newsjunction.co.uk

The media attack on Susan Boyle is astonishing and out of control, and the public hatred of this talented but troubled woman is a stain on our nation’s character.

I have seen comments from seemingly normal members of the public such as “I hate Susan Boyle”, “Anyone but Boyle” and, following her shock second-place finish, “The Boyle is lanced”. I am utterly disgusted!

These are mirrored by the papers who tell us she is ’cracking up’, ’breaking down’ and call her a ’spinster’, ’insecure’ and a ‘hairy angel’.

The Press Complaints Commission has now warned newspaper editors not to breach the privacy of Britain’s Got Talent star Susan Boyle by reporting details of her health after she was admitted to the Priory clinic in north London on Sunday evening.

Now the Press have been accusing ITV of failing their duty of care. They could certainly have helped more, but as Amanda Holden has said it’s the Media who are to blame with their awful hatred.

It now appears she may have won anyway! Clips on YouTube displayed the WRONG telephone voting number for Britain’s Got Talent runner-up Susan Boyle, it has emerged. The digits of Miss Boyle’s voting number on YouTube had been changed from the correct ‘08′ ending to either ‘07′ or ‘09′ which were the numbers for winning dance group Diversity and singer Shaun Smith!

More Public-Media hatred has been flung at 10-year-old Hollie Steel. More than 330 complaints were sent to Ofcom, the majority from viewers unhappy that she was allowed to re-start her act after breaking down in tears. Are we really that heartless?

Meanwhile in America, “SuBo” is still ever popular. President Obama has invited her to perform on July 4th at the White House. There is speculation that she might be the godmother for the launch of US cruise giant Carnival’s new ship Carnival Dream (an idea the Mirror seeks to sink), Susan thought to be an appropriate choice because of her success with the song I Dreamed A Dream. And whilst our Times leads ‘The odds are against a real long-term career for Susan Boyle’ the New York Times lists some famous successes to place second;

1. Winston Churchill. Britain’s most revered prime minister of the 20th century, the man credited with saving the nation from Hitler in World War II, lost numerous elections and was tossed out of the government in World War I over a disastrous failure.

2. Beyonce. Her early group Girls’ Tyme lost on “Star Search.” As, by the way, did Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake.

3. Luther Vandross. Vandross lost the Apollo Theater’s famed Amateur Night competition multiple times before he finally won, then went on to become one of the biggest stars of his generation.

4. Fred Astaire. The best-known and most stylish dancer in movie history was famously turned down at an early audition with the critique, “Can’t act. Can’t sing. Can dance a little.”

5. Jennifer Hudson. She was kicked out of the “American Idol” finals before winning a Grammy and an Oscar and selling millions of records.

6. Ronald Reagan. Reagan had two famous losses. He was beaten out by Humphrey Bogart for the lead role in “Casablanca” in 1942 and then by Gerald Ford for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1976. Four years later he won the Presidency, though he never did get a second shot at “Casablanca.”

7. The Beatles. They auditioned for Decca Records in 1962 and the company said sorry, it couldn’t use them.

8. Chris Daughtry. Another “American Idol” also-ran, the chromedome rocker has sold more than 4.5 million records — and been invited back to perform as a star guest on “Idol.”

9. SpongeBob Squarepants. SpongeBob was turned down under different names and wearing numerous different outfits over a dozen years before he finally become a Nickelodeon star.

10. Clay Aiken. He famously finished second to Ruben Studdard on “American Idol” and has gone on to sell almost five million records.

Evidently ‘Dreaming a Dream’ in Britain can seriously harm your health, but maybe not in America.

An update on Samantha Orobator, the pregnant 20-year old from South London who I wrote faces the death penalty in the Peoples’ Democratic Republic of Laos if convicted of drug smuggling.

The BBC now reports that;

A pregnant British woman accused of smuggling heroin has been found guilty in Laos and sentenced to life in jail.

