The Little Blue Man

Courts and Reporting

2010-12-14T13:31:00.000-08:00

In common-law jurisdictions, such as the UK, Canada and New Zealand, an indictable offence is one where the most serious kind of crime has been committed, such as rape, theft and murder. These types of offence are too serious to be dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court, and so they must go to Crown Court, which is the ‘higher court of the first instance’ because they must be tried in front of a jury.

If a defendant has pleaded not guilty at their committal hearing (this takes place at the magistrates’ court) then the case is sent to trial at the Crown Court. The facts of the case are presented to the 12 people of the jury by both the prosecution and the defence, and any witnesses involved are questioned. This process can vary in time from 1 day for small cases to several weeks if the crime is particularly serious or if there are a large of witnesses to go through.

If the jury find the defendant guilty, then they will come back at a later date for their sentence. A typical sentence could be either serving time in prison, receiving a fine or community service, depending on the nature of the crime. Before sentencing, both the prosecution and defence barristers will argue a ‘plea’, each one stating their case on why the defendant should or should not get a lesser or greater punishment. The judge will then deliberate and decide on the appropriate sentence. The sentencing process is also the same for those who have pleaded guilty straight away.

Contempt of Court and Prejudice - This most affects journalists when reporting on a crime and publish material that may have an effect on a trial. Publishing prejudicial material may make a juror more likely to either find a defendant guilty or innocent.

Prejudice- Where publication of certain material may effect the way in which the defendant is treated, for example if the jury already know the defendants previous crimes.

Contempt - When material is published which are in breech of the rules of crime or court reporting.

there are 4 stages if processing and reporting a crime.

1. The crime has just been reported. The journalist has arrived at the scene of the crime. The police are out looking for the perpetrators. At this point the reporter is free to report with no risk prejudice.

2.The case becomes legally active, the police have made an arrest or say someone "is helping with inquires". Reporters must be careful what they say here as they may be at risk of prejudice. Be especially careful when reporting on descriptions of suspects.

3. The police lay charges. This means that there will be a trial. So anything you say now can not effect they way the defendant will be treated in court. You may only report on certain facts that you know wont be in contempt of court. Report on feeling, colour and emotion.

4. Magistrates court hearing, now you are very limited to what you can say -

Names of defendants, ages, addresses, occupations

Charges faced or a close summary

Name of court and magistrates names

Names of solicitors or barristers present

Date and place to where case is adjourned

Bail (only whether granted or not) and bail arrangements

Whether legal aid was granted

Breach Of Confidence

2010-12-14T09:13:00.000-08:00

As defined in Mcnaey's - Breach of confidence is based upon the principle that a person who has obtained information in confidence should not take unfair advantage of it.

Governments use breach of confidence in order to protect certain information which they believe to be a secret. Individuals use it for the same reasons and also to protect privacy and this use of breech of confidence received strong support when the Human Rights Act was implemented in 2000.

Mr Justice Megarry said there are three main parts in a breach of confidence;

1. The information must have 'the necessary quality of confidence'

2. The information must have been imparted in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence; and

3. there must be unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it.

The Quality of Confidence

So the law of breech of confidence is to safe guard information obtained in confidential circumstances. However information which is either factual or trivial does not count as being confidential such as a companies canteen menu or if information is already in the public domain.

The official Secret act

This is simply to protect state secrets such as military or intelligence. Publishing what is regarded as sensitive military images or or photographs is an criminal offence. A good case study to look at here is David Shayler. He is a British journalist and former MI5 security officer who became widely known after being prosecuted under the official secret act for passing on secrets documents to The Mail on Sunday in 1997. He suggested that MI5 were paranoid and that Labour party ministers such as Tony Blair had previously looked into it. At the trial Shayler claimed that the Official Secrets Act was incompatible with the Human Rights Act and that "it was not a crime to report a crime" although these arguments were ruled out by the court with the latter being ruled irrelevant. Shayler's defence attempted to argue that there were no other paths to pursue his concerns with the service. The judge ruled that while this was true it was irrelevant and therefore Shayler was found guilty under the Official Secret act and was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.

Commercial Confidentiality - Normally between an employee and employer. For example a kebab shop worker couldn't tell the rival kebab shop over the road any financial information which may affect the company.

In a way lectures and students have a degree of confidentiality. If a student was to talk to a lecturer in private, the lecturer would not be allowed to repeat this information to other colleagues or students. However, if a lecturer was asked to provide a reference for a student, they would have almost a duty to say anything they feel may affect the outcome. If the reference was for a job that student was applying for, and the lecturer knew a good reason to why the student should not get the job, then like I said they have a duty to say so.

