How young is too young? Unsocial Media

A question that looms over ever parent about what age should they allow their child into the scary World Wide Web. Cyber bullying stories are something we see far too often, so can you blame a parent for wanting to keep their child as far away as possible from it.

Facebook’s terms of use states that children no younger than 13 should join the environment of Facebook, however children will always find a way round it, in this case it is simple to just lie about your age, therefore making it very difficult for Facebook to know whether someone is under age, relying on reports of violators. Despite this reports are circulating that the social media giant is considering easing its age restrictions.  In a Consumer Reports survey from 2011, it was estimated that about 7.5 million children younger than 13 already belonged to Facebook.

However this raised the question to me do children any younger than 13 actually need to be on Facebook?

Having an age limit on Facebook and other social networking sites is not only difficult, but surely every child is different. Is this where the parents need to step in and have control over what their child is doing, asking themselves the question, is my child ready to socialise in this big wide world with children much older than them or even adults?

Peer pressure at school will forever be there weather it’s the latest pair of trainers, toy or yoyo, if you don’t have it in the school playground, you just don’t fit in.  So as a parent what do you do? Do you give in because everyone else is doing it? Even though you know that doesn’t mean it is a good idea? Or do you keep your child off the sites, resulting to them being secretive and joining Facebook behind your back anyway?

Does the problem with cyber bullying stem from the fact that the children are too young or no matter what ages they are, is it because they aren’t educated enough? Children make the mistake of interacting with inappropriate people online. They fill out the boxes on their profile not knowing really how much information they are actually giving away making children extremely vulnerable on Social networking sites.

Something that has been in the media recently is the tragic case of Canadian school girl Amanda Todd, after being the victim of cyber bullying from many years the only way she felt she could escape from it was by tragically taking her own life.

Cases like this show the severity of the effects of cyber bullying; Amanda wasn’t the first victim of cyber bullying which resulted to taking her own like and most probably won’t be the last. So how can this be stopped, unfortunately we are in a world where we can’t escape social networking. So what do you think the best way to protect your child form cyber bullies is?

Do they need more education or tighter age restrictions?

Let’s start the debate

Gabriella

WWW censorship: F!&k ethics. should the web be open to anything?

Censorship is a part of everyday life which, if you are aware of it or not – affects all of us. When we go to the cinema, each and every film is vetted by the BFI, editing parts which are deemed too offensive or too disturbing. When we listen to music, depending on which radio station you listen to, your favourite song may have the word shit replaced by the word ‘ish’. Whatever the situation, you may not have a choice of what you do and do not see or hear. On the whole censorship is thought of as a positive tool to protect the public from material which may cause offence.

The internet is a censor’s nightmare; Access all areas springs to mind! With the World Wide Web, within an instant you can be trawling through graphic images of deceased victims of war, or find yourself staring at naked men and women making funny noises and doing a lot of hugging. Hail Mary, full of grace, the lord is with thee…

My point is: Should the web be open to anything? Should there be greater limits and restrictions imposed? 

Sure, you can Self-censor the web by electing to not click on ‘that’ site, or change your settings to incorporate a ‘safe search’ but the information is there. It hasn’t been pre-selected and edited like a TV programme and it isn’t protecting the vulnerable and naïve audience who have access to the internet. So, should it? A recent Fox news article describes how the UN is proposing tougher web restrictions.

Watch the FULL video at video.foxnews.com

The gathering, to be held on 3^rd December, will focus its attention on combatting internet fraud, spam and cross-border access. Search engines, such as Google are being urged to enforce greater internet restrictions, or a pay scheme to allow access from users that are cross-borders. Following suit of countries such as China and the United Arab Emirates – who, last month imposed internet restrictions to impose charges for offenses which deem to be insulting to the rulers, enabling authorities to take action. Isn’t this just a suppression tactic, to take our freedom away? The idea that curbing internet content would only prevent the next phase of development, the world wide web has to offer – It has come so far and grown to be a hugely accessible space where we are allowed our access to freedom and what other media outlets won’t show us, I can only help but think this would be a shame to destroy this.

This brings me onto my own experience of censorship – or there lack of. I am a HUGE fan of reality TV and an even bigger fan of Rap and Hip Hop music.

I love watching Gary and Charlotte from Geordie Shore ‘Tash on’ and get ‘mortal’,

I love listening to Drake rap about how he’s going to ‘smoke some weed and have sex with some b!tches’,

– hell, I’m even partial to a film about a roaring chainsaw slicing through a poor teenagers torso!

