Newspotting

Now men are becoming weight obsessed!

2012-01-22T22:25:00.010Z

I was reading a feature in yesterday's Times about how more and more men are becoming worried about their weight and taking up dieting.

There was a time when dieting and weight issues was something only women worried about. For some men there was a certain pride in developing a middle aged beer gut.

Its all changed now. 10 years ago the biggest selling mens magazines were lads mags like FHM and Loaded - today it's Men's Health.

These days I'm constantly hearing both men and women talk about their weight and how supposedly 'fat' they are. Going on about calories, BMI, and how eating a bar of chocolate will require two extra sessions of the gym this week!

Don't ask me about calories. If you tell me how many calories were in the last meal you ate, I will only stare at you blankly. It will mean nothing to me.

Are people becoming too obsessed with weight? For me it's all about having a balanced diet, eating in moderation, doing regular exercise and having a healthy attitude towards food.

Am I being naive in saying that?

I have to admit, I don't worry about my weight. I'm one of those annoying people that's always eaten whatever I like in the knowledge that I'm never going to put weight on.

In saying that, it's not as if I stuff myself with junk food everyday. I do have a lifelong addiction to biscuits (love my bourbon creams) but generally I eat pretty well.

I know I have a good metabolism and nobody in my family is overweight. I've always played sport, and play badminton every week which I've done for the last 7 years.

It's good that more and more people, particularly men are becoming aware of healthy diets and watching their weight but there's no reason to become obsessed about it.

Obesity is very much a modern problem only found in rich Western countries, especially in America and here in the UK.

Being overweight and dieting are closely linked to the lifestyle people lead, the culture of the society they live in, and people's own individual attitude and relationship towards food.

Last year I read an interesting theory that said one of the reasons so many Americans are fat is that they watch the most amount of television of any Western country. It was a good point. Lots of people sitting around stationary eating food whilst watching tv. It makes sense. That's a lifestyle issue.

Then there's people's personal relationships with food. Food can be used in a similar way to drugs or alcohol were people eat to deal with emotional or psychological problems - which again can be caused by external factors to do with the culture or society they live in.

There's never been a point in human history, where so many people haven't had to worry about the scarcity of food.

Many of us will never know what it's like to be truly hungry, but now people are made to feel guilty about eating too much, and when they do put on some weight some of which is only to be expected as we get older - they're told that this extra weight is making them ugly, unattractive failures.

There are too many conflicting messages from society and the media about body image, which have tended to affect women the most but it seems its starting to affect men as well.

Thankfully I have a good self body image and I'm determined to keep it that way. Being genuinely obese obviously poses serious health issues, but we don't have to start living like an athlete in training for the Olympics.

Keep things in perspective is my advice, but if you disagree with anything I've said then please tell me why.

The Wikipedia blackout

2012-01-18T22:35:00.014Z

Did you have a look at Wikipedia today?

If you did, you wouldn't have seen anything. You may have heard that Wikipedia had a blackout today and shut down in protest against the Stop online privacy act otherwise known as SOPA.

Those protesting against the proposed US legislation argue that if passed it would strike a blow against free speech on the internet and set a precedent for internet censorship.

I'm instinctively against the proposals set out in SOPA, and I genuinely support Wikipedia's actions, but I understand why this legislation is being proposed.

The more I think about it, the more I realise that I'm quite conflicted on the issues at stake.

There's no denying that the film and music industries are suffering due to the power of the internet.

These industries want to find ways for copyright holders (artists/media companies) to stop websites accused of containing illegal films, music and TV programmes, distributing this content for free to web users.

For example if this Bill is passed, you could have clips from a Hollywood film uploaded onto Youtube. SOPA could have those clips removed but could also bring about action against Youtube for allowing those clips to be made available on its site.

I understand why media companies want to do this. Last year I read this article in the Guardian entitled: "How the internet has all but destroyed the market for films, music and newspapers".

As you can guess from the title, it talks about how the internet and online piracy have all but destroyed the culture industries. Film, music, newspapers, they're all suffering a slow and painful death!

The old businesses models for these industries are collapsing as companies struggle to survive due to falling revenues, caused by piracy and the free availability of so much content on the internet.

So I suppose I do have some sympathy with those major media companies in support of SOPA. They're the ones along with people like music artists and other media creators that are suffering by losing out in revenue.

When I say that, it's not because I want the big major media players to continue raking in huge profits, it's because I understand some of the profits made have to be reinvested within those industries, in order to help produce products of quality and value.

That thinking probably explains why I continue to buy CDs and newspapers. I understand that sometimes you have to pay money and invest in people and industries if you want to help create products and content of value.

I think I'm just confused, as I love the internet and the flow of information available, but I understand the problems facing the creative industries because of the internet.

The problem for the big media organisations is that they have to accept that the genie is out of the bottle. The old business model is dead and they can't go back to how things used to be. I understand the need to try and gain some profits from the content produced, but I don't think trying to impose restrictions on the internet that essentially amount to censorship is really the way forward.

It's a real tough one this. I am on the side of Wikipedia, but there are more questions and debates to be had on this topic, following today's actions.

Let me know what your thoughts are? I really would like to know other people's opinions.

A long time coming

2012-01-04T18:57:00.012Z

So finally after 18 long years Gary Dobson and David Norris were jailed for the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

I wasn't too sure I could really add anything more to what's already been said about the Lawrence murder trial. I suppose for me like many people, there's a sense of quiet satisfaction that justice has been done, even though its been too long in coming.

It's been a remarkable case that's been a part of the nation's conscious for so many years.

I've really admired and respected the drive and determination from Neville and Doreen Lawrence to never give up and seek justice for Stephen. Their conduct over the last 18 years has shown how tragic or extraordinary events can catapult ordinary people into positions where they can make a real difference in public life.

Although Stephen's death was a racist murder, his parents showed this wasn't something that only related to black people, this was a crime that everyone could identify with. They were two ordinary parents who'd seen their son murdered, and could see that the police weren't doing enough and justice wasn't being done.

To me it doesn't matter who you are or what background you come from, it's about what's right and wrong, what's fair and just.

Credit to the Daily Mail

One thing I've noticed today is that there's been a lot of credit going out to the Daily Mail in terms of its coverage of the case, and in particular its now famous 1997 front page, when it accused the 5 main suspects of being murderers.

The Mail gets a lot of stick from many people, and on a lot of occasions deservedly so, but credit must be given to the paper.

The Mail's coverage helped elevate the case to another level, in the sense that the Mail represents the views, aspirations and fears of 'Middle England'.

I've heard reliable stories in the past that say the Mail hasn't always been interested in the lives of Britain's ethnic minorities, but by championing the case it sent a message to its readers that this was a case that affected everyone.

Wow can't believe I'm bigging up the Daily Mail!

Book Review: Career Renegade

2012-01-03T20:12:00.002Z

At this time of year people start thinking about making new plans and goals for the New Year.

Traditionally it's New Year resolutions; People deciding they're going to quit smoking, lose weight, doing more exercise, blah blah blah. The problem is New Year resolutions rarely work.

I've always been told its better to have New Year goals, or specific things that you want to complete.

A typical new year goal is changing jobs or even careers. Perhaps you're bored with what you're doing. Maybe you've reached a glass ceiling and you can't progress any further in your current role.

Or maybe there's something you've always wanted to do and you've finally decided that next year is the year to do it.

If you're reading this and thinking 'Yes that's me! I want to to something different with my career' well I might just have the a book for you. It's called Career Renegade by Jonathan Fields and I've just finished reading it.

It's a great book if you're looking for ways of turning your passions into a more fulfilling career as well as making money from doing something you love.

My big five news stories of 2011

2011-12-30T13:06:00.028Z

I've been reading a lot of end of year reviews these last few days, so I thought I should look back at some of the big stories of the year. I've decided to make a list of my top 5 stories.

In no particular order the big stories for me have been the revolutions that have swept through the Arab world this year. 2011 will be seen as an historical year in the Middle East, similar to that of 1989 with the collapse of communist governments all across Eastern Europe.

In Europe we've had the Euro crisis, which removed Prime Ministers in Italy and Greece, and is still threatening to break up the Euro altogether.

In the UK, we saw some of the worst riots in over 25 years. When I think back the event was truly shocking, it felt as if the police and the government had lost control and the mob had taken over.

Sticking with the UK, I've been following the phone hacking story for a few years now, but it really blew up in 2011. When I first heard about the story I could never imagine it would mean the end of the iconic news paper the News of the World.

And finally, it seems ages ago now, there was the huge earthquake and Tsunami in Japan in March. What made this story so big and poignant for me is that Japan is a hugely advanced and sophisticated society that was brought to its knees by this natural disaster. I read somewhere that this was Japan's equivalent of 9/11 - I thought that was a great comparison.

There's my big 5, of course there's so many more I could have mentioned, the death of Osama Bin Laden, The Royal Wedding, the 99% movement, there's been too many great stories.

Let me know your big stories of the year.

The Arab Spring

What's stood out about this year's revolutions in the Arab is that they're not the result of Islamic extremists, the revolutions have been driven by the people who want greater freedoms and democracy.

For me the most iconic and perhaps disturbing image that sums up the revolution was seeing Colonel Gaddafi's bloodied and battered body just before his death. He was the classic type of dictator that you thought would never lose power of Libya.

The Arab spring story has now moved onto Syria, which is now on the verge of civil war. It's hard to see how President Assad can return the country to it's pre 2011 state. The wind of change sweeping through the region can't be pushed back.

The Euro Zone Crisis

If the Euro Zone crisis has taught me anything its this. A lot of the old certainties and beliefs that many of us living in Western Europe have had are perhaps over.

I get the feeling that we all just believed that our economies would keep growing and as nations we would keep getting richer and more prosperous.

We all had stable democratic governments which gave us an advantage over other countries in the world. By uniting together in closer economic and political union would only make Europe richer and stronger.

Well how wrong we were.

Europe faces years of austerity, lack of economic growth, jobs for young people and a decline in living standards for millions. This wasn't how it was meant to be at all.

Europe's political leaders have let their people down. They promised and created growth with unsustainable levels of borrowing, and now the party's over.

We've seen financial markets lose confidence in the ability of leaders in Greece and Italy to impose measures to reduce their country's debts, and now the likes of Berlusconi have now been removed from office. Hardly democracy in action; what about the views of the people?

Many people in Europe and also in the UK are going to feel poorer and when you look at the likes of China, Brazil, and India it feels like Europe is in decline and our economic power won't be the same again.

The London riots

I remember turning on my tv on Monday night back in August and seeing the town of Croydon, South London appear to be on fire. I thought' "What is going on?'

There's a view that says rioting is the way of people who don't have a voice to protest. I do agree with this belief, I just don't accept that there was any political motivation in this year's London riots.

Much of it was pure criminality and people making the most of a 'once in a lifetime opportunity' to rob and cause havoc.

Even though I don't believe the rioters had a specific message to say, the riots have raised a number of issues. We have a whole swath of people in this country who have been marginalized and alienated to the point that they're almost living parallel lives to the rest of us.

Many of the people convicted for rioting offences already had previous criminal convictions, it's likely that most of them have few if no qualifications, and have rarely held down full time jobs.

People like this have nothing to lose and don't believe they have any stake in society, which explains why they're happy to destroy shops and buildings in their own communities.

They're are so many things that need to be done to prevent similar riots taking place again, but I'd like to think that as a country we won't sit back anymore and happily ignore a growing underclass that has no hope or aspiration - then be surprised when start they rioting like they did in August.

Phone Hacking/Leveson Inquiry

The phone hacking is one story that refuses to go away. It's been around now for the last few years, but 2011 was the year it really made a break through in the public's conscious.

I keep hearing the opinion that when phone hacking centered around hacking phones of celebrities, people weren't too bothered. They're celebrities it goes with the territory seems to have been the view.

That all changed when it was discovered that the families of murder victims like Milly Dowler were also targeted. When I first heard about that story I immediately thought the press (well the News of the World) had gone too far!

That revelation was even too much for the Murdoch's and the News of the World was closed after 168 years! I admit I always used to read the NoW. For all the good and bad things you can say about the paper, it was a great part of Britain's press and popular culture history.

In the aftermath of the hacking scandal we now have the Leveson inquiry looking into press standards and ethics.

It's still on going, but if you asked me what we've learned so far, it's that there's a nasty, cynical, and bullying aspect to our tabloid press that's become out of control. It's been there for a number of years now, but I don't think it's been put in the spotlight in quite this way.

Despite the behaviour of our tabloid press, I still have a huge passion for journalism and the important role it can play in society. We shouldn't let one specific form of journalism taint the entire profession.

The Japan Earthquake

I traveled to Japan 9 years ago towards the end of 2001, I went to visit my cousin who lives out there.

I found Japan the most interesting and fascinating place I've ever been to. I find that whenever something tragic happens like an earthquake disaster, if it happens somewhere you're familiar with or have knowledge of, the story can have an even greater impact on you.

This is how I felt with Japan's earthquake. Here was one of the world's richest and most advanced countries facing its worst crisis since the Second World War.

Earthquakes are a feature of everyday life in Japan and there are always minor tremors, but nobody was expecting anything like March's quake. If that wasn't bad enough, there was then the Tsunami and the leak at the Fukushima nuclear plant.

Despite some of the more critical reports in the Western media, I thought the Japanese handled the crisis remarkably well, and have dealt with disaster in a very Japanese, quiet and dignified manner.

The lonely dictator

2011-12-22T00:59:00.002Z

Earlier this week I saw this video that was featured in a report about the life of North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il who died this week.

I think the video was featured on Channel 4 news, but it made me laugh - just the thought of the world's most bizarre dictator singing about how lonely it is being head of the secretive state that is North Korea.

When it comes to international relations, North Korea is like the weird strange kid at school who nobody really understands and no one wants to be friends with.

Normally a country like North Korea shouldn't cause the world so much problems, but as a state it's slightly disfunctional, nobody understands why it acts in the way it does. But being a country with nuclear weapons nobody can really mess with it.

Kim Jong Il's third son is meant to be taking over, so we shall see if under his leadership North Korea can start making friends around the world.

To veto or not to veto

2011-12-12T13:35:00.005Z

I'm still struggling to decide whether or not I think David Cameron's decision to use the veto at last week's EU Summit is a good or bad thing for the UK.

I think the main problem is we just don't know at the moment and it could be months even years before we see the true consequences of this decision.

I have to say I'm not comfortable with the thought of the UK being pushed to the margins of European politics. We're now the outsider and we won't be able to take part in major EU debates where decisions will be made that will still have a huge influence on the UK both politically and economically.

Surely it's better to be inside the big tent having some sort of influence rather then looking in from the sidelines?

That's the one thing I'm not happy about, but then another part of me thinks that it's good we're excising our own independence and acting in our own national interest.

I would never describe myself as a Eurosceptic, but I do have doubts about how much economic and political integration you can have before things start to become undemocratic. I'm all for the UK being a major player in Europe but it shouldn't be at the expense of being able to make your own decisions.

Cameron's decision certainly haven't done his standings within the Conservative Party any harm.

Many on the Tory right have been sceptical about everything Cameron has stood for, ever since he become Tory leader, but by using the veto, he's managed to bring this wing of the party onside.

Obviously the main downside to this is that the Tories are in a coalition government and have the small problem of the Lib Dems to think about.

People are already suggesting the future of the coalition is at risk, but it was only a matter of time before something in Europe highlighted the differences between the two parties, so this isn't really a surprise.

I suppose after last week's historic decision, it's a case of lets see and wait until we find out whether Cameron was right or wrong.

Euro 2012 Draw: England will do well to get out of the group

2011-12-04T20:15:00.008Z

Call me cynical if you want, but England's draw in Friday's Euro 2012 draw is far from easy. Remember this is England we're talking about.

Admittedly it could have been a lot worse, we've avoided playing the likes of Spain and Holland in the group stages, but a group containing Sweden, France, and Ukraine could still cause England lots of problems.

On paper we should get out of the group, but lets look back at last year's World Cup in South Africa. We couldn't even top a group featuring the football 'heavyweights' of Algeria, Slovenia and the USA!

Group D in next year's Euro's is much tougher than that. When have we ever beaten France in a competitive match? I can't remember.

We all know we never beat Sweden, despite last month's friendly result. That will end in a draw as it always does. And finally there's the co-hosts Ukraine. The weakest team in the group but with home support you can't take anything for granted.

Even if England get out of the group, we're probably looking at a potential quarter final with either Spain or Italy. Ideally you'd prefer to play Italy, but again it would require England to knock out one of the games major powers which we simply never do!

I really enjoy football's European Championships. The standard's better than the World Cup. There's no messing about - you get heavyweight clashes straight away. Holland/Germany, Spain/Italy I can't wait. It's ridiculous that Uefa has decided to increase the number of teams to 24 for 2016, thereby increasing the level of mediocrity.

England getting out the group will be acceptable followed by a respectable defeat in the Quarter finals.

My advice to England fans is don't be fooled again, we know we're not good enough. A few entertaining games and a honorable defeat will be enough for me.

The Leveson Inquiry

2011-12-03T11:33:00.009Z

In the last few weeks I've been following closely the Leveson Inquiry that's taking place looking into press standards and ethics.

We've seen a number of celebrities, members of the public and journalists give evidence, lifting the lid on some of the unsavory ways the tabloid press operates - as well as how it intrudes into the private lives of celebrities and members of the public.

Some mornings I've been in a newsagents and I've looked at the front pages of the national newspapers to see what they're covering - very few have featured the inquiry on their front pages.

Leveson Inquiry? What Leveson Inquiry? lets just bury our heads in the sand and pretend none of this is really happening. The Press make me laugh some days.

Well it is happening and the image of the tabloids and journalism in general couldn't get any lower.

What the inquiry has revealed is an element of tabloid journalism that's out of control. A bullying, intimidating nasty form of journalism that uses tactics more familiar with those used by the secret police in the old Communist Eastern bloc countries in the Cold War.

I think the inquiry has helped shift public perception a little. When it came to the rich and famous, there was an opinion that celebs shouldn't complain too much about press intrusion as they regularly court the media and the press when it suits them.

That's a fair point, but what the inquiry along with the phone hacking scandal has shown is that both celebrities and ordinary members of the public have experienced press intrusion that simply isn't acceptable, warranted or even in the public interest.

Yet despite the terrible image journalism currently has, I still feel a huge sense of passion for journalism and the important role a free press can play in a democratic society.

It's important to remember, tabloid journalism doesn't define the entire profession of journalism. To me it's almost a separate branch of journalism which needs to get its house in order following this inquiry.

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic in thinking that people will separate tabloid journalism from other forms of journalism but they should.

As for independent press regulation, I'm naturally against it but the tabloids have acted so irresponsibly they've given the impression that they can't regulate themselves.

The Press Complaints Commission is charged with enforcing the code of practice for the press, and in theory this should work - the only problem is that it just isn't enforced strongly enough.

It's hard to say whether the Leveson inquiry will make any difference to the culture of tabloid journalism, I hope it does but at the moment I don't see what actions can be taken to curb some of the more unsavory actions of the press.

Gary Speed

2011-11-28T16:57:00.012Z

I popped down to my local pub back in Birmingham yesterday afternoon to watch the Swansea v Villa game with an old school friend.

I got to the pub looked up at the tv screen to see the players having a minute silence. I asked my friend what this was all about, before he told me Gary Speed was dead. My first word was WHAT!!!

It's not everyday you hear news that leaves you totally stunned. For anyone who's into football, you can't think of a more unbelievable thing to happen. It makes no sense and comes totally out of the blue. The fact that he took his own life raises even more questions which may never be answered.

There's a few famous ex footballers who've had well documented problems with depression, drink and drugs. Without naming names, if you woke up to discover their death you'd be shocked but perhaps not hugely surprised.

The thing about Gary Speed, was that he appeared to be a solid, level headed and well respected professional without any previous stories of off the field problems. This is what makes his death so shocking and sad.

Gary Speed the footballer

As a footballer, I remember Speed being part of the Leeds Utd team that came up from the old Second division at the end of the 80s and took the old first division by storm, winning the League title in 1992.

He was a bit of a pretty boy footballer at the time, the type of player girls would fancy even if they weren't into football.

Throughout the Premier League era, Speed was always a permanent fixture, going on to play for Everton, Newcastle and Bolton. My appreciation of Speed as a footballer really started to develop during his later years at Bolton. Here was someone playing well into their late 30s at the highest level and not looking out of place.

To play in the top flight continuously for over 20 years tells you a lot about his professionalism and passion for the game. I think that's what I really admire about him as a player, he wasn't a celebrity footballer, but just a great professional.

This whole story is incredibly sad.

FENTON...FENTON....JESUS CHRIST!

2011-11-27T20:04:00.006Z

My sister told me about this video that's become an internet sensation this week.

It has to be one of the funniest things I've seen in ages.

A father and son were out in Richmond Park, London filming a herd of dear, when in the background you hear the voice of a middle aged man screaming at his dog Fenton, who's started chasing after the dear.

The video's gone viral, and now there are spin off versions featuring Fenton in films like Jurassic Park and American Warewolf in London.

You know a video must be big when in today's Sunday Times there was an entire feature on the video.

Federer still effortlessly brilliant!

2011-11-23T20:24:00.005Z

I was at the O2 Arena last night watching the tennis at the ATP World Tour Finals.

I bought tickets a couple of weeks ago for the Tuesday night session, but I didn't know who'd be playing until after the draw had been made.

Imagine my delight when I discovered I'd be seeing Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal playing against each other!

I was expecting another epic battle between two of game's all time greats, so it was quite a surprise to watch Federer totally batter Nadal in under an hour, 6-3 6-0.

With the rise of Novak Djokovic, and fact that Federer hasn't won a Grand Slam for two years, it's easy to think he isn't the player he used to be.

After last night's performance that couldn't be further from the truth. Ok, Nadal was below his best but Federer was sensational - all his shots were played with an effortless grace, it was a privilege to watch.

I've never seen tennis played live before, but I really wanted to get tickets for this event. It's because the standard in mens tennis at the moment is so good, I felt I needed to take advantage of seeing the world's best when they're playing on my doorstep.

Already looking forward to next year. Will Djokovic repeat this year's achievements? Can Federer reclaim his number one crown? Will Andy Murray finally win a Grand Slam?

Whatever happens it's going to be another exciting year for tennis.

I'm back - A news round up!

2011-11-14T21:08:00.011Z

I've been very quiet on the blogging front in recent weeks but now I'm back.

My journalism studying has taken priority as I prepared to sit my NCTJ journalism news writing exam.

Rather than commenting on the big news stories, my evenings have been spent writing endless practice news reports in preparation for my exam which I had today. Thankfully it's over, and I can return to my blogging.

Well, there's been so much to talk about. Look at what's going on in Europe, we're in an economic meltdown.

The problems with Greece have been well documented for months - but things are getting serious now, with the crisis in Italy.

We're living through a really significant period in European history, but I'm not sure whether people realise this. The entire movement towards greater political and economic integration between European countries is under serious threat.

What's really interested me is we've had changes in government in both Greece and Italy, but there's been no elections, and the people have had no say on the matter. It's the financial markets who've brought about this change.

They've had so little faith in those countries abilities to implement economic reform, that they've forced out the leaders of those countries. My question is: What ever happened to democracy?

What else has been catching my attention - The return of racism in football.

It's like we're back in 70s and 80s. We had the incident between Liverpool's Luiz Saurez allegedly racially abusing Man Utd's Patrice Evra. Then a few weeks later there was the incident in the QPR/Chelsea game in which and I again use the word 'allegedly' John Terry, England Captain, racially abused Anton Ferdinand.

Anyone under the age of 25 who follows English football has probably never thought about racism and football being linked.

For those of us who grew up in the 80's, racism was still a prominent part of the game but at the same time attitudes were changing.

I don't know what to make of this spate of new allegations.

And finally....A story that I couldn't ignore was that death of former heavyweight champion Joe Frazier.

There was a time in sport where to be heavyweight champion of the world was the pinnacle of sporting achievement. You couldn't be a bigger sporting star. The passing of Joe Frazier, reminds you of how far heavyweight boxing has fallen in terms of prestige and significance to the general public.

When you think of Joe Frazier, you immediately think of Muhammad Ali and George Foreman and an amazing golden age of boxing.

Europe in crisis - What's happened to democracy?

2011-11-13T22:59:00.008Z

I've got a feeling that in 100 years time you'll have history students in universities across Britain and Europe studying the economic and political crisis that's going on at the moment.

It might not feel like it now but we're living in historic times that academics and scholars will be studying in years to come.

A few weeks ago I was thinking about what I was going to say about the Greek crisis and the Euro, but that's yesterday's news - now it's all about Italy!

Not long ago I was thinking about how the Greek people are suffering and how they're having to put up with austerity measures forced upon them not by their own government but by the demands of EU leaders.

It made me think that decisions affecting their lives were being made by unelected leaders from the European Union - hardly democratic!

I've started to notice that this problem of a lack of democracy is being spoken about more and more by commentators.

Over in Italy it was becoming increasingly obvious, that Silvio Berlusconi had no real plans to tackle Italy's debt, but he wasn't kicked out of office by Italian voters. The financial markets did that, after they lost faith that he could introduce the economic reforms needed in the country.

In his place we have the 'technocrat' economist, Mario Monti. He might be the man to tackle Italy's debt crisis, but he's not been elected by the Italian people.

Many Italians will be glad to see the back of Berlusconi. Even as a non Italian you could see he was an embarrassment to the country, but it would still have been better if the Italian people removed him at the ballot box.

I've never considered myself to be a Eurosceptic - I'm generally all for greater European cooperation, but Europe is in a mess and greater economic and political union seems to have made things worse, particularly in terms of democracy.

I think many European leaders have let their voters down over the years, with excessive government borrowing and spending, and now tough decision are being imposed upon people who were unaware of what was really going on.

