Response to Blossom's 'Go on, hug an Aborigine' blog

http://blossom43.blogspot.com/
I was disappointed when I read this blog as I thought the aborigines would be looked after by their own people, as you quite rightly said, they are the people with the original history of Australia with the ancient cultures and traditions. I must admit, if I emmigrated there to live 'the good life' I wouldn't feel comfortable seeing them living in poverty while you have a life of luxury, in their country, it just doesn't seem right.

My husband is from Brazil and the natives there are very well protected and looked after. The areas they live in, primarily forests, are protected by the government and other citizens can face a jail sentence if their land is intruded upon. I think these customs could be applied to the aborigines to give them the better quality of life that they deserve.

Response to Sam's blog

"John Daniels?!" "When you've known him as long as I have son..." http://whenshesbadsheswicked.blogspot.com/

I have a similar attitude towards drinking, I tend to have a glass of wine or a beer almost every night, but I rarely go out and get completely wasted. I also do not class this as binge drinking (not because I'm in denial) but because the word 'binge' is defined by the Free Online Dictionary as "A period of excessive or uncontrolled indulgence in food or drink."

I think its reasonable to say that 1 glass of wine (which is about your recommended daily limit) is not binging, as its not excessive and is clearly controlled - otherwise I would finishing the bottle every night and living my life with a permanent headache. To me, binge drinking is defined by the clip of 'Booze Britain' that we saw at the end of the lecture. To drink yourself into submission on a weekly basis just for the hell of it, where most likely, if your lucky enough to actually make it home, you'll probably wake up surrounded by last night's curry. Nice.

Response to Karrie-Ann's 'Littering' blog

http://www.kazwebb.blogspot.com/

I hadn't thought of littering as a form of bad behaviour until I saw your blog, then I thought, why haven't I thought of this before? It is bad behaviour and theres no excuse for it, except for plain laziness and ignorance. In a society where we have to be conscious of the environment, its just disgusting behaviour to throw something or spit chewing gum on the floor when there are plenty of public dustbins around. But its not only the environment it affects, its our wallets as well. Hundreds of thousands of the taxpayers' hard earned cash goes to cleaning chewing gum off the streets every year and what's even more ridiculous, half the people spitting it out are probably taxpayers as well! completely ignorant to the fact they are ultimately paying to have it cleaned up. What a silly way to waste money.....

Response to Debbie's 'Piercings' blog

http://debsbeingbadblog.blogspot.com/

I'd never really thought of piercings as a different style of dress or make up before but if you think about it, they are. If someone wants to go out wearing a lot of make up, they can, so why shouldn't someone go out with a few piercings here and there. It's just an alternative form of expression that some people like and some people don't, which is the same with everything, so why should certain individuals be penalised?

I also agree that it is suitable to tone it down in certain situations, in a job interview for example, for your own sake more than anything. I say this because society does expect people to look and act in a certain way in certain situations, whether we agree with it or not. But as far as day-to-day life goes, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else I don't see why individuals shouldn't be able to express themselves creatively.

Response to Tom's 'Technology: A Bad influence?'

http://watsonwithtom.blogspot.com/

I agree with Tom that we (humanity) have become dependent on technology to survive. Without it now the world would probably stop turning, the point you've made about future generations not knowing life without computers and all the latest gadgets means if there was a major crash, there would also be major panic. My cousin is 9 years old and has a Nintendo Wii, 2 PSP's and a pretend mobile phone (her parents have drawn the line there - for the next couple of years anyway). I think we need to accept that the world is changing and developing at a rapid pace that we need to keep up with otherwise we get left behind. It almost makes me dread becoming a parent! I can't imagine the gadgets they'll have invented by then that kids will be demanding for birthday and Christmas presents, you'll have that constant pressure to provide them with the latest technology to keep up with their friends. Theres not much we can do about it though, so the sooner we adapt and accept the digital future the easier it will become. Either that or I'll insane and move to a small island.

