Roses are red, violets are blue. Valentine's is a trap for people like you!

The beginning of February means only one thing - Valentine's Day is just around the corner, which means more misery for singletons around the globe. But what about those of us that are in a relationship and are therefore forced by our 'better' halves to participate in this corporate money-making scheme?

Once a year we are forced to go out shopping or spend hours scrawling through online shopping sites, looking for that perfect gift to show our loved ones that we care. All the high street stores get excited and start putting those vomit-inducing red devil bears and heart pillows in their windows, making everywhere you turn look like a low budget chick-flick movie. We all know its incredibly stupid and yet we still traipse round for days on end trying to decide what is the perfect gift and settling on a cliche, cheesy cuddly toy - something really sad like a rabbit holding a heart, only to hand it over on the big day and be told to try harder next time. And what do you get? A pair of socks.

Its almost as though it has become acceptable to ignore your better half for 364 days a year and then on one day, you have to act all loved-up again, like the day you first met. And of course, you have to spend your money on tacky toys that are stored away in the cupboard under the stars the very next day and completely forgotten about. Its not like a birthday (which is odd; celebrating surviving on earth for another year?!) or Christmas where you can ask people what they want and order it on the Internet; having it delivered on time (sometimes) and without moving from your chair. Oh no, Valentine's Day is up to you to think of something appropriate and 'wow' your loved one. What would be appropriate would be to save your money and not fall for the retail world's get-rich quick scheme.

Does anybody actually know what we are celebrating? Surely someone didn't just invent a day for expressing your love - you can do that any day of the year and if you really do love someone, you don't have to wait for one specific day of the year to demonstrate it. According to my old friend the Internet the actual meaning behind Valentine's Day is simple:

"Experts state that Valentine's Day originated from St. Valentine, a Roman who was martyred for refusing to give up Christianity. He died on February 14, 269 A.D., the same day that had been devoted to love lotteries. Legend also says that St. Valentine left a farewell note for the jailer's daughter, who had become his friend, and signed it "From Your Valentine". Other aspects of the story say that Saint Valentine served as a priest at the temple during the reign of Emperor Claudius. Claudius then had Valentine jailed for defying him. In 496 A.D. Pope Gelasius set aside February 14 to honour St. Valentine."

So there you have it. We are celebrating the fact that somebody died. Seems an odd thing to rejoice over to me. Who is this St. Valentine and why is he never mentioned in the real historic events that took place since the world was invented? Was he there at the birth of Jesus Christ? No. Was he present during any of the world wars? No. Was he behind the fall of the Berlin Wall? No. He was just some Roman who left a message to a friend - it wasn't even a lover?! Thanks to him, singletons are made to feel extremely lonely once a year whilst couples are forced to waste money on junk for no real reason for one day in every 365.

Have I got it all wrong? Is this shambolic day actually worth celebrating? Forgive me, but my partner knows whether or not they are loved and I certainly have nothing to prove. Having said that, yes....the Mrs will be receiving a cliche, cheesy cuddly toy from me on February 14, which I will no doubt pay over the odds for - after all, it is Valentine's Day(!)

EMA - Easy Money Acquired or a deserved study reward?

So, today's the day the Government are due to make a decision on whether or not to scrap Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA).

For students, today has the potential to be disastrous. If your annual household income is less than £30,810 and you are aged 16,17 or 18 about to leave compulsory education for a further education course at a college or Sixth Form, you receive £10, £20, or £30 per week (depending on your family's circumstances) for attending all your lessons punctually. Essentially, its money or nothing!

Actually, its blackmail! The idea behind EMA is that students have financial help in order to pay for all the books, stationary and transport costs associated with going to college. In reality, students are being paid for going to each lesson at college. How much does a few textbooks and pens cost? No more than £100 surely – meaning three weeks worth of money should cover it; why continue being paid EMA for every other week of your term?

I myself benefited from EMA during my time at Sixth Form, whilst studying my A-Levels. Honestly, my decision to study A-Levels was not spearheaded by a desire to be gifted £30 a week of government money, more to gain the qualifications that I would need in order to be successful in life. Unfortunately for me, many students at my college were only there to pick up £30 a week of taxpayers money. They had no desire to learn or achieve anything and would come to college each day, mess around and go home every week £30 richer. Did the fact that they had no qualifications bother them when they left? Of course not, they could just walk into another college or go straight into a low-paid job where they could earn enough money to survive.

