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.

The General Election: Why We Are Doomed No Matter What

You'd think that in a first world, civilised country like the UK, you could look at the upcoming general election with a smile and say "ah democracy".

But that doesn't seem to be the case for next year's vote where we seem to be stuck in an awkward place, no matter what we vote. These last few weeks have left us in a purgatorial state, especially those of us living in Scotland.

After Scotland voted to stay part of the United Kingdom, it was fair to say that a strong majority of citizens wanted Devolution Max - which would give Scotland all power except foreign and defence affairs. However, since the No vote, the parties in Westminster haven't been able to agree on Devo Max for Scotland, with Labour leader Ed Miliband saying that it isn't the number one priority for now. Not only do Scots have a dislike for the Conservatives, but there will also be a growing hatred for the Labour party who have stuttered on this issue.

Now, from a Scottish point of view - a generally socialist nation - they aren't going to vote for the party killing the welfare state (Tories), they aren't going to vote for the party who decided to sleep with the welfare killers and in doing so completely contradicted their manifesto (Lib Dems), they aren't going to vote for a the Conservatives' racist cousin (UKIP) and now they are going to find it hard to believe in a party who are increasingly becoming more and more like what they hated in the first place as the Labour party are becoming a less extreme version of the Conservative party. 

Who is left then? Well you have SNP and Greens really, both of whom I think are relate-able - but they are also never going to get in power (as part of the UK). The Scottish National Party aren't perfect either to be fair. They have truly effed up the police system in Scotland and have a few pieces of legislation that raise eyebrows (such as banning certain football chants). As for the Greens? Maybe they are more sinister than we think, only disguised by their lack of power. But the main point I make with these two left-leaning parties is, you wouldn't vote for them and expect them to cause many ripples.

That leaves us with no real parties that are worth voting for who have a chance. Some will vote Labour and still believe that they can actually do something, but it seems a little far-fetched. They have became out of touch with the people, which has made people turn to UKIP, who are no better than the Conservatives, but also have a very anti-immigration stance. If Lib Dems hadn't shown how capable they are of lying, they would have definitely been in my mind for next year. As for the Green? Tough to say that your vote would matter. This leaves SNP which are a good bet to vote for if you are more focused on who represents your constituency, rather than your country and this is the view I'm taking - but when I think of my constituency, I'm thinking of voting Labour.

Why after all that slating of the Labour Party? Because of an incident that happened last week. Up until a few weeks ago, I had nothing but dislike for my local MP Iain McKenzie and his lack of action in the area. However, his vote against the Iraq air strikes restored my faith in him. He turned his back on the party and lost his job as an aide to Shadow Secretary of Defence, Vernon Coaker. That's a job that could have really got him places later in his political career and after sacrificing that for what he or what his constituents believe is great. Yet again, if my opinion of him stays the same, I will only vote Labour for the candidate and not the party. 

But elsewhere, I feel for those who don't know who to vote for. Do you vote for who you really believe in and vote Green, SNP, UKIP or Lib Dem? Or do you vote for Labour or Conservative because you couldn't bare to see the opposite party in power? It's certainly a huge dilemma that we all need to think about.

Give me a follow on Twitter if you want: @TrainInVainn

Also let me know what you think about this and if you want, tell me who you will vote for and why.

Has Materialism Killed Society?

This blog entry isn't my inner pensioner talking, but my genuine, real-life nineteen year old self.

Just the other day, I was speaking to one of my university friends and we were discussing the new iPhone 6. I asked her "What's the difference between a 5 and a 6?"

She replied "Not much. A better processor and it's bigger".

I was baffled by the cost and after reading up about it, it seemed a little crazy to spend so much money for essentially a better processor, bigger screen, thinner phone, more memory and a slightly-improved battery life.

Confused, I asked "How can you justify paying that much for a slightly improved iPhone 5s?". Her reply?

"To say you've got an iPhone 6."

