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".
Last week, Adebolajo and Adebowale, were both
sentenced to life imprisonment, nine months after their brutal attack on
Drummer Lee Rigby on a South London street.
The pair were sentenced in their absence after
brawling with security guards during Mr Justice Sweeny's opening sentencing
remarks. This brings around a legal resolution wanted by all. But how can the
family move on after losing a loved one in such a tragic and public way?
Lee Rigby's funeral
Most of us would have seen the upsetting images taken
on Artillery Place, Woolwich, in the immediate aftermath of the attack. We were
horrified at the sight of an unshaken man calmly addressing a camera phone, while
brandishing a blood-soaked cleaver. He stood in front of a man, who laid in the
road in a puddle of blood.
I
figured that Katie Hopkins wouldn't mind me writing that about her. It might
even give her an idea for her next topic to be outraged on. You see, her diet
actually consists of outrage directed at her. She is a monster who feeds on
incandescent fury, and it makes her grow bigger, stronger and more opinionated,
until one day she will defeat Holly Willoughby.
The
media attention surrounding her has grown since the start of 2013, but
particularly in the past few weeks. She is arguably one of the most famous
Apprentices to come out of the show after causing much controversy and finally
quitting the show. Since then, she's not really had a proper job, as far as I
can see from Googling her name. Her career highlights include going into the
I'm A Celebrity jungle, appearing on Question Time, appearing on This Morning,
taking Alan Sugar to court and having her name trend on Twitter.
I
have concluded I don't suit the human race. I think I would be much more
comfortable at being part of another species on planet Earth, such as a rabbit
or a tortoise. They always seem quite happy and contented and unbothered by
what is happening in the news. A rabbit’s hutch will be lined with newspaper,
but being a rabbit I wouldn't be able to read the text nor really be able to
understand the context of the pictures. And even if I could understand it, I'd
either eat or poo on the offending article. It's easy as a rabbit. I can even
wiggle my nose and ears like a rabbit. Maybe I was meant to be a rabbit? Or if
you believe in reincarnation, maybe I was once a rabbit. I wish I had a simple
life like a rabbit, where I couldn't get offended.
Why
am I considering the rabbit’s life? Well, the news the past two days has
completely depressed, revolted and ashamed me. I am part of a species that
murders. I know it's hardly a news flash: “Human Race Murder”. I'm thinking
more about a specific murder carried out yesterday; a murder of a bad man. A
terrible man. A man most would agree didn't deserve to live in the first place.
However, what has bothered me more is not the murder itself, but the aftermath.
His death has been glorified, and that is what I have a problem with.
Almost
every newspaper carried a picture, on the front page, of Colonel Gadaffi. His
lifeless face, covered with blood and a bullet hole in his head, is a picture
which can be seen everywhere today. The Mirror had the worst, most disgusting
picture and The Sun had a headline, which seemed to be full of pride at his
death: "That's For Lockerbie", with the sub-heading "And for
Yvonne Fletcher. And IRA Semtex Bomb victims." That headline is typical of
The Sun, and its approach to anything done by, or as a result of, our Army.
They are often blinded by a sense of pride. Morality doesn't come into their
field of approach to news stories like this.
I hate myself for having to put his picture in my blog, but I just wanted to share the front cover. You can hate me and call me hypocritical if you like...
It
comes to something when the human race uses technology to spread footage of a
man being tortured and killed, all done within minutes of the event happening.
Within an hour of hearing about the capture and possible death of Gadaffi, I
was seeing pictures on the BBC Website, and video footage on their news
channel, of his dead, bloodied and beaten body. The BBC defended it, by stating
that they used the video to convey the scale of the "dramatic and
gruesome" events. This is the same for every international news outlet in
the country. To me, that is just seems wrong. It seems inhuman to put the face
of a dead man everywhere; we wouldn't even treat an animal in that way.
Of
course, we have to appreciate that as a nation, we are cynical enough to take
the opinion that we won't believe something until we have seen it, and studied
it for ourselves. Seeing as we can't all fly to Libya and poke the body
ourselves; video footage is the next best thing. Saying to news outlets that
they cannot show the pictures in their papers, and websites and news channels
would be censorship, and I am against censorship. I just believe that we don't
need to see these pictures over and over and over and over again. He isn't a
very attractive man in the first place, let alone dead, bruised and bloodied.
Why couldn't it just be confined to the Internet and after the watershed on TV?
It seems wrong to have this man, who has essentially been 'happy slapped', in
this state, as a picture to symbolise Thursday 20th October 2011.
