Just over two years ago, in February 2010 I wrote my first blog article. I have just re-read it for reference and it was quite shabby really. An attack on the media for the constant habit of banker bashing. In retrospect it’s difficult to remember why I was defending the bankers. Perhaps a little naïve and perhaps I have changed my views. It is equally difficult to remember what my motivation was to begin writing the blog. I had previously written to local MP’s with little success, although I did manage to manufacture an audience with Paul Blomfield MP, who was very polite and accommodating.

I suspect the main reason I began to write it was my growing frustration at the lack of diversity in politics, in the media and in the legal system, which are all dominated heavily by middle aged middle class white males, giving a very narrow view of how the country ought to be run. I wondered who was going to speak for people like me and decided that I would try to give myself and people like me a voice. I have since written 75 articles, including one published in the local news-paper, The Star,( http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/letters-opinion/viewpoint-how-the-other-half-now-have-to-exist-1-5826928 ) I have amazingly had over 5000 views on posts about football, racism, mental health, the elderly and trade unions. I have also read a lot of other people’s blogs including my friend and colleague James’, which I will post a link to at the bottom, who I am proud to say I coerced/bullied into writing, as I have a couple of other colleagues.

 Some of the blogs I have read are by people who clearly are frustrated wannabe journalists and some are simply on an ego trip. Others are for information purposes and others are just people wanting an avenue to get rid of their anger at the every-day humdrum agitation of existence. I suspect some of them are written by people who are too shy to speak out publicly in real life and some may contain hidden messages to loved ones or even poorly veiled criticisms of employers or friends. Blogging gives a platform to all.

Some are deeply touching and some have occasionally moved me to tears. Some inspire and some are just rubbish. I have tried since 2012 to write something profound. As yet, I haven’t managed in my opinion as I tend to have a reluctance to give no more of myself than my opinion. I struggle to share my actual emotions on events in my own life.

I wish I was writing when my first child was born so I could have shared the joy and optimism of being a new parent. I would have liked to have written in real time about the anguish of my divorce or the shame of my bankruptcy, or the grief at the death of my ex father in law and my wife’s Granddad. I was not and did not and so probably will not but I envy the people who are able to share their most intimate thoughts and fears with an anonymous audience. Those who are brave enough to bare their souls and warts to all deserve to be respected and those who dare not write such self- analysis should probably not judge those who dare.

I generally tend to avoid the topic of myself and write about atrocities such as the fatal gang rape of a young woman on a bus in India. http://fitandproperopposition.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/india-and-pakistansappalling-record-of.html or the disgraceful lack of coverage by the right wing media about things like the illegal blacklisting by some of the country’s biggest construction firms against trade union members.

I try to write in a balanced way and often give both sides to an argument but I have been criticised by some for not being controversial enough. Does one have to be controversial to attract readers or is this simply a result of sensationalised tabloid journalism we are all sadly too familiar with? In one my early posts I tried to court controversy by saying that asking the opinion of multimillionaire businessman Lord Beecroft on changes to employment law was like asking Gary Glitters opinion on the age of consent. A line I stand by and still agree with but these days I try to avoid such comments. Does this make me a sell out? Should I go balls out to offend purely to get more views on my page to pander to my ego? Perhaps. Mainly I write this for me. I don’t really seek approval on my opinions and they are just that- my humble, often uneducated, ill-informed preconceived opinions. If no one ever reads them at least there will be a diary of my opinions for my children and grandchildren to read. Which once again leads me to the desire to write about the people I love and experiences I have shared with them. I would very much like to write about my ambitions and aspirations and my fears and failings so that at least I may be understood one day when I am long gone. Alas, I suspect I shall continue to write about the failings of government and the success of football teams rather than sharing my own innermost thoughts but I salute those who do. keep blogging..

http://jamestringham.wordpress.com/

 

 

Home secretary Teresa May has said that policing has been damaged by the investigation into the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation.

The report found that a police officer had spied on the Lawrence family and it failed to rule out that corruption may have compromised the investigation. It is over 20 years ago since Lawrence was stabbed to death in an unprovoked attack by a gang of white men. There is now to be a judge led investigation into undercover police activity.

It said that Detective Sergeant John Davidson, involved in the Lawrence enquiry was guilty of corruption, even though this was not revealed in the McPherson review, a previous 1998 enquiry. It was though previously revealed by BBC’s Panorama in 2006. The report also said key evidence into corruption had disappeared.

