesn't mean he wrote a word of the story, which, after all, has 'ES hack' written all over it. They have a long history of completely fabricating stories about Brixton*. He is very likely to have been paid simply to put his face and name to the story. Has he ever actually been a Brixton resident? I wonder.


*It is only about a year ago that they ran a story describing hundreds of 'ravers' flocking to a 'warehouse party' down a Coldharbour lane lined with burned out cars.

 

[Pie 1]

Was the picture a by-line image in the paper? ( I only read the article here) If it was, I doubt even the sub standard would risk placing fake identities in their papers. I may be being naive here but surely that would be running foul of legal considerations?

Anyway doesn't one of their news ed's or letters people patrol this board? Can they confirm it one way or t'other for us.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I may be being naive here but surely that would be running foul of legal considerations?

I shouldn't think so. It's making false claims about other people (though not, apparently, places) which would be the cause of legal difficulties.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

The Standard also ran a story a couple of years or so ago purporting to be interviews with people in Brixton that consisted almost entirely of posts lifted from Urban...unfortunately the plagiariser mistook jokes and irony for truth.

 

[editor]

*It is only about a year ago that they ran a story describing hundreds of 'ravers' flocking to a 'warehouse party' down a Coldharbour lane lined with burned out cars.

I tell you! As soon as I step out my door these days, I can't move for flocking ravers and burnt out cars.

Something should be done about it, I tell ya!

 

[IntoStella]

For pity's sake! Will these flocking ravers not think of the property prices?!!

 

[suzee blue cheese]

Given that the piece seems to imply that there's a reaction against recently arrived white residents in Brixton

LOL - There IS a reaction - you need look no further than this board.

Assuming the story to be largely based in fact, the motivation for publishing is surely the point. Colour, class and occupation shouldn't really factor and doesn't justify the intimidation this person was subjected to. Dogmatique's point echoes pretty much what I feel. I'm amazed so many of you have managed to build yourselves up to hate this person based on nothing much stronger than conjecture about who he is and what he does for a living.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Assuming the story to be largely based in fact

A dangerous assumption with any article printed in the Standard ime

 

[William of Walworth]

You're missing the point suzee I think. It's not that he's a journalist in itself, nor that people wouldn't sympathise with ANYONE, journalist or not, who really was subjected to a horrendous experience.

It's just the journalistic (or as Justin more accurately puts it, the editorial) standards, or lack of them, involved.

There are no verifiable details, location, etc., and as several have stated, it could easily have been a real incident but exaggerated and sensationalised, or a cannibalisation of several different inicidents. It also (to me) has the whiff of secondhand hearsay, maybe of several different incidents, from several of my mates when they were chatting to me over a white wine ...

The 'hate' (more accurately, invective??) isn't directed (or shouldn't be, and to me it isn't, predominantly) directed towards the bloke Joe Hills as such, but much more to his possible ahem sleight of 'journalistic' hand, and much much more towards the distorting, sensationalising lying newspaper that he works for, that encorages/allows articles like this with demonstrably dodgy and dubious 'facts' and details unchecked and anecdotes unquestioned by the editor(s), the editor(s) being very happy to believe sensationalist exaggeration because it fits in with their editorial, social and politcal prejudices.

 

[William of Walworth]

Just a note of balance here ...

I think you've got an interesting point there.

I take what passes for journalism in the ES with a hefty pinch of salt. I've lived near, & been familiar with Brixton since the early 80s & have had dozens of friends who've lived there, & I've NEVER heard of this sort of thing in terms of the racist element. Also, as lots of people have already pointed out, criminal damage & intimidation by gangs of anti-social arseholes is hardly confined to Brixton & the ES's sub-text - that it is - is despicable. You could put that sort of negative spin on many bits of inner London but oh no, the ES has to choose Brixton.

If what the guy has written is all true, however, the "blame the victim" approach taken by some people on this thread is equally despicable.

This is a thoroughly good post.

I think we should be careful to remember oryx's last sentence -- it is perfectly possible that a version of this incident happened to this bloke or to his mates. OK so it could very well have been souped up and sensationalised with possible other incidents mixed in later, BUT however stupidly or counterproductively Hills or his mates reacted, it's not right to blame the vitim ... I'm very sensitive both around these boards and elsewhere of 'blame the victim' suggestions ('just ignore them') etc.

