The first article for week six is about a girl in the UK who had to take off her ring because her school said it was contradicting with the school uniform. The link is below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6229098.stm
Lydia Playfoot has worn her 'purity' ring since she was 14. For it's a way of expressing her believe. Her father is a pastor, and together with his wife, they introduce and bring forth the SRT (silver ring thing), over 25000 youngsters in the UK have joined already and the number is still growing. The ring stands for a vow among Christians that they won't have any sexual contact until they're married, because of the purity vow (that's means you're not allowed to have any sexual contact). The school has she can't wear the ring, because the school policy on school uniforms says so. But people who are Sikh or Muslims can wear their bangles or headscarves. It doesn't seem fair according by Lydia's lawyers.
I agree with Lydia that she should be able to wear her ring. Why can people who are Sikh or Muslim express themselves with symbols of their religion, and she can't? Doesn't seem fair to me, if the girl wants to wear a ring because it stands for something very important her because of her religion, for God's sake let her wear the bloody ring. Why can others wear religious symbols and she can't? I think she did a good thing by going to the High Court. And for the school, if other people can wear their religious symbols than so can she, so can the Christians.
The second article for this week is about a mother who has been sent to jail for 12 years for sexual abuse of her daughter and another girl. The link is below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6230072.stm
Caroline Dunsmore has been sent to jail for 12 years. She was married to a man called Billy King, who started the sexual abuse of Caroline's daughter and another girl. This started before both girls had reached the age of 10. After Billy King had died, the girls were sexually by at least three other men. But before Caroline and two men who were responsible for the sexual abuse, were sentenced, three more men (beside Billy King, John O'Flaherty and Morris Petch) and another woman have died before any charges could be brought against them.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous that as a mother you would let your daughter sexually abused by your husband and by other men as well. How can you live with yourself if you've done that? And what I also find quite hard to believe, is that the daughter actually said that she still loved her mother, despite of what her mother has done. I can understand that because it's your mother you could still love her, but looking at the circumstances...I find it to hard to believe. And I think it's a good thing that Caroline has been sent to jail
Monday, 18 June 2007
fifth week articles
the first article for this week is about birth certificates in Britain. the government wants to make that compulsory. with my other blogs the links didn't work any more so that's why i've put the article under my summaries. the link for the first article is below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6756381.stm
This article is about the birth certificates in the UK. The government wants to make the registration of the father's name compulsory. Though the father's name is not always known.
Many people think that children should know who their father is or to whom they need to send a card on Father's Day. But in some cases it's not possible to know the name of the father, like when the mother was raped. The government is still working on this idea.
I don't think you should make the registration of the father's name compulsory. Of course, if necessary you could claim child maintenance payments, but what if you don't want to have anything to do with the father of your child, what if you don't want the money. And if you are the child of a rapist, that your mom was raped, I don't think I would want to know who my father. You could build up such a rage against your father that you might hurt him or something. And I think that people should be able to decide for themselves who registrates their baby and whether they will also registrate the names of both parents. If you're happily married I'm sure you will that, but I don't know about all the other cases. Maybe the government should think about that too.
Birth certificates to name father
Unmarried fathers must register to gain parental responsibilityThe government is planning to make the registration of fathers' names on birth certificates compulsory.
Ministers said they would push forward with the plans once safeguards to protect vulnerable women and children could be put in place.
The Institute of Public Policy Research said the move would send an important signal about fathers' roles and duties.
Currently a birth has to be registered within 42 days, but only one parent is required to do so.
The Department for Work and Pensions said proposals on joint birth registration in England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be brought forward after a full consultation.
Most people will be thanking their fathers tomorrow but many will be wondering who their father is
Kate StanleyIPPR
Some people had been expecting the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, John Hutton, to include the measure in the Child Maintenance Bill.
But it is thought that a rethink was prompted by concerns about women who had been subjected to violence from a partner, and rape victims.
However, a Department for Work and Pensions spokeswoman said it was never intended that the proposal would be in the bill, as birth registration was not in the department's remit.
The government was still committed to the idea, she said.
'Equal role'
If the parents are not married, the father has to be registered on the birth certificate in order to gain parental responsibility.
If no father is registered he will be listed as unknown.
The IPPR said fathers had a vital role to play in the life of their children and were more likely to be actively involved if they were there from the outset.
