Breaking Bad news rap...

Jessie and I are from Albuquerque,

The business we deal in is real dirty,

We're used to making meth,

We've been on the verge of death,

Skylar slept with Ted,

Now I have no bed,

Junior says mum's not thinking straight,

The 2nd cell won't stop ringing to berate,

Jessie's going through some pain,

But it's cos of me there's no Jayne,

The bell goes ding ding,

Revenge has become our thing.

The brothers are looking for fuel,

They don't speak much but that's cool.

A good man called Saul became our dark knight,

Ingenious and frantic was his work, he gave Skylar a damn fright.

Then there's the story of Hank,

It has nothing on Shawshank.

Mexico, Texas and Albuquerque are where he served,

The truth behind blue crystal is what I've swerved.

Mas they always say. Mas!

Now my marriage has turned to ash.

End of season 3 is where I'm at,

So don't think I'm blind in the day like a bat

Lest We Forget...

Memory plays a major role in dealing with the circumstances and consequences certain events throw up at us over the course of our lives. Whether it be domestic and somewhat insignificant day to day chores, right up to the importance of profound and moving events or tragedies around the world, memory is always there to either give us a sense of understanding of the situation or a way to help yourself and others move on and learn from said event. 12 years on after the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers, it is understandably obvious that the hurt and suffering felt by those inside the buildings and their families on that fateful day in 2001 is still felt to the utmost degree today. Events such like this happen in the hope (on behalf of the terrorists who attacked innocent civilians at work) that it would wreak havoc, confusion and concern for their national security. Attacks like this and the London tube bombings of 2005 are used in an attempt to divide the communities that reside within these countries. A small group of individuals thinking they are doing the right thing for their own beliefs so that they reach a greater level of being and meaning in the eyes of their god. Individuals taking law into their own hands to subdue what they believe to be usurpers and global policemen trying to penetrate all the corners of the globe with their own democratic pragmatism and beliefs. What is the difference between a country who tries to spread stability and democracy in a safe and mostly pragmatic approach, to those individuals who take matters into their own hands so as to promote their own version of events - to promote their own fundamental idealism - to ignite a feud between religious sects of society so as to engrave severe levels of mistrust and dis-honour among their fellow compatriots in an attempt to understand the unfolding of events and the purpose of their being, their 'raison d'etre'.

Over the last hundred years, we have seen dictators come and go. We have seen regimes rise and fall. We have seen World Wars tear countries apart bit by bit. We have seen countries riddled by hunger, disease and desperation whilst professional footballers and wealthy bankers get hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of pounds, and society does not batter an eye lash. Surely ridding the world of hunger and disease is more important than a footballer having a £5 million holiday home in the South of France or Los Angeles? I do not look to seek refuge in a non-winnable (with regards to modern society) argument regarding the wealth and success of some people to the disheartening sorrow and distress other individuals go through on a regular basis. Nor do I look to argue that this blog will be the life blood of change, the catalyst in ensuring global society becomes an equal playing field without money worries, disease or hunger. I am merely trying to prove in my own words and my own opinions that the actions of the individual matter, no matter how small a contribution or how sincere their actions are. As the laws of Physics state, 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. At school I did not comprehend how a statement relating to a subject I had no real interest in could be related to anything and everything that we do in our day to day lives, no matter how insignificant you think you are, and the things you do are in the grand scheme of things. Everybody counts, everybody matters. Every single one of those 2,996 individuals who died that day in 2001 as a result of the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers. Every one of those 52 killed in the London tube bombings. Every one of those 3 killed in the Boston Marathon bombings, and all those killed in combat, gang related crimes, terrorist attacks of recent and past times all have an importance, all have a significance in our understanding of how important a memory of events can be in piecing together a way to put a feeling of hope back together for future generations. Terrorist attacks and stories of inexplicable hurt and pain all lead to one thing - the coming together of a community to remember the individuals who were taken away from this world too early in their lives and to commemorate those individuals who gained a hero's status for ensuring some of those who could have died in these tragedies lived on to live out their lives to the full and in respect to the memory of those who risked their lives for others and the future of hopeful world peace.

The notion of memory and remembrance is something that affects people in different ways. In my experience of events in History that interest me the most; that of the Holocaust and the Slave Trade; the concept and importance of having a personal level of memory and remembrance, whether that is as a result of survivors stories or your own retrospective view on said events, cannot be underestimated. The point that I am trying to put across is that no matter how hard someone hits us down, we will always find a way of getting back up. No matter how hard countries are hit by extremist threats to their homeland, society finds a way to distill any sense of doubt and hatred with a sense of optimism and memory.

Without memory, events happen, the consequences ensue, and as a result the events themselves are not remembered in the way that they should be. Memory is the utmost important part of understanding, reacting to, and recovering from events of any nature, and without memory, we give the transgressors what they were looking for, what they were aiming for as a result of their actions. Memory not only brings us together in times of doubt and concern, it also gives us a meaning to go on and do greater things with what we have so as to prove that you can only fully get defeated by your own negative mindset.

R.I.P to all those who died in the 9/11 attacks and to all those who perished as a result of subsequent and previous acts of terrorism or warfare.

'Never give up, never surrender'

Jonathan Whitehead

The Broad-Walk Umpire

So it has been an eventful few weeks and months for British sport! With Justin Rose winning the US Open, the Lions coming out on top in their tour of Australia, Andy Murray becoming British for another year after winning Wimbledon, Chris Froome nearing winning the yellow jersey in the Tour De France, and England gaining a foothold towards another home Ashes success. But none of these have come and gone without a certain deal of fortune or inconsistency. The Lions tour of Australia was a battering and injury prone experience for all those involved on both sides. With Australia's side in disarray prior to the tour, the Lions took the impetus and won the test thanks to a slip up by Kurtley Beale taking a last minute penalty. But all this was cast over by a shadow of James Horwill's stamp on Alyn Wyn Jones - an incident that would be later cited and issued as an example of the negative side of a physical sport such as rugby. With Andy Murray winning Wimbledon for the first time in front of an excitable, nervous and sun drenched crowd, it further extended the optimism and positivity surrounding British sport in all its facets. It was arguably the most exciting and unpredictable Wimbledon in years after Nadal fell to Darcis in the 1st Round and Federer lost in the 2nd Round, along with a further 7 high hopefuls including Tsonga, Azarenka, and Sharapova withdrawing through injury on an eventful opening few sessions. The route to the final opened up for Murray. However it was not as easy as everybody predicted. Was it to be another year of disappointment? Was a nation's expectations on Murray's shoulders too much to deal with? Was Janowicz's mind games and complaining going to effect the outcome everybody on Henmann Hill / Murray Mound, in Centre Court, or at home wanted to happen? Thankfully not, and as a result, Britain had another milestone victory to celebrate. Milking the celebrations and accolades was understandable and well earned, however, the way the commentators and articles online dedicated Murray's victory to be the cure of over 70 years of hurt in not having a British winner of Wimbledon was near on a kick in the teeth for Virginia Wade, the British woman who won Wimbledon in 1977 - a mere 36 years ago, not 77 years ago. Admittedly, newspapers would later reference the 'forgotten woman' whereas BBC at the time of broadcasting would hark on about Murray being the first British winner, not specifically the first British male winner. A minor but significant point some may say.

