The man who many believed was killed by a heart attack during the anti-G20 protests in London a few weeks ago turned out to be treated aggressively by the police. The Guardian has released a video where a London Metropolitan Police officer appears to have pushed - with a stick - the street-newspaper-seller on the back while he was not facing the police but walking calmly away from it.
According to the Guardian, Ian Tomlinson, who was happily married and had a son was discovered to not have been drunk when the attack occurred and although his death was diagnosed by official coroners to have died from a heart attack, both coroners and doctors (interviewed by the BBC News Channel) have speculated that Mr. Tomlinson's heart attack might have been caused by the push he received from the police officer shown on the video above.
The BBC News Channel reported that Mr. Tomlinson's death might have caused the protesters to increase their aggressive behavior. The BBC News Channel also reported how Mr. Tomlinson fell over minutes after he was attacked by the police. A G20 protester left a comment on News In-Depth Blog saying: "I was there and the police were swinging at anyone who came near regardless of gender, age or threat."
Although it is not possible to see Mr. Tomlinson's head hitting the ground when he is pushed by the police officer, it is very clear that such an aggressive push would have caused harm to a 47-year-old man like Mr. Tomlinson. To my point of view, that must have been the action that caused Mr. Tomlinson's death.
However, due to the fact that the video scooped by the Guardian shows one police officer pushing Mr. Tomlinson, it is unfair to blame the whole London Metropolitan Police for the action. I do believe though, that justice must be applied on the police officer guilty for this crime.
The 73-year-old man who died during the anti-G20 protest on Wednesday was discovered to have died not by an abuse from the London Metropolitan Police forces nor was he killed by manifestations carried out by the protesters at that particular moment, but rather by a heart-attack, it was reported by the London Lite today (Friday).
The anti-G20-protest's only fatality is believed to have happened when the man was going home from work and sadly happened to have a heart-attack during the protest. According to the London Lite, the man lived alone in a hostel due to a divorced that took most of his money and it is believed that the man did not take care of his diet and consumed large quantities of alcohol a day.
The London Lite reported that someone who knew the 73-year-old man described him as "a lovely bloke." There are still speculation of why people around the man did not help him when he fell on the floor during the time he was having the heart-attack.
It is very interesting to notice that the only newspaper that published details about the death of this lonely 73-year-old man who died during the G20 protest on Wednesday was such a low-quality newspaper like the London Lite - a free evening newspaper owned by the same family that owns the Daily Mail - and that none of the so-called quality newspapers or broadsheets such as the Guardian or the Times Online weren't interested in this type of story. I guess they thought they would not get any profits from it. After all, the newspaper business is all about money.
When a countless number of people gather together to protest against something as powerful as the G20, disasters happen. Such is the case of the anti-G20 protest that took place in London today (Wednesday), where one person was killed and many others have been injured. It has not yet been identified whether the fatality was caused by the police or by fellow protesters, but it is speculated that the police might have applied too much force on the victim.
So far, according to the Mail Online more than 30 people have been taken into custody, and although today's results were far from peaceful, the big day for protest is believed to take place at the same time in the same place tomorrow, at the exact same time the G20 summit - the event for which many have been waiting - will take place in London.
But what started out as a peaceful protest became a nightmare for the police when the protesters started to get out of control. As early as 13:00 the situation started to get more and more difficult as the adrenaline grew among the protesters and chaos among the city of London, the whole event was soon broadcasted by many national and international TV channels.
According to the BBC News channel - as it was broadcasted live-in-London - the protesters started to get more and more aggressive and took the opportunity of being pushed back by the police to start breaking windows of key economic buildings, including the RBS' main headquarters in London. Protesters started to climb the roofs of many building around.
It is believed that the protesters wanted to throw objects to the police, and that is the reason why the police decided to arrest some of them. It is also believed that the police might have applied too much force against the protesters. It was broadcasted by the BBC News Channel that the protester's purposes was to burn the headquarter building of the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Meanwhile thousands of people were protesting and being injured, the heavy weigh economic and political leaders of the world gathered together with Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Prince Philip - as it was broadcasted by the BBC News Channel - to discuss matters concerning the economic crisis and other serious and yet delicate issues.