It also said that unless fathers were registered, they could not be traced and encouraged to make child maintenance payments.
Mr Hutton is said to support these arguments.
'Important signal'
The institute's head of social policy, Kate Stanley, said: "Everyone should know who to send a card to on Father's Day.
"Most people will be thanking their fathers tomorrow but many will be wondering who their father is and why they have not helped support their family.
"Requiring fathers to be registered on a birth certificate sends an important signal about the duties of parenthood.
"It communicates the message that fathers have an equal role to mothers and that they must take their responsibilities seriously."
the second article for this week is about women who drink and drive. The rate of women that do so is rising in the UK. the link is below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6762585.stm
The number of women driving while they have been drinking has been rising over the years. It has become so dramaticle that the government is considering to lower the drink-drive limit to half a pint of beer. In that way they hope that the number of accidents and deaths in traffic will go down.
I think it's a good idea that the government wants to lower the drink-drive limit. But I don't think they should do that just because of the women rate. I think they should do that to make the traffic more safer for everyone. And maybe lowering the limit doesn't even lower the rate of people who drink and drive. Maybe that would require a chance in society.
Women drink-drive numbers rising
The Liberal Democrats say women drink drivers should be targetedThe number of women found guilty of driving under the influence of drink or drugs rose by almost 60% in nine years, the Liberal Democrats have warned.
Figures for England and Wales revealed by the party suggested there was an increase in all age groups - from 6,793 in 1995 to 10,765 in 2004.
This is a 58% rise of 3,972, compared with a slight fall among men.
The government is considering lowering drink-drive limits. The Lib Dems said women drivers needed to be targeted.
'Socially unacceptable'
The research also suggested that, during the same period, the number of women aged under 30 found guilty of driving under the influence of drink or drugs rose from 2,636 to 3,863 - an increase of 47%.
This compared to the number of men of all ages, which dropped by 0.25%, and the number of men aged under 30, which rose by 4%.
Lib Dem transport spokesman Alistair Carmichael said: "Instead of focusing drink-driving campaigns only on men, these figures show women also need to be targeted.
"Drinking and driving must remain socially unacceptable."
The party also said provisional estimates suggested that, comparing the 1996-98 average and figures for 2005, there was a 6% increase in the number of people killed in reported drink-drive accidents.
The estimated number of people killed in non-drink-drive accidents fell by 12% during the same period.
Government proposals
The government is considering lowering the drink-drive limit to the equivalent of half a pint of beer.
Ministers are looking at whether to drop the legal limit from 80mg to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, in line with European standards.
It would be roughly the equivalent to a half pint of strong beer or one 175ml glass of standard wine - depending on body size and other factors.
The government will hold a consultation on drink-drive laws later this year.
This article is about the birth certificates in the UK. The government wants to make the registration of the father's name compulsory. Though the father's name is not always known.
Many people think that children should know who their father is or to whom they need to send a card on Father's Day. But in some cases it's not possible to know the name of the father, like when the mother was raped. The government is still working on this idea.
I don't think you should make the registration of the father's name compulsory. Of course, if necessary you could claim child maintenance payments, but what if you don't want to have anything to do with the father of your child, what if you don't want the money. And if you are the child of a rapist, that your mom was raped, I don't think I would want to know who my father. You could build up such a rage against your father that you might hurt him or something. And I think that people should be able to decide for themselves who registrates their baby and whether they will also registrate the names of both parents. If you're happily married I'm sure you will that, but I don't know about all the other cases. Maybe the government should think about that too.
Birth certificates to name father
Unmarried fathers must register to gain parental responsibilityThe government is planning to make the registration of fathers' names on birth certificates compulsory.
Ministers said they would push forward with the plans once safeguards to protect vulnerable women and children could be put in place.
The Institute of Public Policy Research said the move would send an important signal about fathers' roles and duties.
Currently a birth has to be registered within 42 days, but only one parent is required to do so.
The Department for Work and Pensions said proposals on joint birth registration in England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be brought forward after a full consultation.
Most people will be thanking their fathers tomorrow but many will be wondering who their father is
Kate StanleyIPPR
Some people had been expecting the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, John Hutton, to include the measure in the Child Maintenance Bill.
But it is thought that a rethink was prompted by concerns about women who had been subjected to violence from a partner, and rape victims.
However, a Department for Work and Pensions spokeswoman said it was never intended that the proposal would be in the bill, as birth registration was not in the department's remit.
