jh2211

TL;DR - Those who do elect not to get the vaccine are facilitating the continued spread of coronavirus.

To say that the Covid-19 has disrupted our lives would be an understatement. It has caused unprecedented upheaval and its effects will be felt for years to come. However, the vaccines have provided us with the chance to begin to return to some semblance of normality as they have been shown to have [high levels of effectiveness] (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01505-x). This includes offering [good protection against the Delta variant] (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-hospitalisation-from-delta-variant) after two doses. Accordingly, the vaccines offer us the best chance to finally emerge from the nightmare we have been living through every day for the last 18 months.

Yet, there are still some people who are resistant to getting a jab. Indeed, the proportion of those who do not want the vaccine is surprisingly large. There is a [myriad of reasons] (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/the-people-who-wont-get-the-vaccine/618765/) that people cite for not wanting the vaccine. Among the most common arguments are that they have already had coronavirus and therefore have antibodies, they are young and so the virus won't affect them or that the vaccines constitute part of perceived liberal overreach. Only the first argument has any scientific theory behind it, but it does not mean that the vaccine cannot still benefit those people since it is [unknown] (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html) how long the protection lasts after recovering from Covid-19. The other arguments do not have any merit as they rest on flawed logic.

Accordingly, the reasons for getting the vaccine outweigh the counter arguments. They are the best way for us to get our normal lives back and so we should jump at the opportunity to get the jab.

TL;DR - Baked beans are always there when you need them.

Anyone living in the UK will have come across the classic tinned product of Baked Beans. Whether in the classic form of baked beans on toast or as part of a full English breakfast, beans form an excellent element to a meal. Let's also not forget that the humble baked bean can be raised to gourmet status with one or more of cheese, chilli flakes or mustard on the bread (seriously, try it!). If people are still not convinced by this, beans are also [quite healthy] (https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/are-baked-beans-good-for-you#downsides) as they help to promote gut health and may lower cholesterol. This is not to say that they ar entirely healthy with their high levels of salt and presence of sweeteners. The point is that
baked beans do provide some health benefits. Likewise, any university student will know what a life-saver baked beans can be. They are cheap, easy to make and filling. Whenever you are a bit low on funds, baked beans are there to bail you out.

N.B. All these comments are predicated on the beans being Heinz Baked Beans.

TL;DR - Just because it is new does not make it pointless.

NFT (Non-Fungible Token) is [part of the Ethereum blockchain] (https://www.theverge.com/22310188/nft-explainer-what-is-blockchain-crypto-art-faq) which itself is a cryptocurrency. Yet, to dive deeper and understand fully how an NFT works, it is necessary to explain the meaning of non-fungible. The term is used to describe something that is unique and cannot be exchanged for something else. To explain it another way, a £5 note is fungible because it can be exchanged for five £1 coins. An NFT, by contrast, cannot be converted or exchanged. Due to this quality, NFTs have a greater value because they are one of a kind.

Since this is an online piece, some will question why these pieces sell for quite so much money since copies can be easily accessed online and then copied. his is a somewhat valid argument as it highlights that the image can be disseminated for free online. However, it fails to recognise that there is a similar issue with physical art. For example, people can go to a gallery and buy a print of a painting. Yet, it would be incorrect to say that these have the same value as the original. They are simply copies and the real value remains assigned to the original. The same is true of an NFT. Only with the [guarantee of authenticity] (https://mashable.com/article/what-is-an-nft-non-fungible-token/?europe=true) does the NFT have its value, both for the original sale and any subsequent resales.

TL;DR - Smartphones are making us socially dumb.

It has become almost force of habit now to check our phones whenever we have a moment to spare. For example, if you go out for a drink with a friend and they go to the loo, it goes without saying that you take that opportunity to go on your phone. This may be checking your messages, social media or the news until your friend comes back. This in itself is fine. Smartphones have enabled us to stay up to date with the wider world with considerable ease.

However, there are increasingly signs that smartphones are forcing their way into all forms of social interaction. The example here is likely something we have likely all experienced, namely trying to have a conversation with someone who is constantly on their phone. It is exhausting because you feel like you never have that person's full attention. Sadly, this is increasingly becoming the norm. In almost any communal setting, there are instances of people sitting together, not interacting but just looking at their phones. It seems that people are losing the ability to interact with each other because smartphones are distracting us.

TL;DR - Dobby is beacon of optimism throughout.

When he first appears in the series in the second book, he comes across as a genuine character who looks to help others, even if the methods he uses may appear illogical and are potentially life-threatening (the rogue bludger for example). This continues throughout Dobby's time in the Harry Potter universe as he goes out of his way to help Harry, a trait that eventually leads to his death.

It is possible to read too much into a fictional universe, but there is something to be said for the fact that Dobby goes against the norm and becomes a free house elf. In simple terms, Dobby is a slave who obtains his freedom. This is made all the more satisfying since Dobby's former masters are the Malfoys, some of the easiest characters to dislike.

TL;DR - Money and what it offers can provide the illusion of happiness.

We have all been in a situation when we are about to buy something and there is a sudden rush of excitement. It is the prospect of getting something new, taking it out of the packaging and then using it is what brings us back to shopping. This is only natural. Shopping [releases dopamine] (https://www.elle.com/fashion/shopping/a41845/shopping-dopamine/) which is the chemical that plays a role in feeling pleasure. This temporary rush of dopamine gives us the feeling of happiness and therefore leads us to associate being able to spend money with happiness.

Yet, this cannot be considered be considered true happiness. Indeed, defining true happiness is perhaps impossible as it will mean different things for different people. However, there are some core tenets that can be applied to provide some form of definition to happiness (please note that this all just supposition). This can include a general sense of comfort in oneself and security in one's life. Of course, money can contribute to reach this state but it is not the deciding factor in whether someone is happy. To that end, money can either provide a temporary rush of happiness or be a contributing factor in an overall state of happiness. Money does not, however, equate to happiness.

TL;DR - Surely this come down to a question of whether it is ever right to kill someone?

Were this argument to ever be considered valid, it would need to be established what these crimes are. The most obvious crime would be murder, but then it must be asked whether it is right to punish a murderer by killing them. The justice system should provide judgements and dispense punishments but with some morality. That is to say, those dispensing the punishments should not reflect the behaviour of those they are punishing. For that reason, the death penalty lowers the justice system to the level of those they are punishing.

Is there an argument to be made for Herbert Hoover? He did not upend the social norms and create divisions in the way that Trump did. Indeed, I do not think anyone has managed to split the country quite as much as Trump did. However, Hoover played a major role in hastening the arrival of the Great Depression, perhaps the worst economic crisis ever. Hoover was bullish about the prosperous future of the US economy, saying "given the chance to go forward with the policies of the last eight years, we shall soon with the help of God, be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this nation". I am by no means trying to say that Hoover is entirely responsible for the Great Depression but nor can he be exculpated.

TL;DR - Pret offers the best value for both coffee and food.

Firstly, the main coffee chains in the UK (IMO) are the big 4: Pret A Manger, Cafe Nero, Starbucks and Costa.

Starting at the bottom, the worst is Costa. The coffee is average at best and expensive for what it is. The food is forgettable and the fact that their milk is always in a bag is just weird and oddly off-putting .

Starbucks comes next. However, it is honestly a toss-up between Starbucks and Cafe Nero. The only reason Starbucks is ranked lower than Cafe Nero is the price. Their coffee is decent and the variety of the menu is good. Their Frappuccinos are not to my taste but that is not a knock on them. Similarly, their food is good. All of this can be echoed for Cafe Nero, but I feel that the variety and quality of coffee is a tiny bit better than Starbucks. Apart from that, the two are pretty much neck and neck.

And so we come to Pret. Their coffee is not only good but it represents good value with its set prices. However, where Pret really sets itself apart is with its food. Their range of sandwiches and salads are terrific, as is their range of breakfast foods. I would admit that the food can be very expensive but it is nevertheless good.

TL;DR — Club football sees the world’s best players perform to their highest standard.

When watching the current European championships, the matches can undeniably be enjoyable. Indeed, it would be doing the players a disservice to say that the standard of football is poor. However, international football just cannot be expected to reach the same level as club football because the players do not play together enough.

Take possibly the greatest current player Lionel Messi, whose goal scoring record for Barcelona is phenomenal with 474 goals in 520 games. It is hard to put how amazing this is into words. Messi’s numbers for Argentina however are (for his standard) less impressive, with 73 goals in 145 games. This means that Messi averages close to a goal every game for Barcelona and half a goal per game for Argentina. Of course the goals per game ratio for Argentina is still excellent, but it pales in comparison to the Barcelona numbers. The simple explanation for this is that Messi spends almost every week training with his club teammates, thus creating superior chemistry. This simply cannot be replicated during international breaks or international tournaments. Likewise, the quality of players around Messi for Argentina is lesser when compared to Barcelona’s collection of superstars.

To that end, international football suffers from a wider talent disparity and a struggle to create the same level of team chemistry as you might find with club teams.

TL;DR - Apart from fries, BK makes a better product.

