I woke up in a coughing fit this morning but I'm feeling better now.
I wanted to tell you all a story that happened to be but I can't remember whether I told you all or not. I has a morale. The morale is that, whether we like it or not, Merlin is dominated by shipping and fans of the show will seek to identify 'their own' even in RL. Especially when it comes to the stand-off between the two main ships of the show: the Fandom-Fulled Arthur/Merlin pairing and the Show-Fulled Arthur/Gwen pairing. There are naturally other ships too but they are all a minority and small in comparison to these two.
The Arthur/Merlin fans hold dominance in fandom while in RL, in my experience, Arthur/Gwen are on top. In fandom, the 'Arwen' shippers tend to view other shippers with suspicion due to the overwhelming abuse some of them got between S1 and S2, and what they view (Quite rightly IMO although I *am* biased) as unreasonable dislike of Gwen simply because she's the one who 'has Arthur'. They tend to take this as a personal attack which comes not just from a handful of overzealous Arthur/Merlin but also a few people from other ships too. So there is this feeling of "ganging up" from what I have seen in the past. As a result in fandom they tend to shut themselves off from everyone else from fear of causing shipping wars. I am told that from time to from a couple of the idiots from both camps charge at each other and start fighting.
However I have a feeling that this secretive culture has slipped into RL too despite the fact that everyone I asked in RL who do *NOT* partake in the fandom experience, view Arthur/Gwen as the only proper romantic relationship in the show. If you are a hardcore or casual fandom goer however A/G fans seem to have this defence shield they raise up whenever they encounter *anyone* new outside the fandom.
Now I shall tell you my story:
Whether you like it or not Merlin is dominated by shipping even when fans meet accidently in RL, and I have proof:
I shared my Post-Victorian lecture and seminar last year with a girl who watched a lot of the shows I watch. True Blood. Being Human. Doctor Who. She was also a fan of Smallville and liked to complain to me about how much she hated it, lol!
She also mentioned in passing that she watched Merlin too.
Then one day while we were waiting for a lecture to start I happened to mention I watch Merlin too. Guess what the first thing she said to me was?
“Arthur and Gwen?”
Those were her exact words. Arthur and Gwen. Not, ‘Me too!’ Not ‘Oh do you?’ Not anything to do with the past series. Not even “Do you like Arthur and Gwen?” She just said ‘Arthur and Gwen?’
I gave her a thumbs up. She nodded and smiled.
My point is that while this girl is a casual fandom goer from what she has told me, the fandom has still changed the manner with which she interacts with other Merlin fans. Given I was 19 at the time and a girl she quite rightly assumed that I had dealt in fandom. So that was how she related to me.
As sad as it might be, Merlin fans know their own kind and seek to identify them in the real world, especially if no one else they interact with in RL is a fan of the show. I never think to ask anyone about ships in fandom or RL anymore because I suppose I feel cushioned by the knowledge that away from the computer screen I am surrounded by Merlin fans within my own family and friends. I watch the show with my little cousins, their friends, their parents and even their friends parents and babysitters. My friend John watches the show too (one of the few childless adult male viewers I do know). My mother watches the show. Every single one of them consider Arthur and Gwen to be the only romantic relationship in the show. Why? Because as far as they are concerned, it is. You could say Merlin/Freya are also a genuine romantic relationship of the show. In fact my cousin John (That's the Trio's dad not my aforementioned ex-bf, lol) remembered those two - although granted he referred to Freya as "that girl". There is also an argument for Gwen/Lancelot, but nearly everyone I know consider Lancelot more to be an appendage of Arthur/Gwen.
From being with all of them my attitude has come to match theirs for the most part. I retain my fandom quirks as you do but otherwise the reason why fandom has lost impact on me and why I can't be bothered to sweep to the defence of my ships when someone insults them or freak out it might get ruined, is because I don't see the point. Moreover I don't think my friend really sees the point either. She just wanted to know whether I agreed with her or not.
What's my point again? That fandom changes the way some fans think and even how they interact with other fans. Because there are no set forums, threads or communities for fans of ships to talk to each other in RL.
All I will say is I wonder how my friend would have reacted if I were a Arthur/Merlin shipper. I doubt it would have put a damper on our friendship but I definitely think it would have limited what we were willing to talk about. Because fandom shippers are generally good natured and do no like to provoke fights, hence why they stick to their set areas. It's the same in RL. If you know something is a topic you disagree on (Especially if its something as trivial yet infesting as shipping) you try to stay off that particular topic.
It reminds me to a less extreme extent of the rivalry between the fans of different companions in Doctor Who a few years ago. This was especially hot between the Rose fans and the Martha fans. I was a Martha fan and hell and brimstone falls upon anyone who insults me for being so. In fact the reason my PMs are locked to friends only is because I was harassed by two Rose fans during the 2007 run. I had never encountered fandom wars before now because I was *always* a canon shipper and I had always been in the majority. It kind of left me with a bad taste in my mouth.
I makes me wonder whether girls who had a particular companion they liked, when they met other female fans of the show, whether they too simply started the conversation by saying "Rose or Martha?" Because, let's be honest, it *is* mainly girls and women who start these fights. Most boys and men can't be bothered and really don't care about this sort of thing.
Incidentally, I prefer to talk about plots in the shows I watch over ships anyway and so did she. We haven't really talked about ships at all but rather what is going to happen in the show next. The whole ship aspect was really just a security blanket.
Sunday, 25 September 2011
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Do not buy the M&S Roast Chicken Sandwitch!
Since when did M&S think it was a good idea to put carrots in a sandwich?
Anyone here from the UK and tried the Meal Deal at M&S. I saw a new sandwich that advertised itself as Roast Chicken. It was new so I thought I'd give it a go. Big mistake!
The damned thing has genuine carrots in it, and not even mashed carrots. Proper hard and barely cooked (it seemed) carrots. It also had a horrible oniony dressing or whatever the hell it was. It was like chewing on plastic. The carrot taste had done me good though and I drank all my Valecian Orange Juice in order to get the taste out of my mouth.
Next people I'll get the chicken and bacon salad, as I usually go.
M&S shoppers, beware!
Anyone here from the UK and tried the Meal Deal at M&S. I saw a new sandwich that advertised itself as Roast Chicken. It was new so I thought I'd give it a go. Big mistake!
The damned thing has genuine carrots in it, and not even mashed carrots. Proper hard and barely cooked (it seemed) carrots. It also had a horrible oniony dressing or whatever the hell it was. It was like chewing on plastic. The carrot taste had done me good though and I drank all my Valecian Orange Juice in order to get the taste out of my mouth.
Next people I'll get the chicken and bacon salad, as I usually go.
M&S shoppers, beware!
I don't get the point of Tumblr (Though I keep trying...)
Sorry people, I just cannot get on with Tumblr!
It claims that it is supposed to make blogging easier but I just find it a pain in the backside. It's OK if I want to share stuff like pictures or want to share something else someone has posted... but that's it!
I don't care what anyone says, that bloody tag-blocker thing won't work for me.
And to top it all off I can't reply to what other people have said to my own posts. Or I can't figure out how it's supposed to be done. Even if I do it looks like the comments have to be really short and messy. :p
And I don't want to go onto other people's blogs because they posts spoiler stuff, stuff that *I* can't get to block properly.
*shakes head*
I really might as well just give up fandom altogether if I can't even keep up with what the "cool kids" are doing now. I never really liked Tumblr to begin with. :'(
It claims that it is supposed to make blogging easier but I just find it a pain in the backside. It's OK if I want to share stuff like pictures or want to share something else someone has posted... but that's it!
I don't care what anyone says, that bloody tag-blocker thing won't work for me.
And to top it all off I can't reply to what other people have said to my own posts. Or I can't figure out how it's supposed to be done. Even if I do it looks like the comments have to be really short and messy. :p
And I don't want to go onto other people's blogs because they posts spoiler stuff, stuff that *I* can't get to block properly.
*shakes head*
I really might as well just give up fandom altogether if I can't even keep up with what the "cool kids" are doing now. I never really liked Tumblr to begin with. :'(
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
YT: Two More Fanvids
Fandom : Merlin
Characters/Pairings : Arthur/Gwen
Music : A Time for Us (Romeo and Juliet)
Artist : The Strictly Come Dancing Band
Software : Sony Vegas Pro 11
Download : http://www.mediafire.com/?t158t69dlsfnu2k
This is my first music-music video for a while. My last couple of uploads fanvid wise have been comical broadway-style vids. The video is in honour of the return of Strictly Come Dancing this week, lol! For those of you who don't know 'A Time for Us' is the lyrical version of the Romeo and Juliet theme. I just like this version of the song so much I decided to make an A/G vid for it. It took me a while to finish this one.
Fandom : Merlin
Characters/Pairings : Arthur/Gwen, Merlin, Gwaine, Uther (Cameos from Morgana, Gaius, Elyan, Alice, Jarl, Taliesin, Grettir, Dagr, Catrina and Igraine).
Artist : The Princess Bride
Software : Sony Vegas Pro 11
Download : http://www.mediafire.com/?2g8ua8q1ql46s6a
This was just a silly idea I had. Unlike the EVITA trailer I haven't assigned any roles specific roles to anyone. The closest I get to that is Gwen being Buttercup, Arthur being Westley and Uther being Humberdinck. Gwaine and Merlin *sort* of share the roles of Inigo/Fezzik but otherwise I just selected clips to suit what's going on and the narrator's descriptions...so it *is* a little disjointed.
Like I said, this one was just for fun and to get my mind of RL.
Sunday, 11 September 2011
9/11: Ten Years On...
I was a ten-year-old girl. I was still in Primary 6 and had heard nothing about the attacks until I came home at the end of the day. I don't even think the teachers knew - and if they did, they hid it very well as they didn't seem shocked or off. They were just normal.
At 15:00 I walked home as usual by myself. It only takes a few minutes for me to get home as we all live in an area known as 'The Manor' - basically the privately owned, non-ex council homes in Tilbury. So my school was literally just across the field from me as our house backs onto the field.
I let myself into the house. It was only then I knew something was wrong because usually my mum, back in the days when she could walk a bit better and was generally better in health, was usually downstairs with some homemade bread with some Philadelphia cheese on it. I called out to her and she said, "I'm upstairs!" I went up and saw her sitting on her bed with the TV on.
The first image I saw of the towers was 'earlier footage' shown on the BBC of the first attack, which was initially reported as (and assumed to be, according to my mum) an accidental plane crash. I asked whether it was an accident and my mum said, "We thought it was, but then ten minutes later another plane crashed. The BBC didn't immediately realise it was another plane crash and not debris hitting the second tower." I vaguely remember standing at the bedroom door and looking across the room at the TV and seeing the repeated footage of the planes crashing into the towers. Then they showed the footage of the first tower falling down. My mum then told me that was the second one that was hit and that the first one that was hit was still standing.
I went to my room at that point. I was a child and didn't quite grasp what was going on. I had no thought about it being terrorists. When I thought of terrorists, I always thought of the IRA and the Troubles. Even then my labelling them as terrorists was very hazy. My knowledge of them came from them making nail bombs and setting them off in Manchester. I remembered a documentary I had caught sight of several years before when I was about seven about the Manchester bomb. It had only happened two years previous then and was probably the most recent terrorist attack in my living memory.
Even then my thoughts turned to simpler things. I was disappointed that all the channels - all five - were dedicated to this attack which, even at this point, I didn't quite grasp the gravity of. I knew it was horrible but terrorist attack... I didn't comprehend that something so big could actually be a terrorist attack or even grasp was real terrorism is. Like I said, I might have thought of the IRA but this was something completely different.
Children's Hour wasn't broadcasting, and I'll admit I was more annoyed by that. We didn't have satelite or cable then so I couldn't watch it being broadcast on another channel either. So I watched the BBC news like everyone else was. Mum went downstairs to make me my bread and get me a drink. I remember then seeing the footage of the Pentagon too. I asked my mum about it and she said there were four planes; two that hit the Twin Towers, one that hit the Pentagon and another that crashed in a field. "They think it was headed for the White House," she told me.
It all went over my head. I still didn't grasp the gravity.
The last thing I remember about that day was watching the second tower falling down. They didn't catch it live, obviously, because the British news feed was slow due and we didn't quite understand what was happening. Mum and I were in the kitchen at that point and I was eating. After that all I remember is them repeating the footage and talking to bystanders on satelite phone. My dad came home from work that evening and said he'd only heard about it when the staff were called into the staff room and had their old TV on. That might explain my teachers didn't know - their staff room didn't have a working TV.
Everything felt very matter of fact. I don't remember horror from either of my parents or anything. My dad immediately suggested it was probably a terrorist group. "I thought it as soon as I saw the second plane flying in," he said. I don't really remember anything much after the second tower collapsed.
The news coverage of BBC media, which I flicked between on the day, have been preserved on YT:
At 15:00 I walked home as usual by myself. It only takes a few minutes for me to get home as we all live in an area known as 'The Manor' - basically the privately owned, non-ex council homes in Tilbury. So my school was literally just across the field from me as our house backs onto the field.
I let myself into the house. It was only then I knew something was wrong because usually my mum, back in the days when she could walk a bit better and was generally better in health, was usually downstairs with some homemade bread with some Philadelphia cheese on it. I called out to her and she said, "I'm upstairs!" I went up and saw her sitting on her bed with the TV on.
The first image I saw of the towers was 'earlier footage' shown on the BBC of the first attack, which was initially reported as (and assumed to be, according to my mum) an accidental plane crash. I asked whether it was an accident and my mum said, "We thought it was, but then ten minutes later another plane crashed. The BBC didn't immediately realise it was another plane crash and not debris hitting the second tower." I vaguely remember standing at the bedroom door and looking across the room at the TV and seeing the repeated footage of the planes crashing into the towers. Then they showed the footage of the first tower falling down. My mum then told me that was the second one that was hit and that the first one that was hit was still standing.
I went to my room at that point. I was a child and didn't quite grasp what was going on. I had no thought about it being terrorists. When I thought of terrorists, I always thought of the IRA and the Troubles. Even then my labelling them as terrorists was very hazy. My knowledge of them came from them making nail bombs and setting them off in Manchester. I remembered a documentary I had caught sight of several years before when I was about seven about the Manchester bomb. It had only happened two years previous then and was probably the most recent terrorist attack in my living memory.
Even then my thoughts turned to simpler things. I was disappointed that all the channels - all five - were dedicated to this attack which, even at this point, I didn't quite grasp the gravity of. I knew it was horrible but terrorist attack... I didn't comprehend that something so big could actually be a terrorist attack or even grasp was real terrorism is. Like I said, I might have thought of the IRA but this was something completely different.
Children's Hour wasn't broadcasting, and I'll admit I was more annoyed by that. We didn't have satelite or cable then so I couldn't watch it being broadcast on another channel either. So I watched the BBC news like everyone else was. Mum went downstairs to make me my bread and get me a drink. I remember then seeing the footage of the Pentagon too. I asked my mum about it and she said there were four planes; two that hit the Twin Towers, one that hit the Pentagon and another that crashed in a field. "They think it was headed for the White House," she told me.
It all went over my head. I still didn't grasp the gravity.
The last thing I remember about that day was watching the second tower falling down. They didn't catch it live, obviously, because the British news feed was slow due and we didn't quite understand what was happening. Mum and I were in the kitchen at that point and I was eating. After that all I remember is them repeating the footage and talking to bystanders on satelite phone. My dad came home from work that evening and said he'd only heard about it when the staff were called into the staff room and had their old TV on. That might explain my teachers didn't know - their staff room didn't have a working TV.
Everything felt very matter of fact. I don't remember horror from either of my parents or anything. My dad immediately suggested it was probably a terrorist group. "I thought it as soon as I saw the second plane flying in," he said. I don't really remember anything much after the second tower collapsed.
The news coverage of BBC media, which I flicked between on the day, have been preserved on YT:
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
Friday, 2 September 2011
Speculation on TV Shows
I've not been feeling well the last couple of days. Like I've been really irritant in several ways, I've had a nasty summer cold and had really painful stomach cramps. So for lack of anything else to do I have been speculating about the shows I watch/am going to watch, and thought about some speculation for them.
Please remember that I don't look at spoilers nor really participate in any general fandom stuff anymore, not since the start of April anyway, so if you know better you probably won't pay any attention to me please don't attempt to drop hints or remark on anything I have said as to deny or confirm. Without spoilers and fandom, speculation is all I have and I prefer it that way.
Of course if you are one of the five people left in the world who do keep themselves spoiler free then you might want to speculate with me.
OK, first of all True Blood.
So like everyone else I have been a little down about the last couple of episodes. I was desperate for Eric to get his memories back but when he did it was so much worse than the books. He remembered everything rather than forgot it all, and that meant he was pleading with Sookie rather than being confused by her awkward behaviour. In the books Sookie was left feeling down and out by Eric's lack of memory of what passed between them. Here it now turns out that, with his memory back, Sookie has suddenly decided she still love Bill -- which frankly is probably down to his blood more than anything else.
