The App That Could Destroy a Male

In the last ten years social media has exploded, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn the list is endless and always evolving as different ideas are thought up - the notion is the same but with just different perks. However one app has caused controversy in South America with one case even going to court.

Lulu, an app specially made for women, gives them the chance to rate their male Facebook friends on appearance, character and sexual performance the ratings can then be viewed by other their Facebook friends.

Not only is this app humiliating to any male that has been 'rated' but if this app takes off globally (it already has been downloaded more than 'whatsapp' in Brazil) it could destroy any male that has an ex-girlfriend that is on a revenge mission.

The home page of Lulu the app that has already caused a lawsuit. Picture courtesy of telegraph.co.uk

Felippo de Almeida Scolari a law student from Sao Paulo in Brazil is suing Lulu - his ratings were so low hastags came out describing him as "#ShouldComeWithAWarning" and "#CheaperThanBreadandButter". The app was probably designed as a bit of fun for young girls to do in there spare time however when a male is given that type of review it is a serious breach of privacy, not only in Brazil but in most countries over the globe.

Mr Scolari, who is suing Lulu for £7,000 for damages, told The Telegraph: ""I was disgusted because I didn't authorise my details to be used by this app." Mr Scolari has since said all the damages he receives will be donated to charity.

The breach of privacy is a serious issue (even more so when the comments are defamatory), especially here in England, can you imagine if an ex wife of a famous footballer could comment on there sexual performance and those comments could be published in a newspaper. But in reality if comments like that were published newspapers would be sued to excess.



Felippo de Almeida Scolari with his lawyer, plans to sue  lulu for £7,000 in damages. Picture courtesy of smh.com 

Since the emergence of the court case  Lulu have come out and said men can remove their profiles so women cannot rate them. A argument that is flawed - Lulu should have been given permission by the male to publish sensitive and at times humiliating content. The male should not have to take action to remove the sensitive material.

Just as women activist are trying to push for women's equality they then get pushed back a step by the app by doing the exact same to males. We all love a bit of fun on our mobile and tablet devices but at the expense of someone else's private life is a step too far.

North Korea - Fearful State or Laughing Stock

There never seems to be a month that goes by without the secretive state of North Korea being involved in the media. This week the communist state executed a high political figure for no main reason - not only was he a high profile figure he was also the leaders (Kim Jong-un) uncle.

So what is the deal with North Korea? Why is it so secretive? And are they really going to start a nuclear war with the rest of the world? Can we take them seriously?

The problem with these questions is no-one actually knows - it's so secretive - no journalists are allowed into the state. North Korean journalists job is to brainwash the Korean public into thinking they are the most powerful state in the world. The public are constantly told their leaders are almost like gods, when the previous leader died Kim Jong-il died of a heart attack in 2011 if a member of the public was seen not mourning the death they were sent to six months hard labour.



Korean's mourning the death of previous leader Kim Jong-il. Picture courtesy of nydailynews.com

North Korea is one of very few communist states in the world now. Very few people are allowed inside the country and when they are getting out is a real problem. Legally no-one is allowed to leave North Korea without consent from the government.

North Korea is still technically at war with South Korea, after the Korean war in 1953 there was never a resolution, there is still hostilities towards the two countries despite Northern and Southern Koreans being allowed to go into the Korean Penisula (an area of land occupied by both countries were citizens of the two countries can go). So when North Korea claimed the Penisula was theirs why didn't South Korea kick up a fuss because with America as an ally North Korea wouldn't stand a chance. The main reason being North Korea has one main ally China - the world's biggest super power - this is why North Korea is a dangerous country.

So earlier this year when North Korea's new leader announced it would be using more funds to improve the nuclear arms the world panicked. Kim Jong-un the young, unknown leader scared the world and people predicted a nuclear war could occur in months.

So would North Korea dare to start a nuclear most people predicted no, so why did the North want to look threatening and risk war? Well as the new leader of North Korea Kim Jong-un did not want to look weak so by closing the Korean Penisula and upping it's nuclear programme he not only warned his enemies but looked strong to his own people - almost like an animal cage rattling showing how strong they are to other people.