But what I wasn’t quite ready for, was the audacious display of nudity, foul language and overall sexualisation of MTV’s The Valleys: Nine youngsters who come from rural wales in the search for fame and fortune. I can think of two other things that I did see beginning with the letter ‘F’ that I could have typed into Google with the safe search off, and wouldn’t have been as shocked. The show does have a disclaimer which flashes before every episode, but who really takes notice of that?

Okay, so slightly off topic from the World Wide Web issue, but I’ve highlighted the problem. You can’t escape censorship and one person’s idea of light entertainment is another’s shock and dismay!

Censorship in my view, is a great thing as it protects us from obscenities and vulgarity, but I always think that we crave the dark side of things. Whether it be to satisfy our curiosity, to investigate deeper; If you are denied something enough, you’re natural instinct is to crave it even more. On the other hand censorship takes away our freedom, it limits us from seeing the raw footage – who is to say what is good for us, or more to the point, who can tell me what I can’t watch or listen to – I may want to hear foul language and see a bit of gore – but at my discretion!

I’d like to hear your thoughts on the World Wide Web and whether you think it should be open to anything? or should there be greater limits or restrictions imposed?

Lets start the debate!

Josh

Thousands mourn for Bangladesh fire victims

Thousands of people have gathered outside the factory to mourn for the estimated 110 that died.

The real price of Labour.

Saturday evening  24^th November, whilst we were at home watching the usual frivolous Saturday night TV, a fire was racing through 9 floors of a garment factory in Ashulia just outside the capital of Bangladesh killing over 120 people.

The garment factory in Ashulia, operated by Tazreen Fashions had been said to of been making clothes for Wal-Mart, Disney, Sears and other major global retailers – some of whom claim they thought they had stopped doing business with the factory.

In various interviews with factory employees it has been reported that office management was telling workers not to evacuate immediately and to stay where they were.  Witnesses claimed many workers lept from upper stories in a bid to escape the flames. Twelve workers died in hospital from injuries from falls.

A week ago the cause of the fire was unclear, this wasn’t the first of garment factory fires, however a guilty employee of Tazreen Fashion, admitted to setting fire to the factory for Tk 20,000 from an official of the factory.

In light of this just two days ago, less than a week after the fire, it was reported that three arrests of the factory supervisors have been made. The government has opened two inquiries, with more interviews with the survivors revealing they had been told by the supervisors not to move as it was just a routine fire drill. The second enquiry entails the rumours that in fact the fire exit doors were bolted shut.

These acquisitions and enquiries have been raised with suspicions that the fire was intentional, in order for the owner to receive the insurance compensation of Tk 18cr.

The factory blaze will make people look at the conditions and the safety once again of the workers producing clothes for the Western world.

Consumers will always opt for the cheap disposable fashion offered to us with uncertain provenance. Therefore, once again it comes back to the consumer. Will we take a stand for cheap clothing once and for all? I doubt it.

With factory incidents, mostly being fires, killing over 600 workers since 2006 in Bangladesh alone what more will it take to stop cheap labour and improving the safety and protection rights for factory workers? 

I want to hear your views.

Lets start the debate!

Gabriella

Are car manufacturers being economic with the truth?

You’ve got a quarter of a tank left. You know your journey is going to take you at least half a tank. Shoot! The dreaded Red petrol light has come on. Next stop? The gas station! ‘Wow’, you think, ‘I’m sure it wasn’t this much last time’?! But you fill her up, because after all, as much as we moan, we need our cars!

With the extortionate price of fuel, rising cost of tax and general awareness surrounding emissions, it is more than likely that the factors when purchasing a new car are swayed in favour of economy and frugality. We’re thinking with our heads, not our hearts here. Miles per gallon (MPG) and how much CO2 a vehicle emits is a huge weighting on deciding ‘this is the car for me’. In short, the more MPG a car can reach, the better, and the less CO2 produced, the better – and cheaper! So, with this in mind, vehicle manufacturers are battling for the pole position of producing the most economic vehicles:  Claims such as an average MPG of 45 – so you can go further and spend less on re-fuelling, emitting 98g of Carbon dioxide, so your road tax costs will be non-existent – Sounds attractive doesn’t it? Well yes, it does but is this reality?

