Spectacle Training: Digital Video Production Weekend Workshops- February, March and April

Digital Video Production Weekend Workshop

Saturday & Sunday February 18 & 19 2012 10.00 to 16.00

Saturday & Sunday March 17 & 18 2012 10.00 to 16.00

Saturday & Sunday April 21 & 22 2012 10.00 to 16.00

 

This is a practical hands-on weekend course aimed at people who want a fast way to acquire detailed and concise digital video production skills. It is particularly useful for aspiring documentary makers, journalists who want to expand their skill set and voluntary sector workers who want to shoot their own films.

The short, condensed and effective course will give all participants a solid foundation of practical knowledge and a working understanding of digital cameras, sound recording, interview techniques, filming on location and industry language.

You will also get the confidence to use a wide range of equipment and learn the “future proof” principles of film making that remain constant despite the changes in technology and formats.

We allow a maximum of three people per camera set up (camera, sound, interviewer), giving everyone extensive hands-on experience.

Completing this course will guarantee you a work placement opportunity with Spectacle.

What you will learn

– Preparing a shoot
– How to use a digital camera (focus, white balance, aperture, formats etc.)
– How to use microphones
– Framing, types of shots, camera movements, cutaways and other techniques and tips
– How to conduct and shoot an interview
– Shooting on location
– The principles of lighting, both natural and artificial
– Filming to edit

Price

£200.00 + VAT = £240
Concs.: £100.00 + VAT = £120

Special discounts

– Bookings for three to five people: 10% discount
– Bookings for six people or more: 20% discount

To find out more and booking

 Subscribe to the Spectacle Training Newsletter

If you would like more information on future training opportunities at Spectacle sign up for the Training Newsletter – tick the box if you would also like Spectacle’s general newsletter.

 

 

 

“Battery farm” child prisons criticised as secure children’s homes face further cuts

The principle purpose of the youth justice system in England and Wales is the prevention of offending and re-offending (Crime and Disorder Act, 1998). Therefore, it would seem to make sense to make policy decisions on the basis of evidence of ‘what works’.

As the Youth Justice Board (YJB) plans to decommission more beds in secure children homes, the Howard League for Penal Reform has released a briefing on the secure estate: Future Insecure, calling for custodial decisions to be based on evidence of effectiveness and safety, rather than simply cost. The briefing comes only weeks after two children died while in prison service custody.

Recent figures released by the Ministry of Justice have shown that serious or other life-threatening warning signs have occurred 285 times when children have been restrained in STCs over the past five years, including hospitalisation, loss of consciousness and damage to internal organs. Despite their institutionalised failings and the risks that they pose to the safety of children, no places have been decommissioned in STCs since they opened. 90% children in Young Offenders Institutes said they wanted to stop offending but haven’t found any opportunity in the current system to support them in doing so.

Even more troubling is the statistic that 9 out of 10 of the most violent institutions in the country are Young Offenders Institutes.

The chief executive of the The Howard League for Penal Reform, Frances Crook, said, “The recent reduction in the number of children in custody is to be welcomed. However this should have been used as an opportunity to close failing prisons, which cannot meet children’s needs.  The battery farm model of young offender institutions, with hundreds of troubled children under one roof, is wholly inappropriate, while the privately run secure training centres have a dismal history around the use of restraint.

“Already this year we have seen the suicides of two children in prison custody.  A change of policy that prioritises the safety of children and invests in meaningful attempts to reduce re-offending cannot come too quickly. ”

The Howard League believes that community sentences make a person take responsibility, make amends for what they have done, and change to live a law-abiding life in the community. Prison is a relatively ineffective way of reducing crime. Our current high prison population is untenable. Prisons do little to help people make amends for what they have done and change lives. The Howard League campaigns on behalf of children in the penal system to improve their treatment and conditions and make sure they are released from prison safely with appropriate support wherever possible.

Secure children’s homes provide the highest standards of care and rehabilitation for the few children in trouble with the law who have to be detained in custody. Higher standards of care and rehabilitation reduce rates of recidivism, which in turns saves money for the Youth Justice Board. The Audit Commission estimate that preventing just 1 in 10 children from offending would save over £100m per year. What better financial argument is there for long-term efficacy than that?

Faced with a choice between a system of incarceration that does not produce any measurable success, and one that does, the Youth Justice Board cannot maintain the current programme of closing Secure Children’s Homes in favour of the more economically viable, but relatively ineffective, Secure Training Centres and Young Offender’s Institutes.

The Howard League screened a film about Secure Children Homes in the House of Commons  on January 8th. The film was produced by Spectacle, working with the young people in one such home. The Commons screening was for decision makers and cabinet ministers to coincide with the release of the Youth Justice Board’s secure estate strategy. The film was made with young people in secure children’s homes and the screening was sponsored by Ian Swales MP.

