In 2008 I joined Channel 4 and Raw Television’s Battlefront project, a campaigning platform for young voices to be heard from and filmed a documentary with them about my positive body image in the fashion industry campaign which showed that December. I had a great time on Battlefront, and I learnt so much from being part of the project so it makes me feel both proud and excited to be introducing one of the newest Battlefront campaigners from the class of 2010 – Anastasia Kyriacou – a campaigner for lowering the national voting age to 16 and the newest addition to our team of columnists here at The Ceiling!

It affects one in four people, varies from feeling low in spirits to being potentially life threatening and there is no known cure. So what could this malevolent beast be? It’s societies last taboo… depression.

Now, I could sit here and regurgiatate facts and try my best to put an eloquent spin on things, but I believe the best way is to just come out and say it. So, here it is, I have depression. Manic depression to be exact (also known as bipolar disorder).
I’m in good company though, with people like Stephen Fry, Robbie Williams and even Churchill having also suffered it. Natalie Imbruglia is one of a few celebrities to speak out on the topic of mental illness, she denotes that Britain has a ‘bizzare’ attitude towards it and has great frustration in the way society deals with it.

My experiences? Well… I was diagnosed in February, and the care I promptly recieved from health professionals has been phenomenal, from medication to talking therapies, they have been outstanding in providing support for me.

But the stigma still exists, and even my own friends and family find it difficult to speak about or relate to. A new survey by the Nursing Times revealed that nearly 90% of sufferers of mental illness have been affected by stigma and discrimination.

So why is there this attitude to mental illness? Media plays a part. It’s seen as a reflection of society and when it provides a distorted image of what mental illness is really like, society accepts it to be true, along with stereotypes of mental illness to be seen as violent, scary figures. Another reason is the use of discriminatory language, such as the common use of words such as ‘crazy’ and ‘lunatic’ and ‘psycho’, this gives a false representation of what is acceptable in society.

Obviously, I believe to be of great importance that attitudes towards depression and other mental illnesses be tackled and the best way to do this is with information and facts. This means getting rid of misconceptions people have, doing away with stereotypes and making people understand what it means to suffer with depression or be mentally ill, because it is a very difficult thing to deal with, and nobody should be made to feel inferior because of it.

As we all know (hopefully), the football World Cup is currently taking place. Personally, I’m a huge football fan: I’ve been watching the game since before I could remember, have been supporting my team since I was 9 and used to play all the time (before I developed my assests and discovered heels).

A lot of my friends really don’t like football and are refusing to watch any of the World Cup at all. My view is that football, and the World Cup in particular, is so much more than just football.

It is all about community and bonding with strangers. I’m a born and bred Londoner, and that usually means that I don’t talk to strangers at all. If you’ve been on London tubes, you’d have seen that they’re quite awkward and people don’t even make eye contact. And then you see these same people at live football matches and it’s totally different.  I have actually hugged strangers at matches and it’s such a great atmosphere.

Still don’t believe me that football is great for community spirit: well, take this example: I was shopping at Brent Cross Shopping Centre the other day, it was 3pm, and I knew a big World Cup game was due to kick off any minute. I saw that Brent Cross had installed large screen for the World Cup and so stopped to see the start of the match. Within minutes, a very large crown had gathered around each of the screens and the atmosphere was fantastic. Everyone was talking to each other, discussing the teams and the World Cup in general and then when a goal was scored, everyone started cheering and it did have such a great feel to it. I looked around and saw that all sorts of people where in this crowd: of all ages and races and there was such a great spirit.

This does lead me onto my next point that football is a game that transcends all borders and really can be enjoyed by everyone. In the English Premier League, alone, there are players from dozens and dozens of countries, with supporters scattered across the globe. Players of all countries play alongside each other and have mutual respect for each other. And supporters share this mutual respect. You see people who do look like racist thugs (not to stereotype) in all countries, praying to the likes of Didier Drogba and Samuel Eto’o.

Now the next point may seem feeble, so bear with me. Football is a life changing game for a ot of these players and actually lifts them out of poverty. We see Governments from all over the world trying to help some of the poorest regions in the world with aid etc, but it is so hard for them to actually lift people from out of poverty. Football has done this. Not to a world changing degree, but has helped key players go from absolute poverty to become ridiculously rich. Ronaldo (the Brazilian one) was born in a really poor part of Brazil and his football skills elivated him out of poverty and into an amazing life.

I am really enjoying watching the World Cup right now. Both BBC and ITV have been showing footage of people from around the world, watching football. They showed a small village in South Africa, who had never been able to afford televisions before, and they were just so into the match: it was really inspirational to watch. I’m serious: the game is so full of emotion! I have actually had tears in my eyes at the end of matches purely because of the whole atmospphere and emotion attached to the game.