But WTF?! Sookie still loves Bill?! He is nothing more than a controlling, abusive prick who used Sookie like his own vending machine. Say what you like about Eric, he may be a cock but he treats Sookie with an odd degree of respect and seems to understand her better. As I've said before though I'm biased. I like Eric and I hate "Beehl". The only positive thing about Bill is his relationship with Jessica.
The best thing about the last episode was definately a combination between Sam/Alcide's new found bromance (which is oddly apt considering they are two self-hating shifters/weres and both have that "nice guy" feel to them) and Sookie/Jason/Laffy/Jesus staking out Martonia's hideaway. I should add that I love Martonia too because Fiona Shaw is the be all and end all in greatness. You know what else I love? Laffy/Jesus's relationship, which is totally normal and not in your face. Sookie's relationships are so in your face all the time that it can be irritating. Laffy/Jesus is just subtle and regular. Despite the whole medium/demon thing, they are normal and cool.
So my first hope is that Jesus (or Laffy for that matter) does not die in the finale. I have heard that a couple of characters might be culled in the finale. We've already seen the death of Tommy "Turd with a Heart Sort-Of" Merlotte-Mickens, and I'm willing to bet at least two more people might snuff it. My guess is Hoyt will probably go (*cries* I hate that they keep messing with his character!) and maybe Nan the Bitchy Vampire. She gets on my nerves. I'm also thinking Debbie will get hers too, although I only say that because its in the book that she does. Knowing TV-land they will probably drag out the whole Debbie v. Sookie over Alcide thing for a billion years. Showrunners really do like to drag dead carcasses around.
Oh! 'Fort Belleflour' was pretty sweet too. Gotta love the Belleflour cousins. :D
Anyway, I wonder if we wil see a return of the fairies. Maybe Queen Mab will come to take Sookie back to fairyland and punish her for what happened at the start of the series? I just don't know how this whole witches thing will be resolved because I'm thinking that Antonia, who has already displayed an unwillingness to live in Marnie, might decide to go to Laffy instead and Jesus somehow settles her spirit. I'm also thinking that there might be a few more ghosts cropping up and that Laffy will get possessed by a couple of them too.
But I can't think how they are going to resolve the whole Queen Beehl situation. Frankly I think Eric would make a better king of any state. Can Bill stay king after pissing Nan off so much? Also what's the deal with the f-king authority? It almost makes me hope that this series ends in a Herrick-style fashion with someone digging Russell out of the ground and getting him to stamp out the authority or something...
I also realise now how much I miss Sophie-Anne, and not just because she's called Sophie-Anne (My name and my mothers name! hee ~)
Now for Doctor Who, and as usual I haven't go a f-k what is going on yet again.
Moffat is the ultimate king of the mindf-k, isn't he? I have to say that I loved the latest episode 'Night Terrors' if just because it was a nice break from all the relevant timey-wimey stuff. I have a feeling that next week will have some bearing in the overall plotline but I'm still not really certain where Moffat is taking this storyline.
If there is one thing I miss about RTD (and it's not the overly graphical sexy stuff, especially the gay scenes - I get annoyed when I see sex in sci-fi :p) is that he would wrap up his plots in one series and not drag it out over several series. The events taking place now in DW have been seeded since 5x01, apparently.
Well, we know it is. Just look at the Silence.
So in order to get my head around my own speculation I am going to make a list of what we know so far about the Silence and who they are working for:
1.) The Silence are not a species but a religious order, or movement but let's go with religion because it's cooler, who believe that silence will fall when 'the question is asked' - but no one knows what the question is.
2.) The Silence are the ones who want the Doctor dead. Therefore is stands to reason that Madame Kovarian is a member of the Silence too. The Clerics are not part of the name religion - because they are Christians - and only allied themselves with the Headless Monks, who presumably are also religious leaders within the Silence.
3.) We still don't know who or what the creatures from 6x01/2 are. If their species is not 'The Silence' then what are they? Why did they kidnap Amy in 6x02? Why were they the ones keeping River prisoner before she escaped and regenerated into Mels?
4.) Another question people often forget to ask is how do the Silence (or at least the creatures from 6x01/2) have their own TARDIS? Or rather, how do they have the knowledge to build a TARDIS? Because that's what that spaceship was in 5x11 and 6x01/2.
There are also a couple of other points Moffat has yet to explain:
5.) How and why did the TARDIS go to the day that Amy/Rory got married (also the day River was conceived) and blow up? Who was controlling the TARDIS? We can gather it was the Silence from the creepy voice saying "Silence will fall" in 5x12 but how do they have the power to control the TARDIS and who did that voice belong to? It wasn't one of those creatures so who was it?
6.) We still don't know why they got the date on Rory's ID badge so radically wrong in 5x01. I can't believe it was a continuity error when they zoomed into the bloody thing so the date was there for all and sundry to gawp at. It said something like 1990 rather than 2007 or maybe 2008 (when the year is set), which would be a more realistic issue date for Rory's badge as in 1990 he and Rory couldn't have been anymore than one or two years old! Given that Rory is clearly a trainee nurse in 5x01 he would only be about 19/20 years old. I just can't believe they would get it so wrong!
7.) River's aging progress. Back when she was Melody Pond she regenerated in New York City, January/February 1970 into a toddler (so around two-years-old) - who eventually became known as "Mels" by Amy and Rory - yet she is shown as growing up as a contemporary of her parents and growing at the same rate as a human. That means that River/Melody would have been a toddler for nearly twenty years before finally hitting a growth spurt in around 1990/1 when Amy and Rory themselves would have been toddlers, if we assume they were born between 1988/90. That doesn't make sense either.
8.) WTF is up with River Song, anyway? They make her a Time Lord and then randomly have her throw it all away to save the man she's supposed to kill. What does that mean for the Doctor's death in 6x01? Obviously it won't happen in the end but does this mean River isn't in the suit? Or if she is how does it happen? WTF is going on with her?! WTF! I figured she saved him in 6x08 because he suddenly gave her life another meaning than just being programmed for the one task of killing him.
9.) What did the Doctor whisper in Melody's ear when he told her to "Find River Song"? And why did she reply, "I'm sure she knows." It'd be easy to believe he said something mundane that he could only ever whisper in someone's ear, i.e. like at the end of that god-awful episode of DW 4x13. It also seems too simple that he would whisper his name to her - although this is the most logical thing he did. Could have whispered a way in which she cane save him from his eventual death? He knows it's going to happen, so will he try to change it or stop it. It does seem that River holds the key to saving the Doctor.
10.) Is River really a Time Lady because of the TARDIS or is there something else at work there? Nothing much to say on this other than that and "GUH?!"
There are probably loads of other things I'm forgetting but here is my speculation as it stands now:
I believe that the Silence are a religious movement who are being controlled and headed by a powerful force existing outside the universe. It could even be what we would understand to be God, although I have seen plenty of people suggesting it will be the First Time Lord Omega. This is really down to the Omega symbols on the clerics' badges and a load of other factors too. Whoever this powerful force is, it seems to me that they wish to kill the Doctor for one reason or another. He was probably the one who blew up the TADIS, possibly to create this new universe and new timeline in which the Doctor is destined to die. I guess this will all get rewritten/unwritten again at some point.
The question could possibly be "What is the Doctor's real name?" as we know that River knows his name, and his name has been hinted at several times in Moffat's past episodes dating back into the RTD era.
I think that everyone in the Silence plays a different role. I think make Madame Kovarian will turn out to be some sort of high-up religious leader (Maybe the eye-patch is symbolic of that somehow?) The creatures are probably the gofers whose duty was to look after the child and steal technology for whatever it is the Big Bad is planning. The fact that when you look away from them, you forget them, might suggest that they are trying to make people 'forget the question' and maybe they also used that power to brainwash River? The Headless Monks seem to be the devout franaticals or something.
Now as for Rory's badge and River's prolonged aging, I'm guessing this might have something to do with the damaged time we keep hearing about. I wonder if maybe Amy and Rory were actually born around 1968/9/70 or something but, due to problems with time, aspects of the 21st century have been tumbled up in their timeline back in the 20th century. I keep thinking about how Leadworth was described as the "village that time forgot". I don't know, I definately think there is something in time being jumbled up or something.
Anyway I'm pretty certain Moffat said that the answer to our questions in S6 been right in front of our faces since 5x01... so if anyone can think of something besides Rory's badge that appeared in 5x01 that could hold the key to everything, so let me know. I just can't think of anything good. IDK what's wrong with me, lol!
My head hurts, lets move on to Merlin
So having been a good little girl I have stayed away from all Merlin spoilers for the last couple of months. I did catch a couple of the early ones before my joy for it all was immediately stucked away and I decided I was better off without it. So bearing that in mind all my speculation is probably completely off with what everyone else has seen, known and said.
But I don't care because I don't know any better and I'm going to speculate anyway.
To recap how 3x13 ended, we saw Morgana and Morgause flee Camelot with the latter being apparently badly injured or dead. Uther had a nervous breakdown upon realising just how much cruelty is in his daughter to a point where she would murder simple civilians who just happen to be standing by, try to murder her own little brother and using his actions as an excuse for it all. Now apparently incapable of ruling alone, Arthur and Merlin were left sitting on Camelot's steps wondering if he would ever recover. Finally, Arthur now has a band of five-strong knights at his back: Sir Gwaine, Sir Lancelot, Sir Elyan, Sir Pericval and, of course, good ol' Sir Leon. The show ended with Arthur snogging Gwen and Merlin having his traditional summing up over dinner with Gaius before heading off to seal the Excalibur in the stone.
Where do they go from here? All I will say before I begin speculating is that I only know a handful of details about the show released around March time, beginning of April at the latest as it was around then I packed in spoilers and fandom. So aside from ONE character spoiler, I know nothing else. So don't tell me anything else about this character another than what I know, which is the following:
Arthur is going to be getting an uncle this series called Agravaine. I've forgotten who is playing him but I do remember that he is supposed to be a maternal uncle, not a paternal one. So he is Ygraine's brother, not Uther's. By that reckoning we can rule out the possibility of Agravaine turning up to steal the throne out from under Arthur's feet in a Hamlet style manner. If he is Ygraine's brother then I can only guess that he's after revenge for his sister's and their brother Tristan's deaths. After all Uther did kill both of them. I have also heard that he's also going to pull-a-Morgana by pretending to be on the side of good while sneaking out every night to stand around a cauldron singing "Hubble-Bubble" with Morgana and Morgause. Like that's not going to get old pretty soon. It did get me wondering though because why would Ygraine's brother help the bastard daughter of the man who murdered her? I cannot believe he would back someone he has no familial relationship with over his own flesh and blood nephew when he would have nothing on the face of it to gain. It's not like Morgana is in any position to make promises. She's probably living in a cave and plotting evil deeds. Therefore I think it would be interesting if he is doing the reverse-Morgana; he is pretending with her while actually trying to find a way to possibly have it both ways by destroying both her and Uther. Either that or he shares some sort of history with Morgause, which seems logical considering I have yet to be proven otherwise that Morgause is not related to Arthur via his mother. But I'm probably still wrong. For all I know Agravaine probably hated his sister, although I fail to see why you'd invent such a character if that was the case. I mean, there is no point. What could she have done? Exiled him to the same village that Elyan was living until 3x07? :p
So aside from Agravaine's appearance I know nothing else about his character or any other characters. And I don't want to know, thank you! (I have to keep saying it because I'm worried people will forget.)
Now all I can do is base by speculation on what I saw at the end of the show last year and assume the showrunners will build from that in this new series. My first guess is that Morgana will be plastering her ever growing annoying face all over the place this year too at least for the first two episodes. I hope and pray she's not in all of them as she and Morgause lost their effect on me very quickly last year with their idiotic, half-baked plans.
But I'm guessing this next series will mainly consist of Merlin and Morgana staring angrily across at each other while not actually doing anything successful to hurt the other. Frankly, I really hope Merlin doesn't hold back with his powers anymore like he did last year. It's not like Morgana can run and tell daddy anymore. As for Morgana - given her magic was pathetically weak and uncontrolled last year, I'm guessing she'll have spent the hiatus either nicking magic off other people a la the legends or training under so sort of guru. Maybe Morgause, maybe someone else?
Either way the reason I am hesitant to say Morgause is because I'm wondering whether two Js have decided to play on the whole "is she dead or alive?" thing by making Morgana go on some sort of stupid rampage to revive her or something? We know that the magic of life and death exists. We've seen lifes being created, lives being exchanged for lives, and we have seen magic that creates living-dead immortals a la the Black Cauldron. We also know that the spirit world and ghosts exists, so it is logical that reviving dead people is possible too. I reckon though that if there is doing to be some sort of "Mummy" moment where Morgana decided to dabble in the blackest of all arts by bringing back a corpse, I'm guessing it'll work the same way that creating a life does. Ygraine died to give life to Arthur, and again like in The Mummy (I love that film!) where Imhotep needed Evie to bring back his girlfriend, I gather that to raise the dead someone else has to die...
Didn't we see that before with Nimueh and Gaius? He died to save Hunith and Merlin, and then Merlin killed Nimueh which ultimately brought Gaius back to life. So is Gaius living on borrowed time? He is old anyway but given that I think Morgana will blame him for whatever happened to Morgause and not Merlin, maybe she plots to kill one of the goodies in order to raise her dead (adopted) sister?
I probably sound mental, don't I? But it is one thing this show hasn't tried yet... I don't think. Well, they did raise Tristan Dubois's wraith but I'm thinking this whole bringing back a dead person might mean bringing them back properly. Although I have reached a plot hole in how you would preserve a corpse for any longer than a few days in those days. IDK, maybe magic would restore the flesh as well. Like in Buffy when Willow brought Buffy back from the dead.
That would be interesting. If Morgause does die but then Morgana does some sort of creepy voodoo spell to bring her back to life, what if she comes back different? What if she comes back wishing she hadn't been brought back? Or maybe she comes back and it turns out she's been in some sort of hell? Hmm.
Maybe that's what Agravaine is really there for? To steal the Cup of Life which undoubtedly now lives in Camelot's vaults. Ooo! Maybe we get to see the Isle of the Blessed again? That would be fun.
Yes, I'm listening to myself say all of this and I realise just how far off the mark I probably am with this idea. I've been blissfully thinking about it without any actual knowledge of what is going on with the show. But who cares? Even if I am completely wrong and out of it, the idea is a good one to me! ;D
For all I know the show opener will probably be some crappy storyline about how Morgause didn't die and all she and Morgana are doing is screwing with everyone in Camelot by doing the small crap tricks they did in S3. I certainly hope not, though. While I have always maintained that Morgana is better evil than she even was attempting to be a goodie, she irritated me to no end last year and to see this buck continue would be enough to make me stop watching this show as religiously as I did in the past. As I would if they f-k about with Merlin still doing boring magic tricks and not doing badass powerful magic like he has done on-and-off but not enough, or f-king about with Arthur and Gwen's characters to suit the lame-as-hell love-triangle they will undoubtedly insist on dragging the carcass of out until the end of S5.
That's another thing I expect, that a couple of the knights will wander off and no be in Camelot all the time. I just don't see how the show will manage all five of them fairly without them getting in the way or eating away at the stronger main characters (Arthur, Merlin, Gwen, Gaius, Uther and Morgana). So either they get rid of some of the knights by having them decide to go backpacking somewhere... or they will eventually cull a few at the end of S4. In my experience S4 of any show = major character cull in which all but the main characters are in danger of dying.
I decided a long time ago that Elyan would probably get culled at the end of the show's run if only because of Guinevere's brother's small yet interesting role in the legends of getting mixed up with Morgan Le Fay. I also figured that by the end Lancelot would probably be culled too, and of course Uther will have to die by the end of S5 at the latest. His death will be another carcass I expect the show will drag on and on as long as possible. I suspect that Gaius will probably die soon too not just because he's old but it's also time that Merlin cut the apron strings, and the best way to do that is by culling his beloved father figure in some tragic and significant way. While it would be nice if Gaius could just retire, go to live with Alice and pick herbs, I think it would hurt more to kill him. And, you know what, if Percival doesn't develop into a better character... what the hell? Cull him too! I'd like to repeat that most of these culls I expect to happen in some big blow-up at the end of S5 where all bets are off and loads of people die.
But I'm still expecting a couple of culls this series simply to trim the fat of characters this show has suddenly lumbered itself with. Like I said it's that, or sending a couple of the knights away to "do stuff" while leaving two or three left in Camelot. I'm thinking Elyan would probably stick around and Leon too - not that Leon matters that much as he's never really been anything more than a plot-device with a beard. The others have at least had storylines to their name. Or at least Lancelot, Gwaine and Elyan have. As I said Percival doesn't seem to do much at all... and I think it'd rather find out more about Gwaine and Elyan than try and invent a backstory for Percival.
