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

Plastic surgery - Growing old gracefully - Denise Clarke

I feel the same way as Denise - we should grow old gracefully and accept ourselves the way we are born. I think its every ones right to have a tattoo or modify their body as they wish, but i personally draw the line at plastic surgery.
The statistics for plastic surgery in the UK show that despite our countries economic downturn, the number of people choosing to go under the knife has increased, especially for men. I find it amazing that even though people are hard up for money, they still feel that getting surgically altered is an important thing to do. I'd have thought that surgery would have been the last thing on my shopping list around now, but obviously not.
The increase has got to be partly down to the higher number of plastic surgery shows that appear on our TV's each week. The Mail online said in one of its articles that "programmes such as MTV's I Want a Famous Face and Channel Five's Plastic Surgery Live sent out a dangerous message to viewers. The BAAPS (British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons) said the popular shows preyed on the vulnerabilities of a society increasingly obsessed with physical perfection and encouraged people to seek surgery for the wrong reasons."
I believe another reason, especially for men, is that the stigma surrounding plastic surgery has decreased due to the above mentioned types of TV shows. Its no longer seen as a big deal for men to have aesthetic surgery, and this has been proved by the large number of male celebrities that have recently gone under the knife. There is an interesting survey (if you are into that kind of thing) on this website that was carried out to judge the amount of influence celebrities have on peoples' decisions to go under the knife. I think a very good quote from the survey was :

" There were numerous mentions by doctors who noted that patients expressed personal concerns that any procedure would not leave them looking like Michael Jackson."

I personally do not believe that one tummy tuck would make you end up looking like MJ, but as we all know Michael has an addiction to surgery that has progressed over the years and probably involved hundreds of operations.
So, is Michael Jackson an example of surgery gone bad? I cannot believe that over the years there have not been plastic surgeons who have refused to operate on Michael Jackson, surely there has got to be a few? He started looking strange years ago and i remember at one time he was on the front pages of the newspapers (trashy ones like the Sun) at least once a week wearing bandages or leaving some top London surgery-for-the-stars hideaway. So why have surgeons continued to operate on Jackson, well that's easy, he's got loads of dosh (well, he did have, but not any more) and a strange imagination. I wonder who Michael Jackson told his very first plastic surgeon he would like to look like? Arnie Schwarzenegger? I can't work it out, Jackson does not look like anyone anymore, hes 'unique', maybe that's what he wanted all along. On the right is a picture i found of what Jacko would look like today if he had never had plastic surgery.

I'm afraid i do draw the line at parents buying plastic surgery for their very young children. In America there are loads of surgeries that cater just for kids, such as http://www.stjohnsmercy.org/services/kidsplasticsurgery/default.asp. Is this the way Britain is headed?
Surely it is wrong to encourage girls of age 15 and 16 to get breast enlargement? Besides the health risks, is it right for surgeons to operate on children just for aesthetic reasons? I believe not, and maybe there should be a minimum age of 18 for plastic surgery (at the moment there is no limit on how young a child can be for surgery, as long as they have their parents permission). The Daily Mail (28.08.2008) said girls as young as 14 are having breast enlargements and other treatments to avoid being bullied at school, but surely its better to tackle the bullies than allow your child to have life altering surgery. Stopping the bullies would also halt them from carrying on and making other kids lives hell. If i was a parent i just would not allow my child to have surgery at such a young age, i don't know what other people from uni think. Another thing i was thinking of is 14 year olds haven't even stopped growing yet, so surely having implants can't be very good for the their bodies. I don't know, may be I'm wrong.
I very much doubt that it will be parents from the lower classes who will pay £3,500 for their 14 year old daughter to have a nose job. If I'd have said to my parents i want a tummy tuck aged 13 i know very well what they would have said, but its a sign of changing times. Is it me or is surgery just not seen as being that drastic anymore?
I can understand surgery for real medical problems, but breast enlargements? I can't decide if its morally wrong, after all, who wouldn't want their kids to be happy, and if there's a short cut to beauty, then why not take it? If you have got that amount of money, then its an option, but i suppose it never crosses the mind of most normal parents.

