Assignment 2 - Story 1

Afflecks is not the be-all and end-all for market businesses after all.
By Karen Asbury

After the late Afflecks Palace was re-born this week, but stripped of its regal status down to just “Afflecks”, there is a new air to the building that, to so many, just isn’t what it used to be.

Named as the face for culture in Manchester, many argued that by closing Afflecks Palace, knocking it down, or changing it in any way would severely lower its reputation and consequently, its appeal. But unfortunately for the popular student hang-out, it must also be seen as a business, and not just a freebee meeting place.

Me & Yu, a fashion stall specialising in DIY clothing and accessories was previously a successful little earner located on the third floor but are one of the few businesses that shall not be returning to the Northern Quarter building after its re-opening.

However, despite many claiming that leaving the reputable building would result in complete closure and bankruptcy, for certain shops like these; it was merely an unseen opportunity.

Claire Harris, who formerly worked on the Me & Yu stall, argues that leaving Affleck’s Palace was beneficial and allows for this variety of business to spread out, and not just remain clustered in one area.

“The stall at first wasn’t too bad when they said Affleck’s was closing” she claims.“Because they have a stall on the fashion market and they had just opened their own boutique, the owners of the stall were not at first too panicked. Obviously they were sad of the news, and my boss, Angela Hulme, was the one doing most of the campaigning to keep the place open. More so than anyone else I would say! She was on all the videos, in the protests, giving talks, and she was in the Manchester Evening News loads. ”

Harris added that money was a major issue, not just for the owner of Afflecks, but also for the market-type stalls.

“The stall I worked on paid £200 per week for rent but it generally depends on the square foot of each shop. There were a lot of rumours before the upcoming ‘closure’ about rent prices going up but I’m not actually sure if they ever did. No-one was allowed to talk about it, so we were pretty much left in the dark. I do know though, that the majority of people who moved out left because of these rumours and the fact that there was so much uncertainty, which no-one needs or wants when you’re trying to earn your wages. We never even knew it was at risk of closing until two weeks beforehand. Everything was pretty much hearsay as far as we were concerned.”

Although there was little information, there was enough available to create panic.

Many of the shops frantically searched for alternative locations but some were left with no-where to go, and the corridors of the “Palace” were left empty and without it’s beloved bohemian look. However, with new owners, and new money, some businesses have come crawling back.

“I know of a few stalls that have moved back in now and are looking forward to the future of Afflecks but I know how difficult this period has been for them. I have read quotes from Helen [Gaskell, of Grin Clothing on Floor One] talking about there being no-where else to go for unusual and outrageous stores like the ones Afflecks hold, and I agree. A stall like Me & Yu could possibly never survive on a main street in Manchester.”

Afflecks Palace was at risk of closure as the landlord’s lease was due to run out in June of this year. However, Bruntwood took over and “saved the Northern Gem” that so many Mancs flock to at weekends.

A joint statement between the management of Afflecks Palace and Bruntwood said: "After 26 years of trading, Afflecks' management has sold their company to Bruntwood in an agreement that protects the future of Afflecks. Bruntwood will manage Afflecks while they look for a new owner who is skilled in running market style businesses and can bring a similar level of enthusiasm and dedication that the existing management has."

Tony Martin has now been brought in to manage Afflecks, and as he was previously responsible for the Festival Village in The Trafford Centre, it would appear he is qualified for the task at hand.

Harris added: “According to Angela, my old boss, they are now having live bands play in there, and a brand new café with up and coming artists to decorate. It sounds great, but of course, a lot of students and young people will be disappointed at the change. Apparently it is going to be great but I personally won’t be going back to work there. It was great to be a part of it, and I was there for four years, but I think it’s best to leave something while it is at its peak – and I think that time has passed for Afflecks Palace. Plus, I think it would be lovely to have Saturdays back to myself!”

Many have hailed the decisions as a fantastic business move, and even key figures in the area have been showing enthusiam on forums and comment sections of news websites.

Anthony McCaul, the City Centre Campaigner for Manchester Labour commented on a Manchester Evening News article praising the news.

“Great news indeed - well done to the Traders for a great campaign and for the Council for getting the parties sat down together. Thanks should also go to the thousands of people who have signed the petition to support Afflecks - a true Northern gem. Let’s see Bruntwood and the Council organise a fantastic street party on Tib Street to celebrate!”

But for those stalls who were fell behind, and couldn’t afford to move back are left only with memories.

What do you think?

more at twiigs.com...

We asked some passers-by on Afflecks Day (The day of the re-opening and re-naming to “Afflecks”, April 12th) what they thought of the rejuvenation.

“I didn’t really care about it as much as other people my ages. I helped raise awareness for the protests against the closure because I know it’s something my friends feel passionate about. But me personally, I wanted the place gone. It was a tired and scummy place for kids to sit-around, and I’m sure that won’t change.”
Timmi Wilson, 25, Freelance Photographer

“I’ve been to Afflecks in the past and I think it was better as it was. They made more business because everyone knew who was there. Now that they’ve tried to change it, businesses that people went there for, has been lost. I think they’re at risk of losing a lot of business.”
Amy Munster, 19, Cabin Crew Student

Assignment 2 - Story 2

All good things must come to an end – So why was Afflecks an exception?
By Karen Asbury

“If we aren't careful, Manchester is going to lose all the things that make it special," said Jackie Haynes in 2002. Haynes’ costume shop was once a part of The Coliseum, a shopping emporium in The Northern Quarter that specialised in alternative fashion – very much like Afflecks Palace.