Just to end my lovely speculation on the topic of death, I wonder if they will pretend to kill one of the proper main characters to try and scare the kiddies. I have gone on record pleading that this show not get so dark and gruesome that my little cousins can't watch it with the same enjoyment anymore. It is still a kid's show after all. Nonetheless that can usually be very effective, tricking kids into thinking that one of the main characters is dying or dead. It probably wouldn't be Arthur or Merlin because the former has already nearly died about a billions times and Merlin is the glue that holds this show together (Plus he's already nearly died twice himself). I imagine my little cousins would react to an Uther death the same way they did to Morgana's in 3x05 i.e. they didn't care and would actually be disappointed if the death wasn't see through (Uther and Morgana = Baddies). Plus, like Arthur, he's nearly died more times than I care to count. I've already stated that I think Gaius could eventually die for real, but he *has* already nearly died twice himself. In fact thinking about it the only character who hasn't had a storyline where they were either dying or dead is Gwen. She's nearly been executed twice in serious storylines, but so have Merlin and Gaius. She is due her turn her go at lying on a death bed or actually dying and having to be brought back. So if they do another storyline to this effect, it'll probably be Gwen's turn to nearly die or actually die. It's her go. It might make a nice race against time episode, or even a two-parter if she (or unspecified character who is not her in my head-canon) dies suddenly at the end of one episode and has to be saved in the next.
OK, now I am really off the ball. I realise that. This is the glorious thing of not having a clue what is going to happen in the show. You can go with your head-canon.
Two more things I hope next series will address that they annoyingly failed to do last series was explain Morgause's sodding background. They said they would explain it later but they never did, so they better do so now. We know she's Gorlois's daughter but I can't believe she is Vivienne's too. Even before the Uther thing came out Gaius was calling them half-sisters and that their common parent was their father, not their mother. So who the hell was Morgause's mother? Igraine, Nimueh, Random Lady Not Mentioned Yet? The list is endless.
Also we need to out the truth about Arthur's mother. I don't even think Igraine's death came up last series, did it? She appeared to Uther in that vision Morgause induced for him - and I'm still speculating on what it was he saw her drowned with all those children. It kinda had a whole "not in my name" feel about it. Like Uther knew deep down that Igraine would be disgusted in everything he has done. Although I thinking that goes without saying. There still isn't something quite right about Igraine's death that I think is yet to be revealed. I think there is definately more than what we learned even in 2x08. It is certainly clear that the royal marriage wasn't the picture-perfect image he liked to paint to the world, or even to himself.
Given that he appears to have cheated on Igraine more than once with his friends' wives and messed around with serving girls, he is a tragic example of a man who clearly didn't appreciate Igraine until he'd gone and killed her. I have no doubt he loved her more than anything, he just treated her like crap. So much so that a part of me even started to wonder (even hope) that Igraine did not return Uther's love in the same way. Maybe she too was the victim of a pushy dad who forced her into marriage with Uther for an alliance. While it eventually worked out for him (i.e. he fell for her) she didn't for him and so she spent most of the marriage walking around like Arthur at his forced marriage; with a face that looked like it was about to burst into tears and vomit down Geoffrey's front.
Hell, Uther seems to love marriages of connivance! Seems logical that he had one himself and in his twisted and blurred mind considers it a success story of what a good idea they are. :p
I suppose I just like to think that at least one of Arthur's parents would understand his and Gwen's plight, were they both there to judge the situation. I used to think Uther would be harsh but sympathetic seeing as he claims to have loved Igraine with such passion. I often feel that it was his moving plight to Arthur that he had loved Igraine and longed for her to still be alive that save his neck in 2x08. I don't say that just because Arthur feels that natural sensitivity to his mother's memory but because Uther's words touched something inside Arthur. He understands what it is like to love someone that much and for it to hurt to think about them and not have them. I know Gwen is alive and Igraine is dead but there was a likeness there. While Arthur and Gwen are cautious but ultimately honest about their love for each other, you get the feeling that Uther never was all that open with Igraine. He messed her about, and I hate him for it, but he was that sort of man. Arthur isn't really; the idea of using Gwen for his own desires just completely goes over his head, even when Morgana and Uther both alluded to it. Uther is beyond redemption now but at least we could send him to hell while feeling sorry for him. He loved his wife but never really told her, and then let her die thinking that he had given her up for his son. From what Igraine said in 2x08 it could be that Uther's desire for an heir pushed her away? Maybe she felt he was more interested in her as his waling baby-making machine than as a woman.
Yeah, there are still a few gaps worth plugging there. Sorry for waffling on but with so little to go on, my mind wanders... what was I originally talking about? OH, S4 speculation. LOL!
Please remember that I don't look at spoilers nor really participate in any general fandom stuff anymore, not since the start of April anyway, so if you know better you probably won't pay any attention to me please don't attempt to drop hints or remark on anything I have said as to deny or confirm. Without spoilers and fandom, speculation is all I have and I prefer it that way.
Of course if you are one of the five people left in the world who do keep themselves spoiler free then you might want to speculate with me.
OK, first of all True Blood.
So like everyone else I have been a little down about the last couple of episodes. I was desperate for Eric to get his memories back but when he did it was so much worse than the books. He remembered everything rather than forgot it all, and that meant he was pleading with Sookie rather than being confused by her awkward behaviour. In the books Sookie was left feeling down and out by Eric's lack of memory of what passed between them. Here it now turns out that, with his memory back, Sookie has suddenly decided she still love Bill -- which frankly is probably down to his blood more than anything else.
But WTF?! Sookie still loves Bill?! He is nothing more than a controlling, abusive prick who used Sookie like his own vending machine. Say what you like about Eric, he may be a cock but he treats Sookie with an odd degree of respect and seems to understand her better. As I've said before though I'm biased. I like Eric and I hate "Beehl". The only positive thing about Bill is his relationship with Jessica.
The best thing about the last episode was definately a combination between Sam/Alcide's new found bromance (which is oddly apt considering they are two self-hating shifters/weres and both have that "nice guy" feel to them) and Sookie/Jason/Laffy/Jesus staking out Martonia's hideaway. I should add that I love Martonia too because Fiona Shaw is the be all and end all in greatness. You know what else I love? Laffy/Jesus's relationship, which is totally normal and not in your face. Sookie's relationships are so in your face all the time that it can be irritating. Laffy/Jesus is just subtle and regular. Despite the whole medium/demon thing, they are normal and cool.
So my first hope is that Jesus (or Laffy for that matter) does not die in the finale. I have heard that a couple of characters might be culled in the finale. We've already seen the death of Tommy "Turd with a Heart Sort-Of" Merlotte-Mickens, and I'm willing to bet at least two more people might snuff it. My guess is Hoyt will probably go (*cries* I hate that they keep messing with his character!) and maybe Nan the Bitchy Vampire. She gets on my nerves. I'm also thinking Debbie will get hers too, although I only say that because its in the book that she does. Knowing TV-land they will probably drag out the whole Debbie v. Sookie over Alcide thing for a billion years. Showrunners really do like to drag dead carcasses around.
Oh! 'Fort Belleflour' was pretty sweet too. Gotta love the Belleflour cousins. :D
Anyway, I wonder if we wil see a return of the fairies. Maybe Queen Mab will come to take Sookie back to fairyland and punish her for what happened at the start of the series? I just don't know how this whole witches thing will be resolved because I'm thinking that Antonia, who has already displayed an unwillingness to live in Marnie, might decide to go to Laffy instead and Jesus somehow settles her spirit. I'm also thinking that there might be a few more ghosts cropping up and that Laffy will get possessed by a couple of them too.
But I can't think how they are going to resolve the whole Queen Beehl situation. Frankly I think Eric would make a better king of any state. Can Bill stay king after pissing Nan off so much? Also what's the deal with the f-king authority? It almost makes me hope that this series ends in a Herrick-style fashion with someone digging Russell out of the ground and getting him to stamp out the authority or something...
I also realise now how much I miss Sophie-Anne, and not just because she's called Sophie-Anne (My name and my mothers name! hee ~)
Now for Doctor Who, and as usual I haven't go a f-k what is going on yet again.
Moffat is the ultimate king of the mindf-k, isn't he? I have to say that I loved the latest episode 'Night Terrors' if just because it was a nice break from all the relevant timey-wimey stuff. I have a feeling that next week will have some bearing in the overall plotline but I'm still not really certain where Moffat is taking this storyline.
If there is one thing I miss about RTD (and it's not the overly graphical sexy stuff, especially the gay scenes - I get annoyed when I see sex in sci-fi :p) is that he would wrap up his plots in one series and not drag it out over several series. The events taking place now in DW have been seeded since 5x01, apparently.
Well, we know it is. Just look at the Silence.
So in order to get my head around my own speculation I am going to make a list of what we know so far about the Silence and who they are working for:
1.) The Silence are not a species but a religious order, or movement but let's go with religion because it's cooler, who believe that silence will fall when 'the question is asked' - but no one knows what the question is.
2.) The Silence are the ones who want the Doctor dead. Therefore is stands to reason that Madame Kovarian is a member of the Silence too. The Clerics are not part of the name religion - because they are Christians - and only allied themselves with the Headless Monks, who presumably are also religious leaders within the Silence.
3.) We still don't know who or what the creatures from 6x01/2 are. If their species is not 'The Silence' then what are they? Why did they kidnap Amy in 6x02? Why were they the ones keeping River prisoner before she escaped and regenerated into Mels?
4.) Another question people often forget to ask is how do the Silence (or at least the creatures from 6x01/2) have their own TARDIS? Or rather, how do they have the knowledge to build a TARDIS? Because that's what that spaceship was in 5x11 and 6x01/2.
There are also a couple of other points Moffat has yet to explain:
5.) How and why did the TARDIS go to the day that Amy/Rory got married (also the day River was conceived) and blow up? Who was controlling the TARDIS? We can gather it was the Silence from the creepy voice saying "Silence will fall" in 5x12 but how do they have the power to control the TARDIS and who did that voice belong to? It wasn't one of those creatures so who was it?
6.) We still don't know why they got the date on Rory's ID badge so radically wrong in 5x01. I can't believe it was a continuity error when they zoomed into the bloody thing so the date was there for all and sundry to gawp at. It said something like 1990 rather than 2007 or maybe 2008 (when the year is set), which would be a more realistic issue date for Rory's badge as in 1990 he and Rory couldn't have been anymore than one or two years old! Given that Rory is clearly a trainee nurse in 5x01 he would only be about 19/20 years old. I just can't believe they would get it so wrong!
7.) River's aging progress. Back when she was Melody Pond she regenerated in New York City, January/February 1970 into a toddler (so around two-years-old) - who eventually became known as "Mels" by Amy and Rory - yet she is shown as growing up as a contemporary of her parents and growing at the same rate as a human. That means that River/Melody would have been a toddler for nearly twenty years before finally hitting a growth spurt in around 1990/1 when Amy and Rory themselves would have been toddlers, if we assume they were born between 1988/90. That doesn't make sense either.
8.) WTF is up with River Song, anyway? They make her a Time Lord and then randomly have her throw it all away to save the man she's supposed to kill. What does that mean for the Doctor's death in 6x01? Obviously it won't happen in the end but does this mean River isn't in the suit? Or if she is how does it happen? WTF is going on with her?! WTF! I figured she saved him in 6x08 because he suddenly gave her life another meaning than just being programmed for the one task of killing him.
9.) What did the Doctor whisper in Melody's ear when he told her to "Find River Song"? And why did she reply, "I'm sure she knows." It'd be easy to believe he said something mundane that he could only ever whisper in someone's ear, i.e. like at the end of that god-awful episode of DW 4x13. It also seems too simple that he would whisper his name to her - although this is the most logical thing he did. Could have whispered a way in which she cane save him from his eventual death? He knows it's going to happen, so will he try to change it or stop it. It does seem that River holds the key to saving the Doctor.
10.) Is River really a Time Lady because of the TARDIS or is there something else at work there? Nothing much to say on this other than that and "GUH?!"
There are probably loads of other things I'm forgetting but here is my speculation as it stands now:
I believe that the Silence are a religious movement who are being controlled and headed by a powerful force existing outside the universe. It could even be what we would understand to be God, although I have seen plenty of people suggesting it will be the First Time Lord Omega. This is really down to the Omega symbols on the clerics' badges and a load of other factors too. Whoever this powerful force is, it seems to me that they wish to kill the Doctor for one reason or another. He was probably the one who blew up the TADIS, possibly to create this new universe and new timeline in which the Doctor is destined to die. I guess this will all get rewritten/unwritten again at some point.
The question could possibly be "What is the Doctor's real name?" as we know that River knows his name, and his name has been hinted at several times in Moffat's past episodes dating back into the RTD era.
I think that everyone in the Silence plays a different role. I think make Madame Kovarian will turn out to be some sort of high-up religious leader (Maybe the eye-patch is symbolic of that somehow?) The creatures are probably the gofers whose duty was to look after the child and steal technology for whatever it is the Big Bad is planning. The fact that when you look away from them, you forget them, might suggest that they are trying to make people 'forget the question' and maybe they also used that power to brainwash River? The Headless Monks seem to be the devout franaticals or something.
Now as for Rory's badge and River's prolonged aging, I'm guessing this might have something to do with the damaged time we keep hearing about. I wonder if maybe Amy and Rory were actually born around 1968/9/70 or something but, due to problems with time, aspects of the 21st century have been tumbled up in their timeline back in the 20th century. I keep thinking about how Leadworth was described as the "village that time forgot". I don't know, I definately think there is something in time being jumbled up or something.
Anyway I'm pretty certain Moffat said that the answer to our questions in S6 been right in front of our faces since 5x01... so if anyone can think of something besides Rory's badge that appeared in 5x01 that could hold the key to everything, so let me know. I just can't think of anything good. IDK what's wrong with me, lol!
My head hurts, lets move on to Merlin
So having been a good little girl I have stayed away from all Merlin spoilers for the last couple of months. I did catch a couple of the early ones before my joy for it all was immediately stucked away and I decided I was better off without it. So bearing that in mind all my speculation is probably completely off with what everyone else has seen, known and said.
But I don't care because I don't know any better and I'm going to speculate anyway.
To recap how 3x13 ended, we saw Morgana and Morgause flee Camelot with the latter being apparently badly injured or dead. Uther had a nervous breakdown upon realising just how much cruelty is in his daughter to a point where she would murder simple civilians who just happen to be standing by, try to murder her own little brother and using his actions as an excuse for it all. Now apparently incapable of ruling alone, Arthur and Merlin were left sitting on Camelot's steps wondering if he would ever recover. Finally, Arthur now has a band of five-strong knights at his back: Sir Gwaine, Sir Lancelot, Sir Elyan, Sir Pericval and, of course, good ol' Sir Leon. The show ended with Arthur snogging Gwen and Merlin having his traditional summing up over dinner with Gaius before heading off to seal the Excalibur in the stone.
Where do they go from here? All I will say before I begin speculating is that I only know a handful of details about the show released around March time, beginning of April at the latest as it was around then I packed in spoilers and fandom. So aside from ONE character spoiler, I know nothing else. So don't tell me anything else about this character another than what I know, which is the following:
Arthur is going to be getting an uncle this series called Agravaine. I've forgotten who is playing him but I do remember that he is supposed to be a maternal uncle, not a paternal one. So he is Ygraine's brother, not Uther's. By that reckoning we can rule out the possibility of Agravaine turning up to steal the throne out from under Arthur's feet in a Hamlet style manner. If he is Ygraine's brother then I can only guess that he's after revenge for his sister's and their brother Tristan's deaths. After all Uther did kill both of them. I have also heard that he's also going to pull-a-Morgana by pretending to be on the side of good while sneaking out every night to stand around a cauldron singing "Hubble-Bubble" with Morgana and Morgause. Like that's not going to get old pretty soon. It did get me wondering though because why would Ygraine's brother help the bastard daughter of the man who murdered her? I cannot believe he would back someone he has no familial relationship with over his own flesh and blood nephew when he would have nothing on the face of it to gain. It's not like Morgana is in any position to make promises. She's probably living in a cave and plotting evil deeds. Therefore I think it would be interesting if he is doing the reverse-Morgana; he is pretending with her while actually trying to find a way to possibly have it both ways by destroying both her and Uther. Either that or he shares some sort of history with Morgause, which seems logical considering I have yet to be proven otherwise that Morgause is not related to Arthur via his mother. But I'm probably still wrong. For all I know Agravaine probably hated his sister, although I fail to see why you'd invent such a character if that was the case. I mean, there is no point. What could she have done? Exiled him to the same village that Elyan was living until 3x07? :p
So aside from Agravaine's appearance I know nothing else about his character or any other characters. And I don't want to know, thank you! (I have to keep saying it because I'm worried people will forget.)
