'Guns don't kill people, people kill people' But they tend to find it a bit easier with a gun in their hand...

 

      Alright.  I know, I know, that you were probably being lulled into a false sense of security- there have been two articles in a row which is probably some sort of record. But alas, the short-lived golden age is over. Because I’m back, crazier than ever. Basically, I decided that I could either sit around being tired and basically drowning in a sea of teenage hormones, or I could pick myself up, stop feeling sorry for myself, and inconvenience you lovely people. Lucky, lucky you.
 Anyways, amigos (noted that 'amigos' makes it sound like we're in a badly made Mexican film) it may come as a surprise but I have a gripe. I am using the word 'gripe' because I feel that it makes my unreasonable anger towards something that doesn't concern me seem slightly more trivial and slightly less... psychotic. In fact, if I call myself 'passionate', it doesn't sound quite as bad... does it?
 Now, I speak as a Briton so I don't really have a grasp on culture across the ponds, although I have, of course, watched more than my fair share of badly made American sitcoms - if it hasn’t got Sandra Bullock in it, I’m not watching it. So maybe I’m being a bit dense (it wouldn't be the first time). And I understand that with the government, it's not as cut and dry as we'd all like it to be. But for god's sake, how many children have to die before something is done?
  The brightest of you may have realised that I’m speaking about America’s gun laws. It is taking an incredible amount of self control to not just facesmash the keyboard in anger, so you should count yourself lucky that I'm actually going to the effort to form some sort of coherent sentence - it's more than I do in most lessons. But I’m going to level with you - Columbine, Virgina Tech, Dendermonde Nursery - all of these done by young people with relatively easy access to guns, and all of these causing unbelievable trauma and upset to everyone involved. These events are horrendous, and that is the only work for it. Reading about them makes me feel sick to the stomach, because the idea of a teenager getting to the point where they are prepared to kill innocent people... it just doesn’t quite sit right with me.
 And I understand that the government can’t change the number of mentally ill teenagers - god knows the U.K probably has roughly the same amount of teens who would be willing to commit atrocities. But the U.K, thank goodness, doesn't have high-school/university shootings in the same way that America does. And I hate to be that girl who states the obvious, but the only startling different between the two countries is the gun laws.
 Again, maybe I’m being simple, because I always tend to be - but surely it's a lot harder to shoot somebody if you don’t have a gun? I don’t know, maybe I’m being traditional. But if you tighten your regulations, then maybe the number of shootings will decrease. Maybe the simple act of receiving education won't have danger attached to it any more.
 So yes, the gun itself doesn’t kill people. The person holding the trigger kills people. But maybe if you take the trigger away, it will be harder to kill people.
 Okay you lovely lot, the growling in my stomach has got to such a volume that I can't even hear the odd few thoughts flutter through my brain, and so I must leave you. 

 E.C

The History of Harrods and Selfridges

As many of my friends and family know, I love shopping, and with the return of ‘Mr Selfridge’ on ITV, I have decided to write about the history of my two favourite department stores- Harrods and Selfridges (not that I can actually afford anything inside *makes mental note to get a part time job*).

Anyway, one of the main differences between the two stores is that Harrods was set up by the Englishman Charles Henry Harrod in 1824 while Selfridges was set up in 1856 by the American, Harry Gordon Selfridge. Despite their grand department stores, both had humble beginnings, while Harrod started off by selling groceries in London, Selfridge was an errand boy in Chicago.

Now’s time for my favourite moments in their histories. First, Harrods:

Picture this. 16th November, 1898, on a Wednesday, the first escalator was used in England. Although it might not have looked much to the average person from this era, to a Victorian this contraption made of woven leather and a mahogany and ‘silver plate-glass’ balustrade was the in-thing, super exciting stuff. In fact, it was so exciting that customers had to have a glass of brandy after using it to ‘calm their nerves’. So at the moment, I really want to put some Victorians on a roller-coaster and see how their nerves fair then. They would probably need a whole gallon of brandy after I’ve finished taking them around Thorpe Park.

