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.