Vamp

I know people think Moffat's timewimeyness is clever but I'm getting tired of the "I'm from the future, I know how this will end, you know how this will end, we all know how this will end" plot. The first time I liked it but less and less so.

I'd have to agree with this actually. The cyclical plots are getting a little tiresome, in a similar way to RTD's constant use of 'OMG world exploding WAIT deusexmachina everything's fine'. I guess, though, that the fact we don't have those 'magic saves the world' moments any more is why Moff's stories are so much better in comparison.

 

That and the River Song revelation seems very odd when River was amazed to meet Donna but seemed considerably less so at meeting her own mother before she was pregnant.

To be fair, she probably never expected to meet Donna, whilst she seemed to know she'd meet her mother in the future and exactly when and where that would be.

I still think if you went back in time and met your mother before you were born you'd react far more enthusiastically. Even if you did expect to meet her. Though if River did kill Rory (which she didn't) then I suppose she'd be more cold.

And I wasn't favouring RTD's endings by any means. As good a writer as I think RTD can be it always amused me that he ranted on dream sequences because they rarely develop a plot, but then is so happy to use variations of a great big reboot button. Then again I seem to remember reading a Moffat comment that in the RTD years he often found himself rushing his episodes and that's where the timeywimey stuff came from. He seemed to have a low opinion of it himself. But then I don't mind slightly rubbishy conclusions, I feel like that's part of the charter for Doctor Who, but its not just reserved for the conclusions anymore.

I do hope Let's Kill Hitler is a bit more of a fun romp, its gotta be right? Doesn't really feel like we've had one of those this series. I'm a bit bored of things being dark and gloomy. Bugger that, its Doctor Who. Its fun in doses, and great if done right, but the show's better than having to rely on that all the time. Leave that to Tim Burton. They even manged to make Doctor Who and pirates bloody gloomy and boring. Although the budget doesn't seem to be helping, everything since they had their big road trip in the good old US of A has felt distinctly cheap, bar the TARDIS scrap yard.

Exactly. Plus remember 'SPOILERS'.

So she wouldn't tell them but she'd still react.

The revelation throws up so many other questions. Why is she in prison? And wasn't she with a religious order when we saw her in the Angels episode? IS she still a 'weapon'? Does she kill the Doctor and if so why?

So the revelation of this episode has thrown up questions that have already been asked? The only real new one is the fact that the clerics were previously opposed to the Doctor, but that wasn't the 'big' cliffhanger. And the bit about whether she's a weapon or not has pretty much always been the question about River, who is she, is she dangerous, is she good, etc. Not great work for a massive cliffhanger. And actually, thinking about it, it would have probably worked infinitely better if they didn't say who River was. If they hadn't have hyped her revelation, if the Doctor had looked at the cot then looked at her, if the Doctor had raised his eyes, if she had shook her head and he then raced off to the TARDIS and then Amy asked River what had happened and she'd said "he's worked out who I am" before vanishing again that would have been a good cliffhanger. It'd have still been a timeywimey conclusion again but its better than what happened. I honestly don't expect them to kill River or do anything else to rewrite her current established timeline, so using her and having her constantly talk about how the Doctor's already managed to this or that and now, have her say that he knows he can save the day because he already has, just reminds me of the fact that I don't expect her to die again. There's my suspense gone to be honest. Like I say, there were bits that I loved, it was a faily good episode but I don't think I could call it great. Maybe a rewatch will change my view of it. But that's my take on things now.

There were loads of individual bits about the episode that I loved but I didn't really feel it was that great an episode to be honest. I guess I'm not digging the serial feel of the series (I know) that much. And I'll be honest and say I felt the cliffhanger was completely lame. In that the cliffhanger was negated at the exact same time it was constructed and I just don't get the appeal of it. I know its Doctor Who, and the good guys always prevail, and I love the show for that but I tend not to feel much suspense about that when one of the character's essentially comes out and says "I'm here, so it'll all be fine, honestly, I'm proof of that. There's literally no reason to worry about me." I know people think Moffat's timewimeyness is clever but I'm getting tired of the "I'm from the future, I know how this will end, you know how this will end, we all know how this will end" plot. The first time I liked it but less and less so.

That and the River Song revelation seems very odd when River was amazed to meet Donna but seemed considerably less so at meeting her own mother before she was pregnant.

