when i grow up i shall learn to type
they would, wouldn't they
with her reference to them all fighting for a cause CUT
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: SNAP: Rioter prostrate
From: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, August 10, 2011 17:23
To: [log in to unmask]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree.
It occurred to me that they had taken exception to having a bottle of
champagne thrown at them. That's what she did. Apparently. I wasn't there.
See a cat running from a riot and I'll be ahead of it. But apparently she
threw what would have been a heavy bottle at them.
It occurred to me that they had had enough of the whole thing,
understandably, and took that out on her.
Part of my inclination to write such a verse, in so far as I willed it,
was that the incident did not, as far as I know, make it on to broadcast
media; yet it seems to me to fit entirely within the classification
_unacceptable_
If that can apply to rioters despite the fact that we can find causes for
riot, it can apply to this. Our leaders would have us believe that there
is a thing called criminality which just occurs without explanation. Well,
they wouldn't, wouldn't they.
There was a video of a local woman in the middle of a London riot cussing
the rioters - it's on youtube, I remember - and I read on another
discussion that it went out on bbc but with her reference to them all
fighting for a cause, which would have altered it politically i.e.
censorship -- yes, we want to hear your outrage but we don't want to hear
your analysis
I am in the middle of my own complaint against Martha Kearney on our 1 pm
R4 News for when, normally apparently rational, she laid into a teachers'
union leader, politically, without justification; so I am alert for such
things
There are many angles, I am sure. Yet I cannot think of any angle which
would justify what happened in this situation -- unless, of course, she
was assailed by stinging insects, with fast-acting lethally poisonous
stings, which had to be swatted
L
On Wed, August 10, 2011 16:57, Douglas Barbour wrote:
> Tough, but just one snap of many?
>
>
> How many different angles will there be?
>
>
> Doug
> On 2011-08-10, at 5:27 AM, Lawrence Upton wrote:
>
>
>> Strong boys of blue
>> take it in turns to hit one girl with their truncheons.
>>
>> Fifteen armed lads!
>> But no one dies;
>> so that’s all right; hitting the slag
>>
>> for defiance and violence against brave thugs in whom one trusts.
>>
>> Not all at once:
>> one at a time; and then they’re posed in photographs:
>>
>> some boys in red, the colour splashed, into glory.
>>
>> Each fears his life
>> is in danger. So it’s all right.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> UNFRAMED GRAPHICS by Lawrence Upton
>> 42 pages; A5 paperback; colour cover
>> Writers Forum 978 1 84254 277 4
>> wfuk.org.uk/blog ----
>> Lawrence Upton
>> Dept of Music
>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>>
>>
>
> Douglas Barbour
> [log in to unmask]
>
> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
> http://eclecticruckus.wordpress.com/
>
>
> Latest books:
> Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
> Wednesdays'
> http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10
> .html
>
>
> It is natural to speak of your own weaknesses so winsomely they will seem
> strengths, as if everyone else is inadequate if they do not have your
> inadequacies.
>
> William H. Gass
>
>
-----
UNFRAMED GRAPHICS by Lawrence Upton
42 pages; A5 paperback; colour cover
Writers Forum 978 1 84254 277 4
wfuk.org.uk/blog
----
Lawrence Upton
Dept of Music
Goldsmiths, University of London
-----
UNFRAMED GRAPHICS by Lawrence Upton
42 pages; A5 paperback; colour cover
Writers Forum 978 1 84254 277 4
wfuk.org.uk/blog
----
Lawrence Upton
Dept of Music
Goldsmiths, University of London
|