The Accent had a difference of 3% in its claimed consumption

In the last month, Hyundai and KIA have been found to over-estimate their fuel consumption figures on over 900,000 cars in the USA. That’s 35% of Hyundai’s entire 2011-2013 model year vehicles that it has sold by the end of October this year! Albeit, the Korean manufacturers admitted their fault, this still didn’t stop them from releasing these figures to the world in the first instance without validation, tricking enticing customers to visit their showrooms and purchase a “super-economical car”. The issue was first brought to light when the EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) received numerous complaints regarding the fuel consumption of their Hyundai and Kia vehicles. All of the cars involved have a noticeably smaller fuel economy range than suggested. For example, the Hyundai Accent MPG rating drops to 28 mpg city and 38 mpg highway, down from 29/40 after the EPA intervened.

Okay, so that’s not a massive drop in economy, but the ethical stance here is: Why are car manufacturers allowed to lie? I use the word lie because I feel it is deceitful. It’s not a mistake that they wrote down the wrong figure, the industry is worth billions, so surely they have the best equipment, the best technology and the best staff? Hyundai and KIA have wrongly misled their customers – many of whom probably are loyal and returning. Hyundai boasts a five year triple care warranty on all their vehicles, whilst KIA has an industry leading 7 year warranty: this can only make me wonder if the rest of their claims add up. What else have they lied about? This raises the issue of their potential compromise in safety and build quality, and with Hyundai and KIA rising steadily towards earning respectable badge kudos in both the US and the UK, Can they actually afford to tarnish their reputation?

 

Since the EPA’s intervention, Hyundai and KIA have set up a designated site for the drivers involved, and have been urged to compensate for the unexpected added fuel costs. It’s even been proposed that Hyundai and KIA will reimburse car owners a further 15% out of pure gratuity to counter-balance any inconvenience caused. Concerned owners can log onto the site and register their vehicle here: https://hyundaifuelconsumption.ca/

Justice, right?

Well, kind of – Fair play that Hyundai has written to all of its affected customers, but isn’t it too little too late? For example, the family that bought the new Hyundai Accent, thinking it would be more economical than their 2005 Ford Focus, they would be sorely disappointed. The car would be worth a fraction of what it did in the showroom if they did want to sell it, and who would want to buy a car which wasn’t really what it says on the tin? More worryingly, could this be an industry wide epidemic that’s misleading thousands and thousands of people on a daily basis?

Surely, the automotive industry should have learned from Toyota’s perilous mistakes regarding the recall crisis and surely car manufacturers should not be allowed to falsify claims, which cannot be verified. Maybe what needs to be enforced is a complete overhaul on the way car manufacturers can market and advertise their statistics, possibly even having an independent body which collates and releases the data? The EPA only checks and verifies around 15% of the claims manufacturers make, surely this could be raised to 100%? All I know is that in a time where money-saving and eco-austerity is key, car manufactures cannot afford to be economic with their honesty.

Do you think that it is acceptable for companies to embellish or falsify claims? If a company then admits its wrongdoing, is it too little too late?

Lets start the debate!

Josh

The BBC: A brand that we can trust?

I would have like to have thought of the BBC as an organisation i can trust with shows like Blue Peter, Children in need and Watchdog- a programme that investigates cheaters/hustlers- airing from the studio. But has this all changed? The Jimmy Savile scandal has shocked the nation as what was a trusted childhood icon has spun in character into a dictating child abuser.

Now I dont even need to question if you think this is ethical because it definitely isn’t. However why do you think it has taken so long for his evil secret to be unveiled? With victims alleging that they were abused under the BBC roofs I (and others) can hardly believe that all of the BBC crew where completely unaware of his actions taking place. For an interesting view on why people knew but nobody talked check out the telegraphs article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9646501/Jimmy-Savile-People-suspected.-Nobody-talked.-Why.html

In the video posted below it shows Jimmy savile sexually assaulting a girl on LIVE TV in front of millions of viewers. How is it that all these people have turned a blind eye to what they have seen and are believing that what was Sir Jimmy Savile is doing is perfectly acceptable. When Sylvia Edwards, the girl who was assaultd on live TV, reported her assault to the floor manager at BBC he told her to ‘Get lost’ and it was just ‘Jimmy messing about’. Below is an extract of Sylvia’s traumatic experience of Jimmy Savile,

“Then I felt his hand go up my skirt. I leapt off my chair in shock. I was so surprised I cried out and didn’t know how to deal with it.