There is no point trying to argue for any health benefits of fast food. That does not mean, however, that it cannot be enjoyed on occasions. Accordingly, selecting the right place is essential and when it comes to burgers then the only place to visit is the house of the King. The BK [menu] (https://www.burgerking.co.uk/menu) is full of excellent burger choices, all of which come with a better burger than McDonalds. This, after all, if the main determiner when it comes to assessing how good a burger actually is. If you want further evidence that BK is severely underrated, just read [this] (https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-vs-burger-king-comparison-which-is-better-2020-2?r=US&IR=T#but-in-general-id-take-a-burger-king-fry-over-a-mcdonalds-fry-any-day-9)!

TL;DR - Cummings is creating divisions by airing his personal grievances in public.

When Dominic Cummings first began giving his testimony, it appeared that he was giving a behind-the-scenes look at the government's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. It certainly began along these lines. However, his recent release of [messages] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57498845) that describe health secretary Matt Hancock as 'hopeless'. Although it is somewhat amusing to hear the Prime Minister be quite so cutting about a member of his own cabinet, there is nothing positive to be gained from it. Instead, exposing the government's infighting will achieve nothing. It can only deepen divisions and exacerbate discord at a time when unified thought and cooperation is what the country desperately needs. As we look to confront a new wave of Covid, having the cabinet disagreements is to the benefit of no one.

TL;DR — It deserves some love

For those who seek to ‘support the underdog’ or ‘go against the flow’, Pepsi fits the bill. Coca-Cola leads the fizzy drink market as [the most popular] (https://www.caffeineinformer.com/top-10-soft-drinks). Although Pepsi is second on the list, it has always felt like the little sibling to the behemoth of Coca-Cola.

In [the words of the website Aooble] (https://www.aooble.com/top-popular-soft-drinks-in-the-world/) “There is no soft drink, no soft drinking company that is a rival to coca-cola in its totality, along with at least 500 other manufacturers of distinct beverages sold by the Coca-Cola Company.”

So, whilst no one will say that Pepsi is unloved or unpopular, it always feels like a second choice. Given the option, most will choose Coke. However, Pepsi rivals it in taste and the Diet Pepsi is a particularly good hangover cure. This last point has to give it the edge!

TL;DR - Can we also give a shoutout to Lilt?

A product of the [Coca-Cola company] (https://www.coca-cola.co.uk/brands/lilt), Lilt is like summer in a can. It has a combination of tropical fruits, though no one should misconstrue this and think that it is a healthy drink. It is not quite as fizzy as other soft drinks, a feature that might appeal to some. Part of Lilt's cult following is that it can also be quite hard to find. Generally found in off-licences, Lilt is cheap and always is a treat to find. Let's give Lilt some love!

TL;DR - Celebrity fights are harming the integrity of the sport.

Over the past few years there has been a recent trend of celebrities, mainly YouTubers, have been engaging in these pay-per-view boxing events. It began with KSI and Logan Paul and these fights have continued to gain in popularity The most recent was when Logan Paul fought one of the best fighters of all time, Floyd Mayweather. The fight had mixed reception, with it being described as simply a [money making affair] (https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/final-logan-paul-vs-floyd-24287437), adding little value to the sport. Indeed, the fight ended in [boos] (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jun/07/logan-paul-vs-floyd-mayweather-boxing-fight-result-earnings) from the crowd as they had watched Mayweather dance around for 8 rounds against a vastly inferior opponent. The reactions from the other boxers, notably [Mike Tyson] (https://talksport.com/sport/boxing/891973/mike-tyson-floyd-mayweather-logan-paul-highlights-stats/) has also been a damning indictment.

It seems that boxing should stick to what it does best; delivering high quality fights contested by some of the best athletes in the world. Let's keep YouTubers on computer screens.

TL;DR - The album continues to young people long after its release.

Released in 1991, Nirvana's Nevermind still manages to sound like the future of rock music. With its raw, unfiltered sound and emotional lyrics, Nevermind brought Nirvana to mainstream attention and catapulted them to stardom as the leaders of the 'grunge' genre. Although lead singer Kurt Cobain hated the grunge moniker, his creation gave a disenfranchised section of society a voice. The music reflected their frustrations and emotions, something which it continues to do today.

This is a more personal reaction to the album, but its success has been immense. On Rolling Stone's updated list of [The 500 Greatest Albums] (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/best-albums-of-all-time-1062063/fleetwood-mac-rumours-3-1063226/), Nevermind ranked 6th and as the [2nd best rock album] (https://web.archive.org/web/20041113183948/http://www.canoe.com/JamMusicBeatles/jan4_beatles2-ap.html) behind the Beatles's Revolver. Of course these are somewhat arbitrary evaluations, the album still has a diamond certification. Like it or not, the album deserves consideration for this category.

TL;DR - Chipotle mayo makes chips even better.

Mayonnaise and chips are a truly glorious combination. It is impossible to articulate fully why it works. To give a very bland truism as an argument, the combination is great because it is. That said, it can be improved. By mixing mayonnaise with chipotle chillies adds a smokiness and spice to the condiment. It helps to balance out the saltiness and just adds depth of flavour. Just try it!

TL;DR - The mayo and ketchup mix also deserves some love.

A very basic version of [Marie Rose sauce] (https://www.food.com/recipe/marie-rose-sauce-91120), the ketchup and mayo mix combines two of the great condiments into one mouth-watering concoction. This is not an uncommon combination, with [Heinz] (https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/304408612) selling it as a sauce on its own. It also a common thing in Germany, known as Rot Weiß, literally meaning red white. Apparently it is sold in toothpaste style tubes which doesn't sound great but the mix itself is glorious. I am not sure about the need to buy the ready-made sauces as it is very easy to make, but to each their own. If you have not tried it, give it a go. It is a game changer!

TL;DR — Michael Jordan stands apart from any contender to his crown

As is the case when assessing an athlete’s legacy, the first port of call is the statistics. Jordan won 6 NBA Championships and 6 NBA Finals MVPs, the last of which remains the record with LeBron James’s 4 the next closest. The 6 championships alone are impressive but Jordan won the title each time he reached the finals. These titles came as part of two separate ‘three-peats’, something which only the 2000-2002 Los Angeles Lakers have done since.

Outside of the NBA Finals, Jordan won the MVP 5 times, tied for second behind only Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, having also won the NBA Defensive Player of the Year in 1988. He was an All-Star on 14 occasions, made the All-NBA First Team 10 times, the All-Defensive First Team 9 times (the all-time record) and led the league in scoring 10 times (the all-time record). An additional note to Jordan’s scoring is that he still holds the all-time record for points per game (ppg) average at 30.12. Other all-time records Jordan holds include the record scoring average in an NBA Finals series (41.0), ppg in playoffs (33.4).

Some have a claim to be in the conversation for the greatest basketball player ever, such as LeBron James, Magic Johnson, Wilt Chamberlain, Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan to name a few. James in particular is in the conversation but his record in the NBA Finals is a knock on his resumé. In short, a few can challenge Jordan in certain areas, but none have such a complete resumé as Jordan.

[Michael Jordan Records] (https://www.michaeljordansworld.com/records.htm)
[Michael Jordan Statistics] (https://www.nba.com/stats/player/893/career/)

TL;DR - There is a case to be made for LeBron James.

When he entered the league in 2003, James was one of the most hyped rookies in league history. He has lived up to all the lofty expectations. Jordan [has won] (https://www.nba.com/player/2544/lebron_james) 4 NBA Championships and 4 Finals MVPs with 3 different teams (Cleveland Cavaliers, Miami Heat and Los Angeles Lakers). He has also won NBA MVPs, has been an NBA All-Star 17 times, has been an all-NBA selection 16 times and has been selected to the NBA all-defensive team on 6 occasions.

Like Jordan, the numbers tell of the greatness of James's career. However, where James excels is his longevity. As of the end of the 20/21 NBA, James has played 18 season, competing in 10 NBA Finals, including 8 consecutively. These achievements, his longevity and also the consistency of James's career in terms of scoring, rebounds and assists means he is in the GOAT conversation. Some will knock his win/loss record in the NBA finals and compare that to Jordan's 100% success rate. James cannot escape this. That said, James's legacy, when his career is done, will be far more than just finals results. He has a chance to finish as the league's all-time leading scorer for example. To that end, many can (and justly do) argue for James to be considered the GOAT.

TL;DR - The product does not match the hype

Let's begin this by saying that this is not an indictment against Haribo. They are perfectly nice sweets and by no means do they deserve damning criticism. However, this does mean that the products are flawless. It seems a bit of a stupid criticism of sweets, but Haribo can be excessively sweet to such an extent that they leave with almost a squeaky feel (weird description I know but I can't think how else to put it). Likewise, the [Haribo collection of products] (https://www.haribo.com/en-gb/products/haribo) is diverse but only a few (Starmix, Tangfastics and GoldBears) are readily available. This would suggest that, despite their reputation, the full Haribo roster in not overly popular. They are held up by a few favourites but the other products are lacking.

TL;DR - When it comes to the more budget (ie, non-luxury) brands, Cadbury has the best variety and taste.

