Decoding Brexit

Full disclosure here: I'm currently a British ex-pat living in Spain. For those of you who would like to discredit everything I say because of this fact, stop reading now.

Right that's the idiots out of the way. For the rest of you, I'd just like to say that my current living situation brings with it some bias on the subject of the EU. I acknowledge and accept that, but my opinion on Britain's membership of the EU has remained the same since even before my migration.

The EU Referendum is being relentlessly debated throughout the UK. There is literally nowhere to hide from the looming vote on the 23rd June, and everywhere we turn, reasons for Britain to leave or stay within the European Union are being shoveled down our throats faster than a toilet flush. It's exhausting. Issues such as immigration, the economy, world trade, worker's rights and sovereignty are dominating the debate inside and outside of parliament, but that's not all. There isn't a single aspect of British life that isn't being turned into ammunition for either side of the debate. Benefits, animal welfare, food prices, fishing management, holiday costs and fox hunting are just a handful of points being used to persuade people one way of the other. Often the same points are being used by both sides. I even seen someone pledge a vote to leave for fear of the EU destroying the sport of Airsoft. No wonder people are confused with all the fear-mongering and hysteria. 

When I started writing this piece, I wanted to critically analyse the facts in order to give a balanced review of the arguments being thrown around. The problem is that the facts are constantly being manipulated and misrepresented on both sides to influence the public. The truth is, in order to truly gain understanding of the issue, we need to be analysing the people giving us the information also. We need to understand the underlying motivations for leaving the EU, and remaining within the EU.

Ideologies

Political ideologies are strong motivators for manipulating facts, so I'll start with the ideologies guiding the arguments either side.

Conservatism

Conservatism can mean many things, but as a general principal can apply to those who resist change. In party politics, the conservatives seek to conserve capitalism, and the wealth of the Conservative party is a key factor. This one goal is the driving factor of the decision making process: Will leaving the EU help the capitalist economy? The Tories are divided on this, with recent statistics showing the Remain:Leave ratio at 171:131. (1)

The conservatives have had a history of causing riots and public outrage in the UK. In 1990, Margaret Thatcher resigned in the same year as causing the Poll Tax Riots.(2) Already we can see that there is a section of the working class that lacks confidence and trust in the current UK government led by David Cameron, so staying in power is another key objective. This is a possible cause of the split opinion amongst Tory cabinet members with a populist agenda.

Socialism

The socialist tendency factors into the debate for some of the members of the Labour party. Freedom of movement and multiculturalism are ideals that guide the centre-left, as well as a plan to reform the EU.
Referred to as the 'soft-left' by other left groups, this consists of a large percentage of labour. The wealth of Labour mps is a motivator here, as well as pressures from left groups such as Socialist Fight, who seek to influence Labour with socialist values. It is fair to note that there are many millionaire labour members also, so the comfort of a wealthy lifestyle can tempt individuals to abandon the root anti-capitalist ideals of socialist thought. Nevertheless the Remain:Leave ratio stood at 218:10 (1), so there is clearly more unity in the Labour camp. The furthering of political careers within the EU, has been suggested as a key motivator for decisions within Labour.

The Socialist Worker's Party are voting out with the Left-exit (Lexit) campaign in order for reasons opposing those of the Brexit campaign. The Lexiters are pushing for a stronger UK outside the EU, where worker's rights and public services are key, with an aim to dismantle the EU for being undemocratic and pro-capitalist.

Imperialism

British pro-imperialist ideology doesn't stop at the armed forces, there are large sections of the working class that take great pride in the British Empire, and smaller sections would see it restored to it's prime, so this is an obvious motivation for leaving the 'European superstate'. Though there is no strictly imperialist party, slogans 'Believe in Britain' tie in with imperialist philosophy.

Reformism

Reformists believe that the capitalist system can be reformed to make it fairer and better. In the case of the referendum, the reformists accept the flaws of the EU and seek to change it from within.

The Green Party seeks to protect free movement, and has a 'vision for a better Europe'. Reforming the EU seems to be their long term plan, so they are campaigning for a remain vote. The Green Party have been in power in other countries within the EU, and the EU proportional voting system makes it easier for smaller parties to get elected. Naturally, remaining in the EU would be beneficial to The Greens, who struggle to break the Lab/Con hold over UK votes.

Nationalists and Fascists

The far-right groups like the National Front, British National Party and English Defence League are fuelled by xenophobia and a sense of entitlement, and led by neo-nazi ideology. Needless to say they are voting out. The more socially acceptable nationalist groups like the UK Independence party also want out of the EU, and play on working class attitudes towards immigration to encourage a leave vote.

Anarchists

The anarchist ideology seeks to abolish all governments, so naturally this philosophy would lead to an out vote.

Pragmatics

Ideologies aside, there are practical consequences to the referendum, whichever way it goes. Pragmatism is defined by google as 'dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations'. Finding the relevant information to make a pragmatic decision is a task in itself, as ideologists use the information to fit with their own hegemony, and 'floating voters', for want of a better term, can be swayed by a single practical implication of the referendum. I've examined a few of the arguments for either side.

Immigration

UKIP uses immigration to convince voters to vote leave, and mainstream newspapers like The Daily Mail reinforces anti-immigration attitudes by persistently displaying migrants in a negative light. Immigration rarely strays far from the UK media. Concerns that foreign migrants seeking asylum are responsible for unemployment, crime and terrorism are being preyed upon by even the centre-right 'Out' camp. The debate about whether net immigration is good for the economy is another, more complicated factor here.

Net Migration UK

Immigration into the UK has risen this last decade according to the National Office of Statistics, though the latest quarterly report shows a decrease from last year. (1) There is a debate amongst politicians and businesses about whether net immigration is good for the UK economy.

A 2015 Economics Help article used statistics from the ONS to gauge the issue, evaluating the impact of net immigration on the UK economy, though it is somewhat inconclusive in that it raises more questions than answers. (see the article here). It concludes that house prices are pushed up by net immigration, but many variables have to be considered when establishing the impact on the UK economy. (2) The Open Borders Manifesto is made up of practicing economists, and while it's true a minority believe in truly open borders (an ideological belief), many members agree that immigration is key to economic health. (3)

The immigration factor also has a flip side, British emigration. Although the net figure takes Brits living abroad into account, the argument for leaving the EU does little to secure the lives of British expats (760,000 have lives in Spain alone). Mariano Rajoy has stated that Brits in Spain will forfeit rights to live in the EU should Brexit go through. (4) True this could be a scare tactic, but the uncertainty is stark.

In the case of Gibraltar, who thrive due to a relatively open border with Spain, the decision will have very direct consequences. Returning to the days of Franco's closed border might seem unrealistic to some in the UK, but to those Gibraltarians who still remember those days, it is a very real fear. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar Fabian Picardo has expressed his fears that Spain will push for sovereignty should Brexit go ahead. (5) The latest polls in Gibraltar show that many share Picardo's concerns.

