General Election.

I thought it would be extremely relevant to make my final posting on the voting of the general election, which I’m sure everyone is aware, is taking place today. So why is it that I am making this post? After all is it BAD? I think so, yes. We are currently experiencing one of the closest races for government title that Britain has seen in a long time.

What I find quite astonishing is the televised debates that have been taken over our TV screens for the past few weeks. The first one started off very professional, but the ones that came after resorted to the 3 main party leaders (Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg) attacking each other and pretty much making a fool out of each other for their own personal gain. I believe this is bad, aren’t they supposed to be making themselves appeal to the country who are voting? No I believe they are all in it for their selves, which is quite disgusting.

For weeks now, I have heard a lot of people saying that Britain needs a change, correct. But what we don’t need is someone who is making promises for a ‘fair’ society when all he will do is drive Britain further down the drain. Yes I am talking about Cameron and I’m sure you can tell that I do not support the values of Conservatives. I wasn’t even born last time the Tories were in power, but I have done the research and I know we had TWO recessions under the Tories, and only ONE with Labour. It is fair to assume ZERO would have been better, but it the naivety of people is starting to aggravate me.

The Daily Mirror printed an extremely interesting front cover this morning in a last ditch attempt to try and sway people away from Conservative who are currently in the lead in most of the polls. I believe that this comment sums up perfectly how wrong Cameron is for Britain:

‘If David Cameron is the next prime minister, how is he going to handle the class thing? For it hasn't gone away, the attempt to persuade us all that he is just like everyone else, an ordinary middle-class sort of guy, and Britain is a classless society. He isn't and, however much I wish it was, Britain isn't either.’

Unfortunately I am aware that not everyone shares the same view as me.

(The Daily Mirror cover and accompanying article can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/06/general-election-2010-mirror-front-page)

As a first time voter, I think it is very important that everyone uses their vote because the public needs to show that we are in charge and by staying at home isn’t really showing this. I firmly believe that changes need to be made in Britain and yes Gordon Brown has made mistakes, however let us no forget it was Tony Blair that left us in this mess. I believe that Labour should be given a chance to prove what they are planning to put into effect.

Nonetheless this time tomorrow we shall all be aware of who is in the charge of our country. In the words of Nick Clegg: ‘Vote with your heart, don’t settle for second best!’

And on that note, I bid you all farewell. Thanks for reading!

Response to 'Miss Hadley: Litter-BUG!!!'

I think you covered quite a lot about litter in this blog and to be honest I agree with what you have said. Litter does my head in, especially when people drop food or drink that you happen to stand in while walking somewhere, and chewing gum has to be the worst one!

You could have spoken about other forms of litter, such as dog litter, which is a big problem nowadays. I live in a semi-rural area and therefore, there is a large amount of grassy areas and most people take their dogs for a walk and then leave their mess!

Overall though an insightful post and a good read!

http://misshadley-stephyyyy.blogspot.com/2010/04/liter-bug.html

Response to 'Chloe's Blog: Lying with Integrity'

This is a very good blog, I agree with what you have said here about white lies, I have always thought that in certain situations it is better to tell a lie in order to protect someone. However I don't believe in lying as a way of living because that is always going to be something that will have repercussions.

I found the story about the clergies selling 'tickets' to get in to heaven quite interesting, it just goes to show the extent that people will go to for personal gain, in this case money!

A good read! Thanks!

http://chloehodge13.blogspot.com/2010/03/lying-with-integrity.html

Response to 'Becky's Bad Behaviour Blog: Bad Manners'

I agree with what you are saying about the amount of people there are with bad manners in today's society. It really aggravates me when you do something to help out someone, like hold open a door and they can't even say 'thank you'. Like you said it really isn't hard.

Also I agree with what you said about parents teaching their children manners, however the reality is that not everyone is the same. I don't believe it is always the person's fault, lets face it, they had to learn their bad manners from somewhere.

The link that you posted was also very useful, interesting post!

http://beckysbadbehaviourblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/bad-manners.html

Response to 'Being Bad With Craig: Stalking'

There are some strange stories about the celebrity stalkers on here. At the end of the day, that guy who stalked Gwyneth Paltrow should have been sent to prison for the extent of what he did.
Sometimes I believe that people claim to be insane just to get out of going to prison. I think it is good how you have posted stories about 'ordinary people' unfortunately they are the ones that get stalked to an extremity and like you said, abused. Celebrities have protection, others don't.

Interesting post in general!

http://beingbad123.blogspot.com/2010/04/stalking.html

Response to 'Being Bad.: Drink Driving!'

I think you've covered quite a lot here. I agree with you point on why anyone would want to drive under the influence as it is too high of a risk. I was unaware of the fact about driving at twice the legal alcohol limit, giving a person 30x more chance of causing a road accident!

I have been in two crashes so far and on each occasion the drivers had no alcohol in their system, so I can't imagine how much worse it could be if someone had consumed alcohol!

Overall an insightful blog!

http://vickimcconnell.blogspot.com/2010/04/drink-driving.html

Social Networking.

Is social networking becoming a problem? There are numerous social networking sites available on the internet today and with the offer of signing up for free, it appears that more and more people appear to be unable to refuse. Facebook, Myspace and Bebo are probably the biggest players on the internet. I am a member of both Myspace and Facebook, though the latter sees more use from me nowadays. However I don’t consider myself to be obsessed with it. I update my status very little, although some people will update their statuses numerous times throughout the day and document every little thing that they are doing. When did it become so appealing to tell the world every detail of your existence?

Perhaps you may think it is an exaggeration to say the world, but believe me I am not. Facebook recently changed its settings, in which a person could be googled by name and they would show up as a result, maybe it could be argued that this is a person’s own fault for signing up to the site in the first place. But then again isn’t Facebook’s slogan: ‘connect and share with the people in your life’, I’m pretty sure people don’t know the random people that may Google them. This is when it not only becomes BAD but dangerous too.

