Image by Andrew B47 via Flickr

I’ve finished reading the first book on my university course reading list. Being the first book, you might assume that this covers the basics of (my chosen course) journalism, but in fact I read this book first because I luckily found it for pittance in a charity shop; 12.5p (it was a two for 25p deal, you see). So, I thought, ‘hurrah!’ and started reading it straight away.

Well, after I returned the library copy I borrowed. I don’t like the lamination on those books.

Don’t ask.

And now, having read it all, I can happily say that Lynn Truss, the author of Eats, Shoots and Leaves: A Zero Tolerance Guide to Punctuation, is one annoying woman… (Before you call me sexist, I also have the habit of saying things such as ‘annoying man’ – you know who you are – and occasionally ‘annoying dog’ – who also knows who he is). You can begin to connect the dots as soon as I tell you that this whole book is about how punctuation, and its proper use,  is going to the dogs. At 200 pages, it’s not a big book, but the thing is still a mindful. Worse yet, in her mocking diatribe against the ‘berks’ who are laying waste to the proper use of language – as well as the ‘wankers’ who are staunchly against the natural evolution of punctuation (I’m not making this up) – she is ultimately suggesting that she knows the best way to use punctuation. What a wanker – or possibly a berk, depending on how much of a wanker you yourself are.

Enough about wankers, though. I think I’ll steer clear from being labelled berk or wanker, not least because I don’t want to be misunderstood out of context. Despite being annoying, Truss actually writes a really a good book. It’s acerbic, and aggressively so at some points (she doesn’t even apologise straight away!), but she does put forward sympathetic cases for those who English punctuation. For example (without irony, trust me):

greengrocer are self-evidently horny-thumbed people who do not live by words […] something rather troubling and unsatisfactory happens to words ending in vowels when you just plonk an “s” on the end [of fruit names]. Take the word “bananas”: at first glance, you might suppose that the last syllable is pronounced “ass”. How can the word “banana” keep its pronunciation when pluralised? Well, you could stick an apostrophe before the “s”!

And so on. She has evidently researched this area well and it’s made obvious that she is already an expert in this field: after all, all you have to do is glance at the bibliography and read the foreword that describes her career in journalism.

In another instance, she is – hilariously – cruel to her old American pen pal, who isn’t a blessed stickler like Truss. Truss replies to a poorly composed letter of hers with every technique and symbol used in punctuation, even those that are obscure to most people (but are, obviously, accurate). The letters suddenly stop, both to her satisfaction and, apparently, regret. You wouldn’t have thought the latter with the way she calls her moronic and occasionally refers to her derogatorily throughout the rest of the chapter, though. I actually hope that the pen pal has never read this book. Thankfully, she probably wouldn’t think of picking it up. But Truss has convinced me that she probably should read this book. Yes, it’s so bad that I think that the Queen’s English is at stake; our way of life is under attack!

Truss is equally critical of those who confuse “it’s” and “its”; as the title suggests, there is no tolerance whatsoever. I mean, how hard would it be to remember the difference, anyway? Her attacks don’t stop at ordinary ‘berks’, however. She also points towards those who – under the guise of an intelligent, thoughtful person – seek to dismantle punctuation as we know it. Truss introduced me to a Gertrude Stein, who laughably wants to jettison it all, all for the sake of literary freedom. But Truss points out what we should all know; that punctuation is there not to constrain language, but simply to clarify what we write and, consequently, say. The actual art is in gently bending the rules. Removing them entirely would be no fun.

In between emphasising this, Truss also notes, comically, that these Strudes (my own name for people like Strude) often find it difficult to criticise punctuation without using it themselves.

It would seem that I’m rather fond of this pedantic but funny and enlightening linguist. Despite noting much of what I already knew about punctuation (it would be worrying if I didn’t know most of it already, to be honest), the obvious seems to always be immediately followed by something informative and thoughtful. Something, apart from the fact that this is a book I’ve been told would be helpful during my course, that kept me reading on and wondering what else I would learn. Indeed, despite this being eight-or-so-years-old now – a long time for language, and most other things, in the 21^st century – I’ve learnt a lot. Not just technique and quite a clever joke*, but also a bit of linguistic history.

And thoughtfully, at the end, Truss concedes that what she may consider good punctuation is somewhat up to a preferred style, and may be swept away by the tide of technological change. A type of good punctuation, however, that sticklers like herself will preserve as best as possible for its inevitable evolution.

*A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

“Why?” asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

“I’m a panda,” he says, at the door. “Look it up.”

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds and explanation.

“Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.”

Excellent.

How does religion shapes social attitudes towards marriage, divorce and cohabitation in Britain?

Religion has long shaped social attitudes in Britain, and this extends to what we think about marriage, divorce and cohabitation. Religions, mainly mainstream religions, usually have strong views on marriage, divorce, and premarital sex, the latter which often occurs within cohabiting couples. To understand how religion shapes social attitudes inBritaintoday, we have to explore the approaches of the different religions that people adhere to inBritain, the approaches of those with secular beliefs, and inevitably the extent in which they collectively shape the social attitudes towards marriage, divorce and cohabitation.

I would define ‘social attitudes’ as attitudes that affect society and the way it is organised. There are evidently different social attitudes towards marriage, divorce and cohabitation in Britain, because its inhabitants hold a varied number of beliefs, and these different beliefs have different ideas towards these institutions in how they affect society and its organisation. For example, traditional Christian views would hold that married couples normally constitute a man and a woman, and that it is normal, or an obligation, to create a nuclear family (a heterosexual couple and children). But even within Christianity, there are disparities about this view. For secularists it is more common to accept cohabiting and homosexual couples, which some Christians may condemn.

The biggest religious contributor to the shaping of social attitudes towards marriage, divorce and cohabitation in Britain, then, is Christianity. According to the 2001 Census, 71.8% of Britons are Christian, the second biggest grouping being those who are either not a part of religion, or have not stated whether they are a part of a religion: constituting 22.9% of Britons. From this, we can gather that people are atheist (holding no belief), agnostic (claiming that you cannot tell whether or not God exists), or those that are open to the idea of adhering to religion, but do not have the time or have not found a suitable one.¹

Following that, 2.8% are Islamic, 1% are Hindu, 0.6% are Sikh, 0.5% are Judaic and 0.3% are Buddhist. Though from the 2001 census, these statistics are typical of trends that have come before or afterwards: the proportion of those belonging to a religion has declined, while the proportion of those not belonging to any religion has increased. However, Voas and Crockett question the figures, finding that personal belief in God has declined alongside church attendance. Grace Davie would argue that the decline in attendance is compensated for by people who still believe but don’t attend, but Steve Bruce would argue that a person no longer willing to go to church is no longer willing to belong to the respective religion: his finding is backed up by what Voas and Crockett find in surveys.²

We can link this to how there are disparities between religions – different beliefs towards marriage, divorce and cohabitation. You could argue that these disparities exist because some may be more religious than others, but it could also stem from the way sacred texts relating to the religion are interpreted. For example, some take the bible as literal truth, symbolic but not necessarily literal, or questionable – the latter line of thinking could come from the fact that there is a distinct old testament and a new testament, from which one could reason that idea of ‘good’ (as explored in the texts) is something that can evolve over time.

