Camden's burning

Last night's fire is a blow to Camden. But in re-development, it must retain its character

It’s Sunday and I’ve just been through Camden Town, on my way back home to Kentish Town from the Chinese New Year celebrations in Trafalgar Square and Chinatown. As I changed buses, I saw first-hand the massive amount of damage done to the canalside market by last night’s fire.

The destruction is extensive, and the danger from the damaged buildings so great that all the markets have been closed for the day. The police cordon extends most of the way down the roads leading away from the scene. As I walked over the canal to catch my bus home, I could see fire crews on cranes still pouring water over the gutted shops and market stalls, more than 18 hours after the fire started.

It was so sad to see one of my favourite parts of Camden in such a state. I have been talking up the excellence of its markets a lot lately, seeing as one of the standard Mayoral interview questions seems to be, ‘Where do you shop for clothes?’ (I do hope all the other candidates are getting that one). But of course it’s not just good for racks of second-hand bargain jackets; Camden’s markets support a wide range of entrepreneurs, artisans and craftspeople – unique small businesses that must all be suffering today.

It was a reminder, too, that we have to cherish the individuality of London’s various ‘urban villages’ - whether Camden Town or Chinatown - and support them, not take them for granted. The London Chinatown Chinese Association are doing a great job maintaining the spirit and character of their area, as shown by their tremendous work organising today’s celebrations. The stallholders and small business owners in Camden are similarly united as they find themselves under pressure from circling developers. I have joined them more than once in recent years to object to the encroachment of shiny new shopping centres into the area.

This latest blow is a challenge for all of to make sure the damaged buildings are restored for the benefit of the existing businesses and householders, and that this disaster is not used as an excuse for another characterless mall to spring up in their place.

Sian Berry lives in Kentish Town and was previously a principal speaker and campaigns co-ordinator for the Green Party. She was also their London mayoral candidate in 2008. She works as a writer and is a founder of the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s
Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496