Privacy

An good case study in breech of privacy is the Max Mosley case. He won £60,000 in his privacy action against The news of the World who had incorrectly accused him of having a "sick Nazi Orgy" Although the allegations may have been true, it was not in the public interest and therefore a breech of privacy.

Mr Justice Eady said that Mosley had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in relation to his sexual activities no matter how "unconventional".

He found no evidence of Nazi themes in the orgy and said Mosley's life had been "ruined".

"I found that there was no evidence that the gathering on March 28 2008 was intended to be an enactment of Nazi behaviour or adoption of any of its attitudes. Nor was it in fact. I see no genuine basis at all for the suggestion that the participants mocked the victims of the Holocaust," Eady said. "There was bondage, beating and domination which seem to be typical of S&M behaviour.

"But there was no public interest or other justification for the clandestine recording, for the publication of the resulting information and still photographs, or for the placing of the video extracts on the News of the World website – all of this on a massive scale." (gurdian.co.uk)

Copy Copyright

2010-12-14T04:26:00.000-08:00

Copyright: Exclusive rights granted to the creator of original work, allowing them print or publish and give others the right to do the same. Its purpose is to protect intellectual property.

As soon as an idea is given physical form such as a piece of writing, a film or a photograph it is automatically protected by copyright. You do not need to register your work as it is protected upon creation. This still applies even if the work is unpublished.

Fair Dealing

"the use of copyrighted material in such a way that it does not infringe on the copyright of that material. The Copyright Act provides that "any fair dealing" with a work for the purposes of private study or research, or for criticism, review, or news reporting is not an infringement. However, in the case of criticism, review, or news reporting, the user is required to give the source and the author's, performer's, sound recording maker's or broadcaster's name if known." (http://guides.library.ualberta.ca)

A good example of this is something that I as production editor of WINOL experienced. We had an interview with the one and only Chesney Hawkes. We wanted to use a clip of to introduce the interview of Chesney singing his number one "The one and Only". We found a clip on the internet which was owned by FMI music. We wanted to use the clip under the "fair dealing" rules. Although the clip it's self was 5 minuets long, we would only be able to use 5 seconds under the fair dealing terms. We also had to talk over the clip and credit the creator of the work itself. I feel that this is a good example of fair dealing.

For your information...I mean.....Freedom of information

2010-12-14T02:59:00.000-08:00

Freedom of information as defined by UK definitions;

"The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is an act of the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament defining the ways in which the public may obtain access to government-held information. The intent is to allow private individuals and corporations reasonable access to information while minimizing the risk of harm to any entity. The concept was first put forward in 1997, was passed in 2000 and came into full effect in 2005. A similar act was passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2002."

Although FOI is extremely popular especially amongst journalists it is not so widely appreciated by MPs due to its restriction on privacy. Tony Blair when interviewed by Andrew Marr expressed his regret at installing the Freedom of Information Act, referring to himself in first person:

"You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it."

He described it as dangerous saying that governments need to be able to discuss matters with a reasonable level of confidentiality and blamed Journalists for using it as a 'weapon'. But now with the FOI anyone can request almost any information they want on a public body. In Tony went on to say

"If you are trying to take a difficult decision and you're weighing up the pros and cons, you have frank conversations... And if those conversations then are put out in a published form that afterwards are libel to be highlighted in particular ways, you are going to be very cautious. That's why it's not a sensible thing."

A February 2008 Freedom of Information Act request for the release of details of MPs' expenses claims was allowed by an Information Tribunal exposed the parliamentary expenses scandal. This was a massive story on what Mp's were claiming millions of pounds on. This was all leaked by the Daily Telegraph which began publishing details in daily instalments from 8 May 2009.

Should we get rid of the FOI act? in my very humble opinion certainly not. If they were to abolish it information like the the expenses scandal would never have been released or even known. So although it may be annoying and inconvenient for MPs, it is certainly not an inconvenience for us journalists!

Libel Qualified Privilege

2010-12-14T01:23:00.001-08:00

Libel

A false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person.

If you make a defamourty statement you;

-Lower someone in the estimation of right thinking members of the public.

-Causes someone to be shunned or avoided

-Disparages someone in their business, trade, office or profession

-Exposes someone the hatred, ridicule or contempt.

Defences;

Justification - Its true....you have evidence or you can prove it

Fair or honest comment - if it is an honest opinion based on facts or privilege matter, and comment must be of public interest.

Absolute Privilege

Qualified privilege (read further down)

Reynolds Defence - you are allowed to publish when the matter is in the public interest. It must also meet the ten points on Nicholls' list. (read below)

Definition as defined by the British Columbia Court of Appeal;

"The essence of the defence (of qualified privilege) is a duty, legal, social or moral, to publish the matter complained of to persons with a corresponding duty or interest to receive it."

