Press Vendetta or Public Anger

Today Maria Miller has resigned from her role as Culture Secretary, after coming under fire over her expenses, and profit made from the sale of her controversial second home. Bromsgrove MP Sajid Javid has replaced her.

Over 180,000 people had signed an online petition, which called for Mrs Miller to 'Either pay back £45,000 in fraudulent expense claims or resign.' A poll taken at the weekend showed that 82% of voters thought she should resign from her role in the Commons. Despite this, Prime Minister David Cameron continued to offer his "warm support".

Sinking Britain

These are scary times for those of us who cannot swim, or indeed float. Luckily for me though, I live in a third floor flat on the bank of the Thames. I'm safe in the knowledge that if my feet get wet, we're probably in the midst of water-based apocalypse. I would have to resort to thumbing for a lift from any passing arks.

Two years ago we were in the middle of a roasting spring, with the threat of draught hanging over our parched heads. In a bid to overcome the hosepipe ban, my Grandad constructed a series of aqueducts with drainpipes. Plastic pipes are suspended across the garden, feeding from the roof into his fish pond and water butts. It doesn't seem to have stopped raining since.

Major Congestion Reported Getting Into SimCity

I have come up with another insult to sling around the playground: "Your Mumma's so fat, that she's slower than an EA Game Server". I can imagine it would be, and quite rightly so, followed by a chorus of "RINSED" by some teenagers, who also slap their fingers in appreciation.

This comes in light of recent events, in which people spent tens of pounds on a PC game, only to be told they couldn't play the game because too many people were playing the game. One might think that if you made 'X' number of games, you would, in the end, expect 'X' amount of people to actually want to play the game. But I'm not an expert, so what do I know?

Now That's What I Call Leveson

The news of the past few days has looked like a collection of the 'Best Bits' from the past 18 months. We've had the classic hits of Hugh Grant ruthlessly seeking vengeance on News Corp and The Mirror. Kate and Gerry McCann have made a long awaited comeback to point the stick at Mr Investigative Journalism for being accused by British Media of murdering their child Madeline. The one hit wonder of Christopher Jefferies who won libel damages for his wrongful arrest in the case of Jo Yeates' murder, has come back, looking better than ever (presumably spending his cash). Even political hits have been replayed such as in-depth discussion about Jeremy Hunt's involvement in the BSkyB and whether the coalition is set to burst.

MoneySuperInjunction.com

That website may not yet exist, but if we carry on the path which rich society and gossip is descending down, I give it two years before the website is fully operational. The TV adverts will obviously feature Omid Djalili, where he goes about the World bothering celebrities and telling them that they could have gotten a better deal on their Super Injunction if they had visited MoneySuperInjunction.com first. The website will compare different injunction formulas possible and help the user by suggesting the option that is the best value for money to give them the privacy they want. A service provided completely for free too due to advertising funding.

It has been an odd week or so in which, for once, the UK media has not been able to publish gossip about a footballer and reality TV show having forbidden sex, when everyone else has been talking about it. Twitter was revelling in having 'one up' on the media and the law, so everyone was Tweeting the name 'Ryan Giggs'. 70,000 people broke the law by talking about it. One of which was me, and others included people I follow. It was just a lot of people just figuratively sticking two fingers up at The Sun newspaper and shaking their wrists with pleasure at the law. It was a beautiful, yet confusing moment for British society. If Twitter existed in the 80's, it would have been used in exactly the same way.

I blogged quite a while ago about having Freedom of Speech so long as you keep your mouth shut and remain politically correct at all times, and this follows on from that point and how Twitter has a huge influence upon that. In response to Paul Chambers Tweeting "FUCK! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!", he was arrested and thousands of Twitterer's sent the same message in protest. One anonymous person Tweeted "Footballer Ryan Giggs had an extramarital affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas which lasted for 7 months. #superinjunction" and it went relatively unnoticed for a little while, and the user went on, power sick, and started Tweeting nonsense speculation Tweet's about other celebrities. Anyway, the first Tweet was true, and it soon started spreading.

Once it had spread and gained enough momentum, The Sun appealed for the injunction to be overturned, which was rejected. Twitterer's continued to spread the news and made jokes. Ryan Giggs got angry. The media became irritated. Politicians became irritated. Twitterer's continued to revel and because so many people Tweeted the news, it became impossible to impose the law, but it continued. Eventually, Lib Dem MP John Hemming boiled and spilt the news by abusing/using (it depends on your own opinion) his powers within the Houses of Commons. The Speaker had a mini rant, and the media where finally in ecstasy at now being able to report the news. However, the injunction still remains in place, so it is technically illegal to report it even though, in practice, it isn't illegal because it was mentioned in the Houses of Common. Geddit? Yeah, the law is like a cryptic puzzle. No one has an idea where anyone stands.

