6.2: Made in Britain (but who cares?)

Made in Britain (but who cares?)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4437467.stm

Now MG Rover is about to go down, the last British car company is going down as well. With this, thoughts of a campaign to make Britons buy British are revived. Will this work? Will people buy patrioticly, or buy the best quality? Or buy whatever is cheapest? And what is British? Does every ingredient or part of a British product have to be British? Next to that, there are European laws saying you can not discriminate against imports from other EU countries on account of their origin. But, buying British will influence the British economy and jobs. A tricky issue.

I think a Buy British campaign would not work out. Since the world is becoming so globalised (think of the internet: you can buy anything you like from anywhere you like), people will buy globally. Saying a product is British does not make the product better, so why buy it then? If you are able to buy French (and 'tasty') water in the UK, why not if you do not like the British water? If Polish products are cheaper and of the same quality as the same, British product, why not buy the Polish one? As Alan from England says: 'After the war Made in Britain meant quality, Made in Japan meant junk. Sadly, today it is the other way round.' Dominic Tristram choses to buy British product for ecomical reasons as well as environmental ones. He has a point there: why spend I don't know how much on bringing water from one side of the world to the other, polluting like mad, while there is good British water as well? But I think it is a matter of personal taste, and personal needs.

6.1: Tory advert targets cinemagoers

Tory advert targets cinemagoers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-4933791,00.html

Since the elections are coming up, several adverts for the political parties are made. The Conservatives will show theirs in cinema's, wiping off Tony Blair's smile. This is combined with Andrew Lloyd Webber's song: 'Take that look off your face', of which the chorus continues: I can see through your smile'. This advert campaign is said to be the first political advert in cinemas. Mr. Howard is delighted with the finished product and thinks it is the perfect antidote to the Labour adverts.

Now this is humerous! Finally! Politics turn into fun! I wonder what Blair thinks of it, if he finds it funny also. Maybe he will even come up with a reaction-advert! Now that would be fun! Yes, it is quite 'cheap', making fun of your rivals, but hey, who cares! Loosen up politicians!

topic 5.2: Women writers: dull, depressed and domestic

Women writers: dull, depressed and domestic

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1443909,00.html

Female writers are dull, say Toby Litt and Ali Smith, two writers, to the introduction of 13, a collection of poetry, short stories and extracts from novels of female writers. The two writers are well-known writers, even shortlisted for the Bookerprize. They say, books written by female writers are 'disappointingly domestic, the opposite of risk-taking - as if too many women writers have been injected with a special drug that keeps them dulled, good, saying the right thing, aping the right shape, and melancholy at doing it, depressed as hell.' Female writers like Kirsty Gunn react: 'defining domestic as dull is a complete misnomer: this is were we spend our lives, there is no reason why the word should be loaded with such pejorative meaning.'

I agree with Gunn: it is stupid to call all books from female writers dull. One: there are so many good books written by female hands, they probably haven't even heard of. Two: this is a punch in the face for housewives who like their domestic lives: they are being called dull by those two writers who probably have housecleaners and do not know how an iron or hoover works, let alone how to raise children, or how much effort you have to put in that. Three: they are bloody arrogant drawing a line between female and male writers, giving themselves all the credits. Men...!

topic 5.1: Royal farms get £1m from taxpayers

Royal farms get £1m from taxpayers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/country/article/0,2763,1443892,00.html

British farmers get subsidies for their farms from taxpayers. The big companies like Nestle and Tate and Lyle get millions, as do the royal farms. Also, exporting companies get huge amounts of money to sell their agricultural products in other countries, while developing countries can not compete. A Tate and Lyle spokesman said the company was put on a disadvantage because of the pricing structure on sugar within the EU, so they just have to go outside the EU. The publishing of the list of how much the farmers get, has reopend the argument on why whealty farmers should get such generous help.

I think whealthy farmers do not deserve millions. I think this money should be spent on less whealthier farmers who could really use some help. I do not really know the situation of British farmers, but I do know here in the Netherlands: because of all the laws and new rules, farmers have to quit their jobs. If only they had the money to invest in newer systems to make it easier to be a farmer. The big farms take over smaller ones which went bankrupt. I can imagine that happening in the UK as well. If subsidies are given out to farmers (hurray!), give smaller farmers oppertunities! The royals do not need the money, they have got enough already.

Topic 4.2: UK to oppose human cloning ban

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,1433013,00.html

Britain will vote against a voluntary worldwide ban on human cloning at the United Nations today. The ban is against any sort of cloning, while the British ministers strongly back the embryonic stem-cell research. According to health secretary John Reid, it is completely unacceptable to stop research for potential new treatments for serious and fatal diseases. This is the only reason for the UK to vote against the ban on human cloning: cloning is illegal, and attempting it means facing a 10-year prison sentence and an unlimited fine.

