Council Meeting Observations

My initial thoughts before I attended the council meeting was that it would be formal but not to the same degree as a court room, and that humour and public participation would be discouraged; however I was wrong.
Upon entering the room a couple of minutes late I was smiled upon by a group of councillors, a clerk, administrator and people of other positions who I could not see. They all sat around a conference like table in the centre of the room, their positions or name was shown on a card in front of each person; the head of the table the chancellor I believe was the driving force behind the motions and the topics of discussion, I assumed my position as the observer on the left side of the seating area allocated for the public. At the back of the room was a lone woman making notes on what was said.

The meeting started with a presentation by two other council members from other parishes. The presentation speaker gave his presentation occasionally referring to a screen with pictures of the local area; which his presentation was about. However a particular observation that I did make was that these two fellow councillors sat in the public seating area beforehand and when their partner was giving the presentation, but not at the table with the other councillors.
Points of the meeting were referred to as item followed by digits, then they were debated or described with a proposal being made; which was then seconded by a member causing it to go to a vote either being favoured or voted against. The word extension I believe was uttered a couple of times but I did not fully understand what it meant. My observations were fairly limited on this part as it was so fast pace it was hard to follow at times. Half way through the meeting a break was offered for ten minutes worth of public participation, but because no one had anything to ask the meeting continued. It followed this pattern for the next hour and half, until the members of the public were asked to leave so that they could discuss the last two points.
At the start of this blog I mentioned my misconceptions, so now I will comment on how I was wrong.To begin with jokes were made between the councillors giving the meeting a light hearted atmosphere, also the warmth and welcoming disposition of the councillors soon washed away any feeling of intimidation I had. Overall I found this experience very educational.

A picture speaks a thousand words.

In a previous blog I commented on a particular article and praised the Daily Mirror for excellent coverage of a story and their selection of a picture to convey the emotion of tragedy, however one of the pictures they used in their tribute to Jade Goody; which was published on monday the 23rd of March, was herrendous. The picture in question showed Jade Goody being carried away in a body bag. I can appreciate that the picture must have been very difficult to get and is possibly a very exclusive picture, but I just can't help but feel how inappropriate it was to show that picture, as it is too morbidly shocking and may be very hurtful to some of the readers having to look upon it. I may be over reacting, so please let me know what you think. Do you feel it was appropriate to use that picture?

I will end on a positive, despite the Daily Mirror's use of this picture I felt overall the tribute they put together was very touching, the wide range of information did justice to the legacy Jade is leaving behind and it gave her memory the full credit it deserved. But most of all the faces of her family and friends shows how much she will be missed.
I was discussing with someone in our lecture the great legacy Jade will leave behind through her very public battle with cervical cancer; however they disagreed by saying it showed a lack of dignity by selling her struggle to the press. Which I feel is a valid point. Please let me know what you think, did Jade do the right thing making her terminal illness so public?

Next week I will blog about the council meeting I will be attending on the 3oth of March.

Nature or Nurture?

Monstrous, tragic and shocking were just some of the words that came to mind when I first read the story of the shootings in Germany executed by loner seventeen year old Tim Kretschmer. However this story is just a chilling reminder of previous school shootings and raises some important questions the first being: do gun laws need to be more strict? And are these school shooters born killers or moulded into murderers by their peers?

To answer the latter question are killers born or made I think that it is important to look at where the killer fitted in the social hierarchy at school, as this will tell us whether they were bullied or loners; which I know is a common stereotype but if they were bullied or victimised it would make sense that there would be a strong motive for targeting members of the school they attended. So here are a few examples of previous cases, the Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-Hui and Kimveer Gill according to psychologist Robin Kowalski they did fit the typical profile for school killers, for instance they both were rejected in some way whether that was through bullying or other means, both had an obsession with guns and weapons, they were premeditated and methodical. Therefore to some degree it does seem that these killers are created through years of bullying, which raises the question do children need to be taught the repercussions of bullying rather than what it does to the victim? As both of these examples the killers deliberately planned out their revenge.

