Superinjunctions Chapter Two

The superinjunction takes another turn. Apparently superinjunctions are fine if blackmail is a component of the privacy issue.

There are several issues with this. Firstly, blackmail is a criminal offence. Such an offence should be dealt with by the police and the CPS, not a rich man's playground. Again, we see a civil issue being hushed up, where as Joe Bloggs would have to go to the police who can guarantee no privacy.

Secondly there are issues that cause the blackmail. Were the press not so prepared to pay extortionate amounts of cash for tittletattle, the blackmail would never have been an issue.

Both are issues which further murk the water in any attempt to resolve the issue.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

A Discursive on Death By Television

Is the death of a man on television a significant milestone for the 21st Century?

A man took his dying breaths on the BBC this week, which could be considered a revolutionary step forward for media development, although a much more macabre one than Big Brother.

The "viddy screen" is a huge social and cultural element of our lives, whether you watch while on Twitter or are a regular soap digestor, embracing the best of terrestrial television.

Regular readers will be aware of my dislike for the hyperreal portrayal of events in the media, a sensationalist and dumbing down of social norms which has become more and more invasive and destructive in it's pursuit for instant gratification.

The role of TV takes many forms in our culture, from background noise to all encompassing existence, but the overall understanding of the role of the television is nicely put in this article;

As "modern free time" tends to lend itself to citizen activism and the size of the overall population increases, it is necessary to keep people occupied, and TV is ideal for this purpose

But significantly since the beginning of the 21st Century, there has been a development towards not just consuming a television show, but to vicariously experience a television show.

The showing of a man's death, admittedly in an educational context, contradicts and yet emboldens the philosophical concept that in order to "be" you must "do". Without dissolving into a discursive on existentialism, it is necessary to observe how media, whether television, social media or press, has shaped the current status of human existence, purpose and definition.

Death by television is a further determination of a surrogate experience where culture has evolved to such a degree as to negate the very physicality of the human existence.

When all communication and experience can be simplified into electronic communication, we are conditioned into the human body, and indeed life, as being a circumstantial part of existence rather than a fundamental part.

With computer games that allow activity to be part of the great technology revolution, we are potentially moving swiftly towards an actualisation of "social television", whereby people will interact solely by screen and can be observed and observe through these means. The stark reality of a "telescreen" of Orwell potential is drawing closer.

And as we vicariously die, by screen, we are permitting this change.

In the months to come, we will see Channel Four screen the live consumption of illegal substances, again, commencing in educational context . But don't forget that Big Brother the tv show was borne out of Zimbardo's controversial prison experiment. Let us examine human behaviour, and thus we can understand, empathise and have no need to experience.

As Adrenalin junkies will admit, the rush of hormonal excesses from activity is a hedonistic pursuit. But if television continues down this path, we will have no need to jump from planes, as we can employ similar rushes from watching someone else do it.

So yes, I would say the death of a man on television is a likely milestone. But a milestone of a negative fashion, simply pointing us further down the line towards a "Matrix" like existence.

Social Divide and the Super Injunction

The super-injunction, tool of the rich and famous, so special you can't even mention it exists.

I prefer law that is tangiable and definable. Recent debacles over peoples' sex lives don't interest me beyond Fleet Street bar gossip, but I do take the freedom of the press seriously.

As Maxwell Mosely goes to the ECHR, we are presented with a conundrum. If press have to notify before publication, then Freedom of Speech is comprimised. To decide to do so would result in the an automatically created right of passage for the rich to protect themselves, while mere mortals suffer.

Rather like defamatory actions, to allow any part of the law to be accessible only to the rich goes against the rule of law founding principle.

But now the ECHR must further confuse this by answering a priority of human rights. Which is more important? Freedom of Speech or Right to Privacy?

And where does right to privacy end and right to scrutiny or public interest begin?

One could argue the law is based on a system of each case on it's merits; but it's merits should not include whoever can pay to protect themselves.

The government in the UK is unlikely to revoke legal aid reductions, but will be extremely unlikely to challenge the rich-proxy of injunctions and libel. Therefore they are likely to use whatever the ECHR decides as a principle and get out of the responsibility of deciding at all.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Lib Dems Saving Britain from a Fate Worse than Greece

Courtesy of @Chrisjenkinson I thought I would add my comments to his post on Political Phrases I'd Rather Not Hear.