Unfortunately for the Coliseum, which was also located on Church Street it was closed down that year in favour of new flats and offices. So how was it that Affleck’s was saved from a similar fate and The Coliseum perished? Perhaps there is simply more offered at Afflecks, but whatever the reason, the love for the bohemian structure, is undeniable.

As soon as the rumours began that Afflecks could possibly close, the reaction from the general public was astounding. Bloggers went crazy, and Facebook Groups were launched. And why not? After all, it was a Facebook group that brought the beloved chocolate bars Wispa, back into stores. So who is to say that an online community couldn’t prevent a well-loved Mancunian building from being closed? The fact is, it could.

The support for Afflecks Palace was so great, that no matter what your view on the matter, it was impossible to ignore.

A petition was created immediately after news broke in February 2007 that the lease was due to run out in June of the same year. Aptly named “Keep Afflecks Palace Open” the petition attracted over 8000 signatures in total and generally the views expressed were that of sadness and great disappointment at the prospect of closure. The petition was linked from Facebook Group “Save Afflecks Palace” which could explain the similar number of members – 8,179.

January 2008 saw an impressive protest outside of the gothic building to show support and to prove that that there was enough enthusiasm to keep a business afloat.

Manchester based online magazine “Designer Magazine” also became involved, writing an article on the matter, comparing Afflecks Palace to the fallen Camden Market. This article in particular triggered reponses from local photographers as well as Rupert Hill from Coronation Street.

The fact is, people still craved the crazy corridors and DIY stores.

A Bruntwood Spokesman said: “Never in our 30-year history have we bought one of our customer's businesses but Afflecks is a Manchester icon that we wanted to protect.”

So after a year of negotiation and uncertainty, why did they suddenly want to save the indoor market? Many famous faces have sprouted from the tattered hallways of the building, but have grown into house hold names.

Wayne Hemingway, creator of fashion label Red or Dead started off selling his own products in Afflecks Palace and was more than happy to jump on the Save-Afflecks-Bandwagon.

Although it has been argued that many great things have emerged from Afflecks, such as The Happy Mondays, The Stone Roses, or even just a lovely new top, some believe that the new owners will be the death of it’s spirit.

Posting on a Manchester Blog, a comment was left condemning new owners Bruntwood.
It said: “Not only has a lifestyle, a fantastic, brilliant, beautiful community been ruined but this it yet another reason that capitalism cannot be allowed to change all that is good in this country forever. The management have been brilliant, and all my respect goes out to Elaine Walsh, a fantastic woman, who has changed the face of alternative Manchester along with her late husband James Walsh. I hope Bruntwood are happy. I hope all their money makes them happy. I hope whatever they do with Afflecks makes them happy.”

But of course, things change and the world moves on. But will the internet have the same impact over how the future of Afflecks is dictated? I guess we will have to wait and find out.

Watch below to look back on Afflecks Palace in the past year.

Assignment 2 - Reflective Essay

After reading that Afflecks Palace was to be saved, the stories published on the matter seemed to follow a similar pattern. They all concentrated on the fact that a “Northern Gem” had been saved. However, it was not made clear in any of the articles I came across in my research, what the impact was for many of the stalls who had to move out of the building when there was the threat of closure.

I had previously spoken to a girl named Claire Harris, who I bought clothes off over the internet. I found out she was creating her own clothing and selling them through a stall in Afflecks named “Me & Yu”. After a visit to the building when the rumours first began regarding the closure, she was unable to comment on the matter, as all staff were warned not to talk to the press, at risk of creating more panic. However, after keeping in contact with her, and after the stall she worked on had no choice but to leave Afflecks Palace, she was an active member of petitions to save the building, and had posted bulletins on her Myspace page announcing she would be leaving there. She also kindly sent me a picture of herself, and of the stall to make my article more aesthetically pleasing. I felt this would be an interesting angle and interview for my first article, as people like these were very much unrepresented on the whole Afflecks-closure story. Although many stories, particularly from the Manchester Evenings News were very much concerned with the cultural aspect, it was rare that the closure and re-opening was looked at from a business perspective. Although the joint statement made from Afflecks’ was heavily repeated, I felt it was necessary in creating a brief bit of context. I also researched the Manchester Evenings News’ coverage, and used this as my basis for research for both articles.

To add interactivity to article 1, I included a “What do You Think?” section at the end, which included a poll created on www.twiigs.com that invited comments, rather than a list of pre-written choices. I was previously unaware this was possible, as I had not seen a “poll” like this on any other website, but because of the many strong opinions people hold on this topic, I felt it would be more beneficial to allow users to enter their own content rather than select “yes” or “no” from a list. Whilst at Afflecks Palace, I also asked some passers-by what they thought on the matter. Many of the opinions were the same so I chose the three comments that were strongest to create a reaction and to hopefully trigger response and debate, which could be taken full advantage of since the story was uploaded to Blogger.

For my second story, I felt it was interesting to look into why exactly the building was saved. A similar building, also in the Northern Quarter named The Coliseum was very similar to Afflecks, yet was knocked down in 2002. There was very little information about The Coliseum online – only that it was competition for Afflecks. I did find however, a Directory of the Tenants that occupied The Coliseum and it was interesting to see that a large number of them moved across the street to Afflecks proving that there really is only a small area for this type of business. I focused this second article on the reasons why many believed Afflecks should/should not be kept open.