Adolescent or teenage youths can be nasty and unpleasant bullies -- anywhere, not just in Brixton.

The likely sensationalism and exaggeration of this story, and the inaccurate particular asignment of it to Brixton alone, is thoroughly shit as I've already said, but it serves to discredit our dislike of journalistic inaccuracy if we just react that the bloke 'should have handled it better' (luckily most of the criticisms have been about the journalism, not about the journalist personally so much ... )

I should have handled bullies better, at school, 25-30 years ago. To some people today, some of them on the website (fuckers!), the fact that my confidence has been lastingly scarred by those years is my fault for not 'just ignoring them'

 

[William of Walworth]

Back to the 'journalism'

Thoughts about Hills article. It's slightly odd in that the key incident that's made him decide to move out and change his personality into the bargain wasn't actually witnessed by him.

The trigger seems to have been a look that 'Tim' gave the yoof, but 'he really can't remember'.

Why when 'Lisa's' car was being smashed did Tim 'play the incident down in the call to the police'?

Odd too that Hills didn't try to get the other side of the story for his piece. Apparently they only live on the other side of his street. Doesn't seem to have called the cops for a quote either. Given that the piece seems to imply that there's a reaction against recently arrived white residents in Brixton I'm a little suprised he didn't trouble either councillors or an MP.

Sorry Mr Hills; dinner party journalism is what this is, not proper reporting.

Spot on hendo ...

 

[William of Walworth]

Getting back to the Evening Standard article, the question I would like to be answered is where and when did the event take place. Did anyone notice a car being smashed up by a mob of kids in the street? Not exactly an everyday event in my part of Brixton.

The incident sounds horrific for those concerned, whatever their occupation. The trouble is that from personal experience I don't believe a word of anything that appears in the Standard.

Just to put it on the record as someone who is, incidentally, white and middle class - the article bears no relationship whatsoever to my experience of living in central Brixton for the past 20 years. I am sorry to hear about anyone's bad experiences but my main conclusion is that the sooner the author of the article leaves Brixton the better off we will all be.

And spot on happyshopper.

No dogmatique, happy s. is NOT (as far as I see) denying that crime exists in Brixton, I read that more that he had never himself experienced crime in the way it was described in that article -- different thing altogether ....

I also concur with others who have found it hard to believe that a threat of rape happend, a threat though that the person subjected to it was happy to forget about later ...

 

[hatboy]

The reaction is happening. I agree.

It is an unfocused, although ultimately justified reaction.

It's too easy to react to the surface we see - skin - black or white - you haven't thought everything through when you are 16! The problems brewing here are actually about great divisions in wealth. And they are about the sense of entitlement, which IS racist (and has been in history) that some of the richer more arrogant recent white arrivals bring.

This thing I go on about - "we're here now, shut up, your music is too loud, go away, you're scary, arrest that man, he sells weed..... get off my property" - this is happening. And it pisses the accepting people of Brixton off, both black and white.

Trouble is that when the violence comes, and it probably will because things are so, so divided here, alot of innocent people will get caught up in it.

If I were you (not me, you) I'd sell your house now Suzee. Really.

The Evening Standard and the dark right wing forces that control it want people to fight. Then they can say "we must make laws to keep the scary, dangerous people down and protect the nice people"

That enables more control. That's what this is about. That's what it's all about. Keeping people scared of eachother, keeping control.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I dreamed I read Joe Hills last night.

Steady on, Daphne!

 

[ViolentPanda]

I tell you! As soon as I step out my door these days, I can't move for flocking ravers and burnt out cars.

Something should be done about it, I tell ya!

I suppose you'll be wanting the ravers to get the flock out of there?

 

[Stobart Stopper]

3 letters in today's edition about Mr Hills!

 

[rennie]

what were they saying?

 

[Stobart Stopper]

One, from a black bloke, explaining that what happened to Hills was racism..........but he and his family have had to live with that ever since they came here.

Another one is from a bloke in Woodford who said he caught kids kicking in his brand new car. "If Joe Hills decided to leave bohemian Brixton, he would do well to chosse his next community wisely, leafy suburbs offer no solace from yobs."

There is one from some other bloke, agreeing with Hills."we have seen the pernicious effects of both the hip-hop gangsta lifestyle and the liberal response to racism."