With Chris Froome at the final hurdle in his search for a Tour De France win, his success has come at somewhat of a shock and surprise to a lot of people and with all that has come and gone with cycling recently with Lance Armstrong being uncovered as a dope user to enhance his sporting supremacy. With this resulting in Armstrong getting all his accolades stripped off him so as to represent the stance cycling and sport in general has on the use of sport enhancing drugs - this was further strengthened by the latest news of Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell's use of drugs in their sprinting careers and the reaction of everyone associated to athletics in general. Froome strongly denies using any drugs and I wholeheartedly believe him. Just because someone has worked hard for their success does not mean that the media and fellow sportsmen and sportswomen should jump on the bandwagon to criticise or be suspicious of them finding immediate success.

The first Ashes test match between England and Australia at Trent Bridge unfolded into a game which would be filled with a high level of tension and controversy. Stuart Broad, on 37 runs at the time, clipped the ball off his bat to first slip deflecting off the gloves of the wicket keeper. On any given day this would have been given out straight away - the clip was obvious, the catch was clearly legal, but Broad did not walk. By this point, Australia had run out of reviews on the hawk-eye system so had to accept the decision to give Broad 'not out' by Aleem Dar. Much debate was had on twitter, radio and in the newspapers, with some individuals, including Piers Morgan in his heated exchange of words with Gary Lineker, saying that for the good of the game and moral reasons Broad should have walked and not be seen as a cheat. Nonetheless, it is the umpire's decision at the end of the day to give the bowler the benefit of the doubt if they are uncertain. Admittedly, anyone with two eyes and a brain could work out that Broad should've been given out, but incidentally, he went on to add another 28 runs to his tally (a score that would prove vital in the outcome of the match that was won by England by a mere 14 runs). The fact remains that both Clarke and Haddin both refused to walk as well without going for a review before so the argument that certain individuals upheld with such furore that Broad should have walked was near on hypocritical. If the argument that sportsmen and women should leave the field of the play if their actions deserve a dismissal or a loss of a point, then sport would be one where referees and linesmen would become unnecessary. It is in our nature to be competitive (admittedly this does not mean cheating is right and nor do I encourage such an attitude towards sport) but it would be like Neuer picking the ball up after Frank Lampard's shot went a few feet over the goal line, going up to the referee and admitting it was a goal and putting the ball on the half way line. It just would not happen, and to think Broad would walk without any incentive after not being given out by the umpire is naiive. Human error, slyness, or competitiveness - whatever you want to tarnish these events with is a part of sport and will most likely always be part of sport. It is just a shame that with the technology that sport has these days you would think that such significant decisions would be mulled over more-so than a wide ball that would run away for a 4. Rugby has the TMO system which has been in place for the last 12 years, Tennis and Cricket have had hawk-eye and hot spot technology since 2008, and Football? Football is years behind other sports in the technology race and are only just introducing goal line technology into the 2013/14 season.

In turn, there are always going to be controversial moments in sport, however you play the game or analyse the game from the stands or at home on your sofa. Each person is going to have a different opinion on how or why an incident in a match happened, unfolded or went unnoticed. Human error is always going to have an effect on sport, whether it be in missing an offside call which is clear as day that would lead to a 1-0 victory in a key derby in the title or relegation battle, or a stamp, high tackle or forward pass in rugby. It is admittedly unthinkable that in this day and age that such issues have to be later cited or cautioned but it is unfortunately the world we live in and hopefully one day such issues will be resolved.

Jonathan Whitehead

Lost in Social Media

I've been thinking about writing on this field over the past few weeks as it has become something that I have become more and more aware of. Social media has taken over our lives, whether we accept it or not. Meals can no longer be eaten without being Instagrammed, films cannot be watched without being people notifying Facebook about it, headaches and illnesses cannot be silently gotten over without pouring out someone's downfall all over Facebook, and the notion of private family photo albums have almost been binned with new relationships, engagements, pregnancies and baby baths being put on social media sites for all to see. Before anyone says anything, I know that I am guilty of being caught in the spider-web of social media, the film posting especially - and the very notion that I am writing on a social media site, from which I would advertise the blog on other social media sites, it all seems like one big plate of irony served up on the world wide web. One cannot argue the notion against the impact of social media websites without the aid of social media sites to promote their message. Is there a way around the symposium of peer pressure around social media? Is there a way people can enjoy a walk in their local park or a meal without uploading a photo of it to their profile? Or is it the modern age that we live in now that this has become so natural that we sweep it under the carpet in a silent form of acceptance?

One can argue these points until the cow comes home but one cannot under-estimate the impact of social media. Whether it be in assisting the way celebrities fall from grace quicker than a tonne weight, or the speed in which news headlines spread throughout the world, social networking has brought the world together at the click of a simple button. Or has it? On my travels in recent months and years, it is apparent how reliant we all are on our mobile phones, our tablets, our iPads and laptops. It is also apparent how isolated we all become from others around us through the use of these devices. On the train back from Cambridge not two days ago, I was in a carriage where every single person was so engrossed in their phones or iPads that they not only ignored any form of beauty outside the windows of the train, but also strengthened my worry for the future communicative side of society. Are we too reliant on technology that we forget who we really are? What in modern day terms defines 'popular'? Is it having thousands of friends on Facebook? Is it having a hundred people like a status of yours on Facebook? People can be too caught up in how they are perceived online that they forget how to act face to face with a human being.

