May 2004

This chap has just started up his boards. Pay a visit and drop in ….

Oh no!! I think if this catches on, and I really hope it doesn’t, corporate Glastonbury and the like, will find it very useful. It will keep out the riff-raff eh?

Patrick Barkham

Saturday May 22, 2004

The Guardian,3604,1222291,00.html

You stroll past the queue outside and walk straight into the club slowing down to flash your arm past an electronic scanner. At the bar you claim your vodka tonic by flexing your triceps at the bar staff and even the door to the chillout room opens automatically when you approach.

It may not be for the squeamish but clubbers who want to dodge queues and get VIP treatment every night at a Spanish nightclub can have a microchip implanted in their left arm.

The chip, a radio frequency identification device the size of a grain of rice, gives members instant access to the VIP lounge at the Baja Beach Club, a popular haunt for British revellers. Injected into the upper left arm, it also allows them to reserve tables or pay for drinks by flexing their triceps in front of an electronic reader. The scheme is the brainchild of Conrad Chase, an American entrepreneur who owns the 3,000-capacity club in Barcelona.

The glass chip is injected by a licensed nurse at the club in a simple operation that costs £83. The chipped clubber is then given a 100 credit to spend at the bar.

Mr Chase said the operation reflected the club’s “philosophy of originality”.

“The club will know who you are and what your credit balance is,” he said.

He said the chip was anonymous and the information on it could not be accessed without a unique ID number.

But civil liberties groups sounded a warning. “Why would anyone want to have a minor surgical operation to get a drink more quickly?” said Barry Hugill of Liberty.

“If you are happy to be surgically implanted you must be aware of the dangers – you may be able to get served more quickly but it could also mean someone could stalk or monitor you.”

Mr Chase said only a handful of clubbers had so far decided to have the implant, and the club does not allow the operation to be performed in the early hours – which is the only time most pluck up the courage to have done.

Have just been to the Contemporary Arts Degree Show. &

The Performance at The Powerhouse, Victoria Studios, Nottingham Trent University.

The work of a student Jess Sutton used this kit, and I asked her to see it in action.

Here is some of the info I found out about it.


and the brochure PDF at:

and their press release at:

Earlier info on my blog at about the use of this kit:


I want one !!!!!!

I still use Kodak Carousels for my ‘still photography’ work.

Video Projection on buildings on the Canal Waterside, Nottingham

Starting out at the Yorkshire Bridge up to Bamford Edge SK205848 then across open country to High Neb at SK228855. What views! All the way to Edale, Loose Hill, Win Hill. All places I’ve stood on before, several times, but have never seen them from this direction.

I have now…..

Check out the map at:,384500&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&dn=766

Piccys on my PhotoBlog at:

This is the Art and Design School, where I did my degree, and the original reason I moved from Wales to Nottingham.The show is now spread all over town [rather than just in the university confines] and has become the Nottingham Photo Festival. I think it a much better idea, to get out there, and engage with the public.

Have just been to see the first few pieces I fancy, and anyone around these parts, should drop in to the venues, and take a peek.

More details at:

Runs from 19th – 28th May

Incident between me and security of Jumpin Jaks Nightclub, Burton Street Nottingham

More piccys on my PhotoBlog at:

Had been taking photos of the outside of the building, here in Nottingham, including some artwork displayed in the windows. All this was being done from the pavement outside.

The photos were actually just for my own interest, as I was walking past on a sunny Sunday afternoon. I had no commercial intent, just a spur of the moment idea. Had taken most of what had interested me, when I was approached by two security people from inside the building.

“Stop taking photos, you can’t do that here”. I insisted that I wanted to, and asked them to get out of the way. They became more forceful and both of them at different times tried to put their hand over the lens.

They said that the building was private property and that it and the artwork was copyrighted. That if I wanted to take photographs, that I needed to ask for permission from the management.

Now, I have been in this situation before. Further, there had been past discussion on the EP-UK listing about these very matters. Yet a further obstruction of photography in a public place. I even remember the relevant section of the law, which I quoted to but no avail. There was no interest, just a simple insistence that they were going to stop me from any photography.


Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)

62.-(1) This section applies to-

(a) buildings, and

(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.

(2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by-

(a) making a graphic work representing it,

(b) making a photograph or film of it, or

(c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it.

(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.


The security folks didn’t let me finish a sentence each time I tried to tell them that I knew what I was doing was allowed, and were very definatly not interested in any of these points I was attempting to raise. I asked them to get out of the way a couple more times, and then we then both called the police.

