Cameron's reduction on alcoholic class in the UK.

So, earlier this year, our reptillian PM, Mr David Cameron increased the alcohol duty rates on all nice beers (of the higher percentage). This meant an increase of around 4p per pint, which seems negligable, but it all adds up especially when considering the reduction in tax on cheap, dirty and down right terrible lower percentage beers.

Now, any right minded person may at this point be questioning why it is worth getting irritated by such a difference and suggest just drinking a dirty lager? But the question is, as a student, would you prefer to go home at the end of the night with the customary haze of alcohol abuse, or pass out half way home whilst heaving your bloated water-filled body up the hill like some grotesque reincarnation of Jabba the Hut?

Well I'll tell you what I want, the government to stop meddling in our perfectly legal activities. With the risk of sounding like some ill-informed John Locke, leave us alone!

HCJ - philosophy summarised for your viewing pleasure...

1. The main argument in Hobbes' Leviathan is the need for a single, unquestioned ruler. This is due to Hobbes' pessimistic view of human nature, from which, Hobbes believes that humans will descend into anarchy. This same view is shared by Machiavelli who said 'men are wicked'.

They both also see perception as the reason for human natures inability to peacefully co-exist.

However they differ in their view of the ruler as Hobbes' Leviathan is elected and open to attack if he fails to provide defence for his people. Machaivelli believes that the ruler is monarchic and doesn't mention any limits to their power. This could be due to his contemporary monarchic audience though.

2. John Locke has an optimistic view of human nature, with a 'natural law' being agreeable by the majority.

He, like Hobbes, believes that property would cause dispute and thus an elected government would be needed to dissolve these disputes.

He also believes that this government should refrain from imposing themselves upon society in any way other than helping to dissolve disputes of property.

He was the 'father of Empiricism' and thus Empiricism is the underlying political theory.

3. Descartes view of the world is that it is entirely formed by our minds, this is a 'Solipsistic' view and is argued by the feeling we get from being in dreams that they are real, thus Descartes argues that we could equally be in a dream world or someone else's imagination in the 'real world we perceive or that our perception could be an incorrect view of the world around us.

Plato holds the belief that there is a problem in that the world around us is constantly changing e.g. sunrise, weather etc. Yet our perception in our mind is constant. To explain this Plato suggests there is a world of forms from which we get our constant perceptions from, this differs from the 'imperfect' material world in which we appear to live.

4. Deductive reasoning: assuming something will happen from knowledge: if i kick the football, it will move.

Inductive reasoning: post-event analysis: i kicked the football and it moved therefore my kick must've caused the football to move.

Hume doesn't believe in cause and says that the belief in causation has a negative effect of scientific progress and is created by the mind. Having said this he is sceptical of the deductive thought process and believes that these deductions are all of varying degrees of certainty, with none being absolutely certain.

Apriori - innate knowledge, an idea known to us before our physical existence without any evidence. (bulls**t basically)

Aposteriori - Knowledge gained through experience, testing and other such things. We learn Aposteriori ideas from doing things. (not bulls**t)

5. Rousseau: said to be the founder of the romantic movement, this was a call to prevent the progression of science and re-enter into a uncivilised lifestyle, staring at natural occurrences. Rousseau believed that society  and civilisation was making the world worse and decreasing the happiness of people, greatly contrasting the views of the 18th century. Romanticism was seen as a rebellion, and against the progress that had been fought for following the Medieval Age. His argument stemmed from the idea that war was only fought when two civilisations came against each other, which is obvious because if we all lived as singularities then you could only really have a two person fight, which if you were to call 'war' would occur far more frequently in an uncivilised society. On top of this, when a person wins in this scenario, there's always going to be another person to compete with, as opposed to a long period of relative peace that usually follows for the winning society. (I'm not pro-war, just anti-imbecile).

Law revision.

