I can't believe it every day and every night....got caught queue jumping at Gatwick and Britain's racist slurs were in sight.... Kelis, an old man and Britain pull of a UN Racism event.... Britain again promotes itself in a negative light to the worl

So today I am going to take a sidestep from politics and refer to a topic, which has caused me to think of how our national pride and identity may have suffered two damaging blows in the space of 24 hours. First we will focus on what has turned into the main trending topic on Twitter, involving American R&B singer Kelis which had claimed she was racially abused and discriminated against at Gatwick airport when she jumped the queue at passport control.

This is where it is claimed that a man took offence to the queue jumping and according to Kelis on her Twitter was alleged to of been called a "disgusting Nigerian" and "kunta kinte", which is a character from the slavery novel Roots by Alex Haley. This was said in front of Kelis's two-year old Son Knight and over 50 people also queuing at passport control. Over the course of today more details of the story have been released through Kelis's Twitter, which have included that the racist remarks seemed to have happened after the flight  from Gatwick to Spain where Kelis has claimed that the man continued to call her a "slave" and obliged that she called him "sir", but this occured at passport control in Spain, not at Gatwick.

With all this information being released and the Home Office announcing they will take no action into the matter because the incident that took place was from a "member of the public" and because Kelis did not make a formal complaint. This could be seen as the Home Office following formal rules and regulations, but I think this is another example of an old fashioned way of thinking because even though it is only one individual it seems that we are trying to forget that any form of racism is wrong and should not be treated with contempt and should be treated with the most highest severity.

Then we can look at the other part of today's news that I feel has shown once again that sometimes Britain can be seen as part of the problem, even though we do help fight to bring a solution. Today was the beginning of events commemorating 10th anniversary of the United Nations World Conference on racism in South Africa and Prime Minister David Cameron announced that the UK would not be sending anyone over the commemorate the occasion and have "withdrawn" their invitation. This has been done due to the events of the original conference 10 years ago, which the Prime Minister felt was overshadowed by the immoral acts of "deplorable anti-semisitsm."


Now I fully agree with the Prime Minister when the conference took place days prior to the events of 9/11 and that the event was overshadowed by protests of Israel treatment of the Palestinians people by the Arab nations and the anti-semistic world of the draft documents, which led to the original withdrawal of the United States and Canada from the original conference, but the world has moved on since. I think that it would show a sign of unity that the UK agrees and joins the UN's stance on not tolerating any form of racism or abuse against human rights.

The conference has again been boycotted by the United States and Canada, as well as Australia, Italy and Israel, but the argument here is it a show of unity boycotting an event that was overshadowed by forms of racism or is it ignorance where these countries should be uniting in the continued fight against racism and equality across the world. It would show a sign that our government, as well as other are united in this cause and that any problems that the world face's is tackled in an united cause and not ignore the problem by boycotting an event.

We live in one of the most diverse multi-cultural societies in the world and racism is not something that is a problem with the majority, it is only the minority that cause this issue. What we need to realise those is sometimes it takes a twitter rant from a famous singer to spark an debate that will also be rife in society and I felt I needed to comment about something that gets on my nerves when you see something you want to speak up.

 I am also not saying that the government do not tackle the problem of racism at home and abroad because we do, but I do not feel ignore chance to show a sign of united solidarity is the way to do it.

Tomorrow we will be back to normal with my political views of the day, but I just needed a forum to vent my opinion on something that is not right.

Kelis who today felt that the UK showed how they are "racially decades behind progression."

The day that the trade unions realised that they picked the wrong Miliband for the job

The relationship between the Labour Party and the trade unionists has always been close, dating back to the formation of the Labour Party during the late 19th century by the trade unions. The keynote speech from the Labour leader during the annual TUC conference is usually compared to a best man speech at a wedding. A speech full of rapture and applause with a few jokes thrown in as well. However, this was not the case yesterday when the next chapter of “Red Ed” took place yesterday afternoon. 

During Ed Miliband’s speech he was heckled and jeered when he admitted that the strikes taken by public sector workers over the summer was a “mistake.” The Labour leader was referring to the on going saga between the trade unions and the Coalition Government in respect of the changes to pension reform. This was not seen as the best move by the audience at the TUC conference as trade unions currently provides 80% of Labour's funding.

