WINOL Review 26/10/11

Extremely short review of WINOL

Positives - Good intro, Good graph, good shots of rugby posts,

Negatives - Snappy cut to graph no rest-bite, Stutters, Sound levels a bit uneven some of it's a bit shouty hants council sections, Quick cut from bloke interviewed about jobs

Seminar Paper - Locke: Treatises of Government & Science

Locke: Treatises of Government

The first doctrine that John Locke proposes is that of the 'Heritary Principle.' Locke has always been a noted critique of the monarchy and in this doctrine he outlines his reasons for this.

His main gripe is that the monarchy is inheritited so there is no system in place to make sure the 'right' person becomes the head of state, it's simply their first born child who becomes the heir to the throne. In Locke's view, the reasoning behind this is clear: if the wrong person becomes head of state the country could easily fall into disrepute. He also claims that Kings and Queens make laws that coincide with their own will, which, although impossible to avoid, isn't exactly what the public would want. Take the reign of Henry VII as an example; here we have a King who was once a conquerer, but as he aged he became brittle and greedy, increasing the taxes on the population just so he could count his wealth. Locke would argue that he should not have been able to become King in the first place as it was not in the interest of the people, yet his power on the battlefield earnt him the crown. He strongly feels that primogeniture (the state of being first born) is an injustice, especially if a younger child would make a better heir.

Robert Filmer's Patriarcha outlined a different opinion, to which Locke was very much opposed. Filmer stated that the power of the King is unlimited as he has divine power. Divine power is power granted by the gods, so what Falmer's publication suggests is that Kings derive from the gods and are thus unquestionable. Falmer also states that the Kings are the heirs to Adam from the Book of Genesis. He claims that this gives a Monarch a 'natural right' to rule over the people, which he backs up with a simple analogy about parenthood: You can compare the King's natural right to rule the nation to that of a father of his child. The children are never free of parental power and the father will always rule over him. If you replace the words 'father' with 'King' and 'child' with 'public' you can see the point that Filmer was making. Locke slams this interpretation, first off he says that parental power is only temporary, then he questions that the true heir of Adam is unknown, so would the Kings lay down their power to him if he were to reveal himself? Clearly, Locke thinks not.

The next doctrine in the Treatises of Government is that of 'The State of Nature, and Natural Law.' In this, Locke promotes his idea of the true origin of government.

The state of nature entails the law of nature which is not enforced by a human being. Where Hobbes' state of nature is very brutal, with every man fighting for himself; Locke's differs because it draws from the happier and peaceful side of the spectrum. Russell says that the ideas of a 'bad' state of nature come from evolution where only the strongest would survive, but does concede that Locke's comes from Biblical tales and myths of the golden age. He claims that moral laws are found in the bible.

"Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on Earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly a state of nature," states Locke, suggesting that with no government men were able to think for themselves and judge people not on what they are convicted of in the court of law, but how they see them. It also suggests that they can share what they like with each other, which offers Karl Marx a basis for the first stage of his cultural stage theory: primitive communism.

In a state of nature, Locke claims that a man can kill another if he was defending his possessions, be they family or inanimate. If a government was in place, the man would have to surrender this right of nature and let the courts deal with the matter, if he did not want to be prosecuted himself. What he's saying here is very true, but I feel that without the law man would find any reason to kill another, so the state of nature would very quickly develop into a state of war, and this is an objection to the state of nature theory. The only remaining example of the state of nature can be found in national governments, so it's fairly ironic, I suppose. This is because governments have to work together to draw out peace, else they'll end up in a state of war, which according to Locke, is the opposite of the state of nature as it is full of violence and mutual destruction, whereas nature is happy and composed of mutual assistance. The will to help others, not kill them. Locke believes that government law should stick as close to natural law as possible.

'The Social Contract' is the third doctrine. In this Locke says that a government is a result of a social contract between the public and those in power, with no influence of divine authority. Citizens must obey governments for a reason, even though it isn't in their interests for the most part. Some historians think of social contracts as facts, others feel that they are more the work of fiction.

Hobbes says that all power is handed over to the sovereign, giving them absolute control and total authority. Locke adds to this that governments must live up to their end of the bargain as well. This much is clear because if they do not, they are at risk of an uprising which could easily turn into a revolution. Looking at modern day Libya, this idea is applicable; the people felt that Gadaffi was no longer protecting them, but putting them in more danger, so they stood up and drove him away.

Locke's ideas all seem to point strikingly towards democracy, especially that of the majority vote. However, it must be taken into account that Locke was overlooking both woman and the lower classes, so his ideas aren't as democratic as they first appear.

"The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of property without his own consent." Now we are getting the impression that Locke's ideas can be applied to Capitalism, especially when he says that a general should injure an offending member of his platoon, not fine him. But this really is not the case, as certain aspects of his doctrine on property point out...

The first idea presented in this doctrine is that every man has property in produce of his own labour. If you grow, you own it, if you build it, you own it. This is part of the soul and body of Communism, the polar opposite to Capitalism. Locke goes on to suggest that a man should not own more than he can farm. This could be stopping unfair distribution of land so people have equal rights to what could be equal produce if they work hard enough to get it. Although the goal of Soviet Russia was to reach Communism, the land of equal rights and opportunity, Stalin's government overlooked this doctrine and insisted that every man grew produce for the state, in an attempt to keep the peasantry under control.

Idea number two was known as the 'Labour Theory of Value.' Simply put, this idea says that the labour involved to grow or make an object should be considered when valuing it. This theory is both ethical and economical. It would be ethically right for a man to be rewarded for his hard work with a good proffit, and the economical side says that it makes no sense to sell a product for less than the work and materials you put into making it.

The final stage of the Treatises of Government is 'Checks and Balances', which Locke uses to determine that the Executive (Monarch/Leading Parties), Legislate (Parliament) and Judicial Functions (the law) should be kept seperate where ever possible, so that no organisation can gain absolute power. In the eyes of Locke, a cause for war would be the executive failing to call the legislate in to discuss a matter. If there becomes a dispute between the two, war is considered the only option.

The main intention of this doctrine was to keep the three bodies seperate in order to limit the power of the English Monarch. Eventually, however, the Monarch became dependant on parliament as it is impossible to pass new laws and regulations without the majority vote. This a system that is still in use to this day, except the Queen now leaves everything to parliament, signing off the laws and regulations as they are passed. In a shot to the groin for Locke, the government is now both executive and legislative, and can only be controlled by general elections.

Science and the Clockwork Universe

Our journey with science begins with Copernicus, an astronomer who lived between 1473 and 1543. Copernicus was the first person since the Heliocentrics to say that the sun is at the centre of the universe. He had some rather outlandish claims, two of which were that the earth rotates around the sun once a year and that the earth spins on it's own axis once a day. How preposturous!

The Catholic Church certainly thought so; Copernicus dedicated his work 'De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium' to the Pope, but later the Church condemned the book claiming it was unholy. And low and behold, they had the backing of two philosophers. Luther was the first to derail the Heliocentric train when he said that there was proof in sacred texts that the theory was bonkers. He goes on to quote such a text and say that Joshua commanded the sun to stop, NOT the earth. There we go then. That's obviously conclusive proof. I asked for it to stop raining today, it didn't. Now I want Godly powers. Calvin also criticises the theory with God as his witness. He says that the world is stablished and cannot be moved and then questions who would believe the word of Copernicus over that of the Holy Spirit?

Russell points out that the important aspect of Copernicus' work is that it dethrones the earth from its geometrical pre-eminence. In other words, it throws it off-centre. Maybe this is what the religious bodies could not accept? Their whole works focus on the earth being the centre of everything, the be all and end all, yet now they've been shaken up by a new theory which basically suggests that the earth is not the most important object in the universe, and could even be used to suggest that without the sun we would not exist. Where's God hiding now?

Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) holds a theory that is very much against Aristotle's view that the blanket above the moon (stars, planets, etc.) are immovable, that the sky looks the same from where ever you stand, be it on the moon or in Australia. Brahe supports this attack on Aristotle by noting the appearence of a new star in the sky, which is obviously beyond the moon. He also observed some very distant comets. Another of Brahe's important observations is that the sun and the moon rotate around the earth, but the other planets rotate around the sun. He was half-way there, I guess.

Our next important scientist is Kepler who roamed the earth between 1571 and 1630. Kepler was another Heliocentric who puts the sun at the centre of everything. He came up with the Three Laws of Planetary Motion, which I will try to explain here:

1. Planets eliptically orbit the sun, not circually. This was hard for people the church and believers in Plato to believe as an elipse is an imperfect shape and a circle is it's perfect incarnation. Surely the Gods wouldn't create this imperfect universe?
2. The lines joinging the planets to the sun sweep out equal distances in equal times. In the very mathematical way that Russell puts this: If S = Sun, and Planets at equal positions at certain times = P [to the power of]1 P2 P3 etc, then P1SP2, P2SP3 and so on prove that planets closer to the sun rotate around it quicker than those furthest away as they have less distance to travel.
3. The square of the period of time the planet takes to complete one revolution is proportional to the cube of it's average distance from the sun. This compares measurements of different planets. If R = Average distance from the sun, and T = length of planet's year, then Rcubed divided by Tsquared is the same for all the planets. This helped to prove Newton's law of the inverse square for gravitation.

