The Archbishop of Pressure

In my head, I always confuse Rowan Williams with Rowan Atkinson. It has quite amusing consequences. Anyway, this blog is about the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Atkinson... I mean Rowan Williams (I definitely mean Rowan Williams now). He is due to step down within the coming months, but the decision of who will follow him into the post is taking a while, as many things do in the Church. So, who can take on the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury? With our often ethnocentric view of the globe, we often don't see Anglican Christianity anywhere beyond our pebbly shores. However, Christianity is practised in many parts of the world, extending far beyond Europe and the Americas. Rowan Williams has been an active Archbishop, straddling the sometimes uneasy line between science and religion, theology and politics. It's not an easy job. Advancements in technology, science and culture have been so rapid during the last half a century that any proactive and passionate religious head is definitely destined to struggle with their public position.

Ye Olde BBC has conducted a poll of 2500 people asking their opinion on Rowan Williams as the Archbishop, most thought that he had been a good leader, however one quarter didn't think he'd done enough to keep the church relevant in Britain. This task is far harder than it sounds. Nigeria has approximately 18 million Anglican Christians, all of whom the Archbishop of Canterbury is in charge of. The decisions and changes made in Britain touch Nigeria exactly the same, which is one of the main conundrums facing the Anglican church. How can an Archbishop keep the church relevant in Britain, and simultaneously keep Nigerian followers, when the two cultures are so completely different? Nigeria is just one example of a vastly different culture sharing the same religious banner as the U.K. If keeping the church relevant in Britain means elevating women's status within religious bodies and allowing gay and lesbian theologists into the church, Nigerian Christians face alienation.

Even having to deal with differing opinions in the British Isles is like walking on egg shells for an Archbishop of Canterbury. When asked about whether creationism should be taught in schools as a scientific theory alongside that of Darwin's theory of evolution, Williams gave a pained and reluctant answer:

Rowan WILLIAMS, like if Robin Williams and Rowan Atkinson had a baby.

 "I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake as if the Bible were a theory like other theories... so if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories, I think there's – there's just been a jar of categories, it's not what it's about." When the interviewer said "So it shouldn't be taught?" he responded "I don't think it should, actually. No, no. And that's different from saying–different from discussing, teaching about what creation means. For that matter, it's not even the same as saying that Darwinism is–is the only thing that ought to be taught. My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

Poor guy. You can virtually hear the beads of sweat forming on his brow. 

Practised all over the world, Anglicanism is one of the most popular religions.

Therefore, being the Archbishop of Canterbury is an impossible task, dealt with only by sticking to your guns. Religion is not something to hop in and out of, to chop and change from, so if international Anglican Christians find themselves disagreeing with policies born in Canterbury, perhaps more local roles should be created to ensure that each nation and culture's religious needs are met. Religion can evolve (well, let's say grow), but it cannot have many completely different faces under the same sect banner, otherwise what about the British Anglican Church resembles the three Anglican Churches in Russia? Local, specific growth and modernisation is good, polar opposite official church opinions on homosexuals and science are bad.

Boo. Hoo.

I wonder what Eric Cantona would be like as Prime Minister. I don't think he'd go far wrong... like with his football career, he would quit whilst ahead, he wouldn't take any bullshit, he wouldn't tolerate racism and he wouldn't be a man, he would be Cantona. Oh, to only have a charismatic, transparent yet strong prime minister like Cantona. The party and their policies would be irrelevant alongside the joy of having some beacon to take the country blindly and ignorantly through the rough terrain of a global economic crisis.

Instead, we have Davick Cameclegg. Clegg recently posted a video on the Lib Dem's youtube site apologising, not for raising tuition fees, but for making the promise that he wouldn't. It is rather cleverly done, as he doesn't backdown on the actual decision to triple fees. His online apology is, I suppose, refreshing. I say it reluctantly though, because the main impressions it left me with were nausea at his puppy eyed vulnerability, and feeling slightly patronised. Then again, I do find everything patronising. Mary Ann Sieghart, writer for the Independent, reckons our Nick can still make a graceful exit after having 'shown that the Lib Dems can be taken seriously as a party of government, not just protest'. Has he really? I didn't think that. I thought all everybody had been doing since the election was criticising the party and Cleggy to shreds. One apology doesn't change the facts, although admittedly, he does state that in the video. Here is the video

Apologising for making promises that the party could not keep

I suppose all of the Lib Dem's broken promises are a demonstration of how unlikely they thought it was that they'd ever be in any position of power. I mean, come on... 'End tuition fees', 'No increase in VAT', 'Cap banker's bonuses'... the Lib Dem future promised was really only ever a dream. During the last election, to me- and most other students- the Lib Dems were certainly the most attractive prospect. They were fresh, charismatic, and bursting with shiny, albeit far-fetched, promises. One thing we can learn from the 2010 election, asides from how coalitions are fundamentally useless, is the sheer, undeniable power of PR. This lesson is something Labour seriously needs to learn before the next election. The Conservatives put effort into their PR, so much so that what their policies specifically were became irrelevant amongst all the moving publicity about having a 'fresh', 'new' government who will magically 'transform' the UK economy, pulling jobs our of their arses and sending immigrants a'packing. The Conservatives adopted fantastic PR methods, and it shone particularly brightly next to Labour's stuffy efforts, the face of which being Gordon Brown.