Boring stuff - and Hello Denise! http://www.stjohnsmercy.org/services/kidsplasticsurgery/default.asp
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1049624/Children-having-cosmetic-surgery-escape-school-bullies-surgeon-reveals.html
http://www.cosmeticsurgeon.co.uk/blog/tag/otoplasty/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-317344/Plastic-surgery-TV-shows-dangerous.html
http://ginavivinetto.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/michael-jackson-minus-plastic-surgery/ http://images.google.co.uk/imghp

Comment 6 - Response to Magdalena Drewenska and addiction.

I'm afraid you are totally 100 % wrong. On your blog it says 'When you are drug addicted – you will always be drug addicted, for whole your life'. I battled heroin addiction for 10 years, and now I'm clean (3 years), over drugs and have a bright future. My past doesn't make me a bad person, it just means i have a lot more knowledge to give than people who say 'addiction is for life'. Unfortunately there is so much negativity and stigma around addiction (as well as crap and lies) and people who know jack talk a lot, such as in the newspapers.

There are different kinds of addicts, namely junkies and functionals. Junkies can't control their habit and end up on the street, functionals maintain a habit, job, and a 'normal' life. Not all addicts steal and lie to feed their addictions.

There are several addiction treatments in the UK that teach you that once you are clean, you are still an addict for life. I think that's crap, if your an addict for life, you always have the possibility of relapse hanging over your shoulder. Once an addict has dealt with their demons they are no longer an addict. Just normal people like me and you who made a few bad choices in life. Its wrong to tar everyone with the same brush.

Rant over.

http://magda-overthehillsandfaraway.blogspot.com/

Google Earth and stalking

Have a look at street view here Google Earth Street View

I had thought in the past about Google Earth and the possibility that it could be used to stalk people by looking at their homes and properties. With the introduction of the new street view on google earth it made me wonder where the line is crossed for a persons privacy. If i were to sit outside your house every day taking photo's I'm sure you would not like it, so how come Google can do it and nothing gets said? I feel its an invasion of privacy, especially as google does not consult either home owners or people it shows on its website. If i was up to no good i could use the stuff that's on their site to look for big houses to burgle or places to hide to spy on people. The list of bad, immoral and illegal things i could do just by using Google Earth is endless.

Its bad enough with all of the camera's that capture our every move, but surely photographing peoples homes from street angle is wrong. I just can't understand why Google doesn't need some sort of permit to use these satellites and camera's, and to give open access on the Internet to every weirdo around is terrible. Even paedophiles could use the site to look at school locations and other creepy stuff that they get up to.

Body modification

Tattooing, piercing, female genital mutilation and foot binding

I must admit that i have never thought of cutting nails as body modification, but then again, I've never thought as body modification as being bad. Its down to personal preference, i have tattoo's and for me they are a personal pleasure, for me to look at and enjoy, not to show off like most of the youngsters of today. My tattoo's are out of sight, and i would never have a tattoo on my face or hands. Years ago no tattooist would tattoo the face or hands, but now that's all changing, they must be a lot more desperate for money.

I had not realised there were so many reasons for modifying ones body. I must admit i found some of them distasteful, especially the nullification (removal of sexual organs), and birofication, where the penis is split in two down the middle. All i could think of when watching the screen when these were on is pain.

Tattooing is something i have loved for many years, and i like reading about the history of tattooing. I have a book called '1000 tattoos' by Schiffmacher & Taschen (1996) and it charts the history of tattooing. Its amazing to look at how tattoos have changed over the years, in just the same way as how tattoos are judged by people. Tattoos have come a long way both in design and status since Samuel Reilly patented the first tattooing machine in 1981. I do not feel personally that tattooing is bad, its just a shame that the negatively socially constructed images of tattoo wearers has continued to this day. I like Maori tattooing, mainly because it serves a purpose rather than just being aesthetic as most tattoos are in the UK. Its especially interesting to see how the different parts of the face tattooed in a particular way can show the persons social status or tribe rank. The Maori use sticks with sharp pins on the end which are usually made of bone to tattoo.