Recently a survey was conducted and the results show that many people don’t consider the dangers of using these sites. According to the most recent ‘State of the Net survey’, ‘52% of "adult users" still post what it describes as risky personal information on social networks.’ The survey also revealed that ‘people don't bother hiding their personal data by using the social network's privacy controls’. Which as previously mentioned can be of danger to the user: ‘A projected 1.7 million online households had experienced online identity theft in the past year.’ It is believed that a lot of this is due to fraudsters using information from networking sites and simple details such as name and date of birth can have devastating effects on people’s lives.
However I do feel that some people bring it on themselves, the survey revealed that 8% of users ‘had posted their own street address’, who in their right mind would do that?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20004136-501465.html

So there you have it, it appears that social networking may be more trouble than it is worth, but I do believe that in an age where technology is depended upon for so much, people are being encouraged to go out there and join sites to communicate with people, let’s face it it’s much easier and cheaper than using the phone. Perhaps more should be done to increase security on the internet, because the reality is that more and more fraudsters are out to get people and unless we revert back to the age with no computers, people should be more educated on such matters.

Response to 'Being Bad With Craig: Gambling'

Interesting blog post. I found that website about sportsmen who had lost their wealth to gambling, particularly insightful. I didn't know that some of those had an addiction to gambling.

I agree with what you have said about gambling becoming an addiction, just as drink and drugs can, as I can relate to this. Not that I have ever lost my fortune to gambling, but there have been occassions when I have wasted £10 on a pub quiz machine, with hopes of getting it back, which never quite works out!

Overall good post!

http://beingbad123.blogspot.com/2010/04/gambling.html

Response to 'Becky's Bad Behaviour Blog: WEED'

I agree with what you have said about people smoking weed as a casual past time, because lets be honest you smell weed quite often walking around Wolverhampton! I don't understand this, when I was at School a lot of people would sneak off for a 'spliff', personally I don't know what people find so appealing about it, something that smells that bad shouldn't be inhaled.

It is interesting how the laws that govern 'weed' or cannabis, are different in different countries. Obviously this can be said about a lot of things, but if it has been proven that it can be damaging to someone's health, then perhaps it shouldn't be legal anywhere!
Some insightful information here as well, I wasn't aware of some of the harmful effects that weed can cause. Maybe it'll come in handy next time I smell someone smoking it!

Overall a well structured, interesting post!

http://beckysbadbehaviourblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/weed.html

Response to 'Miss Hadley: Domestic Violence'

This is a very insightful post, having never experienced domestic violence or known anyone else who has suffered this abuse, it gave me some facts that I was unaware of. For example two women a week killed by domestic abuse is unbelievable. Overall a good post. I've learnt something new today!

http://misshadley-stephyyyy.blogspot.com/2010/05/domestic-violence.html

Discrimination.

Discrimination can take form in many different aspects of people’s lives. It can concern race, gender, sexuality and disability to name but a few. The question is why does it happen? Unfortunately certain people believe that it is ok to discriminative just because they don’t agree with someone’s race for example.

Up until 1928, women in the UK were unable to vote and had to fight for their rights, which was gained by propaganda and sometimes extreme acts, which garnered a great deal of attention. A timeline of women gaining their rights all over the world can be seen here: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage/a/intl_timeline.htm

There are also instances where people are discriminated against due to the colour of their skin. In my opinion, this is a ridiculous thing. Just because someone is of different ethnicity doesn’t make them any less of a person. Perhaps this view is due to my upbringing, however I think people should be more educated than to discriminate against different races, because at the end of the day we are all people.

Unfortunately discrimination exists all over the world and hopefully in the future we will see an end to this travesty and people will becoming more accepting. I stand firm with the belief of live and let live, it's a shame so many others don't follow suit.

Bullying.

Bullying has fast become a problem in the UK and it doesn’t just exist in Schools as many would believe. It also has a presence in the workplace leading to many people quitting their jobs, becoming stressed and in the worse cases some people even take their own lives. With facts such as these it suggests a very worrying position in society and presents the question: Should more be done to tackle this?

These statistics compiled by the NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) suggest that there are a high percentage of children being bullied; ‘31% of children experienced bullying by their peers during childhood, a further 7% were discriminated against and 14% were made to feel different or 'like an outsider'. 43% experienced at least one of these things during childhood’ and on a more concerning note ‘A quarter of children bullied by their peers reported that they suffered long term harmful effects lasting into adulthood.’

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/statistics/bullying_statistics_wda48744.html

Having this knowledge, it leads me to wonder whether those who are bullied in their school life, may be those who are bullied in their careers, this may be due to low self-esteem that is caused by bullying. ‘Workplace harassment, which can include bullying and teasing, is one of the major causes of stress in the workplace. In fact, bullying in the workplace costs employers more than £2bn per year in sick pay, staff turnover and lower productivity.’ Again this may come as quite a shock, if bullying is causing this loss in industry, shouldn’t more be done about it?

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2007/12/12/43564/bullying-and-workplaceharassment.html

Unfortunately it appears that bullying is a problem and if it is as serious as it is made out in statistics, then I believe that something should be done about it. After all people’s lives are more important than other issues that make the headlines or the government’s schedule.

Hooliganism.

Why is it that sports fans feel the need to behave in a disorderly manner, just to show support for their team? Obviously hooliganism is more concerned with football than any other sport, but still this is no excuse. I am already gearing up for the World Cup later this year, but I don’t intend to show my support by getting into drunken fights and slanging matches with the opposition. Unfortunately this doesn’t just extend to England fans, but also fans of nationwide teams and the reality is that Britain gets a bad name for this type of behaviour.

At one point, there was the threat of football fans being unable to watch football matches in stadiums if their behaviour continued, however according to new statistics, this message got through to people as the number of arrests made for hooliganism has decreased. The Home Office revealed its statistics for 2008-09 season and a total of 3,842 arrests were made at all international and domestic games, with no arrests made at 67% of matches, which was down a considerable amount from the previous year. These statistics mean that just 0.01% of 37 Million supporters attending matches in England and Wales last year, were arrested for football related violence.

http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/football-violence

Although these statistics show a healthy decrease, the reality is that hooliganism still exists, hopefully one day those select football fans will be able to support their team, without having to be violent.

Graffiti.

Why do so many people disagree with Graffiti? Okay so no doubt I would be too if it was plastered on the side of my house by youths, but I do believe that it is a work of art. Understandably there is a negative connotation that comes with it, as certain gangs may use it to mark ‘their’ territory or people who think that it’s as easy as just spraying onto a surface and it looks good, they are the ones that I believe give graffiti a bad name. However I do believe that if people took the time to stop and look at the work that goes into graffiti they may change their minds, as there is some impressive detail that goes into these things.

