Ben Jennings2013-05-20T08:39:48-04:00Ben Jenningshttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=ben-jenningsCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Ben JenningsGood old fashioned elbow grease.Time Heals All Wounds - Even the Ones Inflicted by Victorian Serial Killers!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13421032012-03-15T19:00:00-04:002012-05-15T05:12:01-04:00Ben Jenningshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-jennings/
However, killers of the serial nature spark public interest that goes beyond Cameron Diaz's acne or Stacey Solomon smoking while she's up the duff. These psychotic maniacs fascinate us. I'm no Sigmund Freud but I'd argue that at some point everyone has had thoughts that may seem slightly sadistic and/or vengeful; whether they're emotionally charged, in jest or just a sporadic tick. When the brain's exposed to all the callousness the world has to offer us, it's no wonder that occasionally we may have thoughts that we can't help, no matter how brief. I think this is something that not even the most asexual, abstinent nun could deny.
However, what piques our interest in serial killers is that they have made the leap from ill thought to despicable action, abhorrent yet intriguingly interesting. One only has to flick on the news when there's been a murder case to see that the information being pumped to us is less important information and more Agatha Christie; we're captivated by a good murder mystery, as long as we are detached from the victims.
Post modernism turned serial killers into cult icons, such as Brett Easton Ellis' charismatic murderer in the subversive novel American Psycho, and the academic cannibal played by Anthony Hopkins in the Silence of the Lambs film, which gobbled up all five of its Oscar nominations. Serial killers have a tight stranglehold on popular imagination and undeniably inspire great works of fiction, but when actual murderers are celebrated and used to entice consumers is when it becomes rather macabre for me.
In England, there seems to be an obscure pride in our national treasure, Jack the Ripper. Whether or not he actually existed is one thing, but the persona is based on five murders that occurred around the same time, all pretty much identical. You can learn more about this at the London Dungeon in which Jack is the poster boy, and after you've enjoyed some family fun on the rides, you can visit the gift shop with plenty of Ripper merchandise for all:
Here's a Jack the Ripper pad, complete with a butchered prostitute in the bottom left corner. Maybe this will inspire the product's youthful audience to write a poison pen letter perhaps...
Badge of honour - to wear a badge is a form of supporting a cause (such as poppies), or maybe flaunting a trend. Or perhaps advocating your political stance, nevertheless, if you see someone wearing this badge... RUN!
Now is it me, or is a society that churns out stationary, badges and all sorts of merchandise to their kids, based on a man who severed the throats of [at least] five women and mutilated their abdomens; removing organs whenever he saw fit, a little bit odd? Surely these crimes are still horrific no matter when they were committed, or is it like when a piece of works rights have expired and go into the public domain. Do horrific murders lose their affliction after a century or so?
So as it's clear that murderers from time immemorial are now embraced, it leaves me pondering whether the serial killers of today will be the ambiguous, scary and celebrated icons of the future; in a century's time will their be Dr. Harold Shipman's First Medical kit, available for kids (see illustration)...?
Hope I don't lose my head for this cartoon; just adding to the royal discourse...]]>Stop Preaching Gove!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12161462012-01-19T19:00:00-05:002012-03-20T05:12:01-04:00Ben Jenningshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-jennings/every school in the country - although this has run into a spot of bother as Cameron told Gove that this project must not be funded by taxpayer's money (and rightly so!). Now Gove has hit a slump in a search for an independent sponsor, which suggests that the original plan was to use taxpayer's money, if this is true.
It was also speculated through Whitehall sources that because Gove wouldn't be able to distribute the books until he found a private sponsor; this meant leaving thousands of copies of the Bible printed especially for this in a warehouse somewhere abroad, or maybe he's keeping them on the Queen's yacht (evenly spread I hope, wouldn't want that thing to capsize!)
I don't understand why this is even a necessary venture in what is supposed to be a secular society - particularly when only last week Sir David Attenborough and Professor Richard Dawkins were celebrating their victory that creationist teaching should stay out of the science class in state-funded schools. It seems that Gove's project runs contrary to this, as there was no talk of every school receiving a signed copy of The Origin of Species as well. I agree that the basics of the religion that has dominated western civilisation should be taught in schools, but in R.E, and maybe with printed out passages provided by the teacher, like in every other lesson at school. Intricate studies of the Bible should be a personal endeavor, conducted at home or in the Church (where I'm told they have Bibles in abundance).
Whether anything will come of this only time will tell, but the thing that struck me with this biblical debacle was that Gove plans to write his own personal inscription in each copy of the Bible! Not only did this shock me due to the sheer scale of that task (his wrist will be as numb as a 14 year-old boys after), but what stunned me most is the pretentiousness of signing the holy book... the Bible isn't even signed by God himself!