Another type of tattooing which i think is interesting is prison tattooing. There are many ways to make a tattoo gun, which although it is illegal to tattoo in prison, besides extremely unhygienic, prisoners all around the world get tattooed. Unfortunately a lot of it is about gang affiliation, usually with racist or ethnic text, and as with Maori tattoos can show a persons status in the gang. Tattoos are also a way of frightening the enemy, and have been used by lots of different tribes and people to make them look aggressive, which people still do today in prison. I can't think of any other reason someone would choose to have half of their face tattooed when they live in Wolverhampton. Tattooing is about expression, so i suppose its whatever floats your boat. There are some interesting websites showing how prison tattoo guns are made:

http://www.rentyman.com/neatstuff/tattoo.html

http://mag.rankmytattoos.com/how-to-make-a-prison-tattoo-machine.html

Piercing is another type of body modification. I borrowed a book called 'The eye of the needle' by Pauline Clarke (1994) and it was definitely an eye opener. I've tried counting how many pieces of jewellery the guy on the left has threw his penis but there is just too many. He must make a right mess when he goes to the toilet!

When it comes to body modification there are some things which i just do not agree with and definitely feel are bad and immoral. Firstly has to be Chinese foot binding, which has been around since the tenth century. I mean, breaking your little daughters feet so they are smaller and will be more attractive to future husbands. I understand its part of their culture (well it used to be, its illegal now but apparently still goes in the rural areas), but isn't it going a bit too far for beauty? What makes it distasteful for me is the fact that the children (usually aged between 4 and 6) have no say in what happens to them, which in this day and age is just cruel. YouTube has some interesting videos about it.

Another one is disagree with is enforced female circumcision. According to the Mail online, see article, FGM, or female genital mutilation, is rife in the UK. This is also done for cultural reasons, but i find it shocking that in some parts of Asia and Africa this is done to very young girls by 'elders' with no medical training or anaesthetic on kitchen tables 'using filthy, blunt knives, razor blades or scalpels.' How absolutely terrible. To justify this practice by saying only 'cut' girls are virgins and that they are truly faithful to Islam is disgusting and a disgrace in this day and age. I just cannot understand how it can be justified, its like treating women as meat, to be kept fresh for her husband. To me, this is immoral and without a doubt bad behaviour. If anybody says this is justifiable they need a slap! Any one who is doing this in the UK should be kicked out. Everybody living in the UK has a right to freedom from this kind of crap, and besides, they should respect the wishes of their host country, which is the UK where it is illegal. The article says this practice is endemic in Norway so its about time the government did something about it. Read the article i have linked above , its really sickening.

Books/sites used

http://images.google.co.uk/imghp?hl=en&um=1

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/beekeeper/foot.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy60cJciNHQ&feature=related
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-505796/The-unspeakable-practice-female-circumcision-thats-destroying-young-womens-lives-Britain.html
Schiffmacher, H. & Riemschneider, B. (1996) 1000 tattoos. Koln, Germany: Benedikt Taschen
Clarke, P. (1994) The eye of the needle. Warks: Clarke Ltd

Kids (1995) By Larry Clark

After watching Kids last week, i have to admit i just could not see the point in the film. If i had actually paid to watch Kids i would have wanted my money back.

I've been doing a little bit of research and on Wikipedia and a few other sites it says that the guy who played Casper in the film (Justin Pierce) committed suicide in 2000. I wonder if that's because his film debut in Kids just really didn't take off the way he thought it would?