Similarly, we can find disparities between amongst secular views of religion. While some may simply cohabit because they may attach no significance to marriage (to secularists, the spiritual bond’s license to have sex do not exist), others may still view marriage as a significant institution. While they may not be acting on the behalf of deference towards religion, their attitude towards marriage has perhaps been shaped by religion, since religion attached so much significance to marriage in the first place. While you could argue that people marry simply because it is ‘normal’ or symbolic of their love, why could they not opt for a non-religious civil ceremony? Religion has shaped this social attitude.

There are also disparities in views concerning divorce and cohabitation. Cohabitation is stigmatised because religions in Britain still largely see premarital sex as a sinful, though some would call it deviant as opposed to sinful, or forgivable. Meanwhile, religion has left less of an impression on premarital sex than marriage, since secular society largely doesn’t attach stigma onto the act. Therefore, cohabitation is a more likely occurrence among secularists. But there has been a decline in the number of people getting married and an increase in the number of cohabiters. This suggests that traditional religion’s influence on our attitudes towards both marriage and cohabitation is declining.

The opinion on divorce is less divided. Although it is still frowned upon amongst the mainstream religions, there is a growing consensus among them that divorce is sometimes necessary. Surveys show a general increase in the number of divorces. This could be a sign that religion’s influence on divorce is declining, since mainstream religions still generally view them as unfavourable, or that religions have changed to be more accommodating towards divorce because it is increasingly popular – that is, if a church continues to stigmatise divorce, they may alienate divorcees, and there is a growing number of divorcees.

An article in the Independent³ – an apparently politically-unbiased newspaper though it has been cited as ‘left-leaning’– explores marriage’s continuing popularity. Its ‘left-leaning’ stance, therefore, would suggest that it has a liberal view towards relationships.

It notes ‘fewer people getting married, more divorces, more cohabitation and now [we have] civil partnerships for gays’ that close to 40% of marriages now end in divorce. This was noted in 2008, but it isn’t likely that much has changed, nevermind the long-term trends. These trends, while not consistent, show a general decline of marriages, and an increase of divorces and cohabitations.⁴ Civil partnerships were legalised in 2004 to a mixed response from religious communities. The number of civil partnerships has also generally declined, but obviously there are fewer homosexual people and civil partnerships began with a high initial rate because homosexuality had been socially and legally acceptable for a long time (since 1967) beforehand in spite of the laws against a civil or marital union. And it was a significant presence beforehand. Otherwise why would have been legalised?⁵

Civil partnerships are relevant to this study because they are seen as an alternative to marriage, and there are movements that continue to call for marriages for homosexual couples. What differentiates the two is that while civil partnerships are secular, marriages – though not always cited as such by the participants – are religious. The suggestion, therefore, is that despite the declining popularity of marriage, this movement shows – as well as those who continue to get married – continued enthusiasm for marriage. And, most importantly for this study, that religion has largely shaped the attitudes that are behind this movement. Some could argue that the movement does not stress the importance of marriage for homosexuals as a religious ceremony, but as an institution that should be allowed by both heterosexuals and homosexuals as a sign of equality. But liberal religions, such as some branches of Protestantism, accept homosexuality or at least broadly tolerate it, which suggests that there are considerable numbers of religious homosexual people.

The bible itself does not directly attack homosexuals or question their legitimacy, but in the bible’s ‘Genesis creation narrative’, where on the 6^th day it is noted that God created humans, he told them to ‘be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it’ – which obviously relates to childbirth. Homosexuals, however, cannot naturally conceive children and thus their sexual acts are, when assessed superficially, completely recreational and therefore not fulfilling the purpose God intended. In the same way, the traditionally religious view that cohabiting couples are illegitimate would assume that – perhaps falsely – that these couples aren’t seeking much more than recreational sex; Catholicism forbids fornication. But what God set out humans to do at the beginning of the earth’s creation (going by the bible story) is achievable by cohabiting couples by using the same methods by married heterosexual couples, and by homosexual couples (who can fund IVF for people to bear children for them). Yet premarital sex is still frowned upon by religions in general and homosexuals are still criticised in this respect. Actual homosexual marriages remain illegal.

The Independent article notes that a school of anthropology suggests that we are naturally promiscuous, but there is no solid evidence to back up this view. But there were cultures in which marrying many wives, and in some many husbands, was commonplace. This was made more common in some societies where wars had wiped out huge numbers of men, but the practice was often restricted to authorities such as kings or tribal leaders. However, history has shown, as the article notes, that monogamy has been the norm. This has perhaps been shaped by the balanced numbers of males and females, feelings of jealousy and the welfare of children. This also suggests that monogamy – the normal form of marriage for mainstream religions in Britain – is natural, even evolutionary. Whether or not this evolutionary trend shaped mainstream religious views of marriage, mainstream religions have come to promote this view as the norm.

As the article notes, marriage has regulated sexual activity and thus has minimised the social conflict that can arise from it. The state and not religion per se, has used marriage in this way, to provide legal, social and economic stability. But the fact that there are religious prominent heads of state – for example, most of the post-war Prime Ministers –suggests that religion is still a presence in the state, and therefore that religion, in some capacity, is still prominently involved in the shaping of marriage. And the fact that most marriages are carried out in churches, or at least have religious ceremonial vows, suggests that religion is still very prevalent in the marriage institution.

The article notes the trend of people marrying (especially women) because it is economically viable, but it also notes a trend of rich people marrying to fulfil emotional needs. In both instances, the need is not a religious one. An increasing divorce rate perhaps suggests that the idea of marriage being fulfilling in this way is exaggerated. As the source puts it, “if love goes, the marriage goes”.  As alluded newer, more liberal forms of religion (such as Prostestant religions) tolerate this view, but they do not promote or celebrate divorce, even if it is in everyone’s interests.

While the rising divorce rate could easily be attributed to the relaxation of divorce laws (that is, divorce has become easier to obtain), the rate does not represent those who want to get divorced but cannot for whatever reason. The relaxation of divorce laws has made it easier, but other cultural trends can be attributed to its ‘rise’, along with the decline of religious influence. A series of laws up to the 1970s made divorce easier, but by 1970, as the text notes, marriages peaked before declining along with increasing divorce rates.

The text notes that while cohabitation is on the rise, most cohabiters go on to get married anyway. But as noted, the marriage rate is generally declining as well. The nature of cohabitation isn’t promoted by prominent religions in Britain, but cohabitations are not necessarily secular. Given that most cohabiters get married, more than that amount probably contemplate marriage or have the sort of relationship that emulates a marriage. For example, some cohabiting couples (voluntarily, as opposed to accidentally, although accidental pregnancies lead to some cohabitations) have children, and recently cohabiters have been given the right to adopt children.