There are few things more satisfying than a few squares of Cadbury Dairy Milk (preferably chilled but that is personal taste). It is creamy and rich but without being sickly and overly sweet, features which Galaxy can have. Furthermore, there is a [wide variety] (https://www.cadbury.co.uk/products) of Cadbury bars, one to suit all tastes. Whether it is fruit and nut, caramel, Oreo or even the popping candy bars, Cadbury has something for everyone. In addition to their standard bars, Cadbury also makes Crunchies, Freddos, Wispas and Double Deckers to name a few. Let's not forget Mini Eggs at Easter.

The list could go on but it is fair to say that Cadbury has a fantastic range of products and only a non-chocolate fan (if there can be such a thing) couldn't find something they like.

TL;DR - To some extent they already are.

There has been recent emergence of AI mental health support apps, such as [Woebot] (https://woebothealth.com). This is a form of bot therapy whereby someone can discuss any mental health concerns with a bot which will then offer responses and advice based on what is said.

The mere fact that such a service is possible is indicative that we already have machines and apps that possess some form of consciousness. Woebot is a form of AI which is able to tailor its advice based on what it is told. Although this is unlikely to pass the Turing Test, which looks to ascertain whether a machine is able to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human, there is still a degree of consciousness in Woebot. To that end, we may not yet have machines that are fully conscious but there are some which are exhibiting some consciousness.

TL;DR - Using a language daily embeds the language into the subconscious.

From personal experience, the time when language learning was at its most immersive was when the most progress was made. Take the example of an exchange programme when you are required to speak a different language all the time but also attend lessons being conducted in a different language. This environment, though initially intimidating, forces you to engage with the language at a more intense level than simply language at school. Since you are required to always be using the foreign language, there is not the time to think about what you want to say in your original language and then translate it. You therefore have no option but to learn to think in that language.

In sum, using a language everyday develops essential language skills faster and an intensive environment accelerates the process including those most necessary for becoming fluent in a language, namely thinking in it.

TL;DR - The continued presence of the House of Lords speaks to the endemic elitism in British Politics.

The House of Lords is the upper chamber of British parliament where members are not elected, but appointed. This can even take the form on inherited peerages, a feature which is a total contradiction to the meritocratic ideals which are so often touted today. Yet, it is this ability to select who becomes a lord or a dame which is particularly troublesome as it means that peerages become tools for rewarding services. Perhaps the best illustration of this is the case of Ian Botham, the former England cricketer who was included in the 2020 political honours list. Although it cannot be proven, it is generally believed that Botham was granted his peerage [due to his support of Brexit] (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/18/not-in-a-position-to-say-ian-botham-refuses-to-comment-on-peerage-claims), something which Prime Minister Boris Johnson looked to reward.

This is just one example of the nepotism that is rampant in the House of Lords. However, there are other objections to it, namely that it is [not representative of the whole of Britain] (https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/elected-house-of-lords/):

'Currently, the House of Lords is dominated by London, the South East and East of England, with a majority of peers (56%) for whom we have a place of residence living in these three regions (more than 300 peers refuse to state even the country they live in). By contrast, peers in the East and West Midlands make up just six percent between them – leaving many areas of the UK woefully underrepresented.'

Furthermore, Tommy Sheppard [reported] (https://www.snp.org/the-house-of-lords-is-an-affront-to-democracy-its-time-to-abolish-it/) that 'almost three in five went to a private school, compared to just 5% of the general population. 14% of them went to just one private school, Eton College.'

What we are left with is an institution which is in no way reflective of contemporary Britain. Instead, it is a relic of a bygone era which tolerated elitism and nepotism.

TL;DR - Outside of the Second World War, certain moments tarnish Churchill's legacy.

What Churchill did for Britain during his first term in office (1940-1945) is immeasurable. He undoubtedly played one of the most important roles in preventing the rise of Nazi Germany. As a result of this, he will (and rightly so) be held in high regard and will remain one of the most important historical figures of the 20th century.

However, it is easy to forget that there were moments in Churchill's past which reflect poorly on him. This begins with the effect that [Churchill's policies had on the 1943 famine in Bengal] (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study). It has been argued that the war-time policies of the Churchill government continued to export rice from India to elsewhere in the empire. This decision couples with reports that Churchill ignored warnings of the crisis in India. This has been labelled as a 'denial policy'. With all this, it is possible to argue that the Bengal famine along with the war against Germany formed a perfect storm. Those who look to defend Churchill will say that it was impossible for him to balance the war with the famine, but this in itself is a denial policy. Just because Churchill is a war hero does not mean that his deeds cannot be questioned.

TL;DR - Headlines can fail to encapsulate the full essence of a news story.

This idea of fake news, as coined by now-former president Donald Trump, is used, not necessarily to call out incorrect stories but to disparage and discredit opinions that are viewed unfavourably by someone. Now, with the news cycle and indeed news websites more politicised than ever, headlines play a large part in shaping our initial conception of a story. Depending on whether you are reading a left-wing or a right-wing publication, the headlines will immediately shape your understanding of the news story.

To that end, it is not necessarily the headlines themselves that promote fake news, but the way in which they are used. Two headlines on the same story which are diametrically opposed lead to the use of the term fake news. Because they are so different, it creates the idea that one is wrong and the other is right.

TL;DR - Respect is not something that can be blindly expected.

This idea that we should blindly respect our elders by reason of their being older is a bizarre concept. Respect is a two-way street, meaning that for respect to be given, it first has to be earned. Now, there is an important distinction between being polite to someone and respecting them. Politeness is something that should be a given when interacting with anyone. There is never a reason to be gratuitously rude to someone.

Respect, however, connotes a sentiment of admiration for someone's abilities, qualities or achievements. Accordingly, respect is not something that can just be expected from someone of any age. Just because someone is older does not mean that their views and achievements deserve respect. Much like beauty, respect is in the eye of the beholder. In fine, having respect for someone speaks to a high regard for someone whereas politeness is a general civility to people you interact with. The latter is owed to everyone out of common decency. The former has to be earned.

TL;DR - Nadal has the crucial distinction of beating his rivals on their strongest surfaces.

As is the case with each of modern tennis's 'big 3' of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, their resumés are incredible. For Nadal, this means 20 Grand Slam singles titles (a joint record), 13 French Open titles (record), 83.2% career win percentage (first in open era) and 36 Masters 1000 titles (joint record).

The easy knock against Nadal's legacy is his dominance on clay. Nadal is unquestionably the greatest ever clay court player, possessing a record 81 match winning streak on the surface. Indeed, when you see that 13/20 Grand Slams came on clay, it could be argued that his dominance on clay masks his failings on grass and hard courts.

However, this is doing Nadal a disservice. Perhaps his greatest moment was winning Wimbledon in 2008 in a marathon match against the greatest ever grass court player (Federer) and in the process becoming world number 1 for the first time. On that day, Nadal achieved what was considered at that point almost unthinkable: beating Roger Federer at Wimbledon. Not only did Nadal do this, but he did it on the biggest stage. In the following years, he beat Djokovic at the US Open, thus completing his set of beating his fiercest rivals on their strongest surfaces.

The converse is not something either Federer or Djokovic can say. Federer lost in 4 French Open finals to Nadal. Whilst Djokovic did beat Nadal in the quarter finals of the French Open in 2015, he has lost 3 finals to Nadal. It is this factor which sets Nadal apart.

TL;DR - Those who dismiss psychiatry are those who have never benefitted from it.

One of the great positives of the previous years has been the increased openness and acceptance of mental health problems. After years of people ignorantly dismissing them, the various manifestations of mental health problems are being recognised and treated. Gradually, the stigma around them is being dismantled. Yet, there remains a fragment of society who dismisses them and disparages psychiatry as a form of head shrinking that does more harm than good.

This could not be further from the truth. In fact, stating that psychiatry is a sham is both bigoted and dangerous. Psychiatry is not a question of throwing drugs at the problem and hope it goes away. It involves talking therapy whereby the patient's mental state is assessed by a medical doctor who has an expert understanding of the brain and how it works. It is not a question of 'tell me how you feel' and then possibly prescribing anti-depressants. Someone's mental state can be assessed by having conversations about normal topics such as politics and sport as it allows the psychiatrist to gain insight into how the patient is able to deal with a normal situation and how their mind is working.

Therefore, those that peddle this falsehood are endangering the mental stability and health of many. Psychiatry helps by providing emotional and medicinal (if necessary) support.

TL;DR - Hitchens questioned everything and held people accountable to hypocrisy.

It is rare to find a character quite as rare and nuanced as Christopher Hitchens. A fearsome intellect, Hitchens made a career out of challenging people and their opinions, most notably those who were religious or conservative. He was unapologetically controversial, for example naming a book God Is Not Great, a negative form of the Arabic expression 'Allahu Akbar'. Likewise, he went on television and sparred with the likes of [Sean Hannity] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMaTk4) and [Bill O'Reilly] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kqvLnpU23Y) to debate religion and right wing values. No one was off limits for Hitchens. He [excoriated Rabbi Harold Kushner for his views on circumcision] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx_ov2NiNo4).

