This Week's Winol

I've just finished watching the latest live Winol Bulletin. First looking at the stories that were given, I found the majority of them relevant to their target audience. Particularly those focussing around student life such as the international students struggling to get into certain bars and clubs, as well as the potential removal of tuition fee caps. Also the story about the Queen could generate some interest as she was not too far from our location. Although I feel the minimal coverage meant that it wasn't a particularly interesting story and not much information was supplied.

I felt that the two presenters worked well together, however I felt there was an issue with breathing right after a news story had finished. Once it cut to a presenter they would take a loud breath before speaking which I felt looked slightly unprofessional, and made it appear as if they weren't prepared for it.

I liked the various shots; I felt that they were changed frequently enough to maintain an audience’s attention as they didn't remain on one shot for too long. Although, the names of those speaking, and those being interviewed were shown on screen for a very brief amount of time for the majority of the broadcast. If it was lengthened slightly the audience could feel more relaxed and take more time in reading the names whilst still being able to listen to the news feature.
I also liked the effect used in one of the stories when they started with the image blurred and went into focus. This technique captured my attention and kept me focused. As well as this, there were good low angle shots (such as the cars driving by) and also good coverage of the sports such as the goals as the camera got a good view of the action and was very steady.
The voices were good altogether. They were calm, clear and sounded professional.

Overall, I felt it was a good broadcast and kept me interested throughout, whilst a few alterations could be made to improve the general quality, I found it an interesting viewing, and look forward to more.

Read More

My 1st History of Western Philosophy Seminar

Well, it was a daunting experience, not knowing what to expect when i entered the room. Being on eof the first people to supply a seminar paper added to the pressure and tension. But i've survived it, and found my 1st seminar in philosophy to be quite useful in establishing that i'm on the right track with my reading.

Bertands book is certainly a challenge to read, particularly if you;ve never studied philosophy before. However, i feel like i am starting to get to grips with it's theories and ideas, and even some of the language is starting to make more sense after a few checks in the dictionary.

In the seminar we discussed the first set of reading from the book, which includes the points of discussion that were raised in the lecture the week before.

Some of the discussions I enjoyed revolved around some of the books that the philosophers decided to write explaing certain ideas. This included 'The Prince' which was written by Machiavelli. It was seen as a guide on how to gain power, as well as how to maintain it.

What i found interesting was no matter how humorous or some of his ideas sound at first, it is clear that he thought hard about the points he made. As well as this, the book has a very modern appearance.
Despite mentioning some horrible suggestions for gaining power, it seems that he hopes the rulers would do good with their power, despite not specifically stating that in the book.
He also believed that a prince should ‘seem’ to be religious. The word seem suggests he doesn’t see it as a necessity that they have to be, but feels that a ruler that portrays themselves to be religious will be more accepted as a ruler and perhaps create a better image.

Another book i found interesting was 'Utopia' which was written by Sir Thomas Moore.
More was a Humanist and a man of profound piety, knighted in 1514. He portrays Utopia as an island in the southern hemisphere. Much like we would imagine, it is a place where ‘everything is done in the best possible way’.

In my seminar paper i covered his bizzare vision of Utopia. It had fifty four towns, and every tenth year people change houses to prevent a sense of ownership. All the people are dressed the same (except differences between male/female and married/unmarried). They all work six hours a day, 3 before dinner, and 3 after. They sleep at 8, and for 8 hours.
He appears to structure it so that the environment appears very plain, repetitive, and almost robotic in some senses. However, this suggests that he wants everybody to feel the same and be equal. The rules appear very strict and determined to keep everyone in line and under the same routine as each other every day.

During this time, modern capitalism was created which i felt almost seemed to contradict Thomas More’s Utopia vision.

In the seminar we also observed the differences between the ideas of Descartes and Plato. Plato's idea being the theory of everything having a perfect form. Such as any chair being the shadow of the perfect chair, we can't see it, but it's out there somewhere.