There was a great piece of TV in the early morning on Daybreak in the week, in which Max Clifford, media guru/obscene profanity (depends on your opinion), was quizzed for his thoughts on the super injunction fiasco. This is the man who gave the media Jade Goody by the way, so we can agree he has an extremely warped sense of righteousness. He stated that this culture was very worrying because it meant his clients [and therefore him] couldn't make any money. He didn't say that directly, but it was as implicit as stating that you didn't know the sex of your future child whilst winking and holding a pink balloon saying 'It's a girl'.

He did also make one point which I think lends this story a deliciously ironic twist: if Ryan Giggs had never put up an injunction, the story would have never come out due to Imogen Thomas agreeing to keep it secret. The intrigue of the injunction is what led to the story actually coming out and making Giggs a target for matrimonial hate. No-one wanted to publish it in the first place. That, for me, just makes the story a lot sweeter to enjoy.

Now, I wander into the debate of whether Super Injunctions are right or wrong, and I am sitting on the fence about it: I cannot decide what my overall opinion is on this humiliating failure. Both sides of the argument, I think, include very good points. The main points against the injunctions are that a) only the very rich can afford to get them; and b) if you're going to be in the public eye and you don't want people to know you have sex with hookers, and then you shouldn't have sex with hookers. There are also points for the use of injunctions that are a) why is it any of our business; and b) it gives the family a chance to recover and stay together if the media don't shout their private news in big black letters on the front of every newspaper. The case of Andrew Marr springs straight into mind.

A few years ago, with a fellow female Journalist, Marr had an affair and thought that maybe a child she had conceived might have been due to their shenanigans. The injunction was put in place and Marr's marriage had time to heal and survive and DNA testing proved the child not to be his. The injunction stopped speculation by the media and didn't tear the family apart, but it does appear hypocritical when he is grilling politicians on their scandalous private lives, when he himself has one and won't share it. That is something which Ian Hislop campaigned for and was his point every time he was interviewed on the news the day the story hit the media. The story illustrates the good and the bad of super injunctions.

On the whole however, I do totally disagree with the use of super injunctions, as both an aspiring Journalist and a member of the naïve public. I know the Conservatives are in power, but it doesn't necessarily mean we have to live in a time when the rich can do whatever they wish because they are rich. Who wants to live in a society as blatantly biased as that? David Cameron was quick to jump on the band wagon and condemn the use of super injunctions. He is a PR genius, so when he is becoming unpopular due to so many U-turns on the NHS reforms for example, by agreeing with the public on matters such as super injunctions, he seems like a good guy.

If this isn't kept under control, where are we going to end up as a society? Will people get injunctions out to keep the results of sporting events quiet, so that no-one can report the results of the football match between Chelsea and West Ham until Match of the Day is on in the evening? Will BBC 3 be able to get injunctions out every time they produce another horrid 'comedy' aimed at youth to prevent people saying how rubbish it was? Is it possible to get a super injunction to prevent parents from telling their children that Santa isn't real?  Could it be possible for a man to get an injunction out to stop ex girlfriends from revealing the length of his penis? Will chocolate manufactures be able to get a super injunction out to stop people from knowing that chocolate may contain nuts? You see, if it gets out of control, it could get dangerous and people with nut allergies could die!

I don't think we'll stop this super injunction society any time soon, and if we could, we wouldn't be allowed to know how. I think maybe we should slap a time limit on how long a super injunction lasts. A judge should say "Sure, you can have an injunction. But, in 6 months time, the news will come out", and Mr Sex-obsessed Actor will say yes as it gives him chance to sort his life out, and all is well in the end. I mean, this might be the only way to save children with nut allergies! Don't be a bastard and let them die!

March Madness

There have been plenty of slow news weeks. Even slow news months. The past month has probably been the complete opposite with so much happening, the news has struggled to fit it all in. Obviously we've had the Japanese Earthquake which has resulted in weeks of footage enforcing the destructive force left in its wake. We started a 'war' in Libya because it's been too long since we bombed another country which lots of oil. London has been hit by what are becoming trademark protests over money and lots of graffiti is used. There's been a double murder, with one victim being a woman who left a nightclub at 3am; a fact constantly told to us and repeatedly proved by CCTV footage. A 'Supermoon' loomed over the horizon for the first time in 11 years. The biggest news of all is that petrol is 1p cheaper, and thanks to that, I can afford a Mediterranean holiday!

