the_kev’s blog

    So today, i read on the bbc website that someone has proposed to introduce oaths of allegiance for pupils leaving high school, to instill a sense of national belonging and pride.  Not a bad idea, if you ask me, because if there's one thing I think English people lack, it's national pride of any type (apart from sports, that is).  I say 'English' rather than 'British' because from my experience Welsh and Scottish people are fiercely proud of their countries compared to how we are with ours.  I even know people who have one English and one Welsh parent, were born and brought up in England all of their lives, but when asked about national pride they're proud to be Welsh, but don't feel the same over being English. It's something that has fascinated me for a while; I'd like to write about it further but it's the kind of thing you need to really study to be able to comment on properly.
    Personally, I think this would be a great oppurtunity to gel the younger community to gel together a little.  It'd give everyone a common shared experience, no matter what social background they come from or what race they are.  Although the american version of this, pledging allegiance to the flag every morning from a very young age upwards, is probably a little extreme, no doubt a more timid version of such a process could be easily introduced here.

    My main issue of concern, however, is the idea of swearing allegiance to the queen, along with the flag and country.  Although I am by no means pro or anti royalist, I don't think it should be expected of someone, especially someone who is yet to become an adult, to ally themselves with any person, in the same way they shouldn't be expected to ally themselves to parliament.  In a worst case scenario this could could even be seen/used almost as a brainwashing method, probably by conspiracy theorists.  Belief and pride in your country and belief in the monarch/government are two completely different things, and should be treated as such.  I'd be happy to swear an oath to my country, but not so keen to do so for an inefficient and obnoxious form of democracy that we use in the UK, where the people themselves are oft completely ignored.  Why should i swear to that?  And more importantly, why would anybody else (apart from the people profiting from the system) want to do such a thing?

    Suffice to say, this blog is becoming more and more sporadic with time, with the space between my last post and this one just over a month.  I think this is down to the big gap i had at the end of last year, because my compy had broken; it broke my blogging mentality, I was no longer reading articles and watching shows, thinking about how they could lead to a literary creation of my own.  However, I'm going to try and get myself back on track, and start writing once more*

    This weekend, prince Harry returned from serving with the armed forces in Afghanistan, after spending 10 weeks on the frontline, after the media blackout arranged by the MoD was broken.  The international awareness of his presence not only puts his life in jeapordy, but also threatens the lives of his colleagues, and as a result the safest choice for the men he served with is to pull him out.  Their gags now removed, the press take to the story like vultures to carrion, the newspapers and websites saturated with stories and details of Harry's time in Afghanistan.  A notable point brought up is that Harry is quoted as saying he enjoyed his anonymity whilst he was there; that he was simply treated as one of the lads, and that it was nice to just be treated as 'normal'.  He even went as far as to say that he'd rather be serving in Aghanistan than be in England.  Say what you want about celebrity culture, and the subsequent hounding by the press, it probably killed his mother after all, but remember that Harry did not actively seek celebrity status; he was born into it, much like his royal  status and his potential to become a future monarch.  It's hard not to feel a degree of sympathy for people born into fame, who have had no word or introduction into the bizarre life they must lead.  But surely there are better ways to escape this than donning camouflage and heading for the frontline?  Personally I don't support the conflicts in the middle east that the UK have involved themselves in, and although many people see this as an oppurtunity for a pompous royal to go and engage himself in some bloodsports, hunting jonny foreigner, I for one think it is more a cry for help.
   
    Harry himself has said that he is no hero, and that he was no braver than any other man he served with.  Indeed, he seems to be avoiding the sycophantic nature of the press, playing down what he did whilst away.  The BBC and general press would love to portray him in that heroic nature to give them something positive from the middle east to talk about, rather than the usual reports about further deaths and American policies.  The MoD, also, would've loved to use Harry as a face for recruitment; a sign of equality and a lack of prejudice in the armed forces (even though bullying at the training level is notorious) and in general displaying the good qualities of army life.  But the prince has denied them these oppurtunities, and well done to him for doing so.  He simply wants to do his job, to go back and serve with the men in his division rather than sitting around Windsor.  He won't be able to go back for a long time, well over a year, so let's hope he can find some other, less violent way to keep out of the public eye.

*not that anyone reads this crap

    I thought I'd do a video game rant, just to mix things up a little.  I've been a gamer since i was a kid, with strong loyalties to different companies, but that's nothing to do with this post, so I'll move on.

    Back in November, just before my birthday, i went and got myself an xbox 360; we were doing a pretty good deal on them in work, and i figured it'd be the best time to get one.  I was reluctant to get one for quite a while because I'm an avid supporter of the nintendo wii, and personally believe that making games look nicer isn't truly progression when it comes to gaming, whereas innovative ways to play is, but that's another story for another day. 
    I got a few decent games, and starting (slowly) building up on my gamerscore, but something kept nagging me about the games themselves; the cost.  Not the actual price to buy a game itself, but the cost of developing and programming a game in this next-gen environment.  I'm constantly seeing articles about companies pumping millions into their games, not to mention the mammoth quantities of games they need to sell just to break even, never mind make a profit.  Another factor is the manpower required.  Complete call of duty 4, and you're confronted with a credits screen so large that the amount of people involved in creating the game rivals the amount of kills you're likely to make whilst playing.  Not to mention that call of duty 4 is precariously short - something that seems to be turning into a common issue.  It's practically a sign that these games are costing too much to develop.
  
