Oh how I can hear the rapturous applause of Nick Griffin and his fascist party at the sight of your unfounded allegative article. I think it’s a shame when a journalist uses the power in his fingertips to generalise and demonise a whole section of society. Mr Dhaliwal, it is clear from this article that the anger in your fingertips got a head start over your brain and even at the very end of this opinion piece it appears the two were never in sync.

I was completely outraged whilst reading Nirpal Dhaliwal’s ridiculous paralleling of the shooting and consequently paralysing of Thusha Kamaleswaran with Mark Duggan’s death at the hand of the police last year.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but the fact that Mark Duggan was a “known criminal and gang member”, as Mr Dhaliwal very thoughtfully put it, is beside the point. I should think injustice is the same no matter who it is acting against. Mark Duggan was an unarmed father-of-four who was allegedly executed by police. The same people who now admit that his killing should not have happened. If that’s not enough reason for his family to protest then I would kindly have Mr Dhaliwal point to me a more appropriate occasion.

Thusha was not shot and paralysed because she is of a particular race. On the other hand, allegedly and most of the black community believe this, Mark Duggan was. Thusha was shot because of a gangland culture that consists of all different types of races. The wider black community as a sole entity is not to blame.

What Mr Dhaliwal fails to consider or at least fails to admit is that my skin being of a darker shade does not contend to me being more prone to a life of criminality. My God, I have lived in the leafy suburbs of Bexley Borough all my life and I have not even smelt a whiff of gunpowder smoke, let alone seen a gun – as Mr Dhaliwal claims that the black community is mainly responsible for stabbings and shootings.  I know for a fact that most people within my community have not experienced nor witnessed this life of criminality that Mr Dhaliwal believes is “chronic”.

Not once did Mr Dhaliwal mention that gun crime and stabbings are a London-wide problem. I.e. regardless of race. So, is he telling the world that whites, Chinese, Asians etc. are not also involved in this kind of criminality in London or even Britain as a whole? (Where is your statistic to back this up?) If he is, then dare I say that this is a complete and utter lie. To say that the “PRIMARY REASON”, as Mr Dhaliwal has put it, for the police being armed in London is because of BLACK PEOPLE AND THEIR GUN CRIME is complete and utter rubbish. Stabbings and shootings is a regular occurrence in London but ONLY by black youths? No. The Metropolitan Police’s slogan is “Working Together for a Safer London”. The Police are meant to be on the same side of the innocent people! To be antagonised and almost hunted by the very people you are meant to put your faith and trust in is more than disappointing. It is downright upsetting. This is the very reason why Mark Duggan’s family took to the streets that fateful day. Of course, the black community is concerned about ANY criminality that affects us – not just stabbing and shooting – but how can we focus on that when many of us are being attacked by the people who are supposed to serve, protect and work together with us? We can’t.

How dare you accuse my community of being too sensitive to stop-and-search? I would like to question whether you have ever been stopped and searched. Do you know what it feels like to be completely humiliated and racially profiled in the middle of a busy street? As if you were the enemy of the State – meanwhile you were just going about your daily life? I should think you do not have the foggiest. Do I go around pointing my black suburban finger at every Asian that passes me by and accuse them of being the sole source of terrorism? I should think not. So should we harass 99% of a community, who is already a minority, just to find the 1%. If that is the case, why is it we do not “racially profile” other races who are allegedly prone to certain strains of criminality? Why don’t we? Because it is utter rubbish. Criminality is intrinsically linked to A CULTURE and not to the colour of someone’s skin. If we generalised every crime to a race rather than a CULTURE, dare I say we would be stepping back into time to the days of Cesare Lombroso who said in 1876 that there was a BIOLOGICAL/PHYSIOLOGICAL reason for crime. I.e. people who look a certain way are more likely to commit certain crimes. Also, we would be putting people in the firing line (like the majority of the black people) who have nothing whatsoever to do with gun and knife crime. You are a part of the media who continues to hunt and destroy the public image of a minority group in this country. You take the minimal evidence and discard the overwhelming remains that suggest that black people are hard-working and law abiding citizens of the United Kingdom.

