My Thoughts on the European Migrant Crisis

The so called refugee 'crisis' over the summer months has been a hotly contested issue both by various governments and media outlets. The scale of the issue may have been blown out of proportion, but there is no doubt that the increasing number of refugees entering EU land is a significant issue that needs addressing. The actual facts and figures over the situation may have been taken out of context by many biased sources, but the fact is that a large number of immigrants are trying to apply for asylum in Western Europe, with 50% coming from the civil war in Syria. With conflicts such as this not likely to cease in the near future the media and public opinion has been divided into multiple fronts, with right wing activists claiming that Europe cannot handle the influx of a dependent population, and the left wing stating that richer powers need to protect these immigrants from countries with woeful human rights records. Whatever your personal stance there is the united opinion that something needs to be done, as with the increase in immigrants comes some very serious consequences.

It should be added that Britain hasn't had to deal with a large number of migrants at this time. Countries such as Germany are taking in a large proportion of the immigrants, but Britain has only had to face 1% of the total refugees at the Calais border crossing. Fewer still are being given access to Britain's welfare system, so this certainly isn't a domestic crisis, only one for the EU in general to take action on. In comparison Lebanon, who neighbour Syria, have taken in 1.2 million Syrians into refugee camps, which is fifty times higher than the whole of Europe. I will accept that the situation in Lebanon is a crisis, but not one for Eurocentric politics. You can hardly blame migrants for wanting to leave their war torn countries in order to travel to more desirable locations with more generous welfare systems. I know newspapers such as 'The Daily Mail' don't have the ability to empathise with any rational human beings, and so at no point should the blame be put onto migrants or their families who have no intention of stealing from their new homes, only wanting security and a future for their families.

 The statistics clearly state that this is only a crisis for a small number of countries in Central Europe. Britain is not one of those countries.

In terms of trying to solve the problem I believe the EU and Western nations are going about the issue in totally the wrong manner. To target a problem such as the refugee crisis we must look at the source, and as half of the refugees originate from the civil war in Syria that's a good place to begin. Stopping a civil war is an almost impossible task, but the bigger issue is that European powers are unlikely to fund huge campaigns that won't benefit them. The probability of any large scale campaign being funded by the EU is unlikely, and that's a shame considering the one thing a country in a civil war needs is stability. Contrary to what the media are saying the sole source of stability in Syria for many years has been dictator Bashar al-Assad, who I did claim was one of the worst politicians of all time, but unfortunately the only hope Syria has for any chance of stability in the near future. When he was in power the rate of Syrian migrants was substantially lower, and it's only because of nations trying to overthrow the dictator that this migrant crisis has escalated.

In a way the resulting migrant crisis has been caused by Western nations themselves. By failing to recognise al-Assad as the leader of Syria they have inadvertently waged a war that threatens to dramatically affect the European economy. This is made worse by the fact that both the EU and USA are funding militant rebels that are only causing the problems to escalate even further. These rebels may wish for democracy, but they are in no way a long term solution, and we've seen this lack of stability with similar projects in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. If Western nations keep funding rebels then there will continue to be refugees; that's the price that Western nations have to weigh up if they continue to fund armies that claim to be for democracy. I know Syria is only one of the countries that the many refugees originate from but if this one nation reduces the number of immigrants by 50% then I would say that would be solving the root of the problem. If this really is a crisis then that 50% could make all the difference.

You can't blame the refugees for wanting to move out of their war torn countries, and a ceasefire in Syria could be a way to reduce that process of emigration.

Interestingly my logic is also the one shared by Russia, who the media like to portray as the evil power threatening global instability. They may have pissed off the US and many Western nations by funding and arming anyone loyal to al-Assad, but surely that solution is quite rightly the quickest way to solve the ongoing Syrian civil war. Russia have even set up refugee camps inside the affected areas of Syria and providing funding to protect the local civilians. In essence Russia have so far been the only nation to try and and actively combat the crisis by containing the situation and at least preventing some civilians from moving into mainland Europe. You wouldn't know it from the media, but so far the most humanitarian solution has come from the Russian government, and it's a far more logical and ingenious solution than trying to wage wars for the sake of petty democracy. In my opinion the Russians have started a much more sustainable method of helping foreigners rather than granting them asylum, and if this situation is to be solved anytime soon then other countries must join them in this campaign.

 Are these camps a sustainable way to house migrants? Absolutely not, but they are the best temporary solution in a problem that unfortunately isn't likely to go away anytime soon.

If I'm being honest I don't believe that countries should be forced into taking masses of migrants if their own economies cannot take the strain. Being granted asylum is a privilege and not a right, and just because a few left wing activists have pressurised the government into accepting more migrants, doesn't mean that this is a positive move for any party involved. It's certainly not a sustainable long term solution, and by simply bowing down to the demands of masses of migrants the EU is simply going to encourage more immigrants to make their way into Europe. There is already a lot of tension between natives and migrants, so surely the best place for these refugees is back in their home countries. I know that sounded a bit UKIP, but European countries cannot realistically deal with a mass movement of so many asylum seekers, especially when the economy isn't exactly thriving. This is why development is so important in countries such as Syria, and this is why the current civil war must be stopped as quickly as possible. That's a huge ask, but one that Russia has already shown is a realistic ambition if the EU bothered to think logically about the situation.

Top 10 Superhero Portrayals

Comic book films have taken off in recent years, and with the increased amount of revenue from each film comes the increased pressure of casting. If done correctly an actor can elevate the status of a superhero to new heights, and this list is ten of those achievements that sometimes produce groundbreaking results.

#10 Hugh Jackman (Wolverine)

There's no denying that the character Wolverine has always been one of the most awesome superheroes in the 'X-Men' franchise. The problem is that with an awesome character comes a big task of finding the right guy to play such an iconic role. There are not many men who can successfully pull off the role of an indestructible mutant, but still come across as powerful despite not saying a lot; and Hugh Jackman fits into this role perfectly. By no means is Jackman the world's greatest actor, but he knows how to take a knock and dish out a lot of pain. His chiseled and slightly brutal look compliment Wolverine's character, and the result is a man who looks like a freak, yet becomes a handsome figure that is in some ways desirable. You still wouldn't want to meet the guy on a dark night, but you can't help but think Wolverine would be a great mate down the pub.

It has to be said that not many people agreed with me when Jackman was originally cast for the role in the 2000 film, so it's nice to see that his recent performances have convinced the majority of people that this surprise candidate was the right man for the job. He's more than just some generic thug, and actually rather awesome when the pace gets too fast for the more conventional actors. It's because of this that Jackman has become a hit with comic book fans and has reprised the role of Wolverine on seven different occasions since 2000. Over that time he's given Wolverine that lovable antihero role that he's always needed, making him into more than just a comic book icon.