The damning report puts the spotlight on the police force once again after damaging recent reports into corruption and dishonesty in the Hillsborough disaster and during the miner’s strike.

A new inquest into the Hillsborough disaster which cost 96 Liverpool fans their life in 1989 is set to start at the end of this month. It is likely to find that officers on duty on the day lied to the media and altered police reports. The South Yorkshire force has claimed for years that extreme drunkenness by the Liverpool fans was to blame for the tragedy. These claims have always been denied by the families of the dead.

Police have also been accused of brutality in the ‘80’s during the miner’s strike.

These reports and others, do nothing for the reputation of our Police men and women despite many of the incidents in question taking place over 3 decades ago. As more details of corruption, racism, violence and dishonesty come to light, the public’s trust of police sinks lower and lower.

The average starting salary of a Police constable in England and Wales is £22,680 rising to just over £25,000 on completion of training. The average wage of a primary school teacher is £24,000 while the average for a bin man in some parts of the country is over £30,000.

In 2012 seven police officers were killed while on duty making a total of over 4000 in the last 180 years.

When I was a young lad growing up in the 1970’s I would have been terrified of going home and telling my parents that I had been told off by a Bobby, because people had respect for the law. There is barely any respect for the profession any more or the authority they hold. We are constantly hearing bad story’s about the actions of police from brutality to criminals in custody and violence against protestors to senior officers hiding evidence of corruption and institutionalised racism. But the question remains – where would we be without the thousands of honest conscientious and brave men and women who risk their lives every day to protect us?

We should not judge the many by the actions of the few and should instead acknowledge the noble job these people do. They have a thankless job. If they do nothing they are attacked. If they act they are attacked. They face hatred and hostility each and every day, in town centres around the country, purely for pulling on the uniform to serve and protect us. The dangers they face in situations such as the wave of demonstrations by the EDL and other groups sweeping the country or simply at a football match on a Saturday afternoon are such the most of us will never begin to imagine.

While it is fair and correct that the bad apples and guilty are sought out and punished we must not penalise the entire police force. They deserve respect and gratitude for their endeavours in keeping us safe in our homes and on the streets or we would live in a vigilante wild west.

21/08/13

                          Life for a life?

On the 23^rd October 1983, Suzanne Laitner planned the most memorable day of her life- her wedding. It was to become the most memorable day of her life for a very different reason. Hours after her wedding reception, her parents Basil and Avril Laitner were murdered in their home. Her brother Richard was also stabbed to death and her 18 year old sister raped at knife point by Arthur Hutchinson. Hutchinson, who was already wanted for rape and had spent 5 years in prison for attempting to murder his brother-in-law, was sentenced to life imprisonment in September 1984. It was recommended that he spend at least 18 years behind bars, meaning he could have been released in 2002.

Former home secretary Leon Brittan placed Hutchinson on a list of prisoners, whose life sentences should mean life, meaning he would probably never be released.

Hutchinson appealed the sentence, his solicitors arguing that an actual life sentence was in breach of the treble murderers' human rights. In July this year the European Court of Human Rights ruled that it was inhuman and degrading to never have the possibility of parole and was indeed in breach of his human rights.

In August 1985 25 year old Jeremy Bamber shot dead his adoptive parents and sister along with her 6 year old twins. He was given 5 life sentences for the crimes which prosecutors said he carried out for inheritance money. He claimed and still pleads to this day his innocence. Like Hutchinson, Bamber also claimed the sentence breached his human rights and the European Court of human rights has ruled in his favour also.

The government now has six months to respond to Strasbourg’s rulings.

These rulings by the ECHR begs the question, should life mean life? Should a man or woman convicted of crimes like these be locked up until they die, or should their human rights be protected and their liberty granted at some point? If killers like Hutchinson and Barber are freed by Strasbourg what message would it send to criminals? Would it lead to prisoners such as serial killer Peter Sutcliffe, who murdered 13 women in the ‘80s and is serving 20 life sentences having the right to appeal?

Some will no doubt say that if we take away the civil liberties and breach the human rights of murderers, then we are no better than them. They will argue that the fact we have the decency to grant these people their dignity is what grants us the right to sit in judgement. There will, inevitably, be those who say everyone deserves a second chance and prison should be about rehabilitation.