His political phrase in question is "We’re making tough decisions"

As Chris observes, the truth of the statement is;

We’re cutting project X because the country’s deficit is comparable to Greece’s. Because we’re cutting X, which Greece’s politicians didn’t do, we aren’t being bailed out by Germany and the IMF

For some reason, this point, that the Lib Dems are saving the UK from a fate worse than Greece, is not being reflected to the general public.

There seems to be two reasons for this. First, it is not on the media agenda to in anyway observe that (a) Britain is in a significant deficit and on the precipe of collapse if we do not address this, or (b) observe any contribution that the Lib Dems have made to the coalition in a positive light.

There is a smorgasboard of reasons for this, from media monopoly to media agenda. As I said in a previous post, the Lib Dems have the audacity to steal fire from the gods and are paying with their livers.

The second reason is that the message is not consistently being upheld by their Coalition Partners.

While the Conservatives are happy to pronounce the deficit as a result of reckless Labour Spending, they maintain their core centre-right voters and retain the majority of the floating voters the party worked hard to swing over in the Blair years.

Have you heard Cameron, Osbourne or Hague mention the significant UK Deficit and the risk of being bailed out by Europe? No.

The Conservatives have acheived their objective, to retain floating voters and continue to decimate Labour presence. Why would they need to add to the mix by indicating Britain is in a significantly stormy sea financially?

Further to this, it doesnt aid the Conservatives to mention Reckless Bankers, nor to support the good work the Lib Dems have done in the Coalition, or they would lose their flaoting voters to the Lib Dems very quickly.

It seems this backs their plan of sticking with the Lib Dems for 5 years then trouncing them in the General Election. Which, if the Locals are anything to go by, they are on course to achieve.

Let's Aggrandise Hype Over Protests at Royal Wedding

Protestors at the Royal Wedding?

Really? Or just an interesting ploy to further cast #ukuncut as baddies to the middle classes?

Afterall, they attacked Fortnum and Mason with no regard for the tradition and esteem of the store.

What the majority of people forget, however, is that UKuncut are anti tax evasion, whether legal or not.

They could seek to protest about the cost of the Royal Wedding, but it is not a core objective of a body of people who object to tax evasion through disrupting the business of that organisation.

Terrorists, right wing extremists and others are far more likely candidates, as The Daily Mail and Express are so keen to scaremonger.

Or perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised when nothing occurs.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Why Do We Even Need Internships?

I'd never heard of internships until I graduated.

Now they seem to be in the news every other day.

When I was 15, we had work experience at school. My dad offered to have me work with him, but I declined, wanting to see what the school got me as it would be a different, more exciting world. It was, I got to work at a K'Nex factory where I basically played with stuff all day.

How did that set me up for life? Well, it didn't.

At fourteen, I was working in a riding stables mucking out, then I got my first paid job in a clothes shop for a tiny £2.50 per hour. I then did the usual rigmarol of waitressing, fast food, and other customer service to fund my room in a shared house so I could do my A-Levels.

Following that, I got a full time job in a wine merchants and put myself through my degree in the evenings.

At no point did I "need" to work for someone for free, nor could I afford to.

Social Mobility

So from a personal point of view, I disagree with both Clegg and Cameron.

I'm not relaxed about internships, I'm positively chippy. Why should people be granted a leg-up in any industry to succeed?

What is wrong with volunteering where your skills are needed?

We've seen the ludicrous furore over Clegg's comments, where most people ignored the fact that it was in spite of his own "leg-up", he was promoting active social mobility.

Now Cameron has jumped in and said he is "relaxed" about internships and social mobility.

This is a great news story. It addresses the differences between the parties without offending the membership of either party, and Downing Street ought to be very pleased with themselves. But more about distractions in the press another day.

Cameron thinks internships are great, having no issue with "giving work experience to personal acquaintances". But, as we know, Cameron thinks nothing of spending £600 on trimming his wisteria, while some of us spend that on a week's rent.

Clegg may think nothing of paying that for his wisteria, but at least he acknowledges the more humble of us with our Lidl shopping.

Do we need interns?

Ultimately, I do not understand why internships exist at all. They are an excuse to exploit those eager to learn, and will always be a luxury of people who can afford to do them without needing to work as well.