As well as the ‘if love goes, the marriage goes’ orthodoxy, which suggests that pleasure is crucial for marriages to work, there is also the ‘marriage is just a bit of paperwork’ orthodoxy, where cohabiters derive all the qualities of marriage except the formal ceremony itself. Traditional religion has evolved into more ‘substantial’ forms – as an analogy, Catholicism with its bureaucracies and formal ceremonies to Protestantism with its asceticism and ‘spiritualism’ – that stress actual content, as opposed to ‘superficial’ ceremony. In the same way, perhaps the Protestant trend in religion has increasingly shaped our view of marriage. That is, that marriage’s most important quality is not its label but what it is supposed to accommodate: a loving family, sexual fidelity and a home for children – qualities that all mainstream religions promote.

While some may view cohabiters as promiscuous or sinful, they are, if we adopt what seems to be the increasingly popular liberal Christian view, more religious than those in marriages involved in infidelity, who in fact commit the sin of adultery. However, the text notes that cohabiting couples are twice as more likely to split up than married couples. It consolidates the view that marriage creates stability, in spite of rising divorce and cohabitation rates. Perhaps the marriage rate is gradually declining not because it is unpopular, but because in an increasingly individualised society, the stability that marriage is supposed to bring with it is increasingly unattainable.

Maqswood’sneed to know?Islam⁶ provides a largely objective and factual overview of Islamic views of marriage and divorce and, indirectly, cohabitation. It notes that fornication is forbidden, making cohabitation sinful. Assessing that people show sexual desire at a young age (especially males), Muslims often encourage or arrange marriage at a young age. Maintaining a good marriage is seen as so important that it constitutes ‘half the faith’. In Britain, where Islam is the second largest non-denominational religion (according to the 2001 census), the divorce rate is generally increasing. Interestingly, however, marriage is seen as a consensual social contract that can be broken if there is no more consent. For Catholicism it is more sacred – an unbreakable sacrament. Then again, according to Islam’s bible, the Qu’ran, divorce is ‘the most disliked’.

Catholicism holds that the sacrament of marriage is the partnership of the couple and God.⁷ While some Catholic beliefs have evolved over time, this belief has remained largely the same. Marriage is seen as so important that it cannot be dissolved by divorce. Civil divorce is not recognised. The strength of this belief is symbolised by remarrying couples being unable to receive the Eucharist, and the belief that marriage is the antidote to selfishness. Catholic marriages can, however, be annulled, but only if there is sufficient evidence to prove that the marriage was, in fact, not a ‘Catholic’ marriage to begin with. Basically, that the couple married without proper understanding of marriage, intended to marry for fraudulent or unfaithful reasons, or that they do not plan to have children – either out of refusal from one partner, or the inability to have children. The Catholic institution appears to be very scrupulous in discerning whether a marriage is a ‘Catholic marriage’ or not, as it assigns two tribunals to do the discerning, and will refer the case to a court in Rome if the tribunals disagree.

This view of marriage, however, would be seen as encroaching on the civil liberties of the modern world: namely, the freedom to dissolve a marriage easily and for reasons personal to the person. Catholicism shaped this social attitude of marital unity towards marriage for Catholics, although the spirit of this was prevalent in Britain’s past, when the marriage rate was much higher than the divorce rate (although as mentioned that could be partly attributed to the relaxation of divorce laws). However, society has changed – the relaxation of divorce laws and the legality of homosexuality being indicators of this – to become less traditional and more individualistic. Such a society has reshaped social attitudes to marriage, promoting more choice and encouraging liberalism.

Islamic marriages are often arranged. It’s not a requirement, but it is seen as the sensible choice of someone more experienced in life – usually, the parents. The notion of arranged marriage would go against the generally socially liberal view in Britain, however, and Muslims raised in Britain are naturally more likely to share this view. Forced marriage is not uncommon but it is sinful under Islamic law and illegal in Britain.

In an Islamic marriage, the woman is guaranteed an agreed sum of money or a property, and the man is obliged to look after the woman and their children financially; the obligation stays even after divorce. In return, the woman has to obey the man, but obviously he has to be reasonable.

In Britain, however, this would be seen as out of keeping with its modern individualism and focus on equal rights between both genders. As noted, the financial support is just an obligation, while the promise to ‘obey’ is now largely seen as rhetoric of tradition in Christian weddings in Britain (the wedding vow can now in fact be altered).Polygamous marriages are recognised in Britain and Islamic men are allowed up to four wives. Islamic women are not allowed more than one husband. But in any case, polygamous marriages cannot be contracted in Britain. Overall, it is rare.

A Daily Telegraph article⁸ discusses the decline of the marriage rate in Britain. The source is an article of a website of a conservative newspaper. Its publishers generally support and thus are bias towards conservative institutions such as the Church of England and the Papacy.

It notes that, while marriage seems to be in general decline, the decline can be attributed to financial and other reasons (apart from a decline in faith). The cost of marriage has gone up, making it more inaccessible, while the government has not supported the marriage institution. Considering that the government is in control of the economy, this is a somewhat valid point. It also notes other economic factors such as the increasing proportion of women in work and ‘the desire to get married later in life’.

Then again, people are generally becoming richer, and in some ways marriage is more favourable economically than cohabiting or living alone – at least, in the long term. It could be argued that, despite marriage costing more, the rates of marriage should stay consistent because it is a cherished institution. David Percival notes that “Living together and marriage are increasingly seen as the same by the public.” After all, cohabiting couples are gradually getting the same rights as married couples, for example being able to adopt.

Civitas published an article about why marriage has declined in modern Britain.⁹ Civitas is a think-tank that describes itself as ‘classical liberal’, believing in freedom of religion and speech, as well as believing in the ‘free market’ – generally favoured by right-wing economists. The think tank has no official political affiliations but keeps the source of its donations private. Journalists of left-wing newspapers such as The Guardian and The Observer have cited the think-tank as right-wing, but the editor of ConservativeHome also cites the think-tank as right-wing. From this article, Civitas stresses the importance of marriage, which is tune with the general right-wing view of sexual morality.

It claims that marriage is still popular, especially among young people, but has declined because of economic landscape and Labour’s supposed neutrality over the structure of the family. It found that from a ‘nationally representative’ (1,560) sample of 20-35 year-olds, 7 in 10 want to marry. The survey excludes young people between the age of 16 and 20 who can marry, but this finding is still a positive indicator that at least a lot of young people still want to get married – especially since it is largely thought that those under the age of 20 are less prepared for marriage.  It found that 8 in 10 cohabiting couples want to marry. This is backed up by previous data showing that most cohabiters go on to get married. It found that main reason young people want to marry is to make a commitment (47% choosing this as their main reason). Not necessarily a religious reason, but religious marriages – especially Catholic and Islamic ones – stress the importance of commitment and unity.