There will also be those who say an eye for an eye, a life for a life. Some might say the likes of Bamber, Hutchinson and Sutcliffe should be executed. There are still many people who believe that the death penalty should be brought back for crimes such as these.

Some opportunist political voices will use this story as proof that we should get out of Europe and make our own rules.

 Personally, I can see a case for all of these arguments but ultimately, we must treat even the most savage of criminals like human beings. It is wrong to intentionally take another life under any circumstances. It is wrong to deprive someone of their dignity, even if they have deprived others of theirs. It is vital that we show humanity and compassion to people convicted of the most terrible crimes if we are to protest when other countries do not treat prisoners the way we would like them to. If we are to be held aloft as an example of fairness and decency as a nation, then we need to demonstrate this to our monsters, not just our petty criminals.

 That said, I also believe that some people are incapable of rehabilitation, and even aged in their 70’s pose a threat to the general public. One would hope that these people would not be released but that should be for the parole board to decide, not a single home secretary.



update 27/2/14

 

In August last year the European Court of Human Rights ruled that all convictions should be reviewed after 25 years. This ruling would mean that whole of life sentences – with no possibility of release would no longer be allowed, putting hold some high profile cases, such as soldier Lee Rigby’s killers.

Last week a panel of five judges backed the principle of whole life terms, overturning the Strasbourg decision. It said that the ability to pass whole-life orders was entirely compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court increased the 40 year minimum term handed to Ian McLoughlin who murdered a good Samaritan during a robbery while on day release from prison, to a whole-life tariff. Even McLoughlin, who was on day release from a life sentence for a 1992 murder, said the family of victim Graham Buck, deserved to know that he would die in prison. McLoughlin had previously served 10 years for manslaughter after beating a man over the head with a hammer in 1984.

The court also rejected an appeal against a whole of life sentence given to Lee Newell, who murdered a child killer while in prison for a separate murder.

Tory MP, Dominic Raab said “the UK courts have definitively rejected the ludicrous ruling from Strasbourg demanding that the most dangerous criminals are given the chance to be freed. It is a victory for common sense and democracy- and shows the government is right to fight the human rights mission creep tooth and nail.”

 

 

There are currently forty nine prisoners serving whole-life sentences including Rose West and cop killer Dale Cregan.

Some would argue that the heinous crimes these people have committed should mean they are punished severely and should give up the right to their freedom for ever, along with any other rights such as voting.  Other more liberal people may argue that no matter what the crime there has to be a portion of rehabilitation to prison and one could argue that hope is an integral part of that process. If we are simply punishing, and are to throw away the key, then there is little chance of (or point to) rehabilitation.

If we are to say once convicted of serious crime we give up on you and you in turn give up your rights to be treated like a human being then surely we are no better than the cold blooded killers we seek to punish.

I’m not saying set them free- far from it. I think stiff sentencing is crucial as a deterrent and to say we as a society will not tolerate this behaviour but to take away all hope will lead to desperation. Desperate people do desperate things. There should be a minimum term with a review to follow. The word review does not guarantee freedom but gives hope. If in forty years’ time these people are still a threat to the public or if they fail to show any remorse then they should be kept locked up- that simple.

I fear too many people will use this case to bang the drum for getting out of Europe. We always hear that parliament is sovereign meaning it makes its own laws so the EU argument ought to be irrelevant but whether in Europe or not we simply cannot remove all hope and dignity from people in prison.  Again, I’m not advocating Xbox and movie night, I’m saying if you take away a person’s rights completely you will only make a bigger monster.

 There are people alongside the life term prisoners who have not committed such crimes. Some are purely victims of circumstance and have a second chance on release. People who have all rights and all hope taken away have nothing to gain from behaving and nothing to lose from not. The less dangerous criminals locked up alongside such caged animals will be at risk of never rehabilitating either and may even continue to commit crimes in jail, leading to longer sentences like in the case of Lee Newell. Other young vulnerable prisoners will also be at risk of being radicalised by the two men jailed this week for the horrific killing of Lee Rigby.

We need to make a decision whether we want our prisons to places of rehabilitation and education, providing offenders with a chance of life after prison or simply a nasty place to punish criminals we have given up on as a society.

London underground was brought to a halt today by Bob Crow and the RMT union. The dispute is over government plans to cut 950 jobs and remove ticket offices. They say only 2% of the public use the offices and closing them would save £40m. London Mayor Boris Johnson condemned the action and called for new laws to outlaw striking. While many have great indifference outside of London, the government and large portions of the media were also less than supportive of Crows action. The RMT however claims that Johnson refused to negotiate and would not meet to discuss the plans, despite him claiming during his election campaign that he was against closures of ticket offices. 