However, my favourite moment from the history of Selfridges is somewhat more educational and therefore more sophisticated. You see, Mr Selfridge liked education and science and as a result had many educational and scientific displays to attract customers. An example of this is when Louis Blériot’s monoplane was exhibited there during 1909 where it attracted 12,000 people. 

Overall, it’s nice to know that there is an interesting history behind Harrods and Selfridges so that my pointless window shopping can actually be passed off as something educational *wink wink*. Please don’t tell my mum.

JG

The Roaring Twenties

After watching The Great Gatsby, my already present love of the 20s reached an all-time high. I have always loved their dresses and thought that the whole era was wonderful, but now I seem to be bordering on obsession. I almost cried at the end of the film and I never do that! I am also desperately trying not to ruin the plot for you so if you haven’t watched it, please do (and make sure you have plenty of tissues if you’re anything like me).

But, anyway, that’s not what I’m here to lecture you on. I’m here to give you a little insight into the glorious era of the 1920s so you will become just as obsessed as me and go and research it as well. So without further a do, here are my top 5 facts:

1. Winnie the Pooh was published (which was a big surprise for me because I thought that it was published recently... oops).
2. Yo-yos were as popular as the new xbox (I’m not joking. I don’t understand how people get joy out of this thing when I can’t even get mine to come back up the string).
3. Kool-Aid was sold (for all you people out there who have no clue what this is, I had to google it too- it is a very brightly coloured drink).
4. Amelia Earhart was the first woman to fly across the Atlantic Ocean (guess who feels like a proud feminist at the moment...)
5. Mickey Mouse was thought up by Walt Disney (if you know me well enough, you would know how happy this discovery makes me, especially as I have a onesie with Mickey Mouse on it).

So there you have it. If you like these lovely facts, you can find some more here. And if you say that you still aren’t as obsessed with the 1920s as I am, you’re obviously lying. I mean, who wouldn’t be? 

JG

The 20 year rule... or was it 30?

  

Get the party poppers and champagne out; this is only going to be a short article. Phew. But still, however, one I think that is extremely important, owing to my whole 'free speech' obsession. Which, to be honest, I don't even see as a bad thing. Because Free Speech is, I think, one of the most important things to have in a country, because in a way it is the building blocks of everything else. I read an article once in 'The Spectator' that argued, interestingly, that granting a country full democracy before free speech becomes common place can only end in tears, because free speech gives people the chance to actually make an educated decision about who they are going to vote for. In fact, the way I see it, democracy is the icing on the cake, and  free speech is the cake. So democracy without free speech is like icing without cake, and eating purely icing tends to result in a slightly sicky feeling (believe me, I’ve tried). I’m aware the metaphor is once again running away with itself, so I’ll get to the point.
   In Britain, we have this law that after 20 years information that previously was kept private from the public can be published, which is how I knew about Margaret Thatcher’s plans to deploy the army onto striking minders. And I think that's a great plan. Because it means that we actually get to know what went on behind some of our most controversial moments, and that give a better backdrop and therefore chance of understanding our history. Except the more mathematically minded of you may of realised that the 1984 miners strike was 30 years ago. And the most observant of you may have noticed that 30 years is actually a little bit longer than 20 years. 50% longer, in fact.
  And it's not just with information about Thatcher that the rules have proved to be extremely lenient. The Royal Family’s idea of 20 years is also 30 years. And unless someone’s going round with a Tardis, it seems to me that, actually, no-one quite seems to stick to '20 years'. 20 years is like speeding laws. You know it’s there, but if you have to, then they can be broken.
  If you've been reading my posts for a while, you'll be able to work out exactly how I feel about this. I'll give you a hint: my current mood is a close to 'annoyed' as a bullet in the brain is to a headache. Because could somebody please explain to me that point of a law promoting, basically, free speech, that be changed whenever the government sees fit? That doesn’t say to me that the government is doing it's best to be on the level of the public, really. You can’t form educated opinions without the facts, and we are being denied the facts...
 So anyway, you lovely lot, my oven timer is beeping to tell me that my cookies have just finished baking, and I think that a burnt mouth is worth the first taste of cookie. Thanks for reading, again, and it won’t be long until my next article!
 E.C