Galileo is and was a pioneer. He's most well known due to the development of his telescope - but more on that later. Right now we're concerned with his discovery of acceleration, a change in the velocity of an object. He developed the law of falling bodies which states that no matter what weight they are, they will fall at a rate of 32 feet per second in a vacuum. This is constant, so they gather 32 feet per second in velocity for every second they are falling. A body falling for 2 seconds, for example, will reach 64 feet per second, compared to a body falling for 5 seconds which hits 160 feet per second.

He is also noted for his work on projectiles. Up until Galileo, the general theory was that a projectile would carry on horizontally for a while, before vertical velocity took over and it dropped suddenly, almost at a right angle. Galileo showed that when vertical velocity takes over, the projectile still has the propulsion from the horizontal velocity, so the object would fall diagonally, covering both vertical and horizontal ground. Galileo's rule of inertia says that an object dropped from the top a tower hits the ground directly underneath it because it is carrying the velocity from the earth's rotation. This is why you don't land in your back garden when you jump 10 miles down the road. You keep the velocity of the rotation.

Now onto the telescope. Galileo already had heliocentric beliefs, so was obviously very keen to observe the sky. He knew that a telescope was being developed in Holland, so he made his own. Through it he could see the phases of venus, he could see that the Milky Way was made of a number of stars, and that Jupiter had four satellites. This is where religion, again, denounces science. They argue that seven is a holy number and that there are 7 holy bodies. Four more orbiting Jupiter will make that number 11, one with no holy significance, so how could Galileo be right? They accused the telescope of causing illusions and refused to look through it. Why? Because science was stomping all over their ancient beliefs and they did not want to lose the pillars of their ethos. Galileo was eventually condemned by the Italian inquisition, halting scientific progress in Italy for centuries.

Isaac Newton is known for discovering gravity, but he also proved Kepler's three laws of planetary motion. He also defined 'force' as a change of motion. If I jump, my force is taken me off the ground, however, when I fall, the force of gravity takes control, and thus I land. With his law of universal gravitation, Newton deduces everything in planetary theory from the planets, satellites, comets and the tides. The law itself states: "Every body attracts every other with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them." With this, Newton made the universe knowable to the masses, he made it clockwork.

There are other notable scientific discoveries in the 17th Century including: magnets, blood circulation, bacteria and the microscope.

Francis Bacon hated the Aristolean and Scholastic approach, he claimed it was both barren and circular, as it was undeveloped for many years and it kept on repeating itself. It didn't go anywhere. Critics of Bacon say that his biggest mistake is mixing religion and science as they have conflicting interests.

Bacon wasn't just a philosopher and scientist; at the age of 23 he joined parliament, then in 1618 he was made Lord Chancellor, but he lost this position after two years for accepting bribes. For this, he was sentenced to spend time in the Tower of London and to pay a £40,000 fine. Although he only spent four days in the tower and didn't pay the fine, he chose to spend the rest of his life writing books, avoiding the public eye.

He introduced the idea of induction: gaining knowledge, then testing it over and over to prove that it's right. This scientific method is still in use today. An example of how Bacon used it can be seen when he wanted to discover the nature of heat; he made a list of bodies that were hot, cold and those that had varying temperatures. He then tested them to see what aspects were heat specific - those that were present in hot bodies but absent in cold were clearly linked specifically to heat. He then tested this over and over in different circumstances to prove that he was right.

Media Law #5 - Confidentiality

This is a secret, by no means, should you tell anyone this: I am a massive geek. Please don't tell anyone, that information is confidential and if it does get out my social standing will be significantly lowered and people would expect me to shop in Forbidden Planet. I will be shunned. I trust you and I can rely on you to keep this secret, but you can tell people you  trust...

The above is an absolutely, utterly dreadful form of confidentiality. First off, the 'secret' in question is, for lack of a better turn of phrase: a little bit shit. Nobody cares that I'm a geek and those that do are likely to be so confounded by my use of sophisticated language that they'll smash their heads into trees frustration. In essense, the basis of the secret isn't quality material; I haven't killed anyone, nor have I stomped on any cats. It lacks 'Quality of Confidence.'

This secret also falls short because I don't know who you, the reader, are. You could be anyone. For that reason, this secret lacks 'Circumstances Imposing an Obligation.' If I were to tell a secret to the doctor, say for example, that I have a really bad case of the poops, they would be obliged not to tell anyone as I have asked them to keep it confidential. You, on the other hand, could be anyone, so how could I trust you with such a serious secret when I don't even know who you are? A person has the right to feel that a doctor can keep their personal details confidential.

I'll even lose my defence that there was 'No permission to pass on the information.' How? I hear you scream! Well, the reason is incredibly simple. I said that you cannot pass on the secret unless it's too someone that you trust. What's the point in that secret then? I've told you, an anonymous person that I can't see, and I now expect you, the anonymous person that I can't see, to only tell people that you can trust. If I can't see you and trust you, how can I trust the person who you can trust?

Frankly, there is no 'Detriment' to this secret what-so-ever. I don't care what your opinions are, but shopping in Forbidden Planet is not THAT big of a social disaster. Admittedly, it's close, but in reality it's nothing. I have friends who shop there. They're geeks. They're proud of it. I think. So no harm is caused to me by you knowing that I'm a geek. If I was ill with a lethal stream of Otter Flu and my doctor told everyone, I would be shunned and avoided. However, this would be for the good of society; one person contracting it is awful but not the end of the world, but if I passed it on to someone else and so on and so forth it would become a pandemic. For detriment to come into play I'd have to prove that I've been harmed in some way by the spread of the secret.


The confidentiality law is based on Section 8 of the Human Rights Act, which in turn, is based on the European Convention of Human Rights. This act states that everyone is entitled to privacy in their personal life, including both family time and extramarital affairs. Permission is needed if the press want photos of celebrities with their families or having alone time - this also spreads to reporting and film. General View shots of crowds of people are now banned if the person can be identified and no permission has been given to use their likeness.


A very good example of a case involving a celebrity focuses on Princess Caroline of Monaco who accused the paparazzi of breaching Section 8. They were accused of not letting her have a personal life and took photos of her doing her day-to-day activities such as taking her children to school and riding her bike. An example of one of the photos taken is of her deep inside a restaurant. She clearly hid herself away because she did not want to be spotted. When the photo was published she explained this to the judge and stated that she expects privacy in a restaurant, who subsequently fined the publication responsible. Another example is a photo of her relaxing with her friends in an outdoors cafe in France. Again, the Princess argued that her privacy was imposed on and the judge came to the same conclusion. Later, the judge ruled that there would be no pictures taken of the Princess "unless she is engaged in public activity." This is where she would typically be in the spotlight whilst attending to her duties.


Finally, there are two major areas of concern where confidentiality is involved:

• Commercial Secrets: Spreading trade secrets can lead to a breach of common law. A boss has the right to feel that their employees can be spoken to confidentially. If they tell one that they're increasing prices next week and the employee spreads it, there is a good chance that the employer could lose money as everyone rushes to buy the products at the cheaper price.
• State Secrets: State secrets are those that can lead to enemies gaining harmful information. This can include the positions of armies and spies, among other security threatening situations. In response to this the Official Secrets Act was passed. Part one deals with potentially security threatening information, whereas part two is focussed on government bodies such as the Inland Revenue and the Royal Mail.

Media Law lecture #4 - Qualified Privilege

Common Law QP
Is it in the public interest?

• For CLQP to come into play it has to be seen as 'in the public interest', so this may be a case involving a high profile murder or a celebrity.

Statutory QP
Anything said in court can be reported using QP as a defence, but only if it is 'Fast Accurarte and Fair.' A reporter must sum up both sides of the story, even if they just say that the defence denies these allegations, or that they plead guilty to them.

Absolute Privilege
Anyone representing (and including) the Monarch can do whatever they like, but only in court.

10 Point Test
Sunday Times reports that the PM of Ireland, Reynolds, is covering accounts of child molesting by certain Catholic priests. He tried to get the Sunday Times gagged but lost due to public interest as they would rather know who the wrong-doers are than not. This has a very good legal standing in QP.

Press Complaints Comission Code of Standards

1. Exposes crime
2. Protecting Health and Safety
3. Prevents public from being mislead by government

September 16th 2000

Day: Saturday. Date: September 16th 2000. Time: 3:00

I stared out of the long tunnel and looked at the line of red and white clad people behind me. I was leading them out into the arena, a champion of nine years of age with his heroes following. To my left: Southampton F.C. captain Jason Dodd, and to his left: Newcastle United and England captain Alan Shearer. I stood there smiling, SKY TV cameras in my face, I couldn't let the nerves settle in now. I looked up at the sign above me: 'Welcome to the Dell, home of The Saints.' I turned back to my idols, then back to the view of ground ahead of me. 15,000 supporters, bellowing their hearts out. Cheering their team on. And here I was, representing them, representing my team, leading them out. I was their mascot.