One thing that I have always wondered, is that if graffiti is seen as a problem, then why not give those people somewhere to do it? I understand why graffiti artists give themselves a bad name, because of where they choose to spray their cans (no pun intended). I believe that if places were allocated where people were allowed to express themselves through art then it would be almost like an art gallery, people could choose to go and view the art for what it is and not necessarily view it as a bad thing.

Unfortunately it seems that graffiti has become a problem. In the UK, ‘The laws on public property are very strict and anyone caught doing graffiti can be arrested and prosecuted under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Offenders can be fined up to £5,000 if the damage caused is less than £5,000 or they may be given a community service order instead of a fine.’

http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/law/yourrights/graffitiandthelaw

I stand firm with my belief that if places were introduced for people to be able to legally graffiti, there would be a decrease in graffiti causing a problem for people, obviously this wouldn’t stop every graffitist from ‘tagging’ a place they shouldn’t, as some people just can’t resist the risk of getting into trouble. However those who believe that graffiti is a form of expression would probably be in support of this!

Anti-social behaviour.

What is determined by anti-social behaviour? According to the home office: ‘Anti-social behaviour is any aggressive, intimidating or destructive activity that damages or destroys another person's quality of life.’ So I think it is pretty fair to say that this kind of behaviour is BAD.

When this type of behaviour is discovered by police, people are given an ASBO (Anti-Social Behaviour Order) which entails that a person which has caused anti-social behaviour, will have to abide by the rules of the agreement to try and stop the same behaviour being committed again. For the most part this entails the person having a curfew to adhere to in which they have to be at home by a certain time. But does this really work? I don’t believe so, just because a person has a time in which they have to be off the streets, doesn’t mean that they aren’t going to exhibit the same behaviour at other times throughout the day.

This website: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/asbos/asbos2.htm includes statistics for the amount of ASBO’s issued throughout the UK between April 1999 and December 2007. Interestingly the West Midlands came in third with a total of 1168, second place is Greater Manchester with 1642 and in first place is Greater London with a total of 1808. Nice to know that I reside in one of the most anti-social areas.

I guess only time will tell whether ASBO’s actually work. I look forward to seeing a table of statistics in 2017 which will show whether anti-social behaviour has risen or fallen since the last review.

Technology: A Bad influence?

Can technology be bad? I believe so yes. I believe that humanity has become too dependent on technology, to the extremity that it has made most people lazy. Youngsters are growing up using computers, having mobile phones and having all the latest toys (which just happen to have the latest electronic software built in somewhere) and the reality is, children are the future. So what happens when they grow up and believe that they need more things to help them get by in life, because let’s face it, isn’t that the whole point of technology?

Electricity was created so that we didn’t have to use candles for light and fires for warmth. Typewriters, which were to eventually evolve into computers, were invented so we didn’t have to write and although it is all very well that we have these things, are we becoming more reliant on things that don’t come naturally to us? What must also be considered are the things that are getting left behind, people don’t visit libraries because they think they can get everything online and why not? If you can track something down by the click of a button, why waste time trawling through books?

But what happens when technology lets us down? No doubt we have all been victim to a computer crash which makes us lose all our work (hand written, we wouldn’t have had this problem) or perhaps a power cut that makes all of our items in the freezer ruined. This is clearly a drawback to technology that most people push aside as it only happens once in a blue moon. So most things considered, this isn’t really a big deal. But what about when it becomes a risk to our health?

According to Dr Vini Khurana ‘mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos’ as more tests are revealing ‘that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer’. This is definitely something to be concerned about as most people own a mobile phone and in some cases people choose to have a mobile phone rather than have a landline. Scarily enough Khurana notes that mobile phone usage for a decade can cause ‘certain brain tumors’ and one of those is a ‘malignant brain tumors’ which represent ‘a life-ending diagnosis’. I have been a mobile phone user for the best part of seven or eight years now and this could be having an negative effect on my brain.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/mobile-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-802602.html

Unfortunately, the reality is, that these types of warnings probably won’t stop people using their mobile phones and as the phone industry rises to the challenge of making a phone that ‘can do everything’ it seems that this is an offer people can’t refuse.

Pornography.

Pornography is considered by many as a taboo, certain people believe that it shouldn’t be looked at and shouldn’t be spoken about. But is it really that bad? Obviously there is an age restriction on pornography; you see in newsagents that it is ‘top shelf material’ and is usually covered by a piece of paper that reads ‘you must be 18 or over to purchase this item’. However this may be becoming a thing of the past as the internet has fast become a resource for viewing pornography online.

It is interesting to consider why porn is considered to be such a bad thing, as with many other things, it was created for a reason. If people weren’t interested in looking at pornographic images or watching porn, the industry would have died a long time ago. I believe that it should definitely be something that people view in private as there is a reason it has an age restriction placed on it, however I don’t think people should condemn it as such an appalling thing. Perhaps it could be argued that it is entirely normal as sex is something which is a completely natural occurrence to our species and if people choose to watch films which demonstrate this then that is their choice.

As always perhaps it can also be argued that viewing porn can have a downside to it, as some people can become addicted to it which can have unfortunate results for them. There has recently been a scandal in the US in which The Securities and Exchange Commission, who police Wall Street, were ordered to investigate the use of government computers and they found that 30 people had been ‘repeatedly viewing porn’. The two worst cases included a lawyer and an accountant; the lawyer had spent ‘spent up to eight hours a day viewing and downloading pornography’ and also burned porn to DVD’s that he ‘kept in boxes around his office’. This led to him resigning from his position, was this out of embarrassment or pressure from his employer? Interestingly ‘The accountant was blocked more than 16,000 times in a month from visiting porn websites’ but returned to work after being suspended for two weeks. Therefore in certain circumstances, it is understandable as to why people view porn in such a bad way, especially if people working for the government aren’t actually doing their work.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanton-peele/porn-addiction-sec-scanda_b_549093.html

I suppose that this is a 50/50 situation, you either agree with pornography, or you don’t.

Swearing.