I just... I just want to think he's right for the job... but this is just awkward, I'm sorry

What Labour needs is a total overhaul of image because, unfortunately, that is what elections are all about. The only way most of the population is even going to vote is if they think it is interesting. In a world where the most reverred people have usually appeared on some form of reality TV, or worn some form of meat product on their derriere, politicians need to clock up some serious entertainment points if they dream of their party ever being elected. Ed Miliband is undoubtedly a nice guy but this doesn't mean he is right to drive Labour into government during the next election.
Watch these two funny posh lads say it better than I do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg4PORfEDQY

Expenses are... Expensive

You remember the 2008 expenses scandal? Of course you do, a jolly olde time! Access to who had spent what, on what was clouded and, when the mist did clear, we didn't like what we saw. MPs had claimed our shiny tax pennies for everything from costly rent to treating dry rot. It became apparent that, being an MP meant mo' money, mo' greed. In reality, every day of our lives sees an occasion where we get ripped off. Overpriced goods mean that corporate big tits enjoy a soy, double shot, vanilla machiato on us, daily. However, we know that corporations are in it for the money over our welfare, and we can make financial and purchase choices which benefit nice people if we want to. The government's business however, is our welfare, technically, so how atrocious that they rob us.

Hmm. Relatable.

I know what you're thinking 'yeah, yeah, that was years ago', and we all think it's solved now. I, at least, thought it was corrected. How can MPs have been exposed as so shameless and then be left to continue with the same policies of expenses? Well... they have. In reality, the only thing that's changed is we can now see how our taxes are being squandered.

Manchester City Council has revealed their 2011/2012 annual expenses total, which is a whopping £4.5million! It has cost Manchester MPs a grand total of £4.5million just to do their jobs, oh in addition to their salaries. Furthermore, MPs are allowed to employ family members/ partners, an opportunity which five of Greater Manchester's MPs have taken advantage of. Just because an MP's family member may be interested in tagging along, it does not mean that said family member is qualified to do the job. Perhaps they should advertise some vacancies via job centre plus, although perhaps the touch of a thoroughbred Eton lass/lad is needed to file MPs' paperwork.

In ONE YEAR, Greater Manchester MP Michael Meacher claimed £163,860.83 in expenses! If that's his 'extra' costs, what on earth is the man's salary. How can a person spend £163,860 in one year. He must be booking his trains last minute, and whilst on these trains he must be eating veal sprinkled caviar served on a bed of £50 notes. Yes, transport costs to a business trip halfway across the country should be reimbursed, but surely it is wrong for us to fund their elaborate eating and drinking habits when some of us (me) live off a diet of cereal and butter sandwiches.

She's on the right side of the law, but she's still claimed £147,973.91 between 2011 and 2012

It is safe to conclude that MPs are still robbing us blind, but now they tell us about it afterwards and rub salt in our shallow little pockets. For more information about what Manchester locals have spent, have a look at the MEN website.

Harry the Prince of Party

Oh, Harry, Harry, Harry.
He's only third in line for the throne, so he may aswell be first to get his wang out? You only live once? Between him famously dressing as a Nazi desert soldier, complete with swastika (*facepalm*) and, more recently, flashing his crown jewels in Vegas, what is our verdict on the ginger prince?
Aged twelve, Prince Harry lost his mother. His mother who was philanthropic and emotional. His mother who, also, left his father and was unhappy in their relationship. Left to be raised by his rigid, collected father, the question of who he would more resemble in his character is still undecided.

Harry in Lesotho where he and William established a charity in 2008

He really is two sides of a royal coin. His charitable work in Lesotho with HIV affected children is an image of his mother, but his swastika- brandishing leaves somewhat to be desired. Recently, it appears the prince partied damn hard in Vegas with like-minded ruffians. They had a jolly olde time and he flashed his bits, something I regularly witness medical students doing down Oxford Road. However, unlike the medical students who can just squint through the hangover, untag themselves on facebook and swear it won't happen again (until the next time), Harry has to contend with national newspapers circling around him like the morning alcoholics in Wetherspoons.

The Sun published an image of him in the nuddy and titled the front cover:
'Heir it is!'
'Pic of naked Harry you've already seen on the internet'

Never has their been more interest in a 20-odd year old stripping off. The Sun claims that the people of Britain had the right to know what the man third in line to the throne had been doing. They also claimed that they believed it wrong that the press shouldn't be free to publish the images. Indeed they should be free to do it, the press should be unaffected by the Royal Family's wishes and information should be free to share. However, we already knew what had happened, because the Sun had already told us, they didn't necessarily need to show us. It's right that they should be able to show the images, but they didn't have to show them. It is in the public's interest to know what Harry is doing, but publishing the images is in the Sun's unique style of bad taste. 

Harry is the Mayor of Funkytown

As far as the Sun 'morally' defending the right's of free press, Murdoch has a warped view on the matter, seeing as hacking and tapping do not constitute 'moral' methods of freeing information to the press. I am not a royalist, and it doesn't bother me what Harry gets up to in Vegas. He could marry a naughty nun, a confused King or gamble with a giant Mexican and, yes, it might be good to know, but freedom of press doesn't always necessarily mean brandishing the images. The Sun has received numerous complaints about their publication of the image, not from the Royal Family, but from readers. Some may have complained believing it was wrong of the Sun to publish the image, and some may just not have enjoyed choking on their cornflakes over Harry's starkers body. Although it may be in the public's interest to know of Royal Vegas parties, the public is not necessarily interested.