This year marks the 30^th anniversary of the miner’s strike. Thatcher’s government claimed at the time that it planned to close 20 pits. NUM leader Arthur Scargill, claimed the Tories and National Coal Board chairman Ian MacGregor had a secret hit list to close 75 mines.

American industrialist, Sir Ian Kinloch MacGregor, was hired by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to run the coal board after originally bringing him in to cut 177,00 Steel worker’s jobs to 71,000 in less than four years. It cost the Tory Government £1.8m to free MacGregor from his Lazard’s contract. In March ’83 MacGregor was installed as Chair of the NCB to the opposition of Scargill, who was less than happy with the Americans business methods and the reputation he had gained closing the steel works.

Thatcher’s plan had little to do with economical ideology and a lot to do with political ideology. She deliberately set about dismantling the coal industry because she wanted to crush the trade unions.

In March of 1984 Scargill brought his members out on a long and bitter strike. MacGregor wrote to every miner denying Scargill’s claims that 75 pits faced closure.

Not only did the actions of the Thatcher government and the strike action of Scargill affect the industry, it wreaked absolute havoc on communities up and down the country, many of which still have not recovered.  In the early ‘80s jobs were already scarce (not helped the steel work closures),  and many villages were full of school leavers who’s only intention was to work down the mines like their fathers, and their fathers’ fathers’ before them. Some villages relied almost exclusively on the local pit for any form of employment and without the pits most other local businesses would not have survived.  So when these communities were fighting for their survival, some families could not cope with hard ship any longer and crossed the picket lines and returned to work. They were called scabs by the pickets and feuds broke out which linger and fester to this day. Such were the emotions of the times that on Lady Thatcher’s death last year, many villages threw parties.  During the dispute there were scenes of serious brutality from Police drafted in to marshal the sites.

On the 18^th of June ’84, the NUM arranged a mass picket at a coking plant in South Yorkshire; the NUM had 5,000 members from across the UK travel to Orgreave in an attempt to temporarily force the closure of the pit.

 Many claim that the notorious Battle of Orgreave was an ambush. The pickets were guided to a field where they were surrounded by Police.  The 5000 miners were outnumbered by 8000 police officers deployed from 10 counties. They included over 50 mounted officers and 50 dogs. Those beaten and arrested that day included journalists, members of the public, teenagers and miners who had turned up to exercise their right to peaceful demonstration. In 2001 a biography by a former  M15 director general, admitted that the organisation had tapped the phones of union leaders, which possibly led to the carnage that day.

 The excessive violence and brutality metered out by the Police that day resulted in South Yorkshire Police being forced to pay out half a million pound in compensation in 1991.

The miners finally returned to work, exhausted by extreme poverty,   after almost a year without wages, on the 3^rd of March 1985, having lost the battle, although around 87% of miners in Yorkshire remained on strike to the end.  Pit closures followed to the point where today there are only a handful of mines in operation.

National archive records recently released prove that Scargill was in fact right in his claims that the Government intended to close 75 pits at a cost of 75000 jobs in a plot to dismantle the trade union movement.

following the release of the papers, Tory leader David Cameron has refused to apologise to the families of miners, insisting it is Scargill and the Labour party that should apologise.

His cold and callous attitude proves that Tory ideology has not changed and that the party is still in favour of privatising the nation to benefit their millionaire donors while wrecking the lives of the workers and the trade unions.

India and Pakistan’s appalling record of sexual violence against women continues to be dragged further down as reports surface of yet another gang rape case.  The world was shocked and outraged when a 22 year old woman was gang raped in New Delhi, so violently that she died in 2012, but in some ways this latest story is even more shocking.

The “punishment” of being gang raped was ordered by a village elder after the 20 year old victim was accused of an illicit affair with a man from another village. 12 men were arrested for the horrific assault after the woman’s family were unable to pay the 25,000 rupees fine imposed by the kangaroo court.  

The woman was allegedly assaulted in public view by several men of varying ages as other dwellers stood by and did nothing to help her.

Despite laws being tightened after the fatal gang raping in New Delhi, and the subsequent death penalty imposed on the attackers, the alarming regularity of gang rape seems to be on the increase.

