Gary Speed. Sympathy & Suicide.

The news broke this morning that the now late Wales football manager, Gary Speed, has been found dead at his home after apparently taking his own life at the young age of 42.

Shock has of course swept through the footballing world.  Speed played over 500 premier league games, won 85 caps for his country, and after less than a year retired as a player was appointed manager of Wales.

Of course death is a horrific aspect of life, and all deaths deserve to be acknowledged and mourned accordingly.  Speed's death will be mourned across Wales, the UK, and worldwide.  Rightfully so, to an extent.  

Speed has left behind a wife and two children.  Is it right to have sympathy for an individual who has taken their own life?  It is those still here who must deal with the consequences.  Not that I know the exact circumstances of his life, but suicide in my opinion is often an easy way out, in some ways a selfish way out.  Are we right to wear black arm bands and honor a minutes silence for someone who commits suicide, but then brush over the countless individuals who die saving others?  I don't know.

I don't discredit what Speed did as a footballer, and through the countless character references I have heard so far this morning he was obviously a top man.  But if the reports are true, he made a decision, a decision to take his own life.  He was a healthy young man with a family and most likely the job of his dreams.  There are people in the world with a lot less going for them who struggle but still fight for a better life.

I'd be really interested to hear what you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to... 

Hovis. The Best Of Both.

This is the first time I have blogged about a topic on request, but it is a topic that is of genuine interest to me and one which raises several questions.

What is life like being mixed race?  It’s great, I love it, and I wouldn’t change it for the world.  But, wouldn’t a white, black, brown, yellow or green person say exactly the same thing?  Surely not many people wish they were a different race?  In my experience people tend to accept who they are and the attributes they have been brought into the world with.  You can be jealous of individuals sure, but not of an entire race right?  People are who they are.

My background.  My dad’s family are Dominican and my mum’s Italian.  Unfortunately I haven’t yet had the pleasure of visiting Dominica, but I have been to Italy countless times and love the place.  I live with my mum and spend a considerably greater amount of time with her than I do with my dad.  Yet if someone was to ask me to describe myself as either black or white I would most likely say black.  To me that seems strange.  Why black?  Why not white?  I guess it’s simply because of the colour of my skin and how much that influences everything society.  To society I am black because my skin is brown.  Simple as.

There is a strange deep-rooted view in society that a white face is the starting point for human creation and that anything else is a deviation.  Race is treated like adding fruit squash to a glass of water, as soon as the first drop hits the water it becomes something else, no longer pure water.  In fact that is not how it works at all.  We don’t start as anything, white, black or anything else.  We are all unique blends of our parents and that should be appreciated and respected in it’s own right.  I embrace both my cultures as much as possible and would never ignore or disregard part of my make-up.  It’s my belief that at some stage in human development there will be a time where there are no longer strict races, and all people will end up being mixed.  This will go a long way to stopping much of the violence across the world and creating an overall better harmony in society.

To me, being born with parents from different cultures was a blessing.  I gained two sets of beliefs, traditions, and experiences.  It is harder to be labeled and put in a box.  But the thing I love most about being mixed race is, in my opinion, the way in which you can interact with diverse groups of people, from all different races.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that one group of my friends are predominantly white and another predominantly black yet I find it easy to fit into both.  That’s not to say that only mixed race people can socializes across cultures of course because that’s not true at all.  I just mean that having a racial/cultural bond with both groups, subconsciously perhaps, allows me to fit in without much difficulty, the same is true when meeting new people.  I would be interested to hear from different people to hear about there experiences.

I'd be really interested to hear what you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to... 

Signing off.

Hovis ‘The Best Of Both’

Life.

Life is a consequence of the decisions we make.

Each decision we make determines the next choice we will be presented with.

Fate, destiny, call it what you like, is a pile of horse shit.  

We all have free will and make our own minds up.  But, there is only one version of reality, so those choices that we do make can only be made once, you cannot go back and change things.

One can only hope that the decisions we make are for the best, not meaningless every day decisions, but the ones that change your life forever.

Is going to University still worth the money?

Firstly, if I have been lucky enough since I started this blog to have gathered any hardcore followers I profoundly apologise for my lack of activity in the past month... I will try and make up for it starting now...

