UK's Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's husband (Richard Timney) causes porn scandal in the UK

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. 

The picture used for this article was taken from www.timesonline.co.uk 

BBC News article used to write this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7970731.stm

Jacqui Smith's profile (Wikipedia):

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

What is an PM? (Wikipedia):

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

Downing Street's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Media's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Newspaper's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Tabloid press' profile (Wikipedia):

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

Definition of pornography (Wikipedia):

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

Mexico's war-on-drugs profile (Wikipedia):

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

Mexico's profile (Wikipedia):

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

G20 Protests are a wast of time and 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? 

The picture used for this article was taken from www.guardian.co.uk

Guardian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/28/g20-protest-police-rainbow-alliance

G20's Website:

http://www.g20.org/

G20's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20_industrial_nations

Put People's Website:

http://www.putpeoplefirst.org.uk/

Rainbow Alliance's Website:

http://www.ralliance.org/

Action Aid's Website:

http://www.actionaid.org/

Friends of Earth's Website:

http://www.foe.co.uk/

London Metropolitan Police's Website:

http://www.met.police.uk/

London Metropolitan Police's profile (Wikipedia):

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

London Metropolitan University's Website:

http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/

Silvio Berlusconi: Italy's Right- and Left-wing parties merge to form Italy's political dream

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. 

The Pictures used for this article were taken from www.timesonline.co.uk, www.smh.com.au

and www.dailymail.co.uk

Times Online article used to write this story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5983437.ece

Sidney Morning Herald related article:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/berlusconis-communist-claims/2006/03/27/1143330959861.html

Alleanza Nazionale's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Alliance_(Italy)

Forza Italia's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Silvio Berlusconi's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Il Popolo Della Liberta Website:

http://www.forzaitalia.it/

Il Popolo Della Liberta's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Italy's profile (wikipedia):

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

Benito Mussolini's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Democrazia Cristiana or Christian Democracy's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democracy_(Italy,_historical)

Gordon Brown: We'll take more budgets if necessary

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 England Mervyn 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. 

The pictures used for this article were taken from www.dailymail.co.uk

BBC News article taken to write this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7962654.stm

Mail Online article used to write this story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164440/Brown-attacks-avarice-bankers-puts-big-spending-Budget-hold.html

Wall Street Journal related article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123797598592936463.html

Gordon Brown's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Mervyn King's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mervyn_King_(economist)

Bank of England's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Bank of England website:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/

Labour Party's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)

Conservative Party's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)

Barack Obama: Bush! Global Warming is all your fault!

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. 

This picture was taken from www.guardian.co.uk

Guadian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/global-warming-public-health-america

Independent article used to write this story:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/dumped-in-africa-britain8217s-toxic-waste-1624869.html

Barack Obama's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Global Warming (Wikipedia):

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

Carbon dioxide emissions (Wikipedia):

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

Recycling (Wikipedia):

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

White House profile (Wikipedia):

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

White House website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Gordon Brown strikes against terrorism

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 picture used for this article was taken from www.telegraph.co.uk

Guardian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/22/gordon-brown-terrorism

Gordon Brown's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Al-Qaida's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Israeli Army kills civilians. Mistake?

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. 

The pictures used for this article were taken from www.timesonline.co.uk and www.independent.co.uk 

Independent article used to write this story:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israels-dirty-secrets-in-gaza-1649527.html

Times Online article used to write this story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5939611.ece

Gaza's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Deranged pervert Josef Fritzl gets life sentence

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.

The pictures used for this article were taken from: http://www.thesun.co.uk/ and http://www.expressen.se/

Guardian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/19/josef-fritzl-jailed-for-life

Sun article used to write this story:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2328061.ece

Josef Fritzl case profile (Wikipedia):

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

More tuition fees for UK students

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 picture used for this article was taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news

BBC News article used to write this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7946912.stm

Find out more information about the London Metropolitan University debt here:

http://socialismrightnow.blogspot.com/

David Cameron: 'no more TV license fee for the BBC'

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.

The picture used for this article used taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/

Independent article used to write this story:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-would-freeze-bbc-fee-1646289.html

David Cameron's profile (Wikipedia):

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

The BBC's profile (Wikipedia):

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

The BBC website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

BBC-TV Licence fee:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/

Gordon Brown: 'cheap alcohol is killing us'

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.

The picture used for this article was taken from: http://www.virginmedia.com/ and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/

BBC News article used to write this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7945357.stm

Independent related article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pm-rejects-minimum-alcohol-price-idea-1646077.html

Times Online related article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5916887.ece

Gordon Brown's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Osama Bin Landen talks again but he wouldn't show up

Osama Bin Laden, the most wanted criminal of all times released a voice recorded document today where he accuses muslim countries for not taking action against Israel when it was needed - during the latest attacks on Gaza - the Daily Telegraph has reported today.