I was slightly saddened by her reply, but I do not blame her. It is so easy nowadays to care about your reputation and your possessions. I myself gave into materialism last year and bought an iPhone 4s as I felt my peers were moving with the times as I sat content with a phone that could only run one app at a time. It's not just about your phone though.

We live in a world where judgement surrounds us. Think about it. Hollister went through a stage where boys would be buying clothes out there because "the girls love a boy in Hollister gear". I also fell into this trap as a young boy thinking that I would somehow look better in a t-shirt modelled by male models and that girls would fall at my feet. Hilarious when you think back. But yet again, this is another example of peer pressure and materialism crushing what is society.

I'm sure a few people have heard horror stories of a poor family not having a penny to their name after the Christmas period and having to use food banks. Who's fault is that? To be fair, it is partially the fault of the poor family - they could have easily cut back the gifts for a year - but it is also the fault of society. How would you like to break the news to your young children that they can't have the new PS4 because they are poor? How would you like to tell your children that they are not normal and can't fit in at school because they don't have the latest trend? You can't. It's horrible.

A guy I was in school with was shy in primary school and his dad wanted him to make friends. So instead of letting the child be himself, he spoiled him and kept him up with technology to make sure that he fitted in at something - even if it was only having an Xbox 360 or the new Call of Duty game. It just shows how much materialism has taken over our lives.

So, what has caused this materialism? As much as I hate to say it, it is capitalism. The rich companies hypnotise you into thinking "this brand will make your life easy", "this top will make you the next Beyonce" or "all of the cool kids wear these jeans, you don't want to be left out do you?"

When you wake up on Christmas Day to open a present that you really wish you didn't get, materialism has caused that. The rich get richer with everyone needing fairly useless things like iPhones, whilst the normal people buy them to seem trendy or to not look too different.

My advice? Buy something if you think that it will be useful enough to warrant the price. Be yourself and save your money as much as you can so that you have money for your bucket list and you aren't left regretting decisions later on in life. Oh and if you haven't already, create a bucket list.

Independence Referendum: My Vote

As I begin to write this blog post, I have made my mind up. In fact, I made a decision last night as I blocked the propaganda coming from both campaigns and it wasn't an easy one.

For those of you who know me, I've been a proud Scot and Brit and have supported the union despite its flaws over the past couple of years, but in the last couple of weeks I have flip-flopped between yes and no. Here's the reasons why.

The Yes campaign have in most people's views, been the campaign with the momentum leading up to today. They have had an all-round better campaign but they have failed to answer what will happen in an independent Scotland exactly. If we vote yes, we are going into the unknown. It's scary. That's why a no vote sounds more ideal because it is a little more secure.

However in saying that, the Better Together campaign have patronised to the masses and made a bit of a mess for no voters. They may well be right on some areas, but they have failed to really reach the young people and the working class as they have been too middle-class orientated. I do believe that being part of the UK is in some ways undemocratic and we don't always get what we want, but I don't believe in the yes campaign's dystopian view of a no vote.

They scare you as much as the no campaign do. There will be a Tory/UKIP coalition apparently. They will scrap our free university (even though we have complete control over that) apparently. They will privatise our NHS (we control that as well) apparently. This sort of scare tactics has well put me off the yes campaign, but in the end my love for change and my socialist nature has just about made me over-come the negatives in the campaign.

I'm voting yes after two years of voting no.

In fact as I write this sentence I have just came back from the polling station. I think that the yes campaign have tried to fit everyone and it has worked to an extent. I just believe that Scotland is more left-wing than the rest of the UK and that makes it a very obvious reason to vote yes. However, do I expect this inequality gap to close significantly? No. When yes voters talk about leaving the UK to get rid of millionaires and greed, they do not realise that that also occurs on their front door step. When they talk about getting rid of the tories, they forget that if we do become a prosperous nation, greed will go hand in hand with that and a right-wing party will become popular. When they talk about poverty and helping us, they forget about the millions of others left behind from our neighbouring countries who are just as worse off as us. It is incredibly sad that yes voters believe that Scotland is worse off than all because that is not at all true. But in saying that, I feel we could do better with a more people-powered government. Also, a big point for me is that I believe in peace and a world without nuclear weapons, something that is possible in an independent Scotland.

