Design

u·til·i·tar·i·an/yo͞oˌtiliˈte(ə)rēən/
Adjective: Designed to be useful or practical rather than attractive.
Noun: An adherent of utilitarianism.

What have we had so far? Lets see there was insomnia, semi-nudity, fascism, anonymity, sexual politics and occasionally out-of-place and disquieting narrative prose. Disgusting.

This time some "design classics" and why I like them. Won't spend too long on this. Fingers crossed anyway.

The Zippo Windproof Lighter

In continuous manufacture since the 1930s and like most of the items on this list has remained virtually unchanged since that time. There must be 1000s of decorative varieties in back pockets the world over, which have spawned legions of collectors both casual and fanatical.

Excitement

I run one and it's about as standard as they can get. Brushed chrome, date of manufacture I think is 2010. I bought it recently for a discount I negotiated (ex-display) for a bargain price: I think not more than 12 caps. Shop around.

I don't smoke by the way. I carry it secondarily because I want a way to make fire at moments notice but primarily because I just love the way it functions. It makes a satisfying click when opening and closing. The flint wheel is a positive spark thrower: compare it to a disposable lighter and you'll feel the difference. Also anyone who's ever watched a film made before on-screen smoking became forbidden will be familiar with the poetry it's operation. Curiously fetishistic in it's own right it has punctuated many cigarette lighting scene with it's beloved open-light-close manipulation. Cigarette lighting aside reference Die Hard (1988) where the embattled John McClane escapes a firefight with a death defying drop down an elevator shaft, eventually dragging himself into a shoulder-width air vent. Belly walking towards the camera he lights his zippo to illume his way and pines sarcastically; "Come out to the coast, we'll get together, have a few laughs." Awesome.

McClane: "Now I know what a TV dinner feels like"

I like it because of it's prominence in film as well as the way it operates and how god damn fun it is. Also a little reading suggests the mechanism is guaranteed for life. Something about things which are guaranteed for life appeal to me, an illusion though it may be. On the subject of the mechanism you might want to know that if you pull the body of the lighter out of the case, to fill it for example, inside are a half dozen or so balls of cotton wool and ten centimeters or so of wick. The all cram into its dense innards and it is this medium, covered over by a felt pad, which you saturate with lighter fuel when you refill. After saturating both the lighter, and if you're anything like me your groin as well, you're good to go. It acts like a candle, with the reservoir of fuel leeching up through the wick and burning where it contacts oxygen in the perforated 'chimney'. The lighter that is, not my groin. I'm told you can use almost anything for fuel at a push, including petrol, though it's not recommended. One downside is you do have to replace the flint after a few years of regular use. But otherwise this little soldier will keep setting things on fire for you until doomsday, with little or no maintenance.

From a visual point of view I think these babies look best when they're not polluted with garish livery. Trust me, there are some truly disgusting designs out there. If you want to personalise them you can get them engraved from a lot of outlets on the webbynets.

During the Vietnam war, as in all wars since WW2, US conscripts used them extensively. They'd often have them engraved with sardonic inscriptions. One of my favorites includes:

"I fucking love the army, and the army loves fucking me"

Dark, no?

The Casio F91w

In continuous manufacture since 1991, not the 1980s as some people think. Though looking at the styling you'd struggle to date it in my opinion. Black with a hint of blue border round the face, rectangular and slightly beveled it can feel very diminutive compared to more lustrous gent's timepiecery: though truthfully it is unisex. Functions include a stopwatch; for all the fun of timing people in the queue ahead of you at the cash machine, and an admittedly feeble bulb-based light which shines in from the left side. The light is functional in the dark though, which is what this watch is all about. Same is true of the alarm - it's not super loud but if it's all you've got it'll serve in the purpose. Essentially though this device is all about telling the time without fishing around for your phone. And, in my opinion, making your wrist (your other wrist perhaps) earn its keep. It serves that purpose wonderfully.

An Awesome timepiece for the price, which should be around 8 caps; though beware if you buy it in some trendy fashion outlet you'll easily pay twice that. Loot it from Argos. Has been multiplying on the wrists of the tragically hip in the last year or so, though I've been wearing one (on and off) since the 90s and probably always will.