Like I say, there were moments I loved. Smith was awesome, Rory being bad ass was great, the darkness of the Doctor was great and I actually felt it was a good way to use the cybermen but it didn't all click with me. I'm normally willing to overlook silly or dubious things about Who as well so it seems odd that I feel this way.

Mostly concerns over his form as of late. I'm sure he'll do fine.

I like animation, but I don't like the look of the animation for that.

It's not so much that I don't like it, more that it just doesn't appeal to me anymore. I loved all 4 Shrek films but it took me ages to get round to watching them and the only reason I did in the end was because I knew I was going to see the 4th at the cinema. It's silly really, but I'm hesitant to say I've grown out of animation.

I'm glad you didn't say it. I have no time for people that think they've grown out of animation. Mostly because they'll probably realise later that a lot of animated movies appeal to adults as much as they do children. Its a bit like fairytales really. Everyoen think they're for kids until they grow up and read them again and realise how much of the material changes when you're an adult. I think maybe people can become disillusioned with animation because at times there's so much of it but anyone who says they've grown out of it is silly. You grow out of children's clothes, animation is soemthing that appeals to a spectrum of ages, its not something people grow out of.

You can make something look like anything with things like CGI though.

They'd still look like real people though. Who wants a real TinTin? If I'm honest I've had completely the opposite reaction of everyone on here. When I first heard about TinTin I was excited, when I heard it was going to be real life actors I was considerably less so, I'm now quite relieved its got the animated style. I'll continue using them as a reference but the (I think it was) two Asterix movies they made which were live action didn't really appeal to me at all. I hated them. It just didn't look right. To me TinTin, in terms of visual style, looked quite realistic. Herge is well known for reaching a stage in his career when eh started to heavily study the settings and themes of his narratives. But still, no matter how realistic it got in certain areas, it was still a comic book adventure. It works because its set in that world. I can't help think that a real life version would look odd, and not in a good way. I remember seeing clips of the TinTin play they had on in London and it just didn't work for me. Obviously its just me who feels that so strongly, and I am basing it purely on having seen those Asterix films (I'm starting to think there may have actually just been one, I should really look it up) but I am genuinely quite surprised people wanted to see a live action TinTin.

Although Spielberg directing slightly puts me off. I thought he was just producing. Meh, its what Herge wanted.

BUMP

 

First Trailer for Speilbergs Tintin is up. TinTin

 

Visually it looks like The Polar express but with the talent behind it i'm hoping its going to be good

I'm actually a little disappointed, I didn't realise this was gonna be animated :\

I think that's the only way to really do it. For me at least anyway. I'd hate to see a real life version, it was attempted with Asterix and it was horrible. Plus the animation looks better than I expected it to so I'm a happy camper. The script's written by an impressive bunch of people, Jackson's directing and the cast is pretty star studded, I think it looks like a promising film. It'll be nice to see it at the cinema anyway. And if it all blows up I'll just buy myself the boxset of the old TinTin series I used to watch on TV as a kid.

Anti-kindle/pro-book sentiment is intolerable. It's just the same silly reaction to anything new that always happens. Kindles are 'soulless' compared to books and other such tripe has many antecedents, like MP3's are soulless compared to CD's in the 00s, CD's are soulless compared to vinyl records in the 90s, vinyl records are soulless compared to live performances in the 20s.

 

Reactionary Daily Express bollocks.

Not really. Someone being a cock online and saying "anyone who likes certain things and not others is intolerable" is intolerable. Books have far more history than vinals or CD's. People who can't understand why people are so personally attatched to books are mostly just being ignorant and trying to seem cool. That and I think you'll find books will survive this technological advance better than vinyl or CD's ever did.

But its nothing really to do with soul. Books have history, a hell of a lot of it actually. They're something that people can hold which have been around since before our lives became as dependent on the electronically charged technology of today, they're people's gateways to the past and they're a comforter because of that. The same way camping's apparently become more popular in later years. People want that link to the past more and more. That's why books will be able to survive the kindle and whatever else. They won't be as big as they once were, but they won't be as knocked back as records or CDs.

