Accusations were on the basis that Zac Goldsmith, a former Etonian with a estimated wealth of 300m, and Conservative parliamentary candidate had inherited non-domicile tax status meaning the money he made abroad he didn’t have to pay tax on in the UK. Brown knew he couldn’t just attack on the basis of wealth alone, so he used this an excuse to also link Goldsmith with David Cameron who also attended Eton along with George Osborne, who attended St Paul’s, which was linked with plans for a £1million limit on inheritance tax, something the Labour party see’s as a policy for the rich.

We’ve had class warfare throughout modern politics, something that is usually used by the Labour party to attack the supposedly out of touch elites who mainly pass through public school and Oxbridge before becoming a Conservative MP. While Labour criticism might have been justified in the past, when they were a somewhat socialist party, surely they’ve given up the right to use the mantra of ‘you’re more posh than us!’ since Fettes old boy Tony Blair was party leader, who much like the Tories appealed to middle-England voters. If we look at Gordon’s most high profile cabinet ministers it may not contain any old Etonians, but Harriet Harman, Alistair Darling, Jack Straw, Ed Balls and Tessa Jowell all attended independent schools. Is it not just banal and hypocritical to suggest if someone has had a priviledged education, which happens to just be a little more privileged than your own, they are out of touch with normal people.

This was emphasised I feel when Boris Johnson was interviewed by Andrew Marr on the BBC, when it was asked of Boris: “We seem to be going into a period in politics marked by a bit of a class war. Do you think there are enough old Etonians at the top of the Conservative party?” to which Boris reminded Marr that he himself had attended the £30,000 Lorretto school, much like Alistair darling, and if we look into this issue Boris was a scholar at Eton meaning he got in for his intelligence and while he may play up to the stereotype his family were not as privileged as many other politicians whose parents paid for them to go to a better school.

To attack someone for their background is irrelevant when you also have had a privileged upbringing, and it suggests that Labour are trying their best to narrow the polls and take a parting shot at the Tories. While I think that many British people do care about the background of their politicians, parliament isn’t representative and it never has been of society as a whole, it always has been a place for the privileged and maybe this is what we should focus on rather than the fact that a few politicians went to a ‘posher’ school than some others.

While many students are routinely rejected for internships in the summer of both years 1 and 2 of their degree, they tend to worry about the feasibility of working in their preferred industry, which is where we’ve seen companies offer CV advice alongside tailor made help for specific internship programmes (such as help with tests and interviews). It has come to be expected that to work in some industries graduates will have to work going unpaid or with extremely poor pay. For students who wish to work in journalism, the BBCs work experience programmes are highly competitive and while gaining access to work on local papers can be more easily sought almost always these go unpaid and even if the student was lucky enough to gain a job on a local paper as a reporter they’d expect no more than around £12,000 starting pay (hardly a graduate salary). While some other careers promise higher salaries such as those obtained in Public Relations being closer to £20,000 – this is an industry where like journalism, graduates are expected to work for free for a period of time. Now many might argue that if graduates expect to fly up the career ladder in an industry they’ve always wished of working in, they should expect to undertake 6months to a years worth of unpaid work to get their foot in the door so to speak. While this may be true how can graduates from less wealthy backgrounds be expected to afford living for up to a year with no income (bearing in mind most graduate jobs are located in London).

Unpaid graduate internships and even starting salaries for journalism jobs, I would argue lead to less more than qualified yet not quite middle-class enough graduates turning away from these industries, is it any wonder people bleat on all the time about the lack of working class people in newspapers or high paid jobs? It is arguable that we are getting to the point where unpaid internships are leading to the privileged getting necessary experience yet graduates who are equally as qualified turning to lesser jobs merely so they can live comfortably or support their families. I think the government should make it compulsory for graduates to be paid the minimum wage during internships, while this may not solve the problem, it will help considerably – many of those who turned down unpaid work with a prospect of their dream job because they couldn’t afford to live in London for a year going unpaid may now give it a go. Surely the skills of a graduate merit minimum wage pay? Companies which offer unpaid internships on the whole tend to be massive organisations that make staggering profits, while it might be acceptable to expect a first or second year student to undertake a few months work with no pay but essential experience gained it shouldn’t be expected for those who are done studying.