The problem is that many of these tough decisions are being made by faceless financial investors and European Bureaucrats who have never been elected by anyone.

That's not how democracy is supposed to work.

Joe Frazier - A true boxing legend

2011-11-12T22:32:00.004Z

On Wednesday night, I was watching a re-run on ESPN, of the classic first fight between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier in 1971.

It was being shown in tribute following the death of Frazier earlier this week.

The name Joe Frazier is just a legendary name within the history of boxing. His status is even greater as his peak coincided during a truly golden age of boxing in the 1960s and early 70s.

If this wasn't the case how do you explain the amount of news coverage his death has received.

Watching the fight, what struck me, is just how far boxing and heavyweight boxing has fallen in terms of sporting significance and popularity.

Not so long ago, to be heavyweight champion of the world meant you were arguably the biggest sports star on the planet, but not anymore. The way boxing is today, it's unlikely it will ever reclaim its former status.

As much as he was a great boxer what really defined Frazier was his rivalries with George Foreman but more significantly Muhammad Ali.

Within all great rivalries you need a clash of styles and personalities and you had that with Ali and Frazier. Ali and the charisma, the charm and the talk.

Frazier had none of this. He was more of your no frills, down to earth, everyman. Dare I say it 'Ordinary Joe'. Having read and heard the comments from boxing experts on Frazier's skill and bravery as a fighter, I've now got an even greater respect for what he achieved, and what he means to boxing history.

Are you part of the 99%

2011-10-26T21:20:00.013+01:00

In the last few weeks I've been following the the Occupy Wall St movement that started in New York. The movement began as a response to the economic crisis in America and Europe.

It's now inspired similar protests across America and the rest of the World. Here in London we have our own 'Occupy London' protest taking place outside St Paul's Cathedral.

Last week I was reading more about the protests on the Occupy Wall Street website.

On the home page it talks of the movement representing The 99%. The 99% that 'will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%.' The 1% being the likes of bankers, politicians and multi national corporations.

There's definitely a crisis with capitalism. Three years ago we saw the reckless business practices of the banks almost ruin the global economy, and we've been stuck in near recession ever since.

After ordinary tax payers helped bail out the banks with public money, it's beginning to look as if nothing much has changed.

While the 1% continue to act in their own self interest, the remaining 99% are seeing their living standards fall; cuts in public services, growing inequality and rising unemployment. Look at Greece if you want an extreme example of this!

Some people want to dismiss the protests, arguing there are no real goals or aims from the protesters, but they're missing the point.

You can't ignore the anger and resentment that's growing against the current political and economic status quo.

I've decided to come out and declare that I agree with much of what's being said.

I'm part of the 99%. Are you?

One thing that stood out for me when I watched a report on Channel 4 News was that many of the people on Wall St weren't your typical anti-capitalist/anarchist mob.

Some of those inteviewed had never taken part in any kind of political protests or campaigns before. It's people like this that should make governments and bankers worried.

It's those people that have generally benefitted from growing economic prosperity. They've played by the rules all their lives, but they're seeing those benefits disappear, while an elite minority prosper.

In America, the 'American Dream' is dying if it's not dead already. In the UK we hear about the 'squeezed middle'

It's these types of people that are making these protests so important and relevant.

All this week, I've been following reports on the never ending Euro crisis and the battle to save the Euro.

When you look at the levels of debt that are being talked about particularly in Greece and Italy, it makes you wonder how our political leaders could ever of got into such a mess.

Ordinary people have been let down by their leaders, and are having to foot the bill for their mistakes. I haven't felt compelled to put up a tent outside St Paul's, but if I was Greek, I think I'd be out on the streets myself.

The 99% are having to make sacrifices for the actions and policies of an elite few, and the longer this goes on, the more we're going to see of these protests in the coming years.

Return of the Roses

2011-10-19T13:42:00.020+01:00

Middle aged indie Kids are rejoicing with the news that the Stone Roses have decided to reform.

Out of all the big 90s indie bands that have reformed, this was always the least likely to happen, but now it has happened it seems inevitable.

I asked a friend at work his thoughts, and he said The Stones Roses were one of those bands that define a certain time and era. He wasn't convinced they would have anything new to add to today's music scene.

She Bangs the Drum

I sort of agree, but I'm still interested in hearing any new material they might bring out.

For those of us who remember, The Stone Roses will always be associated with the 'Madchester era' of the late 80s early 90s. As a teenager in those days who was getting into Hip Hop and dance music, I tried my very best to avoid anything indie.

However, the Stone Roses along with the Happy Monday's were the sort of indie bands I could relate to. They were guitar bands that understood and embraced elements of dance music culture.

So now they're back, do we really need a Stone Roses reunion? And what does it say about the state of the music industry? A band that only produced two albums and split up 15 years ago has produced one of biggest stories in music this year.

Nostalgia seems to rule these days in music. Some of it’s understandable, there’s a lot of money to be made in live music. In fact it’s probably the only place where people can make serious money in the industry.

It’s easier for older bands who’ve had successful careers and popular back catelogs to reform and prove a success, than artists who are just starting out.

It’s like a snowball effect. One band makes a successful comeback, then other bands and promoters see the potential, and before you know it everyone’s at it.

There’s nothing wrong with a bit of nostalgia but does it benefit the music industry?

Music companies and artists have seen the old music business model smashed with the rise of the internet and digital downloads, the live scene offers real money opportunities, especially with so many more music festivals around today.

I’m struggling to answer my own question.

Part of me thinks too much nostalgia means new artists won’t get enough attention, but maybe we just need to should accept the changing nature of the music industry. The old certainties of the pre-digital age are gone. Maybe we should accpet that a lot of bands will split up before eventually reforming at a future date.

Let me know what your thoughts. I’d love to hear your views.

England's football and rugby teams leave me indifferent

2011-10-09T22:41:00.013+01:00

One of the great things about being a sports fan is the range of emotions that watching sport can bring.

There's the emotional highs and lows of following your favourite team, the real life drama that success and failure brings, as well as the thrill of watching great skills and performances from competitors.

An idiot abroad

Unfortunately after watching England's football and rugby teams this weekend, I was left with none of these feelings - only total indifference.

A 2-2 draw away to that footballing giant known as Montenegro, and another ridiculous sending off from Wayne Rooney.

I've given up on England challenging the world's best at football. For 30 minutes on Friday we gave the impression of being a serious football nation, before the inevitable mental collapse took place; perfectly represented by Rooney. There was no need to get upset, we've experienced this 'groundhog' day so many times.

Anyway, football was only the warm up act to the main event this weekend which of course was England's World Cup Quarter final against the old enemy France.

I've come to expect a lot more from England's rugby team. They might play a brand of rugby that for most of the time is stodgy, slow and uninspiring, but they grind out results. We occasionally even win stuff stuff like 6 Nations and World Cups.

Yesterday though was a complete disaster. 16-0 down at half time the game was over. The French were having a collective breakdown only a week ago, yet England provided them with the perfect therapy to get their World Cup campaign up and running again.

I couldn't even get upset at the end. The first half performance was so bad we didn't deserve to go through, despite a second half comeback.

The entire campaign seemed a waste of time, with poor performances and various off the field controversies dogging the England team. Sounds familiar to another England team doesn't it?

Die hard football and rugby fans have little time for each other's games but we're all united in seeing performances of mediocrity, under achievement and off the field bad behaviour ruining our teams chances.

When did our football and rugby teams become so similiar? Why do they always shoot themselves in the foot?

At least there's always the cricket.

The release of Amanda Knox....Some thoughts

2011-10-05T21:59:00.006+01:00

After the release of Amanda Knox this week my initial thoughts focused on the following:

How Meredith Kercher's death has been completely overshadowed by the question of Knox's guilt.

The complete failure of the original criminal investigation into the case.

The media's obession with Knox that's turned her into a celebrity. There's been absolutely no interest from the media in her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, who has also spent the last four years in prison.

There's now only one person that's been convicted of Meredith Kercher's murder and that's the Ivory Coast drifter Rudy Guede. There seems to be few doubts that he was involved in Kercher's death, but I'm not convinced he acted alone.

I almost saw the President

2011-09-22T00:24:00.010+01:00

Last night I met some friends outside Grand Central Station in Mid Manhattan. We soon realised that the main road of 42nd St which runs outside the station had been closed off to traffic.

Here comes the President

President Obama's been in New York this week attending the United Nations General Assembly meeting.

There were a number of police officers on the street, making sure members of the public didn't break through the barriers onto the road.

Nobody really knew what was going on, but something big was happening. Seeing how Obama was in town it was easy to put two and two together.

Eventually we could see police sirens in the distance, a group of motor cycles passed, closely followed by a couple of Limousines.

I'm assuming Obama was in one of the limos, although they passed so quickly you couldn't tell who was inside. After the limos passed there was more police and a couple a black vans that looked like secret service vehicles.

It was all very exciting to think that I was only a few yards away from the leader of the free world!

It's unlikely I'll ever be that close to the President of the United States ever again!

My New York Post

2011-09-21T23:44:00.010+01:00

I've already settled into a little routine here in New York.

I leave my hotel - find a cafe off Broadway, I have black coffee, some bagels, and I read a copy of the New York Post. I'm like a proper New Yorker.

The Post is a local New York tabloid paper owned by the media mogul everyone loves to hate, Rupert Murdoch. If you asked me to describe it, I'd say think of the Sun and a bit of the Daily Mail. Yes a nightmare thought for some of you out there!

Generally I find American newspapers pretty dry to be honest. They're just not as entertaining or as interesting as British papers. I did however like the Post, despite not agreeing with its political views.

It's ridiculously right wing and very anti Obama. Everyday this week there's been an attack on Obama's plans to raise taxes for America's highest earners. I already thought George Bush had lowered taxes for America's rich, but according to the Post Obama's plans are flawed.

Other big news stories in New York this week

New York Yankee pitcher, Mariano Rivera set a new record for the most career saves? Don't ask me what this means, I really don't get baseball. Anyway this was massive news, and the Post even had a souvenir poster of the event. When it comes to bat and ball games give me cricket any day.

Simon Cowell's X Factor arrived in America with a two hour special last night.

A New York housewife Barbara Sheehan is on trial for murdering her ex cop husband. She shot him using 11 bullets, following years of alleged abuse.

And a couple from Manhattan, kidnapped their 8 children from a Foster home in Queens New York. They still haven't been found.

Out and about in NYC

2011-09-20T22:17:00.039+01:00

As I'm only here in New York for four days, I've got a lot to pack in. Shopping and sightseeing are the main priorities.

You can't come to New York without doing a bit of shopping. The city is one of the fashion capitals of the world.

Shopping in many of the big flagship clothing stores in mid Manhattan can be a bit intense and full on. I found a great alternative checking out the shops in Lower Manhattan's SoHo district.

The streets of SoHo

In SoHo you won't find huge skycrapers or iconic buildings that are instantly recognisable. What you get instead is a neighbourhood where it's all about the vibe. It's a very cool place to hang out.

SoHo, was originally at the heart of New York's art scene back in the 1970's and 80's. It's still got that edgier artistic feel to it in contrast to the more commercial corporate world you find in Midtown Manhattan.

More of SoHo

I managed to pick up a great jacket from Banana Republic for $190. Now of course we do have Banana Republic in the UK (well London) but you can't guarantee they'll have the same things in the UK as over here. I love Banana Republic, it's now officially my favourite shop.

New York is a shopper's heaven. There's just so much on offer for people. New Yorkers are very lucky.

I have to say, when it comes to Americans and their fashion sense, I'm not convinced. Generally speaking I don't think the average American dresses as well as people in the UK or the rest of Europe. However, New Yorkers are the exception.

They're like Londoners, whereby any style seems to go. People aren't afraid to experiement or be different, which is something you don't always find with European fashion.

It was strange seeing familiar shops like Top Shop and H&M in SoHo. Nothing wrong with them - I shop there myself. But I suppose for Americans they represent the very best in affordable European fashion.

Hello Brooklyn

On this trip to New York I was determined to spend some time away from the island of Manhattan, and explore some of the outer boroughs of New York.

Downtown Williamsburg

I decided to check out a place called Williamsburg in Brooklyn which I'd heard a lot about in recent years.

It's one of those fashionable areas that's full of hip young urban professionals. The sort that work in the 'creative' industries or people who are writers and artists.

For those of you familiar with London, Williamsburg reminds me of places like Shoreditch and Stoke Newington. Everyone on the street looked achingly cool and trendy.

I enjoyed having a walk around the neighbourhood and escaping the hustle of bustle of Manhattan for a few hours.

Brooklyn Bridge

If you asked me one thing to do when visiting New York; something that costs absolutely nothing - I would say have a walk across the Brooklyn Bridge.

The Bridge links Lower Manhattan to downtown Brooklyn. As bridges go it's seriously impressive. When you think that it was completed towards the end of the 19th century it makes you realise what an incredible piece of engineering it is.

You can find some stunning views of lower Manhattan on the bridge, although you do need to avoid some of cycle lanes, as New York cyclers will let you know exactly what they think of you, should you get in their way!

The sun setting over Lower Manhattan

Views of Central Park

As I previously mentioned, walking the streets of Mid Manhattan can be intense. It's great to know that if you head far enough uptown, you'll eventually find the green oasis that is Central Park.

One of the great features of the urban planning of New York has to be Central Park.

Live from New York

2011-09-19T23:59:00.005+01:00

I'm blogging live from New York this week.

I'm spending a couple of days in one of my favourite cities in the whole world!

I love New York. This is the first time I've been back since 1998. A lot's changed since then, most notably there's no Twin Towers, but there's still a lot of familiar sites.

I arrived here mid afternoon New York time, and after settling into my hotel on 47th Street East, I soon hit the streets of Manhattan.

The picture above was taken from one of my favourite buildings in the city, the Rockefeller centre. I arrived at a good time, as the sun was just setting over the city.

There's so much that I want to see and do in the next few days, so things are going to be pretty hectic until I leave on Thursday.

Is this a golden age in men's tennis?

2011-09-13T23:49:00.008+01:00

At one o'clock last night I decided I really needed to go to bed, even though I was desperate to see the end of an amazing US Open final between Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic.

For 3 hours I think I watched some of the best tennis that's ever been played on a tennis court.

The standard in men's tennis at the moment is unbelievable. Last night's US Open final was another Grand Slam classic. Some of the rallies were truly breathtaking!

It's not just the level of skill that was so impressive, it was the power and intensity of the rallies. It was brutal to watch!

I do think we're currently in a golden age of men's tennis. Some of the Grand Slam finals I've watched in the last 5-6 years have been true epics, and last night was yet another one.

It all started with Roger Federer dominating the game, then Nadal turned up proved unbeatable on clay before moving on to conquer every other surface. The two of them battled it out for a few years before the emergence of Novak Djokovic.

Djokovic has always been good but this year he's been incredible, winning 3 out of the 4 Grand Slams titles this year.

And lets not forget our own Andy Murray. I know he hasn't won a Grand Slam title yet, but that's only because of the 3 players already mentioned. He can still win a Slam but he just needs to find that extra something.

The four of them together have helped to create a real golden period in men's tennis, I look forward to it continuing for the next few years.

9/11 Ten Years On

2011-09-11T21:19:00.020+01:00

If there's been a bigger news story than 9/11 in my life time I certainly don't know what it is.

Even now 10 years on, watching the footage of the Twin Towers collapsing still makes me think 'Did this really happen?' I'm still fascinated and shocked by the whole event.

As part of the generation that grew up towards the end of the Cold War, I imagined the world would be a safer place after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

9/11 made me realise this wasn't the case. You knew where you stood during the Cold War days. Suddenly there was a new danger out there, a new enemy which we knew little about and was totally different to anything we'd seen before.

If you want to know where I was on 9/11 I was temping at the London School of Economics. Apart from remembering how boring the job was, 9/11 was the one thing that stood out from my time there.

After getting home and watching the news coverage that night, I remember going to work the next day thinking 'What's going on the in the world?'

I imagined it might have been like this during the Second World War. That sense of danger, knowing that you were at war with an enemy that hated you and could attack at any time. Looking back it was scary stuff.

A couple of days later I went into a book shop at the college and bought a book called The Islamic Threat - Myth or Reality?

The book asked the question whether Islam and the West were on some sort of collision course and if so why. Clearly after 9/11 they'd already collided, but I wanted to understand why this had happened.

I had this intense desire to try and make sense of it all. I wanted to understand why some Muslims in the world hated America and the West so much they were prepared to fly planes into skycrapers and kill thousands of innocent people.

So on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 is the world a safer place? Has America and the West understood the causes of Islamic extremists?

It's debatable. A few months after 9/11 US forces invaded Afghanistan to take on the Taliban. 10 years later they're still there and we still don't know what victory will look like or if it will ever happen.

US and NATO Forces were meant to crush the Al Qaeda supporting Taliban regime and bring about democracy. The Taliban may not be in power but they're still part of Afghan society, whilst democracy is still struggling to survive.

As for Iraq, this has been an even bigger disaster. Despite no evidence linking Saddam Hussien to 9/11 or Islamic terrorism. It still presented the perfect opportunity for 'regime change' for the likes of former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other Neo-Cons in the Bush Administration.

It's all very well having 'regime change' but what about after the change of regime? What happens next? Not much thought was given to that.

Earlier this year we saw the killing of Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden who'd been in hiding in Pakistan. I suppose this brought some form of closure for many Americans, but Bin Laden's death was more a symbolic event. Al Qaeda aren't the danger they were, despite America telling us of their continued threat.

If the truth be known, for most of us living in the West our lives are pretty peaceful. 9/11 was a spectacular one off - a one off that changed the course of history, but still something unimaginable.

We have become more aware of extremist Muslim views around the world even in the UK, but much of their hatred and anger against the West has no real logic or objective. They're just anti the West because they hate the West. They have no political goals or objectives to offer ordinary Muslims.

We've seen with the recent 'Arab Spring' uprisings in the Middle East that many Muslims aren't looking for radical Islam to change their lives, they want modern Western ideals and values like democracy, political freedom and prosperity. Extremism can't give them these things.

Looking back, if 9/11 changed anything then it's changed the way the world sees America.

We're seeing the decline of the world's only Super Power. In years to come we'll see 9/11 as very much part of America's decline as a major power.

Never before had we seen the US attacked on its own soil. It reacted by starting two foreign wars with limited success, and which as a result only added to the huge financial and economic difficulties the country is currently experiencing.

9/11 showed that America could be vulnerable like anyone else, and despite it's economic and military power it's been unable to truly defeat the causes of those terrorist attacks.

World Athletics Championships: A lot of positives, but still work to do for 2012

2011-09-05T22:20:00.013+01:00

As always I loved watching last week's World Athletics Championships in Daegu, South Korea.

This was our best performance since 1993 and we managed to reach our target of 7 medals with two golds, but for British athletics it's all about the build up to 2012.

Head coach Charles van Commenee has set a target of 8 track and field medals. He's a hard task master and sets very high standards (I wouldn't want to upset him) but I think he's being realistic.

I think the the best case scenario is that we win 2 to 3 gold medals, but there are no gold medal guarantees.

There's been a lot a criticism in some quarters for Britain's performance in Daegu, some of it's been deserved, but people need to realise just how tough and competitive world athletics really is.

Performance of the week.

Has to be Mo Farah. In the last week, along with last summer's European Championships, he's proven that he's the best long distance runner this country has arguably ever produced.

He was unlucky in the 10,000m you can argue that he went out to early with 500m to go, but he took the gamble and it almost paid off. Despite the disappointment of coming second he showed a huge amount of character to come back and claim the the 5000m title.

I'm really pleased for Mo. I've been reading a few interviews with him in recent weeks, and he's made a huge amount of sacrifices to achieve his success. He's gone to Kenya to train with some of the top Kenyan distance runners. Trained at altitude in the Pyrenees and moved to America to continue his training.

What's great is that he's proved that by making sacrifices and embracing tougher training methods, Europeans can compete and beat the very best East African athletes.

Surprise Silver

I have to admit I'd never heard of Hannah England until the final of the women's 1500m, but what a great performance. She got her tactics spot on and timed her finish to perfection.

I also discovered that she's trained by one of my former school teachers, a Mr Bud Baldero. Well done Bud!

England's announced herself on the World Stage but she needs to kick on. There's no guarantee that she'll repeat this performance next year in London. It's important that this isn't a one off and that getting to next year's Olympic final is the minimum that she should achieve.

Where are our sprinters?

For me the biggest disappointment of the last week is that there's no young sprinters coming through and reaching finals. Taking nothing away from the likes of Marlon Devonish and Christian Malcom, we should have a new generation coming through and replacing them.

Our best 100m runner is still Dwayne Chambers and he can't compete at next year's Olympics due to his previous drugs ban.

Mark Lewis Francis - I just give up on these days and Harry Aikines-Aryeetey is far too bulky and needs to lose some of that muscle weight.

Things aren't much better moving up to 200 and 400m. It's probably asking too much to expect any medals next year but we should be getting people into these finals.

Not a disaster for Jess

The golden girl of UK athletics Jessica Ennis could only achieve a silver mainly as as result of a terrible javelin. I don't think this is a disaster.

As I said before world athletics is incredibly tough and it's not easy to win gold medals. There was a danger that the British public would assume that Ennis would only need to turn up to win gold and that's not going to be the case.

The winner of the heptathlon Tatyana Chernova won with a score of 6,880. That's 49 points beyond the British record held by Denise Lewis. Ennis's personal best is another 8 points back. It just goes to show, that she will need to raise her game for next year to have a chance of winning gold.

I still have a lot of confidence in her and she still remains one of our best gold medal hopes.

Unlucky Phillips

I really thought Phillips Idowu was going to retain his world title when he jumped a season's best of 17.77m. It was just unfortunate that the winning jump by American Christian Taylor's was the 5th longest in history at 17.96m. What can you do about that?

You can tell that Phillips has really emerged as a big time competitor and although it would have been great for him to win, getting a silver is still a good result. He'll be in the mix next year in London I have no doubt.

Well Done to..

Dai Green and Andy Turner. Didn't expect a gold medal from Dai Green in the 400m hurdles, and Turner was able to claim a bronze following the disqualification of Dayron Robles; but their success made me think back to last year's European Championships. Both Green and Turner won golds last year, but you still had people saying the standard at the European Championships wasn't that great.

That may be the case, but winning at that level instills a winning mentality and breeds confidence. I think we've seen this with both these hurdlers. They'll be in the medal shake up in London.

And finally

Admittedly this has nothing to do with Britain, but I wanted to mention Usain Bolt, purely because he's the greatest ambassador the sport of athletics currently has. Secondly a word on the tiny Caribbean island of St Kitts and Nevis.

This is the island where my mom's family originate from. Not only did the 35 year old Kim Collins win a bronze in the 100m; St Kitts also managed to take bronze in the 4x100m.

Not bad for an island with a population of roughly 45,000 people!

Channel 4 what were you thinking?

2011-08-31T22:03:00.005+01:00

As a massive atletics fan I always associate watching major atlethics championships with the BBC.

Imagine my disappointment and scepticism to hear that this year's coverage of the World Athletics Championships in Daegu South Korea was now on Channel 4.

When I watch athletics I want to see and hear familiar faces like Steve Cram, Colin Jackson and Brendon Foster, what we've got instead is the disaster that is Ortis Deley.

Why have Channel Four got him presenting athletics? After about 30 seconds of watching him earlier this week, I realised he wasn't just out of his depth, he was actually drowning! I switched channels it was too embarrassing to watch.

It came as no surprise to discover this compilation of some his worst gaffes. Channel 4 have now decided to 'scale back' his presenting duties for the remainder of the Championship.

The only good thing Channel 4 has done is recruit the legend that is Michael Jonhson from the BBC. His punditry and analysis is almost has good as his sprinting.

Looking forward to being reaquainted with the BBC's athletics coverage at next year's Olympics.

Not the situation Abercrombie and Fitch had in mind.

2011-08-21T22:03:00.014+01:00

For those of you who are regular readers of my blog, you'll know I like to keep up with the some of the serious news stories of the day.

It may surprise you to know, that I also find time in my life to watch a worrying amount of reality tv nonsense. I can probably tell you just a much about the Kardashians, as I can about the Euro Zone crisis.

One of my favourite reality tv shows is Jersey Shore. If you haven't seen it, think Big Brother but with Italian Americans who spend their time fighting, clubbing, drinking, and shagging!

It's been in the news this week as one of the stars of the show, Mike 'The Situation' Sorrentino has been offered money by the fashion label Abercrombie and Fitch not to wear their clothes on the show.

Mike the 'Situation' Sorrentino being the Situation.

According to Abercrombie and Fitch, Mike the Situation, is not the kind of person that best represents what the brand is about. In there own words they have said of Sorrintino his: 'association is contrary to the aspirational nature of our brand'.

I used to be a big fan of Abercrombie and Fitch, but I've gone off the label, and pretentious comments like this help to explain why. Their clothes are a 'preppy' more upmarket version of Gap. Their shops are staffed by the most ridiculously good looking people, to point where I no longer go to the flag ship London store, as I only feel fat and ugly and most of their clothes don't even fit me anymore.

If there's anything aspirational about A&F it's about an unatainable version of beauty.

Anyway it got me thinking about brand reputation and how companies try and manage their reputations. This week I've read reports that the sports brand Addidas has suffered as a result of the UK riots, with many looters being seen wearing Addidas clothes.

I think A&F might have got this one wrong. It's not as if their brand has been damaged in recent months. Jersey Shore is one of the most popular reality tv shows around. Far from making the company appear cool and aspiratonal, it looks uptight and takes itself far too seriously.

'UK Riots: 'whites have become black'....er I don't think so David

2011-08-16T20:20:00.020+01:00

Whenever David Starkey turns up on your tv screen, you know things won't be dull.

