Politics and the media

Over the past weekend, news of the Australian ‘ball-tampering’ scandal has rocked the cricketing world, and has dominated headlines around the world as a result. In short, the Australian national team, led by captain Steve Smith, essentially attempted to change the condition of the ball – and thus gain an unfair advantage over their South African counterparts. It has been brandished as cheating by the experts and fans around the world and has cast huge doubt over where their team goes next. After first hearing of the news, and I won’t deny it gave me a lot of glee; they are, after all, the perennial English villains in cricket, the actual scandal got me thinking. How are we, as people, able to rationalise something that we see fit, even if it goes against popular belief? It can only be said that each individual action we take has distinct ramifications on our daily lives, and it seems to transpire into overall beliefs too. It would be unthinkable for any of us to suggest tha

Undoubtedly, World Wars I and II had far-reaching global consequences, but how far can we actually consider them as ‘World Wars’, and if we do, why? On the face of it, this question might seem very limited in answer. After all, the name explains it all, they were wars, involving a sizeable proportion of the world, right? Whilst this may be true, it is their separation, as such, from other major global conflicts that got me thinking. And after a quick research to try and back this view up, I decided I still don’t understand why we distinguish those two as ‘World Wars’. To fully explain my point, I am going to have to delve further into history and set the scene a little, into the mid-18 th century, and talk of the Seven Years War of 1756-1763.   Now I will admit that I hadn’t even heard of this war myself until I looked further, but it is remarkably significant. It emanated from French forces expanding into the Ohio River Valley in America in 1756, which brought them into