"Now you hide, and I'll count to 100"

Fun Fact about the Casio F91w - it has been used as evidence of terrorism of a least a couple of dozen residents of the world famous Guantanamo Bay B&B. The reason being its reputed application in several time bombs by naughty Mohamedists. Not surprising since if I was a bomb maker by trade I'd want to choose a timing mechanism which I could replicate safely and effectively over and over again ("...and that is ABSOLUTELY not an admission!" I exclaim, dry mouthed in fit of extraordinary rendition). The ubiquity of the humble F91w makes it an ideal choice as I'd seldom struggle to find another one just like it.

I like it because it's achieved that rare status of an innocuous, utilitarian object which has become strangely noticeable and desirable as it enjoys an aesthetic renaissance. It'll fade again into near invisibility pretty soon though, maybe to return again, once in a generation, invigorated with novelty and caked in irony. But in the meantime it is a symbol that technological achievement can peak: it's the crocodile of watch evolution. I wear it because its been with me since I was a boy, though sadly not this example, and it has never let me down. Do I wear it ironically? Of course not.

You can get it in any colour you like. As long as it's not green.

Well that being said I would confess to maybe one or two extra layers of significance. For me, as a man who always wears a wristwatch, it speaks of the end of history. Build me an economic way to tell the time, something I can put on my wrist and just forget about. It's about divorcing function from accessory. It's about choosing a piece of non-jewelry to wear. It speaks of a desire to become invisible, anonymous and at the same time make no declaration whatsoever.

Actually scratch all that: you might not wear this watch to make a statement, but a statement you shall make all the same. It's not invisible. Is this the watch of a cheapskate, or a hipster, or a utilitarian? You decide.

Wow, that was big. It's only a watch. Jesus! Moving on...

Model 500 (type) Rotary Telephones

Here's a strange one. I'll probably never own one, nor is the design anywhere near as static as the rest of this list. It's more of a pattern or configuration than it is a design. It hearkens back to at time where the GPO, which was the nationalised telecoms monopoly until the infrastructure was privatised (and became BT; the privatised telecoms monopoly it is now), would supply a telephone when they installed a telephone line. There was no real popular desire to have a 'different' phone. This WAS a telephone and this WAS what a telephone looked like. It was a piece of infrastructure, indistinct in function from the cables which connected it to the exchange.

That's probably inaccurate to a certain degree, but it speaks to a different time: one where choice and variety was not an ends in itself. The design of this piece reflects that, changing little over the decades. I remember my grandparents had a rotary dialed phone years and years ago. And it was a serious ball-ache to use! You had to turn that sucker for every digit and then wait for it to rotate back to neutral before you could turn it again - a very time consuming process it seemed. Using the business end of a pen helped reduce the considerable fatigue on your digits. Later models, similar in pattern to this one had push button operation of course, but for me that defeats the object a bit.

Why do I like it? Well when something has to be done very methodically and deliberately it can have a very cleansing effect. I love the modern world but convenience can be cheapening. Phone calls are meant to connect two people (reference Bob "BT's monopoly hobbit" Hoskins' ads of the 1990s) and having to go through a bit of labour to do so isn't such a bad thing. It makes one think about what to say, and if the phone call is really necessary in the first place. There was no redial function either. I think before mobile phones or even push button technology people would be more inclined to answer their phone for this very reason, knowing someone had to perform a small chore to make that call. When you heard this squat, austere black object ringing you'd be more inclined to answer it I think, more respectful of it. And for that matter take some time out to answer it, not wander round the house or onto the street. You'd probably be out of sight of the television, potentially even standing for the duration.

And actually speaking on this contraption was a different sensation too. It's the only design I know of which is genuinely ergonomic. You have a palm filling hunk of plastic to wrap in a fist, not pincer between thumb and forefinger like a modern mobile. Heavy, yes, but when was the last time you saw another design which actually stretched between ones ear and ones mouth. If you sat down to design a functional, non-portable telephone wouldn't that be the natural choice? To have the speaker and microphone adjacent to their respective organs?

