How Does One Say 'Fracas'?

Over the past few weeks, this has been one of the main questions that everyone is asking: How do you pronounce 'Fracas'? Essentially, is the 's' silent or not? Well, I've looked into this, and like normal, it depends on whether you speak properly (English), or if you're one of those people (American) from the country which regularly bastardizes the English language. In English, it's silent, and in American, it's said completely wrong.

While we're discussing 'fracas', let's look into what brought this issue to the nation's attention. There was an incident in a workplace, which involved one member of staff verbally and physically attacking another, leading to the suspension of an employee. Only, it wasn't that simple because it involved Jeremy Clarkson; like most incidents seem to these days.

We heard a few weeks back that he had a verbal and physical disagreement with a producer, when he noticed a lack of food after a day filming. Clarkson was suspended, and a lot of news outlets spent too much of their time being obsessed with this. A local Kent newspaper found a local angle for this new story, due to part of the last aired episode being filmed in the county. It then went on to refer to an incident where someone working in a pub was glassed in the face, as a 'fracas'.

Anyway, this then led to over a million people signing a petition to reinstate him; showing that people care a lot more about an over-paid, over-zealous individual, than they do about having a functioning health system. And now, he's sacked.

The news that he was sacked came yesterday afternoon, not long before the news that someone had left One Direction. I was out, and by the time I got home and read the news, all the good jokes had already been used on Twitter. I was distraught.

@haveigotnews 

But were they right to sack him? That's the question a lot of people have been asking since. Firstly, everyone can see that the BBC were never going to come out of this well. They either sacked him, and lost their biggest star (and biggest money maker), and risk losing their most globally-popular franchise. OR, they allow someone, regardless of status, to get away with bullying in the workplace, and allow another celebrity to get away with what they want.

Whether it was the right choice will never be agreed, but one has to admire the BBC for the decision they took. It shows that they have a conscience, and didn't allow commercial interests to blur that. The Tweet Rupert Murdoch made after this news, shows that he would have made the other choice, and therefore is probably agreed to be the wrong one too.

How stupid can BBC be in firing Jeremy Clarkson? Funny man with great expertise and huge following.

— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) March 24, 2015

I think, or at least I hope, that no-one is condoning bullying or violence of any kind. Yet, Clarkson was on a final warning, when he then hit someone, and now he is sacked. That sequence of events makes complete sense; he committed a sackable offence. However, a lot of people find this unreasonable. I really like him and the show, but I still agree with this decision; even if I am completely surprised that they actually made this decision.

Twitter is full of people blindly supporting Clarkson, and saying dreadful things about the producer, Oisin Tymon. But remember, Clarkson reported the offence himself. It has been found that Clarkson verbally abused the producer for over 20 minutes, before beginning a 30 second round of physical abuse on him, which only ended after one of the other presenters broke it up. This happened in a hotel, in front of guests, and led to Tymon having to take himself to A&E. And now, he is the latest victim of Twitter trolling.

@m_maclennan Read more on V.Point here.

So what does the future hold? Well, if looking back at the Jonathan Ross fiasco a few years back proves anything, Clarkson will already be receiving offers from ITV, Channel 4, Sky, and probably even Netflix, to go over to them and help produce a car program which will rival Top Gear. After all, look at all the cooking and baking shows that exist of TV... Yet, I can only think of two other motoring programs. I think Top Gear are due some real competition as, after all, a lot of people watch Top Gear for the characters, and not really for the cars.

And what will become of Top Gear? It existed before Clarkson, and it will exist after. They say they will keep Hammond and May, but I think that will be a mistake. They need to completely start from scratch, and distance themselves from the reign of Jeremy. We all know that one of the new presenters will be female, because that is how the BBC fix most things these days. But Chris Evans is the favourite so far. However, my money is on Guy Martin, and I think he would be the best man for the job. From what I've watched of him, his personality and interests are a perfect match; especially if they do keep the other two presenters.