To
take an extreme view; we wouldn't do this to a victim. If Gadaffi had captured,
then beaten and killed an innocent person in public and filmed it and uploaded
the video to the Internet, the media would handle the whole event with moral
decency. The same was done with Osama Bin Laden in May. We had a blurry,
inconspicuous picture of a body said to be him, which was plastered everywhere.
It seems revolting to do this, time after time. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE
CHILDREN!
It
seems the newspapers have become the medieval equivalent to putting heads of bad
people, on spikes for others to treat as they will. It dehumanised them. Now,
the papers print the picture of a lifeless head on the front page instead.
There
is also the argument of whether he should have been killed in the first place,
and even the circumstances of the death are hazy. We have a video of Gadaffi in
a bad way, being dragged through the streets of his home town, after been
beaten up and having blood pouring off of his face. Then the next video we have
is of him lying dead with a small bullet hole. Apparently it was cross fire.
However, chances are, it was an emotional person, who probably knew some
victims of Gadaffi's regime, and then, consumed with hate, put a gun to his
head and blew his brains out (metaphorically).
However,
now he is dead, people will never know the truth. People will never know his
darkest secrets (which is possibly a relief for Western countries, who were
heavily affiliated with him). He can never be tried in court, and can never be
punished in the humanly correct way. Many questions will remain unanswered. How
can a 'new Libya' claim to be any better than Gadaffi, when they begin like
this? But then again, his trial was expected to have taken 10 year. It could be
said to have been a waste of money and time. I know I will still disagree with
his death, and especially how our media have dealt with it.
If
God existed, and I was him, I would be putting the human race on the naughty
step. No, don't argue and sulk, you done a bad thing, now sit there quietly
until I say so; especially you media bastards!
Journalists are complete and utter bastards, I think we can all agree on that. Recent allegations against Journalists, Editors and Newspaper 'brands' make them all come across as heartless bastards with no morals, no guilt and only have a taste for money, and whether it interrupts with some small murder inquiry, well who cares; you could earn up to £100,000 if your fantastic story hits the front page of the News Of The World. Stupid, selfish bastards, that's what Journalists are. Only an idiot would spend three years and get into £21,000 debt so they can become one… Oh, right, yeah. Idiots like me. Want to see what idiot looks like? Come around my house and ask for Stuart. You can punch me if you like (Please don't punch me).
I am utterly disgusted. One could kid themselves that they'll change the face of Journalism, but reality is, I will be nothing but a speck of a dust when it comes to a list of all the Journalists. I'll make no difference what so ever. The last few days, I've begun to reconsider my life plans. Why would anyone willingly become associated with those selfish, incompetent, money sucking, bastard scumbags? That's not to say that these allegations have tainted what it means to be a Journalist; that happened many years ago, but this just highlights how awful those people are. Bastards!
This blog has been written slowly over a course of 10 days (however, it won't seem like it when you read it), and not because I couldn't be bothered to do it, just because this story has moved so quickly, it would just mean that paragraphs of writing would be benign before I even finished the blog, let alone published it.
Anyway, so this story has been going on for years (since 2003 I do believe), with it slowly coming out that politicians like John Prescott and Boris Johnson, as well as celebrities like Hugh Grant and Gwyneth Paltrow, had their phones hacked, and they got a bit angry, and small debates started on Newsnight and Question Time, The Guardian got uppity and the story went away, after a Police Investigation which (now, rather ironically) said that nothing illegal had occurred. Then July 2011 happened and now, within a week, the face of the media has altered drastically and Journalists are hated more than a love child between Katy Price and Piers Morgan would be.
What has all the recent fuss actually been about I hear the ignorant population trying to speculate. Well, essentially, some Journalists have lost sight of what it means to be a Journalist. I have always thought the news was to explain in a clear, unbiased way, the recent events that have been happening locally and World-wide. When Murdoch came to our shores and brought with him his ruthlessness that seemed to change. Now Journalists seek out news stories that they think will help grab that coveted front page headline (Worth up to £100,000 remember), and therefore sell more papers. 'Investigative Reporting' this is called. They will go to any means to find out a dirty secret about someone in the media spotlight, because APPARENTLY, that's what the public want. No, I don't care that someone I've heard of has slept with a hooker. I don't think a majority of the public DO want that. I think they want to be informed in an intelligent, non-patronising manner, about the current news to gain a better understanding of life on our planet.