I think the one thing that the producers knew would sell this film is its shock value. Its obvious that with the immoral behaviour and topics in the film would create a frenzy in the media which we all know creates a cult following of people who are into this kind of stuff. The film was very raw, and the fact that most of the actors were filming their debuts' made it all the more gritty.

When the film first came on i was shocked at how quickly the film went into sex scenes. Normally, films build up to that kind of thing but Kids went straight into it. The list of immoral behaviour in the film is endless, but i found the paedophilia (which it obviously was as they were under age) distasteful. As i was watching the film, i was sitting there thinking the producers can't stoop any lower after that, but then there was something even more shocking after it.

I've yet to meet one person who enjoyed watching Kids, so apart from making millions for the producers, what else does the film actually achieve? You could say its an educational message about underage sex and HIV, but did the film show this in a bad light? I think not, and besides, there are thousands of other ways of teaching children and parents about this stuff without making them watch Kids. Out of all the immoral and bad stuff in the film, i felt the film did not actually have a moral or point about how bad these things were.

Another thing i thought of is that Kids is not a true representation of the UK and its drug scene. It might represent the USA, and I've lived years around drug addicts of all kinds, and i have never met anyone who even slightly represents Telly with his paedophilic behaviour. I have never met anyone who got so excited about 'deflowering' underage virgins.

Someone said the film should be shown to all parents, but wouldn't this just add to the paranoia parents constantly feel in the UK about drugs, paedophiles and violence? Somebody else said that some people (obviously hinting at the lower class people in society) would not get the message about HIV, which i thought was stupid, is there anyone in the UK who does not know about the dangers of HIV? I don't think that just because someone lives on a council estate they are thick.

I'd agree with the author who said Kids had a 'thin' story line, it was crap. I don't think its possible to stuff together as many shocking topics in such a short space of time and still not have a decent story line or ending.

OK, so Jenny caught HIV, and was drugged up, so why didn't she stop Telly having sex with the girl at the end? I couldn't really understand that, i thought she would have at least tried but she just shut the door and left them to it. She managed to have the energy to wonder all over town looking for Telly, so why didn't she have the energy and guts to stop him giving that girl a death sentence? The film didn't really have an ending, there was no moral to be learnt, just an hour and a half of shock tactics to earn money for the producers i thought. I think its even stranger that Kids has won awards.

The topics covered in the film are obviously seen as immoral and bad, and with the current furore in the news about paedophiles its no wonder the film touched a few nerves. Telly was such a slimy guy, he made my skin crawl when he was saying the same stuff to the girl at the end as the beginning of the film just to bed them. What made it worse was the fact that he just thought it was funny to take under age girls virginity's. The number of teen pregnancies in the UK is one of the worst in Europe, but i doubt its because there are an army of Tellys' out there chasing around after the UK's virgins.

The drug scenes through-out the film included minors, but i thought the producers tried to make these scenes funny instead of educational. The rape scene at the end was especially harrowing, and i don't think they could have made Casper look any more slimy. I think a man taking advantage of a girl like that would touch a nerve in anyone, but i wonder why they didn't do a women raping a man instead of the other way round.

In answering the questions at the end:

1) Does the film have any similarities with any other films you have seen?

Personally, i have not seen another film as shocking as Kids, even the title is meant to shock people. Normal films have bad people, victims and heroes; Kids had just baddies and victims.

2) Are we invited to identify with any of the characters?

Being male i didn't really identify with anybody, although i can understand why the ladies identified with the females in the film.

3) Do you find the film shocking in any way? Why?

I think the answer to that is was there anything in the film that wasn't shocking? Obviously not. The whole film was shocking and as i mentioned earlier the subjects covered are specifically in the film to shock, underage sex, drugs, paedophilia, slimy teenagers, violence, etc. these are all topics that shock the conservative UK public. Some parts of the film made my skin crawl.

4) In what ways could we consider the film to appear realistic?