For me, I did not need EMA for travel. I lived only 20 minutes away from college. As far as books were concerned; yes I should have perhaps bought a few but why bother spending money on something that I could borrow for free from a local library (remember those old fashioned things?) As far as stationary was concerned, I only needed a notepad and a pen and I was good to go, meaning my EMA was spent on my social life.

Dire Straits sang about Money for Nothing
- does EMA follow the same principle?

Whilst it is easy to generalise and tarnish all students with a money-grabbing brush, it is true that some students do travel to college and travel costs these days are far from cheap! However, it is only around £80 for a student to purchase a termly discount (with that infamous student discount tag), which means that again, they only need to use up three weeks worth of money.

At the risk of not only insulting and shocking every student in the country, but also sounding hypocritical, I believe that to scrap EMA payments is no bad thing. However, for those that rely on it for transport costs and textbooks, why not replace it with a start-of-term loan of around £150 that should cover students for the whole term. Whilst EMA has the benefit of being an incentive for students to attend each lesson, why not make the start-of-the-year loan non-repayable for those that achieve excellent results throughout the term and for those that don't, ask for the payment to be returned. At least that way those that are only attending college to pick up some money for nothing will have no reward for their idleness. For those wanting to achieve, they get money to spend on resources they need that they do not have to pay back – its win-win for both the student and the taxpayer.

Yes, students who do not have rich parents need some money to go out and let their hair down but this does not need to be at the expense of government money. Why not do the unthinkable and get a weekend job somewhere to support yourself through your time in college? That way, we are teaching our youth the benefits of working and getting them used to being self-sufficient. That's my view, but then......I'm no government minister.....

Students, please feel free to rant and rave below.....

Foursquare: four better or four worse?

It's finally happened. While the world has been busy talking about the upsurge of question and answer based social networking website Quora , fellow social networking site Foursquare has hit the headlines as the first ever case of cyber stalking has impacted upon the online world.

Reports from various national newspaper titles, including Metro and Scotsman, are detailing the account of a 26-year-old man who was cyber stalked by a 22-year-woman tracking his location constantly through location-based social networking site Foursquare.

It took me a while to sign up to the location-based website, that asks you to 'check in' at venues from your mobile. Facebook was my first social networking guilty pleasure and then when that lost its charm, I turned to Twitter. In fact, only late last year did I finally succumb to Foursquare. Why did it take so long for a self-confessed social media addict to sign up? For the very reason it is hitting the headlines now.
The victim states that they were "left under siege for nine months by dozens of e-mails, calls and texts every day from a woman he only met for a matter of minutes." The alleged stalker is reported to have started showing up at a number of places the victim checked in at and harassing him as she took up the pretence that she was interested in employing him.

I saw the dangers associated with Foursquare from the very beginning. Surely letting everyone know where you are will leave you vulnerable to potential stalkers? Just like the furore over Facebook places (which, like Foursquare, asks you where you are situated in the world) which erupted over the statement that to share with everyone when you are away from home can leave you vulnerable to burglaries, there is a lot of privacy leakage within Foursquare.

Originally, I didn't particularly want anyone to know where I was and equally did not think many people I knew really gave a damn either way but the added incentive of achieving Mayorships and unlocking badges each time you check in at a destination makes the website strangely alluring and it was upon this basis that I signed up.

Before you ask, no I have not been stalked or burgled as a consequence of using Foursquare (touch wood!) and neither am I likely to be purely for the fact that I am careful how I use it. Only a fool would put their own home and full address onto Foursquare and repeatedly check in (believe me, I have seen some full addresses on there, which would have been very useful had I been a thief!) and even to check in to your local area is a risky business for those that like to keep their privacy. However, to check in elsewhere surely poses no risks?

Foursquare: Is it really a dangerous website?

In truth, it is actually incredibly difficult to stalk someone on Foursquare. The only people that see your check-ins are those that you have requested to be your friend on there, or whose friend request you have accepted, (except the handful of updates on the site's homepage, which, due to the amount of users signed up, are only there for a few seconds before changing!) beggaring the question why our victim accepted his stalker in the first place. OK, so he did not know she would turn out to be a complete obsessive but when she kept turning up at the same places he visited, did the thought never occur to him to delete her as a friend? (A resource that Foursquare offers with very simple instructions!) Just as with Facebook Places, it is nigh on impossible to stalk someone you are not 'virtual friends' with, even if you are their friend in real life.

