Calais Crisis: The Real Dark Side to This Story

It seems Satan himself has been in cahoots with poor Africans and Asians in an evil plot to swarm the great nation of the United Kingdom and suck on the nectar of its welfare system. How dare they come to our hive? We are the Queen Bee, they are hornets, nothing but shit bees. We are the best. We are the bees.

This sort of attitude is of the typical Brit today. Someone who will work hard, but ultimately suffers from a superiority complex where they think their country is far better than most. It's easy to see why - who wouldn't think that their country is pretty great when it was once the greatest empire in the world? Who wouldn't be proud of the Olympics and the creation of the Commonwealth Games? Who wouldn't be proud of our once booming industry which made us a superpower in the way China is today?

The problem is, the UK (or as it's better known, Britain) is no longer a superpower, yet the people believe they are. Americans suffer from this same superiority complex, one that makes the people unwelcoming to immigrants unless they are of a certain background, quite like the UK. The typical Brit wouldn't bat an eyelid at an American or French immigrant, but as soon as you introduce a Romanian things turn sour. The same can be said across the pond. US citizens seem to welcome Canadians from the north, but Mexicans from the south make people squirm.

In other words, Brits and Americans are welcoming to those like them - prosperous nations who's people will obviously be hard working as they are from successful countries. These people will be labelled interesting, charming, hard working and cultured. On the other hand, those who are not like them and come from less successful/less developed countries will be labelled far more critically: lazy, devious, sinister, job snatchers. There's a reason why people from the USA and Australia aren't jumping fences at Calais.

They don't have to.

In other words, although it would be ideal for people from first world countries to go elsewhere, at the end of the day they live in a decent country where things are moderately stable. You wouldn't be sprinting up the Eurotunnel if you had a cushy job in Melbourne or if you were watching cable TV from your home in California. The people who are trying to enter Britain aren't doing it because they want to make some quick dosh, they're doing it to survive whether that be economically or literally.

Yet many Brits will believe this mass hysteria about immigrants and believe all the misconceptions about them. These non-stories spurred up by the likes of the Daily Mail and The Sun cause panic in society. The newspaper says it's scary, so it must be. More or less, they achieve what they wanted - to separate human beings from each other by giving them a label: "immigrants".

A few facts to those who are outraged at these immigrants who are trying to enter the UK illegally:

1. They can't sponge off our welfare system as they cannot receive benefits if they are unknown to the state. If they become known to the state, they will be deported. 

2. Those illegal immigrants who get a job will be paid cash in hand as they have no legal ID to open a bank account. Therefore whoever is employing them is the one who is a) Not legally employing and b) Taking jobs away from people who are unemployed natives. Immigrants aren't the ones who take the jobs away.

Exactly

3. Illegal immigrants pay taxes if they ever buy a product whilst they're in the UK. In other words, unless an illegal immigrant is some kind of scary mutant immigrant who doesn't eat, drink or use deodorant, then they contribute to society.

4. Illegal immigrants can have all the children in the world whilst in the UK and still get deported with their children, despite the fact they were born here.

5. Those from poor backgrounds with poor education will find it near impossible to get permanent residence in the UK. This may be an obvious point, but it seems ludicrous to expect someone from Rwanda to have the same opportunity as someone from Japan. Pretty much from the day they are born, they are already the underdog. Even a smart child will struggle in education if their nation's education system is struggling.

Also, if you play under a capitalist model, do not complain when those less fortunate turn up. Everything from your shoes to your bananas are under priced at the expense of the poor in third world areas. Don't complain when the woman who makes your new Nike Airs wants to come into the country.

The old phrase "Divide and Conquer" is exactly what these tabloids achieve. To those who are anti-immigration, these immigrants are not people. They are figures, they are a different species. We are the Gazelle and they are the Lion, waiting to pounce on us when our back is turned. The fact that they come from hardship is too convenient an argument for them. To put it simply, they do not trust people from their own nation.