Now then... As a student finishing my A Levels in 2007 I was, like many others, faced with the decision of whether to apply for University.  To me it wasn't much of a question, I was an intelligent guy with the prospect of great grades, no-one in my family had ever been, and every guest speaker I'd ever heard talked about it made quite clear the financial benefits an individual with a degree had over one without.  No brainer right?  The fact that I would be coming out after 3 years over 20K in debt wasn't much of a factor  - everyone is going to be in the same boat, you don't start paying it off until you earn 15K and that's no sort of wage for a graduate right, so the debt would be paid off in no time.

Fast forward 5 years, we are entering the final year before the majority of Universities will be raising the tuition fees nearly threefold to 9K a year.  Now I put myself back in the position I described earlier... Not a no brainer anymore.  Now let me just quickly say that this post is not intending to argue against the fee increases, nor is it looking at affluent individuals who are lucky enough to have their fees paid for.  I am asking the question as to whether or not the University experience and degree which you aim to leave with are worth the money.

Put it this way...  Someone who came out of University before the recession would have left University about 20K in debt and entered a relatively healthy job market with great prospects.  Whereas someone who comes out of University in 2015 will feed into a saturated job market with little opportunity for graduates (hopefully the situation will be better by then) and to make matters worse will be leaving with a debt more like 40K.  More debt but less chance of landing a well paid job.  Not a great equation.

The decision is surely made even more difficult if you are not the most academic person in the world and are applying for Universities not considered to be elite.  There is a big difference paying 40K for a 1st at Cambridge to a 2.2 at UEA.  Even with the fees at what they are now I'm not sure the benefits of paying to go to a low ranked University with poor predicted grades.  I think there are plenty of other paths for people to go down and that most people don't fully consider them because they have been told over and over again from various angles that a degree breeds success.  That is sadly not the case anymore.

Since I have entered the workplace, starting out as an unpaid intern, I have altered my stance on the benefit of a degree.  If you know what you want to do in your career or even simply which area or industry you would like to work in I would seriously urge you to consider going to work for companies for free to build both practical experience and industry contacts.  By the time your University contemporaries leave, you will most likely have 3 solid years of experience, paid work, hopefully permanent, and they will essentially have a piece of paper telling prospective employers that you know a lot or a little about a subject.

Of course I understand the 'extra-curricular' benefits of going to University.  The friends you make, the experiences you have, the self development you go through, as well as all the things that you can't begin to define or quantify.  But as we stand right now, I would give serious thought as to whether there aren't better options than University.  If I was 18 again I probably would pay the money and go but I am one person and each individual should really weigh up all their options when making a decision.

I'd be really interested to hear what you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...

The London Riots...

Shameful.  Shocking.  Embarrassing.  Childish.  Ignorant.  These are some of the words that come to mind as I watch the news footage of the London riots and subsequent riots across the UK.

On Thursday August 4th, Mark Duggan was shot dead by police who had tailed him in a minicab.  He was said to be carrying a gun and quite obviously had a criminal background and criminal links.  I don't know whether he was rightfully shot or not but quite frankly there hasn't been enough time to find out.  Of course I don't think the police should go around shooting people but for Mr. Duggan's brother to claim that he was a gentle family man is way off the mark - that kind of person doesn't carry a gun.  Also, I read that his wife had said they planned to move out of the Broadwater Farm area and 'start a new life' - it's amazing how many people say that but never do...

From this incident, a group of people gathered outside the police station demanding answers.  Fair.  However, a number of people then decided to take to the streets and cause havoc.  I can't even call it a protest because the only thing I've seen is violence and criminality.  Smashing up cars, setting them on fire, burning down buildings and shops, attacking the police.  None of those are constructive in the slightest and quite frankly have nothing to do with the death of Mark Duggan - his death has acted as a catalyst for what has subsequently happened.

These individuals have gone on to loot shops in Tottenham, Enfield, Brixton, Wood Green, Westfield, and in the short space of writing this I can add Hackney, Peckham, Lewisham, Deptford, Catford and more.  These people in my eyes are worthless, unintelligent scum.  I'd say 99% probably had never met Mark Duggan, yet they have decided to go out and cause as much damage as possible, essentially in his name - thankfully his family have condemned their actions.  These individuals are caught up in some sort of deluded buzz, running around with their hoods up, posting their activity on social networks and taking part as if it's some sort of recreation.  

