Government – The Daily Opinion

Military Called for Olympic Duty

It was announced that 3,500 additional military personnel have had to be called in for the London Olympic Games after revelations that the private security firm G4S couldn’t supply the required number of people. But now there’s a big storm in the media and people are honestly complaining about this.

G4S isn’t under the control of anyone. They are essentially just mercenaries on the government payroll. If we have to use more of our armed forces to protect London 2012 then what’s the issue? I would feel safer having my own men keeping me safe than a random security firm who couldn’t care less whether you live or die. They get paid no matter what happens. More importantly, I’d like to think that bringing the military in costs a lot less as we are already paying for their upkeep.

Oh but what about dragging the military away from their duties outside of the London Olympic Games? Well that’s true. You are dragging them away from their normal duties, but those normal duties are nothing special. If we are whining because we have to use the armed forces for protection in our own country then can somebody tell me the point of them? If they are not there for protection then they have no purpose. If that’s the case then surely the cuts to the armed forces that will eliminate 20,000 people are justified as they don’t have a purpose?

Back to the point, though, I’m surprised we didn’t use the military from the very beginning. We have all of those troops based at home just sat around scratching their arses or waiting to go and get blown up in Afghanistan. So surely the best place for them is at London 2012 because they are getting real world experience in an actual operation? What’s more, they are situated in the capital which is the heart of all of the military intelligence, so it’s really the best place for them.

I know we don’t know much about the cost of G4S and their private security services, but I would still opt for the military even if it happens to be more expensive. Look at G4S, they are not military men, they are just private security personnel. The military are going to be better trained and better able to deal with any threat. If we used the military exclusively then operations would be simplified as well due to the fact that you’re not coordinating with multiple bodies. All you have to do then is run it past yourself.

So I’m really not seeing the problem with bringing more of our own forces in to protect the London Olympic Games. They are going to be better trained, better organised, and the chances are they are going to be cheaper than bringing in an outsider.

Locked-In, In More Ways Than One

The chances are that you’ve already heard of the case being put forward by the family of 58-year-old Tony Nicklinson. Tony suffers from a syndrome known as locked-in syndrome. This syndrome arose due to the fact that he had a stroke that left him paralysed everywhere, but his mind still functions perfectly.

As a result of his injuries, he can now only communicate through a special computer. This computer monitors his eye movements and allows him to speak. The case being put forward is that he wants it to be made legal for a doctor to allow him to die, but the government has said that this will authorise murder.

On one hand, the government is right. Such a system would be open to corruption from dodgy doctors and those who would happily kill off ailing relatives in an attempt to claim what they have without waiting. Yes, this corruption would be there, but it’s also something that has to be worked around. You can’t just accept that nothing can be done about corruption. You can’t just accept this and refuse to implement a better system because of it.

What the government is essentially doing is condemning Mr. Nicklinson to years and years of misery at the hands of locked-in syndrome. And make no mistake, he’s not ill. What irritates him is the fact that he’s still perfectly healthy and he will live for years and years to come. And he will have to live like that for the rest of his life. That’s why he wants to die, but why shouldn’t he be allowed to die? Switzerland has a system where people can get doctors to kill them, a process known as euthanasia.

We have the basic human right that we have a right to life, so surely we also have the right to die? I’m quite frankly sick of the rubbish from the past that says that every life is sacred. No, it’s not. Life is not sacred. It’s just a life like every other animal on the planet. They are our lives. And our lives are something that we should be able to end if we feel like it. Suicide is now legal under the Suicide Act of 1961, and with the excellent safeguards against malpractice in euthanasia other countries have in place, it is an antiquated idea that it should be illegal. It’s unfair and it’s just plain wrong. It’s almost as if it’s admitting that the government has control over our lives.

This case of locked-in syndrome comes just after another case where an anorexic woman from Wales, who wanted to die, ended up in court. The terrifying thing is that even though the woman wished to die, the judge ruled against her and declared that she must be force-fed to prevent her death.

Now we are not only avoiding the issue, we are actively working against it.

Justice

Is the Internet for Them or for Us?

Recent internet governance is ambiguous at best as it’s no longer just the domain of that strange guy you see on the bus. It’s the domain of anyone who wants to try and take control of it. Conspiracy theorists have tried to yell and scream over the years that the governments of the world are attempting to use their tentacles to ensnare the internet and take it over like some strange Japanese porn flick, and it turns out they were right.

Internet ball — I wonder what's in the centre? I hope it's chocolate.

As we can see from recent legislation in the UK, the government is attempting to force internet providers to make all information about email messages and web history available to police for approximately one year. And we all know about internet restrictions in China and Iran. In fact, even little Ethiopia is getting in on the act as they attempt to bring in more restrictions to bring the internet under the control of the state.

What’s clear is this: internet governance is now a very real possibility.