The story of the day doesn't start there though, in fact it starts a month or so before when I was playing football down my local recreation centre, as I did every Saturday morning. Wearing my brand, spanking new Saints shirt, I weaved my way through the defenders, leaving them eating my dust. Or something like that, I don't think I was ever as good as I imagined I was. Although I am now, obviously. Anyway, my mum came bounding into the hall with a look of excitement on her voice, exclaiming that I had been chosen to be a mascot. Admittedly, at the time she was more excited than me.

When the big day arrived it hit me: I was going to be playing football, actually kicking a ball about, at The Dell. It was a dream come true and I was only nine. What else could I aspire to? Wembley? Well, in hindsight that dream ended the day I was put on as a substitute for Totton Rangers, then subbed off 5 minutes later, at the very tender age of 12. I still can't fathom why that happened, I'd put in a couple of good crosses and created a few opportunities. All I can think of is that the manager had favourites. I can recall the guy replacing me actually not being in the team, but a close friend of his son. Bastards.

The 'Junior Saints' were the children's membership group for the club; every year I'd receive a birthday card from Matt Le Tissier, a god among men, and it was they who had chosen me to be the mascot for the visit of Newcastle. I walked into their small office and was given a brand new Saints kit in the correct size, my mum must've told them unless they were psychic. I knew this was going to happen so I brought my old shirt with me to get signed.

I forget his name, but I met up with the guide and we set off for the tour of the ground. It was nothing like I'd expected, but the building was clearly very, very old. I had some ultra-modern, state of the art arena in mind, but having been to the ground a great number of times, I don't know why I thought that. Inside the corridors were very narrow, very claustrophobic. The floors were red, the walls white. That much was understandable seeing as the team play in those colours. Surprisingly, the gym was no bigger than your average school hall, it was very modest to say the least.

En route to meeting the players, the guide asked me if I'd like to meet the manager: Glen Hoddle. Of course I did! This bloke was the former (though disgraced) England manager and now the manager of my troops, of course I wanted to meet him. I was lead up to his office where I had my photo with him and got a weird squiggle on my shirt.

Next up: The changing rooms, where my heroes would get ready for action. I remember gulping as I looked up at the sign above the door; it was a very unnatural and forced noise but at the age of nine I guess I thought it would make it all the more epic. I stepped foot inside and was introduced to every player individually. I knew all their names, bar one, Matt Oakley, who's still playing today. I think this was the second time I met Le Tissier and I've met him many more since. The bloke's everywhere but I don't care, he is the ultimate of the ultimate, the Batman to the Green Lantern. His heroic status was the pinnacle.

Having met the 'lads' I had another surprise install, albeit an unplanned one. I didn't want to meet any of the Newcastle players - Shearer aside, they were nobodies to me. I lingered outside their changing room when out of the room behind me emerged Alan Shearer and the legend himself, Sir Bobby Robson. Since the death of Robson, this is a moment that I look back on with grand pride; for now I realise the status of the man, giving me the opportunity to use hindsight to improve the moment for me. He asked me who my favourite Newcastle player was, a joke I'm sure but I said it was Shearer because he was a trainee with Saints. They both chuckled. I was funnier back then.

When the clock struck 2:55, I walked down the tunnel. The rest, as they say, is history. For me anyway.

About four years later I was having a tour of the new Saints stadium: St. Mary's, when we entered the sadly empty trophy room. It had a few trophies in the cabinet, but the use of a room was a bit unnecessary at the time. Turning to my right, I noticed a black and white photo framed neatly on the wall. Beaming back at me was my nine year old self leading my team out with pride. I had no idea how this photo got on the wall, or even why they chose it; but all I knew was that this was a moment that equalled that day. The memories flooded back.

Again, a few years later, I was doing work experience at the stadium with the Community team. There I worked with the guide from that day who recognised me instantly. He told me my photo was still up, yet I was to be shocked again: it was no longer hanging on it's own in the trophy room. It now hung with pride behind the Chairman's seat in the boardroom.

My dad fought with the club to get a copy of the image baring his son, but his approaches were repeatedly turned down as contact had been lost with the photographer who owned the copyright. As luck would have it, my aunt and uncle knew a steward who worked for Saints back in September 2000. He managed to get hold of the photo at the time, he then gave it to Jason Dodd to sign, who then, out of the kindness of his heart, took it to Newcastle with him in the return fixture to get Alan Shearer to sign it as well. This was a gift to me for my 18th birthday, it now sits on my wall with equal pride as the one that was in the stadium. I have no idea if it still swings there, but what I do know is that the future's bright, it's red and white.

The last couple of days...

First and foremost I'm gonna point out that my attempt to blog every Sunday in my new 'column', so to speak, failed at the first hurdle, BUT I did have a busy weekend. It'll pick up this week, I promise :)

I've just spent an hour going through TeeLine Fast, that wonderful book full of crazy-ass symbols and, frankly, it's done my head in. However, I've decided on a plan of action! As we're nearing the end of this stupidly expensive book, I've decided that once we reach that goal, I'm going to spend half an hour every night practising the various special outlines because those are probably the most important words to know, else they wouldn't be so special!

Last night I took Tom to St. Mary's stadium to watch his beloved Hammers lose to the mighty Saints, nobody beats us here, it's not going to start now. It was a club record attendance of 32,150, with some people claiming to see people sharing seats, so the official figure was probably wrong. Not a bad turn out for a mid-week game in the second division!

Anyway, overall I wasn't impressed with West Ham. They're supposed to be promotion candidates, yet they were more one dimensional than a sheet of A4 paper - hoof the ball up to Carew, hope he can hold the ball up or knock it on to Baldock who can run fast, but not much else. Saints, in comparison, were majestic; slick passing, fair tackles, fantastic running off the ball and precision accuracy. It's easy to see why we've opened up a five point gap at the top of the league. Not that I'm biassed or anything; West Ham did have about 4 shots, but they were crap. Nobody can beat Super Kelvin Davis. Nobody.

History of Western Philosophy - Notes on Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke

Machiavelli

• Political knowledge is scientific and empirical
• Born in Florence from a family that was neither or poor
• "All armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones have failed." - Suggesting that to have your ideas recognised as a prophet you must be both strong-minded and strong-willed to see them accepted in society. The ideas must also have some relevant ammunition to back them up. Or armies, an army may push through an idea by imposing it on the people.
• Cesar Borgia - Aimed to conquer territories in the name of the Pope to manipulate the cardinals to ensure that the next pope was his friend. He only failed, in Machiavelli's words, "by the extraordinary malignity of fortune." He was gravely ill when his father died, thus giving his enemies time to organise their forces and his bitterest opponent had been elected pope. Cesar said that he had prepared for everything apart from upon his fathers death, he would be dying himself. Machiavelli believes him and suggests that he should be imitated by those who have fortune and arms to rise to power.
• Chapter in The Prince called 'Of Ecclesiastical Principalities' which conceals some of his previous opinions of the Medici's as one had just become Pope. He says that the problem is that the princes are always kept in power, no matter how they behave, due to defence by ancient religious customs. He suggests that they don't need armies because god will always protect them - "they are exalted and maintained by god." In other words, one would suggest that religion is so powerful that nobody dares to question the judgement of god, so they dare not fight the prince. Religion will do the fighting for him.
• Ethical Hierarchy - 1) founders of religion 2) founders of monarchy and republics 3) literary men. Suggests that religion should have a high place in the State, not because of truth but due to the social cement it holds. Could be said here that he is questioning the truth of religion, but recognises it's importance to society.
• Two criticisms of the church:
• undermines religious belief through evil conduct
• Basically asking how the church can be so evil, whilst at the same time maintaining that people stick to the beliefs that it ignores.
• Double standards
• Temporal power of the Popes prevents the unification of Italy
• Italy could be a lot more powerful if there was just one Pope.
• Says the Prince's must be cunning, strong, seem religious and sometimes be faithless
• They must be cunning and strong to survive
• Seem religious to keep the public onside
• Sometimes be faithless to get what they desire. They can mislead people to reach their ends.
• Most medieval writers put 'legitimate power' on emperors and popes, and those who derive from them. Machiavelli suggests that power is free to those that seize it.
• Similar to the democratic system where people are elected based on their ideas.
• Also similar to Hitler seizing power by knocking down all his opposition, then by attempting to conquer with a large army to gain more power.
• Three important political goods
• National independence
• Security
• Well-ordered constitution
• Best constitution gives legal rights to those high up eg. princes and nobles
• This makes revolution very difficult as they have their power backed by the power of the law and government.
• This makes stability possible, but to help balance this, give more power to the people, so far as it matches the ends the powerful wish to meet.
• Political means
• Choose means adequate to the end you are looking for
• if the end is good, use good means to achieve it
• Success means achieving what you desire, be that good or wicked. Something that both saints and sinners wish to achieve.
• Power is necessary to achieve a political end
• Limitations:
• Use propaganda to make party seem virtuous
• Overlook all the wrongs and present them as rights (like Nazi Germany slaughtering Jews - propaganda suggested they were bad, so the regime must be right)

