Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Islamaphobia in the 'Hood?
This picture was tweeted to Haringey Council by @RichGittens this morning. Well done Rich, let's hope the Council get on to it fast.
Remember, Finsbury Park is part of the Borough of Haringey. More than that it's in Harringay Ward, the same ward as the Ladder. This really is in the neighbourhood.
On the positive side, I've spoken with Haringey Council and so far this has been the first Islamaphobia incident since Walthamstow of which they're aware.
Rumours suggest that there have been some recent incidents around Finsbury Park Mosque. Islington Council are unable to confirm this and I am waiting confirmation or otherwise from Islington Police (now received - see comment added below).
Tags for Forum Posts: islamaphobia
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by james walsh on
-
Down ! with this sort of thing
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
This just in from Islington Police:
Since the Woolwich murder there has only been one incident reported on 23 May 2013. This relates to a malicious phone call received at the mosque which is still under investigation. We have spoken to the mosque and have carried out increased patrols in light of this incident and the incident in Woolwich.
-
-
Hugh, why give one-idiot-with-a-spray-can the oxygen of publicity - to coin a thatcherism from another time and context.
My memory of the anti-Irish graffiti (and the sub-graffiti of the Sun and Evening Standard) of the 1970s, '80s &'90s is that it was best ignored and given no further publicity. That was in the wake of a series of Central London bombings in each of those decades - killing at least thirty soldiers and civilians.
I'm not suggesting that London or Harringay Muslims should just learn to keep their heads down as London Irish usually did over those decades - just that I don't think one instance of Graffiti in the Park merits the headline 'Islamophobia in the 'Hood'.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
a kinda Cluedo gig? Wow, guess I overreacted, eh!
I agree with Eddie. 'Awareness' is one thing but tabloid-style publicity and sensationalism is another. How responsible is the choice of headline and the reproducing of this photo, enlarged to one foot wide?
-
-
"tabloid style publicity" - really? I'd say "Death to Islam" could be fairly described as Islamaphobic without even a hint of sensation. So, 'fraid I can't go along with your tabloid accusation. That leaves us with "in the 'Hood". For that I'd accept an admonishment of "childish", I'd take it being described as "bloggish" and I'd even allow "ridiculous". But "tabloid"? Hardly.
"photo, enlarged......"? Wrong, I'm afraid. Nothing was enlarged. Unless they're too small every picture that is added to an initial post on the site is 750px wide. Enlarging pictures merely pixelates them and makes them unusable. Today's digital cameras capture big.
"....one foot wide"? Wow you must have a humungous screen if you're seeing a 750 px picture as a 1 foot image. I think you'll find the majority of people see the picture at a significantly smaller size on their more everyday screens.
So, Clive, whilst I may envy you your monitor, for fear of dishonesty I can't admit to owning anything like the same sentiment about your powers of reasoning.
-
-
My big old (1990s) CRT monitor resolves images slightly larger than other displays. However, the native (“document”) width of the Islamaphobia image (file name = BLrxIhwCEAETv5z.jpglarge) is 10.4 inches (Photoshop screen grab below) and the height is almost 14 inches. Of course these sizes will vary slightly depending on individual displays.
By any standards, it’s a big image for most displays and for any web page; has there ever been any bigger image posted on HoL?
Coupled with the headline that Eddie commented on, the account went beyond merely raising “awareness”. Given the sensitivities, a jokey, blokey or ‘bloggish’ angle may not be the most appropriate for a serious subject. Was the headline well-judged?
Such events are best recorded with restraint and kept in proportion. The event in Fortis Green was far more serious; yet one-idiot-with-a-spray-can is accorded a big splash because someone tweeted one photo of one person’s crude graffiti.
Does this really merit the headline, Islamaphobia in the hood?
-
-
For website display purposes, forget the document size and look at the pixels. Since it's online that's all 99.99% of people will see. It displays at 750 pixels wide as do all pictures I add as forum post toppers, unless, as I said, they're too small.
I'll let HoL readers decide on whether they think the title was well-judged, but what I continue to defend is that it was not tabloid.
The Fortis Green incident was given as much coverage as this one on HoL, despite it not being within the main area of geographic focus of this site.
Since it was so much more serious, and I had no first hand information, I used a reputable source. So my headline was that run by the Standard. I reproduced it in full and enclosed it in quotation marks ("Police probe mosque blaze amid fears 'firebomb attack' is Woolwich...).
I didn't write the story because I didn't have enough information to write such a serious one, but other than that it had as much coverage as this one.
That's it for me on this one, Clive.
-
-
Should we not forget the technical minutiae and just recognize that this ugly photo was – if not the largest – certainly one of the largest images ever posted on HoL?
within the main area of geographic focus of this site - there may be less wordy formulations in order to avoid repeating "hood". Is one more likely to find a headline such as, Islamaphobia in the 'Hood? in the Times or Guardian, or more likely in the Mirror?
My sense is that awareness doesn't always benefit from a megaphone.
-
-
No, you're still completely wrong on the size, Clive. Give up.
As to the rest....
-
Permalink Reply by L F T Snowflake on
-
So if someone says death to socialism, does that make them socialistphobic?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