Finally, it’s just good to sometimes watch hots guys run around all sweaty and then take their tops off when they score or at the end of a match.

True patriots all; for be it understood
We left our country for our country’s good;
No private views disgraced our generous zeal,
What urg’d our travels was our country’s weal,
And none will doubt that our emigration
Has prov’d most useful to the British nation”

- From Timberlake Wertenbaker’s Olivier Award Winning ‘Our Country’s Good’

I will admit that this is not the column I had intended on writing; I’d set out to write something completely different, which I will write next weekend, and instead wound up writing this in reaction to a submission we’ve had here at The Ceiling. We’ve not yet decided whether we can post it, but I’d be interested to see the contrasting reactions to it and to this if we did.

One of the statements made by the author of the article to which I refer was “Where’s the fairness in that? A crime like that should forfeit one’s rights and any notion of equality. Why should human rights be granted to those who are subhuman?”, and “I totally support… the death penalty”.

I will admit that this revelation, coming from a writer I know, slightly shocked me, but I’m not going to judge her for her views. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, and I daresay that if I asked her to explain exactly why she thinks that the death penalty is justifiable, she’s be able to explain it, and to do so eloquently.

Instead of judging, I thought I’d share my side, because, you see, I’m currently revising for Theatre Studies A Level, the examination for which is on Wednesday. One of the texts I’ve been studying all year is Timberlake Wertenbaker’s stunning ‘Our Country’s Good’, and, truly, I believe that this is a good an argument against the death penalty and against the concept of “subhuman” as it is possible to get.

‘Our Country’s Good’ tells the true, if slightly amended, story of the first fleet to Australia in 1789, carrying convicts considered by the British Empire to be “subhuman”, for crimes as far apart as theft of a sheep or prostitution. The characters portrayed are, at the opening of the play, utterly detestable. Our modern concept of criminals, specifically played upon by Wertenbaker, tells us that these creatures are “subhuman” – they must be, surely, if their country has seen fit to send them all the way to Australia?

What we don’t see, though, is that anyone could be convicted with no evidence, for just about any crime, and could be “transported” (as cargo, believe it or not) all the way to Australia. The play, as you learn this, leads you to question your own perceptions of justice in the modern world, presenting convicts who were evidently victims of anti-Semitism and were convicted for this alone, and other convicts who have clearly murdered but are remorseful.

The remarkable thing about it, though, is its redemptive message: the Governor of this new colony in Australia, Arthur Philip, a life-long navy man, was what I can only describe as humanist, with a ‘modern’ perception of justice. He made sure that the convicts were well cared for and that everyone – himself, officers and convicts alike – were on the same rations, despite the protests of his colleagues. This, at least, is historically accurate.

As is the fact that, while officers in his fleet may have favoured hanging the convicts for crimes once in Australia, he favoured educating them: “It will remind them that there is more to life than crime and punishment”, he says (Act One, Scene Six). One of the Second Lieutenants in the colony, Ralph Clarke, is known to have used a convict cast to stage a production of Farquhar’s ‘The Recruiting Officer’ in Sydney Bay to celebrate the King’s birthday the following year because of this, and how true to life the redemption of the characters in the play is, one can only speculate.

What is clear, though, is that Wertenbaker presents those officers who were against the play as subhuman, depicting the convicts as humanity at its best; striving for fulfilment and for a better future, united.

What is also true is that, in the late 1980s, Wertenbaker and members of the original cast and team behind ‘Our Country’s Good’ took the play into prisons and performed it with a modern ‘convict’ cast – providing real hope and fulfilment to those who, in Governor Philip’s words, may have known no other way.

It’s easy for us, up here on our high horses, to accuse people of being subhuman because of terrible crimes they may have committed – but does one terrible act necessarily equate to a terrible person?

Ultimately, what the play leads us to ask is what the meaning in the title is: is our country good – is it capable of treating people equally and offering a chance at redemption – or are we doing things for our country’s good – because we see no other way than to revert to the law of the 1780s, and to kill for killing, or send people far away because we simply don’t want them around anymore?

Personally, I’d like to think we’ve moved on.

‘Our Country’s Good’ is available for as little as £3.88, new, on Amazon (HERE), and those interested can see browse the Old Bailey records to see if any of their ancestors were convicted or transported HERE.

