Paralympic Athlete Branded Murderer...

... following the shooting of his partner in the early hours of Valentine's Day. South African sport star Oscar Pistorius was accused of murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp but he denies that it was pre-meditated murder.

The story has been prominent in the press this week as there was the funeral of Ms Steenkamp and court proceedings began. As Oscar Pistorius is released on bail awaiting the next hearing, set for 4th June we take a look at the arguments put forward by both the defence and prosecution in the case.

What really happened?

Defence

It was described in court as being in the early hours of Valentine's Day morning when Mr Pistorius mistook his girlfriend as an intruder. He had risen from the bed to bring a fan in from the balcony area, upon his return he heard a noise in the bathroom and believed it to be an intruder. Being without his prosthetics made him feel 'extremely vulnerable' in the situation and he felt he had no time to get them on before dealing with the threat. He picked up his 9mm gun and went to the bathroom to confront the intruder while allegedly calling to his girlfriend, who he believed was still in bed, to call the police. 

It is understood that the 'intruder' had hidden in the toilet, which is separated from the rest of the bathroom through another lockable door. In his panic and their being an intruder in the house and his feeling vulnerable, Pistorius shot at the intruder (in the toilet) four times, three shots of which hit his target. Once realising Ms Steenkamp was not in the bedroom  and had in fact been using the toilet he attached his prosthetics and broke into the toilet with a cricket bat, before carrying his victim downstairs where she died. 

Prosecution

Many of the events brought to light by the defence were questioned by the prosecution. The only thing both parties agreed on was the number of bullets shot and the number of bullets which hit the victim. The prosecution firstly argued that a witness had heard an argument occuring in the house before the gunshots were heard and that Ms Steenkamp was actually hiding in the toilet from the defendent following the nights argument. 

They also stated that although it was dark there was no way in which Oscar Pistorius could uncover the weapon from under the bed without noticing that his girlfriend was not laying there because the gun's holster was found her side of the bed; suggesting he would have to have bent down her side of the bed to locate the weapon. The angle of the shots suggest that Mr Pistorius had in fact already strapped on his prosthetics before taking shot at the toilet door, as Detective Botha testified that he thought the bullets had been fired "down" through the door into the victim. 

Finally the prosecution told that there were four mobile phones which were seized at the property, none of which were used to call police or paramedics; but the defendants lawyers told the court that another phone was used to call for medical help and to contact a security guard.

Other interesting information

• Oscar Pistorius is a sprint runner from South Africa and competed in the 2012 Summer Olympics and Summer Paralympics. He had both legs amputated below the knee when he was only 11 months old. His nickname is Blade Runner.
• What was also interesting to discover in today's news was that his older brother, Carl Pistorius, was also facing homicide charges in South Africa over a car crash which caused the death of a female biker. It is important to note that the accident which took place in 2010 has no link with the investigation into Oscar Pistoius' case.
• Detective Botha has recently been removed from the inquiry following the discovery that he was facing seven charges of attempted murder himself for an incident in 2011.

It will be interesting to see what happens next in the investigations and case concerning the killing of Reeva Steenkamp; and I hope that her family get to learn the truth about what happened on 14th February which led to her unfortunate death, whichever side of the story it may be. 

My Little...

... Pony was one of my favourite toys when I was much younger than I am now. But what has this got to do with the news recently? Well the biggest story which has been reoccurring over the last few weeks is the mislabelling of foods and the discovery of traces of horsemeat in ready meals and products containing processed meats. So what foods have been affected, how did this happen and what's being done about it? That's what I'm going to be looking at now.

What?

The first products to be unveiled as containing traces of horsemeat were processed frozen burgers from Tesco and Iceland. Both stores removed their own brand burgers from the freezers following the allegations made by the Republic of Ireland's food safety authority (FSAI), after 27 burgers (beef) were analysed; they found that 10 of them contained horse DNA and 23 contained pig DNA.

A further 31 beef meal products were analysed (including; cottage pie, beef curry pie and lasagne), with 21 of the products testing positive for pig DNA.