Of course, no web developer is going to bear in mind of the risk of a complete nutjob stumbling across your online profiles when creating a new social networking website for in reality, there are few and far between. However, as with any social networking site the need for careful use by the user is of paramount importance. I'm sure you wouldn't put the dates of your holiday on your Facebook status, even if it is just 'friends' that can see (as long as your profile is set to private!) just as you would not paste your entire address on Foursquare in the knowledge that when you checked in somewhere else everyone knew you weren't home.

More than simply a bit of fun, Foursquare also offers significant benefit to businesses, as there is an option within the site to leave tips on check-in points, such as 'try this particular coffee bar for cheap, great-tasting espressos.' Furthermore, as the Wetherspoons trade once tried themselves, a business can offer exclusive deals to their Foursquare mayor as an incentive to keep visiting the establishment (Foursquare works on GPS so it is almost impossible to cheat the network.)

Foursquare is not a dangerous website and although the idea of it can potentially breach privacy, it is down to the individual user to filter the information they share themselves. Just like any other social networking site, Foursquare must be used with a pinch of common sense in order for it to become a fun and safe medium for expressing your views. In this particular case, it would not have taken a genius to work out how is was possible that the alleged cyber stalker kept turning up at the same places as the victim! When using social networking, you are putting yourself at the helm of the public domain and must reserve some dilligence at all times. If something is suspect, act to bring it to a halt or report it to the relevant authorities before it cascades out of hand!

Last year, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that cyber stalkers who harass people on social networking sites could face jail under a new crackdown. Restraining orders are available that can ban offenders from posting ‘any material relating to a victim on sites including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter’. Social networking is beginning to hammer away at your everyday life and as such, is being treated seriously by the authorities but at the end of the day there is no better way of securing privacy than by monitoring your own online activity.

Clegg's cuts cause capital chaos

"I rang the Liberal Democrats office yesterday and asked if I could purchase a written copy of their manifesto. 'I'm sorry,' I was told. 'We've sold out.' I said 'I know, but could I get hold of your manifesto please?"

Nick Clegg: A sell-out?

I voted for them. Nick Clegg impressed me during the infamous live Leader's Questions broadcasts. He portrayed his party as the only real alternative to a struggling Labour and an old fashioned Conservative rule. I never expected them to gain any sort of power but a vote for them was a vote against the other parties. Democratically, they didn't gain any power and yet somehow we now have a Tory-Liberal (Con-Dem-Nation) coalition at the helm and already the country's government is beginning to crumble.

The Liberal Democrats have sold out on so many levels since they joined the coalition but University fees was perhaps their biggest turnaround yet. Pre-election, Clegg and his band of merry men targeted the young people's vote by promising to abolish university tuition fees altogether. Students were leaving university with record levels of debt under fees of £3,100 a year and Clegg wanted to make life easier for those looking to learn. However, upon the dawn of the General Election, he began to creep backwards on his pledge and insisted that to abolish tuition fees altogether would be very difficult, instead pledging to 'significantly lower' the amount. The last thing anyone expected was for him to veto the Tory idea that universities in England will be able to charge tuition fees of up to £9,000 per year from 2012, as the government transfers much of the cost of courses from the state to students. Understandably, the nation's students petitioned against the ruling.

I sympathise with those youngsters who want to better themselves by going to university and originally agreed with their decision to petition - after all, this is allegedly still a nation of free will and speech so let them take to the streets to voice their opposition. However, my sympathy abruptly left me when I saw just how the students chose to protest. Three weeks of violence, vandalism, graffiti and disorderly behaviour followed on the streets of London and other large cities. Rather than the peaceful, diplomatic protests we were expecting from our young minds, we got behaviour that can only be described as feral. These people are meant to be our future and yet rather than tackle government the most effective way, by leaving a lasting impression from a peaceful and carefully orchestrated protest, they quickly turn against the entire British public by defacing such landmarks as Nelson's Column. Following such behaviour as that shown on the video below at 30 Millbank, (home of the Conservative offices), I am now all in favour of doubling the tuition fees again to £18,000 to pay for the repairs and maintenance that our country's streets and buildings need after students' violent reactions.



I never saw the true merit of university for myself. Throughout my educational life, I always wanted to avoid the route to university. I always wanted to be a journalist and didn't want to spend 4-6 years of my life proving I was worthy. No, instead I wanted to get the required qualifications as soon as possible so I could start doing the job that I so wanted. I did an intense 6-month NCTJ fast-track course. It was tough, but I did well and left to go straight into work on a local newspaper. Keeping in touch with my old school and Sixth Form friends who went onto university I only ever heard bad reports. Regrets that they are still studying and accruing more debt whilst I am in work doing the job I always wanted to do and earning. OK, I'm far from rich - in fact, I just about earn enough to scrape by but at least my figures are not in the minus as they could have been if I had gone to university!