Of course I can't afford a Mediterranean holiday. I haven't even got a passport...

I'm not going to jabber on about the Japanese Earthquake and subsequent disasters because I've already written in great length about that in my previous blog. However, I would just like to point one thing out to my local County Council. Three months after the cold weather, we still have roads smothered in bloody pot holes, and when they are finally repaired, they're done so poorly, that the road crumbles again as soon as a cyclist travels over it. The Japanese: Within a week of the tsunami, a road which was destroyed by its destructive force, was rebuilt and open. Shaming us Brits: It's the Japanese way...

In just a week!

There is one question which no-one really knows the answer to at the moment: Are we actually at war? The way I read it, the short and technical answer is probably no; not for now atleast. However, we are doing nothing to help international relations with Libya, and if you look at our current bombing habits, it's hard to not think we're at war. The English, American and French coalition are actually only enforcing a no-fly zone. This means, that no flights are currently, legally allowed to occur in the airspace above Libya. That’s simple enough. That just means we attack planes that break this rule in an attempt to keep civilians safe. Of course it's not that simple! America is involved. They seem to think that life is actually just a real game of Black Ops or some other war game with similarity. Just shoot anyone who has a vaguely coloured tone, just in case. "They're covered in dust? Better shoot just to be sure”.

An American plane came into difficulties and crashed near a village. The pilots parachuted safely. The locals welcomed the American's and even celebrated how they were helping their country. Then, during a mission to rescue said pilots by American troops, six villagers were shot and injured, including a young boy who lost a leg. An accident they call it. How does that even happen? America is just not happy unless they're shooting at people of a different race.

This does seem like this is going to end in much the same way as Iraq and Afghanistan; which is what people are worried about. We're forcing a country to abide by our rules. Sure, Gaddafi is a bit 'crazy'. I thought we were past the times when a leader would kill his country's citizens because they disagreed with him. Now, there is a debate about how involved we should become in this. Technically, it's illegal for us to give arms to the Libyan people to overthrow the Government. David Cameron still wants to do it though. However, we gave Afghanistan arms in the 90's, and look how that ended. This is a very complex issue which I know not enough about to be able to write more about before becoming inaccurate, boring and just writing gobbledegook.

Next issue on this month’s agenda: The London Protests.

London. It's such a wonderful, beautiful city. Apart from when a small selection of society decide to smash up shops, throw ammonia at policemen, vandalising historic monuments and just generally make profanities of themselves.

The March 2011 protests were about the recent budget cuts. 250,000 respectable citizens marched through the streets of London holding placards to make their point, whilst keeping within the law and having fun. The news repeatedly referred to it as a 'carnival atmosphere'. Then, a couple hundred people turned up disguised in balaclavas, and thought they would undermine the respectable citizens in their aim, by trashing London. As soon as the media found these events scattered across London, the media concentrated on them instead. Suddenly, the majority are forgotten once again.

Let me share a few figures. 66 people were injured; including 13 police. 214 protestors were arrested. That final figure is awful. I understand some of the anger by these protests, in that they attacked the shops, banks and hotels which avoid paying taxes in some shape or form. However, vandalising really isn't helping. Why does this always have to happen? We're a civilised community in this country, and a small percentage just wants to be violent.

Let's forget the protests that are 'fighting' for our future, and just concentrate on the main issue. Like everyone, I disapprove of the budget cuts, but I appreciate that it needs to be done, and maybe it could have been enforced slowly over a longer period, but let's just get over it, carry on with our lives and just be more conservative with our money. Could be worse; we could have just been hit by a huge earthquake and tsunami which killed thousands and destroyed life as we know it...

Labour seem somewhat hypocritical in all this however. I hear you cry 'But Stuart, politicians are never hypocritical. That word doesn't even appear in their dictionaries!" Yes dear reader, it's true. They're thinking about winning back more local council positions in the upcoming elections and are looking ahead to the future when they bid for power of the country again. They want people to like them again, and they're doing that by declaring that what Cameron and his followers are doing, is wrong. However, weren't Labour planning cuts nearly as bad? Yes, yes they were. They seem to have carefully forgotten that fact... Hmm.

Those have been the main points for March, but so much more has happened, and 2011 is proving to be such a busy year. However, I have limited knowledge, limited time and limited motivation to write a huge blog, decrying how awful life is becoming!