Descartes said the phrase 'I think therfore I am' meaning that the fact he can question his own exsistence proves that he exsists. However, that merely scrapes the surface on the magnitude of his theory. He felt that everything he learned from his 'good quality' education was useless and a waste of time. So hh decided to take apart all his knowledge. He began by regarding with sceptcism regarding his senses - 'Can I doubt that I am sitting here by the fire in a dressing-gown?'. Literally everything he knew and take away anything that he wasn't 100% certain was fact. Examples include his date of birth(how could he be absoloutely certain what he was told was true).
He then started to question God and how he knew that he exsisted. He then reverted to the idea of a perfect form, and how could we visualise God(perfect) if it didn't excist. So it must mean that God does excist in order to place the idea in our minds. I understand how this idea can be seen as flawed and i'm sure many would argue nagainst it, however at the time it was seen as a clever idea. Although I do feel like it shows signs of Descartes feeling the need to assure himself that te still was a God, otherwise he may have felt left with nothing.

The next stage of the reading is intriguing me as we will explore the thoughts of John Locke, an English philosopher. In next week's Philosophy blog i'll let you know how easy(or how difficult) he is to understand.

Read More

My Philosophy Seminar Paper

General Characteristics and Italian Renaissance
This began with the church dominating ideas in the dark ages. It was a time when the only true point of knowledge was what the Greeks had written in their texts and books. As these were written down, they could not be challenged or questioned.

However, it eventually leads to the diminishing authority of the church whilst the authority of Science started to increase. These were two very important changes in modern history as they re-shaped our views on the world and religion as a whole.
Democracy had suddenly become a political force with Kings being replaced by democracies and tyrants.
However, along with this, Socialism (an alternative to democracy) first gained power in 1917.
Ecclesiastical Authority was one of negative characteristics of modern age.
Acceptance of Scientific Authority was a positive characteristic of modern age.

Copernican Theory in 1543 was the eruption of Science, and was later improved by the likes of Kepler and Galileo. It was the idea (that we now know as fact) that the Earth and the planets revolved around The Sun.
This created a clash of Science vs. Dogma and Traditions vs. New Knowledge.

From the death of Frederick II in 1250, Ital was then free from foreign interference until the invasion of Charles VIII (France) in 1494.
There were 5 important states, these were:-
-Florence, Milan, Venice, Naples and Papal domain.
Florence was considered the most civilised city in the world.

There were three classes:-
- The Nobles [Ghibelline]
- The Rich Merchants [Guelf]
- The Small Men [Guelf]

The Ghibelline was defeated in 1266, and in the 14th Century, the Small men got the better of the Rich Merchants. This conflict leads to a tyranny of the Medici family, who were rules of Florence.
They were political bosses of the democratic side.
The French became unpopular and in 1282 they were massacred in the ‘Sicilian Vespers’ which was a Rebellion on the island of Siciliy against Charles I who was King of France, and fighting the Papacy for control over Italy.

There was Cosimo dei Medici (1389-1464) and then his son Lorenzo was in power between 1469 and 1492). Savonarola reigned from 1494 to 1498). Also at the time of the Italian renaissance, the ancients disagreed with each other, and substituted authority of ancients for church. This seems to show signs of emancipation, a desire for political freedom and they seemed to feel that the church was the way forward to this.

Leo X was Pope in 1513, followed by Eugenius IV (1431-1437). However, the Medici family continued with their dominance. They governed France until 1737. However, Florence (like all of Italy) had now become poor and unimportant.
The popes’ methods supposedly robbed the papacy (office of the pope) of spiritual authority.
Nicholas V (1477-55) became the first Humanist Pope. Meaning that he believed in human values. It showed a desire to study history, grammar, poetry and moral philosophy.
The council of Ferrara (1438) united the Eastern and Western churches.
Humanists were acquiring knowledge of antiquity.

There was said to be no halfway between orthodoxy (the idea of having the right opinion) and free thought.
One very important aspect of the renaissance is that it produced many great men such as Michelangelo, Machiavelli and Leonardo.
Quote – ‘How much murder and anarchy are we prepared to endure for the sake of great achievements such as those of the Renaissance?’

Plato and Aristotle
Plato believed in the idea of forms and that everything is an imitation of ‘the perfect form’. On the other hand, Aristotle didn’t believe in this theory.
17th Century Renaissance broke down the rigid scholastic system. This revived the study of Plato.
Independent thought meant that the public could choose between the ideas of Plato, and those of Aristotle. This encouraged regarding intellectual activity as an enjoyable social discussion.
Florentine Academy (founded by Cosimo, and continued by Lorenzo) was devoted to the study of Plato.

Machiavelli
(1467-1527)
Niccolo signalled the start of political science. Like Thomas More, he was a humanist and philosopher. He was a man of supreme eminence in political philosophy.
Born in Florence, he was brought up neither rich nor poor, and his father was a lawyer.