Sovereignty

The idea of sovereignty has become more and more emotive as the campaign has started. The idea that unelected bureaucrats run the EU, passing laws that apply to the UK is one of the main arguments against the EU. The nationalists and the fascists are jumping on this band-wagon, as well as the Lexiters and the SWP.
Laws in the European Parliament are proposed by the European Commission, then voted on by the European Parliament. (6) This is very similar to the House of Lords and the process used to implement laws in the UK, so those who are voting against the EU purely on a basis of democracy and not xenophobia, should be protesting the House of Lords also. That's fine for the Lexiters of course, who already oppose the House of Lords for it's unelected membership. (7)

The Brexiters are spreading that 'most of our laws are made in Brussels', but when you look into the facts, the analysis is murky at best, which percentage figures ranging from 10% to 70%. (8)

Trade

Europe is the UK's biggest market, receiving over half of all British exports. (9) The worry here is that if Britain leave the EU, we will lose access to this single common market. The argument is that the EU is restricting our trade opportunities with our countries and continents, though Britain does have trade agreements with North America and Africa.

Whilst it is true trade agreements can be reached without EU membership, there is a degree of uncertainty for what's to come. Both sides of the debate are using Norway as an example, the leave camp are using Norway as an example of how a trade deal can be reached without EU membership, whilst the remain camp are pointing out that Norway a contribution for permission to trade with the EU, without receiving the benefits of membership. (10)
NHS

The NHS is an issue close to many people's hearts, though it is unclear what effect the vote will have, considering current Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt co-authored a book calling for privatisation of the NHS. (11) Private healthcare is rife throughout Europe, so the question is, who will privatise the NHS quicker? The UK Government or the EU Parliament. (12) The same applies for the TTIP, it is unclear whether a 'leave' will actually help fight the TTIP, or whether it will be easier to implement.

Opinion

Calling it Lexit instead of Brexit and saying it's for different reasons, will still have the same result. Lexiters argue leaving now will dismantle the EU, yet ignore claims that it will legitimise right wing ideas and make life worse for Britain's working classes. Denouncing 'fortress Europe' by abandoning it will only serve to distance the British working class from European struggle, and the gap is already quite huge. It may even lead to a 'fortress Britain' scenario.

I've seen individuals from far left groups launching diatribes against left-wingers who are voting to remain. It's ironic that the same people who constantly call for unity and solidarity are dividing the left with their inability to hold a constructive debate without resorting to name calling and intellectual snobbery.

The right-wing Brexiters want out of the EU to stop immigration primarily. The left-wing Lexiters wish to dismantle the EU. The common denominator here is that both are approaching the referendum from an emotional or ideological perspective. Just like suggesting that all governments are abolished overnight, there are practical considerations being ignored. Putting the working class standard of living at risk just to take a stand against the EU is irresponsible, meanwhile the far-right are waiting in the wings, ready to reverse or amend certain worker's rights legislations to benefit business.

Fear is a big motivation throughout this campaign. The far-right fear 'Islamification' and terrorism, peddled by mainstream media and political agendas, while the far-left fear 'Fortress Europe'. Ideologically, a self-governing nation is a goal to strive for, but the cost would outweigh the benefit at this time. Waves of strikes across the EU are being brandished by Lexiters to reinforce their Eurosceptism, though on the contrary it shows that political movement is possible and current within the EU. The same comrades who applaud Podemos are suggesting a move that distances the UK working class further from EU struggle. It's almost like certain sections of the revolutionary left are looking for a working class victory, any victory, even if it means aligning with the far right. A Brexit victory, even if we call it Lexit, will still legitimise xenophobia amongst the working class.

With the uncertainty that a Brexit victory would bring, I think that it would be better to have influence on both institutions, the UK government and the EU Parliament.

Information is being manipulated to buy votes from both camps, trying to adapt to working class hegemony. On the 23rd of June, we shouldn't be making an ideological choice, but a pragmatic one. I believe that remaining within the EU will benefit the working class more than leaving.






1. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946
2. https://libcom.org/files/poll-tax-rebellion.pdf
3. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6399/economics/impact-of-immigration-on-uk-economy/
4. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/02/brexit-vote-could-affect-brits-right-live-in-spain-spanish-pm-mariano-rajoy
5. http://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-would-destroy-gilbraltar/
6. http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/procedures/index_en.htm
7. http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-appointment/
8. https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/
9. http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-exports/
10. http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financial-contribution/#.V2PPl7srLIU
11. https://whatwouldvirchowdo.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/weve-found-jeremy-hunts-book-and-yes-he-does-want-to-privatise-the-nhs/
12. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/how-the-nhs-is-being-dismantled-in-10-easy-steps-10474075.html

Congratulations to Lorna Rider

Like most people, I have my school friends on Facebook.

Politically, I'm very revolutionary. Coming from a Catholic school I have never taken much interest in the posts that my old school 'friends' decide to share. That's not to say that all my old school attendees are particularly conservative, I'm sure many of them have opened their eyes to the world we live in. It's just that I never see it. Perhaps they never share their anguish at the system we live under. Perhaps it is because most do not care.

Either way, it is always refreshing when I see someone from my school life actively participate in political situations. Unfortunately it rarely happens.

So I want to take this opportunity to congratulate someone I was at school with.

Lorna Rider, to me was just a 'goth girl' that I went to school with. You know the type, black hair, lots of make-up and generally on the outside of the 'norm'. Being somewhat esoteric myself, I never judged.

She grew up to be a nurse, a dedicated one at that. I've seen lately many posts in support of the junior doctors strike, fighting to save the NHS, but never from my old school friends, not until I started seeing Lorna's posts.

So I commend Lorna, for standing up to the current Tory goverment's plans to privatise the NHS. I commend her for having the courage to stand up in public and say what is on the mind of most NHS staff. It makes me proud to see that others care, and it gives me hope for the next generation.

Well done Lorna, good for you. 

I hope you can all see this link, Lorna standing up for all of us

https://www.facebook.com/truthrecords87/posts/1132459526784708

Today's good deed

I've been casually learning Spanish now for about a year. By casually I mean I've been doing a Spanish lesson daily for nearly three months (The smartphone app named Duolingo) During my whole journey of learning, I've always told people I can't speak Spanish. Anyone who's tried learning a foreign language for the first time can testify that a large part of it is confidence. Confidence in speaking the language being learnt.

I've tried throwing myself into Spanish speaking situations, which mainly involved asking for things in shops; asking for directions; trying to listen to Spanish conversations; but when you live in a mostly English speaking area, it is easy to fall back on English and not bother with Spanish. I have met so many people who have lived in Spain for decades without speaking a word of Spanish.