It came out nearly two weeks ago now that investigative reporting went to the dirty lows where no morals exist and tampered with a murder inquiry just so they could have more people crying for longer to drag a story out. Milly Dowler is the first example we're told of. In 2002, she was abducted before being murdered. However, despite being murdered, she still managed to delete voice messages. As you can see, before they found her body (which took 6 months, a heck of a long and excruciating time for her family you understand), they thought she was alive and listening to her messages. That gave her family and friends false hope. That is despicable. Who could do such a thing? Well, a News Of The World journalist of course. That 'journalist' had hacked the phone of Milly Dowler and was listening to the heartbreaking messages from her loved ones on her phone. And when her voice mail become full, he deleted messages so that more people could leave heartbreaking messages for him to carry on listening to and continue to drag out the story. Yeah, I think if hell exists, there is a place reserved for him down there.
This was what led to this phone hacking scandal to go nuclear, and it then came out that all high profile child murder enquiries would have to be reopened due to it being possible that journalists from the News Of The World had done the same thing.
Then more and more despicable and shameful storied leaked out of the Guardian and the BBC, day after day about the News Of The World hacking peoples phones and bribing policemen. It was revealed that the mobile phones of the victims and the families of the London terrorist attacks (or 7/7 as the media refer to it as), have been hacked, again to listen to all the heartbreaking, upsetting messages that concerned people would have left for them. It was revealed that maybe even the victims from the New York terrorists attack (9/11 as the media refer to it as) had been hacked and now that's being investigated by the FBI. It came out that the families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been hacked. It came out that Gordon Brown had his personal information hacked and The Sun wanted to reveal the news that his son has cystic fibrosis. It was suggested that a private investigator gave personal details of the senior royal family for £1000 a time. It was also, very worryingly, revealed that some reporters paid members of the Metropolitan police to gain these personal numbers and details which led to some of these hackings in the first place. All very hard hitting, shocking stuff.
And after all that news came out, News Of The World closed and will never print again. However, give it a few months and a new paper will take its place, don't worry. Andy Coulson, who was once editor, was arrested, but that's where this story became a witch hunt. Rebekah Brooks wasn't arrested, she wasn't even sacked. Sure, 11 days later, she resigned, but she's still not been arrested. 200 people lost their jobs when News Of The World closed, and for the most part, despite the reputation of the paper, it had some of the best journalists in the country; World even. Very talented, innocent people. Only a few hacked, not all of them. Is it fair they lost their jobs? Not in the slightest. I will give you some figures though: The newspaper printed 2.5 million copies every Sunday. On the final Sunday, they printed under 5 million copies. The front page boasted '7.5 million loyal readers'. They're great journalists, but mathematicians they're not...
So why should you not feel sorry for Rebekah Brooks? Well, let me just remind you that she was arrested in 2005 for, allegedly, domestically abusing her then husband, which was Ross Kemp: TV's hardman! 200 people lost their jobs to try and save her job, and look where that ended. The most disgusting thing about her (second to that hair of her's) is how much of a lying bitch she is. She honestly expects people to believe that she knew nothing about any of this hacking lark. She never questioned any of these secret stories and there source? That means she either lied, in which case she should have been sacked, OR she was an idiotic, incompetent editor who was completely ignorant to everything that happened when she was in charge; in which case she should have been sacked. However, that would never have happened because the political hypocrites wouldn't have liked that. Gordon Brown and David Cameron went to her wedding; how can they possibly take the moral high ground on this? They didn't want her sacked, they wanted her to resign; meaning she still gets a huge pension and other perks, which is wrong. BURN HER; SHE'S A WITCH! I heard someone say we shouldn't harass her as it's not very nice. How bloody ironic!? Some really middle-class idiots phone up Radio 2 y'know. I think we should continue to harass her for a taste of her own medicine if she doesn't get arrested, and it should become legal to intrude on the privacy of her life. I think we should arrest Piers Morgan too. He wasn't editor when the hacking happened, but we should just arrest for once being editor of News Of The World, The Sun and The Daily Mail.
This all came at a very poignant time for the media industry. News Corporation, for some time now, has been trying to buy the complete rights to BSkyB. They already own a percentage, but they wanted more. This is something I and 160,000 other people where against and signed an online petition to stop this happening. You only have to look at America and the Fox network to know that this isn't the way we want our country to end up. This scandal and its tainting on the reputation of News International, along with widespread anger at this deal, led to Rupert Murdoch pulling out his bid. Huzzah! Come on everyone; let's have a party to celebrate the power of public outcry! Woo hoo!
All in all, these have been the worst two weeks that News Corporation has ever had. They've had their reputation ruined both sides of the Atlantic. I mean, we all know how patriotic the American's are and how protective they are of anything to do with 9/11. If victims’ families have been hacked, the American's will want blood. They have lost their biggest selling newspaper. Murdoch has lost his chances of owning BSkyB anytime soon. Rebekah Brooks has gone. And, now they're being investigated which will undoubtedly end with the Murdoch's paying huge sums in damages to everyone. They may as well just send everyone in Britain a cheque for £500 and be done with it. I hope heads roll for all this, I really do.