North Korea's new unpredictable leader Kim Jong-un. Picture courtesy of 38north.org.

 



Even though all these serious stories come out of North Korea not many people can take the state seriously with some of the ridiculous things they make up. North Korea claim it's previous leader Kim Jong-il's first time of playing golf shot an incredible 38 under par and shot five holes in one. North Korea also claim Kim Jong-il invented the hamburger, not only did he invent the hamburger North Korean media then claimed he found a plant that grows hamburgers - a bit ironic when most of the citizens of the country struggle with famine (it is one of the poorest countries in the world).

 

So what next for North Korea? Impossible to predict what the country will do next for media attention but just remember never take them seriously!

 

Pension Age - Why Should Young People Care?

When George Osborne delivered his Autumn Statement this week I'm sure many of you, like myself, turned a blind eye. And when he announced the pension age would increase to 67 once again, I shrugged my shoulders, because as a young person this won't be affecting me for years to come. Right?

Well actually as a matter of fact wrong, directly this legislation will affect people only in there 60s and late 50s, why should we, as the younger generation care? Well here's why; with the age of state pensions increasing older people will have to work for longer thus leaving less opportunities for the younger generations.


George Osborne's Autumn Statement has left unions outraged by his pension plans. Picture courtesy of mirror.co.uk

When David Cameron announced he was stopping benefits for jobless people under 25, he claimed all people aged between 16-25 needed jobs (providing they didn't go into higher education) now he's telling 65 year olds they need to work one or two years extra.

Either the government doesn't quite know the situation of the economic climate yet or they are deluded. Jobs are hard to come by and brushing off young people as lazy because they can't get jobs then telling older people they can't give up their jobs yet - well that is quite simply unfair!

What is worrying is that the pension age since the 1960s has always been increasing - after calculations by accountants PwC it's been predicted that if you're a teenager now you're going to have to wait till you're 75 before you get a pension. What makes it worse is that the government claims a person spends a third of their life on a state pension (on average). So if these increases continue at the same rate and a modern day teenager gets there pension at 75 for the government to be right the average person needs live to between 95-97, to me that seems farfetched.

Pension advisor to the Government, Ros Altmann, has defended the government she told the BBC: "the state pension age was set at 65 in the 1940 the vast majority of people retiring now left school at 15 or 16 and so by age 65 will have worked for 50 years.Young people now, who on average start work at 21 and will retire at 71 will also work on average 50 years," as correct as she is what about the people who did not continue to study at university they shouldn't need to suffer more - because they paid their taxes earlier! You can't expect someone in a job lifting heavy objects to continue working till 71, it's not healthy or feasible.

Ros Altman has surprised many by support George Osborne's pension plan. Picture courtesy of telegraph.co.uk

So what is the solution to this mess, how can we get pensioners and young people at work at the same time. What is needed is get young people apprenticeships with people a few years before they retire - then when the latter eventually finishes the apprentice will be trained and will have the correct skills to manage independently. The government should award grants for the elder (so both are still getting a reasonable pay) who opt for this kind of scheme. Not only does it keep both subjects in jobs it also saves training the young adult when the pensioner retires.

What has had most people seething is the chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne has claimed the whole pension scheme would have collapsed had he not increased the age of retirement. Yet it is okay for MPs to now receive a 11% pay rise - possibly so they can get their second home refurbished unless they use their expenses!

The Battle for King Richard III

When the remains of King Richard III were dug up by University of Leicester staff in February 2012 not many people would have predicted a high court hearing between two cities claiming rights to his remains. The two cities: Leicester nearby to where the Plantagenet fell at the Battle of Bosworth and York where the king was originally from.

So how has the remains of a king that died over 500 years ago got to this stage and why? Basically York believe as he grew up in York he belongs there and Leicester believe as he fell there he should stay there, as with most things I write about, it's far more complicated than this. The two cities want the remains for one main reasons: tourism. Tourism generates money for that city leaving it in a better financial situation.