I will always call myself British and will always be proud of my English roots, but I think it is time to leave the union. I love Britain and that will never change. I will always look out for my English, Welsh and Irish neighbours in times of trouble and give my support. I just hope that they will give us support too.

Whether it is a yes or no tomorrow, I hope that our country can unite as one and accept the result. We have a lot to lose, but at the same time we have a lot to gain. Vote how you feel is right by all means, but my vote is a yes.

Independence Referendum: Five Things to Love About Scotland and Five Things to Love About Britain

Whether we go independent or not on Friday, the majority of us will see what we love in Scotland and what we love in Britain. I've compiled a list of five things that I love about Scotland and five things I love about Britain.

Scotland

1. Irn-Bru

Goes hand in hand with a bacon sanny

The drink of a nation. The taste that you can't describe but you love. I was on holiday in Zante for a week last year and I drunk it more than I would in a couple of months back home. I think this is because Irn-Bru is such an important part of our national identity that we sometimes need it when we are abroad! And it cures hangovers. 

2. The Patter

Scottish people are just brilliant at comebacks, chants and talking shite. I went to T in the Park and Leeds Festival this year. Leeds was better, but it lacked the sort of patter that you heard first thing on a Sunday morning when you got out your tent. From the slightly cheesy "here wi fuckin go" to the 12 year old brilliance of "yir maw", we have some of the best patter in the world.

3. Scots 

Both in the meaning of the language and the people. We seem to be generally nice and a good laugh. We can be a bit dour, but that is our charm. Plus, the Scots language has been something of national pride. If you're Scottish and you've never started tae type like yir fae Scotland, yir missing oot.

4. The Commonwealth Games

Fachie and McLean winning the tandem cycling at the Games

I have never been so proud of my country than I was at the 2014 Games. There was something amazing about it. There was hardly a yes or no shout during the whole thing and it was just crazy to see our nation get behind the athletes. I heard Flower of Scotland a few times over the space of the games and cried a bit. I even had a wee greet whilst working at the games. Very professional Housty.

5. Nature

This picture still doesn't justify Loch Lomond's beauty

You don't need to go far in Scotland to witness some beauty in bonnie Scotland. On the west coast there is the amazing Loch Lomond with hills up at Arrochar and the Highlands. The Western Isles, the Orkneys and the Shetlands are isolated, but they show a completely different side to the busy central belt. I could go on forever of what beauty we have.

Britain

1. The Music

The Clash in their prime

We have arguably the best music culture in the world. The only one which is possibly better is the US, but then again - we created rock. The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, The Who, The Kinks, The Clash, Oasis, Blur, Pulp, The Libertines, Arctic Monkeys I could go on...We have some of the best lyricists and Britain still has a huge underground scene. It's probably the thing that makes me feel the most British.

2. Film Industry

The frightening Alex in Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange"

It's the same as the music. We have such a great film industry which includes some of the best directors of modern times such as Shane Meadows, Richard Ayoade and Danny Boyle. Then you have to look to the likes of Ridley Scott, Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock who directed some of our best films such as Alien, A Clockwork Orange and Psycho. 

3. London Olympics

Mo's win was one of the most memorable

Before the Commonwealth Games, there was London. The 2012 Olympics were incredible and the Super Saturday at the athletics was an amazing couple of hours of golds for Mo Farah, Jessica Ennis and Greg Rutherford. London Olympics was the first time that I experienced proper national pride. 

4. The British Empire

(In red) how much land Britain conquered

Even Russell Brand said the other day whilst talking about independence that whilst he wanted to see an independent Scotland, he had a sense of not wanting to let it go. And I agree. Growing up in Britain you celebrate the Empire in school and how powerful we used to be. We know that it was bloody, murderous and pretty much invasion (especially of countries like India, USA and South Africa) yet we don't want to let go of the idea of Britain. Certainly nothing wrong with that. I'll miss England, Wales and Northern Ireland if we go independent and I hope that they'll miss us.