It would be terrible if we got to the point where companies have realised they can take a batch of highly qualified graduates, make them work for a year (yes, proper work – 9-5) then instead of taking on all of those that are good enough, they instead replace many with other highly qualified graduates who will also work for a year for free.

I should add that I’m not exactly a fully fledged euro-sceptic, I think free trade is a great idea – but as many good ideas the EU has come up with it seems to have equalled them with terrible ones. Take a look at Common Agricultural Policy; we subsidise our farming to the point that it quells competition anywhere outside of the European Union hitting developing nations the hardest. After ensuring that our products are much cheaper, we dump our excess of food produced on Africa thus undermining local farmers.

Anyhow, back on topic; I see this election of a European President and the Lisbon treaty as a whole as truly undemocratic, we are now subject to the governance of a Belgian President presiding over a parliament in Brussels. I think the British electorate have made it clear on what they think of the European Union, we have 13 MEPs from the UK Independence Party – who practically just say NO to everything proposed.

One bit of good news however is that we haven’t got Tony Blair as an EU president, after Brown’s backing it was always likely Blair’s chances would take a dip though. Rompuy has managed to unite Belgium (a very divided country) and is probably the best person for the job (despite the fact the job shouldn’t exist) to unite Europe and work through different issues between member states. However, Rompuy  might be great to sort out problems within the EU, but what about outside of it – surely the United States, Asia and the Middle East will be wondering right about now – who exactly is this guy? Which has to be the reaction of many EU citizens, but alas The BBC, Telegraph and Guardian can answer that. While I acknowledge it would of been difficult to acquire someone with the star quality of say Barack Obama, surely someone who was a tad more experienced when it comes to foreign policy might have helped – o but I do forget, Baroness Ashton can help us out there…

While I’m not for withdrawing from the European Union it is worrying how the Lisbon treaty was ratified in such a hurry with little say i.e. letting the Irish vote until they say yes. Hey, at least the Tories will give us a referendum though right?

Now we’re lumped with two people in powerful positions who haven’t actually been elected, and one who has made out a career of exactly that; not being elected. The presidency and treaty ultimately ensures this is a dark day for democracy.

Gordon Brown is a prime minister who has received a plethora of media criticism, a figure who is easily satirised in cartoons, berated in numerous newspaper columns and is a complete juxtaposition of his predecessor; the media savvy Tony Blair. Much of the criticism Brown has received may well be justified when based on policy and whether we like it or not the majority of newspapers have a political agenda. However The Sun newspaper has taken it a step too far with their recent reporting of a letter sent by Brown to Jacqui Janes, the mother of a soldier who was killed in Afghanistan.

Brown’s letter was sent to the bereaved mother after he learnt of the death of her son, hand written it is purported to have numerous spelling mistakes (25 according to The Sun) including the surname of Jacqui Janes – misspelt as James. It is not entirely clear whether the number of mistakes were indeed spelling errors or just the result of poor hand writing (the Prime Minister is blind in one eye and partially sighted in the other).  I’m of the opinion that Brown has been unfairly criticised as the result of this letter which he could of easily had wrote for him or typed up on a template, replacing only the names of families. Instead, he took the time out of what I’m sure is a unbearably busy job to hand write a personal letter (like he has for every other affected family, none of which have complained until now).

While I know that The Sun (biased in a swing-voter fashion) have now officially got behind the Tories, merging their pro military stance (yet never demanding an end to absurd conflicts as their too busy wrapping themselves in the Union Jack) with a biased anti-Labour tone has taken it too far. While the press, should of course have freedom and with that often comes political allegiance (I should mention, I can’t even find a mention of the letter in the pro-Labour Mirror) exploiting a grieving mother for political points is beyond reprehension. However, as far as I could tell Sky News and other media outlets who offered the public a chance to have a say on the issue people got behind Gordon Brown and this could be one of his better PR moments, although some believe that The Sun are just reporting with political bias much like other papers do and they didn’t overstep the mark.