Who should keep Richard III's remains, Leicester or York? Picture courtesy of BBC

So which City should it go to? Both cities do have arguments but simply as he fell in Leicester he should stay in Leicester. In medieval times if a king fell in battle the victor would decide where the fallen should be buried. In this case when Richard III was killed at the Battle of Bosworth the victor Henry VII paid for the grave of Richard III to be marked where it was.

When the University of Leicester dug up the remains of the King they invested a lot of money, after that is it fair that York then just take him away for free? In the unlikely event that York do get him then they should pay how much the University of Leicester paid to discover him. York were not interested in finding him they only claim they wanted him when he was found by a team in Leicester - they didn't use their resources up to find him!

York's body arguing the case named The Plantagenet Alliance claim that a lot of distant relatives are still in York and so he should be buried there. A flawed argument; if all of his distant relatives are in York why did they have to use the DNA of a man now living in Canada and from London to see if the body they found was King Richard III?

The remains of Richard III found in a Leicester car park. Picture courtesy of ITV

What is also quite ironic is that yes he was from York but he was Richard of Gloucester since the ago of 8 which is a massive 190 miles away from York - can I also add it is a of a lot closer to Leicester. Not only that but he was born in Northampton which is a neighbouring county to Leicester.

York also argue that Richard wished to be buried in York although when did a beaten king ever get the choice of where they were buried? Like I said earlier in this article when a king is fallen the victor chooses where the fallen is buried.

Another problem York will be facing is petitions, two petitions have gone out by both Leicester and York as to where the king should be buried. Leicester beat York by nearly 3,000 signatures - these petitions have already been announced they will be used as evidence in the judicial review (which has been adjourned for a later date).

Finally possibly the best argument Leicester has it'll be keeping with archaeological practice to keep the remains of the King in Leicester's cathedral. When an archaeological discovery is found in a city that city should keep it.

So when the High Court decide I would be extremely surprised if York get the remains of the king that was found and funded by Leicester.

What's on the Menu In 20 Years Time?

I am sure many of you will be sitting down at 9 o'clock every night watching the tedious I'm a Celebrity get me out of here and cringing at some of the bushtucker trials. One trial in particular always seem to initiate more interest than any other trial: eating all sorts of exotic and quite frankly disgusting animal body parts.

I can here your minds racing now wondering what has this got to do with something problematic in the world today. Well we have been warned several times that with the expanding world's population we could be served up insects in a few years time - to put it simpler with the population now reaching over seven billion there isn't enough generic meat to go round everyone.

I can imagine a lot of you are quite skirmish at the thought of this, although upscale restaurants are now beginning to serve insects such as scorpions and grasshoppers -the idea has taken off in France.

More people fear that a sight like this will be a common site in a few decades in Britain. Picture courtesy of telegraph.co.uk

 

So what exactly is the problem with eating bugs? This is a question I cannot truly answer, there is so much opposition against this type of farming but it makes so much sense: it is cheaper to keep, transport, look after and sell bugs than any other type of meat. Not only that but eating bugs is so much more healthier than any meat produce.

If we were brought up eating bugs like people are in China then there wouldn't be an outrage - I'd just be considered the norm like eating pork for example.

What is so unappealing about eating bugs? Eating sushi was unappealing at one time now it seems to be taking the world by storm. If people were blind folded and given insects to eat I can guarantee they wouldn't know the difference between the meat and the insects.

The FSA did say the idea of a franchise like 'Yo! Grasshopper' is perhaps a long way off, it said to the Guardian: "Although whole insects may be niche products in the UK, the use of purified or partially purified insect protein could have greater commercial viability, if a reliable source could be identified."

This prospect of eating bugs has even been addressed by the U.N and have even given a list of eight bugs to try that are popular in other countries.