On the way to the station to catch the aforementioned train from Cambridge, I passed several restaurants en route, all of which contained couples and families who, instead of talking to one another, were on their phones texting and facebooking. This sight was one of those that hammered home the real influence and effect that social media has had on us as a society with friends and family. This notion of influencing the nature of families is something that I have a strong opinion about. In this case I relate to one of the recent Tetley Tea TV adverts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6Rb-1sub4M

The notion that information published online can be read by anyone and everyone is something that, when it comes to family affairs I believe should be kept a private affair, not plastered over social media. Relationships as well (and I know I have done this in the past but since then learnt my lesson) being posted in every regard - be it lovey dovey, rants or arguments, as well as new relationships, and posting photos of their new born babies every move. It all gets a bit too much to stomach sometimes. Maybe it's just my single side  being cynical, maybe it's the realisation of how much it must have annoyed people whenever I posted ridiculous posts years ago on Facebook regarding relationships. Either way, I don't think Facebook is a place to publicise one's love life, especially not use it as your own family album with your newborns as I believe that should be private. I know that there will be people who will not agree with this and that is their own opinion and I respect that, as this is my own opinion. 

In turn, I understand the importance of social media in the work place and in a having a social life too. Phones and social media websites are tools people cannot be without if they are on the go all the time or have a hectic social schedule to adhere to. It's more the lengths people go to on social media to show that they have this 'life'. We use social media to an exhaustive manner, so much so that for some of us it is the first thing we check before going to bed and waking up. I know this does not relate to everyone but it is becoming increasingly sparse to see a different story from the one I have described above, one of normality without the influence of social media. I leave you all with a quote that has made the rounds on the internet regarding the way in which we try and portray ourselves in society as a whole, by the one and only Tyler Durden from Fight Club:

Jonathan Whitehead

Individual Anarchy vs. 'Terrorism'

In the 21st Century, words such as 'terrorism', 'fear' and 'racism' are thrown about in relation to attacks that threaten our way of life, our social setup, and the way in which we perceive other societies and religions. Social media and newspapers become the spark and catalyst for people to build some form of opposition, riposte, and personal opinions on matters far and wide, whether or not they are soundly backed up or not. The impact of social media is massive, and the influence it can have on individuals perspectives on news stories and events that transcend within society can be monumental as well. Images and stories to tell one side of the story but ensure the part of the story that the government, newspaper or individual does not want the reader or listener to know so as to wholly put their idea across in a somewhat simple, yet manipulative  manner.

Why do I transgress from the recent events in the news and discuss the influence of images and social media instead? I transgress on the basis that this latest tragedy in Woolwich support this reference to the importance of social media in relation to tragedies that happen throughout the world. On the 22nd May 2013, Drummer Lee Rigby was murdered in cold blood in the middle of the day outside a barracks in Woolwich by Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo, individuals who were on the radar of the MI5 but had not been picked up prior to this attack. Was this an attack to get attention for the two individuals alone? Was it an attack to provoke an even larger scaled backlash throughout the United Kingdom against the 'tyranny' of our current governments and society? Or was it an attack that was so extreme, un-calculated  and individualistic that it was just a freak incident one would hope would never be repeated? Whichever the answer and reasoning behind the attack was, they have been criticised and condemned from every corner of society, in the Muslim based communities as well as other British citizens and politicians alike.

This was the first serious 'terror' attack which Britain had encountered since the July bombings of 2005. The backlash and reaction regarding this unprovoked attack, this devastating blow to the family of an innocent war hero have been vast, condemning and emotional. The knowledge that a heart wrenching story such as Lee Rigby's, and the fear that extremists are getting more extreme over the course of time since the attacks on the Twin Towers on the 11th September 2001. The story goes that both of these men grew in their extremist views when they were in jail previously, and as one can only assume, they will try and expose the weaknesses in some of the prisoners once they are in jail for murder so as to spread the fear and extremist manners. The over-loading of provocative and racist posts on Twitter and Facebook were quite staggering in the days following this attack, classing it as a terrorist attack right after news broke out of this murder. This ultimately led to the outcry of extreme news headlines and life stories relating to the individuals involved in the horrific event that unfolded on that fateful May day. The family themselves did not want any unnecessary backlash and that Lee Rigby's death would not be a reason for inexcusable reprisal attacks and that any response would be of a peaceful nature. This reversed desire of the saying 'an eye for an eye' is a mentality that has to respected and admired, especially from the family of the victim of such a horrific circumstances.

In conclusion, I think that it safe to say that this attack was a freak incident which was undertaken by two individuals who have severe mental issues as well as working on their own and not as part of a larger scheme so as to instil and promote havoc, terror and fear throughout the multi-ethnic communities of Woolwich and throughout the rest of the United Kingdom too. However, it is important to always note the important role the media plays in regards to pressing an ideology across to the readers of the newspapers and listeners of the radio in relation to whether an attack is terrorist based or just a case of mentally unstable people taking the law into their own hands so as to become martyrs in their own minds. Nonetheless, it is fundamental that one understands the notion that the colour of a persons skin and fundamental beliefs are always going to alter the way the media would portray the case, as was shown through some of the high cased murder of Stephen Lawrence by white individuals with radical racist tendencies, and the numerous other cases that have been portrayed through the news as attacks of racism and the London bombings being part of a greater 'terror plot' to provoke fear throughout society. What I'm trying to say is that with murder being outright wrong, it is clear that it is not only people of an ethnic nature that are the individuals solely behind hate crime, and that there are extremists in every society, it just so happens that some are more aggressive than the passive individuals.

Jonathan Whitehead

Mindless violence and its role in the sporting world

Since my last blog, there have been several major incidents regarding sports, the Boston Marathon bombings, the utmost sense of respect shown by the runners who took part in the London Marathon for those affected by the Boston bombings, as well as the Suarez bite on Branislav Ivanovic that has earned him a 10 match ban. After so much controversy and devastation, the shock and bleakness that followed the Boston Marathon was one met with mass ongoing police investigations as well as scenes of relief and joy stemming from the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Such 'acts of terrorism' had not been seen in years on US soil. Destruction of lives both young and old can only be described as abhorrent and horrific in every segment of its over-riding nature and cause, no matter what reasoning the Tsarnaev brothers had behind plotting and carrying out the attacks. No matter what over-riding sense of hatred or Religious-attributed belief that what they were doing was right has no defence when one thinks of the lives they not only prematurely ended, such as the 8 year old Martin Richard, but also those of whom they also prematurely ruined through life-changing injuries. This blog will show my own opinions on how mindless violence has no role in sport, whether that be through extremist actions such as the bombings in Boston on that fateful afternoon on April 15th 2013, or if you take the other end of the spectrum and note the appalling nature of Luis Suarez's gauging bite on Branislav Ivanovic on Sunday, 21st April during Liverpool's game with Chelsea in the Barclay's Premier League. I want to reiterate do no means do I want to infer that these two events can be placed on the same level of severity, as it would be ignorant and ridiculous to insinuate such a thing, but I am using these events to portray the ranging un-sportsmanship in the world at this moment and how there is and should never have been space for any form of violence in the the world of sport or anywhere else for that matter.

