Is Patriotism Dead?

Wednesday was the mother of all celebration days for us English folk with the majority of the country waking up with dreadful hangovers the next morning; the sign of a good night!

In America especially, the British have a (well-earned) reputation for liking a good old booze up and what better excuse is there for one than our national celebration holiday: St George’s Day!

However, rather than a hangover thursday morning, some people woke feeling more than slightly disgruntled at the lack of patriotism some individuals seem to have.

Wetherspoons. A national chain of pubs that has been serving pub-grub for years but on Wednesday it served something more questionable than its usual food to customers when they refused to fly St George’s flag. Instead, they flew Union Jacks in a bid to, in their words, avoid any offence that may otherwise be caused.

What an outrage!

Surely the offence it MAY cause by putting up St George’s flag is lesser than the INEVITABLE offence it caused not to.

Who are these people who may get offended? Religious groups? Immigrants to this country?

I am genuinely confused. If people chose to move to this country then it is ridiculous for them to get offended by our culture and perhaps its more offensive to presume they will find it opprobrious.

Besides, no one has any issues when Ireland celebrate St Patricks day and instead, its seen as a good revenue to give the economy a boost for the day.

No other country in the world would change aspects of their culture in this way, simply to please the minority that have moved to their country and it’s unreasonable to expect us to. Any country’s heritage is important to them and we should not compromise the way we live in fear of offending another.

Racism is out of the question completely but celebrating our national day is not racist at all. Nor is it discriminating against those of other religions/cultures.  Other peoples ways of life should be respected as it is our differences that make us beautiful. I have absolutely no objection to someone else’s beliefs. I see no problem if someone may want to walk down the street wearing a hijab or if an immigrant from Spain, for example, may cook themselves a Spanish dish rather than a traditional English one.

So why, should we be prohibited to celebrate our own day in this country when we supposedly are an equal society. Personally, I know no one, whether of British Christian descent or  not, who would get offended over such a trivial thing. I am certainly not religious but if someone wants to have a drink to St George because their faith endows him to, then they are well within their right to do so.

If anyone wants to comment, please feel free to have a debate. I just ask for no serious arguing or mud slinging. It’s merely meant to be a point of discussion to clear up my confusion. Is Wetherspoons in the wrong or are their actions completely justified?

In no way is this attacking anyone, as I believe freedom is a two way street, but if anyone would be offended with the flying of St George’s flag, please join in, I’m genuinely interested in what peoples views are.


Is it really that Black and White?

Lenny Henry has hit out against the British television industry, declaring it unjust that the cast of popular T.V shows is predominantly white. Vocalising his frustration that the industry is made up of just 5.4% BAME people, he says things need to change.


As probably seen on my previous posts, I am all for equality and any kind of discrimination is completely unacceptable to me.

production excluded) I have to disagree. It’s not in a racist manner in any degree, its just that shows such as Broadchurch, based in a little English town, would not be factually accurate if the cast was 50% BAME. Little towns like these are not very diverse, it only becomes so when you come to more urban cities and towns, so it could be argued that viewing quality would be affected.


Furthermore, I am a huge fan of the show The Vampire Diaries and often it jumps back to the past, to reflect on days gone by.

Historically, in the US and UK especially, slavery was a massive controversy and in the 1900’s black people were oppressed. Yet in many programmes they are often portrayed as working class or wealthy individuals, which was not the case for most; this has most likely been done by production companies to avoid offending their audiences.

In regards to TV shows where the casts ethnicity doesn’t affect the storyline in any way, it is right that Lenny Henry should fight for the rights of BAME people. However, sometimes a white ensemble is used because it’s true to the story and as realistic as possible. Shows sometimes need to focus on being believable rather than whether or not it may upset someone.

Wherever you go, the film and TV industry will reflect their cliché “native” citizens of the country:

Japan-the cast will be predominantly Japanese.

Mexico and Spain-the cast will be predominantly Hispanic.

India-the cast will be predominantly Indian.

This is not due to racism, it’s just down to the fact that in these countries, Japanese, Hispanic and Indian people are of the majority, as is true of England. We are a diverse society and we welcome anyone who settles in our country, but in essence, there are (factually) more white people in Britain than BAME. So it makes sense that shows like Broadchurch reflect this fact to keep an essence of realism.

People have equal opportunity in Britain and there is no discrimination against the BAME  population when comes to casting people for TV. It’s just that sometimes, appropriateness needs to be taken into account and someone may not be right for certain roles.

The boundaries are blurred most of the time because political correctness always forgets to wear it’s glasses.

Lenny Henry should definitely fight for equal chances but it needs to be realised that it’s not always possible.


Hard out here for a bitch…

Lily Allen’s new music video.

It has been criticised and torn apart by almost everyone on Earth and it makes me wonder how people do not fall down more (yes, I quoted friends and no, I intended no copyright).

On the one hand, people tend to be supporters of an equal society, yet when someone like Lily stands up and fights back against everything that unbalances the equilibrium, she is branded nothing less than a disgrace.

Yes, the song may feature an incredible amount of profanities and the content may not have been that suitable for a young audience but surely the topics she covers cannot be addressed in any other way. If they were described and fought against in a mitigating style, then she’d be labelled a sell out; someone who is censoring their opinions because those higher up would not approve.

Equally, unlike many other artists in the charts (considering the charts today, I do use the word artist loosely) Lily was quite considerable in the fact she graced her video with a warning at the beginning for parents to use discretion in letting their children watch the video, even though it’s a given fact that most children will watch it anyway.

Lily Allen’s new song ‘Hard out here’ is a parody of how women in the media are manufactured products of a materialistic industry and are objectified so much, we’d expect every woman to be labelled with a price tag.

She addresses ‘twerking’ in the video, sexualisation, the ridiculous pressure to be a sack of bones and all the nonsensical ideologies that young women of today find themselves to be conforming to.

I would like to make the point that Lily is being criticised by the papers for “being white and most of her dancers are black.”

Now Lily is a racist feminist?

Erm, people, it’s a parody!

She’s making the point that people have the misguided opinion that black women are curvier and that they are used in videos because of their image.Lily is addressing racism in music videos, not promoting it!One post on YouTube commented that she’s addressing sexism by appropriating black culture.

Well, as Lily says, “If you can’t detect the sarcasm, you’ve misunderstood.”