End of blog questionairre

Age? 28
Sex? Male
What is your degree subject (both if joint)?
Social policy and social care

Does ‘Being Bad’ relate well to the other modules you are taking?
Not really

If so, how? And if not, why not?
I know we were told at the beginning of the module don't expect to learn anything, but i didn't expect it to be literally true. The depth we studied at was not relevant to my other studies, if the lectures were more in depth, such as the psychological side, it would have related more to my modules.

Have you found ‘Being Bad’ too demanding, too easy, or at an appropriate level?
Too easy - 600 words essay. Does 600 words even actually make it an essay, or just a piece of writing?

Do you think the list of topics covered on the module was appropriate?
Yes, however the depth of analyses, i thought, left a lot to be desired.

Are there any topics not included in the module that you would like to see included?
Euthanasia, violence, evil children and child killers, bad parenting would be good and appropriate.

Do you think that the format for classes has worked well?
Yes, however the constant talking from the back was extremely irritating. The lecturers took too long to deal with it appropriately.

What did you think of the module team?
Very good, especially Mark, however i felt what they taught only scratched the surface of what they actually knew.

Do you think it would have been better to have had more:
Small group discussions? NO
Discussion and debate among the class as a whole? YES
Information and talk from lecturers? YES, but more in depth, such as why people behave the way they do, maybe the psychology behind it all.

The approach taken in the module is interdisciplinary (drawing on perspectives from English Literature, Film Studies, Creative Writing, Philosophy, Media Studies and Politics): do you think this a useful way of approaching the topics covered in the module?
Yes, but again, more in depth discussion is needed. We know smoking is bad for you, but why is it such an enjoyable past time for so many?

Do you think that interdisciplinary modules are a good idea? No opinion

Do you think you have benefited from the interdisciplinary approach taken in the module?
Perhaps, but only in the sense i met students who i would not normally meet in class.

Would you like to see more modules that cover this kind of subject matter? Yes, but one subject per lesson seems hardly enough.

Are you planning to take the follow-up module PH2004 ‘It Shouldn’t Be Allowed’ at level 2?
Not decided yet.

Would you recommend ‘Being Bad’ to a friend? Yes, for an easy set of assignments and a laugh, but to learn something, definitely not.

Do you think that the blogs (web logs) were a good idea? Yes, they were new to me and interesting. I have enjoyed filling in my blog, however, do the lecturers really read every students entry on every students blog? Somehow, due to the large amount of entries, i doubt it. maybe I'm wrong.

What did you think of the other assessments (e.g. would it be better to have one longer assessment rather than two shorter ones?)?
600 word assignments are way too short. Should be at least 1200 words. Two of these would be appropriate.

What have you learned from the module? Bugger all really apart from blogs are interesting, and Mark Jones is a funny guy. Also avoid night lectures like the plague.

What parts of the module have you found most useful and why? The blog, because it was a new kind of assignment. Meeting different lecturers was good.

What parts do you think were a waste of time and why? I don't think any of it was a waste of time. I was all relevant, but if i attend all those lecturers, i really expect to learn something.

Are there any other comments you wish to make regarding ‘Being Bad’?
The timing, 6-8 pm was crap, but that's personal preference for day lectures. The lack of discipline in class, ie constant talking, should not have been allowed to continue as long as it did. It was the same people every week.

Politicians

Why is it even though politicians are full of bullshit we continue to vote for them? Do we believe it will get better?

Politicians are hypocrites. Our government recently said that they would subsidise all new cars bought by anyone who part exchanged their old car that was over ten years old. What a load of crap. How many people who drive ten year old cars have the other £10 - 15,000 to buy a new car? Practically none, and the government knows this. If they really want to kick start our economy why not let the discount apply to only British cars? Surely this would be better for our car building industry. British made cars sell less and less each year losing out to French and Japanese car makers. They are doing fine so why subsidise them? Politicians are full of shit, and they represent no one but themselves and their mucka's in the upper classes.

Why is it not a week goes by without another political scandal? Will they ever learn from their mistakes and quit shagging rentboys, scanking house allowances and buying porn? I doubt it but we will continue to vote for them. Time for a Marxist revolution.

Comment on Laura Carlins blog - suicide

There are a load of blogs commenting on suicide and most people can't decide if its bad or not. I think suicide is very bad and very wrong. People who are going to kill themselves should think for a moment about the heartache and sadness they are going to cause their loved ones. Suicide is extremely selfish, especially as there is so much help out there now for all kinds of illnesses such as depression.

There is no good that comes from suicide. Life is precious so why end it early? I understand people have problems but are these really worth ending your life for? I doubt it.

The family of people who commit suicide are left thinking it is their fault. They sit around thinking if only I'd have noticed something, maybe it would have all turned out differently. Its wrong to put guilt like that on people you are supposedly meant to love.

I think the worst are suicide bombers. Fanatical adults make small children believe they will live forever and will get god knows how many wives in their next life. They prey on kids and the weak minded because no one else is dumb enough to believe there shit. I mean, even some students have fell for that fanatical crap about Britain being evil, blah, blah, blah, let blow everything up, kill ourselves and get loadsa wives. What absolute codswallop.

Suicide is wrong, end of. Get help, there are thousands of websites, charities and other agencies all to help with suicidal thoughts. You only have one life so you should be grateful for it.

Links/interesting sites (if you wanna kill yourself)

http://www.metanoia.org/suicide/
http://www.samaritans.org/
http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/help_orgs.htm

Masturbation

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Moaning

I hate moaning because it really seems to ruin peoples good moods and who ever is moaning does it without a thought for everyone else. My nan always used to say whats the point in moaning if you can't do anything about it, which i guess is right.

I've been reading through the classes being bad blogs and i know they are supposed to be about bad behaviour, but they just read like continuous moaning, even my blog is the same. If someone read my blog and didn't know what it was really for i would look one sad individual. People who stumble on our blogs on the Internet must think to themselves 'have these people got nothing better to do? Whats the point in doing a web blog about bad stuff?'