Supernatural Wombs? Bad Sexual Etiquette? Would you Like me to be the Cat?

I believe one of the main problems with the 'rape question' is that it is viewed as some form of surreal, abstract mental offence, rather than a physical offence. It is a physical crime. A punch is a punch, theft is theft, rape is rape. Rape has nothing to do with relationship problems, or who's a slut and who's not- it really is very simple. Rape can be defined by a sexual act performed without the consent of one of the parties.

If a woman is asleep, she is not consenting. If she is unconscious, she is not consenting. Just because she is wearing a red mini skirt, this does not mean that she is consenting.

Considering the current case of Julian Assange, most of the controvercy originates from what people actually constitute as rape. Who knows what really happened in the beds that Assange and the two plaintiffs shared, but if events unfolded as the women described, it is more than 'bad sexual etiquette'. Yes, George Galloway has really delivered us a golden line. He has worked on the assumption that, when a woman invites a man to her bed once, he has a green light to have sex with her whilst she sleeps. Husbands can rape wives, the relationship is irrelevant. This is a fact that George Galloway has carelessly ignored.

Another offender: Todd Akin claims that in cases of 'legitimate' rape, the female body has ways of preventing pregnancy.  Experts have confirmed that rape does not change the female reproductive system.

"Would you like me to be the cat?"

What on earth does an old, Scottish bloke know about 'sexual etiquette'? How can he possibly be an authority on rape or women's bodies? If, in a different circumstance, a man was the victim of rape, perhaps George Galloway would find the topic too close to home, and wouldn't have spoken out. This is the man who cosied up to Saddam Hussein, the man who went on Celebrity Big Brother, the man who, whilst on this show, donned a catsuit and imitated a cat. I am NOT going to consider his 'sexual etiquette' as one to be followed.
Regardless of the specific case of Julian Assange and the sexual assaults alledged to have happened in Sweden, we should be clear on rape. Maybe more women should be involved in the legal and social analysis of sexual assaults against women, rather than ignorant blokes like Galloway.

Shafilea- Who is Implicated?

Shafilea was only 17 when she was murdered.

The shocking reality of Shafilea Ahmed's murder is difficult to convey, and perhaps strangest is that condolences can't be offered to her parents- because she is dead because of them. We speculate as to the reasons why she was killed, but realistically all we can do is guess at a look through such a closed community. What brings a parent to kill their own child? How can such an unnatural act be explained? On the night of Shafilea's murder, the argument began because she had come home from work wearing trousers, a t-shirt and a hooded cardigan. Hardly rebellious in Britain, but I understand how the outfit differs from traditional muslim dress. Yet, how could they raise their children in Warrington and expect them not to be influenced by their peers at school? Shafilea's dreams were to study at university and become a lawyer- again, hardly disgraceful. Plenty of parents would be full of pride if that was their daughter's aspiration.

Yet, the Ahmed's killed their daughter. Farzana Ahmed was seen preparing sheets of linen and rolls of tape earlier in the day, and her husband stuffed their eldest daughter's mouth with a plastic bag after Farzana said that they should finish it there. All their other children bore witness as Shafilea's eyes widened in shock and her legs stopped kicking. Her father, Iftikhar Ahmed, then drove her body deep into the Lake District where it wasn't found until February 2004, around 5 months after her murder.

Murder shouldn't be a matter of the home, but it seems that in the Ahmed's case it was exclusively so. The thing that is so difficult to determine is whether Iftikhar and Farzana Ahmed are just killers and chose their daughter, or if, had Shafilea never pushed their religious and cultural boundaries, the Ahmeds would never have killed. I lean more towards thinking that the Ahmeds would not have killed unless under this circumstance. So, how could their own misconstrued sense of community and 'honour' be more powerful than the love of their own child? Iftikhar himself had previously been married to a Danish woman and had a child with her, his marriage to Farzana was his very own arranged marriage. Described by one of the nurses who treated Shafilea after she had drank bleach as a cry for help in 2003, the family was 'loveless'. Perhaps Iftikhar and Farzana saw their children as a mere extension of their unhappy marriage and thought the only way they could make them happier was by bringing them 'honour' in their community.

It has taken almost ten years for Shafilea's parents' conviction

 The entire topic lays an egg shell floor. Her murder goes hand in hand with her community. Or does it? Is it just the parents or is it the religion? How can we know when we are afraid to even ask the question? I'm sure many muslim families would be deeply offended at the suggestion that they could kill their children in the name of warped community reputations. Yet, why else did the Ahmeds kill their daughter if not for that very reason. As one Guardian article claims, this is a crime meshed in migration and modernity- but unlike the article proceeds, Britain cannot be implicated. Farzana and Iftikhar hate all 'western' concepts- how can you build on or interfere with that? They live in and raised their children in a country they despise- and that is why Shafilea was murdered. How can they have expected to have everything? To live in better conditions in the 'west', yet demand their daughters followed the archaic rituals of arranged marriage and housewifeship? Their failings as loving, understanding, caring parents are glaringly obvious, regardless of their religion/ culture, yet their crime was because of their religion and culture.