Only 2% of those survived said that they married because of tax reasons. This suggests that economic reasons for marrying are unimportant to young people, but it could simply mean that most people don’t want to admit that they marry for tax reasons. Since most people want to marry, it argues, tax incentives aren’t necessary, but it contradicts itself somewhat in stressing the importance of employment and the steady income it provides in encouraging marriage. It found that a child born to a cohabiting couple is more than twice as likely to see their parents break up before their 16th birthday. From data previously cited that found that more post-cohabiting couples divorce than married couples who previously didn’t cohabit, this is unsurprising.

Civitas does not show a link between a decline in religion and the decline in marriages, but it only explores economic reasons as opposed to religious reasons as to why people want to marry. However, it found that the main reason for marriage among young people is commitment, which could be interpreted as a religious principle in marriage. Though the focus was on unemployment being the main reason why people don’t marry. On one hand, if could be interpreted that if people wanted to get married, they would get married. However, for some people it may be that only economic reasons are stopping them from getting married.

As mentioned earlier, homosexuality is significant in this study, but not just because it can easily occur in cohabiting couples. It’s also significant because religion, particularly traditional religions, may strongly oppose homosexuality and especially homosexual marriages. Religion has had a profound effect on social attitudes that concern homosexuality and same-sex marriages. Actual homosexual marriage is not yet allowed in Britain, and it remains to be seen whether it will be legalised. However, civil partnerships for homosexuals have been legal for some time now, and are seen as an alternative form of marriage; it’s formally not religious, but could be used to express the same sentiments. Most Britons think that gay marriage should be legalised,¹⁰ but 45% think it shouldn’t, and most think that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. Clearly, homosexuals are far from being seen as equal both in and out of marriage (which they are excluded from at the moment).

Most major churches in Britain see homosexuality as a sinful act, but take a non-aggression approach. That is, they still welcome those who are homosexual, perhaps in a bid to reform them (in rare cases it may be the reason why they come to church), but it could also because they don’t want to seem illiberal in what is now a largely socially liberal Britain. While there is still some apprehension over gay rights, most appear to think that they should have rights that make them more equal to heterosexuals. Catholicism, in particular, is perhaps seen as the most homophobic religion. This Independent article,¹¹ for one, quotes previous Pope John Paul II as saying that homosexuality is ‘contrary to natural law’; most other Popes probably share this view, as it is the formal view of Catholicism.

However, as noted, there are disparities in beliefs between believers in religions, ranging from functionalist extremes to liberal pointlessness (that is, one could be so accepting that belonging to a certain religion is pointless), and such disparities exist in Catholicism.Teach Yourself Catholicism [7] notes this. While those who take a more liberal view of homosexuality, and hold religious views, are more likely to believe in more liberal religions such as Protestant denominations, those who do not see homosexuality as sinful also exist within Catholicism – in fact, a sizeable amount of Catholics, contrary to the stereotype of Catholics as much more socially conservative than their Protestant counterparts. The religion supposedly takes a tougher stance against homosexuality, but other aspects of society have obviously overtaken Catholicism and other religions in influencing our social attitudes over what is morally acceptable in regards to sexual matters.

Other aspects are economic factors – as discussed – since they can make marriage more or less viable for the long term, legislative factors – for example, the relaxation of divorce laws – and the mass media, among other factors. The mass media, exemplified in modern times by cable TV and the internet, have circulated alternative or previously little-heard-of views that have contributed somewhat to an individualistic life style. The alternative views portrayed have encouraged people to take a varied path in life, in the belief that there is nothing wrong with deviating from the norm. The norm may include the traditional path of getting married to a heterosexual and maintaining that relationship, as opposed to living a life of promiscuity, for example.

Religion has largely just shaped the framework of our view of marriage, divorce and cohabitation. But, as it is losing credibility, the other factors have overtaken it in shaping social attitudes – new, secular forces that are seemingly more logical and appealing to a younger generation that doesn’t yet understand what it feels like to have long-cherished views attacked and ridiculed. While the current Prime Minister and other senior politicians are religious, policies have increasingly gone against religious views. The relaxation of divorce laws has been anathema to those who think more should have been done to promote staying in a marriage, while many were aghast at homosexual civil partnerships being legalised. Religion has been marginalised somewhat on TV, as, while religious themes are prevalent, religious broadcasting largely appears on obscure TV channels. Meanwhile, younger generations would be less interested in religious broadcasting, any, since there are many more palatable programmes that are easier to access and don’t require a strong commitment to certain beliefs.

Religion, perhaps, can take more credit in shaping the economy. The birth of ‘modern capitalism’ has been attributed to the rise of Calvinism in Europe, [2] as it promotes the asceticism, hard work and achievement – key aspects of a capitalist system, which need to exist in some capacity for capitalism to run. The opposite would be over-indulgence, idleness and failure, which are anathema to capitalism. It has led to the decline of its notions on marriage, divorce and cohabitation, however. Today’s society is highly individualistic, with people deciding to marry later or not at all to pursue careers or ‘have a good time’, and has been borne out of a capitalist system which promotes individual achievement. Individualism itself is a far cry from the collective worship of churches, so people born into such an economy are more likely to be attracted to sources that promote individuality.

Homophobia can be traced right back to the main source of Christianity’s beliefs, the bible. While these references may be down to differing translations and different interpretations, there is evidence of such references in the bible. For example, quoting from the King James Bible, Leviticus 20:13,¹² ‘If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,’ we can see no ambiguity in what it means. This verse clearly condemns homosexual activity. That was an Old Testament quote, but such biblical writing persisted in the New Testament (Romans 1:27): ‘And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet’ – again, not very ambiguous. Meanwhile, possible pro-homosexual references in the bible are debateable, would be contradictory, and in any case have been overshadowed, shown by current mainstream religious policy. No mainstream religion, at least, openly or enthusiastically supports homosexuals.

A Times article refers to how having a child in a cohabiting relationship seems quite common now¹³ – saying that many people would call it ‘just the way things are done in modern Britain’. The Times is a moderate centre-right newspaper, traditionally supporting the Conservative party. It therefore takes an unsurprisingly positive view of marriage, or rather a negative view of how the government has allowed it to decline. Like mainstream religions, this article promotes marriage as a vital institution, particularly one in raising children. It points to a range of evidence showing how disadvantageous relationships are outside marriage and that, despite the declining number of marriages, most people still want to get married. The article argues for a similar cause that the Civitas one argues, except that Civitas put more emphasis on employment while this article quotes an MP saying that more needs to be done to encourage marriage, not just employment policies.