The reaction of the US and everyone else in the World in the aftermath of the Boston bombing was monumental, constant news coverage, photos and information from fellow spectators on the scene so as to crackdown on the perpetrators of this act of terrorism on a wholly public and civilian event. The over-riding act of respect shown by everyone who ran in the London Marathon the following weekend was an event that showed the world to be a grand community from which such a tragedy could only bring overseas communities closer together for the good of the world and so as to prove that strength can outgrow fear in every aspect of the word. From the tragedy of one weekend to the respect and togetherness shown by the runners in the following weekend, it shows how sport can join people from any background and past events to accept individuals for who they are and ensure any attempts to dislodge that security and togetherness would be ultimately put down.

From one major sporting incident to another. Luis Suarez never seems to be out of the spotlight for one contentious issue or another - be it racist abuse and missing handshakes prior to a game with Patrice Evra, or the most recent (and second citation of) biting another player in a football game. Both condemning events have led to Suarez having a culmination of an 18 game ban. Pundits on Football Focus and Match of the Day, as well as managers of Premier League clubs have tried to look at both sides of Suarez, the 'cannibal' and 'genius' and whether Liverpool football club can hold onto a player of such fiery temperament but also 'undoubted quality'. The immediate comparison that pundits and newspapers alike are looking to use in this incident is the infamous Cantona kick on an Eagles fan at the Manchester United vs Crystal Palace game in 1995 which ultimately led to his ban from playing football again as well as receiving a fine of £20,000. Other pundits look to Jermaine Defoe's bite on Javier Mascherano back in 2006 which earned him a yellow card on the day but no further action. With this in mind, is it fair to say that the FA really need to have a re-think as to how they deliver punishment or retrospective action at least? Do they need to gain a real understanding of how to keep punishment for the severity of actions such as Suraez's bite in relation to the image and shadow that football ends up being placed under after such controversial actions by players? In my opinion, it is the case that they need to give a definitive statement regarding the length of bans or the type of action that would be taken to prevent further similar actions as this with some form of continuity to it, rather than seemingly picking out numbers from thin air regarding player suspension length regarding the type of dangerous tackle or action undertaken during matches as it seems they are doing at the moment.

Either way, violence of any proportion, whether it is a bite or kung-fu kick, has no place in football or any other sport. Sport is there to be enjoyed by spectators and players alike, and for action to be so undetermined and random is just confirmation that sport is a confused, problem filled and controversial based environment to play and work in regarding certain actions such as these.

Thus ends another one of my blogs, including numerous tragic and controversial news headlines, I hasten to add and reiterate that I believe that mindless violence such as the examples I have talked about above shines a negative light and shadow on sport as a whole. As a result of these dark days, sport needs to find a way to resolve these issues and to influence and create what they want to leave behind, influence and a legacy for all those inspired by their sporting heroes.

Jonathan Whitehead

'This was a woman who shaped events rather than was shaped by them' - Nick Robinson

What are the first words that come to mind when you think of Margaret Thatcher? Violence? Division? Loathsome? Loved? Saviour? Legacy of destruction? Iconic? Iron Lady? Enforcer? The Falklands? No Society? Housing crisis? Privatisation? Milk? Unions? A politician who cut across class and social divide? It is safe to say that Thatcher was one of the most controversial politicians that graced the political stage between 1979 and 1990. Her policies divided public opinion gravely, her legacy one which you either appreciated or despised, it is safe to say, depending on how the policies affected you, you grew to either love or despise the woman. Throughout this blog, I will look at both sides of the story relating to one of the most well known woman political figures throughout the Twentieth Century, so as not to leave any stone unturned in my analysis. Though I can see why many turn their heads at what good Margaret Thatcher implemented throughout the Britain as a result of her debatable policies, it is important to view her as the first leading lady, the 'Iron Lady', at a time of great political upheaval and dispute.

In 'The Times' the day after she died they had a 16 page supplement along with 25 pages of detailed articles regarding her policies, the state she left Britain in when she left her position as Prime Minister in 1990, and the public outcry of both shock and celebration as a response to her death, notably in Glasgow.

Such detailed analysis led me to snoop around a bit further trying to find other articles online to link you all regarding the media reaction relating to the death of Margaret Thatcher to show the varied response from reporters, foreign news, and members of the public.

1) Newspapers review the morning after: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22075382

2) Thatcher in her own words: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11734415

3) Thatcher years in statistics http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22070491

4) Nick Robinson on Thatcher: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/22061962

5) Mark Easton on Thatcher: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/22061962

6) Mixed public reaction to Thatcher's death: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22070623 

7) US reaction: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22075246 

Undoubtedly, it was Margaret Thatcher's policies that would create conflict, segregation, and split a nation right down its core. In 'The Times', the journalist Michael Savage points at the arguments for and against Thatcher's actions and policies regarding Northern Ireland, the Cold War, the Falklands, poll tax, privatisation, football, city de-regulation, the unions and Europe. In an extensive outlying of her policies, Savage shows how divisive Thatcher's policies were relating not only to foreign affairs but also internal economic and sporting affairs as well. She was to play a highly significant role in bringing an end to the Cold War along with the American President at the time, Ronald Reagan, who saw Thatcher as 'the best man in England'. If it wasn't for the joint efforts of both of these leading politicians, the Cold War could have been continued with an indefinite status of stalemate for years to come. The Falkland Wars gave the spark of controversy that led to people questioning her motives and actions when 255 British military personnel died, as well as the loss of a further 300 lives in the sinking of the Belgrano, the Argentine warship. Both of these events would lead to Thatcher strongly backing the actions up as a defensive course of action in an attempt to save more British lives for the threat it posed them. Nevertheless, it is without doubt that if it wasn't for Thatcher's determinism, decisiveness and rapid dispatching of British troops in early 1982, that the Falkland Islands would have stayed under Argentinean control and Thatcher's Conservatives would not have won the subsequent general election in 1983 with such a landslide victory. In terms of Northern Ireland, it has been seen as a battleground for recent decades; with bomb scares and IRA threats being a constant presence. Thatcher's hard lined approach to the hunger strike of 1981 was seen to be both preparing, albeit unintentionally, the ground for peace yet also condemning any plausible future efforts at creating some form of a compromise - a point sharply underlined as a result of the Brighton bomb of three years later.