Response to Dawn's 'Drugs - Good or Bad' blog

http://beingbadbell.blogspot.com/


I also think that legalising drugs would be an irresponsible move by the government that would send out the wrong message to young and future generations. To legalize controversial matters such as drugs or prostitution is the easy way out, it's a lot cheaper and easier to make drugs accessible to the public rather than working hard to track down the gangs and drug lords and spending the money necessary to educate people aswell as helping those with addiction.

Legalising drugs doesn't remove the problem, infact over time, it would probably create a much bigger one that would eventually become out of control.

Response to Briony's 'Nasty Comedians' blog

http://bjmbeingbad.blogspot.com/

I agree with Briony that whether or not you consider a comedian to be 'nasty' or not depends on what the individual finds offensive. I think there are many subjects that comedians can get away with, especially if they relate it to themselves, such as Alan Carr talking about being bullied at school for wearing glasses, having botched teeth and always being picked last for the sports team. He gets away with this because he is making jokes about himself, even though he is discussing sensitive topics affecting groups in society.

Briony's example of Jimmy Carr making a joke about diabetes represents risky territory, the subject of illness and serious medical conditions is, in my opinion, one that isn't really funny, definitely when it is life-threatening. My best friend grew up suffering with asthma and I know if I heard a comedian make a joke about it, I would be offended. I think it's healthy to laugh at our problems, but there is a fine line between being a nasty comedian and just being plain nasty.

2010 world cup - never mind WAGS, hooligans are the problem

Being a massive football fan, I am more than excited about the world cup coming up in the summer.......what I'm not looking forward to is the embarrasment of our nation, not on the pitch (hopefully) but from news reports about drunken British yobs who can't seem to control themselves before kick-off or after the final whistle.

Why is it that it's always us? How come everyone else seems to be able to control themselves and just have a good time? Now wonder we've got a reputation as hard drinkers, our dedicated supporters (not all of them I hasten to add) that are willing to pay thousands of pounds to travel and support our team are also the ones that help to give us a bad name.

It was recently in the news that Gary Mann, a football fan (I like the rhyme) was sentenced to 2 years in prison in Portugal for inciting a riot during Euro 2004. He is appealing his case. With the world cup set to start in less than a couple of months, I can't see him getting any joy. To me, that is sending out a message that violence will not be tolerated and if people want to fight and start riots, they could face prison in South Africa. I hope that is enough to make them see sense and just enjoy the football for a change and stop ruining the fun for all the decent British fans who are being given a bad name. For the full story on Mann's case, see the link below:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6050489/Judge-orders-convicted-football-hooligans-extradition-to-Portugal-for-Euro-2004-riot.html

Response to Sarah's 'Anti social behaviour'

http://ortonnasher.blogspot.com/

There are few things that annoy me more than teenagers who think they look good by intimidating other people. The incident you experienced at the park must have been traumatic for your children and what is even more frustrating, a park is for children and yet you felt that you had to leave.

For a start, any teenager who spends their evenings hanging around on a childrens park, the jokes on them as they clearly have nothing better to be doing with their life. It's quite sad actually, I think some of the blame (as always) has to come down to the parents, if your teenager is going out with their friends in the evening, fine, but if they are going out with the intention to terrorise people they don't know for no good reason, then I suspect they aren't very 'hands on' parents anyway. I think more encouragement is needed from parents to get their kids involved in hobbies such as a sport or club of some kind that will teach them discipline and respect, where they will also make friends with kids who have interests and aims in life. There are too many kids today wasting their teenage years acting like idiots that won't teach them anything or get them anywhere.

Swearing

Swearing has pretty much become part of society's vocabulary these days, so why is it that we still find it funny when we hear someone have a good old rant thats full of expletives?

It could be to do with how we were raised (isn't everything though, really). As a child if you heard someone swear and repeated it infront of your parents, usually you would get told off, this was the same if a teacher heard you, or in fact anyone in an authoritarian position to you. So naturally, like alcohol, as soon as you get the chance to let rip, you do.