Mr Dhaliwal let us call a spade a spade. Yes, the black community are pained by the unnecessary death of a member of its community. I completely refute responsibility, however, for the black community to be the sole source and protagonist of the riots last summer. Wondering if you saw the pictures on Sky News and BBC, I hope you notice that there were all races involved in the riots last summer. It was a YOUTH problem and not a racial one. How you can blame a small group of Mark Duggan’s family and friends and hold them responsible for lootings and violent disorders hundreds of miles away is beyond me.

Also, you have completely disregarded the actuality in what David Starkey said in his comment “the whites have become black”. Starkey radically and ignorantly reduced the very complex and varying nature and culture of the black community into just one negative stereotype. Black culture began and evolved over thousands of years and yet we have one white TUDOR HISTORIAN who does not know the first thing about being a black person in a white country telling ME about MY culture?! Yes – you’re right Mr Dhaliwal – “funny that”, indeed.

May I remind you Mr Dhaliwal that London or even Britain is very much still a white man’s country. Your opinion piece has done more harm than good. You have demonised a whole section of London society; you have sensationalised and therefore stereotyped the black community in such a way that those who have never come in contact with the community will forever take your word as gospel. Throughout your opinion piece you have made assumption after assumption with not one statistic to backup how much the black community is apparently inseparably linked to criminality. It is a shame that you cannot use your journalistic prowess to point the finger at your own race and its problems (if that is the right thing to do) rather than doing so at others.

For those who care to know what I am ranting about, here is said article by Nirpal Dhaliwal: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/comment/where-is-the-black-outrage-over-thushas-shooting-7599847.html

Ed Sheeran wins two Brits: Best Breakthrough Artist and Best British Male

Ed sheeran did the successive wins… in ONE night.

Is that a sign of him going on to be the next Adele? He also did an excellent performance with just his voice and his guitar. It really showed just how much a singer-songwriter he is. It echoed the stripped down piano version of Adele’s Someone Like You which was also performed at the Brits last year. Arguably the performance that catapulted her into the spotlight.

I’ve made a rather large and vague list of what I’m “giving up”. Well, I can say it in a sentence. Anything that tastes like heaven in my mouth. I.e. Chocolate, biscuits, Schloer, Schwepps Bitter Lemon and anything else that may attract me to the demon that is sugar.

The biggest sacrifice I’m making is drink. Anyone that knows me will tell you that I can drink for alcohol (no, i’m not talking about alcohol) – juice. I can drink Juice all day long. So this Lent I will be practising an abstinence from anything that is not water.

It will be hard. But I’ve done this before (albeit when I was younger) but I have faith in myself! I’m slyly hoping this abstinence will result in a sudden loss of weight over the next 40 days…. no? Oh well, a girl can dream.

Wish me luck!

The World will miss "The Voice"

To tell the truth, I hardly felt the time pass by. Every word spoken, every lyric sung and every note played was so poignant and touching. Everything was truly fitting to honour such an incredible woman. Sometimes it takes something huge to move me and to say that it did would be an understatement. I felt heavy-hearted throughout the service. However, I completely broke down when Cece Winans began to sing!

Kevin Costner told us some backstage tales of The Bodyguard and how Whitney almost didn’t make the film and how the song she is now most famous for “I Will Always Love You” almost didn’t make the film itself. Amazing.

Pastor Marvin Winans gave a powerful eulogy to close the service. WOW. The decision of Whitney’s mother Cissy Houston to allow one camera to eavesdrop on such a private service was incredible and I know the world is grateful. Because of this act of discretion the Houston family brought millions all over the world to CHURCH yesterday evening! But for me, Pastor Winans eulogy really brought it home for me. He centred his eulogy around Matthew 6:25-34. Here Jesus tells us that we shouldn’t worry about the tomorrow and the troubles that it brings but that we should focus on today. Jesus tells us that each day if we seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness, everything else shall me added on to us.

This is something that Christians know. We know it. We repeat it. Like robots. But do we REALLY know it. Pastor Marvin’s eulogy was a fresh reminder and I thank God for that.