#9 Ron Perlman (Hellboy)

On this list are a lot of chiseled men that look great with tight fitting clothing on. Hellboy is not one of these characters, and that allows Hollywood to try the role of a superhero with a more mature actor. That's good news for Ron Pearlman, who in real life looks a bit like the missing link between humans and apes, and so thankfully gets hidden under a ton of makeup that make a fictional demon very realistic to watch. However the role of Hellboy is a lot more complex than a few hours of makeup; it's a role that needs a character to shine through all that artificial bollocks and give the reader an impersonation of a respectable human being. Perlman may have an unusual physique, but his acting skills and screen presence allow him to perfectly compliment the character that Hellboy should be. Perlman owns the role, giving his character a much needed personality whilst still looking like he belongs in each scene where everything blows up.


#8 Chris Hemsworth (Thor)

I don't exactly approve of Marvel using the namesake of a Norse god for a comic book character as I feel it shits on a deep cultural heritage that would never translate itself into a superhero. I was even less pleased with the casting choice of Chris Hemsworth as Thor due to the fact that he's a dreadful actor that has only caught my attention when playing the role of James Hunt in 'Rush'. However despite speaking in an Australian accent and plodding around the set like he has no idea where he is, Hemsworth eventually worked at playing a Norse god, and by that I don't mean he looks a bit Norwegian. On the surface Hemsworth was a poor choice, but in retrospect this man surprised us all, and there is no doubt in my mind that it was the right decision to hire this guy despite him not being a classically trained actor. Watching him in 'The Avengers' films it's clear that Hemsworth has the looks and personality to make an immortal god of war actually quite cool. I know things that are vintage are supposed to be trendy now, but I think we should still give credit to Hemsworth for making it work with a man who's thousands of years old.


#7 Chloe Grace Moretz (Hit Girl)

I don't understand how, but for some reason an eleven year old girl managed to become the action hero in a film that she wasn't legally allowed to watch. Moretz looked like a veteran actor when she played the mature Hit Girl role in the 2010 film 'Kick Ass'. Not only did Moretz give a well rounded performance, but she even managed to stand out from a cast of actors that really should be acting circles around this rookie. I don't know whether it was the unique personality or the fact that this eleven year old girl said 'cunt' a lot, but Moretz ends up laying a more convincing superhero role than some of the buff men on this list. I'm just amazed at how this young girl molded into a difficult role, taking a fast paced action hero as if it was just another role. It really is an indication of the talent this actress possesses in unfortunately a role that many comic book fans like to overlook.


#6 Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man)

If there was ever a better way to revive a career of a man who had suffered legal troubles in recent times then I would like to know about it. I don't know what genius decided that Robert Downey Jr. would make a brilliant eccentric billionaire, but whoever they are deserves a standing ovation. You sir are the reason that comic book heroes are now big business in films, and recent phenomenons such as 'The Avengers' all stemmed from this decision to cast Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. Nobody pays attention to Downey's other various roles as he simply is Iron Man. He fits the role perfectly, and has arguably become a bigger attraction than that iconic suit, which is something never managed in the comic books.

I suppose the reason that Downey Jr. fits the Iron Man role so well is because the character he portrays ends up mirroring his personal life, and so fitting into the role was an easy thing to do. The results are a relateable performance that is entirely believable, even at times making the viewer think that Downey Jr. has at some point in his life tried to make a real life Iron Man costume. Maybe the eccentric attitude of the character came to Downey Jr. when he was high on drugs, but you get the sense that the role of Tony Stark has always been in his locker, and watching him is like looking at a small kid in a sweet shop. Robert Downey Jr. is now one of the biggest earners in Hollywood, and for that he can thank this now iconic role. Not only did this decision revive the carer of one actor, but also that of an entire franchise.


#5 Wesley Snipes (Blade)

'Blade' is one of the most badass films in history, and the only way you can find a man to play the protagonist is by finding a man that is also one badass motherfucker. For Wesley Snipes becoming an ass kicking vampire slayer isn't to difficult when you have a black belt in karate and a huge screen presence. Snipes' stoic performance is exactly what was needed to take the comic book franchise into the mature audiences that 'Blade' targets. Killing vampires in the most gory ways possible has never been so fun to watch, and thanks to Snipes became a cult smash that encouraged 'Marvel' to start focusing on other comic book inspired projects. Of course we all know how that turned out, and so we can call Snipes the grandfather of the comic book protagonist. Unfortunately for Snipes he ended up in prison until 2013 due to not paying his income tax, but even so this cutting edge, silky smooth black guy will always be remembered for that unique and thoroughly enjoyable performance in 'Blade'.


#4 Michael Keaton (Batman)

Everyone likes to bang on about how good Christian Bale was in the recent 'Batman' trilogy, but in terms of actual performances as 'The Caped Crusader' the best has to go to Michael Keaton. Keaton gave Batman that gritty realism that a conflicted character needs, and he also knows how to deliver lines without mumbling or shouting his way through entire scenes. Although Bale is a good actor, he is under no circumstances ever going to fit into a role that originated in a comic book. Keaton does. Keaton can contrast effortlessly between being a believable hero and a casual citizen, without resorting to the pointless bravado that we shouldn't be seeing in a dark character. The Batman I remember from the comic books is the one played by Keaton and not by Bale.

Putting Bale comparisons aside, Keaton's role is incredibly believable. You can actually see that this conflicted character has seen both his parents killed, resorting in him fighting crime with a passion. In my opinion Keaton is one of the few actors that could have given Batman that dark edge back, and that he did; even before the likes of George Clooney got their filthy hands on the role of Batman. Despite his skill, Keaton was actually a very unpopular choice for Batman considering that he specialises in comedy films. Thankfully for viewers Keaton's transformation worked a treat, and the results are some great films before being eventually replaced by the inferior Val Kilmer. When comparing the quality of Batman films that include Kilmer and Keaton it becomes instantly apparent what actor was more fitting to play a dark and mature Batman.


#3 Patrick Stewart (Professor X)

This is how you give a serious Shakesperean actor the role he finally deserves in the sci-fi universe. I'm pretty confident the majority of people will still only remember Stewart from 'Star Trek', and not only is that unfortunate but it's also ignoring a much more suitable and well played role. When you look at the wider picture you can only ever see one man playing Professor Charles Francis Xavier as not only do they look identical, but they also have similar personalities as well. Thankfully for Stewart, Professor X is the best character he's played by a mile, and because Stewart is also a mighty fine actor he didn't exactly have to try hard to successfully pull off playing the leader of the 'X-Men'. Stewart has that iconic presence and rich English accent that allow him to dominate scenes by making any piece of dialogue much grander than it ever needs to be. Professor X needed an actor that can compromise between charming and authoritative, and Stewart was just the man they needed for the role.   


#2 Adam West (Batman)

Superheroes nowadays have to have a dark and violent storyline in order to carry their rather one dimensional cast. On the other side of the spectrum is Adam West's portrayal of Batman, in which the man managed to nail that camp superhero role that came with the film being produced in the 1970's. Some will say it's downright cringeworthy; and it is, although mainly the role requires a charismatic and entertaining talent to have any chance of working. Some will say that a lighthearted superhero film will never have that chance of working, but for me superheroes always work best when they're quirky. West looks like he actually originates from a comic strip, with good old fashioned fun always being at the centre of saving the universe. It's a hard role to pull off, and certainly one that actors such as George Clooney have failed at before. However when these entertaining performances are nailed they have lasting impacts, and although not all are positive, they do in my opinion create performances that are closest to their fictional counterparts. 