Why do people consider swearing to be offensive? And what determines whether a word is a swear word? It is interesting to consider whether people created this problem for themselves, perhaps swear words are derived from people being offensive to each other, using phrases and slang to create terms of an insulting nature. I think it is a fair assumption to make that every person at one point has used a swear word and for the most part it may be in anger, pain or even shock and they are what people use to express a feeling outside of their own familiar situations. Perhaps it could be argued that when used in this context it is deemed acceptable, however they are also those who swear as a part of their everyday vocabulary. It is fast becoming a problem amongst youngsters who are growing up with the belief that swear words are just words, however the reality is very different and people are viewing the younger generation in a bad way.

In 2007 Wednesfield High School allowed channel 4 to film a documentary at the school called ‘Mind your f-ing language’ and followed the everyday productivity of the school via hidden cameras and microphones and film crews also sat in on certain lessons and interviewed pupils. The aim was to see whether students could give up swearing and view the interactions of pupils and staff on an average school day. During filmng, a regime was set up in which every time a student was caught swearing they had to put money into a swear box, which was implemented to try and stop the frequent use of such words. As an ex-pupil of Wednesfield High, I can say that the outcome was definitely divided; many people thought that there was no particular help gained from the programme (and as always tv editing makes the problem out to be a lot worse than it actually is) and some thought it was a clever idea to raise awareness of how our youngsters view swearing.

As mentioned earlier, swearing is sometimes used by people when they are in pain and according to a survey conducted by scientists at Keele University, “uttering swear words can help to lessen the feeling of physical pain.” Furthermore Dr Richard Stephens believes this to be the reason as to why swearing is “common place in languages around the world” he believes that swearing may have been used by our ancestors to flee or fight back when attacked by predators; “We think it could be part of the flight or fight response. In the volunteers who swore, we also found they had an elevated heart rate, so it could be increasing their aggression levels.” Therefore this furthers my belief that we are perhaps to blame for the invention of swear words, yet it would be interesting to know when people started to view these words as a bad thing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5803300/Swearing-can-reduce-the-feeling-of-pain.html

I stand firm with the belief that not much can be done with regards to swearing. It is certainly not illegal to swear and although people may be asked not to swear by teachers or employers, there isn’t much that can actually be done about it. I believe it to be one of those instances in which if someone wants to swear then it is their choice to do so. However I do think that if people have to swear constantly and use such words to create sentences, it shows a certain lack of intelligence as they cannot think of other words to use. I am no saint when it comes to swearing, but I definitely think that there is a time and place for the use of such words as certain people may take offence or be made uncomfortable by someone that uses swear words on a frequent basis.

Prostitution.

Prostitution is when women sell themselves to random customers for monetary profit and although illegal in the UK, it does take place. Many people frown upon prostitution because of what it entails, however it should be considered as to why women get themselves into this line of work. Some may be in the need of money and unable to find a job and they have no other option than to sell their bodies for sex. They are sometimes referred to as ‘ladies of the night’ and are known to frequent back allies and street corners.

However prostitution can also be a dangerous lifestyle to live. In 2006 the bodies of five prostitutes were found at different sites in the area of Ipswich and police began a search for the ‘prostitute killer’, it was finally revealed on December 18th 2006, that 37 year old Tom Stephens had been arrested for the murders. Interestingly when police first began the investigation, Stephens had commented on his relationship with two of the victims. On November 2nd in a voluntary police interview he revealed that he "was probably the closest thing Tania [Nicol] had as a boyfriend" and continued to comment on another of the victims "It wasn't a relationship like that, although Annette [Nicholls] in fact thought that we were an item.” Perhaps it can be argued that Stephens revealed this information to try and appear as an innocent ‘friend’ who knew the victims, however all it did was ultimately led to his arrest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6189409.stm

It is a sad reality when women have no other option than to turn to prostitution and I believe that more help should be given to prostitutes to get them off the streets and into better work because as detailed above, it is a dangerous business that can sometimes lead to devastating results.

Drink driving.

The current UK law entails that if a person decides to drink, but is planning on driving straight after, that by law they should only limit the amount of units of alcohol they consume; 4 units for men and 3 for women. So why is it then that so many driving offences and vehicle collisions are alcohol related? Perhaps it is fair to assume that some people cannot stop at just one drink and after consuming more than one unit, feel invincible and believe that they are in a fit state to drive.

What is astonishing is the fact that people go out with the intention to drink, yet they take their car with them. Why not just get a taxi? Or find someone else that is the ‘designated driver’ for the evening? It is understandable that some people like to go out with their friends and have a few drinks, or go for a meal and have a drink to accompany it. But is it really worth the risk to endanger themselves or others, or face the prospect of losing their licence and receiving a fine if caught by the police? It is fair to say that alcohol alters a person’s perception and they don’t believe that their behaviour is wrong.

The media is proof that drink driving is on the rise. There have been a countless number of campaigns set up over the past few years, be it tv adverts, billboard posters or newspaper advertisements that warn against the effects of drink driving. They are extremely efficient in what they aim to achieve as they show graphic images or videos to target those who feel it is ok to drink and drive. A major company who aim to raise the awareness of safe driving is Think! and an example of one their tv adverts to combat the problem can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeIWMp24fpE

Hopefully in the long term these campaigns will have an effect on drink drivers and stop them from committing the crime that can have major consequences on their lives.

Stalking.

Stalking, has become a common occurrence in Britain with one in eight Britons admitting to being stalked or having a previous experience with stalking. There are many reasons as to why people stalk others, sometimes past relationships can have a lasting effect on people and their behaviour becomes that of a stalker and they cannot let go, other people develop an attraction which isn’t returned and they become obsessive. It has also been known for people to have such an interest in celebrities that they start stalking them.

In April 1999, BBC news presenter Jill Dando was shot and killed outside her home in West London. So far, nobody has been convicted of her murder, although it was believed that Barry George was guilty of the crime. He was first tried in 2001 but wasn’t found guilty of the charges, however in 2008 he was retried and cleared of the murder. At the time of his second trial, The Judge told that jury that "The defendant suffers from epilepsy and has psychological problems,” therefore can it be argued that there are psychological problems behind stalking? Mr. Laidlaw, prosecutor, said "He had a fixation with the famous and with celebrities” which often lead to him acting as relatives of celebrities, including the cousin of Freddie Mecury. This could be proof to many that an obsession can be so deep that a person pretends to be someone else, in order to get close to what they want.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jill-dando-killed-by-celebrityobsessed-stalker-843099.html

It is a terrifying prospect to consider being stalked, but the reality is that it does happen. As always, there is no specific reason as to why these things occur, but they do. The unfortunate truth is that certain people develop a fascination with others that they aren’t able to control and it can lead to stalking. Perhaps the question of why stalking happens will never be resolved, but unfortunately it does take place.