I've become used to his overly controversial appearances on Question Time, but been entertained by his history programmes on Channel Four.

On Saturday I got the chance to see what he said about the UK riots in Friday's edition of Newsnight.

I'm not going to deny that the riots have raised some uncomfortable questions about our country, particularly around the issues of poverty, class and race.

He may have wanted to sound controversial, but to argue that white people rioting was because they've started to act black would be ridiculous, if it wasn't quite so offensive.

As soon as anyone starts quoting Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech you begin to worry where the debate will end up.

Starkey is arguing that black culture has somehow corrupted white british youth. There are elements of Black American street culture that have become popular amongst kids in the UK, but that's not an explanation for the causes of last week's riots.

The problem I have with much of what David Starkey had to say, is that he's fallen into the same tired old cliche of assuming that there is only one form of black culture and only one way of being a black person.

This is what he had to say when talking about the Tottenham Labour MP David Lammy:

'listen to David Lammy an archtypical successful black man. If you turned the screen off so you were listening on radio, you'd think he was white'

What a stupid comment! David Lammy talks like David Lammy. Firstly he's a trained lawyer and MP, a middle class professional, why would he speak like he's from the street. But for some people that's not what being black is about.

If you're white it makes no difference whether you're a so called chav off a council estate or an upper class toff, nobody questions your authenticity as a white person.

If you're black however, as soon as you fail to fit neatly into the black urban/street stereotype, you're seen as not being a 'real' black person - you're somehow acting white.

There are lots of different black cultures and experiences that both black and white people need to recognise. The black urban experience isn't any more authentic then other black experiences, and it can't be held responsible for the riots.

If there was one point I agreed with David Starkey (and there wasn't many) it was his reference to the London street accent 'Jafaican'. It's certainly become more prominent in London in recent years.

But you know what? That's language for you.

Language is constantly evolving and changing. New words and phrases enter the language, others become obsolete. We can't control language whether we'd like to or not.

Despite the controversy, Starkey has refused to apologise. I don't have a problem with plain speaking which is what he claims he was doing. But I do have a problem when people decide to resort to boring, outdated, and misinformed cliches and stereotypes, that don't offer any real explanations on the issues that have contributed to the riots.

Stop blaming Hip Hop

If in doubt about the moral decay of today's youth, you can always use rap as an excuse.

David Starkey talked about rap's negative cultural influence on Newsnight, and although it's clear he knows nothing about the music, you know there's plenty of other people out there that probably agree with him.

I've listened to Rap/Hip Hop since I was a kid. I've listened to all the different styles and sub genres including 'Gangster rap'. I think I've turned out ok - I'm a law abiding citizen that's never gone out looting!

Gangster rap is a term that gets thrown about to describe an entire genre of music, so for those who don't know, he's a very brief history.

Gangster rap emerged in the late 1980's and early 1990's and involved a few key artists from Los Angeles. The likes of NWA, Ice Cube, Dr Dre, Snoop Dog, and Ice T.

The original gangster rap template was always an odd mix of lyrics about hustling, police harassment, militant Black Power politics, smoking weed and partying, and yes run ins with bi*ches and ho’s! These artists were telling their story about their own West Coast lifestyle which hadn't been heard before.

By 1995 Gangster rap was dead. Anything after that simply became a parody of the genre, with record labels realising they could make lots of money selling a fantasy gangster lifestyle to both white and black kids.

What started out as quite a militant anti establishment form of music, was incorporated into the mainstream, repackaged and then sold back to suburban kids.

When people argue that gangster rap is a corrupting influence they fail to understand that a lot of rap/hip hop is simply entertainment, no different from watching gangster films like Goodfellers, Scarface or the Godfather.

Blaming rap is just a weak attempt to deflect attention from the role that successive governments and our overall society have played in creating the conditions that resulted in the riots.

The UK Riots: What is going on?

2011-08-11T00:03:00.027+01:00

In the last few days I’ve been shocked and embarrassed watching some of coverage of the rioting and looting that’s been taking place in London and other UK cities.

On Monday night, I turned on Sky News to see reports of buildings on fire in Croydon, looting in Clapham, South London, I thought: ‘What is going on!’

It felt like the police and the government had actually lost control of the streets. It still doesn’t feel like they’ve regained total control now.

Since then, I’ve had conversations with people at work as well as lengthy email discussions with friends on the situation, all in an attempt to make sense of it all.

That’s the difficult part - so much of the violence makes no sense and doesn’t appear to serve any purpose.

I’ve thought long and hard over what’s been happening. I will attempt to put together some coherent thoughts on the events of the last few days. There's just so much to discuss and so many questions to ask.

What’s going on in our inner cities? What do we expect from the police? How are young people being brought up and educated? What jobs are out there? Is the gap between rich and poor too big? Is our society too materialistic?

It’s hard to know where to begin, but a good place to start would be with what happened in Tottenham last week.

As cynical as it may sound, the riots that took place in Tottenham following the peaceful protest against the death of Mark Duggan came as no surprise.

Having been to plenty of football matches at White Hart Lane, I know that High Road quite well. The whole area smacks of poverty, alienation and deprivation. It’s the kind of place where I would expect something like this to happen at some point.

But moving on from Tottenham, the escalation of the riots to other parts of London and the rest of country totally baffles me.

The only time I can remember or know of riots similar to what’s happening now were during the 1980s. The thing is Britain today compared to 30 years ago is a very different place. The Brixton riots in 1981 were some of the worst this country’s seen, but the political and social landscape was completely different.

I remember watching a documentary on the 1981 Brixton riots, what soon became obvious was just how bad local community policing was back then. The police acted more like an invading army, it was no surprise that people rose up against them.

Those riots were more about people saying they’d had enough of brutal and discriminatory police tactics. They were speaking out against poverty and the lack of opportunities, during a time of rising unemployment and social tension.

This isn't the situation today. You can say what you like about the police, but things have improved greatly.

This is what I don't understand about this week's rioting. Where's the political aim? There isn't one. It isn't about people struggling to make their voices heard - This is just random violence, criminality and looting.

It’s like there’s two different countries in the UK living side by side; you have the mainstream and then you have this alternative parallel community of people who live by a completely different moral and ethical code.

It’s been building for a good generation or so now. Occasionally you see glimpses of it, but in the last few days its as if the whole country has been confronted by this ugly underclass.

So who or what is to blame?

I’m not falling for the simplistic ‘it’s the government cuts’ argument. That’s irrelevant. Some on the Left might try and push that argument but it doesn’t wash with me.

There's a number of issues, firstly poor parenting, and fractured family structures. I was telling my friend that I've been lucky in my life, as my Dad has always been around. I also had other male role models in my family, most notably my grandfather who came to Britain in the mid 1950s.

Within two years of arriving he'd found a job, brought a house and paid for his wife and 7 kids to come over from the island of St Kitts in the Caribbean. Many kids don't have such role models in their families, particularly those from my own West Indian background. Having stable, solid family environments is crucial.

Education

Although we always hear about how successful kids are at passing GCSE and A Levels exams, many kids leave school ill-equipped to deal with the world of work and living in mainstream society.

My cousin has been teaching in schools around London for a number of years, some of the stories he tells me about the education system makes me think that for some schools its more about ticking boxes. Making sure a school does well in the local league table rather than actually providing kids with skills for the job market.

Secondly, I've heard some real horror stories from friends who've been educated in some of London's tougher inner city schools. These schools sound like breeding grounds for the types of kids we've seen on our TV screens in the last few days, the kids have no chance.

Employment opportunities

In some parts of the country I wonder what jobs are available for people; secondly I think many kids simply don’t have the skills or social intelligence for full time employement.

I live in Stratford, East London, 20 minutes walk from the Olympic site. Do you think any of the locals are involved in the construction of the Olympic village? No they're not. Many of the jobs have gone to Eastern Europeans. Surely if our own youth were better educated and trained we wouldn’t need to recruit so many foreigners.

I accept that 40 - 50 years ago there was more unskilled manual jobs available for people without qualifications that simply don't exist today. But surely we have to do better in training and educating youngsters for the types of jobs that do exist.

Consumerism

We live in a highly materialistic and at times selfish society. There’s a book I’ve just finished reading which I highly recommend. It’s called Affluenza by Oliver James.

It looks at how anxiety, depression, stress and envy are increasing in Western Capitalist societies, most notably in the UK and the US. This ‘affluenza’ is now according to the author spreading to other parts of the world.

How does this relate to the riots I hear you ask?

Well the book argues that capitalism and consumerism are about making us dissatisfied with our lives and our possessions.

Too much of our status amongst family, friends and society are seen through what we own, how we spend our money. If we have the flat screen TV, the car, the holidays abroad, the house in the suburbs; all of this will somehow make us happier and better people. What we own are signs of our value, our success and worth within our societies.

Living in the West many of us experience this to greater or lesser degrees. People at the bottom of society are just as materialistic as everyone else. As a society we tell people that the possession they own make them better and more successful people.

Some will work hard and save money to get such possessions, but as we've seen there are many who feel they don't need to do that. They feel entitled to these things.

Since the end of the Second World War, we've experienced greater levels of wealth and prosperity, and I think as a society we have greater expectations of what governments and society should provide for us. There's a greater sense of entitlement from people.

For many people they realise that by hopefully contributing something to society, like paying taxes they will get something back in return, but unfortunately there's a growing underclass that have this sense of entitlement, but don't feel or want to contribute to the society they're living in.

I think I'll leave it at that for now. There's much more to be said, a lot more soul searching to be had. Don't worry, I know in the next few days, and coming weeks I'll have more thoughts on the riots and what it all means for everyone living in the UK.

The 2000th Test Cricket Match

2011-07-25T22:06:00.011+01:00

I was at Lords on Saturday for the third day of the 1st Test between England and India.

I managed to see a good days cricket. England took 10 wickets, there was a century by India's Rahul Dravid, and I got to see one of the game's greatest ever batsmen in Sachin Tendulkar.

England won earlier today, to go one up in the four Test series. I've been looking forward to this series since the start of the year. It was great seeing England win the Ashes in Australia, but lets be honest the current Australia team is pretty weak.

India are now the number one Test team, and this series will be a true test of how good England really are. Judging by this first match, England could very soon become the new number one team in the world. They will do if they win the series by two matches.

If there was one thing I loved about my Lords visit, it was this. It reminded me just how good Test cricket can be. Yes 20/20 has it's place, but Test Match cricket is really where it's at. What it's really all about. Maybe I'm a traditionalist, a purist even - but Test cricket is just more interesting to watch.

It's certainly more interesting when you've got the two best teams in the world going head to head, and I can't wait for the next 3 games to come.

Phone-Hacking: Where do I begin?

2011-07-18T22:31:00.022+01:00

I’m so late following up on this story.

For the last week, I’ve been thinking so much about what I want to say on this phone-hacking scandal, but everyday there’s been a new revelation, and development, you just can’t keep up.

In saying that I’ve loved it. This is one of the most exciting news stories I’ve followed in years. Phone-hacking ticks so many boxes for me - politics, journalism, crime, celebrity, it’s the ultimate news story.

For a media news geek like myself the events of the last couple of weeks have been amazing! The country's biggest selling newspaper shut down. The world's leading press baron Rupert Murdoch battling to save his company and reputation. Some of Britain's top police officers and even our own Prime Minister David Cameron directly involved.

I've been following this story for two years, and it's still impossible to predict what will happen next or where this story will end.

Rupert Murdoch

I never imagined that one day I'd see Rupert Murdoch battling to save his media empire from collapsing. He's Britain’s most powerful newspaper owner, the world’s biggest press tycoon. How has it come to this?

For many liberal, left leaning, Guardian reading types Rupert Murdoch is some sort of devil incarnated, but I’ve never felt that way towards him.

I’ve always seen Murdoch as more of an ‘evil genius’ and when I use the word genius I mean that seriously.

I got an insight into how Murdoch works as boss when reading Piers Morgan’s book the Insider.During the 1990’s Morgan was editor of the News of the World and Murdoch was his boss. Hearing Morgan talk about Murdoch, I realised that he was someone with a brilliant talent and instinct for running newspapers. As someone who also loves newspapers, I respected that.

He’s someone who controversially revolutionised the newspaper industry during the 1980s with the move to Wapping, and changed the television landscape forever with the emergence of Sky television in particular Sky Sports.

He’s also not afraid to experiment as we’ve seen with the introduction of paywalls for papers like the Times. Ok his constant attacks towards the BBC have annoyed me, and for too long he's acted like an unofficial member of cabinet for successive Tory and Labour governments. His influence on British political life has overstepped the mark on occasions.

But he’s still one of those figures I have a grudging respect for. If this is the beginning of the end for Rupert Murdoch we wont see his like again for sometime.

No way Rebecca Brooks could survive

It took a while but it was inevitable that Rebecca Brooks had to resign as chief executive of News International.

My opinions towards her are the same as those I had for Andy Coulson. If you’re an editor of a newspaper, you should know where and how your paper’s stories are being found and investigated. If you don’t know this, then you’re not doing a very good job as editor.

Politicians and the Press

You get the impression that for some MPs the phone hacking scandal has been a great opportunity to finally to take revenge against sections of the press and Murdoch’s News International.

It’s good to see politicians taking a stand against the actions of News International, but lets not forget that for so many years both Tory and Labour politicians were desperate to court favour with Rupert Murdoch and his newspaper stable.

A lot of people will agree with me when I say it wasn’t a good thing for politics in this country. Politicians are meant to act in the interests of the electorate, rather than on behalf of corporations or business tycoons with their own agendas. I know that sounds naïve but that’s how it’s suppose to be.

One person I did think of was Vince Cable – remember him? End of last year, two undercover Telegraph reporters recorded him saying how he’d ‘declared war’ on Rupert Murdoch in his attempts to take full control of BskyB. Cable was replaced by Jeremy Hunt in overseeing the decision making process for the BskyB deal.

Poor Vince declared war too early, now everyday there’s an MP coming out to attack Murdoch.

A crisis for journalism

Very few people are emerging from this scandal with any credit, and when I think about it, journalism itself as profession and industry in the UK has been damaged.

None of this phone hacking revelations has come as a surprise to me, I read all about it 3 years ago, in the book Flat Earth News by Nick Davies. This isn’t the first time I’ve mentioned this book on my blog and unlikely to be the last.

If you love journalism and the press you need to read this book. In it, Davies explains that phone-hacking is just one of many dodgy and unethical methods used in the pursuit of news stories by many papers and not just the News of the World.

One of the reasons this story hasn’t come out before is that newspapers weren’t going to report on their own criminal activities, and as we’ve been discovering the police weren’t going to investigate, mainly because they were involved themselves. Nick Davies describes how newspapers have routinely bribed police officers for information.

I understand that in some circumstances in order to investigate serious or sensitive matters, the normal rules and accepted standards of investigation may have to be sacrificed.

The problem with phone-hacking is that it’s hard to justify the need to hack into the phones of murder victims or celebrities. It's a case of invading people's privacy for no obvious reason.

Previously I thought the MP expenses scandal represented the very best in investigative journalism - holding those in power to account and unveiling some of the criminal actions of our elected leaders – this was truly in the public interest.

Until it was shut down, I read the News of the World every week. I always enjoyed reading it, but I know that for all those genuinely good investigative stories the paper published; such as Pakistan cricket scandal, there were so many other stories that were trivial. The Max Moseley case is one that springs to mind.

Exposing the fact that he enjoyed a bit of S&M in his private life really wasn’t in the public interest. It was just a bit of titillation about someone most people had never heard of.

Despite this, I still bought the paper and in doing so continued to show there was a market for such stories.

My main concern now is that many people will rightly feel that the press has gone too far with phone hacking, and that tighter regulation must be introduced.

You’re hearing this argument from many people especially politicians. The cynic in me says it would suit politicians and those with power and influence to have a weaker press - one that wasn’t so intrusive.

Going back to MPs Expenses would that story have emerged if we had a weaker over regulated press? I don't think so.

Despite the actions of the News of the World, I take the view that the press when it acts responsibly is there to monitor and hold to account those individuals who purport to act in our interests.

Ironically, by not monitoring or regulating itself properly, journalism in this country may have weakened itself significantly.

The end of the News of the World - First reactions

2011-07-07T22:32:00.003+01:00

I'm still coming to terms with the shock that this is the end of the News of the World.

One of my work colleagues gleefully announced the news to me this afternoon. Earlier in the week during a lively debate on this story, he politely made it clear to me his utter contempt he had for the News of the World and the fact that someone like me reads it. I've heard his arguments before, and didn't take any of it personally.

At first I thought he was joking, but after clicking onto the Guardian's website I soon found out it was no joke.

I said: "it's like the fall of Communism, but the equivalent for the British press"

I say this with only a slight sense of irony. It's unbelievable, and so unexpected, you never imagined something like this happening.

Only yesterday, I'd decided I wasn't going to buy the paper this Sunday, in protest against the latest allegations. Forget that, I'm definitely going to buy the last ever edition. It's the end for an iconic media and cultural brand in this country.

I'm going to write about this in more detail in the next few days, but whether you love or hate the News of the World, this is an historic and monumental day in the history of the British press.

Even I'm shocked by this latest phone hacking revelation

2011-07-06T23:42:00.021+01:00

"If the public knew the truth about the way certain sections of the media operate they would be absolutely horrified"

That’s a quote from former Labour party Press Secretary, Alistair Campbell, taken from a book called Flat Earth News by Nick Davies which I read back in 2008.

Well the public certainly know now, following the latest revelations in the News of the World phone hacking scandal.

I’ve been following this phone hacking story for a few years now, but even I was shocked when I heard the allegations that the News of the World had hacked into the phone of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler.That in itself was bad enough, but it gets worse.

Now there’s allegations that the News of the World hacked into the phones of victims of the 7/7 bombings, and tonight on Newsnight they reported that families of dead UK soldiers from Afghanistan have also been victims of phone hacking.

I read the News of the World every Sunday, and have done for years. I’m not going to lie to you I enjoy reading it; but I feel next Sunday it would be completely wrong for me to buy the paper.

I’ve previously wondered whether I’m contributing to a culture of unethical journalism by buying the News of the World.

Everytime I buy the paper I’m showing there’s a demand and interest in stories that may have been obtained using dubious or unethical methods.

In the past I've occasionally thought about such things, before deciding to just carry on buying the paper. Things have changed now though. This week's revelations are a game changer.

I’ve decided that if I boycott the paper I'll be sending out my own message that says these latest allegations are too much.

Related blog posts

Is this the end of the phone hacking story?

Tabloid phone hacking

Journalism back in the gutter!

This phone hacking story has entered a new phase, it's really in the public consious now.

Until a few days ago, this story only appealed to people like me, the media geeks out there of which I'm happy to call myself. But if we're being honest this phone hacking story didn't really hold much interest to the general public.

That's all changed now, and referring back to the Alastair Campbell's quote, the public are beginning to find out just how the tabloid press really operate - and it's not pretty.

For me it's interesting that stuff is coming out which I was reading about a couple of years ago in Nick Davies' Flat Earth News.

In his book he talks about some of the darker aspects of the national press and how newspapers find out information on members of the public. This includes bribing members of the police and civil servants, all of which is done by using private investigators.

This is exactly what we're hearing now, even though its been established practice within the press for years. This probably explains why quite a few other newspapers simply refused to run the phone hacking story on their front pages. I'm looking at you Daily Mail and the Express.

All the heat might be on the News of the World at the moment, but this story could spread to other newspapers, and their journalistic practices could come under scrutiny.

This could be one of those watershed moments, where things are never going to be quite the same. I've been following this story for over two years, but I'm thinking it's only now that this story has really started to take off.

What should we do about Greece?

2011-06-27T17:39:00.040+01:00

If someone asked me what's the biggest news story that's been interesting me in recent weeks, I'd have to say the financial crisis taking place in Greece.

Before you start thinking that's boring, I'm gonna click onto something more interesting, hold on a minute!

This is interesting - you've got Euro politicians and political commentators arguing this is the biggest crisis to hit Europe since the Second World War!

I've been giving this story a lot of thought. There's a number of questions that I've been thinking about in the last few weeks.

1. Is there much point in giving the Greeks anymore money?

2. Should the Greeks even be in the Euro? Would it be better for them to leave?

3. Does this crisis just prove that there's a limit to how much economic and political integration you can have in Europe?

Greece is well and truly f*cked! I'm sorry I can't think of another word that best sums up the situation the country is in.

The Greeks have no money to pay their national debt which stands at around 340 billion euros - that's one and-a-half times the value of everything the country produces.

In return for a new EU Loan to stop the country from going bankrupt, the Greek government is having to implement severe austerity measures, which means government spending cuts, jobs loses and tax increases.

No wonder the Greeks are feeling the pain and taking to the streets to protest against their leaders. If I was Greek I'd be thinking why should we stay in the Euro if it's going to mean so much economic pain.

What's best for Greece?

It's generally accepted now that it's only a matter of time before Greece defaults on its debt repayments, so what should it do next.

Probably leave the Euro. Write off some of its debt, and devalue its currency which will hopefully mean a return to economic growth.

Greece has too much debt which it can't meet. It doesn't matter how much more loans the EU give the Greeks, they're never going to be in a position to pay it off.

One of the things I've discovered is that nobody in Greece pays taxes. Well only half the population. They have a small private sector and a huge public sector. The country simply doesn't generate enough revenue to pay its debts.

There's probably no point in throwing more money at Greece if it can never pay this money back.

What's best for European Union?

The complete opposite from what I can see.

The last thing the EU wants to see is Greece default or even leave the Euro. If that happens the Euro itself is at risk. Not only that, it would mean enormous losses for the European Central Bank, which would be humiliating, but also for a number of French and German banks.

On top of this, there's the domino effect everyone keeps talking about. If Greece defaults on its debt, then the worry is that Portugal and Ireland will do the same and have their debts written off.

The question of Spain

Last week I was watching a video featuring the BBC's economic and business editors Hugh Pym and Robert Peston give a briefing on the Greek crisis. Interestingly they talked about the issue of Spain being crucial to what's going on.

The EU doesn't want the Greek crisis to spread to Ireland or Portugal (this could cause problems for British banks). If it did it could potentially spread to Spain which would the nightmare scenario for the EU.

Spain's economy is bigger than those two countries along with Greece, but it's economy is only just emerging from recession. If Greece, Portugal and Ireland needed a bailout it could knock the Spanish economy back into recession, which would be a disaster for the Euro. Spain itself could even need a bailout. The costs for that would be huge.

Hope you're keeping up with this!

Their opinion is that by propping up Greece with further loans, this will hopefully allow the stronger and more important Spanish economy to grow, so that if Greece was to default sometime in the not too distant future Spain would be in a stronger position to counter any domino effect.

It's complex stuff, but it got me thinking; what's best for Greece simply isn't in the best interests of the Euro, the EU, and particularly Germany.

I don't really know much about Greece's economic and political history, but from what I've learnt in recent weeks, I'm beginning to wonder whether Greece should have been admitted to the Euro in the first place.

The economies and political cultures of some of the Europe's southern states are completely different to those countries in the north.

You can't have a one size fits all economic model for all of Europe. I suppose this is the argument that Euroceptics use.

Although I don't consider myself a Eurosceptic, I understand where they're coming from. There's probably a limit to how big the Eurozone can realistically be.

Germany are the real winners

I'll probably sound like a real Eurosceptic when I say this, but Germany appear to be the biggest winners from having the Euro and the crisis in Greece. For years countries like Greece used to borrow cheap cash from the EU and they used that money to buy lots of German goods.

German exports have benefited from having the Euro. If they still had their old Deutsche Mark it would have been valued a lot higher against other euro currencies which would have harmed German exports.

For the Germans its better that they keep the Euro going in the long run. Great for them but not what you want to hear if you're Greek.

See this wasn't that boring at all was it?

It's complex but fascinating stuff as it's made me think more about the benefits of having a single currency. Who really gains from it? Maybe a common currency only works with a smaller number of countries who have similar political and economic cultures, like many of the northern European states.

We might be facing tough times here in Britain but at least we're not Greek.

Two tickets for the 100m qualifiers

2011-06-26T15:07:00.003+01:00

I found out which tickets I've got for the Olympics this week.

I have to say I've done pretty well by getting tickets for the athletics qualifying session on 4 August which includes the 100m.

If you told me 3 months ago this is all I'd get, I would have been really disappointed; but now I'm beginning to appreciate just how lucky I am.

I wanted to apply for tickets in Friday's second round of applications but couldn't because I'd already got tickets in the first.

If there's one good thing you can say about the ticketing controversy it's that at least all the events are going to be played out in front of packed crowds. And that applies to such minority of minority sports like handball.

The demand for tickets has been unprecedented and in comparison to previous Olympics, it's looking like 2012 will be the best attended ever.

Despite my good fortune I'm still unhappy with the ticketing process. There's been a lack of transparency and a clear explanation on how the tickets have been allocated.

Even though we've been told that all the tickets have sold out, there's still a third round of ticket sales taking place at the beginning of next year. There's meant to be a further 1 million available but mainly for football, which I have no interest in seeing, and other events like volleyball, and boxing.

With almost no chance of getting any other tickets, I know I'm going to saviour every minute of the 4 hours I'll be spending in the Olympic stadium next summer.

Wimbledon is here - just don't expect a British winner

2011-06-20T00:34:00.005+01:00

Wimbledon starts today and our yearly obsession with tennis begins.

Yes I do sound cynical! I actually love Wimbledon, I've been watching it since I was a kid. I just hate the annual 'will a British player win Wimbledon this year' question we hear every year.

Below is the blog I wrote 2 years ago about the chances of Britain producing a winner.

Despite Andy Murray, we’re still rubbish at tennis!

