The Cyber Virus - Bullying

Nowadays people spend more time on social media platforms per day than interacting face-to-face. The world has turned into cyber reality where chat, text or e-mail is the preferred way of communication rather than a phone call or a meeting. Unfortunately it also has a disadvantage – the Internet doesn’t have a face. It doesn’t have a driver’s licence or a passport. It doesn’t have a fingerprint. That makes it perfect for all the dark people in the world to use it as a weapon.

Statistics show that 1 in 3 young people are being bullied at least ones in school. Only in 2011/12, 31 599 children called ChildLine about the issue.  No matter how many times one social media platform is updated it doesn’t change the fact that ANYBODY can make a profile and nobody pays attention if it is real or fake. That gives the advantage of being anonymous to bullies.  Hundreds of profiles and accounts are created daily that hide the real identity of someone who has the intention of harassing someone innocent.

And here comes the other dark power of the Internet – once you let the demons out of the Pandora box, you can never bring them back.  Thousand of children are receiving threatening messages every day, without knowing who is on the other end. Private pictures posted of teenage girls that stick with them till the rest of their life.  Young boys are being tortured for their sexuality.

People argue if the responsibility of protecting the victims of bullying lies on the parents who allow them to be on the social media or the social media platforms themselves.  Should there be an identity check for all of the newly made profiles? Should the parents forbid to their children to be on social networks at least until they turn 15? And why isn’t enough done in order to PREVENT bulling?

What are your suggestions – what can be improved so the Internet can become a safer place where people can enjoy their time instead of being scared to press that LOG IN button…?

BE STRONG!

It's a Man's World or Beauty and the Briefcase

We live in a new generation where everything is possible. Girls can play football,  boys can do ballet. Some of the best chefs in the world are male, women working in construction are being played more. But even though the gender barrier is thin there is still the issue of female discrimination on the workplace.

Let`s face it we live in a men`s world.  The percentage of males taking senior and higher paid positions is much bigger that the percentage of females. Even in the rare occasions when a lady walks through the conference room door and sits on the boss’ chair, the amount or respect she would get is lower that if it was a man.

Deep down in the human’s mind the woman’s place is in the kitchen, her job is to take care of the kids and make a sandwich. But is it so hard to understand that times are changing and females are capable of replacing the pink housewife slippers with corporate high heels and walk straight into the business world.

Gender discrimination at the work place is an often-faced issue – the same idea is perceived differently depending on the sex of the person presenting it. Do you think that men are purposely discriminating females so they won’t face the situation when SHE will tell them what to do? Or maybe there is a part of the male brain used to take orders and directions from low deep voice only? Or maybe the females also have fault for being discriminated? How man times you have witnessed a lady dealing with a problem emotional instead of professional?

And in the end – does it really matter what gender is the person sitting in that black leather chair at the end of the table, 

as long as the job is well done.

The wrong focus - Government spending and benefits.

The financial collapse of 2007 is still sending ripples throughout the western economies and has resulted in huge budget cuts on public spending, mostly due to regulations from EU.

One of the biggest topics of 2013 in the UK and possibly the most covered topic of 2014 so far is benefits. More specifically in 2013 the coverage was set around ‘welfare tourism’ – a topic where the press took an emotional rather than objective approach to until it was revealed to be smoke and mirrors.  The show Benefits Street neatly demonises and categorises benefit claimers in a single group, contributing to the ‘hatred’ against people on benefits and spongers off society.  

The story itself is like candy for the press. The public eat the stories whole, because the fact that, even if it is a minority, has access to THEIR tax money makes people mad – and it does seem like we have developed a

You can argue left and right about the medias ethical standpoint in covering this topic, but putting that aside I would like to ask the question – Are they disregarding their responsibility by focussing so much of their energy and news space on this?

I would argue that the benefits topic is a result of an extreme amount of spin from politicians to fill a debate with emotional values as opposed to something that has tangible news value – for example the extreme waste of taxpayer money in sectors such as defence budget and the Private Finance Initiative (PFI).

An example given of how the taxpayers money are thrown away on PFI is that a new hospital might cost £50m to build, but instead of the government doing this themselves they have a private contractor build it and then the government leases the space, resulting in costs several times more than the cost if the government built the hospital themselves.

Or how the railways make huge profits of the public since privitasation, but has resulted in poorer service and connections, which much higher prices – recently I took a trip to London which cost me £140 since I didn’t book it in good time.

Shouldn’t the media cover how government spending is out of control and not in the best interest of the public and is it unethical to demonise a single group who can be seen as misusing a otherwise safety net paid through tax money.

Comment below, and thanks for reading.

And what is your size?

Obesity has been a huge issue in the past 10 years and the number of the overweight population is growing every day. Because of the unhealthy life of parents kids are being born with bigger chance to get obese and by sharing the same lifestyle in more occasions they do. 

There has been a lot of arguing about the matter. Is it the parents fault? Is one of the reasons the quality of the food on the market? How it should be handled? One of the biggest problems related with the issue is the fact that overweight children do not have the needed motivation to change their way of living and they do not get the support of their parents. Is it worth to replace healthy meals and exercise with fast foods and video games, just because it is easier, without thinking about the consequences on one`s health?

In 2013 the UK retail chain Debenhams displayed in their stores size 16 mannequins. Even though the first reaction of the public was positive a lot of people have started to question the decision lately. Is this a nice gesture of tolerance or is it supporting the nation`s obesity? By promoting the image of plus size women the shop Is giving the idea that it is OK to be overweight and there is no reason to change it.

The public has to understand that it is not offensive to raise the issue. It seems like people don`t talk about it, scared that they will offend someone when in the same time the victims are exactly the people who are being so often “tolerated”.  

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Positive DISCRIMINATION against smokers!!!

For the last decade or so the campaigns against smoking have intensified more and more. From horrible pictures and messages on the packets of cigarettes to banning any kind of cigarette adverts the government of every country is doing its best to discourage smoking.

But am I the only one feeling like England is taking this to a whole new level???

The smoking ban in 2007 started off from the notion of protecting the non-smokers. I completely agree; they shouldn’t have to suffer the consequences of smoking if they are personally not fans of tobacco.

But this positive discrimination is going way too far. You’re trying to protect the health of half of the community but you endanger the health of the other half by making them stand outside in the rain just to have a cigarette.

At the end of the day we have the same rights and I don’t see why I should stay out in the rain and catch a cold just to be able to have a cigarette.

The whole issue actually starts with the government and their worry about benefits and the NHS. Taking into account smokers are more prone to lung illnesses they consider this would put more of a pressure on the health system and would cost more money. So they just decided to ban smoking.

BUT why didn’t they take into account the fact that by forcing them to suffer the weather conditions they will just make them MORE prone to health problems, which would cost more money?? A lot of you might say that yeah the government isn’t forcing them to do it but at the same time let’s be honest any smoker will do it.

So WHY don’t us smokers have more rights?? Restaurants and clubs with smoking and non-smoking areas, smoking areas being mandatory for all venues… These are just but a few of the solutions that could be found.

Take a stand and protect our rights. Abolish POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION!!