5. The British Battles

UK, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland

This one is a little closer to me than most, but when Scotland faces England, Wales and Ireland in any competition (whether sports, arts, academics etc) it's always really good fun to watch or take part. I wonder if we will continue this if we go independent? Some may argue that if we're on the same island, surely we will, but then would we compete in things like British championships? If the answer is no, I'll be pretty sad.

This post was nothing more than a bit of fun, if you have anything that you'd like to add, feel free to comment below.

Independence Referendum: Where Yes and No Have Gone Wrong

It's a two horse race and it's neck and neck (sorry)

So on the eve of one of the biggest political votes we will ever have to make, I've reflected on the past two years of campaigning from the Yes Scotland and Better Together campaigns. I think it is safe to say that both sides have their pros and cons and neither should be ridiculed for what they want from this referendum.

However, there has been incidents that have pushed me away from both of these campaigns and I'll list three faults that I see in them.

Yes #1: Mindless Propaganda

Both sides can be accused of this, but for all of Yes' good points they raise, they also use scaremongering tactics that questions the motives of a well-ran campaign. We'll take two over-used pieces of propaganda: "A government we didn't vote for" and a "Tory/UKIP coalition". Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said in an article published today that "we have a Tory government we didn't vote for". As a United Kingdom, unfortunately we did - but you can't always get what you want out of democracy. If we had a Labour government in power at this moment in time, this quote would seen stupid. You could argue that every Labour voter in the UK didn't get a government they voted for. Fair enough, if we go independent we're more likely to have a socialist state, but this quote is a bit silly. As for the Tory/UKIP argument, if you really think that enough left-centre voters will change a vote to a right-wing party, then I don't think you have faith in the people of Britain. UKIP are nothing more than a phase in my opinion.

Yes #2: Keep Quiet, Figure Out Later

Of course, if we go independent it will not be so straight-forward. We technically still don't know what will happen in an independent Scotland. A number of talks will still have to take place to iron out key issues such as the currency and peace agreements. After reading Ewan Morrison's blog post "Why I Joined Yes and Why I Changed To No" I realised that the Yes campaign politicians are no different from any other politicians. They are evasive and will work things out after they win the referendum and confrontation won't be tolerated as the campaign has to keep happy and keep voters - meaning no negative talk in the Yes camp so that voters wouldn't turn to No. The Nazis used a similar bloody method: albeit to some incomparable extremes.  

Yes #3: The Utopia That Yes Are Creating

I'm not dismissing the campaign and what they want in an independent Scotland, but the yes campaign are talking about making a fairer, greener Scotland whilst relying on oil. They are talking about making a welfare state that gives everyone opportunity, whilst talking about becoming a country like Luxembourg and Switzerland - notorious tax havens. You can't please everyone.

No #1:  The Out-of-Touch Better Together Campaign

You would think that to reach out to voters, you would try and get a genuinely left-wing politician to mirror the left-wing Yes politicians, but instead Better Together pick Alistair Darling - a man who is a controversial figure in the UK. You would think that a campaign trying to get people to vote no for Devo Max would find someone who they can trust. Hell, I'd have preferred Gordon Brown or even the occasionally-batshit George Galloway to Darling. On top of that the campaign seems to look ever-so-patronising. *WOMEN! HEALTH! TOGETHER! COMMUNITY! FIGHT POVERTY!* Remind you of something?

German: Health, child protection, fighting poverty, aiding travellers, community, helping mothers.Again, not as extreme as this but you get the gist.

No #2: The BBC Bias

Seriously, even if every man and his dog that worked at BBC was strongly no - why couldn't they just keep it as impartial as possible? You could argue that some Yes campaigners were just being paranoid at first - and in some cases they have been - about the BBC, but Nick Robinson getting a little personal with Salmond the other day was surely enough to show that the BBC have been unnecessarily biased towards the no campaign. If they had kept the reporting so neutral that yes voters could have nothing to complain about, the no campaign may have had more voters at the moment.