We both waited on the pavement for 10 minutes before their arrival.

Two officers eventually arrived PC 2268 and WPC 2567 of Nottinghamshire Police and we both relayed our story to them.

The first police response to me, after asking for my details, was “well, if they’d asked you to ask for permission first, and you didn’t, then their copyright is being broken.” So, since you’d not asked permission, why don’t you just move on”. I then quoted the fact that copyright was not being broken, and further, being in a public place, I had a ‘right’ to go about my interest / business. I then sited the above law to the officers. Further, I pointed out that I had been technically assaulted by putting the hand over my lens a few times.

The street scene was being recorded by CCTV, from within the club. The police didn’t seem so interested in this allegation of assault, so I restated the facts, to them, and said “well, PC2268, what are you going to do about it then?”. He pulled a face and then went inside to view a tape. He came out saying that he could not see any evidence of assault. But he had seen my persistence, i.e. taking photos over their heads.! Further, that an area of the pavement about 3 feet from the end of the building was private, and that I had been standing on that for some of the time.

There had been a discussion with officers inside the building, and the police then began to suggest that what was now at issue, wasn’t just the photography of the building, BUT had now moved to the fact that their business logo was on display and that it was copyrighted. I pointed out that any city street in the country could therefore not be photographed because of the number of logos that there would be, and what a lot of permissions would need to be asked. PC 2268 said he wasn’t going to get into a debate with me. That it was a civil matter between me and them, but he would be “very dissatisfied” if he got called back to the scene. Further, “that if I did get into civil dispute with the company, it might have a detrimental effect of my business!” I think the officers gave the impression of partiality, since there are now two security and two police officers, standing between me and the building / artwork I was trying to photograph.

Gosh!! It was a sunny afternoon, and I left the scene rather than ‘hype’ the situation any further. BUT with the feeling of disgruntlement that you might expect from someone who didn’t think he’d done anything wrong!

I went away with much intimidation and confusion, because of this newly introduce ‘restriction’. Not to photograph a building from a public place, because it has a copyrighted logo on it. Have been back through the act, and I can’t see any mention. This sort of thing happens to us photographers more and more.

I went to the City council for a definitive map, to confirm a right of way / public place. Further, I have taken advice from my union the National Union of Journalist NUJ who advised to inform police of my intention to return and photograph other aspects of the area. Am applying for the CCTV footage under the Data Protection Act 1998 – Section 7 – Subject Access Requests–b.htm#7

Does anyone else think this is quite a lot of trouble to simply take a photograph in a public place, there in the street??

Bloody Heck!

Had finished my business in the West End. Doing an interview for Radio4’s ‘Archive Hour on Festivals’, when I thought while here, I’ll take some piccys of the capital.

I haven’t been for years, so thought I’d put on my tourist hat and see what happend. Here are some of the few hundred I took.

And a few more:

Experimental Art. Shame it didn’t file the space though …

This actually happend on wednesday evening, yesterday. But just got round to putting ’em up.

More piccys on PhotoBlog at:

Experimental Art. Shame it didn’t fill the space though …

This actually happend on wednesday evening, yesterday. But just got round to putting ’em up.

I’ve been interested in slide projection for years. Have mainly done shows at festivals and the like. Have also put projection on buildings. I use 5 Carousel projectors to mix and match still photos, to keep a narative going. Having seen the piece that was done here, I was a little under impressed, since I’ve been able to do 8 times the size show, routinely. The differnce being this was video. So, I guess technology will advance and catch up, eventually. Good to see this stuff happening though. More, More ….

Out and about along Lathkill Dale, towards Monyash. Out along the River Lathkill heading west to Cales Dale. Then back along the tops. OS Ref: 119SK203662

Cloudy and a bit grey all day, until the evening, then the sun peeked out occasionally. Just as camera run out of memory …… ! Oh well.

More pictures on my Photoblog at:

and a map of the district at:,365500&st=4&ar=N&dn=758,1412,63343,00.html/wn_ascii

Please don’t call Stephen Dunifer a pirate. He’s a microbroadcaster, or, at least, a former one.

As Dunifer tells it, the term “pirate radio,” though once a badge of honor, is misleading. Pirates are criminals, he might tell you, while microbroadcasters are Tom Paine-like patriots.