I understand the point of view of John Reid, although the sign given by the Britons saying no to the ban is negative. I am against cloning, but I do back research for treatments for serious and fatal diseases. I think I would have made the same choice. If you read or listen to the reasons given for this 'no', it makes sense, but if you just hear the 'no', it sounds bad. But there is a law against cloning so I am fine with it.

Topic 4.1 Babysitter murdered two-year-old

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/4329445.stm

A 34-year old babysitter has been convicted of murdering a two-year old. Holdworth was looking after Kyle Fisher in July 2004, while the 19-year old single mother was out to a club. She claimed Kyle had had a fit while they were watching television, but research showed that the small boy had been hit against a banister with his head. The injuries the child had were similar to throwing it out of a car while it had a speed of sixty miles per hour. Holdworth will be sentenced for life.

Having some experience in babysitting (for years and for six months in Scotland as an au pair), I know children can be horrible. I have had many doubts about wanting to stay an au pair when the spoiled little brat kept terrorising me (not so good choice of words maybe, but it certainly felt like that sometimes, no wait, very often actually). It sometimes was really hard to stay calm and patient and nice, really. I did grab the boy's arm sometimes if he didn't want to listen, but I immediately felt badly after: I hope I did not hurt him! Imagine smashing a two-year old ('my' Scottish child was 4), with no real will, into a banister. Imagine how she had to throw him to let the kid hit the banister so hard it looked like it was thrown from a car driving 60 m/h. Imagine how Holdworth was swinging the baby backwards and aiming for the banister. Imagine how sick Holdworth's mind is. Yes, children can be horrible, but this is beyond words. It is a right for her to have been sentenced for life.
In Scotland I saw a lot of young girls with children. At first I thought they were all au pairs, but after a while I realised one-third of them were young mothers. One time, when I went to the Somerfield with Micheal, the cashier asked where his mother came from, Sweden? No, I said, from Scotland. - Are you Scottish then? I made very, very sure she understood I certainly was not this annoying, spoiled, screaming and Bob-the-builer-cookies-freak's mother, thank the Lord! No way! But seeing how serious she was, and how normal it seemed for her to assume that I was another teenage mother (I was eighteen back than, you do the math), I realised how 'normal' it is. I can imagine the 19-year old (single) mother of Kyle Fisher really likes to go out and forget the worries about her child for a couple of hours, but this has proved even some babysitters are not trustworthy either.

topic 3.2: UK to buy anti-flu drugs for 14 million

http://www.guardian.co.uk/birdflu/story/0,14207,1428292,00.html

The UK will buy anti-flu drugs to treat 14,6 million inhabitants of the UK over the next two years for when a pandemic hits the country. This stockpile will cost the government £200 million pounds. The World Health Organisation has warned for a flu pandemic for years, and now the British government has said to buy the anti-flu drugs, together with European countries, Australia and Canada. There will be a conference on this topic in Luxembourg tomorrow. Guessed is that 50,000 people will die of the flu if nothing is done. The vaccines are mainly meant for at-risk groups, like over 65s, those with chronic disease and the very young.

It is the right step taken by the British government. It is their responsibility to provide the anti-flu drugs, and when a pandemic is very likely to come in the next few years, arrangements have to be made. I only wonder if the 14,6 million vaccines will be enough, since it is about a quarter of the total British society.
Holding a conference on this topic is a good thing as well. It is just as the global warming-topic: organisations have been warning for horrible things for years, but nothing is done by the government. Finally, worldwide governments are taking action on health, and therefor, I have hope for governments to finally take action on the environmental topic as well.

topic 3.1: protesters demand the right to read

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1427270,00.html

A petition signed by 30,000 people was presented to Downing Street this lunchtime which urged ministers to do more to increase the availability of literature in braille, large print or on in audio formats. Seventy two percent of the British society thinks "the government should take the responsibility for ensuring blind and partially sighted people have the same access to books as sighted people". Right now, only 4,5% of books are available in braille, or on audio format or in large print. The petition, which was presented by blind and partially sighted children and adults, was organised by the Right to Read Alliance - a coalition of 17 organisations including the National Library for the Blind, the British Dyslexia Association and Royal National Institute of the Blind.