Qualified Privilege is one of the defences against libel. It allows a reporter to publish defamatory statements under certain circumstances. There are two types of qualified privilege.

Common Law Qualified Privilege

It is ok to make a defamatory comments provided it is in public interest. This does not mean that it is simply interesting. The allegation made when reporting must be fair, accurate and without malice.

Statutory Qualified Privilege

Journalists can attract this QP in many places such as public meetings, council meetings etc but the main two places would be court and parliament. As long as the journalist reports fast accurate and fair in order to avoid malice then they are in no danger of any libel action. The report must also be balanced. So here you must give the accused a chance to deny the allegations made towards them. This must be included in the same report, i.e "he denies the charges" and "the case continues". If you don't do this you will lose you qualified privilege and be at serious risk of libel.

ALBERT REYNOLDS vs SUNDAY TIMES

Following the resignation of Irish Prime minister Albert Reynolds, the Sunday Times published an article saying that Reynolds had lied to the Irish Parliament in order to cover a child abuse scandal. Although when challenged by Reynolds there was no evidence and they could not prove anything. However when the case came back into light in 1989 the court felt that "the Sunday Times" had a duty to publish what they knew as it was in the public interest.

So journalist now can now attract the Reynold defence so long as it passes the 10 point test made by Lord Nichols which are;

1. The seriousness of the allegation – the more serious the allegation, the more protection will be applied. If not at all serious then no protection can be enjoyed.

2. The nature of the information - is it a matter of public concern or in the public interest?

3 . The source of the information. If it is an authoritative source you may publish the statement made even if it turns out to be untrue.

4. The steps taken to verify the information.

5. The status of the information. Would need to ensure that this was not a repeat allegation.

6. The urgency of the matter.

7. Whether comment was sought from the claimant

8. Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant’s side of the story

9. The tone of the article.

10. The circumstances of the publication

And that is more or less it really that I can think of. The most important point to remember and must stress is that any report made where you wish to attract Qualified Privilege must be FAST ACCURATE AND FAIR to avoid and MALICE

Defamation: Not what the Doctor Ordered

2010-12-07T09:59:00.000-08:00

Your reputation is very important to yourself and those around you. I would say it is even more important in your career. To damage your reputation in the mind of right thinking people will lead to all kind of problems. In every profession your reputation is everything, none more so than if your a doctor!

One of the most famous cases in which a doctor was defamed was that of Dr. Rahamim. He was described by channel 4/ITN as a 'Bogus Doctor'. They made the following allegations;

1. First that Mr. Rahamim was probably responsible for the death or serious injury of many of his patients including two who had died during their operations.

2. Secondly that Mr Rahamim was not competent to practice as a consultant thoracic surgeon and that he was seriously under qualified and inadequately trained.

3. Thirdly that he had fraudulently obtained his post as a Consultant by misrepresenting his qualifications and employment history.

4. Fourthly that Mr. Rahamim had dishonestly sent out letters to local GPs in which he had falsely described himself as an FRCS.

5. Fifthly that he had dishonestly concealed from his employers the fact that as a result of injuries sustained in a road accident he was unable to operate safely.

6. Lastly that by reason of these matters the GMC ought to have Mr. Rahamim struck off.

These were serious allegations which led to multiple investigations into the work of Dr. Rahamim.

After finding no real evidence of any of the above being true, Dr. Rahmim sued in excess of £175,000.

The full statement in open court can be read here.

Whilst on the topics of Doctors and suing I have come across a couple more examples. It would seem its not always the press that we sue as I found out in this next case. in 1991 GP Dr. Smith was awarded £50,000 after a slanderous allegation made by fellow college Dr. Houston saying that Dr.Smith had groped both her and other female colleges.

So it would seem we have to be careful what we say in this world. Turns out a defame a day wont keep the doctor away!

PART 1 - -

2010-05-29T14:40:00.001-07:00

The election night,

So i get back to my house and put on my shirt, ready to be a TV star, or a round up guy, which ever you prefer. I made sure my hair was tidy and smart (not possible) and that my shoes were nicely polished.

So how did it all start? Well with a can of red bull to be frank. Then I was straight onto the computer gathering information, scanning for any extra information that I could add in. Frantically typing away as quick as my little fingers would allow, I altered my script preparing for the live round up. Then as the clock struck 9.55 pm I hit print...but disaster! No paper! none anywhere! so I ended up using my original script with scribbles and pen markings all over the place for the first live round up. So off I went into the MMC to go on camera. The most nerve racking part was not going on camera, but having only the length of the intro VY (8 seconds) to swap over the radio microphones. scary stuff, especially as I dropped mine on the first hand over. In a way sort of like a relay race in the fact you have to hand over the baton! sweaty hands, slippery radio mics, it was mad! After that it was back to the news room to type up my next script for the 11 o clock round up.