I never wanted to be one of those people. I wanted to be able to communicate with the locals. I wanted to show that I was in fact making an effort.

So today, in Gibraltar, I walked past an elder Spanish lady who was struggling with two big, wheeled carriers, and two shopping bags. I walked past normally as most people did, then I turned back and asked her if she wanted some help, in Spanish. She was thrilled and took me up on the offer.

This was at Eroski, which is a few minutes from the border. I got to practice my Spanish, and as I'd had a bit to drink, I was quite confident. I managed to have a few conversations and I worked out where the lady was going. I deduced that she was 66 years old (because she told me in Spanish) and I even told her my age. I ended up walking her to the bus station in La Linea, for which she was very grateful. I spent about half an hour with this Spanish stranger, and not a minute of it felt awkward.

Anyway, I wanted to share this in case I ever forget. There have been times in my life where I have struggled to carry a weight. (quite literally), and to a certain degree I believe that one 'reaps what they sow' in life, and if I was in this lady's situation, I would certainly appreciate help, regardless of whether they spoke perfect Spanish or not. That is why I wanted to help. I guess in a way I wanted to prove that language barriers aren't as much of an issue when it comes to human goodness.

I feel good about my deed. Maybe it will come back to me one day, maybe not. Either way, I am happy with the way I feel about it, and I'd gladly do it again.

Modern Poets

I haven't always been a fan of poetry, and for many years, I didn't see the appeal in either reading or writing poetry. Mostly because I didn't understand, and partly because my scepticism led me to thinking that the non-fiction side of arts was a pretentious con. I would see paintings and arrangements that made no sense to me, and I would wonder if there really was any meaning behind the work, or whether the artist merely threw colours at a canvas, letting the audience choose the meaning.


When a piece of art is released to the world, the artist has a message or a story to tell. It means something, as intended by the creator of said art work. When the audience admires the work, because the meaning behind the piece has not been explained, the audience gives the work a meaning, by analysing and studying the piece. This means the same work of art can in fact be interpreted different ways, and can invoke conflicting emotions in different members of the audience.



I had the wonderful privilege of attending an Arts By Offenders exhibit, hosted by the Koestler Awards at Southbank in London a few years back. One of the pieces, was an A5 piece of paper with a formula on it.

Z + Y = X

x = horse in formaldehyde

y = a gullible idiot 

z = lots of money

It was sold for around £50, and I can only imagine the convict sitting in his cell, chuckling to himself.

Though it was somewhat of a satirical art piece, in my opinion it was more valid than some works I've seen over the years. First of all it had a clear meaning and message from the artist. There was something of his/her personality that shone through this piece vividly, a kind of narcissistic personality with a disdain for pretentious art, a sceptical, even suspicious mind. Secondly, it clearly struck a chord with the buyer. Perhaps the wit of the piece impressed an art lover, or perhaps the buyer agreed with the message it contained.




Getting back to poetry, it's similar to visual art in the sense that it requires a certain level of decoding or analysing. So I've always found rap an interesting creative art. The way an mc or rapper (I don't know the difference) collates words into an aural art piece takes skill, creativity and a seasoned vocabulary. Having the confidence to shorten, lengthen or even amalgamate words is also a must. The content within rap tends to be much darker than other forms of poetry, and the contemporary issues speak to a wide range or audiences. NWA spread the bitter tune of police brutality throughout America. Immortal Technique acknowledged worldwide struggle from an urban angle. Eminem has powerful poetic lyrics up there with the greats.

So I'll say it, there are rappers out there who are modern poets, worthy of the same respect as the likes of Whitman, Poe and Browning.

Anyway, in true traditional rant style I've wandered from one point to the next, so I'll end by mentioning one of the rising stars of modern rap. Head over to my poetry page for a listen (because he is a poet), or click the link below.

Spit-E-Zen

PDSA Promote Animal Slavery

Lucca, a US. Marine Corps. German Shepard, has been awarded the PDSA Dickin Medal after losing his leg in an explosion and being forced into early retirement, after being forced into war zones for over a decade. The news report that I saw recently showed Lucca 'proudly' displaying his medal. Personally I'm not convinced that dogs feel pride, but that is besides the point here.

Lucca may have lost a leg, but at least he got a medal. That'll keep him occupied when he's rotting in a kennel.

What is more concerning is that an 'animal welfare' charity, PDSA, would promote and encourage the exploitation of animals for military purposes and thus furthering the suffering of animals. From looking at their website, it is difficult to see any mission statement other than 'help a vet help a pet', so the PDSA seems to lack any real long-term goals. 'Encouraging responsible pet ownership' doesn't quite cut it if they aren't actively discouraging the pet industry. It leads me to believe that these kind of charities are merely around to legitimize abhorrent practices such as using animals for war and promoting pet ownership for the purpose of aiding the veterinary industry.

PDSA had this to say on their website and Twitter: "Lucca has become a symbol of hope for many, meeting the public at military outreach events."

Perhaps, I'm being ignorant here, but what symbol of hope? Hope that by sending animals to their death in a foreign country will somehow protect domestic innocents? We are told that no US soldier was killed whilst Lucca was on tour, so the service dog gets to live the rest of his days out in retirement, likely in a kennel if he can't be re-homed. That's if they don't kill him.

Brus wasn't so lucky:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/540010/Military-Dogs-Destroyed-MOD


Still it's no surprise that an army would destroy an animal once it's outlived it's usefulness, they are just as bad with their humans, sacking people hours before their pensions and failing to help soldiers adjust to society. Just ask any one of the numerous ex-soldiers that end up sleeping rough on park benches in Civvie Street, who are usually bullied away by the police.

Handed in my notice today - Hope my boss has a sense of humour

Quick Update

Some months have passed since I last posted anything, not for lack of enthusiasm, just lack of time. This year so far has been very productive and there are many exciting things in the pipeline which will go live very soon. The copyright agreements with some of my old material has now expired, so I’ll be uploading them shortly too.

In the meantime, if you’re craving a fix of whatever my mind spits out, sign up to my page on the Channillo writing platform. I have a comic-esque short story series, The Heroes of New Rec, that is really taking off now, but don’t threat if you feel you’ve been missing out, just sign up today and you’ll get all back issues of the series as part of the subscription. So if you fancy supporting your favourite writer (that’s me by the way), get over to www.channillo.com

Alternatively, click the link below for a cheesy picture of me with my Channillo biography.

 http://channillo.com/user/1631/

Until next time…

London - Sydney in Four Hours: What the Media Missed

At the beginning of November, the papers were reporting that a plane capable to reaching Sydney, Australia from London, UK in just four hours. This was too exciting not to look into. So here's what happened.

The UK government recently promised £60million to Reaction Engines in order to build the Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine, also known as SABRE, a plane that can theoretically travel from London to Sydney in four hours. The hybrid engine will be able to function in both in space and within the Earth's atmosphere and can reach just under 4,000mph. Reaction Engines have been designing this for twenty years, so why is this big news? And what does it mean for the rest of us?