What's slightly sad or even ridiculous is that I don't need to write a new blog on this subject. What I wrote 2 years ago still applies. In fact if blogging had been around 25 years ago I would have written exactly the same thing.

Of course Andy Murray does have a chance but as we've seen with his previous Grand Slam final defeats, it's unfortunate for him that he's playing in the same era as two of the all time greats in Federer and Nadal.

The wait for a British champion will continue.

Olympic tickets: I'm one of the lucky few!

2011-06-18T18:48:00.011+01:00

Up until a few days ago, I thought I was one of the many thousands of disappointed people who didn't get any Olympic tickets.

After looking at my monthly bank statement which arrived last Thursday, it turns out I was successful after all. I noticed I had £46 taken out of my bank account. I'm not sure what I've got, but I think the tickets are either for an afternoon session of athletics or a preliminary round of basketball.

There's still a number of tickets left which you can buy in the second round of sales on a first come first serve basis. Having looked at what's available, the options are limited. You've got very little chance of getting reasonably priced tickets for popular sports, like athletics, cycling, diving, gymnastics and swimming.

Don't get me wrong, I feel privileged to get any tickets - but that doesn't mean to say I agree with the process.

When two thirds of people who applied for tickets failed to get anything at all, then you have to say the ticketing system used was totally flawed.

I've had this discussion with other people and I don't understand why the tickets couldn't have been allocated on a first come first serve basis.

People would still have missed out, but plenty of other events work on the same principle, so why is the Olympics any different?

Today I was reading some thoughts by the the former England rugby union star Brian Moore in his Daily Telegraphy blog.

He made some interesting points about 75% of tickets being made available, with a further 8% going to Olympic sponsors. That leaves 17% of tickets unaccounted for. His question quite rightly is where are these extra tickets being allocated, and why have the public not be adequately informed about the true number of tickets available?

I know there's no perfect system, but I think it would have been better if the sale of tickets had be staggered over a period of a few months, and that each individual buying tickets were limited to a set number of sessions they could purchase.

There surely must have been a better system available whereby more people could have purchased tickets for at least one event they applied for.

On a personal note, I live within 20 minutes walk of the Olympic stadium and I'm in one of 5 official Olympic boroughs. It's probably asking too much to expect that some of the tickets be reserved for local residents in those 5 boroughs.

We're now going to have a situation whereby the majority of residents in East London, will have the world's greatest sporting event taking place on their doorstep, and they'll have no opportunity to attend it. I don't think that's right.

Boring daytime radio playlists

2011-06-12T21:25:00.014+01:00

A few months ago my team at work moved offices. One of the plus points of moving was being able to listen to the radio again - or so I thought.

After three months I'm beginning to hate commercial radio as a result of their boring and predictable playlists.

Predictable in the sense that you could safely bet your entire life savings predicting what songs will be played everyday.

Capital FM is the station of choice in our office, which usually means listening to a Groundhog day selection from the likes of Rhianna, Adele, more Rhianna, Black Eyed Peas, and Lady GaGa.

What’s worse is that even stuff I like, I’ve started to hate. I love Adele and bought her second album when it first came out, but I don’t want to listen to her at home anymore because I hear her everyday at work.

As for Rhianna, I’m sick of hearing this girl! I was always pretty indifferent to her, but I’ve reached a point where everytime one of her songs comes on, I stop working, start shaking my head, before muttering to myself:

“For gods sake, you only played her 10 minutes ago!”

It got me thinking, is this what commercial radio is all about these days - playing the same 15 tunes all day everyday? It’s pathetic!

When did commercial radio become so boring?

I'm picking on Capital FM a bit, but they're not the only culprits. Heart FM and Magic are no better.

As for the supposedly ‘alternative’ radio station xfm, that’s just Heart FM for Indie kids. Safe and predictable indie with the same 10 records played everyday.

I don’t remember commercial radio being like this. Is there really such a lack of records out there that means stations have to continually play the same thing?

Thankfully there is an alternative and it comes in the form of Radio 2. It’s funny as when I was growing up Radio 2 always had an image of being a bit safe and middle of the road. It was a station for people who thought everything on Radio 1 and in the charts was for the kids.

Maybe it’s a sign I’m getting old, but I love Radio 2. Don’t get me wrong, I still like to think I’ve got a bit of an edge when it comes to my music tastes.

Even in my mid 30s I still love my Hip Hop and I’ll never get tired of underground House music, but Radio 2 ticks just about every box I want ticking when it comes to daytime radio.

Compared to commercial Radio, Radio 2 is pretty radical with a playlist that’s like a breath of fresh air. Their playlist is described as ‘Adult Contemporary’ or AOR. Well maybe I’m an AOR type of guy these days.

When I listen to the radio I want to hear stuff that’s around today, but I want to hear older stuff as well. Records I grew up listening to in the 80s and 90s along with older classic tracks. This is Radio 2.

I want records that make me think: ‘Yes… this is exactly what I want to hear right now, or ‘I haven’t’ heard this record in years!’

Not ‘I just heard this song 10 minutes ago, and it’s the 5th time today I’ve heard it’

Commercial radio doesn’t do this, well not the stations I’ve been listening to.

Thank god for Radio 2

Basketball's NBA Finals

2011-06-11T21:13:00.020+01:00

With the end of the football season there’s been a void in my sporting life, thankfully it’s being filled with US basketball’s
NBA Finals.

For the last month I’ve been watching the end of season playoffs. The 16 teams with the best end of season records compete; we’re now down to the last two. The Miami Heat who won the Eastern Conference title, verses the Dallas Mavericks who won the Western.

Game 5 Highlights

Last Thursday was Game 5 of the 7 game series. Dallas won to go 3-2 up in the series. They need to win one more game to become NBA champions for the first time in their history.

It’s going to be tough as the next game is back in Miami. Should Miami win to make it 3 all in the series, they'll have home advantage in the 7th and final game.

I have to say I’ve been loving it. Miami are the NBA's glamour team. They have two of the league's best and most famous players in Dwayne Wade and LeBron James, along with their other star Chris Bosh.

This should be Miami’s championship, but I’ve been discovering that Dallas have their own superstar in the 7 foot German player Dirk Nowitzki. I’d never heard of him until a few months ago, but the guy's a legend. Should Dallas win, it will cement his place as one of the greatest players that’s ever played the game!

I’ve always thought that if I lived in America, basketball would be my number one sport. I think it’s the only sport that could come close to capturing the same feelings and emotions I have for football.

I played basketball for my school team for 7 years and loved it. Our school was one of the best in the Midlands. Growing up it was always difficult to follow the sport, but now with cable TV, the Internet and twitter I’ve been able to follow this season’s action in more detail.

Game 4 Highlights

After visiting Boston last year I decided to start following the Boston Celtics, the most successful team in NBA history. Unfortunately they got knocked out in the 2nd round of the playoffs by Miami.

I’ve always been aware of who the star players have been in basketball, at the moment it’s people like Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Dwayne Wade and Shaquille O’Neal (although he’s just retired).

What I’ve enjoyed in the last few months is learning about the different teams and discovering players I’d previously never heard of.

There’s Derrick Rose of the Chicago Bulls who’s turning Chicago into a winning team for the first time since the Michael Jordan era; but by far biggest and best player I’ve discovered is Dirk Nowitzki at Dallas.

Game 3 Highlights

When it comes to sport, Americans love their stats. According to the stats, when Nowitzki retires he will go down as one of the all time greats. It’s interesting that he’s proving so dominant as the star of the finals was meant to be Lebron James.

He joined Miami last summer in a controversial move from his hometown team, the Cleveland Cavaliers. He decided to join forces with his great rival Dwayne Wade to create a ‘Dream Team’ that would win the Championship.

It may still turn out like that, but they have to win Game 6 to keep the series alive. Wade or ‘D Wade’ as he’s known has been doing his bit, but the critics are questioning whether LeBron is doing enough in these finals.

That’s one thing I notice about American sports, there seems to be a bigger emphasis on star players and match ups between the star players. Nowitzki seems to be coming out on top, but there’s still a lot of basketball to be played so lets see what happens in Game 6. I can’t wait.

Dallas beat Miami 105 - 95 in Game 6 to clinch the series 4-2 and become NBA champions for the first time.

Highlights below

No guarantee of success in America

2011-05-30T17:58:00.007+01:00

A tough week for the 'people's princess' Cheryl Cole.

A public humiliation for the singer following her sacking from the US version of X Factor.I'm not denying it isn't a personal setback for her, but there was no guarantee she was going to be a household star in the US in the same way that she is here in the UK.

Cole is just the latest in a long line of British singers, bands, actors and comedians who have tried their luck in America.

Some achieve unlikely success - others who you assume will become major stars end up failing miserably. You just can't predict who's going to make it.

What made things more difficult for Cole is that nobody knows who she is in America. Simon Cowell was always taking a risk by putting her forward to be a judge for X Factor.

Secondly there’s the issue of the accent. It’s easy to mock Americans and say they’re stupid because they don’t understand our accents. The truth is we may know a lot about them, they however know very little about us.

If you’re living in Middle America, a some small town in Missouri or Ohio where are you ever going to hear a Geordie accent? Or any other British regional accent for that matter? They do find it difficult to understand us, as I found out with my Brummie accent when I visited Chicago.

Finally, there’s Cole’s back-story that’s contributed to her popularity in this country doesn’t automatically translate to America.

The working class girl from a rough estate in Newcastle who’s battled against the odds; become a member of the biggest girl band in the country and married a star footballer won’t mean anything to your average American. As an artist or personality she’s starting from scratch.

We’ll have to see if Cole will be back as judge for the our X Factor, there isn’t much time for a decision to made. As for breaking America, she isn’t the first and won’t be the last British star to come back with their tail between their legs.

Champions League Final: Barcelona 3 Manchester Utd 1

2011-05-29T19:23:00.009+01:00

What a privilege it was watching last night's Champions League Final.

Barcelona produced one of the best performances I've ever seen from a side in a Champions League Final.

Earlier this season I watched Barcelona humiliate Real Madrid 5-0 at the Nou Camp. I thought that performance was possibly the best I'd seen from a club side in my lifetime.

Last night they were equally as good, and you could say it was a better performance due to the occasion and what was at stake.

The worst thing for Man Utd was that the 3-1 scoreline flattered them. They were made to look ordinary and if Barca had scored 4 or 5 you couldn't say it wasn't deserved.

So the big question everyone is asking is this: Are Barcelona the greatest club side ever?

Related blogs

El Clasico: Barcelona 5 Real Madrid 0

I've been watching football since the mid 1980s, you'd expect to see some great teams in that period.

The one team that's always stood out for me above others was the great Milan side of the late 1980s early 90s. The team of Gullit, Van Basten, Rikjaard, Baresi, and Maldini.

If you ever get the chance you should check out the highlights of the 1994 Champions League Final where they destroyed a very good Barcelona side 4-0. Last night's game reminded of that.

That Milan team are the only side I can think of that comes close to this Barcelona team. However, I do think this Barca team has the chance of dominating European football for years to come - in a way that no team has been able to do for a generation.

Older football fans talk about the great Dutch side of the 70s, the Brazil team of 1970, the Real Madrid side from the last 1950s. I know all about those teams, but it's so hard to start comparing teams and players from different eras.

What I do know is that this Barcelona side is one of the greats. It's not just the way they keep and dominate possession, but it's the speed in which they do it.

All the players have huge confidence and trust in their ability and that of their team mates. They never change their philosophy and when they don't have the ball they work incredibly hard to press the opposition and win the ball back, a sign of a great work ethic.

The team is made up of players that are mainly home grown something which is unique, they have spent big money but they've produced their own stars.

Finally, they have the world's greatest player in Lionel Messi. He really is a phenomenon. The greatest ever? That's a discussion in itself. He's the best player I've seen since Maradona.

A commonly known fact is that in the Champions League era no team has ever won back to back titles. I'm pretty confident that this time next year I'll be writing about Barcelona being the first team to do so.

Finally we all know it's Ryan Giggs

2011-05-24T22:52:00.010+01:00

After weeks of knowing, I can finally write on my blog that Ryan Giggs is the footballer at the centre of the privacy super-injunction story.

Talk about a story that refuses to go away. It’s about time his name was revealed, its been dragging on for too long, it was getting ridiculous.

For the last couple of weeks, I’ve been telling people I heard it was Ryan Giggs, and at the same time other people were telling me the same thing. The injunction was essentially becoming irrelevant.

What I’ve found fascinating about this story is seeing how the law is struggling to keep pace with a changing media landscape and the rise of social media.

Thousands of people were happy to name Giggs on Twitter and break the injunction. It’s gossip that’s taking place in the public domain. There’s not much a super injunction can do about it.

I have to say I like it – it’s quite anarchic.

Related blogs

Nothing Super about super - injunctions

I’ve got nothing against Ryan Giggs, I do have a great deal of respect for him. He’s been an exceptional player and professional for 20 years, but he’s made a mistake with this injunction.

There are so many issues that this story raises, one of those being that although the traditional media were prevented form reporting the name of Ryan Giggs, his name was being mentioned all over twitter.

10 years ago, people would have been talking about Giggs in the office, down the pub, or in the privacy of their homes. But now in the age of social media, this private gossip is now being played out in the public domain.

If thousands of people are all breaking an injunction is the law going to prosecute all of those people. How do you prosecute gossip?

I was tempted to mention Giggs’ name on my blog a few weeks ago, but having had training in media law I thought better of it. I understand that I can’t just publish and say anything I want on my blog.

The problem that the law has with social media is that thousands of people out there have no knowledge of interest in the legal consequences of publishing their thoughts on social networks. I don’t know how lawyers would be able to act against so many people.

Now today I’ve read in the London Evening Standard that four celebrities who mentioned Giggs’ name on twitter could face legal action. The Four are Piers Morgan, Dom Joly, Toby Young and DJ Boy George.

Why should they face legal action? Is it just because they’re famous and they can be legally identified?

This story is going to run and run. It’s amazing to think that what would appear to be just another footballer ‘kiss and tell’ story, is now potentially going to be a landmark case in relation to our privacy laws and the ways of media can report on the rich and famous.

Why do we love conspiracies?

2011-05-10T00:36:00.006+01:00

As soon as the world discovered that Osama Bin Laden had been killed, the conspiracy theories began to emerge immediately.

How did we know he was really dead? Where was the evidence? How convenient that the Americans buried Bin Laden out at sea.

America’s response was that they didn’t want to release pictures of Bin Laden’s dead body as the pictures were too gruesome and could antagonise Bin Laden sympathisers. American officials also didn’t want his body being buried somewhere, which could later become a shrine. For the conspiracy theorists this only raised more questions?

This got me thinking about some of the other famous conspiracy theories that exist such as:

Who killed JFK?

Who killed Martin Luther King?

Did the American moon landing really happen?

9/11 – Did the US government order the destruction of the World Trade Centre?

The Birther movement – Was President Obama really born in the United States

Was Princess Di murdered?

The thing is, there’s never been any real evidence to prove without doubt that there was a conspiracy for any of these events.
Why is it that whenever there’s a major event that’s seems so shocking or incredible, people immediately start believing there must be a conspiracy behind it.

You may have noticed that almost all the conspiracies I’ve mentioned are American. It seems Americans love their conspiracies more than others.

I read a theory suggesting it’s because Americans have a natural distrust of their government and state authority. It goes back to when the country was formed fighting a war of independence against the centralized control of Britain and the rule of King George III.

Ever since then, Americans have always had a deep mistrust of government power and influence, which leads onto the idea of governments operating in secret away from the public gaze.

Conspiracy theories don’t just flourish in America though – in many countries under dictatorship or heavy state control people believe more in conspiracies as they feel they don’t have much freedom or influence on how their own governments may act. In that type of environment people naturally begin to assume that state powers are working in secret, covering things up, working against the public interest.

Another theory I was reading about, argued that when something incredible happens such as the death of JFK we struggle to accept the logical or straightforward explanation. It’s as if there has to be more to the story then the simple facts that have been presented to us.

My favourite conspiracy theory is who shot JFK. Having always had a fascination for organised crime, I’ve always wanted to believe that the Mafia where somehow involved with the killing.

Despite this, the evidence still suggests that the only killer was Lee Harvey Oswald. although I accept this, I’m almost disappointed that the Mob weren’t involved somehow, along with the CIA. But then I suppose my feelings support the fact that because the assassination of JFK was so shocking and unbelievable, you think there has to be more to it than just one crazed lone gunman.

For Islamic extremists and enemies of America, it must be hard to accept that after all these years the Americans have finally got their man. Despite what some people might say, it’s a huge blow to Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism. What better way then to try and undermine or deny America’s claims by starting a conspiracy theory.

This week's elections

2011-05-07T14:03:00.012+01:00

Reading my twitter feed yesterday, Krishnan Guru Murthy from Channel Four News tweeted:

"News in 1 tweet: great for snp, good for tories, not good for labour, v bad for lib dems"

He summed things up pretty well, but here are my thoughts in a little more detail.

Lib Dems take a bashing

I’m beginning to feel a bit sorry for the Lib Dems. All those years of building up a local political base in towns and cities across the north, wiped out in a flash.

It’s like watching a boxer who’s on the ropes. They’re being battered by a barrage of punches - you just want the trainer to throw the towel in and put them out their misery.

Unfortunately for the Lib Dems I think the misery may continue for the next few years.

It looks like the Lib Dems are being punished by voters for helping to prop up the Tories. If they hadn't formed a coalition we would have got a minority Tory government which wouldn't have had much power and would have called another election, probably by now.

The Lib Dems argument for forming the coalition was that it was in the national interest to form a strong and effective government. I understand the logic behind that, but now they're being punished.

I actually voted Lib Dem for the first time last year. I knew there was going to be a hung parliament with the Tories likely to be the biggest party. I was quite happy to see the Lib Dems form a coalition as I thought they'd be a good counterweight to all your Tory rightwing idiots. I certainly don't feel betrayed by the Lib Dems.

The next few years are going to be tough and you get the impression that future relations with the Tories will be more business like and little more distant.

Not great for Labour

Pretty so so results for Labour and Ed Milliband.

I’m beginning to think that being in charge of a political party is like being a Premier League football manager.

Everyone wants instant results. You don’t get the chance to build a winning team over a number of years, you need to be challenging for honours straight away.

This is the problem Ed Milliband has. He’s not doing a bad job, but at the same time he’s not exactly setting the world alight either. Thursday’s results proved this.

Conservatives

They might not being showing it in public, but in private senior Tories must be laughing. The Lib Dems have taken all the flak for the government’s spending cuts and somehow they’ve managed to come out unscathed, with even more councillors. How have the Tories managed to pull this off. I can’t help but have some grudging respect for them.

A Big no to AV

I didn’t get a chance to vote in the referendum on AV. I discovered that Newham borough council had removed me from the electoral register, which I didn’t know about.

Despite my annoyance at being disenfranchised, I was pleased to see the No Campaign win, as I would have voted no as well.

It’s not that I’m against electoral reform, but I think the vote came at the wrong time, and the country needs a longer discussion on electoral reform. The public needs to be made more aware of the different electoral systems on offer and the pros and cons associated with each one.

What’s going on in Scotland?

I’m not going to try and pretend I’m an expert on Scottish politics as I’m not, but it seems for personality and political charisma nobody up there can touch the SNP leader Alex Salmond

Now that the SNP have full control, it'll be interesting to see how they deal with government cuts and less funding - they'll have nobody else to blame now they have a full majority.

As for Scottish independence, I keep hearing that despite the SNP's win most Scots don't want full independence.

It made me laugh when I heard David Cameron say he would be determined to see the union between England and Scotland remain.

As a Tory, you probably want Scotland to become independent. The Labour Party would find it almost impossible to win a general election ever again.

Osama Bin Laden found and killed!

2011-05-02T13:49:00.023+01:00

I woke up this morning and checked my phone for any messages. I then decided to look at my twitter feed to see what was going on in the twittersphere. The last thing I expected was to discover that the world's most wanted man Osama Bin Laden was dead!

Nobody saw this coming - an absolutely massive news story!

So many questions and thoughts on this. I'll run through them quickly.

Is this is the end of the 'War on Terror'?

Probably not, but it's a huge symbolic blow to Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism. I've heard the theory that says Bin Laden's death increases the likelihood of revenge attacks against the West, but you can't think like that. Even if Bin Laden continued to live, Islamic terrorists would still be looking for opportunities to attack the West.

Are Al Qaeda still relevant?

We've seen uprisings and revolutions all across the Arab World this year, and it's telling that the likes of Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists haven't been involved.

People across the region are looking for greater freedom and more western style democracy. Al Qaeda have been on the sidelines almost observing what's been going on. I think it shows that for many Muslims in the Middle East they don't see Islamic radicalism as an answer to their problems.

Personal victory for Obama

Has Bin Laden's death just secured Obama a second term as President? What a huge PR coup - the death of America's most wanted terrorist was achieved on Obama's watch.

You only have to look at the scenes on the news of Americans celebrating to see how much this means. Are American voters going to forget this when it comes to next year's Presidential elections? Of course there's going to be other issues, the economy for one, but surely it's Obama's to lose after this.

Did the Pakistan authorities really not know where Bin Laden's compound was?

It was reported that the Americans kept the operation to kill Bin Laden secret from Pakistani intelligence. Not surprising when for years there's been rumours and stories of Pakistan's links with the Taliban and other terrorist groups.

Bin Laden spent the last 10 years evading capture after escaping Afghanistan and it's hard to believe that at no point nobody within the Pakistani security and intelligence authorities knew of his whereabouts.

Having spent a day a watching the news coverage, listening to the reports and analysis from the experts, I think you can say Osama Bin Laden's death changes everything and nothing.

Islamic terrorism will still exist and go on, but this is the end of a chapter. As they say in America it's 'closure' a word I really hate but I'm going to use it. It's closure for a many Americans and for what happened on 9/11.

It's a huge psychological boost for America, a damaging blow for Al Qaeda. Like me you probably thought Bin Laden would never be found but his death has shown the terrorists, America and the world that the determination and resolve to defeat international terrorism won't decrease.

What is it that makes our Royal Family so special?

2011-04-30T19:21:00.000+01:00

Whether you're in favour of the monarchy or not, it's hard to argue against the fact that the marriage between Prince William and Kate Middleton was a major national event.

I have to admit I was getting tired of the endless coverage in the media before the wedding, but when the big day finally arrived I actually enjoyed the occasion.

This wasn’t just a major occasion for Britain it was an international event, apparently up to 2 billion people worldwide watched the wedding.

It made me think: Why is our Royal family so popular? What is it that the rest of world finds so fascinating?

There are quite a few royal families around the world, but none of them holds the world’s attention like ours.

Nobody cares about the royal families in Holland or Sweden. The Spanish royal family gets a bit of attention now and again but they’re all minor league compared to the British.

I’m not a monarchist and I would never call myself a republican; but I do have a certain amount of respect for an institution that lasted for over a 1000 years.

While other European powers were overthrowing and killing off their royals in wars and revolutions, ours managed to survive. This has made us almost unique and although republicans will hate to hear this, it gives Britain an identity that many other countries simply don’t have.

Americans are fascinated by the Royal family – mainly because they don’t have one, and also because the United States was founded on the principle of escaping the rule of a British monarch in George III. Maybe the look at our Royal family and are reminded of what their founding fathers rejected. As for our European neighbours maybe our royals remind them of what they once had and have now lost.

I think if you’re going to have an institution like the monarchy you might as well have one that’s good. That’s one thing you can say about this country – we know how to do royalty well.

The wedding was impressive, we know how to put on our show, especially when the rest of the world’s watching.

There's always the ongoing debate on the relevance of the monarchy and it's role in British society. I think after Friday's wedding we've seen there's still a deep emotional attachment to the royals. They still manage to help define a big part of Britain's national identity. As long as that remains the case, the monarchy will be around for many years to come.

Well said Obama!

2011-04-27T22:45:00.013+01:00

What a ridiculous situation we had today over in America with the release of President Obama's birth certificate, proving that he was born in Hawaii and is an American citizen.

For the last few years there's been various conspiracy theories, the most prominent being the 'birther movement' which claims Obama wasn't born in America and therefore has no right to be US President.

It would be easy to dismiss such theories as the opinions of a few extremists but that's not the case. There's a significant majority of Republican voters in the US that either don't believe or have doubts that Obama was born in America.

I've talked about this in previous blogs and it's quite sad that Obama has had to finally come out and confront this issue head on.

The doubts over Obama's birth certificate reveal a number of things; firstly that many parts of America still have difficulty accepting Obama as President, but not only that they have difficulty accepting what Obama represents.

Related blogs

One in Five Americans think Obama is a Muslim

Obama may be President, but some Americans refuse to believe

The conspiracy theory surrounding Obama's birth certificate is part of a wider movement to undermine and discredit the President.

By arguing that he wasn't born in America, it promotes the idea that Obama is somehow an imposter, and outsider, someone who shouldn't legitimately by President of the United States.

America has never had a President like Obama - the fact that he's black/mixed race is a clear indication of this. For traditional white conservatives, right wing Republicans, Obama represents a different type of America. One that's to put it bluntly more 'browner', more diverse, more multicultural, and more inclusive.

Obama represents a changing America and this is what many on the Republican right and their supporters don't like whether it's at a subconscious or conscious level.

Because they don't like this, they try and portray Obama as being an 'alien' some how un American an 'outsider'. I'm not keen to play the race card but I doubt very much whether these same conspiracy theories would have emerged had Obama been white.

The question now is whether these rumours will now disappear following the release of Obama's birth certificate. I doubt it, but as Obama said today there are far more important issues for both him and America to talk about.

Now Andrew Marr admits to his own super injunction

2011-04-27T13:48:00.004+01:00

How ironic that a day after posting my 'nothing super about super - injunctions' blog, the BBC presenter and journalist Andrew Marr admitted that he'd taken out an injunction to prevent reporting of an affair he had a few years ago.