He gained a minor post in Florentine government in 1498. In 1512 came the restoration of the Medici family. Then in 1513, Machiavelli wrote ‘The Prince’:-
The Prince
He released a book called ‘The Prince’ which I found to be an interesting book, because many of the points he raised do appear to make sense. No matter how humorous or absurd they sound at first, it is clear that he thought hard about the points he made. As well as this, the book has a very modern appearance.
It was intended to be a ‘guide’ to rulers on how to get power, and how to keep it. Despite mentioning some horrible suggestions for gaining power, it seems that he hopes the rulers would do good with their power, despite not specifically stating that in the book.
‘...better to be feared than loved’ - as fear is constant.

Machiavelli also stressed his belief that religion should have a prominent place in the state, not on the ground of its truth, but as social cement. He believes that a prince should ‘seem’ to be religious. The word seem suggests he doesn’t see it as a necessity that they have to be, but feels that a ruler that portrays themselves to be religious will be more accepted as a ruler and perhaps create a better image.

Machiavelli never bases his arguments on biblical grounds.
He is of the opinion that civilized men are almost certain to be unscrupulous egotists.
‘...The church has kept and still keeps our country divided...’
During this time, very few of Italy’s rulers were legitimate (including the Popes).

Erasmus and More
Around the time of Erasmus and More was the Northern Renaissance (different from Italy’s)
i.e. – France, England and Germany.
Also Latin was the only international language.

Erasmus (1466-1536) becomes Bishop of Cambrai in 1493.
He hated scholastics and philosophy.
He wrote ‘The Praise of Folly’. There were two kinds of Folly, one ironically, and the other much more serious.
The serious Folly displayed Christian simplicity. In 1524 he wrote a work defending free will.

Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) was a Humanist and considered a man of profound piety.
He was knighted in 1514.

He played an important role in leading t opposition towards Henry VIII’s tax plans.
He was against the king’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon and was imprisoned in the Tower of London, the same year that King Henry VIII became Head of the Church instead of the Pope.
Thomas More was later beheaded for high treason when he denied the King was the ‘Supreme Head’ of the Church.

One of More’s key contributions was his book about ‘Utopia’.
Utopia
One idea I was fascinated by was Utopia written by Sir Thomas More in 1518. More was a Humanist and a man of profound piety, knighted in 1514. He portrays Utopia as an island in the southern hemisphere. Much like we would imagine, it is a place where ‘everything is done in the best possible way’.

His vision of Utopia has fifty four towns, every tenth year people change houses to prevent a sense of ownership. All the people are dressed the same (except differences between male/female and married/unmarried). They all work six hours a day, 3 before dinner, and 3 after. They sleep at 8, and for 8 hours.

He appears to structure it so that the environment appears very plain, repetitive, and almost robotic in some senses. However, this suggests that he wants everybody to feel the same and be equal. The rules appear very strict and determined to keep everyone in line and under the same routine as each other every day.

During this time, modern capitalism was created which almost seems to contradict Thomas More’s Utopia vision.

The Reformation and Counter Reformation
This was a time of rebellion of less civilised nations against the intellectual domination of Italy.
The Popes’ authority was rejected.

An Englishman Italiante
Is a devil incarnate

An example of the views towards Italy at this time is shown by the works of Shakespeare, with many Italian villains such as Iago in the play ‘Othello’.
The revolt was both political and theological. It was a sign of them refusing to accept higher power.

Luther, Calvin and Loyola were all key figures in the Reformation and Counter Reformation
The Jesuits

The Rise of Science
16th Century – Theology
17th Century – Described as ‘The best age of Greece’
The 17th Century was a remarkable time not only for Astronomy and dynamics, but also other forms of science.

There were 4 Key figures in Science.
Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton

Copernicus
(1473-1543)
He was a Polish ecclesiastic.

He was one of the first to believe the sun to be at the centre of the universe, and the Earth being in a twofold motion.
His key writing ‘De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelstium’ was published the year he died. His heliocentric theory was claimed by a friend to only be a hypothesis when it was put forward. It is unclear how deeply Copernicus sanctioned the statement.
The book was dedicated to The Pope. During his time the Church was more liberal and his work was not condemned by the Catholic Church at least until the life of Galileo.

Kepler
(1571-1630)
Kepler adopted the heliocentric theory, which much like Copernicus is the view that the Sun is the centre of the universe.