Not many people were in the news room. There was more milk than anything else which I must say was getting increasingly warm. This was a big concern of mine as I don't really like tea and coffee, I'm more of a milk man. However I couldn't let this distract me now, I was doing well on my second script and it was approaching the 11 o 'clock round up.

Aswas walked back into the MMC, the scent of hard work was more evident in the air. The smell of the sweat oozing out of everyone's body dominated the oxygen. I didn't want to hang around and so I didn't, I decided to suss out the gallery and see what was going on. Now I thought the MMC was bad, but when that gallery door opened I probably lost a couple of stone with the heat wave that hit me. Better than any sauna I've ever been in. Nevertheless the gallery all seemed to be in control. Everything was calm and everyone was working well as a team. So I left back to the news room where I was greeted by Tom giving a very energetic and enthusiastic live news update.

Socialism Hayek, Fred!

2010-05-26T06:53:00.000-07:00

I was unaware that Hayek had such strong views on socialsm. He claimed that socialism was "impossible in a technical sense" and that it was a "solution that was not a solution" . I am still wrapping my brains and trying to dig deeper by what he really means. I have watched the video bellow quite a few times analysing what he is saying and the points he raises.

2010-05-26T06:44:00.000-07:00

An example of existentialism? Not really sure what the video is trying to say here? Bit confused, is it just to show that we only know what is going on that second ? The guys asks if anything is wrong yet he is covered in blood ? Do we just take other peoples word for what they say ? I find this video odd and yet intriguing and interesting. Is this somewhat of what life might be like if we all lived in the existentialist universe ?

track me

2010-04-22T03:41:00.000-07:00

New Journalism - - Observe...

2010-04-20T00:44:00.000-07:00

New Journalism was a style of writing that came about in the 1960's and 1970's. It tend to throw the conventional rules of being fast accurate a fair.... because this was simply boring and boring hides the truth. The main two leaders of this writing style were that of Tom Wolfe and Hunter S Thompson...who were both on drugs!

One of the techniques in which Wolfe used was that of observation, where he would simply observe and show what he was seeing though his eyes.

Does this still happen today ? Of crouse it does especially in documentaries but not so much in news. If you look at journalists such as Louis Theroux, in all his documentaries he appears on camera a lot, everything we see is what Louis sees and therefore being Louis opinion. Says it how it is.

I too like to adopt this New journalism writing style except I do not really write. I like to people watch, observe peoples lives. I like to call this people watching. Is that really new journalism ? Probably not and probably unrelated but hey ho, it filled another couple of lines!

Wings of Desire...A City of Angels

2010-04-17T07:29:00.000-07:00

I have to say, I struggled to watch this film. I found myself sitting there in the lecture room with my eyes closing every other line, after all it was about angles. I blame the floating angle camera like movements! Despite this I did still manage to watch it and understand it.

Wings of Desire is about an angel (Damiel) who wishes for mortality after falling in love with a human. The change over from angel to becoming mortal is emphasised though the use of colour change. Going from black and white into colour. This is to help show that Damiel now has a completely different way of experiencing life.

This reminded me very much of another film I had seen many years ago called City of Angels starring Nicolas Cage. This is a film again in which an angel wishes to become mortal in order to feel, touch and love a woman he has fallen in love with. However becoming mortal doesn't come cheap. Once mortal there is no going back. Unlike Wings of Desire this film has no happy ending. Once seth (the angel) finally becomes mortal to share his life with the woman he is in love with she dies in a car crash only hours after experiencing life with Seth.

Nothing space and time

2010-03-01T03:02:00.000-08:00

This is just a thought...however its a blog.

I've often thought about this thought many times before, but after the lecture on Thursday it really got that thought going again.

I'm slightly scared to share my thought at the risk of you thinking im rather weird but I'm sure you do already so I may as well. And I just thought, Ive used the word thought quite a lot already....well that is just because I have put a lot of thought into this blog.

Anyway, that aside here goes..

Now when I was a lot younger I always used to try and imagine not being alive. But I never could. It was a too big a thought for my little brain. I could not comprehend what not being alive would be like. I still can't although I can create a slightly better picture in my mind of what nothingness might be like in my eyes.

Try taking this one stage further, what if your parents didn't exist, what if no one ever existed, what if the world did not exist. What would there be. Fact -at one point billion and billion of years ago there was no form of human existence and earth did not exist. And before space? Well Einstein would argue that there was literally nothing as time did not yet exist. The question I am asking is what is nothing? Well I suppose that nothing is nothing, something we would not recognise if we saw it, or be able to describe it. Its the whole idea of the obelisk from 2001 space odyssey.