A Guardian article¹⁴ provides a useful look into the number of marriages over a long period of time on a year-on-year basis. For a long time, the figure appears to be very consistent, often rising very high, until statistics towards the 21^st century and throughout the decade through it – here, the rate rapidly starts to drop. It has already been mentioned that the marriage rate has been dropping, but this article emphasises just how fast this is happening – modern trends, along with the decline of religious influence, have led to an increasingly rapid decline. The period is also peculiar in its rate because rarely has the rate fluctuated so much, or has been so consistent in decline. This could partly be attributed to decline in childbirth, but the fact that remarriages have also increased shows that there are increasingly very few (relatively) first marriages. The Guardian’s political or religious affiliations and liberal worldview matter little in interpreting this information, because the information is little more than fact-stating.

Another Independent article looks at the growing cohabitation in Britain,¹⁵ even finding studies that suggest it has become the ‘norm’ – in fact, the article found that the majority of the population cohabit, as opposed to a comparatively small proportion decades ago. Studies cited have shown that most of those who cohabit get married, but this article shows the length of time people are cohabiting for has doubled over the past few periods, and that after divorce (and the divorce rate is rising), people cohabit longer with their next prospective husband or wife. Increasing cohabitation is, of course, an indicator that religions’ influence on social attitudes in Britain, in general, has declined. The trend continues. A much more recent article, from the Telegraph,¹⁶ finds that cohabitation has grown since 1995 (the year of the Independent article) to more than 2 million, and is predictable to almost double within 20 years.

Overall, religion in Britain has shaped social attitudes towards marriage, divorce and cohabitation in Britain in many different ways and with varying results. For the most part, religion has tried to support marriage as part of a healthy religious lifestyle, and condemn divorce and cohabitation as the opposite. Despite the religious diversity in Britain, this has been a key aim, especially as part of tackling a supposed newfound ‘immorality’ in modern times, although Christianity is the largest religion, and is apparently believed by a majority of the population. The religions, however, are not exactly united in their approach. None of the mainstream religions openly accept homosexual behaviour, but some are more tolerant than others. Protestant religions are generally more lax in their beliefs than Catholicism, whose leaders are some of the most vociferous contesters of homosexuality. Islamism is also strongly opposed, and this belief is shared more by British Muslims, according to a Gallup poll,¹⁷ than British Catholics, according to a YouGov poll.¹⁸ Meanwhile, most Britons see it as morally acceptable.

In fact, Britons don’t largely share the views of the mainstream religions on marriage, divorce and cohabitation – many may see themselves as Christians, but their views are largely more lax than the views held by the leaders of the religions. Despite the championing of marriage and condemnation of divorce and cohabitation, marriage’s favourability has declined and the stigma surrounding divorce and cohabitation has largely gone – out of the whole population if not within the religion’s themselves. Marriage rates have gone up while divorce rates have gone down, remarriage has increased in spite of ‘conservative’ religion such as Catholicism saying they’re impossibility, and cohabitation is on the increase. Economic and political changes can’t be seen as much of an excuse. The fact is, if these institutions were cherished as much as religious doctrines wanted them to be – and they are, for the most part, taken very seriously – rates of marriage, divorce and cohabitation would continue to be consistent in spite of the spiritually less accommodating economic landscape and increasingly secularist state.

[Word count: 5,415]

Bibliography

1. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=954

2. Webb, R., Westergaard, H., Trobe, K. and Steel, L. (2009) A2 Sociology: The Complete Course for the AQA Specification, Napier Press: London

3. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/marriage/till-death-do-us-part-why-marriage-remains-popular-931622.html

4. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/marr0610.pdf

5. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/cpuk0810.pdf

6. Maqswood, R. W. (2008) Collins Need to Know? Islam: Understand the Religion Behind the Headlines, HarperCollins Publishers: London

7. Stanford, P. (2008) Teach Yourself Catholicism, Bookpoint Ltd: Oxon

8. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7212513/Marriage-rate-in-Britain-falls-to-lowest-level-since-1862.html

9. http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/2008/05/marriage_in_modern_britain_out.html#

10. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/oct/26/relationships

11. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-denounces-gay-pride-parade-as-offense-against-christian-values-707663.html

12. http://mindprod.com/kjv/alpha.html

13. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1466737.ece

14. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/feb/11/marriage-rates-uk-data

15. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/cohabitation-the-norm-in-modern-britain-says-survey-1586348.html

16. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8302189/Living-together-is-not-the-same-thing-as-marriage.html

17. http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080523Morals1_48fnwiothioj.gif

18. http://today.yougov.co.uk/life/papal-proscription

(This was graded an A*.)

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

Pretty straightforward.

As you can read, 100,000 signatures supposedly will get legislation debating time. How kosher this is going to be is debatable, but it has evidently been popular. I had a bit of trouble trying to access the website yesterday, but not, I don’t think, enough. It’s a shame that it hasn’t got that much publicity (unsurprisingly), but generally, looking at polls, people are apathetic about politics. Perhaps, understandably, they feel let down by current governmental institutions or maybe, also understandably, they feel this won’t go anywhere. Still, I think we should at least try and get blood from this stone.

An obvious proposal for debate in the commons is the death penalty. Amongst all petitions it has gained the most currency. This is not a surprise since the majority of Britons have time and time and again polled favourably for the punishment. However, I was a tad surprised at the complete lack of concerted effort to gain the required 100,000 signatures. The last time I checked (before I started writing this post), there were four pages worth of different petitions, mainly to bring back the death penalty. Most had signatures in tens but a few had some in thousands – a few that had more signatures than the single petition to legalise cannabis. Are those supporting the death penalty stupid or is this some elaborate ruse to stop such a debate happening in the commons? After all, all those petitions are technically different, so collective counting is unlikely to happen. Not least because duplicate petitions are being rejected. Supposedly, anyway.

For the record I don’t think those who support the death penalty are stupid, as I don’t think the shrill, in-your-face type of atheists are. I am against it – yes, that’s right, spoilers - but I can understand why so many people would want it back. It makes perfect sense in a lot of ways, but overall I think it doesn’t solve root causes, and there is the odd chance that an innocent person would die. With stringent criteria such as serial killing, such odd chances may be even slimmer, but to sentence an innocent to death would obviously be horrible (and has definitely happened before). The death sentence would get rid of some truly criminal people for good, unite our collective conscience against mindless murder – which is of course always mindless – and would ease (if I’m not mistaken) the economic burden somewhat, but to sentence an innocent person is not only inhumane, but it would have a devastating effect on our collective morale and trust in law & order in this country would drop further. Not to mention that, ideally, lives shouldn’t be treated as economic burdens.

And, for me at least, it just doesn’t feel right. I can’t help but feel there should always be another way, no matter how bad the person is. Statistically, chances are that you, reader, won’t agree with me.

