Ebola - How Safe Are We?

Bird flu, swine flu, foot and mouth; it almost seems natural that a deadly virus comes to the front of our newspapers and broadcasters ever few years, of course Ebola is no different. Without a doubt Ebola is a killer and is contagious with nearly 1,000 people dying of it since the outbreak in West Africa.

The virus will spread there's no stopping it and more people will die from it, that's obvious, it has no current cure. But the media are, once again, trying to scare the public. Take the Daily Mirror story of an elderly woman who arrived at Gatwick airport from a flight from Sierra Leone, the headline read:  "Ebola terror at Gatwick as passenger collapses and dies getting off Sierra Leone flight", it turned out the woman didn't even have Ebola! Expect similar headlines in certain newspapers I shall not mention.



How the Ebola virus looks under a microscope. Picture courtesy of truthfed.com

Let's just put this virus into context: since the outbreak in February 300,000 people have died from Malaria and Tuberculosis is thought to have claimed nearly double that figure.

Compared to other virus' the chances of catching Ebola from someone who has it themselves is fairly low in comparison to other infections. To become infected with the virus people must have direct contact with bodily fluids of a visibly infected person. Contrasted to the likes of the flu, Ebola can be easily contained. Anyone that has the virus is quarantined immediately.

The earlier the virus is found in an individual the better chance the person has of surviving. Despite Ebola killing over half the people it has infected it can be managed. Although the British healthcare system receives a lot of criticism (harsh criticism at that) it is miles ahead of any system in the West of Africa therefore the chances of contracting the virus here gives you a better of survival than in the hit areas.

Nurses were protective equipment and a sprayed with disinfectant as a precaution not to spread the disease. Picture courtesy of cnn

Despite there being no cure for Ebola it is understood more people in the U.K and U.S will die of a more deadly virus: flu, this will not be helped by the fact the two virus share similar early symptoms. What people are worried about is the coverage of the virus rather than the virus itself, sicken to think that Ebola has received more media coverage than the war crimes that are going on in Ukraine and in Gaza.

Ebola is a terrible killer and the strict measures in place, such as British planes not heading to Ebola hit countries, are justified. But just because you have a fever or a headache it doesn't mean your life is at risk.

Ebola is a new story that will scare the hypochondriacs in us. Swine flu had a similar stint in this country, the media went crazy about it, yet it claimed the lives of few compared to other deadly diseases. Many of us will get coughs, colds and fever like symptoms throughout the winter but the number of us that contract Ebola - very few.

ISIS - What's the Threat?

For years the so called 'War on Terror' was nothing more than a myth that was played out by politicians whose ethical eyes were over shadowed by black gold (oil). The war in Iraq and Afghanistan remain in the public eye, despite official ceasefire in 2011, but there is now a brand new threat to region.

ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham) is the biggest threat to British security for decades. Many people have disregarded the threat of ISIS as another scaremongering organisation that will fight using Guerrilla tactics. However this organisation isn't anything like al-Qaeda, in fact al-Qaeda and ISIS aren't the best of friends. To describe how bad ISIS is, al-Qaeda have come out by saying they are 'too extreme!'

If you take al-Qaeda make it ten times worse, revolutionise and digitise it then fund it billions of pounds; you have ISIS. The military group is sweeping through parts of Asia with strongholds already in war torn Syria and Northern Iraq.

An ISIS member with the ISIS flag. Picture courtesy of now.media.

There is a threat also here in Britain - David Cameron has expressed his concern over the growth of the terrorist organisation. Many British Muslims (mostly youngsters) are making there way out to Syria and Iraq to fight for ISIS; a worry not only for British civilians but also the families of the young Muslims being brainwashed.

ISIS has changed the way terrorism works it's getting it's support through social media campaigns, therefore reaching young vulnerable Muslims worldwide to get support from them. Social media has meant ISIS is using propaganda to promote it's organisation. British ISIS members are doing the same with one preaching to his British Muslims friends to avenge the death of a Saudi woman in Essex.

The major threat is when all the jihadi fighters come back from the fighting in the Middle East they'll try and brainwash other people, as they have been - leaving Britain exposed to terrorist attacks by it's own civilians. Downing Street has claimed there has been 65 arrests in the past 18 months because of jihadi related activities, that number is expected to rise.

These pictures and videos have come up all over the internet encouraging young Muslims to fight for ISIS. Picture courtesy of cnn

The problem is not just in Britain ISIS claim it has fighters from  France, Germany, U.S and the Arab world - making this a worldwide problem. From that ISIS can spread their propaganda worldwide easily now as they brand themselves on social media like any other normal modern organisation/business does.

Britain threat is low key in comparison with ISIS's priorities elsewhere, the real threat from Britain is when the fighters come back to Britain and try to sell the ISIS brand to youngsters. David Cameron has said  Britain needs to act in the middle east now before the threat hits home  - although after the last war in Iraq that can't be the popular public vote.

A war with a multi billion pound organisation would mean total warfare for both sides. With the help of the U.N and the rest of the world, that should also be looking over their shoulder that the mess ISIS is causing, ISIS can be terminated so the Middle East can hopefully once again end the bloodshed it has had to endure for far too long.