Today it has been announced that the four leading trade unions in the United Kingdom will consult members over the possibility of strike ballots over the pension reform. If the strike action is passed them potentially over 1.5 million public sector workers on strike, starting in November. The changes to pension reform would see public sector workers having to pay more money each month into their pension fund.

This has been met by fierce opposition from the trade unions who feel it is unfair that their members must pay more money at a time when public sector wages have been frozen and many public sector workers are losing their jobs or are being made redundant as a result of budget cuts. In theory, the Labour Party would normally back any action made by trade unions, however in this case they feel that it is unfair to the general public who would suffer from days of no transport or for students whose education could suffer if their teachers are on strike.

David Prentis, the leader of Unison, the biggest trade union in the public sector who had today announced the possible is a strike action has said to the TUC conference that “Now is the time to make our stand” and has admitted that the trade unions could potentially be “vilified” by the general public. The government response has stated that the impending strikes would make the general public “angry” and that the increase in pension contributions is needed to support an ageing population. This has been expressed in the increase to the retirement age with people potentially working until  the age of 70 by 2020. 

Unison has stated that they have amassed a war chest of £32.4 million to help finance any impending strike action, which would be similar to the strike action that has taken place across Southampton over the summer. With having first-hand experience of how the strikes have affected the quality of the living in the Southampton area where wheelie bins have overflowed and the streets in Southampton have amassed a level of rubbish, which was close to becoming a health and safety hazard.

Now imagine this on a nationwide scale, imagine weeks without your bins being collected, the streets  overflowing with rubbish and the increased possibility of transport networks being brought to a standstill with millions of commuters unable to get home… This is not the impending future we want to be living in.

I do agree that we have to save money on a nationwide scale, however I feel that the government should find different ways to save money or to have closer consultation with the trade unions to find a better solution to the problem. It is not just the workers who suffer, it is the general public as a whole whose livelihoods will be affected and may be brought to a complete standstill as a result of the impending strike action.

However, I feel that Ed Miliband and the entire Labour Party should work more closely with the trade unions, supporting the consultation process between them and the Coalition Government because ultimately he would not have been made Labour leader if it was not the change of votes from the trade unions in the final round of voting against his brother David earlier this year. In a time where there is high political unrest and where phone tapping and expense scandals have scarred the reputation of the British government, Ed Miliband needs to remember that it is not just the general public he needs to impress, it is the company's who support and fund his political vision.

In British politics you will never be able to please everyone, but in the case of the trade unions and the impending strike action that could affect the entire British nation it is up to the Coalition Government and the Labour Party to try and find a compromise, which will leave both parties happy and stop risking the tarnished reputation of which British politics has found itself in. If this is not the case then potentially we could see another Miliband taking the trip down from Sunderland in the foreseeable future and the final chapter of the tell of “Red Ed” may not be a happy one. 

The strained relationship between the trade unions and Ed Miliband has turned a darker shade of Red

Have you seen the new map of the United Kingdom? It is painted Blue

Well it has been a long and turbulent summer and I thought it was finally time that I did a blog. With my impending role as Political Correspondent on Winchester News online drawing ever closer, today's events was the perfect excuse to begin my own form of political satire.

The General Election of 2015 will see the biggest change in the Commons in over a century. The proposed plans to slash the number of MPs by 50 to 600 in 2015 and will see each constituency have nearly the same number of voters. The proposals will see a radical shakeup in constituency boundaries with some seats being merged, some new seats being created and some lost altogether.

The proposed changes have seen some of the leading members of the Coalition Government positions come under threat. These include Chancellor George Osborne for the Conservatives, Business Secretary Vince Cable and Energy Minister Chris Huhne for the Liberal Democrats and Shadow Cabinet members Ed Balls and Tessa Jowell for Labour.

I will come back to the changes to the political landscape in the South later, but I would like to focus on one MP whose constituency boundaries have not changed, Prime Minister David Cameron. It is not surprising that the Prime Minister’s constituency, Witney is not affected by any of the changes proposed. However, it is The Liberal Democrats within the coalition government who are who are the worst affected in these changes. For the 77 MPs whose seats are not affected it is another day at the office, but for the remaining 583 MPs it is time to reapply for their own job.