I felt the film was not realistic for the UK at all. Certain tactics such as new gritty actors, shaky camera, out of focus shots, etc, all made Kids realistic in that sense, but i doubt characters like Telly and Casper exist in the UK. There might be one or two, but that's hardly a realistic portrayal.

5) How does the film deal with morals and morality?

I certainly thought there was no moral in the film, apart from the message about HIV and underage sex and pregnancy, but does anyone need to watch a film like Kids to learn this, and are there any teenagers inn the UK who don't already know the risks involved? Then again, there must be some teenagers who don't know the risks otherwise our pregnancy rate would not be so high compared to other EU countries. An ending where Jenny stopped Telly at the end, or Telly and Casper get their come-uppance would have shown a small vein of morality.

6) Who do you think is the target audience for the film?

Sad buggers with too much money? If it was aimed at kids or teenagers the really bad bits that got it its N-17 would have been cut out. So it must be aimed at adults, although I'll never understand why anyone would pay to watch this film, let alone be a fan of it. There must be something i am missing because on Flixster, people have actually listed themselves as fans of Kids. I wonder what type of people they are and what kinds of lives they lead? Someone on Flixster says they were not shocked by this film and that its very life like for people she/he knows, and they live near to where Kids was shot. I'm glad i don't live in the USA, it must be full of Telly's and Casper's.

7) Is there anything to be said in favour of the behaviour in the film?
Not really, i thought. If there was a moral or serious point that was made at the end of the film then perhaps you could say the behaviour proved this point or if you act in this way that will happen to you, unfortunately Kids did neither. The producers had no intention at all of using Kids for educational purposes, if they had intended that they would have cut out the bits so it lost its N-17 rating in the US. The film was purely made for profit; Kids cost $1.5 million to make and pulled in around $15 million, so a cheap film with tons of profit.

8) To what extent do you believe that the producers wished to create an important 'wake-up' call for parents?
None what so ever. I feel the film aimed to pack as much immoral behaviour in a tiny amount of time as possible to create a media frenzy with its classification that would pull in the viewers and make a lot of money. I think most parents know their own kids and would have spotted some thing years ago if their son was a virgin eating monster. Then again, with some of the stuff that currently goes on in the UK, such as 13 year old dads, i'm probably wrong.

9) What do you think of the films ending?
In one word, shit. The ending seemed to happen when I'd have thought the film was just getting interesting. The end of a film should give you 'food for thought'. A pissed up teenager raping a drugged up little girl is hardly something i want to remember.

No doubt people will disagree with me and believe Kids was great and all the rest of it, but i'm entitled to my opinion, and i won't be watching any more Larry Clark films. I think Pingu is more interesting and educational.

Pathological liar - 27 years in prison

I was just watching BBC News about Sean Hodgson, the guy who spent thirty years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. Apparently he was a pathological liar and admitted the murder and rape at first, then at his trial he said he never told the truth about anything. I think this is one of those classic cases where the mental state of the accused is not taken into account. Surely there were other signs in his life that he was full of bullshit, so i wonder why the police didn't catch onto this. Then again, i suppose its obvious, at the beginning of the murder hunt, police had no suspects or leads at all, so when eventually a name is put forward, the police are just way too eager for a conviction to please the public and victims family to bother investigating everything properly. What makes this case even worse is the fact the because Sean Hodgson refused to admit his guilt he was never given parole, where as if he had admitted to it in prison, he would have been released years ago. Its sad really because it makes me wonder how many other people are wasting away in prison just because they lied due to mental problems. If you look at the photos, Hodgson is wasted away, he was young when locked up, and now hes an old man with nothing to show for his life behind bars. What a tragedy.

It just goes to show the amount of trouble lying can get you into. There are pathological liars everywhere, i know i usually see through their bullshit when i meet one, so why can't the police see through their lies and see that all they really crave is attention.