Trigger Happy Maggie

     Hiya readers, it's me again! There are probably about 100 things that I should be doing right now, including putting my room in some semblance of order, but why do that when I could rant at you guys about things that happened ages ago but still annoy me irrationally? And seeing as pretty much everything annoys me, due to the fact that my teenage hormones are trying to work out what’s going on, there's always a lot to talk about.
So. What is it this time? Well, settle down and be grateful this isn’t a YouTube video, in which case you'd have to unplug the sound.
 As some of you may know, 'classified information' is allowed in the public domain after 25 years (theoretically) in Britain. Which give eternally grumpy people like me fresh material all the time, especially seeing as a lot of Margaret Thatcher’s original ideas are coming to light right now. And as a result of this, some of the paperwork discussing to 1984 miners strike has come to light, and boy is it controversial! The more observant of you may have noticed that 1984-2014 is 30 years, but apparently our government can change the '25 year rule' is it 'isn’t in the public’s best interest'. I don't think I even need to go into my feelings about that, if you've been reading my articles for a while you should know my take on free speech and freedom of information. Anyway, I’m being sidetracked.
 So because of this rule that has been sort-of adhered to, it has come to light that Margaret Thatcher had a very unusual idea of how to deal with the striking miners. To send in troops to deal with them and basically force them into the mines. Now, I have my own views on Margaret Thatcher as a whole, which I think it's wise not to go the full hog on, because I can get quite carried away  (I know, it's a surprise!). But I think it's fair to be relatively outraged at this. I understand that it may have seemed like the only option at the time, and I’m extremely glad that it wasn’t carried out, because (let’s be honest) it wasn't that much of a great idea. In idea terms, it was almost as bad as when Mr Hitler looked at Mrs Hitler one evening and said ‘shall we go upstairs, love’  
 Alright, my extremely messy room calls for my help. I know this has been a brief and nonsensical post, but mine are always nonsensical, and it’s probably better for you if they’re brief!

 E.C

Desperate Times call for Desperate Measures

             Right. Hi. You can relax now, it's me again, ready to try and explain to you something that you almost definitely understand better than I do. But as long as we're both aware of that dynamic, we needn’t worry. Understand? Good. We can continue. I have to, of course, hope that you're all having a lovely Christmas, or whatever you chose to celebrate - I care about my readers!
 I also have to warn you that the festive season has made me even more scatterbrained than usual, so get ready for some absolutely obscure metaphors that make very little sense.
So here we are. You've sat through the required rambling, and you're hoping for the intelligence to appear. The point, the method to my madness. You have, of course, earned it. You see, it occurred to me the other day that a very definite pattern emerges if you look at the conditions in which radical parties have made their way into power. Now I don’t mean to teach you to suck eggs, but please humour me as I state the obvious: for a group to get into power it must have support. I'll tell you now, this confused little seven year old me more than the British Public if anyone with talent was the win the misleadingly named 'Britain’s Got Talent' (I really truly am sorry!). As a little, unbelievably cute girl, I couldn't quite understand how the Nazis or the Communists ever got into power. I mean, if they're so evil, why would anyone vote them in? I was, however, a little bit of a simple child, to put it nicely. Now, thankfully, after five years of studying history from teachers who actually know something, I have realised.
  Because both Russia and Germany were poor, and had their national pride singed. They both felt as if promises had not been kept, and let down by the government. I sincerely hope you're seeing a pattern, because if not you'll have to sit in the corner with the cast of Duck Dynasty and the safety scissors. When things get bad economically, people look for a quick fix. And normally that quick fix involves a fair bit of violence and oppression, but hey ho, lets ignore that shall we. And honestly, that's what most people are like in their personal lives. When things get tough, instead of having the patience to wait it out, we often look for something we can do, something quick. Which is exactly how the Russian and German public must have felt. So they supported the radical groups, and some of them soon came to regret it.
  But what exactly is the point of me coming on here and stating the obvious, probably insulting your intelligence. I may as well just stand here letting you all know that 'The Sun' isn't the most highbrow of newspapers. I feel, however, that it may just do some good to remember Russia and Germany, the real-life cautionary tales. Because economically, the world isn’t doing great. And soon, one of these 'miracle parties' might rear their ugly head. Look at this country, Britain. Before the recession, UKIP would never be as popular as they are now. In Greece, the 'Golden Dawn' party are gaining supporters. So I’m not being like one of those conspiracy theorists that stand on pavements with sandwich boards (though I can do that if you want), I’m being honest.
 Anyways, that cheery article over, I hope you all have a wonderful Christmas or whatever you celebrate!