Is there anything we can do about it though? The answer is absolutely. We can take on the governments of the world because we know that they are slow and clunky. If one of their security fields can be bypassed then it will take them months, and sometimes years, to sort out the problems again. I’m not worried for the conspiracy theorists or the computer geeks out there because people like us laugh in the face of the state’s attempts at restricting access to certain areas. Just look at the recent Pirate Bay ban. One proxy later and I’m back in my lovely bay of brothels, seadogs, rum, and questionable downloads.

Can the government take the whole thing over?

My answer is absolutely not. The only way that they could do this is if they turned into a dictatorial state where they directly admitted that they were controlling the internet. At the moment we are still playing a guerrilla game as they still pretend that they are doing this in the interest of justice and law. And as any good computer user knows, that couldn’t be more wrong. Those who deal in crime will not be fooled by some minor blocking techniques. All this will catch is the novices and the innocent, so in other words it’s a complete waste of time. And it’s not just a waste of time, it’s a £1.8 billion waste of time from the UK taxpayer.

The Dictator

For now, I can confidently say that the freedom of the internet still lives on and internet governance has not yet come into force in the western world, but I do have my fears. Those computer novices will be suffering already, but those with even the slightest nugget of knowledge will still be safe. I don’t think that there will be any outright control over the internet anytime soon. However, our freedom will be steadily eroded away in the coming years.

Get those tinfoil hats out, conspiracy theorists and normal people alike!

Why Does Nom Nom Time Turn to Hospital Time?

There are many reasons why that great looking tin of sardines would be good to eat, but there are also many reasons why the emergency room is a good possibility. That’s right, the Food Standards Agency has conducted a study that has shown that more and more people are getting food poisoning due to food that was consumed when it should have gone in the bin.

But why did they do this? Well it’s not because they were suddenly exposed to radiation that caused mass brain damage. It’s because they decided to make food go further by utilising leftovers and the power of smell. In other words, the date on the packet was completely ignored; although the people who wrote about this seemed genuinely surprised.

Anyway, the Food Standards Agency is expecting the number of food poisoning cases to peak this summer so we don’t actually know how bad it will get yet. According to them, though, it will get much worse.

If I had to give my opinion I can tell you exactly why more and more people are now taking a risk by just smelling food instead of obeying the date on the packet.

1. People just can’t afford to buy so much food these days. Food prices are going up all the time and it’s getting to that point where lots of meals just aren’t worth creating anymore. The government always moans that we should be healthy and we should spend hours cooking these elaborate meals, and yet what they don’t seem to understand is that the bad food tends to be the cheapest food, and that’s all that many people can afford. Lower food prices and this wouldn’t happen as much.

2. The unemployment rates. Regardless of how expensive food prices are, it doesn’t matter if there’s no money coming into a household. People are still losing jobs even today and it only looks to get worse as Spain announces that it needs a bailout. So if people can’t afford good food then they are going to take a risk. We have a free healthcare system so it’s cheaper to actually get food poisoning. Start getting people back to work and the numbers will go down.

3. Travel costs. If you look at those who commute to work in this country then you will quickly discover that it’s one of the biggest expenses around. The buses and the trains are an absolute joke in this country. We have to pay some of the highest prices in Europe for trains where we might not even get a seat. Here’s an idea. I would rather have my taxes raised if the government could nationalise both of those industries and lower the prices.

Empty fridge

All of those reasons contribute to the rising number of food poisoning cases, and the Food Standards Agency will be recognising this. What people need to accept is that if you are going to implement austerity in a country then you are not only making the people depressed but you are also making them unhealthy. It just seems to be incredibly unfair that everybody else has to suffer because a few prats at the top won an election every five years and now think they can play in the Casino of Capitalism.

Will We Soon be Booking Doctor Appointments and Accessing Medical Records Online?

The Coalition government has today unveiled plans for patients that allow them to book appointments with their GPs online, as well as check test results on the Internet too. Apps for smartphones are to be developed and patients will have access to all their medical records online as well. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said these plans will give patients more power.

Personally, I welcome this move because I tend to use technology every day. I use a smartphone and actually prefer to have most aspects of my life online, from banking to shopping. This move would really hone in the advances in technology and would allow the NHS to become a more accessible part of people’s lives.

I understand the dilemma a lot of patients face on a Monday morning when they have to book an appointment with their GP, often having to spend a considerable amount of time on the telephone trying to get in to see their doctor. In many cases, when individuals do finally get through they are offered an appointment much later in the week, or in some dire cases the following week. My elderly grandmother faces this dilemma each time she has to book an appointment, and to be honest it really isn’t fair. Much like it isn’t fair for people with children to spend so much time out of their day telephoning their local surgery when they really need to be doing much more important things in their lives. In that respect, you’d think that most people would welcome this plan, wouldn’t you?