HOBBES' LEVIATHAN

• Prospect of Civil War formed his opinions
• Cromwell favoured him and gave him a pension of £100 a year, which he forgot to pay. Lord Chancellor was shocked by this as Hobbes was seen as an Atheist, as the Leviathan largely tore apart the Catholic Church.
• Life is a motion of limbs, nothing more, nothing less.
• The Commonwealth (Leviathan) is art and an artificial man. Sovereignty is the artificial soul and pacts/covenants take the place of God's "Let Us make you man."
• First part deals with man as an individual
• Sensations are caused by the pressure of objects, not in the objects themselves. The qualities in objects that correspond to our sensations are motions.
• Imagination while asleep is dreaming.
• Very logical, no other real explanation of dreams.
• Applies determinism to psychology
• Thoughts are not arbitrary but governed by laws - association & depending on purpose of thinking.
• Says that our thoughts are determined by the government and controlled by them.
• Without language - no true or false
• Truthfulness and falseness are attributes of speech.
• Geometry is the one feasible science.
• Against Plato. He says that reason is developed by industry, not innate.
• Says that government control our reasoning through laws and rules.
• Endeavour - Beginning of motion
• If towards something: Desire
• If away from something: Aversion
• Suggests that every emotion is a motion and that the start of the emotion gets the wheels rolling, similar to accelerating in a car by going through the gears.
• Good - Object of desire
• Bad - Aversion
• Fear of invisible power
• If allowed - Religion
• If not - Superstition
• Saying that people frown on superstition, but remarkably not religion. There's equal amounts of proof for each being true - none.
• All men are naturally equal
• Before government each man wants his own liberty and domination over others.
• Impulse of self-preservation causes this.
• Making life brutal
• No features of government, only war "force and fraud are in war, the two cardinal virtues"
• Says that to escape this men make communities with a central government that exercises control over them to keep them in line.
• Why can't men be like bees and cooperate? No competition, no quest for honour.
• Bees have a natural agreement.
• Man's agreements are artificial through 'covenants'.
• Prefers monarchy, but can tolerate parliament. Does not like it when government and monarchy share power, such as in Britain.
• Says English Civil War started because the King, Lords and Commons had power divided between them. They each wanted power for themselves.
• The sovereign has unlimited power
• Right of censorship on all expression.
• Will not use power of censorship to suppress the truth, wants to keep internal peace.
• Reasons for preferring a Monarch government
• Although they may have favourites, they'll have less favourites than a parliamentary government
• Can secretly gain advice
• Absence in an assembly may cause a majority vote on change on policy. Monarchs can just change it
• Risk of civil war if Parliament is divided.
• Resistance to any laws placed by the Sovereign must be in self-defence, anything else is culpable.
• This means that if the Sovereign is accusing you of something you did not do, you can put up a fight and stand your ground. However, if they are demanding you pay your taxes and you refuse, you're likely to face their wrath.
• One has no duty to a sovereign who can't protect him, hence why Hobbes submitted to Cromwell whilst Charles II was in exile.
• Why should anyone stick by people who are in a weak position and can't protect your rights?
• Of a Christian Commonwealtere can be no universal church as each head of the state would have to be declared head of the church. The pope's rule cannot be admitted.
• Supports the state as the alternative is anarchy, for which he has a fear of
• If the state is bad anarchy may be more preferable.
• Current events that can be observed
• Libya
• Egypt

LOCKE'S THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE

• "Revalation must be judged of by reason"
• States that a revolution must only be judged on the ideas spurring it. If they can't hold up then there is no cause for significant change.
• Reason consists of two parts
• inquiry into what we know is certain
• investigation of propositions we can accept in practice but only probable, not certain.
• Degrees of Assent
• degree of assent we give a reason should depend on the probability in it's favour
• Founder of empericism
• All our ideas and knowledge (not logic and maths) come from experience
• Against Plato -> no innate ideas or principles
• Ideas derive from sensation and perception
• Perception -first step towards knowledge
• Three kinds of knowledge
• knowledge of own existence is intuitive
• knowledge of god's existence is demonstrative
• knowledge of things present to sense is sensitive
• "No government allows absolute liberty"
• Government is a society based on law
• Absolute liberty is freedom to do what one pleases

LOCKE'S TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT

• The Hereditary Principle
• Criticises Kinghood being hereditary
• King himself makes laws that coincide with his will
• Against Filmer's Patriarcha which states that the power of the King is unlimited. He can't be bound by his own laws as a man can't give law to himself. It also says that a King is free from all human control.
• Uses adult/child analogy: Natural rights of a king are the same as those of a father, a child must listen and so must the public. Sons are never free of parental power. The King will always rule supreme over his people
• Although a similar theory was adopted in Japan, Russell states that the theory of divine right was defeated in England due to a 'multiplicity of religions' and the struggle for power between the monarchy, aristocracy and the higher bourgeoisie.
• One of the main reasons for Locke's opposel to Filmer's ideas was that the King in England needed support to be powerful. If he had either the Bourgeoisie or the Aristocracy on his side he would hold power, but if they teamed up against him he would be weak and vulnerable.
• Locke says that if parental reasoning is involved, the mother has equal rights to the father. Primogeniture (state of being first born child) is injustice and unavoidable if monarchy is dependant on inheritance. Maybe the second born is a far more worthy monarch?
• The true heir of Adam is not the Kings, like Filmer suggests, but is in fact unknown. Locke directly questions Filmer and asks that if the heir of Adam became known, would the Kings lay down their power to him?
• Parental power is temporary and does not extend to life or property.
• The above argument, in Locke's view, defines why hereditary is not a basis for legitimate power.
• The State of Nature, and Natural Law
• Locke's idea on the true origin of government
• The State of Nature
• has the Law of Nature which is not enforced by any human.
• Hobbes' state of nature was very brutal and every man for himself. Everyone against everyone. All vs all. Locke's is happier, but derives from biblical tales and partly from the myth of the golden age. Russell states that the idea of badness in the state of nature comes from doctrines about evolution. This is where the strongest species adapt and kill to survive, so naturally these ideas can be applied to the supposed state.
• Locke says "Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature." So basically, Locke's state of nature suggests that men were equal and respected each other, and shared everything. This isn't too dissimilar to communism and can be linked to Karl Marx's idea of the stages of development: This is an example of primitive communism.
• Russell says that this means that man in this period obeyed the laws of 'reason' which are the same as the laws of nature. These have divine origin, such as 'thou shalt not kill'. They come from religious and spiritual beliefs.
• In the state of nature man can defend what is his. Law of nature says that a man could kill a thief for breaking in, as he would be protecting his possessions. If there is a government, the victim must give up their right to vengeance and hope the law deals with it.
• Objection to state of nature is that every man is the judge of his own cause, and that's apparently bad. Government is the remedy for this. Governments are now in a state of nature with each other. They have to judge each other and work together to reach a means.
• Locke argues that the state of nature is the opposite of a state of war. State of nature is: peaceful, full of good will, mutual assistance, and preservation. State of war: malicious, violent, and mutual destruction.
• Locke considers when war is necessary. Unless there is a government the answer is ethical, not legal.
• The base of legal theory is that the rights of individuals are protected by the state. If a man feels he should retaliate against an action, as natural law dictates, the state should take this right from him and deal with the situation.
• Locke says that in a state of nature if a man kills your brother you can kill him. If there's a state you lose this right and must prove that you killed in self-defence of in defence of another to a law court.
• Locke says moral laws are laid down by god and are found in the bible. Natural law decides what is ethically right and wrong in communities that have no government. When there is a government it's laws should stick as close to natural law as possible.
• The Social Contract
• Locke supports the theory that government is the result of a contract and there's no influence of divine authority.
• Citizens must obey governments for a reason, although it isn't always in their interests. Some say that the social contract is a historical fact, others just a legal fiction.
• Popular theory with those who oppose the divine right of Kings. First big development came from Grotius.
• Linked to tyranny. Hobbes says that all power is handed over to a sovereign who, in turn, has no limits to their own power and gained total authority. Can be used to justify Cromwell's totalitarian state.
• Locke adds to the theory that the government must live up to their end of the contract, else they'll get booted out and resisted against.
• Locke defines political power as 'the right of making laws, with the penalty of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws, and in defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the public good.' In other words, Locke is saying that political power must have the public interest at heart when considering passing laws.
• There are only political powers when man has submitted his right to defend himself to the community or the law.
• Civil society works by majority (or greater) votes. This sounds democratic but Locke didn't include woman or the poor from the rights of citizenship.
• The power of the government contract never extends beyond what is seen as the common good. Locke would argue that some sort of public opinion would have to be used to judge a case as the government would always rule the common good to be in their favour. This is a hint towards jury trials, where members of the public are called into court to pass judgement on a defendant.
• Locke: 'The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent.' So here Locke is suggesting that the limit of the government only extends to someone's possessions. They cannot touch these without consent of the owner, maybe Locke would have a tough time standing up to the balifs.
• He also suggests that soldiers should be punished by injury or death, not by fines. This is a ridiculous notion as a soldier who is injured or dead is worthless in battle. They can survive to serve if they're only fined.
• Property
• Locke appears to be a capitalist being, he seems to like property and values money. However, Russell suggests that this is not entirely the case, as he shows some Socialist opinions.
• Idea 1: Every man has property in produce of his own labour - If you grow it, it's yours, etc. A man may own as much land as he can till, but not more. So if you own loads of acres you have an unfair distribution and will thus gain an unfair financial advantage over others. With this in mind, the Soviet government of Russia said that all farming was to be done for the state so that nobody was more powerful and wealthy than anyone else, and so that the serfs were always under state control. The state limited their wealth and did not let them sell their own products for a number of years.
• Idea 2: Locke suggested in the Labour Theory of Value that the value of a product should take into account the amount of labour and materials involved. This idea was stubbornly overlooked by Soviet Russia who, although they could mass produce goods, weren't making a profit from industry because they were selling the products for less than their laboural and material worth.
• The ethical argument to this theory states that the product's value ought to represent the amount of labour involved in it's production, whereas the economical side says that labour regulates the price so that good money can be earned for the amount of work.
• Russell offers criticisms of Locke's idea that Indian American land has no value:
• Overlooks that land can gain value should people be willing to work it
• Also overlooks that people can sell land that oil has been discovered under
• Russell also argues that the right to the theory is useless in industry. He says that you cannot determine how much Ford make thanks to your labour if you work for them.
• Russell can't make sense of Locke's idea that a man can only have the amount of plumbs that he and his family needs or they'll go bad, but a man can have as much gold and diamonds as he likes as they do not go bad. Russell says that a man can sell the extra plumbs. However, I do see sense in this as the plumbs may not sell and the cost of growing them is thus lost. Diamonds and gold have a very high value and people are more likely to pay for them than a few dodgy fruits.
• Checks and Balances
• Legislate, executive, and judicial functions of government should be kept secret.
• Executive: Monarch/PM/Leading Party
• Legislate: Parliament
• Judicial: Judges and law
• Locke says this especially of legislate and executive so as to control the power and prevent abuse of it. Locke feels that if the executive fails to call in the legislate when necessary they are at war with the people and can be removed by force: civil war.
• Force must only be used against unjust and unlawful happenings, but not when it itself is unjust and unlawful.
• In a dispute between executive and legislate, Locke states that there is no judge under heaven, so the only option is war.
• Doctrine of checks and balances intended to limit the power of the Monarch in England as, until the civil war, they had control over the executive. Eventually they became dependant on Parliament as it's impossible to pass ideas without the majority approval.
• The government is now both legislative and executive, and can only be controlled by general elections. This goes against Locke.
• Locke's idea only really took off in the States as the president, congress and supreme court are all independent of one another.
• Russell argues that Locke's ideas were useful up until the industrial revolution, but now time has taken it's toll on them and it's harder to use them since the power of property has grown beyond anything Locke could imagine. He says that an international social contract and government is needed before his ideas become applicable again, except those on private property.