#1 Christopher Reeve (Superman)

When you think about superheroes there is always that one that stands out from the rest. This can certainly be said for the movie industry where Superman has dominated since his arrival in the 1970's. Christopher Reeve's performance in particular has become so iconic that it not only made the character he portrayed famous worldwide, but also inspired a whole genre as well. There have been many attempts since, but nobody can save the world in some pants like Reeve did. It really was a genre defining performance that gave audiences no doubt that nobody other than Reeve should ever take this famous role. In a way this role made the legendary career of Reeve, and ever since people have viewed the guy as a suave and muscular hero that put a lot of charm into an unpopular genre. Reeve put together a perfect balance of charisma and sophistication to excel at this role, and whilst we'll forget about the third and fourth films, we will always remember the original, unforgettable performance as one for the ages.

Should Abortions Be Banned?

Abortion has become a hotly debated topic in recent years with religious and political pressure on both sides of the argument being almost entirely divided. Whole divisions of people are constantly debating whether it's morally acceptable to terminate the life of an unborn fetus, and if the rights of this fetus should be held over the rights of women and their bodies. The argument has become such a huge issue in countries such as the USA that anti abortion groups have been known to inflict violence upon those who are pro abortion, becoming an entirely separate issue known as 'anti abortion violence'. Ironically it's this anti abortion violence that has become the most dangerous practice in the entire process, with the majority of abortions requiring simple medicinal drugs or surgical procedures if the fetus has been carried by the mother for a certain period of time. Abortions are one of the simplest and safest medical procedures, and as a result there were 44 million abortions in total for the whole of last year, although this has been a decreasing figure since the 1980's.

As someone of a libertarian mindset I don't believe the government should be allowed to dictate what a woman does with her body unless there are any proven health benefits or disadvantages for that certain issue. As there is no overwhelming evidence to suggest that abortions are harmful to the population I can't honestly see the issue in continuing to legalise the process, especially when changing the law would dictate the lives of everyday women. There will be some who argue that it should be the fetus that has the right to decide whether it lives and not the mother, but as the unborn child is essentially a parasite relying on the mother at this stage of its life, it should be the decision of the mother whether or not to terminate the baby. Some will say that aborting a baby is just another form of murder, but surely that would be like claiming that people who refuse to donate organs are murderers since they have the ability to keep a human organism alive, yet refuse to out of personal satisfaction. That's not to say I don't value the life of an unborn fetus; only that I value the rights of the mother more.

To many a fetus should be given the same rights as the mother, since after all they are both human organisms that should both be given human treatment. But to be given human rights an organism has to be considered a person. It's simply not acceptable in this argument to state that a fetus should be considered a person since it has a soul, a theoretical construct that becomes an invalid point in a very real argument. Another hypothetical point often cited is that the child could end up becoming a revolutionary person such as Cher, Celine Dion and Justin Bieber, whose mothers were all considering having an abortion; although in these three cases that would have been a good thing. In this argument we need to look at the facts, and what is a fact is that fetuses are not considered part of the population, are not counted on any national censuses, and don't have the ability to be autonomous organisms. A person is considered aged one not one year after conception, but one year after they have exited the womb. Society and the law evidently doesn't treat fetuses as human beings, so why should that be any different in the abortion argument?

Obviously I wouldn't advocate a procedure that tortured the fetus for a prolonged period of time, but despite what some people believe abortions are not considered to be a harmful process. Research from the American Medical Association found that fetuses do not experience pain until six months into pregnancy, although due to pain being a subjective feature of the human body this claim has been widely disputed. For example pro life campaigner and former doctor Bernard N. Nathanson claimed that he could see the babies silently screaming on ultrasound scans during an abortion, and whilst this isn't exactly a reliable source, it is at least valid evidence that disputes the claim that fetuses cannot feel pain during abortions. This is an unlikely scenario in countries such as the UK where the majority of abortions are undertaken with general anesthetic, meaning pain isn't even a factor in the debate. I understand that this cannot be the case in less developed countries where common drugs are more scarce, but it does suggest that in the developed world the argument of pain shouldn't need to be a consideration in this complex argument.

The main issue I have with banning the process of abortion is that women who are desperate for abortions will be forced to have illegal abortions. Admittedly banning abortions would almost certainly force couples to use abortions as another method of contraception, but would also increase the number of unprofessional abortions that are statistically proven to be much more dangerous than their medical counterparts. The WHO reports that 47,000 people die each year from unsafe abortions, with the majority unsurprisingly occurring in countries where aborting babies is illegal. In reality abortions should theoretically be a safer option than giving birth to a child with a 2012 study in 'Obstetrics & Gynecology' stating that the rate of death from abortions in the USA was 0.6 out of 100,000, as opposed to 8.8 out of 100,000 for giving birth. That's a fourteen times increase, and one that can be replicated by any country if abortions are promoted by the government as an acceptable method of dealing with offspring.

Another flaw that I find with the anti abortion argument is that it doesn't seem just to me that a woman who becomes pregnant from failed contraceptives, rape, or even incest should not be allowed an abortion even when it wasn't the victims fault. The idea that a woman should always give birth even if the baby is unwanted or unable to survive is absurd, yet the fetus is apparently a viable person that cannot be aborted thanks to a blanket ban. Giving birth is a very traumatic process that has huge life changing consequences, and so it doesn't seem fair if the mother is unwilling to have the child. I find the anti abortion argument a huge generalisation that doesn't take into account the individual circumstances a family may face that may result in them not adequately providing for the child. I know from first hand experience that caring for a mentally disabled child is an experience that not every family will be capable of, especially if the family has limited financial resources available to them. Not only is that not fair on the family, but it's not fair for a child to come into the world unwanted. You have to ask yourself whether decades of mistreatment is a better option than a quick painless death. I know that if the child is unwanted then it could be put up for adoption, and in fact there is a decrease in the number of children for adoption in countries such as the USA, but why should a mother be forced to go through childbirth, only for the result to be snatched away from her? Adoption should always be a privilege, not a right, and certainly shouldn't force women into dictating what they do with their bodies.

To conclude I not only think that abortion should remain legal, but actually promoted and subsidised by the government to allow the general population a safe alternative should they fall into pregnancy issues. Whether or not a woman does choose to exercise her right to have an abortion is not up to the government or the general population, and her rights shouldn't be affected by whatever their views are on the subject. Abortions don't affect anti abortion campaigners, and so they have no idea what the mother or family are going through in an issue that varies from person to person. Although I have expressed my support for abortions I would like to add that under no circumstances should they be used as a form of contraception, and surgery should only be a last resort. However abortions are a necessary method for women to control their bodies and life choices that should never be restricted.  

Top 10 Fictional Serial Killers

If I'm being brutally honest I find the inner workings of serial killers fascinating. I find delving into the mind of real life's most brutal killers enthralling, but analysing the lives of fictional killers is another step up. Serial killers have been the centrepiece for many films over the years, and so I thought I would count down the ten greatest characters that create gripping and tense plots by simply murdering a great number of people. A warning that there may be some spoilers present in this article, so don't complain you haven't been told.