Because of the huge interest in the topic, forums, and comment sections provided useful guidelines on different opinions.

For my multimedia piece, I originally decided that I would do a vox-pop on Afflecks Day using my Nokia 95 mobile phone, but very few people were comfortable being recorded. Instead, I decided on creating a slideshow, using images from Flickr using Creative commons, images from the Facebook group “Save Afflecks Palace” and from the M.E.N’s news page. To make sure the images weren’t standing alone, I included a voice-over which I recorded using my phone, and blue-toothed it to the computer. I was then able to incorporate the images and audio together on Windows Movie Maker. The video summarises how the building had been in the news over the past year – in effect, it is a timeline of news. I researched this through Metro News articles, Manchester Evenings News article and BBC articles.

Uploading the assignment to Blogger I felt was particularly helpful, as I was able to view what the stories would look like on the web, as well as add labels for others to search for tags. I felt that using Blogger through the module has helped my research for this assignment. Although previously, I had my own blog so was capable of managing entries, I had not considered blogs as a point for research. Forums and social networking sites were helpful for this story, and blogs even more so. Because of this interactivity available, hundreds of comments were made, allowing anyone to have your say. This enabled me to gather an incredibly broad range of opinions and information.

Overall, I am pleased with the end product, but I was disappointed that there was no-one available for comment in regards to The Coliseum for my second article. I felt, an interview with a representative or previous employee would really help in the comparison between why this shopping area was closed, and why Afflecks was not. I rang up a couple of the numbers from The Directory I found, but it would appear these numbers have now changed as they are quite dated.I am pleased with the slideshow I created and hoped to find the majority of images on Flickr, but they were incredibly difficult to find to fit with my audio. I would have liked to take pictures showing how empty the hallways of Afflecks now were, but because when I went, there were events in these spaces, this was unfortunately not possible.

Don't Drink and Drive.......Obviously

A Health Tech Blog has this week posted a new entry entitled “Drinking and Driving & Not a Good Match.”

Good point. But didn’t we already know that? It appears that no would be the answer.

The short piece compares the tolerance level of different countries, and how much alcohol a person is allowed in their system, before they are considered to be drink-driving.

And the results were quite shocking. The blog states that 1 in 3 car accidents in the USA are alcohol related, and with similar laws in regard to drink-driving here in the UK, we can only assume the statistics are similar here too.

It is therefore important to ask ourselves, do we really know how much we are drinking? There are websites available which tells you how many units are in which drinks and home breathalyzers are popular amongst novelty Christmas gifts only to be never used.

However helpful these tools may be, they are sadly, infrequently used.

How many people are actually aware how a drink will affect them, until the deed is done? A person can drink ten pints and be “fine” one night, but have two pints another, and be on the floor in a pool of vomit. Factors such as health, how much you have eaten, and what you’re drinking can determine exactly how you feel after a drink, and arguably, not many would want to drink when they are completely smashed anyway.

But the most shocking and real point, comes from the fact that, many convince themselves they haven’t actually had that much.

The blog states: “Some countries have a so called zero tolerance (Hungary, Romania, Ukraine, Slovakia), which for the drivers means trouble with law if any alcohol is detected regardless of the amount. This brings "legal security" in a sense that it is undisputable one is not allowed to have been drinking at all before operating a vehicle. Some countries allow some alcohol, yet it is often confusing as to how much one can actually drink to be within the limits. The highest tolerance is 0.08 % (in the United States, UK, Canada, and Ireland), while other countries have 0.05 or less.”

Perhaps in order to really tackle the problem, we could take an example from Hungary, Romanic etc. Or perhaps, not driving to the pub would be an easier solution?

In a society of “binge drinkers”, it is terrifying to know, that more than half of youths drive to their night on the town, creating an even larger temptation to drive home. The blog, which at first appears to be stating the obvious, has actually done a good job in resurfacing a very good point which needs re-instating more often than we think.

The supporting video (shown below) with statistics, emotional music, and images of car crashed due to alcohol, are enough to put anyone off their chardonnay.

Homosexuality strips the right of health-care

The use of health care service differs with sexuality according to new research in Canada.

The study looked into medical care such as having a regular doctor, and how often certain procedures are made available to patients. About 346,000 adults identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual in the survey, and overall it suggested that the use of health-care services differs by sexuality independent of other factors such as age, income, education and health status.

It also found that “gay men were much more likely than heterosexual men to have consulted medical specialists or mental-health service providers such as social workers and that Lesbians were less likely than heterosexual women to have seen a family doctor during the same period or to have undergone a pap test” According to The Canadian Press.

Summarizing his findings, the study’s author, Michael Tjepkema, quoted on a Health Disparities Blog:
"It is true that gays, lesbians, bisexual men and women do access different types of the health-care system differently from heterosexual Canadians"

The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) community have also picked up on the difference, claiming that LGBT cancer patients are treated with less services than heterosexual patients.

So what does this mean for the gay community?

Our ideologies that we live in an open-minded and fair society are still very much misconceived it would seem. And this is certainly not the first time health issues have been raised due to sexuality.

Staying focused on Canada, “The Canadian Red Cross (CRC) donor screening application is homophobic and gender exclusive.” According to a LiveJournal entry entitled “Gay and Bi Male Blood Ban”.