On the other hand, they too have their stories. Unfortunately they are not always tales of remarkable academic achievement. Some have left university and nosedived straight into unemployment facing a UK jobs market that doesn't look like picking up any time soon - four years of their life wasted when they could have gone for a job prior to university when jobs were more widely available. Other tales are of mass drinking sessions, parties and general debauchery whilst at university - the kind of behaviour that we saw in the protests; far from the settles, clever academic youth that we expect to lead our country forward.

Of course, for some careers university is a must. It is the only place where you can learn all the necessary skills that you will need in order to succeed in your chosen career - where would potential lawyers be without a university education? Yes, university has a wealth of plus points but it is not the be all and end all of your life. Depending on your chosen future career, university is either invaluable or an unnecessary commodity. Plenty of people have boycotted the institution and gone on to do well enough without it. £9,000 is a tough amount to rake up in fees that aren't always necessary for the career you want to go in and if you are facing financial problems at university, try not wasting what money you do have on wild, overblown parties. The odd one to let your hair down is fine but every month or term is ridiculous! Finally, if you would like to show you displeasure at a government decision, do it peacefully and respectfully. Governments are far more likely to listen to diplomatic protests than they are to respond positively to violence and vandalism.

Think about it....university - and debt - is not the only option..........

Cheryl Cole - is the nation losing its sweetheart?

Blogging about the X-Factor is not something that I enjoy doing too much - after all, anyone who is anyone seems to have a blog on the subject these days and the public are at risk of being X-Factored to death this year! I've done quite well. I've only blogged about it once (now twice) when I championed Wagner and do not consider it a secret that I am a fan of his. In fact, I was all set to write a moany old blog post about his departure on Saturday after he was left in the bottom three, only for the unthinkable to happen and him to be passed through to the next round.

However, what annoyed me more than if Wagner had have lost the public vote was the way that Cheryl confronted him on national television about a comment he made about her in the press. Why? Because there really was no need!

Do we remember Cheryl Cole? Apparently, she's the nation's sweetheart. Plucked from Girls Aloud to marry Chelsea footballer Ashley Cole, the country quickly fell in love with the Geordie lass. Why? You tell me? I never really quite got her. Is it because she likes to speak her mind? No, I've never really seen her do much on The X-Factor except agree with Simon Cowell as she looks to keep her job. Is it because she is a talented singer? A matter of opinion but, erm.....no. So why is it? More than likely, its because she married an England footballer and became the English-residing version of Victoria Beckham.

Regardless, all of a sudden everyone loved Cheryl Cole and she happily played up to the admiration, glancing sweet smiles towards every member of the press she happened to spot whilst out and about. Until Saturday, that is, when she thought it appropriate to blast Wagner live on air for a newspaper comment she read allegedly quoting her as a 'council estate girl who got lucky.'

Cheryl Cole: Pulling her 'happy' face again

In actual fact, Wagner's quote was heralding the dramatic rise to fame of a council estate girl who got a lucky break with her talent. He was actually praising the judge but because she feels his place in the competition is questionable, she felt it necessary to confront him during a live show.

Anyone who thought Cheryl was a sweetheart will have quickly changed their opinion of her, upon seeing Wagner's surprised face as she confronted him. Not only is it hugely unprofessional to air the private lives of a contestant on a show that is allegedly about singing talent, but for the woman who has been misquoted in the press over a hundred times, it is downright hypocritical.

Would I expect my boss to criticise something I said about him in passing in front of my editorial team? No, I'd expect him to take the matter behind closed doors to discuss amicably!

Of course, the press has also said it's fair share about Cheryl's contestant Cher Lloyd but would Cheryl ask her about her alleged sexploits in the house on live television? No. Would she ask her about allegedly womanising young boys live on air? No. For Cher is not Wagner.

Assuming that the X-Factor is indeed based on public votes then there is no shortage of Wagner fans out there - how else would he have eclipsed Paije and Aiden in the competition? Why is he so liked? Because he is great fun! OK, he's not the best singer (unless he is singing opera) and his rendition of The Beatles' 'Hey Jude' was shocking but at the same time it was hilarious and more importantly, great fun! And that is just what you need in a competition that is being taken far too seriously. 