What they don't see is Adrian leaving his family in Burkina Faso to try and achieve the dream of providing consistently for his wife and kids. They don't see Christian donning his Man Utd top and watching the match with his friends. They don't see Martha's escape from persecution in Syria. They don't see Genzebe helping out her neighbours so that they can all live another day. As soon as you humanise an immigrant legal or not, you realise that they are just people. Like me and you. They laugh, they cry, they experience euphoria, but also deep sadness. The sooner that people get closer to reality and realise this, the sooner we can become a more accepting society.

Don't look at these people trying to "break in" to the UK as villains, they simply want a better life. Some of us are lucky that we at least get the bare essentials, don't stop others from living an equal life.

Don't allow paranoia, selfishness and misinformation to run riot. Instead, be human. Be compassionate. Be generous. Be loving. Be caring. Be supportive. Be thoughtful. If the Bible taught us one thing, it was to Love Thy Neighbour. Surely we can all do that?


Feedback is welcome, please comment below with your opinions.

Twitter: @mick_demarco

Charleston Shootings: It's Evident What is Wrong

It seems like common sense, but sadly one of the "great" nations of the world still cannot get the simple things right. The shootings in Charleston last night did not shock me in the slightest. Waking up to tweets about the church massacre made me shrug. I realise how horrible it is to lose someone unexpectedly and to be murdered in any manner is abhorrent, but massacres in America are now the norm. You expect events like these to happen once in a generation. Unfortunately these things can happen on occasion, but there's a reason why they are more frequent in the USA.

Gun violence in America is part of everyday life. USA is one of the most dangerous country when it comes to deaths by firearms. For all of Fox News' anti-Mexico agenda, the US is right behind their southern neighbours on this list. Yet, many Americans stand behind the old saying "guns don't kill people, people do". This saying has some truth to it. Yes, a person chooses to pull the trigger, but murder will always exist. Therefore if someone wants to kill someone, giving them a gun only increases the chance of death. As we saw with the Beltway sniper attacks, you could be walking down the street and the next thing you have a bullet through your head. In the UK, it is very difficult to get a hold of a gun, making knife crime more worrying. Although many people still die in the UK thanks to knife crime, it is very rare to hear of a massacre. In fact since the 1996 Dunblane shootings - which caused tighter regulations on guns - there have only been two massacres: one being the 7/7 bombings and one being a gun massacre. Two massacres in 19 years looks minuscule in comparison to the 14 since Barack Obama took office - more than two massacres a year.

Obama stated today that "this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries" and he's right. Guns only make it easier to kill someone and control on guns is a must for a developed nation like America. The fact that so many people in the country are pro-gun is baffling. The number one argument for gun enthusiasts is:

"Most people are responsible gun owners and for every bad guy with a gun, there's 100 good guys with a gun."

It's sad how some people still believe in that statement. I am not stating that all gun owners are mad caps who are irresponsible, but when random civilians cause acts of terror it shows that there is no way of preventing this. Yes, there are some obvious cases where you could see it coming from a mile, but there are also cases - like the one today with Dylann Roof - where it was not so obvious. As for the 100 good guys with a gun, they were missing from this massacre like many others.

We shouldn't live in fear of each other. We shouldn't buy a gun to protect ourselves from others - what does that say about us as a society? The fact that a gun's main use is a distrust says more about a nation than actually having a gun.

When the US gets over their obsession with all things barrels and triggers, maybe we will see real reform that can not only change the way the country looks at fire arms, but it could also save lives.

Do you think that guns should be illegal? Do you think they still serve a purpose in 2015? Leave a comment and let me know your opinion.

"Orange Fest" Needs to March out of Scotland

1691 saw the Spanish inquisition forcibly baptise over 200 Xuetas, a group of people who descended from Spanish Jews. When some tried to flee the conversion, they were burned alive at the stake. 37 of them to be precise. Although history views the Spanish inquisitions as a successful campaign for those it benefited, it also shows the Spanish as a ruthless army who colonised a lot of Central and South America. One of their main reasons for conquering the Americas was to force their religion on the people there. According to records, the Spanish inquisition arrested around 150,000 people with between 2,000 and 5,000 being executed - around one in 50.