Bugs in central Asia in particular are in high, but controlling, demand. Picture courtesy of Nationalgeographic.co.uk.

Let us not forget beetles do appear in the colouring of sweets such as skittles and smarties so why is there a non-existent up roar.

With the world demand too much meat than it can supply we need a solution to this. We can't continue like this. Myself I'd eat bugs, a nice fried locust salad is supposed to be a big déclassé in many parts of the world.

So here is what will happen - bugs and insects will become a peasant food so to speak. When insects and bugs are introduced into supermarkets meat prices will soar so much that the poorer people in the world will not be able to afford what will be known as a luxury food. 

What Age is the Right Age?

A well known and respected barrister has shocked the public by stating the age of consent should be lowered to the age of 13. Barbara Hewson claimed the age should be lowered in the wake of the Jimmy Saville scandal, she claimed the current justice system is "persecuting old men".

Ms Hewson also requests more changes to the Sexual Offences Act, she claims victims should no longer receive anonymity (when a victim claims to be sexual assaulted the media cannot identify them).

Barbara, journalist for Spiked the magazine has called for Sexual Offenders to receive no anonymity. Picture courtesy of this week.co.uk

The problem with the age of consent is, even though it is law, how many people abide by it? All teenagers are diverse and develop at different ages. So how can we have one law for all - that is almost like saying we all must get married by a certain age.

But to modify the law that then allows paedophiles to not only talk to young, vulnerable girls but it legally allows them to have sex with them, through consent, it's ludicrous! At 13 there is not many of us that knew a great deal about sex, as much as education enlightened us all no-one was warned us enough of the dangers of paedophiles.

For arguments sake if the consent age did drop to 13 then how many girls at that age would be getting pregnant not knowing the full scale of looking after a new born child. To many teenagers girls and boys looking after a baby might seems appealing when it looks cute in it's pushchair - plus having a child that young means you don't have to attend school - seems petty but some people would do it.

Ms Hewson's second request also seems almost prejudicial towards younger women, admittedly any persons could be sexually abused but it happens more in women. When someone has gone through an ordeal that will scar them for the rest of their life should their name/age/address be revealed to the public. This kind of idea will, if anything increase sexual offences; rapist will think less people want to go to the police to complain about being sexually offended if the media can say who you are?
 

Victims or sexual offences are given anonymity for the rest of their lives. Picture courtesy of guardian.com

What's more, it's as if Ms Hewson is sticking up for some convicted sexual predators: "touching a 17-year-old's breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one's hand up a 16-year-old's skirt" are not crimes comparable to gang rapes and murders and "anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality". As right as she is they are still crimes that can scar an innocent, young, vulnerable persons life and they must be punished in the correct manner. Let's see someone put a hand up her skirt and see how she reacts!

If the consent age is lowered prostitution will explode in this country, it is illegal but when has that stopped people before? Criminal gangs will see this as a way for trafficking young vulnerable girls and sick paedophiles will be prepared to pay for it.

So here is my contradictory idea to Ms Hewson instead of having an age of consent have a guideline age where you are advised to have sexual relations. But make it illegal for anyone over the age of 30 to have sexual relations with someone under the age of somewhere in the region of 18. Also having sex unprotected or without any sort of contraception should be illegal until you are at least 18. It might be a little less simplistic than the current law but it would solve a whole lot of issues with paedophilia and teenage pregnancy, planed or unplanned. 

Boarding School for Toddlers

There has been much debate whether children in the U.K should start school at the age of two or three years of age this has sparked a fierce and heated discussion, a lot of them on social media sites. However Ofsted chief Sally Morgan, who made the controversial comment has claimed starting school and starting education is very different.

If you think starting school at two or three is unfair on youngsters in Britain then spare a thought for children in China; toddlers as young as three are being sent to boarding school. What makes this story all the more remarkable is China is a country that has so many traditional values based around the care of families members.

Children likes these are being forced to go into boarding school, not seeing their parents for five days. Picture courtesy of BBC.