I thought this was already common knowledge within media and political circles. I heard about it a few years ago, which makes you think whether there was much point to the injunction in the first place.

Despite the huge embarrassment to him I think he's done the right thing.

Nothing super about the super - injunction

2011-04-25T17:18:00.031+01:00

Newsflash! Premier League footballer has an affair with topless model. How many times have we heard that revelation?

This is what we've heard this week, but were not allowed to know who it is because there's a gagging order or super injunction in place. I think I know who it is, although I admit I'm not 100% sure.

You might remember last year the footballer John Terry took one out to prevent reports that he'd allegedly had an affair with the former girlfriend of his ex team mate Wayne Bridge.

The issue that's emerged this week is whether super injunctions pose a threat to press freedom and are they just a way of the rich and famous silencing legitimate press investigation?

From the reports I've seen and read, I'm not convinced they're in the public interest.

The rise of the super injunction began a few years. Originally the media couldn't even report that an injunction existed, let alone the details of the injunctions.

Things have changed since then - injunctions can be reported, individuals involved can be identified, all except those people responsible for taking out the injunction. This usually means those who are rich, famous and powerful enough to do so.

Naturally I'm inclined to be against super injunctions - potentially they do pose a threat to investigative journalism and press freedom.

I have however been looking at the other side of the argument. In recent cases, Judges have ruled in favour of injunctions to protect the privacy rights of individuals.

Everyone's got a right to a private life and just because someone's having affair it doesn't mean the whole world has to know about it, but I don't think it's right that the rich and famous should take advantage of privacy laws to cover up their own misdemeanors.

Last Thursday I was reading the Spanish sports paper MARCA. They claim the footballer at the centre of the allegations is Jermaine Defoe. I doubt that's right - the player in question is meant to be a 'family man'. Jermaine Defoe isn't married.

I've now been reliably informed that it's a Man Utd player, but as I have no money to fight any legal cases I'm not prepared to reveal who it is.

I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for celebrities and sports stars who claim press intrusion into their private lives as as result of their own indiscretions. I doesn’t really mean a great deal if one footballer or another is having an affair.

I do however think there is a public interest in exposing someone’s private life, if their private conduct undermines their public position.

Sports stars like John Terry and Tiger Woods tried to stop the media knowing about their sexual affairs, but they were fair game. They made money and profited from endorsements based upon their image of being family men. The fact their private lives contradicted this means it was legitimate for the media to expose them.

When it comes to the rights and wrongs of super injunctions we shouldn't let the debate be overshadowed by the trivial issues of footballers having affairs.

It's right that the press and other people complain about press restrictions imposed by super injunctions, but we should be looking at bigger and more significant issues at stake then the usual tabloid 'kiss and tell' stories.

It might not be quite as exciting, but if you have major companies, multinationals and other powerful figures using super injunctions to cover things up and prevent legitimate investigate journalism taking place into their business practices then that's something to worry about.

Why do we all love Adele?

2011-04-17T00:43:00.013+01:00

Earlier this year I went out and bought Adele’s second album 21. I think I must have bought it a day or two after its release. Little did I know that in buying the album I was helping to create a musical phenomenon.

The album went straight to number one, and after ten weeks she’s now spent more time at the top of the album charts then any other female artist in history.

Today in the Times, I was reading that if sales continue at its current rate everyone in Britain will own a copy of 21 by the end of the year.

So just what is it about Adele that everyone seems to love?

I have to point out, I haven’t jumped on some Adele bandwagon. I bought her first album 19 when that first came out a few years ago.

Ironically enough that’s now back in the album charts and she now has two Top 5 albums. Up until last week Adele still had two top 5 singles – a combination no artist has managed since the Beatles.

I don’t normally expect artists that I’ve liked from day one to become a huge phenomenons. It’s easy to think that if an artist is liked by too many people then there must be something wrong with them. There too safe, dull or unchallenging.

I’m not going get all pretentious about such things. If I like something that I think's good and millions of other people feel the same then fair enough.

The thing is I’m still trying to figure out why Adele? Why now? And Why this album? A lot of 'whys' I know.

I’ve heard various theories – Unlike her females contemporaries like Lady Gaga, Rhianna or Amy Winehouse, Adele seems pretty normal and down to earth girl from Tottenham, North London.

Then there’s the argument that she’s a ‘throwback’ to another era, a straightforward singer where the focus is on the power of her voice and nothing else. Her success is due to her own singing and writing talent. She hasn’t been propelled to fame because of X Factor, or tried to create an image that’s overtly sexual or controversial.

Again I wouldn’t disagree with that, but I’m sure there’s lots of singers out there you can say the same thing about.

With declining record sales and an increasing fragmentation of the music market, a success story like Adele’s does seem even more significant.

The music industry and critics start asking questions on how this success has come about, what’s been the magic ingredients and formula for this success, what does it mean for the music industry.

I like to think that a good voice and strong songs will always go some way in helping to create a successful recording artist, but sometimes you have to accept there isn’t always a logical or obvious reason behind an artist or album selling millions.

Some albums come along and it just happens. Sometimes it’s a case of good timing, but then I think there’s a lot of other unknown factors that can contribute to an artist’s success that no marketing campaign or musical talent can ever account for. I suppose that’s what makes music so interesting.

If you’ve got the Adele album, you should leave a comment on why you think the album’s proved so popular.

Premier League Update

2011-04-13T20:46:00.009+01:00

At the end of last year I wrote my half term Premier League report, looking at the season so far for all 20 clubs.

With the end of the season approaching, I thought it would be good to look back on what I wrote in December and see how my thoughts and predictions were doing.

Not exactly a shock but I did say Man Utd would claim a record breaking 19th League title - this despite being one of the most average Man U sides I've seen in years.

No team has really deserved to win the league this year, all the main contenders have serious flaws. It's been at the bottom of the table that's been fascinating with half the division finding themselves in a relegation battle.

Flawed at the top

Man Utd will deservedly win their 19th title, but only because the other main contenders have been so inadequate.

Arsenal have had their usual end of season collapse, which isn’t even a surprise and must be getting quite boring for all Gooners.

As for Chelsea, despite an improvement since Christmas they still look like a team in decline. Too many players past their peak and the transfer of Torres has so far has been a disaster. Hard to tell whether Ancelotti will still be around next season.

I did predict that Man City would finish runners up, but in some ways they’ve been the biggest disappointment.

Mancini is far too conservative for English football, the ‘team’ still play like a bunch of highly paid individuals, and its embarrassing how over reliant they are on Tevez. They’ll do well to hang onto 4th spot, but even that’s not guaranteed.

Spurs are still in the race for a Champions League spot and even though it’s unlikely, a strong finish from Liverpool could still see them scrape in.

Spurs have been so entertaining, but the excitement of Champions League football looks to have distracted them from the bread and butter of the league.

I hope they make it, although the humiliation of their performance against Real Madrid will act as a painful reminder of many of their weaknesses.

Roy Hodgson was still in charge of Liverpool when I wrote my half term report, but now it’s back to the 80’s with Kenny Dalglish returning. It’s good to see him back.

He’s galvanised the club and although there’s still a lot of work to do, they’re heading in the right direction. The signings of Suarez and Andy Carroll will prove good business in the long term.

Excitement at the bottom

Turning attentions to the bottom of the League this has been one of the most exciting relegation battles I've ever seen. There are no truly bad teams this season. For every team in the bottom half or at least the bottom 6 you can argue a strong case on why they'll either stay up or go down.

If you asked me who I think will go down, I’m going to stick my neck out and say Wigan, Blackpool, and Blackburn.

Wigan don’t score enough and although I did think Blackpool would stay up, the amount of goals they let in makes me think its back to the Championship for them. Finally I’ve gone for Blackburn but I could easily have said Wolves.

Blackburn have a tough run in and that’s why I’m going for them over Wolves. Had they stuck with Sam Allardyce they wouldn't be in this trouble.

Wolves still are in big trouble and defensively are a mess. A problem they’ve had for a few years now. With Kevin Doyle out they’ve lost their focal point in attack. He doesn’t score many, but his hard work and link up play will be missed.

Still in the bottom 3 you’ve got West Ham. They’re a funny team. One week you think they’ll stay up the next you think they’ve got no chance. I look at their team and think they’ve got good players, but mentally they're weak. They should have enough to survive though.

Moving up the table you’ve got the two Birmingham clubs. My own team Blues went through a dip after the Carling Cup win, but we’ve refocused now, and although it won’t be pretty, there’s enough grit and determination for the team to just survive.

Across the city at Villa, everyone will just be glad to see the back of this season. It wouldn’t surprise me if Gerard Houllier decided to quit. You just get the impression that he’s the wrong manager at the wrong club at the wrong time.

With the players they’ve got they should have done better, but with Ashley Young likely to leave in the Summer there’s big question marks over Villa's future direction.

Talking about managers who were at the wrong club at the wrong time, what a great job Roy Hodgson's done since joining West Brom.

I was shocked by the decision to sack Roberto Di Matteo, but the chairman Jeremy Peace seems to have made the right choice. After a while there’s nothing exciting about being a yo yo club and it was really important for West Brom that they stayed up this season. With 39 points they’re practically there.

Midtable security? Hardly

And then we have the rest. Teams like Fulham and Sunderland could still in theory go down, but they wont. Don't know what to say about Fulham. Bobby Zamora's back, and they have a ridiculous Michael Jackson statue outside the ground.

Nothing to laugh about at Sunderland. If they had 3 less points and were on 35 and not 38 you’d have to worry for them.

Terrible second half to the season. It will be interesting to see what happens there in the summer, Steve Bruce might be under a bit of pressure.

Stoke are Stoke, horrible to watch but an FA Cup Semi Final to look forward to and another mid table finish. As a Stoke fan can you ask for much more?

Newcastle have had an inconsistent but successful season after winning promotion last year. The sacking of Chris Hughton still looks daft but Alan Pardew’s come in done alright I suppose.

You just know they’ll be more drama at that club, my feeling is that Newcastle fans still aren’t convinced by Mike Ashley’s intentions.

Finally that leaves Bolton and Everton. Everton have had a funny season, looked like it was going to be season of underachievement, but again David Moyes is managing to get the very most out of the squad.

You just wonder with Everton how long Moyes can keep doing this without serious new investment. He can’t take the club any further, but he doesn’t have many other options in front of him.

How about Moyes for the Spurs job, should Harry Redknapp take over England?

Sorry any Bolton fans reading, I haven’t intentionally left you till last. But what a great season for them under Owen Coyle. Playing attractive football, in a Cup Semi Final, top half of the table, it’s good times for the club. I’ve been really impressed with the loan signing of Daniel Sturridge, good bit of business.

So there’s my almost end of season update, I don't think I've missed anyone out. I’ll be back in a few weeks to review the end of the season.

Premier League half term report Part 1

Premier League half term report: Part 2

Is this the end of the phone hacking story?

2011-04-10T23:08:00.011+01:00

In today's News of the World there was an apology on page 2 over the paper's actions in the phone hacking scandal.

The paper's owners News International had already made their own public apology on Friday expressing their 'genuine regret' over the incident. I couldn't help thinking that this must be the most humiliating thing that's happened to Rupert Murdoch and News International in recent years.

Reading today's Sunday Times (another paper owned by News International) it was ironic there was no mention on the scandal whatsoever.

So is this the end of the story? There's still the matter of the paper paying out compensation to individuals affected, but I want to know what this apology means for the future of the tabloid journalism particularly at the NotW. Are we going to see a drastic change in the way some tabloid journalists operate?

At the moment I can't seem to find reports asking these questions.

Related blog posts

In the end Coulson had to go

Tabloid phone hacking

Journalism back in the gutter!

At what size do women become 'curvy'?

2011-04-03T00:07:00.014+01:00

An interesting question for you all out there.

I'm asking because there was a lot of controversy this week surrounding one of my favourite blogs .

Scott Schuman's The Sartorialist blog is one of the most influential in the world of fashion.

Schuman takes photos of the clothes people wear in some of the world's fashion hot spots, like New York, Paris and Milan. He then includes a few words on each photo, explaining what he likes about the style and clothes of the person he's taken a photo of.

He's caused controversy by describing one girl he photographed in Milan as being 'curvy' and 'sturdy'. Nothing too unreasonable about this you might think, but having looked at the photos, the girl can't be more than a UK size 10!

Have a look at the photos here and see for yourself. You need to scroll down until you reach the title On the Street....Angelika, Milan, it includes over 1500 comments.

Schuman's come out fighting and defended his comments, but for me a UK size 10 is not curvy, size 14 plus perhaps! But not 10.

The comments written have raised a debate on whether the fashion world should attempt to represent a more realistic picture of 'normal' women or not.

As much as I love Schuman's blog the term sturdy isn't appropriate for the girl in the photos.

It's another example of where the fashion world seems to exist in its own little universe, totally out of touch with the real world.

Are you interested in voting reform?

2011-04-02T21:09:00.014+01:00

The reason I ask is that on the 5th of May there's going to be a referendum on whether we should change this country's voting system.

Don't tell me you didn't know about this? It's not everyday we have referendums and if we're potentially going to decide on changing our voting system, it's a pretty important topic to think about.

I've been reading a few reports here and there on the vote - the arguments for and against First Past the Post, or AV (The Alternative Vote) My problem is this: When I think about it, the more I realise I'm not really that bothered!

Part of me says I shouldn't think like this, and my attitude does surprise me; but it got me thinking. If someone like me can’t get excited about this vote (and I’m into my politics) does anyone else out there actually care?

If you don't know or you've forgotten why we're having this vote, it's because of the result of last year's General Election.

One of the conditions of the Lib Dems forming a coalition government with the Conservatives was that there would have to be a vote on electoral reform. This is the Holy Grail for many Lib Dems which isn't a surprise as under the current system they have the biggest disadvantage to overcome.

In the UK we use the First Past the Post (FPTP) system. In each parliamentary seat whichever candidate receives the most votes wins the seat. The Party that wins the most seats forms the government.

The problem with FPTP, is that the number of seats won by a Party doesn't always reflect the share of votes received. You end up with loads of 'safe' seats around the country where your vote doesn't count for much.

The alternative on offer is the Alternative Vote (AV) where voters rank candidates in order of preference.

To get elected a candidate has to win 50% of the vote. I this doesn't happen in the first round of voting, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second choices are allocated to the remaining candidates for the second round of counting.

If a candidate then has 50% of the vote they get elected - if not there's a third round of counting. Still keeping up? Supporters of AV argue that less votes are wasted under AV.

It's important to remember that there's no perfect voting system, they all have their own strengths and weaknesses.

One of the strengths of FPTP is it leads to strong stable government. It's served this country well and for Labour and the Tories its worked in their favour. The problem for the Lib Dems is that they win so few seats in comparison to the number of votes they receive.

I've looked at a few stats, and it shows that even under AV the election results over the last 40 years wouldn't have been that different. The Lib Dems would have picked up more seats but not enough to ever form a government.

Last week, we had demonstrations in London over government cuts, the public aren't demonstrating over the unfairness of our voting system, it just isn't a major issue for most people.

When you look at the state of the economy, people losing their jobs, and the cuts, people have more important things to worry about.

For me it just doesn't seem that relevant at the moment. It's a referendum that's being imposed upon people, rather than something the public are demanding.

I'm still trying to decide if I'm going to vote. I probably will, but for all its faults I'm going to stick with First Past the Post.

Has the media overplayed the nuclear threat in Japan?

2011-03-23T21:48:00.037Z

This week I’ve been reading a few blogs looking at the reporting of the nuclear crisis in Japan.

What I've read suggests much of the media’s reporting has been exaggerated, sensationalist and an overreaction.

My own feelings are that I understand there's been a huge earthquake, then a Tsunami that's killed thousands of people and destroyed entire towns - but I don't know what to make of the nuclear threat. I'm like 'what does it all mean' I'm so ignorant about it all.

The crisis at Fukushima is one those stories where I'm relying almost completely on the media to fill me in and explain what it all means, as I have no knowledge of my own I can bring to the table.

I'm beginning to think that many in the media don't know that much about the nuclear threat either.

I've read criticisms on some of the tabloid press coverage, which you'd half expect, but I've also heard that even Channel 4 News hasn't always got the facts right. If you can't rely on Channel 4 News you might as well give up!

Whenever you hear about a potential nuclear disaster the word Chernobyl immediately gets thrown about, but from my limited understanding of the crisis - the threat of another Chernobyl is minimal.

From the reports I've read, the Japanese have handled the situation quite well when you consider that a 40 year old nuclear plant has been struck not just by a massive earthquake but also a Tsunami - of course it's going cause a few problems, but not necessarily a nuclear meltdown as some have suggested.

Maybe I've missed it, but it would have been great if there were more stories explaining why we have nuclear power and what it's used for; as well as explaining the benefits and dangers.

The situation in Japan also has a personal context for me as my cousin lives in Japan with his Japanese wife and two year old daughter.

The British government along with other countries have appealed to their citizens to leave Japan for their own safety. This is an overreaction.

My cousin's been keeping family and friends up to date with what's been happening on his Facebook page. He posted a great comment the other day explaining why he wouldn't be leaving Japan.

Living in Tokyo, he and his family are in no immediate danger, and besides he's made his life over there. I sensed that if he returned to England he would be abandoning the country that he's made his home.

There's also the small matter of the cost of flights back to England, and other issues like giving up your job, all your responsibilities, household bills etc.

My cousin suggested that I have a look at the this news site NHK Japan to get a local perspective on events.

Despite the problems at Fukushima it's important to remember that it's been the earthquake and Tsunami combined that resulted in the tragic loss of life and not a nuclear fallout.

Why is America taking a back seat with Libya?

2011-03-19T16:30:00.015Z

Earlier today I was putting together a few thoughts on the Libyian crisis, particularly America’s more restrained stance on events.

There’s been some major developments this evening. French planes have taken military action against Gadddafi’s forces, following yesterday’s UN resolution to impose a no fly zone in the country.

Despite tonight’s events they’re not going to change my original thoughts.

In the last few days we’ve seen the international community come together to confront Colonel Gaddafi, but it’s been France and Britain that’s lead they way in reaching a UN agreement rather than America. Although America’s been involved, they haven’t been leading from the front in a way that we’ve become used to.

Earlier in the week I thought Obama was being too quiet on the Libyan crisis, he wasn’t showing enough leadership. However, I’ve begun to discover this might be a deliberate policy.

Under George Bush, America led the way in unpopular conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, leaving the US deeply unpopular amongst many people around the world. I get the impression this is something that Obama wants to avoid at all costs.

Do we want America to always step up and take the lead in international events, or is it better that America occasionally steps back and lets others take on the responsibility?

Obama’s got a difficult balancing act to undertake. By allowing other nations to take the lead it could make him and America appear weak and indecisive. On the other hand I can understand the reluctance by some in the Obama administration to take a more low key role.

One of the problems with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is this: They were seen by many countries around the world as being exclusively US lead, with limited or no backing from the international community. Whether you agree with the rights and wrongs of those conflicts, America’s image suffered.

I can understand America’s reluctance to get involved in another Arab/Middle Eastern conflict. I also think that since Obama came to power there’s a different mindset at the White House.

Under Obama, America don’t always want to be seen as the country that automatically takes the lead when it comes to major international conflicts. If others can step forward then it looks better not only for America but for those countries who want to step forward.

Britain and France have pushed for the UN resolution and from a PR point of view its been great for David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Cameron seems to have 'arrived' as an international statesman and it's been a boost to Sarkozy's image in France.

Of course this is more than a PR exercise. Cameron and Sarkozy have managed to get UN backing and the support of other Middle Eastern leaders. It does send out a very different message to the rest of the world; one that says this is a joint international response, not lead exclusively by America.

America’s in a difficult position. On the one hand many people automatically look to the US to take an international lead, but many of us also complain when we feel that America is being too dominant and pursuing its own interests at the expense of the views of the rest of the international community. They can’t win.

It’s ridiculous to think America wouldn't have any involvement with the situation in Libya, but it’s been interesting looking at this different approach under Obama to that of his predecessor George Bush.

Happy Birthday Twitter!

2011-03-19T14:43:00.012Z

The microblogging site Twitter is celebrating its 5th birthday today.

After being someone who couldn't quite see the point of Twitter - I’ve now become a converted fan. Despite my enthusiasm and the fact that Twitter has an estimated 200 million users, I still meet many people who just don’t get it.

I was talking to a friend at work who told me he’s been thinking about setting up a Twitter account. I got the impression he thought it was something he should do, but wasn’t really sure why he should do it.

As he’s interested in politics and has ambitions of becoming a local councillor, I immediately thought Twitter would be ideal for him.

Twitter could be a great way for him to increase his political profile, by making contacts, networking, getting involved in online discussions, and sharing information.

I’m not going to deny that Twitter can be trivial and pointless at times, especially if you have nothing to say – but if you know why you’re using it, have objectives and know what it is you want to get out it; then it can be very useful.

When you join Twitter you become a member a community. It might be community of people following a particular person - or you might have a community of people following you.

Twitter allows you to talk to these people in the same way you might in the real world. You can have discussions, debates; you can share information or just listen to other people. Depending on people’s motives and objectives there are lots of different outcomes you can get from Twitter.

We’ve seen with the recent political demonstrations in Egypt, that protesters used Twitter to organise and coordinate their protests. Companies and brands are using Twitter as an alternative marketing tool; developing closer relationships with their customers by having online dialogues with them.

Politicians, celebrities, and sports stars are using Twitter as a way of raising their profiles, speaking directly to their followers, counteracting any negative or false stories circulating about them in the media.

I use Twitter as an extension of my blog, when I don’t have a 500-word post to write, I can make a quick comment on Twitter that immediately updates on my blog. It’s another good way of promoting myself and my writing.

It’s also chance for me to chat to people I know, even when they’re not in the same room as me. Today I was tweeting during the Ireland/England 6 Nations rugby match. I was only tweeting the same things I would say if I was watching the game down the pub. My followers on Twitter and Facebook then have a chance to respond to any of my comments.

This is the key for me; you have to have something to say, or have something that’s going to add to the conversation of your followers, friends, and community. If you can get that right then Twitter starts to make more sense.

Youtube footage of the Japanese earthquake

2011-03-13T00:50:00.009Z

I found these videos from Youtube over the weekend, giving you an idea of what it was like when the earthquake struck Japan on Friday.

Take a look - it's very scary.

This is the biggest earthquake in Japan's history. 8.9 magnitude - one of the biggest recorded in history.

The videos come from Tokyo which is around 230 miles from the earthquake’s epicenter.

My cousin lives in Japan with his Japanese wife and young daughter in Tokyo/Kanagawa. Through the power of Facebook, he's been able to let all the family know that he and his family are fine.

He said things weren't too bad in Tokyo, but cars and buildings were shaking. Japan experiences earthquakes and tremors all the time, but my cousin said this was by far the worst he's ever experienced.

My Favourite Blogs: Nothing shocks me, I'm a scientist

2011-03-08T23:30:00.013Z

One of the things you notice as a blogger, is that you start reading lots of other blogs for ideas and inspiration.

It's great when you discover a blog that introduces you to a subject or topic that you never thought you’d been interested in.

This is what I found when I discovered a blog called Nothing shocks me, I’m a scientist, by freelance science journalist Angela Saini.

A few years ago I remember reading on article giving advice and tips on how important it is for journalists to build a brand. One piece of advice given, spoke about how freelance writers should develop a niche topic in which to write about and build their reputation around.

Angela Saini’s blog was given as a perfect example of a niche blog. Her niche is in science journalism. This is what she specialises in and what she’s good at.

Even though I didn’t particularly have a great interest in science journalism I decided to have a look, as I thought I might be able to gain some ideas on how I should develop my own blog and freelance writing.

I loved the way that Angela wrote about science. I’ve never considered myself to be a science type person (I’ve always been more arts and humanities) but she made a subject I thought I wasn’t interested in sound relevant and appealing. I soon decided to subscribe to her blog on my RSS feed and I’ve been reading it ever since.

Soon after I started reading the blog, Saini moved to India for 6 months to cover science stories for the BBC as well as beginning research on her first book called Geek Nation..

The book covers Angela’s journey through India in which she investigates why the country is set to become the world’s next scientific superpower. During the last year, she’s kept her blog readers up to date with various science stories from India as well as progress reports on how the book was taking shape.

Geek Nation was finally published last week on 3 March, and I have to say I was quite excited to see it released.

I’ve been reading Angela’s blog for the last 18 months and followed the progress of the book closely. Angela’s currently updating her blog readers on all the promotional work she’s been doing to promote the book.

On Sunday, I came across a review of the book in the Sunday Times Culture magazine. It was quite positive, and so far the book's been getting a lot of good feedback. After reading Angela’s blog for so long, I feel I now need to go out and buy the book.

Nothing shocks me, I’m a scientist, is a great example of a blog that introduces you to a new subject with an interesting, informative, and personal style of writing that grabs the reader and keeps them coming back. These are characteristics that all good blogs should have.

Book review: The Help

2011-03-07T13:40:00.022Z

I've just finished reading a fantastic book called The Help written by an American author called Kathryn Stockett.

The Help is set in the civil rights era of early 1960s Mississippi and looks at the lives of black maids working in the homes of white families.

The book focuses on 3 main characters. There's Aibleen who's raising her 17th white child, but mourning the death of her only son. Minny who's known throughout the city of Jackson for her brilliant cooking and sharp tongue; and white Miss Skeeter an a aspiring writer who's just returned from college to find that the black maid who raised her has suddenly disappeared and nobody will tell her why.

Going against the cultural norms, Miss Skeeter befriends Aibleen and Minnie and asks them to help her write a book detailing the personal experiences of black maids working for white families in Jackson, Mississippi.