Bin Laden reveals that he considers the muslim countries that are not taking actions against Israel as "hypocrites" and calls upon the muslims of the world to take action against Israel for what they have done to Gaza.

In the last two months Bin Laden has released 2 voice recorded documents, and before this, the last video recorded by him was released more than two years ago. To me, there is something that isn't right.

First of all, Israel was just trying to finish with Hamas - a terrorist group that uses children was human shelter, and oppresses its own people. Unfortunately, because of the 'humanitarian's actions' Israel had to stop their operations and now Hamas can easily get ready to stricken again.

Bin Landen is well-known for releasing videos where he - around gun machines and other heavy arsenal - shows his face and reads his speech. After a while of not doing this, he suddenly releases two voice recorded documents one after the other in two months. What is stopping me from thinking that this terrorist is dead and that someone is trying to take his place secretly?

Osama Bin Laden is just the biggest coward the world has ever seen. If he was really a hero - as some people do consider him - why doesn't he show his face, instead of hiding behind other people's suicide actions?

The world criticizes the American government for having troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but at the same time they seem to forget that there is a war out there against terrorists who hate everything and everyone, people who think the world would be better of without the western world.

The picture used for this article was taken from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Daily Telegraph article used to write this story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/4991580/Osama-bin-Laden-attacks-crooked-Arab-leaders.html

Osama Bin Laden's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Evo Morales eats coca leaf in the UN - has he gone mad?

Bolivia's president Evo Morales took a coca leaf out of his pocket and ate it in front of many other important political figures in the UN today, the Independent reported today.

Mr. Morales made a statement saying that coca leafs are not drugs and that they don't do any harm to the human bodies.

He claims that coca leafs can be used as medicine, as the native Bolivians have been using them for decades.

The Independent reported today: "President Morales, a former peasant coca farmer, brandished the leaf during an impassioned speech, saying: This is coca leaf, this is not cocaine, this is part and parcel of a culture."

President Morales of Bolivia is in a long-term campaign to legalize coca leaf importation to the US and Europe.

His scope is to show the world that with the right treatment, the medical power of coca leafs can be used to cure some light and fatal illnesses.

However, the reality is more complex than what it seems. Why hasn't Mr. Morales been given the opportunity to export coca leafs if the scope of this action is to make medicines that, at the end of the day, will be used to help human lives?

Because unfortunately, if anyone were given the opportunity to export coca leafs there will always be a group of people who will always find their way to use the leaf for other purposes (drug making and drug dealing).

I believe that the US, Britain and Europe have already got too many drug problems and making one 'drug' legal will not do any good to us.

The picture used for this article was taken from http://vivirlatino.com/

Independent article used to write this story:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/this-is-a-coca-leaf-not-cocaine-insists-morales-1643098.html

Evo Morales' profile (Wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales

Bolivia's Profile (Wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia

Madoff apologises but still goes to prison

Bernard Madoff revealed that he was "sorry" for all the damage he made when he stole one of the largest quantities of money in the history of the Wall Street, the Independent reported today.

According to the Independent, the 70-year-old businessman - Bernard Madoff - is believed to have stolen as much as $65 billion in what is believed by the American authorities a long-term operation.

The Independent reported today: "His (Madoff's) investors included hedge funds, banks, Jewish charities, the wealthy, and small individual investors in North and South America and Europe."

Mr. Madoff could face up to 150 years in prison for the 11 charges he is accused of. Mr. Madoff pleaded guilty today after saying he was sorry.

This is history in the making. I believe that this case is one of the most remarkable cases of our times because of the economic situations we're passing through, and the fact that someone who stole such an amount of money is going to prison is a total inspiration for those who still don't believe in justice.

No other businessman with Madoff's records had been officially charged in a court of law before.

I believe that even if we apologise for the "mistakes" we make - which in this case, no mistakes were made because the whole operation was well-planned - we still have to pay the consequences of our actions. For this businessman, the consequences are 150 years in prison.

The picture was for this article was taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news

Independent article used to write this story:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/madoff-admits-blockbuster-fraud-1643525.html

Bernard Madoff's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Does the tabloid press need limits? Is it too abusive? Do the tabloid press offer what the public wants, or what the public needs?

Gerry McCann; father of the missing girl Madeline McCann; faced MPs today and accused the media 'specially the press' of miss-leading general information about Madeline's case.

Mr. McCann also accused the press of focusing their articles too much on the private lives of those close to Madeline - specially Mr and Mrs McCann - instead of giving the public information about the missing girl, the BBC News Website and BBC News Channel have reported today.

Mr. McCann described some of the actions of the press as not helpful at all.

