http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8085011.stm
Girls or, better said female students, are taking over places at university but are less likely to graduate than students from the opposite sex. 49% of the women have been attending universities, compared to (only) 38% of the males. Also there has been a rise in high occupations for the women; they seem to be everywhere. At this moment there is no clear reason how this phenomenon has come to stand. One reason given was that the kind of exams would fit the women better, but this has not only happened in the UK, there is a worldwide rise. Though it seems that boys would have an advantage in learning, girls develop different and are capable of achieving more, due to more practical learning.
I think it is good that women are achieving more and ‘taking’ over universities. Is there a reason to bother? I would say no, because women’s rights have been neglected and ignored for hundreds of years, so there you have your traditional influence why universities normally would consist of males. Now since the tradition of housewives is fading in to dust, they are also willing to work hard, to make a career and to achieve what I would call: a high position on society’s market.
maandag 12 juli 2010
No junior price for kid of 1 m 49 in restaurant
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/10yearold-too-tall-for-restaurants-junior-price-1695833.html
Ben Gardner, 10 went with his family to the Angel Chef Chinese buffet restaurant in Gloucester for an evening last week. They wanted to take advantage of the half-price children’s meal but Ben did not get the discount because he was 9 cm over the 140 tall limit. The restaurant said that there is a sign at the front of the restaurant informing customers of the children’s price height rule. Ben’s dad is very angry about this situation and cannot understand why the restaurant came up with this height rule.
When I read this article it shocked me because I have never heard about the height rule. I think it is a stupid rule who made it. A child cannot help it that he is growing too fast, it is not his fault. He is just a 10 year old boy who went to a restaurant to have a nice meal but in case of that the restaurant spoiled his evening. I can understand why Ben’s dad is angry, because he always went to Chinese restaurant and there was no problem and now suddenly there is a big problem because of Ben’s height.
Ben Gardner, 10 went with his family to the Angel Chef Chinese buffet restaurant in Gloucester for an evening last week. They wanted to take advantage of the half-price children’s meal but Ben did not get the discount because he was 9 cm over the 140 tall limit. The restaurant said that there is a sign at the front of the restaurant informing customers of the children’s price height rule. Ben’s dad is very angry about this situation and cannot understand why the restaurant came up with this height rule.
When I read this article it shocked me because I have never heard about the height rule. I think it is a stupid rule who made it. A child cannot help it that he is growing too fast, it is not his fault. He is just a 10 year old boy who went to a restaurant to have a nice meal but in case of that the restaurant spoiled his evening. I can understand why Ben’s dad is angry, because he always went to Chinese restaurant and there was no problem and now suddenly there is a big problem because of Ben’s height.
150 years of Big Ben: A celebration
Big Ben will celebrate its 150th anniversary tomorrow. Nowadays the name Big Ben, formerly known as the Great Bell, is often used to describe the tower, one of the country's most famous and most photographed landmarks. The origin of the name is thought to come from Sir Benjamin Hall, the First Commissioner of Works and Public Buildings, whose name is inscribed on the bell.
Mike McCann, Keeper of the Great Clock, said: "After 150 years, Big Ben still holds a special place in the hearts of Londoners and the world as a magnificent example of engineering and building genius." Over the years, several bells have hung in the tower, and various ringing mechanisms have been in use.
I truly think it is amazing that the Big Ben is still working after a century and a half. It truly is, as the article states, an amazing feat of technology and architecture. I've been to the tower myself a couple of times when I stayed in London, and I have to say that I think it's really an impressive sight. When you take some time to look at this building, its splendour strikes your mind. All the numbers in the article are quite captivating, yet it is a bit too much. The article could've been written in a more entertaining way , yet it was very informative.
Mike McCann, Keeper of the Great Clock, said: "After 150 years, Big Ben still holds a special place in the hearts of Londoners and the world as a magnificent example of engineering and building genius." Over the years, several bells have hung in the tower, and various ringing mechanisms have been in use.
I truly think it is amazing that the Big Ben is still working after a century and a half. It truly is, as the article states, an amazing feat of technology and architecture. I've been to the tower myself a couple of times when I stayed in London, and I have to say that I think it's really an impressive sight. When you take some time to look at this building, its splendour strikes your mind. All the numbers in the article are quite captivating, yet it is a bit too much. The article could've been written in a more entertaining way , yet it was very informative.
