Yesterday’s BBC News at Ten had a fun little segment on “fake news”. No, it wasn’t a crisis of contrite self-awareness, rather a comment on the dark potential of facial manipulation in post-production editing suites, so we can overdub people talking with a different audio, and enable them to say something different.

The example they used, which is particularly sh*tty for a news programme, was the possibility of the hit BBC drama, Luther, being overdubbed for foreign viewers, with Sexiest Man Alive™ Idris Elba’s mouth contorting to form words of a language he doesn’t speak.

It doesn’t take a genius to extrapolate that the BBC’s possible gain in selling their enhanced programmes abroad could be the truth’s loss in other areas of life. The hipster video editor questioned on the subject paid the dangers very casual lip service, appropriately, by suggesting safeguards to ensure the technology is not used for nefarious ends. Because if you’re willing to edit a video to say someone said something they didn’t, you’d surely sign up to a code of conduct first, and be sure to stick to it.

Do you need this? Really? With unanimity amongst the public and critics that A Star is Born is wonderful, do you you really need me to tell you what I think?

How about if I tell you that it’s dogsh*t?

Okay, so, I found myself at a bit of a loose end on Saturday afternoon, so decided I’d go to the cinema. I couldn’t put myself through what I expect to be a deep clean of the Queen story, as told by Brian May - though I will - so I went for a different music-centric film.

We'll be slayin' people hatin'
But it don't bother us
Cus it's lit up in this thing called
Millennial Love

Millennial Love. The name of a song by a YouTuber I don’t dare type the name of, and also a podcast from the former newspaper, now blog online newspaper, the Independent.

This podcast - my main focus herein - centres on - uh-huh - the dating scene for millennials. If you don’t know, a millennial is somewhat accepted to be someone who was born in the last twenty or so years of the 20th century, which, incredibly, just about includes me, although there’s significant debate about the range. And, really, it’s a jungle out there.

Okay, so, two things:

1) I’m not Irish, and don’t live in Ireland, so maybe I should shut the f*ck up.

2) Chances are, by the time you - the average visitor to Marceltipool.com - read this, voting will have taken place, and my assumption, from over here in Britain two days before, is that Ireland will have voted Yes in a big way.

Well, to deal with both of those points, I’m nailing my colours to the mast on this referendum because I see it as a vote to legalise, and further the legitimisation of, abortion, both in Ireland and globally. Should Ireland vote Yes, then this piece can act as one of many examples of a counterargument whenever someone campaigning for easier access to abortion says “Even Ireland’s with us now!”

So, the talk today is of Conor McGregor versus Khabib Nurmagomedov being a very real possibility, perhaps for a UFC Russia/Moscow event. A couple of weeks after Conor McGregor threw a sack barrow at a bus, smashing a window and injuring colleagues, the hype train is back on track - thanks to the Barclays Center incident of course - and the biggest fight in UFC history may well happen.

So was it real anger? Or self-promotion? (By McGregor? Or by the UFC and McGregor?)

Yesterday, I had a conversation with a friend. Said friend is black. I am white. Ordinarily, these facts would be entirely irrelevant, but for the reasons which follow, they are on this occasion pertinent.

In passing, I mentioned that when I had first moved to the area of the country which I currently reside in, I had initially struggled to find work. In fact, I had struggled to even make it to interview stage, and despite the obvious shortcomings in my character and employment history outlined in my CV, the lack of interest seemed odd. That was until a friend of a friend, back at the time I was going through this struggle, pointed out to me that "Mate, they think you're black."

As the area where I live is backward on so many levels - it truly is a sh*thole, it has to be said - I actually gave, and still do give, some credence to this theory. My legal first name is, generally speaking, one which is given to Afro-Caribbean people far more than it is given to white people, in this country at least, and many people around here are d*cks. The idea that they are racist d*cks is not much of a leap. The idea that they are so idiotic, and arrogant in their idiocy, that they would racially discriminate - erroneously, in my case - seems, sadly, to follow.

"The best episode of Take Me Out ever". You'd probably still change the channel, right? Perhaps. But you'd read about it in the aftermath.

Sorry, to be clear, this hasn't happened. Yet. This is not a review; it is, rather, a preview. It is surely a preview.

So here's how it goes down: Host Paddy McGuinness, as is his wont, makes some jokes that are construed as being sexist, chauvinistic and patronising (delete as applicable and more of which later), a group of women are introduced and, then, finally, after an innuendo or two, another human is lowered into the room for the aforementioned women's perusal.