The only way addressing internships will affect social mobility is when the government, Blue, Red or Yellow, decides definitively that interns should be paid, at least minimum wage and have protected employment rights.

Anything else will always favour the rich, who do not have to worry about wisteria, and discriminate against the poor, who may not know what wisteria is.

Afterall, you do not see Apprenticeships being offered on a travel-to-work-allowance only.

Puppet Show Protests

The protests went as anticipated. The majority of people, many of whom will be redundant in 4 days, marched calmly through London surrounded by Union Officials, Police Officers and press.

The BBC has been quite good at maintaining the "majority were peaceful" line.

However, inevitably, the [violence] [anarchistic] {scuffles] [turmoil] or [tempest] as various journalists have referred to the less peaceful marches, have stolen many headlines.

I watched with discerning horror as various shots on BBC News depicted fights, broken windows, paint bombs, fireworks and other antisocial ranging through to criminal behaviour took place.

The Hype

Aggrandized social networking had set the scene for a modern Punch and Judy, it was just ascertaining who would appropriate which role.

In the previous protests, students have been quick to cry foul over Police Brutality, accuse and actively engage violent behaviour.

Yet yesterday there was very litte evidence of Judy with her rolling pin. No police had riot shields, no weapons, and their regimentary lines to calm rampant protestors were standard calming proceedure.

In direct contrast, Punch had armed himself with a selection of premeditated weapons. Rather than the spade seen in student protests in September (who carries a spade with them on the off chance?!), protestors, menacing in black with balaclavas, were armed with lightbulbs full of amonia, spray cans, and anything else they saw fit to collect on their way.

With the twitterverse pounding with hashtags like #march26 #tarhirsq #trafalgursq #ukuncut #march26march et al, the drums were beating for drama.

And twas ever thus

While Milliband egotistically compared himself to Martin Luther King (there's a whole other blog post in this!), the BBC cameras panned to the menacing thugs attacking Topshop and swifting moving to Fortnum and Mason.

With bits of fence going through windows of banks, police officers being set on fire, the trite anarchy symbol being sprayed every where and continous soundbites from Labour, I was watching at home, glad I didnt attend.

Much criticism was put about Laurie Penny, the Independent writer, who felt the need to castigate the police and continue to encourage illegal and demonstrative violence through social media channels. A badly written (oh the irony) puts is quite well;

"For too long now she has been allowed to spread her vile and one side biased views of the protest and the whole events around them...[to satisfy] her own feeling of self importance"

But even without poisonous journalists encouraging violence to their own gains, the collective attacks on buildings which, to protestors, symbolised the extremeties of social divide were escalating.

Risks of Anonimoty

Good old UK Uncut, whom I think of as a modern day, twitter charged Robin Hood gang, have taken great risks by maintaining an air of mysteriousness.

While they decided to occupy Fortnum and Mason, who are charged with legal but ammoral tax avoidance by the young gangs, others descended on the store outside.

There is still dispute as to whether these youths, carrying Anarchy flags and wearing balaclavas, were in fact members of #UKUncut or not.

They adorned the outside of the building with UK Uncut slogans, claimed to be part of the (and I am loathe to call them but) movement, threw fireworks and flares at the police and actively prevented police from stopping other protestors from joining in, no doubt contributing to those injured, police and protestors alike.

I commented that I went to make a cup of tea and when I returned, UK Uncut had lost all of their credibility. Others have stated that it was not UK Uncut outside.

But that is the risk the UK Uncut take with their anonymity.

If they are serious about challenging society's norms and social divide, hiding behind badly written yet powerful articles simply gives others the opportunity to discredit them.

However, if the gang of trouble makers were not legitimate representatives of UK Uncut, then comments like this do not help to dispell the myth;

"Civil disobedience has a long tradition of driving forward progressive change and we are here to send a powerful message"

Disobedience is an interesting word.

–noun
"lack of obedience or refusal to comply; disregard or transgression"

There is something of an irony in this.

UK Uncut are demanding that the Government comply with them by changing tax legislation to more fairly redistribute wealth around the country.

To apply this lobby, they are the epitome of civil obedience, calming registering protests with the police, quietly occupying and proclaiming allegiance with Che Guevara and Ghandi. Neither of whom were demonstrative violent protestors.