No one celebrates the tortures dealt out by the Spanish Inquisition

In other words - this was a brutal regime which focused on taking land and forcing religion, something that the majority of the world would be appalled by today. The Spanish do not celebrate these inquisitions and why should they? It was 1691 - well over 300 years ago. Yet some still celebrate similar events in Scotland.

1690 saw the Battle of the Boyne near Drogheda in Ireland. The battle saw the Protestant William of Orange defeat James II, bringing the end of the Catholic monarchy. To this day, this was considered a huge shift in power in the days where religion had a massive role in politics and kings had real power so it was a big deal.

William of Orange led his army to victory at the Battle of the Boyne

However, that doesn't mean that events like the Battle of the Boyne should be celebrated. Not only is the celebration irrelevant to the way Scotland is ran today, but it celebrates how one type of Christians were discriminated against right up until the 1990s. My own father was asked on job interviews in the eighties what school he went to. If he said "Notre Dame" (a Catholic school) he would never get the job. It was a way of finding out what your religion was. The Orange walks - and Orange Fest which will take place in Glasgow today - celebrate everything Protestant about the UK today. Catholics were second class citizens in the same way that women were and still are. To celebrate the supremacy of a people which caused the suffering of others because of their religion is disgusting and has no place anywhere in the world.

These marches also cause a lot of violence

Even if you argue the point of free speech - which can still be deemed offensive - you cannot excuse how much money these marches cost local councils. In 2011, there were 300 marches in Glasgow alone. In 2009, three Orange walks in July cost Glasgow City Council nearly £900,000. Surely money can be spent on things more important than a small minority hanging on to the past whilst trying to defend it as "heritage". If we all hung on to our heritage, we'd be conquering the world again and still have poorhouses. It's time for change and you won't get change if you let dinosaurs waste tax payers' money on their little marches. What have they got to celebrate? What have they got to prove?

It may be too late to protest against the Orange Fest that is in Glasgow today, but please take this post into consideration and protest at any marches that take place in the future.

Cheers.

Got an opinion on Orange Fest? Leave a comment below.

Twitter: @mick_demarco

Why Sam Allardyce Leaving West Ham was the Right Decision

As a West Ham fan, I've experienced the ups and downs since 2005, when I started to support them. It's not easy. Watching the likes of Zola and Pardew leave - despite their flaws - was tough, watching them get relegated was a new low as well as witnessing the club nearly going bankrupt. Along with those lows, I have seen them win a dramatic play off to bounce straight back to the Premier League, seen the likes of Scott Parker, Carlos Tevez and Alex Song in the Claret and Blue and the club becoming financially sound thanks to the two Daves.

Somewhere in the middle of that rollercoaster comes the reign of Sam Allardyce. When he was appointed, I was sceptical. The man was known for negative tactics and was costing the club a mint, but in fairness he brought the club straight back up to the Premier League at the first time of asking - even if it wasn't pretty. So Season 1 was a moderate success, albeit most of his signings were poor and he had a tendency to bring back some of his former players.

Vaz Te's greatest contribution? His late goal sent us back up to the Premier League

Season 2 was better. Despite defensive tactics and a shoe-string budget, Big Sam got the Hammers to 10th in the league as the board's request to consolidate their position in the league was met. Season 3 was when things turned sour. The team took a backwards step by finishing 13th and although the side weren't relegated, the fans voiced their concern for Sam's negative tactics and transfer policy as he made some ridiculous decisions. Despite defeating rivals Tottenham three times in a season, he found himself shrouded in controversy. The fallout with youngster Ravel Morrison was strange. Although, it's hard to say who was in the right (going by Morrison's history, it probably was Sam), Ravel accused Sam of trying to bully him into signing with an agent, one that his ex-Bolton players were signed to. On top of this, two good cup runs ended in humiliation. Allardyce had conceded defeat before the match had even started with Nottingham Forest and Man City scoring 11 goals between them to show that even defensive tactics don't guarantee a low-scoring game.

