Welcome to the first Weekly Waffle. This will be a regular feature in which our Editor will set our writers a set of questions based on the weeks news. We will then present the best answers for that week all in a neat little package for your viewing pleasure.
If you have any questions you would like our writers to answer, send an email to peter@dailywaffle with the heading “Weekly Waffle Question” and we’ll consider it for inclusion.
In Jan Moir’s article for the Daily Mail, she questions celebrities motives for posting condolences on Twitter regarding Amanda Holden losing her baby. Do you think this is right? And do you think the timing was off?
JayMotty: If you’re a celebrity and you don’t mention the tragedy on twitter then people will criticise you for it so it’s not as if you’ve got a choice. Jan Moir is obsessed with crucifying celebs and the fact that she kept her job following the gay marriage tirade speaks volumes about the disgusting right-wing anti-liberal tendencies of the Daily Mail.
ManUtdOT: I think the article from Jan Moir once again shows her true egotistical colours, the timing and nature of the article is appalling. Her piece suggests that celebrities are somehow different from “normal” human beings and that ALL celebrities are close friends with each other. They should not show public signs of affection and sympathy, therefore those that do, are somehow only concerned with pumping up their popularity! Of the celebrities that she calls out, James Corden, soon to be father, Myleene Klas, pregnant, Sarah Parish, lost her child to a heart condition, I’m sure were all thinking, I really relate to this tragedy, I need to offer my support. Not, “here’s a great opportunity to improve my image”. The feeling to do something immediately to try and right a wrong is inherent in a lot of people, twitter is a tool that provides an instant outlay. Again does the fact that twitter was used make the message itself any less sincere? Well done Jan Moir, you have the Daily Mail to air your feelings in public and “improve” your profile, however your latest outburst added to your disgraceful Stephen Gately article, more people are turning away from you and your precious Daily Trite.
Soapgirl: I think her article was as equally mistimed as the celebs tweets. I would love to know was it a condolence tweet that broke the news or a reply from Amanda Holden. I understand why we would all like to share how we feel regarding the situation. Everyone’s gut reaction was the same. Heartfelt and poignant. The point is, what came first the news or the celeb tweets?? If they’d commiserated via card, phone or DM, Amanda’s privacy would have stayed private. Did she announce her news publicly. I think not, so why would celebs pass on condolences publicly. Was it to look good or was it like the public, a genuine reaction and sharing it online the way we’ve all become accustomed too. This then questions should we as a nation be so public about everything?? It certainly made me think.
With news that a woman in Thames Valley was given an official police warning for leaving her toddler with a 14yo, what age do you feel is appropriate for a teenager to be able to look after a child?
JayMotty: I looked after my little brother from the age of 12 onwards and I think it depends on the parents and the maturity of the child. Some 30 year-olds are incapble of babysitting while some 11 year olds aren’t.
BlissBubbley: Having an age limit is ridiculous, not every 14 year old is as mature as the next one. I had no idea there was such a law where babysitters etc. needed to be over 16. I believe the mother that this story relates to can no longer do her job as she fails her CRB check and that stays on record for ten years! All those babysitters under the age of 16 who are mature enough to babysit children, even a younger brother or sister will be the ones who miss out on making their £20 pocket money. What happens about those younger than 16 that have a baby? Can they not look after their baby alone?
Soapgirl: This did panic me because I’ve done the same. Not the same age gap but I have left my teen daughters, who are 14/13, for a time without adult supervision. I was only a phone call away, but I feel I know my children well enough and also their limitations. The fact that their 18yr old brother is usually also close by helps. The other point is the 18yr old and the 14yr old have both done babysitting duties in the neighbourhood. I’m always there as backup and the neighbours know this and they also leave the usual contact numbers. I always thought 14 was the youngest age for babysitting, so this has made me think. You can get some very immature 16yr olds so it shouldn’t be based on age alone. It’s a tricky grey area and my first thought was the caution too harsh, but it has made me think and I’m sure the caution has made that mum think too.
Julian Assange is facing possible extradition to Sweden on charges of rape. Do think he will receive a fair trial there (or indeed anywhere)?
Max: Assange can’t possibly receive a fully fair trial by most laws given the high worldwide publicity. But without the full facts and strength of prosecution evidence it is difficult to say if prosecution is vindictive or appropriate. It remains for the British legal system to test the rigour of extradition case and I hope that they reach the right decision based on judicial review as opposed to public or political pressure.
ManUtdOT: Taking Julian Assange out of the equation for a minute, it is a difficult situation for anyone to get a “fair” trial who has been accused of rape, especially if the accusation is, in any way, made public. Don’t get me wrong, I am not at all making light of this sickening crime, I personally think it is one of the most horrific of crimes that should carry the severest of sentences, however I do feel for anyone that faces such an accusation as even if they are not proven guilty it is hard to escape the stigma that there is no smoke without fire. There is a certain amount of irony in the case of Julian Assange, in that the king of whistle blowers seems to have had the whistle blown on him, I just hope that the trial is a fair one and that the right outcome is reached, whatever that may be.
Billymawa: In my opinion, Julian Assange has already received a ‘trial by media’ and finding people (in Sweden or otherwise) who are impartial is gonig to be like finding hens’ teeth. This is a similar situation for those high profile cases who hit re-trail (e.g. Sion Jenkins) and, although I don’t necessarily completely agree with the idea that this prevents a fair trial, I can certainly see why a defence attorney worth his salt would argue the case.
Is the new Sky Atlantic channel, which focuses solely on shows from the USA (specifically HBO produced), bad for British TV?
Max: I don’t know anything about Sky Atlantic other than it’s like a HBO for UK. But I think anything associated with BSkyB and Murdoch empire is to be shunned for reasons of too much financial and political power in one man and his dynasty. I don’t read Murdoch papers (no Sun, no NotW, no Times, etc) I stopped subscribing to Sky TV and media about 8 years ago and haven’t watched since, I don’t watch Sky News on my freeview and freesat, and so on. I think you get the message of my view from that.
BlissBubbley: I can understand why some people are saying that it is but to be honest I’m already a big fan of this channel, it’s nice to have something other than soaps and reality shows to watch. It seems we don’t have a great budget over here for new drama, maybe that will get re-addressed now.
ManUtdOT: My view on this is the more choice we have the better! With the high profile, big budget American shows coming to our shores, it should act as a wake up call to British channels to compete and improve the quality of their offerings. British TV needs to step up to the mark and start taking risks by putting new ideas and concepts on mainstream channels at prime-time. Would the 18 million Coronation Street viewers suddenly switch off if it were moved an hour either way?
Billymawa: I don’t think that Sky Atlantic is all that bad for British television. We are saturated with American TV right across the board (with the exception of BBC for the most part!). Certainly, this new channel enforces that but, if it weren’t on Sky, folk would find an other way to view the raved about dramas that appear on there…