According to the media, a full ground based test is planned for 2020. This is good news. We'll probably have to add another decade onto that before we see them in public use. Even 15 years will fly by. This has great potential for global tourism and commerce, making those long gruelling 24-hour flights to Australia a thing of the past. Maybe.

Passenger Flights

When it comes to passenger flights, I suspect one of two things will happen:

Prices will be astronomically high, standard flight prices will be roughly the same.

This will be true if these new planes are only sold to a select few airliners. Reaction Engines is a British company, so it is possible that the UK will have a monopoly over this product and service, which would explain why the £60mil investment has been granted in a 'debt-ridden' country. 

Prices will be reasonably high, but will push standard flight prices down.

If Reaction Engines open their business to other countries, we should hopefully see competition and government policy keep prices reasonable. With such short journeys to anywhere in the world, every government of a developed country will want a piece of the action. Trade and tourism are major financiers of large cities, which are a huge proportion of the economy. 

Space Flight

Looking a bit further forward, here is a great opportunity for public space flight.

The hybrid engine brings commercial space flight that little bit closer. Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic has encountered a few pitfalls in its plan to get the public to space, with the original deadline passing 8 years ago. With governments paying attention and investing in this technology, I may theoretically be able to see the Earth from the Moon in my lifetime, though I doubt I'd be able to pay for it in my lifetime. 

Skepticism

Sounding too good to be true, I couldn't resist digging a little deeper to find that... actually, no-one beyond the media has mentioned space flight. In fact not much of the intention of this investment has been released at all. We all seem to be assuming that this will be used primarily as a tourism and therefore economical boost, but it seems the 'London to Sydney in four hours' statement it merely just a comparison showing how fast the place will be able to fly. So all of this excitement about boarding a UK flight in the morning and stepping off the plane in Australia in the afternoon may be for nothing. Reaction Engines are open about what they can achieve with this project, and on one news item on their site tells us that the UK are investing in order to 'investigate it's application for space access vehicles', so there is a shred of hope for public space flight. However, the same news item also shows us a red flag, something we should really be talking about rather than fantasizing about short flights down under.

BAE Systems invests over £20million in Reaction Engines

That's right, back in November, the giant Defence company BAE Systems invested £20.6million and agreed to a working collaboration in order to speed up development. Oh and they also now have a 20% stake in Reaction Engines. Take one look at the BAE Systems 'What We Do' page and tell me what this new technology will be used for. Services include: Design, manufacture, upgrade and support combat aircraft, land combat vehicles, ships, military electronics, oh and of course HR and IT. Looking at their website, it's hard to find any service that doesn't contain the word 'military'. Though under the 'Future Technologies' tab, we see the statement:

"Partnering with academic and industrial leaders we develop new technologies to support our future product strategies."

Future product strategies eh? Unless BAE Systems is planning on entering the commercial travel industry, I think we can put our 4-hour dream flights to Australia on the back burner.

History has taught us, unfortunately, that technological advances aren't always used for the good of everyone. I have yet to see a constructive use for nuclear weapons (though this article gives a few ideas). The military-industrial complex will inevitably have big plans for this technology. 

We can only hope for (and work towards) a day where military and security companies do not hold such influence over the technologies that come to pass.

To Bomb or not to Bomb

Two days ago the UK government carried out airstrikes on Daesh targets in Syria, sparking mass debate across Europe. With phrases like 'terrorist sympathiser', 'Iraq all over again' and 'Western hypocrisy' being banded around, this is an issue that has divided a nation. A survey conducted by Survation showed that 48% of people backed the decision, which is only a slight minority. So what are people saying?

Tory politicians and certain sections of the working class are both calling for action, arguing that inaction is a threat to security. We'll cover that later. People that lean against the airstrikes argue that thousands of innocent people will die as a result of the decision made in parliament. While Western governments claim that modern laser-guided missiles reduce civilian casualties, they aren't entirely sure how many targets have been killed, as they aren't any ground troops counting the dead. US estimates vary by source, so in actual fact, they do not know who they are killing, but yet they claim to be killing them more accurately. Innocents will die and while no-one is denying that, pro-war advocates unempathetically state it is necessary, caring not for the lives of the innocent. Either that or they have the grave prejudice that all Syrians are terrorists. Let's look at that.

Daesh is a Sunni Muslim extremist organisation, and 70% of the Syrian population is made up of Sunni Muslims, though not necessarily Daesh supporters. In fact latest estimates put the strength of Daesh at 200,000 soldiers. When compared with the 20 million citizens in Syria, that tells us that 1% of Syria is a Daesh militant. According to this statistic, it follows that for every thousand Daesh extremists killed, 99 thousand innocent lives will be lost. In reality this figure would of course be subject to many variables, but simplistically, a lot more innocents will die. A poll from the Pew Research Centre has shown that there is an overwhelmingly negative view of Daesh within their countries of operation. Considering that Daesh has support from a minority of people, a relentless attack on Syria by the western alliance is nothing short of genocide.

The less politically-aware pro-war supporters seem to be under the impression that Daesh has come out of no-where, a problem that needs to be nipped in the bud, but it's no secret that the US has been funding Daesh for years to destabilise middle eastern governments. Tony Blair even admitted that he believes that the Iraq war contributed to the rise of Daesh, in an interview recently. This is where the Western hypocrisy element comes in, for the same nations fighting extremism are the same ones that have fanned the flames that led to this inferno.

Far from watching events unfold from a distance, Western governments are an active contributor to the terror attacks.

Politicians congratulated each other and declared the UK a safer place now thanks to the decision, which is a declaration of ignorance more than anything. After the collateral damage that the bombs will inevitably cause, Daesh recruitment will sore as mentioned in my previous blog post (The Fake Passport: Theories and Ideas Surrounding the Recent Co-ordinated Terror Attacks), by giving the Daesh struggle legitimacy. The moderates won't be so moderate once their families are massacred by Tornado jets. When we consider the influx of Syrian refugees, it isn't hard to imagine that bombing Syria will make the UK a far more dangerous place. Ask yourself this, if the UK is now safer because the government bombed Syria, why is the current UK threat level 'severe'? The Survation survey mentioned earlier also showed that 59% of people believe that sending planes to Syria would increase the risk of a terrorist attack in the UK

Another question of note, where is all the money coming from? When the UK's debt is used as an excuse for the stifled NHS, why is this not a factor when considering acts of war? War is an expensive business, and while profit can be made it takes a big investment. It seems the UK government can magic up some funds when it comes to killing foreigners, but not to house it's own citizens and cover healthcare.