"Everywhere I go I be followed by six hoes"

"Everywhere I go I be followed by six hoes"- Chris Brown, 'Don't Lie'

If an ordinary man, let's call him John Smith, savagely beat a woman and was convicted in court of the offence, his criminal record would be tarred forever. If, in future, he applied for a job, our John Smith would frankly not be given a chance. The large majority of employers wouldn't give his job application a second glance if he had a criminal record- particularly considering the offence.

Yet Chris Brown enjoys a net worth of over $24 million (therichest.org) and is topping the charts. As I have previously written, immediately after the crime was commited, Brown was publicly abhorred and many radio stations refused to play his music. However the only things that have changed since then is; time has passed, and Chris Brown has done some token community service.

Indeed!

In the media the entire affair is treated like a standard 'choose your celeb' Hollywood feud. Remember when Brad and Jennifer split? Did you pick a side? Brennifer or Brangelina? Well, this isn't like that. Rihanna was a victim of domestic abuse and Chris Brown commited a legal and moral crime. As far as separating the man from the music- this just isn't possible, particularly in a music genre which is based solely on image rather than musical capability. The man is the music. George Osborne is his policies, Joey Barton is his football, Chris Brown is his music. Artists the likes of Marilyn Manson are unjustifiably heckled for being bad role models, whilst Brown is hailed. Chris Brown sets a good example to neither boys or girls. Boys learn that beating a woman doesn't prevent you from being surrounded by them and from making millions singing about how well you treat them. Girls learn that men who abuse women still deserve to have their music danced to and receive sexual favours.

It's Buntin Britain

Admittedly, I have been a scrooge about the Olympics. As a Northerner it is easy to become bitter about things going on in London, it seeming that the South gets all the glory and money and the North gets filed away with the butter pies (who's complaining?). However, England is not like, for example, Italy. The south of Italy sees a very strong contrast to the cosmopolitan North with a huge division of wealth. Therefore, we  Northerners do not have it worst, then again when has that ever stopped any British person from complaining? However, despite my distaste of the sponsorship choices made and general impartiality to sport (impartial sounds better than lazy), I thoroughly enjoyed the Olympic Opening Ceremony!

Bond shenanigans

Danny Boyle has done well indeed! He ought to have done, seeing as the ceremony did cost £27 million. Regardless, the boost to public morale can be seen as priceless. He focused on what Britain is to people everyday, not what is happening politically or financially. His attention to the everyday and important was fantastic. He really highlighted the NHS as something for our country to be proud of, something which many other countries wish they had. Attention to music and film was paid as well as demonstrating Britain's evolution from a nation of town dwellers through industrialisation and the Urban Sprawl. And, although the ceremony left many, certainly me, feeling patriotic, it didn't portray Britain as a nirvana or idealistic. Much of the countryside was destroyed by industrialisation and, rather than focusing on the financial benefits of rapid industrialisation, Boyle highlighted how the workers suffered and how it was a dark period in British social history.

Man of the Hour, Danny Boyle

 The Queen even got stuck in, cracking jokes left right and centre! The past few years have really been good for the Royal family. The press has been favourable and Royal celebrations have been received well, in fact there seems to have been a sort of public mania for the monarchy. So, why shouldn't the Queen let her hair down and have a little giggle with Daniel Craig? She is a woman after all, and Daniel Craig is supernatural puller James Bond. Overall the ceremony felt like a gift to British people rather than an advert to the world. It felt personal and all inclusive rather than selective and self-conscious. At a time when the working class is feeling dissatisfied with its wealthy countrymen, bankers have rode into the sunset and politicians want the shirt of our back, it is nice to appreciate the constants in Britain; music, literature, Bond and the home.

The Clarkson 52 Year Bug

The Clarkson 52 year bug has been an epidemic of late. Symptons are similar to that when you are on the cusp of a sneeze. You know it's coming. You can feel the tickling in your nose and you anticipate the back-wrenching, body contorting effect of the sneeze. However, amongst the anxiety is excitement about the sensation of sneezing. Bad, but still good. Just like Jeremy Clarkson.

This picture makes me feel very good about myself

There a few people in the public eye who have made more verbal faux-pas than Jeremy Clarkson. Recently was his eye opening reaction to the NHS protests. He was on The One Show's couch and, when asked about the NHS strikes made the following remarks:

"Frankly, I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean, how dare they go on strike when they have these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?"

"Work for a living?"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!
Clearly Clarkson here has forgotten that we get to see what his day job entails. He shares a couch with Sienna Miller, travels the world, has enjoyed an earning greater than £3million from his work on Top Gear alone. His job differs greatly from what NHS workers endure; witnessing death, bringing life into the world, wiping arses, bathing weeping wounds, being responsible for people's health and wellbeing, being hugely understaffed, reassuring concerned families and having to hear this dribble off the highest paid BBC staff member.