LOCKE'S INFLUENCE

• Heirs
• Berkley
• Hume
• Bentham
• Marx
• German universities

You Must Take Your Place in the Circle of Life - Lion King 3D : Review

Disney are becoming the centre of attention when it comes to the third dimension. Having recently released Toy Story 1, 2 and 3 in 3D they have started to turn their attention to the older classics with the likes of Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo and even the hand-drawn animation masterpieces Beauty and the Beast, and The Little Mermaid. I feel that the company should strongly consider changing their famous mouse ears logo to a pair of 3D specs, such is their fondness for the technology.

A film that I thought I would never see in the cinema (at least in relative memory) is the Lion King, and what I really didn't expect was to see the Pridelands come to life in jaw-dropping 3D. Simba has always held a special place in my heart, as is the case with most 90s kids, so I went to the flicks with astronomical expectations. But were they reached?

In a word, yes. Actually, most yes. Most definitely yes. From the opening sequence of the African sun rising to the thundering rain of the finale, I had chills shooting through my body. The beauty of the animation is as intact as ever, in fact, bar a few moments where double-vision occurred due to some outrageous attempts to throw bones in your face, it was arguably enhanced. Disney know how to utilise the new technology that they have at their disposal and further proof of this come from the surround sound which was top-notch. Simba's paws pounded your ears from every angle and atmosphere of Timon and Pumba's jungle was captured with the sound of grubs ringing out from every direction.

As you'd expect, the story is true to the original, which is lucky because the tried and tested 'Hamlet' formula is timeless. With the inclusion of lions Disney were always on to a winner.

The Disney of old managed to perfect musical numbers and they did themselves a huge favour by removing Zazu's cringe-worthy 'Morning Report' song that somehow found it's way on to the special edition version. It just felt out of place. The colours of 'I Just Can't Wait to be King' were as vivid and glorious as ever, and the sequence itself benefited from the subtle 3D, with Zazu flying in and out of the screen. Other musical highlights are obvious: 'Hakuna Mattata' was perfect. There's simply no other word for it. 'Can You Feel the Love Tonight' has won many, many awards in the past and I can't see a reason why it shouldn't win many more. The emotion runs high and then suitably gets slashed down at the end when Simba and Narla have a lovers tiff about him returning to Pride Rock, or something like that. The daunting 'Be Prepared' was as harrowing as ever, and one thing I didn't notice when I was three was that the march of the hyena's past their 'Fuhrer', Scar, is very close to the gooses-step of the Nazis.

I mentioned one flaw with the 3D conversion earlier, but I honestly couldn't point out any more. The Pridelands are given an incredible amount of depth; the greatest example being the opening montage where the animals march towards Pride Rock to welcome Simba, their future king, into their world. The elephants stomp as they slowly trudge out of the background and the small birds are forced to dart out of the screen to avoid getting trampled. The montage closes with Zazu seemingly flying over the audience's heads before perching on the momentous cliff face. What a spectacle. Mostly though, the 3D effect is kept subtle meaning that it doesn't become too intrusive and for the most part, when the animators decided to throw things at the audience, it wasn't to showcase the effect in a cheap way but mostly to emphasise what was happening. 3D displayed the way it should be.

Obviously, the glory of the film stems from the characters as much as the story. Simba, a lion with a heart of gold, who's young naivety lead him into danger forced on him by his Uncle Scar, who as the name suggests, isn't a very nice piece of work, is the perfect protagonist. Nala, his playful companion. plays a much more subtle role, yet her characteristics still manage to match Simba's ambitiousness. Timon and Pumba, the unlikely heroes, manage to share a screen 20 times their height with pure ease. They ooze personality and the hoola distraction is kids comedy gold. And adults. The voice actors put in a performance that cannot be matched by any animated film. They are the ones responsible for bringing the characters out of the screen and into your life, not the 3D.

Whether I'm looking at this film with great amounts of nostalgia or not, it's evidently clear that anyone with a family or looking for some nostalgic thrills should catch this as soon as they can. It's the same film that they've always loved, only with an environment that is brought to life in a way that it couldn't but should have been 17 years ago. The Lion King in 3D not only does the original justice, but also gives it an entirely new lease of life.

What makes a good journalist?

A good journalist is passionate about what they are discussing; they engage with the article in a manner that not only immerses themselves in the subject, but also inspires them to make even the dullest story interesting. Journalists should, first and foremost, base their stories around the facts, faking a story or creating a magical world in their head is classed as dark territory and should not be attempted unless they want their credibility snatched away from them. Another matter of great importance that a good journalist should recognise is that being nice with interviewees will get them to open up more. I’m by no means suggesting that they should flirt with them, but simply let them know that they are an outlet for their opinion. Of course, they may end publishing what they’re told, but the interviewee really shouldn’t divulge anything that they’d rather keep secret. It is their job, after all.

Media Law Lecture #3 - Defamation

Where ever you're sat right now, whoever you are - your clothes are dreadful. Do you really think you can sit there and wear that, let alone go out in public? Those clothes are rags. Also, your hair looks silly and so does your face. Why are you wearing those socks? They're soooo last Friday. It's Tuesday, it says so on the pair you should be wearing.

You're probably sat there wondering what on earth I'm harping on about, well that's called 'attack journalism', a form of the art where you pick away at someone famous and then pass it off as a cheap comment to avoid libel. It's definitely a form of defamation, but not one that's likely to get you in any doo-doo because you can argue that it's what you really believe. I really believe you should be wearing your Tuesday socks today, because it's Tuesday. Rude is good.