Other stores have also chosen to remove beef products containing traces of animals other than cows from their shelves, including LIDL and Waitrose. Horsemeat has also been found in schools and hospitals too.

Although there are currently no suggested risks to health, there is clearly an issue with the ethical means of these products as well a moral issue with the labelling of food.

How?

It is suggested that many of the affected products have been shipped in from other countries, where the products are created and the ingredients are sourced.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) revealed that banned drug bute had probably entered the food chain through the introduction of horsemeat in the meals and products. This painkiller is potentially dangerous for humans but medical officers say a person would need to consume 500 horse burgers a day to reach a harmful dose. 

It has been suggested that traces of pig could have contaminated beef products purely by accident due to factories working with a variety of meat. Obviously this can still be criticised as labels should clearly  inform the consumer of all the ingredients which can be found in a product for legal reasons.

The other how which is important, is how did this issue pass by unnoticed by the FSA until now. This even bigger issue is the fact that the government was warned about rouge horsemeat two years ago and it has taken until now for it to be determined that horsemeat with drug residue has entered the food chain.

Next?

The FSA are currently carrying out even more tests into products and companies will be expected to make changes; either in the labelling and naming of their products or as to where they source ingredients. 

With stores currently removing contaminated products from there shelves and other products coming under scrutiny many people are turning to their local butcher in their hour of need. If you want locally sourced meat that you can trust then that's the place to go until the scandal is over. Homemade pies and lasagne are also much healthier for your family as the pre-packed equivalent often has excessive salt content and very little meat. Also if you are scared of what store bought mince contains the vegetarian equivalent is just as tasty and is pretty healthy too, so why not try Quorn or soya mince in your next spaghetti bolognese.

Opinion

It is usually at this point in the creation of my blog post that I rant and moan about the issues being covered in the rest of the post, but my rant isn't about the alien meat in the products but in peoples' reactions. When the initial discovery of horsemeat in UK burgers was reported people were disgusted by the idea that horses were being killed to be eaten. Do people find eating horse repulsive because we ride horses and see them as pets?

Other countries across Europe eat horse freely, often in factories from which UK products are sourced. If you are buying meat products from stores which purchase from these factories then you are supporting the killing and distribution of horse, whether it is in the product or not. 

It is much more reasonable for people to be disgusted at the fact we are being misled by these companies because their labelling is incorrect. We should be angry because we are eating things unknowingly, not because we are eating horse when we are happy to eat cows, pigs, sheep etc. 

To prove the point that it is possible for a carnivorous animal such as ourselves to cut meat out of their diet and eat a healthy diet of trusted ingredients I have decided to attempt the vegetarian way of life, firstly for lent, then hopefully for the considerable future. 

Same sex marriage...

... is looking promising for couples who would previously have not been allowed anything more than a civil partnership to resemble their love for each other.

Although the majority of MPs in the House of Commons on Tuesday (5th) voted "aye" for the Marriage (same sex couples) Bill to be passed the discussion was huge, with over 60 MPs taking the opportunity to voice theirs, and their constituencies' opinions on the bill. Many Conservative MPs seemed horrified at the aspect of gay marriage being acceptable and the majority of the party voted against the bills implementation. 

Yvette Cooper stood before the House of Commons and said, "Civil partnerships have been a fantastic step forward, providing for the first time proper legal recognition for same-sex relationships, and they continue to be a great source of great joy and of security. It was right of Labour to introduce them in the face of deep controversy, but it is time to take the next step for equality and to allow gay and lesbian couples the chance to marry if they choose to."

There are a huge number of couples out there who would have thanked her for making this comment on their behalf, as they long to show their love for each other through taking the step into marriage together.

A majority of 225 MPs backed the bill, as 400 voted in favour and 175 failed to acknowledge its importance and significance in stepping forward.

136 of the 175 who failed to back the bill were from the Conservative Party and therefore in contradiction to their leader and Prime Minister David Cameron.  