And lets face it, it looks cool. Get a red one like the Batphone!

More of these to come. Watch this space.

Sleepless

I'm up at dawn again. This time I haven't slept.

That guy who does the weather on BBC, the one I don't like; it's hard for me to justify why I don't like  him. (Strangely I feel like I should for some reason). It's not just because he does the weather bit, though that would be enough I think. I don't see the point of the weather at all. A preoccupation with the weather strikes me a damning indictment of any society. If you feel compelled to small-talk about the weather, even in an awkward discourse with a stranger, and that weather isn't something genuinely superlative (i.e. hurricane, blizzard), then do everyone a favour and just say nothing. Bite your tongue. Stand there in silence if you have to. Force yourself to think of something interesting to say or just deal with it.

Typically I watch the BBC 24 news for an hour or so before I tune out in one way or another. Past that it just repeats itself endlessly. But in that space of time I'm greeted with the weather, about which I do not care, probably 4 times or more. You're not going to like someone who serves you something you find unwelcome, irrelevant and bland four times an hour without fail. But it's more than that.

It's not that I don't like short people either. Some of my best friends are short. But this guy is a combination of short and pointy featured: prim, slight, like some kind of elf. That's exactly right - an elf. It's like you've taken a grown man and squeezed him like a sponge until everything identifiably masculine has been drained out. You're left with the human equivalent to a hotel shampoo, this suitcase-sized little thing who looks like he's on the run from Santa's grotto. And this morning the cameraman must be playing a joke or something because they've framed him much, much lower than they should. So he looks even more diminutive. Even more stunted.

Like I said at least 2 of my friends tend towards the shorter end of the scale, and I love them both. But something about this weather elf just bugs me.

Enough about that. It's a beautiful day outside. Everything is lit up so bright. Seems like a poor day to be criticising anything. Or watching the news for that matter. I've watched too much news recently. When will I learn when it's not depressing it's lies.

I'm getting creative again, after a short hiatus. That has to be a good thing.

And I'm getting back in bed with my old lover. Coffee. One day I may get to know what makes coffee taste good or bad, and maybe even tell the difference. For the moment I drink the stuff chiefly for the modest kick it gives me, and also for the pass-time it affords my hands and mouth. I imagine smokers have the same experience. The other day I overdosed late at night and had this unusual feeling of rising anxiety and claustrophobia. Also: dread. It was suffocating. It began with a fluttering sensation in my chest, like the panic of a trapped moth. It was thoroughly unpleasant and irregular. I've experienced many different things when by various methods intoxicated, only a few of them bad if truth be told, but this was among the worst. I kept thinking about my death. How inevitable and matter of fact it was. I knew I would one day expire, probably sooner than I hope. I'd go into a void; it struck me. People, when they die, they can only die alone. The sudden immediacy of that was stifling. The long shadow of that. It keeps one awake at night.

Sometimes small things make me happy. Promises and possibilities are all it takes. A good friend of mine recently opened my mind to the idea of drawing on money. This morning I gave Charles Darwin a comb sticking out of his beard and I put a couple of small eyes on the the queen's chin. If you turn her upside down it looks like a new face: the expression says "what's going on" and seems to be on the verge of something, perhaps tears, perhaps laughter. It's wonderfully ambivalent.

I don't know what more I can say so lets leave it there.

Don't Pay the TV License Bullies

Dear Sir/Madam

As you have not responded to our letters yet, you have left us no alternative but to proceed with the final stages of our investigation.

An Officer has been scheduled to visit [my postcode] to find out if TV is being watched or recorded illegally. The Officer may visit your property any day of the week, morning or evening.

The information below explains the procedure. You may refer to it during a visit from the Officer.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Gestapo
Nazi Germany Enforcement Division

I was going to write on a completely different subject but today, when a weedy young guy with a clipboard came knocking on my door not once but twice in one hour, I thought the time was right for a little more antisocial humour.

I haven't paid a TV license in almost three years – making a saving of more than four-hundred pounds.

That's all I'm going to say. I've never communicated with TV Licensing by phone, at the door or in writing. Contrary to what some naïve people may believe I have no legal obligation to do so.

