Many thanks to those who've emailed me about the Videojournalism story and video. Ta loads.
Friend rang me today; I use to shoot crime scenes for her which she showed in court to get her clients off. Learnt a particular way of shooting that meant I didn't break, that is no edits, and gave the jury a full view of what and where.
Anyhow's she's defending a case at the mo. This is er, something. A man called another man: you ****ard, prefixed by the colour of his skin. He is now being prosecuted and rightly so you might add for racial slurring.
The person who's alleged to have made the comment was black, the accused, white. Now, please I really don't want to get into the semantics, but for pure face value, it made me cock my head to one side. Why you'd say such a thing is one thing, why you'd have the presence of mind to prefix it with the aforementioned is another.
The rest is being dealt with in London court with severe penalties awaiting. Well you can't have it both ways? Can You?
On that very slippery slope of language and effects here's something I wrote some time back for the Humanist when Russel Simmons - the man who got rap music to where it is today - visited our uni and took questions from the audience. I really should post it. He said back then that he would rigorously defend an artsists right to say what they needed to say. The truth!
Reecently, though I heard he was leading a campaign to help clean up rap's image and its obdurate language.
"Cutting words, those blunt things that do harm and for what no other instrument can achieve".