There has been a call from a "leading health expert" to lower the age of consent here in the UK.
Thankfully it has been rejected by "Downing Street".
I say thankfully, as currently teenagers here in the UK are required to stay in full-time education until they are 17, an there are plans to put the limit up to18 before teenagers leave full time education. If the age of consent had been lowered there would have been a situation where girls could have sex and possibly get pregnant, and still have to be at school. (Yes, I know that happens now, but usually the pupil is "educated elsewhere" once she starts to show.) IF...and thankfully it is not happening, but if it had, where would schools stand? Would there have had to been a change made? After all if sex at 15 had been made legal, then surely schools would have to allow for the possibility of pregnant students? And as I work in a school, I can't see that as a good thing. Not because of seeing pregnant teenage girls around, but because sometimes schools can be extremely busy, and walking down a corridor at the change of a lesson can be difficult, as they can get very crowded.
So, for once, I think the current government has made the correct decision in rejecting this proposal.
And have you noticed, when proposals like this are rejected, they never name the "expert". I, for one, would love to know why they truly thought lowering the age of consent would benefit any teenage girls? I believe the argument was to stop sexual abuse, how, it would stop it is not explained. However, I would think that sexual abuse can still be carried out whether the girl/woman is over the age of consent or not, as any unwanted attention constitutes sexual abuse as far as I can see. (That's my opinion though.)
Sunday, 17 November 2013
Wednesday, 13 November 2013
Windfarms and windbags
Here in the UK we are getting used to the sight of wind turbines...in a large group referred to as wind turbines, or wind farms.
OK
So why does a person, who is not a |UK resident get to take the Court of Sessions, (in Scotland,) to court, because an off shore windfarm will "spoil", (in his opinion,) the view from his "second UK golf course"?
OK, the man might be planning to build a luxury hotel and a "village" nearby....but the money this man is going to spend, the "village" will be beyond the budget of the local residents.
Why is he contesting the windfarm....other than it will "spoil the view"?
From my perspective...at first the turbines jarred with the landscape, but once you understand their role in energy production, they don't look so bad.......Plus...a row of "Windy Miller" windmills just wouldn't look right.
I'm all for alternative energy, and have said before that there is a huge "untapped" resources in London....perhaps we should see what power that "hot air" could generate first?
By the way, I truly hope the windbag from the USA does not succeed in his case...after all the windfarm if a joint EU project...not just UK based!
OK
So why does a person, who is not a |UK resident get to take the Court of Sessions, (in Scotland,) to court, because an off shore windfarm will "spoil", (in his opinion,) the view from his "second UK golf course"?
OK, the man might be planning to build a luxury hotel and a "village" nearby....but the money this man is going to spend, the "village" will be beyond the budget of the local residents.
Why is he contesting the windfarm....other than it will "spoil the view"?
From my perspective...at first the turbines jarred with the landscape, but once you understand their role in energy production, they don't look so bad.......Plus...a row of "Windy Miller" windmills just wouldn't look right.
I'm all for alternative energy, and have said before that there is a huge "untapped" resources in London....perhaps we should see what power that "hot air" could generate first?
By the way, I truly hope the windbag from the USA does not succeed in his case...after all the windfarm if a joint EU project...not just UK based!
Saturday, 9 November 2013
This should not happen.
What shouldn't? you are probably wondering.
Read this story.
Female genital mutilation, which entails removing the clitoris from usually pre-pubescent females. Or at least that is the theory. The removal is usually done with no pain relief, and often without the young girl's consent. It is basically an operation similar to circumcision, or that is what the supporters of it would have you believe.
There's more information here in this Wikipedia entry
The practise is barbaric. Yes, I know in most instances it is explained away as for "religious" reasons, but true religion is about a person's spirit and not their earthly body. I am not religious in the purest sense of the word, meaning I do not follow a "recognised" religion, or "One of the Big Five", the major world religions, but due have beliefs, which I won't air here, or anywhere else, as religion/beliefs are personal choices and should not be forced upon others.
However, back to the subject. How can removing part of the female anatomy without anaesthetic be anything but detrimental to the health of the person?
What the Wikipedia entry does not say is that until recent times this practise has been used in the USA, UK and Europe as a means of preventing female masturbation in patients in mental health institutions. (At the time it was thought that masturbation was a sign of madness in females, so that was probably why it was done.)
On the whole we need all the parts of our body that we are born with, and removal for purely religious reasons seems barbaric to me.
These are just my thoughts, and I'm just sharing them and not saying that you have to take them on board.
What I do think however, is if we in the UK want this practise to end in the UK, it needs more publicity. Yes I know that would make some people uncomfortable if documentaries were made, but to my knowledge the only time it has been mentioned on TV is as a subplot on Casualty.