The government was still committed to the idea, she said.
'Equal role'
If the parents are not married, the father has to be registered on the birth certificate in order to gain parental responsibility.
If no father is registered he will be listed as unknown.
The IPPR said fathers had a vital role to play in the life of their children and were more likely to be actively involved if they were there from the outset.
It also said that unless fathers were registered, they could not be traced and encouraged to make child maintenance payments.
Mr Hutton is said to support these arguments.
'Important signal'
The institute's head of social policy, Kate Stanley, said: "Everyone should know who to send a card to on Father's Day.
"Most people will be thanking their fathers tomorrow but many will be wondering who their father is and why they have not helped support their family.
"Requiring fathers to be registered on a birth certificate sends an important signal about the duties of parenthood.
"It communicates the message that fathers have an equal role to mothers and that they must take their responsibilities seriously."
the second article for this week is about women who drink and drive. The rate of women that do so is rising in the UK. the link is below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6762585.stm
The number of women driving while they have been drinking has been rising over the years. It has become so dramaticle that the government is considering to lower the drink-drive limit to half a pint of beer. In that way they hope that the number of accidents and deaths in traffic will go down.
I think it's a good idea that the government wants to lower the drink-drive limit. But I don't think they should do that just because of the women rate. I think they should do that to make the traffic more safer for everyone. And maybe lowering the limit doesn't even lower the rate of people who drink and drive. Maybe that would require a chance in society.
Women drink-drive numbers rising
The Liberal Democrats say women drink drivers should be targetedThe number of women found guilty of driving under the influence of drink or drugs rose by almost 60% in nine years, the Liberal Democrats have warned.
Figures for England and Wales revealed by the party suggested there was an increase in all age groups - from 6,793 in 1995 to 10,765 in 2004.
This is a 58% rise of 3,972, compared with a slight fall among men.
The government is considering lowering drink-drive limits. The Lib Dems said women drivers needed to be targeted.
'Socially unacceptable'
The research also suggested that, during the same period, the number of women aged under 30 found guilty of driving under the influence of drink or drugs rose from 2,636 to 3,863 - an increase of 47%.
This compared to the number of men of all ages, which dropped by 0.25%, and the number of men aged under 30, which rose by 4%.
Lib Dem transport spokesman Alistair Carmichael said: "Instead of focusing drink-driving campaigns only on men, these figures show women also need to be targeted.
"Drinking and driving must remain socially unacceptable."
The party also said provisional estimates suggested that, comparing the 1996-98 average and figures for 2005, there was a 6% increase in the number of people killed in reported drink-drive accidents.
The estimated number of people killed in non-drink-drive accidents fell by 12% during the same period.
Government proposals
The government is considering lowering the drink-drive limit to the equivalent of half a pint of beer.
Ministers are looking at whether to drop the legal limit from 80mg to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, in line with European standards.
It would be roughly the equivalent to a half pint of strong beer or one 175ml glass of standard wine - depending on body size and other factors.
The government will hold a consultation on drink-drive laws later this year.
Thursday, 31 May 2007
Fourth time for the articles
the first article for this week is about that teachers are allowed to search students if they suspect them of carrying a knife. the link is below: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspathreadID=6466&&&edition=2&ttl=20070531083421
Since Wednesday 30 May teachers in the UK are allowed to search to search students if they think that they're carrying a knife. This goes for the students who are a member of a gang. Not only were teachers given the legal right to search the students' pockets and backpacks, schools are also given guidance in how to work with airport metal detectors. So they can screen the youngsters like that. Students who refuse to be screened can be send away at the school gate and are not allowed to enter the school.
I think it's rediculous that teachers are given the right to search their students. That the police's job. I don't think that searching the students and screening them with metal detectors will make the school safer. From my point of view, I'd say that putting metal detectors at the school gate and searching the students turns a school into a disguised prison. It's almost we're treating the students like criminals. Of course, it is important that a school is safe, but metal detectors and searching the students is too much. Wouldn't it be better if the school would hire some security officers and let them do the searching if that really would necessary?
the second article for this week is about youngsters drinking and then driving home. The link is below: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspathreadID=6443&&edition=2&ttl=20070531084409
Police forces say that the number of youngsters between the age of 17 to 24 that drink and drive has increased enormously. One police force even said that it's the worst it has been in ten years. The police wonders why the drink-drive message doesn't come across while the campaign is going on for years. There are also several police forces that have stated that more and more youngsters fail the road side breath test. Some police officers even told the BBC that the drink-drive message has skipped a generation.