Embarrassing was an understatement: Nott'm Forest 5-0 West Ham

Season 4 is a tricky one. Whoever thought of signing Aaron Cresswell, Diafra Sakho, Cheikou Kouyate, Alex Song (I could go on) done an incredible job. These players really upped the quality of the team, but I don't even think that these players thought they'd be sitting in the top 4 on Christmas Day. Thanks to a nudge from the board, Allardici (as he was known for a brief four months) started to play attacking, flowing football. "Hoof" wasn't in his dictionary. He played a deadly Sakho up front with a troublesome Enner Valencia who was also brought in in the summer. Europe wasn't an unrealistic goal.

Diafra Sakho was a revelation before his injury

However, in classic Sam fashion, he reverted to old ways. Despite his side's great form, he would replace some of his first team starters for his favourite players - Andy Carroll and Kevin Nolan. Carroll was great on return, but the team no longer played the same football. Nolan on the other hand, was an inexcusable starter. Right up to the game against Newcastle, he has only shown glimpses of talent. He squandered chances and has been a poor captain - Mark Noble should have the captain's armband like he did at the start of the season in my opinion. On top of this, he changed the tactics. The diamond 4-4-2 would only make cameo appearances, leaving on-form Stewart Downing out of position. All of this made 2015 a year to forget for the Hammers after that great start. From New Year onwards, the club only won three league matches out of a possible 19, all three sides (Hull, Sunderland and Burnley) finished in the bottom five. This run of form in 2015 was still somehow, not the worst. On the last day of the season, we couldn't even beat the most out-of-form side in the league.

It all went horribly wrong for Allardyce and West Ham

So in short, Allardyce won only three league games in 2015 (and one poor win against Bristol City in the cup); he continued to play Kevin Nolan despite his poor form which shows he has his favourites; he continued to leave the likes of Morgan Amalfitano and Nene out of the side, with the latter being a signing of the board; and he failed to keep the attacking ethos that was winning us games at the start of the season. Neutral fans are calling West Ham fans the "worst fans in the Premier League" because we want him out. We are being told by pundits that we will regret the decision, but to those I say - if we can be in the Champions League spots at Christmas, surely that shows our side has enough quality to stay well within the top 10? Spending £30m in the summer and reverting to tactics that simply do not work shows that we have the resources and if we had a manager with tactical know-how, we might actually win games. To those that are saying we don't have the resources, we have to spend £100m, our team's not strong enough - look at Stoke and Swansea City.

Evidence that you don't need a Sheikh to be competitive: Garry Monk and Mark Hughes

I cannot be more grateful for what Sam done in his first two seasons with us and the brief dizzy heights of third position, but all arrows point to new change, new football, new stadium, new players - so there is no point holding onto the deadwood.

Twitter: @mick_demarco

What's your opinion about Allardyce's departure? Leave us a comment.

Why The Monarchy Has No Place in Today's Britain

This old chestnut.

For years, citizens of the UK (and in fact other parts of the world) have debated about the position of the UK's monarchy, arguably the most famous monarchy to ever exist. Today, this debate has started again after Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, said that if her party had the power, they would scrap the monarchy and build more council houses. She then joked that she would even give the Queen one if it was necessary.

Natalie Bennett's joke was portrayed wrong in the media.

This joke has sparked discussion between those who are pro and anti-Royal. On the pro side people argue that the Royal Family brings in more money than is spent. On the anti-Royal side, they argue that this figure is actually false and costs the taxpayer more than they get back. They also state that it makes the system undemocratic - if it wasn't already.