My final point is do gun laws need to be more strict and are parents reckless with their guns if their children are able to access these weapons? As Kretschmer got the guns he used from his father's collection of eighteen guns. I personally for a long time now have thought that gun laws are too relaxed as it seems anyone can walk into a shop and purchase a gun. I also think that America's whole attitude regarding guns is important, because they seem very gun happy and emphasize the need for guns as a form of protection and to be used on a regular basis...well Britons don't have that attitude and we have had no school shootings, however we do have a severe knife problem. So is it American's attitude that arms the hate fuelled teenagers with the tools they need to carry out their revenge? In conclusion I think it is important to look at the society in which these killers come from as I feel that it is partly responsible.

A Life time of Guilt

Stories revealing scandals in government or celebrity faux pas I will admit do not intrigue me, however stories of bizarre tragedy do, and this particular story I will blog about left me feeling that it is unfair how high the price of a simple mistake or accident can cost someone so dearly; and that the mistake will leave them wounded for the rest of their lives.

I am of course talking about the tragic story of Leon Holder the baby who was crushed by his thirteen stone dad; who tripped over one of the baby's toys. I cannot begin to imagine the intolerable guilt his father, Sam Barwick must be enduring, but I can't help but feel that it could have been avoided. For instance why was the baby playing on the floor? Does it not seem obvious that the baby was at risk from being trampled on? I know this implies negligence which I am not inferring, but I just don't think a baby should play on the floor. I was also looking at the age of the parents the father, Sam is twenty and the mother, Katie is nineteen, and I have been debating ever since whether the parents age has anything to do with the fact the baby was playing on the floor? Would older parents have foreseen the potential risk. Either way the fateful irony of this tragedy greatly saddened me.

Before I draw this blog to a close I would just like to give praise were its due, I think the picture The Daily Mirror used to accompany this story was genius. The image of a toothless smile from a child who is clearly happy and wearing an 'I love Daddy' bib amplified the tone of tragedy and horror the article was clearly aiming to produce. Well done.

I was left feeling relieved that Tuesday's lecture wasn't another philosophy themed lesson, instead I found the overview of British history interesting enough that it subdued my fatigue; as it filled in gaps of knowledge that my education had left unfilled; the other things mentioned was just a pleasant reminder. Now I know we are supposed to blog about the lecture and start a debate, but I'm not going to do that. I will instead talk about something that I have read and was recommended to write about it in another less than motivating comment left on my blog. However I will say that if you would like to know more about British history I recommend that you look at some of the works of Greek and Roman historians in particular Tacitus's Agricola; which comments on the military invasion of Britain by the Romans and Britain itself and its inhabitants at the time. "The Britons were formerly governed by kings, [54] but at present they are divided in factions and parties among their chiefs; and this want of union for concerting some general plan is the most favorable circumstance to us,in our designs against so powerful a people. It is seldom that two or three communities concur in repelling the common danger; and thus, while they engage singly, they are all subdued". This extract from Tacitus is also very useful because it gives a Roman perspective.

As I said previously I will now talk briefly on a subject which doesn't interest me at all, but a subject which I was recommended to talk about. I was shocked to read that the comedian Billy Connolly stated in an article that he had over a hundred pairs of shoes. I was truly puzzled because it is common for women to have an obsession with either bags or shoes, but a man, is that normal? Is this obsession or vanity? This line of questioning reminded me of a particular topic I have been studying in English regarding feminism and specifically gender. Feminists argue that gender is an illusion and a product of society; which tells us that we should behave a certain way because of our sex, for example girls should like dolls and boys football. Is this prejudice I feel a product of society programmed into me? As I am ashamed to admit I personally feel that if a man has too many shoes that I would perceive him as more feminine than other men. However it may just be to do with vanity, as it is all about what you wear most places. If any guys have a similar obsession please let me know; as it would be great to hear a males perspective.