I think that the police officers who said that the message has skipped a generation have a point. Every generation these days becomes more verbal and doesn't really care about other people. They only seem to care about themselves. The drink-drive campaign should continue I think. It is a good campaign and although it doesn't really seem to work at this moment. It might get it's effect back one day. I really hope it does anyway. Drinking and driving is one the most dangerous things to do, it's not only dangerous for yourself but also for all the other people that participate in the traffic.
Since Wednesday 30 May teachers in the UK are allowed to search to search students if they think that they're carrying a knife. This goes for the students who are a member of a gang. Not only were teachers given the legal right to search the students' pockets and backpacks, schools are also given guidance in how to work with airport metal detectors. So they can screen the youngsters like that. Students who refuse to be screened can be send away at the school gate and are not allowed to enter the school.
I think it's rediculous that teachers are given the right to search their students. That the police's job. I don't think that searching the students and screening them with metal detectors will make the school safer. From my point of view, I'd say that putting metal detectors at the school gate and searching the students turns a school into a disguised prison. It's almost we're treating the students like criminals. Of course, it is important that a school is safe, but metal detectors and searching the students is too much. Wouldn't it be better if the school would hire some security officers and let them do the searching if that really would necessary?
the second article for this week is about youngsters drinking and then driving home. The link is below: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspathreadID=6443&&edition=2&ttl=20070531084409
Police forces say that the number of youngsters between the age of 17 to 24 that drink and drive has increased enormously. One police force even said that it's the worst it has been in ten years. The police wonders why the drink-drive message doesn't come across while the campaign is going on for years. There are also several police forces that have stated that more and more youngsters fail the road side breath test. Some police officers even told the BBC that the drink-drive message has skipped a generation.
I think that the police officers who said that the message has skipped a generation have a point. Every generation these days becomes more verbal and doesn't really care about other people. They only seem to care about themselves. The drink-drive campaign should continue I think. It is a good campaign and although it doesn't really seem to work at this moment. It might get it's effect back one day. I really hope it does anyway. Drinking and driving is one the most dangerous things to do, it's not only dangerous for yourself but also for all the other people that participate in the traffic.
Thursday, 24 May 2007
third week of the articles
the first article for this week is about the youth in the UK. It's about if you call a group of youngsters a 'gang'. the link is below: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=6389&&edition=2&ttl=20070524091824
The article isn't long, but it does have a serious content. Many teenagers dislike the fact that they're being called a 'gang' if they would act in a anti-social way. It is not said that every group of youngsters which acts in a anti-social way is a gang, and it is not so that every group is constantly anti-social. The Youth Justice Board says that if people keep on calling groups of youngsters gangs, that it might encourage the youngsters to get involved in more serious criminal behaviour.
I agree with the Youth Justice Board. Everyone, not just the teenagers, has their anti-social moments. You can't put a lable on all the youngsters. And if you look at what a real gang does, teenagers don't go that far unless they really want to or if they are in a gang. Gangs commit murders and armed robberies for example, I don't see a group of youngsters do that. And I also agree on the fact that with calling every group of youngsters a gang, that it might encourage them to become more criminal, that counts mostly for the youngsters who are sensitive for that kind of comments or for the youngsters which already are active in the criminal circuit.
the second article for this week is about something completely different. It's about tea!! The link is below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5281046.stm?lspan
The article tells you that tea might even be healthier than water. First was thought that tea was dehydrating but that is not true. Tea is just as rehydrating as water and maybe even better for you than water because tea also has anti-oxidants which water has not. Researches suggest that you should drink three or more cups of tea a day. Tea also might reduce your chances on some kinds of cancer and heart failure. Recent studies have shown that, though not everyone is convinced of it.
I thought it was funny to do an article on tea, since when you think of the UK, you think about tea drinking. It generally known that in the UK many people drink tea. And now it is shown by research that tea may be even healthier than water. Which is good to know for people like me who don't really like to drink water. I do think that tea might be healthier than water. There have been more studies about tea and all the results of those researches showed that tea was very healthy and that if you drink a lot of tea that it might reduce your chances on some diseases.