His appearances on various programmes over the years gave rise to the expression Hitchens's razor: 'What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.' It is things such as this that give Hitchens such an important legacy. He defied political correctness and refused to kowtow to anyone. Yes, he was controversial and his attacks on religion will have offended many. Yet, anyone who has watched or read Hitchens cannot say that his views are put forward without research, reason and evidence. He epitomised intellectual rigour and promoted independent thought. No one has filled the void Hitchens left and the world is poorer without his acerbic intellect and cutting irreverence.

TL;DR - It may not strictly be a 'Christmas Film' but Shrek is always on at Christmas.

This could be a very personal and unique thing, but I do find myself watching Shrek almost every Christmas. I have no idea why apart from the fact that it always seems to be on and it is a great film. I think the first I ever watched it might have been at Christmas so perhaps that explains it. Nevertheless, as a film, Shrek has it all: action, drama, romance and music. I mean, who doesn't know the iconic 'Allstar' by Smash Mouth.

Perhaps I should better define it as Shrek is my favourite film to watch at Christmas, but for me it comes under a broader heading of Christmas film.

TL;DR - Football's simplicity makes it a global sport.

Perhaps the greatest strength of football is that its core concept can be easily understood and the game can be played almost anywhere. Whether it is in the streets of London or the favelas in Brazil, you will see children playing football because all you need is a ball and you can have a game. With a couple of jumpers for goalposts and a few friends, you're away.

Rugby, conversely, is more difficult to play casually. It needs a different ball, more people and a more specialised pitch. It is not really possible to play rugby anywhere. Likewise, the rules are complicated and the vocabulary accompanying it is strange. Why is it called a 'ruck' when it appears to just be a pile of people fighting over a ball?

Football is also not lacking in characters. Whether it is the Sky Sports duo of Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher or outspoken legends like Eric Cantona and Zlatan Ibrahimovic, there are personalities to be found in all areas of football. Let's not forget José Mourinho or Roy Keane as well.

To that end, Rugby just lacks the wide spread appeal of football. Perhaps this can be linked to the fact that rugby's origins are tied to an English public school of the same which gives the sport connotations of elitism. Football, meanwhile, continues to grow across the world. Just look at the young American players emerging (Christian Pulisic, Weston McKennie and Gio Reyna). If football is managing to infiltrate the insular sporting world of the USA, then it clearly has a global appeal that rugby has never managed to garner for itself.

TL;DR - Meryl Streep can play almost any role.

* I have understood the term 'actor' as not being specific to men, hence the argument for Streep.

During her career, Streep has been nominated for 407 awards, winning 177 of those nominations. She holds the record for the most academy award nominations of any actor and has won 3 Oscars. She also has 2 BAFTAs and 9 Golden Globes.

What also sets Streep apart is the variety of roles she played. From hard-hitting films such as Deer Hunter, Sophie's Choice and Kramer vs Kramer to more lighthearted affairs including Mamma Mia and The Devil Wears Prada, The versatility shown in all these roles Streep a box office favourite and also a legend among her peers.

TL;DR - Woods revolutionised the game like no one had before him.

A key part of Woods's greatness is based on his numbers:

• 15 Majors (2nd all time)
• 82 PGA Tour Wins (T-1st all time)
• 109 Professional Wins
• 683 Weeks at World Number 1
• Youngest Player to achieve Career Grand Slam
• Only Player to hold all 4 Majors at the same time ('Tiger Slam')

These are just a few of Woods's numerous achievements. However, part of the brilliance with Woods was the way in which he won. When he first came to the PGA Tour, he introduced higher standards of athleticism to the game. Woods in his prime was a supreme athlete, known for his length off the tee. This brought great excitement to his play as he took apart courses with his power. Likewise, Woods was a showman. His ability to shape shots and hole putts in the biggest of moments made golf theatre.

In terms of theatre, Woods's career has had numerous twists and turns. Whether it was his numerous comebacks from injury, most notably his back, or his personal scandals, Woods made golf interesting.

Woods's ethnicity can also not be forgotten. Before Woods, golf was stereotypically a sport synonymous with privilege and played predominantly by white people. Woods has spoken of the racism he faced as a child at country clubs. The fact that he was able to overcome this makes Woods a trailblazer. He helped to reduce the racial bias in golf and have made children all over the world interested in golf.

TL;DR - It comes down to a question of whether university is right for everyone.

The opportunity to go to university is one that is rightly treasured. It provides students with the opportunity to study a subject for which they (hopefully) have a passion alongside some of the world's foremost experts in the field. Yet, the rigour and discipline of university are not for the faint-hearted. Far too often you hear of people not going to lectures, skipping assignments or being unprepared for seminars. When they do this, it is a waste of time for them and also the lecturer.

Due to this behaviour, it is worth questioning whether the money required to make university free for everyone would be better placed in another area. Indeed, free tuition, rather than helping those who need it most, [helps those who need it least] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2019/07/16/five-reasons-why-free-college-doesnt-make-the-grade/?sh=21305901a6c1). Likewise, one of the main reasons for going to university is to acquire a degree. Yet, abolishing tuition fees will not necessarily have an impact on the number of people who complete university. Free tuition means that everyone has the opportunity to go to university but does not mean that they will finish their degree.

Therefore, the money needed to make university free could be better served in providing a more diverse range of higher education initiatives. Education does not have to end after school but nor should university be the sole avenue. The aim should be to provide people with an affordable option for a course they can complete and will help them in the future rather than wasting their time on a degree (albeit free) that they have no interest in.

TL;DR - The pandemic has meant that this necessary move should be delayed.

Among the main [benefits] (https://www.procon.org/headlines/should-bottled-water-be-banned-top-4-pros-and-cons/) is the environmental impact. Bottled water contributes to large quantities of global waste and so simply stopping the sale of them is a simple way to reducing the environmental impact of waste bottles. Likewise, banning bottled water would save people money and require tap water to be better regulated.

These simple facts remain true today. However, they do not account for life during a pandemic. As has been repeatedly stressed in the government's rhetoric on Covid-19, it is essential to avoid non-essential contact. This has seen coffee shops refuse keep-cups and also say no to refilling reusable water bottles. This is by no means a popular development but it is needed at this time.

By no means is this a declaration that bottled water must stay. Rather, it is an attempt to illustrate how the present world situation means that banning bottled water right now is not feasible.

TL;DR - The best crisps are bacon flavoured crisps, specifically Frazzles

Before beginning, it must be stressed that are vegetarian although they are not suitable for vegans. As a bacon-flavoured corn-based snack, Frazzles come as close as is possible to replicating the taste of bacon. This is not something that is said lightly. What also adds to the mystique of Frazzles is that they are not particularly easy to find. Generally, supermarkets in the UK do not have them and so you have to try your luck at off-licences. However, if you can find them, then it is a great moment.

TL;DR - In a hyper-masculine environment, confessing to a one-night stand is selfish bragging

It is a sad reality that bragging of sexual exploits remains an aspect of male behaviour, although it must be stressed that this does not occur amongst all groups of men. A particular element of this is bragging about one-night stands as it serves to build social capital amongst others in the group. In fine, social status can be directly linked to the number of sexual partners. To that end, admitting to a one-night is selfish if it is done with intention of increasing one's own social status.

TL;DR - Sports/compression tights/leggings are some of the most comfortable things to wear

In fine, compression tights are lycra leggings that are normally either when doing sport or in the recovery process. They have the [benefits] (https://www.byrdie.com/what-do-compression-leggings-do-5089356) of increasing blood flow to muscles, helping with balance and reducing soreness. These are the simple benefits of wearing compression tights. However, this does little to encapsulate the reality of wearing them. They are exceptionally comfortable as there is not the same level of excess material.

TL;DR - Steyn had the complete skillset

By the [numbers] (https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/dale-steyn-47492) alone, South Africa's Dale Steyn ranks among the best fast bowlers ever and is easily [the best fast bowler of the century] (https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/andrew-fidel-fernando-dale-steyn-the-greatest-fast-bowler-of-the-century-1152696). In 93 test matches, Steyn took 439 wickets (the most by a South African) at an average of 22.95. This average puts him among the top 10 of bowlers who have taken more than 300 wickets. Steyn ranks 8th on the all-time wickets list, having played the fewest matches of anyone ranked in the top 10. All of these numbers can be parsed further which only serves to make Steyn's achievements more impressive. However, his greatest skill has yet to be mentioned.

Where Steyn really separated himself from his peers is his strike rate. Among bowlers who have played a minimum of 40 test and taken a minimum of 150 wickets, Steyn has the [best ever strike rate] (https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/news/dale-steyn-cements-status-as-all-time-great-in-tests-2039073.html) of 42.3. This means that Steyn, on average, took a wicket every 7 overs.

In terms of skillset, Steyn could do it all. Not only was he lightning fast, but he could swing the ball at pace whilst also having an intimidation factor that few could match. This diverse skillset translated to Steyn having an incredible record in Asia, where the pitches typically favour spin bowling. Over his career playing in Asia, Steyn took 92 wickets in 22 matches at an average of 24.11 and with a strike rate of 42.9. The likes of Glenn McGrath, Courtney Walsh, Malcolm Marshall and Richard Hadlee come close but were not in Steyn's class in Asia.

In sum, Steyn's record cements his legacy in the pantheon of greats and a deeper dive reveals quite how impressive is record is.