Thatcher's rule was to be undermined and pressurised from all involved and affected by her policies regarding poll tax, privatisation and the trade unions. Poll tax led to Thatcher losing substantial support in Scotland, the mining communities and many low paid workers. This dissatisfaction ultimately led to the rise of a mass protest on the 31st March 1990 involving 200,000 marching and opposing this enforced tax. On the other hand, privatisation of industries such as oil, rail, electricity and water led to the exploitation of customers and worsened service in search for high profits. However, it is important to note that because of this, many companies that were smaller in origin around the time they became privatised are now a lot more efficient, and subsequently, more successful. In regards to the Unions, Thatcher's attempt at 'taming' them could only be seen as destructive, divisive and controversial. It led to the demolition of trade unions for a generation, eroded any rights that the workers had previously and left unemployment at an all new high. It was seen as an unforgiving action from which Thatcher lost the support of the trade unions and miners throughout Britain during her designated post as Prime Minister. Yet, through this backlash, she showed that a once disgruntled and economic society could be governable once again, even if this meant creating a great deal of unappreciated and despised rulings and limits on local political activity.

The final points that I want to make in relation to Thatcher and her rule throughout the 1980s was her relationship with football, or more importantly football's relationship with her. During her stay in power, there were three major incidents that rocked the support she had from the working and middle class segments of society: the fire at Bradford City's 'Valley Parade' stadium on 11th May 1985 which killed 56 people, the Heysel disaster of the 29th May 1985 when 39 Juventus supporters died before their European final game with Liverpool, and the Hillsborough Disaster on the 15th April 1989 which led to the deaths of 96 supporters. With each of these disasters still fresh in every football fans minds, it is safe to say that however the leading figures within the country at that time were to react, in this case Margaret Thatcher, would be  scrutinised down to the last word and the course of longing for justice and answers would forever prolong over the shadow of football and politics. The Hillsborough Disaster has most recently been in the news for a renewed diagnosis as to what really happened on that fateful afternoon in 1989, with slogans going up around Anfield in recent seasons with the message 'Expose the lies before Thatcher dies'. The result of the latest inquest into the Hillsborough disaster over the last year has finally led to friends and families of those killed in the Hillsborough Disaster a sense of relief and reassurance as to knowing what happened and why it was kept under wraps for almost 23 years. Thatcher's connection with football was always a weak one at the best of times, and with her statement regarding Britain not having a 'society' (admittedly at the time the reaction to this statement was taken out of context), her desire to rid football of hooligans, the relationship would forever be one of a loose fit nature between Thatcher and football supporters.

So concludes another one of my blogs, on one of the more controversial topics around at this time. I hope that I have given both substantial arguments both in support and against Margaret Thatcher's policies and statements during her time in office as Prime Minister. It can be easy to ignore the success of an individual by their mistakes or misguided policies (no matter how good that persons intentions were), but it is an infallible certainty that if it were not for Thatcher's hard lined approach to both foreign policy and business acumen then the Falkland Islands would not have been liberated, and the Cold War would have lingered on for longer than it did with an even greater threat of nuclear war. Admittedly, I can wholly understand the reasoning behind many sectors within society taking a mass dislike in Thatcher's policies and stance on economics, trade unions and tax. So whether you agree with nicknames put upon Thatcher such as 'The Milk Snatcher' or 'The Immaculate Misconception', or desire to look at the respected and admired 'Iron Lady', I say each to their own, but I feel it strongly wrong and extremely sinister to celebrate one of our own Prime Minister's deaths as if she were somewhat on the same playing field of evil as Mao, Hitler or Stalin.

Now, time to watch the Iron Lady and see how Meryl Streep portrays 'The Iron Lady'.

Hope you enjoyed this latest blog, comments are appreciated if you have any thoughts on mine.

Jonathan Whitehead

The Future of History

I read a newspaper article by the journalist David Aaronovitch writing for The Times on the seemingly impossible nature of teaching the history of Britain on top of expanding their knowledge (however brief) on the history of Europe, Australasia, Africa, Russia and the Americas to secondary school and University students in the time they partake in studying History. He noted how the recent change in the national curriculum relating to History, put in place by the Education Secretary Michael Gove, completely altered how school children and University undergraduates would go about questioning the centuries gone before them and limit their ability to assess the importance of different epochs in history that have changed the politics of the world for better or for worse. Aaronovitch seemingly concurs, as do I, with the feelings put across by the travel writer and historian William Dalrymple. Complaining about how his children have a limited knowledge of history, Dalrymple berates the repeated teachings of the Tudors and Nazis, with not even a 'whiff of Indian history.' Dalrymple further states how it is his firm belief that through this new found curriculum, the teaching of history will almost be defunct and pointless if schools are merely going to teach issues that have been analysed and evaluated into the ground beneath our feet. He shows how it not only narrows students' perspectives on the outside world and their histories, but also deprives them of a chance of studying aspects of history through which they could see patterns, see where generals failed on the battlefields across the Continents, and envisage what the future may possibly hold for governments currently in office around the world. Or is that Gove's intention? To narrow the teaching of History as much as he possibly can without resorting to Francis Fukuyama's 'end of history' argument put across in his compelling book 'The End of History and the Last Man'.

In his book, Fukuyama refers to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Bloc as the point in history from which events led to, in his opinion, 'the end of mankind's ideological evolution and universalisation of Western democracy as the final form of human government.' As Ishaan Tharoor, a writer for TIME magazine wrote last year, it was this mentality that continued the 'World is flat' notion, where the idea that a continuously evolving and prosperous world was unforeseeable on the assumption that the success of liberal Democracy, and the evolution of what Fukuyama defines as 'laissez faire capitalism', would lead to the collapse of a better and progressive society. So is the future of History really this dire? Is this notion of narrowing pupils study of history a concept that we should collaborate with or rebel against in the desire to allow for the further development of future Historians as well as developing students into more worldly knowledgeable people rather than recent graduates with only limited knowledge on issues such as the already over-studied Nazi regime and wives of Henry VIII?

Having studied History throughout school (notably European (Nazi's) and that of Britain at home throughout the ages), as well as at University where I was able to widen my gaze in relation to the knowledge of different areas in history I wanted to focus on, I believe that this notion that Gove wants to narrow such a curriculum as being terribly blind and naive. Whilst at University, I was able to focus my attention on all kinds of history; from the troubles faced within the African Diasporas, the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, to the the construction of the notion of Men and Women throughout the ages, the Enlightenment, and General Historical Problems. As a result, I would feel comfortable in saying that I have profited from a wide range of subjects on offer to me and has enabled me to look on different cultures and countries in different lights when relating to the histories of each one at any given time. To deny a student that option would lead to grave side effects, and severely dent the attraction to study History for students in their post-School days. 