When it comes down to it, despite resistance from the public, including a Stop the War Coalition protest outside the debate at the House of Commons, the UK government have proved again that they will go to war as and when they please with or without consent of the public. In 2003 it was Labour with Iraq, now it is Conservative with Syria. Members of both parties voted for both wars, showing just how out of touch with each other these politicians are, let alone the public. That and the media's treatment of Jeremy Corbyn shows just how low this Demockery has stooped. With the mainstream media spreading fear on a daily basis, legitimising the decision for war, it's no wonder there are many people backing the decision. If Iraq is anything to go by however, public backing will only decline as the death and misery ensues. My thoughts are with the victims in Syria in their dark times.

Stop the War Coalition are holding a national demonstration. Click here for more details.

Football Fans and Facebook French Flag Filters

In the wake of the Paris attack, French flags are popping up all over Facebook as a symbol of solidarity with the French people who suffered at the hands of ISIS. Social pressure to include the Facebook encouraged red, white and blue filter on profile pictures mounted exponentially within hours, which is all well and good right? There's certainly nothing wrong with a little show of solidarity.

So why all the controversy? Why were Turkish football fans allegedly booing during a memorial minute's silence at a Turkey – Greece friendly football match?

The answer to this has been reconstructed by the right wing media to demonize Muslims, as per usual. The Daily Mail and The Sun have shone a dim light on a foreign culture they don't understand and used it to promote more hatred.

So that's the story they spin, Muslims everywhere are evil, but what's the flip side? What happens when we turn the light on?

As with most religions, there are various degrees of participants amongst the individual. It would be naive to think that there were no pro-ISIS members in the crowd, but it would be more so to believe that every one supported ISIS. Remember two bombs were detonated in Ankara on October 10th, so they have a recent reminder of the horrors of terrorism.

Explanations have now started to surface as to why this happened. Mustafa Ozsari, a Masters student, has given a thorough breakdown.

In short, it all comes down to culture. In Turkish culture, minute silences are rarely silent. Chanting can be heard throughout the crowd, a chant that respects the deceased and denounces the terrorists responsible. There's a funny irony that the people who claim that everyday Muslims should come out and denounce terrorism, yet when they do, it is misinterpreted thanks to an ignorant or conniving press. The chant 'Alluhu Akbar' was allegedly heard as The Daily Mail claims. In the video you can hear 'Şehitler ölmez, vatan bölünmez ', in English: 'Martyrs, they do not die (they are immortal), homeland (land, our land) is indivisible.'

There is another explanation. Turkish fans are upset with the hypocrisy of the Western world's ignorance towards similar attacks, specifically the attack in Ankara mentioned previously. This brings us back to the Facebook French Flag filter. There have been 298 terrorist attacks in 2015 so far. The highest death toll in a single attack has been over 2000, which happened between January 3rd and 7th in Nigeria. There weren't any Nigerian flags appearing on my news-feed then. In fact the Paris attack was the only attack that received this special attention.

When it comes down to it, these explanations seem contradictory, but in reality, people vary. It is probably that elements of both of these theories combine in the truth. Political views are different from person to person as much in Islamic countries as much as in Western civilizations, as does commitment to faith.

It is important to acknowledge that the Facebook French Flag filter users are not at fault here. Yes it is nice for the global stage to show this symbolic solidarity, the fault lies with Facebook. When the designer of the filter published this work, he was either horrendously ignorant to think that the Paris attack was an isolated incident, or he made a conscious decision and put a higher value on the lives of French people than people of other cultures. It is a starkly clear symbol that the world only cares when white westerners are murdered in the street.

The Fake Passport: Theories and Ideas Surrounding the Recent Co-Ordinated Terror Attacks

ISIS/ISIL have now claimed responsibility for three suicide attacks, and Brussels is now on lockdown due to an 'immediate threat'. First there was the takedown of a Russian airliner on October 31st, killing over 200 people. The western world reacted by, well, just getting on with their lives. Dead Russians aren't that important I guess. Then on the 12^th November, Lebanon suffered the worst attack since the civil war, I don't even remember seeing that in classical media, and there certainly isn't a Facebook option to put a Lebanese flag as a profile picture filter. Then of course, after the co-ordinated attacks on Paris on the 13^th of November, the rest world has been forced to weather the political storm that has arisen. The victims of this attack were white after all. Leaders, politicians, the media, bloggers, and anyone with a Facebook account, all have something to say on the matter. The discovery of a fake Syrian passport has led to pertinent questions and theories to arise. Be they valid arguments or wild conspiracy theories, here is a few of them.

Fake passport dumped by the ruling class/illuminati/aliens*

*delete as appropriate

As soon as the news report was released regarding a Syrian passport being found near one of the suicide bombers, people were cynical. It gave me a smile when I saw old school friends instantly question the authenticity of this claim, seeing the holes clearly on first glance. Whichever dominator you put into the equation (bourgeoisie, illuminati etc), whichever truth you believe, the theory is the same: someone placed the passport after the attack in order to use this information to sway opinion on refugees, tighten borders and increase both military and security funding. Whether this claim is substantial or not remains to be seen, but the motive is certainly there. Borders were instantly closed in France, and the security industry in the UK was given a huge injection of funds. With all the unanswered questions surrounding the 9/11 attacks in 2001, I suspect there is more to this story still to be revealed.

Regarding the immediately available facts, there were two initial questions I had: Why would a suicide bomber need a passport? And why was the passport not destroyed in the attack?

The second question can be resolved if we believe that the attacker with the passport was shot. Problem solved. The first question can be argued that the passport was used to cross borders legally. Fair enough, but something still doesn't add up there. Assuming the attacker used the passport to enter France, why would he need it for the attack? Surely he would have just destroyed it before leaving to meet the reaper. Which ever way you look at it, the passport placement was intentional. Which leads us into our second theory.

Fake passport intentionally taken by attacker

This one isn't too hard to believe. It makes sense that the presence of a Syrian passport would be taken to the attack, in order to encourage a racist backlash from western society. The government violence that follows acts of terrorism are predictable enough that the attackers themselves are aware of the consequences. The point is that when western society reacts by pointing anger at a particular country, it legitimizes any retaliation. Once a plan for retaliation or invasion is executed, that plan in turn legitimizes the ISIS cause. Civilians will be bombed and people will die, as with the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11, and consequently, the ISIS recruitment will increase. It's easier to convince people to fight for you when there is an external evil attacking their land.

Global media will inevitably provide evidence of this theory by reacting with anger. The Daily Mail already published a controversial cartoon reminiscent of Nazi propaganda (see below), and even when the Calais migrant 'jungle' was ablaze in the wake of the Paris attack, the same paper downplayed any reports of a far-right reactionary attack and still managed to blame refugees. For the devout believers of the Daily Mail will give this hegemony a working class edge. When elections come around, this will be the key issue that elects the next government.