Soon after his golden NHS remarks, he turned on suicide victims and criticised 'Jonny Suicide' for throwing himself on to the train lines. He claimed that it was a selfish way to go because it caused passengers an inconvenience. According the Clarkson, no time should be wasted... 'get the train moving as soon as possible and let foxy woxy and the birds nibble away at the smaller, gooey parts that are far away and hard to find'. His apologies are truly laughable and, really, he just shouldn't apologise because his are about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

Oh, poor Matt Baker and Alex Jones. Only could Clarkson conjure these facial expressions

Words escape me when describing this man. How can he be described? A snob? A hypocrite? A nob? Entertaining... yes, unfortunately. Despite everything he says which, frankly should have damned his career by now, Top Gear still managed to achieve 5 million viewers during one Sunday in early 2012. No matter how much of an arsehole Jeremy Clarkson is, he is still likeable, even if you think it despite yourself. I despise his right wing hair ringlets and posh-doesn't-mean-you're-intelligent accent, yet find myself watching Top Gear and laughing lots. I don't even like cars! I will be forever perplexed by this conundrum. I wonder what Jeremy Clarkson will have to do to see a downfall in Top Gear ratings... maybe flashing Matt Baker? Murdering a sloth for being lazy whilst 'the rest of us have to work for a living'? Who knows, perhaps he doesn't know himself and he is just pushing the boundary by making more and more public ignorant statements.

16, The Magic Number

This is the forgotten cause. For many individuals, for two years, this is a concern. Once the individual turns 18 it is merely an annoyance of the past. Why can't 16 year olds vote?

16 year olds can legally:

• Get married or register a civil partnership (with parental consent)
• Have sex with others over the age of 16
• Buy a lottery ticket
• Leave home (with parental consent)
• Work full time
• Leave school
• Change name by deed poll
• Drive a moped
• Drink alcohol with a meal if accompanied by someone aged at least 18
• Join the Armed Forces (parental consent) 

17 year olds can also legally:

• Donate blood
• Serve in the Armed Forces

Today, an ongoing poll by the Guardian on whether 16 year olds should be allowed to vote is currently at 53% Yes and 47% No. Bear in mind that the Guardian is left wing, and this vote of their readers isn't representative of the nation's views, this makes it all the more surprising that the 'No' percentage is as high as 47%. Is this because it doesn't really matter to people once they have passed 18? Because, really, the wages of 16 year olds are taxed, and the wages left over are spent in shops, also paying tax, yet 16 year olds aren't allowed an input into how their taxes are spent?

This is Trotsky reincarnated, infiltrating the Labour party and all 16-17 year olds like a communist parascite

!

The comments on the poll are really quite disheartening, showing a fear that, if young people were to vote, they would all vote Labour. Well, if Labour is best for young people then what's so wrong with that? This is hardly a Red Scare, voting Labour isn't like voting for the Commis during the Cold War! The concept of the Nation cannot be subjective. The nation includes everyone, even the ones who disagree with your own stale, dried up politics. It seems we are afraid of ideology and leave it to the already studying university students to fight the battles of the future ones, who develop a sense of complacency since they already have their place at University and don't have to pay the tripled fees.

A very smug friend of mine likes to point out that he got paid to study his degree, and was also able to sign on and receive housing benefit back in the day.

I remember being sixteen. It wasn't all that long ago. I travelled 20 minutes on the train to get to college and secure my A Levels. I worked part time and received EMA. Everything I bought with my wages was taxed, everything I earned was taxed, yet that tax has now been taken from those just a few years younger than me, and no one is defending their chances. So yes, 16 year olds may not be educated and informed on which party to vote for- but neither are the majority of adults who vote now. Hell, you're lucky if even an adult who has the right votes, even though their are plenty of 16 and 17 year olds who are chomping at the bit to have their interests met.

Preachy Animal Blog

I realise here that I am traversing dangerous waters. This blog is going to be related to vegetarianism. Before you quickly close the webpage and write me off as a self-righteous vegetarian preacher, just consider that you could look at this blog and think I am telling you to eat crocodiles. There, is that okay?

Right. The Guardian today released an article titled 'Chinese Police Rescue 3,600 Crocodiles', wherein three have been arrested and the police have intercepted the transportation of these (precisely) 3,619 crocodiles destined to become exotic meals in restaurants in southern Guangdong province. These particular crocodiles were Siamese and apparently have special nutritional value... 42 died on transit to their restaurant destinations due to dehydration, cramped conditions and the unbearable heat. Frankly, I wish that these crocodiles had snapped the dodgy tradesmen's hands off and whipped them about. Alas, this is but a dream.

This article did get me to a-thinking, why is it so much worse when a crocodile is killed for meat, rather than, say, a cow, or a rabbit or in some parts of the world, dogs? In fact, dogs are a prime example of my case. In Britain, dogs are considered pets and most (I hope) would consider it an abomination to eat a dog. In, for example, some parts of Vietnam, China and Korea where dogs are sometimes eaten, it is viewed in the same way as eating a chicken or a pig. Islamic dietary laws forbid the eating of dogs, but this isn't because they are seen as pets, like they are in some areas of Europe, North America and Australasia. So it is only different cultural practices which deam what animals are suitable for consumption.