Now let's take a closer look at how the proposed changes will affect the political landscape in the South. Across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight there will be many changes to political constituencies these will include the formation of the new seat for Hamble and Hedge End, as well as the lost seats of Romsey and Southampton North and Meon Valley to be replaced by the new constituencies of New Forest East and Romsey and Fareham and Horndean. This means that MPs like Caroline Noakes and George Hollingbery may lose their jobs. In the case where two political constituencies will merge into one, MPs who lose their seats will have the chance to contest to be representative of the newly formed constituency in the next General Election.

There are also MPs who will gain and lose political wards in the boundary change. These include the Eastleigh constituency, which is currently held by Chris Huhne. The changes will see Huhne lose nearly half the voters in the Eastleigh seat and will gain around 39,000 from the surrounding Southampton Itchen and Winchester constituencies. This has made Chris Huhne one of the MPs most at risk of losing their seats in the next General Election.

In Hampshire one of the major changes, which has baffled me, is the change to the structure of the two Southampton seats and the newly formed seat of Hamble and Hedge End. In my constituency of Southampton Itchen the proposed changes would see the loss of the Bitterne ward, which includes the Thornhill area Southampton and the inclusion of the Bevois ward.

This is where I feel the proposed changes will have a negative effect because it will see areas of the city being represented by a completely different area outside of the city boundary and with these changes will it mean that the next changes will be the boundaries to local councils and unitary authorities.

What is clear is that the bias, which has affected the political landscape of the United Kingdom for over half a century, has still not been changed. The pledge of the government to have a fairer boundary limit were all MPs constituencies would be represented by roughly the same amount of people has not been changed. The government has said that the changes will say £12 million a year but in reality it is the equivalent of a large-scale restructuring plan and Conservative corporate takeover.

MPs who are most at risk and are now staring defeat in the face will now have to decide whether to contest the proposed changes in the 12 week consultancy period up to the end of December or face having to reapply for a new constituency. However, this could see MPs moving to an area where they can beat their fellow colleague to a “safe seat."  

If this is the case then I would advise that all Conservative MPs that Devon and Cornwall may be a nice place to move house from within the foreseeable future and any Labour MP that is looking to secure their job in the next General Election to set their Sat Nav to find the quickest route to Sunderland as soon as possible.

Within the next 12 weeks we will see arguing and moaning of every MP who feels that these changes could see them out of a job and joining the unemployment line. These changes were laid out to ensure there was a less biased political structure within the House of Commons, but it looks as if the real winners are the Conservatives who are likely to take a stranglehold within the House of Commons if the boundary commission's plans to England put in place.

If I was David Cameron then I would not be worried about losing his job at the next general election as it may be the case that the Conservatives will become the sole party in charge at 10 Downing Street. For many MPs today, their future may be summed up in the words of Conservative MP, Andrew Percy who has joked “I’m looking for a job.”  If I were Andrew Percy, I would hope I’m not eating those words in a year’s time. 

The futures bright, the future is Conservative... Possibly a steal of copyright, but this is what we could be waking up to the morning of the General Election in 2015. 

HCJ: The Dreyfus Affair and J'Accuse you of having to read this blog (Anything is worth reading when there is an affair involved)

Now I am afraid to say that this affair will not involve any sex, but it does have plentys of scandal. This scandal in particular involves a Captain in the French army, A corrupt governments and a journalist who wrote one of the most signifcant pieces of journalism in history.

Before we go any further into the scandal, it is time we open the classroom door and divulged into another history lesson. The year is 1871 and the French army have just been defeated by the Prussians in the Battle of Sedan. The Franco-Prussian war was brought about the Prussians and their leader Bismark who was trying to unify the Prussian and German states. The French army were led by Napoleon III, who unlike his namesake was not as ruthless a leader or a tactician.

This led to the eventual defeat of the French at Sedan and this lead to the provisional French government signing a armistice, but this came at a heavy price. They lost the Alsace Lorraine, which would become part of the newly formed German state and they had to pay a vast amount of money to Germany. This did not go down too well in Paris, who felt that the French government had let them down. However, there was a problem, the Germans had surrounded Paris and eventually seized control of the French capital, prior to the signing of the agreement.