It also goes on to say: “According to Canadian gay rights groups, specifically question 15, which asks donors if they have participated in any of the following activities since 1977, " if male, Having sex with another male, even once; receiving regular Treatment with blood or blood products; accepting money or drugs In exchange for sex; being the sexual partner of someone who has taken part in any of the above activities or who had contracted AIDS or has tested positive for AIDS". Some Students’ Associations have taken the step of banning the CRC from their campuses.”

It would appear obvious that in Canada, homosexuality is still frowned upon.
But even so, it wasn’t all that long ago that the debate was discussed here in the UK.

Thinking Difference Blog claims that the fact that “men who have engaged in sex with other men in the past 25 years cannot donate blood” is “shocking”.

The author then asks why this is, when “as far as I know, most of the other STDs are quite common in heterosexual relations as well.”

This in mind, it is easy to claim we would not have any qualms if it were known we were receiving a homosexuals blood in a transfusion, but it is a different matter actually going through with it. With statistics flying around that a homosexual’s blood is at an extremely higher risk of being HIV positive, it is difficult not to be concerned.

However, it could also be argued that a simple test beforehand could overcome this debate and prejudice. So then, why has it not been introduced already? Perhaps if homosexuals were aided with more health-care, this would not be an issue.

Be careful what you put in your mouth!

Toothpaste has been in the news this week, after claims that it is toxic, dangerous and no benefit for our oral health.

BlogGreen in an article asking “Is your toothpaste a health risk?” claims that “ingested fluoride can contribute to osteoporosis and it is poisonous. In fact, there is enough flouride in one tube of “family” toothpaste to kill a small child.”

Parents have taken the matter into consideration on a forum with the same title. Some parents dismiss the claim that toothpaste can harm a child, “I’ve bought my lad some toothpaste and this is what it says on the back......Warnings. Keep out of reach of children under 6 yrs of age. If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Centre immediately.....Its a 1oz tube of toothpaste, how dangerous could it really be if he ate it all?”
...whilst others have taken the matter more seriously:
“I bet the shop don't even know it says that. This is when I agree with grocery labeling. I would be kicking off with whoever sold me that if it is a kiddie’s product.”

Some have argued that it is merely about educating a consumer about what they are buying, rather than avoiding products altogether.
“The problem with most toothpaste is that it contains something called sodium lauryl sulphate, which is also used in shampoo, shower gel, bubble bath, washing powder etc. If you google it - you'll find a lot of research on the side effects and irritant factors.”

Whereas a blog on crisis spins reported that certain products are too toxic to be sold and can be a criminal offense to be in stores:
“It was discovered that toxic toothpaste made in China was being sold in the U.S.. The New York Times explained that the chinese-made toothpaste contained the poison diethylene glycol, used in some antifreeze. Although no one was harmed, the U.S. was not the first country to realize it's dangerous contents within the nations border.”

A Dental webpage states :
“If you go on the OraMD program, it is recommended that you give up brushing your teeth with toothpaste altogether. Read the label on any major brand toothpaste or mouthwash. You’ll see they are loaded with toxins.”

Because so many of us are concenerned about toxins in our food, organic products have shot through the roof in the past year, and toothpaste is now jumping on the bandwagon.

VideoJug.com has released a video on how to make your own organic toothpaste, but whether anyone will go to such lengths is another matter. After all, toothpaste has been around for a while now and so far so good.



How To Make Organic Toothpaste

Governmment home-birth plans encouraged by celebs but shunned by the industry

New Government plans are said to allow more freedom for mothers-to-be in the decision of how they wish to give birth. Not only has the Government promised that “by the end of next year, all women will be able to choose where and how they give birth”, but this is despite the fact that “a midwifery staffing crisis means many believe it will fail to keep its pledge.” Mervi Jokinen of The Royal College of Midwives even goes as far to say "We just can't see it happening"

Although the powers that be may think home birth in particular is hugely beneficial, this could be fuelled by the crippling NHS costs dedicated to births every year. According to an NHS Blog Doctor, celebrities are encouraging the change.
“Of course the government is all in favour. Home births are cheaper than hospital births. A collection of “B” list celebrities are always promoting home births.”

The Independent also argues this point using Charlotte Church, Davina McCall, Thandie Newton and Maggie Gyllenhaal as “inspiring celebrities” adding to the “record number of mums-to-be having their babies at home.”

But the NHS blogger also adds that those in the spotlight are not necessarily ones to be looked up to.“Davina found it “empowering, beautiful and spiritual” to have a home birth just as earlier in her life she probably found it “empowering, beautiful and spiritual” to take heroin, cocaine and ecstasy.”

Of course, it is the woman’s decision at the end of the day and many childbirth websites are available for advice and information. A Childbirth Consultation website shows graphic images of a woman giving birth to her child in her own home. The narrator added encouraging commentary underneath the main image despite it’s real and graphic nature that may scare some expecting women:
“This picture is my favorite picture of all time. Not that it is really clear, or that the colour is perfect, or that you can see the baby's head; it is perfect because this mother was able, and wanted to, deliver her own baby. She was so much in control of the birth of the head, her breathing so perfect, the tiny moist head just gently slid through her tissues into her hands. She knew when to slow down the push because her tissues felt too stretched, she knew what areas needed some support or massage, she attended to opening herself. This was her desire, her ultimate goal for her reproductive life. She was dependent on herself and no one else - her body, her choice, and her knowledge of her natural bodily process. This one act gave her awareness of her potential; anything was possible for her after this accomplishment.”

Baby blogs, although on board with the idea of increasing home births, have said that the Government’s plans are unfortunately just too far-fetched.