Battery Hens in their natural habitat

These particular Siamese crocodiles are extinct in the wild but have been bred successfully in captivity, just like cows and chickens. So, why is it worse to eat a crocodile than a chicken? If they are in plentiful supply then what is the difference? Battery hens are kept in terrible conditions just like these crocodiles were, both are bred in captivity. Chinese authorities managed to intercept this particular deal, orchestrated by foreign men. However, this poses the question of why are Chinese authorities so against the eating of crocodiles? Is it a genuine ideological principle? Or is it because trade carried out on the black market is out of government hands? Tax cannot be collected from the black market and it is, ignoring corruption, out of government control. However, this is not a sweeping generalisation, as there are those in China who volunteer to prevent this particular trade of exotic animals. Animals who are deemed edible is relative wherever you go in the world, but it is important to look at it through comparative eyes. That is all, I hope it wasn't too unbearably preachy

Here is a link to the Guardian article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/08/chinese-police-rescue-crocodiles

A View Through Distorted Glasses

Robyn 'Rihanna' Fenty

The world of celebrity gossip is bursting with insensitive remarks about singers,WAGs and actors etc, particularly women. They've made a fashion 'faux-pas'. They're put on weight. They've lost weight. They've had a divorce. They've walked down the street. In some cases it's possible to think that speculation and media comment is the price one pays for being in the public eye, and certainly with the likes of Kerry Katona who is essentially a character, even bad publicity is good publicity because it reminds all of her existence. However, this is surely not an excuse to create extravagantly false and sometimes malicious tales about these individuals. The celebrity media, definitely out of touch with humanity, clutches at the straws of potential scandals. As they desperately dissect a celebrity's tweet, get specialists to intensely study a celebrity couple's body language, they manage to gather enough speculation to write an article.  

However, recent 'concerns' about Rihanna and her apparent love triangle with singer Chris Brown and rapper Drake delve into the absurd. In 2009, Rihanna was assaulted by her then boyfriend, Chris Brown, the night before the Grammys. The police report found that she had had her head smashed against the car door, her body and face punched, her fingers and left ear bitten and pressure applied to her carotid arteries until she began to lose consciousness. The case went to court and Brown was found guilty of the charges brought against him. He served 6 months community service and was sentenced to 5 years probation. Most radio stations refused to play his music, he was publicly abhorred by artists Jay-Z and Kanye West, and Rihanna took time off before returning to her career. Throughout the whole episode Rihanna gave one interview to American show 'Good Morning America', explaining why she temporarily returned to Brown a few weeks after the incident. However, this is all old news. More recently, what has shocked me personally is the public condemnation of Rihanna and praise of Brown.

 

Chris Brown's 2012 album is expected to reach No. 1 in the album charts

The criticism Rihanna received for meeting with Brown weeks after the attack was greater than that which Brown received for brutally attacking her. What Chris Brown did was a crime, Rihanna commited no crime and yet has since been under far more scrutiny by the media than Chris Brown. At this moment in time, both are successful in their music careers, yet Rihanna is apparently desperately making efforts towards a reconciliation. Rihanna was blamed for setting a bad example to girls in abusive relationships, yet Chris Brown was not similarly accused of setting a violent example to boys who listened to his music. Perhaps it is because Rihanna has since not pandered to the public by playing the victim or the pure virgin. Her image hardened after the attack and became more provocative, whilst Chris Brown plays a far safer game.

Their lyrics compare:

RIHANNA (Roc Me Out)

It's gonna different tonight

The best time in your life

I just want you to know, baby

Take a peek at the girl I hide

I'll let you in on a dirty secret

I just wanna be loved

CHRIS BROWN (Sex)

How deep do you want me to go?  

Do you want me to speed it up, speed it up or go slow?  

Start from the bed, now we out here on the floor,  

Girl you're really in for a treat now, 

but don't fall in love cuz,

Disapproval rains down on Rihanna when she releases a song, yet Chris Brown merely eats his cake, demonstrating the glaring differences between men and women in the music industry. Is there really much difference in their lyrics? Is it because Rihanna's provocative lyrics come from a woman's mouth? Whilst the likes of Flo Rida can have half naked women draped over them in videos (a huge boost to his ego no doubt), Rihanna is criticised for performing in more than that. Notably, her 2010 X Factor performance.

The pairs' recent collaborations on Rihanna's 'Birthday Cake' and Brown's 'Turn up the Music' brought on a new wave of criticism for Rihanna. Yet, why should Rihanna hold back her music career for the sake of being a victim. Why should Rihanna be expected to bear a grudge against Chris Brown for the crime he commited when all others, seemingly, do not.

The Two Faces of Justice

23 year old Richard Dwyer made headlines back in 2010 when he was arrested at his University, Sheffield Hallam. His created website, TV Shack, did not directly host any pirated material, it merely provided links to other websites which did. This enabled user to watch a variety of films and TV programs for free. It is alleged that he made $230,000 (£146,000) through advertising on the website. However, the furore was not around his arrest, it has been his continuing battle with extradition to the US where they condsider it a crime. British extradition laws have been neglected and are in desperate need of revision, legally this may appear above board- but is it morally? There is no doubt that our 'special relationship' with the United States has offered us many benefits, however this is surely not one. To be in constant danger that your actions, although legal in your country (where you are doing said activity), may offend a foreign nation and lead to your extradition is surreal.

Richard Dwyer with his mother

In Sharia Law, if you are a lesbian you are breaking the law, or if you drink alcohol. Does this mean that all those in this nation who drink alcohol face the prospect of being extradited half way across the world? The geographical facts should be the only determining factor when it comes to where you are trialled/ punished/ roam free. The fact is that Richard Dwyer created this website and maintained it from Sheffield, a far way away from America and her laws. He did not commit a crime in England, it is only a crime in America which, really, shouldn't mean far end of a fart.