On to the televised side of History. The History Channel has been under the pseudonym of 'the Hitler Channel' for many a year now, and if it isn't showing a black and white video of a battle between Montgomery and Rommel in Africa during the Second World War or Hitler's attempt to invade Russia in the Winter, then it is only dispersed by the odd money loan adverts and the annoying guy off the Go Compare adverts being sucked into a black hole, or have they found a new way to get rid of the wannabe Pavarotti? I have to say, if I was to pinpoint any given History based TV show that got me involved in wanting to further my studying of History, I would have to say it was the World At War series (filmed between 1973 and 1974) that gave me my History fill when I was a kid of 12 or 13 - forever inquisitive and wanting to know more about what the past held and how it shaped the world we lived in then. Several years down the line, it was the Snow family father and son (Peter and Dan) combination that furthermore attracted me to evolve my interest in History. Their 2004 TV series 'Battlefield Britain' gave a 14 year old boy interested in History everything he wanted, from interactive battlefields, to interesting and informative, yet not dull commentary and offering up of facts. Dan Snow's spin off series of 'Filthy Cities' and the more recent 'History of Railways' further added to my inquisitive side. Through these TV series, Peter and Dan Snow looked at combining new techniques to teach and put across the history of Britain in an informative and easy to understand format for those with a basic knowledge of the chosen topic of discussion. Nevertheless, there has been an argument that programmes such as these look to glamorise the nature of a historian's work, showing a fun element as well as a celebrity status arising as a result of successful TV series. It has led to a fear that some people may go forward and study, graduate, teach or research history based concepts and be led astray by the success of these programmes and presenters. A play for which I am, to this day, grateful for showing the much needed alternative side to the coin to being a History teacher and researcher was Alan Bennett's 'The History Boys'. In the play, it shows Irwin become this successful TV presenter doing programmes on the dissolution of British monasteries, whereas on the flip side there is Hector, a chubby, lonely, and depressed teacher who graduated from Hull University and is teaching in a public school where expectation is as low as a pendulum on a great grandfather clock, locked in a continual perpetual motion where one can only look to continue a trend, to send students to mediocre Universities at the time: Leeds, Leicester and Exeter, not Cambridge, Durham or Oxford. Nonetheless, Hector believed in breaking this so called 'trend' and with the help of Irwin and Mrs Lintott, the students achieve the unexpected and get places at Oxford and Cambridge alike. The inclusion of thinking the unexpected, arguing the previously grey matter within history, and knowing knowledge for the sake of knowing it, all brought a different perspective to my approach towards studying and dissecting the nature of certain events in history and the people involved in bringing these events to the forefront of everyone's world.

So I conclude with a simple message, that History is not a subject within which one should confine oneself to only a couple of topics, but to expand their knowledge surrounding the subject as broad and wide-ranging as they possibly can. There is no such thing as being too knowledgeable. Each day will be history once it has come and gone so History is a subject that can never be 'dead' or 'forgotten'. True, there have been instances in past ages when History repeats itself but what historians must do, along with politicians and analysts is to prove that there could be a way to deny it happening once more over.

I leave you with a quote from the same article I opened this blog on;

'History, the endless curiosity about how people have lived; the discipline of discovering the past by using and evaluating sources, balancing claims, coming to senses of likelihood and causality.' (David Aaronovitch)

Jonathan Whitehead

Falling from Stardom

Hypocrisy. Lies. Cheating. Disguise. Drugs. These are words that people never want to have associated with any form of lifestyle, and for the purpose of this blog and this blog alone, any form of sport either. However through recent happenings in the sporting world, such words are thrown around like confetti at a wedding. Lance Armstrong, Oscar Pistorius, OJ Simpson to name but a few sportsmen who have had the red carpet treatment pulled from underneath them through one reason or another. We can all look at the newspapers over the course of the last few months and see journalists and ex-sports stars taking their frustration out on other sports stars when things start turning to pot in their field. Rory McIlroy the latest to get such treatment after walking off the Honda Classic golf tournament due to tooth pain. After this happened he began to get chastised by public and journalists alike for showing a lack of professionalism, however, if it was one of us waking up with toothache, not only would there be a probability we'd call a 'sickie' but not feel like working altogether. Hence, purely on the celebrity pedastool that McIlroy finds himself on, it is almost impossible to escape the limelight, no matter the enormity of the event.

On the topic of being unable to escape the limelight, Oscar Pistorius, the 6 Gold, 4 Silver and 1 Bronze Paralympic Games champion, came under close scrutiny from journalists and police alike when he was accused of shooting his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp at his home in Pretoria, South Africa, on the 14th February 2013. Immediately put on trial, he defended himself on the basis that he thought Reeva was an intruder and he had every intention of killing the intruder, not Reeva. Evidence for the defence and prosecution were placed in court over the following few days, with the initial status being that Oscar Pistorius would be placed on bail. Having become the 'poster boy' for the Paralympic Games, everything looked bright for the future of Oscar Pistorius. He had 5 modern homes all around the world, an Olympic legacy paved in gold for his contribution to raising the sport from the ashes, and a loving family. So where did it all go wrong? Is a celebrity status of such a nature of Pistorius's something too much for a person to cope with? I suppose we'll find out when the jury and court adjourns again later this year for a final sentence.

Continuing along the sporting fall from stardom, we come to the issue of OJ Simpson, his rise to fame through American Football and his ultimate demise into one of the first sporting figures of such notoriety to be involved with such a large scandal. Having become the first American Footballer to have passed the 2,000 rush yard mark in a season, his sporting career was turning into a great success, until he was tried on two counts of murder following the deaths of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman in June 1994. Having been given a verdict of 'not guilty' from the court on October 3rd 1995, OJ Simpson followed this up subsequently by releasing a book entitled 'If I Did It: Confessions of the killer' in 2007. Copies flew off the shelves in the public's desire to find out the mentality behind OJ Simpson, not noticing the minuscule print of 'if' rather than the presumed title 'I Did It'. 

Tumbling from grace has been something that is quite frequently happening to sports stars. Furthermore to Oscar Pistorius and OJ Simpson, there was the massive trial of Lance Armstrong, the record seven time Tour De France winner from 1999 to 2005, regarding his use of doping. Being an individual who himself fought off cancer, and having set up 'Livestrong' (a foundation that helps to serve people affected by cancer and empowers them to take action to gain a a healthier body), to have such a large story come out that such a man had taken dope throughout his cycling career shocked the world. He ultimately got stripped of his seven Tour De France titles and his reputation turned to soot with all his sponsorship deals turning the other way too. His interview on Oprah Winfrey was to be the turning point of the whole story, a chance for Lance Armstrong to set the story straight. Although he admitted to taking dope to enhance his sporting capability, his overall body language showed he withheld information which he later publicly announced, ultimately dampening his ever decreasing and capitulating reputation. Fellow cyclists condemned his actions to the utmost of their ability and set about looking for an increased drug testing centre for people not only involved in cycling but other sports too. As Simon Barnes, the Sports commentator for the newspaper 'The Times', stated in his recent article 'When Hipocrisy becomes a lifestyle choice', 'Armsrong chose to live by a means of lying, bullying, cheating: as a system, a career.' - This, in my opinion is a grand summation of what Lance Armstrong's lifestyle path choices not only condemned him as a reputable sportsman for the rest of his career but also made his 'Livestrong' campaign strongly hypocritical.