So overall, the decision has been made, and there is no need to dwell on it any longer. Perhaps the BBC could/should have gone about this very differently, and perhaps tried to resolve this internally? Let's just move on and see where the future of motoring programs go. But please, can we stop comparing this to the BBC's handling of Jimmy Saville? It's an ignorant comparison, which trivialises what was atrocious and incomparable situation. Also, can we just let Oisin Tymon try to carry on his life and career in peace? And finally, can we just let Jeremy Clarkson have some warm food next time he asks?

The Wily Mr Murdoch's

The end of 2011 is approaching, and this year's Formula 1 seasons has come to a close, after a great year of motor sporting action, with some brilliant races which will be remembered for years, and records which will take many years to eventually be broken. In the United Kingdom, we have been able to watch all this on the BBC, which has provided a great deal of in-depth analysis which has informed and, more importantly, entertained. I'm sure the next season will produce the same great quality sport. However, no longer will the BBC be showing the footage of sport in the same way they have for the past two years. And why? Sky!

Sky have come along and pounced on the healthy chicken, and dragging it back to their den with their teeth firmly gripping hold of the neck, just like a fox might. They are stealing the entire healthy crop that every other channel has. Another example of it happening this year is Glee.

Channel Four took the chance and aired the first two series. No-one knew whether or not it would transfer well to a British audience. Channel Four hand-reared this little foreign chick, until it became a hit, with a large fan base of people who listen to the terrible music. Then, just when it was at its healthiest, Sky came leaping in with their multi-millions, and ran off with the high-pitched chicken shrieking out a Britney hit.

That is what Sky does; they let other channels take the risk with a new show, and then when it becomes popular, they take it and add to their collection of hits. The sneaky bastards.

Now, I have no real issue with Sky taking Glee. In fact, they have done me a favour. My girlfriend watched it in the days when Channel 4 had it, but due to us not having Sky, and me never being likely to have it, she can no longer watch it, meaning I am saved from having to listen to crap actors sing crap songs with crap voices. However, I DO have an issue with them spearheading Formula 1 away from the BBC.

I have never really had a passion for a sport before, but I do have an enormous desire to wake up at 5:30am on a Sunday morning to sit in bed for four hours to watch the race, as well as all the coverage before and after the race. It is an experience which, in the two years the BBC has had it, has made it a real personable show. It is a show which you feel a part of. It is an experience which is better than actually being at the race. At the race, you can't go and listen to every race driver talk profoundly in a friendly manner about their emotions at winning a race.

The F1 Forum, which always followed the race on the Red Button, gave this us, the audience; the chance to see a sportsman express human emotion up close, which was something to have not been done before. The BBC also go and interview people at the races, such as mechanics who has take a break from rushing to get the car ready for the race, to talk to nosey film crew. The presenting team go and mingle with the public, especially at the British Grand Prix, and then you also get interviews with celebrities such as Sir Paul McCartney and Rowan Atkinson.

And now, because of Sky (although not entirely their fault; we can also blame the Government for not raising the TV License, meaning the BBC had no extra money to afford both BBC 4 and the F1. I mean, why could they not sacrifice BBC 3 instead?), that coverage has been sacrificed. The BBC still have coverage, but it is very limited. From 2012, they will only be showing half of the races live, with the others being limited to just two hours of highlights.  And Sky? They're creating a whole channel, because they have money to piss away on everything.

Sky has also stolen a considerable amount of the BBC presenting team. So, not only have Sky stolen another program which a channel has worked hard on to make a success, but they have also stolen their talent. Why? Because they're greedy, but they're also lazy. Essentially, they take the credit for the hard work done by other people.

In case you were not aware, News Corporation own part of Sky, with their bid to take complete control being blocked earlier this year after the News of the World scandal.

Not a great year for the Murdoch's overall. But then, hey, feel no sympathy for them. I mean, they APPARENTLY never read emails to them which informed them of the illegal methods that their journalists used to get stories. If that's true, they're incompetent idiots. If it's false, then they're bastard liars who will go to any mean who protect their sun-warped faces. Neither option is great, but I think we can all agree that the latter is probably the true option.

P.S. Think about it: Are Sky going to produce clips such as these?

Why Would Anyone Want To Ever Be A Journalist?

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…