Among the many leaders and political figures of the world only one president was able to have a private meeting with Her Majesty the Queen. U.S. President Barack Obama and her wife Michelle met with Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip on a private meeting before they went to meet the other leaders.
As strange and harsh as it might sound, the Against-G20 protesters are only wasting their time, and not because the leaders adopting the G20 summit lack of interest towards the economic crisis or climate changes, the reason why these so-called 'protests' are a big wast of time and money - the London Metropolitan Police has had to spend 7.2 Million on security operations - is because protesters will not change anything by protesting. On the contrary, they are only making the government loose money that could be used for more useful things.
Honestly, to me at least, these protesters are just trying to boycott the G20 summit - an attempt to make the world a better place - and whether protesters like it or not, the G20 is actually trying to solve the global economic crisis. Whether it will work or not is yet to be seen, but I assure the readers of this blog that trying to solve the global economic crisis by talking is better than protesting for nothing.
The BBC News Channel broadcasted a protester saying: "Our bank, our rules." My respond to that is that it isn't the way it works, and one thing is certain, protesting rarely works, and it certainly does not work when the protests are drawn by the wrong reasons.
In this case, sadly, one of the main reasons why people are protesting is because they can't take that bankers get paid so much, and that they get paid seven figure pensions. People seem to forget that not all bankers are like Sir Fred Goodwin and that some bankers do deserve that much money, due to the among of time and effort they apply to their work.
This morning more than five UK national newspapers reported what is believed by many, the biggest political scandal of the year. Jacqui Smith, UK's Home Secretary's husband Richard Timney who also works for the government as his wife's parliamentary aide was yesterday (Sunday) discovered to have added two pornographic films to his home internet connection, the BBC News website reported.
Mr. Timney has publicly apologised for the embarrassment he has caused his wife and has also declared that he had 'mistakenly' chosen those adult films and that neither him or any member of his family was willing to add any pornographic material to their TV or internet connection.
This scandal has caused lots of rumours both among PMs and in Downing Street. This scandal has drawn Miss. Smith to be under investigation by the UK parliamentarian authorities for misusage of her second home allowance.
This is a perfect example of how the media can cause damage to an important person. No one can escape from the media. If this story had never gotten to the newspapers, Miss. Smith would have never gone through this embarrassing moment. First of all, why does it mater that Jacqui Smith's husband rented two pornographic movies? After all he has declared that he did not rent them on purpose.
The answer is this, because the media, and special the tabloid press, injected in the mind of the readers that Jacqui Smith's husband uses tax payers' money to buy pornographic material, which is - in a way - out of proportion. Considering that part of the tax payers' money is dedicated for those who work for the government, such as Miss. Smith and her husband, once the money arrives to them, it no longer belongs to the tax payers' but it belongs to the proprietor. As long as the money isn't used for illegal purposes, they can use their money for whatever they want to spend it on.
I'm not saying that it is right to rent such dirty and tasteless movies. To be totally clear, the porn industry is a dirty business that only causes harm to our society by injecting shameful sex acts - that must be personal and not publicised - to youngsters and adults who simply are affected psychologically after using such materials. But I do believe that a free person, in a free society such as the one we live in, should be allowed to use such materials and it should be kept private. No one, not even the press should be allowed to publicise anything about someone's private life and activities.
I also believe that there are more important things to publish out there in the world, and newspapers are wasting their time and money on a story that is simply not of interest to anyone - at least it is not of interest to me and to many people I know - and that is simply not educative. Newspapers should be there to publish educative topics and to inform the public about the many important events that take place in the UK and the world. Why didn't those newspapers - the ones that dedicated their front pages to the Jacqui Smith scandal - dedicate their front pages to the war-on-drugs that is currently taking place in Mexico? Because these types of stories simply don't sell newspapers and scandals do.
Newspapers treat and develop these kinds of stories in such a way that people have no other choice but to look at them. Unfortunately, the times when we could find a good documentary on TV or a good exclusive in the newspapers, are simply falling apart and the media in general is everyday moving more and more towards scandals because they simple want to make money.