But thinking of it, none of the book's protagonists popped their autographs in (maybe they thought it wouldn't take off). This got me thinking of how the main characters would sign their names; here are my interpretations:
Satan'AKA The Devil AKA Lucifer: Very much the bad guy in this tale. If you thought that Professor Moriarty was bad, you wait till you read about this guy! I imagine his signature very well revised, symbolic and bad to the bone.
God: Of course, like all our favourite stories, when there's evil there is an impeccable force of good to match it. God is a hero like no other and makes Superman look like Milhouse. I imagine his signature to be similar to Satan's symbolic type but with none of the sinister nuances.
Jesus Christ: The son of our hero who proves to be a worthy protégé, the difference is that this character is half human, thus making his heroic deeds more relatable to us, the reader. His signature seems a bit untamed, but one can only assume this was signed with the pen in his mouth whilst up on the cross.
Noah: An ally of our hero, this guy rescued two of every animal and secured them on a gargantuan boat he made alone; with his bare hands; in a matter of days, when God killed off everyone and everything else with a flood in an act of mass genocide. It was then up to Noah, his family, and all the animal couples to repopulate the Earth. I imagine Noah's signature to be slightly less egotistic than the others and wet from the flood.
UPDATE: It is well known that God has kept a low profile since the Bible(s), however I have just learnt that he is due to give evidence at the Leveson Inquiry next week to testify against News International for making a false icon of Rupert Murdoch.
]]>Cameron Blows and Ready, Steady, Caught!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.11980152012-01-10T20:13:13-05:002012-03-11T05:12:01-04:00Ben Jenningshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-jennings/
This week has been full of drama and it's barely even halfway through! As depicted in my above cartoon, Westminster and the SNP have had a war of words over Scottish Independence, in which a referendum is now due to be held in Scotland in 2014, despite Cameron's best attempts to blow his authoritative bagpipes in demand for it to be held much earlier.
Despite this drama, it is nowhere near my favourite story of the week thus far, that place has been earned deservedly by a certain celebrity chef, a Ready, Steady, Crook if you will. I am of course talking about Antony Worrall Thompson (pictured below), who was caught shoplifting cheese and wine from his local Tesco. This story firstly reminded me of how farcical the juxtaposition of the words 'Celebrity' and 'Chef' are to me. It's one of the most mundane jobs there is, I don't understand the fascination. However, this is probably because my cookery skills are comparable to a mule at reproducing: useless. And to be fair, cooking was apparently essential to our evolution; primitive chefs, like the Homo-Ramsey-Erectus for example, began cooking their grub, thus saving time chomping on hard foods.
Having said all this, I still don't understand why there are SO many TV chefs, although it appears that the certain one in question wasn't getting enough attention (I hadn't seen him on anything since I'm A Celebrity...)
His motives were nonsensical, even to him I think, and since being caught he's apologised for his acts and is seeking medical help, because remember; when a celebrity goes on a crime spree it's the doings of psychological demons and we must lay them on the couch and sympathise. Apparently Worral Thompson has been "sobbing himself to sleep" too since the ordeal...Poor man, he's probably having terrible nightmares as well once he's dropped off after all that cheese intake.
]]>#RupertMurdochOnTwittertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.11858672012-01-05T19:00:00-05:002012-03-06T05:12:01-05:00Ben Jenningshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-jennings/
Maybe some users who didn't approve were in fear that this could be the start of a Twitter transition where hierarchy takes over. If this were to be the case, my prediction is that what was once an egalitarian social network could take a dramatic shift and become dominated by aristocracy, where those at the top of the food chain, like Murdoch, have minions instead of followers.
This could then lead to an extreme capitalist Twitter in which the everyday Twitter account holder must endure hard strenuous labour trends in order to Twitter feed their family/followers. I then foresee the '@' being replaced by the dollar symbol, and maybe the hashtag (#) being replaced by the asterisk (*) - a pompous symbol often used to explain things beyond the understanding of the common man.
Protests will then begin over the controversial debate over why a man who has been working all day is only allowed 150 characters; all hell breaks loose and some entrepreneurs start to ponder new theories to try and overthrow Twitter, such as keeping irrelevant things to yourself altogether. I predict Murdoch's reign of Twitter terror may come to a dramatic climax when his minions begin retweeting others people's direct messages.
By now I realise I've digressed slightly, I think my hypothesis is highly unlikely and maybe, just maybe, this new Twitter account will just be some old coot's occasional ramblings about what he's doing in his leisure time and updates about his fictitious news channel.
]]>