But what really gets me are people that argue its Kindle vs Books. And even worse are those that deplore anyone that has such an understandable affinity towards the other. Personally I've briefly entertained the notion of getting a Kindle, and I've certainly nothing against them or those who use them. It all comes down to personal preference. But if you really can't understand why people are so attatched to books and you think they're comparable to CDs of all things you either need to be more open to history or at least wiki books and become less socially inept. Acting all cool because you like the new hip thing and all these people who like books are just so old hat and certainly claiming that anyone who has sympathies for books are just being reactionary Daily Express readers just makes you look stupid.

That and there's something else with books you're unlikely to ever get with a Kindle. And its another reason why some people prefer them. Its what World Book Night (which I was at) sadly didn't quite get, they should have let people swap they're own personal second hand books but still, at least they tried. Its not all a mythical 'soul', its about human attatchment. A book can be kept for ever. I have one of the first copies of the Maltese Falcon to come out in England, god knows how many times its been read but it has. People can share books. My mother's given me books she read as a child, books that were second hand when he got them and were purchased by her mother. The same books that I'll read to my kids and share with them. People can buy second hand books. There's a history and an attatchment there with people you've never met. They might have even been from decades prior. Maybe people are over sentimental to books but that's not a bad thing. That's not deplorable. Meh, this is a bit of a long and sentimental reply, and like I say I'm not anti-Kindle in the slightest, but you're comment was quite frankly intolerable.

As for me, yeah, I'll probably end up buying a Kindle one day. There are advantages to it. But I doubt I'll ever stop owning books or borrowing books or even buying books. I'm not picking sides in some imaginary war.

Edit: That and, like the poster above me mentioned and I actually forgot in the end, there are also benefits to reading books.

it was a fun episode enjoyed it

 

amy sword fighting was a bit silly but great performances from smith and bonneville

 

next week will be massive though been a lot of hype round next week especially as it is written by neil gaiman so cant wait

The sword fighting was meant to be silly, it's bleeding Doctor Who, if there isn't a silly bit in three episodes they may as well change the name of it.

There just seems to be a lot more meaning and deepness to the episodes; previously this episode could well have been a jolly pirate romp with talking parrots and Rory getting drunk on grog.

I think I mighth have enjoyed the jolly pirate romp more. Its all great having these serious episodes and all but I do kinda like the fun mad romps. In fact its the combination of seriousness and complete silliness that makes the series one of my favourites. I suppose this one did have amy swordfighting and space pirates to be fair. There was something overhwlemingly dull about it though. And in places it felt as if the script was still an early draft and hadn't been worked on enough.

So I've been asked to do a few wrestling DVD's for my Aunties friends 7 year old kid but I have no idea whats any good, any recommendations for PPV's? the only show I've seen the past couple of years is Wrestlemania and none of them were much kop tbh

Probably ignore any suggestion from anyone suggesting a classic match/show. I'm guessing they've either seen some and liked it or have friends who talk about it so giving them stuff years out of date isn't going to be appropiate. It'll just be dated. Especially not an old NWA/WCW event since to a child who watches today's television I don't think they'll find it particulary appealing.

I guess anything fun/amusing and not too violent.

I did a horror movie night with a few friends a while back and genuinely wished I'd brought and made them watch the Antichrist. Instead we watched Paranormal Activity which just made me wish I'd brought it even more. Not that I'm a fan of gory movies generally, but there are some brilliant things about the Antichrist in between the attention seeking controversial bits. And I'm not a big fan of Paranormal Activity to be honest. Not that it isn't decent it's just one of those movies I've heard too much hype for and ended up being disappointed with the results.

I've always felt that the importance of healthy eating would be a lot easier to get across if certain newspapers didn't feel the need to write articles such as "such and such a vegetable linked to cancer!" or "drinking water leads to cancer" or the other numerous scaremongering bollocks that has been written up in articles. I can understand why it happens, humans need to find links between things so that they feel there's an essence of cause and effect in the universe, but it doesn't do the whole idea of healthy eating any favours. Such articles used to come up every now and again in my parent's 'papers of choice, normally The Sun or the News of the World. Of course, freedom of the press is important but you can't expect healthy eating to be held in high regard with such contradictory messages.

