Currently listening to...New album by Drake

I brought the new album this week by Canadian Hip Hop star Drake.


Find Your Love - video

When I think of Canadian Hip Hop it brings back painful memories of the white rapper Snow and his only hit ‘Informer!’ Thankfully Drake is showing Canada does have something more to offer Hip Hop wise.
I first came across Drake last year, when I heard a Drum and Bass remix of his biggest track to date, ‘Best you ever had’. He released a mini album last year called ‘So Far Gone’ but this year’s release entitled ‘Thank me Later’ is what you’d call his proper debut.

He’s managed to enlist an impressive number of guest artists that include, Alicia Keys, Jay Z, Lil Wayne amongst others all making an appearance.

He reminds me a lot of Eminem mixed in with a bit Kanye West. Just shows how big their influence on the Hip Hop game has become in recent years.

He’s got that same lyrical style as Eminem full of self-analysis and personal introspection.

Anyway, have a listen to this track ‘Find Your Love’ which is one of my favourites off the album – cool video as well.

Don't buy the Daily Express if you're an 'ethnic'

Last week the Daily Express printed this headline below.

You may have missed it like I did. If you'd like the pleasure of reading their report you can have a look here.

I've read a few blogs about this story in the last few days. It seems the Express doesn't have much time for 'ethnics' like myself.

That's alright, I've never had much time for this nasty, pathetic, poor man's Daily Mail excuse for a paper!
If it wasn't bad enough that we've had to put up with their obsession for front page headlines about the late Princess Diana, middle class tax rises, and Madeleine McCann stories, they're now attacking ethnic minorities.

Last week the University of Leeds published a report predicting that by the year 2051, one-fifth of Britain's population will be from an ethnic minority.

Notice the word 'predicting' in the last sentence. When it comes to population forecasts these are extremely difficult predictions to get right. Nobody can be completely certain of these figures.

The Express doesn't appear to be bothered about that. Buy using the term 'ethnic' in such a disparaging way they clearly believe that people like myself are 'taking over' and that Britain's culture and identity will be lost forever.

Just to ram home their message further, they included in their story a picture of two Muslim women wearing the Burka. Could they have found a more extreme example of an 'alien culture' in which to strike extra fear into the minds of Middle England?

So why didn't they use a photo of a group of Australians to indicate this population growth? There's thousands of them in London, so it wouldn't have been difficult for them to find some.

If you read the article the Express tries to highlight how this report raises serious questions and fears on how Britain will cope with significant growth in population numbers in the next 30 - 40 years.

There's nothing wrong with looking at these issues, there are important questions to be asked. But this isn't really what the Express is looking at. It's purely a cheap dig at ethnic minorities.

I decided to have a look at the report for myself on the university website which you can read more about here.

The main population forecasts are as follows:

UK population could reach almost 78 million* (59 million in 2001)

White British, White Irish and Black Caribbean groups to experience slowest growth

Other White (Australia, US and Europe) and Mixed to experience the biggest growth

Ethnic minority share of the population to increase from 8% (2001) to around 20%

Ethnic minorities to shift from deprived local authorities to more affluent areas

Ethnic groups to be significantly less segregated from the rest of the population

When you look at the figures, what's interesting is that the group predicted to have the biggest population growth are white groups from Europe, America and Australasia. In fact almost half of all foreigners in this country are European, mainly from Eastern Europe.

The Express doesn't mention this immediately. You have to read through the article to find that bit, and clearly this information doesn't have the same impact as the main headline that's first read.

Unfortunately for the Express this growth in this white population group doesn't fit into the message that it wants to say to it's readers.

It's typical tabloid journalism. Newspapers have very specific views on how they see the world, they will then take facts and figures and try and shoe horn and manipulate these facts to fit into their viewpoint.

One point that interested me were the figures showing the trend of more ethnic minorities moving away from inner city areas and out into the suburbs will continue to grow.

I've seen this first hand in my hometown of Birmingham, my family moved to the outskirts of Birmingham in the early 80s. When I return home I see much more Afro Caribbean and Indian families living the suburban life.