There are critics of these new plans for the NHS. As ever, we need to look at the positives and negatives of the changes. We might be keen to see the NHS adapt to the 21^st century advances in technology, but many patients may not be ready to put their phone down and pick up a laptop. A lot of elderly patients will feel left behind, out of the loop and quite frankly angered by the new plans. In the technologically advanced generation we find ourselves in, are our older generations being left out or should they in fact embrace any future advances in technology?

The government needs to tread carefully when these plans are turned into reality so that users who don’t have Internet access or don’t use smartphones are included and can still easily access their local NHS branches.

It’s not only about being able to book appointments online. Patients will eventually have access to their medical records online, as well as test results being made available online too. This will raise questions about the issue of security for the proposed plans. Is allowing patients’ medical records to be accessed online a good thing, or will it be only a matter of time before hackers make their own plans to sabotage this information?

However, the government plan to enhance the system of booking appointments, they obviously need to take into account people’s views on security and sensitivity about their private information online.

But, to the vast majority of Internet users, who use online banking and enter their bank details online on a daily basis, is it any different accessing your medical records online and having test results sent through cyberspace?

Student Loan Debt, Insert Sarcastic Slow Clap Here

We all remember the student protests and everything else that came with the government’s decision to boost tuition fees up to £9,000 a year. And the Liberal Democrats are paying for most of it. But there was something that was forgotten in the debate over education: the government promised that these additional costs to the state would peak at about £50bn in 2030.

Well that may have been a little bit of a miscalculation/error/blatant lie as a new study by Andrew McGettigan, for the Intergenerational Foundation, has revealed that it could be around the £100bn mark instead. And he did this by measuring the potential impact of allowing students to pay back only if they are earning at least £21,000 a year.

If this is true – which at the moment it looks like it’s turning out to be – then we can easily see why. Let’s look at why there are so many people going to university in the first place. This originally started a few years ago when the Labour Party thought it would be a good idea to get around 50% of all British teenagers into university. So they did that. But when the economic situation deteriorated they realised that allowing so many students to enter university at £3,000 a year wasn’t really that sustainable anymore as universities generally can’t afford to take on that many students at that level whilst sustaining themselves.

So the latest government took a little bit of a u-turn and decided to let universities charge up to £9,000 a year; with only a few universities with special consideration being allowed to charge the full price. So what happened? Inevitably, the main universities charged the full amount, but then everybody decided to follow and “special consideration” seemed to melt away like recent voter turnouts. Ok, that didn’t go to plan. That then led to a 9% reduction in the number of people applying to university on the next application cycle.

But the problem is they have also raised the level at which students have to start paying back their £9,000 a year student loan, to £21,000. This would be fine if economic times were great and people were riding to work on golden horses, but that’s not the case. So now the government is lending out £9,000 a year to students who won’t be able to ever pay back that loan.

Let’s look at the facts. £9,000 a year + maintenance loans for many = £27,000 minimum for the minority of students who didn’t need maintenance loans. Students need to have a job paying £21,000 a year in order to start paying back their student loan. Now take a look at the starter jobs these days. Those jobs are offering salaries of between £16,000 and £18,000, most of the time. So the student would have to remain in that job for quite a few years before hitting that £21,000 threshold.

The government now has to wait for their loan.

Another problem, though, is that many students have been misled. They are taking degrees that are completely worthless. And, yes, media studies is a worthless degree, and no I don’t care about which teacher made themselves a success from it, they are in the tiny minority. Those degrees won’t get them jobs. And that’s not all, even those students who are doing a degree that happens to be worth a damn have been misled as they believe that a degree warrants them a job. This means they will have absolutely zero experience as they are thinking that they are going to swagger in the door and kick that poor uneducated, working class buffoon out.

I read a BBC report last year that talked about how many employers find that graduates are not ready for the real world of work and can’t even do basic things. That sort of thing is rife, and it’s precisely why many graduates are out of work. Employers are rarely interested in students with a degree and little experience. A degree is a piece of paper, and not a lot else.

The unemployment rate for young people in this country is disgraceful, and many of them are graduates. So how does the government think it’s going to get its money back anytime soon? The economic crisis isn’t going to fix itself, and developments in the Eurozone only look to be making things worse. The answer is that the government won’t be getting its money back at all. Instead, the burden will be shifted back to the public, so now you’ve just increased the deficit due to your pathetic handling of the student loan situation.

It makes me wonder why they just didn’t keep university funding up and then leave the fees alone instead. Or, alternatively, they could have just stopped promoting the idea that every teenager should go to university. That’s nothing but a blind effort to get these young people off of the unemployment figures. The lower the figures the better the political situation for the government. You have to pity the saps who fell for it, though, don’t you?

What do you think about the current situation with university education, and how do you think they should have gone about it?