The only way it could get worse for the Journalism industry is if it were revealed that it's their fault Princess Diana died in that French tunnel because they were too busy, photographing the scene and trying to grab the headline first, to actually help her… WHAT!?
P.S. I would love to write so much more and express my opinions, so maybe I’ll do a second blog soon on the subject. Watch this blogspot…
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!
Everything for the past few weeks has been to do with the Royal Wedding. Prince William and Kate (From today called Catherine) have made their vows and tied the metaphorical knot of marriage, unless Westminster Abbey was blown up and I didn’t get chance to remove this blog before it posted at it’s scheduled time of course (if that is the case, I apologise for my insensitivity). Anyway, let’s assume they haven’t been horrifically murdered.
Is it just me who thinks this looks like a promotional shot for a new Doctor Who alien?
Every media outlet has been bursting with excitement at this event. The news has interviewed Kate Middleton’s distant family who own chips shops and interviewing people she went to school with to find out what kind of girl she was. The news has covered all the preparation details from policemen checking drains for bombs and transatlantic TV channels setting up a media centre not far from Buckingham Palace. People watch the news to get updates on the days national and international events; not speculation about a wedding. There’s been speculation about what the wedding dress will look like, and whether she’ll wear long or short arms. Phoooar, I hoped she was to wear short sleeves; nothing like a bit of Royal elbow action!
We’ve had predictions about the weather, which I predict will have undoubtedly been wrong. There have been rumours of what David Cameron will wear. The SkyHDCopter has been circling the route for the past week, to needlessly pump fumes into the Ozone Layer and achieve very little else. Obviously, there have been many comparisons to Diana. There verb ‘commoner’ has insultingly been continuously used to describe Kate Middleton, and the emphasis has repeatedly been that on the 29th of April 2011, she becomes something meaningful – a Princess. Prince Harry dated a girl named ‘Chelsy’. Princess Chelsy. Now, that’s common. Kate is not.
This wedding has rekindled the argument of whether we, as a nation, still need a monarchy. Notice that only idiots say ‘No’ in that debate. The people that think we shouldn’t have a monarchy are the same people that idolise Katie Price and her weddings. At least Royal Weddings happen infrequently instead of it being a bi-annual event.
I would never use the word ‘Royalist’ to describe myself. I’m not their biggest fan. I haven’t got a display cabinet in my house which is full of Royal memorabilia like a mug for the Queen’s coronation or a plate with the face of Prince Charles and Diana on it and nor am I gaining an erection at the chance to buy more Royal wedding memorabilia. I just appreciate the history of our country, which always remains synonymous with the Royal family. Almost the entire World appreciates it, apart from the infuriatingly ignorant disciples of Katie Price.
Imagine a World where Britain never had a monarchy. England wouldn’t have its beautiful castles or other classic British attractions. Fairy Stories would involve back alleys instead of a Prince wooing his Princess. Disney wouldn’t have its Disney Princess franchise (This surprisingly upsets me). We Brits would be much more like Europe. Visitors wouldn’t flock to our country, and therefore we would be skint. Money would look a lot different. And the most horrifying: Blackadder may have never existed!
Okay, they are not the greatest reasons ever, but they should be carefully considered before we even embark on hinting at the possibility of starting to think about the removal of our Royals. Britain without a monarchy is like a dog without a bone: It will survive, but it would lose its spirit and never quite be the same again.
And Diana. We wouldn’t have idolised her if it wasn’t for the Royal Family! We wouldn’t have had a week of national mourning when she was killed in a tunnel in France. We wouldn’t find all the jokes about her death funny because we wouldn’t have a clue of who she was. Mind you, if it wasn’t for the Royal family, one could probably argue she would still be alive, but instead working as a checkout girl at Asda. Swings and roundabout aye?
So, the People’s Princess has been dead for over a decade, and we have slowly lost faith in our monarchy and its usefulness. Maybe Princess Catherine will tug on the nations Heartstrings to become the next Queen of our Hearts. Mind you, the Queen does have no power. All the decisions are made by the politicians and she just sits there pretending to care and nodding at the appropriate times.