I know some people consider the letters and visits from TV License Man a nuisance and get pretty bent out of shape about it all. But I don't worry too much about him. I think it's hilarious. I especially love reading their letters. I wish I'd kept them all actually, and I think I shall do in future. They don't know my name, hence the address is headed “Legal Occupier” and I'm referred to as “Sir/Madam”. Nor will they ever know my name if I can help it, for all the good it will do them. I'll never communicate to them because no good can come of it. Oh, and if you are in any doubt of my legal right to do this then check out this link http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2006-05-15c.69812.h#g69812.r0 which is the government minister responsible answering the question for us.

“Members of the public who do not require a television licence are under no obligation to inform TV Licensing of the fact.”
     Shaun Woodward, 15th May 2006.

If you've paid your license, grudgingly, for years you might be curious about the process. What they do is they send a cycle of letters which start off quite polite, asking you if you can furnish them with your name and informing you of the many convenient ways to pay. Then if you keep binning them the language gets more serious. Words to the effect of “we have a big fat database and it says you haven't got a license”. Then finally you get a letter like the one above, just before an inspector comes a knocking. To my knowledge they've only knocked on my door 3 or 4 times in the last three years. Most times they knock on my neighbour's door as well. I live in an apartment building, so I can hear them knocking a short distance down the corridor. I get a letter at least every month. I put them in the bin with the same frequency, usually unopened.

Why don't I pay a TV License? Well lack of a TV aside (wink, wink!) I do have a number of issues with the way the BBC covers the news. Pretty much all I'd watch the BBC for is news anyway. But it is nothing to do with the BBC in actual fact.

And it's everything to do with them. According to the BBC we're meant to have all these warm, fuzzy feelings about “Auntie”, which has, allegedly, been upholding standards in broadcasting for almost a century. Don't get me wrong, I think there's a case for publicly funded public service broadcasting – something free of the influence of media moguls, advertisers and the lowest common denominator – but the BBC only partly fills that role and does a great many things which are a waste of poor, gullible fee payers money. I don't pay the fee because Auntie has another face, and it is gruesome to me. It's the face of a  bully and it's a bare face of lies.

Where the lying bullies go to work

The organisation known as TV Licensing and The BCC are exactly the same entity. Here is a BBC response to a Freedom of Information Request on a number of very interesting points, http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20101149_tv_licensing_legal_requirements.pdf . Again I quote the Beeb...

“Before I respond to your question, it may be helpful if I first explain the nature of the relationship between  TV Licensing and the BBC. ‘TV Licensing’ is a trade mark of the BBC and is used under licence by  companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement of  the television licensing system. ”
     Dan McGregor
     Senior Policy Adviser, TV Licensing Management Team
     September 2010.

As I'm writing this the little scrote from the Gestapo is knocking. Again. I walk to the spy hole. I watch him stand, slack jawed for a while longer. He knows I'm watching him. In the past one of his fellow henchmen, a middle aged man on that occasion, shouted “I know you're in there”. Yes. And I know you're out there, where all you can do is waste your time. I watched him quietly for a while before he, too, shuffled off.

Artists impression

What am I supposed to do? Open the door? Answer their questions?

If I was speaking to a polite, forthright and honest organisation I may. Just out of respect for a man with a crappy job. However the more letters I read, and the more advertisements I watch (yes, on TV, but not necessarily as it's being broadcast live, wink, wink!) the more I think these guys are bullies, using the scare tactics and lies to get what they want. By that I mean the institution of the BBC, its letter machine and its door to door lackeys. They're all part of something rotten.

Back to the letter now. Almost every line of that letter is head-scratchingly offensive. Am I living in Stalinist Russia, or Hitler's Germany? Are these people agents of the state? You might think so. The “final stages of our investigation” - am I getting put on a train to Auschwitz? Is the final stage my execution? “The Officer may visit your property any day of the week, morning or evening” – Oh really? He can come and get me whenever he wants, can he? “The information below explains the procedure. You may refer to it during a visit from the Officer” – Can I, now? It sounds like I'm being Mirandized.