Just a thought.

Apparently, from my in depth research on the subject of moaning, Germans moan the worst and the most. How boring. I wonder how they came up with the statistics. There is even a moaning fan site -'the only approved fan site for moaning.'

http://fans.papervixen.net/moaning/

Nasty Comedians and freedom of speech.

Even though people go on that comedians like Roy Chubby Brown are racist, sad and disgusting, its important to remember that these comedians have a huge following of all races, nationalities, colours, and classes. They have a huge fan base that has made them all extremely rich and this reflects the fact that they are popular. Maybe the people who think they are wrong and bad are actually only a small minority?

I once watched a Bernard Manning documentary and in the crowd at the arena he was performing in were fans of all races. So why, after they have been at it for so long, are people now saying these comedians are racist?

I personally believe its got a lot to do with our changing culture. Unfortunately freedom of speech, and the right to partake in it, decreases every year. These comedians may be classed as racist and bad, but surely in a free and democratic society, everyone is entitled to their opinion. If people of all colours want to go and watch racist comedians, then they must obviously enjoy it. Its hardly like Roy Chubby Brown and Bernard Manning are forced down our throats every night on TV, they are not, you have to pay to see them or buy their videos, so in order to listen to their opinion you have to 'go to them'. I'm all for everyone having their opinion, as long as its not forced on everyone who doesn't want to listen.

On a final note, a women on TV yesterday said that black people have the MOBO awards, so why is it that if a white person wants a Music of White Origins award, they are racist? I feel this is a very valid point. Another one is black people constantly call each other the n word, yet if a white person does it they are racist and should be shot. By constantly going on about helping minorities etc, are we not always leaving someone else out. I'd say we are, and that does not make me racist. Lenny Henry used to be the worst racist comedian, but because he black its ok. Where is the fairness and equality in that?

Bandits and outlaws

Everyone remembers Smokey and the Bandit, I'm only 27, so its not that old, and also Robin Hood. The list is endless, and famous on screen fictional bandits and outlaws are loved by people the world round.

The question in class was 'why is there a tendency to brand bandits, criminals, and outlaws as decent and honourable?

I've been told that there is something romantic about people who supposedly steal from the rich and give to the poor, but the number who of real bandits who actually did this must be very few, if any, as most did it to line their own pockets and not help the needy.

Being a man, i don't see it in that way. When i was a kid Smokey and the Bandit was cool, giving the police the run-around, saving nice young ladies from ruthless cattle rustlers. There is always something in these kind of fictional characters that appeals to kids.

However, for the average person, i think its a kind of admiration for these people because they have the guts to do what most people wouldn't. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor pulls at most peoples heart strings, and doing this kind of thing has made a lot of these 'bad' characters folk heroes. I think most poor people have a lot in common with Robin Hood, such as being oppressed by the mega rich local land lord, and this leads people to identify and look up to what the upper class would label as bad.

Their care free lifestyle appeals to most people, even today. Who wouldn't want to drive around the country, rob a few rich and ruthless people, give some to the poor, and still be liked and admired at the end of the day? In the case of Smokey and the Bandit, the actors were made to be like able, normal looking, average people that the normal person on the street could identify with. They were funny, handsome (for the women), rescued nice young damsels in distress (for the men), drove nice, fast cars, and had an enjoyable, care free life. They also made the police look like bumbling idiots, which is what most people these days think the police are anyway. This kind of admiration is the same for the real bandits and outlaws who's memory lives on even today, which is hundreds of years after some of them existed.

Bonnie and Clyde appealed to everyone at the time of the Great Depression. People could identify with them because at the time every one was suffering hardship. The fact that they were shot to death by the police has added to their modern day status and made them into a kind of martyr.

Unfortunately, Smokey and the Bandit was very different from Bonnie and Clyde and other real bandits and outlaws. Its easy to forget that these people were murderers who killed anyone who got in their way, they were hardly, in real life, nice normal people. People still identify with them in a kind of folk hero way, but that doesn't make them any nicer in real life.

The Kray twins were ruthless gangland killers, but people tend to forget this because they were known for helping the poor through hard times. People turned a blind eye to what they really got up to, or were simply too scared to speak up. Ronnie Kray was a crazed, psychotic murderer who spent all of his adult life in Broadmore mental hospital. just before Reggie Kray died of cancer they showed him in the paper as old and withered, but the monster was still inside. The families of the victims whose bodies were never found could not have a funeral because the Krays took their secrets to the grace with them. They were hardly nice people.

The same goes for Jesse James, who killed at least one person on all of his robberies. The films made about these people turn them into folk heroes and tend to leave out most of the gruesome bits. Even the killing portrayed in the Krays films were tame compared to what the twins really did to people and how they really tortured their victims with hot irons, boiling water, electricity and stanley blades.

The point is that bandits, criminals and outlaws maybe portrayed as normal, everyday people, but in fact the majority were deplorable, evil, ruthless murderers, torturers and criminals who would have killed (and did) anybody who got in their way, be they poor or rich. They stole and killed for themselves, not for the poor.

References/websites

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076729/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_James
http://www.thekrays.co.uk/story.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_and_Clyde
http://images.google.co.uk/imghp?hl=en&um=1

Mobile phones, trains, and a racist university student

On the train there are signs saying please be aware of other passengers when using mobile phones, there is also a special carriage designated a 'quiet carriage'. Unfortunately there are very few people who take any notice at all of the signs, even though they clearly mean 'no using mobile phones'. Every time i catch the train its guaranteed that a twit will phone somebody, start a conversation and talk loud enough for the whole train to hear every single word about whats going on in their, sometimes sordid, little lives. They know every one is listening and they must know its pretty rude since its been on the t.v and in magazines, yet they don't give a toss about the fact that no one really wants to know what time they are getting home, what they are having for dinner, how their day at work was, or, like the guy on the train today, how long the garage is taking to repair his sons new girlfriends car.