As well as petitions for Britain to leave Europe – like the death penalty, not happening – there are also notable petitions for federalism, getting the whole of Formula One back for BBC viewing and the legalisation of cannabis. The latter is the only one I have signed so far but I will be making further use of this site. I think it’s an issue that should at least get more coverage, not least a debate with the voting and whatnot.

Hopefully the time and energy will be found for this in parliament.

http://www.wessexscene.co.uk/features/2011/07/12/it%e2%80%99s-high-time-the-government-took-a-rational-approach-to-drugs-classification/

Obviously there are a few holes (that’s science for you), but it sums up nicely the arguments for legalisation.

There is also another argument not mentioned in the article – that legalising cannabis would lead to less people taking ‘hard’ drugs. I don’t have any definitive evidence for this, but consider where people would currently buy cannabis? Certainly not regulated retailers: dodgy black markets.

Tsonga starts off confidently, breaking Djokovic in the opening game. It takes Djokovic a while to get into full swing, but he’s not playing badly and manages to hold up and eventually breaks back. For a player who was supposed to lose at the quarter finals, though, Tsonga is playing well. Unfortunately, this doesn’t equate into what matters: Djokovic gains in confidence and gets this first set. Just. Gutting for Tsonga in any case, though.

However, it’s not as bad as what comes next. For a string of points there’s some great tennis, but Tsonga starts to falter. Djokovic, meanwhile, remains composed; his shots become much more accurate. He doesn’t just break Tsonga in this set, but breaks him twice, to win breeze through into the next set with 6-2 in the second set. Typically, the commentators start to say that he needs to change his game.

2 sets down is a forlorn conclusion for most players, but Tsonga came back from 2 sets with Federer, meaning that this could be a painful match of endurance for Djokovic. And, while defeat was especially sore in the second set, it wasn’t worth more than the first set. In other words, there’s still everything to play for. This being Wimbledon, of course any player continues to fight tooth and nail. The third set contains perhaps the best tennis of the match, in particular the amazing net approach rallies – set up by drop shots and fought impressively by Tsonga. Not surprisingly, Tsonga wins this second tie-break, saving a match point.

At this point, many players, Murray included, would start to panic (‘I was so close… What’s wrong with me!?), but not Djokovic. Incredibly calm, he wins the first 8 points, dismantling Tsonga’s dream of reaching a Wimbledon final – never mind becoming champion. This break point is enough for Djokovic, since Tsonga seems pretty spent. He seemed to only have enough to defend himself vigorously afterwards. Djokovic finished with 3 sets to 1, 6 games to 3. The better player won, but I was surprised that the fourth set didn’t at least come to another tie-break. Not good enough, it seems. A fantastic game of tennis, though. Can’t quite say the same for Murray’s game.

Don’t get me, wrong, though, because Murray played very well in the first set. He didn’t exactly demolish Nadal in a way that made you think he was going to win the match (but for a while I thought he might), but for a long time, he looked like Federer and put Nadal down in style in the first set. This should have been a good sign, since this is the first time Murray has taken a set from Nadal in a grand slam. However, it seemed that Murray just couldn’t with it – either with meeting expectations or the endurance needed for the rallies he forced Nadal into.

He began to look spent too quickly while Nadal always looked fresh. He played badly in the second set, losing 6-2. There were turning points, but Murray missed them all. He’s just getting a bit panicky, I thought. This happens. Nadal was two sets down in the first round of the last tournament here but re-won the title. But no, he literally couldn’t keep with Nadal – not Nadal, who plays his best at Wimbledon. He was similarly dismantled in another set, and when he started showing signs of recovery, it was too late: Nadal had 3 match points, then 2, and then it didn’t matter anymore. The match was painful to watch, made worse by the British media which scrapes the bottom of the barrel to put this guy on a podium, and by his pained scream of ‘Come on!’ It was like nothing I ever heard before in tennis. I translated it as: ‘Please, please! Can’t I win, just this once!?’ But, again, the better man won. Better luck next time, Murray.

But, had AV been installed as the new electoral voting system, I would have undoubtedly written a celebratory post about a victory for progresson. Alas, however, no. Some people even think now that voting reform is never going to happen in Britain, but I disagree. Confidence in government has been in decline in modern times, and particularly so in late modernity. I think it’s all going to boil over eventually. Then again, many countries still use FPTP. It has proven to be, annoyingly, very durable despite being very unfair. AV retains the MP-constituency link that I can sympathise with, while requiring that the MP needs to gain more support from the electorate.

We can forget about electoral reform in the foreseeable future, however.

Or can we? As you may know, Clegg turned his attention more fixedly towards the House of Lords after the referendum defeat. There’s been a considerable backlash from backbench Conservatives, however, and even more so in the Lords. But, remarkably, there’s official support from all the major parties, even the Conservative party. Unfortunately, however, with the way things are going at the moment, the reform will probably end up in a messy compromise in which an increased number of peers are elected. On the other hand, it’s another step towards reducing the power of the pointless second chamber. One day, there will hopefully be enough sense in parliament to get rid of it entirely. It’s a thorn in the side of a democratically elected government. As it has been argued, their advice is no longer expertise – it’s ex-expertise. And, as it stands, we have a big enough civil service to advise the government – one that has ballooned despite the growth of new media.

In other news, I read this hilarious article about ‘fears of an SNP dictatorship’ – http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Fears-for-SNP-39dictatorship39.6779542.jp. Okay, clealy not hilarious, but I found it funny anyway. Read, in particular, ‘elected dictatorship’.

Currently, I’m reading Philip Blond’s Red Tory. Admittedly I’m a bit slow in picking it up, but meh. So far I’ve read chapters on the economic and social mess we’re in, concepts on how to fix it, and the errors of ‘the right’ (though there’s already been a lot of digs at ‘the left’). What I’ve found, above all, is that I really need to brush up on my economics. And my politics, to a lesser extent. But I think I’m getting the gist of it. I feel myself becoming more sympathetic towards social conservatism. It’s said that – and it seems logical – we become more conservative as we get older. In any case, the case for social conservatism (but not the fundamentalist kind) often seems more convincing than the ‘liberal’ postmodern vision of the future – the vision I’ve had, but have always been uncertain with it. Certain values need to be upheld, to an extent, to have a stable society. There’s no other way about it – or at least there doesn’t seem to be at this point.

For those who don’t know about the system, you can easily find many articles online about the subject. But there are some arguments concerning the subject that I’d like to go through.

First of all, the ubiquitous No2AV campaign poster that suggests that AV will cost the country £250 million. This is largely nonsense. First of all, about £80+ million is for the cost of the referendum itself. Ergo, it has nothing to do with implementing AV itself. Even AV is voted down (unfortunately very probable), then we’ll still be paying that much. Bummer.

Next, and the biggest mythical part of the ‘AV bill’, is the estimate that we will need around £90-£120 or so million to allow the input of the votes. That is, No2AV are suggesting that we’ll need to make a move to electronic voting. Huh? That’s not part of the referendum.