But, on this occasion, it's not a man who's lowered in (it is usually. Check). Instead (drum roll), it's a woman.

Theresa May today announced there would be a six-week consultation over the use of "stop and search" powers by the police. Apparently, she wants to ensure that the police are only using stop and search "when it is needed", as otherwise it is "a dreadful waste of police time", and there is talk of the procedure leading to certain ethnic minority groups - who are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people - feeling persecuted and regarding the action as antagonistic.

What an horrendously, unfeelingly pragmatic way of viewing a truly abhorrent way of treating members of the public. Firstly, the desire for stop and search to only be used when needed is incredibly damning and surely should be expanded upon. The suggestion - which we all know is fact - that police officers are abusing the power, most likely through personal or institutionalised racism - most likely both - should be a declaration in the form of condemnation, not muttered as an issue that needs to be ironed out as it is not resource-effective, especially in the wake of revelations concerning the family of Stephen Lawrence being spied upon. The talk of worries that communities which are most affected by this abuse may be antagonised - resulting in retaliation such as the 2011 civil unrest - is sickening. So it's ok to bully black people as long as there's no chance of them ever causing you a problem off the back of it? What about considering the turmoil each individual is put through?

Everyone's seen it, everyone's realised it belongs to one of football history's most famous and successful clubs. The new Warrior Liverpool Away shirt is in the public domain, it's out there, it's reflecting on our team.

Let's get some things out of the way. Warrior have paid an awful lot of money to get Liverpool onboard. So have Standard Chartered, and they'll surely be revisited, but let's focus on the kit manufacturer for now. Warrior have paid a lot of money to make the kit so, in some people's twisted logic, they have carte blanche to deliver whatever they like, certainly with change strips. They can take that white card and slap some passé red lines on the sides and corners and scribble some ungodly mess down the bottom.

Well no they f*cking can't. Because, and this is where it goes beyond just being an insult to a legendary club and becomes an insult to human intelligence as well, if it looks terrible, it doesn't sell. Not simply because every Liverpool fan looks at it and is appalled - kit design is subjective, sadly - but because if it looks a bit rubbish then the wonderful British meeja, who are always on the lookout for any excuse to ridicule Liverpool FC, jumps on it and immediately stigmatises it.

And so he's off. Luis Suarez, the pantomime villain of the English Premier League has stated that he wishes to depart for pastures new and, as it will come to pass, he will not pull on the red of Liverpool next season.

It's ok. I've celebrated his goals with gusto, I've felt his torture when his majestic runs at defences have culminated in an almost predictable rapping of the woodwork and I've argued against his punishments from the FA even when his actions do not lend themselves to sympathy, but I wish him luck for the future and don't regret him leaving our club behind.

The OCD wet dream of his transitions to and from Anfield both being to the backdrop of a ban, incredibly both for biting an opponent, says enough about the man. As an isolated incident, the Cannibal of Ajax episode could be spun as a momentary lapse, but, as they say, to bite one opponent may be regarded as a misfortune, to bite two looks like carelessness.

I post this article under "Liverpool", and whilst that is practical the fact remains that this story has implications as far reaching as any, with connotations for society in its entirety.

What has been revealed in the documents being made public has shocked many. For there to be so much confirmed and further ambiguity emerging in the news that 41 of the victims may have been saved is viewed by some as a greater disclosure than could have been imagined.

Sadly, the information, the facts, the now received wisdom, is not as shocking. People who have followed the story of Hillsborough and the families' search for justice are not surprised the police have been involved in a cover up, not surprised that statements were amended, not surprised that lies have been told for 23 years. Sadly - most sadly of all - not wholly surprised that almost half of those who passed could have been saved had the disaster been handled better, even after the crush occurred.

Je ne le crois pas! Joey Barton vient d'arriver à Marseille pour compléter son prêt à l'OM.

C'est un désastre. Ignorez tout ce que vous avez entendu sur sa réputation de milieu de terrain combatif et enthousiaste. C'est la vérité mais c'est sans importance. Joey Barton est un fléau.

Barton ne sera pas un deuxième Chris Waddle, plus vraisemblablement un deuxième James Shayler. Pour tous les bons moments qu'il provoque sur le terrain il cause beaucoup plus de problèmes par son comportement sur et en dehors du stade.

Attaques violentes sur ses coéquipiers, attaques violentes sur des membres du public, attaques violentes sur ses adversaires - résultant en cartons rouges - querelles fatales avec ses entraineurs, il a tout fait. Si on pensait que Hatem Ben Arfa representait un problème on n'a encore rien vu.

Page 1 of 2