Any parent of the individuals responsible should be utterly ashamed.  They should feel great responsibility.  You brought these people up with these morals.  You brought these people up to think that this sort of behaviour is acceptable.  I know that even if I walked past an empty PC World with people streaming out with goods in hand that I would walk away - because I know that it is wrong.  People's livelihoods have literally gone up in flames over the past few days, and for what, in the name of what - nothing.

Unfortunately, many (not all) of the individuals I have seen to be involved are black youths (just to be clear I am not at all claiming that it is solely black youths responsible and I do understand the part the media can play in creating these images).  Yet this angers me greatly.  If any of you read this you are giving every law-abiding black person out there a bad name, you are making black people look like criminals, like animals, like ignorant pieces of dirt who have nothing better to do than cause trouble.  Not to the average person out there in the world, but you are provided the casual racist with easy material to add to their hatred.  For this you should be most ashamed.  You are a fucking disgrace.  You all are! Every race, every age, you are a disgrace!  If people cause chaos because they believe it to be a means to an ends I can at least understand the reasoning, even if it is far fetched and unfounded.  Yet the people I have seen in the last fews days have been doing it simply for the sake of it.  Copy cat vandalism and sheer criminality.

Lastly, I am fearful of what lies in store for London in the days ahead.  If the police and the government don't get a grip of this I honestly don't know what might happen.  Why have the Prime Minister and Mayor of London been on holiday all this time?  Why has the army not been brought in to deal with this?  I think that would quickly make these individuals re-think and retreat.  We have been slow to act and what we have done has not been good enough.  If I was a religious man I would be praying tonight.

I'd be really interested to hear what you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...

Odd is Yes... Even is No...

My week as a dice man is coming to an end as I sit here on Sunday afternoon.  Let me reflect on the past 7 days.  Firstly, let me just say that I did not take this idea and use it for EVERY decision I made.  Put simply, I wouldn't have had time...

The first big decision I had to make came on Monday morning at about 10.10am.  One of my best mates texted me to see whether I wanted to 'take the day off work' to go and watch the final day of the 1st Test match between England & India at Lords.  Now at this point of course I was at work.  What did I do?  I rolled the dice!  It said NO!  Phew!  Thank you.  If my boss is happening to read this of course I'd never have gone ;-) and I respect the dice's decision of course...

On Tuesday and Wednesday I went to the iTunes Festival at The Roundhouse.  On both nights the dice had a big part to play but on Tuesday it took centre stage.  On the way to the gig, Northern line, me and a mate, odd = shot of black sambuca, even = nothing, until the half lucozade bottle was done.  The dice then told us to get a bottle of Crabbies each from Sainsbury's, then chose out of a selection of bars for us to head to a small Belgian bar to drink random native beers served by our now good Polish friend Machete.  On to the gig.  Amazing night.  Great music.  All drinks decided by the dice.  Numbered spirits 1-6, odd shot, even with mixer - cue mahem!  Even managed to get Katy B and Artwork involved at the 'after party'!

Overall, to sum up I'd say that using the dice to make decisions was a really fun experience, and I couldn't possibly mention them all - although I almost forgot to mention the fact that I got a 'tattoo'! (see picture left) That was pretty wild! - On a night out I definitely would suggest that you try it out as it most certainly adds something to an evening!  And also if ever you are struggling to make a decision, whether that be do I go here or there, or what shall I eat on the menu...  Use the dice!  It stops all indecision and you can't argue with it... Because it's just a dice...

Let me know if anyone out there is inspired to do similar... I will certainly be keeping my dice on me in future...

The Dice Man...

For the next week, I will be living life and making decisions on the roll of a dice.

The inspiration behind the idea originates from one of the story lines in the recent Luther series (for anyone who watched it I will not be carrying around a bat and acid-water pistol!).  I then had conversations with fellow Luther fans who mentioned The Dice Man, a 1971 book by Luke Rhinehart about a fictional character who basically lives his life on the roll of a dice.  Apparently he took this a little bit too far.