But he just laughed and carried on mauling me while talking to the camera. I panicked and tried to move away from him but it was so crowded I couldn’t escape. When I tried to sit down his hand was still there and went for my bottom again.”

For more information on Sylvia’s experience visit: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4612576/Millions-watched-as-Jimmy-Savile-molested-me-on-tv.html#ixzz2DiFFwY7C

So why did the BBC think it was acceptable for Jimmy to abuse children, girls and whoever he was aiming his assault at. There are now around 300 victims who are finally speaking up after Jimmy Saviles death. Was this because they and the BBC were scared of the child abuser and his power? I can hardly believe that this was the norm for anyone. Doctors and managers at Stoke Mandeville hospital say they were afraid to challenge Jimmy Savile over the free access he enjoyed to wards. The guardian explains more http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/31/jimmy-savile-itv

However with the case only becoming an issue after his death he is unable to defend himself which is anethical issue itself. Do you think that this case is fair on Jimmys behlaf? Or there is enough evidence held against him to be proven guilty? I feel that he ruined enough innocent people’s lives so its time to ruin his reputation.

 Lets start the debate!

Laura

Jimmy Savile molesters a girl on LIVE television

Time to boycott?

Since 1971, Starbucks has been committed to ethically sourcing and roasting the highest quality coffee in the world. Today, with stores around the globe, and over 700 café’s in the UK, keeping its costs down by paying staff minimum wage, it has recently been revealed Starbucks failed to pay their corporation tax to the UK Exchequer last year.

Starbucks claimed to have made a loss 14 out of the 15 years it’s been trading in the UK, despite its £398m turnover just from last year. However of course it didn’t make a loss…

Starbucks along with many other multinational companies uses legal structures to channel their revenue into countries with lower tax than the UK. Starbucks is said to pay its royalties for the use of things such as the logo to a firm in the Netherlands whose tax rates are 4% lower than those in the UK.

Other offending organisations such as; Apple, Amazon and Google for similar reasons, also channel their money into low tax countries. Google’s advertising is run by a team in Ireland, another country when tax is considerably lower than in the UK. Amazon sales of over £3bn generated in the UK last year, were generated to Luxembourg.

Andy Street, managing director of John Lewis believes that tax avoiding companies such as Amazon could start to out-invest those who are paying full tax.

Andy Street told Sky News in an interview: “If you actually improve your business by investing… you have got less money to invest if you are giving 27 per cent of your profits to the Exchequer than, clearly, if you are domiciled in a tax haven and you’ve got much more.’
Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/business/tax-avoidance/50111/john-lewis-solve-amazon-tax-problem-or-well-go-bust#ixzz2DXwTvEgn

So do you believe that the only way to solve this problem and to stop the tax dodging multinational companies form creating threat to grow and survive for those paying the correct tax is to boycott these organisations?

Should we reduce the tax in the UK that large organisations pay on their profits?

I read an article in yesterdays Guardian, suggesting that a Fairtrade type labelling system should be bought into action, ‘FairTax’ for example, rewarding all those organisations correctly paying tax with the stamp of approval.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/nov/27/tax-avoidance-fairtax-label-reward

I believe that until HMRC decide to name and shame the tax avoiders this would be a good idea, it would help people to differentiate the ‘good’ with the ‘bad’ and make their own mind up to steer away from Starbucks and perhaps opt for a Costa instead.

We want to know what you think, what would be the best way to deal with the tax dodging companies?

Let’s start the debate!

Gabriella

News not boobs!

It has been 42 years since pictures of topless woman have been legally spread across the media and now it is normality for us to walk into a petrol station and see numerous boobs pictured across the magazine shelves ( just because there on the top shelf doesnt mean they arent available for anyones eyes, including kids!)

In 1979 Ruper Murdoch published clothed Glamour models on page 3 in ‘The Sun’ and from then on it was the norm to be shown a ‘blonde bombshell’ once opening the first page of the newspaper. A year later Larry Lamb the editor of the tabloid published the first topless photograph of German glamour model ‘Stephanie Rahn’ to celebrate. This was just the start of the glamour model, now girls are photographed in more productive poses and little to no clothing with easy access to the models in action online, in magazines, newspapers, videos… But should it be this easy? There’s something not quite right about men paying to look at woman’s assets, is this not the next thing to prostitution?