That and I think the glame isn't been pinned on the right section of society. Its clear that there's a suggestion here that tis unemployed people looking for benefits who arn't looking after their kids properly and worrying about their dietry habbits, but I'm willing to bet that its also an issue in professional households where now days both mummy and daddy will have really important careers and have less time for their children than would traditionally be afforded to them. But then of course you have to balance up fairness. Men and women should equally be allowed to have such careers. Children should equally be given appropiate levels of attention. But in the real world, that doesn't always happen, and really there's no solution to it. Not that I'm suggesting all professional couples are like but it shouldn't be suggested that only *cough* "parasitic wasters" are like it, nor that all of them are like it.

Something I've always wondered, and maybe someone on here might be able to answer, what do Japanese commentators tend to talk about? I'm assuming that they mainly just call the action but do they make jokes as well? What kinda things do they tend to say exactly? Does it vary from promotion to promotion?

Ringleader of protest violence revealed to be council worker (and son of Labour head of Corporate Development).

 

What a f**king idiot. What a surprise that he's a public sector worker too. It's blatantly obvious that all the protests last weekend were purely about self-interest, they couldn't give a flying f**k about the public, they just know they're up shit creek if they lose their jobs in the cuts.

Have there been any protests where the core of the protestors haven't gone out of self interest?

I've been getting my girlfriend into Mystery Science Theater 3000 lately so as a special treat she downloaded Twilight with a RiffTrax commentary that someone had kindly synced up and uploaded to a Torrent site. She read the first few chapters of the Twilight novel and despised it while I despised the novel and its fanbase without reading it to save time, but we thought we'd try out RiffTrax and watch the film to see what the fuss was about.

 

Fuck.

 

If you watched this film and genuinely enjoyed it then you need to die. No joke, totally serious, if you enjoy Twilight then you should kill yourself, and if you have a friend or relative who enjoys Twilight then you have a duty to kill them too. This "film" is horrible, everything from the dialogue to the cinematography to the actors to the so-called "visual effects" was just appalling, I can't even begin to understand how this vampire-themed masturbatory aid even became a novel let alone a series of movies. I've seen a lot of shit movies in my life but Twilight, just saying the word make me want to vomit, is the only movie that I've ever seen that made me drop to my knees and pray for the end of the human species. I don't care if it's a natural disaster, some kind of nuclear holocaust or even the fire and brimstone shindig described in the book of Revelations; kill all humans now. Remember how the plot of Constantine revolved around God and Lucifer having a wager over the souls of all mankind? Remember how neither true angels nor demons can manifest on Earth, but they are allowed to possess and influence humans? Yeah, well, Stephanie Mayer is a human possessed by a fucking demon under the watchful eye of Lucifer. Her mission on Earth is to make millions from her shitty novels thus destroying the credibility of the written word, which will be the first step in a calculated attempt by Lucifer to plunge humanity back into another intellectual dark age and win his wager with God. Stephanie Mayer is the first, but mark my words she will not be the last. May God have mercy on us all.

I hate the film as much as anyone else, and I'll agree with anyone that calls it crap, but you kinda overdidit with the 'comical wish death on fans of shit' thing. I know Charlie Brooker's cool (mostly because he makes sure the joke's equally on him as much as anything else), but saying that you wish a holoucaust to happen because someone made a bad movie actually makes you look worse than the 18 year old Twilight fans who pick a team and wear the t-shirts displaying their chosen character. I mean, rip into the film all you want and those responsible, that's amusing and fun to read, but ripping into people who like it and saying they should die just makes you look like a twat. I realise it probably seemed funny in your head, and its not like I'm offended or anything, but seriously? I just don't get people who go so far. Especially since most of its fans are probably about 14, I liked shit when I was 14, you liked shit when you were 14, everyone likes shit when they're 14. Hell, I like watching shit now.

Isn't there the Google factor to take into consideration? Sure, not everyone would, but there might be a few who saw Hogan and googled him to see what he's actually been up to. I'm guessing the TNA website, or something relating to TNA, would appear on the first page of answers somewhere. I know it does for me. Twice.

Did anyone catch The Killing on BBC 4 last night? Seems like it'll be quite a good watch if the first two episodes were anything to go by. I mean, they wern't anything groundbreaker but still pretty good I thought.