We all secretly love the Queen though. It’s like the way we love our Mum’s. We have no actual reason to love them, but they’ve always been there and we know that society says we should, so we do. It’s instinctive, maternal love. We should take great pride in our Queen. We don’t have enough pride for her these days. We seem to have evolved into a cynical, stoical nation of people. And how many people actually know our National Anthem? Not many. Not even I know it. It should have been compulsorily taught to us in Primary school, along with the association of characters to letters of the alphabet, like Kicking King (For the letter K) and Kissing Cousins (to represent the letter X?), as well as learning about Autumn every Autumn.
It doesn’t matter what you think about the Royal family, because they are not going to just give up their power, and a military coup is very unlikely. So if you don’t like it, either get used to the Royal family or move to America where you can then look at us, full of admiration.
That is my biggest annoyance! Bloody indecisive Americans! During the civil war they kicked us out, and now, they want in. They admire our Royal family. They seem to even admire our British ideals. Bloody hypocrites! Then, ironically, we seem to admire Barack Obama and wish we had such a powerful, elegant leader. Typical neighbours; looking over each other’s fences (in this metaphor, the Atlantic Ocean is the ronsealed fence) at their lives, full of jealousy.
Well, I hope you Brits enjoyed your Street parties, filled with VE Day spirit with cupcakes, crumpets, bunting and the typical British weather, and I hope you Yanks enjoyed waking up early to see a wedding full of people you have never heard nor care about.
One last thought: Why didn’t we charge the Yanks an extortionate rate for the rights to show the wedding and pay for it that way, as opposed to letting them enjoy festivities for a cheap price? It would save our pounds sterling. I’m sure Fox News could afford it.
Good luck to the newest Royal wedding; they need it. And long live Princess Catherine. I hope she lasts longer than Diana. OH, IF ONLY DIANA WERE STILL ALIVE TODAY!
I blame those pesky neutrinos. If you have seen the film '2012', you will know why. I only watched it very recently for the first time after buying it cheap in HMV. It is possibly one of the best disaster movies I have seen. I'll give you a quick synopsis in case you have not seen it. Essentially, neutrinos from a solar flare penetrate the Earth and warm up with Earth's core. (Already, the film has got the 'sciencey' bit wrong in that Neutrinos do not behave in that sort of way...). There are lots people running around and warning each other about the impending doom. The year 2012 arrives and lots on mini-quakes start to occur across the globe, and this causes cracks in the Earth's surface. The movie follows a family as they try to outrun the disaster, in which they drive through crumbling cities and fly around the World, getting help from people they meet along the way. They make it to China where the World's richest and most deserved get a pass onto one of numerous arks, along with every species of animal, in a modern-day adaption of the tale of Noah. By this point, you have to forget that millions of people have died in tsunamis, eruptions of super volcanoes, epic earthquakes and other natural disasters, so you can buy into the fact that everyone on these arks are happy that they are saved. The destruction of Earth stops as quickly as it started, and everyone moves to Africa. They probably live happily ever after. Finished.
The film 2012 is based around the idea of the Mayan's Calendar, which states that on the 21st of December, 2012, the World will come to an end. This, of course, is only a theory, but conspiracy theorists and movie directors find this a great idea to exploit. There is a possibility to this, albeit a slight one, in that our Sun's solar activity is going to intensify and let out huge solar flares as part of its 11 year cycle that coincidentally reaches its peak in 2012. These are not going to heat our World up to a point which we all fall into the Earth's core however. At worst, it will destroy our communication systems, and you know, to a stroppy teenager who can't text their mate down the road because of the inconvenience caused by the Sun, it may probably seem like the end of the world.
The film, although brilliant if you remove yourself from rational thought, is so far from possibility, it becomes laughable. Much like another apocalyptic movie, ‘The Day After Tomorrow', in that everything happens with such speed, if you were a deep sleeper, you'd miss the whole event.
However, maybe these laughable films are actually, slowly, becoming a reality. We're only three months into 2011 and already Australia has been flooded and hit by a hurricane, New Zealand has been rocked by an Earthquake and Japan has been almost destroyed by a horrific Earthquake which resulted in a huge tsunami and (at the time of writing) is about to be vaporised by a huge nuclear explosion, should you choose believe the news. The closer we get to 2012, should we expect an increase in even worse global events happening? The apocalypse is only one calendar away! Imagine the irony; just as the middle-eastern countries release themselves from the oppression of unfair Governments, they end up killed by a super volcano in the middle of Egypt. Also, why are we even bothered by increased tuition fees and a slashed NHS budget? We'd have all drowned in a freak tsunami from the Irish Sea by the time the effects really hit us. Damn you Neutrinos! Damn you!