Anyway I am very aware this may not make a lot of sense. But if you were to listen to someone who had seen nothing then described 'nothing' to you, I'm sure it wouldn't make a lot of sense either.

The fact is we will never know what nothing is like. I suppose its like being dead.....maybe?

McDonaolds - Whos lovin' it?

2010-01-26T06:08:00.000-08:00

I am having to write this blog to meet the deadline as I am having problems uploading my video blog due to video size, however I shall upload asap.

Orwell was massive on advertising. So with my Orwellian mind I decided to look at McDonald's advertising campaign 'I'm lovin' it'.

Basically they are saying that everyone loves McDonald's. Do they? Do we? Do we love MacDonald's? Well apparently so. If that is the case explain this....

McJob - slang for a low-paying, low-prestige job that requires few skills and offers very little chance of intracompany advancement.

Well obviously the McDonald's workers are not lovin' it are they? So that's a lie. So who is lovin' it?The people who eat there perhaps ? Well who does eat there? Depressed obese people? Well they certainly are not lovin' it. There must be someone who is lovin' it. Kids! When they get their happy meals they are delighted! But when they realise they have not got the toy inside the box they wanted it all end in tears and they are no longer lovin' it.

So is McDonalds lying by claiming that "i'm lovin it". Well if you ask me (and it would appear anyone else) then yes! No one is 'lovin it'!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PXkk5WuG10

Even in the advert they are not happy. But what are they doing hear? This advert sends me to sleep! It is like a lullaby. What are we supposed to be lovin'? The food ? The people? The only part in this advert that I was lovin' was the music and the fact it only lasted 40 seconds!

Anyway, I am beginning to digress. The point is I do not think that a lot of people are lovin' McDonalds. Even if they are...what is they are lovin' ? Well heres one fact for you....McDonalds, I'm definitely not lovin' it

2010-01-26T05:47:00.000-08:00

orwell orwell orwell

2010-01-09T02:10:00.000-08:00

Let me start off by saying this was a really good read. George Orwell shows how the government try and control the nation simply though manipulative language. He says how the government believed that if they removed a word from our vocabulary that it would remove the action its self. For example, if you remove the violence, there will never be any more violence.

The book 1984 focuses on the character of George smith who works for the government, censoring newspapers to erase what had happened in the past. Hence the phrase “he who controls the present, controls the past , he who controls the past controls the future. “ In the book they produce a new (tiny) dictionary known as newspeak. Word meanings had been changed such as ‘love is hate and peace is war.
Now to me, this is all a load of rubbish. How could this ever possibly work? It is clear that it does not work. It has been tried before and has failed. I mean just look at the UK. We try to remove racist words from vocab. Sure we can do that but does it solve the problem of racism? Of course it doesn’t. Unfortunately racism still exists. As for word change, well you’ve the ministry of defence for that one! Used to be called Ministry of war, and now defence. What exactly are we defending? Was the word war too violent?
I don’t think I’ll ever get my head round what the purpose of doing such things, its all a bit crazy for me!

A Freud Dog!

2010-01-09T02:09:00.000-08:00

I believe there’s a bit of Freud in all of us especially dogs and especially my dogs! How I hear you ask? Well it is simple. Freud says we are all motivated by sex. That it is our natural instinct. For a dog what is life all about? That’s right, eating and humping! They will hump anything that walks or talks or anything that they can straddle.
Now Freud claimed that we are not who we really think we are due to society suppressing us and damaging us. Now for a dog, society is not telling them anything. In other words a dog is what it really is. So when you see a dog, you can be assured that the dog is showing its true colours doing what it wants, how it wants, when it wants. It is not being told how to live life. But, and there is a but, what if the dog has been castrated or neutered? The dog is no longer motivated by sex because they no longer have the urge for it. Therefore Freud would argue that the dogs has been
We can go even further with this with Freud’s work ‘On the analysis of dreams’ again relating it to dogs, my dogs. Freud said that the human brain consisted of two parts. The conscious and subconscious and that it was when these two half’s conflict causes emotional unhappiness. Freud described dreams as the royal high way to the subconscious. Now I believe that I can see all of this is my dogs. Let me give you an example. I don’t normally watch my dogs when they sleep, but this one night, Chester, my younger dog was barking while he was asleep. At first I found this amusing to watch but then I began to think. Obviously he is dreaming, but I believe that his conscious and subconscious parts of his brain were conflicting and there for causing emotional unhappiness. I knew he was unhappy as when he woke up he was very quiet which is extremely unlike him. So bad dreams lead to bad moods. Now whenever I see my dogs twitch while they sleep or suddenly do something strange in their sleep, I know thanks to Freud it’s because their conscious and subconscious are conflicting.