That reminds me of one of Stuart Lee's jokes where he goes on a rant about why anyone would consider writing a 'toilet book' an achievment. I couldn't quite make up my mind at the time whether he was being sarcastic or not but he reminded me of an English Literature lectuer who only believes in 'quality' novels. But then I'm not a fan of Stuart Lee.

 

Anyway, some of the QI books are good for what you suggest, a few interesting quick facts. I suppose the Private Eye annuals have to be mentioned too. Come to think of it, some of the shorter Sherlock Holmes stories are good for a quick read.

 

I fucking love Stewart Lee, he's my favourite comedian. I thought that was a great rant, but I still believe in good toilet books.

 

I will have a look at the QI books - cheers.

 

What does Clarkson write about in his columns? Can't say I'm nuts about the guy, but I'll have a browse if I see them in the book shop.

Sorry, I'm just not a fan really. I can't make up my mind whether its his material I have an aversion to or his delivery. One of those things really.

That reminds me of one of Stuart Lee's jokes where he goes on a rant about why anyone would consider writing a 'toilet book' an achievment. I couldn't quite make up my mind at the time whether he was being sarcastic or not but he reminded me of an English Literature lectuer who only believes in 'quality' novels. But then I'm not a fan of Stuart Lee.

Anyway, some of the QI books are good for what you suggest, a few interesting quick facts. I suppose the Private Eye annuals have to be mentioned too. Come to think of it, some of the shorter Sherlock Holmes stories are good for a quick read.

I also like Radio 4's Friday night comedy. The News Quiz I can give or take, but I heart the Now Show.

How could I forget the Now Show! Always worth a listen, although I couldn't make it through the recent Christmas Panto at all.

Still the radio but not music, I am in love with 'Just a Minute' just as my mother and grandfather were before me, which I think speaks of how universal and wonderful the show is. Probably not for everyone, its never edgy comedy, its just some fine comedians trying to speak for a minute. Far more exciting then it sounds.

A question I've wondered for a while, partly inspired the WWE's new policy regarding blood, has there ever been a first blood match in which one of the wrestlers was busted open unintentionally? People like William Regal seem to start bleeding hardway all the time, so surely it must have happened at some point? If it did happen what did they do about it?

Funny Games (Austrian version)

 

Again, another subbed film that hit the spot. The film has a great way of building up great tension for the viewer.. there were times where I was on on the edge just waiting to see what would happen next. The thing I love about the film is that you dont actually see much violence, but it makes it obvious that its happening (if that makes sense).

I've seen the American remake of this which is supposedly a more or less shot for shot remake of the original. Whether it is or not I couldn't comment but it was quite well done. Its genuinely quite chilling at times and I think its because you don't see the violence. It seems to make it more real, perhaps because we've all just becoe too desensitized from seeing violence onscreen. There's a brilliant bit somewhere in the middle where they do something unrealistic (I'm trying not to give away spoilers) that pisses you off in all the right ways. Certainly worth a look for anyone that hasn't seen either version. ITs quite tense pretty much all the way through.

Nah, still cant see what the fuss is all about.. Press after blood, want the coalition to fail, have done so since the start and are picking off the Lib Dems as they are seen as a weak touch the wankers.

 

Who is control papers and media strugglimg for figures and readers or the government. Utter bollocks

Really? Because when the coalition first started a lot of the media seemed to agree with the utter arsewank that Clegg and Cameron were spouting about how the coalition is what the public had wanted. Which, of course, wansn't in any way true when you consider that the Lib Dems had come third. The public had mostly wanted a Tory government, although were almost nearly as in favour of a Labour government and definately didn't want a Lib Dem one. Technially if it was the Coalition people wanted, then it would have been a Tory-Labour one, which obviously wasn't goign to happen, but certainly its what the public wanted more than the Con-Dem one we've got now.

The fuss though is pretty obvious. Murdoch having that much control over the media is a cause of great concern for many, not just because of how much of the media he already controls in this country but because of the power he has elsewhere too. The Conservatives are all for it and Vince Cable was probably the only person that could and would stand in the way. Personally if I were him that's a position I probably wouldn't want to be in and I'd by lying if I said a part of me didn't wonder whether or not he knew precisely what he was doing.