TL;DR - Mandatory service is a violation of free will.

Firstly, 'mandatory national service' is defined as conscription. National service, conversely, has a voluntary angle to it. Voluntary service is not something to be discouraged. It helps to bolster the ranks of the army and improves the communal spirit because everyone present wants to be there. The same cannot be said for conscription.

Conscription forces young people to join the army, regardless of their desire to participate. It can even be described as a [violation of free will] (https://connectusfund.org/10-meaningful-pros-and-cons-of-mandatory-military-service). This becomes particularly apparent when it is remembered that conscription does not simply entail the training to join the army. Those conscripted to join the army are forced to put their lives at risk by entering into combat zones. Moreover, when in these combat zones, soldiers may be asked to kill in order to protect themselves and others. The mental health repercussions of this have the potential to immense, especially when the person has not gone there of their own volition.

On another level, there is the concern that conscription has a detrimental effect on [the overall proficiency of the army] (https://connectusfund.org/10-meaningful-pros-and-cons-of-mandatory-military-service). It is unrealistic to expect people who have been forced to join the army to commit to their military service with the same commitment as a volunteer. This compromises the quality of the armed forces and has the knock-on effect of endangering the lives of the soldiers.

TL;DR - Perpetuating this narrative does a disservice to those abused by Epstein.

The New York City Medical examiner [concluded] (https://apnews.com/article/suicides-us-news-ap-top-news-bernard-madoff-new-york-city-a947e0d85d31496eb5bd9ff4994c9718) that Epstein's death was a suicide. This conclusion should be accepted. There has been some disagreement among the forensic pathologists, especially concerning the broken hyoid bone. Yet, the findings of the medical examiner were not made without due considerations. Indeed, the medical examiner stated that the conclusion was reached “after careful review of all investigative information, including complete autopsy findings.”

However, it is not wrong to investigate the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death. Having been placed on suicide watch, Epstein was placed in a special housing unit and was supposed to be checked on every 30 minutes. This did not happen. As a result, there needs to be some investigation into how Epstein's suicide went unnoticed by the guards whose job it was to guard him.

The [conspiracy theories] (https://apnews.com/article/jeffrey-epstein-suicides-donald-trump-us-news-ap-top-news-362e6ccf61014d7fbaeb35e1b5d793a9) that followed his death change the narrative of Epstein. His death is viewed in the light of him being murdered by high ranking officials out of fear that he had a damning information about them. However, the enduring narrative around Epstein should be the atrocities he committed and the number of people whose lives he ruined.

TL;DR - Legacy admissions destroys any notion of a meritocratic system.

When [the college admissions scandal broke in 2019] (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/12/college-admissions-fraud-scandal-felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin), it brought renewed attention to the issue of the nepotism in admissions into college. Of course, this is not the same as legacy admissions, but it points to a continued failure to allot college places purely on ability.

Meritocracy means rewarding someone based on their abilities and achievements, rather than based on wealth and family. A legacy admission, conversely, is given a 'leg up' by the fact that they have a relative who has attended the same institution. The Atlantic reported that being a legacy can [double or quadruple] (https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/04/legacy-admissions-preferences-ivy/586465/) one's chances of gaining admissions. Colleges are already highly selective, but the advantage given to legacy students neutralises the meritocratic ideals upon which admissions to higher education are granted.

Colleges cite the importance of legacy admissions for fundraising. However, the same piece from The Atlantic observes that a legacy admission is no guarantee of donations to the college. Likewise, if the college is thinking in purely fiscal terms, wealthy students risk being rejected on the basis that they are not a legacy.

To that end, it is not possible for a college to brand itself as meritocratic in its admissions policy and to then operate a legacy admissions programme. They cannot coexist.

TL;DR - DreamWorks is better than both

The argument can almost begin and end with one word; Shrek. Potentially one of the greatest animated films of all time, the presence of Shrek on their filmography sets DreamWorks apart. Admittedly films 3-5 in the series are less stellar creations, the first two films in the series remain masterpieces.

Also on the books of DreamWorks are classics like Kung Fu Panda, Madagascar, Bee Movie and How To Train Your Dragon. Undoubtedly, Pixar and Disney have some excellent creations. However, DreamWorks has the edge.

TL;DR - Burning calories does not mean that an activity is a sport

[Studies] (https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/6-unusual-ways-to-burn-calories#TOC_TITLE_HDR_5) have shown that activities so simple as drinking cold water, fidgeting, chewing gum and writing. Even typing can burn between [41 and 61 calories per half hour] (https://www.plansponsor.com/trivial-pursuits-how-many-calories-are-burned-typing-on-a-computer/?layout=print). This means that we, simply by conducting a day's work, burn calories.

Sport's, conversely, involve severe physical exertion. Consider a five set tennis match, most notably the [11 hour marathon match at Wimbledon in 2010] (https://olympics.com/en/featured-news/longest-tennis-match-history-grand-slam-record). Although this might be an outlier in terms of length, the number of calories burned will have been astronomical. Lewis Hamilton also revealed [he lost 10 pounds during a single F1 race] (https://www.essentiallysports.com/lewis-hamilton-opens-up-on-the-bizarre-weight-loss-and-physicality-of-racing-in-f1/).

Chess can be physically exerting, but is not necessarily exhausting. The activities that easily come under the definition of sport result in extreme physical exertion. Chess and sports may share mental stress but nor is this unique to sport. An interview or a deadline induce mental stress but that does not make them sports.

In sum, chess shares certain similarities with established sports but that does not mean it is one.

TL;DR — Certain environments lead people to want to be the Alphas

Whether or not someone is innately alpha or beta is debatable. How alpha and beta is defined will change for each person. What can be said is that certain environments bring out behaviour which can be construed as alpha or beta.

The arena I wish to bring up is that of club sport, most notably club cricket. In this environment, the sense of hierarchy is extreme and is dictated by who positions themselves as the alpha of the group. Social credit is built upon who dominates the group, whether that is through social scenarios and achievements. To that end, there arises a competitive environment where the stronger characters seek to dominate their meeker counterparts, thus creating alphas and betas.

The precise dynamics of this environment is best articulated through the Twitter stream and podcast [The Grade Cricketer] (https://gradecricketer.club). Albeit in slightly ‘tongue-in-cheek’ terms, the podcast brings to light the bizarre behaviour that occurs in the Australian club cricket arena in order to establish themselves as the alpha. Without going into explicit details, the activities involve excessive drinking, scoring runs, taking wickets and ‘off-field’ success. All of these build up social credit which thereby allows individuals to establish themselves as the alphas. Those who fail are by default beta.

This is all said with some intentional humour. The notion of alpha and beta do not have to be put solely in serious terms. It is entirely possible for the political and corporate worlds to be analysed for alphas and betas. However, the ways in which people seek to establish themselves as alpha are potentially more relatable to many.

TL;DR — Scholes is possibly the best midfielder in Premier League history

Paul Scholes’s career spanned one of the most successful periods in Manchester United’s history. Since the inception of the Premier League in the 1992-1993 season, Manchester United have won a record 13 titles. Scholes was part of 11 of those titles, including the most recent victory in 2012-2013. He also helped the team to win the UEFA Champions League twice, in 1998-1999 and 2007-2008.

Undoubtedly Scholes played in a number of excellent teams and his honours reflect this. Yet, his statistics do not reflect the truly complete midfielder he was. 107 goals and 55 assists are of course impressive but Scholes was perhaps the most technically sound midfielder of his generation.

[Two quotations] (https://www.planetfootball.com/nostalgia/theres-admire-paul-scholes-sublime-technique/) give an indication of just how good Scholes was:

“Paul Scholes is a role model. For me – and I really mean this – he’s the best central midfielder I’ve seen in the last 15, 20 years” – Xavi Hernandez.

“My toughest opponent? Scholes of Manchester. He is the complete midfielder. Scholes is undoubtedly the greatest midfielder of his generation – Zinedine Zidane.

Both Xavi and Zidane are in the conversation for the best midfielder ever and yet they view Scholes as the best. Whilst perhaps not the player who grabs attention on the stats sheets or highlights every week, Scholes’s fingerprints could be found on any United victory. His sublime technique meant he could score goals from anywhere but also pick out the perfect pass with ease. That is the essence of Scholes. The opposing team always had to account for him whenever he was on the pitch.

The brilliance of Scholes is undeniable and his longevity cements his legacy.

• [Paul Scholes Statistics] (https://www.premierleague.com/players/336/Paul-Scholes/overview)

TL;DR — Henry is the best attacking player to ever grace the Premier League

When Thierry Henry left Arsenal for Barcelona in 2007, he departed as the [club’s record goalscorer] (https://www.arsenal.com/history/club-records/goalscoring-records) with 228, the most League goals (175), the most overall European goals (42) and most UEFA Champions League goals (35). These stats speak for themselves. 14 years after his departure, he remains in a league of his own.

However, an overlooked aspect of Henry’s game was his ability to set up goals. He is Arsenal’s [all time assist record holder] (https://arsenalfclatestnews.com/top-10-arsenal-players-with-most-assists-ever-132397/) with 80 in the Premier League. He left the club with [104 assists across all competitions] (https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/thierry-henry/leistungsdatenverein/spieler/3207). Henry was the complete player and dominates the Arsenal record sheets.