Thoughts on Joyce!

2010-01-08T06:20:00.000-08:00

Now unfortunately I’m one of those readers who when reading a book can drift off a little. I can read up to 10 pages and then completely forgot what I’ve just read due to lack of concentration. So i endlessly find myself reading the same pages over and over again and as you can imagine, not a great reading style for James Joyce’s book Ulysses. I had estimated to myself that I could finish reading it within three days or so. Two weeks it took. Two weeks! Now that I’ve finished the book I can safely say that I didn’t understand any of it! But that is the point is it not? Well perhaps not, but it’s not the plot which I feel that was important but more Joyce’s writing style. Writing in the stream of consciousness is what made this book very confusing but also very interesting. Despite not really understanding everything I read, I did manage to pick up the fact that the book shows the same event from different people’s minds to show how we all react different in different situations.
Joyce was a massive icon for modernism. His work also reflects the ideas of Sigmund Freud. For example when Molly Bloom talks about love and men she says “he was as good as any other”. This humanises the characters, and as Freud says we are all motivated by sex. So really Joyce is relating to his readers bringing it to a human level.
I’ve got to admit, its an extremely clever way of writing. If I was to shut my eyes and write in the style of stream of consciousness it wouldn’t work look.....
Wait why is that there? Ha nice. The red plastic, oh look, that good isn’t it. What? Ok stop now.
Now that was purely what was going on in my head for those few seconds. Imagine 300 pages of that?
However despite the book taking me a while to read I did enjoy it. A very interesting writing style, something I have never experienced before.

Could I ever make money ?

2010-01-05T17:27:00.001-08:00

Me and my money making techniques

Now let’s be honest; we are all motivated by money right? Well perhaps not but I sure am. Normally when I’m involved in something, it’s because money is involved. I've tried many different money making techniques in my time and if I’m brutally honest, I am rubbish at it. But as they say, you can only improve, or at least that's what I thought.

I have always been driven by money, ever since I was fat little baby. (Not that fat) At the age of 5, I set up my own shop, which was located in my bedroom. I would sell anything I could find in the house. I would normally go for the items I knew my mum liked the most as that way she would just have to buy it back off me. Being only 5, I wasn’t aware of the items real value, so I saw most of my products going for 1 or 2 p perhaps 3p if I was lucky. So right from the beginning I was a smart thinker...sort of.

The shop didn’t last long, small businesses never do. However I didn’t let ot get my down and at the age of 10 I started cleaning my dad’s car for £3. This is where I started making real money. £3 a week plus £2 pocket money? I was raking it in! And because I didn’t really need to spend money at that age I saved a lot very quickly! I felt like a money making machine!!!

As time went on, so did my age. I got taller, my hair grew longer, got a dog, fed the cat, got another dog, everything was going on, and it was chaos! While all this was happening, I realised my money in my bank was no longer going up, but it was going down! Now I’m a journalist and this was news to me. I needed to make money, but right now my life was too hectic! I didn’t have the time. So I needed to find some way of making that money but with minimal effort. That’s when I welcomed myself to the world of eBay.

I didn’t really have anything to sell, I just liked the idea of it. However, as I browsed the many many pages of eBay, I finally found the perfect item for sale. It was only, 0.99p, free postage and packaging, it was irresistible. Product title “How to get rich quick” Item description – “want to make money on eBay without doing or selling anything? Then buy this and I’ll send you an email telling you how to do exactly that” Now I’ve been known as a bit of a bargain hunter and my god, was this a bargain! Basically, looking back, I am an idiot. Of course I was not going to get rich quick was I ? Anyway I received the email as promised and this is what I read “Congratulations. Now to get rich, simply create a listing like mine, Thank you purchasing” I have been officially conned. Never the less I wanted to get my 0.99p back. So I did create my own listing of “Get rich quick”. I didn’t sell a single copy. Surprise surprise. Anyway, I could go on and on, so I will. Being conned, then failing to con anyone myself was terrible. I had taken a big hit in the money making world.

I felt like running away. Make a fresh start elsewhere in world of money making. So I did. I took a different approach. I created my own website with Google ads didn’t I? Yeah I did! I didn’t make much money on this, but it was a start! I had finally made money online!! And it only got better! I was back on eBay, selling real household items. Then I moved on to be an affiliate for Amazon. And now I am drop shipping on eBay. It has been a massive journey. It has been emotional, tense, dramatic but most of all it’s been fun.

There have been other ways in which I have tried to make money online and failed, I could go on and on about them so I will....joking joking!