1. The supreme court is the highest court in the UK.

2. Directors of public prosecution hire the prosecutors in criminal cases.

3. The Crown Courts hear:
- indictable cases
- appeals
- tribunals

4. Magistrates Courts are responsible for:
- summary justice (non-indictable cases)
- either way cases
- committal hearings
- bail applications

5. Criminal offences: committed against the person or the state.

   - as opposed to -

Civil cases: a dispute between two parties.

6. Statute law: enacted by parliament (Common law is set by a judge).

7. Prejudice: judging someone before any evidence is heard. (not good).

Contempt: compromising the integrity of a case and/or denying someone a fair trial.

8. A case becomes legally active when 'it is likely there will be a trial' (This is a blurred definition, practically speaking it is active once someone is charged.)

9. After an arrest, only neutral facts can be reported about the case.

10. When a case is in Magistrates Court we can only report:
- Name age etc (Pos. I.D.)
- the Charge
- whether bail was requested and whether it was granted (but not why)
- Their plead.

The rest will be added later. Need to revise for Philosophy.

Sound Radio: in the news.

You will be able to hear some of these on 'sound radio', the uni's local radio station. If you're outside of the local area you can find it on the internet! Every hour, all day! They also play some pretty good tunes on occasion. Anyway, here it is.

Building collapse causes road closure in Southampton.

A building collapse in Cumberland Place, Southampton has meant that roads remained closed.

The partial breakdown of the building, that was in the process of being demolished, is likely to cause delays around Southampton city centre. The Council has said that, once opened, the Grosvenor Sq link road will remain closed until Monday 12^th December.

Below average school attendance in Southampton has meant that Southampton City council are calling for parents to help improve school attendance.

The statement has placed the blame on parents, suggesting that taking children on holiday during term time, and allowing absence due to minor illness is the major cause of the problem.

Hey man! look at me rocking out! i'm on the radioooooooh!

Today in newswriting I've gone right on ahead and written a radio script... Didn't have the 'cahones' to do anything more important just yet. But I imagine that might come with an increase in health. Enjoy!:

In Sport:

Winchester have come from behind to win 2–1 against Bashley to progress from the third round of the Hampshire Senior Cup.

Winchester can expect to face the likes of Gosport Borough, Romsey Town and AFC Totton in the next round.

And finally...:

Sutton Council have employed a crack squad of Sussex cattle to replace lawnmowers when cutting the rare chalk grasslands of Roundshaw Downs.

The change is expected to save Sutton Council £2000 per year according to Councillors.

I'm sure you'll agree, it's hard-hitting stuff.

David Hume, but it's not certain...

David Hume

David Hume (1711-1776)’s theories on certainty can be summarised by the phrase; ‘can’t derive an ought from an is’. This phrase outlines Hume’s belief that nothing is certain and that, although experience is usually our only source of information, due to our ‘synthetic’ way of thinking, humans often allow our past experience to lead us into error by assumption. In this way Hume is very sceptical and would even disagree that the Sun will definitely rise tomorrow and that every event has a differing degree of certainty based on human testimony and sensory experience.

The synthetic method is how Hume believes we, as humans, think most of the time: combining our past experiences and simpler ideas to form more complex ones. A good example of this would be the concept of angels, where we have taken our experience of human beings and combined them with that of birds, thus creating the idea of such a creature without any sensory experience of one. The fact that humans think like this fuels Hume’s argument for the ridiculousness of belief in miracles and religion. It is important to note however, that Hume is not suggesting that miracle a certain to not have occurred, instead that through a natural ability to assess the likelihood of an occurrence. From this Hume suggests that the likelihood that the person who would spread word of a miracle is far more likely to be a deceiver or be deceived than the extremely unlikely occurrence of a miracle or the physical apparition of a god etc. Hume suggests that the synthetic method of thought is far better for scientific progress due to the potential for creativity through it’s usage, he warns however that one must be wary as it can lead to error due to assumption, hence his emphasis on the uncertainty of anything. He also believes that this uncertainty means that with scientific thought, one cannot assume causation, with the best example being that of billiard balls. Hume would suggest that no matter how many time a person has experimented with billiard balls; seeing a white ball hit a red ball and seemingly forcing it to move, it is not so that the white ball has caused the red ball to move, merely that the balls have happened to move at those angles every time it is repeated, as one can’t be certain that will happen again in the same way. This is a habit of association, where a mind associates the two events the two events together regularly; to the point where one might believe that the movement of the white ball must cause the movement of the red ball, however, Hume argues against this.