Bearing in mind that Mississipi was arguably the Deep South's most racist and intolerant state, during the volatile civil rights period. The 3 women take huge personal risks for themselves and their families by writing the book.

When I picked the book up last year in Waterstones, I was immediately intrigued by the subject matter.

The story of racial intolerance and segregation in America's Southern sates is well known. What I find fascinating but also ironic is how so many white families would employ black maids to cook and clean in their homes, raise their children; but at the same time refuse to even allow their black maids to sit at the same table to eat, or use the same toilet in the house.

The Deep South spent 100 years after the end of the American Civil War keeping blacks and whites separate, yet there's such an intimate relationship between these white families and their maids.

The author's own family employed a maid called Demitri who she believed was part of the family. She even admits with some guilt that her family thought they were somehow making her life better.

I found this video clip of the author being interviewd by CBS's Katie Couric. It gives an interesting insight into Kathryn Stockett's motivations for writing the book.

The Help is set during a time that feels both distant but at the same time quite recent, this was another reason why the story appealled to me. You're constantly thinking about how much things have changed in relation to race in America, but yet you also remember how bad things were so recently.

This might be a generalisation, but I find a lot of men don't tend to read books written by women, especially books where all the main characters are women.

To be honest it doesn't bother me. This was excellent story that was well written with characters you felt passionate about.

The book's already been made into a movie which should be coming out later this year, I'm already looking forward to it.

Carling Cup Final: Arsenal 1 Birmingham 2

2011-03-01T22:58:00.017Z

Finally Birmingham City have won a trophy!

Birmingham's shock 2-1 defeat of Arsenal in Sunday’s Carling Cup Final, provided me with probably the greatest moment I’ve had as a Blues supporter.

This was meant to be the ‘Beauty and The Beast’ Cup Final. Arsenal’s artistry and grace against Birmingham’s dull, hardworking endeavour.

Nobody gave us a chance of victory. It was assumed that Arsenal would comfortably win, and claim this season's first piece of Silverware.

I didn’t turn out like that. Birmingham produced a performance that all Birmingham fans will remember for the rest of their lives.

See The Cup Final in pictures.

As soon as I realised Obafemi Martins had an empty net in which to score the winning goal, I knew that this was finally our moment.

All the years of failure and disappointment that every Blues fan has experienced was immediately forgotten. You can argue that we got lucky following the mix up between Koscielny and Szczesny, but we deserved to win.

When I look back on the game there wasn't a single Blues player who didn't contribute or who's performance wasn't at least a 7 out of 10.

Apart from the obvious victory one thing that's made me really proud is the comments and reports from the media. They recognised what a superb achievement this was for Birmingham City.

BBC Sport's Phil Mcnulty wrote:

this was no "park the bus and hope for the best" win. It mixed discipline, determination and positive intent in equal measure.

The Guardian said:

'There was a boldness to Birmingham, who understood that a cup final is not to be wasted by cowering in the hope that luck comes your way.'

In the Mail

'It was the finest final we have seen at the new Wembley because of Birmingham’s defiance and determination'

And finally, I loved Dan Jones comment in the London Evening Standard:

'Birmingham beat Arsenal with organisation and opportunism, rather than intimidation and strangulation. It was impossible to look at their jubilant fans and not feel that they did not deserve their win'

We know many of the 'Big clubs' don't see the Carling Cup has a serious trophy, although it was ironic how important it suddenly became for Arsenal after so many years of not winning anything.

For the majority of football fans, the best they can hope for is seeing their club win the FA Cup of League Cup, and this shouldn't be sniffed at.

Birmingham's win on Sunday has provided me with one of greatest moments as a football supporter.

The return of the 'Tory teacher'

2011-02-23T22:07:00.014Z

Some of you might remember the name Katharine Birbalsingh. She gave a speech at last year’s Tory Party conference in Birmingham, exposing the failings of Britain’s state schools.

Instantly she became a darling of the Tory Party. Here was a black, female, London schoolteacher claiming the left wing liberal bias in Britain’s schools, had contributed to a dumbing down in standards. To senior Tories it must have seemed that they’d won the lottery!

Birbalsingh’s been back in the news this week. I’ve read two interviews with her in the Guardian and The Sunday Times as she’s got a book coming out providing a warts and all fictional account of life in an inner-city school.

She’s had plenty of time to write the book. After giving her speech she soon found herself out of a job and has struggled to find another teaching position.

The ‘Tory teacher’ label seems to have stuck, but after reading some of her thoughts and accounts of teaching in state schools, I think she's been harshly treated.

In the interview I read in the Times, Birbalsingh’s claims she doesn’t regret the speech on a moral level, but admits it was a mistake on a personal level.

She argues she wants to expose the truth about our state schools. How a
left leaning liberal bias amongst the teaching profession has hindered standards and contributed to some of the chaotic and violent incidents you can find in some of the country’s toughest schools.

I’ve been interested in the backlash she’s experienced. State schooling isn’t perfect in Britain, but I think she's raised some important issues and questions.

The fact that she said this at the Tory Party Conference and was a previous Labour voter, she seems to have been blacklisted from the profession. It's as if she’s not allowed to say such things.

I know the stereotype says all teachers are ‘lefties’ but there must be some Conservative voters within the profession? I have some sympathy for Birbalsingh it's almost as if she's being punished for speaking out and not conforming to the typical image and views that teachers are meant to have.

I’m not a Conservative voter, but I agree with some of the things she says. She argues that despite exams results improving under Labour - standards did not. I agree with this.

Children aren’t told how well they’re doing in comparison to their classmates in case it undermines their confidence and self esteem. Stories like that just make me groan!

In the Guardian interview, Birbalsingh spoke about the introduction of school league tables and how they’d put more pressure on schools to achieve good exam results. It’s resulted in many schools encouraging pupils to study so called ‘soft’ subjects at GSCE in order to keep exam results high and improve a school’s league table ranking. Having a higher ranking will hopefully attract the sort of pupils that will impove a school’s performance.

For me, this isn’t radical news. My cousin is a secondary school teacher at a North London Academy. He’s taught in London schools for the last 10 years, and has told me exactly the same thing.

It’s a long time since I left school; almost 20 years and I admit I’m probably out of touch with what’s going on, but some of the points Birbalsingh’s been making are views held by many people in the country, but because of who she is and where she expressed these views, they've been politized to such an extent she can no longer find a job teaching. I think that's unfair

Although it hasn’t been great for a career, Birbalsingh’s at least stirred things up a bit and there’s nothing wrong in at least challenging some of the more dominant thinking within the teaching profession that currently exist.

What I've been listening to this week

2011-02-20T22:38:00.008Z

Adele - Rolling In the Deep

I bought the new album 21 by Adele a few weeks ago. I've been listening to it a lot on my HTC phone, now that I've moved on from my Ipod.

The song above Rolling In the Deep is one of my favourite tracks on the album.

Hercules and Love Affair - Hercules Theme live

If you like a mix of classic New York disco and old skool house music you should check out Hercules and Love Affair.

I downloaded this title track from their first album in 2008, but for some reason never got round to buying it.

Then a few weeks ago I was listening to an interview with the band's leader Andrew Butler on Giles Peterson's radio 1 show. They've got a new album out, but they played some of their earlier stuff on the show which made me think I should check them out again.

I've never heard this track performed live, but I love the New York backdrop.

Kenny Dope - Deep Funk Mix

I'm loving this soul and funk mix from the legendary DJ/Producer, Kenny Dope Gonzales

Kenny Dope Live @ Bumpshop, APT, New York - 01-10-2009 by Kenny Dope

60s and 70s soul and funk at its best!

The Huffington Post: What plans does AOL have?

2011-02-19T20:17:00.063Z

One of my favourite blogs/news websites has been in the news a lot in recent weeks.

You might have heard of the Huffington Post, which was sold to the American internet company AOL for $315 million (£195 million).

This story’s been huge in the media and business pages, particularly in terms of what it means for the future of online journalism and how news websites can make money and attract more investment.

As a journalism student and a blogger it might not surprise you to learn I have some interest in the subject.

The Huffington Post has been a bit of an inspiration to me. It started off as a series of blogs that still make up the majority of the site’s content, but it also aggregates content from other news sites.

I liked its varied mix of topics, something I've tried to do with my own blog.

HuffPo as it’s known by some of its fans was set up by the Greek born, American businesswomen and socialite Arianna Huffington in 2005. Since then it’s become an internet phenomenon.

It attracts 25 million visitors each month, with featured blogs written for free by different writers, including celebrities, politicians and other high profile figures.

The brand image of the Post is its liberal/left leaning slant (think of an online US version of the Guardian) Many of the site’s contributors are happy to write blogs and articles without pay as they believe in the values and liberal politics the website represents.

The more conservative AOL has taken over the Post to try and take advantage of those 25 million monthly visitors, which will attract more advertisers and increase ad revenues.

This got me thinking: Are writers going to continue providing free content for HuffPo whilst AOL look to increase profits on the back of their labour and will AOL continue with HuffPo's liberal stance.

As a blogger I’d love to get published by the Huffington Post. Partly because of its image, but obviously because of the potential for millions of people to see your work. I'm sure many of HuffPo's 9000 registered bloggers who contribute feel the same, but how long will their enthusiasm last?

HuffPo's liberal political stance is at the very heart of its brand image, but AOL hasn't bought HuffPo to push that liberal agenda, it's a potential opportunity to increase revenues based on the huge audience that visit the Huffington Post.

I don't necessary have a problem with this, One of the great challenges of online media is trying to work out how websites can make any money even with high audience figures. AOL are betting they can find a way with HuffPo.

I'm not sure that any potential profit should be based partly on the work of thousands of unpaid writers, it undervalues the writing and journalism produced. It's no surprise that HuffPo even before the AOL deal had a number of critics over its business model.

LA Times writer Tim Rutten was quoted in the Guardian comparing the Post’s business model to a ‘galley rowed by slaves and commanded by pirates’ Harsh words!

He went on to say that the deal ‘will push more journalist more deeply into the tragically expanding low wage sector of our increasingly brutal economy.’

These comments caught my attention. You've got to value the content produced and the time and effort that's involved in creating it. I haven't read much about AOL's commitment to producing quality journalism or improving HuffPo's content.

The more cynical argument that I partly agree with, says AOL's will look to produce more content that has greater ‘traffic and revenue’ potential’.

By this I mean content like celebrity news stories rather than duller news reports that will attract more page clicks and visitors from search engines like Google.

It’s going to be interesting to see what direction HuffPo takes from now on. Arianna Huffington has already announced that the site will now become more ‘centerist’ rather than liberal. Is this a rebranding process or as some have suggested a sell out of its progressive voice?

The Egyptian revolution

2011-02-13T22:02:00.031Z

I tweeted a few days ago that I was beginning to think the Egyptian protests were going to fizzle out, and that Honsi Mubarak would cling onto power.

Instead, after 18 days of protest Egypt’s ruler of 30 years finally caved in and resigned.

I’ve been hearing a few comments saying the Egyptian revolution is today’s equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

It doesn’t quite feel like that to me. Maybe it’s because the domestic politics of Egypt and many Middle Eastern countries are unknown to most of us.

When the former communist governments of Eastern Europe fell - it felt monumental as living in the West we were always told that these countries were our biggest enemies.

This isn't the case with the Middle East. We know it's a highly sensitive political region, but if I've learned anything over the last few weeks then it's just how little I know about places like Egypt, and what it's like for people living there.

The world's certainly discovered more about the lives of Egyptians under Mubarak's rule, and the reasons why so many of them have risen up to say they’ve had enough.

The people have made it clear to the ruling establishment and the rest of the world that they want something different and not just the removing of Mubarak.

So what's next for Egypt? The country doesn’t have any real history of democracy, the country has been under military rule or influence for over 40 years.

The removing of one autocratic ruler and the transition to a free and democratic society is still going to be a long and difficult journey.

Now that we’ve had revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt who’s going to be next? I’ve read loads of comments on how various Middle Eastern leaders will be getting very nervous about their own positions, while thousands of ordinary people across the region will be feeling a little braver and more inspired about making some changes in their countries.

The role of Social Media

Having read various reports and analysis, if there’s one thing I’m slightly sceptical about it’s the role that social media played in the Egyptian protests.

I keep hearing how the revolution was the result of ‘The Facebook generation’. Young media savvy Egyptians using Twitter and Facebook to bring about a revolution.

Being a blogger, it’s understandable that I have an interest in social media. I was fascinated for example by the use of Twitter during the Iranian protests in 2009.

Twitter and Facebook are new communications tools that weren’t available to previous generations of revolutionaries and protesters, but as much as I’m a fan of social media, We’re stretching things to say that a autocratic regime of 30 years collapsed because of Twitter.

There’s a romantic view in some circles that information technology and new media will somehow set the people free. I do like to think this myself at times.

What we’re really seeing is that social media is a new battle ground, between peoples and governments.

I’m sure Twitter and Facebook, did help the protesters communicate and spread information, but this revolution would still have occurred regardless of social media.

The free flow of information within social media will of course give all governments a new challenge - particularly authoritarian regimes and dictatorships.

Non democratic governments are already looking at ways in which they can use digital and social media to monitor and control their populations. China and Iran are good examples of this.

The Egyptian authorities made attempts to block the internet which were only partly successful, but we shouldn't get carried away with the role Facebook and Twitter played.

It was still people power that caused the Egyptian revolution and the bravery and determination of thousands of people to stand up to its rulers and say we’ve had enough. Twitter and Facebook just helped get that message across.

Egyptian Protests: What does the West really want?

2011-02-06T21:02:00.031Z

Like a lot of people I’ve been following the protests in Egypt over the last week. Egypt isn’t the sort of country that dominates the news headlines everyday, but that's what we've been seeing.

It looks as if many Egyptians have had enough of Hosni Mubarak's corrupt and brutal regime that's lasted for the last 30 years.

It's always inspiring to see people rise up against their leaders and demand reform and greater political freedom, but from the point of view of America and other Western powers how much democratic change and freedom do they want to see in Egypt?

For all the faults and criticisms levelled at Mubarak's regime, he's been an ally to the West, been a peaceful neighbour to Israel, and a moderate leading force in Arab politics.

Is it better for the West that a brutal and corrupt leader is removed, even if he guarantees stability in a volatile region - or support a popular uprising that demands greater freedom and democracy but could result in more uncertainty in the Middle East?

Things are changing in the Arab world. We saw it in Tunisia a few weeks ago, and now it's spread to Egypt, it's a domino effect. Who's going to be next?

I don't really know much about the politics of many Arab states but I've been discovering that many countries in the region are ruled by dictators and absolute monarchs.

If I've learned anything from the uprising in Egypt and Tunisia it's this: Many people in these countries want to have what we in the West have. They want democracy, freedom and prosperity.

On the one hand this is great for World leaders in the West, but you can't just create a free and democratic society in a matter of weeks or months.

For all the many faults of brutal dictatorships, they do bring about a form of stability which can have its benefits.

The West have found this in Egypt. Once a figurehead is removed after so many years, you can have a political void, with nobody really sure what will replace it.

This is the dilemma that the West has, Mubarak goes but who or what replaces him? I keep hearing about The Muslim Brotherhood, the biggest opposition group, but the last thing America or or Britain wants is an Islamic state in Egypt.

I think back to Iraq, Saddam Hussein ruled for years, but after he was overthrown following the 2003 invasion, it was as if his removal opened up a can of worms.

We saw sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and Iraq is only just recovering from the political and social chaos.

I'm not saying this will happen in Egypt but it's a really tricky situation for America to deal with. Mubarak's time looks to be up, but we're a long way from finding out who's really going to benefit from this uprising.

Final word on the Sky Sports sexism row

2011-01-30T15:25:00.015Z

I’ve been amazed at just how much this Andy Gray and Richard Keys sexism story has snowballed in the last week.

Their comments on Sian Massey were wrong, but I do feel they’ve been forced out of their jobs on Sky more because of their own unpopularity on the channel rather than for what they've actually said.

First things first, their opinions that women don’t understand offside were stupid and ignorant.

The offside rule isn’t difficult to understand. It’s one of the great football clichés that offside is some incomprehensible rule that takes years to master.

Here’s how I describe the offside rule: The space on the pitch between the last defender and the goalkeeper is offside – Simples!

The only people who don’t understand offside are those that have no interest or understanding of football.

There’s no reason why women can’t be assistant refs. As long as you can keep up with play, raise your flag at the right moments, and spot any infringements by players you'll be fine doing the job.

As bad as Andy Gray and Richard Key’s comments were, did they actually affect the performance of Sian Massey during the game between Wolves and Liverpool?

Massey’s performance last weekend proved how wrong Gray and Keys were. That should have been the end of it. A slap on the wrist and public apology from the two of them, and we would have heard no more.

What did it for Gray and Keys was the leaking of more clips of them privately making further inappropriate comments. Where did these ‘leaks’ suddenly start coming from?

Last Tuesday I was tweeting that it was obvious that Gray and Keys had upset some people at Sky and the leaking of these video clips was payback time.

I’ve read quite a few reports over the last week saying that Gray and Keys weren’t popular or well liked amongst staff at Sky.

The impression that comes out is that they were arrogant and a bit full of themselves who bullied some members of staff. If they were really popular and well liked at Sky I can’t believe these further video clips would have been leaked.

Ok, maybe they weren’t the nicest people to work for, but there are thousands of people who are rude, unpopular and bully their staff at work all over the country. A lot of them can be very good at their jobs.

If there’s one thing that’s occurred to me over the last week it’s the failure of people to distinguish the difference between private and public life.

The comments that really did it for Gray and Keys weren’t public broadcasts, but were private comments said to work colleagues.

How many people have made comments in private that are politically incorrect whether intentional or not? If all our private conversations were made public and influenced our positions and abilities at work, then people would be losing their jobs everyday of the week.

Go to any football match and you’ll hear comments and language, which in most offices would be unacceptable. The bloke shouting idiotic abuse on the terraces one weekend could be a highly successful and articulate CEO during the week. Are all our private thoughts and comments meant to be used against us to say we’re unsuitable for our jobs?

I know Andy Gray wasn’t every football fans favourite, but I never had a problem with him. His co commentary had become the voice of Sky Sports and part of me will miss him, he was good at what he did.

I’m just not falling for some of the manufactured shock and outrage the some people are expressing with regards to Gray and Keys.

They made some ignorant comments in private, with further comments made public because of their unpopularity and not because of some great cause for sexual equality.

Carling Cup Semi-Final: Birmingham 3 West Ham 1 (4-3) on aggregate

2011-01-27T22:56:00.008Z

Birmingham produced one of the truly great performances I've ever seen from them last night when they clinched a place in the Carling Cup final. 2-1 down from the first leg, they won 3-1 on the night after extra time. This will be our first Wembley Cup final since 1956!

I watched the game in my local pub full of West Ham fans as I live in Stratford East London.

With Blues 1-0 down to an uncharacteristic Carlton Cole wonder goal, I wondered if it was worth sticking around. Thankfully I had just enough faith not to give up.

Just before the second half began I sent out a tweet saying: Coming up the biggest 2nd half at St Andrews in years!

How true that was. Despite the score I was still optimistic we could at least take the game into extra time.

As we staged our remarkable comeback, the pub descended into silence as each of our goals went in. Anyone paying attention would have noticed I was a Blues fan as I was the only person celebrating when our goals went in.

It was such a bizarre feeling listening to the West Ham fans around me shaking their heads in frustration as they watched what looked like certain victory transform into inevitable defeat.

As West Ham fans moaned how it was all so 'typical West Ham' I remembered how I was saying the same thing about Blues only a few hours earlier.

After Craig Gardner's winner went in I jumped up at the bar, arms outstretched and screamed COME ON!! Thankfully no one noticed as everyone else seemed to gutted to care!

I emailed some old friends today and said last night was one of those great moments where the team you support really steps up and rises to the challenge to achieve someone special. This is exactly what Blues did and I'll remember last night's game for years to come.

Can't wait for the final on 27 February.

Bring on the Gooners!

In the end Coulson had to go

2011-01-23T19:08:00.030Z

It was inevitable really that Andy Coulson would resign from his post as communications chief to David Cameron and the Tory Party.

This phone hacking story simply wouldn't go away. Everytime it kept coming back, it made it more difficult for Coulson to stay in his job - this is why he had to go.

I've heard a few comments saying this story doesn't really matter. Nobody outside of the Westminster Village even knows who Andy Coulson is.

It's a fair point - for a lot of ordinary voters, Coulson's resignation doesn't mean much. I on the other hand have been following this story for sometime, it's the media geek in me!

You can read my previous thoughts on this story by clicking on the links below. My opinions haven't changed much.

What's interested me are the reports on Coulson's influence within the Tory Party

Here's someone from a working class background, who grew up on a council estate in Essex, and was a former editor of the News of the World. He kept David Cameron and the Tory leadership in touch with the lives of ordinary people.

Related blog posts

Tabloid phone hacking

Journalism back in the gutter!

On Friday, the BBC's Nick Robinson mentioned this, and so did Channel 4 News in their report of Coulson's resignation.

This evening, I've just been listening to Pienaar's Politics on BBC Radio 5. They had an interview with the Conservative back bench MP David Davis who raised the same point, and argued how Coulsen's resignation was a blow to the image of the Tory Party under Cameron.

It's common knowledge that David Cameron, George Osborne and other senior figures within the Tory high command come from privileged, elitist backgrounds.

It shouldn't really matter what peoples backgrounds are, as long as they can do the job, but in reality it doesn't look good for the Conservatives when the majority of its senior leaders all come from Eton or Oxbridge backgrounds.

The impression that emerges about Andy Coulson was not only was he very good at his job, but he also brought a grittier, tougher mindset to the Tory leadership. He was someone who was there to remind Cameron and his inner circle about the real concerns and thoughts of ordinary people.

The criticisms levelled at Tories could easily be made against all politicians both in the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. Many of our MPs seem to come from the same narrow educational and social background.

What's going to be interesting to see is firstly how the Tories communication strategy evolves without Coulson in charge, and secondly where will this phone hacking story go from here. I just know we haven't heard the last of it.

The battle for the Olympic stadium

2011-01-19T12:24:00.029Z

We’re heading into the home straight in the race to decide who’ll take over the Olympic Stadium after the 2012 Games.

I’ve been following this story quite closely in the last few days. It’s now a two-way battle between West Ham and Tottenham.

West Ham must be favourites, but Spurs have come along in recent months to muscle in on the plans of West Ham and UK athletics.

A decision on the stadium should have been made years ago. It feels like we’ve spent the last 6 years discussing what the Olympic legacy should be. With a year to go we’re still not sure.

A final decision will be made next week on the 28 January. None of the proposals are ideal, but If I had to choose I’d prefer to see West Ham get the Olympic Stadium rather than Spurs.

Personally my own choice for the Olympic stadium would be this:

After the Games reduce the stadium's capacity to 20 - 25,000 seats, and turn it into a multi purpose stadium for both sporting and non sports events. If a football club had to come in and use it how about Leyton Orient?

I was under the impression that one of the promises made when London won the bid in 2005, was the Games would leave a legacy for athletics. As an athletics fan, I'd like to see athletics taken care of.

I accept that a 40,000 plus capacity stadium used only for athletics isn't viable. Any stadium that size would need a football club using it, if you wanted to fill it on regular basis.

West Ham's plans show they intend to keep the athletics track and reduce the capacity from 80,000 to 60,000 seats.

This would be great for UK athletics, it could potentially bid for World and European Championships. The main problems are that I can't see West Ham filling a 60,000 stadium - their fan base isn't big enough; secondly football fans in this country don't want to watch football in stadiums with athletics tracks. It's not part of our footballing culture.

Although West Ham moving in wouldn't be perfect, it's still better than Tottenham's proposals. Spurs should stay in North London, and I know most of their fans agree.

Spurs are bidding in collaboration with the sports and entertainment company AEG. They want to demolish most of the stadium, and build a new football stadium which doesn't include a track.

To appease UK athletics, they will contribute financially in refurbishing the athletics stadium in Crystal Palace, South London.

Former British Olympic sprinter Darren Campbell, has said today that Tottenham's plans should be considered. I agree up to a point.

I'd be happy to see Crystal Palace refurbished - it needs it, but I still don't like Tottenham's plans. They haven't yet answered questions on when they intend to fully refurbish Crystal Palace, and how will they afford to do so whilst competing in the Premier League and in Europe?

Firstly Spurs don't really want to move, the Olympic Stadium is their second choice. They've already had plans commissioned to build a new stadium next door to White Hart Lane. By proposing to move to Stratford they can put more pressure on Haringey Council to support Spurs' attempts to build a new stadium in Tottenham.

Anyone who's been to a match at White Hart Lane, knows about the problems with transport links. Any new stadium built in Tottenham would need assurances that improvements to the local transport infrastructure would be made. I'm just wondering where the money for such capital investment would come from in these difficult economic times.

The London borough of Haringey is already one of the most deprived and disadvantaged in London. The revenue that Spurs bring to the area means the council can't afford to lose Tottenham to East London. This is another reason for Spurs to remain where they are.

Tottenham's plans are a non starter, and West Ham taking over the Olympic stadium is the best option.

We'll find out on the 28 January.

Is Rock & Roll really dead?

2011-01-16T22:52:00.020Z

I've been reading a few articles this week, proclaiming the death of Rock and Roll.

Last year there were only three rock records that appeared in the top 100 best selling singles chart.

The best selling rock record in 2010 was ‘Don’t Stop Believing’ by Journey, a classic track, but one that's over 30 years old!

Pop, Hip Hop and RnB are battling it out for the popular music crown, with over 80% of singles sales coming from these genres.

Veteran DJ and music professor Paul Gambaccini was quoted saying:

"It is the end of the rock era. It's over, in the same way the jazz era is over,"

I’m a bit sceptical about the idea that rock is dead. Music critics are always looking to declare the death or rebirth of one genre of music or another.