A talking lion ?

2009-11-22T08:04:00.000-08:00

The famous philosopher Wittgenstein once said " If a lion could talk, we would not understand him." A fascinating statement, but what does it really mean? If a lion could talk, why wouldn't I be able to understand him, even if he was talking in English? If a lion was to open its mouth and say " I like to eat meat, feed me food" I am pretty sure that I would understand what he wants. However, Wittgenstein seems to have looked into this a little deeper than I obviously have. I don't think that I could explain exactly what he means by this statement, or even know, however I am happy to attempt.

I feel that if Wittgenstein was to make a point about any of this, it would go something a little like this...maybe...perhaps...

If a lion was to talk, we would not be comprehend as its referencing would be so far removed it simply just wouldn't make sense. We should be careful not to personify the lion as a human being for it has mind of its own and sees the world in a completely different way to us. I believe Wittgenstein point is that the lion would not open its mouth and say " I am hungry, give me food" for that is a lion talking with a human mind. If a lion was to talk with a lions mind, we as humans would not be capable of communicating or understanding.

Despite all of this, I still like to think that when I'm at home and my dogs look up at me with their adorable puppy dog faces, I know they want feeding. And then they come bouncing into the room with their leads in their mouths, I know they want walking. I believe that if my dogs were to open their mouths and begin talking to me, that I would be able to have a fully understandable conversation with them.

extract from own work!

2009-06-04T12:18:00.000-07:00

A small eztract from most recent essay....no dangour now that its been handed in!

We normally view a country as either democratic or undemocratic. For example China could be said to be a country with no democracy. But, when we investigate a country in more detail, things are not always as they initially appear to be. We realise that there are different levels of democracy making some countries more or less democratic than others. D. Robertson, (a writer in 1986) said that “Democracy is the most valued and also vaguest of political terms in the modern world.”( http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/democracy.htm) The United Kingdom itself is listed as a free country, a country that sees itself as governed by the people. However, in Lord Hailsham’s 1976 Richard Dimleby lecture, he states
“the powers of our own Parliament are absolute and unlimited. And in this, we are almost alone. All other free nations impose limitations on their representative assemblies. We impose none on ours. Parliament can take away a man’s liberty or his life without a trial, and in past centuries, it has actually done so.” (http://www.republic.org.uk/liberty/index.php)
Lord Hailsham suggested that Britain was not as democratic as it was made out to be. In the same lecture he also said “We live in an elective dictatorship, absolute in theory, if hitherto thought tolerable in practice.”(http://www.republic.org.uk/liberty/index.php) I begin to wonder how much power we have. We get to vote around once every four years to help influence which political party will govern over us for a four or five year period. Apart from that I don’t really see anything else that we can do without political reform. Does this really make us a democratic country?

2009-05-11T15:25:00.000-07:00

After last week’s lecture, I realised that I want to make money. I have done all my life; it’s just that I’m not very good at it. My first stab at trying to make money must have been a few years ago when I started doing online surveys. The pay was awful, it would take about a year to make a pound, and you have to make £25 before they send a check. So I quickly gave up on this idea and moved onto the next. I created my own website then put Google ads on there. This proved to make little money. After much frustration of trying to make money online I went on eBay. At first I didn’t sell anything. Instead I bought a "get rich quick" eBook for 99p of eBay. I know these things are supposed to be cons and that only stupid people buy them but my curiosity got the better of me and I just had to know what these things were. I now sell get rich quick schemes on eBay. I have to say I have made a small amount of money from it....not much to tell the truth. I then sold real items on eBay and made a bit of money as well. And now I promote a website as an affiliate and get 50p every time someone signs up! But now I am in money making mode and really want to get going with this. I have always been interested in the stock markets but always been too scared. Here’s hoping that that will change. And this whole thing about currency trading excites me! I can’t wait to try it! Easy money!

http://FastStudentCash.com/winchester

Please sign up guys....its free, all they ask is your name and email!!

2009-05-04T16:33:00.001-07:00

Winchester Journalism
Winchester MA Journalism
Winchester BA Journalism
Winchester International Journalism
BJTC
Winchester Studios and Facilities
Winchester Lecturers

The Creators

2009-03-15T20:45:00.000-07:00

Forgive me if this blog goes wrong....its 3.45 am. So I'm going to talk about Whitehall...sort of. I don't really understand all that much about it to be honest so ill keep it short and sweet.

From what I learnt in the lecture is that basically Whitehall runs the country.( A big road in London with lots of government buildings.) They decide...everything. That's what I think anyway...please correct me if I'm wrong.

After thinking about this for a while I began to wonder...who controls Whitehall? Anyone? Anything? I decided on the Queen just so I could stop arguing with myself. Then I asked the question again....who is in charge of the Queen? There could only be one answer and one answer only....GOD!