When a public figure, especially one in an authorative position such as say, the President of the United States, decides to drop out a naughtly word - it's funny, and everyone talks about it even though it's just another word and isn't of any importance. However, if the person they're talking about when they swear happens to be one Kanye West - then it is appropriate and funny! See below to see what I'm talking about, although many of you probably already know..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=078BGtKNL1o&feature=related

Response to Laura's Abortion Blog

http://laurasbeingbad.blogspot.com/

I completely agree with Laura that there are many valid reasons as to why women choose to go through an abortion and that if done early enough, it isn't simply 'killing your baby.' I have never been pregnant nor had an abortion but I do sympathize with women who make the difficult decision to go through such a procedure. If a teenager, for example, becomes pregnant and doesn't feel that she is emotionally ready, let alone financially prepared for a child then she should be granted the right to make an informed choice. The alternative would be to bring a child into the world without the support and stability they need. I believe it is all down to the individual. All women feel ready to have children at different times and places in their lives, and for those who aren't ready I think plenty of responsibility is required. With the amount of free contraception and clinics available in the UK to help women of all ages there isn't really an excuse to not take any precaution. But for those who accidentally become pregnant or fall victim to an attack, the option and support should always be there. For me, that isn't being bad, it is making a sensible decision that is right for everyone concerned.

The facebook generation

As I write this blog I find myself continously flicking onto facebook to see if anyone has posted anything interesting or come on for a chat.....it's addictive, never mind completely distracting from what I'm supposed to be doing.......

Everyone's at it, if they're not on facebook then its Twitter or MySpace (although that one has gone out of fashion since a computer whizz from Harvard decided it was time for new social network). Today, it is commonplace for couples to log on and change their status from 'in a relationship' to 'single' as soon as they break up, or if you have some funny photos from a drunken night out - one of your first priorities is to get them uploaded for everyone to see.

Is this because we genuinely want to share all our experiences with our "friends" which, I think most people would admit, are a much smaller group of people than the ridiculous amounts of people we have added as close aquaintances. Or is it more likely that some of us feel the need to keep updating our profiles to compete with those infuriating people who look like they're always doing something fabulous and exciting? Or am I just being cynical??

I know I sound like one of those anti-facebook people but I'm not, I actually think it is a great (as well as free) way to stay in touch with friends who have moved away. One of my best friends is in Australia and Facebook or Skype is the only way I can stay in touch without running up a horrific phone bill.

My only concern is how long will it be before the only way human beings communicate with one another is through social networks, e-mail or an i-phone? I know it sounds far-fetched but think about it, Apple have brought out the i-pad so now we can read all our books online as well, so I guess all the library's in the world can eventually be converted into apartments while we all walk around looking at a piece of technology where we can e-mail, read a book and listen to music all at the same time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/may/03/ipad-apple-iphone-sales

It appears to be the way the world is going, for the next generation, facebook will be as outdated as a bog-standard mobile phone. I might sound a bit old-fashioned, but it just seems a bit of a shame.........what's wrong with a good old book and chat over the phone, or god forbid, face to face conversation!

Tattoos and discrimination

David Beckham aside, there still seems to be a certain amount of judgment that people harbour when they see someone with a considerable amount of tattoos. I personally don't see the difference between someone that hasn't modified their body in any way, compared with someone that has had piercings, plastic surgery or tattoos. It comes down to the individual as an individual.

Take Angelina Jolie for example, although she has many fans, she still seems to attract negative media attention, at one time even from her own father, because of the choices she has made in the past. I don't think the whole Jennifer Aniston thing helped (even though it was Brad Pitt that left her) but no, it must be Angelina's fault.

I wonder why it is that people suddenly started lashing out at a woman that dedicates herself to charitable causes, donates loads of money to these causes and has prevented children from living in poverty through adopting them?? This might be a shaky assumption but Jennifer Aniston: no tattoos to speak of, Jolie: covered in them. Ok, plus the fact she has an interest in knives and used wear a vial of blood around her neck, but shes not hurting anyone, infact, shes doing the opposite.

http://www.talktalk.co.uk/entertainment/film/biography/artist/angelina-jolie/biography/3

Viva Las Vegas!