An estimated number of up to 3,500,000 people protested against the G20 yesterday (Saturday) in the streets of London, in what is believed to be the biggest mass-manifestation in more than a year, the Guardian reported yesterday.
According to the Guardian, the protest 'jobs, justice and climate' was organised by some of the most remarkable peace organizations in the UK, beginning with the socialist organization Put People First and the Rainbow Alliance, to charities such as Action Aid and the green organization Friends of Earth. All of these organizations and many other unionists managed to gather more than 35,000,000 people and are willing to to gather more people for the coming days.
The protests will take place in London for the rest of the weekend and through the next week, and will finish on thursday when all the members of the G20 will gather together in London. The London Metropolitan Police is expecting things to get dangerous and have invested up to £7.2 millions on security.
It is very ironic that such a group of people can gather together to supposedly protest against the corruption of the world, and to – as many people assumed – make the world a better place.
But isn't ‘making the world a better place’ what the G20 is trying to do? Or isn't ‘gathering a bunch of heavy-weigh international economists to solve problems such as Global Warming and Global Economic Crisis’ considered trying to save to world?
Considering that the London Metropolitan Police is spending £7.2 millions to prevent any misbehaving from the protesters, the only people misbehaving and making the world a worse place are those protesters who believe that they are making a difference while protesting against a good cause. If they are protesting against Global free-trade, then they will be ignoring the many millions of poor people that have been benefited because of global free-trade through the years.
I was invited by one of the members of the Socialist Movement of the university I attend to (London Metropolitan University) and I was told to 'please' come to protest against "theses stupid - stupid was not the word used, it was a much harder word - people who have ruined the world." Well, my response to that person was: "I got better things to do."
But now what I say to that person is that if she was referring to the bankers, well, they made a huge mistake, and now the economists that are part of the G20 are only trying to make things better and to improve the situation in the world. What is so wrong about that?
Yesterday a merge between two very different Italian political parties: the Left-Wing Italian opposition, Alleanza Nazionale, and the Right-Wing party, Forza Italia, were yesterday merged by the 73-year-old Italian PM and leader of Forza Italia, Silvio Berlusconi, the Times Online reported yesterday.
A merge that seemed like a far away dream for many, and an impossible dream for many others, became a reality when Italian PM, Silvio Berlusconi launched what is considered by him - as he has stated in the new party's website - the future of the people of Italy, the new democratic party il Polopo Della Liberta.
Many Italians were delighted by the merge and have considered it a big step in Italy's stressful and deadly political world. But many others are worried that Mr. Berlusconi will take advantage of the new party to take care of his own personal businesses, as he is accused of having done with his own party Forza Italia for many years. But some others believe that Mr. Berlusconi's Centre-Right-wing party, Forza Italia is only supported by one man - Mr. Berlusconi himself - and that once he is out of politics the left-wing power will take over again.
Silvio Berlusconi got to power for the first time in 1994 when he won the elections by winning more than 70% of the votes, thing that no Italian politician had done after the Second World War. Mr. Berlusconi is believed to have fulfilled a hole created by the one party that ruled Italians ever since the collapsed of the fascist regime as the end of the Second World War approached and the death of Benito Mussolini took place in Milan; the Centre-Right-wing party, la Democrazia Critiana (Christian Democracy), which collapsed because of corruption accusations and misbelief of the Italian people.
Mr. Berlusconi - the man that was discovered to be the second richest person in Italy last year - have been involved in corruption many times since he got to power. He attended to court sessions for more than two years when he was accused of sending money to Swiss bank accounts which presumably belonged to him. This happened before he conveniently launched a law powerful enough to dissolve court cases that had been considered by a Jury for more than one year.
In a country where there are more than six democratic political parties, and countless illegal political parties, this merge will calm down the thirst of political power for many Italian politicians. But, it won't be long before someone wants to take Mr. Berlusconi's position and that will then represent, the end of il Popolo Della Liberta. As it has happened before, the formation of this new political party will draw people - once Mr. Berlusconi is out of power - to be separated again, forming more than one political party, and this of course will leave Italy with a hole of uncertainty.
