Boxall was a vicar’s daughter, and was tormented by fellow teenagers so much that she clearly thought her only way out was to jump from a window, knowing it could result in her death, but seeing that as a better fate than having to live with the bullying anymore. She was only 19 years old.

Hatice Can, 15, was given an 8 year youth custody order, which would have been higher had she been older. Outrageous! This 15 year old girl clearly had enough spite, rage and anger to drive a 19 year old girl to her death. Can also apparently had a history of mental health issues, which arguably should have been dealt with a long time ago. The judge proceeding over the case said “At the age of 19, having been given a wonderful chance in life through her adoptive parents, and despite struggling in her teenage years, she had her whole life in front of her. The two of you have taken all that away. Rosi’s family and friends now mourn the loss of a loved one.” http://askothernews.myway.com/article//20091215/B85963801260534576A00.html

This is exactly the kind of thing Radio 1′s Bullyproof campaign has been trying to raise awareness about and put a stop to. The campaign can be seen on their website, and has tips for improving confidence, how to use your attitude and positivism to face bullies, and tips and advice from Radio 1 dj’s and celebrities such as Alesha Dixon, Cheryl Cole, Chase and Status and Alexandra Burke. This seems to be a campaign that many celebrities will back, and is obviously a worth while cause. They portray positive messages such as ‘believe in yourself’, and ‘make yourself bullyproof’.

The bullyproof campaign also features a video of various celebrities and their messages, and puts across a message of strength that hopefully many teenagers will adopt in order to beat the bullies. The campaign is very accessible, and is mentioned frequently on Radio 1, by celebrities and djs. Also, fans have the opportunity to follow the success of the campaign on Facebook, Bebo, Myspace, Twitter and other social networking sites. Radio 1 have been very good in making their ideas and goals well known and heard throughout the media, which will only enhance their reputation. Seeing as the BBC is paid for by the licence fee, it is seen or heard by everyone with a television or radio, which will hopefully do nothing but add to the success of this inspiring campaign, and it will hopefully lead to a significant decrease in cases of bullying, such as poor Rosiemeiri Boxall.

We’ve all seen people on facebook with 1000+ friends, and have asked ourselves, does that person really know all of these people?

And I’m sure we’ve all had friend requests and private messages from people we dont know, which no mutual friends, who seem to have somehow ‘stumbled across’ our profiles.

Well, for these reasons, and many others, social networking sites have started to receive a negative reputation, the idea that users have no protection from other users, whether they know them or not. Facebook seems to have taken this into consideration, and this week has been updating its privacy options for users, to make Facebook safer to use.

“Facebook is transforming the world’s ability to control its information online by empowering more than 350 million people to personalize the audience for each piece of content they share,” said Elliot Schrage, Vice President of Communications, Public Policy and Marketing. Users are also given the opportunity to select which information from their profiles can be seen by anyone, whether it be just their name and their picture, their ‘information’ section, pictures, or all or none of the above. Facebook has set the bar high, being the first social networking site to offer such services to its users, and for free. Clearly the creators of Facebook have taken public and government demand into consideration and acted accordingly. Not only will this protect users, or those who chose to protect themselves at least, from people having access to their personal information, it allows them to tailor their Facebook account to what they want.

From a users perspective, and a user that has been offered the changes in privacy, I see this as a very good thing. I feel safe in the knowledge that strangers cannot access my entire profile. From an older generations perspective, I’m sure they would feel more comfortable knowing that their children, nephews, neices etc, are more protected than before, and can therefore worry less. Although, they should obviously not stop worrying all together.

This is a big step forward in the social networking world, and due to the huge popularity of Facebook all over the world, hopefully other social networking sites will follow. Also, this may perhaps lead to a dip in the trouble that is caused due to Facebook having previously being a fairly open entity, and the site should be praised for taking a step forward. This will probably lead to a surge in new applicants to the site, and has done good things for its’ reputation.

Importantly, Facebook puts its’ users first, and understands the need for modern techonology and the importance of communication,” We’re proud of the latest evolution we’re announcing today and we will continue to innovate to serve users’ changing needs.” Auto-Mobi.info  Evolution is the key word here, clearly Facebook understands the wants and needs of users, an indication towards its’ growing popularity.

In reality, they have no one to blame but themselves for people to want to know what goes on in the lives of our monarchy, with stunts such as Prince Harry dressing as a Nazi for a ‘funny’ joke. Also this weekend, pictures emerged of one of the royals appearing to hit one of his dogs with some kind of walking stick. The RSPCA have decided not to take action, what a surprise! The Royal Family seem to get away with anything. Another picture from this weekend show Camilla Parker Bowles parking on double yellow lines for around two hours while she went to do her shopping. Did she get a ticket? Of course she didn’t.