In turn, I want to leave you with a couple of questions, does celebrity status bring with it a greater sense of needing to strive for bettering your career path no matter how you go about it, just so long as you don't get found out in the long run? Furthermore, does being a celebrity mean that whatever nonsensical or fatal action they undertake or accidentally participate in, they get a grossly over emphasised criticism from fellow celebrities and members of public? An extended court sentence for those put on a pedastool, and one from which they would never be able to get back on no matter how big their ladders were or how large the bridges were they try to re-build. Once your a celebrity who falls from fame with such large side effects as OJ Simpson, Oscar Pistorius or Lance Armstrong, to name a few, you will be forever trampled on like sawdust in a carpenter's workshop.

Jonathan Whitehead

History In The Making

So the Oscars ceremony was yesterday and lo and behold, Daniel Day-Lewis became the first person to receive the 'Best Actor' award three times, previously for his leading roles in 'My Left Foot' in 1989 and 'There Will Be Blood' in 2007, as well as 2013 for his role as Abraham Lincoln in the blockbuster 'Lincoln'. Having only recently seen 'Lincoln', the impact of Daniel Day-Lewis's acting of Lincoln is still vividly imprinted on my mind for its sheer competence and ability to pull off such a strong character with such success. Tipped as being the biggest film of 2012/2013, one can see why - with great casting (Tommy Lee-Jones is spectacular in his supporting role), in depth analysis on the personal life behind Lincoln the politician, showing the struggles, turmoil and great deal of grief both he and his family endured for the fight for a united country and emancipation.

Having studied the American Civil War, Lincoln, and the topic of the abolition of slavery being my dissertation topic at University, I felt like I had a good understanding as to the role of Lincoln in this situation. Watching Daniel Day-Lewis acting as Lincoln, you could see that he was in his zone acting to the utmost of his abilities with great effect. No matter what reviews were given on the film as a whole, whether it be of people saying it was too long winded, boring or just an extended documentary on the life of Abraham Lincoln in the later stages of the American Civil War, no one can deny the ability of Daniel Day-Lewis to control his character as being a central figure in the film, his calmness within the role as a whole, and the amount of empathy he receives from the audiences through his staggering performance of arguably the most influential man in American History.

I do have one minor issue with the film though. The film started after the Emancipation Proclamation was introduced by Abraham Lincoln in 1863 - this is significant because, from what I have read and learnt previously, before 1863, Lincoln had his mind set on winning the Civil War at all costs and not really focusing on abolishing slavery until the end of the war, if that. It was only when the Civil War extended longer than he anticipated and when it became apparent that it was only going to be through the abolishing of slavery (or for the meantime show he was opposed to human slavery as an institution) that the Civil War could be won, and by which foreign support could be provided, leading to the ultimate port blockades to prevent supplies going to the front line for the Confederate forces. The film showed none of this 'previous mind-set' Lincoln had and focused solely on his fight for emancipation and the passing of the 13th Amendment - the abolition of the slave trade in the free world! I would compare it to the film 'Amazing Grace', featuring Ioan Gruffudd, Albert Finney, Benedict Cumberbatch and Michael Gambon, where it shows the fight for abolishing the slave trade in the British Empire. However, the one thing Amazing Grace shows that Lincoln didn't was slavery in full effect as well as the overall effects of slavery on politician, priest and women alike. It was as if to understand the full story of Lincoln, told and untold throughout the film, you needed to have brushed up on your pre-Emancipation Proclamation American History. Nevertheless, the film should be awarded the highest praise, and Daniel Day-Lewis's Oscar is most well deserved.

On to another history orientated film, this time a musical, not just any musical, but Les Miserables. With an outstanding cast of Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Helena Bonham-Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Eddie Redmayne, it was definitely going to be one of the films to watch of 2012/2013. Set in the time of the French Revolution during the Nineteenth Century, the musical shows how lives are changed for the characters Jean Valjean and Javert from inprisonment and imposing law, to family, to love and ultimately death. In my opinion, Hugh Jackman did an incredible job playing the part of Jean Valjean, a previous prisoner of 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread who turns a new leaf and becomes the master of a factory and mayor of his town. I already knew that Hugh Jackman could sing (better than Russell Crowe at least) through his performance at the Tony Awards a couple years back with Neil Patrick Harris

 *cue youtube link* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgivKET0Mrs

However, his performance in Les Miserables was quite mind-blowing, nearly on par with Daniel Day Lewis's in Lincoln. To hear that Anne Hathaway got an Oscar for 'Best Supporting Actress' was astonishing as well considering her character was only in the film for the duration of half an hour, there or thereabouts. Nonetheless, it was a performance to be proud of and one which deserved praise of the highest accord. It has to be said that never has a film needed more of a comedic interlude then Les Miserables did. This was duly dolled out in the shape of the class act duo Thenardier and Madame Thenardier (played by Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter). The inclusion of their humorous scripting was what was needed to keep the movie entertaining. Not only did they work wonders as a partnership but they gave something different to an otherwise serious and provocative musical. Sacha Baron Cohen's line 'You stole our courgette' was one of the more comedic additions to the musical, even if it was a bit childish.

As much as I love Russell Crowe for his acting in Gladiator, Robin Hood, A Beautiful Mind, and Master and Commander, I wasn't so sure on his singing ability whilst playing the part of Javert in Les Miserables. For instance, every time he was hitting a high note in his solo's the camera would inadvertently lift up 50 meters or so, possibly to spare his blushes to show he couldn't reach the notes. Nonetheless, acting wise I think he played the part well, though one can say he did sing better then Pierce Brosnan did in his rather drab performance in Mamma Mia.


Thus ends another blog entry from myself, I hope you enjoyed this latest one and thank you for reading it!

Jonathan Whitehead

Even spinach won't help Pope-eye now!

With Pope Benedict XVI deciding to resign his post as a leader of the Catholic Church this week, the media and people a-like have come out in full force regarding their opinions of this news, some positive, some negative. As Pope Benedict XVI was the first Pope to resign from his post in over 600 years, for the majority of the Catholic following around the world, this news came as a shock.