This second reading of the bill has shown that there is plenty of parliamentary backing for same sex marriage, but there is still many stages left for the bill to go through, including another reading in the House of Commons, followed by three readings in the House of Lords. Once the bill has been passed by MPs and Lords the bill can finally receive the Royal Assent. To follow this process check out the Parliament website.

Debate

While the debate within the House of Commons went ahead, a debate of another kind took place on social networking site Twitter. It was interesting to see the array of responses this bill was receiving, especially the debate rising between devoted catholics and those in favour of same sex relationships. 

It felt like the nation was divided on an issue which will merely give people equal rights. Equal rights were promoted when women were given the vote, when slavery was abolished and when women were given the same rights in marriage as men (e.g. rape in marriage was made illegal). Why should this even be an issue in this day and age? We've come to terms with the fact that same-gender relationships now exist, we are much less prudent than we once were. Yet we feel it is necessary to stop people getting married because of their gender. 

What if marriage was abolished for all? We would have equal rights that way. The sad matter of the fact is more people would probably take an interest, even a stance if this were the bill under review. 

We all wish to have equal rights and want to treated as we treat others; this is another step in that direction. You would not like your right to marry to be taken away from you based on the criteria which depends on the gender of the person you love. No other species is as judging and discriminating as ours, and maybe we could learn a lesson from other species on the ways of the world. Even other cultures could show us the light, as gay marriage is legal in the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, to name but a few. Even nine states of the US allow gay couples to take that step forward into marriage and the fact that we even have the nerve to sit in the comfort of our homes and even consider making judgements of others is beyond me. 

Live and let live I say. At the end of the day their relationship does not affect you, their happiness does not affect you, so just live in harmony and be happy with your life the way it is, because at the end of the day someone's going to have an issue with something, that's life I'm afraid.

Behaviour...

… Is it any wonder kids these days behave more like animals you’d find in the wild than human beings who are part of a civilised society, when they have role models who need a lesson it acceptable etiquette?

Over the last few weeks we have seen the unacceptable behaviour of professional footballers, who are always a focus of public attention. They know this, so why on earth would one decide to kick a ball boy or spit at a member of the opposition? Other footballers and critics can come up with as many reasons as they want as to why Hazard was in the right for “attempting” to kick the ball from the arms of a ball boy; but let’s be honest, it was a stupid thing to do, step back and let the officials do their jobs.  And using the excuse “he’s not a boy (just because he’s 17, and only 5 years younger than the footballer)” is not at all reasonable. If your child came out of nursery (let’s say age 4) and had been hit by another child who was attempting to retrieve Mr Potato Head, you would not accept that as an excuse! So why, should a professional footballer be allowed to go around doing the equivalent? The answer is “he shouldn’t”. It has got to the point where those “celebrities” who are constantly in the public eye need to be taught a lesson or two.

In one of today’s matches a West Bromwich Albion player was sent off for spitting at an opposition. It’s bad enough that I have to see youths bouncing around the streets thinking they’re all that, gobbing on the floor. The same floor that we civilised human beings have to walk on. I for one do not wish to tread in the disgusting slime you no longer want! In no situation is it acceptable to spit in a public place, I don’t want to see it and most of all I do not in any circumstances want to hear it! During a football match you see players spitting all over the place, clearing out here, there and everywhere… but spitting at another player! It’s just not on!

And do not even start me on professional footballers and their sordid affairs. It’s like becoming a footballer gives them a licence to go and do as they see fit, no matter what the consequence, and then even in some cases go the extra mile by attempting to take out court orders to ensure the press can never release such information to the public. If you’re willing to do the crime you should be willing to the time. If you don’t want to be judged for your misdemeanours then don’t initiate them in the first place.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not having a jab at every footballer out there, as I’m sure many of them are respectable young men who do not deserve to be tarred with the same brush, but these generalisations are going to be made when so many of these role models are making ridiculous decisions. There are many children and teenagers out there who want to be just like their favourite footballer or sports personality; but it is hoped they only take up the flavour for the sport and gain exceptional skills, not learn how to behave inappropriately or gain a notch in their bed post.