Stalin- The Court of the Red Tsar

To be perfectly honest, I'm only half way through Chapter 2, but so far this book has been really interesting.  Instead of portraying Stalin purely as a tyrant, Montefiore explores his human side by starting the book with his second wife's suicide and exploring their marriage. Personally, this has made me continue reading the book with a much more open view of Stalin; I'm sure this will prove useful when trying to understand why Stalin made certain decisions that, in the past, I may have just accepted were because he was 'evil'. Montefiore also takes quite a narrative, almost fictional approach with descriptions such as 'looked like a mad poet' which, although it makes the novel rather difficult to draw concrete facts from, makes it more interesting and stimulating to read.  It's amazing (so far) and I definitely recommend it. ED

Well isn't that strange...

    I think I probably should begin ‘Lib-Dem’ style, with an apology. I have been woefully absent from your computer screens, and honestly I struggle to imagine how you have all survived. But if some of you have made it through those bitter days free of nonsensical drivel, I am back. You don't need to resort to dramatic measures to hear nonsense. So put down that copy of Twilight, turn off Jeremy Kyle and welcome to the world again.
      Now really this article is something that, strangely, hasn't got a lot of press recently, though the BBC has got an article on their website. But then again, what do you say about something that disappears? Do we speak in hushed voices of the fond memories that we had, before laying down a rose and moving on, one tear rolling dramatically down our cheeks? Maybe there should be an international day of mourning, for The Lost Speeches of the Conservatives. Because, as the more clued-up of you may know (or just those who watch Have I Got News for You) several of the Conservatives speeches outlining policies and promises have vanished in an Orwellian-style purge. I mean, when I heard this I was genuinely shocked. Deleting speeches and hiding them in a little corner of the internet unknown to anyone? Sounds more '1984' than Cameron’s England. And if we're totally honest (which I always try to be), this is all a little Men in Black.
       The technology people, which we will now call them for the sake of my brain, have done some technology stuff (this is not a technology blog, so go with it) and found out some technological things. And as far as I can understand them, they are as follows: the records have been removed from the 'Internet Archive', which aims to keep a record of all documentation on the internet in order to preserve Free Speech (take note, Mr Cameron), and hidden the speeches in a little corner of the internet, the size of the 'Things Joey Essex knows' list. There's also some techy stuff about a 'robots.txt.' file which the more intelligent of you can try to decipher, but there’s the basics as I understand them.
       'So', I hear you say,' these Conservatives can’t have just left this issue, they must have had a response!'. Right you are, public, right you are. They did, and that was to tell the public, quite convincingly that ''changes [to the website] allow people to quickly and easily access the most important information we provide - how we are clearing up Labour's economic mess, taking the difficult decisions and standing up for hardworking people'', although I assume that if you check for that it will have gone in a few years...
    So there we are. Things They Don't Want You To Know. But hey, unfortunately for you, you know me. And I'm a little obsessed with free speech. Because its important. Anyway, hoped this little bit of drivel brightened this winter day for you, and I won't be away for long!

E.C

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24924185
Heres the link, by the way, in case you want to hear how this is written by someone who knows what they're doing!