Sin City, the place where you can freely indulge in a whole variety of bad behaviour and not only get away with it, but be encouraged to do it!

In September 2009, Las Vegas casinos had made $911 million. That was with a steady decline in revenue due to the decline of the U.S economy. (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1869099) Although, that stills seems like a lot of money to have been spent during a global recession, maybe it shows how attracted us human beings are to an escape, to a place where fantasies can be lived out and dreams can be realized........no matter how dire the reality of life at the time is.

As they say: what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas, and that's the way they like it. According to certain reports and advertisements anyway:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/adtrack/2003-08-03-vegas_x.htm

A good example of a (maybe slightly exaggerated, but who knows) Las Vegas experience is the film 'The Hangover,' the title in itself represents 'bad' behaviour!

During the course of one night in Vegas, the lead characters participate in drug-taking (although no one aside from "Alan" is aware of this), binge drinking, multiple accounts of theft (including a tiger and police car), breaking and entering, infidelity, gambling and kidnap (in the form of a small naked chinese man tied up in the back of the cop car).

This hilarious film shows just how easy it is to get carried away under the influence of (amongst other things) Vegas's party atmosphere, which is now after seeing the film - my top holiday destination!

Are all politicians being bad??

After watching the first election debate I have to say I was impressed with Nick Clegg's performance for the Liberal Democrats and judging by the sudden surge in the opinion polls, so were a lot of people.

But this sudden popularity appears to be a bit of a double edged sword, it seems that journalists are now trying (along with David Cameron and Gordon Brown) their very best to dig up some dirt on Clegg to show he isn't as squeaky clean as he would have everyone believe. See the below link for one example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7611295/MPs-expenses-Nick-Clegg-defends-84000-expenses-on-modest-second-home.html/7611295/MPs-expenses-Nick-Clegg-defends-84000-expenses-on-modest-second-home.html

So just when I was considering that I might actually vote for the Liberal Democrats, being the only party that are being "honest" with any hope of winning the election, I've now gone back to not having a bloody clue who to vote for.

This is the attitude a lot of people have when I ask them who they are voting for on May 6th, they just don't know, or say they're going to vote for the Green Party in protest. If I remember rightly, an opinion poll that was taken in the first week of the election campaign showed that roughly 38% of people said they 'don't know' when asked which party had performed the best so far. I think this could reflect either a lack of interest from parts of society or more likely a dismissal of the election altogether due to the controversy and scandal surrounding politics in recent times.

When new MP's enter Parliament, someone should teach them all the lesson about the boy who cried wolf; there's only so many times you can lie to people, by the time you start being honest, most of us have stopped listening. But for those who are watching the debates, tonight's should prove a lot more interesting than the last, if of course you believe what they say they're going to do actually will happen. Who'd be a politician.

Adrenaline junkies

A definition of 'junkie' is 'one who has an insatiable interest or devotion.'

An adrenaline junkie and someone who enjoys doing adventurous activities are two very different things. People who thrive off adrenaline in situations that could be of danger to themselves tend to crave this feeling again and again. Could it be argued then that being an adrenaline junkie is a form of addiction?

The link below goes into more detail about the behaviour and lifestyle an adrenaline junkie leads:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-adrenaline-junkie.htm

Having a fear of heights has prevented me from doing a few things that have looked both dangerous and extremely fun, although I have been para-gliding (which turned out to be more relaxing than exciting) and I've been to a shooting club while on holiday in Brazil (which doesn't sound that amazing, but shooting a .40 hand gun loaded with bullets for the first time definately gets your adrenaline going)!

There is something alluring about doing something out of the ordinary, that is potentially dangerous. Some people live their day-to-day life feeling so bored that they don't really feel alive, so want to take a risk. Some people opt for a change in career or start an affair, adrenaline junkies go skydiving or do a bungee jump.