I think it's a good thing that this petition has been signed and handed over to the government. It may not come to mind to many people with sight, that there is just 4,5% of all the books in the world that blind or visually impaired people can read. I personally love to read, and I am happy with the hugh amount of books I can choose of. Therefor, I am really sorry for those who love to read but do not have a wide range of books to pick from. I think that reading books smartens people (it depends on the books, of course), and therefor everybody should have the same right to books - especially in a well-developed country as the UK. I can imagine visually impaired people having problems getting a job already, and by keeping them away of improving their skills out of books by simply not providing them, sounds rediculous to me.

topic 2.2: BT plots end of the line for phone boxes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1426806,00.html

This is an article on the traditional red phone boxes. Sixty percent of those are making loss: one phone box is used by just sixteen persons per year. This is mainly due to the growth of mobile phone use. The red phone boxes are mainly used by old-pensioners and pining lovers, or when a mobile phone has no signal and a phone call has to be made. Inhabitants of the country that is well-known for it's red phone boxes think it is dreadful to loose the boxes, but on the other hand they find it too expensive to use: 30p per minute. BT, the company that runs the phone boxes will raise the issues -keeping the loss-making boxes or not- with Ofcom.

I found this a funny article. I can imagine that when you are sent to make a 600 word piece on red phone boxes you will get ironic. Taken that aside, what is my opinion on the phone boxes? Should they be removed or not? First of all, I think it is a shame to get rid of something that is part of the British culture, or at least something that stands for it in other countries. Second, there are still people without a mobile phone. Is this possible? Yes it is, although there are not so many left anymore, but for these people, and the pensioners and those pining lovers the red phone boxes should remain, let alone for emergencies. On the other hand, I do understand BT also. I think it is quite clear for them: they do not make any money on them, loss even. Lowering the cost of the use of the phone will not make much of a difference: people still have their mobiles, and if a call has to be made, it will be made, whether it costs 30p or 2p. I think, take a look on how many times a year a phone box has been used, and how many other boxes are nearby, and then cut down the number of phone boxes, if they really have to.

topic 2.1: Royal Navy to promote gay rights

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4282175.stm
Royal Navy to promote gay rights

The Royal Navy has become the first section of the British armed forces to join a scheme protecting gay rights. It has signed equal rights charity to promote fair treatment of lesbian, gay or bisexual recruits. It is expected to take effect later this year. The reason for this promotioning is because the UK forces can't miss out any good recruits on prejudice any longer. Gay people have only been permitted to the UK forces since 2000.

I think this is a good step in the right direction. I mean, in what time do we live to still be prejudiced by sexuality? In the UK, where so many 'sorts' of people live and work together without hardly any problems, it should be no problem to work with gay people for the UK forces as well. I am quite surprised to read that gay persons have only been allowed in those forces since 2000. Then again, I can understand that this Programme to promote gay rights hasn't been signed straight away in 2000 too. I can imagine that this is something to get used to, to take it one step at a time. But on the other hand, why not underline your statement to allow gay people into the UK forces by signing the Programme? I guess it has something to do with the proud of those (bosses if those) forces and the overall view people have of the forces. I say, if one force signs it, all forces should.

topic 1.2: Mayor censured over Nazi jibe row

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4262833.stm

This article is about the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. He was being interviewed by Oliver Finegold, a Jewish reporter for the Evening star. Livingstone accused Finegold of being a 'concentration camp guard'. He has been asked to apologise for his actions, but the mayor will not apologise: he still agrees with what he said, and if he would say he was sorry, he would be a liar. The Standards Board for England is investigating the complaints and has the power to suspend the mayor for a year or ban him from public life for five years if he is found guilty of misconduct.

I think it is a big mistake if you say things like that. First of all to a Jewish person, who will be offended by remarks like that. Second, you should not say it, especially if it is to be published in a newspaper. Third: Livingstone is the mayor of London and has a great social influence and is a man of high standing, and therefor should not say things like these at all. I can imagine that he felt unhappy during the interview: journalists are not always nice people (I speak out of experience: I studied journalism for a year), and especially the British press can be quite strangling and pushy. But still, referring to the Second World War in this context, especially comparing Jewish persons to Nazi's, that is going way to far. I think it would set a good example if the mayor would be banned or suspended.

topic 1.1:pollution in England

London 'dirtiest city' in Britain

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4228613.stm

This article is about pollution in Britain. The Local Environmental Quality Survey of England graded 12,000 sites in England on it's cleanliness. London came out of the test as dirtiest city, together with the rest of South East England. East England was found cleanest. Most of the rubbish has been thrown away by pedestrians, so it's no good pointing fingers at councils, government and other people: single persons have to be attended on their behaviour.

I think it's a good thing there has been research on pollution in England. Pollution is a bad thing which effects people's health. I hope the researchers will have informed the government about this, so that they can put money aside for useful advert campaigns, pointing out that every single person has to do something about it. Also, money could be invested in more bins, or the emptying of them. And why is the East of England cleaner? Maybe some good ideas from there can be useful in the South East.

first email

I do not understand much of this, but I will find out eventually... Welcome to my blog!
Eveline