Also, how is bringing this subject up on Facebook going to get to the notice of the government? Until the cultures accept that the "operation" is barbaric, and a way of manipulating women, nothing will change. As indeed it isn't doing, as it goes on in the UK by immigrants who claim it part of their way of life, within their male dominated cultures.
Read this story.
Female genital mutilation, which entails removing the clitoris from usually pre-pubescent females. Or at least that is the theory. The removal is usually done with no pain relief, and often without the young girl's consent. It is basically an operation similar to circumcision, or that is what the supporters of it would have you believe.
There's more information here in this Wikipedia entry
The practise is barbaric. Yes, I know in most instances it is explained away as for "religious" reasons, but true religion is about a person's spirit and not their earthly body. I am not religious in the purest sense of the word, meaning I do not follow a "recognised" religion, or "One of the Big Five", the major world religions, but due have beliefs, which I won't air here, or anywhere else, as religion/beliefs are personal choices and should not be forced upon others.
However, back to the subject. How can removing part of the female anatomy without anaesthetic be anything but detrimental to the health of the person?
What the Wikipedia entry does not say is that until recent times this practise has been used in the USA, UK and Europe as a means of preventing female masturbation in patients in mental health institutions. (At the time it was thought that masturbation was a sign of madness in females, so that was probably why it was done.)
On the whole we need all the parts of our body that we are born with, and removal for purely religious reasons seems barbaric to me.
These are just my thoughts, and I'm just sharing them and not saying that you have to take them on board.
What I do think however, is if we in the UK want this practise to end in the UK, it needs more publicity. Yes I know that would make some people uncomfortable if documentaries were made, but to my knowledge the only time it has been mentioned on TV is as a subplot on Casualty.
Also, how is bringing this subject up on Facebook going to get to the notice of the government? Until the cultures accept that the "operation" is barbaric, and a way of manipulating women, nothing will change. As indeed it isn't doing, as it goes on in the UK by immigrants who claim it part of their way of life, within their male dominated cultures.
Wednesday, 6 November 2013
Dear soap writers
Dear Soap script writers,
Why are you giving the child actors bratty things to do?
That brat Grace in Corrie is a nasty piece of work, a mini Tracey in the making, and as for Gabby in Emmerdale has been a brat ever since they gave her lines. It's about time Bernice went off somewhere and take her with her.
I know children can be brats and downright rude to adults, but does this have to be shown on TV before 9pm?
This is just my opinion. It just annoys me to see children being shown to be completely without any parental control, Bernice's reaction to Gabby's outburst seemed to be very dismissive.
Why are you giving the child actors bratty things to do?
That brat Grace in Corrie is a nasty piece of work, a mini Tracey in the making, and as for Gabby in Emmerdale has been a brat ever since they gave her lines. It's about time Bernice went off somewhere and take her with her.
I know children can be brats and downright rude to adults, but does this have to be shown on TV before 9pm?
This is just my opinion. It just annoys me to see children being shown to be completely without any parental control, Bernice's reaction to Gabby's outburst seemed to be very dismissive.
Feeling grotty
I'm not at work today, or rather haven't been, as it's past my finishing time. I've been cooking a cold or fluey thing for the past week or so. Yesterday by the time I got in from work I was drenched in sweat despite there being quite a fresh wind. This morning my neck, which has been intermittently stiff for well over a week is really stiff and my throat is sore and feels swollen inside. I've been having to use my inhaler as breathing is not as easy as it should be. If my neck is still like this when I go to see the doctor about something else on Friday, I'll mention it as it is quite uncomfortable. I think an early night is in order so that I'll be fit for work tomorrow. I hate feeling ill.
Friday, 1 November 2013
It's already on it.
Latest Thing in the news today! Health "bodies" want to put a 20% tax on soft drinks such as Coca Cola. Perhaps they've never worked in the retail sector, but there is already 20% tax on such drinks...it's called VAT, and is on all non -essential items.
There are a few oddities in what are deemed non-essentials. For example, there is VAT on energy, not at 20%, but surely energy is an essential for modern life? (I mean gas ans electricity here.)
Also there is VAT on "feminine hygiene products", OK, it's on men's shaving essentials as well, but it is not anti-social to grow a beard, however it would be fairly difficult for women to go about their normal routines without using feminine hygiene products as and when needed.
My point is, people should check out facts before advocating things
There are a few oddities in what are deemed non-essentials. For example, there is VAT on energy, not at 20%, but surely energy is an essential for modern life? (I mean gas ans electricity here.)
Also there is VAT on "feminine hygiene products", OK, it's on men's shaving essentials as well, but it is not anti-social to grow a beard, however it would be fairly difficult for women to go about their normal routines without using feminine hygiene products as and when needed.
My point is, people should check out facts before advocating things
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