There can be up to twelve children in one dormitory in one of these many popular Shanghai boarding schools. So why do parents dump their children off at a boarding school, and only get to see them at weekends?

The Chinese claim it offers these youngsters independence and freedom. Yet the whole idea of looking after a child is that they don't need independence. At three years of age they are still growing and learning about the world. A persons independence comes when they are able to look after themselves no-one expects a child to look after themselves; especially at the age of  three! Psychologist Han Mei Ling told the BBC: "It achieves independence only in parents' minds - it is brutal."

What is more remarkable is in a place like China where there is a one child policy shouldn't a child be treasured if it was an only one not chucked away in a school and only seen during weekends and holiday periods.

Parents who take advantage of these facilities claim it gives their child an increased chance of going to a good university and a better education, something else that is key in China, even though there's not anymore education taking place than at a generic school.  Additionally some parents use this facility because they cannot cope with looking after a child - if that is the case then they should never even have had a child.

Another boarding school in China under construction. Picture courtesy of akha.org

Fortunately the number of children this age attending these boarding school has dropped since the 1990s when it was seen as a status symbol but there are still people who use this scheme.

Chinese psychologist Han Mei Ling has treated a number of ex-pupils of the boarding schools one of the type of pupils he has treated: Wang Danwei was a 'boarder' she said: ""When I later went on to boarding school I felt a deep sense of exclusion, and spent most of my time alone, keeping quiet."

Before China becomes the next world super power, something that has been forecast by many financial experts, some of their social policies could do with a re-shuffle before they get more media attention for negative and provocative stories.  

Are 'The Drugs Rooms' Coming to Britain?

Picture the scene: Individual booths in a room where people can inject themselves with some of the most harmful drugs known on earth, totally legal and no questions asked. This scheme which has been extremely successful in Denmark hands addicts a syringe and a sterilised needle and providing they get their own heroin they can get a 'fix' in a safe and clean environment.

Since the introduction of 'the drug room' in Copenhagen, a year ago, crime and death rates have dramatically decreased, the room attracts over 8,000 users. The scheme is so successful that the Danish are planning another centre in its second largest city: Aarhus.

Aarhus the energetic city where the second 'drugs room' is planned on being set up. Picture courtesy of Aarhus.com 

In Britain heroin is a rare addiction compared to other drugs but it still needs to be addressed, is this Danish scheme to be announced over here? Addicts are always looking for their next 'fix' and go to extreme lengths to get it. Using dirty needles in the middle of the streets could potentially harm not just themselves but anyone - it takes one curious child to pick up a used needle and they could infect themselves with HIV or hepatitis. In 'the drugs room' addicts are watched by medical staff as they inject themselves with taboo substances. Despite thousands of overdoses the 'drugs room' have recorded no fatalities in the year it has been opened.

Movements have urged similar rooms here, in places such as Brighton and Durham. Police Crime Commissioner for Durham Ron Hogg has backed these ideas telling the BBC: "The successes of trials around the world, have led myself to believe that using drug consumption rooms to treat heroin addiction should be explored further."

The Danish public have seen prosperity in the area where 'the drug room' is: Vesterbro. The area was well known for its red light district and homeless shelters before the room now it's the place to be with trendy bars attracting tourists.

If these introductions are going to come into place does these mean the police are going soft on drug usage? Police cannot arrest someone if they are in possession of drugs if they claim to be going to 'the drugs room'. A proposal like this many influence more people to consume harmful drugs if they are being watched by medical staff in a safe and clean environment - after all taking drugs ruins lives no matter what environment you're in.

The drugs room, where addicts consume drugs under watchful eyes of medical staff. Pictured courtesy of BBC.co.uk

More importantly these schemes would more than likely be funded by an already unstable NHS. How would a taxpayer feel if their money would be going to help people who are ruining and shortening their life?

The aim of the government is to preserve strict laws on drugs, but a scheme like this doesn't stop it, it merely gives people a chance to have drugs in a controlled environment. If the NHS feels it needs to combat drugs there needs to be a more aggressive approach than this idea.