This led to the Paris Commune where the landlords returned to Paris and demand the rent that they had missed out of and with interest on top. The new French national government had established control of the country, but this did not sit well with the proletariats who rebelled and this lead to the formation of the Paris commune between March and May 1871. The Commune had a strong female influence, as well as a combination of moderate socialists, left-wing activists and anarchists.

Karl Marx celebrated "the dictatorship of the proletariats" and had introduced social reforms, which separated the church and the state. At the same time it established better working rights and conditions for the proletariats. This did not sit well with the French government who returned and ruthlessly slaughtered the Commune and between 20,000 and 30,000 people were executed. Even though the Paris Commune was short lived it had a huge impact on the future of European politics.

Now that the history lesson if out the way, we can go back to why we are all reading this blog (seeing as the Alexa ranking competition has now ended and I finished with a Europa League spot). The Dreyfus Affair started in 1894 with the French still trying to rebuild their stature within Europe after the humiliation of 1871. They had begun to build a empire throughout Africa and Asia, but they were still concerned that they were still humiliated and decided to blame the defeat of the Jewish population of France.

The French believed that  the Jewish had formed a syndicate which worked to undermine the French people and this led to the blaming of two Jewish businessmen in the failure of the Panama land scandal. This laid the foundation for the first example of anti-semanticism in France who were very materialistic with the army being their main symbol of identity.

The main example of this was the capture of Captain Alfred Dreyfus who was accused of treason by the French army. Dreyfus was accused of leaking secret documents from the French military, which was found in a bin in the German embassy by a French spy. Dreyfus was used as the scapegoat due to his intelligence and his upbringing, which had been in the Alsace Lorraine region.

Dreyfus was secretly trialled and found guilty of treason and was sentenced to life on Devil's Island. The trial pitted the right who were represented by the Army, the Catholic Church and the Monarchists against the left who were represented by the Socialists, the Jews and the intellectuals.

Later on a French officer looked further into the case and found that the evidence given in the trial was wrong. It showed who the real culprit was, an office called Esterhazy, however the officer's superiors dismissed the evidence. They quoted this by asking the officer "What is it to you if a Jew rots on Devil's Island?"

The stop the speculation, The French military put Esterhazy on trial and was acquitted. This did not sit well with Journalist Emile Zola who had been reporting on the trial. Zola published his feelings in the article J'Accuse on January 13 1898 on the front page of L'Aurore as a direct letter to the then French President, Felix Faure.

Zola accused the French military of being anti-semetic against Dreyfus and stated that the Faure was unaware of the truth. Lieutenant Colonel Du Paty De Clam was the office who carried out the Dreyfus affair, but Zola felt that he used Dreyfus as a scapegoat and did not take the case seriously. De Clam was described by Zola as the 1st culprit of the affair.

The memo, which was the property of Colonel Sandherr "disappeared". The memo had come from the office of the high command. Commander De Clam automatically frames Dreyfus without proper investigation. Zola claimed that De Clam had hypnotised the other officers of the high command to follow his orders. Zola also claimed the charge as "a childish affair" and "the most impudent of hoaxes."

The affair was carried out under closed doors and Dreyfus's intelligence was seen as a crime, according to Zola. All of the officers involved in the affair belonged to the war offices. Zola claimed that Commander De Clam was the clerical medium after the hunting of the "dirty jews" who was as far left politically as you could go.

The Esterhazy affair was corrupt as the memo was not mentioned and The High Command ensured he was found not guilty. Major Picquart was seen as a honest man by Zola as he pleaded that the truth was revealed, but was seen on a mission to Tunisia to keep him quiet, but was not told this otherwise. Every other general in the High Command was accused of protecting Esterhazy, when really is the Commander De Clam who was pulling the strings.

Zola praised Major Picquart as being the only honest officer in the High Command. General De Pellieux is accused by Zola by leading a investigation where "rascals are transfigured and decent people are dirtied." Zola then accuses the council of war of being corrupt and dishonest. This was expressed in the quote, "The Dreyfus Affair is the affair of the department of war."