Further illogical interpretation then, and I will refrain from comments on education necessary to enter university.

So if UK Uncut proclaim necessary civil disobedience, and deny active violence, how can one know what they stand for or who they are?

Trafalgur Square

Representative of political and social freedom, Trafalgar Square was the coda of the day, filled with what some referred to as a party.

Some party if it resulted in kettling.

Further damage and devestation was had, as young people failed yet again to get their message accross.

And the point of it all

Well, the meaning behind the violence is somehow lost in translation.

Protesting against cuts was the aim in the TUC march. This was a peaceful demonstration even if the leader of the Labour party felt he was a hero.

But what exactly was the aim in the UK Uncut and associated violences?

Rather like Punch and Judy, it seems it was just a sensationalised and futile exercise in entertainment.

Conspiracy and Pacifism: Libya

I was appalled to read in The Evening Standard tonight about potential lobbying by the British Government to allow the EU to provide Libyan Residents with weapons.

The ever-present war in the media at the moment is constant chipping at the well being of civilisation. The 24 hour news culture of western society is presenting all conflicts in the Middle East as battles of democracy, adopting a polarised understanding of conflict. This is, I am sure, intended to make it palatable for the general public, but also translates into a sensationalist and hyperreal interpretation of a conflict of which we, in reality, know very little about.

I am not defending dictators, I am simply stating that media representation of war is very different from the reality and history that has led to the current situations.

And handing out weapons is not a solution.

If there are children fighting in the play ground, does the teacher say "punch each other til one of you wins"?

Of course not. The teacher separates the fighters, discusses independently and then mediates, attempting to form an objective and external presence that will allow a resolution to be reached.

At the moment, Britain is behaving like the school kids jeering the fight from the sidelines. And jumping in to assist whomever they support.

I genuinely do not believe that arms resolve anything. It is pouring petrol on a smouldering fire.

Media Manipulation

The Hyperreal is a fascinating topic and we are seeing it employed this year in a form of persuasion that I haven't observed before.

One observation of Vietnam was the way in which every moment was potentially televised, and as a result the public grew in unease and eventually demonstration against the atrocities. Here the media was constructed and worked against the people.

However, the opposite is happening with Libya.

We are being shown furious clips, disjointed hand camera work and reporting messages from Twitter. This all contributes to a perception of extreme terror and helplessness. Shown on 24hr news, the public is inevitably persuaded that these clips are the truth, and therefore all contrary accounts must be incorrect or lunacy.

Again, I am not justifying genocide or slaughter, but do we have all of the facts presented to us?

Or are the public being hand fed an interpretation of conflict that endears them to justifying invasion, committing ground troops and other, spectacular heroic gestures?

Iraq and the Great Comparison

The acrimonious disputes over Iraq waged in Britain for a long time. The general concept is that the archetypal left were, and are, anti the invasion, for they were informed that the motivation was weapons of mass destruction, and persuaded it was really oil.

The ongoing Hague hearings will have no significant outcome, no more than an internal review, but they dredge up the bitterness at every turn, the significant lack of evidence of WMDs.

So, with my marketing head on, how would I want to persuade Britain that war with a country that had the single largest oil export market was both justified and necessary?

Well, as it was the "left" I would need to convince, I would have to appeal to a sense of justice, democracy and fairness. A persuader of great need, that the left can empathise with and justify.

And a consistent, relentless media campaign that puts across a tangible message of good and evil, like some obscure role-play game, would be the perfect tool.

Dear reader, I am not assuming this is an enormous conspiracy theory. I am very much aware that there is real conflict in operation. However, I do not believe in coincidence, horoscopes or fate. I do believe in opportunism, risk taking and gambling as methods of human manipulation.

And what I see appears to be an opportune manipulation when the moment arose. A gamble, yes, but many gambles pay off. Especially if you coordinate it well enough.

And, to provide some element of persuasion for those of you who think I am a crackpot, please ask yourselves why we are not demanding a no-fly zone on Bahraim. Or The Ivory Coast. Or Somalia. Or, indeed, any other country where there is dramatic and life threatening civil war, dictators, raw battles for life and death and many, many pleas of democracy.

Sequestering the Murdoch Debate(Warning: Contains LONG words)

Things that would inspire me to protest "student style" (minus the spade): Human Rights of Refugees, The Digital Economy Bill, Gurkhas and Rupert Murdoch.