If we look at it on a personal level, I think the Queen seems like a lovely old lady, William and Kate look great together and are great role models for the Royal Family. Harry is polite enough and down to earth and Philip - well, Philip's a character to say the least. They are fairly interesting people and even if she is a millionaire, you'd feel bad kicking little old Liz out of her house.

She's adorable, but she's costing too much. 

However, the monarchy is an outdated part of our country. We may love it when the Queen visits our town - to this day I can't believe that the Queen came to Greenock - but step back a minute. Forget that she is the Queen and think of what she is: a posh pensioner who gets top security and free holidays because she was born to the right family. It's hard to believe that we respect a woman who was lucky to be born into the most untouchable family in the world. It shows that the title of King or Queen gives you an untouchable reputation for doing nothing. Without going into whether or not that is good role-modelling, let's look at what the monarchy used to mean.

The monarchy was until the 1600s, the ruling body of England. Scotland had its own monarchy too and it was only until James VI of Scotland became King James I of England that England and Scotland had some unity (which would later be part of the creation of the British Parliament). So they used to have some power. The Kings and Queens of England and Scotland for many years were those who won the battles and won the land, therefore Kings and Queens were the best in the land and although I am anti-war that at least justifies why they ran the country. Nowadays the monarchy is pretty much ceremonial and has been since the late 17th century. Therefore, the Royal Family can't even justify their place in the palace. It's the equivalent of being rich and of a higher order because your great great grandfather was a famous footballer. It's ludicrous to think that it's acceptable to ride on the back of your ancestors' achievements.

Some would say that the Queen can veto legislation, but let's be honest, the Royal Family are supposed to be politically neutral or else it can cause controversy. So, even abhorrent bills pushed through by a majority party will get the consent of the Queen. However, I'd like to see whether or not a bill to abolish the monarchy would be approved by the Queen.

The main argument is whether or not the Royal Family makes or wastes our money. Monarchists believe that the reputation of the Royal Family and their fame contributes massively to the tourist industry in the UK. Republicans (not mad 'Muricans, but those who believe in anti-monarchism) believe that it's an outdated system which gives the Royal Family freebies without contributing enough to the country.

We know of the Queen's official expenditure for 2013-14 from the Sovereign Grant who said that the taxpayers paid 56p each a year for the upkeep of the Family - the equivalent of £35.7m. These include approximately £15m spent on wages and £246,160 spent on the Prince of Wales to attend the funeral of Nelson Mandela according to The Guardian. Discovery Finance reported that Prince Charles makes his money from the Duchy of Cornwall (despite it being owned by the state), which are currently $28m a year. The Queen's net worth is more than $500m a year. They are constantly making money and will no doubt continue to have money even if the monarchy is abolished.

Republic, the anti-monarchy website, posted a report that suggests that costs could cost as much as £299m which you can find here. This includes over a third being spent on security from the state (£102m), lost profits (not the band) on Duchies that are owned by the state, but given to monarchs (£90m) and how they live rent-free (£30) or as some call it, living in a fancy council house.

All those fences add up

These costs add up and in fact cost us more than it's worth. Let's say that we even take the extreme articles of Tory papers like The Telegraph who really support the monarchy. They say that the monarchy brings in £500m a year from overseas tourists as they visit the likes of The Tower of London and St Paul's Cathedral because they are linked with the Royal Family. To think that people go to these places because there is currently a monarchy is stupid. Someone tweeted today regarding the abolition of the monarchy saying: "You wouldn't stand atop the Eiffel Tower and think 'Paris would be so much better if it had a monarchy'". Therefore, why do we focus on tourism to keep them? The Palace of Versailles is the third largest tourist attraction in France behind the Louvre Museum and the Eiffel Tower yet France hasn't had a King since the 1840s. I don't see anyone boycotting India despite the fact that they have no monarchy. Especially because the Taj Mahal is one of the most famous buildings in the world. America is known for Hollywood, celebrities and the President. I wouldn't go to America in hope of meeting Obama or bumping into KimYe at a restaurant. Get real.