Zola describes the French President as a "prisoner of the constitution" as he is unaware of the ongoing corruption. Zola concludes J'Accuse by accusing 7 groups of people of conspiring or being apart of the Dreyfus Affair. Zola accused them of the following:

1. Commander Du Paty De Clam for being the workman of this miscarriage of justice.

2. General Mercier of being an gutless accomplice.

3. General Billot of ignoring the evidence of Dreyfus's innocence.

4. General De Boisdeffre and General Gonse as accomplices of the same crime.

5. General De Pellieux and Commander Rovary of performing a rogue investigation.

6. The three handwriting experts of submitting fraudulent and untrue reports.

7.  The officers of the war of an unfair press campaign in order to foil the public and cover up the truth.

Zola fled to London after the publication of J'Accuse because of fears of being sentenced to Prison over the article, but the article lead to Anti-Jewish riots across France. However, the French army started to recognise of the affair and brought Dreyfus back from Devil's Island a broken man, but was retried and found guilty with "extenuating circumstances."

Emile Zola article was revolutionary and was one of the first prime examples of investigative journalism and also established a new type of Journalism, which when we discussed this in the seminar we concluded that this type of Journalism is not seen as much anymore in modern western society. It is a type of social Journalism where you write or broadcast about something that you a passion for and that you want to show how something is wrong.

J'Accuse is seen today still as one of the most influential articles in the history of Journalism and is a prime example of if you express your disapproval of something and speak up, then eventually maybe the right thing will be done.

William Cobbett and a Tale of Rural Rides, Corn Laws and The Irish Potato Famine (God I'm feeling ill even reading the title)

William Cobbett was born on 9th March 1763 in Farnham, Surrey. During his youth he worked as a farm labourer in Botley, Hampshire and this is where he learnt his trade, which would ultimately be the backdrop for his 1830 novel, Rural Rides.

However, before I go any further into explaining Rural Rides and it's importance, I am going to go back in time and give you a brief contextual history lesson. William Cobbett before he wrote Rural Rides had previously self-exiled himself to America from Britain because of fears of being imprisoned due to his revelations about corruption within the Army. He fled to France and then America and this is where he began to publish his journalistic views.

Cobbett was self-educated and it was this that helped him publish his Pro-British pamphlet, but brought upon a lawsuit from the American settlers and in fear of again being potentially imprisoned, Cobbett fled back to Britain. This is where the journalism of Cobbett started to take affect on society with the publication of The Weekly Political Register. The most significant thing about this was that to avoid stamp duty, Cobbett again published the register as a pamphlet and at it's peak had a circulation of 40,000, which was around the same number of copies being sold as The Times.

Cobbett was also an outspoken advocate of the abolition of Rotten Boroughs. Rotten Boroughs were political constituency that were controlled by single person, who would have control of over a very small electorate and would use this power to elect a person who could obtain the person undue power across government. Now this may still seem a little bit confusing, therefore I think I will leave it to the comical genius of Rowan Atkinson and Richard Curtis to further explain Rotten Boroughs;



Now that you have been given a brief background biography of William Cobbett and the chance for a mid-blog giggle, I think it is time we moved back onto the main topic of this blog post, Rural Rides.

Rural Rides was written about the journeys that William Cobbett had taken on horseback through the rural countryside of southern England. His main aim of this was to show how the working class, the farm labourers of the countryside were affected by the introduction of the Corn Laws and the affects brought upon by the Industrial Revolution.

The countryside was something close to the heart of William Cobbett, due to his past experience of working on the farm as a youngster. Cobbett's opinions base the core of his novel, which he relates to the greedy "tax-eaters" who were the land owners taking money from the farm labourers and not sharing the money evenly throughout the social scale. The damaging effect of this was that these "tax-eaters" were not based in the countryside and were obtaining additional wealth from the ever-growing populated industrial cities, such as Birmingham and Manchester.

The farmers had become increasingly unaware of the changes going on around them, according to Cobbett and in his first journey described this sense of unknown as the "fog" that was engulfing the countryside and stripping the labourers from it's foundations from the countryside into the smog and inhuman working conditions of the factories within the industrial cities.