I've often wondered why people start conversations on their phones on the train. I can understand its convenient and that kind of thing, but aren't peoples lives supposed to be private? So, what makes these particular individuals different? Is it an ego thing? I have an expensive mobile phone look at me type thing? Perhaps, but i doubt it as hardly anybody can actually see the phone on the train, we can just hear the conversation.

Its not any particular kind of person that does it, so the old can't blame the young. I've listened to all kinds of people have all sorts of conversations, as I'm sure you all have.

So why is it so irritating? I think its because Brits mainly like to be seen as private people, who don't like to air their laundry in public type thing. This has been seen recently with the arguments about Google Earth street view and its invasion of privacy. Its got a lot to do with the fact that if i don't do it, why should you?

The most obvious reason i feel that people seem more and more to use their phones on trains is linked to most of the other problems we currently have in society, and that's a basic lack of respect. Years ago everyone would think a lot more about how their actions would affect the people around them. Things such as parking outside your neighbours house, playing music late at night, etc, was only done after neighbours were asked or consulted. Very rarely did people do anything like this without talking to the people around them, mainly because no family wanted to be branded as bad and talked about, and people had more respect for each other back then so they considered everyone.

These days no one gives a toss about anyone but themselves and their close family. Most people nowadays don't even know their neighbours so why bother to consult them on parking your car when its a free road? The lack of respect for each other now means no one cares what other people think, no one knows their neighbours or the people on the train, so why bother asking them for permission when its sod all to do with them. These days people do not talk to people they do not know, be it their neighbours, people on the street, train or bus, practically every where, if people don't have a specific reason to talk these days they simply don't bother. This has led to the level of respect between humans decreasing with the years, and mobile phone use on the train is another example of this. Years ago it was the same people catch the train or bus at the same time each day, so people knew each other and chatted about the weather and such like. There was no particular reason to talk, apart from showing respect and not being ignorant.

But because no one cares any more what other people think, they simply just carry on regardless of whether they are being ignorant, loud, or rude. This lack of respect gets worse every year in children; they are more likely to tell you to f**k off then ask how you are or talk about the weather. The lack of respect is ingrained in our society, so now even the elderly are the same. No one gives a toss about people they do not know. Unruly children getting ASBO's is also a manifestation of the growing lack of respect. Its also not just a lack of respect for people, its also their surroundings and where people live. As we all know New Labour has its heart set on 'community' and the revival of it, and the government had a 'respect agenda in 1996', but maybe they should learn children to respect each other, their surroundings and home estates and the people who live on them, and be grateful for the great life Britain has to offer, instead of ruining it and other peoples lives.

Using mobile phones on trains might not seem that bad, but when you add it all up with all of the current problems our country is facing, its a sign of the way our country is heading. Our country is turning into a nation of pig ignorant technology freaks who have no respect for each other.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm entitled to my opinion. There's definitely a link between mobile phone use on trains, asbo's, students constantly late or talking in class, and that kind of thing. And its called respect.

Those who talk in class have no respect for either the lecturer or their fellow students, and they simply could not give a toss what any one thinks because as long as it doesn't affect them or their grades, then they don't care. Talking on phones on the train is the same, as long as they get what they want, and their little, selfish lives aren't affected, they couldn't care less about the person behind them who wants some peace. The children are growing up not respecting anyone, and they will then pass this on to their children, so soon the whole nation will be ignorant, selfish and respect no one.

I've also read here that trains trap the dangerous radiation given off from mobile phones being used on trains, so its about time people started taking notice of the signs. I'm all for the new kind of train carriages that are being proposed that block mobile phone signals.

On a final note. The other day in my social policy lecture i heard a student say, out loud, obviously so us at the front could hear, - 'Some of us black people simply don't like white people'. How terrible is that coming from a students mouth about their fellow students. I'd love to name and shame this particular person, but I'd probably get in more trouble then they would, but in total about five of us heard what this person said. And to think this person is going to work in health and social care! They have no respect for people now, so they are hardly going to have any respect for the poor bast***s they have to help at work when they have their degree. Not to mention the racist aspect of what this person said. Anyway, i hope that saying what goes around, comes around, comes true for this particular, ignorant student. And i hope this person never has to help anyone i know or my family when they are qualified. Its important to remember that if I'd have said that particular statement, i would have been kicked straight out of uni for racism. Enough said about disrespect.

Interesting links/references

http://www.whb.co.uk/socialissues/vol2gc.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4588416.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1080866/End-mobile-phone-bores-New-quiet-train-carriages-block-mobile-phone-signals.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1961484.stm

Expensive Wolverhampton University library fines and book prices

Today i paid my library fine. I knew the book was due back but as my assignment was due i decided to keep it because i really needed it. I knew i would have a fine and was fine with that.

However, it seems unfair that my local library in West Bromwich does not charge students fines if they produce their uni ID. This is the same for all council libraries. It seems unfair that the university charges i think 40p per day, when my local library waves the fine because I'm a student. I understand there has to be a deterrent for naughty people like me, but the 40 pence's soon add up. If my local library doesn't charge students, why should the university library when it is only for students? Maybe I'm wrong to think its unfair, it was just a thought.

There is an interesting article in the Guardian newspaper about library fines. Those for the fines say that readers enter into a contract and therefore rightfully should be fined; those against library fines say that they put readers off, which i agree with, but the university library knows us students need books and therefore will borrow books from them and pay the extortionate fines. I think the fines are a bit expensive, especially when the uni claims to understand students struggle financially and offer help with juggling your finances. Can 40p per day really be justified? Another thought i had was does this money actually go buying new books, or to paying the sour-faced security guards who stand around all day?