The Prejudices in Professional Football

Moscow, the capital city of Russia and the likely final of the 2018 Football World Cup. Rewind back to the present day and the influential city is at the end of negative media attention after the events of Tuesday night: A Champions League game between CSKA Moscow and Manchester City.

Manchester City player Yaya Toure claimed to the referee, Ovidiu Hategan, he had been receiving racial abuse from some Moscow fans, an allegation the Russian club strongly deny. CSKA, to make matters worse, have accused Toure he 'dreamt' the monkey noises. Toure has said if black players keep receiving the same treatment in Russia all African countries should boycott the 2018 World Cup - a threat his international teammates (Ivory Coast) have agreed to do.

1,700 miles away from Moscow back in England, I think we are combating racism successfully. I have never heard racist chanting at any football match I have attended. Credit has to go to the F.A and effective campaigns such as 'Lets Kick Racism Out of Football'.

T-Shirts footballers wear before games to support the campaign. Picture courtesy of kickitout.org

 

With racism being as good as under control why have the F.A not tried to eradicate other prejudices such as homophobia or sexism? These two bias seem to be second class compared to racism.

I am sure there will be people raising their eyebrows reading that statement but I am merely questioning why the F.A feel the need to oppose one prejudice yet think it's okay to ignore others?

Homophobia was in the spotlight a few weeks ago when troublemaker Joey Barton, of all people, wanted to make a stance against homophobia in football by wearing rainbow laces on his boots. Barton encouraged other professional footballers to do this, to be fair, a lot of footballers did. Despite all the media attention not one professional footballer has come out as gay or bi-sexual, cricketers and rugby players have come out as gay in the past year, is football behind other sports when it comes to discrimination?

In 2009 England player Sol Campbell was subject to homophobic chants by a minority of Portsmouth fans in a Premier League game, the player isn't even gay! Sol Campbell is black and fans choose to chant homophobic abuse at the player - does this mean racism has been tackled so fans choose to discriminate in other ways?

Sexism; another taboo that the F.A has choose not to impede on. In a sport which is widely dominated by men how can football not be sexist?

Referees and linespersons get a lot of abuse from fans no matter if they get a decision right or wrong. Sian Massey one of the top linespersons in the English Football League has undoubtedly received a lot of sexist comments throughout her time running the line in football games. Yet statistically she has got one of the best success rates (correct offside decisions) in England.

Sian Massey one of the best linespersons in the country - yet she has received criticism for being a female. Picture courtesy of guardian.com

When a high profile pundit like Andy Gray humiliates a lineswoman with bigoted comments the public reacts; some would be outraged others find it funny and mimic the jokes Andy Gray mentioned. Sky (the channel Andy Gray worked for whilst making the comments) quickly reacted and sacked Gray for ill-mannered comments. The ex-Luton Town manager Mike Newell criticised another female official saying: "This is not park football. What are women doing here?"  Yet the F.A only reacted by fining Newell, we have found out throughout racism punishments that fining individuals and teams doesn't stop it. There remains no big campaigns to stop sexism in football.

The sooner the F.A bring in other campaigns to stop all discrimination in football the better for everyone involved in the beautiful game. Sepp Blatter has come out and said there will be points deductions for any club that are racist. How about point deductions for any club that are homophobic or sexist as well? The sooner that happens the sooner football can catch up with the real world in which everyone is treated as equal whether they be black, white, female, male, gay or straight.

El Salvador: Where it is Illegal to Have a Miscarriage

Abortion laws have been the topic of conversation for years with strict Catholic countries banning the procedure. Latin America, some states in U.S.A and even in Ireland it is illegal to have an abortion (in Ireland and U.S.A it is legal in incredibly rare cases).

Take the case of a 13 year old Irish girl, who can't be named for legal reasons, she got pregnant after being raped by a paedophile. Under inhumane Irish law she was not consented an abortion. After much debate the girl was taken to Britain, where our laws are more in touch with the modern world, and had she had the abortion.