In Italy, the party you represent does not only define the political party you support, it defines your personal views as well as the people you interact with, and the difference between Italian Left-wing and Italian Right-wing is from heaven to earth. If I had to express my personal opinion, this merge will give Mr. Berlusconi the power he desires to take care of his personal businesses, and it will mean the decrease of the left-wing parties for a long time, until Mr. Berlusconi dies of leaves power, whatever comes first.
Gordon Brown spoke to the Wall Street Journal about the debts the UK treasury is facing and how his government - the Labour Party - is taking actions to decrease the amount of money that will need to be paid in the future.
Mr. Brown also answered to the accusations that the governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King made yesterday, the BBC News website has reported today.
Mr. Brown referred to the accusations made by Mr. King saying that he and his government would do whatever it takes to push the UK out of crisis and recession. Saying this, Mr. Brown made clear that he would take more budgets if necessary.
Mr. Brown is on a tour in the American continent, talking to top economic leaders trying to get to agreements to help the UK and the many American countries get out of the global crisis they are going through. Mr. Brown will visit other South American countries such as Chili and Brazil.
The BBC News website reported: "Mr. Brown, who dismissed claims that the UK's central Bank was at odds with him over a further stimulus package, said there was a 'determination' among world leaders to do 'whatever it takes to make sure we can restore the economy to growth'."
Yesterday the governor of the Bank of EnglandMervyn King said that the UK does not need to adopt many more budgets simply because it would harm the UK's economy. Mr. King made clear that the UK need not get in deeper debts. This accusation hit the British PM on a very delicate time due to the fact that Mr. Brown was at a European Union meeting at the time Mr. King spoke about this matter.
The Conservative Party have many times before stated that taking more budgets is not a solution to the economic crisis, but at the same time they have failed to express one. Yesterday they congratulated the governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, for the declarations he made to Gordon Brown yesterday.
The Mail Online reported today: "The Tories, who have repeatedly warned about the size of the national debt, called Mr. King's intervention a 'defining moment in the political argument on the recession'."
It is very brave to tell the leader of such a country like the UK what he (Mr. Brown) should and shouldn't do when you are not his position. But it is a totally different thing when you tell the leader of a country what he shouldn't do and at the same time you show him and his party the solution, and this is where Mr. King and the whole conservative party are failing.
The conservative party congratulated Mr. King when he said yesterday that the UK need not need more budgets because the country would dramatically go on deeper debts. Even the conservative party itself have declared the same thing many times before, but what do they have to say to solve the problem?
The UK is passing through a very difficult time and a very strong crisis and Mr. Brown knows that the UK needs another budget and believes that the UK will be able to get out of this crisis and pay back the debts once the situation gets better. There is no other way, the budget needs to be taken, and as long as the UK does not rely on budgets, the debt will not be that hard to pay back afterwards.
U.S. President Barack Obama has said recently on a statement in the White House that Global Warming is affecting general public health and will be a bigger threat in the future, the Guardian has reported today.
Mr. Obama has also expressed how some policies of the former U.S. president George W. Bush have increased the dioxide emissions in the U.S. making the working against Global Warming harder.
The White House and Mr. Obama's personnel in charged of the Global Warming issues have expressed their concern on the carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. and have declared that they are currently considering making new laws to release the carbon dioxide emissions. However, so far, some congress officials have already refused to accept the conditions.
The problem with Global Warming is that most people think that it is the fault of car-drivers and oil companies, and that the less cars we have in the streets and motor ways, the better it is for the environment, which is obviously not the real solution. Oil is a natural resource that on earth for a reason, and it should be used.
After all, the problem with Global Warming have been caused by a people who don't take small actions in their own lives. Sadly, most people don't realise that half the rubbish that pollute that world come from homes. Little actions such as recycling and moderating how much water and heating we waste, and the way we take care of our car's carbon dioxide, can be vital for the health of our planet.
Unfortunately, some companies have taken advantage of the facilities of transport and have polluted other weaker countries that have nothing to do with polluting the world. These companies have damaged other African countries by sending rubbish that be 'stored' in public place, as the Independent reported.
On an article written by British PM Gordon Brown, and published by the Guardian today, Mr. Brown has stated the actions he and his government - the Labour party - will and and are currently taking to stop terrorism.