Speeding.

Speeding is becoming an increasing problem in the UK with more people breaking the law on a daily basis. There are many reasons as to why people commit this offence, youngsters who have recently passed their driving tests think it is ‘fun’ to speed and show off in front of their peers, while others will speed for the simple reason that they are late to work. While each individual may have their reasons for speeding, the reality is that it is illegal and is a punishable offence.
The table below details the fines which a driver can expect to receive if caught speeding:

In the most serious of offences, a drivers licence can also be revoked.

However it must also be considered why speeding is such a big problem and the answer is due to the devastating consequences that can happen if the driver is out of control; they can cause injury to other road users and themselves and at the worst, even death to others.
It is interesting to look at statistics for speeding. In 1996 there was a reported 262,000 Speed camera offences in the UK, however, by 2006 this had risen to 1,865,000 which is an astonishing 700% increase! Additionally in the year 2000 there was only 2,000 speed cameras in action throughout England and Wales, by 2006 this had risen to 5,500. This information shows that more offences are being made, however this is obviously due to the increase in cameras. One thing that can be proven by the results is that people are still speeding regardless of cameras being in place, perhaps this is due to the fact that people know that all they will get is two points on their licence and a small fine if it is their first time offence.

http://www.ukspeeding.co.uk/statistics.html

It seems that speeding is continuing to increase in the UK with some motorists taking little notice to the speed limits in place or the speed camera warnings. It seems that the only way this problem will be tackled is by increasing the strictness of the laws that are already in place for speeding.

Blackmail.

Blackmail refers to having information or details on somebody that they don’t want people to know. When this information is obtained it is used again the person for the blackmailers own gain, in which most cases money is given in return for their silence. Although illegal, this definitely occurs in society and can have devastating effects on people’s lives, as a vicious circle can begin; once money is obtained, the blackmailer can go back repeatedly and demand more money for their silence. However some people realise that the information is not worth the loss of their money, which in certain cases can be thousands of pounds, and decide to divulge the information themselves and bring justice to the blackmailer.

Last year US talk show host David Letterman (above) was caught in the middle of a blackmail attempt, he had returned to his car one night to find a package on his back seat left by someone claiming to have information regarding sexual activity between Letterman and the female staff on his show. Due to Letterman having a long time partner, the blackmailer thought this would be embarrassing information that would want to be kept quiet and demanded $2 Million to keep quiet. Letterman chose to come clean about the affairs himself and involved himself in a sting operation in which a counterfeit cheque was given to the blackmailer, who was eventually arrested by police monitoring the set up. The blackmailer was Robert Halderman who worked as a producer on a drama on the same network of Letterman’s show, initially he denied the charges and pleaded not guilty in court before changing his plea to guilty:

"In September of 2009, I attempted to extort $2 million from David Letterman by threatening to disclose personal and private information about him, whether true or false," Mr Halderman, 52, told the judge. "This so-called treatment was just a thinly veiled threat to ruin Mr Letterman if he did not pay me a lot of money."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8558781.stm

This is a serious topic and I believe that this is one the instances in which the actions are completely wrong, I personally believe there is no good in this actions whatsoever, it is simply greed. Although it may be argued that the person being blackmailed may have done something which may be seen as morally wrong, the use of blackmail is just as bad. If I ever had to advise anyone in this situation I would tell them to come clean about their secrets as it is a lot better to face the consequences for a while before everything is forgiven and forgotten about, rather than be controlled by blackmail.

Bad cinema

It would be impossible to do a blog on ‘Bad Cinema’ without mentioning the film ‘Kids’, which focuses on the so called habits of modern day Kids in America (no pun intended).

The film centres around Tilly, a HIV positive young kid who sets about to sleep with as many virgins as possible, while one his previous sexual partners, discovers that she has contracted the disease and sets out to stop the same thing happening to another girl. What is most interesting about this film is the trouble that it encountered upon release in 1995. Mirimax films gave the film the certificate of NC-17, which is the equivalent of non-classification in the UK. This caused a large deal or controversy at the time as Mirimax’s parent company, Walt Disney, forbids the release of films classified NC-17. Mirimax resolved this problem by setting up a one off distribution company that handled the film and it was released without a rating.

After viewing the film, it seems understandable as to why this film was given such a bad classification as Tilly is seen seducing underage girls for sex. Although it is very common for films to feature gang violence (a scene in which Tilly’s friend Casper gets into a fight and the whole of his gang come to his aid and beat the other guy to a pulp) and drug taking, the issue of underage sex on screen, is an issue that many people are offended by and I believe this to be the reasoning behind the films classification.

An interesting question raised in the lecture on ‘Bad Cinema’ was whether parents should let their children see this film. If I remember correctly, this question received mixed responses with some saying that it would be acceptable and some having a completely different view. I found the film to be quite chilling, to consider that this exists in modern society, with people causing this type of devastation to another, without being aware of it themselves. However for this reason I believe that it may be a good idea for parents to allow their children to see this film. Without a doubt, children are growing up fast and they are being pressured into things more so now than ever before, I believe that this film could be very educational as to what children should be aware of.

It is no question that this film pushed the boundaries back in 1995 and I haven’t witnessed another film that used kids to deal with these types of issues and for that reason ‘Kids’ has stayed in my mind as a very memorable film.

An interesting website that I found was the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) which gives a description of each classification from ‘PG’ to ’18’ and was helpful when conducting research for this topic.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/

Bandits and outlaws.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a ‘Bandit’ as ‘One who is proscribed or outlawed; hence, a lawless desperate marauder, a brigand: usually applied to members of the organized gangs which infest the mountainous districts’.

So it is a fair assumption to make that a Bandit is usually someone who acts above the law, and there have been many ‘bandits’ throughout history that are known to people; Robin Hood, Frank and Jesse James and The Kray Twins to name but a few.

Arguably, the most famous duo are Bonnie and Clyde who terrorized America during the Great Depression and they are perhaps most well known for their bank robberies and the killing of several police officers and civilians during their rampage between 1931 and 1934. Both Bonnie and Clyde were ambushed and killed by police in Louisiana.