The Baby Bump Project said:
“Alongside new legislation promising that by the end of 2009 all women in the UK will be able to choose how they give birth, including at home, there has been a greater willingness for women to explore their birth options with knowledgeable midwives. However, as fantastic as these new plans seem, there is still an increasing shortage of trained midwives (as in Australia) so the feasability of the scheme is significantly in jeopardy.”

Babyccino Blog says that “This whole unique system of home birth and after-care at home is rooted in the belief that birth is seen as a natural process rather than an illness.” but if birth is no longer seen as something that needs assistance, perhaps the plans will not happen as soon as we would hope.

26th Annual No Smoking Day... with more smokers than ever

As “No Smoking Day” again comes around, the question has been asked whether the campaign in fact makes a difference. The general answer, as expected, from health boards is absolutely yes.

The No Smoking Day’s official website claims that more than a million people try and quit smoking each year, and not always successfully, but Bolton in particular has been targeted and praised for its efforts in trying.

Deborah Collinson of The Bolton Primary Care Trust said: "There really has never been a better time to stop smoking and No Smoking Day is a great incentive. Recent statistics have revealed the number of smokers in Bolton has fallen.”

But even a Quit Smoking blog acknowledges the pressures of such campaigns. “What about those smokers who do not want to stop smoking?”

It is often argued that bringing smoking into the limelight is a reminder for those who have quit in the past, and urges them back to old habits. But Chancellor Alistair Darling remains confident that incentives such as these, can be nothing but a benefit overall.

His announcement of a 11p rise per pack of cigarettes comes at the same time as the 25th No Smoking Day this year.(March 12th) No Smoking Day chief executive Dan Tickle said: “Today’s Budget rise, coming on the back of smokefree legislation, is likely to be a decisive factor for many smokers considering quitting. A 20-a-day smoker will now be spending well over £2000 a year, up from under £500 when we launched our first No Smoking Day, 25 years ago."

On paper, this looks more than convincing, but prices have risen before, No Smoking Day's have been around for 25 years, and yet, there are still thousands of people dying each year of cancer-related illnesses. Are days like this actually giving us any new information? Or are they repeat scare tactics in the hope of reducing the numbers? Maybe the 26th year will shed some light on the situation.

Warning labels are set for "unhealthy" dairy products

According to The Express, “The Government’s Food Standards Agency is said to be considering using shock tactics to persuade Britons to cut down on their consumption of saturated fats. A consumer study conducted for the agency by CMI Research found that graphic images of fat – the kind shown on popular TV shows about food and health – had a big impact on viewers.”

Many have shunned the report as another means of being controlled by the Government, rather than a campaign for better health.

NannyKnowsBest said:
“It seems that this time next year we will have to endure yet another one of Nanny's remorseless campaigns warning us about the dangers of our everyday, simple pleasures. Nanny and the FSA need to remember that, unlike smoking, we really all do have to eat food everyday. You cannot, and should not, criminalise food and eating!”

Providing a similar message, Harpoon asked:
“What about warnings on every loaf of bread? On every bottle of Coke? How about putting pictures of gangrened limbs on the front of every fish & chip shop with a warning that consumption of batter fried in vegetable oil can eventually lead to heart disease and diabetes?”

The point is interesting and very much plausible. And like Chow.com, which points out other products with warning labels such as Cigarettes, Handguns, Liquor, Prescription drugs and Pornographic DVDs, an increasing number of products are being labelled as dangerous and toxic, possibly un-necessarily, but it is claimed to be in the matter of public interest.

The FSA claims that these dairy foods that may require labels, is to increase awareness of their fatty nature in order to “slash Britain’s soaring levels of obesity and heart disease” but unless warning labels are places on every item that could cause these illnesses, it may not be enough. Does this mean the nutritional information on packaging is not useful after all? A change in lifestyle will most likely not occur through labels and shock tactics, but it somewhat relieving that at least some action is being taken.

A decrease in monogamy, but plenty of STD's to go around

According to The Metro this week, more single people in the UK now think that it is acceptable to date more than one person at a time – And surprisingly, this was more women than men. (25% of men, 36% of women)

It was also stated that more than half of single people in the UK intend to use the internet in the next few months in order to find a relationship (and not just one relationship at that).

This increase in sexual interest of course will directly link to the ever-increasing amount of sexual transmitted diseases that we so often hear of, raising the question of…how do we decrease this number if sex is on the rise?

As Britain becomes a nation of “multiple daters”, many have condemned contraception, claiming that it not only encourages casual sex, but that it doesn’t even work.

yourSTDhelp goes as far to include a “Why Condoms Fail” section explaining they are an “all round failure” due to the attitude that goes alongside them.The blog states that the only way to prevent STD’s is to yes use protection, but also to “keep your partners at a minimum” and to “stay monogamous when in a relationship.”

Nick Partridge, chief executive of Terrence Higgins Trust, a sexual health charity, talks of the growing popularity of online dating and the effects it can have on our health. He condemns the fact that although many of these dating websites are professional, they do not concentrate on the prevention of STD’s and do not provide access to related services. He added: “If we don’t concentrate on these, we will continue to have ever-increasing rates of HIV and the worst sexual health in Western Europe.”

In Global Health Blog, it is claimed that the “health benefits of monogamy are obvious” by reducing the spread of HIV and other STD’s but with so many of the nation at least considering taking more than one partner, perhaps the benefits are not as obvious as you would expect.