Harriet Harman is calling for half of all the Labour shadow cabinet to be women. Harriet favours reducing the size of the shadow cabinet to sixteen and is campaigning for eight of those places go to women. The acting Labour leader stated at a Unite conference in Manchester that ’it is time for Labour women to step out of  the shadows.’ She also said ‘the Labour men are great – but they aren’t twice as good as the women’

Harriet also stated that there were now eighty one labour MPs, more than those in all the other parties put together. She also said ‘Labour is the only party that speaks up for women in this country. We have some excellent experienced women and some brilliant new women MPs.

Members of the Parliamentary Labour Party will elect members of the Shadow Cabinet following results of the Labour leadership contest in September. Each member has nineteen votes but for their ballots to be valid, three of those votes must be for women.

So is this a positive step forward for gender equality or is it downright discrimination?

Harriet Harman has faced criticism for this idea, with Labour MP Kate Hoey stating that female MP’s should be elected upon merit.
She said ‘I do not support this  idea. There are plenty of good Labour women who could be elected without the need to fix the ratio’.
Geraldine Smith, a former Labour MP also said ‘I am not a fan of quotas and believe that people should be elected on their own merit.. if our MPs are so much more enlightened than other parties then they should be voting for women anyway’.
However, Harriet has had some support, including gaining the backing of leadership contender Ed Miliband, who has said that although the matter is ultimately a decision for the Parliamentary Labour party, he will be supporting it.
Another person who is supporting Harriet’s idea is Diane Abbot, Labour MP and leadership contender, who has said ‘we have a boys club at Westminster, it is fishing in too narrow  a pool’.

This idea has faced criticism for its somewhat discriminatory nature, and many have said that this idea means that women will be chosen for their gender and not their individual merit. However, others have said that this is a positive step forward to get women noticed and in positions of power in government.

Wouldn’t it be better to choose MPs on their attributes and merits rather than gender? Wouldn’t it truly be a statement of gender equality if women gained places in the Shadow Cabinet on their own rather than because they are simply a woman?

In order for women to feel completely equal in government, surely they need to be sure of their own accomplishments and be sure that they deserve their place there, and that they didn’t simply gain it because of their gender. This could also make male MPs resentful of womens places in government, believing that, unlike them, they aren’t there due to their own merit. Harriets sentiments seem to be correct, but unfortunately her actions seem to be slightly off track.

Dear Sixteen-Year-Old Self,

In a month’s time, you are going to leave the school that you have loved to hate for five years. It’s felt like far more, but believe me; it’s only five. When you do leave, it will feel like the weight of the world has lifted off your shoulders. It will feel like you are free.

You’ll say your good-byes, and you’ll promise to stay in touch with people – but you won’t. You’ll forget; you’ll move on. Those aren’t your people anymore. In two years time, you’ll have new people, who you’ll never forget. Mostly because they won’t let you, but that’s neither here nor there.

And so you’ll move on. You’ll go to your new school, which you left for the last time two days ago, and where two years will pass in the blink of an eye. Two years will not be enough, and leaving will really hurt. But you’ll leave. You’ll have to.

What you’ll leave with though, is worth the pain. What you’ll leave with is the knowledge that this school, this rubbish school you’re still in, won’t bog you down for the rest of your life. Don’t listen to people when they say you’ll never go far because you’re from YHS. Don’t listen to people when they say you’ll always be judged – because you won’t. You have amazing prospects now, as well as hideous A levels. But when you pass, which I really hope you will, you’ll go to university, and you’ll start a-fresh all over again. Hopefully, though, this time you’ll leave the baggage of YHS behind you. You’ll realise it’s in the past.

At the moment, now, at sixteen, you’re in what I can only describe as a mentally abusive and completely inappropriate relationship with someone whom you think you love. You don’t. You don’t even know what love is, at the moment, so get out while you can. Leave him before he leaves you, because the way it plays out at the moment, you don’t. You don’t, and it all goes down hill. It gets worse. You’ll never forget, really, and even now, in two years time, with all the prospects you have, you’ll still remember him, sometimes, when you hear a sad song. When you hear that sad song. In the long run, it’s not worth it. So please, just get out.

Get out of that; get out of school; get out of everything you know at the moment, and of everything that’s tying you down. You don’t need it – any of it – in your life. None of it is worth it, and there’s so much more stuff – so much better stuff – out there waiting for you.

You’ll realise, in two years time, that everything is so very different from the world you know now. You’ll come to love politics, and to make friends you could never have dreamed of. You’ll have more opportunities than you could ever imagine, and you’ll not need any of this anymore.

I suppose that what I’m trying to say, really, is that there’s hope. It might not feel like it right now, but there is.

In the immortal words of Patty Griffin and Natalie Maines (who you love now, but will love so, so much more in two years’ time) –

I’m gonna grab a hold of that little songbird,
Take her for a ride to the top of the world, somehow

Top of the world…

Good luck.