"What do you mean nobody lives here?" - Palace of Versailles

So as I've said, if it doesn't even make financial sense to you, at least think that tourism will not be affected as part of abolishment of the monarchy. People visit countries for their landmarks, their history, their culture, their natural beauty. People don't go to the Louvre to see the artists who made the art, but the art itself and the history of it. Therefore, tourism will not suffer through the abolishment of the monarchy, it will only encourage those to come and see the history and the wonders of the once forbidden spots in the UK.

If this still doesn't convince you, just think for a second why you think the Queen is a better person than you. The Queen is no different from any of us, she was just lucky to come from the untouchable family.

How The Oscars Got It Wrong With American Sniper

So this week we have seen the release of the Oscar nominations and the film American Sniper. The Oscar nominations were as controversial as usual. They were viewed by many as the "white Oscars" for their lack of diversity - not only in ethnic minorities, but also in women.

The films up for Best Picture are male dominated and so is the Director's award. You look at the films that are featured in the Best Actress award: Wild, Gone Girl, The Theory of Everything, Still Alice and Two Days, One Night. With the exception of The Theory of Everything, these films have been snubbed in every other category.

But I'll give the Oscars the benefit of the doubt on this one, you get years where the good films are dominated by straight white males. Birdman and The Grand Budapest Hotel dominate the nominations and both films have been given very positive reviews. If anything, 2014-early 2015 has been a great period for good films with as many as 20 real contenders for Best Picture, but the Oscars, as ever, have managed to get at least one wrong.

Birdman and The Grand Budapest Hotel reflect some of the best films of the year

The inclusion of American Sniper.

The Clint Eastwood-directed film focuses on Chris Kyle, a US Navy SEAL who is believed to be the most lethal sniper in the US military's history with 160 confirmed kills. The film focuses on his life in the Iraq War and in between when he returns from tours. It is basically your run-of-the-mill war film that is almost ever-present at the Oscars.

The thing is, 2014-15 has been a great year for unique and boundary-pushing films. Fair enough we have the war film in American Sniper, the "boring" film in The Imitation Game, but we also had a comedy as one of the best films of the year - The Grand Budapest Hotel. Blockbusters like Interstellar and Gone Girl have been forgotten about despite their quality. This is because we have films like Birdman and Nightcrawler taking cinema into a different dimension. You had dark films like Foxcatcher keeping people intrigued. You had low-budget wonders like Boyhood and Whiplash giving us different stories and making potentially boring film ideas come to life. These are examples of just some of the great films that have came about in the past year.

Cooper is a convincing Kyle, but the film is flawed

American Sniper looks weak in comparison.

Don't get me wrong, American Sniper isn't a bad film, but it's a little average. In my humble opinion, a 6 or 7 out of 10. Bradley Cooper plays Chris Kyle well, but not enough to stop Jake Gyllenhaal from getting a nomination for his great performance in Nightcrawler. Even if we put to the side that this film isn't even in the top 10 films of the year, there are other reasons why it shouldn't have so many Oscar nominations.

Gyllenhaal was excellent as the mysterious Lou Bloom

One blatantly obvious observation is how 'Murican this film is. When I was in the cinema watching Unbroken, American Sniper came up in a preview. The first thing I said to my friends was "How can they make a film about an illegal war seem so good?" I noticed these Inglorious Basterds comparison even before Seth Rogen announced his opinion. Now that I have seen it, it makes sense. This is a propaganda film created by a Republican director (despite my hatred for Republican policies, I still find Eastwood great) who is trying to mask the illegal war through the memoirs of a biased soldier. This film seems less real and more patriotic propaganda when you read Chris Kyle's memoirs. He called the Iraqis "savages". Ok, fair enough that's an opinion of his opponents I could give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

But he also lied about punching former wrestler Jesse Ventura claiming that he said that the SEALs deserved to "lose some". Ventura won a court case stating that he had never met Kyle. Kyle also claimed that he stood atop of the Superdome - home to the New Orlean Saints - after Hurricane Katrina and killed 30 armed civilians that he thought were causing trouble. There were no reports of these deaths. He also claimed to kill two people who tried to carjack him. Unsurprisingly this case also didn't exist.