It is my opinion that they don’t want further pictures taken of them so that the public cannot see the things that they do, and get away with, purely because they think they are above the law. Their reputation will continue to go downhill if further pictures emerge of members of the Royal Family acting in ways in which the public would not get away with.

Also, being a member of the Royal Family obviously will come with some ‘conditions’. Some would say that they are the most popular family in Britain, admired by a majority of the public. I, personally, disagree. Being photographed should be seen as something that ‘comes with the job’. If they choose to demand privacy, they shouldn’t attract so much public interest through irresponsible and attention grabbing behaviour.

According to the Telegraph, only the Queen and her daughter, the Princess Royal, deserve the privacy they crave. They tend to keep themselves to themselves and are rarely ‘papped’ outside of pre-organized events. As far as the Telegraph, and it seems the public, are concerned, the other members of the Royal Family have little reason to have their privacy demands met.  If, however, they tidied  up their behaviour, stopped aggrevating the public and the media, their demands for more privacy may be met halfway. The public’s curiosity about the Royal Family will not cease any time soon.

Murdoch seems to believe that users reading the news on the internet counts as ‘theft’, as they are not paying for the content. When, in reality, many people read the news on the internet because it is much easier to fit into their busy lives, than going to buy a newspaper. Also, reading news on the internet allows users to read only what appeals to them, rather than having a whole newspaper and filtering through to the points that interest them

“Murdoch plans to put News Corp content, including from UK newspapers such as the Sun and the Times, behind a paywall and has threatened to remove it from Google’s search index and Google News.”  This appears that Murdoch is simply thinking with ‘£’ signs for eyes, news on the internet is hugely popular, and has even branched onto networking sites such as Twitter. By charging to view online news content, Murdoch will be adding more money to his ever-growing empire.

The Google senior product manager, Josh Cohen, has stated that this new idea will not be completely restrictive, through updating their First Click Free programme, in which users can view up to five news stories per day until they are asked to subscripe, and therefore pay, to view any more content.

Cohen has also admitted that the idea may not be entirely successful (a contradiction to his other statement, perhaps?), “Paid content may not do as well as free options, but that is not a decision we make based on whether or not it’s free. It’s simply based on the popularity of the content with users and other sites that link to it.” This indicates pressure from outside parties, i.e. Murdoch, as it is clear some people are opposed to this idea.

The idea of ‘freedom of the press’ seems to be disappearing, as Murdoch and co are going faster towards making news exclusive to those who can afford it. On the other hand, other news websites, which do not charge users (BBC), may see a huge increase in their following, as people refuse to conform to Murdoch’s plans.

From viewing comments on the page of this story from The Guardian, it is clear that many users disagree which the idea of charging for news on the internet. As well as this, Murdoch will be alienating a large amount of people by adding costs; students, those who leisurely browse, and those who check the internet for the news from time to time. It does not seem to benefit anyone other than Murdoch himself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/02/google-online-news-rupert-murdoch

 BUT. Kate Moss then goes and ‘sticks her oar in’, being quoted as saying, “Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels”. How outrageous! Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but knowing you are a role model for young girls and teenagers all over Britian, Europe and America, to say such a thing could turn out to be detrimental to people’s health and mental well being as they may adopt this ‘mantra’ and become as skinny and waif like as Moss herself.  When celebrities, especially models, come out with opinions such as this it could easily set back the ‘no more size zero’ campaign that has been gaining followers steadily. Fair enough, this is the mantra by which you live; it has clearly benefitted Moss in the shallow modelling industry. However, would one say that Kate Moss ever looks ‘healthy’? To me she looks skinny, tired, haggard and constantly dreary. If this is what young girls want to look like, I’m worried for them. With cases in the news of models killing themselves or seriously damaging their health in order to look good, you wonder whether its all worth it? Surely, life’s too short, and there is too much to experience, to constantly live by this “nothing tastes as good as skinny looks” mantra.

“Ex-Ultimo girl Katie Green, 22, who launched the Say No To Size Zero campaign four months ago, also blasted Moss’s remarks.

