To be honest, I have been a bit bored with the events surrounding the current economic crisis. Day in, day out, the news over the past couple of weeks has been dominated by this or that change in the markets; this or that meeting to discuss how the wealthiest nations of our planet were facing the possibility of becoming a little less wealthy, and what could be done to reverse that.
On a personal level, I have not seen much of a change to my own circumstances, or indeed those of my friends and relatives. Oh hold on, I did notice the other day that milk was a bit more expensive. But that’s about it. Slightly more expensive milk is not, to me, earth-shattering news, and does not deserve the amount of media attention the crisis has received recently.
Someone tried to sue God. They actually tried to sue God.
No, I’m not on about the terrible film starring the annoying Scottish guy with the stupid beard. Recently a judge threw a case out of the courts against God. It has surfaced that last year a man filed a lawsuit against the Almighty One, who stood accused of causing ‘widespread death, destruction and terrorisation of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants’.
Students from lower income households blatantly have no desire to learn. If your parents earn less than £30K a year, you need bribes to get you into the classroom. What else is going to tear you away from getting wasted on street corners with your hood up robbing old ladies?
Err, maybe that thing called a brain some us have? Throwing money at us, however, is the Government’s current plan. With no ulterior motive, honest.
Are jokes about prostitutes funny? In particular, jokes about murdering prostitutes? It’s tempting to reply with a resounding ‘no, you sick tool’, but I genuinely think it is possible. Almost anything can be funny in my book – although I acknowledge that the flipside is that almost anything can be offensive.
But why does the coin always fall the wrong way?
The European Union has set down legislation stating that nutritional information on products should be in “the principal field of vision” and that the text should be three millimetres high.
When I first heard of this I thought: “How can this be considered a topic for discussion?” Surely nobody would disagree that statistics such as 220 million children overweight across the globe in 2005 prove that obesity is a problem growing larger and larger (sorry…).
If you have listened to the radio, watched the television or been anywhere near the internet in the past couple of weeks, you cannot fail to have heard about the phonecalls made by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand to actor Andrew Sachs on Brand’s radio show and the subsequent uproar. People have got more worked up over this in the past few weeks than the slightly more important issue of the global economy. Is all this fuss really justified?
I think not. I am not disputing the fact that the calls were offensive. Telling a 78-year-old man Russell Brand ‘fucked your granddaughter’ isn’t normally considered acceptable. However, regular listeners to Brand’s Radio 2 show would know that his style is not to everyone’s taste – your average pensioner is unlikely to be a big fan of a recovering heroin addict who holds the title ‘Shagger of the Year’.
Positive discrimination? The phrase itself reeks of bigotry, though not in the way you might think. In America, they call it affirmative action; in Canada, it’s employment equity.
Those aren’t just superficial changes. They change the very meaning of the term. The idea that members of a minority group should be given preference when it comes to the working world, (not to mention other areas of life) is not discrimination. Dictionary definitions aside, ‘discrimination’ carries serious negative connotations in our society. Memories of apartheid, segregation and the denial of women’s right to vote come to mind.
If my student house is anything to go by, the internet is an essential part of everyday life. It’s vital for everything from communicating to shopping, browsing the web and maybe even occasionally working. Anything can be found on the internet and anyone under the age of… well everybody really, is aware of its benefits and most probably knows how to turn on a computer, use a computer and even owns, or at least has access to, a computer.
Life and the internet now go hand-in-hand, and we take our access to the World Wide Web for granted. I am incredibly fortunate that I have a technologically competent flatmate who has taken charge of our house internet account, a task that may have proven incredibly daunting had I been left in charge. I view my internet much as I view other electronic items: as essential yet mysterious objects which completely surpass the limits of my knowledge. I have no idea about the inner workings of the internet; I only know that if I click a procession of buttons my Facebook appears. So long as that continues to happen I am perfectly happy with our working relationship.
Now a first-year undergraduate rambling on about a shiny new grading system for the degree he may be getting in a few years’ time may seem a bit unlikely, foolish or even perhaps wrong, but let me run with this one. Last week, a set of 18 universities were announced who will be partaking in a trial of a new scheme that supplements – not replaces – your first, 2:1, 2:2 or third.
The idea is that there’ll be a more detailed report containing your individual unit grades (yes, even from your first year… you thought that wouldn’t count, didn’t you?), on top of a whole host of other things, such as a note from your personal tutor, your practical marks and maybe even some extra-curricular bits in there too. The Higher Education Achievement Report – HEAR for short – is seen by its creators as complementary to the current 200-year-old system.
Speed cameras: another Government money-making scheme to cover their ridiculous spending habits. Well, there is hope: Swindon Borough Council in Wiltshire has been accused of playing with people’s lives after the town became the first in the UK to propose the abolition of speed cameras.
After openly accusing the Government of installing speed cameras for profit rather than for accident prevention, the Conservative-run council voted unanimously to pull £400,000 out of a speed camera project. Instead, the money will go towards a more useful cause: local safety measures such as vehicle-activated speed signs, better lighting and improved road cambers.