Now all I can do is base by speculation on what I saw at the end of the show last year and assume the showrunners will build from that in this new series. My first guess is that Morgana will be plastering her ever growing annoying face all over the place this year too at least for the first two episodes. I hope and pray she's not in all of them as she and Morgause lost their effect on me very quickly last year with their idiotic, half-baked plans.
But I'm guessing this next series will mainly consist of Merlin and Morgana staring angrily across at each other while not actually doing anything successful to hurt the other. Frankly, I really hope Merlin doesn't hold back with his powers anymore like he did last year. It's not like Morgana can run and tell daddy anymore. As for Morgana - given her magic was pathetically weak and uncontrolled last year, I'm guessing she'll have spent the hiatus either nicking magic off other people a la the legends or training under so sort of guru. Maybe Morgause, maybe someone else?
Either way the reason I am hesitant to say Morgause is because I'm wondering whether two Js have decided to play on the whole "is she dead or alive?" thing by making Morgana go on some sort of stupid rampage to revive her or something? We know that the magic of life and death exists. We've seen lifes being created, lives being exchanged for lives, and we have seen magic that creates living-dead immortals a la the Black Cauldron. We also know that the spirit world and ghosts exists, so it is logical that reviving dead people is possible too. I reckon though that if there is doing to be some sort of "Mummy" moment where Morgana decided to dabble in the blackest of all arts by bringing back a corpse, I'm guessing it'll work the same way that creating a life does. Ygraine died to give life to Arthur, and again like in The Mummy (I love that film!) where Imhotep needed Evie to bring back his girlfriend, I gather that to raise the dead someone else has to die...
Didn't we see that before with Nimueh and Gaius? He died to save Hunith and Merlin, and then Merlin killed Nimueh which ultimately brought Gaius back to life. So is Gaius living on borrowed time? He is old anyway but given that I think Morgana will blame him for whatever happened to Morgause and not Merlin, maybe she plots to kill one of the goodies in order to raise her dead (adopted) sister?
I probably sound mental, don't I? But it is one thing this show hasn't tried yet... I don't think. Well, they did raise Tristan Dubois's wraith but I'm thinking this whole bringing back a dead person might mean bringing them back properly. Although I have reached a plot hole in how you would preserve a corpse for any longer than a few days in those days. IDK, maybe magic would restore the flesh as well. Like in Buffy when Willow brought Buffy back from the dead.
That would be interesting. If Morgause does die but then Morgana does some sort of creepy voodoo spell to bring her back to life, what if she comes back different? What if she comes back wishing she hadn't been brought back? Or maybe she comes back and it turns out she's been in some sort of hell? Hmm.
Maybe that's what Agravaine is really there for? To steal the Cup of Life which undoubtedly now lives in Camelot's vaults. Ooo! Maybe we get to see the Isle of the Blessed again? That would be fun.
Yes, I'm listening to myself say all of this and I realise just how far off the mark I probably am with this idea. I've been blissfully thinking about it without any actual knowledge of what is going on with the show. But who cares? Even if I am completely wrong and out of it, the idea is a good one to me! ;D
For all I know the show opener will probably be some crappy storyline about how Morgause didn't die and all she and Morgana are doing is screwing with everyone in Camelot by doing the small crap tricks they did in S3. I certainly hope not, though. While I have always maintained that Morgana is better evil than she even was attempting to be a goodie, she irritated me to no end last year and to see this buck continue would be enough to make me stop watching this show as religiously as I did in the past. As I would if they f-k about with Merlin still doing boring magic tricks and not doing badass powerful magic like he has done on-and-off but not enough, or f-king about with Arthur and Gwen's characters to suit the lame-as-hell love-triangle they will undoubtedly insist on dragging the carcass of out until the end of S5.
That's another thing I expect, that a couple of the knights will wander off and no be in Camelot all the time. I just don't see how the show will manage all five of them fairly without them getting in the way or eating away at the stronger main characters (Arthur, Merlin, Gwen, Gaius, Uther and Morgana). So either they get rid of some of the knights by having them decide to go backpacking somewhere... or they will eventually cull a few at the end of S4. In my experience S4 of any show = major character cull in which all but the main characters are in danger of dying.
I decided a long time ago that Elyan would probably get culled at the end of the show's run if only because of Guinevere's brother's small yet interesting role in the legends of getting mixed up with Morgan Le Fay. I also figured that by the end Lancelot would probably be culled too, and of course Uther will have to die by the end of S5 at the latest. His death will be another carcass I expect the show will drag on and on as long as possible. I suspect that Gaius will probably die soon too not just because he's old but it's also time that Merlin cut the apron strings, and the best way to do that is by culling his beloved father figure in some tragic and significant way. While it would be nice if Gaius could just retire, go to live with Alice and pick herbs, I think it would hurt more to kill him. And, you know what, if Percival doesn't develop into a better character... what the hell? Cull him too! I'd like to repeat that most of these culls I expect to happen in some big blow-up at the end of S5 where all bets are off and loads of people die.
But I'm still expecting a couple of culls this series simply to trim the fat of characters this show has suddenly lumbered itself with. Like I said it's that, or sending a couple of the knights away to "do stuff" while leaving two or three left in Camelot. I'm thinking Elyan would probably stick around and Leon too - not that Leon matters that much as he's never really been anything more than a plot-device with a beard. The others have at least had storylines to their name. Or at least Lancelot, Gwaine and Elyan have. As I said Percival doesn't seem to do much at all... and I think it'd rather find out more about Gwaine and Elyan than try and invent a backstory for Percival.
Just to end my lovely speculation on the topic of death, I wonder if they will pretend to kill one of the proper main characters to try and scare the kiddies. I have gone on record pleading that this show not get so dark and gruesome that my little cousins can't watch it with the same enjoyment anymore. It is still a kid's show after all. Nonetheless that can usually be very effective, tricking kids into thinking that one of the main characters is dying or dead. It probably wouldn't be Arthur or Merlin because the former has already nearly died about a billions times and Merlin is the glue that holds this show together (Plus he's already nearly died twice himself). I imagine my little cousins would react to an Uther death the same way they did to Morgana's in 3x05 i.e. they didn't care and would actually be disappointed if the death wasn't see through (Uther and Morgana = Baddies). Plus, like Arthur, he's nearly died more times than I care to count. I've already stated that I think Gaius could eventually die for real, but he *has* already nearly died twice himself. In fact thinking about it the only character who hasn't had a storyline where they were either dying or dead is Gwen. She's nearly been executed twice in serious storylines, but so have Merlin and Gaius. She is due her turn her go at lying on a death bed or actually dying and having to be brought back. So if they do another storyline to this effect, it'll probably be Gwen's turn to nearly die or actually die. It's her go. It might make a nice race against time episode, or even a two-parter if she (or unspecified character who is not her in my head-canon) dies suddenly at the end of one episode and has to be saved in the next.
OK, now I am really off the ball. I realise that. This is the glorious thing of not having a clue what is going to happen in the show. You can go with your head-canon.
Two more things I hope next series will address that they annoyingly failed to do last series was explain Morgause's sodding background. They said they would explain it later but they never did, so they better do so now. We know she's Gorlois's daughter but I can't believe she is Vivienne's too. Even before the Uther thing came out Gaius was calling them half-sisters and that their common parent was their father, not their mother. So who the hell was Morgause's mother? Igraine, Nimueh, Random Lady Not Mentioned Yet? The list is endless.
Also we need to out the truth about Arthur's mother. I don't even think Igraine's death came up last series, did it? She appeared to Uther in that vision Morgause induced for him - and I'm still speculating on what it was he saw her drowned with all those children. It kinda had a whole "not in my name" feel about it. Like Uther knew deep down that Igraine would be disgusted in everything he has done. Although I thinking that goes without saying. There still isn't something quite right about Igraine's death that I think is yet to be revealed. I think there is definately more than what we learned even in 2x08. It is certainly clear that the royal marriage wasn't the picture-perfect image he liked to paint to the world, or even to himself.
Given that he appears to have cheated on Igraine more than once with his friends' wives and messed around with serving girls, he is a tragic example of a man who clearly didn't appreciate Igraine until he'd gone and killed her. I have no doubt he loved her more than anything, he just treated her like crap. So much so that a part of me even started to wonder (even hope) that Igraine did not return Uther's love in the same way. Maybe she too was the victim of a pushy dad who forced her into marriage with Uther for an alliance. While it eventually worked out for him (i.e. he fell for her) she didn't for him and so she spent most of the marriage walking around like Arthur at his forced marriage; with a face that looked like it was about to burst into tears and vomit down Geoffrey's front.
Hell, Uther seems to love marriages of connivance! Seems logical that he had one himself and in his twisted and blurred mind considers it a success story of what a good idea they are. :p
I suppose I just like to think that at least one of Arthur's parents would understand his and Gwen's plight, were they both there to judge the situation. I used to think Uther would be harsh but sympathetic seeing as he claims to have loved Igraine with such passion. I often feel that it was his moving plight to Arthur that he had loved Igraine and longed for her to still be alive that save his neck in 2x08. I don't say that just because Arthur feels that natural sensitivity to his mother's memory but because Uther's words touched something inside Arthur. He understands what it is like to love someone that much and for it to hurt to think about them and not have them. I know Gwen is alive and Igraine is dead but there was a likeness there. While Arthur and Gwen are cautious but ultimately honest about their love for each other, you get the feeling that Uther never was all that open with Igraine. He messed her about, and I hate him for it, but he was that sort of man. Arthur isn't really; the idea of using Gwen for his own desires just completely goes over his head, even when Morgana and Uther both alluded to it. Uther is beyond redemption now but at least we could send him to hell while feeling sorry for him. He loved his wife but never really told her, and then let her die thinking that he had given her up for his son. From what Igraine said in 2x08 it could be that Uther's desire for an heir pushed her away? Maybe she felt he was more interested in her as his waling baby-making machine than as a woman.
Yeah, there are still a few gaps worth plugging there. Sorry for waffling on but with so little to go on, my mind wanders... what was I originally talking about? OH, S4 speculation. LOL!
Thursday, 1 September 2011
We Know Our Markets From Our Meerkats
Mum and I boughtGwen's insurance from CompareTheMarket.Com and so are getting a cuddly toy. Good for us!
Isn't it time the World Took Up the Carbon Tax?
Australia: the next great hope for climate
My cousin Roz who lives in Oz sent this to me and I have signed it. Previously I admit I have remarked on the pointlessness of a carbon tax in Australia due to the fact they are responsible for only a small fraction of climate change. I have similarly held the same opinion about it here in the UK who, though 9th in the world for overall CO2 emissions, only produce 1.75% of the overall tonnes of carbon dioxide being pumped into the air compared to 18.11% coming from the US and nearly a quarter coming from China. Statistically the entire European Union - that's 27 countries - produces 1,000,000 metric tonnes LESS carbon than the US does despite our overall population being 500,000,000 EU citizens to 300,000,000 Americans.
Naturally I felt that without forcing the US, China, India and other countries like this to comply with CO2 cuts, the cuts in countries like the UK, Australia, France etc. would amount to diddly-squat.
However upon speaking to Roz, who is very environmentally conscious and even grows her own food, I discovered that despite being responsible for just 1.32% of CO2 emissions, Australia are responsible for 18.9 metric tonnes per capita making them 11th in the world and one ahead of the US for most oil guzzling citizens, which made my head hurt. She explained to me that statistically one Australian is responsible for twice as much CO2 than one Briton is. The level of CO2 per person here in the UK (while still too high for my liking) is 8.5 metric tonnes, making the UK the 43rd oil guzzling country in the world. The reason I think this isn't good enough for the UK is because France are 63rd in the world, despite having only a slightly larger population than the UK, and are only responsible for 6.1 metric tonnes per capita!
So before we ask the question "what are France doing that the UK aren't?" Well, it certainly isn't a carbon tax as bit companies have already forced the President to drop the policy. And now Murdoch is trying to do the same for Oz.
Frankly I think someone has to lead the world in cutting carbon and we do need to work our way up to the top. Nothing ever works top-down, it has to be bottom-up. Therefore we have to stop the whole passing on of the blame for climate change. It's not fair or good enough for us to keep saying, "Well, the US is responsible for WAY more carbon emissions than MY country is!" because it goes without saying.
The US have a population of over 300,000,000 people whereas the population of Australia is just over 23,000,000... yet the latter produces about the same (if not a little more) carbon per person. If both these countries cut their emissions by more than half (i.e. to the level that France operates at) it WOULD make a dent in the overall emissions. Oz would probably be producing less than 1% overall if carbon could be cut right now.
Would I be in favour of a carbon tax here in the UK? Provided more money was put into public services, then yes I would. I can't drive and am too poor to afford a car. Here in the UK car ownership went down for the first time since the 1920s so people are obviously using less of their cars not least because the oil prices are terribly high here in the UK.
The people who would suffer the most from carbon tax would be the big businesses - which is why Murdoch is using his last sphere of influence in Australia to crush the tax. I'm sure if the tax was being considered here in the UK he would have tried to do the same. These businesses consume a great deal of fuel. It would also encourage people, businesses and countries overall to seek greener methods of fuel.
I know its an idealic thought but it's worth a try, isn't it? India has a carbon tax and HAVE managed to cut their carbon to meet their reduction targets. China are thinking of bringing in a carbon tax (and so they should - they are the worst offenders). I would recommend, in regards to my country, that the carbon tax should be used throughout the EU and not just pick and choose between our countries. Seeing as we have an overall target we want to get down to, it's definately worth a go.
My point is that we need to have a tax that will hit the companies and get them (and our governments) out of their cuddly relationships with the oil companies. So as unpopular as I know the measure is in Oz, I think other countries should follow their example and at times fly in the face of unpopularity.
But then again I'm left-winger. I love a tax! )
My cousin Roz who lives in Oz sent this to me and I have signed it. Previously I admit I have remarked on the pointlessness of a carbon tax in Australia due to the fact they are responsible for only a small fraction of climate change. I have similarly held the same opinion about it here in the UK who, though 9th in the world for overall CO2 emissions, only produce 1.75% of the overall tonnes of carbon dioxide being pumped into the air compared to 18.11% coming from the US and nearly a quarter coming from China. Statistically the entire European Union - that's 27 countries - produces 1,000,000 metric tonnes LESS carbon than the US does despite our overall population being 500,000,000 EU citizens to 300,000,000 Americans.
Naturally I felt that without forcing the US, China, India and other countries like this to comply with CO2 cuts, the cuts in countries like the UK, Australia, France etc. would amount to diddly-squat.
However upon speaking to Roz, who is very environmentally conscious and even grows her own food, I discovered that despite being responsible for just 1.32% of CO2 emissions, Australia are responsible for 18.9 metric tonnes per capita making them 11th in the world and one ahead of the US for most oil guzzling citizens, which made my head hurt. She explained to me that statistically one Australian is responsible for twice as much CO2 than one Briton is. The level of CO2 per person here in the UK (while still too high for my liking) is 8.5 metric tonnes, making the UK the 43rd oil guzzling country in the world. The reason I think this isn't good enough for the UK is because France are 63rd in the world, despite having only a slightly larger population than the UK, and are only responsible for 6.1 metric tonnes per capita!
So before we ask the question "what are France doing that the UK aren't?" Well, it certainly isn't a carbon tax as bit companies have already forced the President to drop the policy. And now Murdoch is trying to do the same for Oz.
Frankly I think someone has to lead the world in cutting carbon and we do need to work our way up to the top. Nothing ever works top-down, it has to be bottom-up. Therefore we have to stop the whole passing on of the blame for climate change. It's not fair or good enough for us to keep saying, "Well, the US is responsible for WAY more carbon emissions than MY country is!" because it goes without saying.
The US have a population of over 300,000,000 people whereas the population of Australia is just over 23,000,000... yet the latter produces about the same (if not a little more) carbon per person. If both these countries cut their emissions by more than half (i.e. to the level that France operates at) it WOULD make a dent in the overall emissions. Oz would probably be producing less than 1% overall if carbon could be cut right now.
Would I be in favour of a carbon tax here in the UK? Provided more money was put into public services, then yes I would. I can't drive and am too poor to afford a car. Here in the UK car ownership went down for the first time since the 1920s so people are obviously using less of their cars not least because the oil prices are terribly high here in the UK.
The people who would suffer the most from carbon tax would be the big businesses - which is why Murdoch is using his last sphere of influence in Australia to crush the tax. I'm sure if the tax was being considered here in the UK he would have tried to do the same. These businesses consume a great deal of fuel. It would also encourage people, businesses and countries overall to seek greener methods of fuel.
I know its an idealic thought but it's worth a try, isn't it? India has a carbon tax and HAVE managed to cut their carbon to meet their reduction targets. China are thinking of bringing in a carbon tax (and so they should - they are the worst offenders). I would recommend, in regards to my country, that the carbon tax should be used throughout the EU and not just pick and choose between our countries. Seeing as we have an overall target we want to get down to, it's definately worth a go.