He compares the synthetic process with the deductive process, which he claims can have no use in scientific thought, an example of this process is the conclusion that all bicycles must have two wheels, this is because anything with more or less wheels than this goes by another name e.g: tricycle, unicycle etc.

Hume, due to his comprehension of the synthetic thought process, did not place any faith in metaphysics, as he saw the theories to have no grounding in likelihood, but a fabricated theory built to fit what we don’t know, Hume argues that this is preventing scientific progress, with those who accept unfounded testimonies require no proof as to what actually occurs when an event happens, and thus no developments can be made regarding improvement or prevention of events. Hume validates this theory by assessing the false prophet Alexander and the Paphlagonians, a civilization that was ‘ignorant and stupid’ in comparison to the rest of the world, and the belief that they placed in the testimony of humans even though they were known to be untrue by the more informed world outside. He then berates religion by saying that belief in such a thing is belief in conformity, following the human testimony of the masses rather than evidence or sensory data and that those; who are weak enough to think that such testimonies are even worth a second thought, have no opportunity for receiving any ‘better information’. A point that is even raised by Western Christians in modern times (when discussing terrorist beliefs and motives): Even though they themselves place belief in equally unlikely and unfounded human testimonies

journalism now.. but before 'now' because it would be better for it to be proof read...

The Daily Telegraph.

The Daily Telegraph’s demographic is hardly a secret; old, wealthy, Conservatives and usually middle upper class at that. Floating around in the ABC1’s has no doubt shaped the way in which The Daily Telegraph is written, with today’s (17^th Nov) front pages demonstrating the difference between the paper and it’s competitors. Whilst other papers covered the ‘bank crisis’ as ‘Jobless generation’ (The Times) and ‘Migrants grab 12,000 jobs a month’ (Daily Express), The Daily Telegraph looks upon the story from a purely observational standpoint, speaking of ‘growth forecasts’ and other such things, not once mentioning the effects on today’s youth, or the effect of immigration. This is presumably due to the fact that the readership of The Daily Telegraph will not be feeling the pinch of ‘the cuts’, merely observing them from the lofty heights of grandeur and wealth.

Another big story, that has been hit hard by the tabloids today, is the ignorance of Sepp Blatter (the figurehead of FIFA), which brings me to my second point that defines The Daily Telegraph for me: the lack of a sport’s back page. Not only this, the well-hidden 20-page pull out even manages to place football on the 8^th page, after straight Rugby Union (and no mention of Rugby League), another stereotype of the privately educated upper middle classes. Once you have found the football pages, you will not find a league table or a record of results, but a brief summary of the financial and legal troubles found outside of the game. It would be unfair to suggest however that any of the sports covered were done from the perspective of a fan of the game, with not one result (apart from the odd gaze back into the ‘good old days’), or, in fact, any record of anyone actually playing the sports (the exeption being the praise of Federer’s victories at the age of 30 which is a cause of constant reference. But even then, the story is a biography rather than coverage of the sport.). To me it seems obvious that these stories have been chosen for their retrospective viewpoint or for their relevance to business.

The Telegraph tells the news in facts and figures that fit the thinking of hard-nosed businessmen and other such stereotypes of the demographic. This is done by expressing, mostly, the financial and business sides of a story for those who may not understand contemporary references to mass culture or want to read about the way in which people are effected by stories, instead looking at what the facts and figures can tell us, with a business-like efficiency that makes for good journalism but doesn’t offer anything for the less-educated to grasp onto. To summarise, The Daily Telegraph reports stories that are opposite to how their readership likes their rooms: hard and cold.

media law and the innocence project.