Who's to blame for Booze Britain?

After the price of alcohol has halved in the past 20 years, it comes as no surprise that there has been a subsequent rise in alcohol related additions and illnesses.

An Alcoholics Anonymous blog states that the alcohol abuse can start at an increasingly early age due to the cheapness of the product. It adds:

“Children and alcohol don’t mix. Why are these children misusing alcohol? The three P’s are Parents, Peers and Products”

This is an interesting point. Although many cannot control themselves, it is the younger of the nation who quite possibly do not know any better and require better education on the matter.

The blog places blame on the “Three P’s.”

“Many parents act with the best of intentions, supervising children's alcohol use to encourage moderation. The problem is the strategy is not working and children who start using alcohol at an early age are more likely to go on to become part of the adolescent party culture in which alcohol use occurs regularly.

High rates of underage drinking mean peer pressure on other young people to use alcohol. At the time that adolescents are drinking alcohol to attract their peers, their brains are more vulnerable to the negative impacts of alcohol.

Products are also an important component in underage alcohol use. The large number of underage drinkers means that there is now an assertive market that caters to this group. A variety of cheap, brightly coloured and sweet alcoholic drinks can be easily accessed by underage drinkers.”

The culture of intoxication which has emerged in Britain in recent years, has this past month been focused on the prices of alcohol in supermarkets and 24-hour licensing allowing for easy-access booze.

Don Shenker, Director of Policy and Services at Aclohol Concern said:
"Alcohol Concern does not disagree with the extension of licensing hours per se, but we do have outstanding reservations about the lack of community safeguards and serious misgivings about the extent to which public health is being ignored as a licensing concern."

The Guardian reported that “By the end of the year Gordon Brown wants to see alcoholic content and daily sensible drinking guidelines listed on most alcoholic drink labels.” But whether anyone will take notice of these is a different matter. Many addicts always find a way to attain what they crave the most. And when tax on cider is only 20p, why should the large chain stores sacrifice their profit? Should the responsibility not bear with the consumers?

The British Medical Association fully supports an increase in alcohol’s price stating that it “recommends introducing higher taxes on alcoholic drinks and an end to irresponsible promotions.”

The NHS has taken a similar approach and recommends that to reduce your unit intake, users should themselves calculate online exactly how much they are consuming.
The How Many Units? Alcohol Calculator is certainly a good idea in theory, but how many youths or pub-goers who have had one two many, would think to approach this as soon as stumbe in the house? Just as an estimation, i would say ...Very few.

The result from the calculator may in many cases not mean a great deal, although the site does include how much is too much, and also gives advice when the result is shown. The Alcoholics Anonymous Blog however has a valid point. Booze products certainly have an impact on our health when abused as the Government is finally taking note of, and for the youths of our nation, peer pressure will always surround the issue. So perhaps it is time that the parents were given a re-evalutation? More and more children are being permitted to drink under the surveillance of their elders. Of course it is the parents' decision how to raise their children, but perhaps, are they setting a bad example and turning us into a "party nation"?

Module work: A map of Preston News

Constructed on Google Maps, here is an example of how the news can be displayed in map format.
Stories were taken from the Lancashire Evening Post.





View Larger Map

J-Lo opens a window for her family, and shuts the door to others in need.

J-Lo has finally given birth to healthy twins this week at the North Shore University Hospital on Long Island.

The private room that she had requested has apparently “been sitting empty for 2 weeks in preparation for the singer’s birth.”

As advantageous as it can be to have a room prepared and ready for when the baby decides it’s ready to face the world, how much of the health service is jeopardised when a millionaire requires assistance?

Surely the room could have found better use for the fortnight than to be sitting empty. And the amount of paparazzi awaiting the superstar outside could only have created an obstruction near A&E.

If you have a certain amount of money in America, then it appears you can buy your way through anything and with almost 50 million Americans without health insurance, it sure appears that hospitals are there solely to cater for the wealthy.

Considering that 18,000 Americans die every year simply because they are uninsured, provides a shocking reality check when rooms are so freely handed out to celebrities with expendable cash.

The hospital itself will of course be grateful for the business, and with the rate that JLO is willing to pay, then it would be bad business for them to refuse such an offer. However, the fact that those with full-time jobs, who simply cannot afford the high-cost of health insurance, would simply be shunned aside to grin and bear it, makes J-Lo appear not-worthy of all the pampering and attention she will no doubt receive not only from fans, but from brown-nosed doctors.

We complain about the NHS an awful lot, and waiting times are abysmal, but perhaps we have it okay here in Britain after all. Or at least, better than we thought?

Module Work: Windows Movie Player

Using Windows Movie Maker and images from Flickr, here is a short film imagining the walk from Avenham Park in Preston to Foster Building at UCLan.
As you can see, it is the scenic route...

[Will be uploaded as soon as Blogger can actually handle video footage.]

£10...A not-so-cheap price on freedom

As if the past year had not already bore enough bad news for smokers, it seems as though the pressure will continue to stub it out…for good.

According to the BBC, the Government Health Advisory has proposed a £10 licence for the future, that will be required if you wish to continue smoking.

Smokers will be forced to fill in long complicated forms and also have their photograph taken in order to prove they have paid their measly tenner, before buying their daily fix of fags.

As if cigarettes were not already expensive enough, perhaps the licences will indeed deter many from smoking, and with an alleged 70% of smokers apparently wanting to quit anyway, it would appear many would be in favour of the proposal.

This is not the case.