I can see where they are coming from, after all, they say being close to death is when you feel your most alive.

Bullying

http://www.parentingbookmark.com/pages/articleMB04.html

As someone who was bullied at school, I don't particularly find anything about the subject good or amusing. The link above gives a few surprising facts about bullying today and how it's on the rise. I wasn't surprised to see that 1 in 7 children are bullied at school, but I was shocked to see that statistic also applies to the bullies themselves - 1 in 7 children are the bully.

That got me thinking about why people do it, why do certain individuals feel the need to try and make someone else's life a misery? Is it because they are jealous of that person? or they secretly lack confidence so don't know how else to behave? It would be too easy to dismiss all kids that bully as plain trouble-makers who are going to grow up to be thugs. As well as helping the person being bullied, I think the bully themselves needs help to figure out why they're doing it so they won't continue to in the future.

Other reasons why kids choose to bully in school are on the below link:

http://www.life123.com/parenting/tweens-teens/bullying/why-do-people-bully.shtml

The joy of shopping.......

It's nothing new that the majority of men don't enjoy shopping, but when you walk past a shop such as Ann Summers and ask if you can go in, their eyes suddenly light up.

Obviously, throughout history sex has been popular, but people haven't always been comfortable admitting it. Sex shops used to be the kind of places that people didn't want to be seen in. Nowadays, there's no shame in going in one with your partner or your friends and walking straight to the back where all the 'toys' are stocked. The items on sale in a shop like Ann Summers have become more popular as presents - one of my friends asked me to buy her a 'rampant rabbit' for her birthday.

Unlike the Victorian period, where women were expected to be 'angels of the house' and passive on the subject of sex, today there is an acceptance that women do enjoy sex and are entitled to as much as men without feeling ashamed or embarrased.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/culture-of-love/a-brief-cultural-history-of-sex-938527.html

In a society where a programme like 'Sex and the City' is so popular, maybe it proves that women in particular feel that there is no shame in taking a healthy, fun attitude towards sex and there is nothing promiscuous in talking about it.........whilst browsing which colour rabbit to choose.......

Graffiti: expressive art or plain vandalism?

I struggle to find a clear answer to this question. As someone who enjoys art, when I see a picture or image that has been executed with skill my first reaction tends to be one of admiration........although I doubt I would be so admiring if it was plastered all over my property. This is where society can be hypocritical, so long as its not happening in your back yard, one can turn a blind eye. An article from the BBC shows two opposing views on graffiti where their opinions are very black and white, but even after reading it, I still find it a bit of a grey area.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4946378.stm


I don't think all types of graffiti fall into one category. You've got the irrelevant scribble you see sprayed on bus stops and under bridges such as 'dave woz ere' 2010,' (you know the sort) or messages to reflect status from rival gangs. But then there is graffiti that looks more like expressive art, that may have a message of substance to comment on politics or on society as a whole.



I think there is a big gap between the two ends of the scale. While on holiday in Rome, I saw someone had sprayed a few words in black spray paint on a small section of the colloseum, which to me is downright disrespectful and unnecessary. Not long after this I read an article on 'Banksy,' the 'British street artist.' With his hidden identity and ability to carry out his work without being caught he has become an outlaw, and like many outlaws I found myself actually quite liking him, hoping the police never track him down! However, if his work wasn't so impressive, I doubt he would have gained such a large following and would instead be brushed off as another petty criminal.


The subject causing the conflicting opinions on graffiti is quality. The same offense is being commited here but because one is more artistic than the other it is accepted, even more so when you recognize the "artists" name, it becomes credible.


This begs another question of how society works: when an individual is in the public eye and their 'bad behaviour' is exposed, the saintly reputation they have worked their whole life to build is usually tarnished for the rest of their life - Tiger Woods anyone?! But when someone such as Banksy, who goes against the natural order of things, who rebels against society, who doesn't pretend to be innocent, they are given the opposite reception. Maybe it's because people are slightly envious of someone who can be so talented, such a rebel and unafraid to show the world, whatever the consequences.....but that's another blog entirely.

