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.