Clearly rock isn't quite so popular at the moment, but then all music goes in cycles when it comes to popularity.

There's still a big market for rock music it just isn't reflected in the singles charts. Have a look at the top 100 best selling albums and it's a different story, with almost a third of sales being categorised as rock.

Reading some people's comments posted on the Guardian's website about this story, it felt like I was back in my old student 6th form common room.

The same silly attitudes, with people taking themselves and rock music far too seriously - complaining about how terrible the charts are because it's dominated by Pop, Hip Hop and RnB. So what, just get over it!

At times I've always found some aspects of rock culture slightly pretentious. Rock has always tried to portray itself as 'proper' or 'serious' music. It's always looking to prove its cultural and musical superiority over other music styles particularly Pop.

Music goes in cycles in terms of what's popular and fashionable. Only a few years ago here in the UK, there was a huge revival of British guitar bands. The charts were dominated by the likes of the Arctic Monkeys, Kaiser Chiefs, The Kooks to name but a few.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember complaints from music fans saying there was too much guitar music around. Other music genres don't feel they have this automatic right to dominate popular music culture in the way some rock fans feel.

Rock isn't going to die out, look at the live music scene and all the summer music festivals we have in this country, one of the biggest music acts around are Kings of Leon, a band I have to say I am sick of hearing! The critics can say what they like but rock is still in good health.

Perhaps after 50 years of dominating music culture, we may be coming to the end of rock's era. In terms of creativity there's only so much you can do with a singer, some drums and a lead and bass guitar. It's unlikely that rock can push any further boundaries. It will still by played but played inside a well established form similiar to that of jazz.

People's tastes change and evolve. Rock’s had a good run, but maybe it's musical and cultural influence will never quite be the same again.

The Ashes: How the tables have turned

2011-01-08T22:37:00.012Z

For most of my life, Ashes cricket has meant watching Australia give England a harsh cricketing lesson – now it’s England teaching the Aussies how to play.

One of the more interesting theories I’ve heard behind England’s series success, is that somehow England have managed to become more Australian than the Australians.

I’m not so sure about that. At the moment England clearly have a better collection of players than Australia, but talent can only take you so far.

England have been captained well by Andrew Strauss, but the management, background staff and infrastructure of English cricket has improved, and this shouldn’t be overlooked.

Sporting success goes in cycles. This is England’s time; they’ve worked incredibly hard to reach this point. Australia have dominated world cricket for almost 20 years – but nothing lasts forever.

As I mentioned in my last Ashes post, it’s incredibly difficult for any team; regardless of the sport to keep on producing successful winning teams.

Being on top and maintaining that position brings its own challenges, something which Australia have had to deal with in recent years.

Some of the Australian media reaction to the series defeat has been over the top. They’ve become spoilt with success.

Suddenly they’ve become all introspective, questioning how they’re going to produce top quality test match cricketers. Sport is so important to Australia's national self esteem, that you know at some point Australian cricket will re-emerge.

As for England, I remember after the 2005 series win the team were meant to go on and become the World’s number one Test team - that never happened.

In my lifetime England have never been the dominant Test playing country. Becoming the best in the world has to be the next challenge. That's going to be tough and not taking anything away from this Ashes triumph, I’m not going to get carried away and assume England will achieve this.

Have to say though it is exciting times in English cricket. I remember back in the late 90s early 2000s I lost a bit of interest in cricket as England were so mediocre.

Now I’m really looking forward to this year’s World Cup and summer Test series against India

Death of the record shop

2011-01-07T08:33:00.010Z

It was a bad week for the record shop HMV.

It was announced that in the run up to Christmas, sales slumped by 14% and the group lost £20 million in sales.

This year, HMV is planning on cutting at least 40 of its stores around the country, along with 20 Waterstones bookshops, which HMV also owns.

With HMV taking a hammering in recent years with the CD, DVD, and book market going online, it got me thinking:

Is this the end of the record shop?

Independent record shops have been in decline for years. They were then followed by major High Street retailers. Remember Virgin, Tower Records?

HMV are like the last man standing - but even now they seem to be on their last legs.

I still go out and buy CDs which I know might surprise a few people. Why do I do it?

I actually like physically owning something - but I'm beginning to think this is an old fashioned idea.

I don't like or understand the idea of my record collection being hidden away on a laptop or computer. I like to physically see my record collection in all it's glory.

Secondly, for me there's the sense of nostalgia. Being into music has always meant spending hours in records shops. Whether it's a High Street retailer like HMV or independent records stores.

I enjoy that sense of browsing, seeing what's about, picking records up.

Today there's a whole generation of people whose experience of buying records doesn’t involve going to a record shop. I can only see this group growing

I accept that technology moves on, but I don’t think discovering and listening to music online will ever be as interesting or as exciting as browsing or buying records in a high street or independent record shop.

Read more on this on the Guardian's music blog.

Why we need HMV

Fears for the survival of HMV

'Censored' edition of Huckleberry Finn causes controversy

2011-01-06T20:15:00.010Z

Whilst I was getting ready for work this morning, I was watching BBC breakfast. They featured a report on the book Huckleberry Finn by the 19th Century American author Mark Twain.

The new edition of the book coming out this year has caused controversy, as the racially offensive ‘N’ word has been removed.

There’s now a debate taking place asking whether it’s right that ‘the N word’ should be replaced or not.

I hadn’t realised that in America many schools have stopped teaching the novel, because of its racially offensive language.

Those in favour of the new edition argue it will allow more people to feel comfortable reading the book. I don’t really agree with this opinion.

You have to think about the context of the story and this is why ‘the N word’ shouldn't be replaced.

Huckleberry Finn is set during in the 1830s and 40 in America’s Deep South. This was a racist society, and slavery had yet to be abolished.

For me, removing ‘the N word’ from the book is a form of cultural vandalism!

It’s a shame that so many schools in America feel the need to ban the book.

The 2011 edition replaces the word ‘nigger’ with slave, which it’s been reported some people feel more comfortable with.

I understand this, but by removing ‘the N word’ the story will lose it’s historical and cultural relevance.

Although we might live in more enlightened times when it comes to race, it's important to remember that it wasn't always like this.

There's been a journey and progression, particularly in America in regards to race.

A book like Huckleberry Finn is like a reference point for the reader, and shows how attitudes have changed and evolved over a period of time.

At this point I should point out I’ve never actually read Huckleberry Finn, but I do have a copy at home. The book was given to my years ago by a colleague at work.

I tried reading it last year, but as the copy I have is an old edition. I found it quite difficult as the typeface isn’t very reader friendly for me.

It’s still a book I’ve always wanted to read, and I will get round to it one day.

When it comes to 'the N word' it's not as if it's a word that's disappeared from popular culture.

Anyone who listens to Hip Hop on a regular basis will hear the ‘N’ word mentioned all the time.

I’ve listened to Hip Hop for years and barely notice the word in that context. If I’m being honest I can hardly imagine listening to Hip Hop without ‘the N word’ It’s a word that’s culturally relevant to the music.

Last year I watched all 5 series of the critically acclaimed US TV drama, The Wire. Again ‘the N word’ is used a lot.

In the context of the show and the stories that are being told, the word can’t be airbrushed.

Many Societies in the past had beliefs and value systems that many of us may now find abhorrent.

That doesn't give us the right to go around editing things out and re-writing history because we don't like it.

This essentially is what some people are trying to do by censoring cultural works such as Huckleberry Finn.

Premier League half term report: Part 2

2010-12-31T19:54:00.018Z

Here's part 2 of my Premier League review.

Clubs M - W

Man Utd - The ‘unconvincing invincibles’ is how I’d describe Man Utd this season.

Man City - Ignoring all the money and media scrutiny, Man City can win the Premier League this season.

Spurs - Some of the best games I’ve seen this season have involved Spurs.

Newcastle....continually try their best to show everyone they’re a joke of a football club.

Manchester City

After years of plodding along in middling mediocrity, you can’t look at the back pages of the papers anymore without seeing another Man City story.

Ignoring all the money and media scrutiny, Man City can win the Premier League this season.

They’ve got the players, it’s just a question of whether they believe they can win it; and if the team spirit is there in the squad.

If they’re going to win the league or come close then it’s obvious that Carlos Tevez needs to be on form and kept happy.

I don’t really understand all the stuff surrounding his transfer request. I thought it was just a family issue, but there’s more to it then that.

To be honest I’m getting bored with Man City. They're like neighbours down the road who’ve suddenly won the lottery.

Now you can never get any piece and quiet because there’s always some drama going on at their place.

Man City to finish second

Manchester Utd

The ‘unconvincing invincibles’ is how I’d describe Man Utd this season. Still unbeaten, but they’ve hardly setting the world alight.

Despite all this they look in poll position to win the title for a record 19th time. The advantage that Utd have is that they’re the least flawed out of all their rivals for the title.

If I was a Man Utd fan, my biggest concern would be Wayne Rooney.

After the soap opera of the will he/won’t he leave, he’s signed a new contract but still doesn’t look anywhere near the form we associate with him.

He’s hardly done anything for Utd or England since he got injured back in March.

Dare I say it, is Rooney actually just overrated? Perhaps he’s just not as good as people thought he was.

I think Utd will win the title, but Rooney needs to improve.

Newcastle

This is nothing personal against Newcastle fans, but Newcastle continually try their best to show everyone they’re a joke of a football club.

The sacking of Chris Hughton is without question the most ridiculous decision made by any club this season. The only positive is that his reputation shouldn’t be damaged too much.

Before Mike Ashley’s decision, Newcastle were having a pretty good if slightly inconsistent season.

Ashley’s claim that he wanted a more experienced manager might have made sense if someone like Martin O’Neill had come in, but Alan Pardew? His experience of the Premiership isn’t that great.

Recent results have been quite poor, and with so few points separating teams at the bottom, Newcastle are going to be battling out like a lot of other clubs to stay up.

Stoke

Stoke get a lot of criticism for their style of play - there can be a lot of snobbery in the Premier League when you support a so called ‘unfashionable club’ and Stoke have been on the receiving end of this.

I do have a lot of respect for Tony Pulis and what Stoke have achieved in recent seasons, although only Stoke fans can love their style of play.

I watched the Stoke/Birmingham game on Sky earlier in the season – the beautiful game it wasn’t! In saying that, the second half was really entertaining.

Stoke are having another good season. For so long, I looked at Stoke as being your quintessential Championship club, in a championship town.

They’ve now re-invented themselves as a solid if unglamorous mid table Premier League club.

Sunderland

Ignoring the 5-1 humiliation against Newcastle, it’s been a good season so far for Sunderland.

They’re not exceeding expectations nor are they under-performing. They look on course for a top 10 finish, which is good progress under Steve Bruce.

They don’t seem to be relying so heavily on Darren Bent’s goals as they were last season, and the signing of Asamoah Gyan looks a good move, even if he was over priced at £13 million.

Tottenham

I wouldn’t normally advise anyone visiting London to take a trip to Tottenham, except if you want some footballing entertainment.

Some of the best games I’ve seen this season have involved Spurs.

Harry Rednapp thinks Tottenham can win the League. He must be the only person who thinks so.

Rafael van der Vaart, must be the signing of the season. So many foreign players struggle to adapt to English football, but van der Vaart looks as if the Premier League is his natural home.

You can’t talk about Spurs without mentioning Gareth Bale, who’s beginning to look world class. Funny how things can change, it wasn't that long ago people were saying Spurs always lost whenever Bale played.

What can Spurs do this season? They can certainly beat Milan in the Champions League and progress to the semis (need to avoid Barcelona and Madrid).

I can see them battling it out with Chelsea of Arsenal for the last Champions League spot.

West Brom

Everyone’s favourite yo-yo club!

I went to the Hawthorns last September to watch Birmingham play, and was really impressed by West Brom.

It’s been a great start to the season, with every West Brom fan beginning to believe this return to the Premier League won’t result in the usual ending of relegation back to the Championship.

Unfortunately for West Brom their recent results have taken a dip, despite good performances. They’re getting dragged back down again.

I would like to see them stay up this time, but they seem to struggle when Peter Odemwingie isn’t playing. They need to keep him fit – If they do they should survive.

West Ham

Where would West Ham be without Scott Parker?

It would be all over for them without him, he’s been an inspiration. You still keep hearing stories of him going to Spurs, but he surely isn’t going to go in January.

Bottom at Christmas, usually means relegation, but West Ham aren’t dead and buried yet. If they beat Wolves on New Year’s Day, it would probably take them out of the relegation zone.

West Ham look a mess to be honest. I know David Sullivan and Karen Brady will eventually sort things out off the pitch, but there’s not much to inspire confidence on the pitch.

Talking about inspiring confidence, everytime I see and hear Avram Grant on telly, I think ‘Is this man able to inspire anyone?’

I can speak from first hand knowledge as a Birmingham fan to know, that Sullivan and David Gold don’t sack managers, but even if they manage to stay up, I can’t see Grant being in charge next season.

Wigan

What can I say about Wigan?

At best Wigan are a League One club, artificially inflated by the money of Dave Whelan.

They’re a poor side, but everytime I think they going to sink to the bottom of the table, they keep producing results that keep their head above water.

I know every fan looks at certain clubs in the Premier League and thinks ‘I won’t miss them if they go down’ a lot of fans might think that about my own club, Birmingham.

But with Wigan I really wouldn’t miss them if they got relegated, as a club I don’t think they bring much to the Premier League table.

Sorry Wigan fans!

Wolves

Honest, hardworking, battling, no nonsense – words that spring to mind when you think about Wolves.

They’re a mirror image of the manager Mick McCarthy.

After losing to Wigan over Christimas I thought that was it - they were going down, but after beating Liverpool a few days ago they’re back in touch with everyone.

Wolves concede too many goals and don’t score enough - which can only mean goodbye Premier League, hello Championship.

As I write this they’ve got a massive game against West Ham on New Year’s day.

With the league so tight, you can’t say that whoever loses will go down, but if one of them loses you've got to make them favourites for relegation.

My top 10 blog posts of 2010

2010-12-30T19:00:00.009Z

As it's the last week of the year, I've decided to have a look at my most popular blogs for 2010.

According to the stats, these are the blogs which received the biggest number of page views.

There's one or two surprises, but it's interesting to see which topics have gained the most interest.

1. Is the countryside racist?

What a hot topic this was.

By far the most viewed post of 2010. I wrote this blog in response to an article in the Sunday Times magazine.

The Guardian picked up on the story a few weeks later, and I left a comment on the Guardian's website. This probably explains the high number of people who then clicked onto my blog.

2. Rugby and football - Two sports, two different worlds!

After going to Twickenham, my thoughts on the difference between going to watch football and rugby

3. Charlie Brooker - Newswipe

Charlie Brooker's brilliant Newswipe series on BBC 4

4. New Drama Series - Any Human Heart

Possibly my favourite book of all time, adapted into a great 4 part drama series.

5. City break in Boston

I spent a couple of days in Boston at the beginning of November. A nice city with a very chilled out vibe.

6. A benefits revolution

A bit of politics!

The coalition government announce plans for a change in the benefits system.

7. Student Tuition Fees - The debate nobody's talking about

Well, I had quite a few lively debates with people at work after I posted this blog. Special mention goes out to Andre who felt very passionate over the rise in tuition fees.

Said he was going to leave a comment. Hope he gets round to it.

8. New shopping centre in the City of London

I was surprised to see this post in the top ten. If you're ever in the heart of London's financial district check out One New Exchange.

9. How many shoes do you have?

Definitely one for the men out there!

Had some funny conversations with lads at work on this one.

10. Time to reform FIFA, but we have to do it from the inside

A humiliating end to England's bid for the 2018 World Cup.

England can still hold their heads up high, not sure you can say the same about FIFA.

Premier League half term report: Part 1

2010-12-29T23:18:00.022Z

As we're half way through the football season, I thought I'd give my thoughts on each club.

It's been a very strange but fascinating Premier League so far. None of the big clubs have been that convincing, and as we come to the end of the year, it's still impossible to confidently predict who will go down.

Clubs A - L

Chelsea ...a dip that turned into a slump, now looks like terminal decline for the league champions.

Arsenal - Don’t be fooled be the table that says they’re in contention, they won’t win it.

Aston Villa - A winter of discontent awaits... As a Birmingham fan there’ll be no gloating from me.

Blackpool - What a story this is.

Liverpool - In all my years of following football, I’ve never seen Liverpool at such a low ebb

Click on the read more link to read my thoughts in full.

Full report

Arsenal

I could write the same thing about Arsenal every single season.

Don’t be fooled be the table that says they’re in contention, they won’t win it.

As much as you can admire and respect Arsene Wenger’s achievements, he is unbelievably stubborn. Wenger still refuses to go out and buy a decent keeper and for that reason alone they won’t win the League.

They’ve had some terrible results at home which makes you wonder whether Arsenal have the mental strength to become champions. I don’t think they do.

Arsenal will finish third, get knocked out by Barcelona in the Champions League, and might win the League Cup, which after years of thinking it was a run out for the kids, they now feel they have to win.

Arsenal will always play great football, we know all this. But if I was a Gooner I'd be starting to question how much longer Arsenal can go on playing beautiful football that wins nothing!

Aston Villa

A winter of discontent awaits Villa. As a Birmingham fan there’ll be no gloating from me.

Martin O’Neill leaving just before the start of the season left the club in a real mess. There was clearly an issue between him and Randy Lerner over the club’s transfer policy and the amount available to spend on new players.

There was also the issue of some of the high salaries being paid at Villa to players bought by O’Neill who were never getting a look in. I know a lot of Villa fans were unhappy that O’Neill appeared to have favourites who he would always pick

Villa have started to look like a selling club with Gareth Barry and James Milner both going to Man City.

Gerard Houllier’s come in, and things are getting worse for Villa. Has Houllier been out of the Premier League for too long?

Certain players in the squad are making life difficult for Houllier (I'm looking at you John Carew) and his assistant Gary Mcallister. They either need to be shipped out fast or Houllier may be on his way out

Only bright spot for Villa are the young kids coming through, should save the club a lot of money long term.

Birmingham

The Blues, my own club

There’s a number of reasons to believe Blues could go down this season. We don’t score many goals, have little creativity, never win away from home, and our star signing Nikola Zigic has been terrible.

I’m still confident that we’ll stay up though. Our home form is the key, which by anyone’s standards is impressive, three defeats in the last 18 months.

Secondly, teams that get relegated usually concede loads of goals. That’s something that Blues don’t do, our defence is our strongest point.

Ben Foster in goal has been the player of the season so far, and the Scott Dann - Roger Johnson central defensive partnership is still in fine form.

Staying up this season will be a success, but there are a number of issues that need addressing.

There’s no pace in the team, particularly on the flanks. Up front, Cameron Jerome is too erratic, and Zigic on present form has struggled to adapt to the physical side of English football. If only Kevin Phillips was 10 or even 5 years younger.

Blackburn

Under Sam Allardyce Blackburn fans knew what they were getting. The football wasn’t great or entertaining, but the team would be well organised, competitive and would still be in the Premier League next season.

The sacking of Allardyce should have been the most ridiculous decision of the season - that honour has already gone to Newcastle. (I'll come onto that later)

With Allardyce gone there's a big question mark hanging over the club.

Under their new Indian owners, all that stability has been ripped apart. I can see them flirting with relegation now, but they should still have enough to stay up.

Just being in the Premier League is an achievement for a club like Blackburn, they’ve been almost a permanent fixture in the league for the last 15 years or so. It shows how well the club’s been run.

The new owners need to get real quickly or they could find themselves running a Championship club very soon.

Blackpool

What a story this is.

When Blackpool were promoted, I thought there couldn’t be a more ill equipped team to have come up and compete in Premier League history. How wrong I was.

They’ve had some amazing results, and what’s been even more impressive is the number of wins away from home. They’ve scored goals and haven’t been afraid to come out and play

Ian Holloway was always one of those lower league managers who was a bit of a ‘character’ the type that journalists love as he was always quotable and good entertainment.

What’s great is that he’s now in the Premiership and showing the football world that he has some impressive managerial qualities.

I keep expecting the Blackpool bubble to burst, but just when I think it’s going to happen they produce a result like yesterday, beating Sunderland away.

It’s hard to see them going down now.

Bolton

Bolton the new media darlings, now that they’ve starting passing the ball around under Owen Coyle.

Having a great season so far, I’d love to know what Coyle’s been doing with Elmander, he looked terrible wheb Bolton first signed him, now he looks world class!

Perhaps playing a more attractive style of football might tempt more fans down the Reebok. With the likes of Villa and Everton struggling, this might be great chance for Bolton to finish in the top eight.

Chelsea

A few months ago it looked like Chelsea were cruising to the Premier League title, but a dip that turned into a slump now looks like terminal decline for the league champions.

They’ve had too many key players out injured, the likes of Lampard, and Essien have been hugely missed, but there’s suddenly no strength in depth with Chelsea.

They got rid of a load of players last summer, but haven’t replaced them
and there doesn’t seem to be much coming through from the youth team.

The entire squad is too old, and Ambramovich hasn’t indicated he’s willing to spend the sort of money that he was doing a few years back. There's been a lack of long term planning with Chelsea.

Unless there’s a dramatic improvement, I can’t see Chelsea winning the league this season. Qualifying for the Champions League might be the best they can hope for.

Everton

I’ve always admired Everton under David Moyes. To use a boxing analogy, you could argue that ‘pound for pound’ they’ve been the best performing team in the Premier League for a number of seasons now.

In terms of Everton’s size, resources, spending power, their results and league finishes have been excellent.

They’re finding it tough going at the moment though – mainly because they don’t have striker. Saha always seems injured, don’t know what’s happened to Yakubu, and Beckford has found the step up from League 1 with Leeds to the Premiership pretty big.

With the amount of foreign owners in the league it does surprise me why nobody has come in to buy Everton. With some real investment it would interesting to see how well Moyes and Everton could do.

As it is, I can see them improving but mid table is perhaps the best they can hope for this season.

Fulham

It’s going to be a long hard season for Fulham. If the timing had been better, Mark Hughes could have found himself managing Aston Villa, but the Fulham job came up first and he took it.

I always feel with clubs like Fulham, just keeping them up and competing in the Premier League is a form of success.

After the achievements of last season it was always going to be hard for Mark Hughes. Fulham’s biggest problem is the loss of Bobby Zamora, their most important and influential player.

I don’t know how much longer he’s going to be out injured, but without him they’re going to struggle. They should just have enough to stay up but it’ll be close.

Liverpool

In all my years of following football, I’ve never seen Liverpool at such a low ebb. It’s going to be years before they really challenge for the title again.

I thought Roy Hodgson was a really good appointment when he came in, but hardly anything has gone right for him. Perhaps it's a case of the wrong manager at the wrong club, at the wrong time?

I don’t think Rafa Benitez left the Liverpool in a great state, so many mediocre players that should never have played for Liverpool.

Fernando Torres has become a mystery. His form has been dreadful at times, and his body language hasn’t been great.

I wonder whether Liverpool might be better off selling him and using the money to rebuild the squad - get some strenght in depth.

Home form’s been good, (but lost to Wolves at home tonight) but away they’ve been awful. Hard to say whether Hodgson will last the season.

Next summer will be crucial for Liverpool, possibly the most important pre-season in the club’s history and a chance for their new owners to show their ambition and plans for the future.

How long will the coalition last for?

2010-12-24T00:38:00.007Z

Another bad week in government for the Lib Dems.

Poor old Vince Cable, he received a public slapping down by David Cameron and Nick Clegg following his comments about Rupert Murdoch.

I haven’t decided yet if I agree with the Telegraph’s methods of using two undercover reporters to secretly record a conversation with Cable. The Business Secretary claimed he had ‘declared war’ on Rupert Murdoch’s attempts to take full control of BskyB.

Under any other government Cable would have been sacked for saying this, but it looks like it's been decided the coalition will be stronger with Cable in it, rather than out.

It’s no secret Vince Cable's found it difficult working with the Tories. Now more stories are coming out about other Lib Dem ministers privately opposing government policies

For the first time since the government came to power, it got me thinking that perhaps the coalition won’t last a full term.

How times have changed for Vince Cable. At the start of the year he was everyone’s favourite MP, Saint Vince, he could do no wrong, now he’s being humiliated in public.

I’m sure the Telegraph were partly motivated to try and expose more divisions within the coalition, but it shouldn’t really be a surprise to people that there are policy disagreements between government ministers. Have people forgot how divided New Labour was between Blairites and Brownites?

I have to say, I don’t get the attitude of some Lib Dem ministers. They’ve been given a great opportunity of being in government, but instead of trying to make the most of it, too many seem happy to complain about how difficult life is working with the Tories.

Considering the number of seats won at the last election, the Lib Dems have had a disproportionate influence on this government.

Despite this influence, the Party looks like it’s trying to prevent an emotional breakdown as it battles the internal conflicts of being in government with the Tories.

You get the impression that some Lib Dems would prefer to be out of government but still have their principles. That's the easy option.

You can shout from the sidelines knowing that you’ll never have to put any policies into practice or be scrutinised by the public.

The more complaints I here from Lib Dems, the more I think the coalition might not last the course.

David Cameron, and Nick Clegg may have a good working relationship, but they’re both leading parties whose backbench members are increasingly uncomfortable and unsatisfied with the current arrangements.

There must be loads of Tory backbenchers who are sick of the Lib Dems having so much influence, but they're not making as much noise as their Lib Dem counterparts.

If the coalition was to collapse there would have to be another election. I’d expect the Lib Dems to take a battering and strangely enough I could see Labour getting re-elected.

It sounds bizarre as Ed Milliband hasn't made the strongest start to life as Labour leader. He’s still trying to define what Labour under his leadership stands for.

But if the government’s cuts start biting and the public become more unhappy they may turn back to Labour, almost by default.