Yet, his Premier League legacy extends beyond Arsenal. Henry shares the Premier League single-season assist record (20) with Kevin De Bruyne. Henry achieved this feat in [the 2002/03 season] (https://www.squawka.com/en/thierry-henry-assist-record-arsenal-premier-league/) when he also scored a remarkable 24 league goals. Henry sits 6th on the Premier League all-time goals record, trailing only players who spent the vast majority of their careers in the Premier League. He has the [3rd best] (https://www.1sports1.com/players-with-best-minutes-per-goal-ratio-premier-league-history/3/) goals per minute ratio (121.8 mins/goal).

Henry’s stats make him Arsenal’s best ever player and this is only cemented by his Premier League legacy.

Bergkamp, Viera, Adams, Wright perhaps. An argument could be made for each but none as convincing as the one for Henry.

TL;DR - Snape was a flawed hero.

Throughout the Harry Potter series, Snape captures readers' attention as a character whose allegiances are in question until the final moments of the last book. When Harry sees Snape's memories, readers finally learn that Snape was 'one of the good guys' whose loyalty was to Dumbledore and Harry's mother. His enduring love for her meant that he renounced his loyalty to Voldemort and proceeded to act selflessly to ensure Harry's safety. He was forced to lie and deceive at great personal risk to himself and ultimately he died having done everything he could to protect Harry.

This said, Snape was not without his flaws. Most obviously, he was at one point a supporter of Voldemort. However, his inability to let go of his hatred of Harry's father is borderline ridiculous and the fact that he cannot separate Harry from his father results in Snape becoming a version of the person he hated. All of this is said with the full realisation that no hero is without their flaws but perhaps Snape's are more apparent than others.

TL;DR — Toxic masculinity continues to be a scourge on our society.

Toxic masculinity is associated with behaviour that involves men seeking to confirm their dominance, a traditional stereotype of men. This can evidence itself in the form of misogyny, homophobia, and, in the most extreme circumstances, sexually aggressive behaviour and even assault. This last feature is particularly important to draw out as it has returned to public prominence through the website [Everyone’s Invited] (https://www.everyonesinvited.uk/read-testimonies-page-41).

This website forms a database of incidents of sexual assaults that took place at universities and schools over the UK. The sheer number of [survivor testimonies] (https://www.parlia.com/o/we-should-stop-calling-rape-victims-survivors) is shocking. They go on for pages and pages. They feature details of boys forcing themselves on girls and outbursts of anger and aggression when they are rejected. There can be no justification of this under the trite dictum of ‘boys will be boys’. Rather, the presence of this among such young men is emblematic of the thriving toxic masculinity in our society. Some may counter this by saying that this example focuses on an extremely privileged demographic that is not reflective of society as a whole. This could be true. But, the presence of toxic masculinity in this sector of society disproves the notion that toxic masculinity is nonsense.

TL;DR — Lolita humanises a paedophile which makes for an unsettling read.

Lolita is defined and irreparably coloured by the (notoriously unreliable) first person narrator, Humbert Humbert, and his obsession with Dolores (Lolita). No one would seek to deny that the themes of Lolita are dark and controversial. However, to simply define it as glorifying paedophilia is to do the work a disservice. The book is more of a character study that takes readers inside the mind of a broken individual. Humbert’s obsession and desire for Lolita reveal the psyche of a paedophile and the ends to which he goes in order to fulfil his desires. Furthermore, to say that Lolita glorifies paedophilia would be to say that Humbert’s behaviour is validated. There is little indication of this as the book dispassionately depicts the behaviour of paedophile.

Viewing the book as glorifying paedophile is the result of the reader’s interpretation. This leads to a wider discussion of the applications of literary theory to the text. In its essence, literary theory comprises various disciplines which, when applied to readings of a text, provide alternative understandings of the text. In this case, it is a question of the role of the reader and authorial intent. Understanding Lolita as glorifying paedophilia comes as a result of inferring Nabokov’s intention when writing the book. This is impossible. Readers draw their own understandings for their readings of the text. To that end, Lolita discusses paedophilia by having the protagonist as a paedophile. However, understanding the text as glorifying paedophilia is a result of the reader, not the text itself.

TL;DR — There is no credible evidence to support this claim.

Howard Wilson was the leader of Labour Party from 1963-1976 and during that time was Prime Minister twice. Yet, his time in politics was clouded by unfounded accusations of his being a Soviet spy. This theory came from Anatoliy Golitsyn, a Soviet defector but can also be linked to [his pre-politics connections with businessmen in eastern Europe and contacts at the KGB] (https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a29213646/prime-minister-harold-wilson-facts/).

MI5 kept a file on Wilson through out his time as an MP but no evidence was acquired that supported the accusations made against Wilson. Golitsyn was labelled an ‘unreliable conspiracy theorist’ by Christopher Andrew, the official MI5 historian.

In sum, there is nothing to suggest that Wilson was a KGB spy. The accusations can be linked to his left wing politics and his previous work in eastern Europe.

TL;DR — Blue Lines by Massive Attack remains the seminal album for the Bristol Sound

Released in April 1991, Blue Lines became known as the first ‘trip hop’ album with its fusion of hip hop, dub, soul and reggae. The trip hop label should not however define the album as it does far more than announce the arrival of this genre. Rather, the focus should be on how the band created 'the sleekest, deadliest, most urbane, most confounding LP 1991 has yet seen. And it's only their debut'.

The reception of Blue Lines reinforces the opinion that it is in the pantheon of great electronic albums. At the time of its release, it reached number 13 on the UK Album charts. However, as we approach the 30th anniversary of its release, it is the continued appreciation of the album that hammers home its legacy. Q magazine ranked it as the 9th in the list of the 100 Greatest British Album Ever and 58 in their list of the 100 Greatest Albums Ever. It was also included in the 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. These are just to name a few of the rankings the album has received.

Finally, Blue Lines is home to Unfinished Sympathy, a hauntingly beautiful song which has received wide acclaim. It is a song whose relevance has endured and somehow still sounds like the future of music. The combination of various genres along with outstanding vocals from Shara Nelson. As a result of all this, it has a Gold Certification in the UK.

TL;DR Teams included in the ESL already dominate European football on a regular basis

• 8 of 12 ESL teams were in last year’s last 16, 3 in quarter finalists, 0 semi finalists, 0 finalists (Bayern)
• 2019 - both finalists, 3/4, semi finalists, 6/8 quarter finalists
• 2018 - both finalists, 2/4 semi finalists, 5/8 quarter finalists
• 2017 - both finalists, 3/4 semi finalists, 4/8 quarter finalists
• 2016 - both finalists, 3/4 semi finalists, 4/8 quarter finalists
• 2015 - both finalists, 3/4 semi finalists, 4/8 quarter finalists
• 2014 - both finalists, 3/4 semi finalists, 5/8 quarter finalists
• 2013 - 0 finalists (Bayern), 2/4 semi finalists, 3/8 quarter finalists
• 2012 - 1 finalist (winner from ESL teams), 3/4 semi finalists, 4/8 quarter finalists
• 2011 - both finalists, 3/4 semi finalists, 6/8 quarter finalists
• 2010 - 1 finalists (winner from ESL teams), 2/4 semi finalists, 4/8 quarter finalists

The ESL was intended to provide a platform for the very best teams in Europe to compete with on a regular basis. The UEFA Champions League allows this to happen but, from an entertainment perspective, would it not be nice to see it every year? The history of the UCL shows that ESL teams are almost always at the in the final stages of the competition (2020 and 2013 are the outliers which both feature Bayern Munich). This year's competition has 3 ESL teams in the quarter finals. If Bayern Munich could be persuaded to join the ESL then the dominance of the UCL teams would be further reinforced, thus legitimising the premise of the ESL.

Watching these teams play against each other is brilliant when it does happen. So why would you not wanted it guaranteed each year?

• [UEFA History of the Competition] (https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/seasons/2020/)

TL;DR — The presence of apocalypticism confirms just this

Apocalypticism is defined as the belief held by religions that an apocalypse is coming which precedes the end of the world. When the apocalypse comes, only the faithful will survive as they will survive the judgment of God. What is perhaps most sinister about any apocalyptic beliefs is [the terror it inspires] (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/resilience.html). When the day of judgement comes, God decides who is deserving of salvation as judged by their devotion to God. To that end, the impending apocalypse functions as means to tie people to religion. By convincing them that the end of the world is coming, religions swell their congregation. Likewise, religions with apocalyptic beliefs create [a sense of urgency] (https://www.learnreligions.com/apocalyptic-religions-95773) that drives members of that religion to act in a certain. It could almost be described as a way of controlling people’s behaviour.

Apocalyptic world views also serve to develop a very binary understanding of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, and ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. If only the faithful are saved, they are by definition ‘right’ due to their belief in God and their adherence to his teaching. Conversely, religious sceptics and critics are judged to be ‘wrong’ and will suffer as a consequence. Religion is thought to create a sense of community and yet the apocalyptic world view divides believers and non-believers. Accordingly, apocalypticism draws people into religion and directs their behaviour once they are part of the religion.