Dunifer dreams of reclaiming the airwaves, neighborhood by neighborhood, from the corporate powers that be. To that end, he’s spent the past several years training would-be do-it-yourself broadcasters. His four-day Radio Summer Camps, sponsored by Free Radio Berkeley, offer how-tos for building transmitters and antennas, along with advice on handling any FCC agents that might come knocking. The camps begin in June.

With a few hundred bucks and a bit of know-how, potential pirates, er, microbroadcasters, could hop the airwaves right away.

Katie Jacoby, a junior at Bard College in New York, spent her winter break in one of Dunifer’s training sessions, and earlier this month launched Free Radio Annandale, an unlicensed station at 92.5 FM. After overcoming some logistical problems — Jacoby had to put her antenna up a tree — she began broadcasting hip-hop and punk music and politically oriented programming including Democracy Now.

“It’s been extremely empowering to follow the DIY ethic,” she said. “What’s even more exciting is that I am continually inspired to learn more about radio technology … and I’ve really started to think about the facets of society that constrict our ability to communicate. When others hear of the crazy projects I do, they get inspired too. It’s infectious.”

Building your own station is also illegal. Dunifer advises his students to enlist the help of an attorney before hopping the airwaves. But he describes microbroadcasting as “electronic civil disobedience” rather than a typical criminal act.

“As far as I’m concerned, the real pirates are the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) and their member stations,” Dunifer said, referring to the powerful lobbying group. “They’ve stolen the airwaves with the full complicity of the FCC and Congress.”

Can microbroadcasters grab them back? Dunifer thinks so. Put enough Katie Jacobys on the air at once, Dunifer suggests, and you could create a 21st-century equivalent to the Boston Tea Party.

Imagine this: A thousand little stations send radio programming across cities and towns from senior centers, dorm rooms and attics. The understaffed FCC would be powerless to shut them down. Audiences would have substantive content choices. No one would tune into Top-40 radio. And the media moguls would slink back into their caves.

OK, so the scenario is a bit far-fetched. But the FCC and Big Radio are obviously paying attention to the microbroadcasters — it was pressure from independent broadcasters that forced the FCC to grant a limited number of low-power, or LPFM, radio licenses to community organizations, a decision that the NAB resisted.

Still, Pete Tridish, a recovering pirate and head of the low-power radio advocacy group Prometheus Radio Project, thinks pirate stations on their own won’t cause enough of a ripple in Washington. He is lobbying to have the FCC cough up more LPFM licenses, including in urban areas.

“Having tried it, I don’t think a strategy just of civil disobedience will work,” Tridish said. “The pirates’ ability to be civilly disobedient is out of proportion to the problem they are trying to change.”

That problem is media concentration. Critics say that the 1996 Telecommunications Act turned radio into a preprogrammed monolith as independent, local radio stations were gobbled up by conglomerates, including Clear Channel, which now owns 1,200 stations in 230 markets. (Click here for the case against Clear Channel.)

For some media activists, working with the FCC to solve perceived problems with the mass media is counterintuitive. Dunifer spent four years banging heads with the feds while fighting an injunction against his station, Free Radio Berkeley. His defense: The FCC was stepping on his Bill of Rights.

“This was a First Amendment issue,” Dunifer said. “When you have a system that allocates access depending on money, that’s not free speech.

“Our core argument was that the FCC’s rules and regulations constitute an artificially high barrier to free speech. If the government is going to regulate First Amendment rights, they have to do it in the least-restrictive means possible. But, at this point, unless you have tons of money you can’t even enter the (broadcasting) game.”

Dunifer’s success in court was shocking — it undermined, to an extent, the FCC’s entire existence — but temporary. The injunction against Free Radio Berkeley stands.

But those who can’t broadcast, teach. Dunifer’s summer camps are an attempt to seed an army of microbroadcasters to reclaim what he calls “stolen property: the airwaves, a public resource.”

“We need an alternative media to bring alternative viewpoints and to give us access to music and art and poetry and other forms of expression,” Dunifer said. “It’s fundamental to the democratic process. If you don’t have an open media that’s freewheeling and chaotic and a wonderful mess, you don’t have democracy.”

I’m one of the man’s greatest fans. I like so much of the different styles he’s produced. He is famous for imperial ‘the king is great’ type music, but i think some of these are soo sensitive. I put them on my server to share here.