One of the actions considered and taken by Mr. Brown, and the topic that was most emphasized throughout his article, was the improvement and the development that has been done to the policing organizations in Britain. Mr. Brown mentioned that it has been invested numerous amounts of money of £1 billion to £3.5 billions on security equipment and personal in the UK borders as well as UK cities and key buildings, which means that now important cities are well-protected against all kinds of attacks, including chemical and nuclear attacks.
Mr. Brown also alerted people of any possible terror attacks and warned all the citizens to be alert and to not support people who are motivated by hatred and wrong-religious reasons. Mr. Brown said (the Guardian reported today): "Al-Qaida terrorist remain intent on inflicting mass casualties without warning, including through suicide bombings. They are motivated by a violent extremist ideology based on a false reading of religion and exploit modern travel and communications to spread through loose and dangerous global networks."
Mr. Brown also stated that he is giving his support to other countries around the world that have already been fighting terrorism for a while, and that have currently increased their support towards countries - such as the UK - that are willing to fight terrorism. Mr. Brown made clear that Britain will fight along those organizations and countries to stop terrorism from being a threat to the UK and the world.
Mr. Brown has made clear that he is not 'joking' when he says that he has taken actions nationally and internationally to stop terrorism. Very rarely we see politicians committed to the promises and taking such actions to stop such delicate matters.
In fact, Mr. Brown has been very clear on the actions that he has taken, and the actions that he is willing to take, and he is determent to stop Britain from being threatened in their own land. Personally, I give my support to Mr. Brown, and I congratulate him for the efforts he has made to keep Britain a saver place.
I wonder what David Cameron has to say about this matter! Is he going to criticize Mr. Brown for taking such actions - as Mr. Cameron usually criticizes Mr. Brown, even when Mr. Brown takes actions and good decisions? And if he is, what excuse is he going to come up with?
The Independent has scooped today that Israeli troops were indeed allowed to shoot and kill civilians during the 22-day invasion to Gaza. It has also been scooped by the Independent that a Military commander expressed his views on palestinian lives saying that Palestinian lives were (according to the Independent) "very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers."
One soldier said that he was ordered to shoot at an elderly woman who was only 100 metres away from the soldiers. Another soldier revealed how the lives of a mother and her children were taken by a sniper.
The Independent also reported: "A aquad leader said: At the beginning the directive was to enter a house with an armoured vehicle, to break the door down, to start shooting inside and - I call it murder - to shoot at everyone we identify. In the beginning I asked myself how could this make sense? Higher-ups said it is permissible because everyone left in the city (Gaza city) is culpable because they didn't run away."
The Times Online reported that an official investigation has been started by international authorities because Israel might have broken human right laws while the military operation in Gaza was taking place earlier this year.
Israel made a mistake. And what country in the history of the world does not make mistakes when it comes to war? From the British to the Americans, they have all made worse mistakes and in many cases, the world has said nothing. Many people believe that so far, Israel only invaded Gaza City to kill innocent civilians, when there has only been proved that one commander ordered to kill a group of people.
Don't get me wrong, the action of killing the civilians was wrong and those in charge of the brutal operation must be punished, but not those who carried out the operation because they were simply following orders.
But if I had to express my personal view I would say that if the Palestinians had been in the same position as the Israelis, they would have done the same or worse. At least the Israelis do not rape women like many African terror groups do.
Unfortunately, people tend to forget that the Middle East is a complicating and very different place from the West. Most of the innocent civilians' deaths in the operation were taken by Israeli army soldiers because Hamas was hiding behind them. Plus, most of the children's deaths were caused because Hamas used them as soldiers or human shelters, just as it (Hamas) did to many other innocent lives, including women.
I'm not justifying anyone, but when you live under rocket fires for more than eight years, and you just get tired of political talking and appeals and all the paper work, once you invade the country from where the rockets come from, you do not think who and what you are killing and you just want to take revenge. I'm not saying it's right, no, it is wrong, but that is what happens.
If Hamas really cared about its people - as they claimed - why didn't they then give up their weapons and their rocket instruments? Why didn't they take the opportunity to cease fire once and for all? No, instead they started to fire rockets to south Israel.