A mix of lies from Kyle, political bias from Eastwood and a general lack of excitement in American Sniper really made it a flawed film trying to make a man who killed people look like a hero. You can make some people look like heroes in a war film, but you just can't see Kyle as a hero in this. He fought for the bad guys in the Iraq War just like Fredrick Zoller did for the Nazis in Inglorious Basterds. He was glorified as a hero for killing the enemy. He was doing his job. That makes him neither a villain or a hero, he just followed orders.

Uncanny (not that I thought Clint Eastwood would take ideas from a fictional Joseph Goebbels)

If we had made a film called "Iraqi Sniper" it would be too controversial. So why do we find it celebratory to applaud a man - who was on the wrong side of the conflict - for killing people defending their country? The media seems to work its magic sometimes.

All of the above shows why The Oscars aren't perfect. American Sniper looks shoddy next to Saving Private Ryan or Apocalypse Now. I mean, it's not even the best war film of the best year. That award goes to the far more intriguing Fury - a film that was actually realistic and not polished in patriotism.

So overall, I believe that it doesn't deserve any Oscars because it was a film with a total lack of ambition, lack of truth, lack of entertainment and taken from the wrong angle. Personally, if they had made the story more focused on his family, it could have been a hit - but it all seemed to either bore or frustrate me.

Chris Kyle was probably not a bad man, but it's very hard to believe that a pathological liar does not have flaws. American Sniper seems to make him Lincoln-esque, when really he was just like one of us with blood on his hands.

Is Noel Gallagher Worth the Money?

I, like many people, were excited by the return of Noel Gallagher and his High Flying Birds. His first album may have not been exactly the most ground-breaking or original, but it was very enjoyable and you could imagine it being great live.

So with the announcement of his second album, it was inevitable that a tour would follow and I was considering getting myself some tickets. However, I refused to join my friends in purchasing tickets when I seen how much one was going to cost me.

AT LEAST 60 QUID.

And from what I was reading, after booking and process fees, it was nearly £80 for a standing ticket at The Hydro. I was absolutely shocked and angry at the price he was charging his adoring fans.

I'll put this in perspective for you, I went to see The Libertines for £61 at Hyde Park at their comeback gig - something so rare that tickets sold out so fast. As well as The Pogues, you got to see a bunch of bands for the day - albeit it was hard to see half the bands due to lack of organisation from the crap promoters.

Now some might argue, "Well Noel Gallagher is an undisputed legend of rock music. He was in one of the biggest bands of the 90s (Oasis) and he's one of the best known musicians in the industry." They would be correct, but does that mean that he should sell his tickets for that much? Of course not! He may have been in Oasis, but is he going to play Oasis material at a show? You'll be lucky to hear two Oasis tracks and even at that, I'll be surprised if it's better than with the rest of the band. So you are basically paying at least £60 to listen to two albums worth of solo work.

This is a man who was part of a band who "stuck up for the working class", yet he won't make his shows affordable enough to satisfy the common man.

If you want a better alternative, go see Johnny Marr. He was in a band as big as Oasis (The Smiths) as well as later playing in bands such as The Cribs, The The and Modest Mouse. Marr is too on his second solo album, yet his tour tickets are unlikely to surpass £30.

If I was paying 60 quid to see Noel Gallagher live I'd expect Liam Gallagher to duet, monkeys on unicycles and a Kate Bush-esque stage presence. But if I'm honest, I don't think Noel G suits dramatically throwing himself across a stage.

In my humble opinion, he does not merit such a price tag as of yet. If you were to spend that kind of money, you'd expect Springsteen, not a two-album wonder.