The Trend to Ruin Celebrities

Earlier this week Coronation Street star William Roache was cleared of all charges against him claimed by a number of women back in the 1960s, it also wasn't long ago Coronation Street actor, Michael Le Vell was found not guilty of 12 charges made against him. This got me wondering do people falsely accuse b-list celebrities to have their moment of fame, or are their so many stars that abuse their fame in this sick way?

William Roache leaves Preston Crown Court being cleared of all charges made against him. Picture courtesy of Manchester Evening News.

Since the Jimmy Saville story emerged it seems like we cannot pass over week without a former TV star being accused of raping or sexual assaulting women and/or girls. I'm not for one minute defending Jimmy Saville but why accuse a man that is dead? It almost seems pointless - no justice can be done.

In 2005 Michael Jackson was found not guilty of a number of counts involving a 13 year old boy named Gavin Arvizo. Since the case there has been irregularities from the claimants and one of the 'witnesses' has even admitted lying under oath - which is a criminal offence.

So why would someone accuse a celebrity of sexual abuse even if it did not occur. With the Michael Jackson case it was the simple notion of money. The Arvizo family were known in the past to harass celebrities for money especially Arvizo's father so when the juvenile formed a relationship with Jackson the family obviously saw dollar signs. Gavin Arvizo was diagnosed with cancer before getting to know Jackson - it was claimed this was another way of exploiting their son for money.

Back across the Atlantic, are Brits trying to do the same as the Arvizo family? It would make sense with the troubled economy across the globe. As many as sixteen celebrities have been either charged or accused of sexual assault, they include the Australian Rolf Harris and former BBC radio D.J Dave Lee.

Rolf Harris is just one of a number of celebrities accused of sexual assault. Picture courtesy of the guardian.com

So are they all guilty? That's for the judge and the jury to decide but some celebrities are concerned with the 'witch-hunt' accusing former stars of being paedophiles. It seems to be flavour of the month, I'll admit some might well be guilty but some will just be falsely accused and it's not fair - a case like this can affect the rest of someone's career and life.

One plus to take from this is how much it raises awareness for the welfare of fans of celebrities. They now know they aren't exempt from the law, they cannot take advantage of the stardom, like Lostprophets lead singer Ian Watkins who used his status to manipulate women to let him rape their babies.

One way to prevent innocent celebrities of being wrongly accused is having harsher penalties for people wrongly accusing them. Because when the media learn of a story like this they indirectly try to show the celebrity in a negative light.

What Does UKIP Stand For?

The U.K Independence Party (UKIP) have received praise from some sections of the media for their explosion in popularity in recent months. Nigel Farage and his party are thought to be the third most popular political party in the country, over taking Nick Clegg's sorry Liberal Democrats.

But, why are they doing so well? How far off are they of being in power? Do we even know what they stand for?

Much of UKIPs success has been put down to it's leader Nigel Farage. Picture courtesy of independent.co.uk

The clue is in the name when we say UK Independence Party; their main goal is for Britain to stand independent from the rest of Europe and the rest of the world. To stand as one country in modern times isn't impossible but it puts a strain on their economy - if Britain did stand alone and their currency fell to it's knees no-one would bail us out because we'd be so isolated.

But it's not UKIP's economic policies that worry the public - some of the social remarks make them sound as bad as a brainless teenager who thinks it'll get them more friends to make taboo comments - on the death of Nelson Mandela one UKIP senior figure said: "some ‘base-born’ people were ‘intended by nature’ to be ‘slaves’."

One organisation UKIP seem to stick up for is the extreme thugs who call themselves the EDL - more than one UKIP member has stuck up for the EDL, saying they "agree with what the EDL protest about" another one claimed: "the EDL weren't extremists."

One UKIP member, as recently as yesterday, outrageously said the latest bad weather was down to David Cameron's legislation allowing same sex marriage. Councillor David Silvester is quoted by the BBC as saying: " "The scriptures make it abundantly clear that a Christian nation that abandons its faith and acts contrary to the Gospel (and in naked breach of a coronation oath) will be beset by natural disasters such as storms, disease, pestilence and war."

Councillor David Silverster who's controversial comments have caused outrage. Picture courtesy of BBC.

Amazingly the councillor got 600,000 petition signatures opposing the bill which were sent to 10 Downing Street. What's more astonishing is that UKIP defended Mr Silvester, a spokesperson for UKIP said: "He is more than entitled to express independent thought despite whether or not other people may deem it standard or correct."