Brazil must have booze at the 2014 FIFA World Cup. But what about Qatar 2022?

FIFA’s general secretary, Jerome Valcke, paid a visit to Brazil where he made clear the football authority’s position: “Alcoholic drinks are a part of the FIFA World Cup, so we’re going to have them. Excuse me if I sound a bit arrogant, but that’s something that we won’t negotiate.”

His comments could well be taken as inflammatory, if not just arrogant, since Brazil has held a policy of prohibition at football stadiums since 2003 in an effort to reduce violence. The fact that Budweiser is a long-term sponsor of FIFA has no doubt some small bearing on this decision-making.

While alcohol can currently be consumed legally in Qatar, there are restrictions. Alcohol can be purchased in a few clubs, bars, certain hotel restaurants; however, to consume alcohol in one’s own home a special license is required. The question of whether the consumption of alcohol will be permitted to in additional areas and at the games themselves has been asked. Hassan Abdulla al Thawadi, chief executive of the Qatar 2022 World Cup bid, has said the Muslim state would also permit alcohol consumption during the World Cup. A few specific fan-zones will be set up during the event, they will provide alcohol for sale.

If FIFA are willing to negotiate a few specific fan zones with Qatar, why is there no negotiation in Brazil? It is difficult to believe that any of these decisions were made outside of the bribery and corruption that seem endemic to FIFA. Jerome Valcke was accused in 2011 of letting slip that Qatar ‘bought’ its place as host in 2022, so perhaps Brazil should have bought their right to host the World Cup at a higher price and saved themselves some trouble.

 

Click London Olympics for more blogs
See our Olympics project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

LOCOG loyal to Atos over Paralympics Sponsorship – WHY?

The Atos Healthcare assessment for disability benefits has been labelled a box-ticking exercise, employing the use of LiMA (Logic Integrated Medical Assessment) – a script which the Atos assessors use to determine a person’s level of disability. These assessors are often medical professionals who have undergone training to comply with the objectives of the test.

The aims of this kind of test, using multiple choice questions to provide quantitative information to assess disability, is to try and standardise disability in order to make the murky waters of individual medical conditions a little more transparent, ostensibly for budgetary purposes. Atos currently has a contract with the UK government which they claim to be worth £100m a year.

The government’s planned re-structuring of the benefits system will incorporate similar assessments, for example, replacing the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) with Personal Independence Payments (PIP). The PIP scheme will make claimants subject to regular review and face-to-face assessments, using methods like LiMA. The government says that they hope to save £1bn using such a system, but disability groups say that the system is insufficient, and Atos’ monopoly on benefits assessments is inappropriate. One of the universal criticisms of Atos is that they rarely make eye contact with patients…

Some disability campaign groups have subsequently called for a boycott of the 2012 Paralympic Games due to Atos’s position as a worldwide partner of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The campaigners say the company is running a flawed process to assess disabled people’s rights to benefits and is therefore an inappropriate sponsor of the Paralympic Games. Yet for campaigners, the last straw is the appointment this month of former Atos chief executive – Bernard Bourigeaud – to the board of the International Paralympic Committee.

The LOCOG committee has a poor record when it comes to sourcing ethically sustainable goods and sponsorships. They can now add another instance to the list. Accused of causing ‘fear and loathing’ among disabled claimants, Atos’ system remains hidden to prevent any critical testing of its efficacy, and their extremely lucrative and unassailable contract with the DWP shrugs off other corporate competitors. For anyone disabled, the name Atos is hardly reputable.  However, LOCOG doesn’t really mind where it comes from, so long as the money flows.

 

Click London Olympics for more blogs
See our Olympics project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

 

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

Plans to reveal yet another statue.

The Camden New Journal yesterday uncovered plans to erect a statue of Christ the Redeemer on Primrose Hill. The statue will be a tribute to the one overlooking Rio de Janeiro, to celebrate passing on the torch (pun begrudgingly intended) to Brazil for 2016.

The Brazilian government would fund the project, and a planning consultancy based in London has been employed by Brazil’s tourist agency to hold a public meeting to display the designs before applications for planning permission are submitted.

The Camden-based design company See Me, Hear Me, Feel Me did not want to discuss the plans, and the Brazilian government was unavailable for comment, but Primrose Hill Lib Dem councillor Chris Naylor said he wasn’t sure a 30ft statue of Christ with his arms outstretched was quite what the area needed.

Other statues to celebrate the Olympics have been erected around Britain, often to the displeasure of residents. The ‘Jurassic Stones’ statue, by Richard Harris, has been greeted with horror by residents of Weymouth, Dorset. The Stones’ £335,000 bill pales in comparison to the £19m spent on Anish Kapoor’s ‘ArcelorMittal Orbit’, on site in Stratford.