No #3: Using So Many English People to Back up the Campaign

I have nothing against the English. I was born in England myself. My mum's English, I'm English, my little brother's English. Half my family are from England. However, if you are wanting people to vote for a union, you should be using Scottish people. It will make voters feel like they can relate to the person more in my opinion. There isn't an anti-English thing going on, but I feel there's a certain distrust towards our neighbours at this point in the referendum. 

To sum up, vote however you feel is correct. If you feel you are doing the right thing - do it. However, if you don't care - don't just vote for one side for the banter. For example, my mate Ryan has never been interested in politics and he's more pro-union than nationalist, but he isn't voting because he feels he doesn't know enough and he doesn't care enough to vote. And that is fair enough. 

Thanks if you have given this a read and I hope, like me, you support the country no matter what way it goes tomorrow.

F1: Is Nico Rosberg a Cheat?

Sunday's Belgian Grand Prix was brilliant from start to finish: throughout the 44 laps of the Spa-Francorchomps circuit we seen some world-class overtaking manoeuvres; action on every lap and a twist in the title race.

The twist I'm talking about is that of an incident that occurred on lap two of the race. Lewis Hamilton got himself into first at the first corner, whilst pole sitter Nico Rosberg dropped to third as countryman Sebastian Vettel got past him. By the second lap, Rosberg was past Vettel and was breathing down Hamilton's neck.

Rosberg went on the outside of Hamilton at Le Combes and managed to get slightly ahead. However, he didn't have the racing line so it would be likely that he'd let Hamilton go, however he committed to the next corner and that's when the two cars came together. Hamilton took his line expecting Rosberg to give space, Rosberg didn't give him space and clipped Hamilton's rear left tyre - which resulted in Rosberg also losing his front wing.

Hamilton had a puncture and was in dead last when he pitted. He realised that there was no point in continuing after a while and he retired the car. However, Hamilton went out to the press and told them that Nico admitted to him that he did it "on purpose" to "prove a point".

Since Monaco, the former best friends haven't seen eye-to-eye

Either the media took it out of context or Lewis was being melodramatic. Turns out that the Mercedes team heard it as he made the move to prove a point, not crashing into him to prove a point - and why not? Rosberg has came under criticism for not attacking enough so he tried it. Unfortunately, it all went wrong for Mercedes. Whether it was time and place to try an overtake is another matter, but the question is: Is Nico Rosberg a Cheat?

I do not believe he is. Why? Because I believe the British media fabricate to favour their home driver against one who is from Germany.

The only one I can really think of to be a possible form of cheating is at Monaco where in qualifying he went down an escape route because he apparently lost control of the steering a little and couldn't make the corner. This prevented Lewis having another lap.

Even that is a little far-fetched. If you watch Sky Sports F1, I believe you're more likely to be brainwashed into thinking "Britain is great, it's everyone else's faults" when there is more to it than that. Some paranoid Lewis Hamilton fans have went as far to think that Mercedes would tamper with their own driver's car to favour his rival team-mate. Obviously a German team are going to let their German driver win the title by sabotaging his team mate's, all at a cost of millions! Seems logical.

The reality is Nico tries to bend the rules a bit and sometimes gets away with it whilst Hamilton has been unlucky. As much as I dislike Hamilton (mainly because of those paranoid fans) he has been really unfortunate not to be leading the championship so far. Nico has been lucky, Lewis hasn't. But to go as far as sabotage is moronic. I wonder why Lewis fans don't complain when Sebastian Vettel suffers from the same number of mechanical misfortunes as their hero? Because it's just bias that people believe.

It can't be all down to the media though. Hamilton usually uses the media as a sob story opportunity to play himself as the victim of a crime. Crimes committed by Rosberg. Yes, Nico was more in the wrong because he made the move on Lewis that resulted in the crash and in other races he's involved in controversy, but Lewis' hero Ayrton Senna was worse yet Hamilton condemns Rosberg at nearly every race.