#10 Francis Dolarhyde (Red Dragon)

A fucked up man from the pretty fucked up 'Red Dragon' novel that began literature's obsession with the evil Dr. Hannibal Lecter; but more on him later. Francis Dolarhyde was a character inspired by the real life 'BTK Killer', who if you research will discover did some unspeakable atrocities to a great number of victims. For Dolarhyde to be worse than a man described as 'Bind. Torture. Kill' he has to have done some disturbing things on camera. In actual fact Dolarhyde, or 'The Tooth Fairy' as he's commonly known, is most notable for owning a set of razor sharp false teeth that he uses to bite into his victims after shooting them when they're asleep, sometimes even propping up a few corpses to watch him whilst he eats them alive. Obviously he does this at nighttime, hence why he's known as 'The Tooth Fairy'.

The motive for these actions is that Dolarhyde has an alternate personality, which he calls 'The Great Red Dragon'. Dolarhyde lifted this idea from a William Blake painting he saw, and since that day has been killing innocent people to become more like 'The Red Dragon' he idolises. Dolarhyde's most famous portrayal comes from the 2002 film 'Red Dragon', in which he was portrayed by Ralph Fiennes. The film itself wasn't too bad, but was highlighted by Fiennes' portrayal of this complex madman. Fiennes was fucking scary as Dolarhyde, and reminded me of a certain Anthony Hopkins performance that we will get to later on.


#9 Mike McKay (Death Proof)

A typical Quentin Tarantino creation, so you instantly know he's not going to be anything other than a homicidal maniac. 'Stuntman Mike' originates from the 'Death Proof' film that I personally feel deserved a lot more credit than it received by critics, who seemed to miss the point of the film entirely. The idea of a stunt driver who murders innocent women for pleasure is an original concept that warrants a lot of praise in my opinion, especially when the leading antagonist is integrated as excellently as Tarantino integrates Mike in this said film. 'Stuntman Mike' commonly stalks women, taking them for a ride in his stunt car that he describes as "100% death proof". Unfortunately the victims aren't aware that this rule only applies to his seat, and before long the young women end up going through the windscreen. Getting pleasure from killing young women isn't exactly anything revolutionary, but Kurt Russell's portrayal in the 2007 film makes up for this with an obscure performance that perfectly encapsulates any guy with a weird fetish. That's not to say that 'Stuntman Mike' is good at his work; in fact he ends up being beaten to death by some potential victims. So a quick end to a pretty gruesome life story.


#8 George Harvey (The Lovely Bones)

The rapist and murderer of protagonist Susie Salmon and many other young girls in the 2002 novel and 2009 film 'The Lovely Bones'. On the outside George is a kind man who builds dollhouses for a living, but on the inside he's a twisted man who lures young girls into underground bunkers so he can stab them with a knife. The girls then all end up at the same spot in heaven for some reason, but that's irrelevant to the character in question. What is relevant to George's character is the way he dies, which I do think is very bizarre. George dies when a random icicle falls on his head after trying to lure another girl into his home. He subsequently falls over and breaks ALL the bones in his body, dying a cold and painful death. I'm not quite sure why nobody bothered to help him, or how this ridiculous scenario ever came about, but like many things in the film, this critical element is never explained properly.

But the thing that really confused me about this very powerful character is how the film ends up making him seem like the good guy even though he enjoys murdering girls. The film essentially suggests that by murdering Susie Salmon, this man helps to cement the relationships in Susie's dysfunctional family, and also allow Susie to end up in a place of eternal happiness. At no point does the viewer ever get a sense of the negative effects that transpire from the loss of life, and so for what must be the first time I can say that a child molester has to be viewed as the good guy in a very twisted film. Why the fuck would director Peter Jackson aim to ruin an evil character like this by celebrating the fact that he's a murdering bastard?


#7 Dexter Morgan (Dexter)

The titular antihero from a series of books by author Jeff Lindsay, but most famous for appearing in the highly successful US TV show in which actor Michael C. Hall has received Golden Globe awards for his portrayal of this serial killer. Dexter is a forensic analyst who works at the Miami Police Department, spending the odd evening killing strangers that have broken the law, which must make suicide a very real option in this character's future. Like the majority of serial killers Dexter has a mantra he sticks too, but unlike the majority of serial killers Dexter has to have conclusive evidence that the target is guilty of a crime before murdering them and disposing of the evidence, with all remains of his involvement being destroyed.

Dexter is one of the more prolific killers on this list, with his death count thought to be over a hundred victims. Despite this you still end up treating the character like an antihero, and Hall's extraordinary performance makes Dexter a despicable character with a borderline pleasant persona. This diverse characterisation becomes an integral part of the plot, creating a killer so instantly likable, yet repulsive at the same time. The character has had such an effect on American society that there has even been multiple murder cases where Dexter is thought to have been the inspiration. That's a rather dark truth to compliment a character on, but it's also a testament to the power that this fictional creation has over its audience.


#6 Patrick Bateman (American Psycho)

The narrator and antihero of the graphic 'American Psycho'. The role of Bateman has become culturally iconic in recent years thanks to the performance of a young Christian Bale, who at that time was not mumbling his way through a trilogy of Batman films. However the very similarly named Bateman also lives a similar double life to that of Batman, only that Batman isn't really a homicidal maniac in his spare time; but that's debatable. In his everyday life Patrick Bateman is an investment banker obsessed with health and cleanliness, only becoming a serial killer to fulfill his fantasy of becoming the most lethal killer in history. In the films Bateman isn't that far off of that title, and especially loves picking on his colleagues, the homeless and prostitutes. Whether this character is a satirical symbol of 1980's greed and culture is debatable, but under this sophisticated persona is a character instantly relateable, making the brutal murders under his name all the more shocking.

The novel in which the same named film is based off was so disturbing that it was actually banned in Canada and Germany, and that's not surprising considering that Bateman enjoys eating and having sex with his victims after brutally slaying them. The actual character is taken to a whole new level when you consider that the only way we can try and understand the mind of this sadistic man is through only his words, and so whilst we can see the trail of destruction he creates, we as a viewer still cannot comprehend what goes on inside that twisted mind. That for me is the most disturbing thing about this character, becoming just as mysterious even after the credits have started to roll. As a character to analyse Bateman is one of the most fascinating in film, but his actions as a notorious serial killer are the ones that will be remembered.


#5 Leatherface (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre)

Undoubtedly the most iconic member of the serial killing family that run havoc in 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. Thanks to his legendary mask and chainsaw this rather dull character has managed to kill and eat his way into cinema history, despite only disposing of one person in his original outing. Thanks to 'Leatherface' and his appearance in a small budget film viewers now have a whole slasher genre to thank this inspirational creation for. Admittedly his appearances in the more recent entrants in the franchise have not given this guy's public image a boost, but there's no denying his iconic heritage, which is the main reason why he ranks as my top horror serial killer.