Wagner: He's not here to be taken seriously 

Have you actually looked at Cheryl's face whenever another judge dare criticise one of her acts? She looks as though she has just been dealt a personal blow to the face. If she is to continue as a judge on the show then surely she needs to be able to handle criticism. Furthermore, did you see her face when it was revealed Cher was in the sing-off? She looked as though someone had taken her own daughter off her. The worst thing is, Cheryl and her acts truly do believe they are a family and that is why they have become so painful and dull to watch. The X-Factor is meant to be an entertainment programme - not a reflection on the fortunes of Cheryl Cole and she needs to understand that a vote against one of her acts is not a vote against her.

Upon confronting Wagner on the live show, she then proceeded to argue with the members of the public that phoned in the Xtra-Factor, questioning the professionalism of her actions - yes - Cheryl Cole ranted and argued with the very public that helped put her on a pedestal so many years ago! The very people that made her as famous as she now is! The very people, whose following actually helped get her a place on the judge's stool for The X-Factor in the first place. And then, she spat on them all, in favour of a bitchy tirade at someone who is only there to give the public something to smile about on an otherwise lacklustre Saturday night.

I'm not looking to vilify Cheryl Cole. She has done that to herself. I merely want to point out how dull the programme is becoming and furthermore, how dull it would be should Wagner be voted out. He and Louis Walsh are the only two in the entire programme who are not taking it too seriously. Judging by everyone else's reactions, anyone would have thought that the exiting contestant was put to a firing squad after each show......

That would certainly make it more interesting...................................................

Virus provides a Thinkpoint for all non-technicians

"Treat your computer password like your toothbrush. Don't let anybody else use it, and get a new one every six months." ~ Clifford Stoll

It's good advice. Nothing is more important than computer security - I learned the hard way.....

It's the weekend so I take the journey with the Mrs. from Coventry to Birmingham to drop in on the parents. A quick hello, friendly chat, drink, a bit of dinner will suit us both and enable us to unwind after busy weeks. That's the plan but as soon as the Mother answers the door, the plan disappears in a puff of smoke.

No friendly 'hello,' no 'good morning welcome', but instead the panicky voice of a woman who thinks her life might well be over. And why? "John, the computer's got a horrible thing on it that won't go away!"
No, a spider had not crawled on it, instead it had caught some sort of rogue anti-virus software, known as Thinkpoint. 'Oh dear' I thought, but that, apparently, wasn't enough!

Now I am by no means a technician. I'm a journalist and although I have picked up web practices working in online media over the years, when faced with a computer virus my first thought is 'how much does a new computer cost?'

Thinkpoint - I think the point is to
cause you hours of suffering

Unfortunately for me, the family computer back when I lived with the folks was also known as the John computer - I was by and large the only person that really used it and since I moved out, the little brother's started college and needs it frequently. Cue me then, by no means qualified to play around with a computer virus but the most computer-literate person in the family - yes, I got lured into having a look!

My next thought was let's destroy my friend's weekend. Irfan Yasin is the web developer I used to work with in Birmingham - a highly knowledgeable and thoroughally useful chap when it comes to all things computers. I gave him a call and he confirmed that Thinkpoint is a virus. Did he know how to fix it? Are computers here to make our lives easy? No, so I was on my own. A 'Google' search and I found a step-by-step guide to removing Thinkpoint and with help from a bloke known simply as 'Alex' via the magic of Twitter, I managed to bypass the virus and reclaim the desktop by manually launching Explorer. May I add at this point that I had no idea at all what I was doing and managed to bluff my way through a simple tutorial over a number of agonisingly long, painful hours.

I got the desktop back but the virus was still there. Instead of blocking me from accessing the computer, it was scanning the Internet settings doubtlessly searching for credit card numbers to pilfer away! I needed to do something quickly but the joy of public transport meant that I was about to miss my very last route home to Coventry - I needed the quickest solution in the history of the world!

"Never let a computer know you're in a hurry." ~ Author Unknown

No chance! As soon as it looked like I had killed off the virus for good (checking msconfig for the hidden batch files and launching super anti-spyware), lo and behold the computer decided that it had been overworked and promptly crashed. I restarted the computer and guess what - it wouldn't even load up the start screens - had I killed the virus or inflicted another on the machine? The only way to know was to reinstall EVERYTHING! - always good when you should have been on your way home an hour ago!

"Jesus saves! The rest of us better make backups." ~ Author Unknown

Cue hours of reinstalling Windows, printer material, Office software and the like meaning that by the time I did go home, it wasn't via public transport but via a private taxi firm at some ungodly hour!

But guess what? Windows was successfully restored with no trace of Thinkpoint. Don't ask me how I did it - I really don't know but the first thing I did was brag just a little to Mr Yasin. Let's put this into perspective - I'm a journalist, not a technician.