 

[suzee blue cheese]

You're missing the point suzee I think. It's not that he's a journalist in itself, nor that people wouldn't sympathise with ANYONE, journalist or not, who really was subjected to a horrendous experience.

I do get your point William, but I was, I suppose, side-stepping the point about the journalistic integrity of the ES and whether this story is not true/part true or all true. Veracity aside, assuming there to be some truth in the story, I was purely addressing the sentiment contained in some of the posts which seemed to be saying the guy got what he deserved, he's a journo wanker and attracted it to himself. Not only that but he was a new-comer and white and middle class. Hoisted, then by his own petard. Bastard must have had it coming

There is a growing gang culture in London, Brixton is no exception. Stockwell Park has had its own crew for some years - some of whom were responsible for entrapping and repeatedly raping two young girls whose lives were subsequently made a misery because they went on to point a finger. Some groups of kids are intimidating (whichever town they happen to be in), well aware of the power they hold and what they're likely to be able to get away with. You've only got to look at the work of a place like Kid's Company to realise that for some kids life doesn't smile and some of them learn to deal with life by hitting out first.

So, knowing this, the situation described in the article (for all it's flaws) is not unimaginable.

And Hatboy, you're quite right, no one understands Brixton like you do. I don't think I'll be taking up your suggestion, and moving any time soon. Thanks for the input though. The fact that I may express a negative view of life in Brixton from time to time is probably as much coloured by the fact I go through periods of depression as anything else. But then you've been such a good mate for so many years you understand that, don't you. LOL..

 

[hatboy]

"And Hatboy, you're quite right, no one understands Brixton like you do. I don't think I'll be taking up your suggestion, and moving any time soon. Thanks for the input though. The fact that I may express a negative view of life in Brixton from time to time is probably as much coloured by the fact I go through periods of depression as anything else. But then you've been such a good mate for so many years you understand that, don't you. LOL"

Now I know why your boyfriend rang me up tonight and called me a cunt. I wasn't telling you to "get out" I was acknowledging, having read your posts, that you possibly have had enough of this area. And you might find that your house is worth more now than when more division causes an uprising here.

I honestly wasn't meaning to be nasty to you if that's what you felt. As for friendship. We seem to get on when we see eachother (and I've always liked Hipipol alot) but neither of us contacts the other regularly. That is down to both of us. I mean, when did you last ring me for a chat.

This is an example of how crap this form of communication is. No tone.

Perhaps it's not a good idea for me to post again. As we all read what we expect to hear from others we know on here, rather than exactly what they intended, which would be clear face to face.

Does anything in my previous post strike you as untrue? Truth is my intention.

So was Hipipol calling me a cunt on the phone cos he was cross then? At the time I just thought he was being matey. That's why I sent back a message with a wink.

By the way. I do not imagine I know it all about Brixton. But I can't be bothered to explain more than that. It is a waste of time justifying myself on here and I can live with people thinking shit about me.

Those who REALLY know me know my heart is increasingly loving and my mind increasingly free.

The rest can think what they like. I hope very much you are able to feel better through your depression Suzee. I mean that.

 

[William of Walworth]

There is one from some other bloke, agreeing with Hills."we have seen the pernicious effects of both the hip-hop gangsta lifestyle and the liberal response to racism."

Ernesto lives!!!!


( sorry .... )

 

[suzee blue cheese]

HB: Check your pms.

 

[detective-boy]

As soon as I step out my door these days, I can't move for flocking ravers ...

It's when they go you should start worrying! Legend has it that if there are not at least six ravers flocking in Brixton then the Barrier Block and the Monarchy itself will fall.

Or maybe that was ravens ... and somewhere else entirely ...

 

[detective-boy]

Communication ...

This is an example of how crap this form of communication is. No tone.

In any personal interaction about 55% of the messages passed from one to the other are based on non-verbal communication (body language). Another 38% of the messages are based on "paralanguage" (i.e. HOW we use our words - tone, volume, etc.) and only some 7% relies on the actual words we use. FACT!

That is why purely written communication (such as this) is very, very liable to misinterpretation as we have 93% of our usual communication skills unavailable to us.

I've seen dozens, no, probably hundreds, of examples of misinterpretation on these boards the vast, vast majority of which would simply not have happened had people been talking face-to-face.

Checking meaning before responding might help!