American President Barack Obama has said that the decision lies with the justice department

The story has taken a new twist in recent days as it has been uncovered that American paedophile, Shawn Sullivan, is protected from being extradited to the US to face a trial. The Home Office says that he should be extradited, but the High Court says that if he was, he would face being secured in a detention unit in America (a breach of his human rights) and have allowed him to live freely in London. Sullivan fled to the UK after he was accused of raping a 14 year old and sexually assaulting two 11 year olds. He was then convicted for molesting two 12 year olds in Ireland.

Shawn Sullivan

Meanwhile Richard Dwyer's legal battle continues with his mother claiming that her son has been 'sold down the river by the government'.

Morse is Good. Moors are Bad.

I love a good fictional murder mystery. There's not much better than spending a sunday afternoon watching Agatha Christie's genius minds solve the most convoluted stories. Morse and Lewis are on the case and no criminal is too clever. It is important to establish, however, that said murder cases are fictional. I could never find real victims or real blood and gore entertaining. We may watch apocalyptic films predicting the end of the world, but that doesn't mean we would want it to occur in real life. Just as to see an actor pretending to be a distraught family member of a murdered character is neither here nor there, but to see an actual family member of a murdered victim is deeply upsetting. My point is, why do we glamourise murderers so much?

Forget these losers...

We all know the names... Harold Shipman, Fred and Rosemary West, Ted Bundy, Jack the Ripper, the Kray Twins to list a few. One that many perhaps haven't heard of is Mary Ann Cotton, according to this Daily Mail article, she is worthy of 'rememberance'. The article, I believe, is a perfect example of the problem- that we study killers not to learn more about the complex human brain, but because it excites us. The title of the article itself: 

"She poisoned 21 people including her own mother, children and husbands. So why has no-one heard of Britain's FIRST serial killer, Mary Ann Cotton?"

Why should we have heard of her? Why is she worthy of rememberance? Because she brought pain and misery on many innocent people? Her old house is described thusly:

 "This is the home in which Britain’s first serial killer, Mary Ann Cotton, claimed her final victim."

It was also the house where her final victim lost their life. It would be bad enough to be murdered, but to think that the legacy of your murderer would overshadow that of your own would really put salt in the gushing, deadly wound. I fear for those who study criminology (Gemma I'm talking to you!), they have to read about atrocities daily and, through necessity, they probably become desensitized to the raw emotional facts in most murder cases. But for this article to write the following is absurd:

"Here is not just the first British serial killer – someone who has killed more than three people in  a period greater than 30 days – but the first to exploit and abuse the anonymity of a new industrial age."

Big up your fictional murder merry-go-rounds. What's in the box and all that jazz.

Oh what a great feat Mary Ann Cotton achieved for all murdering-kind. She really showed them how to use the industrial age to their advantage, whilst also demonstrating the skills of speed kills. Why is it significant that she was the first? (which, she most probably was not- man have been killing since before the police existed to report it). To remember their murders and to hail them as 'fascinating' rather than 'abominations' is surely the ultimate insult to the families of their victims. Although the cases are, no doubt, terrible and interesting, the victims are more than just vowels and consonants arranged on a page, they were real people and they were murdered horribly by bastards. I say less Fred West, more Patrick Bateman.

In These Austere Times

Oh Nick Clegg. Does anyone else feel a bit sad when they look at him these days? He looks a broken man, tired and conflicted. I would feel sorry for him, after the buzz of the 2010 election, to suffer such a drastic shift in popularity. In reality, it is far more fitting to feel sorry for all the students who voted for him, under the promise of free higher education and a fresh take on politics. What they got, instead, were education cuts, benefit cuts, tax increase and having to suffer Clegg trying to squirm himself out of allegations that he has sold out his voters and his party. A Conservative- Liberal Democrat is unnatural, incompatible and unplausible. From the beginning, the only way in which the coalition would work would be if one party dominated, obviously the Conservatives, and the other shuffled alongside reluctantly, putting a brave face on things.

The recent suggested heavy cuts to benefits to those under 25 have been dressed up using fancy language, and I am surprised to hear that the Coalition's main argument for introducing all their harsh cuts is still to point out how bad Labour did it. According to Nick Clegg...
"Welfare needs to become an engine of mobility, changing people's lives for the better, rather than a giant cheque written by the State to compensate the poor for their predicament"
 It's all OK to use phrases such as 'engine of mobility' when it comes to cutting left, right and centre. I think it is also important to establish that there is no 'giant cheque' written by the State for this purpose. If you are under 25 and sign on, you will receive £50 a week, if you are over 25 you will receive £60, a real treat. Cuts to benefits would be easier to swallow if funding was instead put into making jobs available, and providing people with training.

