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.

When Rich People Say Rich Things

It is good in life to experience new things, even if they leave you feeling conflicted and a little bit dirty. I know this as yesterday I found myself nodding in agreement with David Cameron. Amidst the surfacing of comedian Jimmy Carr's tax avoidance scheme, Cameron was speaking out against the comedian claiming that his actions, although lawful, were morally wrong

Jimmy Carr has apologised for his 'terrible error of judgement' over the K2 tax scheme

"People work hard, they pay their taxes, they save up to go to one of his shows. They buy the tickets. He is taking the money from those tickets and he, as far as I can see, is putting all of that into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes."

For a moment I was all for our David giving Jimmy Carr what for, he is morally wrong, and it is particularly rich coming from Jimmy Carr who appeared left wing in his criticism of banker's failure to pay their taxes. As I said, I was blinkered for a moment and then I remembered that Gary Barlow was also under the same scrutiny for tax evasion, however Gary Barlow participated in the Conservative election campaign, so is considered one of their own rather than Jimmy Carr. Regarding Gary Barlow's tax evasion, Cameron stated that he had not had the time to look into Gary Barlow's affairs, which have been an issue for far longer than Jimmy Carr's, in which Cameron appeared thoroughly knowledgeable.

I am not defending Jimmy Carr's actions, far from it, I now regret finding him hilarious. I, however, resent David Cameron jumping on the band wagon, claiming what is and what is not morally wrong, as he increases what the poorer pay in tax and decreases what the rich must pay. Yes Carr has been morally wrong, alongside the large number of MPs who spent tax payer's money on a Sky Sports subscriptions (Sky is a luxury in my book). Jimmy Carr's case has only received so much publicity because he is a celebrity, however there must be thousands more cases of these legal tax avoidance schemes along the lines of K2 and Icebreaker LLP. It would be far more lucritive for governing bodies to investigate these wealthy individuals, making large tax returns rather than fannying about taxing hot pasties. 

I want a trouser press like Chris Huhne!

Just to remind everybody, here are some items claimed by MPs on expenses
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/gallery/2009/may/08/labour-mps-expenses#/?picture=347377541&index=0

A Happy Conclusion

Martha Payne is now free to blog again after Argyl and Bute council have withdrawn their photograph ban on her blog.

Here is an article with more details

Raising Hell with Martha Payne

I hope she continues and hasn't been scared off by the ban.

2012. Inspire a Generation TO BUY!

After a long Easter break, I am back to whinge about this and that. So... the Olympics.

A positive from the Olympics. I like this stamp.

Can you believe that McDonalds sponsors the 2012 Olympics? And Coca Cola? Have you seen how buff olympic athletes are... they definitely do not consume McDonalds and Coca Cola. More obscure, but equally mad, is the fact that BP sponsor the Olympic games... surely athletes run everywhere??? Ok, that is ludicrous- but, amongst the Panasonic, acer, VISA, BMW, Cadbury sponsorships- where is there anything relevant to physical activity which may promote it. Surely the spirit of the Olympics stretches beyond antithetical sponsors, just because they are giants? I'm betting that, if Cadbury's Creme Eggs really did don helmets and ride bicycles in the games, they'd manage about as well as the Michelin baby.

Inspire a generation to get lashed... but not to binge drink. Or smoke. Or buy cheap alcohol. But specifically Heineken is OK during the Olympics, but not Amstel as they didn't cough up.

In all fairness, poor Londoners. Imagine the traffic, the chaos. London is hectic at the best of times. I'm not saying the Olympics are a bad thing, far from it, they've made giant corporations an absolute bomb of money! My fear is that the spirit of the Olympics (fitness, national pride, guilt at sitting on your bum writing a blog rather than going for a jog) is being manipulated and obscured by product placement and strange advertising schemes. Check out this SAMSUNG advert, what the piss has SAMSUNG got to do with the Olympics? What has SAMSUNG got to do with the 100 year old dream? I despair. Whilst watching television we are constantly confronted by these inspiring adverts that get you to thinking 'ooh, inspiring music, inspiring active lifestyle... I wonder what this product is: maybe the ultimate sportsbra, combining both practicality and cosmetic appeal'. Alas, no, it is advertising a mobile phone. I was innocently sat in the cinema, awaiting Snow White and the Huntsman (bit of product placement there) when this Blackberry advert assaulted my eyes. I have a Blackberry. It hasn't worked since February. How, in any way, is my faulty Blackberry helping me be a person 'that does'? It is not! If you want to be active and lead a happy life, a mere phone is not the answer. I feel a new wave of manipulation from advertising, wherein they claim that their product will provide for you the perfect life, although I suppose that is the lifelong motto of advertisements. Nowadays they just chuck some acoustic hipster-licious soundtrack over the top and are done with it.