What's all the fuss about??

After seeing 'Kids,' I couldn't understand the amount of complaints it received from angry parents at it's time of release, presuming it would influence their innocent children to behave in such a disgraceful manner. I think it was quite apparent in this film's case that the behaviour on display, especially from the lead character - 'Telly' boiled down to the absence of an education, no encouragement to engage in healthier hobbies and a lack of parenting in general. Also, I think a certain amount of acceptance is needed from adults that kids all go through a rebellious stage at some point during their teenage years, albeit not always involving sexual and drug abuse.

A recent film which has also been subjected to controversy is 'Kick-ass,' due to the foul language displayed by one of the characters (who is played by an 11 year old girl).

http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/kick-ass-movie-trailer-controversy-over-chloe-moretz-swearing-2551276.html

As it happens the controversy back-fired and has fueled people to go and see the film who wouldn't have necessarily in the first place, such as myself. I found it to be pretty entertaining and once again, the criticism was over-the-top, taking into consideration this film has been adapted from a comic book. (Plus, I personally find Nicholas Cage hugely amusing for some reason that I can't quite put my finger on)!

For a more positive review of the film, see the link below:

http://www.collider.com/2010/04/15/kick-ass-review/

Stalking - not just unhealthy behaviour.......

The idea of going through a friends pictures on facebook and checking their profile on a regular basis isn't stalking, but adding someone that you don't know then going through all their photos and checking their profile constantly, I think there is an argument to say that is stalking.....albeit in a milder form.

Reading the guardian article below really shocked me, it made me realise how many people out there actually fall victim to a stalker, apparently 1 in 5 women will have a stalker at some point during their lives for at least 6 months, the figure for men is 1 in 10 - which I found even more shocking.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/29/stalkers-are-criminals

The mental anxiety and trauma that the victims experience proves that stalking isn't just bad behaviour but a serious crime that should be punished more seriously. I can't understand why something really bad has to happen to victims before the police will take it seriously and act on it. If someone is going to a lot of trouble to find out where you live and work, follow you home, call you repeatedly and threaten the people you care about, that should be enough, in my opinion, to get someone thrown in jail.

Infidelity: there's no excuse

Whatever problems 2 people have in a relationship, for me there is no excuse for cheating, if one of them is that unhappy they should at least have the decency to be honest with their partner and split up amicably before someone gets hurt.

In a marriage, I believe this principle applies even more as you have taken that step as a couple to dedicate yourselves to each other forever (well thats the intention anyway). Cheating instantly breaks that promise and in my opinion the trust is then completely gone. Some of reasons that people cheat on their spouses are including on the below link:

http://marriage.about.com/od/infidelity/qt/topexcuses.htm

Some of these include: 'I need some space,' 'You don't listen to me' and (yes, really) 'I can't help myself.' The last one reminded me of someone (see left).

All of these are just a few of the pathetic, childish and downright unacceptable excuses that people come up with simply because they just feel like sleeping with someone else. If people haven't got the decency to not cheat in the first place, they could at least be truthful about why they did it.

Gambling

When researching this blog, all I could find were websites to help with gambling problems or addiction that had landed people in a financial situation. It just shows how easy it must be for people to get addicted to gambling once they start, and especially if they hit a winning streak. There are various degrees and types of gambling, from card games and slot machines in casinos to online bingo, you could even argue that doing the lottery every week is a form of gambling - whenever you pay money to participate in a game wheres the potential to win more money - thats gambling.

The 2 websites I found could represent the before and after: the first being an online casino and the second is gambling-anonymous, a programme set up for people who are seeking help for their problem.
http://www.circuscasino.com/?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=gambling&utm_content=Product%5FGambling%5FX%5FX%5FPhrase&utm_campaign=Product%5FGambling&gclid=CL_Rl4OZvKECFVKZ2AodHF3mDg

http://www.gambling.com/gambling-anonymous

Should we lie to children - of COURSE we should

People who say that lying to children is wrong haven't though it through.