He suggested 3 Laws of planetary motion.
[The first two were published in 1609]
First Law – The planets describe elliptic orbits, of which the sun occupies one focus.
Second Law – The Line joining a planet to the sun sweeps out equal areas in equal time.
[The third was published in 1619]
Third Law – The Square of the period of revolution of a planet is proportional to the cube of its average distance from the sun.

Galileo
(1564-1642)
Considered the greatest of the founders of modern science.
He first discovered the important of acceleration in dynamics. The example given in the book is that ‘a body moving uniformly in a circle has at all times acceleration towards the centre of the circle.
Galileo felt that if a body is left alone, it will continue to move in a straight line with uniform velocity.
Only an action of force would change the rapidity or direction of motion.
[Newton later described this as the ‘first law of motion’]

One important contribution is his discovery that the Milky Way contained a number of individual stars. He also discovered the satellites of Jupiter.
However, there had always been seven heavenly bodies. These were the 5 planets, the sun and the moon. By adding Jupiter’s 4 moons, there would then be eleven. This number has no mystical properties. Traditionalists denounced the telescope and claimed the results were only delusions.

Galileo was condemned in 1616 for herecy (going against religion)

Newton
(1642-1727)

Removal of almost all traces of animism from the Laws of Physics.
Thanks to the work of Copernicus, Galileo d Kepler, Newton was able to take their theories a step further and developed Keplers’ three laws by proving that every planet has acceleration towards the sun at every moment.

Francis Bacon
(1561-1626)
Francis Bacon is known for the phrase ‘Knowledge is Power’

Francis became a Lord Chancellor in 1618 but only lasted 2 years as he was prosecuted for accepting bribes from Litigants. This had condemned him to a fine of £40,000 as well as being imprisoned in the kings’ tower. However, the sentence was only partially executed as he did not need to pay the fine, and only spent four days in the tower.

He wrote ‘The Advancement of Learning’. Russell considers it to have a modern feel.
Bacon claims that philosophy should be kept separate from theology.

Hobbes
(1588-1679)
He was an empiricist (felt that knowledge came from experience) like Locke and Berkeley. He was also a keen admirer of mathematical method.

When the Long Parliament met in 1640, Hobbes fled to France out of fear of being sent to the tower. The next year he wrote ‘De Cive’, however it wasn’t published until 1647.

Hobbes was suspected of atheism, and because of this he could no longer print anything that revolved around controversial subjects.

Leviathan was written by Hobbes, and contained political opinions were royalist to the extreme.
Hobbes intended to show the evils of democracy.
He claims that ‘Life is nothing but a motion of the limbs, and therefore automata have an artificial life’

He explores the following in his book:-

- Man as an individual
- Hope that ‘some king’ would become a philosopher. Russell states that Monarchs are assured that the book is easy to read and can be found quite interesting.
- There is no universal church
- Hobbes hatred of the Church of Rome (because it puts spiritual power above the temporal).

One view that Hobbes insists on is that all men are naturally equal. He was also obsessed with anarchy, and the fear of it happening.
One other key point is Hobbes belief that God is not an object of philosophy.

Hobbes has also been described as a nominalist. He felt that objects given the same name/term don’t actually have anything in common other than that name. They are all unique and individual.

Descartes
(1596-1650)
He is considered the founder of modern philosophy.
It marked the intellectual transition from the middle ages to the modern world.
Descartes also despised Aristotle, believing that his theories were full of errors.
He believed that old ideas were dominating the way that we all lived and wanted to change it.

Descartes most famous theory was Systematic Doubt which is also where he gained the phrase:-
‘I think therefore I am’

The idea revolves around the question of how we can be absolutely certain that something exist or is true.
It began when Descartes felt his good education was actually holding him back and was of no use to him. He believed ‘men of action’ were those to be around. The idea was that the jobs they did were real as they had repercussions if done wrong.
He also noticed that the things you are taught are only relevant to where you are at that time. As experience was so varied, he considered it to be useless.

Descartes decided to take apart everything he knew, all of his knowledge.
He started to question every element of what he knew, and asked himself whether they had any form of doubt that they are true.

He started with scepticism regarding the senses.
E.g. - Can I doubt that I am sitting here by the fire in a dressing-gown?