 

Many people question why so much money is being spent on statues to celebrate the Olympics, and whether it is appropriate in the current economic climate. The term ‘Legacy’ has always been used to describe the impact of mega-events like the Games: urban development, social, economic and cultural changes are words often thrown around in relation to the Legacy. However, the term has been re-appropriated by critics of the Games and become somewhat of a joke. The Legacy that does seem to be taking shape is symbolised in the statues cropping up around the country – abstracted, distorted, and expensive.

The real Olympic Legacy will be towering debt.

For other Olympic links and Spectacle’s video archive

For more London Olympics Blogs
See our Olympics project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

Spectacle homepage
Facebook Spectacle.Docs
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

Chief of Olympic 2012 Ethics Panel Resigns

Meredith Alexander, Chief of LOCOG’s ethics panel, has resigned over the continuing sponsorship of the games by Dow Chemicals. Dow Chemicals currently owns Union carbide, who were responsible for the mishandling of poisonous gas tanks, which caused the deaths of thousands of people in 1984. Dow’s  sponsorship of the games has been heavily criticised, and Alexander’s resignation only highlights another of the ethical swamps through which LOCOG is determinedly wading for funding.

 

Click London Olympics for more blogs
See our Olympics project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

 

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

2012 Hospitality Tickets Scam

Good news! Tickets for the Equestrian Olympic Events, to be held in Greenwich Park are available to the public. Not only this, but tickets to the accompanying hospitality facilities are also available, at an extremely (un)reasonable £495 +VAT per head, with a minimum of 2 people per booking i.e. a minimum spend of £1,188. Prestige will happily take your money right now for your chance to enjoy the facilities that “will be styled after a Ralph Lauren boutique crossed with the minimalism of a New York art gallery.”

Of course, the real kicker is that these tickets are on sale when the facilities have not even yet been granted planning permission.

This clearly demonstrates, yet again, LOCOG’s prerogative is the acquisition of money, and not due process.

 

 

Click London Olympics for more blogs
See our Olympics project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

 

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

The Retention of Information Act

In September 2011, Spectacle submitted a Freedom Of Information request regarding permission for the planned structures in Greenwich park. When Freedom Of Information requests are submitted, the relevant bodies are obliged to respond within 20 days. After the prescribed 20 days, Greenwich Council’s planning body did reply, but only to inform us that there would be a delay in responding to our request.

After one month of delays they gave an incomplete answer, regarding different planned structures saying planning permission applications were submitted in March 2010.

After further enquiries and a further month of delays, the FOI response detailed the planning applications for the structures we actually enquired after, with the date of submission at the beginning of November 2011 – some time after Spectacle’s enquiry, and considerably longer after March 2010.

If you would like to see how other Olympic FOI requests are handled visit WhatDoTheyKnow

Click London Olympics for more blogs
See our Olympics project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

Whose Common is it, really?

The Olympic Delivery Authority/London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (ODA/LOCOG) expected Greenwich Council to grant planning permission for Circus Field to be used for the purposes of the Olympics, even though no details of the proposed use have been included in the public consultation documents.

To this end, LOCOG wanted to be able to enclose parts of the grounds for the equestrian events there. However, for this they needed permission from a Regional Development Authority. This little legal mechanism is to avoid national authorities from riding roughshod over smaller, regional areas.

To get around such sticky planning issues, the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, was drafted to include, among the purposes of a Regional Development Authority (s.36(1)), the task of preparing for the Olympic Games. However, by virtue of s.36(2), the may only prepare directly “at the request of the Olympic Delivery Authority.” Therefore the responsibility of the Regional Development Authority (specifically now the London Development Agency) is acting at the request of the ODA, in this instance, in acquiring a short lease of Circus Field from the Crown Estates owner of this part of the registered common. Part of the Olympics Act (Section 36 paragraph 3(c)) also stated that “no enactment regulating the use of commons, open spaces or allotments shall prevent or restrict the use of the land for construction, other works or any other purpose (but this paragraph does not disapply a requirement for planning permission)”.

All of this means is that the ODA can directly order the Regional Development Authority to apply for permission to build on whatever common they so desire.

However, as Mrs. Mawhood, who works independently and on behalf of NOGOE 2012, has pointed out, Circus Field is not a “registered common”, it is Metropolitan Common Land. This places it in the remit of the Metropolitan Commons Supplemental Act 1871, which creates its own restrictions: “The Commissioners shall not entertain an application for the enclosure of a metropolitan common, or any part thereof” (Section 5) This does suggest that a separate act of parliament is required to enclose a Metropolitan Common…

Nothing will stop LOCOG though! They have have now signed a tenancy of 12 months granted by the Crown Estate to the ODA by virtue of new legislation. This agreement overrides the need for any permission (apart from planning) from Greenwich.