And technically the Murdoch media backed the Tories, just as they have done with Labour in the past, and both times they got the result they wanted. So the who is control question is a good one. Murdoch's a powerful bed fellow for the Tories and they won't be happy to lose him. He met up with the parties prior to the election, and prior to supporting any of the parties, for private meetings, and this was likely one of the items discussed. We've already seen that the government had no problem undermining the BBC in what will be, for supporters of the Beeb, quite a worrying way. Not just because they're having to make cuts but because what they're having to shoulder the cost for, and what they could have had to shoulder the cost of is actually quite surprising.

So yeah, this is actually pretty important. It also comes at a time when the Director General of the BBC publically stated that he thinks that a television news show that isn't mean to be impartial shoud be encouraged in this country. He actually suggested something like Fox news, that's quite worrying. Or at least I think it should be. It'd be nice to say people are media savvy enough in this country not to have strong opinionated news lead them tobelieve things they probably shouldn't, but I'm not sure they are. There's people in this country that still believe media is a soft subject when its quite possibly one of the most crucial subjects on the curriculum when you consider the amount of sway the media arguably has now. We've been a country that, bar the newspapers, has maintaiend a fairly impartial news. We haven't completely, certainly the BBC have made dodgy political decisions in the past (they didn't cover the General Strike a few decades back because the government didn't want them to) and now there seems to be a somewhat liberal tendency to the broadcaster but certainly don't have anything openly biased. If Murdoch's allowed this he'll have a staggering amount of media coverage in this country, rivalling the BBC, and if as I suspect he will be he is given free reign to have a politcally biased television news channel then he'll be able t osay whatever he wants in his papers and through Sky. He's already backed winners at elections and some would suggest that they won because of his support. If that's true than Murdoch would have a lot of say politically as well. Don't forget tha Fox news, owned by the news corporation, is incredibly biased and a lot of the times its quite scary. A lot of people believe some of the more paranoid stories on that channel, and that's why we have the America we do now where there's some quite loony right wing beliefs, and equally left wing. Its because of their media.

Harry Potter

 

I thought this was cracking. They got a lot of stuff in without making it feel rushed (like with HBP). I usually find Emma Watsons performances a little cringeworthy sometimes (she overacts) but I thought everyone including her was fantastic. Rupert Grint has put on some pounds too, the boys buff.

 

Can't wait for part 2.

I thought it was complete crap. Its not that I don't like films or books meant for children, and its certainly not that I don't like fantasy films or books, but it was so boring in parts. Those parts being pretty much whenever the main characters were on the screen. Although I actually think emma Watson's got the best potential out of all of them, she just needs some pretentious French director to fall in love with her and she'll be sorted. But generally the movie was only interesting when the add on characters were on screen. There was also the stupidity of the fear scene with Ron, that I kbnow the reasoning behind but actually didn't make any logical sense in the way it played out. The whole point of "oh, if we piss him off he'll only attack Harry and not destory me too" was utter stupid and nonsensical. It was probably in the books, I gave up on them after the fourth or so. The whole quest thing seemed a bit tacked on when it came to the films, obviously that's from the books too and I'd hope that it fits the books more naturally, but everytime they mention it in the films I can't shake the feeling that Rowling didn't know how to make an ending that would satisfy her followers and so tacked on a big quest thing that doesn't quite fit it. Again, whether that's her fault or the people doing the films I couldn't say. In twenty years time when someone remakes the Harry Potter movies I genuinely think we could end up with something better than we have now.

I'm actually quite excited about seeing the new Narnia film. I was a Narnia kid during my childhood and the first one was wonderful, the second slightly flatter but the new one looks promising. Narnia at Christmas just feels right.

The simple truth about the violence of the streets is this, its not soley anyone's fault. I think the media, both left and right, is looking to point the finger at specific groups and go "yeah, its all their fault" but its pretty obvious who should get the blame for the violence on the streets; the Government for lying and then not being able to win people over through rational arguments, the rioters who should never have gone to that level of violence, the police who have made questionable decisions from the start, the media who have shown that the only way to get so much attention is to be violent and controversial and those who have given any money to the media which continues, on both sides of the political fence, to be nothing short of awful.

