People who make death threats are fuck-witters

I apologise in advance but this post could edge into rant territory. I try not to rant, but sometimes I do. Forgive me, but a blog is for blogging my insignificant thoughts and I certainly have a lot to get off my chest.

It concerns someone who has attracted quite a bit of interest, both in print and on Twitter: Sara Malm. I will not repeat her story or link to her i piece, because the content of her piece is not relevant. Instead I want to point to the ever-growing trend of death threats. Malm’s piece has proved controversial and spurned abuse, insults, response posts and messages threatening her life. Malm tweeted about the threats, saying:

“I'm done explaining myself. If you didn't understand it on Friday I doubt you will now. Stop sending me death threats, they're pathetic.”

“Although some of the personal ones are quite terrifying. Some douchebag tracked down my baby sis on fb and threatened me through her.”

People who read opinion writing, then disagree with it and then tell the writer they will kill them need to understand something. One, everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how much you disagree with it. Two, threatening to kill someone because of their beliefs is a sad indictment of some members of the human race. Three, going so far as to use the Internet to track down people’s family, just to use them as a way of threatening someone is.. is.. no words. No words can describe the stupidity of some people. Stupidity is not a strong enough word. Completely moronic, fuck-wittery is a bit closer I suppose.

Here is a simple life lesson that these fuck-witters should read, digest and adapt: people should be allowed to have an opinion without you wanting to kill them for it. Call me a revolutionary, hey, call me crazy, but that is my opinion. No doubt someone read that and disagreed. In which case, I will be sleeping tonight with an eye open and a nail gun underneath my pillow. 

      

I have used Malm as an example because it is a recent example. But the sad thing is there seems to be a growing number of people, who receive death threats. Some journalists in volatile areas receive threats from gangsters, corrupt police officers and military chiefs for revealing their wrongdoings. Some are Sara Malm or Samantha Brick. I am not lumping the two together, but they both had an opinion and both had their lives threatened. Is it me or should people be allowed to have a view without that fear? And this is not just a journalistic thing. Look at Rebecca Black, Alan Davies, One Direction from America, the Top Gear team, Alexandra Burke, Anton Ferdinand. Each has had death threats because of one reason or another and they happen so often now that it is hard to list all of them. I cannot believe I just wrote that sentence. It is difficult to comprehend but death threats are now the norm. That is the reality and it does not matter if it is genuine threats or Internet trolls. That is still a person, being told they are going to be killed.

Welcome to the human race, where we kill those we disagree with. R.I.P, sanity.

Marie Colvin's death only strengthens my hope to follow in her footsteps

Marie Colvin's last report from within the besieged city of Homs.

A quick clarification: the title of this blog is not a suggestion that Marie Colvin's death was some kind of martyrdom. I am not saying that I want to be killed in conflict, or glorifying what happened to her, because what happened to her and Remi Ochlik, the French photojournalist, was dreadful.

But it has been my ambition to become a war reporter for several years. One of my journalistic idols is Sky correspondent, Alex Crawford, who I consider to be one of the greatest reporters of her generation. On Tuesday night, I was in attendance when Ms Crawford gave the annual Bob Friend Memorial Lecture at the University of Kent. In it, she said:

"It is necessary for us to be there (Syria), to see what is going on, to witness what is happening and to report live from there. We all feel we have a job to do and an important contribution to make. Women are in the ascendancy in war reporting all over the world. And we shouldn’t even be discussing whether or why. It is important and utterly right."

Marie Colvin was a firm believer in this. She was due to return from Syria in the next few days, but stayed to complete one last story, as she felt there was more for the world to see.

Now the argument being made is that the job is too dangerous. Reporters Sans Frontieres have made the suggestion that women reporters should be withdrawn from Egypt, following incidents of sexual violence and abuse towards them. Ms Crawford made a passionate argument against this, urging journalism not to go back to the attitudes of the 1950's. And she is absolutely right.