 

Amazingly, a female politician in India recently sparked fury when she implied that gang rape victims invited the attacks by their clothes and behaviour. Asha Mirje, who is a member of the state women’s commission said this week, “rapes take place because of a woman’s clothes, her behaviour and her presence at inappropriate places”. She went on to question whether the student killed in the New Delhi case needed to go to a movie at 11pm.

Tribal courts in Pakistan and India are metering out gang rape punishments for a variety of crimes, some of which aren’t even committed by the woman attacked.

A 45 year old widow was allegedly gang raped by 6 men on the orders of a tribal council after her brother was accused of an affair with a woman in the village.

In a lawless part of Pakistan in separate incident, 4 women were shot dead by relatives, in what were described as honour killings after one of the women left her husband. Again, sadly this is not an isolated incident. The human rights commission of Pakistan says 943 women were killed in 2011 after “dishonouring” their families.

Another report claims that six men has been charged with murdering three men in honour killings after footage emerged of three men dancing with women at a wedding. The men in the video could not be located so instead their three brothers were killed. The report went on to say that the women are also believed to be dead, although their bodies have not been found.

Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that these are unusual and rare occurrences is sadly mistaken. With the ever growing multi- cultural society in this country, it is terrifying that this behaviour is acceptable in some cultures. If this despicable treatment of women and girls is allowed to continue in India and Pakistan unchallenged, it is inevitable that it will be replicated on the streets of Britain. I said before, following the New Delhi case that action needed to be taken and I am even more convinced following these recent events.

It’s not however a hopeless case where we can’t change this trend. The growing outrage of the watching world must swell until the authorities in these countries are forced to take action.  Tribal elders who give the orders for these vile crimes must be as severely punished as the actual rapists and a message has to be sent that the world will simply not tolerate the rape and murder of women.

Pakistani woman Mukhtaran Mai gained international recognition 15 year ago after she challenged taboos to fight back against her own gang rape. Following the successful conviction of her attackers she now runs rehabilitation for rape victims. Asian and Pakistani women should follow her example and help mould their own children’s future by teaching them that female lives have the same value as male lives. The attitude of men in these cultures has to change if the behaviour is to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages.

   All animals are equal but some still want to be more equal than others.

 

As someone who is often guilty of self-destruction and self-doubt, and occasionally self-loathing, my strongest passion is for equality. Thus, I find it extraordinary when I see almost any form of ism: racism, sexism, ageism, and homophobic behaviour are simply incomprehensible to me.

There has been much ado in the press this week, following the coming out of an ex footballer. While I don’t question the bravery of him for doing so, I wonder why it is such a big deal. In 2014 does it really matter to people what a man or woman does in his spare time? It isn’t illegal after all. A couple of weeks ago, olypic diver Tom Daley announced he was in a relationship with a man. Again, I have no doubt that it took a lot of courage for him to make the decision to discuss his sexuality but should any rational adult have a different opinion of the man, now we know he likes fellow human beings?

As a slave to twitter I see many comments from people who are very angry that men seem to value them less than they do their own gender, but the comments indicate that actually, it is not equality that is being sought, and they dislike men simply for being men. I wonder if this is less of a bad thing than the original insult.

I see people who talk constantly and exclusively about the colour of their skin. They seldom talk about their qualities or their beliefs except that people who happen to have paler or darker skin are somehow less worthy or have less right to wear certain clothing. I am in no way suggesting this more equal than others attitude is one sided. There are still people who believe that the colour of ones skin dictates whether one is good, bad or indifferent.

 It is a terrible cliché,but there is a song that goes “when the last thing we look for is the colour of skin and the first thing we look far is the beauty within. We shall be free”.  but what a novel idea..

There have been numerous reports of people abusing women on social network sites for suggesting that women should be featured on our currency. Why the hell should they not be featured and why the hell would any-one take exception to anyone suggesting such a thing? Can people really be so ignorant or stupid that they believe ones worth should be based on genitalia?

I myself have been critical of the rich and powerful on many occasions, as anyone who knows me will testify, yet I have no desire to see them have less rights than me, nor have I the desire to have more rights than they. Simply that we have equal right to opinion, education and other liberties.

I want to see more working class MP’s and more working class law professionals, but that does not mean I think that middle class and wealthy people should be excluded.

I wonder if by campaigning for more working class influence I am being driven by what I am and am I anti anything other than me? I hope the answer is no.