So what kind of people does this party attract? Now that the BNP leader (Nick Griffin) is bankrupt one UKIP official said: "We should be picking up 50-75 per cent of those [BNP voters] now." I hope that gives an insight into the kind of party that UKIP is. It seems one far right wing party goes another one comes in and takes it's place.

Now that they are politically popular this gives them more media attention, they are now in the spotlight where journalists are keen to find scandals and controversial stories that raise public awareness - with any luck UKIP will get exposed for the vile, prejudicial thugs they are.

Scottish Independence

This week Prime Minister David Cameron rejected calls from Scottish first minister Alex Salmond to have a live broadcast debate on the Scottish independence referendum.

Alex Salmond has been rallying around Scotland urging his country to vote yes on the referendum which will be held on 18th September 2014. So how would Scottish independence work and would it benefit both Scotland and the rest of The United Kingdom?

Some Scots believe independence will benefit their country greatly. Picture courtesy of the dailydoodle.co.uk

Scotland claim the rest of Britain use up all of their non-renewable resources coming form oilrigs in the North Sea something in Scotland waters (currently owned by Britain if Scotland get independence they will receive 91% of its profits). Scottish ministers allege if Scotland was independent the rest of Britain would be suffering power cuts on a weekly basis, whilst Scotland's energy resources would be far from stretched - with the use renewable sources like hydro power.

The main talking point for this referendum will be the economy - with the U.K economy struggling, like most global economies today, Scotland believe they can sustain an economy by being on their own, despite Scotland receiving more government spending per person (known as the 'Barnett formula) than the average in the U.K.

Something that would worry Scots voting yes would be Alex Salmond's lack of ideas about what would happen to the Scottish currency. The SNP leader has initially told reporters if Scotland go independent he'll join the Eurozone, but with all Eurozone countries suffering crippling economies and one negative story following another, people believe and hope he'll revise his statement yet he has not given anyone a definitive answer. For a politician to want a country to get independence but does not have an answer to what currency they'll use is inexcusable.

David Cameron and Alex Salmond are at the centre of this year's referendum. Picture courtesy of BBC.

One thing that Alex Salmond will be pleased with is the non-political votes that'll vote yes; its not just a generalisation that England and Scotland as people do not get on. For that reason alone some Scottish citizens will vote yes to independence just to get away from England.

So what will the consequences be on the rest of Britain if Scotland vote to self govern themselves? Well straight away Britain can expect to be under Conservative government for the next 20 years, the only place you can be sure the Conservative Party will struggle for any votes is in Scotland.

One consequence that will not please Britain is how England will attempt to dominate Wales and Northern Ireland so a similar thing doesn't happen again. Even though Mr Cameron has agreed to let Scotland decide on their future he won't want to lose any other places (that is a sign of weakness).

Economically I don't think Scotland gets a rough deal from Westminster their students are exempt from tuition fess unlike English students who have to pay £9,000 a year to study at universities in this country. Scotland's business' receive more grants from the government than English business'. Can Alex Salmond promise these grants if independence is voted in?

If Scotland is to be convinced by Alex Salmond's promise for a better Scotland if independence is voted in he has some tricky questions to answer and he has a lot more people to convince. Mr Salmond faces one question he simply cannot answer - how do we know Scottish independence will work? We don't, it's unproven and in these times of economic uncertainty it is extremely risky. If this referendum was done years before the credit crunch then perhaps people may have a differing opinion.

The App That Could Destroy a Male

In the last ten years social media has exploded, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn the list is endless and always evolving as different ideas are thought up - the notion is the same but with just different perks. However one app has caused controversy in South America with one case even going to court.

Lulu, an app specially made for women, gives them the chance to rate their male Facebook friends on appearance, character and sexual performance the ratings can then be viewed by other their Facebook friends.

Not only is this app humiliating to any male that has been 'rated' but if this app takes off globally (it already has been downloaded more than 'whatsapp' in Brazil) it could destroy any male that has an ex-girlfriend that is on a revenge mission.

The home page of Lulu the app that has already caused a lawsuit. Picture courtesy of telegraph.co.uk

Felippo de Almeida Scolari a law student from Sao Paulo in Brazil is suing Lulu - his ratings were so low hastags came out describing him as "#ShouldComeWithAWarning" and "#CheaperThanBreadandButter". The app was probably designed as a bit of fun for young girls to do in there spare time however when a male is given that type of review it is a serious breach of privacy, not only in Brazil but in most countries over the globe.