The job is dangerous. Colvin herself said this in November 2010, during a speech to service commerating war reporters who had died in the past decade. She said:

"The need for frontline, objective reporting has never been more compelling. Covering a war means going to places torn by chaos, destruction, and death, and trying to bear witness. It means trying to find the truth in a sandstorm of propaganda when armies, tribes or terrorists clash. And yes, it means taking risks, not just for yourself but often for the people who work closely with you."

And this is why I hope to follow in Marie's footsteps, and in Alex's footsteps. Ever since William Howard Russell uncovered the dire state of the British Army during the Crimea War, war reporters have had a great influence on the public sphere. It is their bravery, resilience and fantastic reportage that brings about change. The need to 'bear witness' as Colvin put it, is so important. The world has to know about war. It may not want to, it may not be interested, but people are dying and truth needs to spoken to power. The Times' front page today sums it up brilliantly, better than I ever could: "The price of truth."

Now it seems Colvin's truth could cause the change that she fought for. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, has promised to redouble the efforts to bring down the regime of Assad in Syria. President Sarkozy said that the regime must go. It appears the death of two journalists is the wake-up call the world needed and Assad's house of cards is falling. It is just saddening that it took this long.

The death of the party-hard student

Richard Garner, the Independent's education editor, wrote a piece today where he looks at the change of attitude in university students. As he puts it:

"It used to be about daytime TV, being carried home from bad nightclubs, and halls of residence awash with half-eaten pot noodles and stolen traffic cones, but for the new breed of university student weighed down with the pressures of inflated tuition fees, it's all about business."

The business in question is employment. There is a trend emerging, as students are going to university whilst working full-time jobs. It is a lifestyle that I feel I can talk about, because I am one of these students.

I study journalism at the University of Kent, five days a week, amounting to 18 hours of face-to-face learning. Plus to that, the expected two hours a night in research and reading, my degree is a 30 hour a week course. At the same time, I work as a training duty manager at a local leisure centre. I have set shifts on Saturdays and Sundays, as well as one or two week nights, totalling about 25 - 30 hours in a week, short of the 40 hour mark that is the benchmark for a full-time job.

So why so much work? I am going to be approximately £15,000 in debt by the end of my third year. It is a debt that I do not regret, but my aim is to have enough money that I can strike quite a chunk of that amount off. But that is not the only reason. 

I live 40 minutes away from my university and I have to catch two buses every morning. This is reasonable. But I also have a full driving license. That is the frustrating thing. Ridiculously expensive insurance premiums, averaging about £4,000 a quote, have stopped me from buying a car. A car is not a vanity issue for me; it is not because I am a "GRR PUBLIC TRANSPORT" type. It is just inconvenient when I leave up to an hour before my first lecture and still cannot get there, because a bus is either cancelled or simply does not turn up. And when you are paying £3,000 to be somewhere, you would like to be there. A car is also a valuable thing for a journalist; if your editor tells you to talk to a source within the next hour, and they are not answering their phone/e-mail/messenger pigeon, it is a good tool to have.

Another reason why I choose to work so much is to have money in my pocket. The stereotype is students live off their taxpayer-funded maintenance grants, spending it on what the Indy's Garner described as "bad nightclubs and pot noodles." To be honest, some do. But some do not. Some just get scraps to start with. My own grant is £15 every three months.

Maintenance grants are decided by household income and living at home means mine was dramatically reduced. With an income of about £45,000, I am seen by the government to be in a high-earning household. But this requirement does not take into account outgoings. Simply put, I am poor enough to benefit from government support, through their exclusive grants and bursaries, but too rich to get any of that support from them. That’s a contradiction if I’ve ever seen one.

I admit the tone of this piece is probably making me sound like a whiny, undeserving crybaby with a case of sour grapes. I understand that I am a much better position, financially and socially, than a lot of other people, who really do struggle to make ends meet and fear their next payment of rent or fees. But it is an insight into the various factors and flaws in student finance, from my own personal experience. Take for example, someone I personally know of, who receives a much larger maintanance grant, thousands of pounds worth, by claiming that they live with their unemployed mother. Except their mother lives in another country. And they attend university in the UK. See, flaws.