Today The Sun also published a story regarding Mr Brown’s phone call to Jacqui Janes on Sunday night – on the website you can listen to the recording, may I add that Brown didn’t know the phone call was being recorded. Much like when The Sun didn’t inform Max Mosley of the story they ran on him (and who is currently fighting his case in the European Court of Human Rights, after winning compensation in the UK courts) the publishing of this phone call smacks of bad journalism. While I’m sure many will defend it as it falls within the public interest, I’d argue that it does not constitute anything of the sort, this is a personal phone call made about a personal letter, whether it was from the Prime Minister or not.

While I disagree with many Labour policies, the letter whether it had errors or not showed the sincerity of the Prime Minister who despite bad eye sight was willing to hand write letters to many families affected by the wars the UK are currently fighting. Jacqui Janes, who I don’t blame personally as her actions may be excused at such a hard time, being used as a political pawn is an indictment of The Sun - then again, who really respected the comic paper in the first place?

It began with an article that Professor Nutt wrote in a scientific journal headlined “Equasy, an over-looked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms.” It was this paper that caused a storm, whereby sensational coverage blasted the Professor for suggesting that ecstasy and other illegal drug use could actually be safer than riding a horse. Nutt explaining his article said: “This attitude raises the critical question of why society tolerates – indeed encourages – certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others, such as drug use.”

After his comments, Jacqui Smith asked him to apologise. However the Professor continued his defiance in the summer producing a chart of the harm of illegal drugs, placing legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco above LSD, ecstasy and cannabis and suggesting that a barrier was forming between legal and illegal substances with regards to classification. Nutt also suggested that the government’s policy of erring on the side of caution could cause more harm which was the final straw, and when the Professor was relieved of his duties.

Following the Professor’s sacking, one of his colleagues resigned in protest, Dr. Les King; a drugs adviser with another adviser apparently soon to follow. With two charts, one from the Lancet and David Nutt’s own showing that classification is out of touch with harm caused by particular substances supporters of a tougher stance on drugs say that it is dependent on society, and things aren’t as simple as classifying according to harm and that Nutt overstepped his duty. However, we have to realise that not everyone who do drugs are bad people, or even not well off – smoking Marijuana certainly didn’t stop David Cameron successfully graduating from Oxford and being the favourite to be the next Prime Minister and it certainly didn’t stop Barack Obama becoming President; however, what would be of these people if they were affected by draconian government policy of 5 years in prison (with an unlimited fine) for possession?

Furthermore, the government showed how ridiculous their drug policy is when they rushed through the ban of Psilocybin mushrooms at the end of the 2001-beginning of the 2005 government. Psilocybin mushrooms date back to a predicted million years and grow globally, and even before 2005 were legal in the United Kingdom and were sold in hundreds of shops and online and suddenly became a Class A drug in the same league as Heroin and Crystal Meth. It should be noted that nobody has ever died from the toxicity or physical effects of mushroom use, unlike the millions of people who do as a result of smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol. As well as this, the benefits of Psilocybin mushrooms are actually being investigated to help with a numerous amount of mental health conditions such as OCD and cluster headaches.

The government should start listening to scientists and experts instead of pandering to tabloid editors.

Drug harm chart from the Lancet medical journal, ordered in terms of harm and colour coded to how they're classified (Before Cannabis was Class B).

Before Question Time took place, there was a debate taking place on whether the BBC should be inviting someone who is widely viewed and accepted by mainstream politicians and the media on the whole as a racist, fascist, bigot, Anti-Semite and homophobe. Flying the flag for not allowing Nick Griffin on were the usual left wing pressure groups and anti-BNP organisations as well as Peter Hain who deemed the BNP an illegal party after the Equalities and Human Rights Commission won a legal ruling to force the BNP to allow non-white people to join. Firstly, I’d like to make it clear that I agreed with the decision to invite Nick Griffin on to QT. Close to one million people voted for his party in the European Union elections. Without being patronising to those who voted, I don’t believe they were all actually racist and having Griffin’s views challenged by politicians and an audience would hold him and his party to account, which I think it did brilliantly.