My point is that we need to have a tax that will hit the companies and get them (and our governments) out of their cuddly relationships with the oil companies. So as unpopular as I know the measure is in Oz, I think other countries should follow their example and at times fly in the face of unpopularity.
But then again I'm left-winger. I love a tax! )
Gwen the Cat
This has nothing to do with politics of any kind. I just wanted to show this footage I took a few weeks ago of my sweet little exotic shorthair tabby kitten, Gwen.
Saturday, 27 August 2011
YT: I Have Recently Got Back Into Fanvids
I haven't made fanvids for a long, long time. I used to enjoy it but I just stopped doing it. Now in just the last few weeks I have made two:
Both of them BBC Merlin as you can see. I just had the ideas and decided to put them together on Movie Maker. I think I will polish off the old Sony Vegas Pro skills too and make some vids with that. I mean, why not? It's only a little bit of fandom fun to entertain anyone who would read them.
Both of them BBC Merlin as you can see. I just had the ideas and decided to put them together on Movie Maker. I think I will polish off the old Sony Vegas Pro skills too and make some vids with that. I mean, why not? It's only a little bit of fandom fun to entertain anyone who would read them.
Sunday, 21 August 2011
YT: More Fanvids
And I have finally got used to Sony Vegas Pro, so I did a very short vid with Doctor Who:
Monday, 15 August 2011
Politics Needs to Wake Up and Admit they Have FAILED
I think I speak for a lot of people when I say we're a little fed up of the politicians using these riots as an excuse to score points off each other. The Conservatives try to make every attempt that Labour makes at explaining the root cause of the riots as a condoning of the riots. I'm thinking in particular of Diane Abbot's comments being chopped up to make it look as if she did exactly that, which she very clearly didn't - and they refused to apologise to her for it. Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London, appears to be the only person who knows how and why the riots kicked off. He rightly called Boris Johnson out about his flip-flopping; Johnson agreed to the cuts in police, and has only changed his mind with the benefit of hindsight. Livingstone would never have done that.
David Cameron as can be expected seems more interested in spouting out meaningless rhetoric. He calls for firmer penalties for breaking the law, he calls for harsher police tactics and has even called in a US ‘supercop’ who - no offence to my American friends - does NOT reflect the needs of the British public diddly-squwit. Moreover the US police force are not really the ideal people to be asking on riot control, and while I have never liked to defend the British police, I can understand out police's frustration at Cameron's pointless and potentially harmful actions statements about their inability to handle the situation. It was them who ultimately put down the riots, not him. Even if they were slow to react to the situation, the best response Cameron can expect from his empty statements about the police are "pot. kettle. black."
Where was he and the rest of the cabinet when these riots were going on? On holiday! While London was literally burning, he was playing his fiddle on a beach in Italy. Many of us haven't been able to afford a holiday in years. But I don't envy them because I'm happy to go without a holiday to pay for other things I need and if I were to choose a holiday, it would be to visit my family in Scotland or Lancashire, not a fancy villa in Italy. It's the fact that Cameron, nor the rest of the cabinet, chose to come back until it became so serious that to have no come came would have been more damaging to THEM rather than us. The damage has already been done TO US.
Ed Miliband has been shaky at best. His initially reaction was to do as Cameron did and parrot the horror and disgust that all of us had. He managed to do it with a considerably greater level-headedness and calmness than Cameron did, not appears to be trying to mimic the public reaction in a bid to make us feel as if he is "one of us", but his words were ultimately as meaningless. After all who here ever denied that a lack of responsibility was what drove the rioters to commit their crimes? It was basically stating the bleeding obvious and any moron who believes what they read in the Daily Mail could have said the same thing.
In his defence Miliband, unlike Cameron, has moved on from this point and is trying now to bring us the question of what led to these riots happening. Is it to do with the cuts? Is it to do with the lack of services and welfare for young people now the coalition government have cut them to save money? Is it due to a lack of responsibility in the upper classes amongst the politicians and the bankers, who likewise gambled people's money and stole from the public purse for their own greed? Is it due to the fact that the under-class have been neglected and ignore for the past 30 years since Thatcher closed down the factories? How many of these factors have led to the production of careless, disenchanted young people who have no respect for society or law?
At least these are the questions you feel that Ed Miliband wants to ask but feel he can't at the risk of offending the middle-classes or walking into a trap by the Conservatives that any attempt to find reasons for why the riots started equals condoning the riots. Yet no one ever denied that smashing up shops was wrong - and Miliband, and the Labour MPs of affected areas, and the rest of the Labour Party need to point that out. There is no doubt that criminal activity was the primary concern of some of the rioters. The riots that took place in Manchester is particular seemed to be motivated by just that. But the initial riots in London started when a peaceful protest over the shooting of a man named Mark Duggen in Tottenham got out of hand. There is no doubt in my mind that class struggle and anger at the current government's actions at least partly contributed to the riots. Even if they didn't, the issue has risen now and will not go away no matter how many times David Cameron appeals to mindless rhetoric about tougher crime. Ed Miliband needs to embrace the question of the link between lack of opportunities and crime, and show more clearly that he is willing to address it.
Ed Miliband said there needed to be an inquiry, and their does. It is the only language that politicians seem to understand. He said he would start it if Cameron didn't - so get starting Miliband because Cameron is no closer to moving away from his rants about lawlessness and punishing the people who rioted by taking away their council houses, which is a frankly counterproductive action to take to keep people off crime. Ed Miliband needs to call on the support of the working class and under classes who did not riot. They need help organisations protesting peacefully against government sanctions that Labour have gone on record as condemning, such as the harshness of the government cuts. They need to rally these people who feel that they have previously been abandoned by all governments and made it clear that they are the party willing to work on improving society on all levels.
I wrote this comment on the Labour Party Facebook feed when Ed Miliband made his statement about responsibility:
If I were to recommend anything to Ed and the Labour Party, it would be for them to come out and confess that the under-class of British society has been ignored by them (and that their conditions have been worsened more than ever under the current government) - and this lack of opportunity, of purpose and of pride has led to development of emotionally crippled young people who lack the respect for society that most people have... because society has abandoned them and so they take pleasure in smashing up society.
Yes, yes - there is no excuse for criminality but happy people don't riot. These people take pleasure out of criminality because they have nothing else and putting them in prison is nothing more than an occupational hazard. It is time the government tackled poverty in this country and created more jobs for these young people; skilled, unskilled and professional jobs for ALL the classes, so we do not create another generation of young people with a weak work ethic. And I say that as a young person myself, fearing the prospect of not being able to find work once I leave university... imagine what it’s like for teenagers from poor families who barely got their GCSEs. Where are the jobs for them?
An attitude of conservativism, to simply lock up these people and then forget about them, will not help society overall. Those in power need to look at the lives these people lead and ask themselves "what has gone wrong and how do we fix it?"
I still think that argument is true. These poverty issues have been hoodwinked for too long and people from more privileged backgrounds have taken advantage of the majority for a long time while completely blocking out even the existence of Britain's underclass. I agree that crime should pay - but there is no denying that this type of disorder has been going on in poorer communities and ignored by the ruling elite for too long. Moreover the middle classes have not helped as there seems to be this assumption amongst some people that once you earn more than the average person does (about £20,000 a year) you are no longer of the same thinking as you were when you only earned £15,000 a year and therefore have more to gain by voting Conservative at the next election. In reality most floating voters like these, and member of the working class who also vote Conservative, are really voting for policies like anti-immigration and anti-EU than anything else, in which case most of them would probably vote UKIP under any other voting system than first-past-the-post. In some cases people just vote for the Conservative Party because people feel that Labour has "had their turn" and now it’s their turn.
It is understandable why the social question has come up following the riots. When the lower classes are caught between the whims of the centre-left Labour movement that spends money to increase services and the centre-right who cut services to save money, it is understandable also that ordinary people have grown to resent government as a whole regardless of who they are or what they do.
These riots should serve as a wake-up call to everyone that we need to look at our society and wonder why it has come to be that children think it is fun to smash up shops. Don’t be lazy and say ‘Blame the parents!’ because odds are on these parents are just as down and out and disenchanted as their kids are. Where do you think these kids got it from? And it is wrong to stereotype the whole class. When I say these riots need to make people think about where most of these kids come from, I’m talking about learning from it to try and prevent these kids from doing it again. You can’t expect to treat them rough now and think they will learn from their mistakes. David Cameron’s meaningless, empty words do nothing to help society – and will help people even less if his council house, benefits and harsher sanctions ideas (which he appears to have dreamed up as a result of looking at one of those annoying e-petitions).
Take away people’s homes and livelihood but don’t look into the problem that festers underneath it all – you are going to generate more crime than you already have. It will generate more distrust and hatred of the police, and the fear of them will lead to people reaffirming the rule that ‘you don’t grass.’
But this is all meaningless at the end of the day. Eventually people will forget about this and become angry at something else. David Cameron will decide another policy is his top priority and nothing will change – unless someone else in a high authority forces the changes to be made.
David Cameron as can be expected seems more interested in spouting out meaningless rhetoric. He calls for firmer penalties for breaking the law, he calls for harsher police tactics and has even called in a US ‘supercop’ who - no offence to my American friends - does NOT reflect the needs of the British public diddly-squwit. Moreover the US police force are not really the ideal people to be asking on riot control, and while I have never liked to defend the British police, I can understand out police's frustration at Cameron's pointless and potentially harmful actions statements about their inability to handle the situation. It was them who ultimately put down the riots, not him. Even if they were slow to react to the situation, the best response Cameron can expect from his empty statements about the police are "pot. kettle. black."
Where was he and the rest of the cabinet when these riots were going on? On holiday! While London was literally burning, he was playing his fiddle on a beach in Italy. Many of us haven't been able to afford a holiday in years. But I don't envy them because I'm happy to go without a holiday to pay for other things I need and if I were to choose a holiday, it would be to visit my family in Scotland or Lancashire, not a fancy villa in Italy. It's the fact that Cameron, nor the rest of the cabinet, chose to come back until it became so serious that to have no come came would have been more damaging to THEM rather than us. The damage has already been done TO US.
Ed Miliband has been shaky at best. His initially reaction was to do as Cameron did and parrot the horror and disgust that all of us had. He managed to do it with a considerably greater level-headedness and calmness than Cameron did, not appears to be trying to mimic the public reaction in a bid to make us feel as if he is "one of us", but his words were ultimately as meaningless. After all who here ever denied that a lack of responsibility was what drove the rioters to commit their crimes? It was basically stating the bleeding obvious and any moron who believes what they read in the Daily Mail could have said the same thing.
In his defence Miliband, unlike Cameron, has moved on from this point and is trying now to bring us the question of what led to these riots happening. Is it to do with the cuts? Is it to do with the lack of services and welfare for young people now the coalition government have cut them to save money? Is it due to a lack of responsibility in the upper classes amongst the politicians and the bankers, who likewise gambled people's money and stole from the public purse for their own greed? Is it due to the fact that the under-class have been neglected and ignore for the past 30 years since Thatcher closed down the factories? How many of these factors have led to the production of careless, disenchanted young people who have no respect for society or law?
At least these are the questions you feel that Ed Miliband wants to ask but feel he can't at the risk of offending the middle-classes or walking into a trap by the Conservatives that any attempt to find reasons for why the riots started equals condoning the riots. Yet no one ever denied that smashing up shops was wrong - and Miliband, and the Labour MPs of affected areas, and the rest of the Labour Party need to point that out. There is no doubt that criminal activity was the primary concern of some of the rioters. The riots that took place in Manchester is particular seemed to be motivated by just that. But the initial riots in London started when a peaceful protest over the shooting of a man named Mark Duggen in Tottenham got out of hand. There is no doubt in my mind that class struggle and anger at the current government's actions at least partly contributed to the riots. Even if they didn't, the issue has risen now and will not go away no matter how many times David Cameron appeals to mindless rhetoric about tougher crime. Ed Miliband needs to embrace the question of the link between lack of opportunities and crime, and show more clearly that he is willing to address it.
Ed Miliband said there needed to be an inquiry, and their does. It is the only language that politicians seem to understand. He said he would start it if Cameron didn't - so get starting Miliband because Cameron is no closer to moving away from his rants about lawlessness and punishing the people who rioted by taking away their council houses, which is a frankly counterproductive action to take to keep people off crime. Ed Miliband needs to call on the support of the working class and under classes who did not riot. They need help organisations protesting peacefully against government sanctions that Labour have gone on record as condemning, such as the harshness of the government cuts. They need to rally these people who feel that they have previously been abandoned by all governments and made it clear that they are the party willing to work on improving society on all levels.
I wrote this comment on the Labour Party Facebook feed when Ed Miliband made his statement about responsibility:
If I were to recommend anything to Ed and the Labour Party, it would be for them to come out and confess that the under-class of British society has been ignored by them (and that their conditions have been worsened more than ever under the current government) - and this lack of opportunity, of purpose and of pride has led to development of emotionally crippled young people who lack the respect for society that most people have... because society has abandoned them and so they take pleasure in smashing up society.
Yes, yes - there is no excuse for criminality but happy people don't riot. These people take pleasure out of criminality because they have nothing else and putting them in prison is nothing more than an occupational hazard. It is time the government tackled poverty in this country and created more jobs for these young people; skilled, unskilled and professional jobs for ALL the classes, so we do not create another generation of young people with a weak work ethic. And I say that as a young person myself, fearing the prospect of not being able to find work once I leave university... imagine what it’s like for teenagers from poor families who barely got their GCSEs. Where are the jobs for them?
An attitude of conservativism, to simply lock up these people and then forget about them, will not help society overall. Those in power need to look at the lives these people lead and ask themselves "what has gone wrong and how do we fix it?"
I still think that argument is true. These poverty issues have been hoodwinked for too long and people from more privileged backgrounds have taken advantage of the majority for a long time while completely blocking out even the existence of Britain's underclass. I agree that crime should pay - but there is no denying that this type of disorder has been going on in poorer communities and ignored by the ruling elite for too long. Moreover the middle classes have not helped as there seems to be this assumption amongst some people that once you earn more than the average person does (about £20,000 a year) you are no longer of the same thinking as you were when you only earned £15,000 a year and therefore have more to gain by voting Conservative at the next election. In reality most floating voters like these, and member of the working class who also vote Conservative, are really voting for policies like anti-immigration and anti-EU than anything else, in which case most of them would probably vote UKIP under any other voting system than first-past-the-post. In some cases people just vote for the Conservative Party because people feel that Labour has "had their turn" and now it’s their turn.
It is understandable why the social question has come up following the riots. When the lower classes are caught between the whims of the centre-left Labour movement that spends money to increase services and the centre-right who cut services to save money, it is understandable also that ordinary people have grown to resent government as a whole regardless of who they are or what they do.
These riots should serve as a wake-up call to everyone that we need to look at our society and wonder why it has come to be that children think it is fun to smash up shops. Don’t be lazy and say ‘Blame the parents!’ because odds are on these parents are just as down and out and disenchanted as their kids are. Where do you think these kids got it from? And it is wrong to stereotype the whole class. When I say these riots need to make people think about where most of these kids come from, I’m talking about learning from it to try and prevent these kids from doing it again. You can’t expect to treat them rough now and think they will learn from their mistakes. David Cameron’s meaningless, empty words do nothing to help society – and will help people even less if his council house, benefits and harsher sanctions ideas (which he appears to have dreamed up as a result of looking at one of those annoying e-petitions).
Take away people’s homes and livelihood but don’t look into the problem that festers underneath it all – you are going to generate more crime than you already have. It will generate more distrust and hatred of the police, and the fear of them will lead to people reaffirming the rule that ‘you don’t grass.’
But this is all meaningless at the end of the day. Eventually people will forget about this and become angry at something else. David Cameron will decide another policy is his top priority and nothing will change – unless someone else in a high authority forces the changes to be made.
Saturday, 13 August 2011
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
London is Finally at Rest, So Why the Hell are they Still Cutting the Cops?
London was very quiet last night thanks to the 16,000 police on the street. Oddly enough most of the riots started elsewhere in the country. I have to say I blame the 24 hour coverage the riots got on the news channels, watching the streets all day for something to kick off. People watch that and think, "That's a good idea!" and decide to riot themselves. You have to bear in mind that many of these people are non-too-bright kids who probably think rioting is "cool!" and are following the crowd rather than doing it off their own back.
Essex had some troubles but our police handled it pretty well. Basildon shopping centre had its windows broken and someone started a fire but no looting took place as the police were waiting for them. I think it was only a matter of time before some thickos in Basildon decided to copy-cat the riots in London like other places in the UK quite obviously have.
It's a bloody mess and, like I said before, it makes me feel ashamed to be a young Briton at the moment. None of the images look real when they are shown on the TV or in the papers. I just feel so sad about it. It was rather like what people were saying on the news last night - people don't riot if they're happy, and I'm not surprised by these riots happening because people are angry with the police and the government at the moment. Obviously there is no excuse but the point is that it's gone beyond even that now.