It is interesting to consider what exactly drives people to think they are above the law. In the case of Robin Hood, we are all well aware of the story of ‘stealing from the rich, to give to the poor’ and it can be therefore be argued that this ‘bandit’ was in fact right in his morals, if not his actions. However those such as Bonnie and Clyde appear to have carried out their robberies and terrorization for their own personal gain, and by meeting an untimely death, most would probably agree that justice was served.

Bandit is a term which has largely been phased out and we now refer to people who break the law as criminals or offenders, but is there such thing as a modern day bandit?

Colton Harris-Moore is fast becoming a legend in America after evading Police in three different states and appears to have the skill of ‘vanishing into the woods’ each time he gets close to being caught. He has also been described as ‘an amateur criminal – but a master escape artist’, amazing considering he is only 18 years of age. Harris-Moore also has an impressive amount of crimes to his name with Police estimating the theft of two planes, two boats and several cars and has been expected to have broken in to over 50 homes. I personally, would declare Colton as a modern day bandit.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122630422

Like many topics discussed on this blog, there appears to be no significant reason as to why people decide to do certain things. Once again it seems to all fall down to personal choice, however one thing is certain, choosing to be a bandit is one risky hobby!

Tattoos.

What is behind a tattoo? For many there are significant meanings behind the mark, symbol, picture or writing that people choose to have tattooed on their body. For others it is simply the want to have a tattoo and any design that grabs their attention, will be the one for them.

Some people choose to have memorable dates or initials tattooed on their bodies, which may be in memory of a loved one, or anything from a birth date or anniversary. Tattoo's are fast becoming a popular phenomenon with many people wanting to get 'inked' and although they are having a large presence in Western society and deemed socially acceptable, there is still a certain stigma surrounding them in certain social groups.

In certain countries, tattoos can represent gangs that people are a part of and it is also known that prisoners use tattoos to symbolise crimes committed. For example a tear tattoo can be symbolic of murder, with each tear representing the death of a friend. Also prisoners of Nazi concentration camps during World War 2 had numbers tattooed onto them to show they had been 'tagged'.

So why is it then, that the outlook of tattoos can differ in so many cultures? This is possibly due to the exposure of celebrities and other popular figures, who, in many ways, influence the actions and behaviour of so many people today. David Beckham is perhaps one of the world's most famous footballers and influences many young people, be it his football skills, his clothing or even his tattoos. Beckham currently has 12 tattoos ranging from two arm sleeves to an Angel with outstretched wings on his back. It is interesting to consider whether many people look up to Beckham in such a way that they think the more tattoos the better.

However it has to be considered whether the phenomenon can go too far. Currently the legal age to obtain a tattoo in the UK is 18, therefore many would think that this should also be the minimum age that someone should be able to give someone a tattoo. Maybe not.

Three year old Ruby Dickinson from Wales, is preparing to become the world's youngest tattoo artist. Perhaps it would be considered to be a great talent for a three year old, however I personally don't believe that a child should be carrying out this type of work. After all it is a 'job' and the UK law specifically states that the age of legal consent for work is 16.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2935237/Tot-three-is-a-tattoo-artist.html

There is definitely a fascination surrounding Tattoos. I have two myself and plan to get more. I believe that this topic is another of those that falls into the middle of the scales. It isn't illegal and it isn't harming anyone, therefore it is like marmite; you either love it or hate it.

Shoplifting

Shoplifting has fast become an occurrence in today's society, with many people stealing items that they want. What is interesting, however, is not everyone steals because they can't afford it, some people do it for the thrill.

There is no doubt that a high percentage of shoplifting will be due to not being able to afford the item. People have been known to steal food and drink, which leans towards the belief that these people cannot afford to eat and have to steal in order to survive. Although this may be seen by many as an awful thing, under the law that we live, it is still seen as taking something without paying and therefore by society's rule, is wrong.

What should also be considered is the economic downturn that Britain is starting to slowly recover from. As this report details:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6157556/Shoplifting-hits-high-under-Labour.html shoplifting rose by 10% during the recession. However Tory MP Phillip Dunne made an attack on Labour government, saying that Labour had 'ignored' this and shoplifting continued to 'rise'. This is an interesting attack to make as Dunne is trying to present himself as being concerned about the issue, yet he ignores the problem and just sets out to shame the Labour party.


As mentioned above, there is also a different viewpoint to consider and that is the thrill of shoplifting. In 2001 actress Winona Ryder was convicted of stealing £3,500 worth of clothing from a Beverley Hills department store. As an actress it is pretty much a guarantee that she would have been more than capable of paying for the items herself, yet she still shoplifted. This appears to be for purely for the buzz of the situation she was in.

What is even more interesting is when asked about the situation by Vogue magazine years after the incident she appears to show no remorse: "I didn’t have this tremendous sense of guilt, because I hadn’t hurt anyone. Had I physically harmed someone or caused harm to a human being, I think it would have been an entirely different experience.”

http://www.popcornnation.com/news/winona-ryder-talks-shoplifting/

Therefore, it is evident that shoplifting still continues to exist in society and while some people may do it for survival and perhaps feel a sense of remorse, some people don't particularly view at it as that much of a serious offence and it may be for that reason alone that in continues to be a problem!

Masturbation

Masturbation is an interesting topic of discussion, as it can be placed either way, when considering its position in society. Many people are at ease with the issue and feel very little, if any, embarrassment when it pops up in conversation. However there are also people who believe that it is a private act which should be kept personal. Because let's face it, we may be open to talking about it, but it is definitely something that many people do behind closed doors. Alone.


How can it be then, that something which is natural and deemed to be acceptable, still holds a certain level of secrecy to it? Perhaps it should be considered in the same way as sex, people wouldn't necessarily divulge their sex life as it is private to them.

The most interesting information that is discovered from research into masturbation, are the statistics of male to female masturbation.


Statistics show that:

'over 90% of males masturbate by the age of 18 but the figure is far lower in young women, being perhaps 35 or 40%'

http://www.medicalonline.com.au/medical/sex_therapy/masturbation.htm

This always appears to be the case, from personal experience when discussing masturbation amongst friends, the guys will openly admit to having a wank, while the girls will always pull a face and deny doing it. However I firmly believe that many girls of the same age group as me are masturbating, they are just more hesitant to talk about it.