I will simply roll the dice to make decisions on everything in which I am given an option (except anything illegal or that might loose me my job!), from what to wear to work, to whether or not to go to an event I'm invited to, to what drink to order at lunch.  

Hopefully it will be interesting, enjoyable, and I'll end up doing things I might not have normally.

I'll blog about the 'results' at the end of the week... Wish me luck!

The male obsession with the gym...

There are several things that an individual can become obsessed with.  Individuals can develop an obsessive fear of gaining weight and a refusal to maintain a healthy body weight as seen with anorexia nervosa.  Others can become obsessed with sex, leading to hypersexuality, where sexual urges, behaviours or thoughts can appear extreme in frequency or feel out of one's control.  Then of course there is obsessive-compulsive disorder, the aniexty disorder characterised by uncontrollable, unwanted thoughts and repetitive, ritualised behaviours you feel compelled to perform.  All three of these are established and recognised conditions affecting millions of people.  The obsession I will be discussing however is not...

The male obsession with the gym...

It's something I only really noticed probably whilst at University.  I would see several guys strutting around the gym in tracksuit bottoms and a vest thinking they were the absolute nuts because they could bench press a certain weight.  I'd see guys looking at themselves in the mirror and flexing to themselves or pulling up their tops to study their abs.  I'd hear guys talking about how many calories they should be eating, spending fortunes on protein shakes, recovery shakes, pre-workout shakes, post-workout shakes, day off shakes, there seems to be a shake for just about every occasion.  

Some of these people are friends of mine but regardless I'd still think to myself, 'What the fuck are you doing all that for?! Are you a professional athlete? Ummm NO! So get back to reality".  Don't get me wrong, I like to try and stay fit and be in good shape and am the first to champion the benefits of exercise, but I try to do this in moderation.  I am a member of a gym and ideally I'd go around 3 times a week, but I much prefer my exercise to come from actually playing sport!

As with most 'body' related obsessions the usual explanations are relevant - guys watch music videos, TV shows, and men's magazines showing the modern male as a tall, tanned and muscly.  In reality this is far from the case; if you were to stop a random male on the street he's more likely to have a beer belly than a chiseled six-pack.  I do believe that this is where obsessions with the gym begin, but only with certain individuals, individuals with a DEEP ROOTED INSECURITY.  

Certain guys, often short or unattractive, but not always, become addicted to the idea of 'beefing' up, and are not satisfied until their biceps are bulging out of their sleeves and the chest pushes their nipples through their t-shirts!  I think it's sad that these individuals feel it necessary to put themselves through all of this because of some twisted ideology which equates muscle bulk with attractiveness.

I'm not saying for a second that everyone who trains at the gym regularly is an obsessive maniac because that's obviously not the case.  I also can see the benefits of this confused theory.  If it does indeed make these individuals feel good about themselves then I guess that must be a good thing.  But do not claim to me that you are going for health reasons or because it helps your football performance in your Sunday league - it is because you are insecure and because getting big at the gym requires no talent whatsoever, determination and perseverance yes, but talent, NO. 

What do you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...

Is there such a thing as being unique...?

Many of us would like to think that there is something unique about us as individuals.  And of course there is.  None of us, not even identical twins are alike in every way, shape or form.  But the type of unique that these people crave has nothing to do with DNA, but is instead about how we are perceived by the world around us.  They don't want to be seen as 'normal' or your 'average Joe', they want to be spoken about as 'trend setters' and 'leaders'.  Very few people actually manage to create this sort of uniqueness.

The most common way uniqueness is sought after is through physical appearance, through clothes, shoes, hair, accessories, etc... However, the majority of people end up falling into certain sub-cultural groups, which come to think of it are often correlated with the genres of music you listen to.  If you walk the streets of London you will find several of these groups.  From the goth who wears black, is covered in white make up and pierces ever thing in sight, to the 'fly guy/swagger don' who wears snapbacks and is always looking to be seen in the next 'cool' brand, to the 'highstreet girl' who fills her wardrobe with Topshop, Topshop, and more Topshop.

People often fall into the trap of having what they wear dictated for them when they intended to set it themselves...