Something else i have been thinking about whilst we are on the subject of books is the horrendous prices book stores like Waterstones charge for books. Its irritating to think i bought a brand new book the other day off eBay for £3.70 including post and packaging, which is currently on the Waterstones and Amazon websites for £19.99. I no longer buy new books, they depreciate as soon as you walk out of the book store door, and at the end of the day, they are always cheaper from places like eBay. Another good second hand book store i have bought in the past from is Pegasaurus books, and they, like eBay, deliver directly to my door. Its amazing how much you can save on books just by shopping around. I know books designed for students might cost a lot of money to make, but can the £20-£30 price tag really be justified? According to this website, it costs $12.38 to make a book and publish it, which is i think around £7.00? So on a £30.00 book that's an awful lot of profit for stores like Waterstones. These stores know students need books and so have to buy them, so they figure they can charge what they want, which they do. Either way, i have learnt my lesson and now only buy second hand books, that way i get them cheaper, I'm helping the environment, and I'm putting my money into the pocket of a normal person or a family run businesses, instead of mega multi national stores like Amazon and Waterstones.

Links

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/aug/18/forandagainstlibraryfines
http://pegasaurusbooks.co.uk/
http://journal.bookfinder.com/2009/03/breakdown-of-book-costs.html
http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/home.do

Spitting

Isn't spitting just disgusting? yet it seems such a popular past time with the youngsters of today. When i walk to and from the train station, i constantly see school kids spitting, and hear then sucking up the snot from the backs of their throats ready to launch their germs and god knows what else into the atmosphere for us lucky people to catch. We have all kinds of super stars using their spit as a weapon, usually aimed at paparazzi, such as Avril Lavigne on the right. In West Bromwich the bright red spit from chewing tobacco is everywhere, and they do it without a thought for who maybe near. Research shows that spitting can kill, it spreads all kinds of germs that are harmless, but this obviously doesn't matter to some people.

To be honest, i find it extremely offensive when people spit around or near me. Its a sign of disrespect, of not appreciating your surroundings, and being just damn dirty. There is nothing worse than when an elderly Pakistani lady coughs up her gut then spews her bright red, tobacco, germ infested spit over the pavement. Its bad when school kids do it, but old people is just down right wrong. I understand in some countries it may be fine, but whilst you are in Britain you should respect the laws, customs and morals of the land. This includes spitting everywhere, its just a shame no one tells these school kids that. Its horrible to think we walk spit into our homes and our spreading the germs that have come from out of someones body.

Boring stuff - besides the blog that is!

http://www.mesn.org/articles/index.php?art/id:439

Arsonists & scutty families.

Round by where i live in the past few weeks around thirty cars have been set alight at night. All of them were in the Carters Green area of West Bromwich , and the police have said they are linked. Why would someone go round setting cars on fire just for the fun of it? Do they not think that, with the current climate, people might not be able to afford to replace their car, or be able to afford the higher insurance premiums?
Vandalism of this kind really gets me mad because life is hard enough without some little shit setting your car on fire in the middle of the night just for the fun of it. Its like those people who walk around and swipe their key down your car door leaving a massive scratch that's expensive to repair. Do these people have no conscience? or do they have something missing in their tiny, sad little brains that stops them from feeling guilt? What could possibly happen to someone that makes them go out and enjoy burning someones pride and joy? Problems like this, my parents say, simply did not happen when they were younger. So, whats happened to make people act in this evil way? My first suspicion is poor parenting. I'm sure when these arsonists are caught they will be under 18, yet are allowed by their parents to stay out all night with their friends getting up to no good.
We all know that every estate has their rough, nasty family from hell. If you live on an estate without a scummy family like this, I'd say by today's standards you are lucky. Not far from me there is a family, with 17 children, ranging from babies up to aged 27, who are this type of family. They do not control their kids in any way what so ever, and as a result, these kids run feral on the estate, stealing cars, jumping privets, etc, you name, one of them has been arrested for it. What is irritating about this particular family is nothing ever seems to be done about them. There have been neighbourhood meetings and that kind of thing, but they continue to run riot. I'm sure everyone knows that these problems continue down the generations, and with this family, the older kids now have their own children who are now adding to the estates problems.
When is enough enough? The police seem powerless to do anything. This family, if that's what they are called, I'd call it a pack, like dogs, congregate on the same street corner every night, drinking, and doing everything else that unruly kids do. They are sometimes there until 3am but its never the parents who fetch them in. When i was young we were told a time to be in, and that was it, you were late and you were in big trouble.


The big question is what can be done with these types of families? None of them work, they are all on benefits, with the mother having been pregnant nearly every year. Why aren't their benefits stopped until they get jobs? Why aren't they put on community work to try and instill some kind of normal working attitude into them?
Two of this particular families children were sent to court for setting things on fire a few years ago, and it wouldn't surprise if its these two again now. The government claims to be getting tough on families like these, but I'm yet to see any results on my estate. This family constantly get raided by the police for drugs, yet are never evicted. They are always driving round the estate in stolen cars and being arrested for it, but the younger ones aren't old enough to prosecute. I've recently heard the council are evicting the family next door so the scutty family can knock two houses into one so there is more space for their ever growing brood. I'm disgusted by the council supporting these people endlessly, when normal folk have to suffer the wrath of their evil children. Enough said, I'm getting angry.

Links

http://www.expressandstar.com/2009/03/25/arsonists-go-on-rampage/

CIA torture

Following on from the Guardian article about the torture techniques used by the CIA during the Bush administration, the question obviously has to be - is there a place for torture in our modern world? Its too easy to say no, its wrong, etc, because when it comes to evil tossers like Al-Qaeda why shouldn't they get a taste of their own medicine?

