The Wedding of River Song (A Dr Who review...)

*** Spoiler alert for episode 13 season 6 ***
This episode was the last before the Christmas special, and so was supposed to be epic, intriguing and exciting, leaving a massive cliff hanger for the Christmas special. I'll give Steven Moffat (head writer and exec. producer) some credit though. This episode, answered the questions I wanted to know (how would the Dr die without ending Dr Who as a programme, and when would he supposedly marry Melody Pond?), whilst keeping me on the edge of my seat in my mental attempts to decipher how the narrative would play out.

Unfortunately though, as much as I was intrigued, I also found myself beguiled and quite confused in this complex,complicated,and  incomprehensible narrative. Now if me being an adult could not grasp this episodes' storyline, I wonder if the 11year olds who this programme is aimed at could?

 Let me try to reconstruct the story line for you: Ages ago, there was an episode which showed the Dr dying, and ever since then there have been hints that the future Dr will obviously die also, but that his death would be shown differently, explaining why he had to die.

In this episode, It is explained that the 'silence' (a religious movement) believe that a time will come when all beings will have no choice but to speak the truth, and that's when a question will be asked, a question that must never be answered which the Dr will answer if he is alive. The question is unknown. Following so far? Yes? Okay. So, because the Dr's been 'on the run' time (past, present and future) have intertwined in a way that they shouldn't have, and the Dr needs to touch Melody Pond (the present one) to bring him to the appointed time of his death. Why Melody Pond? Because Melody Pond (the future one) kills him. (His murder is supposed to be her whole reason for existence apparently.) He finds Melody, along with her parents, Amy Pond and Rory (who are visibly younger than her, and were the Dr's companions) who allow Melody and the Dr to marry.

Of course, tracing back to three episodes ago, there were a group of people who transformed themselves into tiny beings living inside a robot which was disguised as any human they wanted it to be, and these people were like the 'time police' travelling through time and torturing aliens/humans who committed serious offences which would affect time. The Dr asks them to transform him, and take his bodily form, so that when he does die, it isn't him dying, it is the robot thingy.

My obvious questions now are this:
- Wouldn't this 'silence' be smart enough to know that it wasn't the actual Dr who had died?
- Can the Dr still travel through time saving lives without being detected?
- Can the Dr still see Amy and Rory?
And finally-
- Is this programme just a little too confusing for adults and kids now?

Here's the email I sent to Mr Miliband (Ed of course....) let's hope he actually replies.

***** ******

Hello Mr Miliband. I would firstly like to congratulate you on your speech

at the labour conference this week in Liverpool.

I did very much enjoy viewing your evident enthusiasm 

on this 'New Labour' concept, and hearing the 'promise of Britain' as your motto,

however I do feel that Britain has received far too many 'promises' 

for us to believe any of them to have any substantial truth in them any more.

There are two flaws and anomalies I noted during the course of your speech in particular.

One of which was the evident ambiguity of distinguishing the 'predators' from the 'producers',

just how would you propose to go about regulating businesses in such a way as to define them?

Also, in terms of giving those who 'benefit society' priority for housing, how would you

propose to determine who benefits society, if after these people get their homes, stop

their community commitments?

I do understand that there must be an effective equality system where people get what they deserve,

however I do feel that there are grey areas in your tactics for tackling this problem, and it does

seem to me (judging by your speech as I haven't heard of your sentiments otherwise, aside from when 

you criticised the public sector union strike which may take place in November.) that your ideas 

and approaches to tackle Britain's issues day by day increasingly become more right-wing based.

What is your response to this?

I do hope that you take this email into serious consideration and respond satisfactorily to the

out cry of the public. Thank you very much,

Yours sincerely,

***** *******

You can do so too, via 'Dear Mr. Miliband' 

Ed Miliband is 'pretty normal'? I guess going to Oxford is normal right...

During Ed Miliband's Speech last night he addressed people's views on him, beginning with his joke about his 'nose job'. But when he spoke of opinions of him being quite negative, thinking he was "weird", he was not so 'jokey'. He told the Labour party and all viewers that he is a "Pretty normal guy." it is understandable that as a labour leader and leader in opposition, he would want to gain the countries trust, and persuade them that he is one of us, but the words 'normal' and average do not correlate with this 41 year old. Him going to Oxford immediately detaches himself from the minute percentage of those who go to other (and lower in the hierarchy)  institutions. He also made sure he claimed himself as his own man, not in the least like Blair or Brown, which is understandable, as Brown did not gain the public's favour, and neither did Blair toward the end of his office. But Blair was a man who managed to stay in his office for at least three terms, so surely he did something right? Cutting yourself off from a man who had lead a leading government for decades would convey a confusion and ignorance in terms of knowing where your party has come from, and what it has been through. So to me, so far, I have not seen any similarities between Mr. Miliband and myself. Do you?