(Top image: Daily Mail cartoon referring to the refugee crisis, showing refugee's walking alongside rats into the EU. Bottom image: Nazi propaganda cartoons likening Jews to rats.) Credit

The xenophobic and racist reaction hinges on one key piece of misinformation: that all Muslims are the same. Pointing to and vilifying Islam makes for a simple clear picture for the masses to buy into, regardless of how far it is from the truth. It is likely that the attack in Lebanon was played down for this reason, as Muslims were the target of this attack. The story of Adel Termos, the Muslim man who sacrificed himself by tackling a suicide bomber and saving many lives, was hard to find in the daily press, as this would clash with the false idea that Islam is a big evil monster intent on taking over the world, as opposed to the reality that beliefs and views held by followers of Islam are as divided as those between Catholics and Protestants. Religion may be used as a tool for thought control in war torn countries at present, by ignorance and misinformation are major instruments in the western world.

Zionist Israel has a part to play

Israel had a part to play in the attack. To start, there is no evidence of this, and as far as I know this isn't being discussed (at least outside neo-nazi circles) but there is a possible motive here. With France taking actions to recognize the state of Palestine in a two-state solution, and Spain issuing an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and six of his officials, it is clear that key members of the EU are looking at Israel.

So why would Israel help this horrific attack take place? Distraction.

It's not like these kinds of attack never happen in Israel's neck of the woods, quite the opposite, they happen everyday in the Gaza strip. A worldwide catastrophe would take the attention off of the Israel/Palestine conflict and the war crimes within, and potentially start a war.

Just an idea that one.

World War 3

Here's one more theory floating around. Paris was targeted and the passport was planted in order to start World War 3. With German Chancellor Merkel welcoming Syrian refugees with open arms, she blazed a trail the likes of which are few and far between, one of compassion (seemingly so at least). By increasing the terror alert in France and putting the blame on refugees, there is a chance that Merkel will be demonized for allowing 'potential terrorists' through the borders. A clash between France and Germany may divide Europe between left and right once again, and remember there is profit in war, though I think this result is highly unlikely.

So those are a few theories to be aware of as more evidence comes to light. The western world should show solidarity with the victims of these attacks, whatever colour their skin may be. We must also remember that the main goal of these attacks, whoever turns out to be involved, is fear. The fear of the masses is in the palm of their hands, but we must be strong and take an analytical and pragmatic approach to the situation that has occurred. Question all the stories you read, and question how the UK government can increase security funding with a crippled economy, but cannot sufficiently sustain the NHS, the privatization of which will take the back burner while this crisis dominates the papers. My thoughts are with all the victims of this tragedy, and with the sufferers of fear currently in Brussels.

I stopped caring... again

I recently started caring, and not in a good way. Don't get me wrong I care about a lot of important things: climate change, the state of the world, the health and well being of those I care about. As for myself, or rather, what others think of me, I've always tried not to care about that. I guess to some degree I did when I was younger. Teenage angst aside though , as an adult I've lived pretty well without requiring the fuel of outsider approval, because after all it's like sugar, gives you a boost of energy but nothing else.

Back to the point, I recently started taking my writing more seriously, meaning that I'm not just writing stories and blogging them, I'm entering competitions, applying for magazines and trying to get an audience. I decided to play the game for a while, I've even got Twitter. Unfortunately as a byproduct of this shameless self promotion, I've started out care about what other people think of my writing. I feel ashamed just writing this but I even went through my blog and deleted entries which I thought to be nonsense or crap.

A few days ago I added a blog entry when I was sitting out in the cold with a fever, and I was somewhat delirious. I probably revealed a tad too much about what I was thinking or feeling due to a reduced inhibition I tend to get when I'm ill. Despite the grammatical error in my Tweet that accompanied the post, I'm glad I took the time to write it. I hashed out some feelings I'd been having, and it had a very negative inclination.

I guess you could say this is the yang to that yin. The reason for my negativity because I threw myself into a deep pool of research on novel writing, marketing and publishing. I read posts and articles about paying editors, paying proof readers, paying writers, all to get said novel to a publisher and make it marketable. I read about publishing strategy, for example: how to get enough people to buy it in the release week so that it doesn't flop.

The information completely overwhelmed me. I didn't sign up for this. So much so that I started thinking about how my novel looks compared to bestsellers that are currently published. I started comparing my work to others, which was a mistake. My novel doesn't follow the same protocols and rules as others sometimes do. Sure there's a protagonist and an antagonist, but the truth is, I don't think it is marketable.

Yesterday I started to feel a little better, recovering from this infection that is. I went for a wander and began questioning what I wanted from this, and why I started writing. To be honest, of course I wanted the novel to sell, but let's face it, as a first time novelist it's unlikely. As great as it would be to be able to instantly become one of the 5% of writers who make a living out of writing, I doubt that will happen. I've proved to myself that I can write 15k words a week now, so if it came to it, I know I could write full time, that is, if I figured out how to create food out of thin air.

That doesn't mean I'm giving up. Far from it. I've just stopped caring again, which is an overwhelming relief. It has given me a renewed sense of vigor and it means I will write again without looking in the mirror that is my readers' eyes. When I started writing I didn't care what the readers thought of my writing, sorry readers, I didn't. It was gruesome, somewhat disturbing and peppered with dark truths, but it was my creation. I'm not going to spoil what I've spent so long creating, just to try and sell a few more copies. I'd rather be a cult classic than a bestseller.

So I'll finish it this week. I'll likely take some time away from it while I write my Channillo series, then edit it later this year, and try to get it published. In the mean time I'll try to resurrect my old blog posts, or at least have a rant more often. If you read my material and still like it, bless you. I like you already.

Thanks for reading.

Literary Vampire

I first started writing in an 8ft cell, turning the darkness around me into fiction. I sucked inspiration from my other peoples misfortunes and misdeeds, like a literary vampire. It was a mentor that made me push my writing to the next level, to open my eyes and attempt poetry and short stories. I even ended up visiting the Tate a few times as a free man, something I never thought I'd do as a child.

As I currently sit here at McDonald's opposite the Rock of Gibraltar, stealing their wifi without so much as looking at one of their filthy excuses for food, I'm doing as much research about book publication and self promotion as my laptop battery will let me. At the same time, I'm reflecting on the events that lead me to this point, feeling somewhat nostalgic. When life was sufficiently more terrible, it was also simpler. All I had to do was grab a pen and a piece of paper, card, tissue, whatever, and get writing. Now, I'm thinking about Twitter followers and marketing. Not to mention the hours upon hours or editing I've crawled through. As I reach the end of this novel I'm hitting a wall of doubt.

I find it a scary thought, unleashing a book upon the world. Onto the last chapter and I'm reluctant to finish. What exactly am I trying to say? Why did I start in the first place? Will anybody care either way?

Perhaps not, but in the end it will not matter. It was for me, and it will always be for me. If others like it then great. If not, I still wrote a novel.