Samantha Orobator, 20, from south London, was caught with 1.5lb (680g) of the drug at Wattay airport in the capital, Vientiane, last August.

She would have faced a mandatory death sentence, but the execution of pregnant prisoners is not allowed in Laos.

Her trial had been delayed while Laotian officials tried to find out how she became pregnant in prison.

The court took only three hours to reach its verdict, and during questioning by the prosecution and the three judges, Orobator admitted to carrying more than half a kilogram of heroin in an effort to try and take it out of the country to Australia.

Whilst I condemn drug use and drug dealers, the confession must be taken with a large pinch of salt and scepticism as Laos has a notorious legal system and it is not clear what deal was struck between the Authorities and Miss Orobator; Laos certainly wouldn’t want the bad press of a long court case, and there was the possibility on Ms Orobator’s side of execution after the birth of her child.

This is especially the case as the UK has recently signed a prisoner transfer agreement with Laos, which means Orobator could serve any potential sentence in a British jail. A quick court case means these arrangements will be made sooner. Once transferred to the UK, the High Court will be asked to set a minimum period that they would have to serve before being considered for parole.

Thailand and Laos are both known trouble-spots for drug dealers planting drugs on foreign tourists, and taking advantage of foolish young back-packers short of cash, and I tend to think one of these scenarios are highly likely.

Some people are getting way too excited about house prices, with the FT leading the charge with the headline ‘House price jump highest in more than two years’ and the Telegraph writing that ‘Nationwide house price figures show a very clear trend and provide strong evidence that the market is now moving as rapidly towards stabilisation as it did when it started falling’.

I’m starting to think capitalists are optimists, and socialists pessimists, as there seems to be a divide between pro-market papers such as the FT and Telegraph latching onto every shred of good news and anti-market papers such as the Guardian latching onto every shred of bad news; the Guardian writes ‘House prices continue decline, says Land Registry…Volatility in prices blamed on low transaction levels’.

On that final note about low transaction levels they are for once right, and I am stunned that less has been made of this. The FT noted that during the housing downturn in the early 1990s, prices moved erratically, with increases in some months later wiped out by subsequent declines, but didn’t elaborate.

The problem with a mean average “house price” is that it takes no account of the price-distribution of them. Sell nine houses for £100,000 each and one mansion for £1m gives an average of £190,000; but if the upper end market continues to sell (even at a reduced price) but smaller homes don’t, say because of first time buyers needing 30% deposits, you might sell seven houses for £90,000 each and one mansion for £900,000 giving an average of £191,250!

And it’s this scenario that has happened exactly. Sales of normal and smaller homes have all but vanished, but larger homes are fairing much better. Country Life writes that although a lack of bonuses is hitting the very upper end ‘much of the movement in the market is concentrated in the £500,000 to £1m market’. Furthermore ‘the best in class houses have retained more value over the past eighteen months than the more average houses’.

The trouble with jumping on these statistics as evidence of recovery is that when volumes of cheaper homes do increase, people will see headlines of a price crash!

4/6 Update: The Halifax releases more data skewwed by low volume.

1. It centralises power in the hands of the Party machines who draw up the lists and rankings.
2. It removes the personal factor - you can’t vote for/against an individual candidate without backing/sackimg the others on his or her party list, and if he/she is ranked high (low) on the list there’s no point as they’ll win (lose) anyway.
3. Minor parties such as the BNP win seats.
4. The government is a weak coalition that no-body voted for…
5. …Formed by a few key individuals in secret behind closed doors backroom deals which are open to (dependent on) bribery and corruption…
6. …In which the policies that won your vote for a party will be traded away to fulfil a politicians thirst for power…
7. …And in which potentially extreme minor parties hold disproportionately large power as the balance of power casting votes…
8. …And will be able to hold the weak government to ransom with threats of pulling out.
9. The link between an MP and area is greatly reduced.
10. Look at Italy.