Today we looked at investigative journalism, specifically in the area of miscarriages of justice (If a certain lager did morally upstanding journalism, this would be it.). This is a very relevant area for us a Winchester, with the innocence project being a fine example of investigative journalism into the miscarriages of justice: taking people who have been convicted and appealing on behalf of them if it seems that they have been wrongfully convicted.

More notable an example of evidence would be the M.P's expenses scandal that was exposed by The Daily Telegraph. The best defence for this form of journalism is having the evidence to prove it to be true in a court of law. However, besides this, the defence would be that the exposure was in the public interest, the three main components of a public interest defence are:

- Hypocrasy (meaning that the person is giving an image which is not true)
- Crime (the person or collective attacked are taking part in criminal activity)
- Public Safety (e.g. the council are putting heroin and cyanide in the water)

At this point in the lecture we drifted into the specifics of certain cases, which I am unsure is a topic befitting of this published blog, what with defamation of the police and legal system being a highly outcome.

Retired mediocre boxer predicts football score - NO WAY!

Way to go BBC Sport! you've really gone all out on this one with a fantastic story! well done indeed!

bbcsport_ticker BBC Sport Breaking 

Football: Man City fan Ricky Hatton predicts his side will beat QPR 8-0 on Saturday bbc.in/tqLRhH

On to a winol..

Today I was put to the undesirable task of critiquing the latest instalment of WINOL (so please excuse any mean and unfair things I may say about it, it wasn't my choice).

Not to worry though, the bulletin as a whole was exquisite and I was only able to pick a few things out, mostly stylistic choices regarding sound and video editing (but as of yet I can't do that yet, so I am inferior in that respect anyway). So here is my brief and pretty nit-picky list that will probably lead me to be the victim of some form of hate-crime in the near future:

- About 5 minutes in was when I spotted the first flaw; just a small editing glitch which I think was mid speech.

- Then at around 9 minutes in there was a brief drop in volume during a pretty extended pause at the end of the sports segment that could perhaps have been cut out altogether.

- At the end of the ad for the other production the music could perhaps have been faded and an outro perhaps done just to soften the transition from the ad back to the presenter.

- Then, last but by no means least, the only legal point that I could really spot as potentially dangerous: the interview with the Southampton MP (whose name escapes me) where he was defaming Ed Miliband, who should probably be defamed in all honesty but legally was a bit iffy. Which was a tiny speck on what was otherwise very newsworthy journalism.

Other than this however, it was precise journalism to be proud of. A thumb upwardly inclined from me.


Also, if you have no idea about anything I just said, here is the WINOL youtube page with an extensive backlog of other admirable student journalism: http://www.youtube.com/user/Winchesterjournalism

A Tea Towel Too Far... Revisited

At the risk of defaming any person, (in the world!) my house, this is the last straw (if it were true that; a person might soak my tea towel in cooking juices AGAIN! Not to mention the hideous state that the kitchen might generally be left in after they cooked (There may have been a crusty pan on the dining table yesterday that literally smelt like human feces)!

Now due to my current level of legal training, one might say that I am defaming this imaginary person, yet the simple fact of the matter is it could be true (which would be justification, with evidence), also, it is my genuine opinion that people who would be selfish, ignorant, thoughtless, arseholes (mere abuse - that's right, I genuinely think they would be arseholes), would do such a thing to my kitchen, if it were to happen (fair comment)!

It would also be justifiable to say if a person came into the kitchen with a plastic bag on their hand, so as not to catch any germs of us filthy folks in the same house, I would assume, to which I would say; why don't you just clean up after yourselves then?!?!? Then we wouldn't be risking our own mortality at the hands of salmonella every time we might make a sandwich! - I will be writing to my housing officer - maybe.

A philosopher is never late, he arrives precisely when he means to.