After QT had been broadcast, a whole range of opinions were given on the performance of Griffin, the audience and the other panel members. Overwhelmingly the mood in the media was that Griffin had been politically destroyed by the audience, political elites and Bonnie Greer. Although there was also a slight fear that Griffin may have appeared as a victim and hence gaining popularity from the show; which was supported by an YouGov opinion poll in The Daily Telegraph declaring that 22% of people questioned would “seriously consider” voting for the BNP with Peter Hain contributing with a slightly I told you so tone “The BBC has handed the BNP the gift of the century on a plate and now we see the consequences. I’m very angry.”

Despite these findings and BNP claims that 3,000 people registered to join the party during and after the show, Griffin sought to claim more publicity after the show by complaining about the BBC ‘mob’ , the changed format of the programme which focused only on him and it being held in London – apparently no longer a “British city” – strange how he raised no such complaints during the broadcast.

Personally, I don’t think Griffin’s appearance will have much of an affect – they have enjoyed the publicity but on the whole I think he was shown up for what he really is; primarily out of touch with the British public. Britain doesn’t have a history of endorsing fascism whether that be Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, the National Front or the BNP who in my opinion and hopefully will remain but a fringe extremist party who won’t make the jump into mainstream politics.

Source noun is defined by the Cambridge University online dictionary as “the place something comes from or starts at, or the cause of something” while this may not be a literal definition of  a journalist’s source, it is possible to acknowledge that a source can often act as the basis of a story and are often at the “heart of news selection and production.”  There are plentiful sources of news, in a seminar our group of four students named forty sources whereas Harcup (2004) lists seventy-two. However, it is argued that journalism has become slack and lazy, whereby it has become a common sight in news rooms across the country to see journalists glued to their desks all day waiting to package press releases and becoming dependant on a small number of sources who are able to put a spin on what information they provide.

A constant source of discussion among academics, scholars and journalists is the apparent decline of sales and therefore circulation of print newspapers, something that has seemingly affected nationals (red tops, middle market and broadsheets) which is attributed to many factors, online news the most often accused. A lack of sales is not without consequences, as revenue declines so do many argue the number of sub editors, journalists and time afforded to writers.

However, the variety of local newspapers might be declining but profitability has remained higher than that of the nationals (Bob Franklin), although, much like the national and even international press there are emerging monopolies such as Trinity Mirror, Newsquest Media Group and Johnston Press which dominate the local news market; which leads to the accusation that journalists are ill afforded time to become a part of the local community and develop an array of contacts. As I mentioned in the paragraph above the ever more capitalistic nature of newspapers leads to less journalists doing more work with less time. As local newspapers become detached from their respective communities it is important that  local news “should offer independent and critical commentary on local issues”. Is it too easy, bearing in mind the less than ideal conditions that a contemporary local journalist has to operate under to become reliant on propagated packaged news from dubious sources such as press officers and PR firms – and is this the reason why we’re ending up with what is described as “churnalism”.

The Passive Journalist study focuses on the type and number of sources reported in 2979 news stories published in four daily West Yorkshire papers, owned by the three main proprietors of local newspapers in the United Kingdom; The Huddersfield Daily Examiner (Trinity Mirror), Bradford Telegraph & Argus (Newsquest) and The Yorkshire Evening Post and the Halifax Courier (Johnston Press). Reliance on sources reinforced the above views, with seventy six per cent of those stories that used a single source rarely being contentious or critical of the source that provided the story which leads to the accusation that “This seriously undermines the trust that the public can place in information from local papers.” While this might be a slight exaggeration in my opinion it does lead you to question the qualities of local journalists.

Local government reporting was particularly interesting to me, as they were found to have an unquestioning reliance on council press officers and press releases; where does this leave the supposed bastion of the fourth estate? The study also shows that two thirds of local government sourced stories had no discernible secondary source. This kind of journalism provides no questioning of the accountability of local government and as such local journalism isn’t providing a suitable watchdog role over local MPs and councillors. I can see no reversal of this frightening trend, and can only hope that journalistic standards somehow are able to improve whereby critical journalism can flourish.