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.