Ok, so let's begin with what began my lecture last week (as it seems a logical place to start). We began the lecture with a discussion on the death of Socrates, which is important when discussing the idea of a 'social contract' (conveniently the topic of my blog today, what a coincidence!). The idea is; that when Socrates was sentenced to death, a great many of his followers were very eager to get him out of such a sorry predicament, yet, when they asked him if he wanted assistance Socrates refused. Now, at this point, one has to wonder why a person would refuse being saved from horrific death, seems very anti-darwin, but Socrates was adamant that if he were to reject the power of the state in which was brought up and allowed to live, then he would be breaking the laws set out by the state: the very state that he had fed upon (metaphorically speaking) for his entire life, thus breaking the unspoken contract that he implicitly signed by living in said society.

The relevant point in this is the idea that when a person lives in a society, they are bound to serve that society and follow the rules set out by the powers that be, and in breaking said rules, one might bring the entire civilisation to it's knees, as what then would prevent others from doing the same.

This idea is explored in Hobbes' 'Leviathan': in which Hobbes describes the only antidote to a fearful anarchic 'State of Nature' (in which there is no governing power and it's every man for themselves). The Leviathan is a singular ruler who must be obeyed and given absolute power in order to regain civilisation from the chaotic state of nature. The only right than can be retained, according to Hobbes, is the right of self-defence. This means that the Leviathan can be over thrown if they are unable to defend those under their control; thus breaking their social contract.

We also discussed Locke, but due to his part in my next lecture/seminar, He will appear then.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

My first radio broadcast. (hopefully)

I’m sat in the lecture theatre and it’s 3.00pm, although it feels like early morning, with the groggy-haze of sleep still firmly gripping my consciousness. We’re covering the idea of narrative: a simple idea at a push, yet, at 40 minutes in, they really are pushing it. We’ve covered 1950’s Hollywood. The lecturer’s way of making sense of the idea of the impact of culture on media: presumably so that the insects on the walls can also understand the concept. But I don’t know, maybe he thinks we’re all idiots.

I hear him phase back into my conscious thought, catching his most controversial statement (outside of his joke about masculine breast cancer): ‘can videogames also have a narrative?’ My mind flashes back to the moment of Dom Santiago’s martyrdom in Gears of War 3, yes it can; not only can it do so, it can also do so in a way that is vastly superior to most ‘blockbuster’ films (anything with Adam Sandler in it comes to mind). Another example of the dismissal of videogames by ‘cultured’ society.

The videogames industry didn’t become bigger than television, film and books without being in some way a superior form of entertainment, did it? Some of the biggest directors, screenwriters and actors didn’t turn to videogames because they were random and pointless repetitions of the same thing did they? Or am I missing some philosophical development that completely overrules logic?

Sure, you could argue that early games such as ‘Pacman’ and ‘Space Invaders’ were repetitive and without a storyline, but imagine for a second that Pacman was to be looked upon through the same ‘cultural’ glasses that art is: then Pacman becomes a poignant insight into the mind of a person on LSD running from the ghosts formed by the drug!

My mind has wandered, the doodle I started has now become fine art and I think we’re now being told that Soaps are examples of ‘fantastic!’ story writing. I beg to differ, but I’ll hold my tongue, I don’t care enough to stay in this lecture any longer than I have to: which, judging by the expressions on everyone else’s faces, is the real ‘key concept’ shared today.

Is there such thing as over-precision?

If there is, this is it:


The only way I can possibly imagine trying to answer such a complex question as ‘what makes a good journalist?’ is through a 150 word email to my precision English tutor. The answer is simple enough: precise English - and only precise English - can make you a good journalist. Creative writing skills, the drive to succeed and a passion for the occupation are entirely worthless! As a journalist, you can only prevail with perfect grammar and spelling. Any minute detail that is incorrect in any article will lead to certain failure and you will lose your job! Not only this, but other journalists will call you horrible names, such as ‘bad journalist’ and ‘poor journalist’, which, I’m sure you will agree, is not good for a person’s self esteem. Finally, a journalist must have extremely precise English, as if they do not, then they shall not become, as is their desire, a journalist.

With regards to Libel.