Perhaps the only people who can truly call themselves unique are the individuals who originally influence a style, the icons whom people aspire/d to look like, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Pharrell Williams, these are just a few examples.  Most recently however, no-one can argue that the Lady Gaga phenomenon has pushed the boundaries of uniqueness right off a cliff.  As far as I know, no-one before her had dressed as outlandish as she does, and have the audacity and courage to pull off some of the outfits she has, for example the infamous 'meat dress' she wore to the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards.

I am an individual with a desire to be unique in some way.  Yet, I don't want to, have the mind to, or in fact the time, to be the eccentric type who carves out their own style, not following or copying anyone.  Recently I bought a pair of 'round framed' gold Ray Ban's in a style similar to those worn by John Lennon.  I did so because I was bored of wearing the standard square frame or Aviator style of sunglass that are donned by a great percentage of people today, and wanted to wear a style that most others didn't.  I guess it makes me unique amongst my own group of friends as none of them have them, but in the great scheme of things, I am simply copying a legend of the past.  

A toast to all those before us who have influenced each of our 'unique' styles... Cheers!

What do you think?

The NFL Draft or FIFA transfer regulations... Which is the better model?

As I am off to the US next week to visit Boston and New York I thought I would blog about a topic relating to America.  I am going to discuss the pros and cons of the NFL draft versus the FIFA transfer regulations employed in association football (I will refer to the latter as soccer) as I am a huge fan of both sports and follow each rigorously.

Firstly the NFL draft.  All football players that have been out of high school for at least 3 years are eligible for the draft, virtually all are selected from college.  The draft last 7 rounds with the previous years performance of the 32 teams determining the order.  The team with the worst record picks first and the team that won the Super Bowl picks last.  The subsequent rounds follow a similar pattern.  The order of all rounds can be altered by trades however, negotiated either before or during the draft.  Teams trade for picks either higher or lower than their own, depending on a given strategy.  Teams can also trade for draft picks in future years.  During the season their are no transfers for money as such but instead teams may trade players for players or players for draft picks.  No money exchanges hands between teams.

FIFA transfer regulations used in soccer are massively different.  Players generally enter professional soccer at more varied ages than their US counterparts and tend to come from all over the world rather than one country.  And of course the major difference is that their are several accomplished leagues all over the world, in every continent on the planet, whereas the NFL is the only American football league that receives recognition.  Players can be transferred between any team for any amount of money, the current record stands at £80 million for Real Madrid's Cristiano Ronaldo.  Players are generally transferred during specific 'windows' in the year, usually the off season and the turn of the year.

The NFL draft helps to maintain an 'equal' standard among teams in the league by awarding the lesser teams the chance to draft better players the following year.  It also stops teams with richer owners and more disposable money from being able to attract better quality players by adopting a salary cap, a capped amount of money that teams are allotted each year to sign rookies.  On the other hand, owners of soccer teams can offer vast amounts of money to other teams to sell players and attract those players with healthy contracts - that's not to say that American football players don't earn an astonishing amount of money.  Even the least talented players still earn vast amounts in contrast to soccer where players from the lowest leagues often hold down second jobs to support themselves financially.

I prefer the American model for several reasons.  It gives losing teams a chance to catch up after a bad year, it always brings in a number of young players each year - the majority of whom will have a college education, and unlike soccer, billionaires, like Sheikh Mansour cannot come in and go after the worlds best players with cash incentives.  Unfortunately, soccer will never be able mirror the draft model as the game is played across the world and individuals are signed by clubs at incredibly young ages.  However, I think it would provide great excitement if we could get to see which University graduate Alex Ferguson would draft, or who QPR would chose with the number one pick in the Premiership draft 2011.  I guess we will never know...

What do you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...

Stereotyping... Can we help it? Or is it even wrong?

Wrong or right?  Does everyone do it?  Can we help it?

Stereotyping is defined as “...a fixed, over generalised belief about a particular group or class of people.”  My argument is that stereotyping is something which, although looked upon negatively by society, is a process that we all use in pretty much every social situation.  In order to be able to get on in life we must have some sort of system in place through which we can form a preliminary opinion of an individual before we actually engage with them.  Yet it is something that we are made to feel bad about.