This only lends yet more credibility to the accusation that the Olympics is not a project which listens to opposition, especially on planning grounds, where the rules are simply rewritten to suit the project’s needs.

 

Click London Olympics for more blogs
See our Olympics project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

 

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter

Olympic Equestrian Event Debacle Continues

No tree will be cut down…

Preparations for the controversial equestrian events to be held in Greenwich Park are still underway, despite ever mounting pressure from groups and individuals protesting the decision. Among the numerous concerns over damage to the park, which is a world heritage site, there are fears of gridlock across the city, abuses of planning permission by LOCOG (London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games), and most worryingly of all, the safety of the public.

The planning application, published 8th Dec 2009, shows that the rare acid grassland will not be fully restored and reopened until “November 2015”, during which time a great deal of permanent damage will have been done to the park. Greenwich Park is a Conservation Area, every one of the approximately 3,000 trees  in the Park has a Tree Preservation Order on it, but despite this and assurances that “no tree will be cut down”, extensive ‘pruning’ has been underway. Several fragile trees have had major limbs amputated for the end of better camera sight-lines; injury from which some will not recover.

Although Greenwich Royal Park is the FEI’s (Fédération Equestre Internationale) preferred venue for the 2012 equestrian events, LOCOG has not made the smallest attempt to comply with the FEI Code of Conduct towards the Environment. The FEI’s code states that the protection of the environment must always prevail over the technical requirements of the various disciplines when organising events and in particular in the following cases:
a) Harmonious integration: Equestrian facilities should be built or converted
so as to ensure their harmonious integration into the local context,
whether natural or man-made, and in accordance with considerate
planning of land use.
b) Preservation of countryside: Equestrian events such as Driving, Endurance
and Eventing (cross country phase) must be so arranged as to ensure the
protection of conservation areas, the countryside, the cultural heritage and
natural resources as a whole.

Clearly, LOCOG’s systematic mutilation of the park does not fall within these guidelines.

The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 (Section 5 (4a)) contains a clause in it’s Planning section that allows the Olympic Delivery Authority to disregard a section of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Part III, Section 74, (1b)). This section pertains to the manner in which a local authority regulates planning permission applications, particularly  “for authorising the local planning authority to grant planning permission for development which does not accord with the provisions of the development plan”. The local planning authority has just stood idly by while LOCOG hacks up the park, without uttering a squeak of protest.

However, the LOCOG steamroller does not stop there. The Games organisers have implemented regulations “intended to meet commitments by the UK Government to the International Olympics Committee. The main aims are:
-to ensure all Olympic and Paralympic events have a consistent celebratory look and feel to them,
-to prevent ambush marketing within the vicinity of the venues; and
-to ensure people can easily access the venues.
To achieve these aims, “Interferences with the rights to freedom of expression and protection of one’s possessions may be justified on related grounds” (Paragraph 7, Human Right Assessment, The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Advertising and Trading) (England) Regulations 2011 Impact Assessment). These interferences include “An interference with the right to be presumed innocent will be justified where it is confined “within reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what it at stake and maintain the rights of the defence” (Paragraph 24). Or, putting it another way, if anyone is caught interfering with the ‘consistent celebratory look and feel’ of the event, they can be presumed not to be innocent and, no doubt, removed.

The most worrying aspect of LOCOG’s irresponsibility where Greenwich Park is concerned relates to the safety of the public. The Royal Parks’ own “Guidelines for Event Organisers 2010” state that the capacity of the park provides for up to 15,000 and *possibly* more for “certain events”. This is nothing like the 50,000 (the number of cross-country day tickets that LOCOG say they have already sold). In the past, for example at the beginning of the London Marathon, there have been up to 21,000 runners in the park for a few hours at a time, and this with 9-10 exits available. However, the Olympic equestrian events will continue all day for several days and the area will be surrounded by fences, potentially with electrified tops. There are only three planned exits from the event zone. How difficult will it be to evacuate 50,000 people through 3 exits in 2-8 minutes? How difficult will it be to do this safely?

It is not difficult, however, to see how easily this could all descend into chaos. Even despite the risk of terrorism during the Olympic Games this summer, such irresponsible cramming of people into an undersized venue poses huge risks to the safety of those hoping to attend the events.

Clearly, LOCOG’s priority is once again with their sales, not with their responsibilities to the Park, the quality of the games, the public….

 


Click London Olympics for more blogs
See our Olympics project pages for more information and videos.
Or visit PlanA our general blog on urbanism, planning and architecture.

 

Spectacle homepage
Befriend Spectacle.Docs on Facebook
Follow SpectacleMedia on Twitter