Now it's just thick kids trying it on - and I can't help but notice and remark that David Cameron has failed to address that annoying remark that he made while in opposition, "Broken Britain." He blathered on about while in opposition but does nothing to help the under-classes. Instead he cuts their youth centres more than they were already cut (To my shame Labour ignored the under-class while they were in power too, and it was Thatcher who widened their poverty when the Tories were in power in the 80s) and basically left these kids to the mercy of the peer pressure of gangs and their arse-useless parents.
Studies have shown that when these teenagers have somewhere to go, have people willing to talk to them and help them, and give them something to care about, they have more respect for other people and society. This is something that most of us learn from our parents, who teach us our morals. These children have been dragged up and, when people cry about "where are their parents?" the fact is that their parents are just as rotten as them and don't care that their twelve-year-old is roaming the streets in a pack at midnight looting shops.
It's too late to help the parents but you can still help the younger kids. The elder kids are lost too because soon they will be parents themselves and breed more inconciderate rats who have no respect for other people and society. Unless you put money into helping the less privilaged in this country then you will never get through to them. Many of these kids have since been rounded up (as have a couple of greedy adults who were, I feel, probably leading the riots - as one of them was a graphic designer and few others graduates) and many of them have pleaded guilty to their crimes. I don't think it was greed that fuelled those kids, but simply just the desire to smash up society.
I suppose the best thing you can do is send them to prison and try a reach them while they are away from the poisonous homes they come from. Then once they leave prison, they need somewhere else to go. They need something to care about because sending them to prison isn't going to make a difference to them. To us, it would be a horrible reduction of rights and freedom. To them, it's just a thing they have to go through.
These people - some of them are just greedy tryers who saw something on the TV and thought it would be a good idea - but this whole thing started because a man from the under-class (a possible drug-dealer and carrier of an illegal weapon, if the police are to be believed) was shot dead despite having not fired on police or even, it might possibly be, presented himself as a threat. He was allegedly in a taxi when he was approached by the police. It is a hazy issue but you can see why the under-class turned out to protest...
Because that's what it started out as. A protest.
One thing that did make me giggle was that some of the people looting thought that the police releasing images from the CCTV cameras was against their human rights. *scoff* Babies, when you go out in the streets people can see you. The CCTV cameras are there to catch you at your thuggry... and they always catch you out in the end no matter how many hoodies you wear. I'm pretty left-wing but I'm starting to think France had a point with the law against concealing your face in public areas. If we had a law like that, would nearly as many rioters turned out to steal knowing how many CCTV camreas are around the UK?
Ken Livingstone seems to be the only person making sense. How did we end up with BoJo as Mayor? Yes, he said that we need more police - but hindsight is a wonderful thing. It is the government's fault that they did not anticipate these riots (as everyone KNEW it would happen eventually, they did) and foolishly decided to cut the police force. BoJo is good at hindsight just as much as he's good at getting respect by going against the government. But Ken is right - if he had been Major of London, this might have been dealt with better. Not least because he has more experience with the city's management. Moreover he never listened to party politics like Boris does, and then decide to change his mind once it all goes tits up.
Those hard working people whose shops were destroyed have been let down by a weak system wich has just been getting weaker and weaker over the last thirty years. Like Ken said, the under-class have been left ignored thanks to the death of industry in this country, have nowhere they can get a job regardless of their qualifications when they leave school and now they have no self-respect, nor do they have respect for others.
It's all a mess but its time the parties talked about generating PROPER jobs for everyone, because these are the kids who were NEVER going to do A-levels or degrees or skilled-work like apprenticeships. They are your factory workers, they are your coal miners, they are your primary and secondary work forces who have been patted down and down following the cut of these industries in the 1980s. I'm pro-Europe but I don't think that the EU helped either as France and Germany, it has to be said, are in coohoots against the UK. Story does that they wanted all industry to be wiped out in the UK and for us (and Ireland) to be "service" countries.
Well, sod that! We need to give the under-classes something to do other that live miserably, lose self-respect, lose respect for others and leave off the dole because no proper employer in this climate would ever employ them. They just need to be taken on to do some sort of work - but even the working classes and the middle classes can't find work at the moment.
This country is a mess and I don't see it recovering anymore. We're, for lack of a better word, f-worded. I'm starting to think about plotting an escape route... but it'll be many years before I ever have money to pack up and go somewhere else. I used to think my country was such a good place to live. I still do -- but not in the form it is now. The political system we have here is just destroying the country as we are forced to shift between Labour, Tory, Labour, Tory over and over again and no willingness to tackle the serious issues. Just the Tories cutting everything and destroying the public sector, and then Labour trying to funnel money into it and patch it up again, and then the Tories cut it again.
Cameron is right - this country is sick but it isn't just because these kids happen to be bad. They are the result of 30 years where people have grown-up with no prospects and no place in society, and hence, no respect for defending society from events like this. Britain is sick and these kids are just the rash its come out in.
Sorry for this rant. I'm just a little upset at how far this rioting has gone.
*
Three young men have been killed in a hit and run during the riots last night in Birmingham. A car just came out and hit these poor guys. They were only twenty-year-olds, my own age, and then a car just sped around the corner and hit them. They say it might not be connected but it's hard to believe it isn't.
God, this is making the rest of this country feel so at a loss. I just want it all to end soon.
On a lighter note, at least the violence hasn't kicked off that close to where I am at the moment. Basildon is the only place there have been problems from the sound of it but I'm going to check it out anyway. I swear though if they attack Lakeside that'll be the sky falling in on our heads. If they start kicking-off in Grays, then I'll start to get a little freaked.
Essex had some troubles but our police handled it pretty well. Basildon shopping centre had its windows broken and someone started a fire but no looting took place as the police were waiting for them. I think it was only a matter of time before some thickos in Basildon decided to copy-cat the riots in London like other places in the UK quite obviously have.
It's a bloody mess and, like I said before, it makes me feel ashamed to be a young Briton at the moment. None of the images look real when they are shown on the TV or in the papers. I just feel so sad about it. It was rather like what people were saying on the news last night - people don't riot if they're happy, and I'm not surprised by these riots happening because people are angry with the police and the government at the moment. Obviously there is no excuse but the point is that it's gone beyond even that now.
Now it's just thick kids trying it on - and I can't help but notice and remark that David Cameron has failed to address that annoying remark that he made while in opposition, "Broken Britain." He blathered on about while in opposition but does nothing to help the under-classes. Instead he cuts their youth centres more than they were already cut (To my shame Labour ignored the under-class while they were in power too, and it was Thatcher who widened their poverty when the Tories were in power in the 80s) and basically left these kids to the mercy of the peer pressure of gangs and their arse-useless parents.
Studies have shown that when these teenagers have somewhere to go, have people willing to talk to them and help them, and give them something to care about, they have more respect for other people and society. This is something that most of us learn from our parents, who teach us our morals. These children have been dragged up and, when people cry about "where are their parents?" the fact is that their parents are just as rotten as them and don't care that their twelve-year-old is roaming the streets in a pack at midnight looting shops.
It's too late to help the parents but you can still help the younger kids. The elder kids are lost too because soon they will be parents themselves and breed more inconciderate rats who have no respect for other people and society. Unless you put money into helping the less privilaged in this country then you will never get through to them. Many of these kids have since been rounded up (as have a couple of greedy adults who were, I feel, probably leading the riots - as one of them was a graphic designer and few others graduates) and many of them have pleaded guilty to their crimes. I don't think it was greed that fuelled those kids, but simply just the desire to smash up society.
I suppose the best thing you can do is send them to prison and try a reach them while they are away from the poisonous homes they come from. Then once they leave prison, they need somewhere else to go. They need something to care about because sending them to prison isn't going to make a difference to them. To us, it would be a horrible reduction of rights and freedom. To them, it's just a thing they have to go through.
These people - some of them are just greedy tryers who saw something on the TV and thought it would be a good idea - but this whole thing started because a man from the under-class (a possible drug-dealer and carrier of an illegal weapon, if the police are to be believed) was shot dead despite having not fired on police or even, it might possibly be, presented himself as a threat. He was allegedly in a taxi when he was approached by the police. It is a hazy issue but you can see why the under-class turned out to protest...
Because that's what it started out as. A protest.
One thing that did make me giggle was that some of the people looting thought that the police releasing images from the CCTV cameras was against their human rights. *scoff* Babies, when you go out in the streets people can see you. The CCTV cameras are there to catch you at your thuggry... and they always catch you out in the end no matter how many hoodies you wear. I'm pretty left-wing but I'm starting to think France had a point with the law against concealing your face in public areas. If we had a law like that, would nearly as many rioters turned out to steal knowing how many CCTV camreas are around the UK?
Ken Livingstone seems to be the only person making sense. How did we end up with BoJo as Mayor? Yes, he said that we need more police - but hindsight is a wonderful thing. It is the government's fault that they did not anticipate these riots (as everyone KNEW it would happen eventually, they did) and foolishly decided to cut the police force. BoJo is good at hindsight just as much as he's good at getting respect by going against the government. But Ken is right - if he had been Major of London, this might have been dealt with better. Not least because he has more experience with the city's management. Moreover he never listened to party politics like Boris does, and then decide to change his mind once it all goes tits up.
Those hard working people whose shops were destroyed have been let down by a weak system wich has just been getting weaker and weaker over the last thirty years. Like Ken said, the under-class have been left ignored thanks to the death of industry in this country, have nowhere they can get a job regardless of their qualifications when they leave school and now they have no self-respect, nor do they have respect for others.
It's all a mess but its time the parties talked about generating PROPER jobs for everyone, because these are the kids who were NEVER going to do A-levels or degrees or skilled-work like apprenticeships. They are your factory workers, they are your coal miners, they are your primary and secondary work forces who have been patted down and down following the cut of these industries in the 1980s. I'm pro-Europe but I don't think that the EU helped either as France and Germany, it has to be said, are in coohoots against the UK. Story does that they wanted all industry to be wiped out in the UK and for us (and Ireland) to be "service" countries.
Well, sod that! We need to give the under-classes something to do other that live miserably, lose self-respect, lose respect for others and leave off the dole because no proper employer in this climate would ever employ them. They just need to be taken on to do some sort of work - but even the working classes and the middle classes can't find work at the moment.
This country is a mess and I don't see it recovering anymore. We're, for lack of a better word, f-worded. I'm starting to think about plotting an escape route... but it'll be many years before I ever have money to pack up and go somewhere else. I used to think my country was such a good place to live. I still do -- but not in the form it is now. The political system we have here is just destroying the country as we are forced to shift between Labour, Tory, Labour, Tory over and over again and no willingness to tackle the serious issues. Just the Tories cutting everything and destroying the public sector, and then Labour trying to funnel money into it and patch it up again, and then the Tories cut it again.
Cameron is right - this country is sick but it isn't just because these kids happen to be bad. They are the result of 30 years where people have grown-up with no prospects and no place in society, and hence, no respect for defending society from events like this. Britain is sick and these kids are just the rash its come out in.
Sorry for this rant. I'm just a little upset at how far this rioting has gone.
*
Three young men have been killed in a hit and run during the riots last night in Birmingham. A car just came out and hit these poor guys. They were only twenty-year-olds, my own age, and then a car just sped around the corner and hit them. They say it might not be connected but it's hard to believe it isn't.
God, this is making the rest of this country feel so at a loss. I just want it all to end soon.
On a lighter note, at least the violence hasn't kicked off that close to where I am at the moment. Basildon is the only place there have been problems from the sound of it but I'm going to check it out anyway. I swear though if they attack Lakeside that'll be the sky falling in on our heads. If they start kicking-off in Grays, then I'll start to get a little freaked.
Tuesday, 9 August 2011
The UK Riots, Continued...
These riots are making me hate my own country.
What started out as a peaceful demonstration against what has turned out to be a potentially unfair shooting of a father of four by police has turned into a greed-driven robbing fest for the under-classes and a group of greedy thirty-year-olds, it seems, taking advantage of the tragedy in Tottenham. It's now spread to Manchester and Nottingham. London seems quiet due to the heavy police presence but there have been a few fires in Tottenham and Canning Town (which isn't far from my stop on the Jubilee line).
I admit I felt a little scared earlier when I heard a large group of youths running past my window. I doubt they were going to do anything as nothing has kicked off here but it just shows how the bias of the news can scare the living day lights out of people.
There have been a couple of scandals today. Not surprisingly the two least tasteful ones were from the Tories, who first tried to make it look as if Diane Abbot (Probably one of the most liked politicians around and the Labour MP for Hackney, one of the trouble areas) condoned the violence by cutting a part of her speech which (*coughs*) condoned the riots, and then another Tory MP said that the riots couldn't have a political issue for young people by cutting their services, EMA and raising tution fees because "They haven't looted Waterstones." Twat.
I have to say that as usual the BBC reporters are as brave as ever. They seem to have gone out into potentially scary areas where the rioters are roaming through the narrow streets looking for a place to loot where there are no police in Manchester. In Nottingham a police station has been firebombed. It's strange -- it seems that while some rioters seem to genuinely still be targetting the police as a result of the killing of Mark Duggen while most are just taking advantage of the situation.
The police had this coming for a very long time because of their conduct, no one can deny that. However it's just spiraled completely out of control now. People are just taking advantage of a genuine reason toriot protest (Sorry, I was tired). As the Independant's front cover says today -- this will force the government to finally think about the under-class. They have been forgotten for too long. The governments of the past have been more interested in pandering to the lower-middle class and the working class than trying to help the poor in this country... because there is genuine poor. The Labour Party tried to ignore them while the LibDems and Tories have damn-well pissed over them with the cuts. They go on about how we are all in this together but the under-class are outsiders in society...
So why should they respect it? That's what it has come down to. It has literally become a case where people are so unhappy with their lives that the only pleasure they can find is setting fire to and smashing up other people's livelihood. It is a disgrace to this country that this children - yes, children - have been completely abandoned by society. They have rubbish parents, bad schools, light-weight teachers, no chance of getting a degree, no chance of getting a job and earning a living, services have been cut by the government...
It has all become an excuse for the anti-social to take their revenge on high street shops. I don't care about them - they're rich enough already. However it's the ordinary small businesses I feel for. They have lost their livelihood, and it's the police and government's fault because they were all on their holidays, they were all ignoring this problem... and now it's gone too far. It's too late.
You know the image of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. Replace the image with Boris Johnson (who got yelled at by the victims of the riots, and so went off to find a publicity stunt where people were cleaning-up Croydon), George Osborne, David Cameron and Nick Clegg (who got heckled by the victims of the riots when he went out) - playing Guitar Hero next to a burned out bus and looted branch of Primark.
What started out as a peaceful demonstration against what has turned out to be a potentially unfair shooting of a father of four by police has turned into a greed-driven robbing fest for the under-classes and a group of greedy thirty-year-olds, it seems, taking advantage of the tragedy in Tottenham. It's now spread to Manchester and Nottingham. London seems quiet due to the heavy police presence but there have been a few fires in Tottenham and Canning Town (which isn't far from my stop on the Jubilee line).
I admit I felt a little scared earlier when I heard a large group of youths running past my window. I doubt they were going to do anything as nothing has kicked off here but it just shows how the bias of the news can scare the living day lights out of people.
There have been a couple of scandals today. Not surprisingly the two least tasteful ones were from the Tories, who first tried to make it look as if Diane Abbot (Probably one of the most liked politicians around and the Labour MP for Hackney, one of the trouble areas) condoned the violence by cutting a part of her speech which (*coughs*) condoned the riots, and then another Tory MP said that the riots couldn't have a political issue for young people by cutting their services, EMA and raising tution fees because "They haven't looted Waterstones." Twat.
I have to say that as usual the BBC reporters are as brave as ever. They seem to have gone out into potentially scary areas where the rioters are roaming through the narrow streets looking for a place to loot where there are no police in Manchester. In Nottingham a police station has been firebombed. It's strange -- it seems that while some rioters seem to genuinely still be targetting the police as a result of the killing of Mark Duggen while most are just taking advantage of the situation.
The police had this coming for a very long time because of their conduct, no one can deny that. However it's just spiraled completely out of control now. People are just taking advantage of a genuine reason to
So why should they respect it? That's what it has come down to. It has literally become a case where people are so unhappy with their lives that the only pleasure they can find is setting fire to and smashing up other people's livelihood. It is a disgrace to this country that this children - yes, children - have been completely abandoned by society. They have rubbish parents, bad schools, light-weight teachers, no chance of getting a degree, no chance of getting a job and earning a living, services have been cut by the government...
It has all become an excuse for the anti-social to take their revenge on high street shops. I don't care about them - they're rich enough already. However it's the ordinary small businesses I feel for. They have lost their livelihood, and it's the police and government's fault because they were all on their holidays, they were all ignoring this problem... and now it's gone too far. It's too late.