I understand fully that abortion and miscarriage are not the same thing, in the middle of Latin America, lies a tiny country: El Salvador (the smallest of all central American countries). Women in this poor, strictly catholic country are being imprisoned for having miscarriages.

The slums some pregnant women can find themselves living in, no wonder there is so many miscarriages with this standard of living. Picture courtesy if Internationalparnters.org
 

A women, Cristina Quintanilla, was seven months pregnant when she had her miscarriage, the BBC report. She passed out after having a terrible pain and bleeding in her womb, she was taken to hospital. When she regained consciousness at hospital she was interrogated by police then handcuffed to her hospital bed. She was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment for the death of her unborn child. The prosecution in court labelled Quintanilla a child murderer claiming she could have done more to save her child, yet she had passed out before the miscarriage through the incapable pain.

This is not the only occurrence more women are being imprisoned some for 15 years for manslaughter, others, 50 years for murder of their unborn children. And what's more the church in El Salvador are supporting these sentences. El Salvador's churches are well known to be right wing and conservative - no concern over the poor - even though most of El Salvadorians survive on less than one pound a day.

In some poor parts of the world nearly 25% of women can suffer from a miscarriage. In El Salvador experts are unsure what the rate is but it is estimated to be extremely high. Yet not all women who suffer the pain of a miscarriage are arrested - it is only the poor. Surely the poor need more support when suffering a miscarriage, than a rich citizen. Most poor women are on their own (no husband/boyfriend) to support them so when going through a miscarriage where do they get emotional support from? It's certainly not a prison. Most poor women are more likely to go through a miscarriage than a rich women as well through diet and their standard of living yet once again like most things in the world; it's the poor who suffer.

Special cases in El Salvador are also over looked by this abortion/miscarriage law, such as the Beatriz case earlier this year. She was told in her pregnancy her baby was an awfully deformed foetus, she applied for an abortion. While the supreme court deliberated for months on whether she can have an abortion Beatriz gave birth; hours after giving birth the baby died.

People protesting on the 'Beatriz case'. Picture courtesy of realitycheck.org

Now I have never been involved in trying for a baby with someone but if somebody has a miscarriage I can imagine it is one of the worst feelings one can have. Losing something that has been so precious to you can hurt. It's a mother instincts to looks after her baby even if it is unborn - to then be under arrest hours later for it's murder I can't even think of a word to describe how one would feel!

With a strict and quite frankly absurd law this has had other implications on El Salvador. In recent years the most common cause of death in young women is suicide half of them were pregnant, that, I am sure is no coincidence.

Protests and campaigns are underway in El Salvador to abolish this law which was updated in 1998 but there is still a long way to go. It is mostly poor people who are protesting but the effect it is having is questionable.

The Ignorance of the Daily Mail

The Daily Mail is the second most read newspapers in the country and I continue to ask myself; how? The paper, which at one time supported the British Union of Fascists, published an article earlier this month claiming Ed Miliband's father hated Britain - an accusation the Labour leader denies.

The Daily Mail has stood by the article and has refused to apologise to Mr Miliband, (although they admitted an 'error of judgement' over a picture published in relation to the article). Mr Miliband's father - Ralph - was known to have supported the Marxist ideology, quite radical admittedly but not a reason to hate Britain. Ralph Miliband fled to Britain during the Second World War because he was a Jew. He served in the British Royal Navy; which once again seems odd to have hated Britain.

The Daily Mail have defended the article saying it is relevant and important - although just because your father is a Marxist doesn't mean you are. Ed Miliband said he was appalled by the article and even got the support of David Cameron (something you don't see everyday).


Protests outside Daily Mail offices after the article was published. Picture courtesy of Guardian.com

The Daily Mail not only ignored Ed Miliband's request to apologise they then published another article claiming he was evil! Ed Miliband, nicknamed 'Red Ed' for his socialist ideas, is trying to stick up for his father and The Daily Mail are almost like a bully teasing him, which has backfired - emotion that the Labour leader has shown grabs voters attention.