Its not easy to forget the poor people who Al-qaeda have gallivanted on national news before ceremoniously cutting off their heads with a blunt knife while the victim screams for mercy. Nor is it easy to forget about all those soldiers who were in Iraq fighting for democracy and got maimed by road side bombs these evil little shits hid because hey are not man enough to fight and show their faces. At the end of the day, i think a slap or a shouting at is nothing compared to what some of these fanatics have done to our soldiers and their own people. Remember when Al-Qaed were kidnapping normal Afghan's and chopping off their heads just because they were trying to earn a decent living by becoming policeman? Is that fare and just behaviour? Obviously not, so why should these evil b****rds be shown any mercy?

The old saying goes treat others how you want to be treated yourself. The terrorists who flew those planes into the World Trade Towers did it without a thought for the lives of the people they were about to take, or a thought for the lives of the families they were about to destroy.

I will never forget those people jumping out of the trade towers to their deaths, or the horrific news flashes of the planes hitting the towers. These evil, vile, sad excuse for humans are selfish and deserve no mercy what so ever. As far as I'm concerned, its a shame the CIA don't behead know Al-Qaeda 'soldiers' the same way they have killed thousands of innocent people for no reason. As I've said before, bring back hanging for Al-queda murderers. They deserve no mercy, after all, they showed none of their victims any. And on a final note, its these same evil scutters who are growing the heroin that's killing our country, so they definitely deserve what they get!

References
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/16/torture-memos-bush-administration
http://images.google.co.uk/imghp?hl=en&um=1

Poor old Jack Tweed

I don't understand what all the hoof is about because Jack tweed has been jailed. OK, so hes recently lost his racist, foul-mouthed, poor-excuse for a Brit wife Jade Goody, but as the old saying goes - Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. He should have thought of the consequences before he decided to beat up taxi drivers. Apparently he was already in trouble for beating up a 16 year old. I have no sympathy for violent thugs like Tweed, i hope he gets his come-uppance in jail.

http://news.aol.co.uk/jades-widower-jailed-for-assault/article/20090414065332153725877

Something nice for once - Secret Millionaire programme

I know this blog is meant to be 'Being bad' for our module criteria, but i decided to do a nice post for once.

Unfortunately its not very often these days that you hear of people doing something for nothing. People are so busy with their own lives that they forget the less fortunate in society, which is a shame but understandable. I love watching the documentary series 'Secret millionaire', which I'm sure as everyone knows is where a millionaire goes undercover then chooses worthy causes to donate their own hard earned cash to. When ever the term millionaire is mentioned it makes me think of big fat cat bosses (bankers) who sit on their arses all day, play god with peoples lives, and make an absolute mint for doing nothing. Secret millionaire actually shows that some people who are mega rich actually have a heart and are normal like the average person. Its not every day that you meet rich people like this, and its even rarer to see these rich people giving away their hard earned cash and expecting nothing in return.

I think there should be more programmes like this because they generally make you realise that the world is not as bad a place as is constantly portrayed in the newspapers. Its great when a millionaire throws a life line to an otherwise doomed soon to close community service that is struggling for cash. I personally think that the government does not do enough financially to help charities and such like. Most of these places are the back bones of communities and quite often the only chance that some of the service users get to socialise and get out of their homes. These places and their volunteers do a wonderful job and its about time this hard work was recognised by the government and supported.

I remember one Secret Millionaire where the millionaire met an elderly lady who lived in an upstairs flat. It was in Scotland and she had no family and being elderly and disabled she could not get up and down the stairs on her own. This meant the only human contact she had every week was when the Meals on wheels charity bought her a cooked meal once a week. Her flat smelled terrible because she get not take the rubbish down to the communal bins so it was left rotting in her home till the meals on wheels people took it down for her.

I felt terrible for this lady. It made me think just how many people there are in the UK who for one reason or another can't leave their homes and so have no human contact. Its appalling that in this day and age elderly people like the lady mentioned above have to suffer on their own; its even worse when they fought during the World Wars because unfortunately our government does not believe in looking after our war heroes. It made me realise just how good my life is and how important those little things i take for granted are.

Its unbelievable to read in the newspapers that our MP's are claiming huge grants for second homes, driving expensive cars and paying themselves hundreds of thousands of pounds each year, when just a tiny amount of that could help thousands of people who have to suffer in silence. Our government seems to waste an awful lot of money on pointless studies and projects (The multi-million Public Building in West Bromwich is a good example) while whole swathes of our communities suffer.

If i won a million i would donate loads to local charities that are worth their worth in gold. I wonder how many people in the UK if they were millionaires and given the opportunity would donate their own cash to local causes? With the current economic climate its these local charities that are going to need financial help, our government props up banks and our car making industry, but i bet it hasn't given anything extra to help these good causes.

Anyway, you get the idea. I like secret millionaire and i hope it continues on TV cause its the only decent thing on telly these days. Its nice to see people helping good causes and it shows that there are still people willing to help the needy.

The Channel Four Secret Millionaire website is very good and has some brilliant stuff on both the millionaires and the good causes they have helped. Also the government website Do it.org has loads of local volunteering opportunities if you want to donate your time to a good cause.

References/sites used

http://www.do-it.org.uk/
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/S/secret_millionaire/index.html

Our wondeful NHS - Comment on Lyndsey Perk's blog

I totally agree with Lyndsey who says on her blog that the NHS is a wonderful thing and that we should be grateful for having it. The National Health Service is one of those things that sets Britain apart from the rest of the fee paying world. The price of operations and care is extortionate and for the average family would be totally out of their reach, had it not been for Aneurin Bevan i doubt the UK would be as healthy as it is.

Unfortunately, the NHS only ever seems to get bad press and very rarely do newspapers highlight the excellent care that our hospitals give.

There are two things i disagree though when it comes to the NHS. Firstly, i believe people should not be allowed to sue the NHS, except in rare circumstances such as negligence. Lets face it, these people who sue the NHS are normally only after money, not an improvement in services, because if they were they would not be taking the millions in compensation of tax payers money when an apology would do. Secondly, its unfair that only certain people can use the NHS. I think anyone who pays tax and contributes to our economy should be allowed access to medical care. However, i disagree with people coming here just for care then disappearing back abroad.