To begin our foray into the depths of Libel, we must first look at what is required of the claimant in order for them to mount such a malicious attack upon another: (use of the colon perfected in precision english) the claimant must prove that whatever material they have taken offence to is 'defamatory' towards them; as in lowering their reputation: they must then prove, in a Civil court, that the material is understood to be referring to the claimant 'beyond reasonable doubt'; the third and final proof required is that of a third person's involvement, e.g: a readership.

Now we have established that there isn't much to prove in order to take someone to court over Libel, I will take us back to the beginning of the lecture in which I was given this information (although I had read the book, but for storytelling purposes this is easier and more interesting):

-Zoning in-
We begin with Chris Horrie holding, as is quite regular in these situations, The Sun newspaper; Chris is laughing aloud as we disentangle the reason why the cabinet women were being so immorally attacked by Mary Portas (insufferable orange-haired witch from humbly-named television programmes such as 'Mary Queen of Shops' and nothing else of any more prestige than that), Emily Ashton (y'know that famous woman from... The Sun.) and The Sun's Fashion Editor: Toni Jones. The reason is surprisingly simple, even though the article was especially defaming, it is all very legal.

But why? (I hear nobody cry, due to the form of media I am using) The reason is, hauling us back from the tangent of The Sun's witless abuse of politicians, 'mere abuse': the first instance of legal jargon to be spoken of in the lecture, and for good reason: mere abuse is a great defence against Libel claims, as, if the defendant can prove that the insults are matters of opinion and they are the truthful opinion of the defendant (this is under the cover of the 'Fair Comment' defence), then the defendant has the right to print their own opinion.

The lecture then moved onto a more formal note, defining Libel as what it is; a dispute between two parties over reputation, which then required a proper definition of what a person can claim of their reputation, which is: a person has the reputation to which they are entitled [through the opinions of others]: not what said person thinks their reputation is.

This definition, whilst seeming to aid the defendant, is balanced by the fact that defamation only has to TEND (this is how it was written in my notes) to damage reputation, meaning that the claimant must only prove, on the balance of probability, that the person's reputation COULD (once again, how my notes were written) be damaged.

Also, accusing someone of a crime is a definite act of libel, unless they are already proven guilty in a British Court of Law, and even then a summary of the defence must be given in the interests of fairness.

To be Libel; the defamation must be in a permanent form, hence why it is such a threat to journalists. These definitions of the fine points of Libel can be summarised by the convenient addition:

Identification + Publication + Defamation = Libel (handy).

With this handy summary of Libel, I will bid you Adieu.

Philosophy masterclass

Yesterday (Tuesday), I embarked upon an academic journey through time and, theoretically, space. The expedition into these realms was very capably lead by none other than Jack Webb, a fellow student of journalism. We began in the pre-Socratic era, with Thales, a philosopher who was the very first recorded mathematician and Philosopher, famous for his prediction of the eclipse. However there are no written records of his work. Anaximander was the next topic of discussion, with his theory of the world being made of all elements rather just water, this was later discredited by Aristotle, but a good effort nonetheless. Pythagoras was next, the namesake of the infuriating mathematical theory, not only this, Pythagoras worked out the mathematical links between the universe, music and maths as well as being the head of his own religion, such was the contemporary importance of his works at the time. Parmenides and Hericlitus, the former of which argued that everything was made of one substance as opposed to the latter who argued that everything was kept in balance by two equally matched opposites, were next. Needless to say, the two were not best friends.

We then moved on to all things post Socrates, including Socrates himself, who, although we have no written evidence of his work, was extremely influential, tutoring Plato who in turn tutored Aristotle. Socrates died as a result of accused impiety and was thus forced to drink large quantities of poisonous substance (lovely). Plato, being next in the line of great philosophers was the number one student of Socrates, whose great work consisted of a plan for a seemingly utopian future society, exploring the nature of justice, politics and statesmanship. This as well as proposing the big questions of how and why anything exists, suggesting that there is a perfect other world that this world merely shadows, and that philosophers were the only few who could access the knowledge in that other realm, possessing the 'ultimate innate knowledge' (sounds like a big ego to me, but he was a smart guy). The student of Plato was Aristotle, perhaps the most well-known Greek philosopher, who argued with Plato on the origin of knowledge and that it was acquired through experience as opposed to Plato's idea of innate knowledge. Aristotle was also, the origin of logic and a master of metaphysics, physics, ethics, biology and politics to name a few.