Ways to prevent Terror attacks against human rights?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/10/control-orders-breach-terror-suspects-rights
In a case of three convicted terrorists, judges have ruled for a retrial, saying that use of secret evidence would result in an unfair trial. The three had protested that they did not get a summary of the evidence ruling against them. The judges had also ruled, two years ago that an eighteen hour curfew was against a human rights convention. However these control orders, such as a curfew, phone monitoring and bans on travelling, internet or phone use, are only used to limit the risk formed by suspected terrorists, who could not be properly detained or prosecuted. In using these control orders, the government relies on very sensitive intelligence.
This is a difficult thing to debate about, on the one hand I think that measures such as these are neccesary precautions. However on the other hand, as has been commented by various other people such as politicans, it is cases like these that allow the government to take up the right way, respect human rights and fight terrorism within the law. To my opinion though, that is easier said than done. Terrorists can be ruthless and if there are large numbers of lives at stake, I think that the law can be pushed aside for a moment. People may disagree with me on that, but I stick true to the principle of consequentialism, that the ends justifies the means.
In a case of three convicted terrorists, judges have ruled for a retrial, saying that use of secret evidence would result in an unfair trial. The three had protested that they did not get a summary of the evidence ruling against them. The judges had also ruled, two years ago that an eighteen hour curfew was against a human rights convention. However these control orders, such as a curfew, phone monitoring and bans on travelling, internet or phone use, are only used to limit the risk formed by suspected terrorists, who could not be properly detained or prosecuted. In using these control orders, the government relies on very sensitive intelligence.
This is a difficult thing to debate about, on the one hand I think that measures such as these are neccesary precautions. However on the other hand, as has been commented by various other people such as politicans, it is cases like these that allow the government to take up the right way, respect human rights and fight terrorism within the law. To my opinion though, that is easier said than done. Terrorists can be ruthless and if there are large numbers of lives at stake, I think that the law can be pushed aside for a moment. People may disagree with me on that, but I stick true to the principle of consequentialism, that the ends justifies the means.
Is roger Federer able to regain his Wimbledon Title again?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jun/20/wimbledon-2009-roger-federer
This year, Roger Federer will have a chance to take back the top position from Nadal on Wimbledon 2009. Nadal had taken that position from him only a year ago, on Wimbledon 2008. Federer won his first Wimbledon in 2003, and from that moment on, his great talent has been recognized by many. He has been thankful to his trainer for always believing, and for several others as well. When Federer had four great years of tennis, people thought he would go down from there. But when Nadal lost in the fourth round of the French Open, Federer managed to become one of the very few men who won all four grand slam events. And now that Nadal will not participate in Wimbledon, Federer will have the chance to beat Sampras’s record of winning 14 major tournaments.
I do believe that Federer will have the chance to beat the mentioned record, set by Pete Sampras. I have seen him play on television several times, and I know that he is a very good tennis player. He is very close to Nadal in skill, and I think that they will remain that close until one of them stops. In my opinion, Federer will have a huge chance of success this Wimbledon and I do believe he is the biggest favourite for the title. Winning this title will be a great reward for him, I think. If I have the chance, I will be watching Wimbledon, and at least find out who will win; if it will indeed be Federer. I hope he will win.
To be honest I think that it's pretty ridiculous that every British citizen has to contribute to coughing up this huge amount of money simply because the English Government wanted pope Benedict to come to England. This visit is related to the Christian religion and there are lots of people who don't have any connection with religion or the Christian Religion at all and I think to force people to pay for an event like this, for something they do not even believe in, is just wrong. I think that it's also a ridiculous amount of money for the trip.
This year, Roger Federer will have a chance to take back the top position from Nadal on Wimbledon 2009. Nadal had taken that position from him only a year ago, on Wimbledon 2008. Federer won his first Wimbledon in 2003, and from that moment on, his great talent has been recognized by many. He has been thankful to his trainer for always believing, and for several others as well. When Federer had four great years of tennis, people thought he would go down from there. But when Nadal lost in the fourth round of the French Open, Federer managed to become one of the very few men who won all four grand slam events. And now that Nadal will not participate in Wimbledon, Federer will have the chance to beat Sampras’s record of winning 14 major tournaments.
I do believe that Federer will have the chance to beat the mentioned record, set by Pete Sampras. I have seen him play on television several times, and I know that he is a very good tennis player. He is very close to Nadal in skill, and I think that they will remain that close until one of them stops. In my opinion, Federer will have a huge chance of success this Wimbledon and I do believe he is the biggest favourite for the title. Winning this title will be a great reward for him, I think. If I have the chance, I will be watching Wimbledon, and at least find out who will win; if it will indeed be Federer. I hope he will win.