Therefore it is fascinating to consider why this is, perhaps the reason why this topic isn't still fully accessible, is due to the fact that society as a whole are not completely comfortable with discussing 'it'.

But one thing is certain, whether or not it is spoken about, it is most definitley taking place.

Drugs.

There are many different reasons as to why people use drugs. Some are used for the sake of people's health, while some are used recreationally. However in the case of both it can also become an addiction.

So why do people voluntarily take drugs when there is no need to do so? Many would probably argue that they enjoy the 'buzz' that is gained from taking certain drugs. For example cannabis is known to be used in certain countries for pain relief, typically how morphine has been used in the UK by hospitals. It is interesting to consider then, why people smoke cannabis as a past time.

The following statistics suggest that the use of cannabis is common amongst young adults in the UK:

'The most commonly used drug by young people was cannabis, which had been used by 30 per cent of young men and 18 per cent of young women in the previous year'.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=740&Pos=2&ColRank=2&Rank=800

What is most interesting about the use of cannabis, is the penalty that can be issued if found using the drug and/or distributing it. The Home Office states Cannabis as a Class B drug and the penalty for possession being 'Up to five years in prison or an unlimited fine or both'. While the distribution of it can land you with 'Up to 14 years in prison or an unlimited fine or both'.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drugs-law/Class-a-b-c/

Yet as the above statistics prove, people are still choosing to use cannabis with the risk of punishment if caught. There appears to be no logical answer then, as to why people choose to use drugs and more importantly, to distribute them.

It has been known for Ecstasy to be used on the party scene, with certain cases of people taking the drug with major consequences. Again why do people need to take the drug in order to enjoy themselves? It seems the question is unanswerable.

There are many people that disagree with the laws imposed upon drugs and believe that a change should be made in society, with their major reasoning being that it is a persons decision to take drugs, the same as someone chooses to drink or smoke.

This website: http://www.ukcia.org/culture/smoking.php has been set up to aid people in the smoking of cannabis and features the title 'The UK Cannabis Internet Activists'. They believe that the outlook to smoking cannabis should be changed.

The question raised by many is; should it be a persons own choice to use drugs? Evidently not by the standards of modern society.

Lying.

'I am 21 years of age, I have a degree in biochemistry and my native country is North America.'

The above statement is a lie, however, had I not revealed this and you had just happened to stumble across this blog, you would have been none the wiser. The question is then, why do people lie? Is it through insecurity? For personal gain? Or for the protection of others? It may well be all three.

There are a variety of reasons as to why people lie. Whether they do it well or not, is a completely different story. I believe that in most cases, if someone has to tell a lie, they are trying to cover something up.

Take the story of Santa Claus for example, parents all around the world lead their children to believe that Santa is real. There is no real reason behind this (why do kids need to believe that a big, fat guy in a red suit delivers their presents on Christmas Eve?) apart from allowing years of belief in the impossible. Perhaps it goes further than that, could it be that parents are protecting their children from the real world? Why not allow them to believe in the unbelievable for a few years?

Most would probably think it ridiculous to consider this a lie, but false information is being given, and the reality is being withheld. There is no maliciousness behind it, but does that make it okay?

From personal experience, I have met people that boast about all there supposed possessions and how they have done all manner of things, yet when questioned about it a few months down the line, they look puzzled. Until of course you remind them and they make a poor attempt to cover up their sudden forgetfulness and fill you in on all the details. You sit there enduring 10 minutes of the most exaggerated story and realise, this person is quite simply lying their socks off. So what is the reason behind this type of lying? My belief, insecurity. Why else would a person need to construct a lifestyle outside of their own just to make conversation? Again though, it needs to be considered whether this type of lie can be considered malicious, as this person may have certain problems and adversity that they are trying to escape, and they are given resolve through telling lies.

So when does it become wrong to tell a lie? The obvious answer here has to be when it is morally wrong to do so. If someone was to lie to the police to cover up theft or a stabbing, this is when I would believe that the lie is malicious, purposefully withholding information when people have had wrong done to them. I also think it is wrong for leading figures in society to lie to the public in order to get ahead.

Conservative leader David Cameron has been accused of telling the British public 'one big fat lie' according to home secretary Alan Johnson, he claims that the Tory leader is misleading the public to believe that UK crime figures are increasing.

The motive behind this, appears to be to get more votes from the British public at the next general election for the Tories to get in power. Interesting to consider that a 'liar' could soon be in charge of the country.

country.http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0310/1224265978162.html

It seems there is no real explanation behind lying, other than the fact that it is part of human nature. At some point throughout your life, you have told a lie, you have had a lie told to you and probably will have one told to you again.

On an end note though, consider one thing, would you always want to be told the truth?

Response to 'Masturbation' by 'Being Bad.'

I think you've hit the nail on the head here about 'wanking' in general. With regards to someone using the term 'wanker' in an offensive way, if it was aimed at me, I would probably have to respond with 'Yeah, and?'

I would have to disagree with you about boys being more interested in doing it than girls though. I bet girls are doing it just as much, they're just less likely to talk about it!

http://vickimcconnell.blogspot.com/2010/03/masturbation.html

An addiction to gambling?

What does it mean to gamble? It is quite simply, money that is risked for a possible monetary gain.

There are obvious advantages and disadvantages of this situation however, because there is a serious buzz when you win, but when you lose there can be major consequences. For many people, gambling can be seen as a bit of fun or a game amongst friends in which minor bets are made and if you lose, you don't feel particularly feel deprived when you lose a couple of quid.

However this may not always be the case, as some people get so involved in the thrill that it can become an addiction in which the stakes are raised. People have been known to bet their car, house or even their life savings, in the hope of gaining a large amount in return. But as the odds may suggest, this isn't always a guarantee.


So what is the attraction? From personal experience of playing on the old pub quiz machine when out drinking with mates, it is the feeling we get each time we get an answer right and our money total increases. Yet we still won't collect our winnings because we're all feeling lucky. Of course when we get that one question wrong, there is the defeat of losing £20. However we all take another swig of our pints and laugh it off. It's only a bit of fun at the end of the day.