There are a range of theories regarding the reasoning for Murdoch's "success" in appropriating, taking over, conquering, overwhelming, transcending and thrusting victory in British Media.

And I happen to agree with the majority of them.

Impartiality and Monopoly

For the alleged "liberal intelligentsia", as The Evening Standard refered to us, the risk of a bias and unilateral media presence is the largest threat.

We hate monopoly, and we hate injustice more. The representation of a dominant media mongul features strongly in left wing and dystopic literature as a frightening and dominating force. The media holds the potential to distort reality with words, which while it may only be persuasive, has the power to become manipulative.

Take, for example, one bugbear of mine, refugees. Representation through so-called impartial media has the majority of the public thinking we are overrun.

And this is perhaps my point. Ofcom, the alleged champions of impartiality in British Broadcasting, seem to be failing in any case.

I have been raised in the UK with newspapers that are instinctively left and right. And perhaps, before the Murdoch Monstrosity, I didn't see any reason to.

Criticism of mainstream media is vast, but it must be acknowledged that true impartiality, even from the great BBC, is very, very rare.

However, there is an integrity issue. Let me suggest that true media objectivity is as impossible as a truly objective jury. However, I find offence in the abject bias presented accross all mainstream media. There is not even a suggestion of an attempt at objectivity!

And this isn't just because I'm of the Lib Dem persuasion (although I routinely complain to BBC when we aren't represented). I have a penchant for extreme Tory papers which I can argue with voraciously. However, when you get articles where headlines proclaim one thing, but the story is very very different (Like This), there can be no true claim of impartiality.

Will a "Murdoch" supremacy, empire, domain, terrain or ascendancy change this?

Well, I would be persuaded to argue yes.

As Nicola Sturgeon MSP commented on tonight's Any Questions, there is a growing disatisfaction with mainstream media in the young, who seek alternative media formats online, such as Demotix, Red Letter and UKUncut.

Perhaps we, the young, are stoking the fire. As UK Uncut have shown, there is real potential for moral outrage at unfairness. We lack the alleged wisdom of the elders that toe the line, and are slowly, but surely, arguing against the status quo, the presumption of rich entitlement to dominance and easy passage.

In theory, the Murdoch victory will fuel this further, the unhappiness with lack of competition will grow, and the young will inherit the earth. Ah, a happy ever after.

Or, realistically, albeit cynically, the young will eventually toe the line, when times are good and they are on top, and seek to agree with "V for Vendetta" premises of extreme right wing persuasion, and welcome Kingdom Come.

Convinience

This title covers a multitude of reasons. One I liked was presented by The Evening Standard and Any Questions, my staple politics for the day.

Murdoch is on the verge of being sued left, right and centre for a miscellany of phone hacking offences. This is expensive. So to sell off Sky News would be convinient.

Strategic Convinience

And Strategic. After all, it's only 10 years before he can buy it back. A generation to forget his misdemeanors and welcome him into the Sky News with open arms.

Political Strategic Convinience

Of course, good old Vince, in a moment of seduced candidness, was spot on when he proclaimed the Lib Dems didn't want Murdoch to brutally dominate the British Media.

In a decade, a hell of a long time in politics, maybe the Lib Dems would forget Vince's brutal outcry of war.

And even if they didn't, it is unlikely to be a coalition of Tory-LD in this time.

Thereby resolving Murdoch's best mate Cameron's quandry. Give it a nice time limit, don't look like you're too much in the media monstrosity's pocket and roll over.

Good Old Spin

Of course, there is the added bonus of spin. The great irony. Because as the press make out, neatly tying this all in, the "loss" of Sky News is somewhat less impacted when it is simply the "redistribution".

And Finally

I would suspect we will see a further significant degredation of the British Language as BSkyB expand their all encompassing control.

Thoughts while on Penicillin: The Symbiotic Relationships in the Media

There's an interesting irony in the 21st Century media consumption.

An honourable friend on Twitter commented that he hated DVDs because of the trailers.

One of the added bonuses of illegal downloading is potentially escaping the thrusting of advertising down our throats at every opportunity.