Libel is a civil tort and has very recently replaced duelling in our herritage. Instead of slapping someone around the face with a silk glove, nowadays you knock them out with a huge law book, as disputes between parties are settled in a much more humanitarim manner - in the court room. A claimant can claim to be defamed by a comment and thus march the defendant down to the magistrates court, if they feel that their reputation has been damaged in one way or another. However, this proclaimed reputation must be your ACTUAL reputation. There's no point in me storming down to the courts proclaiming I'm a rock god, when people generally think that I'm just a bellend who can barely play a guitar and have published that.

Defamation can be very, very damaging to a claimant as it can not only cost them their reputation, but also all the benefits that go along with it such as money, sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. A very famous case of defamation involves former solo artist Gary Glitter, who, after being found guilty of paedophillia, can barely leave his own house without having axes and spears flung in his direction.

It's incredibly important to realise that defamation IS NOT about hurt feelings. If you're hurt by my comments about your silly hair at the top of my blog, then I'm sorry, but it's a fair comment. People who go to court because they have been upset by something in the press will get laughed out of the room. Sure, the comments may be hurtful, but everyone knows you're fat - you know your fat, so it doesn't really demolish your reputation. Unless you're a fitness instructor, which you're not.

Libel laws are stricter in some countries than others, so it's not unlikely that a claimant may take their cases outside of their country in order to receive the verdict that they so desire. A number of high profile cases like this involve Scientology, a 'religion' that is absolutely amazing and can do no wrong. I want to say they're a cult, but they hate being called that and they're most likely reading this because THEY ARE EVERYWHERE. In fact, sod it, they're a cult and just, well, god-awful. That's my truthful opinion. Bring on the law suit, Mr. Cruise and Mr. Travolta.

To be considered 'defamatory' a statement only has to tend to defame someone. There's no need to prove that you're losing work and friends because you've been condemned by the media as a dog rapist, there just has to be a level of probability. Stories about you raping dogs are probably going to cost you your reputation as a vetinary surgeon. This leads me on to animal cruelty. The UK is crazy about all things cute and fluffy - anything from dogs to alpachas, dormice to leopards, so going round kicking them and making them fight isn't going to make you Mr. Popular. No, no, quite the opposite, for animal cruelty is considered the worst form of defamation. A furious reporter has a story in today's Sun about a television chef, someone in the public eye, saying that eating puppies is no different to eating beef. In a way he's right, after all they are both meat, but we keep puppies as pets! How dare he be so logical.

Libel and slander are two fruits from the same tree: slander deals with spoken defamtory, whereas libel speaks of the published form. It is the latter that we are most concerned with.

For an act to be considered libel it must match up to the three stages of it:

1. A defamatory statement must be made involving one of:
• Ridicule: Just like laughing at someone in the playground for having one testicle, ridicule is where you mock someone over how they look like, their actions or their beliefs.
• Hatred: This is trying to rally hate against an individual - for example, Jade Goody was touted as the most hated person in Britain. Ironically, the same publications portrayed her as an angel when she was dying of Cancer. Don't get me started on this though, I've written an extensive argument on the subject in the past and it gets me riled up every time I think about it.
• Contempt: Basically, the statement must lower the claimants public standing or discredit their trade/profession for contempt to be involved.
2. The defamatory comments must be published in a particular form and be permenant:
• Radio and TV broadcasts, newspapers and websites, are all forms of publications that can be used in a libel case as they are all published to a third party (the public) and are all permenant as they are all recorded in one way or another.
3. There must be positive identification:
•  A libel case cannot be brought by the whole of France if you claim that all French people stink of garlic, as you cannot libel an uncorporated association. In a defamation case the person must be identified in order to be defamed against. There are various forms of positive identification, but the ones most likely used in court reports are:

• Name
• Age
• Residence
• Occupation
• Photo
• A photo is especially important as, in a very unlikely case, there could well be another person with the same name, age, residence and occupation as the person in the report. They could quite easily turn round and say that they feel defamed by it. A photo is used to counter this because the chances of them being an exact replica of the offender are even slimmer. Practically nill, unless of course you're their identical twin, in which case it could very easily have been you sat in that nice box up there, so it's probably best to keep shut-um.
• So, going back to my opening paragraph, it does not defame anyone specifically as I am referring to 'you' the reader, not you as in yourself.

The meanings of words can change over time. If ShowBiz SCANDALZZZ outed someone as gay in the 19th Century it would have been seen as very defamatory and the likelihood would be that the accused would go the same way as Gary Glitter. In recent times though, being homosexual is not viewed in the same light. You could argue that a portion of society still see being gay as a bad thing, but it's less frowned upon and more openly accepted than it used to be. The public are more obsessed by the people who get their money and taxes now, so a more defamatory story would accuse an MP of buying second and third houses with the tax payer's money. Not that that's ever happened, has it?

Finally, we come to the defences - the ways in which journalists can defend themselves against libel suits. These are the three biggies:

• Justification: If a journalist can prove that a story they have ran is true, it's like a fist up the bum and a big "F you" to the claimant. They won't be seeing your money this time round.
• Fair Comment (based on fact): Journalists have a certain scope in which they can say harmful things about people, so long as they make it clear that it's an opinion not a fact. I can say "I think Vinnie Jones is a pansy," but I can't say "Vinnie Jones is a pansy" and present it as a fact, as this would damage his reputation of being a propa 'ard nut.
• Qualified Privilege: Journalists can be exempt from libel actions on certain occassions due to qualified privilege. They're allowed to say some things, but as they do not hold absolute privilege like judges, lawyers, barristers and witnesses do, they cannot say everything. However, qualified privilege can be lost if the publication is not:
• Fast - Printed in the next publication / Aired in the next TV broadcast
• Accurate - Spelling must be 100% accurate, as should the facts being presented
• or Fair - Journalists must report pleas of not guilty and summarise the defendants defence.

Exchanging Bognor Regis for the Sake of Humanity

It's everywhere. Everyone knows. Nobody is denying it. The aliens are coming, and they're angry, very angry. So angry in fact that they've demanded we part with some of our most inspiring and sensational landscapes else they'll blow us to kingdom-come. Good one, Blair, we did warn you about the consequences of attacking QWERTY-MON-ATHON-LAND 5, especially as it's common knowledge what they did to QWERTY-MON-ATHON-LAND 1, 2, 3 and 4. Nice one. At least they did actually have weapons of mass planetary destruction, I'll give you that.

So with that clear message in mind, the question beckons - what parts of the planet are we willing to sacrifice? The Sahara desert? The Amazon? The Victoria Falls? Penzance? All would be good options, but I don't think we should be too open, we should be coy. Clearly, there's only one group of people who save us: travel agents.

Travel agents have the linguistic capability to make a holiday to Baghdad sound enticing, so why can't they sell the parts of the planet we don't like to the aliens? They know nothing about our planet apart from the fact it's small, round and that although it's easy to disintegrate, it isn't recyclable. This proposition also seems very practical and useful for both parties; we get to keep the Great Wall of China and our alien buddies get to have a pint in a dodgy pub in Wolverhampton.

The first location would be an easy sell: France. QWERTY's finest species would enjoy devouring the exquisite cuisine that is so readily available in the country. They can munch on anything from frogs legs to well, more frogs legs. Disney Land Paris wouldn't exactly be missed either; sure, we know that children love it but everyone realises that it isn't up to scratch with it's Florida counterpart, so why keep it? Alien adolescents all over the universe envy the humans who don't appreciate their photos with Mickey Mouse, instead opting to push him over, so by giving them France they will get the opportunity to have their photo with the grinning rodent on their mantelpiece. A memory framed for eternity.

Bognor Regis is a bit crap. Slammed between the cities of Portsmouth and Brighton, you would think that it will have the best of both worlds, but it doesn't. What it does have, however, is what a travel agent would call "a perfect pebble beach with a glorious sea-line vista," and although we know that this is far from the truth, our green tentacled friends won't have the foggiest. In reality all it is is a stretch of sharp, pointy rocks that tear up the feet of kids every day, and the sea is so acidic it burns your feet the moment you step in it. A travel agent would put this down to a 'cooling, tepid water temperature.'

Every year, millions of people are sold holidays to Hollywood in the hills of Los Angeles. The travel agents stuff them up with tours of the Warner Brothers studios, among thousands of others. It's consistently sunny, produces stunning blockbusters and is the home of the world's biggest stars. Sounds perfect, but the problem is that it's very, very elitist. Only the best manage to get work there which leads to all the hopefuls who get turned away turning to drugs and booze and washing cars, badly. Give me Nollywood any day. Anyone can turn up and get an instant role in Dr. Sally, a promising Nigerian soap about a doctor and his family. They like to eat melons. By offering QWERTY Hollywood we can make industries such as Nollywood boom, whilst also increasing employment as literally anyone can make themselves a star there.

Personally, I don't see why we should lose the Niagara Falls when giving the aliens Russia is all the same to them because they haven't seen a waterfall before, and even if they did feel hard-done-by all they'd have to do is melt Siberia to get the same effect. It's also the birthplace of a very alien idea - Communism. I'll grow my space vegetables and exchange them for your space rocks. On paper this would be lovely, the communities all working together towards the same common goal, but in practice it doesn't work and tyrants end up dictating the people to work for them. The extra-terrestrial beings would love this idea as they don't know any better, they haven't heard of democracy or the Saxophone. It will be an easy sell for the travel agents, they'd simply have to explain that it's famed for it's premium vodka, a substance that really can improve life even when everything seems to be going tits up. There would be no need to tell them how god-damn awful it tastes and without any Western influences there'll be no Coke to mix it with.