You might think this would be a good thing, as more minority groups become more prosperous, and the country becomes less segregated as ethnic groups disperse throughout the country. But no, this isn't good for the Express.

When you read between the lines of their report, you can't help but feel they're telling their readers that these 'ethnics' are spreading their wings too much.

They don't even have the decency to remain in poor inner city ghettos like they used to, but are now moving out to the suburbs and the countryside! Oh dear.

I'm not going to get too upset by this story, I've never had much time for the Express. It only serves the purpose of showing people some of the worst examples of tabloid journalism in this country.

Whether you're from an ethnic minority or not I suggest you save your money and don't bother with this paper.

Tributes for Moat were wrong, but Facebook was right not to take them down.

Like a lot of people I've been baffled by all these tributes that have sprung up on Facebook for Raoul Moat.

To hear him described as a 'legend' is totally ridiculous. The main reason I can see for this view, is because he managed to stay on the run from the police for so long!

How is anyone a 'legend' because they shot dead one innocent man and inflicted life changing injuries on two other people?

Facebook came under pressure to remove the comments posted in support of Moat following his death. They refused to back down, and it was left to the creator of the tribute Page, Siobhan O'Dowd to do so, almost through a sense of embarrassment.

Despite not agreeing with the comments, Facebook did the right thing by not removing them. You have to remember that Facebook and other forms of social media are about people sharing and expressing thoughts, opinions and information. I'm sure the comments of support for Moat would have been said in private by the same people in pubs, shops and workplaces.

With Facebook, what would once have remained private opinions amongst personal networks of friends and associates are now freely available for the whole world to see.

You might not like what's been written, but that's social media for you. If Facebook decided to remove the comments because other people didn't like them, then what is the point of Social networking?

I have to say I've found it intriguing as to why people would show such support for Moat. Despite the tabloids best efforts to demonise him (The News of the World continually refer to him as a monster) others don't see him that way.

One theory is that there's a huge group of disenfranchised white working class people out there who saw Moat as a champion of the underdog, sticking two fingers up to the authorities.

I could understand that, if Moat had robbed a bank then went on the run, with no one getting hurt. But he didn't. This was a calculated attack on innocent people.

Reading in today's Sunday Times, the writer India Knight made an interesting point. She wrote that people seemed to overlook the fact that Moat had a history of domestic violence against his former girlfriend Sam Stobbart, regularly beating her.

Knight's point is that domestic violence isn't taken as seriously by some people in comparison to other crimes.

There were comments on Facebook criticising Moat's girlfriend, suggesting she provoked him into violence. They were quite happy to overlook not just the obvious shootings but also the domestic violence.

I can see her point. I can't believe that if Moat was a paedophile on the run, having abused small children, we'd have seen the 'he's a legend' comments, but beating up women is fine in some people's eyes.

It suggests that the type of crime someone commits, influences how others are prepared to remember them.

Clearly Moat had some serious mental health problems, and maybe he could have been helped further by Newcastle Social Services. But I still don't see why people should pay tributes to him, as if he was some sort of anti-hero of our times. He wasn't.

Robbie rejoins Take That

So it's finally happened, Robbie Williams has rejoined Take That. They're currently recording a new album which is set for release in November this year.

I'd heard rumours Robbie was recording tracks with the band months ago on Popbitch. I can't say that I'm surprised. The right moment has finally arrived for them to get back together, but I think Robbie needs Take That more than Take That need him.
Ever since Robbie left Take That I've always found their story fascinating. I still remember back in 1995 hearing that Robbie Williams had left Take That.

I was inter-railing around Europe at the time and was a bit cut off from what was happening in the UK. I think some Italians lads told me Robbie had left the band, it was a major shock!

You couldn't really see Take That continuing for much longer and not surprisingly the remaining four eventually split in 1996.

Towards the end of the 90s the Take That story seemed to be one of the charismatic bad boy Williams embarking on an ever increasingly successful solo career, vindicating his decision to ditch the goody goody boy band image once and for all.

On the other side of the story you had the song writing talent of Gary Barlow. There he was trying to make it as a solo artist, but failing miserably.

He was clearly eclipsed by Williams, before suffering the ultimate pop humiliation of being dumped by his record label. The remaining band members disappeared into pop obscurity.