*cue video of woman reacting dramatically* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19Rqre1deuM

The resignation has also sparked a multitude of meme's to be created in its legacy, my favourite of which is linked below!

In all honesty, my reaction to the Pope resigning was somewhat muted as I understand that he is old, frail and is verging on collapsing at any moment. To think that Popes are any different from the rest of us in regards to their human nature and ageing process is near on absurd. Coming to the assumption that on the basis that as Pope, and the leader of the Catholic Church means he should marry himself to leading the Church until his dying breath is being unrealistic. So, in my opinion, it is unfair to disregard a person's health and strengths to 'fit the role', so as to fulfil their status and commitment to the Church as a whole.

Whilst we're on the notion of the Church and people's relation to it, I thought that I would take this opportunity to comment on my own notion of Religion and the importance of your own spiritual journey, regardless of the pressure placed on you by society or family.

I got taken to one of these Religious talks last week on how we can incorporate God's love for us within our own lives and within family. The speaker, of respectable background, spoke of how no matter what we do or have done in the past, our family would be there to love us wholeheartedly. He spoke of an unconditional love which God has for us so that he sent his only son down from Heaven to teach the world of his love and compassion for one and all. We then got split into smaller groups to further our discussions regarding the talk and our own personal views on Religion and our relationship to God, both spiritually and within our everyday life. I took up the point of questioning what made us Religious, what made us part of God's family. I have always questioned the effectiveness of Religion upon society, and the capacity for one Religion to have such a firm belief there is not only just a God and an afterlife, but also seeing their God as being the most righteous and believable. I questioned whether we can call ourselves Religious by the mere notion of going to Church every Sunday, or whether it is through our day to day lives, how we treat and regard other people, how we believe in our heart of hearts that something greater is out there leading us on to a better life. Or is it all of the above? Is it good to have your doubts? Does it make you a bad Catholic if you go to Church and not join in on the ceremonies because you are questioning your faith? Is it a waste of time to go to Church if you are in such a mindset? These are the questions that I have been asking myself a lot recently.

I have been brought up in a Religious household since birth, I have been baptised, confirmed, travelled to Lourdes on two back to back years at the end of my School years, and been on a Faith Conference for a week to help build a better relationship with God and Christianity. At School, I found a sense of rest-bite knowing that I could turn to Religion to resolve any issues I had within myself surrounding my faith. At Lourdes, I saw an eclectic range of Catholics and visitors coming to help those in need, strengthen their faith or just take in the scenery as was the case with some of them. There was a situation I found myself in during my time at Lourdes which led to me starting to question the respectability of wholeheartedly calling yourself a Catholic. There was a man in the middle of the street, stranded in a broken electric wheelchair calling out for help and hoards of people just walking past him as if everything was alright with the world. Upon asking the man what had happened, he told me he had been calling out for help there for near on 20 minutes without heed. Furthermore, the next 20 minutes spent helping the man, no one came to offer their assistance in any regard. For this to happen in one of the most profound Christian places shocked and appalled me. In addition, at the Faith Conference I went to in the summer of 2011, it seemed that any discussion in regards to questioning the authority, authenticity or debatable nature of some of the talks and readings given or talked about was almost not encouraged. What is a democratic belief in Religion or God if there is no room for debate and discussion?

In recent years, my faith has faded due to changes in my personal circumstances. With three of my grandparents and my godfather passing away after undergoing a significant time of suffering, all in the years since 2007, all that came as a consequence of these was a questioning of my faith in a God. With two of my grandparents being two of the most religious people I have ever met, and my godfather being a priest all his life, to see them endure the suffering they went through before dying gave me great heartache and no real hope for a better understanding of Religion or of God even, it just made me angry and frustrated. This anger and frustration led to a further questioning of my faith and ultimately led to a great deal of hotly disputed debates between my father and myself. This was not aided in my ability to hold a string of unsuccessful relationships over the course of my four years at University, furthermore questioning my already questionable belief.

So I guess this blog entry was more of a rant than a informative discussion of Religion and the Pope's resignation, but it was something that I needed to get off my chest in one format or another. These are my own views on Religion and I understand other people have different views.

Jonathan Whitehead

Time for a little hide and seek

So as most of you will know, the remains of the late Richard III were discovered underneath a car park in Leicester. After over a staggering 500 years since his death in 1485, the magnitude of this discovery has surpassed many that have gone before. Furthermore, for the jovial members interested in History out there, Richard III can easily be crowned (excuse my pun) champion of the longest game of 'hide and seek' to have ever been played. *cue humorous meme*

So what makes this discovery so significant? Why has it taken over 500 years to discover his body? And the question I keep asking myself... Why build a car park over the top of a previous King of England? (admittedly unintentionally).

On the throne as King of England for a mere two years from 1483 until his death at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, Richard III never had a serious chance in pushing forward plans and implementing his power in as short a time as he was ruling over his lands. Conflict brewed and came to the fore in the years prior to Richard's crowning as King, with battles and skirmishes between his Father (Richard Plantagenet), Uncle (Edward IV) and their 'enemies of the state' Henry VI and Henry Tudor (later to become Henry VII). Consequently, Richard III was placed on the crown in a country riddled with turmoil, corruption and deceit. Rebellions were effective ways to reduce the power, influence and support of Richard's aristorcracy and gentry. Thus, Richard's brief and short-lived stay in power was suitably predictable, given the state the country was in come the time of his accession to power, the length of his stay in power was merely going to be determined by how effective his army and supporters were in derailing any negativity or backlash surrounding possible revolutions or uprisings.

So why is this discovery so significant?

In terms of honorary duties, being King of England obviously has its significance with regards to reputation, past culture, and notion of royalty. Hence, the media outcry of recent days regarding his burial remains. In addition, his death marked the end of the War of the Roses, a conflict fought between the House of York and the House of Lancaster over sporadic years between 1455 and 1485. During this time of upheaval and suppression of power, the significant inability to gain any real notion of power, status and reputation bypassed the trivial bystanders level of approval and was brought significantly by military power and success.

Furthermore, Richard III was popularised through William Shakespeare's play of an identical name. This play, written in 1592, was to bring forward the history of not only the effects of the War of the Roses, but also the extended circumstances surrounding Richard III's family, notably his two young nephews who were said to have been murdered by Richard's own ruling after he succeeded the throne. What this play did, in turn, was to publicise what role Richard III had in changing the course of history, in a way in which the general populous could recognise the overwhelming state of conflict he got placed into, the role he played in attempting to remain in power for as long as possible, and most of all the significance of his death.

Jonathan Whitehead