We stereotype all the time.  From watching the opposition football team warming up on a Sunday afternoon, seeing a black guy with pink boots and thinking 'ooh he's going to be quick lads!' to seeing a white boy in Reebok classics, a Hackett polo and Burberry cap and thinking 'he definitely lives on a council estate'.  The 'appropriateness' of stereotyping first entered my mind when I was in a corner shop/convenience store and asked the Asian guy at the counter whether he knew the India cricket score.  Now was I wrong to ask him that, assuming that he'd know the answer because of his racial appearance?  I don't think I was.

Many reality television shows are currently creating/reinforcing certain geographical stereotypes.  By watching 'The Only Way Is Essex' you'd think that everyone from Essex had fake boobs, an overdose of fake tan, and the IQ of a 4 year old.  Likewise, 'Made in Chelsea' depicts all its residents as ditzy, rich twats who would bore your socks off if you were ever unfortunate enough to get into a 'conversation' with one of them.  I'm sure 'Geordie Shore' will likely continue the trend - no doubt all the characters will be loud mouths who get paralytic every night, get into fights, and sleep around - I'd put money on that and the show hasn't even aired yet!  However, any person with half a brain cell will realise that not everyone from these places speak, look, or behave in the same way as the characters but yes certain countries, cities and towns do produce particular traits - that can't be argued.

Maybe stereotypes only become a problem when they have serious negative connotations.  I don't mean assumptions like black people can't swim or white people can't run fast.  But there are other stereotypes, not without truth, that cause a real stir if suggested.  A black male youth is more likely to commit a crime than a young white youth.  FACT.  A terrorist is more likely to have roots in a Middle Eastern/Asian country.  FACT.    Men know the offside rule better than women.  FACT.  I haven't completed any studies on the above but I would challenge anyone to go out and prove them wrong.

Just briefly to look at the other side of stereotyping - there are also many stereotypes that are quite flattering to the targeted group.  Some examples - People from the north of England are very friendly, Italians are good cooks, Asian/Oriental people are good at maths.  So what is the problem with them as a whole if in general they are true?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that although stereotyping is deemed to be a practice we should steer away from, 'most' of the time there is actually some truth to them - the majority of traffic wardens are most likely of African descent, a large amount of manual labourers in the UK are Polish, nurses are more likely to be female - who can argue against these?  Sometimes a stereotype would more accurately be called a fact.  Of course there are stereotypes that aren't true - women are bad drivers or all gay men are camp are just two examples.  I think that the problem arises when people start actually acting on certain stereotypes - like crossing the road to avoid walking past a group of hooded youths or getting of the bus/train if there is a bearded Asian man with a back pack on - I admit to having done both of these in my lifetime so far and I am not proud of it.  Yes stereotypes often have statistical backing to them but that does not mean that a whole race or age group should be tarred with the same brush and subsequently discriminated against.

What do you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...

The Anti-Gay bill in Uganda pushed off the agenda... A victory for humanity...

The Anti-Gay Bill in Uganda was thankfully pushed off the agenda today.

The bill, authored by MP David Bahati in October 2009 mandates the death penalty for 'serial offenders', those with HIV, and those who engage in sexual relations with minors.  This bill would actually only be a strengthening of the already horrific laws against homosexuality in Uganda - currently it is punishable by incarceration in prison for up to 14 years.  I believe homosexuality is actually illegal in around 80 nations across the globe which is just unbelievable and impossible to digest.  The new bill would apply to Ugandans living outside of the country too, and also, anyone who is aware of an 'offender' and doesn't report it within 24 hours would be subject to up to 3 years in prison.

Some of the quotes I have read from Bahati are just astonishing.  When asked to withdraw the bill in 2010 he replied, "I will not withdraw it.  We have our children in schools to protect against being recruited into (homosexuality).  The process of legislating a law to protect our children against homosexuality and defending our family values must go on".  This type of reasoning is just sickening - to think that homosexuals are some sort of cult waiting out the school gates to tap up youths is just absurd.

The public policy in several African nations has also been severely influenced by certain American evangelicals who have added fuel to the fire by citing ridiculous statistics such as, "homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual" - these being published is horrendous enough, but the fact that people actually buy in to this bullshit is truly frightening and really makes you step back and understand the impact propaganda can have.