You know the image of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. Replace the image with Boris Johnson (who got yelled at by the victims of the riots, and so went off to find a publicity stunt where people were cleaning-up Croydon), George Osborne, David Cameron and Nick Clegg (who got heckled by the victims of the riots when he went out) - playing Guitar Hero next to a burned out bus and looted branch of Primark.
The UK Riots
I got a message from a friend of mine in Oz asking me (and I assume the rest of us Merlin fans who live the UK) whether we are alright/safe due to the riots sweeping the UK. I just want to assure people that I am fine, and that yesterday (the second day of the riots) there ARE parts of London that are safe and untouched. It is mainly depressed areas that have kicked up. The only concerning thing is that it kicked off in Hackney too... where the Olympic games are due to be held.
So I feel I should also fill everyone in on what is ACTUALLY happening here in the UK with the riots:
The riots have been going on mainly in London but last night (the third night) have spread to other areas of the country like Birmingham, Bristol and Liverpool. It started when a police officer shot a man in Tottenham. People came out to protest against police brutality and it soon turned into a riot that has spread across the city. They are now becoming something of an anti-government movement, or at least anti-establishment and stealing products from shops. Some parts of the tube have been closed down due to them being unsafe. In Birmingham they set fire to a police station. According to the news it all comes down to people egging on what they're going to do via Twitter.
I went to Acton yesterday to pick up my new kitten (<3) but there was nothing going on there. However as we were driving along the A406 (Northern Circular) there were a few junctions and turn-off points closed because police have been trying to close off areas to the riots. But there hadn't been any riots there.
But basically all these riots have one thing at the back of their mind; the police are the enemy. This riot has been bubbling up for some time as the police have committed some terrible acts against the public in the past which have then been covered up. A couple of years ago the policemen pushed, hit and killed a man who wasn't even part of the protest but just walking home. The unprovoked shove to the ground caused internal bleeding, and then the police tried to cover it up by saying he was a protestor and he has attacked the police first. However a bystander caught the attack on camera (which was made illegal due to the police being embarrassed by getting caught doing this). Then a year or so later at the student protests a disabled boy was dragged from his wheelchair by two police and dumped on the pavement. Together with the reveal that Murdoch's papers helped cover up a lot of what the police got up to and that top offices in Scotland Yards had accepted bribes to sell information to journalists... it was only a matter of time for this all to kick off.
But I'm OK - a friend of mine however had the place she works at looted. That's what they've mainly been doing; smashing up windows and lotting stores. Then another guy I know actually *lives* over a shop in Birmingham. He said they just smashed the windows but he also hid. He's going back to his family home in Essex today - it hasn't kicked off here yet *touch wood*. A couple of my other friends also know people who live in Hackney and they say the streets are a mess.
I really hope it doesn't spread to where I am, though. I live in a small town but they are known for jumping on bandwagons... and I think our police have been called in to deal with the London riots.
So I feel I should also fill everyone in on what is ACTUALLY happening here in the UK with the riots:
The riots have been going on mainly in London but last night (the third night) have spread to other areas of the country like Birmingham, Bristol and Liverpool. It started when a police officer shot a man in Tottenham. People came out to protest against police brutality and it soon turned into a riot that has spread across the city. They are now becoming something of an anti-government movement, or at least anti-establishment and stealing products from shops. Some parts of the tube have been closed down due to them being unsafe. In Birmingham they set fire to a police station. According to the news it all comes down to people egging on what they're going to do via Twitter.
I went to Acton yesterday to pick up my new kitten (<3) but there was nothing going on there. However as we were driving along the A406 (Northern Circular) there were a few junctions and turn-off points closed because police have been trying to close off areas to the riots. But there hadn't been any riots there.
But basically all these riots have one thing at the back of their mind; the police are the enemy. This riot has been bubbling up for some time as the police have committed some terrible acts against the public in the past which have then been covered up. A couple of years ago the policemen pushed, hit and killed a man who wasn't even part of the protest but just walking home. The unprovoked shove to the ground caused internal bleeding, and then the police tried to cover it up by saying he was a protestor and he has attacked the police first. However a bystander caught the attack on camera (which was made illegal due to the police being embarrassed by getting caught doing this). Then a year or so later at the student protests a disabled boy was dragged from his wheelchair by two police and dumped on the pavement. Together with the reveal that Murdoch's papers helped cover up a lot of what the police got up to and that top offices in Scotland Yards had accepted bribes to sell information to journalists... it was only a matter of time for this all to kick off.
But I'm OK - a friend of mine however had the place she works at looted. That's what they've mainly been doing; smashing up windows and lotting stores. Then another guy I know actually *lives* over a shop in Birmingham. He said they just smashed the windows but he also hid. He's going back to his family home in Essex today - it hasn't kicked off here yet *touch wood*. A couple of my other friends also know people who live in Hackney and they say the streets are a mess.
I really hope it doesn't spread to where I am, though. I live in a small town but they are known for jumping on bandwagons... and I think our police have been called in to deal with the London riots.
Thursday, 4 August 2011
10,000 People in Britain Go Mental (Question of the Death Penalty)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14400246
This is disgusting. I agree that MPs shouldn't ignore important e-petitions about relevant issues that concern people - but bringing back the death penalty is nothing short of barbaric and pointless, not least because we already got rid of it in the 60s. The people who believe it is a good idea and that it will deflect people from committing crimes only have to look at death row in America to know that's not true. There is just as much crime in countries that have the death penalty than there is countries that don't.
I don't believe that any human action justifies the taking of even the most disgusting of human beings. It is better to make them suffer with life then end with death. Anyone would tell you that child killers and molesters are considered the lowest of the low even amongst other criminals. Men who have murdered their wives, girlfriends or just random adults take the moral high ground and make those who harm children felt like the dirt most people would agree they are. By executing them they escape living a long and miserable life in prison.
But that is an argument that ALL anti-capital punishment believers argue.
The reason I oppose it is simply because the outcry against it in this country back in the 1960s when it was outlawed. Roy Jenkins oversaw its final end, but many other people who had campaigned to end the death penalty in the UK for decades before it finally ended. It was decided that the practise was barbaric, and it is. I don't see why organised murder is any better than disorganised murder. Seeing as the only practical application the death penalty has is to free up prison space, you could do that by giving people who commit more petty crimes lighter sentences. I know that's an unpopular thought with a lot of people - but frankly nicking a couple of packets of pasta from ASDA isn't really a crime at all when you consider 1.) How rich these supermarkets are and 2.) That crimes like this make up the majority of crimes committed in the UK, and yet we indulge the rich companies by allowing them to seek the harshest penalty.
Surely it's the government's fault if things have got so desperate people have taken to being kleptomaniacs in order to get by. Punishment should fit the crime - and so when such a person is caught but never spends time in prison, I seriously couldn't care less.
Back to the death penalty, I think it would be idiotic and naive of the government to indulge such an argument when people, in general, are collectively as thick as two planks of wood. It makes no difference to the British people whatsoever whether there is capital punishment or not, so why waste money and time debating a non-issue that was cleaned up years ago. I'm one of those people who doesn't even thik terrorists should be executed if they are caught in the practise of committing a crime, not just because given they set bombs the idea of dying doesn't bother them (At least, that's the case with the Al-Qaeeda terrorist, the RIRA terrorists are just backwards thinking twats who think it's a good idea to kick up a fuss in Northern Ireland by shooting people and doesn't do a thing to promote republicanism) and also because executing people is the practise of these people, and therefore we should hold ourselves above it. They want to be with God so much, they can bloody well wait until He kills them. I don't see why we should give any man or woman who commits an unthinkable crime the penalty of death.
I also don't see why the government should consider such a backwards thinking policy that doesn't help anyone. People argue that it helps the victims families by giving justice - but to execute someone for killing someone else dates back to a very old fashioned 'eye for an eye' way of thinking. That's not justice, that's revenge. Justice should come with the proving and convicting of the person who commits the crime. The acting of executing someone is just worthless revenge. It benefits no one. I don't believe that executing someone for a crime would make the victims or their families feel any better about what happened. Killing them doesn't altar things.
The bottom line is that I disagree with capital punishment, and I believe so on grounds of having actually read the history of it and thought about it. Most people who sign these petitions haven't thought about it, they just think its a good idea. Bring it back and almost immediately you would have people take the streets demanding it be reversed. We went through the argument on capital pubishment, and decided to outlaw it. The country is no worse off without it and would not be better off with it.
Like I said, you, me and individual people are intelligent creatures. People, however, are stupid, thick and make more noise than sense. I despise this government we currently have with every fibre of my being as we have some how ended up with a party committed to destroying the lives of the oridinary people. If this vote went through, I fear it would be because the Tories wanted to vote for something they *think* the public want - not what's good for them. A popularity boost is all they care about, yet they only conceed on things that won't effect them or go against their Tory beliefs (which is to cut things that people actually do need - like a functioning NHS and jobs).
Interesting that only the Tory newspapers seem to have given this argument the time of day. Probably because only Conservatives vote for it. However I feel that capital punishment is not the business of the people. I'm sorry, I just don't. It is the business of the controlling elite and they should no better than jabbering voice boxes who support anything that seems like a good idea without actually understanding it.
It's just a worthless issue that doesn't help anyone nor does it benefit society in any real way. It doesn't.
This is disgusting. I agree that MPs shouldn't ignore important e-petitions about relevant issues that concern people - but bringing back the death penalty is nothing short of barbaric and pointless, not least because we already got rid of it in the 60s. The people who believe it is a good idea and that it will deflect people from committing crimes only have to look at death row in America to know that's not true. There is just as much crime in countries that have the death penalty than there is countries that don't.
I don't believe that any human action justifies the taking of even the most disgusting of human beings. It is better to make them suffer with life then end with death. Anyone would tell you that child killers and molesters are considered the lowest of the low even amongst other criminals. Men who have murdered their wives, girlfriends or just random adults take the moral high ground and make those who harm children felt like the dirt most people would agree they are. By executing them they escape living a long and miserable life in prison.
But that is an argument that ALL anti-capital punishment believers argue.
The reason I oppose it is simply because the outcry against it in this country back in the 1960s when it was outlawed. Roy Jenkins oversaw its final end, but many other people who had campaigned to end the death penalty in the UK for decades before it finally ended. It was decided that the practise was barbaric, and it is. I don't see why organised murder is any better than disorganised murder. Seeing as the only practical application the death penalty has is to free up prison space, you could do that by giving people who commit more petty crimes lighter sentences. I know that's an unpopular thought with a lot of people - but frankly nicking a couple of packets of pasta from ASDA isn't really a crime at all when you consider 1.) How rich these supermarkets are and 2.) That crimes like this make up the majority of crimes committed in the UK, and yet we indulge the rich companies by allowing them to seek the harshest penalty.
Surely it's the government's fault if things have got so desperate people have taken to being kleptomaniacs in order to get by. Punishment should fit the crime - and so when such a person is caught but never spends time in prison, I seriously couldn't care less.
Back to the death penalty, I think it would be idiotic and naive of the government to indulge such an argument when people, in general, are collectively as thick as two planks of wood. It makes no difference to the British people whatsoever whether there is capital punishment or not, so why waste money and time debating a non-issue that was cleaned up years ago. I'm one of those people who doesn't even thik terrorists should be executed if they are caught in the practise of committing a crime, not just because given they set bombs the idea of dying doesn't bother them (At least, that's the case with the Al-Qaeeda terrorist, the RIRA terrorists are just backwards thinking twats who think it's a good idea to kick up a fuss in Northern Ireland by shooting people and doesn't do a thing to promote republicanism) and also because executing people is the practise of these people, and therefore we should hold ourselves above it. They want to be with God so much, they can bloody well wait until He kills them. I don't see why we should give any man or woman who commits an unthinkable crime the penalty of death.
I also don't see why the government should consider such a backwards thinking policy that doesn't help anyone. People argue that it helps the victims families by giving justice - but to execute someone for killing someone else dates back to a very old fashioned 'eye for an eye' way of thinking. That's not justice, that's revenge. Justice should come with the proving and convicting of the person who commits the crime. The acting of executing someone is just worthless revenge. It benefits no one. I don't believe that executing someone for a crime would make the victims or their families feel any better about what happened. Killing them doesn't altar things.
The bottom line is that I disagree with capital punishment, and I believe so on grounds of having actually read the history of it and thought about it. Most people who sign these petitions haven't thought about it, they just think its a good idea. Bring it back and almost immediately you would have people take the streets demanding it be reversed. We went through the argument on capital pubishment, and decided to outlaw it. The country is no worse off without it and would not be better off with it.
Like I said, you, me and individual people are intelligent creatures. People, however, are stupid, thick and make more noise than sense. I despise this government we currently have with every fibre of my being as we have some how ended up with a party committed to destroying the lives of the oridinary people. If this vote went through, I fear it would be because the Tories wanted to vote for something they *think* the public want - not what's good for them. A popularity boost is all they care about, yet they only conceed on things that won't effect them or go against their Tory beliefs (which is to cut things that people actually do need - like a functioning NHS and jobs).
Interesting that only the Tory newspapers seem to have given this argument the time of day. Probably because only Conservatives vote for it. However I feel that capital punishment is not the business of the people. I'm sorry, I just don't. It is the business of the controlling elite and they should no better than jabbering voice boxes who support anything that seems like a good idea without actually understanding it.
It's just a worthless issue that doesn't help anyone nor does it benefit society in any real way. It doesn't.
Probably the best argument against this whole this is that people - like the ordinary people who don't care most of the time - would almost certainly vote against the reintroduction of the death penalty. Like I already said, it seems ironic that only the right-wing papers masterbated over this entire story. The Daily Fail most of all. Idiotic twats.
PS: Just to give you an idea of how stupid it would be for the government to "bend" to the naivity of public pressure - or the empty vassels that make the most noise - take a look at this part of Charlie Brooker's 2009 Review of the year on the horrible C4 show The Execution of Gary Glitter. I always like to use Charlie Brooker's commentary on TV and issues in the news because he breaks it down without dumbing it down.
PS: Just to give you an idea of how stupid it would be for the government to "bend" to the naivity of public pressure - or the empty vassels that make the most noise - take a look at this part of Charlie Brooker's 2009 Review of the year on the horrible C4 show The Execution of Gary Glitter. I always like to use Charlie Brooker's commentary on TV and issues in the news because he breaks it down without dumbing it down.
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
Monday, 18 July 2011
Tom Pellereau Wins 'The Apprentice'
Taking a break from political ranting to just say this on behalf of TV land:
CONGRATULATIONS TO TOM ON WINNING THE APPRENTICE! ♥ ♥ ♥
Seriously I really do think this was a well-deserved win for him because there were some really manipulative and tough characters this year and it was nice to see the well-mannered, sensible walking-calculator of creativity win out against the competition.
I was certain Helen would win - and had it been the old format she probably would have. However her business plan was flawed. I think she and Jim fell into the trap of choosing to present their businesses in a way they thought Lord Sugar would like rather than what they *really* wanted themselves. Susan and Tom stuck with their guns but I think in the end Susan is a bit young and Lord Sugar did say that he wanted to keep in contact with her because her business and Tom's could be put together because, of course, Tom was the inventor of the curved nail file.
(It was so weird when the show started and he said, "I invented the first curved nail file." because I immediately thought, "Was that you?!")
Anyway, something can be done to link Susan and Tom together because he had loads of inventions within the nail care industry and Susan is obviously in the cosmetic industry.
But Tom was the one who could benefit the most from Lord Sugar's investment and support because he has a business where things hae gone wrong because of Tom's difficulty in seeing things though. This is more to do with his mind; he has so many ideas and he needs someone to tell him what to focus on. So I think it was the right choice in the end, although if Helen or Susie had won I could have lived with it.
Another reason I am very glad Tom won is because he was so unlucky on the tasks, usually due to the fault of other people. I'm glad that Lord Sugar did bear in mind - especially in regards to Tom and Susan - that being business leaders rather than working under someone else, they weren't used to having to shout over people to be heard. In the beauty treatment task in particular I thought Felicity was very rude to have slapped Tom down when he was making sensible statements and again Melody (who I f***ing hated, btw!) together with Felicity, ignored him = losing the task. It happened with the French task as well; Tom wanted the carseat-rucksack and Melody lied about the market research to trick Tom into getting the products she wanted to sell in France... and it cost them the task. Tom put a lot of faith in Melody and on three occassions she lied, cheated and ignored him to suit herself.
She really was a pain in the arse and thank God Lord Sugar got rid of her after the investment task, because she really did bugger that up - and that was the third time she led Tom down the deep end while he wasn't there to stop her.
It wasn't Natasha who got where dirt can't, as Zoe put it one time. It was Melody! That said Zoe was pretty Zoe, although a lot more likeable that pig-ignorant Melody.
But back to Tom, I was very impressed with him and Helen in the Fast Food task. They were only a twosome against Susan, Natasha and Jim's threesome, and they beat them hands down. So it was right that it was down to those two and, again, it was right that Tom won.