They can come for you any day of the week, morning or evening

Lets read on in the letter with some highlights from “What you need to know about the enforcement process.”

• We can apply to court for a search warrant to gain access to your property
• An Officer can take your statement under caution, in compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
• Anything you say to the Officer may be used as evidence in court.

Lets take them one by one.

Search warrant - I'm no legal expert but I'm fairly certain that a search warrant requires some evidence of an offence. Now as they don't even have my name after three years, and I'm not obliged to give them my name, something tells me if they had any evidence I would have heard about it by now. Also there is the old maxim “innocent until proven guilty,” so I'd bet my bottom dollar no-one's going to issue them a warrant to search the property of the offender known only as The Occupier on the off-chance he's watching the tube.

Statement under caution – Even the police can't (or shouldn't) compel me to make a statement against my wishes, not before I've received legal counsel at least. Do they really think I'm stupid enough to start mouthing off at some flunky who can then give my description and claim what he likes in court? No thanks.

Anything I say to the (capital 'O') Officer may be used as evidence in court – There they are, reading me my rights again. I can see how some people might think these people have some kind of police powers whereas they absolutely do not. In fact if I were a jury (not that I'm necessarily going to get a trial by jury any more, even for a real crime) would I be inclined to believe the word of a man who earns commission for every license fee evader he brings in? Here's a cheeky example of how that can go wrong, and also the teasing implication these goons also need your signature:

TV license worker guilty of pay scam
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tm_objectid=16169792&method=full&siteid=50082-name_page.html

So if there are any sceptics left they're probably thinking about one, or both, of two things. Probably the two things most of us think of when we think of TV Licensing.(1) Detector Vans, and (2) The Dreaded Database. Well I guess I'd better come quietly. It looks like they've got me bang to rights, eh?

Negative. When I was a lad, in the 1990s, I remember TV License propaganda/advertisements like this one...

Classic TV Licensing propaganda

And here's an eminently trustworthy press release from...you guessed it...the BBC, which speaks of the new and improved detector vans:

Bollocks about detector vans from the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/06_june/24/licensing_detector_vans.shtml

(By the way I saw 2 items with very similar content, this one from 2003 and another one from 2009. Both presented the information that detector vans no longer have to be marked as a new development. I think we're supposed to be scared if we see any inconspicuous white van near our home. They honestly must think we're idiots).

I'll save you the time and trouble of reading it. Essentially they can now detect if a television is in use from up to 60 metres away! Gasp! Notice how its detecting if a television is in use, which is absolutely not the same as watching television programs as they are being broadcast, which is what the license fee covers. It is perfectly legal to own and operate a TV to watch DVDs/play games etc. So we're talking about a piece of technology that can detect a TV which is not only receiving a UHF band transmissions – note I said receiving, which means no EM signal needs be transmitted anywhere – but is also decoding the digital information to make it suitable for viewing, which has been the only way to watch television since the digital switch over (computers notwithstanding). That's an extraordinary piece of kit. If it exists in the form they claim, which of course it must if Auntie says so, it must be expensive.

They could be anywhere!

And indeed it is. Here's a quote from the website whatdotheyknow.com, where Mr. Jones, in a letter writing battle over a Freedom of Information Request with a very contentious and defensive BBC tries to to justify a cost to the license fee payer of £108,474 per van, revealed in a previous FOI request.

“Under the terms of the 2000 Act, please tell me whether or not
evidence obtained by detector van/portable detection equipment has  ever been presented in court during the prosecution of an alleged  licence fee evader. In this case a simple yes or no answer will suffice.”
    Peter Jones
    (Seeker After the Truth)
    December 2010

I'd encourage you to read the whole back and forth at this link http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_from_tv_detection_equip#incoming-164153 . The BCC twists and turns, delays and uses the ridiculous excuse that giving an answer may be “prejudicing law enforcement.” But ultimately the truth will out.