[128kbs, so depending on your modem, might be best to ‘right-click’, then ‘save target’ to disk and then play]

I would like to hear ‘As Steals the Morn upon the Night’ over a quality system at Stonehenge on solstice morn!! What would the papers and English Heritage say about that?

A few pieces I’m listening to now ::

Handel – As Steals the Morn upon the Night

Handel – Where’er you walk

Handel – Ombra mai fu

Handel – Messiah – I Know That My Redeemer Liveth

oh, and this is the noisy stuff he’s good at 🙂

I used this piece, in a couple of slide shows on the Mayday Protests in Parliament Square, London

Handel – Zadok The Priest

Mayday2000 protest, London

* * * * * *

BBC2 have just done a program on Handels Water Music and an attempted recreation of the splendour of the day. The Water Music is so famous, I don’t need to put it here. Go to the library and borrow it.

Just for your info, [well those that are interested anyway, here’s a report from the The Daily Courant]

17 July 1717: The King travels by barge on the river Thames from Whitehall to Chelsea. The Water Music (HWV 348-50) is performed three times during that trip. According to a report from the London newspaper, the “Daily Courant” for 1717. All banged out for the Elector of Hanover and now George 1.

Check out the chronology of the politics of the time at and you’ll see that Handel is doing a PR job, to make the Hanovarian King, and acceptable Englishman.

Our present lot, the Saxe-Coburg Gotha’s [or, the Windsors if you prefer] also German imports, have no such equivalent. !!

sent to Berlin by Friedrich Bonet, the Prussian Ambassador to London:

“About eight in the evening the King repaired to His barge, into which were admitted the Duchess of Bolton, Countess Godolphin, Mad. de Kilmanseck (sic. Kielmansegge), Mrs Were and the Earl of Orkney, the Gentleman of the Bedchamber in Waiting. Next to the King’s barge was that of the musicians, about 50 in number, who played on all kinds of instruments, to wit trumpets, horns, hautboys (oboes), bassoons, German flutes, French flutes, violins, and basses; but there were no singers. The music had been composed especially by the famous Handel, a native of Halle, and His Majesty’s Principal Court Composer. His Majesty approved of it so greatly that he caused it to be repeated three times in all, altogether each performance last an hour — namely twice before and once after supper. The evening was all that could be desired for the festivity, the number of barges and above all of boats filled with people desirous of hearing was beyond counting. In order to make this entertainment the more exquisite, Mad. de Kilmanseck had arranged a choice supper in the late Lord Ranelagh’s villa at Chelsea on the river, where the King went at one in the morning. He left at three o-clock and returned to St. James’s about half past four. The concert cost Baron Kilmanseck £150 for the musicians alone. Neither the Prince nor the Princess (of Wales) took any part in this festivity.”

19 July 1717: London newspaper article from the “Daily Courant”

“On Wednesday Evening, at about 8, the King took Water at Whitehall in an open Barge, wherein were also the Dutchess of Bolton, the Dutchess of Newcastle, the Countess of Godolphin, Madam Kilmarnock (sic. Kielmansegge), and the Early of Orkney. And went up the River towards Chelsea. Many other Barges with Persons of Quality attended, and so great a Number of Boats, that the whole River in a manner was cover’d; a City Company’s Barge was employ’d for the Musick, wherein were 50 Instruments of all sorts, who play’d all the Way from Lambeth (While the Barges drove with the Tide without Rowing, as far as Chelsea), the finest Symphonies, compos’d express for this Occasion, by Mr Hendel, which his Majesty liked so well, that he caus’d it to be plaid over three times in going and returning. At Eleven his Majesty went a-shore at Chelsea, where a Supper was prepar’d, and there was another fine Consort of Musick, which lasted till 2; after which His Majesty came again into his Barge and return’d the Same Way, the Music continuing to play til he landed.”

The Daily Courant [Originals]

By a majority of three to two, the House of Lords has reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal (as reported in our early warning of October 2002) and reinstated the judgment of Mr Justice Morland in the High Court (see our early warning of March 2002).

The action arose from a report by the Daily Mirror (including a photograph) that Naomi Campbell was attending meetings with Narcotics Anonymous to beat her addiction to drugs, an addiction which she had previously denied. The core issue before the court was whether the publication at issue “was legitimate in that the public interest in favour of publication outweighed any public interest in the protection” of Naomi Campbell’s rights of confidentiality.