One of the the main campaigners, David Kato, who led the condemnation of the bill was unfortunately murdered in January of this year after being 'outed' in a newspaper for being gay.  "Police claim it had nothing to do with his sexuality" - do they really think we are that naive and stupid?  Three months before this a Ugandan newspaper, Rolling Stone, published an article claiming to 'out' 100 gay men, accompanied by the headline 'Hang Them' - honestly the more I read about this the sicker I feel.

Unfortunately the bill has not actually been thrown out yet, but it being pushed off the agenda, at least for the time being is a massive moral victory for all people around the world who value human rights, and in particular groups like Avaaz who compiled a petition, signed by 1.6 million people over the world, to help fight the bill - click here to sign the petition.

Having been lucky enough to have lived in London my whole life, I have certainly been sheltered from a number of global human rights issues.  Growing up in one of the most tolerant cities in the world has given me vast exposure to homosexuals and to me being gay is not unusual - this is something that Londoners can be extremely proud of.  But on a global scale, outside of the bubble that I live in, it is so devastating when you realise just how many people share these nauseating views.  The world would certainly be a better place if all these people were simply wiped off the face of the earth.  As far as I am concerned they have nothing constructive at all to offer humanity.  The only positive to be taken is that there are a far greater number of good people out there who, albeit aren't perfect, do not share the same heinous beliefs.

What do you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...

Why are we so scared of strangers...?

What is it about strangers that makes us shiver with fear?

Last night I attended a market research focus group.  The 8 of us were sat in a waiting room for at least 15 minutes before we were required to go in.  During that time not a single word was said from anyone - not one.  I sat there in disbelief - considering we were about to discuss our worldly views on shower gel together for the next 2 hours you'd think one of us could muster a few words - "Hi I'm Chris, how you doing?" - I don't mean small talk by the way (that is a pet hate of mine which I will blog about some time in the future) - just general chit chat.

This is just one example however - the situation that has caused me to expend the most energy locked in though is a situation that we have all found ourselves in...  You walk onto a train or a bus with quite a few people on and most of the seats are occupied - but then you spot a free set of 2 seats in isolation - you go for it!  It doesn't matter if the seats are right at the end of the carriage or isle, we will walk all the way down just to have seats to ourselves instead of sitting next to someone right in front of us.  Why? What are we so afraid of?  People even get up and move from sitting next to someone when a seat on it's own becomes available!  Why does it make people so uncomfortable to sit next to a stranger.  We do the same things when we sit on benches (among other things), sitting as far away from any other people sitting on the same bench.

Surely the sole reason cannot be because you want more space to stretch your legs?  I can understand why people would not always be in the mood to strike up a conversation with a randomer too - you might be stressed and tired for example.  But since when did we become a race of people that would go out of our way to avoid having to sit next to another human being?  Wouldn't the world be a better place if it was considered normal to strike up a conversation with a stranger?  I have actually had some extremely interesting and rewarding conversations on trains and the like - I once spoke with 4 men from Newcastle on their way to a Rugby League cup final in London for the duration of a 4 hour train journey - we shared stories, have a laugh, and it certainly made the time pass quicker.

It is as though we all have some degree of social anxiety disorder - some innate fear of certain social situations - that we are unable to feel at ease unless we are surrounded by people are familiar with.

I am not claiming that I start up a conversation every time I catch the bus, or that I am the guy who sits next to the only other person on an otherwise empty train - I often behave in the exact way that I have criticised.  My issue is WHY.  Why we do all do these things.

What do you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...

Electoral Reform... First Past The Post OR The Alternative Vote...?

First Past The Post (FPTP) or the Alternative Vote (AV) system?

That is the question that was answered by voters last night and the outcome of which will dictate the way future governments are elected.

Both systems elect one MP for each constituency, the difference is that in AV instead of marking an X on the ballot paper for the candidate you wish to represent you as you do in the current FPTP system you would rank the candidates 1, 2, 3, etc.  When it comes to the count, if no one candidate has more than 50% of the vote the 2nd choices are then tallied and added to the vote.  This continues until one candidate has a majority vote.  That is essentially the difference between the two systems.

Now which do I think is better?