During his solo peak, I never really got Robbie Williams. I didn't get the whole cheeky chappie persona that proved so popular with people. I also thought there was a certain smugness and arrogance about him, with regards to his success over the rest of the band.

It was quite ironic how the four remaining members of the band decided to reform just at the point where Williams career seemed to be in decline not helped by his drink and drugs problems.

The thing about Take That, is that there's always been a lot of affection for them in this country. I think people were really pleased to see them make a successful comeback as a grown up 'man band' having lived in Williams shadow for so many years.

Howard, Gary, Jason, and Mark had rarely come out in public to criticse their former band member Robbie and I think they conducted themselves well, certainly better then Williams ever did.

Over the last few years as they've re-ermerged as a pop force again. I don't think anyone has really begrudged their success. They also showed everyone that they didn't really need Robbie after all. I have to say I was pleased for them as well.

Take That don't need Robbie but it makes things complete with him re-joining the band. It's like there's been a resolution to the story after 15 years. With his career seemingly going nowhere at the moment, it makes perfect sense for him to re-join.

It's what the pop public want to see, and I think it will be good for Williams himself. I'm looking forward to hearing what the new album will sound like.

South Africa's World Cup legacy

As this will be my last World Cup post, I thought I'd look at what kind of impact and lasting legacy the tournament may have on South Africa.

Firstly I think the tournament has been a huge success. Ok, some of the football wasn't as exciting as we all hoped; but South Africa has still managed to defy many of the critics and cynics who said the country wouldn't be up to the task of holding the biggest sporting event in the world.

If there's one thing that South Africa's brought to this World Cup more than any other, it's been the wave of enthusiasm and joy at holding the event.
This is understandable. The country was reborn with the end of apartheid and the World Cup has really been the first opportunity to show the world a glimpse of the 'new' South Africa.

I'm one of those people that has a real passion for sport and I do believe that when used in the right way sport does have the power to change people's lives for the better.

I except that it's naive to pretend that a five week football competition is really going to cure decades of poverty and inequality, it clearly isn't. South Africa is still a hugely divided and complex country facing many social, political, and economic problems.

The argument you hear and we have the same discussion in this country with the London 2012 Olympics, is that the money could be better spent addressing more pressing issues.

The thing to remember, is that sport and politics are rarely separate from each other. If like me you want to be optimistic about things, then sport can make a positive difference, even if its only a very small one.

The cynical view is that the World Cup is a waste of money. A vanity project designed to be one big PR campaign to rebrand the country. An overblown and expensive event that really only benefits FIFA and certain political elites and other interested parties within the country.

If I was going to make a comparison then look at South Africa's World Cup and compare it to China's Beijing Olympics in 2008.

Although brilliantly managed, the 2008 Olympics was more about the Chinese Communist Party showing off to the rest of the world, rather than staging an event designed to uplift and leave a lasting legacy for the Chinese people.

In South Africa's case, I do feel that this World Cup is more about leaving a legacy that can help improve the country and the lives of its people, and yes it is a big public relations and rebranding exercise, but on this occasion what's wrong with that?

This rebranding doesn't just have to be for the rest of the world's benefit, it can also help South Africans look at themselves and their country in a different light.

If they can show they're capable of successfully holding the worlds biggest sporting event, why shouldn't they be able to use that same belief and confidence in tackling the countries many problems?

I've written in previous blogs that when I was growing up, there was never any good news that came out of South Africa. It seemed apartheid would go on forever, but it ended. We thought we'd never see Nelson Mandela released - but he was. Then we were told there would be a civil war between the races - it never happened.

South Africa has achieved so much already, and the World Cup is another important milestone and achievement. I'm still optimistic that the country is heading in the right direction, which the World Cup has helped to push along in its own unique way.

I thought I'd end with a great quote I read today, by Archbishop Desmond Tutu which sums up the positive impact of the World Cup.

When talking of his surprise at how so many people in South Africa from different backgrounds and races had united in a common cause during the World Cup, he said

'We have all talked about the rainbow nation,"...."But we are the caterpillar that has become the beautiful butterfly'