The dissenting judgments came from Lord Nicholls and Lord Hoffman. Lord Nicholls, despite finding against Ms Campbell commented: “The importance of freedom of expression has been stressed often and eloquently, the importance of privacy less so. But it too lies at the heart of liberty in a modern state. A proper degree of privacy is essential for the well being and development of an individual.”

After observing that there was no “all embracing” cause of action for “invasion of privacy”, Lord Nicholls observed that “the time has come to recognise that the values enshrined in Articles 8 and 10 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] are now part of the cause of action for breach of confidence.” He went on to observe that “the touchstone of private life is whether in respect of the disclosed facts the person in question had a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Lord Nicholls however concluded that Naomi Campbell’s privacy rights were not infringed, and dismissed the appeal.

Lord Hoffman identified the point dividing the House as a narrow one, namely whether in exposing falsehoods on the part of Ms Campbell about her use of drugs “the newspaper went too far in publishing associated facts about her private life.”

Lord Hoffman also observed that there is no general cause of action for privacy in this jurisdiction, but stressed that “the right to privacy is in a general sense one of the values, and sometimes the most important value, which underlies a number of more specific causes of action, both at common law and under various statutes”. Lord Hoffman endorsed the view expressed by the Court of Appeal when it said that when publication of confidential information is justified in the public interest, “the journalist must be given reasonable latitude as to the manner in which the information is conveyed to the public or his Article 10 right to freedom of expression will be unnecessarily inhibited.”

Like Lord Nicholls, Lord Hoffman also dismissed the appeal on the facts, while upholding the general principle that the privacy of the individual should be protected under the UK law.

Lord Hope made a strong point of the need for privacy in any battle against an addiction to drugs or alcohol. He also rejected the dismissal by the Court of Appeal of the analogy between information that Naomi Campbell was receiving therapy from Narcotics Anonymous and information about details of a medical condition or its treatment. He said that he thought that the trial judge was right to regard the details of Naomi Campbell’s attendance at Narcotics Anonymous as private information which gave rise to a duty of confidence.

Lord Hope also criticised the Court of Appeal’s approach of judging whether the disclosure of the information “would have offended the reasonable man of ordinary susceptibilities” on the mind of the reader, rather than the mind of the person who is affected by the publicity. He then looked at striking the balance between the rights according to Article 8 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and concluded that this infringement of Naomi Campbell’s right to privacy could not be justified in weighing those two competing rights, and allowed the appeal.

Baroness Hale conducted a balancing exercise between the Article 8 right of Naomi Campbell and the Article 10 right of the Daily Mirror. Baroness Hale drew a distinction between various types of speech, placing political speech as the most important. Here, however, the newspaper had disclosed “intimate details of a fashion model’s private life”, which they clearly regarded as a rather less public interest. She concluded by citing the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice as it referred to privacy, and concluded that on applying these principles she should allow the appeal.

Lord Carswell also rejected the distinction made in the Court of Appeal between information concerning therapy at Narcotics Anonymous and details of the treatment of a medical condition. He considered that the decision was a delicately balanced one, but concluded that the information published concerning Naomi Campbell’s therapy at Narcotics Anonymous constituted “a considerable intrusion into her private affairs, which was capable of causing substantial distress, and on her evidence did cause it to her.” He therefore considered that the balance came down in favour of Naomi Campbell, and also allowed the appeal.

The balancing exercise between the rights of privacy and free speech conducted by the House of Lords makes the job of lawyers advising in this field extremely difficult. Two fundamental rights collide when such issues arise, and it is very often not so much a legal judgment but one of instinct and principle which will determine whether the court will intervene on an issue of privacy or not. However, as all the judges agreed, some protection for privacy is essential in the UK law, and that at least has been established by this majority decision of the House of Lords.

A ‘spoof’ video, of President Bush’s State of the Union address.

So that’s the funnies…..

But the following isn’t!!

A webpage of the ‘nasty’ us torture pictures, of Iraq Prisoners. I tell you, these are disgusting and lack civilisation, but do need to be seen.

I’m a Producer working for the BBC in Bristol. We’re making a documentary programme for BBC3 about the different and diverse ways British people choose to party. Within this programme I’d love to include a positive film about free parties and give the people on the scene a chance to have their say.

Would anyone be able to give me some advice about whether I have any chance of making this film and maybe even put me in touch with people who would be happy to take part? I understand that you may be wary of the media but like I say this film will have a very positive slant on the scene, the parties, and the people who make them happen.

I can be contacted by email on or by phone on 01179 742313.



Next Page »