When googling to see if the God was the queens boss, I stumbled across a guy named Bertrand Russell. He said that every thing that exists needs a cause. So if God exists something must have made him but who created God? If you take this approach...in my view you will just keep back forever, so theres no point really...might as well stop at God. But to bring this whole blog to somewhat of a logical ending...someone had to create Whitehall..but who? So something has to run Whitehall whilst Whitehall runs our country. I'm going to stop now...beginning to confuse myself..let alone you poor readers!

Polar dont go!!

2009-03-03T04:11:00.000-08:00

If you don't like polar bears.....hit the red cross now.

I have a real soft spot for wildlife and in particular the polar bear. The polar bear is my favourite land based carnivore. But we have recently learnt that it is possible that these amazing bears could be extinct within 50 years due to global warming.

Global warming is melting the sea ice faster than ever before making it even harder for polar bears to hunt for their food. With no ice to walk on....no seals to eat. Polar bears have been known to been found miles out to sea..lost...looking for food and land.

With the sea ice getting thinner, the polar bears are falling through the sea ice and at times drowning.

I recently watched the 'Great melt' on the BBC. I feel that shows just how vulnerable the polar bears really are.

So next time you leave your room, check your check your not wasting energy and that your lights are switched off and spear a thought for the poor polar bear.

Mum.....do you love me?

2009-02-23T06:05:00.002-08:00

Before I start I would just like to point out that I don't really agree with what I am about to say in this blog.

OK, I'm going to try and keep this as simple as possible...which should be too hard as I'm quite a simple person! But my question today is...how do we know?

So the first big word is "empiricism". The attitude of having to see before you believe. The second word in the equation is "a priori" which is basically the opposite of empiricism. I'm not sure if the next paragraph is going to make much sense but it does to me....in my head.

Empiricism is the theory of knowledge (according to wiki), the use of science to prove something. But what if something cannot be scientifically proven? For example, our parents have always told us they love us...one would hope so...but what if our lives have been one big lie? An a priori way of thinking would of course be to believe that our parents do love us. How do we know?

Another crazy pointless over the top example I am going to use quickly is the existence of places we have never been. If we have never been somewhere, what evidence do you have that that place actually exists? Sure you seen pictures or read about it but that could be pictures of anything. To take it even further...just because I've sat on a plane for 24 hours and landed in a place called "New Zealand" who's to say this is New Zealand ? I could be anywhere. To me, this is a stupid way of thinking....some people can't help but take empiricism to the next level!

Reading this blog back to myself...I appear to have confused myself and realise how silly it is! But never mind....that's how I work!

Get Paid to Blog!

2009-02-21T05:48:00.000-08:00

OK, this is just a quick blog telling you guys that you can get paid to blog. I have only just singed up to it but it seems to be pretty good.

How it works is simple. You blog, they pay...if your blog is accepted. When you create your account you will be asked to submit your blog URL. Advertisers can then contact you and ask you to write a blog for money. I wont go on about it any more but if this does interest you, click on the link below, sign up and read all about it!

Politics.......what a load of monkeys!

2009-02-16T18:51:00.000-08:00

I’m not little, neither am I blue, but I am a man....I think. And the same goes for Charles Darwin. Now, I'm not much of a monkey boy, but Charles Darwin had to be a smart guy. I like him. That’s all I’m going to really do in this blog, talk about monkeys so if that bores you - stop reading now.

Now we all know that Darwin came up the theory of evolution. The idea that we have all evolved from monkeys. As we evolved, you would have thought that we became smarter...right? We would like to be able to say that we are smarter than the monkey hanging in the tree. But how much smarter are we? Can a banana eating, tree swinging, tail hanging, fury animal outsmart us as humans? Well even Darwin himself once said "An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men." Ok, so he might be having a little go at just the Americans here, but I think it’s in all of us!

Of course we are more intelligent than monkeys in the sense that we have done stuff, like build houses and we know how to fly planes and drive cars. However in the monkeys defence, we can’t swing from tree to tree or hang off a tree with one arm whilst eating a banana at the same time. This takes some skill and for this reason I admire the monkey and its tree skills.

So we can see that humans have brains yet monkeys have talent, which brings us to the question...who would win a knife fight between a monkey and a human. Now remember the monkey would have trees and branches to use in its defence. I guess it would depend greatly on the size of the monkey. The average ape is stronger that the world’s strongest man, so if he got hold of him, he would just rip him to pieces. However some apes only have four fingers, so would struggle to hold a knife correctly. Well shall leave you guys to ponder over it and picture a monkey using a knife...makes me laugh every time!