The freedom to choose has cropped up all over the papers and blogs of both smokers and non-smokers stating that although smokers may cost a huge amount to the NHS, they pay for it in the extortionate amount of tax paid.

The Daily Express ran the story and entitled it “Have You Had Enough Of Labour Dictating You?” and from the response and outcry from the story, I believe the answer of that question to be yes.

Simon Clarke , a spokesperson of Forest, an organisation dedicated to smoker’s rights said: “We are becoming not just a nanny state but a bully state. If smokers are targeted in this way it’s a very short step to slapping a similar charge on anyone who wants to buy alcohol or any other product ministers don’t approve of.”

Catherine Forsythe, of Dogreader, agrees with Forest and said: “It is part of the ‘Surveillance Society’. Human behaviour is tracked and recorded on a data base. The government will know if you are a smoker. It would not be difficult to log when you bought tobacco and how much you bought. It would all be useful information to the government, to insurers, to employers and a myriad of other officials.”

The Health Advisory Body’s Chairman, Professor Julian De Grand, has said that “the process should be made as irritatingly complex as possible in order to deter smokers from applying for their fix.”

This statement alone surely shows the underlying hatred towards smokers that remains in society, despite the government already winning one battle with the Smoking Ban in July of last year. Although to those who do not choose to be a smoker, the smoke from those who do, can be damaging to your health, sometimes nauseating or just plan unwanted. But does this mean that smokers should be treated as second class citizens?

The Eurosoc website shuns the proposal, and illustrates the extremity of it, calling it absurd. “Tobacco control! What next? Permits for drinkers? Shaggers? Lovers of fatty food? Holidaymakers?” And although an extreme statement in itself, the point itself remains valid. If a licence is permitted on smokers, then where can the line be drawn on future proposals? How far are we, as a society, willing to be controlled?

A Facebook group has emerged named “Can we find 1 MILLION people that DON'T want smoking back in pubs?” and perhaps there are a million Facebook users willing to join the group. However, the point to the group is unclear. Cigarettes are already banned in pubs and there is no current plans to reverse that. The group even suggests that the matter be taken even further, and smoking should be banned outside of buildings.

That doesn’t really leave many places does it?

If the proposal for a licecnce is agreed upon and put into force, it may mean a decrease in smokers which would certainly have a fantastic result as far as National Health is concerned, but it will most likely not be of their own will, which would be a sad day indeed for freedom of choice.

Your snoring partner is more than a pain in the ass

Having a partner who snores is said to have far worse health implications than previously expected, it was claimed today.

For the snorer themselves, it can be an early sign of allergies, or weak throat muscles for example. Accorging to Bupa, the main cause is the narrowing of the air passageways, which then vibrate and create the snoring noise.

To hear snoring emerging from the one we choose to share a bed with can be noisy, irritable, and a major cause of a lack of sleep. But doctors now claim that this lack of sleep and this additional noise can actually increase blood pressure, a known risk factor for stroke, heart disease, kidney disease and dementia.

It appears that most things will these days result in high blood pressure. Typical…

After the issue was exposed, research was released in regards to the noise pollution put upon houses nearby airports. The research found that “the noises penetrating the bedroom had the same effect as those emanating from the neighbouring pillow. Blood pressure went up in direct relation to noise loudness.”

This appeared slightly far-fetched. Although research has been carried out and now evidence is available to support the fact that noise disrupts sleep, how much can we possibly control what our ears go through in the evenings?

Although most people had already worked out that "unwanted noise = bad night’s sleep", many websites and blogs have quickly jumped on the bandwagon to promote products to improve one’s nightly rest.

ThatsNews blog suggests the product Snoreeze, “provides immediate and long-lasting relief” whereas a more sceptical blogger acknowledges that “Snoreze not only stops you snoring, it also knocks you out completely.” Whether he thought this was a positive/negative effect, was unfortunately left to our imagination.

The day after the research was published, the World Medical Guide released a Snoring Scale Score, [Shown below] in order to guide sufferers of snorers (or more likely, it will be the snorer’s partners who suffer) on what help they should be getting depending on how severe the problem is.

Partners gave the patients a score of 0 for never, 1 for one night per week, 2
for two to three nights per week, and 3 for four or more nights per week, based
on whether snoring affects the partners' relationship; whether snoring causes
the non-snoring partner to be tired or irritable; whether the partners have to
sleep in separate rooms because the snoring is so disruptive; whether the
snoring is loud; and whether, when the partners sleep away from home, the
snoring affects people nearby, in hotels, campgrounds, and the like.

Of course, if the problem is affecting your life, it should be investigated and hopefully, solved. However, it appears as if many are scraping the bottom of the barrel to constantly provide new figures and promote new health products, which may in the long run, not be as effective as claimed. A Stop Snoring Blog exlpored this, stating "Stop snoring treatments are widespread. Some are cheap and others expensive. It’s big business. However, the vast majority of sufferers can stop snoring with simple changes."

Valid point. Perhaps purchasing ear-plugs is too much of a simple answer for the 21st century?

Warning: May cause drowsiness or sudden death syndrome

Heath Ledger's toxicology has now been released two weeks after his tragic death.
Spokeswoman Ellen Borakove stated in a news release:

Mr. Heath Ledger died as the result of acute intoxication by the combined effects of oxycodone, hydrocodone, diazepam, temazepam, alprazolam and doxylamine.