The world knew that the rise of the travel agents to hero-status was inevitable, what with their incredible ability to sell any location to anyone and their inability to back down to any challenge - Mr and Mrs. Jones don't want a holiday to Azerbaijan? Offer them half-price flights and they'll take it. Estate agents however, will remain low down the pecking order. Sure, people may want to visit the Sahara Desert, but would they want to live there? No. Travel agents manage to sell the most inhospitable places every day, but estate agents can't even sell a flat in Croydon which isn't quite as bad. QWERTY's would see straight through their lies.

Media Law Lecture #2

Here's an expansion on the notes I took in my second law lecture:

Court Reporting

Basic Legal Principles
          Presumption of Innocence
This means that you are innocent until proven guilty "beyond reasonable doubt." When a defendant enters a court he is to be tried on that case and that case only, so any previous convictions are not taken into account. The jury do not know about these and thus can't judge the offender on them, even sub-consciously. To be proven beyond reasonable doubt, there must be forms of either forensic evidence, reliable witnesses, or the defendant can confess. However, a confession isn't always concrete as history shows that police can interrogate people to the extent that they give a false confession. This happens particularly with young offenders.

         The Right to a Jury Trial
In the UK every offender has the legal right to be tried by a jury. A jury is a group of 12 members of the public who are randomly selected from the electoral roll to try the defendant. They must sit through the entire case and then weigh up the evidence and decide if the defendant is guilty or innocent. This is done by a vote, but a majority is needed to be able to decide either way. If the jury can't reach a majority vote then there will be a retrial. Another factor that could lead to a retrial would be if a member of the jury interferes of contacts the defendant, this would pervert the course of justice.

          Justice Must be Seen to be Done
All trials  (unless they are a threat to social security or the anonymity of a child is concerned) are to be aired in public. The general public can sit in the court's viewing gallery so that they can see justice be done, or even, in some cases, mis-justice. The press can also view trials as they are seen as the "eyes and ears of the public." Judges can rule against this, however, but the public and the press can challenge the judgement.

Criminal Court
          The Jury, Barristers and the Judge
Juries are only found in crown courts. They can only decide on whether the defendant is innocent or guilty, only a judge is able to pass a sentence. Juries are only able to judge the defendant on the evidence provided, any previous convictions are mentioned only when relevant or after the Jury has reached it's verdict.


Barristers are high-up lawyers who argue the cases for the defendants and the prosecutors. They question the evidence and fight tooth and nail for their cases.


Judges head each trial. They decide on the accessibility of the evidence, meaning that they can discard evidence they don't find relevant to the case. Another duty of the judge's is to guide them on the law, although they must be careful not to lead them. A judge must decide on the punishment if the defendant is found guilty.
        
          The Crown Court
Crown courts deal with indictable offences that carry a sentence of five years or more, cases such as these are bypassed by the magistrates as they are too hardcore for them to deal with. Crown courts also hear appeals by people who have already lost trials and been convicted. Smaller cases (summary) also pass through these courts, fines are laid down for actions such as drink driving and parking tickets. Either way cases, such as the use of Class B drugs can also go through Crown courts should the defendant wishes to be trialled by a duty.

         Contempt of Court - Strict Liability
Contempt of Court happens when anything is done to prevent the court of convicting justice, such as threatening the jury and witness, this carries a prison sentence of five years. A good example of this involves two footballers: Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer, who were accused of attacking Asian youths. Colin Myler, the former editor of the Sunday Mirror, interviewed the families of the victims whilst the trial was in progress. The interviews were published, thus prejudicing the jury and committing contempt of course, rendering the case a mis-trial.

          Prejudice
Prejudice can destroy journalists, so it's very important that they stick to the facts. Pre-judice means to pre-judge before any facts are revealed. It can involve assuming guilt due to the appearance and personality of the defendant. It stops them from having a fair trial due to the lack of presumption of innocence.

HCJ Seminar #1

Our first point of discussion in this seminar was Plato's 'Theory of Ideas' which he explains with his fabled cave analogy. The basic idea of this is that there are prisoners chained together in a cave, they're facing a wall so they know nothing of the outside world and the wonders it has to be discovered. All they can see is their shadows. However, one turns around and sees the world. This inspires him to free himself from his shackles and explore this creation that he now has the freedom to roam. Years later he returns to the cave to find his fellow prisoners still stood there staring at the shadows, making hand signals and laughing at how one looks like a dinosaur and the other a rabbit. He tries to explain to them what's behind them to be discovered but they refuse to listen and thus they never open their eyes to the beauty of the Earth. The man who escaped? A philosopher, obviously.

This may seem like gobble-di-gook, but trust me, it's not. For if you break it down it becomes apparent what Plato was hankering on about. We normal people, the simpletons, are represented by the prisoners and the world as we know it is represented by the cave wall. The shadows are the 'forms' and represent every object we have in our lives, everything we see, everything we touch, everything we hear. Plato's theories suggest that the bed I am currently sat on is imperfect and a shadow, but in another world, another dimension possibly, there is a perfect version of this bed, a better form.

Religions started to pounce on these ideas and use them as their basis of heaven, something to work towards, where only those of a pure soul can have a perfect after-life. If your sole was tainted you would end up in purgatory or worse, hell. By making seemingly shallow threats such as these and relating it to philosophy, religion can use the Theory of Ideas to control people to do what their god supposedly desires.

Thales is seen as the first official philosopher as he can be dated, due to the fact that he correctly predicted an eclipse. This was the first attempt at a science experiment as the date of the eclipse could be proved or disproved simply by whether it happened or not. He was the mentor of Anaximander who opposed Thales ideas that everything is made out of the elements - earth, wind, fire and water. Instead, Anaximander suggested that the elements work in a cycle and you can see where he's coming from: fire vaporises water, water douses fire, earth can soak water, water can flood the earth, earth can put out a fire and fire can destroy the earth.

I Went to Court Today...

and it was certainly interesting.

I'm not gonna lie, the wigs did make me feel a little bit uncomfortable for a small period of time. Whether it was the authority they held or the blinding urge to throw a pen at them, they certainly had a profound effect on me. I always thought they were the stuff of legend, of times gone by, but no, 50 year old men wear them with honour. The only other place you'd find that is in a pantomime. This would be the perfect time to practise shorthand, but mine is so poor at the moment that it wouldn't be worth it.

Having attended two cases, it's clear which one was the most interesting. Our first case seemed promising; after walking around aimlessly to two empty courtrooms we eventually discovered one with wigged people  in, so we decided to enter. The rest of the room was empty, that should have been a hint in itself. 35 minutes passed before the judge entered, NOT wearing a wig. Five minutes after this we found out that the first person being put to trial hadn't turned up. Brilliant. Luckily they breezed straight into the next case and it wasn't long before we learned that it was a personal injury case, not quite what we were looking for but at least we got an opening. The gist? A man was suing his employers because he fell off the back of the lorry whilst working. From the limited notes I managed to get, the defence argued that he should not have been there anyway and it was clearly dangerous. At the mention of the word 'plywood' we called it quits for fear of drowning in boredom.

We left the room and heard, what appeared to be an angry man, say the words "cocaine," "sexual assault," "drugs" and "nipples." Clearly, this was the case for us. The man turned out to be the defendant who was charged with sexual assault. Granted, he was openly admitting that he initially lied to the police to protect his family, but this admittance probably came from the fact he was hoping the jury would be more lenient on him, should he be convicted. The man, a 48 year old with a wife and two kids, stated that he and the accuser had been doing lines of cocaine. This lead to a frisky affair where he described how he sucked her nipples and how she pulled down his trousers to give him oral sex. The barrister questioning him was working his words to his favour, as is usually the case. He asked the defendant if he (as claimed by the accuser) said "I've got a big package," and also, regarding her breasts "can I put my cock between them?" He denied both of these allegations. He felt that a lack of cocaine lead to the allegations and conceded that if he didn't get convicted of sexual assault, he was likely to get convicted for supplying drugs.

That was definitely the most interesting case but we were running out of time and had to leave, or rather, I was. It was nice to get a taste of the court room though, but it definitely demonstrated to me how good my shorthand will have to be to report from one.

Key Concepts Lecture and Seminar #2

LECTURE
The second lecture from the Key Concepts module was, in short, asking the question "what is 'Mass Culture' and why is it important?"

First off we looked at some very basic representation where we were shown images of Audrey Hepburn and Katie Price wearing similar clothing, yet the opinions formed were different. Was this because of context, because I know who they are? Not neccesarily, Audrey Hepburn's make up was very natural and understated, whereas on the other hand Katie Price was bright orange and incredibly artificial. Hepburn adopted a very elegant look in her tiara, whereas Price looked as if she would rather have it hanging out of a wheelie bin down a dark alley as a 'Do Not Disturb' sign.