The optimism of Cameron and Clegg in the back garden of No 10 celebrating the new coalition feels like a very long time ago.

I think 2011 could be a long a very long year for the Lib Dems and the government.

Currently listening to Janelle Monae, John Legend and Roots, and Kanye West

2010-12-12T19:51:00.024Z

Here's a selection of some of the albums I've recently been listening to. First up is Janelle Monae.

I was listening to Giles Peterson's Radio 1 show a few months back when I first heard about her.

Her debut album out at the moment is called Archandroid. It's hard to describe the album or Monae's style. I would say if you liked Gnarls Barkley and Cee Lo's recent stuff you'll probably like Janelle Monae.

Archandroid is one of those albums that's difficult to pigeon hole, it's got a bit of everything, soul, funk, folk, electronica, it's just hard to categorise. Still a great debut album though.

John Legend and the Roots - Wake up!

I love the Roots, they're one of my favourite bands. I bought their latest album, How I got over earlier this year.

When I heard they'd recorded another album with the RnB singer John Legend I knew it would be something I'd be interested in hearing.

They've released the album Wake Up in which they cover a number of protest songs from the 60s and 70s. The idea for the album emerged during the 2008 Presidential campaign.

The album tries to recapture the political and social messages that many Soul artists were tackling during that period.

If you like that classic soul sound from that era, with a social message then this album is for you.

I've uploaded the title track for your listening pleasure.

Kanye West - Power

Ever since Kanye transformed himself from hip hop producer to a hip hop superstar I've loved everything he's done, so I was always going to pick up his 5th studio album My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy

What I've always loved about Kanye is that he always seems to have something new to offer with each album.

Every album keeps in touch with hip hop's roots, but he's always pushing the genre forwards. My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy continues along that path.

My Favourite Blogs: Lens

2010-12-11T18:23:00.014Z

I'm always on the look out for new and interesting blogs, and I found one last week, when I discovered a photography blog called Lens.

Lens is a The New York Times blog, with the aim of presenting visual and multimedia journalism from around the world in the form of photos and slideshows.

I was reading an article about a South African photojournalist called Joao Silva who was seriously injured last October, after stepping on a land mine in Afghanistan.

Friends of the photographer have set up a website to help raise funds to aid his recovery, Silva lost both his legs in the explosion. The website was launched last month and is offering Silva's work for sale as digital prints. So far the fund has raised over $10,000.

Silva was injured working for the New York Times covering the war in Afghanistan. The article I was reading had a link to the NY Times website, which had a slideshow on its Lens blog of the photos Silva had taken just before he was injured.

Click here to view photos on the memory card of Silva's camera before he stepped on the landmine.

Looking at the photos it got me thinking about the importance of pictures in the reporting of news stories.

After looking at Silva's Afghanistan photos I decided to subscribe to the Lens blog on my RSS feed.

Everyday, I get updates on the latest slideshow photos from around the world. It's good to see what's going on in different countries, but in the form of photos rather than in news reports on television or in newspapers.

Click on the links to have a look at some of my favourite slideshows from the last few weeks on the Lens blog.

Pictures of the day: Norway and elsewhere 10/12/2010

Pictures of the day: Haiti and elsewhere 08/12/2010

Pictures of the day: Britain and elsewhere 07/12/2010

Newfound colours for a portrait of New York 06/12/2010

Newfound colours for a portrait of New York

Pictures of the day Ivory Coast and elsewhere 03/12/2010

Student Tuition Fees: The Debate Nobody's talking about.

2010-12-09T22:23:00.021Z

I've just been watching the 10:00 news on the BBC - more violent scenes of students protesting in Central London over the proposed rise in tuition fees.

Prince Charles and Camilla have even been caught up in the trouble, with demonstrators attacking the Royal couple’s car as they tried to make their way to the theatre.

Hardly a great move by the protesters. That’s what’s going to dominate the news headlines and overshadow all those who took part in peaceful demonstrations.

I’ve been wondering when I should write something on tuition fees. I think this is as good a time as any seeing as the Coalition government won the vote in parliament today to raise fees.

When it comes to tuition fees, I keep thinking to myself that nobody’s talking about the issue that’s constantly on my mind, which is this:

How many graduates do we really need? And what is the purpose of a university education?

What's obvious is the idea of a free university education is over for students in this country. Anyone wanting to go to university will need to make some contribution.

The key point is the amount that universities will be allowed to charge students. Fees will potentially treble from the current figure of just over £3000 to an upper limit of 9,000.

It’s likely that the most prestigious universities, those within the Russell Group are likely to charge some of the highest fees, which they will argue are needed in order to compete with the best universities around the world.

That’s a strong argument, and it’s important that universities are funded properly in order to compete. The downside is that we might be creating a three-tier university system.

I can see some people being put off from applying to the best universities because of the high fees, and will choose other courses at less popular less prestigious insititutions.

If I was a student, or a young person looking at going to university in the next few years, the thought of graduating with between £30 – 40,000 worth of debt would scare the life out of me.

I understand the argument that this could put off people from poor and working class backgrounds, but not all universities will charge the maximum fees of 9,000, and students won’t need to start paying back the fees until they start earning over £21,000.

This sounds reasonable, but in reality most graduates are going to spend most of their careers paying off their debts.

One thing I find annoying is the assumption that most graduates will eventually find jobs where they earn salaries way above the national average, and therefore will be in a position to comfortably pay off their debts.

Nobody ever seems to focus on those students who might study arts and humanities degrees like English, graduate from a mid ranking university with debts of £30,000 plus; before spending their working career never earning much more than the national average.

There are loads of graduates earning between £25,000 to £40,000 a year which are good salaries but not exceptional.

Will these people ever pay off all their debts? I just think to myself, whether having a degree in such circumstances is really worth it?

This is why I don’t understand why more people aren’t debating the purpose of university and asking how many graduates the country really needs.

It seems this government like the previous one insists the country needs a large graduate workforce to compete with other nations in the global economy.

Personally I think we have too many people going to university, and many people have grown up being told they need a degree in order to have any sort of successful career.

There’s too much emphasis on having a degree in its own right, when the job market is really about relevant skills and experiences and constantly looking to maintain and develop those skills. It’s more important for the country to have a highly trained, skilled workforce.

University degrees are too often seen as the be all and end all. Not surprisingly people are upset when they’re told they need a degree to be successful in life, yet see the tuition fees increase so much, they no longer think they can afford to go.

People from poor, working class, and even middle income families will need to think long and hard about whether going to university is really what's right for them.

Of course people from poorer backgrounds should be encouraged and helped to go to university, particularly the more elite ones, but people will need to really think about what they want from a university education.

University can't be just an excuse anymore for people to 'mess about' for a three years before they enter the real world.

Deciding to go to university will now become a serious life choice that will affect people for the rest of their lives. This is what needs to be discussed more, along with questioning the value of degrees rather than just focussing on the student demonstrations and tuition fees.

England take control of Ashes series

2010-12-08T20:33:00.010Z

Great to see England win the Second Ashes Test in Adelaide on Tuesday. You can't get a more comprehensive victory than an innings and 71 runs. England now go 1-0 up in the series.

It's all looking good for England. I know there's still another three Tests to be played, but I just can't see Australia winning two of those matches to reclaim the Ashes.

I actually remember the last time England won an Ashes series in Australia back in 1986/87.

It's ridiculous to think this is probably the first time since then, that England have won in Australia when the Ashes series was still 'alive' so to speak.

Not taking anything away from England's performances so far which have been great, what this series has really shown is the decline of Australian cricket.

For the last 20 years Australia have completely dominated world cricket and we're now seeing the end of an era.

I can't remember an Australian bowling attack that's as mediocre as this one. The fact that some Australians are calling for Shane Warne to come out of retirement only shows just how bad things are.

As with all great sporting teams, there comes a point were it becomes increasingly difficult to keep replacing highly talented and successful players.

It looks like Australia are going to spend the next few years in a period of 'transition' which might be hard for Australian cricket fans to accept.

The Third Test starts in Perth next week. If England win which I can see happening, they'll retain the Ashes.

Even if they don't win, I can't see Australia bowling England out twice in any of the three remaining Tests. That's what they need to do to have any chance of winning the series.

After years of endless Ashes Test match defeats, the boot is finally on the other foot. Lets see how long England can keep it up.

Time to reform FIFA, but we have to do it from the inside.

2010-12-05T16:44:00.046Z

Russia wins the right to hold the 2018 World Cup

Well how humiliating was last Thursday for England, in our failed bid for the 2018 World Cup.

It's one thing to watch England perform ineptly on the pitch and rightly get knocked out of World Cup Finals, it's totally different when you see a strong and credible bid only manage to secure two votes from a possible 22 available and not even make it past the first round of voting.

If we've learnt anything from last week's vote, it's this. Firstly, England has no political influence whatsoever within FIFA. We'll never hold a World Cup again until this changes.

Secondly FIFA has reduced the World Cup to an embarrassing bidding contest where countries demean themselves by begging cap in hand for the once in a lifetime chance of holding the World Cup.

It's worse than watching X Factor!

Over the last year, I've been quite indifferent to this World Cup bid. Call it an arrogant English sense of entitlement, but I couldn't understand why our bid was struggling to gain any momentum.

England's strength's seemed obvious. The best stadiums in the world, an infrastructure already in place, and a passion and footballing culture respected and envied around the world.

Add to this our technical bid and presentation said to be the best, and it still wasn't good enough to get past the first round of voting! Totally ridiculous!

In a press conference in response to England's failure, chief Executive of the bid Andy Anson claimed FIFA had told him England's bid was being killed by the British Media, following investigations by the Sunday Times and the BBC's Panorama programme into corruption within FIFA.

England 2018 Chief calls for FIFA reform

My first reaction is to think how arrogant must FIFA be if it thinks that countries with independent media can't investigate allegations of corruption within the organisation.

It was good to see BBC Director General Mark Thompson come out today and defend the BBC's decision to screen the Panaroma documentary.

Ok, the timing wasn't great but why should we be embarrassed about having a free media?

If that's something FIFA are uncomfortable with, then awarding the 2018 World Cup to Russia is the perfect choice. There are few places in the world were being a journalist is more dangerous than in Russia.

The truth is England had no chance of winning this bid. The decision had been made a long time ago and it's clear that FIFA is keen to take the World Cup to new territories.

We've had Japan/South Korea in 2002, South Africa earlier this year, so there's logic in taking it to Russia. I understand that, I just wish FIFA would be more open and honest about these things.

As for the Qatar holding the World Cup in 2022 - that's a nonsense. What possible reason is there to have a World Cup in Qatar or anywhere in the Middle East?

If you look at the reaction of the UK media, particularly the Press then many of our opponents can argue that we're all bad losers.

Perhaps we could go away and accept our defeat with quiet dignity, but on this occasion why should we?

FIFA's an organisation that is mired in corruption allegations, doesn't know the meaning of the words transparency or accountability, with members who act as if they're untouchable and above public scrutiny.

It would be easy for England to stand on the sidelines screaming abuse at FIFA. It's understandable to ask, who wants to be part of this organisation?

The truth is we're only going to change things by gaining more influence, and that means having prominent figures from English football working at the highest levels of FIFA.

A policy of splendid isolation won't work for anyone, we need to get involved, become more politically savvy and change FIFA for the better.

England's bid was far from perfect. To begin with it lacked focus, and we've probably been naive about the politics of bidding for the World Cup.

In saying this we still produced a bid that was highly attractive and the idea of a World Cup in England sells itself. There's no reason for us to feel embarrassed.

Returning to England's bid CEO Andy Anson, he gave this advice to other countries considering bidding for the World Cup.

I would say don't bother [bidding to stage a World Cup] unless you know the process is going to change.

I have to agree.

Read some of the press reaction to England's failed bid

El Clasico: Barcelona 5 Real Madrid 0

2010-11-30T22:30:00.005Z

Last night I decided to brave the harsh wintry conditions and headed down to my local pub to watch El Clasico: Barcelona v Real Madrid.

The biggest club game in world football? Without question. It's more than a football match.

It's a battle between two cities, on a footballing, political, cultural and economic level.

You could probably throw in some other rivalries, but whatever it is, Barcelona and Madrid never want to play second fiddle to each other.

This match was billed as the greatest El Clasico ever. It didn't disappoint (unless you're a Real fan)

Barca's performance was one of the greatest displays I think I've seen from a football team. They didn't just beat Madrid, they humiliated them.

In recent years like a lot of people, I've considered Spain's La Liga to be the best league in the World.

It's still as high standard, but really it's now become a more glamorous version of Scottish Premier League. A league totally dominated by two clubs with the rest incapable of ever challenging.

It's a shame, as in the past I've quite enjoyed watching the likes of Valencia, Villarreal, and Sevilla challenge the dominance of Barca and Real.

One of the reasons why last night's game was so huge is that both Barcelona and Madrid rarely lose games against any other teams. It means that their two head to heads are potential title deciders.

If we learned anything last night, then it's La Liga isn't a 2 horse race, but more like Barca are in a League of their own, with Real by themselves in second, and then a long way back is everyone else.

We're only half way through the season, but it's going to take someone special for Madrid to come back from this. They were eclipsed in every way.

Jose Mourinho suffered his worst defeat as a coach, Lionel Messi again upstaged Cristiano Ronaldo, and Madrid barely managed to touch the ball to even trouble Barcelona.

Overall it was just an incredible performance, can't wait for the return match at the Bernabeu next year.

Wikileaks does it again

2010-11-29T11:21:00.018Z

The whistleblowing website Wikileaks has been at it again, releasing 250,000 classified diplomatic cables sent by US embassies around the world.

Not only has it caused a diplomatic crisis, it's also been hugely embarrassing for many world leaders and heads of state.

Despite the inevitable backlash, and claims by government officials both here and in the United States, that it puts our national security at risk. I think the leaks are incredibly useful and informative.

The efforts by the Guardian, and the New York Times in publishing the leaks are great examples of investigative journalism in the public interest.

It's good for our democracy that ordinary people can gain an insight into the workings of international diplomacy.

Nothing that's been revealed today is necessarily earth shattering, much of the information is nothing more than diplomatic gossip, but just because it's gossip doesn't mean it's irrelevant or of no value.

The leaks have shone a little light into the confidential world of international diplomacy.

You may remember that back in July this year, the Guardian, the New York Times and the German magazine Der Spiegal published over 90,000 classified military documents leaked by Wikileaks relating to the Afghan war.

I don’t think today’s leaks are as significant as those, but they’re still important.

I refuse to fall for all the talk of national security being put at risk, which some of the UK Press are claiming, and other senior political figures both here in and the US.

Is our national security really at risk from the discovery that Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi is viewed as:

"feckless, vain, and ineffective as a modern European leader."

That's only confirmed what I and many others around the world have thought for years.

As for revelations that Arab leaders wanted the US to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear programme; again it’s embarrassing for them, but not hugely surprising. It’s just fascinating to hear those comments confirmed.

I've been reading loads of reports and opinions on the leaks today. Some of the best comments I've read and agreed with, came from the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger.

This is what he was quoted saying earlier today:

"I think it is a good thing that newspapers should bring this stuff into the public arena. It's not the job of the media to worry about the embarrassment of world leaders who have been caught saying different things in public and private ... especially some of these gulf states that don't have a free press.

If the president of Yemen is saying different things and lying to his own public about what's going on, I don't think it's the job of the newspapers to hush that up,"

I also had a look at the New York Times' website to read their reports, I think they answered the national security issue well when they said they withheld some passages or entire cables whose disclosure could compromise American intelligence efforts.

Maybe I'm being overly naive, but I don't believe the Guardian and the New York Times are going to act so irresponsibly as to publish material that's going to risk our national security.

I suppose in some ways it's obvious I have a very journalistic view when it comes to the leaks.

I like gossip, I like to know what's going on. I like the idea of private confidential information being made available for the benefit of the public.

Also, if I'm being honest I like seeing senior political figures and world leaders being embarrassed and made to feel uncomfortable over their diplomatic dealings.

Once the US government and other world leaders get over their embarrassment they'll need to start coming to terms with the new reality of international diplomacy and the maintenance of state secrets.

The days when confidential government information would only be revealed decades after an event, or when the main political protagonists were long dead are probably over.

Our digital culture means it's more likely that information will be made more freely available to people and at a much quicker speed.

This should result in people seeing a greater level of transparency in the way their governments operate and function, and may mean more accountability.

There's still a long way to go, but the actions of Wikileaks are speeding up this process.

New drama series: Any Human Heart

2010-11-20T19:15:00.017Z

One of my favourite books of all time has been adapted into a major tv drama series starting tomorrow night on Channel 4.

William Boyd's novel Any Human Heart, is being adapted into a four part drama series. The book tells the life story of Logan Mountstuart, who lives through every decade of the 20th Century.

We first meet Logan as a 6 year old boy, before following his life through boarding school, Oxford University, his career as a writer, a Second World War spy, and art dealer in 1960s New York, before spending his last days in retirement in France.

During his life he finds himself caught up in some of the most significant events of the 20th Century, as well as meeting a number of famous real life figures.

I never imagined the book would be turned into a film or series, as it was unlikely the story could be covered in enough depth, but clearly I was wrong.

I wrote in my last blog about the book One Day, that I like books where you get to know characters over a significant period of time.

In Any Human Heart you follow the life of a character from a small boy until he dies over 80 years later as an old man. You see a person's successes and failures, the relationships with different people, and all the emotional ups and downs of a person's life.

What I loved about the story is that it shows the mix of ordinary and extraordinary events that take place in anyone's life. You see how Logan's life is directly affected by some of the biggest events to occur during the 20th Century.

I'm looking forward to watching the series, and although it's going to be difficult, I'm going to try my best not to constantly compare it to the book.

Any Human Heart starts on Channel 4 tomorrow evening at 9:00

One Day

2010-11-18T00:03:00.003Z

One Day is the title of the book I've just finished reading.

In the last few months here in London, it's one of those books that you see loads of people reading on the tube or bus.

I have to say I loved this book. It's a funny, intelligent and emotional story of the love and friendship between two people, Dexter Mayhew and Emma Morley.

I was reading in the Sunday Times Culture magazine that the book's been a literary sensation with nearly 400,000 copies sold in the UK already this year.

Not only that, I was surprised to hear how a story which has such an English setting to it has proved to be so popular around the world.

300,000 copies have been sold in America since June, and 31 publishers have brought the rights to translate the book.

Now I've discovered it's being turned into a film. Can the film do the book justice?

One Day is your classic 'will they/won't they love story and is written by David Nicholls.

Dexter Mayhew and Emma Morley first meet on 15 July 1988 following their graduation from Edinburgh university.

On that first night they imagine what their lives will be like when they reach 40. The story then tracks their lives as they grow older, and we continually catch up with them every few years on the same date, the 15 July.

Reading the feature in the Sunday Times, it made the interesting point that the book is unusual for a romantic novel in that it appeals to both men and women in equal measures.

This is true. A lad who I work with told me his girlfriend had read the book, and I think he read it as well they both really enjoyed it.

When I first bought the book I didn't realise it was a romantic novel, and I didn't know whether to buy it as I had another book I wanted to read first, but something made me think I should get it.

I think I like novels that track the lives of characters over a number of years, and this is what you have with the Dexter and Emma.

You're with them on their journey which begins as young adults entering the real world after university, and you're still with them as they approach middle age.

You watch them grow up, evolve and mature through their 20s and 30s dealing with life and their own special relationship.

The backdrop of living in London during the 90's and Noughties makes it feel really contemporary and that you've lived in the world that they grown up in during the last 20 years.

Although One Day is a romantic novel, I think one of the things I loved most, is that it tells the story of a great friendship between two people.

In many love stories the idea of the friendship between two people is sometimes overlooked.

According to figures in the book publishing world, the fact that One Day has been sold into 31 languages has propelled it into the league of a modern classic.

With a film coming out as well, I'm sure it's only going to make the book even more popular.

If you're looking for a book that's funny, clever and incredibly moving then make sure you read One Day.

If anyone reading this post has read the book, I'd love to hear your thoughts and comments.

William and Kate to marry

2010-11-17T18:56:00.014Z

After yesterday's engagement announcement that Prince William is to marry his girlfriend Kate Middleton, I didn't think I'd have much to say on the subject.

I'm happy to know they've got engaged, I'll be interested in knowing the wedding date, and I'll probably watch some of the ceremony, but that's it for me.

I'm not that interested in the whole media circus that's going to snowball from now until the wedding day.

I've avoided reading much of the Press today, as I couldn't be bothered to listen to all the 'it will lift the mood of the nation' sentiments they like to bang on about.

I read a quick round up of today's Press coverage in the Evening Standard, by my favorite media commentator Roy Greenslade.

His feature today was titled 'Press rejoice at prospect of royal wedding'

But my favourite comment on the engagement announcement came from Channel 4 News' Peter Snow, with a post titled:

Royal Wedding: For the sake of them and us

I think he summed up quite well how I think about the whole thing.

David Haye vs Audley Harrison: Bye Bye Audley

2010-11-14T23:28:00.013Z

I watched a recording of the David Haye, Audley Harrison fight this afternoon. What can you say.

A great sporting event, a great deal of hype, but as a boxing contest totally irrelevant!

After two rounds of no boxing, Haye stepped things up to stop Harrison in the third round.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for Audley Harrison, he was humiliated last night, but this is a man that simply does not possess the attributes needed to be a successful professional boxer.

In the last few weeks I was looking forward to this fight, but then last night as the fight approached I suddenly thought I'm not that bothered about watching it. Perhaps it's because deep down I knew what to expect.

I decided to tune into BBC Radio 5 live to listen to some of the commentary. At around 10:20 I'd already left it too late as the fight was over.

What I did do was listen to an hour of listeners phoning in to voice their views on the fight. The general consensus was that the fight was an embarrassment for British boxing.

Lets be honest here, if Audley Harrison was any other boxer he wouldn't have been anywhere near this world title fight.

As a pure boxing contest, this fight made no sense. From a box office, PR view point then this was the ideal fight to stage.

Anyone who wins an Olympic boxing gold medal deserves some respect, and this is what Audley Harrison has achieved, but in his professional career he'd shown nothing to suggest he could ever seriously challenge for a world title.

Credit to David Haye he talks the talk and he's delivered by becoming world champion.

Audley talked a great game, gave a great sales pitch in the build up to this fight, but when the taking had to stop we discovered a man who only managed to throw one punch that connected in just under 9 minutes of fighting. That's pathetic!

In this country we don't mind sports people losing, (we're hardly that big a nation of winners) we love the underdog, the person who tries, who goes down fighting, all guns blazing. Unfortunatly this isn't Audley, it never has been.

For this reason he will never have the respect or affection of the British sporting public.

After the fight I watched some of Sky's post fight analysis. Former world champion Barry Mcguigan was scathing and brutally honest in his assessment of Audley's performance, and his overall career.

Delusional was the word he used to describe Harrison's belief in his boxing abilities. Very harsh, but so true.

This has to be the end of his career, a career that should never have involved Harrison setting foot inside a professional boxing ring.

City Break in Boston

2010-11-06T22:47:00.055Z

I spent most of last week on a four day city break in Boston. I flew out on Monday and returned late Thursday evening.

I liked Boston, but it wasn't quite what I expected.

It's a decent sized place but it doesn't have that big city buzz that I associate with other American cities I've been to like New York or Chicago.

View of Boston Common

It's got a really chilled out vibe to it, with a pace of life that's more quiet provincial town than bustling big city; but it's a cool place to hang out for a few days.

The city itself isn't too big and isn't overwhelming in the way London or New York can appear for some people.

You can cover most of the city in a couple hours of walking. In saying that, I found the central downtown district really difficult to navigate.

Boston doesn't have a grid system to it's roads which makes it more English in that respect.

I frequently found myself in Central Boston struggling to figure out where the hell I was.

Maybe I should re-phrase that. I knew where I was, and knew where I wanted to go.

It would literally take a five minute walk, I just had no idea how to get there! It was so frustrating.

The thing about Boston is there's no iconic skyscrapers or other landmarks you can use as reference points to pinpoint exactly where you are.

Massachusetts State House above

One thing that did disappoint me about Boston was the shopping. It was rubbish. You've got some very high-end fashion boutiques, and the lower end of the fashion market is covered, but hardly anything inbetween.

A scruffy looking Maceys, an American Apparel, Banana Republic, Abercrombie & Fitch and that was about it, I found it all very annoying.

To be honest there's not a huge amount to see or do in Boston. I think 3 or 4 days is more than enough, but from what I've heard it's a good base in which to explore the rest of New England.

Boston's just got a nice feel to it, it's one of those cities where it's just nice to hang out for a few days.

My two main highlights would be:

Beacon Hill

I loved walking the streets of Beacon Hill. This Victorian era neighbourhood is the jewel in the crown of the city.

The streets of Beacon Hill

It's got more of an English/European feel about it. Cobbled streets and roads lined with old style Victorian gas lanterns and beautiful terraced houses.

Victorian terraces

The Village feel of Beacon Hill

Harvard, Cambridge

On Wednesday I took a trip to Cambridge. Cambridge is a town in its own right, but essentially it's a suburb of Boston, just a short ride away on the subway.

Cambridge is dominated by Harvard university, the oldest university in America.

The grounds of Harvard

As I entered the grounds of the university, I noticed a small tour group lead by two students explaining the history of some of the buildings.

I decided to tag along, and one of the tour guides approached me and explained that they take tourists on a guided tour of the university grounds and the town of Cambridge pointing out areas of interest.

It was an enjoyable tour, and the guides were funny and informative, pointing out different Harvard buildings such as lecture halls, student dormitories and churches.

No trip to Boston is complete without a visit to Cambridge, it's a lovely little town with some great pubs, restaurants and loads of history.

Student Halls below