Anyway, opinions aside, it has to be said - with the exception of the lack of drivers fighting for the title - that this has been a really exciting year for F1 and whether you think Nico Rosberg is a cheat or not, I think most want to see this feud carry on for the sake of entertainment.

For updates, follow me on Twitter: @TrainInVainn 

Let me know what your opinion is on the matter by commenting below.

My Experience at the Commonwealth Games: Cycling

It was wheely good.

Sorry. That was a bad joke.

If those of you reading this don't already know, during the Commonwealth Games I got the opportunity to interview athletes as a flash quote reporter. Before I speak of my favourite moments, I just want to say I encourage anyone who gets the opportunity to do flash quote reporting to grab it with both hands because it is such a great (and stressful) experience.

Anyway, here are some moments from the cycling that I really enjoyed:

Jason Kenny's Silver in the Men's Sprint

As a back story, Kenny was one of the favourites for the men's sprint title, but his qualifying was below-par. He came up against the favourite and fastest man, Matthew Glaetzer, in the quarter finals. He managed to outsmart the Aussie and then Glaetzer's team mate, Peter Lewis, in the semis. Unfortunately, Kenny was stopped in the final over three races as New Zealand's Sam Webster, but when I talked to him he seemed pretty satisfied. He told me after a poor qualifying he really didn't expect to get into the final, but Jason's best quality when you interview him is not so much his words, but how friendly he is. Really nice guy and is comfortable to talk to.

The Only Guy From Brunei: Muhammed I'maadi Abd Aziz

I got the chance to speak to a timid cyclist from the minnow state of Brunei. He was a timid character, but at the same time such a nice guy to speak to. He just missed qualification in the points race where he finished 13th (top 12 went through) and he seemed awestruck about the other riders in the race. He told me that he looked tiny in comparison to them before speaking about his plans for the rest of the season (competing in the Tour of Brunei if you're interested) and what he planned to do whilst in Scotland. With a confused face he told me he was going to a castle (which turned out to be Edinburgh Castle) and he made me laugh when he said he was going to see a monster in a lake. However, he doesn't believe that Nessie really exists.

The Passionate Malaysian: Azizulhasni Awang

It took me ages to get a hold of one of the most entertaining riders but I finally got him. Awang managed to win bronze in the Keirin and done it in style. His tactics in the sprint were very exciting, but it was amazing to see him hold on to third in the Keirin despite having a bad line coming into the finish. He is a bit of a character - he was already in hot water for showing support for Gaza on his gloves and he really gets worked up when talking to you. He told me that his nation look to him to win a medal so he is very proud to represent the country. Has to be said, he's one of the biggest rebels in cycling. 

Danny Laud Gave Me a Laugh

When you're not interviewing the winners, you interview those who don't do so well in the road events. Anguilla's Danny Laud was telling me about how small his country is and how the climate is very different to race in. All of his answers were pretty average until I asked him what he was planning to do once he finished his racing in Glasgow and he replied "Well I leave early on Monday so I have a couple of hours at night to get myself into trouble".

Stephanie Morton On Her Friendship With Anna Meares

Aussie pair Stephanie Morton and Anna Meares finished one and two in the 500m Time Trial and the Women's Sprint. Meares took the time trial, but Morton took the sprint in a bit of a shock result. It's difficult to outsmart a legend like Anna Meares - but she did. She spoke about how they are room mates at the games and are the best of friends, but sometimes I find that hard to believe as some say it to diffuse any chance of the media making a big story. However, I was proven wrong when Morton invited Meares up to the top of the podium for the national anthem as she embraced her team mate and sang. 

Meeting Chris Froome's Old Coach

Well, allegedly. Kenya's David Njau could have kick-started the career of one of Britain's best cyclists or he is great at lying. The 43 year-old took part in the time trial and he told me that he dedicated this race to Tour de France winner Chris Froome. Thinking it was a bit strange, I asked David why. He told me "He made me famous". He then went on to tell me that he coached Froome from a young age and taught him about "training and suffering". 