The article isn't long, but it does have a serious content. Many teenagers dislike the fact that they're being called a 'gang' if they would act in a anti-social way. It is not said that every group of youngsters which acts in a anti-social way is a gang, and it is not so that every group is constantly anti-social. The Youth Justice Board says that if people keep on calling groups of youngsters gangs, that it might encourage the youngsters to get involved in more serious criminal behaviour.
I agree with the Youth Justice Board. Everyone, not just the teenagers, has their anti-social moments. You can't put a lable on all the youngsters. And if you look at what a real gang does, teenagers don't go that far unless they really want to or if they are in a gang. Gangs commit murders and armed robberies for example, I don't see a group of youngsters do that. And I also agree on the fact that with calling every group of youngsters a gang, that it might encourage them to become more criminal, that counts mostly for the youngsters who are sensitive for that kind of comments or for the youngsters which already are active in the criminal circuit.
the second article for this week is about something completely different. It's about tea!! The link is below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5281046.stm?lspan
The article tells you that tea might even be healthier than water. First was thought that tea was dehydrating but that is not true. Tea is just as rehydrating as water and maybe even better for you than water because tea also has anti-oxidants which water has not. Researches suggest that you should drink three or more cups of tea a day. Tea also might reduce your chances on some kinds of cancer and heart failure. Recent studies have shown that, though not everyone is convinced of it.
I thought it was funny to do an article on tea, since when you think of the UK, you think about tea drinking. It generally known that in the UK many people drink tea. And now it is shown by research that tea may be even healthier than water. Which is good to know for people like me who don't really like to drink water. I do think that tea might be healthier than water. There have been more studies about tea and all the results of those researches showed that tea was very healthy and that if you drink a lot of tea that it might reduce your chances on some diseases.
Monday, 7 May 2007
my first article for this week is about a new school which is build in the UK and opens in September. this school doesn't have a playground. they want maximum learning for their students. the link is below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/6629655.stm
The Tomas Deacon Academy is a new school which opens in September. It's the most expensive state school in the UK. The reason why this school is in the news is because the school doesn't have a playground for their students. They believe that the public wants maximum learning so the students don't need a playground. Mr McMurdo says that the public recognises that youngsters can play in their own spare time and not during school hours. Others say it's inhuman to not let the students play on a playground.
I personally think that it's rediculous that the students are not allowed to play outside. You can't study all day long without a break. You need some distracting. I understand that they say that youngsters get maximum learning this way, but only if you reason it like this: because the students can't go outside they can spend that time which they normally use for playing for studying. But I really wonder how they want to get students to study all day long without a break or at least without the chance to go outside, get some fresh air.
my second article is about a young British girl which has disappeared in Algarve, Portugal. the link is below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6631255.stm
(this a link for pictures of the little girl: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6629399.stm)
The article is about a young girl which probably has been taken from the appartment where she remained with her parents and her younger brother and sister. The toddler, together with her brother and sister was asleep in the appartment while her parents were having diner in a restaurant near by, and they regularly checked on the kids. There is no lead yet on her whereabouts and the police has broaded their search to an area of 7 miles around the complex.
I think that the parents must be terrified because their daughter is gone. But what I don't understand is that the parents left the children alone in the appartment while they were having dinner. I would say that you would order dinner and eat it at your appartment. I really think that it's absurd that the parents of the little girl were having dinner in a restaurant and left the kids in their appartment. I just can't imagine that you would do that as a parent.
The Tomas Deacon Academy is a new school which opens in September. It's the most expensive state school in the UK. The reason why this school is in the news is because the school doesn't have a playground for their students. They believe that the public wants maximum learning so the students don't need a playground. Mr McMurdo says that the public recognises that youngsters can play in their own spare time and not during school hours. Others say it's inhuman to not let the students play on a playground.
I personally think that it's rediculous that the students are not allowed to play outside. You can't study all day long without a break. You need some distracting. I understand that they say that youngsters get maximum learning this way, but only if you reason it like this: because the students can't go outside they can spend that time which they normally use for playing for studying. But I really wonder how they want to get students to study all day long without a break or at least without the chance to go outside, get some fresh air.
my second article is about a young British girl which has disappeared in Algarve, Portugal. the link is below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6631255.stm
(this a link for pictures of the little girl: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6629399.stm)
The article is about a young girl which probably has been taken from the appartment where she remained with her parents and her younger brother and sister. The toddler, together with her brother and sister was asleep in the appartment while her parents were having diner in a restaurant near by, and they regularly checked on the kids. There is no lead yet on her whereabouts and the police has broaded their search to an area of 7 miles around the complex.