In April, we can looks forward to Easter Egg scoffing, a royal wedding and much more I expect...

The Peasants Are Revolting!

Unless you hadn’t noticed, the lower classes have discovered their voice, even if it is in a slightly more violent way, and they are protesting about the rise in tuition fees. As a future University student myself, I am obviously opposed to this raise. In the space of my lifetime, University has gone from being completely free to being capped at £9,000 a year.

Proving that students can spell...

Everyone over the age of 25 doesn’t particularly care about this raise. Most people over that age have already gone and completed University if they had plans to ever do so. Most people over the age of 39 would have gone to University for free.

I want to put this into perspective to everyone who doesn’t see what the fuss is about. The average age of politicians is way over 40. This means they would have got their degrees for free. Now, I don’t see them offering to pay for it, and they will be earning well over the repayment threshold. To me, this seems just a touch hypocritical, but then of course that is the stereotypical politician.

This new system which will be introduced also makes no sense. Raising the fees to the magic number of £9,000 only means that the Government have to loan each student three times as much, each year. This in a time when money is tight and only recently £80 Billion was cut from the country’s budget. This financial climate we currently find ourselves in began through banks loaning money to people who could not afford to repay the money. Why is this different when the Government do it?

Then the other problem is that the earning threshold when a student has to repay their loan increases to £21,000 a year, when it is currently £15,000. This means that less people will be able to repay the money in the first place, and therefore fewer loans are repaid. Obviously, I’m not Chancellor of the Exchequer so I have not seen the figures, but that would surely put the Government into more debt?

Now, I hear all of you adults who are over a certain age asking: “Well, if the students will apparently have it so good, why are they protesting and why in such a violent way?” I cannot answer the latter question, but how would you like an average debt of about £35,000 hanging over you for the rest of your life, just to get an education which former generations got for free? This is then money that the HM Revenue and Customs will take from every single paycheque that is over a certain amount. I don’t call that particularly fair considering the free education the people in power got.

Of course, I appreciate that times have changed. Education is of course a better quality. We are producing a generation of children which are smarter and regularly slandered by the media. I understand that people are earning more money. I understand that University is no longer necessarily for the smartest people, but for the children of higher income families. Oh wait, that last point doesn’t seem fair, does it? Hmm.

A selection of newspaper headlines from the last Student Protests...

Now, let us discuss the protests.

I wasn’t in the group of people protesting, and in fact I was no where near it. I was busy getting an education and what have you. It seems to me that this is possibly another example of the media slandering the younger generation. This is often the way. Judging by the media, my generation are out getting drunk every night on cheap booze they brought at Tesco’s, and drinking it at bus stops and recreation grounds across the country. Young female teenagers are ‘giving it away’ at the first chance they get and before they reach 20, have a family of three children from different fathers barely old enough to buy a lottery ticket. We are also all out in high streets wearing hoodies and proudly holding our mobile phones to capture the moment when a friend violently attacks a stranger so we can upload it straight to YouTube. Then, when it comes to examination time, our one time to prove that we aren’t all like that stereotype, we get fantastic grades, and of course this ends up being further proof that we’re just idiots. The only reason we could possibly get good grades is because the exams are easier. It couldn’t possibly be because we all study hard.

I’m guessing that on the most part, the student protests of the past few weeks have been largely quiet and calm, and there are only a few actually causing trouble. Of course, the media swarm to these events like flies to cow poo, just to get video footage of a man being violently beaten off his horse. This is one person out of a crowd of thousands. Numerous monuments around the capital vandalised with graffiti. This is a handful of people from a crowd of thousands. The royal limo was attacked with paint and bullet-proof windows smashed. This is a few people from a crowd of thousands. I agree these people should be arrested and the full force of the law slapping sense into them. However, I don’t agree that their out-of-control actions should taint the reputation of an entire generation. It’s always a few people that ruin it for the rest of us law abiding, lovely folk.

People are making a huge fuss over a number of police being hurt. 114 students were injured in Thursday’s protests; and the sad thing is, a majority of those were probably peacefully protesting. You can complain about the violence of students all you like, but the police were quick to retaliate. The police are well train and equipped for this sort of event and they seemed very prepared. To me, it seems like the police caused as much trouble as the students.

I imagine people like him only went to London for a day out. I highly doubt he has the mental capacity to even spell 'University'...