Will we ever see the day when we are all treated equally regardless of colour, religion, age, size, sexual orientation or disability or do the people who belong to those groups widen the gulf by the very act of trying to close it? The answer is no, the people who genuinely want to close the gap have a perfectly legitimate right to do so. it those who hide their own prejudice behind the safety of action groups who are the issue. Campaigning to curb immigration is another example. for years, no one dared discuss the issue for fear of being accused of racism. Now thanks to the emergence of Parties like UKIP, the argument is rightly out there and gives bigoted racist thugs a presentable façade to hide behind.  We will never have a truly equal, multi cultural, free of prejudice society while ever so many people have their own agenda of hatred but do not have the guts to admit it.










 

         
                                            

Get real, this is not reality!

What a bunch of winging, miserable whiners we are in this country. The current series of Celebrity Big Brother has so far attracted over 340 complaints. You might be forgiven for thinking that the complaints were about the absence of any actual celebrities, although former heavy weight boxing champ Evander Holyfield was in there at the beginning. Among the other celebs are a reality TV star, an 80 year old ,man who was once a regular on charades show Give us a clue, a once funny comedian, recently cleared of sex offences, an ex pop star, an ex sex addict, another former reality show runner up, another pop star who is openly skint and a journalist. The line-up though is not the reason for the complaints, it is the task the contestants were given. On Monday nights channel 5 show the house mates were told to produce a certificate 18 show to win prizes. The show consisted of dressing up and simulating sex, and writhing around a pole. TV watchdog Ofcom are said to be considering whether to take action or not.  Surely it would have been easier for the 340 complainants to take action. Is it not eternally easier to reach 6 inches for the remote control and turn the garbage off? By the time they had got their smart phones out and googled the complaints number they could have switched the drivel off and         watched something else.

 

The show has been pulling regular viewing audiences of over 2million. Obviously, these antics are designed to attract the voyeurs to tune in and the old adage that any publicity is good publicity will have the show’s producers rubbing their hands with glee.

Holyfield, who once had his ear bit off by former convict Mike Tyson, caused a flurry of complaints by making homophobic comments.

It is what it is; escapist TV, not designed to be intellectual, thoughtful, thought invoking or politically correct, it is designed to be controversial and outrageous and the people who are foolish enough to tune in should expect such. If people really don’t want to see this kind of behaviour on our screens, the answer is to not watch it. If it got no viewers they wouldn’t make another series. Sadly, people do want to see household names from four decades ago and no-marks enjoying their 15 minutes of fame, swearing, smoking, drinking and making a fool of themselves. For me, putting Tyson in the house with Holyfield or someone smacking Lee Ryan in the goolies with an elephant or something bigger might make it worth watching.

While viewers hurriedly dial the Ofcom number to complain that some unknown people on a TV show, aired after the watershed on the least watched channel on terrestrial TV other household names are appearing in court facing a procession of sex charges.

 Rolf Harris, Freddy Starr, Dave Lee Travis and of course, Coronation Street favourite Bill Roach, are all facing juries. With so many of famous people in the news accused of such terrible behaviour, why on earth are we surprised when some are locked up 24 hours a day and plied with alcohol, that they also misbehave?

Last year’s show received over 900 complaints. The second most complained about show on TV was ITV’s flagship X factor with most of the complaints coming after a raunchy performance by Lady Gaga, where she danced provocatively in an outfit made of sea shells. Considerably dwarfed by these figures was third place in 2013, with ITV’s News at ten coverage of drummer Lee Rigby’s horrific murder scene receiving just short of 300 complaints. Even daytime TV regular Holly Willoughby sparked 139 complaints for wearing a dress that showed too much cleavage.

The problem is of course, that once someone becomes vaguely famous we forget that they are real people. The media; TV and the press build up their reputations and have us believe that they are special, gifted phenomenon’s, only to set them up for an almighty fall. That’s the game. We are such a nation of do-gooding whingers that we fall for it every time.  They are not special, some of them may have special talents, some of them may be extremely fortunate but all of them are normal people (to begin with at least) hiding behind a huge mask of celebrity. We the viewing public are lured in and completely forget reality and buy into the absolute nonsense that we see on TV and in glossy magazines. We buy in so much that we believe that we can have that chiselled jawline or that beautiful wrinkle free forehead and even less wrinkled torso. We try to emulate the look of these people copying their dress wear and sadly, too often their ludicrous behaviour.