This was brought upon by the Corn Laws; these laws were import tariffs to protect the price of corn in the United Kingdom. This stopped free trade between nations, but was seen as a way to enrich the landowners and the government, but this was not the case for the farmers and labourers. The increased competition meant that farmers had to cuts prices to increase demand, but at the same time were making an increasing loss due to the taxes they had to pay to their landowners.

Cobbett expressed how that the farm labourers were "different sorts of men", compared to their land owners and the people living in the industrialised cities and compared the labourers to dogs. He also described the grim livings conditions which the labourers had to live in and that he used this as an example of how they lived as on his travel Cobbett would wake up and would not eat until three in the afternoon when he would put bread and cheese off a labourer.

This reflected the lives of the labourers on a day-to-day basis and was one of the few examples where William Cobbett truly showed empathy towards the labourers of the countryside.

Cobbett was a radical who was ultimately fighting for the basic human rights of the labourers and was hoping that he could establish the ways, which had been before the introduction of the Corn Laws and The Enclosure Act. This saw the large strips of farmland being taken over by the landowners who would in turn sell the land to families at increased rates. These rates were too much and this was the main reason for the mass exodus of families and workers from the countryside into the cities to work in the industrial factory boom.

Rural Rides I feel can be seen as a propaganda against the Conservative government who had driven the countryside out of Great Britain. However if you look at the changes from the view of Hegel, he would argue that even though William Corbett is trying to preserve the foundations of the traditional countryside, the "Geist" of the time is changing the landscape of the British economy and that Cobbett is powerless in stopping this change as it is bound to continue and progress.

Final Radio Bulletin Script

I'm back again, this time with the full script for my final radio news bulletin:

Good morning I am Louis O’Brien and here is your local news in Hampshire

Bosses at Hampshire County Council are planning to hire a "broadband tsar" after the application to improve the high-speed broadband system in the county was accepted. 

The new project leader will earn an estimated £100,000 a year to improve high-speed Internet access to areas across the county. This comes in the midsts of the council planning to axe 1,200 jobs in a bid to save £55 million from the budget.  

The scheme is due to begin later this year. 

Duration: 25 seconds.

Speeding has become a major problem in Winchester. One of the main hotspots is St Cross Road, which is a major route in and out of the city.

Local residents have joined councillors in their stance to try and change the speed limits from 40 to 30mph. This has come after several failed attempts to try and stop the problem.

Local Councillor Fiona Mather explains the true extent of the issue

Duration: 21 seconds.

AUDIO IN: “What gives quote a lot of evidence….”

AUDIO OUT: “…Trigged quite a lot of times”

Duration: 14 seconds.

Combined Duration: 39 seconds.

In other news there has been a series of purse thefts across Winchester.  It is believed that organized teams are travelling into the city and targeting the elderly and vulnerable. These series of thefts have seen in some cases large amounts of money stolen.

Hampshire Police says we tackle purse theft through high visibility patrol work, educating potential victims, and by conducting undercover operations. They say that these incidents do not happen every day.

Duration: 24 seconds.

And finally a notion, led by the Winchester Liberal Democrats over the proposed NHS reforms set out by the coalition government has been overwhelmingly backed. The group led by Martin Tod, the parliamentary candidate for Winchester in the 2010 General Election have rebelled against the reforms.

This would see the biggest shake-up of the NHS since it’s inception in 1948. The plans set out are to give power to local GP’s on how they can spend their budget

Dr Graham Winyard, the Chairman of the Winchester Liberal Democrats is also a former Medical Director for the NHS. Dr Winyard explained his reasons against the reform.

Duration: 35 seconds.

AUDIO IN: “I think they are unnecessary… “

AUDIO OUT: “….Without significant support”

Duration: 12 seconds.

Combined duration: 38 seconds.

Bulletin’s total duration: 2’17

Final Radio News Bulletin

Right I have a major problem with trying to covert my radio bulletin into a Youtube video, but have found an alternative in the creative wizard which is Soundcloud. Here is the end product:


Radio News Final Bulletin by lobrien1

Hope you all enjoy and are not put asleep before the end of the bulletin!