TL;DR — School uniforms should be enforced.

A simple school uniform of a black blazer, white shirt and tie is inoffensive. Whilst it does not constitute pupils’ first choice of clothes, it is not so ridiculous that pupils object to wearing it. A uniform also provides [a sense of community to the school environment] (https://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2013/oct/03/why-wear-school-uniform). By wearing their uniform every day, students feel like they belong to their school and helps to develop a pride in their institution.

Another advantage offered by school uniforms is [the reduced opportunity for bullying] (https://www.nordangliaeducation.com/article/2020/7/15/the-benefits-of-schools-uniforms). Schools can be gladiatorial and any sign of ‘otherness’ is seen as an opportunity for ridicule. This is exacerbated by students having the option to wear their own clothes. A uniform policy prevents this and removes any potential [peer pressure] (https://www.nordangliaeducation.com/article/2020/7/15/the-benefits-of-schools-uniforms)

TL;DR — It is meat between bread - if that is not a sandwich then what is?

In simple terms, a sandwich is ["two or more slices of bread or a split roll having a filling in between”] (https://www.allrecipes.com/article/is-a-hot-dog-a-sandwich/). By that definition, a hot dog is a sandwich.

Some will quibble that a hot dog is in a category of its own, but it nevertheless comes under the general rubric of a sandwich. Some will also say that a hot dog is not a sandwich because it is only one piece of bread cut in half. Well, could we not say the same about a ham and cheese roll for example? The roll is cut in half to form two halves, but people are not saying that is not a sandwich. A hot dog satisfies the most basic conditions of a sandwich and so we should categorise it thusly.

TL;DR — It is an individual choice.

Unless someone has gone through the horrifying experience of being raped, they cannot place themselves in the victim’s or survivor’s position. It would be an understatement in the extreme to say that rape precipitates seismic change in someone’s life. It changes the way that they view themselves. As a result, individuals use different labels to describe their experience.

‘Survivor’ has become a term increasingly used because it allows the individual to reclaim their power. [Rape is fundamentally a crime of power] (https://time.com/5789032/victim-survivor-sexual-assault/). Yet, the term survivor returns the power to the individual. It can be viewed in the terms that ‘this has happened, but it is not going to break me’ (this is not a quotation but rather a way of articulating the thought process). The rapist has not broken the individual.

The use of the term survivor was seen particularly in the trial of Larry Nassar, the convicted serial rapist and sex offender, former USA Gymnastics national team doctor, former osteopathic physician, and former professor at Michigan State University College of Human Medicine. The footage of the trial (available on YouTube) sees the term ‘survivor’ used to describe each of the women who were brave enough to come forward and speak out against their abuser. Likewise, Amos Guiora’s book Armies of Enablers, which analyses the Nassar trial, exclusively uses the term survivor. Similarly, the website [Everyone’s Invited] (https://www.everyonesinvited.uk/read-testimonies-page-37) describes the accounts of rape as ‘survivor testimonies’.

However, women who have been raped [disdain] (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/15/i-disdain-the-word-survivor-michelle-bowdler-moira-donegan) the word survivor. This based on the rationale that they endured the rape rather than surviving it. ‘Victim’ meanwhile is the more accurate description of what has happened for some as they have been violated without being in fear for their life. To that end, when it comes to defining themselves in relation to their rape, some choose to use the term that best reflects their experience. This is their prerogative.

In sum, it is not a question of how ‘we’ describe people who have been raped, but rather how ‘they’ choose to describe themselves. Both labels are used and so it is our responsibility to respect the choice of each.

TL;DR — The monarchy is outdated and rendered unsustainable by the younger members of the Royal family.

Many of us will have become more aware of the disfunction of the Royal family through Netflix’s The Crown. Whilst the series should not be taken as a fact, it nevertheless reveals a family beholden to antiquated traditions and consumed by delusions of their own grandeur. However, the actual family does little to dispel these assumptions.

This is particularly apparent in the younger generation of Royals, i.e the children of the Queen. [Reports] (https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/prince-charles-is-so-high-maintenance-that-he-wont-even-put-toothpaste-on-his-own-toothbrush.html/) emerged in 2020 of the pampered lifestyle of Prince Charles. All of the accounts depicted Charles as an overly privileged man who is almost incapable of doing things for himself. This is particularly evident in the report that Charles has his aides squeeze 1 inch of toothpaste on his brush for him and also has 2 staffers dress him every day.

The entitlement does not end with the heir to the throne. If anything, it gets worse when it comes to the behaviour of Prince Andrew. Even before his disastrous Newsnight interview in 2019 over his involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, Andrew had [a reputation for entitlement] (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/11/prince-andrew-the-crown-true-life). One story that stands out is the exorbitant travel bill Andrew amassed in 2011 and 2012, amounting to nearly $500,000. Furthermore, when he went to India in 2012, Andrew refused to stay at the British High Commissioner’s luxury residence for free, preferring to stay at the expensive Maharaja Suite at the Leela Palace. All of this comes at the taxpayer’s expense.

Some will counter this by saying that Andrew and Charles are not reflective of every member of the Royal family. This argument is not unfair but the problems with the Royal family are clear. The power wielded by the monarch is limited but the taxpayers nevertheless fund the family’s life. The benefits provided by the monarchy do not match the cost of keeping them and so there needs to be real consideration over the future of the monarchy.

I see what you mean about symbolising royalty and this is indeed what their role essentially is. However, do we we not need to question whether this symbol is really necessary? Some will (correctly) point to the [income brought in by the Royal family through tourism] (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/royal-wedding-family-how-much-uk-economy-benefits-cost-meghan-markle-expense-a8345436.html).

What, I think, needs to be decided is whether the Royal family as a whole needs to be the symbol, or just the monarch her/himself. The privilege becomes less problematic when it is limited to the monarch and the heir as they are after all the most important members of the family. They are born into a lifetime of service. Whether the fringe members are deserving of similar privileges is more debatable.

TL;DR — No longer reading classical texts would mean that some of the oldest extant works are relegated to irrelevancy.

Studying and reading classical texts is an activity that has both literary and historical value. Texts such as the Iliad and the Odyssey are still studied because they contain details that continue to fascinate scholars and readers alike. For example, the expression ‘wine-dark sea’ remains a riddle that scholars have been trying to unlock for generations.

It is not just the Iliad and the Odyssey that remain relevant today. Many of us will have come across the Greek myths such as the stories of Narcissus, Theseus and the Minotaur, the Trojan horse and Oedipus. All of these originate in classical literature, with different versions found in different texts. Not only are these stories enjoyable to read, but they can also be studied with the help of literary theory. Disciplines such as feminist theory, queer theory, intertextuality and structuralism (to name a few) allow the stories to be understood in a different way. It also helps to marry aspects of the modern world with the ancient world.

Classical texts have not lost their value. They offer insight into different cultures (Plutarch’s On Sparta), are the origins of several schools of philosophical thought (Epicureanism in Lucretius's De Rerum Natura) and are the seminal works for certain genres (e.g. didactic poetry with Hesiod’s Works and Days). Literary history is incomplete without them and so we should neglect them.

TL;DR — The sheer eccentricity of Trump and his actions does little to discourage the notion that there is something wrong with Trump.

Even as he settled into the Oval Office in 2017, there were rumblings that Trump was not mentally fit to be president. If these suggestions were coming from Democrats and Trump critics, they could easily be dismissed as attempts to deride and denigrate him. However, the [suggestion] (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/09/22/is-trump-mentally-ill-or-is-america-psychiatrists-weigh-in/) came from Bandy X Lee, a forensic psychiatrist and president of the World Mental Health Coalition. Lee published the The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, in which contributors examine Trump’s behaviour. What they concluded was that Trump’s behaviour was “consistent with symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, sociopathy and other maladies.”

These views [resurfaced] (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-shared-psychosis-of-donald-trump-and-his-loyalists/) following the insurrection at the U.S Capitol on January 6 2021. The intervening 4 years did little to change the initial ‘diagnosis’ but rather served to reaffirm the psychiatrists’ conclusions. He demonstrated narcissistic, psychotic and destructive personality traits, all of which point to a mental illness.

All this said, without a psychiatrist having full access to Trump, a proper diagnosis is impossible. What can be said with greater confidence is that Trump’s behaviour is somewhat symptomatic of certain mental illnesses.

I have consciously not brought up Mary Trump’s book Too Much and Never Enough for the very reason that it is strongly coloured by the author’s relationship with Trump. This is not intended to knock Mary Trump’s abilities as a psychologist, but rather look to make a judgment on Trump’s mental health with the help of less partisan sources.

TL;DR — Liberals and conservatives will view Obama as either good or bad, but he was undoubtedly a [consequential] (https://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8849925/obama-obamacare-history-presidents) president.

Applying the labels ‘good’ and ‘bad’ to president Obama only increases partisan rancour.’ Political leanings distort our opinions of public figures, meaning we place greater stress on the successes and play down the failures of a figure we think is ‘good’. The opposite can be said for someone who is considered ‘bad’.

All of this does very little to evaluate whether Obama was a good or bad president. To that end, Obama should be measured by evaluating what happened during his presidency and how the changes which took place shaped the U.S. as we know it today.