He originally felt that a demon could be tricking him, but then realised that he could not be deceived if he didn’t exist.
‘I may have no body this might be an illusion’

Russell suggests that Descartes only applied his theory half-heartedly, but still sees it as being of great philosophical important.
Descartes made one exception to the law of physics, claiming that a human soul can (by volition) alter the direction of motion.
Why Philosophy of Descartes was important - It brought to (at least) a near conclusion the dualism of mind and matter, which began with Plato, and developed by Christian philosophy.

Read More

An Introduction to Essential Law for Journalists

Law is essential knowledge for any aspiring Journalist, without knowing the laws, there is a risk they could break it when reporting. In this blog i will look at the basic laws and knowledge that is required as well as observing a recent news story that explores some of the points raised.

Why Law is important to Journalism:-
- It’s a source of News.
- Crime always interests for a wide audience – murder, violence, fraud, deception.
This is shown by the large number of newspaper sales, particularly when a crime is on the cover.
Law is a constraint to what Journalists are able to. However, I do feel it’s important that Journalists are given as much freedom as possible, to ensure that the public receives what the information they desire. I’ve always understood that I need to stay aware of any unreasonable restrictions to this freedom. Although I do understand that certain restrictions have to be in place to protect information that shouldn’t be released to the public.
I agree with laws in the Editors Code such as ‘Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit’. These are vital in protecting UK citizens from suffering acts which are completely unacceptable not only in Journalistic terms.
It is essential that we maintain freedom of press and freedom of expression to avoid a country where people are even more afraid to voice their opinions.
The UK doesn’t have a constitution unlike most countries.

The law of Defamation

This restricts the allegations you can make in the press, Journalists can risk being sued for liable. It can constrain us, which therefore means we need to make sure we understand what we know is true and be able to separate fact from rumour. Not only does this protect us as Journalists, but it also ensures that we create the most reliable stories possible for the public.
An example of a court case recently in the news was story reported by ‘The Sun’ which involved footballer David Beckham being mentioned in court papers when a women called Shery Shabani stated that her husband Kambiz had incorrectly accused her of an affair with him. She hopes to gain full custody of her children as well as a restraining order on Kambiz claiming that the accusations were part of his ‘delusional thought process’. However, despite the minimal effect on the public in usual circumstances, the fact that it includes the mention of David Beckham (world known footballer and British celebrity) it becomes a story that the public would be interested in.
This also follows the recent claims by Irma Nici that she slept with the footballer for money, the momentum of this story and its vast publicity makes the story more relevant to the public at the time. I would assume that at any other time of the year such a story would not get much public interest as the women claims them to be untrue. However, with two stories in a very short space of time, it allows the media to create a bigger, longer lasting news story for the public to absorb and enjoy.

In the Sunday Mirror(03/10/2010) the story has progressed further. Irma Nici has shown intention to sue David Beckham for breaking the US constitution regarding free speech.
‘Her Lawyer Paul Rolf Jenson said “California law does not allow public figures like David Beckham to stifle free speech. Maybe he didn’t live here in Los Angeles long enough to learn how precious we consider our rights to tell the truth in print.’
It was also claimed that Beckham’s legal representatives pestered her along with dozens of paparazzi which has hospitalised her. This could be considered an example of when Journalists need to step back to avoid any form of persistent pursuit or harassment.

Criminal and Civil Law

Civil Law regulates conflicts between citizens ha wouldn’t usually generate interest amongst the public as a whole. This includes divorce, contracts, liable etc...
There are exceptions where Journalists would report civil law cases, such as those including celebrities (like the example mentioned above).
There is never normally a prosecution in civil law cases, they normally end with compensation etc... which would normally not be as extreme as Criminal Law punishments which allows a bit more flexibility with the amount of proof required when a decision is made.
Criminal Law deals with acts against the whole of society. One example includes murder.
The standard of proof for Criminal law cases must be beyond any reasonable doubt, which means the Jury must be completely sure of their verdict. The persecution must prove they are guilty beyond any doubt as the system ensures that at the beginning of the case they are seen as innocent. Along with this, if you arem prosecuted in a crimal law case, the punishments can be very extreme.

Civil Cases - Smith vs Smith
Criminal Cases - The State vs Smith or R vs Smith

A Magistrates Court is the lowest level of court and is the starting point of all crimes. The accused will first appear in this court and have the charge read to them, and will either plead guilty or not guilty. This will decide whether they get sent for sentencing in a high court for guilty), or sent to a trial court with a senior judge, jury etc (for not guilty).The court system is regulated by the supreme court.

