Schwarzenegger cut 7 years of the original 16 year sentence saying that the original term was ‘excessive and disproportionate.”

The victim’s mother Cathy Santos, who was informed of the decision by journalists, said: “I think it’s absolutely despicable. I think it’s a huge injustice to our son. The courts don’t mean a thing. It sends out the message that backdoor deals are fine.”

The reason why I am ‘awarding’ Schwarzenegger the ‘Dick of the Week’ is he obviously doing this as a favour for his ‘bed buddy’ Fabian Nunez a Democrat, who was Speaker of the lower house of California’s state legislature from 2004 to 2008 and worked closely with Mr Schwarzenegger, a Republican, in passing landmark environmental legislation.

Firstly why in America can a politician cut sentences? Surely this is a conflict of interest which is completely highlighted here. Not only that, they are not policemen, judges, criminal psychologists and so therefore, like the most of us, have really no idea when it comes to crime and punishment. So how on earth can their opinion, and it is only an opinion, be enough to overrule a sentence handed down by the judge and having gone through all the legal processes before reaching that decision? It is completely mind boggling and undermines the whole legal process in the US.

Secondly, Schwarzenegger cut the sentence on the last day of being the Governor of California – what a legacy!! He spent most of his life flighting the bad guys and then the last thing he does in the public eye is this?

Arnold – you are pathetic and so are now labelled ‘The Dick of the Week’.

What a tool! What a complete spanner!!

Oh yes! I am feeling the warm embrace of justice well served after reading an article in the Sydney Morning Hearld of Australia which tells of a young arrogant yobbo being charged after a ‘booze-fuelled outburst’ at an Australian pub.

The drunk belligerent law student was asked to leave the Wollongong Hotel and reacted by throwing a beer over a security guard then refused to leave by sitting on the floor in a huff like a petulant child.

Eventually another security guard was involved by grabbing her by the wrists in an attempt to remove her from the premises.

After removing her from hotel she continued, in her lady-like manner, to hurl abuse but this time at the police.

After repeated warnings to calm down and go home she was arrested after giving the officers ‘the birdy’ when trying to enter a taxi stomach first.

Throughout the arrest Elderfield continued to thrash about and abuse the officers, scratching one of them and drawing blood.

In court her friends alleged that the security guards and police where extreme in their handling of the situation.

However the magistrate, Ian Guy, found that there were no substance to their claim and dismissed them by saying that they were “unconvincing in the extreme”.

Elderfield was found guilty of six charges, including assaulting police, behaving in an offensive manner in public and failing to leave licensed premises.

She was then fined a total of $2000 and placed on four 12-month good behaviour bond.

Brilliant!!

Basically the Equality Bill was passed in the UK which encourages employers to take action to widen diversity in the public sector.

Top Gear, as do a number of other programs,  falls under this Bill as it is owned by the BBC – a publicly owned entity.

So it appears that Drrr Louise Livesey, a tutor in sociology and women’s studies at Ruskin College in Oxford, thought that this would be a good opportunity to jump on the ‘sexist bandwagon’ and said of the show that it was ”entrenched with institutional sexism”.

Ahem.. I am sure we would all agree that most of the programs on TV are focused towards the fairer of the sexes, and if you feel different then I would like to propose a challenge by asking you to get today’s, or any days, television program and have a look.

It was claimed that, not only are the 3 hosts all male, the show had a ‘boys club’ production team and more male guests than female.

Andy Wilwan, Top Gear’s executive producer claimed that it was ”utter drivel that the show excluded women, and asked if it was geared so harshly towards men then why is the audience almost half women?”

He continues by saying, “Secondly, if we are to have a female presenter just to represent the sexes, then by that logic Loose Women needs a bloke in the line-up pretty sharpish.”

“I actually believe these sorts of mandates are patronising to women viewers, because they assume that women can’t enjoy a show’s presenters on merit, but can only appreciate a program if spoken to by one of their own sex.”

If Top Gear is change then I know for sure that it will lose a majority of the viewers. Not just the male viewers but the female as people love the show as it is.

As a normal guy living a normal life, I am sitting on my couch watching the TV and wondering to myself – what are they fighting for? A lot of it is just completely confusing. For example a statement on a placard read – ‘Ban Money’. What on earth will that achieve? Another said ‘Capitalism Doesn’t Work!’ – as communism worked for Russia didn’t it. Am I missing something here? Obviously I am as why are people so passionate about whatever they are fighting for. We all want peace yes, we all want to live happy lives, but the problem is that as humans we want more then to sit around a campfire and smoke a peacepipe, we want to achieve, explore the moon, find a cure for cancer and expand. Like everything it has a negative side to it, we become unsettled and envious, greed sinks in and the strongest wins out. But isn’t this just evolution? Isn’t that why evolution decided that monkeys should evolve and become humans? Maybe a balance should be found, but to me Capitalism is just a form of Evolution.

Anyway, sitting here watching the news and drinking some wine.. life is good.