BP branding becomes graffiti target

Showing that, even in times of protest, the Brits are capable of displaying a sense of humour and wit, billboards depicting BP's slogan, 'fueling the future', have been changed to "f***ing the future", as it was revealed that, all across London, BP's signage has become the victim of graffiti. Presumably the irony of the 'artists' f***ing up a sign on the way to creating that message wasn't lost on them, although it has become the basis for a website of the same name, but the response by the community at large has been staggeringly predictable.

Regardless, the stunt has done an impressive job of creating awareness about BP's sponsorship deal with the games, with activists stating their aims as being: "[To] escalate public debate of BP’s sponsorship after headlines in recent months had focused on the Dow controversy."

There have also been various Tweets promoting the news, with standout links coming from here and here, to give an example of just two.


While it is probably to be expected that the news would be greeted positively by protest and action groups alike, and that it would be seen as good that people are apparently showing up the fact that money is triumphing above 'true' ethics, there is a serious point to be raised about how these messages influence the public.


These protests are meant to show up BP's supposedly indecent actions, but when these messages become carried, celebrated and promoted by people with Twitter accounts called Agentur Radio Utopie or the London Anarchists, for example, there is a danger of the debate becoming poisoned.


Why? Well, Twitter may hold the answer to that question. The Agentur Radio Utopie account has just 470 followers, and isn't even based in Britain, it's based in Berlin. The London Anarchists account is marginally more popular, being followed by 1,406 people. So, there's a worst case scenario of 1,876 people who want to be associated with terms like 'anarchists' and 'utopia'.


What's the problem with that? Anarchy and utopia are terms that are more often than not seen as extreme and divisive, due to the movements they are associated with. They are terms that the majority more than likely won't back. Take the London Anarchists for example. Nearly 8 million people live in London, and 1,406 people follow their Twitter page. Even assuming that all of them live in London, there's 7,798,594 people unaccounted for there, or they represent 0.01803% of London's population, whichever you prefer. A minority? You bet, resoundingly.


The very fact that they are such an invisible minority will not help their cause, and it's the exact same reason why their backing of such a campaign will do them no favours. Our entire society is based on the idea of majority rule, from General elections to strike action to deciding what sport is played in a PE lesson. Will 7.8 million people see the point of a campaign backed by 1,406 people. No, because the maths just doesn't add up.