After the death of Aristotle, stoicism became more prevalent in Greek culture, with the idea of a wonderful immortal life awaiting those who would live in a good way. However, after a while these theories were overtaken by a re-ignition of Plato and Aristotle's theories. In other news, shorthand is going alright.

The application of shorthand.

Today, as always with Mondays, I attended my Key Concepts lecture, and being as it's all pretty much common sense I decided to use the lecture to revise my shorthand. This didn't really work, as my shorthand isn't that great. However, all revision is good revision right? And I got some notes from my lecture, which can only be a good thing, disregarding the content of the lecture and it's worth.

Juggling social, work and relationships all the time is becoming tiresome, speaking of which, Megabus is all talk, the whole £1 thing is a lie; £15 to get to Nottingham each way, from and to London, then the cost of getting to Winchester from there. Having a girlfriend will most definitely be expensive whilst I'm here, not that it's not worth it. I'd recommend it in fact.

Anyways, I digress to less officious topics, which I'm still not certain where to draw the line on with this blog. Shorthand is proving difficult, but very progressive and with more and more practice is becoming relatively simple, although, it's still faster for me to write in longhand, which is ironic, but hey ho!

I am yet to receive my Betrand Russell book, which is particularly annoying, yet it offers the opportunity for me to try ploughing through this law book, fun fun fun. I'm finding that I recognise a lot of the content from AS Law, which is reassuring, but my patience with the quantity of 'double-dutchery' is wearing thin to say the least.

Now, after this erratic foray into the mind of a rather worn out student, I wl lv u to do yr own thng (shorthand before it's made into symbols ;)).

The fun police.

As many of you will know, Winchester is home to a nightlife that leaves little to be desired. This, I feel, is almost entirely down to a form unofficial policing that I, in my limited knowledge of relevant law, am pretty sure isn't even legally binding.

The unfair restriction on fun and youthful activity in Winchester leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth after being evicted from most places at the early hour of 1.00am, with an army of yellow and green clothed 'shushers' clamping down on all conversation with those who are more than a foot away. I have many friends who tell fantastic tales of freedom and youthful endeavour that leave me longing for escape from such unopposed fascism.

'Fresher's week' if it can so be called at Winchester, has been a series of, what I would describe as, quiet nights out and has left me with a deep seated feeling of unfulfilled desire for fun. One that I fear will have to be amended by trips to the surroundings cities of London and Southampton, an expensive trek that really shouldn't have to be made, but there we are. I may need to write a letter to the local council, perhaps form a petition, although, the fear of the potential consequences thrown out there by the University itself could very well prevent this democratic right.

Well, today was the first of my law lectures, as is to be expected, the influx of students ebbed and flowed until the class had arrived, making for a less than definite starting point to the lecture, Chris made the importance of reading newspapers very clear (although, whether this was a side-note or part of the lecture is still unclear. Not that it matters, I just need to scrape some money together for papers.). We started off discussing liable, the hideously abused system of punishing people on the fine points of what they say, which was brought into perspective through Chris' own tales of liable, which, as enthralling as they were I fear may be too much to divulge to any old body on the internet (these things are delicate matters). This among with 40 other major statutes that restrict journalists really emphasised the need for legal knowledge in this profession.

The lesson then moved into more general ideas about journalism, and the idea of the constitutional laws of country, which encompass the Human Rights Act; specifically Section 8 and the right to privacy, made relevant by the need for journalists to acquire consent regarding certain types of cases. This law then competes in legal standing with Section 10: the right to free speech (a right liberally applied by journalists).