It took a long, long time to do and I still don't know exactly what it is I did to destroy Thinkpoint and restore the computer but after the harrowing experience, I am inclined to wholeheartedly agree with the following quote:

"Computers must be female. No one but the creator understands their internal logic. The native language they use to communicate with other computers is incomprehensible to everyone else. The message "Bad command or file name" is about as informative as, "If you don't know why I'm mad at you, then I'm certainly not going to tell you." Even the smallest mistakes are stored in long term memory for later retrieval. As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself spending half your paycheck on accessories for it." ~ Author Unknown

For more information on Thinkpoint and to find out how to destroy it from your computer, click here

Searching for truth in Paranormal Activity 2

Its the film that everyone is talking about and also the one that campaign groups want banned for fear of viewers reading too much into it but is Paranormal Activity 2 really all its cracked up to be?

As someone who never saw the first film, strictly does not believe in the paranormal and has never actually been remotely frightened by any sort of 'horror' film in the past, I couldn't help being a little skeptical as the Mrs dragged me out to see it. A couple of hours later and it had certainly left an effect on me.

Let's get one thing straight - Paranormal Activity 2 is a scary film but not in the way you might expect. It is extremely cleverly edited so that it lulls you into a false sense of security from the very beginning and then begins to manipulate your paranoia as soon as you become comfortable. Everyone has some sort of paranoia-driven fear. Walking home in the dark alone, you always feel uncomfortable when you hear a noise and there's no-one around. Hearing noises when you are in bed coming from an empty room or seeing something fall off a shelf on its own - even your pet dog barking at absolutely nothing at all. These are the fears that Paranormal Activity 2 play upon but it is not so much the fear than the tension the film creates.

Not since the remake of King Kong has a film managed to gather as much tension as Paranormal Activity and after a bizarre opening twenty minutes when you meet all the characters who are set for a disturbing end, there is not one point throughout the film where you actually feel comfortable.

The film is written so that the majority of the paranormal activity occurs at night and for the first few minutes, you are put on edge as you see inexplicable incidents like a pool cleaner moving on its own and pans falling without being touched. The scenes quickly change to the next morning where the participants of the household are discussing the bizarre events that transpired.

There is a huge onus on the film as to whether or not it is based on any element of truth and certainly until half-way through the broadcast, it is a credible story - even for one who has no time for paranormal fantasies. However, as the ever approaching shadows of the paranormal become larger, the film begins to tail off and lose all credibility.

From random doors closing and children's toys moving on their own, to a grown woman being swept off her feet and seemingly thrown down a flight of stairs, Paranormal Activity 2 quickly turns from a half-believable tale to a hyperbolic nightmare (if you will excuse the pun!) For there is no way that a spirit can drag someone into a cupboard, cut their body open and posses them and even less way that these events can be caught on some sort of CCTV equipment.

However, although such events are a stark contrast to the opening, slightly believable occurrences, the genius of the film is that it maintains its tension and continues to play on your fear of the unknown. Not your fear of being possessed by a spirit but your fear of a loved one being possessed or perhaps more realistically, placed in grave danger and about to draw you into it as well. The film raises a moral argument as to whether or not the family husband will try and help his wife or just flee from the property altogether.

Unfortunately for us, he chooses to help her and there the film unravels to make a mockery of its original credibility. He becomes embroiled in a fight with the spirit with a typical Christian cross and comes off worse for wear as the film switches from being a modest video diary camera documentary to a rip off of The Omen. Its hard to describe the futility of the latter part of the film, especially when compared to the opening hour, without giving away the ending to those that have not yet seen it.

And yet, as you leave the cinema, there is something about Paranormal Activity 2 that still has you on edge. OK, the latter end was extremely unbelievable but throughout the entire film there was always something lurking that refused to allow you to sit comfortably. Perhaps the film is based on a true story and spirals out of control at the end or perhaps the 'based on a true story' tag is just a marketing ploy to attract audiences and give the production some sort of authenticity, thus making it all the more frightening?

Hopefully it is not the latter, for the film was certainly more credible and scary as it developed, before it became a seething mess of traditional, clichéd horror gore. Whether it is true or not is up to the audience member to determine based on their own personal beliefs and experiences but that aside, you cannot fault the film-makers for their genius. Never before have I been on the edge of my seat for an entire movie, start-to-finish and as I returned home and received an anonymous phone call with nothing on the other end, I have to admit to being just a little spooked.