If Gaza is in this situation is because of themselves and because of Hamas, and I am afraid - and very much sorry for the lives that are yet to be taken by the Israeli soldiers and the lives that have already been taken - this situation will not cease and will always continue until Hamas does not get to an agreement with the Israeli government.
73-year-old Josef Fritzl of Austria is sentenced to life in prison where he would get psychological help. The Guardian reported today.
According to the Guardian, Fritzl enslaved his own daughter since the age of 18, for 24 years, during which he abused her and forced her to have seven children, one of which, a twin, died during labour for not having the medical care necessary to give birth. Fritzl is believed to have gotten rid of the baby-body by burning and burring it afterwards.
Fritzl was discovered more than nine months ago when one of his prisoners run away from the cellar where they were being held captive. A police officer found the prisoner and then ran to investigate where this person had come from and found the horrific crime scene.
Since the detention of Fritzl, he has declared that he did not realise who much harm he had done to his own daughter and that he was completely sorry for his actions.
The guardian has reported today: "I regret from the bottom of my heart what I have done to my family. Unfortunately, I cannot make amends for it. I can only try to look for possibilities to try to limit the damage that's been done, he (Fritzl) said." But this did not stop the judge from giving him the maximum sentence available in Austria.
The Sun reported today: "He (Fritzl) told a hushed court: It was only yesterday I realised for the first time how cruel I was to Elisabeth. I never realised it was such a bad situation."
Today, the world has seen justice. A man who enslaved his own daughter for such a long time will get what he deserves as he spends the rest of his miserable life in prison.
Honestly, I didn't believe in death penalty, but today I have charged my mind. I believe that such a cold-hearted person does not deserve to live the life that he has taken from someone such as his own daughter and the children he forced her to have with him for as long as 24 years.
However, I am very glad with the sentence and, besides the fact that I don't agree with Fritzl being under psychological care, because I don't believe he needs any - I just believe that he found pleasure in forcing someone to do the things he wanted, just because he could - I am very pleased with the fact that him too, will soon not be able to see sunlight again. Just like he forced his daughter not to see sunlight for 24 years.
In an official survey studied and revealed by the BBC yesterday, it has been concluded that most English and Welsh universities want to increase the amount of money paid for tuition fees by UK Students from £3,500 to at least £5,000.
According to the BBC News Website, some of the vice-chancellors of some of the top universities in the UK would like to see tuition fees rise for the sake of their universities.
These vice-chancellors believe that rising tuition fees up to £5,000 and in some cases, depending on the academic course, £7,000, would help universities a lot in times of economic crisis.
The BBC reported: "The BBC survey, gathering the views of 53 universities vice-chancellors, showed a wide range of expectations of the scale of any increase - from £4,000 to £20,000 per year."
This is without a doubt a way for the cheesy, greeny, give-more-money-vice-chancellors of all those 53 universities to make more money.
How dare they say that universities need more money because they are going through difficult times? When specially now that there is an economic crisis, more and more both youngsters and mature would-be-university-students are desperately applying to university courses.
If there is anyone who needs money to go to university, those are the students who are dedicating their time and who are already in debt and who will have to pay a deep debt of up to £25,000 by the time their higher education is over. Those people are the UK students.
Those vice-chancellors do not need more money, and in fact, they do not deserve more money, because all they want to do with that money is invest it on unnecessary things.
Such is the case of one of London's biggest universities; London Metropolitan University; where the chancellor lied when it came to reporting to the government how many students the university had and now the university has to pay back a fine of more than £15 million.
I am a journalism student at London Met, and I - like many other students - can assure many people that just by looking at the quality of some of the equipment and the buildings that belong London Met, I can say that most of that money must have ended up in the wrong pockets.
If not, then why doesn’t London Met’s chancellor want to explain the government what he’s done with the money? And what does London Met’s chancellor want to do now to ‘solve the problem?’ He wants to get rid of almost 40% of the university’s lecturers.
For the sake of those students who are the future of this nation, and who will end up in debt for shaping their own future at university, and for doing something that benefits the future of the UK, let us please not allow these greeny vice-chancellors benefit from us, the students, and get our money because they simply want and can.