'Leatherface' is often considered to be the main antagonist of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' films, and although not the head of his murderous inbred family, is still present in all the films. In each entry in the franchise he takes the role of a pawn that doesn't speak, becoming a social outcast that has taken the lives of 30 fictional people, with the majority only happening because he's told to. The worst thing about the guy in my mind is that he doesn't really have a motive, only sawing limbs off people when his inbred family tell him to. The disturbing truth behind this creation is that the iconic leather face is made out of human skin, which is made worse by the fact that this feature is based off of the true story of serial killer Ed Gein, who wanted an item that would remind him of his mother. It isn't clear what Leatherface's motive is, but there's no doubt that the inspiration behind the character is actually more disturbing.


#4 Jame Gumb (Silence of the Lambs)

The antagonist, yet not the best known character from 'The Silence of the Lambs'. Gumb is known as 'Buffalo Bill' in the 1991 classic, being portrayed by the talented actor Ted Levine. The thing that separates Gumb from other serial killers is that he has an obsession with overweight women, skinning them alive to make a woman suit for himself as he believes he is transsexual. Due to not being mentally healthy Gumb is prevented from having the operation by the government and so takes the law into his own hands by trapping overweight women in a well where he leaves them to starve until their skin is loose enough to remove. I know, fucking disgusting. Eventually he's shot by Jodie Foster's character with the help of another man that might be making an appearance further down this list. Despite not being the best remembered character from the 1991 film, there is no denying that Gumb is one sick and twisted individual.


#3 John Doe (Se7en)

John Doe is the name given to a person whose identity is unknown, which really tells you a lot about this mysterious character from the gripping thriller 'Se7en'. He's not a character that's particularly frightening, but the heinous crimes this obscene man commits are disgusting to say the least. Doe, who was portrayed by Kevin Spacey, only makes his surprise entrance near the climax of the film, and so to become a legendary character when you only appear in a small portion of the film says a lot about Spacey's performance. It's a performance that I would certainly say was Spacey's all time best, and combine this with the superb script and excellent pacing and you have a powerful character that brings to life a very disturbing and graphic film.

However the thing that's most poignant about Doe's character is how cool and calm he is towards his heinous crimes. The intelligence of the serial killer creates an eery atmosphere that can only be achieved by watching a mastermind reveling in his dearly held motive to kill people. Doe subjects his victims to both physical and mental torture to reenact the seven deadly sins of Christianity that the character believes still apply in the modern world. Anyone who knows about these sins will know that they involve some harsh crimes, inspiring Doe to force people to eat themselves to death and mutilating corpses whilst they're having sex. Doe really is one of the most fucked up characters in cinema history, and I can only urge you to watch the thrilling conclusion of this well worked film to truly showcase what a disturbed and manipulative individual we're talking about here. It's one of the most suspenseful moments I've ever encountered, and will no doubt send shivers down your entire body.


#2 Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs)

I've often stated that Anthony Hopkins' performance as the evil Dr. Hannibal Lecter is one of the greatest performances of all time. The extent that Hopkins makes his subject as believable as possible is just extraordinary to watch, allowing his character to become genuinely terrifying. Lecter is quite possibly the ultimate movie villain, which is an amazing feat considering that in reality the character is actually part of the supporting cast, and not the main antagonist of the plot. Over the years the iconic role of the evil doctor has been taken up by many inspiring actors that include such names as Brian Cox. Cox put in a good performance, but Lecter will always be remembered as a cultural icon thanks to a certain Anthony Hopkins. Never before has a conversation about a man eating his victims alive become so interesting and compelling, and that's thanks to Hopkins turning an ordinary character into a charismatic powerhouse. That calculated stare alone can easily haunt your dreams, and so it's no surprise that this role has become symbolic for the role of serial killers in film.


#1 Norman Bates (Psycho)

The number one spot on this list goes to the character that was made famous by the legendary Anthony Perkins performance, and certainly not the half-assed Vince Vaughan copycat in the remake that made a mockery out of this character. Norman Bates is a crazed killer obsessed with his mother throughout his life, even dressing up as her on the odd occasion. For this reason Bates enjoys stabbing women who threaten to take over from his mother as the dominant woman in his life. He sees these women as sinful, and so naturally rectifies this by stabbing them in the shower, or anywhere near the haunted Bates' Motel. The worst part of this story is that his mother isn't actually alive, having been murdered by Norman when she brought a man home with her, only leaving her mummified corpse in the basement to keep him company. An Oedipus complex taken to the extreme from a seemingly innocent lad that you would never believe could commit these atrocities.

Norman would go on to become an even more prolific serial killer in the various sequels, but it's Perkins' performance in the original classic that cements the character in the top spot. In my mind Perkins takes the role of a serial killer to another sinister level that none of the other creations on this list manage, taking a realistic approach that you could physically believe. Director Alfred Hitchcock took the role of an innocent boy next door and turned it into an evil human being, creating a revolutionary and disturbing character in a revolutionary and disturbing film. Perkins may have unfortunately died of AIDS in 1992, but the effects from this deranged psychopath on serial killers have shaped cinema to this very day.

Should Homosexuals Be Allowed to Donate Blood?

The possibility of homosexuals being allowed to donate blood varies from country to country, but still remains a controversial issue for each nation. The reason that homosexuals are often not allowed to give blood is a precautionary step that limits the chance of donated blood containing blood-borne diseases that include HIV and hepatitis to be transferred from patient to patient. Statistics show that blood-borne diseases are mostly prevalent in the Western World through unprotected male on male sex, and so the ban on blood donations does not include lesbians and people in heterosexual relationships. Many homosexuals call these restrictions an act of homophobia to exclude gay people from donating their own blood, a view they feel is outdated in modern society, especially when blood reserves are constantly running low. The law in the UK states that a man has to declare that he has not had unprotected sex with a man in the last year after the 2011 law change, as well as other activities labelled 'high risk'. However in countries such as the USA, Germany and Ireland, it's still illegal for gay men to donate blood, whatever their lifestyle choices, which makes this a pressing issue for a world with a now liberal attitude towards homosexuality.

The primary reason why homosexuals have been prevented from giving blood is to reduce the risk of transmitting common blood-borne diseases like HIV and hepatitis. Obviously if diseases as serious as those were to enter national blood banks then the cost would be catastrophic to say the least, which is why governments are so unwilling to let homosexuals potentially contaminate their already limited supply. An outright ban seemed the right solution when the world knew very little about the HIV virus, but now science has progressed to make people more aware of the disease more can be done in the Western World to reduce its transmission. Recent figures from the America 'HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report' suggest that people engaging in high risk sexual activity made up 49% of new cases, despite making up just 12% of the total population. These statistics do indicate that there are other significant ways in which blood-borne diseases can be transmitted through donations, and maybe it's the sexually active members of the population that should be prevented from giving blood instead of just a certain sexuality. It does have to be said that donated blood is always screened for diseases before storage, and thankfully this process has a high success rate, although cannot detect HIV positive samples if the virus is in its early stages. This is the reason why homosexuals cannot be sexually active a year prior in the UK, but doesn't explain why other countries choose to have blanket ban on all homosexuals.