A Happier Marriage

 "We will be simplifying the current Byzantine benefits system and providing real incentives for people to move off benefits and into work".
Of course there are those who abuse the benefits system, but what of those who genuinely need it? Most people need no more of an incentive than providing for their families to get a job. This claim that people 'don't want' jobs is made whilst everyday we are confronted with figures of high unemployment, there are less jobs out there. Many young people have families by the time they are 25, are they expected to live with their parents forever? Who is to say that their parents can afford to keep them for so long? As far as I can see, prospects for young people who come from a low income family are as follows:

1. Instead of GCSEs, you will be sitting archaic O Levels, in which English Literature exams are about memorising the text rather than your ability to think critically.
2. After your O Levels, you will receive no financial assistance, such as EMA, to attend college. Even though you are expected to purchase books and fund your own travel costs.
3. If you make it through sixth form or college, good luck getting into University as it will cost you £9,000 a year, that's triple what those a year older than you have paid. Oh and you won't get loans to cover the whole cost of tuition, so be prepared to conjure up £6,000.
4. You can try and get a part time job whilst you study, but don't be hopeful as unemployment rates are high. Everyone wants experience- but where to get it?
5. You have completed your degree, well done, but what now? If you are exceedingly lucky you will find a job which utilises your degree and has a handsome salary- great! In reality, though, you better move back home and try and get a bar job.
6. So you want to start a family? Hmm, well, you won't be getting any housing benefit and house prices are sky rocketing, but the bar you work in is cutting back on hours because of what- increased tax on alcohol?

 To me, Nick Clegg is not the real villain, he has just been dragged along for the ride. He is, however, an example of how values and promises can be left behind to get a spot on Downing Street. Meanwhile our Labour leader is uncharismatic and, frankly, a bit of a geek. In Labour's golden era, Tony Blair was a refreshing face, a young, likeable family man. The leader of a party shouldn't be elected because of their specific politics, compared on a microscale to the other candidate, they should be elected as leader because of their skills as a frontman/frontwoman, because that is what they are. No one goes to the circus to see a subdued and awkward ringmaster.

Osborne's Tony Montana approach to cuts: 'BRR CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS CUTS POW POW!'

Here we can conclude that politics is but a depressing and frustrating game. The roundabout of cuts, slashes and bullshit goes on and on. A new day, a new proposal for everybody to get fired up over, everybody to disagree on.

Snow White and the Huntsman

Warning: spoiler alert, but not a massive one so you should still read it :-D

Kristen Stewart does a top job

Snow White and the Huntsman is surprisingly good and a little bit epic. If Charlize Theron being so frightening that a little bit of wee comes out is your idea of a worthy film, then Snow White and the Huntsman is for you. I exagerrate, but at times Theron really is terrifying. I think a way in which a beautiful actress (such as Theron) can prove that she is more than just a pretty face is actually to make their character incredibly ugly through their portrayal. Because she is so beautiful it is difficult to imagine any character that Theron plays being grotesque but she plays her character Queen Ravenna very dynamically.
Snow White and the Huntsman, although based on the original German Brother's Grimm fairytale, is actually far from the traditional fairytale archetype. Snow White (Kristen Stewart) is strong and independent, rather than the Disney Snow White who used birds to assist in her pie making. She battles with a sword and, honestly the film isn't glamorous.

Snow White is born a princess with a loving mother and father, who rule the kingdom well and are respected throughout it. Snow White is still a child when her mother dies. Distraught, her father King Magnus (Noah Huntley) is lured into battle against an eerie glass army. Upon defeating the army he comes accross Ravenna (Theron), weds her immediately and is unceremoniously murdered by her on their weddding night (not what most expect). Now Queen Ravenna, obsessed with her magical mirror and using dark magic to remain youthful and beautiful, she locks away Snow White and continues to destroy the kingdom. Years later, Ravenna learns off her twisted mirror that Snow White has come of age and is 'the fairest of them all', instructing Ravenna that Snow White is the key to her eternal preservation and her eternal destruction. To live as a beautiful immortal, all she has to do is casually eat Snow's heart. Snow White takes this new opportunity to escape and is hunted throughout the kingdom, making allies along the way. The film culminates in a battle for the kingdom, typical black vs white. 

Charlize Theron screamed so fiercely that she tore a stomach muscle in one of the scenes. True.

I was particularly sceptical before watching the film after considering Kristen Stewart's most famous role in the Twilight Saga, where she plays a (let's be honest), pathetic teenager desperate for her supernatural loves. Her rather convincing Olde English accent and brand new set of facial expressions did wonders for her creating a new character, breaking away from Bella Swan. There was, however, one moment in the film where Snow White is battling with death and I could only think of the scene in Twilight after Bella Swan has been bitten. This is because of Kristen Stewart's face, she looks exactly the same! Upon a second thought, I felt bad about thinking this- after all, how many different looks can an actress have when dying? Overall, good job Kristen Stewart.

Not your typical Prince Charming, not bad though

One obvious way in which the film broke away from the traditional fairytale is Snow White's romantic interests (Romance spoiler alert). William AKA Prince Charming (Sam Claflin), although fighting to get the girl, doesn't get the girl and doesn't bring her to life with 'love's true kiss'. He is the perfect candidate and the typical, pure, honourable, strong prince charming. However, there is another contender in this rendition of Snow White, the kind of contender who is a widow, still loves his deceased wife, is a drunk, a rogue, actually sets off trying to capture Snow White and, basically, needs a wash. Of course, this is the Huntsman, played by Chris Hemsworth. It is his kiss which brings Snow White back from the death, and he is far from the traditional prince charming portrait of sobriety and virginity.
Overall a great film, this new style of dark fairytales seems to be a trend, with Jack and the Beanstalk coming to cinemas next starring Skins star Nicholas Hoult. I, for one, am quite a fan of creating an alternative option to the classic Disney interpretations of fairytales. I don't know if this is for any intelligent reason other than I want to enjoy fairytales again but am really too old for Disney.