Through the discussion on the laws themselves, the lesson inevitably drew towards the topic of the 3 estates (the 3 estates being the Legislatory, Executive and Justiciary powers that run the country), which I will come to later due to the tangent that was brought about by this:

The idea that Plato identified with 'who guards the guards' (if I've misquoted him it's okay, he's dead) brings to mind another idea; that there is a 4th estate, that monitors these powers... the press! Keeping track and exposing potential corruption (along with what they may also do in their private life), and thus giving those in the profession an enlarged sense of importance in the national scheme of things, which is nice.

Back to the main themes now, and the Judiciary estate: being previously of AS Law, I was mostly just refreshing there points, but my memory being as it is, this was very useful. The two types of legal proceedings are Civil and Criminal. The Civil Court deals with non-violent crime, or most forms of it (theft being an ideal example of an exemption from the rule). This Civil Court deals with liable, such as defamation etc, which is mostly not newsworthy, (unless you are a follower of Katie Price, who seems to change her underwear less frequently than her husband) however, it is usually the home to charges brought upon journalists who make the mistake of accusing someone of something in the wrong words.

The Criminal Court, however, is a far more likely field to find a journalist (at work) as Chris assured us that it was criminal journalism in which there was a shortage, and thus a potential for jobs. Winchester Crown Court is apparently second only to the Old Bailey, for it's sizable criminal cases and so presents itself as a unique opportunity (one which I must endeavour to follow up on).

The way in which journalists must then report upon criminal law, due to the complex nature of liable laws and such like, is delicate, and must be treated with utmost care. One of the main features of which, is the way that we might write about a suspect, in that, the person must be convicted as a murderer before they can so be called in a journalistic report (the example given was that, technically, Hitler was not a murderer, although, he's dead, so I can call him what I like. The slimy little genocidal toad.). It is also important to have specific definition of the crime, due to a thief being well within their rights to sue a journalist calling him a burglar (as ridiculous as that sounds). With this in mind, we can however pass opinion upon a person without too much thought, so if my opinion was that the thief is an idiot, then that is absolutely fine. Which is nice to know.

Other than this we learnt about an 'evidence gap' and the differing standards of proof, which, is interesting but I have already rambled on and it's time to go back and learn some more, so I'll have to just leave it at that... For now!

A guide to international students

Today i had my first 'in depth' conversation with a Chinese international student, by the name of Barry, who I don't suspect for a second has such a Western name on his birth certificate. A beautifully nice guy from the South of China, near Hong Kong apparently. In my experience, the Chinese student tends to be very quiet, which i can understand due to the pressures I imagine come with travelling such a long way from home.

Whilst shy however, to strike a conversation with such a pleasant and intriguingly exotic set of people has proven to be a very rewarding experience. Even in the unusual intonation they use to master a language, so amazingly juxtaposed to their own, can be found a mesmeric appeal that brings enjoyment by itself. This, regardless of their refreshing perspective, that comes with such a geographical distance.

In summary; I would advise that the quiet disposition of these folks is not due to a purposeful abandonment of friendliness toward native students, but born of being far from home in a vastly different culture. And with the correct application of light conversation, you too can enjoy the wonderful and rare company of a very pleasant set of students.

Fresher's Fair

Fresher's Fair: A time to eat free pizza and be used generally as a waste paper basket. Today, I thoroughly enjoyed being silently assessed by the accusing eyes of the men's football team, which seemed to question why this tramp look-a-like was even bothering. However, based on my current fitness levels, this is probably a fair assessment.

I also managed to embarrass myself very efficiently; with a combination of poor humour and a thick Yorkshire accent. Leaving the approaching First Aid promoter dazed and confused as I tried to make light conversation with a terrible quip about the uncooperative nature of the resuscitation model in my last first aid training process (I know, comedy gold right? Wrong, very, very wrong...). So, with this, I tried to make myself scarce and promptly returned back to the safety of my room. All in all; a successful day I reckon.

The initial blog

hey there,

here lies the first of many blogs, hopefully infinitely more inspired than this one. Can't force inspiration 'n' all that.

Sincerely apologetic,
Alex Mason.