The NHS is a marvell of modern Britain and we should celebrate its success. Its birth increased how long people live, made the UK healthier, and decreased (or wiped out) certain diseases and infant mortality.

People who slag off the NHS as bad should think for a minute how the poorer section of the population would worsen health wise if the NHS was no longer around. Poor people would not be able to pay for care, and this can only be a bad thing.

References/sites used

http://lynz2704.blogspot.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan

Lying

At school i had a 'friend' who lied none stop about everything. He would lie every single day about anything, and would then lie even more if he was caught out to get himself out of it. He told me his mom had cancer, when she didn't, his nan was no longer alive, when she was, and that all of his family lived in Spain, when they actually lived a five minute walk away from the school. Looking back now i can't understand why i continued to hang around with him because all he ever did was bullshit me.
I have never in my life since met anyone who lied as blatantly as my mate Tim. What used to bother me the most was he had no reason to lie. If he was lying to cover up something he had done, then maybe that would be understandable, but lying for the sake of it was beyond me.

He would lie for lots of reasons: for sympathy (he must not have had any shame saying his mother had cancer), to look better than everyone else (he was one of those who had been there, done it, got the T-shirt, type of guys), for money (he was always saying his parents had kicked him out with nothing so i would borrow him bus fare), to fit in (he once said he had a new bike and agreed to meet us the one weekend but never turned up), to think of it the list is endless.
Maybe it was insecurity that made him lie, but i think he had something in his brain that the average person just does not have. He was unique in that sense and i have never met another liar of his calibre in my life.

Personally i find it hard to understand. He knew his friends would have accepted him no matter who or what he was, so why could he never tell the truth? I was discussing Tim the other day with my brother, who had seen him recently at a family wedding (his aunt has married my uncle), and even all these years later he was exactly the same bull shitter as when we were at school.
He told my brother his sister now lived in Greece (When i know she actually lives in Tipton), that he was just out of the army and had been in it since leaving school (lies because my mom saw his mom a few years ago and she said he had been out of work for nearly three years, no mention of the army), and that he has just bought a £200,000 house in Birmingham for cash (yeah, right).
So why do people like Tim go through their whole lives without changing? Again, i think its psychological and i think people like Tim have an inbuilt mechanism inside their brain that tells them to bull shit every sucker they meet. Whether or not it has something to do with his up bringing I'm not sure, but his sister never lied and shes now a normal nice person.

According to this website (entitled 14 types of people who are most likely to you) there are different kinds of liars who lie for different reasons, but looking back Tim fitted into all of these categories. He lied when jealous, to flatter you, to get money, the list is endless.
If he had a reason to lie then maybe i would understand, but he would lie about stupid stuff that simply mattered to no one. He once said he had a new dog, but when i visited his house and asked his dad where the new dog was, his dad said what dog? Tim was a total twat like that.

Lying to cover up something isn't as bad as lying just for the sake of it. However, lying to people who are meant to mean something to you like close friends or family is just wrong. People won't lie to you if they respect you (that's what I've always thought).
I think that because Tim had an upbringing where his older sister was more his mom (his parents were hardly ever in) meant that he wasn't told off for lying. So in his mind he must not see it as that bad. I mean, what sort of a person lies that their mother has cancer? He must not have felt any guilt about spreading such terrible lies.
When i was a kid if i lied i got a proper hiding, so i quickly learned that it was very wrong. I think that this is the same for most people who have a conscience. People like Tim are rare, and they take lying to the extreme but it just shows that you have to watch who you trust. All kinds of lying is wrong, especially when it hurts someone else.

The Internet is now one of the easiest ways for people to pretend they are something they are not. I can't count the number of times i have read the problem pages in newspapers where people have said they have met their ideal future partner on line, but this person refuses to meet them face to face. I just can't understand why people just can't be who they are and meet people that way. If people don't want to know you for who you really are then I've always believed that they are not worth knowing at all. People who lie online must be very insecure and not happy with their selves. I think the designer models we see on TV and all over magazines plays into peoples fears of not fitting in or being accepted. I know i will never look like Brad Pitt, but at least I'm happy with myself and have no need to lie and pretend to be something i am not. Telling the truth and just being yourself is the key, and i know this is true because i have met some brilliant people at university.

I found this picture which i thought was very appropriate.
I wonder how many people know someone like Tim?


Boring stuff
http://www.howtotelllying.com/how-to-tell-if-someone-is-lying/14-types-of-people-who-are-most-likely-to-lie-to-you
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=+lie&aq=f&oq=

Euthanasia - Wrong or right?

I feel the same as Josephine, who says in her blog she was against euthanasia but now understands its not that bad. For years i was totally against it, believing everyone should be grateful for every single second they have on this earth. I couldn't understand how anyone would want to take their own life, and felt euthanasia and suicide were both selfish.

Everything changed when i watched a documentary on the subject. It featured a number of terminally ill patients who were all going over to Switzerland to end their lives because they felt it was to unbearable to continue. I remember one guy who had about three months left to live. He told his story of a happy family life, kids, work, and explained how he was grateful for everything God had given him. But due to cancer his quality of life had all but gone. He could not go to the toilet on his own and to him, this was the final straw, and felt that this was the last loss of dignity he could take. He explained he could not sleep every night because all he could think about was the burden he felt he had become to his family and friends. So he decided to fly to Switzerland to end his life in a specially equipped hospital. At first his family were totally against it, and the guy felt guilty because the act of euthanasia was against both his and his families religion. Eventually his family came to respect his wishes and the trip was planned.