Uni life so far…

Okayyyy! I love Uni because I’ve made good, hard working friends who have a crazy streak (exactly like me basically) and so we can spend our lunch in Starbucks either discussing law and politics like nerds, or dancing down the uni corridors like maniacs. So, good times so far! But the hard work has already commenced (though this is the first week) and during lectures, I just thank God I’m competent at writing down notes quickly (lecturers wait for no man) and there’s a Hell of a lot of stuff to remember.. My lecturers are quite cool though, and during seminars they loosing up a bit. So, I’ll be working hard and having fun. I’m glad I’m at uni, and can’t wait for what’s to come! (But bearing in mind it’ll get harder, maybe I can wait…) (as posted on Tumblr.)

A joke someone just told me:

Neil: What’s the best cheese for getting a bear out of a cave?

Me: I don’t know, what IS the best cheese for getting a bear out of a cave?

Neil: Camembert. Feel free to share it and have a great weekend.

The sad part is I actually cried of laughter… :s Nevertheless, I think this guy deserves to be followed just because of this joke.

Troy Davis.

So it has been pronounced that Troy was executed, despite the substantial evidence giving mitigating factors. (I watched it live for an hour after he was due to be executed, but now I have to sleep.) Anyway, I was infuriated when someone I 'follow' tweeted "But on a real tho, no 1 really cares bout the case. After he's killed we will alll go ahead and start gbaa alerting peeps. That's life" (whatever 'GBAA' means I haven't the foggiest.)

Yes, Death is a part of life.Yes, everybody dies. But it does not mean that we should become apathetic towards the ways in which peoples' lives are unnecessarily or unjustly ended. I believe that everyone ought to gain a good quality of life, and those who do, should not become callous and inconsiderate to those who don't. It is attitudes like this which evoke such awful events as the summer riots (which I had to witness) or even on a wider scale, the deaths caused by the twin tower crashes.

The idea that "if someone dies, they die" Is probably what has kept the death row in legislation in a 1st world country like America for so long, and it is time that legislation was scrapped. It does not benefit anybody when a death occurs on both the defendants' side and prosecutions' side of the case, and it is depressing to think that almost a century after Ghandi's death, his words "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" have evidently been disregarded and trivialised by the American Government.

For those who don't care about cases like Troy's, it is time people began to open their eyes to see that the world consists of more people than just themselves, or the people they like, but people they may never have even heard of. Ugh. Rotten ignorant attitude aggravates me immensely. Rant over.

That was fun. And it was just the enrolment...

On Tuesday 20th Sept I enrolled at my Uni. I instantly made a lot of lovely friends (maybe because everyone wants to latch on to someone initially, but I believe it was my popular charisma that did the trick) But I doubt they'll all be studying law with me as they assembled random students doing random courses to enrol together.

Anyway, it was great, and we had a little Induction/Introduction to how our courses will be. I met one of my lecturers who was a very enthusiastic Caribbean old man. He spoke a lot about the true harshness of just how I'll find my degree, but we also received a lot of examples of their current students who are excelling at our courses. It made me realise that I want to be a barrister. I don't know how the whole day and that ambition directly relate, but I suddenly thought that I ought to exhaust all possible areas of my profession, before settling down into one field. The only problem with this is that it is usually easier for students to either take the solicitor route or the Bar route, Not one after the other. This means I'll seriously have to consider every pro and con for both legal profession before deciding, but at least now I am not ruling out one form of legal profession completely.

I also began to take into perspective how hard it will be for someone like me to qualify as a lawyer, due to my ethnicity and social background. Unfortunately, in a lot of law firms (or even at the Bar) there is the 'Glass Ceiling' ideology, and even just the mere fact that I am a female could be a set back if I want to work in a City law firm. But I shan't let these boundaries stop me. There are countless examples (I had to research this to encourage myself) of female lawyers and/or lawyers of the minor ethnicity (Shami Chakrabarti is my favourite, she's like my ideal celeb :s) who have done exceedingly well, so there is nothing to stop me really.

 I did experience some prejudice at my college when I wanted to apply to Universities to study law. A lot of my teachers said I wouldn't get in! Nevertheless, I have a stubborn tendency to prove people wrong, and that's what spurred me on to eventually be accepted to study law. I am going to work more than exceptionally hard, and never doubt for one moment that I can be a success for my family, my ethnicity and myself.

well hello.

I take note of each new follower (though there are too many to keep up with ha.) thank you for following. x