[That is, of course, as well as not paying, getting it quickly, general social disobedience joy etc, although I am not condoning such action, one must make a psychological assessment of why such a crime would be committed]

The relationship between media and the advertising industry is symbiotic in a capitalist society. One drives the other, creating revenue streams that can perpetuate as one or the other outdates and society moves on.

Therefore the consumer of the media, loathe to take the thorns with the roses, continues to strive to beat the system.

Downloading films illegally is just one area this can be acheived, although one may make small and large sacrifices to avoid the advertising.

Another is the advent of television one can pause, rewind and fast-forward. This is truly a glorious example of a postmodern interpretation of media, where outdated technology references create an illusion of control that existed in the first place.

On top of this, we see the news media circling around increasing advertising to justify free papers, paying for websites (and do you get advert free The Times now?) and other folly.

The push is towards synopsis, the irony is that the consumers of media become like, or actual criminals, racing to beat the advertisers who appear like CCTV and guards trying to justify the costs of the media.

The relationship between police and crime is as symbiotic as media and advertising, although one could analogise police/crime as lion/deer, where as media/advertising is more oak/mistletoe.

But the relationship between media, advertising and the consumer is more complex, and potentially as dependent.

A friend recently complained to me that Gok was filming in Birmingham and had emptied her shop of customers. And I responded, "Oi Gok, you exist to drive people to shops to purchase outfits, not take them away".

There are, of course, more ways of advertising than simply trailers and commercials. I have moaned repeatedly about nauseous product placement in Larrson's Millenium Triology, feeling obligated to eat certain pizzas, use certain computers and drink certain beers.

Even Twitter is now full of endorsement, blighting marketing agencies' bid to get faux recommendations through social networking, the secret is out and people are simply being paid.

Where does it all end? Will we continue to outrun advertising through criminal and non criminal activity? Or are we truly codependent?

Personal Care Accounts (Warning: This Post May Contain Saracasm)

When the BBC Radio 4 proclaimed on the news this morning that people who volunteer could be rewarded with credit to their own care-time accounts, I thought I had woken up in a dystopic nightmare.

I completely advocate volunteering, probably spending more of my freed time doing it than paid work, and I am a trustee for the Volunteering Bureau in my home town. But to capitalise on "rewarding" volunteering is a diabolical proposition.

The very proposal negates the responsibility of family, neighbours and the state to protect older and disabled persons.

We are fast approaching a 50/50 divide of retired and employed persons in the UK, and in spite of this, older people and disabled people are getting less and less funding on a local level.

I have applauded the coalition's approach to raising the pension, maintaining free bus passes and universal winter fuel allowance. But this does not mean they can justify removing care systems that are integral to old age and replace it with volunteers.

Regular readers know that Wardens and their demise are a bugbear of mine. There is evidence to show Councils and Housing Associations are not consulting their tenants properly or legally, and yet Older people are still abused by process.

Now we are supposed to accept volunteers to maintain community care?

"Hureai Kippu", the Japanese scheme to support older people, translates into "Caring Relationship Tickets". Tickets for what exactly?

How exactly do we propose to measure this? I am disabled and my husband technically cares for me*. Does this mean he has an enormous account, or does he have to care for strangers to accrue this valueless reward system?

Firstly, how do we define care? From personal experience, care can range from washing my hair for me through to carrying my shopping. However, I know a great deal of non disabled couples where the husband will carry the shopping. Do they all register as carers?

Alternatively, will they declare on 1st January 2011 that all "carers" accrue credit for the hours they give. They must register these hours how exactly? My husband hoovers as I cannot lift the appliance, why does he not gather a backlog of accrued hours?

Are we not, in fact, discriminating against future generations of Older People by introducing this scheme? By stating that Pensioners and Disabled persons of today are entitled to more support than those in 2020 or 2040? [a digressive post on inchoate discriination is well overdue I feel].

Ultimately Volunteers are no substitute for trained care. They are not accountable to employment regulations, nor are they bound by them. To introduce such regulation would negate the very word "volunteer".

Where would the proposed scheme draw the line between trained staff and volunteers?

I could go on.

Now for the Sarcastic Bit
In my understanding of society we have a system of credit for work done, I believe we call it pound sterling.


* I have arthritis, this means I cannot do some things, like peel vegetables or carry more than 2kg. Sometimes I cannot cut up my own food. However, I still work full time and although I am awarded DLA, I do not claim for my husband as my carer, nor does he claim. We see it as part of our relationship.