And the rest of the money will supposedly go to educating voters on how to vote. The price they estimate is probably quite a bit higher than they suggest (£35 million or so), since they’re basing it on the price of educating voters in Scotland about a different voting system for the Scottish parliament – that’s the Single Transferable Vote, which is a bit different to AV and less complicated. AV isn’t that complicated. There’s diagrams and everything online to explain how it works, not to mention that leaflet you get before the referendum explaining the voting system – which, again, by the way, has nothing to do with implementing AV.

Another myth is that AV is more likely to cause hung parliaments. The evidence points against this (look at Austrailia for instance), and AV isn’t that much of a departure from FPTP. It still largely favours a polarised party system, but it’s slightly fairer in that (in basic terms), it allows voters to express alternative preferences and MPs have to garner the support of at least 50% of the voters.

Meanwhile, we’ve had 2 hung parliaments in post-war times under First Past The Post. This isn’t necessarily to do with the voting system. It’s to do with the fact that people are becoming (rightly) discontented with the major political parties.

That’s not to say that I support coalitions. I think they’re a bad idea. A while ago I was inclined to believe that coalitions would be fair because, in theory, they are supported by more of the electorate. However, coalitions almost always involve an alliance with a party that is smaller than the opposition. Why should a party that is far from winning the election be part of a government and have their policies taken into account? If that’s the case, then it should only be fair that the rest of the parties get some sort of say on policies as well. Why, when Labour garnered more votes than the Liberal Democrats, should they have less control of government?

Finally, another argument that was put forward to me the other was that, ‘what if one person votes for one party while someone else votes for several? Why is that fair?’ First of all, under AV you don’t have more than one vote. It’s a vote that moves from one party to another depending on whether they stay in the contest or not (again, read up on the schematics of AV if you don’t know what it is). You choose several ordered preferences, and if you only decide to pick one, then that’s your choice.

Lately I have been reading more. Because reading, children, is good. Here are expert opinions on some books I’ve recently read. Read them.

Andrew Marr’s A History of Modern Britain

This was reccommended by my History teacher. As it happens, it covers almost exactly the period that we’re studying – 1951 to 2007 – but it also includes the history of Clement Attlee’s Labour government of 1945 to 1951. It was nice to you know, reminisce, eh? Those were the days. Ah, the joys of rationing.

The backdrop of this book, for me, was that my teacher doesn’t like Andrew Marr. Annoying – I always do this – I looked for reasons to dislike him in the book. Pretentious or a tad pretentious writing? Not a fair criticism exactly; it’s a given with historiography. And I do like making up new words.

The book was a good read, however. A colleague of mine described it as entertaining non-fiction. It is. I don’t always agree with (but unfortunately I’m not an expert on this era) his views, and like another criticism I heard, his bias does show through. Whether or not you think forthrightness should be reserved for autobiographies – I myself am a ‘fan’ of gonzo journalism – you’ll probably find this is a well written and inciteful book into the period being studied, and, obviously, you’ll like it even more if you agree with it. It certainly helped my revision.

Britain Since 1918: The Strange Career of British Democracy

This book is by retired Labour MP David Marquand, and I was itching to finish Andrew Marr’s book (as good as it is) to read it. It’s further off the mark of what I should be studying, but the chapters before 1945 are just as interesting, if not more interesting than the history that came after John Major’s years. Afterwards, though it’s a given since the nineties and the noughties have only recently came and went, the history is a little loose. And, while I can say this of a lot of governments that came before, New Labour was a disappointment. Admittedly, and somewhat embarrassingly (having lived through it), I still have much to read into New Labour’s period of time, but I can’t help but feel slightly resentful, on two main (and broad) points:

Tony Blair’s near-assertion that his party won because it was New Labour (‘We were elected as New Labour, and we will govern as New Labour’). While the statement itself is true, it’s not the whole picture. Unsurprisingly, since it’s a soundbite. Labour would have won anyway, ‘Old’ Labour or New.
That the government wasn’t as golden as it was made out to be. However, I’ve accepted, grudgingly, that expectations were too high, and that there’s only so much a government can do, especially without compromising. I would have liked to have lived through a completely progressive government, but obviously, that’s impossible.

But I digress. The book is at least as good as Marr’s, and is a bit more objective. Interestingly, for a Labour MP, he is holds Macmillan’s government quite highly. In one comment, he says that his cabinet were much more innovative in dealing with the economy. He paints Macmillan as more radical than he seems in my A2 History book and in Andrew Marr’s book, and to the suspicions of the rest of the Conservative party.

As well as the history post-1918, there’s also a section on the establishment of parliament and electoral reform prior to that. I think those who are abstaining the vote on AV or voting against it should maybe read this section or brush up a little on this part of history. It shows gradual electoral reform. I was just writing another section about AV when I realised that I was digressing again.

Again, this book has proved helpful in my revision. Obviously familiar themes are explored and some similar conclusions found, but the book provides different incites. At some points, it seems more self-aware.

The version of the book I have is the 2009 paperback, which has an extra chapter on the events after 2007, ending sometime before 2010. In particular, David Cameron if profiled.

The Medusa Project: Hostage

I needed something to read and I found this in my sister’s room. It had an appealing front cover so I decided to start reading it. And…despite reminding of Twilight (it’s a supernatural young adult novel), it’s a bit better than Twilight. Basically, it’s wittier, less gushier, and doesn’t go on unnecessarily about characters. It’s also shorter, which you will more than forgive if you have read the last book in the Twilight series, the dire Breaking Dawn. Don’t ask I why I read them.

I would tell you that this a typical story of teenagers discovering superpowers, but to be honest I haven’t read many books in the same genre. While actually quite refreshing overall, there are the common conventions and it ends typically.

Eventually it was engrossing, but I won’t go out of my way to read the next book.

A Very British Coup

Like Britain Since 1918, this was also written by a Labour MP (except in this instance he was an MP at the time). However, it’s not about Margaret Thatcher’s incredibly lucky government, but about a completely different story. First of all, it’s fictional. Second of all, it’s about a quasi-communist Labour party, led by the unlikely ex-steel worker Harry Perkins.

It’s fictional, but its material helped jog my memory. And, thankfully, it was quite an amusing read. Thankfully the author hasn’t made the mistake of bogging down the reader with stats (the number of seats distributed to each party isn’t even mentioned) and the process of Whitehall’s esoteric procedures, but there’s enough detail for those interested in parliamentary politics.

It’s credible, and has some aspects to relate to, too, which is helped by the fact that Chris Mullin was a minister himself. He works on familiar themes and almost certainly works on experience. He writes about how Perkins realised he’s changed as an MP – in such a position, you certainly do change, and as an MP, Mullin is capable of describing what this change is like.

The prose is coherent and tight, while at times almost reading like historiography, minus the over-use of French; it is also engrossing, helped by its pace, and features quaint plots on the side which eventually lead back to the main plot.