     So with all this in mind, could this lead to a reservedness in developers?  Personally, I think so.  Why would a big name like EA, for example, risk making a grounbreaking or unusual game, taking an army of developers and a veritable cornucopia of funding, when it could lead to a loss of millions?  They wouldn't, these companies find their winning formula and stick to it.  Certain genres, however, are a no-go.  Sports titles are a bad choice, due to EAsports complete stranglehold on the market.  Practically every sports liscence out there is claimed under their banner, so unless you're able to truly create a masterful sports title, that drives the liscenced alternative into the ground, then just don't even bother.  Konami were able to do this for a while with the Pro Evo series, but they were always the underdogs and are losing ground with each new edition of their game.

    Never mind the big-name companies, though.  The real loser in this new-age gaming world is the small company.  The one that isn't scared by trying something a little different, and taking risks.  The companies who don't mind making games for a niche market.  Remeber rainbow six, before it got bought out and turned into another generic first person shooter?  Remeber transport tycoon?  Or the original operation flashpoint?  All these fantastic games were pretty low-key, made by small teams on a tight budget.  Operation flashpoint was made by an anonymous team in eastern Europe, yet it was rated as one of the truly great games of its time.  There's a good chance that we've lost all of these oppurtunities in the future.  When it costs millions to make one game, the small companies can't keep up.

Remember though, that civilisation, for a long time considered the greatest game ever made, was made by one man on his own.

    Ok, so i've not used vox in a long long time, this isn't out of neglect though.  Oh no, far from it.  Just before christmas my compy took a turn for the worse, it kept turning off randomly, after say 20-40 minutes of usage.  This got worse and worse, and started to blue screen of death too.  I've almost got it fixed and back to 100%, but it's still a bit shakey, but i should be on here making posts more and more from now on :D

    Today, Holocaust denier David Irving and BNP leader Nick Griffin were at an Oxford union debate about freedom of speech, much to the dismay and anger of many people, myself included. Holocaust deniers just seem a bit silly to me really, but it's the BNP that really make my blood boil like nothing else.  To put it shortly, the BNP are a far-right political party, made up of skinheads and racists, with all packaged up with a suited face denying it all like any political party would.  Just type BNP into google, or youtube to see what their supporters are really like, and you'll find hordes of information as to how abhorrent they are.
   
    Anyway, my point with all this is that how far can we let freedom of speech actually reach out?   Now the average Joe deserves to have his voice heard, without anything blocking that of course, but does anyone truly want to hear an opinion so radical?  Both Griffin and Irving's opinions will not only cause offence, they may also cause emotional stress, and undoubtedly stir up racial tensions (deliberately in my opinion).  So when should we be able to stop someone from having freedom of speech due to their opinion?  The problem is where the line is drawn, because this can very easily swerve into totalitarianism, which is much more difficult for a government to drag itself out of.  I'm of the opinion that Griffin shouldn't be allowed a public audience, but no doubt there are right-wing people who believe that socialists, like myself, and people of the far left should be gagged in a similar way, and as a result all we are left with is a mundane middle ground, lacking any real differences.  The difference, however, is no socialist or communist that I've ever met has been a fan of Stalin, or his purges, never mind denying they ever happened in the first place - that's the biggest difference between the far right and left.
    Many people would argue that giving these people a platform to speak only puts them in the position to be ridiculed by the more educated people viewing; people of most political groups unite to fight against the far-right after all.  But this is still giving them the chance to tell all of their opinions, tightening the strands of racial relations, and potentially influencing people's opinions in the most negative way imaginable.
   
    The irony of all this, however, is that the UK actually isn't a country of free speech, really.  Gagging orders can be issued out by the government, and they often are.  The BBC fiasco earlier this year, for example, was one such event upon which a gagging order was put upon all the cast and presenters, so that the details of the crisis couldn't be leaked without severe repercussions.  Anyone who works within the civil service are sworn to an oath of secrecy, forbidden to even tell their own family what their job entails.  Though the latter example is common in many countries, as it is a matter of national security, the families of soldiers who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan being gagged is not an openly practised system, but one used here nonetheless.  Their rights to free speech are completely destroyed for as long as the gagging order is in place.
Maybe then, the question should be whether we truly have freedom of speech rather than whether we should restrict others in their use of  it.

    Isn't it sad that people judge the arrival of Christmas by the fact that the 'holidays are coming' coca cola advert starts to appear on the TV?  And isn't it true also that the only reason father Christmas wears red is because of a cola advertising campaign (he previously wore green and white).