When I found out that Father Christmas didn't exist I was devastated, as I imagine most kids are, so I imagine some people's argument would be to tell them straight from the word go to avoid future disappointment. Even though I was disppointed at the time, I got over it, like everyone does, in fact, you could argue it helps teach children how to get over disappointments in life.

Seeing the excitement on a childs face when they think Santa is squeezing himself down your chimney to deliver a sack full of presents is an experience I want my kids to have, its part of childhood. But it does mean lying to them for a good few years.

This applies to a load of situations, another common one is death. When the family pet dies, the typical story you tell children is that they're going to animal heaven, where theres lots of toys and food and they can play together forever. If you turned around and said 'Look honey, they've died like everyone does at some point so we're going to dig a hole and put them in it where they'll stay for the rest of time,' it might make you feel like you've done the moral thing, but you've probably scarred your child for life in the process.

I do agree that you can't protect children from the realities of life forever though, once they reach a certain age they're going to find out where they really came from one way or another.......

http://www.paulgraham.com/lies.html

Bandits - or over-glamourized criminals

We've all heard of the best known bandits and outlaws in history, the legend of Robin Hood, the outlaws Jesse James, John Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde.

All of these figures have been portrayed through film at some point, all of which glamourize the life and in some cases, the looks of some of them. Many reviews have criticised films such as 'Public Enemies' about John Dillinger and 'The Assassination of Jesse James,' one quote from a review of this film reads: "It's the beautiful bad man, knowing and doomed, awaiting his fate like some Greco-Hollywood hero, rather than the psychotic racist of historical record." For the full review see below:

http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/movies/21assa.html

I think it is also quite clear that Bonnie and Clyde did not look anything like the beautiful Faye Dunaway and charismatic Warren Beattie that we saw in the cinema, the image on the left shows their true identities. I understand that directors and producers want to make successful films that often need some tweaking from the real story to turn it into entertainment for the masses. But to glamourize these criminals to be something that they're not seems slightly unjustified.

Prescription Drugs

When people talk about drugs, they tend to focus on illegal drugs rather than those available simply through the signature of a doctor - prescription drugs.


The images on the left show just a couple of examples of tragic cases where doctors have signed prescription after prescription unaware that the 'symptoms' of their patients are merely an excuse to feed their addictions. This has so often been the case in recent times with celebrities, who seem even more vulnerable in these situations as people so rarely say no to them. The case with Michael Jackson is similar to that of Elvis, where their status alone means doctors don't say no to them and if they do, they'll go to someone else.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7109253.ece



To me, this proves the case for not legalising drugs. When people are dying through overdoses of legal drugs where only a prescription is required, imagine the situation if they were readily available on a pharmacy shelf. I think there are too many people that would take them just because they could, like alcohol. When certain people are going to the trouble of lying to a doctor about their condition to feed a habit, giving drugs to them on a plate doesn't help, it would just shorten the path to their self-destruction.

When I grow up I want to be.......

I can't imagine that anyone would complete that sentence with.......a prostitute.

On the 1st April this year, it became a criminal offence to "pay for sex with someone who has been forced, threatened, exploited or otherwise coerced or deceived into providing the sexual services by someone else who has engaged in such conduct for gain."

This quote comes from the Home Office website which provides an informative insight into the reality of these women's lives on the streets, very few of whom are there by choice.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/prostitution/


The article also shows how it's not the prostitutes themselves that are thought of as the criminals, but the drug lords who supply them, the traffickers who force them into the country and threaten them and the men who go out looking to pay for sex either because they get a kick out of it or can't get it for free.

I think this is a positive step by the government to help reduce and eventually irradicate prostitution, but it is only one step of many that need to be taken.