The Digital Economy Bill (DE Bill) was one of those bills that definitely wasn’t thought out very well. The Labour Government has always, clearly, wanted to pass legislation like this, and in the last month before Parliament was officially dissolved the bill was finally rushed through. The bill looks to stop all kinds of file sharing as well as regulating a lot the internet and television, including Channel 4.

Now, I’m not one to say that we should go online and ‘steal’ stuff; instead I think that bills need to be read and debated thoroughly before coming into effect. The bill was introduced mid March 2010 and was passed by the first week in April 2010: that’s less than a month. The bill clearly wasn’t debated properly, just 2 hours, and was passed in a rush during the ‘wash up’ of Parliament.

The main aim of the bill is to stop illegal file sharing. The government wants Internet Service Providers to give details of anyone they believe to be downloading illegally, and then want ISP’s to block access to sites that allow this as well as temporary internet suspension of anyone who does it. The main problem with this part of the bill is that, as well as the individual downloading being penalised, so does the owner of the wi-fi connection. This means that someone could be held accountable even if they’ve done nothing wrong. For example, cafe owners, universities and libraries could all be held accountable if someone used their wireless connection to download illegally.

Another main issue, I believe, with the bill is its proposed changes to DAB radio in terms of reorganisation and merging some of them. Have you guys seen ‘The Boat That Rocked’? Well this kind of reminds me of that. Just because the government don’t like the direction that radio is going in does not give them the right to intervene and change things around.

The bill also gives the government the power to block sites which have been, or are likely to, be using activity that infringes copyright. It has been claimed, by a Lib Dem MP, that this may restrict freedom of speech as well as putting websites, such as Wikileaks, in danger of being shut down. Wikileaks is a site that carries copyright material and comments on leaked government documents. Also, in a statement to the Guardian, according to Don Foster MP (Lib Dem), the phrase ‘likely to be used’ means that a site could be blocked on intentions as well as actions and so, many legitimate sites could also be blocked.

As you can imagine, the bill has been heavily criticised. File sharing is one of those things, that if restricted, new ways of doing it will come out pretty quickly, and would be hifdden better. According to the BBC, more advanced file sharers are already developing and using software that would hide their IP addresses as well as making the files encrypted, so that they can’t be detected. Also, many ISPs are against policing the internet.

This bill clearly is a very important and controversial one and deserves more than a couple hours debate and a rushing through to get signed. The bill will run for 12 months and after, Ofcom will see how well it worked. Let’s hope that after a year, it’ll get scrapped, so that a more well thought out version of the law can be passed.

Disney princesses have been around for over eighty years and have remained the focal point for many young girls fantasies, but is this a good thing?

Colette Dowling was the  first person to coin the phrase ‘cinderella complex’, she wrote a book on womens fear of independance ‘as an unconcious desire to be taken care of by others, based primarily on a fear of being independant’.

So are the Disney princesses good role models for young children, or do they give them a false ideology of what life is really like?

Back in the 1930s, Snow White was the first Disney princess. She was a typical archetypal feminine role model who’s only asset was physical beauty.

It can be argued that more recently the princesses have had their own ambitions and goals, but these are still male orientated. For example, Ariel’s goal was to become human but she was doing so for a prince and Belle of Beauty And The Beast had a goal of becoming prisoner in order to free her father, but she still continues to be controlled by a man.

As a child I loved to watch Disney films and to this day they remain a form of ultimate escapism, so are people just taking them too seriously?

Many feminists would argue that they are a bad role model for young children, that they are spreading the message that outer beauty is of huge importance and none of them are particularly interested in studying or playing sports.

In recent years however, Disney princesses have gone from passive beauties to strong willed heroines. In the mid 90s, Mulan was seen as revolutionary, saving the nation with her strength and intelligence, but she still has that typical happily ever after ending.
More recently, Shrek 2 (2004) became hugely popular and spread the message that inner beauty is what is most important.
Also, Princess Tiana of The Princess & The Frog shows Disneys first black princess, who is also an entrpreneur and not very interested in having a prince charming.

It has been said that marketing plays a big role in the princess syndrome, with princesses seen as a booming business in consumerism. Princess toys are readily available at any toy shop and the Disney theme parks boasts that every girl is a princess. So is society to blame? Is Disney creating the princess syndrome or is it simply making money out of an already big business?

Whoever is to blame, there is no doubt that Disney princesses continue to be a huge influence on young children and adults alike. One thing’s for sure, I still cherish my collection of Disney films, and if I’m completely honest, I still hope that my prince charming will come along and I’ll get my happily ever after.