Now I'm just sad this series is over. :'(
OK, time to catch-up on True Blood. Last week's cliffhanger was so... weird. Eric, you bad, bad boy. But it was Sookie's reaction that made me giggle.
Again, well done Tom! You did it for all the geeks and nerds of the world and we love you!
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
The BSkyB Takeover Has Been Dropped!
MURDOCH HAS BEEN FORCED TO DROP HIS BSKYB TAKEOVER!
(Sorry, it's the only YAY animation I have to hand :p)
Excellent news, nay? I'm too lazy to write a long-winded response to this news and I made a video just to prove own lazy I am about it. However it is good that at least David Cameron has finally got Murdoch to pull his BSkyB takeover... after Ed Miliband forced him to push Murdoch onto the sword. Hell, apparently even Nick Clegg has decided at the last minute to grow a pair, even going as far as to threaten to split the coalition should the BSkyB takeover bid not be blocked.
David Cameron can't even get back on track now because he has to face the frankly humiliating fact that it was the opposition, not the government, who forced the issue of blocking the BSkyB takeover. Not to mention his terrible judgement in appointing Andy Coulson as his press officer. Cameron's answer was to get Jeremy Hunt to write a letter to Ofcom. Ed Miliband's, the most unlikely heavyweight in this whole story, answer forced a vote in parliament for the bid to be blocked. Furthermore all of Labour, all the LibDems and a good portion of the Tories agreed with him!
I suppose it was easier for Ed Miliband to jab knives into Murdoch because he has never had to deal with him. The last time the Labour Party were well and truly connected to Murdoch was back in Tony Blair's era. Gordon Brown met with Rebekah Brooks but everyone knows that he was not friend of the tabloids and was not prepared to pander to them. What has been revealed now about their - what can only be described as - revenge for his choice not to arse-lick like Blair had, was to hack his phones and steal his son's PRIVATE health records. Now, I don't care what you say, that's illegal.
Cameron is too close to Murdoch and, unlike Blair or Thatcher, IS (or WAS) completely reliant on his support, which ultimately failed to win him a majority in parliament. Had Murdoch not chosen to back Cameron, Labour would probably have won the last election without having to form a coalition with anyone. They'd have lost a chunk of their majority... but they'd have still had a majority. Even with Murdoch's aid and Ashcroft's money, everyone knew even before the election that David Cameron wasn't going to win the election. Most people were hoping for a coalition between Labour and the LibDems.
Not surprising when all the LibDem voters are apparently saying they'd vote Labour now. I dread to think what would happen if there was an election tomorrow. Cameron would lose a chunk of the larger minority he'd have, a good chunk of the LibDems would vote Labour... but we still wouldn't have a majority government (although I suspect Labour would probably have the largest minority). It really is a good argument for proportional representation.
But there won't be an election called for at least another year. Even if the LibDems do pull out - as I suspect they will soon - Cameron will still struggle on with a minority for another year before he'd give up. If in that time then Murdoch sells off his papers and flees, it'll be interesting to see how the election would run without cringy front pages like this which makes you ashamed to be British:
Incidently I found this image by typing "cringe sun front cover" into Google.
(Sorry, it's the only YAY animation I have to hand :p)
Excellent news, nay? I'm too lazy to write a long-winded response to this news and I made a video just to prove own lazy I am about it. However it is good that at least David Cameron has finally got Murdoch to pull his BSkyB takeover... after Ed Miliband forced him to push Murdoch onto the sword. Hell, apparently even Nick Clegg has decided at the last minute to grow a pair, even going as far as to threaten to split the coalition should the BSkyB takeover bid not be blocked.
David Cameron can't even get back on track now because he has to face the frankly humiliating fact that it was the opposition, not the government, who forced the issue of blocking the BSkyB takeover. Not to mention his terrible judgement in appointing Andy Coulson as his press officer. Cameron's answer was to get Jeremy Hunt to write a letter to Ofcom. Ed Miliband's, the most unlikely heavyweight in this whole story, answer forced a vote in parliament for the bid to be blocked. Furthermore all of Labour, all the LibDems and a good portion of the Tories agreed with him!
I suppose it was easier for Ed Miliband to jab knives into Murdoch because he has never had to deal with him. The last time the Labour Party were well and truly connected to Murdoch was back in Tony Blair's era. Gordon Brown met with Rebekah Brooks but everyone knows that he was not friend of the tabloids and was not prepared to pander to them. What has been revealed now about their - what can only be described as - revenge for his choice not to arse-lick like Blair had, was to hack his phones and steal his son's PRIVATE health records. Now, I don't care what you say, that's illegal.
Cameron is too close to Murdoch and, unlike Blair or Thatcher, IS (or WAS) completely reliant on his support, which ultimately failed to win him a majority in parliament. Had Murdoch not chosen to back Cameron, Labour would probably have won the last election without having to form a coalition with anyone. They'd have lost a chunk of their majority... but they'd have still had a majority. Even with Murdoch's aid and Ashcroft's money, everyone knew even before the election that David Cameron wasn't going to win the election. Most people were hoping for a coalition between Labour and the LibDems.
Not surprising when all the LibDem voters are apparently saying they'd vote Labour now. I dread to think what would happen if there was an election tomorrow. Cameron would lose a chunk of the larger minority he'd have, a good chunk of the LibDems would vote Labour... but we still wouldn't have a majority government (although I suspect Labour would probably have the largest minority). It really is a good argument for proportional representation.
But there won't be an election called for at least another year. Even if the LibDems do pull out - as I suspect they will soon - Cameron will still struggle on with a minority for another year before he'd give up. If in that time then Murdoch sells off his papers and flees, it'll be interesting to see how the election would run without cringy front pages like this which makes you ashamed to be British:
Incidently I found this image by typing "cringe sun front cover" into Google.
The Murdoch Scandal Continues...
Just as I'd suspected the cancer is spreading to the rest of Murdoch's empire as last light the US called more an investigation into News Internationals actions in the US:
I cannot say that I'm surprised. The fact that the 7/7 victims families were hacked is a horrible thing, but if the 9/11 - or as I prefer to call it "11/9" because I have difficulty working out American dates when the two numbers are those of a month and a day, I genuinely sometimes think it's the 9th November rather than the 11th September - victims and their families were hacked, it would be awful.
All of Murdoch's papers are dodgy. It isn't just the News of the World; the Sun illegally obtained private medical records of Gordon Brown's son (and Rebekah Brooks actually called him to say she was running the story and there was nothing he could do about it) and he suspected for a while that the Sunday Times were hacking his phone (and the police have told him since they think it was hacked).
That's potentially 3 out of the 4 papers that Murdoch owns in the UK. Odds are on the Telegraph are at it too and we're bound to find it out once the public inquiry into News International gets underway. If those papers are at it you can be certain other papers are. I believe Murdoch owns (or partly owns) the New York Post, opening a real possibility that the terrorist victims and their families were hacked.
I also bet that it's going on at News Corporation back in Oz. The worrying thing about that is that Murdoch pretty much owns Australia's media. It's not like the US and the UK where he owns a couple of papers - he owns over twenty papers that cover different states. I was talking to my cousin Roz the other say and she said he pretty much owned Australia on the newspaper front.
Getting any dirty work exposed there would be difficult because Murdoch probably has everything watertight there. I should point out that it was a left-wing broadsheet paper The Guardian that exposed the scandals here in the UK. I think left-wing papers all over the world should get their groves on and start ferreting for dirty in Murdoch's empire.
He's backed into a corner and we shouldn't let him slip passed us because he has been controlling our governments and our media for too long. The UK Election is a good example of that; everyone hated David Cameron and hates the Tory party, yet with a combination of the Tories (more or less) buying seats with Ashcroft's money and Murdoch launching an unjust hate campaign against Gordon Brown, Labour would still be in power. They'd have lost a chunk of their majority but I believe that Brown would have beaten Cameron easier than Cameron could hate beat him simply because Cameron and Clegg are both inexperienced and out of touch. Murdoch hates elites and so he likes to make them jump for him, and it's sent him into a potentially dangerous ego trip.
It's like I said to that Green Party representative - power corrupts everyone in the end and Murdoch is a great example of this.
Politicians have been frightened of Murdoch for too long and it's time they stopped asking him to pull out of BSkyB and just told him, "No!" He's covered in crap because he won't let Rebekah Brooks reign. Why? Because she knows where all the bodies are buried. If he lets her out of his sight for too long she might blab. She's already blabbed a lot which she should have been arrested for but there isn't enough evidence.
Seriously, politicians, you never hold back when you see your opponant limping and always go in for the kill. The nasty, painful kill too. Why hold back over Murdoch? If you all join together to give him the heave-ho then what's the worst he can do? Tell people not to support any of you? Grow some balls, Cameron.
The greatest irony of all is that Ed Miliband, written off just a couple of months ago as a weak political geek, is the only person who seems to have correctly judged how the people feel about Murdoch's BSkyB takeover, or him in general. Cameron is (and always has been) completely out-of-touch with his public, and Clegg is just slightly better (although the TRUE politically weak magot - but then so is Cameron). This really has become a case of 'the worm that turned' as Cameron rather cowardly chose to try and sell his Big Society: Privatisation thought the backdoor/Let's get plebs to work for free and get rid of public spending crap to a crowd of unconvinced people, rather than face Miliband's questionning in Parliament. He sent Jeremy Cun-*cough**cough*HUNT*cough**cough* to face him instead. Labour were so pissed off with everything Hunt said you'd have thought they'd start lobbing handgrinades at him.
Cameron just doesn't seem to realise how disturbed the public are by his closeness to a man who is right at the heart of the phone hacking scandal, and who allegedly abused his position while in power. It was his employee and he should have known better. They try so hard to turn this around on all politicians but NO - they are the ones who have been caught holding the biggest cookie from the jar, THEY have to answer for it.
Like I said, politicians are frightened of Murdoch and Cameron is still scared of him. He knows he's only there thanks to money and Murdoch, and he knows that this entire thing is probably the last nail in the coffin FOR HIM. He can't blame the LibDems for once. Furthermore he must realise that Ed Miliband called for this vote in parliament to completely block the BSkyB takeover due to lack of confidence in News International today in order to test the coalition.
Nick Clegg has already come out and made it clear he is keep his hands clean and keeping Cameron at a ten-inch-pole's length this time. He knows he's on his way out and the coalition is crumbling regardless.
Miliband knows that by forcing this vote - which couldn't be denied - forced a wedge between not only the LibDems and the Tories but the Tories in general, those who can see the ship sinking around David Cameron and don't want to be on that ship, and those who cling to Cameron because he's the one who got them their jobs. Moreover if the vote DOESN'T pass it makes Cameron and the Tories look corrupt, and if it does go though then it proves that the Coalition have abandoned Cameron (including Clegg, it seems).
Either way Miliband can't lose. This is a Labour vote, and that has been made clear in the papers. If it passes, it's a feather in their cap - not the coalition's.
I want to leave you all with this video I just uploaded to YT. It's a clip from Charlie Brooker's Newswipe by documentary maker Adam Curtis. I've titled it 'Nixon Syndrome' because it's about how we've all become like Nixon - paranoid that the elite are running the country to suit themselves. It mentions Murdoch in it, stating his hatred of elites:
The irony is that he IS an elite and runs things to suit him.
"I am concerned that the admitted phone hacking in London by the News Corp may have extended to 9/11 victims or other Americans," he said. "If they did, the consequences will be severe." more by Jay Rockefeller - 1 hour ago - Evening Standard |
I cannot say that I'm surprised. The fact that the 7/7 victims families were hacked is a horrible thing, but if the 9/11 - or as I prefer to call it "11/9" because I have difficulty working out American dates when the two numbers are those of a month and a day, I genuinely sometimes think it's the 9th November rather than the 11th September - victims and their families were hacked, it would be awful.
All of Murdoch's papers are dodgy. It isn't just the News of the World; the Sun illegally obtained private medical records of Gordon Brown's son (and Rebekah Brooks actually called him to say she was running the story and there was nothing he could do about it) and he suspected for a while that the Sunday Times were hacking his phone (and the police have told him since they think it was hacked).
That's potentially 3 out of the 4 papers that Murdoch owns in the UK. Odds are on the Telegraph are at it too and we're bound to find it out once the public inquiry into News International gets underway. If those papers are at it you can be certain other papers are. I believe Murdoch owns (or partly owns) the New York Post, opening a real possibility that the terrorist victims and their families were hacked.
I also bet that it's going on at News Corporation back in Oz. The worrying thing about that is that Murdoch pretty much owns Australia's media. It's not like the US and the UK where he owns a couple of papers - he owns over twenty papers that cover different states. I was talking to my cousin Roz the other say and she said he pretty much owned Australia on the newspaper front.
Getting any dirty work exposed there would be difficult because Murdoch probably has everything watertight there. I should point out that it was a left-wing broadsheet paper The Guardian that exposed the scandals here in the UK. I think left-wing papers all over the world should get their groves on and start ferreting for dirty in Murdoch's empire.
He's backed into a corner and we shouldn't let him slip passed us because he has been controlling our governments and our media for too long. The UK Election is a good example of that; everyone hated David Cameron and hates the Tory party, yet with a combination of the Tories (more or less) buying seats with Ashcroft's money and Murdoch launching an unjust hate campaign against Gordon Brown, Labour would still be in power. They'd have lost a chunk of their majority but I believe that Brown would have beaten Cameron easier than Cameron could hate beat him simply because Cameron and Clegg are both inexperienced and out of touch. Murdoch hates elites and so he likes to make them jump for him, and it's sent him into a potentially dangerous ego trip.
It's like I said to that Green Party representative - power corrupts everyone in the end and Murdoch is a great example of this.
Politicians have been frightened of Murdoch for too long and it's time they stopped asking him to pull out of BSkyB and just told him, "No!" He's covered in crap because he won't let Rebekah Brooks reign. Why? Because she knows where all the bodies are buried. If he lets her out of his sight for too long she might blab. She's already blabbed a lot which she should have been arrested for but there isn't enough evidence.
Seriously, politicians, you never hold back when you see your opponant limping and always go in for the kill. The nasty, painful kill too. Why hold back over Murdoch? If you all join together to give him the heave-ho then what's the worst he can do? Tell people not to support any of you? Grow some balls, Cameron.
The greatest irony of all is that Ed Miliband, written off just a couple of months ago as a weak political geek, is the only person who seems to have correctly judged how the people feel about Murdoch's BSkyB takeover, or him in general. Cameron is (and always has been) completely out-of-touch with his public, and Clegg is just slightly better (although the TRUE politically weak magot - but then so is Cameron). This really has become a case of 'the worm that turned' as Cameron rather cowardly chose to try and sell his Big Society: Privatisation thought the backdoor/Let's get plebs to work for free and get rid of public spending crap to a crowd of unconvinced people, rather than face Miliband's questionning in Parliament. He sent Jeremy Cun-*cough**cough*HUNT*cough**cough* to face him instead. Labour were so pissed off with everything Hunt said you'd have thought they'd start lobbing handgrinades at him.
Cameron just doesn't seem to realise how disturbed the public are by his closeness to a man who is right at the heart of the phone hacking scandal, and who allegedly abused his position while in power. It was his employee and he should have known better. They try so hard to turn this around on all politicians but NO - they are the ones who have been caught holding the biggest cookie from the jar, THEY have to answer for it.
Like I said, politicians are frightened of Murdoch and Cameron is still scared of him. He knows he's only there thanks to money and Murdoch, and he knows that this entire thing is probably the last nail in the coffin FOR HIM. He can't blame the LibDems for once. Furthermore he must realise that Ed Miliband called for this vote in parliament to completely block the BSkyB takeover due to lack of confidence in News International today in order to test the coalition.
Nick Clegg has already come out and made it clear he is keep his hands clean and keeping Cameron at a ten-inch-pole's length this time. He knows he's on his way out and the coalition is crumbling regardless.
Miliband knows that by forcing this vote - which couldn't be denied - forced a wedge between not only the LibDems and the Tories but the Tories in general, those who can see the ship sinking around David Cameron and don't want to be on that ship, and those who cling to Cameron because he's the one who got them their jobs. Moreover if the vote DOESN'T pass it makes Cameron and the Tories look corrupt, and if it does go though then it proves that the Coalition have abandoned Cameron (including Clegg, it seems).
Either way Miliband can't lose. This is a Labour vote, and that has been made clear in the papers. If it passes, it's a feather in their cap - not the coalition's.
I want to leave you all with this video I just uploaded to YT. It's a clip from Charlie Brooker's Newswipe by documentary maker Adam Curtis. I've titled it 'Nixon Syndrome' because it's about how we've all become like Nixon - paranoid that the elite are running the country to suit themselves. It mentions Murdoch in it, stating his hatred of elites:
The irony is that he IS an elite and runs things to suit him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)