Anyway, I feel somewhat ill so I think I'll return to the flat and make some dinner.

Thanks for listening... or reading.

Writing For The Sake Of It

A few days ago I learnt the importance of writing for the sake of it. I wrote about 2,000 words of a story, that ended up going on a tangent that I did not initially wish to pursue. Instead to creating a concise short story with a message I wanted to share, I ended up with a half arsed back story, written all over the place in different voices. It was crap. I mean, really crap.

Looking over it again now, it's still crap, but the one thing I can take form it is that I created a character. I created a back story that, although in the final short story will never really be revealed, it gives me a basis for the final product. In my head, it gives it authenticity, because I have spent more time creating the universe in which this story takes place, and I think that will show in the writing itself. I'll refer back to this blog when I post it, and you'll see what I mean.

In other news, I hit 65,000 words of my novel today. That's a lot of words, considering when I started this project it was only going to be around 36,000 words long.

But anyway, as promised I have uploaded a story. I cheated a little because I happened across an old story on my laptop, but it's a story nonetheless: storiesofabeautifullydisturbedmind.blogspot.com

I also uploaded a new poem that I wrote today. Enjoy it at: poemsofabeatifullydisturbedmind.blogspot.com

Short Break

I took a short break from my novel over the last couple of days. A relatively short one, considering previous 'short breaks' ranged from a month to a year. Due to a combination of drinking too much and researching too little, I felt I couldn't continue. So I decided to write a short story. I find short stories harder. Whereas a novel requires a higher amount of discipline, a short story requires more creativity. It's easy to tell a story in 100,000 words if you write every day, but not so easy to tell a whole story in under 5,000. Don't get me started on poetry. I got near the end of the short (only a couple of thousand words) reread it and decided I had written a load of shit. For some reason it didn't have the usual punch. This sent me on a self-doubting spiral, I started wondering which genre my novel would fit into when it's finished, and who the target audience would be. I started to wonder if this project I'd poured my spirit into would be any good.

Anyway, I started reading around other author's blogs, mainly to address these concerns and see if others had experienced the same difficulties that I had. In hindsight it seems obvious that self-doubt is part of the process, but a few select blogs helped me realise this. So true to my word of taking writing more seriously, I have jump back on the literary horse today and started writing my novel again. Pretty well going after only a two day self-pity break. I must have really grown as a person this last year.

I've written 2,100 words today. Can't complain about that.

Here are two blogs which helped me through. I recommend these to any aspiring authors/writers: 

http://sunnymoraine.com/2015/02/16/writing-practice-resurrection/

http://www.lindapoitevin.com/2014/02/17/why-fiction-writers-need-to-blog/

Moving With The Times

A good friend of mine recently reminding me that it's not the 16th Century anymore, and there is a lot of truth in that. Well done Greg.

Although, if we lived in a universe that operated not on base 10 mathematics but somewhere between base 11 and base 12 (11.2 to be more precise), we would be in the 16th Century. We don't live in that universe, we live in this one.

So with that in mind, I've created a Twitter account: @JamboStewart42

So like follow me and stuffs. I'll be well happy if you do.

Why Are People Drawn To Psychopathy?

I watched Seven Psychopaths recently, and picked up on a quote by Christopher Walken:

"You're the one who found psychopaths so interesting. They get pretty tiresome after a while don't you think?"

I've been thinking about it for a couple of days now, because I've known plenty of people who are fascinated with psychopathy. I've also known a few people who are or claim to be psycho/sociopaths, and I have met the odd genuine sociopath. Literature is filled with Dexter type detached personalities and the like. The protagonist in the novel I'm working on would probably be fall into a definition of psycho/sociopath, so I'm guilty of being drawn to it too. So why are psychopaths so damn interesting?

Let's define it first. Google, what's a psychopath?

noun

1. a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour

And a sociopath?:

noun

1. a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour.

Okay thanks Google. 

So looking at these two definitions, personally I think the second one is far too vague. It catches far too many people in it's net. So after a bit of further digging (well a quick look at Wikipedia anyway) we see that Robert Hare, the founder of the 'psychopath checklist', insists that there are a number of traits displayed by psychopaths. When scored out of 40, an official 'psycho' scores 30 or above, or 25 or above if he/she is in the UK, oddly enough. I'm not entirely sure why it requires less effort to be a British psycho than an American psycho, but I digress.

So if we flick through the items on the checklist, there's a few behavioural factors, but parts that stand out the most is the lack of emotion, or rather the detachment of strong emotion. Lack of remorse, glibness, manipulation. I think these kind of things identify with many people.

I think people's fascination with psychopathy, is not merely an attraction to 'the dark side' as it were, because by that token we would have just as many people fascinated by paedophiles and rapists. There isn't that many people fascinated by paedophiles and rapists, not that I've experienced anyway. So what is it? Why psycho/sociopaths? 

I think the answer lies in the emotional side of what makes a psycho/socio tick. The lack of remorse, empathy, and all round emotion, and I truly believe that those people who think they may be psychotic or convince themselves they lack emotion, have a reason for it. Bear in mind that Robert Hare said himself that capitalism rewards the traits necessary to be a psychopath. With that in mind, I think that those who are fascinated with the idea of a lack of emotion, do so because they care about the world. 

Let's face it, those you truly care about the world, aren't in for a nice ride. There is a ton of shit, and I'm not going to go on a rant about everything that is wrong with the world, because that's not what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that I think the lack of vision, or the inability to deal with or change ones perceived threats in the world, leads to a fascination with psychopathy. I think that this fascination can in fact lead people on dark paths, not because they genuinely have no emotion, but quite the reverse. People who get emotional about the state of the world, can find solace in the idea of not caring at all. Some end up not caring, some just get excited about characters who don't. Some find the idea of a person who can put 'bad people' in their place quite appealing, cue Dexter.

If I look at it objectively, I think I've met one person who genuinely lacked all emotion, and the truth is, he wasn't a bad person. Quite boring in fact. Because when you meet a person who genuinely doesn't care either way, what is the purpose of them acting out? Surely the people we view to be 'detached' emotionally, or sociopaths are really just struggling to deal with the fact that they do have emotion. 

Statistically speaking, true sociopaths tend to fall in the upper strata of the ruling class anyway, and even then, they're still a victim of their circumstance, despite how little sympathy they draw from the rest of us.

Sharing is Caring

I've become hooked on falling asleep as I listen to horror stories, so I am currently sitting in a pub waiting for a Lovecraftian fiction podcast to download. In the mean time, I've been fiddling around with my blogs and I've redesigned how they are publish.

So what's changed? Well I've separated my stories, poems and general soliloquies, that much is obvious. When I started this blog I had no idea where I was going with it. I just started writing my thoughts and feelings and publishing them like an online journal, and even then I rarely stuck to it. I would come online, write a post, leave it a few months and come back to it later. Most of it was pointless dribble anyway, so all of that has been cleaned up.