So it isn't those 'bastard' Tories who are to blame, or those 'lying, treacherous' Lib Dems, or those 'sulky middle class' students, the violence on the streets of our nation's captial is essentially the fault of our entire country (or at least those over the age of 15 or so). People arn't going to like admitting it, and I dare say that my view will be met of "oh, how is it my fault", but it is. We've had, in the past two years or so, an expert come out and explain how the reporting of murders has celebrated murders to the point where it can be seen as appealing to certain people, and what he said made a lot of sense, and there's not a single person who can rationally argue that the student protests would have gotten this much attention if they didn't act so violently. The media has encouraged it, and we've all supported the way the media have been and will continue to do so. Not that I condone people who have used violence to get attention, personally I'd rather people used sheer numbers and words to fight their battles, but I'm certainly not shocked (and nor should any rational person be) that people felt that violence was the only way of getting their message across.

So there you go, that's the violence explained. There's no one section of sociey to pin this all on. Even if you do agree with the government's policy I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue that they did a very good job of getting their message across. People will no doubt argue this with "oh, well, these sulky students just put their fingers in their ears and didn't listen because they were too busy shouting' but in doing so they'll just be part of a rhetoric which has become a major problem with this country today; the fact that youngsters are constantly derided. The more and more you put down a section of society, the more and more you pin them as something, the more and more likely they are to take on your words, take on your comments and then throw them back at you, taking on those negative connotations and throwing them in your face. For years people have suggested that 'violent youngsters have taken over the streets at night' making them feel its unsafe to walk about town, the student protests ended with a mass of youngsters taking on that image and chanting about the streets being theirs.

The only part of this that has shocked me is this basic assumption that all students are middle class, or that it's only the middle class complaining. I'm a student from a working class background and I'm deeply concerned about the new cost of tuition fees. My reason is simply this; I'm a Beaver leader and I know that one day those six year olds will grow up, and some of them will want to go to Uni and some of them won't, but I live in a working class area and I know for a fact that the new numbers that students will now have to face would have put me off from going to University. I would have had second thoughts. Some of those kids will have to see those figures and face such high debts and make a decision; go to Uni or not, I would hate it some of those kids decided not to persue their dreams because of those numbers. And I know for a fact that some of them will. That's not debatable. Of course the debts that the entire country must face have be taken into consideration, but there are those out there who have simply brushed any problems with all this aside as "they haven't got a point at all, this isn't going to stop anyone from going to uni, its just the middle class sulking" which simply isn't true. An entire country is, of course, more important that one simple person, it would be foolish to argue that it wasn't but we must all face the fact that the decision this government has made, a decision that by and large it seems this country agrees with, will stop certain people from doing what they want to do with their lives. This generation is guilty of stoping people from achieving their dreams. Whether it was the right decision or not will still be debated for a while but anybody who's tried to wipe their noses of this guilt must face those facts. Not all right decisions are easy, I grant you, and maybe there was no choice but the fact still remains, those who claim that it won't really have any effect are as blind as any leftist cries that education should have been made free.

Doesn't surprise me, I go to the Guardian for the culture and media stuff quite often but they're quite unashamedly left wing the majority of the time. But then its no secret that we've got quite a few right wing 'papers in the country so I guess it balances it out a bit. Really the only way to get at the truth of matters in this country is to read all the newspapers and form an opinion that way. If you read one chances are you're being given a very biased view. The jounalism in this country is nothing short of awful.

My biggest concern about the Guardian's coverage at the moment is their decision to use that image of a child spraypainting the word "revolution" for seemingly pretty much everything to do with the protests. I'm not disputing that there's been some "down with the government" speeches or words liek that tagged on walls but the majority of the students arn't after a revolution, suggesting so heavily that they are isn't helping matters at all or presenting the matter fairly.

I must say that while some of the tactics the police have used have been controversial they've done well so far to not make a massive fuck up so far. Its a volatile situation, a lot of the people protesting are kids, they're mixing with some socialist nutters and they're pissed off and yet while some of the policing has been somewhat questionable they haven't done anything terribly wrong which it'd be easy enough to do.

So with the way things are at the moment; Tories making spending cuts left right and centre, the Lib Dem's showing that they'll sacrifice anything to be in power and Labour seemingly unable to come up with many alternative ideas while shouting "that's not very nice" would anyone like to make a supremely early prediction at the results of the next general election? Obviously it's stupidly early, and anything could happen in the inbetween time, but it'd be interesting to look back after the fact and laugh at false predictions and marvel at those who were right.