Another problem with all this is the w**ker who raped and strangled that poor women is still out there, living a life they don't deserve. Its been thirty years since the murder, so the real killer might have died years ago. Hopefully hes still alive and the DNA evidence that freed Hodgson will put him in jail pretty soon, the news said the police have reopened the case. I was thinking about how has the real murderer lived this long with such a secret, he must not have a conscience. It also means the real killer must have watched on from the back ground as Hodgson was jailed for his crimes. What a tosser.

On the subject of tossers, what about the guy who's got £60,000 in compensation off the police for mistreating him during a terror raid on his address. What gets me about all this is he gets compensation just because he was not charged with crimes in the UK, yet is awaiting extradition to America to stand for similar terror charges. The guy is obviously linked to terrorism, so why give him anything? Ok, he was 'tortured' but surely anyone with a decent brain knows not to get involved in that kind of crap in the first place. Like i've said before, hang all terrorists for treason.

Comment 5 - Legalising marijuana - response to David fox and Soveliss' blog

http://soveliss.blogspot.com/

http://davefoxbeingbad.blogspot.com/

I can not believe people are so naive when it comes to marijuana and cannabis. I once believed that both of these drugs should be legalised, but that was many years ago. I started smoking marijuana when i was about 15, but i soon grew bored of it. You know when they say soft drugs lead onto harder drugs, believe me that's true. The high from skunk soon gets boring, and i quickly moved onto amphetamines. Then i went on to cocaine, then heroin, and ended up being fucked by these so-called 'natural highs'. I wasted years addicted, all because i thought it was ok in the first place to smoke a bit of weed and get stoned.

Its very important to remember that junkies hang around with junkies. People who smoke weed always know someone who is higher (or lower, whichever way you want) up the chain, and is on the next drug. The criminal world that brings in these drugs from abroad is all run by the same people, and these are the same people who put up the money for growhouses.

I know for a fact that if i had not been so fucking dumb as to try marijuana then i would not have ended up losing everything to the yardies in Handsworth who supplied my all the heroin and crack i could smoke. I have spoken to loads of my friends and fellow addicts, and its well known amongst hard drug addicts that starting on the softer stuff leads to the harder stuff.

So to all these twats who say legalise it, it doesn't hurt anyone, it' just a nice, mellow natural high, you won't be saying that in thirty years time when all the marijuana smoking kids of today have grown up and are fuelling the next heroin and crack epidemic by breaking into your yard and burglarising your house. And do not tell me this doesn't happen, i've been there, rattling, desperate for drugs, and willing to do anything to feed my never ending habit.

I have lost four friends to heroin addiction, and every one of them started off by smoking a little bit of blow. Obviously this doesn't happen to everyone, but i lived on a council estate nearly all of my life, and i know and have seen that softer drugs lead to harder drugs.

When i was at school i used to smoke a spliff walking home with my mate Copey. After finishing school i lost touch with him for 13 years. Then three weeks ago a man asked me for spare change by Wolverhampton station. Thin as a rake, dirty hands and finger nails, and the obvious sign of heroin addiction; the pinned eye pupils, i said no, and walked away. I seemed to remember him but couldn't work out where from. Last week i spoke to him, and it was Copey. He had lost everything through heroin, and it all started with that little bit of marijuana that every one wants to legalise.

You may think i'm talking bollocks, but how many of your mates have you lost to drug use? The link between marijuana and harder drug use is well known and medical studies, such as this one of twins, have proved that it is not genetics that makes people start taking harder drugs, but the fact they started on softer drugs. The revenue that all kinds of drugs make flows into the same pockets of the people who run gangs, bring guns to our streets, and who buy the stolen property that funds users habits. The drug dealers who sold me marijuana years ago are now the same people who are now selling heroin, skunk, and crack, and the majority of them are now addicts themselves.

I'm sorry for ranting on, but the people who say legalise it must be stupid. Everyday i read the paper there are more and more stories of drugs addicts jailed through feeding their addiction and drug related articles. The links are there for all to see, so why do people continue going on about legalising it. There have also been god knows how many stories in the papers about studies that have linked marijuana use to mental health problems later in life. I wonder how many of these people who are all for legalising it will be saying the same in thirty or forty years time when these mental health problems manifest themselves? The link between mental health problems and strong types of mariyuana are well established, but who knows what other kinds of problems these drugs might be causing, only time will tell.