Stephanie Rahn: The first topless glamour model (The Sun, 17^th November 1970)

The biggest global success from woman’s nudity is the infamous ‘Hugh Hefner’ who is the face behind the phenomena that is ‘Playboy’. The first Playboy magazine included a double spread of ‘Marilyn Monroe’ the image was originally meant for a calender. Playboy is worth around 500 million dollars, yet a doctor or nurse who work unsociable hours can earn as little as £20,000 a year and they save bodies, they dont flash them about!  Where is the logic in this? It isn’t fair that these girls show a nipple, disrespecting themselves and other woman. This is supposedly normality.

 

Are we living in a time where this is still acceptable? The Human rights group ‘Object’ demanded a protest against the media who make this most easily accessable in our society just over a week ago.

Object where created in 2003 and are an award-winning human rights organisation specifically set up to challenge the sexual objectification of women. Campaigners gathered for a not-so-happy birthday surprise for the sun outside international news offices in East London.

The guardian comment on the protest saying;

“The card was 6ft high, and while one side showed how women are portrayed in some of the tabloids – topless images from the Sun and the Star, as well as semi-naked, bent-double images from the Sport — the other showed how men are portrayed. The crucial difference could be summarised in the single word “clothes”.”

 

For the full news report visit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/27/women-fighting-sexism-media-page-3?intcmp=239

Click here for a video of Object in action at the protest! Are things about to change for the better?

The consequences of these images have lead an addiction for many in plastic surgery. ‘Lacey Wildd’ from Miami, Florida is addicted to breast implants and her ambition is to have the biggest boobs in the world going from an L cup to a MMM! What sort of ambition is that meant to be? If it wasnt for all these glamour models in playboy, page 3 and wherever else having such positive appraisal would this be a risk woman would even take?

Read more on the story at: http://www.gadailynews.com/news/national/117256-glamour-model-lacey-wildd-44-is-about-to-go-from-an-l-cup-to-a-mmm.html

Lets start the debate!

Laura

Torture Works

Is it ever justified to use extreme measures on individuals to protect the security of the public?

“Torture is the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something” – The Oxford Dictionary.

Torture is a word which doesn’t crop up too often, but when it does, I’m sure everyone will have their views firmly in place. The act of torturing, I’m pretty sure has been prevalent ever since time began: enforced more so with the Medieval era or the arrival of Colonialism and Imperialism. It once was the ‘norm’ to brutalise an entire population or race –

can you imagine?!

In today’s world, we rarely see acts of torture in a realistic context. Sure, we have all heard about it on the news, but it doesn’t happen close to home, and if you think like me, I kind of disregard it. I know, I know; It’s terrible, but I am blinkered when it comes to these sorts of things. Capital punishment was abolished in the UK in 1965, with the death penalty being abolished under the human rights act in 1998 (albeit had not been applied since). In 2004, it was prohibited by the European Convention on human rights to restore the death penalty – for as long as the UK was part of the convention.

 But, do you think that it is ever justified to use extreme measures on individuals to protect the security of the public?

In a recent Guardian article, it has been revealed that it is possible that the United Nations may be imposing torture procedures to extract information and evidence on Al-Qaida suspects. It is estimated that over three hundred people worldwide are on the UN’s sanctions list in connection with the Taliban and Al-Qaida. The ethical issue arose when the UN’s special rapporteur for counter-terrorism, Ben Emmerson QC, questioned the honesty of the agencies method of acquiring its intelligence.

 Read the full article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/nov/11/un-torture-evidence-terror-suspects

How can anybody condone torture? It makes me feel sick to my stomach that the United Nations is potentially torturing human beings! I find it ironic that the UN could be involved in such a scandal when it stands for the maintenance of international peace and promotes the cooperation of solving issues involving international economic, social and humanitarian problems. The UN comittees ombudsman, Kimberley Prost, released a statement stating that she was aware of claims being made regarding torture and feels it is an issue which needs to be addressed. If this is the case, we need to ask why?!

Do you think that the UN are using torture tactics as a way to protect the public or are they purely flouting their integrity?

I Completely understand and agree that if someone does pose a threat to society, then they should be apprehended immediately, but if that means torturing others to find out their whereabouts, I’m a little unsettled by that. However, I can’t think of any other methods of humanely extracting information. I’m at a loss here! How can anybody even trust the validity of what someone says, if they are being tortured, as this can be a highly unreliable avenue to ascertain evidence.

 How do you feel about the use of torture? Is the life of an individual being tortured justifiable for the greater security of the public?

 Let’ s start the debate!

Josh