In all seriousness (and those are three words you read rarely on this blog), the recent events in Japan are absolutely terrible. Seeing those initial pictures on the News on the 11th March, really depressed me. It scared me. It is horrifying. I just don't know what to say. A confirmed number of over 8,000 people have lost their lives, and another 13,000 are missing. The devastation is beyond imaginable, and I'm sure the true extent is impossible to try and convey on the news. However, still, the media 'flood' to this event like Cheetahs to a limping Zebra.
Every fifteen minutes for the first few days on 24 Hour News channels, we were shown the same videos, which involved aerial shots of huge tides sweeping away towns, cars floating about like plastic ducks and amateur footage of people running upstairs after spotting the water gushing into their homes. The media were keen to keep this story fresh, so they, as they always do, talked to irrelevant people who knew less than them. My favourite example is when a news presenter was talking to an English person in Japan through Skype. Great idea, but when the person lives the other side of the country, how is he supposed to know how people who have lost their homes and family, are coping?
Then each night a reporter would go and stand in front of a devastating scene to illustrate how bad this event was. This has ranged from standing in front of a ferry which was swept aground and now sitting atop a building, to a wrecked lorry mounted upon a pile of rubbish. I'm expecting the news reporters to become desperate and just start standing in front of a field of corpses, while he delivers his piece to camera with a deadpan expression on his face.
This is the tsunami the Japanese side of the North Pacific...
You really do have to admire the Japanese people though. If this event happened anywhere else in the World, the News channels would have hours of footage in which women do pieces to camera while sobbing uncontrollably, while others are behind them in the foetus position while screaming in a foreign language. I have seen no clips like that from the Japanese. They just seem to have accepted it and have resolved to carry on and sort out the aftermath as soon as possible. In fact, they seem to be more British than I. They really have taken the motto "Keep Calm and Carry On" to heart. For that, I think the Japanese are the strongest and most admirable race on our Earth. I am proud to be of the same species as them. The Americans however, I am not. When news hit America that a big tide was on its way, they wept at the camera continuously, and prayed to God. All they got was a slightly bigger wave than normal. Yet still, they cried at the camera, telling us how scared this made them feel.
This is the 'tsunami' the American side of the North Pacific...
"Dear America, Grow some balls. Signed, Britain."
Mind you, we Brits are still guilty of finding misfortune at the misery of another nation. The past week has just been filled with people stating that Nuclear Power is unsafe and dangerous due to the recent danger caused by the Japanese Earthquake. On the contrary, I think this is a testament to how safe Nuclear Power is and how safe the systems put in place are. One of the most powerful Earthquakes in recent memory strikes not far from these sites, and then huge tidal waves swept through. This is the same Earthquake that made skyscrapers many miles away sway, and the same tsunami that swept many building from their foundations. Yet, for the most part, these buildings remained in tack.
The word 'meltdown' has been thrown across the media and Internet a lot of recent days, and this is a word which has the power to strike panic into one’s mind. It's one of those buzzwords that aren’t a used a lot, but when it is used: Woah, you better run away screaming! I'm not going to claim to know a great deal about Nuclear energy, but those explosions were caused by the formation of hydrogen gas when the cooling equipment failed to work and the hot rods and steam reacted with each other. Why did the cooling equipment not work? Damaged power supplies stopped them working. This isn't a demonstration of how dangerous nuclear power is; it's a demonstrating of how fragile our World is.
I, and I am sure a lot of other people paying attention to this story, have learnt a lot/had our memories refreshed about Nuclear Power. The news, although sometimes morally wrong, can be very informative when it needs to make the ignorant masses understand important news events. In your face Jamie's Dream School! Give us devastation and computer animations with things blowing up, in amongst some words from the periodic table and innuendos such as 'rods becoming hot', we, as a nation, are well away.
Anyway, my biggest of sympathies go to Japanese people, but, I'm sure they will rebuild their destroyed towns and communities to something much better than they previously had and put us to shame again. It's the Japanese way.
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.
Everyone has their own opinion, but my answer would be 'True'. Final answer. Think back to your favourite program which is made in Britain. Think what your current, British favourite is. Now, think to what corporation made them. A few of you may answer 'Channel 4'. A fewer amount may say 'ITV'. An even fewer (and stupider) amount of people may even say 'Sky'. However, I bet the vast majority of people would actually answer with 'Yes Stuart, the corporation I am thinking of is The BBC', or something along those lines - depending on how eloquently you like to put things.