One of the most notable achievements of the Obama administration was the passing of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare. The U.S. had long fallen in the wake of other countries when it came to offering public health insurance. Many progressive presidents before Obama (including FDR, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton) tried but they failed. Obama was the first president to establish that healthcare is a right, not a privilege.

The counter arguments to Obama being a ‘bad’ president also [include] (https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/) rescuing the economy, supported Federal recognition of same-sex marriage and nominating two women to the Supreme Court. Again, all these achievements will meet different reactions depending on political leanings. What is harder to dispute is that these achievements will have a lasting effect on the U.S. As a result, Obama must be viewed as consequential, despite the fact that views are split on whether he is good or bad.

TL;DR — By allowing hunting, we are promoting a culture that tolerates violence and treats it as a sport.

From a purely [animal rights perspective] (http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/hunting_1.shtml), there is no debate that hunting is unethical. In its most basic sense, hunting is the practice of pursuing wildlife with the ultimate aim of capturing or killing it.

It is this last aspect that allows people to question the morality of the activity because it feeds into the idea that killing animals can be classed as a sport. It is important, however, to stress that hunting does not validate killing in general, but rather develops the view that it is acceptable to kill an animal for sport.

It also cannot be ignored that animals are sentient. Accordingly, the arguments against hunting must include the fact that the hunted animal is not guaranteed a painless death. This boils down to the question of whether we should knowingly cause pain to another sentient creature.

However, perhaps the most important objection to hunting is based around the central moral tenet that it is morally wrong to kill for pleasure. To kill for pleasure by implication means that pleasure is derived from another’s suffering. So, if we allow this activity to take, surely we are creating the false perception that killing animals is acceptable? The reaction to [the killing of Cecil the lion] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33674087) suggests that many do not believe that it is acceptable. Therefore, it is challenging to morally and ethically justify hunting when it involves consciously killing a sentient creature.

TL;DR ----- Avocado toast is improved by spice, but chilli oil is better at doing this than hot sauce.

There is nothing wrong with plain avocado on toast. It is an enjoyable and convenient offering. However, this does not mean that it cannot be elevated and improved. The addition of chilli oil (the ones from Chinese supermarkets are the best in my experience) brings the avocado to life by adding a depth of flavour. If the avocado is either under or over-ripe, the added dimension of spice can remove the shortcomings.

I would also say that the just adding hot sauce does not create the best avocado toast. Other additions to consider are integrating lemon juice when mashing the avocado, dried chilli flakes, smoked paprika and hummus as an alternative to butter. This is by no means an extensive list but they are a few options to consider.

TL;DR - Religion in isolation may be a force for good, but religious institutions undermine this.

When addressing the question of whether ‘religion’ is good, it cannot be forgotten that religion is transmitted via religious institutions. This distinction underscores a particularly salient point as, when arguing that religion is not a force good, it is the religious institution that distorts and corrupts religion. Religion can help to build a sense of community, which in turn can be a source of comfort and safety for some. That said, when you closer at the institutions, the less appealing aspects appear.

Take for example the Catholic Church and its actions over child sex abuse. Dating as far back as the 1960s, the church prioritised the welfare of its priests and monks over the safety of children in their parishes. The IICSA report published in 2018 concerning the issue of sex abuse in schools attached to the English Benedictine Congregation (EBC) was a damning indictment on the institution. The details therein revealed that the methods employed mirrored those uncovered in the Boston Globe’s Spotlight investigation in the early 2000s. A complaint is filed and, rather than defrocking the priest or monk, the subject of the complaint is moved to another parish whilst little is done to address the crux of the problem.

Similar patterns of behaviour were found in another IICSA report investigating the Church of England that was published in 2020. To that end, the institution can undermine religion, meaning that it is not possible to class religion as a force for good. Were it possible for religion to be separated from the institution, then this conclusion might be different.

TL;DR - Meddling in elections would more likely damage the U.S.’s global reputation rather than hamstring Putin’s regime.

Were the US to begin to meddle in other foreign elections, it poses a risk to their desire of being a home of democracy. Trump imperilled this during his four years in office by sowing seeds of doubt in electoral integrity whilst also furthering divides in an already partisan country. It is also important to note that the way in which Russia interfered is not easily prevented. The approach taken by Russia recalled their efforts in 2016 as they exerted an online influence to amplify mistrust in the electoral process. In an overview of the report, the following was said about Russian efforts during the election cycle:

‘Russia’s efforts were marked by extensive preparation and the use of trolls, agents of influence, and American influencers of the useful-idiot variety, with messaging amplified by online proxies and Russian official media outlets.’

Although the proxies employed by Russia can be identified, preventing the wider spread of the misinformation complicates the process of protecting the election. Once the information has become available online, even if it is only for a short period of time, it will be seen by users. Then it is just a question of how far it spreads before it can be removed.

Russia was also not alone in interfering with the US election in 2020 as the NIA found that China, Iran, Lebanese Hizballah, Cuba and Venezuela all carried out cyber operations. Although this happened with varying degrees of success, it nevertheless points to an issue that is plaguing the US electoral system. Surely their priority should be to ensure the safety of their own election rather than meddle in others.

I do think it is an important takeaway that, by meddling in elections, the US would be aligning itself with countries who do not have the same understanding of democracy. Just see Putin’s latest legislation which allows him to serve another two terms. To that end, were the US discovered to be engaging in election interference, it would undermine their reputation that they are trying to rehabilitate in the post-Trump era.

TL;DR - Kane has already established himself as Spurs' best player.

For any Arsenal fan reading this, the idea that Tottenham can even have a ‘greatest player’ is absurd. Think Jack Wilshere’s chant after the FA Cup win in 2015.

Arsenal and Jack Wilshere aside, Tottenham has had some stellar players over the years, such as Gary Lineker, Jimmy Greaves, Glenn Hoddle, Paul Gascoigne, Ledley King and Gareth Bale to name a few. Harry Kane, however, is in a prime position to be the best player Tottenham has ever had. By the statistics alone, Kane has had an incredible career thus far. In 328 games for Spurs, Kane has scored 217 goals (second only to Jimmy Greaves’s 266) whilst contributing 46 assists.

The goals themselves are impressive but Kane is developing into more than just a goal scorer. This season in the Premier League, he leads the league with 13 assists, ahead of assist kings Bruno Fernandes and Kevin De Bruyne. At the same time, Kane is also leading the race for the Golden Boot, an award he won in 2015/16 and 2016/17.

The loyalty Kane has shown to Spurs also gives the edge in the argument for being Spurs greatest ever player. Although he has benefitted from playing alongside Son Heung-min, Kane has almost singlehandedly driven Spurs to recent success. The last few years have seen some of the best teams in Premier League history in Manchester City (2017-19 and the 2020/21 team) and Liverpool (2018-20). During this time, Spurs have played in the Champions League 4 times, including scoring 5 goals en route to the 2018/19 final where they fell to Liverpool.

Ultimately, Kane’s Spurs legacy will either be tarnished or bolstered by trophies. If he can guide Spurs to a trophy, then his legacy will be further cemented. If he is unable to do so, and this will be the fault of the team, not Kane, he will still leave Spurs as likely their greatest ever goalscorer and a club legend.

It is perhaps overly sweeping to say that boarding schools are abusive and create a love-less environment. For some, boarding school is something they will treasure as they make friends for life and enjoy the gold standard in education.

That said, boarding schools fail a large number of pupils in a supportive environment which caters to difference. Their inflexibility and devotion to tradition can create an intimidating atmosphere that can crush those who do not wish to conform to the school’s vision for their pupils. The words many will hear during their time at a boarding school are ‘muck in’. This dictum points to an inability to distinguish the needs of different pupils. Instead, they force pupils to conform to their vision.

These issues can be exacerbated by the boarding house system which is often hierarchical. When a collection of teenagers live in the same building, a sink-or-swim world develops. It is a popularity contest and those who win will likely enjoy their boarding school experience. Conversely, the others can be ostracised or subjected to inescapable ridicule which is explained away by the expression ‘banter’.

This may appear to be hearsay, but studies have shown the long-lasting impact an unhappy boarding school experience can have. Joy Schaverien published Boarding School Syndrome: The Psychological Trauma of the 'privileged' Child which details the traumatic experiences of individuals at boarding schools. Schaverien describes how a child who is trapped in the ruthless boarding school regime will feel like a captive. All aspects of their life are scheduled, with little autonomy. This is not to compare a boarding school, a bastion of privilege, to a prison. However, for those who are unhappy, boarding school becomes a bubble that is inescapable and almost claustrophobic.

These statements could be read as the whinings of an overly privileged child who is exaggerating their experience. Naturally, this can be true but to say that it is the norm is to dismiss the experiences of others. If Schaverien’s book is examined properly, the long term mental health effects are stark and often chronic. This is not hyperbole but tangible.

Therefore, boarding schools are not always abusive and love-less. That said, they can be, which is why the statement ‘boarding schools are abusive and create a love-less atmosphere’ must be recognised as having some truth to it.

*Disclaimer: The views expressed above are reflective of the writer’s own experience, so please respect this.