At the hospital he kissed each member of his family good bye, thanked them for the wonderful life and great times they had given him, then finally he kissed his wife and asked her to forgive him for not having the strength and being able to endure the final few months of pain he had left. She said she had no regrets and respected him and his decision. Then he pressed a button on a machine that was attached to his body which first sent him into a deep sleep, and then injected drugs which stopped his heart beating. Once the machines stopped bleeping, all the family said their final tearful good byes and that was it.

I must admit that i found it extremely painful and saddening viewing. I could not understand why choose an early death, but then i thought about being in his shoes, with the loss of dignity, pride, privacy, and feeling a burden. I soon realised that if i was in the same position (God forbid) i would choose the same option.

The documentary completely changed my views on euthanasia and made me believe that in certain circumstances, it may be the right path to take. I also realised that everyone should have the right to choose when to end their life, and that it has nothing at all to do with the government.

I have never watched a documentary since that showed such gritty, emotional, and tearful scenes, nor have i seen a documentary since that has made me loose so many nights sleep.

I understand why some religions are against it, but i also now see that it should be the individuals choice when to end their life. After all, we are all each responsible for our lives and everything that go's on in them, so why should we not be allowed when to choose our own hour of death? If a person is in pain with a poor quality of life, as long as they are of sound mind, who should have the authority to stop them ending their misery?

The wife of the guy in the documentary said that because she did not have to watch her husband wither away to nothing and die at home, she had only good memories of his life and death. She said that at the time he pressed the button to end his life, she had never seen him so content and happy since the time he was struck down by cancer. She also said that once it was found out he had only months to live, she had decided to sell the house they had lived in all of their married life because she could not bear to stay in the same place where she had watched her husband die. But because he had chosen when and where to die, she could now continue to live in their home, and have the option to reminisce and think about the happy times they had shared.

This shows that euthanasia does have its benefits, both for the dying and their families. It gives a final choice to people who do not want to die a horrible, painful and undignified death in front of their loved ones. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but i agree with Josephine, that in certain circumstances, euthanasia should be an option available to all. It saves a lot of pain, tears and heartache, and while some may not agree with it, this does not mean it should be bad and illegal and not an available option to the dying.

This BBC website has some excellent links and news articles covering euthanasia, including the legal and moral debates, and the different angles people take on the topic.

References & sites used

http://dantesinferno64.blogspot.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/health/euthanasia/basics.stm

http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&um=1&q=euthanasia&sa=N&start=72&ndsp=18

Proud to be British.

Why is it that people automatically assume that just because you are white and patriotic you must be racist? I'm patriotic, i love my country, i love everything that makes Britain great, but i am not racist. Being patriotic has nothing to do with race, its about loving your country, your homeland, and everyone around you. Its about fighting to make your country a better place for everyone who lives there.

The dictionary says patriotism is " devoted love, support, and defense of one's country". So whats it got to do with racism?

Unfortunately over the years, due to tossers like the BNP, patriotism has become synonymous with race, creed, and being British born. This means now people are reluctant to say they are patriotic for fear of being labelled a racist. I find this a terrible shame, because being patriotic is something to be proud of, not ashamed of.

A report by the Institute of Education said "patriotism should be avoided in school lessons because British history is “morally ambiguous”. What a load of bollocks. Every single country in the world has something dark and bad in their past, so why should children not be taught to be proud of their country?

If children were taught to be more patriotic, perhaps we would not have problems such as ASBO's because our younger children would be proud of their country, where they live, and more importantly would be more considerate to their neighbours. If children were taught that they are part of something to be celebrated and proud of, rather than ashamed of, the world would be a much better place. Britain also has a brilliant history, besides the bad stuff, but all countries are the same.

When i was at school i was not taught anything about the second world war. If children today were taught things such as how all countries came together to fight the Nazi's, how over a million Indians fought along side us, and how together, everyone in the UK overcame a dictatorship that would have overtaken the world, maybe children would be more tolerant of each other and grateful to the elderly of all races and nations for the sacrifices they made to keep Britain a free democracy for everyone.

All over the world there are countries that teach their children how to be patriotic and how to love everything that is great about where they live. Indians' and Pakistanis' are all patriotic, yet they are not labelled racist. They proudly show off the flags of their countries on their clothes and cars, but how often do you see the Union Jack on clothes and cars? Hardly ever, because everyone is afraid of being labelled as something they are not.

I love my country, not the white race. I love everyone in the UK, and its about time everyone in the UK opens their mouths and shows that they are patriotic and proud of the country they live in.

Being patriotic should unite everyone in the UK, not divide us into groups against each other. We should unite against things like terrorism, poverty, racism, ageism, etc. to make Britain a better place for everyone.

Boring stuff

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patriotism
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article3285615.ece

Boys charged with attempted murder

More evil children

Another sad case in the news of the two brothers, aged 10 and 11, who have been charged with attempted murder after a 9 and 11 year old were attacked. I never thought there would be another James Bulger, but it seems that an evil streak still exists in some of our younger generations.

Where have these boys gone wrong? Apparently they have been tear-aways for a number of years and were under the supervision of social services and living with foster parents. It seems obvious that the lack of a stable family home has turned these children feral. They have terrorised the two estates that they lived on in the last few years. So why have things been allowed to go this far and why has no one stepped in before these lads ended up nearly killing a nine year old?

I remember that the killers of James Bulger served less than half of their sentence, which is horrendous considering they tortured, burned and threw paint over a toddler (i think 3 years old) before putting his body on a railway line to destroy the evidence. They had a cushty time in prison, got an education they would never have got had they been on the outside, and to top it off got new names, homes, security and who knows what else to stop them being identified and attacked once they were free.

The Bulger case was definitely one of those times when i felt those two evil little bas****s deserved the death penalty. Anyone who tortures a child should expect the same to be done to themselves. I hope Jon Venables and Robert Thompson (scutters on the left) end up rotting somewhere nasty.