All in all, my heart genuinely goes out to Whitney’s family particularly her daughter Bobbi Kristina and her mother Cissy.

Whitney, the world will miss you!

What a turbulent answer this question will produce. This issue was addressed in last Sunday’s The Big Questions on BBC1 and I found myself agreeing with almost everybody that spoke. Even when each view was opposing each other.

There are two strands to this debate. Either it is right that we intervene and put a corkscrew in Colonel Gaddaffis explosion of “no mercy” against his people. Or it is wrong as we have no right to intervene with foreign affairs.

One could be forgiven for thinking Tony Blair was back in Number 10. It’s a very Blairite policy to intervene and meddle in other countries affairs even though our own doorstep is not clean.

As usual the punch and judy political commentary has been viral on the internet but simultaneously it is unsurprising. The Right say we should stay away and focus on our own problems whilst the Left say we cannot standby and let this massacre go on.

Here are a few points to ponder on to make your decision on whether intervening is right:

YES

On a moral/human angle to know full well that a leader is destroying his own people should rattle the chambers of the most hardest of hearts. Countless people are said to have died since this conflict began weeks ago and more are still at risk. If somebody (or the West) does not intervene now more innocent blood will shed in the name of upholding a 21st century dictator.

On the other hand, people have said who are the West (particularly UK) to hold the moral compass at Libya when it was the UK who have supplied arms to Libya. Think about it. The very suvillians we are “saving” are being killed by weapons the UK have sold to Libya. Rev Peter Owen-Jones made a very valid point on The Big Questions when noted that when natural concern or love for a human being is surpressed by the opportunity of trade there is a question of hypocrisy over what the West does.

He also said how democracy cannot be enforced with a gun. He said if that was to happen “then that taints the very nature of what it is to be democratic”. To be honest I agree. It is like double contradiction that the West who relishes in having the status of being “democratic” is being undemocratic by forcing democracy on an undemocratic nation.

But again, there is a divide in the people of Libya. Of course Gadaafi has his cult followers amongst the Libyan people but there is the other half who have seen the air strikes by the Western coalition as a blessing. I recall one BBC journalist on the ground in Tripoli saying how the Libyan rebels were shouting in the street “thank you Obama, thank you Cameron” in the streets. If this is the case then why should it be such a bad intervention?

Oil.

It is the buzzword surrounding the intervention of the West. What is the true motive for intervening? Afterall, several dictators have come and gone including those who tortured their people. Some are still here… *coughs* Mugabe*coughs*. But what is it that Mugabe has to offer that a country that Libya doesn’t? Nothing. And that’s exactly why they would never interfere. What about Rwanda, I hear people cry. What about Rwanda? Rwanda gives the West no commodity of such high value than that of oil in Libya. The situation in Rwanda is considered to be genocide – this isn’t but should it matter the motive? Innocent deathhs are innocent deaths right? Iraq Part 2. If this was happening in Nigeria, arguably, the West would be inside Nigeria quicker than you can say “200 dollars a barrell”. If this was happening in Iceland? Well, it’s debateable.

But some will say North pole to South Pole, East or West. The West has matured and developed it’s foreign policy enough to intervene in any situation regardless of the country and what commodities are so valuable to USA, UK and France.

Professor of Politics at University of Surrey, Sir Michael Aaronson, said that there is a third way out of this situation. One which, in my opinion, has definitely been overlooked. Gadaafi’s followers and the rebels should sit down and talk to find a way to stop the fighting. This would be ideal but did this fly out the window during the revolution in Egypt? The electricity of revolution is being conducted and passed from country to country in the Arab world. There has been so much fighting and very little talking. Whether the latter would work is an interesting suggestion to explore. Maybe with the “power” of the West it just might be able to stand.

I’ve thrown some ideas out there for you to ponder over that I have come across since reading up on the Libyan conflict. I, myself, still have not made my mind up about whether it is right for the West to have intervened. It is such a delicate and complex subject where each strand of the issue is vital drawing to a conclusion – hence my consistent ambivilance.