The instantly recognisable logo for The BBC
The BBC has infuriated me just the same amount of times as is has to the next man; what with the handling of 'SachsGate' (as it is now referred to as) being one of the BBC's worst mistakes. We all remember when the Media metaphorically bullied the BBC, Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross by kicking them repeatedly from their occasional moral higher-ground, just because of a series of out-of-taste answer phone messages left on the phone of Manuel from Fawlty Towers about his Granddaughter. A comedy back-fire, which instead of the BBC just shrugging it off as a mistake, decided to sack or reprimand numerous people, including Brand and Ross. All this because the stupid public believe they have a say in a huge, world-wide corporation, just because they currently have to play £145 a year, by law, to watch colour TV.
That is a lot of money, but as an 18 year old who currently lives at home with his parents, I do not have to pay that, yet. I've had 18 years of watching colour television for free. What right to I have to possess an opinion then? None really, but that has never stopped me.
The other day, I tried to think of a popular comedy sitcoms made in previous decades that have stood the test of time and remained popular for generations, that were shown and created by the BBC. I thought of lots. Only Fools And Horses, Fawlty Towers, One Foot In The Grave, Open All Hours, Blackadder, Porridge, Dad's Army, Last Of The Summer Wine, Red Dwarf, 'Allo 'Allo!, Steptoe And Son, The Royle Family, The Vicar Of Dibley, Men Behaving Badly and more, I know. Then I thought about popular sitcoms made in previous decades that have stood the test of time and remained popular for generations, which were not shown nor created by the BBC. Father Ted is the only one that really stuck out for me. ITV had George And Mildred and Rising Damp, but who watches them these days?
That story may not be as relevant in recent years, with Channel 4 now making Sitcoms as notably good as the BBC, during the 00's. Channel Four have brought us Peep Show, The IT Crowd, Phoenix Nights, Black Books, Spaced and The Inbetweeners. ITV have done nothing worth cheering about. In fact, should you think about it too much, you will soon start crying. The BBC recently have had Outnumbered, The Mighty Boosh, The Office, Gavin And Stacy, My Family, Not Going Out and The Thick Of It, to name the most popular.
The BBC does lots more. Whether you like them or not, they constantly bring us brand new dramas which are just as gripping. They capture the audience whether they are a small child or a person knocking on the gates of heaven. I will just say two words: 'Doctor' and 'Who'. A program which is basically set around an alien, who looks exactly like a human man, moving around the Universe in a blue box with a light on it, and defeats other, nastier aliens with help of people who represent British culture of the time.
Vintage Doctor Who Logo
You can say whatever you like about the BBC, but just remember who still continues to create the longest serving, most popular drama which has the power to grip people across the globe, and still keep it fresh. Doctor Who is a significant part of British popular culture, and has inspired and gripped countless numbers of people and is the big must-see television favourite, and has lasted 769 episodes, with lots more upcoming. Name another British Television Corporation that has done that. Exactly, you can't, can you? Would any other channel even attempt to do something to that scale? Do you still want to argue that the BBC isn't value for money?
Fine. I will name two more television shows which are on the BBC. Have I Got News For You and Qi. Just between those two shows, the BBC achieves its three main goals to: Entertain, Inform and Educate. The Government says it has to do those three things for it to receive its public funding; and it does that easily. Also, to Inform and Educate people while Entertaining the audience and making them laugh, is quite challenge. No other British channel really has shows which can do that. Well, apart from Dave, but that’s only because they’re showing BBC shows. Think about it - without the BBC, the channel Dave would not be able to exist. Without the existence of Top Gear alone, the schedules on Dave would be empty.
Still not convinced? CBBC and Cbeebies. Without those two channels, Children would be stuck with Disney, Boomerang and Nickelodeon, and our children would grow up being stupid and stuck with American values. Trust me - we do NOT want that. I know the BBC show American Children's shows like Arthur and Scooby Doo, but they vary their range. There are those programs which are just really fun with no hidden motive to educate, then you have the ones which do. My prime example is Horrible Histories; a program which teaches children about history in a very funny way. I watch it. I consider it be of a better quality to many comedy shows on TV now. As a BBC 2 Sketch show, it would work well.
Vintage logo for what is now 'CBBC'
CBBC shaped me to be the person I am today. Some may say an angry, cynical teenage boy isn't a good thing to be, but that is beside the point. Watching Arthur everyday made me who I am. Enjoying Postman Pat made me who I am. Fireman Sam made me the person I am today. Even Pingu has made me the person I am. Blue Peter has made me the person I am today. Thanks to that show and their constant appeals, I have learned that if I don't do anything, other people will and charity still wins. It made the lazy man I have become.