The issue of 'taste' is an interesting one- one one hand it is considered as natural and seen as an expression of individuality that offers group status and identity, yet on the other people try to pick out what is good or bad, high quality or low quality. To be considered of a high quality, something has to be informative, it has to drive the brain to greater achievements instead of making you dribble your brains away in a gormless state. An example of what would be considered high quality would be the current series of documentaries about the armed forces on BBC 4; these are seen as informative and eye opening. Low quality television would be Big Brother where watching mindless idiots argue and sleeze around is somehow considered entertaining, but it's this sort of thing that has mass appeal - it draws attention because it's easy to watch and occassionally controversial.

Pier Bourieu asks how logic and preference work and he challenges innate taste and 'authentic' sensibility. He suggests that tastes and notions of quality are socially constructed by groups to gain status. For example, you may find that every Saturday night a group of friends will suddenly adapt the title 'X FACTOR 4 LYF' and watch the show together. This cultural preference works through cultural distinction, the idea that knowledge and competence are displayed through consumer taste.

Bourieu continues and introduces the idea of 'Cultral Capital' - how much is this cultural knowledge worth? It's almost implying that capitalism is not just money related, but also what can be adapted to be money, be it culture or knowledge of the apes in the BB house. This is the symbolic capital of power; people who know more about these things are considered more interesting and entertaining than the squares who watch the Parliament channel. This leads on to my next point: cultural hierarchy. This is where, like society, the quality of taste is labelled by who watches it and inhales it. Legitimate taste is linked to the upper classes, this could be anything from polo to water polo. Middle brow taste is generally considered to be the middle class daily mail readers who enjoy Lois Theroux documentaries more than I'm a Massive Dipshit, GET ME OUT OF HERE. It's popular culture, such as Dipshit, that is chained to the working classes. Cultural value can decline over time and it's not uncommon for yesterdays popular cultural knowledge to be deemed as useless today, purely because the world of culture is advancing at a rapid pace. People can get left behind and that's what inspires them to watch more of this crap to try to keep up. They have to prove that they really are X Factor 4 lyf.

It's important to note that these cultural values can shift and the lines are much more blurred now than they ever have been: a football fan can be a hooligan by day but enjoy the theatre by night. Take the example of Paul Potts, the Britain's Got Talent star who took opera into popular: did he tread the boards of the stage by day? No, he plodded around on the laminate flooring of a mobile phone shop. He is not considered to be of a high class, yet he listened to opera, and in an even worse turn of events for the upper classes, he took it to the masses by appearing on a popular TV show and winning it.

Shock value has changed over the years. A painting by Manet depicting a prostitute was seen as garish in the 19th Century, yet now we consider it a work of art. In modern times, photographic nudity is considered much more vile and disgusting, although I don't understand it as everyone embraces it at some point in their lives.

Cultural capital can be gained and the best example of this is the Beatles. We all know them as a legendary band who revolutionised music, yet they started off as a mere garage band who were getting rejected by record labels who thought that guitar music was going out of date. 50 years later and Martin Scorsese is making a film about George Harrison, the drummer. Scorsese is viewed as an 'elite' member of the public and the cultural significance of the Beatles is further enhanced by having his name taped to the film.

Music fans are an example of discourses of mass culture as they might not abide to mass culture because they want to stand out more. They revel in their lack of cultural capital. Instead they gain subcultural capital. An example of this would be goths. They aren't cool. They aren't hip. They don't care. They're more than happy to walk around in black and look 'different'. It's this subcultural capital that I feel is far more important than mass cultural capital as it represents individuality, they aren't joining the crowd, they're embracing how different they are.

Recognising that culture is political is of high importance. In WW2 there were two agencies that protected culture to make sure that people weren't getting bored, CEMA for the elite forms of art that the higher classes enjoyed, and ENSA to entertain the troops with low-brow entertainment that is considered low in quality.

After the war however, it seemed that the upper classes got their way: ENSA was dropped and CEMA became the Art Council of Britain. However, these seem to provide more for everyone now as theatre, ballet and art has become more accessible for the lower classes. A review by Hall states that culture is "struggled over and not imposed from above," although the above contradicts it. He could mean that people fight for their culture when the government try to cut it.

SEMINAR

A very relevant point I made in the seminar is the popular culture is driven by capital gain. Using the example of X Factor, Simon Cowell makes his money through people phoning up and voting for certain acts to stay in the competition. On top of this he gets money for the ratings the show produces and more importantly still, the show continues to bring him considerable income after it has finished because people will go out and buy the album and the single of the winner. The single is usually Christmas number 1, although one year it was beaten off by a mass rebellion which started on Facebook, making Raging Against the Machine's Killing in the Name Of number one over the festive period instead.

Mass culture tends to swamp smaller cultures with big money. Record labels for example are offered large sums of money to sell themselves to the big boys, as it were. Although they have a choice and don't have to "sell out" it is usually in their best interests to due to the money involved.

Americanisation is a key term in mass culture. This is the idea that everything culturally significant derives from America and is implemented into the cultures of other countries and societies. There are clear examples of such standardisation in the likes of McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Microsoft, brands that are known worldwide not just by name, but by logos and slogans too. It's obviously hard for Britain not to be influenced by America - we both speak the same language and Britain colonised the States. The advancement of American culture on the rest of Europe and indeed, the world, is down to the power and size of the U.S.A. and it's involvements in many worldly affairs, be it war or peace, starvation or genocide. The country has large opinions and even larger actions that American superstars such as Kanye West, Beyonce and Rhianna can ride on to access the rest of the world. This leads them to make more money, stimulating the link between capitalism and mass culture.

T.S Elliot and McDonald argue that mass culture has no intellectual worth, that it's engulfed by the brain-dead and there's no effort required to consume it. I can see where they're coming on here, especially in relation to Big Brother. In my opinion, anyone who wants to be on Big Brother should be taken to a remote area, let's say the moon, and nuked. I don't understand why people would subject themselves to such ridicule. Money is a huge factor and that, again, shows how mass culture is driven by the capitalist world.

Such critics also say that audiences are passive and that they'll swallow anything that's thrown at them. Others would argue that people use this form of entertainment as escapism, getting away from their crummy lives for ninety minutes every Saturday night. Critics would retort that this is seen as giving in.

In Strinati's book 'An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture' he places the growth of mass culture in the context of the industrial revolution. He suggests that people lose the close relationships they had in rural communities (small culture) when they get sucked into the big cities for work (mass culture). He states that people become atomized and lonely, in other words, they become nobodies in a sprawling world of consumers and capital gain. He also says that art and culture become industrialised. Using modern examples, it's very easy to see his point. Taking the Beatles again, it is so easy and to download an mp3 on iTunes for 99p, but the original works of art, the tapes, would now be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

McDonald states that folk culture is diminishing. However, it is easy to argue this as the gypsy culture remains strong, although they are fighting vigorously to defend their folk roots. The likes of morris dancing and authentic folk music are also being engulfed by mass culture through events such as village fetes. People in the modern era are more interested in their roots now than they used to be. Maybe they feel that they owe it to themselves to find out how their ancestors spent their time.

We were split into groups to discuss how we could critique the critics of mass culture, here's what we came up with:

Stereotypes are created that aren't always applicable. Just because a footballer is considered 'stupid' it doesn't mean he can't embrace higher culture such as theatre and art work. There are increasingly more footballers now with a degree, although there are some classic examples of thugs and rapists within the game. I feel that they should be kicked out the game for good once convicted as they are constantly in the public eye and admired by kids everywhere.

We used My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding as an example too. This is a TV show that follows gypsy families and their weddings, which draw significant amounts of attention due to the size of the brides dress. People are interested in this, but I feel that this is only becaus it is being thrown at them in a reality TV style show. If it was a 'true' documentary it would not get half as many viewers. It does however, show how folk culture can be incorporated into the masses to keep it alive.

Mass culture can give people a sense of hope. The best example of this is X Factor, which picks out incredible singing talent and opens doors to them if they're good enough. This shows that audiences may be more clever than they are given credit for as they know that this could be their big break. It's such an easy opportunity to grasp. Critics would argue back that this makes them lazy, but they can't be as it takes so much practise to train your voice to sing.

Critics tend to ignore the relationship between gender, taste and power. This is a big mistake as the powerful people are more likely to have been brought up on opera and theatre, than FIFA and drugs. It is what is considered good in your upbringing that should stand dominant. A monarch would think that a shipment of Class A drugs is bad, but Sid on the council estate and his friends may love the idea. Social power differs within each group and what is important also differs.

Finally, mass culture theory assumes that good and bad are definitively fixed and there is no changing them. However, this isn't the case, jazz music for example used to be considered 'black' and working class in the 1920's, but nowadays it is considered as a high art form. If anything, this demonstrates how mass culture has helped form our multi-cultural society and in turn how it could have played a part in erasing the racial issues that have blighted much of history.