(The dark red shows areas where there is a permanent ban. The red indicates various restrictions, and the lighter red indicates no bans are in place.)

Objections to the blanket ban come from the usual groups that are campaigning for equality, but more objections come from organisations such as The Red Cross regarding practicality. Blood banks are often running low on reserves, and this could be easily rectified if blood donations were more inclusive. The Red Cross claim that techniques are now advanced enough to detect HIV, which limits the risk of an infection spreading. It seems to me that in reality this argument is about balancing risk and reward, and not gender equality like the majority of activists claim. Still, it's always felt odd to me that a heterosexual who has unprotected sex regularly is allowed to donate blood, yet a homosexual who has protected sex on rare occasions isn't. I wouldn't say this was flat out discrimination, but I do believe science has progressed far enough to relinquish the precautionary blanket ban on a certain sexuality.

Certainly the decision by the UK to change deferrals to one year was a calculated risk that required years of research before being put into action. The process seems to be working, and as of 2011 there have been no serious incidents of blood-borne viruses making their way into other patients through blood transfusions. The statistics supplied by the 'Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs' stated that a one year deferral would only have a 2% increase in the risk of HIV. That does sound an alarming statistic, but when you consider that the original risk of transmission was one in every 4.41 million samples, then it becomes a tiny proportion. In contrast the committee predicted that if homosexuals were allowed to give blood then that figure would rise 60% to one in 3.48 million samples being contaminated. These statistics prove to me that a one year deferral is imperative to allow harmful diseases to be identified by scans, dramatically decreasing the risks involved. I think the 2% risk is necessary if more homosexuals are allowed to donate their highly sought after assets, without risking the chances of their infected blood not being detectable. 

I think it should also be considered that the government doesn't exclude homosexuals on purpose, and actually restricts blood donations from people it deems as 'high risk'. Although this is determined by trust alone, the UK government is able to restrict the ability to give blood to those who have shared needles, worked or had sex with a prostitute, or by operating in less developed countries among other variables. It's clear to me that this is simply not another way of targeting homosexuals and actually a reasonable precaution. At the end of the day it boils down to whether the need for blood is higher than the risk that blood samples could be contaminated, which thanks to science is a lower risk every year. Maybe in the near future every person will be able to give blood, but for now the restrictions in the UK should stay as they are. I don't support a total ban, but pissing off a few pressure groups to ensure donated blood is safe is something that needs to continue.


If you do want to sign the petition for no restrictions on donations then the link is here:

https://www.change.org/p/uk-uk-government-apply-the-same-regulations-to-all-those-donating-blood-regardless-of-sexuality?recruiter=false&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page&utm_term=des-lg-supporter_signature_milestone_email-no_msg&fb_ref=Default

Morons of the Internet: God Loves Women

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have a story from my local area that centers on one woman's outrage over the allegedly sexist adverts that aim to stop the public from littering. This story is the epitome of why people should stop making serious claims based on their feelings alone, especially when these allegations are over something simply trivial in nature.
_______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Love-Essex-anti-litter-campaign-branded-sexist/story-27695155-detail/story.html
http://jeanhatchet.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/smarting-about-sexist-ads.html
_______________________________________________________________________________

The fury over these seemingly harmless posters comes from the fact that the word in bold on the advert showing a male figure is 'smart', as opposed to the word 'pretty' on the advert featuring a woman. Apparently feminists in the local area are claiming that these two posters show a sexist attitude that is degrading to women, and not as I would have assumed a trivial matter that in no way warrants a negative backlash from oversensitive morons. In my opinion these adverts are perfectly acceptable forms of media and do not dictate the roles of each gender in any way. All I can see is a campaign that shows off the benefits of binning rubbish, in the same way that a commercial advert shows off the benefits of a product that is being sold to the viewer. The purpose of the language used is not to cause offense, and actually appears to be a light pun revolving around how tidying up litter makes an area more aesthetically pleasing. It's not harmful to anyone and the purpose wasn't to discriminate, so any negative effects you claim are caused by this campaign will need evidence to back up your claims. I don't personally find that these adverts are a social commentary on each specific gender, but surely if this is the issue then why are women the only gender being degraded from the campaign? Surely forcing one gender to look smart is a negative and stereotypical perception of the male gender, yet at no point are men ever depicted as the victims in your argument. I smell the foul stench of hypocrisy. Luckily for us Natalie Collins is here to give us her opinion, without any facts.

Fantastic. Well it's great that we have a 'gender justice specialist' instigating this debate. I can't wait for her to talk about how only women are oppressed by this campaign and not men. Some 'gender justice' we're getting here. It's not as if she comprehends the idea of advertising either, as according to her, stereotypes shouldn't be used. Natalie even recognises that 'hundreds' of products use stereotypes to sell products, yet can't quite comprehend that businesses do that to carry messages to a greater number of people, even if that means offending a minority of idiots such as yourself. It seems Natalie doesn't understand that campaigns have target markets. In this case that's the lowest common denominator, the general public, and so stereotypes are an effective method of advertising in order to avoid alienating any large groups of people. You quite rightly point out that councils have a 'social responsibility', and that involves cutting down on litter, which they chose to do by implying that putting rubbish in the bin makes the place more attractive, just like the models in their poster. If that's what makes putting rubbish in the bin desirable then what's the problem with that? Who doesn't want to feel desirable?

There's still no explanation as to why this campaign is degrading. You keep banging on about what your opinion is, but have never actually explained the reasoning behind these overblown issues. Maybe I'm being stupid, but I honestly don't see the harm of displaying an attractive lady on a billboard and then highlighting how attractive she looks. In my funny little world I just assumed that human beings wanted to have aspirational targets, and if that means displaying an exemplary example to try and convince people that this is a method of doing so, then what's the problem with that? Surely you must be aware that putting rubbish in the bin doesn't instantly make you some sex magnet. The advert is not forcing you to be pretty, and it certainly doesn't dictate your life choices. I'm also interested in how this only affects women. Surely it would also be degrading to men as not all of us want to be smart, but oh no, for some reason being pretty is bad for society.

What a surprise. It turns out that stereotyping in adverts does work, even in the words of an oppressed woman. I'm quite confident that she doesn't give a shit that the advert might objectify people considering that it gets the fucking message across. Who knew that appealing to the majority of people would yield results? I know Natalie's feelings are probably going to be hurt by this factual news, but that can't be allowed to get in the way of the cold, hard statistics that clearly show she's talking absolute bullshit. In this type of scenario you have to weigh the pros and cons of each argument, and I would certainly prefer a reduction in litter to the banning of adverts that work over some light stereotyping. Still, let's see if Natalie can come up with a solution.