Still not convinced aye? Radio. The BBC spurts out 12 different radio stations, all transmitting different genres of music, interesting facts, amusing shows and high-brow debates amongst the middle classes, through the airways of both the analogue and digital type. You cannot get that type of varied entertainment anywhere else. I can switch between Chris Moyles or Chris Evans in the car of a morning and I can listen to these high-brow debates amongst the middle classes on Radio 2 during my travels in the day. I can then come home and listen to the laugh-out-loud 'I'm Sorry I Haven't Got A Clue’ on Radio 4's iPlayer. You cannot tell me all that variety, plus all their TV channels and excellent shows, their news coverage, website and iPlayer systems are not worth the money we pay them. Well, you can try, but I will brand you an ignorant, naive liar!
Just a side note on the business of Chris Moyles having a rant about his pay on his breakfast show: I believe he is more than entitled to do so. That is partly because I believe people should rant more in the mornings as it is a way of engaging and stimulating the brain, but that isn't the main reason. He hadn't been paid for a few months due to a technical error. Now, it doesn't matter how much you earn, you still deserve to be paid for the job you do. I don't think there are many people who would wake up early in the morning and go to work - every single day still, despite not receiving a wage for months. I think he should be praised for his loyalty, and if it takes a rant to sort it out, then let him. Anyway, back on topic.
Not on my side yet? Fine - two words. 'Monty Python'. Maybe it requires a slightly acquired taste of humour, but one of the greatest comedy sketch shows to come out. Their jokes have remained popular and overly quoted for some 40 years. This isn't the only great comedy sketch show to come out of the BBC. The Two Ronnies is another great example. Yet again their sketches remain popular and relevant today. Other comedy acts like Eric And Ernie or Vic And Bob have come from the BBC, all popular and well liked and watched during their popularity hype. You cannot say that the BBC are of no worth, when they are pretty much the only producers of decent comedy on the television, for our nation.
Still not agreeing with me? The charity work they do - the BBC use hours upon hours of their scheduling for charity-related shows. Sport Relief, Red Nose Day and Children In Need are all things you will see on television annually. Without questioning, they have top celebrities helping out. They will always have the number in the corner of the screen, urging people to donate money. They raise absolutely millions of pounds of charity - in just the one evening. Granted, that money comes from us the general public, but I doubt us idiots would even contemplate it without any of that charade sometimes. Remember all the charity events you have watched on the BBC. Now, if that doesn't sway you - then God will hate you. And if you don't believe in God - Cheryl Cole won't believe in you; and if she doesn't believe in you - you know you're in trouble...
The slightly older logo for Children In Need
You can live with God hating and Cheryl Cole not believing in you, can you? You still don't believe the BBC is worth the money? I'll pull out my top trump then. Adverts. Everyone complains about adverts. Just as a show gets to a good bit; they cut to an advert. The adverts are full complete rubbish, all advertising their cosmetic lies and poisonous chemicals that only kill 99.9% of bacteria. The BBC, have none; apart from a minute between shows, to advertise their own shows. They have no adverts. What would Chris Tarrant do if Who Wants To Be A Millionaire was a BBC show? He would never be able to say the words everyone hates 'We'll find out in a minute'. Well, he could I suppose, but he'd have to get up and dance to fill the time - and if he done that every week, we'd hate him. A lot.
You see, by paying the BBC this £145 a year, we have no adverts. We have top quality programming. We have a range of formats from Radio, to Internet, to TV. We have a range in shows from Classical music to the ridiculous BBC 3 documentaries of the absurd. It doesn't matter about your opinions of one particular show, because with this huge range they have on all of their media formats, everyone is bound to find shows they love on the BBC. I mean - Doctor Who. It’s a top quality show with some truly awe-inspiring special effects and some mostly great writing. That can be said for so many of their shows.
All the other channels in the UK only exist by paying top talents like Ant and Dec millions of pounds annually to front their shows or by showing American shows. They don't really create anything that can stand the test of time and that can set a person’s imagination running wild. The BBC do. Sure, they do show American shows, but they level it out with their ability to create this top class, popular, well created shows which do inspire people everywhere, and indeed inspire me.
So, next time you want to complain about the BBC and the money they receive, and the next time you read in a tabloid newspaper that the BBC are a waste of tax-payers money, remember all the things they have given you; either present of many years ago in the golden age of comedy. Think for yourselves you idiots! You don't have to have the same opinion that the Newspapers tell you to have - or in fact what I tell you to say. You don’t have to listen (read) to a word I have said (typed). However, I do fell I stated a very strong case for the BBC and how they are worth every penny, and don't deserve to have millions of pounds cut from their budget by the Conservative Party.
Also, remember to pay your license fee!
P.S. If you wanted to listen to a catchy musical version of this blog, listing reasons to be proud of the BBC, then you should probably listen to this if you haven't done so already: Mitch Benn - Proud Of The BBC.