By flipping this decision on it's head and legalising prostitution wouldn't help the situation at all. Instead it would probably encourage more men to go out and participate and send out the wrong message to young girls considering their future careers and lifestyles. I think everyone knows being a prostitute doesn't mean your going to eventually meet a nice, rich man with good morals and live happily ever after, but legalising it would surely influence girls to think that it's not the worst job in the world and boys to think it's not such a bad thing to pay for.

Many men and women in today's society use their bodies in a commercial way through a variety of professions, but I can't think of one, (apart from being a porn star and as far as I know, most of them have made that choice themselves) where they have to literally sell their body to make ends meet. I don't believe it's a choice that anyone should have to make, or infact would make if they could do something else.

Bank robber....house burgular...is all theft the same?

The 5 elements of theft according to the Theft Act 1968 are:

1. Dishonesty

2. Appropriation (when the defendant wrongfully asserts the rights of ownership over a property)

3. 'Property' (includes all personalty)

4. Belonging to another

5. 'With the intent to permanently deprive the other of it.'



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_Act_1968

The one that sticks in my mind is 'belonging to another,' afterall, it's only stealing if your taking something that isn't yours.

But can we judge everyone who has stolen something in their lifetime on the same level? Personally I have never stolen anything in my life and think it should be punished whether it is for a stolen handbag or a pack of sweets. However, to say that theft is theft and thats it doesn't really add up when you think about all the different levels of theft out there.



Compare walking into a department store and stealing an item of clothing with bank robbery, or identity theft; the mentality of the people commiting these crimes could range from an adolescent teenager seeking attention to a calculating, dangerous criminal. There is always the case that stealing from a shop could escalate into more serious offences, but this isn't a fact that can be presumed for every individual who has made a
mistake in a moment of weakness.

Ronnie Biggs (pictured above) has spent the majority of his life on the run in Brazil or in prison for his part in a train robbery, yet he isn't considered to be very dangerous. He deserves to pay for his crimes, but can he be thought of in the same way of as a robber that would harm, or even kill someone in order to steal? The below link gives more information on Ronnie Biggs life after his crime:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3548190.stm

No account of theft is morally or legally justifiable, but I do think there is a divide between types of theft and the types of people guilty of it.

Is Smoking Sexy?

The idea of that question is to provoke some sort of response or thought as to what we think when we see someone smoking a cigarette, or what we feel when smoking one ourselves. I can imagine many people reading it will think what a shallow, ignorant question to ask, as I thought myself when I came across an article written by Cassie Rhea Little, a student writing for the OU Daily in Oklahoma. http://oudaily.com/news/2008/aug/28/column-smoking-sexy/

But when you think about it, smoking has and still is used to promote sex; in films for example.


As well as James Dean; Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn and Edie Sedgwick all used to smoke.


In this particular picture, if James isn't holding the cigarette he wouldn't look sexy but instead like he is trying to hold a rather awkward pose for the camera, the cigarette transforms the image.


Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we should all walk around holding cigarettes and damaging our health for the sake of possibly looking more attractive, as yes, that would be very shallow. This is purely an observation and possible reason why some people would choose to smoke, socially anyway. In my mid to late teens, I would have the odd cigarette at parties or in bars if offered one. It wasn't something I needed, but something I chose to do with a drink and if I'm being honest, as a nieve teenager, it did make me feel better about myself, more grown up and therefore.......quite sexy! I don't smoke socially anymore, simply because I don't feel the need to and can't be arsed to go outside and stand in the cold everytime I have one (its not quite the same as being able to stand by the bar with your friends and your drink)!


I personally believe everyone has their own personal reasons for smoking, drinking, whatever 'bad behaviour' it is they choose to indulge in. When it comes down to it though, doesn't everybody have a vice to make life a little less stressful in the complex world we now live in? As long as its not at anyone else's expense, and if it makes you look a bit sexier.........its your life.


I've also included one of my favourite clips from Sex and the City, which uses smoking to show changes in lifestyle; in this case definitely for the worse........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-NZPXMoWqc

Prostitution

An idea for a topic: should prostitution be legalised?? This is a controversial topic that has been debated for some time and would make for an interesting discussion.