    As you may have noticed, I keep changing the design of this blog.  I'm pretty bad for this on a lot of things really, like my desktop background.  Problem is when you've got too much to choose from, I can never settle on one thing.  So I'm leaving it up to you people out there; pick a theme for me!  Normally I go for pretty basic themes, but I'm open to anything really, so tell me what you reckon and I'll consider it.

    In work tonight I got to watch TV, which is a rare occurrence really.  I work in a call centre, and we do have a large TV which people can request to put a show on, say if there's a sporting event, or they just want to watch their soaps, but because it's a call centre, we can't have any sound, obviously.  Tonight however, I was in an admin room, doing work that doesn't involve me talking to people on the phone, and they have their own TV with the sound on.  So i was watching a documentary show (whilst working of course :P) about the police, but primarily CSO's (community support officers). 
   
    CSO's are basically watered down policemen.  They patrol the streets, and deal with minor problems, but they don't have any powers, so they can't arrest anyone, or hold anyone.  All they can do in a situation such as that is radio the regular police to turn up and take over.  They can't hold anyone though, so the suspects can simply walk away, and all they can do is follow them; CSO's are not allowed to even touch a suspect.  A shoplifter was stopped by CSO's in the documentary, and makes a break for it.  Literally all the CSO's are legally able to do is run after them, asking them to stop.  People see CSO's as nothing but plastic policemen that do nothing at all, due to their lack of legal power.

    I say the 'plastic policemen' remark based not only on what was said on the show, but on my own personal experiences also.  The first time I saw one, I would've at a park, aged 13/14, and was a little confused about the uniform (CSO's wear black and blue, whilst normal policemen wear black and white).  Though not causing any trouble, nor hiding anything or breaking the law at all, I was still a little nervous when the police were around.  But as soon as somebody told me 'oh they're community support officers, they can't arrest you or anything like that' any kind of respect, or feeling of safety, or even intimidation at times, suddenly fades away.

    Like I say, I had no real reason to be worried of the police being around, but personally I found CSO's to be nothing more than another Joe Bloggs walking around, whom may very well try and intervene if they saw an illegal act, although you wouldn't expect much from them really.  And from the fact that from watching the documentary tonight, now that I'm aware they can't even touch a person, I'd rather have a civilian try and do something, at least they can perform a citizen's arrest.  Nobody feels any safer with CSO's, and the yob culture that they primarily deal with understandably have no respect for them.  After all, why should they show any admiration to someone who technically have far less power in stopping them than an elderly man or woman?

    You can't help but sympathise with the plight of the CSO.  Often they are potential police officers, simply working as a CSO till a 'proper' police vacancy shows up.  Imagine the frustration of not being able to do anything, when confronted with somebody being assaulted, or worse.  Why can't these people have some ability to hold a suspect?  No doubt being able to arrest someone is a power that has to be reserved, rather than handed out to everyone, but when their civilian rights are actually taken away, how can they be expected to perform their job, never mind hold any kind of respect in the community they work within?

Today is Veterans Day.  Is there anyone you know who has served or is serving in the military that you'd like to honor today? 

    I don't personally know anyone who is currently serving in the armed forces, but nonetheless I think we should all take a moment to remember them.  It's not called veterans day in the UK, it's called remembrance Sunday, and is a very big event.  There is a charity, known as the poppy appeal, that raises tens of millions of pounds each year, with practically no advertising campaign, for all the war veterans in this country, giving them support and care where needed.  Practically every person I know gives money to this charity every year, me included, and I'll explain why.
    I would like to make it clear that I don't support the war in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, but I do support our men and women who are currently over there fighting.  Whether they believe in the cause of the war or not, they do their duty bravely, which is something we should all remember.  Soldiers may fight the war, but they are not the ones who chose to go in the first place.  Nonetheless they go and fight, and struggle, and die, in our name.  It's our responsibility to remember them, and to respect them, both the ones who came back and the ones who didn't.

I step outside.  It's cold enough to feel the chill on your face and hands, but not icy.  The fog hangs low, but another smoke lingers below it.  Thicker than the fog, but not as dark as smoke from a wood fire.  I smell up.  Gunpowder fills my lungs, and the fireworks Light up the sky.
Yup, November's finally here :D

    I got a book about photography in my newspaper this weekend, and it's inspired me to go and try taking some photos.  My digicam's broken though :( so after a recommendation, I'm thinking of getting a holga camera to play around with.  My friend got one a while back and they sound really interesting.
To be blunt, it's a shoddily built camera.  But because it's pretty poorly built and very primitive in its design, you can manipulate it to create some interesting effects, with overexposure, fitting the wrong film in, etc.  I'll post a few pics up that I found on google just now

   See what I mean?  I'll be able to pretend I'm cool and arty, heh.  I'm a bit curious just to hear if anyone on here has one of these cameras, and if they do, what they are like, as in how they are to mess about with and things.  Once i get one I'll be posting some pictures up on here