To be honest I think that it's pretty ridiculous that every British citizen has to contribute to coughing up this huge amount of money simply because the English Government wanted pope Benedict to come to England. This visit is related to the Christian religion and there are lots of people who don't have any connection with religion or the Christian Religion at all and I think to force people to pay for an event like this, for something they do not even believe in, is just wrong. I think that it's also a ridiculous amount of money for the trip.
maandag 19 april 2010
Unexpected Victory for the Liberal Democrats
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7099159.ece
Nick Clegg has managed to get in favor of the people in Britain after last night's debate. A public pole indicates that Nick Clegg was victorious in the debate, with
61 per cent of voters saying he had won the night. During the debate, Gordon Brown used a more soft way of debating while David Cameron used a more aggressive way with a lot of interrupting. Nick Clegg, on the other hand, tried to focus more on the public during the debate. He tend to distance himself from his opponents by for example referring to his opponents as “these two”, while at the same time got in favor of the public by using examples and stories of people he had met during his campaign.
I was quite surprised to read that the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, has won the debate. Before this debate the Liberal Democrats weren't really known by the public, at previous elections (and this has been going on for many years) it was always about the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. These two parties were the big and main parties. The Liberal Democrats formed a small, not so popular party. It seems though, that Nick Clegg has managed to 'put his party on the map'. I find this very admirable, because he has done this almost from scratch. Also because it's not easy to get the public in favor, but he has been able to do just that.
Nick Clegg has managed to get in favor of the people in Britain after last night's debate. A public pole indicates that Nick Clegg was victorious in the debate, with
61 per cent of voters saying he had won the night. During the debate, Gordon Brown used a more soft way of debating while David Cameron used a more aggressive way with a lot of interrupting. Nick Clegg, on the other hand, tried to focus more on the public during the debate. He tend to distance himself from his opponents by for example referring to his opponents as “these two”, while at the same time got in favor of the public by using examples and stories of people he had met during his campaign.
I was quite surprised to read that the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, has won the debate. Before this debate the Liberal Democrats weren't really known by the public, at previous elections (and this has been going on for many years) it was always about the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. These two parties were the big and main parties. The Liberal Democrats formed a small, not so popular party. It seems though, that Nick Clegg has managed to 'put his party on the map'. I find this very admirable, because he has done this almost from scratch. Also because it's not easy to get the public in favor, but he has been able to do just that.
zondag 18 april 2010
Will darting Ronnie O'Sullivan overcome his problems and get back in the game?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ronnie-osullivan-a-genius-and-troubled-soul-ndash-so-which-of-the-two-ronnies-will-turn-up-1947792.html\
Darting Ronnie O'Sullivan has had a rather turbulent career with the problems he had to cope with in his life. The question is: Will he finally be able to leave his problems behind him and focus himself on his professional darts career again to be able to get his fourth world title?
Ronnie had to deal with his father going to prison for a minimum of 18 years for stabbing in a Chelsea club, which resulted in Ronnie starting to use drugs which suspended him and assaulting media official Mike Ganley at the World Championship which ripped him from his World Title. Now that things are going better with Ronnie, can he turn the tide?
I think that Ronnie can get back to the level of darts that he used to have but I also think that it's most likely that once he gets to that level again and he wins the world title again, Ronnie will fall back in his mistakes. It's not just one mistake he made during his career that made him lose titles or being suspended, he made several mistakes and he just doesn't seem to learn from it. It's too bad that Ronnie, such a talent, had to go through all the mess that his father going to jail gave him. If his social life/family situation would have been normal he would probably make it to the top without a doubt.
Darting Ronnie O'Sullivan has had a rather turbulent career with the problems he had to cope with in his life. The question is: Will he finally be able to leave his problems behind him and focus himself on his professional darts career again to be able to get his fourth world title?
Ronnie had to deal with his father going to prison for a minimum of 18 years for stabbing in a Chelsea club, which resulted in Ronnie starting to use drugs which suspended him and assaulting media official Mike Ganley at the World Championship which ripped him from his World Title. Now that things are going better with Ronnie, can he turn the tide?
I think that Ronnie can get back to the level of darts that he used to have but I also think that it's most likely that once he gets to that level again and he wins the world title again, Ronnie will fall back in his mistakes. It's not just one mistake he made during his career that made him lose titles or being suspended, he made several mistakes and he just doesn't seem to learn from it. It's too bad that Ronnie, such a talent, had to go through all the mess that his father going to jail gave him. If his social life/family situation would have been normal he would probably make it to the top without a doubt.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)