I would never be able to do what the police do; I’m not knocking them down in the slightest bit. They are very brave to go out there and do what it is they do on a daily bases. However, I think they need to review how they act in those situations. Charging at protestors in huge numbers with weapons and horses is not calming the situation.

I don’t understand why people even bother protesting anymore though. Yes, it is to voice our freedom of speech. However, the people in charge don’t listen to our chanting and sign holding. Take the war demonstrations through London opposing the Iraq war. Tony Blair still went to war despite the voice of almost an entire country; the stubborn bastard. Why should David Cameron and his puppy dog Nick Clegg listen to us when we say that we don’t want huge debts?

Maybe the politicians cannot understand our peasant, yobbish voices. Who knows, but the Government never listen to us, the general public, despite what they might say during their election campaigns to win the hearts and minds of us idiots. They just say what they think we want them to say.

One might point out it was worth it just to see Camilla pull this face.

So, let me just say this to all of you who have gone to University and don’t see what all the fuss is about: How would you have felt if you had to have a massive debt of that size? Would you have even considered going to University? And to those who got free University education; before you start judging our generation, why don’t you consider paying a contribution to the Government for your University education? No, I didn’t think so because you’re too busy being some semi-important ‘guy’ at some office, driving a Mercedes Benz and living in a town house with your 2.5 kids and glass conservatory. Well I want a life like that too, but of course if I do, I will have a debt to pay. You don’t realise how lucky you were and how well you had it.

We need more teachers. Do you think that people are going to want to go to University and get the proper training to teach your grandchildren, what with this increasing debt? Everyone will suffer as a result of this; including you.

This ConDem Government could be one of the worse things to happen to our country in some time. These cuts in spending are nothing short of disastrous.

It's ConDem May

I return, and I am writing fit. A pun in my very first sentence in my first blog for almost a month -  I have returned. Personally, I would say May 2010 was possibly the worst month of my life thus far; what with getting Chicken Pox, missing an important exam, cancelling my University application and of course turning 18. However, May 2010 has been quite a poignant month in the history of our country, with elections being held and the voters sticking two fingers up at politics – metaphorically or course.

'The country is going to the polls' was the popular phrase used by journalists for the days leading up to 6th May. I could make a joke about Poland, but I feel it is too easy. The public essentially had three main candidates to choose from. For Labour, they had the increasing unpopular Gordon Brown, who seemed to be stretching his neck skin. The Conservatives had David 'Dave' Cameron who shouted for change so many times, I was starting to think he wore nappies and always needed them changing, or there were increasingly popular Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg who 6 weeks ago had an unrecognisable face.

In the lead up to the election, three televised leader debates were held. Something quite popular in America, and in an attempt to make the UK a bit more of a democracy, they were tried over here. They became quite popular and indeed helped Nick Clegg to becoming popular. The first debate was shown on ITV and concentrated on the domestic affairs of our country, in which polls suggested Clegg won. The second debate, shown on Sky News, was about the international affairs of our country and mainly focused on the wars we are participating in – Clegg also won this one. The third was shown on the BBC the week before the election and concentrated on our economy, with each suggesting ways to help our country to get out of debt. Clegg, indeed, won the third debate as well according to polls.

David Cameron and Gordon Brown spent most of the debates arguing between themselves while Nick Clegg stood there watching with a slightly smug look upon his face. I didn't particularly listen to what they had to say much, and infact I just studied their body language to see how they were coping. Clegg seemed to cope fine with the pressure of the audience and the heat of the spot lights. Cameron too seemed to cope with it all reasonably fine, apart from the fact he became rather sweaty and his forehead not only became shinier, but also seemed to grow. I never noticed before the debates he was slowly turning bald. Gordon Brown seemed to cope the same way he normally does under pressure, by bumbling everything he said more than Gareth Gates on Pop Idol many moons ago. I noticed he has very large ears and a lot of excess skin around his neck. He also seems to suck his teeth and intake air half way through his sentences, much like you would expect an angry rabbit would who was blowing up a balloon. Gordon Brown also created a slogan unwillingly in the debates.

Obviously, Gordon Brown and his team of PR ‘experts’ realised how popular Nick Clegg was becoming and how the audience seemed to always be agreeing with him. From this I presume the phrase 'I agree with Nick' was created. Rarely did a sentence fall from Brown's lips that did not start with the words 'I agree with Nick'. I essentially ended up feeling very sorry for Gordon.