“I can confirm that TVL has not, to date, used detection evidence in Court.”
    Dan McGregor 
    Senior Policy Adviser, TV Licensing Management Team
    April 2011

He goes on to claim that the evidence of the vans are used to obtain a warrant, not a conviction in court. Seems a little conspicuous that he didn't confirm that this has ever been achieved either, and the implication is that it's their intended use only. Read scare tactics. They've all but admitted the vans purpose is to scare people into paying their TV tax, or else why the smoke and mirrors? I think we've established some pretty convincing evidence that TVL prosecution relies on doorstep confessions, probably signed, and the economics of using vans at £108k a throw means they are going to be pretty rare in any event. Believe what you want to believe.

Van operator

Also since the technology employed in their vans is a closely guarded secret, or alternatively bogus and unable to establish conclusively that the law is being broken at all, I don't see how any magistrate could accept it as grounds of a search warrant. You can't use a secret technology as evidence in a court of law of any kind without a scientific explanation of how it operates, and believe me I've searched quite a bit trying to find out how anyone can detect if TV equipment is being used to watch TV programs as they are being broadcast. Even speed guns have to be calibrated regularly and documented as such to be used as evidence in a speeding ticket. I'm not saying magistrates haven't been hook-winked in the past, potentially based on doorstep confessions with detector evidence thrown in, but in itself it just seems like a load of shit. I believe, if they even operate, they can detect the electromagnetic disturbance of electrical equipment, perhaps even TVs or VDUs specifically, but that, as we've established, is definitely not evidence of an offence in itself. If you know better please prove me wrong.

The van was £100k but the gobshite came free

So what about the database? Well the beloved detector van has been given a bit of a rest in adverts of recent years. I think they realise that people are starting to wise up. But the database is very real. They do indeed have a list of the approximately 30 million addresses in the UK. I know this because I keep getting their junk-mail, as I did in my previous address. The address is always accurate. Funny how they don't have my name though, isn't it? Am I supposed to be worried that they know my home is unlicensed? Knowing as I do that I'm not obliged to tell them if I don't have a television, or indeed who I am. So they know my residence exists and is unlicensed. So what?

In a network diagram, like this jarg one, databases are represented as tins of beans of rainbow hue.

Basically I'm trying, in my long winded way, to make a point here. We're supposed to be living in a free country here, and the terrorist are supposed to be dead jealous. And yet we've still got these crummy little outfits harassing people, pretending like they're a legitimate agency and wasting the proceeds of this license-fee monopoly on goons employed by companies like Capita to bully people out of their rights.

In time I'd like to say more about how important our rights are. And how we shouldn't allow ourselves to be conditioned to believe we are powerless, and that we can be prosecuted and persecuted when we can't. I don't want propaganda put through my letterbox which is full of threats and lies. If you don't think critically and you don't know your rights it makes it that much easy for the authorities, or anyone else, to abuse those rights and lie to you. It's easy to take away rights you didn't know you had. But that's a different topic for a different day.

As for your rights, if, unlike me, you don't like these people coming to your door then do the following. Write them a letter, signed "The Occupier" (no need to use your name - in fact don't ever do that) and tell them that you are withdrawing "the implied right of access". This is the legal right of access which the postman or a door to door salesman exercises when he comes up your garden path or into your block of flats: as long as they have a sensible reason to be there it's kosher in UK law...unless it is revoked of course. Tell them "I will consider any further encroachment on my property trespassing". Don't make any comment about whether or not you have a TV or whether you think you should have to pay the license. That defeats the object. You might also like to say that "I will consider any further unsolicited letters harassment". That's it. If they continue to send letters, don't open them. Take a pen then write "return to sender, no contract" on them and put them back in the post when it's convenient. I can't guarantee they'll get the message but I've read it will keep them away for two years or more before the system resets itself.

Let me make some kind of closing statement.

Everyone who pays the TV license should ask themselves the question – are you paying it because you're happy with what you get for your money? Because you believe it's the right thing to do? Or are you afraid of what might happen if you don't pay. If it's the former then good on you. You're an honest person. I respect that. But if it's the latter then you're what's wrong with the world. You're letting yourself be intimidated into paying for something you don't want, didn't ask for, and you're believing the lies of a bully.

I'd encourage you to read this blog http://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/ for more information and try to get the lying bullies at the BBC put out of business.