But what if we'd lost our university savings, or the next payment for our bills? I'm sure a smile and all the alcohol in the world couldn't save us from that defeat, yet people are still willing to get themselves into those situations.

In 2008, Graham Calvert was attempting to sue bookmaker's William Hill on the grounds of negligence; he believed that they had fueled his addiction after closing his account as it was 'too easy to gamble'. He was told that he couldn't re-open his account or bet with them for another six months, yet two months later he did start betting with them again and nothing was done to stop him. Before realising that he had to stop, Calvert made a loss of £2.1 Million.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7243656.stm

The above story is an example of the rush of gambling gone too far. So when does it stop becoming a bit of fun, and become a problem? When the stakes are raised too far, obviously.

Response to 'Shoplifting' by 'Being Bad with Craig'

http://beingbad123.blogspot.com/2010/02/shoplifting.html

Some good points here Craig. I think it's interesting how you have given various explanations as to why people shoplift.
With regards to looting in Haiti, you could have suggested that it is due to survival. As many were taking items such as food and drink. However there is also what is regarded as 'opportunistic theft' in which people take items of value that they couldn't previously obtain.
Overall an insightful post though.

Infidelity in marriage

It is no secret that infidelity in marriages has fast become a common occurrence in modern society, it is interesting to consider then, why it happens. Why do more and more people enter into marriage with each other and then make the decision to break the most important vow? 'to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.' There doesn't appear to be any simple answer, as many people claim to still be in love with their partner, and admit to making a stupid decision, while others have no explanation for their actions.

However, as a nation we appear to becoming obsessed with celebrities and the media circus which surrounds them. We admire footballers, actors, actresses, musicians etc. and evidently we look up to these figures for inspiration, morals and most of all many even view them as role models. But are we becoming that obsessed that we agree with everything that they do? Just because they are in the public eye, does this mean they can do no wrong?

Many years ago, it would have been considered one of the worst acts for a man to cheat on his wife and vice versa, but as society continues to grow and become less prejudiced, are we pushing our values and morals further away? There appears to be more and more daily occurrences of infidelity amongst famous figures, as reported by the media, and just because the average person isn't documented each day, doesn't mean it isn't existing between married couples throughout Britain.

Therefore, is infidelity becoming more socially acceptable? In 2004 it was reported that David Beckham had an affair with Rebecca Loos. Although he never commented on the allegations, it appeared that Loos had all the facts and made it pretty clear that Beckham had cheated on wife Victoria. However after the dust settled it became apparent that this would not cause the end of the footballers marriage and they remain married to this day. The issue then becomes Victoria choosing not to see his apparent infidelity as a problem, therefore sending out the message that this sort of behaviour in a marriage is acceptable. On the other hand why did Rebecca Loos feel the need to reveal the affair to the media? In respect of Victoria? Or for a quick fix of cash?

More recently Ashley Cole has been involved in a scandal which suggests that he has had an affair for the second time behind wife Cheryl Cole's back, the first time being in 2008 in which Mrs Cole took the same route as Victoria Beckham. However this time it appears that a divorce is on the horizon, but why the sudden change of heart? Perhaps because Cheryl has developed a legion of fans, with many youngsters looking up to her as a role model and if she had decided to take him back for a second time, her career may have suffered a huge blow and she may have been dethroned as 'the nations sweetheart'.

What is interesting are the statistics for infidelity occurring in relationships, and the figures show very little difference between men and women;

Percentage of men who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they've had: 57%

Percentage of women who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they've had: 54%

What is more fascinating still is the Percentage of marriages that last after an affair has been admitted to or discovered, with the value of 31%. Furthering my belief that infidelity is becoming more common and deemed more acceptable.

http://www.infidelityfacts.com/infidelity-statistics.html

There appears to be no obvious reasoning as to why infidelity occurs in marriage, and as the above statistics prove, it is a very common occurrence in modern society. However if one thing is certain, it is that it doesn't appear to be on the decline.

Smoking and its presence in film.

It is interesting to consider the appeal behind smoking. Is it a hobby? An obsession? Or a statement?

The answer perhaps, is all three. Some might say they enjoy smoking as a pastime, some may tell you that they can't live without it. While some may admit to being, what society deems, a social smoker. There is no denying however that smoking, be it a cigarette, a cigar or whatever else people choose to smoke, has a certain stigma attached to it. Why else would it be banned in public places? Or broadcast nationwide as a bad habit?

So why then, does it feature so heavily in the film industry? Simple. It adds to the depth of a character and allows the audience to witness what an actor/actress is attempting to potray.

Take Die Hard for example, what would Bruce Willis' John McClane have done if he didn't light up during scenes of tough talking cop? Well I for one can say if he wasn't smoking while hastily negotiating with terrorists, it wouldn't have had the same effect.

Similarly the iconic picture of Audrey Hepburn from Breakfast at Tiffany's may have not given the same message had it not have been for her holding a cigarette. Having never seen the film, I'm unsure her smoking has anything to do with the plot, but it definitely adds to the class of the overall picture and certainly doesn't express the message of the film being bad.

It is interesting to consider then, why modern society is quick to express its disapproval towards smoking. As a non-smoker, I'm not going to reach for a cigarette as soon as one appears on screen and I share the belief that just because smokers are told how bad it is, they aren't going to suddenly stop smoking as it is their choice.

What is most fascinating is how soceity can change a persons point of view. Bruce Willis signed on for Die Hard 4 in 2007, 19 years after his first outing as McClane, with the condition his character didn't smoke as he does in the previous 3 films. Why the sudden change of heart? Wasn't this such an important part of the characters make-up? Apparently not. Willis described it as a 'nasty habit' and didn't want to give the wrong message; 'I didn't want to feel responsible for any kid smoking to try to look cool because he thought I looked cool doing it.' How interesting that this opinion only arises during his fourth outing as the heroic cop.

(http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/willis-i-made-die-hard-mcclane-a-non-smoker_1030778)

I wonder whether the film industry will slow in its attempts to use smoking as a subtext in films, to allow them to exist realistically in today's soceity. Only time will tell.

Film Viewing

I suggest that we take a trip to the cinema, to view a film related to one of the topics covered in the previous eleven sessions. Although it is almost impossible to know what films will be out at this time, it is a gurantee that there will be at least one film showing, depicting one or more of the issues covered in previous lectures.