The BBC News Website reported: "Mr McCann told the MPs: Although elements of the media coverage have undoubtedly been helpful in the ongoing search for Madeline, out family have been the focus of some of the most sensationalist, untruthful, irresponsible and damaging reporting in the history of the press."

Madeline McCann disappeared while on holiday with her parents in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on night of the 3rd of May 2007 while her parents went for dinner and left her (Madeline) in the hotel alone.

The investigation against her parents - Madeline's parents were accused of murdering Madeline by the Portuguese police - was closed just before Mr and Mrs McCann headed to their home in Leicestershire, England in September 2007.

However Mr. McCann wasn't the only one to give accusations against the press. Max Mosley, another victim of the destructive articles of the tabloid press referred to the stories that the press wrote about him as (the BBC News Channel reported) if you went to your home and found your front door opened and your things stolen. Only worse because you can get your things back but your "dignity" can never be recovered.

Mr. Mosley; the leader of the FIA (Federation Internationale de L'Automobile) was secretly filmed by the News of the World (British Sunday Newspaper) having - what was called by the press - a Nazi orgy with five prostitutes who were all wearing Nazi uniforms while Mr. Mosley wore a concentration camp prisoner's uniform. The tabloid press accused Mr. Mosley of being a nazi because of the whole orgy scene.

It also brought up that Mosley's father was involved in nazi movements during the Second World War.

It is not a secret that the tabloid press would do anything against anyone just to get a story that sells newspapers. Tabloids such as the Sun, the Daily Star, the Daily Mirror and many others do not worry about the damaging the private lives of those who the tabloids target.

I as a journalism student and as a blogger disagree with the tabloid press because it does not educate nor does it inform the public of the important issues they're supposed to know. All the tabloid press does is provide the public with poisonous stories that only damage the private lives of many important people and celebrities.

I believe private lives - even the private lives of celebrities - should never be shown to the public and that the authorities should make harder rules for those newspapers that focused their pages to disrespect people.

And although both the McCann family and Mr. Mosley were given apologies and a large amount of money in compensation by those newspapers that exploded their images, no amount of money nor apologies can take back the embarrassing situations that these press-victims went through.

The picture of Madeline McCann was taken from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ and the picture of Max Mosley was taken from http://www.topnews.in/

BBC News article used to write this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7935156.stm

Guardian related article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/10/madeleine-mccann-father-press-regulation

Madeline McCann's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Madeline McCann's disappearance facts by the BBC News Website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7548108.stm

Max Mosley's profile (Wikipedia):

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

Northern Ireland attack - the IRA is back

Two British soldiers were yesterday night (Saturday night) shot dead in a British military base in Northern Ireland. The more-than-one-decade term of peace was all the sudden interrupted when (according to Sky News TV Channel) three men took advantage of a pizza delivery and shot with automatic guns four soldiers as they approached the door to pick up the pizzas. The names of the soldiers have not yet been publicized.

The soldiers were not the only people to get hurt by the attack. According to the Guardian, two other military men and two pizza delivery guys were badly injured. Among the pizza delivery guys was a 32-year-old Polish citizen, who worked as a pizza delivery guy. He was badly hurt and was last night in a critical condition. According to authorities, the mercenaries were well-armed and prepared to commit a massacre.

According to the Guardian, the motive for this attack was the accusations that the new police service's chief of Northern Ireland, Sir Hugh Orde directed to the Republican party of Northern Ireland. The Guardian reported today: "Sir Hugh Orde said: there was a growing threat of violence from dissident republicans. A huge police manhunt is now under way."

This attack was not believed to be an act of the IRA until a phone call made by an anonymous caller - claiming to be an IRA soldier - to the Sunday Tribune newspaper's offices in Dublin declared that the total responsibility belongs to the IRA. The call was made by a unidentified person who used code language - such as the code language that the original IRA used.

The Guardian also reported: "A journalist at the Dublin-based Sunday Tribune's office in Belfast said that the newspaper took a call claiming responsibility for the attack by the Real IRA's Antrim brigade."

There is no doubt that this is the a terrorist attack, and taking into consideration all that happened in Northern Ireland during the 80s - as many in the streets believe - this could be the beginning of a serious of attacks from a new and stronger IRA. However, why would the IRA come back after more than a decade of peace? And what are they after now?

I believe with no doubt that this could be a start of a new era of battles against a new IRA, but I also believe that the government and the British people are more prepared to fight against a new IRA.

It must be taken into consideration that the IRA has weakened after more than 10 years of not being active and I believe that this attack is an alert from a minor group of people who want to start something that has been over for more than a decade.

The picture used for this article was taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news

Guardian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/08/northern-ireland-soldiers-killed-antrim

Northern Ireland profile (Wikipedia):

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

Northern Ireland related articles (Guardian):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/northernireland

IRA profile (Wikipedia):

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