Drug use is a subject that really winds me up because i have been there and have lost everything because of chasing that high. Smoking weed soon leads on to chasing the dragon, and although it might not for every single weed smoker, it will for a lot.

If you want to smoke weed go and do it. But the next time you see one of those beggars who are always at the station with pinned eyes, why don't you ask him the very first drug he took and ask him what hes taking now?

All illegal drugs are bad, and in some way or another, all illegal drugs are related to crime, violence and misery. I personally feel spouting crap about legalising marijuana is immoral, and an appalling example to the younger generation.

On a finishing note, i was talking to a fellow pupil at university the other day about drugs and addiction. Not knowing my past i asked him what he thought of heroin addicts, and what should be done with them. He said that Britain should take a leaf out of Mao tse-Tungs book (Chinese revolutionary) and shoot them all. He obviously judges books by their covers which is a shame, and i feel sorry for any poor fucker with an addiction who meets this student when he is a qualified social care worker. Addicts are still people, despite their problems. And lastly, everyone hates terrorists, but where do they get the money to fund their activities? from drugs like mariyuana.

Anyway, had enough. Have a nice day.

Todays Sun - Muslim extremist - bring back hanging

Sun newspaper article 'Abuse hurled at Our Iraq Boys'

I personally feel it is absolutely disgusting that these fanatical scutters have the cheek to slag our soldiers off after they have fought for our country. What have these moaning freeks ever done for our country? They run down Britain, our way of life, our soldiers and our government, yet they continue to live here and claim benefits. They slag our soldiers off when i bet they haven't been to Iraq fighting for democracy. Its obviously only a very, very small minority that have the same feelings as the scum in the photo, but i think its really bad that the police stand by while these have the balls to protest. If i stood in Wolverhampton town centre with a sign saying 'Kick the Muslim Extremists Out' i'd be in a police cell faster than i can say terrorists. How come they can be allowed to do what they did as our returning soldiers paraded? I understand everyone has different views about the Iraq war and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but what happened to respect? 100 years ago these protesters would have been hung for treason, but unfortunately these days supporting terrorism is obviously not seen as immoral by certain people. What happened to supporting Queen and country through good and bad? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. I just hope the government has the sense to watch these people and take action.

I can't understand how people end up having veiws like that. If they don't support our soldiers, they obviously must have loved Saddam Hussein, because thats who was got rid of.

I have seen quite a few news articles lately linking former students of Wolverhampton University to terrorism. One such person was Hassan Butt, who was reporting as having recruited hundreds of British Muslims to fight for the Taliban . Its not just our uni though, its all uni's across the UK. Unfortunately universities are easy prey, full of young intelligent people with impressionable minds. Obviously people are going to disagree with me but recruiting students for terrorism is both bad and immoral. I believe everyone should be allowed to have their say, but not when its damaging the very fabric of our society. Why does the british government continue to allow British Taliban fighters to return home when they have committed treason? If you go abroad to fight for terrorists, then whatever happens to you when you are captured is tough shit, but our dummy country allows them to come home, claim benefits, spout their vile, harmful beliefs, and still sue the government for damages, one name that springs to mind is Benyam Mohammed. He went to fight for the terrorists and learn how to make bombs to fight the west, yet he is allowed to sue for damages for being tortured. It would be a different story if he had made it back to Britain and unleashed his now found bomb making techniques on our cities.

If these fanatics are not happy with what goes on over in the UK and what our government does, why continue to live here? After all, if our soldiers are such evil bastards why would you want to continue to live among them? the answer is obvious, benefits, child allowance, a house, etc If we did not have a social security system, would these fanatics continue to live in Britain? i doubt it.