The ending is typically tragic. This shouldn’t a spoiler. Those in the know would know that truly socialist Labour government wouldn’t work. Not even if the civil service allowed it. Cracking stuff.

John Major: The Autobiography

Known for the quality of prose its forthrightness, I decided that John Major’s autobiography should be the first autobiography I should read. It’s a bit of a handful, but it’s supposed to be quite good. Suitably for ‘the grey man’, it has the boring title of ‘the autobiography’.

I’ve only read a few pages so far, but I’ve just received it today. The forward is, unsurprisingly but slightly irksomely, overly thankful and apologetic. The story itself begins with pretty trite stuff, but it’s the intro, so I’ll give him a break. Basically he says that people don’t just get into politics because they want to help people, and that the media is out to get politicians. Well, no shit.

But honestly, in between these points, he does make some thoughtful considerations. Hopefully it will help towards my revision. In particular, I’m interested on his thoughts on Tony Blair.

Today I was fortunate enough to see Rango. It had attracted my attention some time ago because of the amount of positive reviews it was getting, and its trailers, which display its beautiful animation. It’s definitely one of the best-looking films I have seen in a long time. It’s probably not as technically impressive as Tron (or is it? I’m not entirely sure), but it is much more lively.

Perhaps I was a tad foolish in not reading any reviews of it first – I looked at the aggregated verdict on RT and skimmed a few review summaries – but I’m glad I saw it anyway.

It’s not quite the comedy film I expected it to be. While the trailers I saw didn’t contain any jokes, its air seemed typical of other animated films such as How To Train Your Dragon and Toy Story - though, like Pixar-standard films, I had high expectations for something original. Indeed, there aren’t that many ‘jokes’ or one liners. Instead the film is replete with slapstick, droll, subtle and, surprisingly, adult humour. (But it’s all PG).

In fact, in this respect, it’s slightly remeniscent of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. That film also turned out to be darker than expected. Johnney Depp plays the protagnist in both these films, and his tendency to bring eccentricities with him in films remains in Rango. In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, he plays an odd chocolate maker, troubled because he is estranged with his father. In Rango he plays an odd chameleon, troubled because of a lack of identity. Ironically for a chameleon, he seems out of place.

As I alluded earlier, not only is Rango graphically impressive, but, unlike Tron, it actually does something with the visuals. And there’s real texture. There are also some cracking action sequences that really push the visuals and make you laugh because they are so absurd.

Looking at it in one way, Rango shouldn’t be a good film. Undeniably it’s good looking, but the plot isn’t entirely solid, it isn’t as funny as some might expect it to be, and in some instances it seems pretentious or at least purposefully odd for no reason. It’s the same kind of problems that the latest Alice in Wonderland film had (which, as it happens, also starred Johnny Depp), but there’s a difference.

First, Alice was technically visually impressive, was also 3D (Rango isn’t), but it was garish. The action scenes aren’t much to gawp at, either. Second, the loose and just plain bonkers plot wasn’t helped by what was largely flat characterisation and some bad acting. Third, it wasn’t funny. Or, at least, I couldn’t remember much of its humour. Its faults were, unfortunately, more memorable.

In Rango, it all comes together in a visually impressive, charming package. And it is smarter and more interesting.

5.45 – 6.30 I awake. And, strangely, I feel more awake than I normally do, even though I normally wake up at around 8am. I bath and have a wholesome breakfast of beans, bacon, egg, toast and coffee. I get a lift to the railway station.

6.45 – 9.40 We catch two trains on the way to Liverpool Lime Street Station. We both got copies of the Independent’s i, and this time I actually had enough spare time to read all the interesting stuff and most of the rest. The journey was mostly quiet, which was matched by the surroundings; the trains were almost empty, and the streets were bearable. We grab a coffee and then go separate ways.

9.40 – 13.20 Typing this now makes me realise even more how much time I had to waste, of which I mostly spent walking, going to the loo, and trying not to get lost. In fact, I decided to get a taxi their straight away in fear that I would, which put me quite a way out of the town. Ah well. About an hour before the interview registration began, I found shelter next to Innovation Park, because it was raining, where the JMU Screen School for journalism is. Here I flick through the i again and make notes for what I can say about news in the group discussion. I then go to the school and find a queue. Looks like I’m not the only eager one.

13.25 – 14.00 I spend all of this time just sitting in a theatre with the other students. I couldn’t be bothered to talk. Partly because I knew I wouldn’t be joining all of them in September (that is, if I’m accepted), and partly because I couldn’t be bothered. Besides, I would be discussing news with them later, anyway.

14.00 – 15.00 We’re given a presentation by one of the tutors, which seemed to have doubled as the ‘tour’ we were supposed to have; pictures of rooms and facilities were included in the slide. But, incidentally, I got a tour of the place on the Open Day. And, as it happens, course students will move to a new building in their second year – the building and facilities of which we also saw by picture.

15.01 – 16.00 We introduce ourselves and talk of our journalistic life. I found it interesting listening to each and every student. In terms of journalism, I’m pretty isolated at my school. When it came to me, thankfully I barely stammered. We then discussed the news, and I gave my two cents. There was an awkward moment when I was asked an opinion on something at a point when I briefly phased out, but overall I think it went well. Then there was the obligatory Q&A with the staff, the questions being centred on their careers. Again, it was interesting, and particularly helpful in giving me something to think about when I establish my own journalism career.

16.01 -17.00 Finally, we had some writing tasks. First of all, we were given a news reporting task: we were given a few pieces on information about an accident and asked to write it into a story of exactly 60 words. And, of course, it had to sound good. I thought I was somewhat good at concise writing, but I quickly amassed 58 words with more to say. In the end though, I was reasonably happy with what I produced. That was produced on Microsoft Word, but the next task we had to handwrite. My writing is quite messy, but it hasn’t stopped me getting marks. I think I got slightly carried away and could have probably approached it with more structure, but this next writing task I also enjoyed. It was to write an account of the day; the ‘interview’ and the journey to Liverpool.

17.01 – 18.30 I got a taxi with two other students to Lime Street station, regrettably ditching another I had called for (I could have waited, but it was taking its time), and arrived at Lime Street Station in good time. I found my friend at a café, who had apparently waited there for an hour or so. He could have gone into town, but instead he read a full issue of The Economist. We had a Burger King and talk about our days. He got foot prints; I got pieces of paper. But it was a great experience. We caught the train home.

18.31 – 21.10 We spent this journey talking a bit more, doing school work, playing cards, playing cryptic I spy (ugh…) and discussing amusing choices for the next Doctor in Doctor Who: David Mitchell, Steven Fry, Alan Davies, Michael Cera, Robert Webb (which I only really mentioned because I mentioned David Mitchell too), Keanu Reeves (in saying he would be crap), Matt Damen, and someone else we know who has as much charisma as a dead fish.

Eventful day.