The leader of the opposition - the right-wing Conservative party - David Cameron, has declared yesterday that he would freeze the BBC-TV license fee for a year to set a good and strong example to the British people in these times of economic crisis, the Independent reported yesterday.
According to the Independent, Mr. Cameron also declared that the BBC is one of the most important British institutions and that it has been for years.
Mr. Cameron has accused many Labour leaders for the plans made to increase the BBC-TV license fee from £139.50 to £142.50.
This is, without a doubt, a very interesting and rare move for a Tory leader to make in times of economic crisis. First of all, the BBC is the best broadcasting network in the world and it needs the license fee to survive.
Taking into consideration that the BBC does not broadcast commercial ads and that the only income it has at the moment is the license fee, it needs the money collected by the license fee payers to keep broadcasting those interesting high-quality documentaries and programmes.
However strange it might sound, in times of economic crisis and economic recession the best thing to do in order to help the country's economy is to spend money. Money that at same time must stay in Britain.
Reducing or freezing the license fee, even for a year, does not help the economy at all. On the contrary, it will make things harder for the BBC and most of the very-well-made, high-quality programmes that the BBC makes, will decline in quality.
It is also fair to mention that the the license fee does not only go to the BBC-TV programmes, but it supports all the BBC-radios across the country, the fantastic BBC website, and everything that has to do with the BBC in the UK.
British PM Gordon Brown declared his views towards the new price of alcohol in the UK, the BBC News website has reported today.
In a press conference held yesterday Mr Brown expressed that he will not interfere with the new law that has been considered by the Chief Medical Officer for England, Sir Liam Donaldson, who wants to increase the price of alcohol by 50p per every unit of alcohol.
This new law would make a regular bottle of wine of a minimum price of £3.00 a £4.50 bottle of wine. According to the BBC News website, England, unlike other European countries that have decreased the amount of alcohol consumed in a year, has increased it by 40%.
Although Mr. Brown has no intentions to stop the price of alcohol from being risen, he did show some concern about the ‘moderate’ drinkers. The BBC News website reported today: “He (Mr. Brown) said: I think these strong actions in public health are always controversial.”
BBC Radio 4 has broadcasted today that Mr. Brown does not think it is fair to penalize those who do not drink too much, for the fault of those who drink more.
The purpose of increasing the price of every alcohol unit sold in England is to stop heavy drinkers from becoming more addicted to alcohol. According to the BBC News website “the NHS bill for alcohol abuse is an estimated £2.7bn a year”
It is not a secret to anyone that many English people have drinking problems, and that every year more and more under-aged teenagers are starting to drink heavier types of alcohol more frequently.
Plus, after having seen that the measures towards smoking in public places taken more than two years ago worked - because it has been proved that since the law of non-smoking in public places made many people stop smoking - the government is now trying to apply the same strategy on alcohol laws.
Which – if you look at it this way – is a good thing, because in times of economic crisis and recession, it is better not to spend money on unnecessary things such as alcohol.
Instead of spending money on alcohol, we could spend that money on more useful things such as food, mortgage or invest it on saving. Plus, it is a fact that this new alcohol regulation will stop many people from getting violent in the streets every time they drink.
I agree with what the government is trying to do, and I believe it is one of the most reasonable ideas they have had in a long time.
Monday 06, April, 2009. A 6.4 earthquake has struck the central Italian town of L'Aquila today at early hours destroying many old as well as modern buildings and leaving at least 100 people dead and 1500 injured.
Monday 06, April, 2009. U.S. President Barack Obama was applauded today in the Turkish parliament after saying "the U.S. is not, and will never be at war with Islam." Mr. Obama visited Turkey today in what is his first official visit to a Muslim country as U.S. president. To find out more click here.
News must be the one topic that I'm most passionate about.
I love waking up in the morning and with a cup of coffee in hand read and analyse the latest news.
That's why I've decided to maintain and update this blog as many times a week as I can. My purpose is to give you a bit of information of how I believe the press treats every bit of information in every main story published by the biggest British newspapers.