What a turbulent answer this question will produce. This issue was addressed in last Sunday’s The Big Questions on BBC1 and I found myself agreeing with almost everybody that spoke. Even when each view was opposing each other.

There are two strands to this debate. Either it is right that we intervene and put a corkscrew in Colonel Gaddaffis explosion of “no mercy” against his people. Or it is wrong as we have no right to intervene with foreign affairs.

One could be forgiven for thinking Tony Blair was back in Number 10. It’s a very Blairite policy to intervene and meddle in other countries affairs even though our own doorstep is not clean.

As usual the punch and judy political commentary has been viral on the internet but simultaneously it is unsurprising. The Right say we should stay away and focus on our own problems whilst the Left say we cannot standby and let this massacre go on.

Here are a few points to ponder on to make your decision on whether intervening is right.

On a moral/human angle to know full well that a leader is destroying his own people should rattle the chambers of the most hardest of hearts. Countless people are said to have died since this conflict began weeks ago and more are still at risk. If somebody (or the West) does not intervene now more innocent blood will shed in the name of upholding a 21st century dictator.

On the other hand, people have said who are the West (particularly UK) to hold the moral compass at Libya when it was the UK who have supplied arms to Libya. Think about it. The very suvillians we are “saving” are being killed by weapons the UK have sold to Libya. Rev Peter Owen-Jones made a very valid point on The Big Questions when noted that when natural concern or love for a human being is surpressed by the opportunity of trade there is a question of hypocrisy over what the West does.

He also said how democracy cannot be enforced with a gun. He said if that was to happen “then that taints the very nature of what it is to be democratic”. To be honest I agree. It is like double contradiction that the West who relishes in having the status of being “democratic” is being undemocratic by forcing democracy on an undemocratic nation.

But again, there is a divide in the people of Libya. Of course Gadaafi has his cult followers amongst the Libyan people but there is the other half who have seen the air strikes by the Western coalition as a blessing. I recall one BBC journalist on the ground in Tripoli saying how the Libyan rebels were shouting in the street “thank you Obama, thank you Cameron” in the streets. If this is the case then why should it be such a bad intervention?

Oil.

It is the buzzword surrounding the intervention of the West. What is the true motive for intervening? Afterall, several dictators have come and gone including those who tortured their people. Some are still here… *coughs* Mugabe*coughs*. But what is it that Mugabe has to offer that a country that Libya doesn’t? Nothing. And that’s exactly why they would never interfere. What about Rwanda, I hear people cry. What about Rwanda? Rwanda gives the West no commodity of such high value than that of oil in Libya. The situation in Rwanda is considered to be genocide – this isn’t but should it matter the motive? Innocent deathhs are innocent deaths right? Iraq Part 2. If this was happening in Nigeria, arguably, the West would be inside Nigeria quicker than you can say “200 dollars a barrell”. If this was happening in Iceland? Well, it’s debateable.

But some will say North pole to South Pole, East or West. The West has matured and developed it’s foreign policy enough to intervene in any situation regardless of the country and what commodities are so valuable to USA, UK and France.

Professor of Politics at University of Surrey, Sir Michael Aaronson, said that there is a third way out of this situation. One which, in my opinion, has definitely been overlooked. Gadaafi’s followers and the rebels should sit down and talk to find a way to stop the fighting. This would be ideal but did this fly out the window during the revolution in Egypt? The electricity of revolution is being conducted and passed from country to country in the Arab world. There has been so much fighting and very little talking. Whether the latter would work is an interesting suggestion to explore. Maybe with the “power” of the West it just might be able to stand.

I’ve thrown some ideas out there for you to ponder over that I have come across since reading up on the Libyan conflict. I, myself, still have not made my mind up about whether it is right for the West to have intervened. It is such a delicate and complex subject where each strand of the issue is vital drawing to a conclusion – hence my consistent ambivilance.

They wrote an article about my documentary!! Click here to see the article and documentary

P.S I’m doing a 5 week placement with them too! So watch this space!!

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-IaDBx5SiQ&w=640&h=390]

Is this how the desperation of celebrity status drives people? WOW.