I take it this is the sorry state that thankfully only a minority of feminists have ended up in. It's a shame at a time when there is a great need for feminism in many areas of the world that trivial matters like an innocent advert become the focal point for activists. It's also a shame that we still have yet to get any explanation as to why these adverts are degrading to society, although apparently this nonexistent theory is worse than the very real problem of littering. I'm sorry to inform Natalie, who has reveled she lives in a parallel universe to common sense, that it does matter that the word 'smart' can be read in two different ways, as something that is implied and something that is meant are two separate issues; just the same as how your feelings and the actual facts are two entirely different concepts. Advertising is in essence an art form, and so entirely subjective. making this assumption that everyone should be offended by this advert is narrow minded to say the least, and detracting from the message that the advert conveys.

However this ignorance towards advertising and the English language are nothing compared to the barrage of sexism that comes from a so called 'gender justice specialist'. I can't quite believe the generalisation in denying that any women made the advert, despite having no evidence to prove so. Your whole argument is based on one very stereotypical assumption, making that comment the most blatantly sexist attitude in the whole argument. I can't quite believe that a gender justice specialist can be so naive as to blame men for this campaign, when in reality she has no reason to claim that these biased and degrading comments are in anyway true. Despite the fact that many women are involved in advertising, you use this false information to launch an attack on the male gender, trying to unjustly and unfairly force women into jobs that they don't merit. I don't know about you Natalie, but I can't see any fucking gender justice here. You can't justify your inherent sexism by claiming that men have different opinions to you, subsequently pushing your radical agenda that relies on vague and incorrect statements to generalise whole genders. But no, apparently it's the council at fault here, and not your hypocritical ideology.

Since Natalie has the inability to explain anything I decided to find another source to try and actually back up these claims. After a bit of digging I found a blog from a radical feminist, and not surprisingly this turned out to be more biased feelings without any facts. 

Does telling an attractive woman that looking pretty is a stereotype that belongs in the 1950's a very bitter thing to say? I have to call you on that point considering that women spend a lot more money on cosmetic products than their male counterparts, indicating that this stereotype of wanting to look pretty does actually belong in the 21st century whether you like it or not. I think you can forgive the advert for trying to reach out to a great number of people, because after all it's a campaign for the general public. The response from the council is the usual fob off that complaints always get, and just like the original argument doesn't explain anything. What I will say is that if this angry lady gets her way then almost all advertising that revolves around targeting stereotypes will be banned, which as they're adverts means nearly every single one.

Can't you put up ads that claim a woman's desire is to be pretty? Maybe you should tell cosmetic companies that their advertising is immoral. Just by looking at the sales of cosmetics and fashion you can see that contrary to your belief this stereotype exists for a reason, and I'm sure that many people couldn't care less if this harmless fact was exploited for reducing litter. The adverts in question highlights the beauty of a lady in the same way as cosmetic adverts highlight how attractive the model is, all because it's seen as aspirational. This activist then goes on to talk about how this is the conservatives fault, backing that claim up with some irrelevant statistics about unrelated issues. It seems like Natalie and this campaigner just wants to parade the victim card around despite providing no evidence or logical arguments to support her claims. Complain all you want love, but it's easy to tell you're just kicking off to shove your biased agenda down people's throats.

Top 10 Worst Business Ideas

Companies are always trying to better their competition, but sometimes the great ideas they have can go horribly wrong. Stupid decisions can lose businesses millions of dollars, and here are ten of those mishaps that hilariously failed for the companies in question.

#10 Ford Pinto (1970-1980)

Despite looking disgusting, the ugly appearance wasn't the monumental flaw that led to the downfall of the Ford Pinto. The actual car was for Americans a new breed of car that Ford aimed to rival the thriving European market of small and compact cars. The Pinto was never going to beat the European competition, as in comparison it was shit, but in America sales weren't too bad with just over three million being sold over a ten year period. However being the product of American car design it was built very poorly and had two huge flaws in that the breaks didn't work properly, and that the fuel tank would leak underneath the car in the event of a crash, sending the car into a burning inferno of death. Did Ford fix these fatal issues? No of course not, they just paid the lawsuits of various victims as it was cheaper than redesigning the whole car.

However despite being assholes about safety, the Pinto was an even bigger disaster in other areas of the world for a very simple reason. The safety issues gave the car a bad press in the US, but over in Brazil the car wasn't selling at all. In English the word 'pinto' is used to describe a certain coloration of horses, but in Brazil it's used to refer to a man with a very small penis. Not surprisingly Ford re-branded the car in Brazil as the 'Corcel', which thankfully is a horse and not a penis. However the damage was done and the Pinto flopped in Brazil with estimates claiming that Ford lost in excess of 137 million dollars each year. A costly mistake for just a poorly worded car. 


#9 McDonald's Arch Deluxe (1996)

The 'Arch Deluxe' was McDonald's attempt to appeal to an adult market. For some reason they thought that this burger would scream of sophistication to anyone who went in McDonald's, which is funny as if you end up in McDonald's you really have no concept of what sophistication is. McDonald's were convinced that no child or proletariat would ever want to consume a product that is a hamburger with some special mayonnaise, even funding adverts that showed kids refusing to eat what is essentially a fancy burger. McDonald's spent over a 100 million dollars on a huge advertising campaign that would showoff this new revolutionary burger, that still didn't look sophisticated to any rational human being. You never know, kids might have enjoyed it, but thanks to high calorie contents and disappointing taste adults didn't like the product at all, and by the end of the year the product was discontinued. It's thought that McDonald's lost over 300 million dollars when marketing, production and research were taken into account. A catastrophic failure in America, yet variants still exits in French and Russian McDonald's.


#8 Honda ASIMO (2000)

I was reluctant to include what still is today a revolutionary project that does show that robotics may be able to become a reality in our everyday lives. However the original 2000 release of the 'Advance Step in Innovative Mobility' wasn't exactly the most successful launch of all time. Honda had originally planned for the 'ASIMO' to be used as a slave by people such as the elderly or people with disabilities. That idea soon went out the window when the robot couldn't even get up a flight of stairs during the press conference, and so now the product basically just tours around the world for people to be amazed by. At this current time the product still has no realistic hope of ever being used by the general public, which comes at the great dismay of many people who got suckered into the idea that some day they might be able to own a pet robot that does all their work for them.

Admittedly the latest models of the robot have become a lot more sophisticated than its original release. Now 'ASIMO' is able to walk up stairs, run like it's shit itself, greet people, conduct orchestras for some reason, and dance. I'm sure it wasn't exactly the original plan to make this thing into a novelty item, but amazingly Honda have released 13 for sale at the quite costly sum of 2.5 million dollars or just 150,000 dollars a month to rent. It's not actually known how much the robot cost to develop, but as this was a huge 20 year project that led up to 'ASIMO's' release it can't have been small. It's safe to say that ASIMO will almost certainly never make a profit of any kind in my lifetime, unless Honda aim the product at people who have more money than sense to cash in on their revolutionary but flawed product. 


#7 Ayds Diet Candy (1937-1988)

I don't think this one needs much explaining. The number seven spot was actually a close run thing between this and 'Golden Gaytime' ice cream. However the ice cream was never a popular selling confectionery item, unlike 'Ayds' was until the outbreak of AIDS in the 1980's. The irony was that the selling point of 'Ayds' diet chocolate bar was that it helped you lose weight, something that the AIDS disease can also do for you, and so not surprisingly sales for the chocolate bar dropped 50%. In retrospect watching the adverts on the internet are just hilarious, and even that slogan above is a great source of dark humour. You can hardly blame the company for this unfortunate mishap, but why the hell they didn't decide to immediately re-brand the product is my biggest issue.