The BBC Fails on Political Correctness

There was a sense of a small victory for feminists earlier this week when the BBC announced a woman will need to appear on all of its comedy panel shows. Thinking on your feet one might think this is a good idea it's about time more women were shown on these types of programmes, but the BBC obviously haven't thought through this kind of statement.

If a woman is allowed an automatic seat on a programme such as: 'QI' or 'Mock the Week' then why shouldn't someone from a ethnic minority or a gay person? If the BBC are looking to be politically correct then why are women getting the treatment but other sections of people aren't getting the same treatment - this is against what the BBC were trying to do in the first place.

I do agree with what they are saying though - women do not get as much of a chance as a man in comedy especially on television. If you ever watch 'Live at the Apollo' the ratio from women to men performing is unacceptable - and they deserve as much of a chance as a man, unfortunately there are some bigoted males out there, that regardless of how good the female comedian is, they will not tolerate them. Apart from a select handful the likes of; Jo Brand and Sarah Millican women's stand doesn't thrive.



Jo Brand one of the few big women comedians around today. Picture courtesy of the guardian.com.

If we need women on BBC's comedy panel shows then should that not be case on all television and radio shows broadcast. Isn't a programme like 'Loose Women' sexist? And 'Woman's Hour' on BBC radio 4 sexist to us males. If there was a radio programme called 'Men's Hour' would there be feminists complaining how it is unfair?

Before you all start; I am not a sexist bigoted pig I do believe in equal opportunities and I know woman deserve a place in comedy as much as a man does, but the average person watching a comedy panel show wouldn't be thinking "Why are there no women on this programme?"

If programme's like 'Mock the Week' and other comedy shows are to be politically correct and non-sexist then how much of their material will they have to cut. There aren't many comedians out there that don't do jokes about their partners or wife/husband, a lot of Jo Brand's material is mocking men, as this is sexist shouldn't this material be banned on the BBC as it is not politically correct?

 

Shows like QI will now have to involve a female. Picture courtesy of ABC.

It shouldn't matter who is on comedy panel shows, there should only be one thing that matters when watching comedy: are they making you laugh? I don't care who's making me laugh as long a they are, whether they are man, woman, straight, gay, black or white.

The Trend to Ruin Celebrities

Earlier this week Coronation Street star William Roache was cleared of all charges against him claimed by a number of women back in the 1960s, it also wasn't long ago Coronation Street actor, Michael Le Vell was found not guilty of 12 charges made against him. This got me wondering do people falsely accuse b-list celebrities to have their moment of fame, or are their so many stars that abuse their fame in this sick way?

William Roache leaves Preston Crown Court being cleared of all charges made against him. Picture courtesy of Manchester Evening News.

Since the Jimmy Saville story emerged it seems like we cannot pass over week without a former TV star being accused of raping or sexual assaulting women and/or girls. I'm not for one minute defending Jimmy Saville but why accuse a man that is dead? It almost seems pointless - no justice can be done.

In 2005 Michael Jackson was found not guilty of a number of counts involving a 13 year old boy named Gavin Arvizo. Since the case there has been irregularities from the claimants and one of the 'witnesses' has even admitted lying under oath - which is a criminal offence.

So why would someone accuse a celebrity of sexual abuse even if it did not occur. With the Michael Jackson case it was the simple notion of money. The Arvizo family were known in the past to harass celebrities for money especially Arvizo's father so when the juvenile formed a relationship with Jackson the family obviously saw dollar signs. Gavin Arvizo was diagnosed with cancer before getting to know Jackson - it was claimed this was another way of exploiting their son for money.

Back across the Atlantic, are Brits trying to do the same as the Arvizo family? It would make sense with the troubled economy across the globe. As many as sixteen celebrities have been either charged or accused of sexual assault, they include the Australian Rolf Harris and former BBC radio D.J Dave Lee.

Rolf Harris is just one of a number of celebrities accused of sexual assault. Picture courtesy of the guardian.com

So are they all guilty? That's for the judge and the jury to decide but some celebrities are concerned with the 'witch-hunt' accusing former stars of being paedophiles. It seems to be flavour of the month, I'll admit some might well be guilty but some will just be falsely accused and it's not fair - a case like this can affect the rest of someone's career and life.

One plus to take from this is how much it raises awareness for the welfare of fans of celebrities. They now know they aren't exempt from the law, they cannot take advantage of the stardom, like Lostprophets lead singer Ian Watkins who used his status to manipulate women to let him rape their babies.

One way to prevent innocent celebrities of being wrongly accused is having harsher penalties for people wrongly accusing them. Because when the media learn of a story like this they indirectly try to show the celebrity in a negative light.

What Does UKIP Stand For?

The U.K Independence Party (UKIP) have received praise from some sections of the media for their explosion in popularity in recent months. Nigel Farage and his party are thought to be the third most popular political party in the country, over taking Nick Clegg's sorry Liberal Democrats.

But, why are they doing so well? How far off are they of being in power? Do we even know what they stand for?