Katie Archibald's Late Bronze

Although there was a scrap for the gold between England's Laura Trott and Wales' Elinor Barker (for whom I have a soft spot for), Katie Archibald grabbing bronze in the points race was brilliant. Katie managed to push Australia's Amy Cure down to fourth with a last burst of speed in the last points sprint. The silver-haired Scot was so happy to win a medal in front of a home crowd and she couldn't stop smiling. When a colleague of mine asked if she dyed her hair silver and blue for Team Scotland she replied "Well you wouldn't believe me if I told you it was an accident". One of my favourites after the Games.

The Edmondson Siblings

I didn't just love them because of their ultra-competitiveness (something that I can relate to with my inferior little bro) but they were just so eager to talk to you. For a couple of world champions, you wouldn't be surprised if they looked down on you a little, but they were genuine people. It turns out their family come from Elgin in the north of Scotland, so the country adopted them as the nations darlings when Scotland weren't having so much luck. Annette seems like she could talk forever and Alex is very approachable. A nice duo.

Christopher Symonds: The 40 Year Old Multi-Eventer

I was looking in our information system and came across a guy who was competing for Ghana in the Triathlon AND the road events. He unfortunately suffered pretty bad in both, but he told me he was suffering from a bug half way through the triathlon (which he thinks he picked it in the swim). He just about recovered for the time trial, but still felt drained. It turns out that he lives in London and works at the House of Commons as a doorman. After asking him if he thought those in the Parliament were, I'll go with "dislikeable" he told me that they're an all right bunch - much to my dismay. However, he told me that he decided to represent Ghana because he wants to be a pioneer for the country and get young people interested in triathlon and road cycling. He was probably the nicest guy I met there: he had a laugh and a conversation with me, he was going very well at 40 years young and put out his hand for a handshake. True gent.

The New Zealand Coach (a.k.a. Quote Machine)

Anthony Peden was put in the difficult position of answering a question about how he would conduct himself as two of his riders faced off in the semi finals of the Men's Sprint. He replied with "I'm just going to sit back and watch really. I've got to stand silent on the sidelines and that's the hardest thing for me, I'm normally pretty vocal and have arms going everywhere. You might see a bit of gaffer tape over my mouth and a zip tie around my hands."

Geraint Thomas' Bronze in the Time Trial

I waited for a good half an hour to find the Welshman who came back to the mixed zone long after the race. He is a confident character and he told me that getting the bronze in Glasgow was good enough for him and that he wouldn't be disappointed if he only came away with that. But just a few days later, he would add to that bronze with a dramatic win in the Road Race. He certainly looks like a potential replacement to Froome.

Namibia's Dan Craven

On paper, this guy would do a decent job in the road race but wouldn't do anything significant. Yet, Craven (based in Bristol I'm sure) secured a ninth place finish which is Namibia's highest placed  finish in a road race at the Commonwealth Games. But his position wasn't the best thing about him, it was how funny he was. He stopped talking mid-sentence to compliment my shorthand writing. I then thanked him and he then joked "I like your top". He then complimented how great the crowd was. Me and a colleague said thank you, before he replied "No thank you! It's been brilliant and Glasgow, you've done well". We thought so too.

Scott Sunderland's Emotional Win

You would have had to have a heart of stone not to hold back the tears listening to Scott Sunderland's interview after winning the 1000m Time Trial. He said that to defend his title here was something special, but also winning the same event in Delhi was just as special as he dedicated the win to his late grandmother who died as he spent his last days with her. Whilst listening to his story of heartbreak and death I told myself  "Just don't cry". Scott was one of the best cyclists on the track and he had many journalists saddened by his story. You could see how much it meant to him. 

Did you have any particular highlights? Leave a comment if you do.