#6 Jagermeister Pool Party (2013)

If you're the owner of Jagermeister and make alcoholic beverages for vomiting teenagers like myself who think destroying their liver makes them cool, then sponsoring a pool party to promote your very nice beverage is a situation you cannot possibly fuck up. Any pool party is a cool place to be, but one sponsored by some alcoholic drinks is a business move that must surely be a winner. Unfortunately if you happened to go to a Mexican pool party run by Jagermeister then things didn't go as planned when the organisers decided that the pool containing chlorine needed to be livened up by adding liquid nitrogen into the mix to create a smokescreen effect. The chemistry of liquid nitrogen and chlorine reacting in water are that the liquid nitrogen boils almost instantly, displacing the oxygen above the pool and releasing harmful chlorine filled chemicals that cause asphyxiation to anyone nearby. That reaction is actually quite similar to one used in World War One to make mustard gas. This isn't a good thing if the targeted area is a swimming pool where people are likely to drown if knocked out by toxic gases. The results of this monumental fuck up were eight people admitted to hospital and another left in a coma for multiple weeks. It turns out that poisoning water supplies isn't a good move if you make beverages for a living, promoting safe and responsible drinking.


#5 Dr. Pepper and Guns 'n' Roses (2008)

Dr. Pepper decided in 2008 that it could cash in on America's love for the collection of twats known as 'Guns 'n' Roses'. I as a human being passionately hate the stupid band, and so for me Dr. Pepper trying to endorse the band to release new material is a decision that infuriated me. Being as the stupid band are actually quite popular Dr. Pepper decided that if 'Guns 'n' Roses' decided to release their long awaited album 'Chinese Democracy' in 2008 then Dr. Pepper would give everyone a free can of their signature formula. The problem is that lead singer Axl Rose is a massive, talentless twat and so of course releases the album that very year.

Amazingly Dr. Pepper did go through with their promise and rushed to complete a website where customers could claim their free can for 24 hours. Unfortunately, or rather fortunately for Dr. Pepper this website didn't work and decided to crash a lot, although whether that was on purpose is another matter. Not only did this end up making Dr. Pepper look like misleading bellends, but it also became a problem when lawsuits started turning up left right and centre claiming that Dr. Pepper had been dishonest with their customers. Axl Rose even filed a lawsuit against the company, and he's about the last person in the world who should be able to file a lawsuit for dishonesty. Not only was this a stupid move by Dr. Pepper but it also meant that 'Chinese Democracy' was actually released, and in my opinion that turned out to be one of the worst albums I've ever had the displeasure of listening to. And that concludes the story of the most expensive episode ever of  'Call My Bluff'.


#4 United Way Balloonfest '86 (1986)

United Way is a charitable organisation that operates throughout America, but unfortunately for them that doesn't mean they can't be held accountable for royally fucking up. The charity ran an event in Cleveland that had the exciting aim of breaking the world record for the most balloons released at once; that's 1.5 million balloons. If the above picture is anything to go by then Cleveland did indeed need cheering up by a fuckload of balloons, and I can't think of a better way to cheer up a whole city. As you can see this was an event held to satisfy the public and raise some good money for charity.

Unfortunately nobody at United Way is a trained meteorologist and so the balloons were released into a cool air filled with a torrent of rain. As a result the balloons fell straight back down into the centre of Cleveland and the surrounding area, virtually fucking up the lives of anyone who lived nearby. As a result of this cock up there was a huge rise in traffic collisions, the local airport had to be closed for half an hour due to balloons present on the runway, and some woman's prized racehorse died when the balloons panicked it. But the worst part came when the coastguard were subsequently unable to rescue two stranded sailors, and it was only when the two bodies were washed ashore that United Way realised that they had fucked up big time from what was thought to be a harmless charity event. Let's face it, claiming the lives of two people is a pretty serious consequence of any charity event.


#3 Ford Edsel (1958-1960)

This is the famous failure that apparently made other cars look ordinary, which it did, because the Edsel was butt ugly. Who in all honesty would pay good money for a car that looked as piss poor as that? Well not many Americans actually, as despite Ford's claims that this car could outcompete General Motors, it turned out to be a car even American buyers were too embarrassed to splash their cash on. That didn't stop Ford though; they were convinced that the Edsel was the car of the future, and so they spent millions on advertising that made the car look so much better than it could ever possibly be. Ford couldn't deliver on these ridiculous promises they originally claimed, and that ended up in an epic failure.

The Edsel disaster has now become famous because of how badly the car sold. Only two million of the things were even sold in the two years of production, which is 116,000 less than the break even point that Ford had projected. As a result Ford lost over 350 million dollars, which doesn't sound too bad, but when you consider that in today's money that's a loss of 2.8 billion dollars then you realise just how badly Ford fucked up. Ford managed to build a car for nobody that didn't perform as expected and wasn't reliable in any way. This negative attitude spread, and it's only recently that these cars have started to become a valuable commodity, with them often selling for 100,000 dollars each. However despite their value the Edsel is still a properly shit car that's become the hallmark of failed products.


#2 McDonald's Olympic Giveaway (1984)

For some reason McDonald's decided that during the 1984 Olympics they would give control of the free food they were giving away to the US Olympic team. The idea was that if the US team won an Olympic medal then McDonald's would give away a corresponding prize if you were drawn in that discipline. On paper this sounded a good idea; gold was a Big Mac, silver was fries and bronze was a Coke. To be fair to McDonald's this scheme did initially boost sales, but that's only because of how much free stuff they would be giving away. You see the 1984 Olympics were boycotted by both the Soviet and East German teams due to not being on the best of terms with the host nation, leaving the US team virtually unopposed through the majority of disciplines. As a result the US won A LOT of medals. 174 medals to be precise, with 83 of them being gold ones. McDonald's ended up having to give away a lot of free burgers, and there were reports that their stock was running out at various locations around the country. It seems McDonald's forgot how to control the free food they were giving away, which really isn't a sound business strategy. 


#1 New Coke (1985)

Despite being ahead of the 'Cola Wars' for almost their entire history, Coca Cola decided in 1985 to completely re-brand their product in response to the minor gains that Pepsi had made over the previous years. Coca Cola even went as far as to rename and redesign their iconic product, changing the recipe and launching a huge campaign that would finally see them triumph in the 'Cola Wars'. Not surprisingly changing your iconic product after 100 years is going to be a controversial move, and because of this radical dismissal of heritage people quite literally revolted. There was a huge backlash to the new product, with Coca Cola receiving 400,000 complaints about their so called 'New Coke'. Even famous customers such as Fidel Castro voiced their complaint at Coca Cola's changes, and so just three months later Coca Cola made a huge U-turn and reverted to their old formula. This embarrassing move highlighted the rule of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it', and also gave Coca Cola a big lesson to never change their iconic product.