Great Expectations...

I have deliberately refrained from commenting on the coalition, for a variety of reasons.

Highly sceptical Liberal Democrat Colleagues have alluded to our Cabinet members being blamed for everything, while any good ideas are stolen by the Tories and promoted as their own.

I have not yet seen this happen, but I'm not an avid reader of the Daily Mail or The Sun, and am unsure what the press is actually putting out there.

Personally, I admit to being very pro-coalition. I'm a great believer in people knuckling down and working together for the benefit of the country. However, I'm also not foolish enough to think that it will always be harmonious.

The recent David Laws "scandal" is indicative of what the press perceive to be an unequal relationship between the Conservative and Liberal Democrats.

The "error of judgement" that Laws made seems to have reignited the expenses furore but only for the Liberal Democrat party.

The cynic in me has to wonder whether 15 days into the coalition, this is the first of many attacks on our party.

Interestingly, no one has mentioned the arrested Conservative Peer who is awaiting a trial for fraud over his expenses in a long time.

However, the social media and journalist support for David Laws is a refreshing sight.

It certainly makes up for all of the pejorative adjectives to describe the apparent failing of the coalition that so many seem to be expecting.

Calling Sensible People Everywhere

What a glorious start to the real New Year (the fourth of January being the beginning of return to work and school for everyone).

Foot paths and roads roads are covered in snow in sunny Ashford.

And apparently, the world that we live in seems to be getting more and more bizarre.

I used to think that Web sites such as www.hotornot.com were somethings in the vast scheme of things upon the Internet that would eventually be phased out as people came to their common senses.

As I checked my Facebook page I am subjected to yet another round of advertisements encouraging me to date Christians, find love and revel in games that involve killing people. it is also suppose that because I am in my late 20s I must be a mother, if not a single mother, and that for some strange reason my life is in accord on gender stereotypes goods such as pink iPods, pink laptops and generally "cutesy fluffy pink" [ insert colloquial term for collective of futility here]

I cannot be the only person who is genuinely offended by the way I am stereotyped by advertising, and I cannot be the only person who embraces society not purely based on the way they look.

Living in a world where it is considered a good thing to be part of "the largest network of attractive people in the world" only helped to perpetuate ignorance and misconception. I would personally rather be part of a network of identity verified thinkers with something intelligent and genuine to reflect on the world.

The concept of being an "nerd" from school bullying is now rife within society.

Sociologists accuse feminists of being poorly recognized superwomen who have to juggle household tasks, children and jobs.

Now it appears that women and men alike must not only grasp the fundamentals of life such as the job, home and children, but also strive to be accepted on a website where all your other qualities apparently count for nothing.

"Gay bashing" Accusations

While I would never miss an opportunity to slate the Daily Mail and the bigoted, biased approach to reporting it takes, the recent furore over this comment on Stephen Gately does not seem entirely justified.

Charlie Brooker of The Guardian has provided an even more sensationalist diatribe on Jan Moir than the Daily Mail was ever achieved on refugees and asylum seekers.

The entire media coverage of Gately's death has been immense, you only have to look at news results on google to ascertain that. But the key facts are hard to find and there is a vast amount of speculation without basis.

He died from a pulmonary oedema. Fluid on the lungs. But the cause of the fluid of the lungs has been associated with a variety of nefarious activities, from mild drug use and drinking to, in Jan Moir's case, alleged, speculated hedonistic sexual acts.

I agree that her comment is presumptuous and entrenched with misconceptions of homosexuals, celebrities and a consiracy mentality an American would be proud of. Not to mention being a poorly structured, nonsensical argument that would have been slated by any GCSE teacher. Or utilised by Brown as a constructive argument at the Labour conference (the structure, not the content).

But in the true essence of the hyperreality media constructs such as twittter, the issue has been blown into a state of apoplexy where the true meaning has been lost.

I think more people should remove their advertising from the Daily Mail, and leave those who read the extremist waste of print to look at pictures of vinegar cures and plates with dead celebrities on them. But they should do so because the majority of the paper is prejudiced, partisan and entrenched with rightwing exclusion propaganda, not because of a poorly executed column that most people only read because they have Stephen Fry on Twitter.

Rant over.