Sources

http://news.aol.co.uk/boys-remanded-over-attempted-murder/article/20090407100337067565830
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

Drugs Lecture - LSD

I don't know if its just me, but i thought the lecture on drugs was pointless. The lecturer said at the beginning that heroin was now the main problem drug in the UK, so why do a lecture on a drug which is virtually non-existent in Britain?
According to the statistics (National Statistics Online), the main drugs that caused the 2,640 deaths in the UK were heroin and crack cocaine, not LSD. Personally, i would have thought a lecture on these drugs would have been more relevant and up to date, especially as the social care students will encounter these drugs once they are in practice (if they work with communities or youth). According to Home Office statistics, the number of people abusing LSD falls each each, with the total number of LSD users being very small compared to drugs like cocaine. In 2002, the statistics show there were 642,000 people per year using cocaine compared to only 79,000 using LSD. I would have thought doing a lecture on the more addictive problem drugs would have been better, also as LSD, according to the drug addiction website is not physically addictive.

It is well proven that drugs such as heroin and cocaine cause broken homes, failed relationships and lost childhoods for children, so why would a lecture on LSD be relevant? I thought LSD had died out with the hippies. As a social care student hoping to work in drugs once qualified i would have enjoyed a lecture that focused on the drugs that currently cause problems in our country. Heroin also funds Muslim terrorist activities because it is manufactured in countries by farmers who are subsidised by the terrorists. The history and problems caused by drugs like this are a better eye opener and make for a more interesting lecture that would have given all students something to take away with them and to think about. After the LSD lecture all i could think about were the poor buggers who had LSD tested on them, but even this was like 30 or 40 years ago which is hardly relevant for students today. I have spoken to a few students who have said the lecture learnt them nothing and i feel the same.

With stars constantly in the news with addiction problems, maybe its better for students to understand the drugs that are causing these addictions. Amy Winehouse and Pete Doherty are both addicted to heroin and crack cocaine, not LSD, and as the crap role models we have in the UK they portray hard drugs like heroin as anti-establishment and OK to do. Winehouse was voted ultimate heroine (above Lady Diana) and Doherty was voted second most male popular hero by the UK's youth in a 2008 poll by Sky.com, so it shows what these idiots do does have an effect on Britain's younger generations. The results of the poll i thought were horrifying. The popularity of the 'heroin chic' look in UK fashion at the moment (such as on the left) does little to deter teenagers away from Class A drugs, if anything, it glamorises the ghoulish look of heroin addicts, which is absolutely crazy.

Another point is our NHS spends £3 million per day fighting heroin addiction all of which come out of tax payers pockets. It does not spend this much money fighting LSD. Britain has a rising problem with both heroin and cocaine, and the problems these addictions cause reach every corner of society. Be it crime caused by addicts stealing to fund their addictions, British soldiers being blown up in Iraq and Afghanistan with bombs bought and paid for by UK heroin use, or acts of terrorism on British soil by Muslim fanatics, again paid for by heroin bought by addicts in the UK after being smuggled though Pakistan. The harm and misery caused by heroin and crack is endless, where as LSD causes none of this.

In conclusion, i thought being a student was about being up-to-date with current issues, not old stuff from years ago. I thought my lectures would reflect this. Obviously i was wrong.

References and sites used

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=806
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r229.pdf
http://www.drug-addiction.com/what_is_lsd.htm
http://www.metro.co.uk/fame/article.html?in_article_id=143174&in_page_id=7&in_a_source=
http://www.nme.com/news/amy-winehouse/36117
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&cr=countryUK%7CcountryGB&um=1&sa=1&q=heroin+chic&aq=4&oq=heroin

Quick thought for the day.

Ok, i feel for Jade Goody's family, however, i totally disagree with people who say thigs like, 'she was the poor persons Lady Diana' and 'an icon' (which Ruth Sheppard thinks on her blog).

Am i the only one who remembers her for her foul mouth, her racist remarks and her disgusting reflection of what the UK is?

She was not an icon, just a trash TV failure, and she in no way what so ever ranks any where near Lady Di, so why are so many people interested in her now shes dead?

I don't remember her doing much for charity (until she caught cancer) or much for the UK (apart from portraying us as racist scutters on national TV, so what exactly did she achieve for the UK?

Absolutely bugger all, except line her own pocket.

Why has everyone forgotten the bad and immoral stuff she did? Why does everyone seem to love her all of a sudden? Am i the only one who has never liked her or her foul mouth?

Why am i wasting my time typing this blog about such a racist person?

Claiming disability but driving 4x4 Jeeps.

I've always found it a bit strange that near where i live there are an awful lot of people who claim disability yet drive huge 4 by 4 Jeeps such as Shoguns, Vitara's and Land Rovers. Surely if a person is ill enough that they can legally claim disability benefit, they should not be able to climb up into a massive car that is a few feet off the ground, let alone drive something as big as a Chelsea tractor. If i had something wrong with me the last thing i would want to do is to climb up into my extra large mode of transport

Why isn't there regulation on the kind of car people can attach a blue badge to? I mean surely if a person can drive a car that big and manage to get into one then they may not be as ill as they say. I know that some people who are disabled may be able to, but if they are ill why would they want to? Wouldn't they be better buying a car that is a little lower to the ground and easier to get into?

Also, is driving a huge, gas guzzling car like a Shogun a sign that people who claim disability get too much money? If you can afford the extortionate tax on a 4x4, plus the huge fuel bills and what ever else they need, maybe its a sign that they are not as poor and as hard up as they make out.

The couple who claimed disability benefit and sailed round the world in a £100,000 yacht is a good example. I bet they own a fleet of Mitsubishi Shoguns and Range Rovers.

Anyway, that was just a thought.

There's a whole blog dedicated to benefit fraud here - how boring.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/20/benefit-cheats-luxury-yacht

http://benefitfraud.blogspot.com/2008/11/government-understates-benefit-fraud.html