She said: “There are 1.1million eating disorders in the UK alone. Kate Moss’s comments are likely to cause many more.”"

http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/11/19/kate-moss-slammed-over-skinny-is-best-motto-115875-21833979/

Considering the amount of eating disorders in the UK, and the amount of images we see of Kate Moss on a daily basis, whether in the news, on television, in magazines and newspapers, or in her campaign for Rimmel, todays quotes from the model is doing nothing to lessen the number of people suffering to strive towards the ‘perfect’ body image.  To me, Moss has had her day, she’s been considered one of the most famous models in the world, has had successful campaigns with top designers and cosmetics companies, but between her comments towards body image, and her past incidents with drugs and alcohol in the media, her days of being a role model should be well and truly over.

So it seems that gone are the days of free tuition fees, and they seem to be steadily increasing each year, last year we paid £3,145, this year, its £3,225, and this is steady progression, almost to be expected. But for tuition fees to rocket to over double what they are now will see many priced out of university. Why should money buy you a degree? This seems like another way of dividing people due to their class and how much money they have. It will also massively increase the debt students will already be left with after three years at university. Yes, we only pay it back after we are earning £15,000 a year, but to have a significant chunk of this taken away and given back to the government will make many people dismiss the idea of university all together.

At my university in particular, you’d be pressed to find a student that has more than 15 or 16 hours a week in lectures, I personally have 10 hours, and I’m paying £3,225 for this?! Don’t get me wrong I love the university and I’m enjoying the course, but i don’t think that the amount I’m having to pay is justifiable.

Mandelson says that the increase in tuition fees will reflect an increase in the quality of teaching, but to me, the quality of teaching is fine, if not better than fine.

There are many people criticizing this idea, not just myself. The Liberal Democrats have said that the review was “nothing but a conspiracy between Labour and the Tories designed to keep plans to hike up tuition fees off the agenda until after the General Election.”

Wes Streeting, the president of the National Union of Students has said that “This would be a disaster for UK higher education and must not be allowed to happen. Members of the review should be in no doubt about the scale of public opposition to a hike in fees and the level of student anger about the extent of our indebtedness and the marketisation of our education.”

It seems to me that the only people this would benefit is the government. Clearly the recession has inspired them to think creatively about other ways in which to make money and dig themselves out of the expensive hole that they’ve gotten themselves into. To them, making tuition fees higher will not affect them, and will give them the money they so desperately seem to need.

This will mean that students like me will be no longer sitting here writing blogs as part of a PR course, but will be struggling to find full time jobs because we wouldn’t be able to afford to go to university.

I found out about this idea from the Telegraph online, many students don’t buy newspapers on a daily basis, and the internet allows us to access news stories by category and topic. This story is definitely applicable to students, and it being on the internet will allow for students to have their say, much like in this blog.

Then, take this new and interesting concept and don’t advertise it, that’s right, don’t advertise it.

Paranormal activity has relied completely on the Internet for its publication. It was first recognised when the finished copy was sent to ‘Screamfest’, a cult festival for homemade horror films. It was then sent to the editor of ‘Dread Central’, a popular horror website, and that’s when things really took off.

All the promotion and PR of the film has been done online. The film’s uniqueness is reflected in the trailer, it’s just the audiences’ reactions. Literally. A few clips of the film, and the audience convincingly screaming and jumping at the right time.

This created a ridiculous amount of hype, rightly so?  Don’t believe me? Have a look…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_UxLEqd074

Audiences then have the option to ‘demand’ to see the film in a cinema near them, demand? Interesting word. If I went on the site right now and clicked ‘demand’, I doubt it would make much of a difference, if the whole of Leicester clicked ‘demand’, would it make that much of a difference? Would the film actually be shown here? Although I can sort of see why, if it wasn’t in a majorly high demand and was shown anyway, it might lose money. If it turned out to be awful, it would clearly lose money. Hence the need for loads of Internet hype.

Apparently, the hype was worth it. According to ‘CHACHA.com’, the low budget film cost $11,000 to make, was shown in less than 200 theatres across America, and took in $77,873 over the first weekend.  Nice profit for the director Oren Peli then.  Maybe in the future more films, or more of his films, will be publicised in this way. Although, the demand for an equally ‘decent’ storyline will be huge. If the next film, if one ever occurs, its gotta be as good, if not better. Otherwise the whole idea will fall flat on its face. Maybe it was a one off, maybe it’ll happen again, bigger and better, guess we’ll have to wait and see.

My name’s Kelly, I’m 19 and am studying media at De Montfort university in Leicester, I’m in my second year and part of my public relations course is to write about the media and public relations issues, although there will be a bit of useless chatter thrown in I’m sure. From now on hopefully my blogs will be about media issues and events, if I get off track I may need someone to remind me that this isn’t just a way to vent!