Much of UKIPs success has been put down to it's leader Nigel Farage. Picture courtesy of independent.co.uk

The clue is in the name when we say UK Independence Party; their main goal is for Britain to stand independent from the rest of Europe and the rest of the world. To stand as one country in modern times isn't impossible but it puts a strain on their economy - if Britain did stand alone and their currency fell to it's knees no-one would bail us out because we'd be so isolated.

But it's not UKIP's economic policies that worry the public - some of the social remarks make them sound as bad as a brainless teenager who thinks it'll get them more friends to make taboo comments - on the death of Nelson Mandela one UKIP senior figure said: "some ‘base-born’ people were ‘intended by nature’ to be ‘slaves’."

One organisation UKIP seem to stick up for is the extreme thugs who call themselves the EDL - more than one UKIP member has stuck up for the EDL, saying they "agree with what the EDL protest about" another one claimed: "the EDL weren't extremists."

One UKIP member, as recently as yesterday, outrageously said the latest bad weather was down to David Cameron's legislation allowing same sex marriage. Councillor David Silvester is quoted by the BBC as saying: " "The scriptures make it abundantly clear that a Christian nation that abandons its faith and acts contrary to the Gospel (and in naked breach of a coronation oath) will be beset by natural disasters such as storms, disease, pestilence and war."

Councillor David Silverster who's controversial comments have caused outrage. Picture courtesy of BBC.

Amazingly the councillor got 600,000 petition signatures opposing the bill which were sent to 10 Downing Street. What's more astonishing is that UKIP defended Mr Silvester, a spokesperson for UKIP said: "He is more than entitled to express independent thought despite whether or not other people may deem it standard or correct."

So what kind of people does this party attract? Now that the BNP leader (Nick Griffin) is bankrupt one UKIP official said: "We should be picking up 50-75 per cent of those [BNP voters] now." I hope that gives an insight into the kind of party that UKIP is. It seems one far right wing party goes another one comes in and takes it's place.

Now that they are politically popular this gives them more media attention, they are now in the spotlight where journalists are keen to find scandals and controversial stories that raise public awareness - with any luck UKIP will get exposed for the vile, prejudicial thugs they are.

Scottish Independence

This week Prime Minister David Cameron rejected calls from Scottish first minister Alex Salmond to have a live broadcast debate on the Scottish independence referendum.

Alex Salmond has been rallying around Scotland urging his country to vote yes on the referendum which will be held on 18th September 2014. So how would Scottish independence work and would it benefit both Scotland and the rest of The United Kingdom?

Some Scots believe independence will benefit their country greatly. Picture courtesy of the dailydoodle.co.uk

Scotland claim the rest of Britain use up all of their non-renewable resources coming form oilrigs in the North Sea something in Scotland waters (currently owned by Britain if Scotland get independence they will receive 91% of its profits). Scottish ministers allege if Scotland was independent the rest of Britain would be suffering power cuts on a weekly basis, whilst Scotland's energy resources would be far from stretched - with the use renewable sources like hydro power.

The main talking point for this referendum will be the economy - with the U.K economy struggling, like most global economies today, Scotland believe they can sustain an economy by being on their own, despite Scotland receiving more government spending per person (known as the 'Barnett formula) than the average in the U.K.

Something that would worry Scots voting yes would be Alex Salmond's lack of ideas about what would happen to the Scottish currency. The SNP leader has initially told reporters if Scotland go independent he'll join the Eurozone, but with all Eurozone countries suffering crippling economies and one negative story following another, people believe and hope he'll revise his statement yet he has not given anyone a definitive answer. For a politician to want a country to get independence but does not have an answer to what currency they'll use is inexcusable.

David Cameron and Alex Salmond are at the centre of this year's referendum. Picture courtesy of BBC.

One thing that Alex Salmond will be pleased with is the non-political votes that'll vote yes; its not just a generalisation that England and Scotland as people do not get on. For that reason alone some Scottish citizens will vote yes to independence just to get away from England.

So what will the consequences be on the rest of Britain if Scotland vote to self govern themselves? Well straight away Britain can expect to be under Conservative government for the next 20 years, the only place you can be sure the Conservative Party will struggle for any votes is in Scotland.

One consequence that will not please Britain is how England will attempt to dominate Wales and Northern Ireland so a similar thing doesn't happen again. Even though Mr Cameron has agreed to let Scotland decide on their future he won't want to lose any other places (that is a sign of weakness).

Economically I don't think Scotland gets a rough deal from Westminster their students are exempt from tuition fess unlike English students who have to pay £9,000 a year to study at universities in this country. Scotland's business' receive more grants from the government than English business'. Can Alex Salmond promise these grants if independence is voted in?

If Scotland is to be convinced by Alex Salmond's promise for a better Scotland if independence is voted in he has some tricky questions to answer and he has a lot more people to convince. Mr Salmond faces one question he simply cannot answer - how do we know Scottish independence will work? We don't, it's unproven and in these times of economic uncertainty it is extremely risky. If this referendum was done years before the credit crunch then perhaps people may have a differing opinion.