On the 6th of May, despite having Chicken Pox, I was not 18, so I could not vote. If I could've voted though, I think I would voted Lib Dem's. I've supported the Conservatives for many years, but on final reflection, it was pretty much certain that the Conservatives would get the most votes, and seeing as I had become fond of Nick Clegg like everyone else, I think I would have helped him in getting votes. Either way, when the votes finally came in, no-one had actually won. Britain was in the midst of a parliament being hung (unfortunately, not in the way one would hope for).

Then the week of arse-kissing began. Both Labour and the Conservatives spent the entire election campaign constantly demeaning Nick Clegg and his fellow Liberal Democrats, and then they ended up having control over both parties. Eventually, on the Tuesday evening following the election, during Eastenders, it was announced that Nick Clegg had chosen the Conservatives and gone into partnership with them, forcing Gordon Brown out of British Politics. We are now living in a country run be a coalition Government, made up of David Cameron as Prime Minister and Nick Clegg and Deputy Prime Minister. What a marvellous day.

Over the coming weeks they announced the final line up of the Cabinet Team and it was a wonderful mixture or Blue's and Yellow's. Then the budget was announced. I am yet to read the 12 page document (however, I do actually plan to do so at some point), but somehow the new chancellor, George Osborne has begun cutting £6Billion from our countries budget. Then, for reasons of malice, the media has begun and I am sure will continue to, tear and pick apart the coalition Government so the next leaders debate will actually be held on an episode of Jeremy Kyle. You would think the media didn't want our country to have a stable Government and would rather our country be torn apart by constant rioting and fist fighting.

As in most partnerships, each side has had to give up some important things; for example I think as part of agreement Nick Clegg has had to bin his Elton John CD. The big thing that will come from the coalition, which I am rather sadly excited about, is a reform of the voting system. The Liberal Democrats this year received the most votes they have ever had, however, they ended up with less seats than previously had. To be honest, I am very excited about this coalition, and I do hope it works and I think it would be nice them to last the entire term together, but whether that will happen, we shall have to wait and see.

Another big thing about the month of May, like April, was the disruption to air travel. Only slightly caused by the ash cloud this time, but was mainly caused by BA Staff striking. Now, I am all for freedom of speech and all that lark, but this all seems pretty darn ridiculous to me. British Airway's staff have lost their travelling privileges. I don't want to come across as sarcastic and cynical here, but BOO-HOO! I wonder if anyone has actually pointed out to them yet that the longer they keep striking, the more money their employers lose. Then eventually, they'll start to lose so much money they will fall into debt, which would then lead to one of the biggest British companies closing down and having a major effect upon our economy and of course, all the people who are striking, won't have a job at all.

Sure, it seems quite unlikely that would happen, but I don't think losing a few travelling perks is enough of a reason to go on strike. From what I understand, pilots and airline staff are not exactly underpaid. I don't know what these perks are, but I doubt a bag of peanuts costs that much on a flight. I don't know because I have never been on a plane, but I think they should just stop throwing their toys out the pram and go back to doing their jobs!

I don't think anyone can write a blog about May, without mentioning the Eurovision Song Contest either. I didn't watch much of it really, infact, I only saw two songs (one of them ours) and the final results at a friend’s house after a night out. However, our country came last place, and I cannot understand why this has to be. Sure, the guy who was singing, who I affectionately have always called 'Whatshisface' because I do not want to waste brain cells learning his name, was rubbish. He hit very few notes properly and his backing singers were just as bad. It felt as if they had never previously all sung together as they had absolutely no ability to harmonise together at all. As for the song itself; why would we even give Pete Waterman the job of writing a song in the first place? It seemed like a suicide attempt!

Granted, there is not much British music about that I am particularly fond of, but we do have some pretty good singing talent. We should get one of our professional and successful singers to perform. Why not Leona Lewis? She's not great, but she is better than a lot of crap and is quite popular globally now. Cliff Richard done it twice, in 1968 and 1973 and he was a professional then. Other countries use professional and popular singers! The cynic in me knows the reason why we will not do it though. Money.

We spent so much effort on trying to get the Olympics and our country is also praying to host the World Cup, which is/will be, millions upon millions, if not billions, of pounds spent building stadiums and hosting the tournament. However, our country cannot afford to host the Eurovision Song Contest anymore as it is seen as dead wood now, so we continually put in rubbish acts. What makes it worse is that we complained for years that the reason we never won was because it was too political, and now that the points system has been changed, so that 50% of a countries results come from impartial judges, we still lose and have no excuse other than 'We're shit!'

Anyway, that is it for this blog, reviewing the month of May. You will not have to wait another month for the next blog though, as I plan to write two more in the next week - hopefully.