Mr Scolari, who is suing Lulu for £7,000 for damages, told The Telegraph: ""I was disgusted because I didn't authorise my details to be used by this app." Mr Scolari has since said all the damages he receives will be donated to charity.

The breach of privacy is a serious issue (even more so when the comments are defamatory), especially here in England, can you imagine if an ex wife of a famous footballer could comment on there sexual performance and those comments could be published in a newspaper. But in reality if comments like that were published newspapers would be sued to excess.



Felippo de Almeida Scolari with his lawyer, plans to sue  lulu for £7,000 in damages. Picture courtesy of smh.com 

Since the emergence of the court case  Lulu have come out and said men can remove their profiles so women cannot rate them. A argument that is flawed - Lulu should have been given permission by the male to publish sensitive and at times humiliating content. The male should not have to take action to remove the sensitive material.

Just as women activist are trying to push for women's equality they then get pushed back a step by the app by doing the exact same to males. We all love a bit of fun on our mobile and tablet devices but at the expense of someone else's private life is a step too far.

North Korea - Fearful State or Laughing Stock

There never seems to be a month that goes by without the secretive state of North Korea being involved in the media. This week the communist state executed a high political figure for no main reason - not only was he a high profile figure he was also the leaders (Kim Jong-un) uncle.

So what is the deal with North Korea? Why is it so secretive? And are they really going to start a nuclear war with the rest of the world? Can we take them seriously?

The problem with these questions is no-one actually knows - it's so secretive - no journalists are allowed into the state. North Korean journalists job is to brainwash the Korean public into thinking they are the most powerful state in the world. The public are constantly told their leaders are almost like gods, when the previous leader died Kim Jong-il died of a heart attack in 2011 if a member of the public was seen not mourning the death they were sent to six months hard labour.



Korean's mourning the death of previous leader Kim Jong-il. Picture courtesy of nydailynews.com

North Korea is one of very few communist states in the world now. Very few people are allowed inside the country and when they are getting out is a real problem. Legally no-one is allowed to leave North Korea without consent from the government.

North Korea is still technically at war with South Korea, after the Korean war in 1953 there was never a resolution, there is still hostilities towards the two countries despite Northern and Southern Koreans being allowed to go into the Korean Penisula (an area of land occupied by both countries were citizens of the two countries can go). So when North Korea claimed the Penisula was theirs why didn't South Korea kick up a fuss because with America as an ally North Korea wouldn't stand a chance. The main reason being North Korea has one main ally China - the world's biggest super power - this is why North Korea is a dangerous country.

So earlier this year when North Korea's new leader announced it would be using more funds to improve the nuclear arms the world panicked. Kim Jong-un the young, unknown leader scared the world and people predicted a nuclear war could occur in months.

So would North Korea dare to start a nuclear most people predicted no, so why did the North want to look threatening and risk war? Well as the new leader of North Korea Kim Jong-un did not want to look weak so by closing the Korean Penisula and upping it's nuclear programme he not only warned his enemies but looked strong to his own people - almost like an animal cage rattling showing how strong they are to other people.

North Korea's new unpredictable leader Kim Jong-un. Picture courtesy of 38north.org.

 



Even though all these serious stories come out of North Korea not many people can take the state seriously with some of the ridiculous things they make up. North Korea claim it's previous leader Kim Jong-il's first time of playing golf shot an incredible 38 under par and shot five holes in one. North Korea also claim Kim Jong-il invented the hamburger, not only did he invent the hamburger North Korean media then claimed he found a plant that grows hamburgers - a bit ironic when most of the citizens of the country struggle with famine (it is one of the poorest countries in the world).

 

So what next for North Korea? Impossible to predict what the country will do next for media attention but just remember never take them seriously!

 

Pension Age - Why Should Young People Care?

When George Osborne delivered his Autumn Statement this week I'm sure many of you, like myself, turned a blind eye. And when he announced the pension age would increase to 67 once again, I shrugged my shoulders, because as a young person this won't be affecting me for years to come. Right?

Well actually as a matter of fact wrong, directly this legislation will affect people only in there 60s and late 50s, why should we, as the younger generation care? Well here's why; with the age of state pensions increasing older people will have to work for longer thus leaving less opportunities for the younger generations.


George Osborne's Autumn Statement has left unions outraged by his pension plans. Picture courtesy of mirror.co.uk

When David Cameron announced he was stopping benefits for jobless people under 25, he claimed all people aged between 16-25 needed jobs (providing they didn't go into higher education) now he's telling 65 year olds they need to work one or two years extra.