Ledger’s father, Kim, also produced a statement on the matter:

While no medications were taken in excess, we learned today the combination of
doctor-prescribed drugs proved lethal for our boy. Heath's accidental death
serves as a caution to the hidden dangers of combining prescription medication,
even at low dosage.

Kim Ledger, here makes an extremely valid point when he corrently identifies that there are “hidden dangers” regarding prescription drugs. In a related article, Sleeping Pills: Risks and Realities, it is claimed as "fairly standard" to prescribe sleeping pills to anybody with sleeping disorders. Fairly straightforward it would seem, but if given out so freely, should other drugs be as well?

With the unfortunate reaction to the concoction of drugs which cut short Ledger's life and arising career, it would not be a suprise if prescriptions were re-evaluated. However, this has not yet been the case. The "Sudden death symdrome" that is associated with "overdose" or "mixture" of these drugs has, as of yet, had no extensive research and taking that into consideration, should Heath have really been prescribed more than one drug at a time?
The only thing we can be sure about, is that unfortunately for Heath, doctors were not aware of what was to come, and perhaps Heath was simply not educated enough on taking medication.

15 Times The Charm

A couple who have spent ten years attempting to conceive have finally given birth to a healthy daughter, Olivia.

After spending a whopping £64,000 on 15 attempts at IVF treatment over the ten painful years, a number of ethical questions have yet again been raised regarding interferance with fertility.

Any "normal" woman, although devastated, would most likely give up on the IVF treatment after a few failed attempts, and generally, if successful, a baby is created on the 5th or 6th attempt. Because the new parents, Delina and Simon Tree, had only a 15% chance of conceiving before her final attempt at IVF, should doctors really have proceeded with this knowledge in mind?

Generally, public opinion conveyed congratulations to the Tree family for the courage and dedication that was shown. And if somebody is willing to pay the not-so-cheap fee of £4000 for every single attempt, then surely they are entitled to give it a go. However, many doctors advise otherwise for a reason.

Many desperate wannabe-mothers will of course go to extensive lengths for the child they long for. But by allowing Mrs. Tree to stack up a bill of £64,000, doctors may have been giving her false hope. Of course, on this occasion, the patient was fortunate enough to eventually conceive. But what if she didn't? How far would doctors have let her go? 16 attempts? 20?

The fact that she even re-mortaged her home in order to pay for the treatment shows the extreme anxoiusness she possessed in order to become a mother, and although doctors are unlikely to turn down business, should they not have taken her previous attempts into account?

I thought three was a crowd?

Researchers from Newcastle University have created embryos from three parents, it was revealed this weekend.

The embryos, created by IVF treatment in a test-tube, were formed from one male and two females in order to “lead to effective treatments for a range of serious hereditary diseases”. [Reuters]

The technicality of the process as described by the Newcastle research team “involves in vitro fertilization (IVF) and the subsequent removal of the egg's nucleus. The nucleus is then placed into a donor egg whose DNA has been removed. The resulting foetus inherits nuclear DNA, or genes, from both parents but mitochondrial DNA from a third party.”

The treatment is expected to be available in only three to five years “if all goes well” but whether the world is actually ready to take on such drastic methods of genetic modification is another matter.

The embryos formed from this research were destroyed for legal and ethical reasons but would certainly have made for interesting case studies in themselves. Imagine knowing you had 3 parents. Would that make one think differently about the world, about family, about life? Or would it just mean more Christmas presents under the tree?

The research is certainly one to be considered as extraordinary, but how far will the research go in order to eradicate the mitochondrial diseases that are evident in 1 in 5000 children? What if it actually takes the likes of four parents in order to make this a successful experiment? If that child were born, who would be mummy and daddy? All these questions first need to be answered before even considering releasing the treatment to patients, and three to five years for many seems rather too soon.

Josephine Quintavalle, of the pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics has expressed her own conerns regarding the matter stating:

It is risky, dangerous and a step towards designer babies . It
is human beings they are experimenting with. We should not be messing around
with the building blocks of life.

Likewise, Dr David King of Human Genetics Alert said it was too far a drift towards "GM babies."

Reassuring as it can be to know that scientists are constantly setting new high standards for research, controversy never comes too far after a breakthrough and there is certainly more ethic groups only around the corner to oppose such research plans.

Read more at Reuters.

Agency Nurses on Too High a Wage (?)

Agency nurses are apparently being paid more than £120 an hour, new figures have revealed.
With the ever controversial issue of nurses wages, this new figure is bound to cause quite a stir.
The high pay is said to "plug staffing gaps in the NHS" and between the nurses and other temporary staff such as administrators, the cost to the health service is £1.18 billion every year.

Like any agency job, the higher pay is normally due to it's temporary nature, and the debate on whether a nurse should be paid the equivalent as a footballer has been argued for some time now. But where is the fairness towards the nurses who do their job full-time? Surely the answer should be that the more dedicated should equal the more worthy?

It could be argued that the nurse industry is extremely competitive, and lacking in positions, which is accurate and fair. But it is difficult to put a price on our Health Service, and it is easy to say "Nurses should be trained more so we wouldn't need agency staff" but the funding for this extra training is at the moment, not available.

An NHS Junior doctor earns £24.14 an hour, the figures show, whilst a consultant is usually on around £60.31 an hour. The Department of Health has insisted that the NHS "do its best to get value for money when employing agency staff" but this then raises the difficult question......How much is a Nurse worth?


Read more at metro.co.uk
Who do you think is worth a high wage?
See more views at the BBC.