Give me a follow on Twitter: @TrainInVainn

What Music Culture?: T in the Park: 10 Acts to Catch This Weekend

Now for all of you who are heading to T in the Park this weekend or are watching it on the TV, you'll know that the headliners are usually a must-see at Balado, so I've compiled a list of ten acts - some obvious, some not-so-obvious - that are worth checking this weekend.

1. Pixies

So on this list, Pixies are probably the biggest. I mean, they have had a rough couple of years - legendary bassist Kim Deal left the band and they released a slightly-above-average album with new bassist Paz Lenchantin. Even if you aren't a fan of the new stuff, tracks from their albums Surfer Rosa and Doolittle will show you how great Black Francis and co are. 

Key Track: Here Comes Your Man

2. Drenge

The Loveless brothers from the tiny village of Castleton in Derbyshire have grabbed the attention of critics with their debut album which was released last year. Their fuzzy garage rock is certainly a breath of fresh air to the UK indie scene, so if you like a mosh pit and a bit of a riot. Go see em.

Key Track: Face Like a Skull

3. Bombay Bicycle Club

Another band that have been around for what seems like forever, Bombay Bicycle Club released their fourth album So Long, See You Tomorrow with world music influencing it. Feel sounds straight out a Bollywood film and Luna is dreamy and euphoric. They always know how to put on a live show and should be an exciting watch on the Radio 1 Stage.

Key Track: Shuffle

4. Disclosure

Where do you start with Guy and Howard Lawrence? They make up Disclosure, who have absolutely booted a fairly-generic genre of music up the arse. Dance music has been given a makeover since they emerged at the end of 2012 with White Noise. Now, they are collaborating with everyone and mixing it up on the live stage too. If you like the Slam Tent, but don't want to bump into someone with an "eccy jaw", go see these guys on the Radio 1 Stage on Sunday.

Key Track: Latch

5. Chance the Rapper

If you like Danny Brown's weird rapping, Chance the Rapper might be your new favourite guy. His aptly-named mixtape Acid Rap may be the best description of his music. The beats he makes resemble early Kanye West and he knows how to make a hit. There's a reason Justin Bieber is mates with him.

Key Track: Juice

6. Tame Impala

Arguably one of the most underrated bands going, Aussie psychedelic band Tame Impala haven't released an album since 2012's amazing Lonerism, but now they have enough tunes to satisfy neutrals live. Lonerism was trippy and gave a sense of escapism, so maybe their live set will sound the same. 

Key Track: Elephant

7. Baby Strange

The Glaswegians are pretty much brand new and the trio's debut album should be around the corner. They've toured with the likes of Palma Violets so a lot is expected of them. Friend is two minutes of complete jumping-about fun. Wanna say you've seen a band before they are big? Check em out.

Key Track: Pure Evil

8. Wolf Alice

They are NME darlings right now - which isn't always a good thing, but I think they have got this one right. Their recent EP Creature Songs has been applauded and the debut album is coming soon. The cliche "girl fronting a band" thing actually works here and isn't just a "LOOK WE HAVE A GIRL IN OUR BAND, WE ARE SO DIVERSE". Ellie Rowsell is a great front woman and can keep things slow or flipping hard.

Key Track: Fluffy

9. Neon Waltz

Going to be honest, there isn't much to judge this band on. However, from what I've heard this sextet from Caithness (if you aren't sure where that is, it makes Inverness look south) are worth a listen. They have played local to me (Gourock) and I've been told they are great. A band surrounded by isolation (in comparison to the Central Belt of Scotland) certainly show that you don't need to be around bands to be a great band.

Key Track: Sombre Fayre

10. John Wizards

This South African band have finally broke through in the UK following a critically acclaimed debut album. They mix South African house with R'n'B and reggae to make an incredibly unique sound. At least you can say that they aren't "generic shit". 

Key Track: Muizenberg

Give me a follow on Twitter: @mickyhaitch or my university Twitter: @michaelhgcu

If you are going to T in the Park, tell me who you enjoyed or who you're excited to see.