Either the government doesn't quite know the situation of the economic climate yet or they are deluded. Jobs are hard to come by and brushing off young people as lazy because they can't get jobs then telling older people they can't give up their jobs yet - well that is quite simply unfair!

What is worrying is that the pension age since the 1960s has always been increasing - after calculations by accountants PwC it's been predicted that if you're a teenager now you're going to have to wait till you're 75 before you get a pension. What makes it worse is that the government claims a person spends a third of their life on a state pension (on average). So if these increases continue at the same rate and a modern day teenager gets there pension at 75 for the government to be right the average person needs live to between 95-97, to me that seems farfetched.

Pension advisor to the Government, Ros Altmann, has defended the government she told the BBC: "the state pension age was set at 65 in the 1940 the vast majority of people retiring now left school at 15 or 16 and so by age 65 will have worked for 50 years.Young people now, who on average start work at 21 and will retire at 71 will also work on average 50 years," as correct as she is what about the people who did not continue to study at university they shouldn't need to suffer more - because they paid their taxes earlier! You can't expect someone in a job lifting heavy objects to continue working till 71, it's not healthy or feasible.

Ros Altman has surprised many by support George Osborne's pension plan. Picture courtesy of telegraph.co.uk

So what is the solution to this mess, how can we get pensioners and young people at work at the same time. What is needed is get young people apprenticeships with people a few years before they retire - then when the latter eventually finishes the apprentice will be trained and will have the correct skills to manage independently. The government should award grants for the elder (so both are still getting a reasonable pay) who opt for this kind of scheme. Not only does it keep both subjects in jobs it also saves training the young adult when the pensioner retires.

What has had most people seething is the chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne has claimed the whole pension scheme would have collapsed had he not increased the age of retirement. Yet it is okay for MPs to now receive a 11% pay rise - possibly so they can get their second home refurbished unless they use their expenses!

The Battle for King Richard III

When the remains of King Richard III were dug up by University of Leicester staff in February 2012 not many people would have predicted a high court hearing between two cities claiming rights to his remains. The two cities: Leicester nearby to where the Plantagenet fell at the Battle of Bosworth and York where the king was originally from.

So how has the remains of a king that died over 500 years ago got to this stage and why? Basically York believe as he grew up in York he belongs there and Leicester believe as he fell there he should stay there, as with most things I write about, it's far more complicated than this. The two cities want the remains for one main reasons: tourism. Tourism generates money for that city leaving it in a better financial situation.

Who should keep Richard III's remains, Leicester or York? Picture courtesy of BBC

So which City should it go to? Both cities do have arguments but simply as he fell in Leicester he should stay in Leicester. In medieval times if a king fell in battle the victor would decide where the fallen should be buried. In this case when Richard III was killed at the Battle of Bosworth the victor Henry VII paid for the grave of Richard III to be marked where it was.

When the University of Leicester dug up the remains of the King they invested a lot of money, after that is it fair that York then just take him away for free? In the unlikely event that York do get him then they should pay how much the University of Leicester paid to discover him. York were not interested in finding him they only claim they wanted him when he was found by a team in Leicester - they didn't use their resources up to find him!

York's body arguing the case named The Plantagenet Alliance claim that a lot of distant relatives are still in York and so he should be buried there. A flawed argument; if all of his distant relatives are in York why did they have to use the DNA of a man now living in Canada and from London to see if the body they found was King Richard III?

The remains of Richard III found in a Leicester car park. Picture courtesy of ITV

What is also quite ironic is that yes he was from York but he was Richard of Gloucester since the ago of 8 which is a massive 190 miles away from York - can I also add it is a of a lot closer to Leicester. Not only that but he was born in Northampton which is a neighbouring county to Leicester.

York also argue that Richard wished to be buried in York although when did a beaten king ever get the choice of where they were buried? Like I said earlier in this article when a king is fallen the victor chooses where the fallen is buried.

Another problem York will be facing is petitions, two petitions have gone out by both Leicester and York as to where the king should be buried. Leicester beat York by nearly 3,000 signatures - these petitions have already been announced they will be used as evidence in the judicial review (which has been adjourned for a later date).

Finally possibly the best argument Leicester has it'll be keeping with archaeological practice to keep the remains of the King in Leicester's cathedral. When an archaeological discovery is found in a city that city should keep it.

So when the High Court decide I would be extremely surprised if York get the remains of the king that was found and funded by Leicester.