I will now end this blog, as I begin to read the next part of the Essential Law for Journalists, and I am quite intrigued to learn these vital laws in more detail.

Read More

A Brief Introduction to History and Context of Journalism

Today, Chris Horrie provided an overview of what we can expect to explore as we begin reading 'History of Western Philosophy' by Bertrand Russell and exploring Philosophy as a whole throughout the semester.

The main focus of the talk was the continuial differences between what is believed, and what is fact. This is of course a key point for Journalists to always remember when reporting any sort of information as mistakes in the past have lead to huge losses financially as well as leading people into a lot of trouble. I know for a facthati don't want to be one of those people, so i'll certainly be making sure I get my facts straight (I suppose getting them right on this blog will be a good start).

One famous phrase mentioned was 'I think therefore i am' said by Rene Descartes. The statement is intended to suggest that if a person can question their existence, that in itself proves that they do. It's a difficult theory to absorb and really think about, but i do see the point he is trying to make. The idea of being able to think (we presume) whatever you want without influence must be a sign that we truly exist.

It was made clear that the invention of the printing press in the 16th century lead to the world evolving at a much faster pace as well as essentially creating Journalism with the likes of Damien Defoe in the 16/17 hundreds. He clearly didn't have an easy time whilst writing all his work, however he continued to pursue it and for that he should be respected.
While our technology and knowledge has grown at a quicker and quicker pace in recent years, we can be sure that many of the philsophical points and suggestions that have been made will continue to create much debate for years to come.

And with a number of quotes thrown around during our first sample of a lecture, i would like to end this blog on an inspirational quote told by Chris Horrie himself. 'I don't care what you think, but i do care that you think.'

Read More

Hello

Hello. My name's Daniel, but you can call me Dan or Danny. I'm 18 and from South London, not too fart from Wimbledon(although i've never watched the tennis there) and right next door to 'The Bill' (which has now ended), so nothing too exciting.

I enjoy watching films and playing football. I support Chelsea, but am not a glory supporter.

In my spare time i write and film amatuer productions.

Read More

The World Cup Aftermath

The World Cup is now over.

We had the thrills and spills of a magical Octopus, a dreadful England exit, and the constant hum of the vuvuzelas. There’s been a lot of talk about the impact this world cup will have on South Africa, but I think the vuvuzela will threaten to affect the whole world of football. There’s no way hiding them or pretending they never existed, they were watched by millions across the world.

Many people would say that they now love those crazy horns, whilst others are glad it’s finally over. But is it? Manchester United have already placed a number of them in their store, and surely a lot more clubs are going to follow the trend as they all try to raise a bit of extra cash in these troubling times.

Personally I would hate to see these in the premiership this upcoming season, our singing and chanting from the crowds is part of our countries charm. And if we have a load of them buzzing around, how will we all make ourselves heard? Yet you can be sure to hear some during the opening games, and depending on the number that appear, we may see an argument erupt over whether or not they should be banned. There’s already been talk of banning them in the 2012 Olympics which I think is a bit extreme as I wouldn’t expect this fad to last up to that point.

There was a temptation to dedicate this blog to the failure of the English national team in this campaign and list the huge number of faults and mistakes by both players and manager. But I think the issue has been stretched enough by the media so I won’t go on about it. All I want to say on this point is that England needs to refresh its image as this so-called ‘golden generation’ clearly isn’t working. We need to invest more in our yon talent instead of giving away our youth academy spots to foreign talent. Also Premiership teams need to stop loaning out their top British talent to lower divisions, and instead give them a chance to shine. Of course they’ll make mistakes, but that’s what makes you a better player. We are a nation obsessed with football, that must surely mean that we have opportunity to produce so much good quality talent, but we’re not taking those chances because the only focus in our minds is winning, instead of being about the perfect bass and being comfortable on the ball.

So much for not going on about it.

It was a spectacular event despite its flaws. This year’s world cup was very unique, it was almost magical for those in south Africa, and sitting watching events unfold from here in England it was still clear to me just how much this meant to those people. Their dreams had come to life and they were able to be so close to the world’s greatest players, and while some failed to shine, we were treated with some stunning goals, and an amazing atmosphere. Next stop Euro 2012 (and Chelsea winning the champions league at Wembley of course!)

Daniel Mackrell

Read More