I think that the parents must be terrified because their daughter is gone. But what I don't understand is that the parents left the children alone in the appartment while they were having dinner. I would say that you would order dinner and eat it at your appartment. I really think that it's absurd that the parents of the little girl were having dinner in a restaurant and left the kids in their appartment. I just can't imagine that you would do that as a parent.
Friday, 27 April 2007
First 2 articles
the first article is about Prince Harry going to Iraq. the link is below
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=6211&&&edition=1&ttl=20070427104114
The article is about Prince Harry who is going to Iraq. His superior officers decided that he had to there but he won't be lined up at the front. They don't want him at the front because they're afraid that he will get hurt and they think that he could be a possible major terrorist target. There is a big discussion in the UK now about the fact that Prince Harry is going to Iraq. Many people don't want him to because they don't want to lose on of their Royals. But the army officers don't want to withdraw their decision to sent Harry to Iraq. Because that would be a PR victory for the enemy. (also read other articles about Prince Harry going to Iraq)
I think that if Prince Harry wants to go to Iraq that he should go. I understand the concern of all the people. I think I would be concerned if one of the members of the Royal House would go to war. Not that I'm such a royalty fan haha. I do think that the people who openly show their concern have a point when they say that Prince Harry is a possible terrorist target. A member of the Royal Family would make a good target for terrorist, not that I want anyone dead don't get me wrong. I understand both parties and I give them both right.
the second article is about employees getting time off from work to quit smoking. the link is below.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6589285.stm
In the article is the next suggestion: employers should give their smoking employees time off from work so they can go into a clinic to stop smoking. While the employees are in the clinic they'll still be paid. Many people, including health organisations, think this is a good measurement to help people stop smoking. But other people think it's unfair to the people who are not smoking and that people will have to stop smoking in their own time, after work hours. And some people also think that employers can't interfere with the personal lives of their employees.
I think that it is good way to try to make people stop smoking. But under working hours is not a good idea. I have to agree with the people who say that it is unfair to those who don't smoke. That is true. And even though there will be a ban on smoking in public buildings on July 1, you still can't tell someone what to do. If people want to quit smoking they will, and if they won't, they won't. It is a bit hard I think to give a good clear opinion about this matter. I agree with both sides. Can't really pick a side.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=6211&&&edition=1&ttl=20070427104114
The article is about Prince Harry who is going to Iraq. His superior officers decided that he had to there but he won't be lined up at the front. They don't want him at the front because they're afraid that he will get hurt and they think that he could be a possible major terrorist target. There is a big discussion in the UK now about the fact that Prince Harry is going to Iraq. Many people don't want him to because they don't want to lose on of their Royals. But the army officers don't want to withdraw their decision to sent Harry to Iraq. Because that would be a PR victory for the enemy. (also read other articles about Prince Harry going to Iraq)
I think that if Prince Harry wants to go to Iraq that he should go. I understand the concern of all the people. I think I would be concerned if one of the members of the Royal House would go to war. Not that I'm such a royalty fan haha. I do think that the people who openly show their concern have a point when they say that Prince Harry is a possible terrorist target. A member of the Royal Family would make a good target for terrorist, not that I want anyone dead don't get me wrong. I understand both parties and I give them both right.
the second article is about employees getting time off from work to quit smoking. the link is below.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6589285.stm
In the article is the next suggestion: employers should give their smoking employees time off from work so they can go into a clinic to stop smoking. While the employees are in the clinic they'll still be paid. Many people, including health organisations, think this is a good measurement to help people stop smoking. But other people think it's unfair to the people who are not smoking and that people will have to stop smoking in their own time, after work hours. And some people also think that employers can't interfere with the personal lives of their employees.
I think that it is good way to try to make people stop smoking. But under working hours is not a good idea. I have to agree with the people who say that it is unfair to those who don't smoke. That is true. And even though there will be a ban on smoking in public buildings on July 1, you still can't tell someone what to do. If people want to quit smoking they will, and if they won't, they won't. It is a bit hard I think to give a good clear opinion about this matter. I agree with both sides. Can't really pick a side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)