Now it has dawned on me that I will finish my novel within the next month at the rate I'm going. The next step will be publication, which is difficult at best for a virgin author, impossible at worst. So what could help in my struggle to gain credibility and therefore a readership? An archive of my works of course, and a following.

So this redesign is an attempt to stay on top of my writing and gain some followers. Dare I say it I might even get a Twitter at some point, but for now I'll see how many stories and poems I can whip out before my novel is published.

I've never really addressed my readership personally, so here's a start. If you are someone who reads my ramblings, please remember: sharing is caring. Let's try and get this blog as visible as humanly possible, and I'll vow to publish a new story or poem as often as I can.

(PS. In case it isn't obvious enough. To the right you can find links to the stories and poems that I've published on here.)

(PPS. If you also like Lovecraftian fiction, click here for some soothing pod casts: http://lovecraftzine.com/magazine/podcast/)

New look

I've redone my blogs, so instead of having all poems/stories and other such rants on the one page, they are now separate.

Enjoy.


*note - I am well aware of the spelling mistakes on the poems URL. Grr.

Ten Reasons Why I Dislike Comic Relief

Time for a suitable rant. I had a rant about comic relief on the night it aired to my close consorts, and apart from the satirical Facebook status, I never shared it with the world. Those from the UK will be very familiar with Comic Relief, as it's shoved in every aural orifice in the country. For those readers who are overseas and may or may not be familiar with the concept, here's a quick explanation from the 'About Us' section of http://www.comicrelief.com/

Comic Relief is a major charity based in the UK which strives to create a just world free from poverty – and we work 365 days a year to help that vision become a reality.







Our mission is to drive positive change through the power of entertainment.


Since we first set up shop 25 years ago, we’ve been doing three main things…






We raise millions of pounds through two big fundraising campaigns – Red Nose Day and Sport Relief. We spend that money in the best possible way to tackle the root causes of poverty and social injustice. We use the power of our brand to raise awareness of the issues that we care most about. Over the years we’ve inspired a lot of people who don’t normally ‘do’ charity to, well, do charity. The support we’ve had from so many friends has always blown us away – and still does today.

The main show that falls on Red Nose Day occurs every two years. Celebrities and comedians gather to encourage people to donate money to Comic Relief.

Just before we start with the flaming, here's a little fact to keep things a little balanced. This year Comic Relief raised £74 million (rounded down) for charities across the globe. Good effort guys.

Now let's get started with the list. My personal top ten rages against Red Nose Day.



10. The Third World Still Isn't Fixed - First of all let me explain why this is bottom of the list. An old fashioned way of thinking was that despite the efforts of Comic Relief, the third world is still in dire crisis. The reason this is number ten is because Comic Relief caught onto this way of thinking and started showing 'success stories' to help people feel better about the donation. Fair play. This point is still on my list though however as, in essence, it's still true. The third world is still a mess.

9. Feeding The World, Or At Least Your Conscience - Praise to everyone who donated. In all honesty though, if I have to hear the same phrase in 2013 that I have heard repeatedly this last month I will scream.
'I felt so sorry for the people on the video I had to donate.' Did you really not know this was going on before today? Although my other least favourite Red Nose Day phrase is worse.
'Comic Relief is so funny but they ruin it by putting in the sad videos.' I actually saw this as a Facebook status, and banged my head on a wall.

8. Appealing To The Working Class - Obvious enough. People in the UK who care tend to be of working class and have little money, but still donate. Those who have enough money to make a real difference, do not donate. There are exceptions of course, but the whole event is aimed at mainstream working class Britain.

7. Killing Off Shows - Yup. Comedy shows are often ressurected after they have ended, in order to make an amazingly funny one off episode. It usually fails. The Vicar of Dibley is a perfect example. The last ever episode was sort of touching and sweet, then it was brought back for comic relief and had a very unfunny episode involving Sting. Doctor Who seems to have a special episode every two years with different celebrities turning up.

6. The Bono Effect - Sometimes Joe Public gets a bit annoyed listening to rich celebrities asking him/her to donate, while they sit on a pile of gold.

5. Catchphrases - We get it. The main characters catchphrase is going to be used by a celebrity instead. Hilarious.

4. Celebrities Pushing Their Own Products - Thank you Gordon Ramsay. For every pot of your sauce we bought, you donated x amount to Comic Relief. Same goes for Walkers and the comedians who pushed them. If a company wants to really donate, how about offering to make absolutely no profit from your campaign?

Short interlude - Before I get to my big three I just want to say that another pet hate that didn't reach the top ten is the red nose itself. Stop showing me pictures of Lenny Henry with a starving African child wearing a novelty red nose. Will that red nose cure his hunger? No.

Okay here goes the big three pet hates. The main reason I no longer watch Comic Relief.

3. Ricky Gervais - If anyone caught Ricky Gervais' 'trip to Africa' that aired, which was hilariously funny, will know what I mean. The comedian apparently went on a trip to Africa, met some locals, put on the waterworks and touched the nation. A few seconds afterwards he was interrupted by the word 'CUT' and it was unveiled that he was in a studio. The short film went on with other celebrities getting involved and it was very controversial and very funny, but opened the nations eyes in some ways. Can we really trust these videos again after Ricky Gervais? Nicely done Mr. Gervais, I salute you.

2. Tony Blair - Catherine Tate met Tony Blair in one years comedy video. As mentioned earlier, the popular catchphrase 'Am I Bovvered!?' was turned on Catherine's character by Tony Blair himself. I must admit at the time I thought it was pretty funny. But let's look at it again. This is a man who controversially took Britain to war against the voice of the public. To many he is considered to be guilty of war crimes as much as Saddam for certain undercover actions during the war itself. Now he suddenly appears on Red Nose Day and tries to win the hearts of the nation.

What next? Derren Brown in a beyond the grave Q + A with Saddam Hussain. Doctor Who travelling through time to find Bin Laden? Or maybe they'll just make another Comic Relief Does The Apprentice, featuring Colonel Gaddafi.

And now for my number one.

1. Capitalism - That's right, capitalism. The route of the world's problems in third world countries lie in the political struggle throughout. Why have a country like the UK, who has many global companies raping the third world for cheap labour and resouces, donate millions to making it better. Keeping strength up in the sweatshops? And the charity work is good. But good isn't enough. You cannot build a sustainable village in a poor country if the local government will just wade in with their guns and take control. Many charities refuse to be political, and claim to just 'want to help' the third world. Well without political influence I'm afraid that this will be a never ending battle.

By all means donate to Comic Relief, I'm sure they help make thousands of lives better every couple of years. If you want to make a real difference though, get political and help change the world. Otherwise you will only be feeling guilty and donating again in two years time.