The FPTP system has its advantages.  It is easy and cheap to administer, it is a system that the public are familiar with and it honours the one vote per person policy.  Advantages for the AV system on the other hand; all MPs would have the majority of their voters (in the 2010 elections 2/3s of MPs lacked majority support), it penalises extremist parties who would be unlikely to gain many second preferences, people can vote for whoever they choose with their first vote without fear of it being wasted, and it would also encourage parties to chase 2nd and 3rd votes and hopefully decrease the need for negative campaigning.

I think the ideal voting system would incorporate proportional representation (PR) in some way - the party that were voted in would in fact have the most votes overall rather than the most 'seats'.  This I believe is the fairest way of electing a government but the problem would be in deciding where MPs would be placed - a party may receive a certain percentage of the vote but that percentage may not be represented in seats gained which is of course crucial to getting legislation passed amongst other things.

Those in favour of FPTP argue that with AV we may end up with a candidate who did not receive the majority of the (1st) vote.  This is true, however the whole point of AV is that no one candidate will be voted in UNTIL they receive a majority, whether that includes 2nd, 3rd, or 4th votes too is determined by how we vote - in life we can't always have our first choice and have to be prepared to give alternative options.  The AV system was used in elections at my University, Loughborough, as it is in many other student unions, and in fact the Labour and Lib Dem party leader elections - and has to my knowledge always worked well.

Other arguments against AV include the high price that it will cost us to change the system - this is a fair argument but considering the amounts of money we spend on other significantly less important issues I think it is something we would just have to accept and deal with.  Some might also suggest that people might vote tactically with their 'lesser' votes (i.e. 2nd, 3rd, etc.), not voting for rival parties regardless - a Labour supporter voting for the conservatives only with their last vote to intentionally sabotage their chances for example.  On this issue I believe that the majority of voters would see sense and actually vote for the parties they believed would run the country most effectively - surely even the most ardent Labour supporter would accept that the Tories are better suited to govern that say the Green party.

I don't proclaim to be a political expert and I admit that my knowledge is not in any way extensive - however from what I have heard, read, and experienced I believe that AV is the fairest system currently available and hopefully other voters will have agreed when the results are revealed later today.

What do you think?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...

Bin Laden Dead... What happens now?

So... The most wanted man on the planet is dead.

The man was responsible for thousands upon thousands of innocent lives, men, women, and children.  He was the figure head of an sick extremism than swept through part of the islamic world.  Of course the news of his death has been met with much relief right across the world.  Much praise must be given to President Obama - who during a 2008 political debate promised "We will kill Bin Laden" - and of course the US special forces who managed to find and kill possibly the most elusive individual ever known.  In a way I'm glad that he was killed and not captured as being captured, prosecuted and either imprisoned or executed would increase a feeling of martyrdom amongst his followers.

We are however being asked to remain ever vigilant against the threat of terror. The Foreign Office has urged Britons overseas to "exercise caution in all public places and avoid demonstrations, large crowds of people and public events". This advise seems appropriate as Al-Qaeda will inevitably be plotting revenge and the results of which have the potential to be catastrophic.  It was only last week that classified files released from the WikiLeaks website revealed that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, warned that Al-Qaeda has hidden a nuclear bomb in Europe which will unleash a "nuclear hellstorm" if Osama Bin Laden was captured or killed.  For the sake of world peace I sincerely hope that this was a smoke screen aimed at holding off the US special forces closing in on Bin Laden.  I cannot even fathom the results if it's true...

Regardless, whenever the head of a large organisation is 'no longer' there is always a replacement ready to step in and I doubt this will be any different.  That is not to say that Bin Laden's death will not have a profound affect on the hierarchy and psyche of the Al-Qaeda.  Looking at the bigger picture however, I really doubt that the events of today will loose Al-Qaeda many followers or weaken them much as a force.  It seems to me that today may turn out to be more of a symbolic victory than anything else.  Of course there is much that goes on behind the scenes that we know little about - the actual intelligence that led to his death for example.  I guess only time will tell how important today turns out to be...

One thing is for sure however, the worlds most feared man is dead and that fact alone should bring joy to the world.  Well done to all involved.  We are all eternally grateful...


Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...