The Daily Mail is well know for it's prejudice headlines trying to scare the public with incorrect or twisted facts. The paper, founded by Lord Rothermere, was a big supporter of Oswald Moseley, leader of the BUF, a man who had the same philosophy as Adolf Hitler! And the Daily Mail has the cheek to say Ralph Miliband was evil!

The article has lead to a lot of public support for Ed Miliband; according to a YouGov poll 72% of people support Mr Miliband over the tabloid daily. Although only a tiny amount of people have complained to the Press Complaints Commission (the newspaper regulator) more people complained about the Sun's article about Roy Hodgson's speech impediment. Miliband has said he has had over 10,000 e-mails and messages of support from the public.



The PCC received more complaints for this headline then they did for the article written last week by the Daily Mail. Picture courtesy of  digitalspy.co.uk

The Daily Mail have really shot themselves in the foot with an article like this. They, like all newspapers, are asking for the newspapers not to be regulated to harshly by politicians then they publish an article that offends the next potential Prime Minister of the country.

After a quiet few days the Daily Mail has now come out against the BBC stating the article they published was bias towards Mr Miliband. This is once again incredibly cheeky saying the BBC are being bias when The Daily Mail writes a piece criticising a politicians father in the manner they did.

The Conservative's withdrawl of Benefits

David Cameron announced this week that he plans to cut benefits for young people aged between 18-24, but is this really a good idea?



David Cameron announced his plans at his party conference last week.

I totally agree with him that there are far too many people in this country living off their £50 a week dole money and blasting it all on cheap alcohol or any other harmful substances they can get their hands on, instead of using it for essentials. But once again a political party are regarding all young people as the same; not all of us take a trip into the city centre once a week walk into the job centre and claim our £50 without any sense of shame.

Myself; I work and I am proud to say that when I am talking to the older generation. Not because I am in a well paid job or I do something extraordinary but older people listen to politicians and newspapers who stereotype young people in the most negative of manners! We are not all brain dead slobs who sit at home all day watching Jeremy Kyle whilst smoking our 5th joint of cannabis.

Not all young adults are troublemakers for the economy.

So if, and lets face it after putting some British families on the bread line it's a big if, David Cameron and his Conservative Party get another term and he does bring in this unreasonable proposal then what will unemployed young people do? If I was in their shoes firstly I'd press the panic button and apply for any job going - is that healthy? We all want to do a job we love but can any of us say we do a job we loathe? If we all did I'm sure a few more sick days would be taken. We already have enough depressed young people about, if they did jobs they despised then that number would take a steep rise. This in turn putting more pressure on what is already a fragile NHS.

If this proposal comes in then most young people, who are actively seeking work but can't find any, would be panicking. The people who Mr Cameron is aiming the proposal at are not panicking, they'll just turn to something else other than indirectly robbing off people - they will directly rob off people. If this proposal does turn into legislation then petty crime like muggings and snatching old ladies handbags will increase quite dramatically. Young people who are addicted to drugs will try every sly move to get money apart from the honest way: to actually work!

So what is the alternative substitute I can hear you screaming at me. So I propose this: All people that are claiming job seekers allowance (not just young people) should have to do volunteer work. Get people who are sitting on their bum all day doing nothing to work to earn their £50 a week. Many charitable organisations over the country are vying for volunteers. It gets people used to working and it might JUST MIGHT get people who are used to doing nothing to be proud of what they are doing; something good and are earning their money rather than just getting their money!

David Cameron needs to slightly re-think his proposal. There are too many people who think it is ok to live on benefits for their whole lives when they are more than capable of working. But to cut young people's benefits completely is incredibly harsh. This not only puts a strain on the young unemployed person but also the family of the young unemployed person as they then have to support another body. People are already feeling the financial pinch of with wages not increasing with inflation, quite rich when some MPs are claiming 3p expenses on taxpayers money.