Do we need gap years?

Gap years have been a largely controversial subject throught the previous years in particular, due to the vast quantities of school leavers who immediatly raise their hands when the opertunity arises. Although, unbelievable proportions of them take advantage and see this as  a huge chunk of time to relax, stay indoors and lounge around all day, all year in some cases. The consequences can be disasterous; your application form towards a half-decent university will most likely be neglected. This immediatly reduces your chances of finding work that requires a degree...

Students who take a gap year are expected to find some work experience, preferably relevant to the to course you are applying for, from volanteer work abroad to fun events that can embolish your CV. For example you could work in a homeless shelter, teach children a particular skill, etc. After you take part in all these crucial, enjoyable opertunities over the course of the year, they develop into a huge jigsaw that represents your dream job, all the hard work finally coming together, piece after piece. This year is the year where it becomes essential that you're focused on your future prospects-if you're not commited don't even attempt to take the risk. A positive attitude is also nessasary in all circumstances, no temporary job is going to employ the unwilling, gloomy-minded.

I'm in all favour of gap years, however only if your mature enough to use this time wisely. Additionaly, I've realised that alot of people disagree with gap years completely because they see it as a waste of time when people don't embrace it like i mentioned previously.

Since I am eager to go into a job where I'm helping people, aswell as dabbling in politics my ideas for  a gap year would be to do some volantry work, maybe for a charity that supports people in hospital or something along those lines. I would also contribute a question on the debating/political tv show 'Question Time' as I can't go until I'm over 18 (so upsetting!)

Futhermore, if you do happen to consider taking a gap year, don't waste this precious time to fiddle on the xBox 24/7; realise your ambitions and research on how to reach them. Not only will this instantly increase your chances of having you're dream job, but it also looks attractive on you're CV when applying for university.

Should teenage girls be wearing makeup?

Should teenage girls be wearing makeup?
Makeup is a huge aspect of teenage morden society and has been flooding around schools for as long as I can remember, mine particularly; it is an all girls school. Some teenagers come across as orange (can be a sign of exsessive fake tan) some can't be bothered with the hassel, and others keep it natural but cover unwanted blemishes. However, do the girls with orange makeup intend for it to look so fake, or do they apply they're makeup in the wrong lighting? After all, we all have days when we apply to much makeup without realising, and its only until later until someone comments. Or could the reasoning for overuse of makeup be a form of insecurity? Could be, as I'm constantly spotting the same people, who always wear far too much as if it were intended...

So what triggers people to wear too much of these achne-multiplying products? Linking to the insecurity aspect, peer pressure could be involved, or trying to fit in with the popular crowd. Maybe its the 'cool' thing to do nowadays, but is it REALLY worth  sacrificing your true beauty to an orange mess, so you can fit in with the popular crowd?

Some beauty therapists have claimed that makeup as encourages a series of skin conditions, ranging from 'achne' -which is said to be common teenagers, to very dry and damaged skin cells. This doesn't nessasarily apply to all makeup users, but if the makeup builds up (from not washing of sufficiently enough, or using vast quantities so skin becomes irritated and damaged) then it becomes an issue.

So now we've established using vast amounts of makeup not only makes you look tarty, but it also damages the skin and is to blame for all the agrovating skin conditions as I stated previously. If you are one of the people who wears too much makeup, it may not of have caught up to you yet, but sooner or later you WILL regret how much you damaged your beautiful face, and the consequences can sometimes be incureable. Its not worth it, just to fit in. Accept who you are, don't be fooled by barbies, the media or pressure from other girls to look like a prostitute. It WILL come back to you, trust me.

So what can you do?
If you absoloutely HAVE to wear makeup, at least wear it naturally, a bit of concelear here and there, and some foundation-but NOT so it forms a orangeline around your chin. Wearing makeup naturally is completely harmless, so as long as you wash it of you can comprimise with fitting in and start thinking about what your face will look like in the future.

Accept yourself, and stop sacrificing you for a bunch of people who will be worthless to you when you walk into the real world.

Is Immigration a good thing?

As many of you are aware of the current disputute about the UK's immigration policies, I analayised and researched some stastics, to see what migrants really contribute to our society. This graph ubove shows the net number of immigrants who come to the UK, after a handful leave and others maintain their new lifestyle.The graph suggests that the numbers have fluctulated throughout the past several years, but the general trend of non-british citizens is increasing! However, this isn't nessasarily a bad thing, most of them come for work. Before I explain futher, the party UKIP want to limit immigration, and leave the european union, but is this the best option for our economy?

 The national instution of economic research study showed that 13 percent of our society today have immigrated, and only 1 percent of those immigrants are reliant on benefits. Although that 1 percent is around 63,000- who are presumably unemployed; they too are just as likely to be assylum seekers or incapable of finding work. Yes, they may be claiming benefits but to what extend can we say no, no more benefits for you?  I suspect alot of theese imigrants didn't choose to be ending up claiming benefits, but just Imagain if we said no to every immigrant who was relying on them. Consider The assylum seekers, those who were once living in poverty, finally having the opertunity to hope for a new life here in the UK, or people who can't work because they didn't have an education as an adolesent. Consequently, they will be homeless, starving and as a result the UK reputation will plument and reach its terminal velocity.

Still not convinced about letting immigrants claim our benefits? Let me question this; would you rather have homeless, beggers, even children on the streets of London, or alternatevly some hopeful immigrants, relying on the benefits to help them find work, that create our economy for more than just the british citizens. Imagain how awful our reputation would look if we didn't have a variety of diffrent cultures in our economy; this is a huge chunk that would be illumanted if you vote UKIP.

So now we've established that if we didn't allow imigrants to claim benefits, there would be thousands more beggers than we've ever recorded, and that if we didn't allow anyone acsess to live in the UK, there would be no cultures and no variety of diffrent people in our society. I have also heard a series of times that they would take our jobs, but what in the right mind gives you this conclusion, when a BBC news investigation was carried out to prove that vast quantites of theese harmless immigrants charge far less for jobs, and do more of the occupations that no british citizen is willing to do. Not to mention, alot of theese immigrants return home once they've earned a substancial amount to convert into their countries currency, which would be far more to support themselves and their families than what they would earn in their country,too.

So, if you want an even bigger deficit of jobs,a unsubstancial, limited, british society with no diffrent cultures or nationalities-which are said to be a huge aspect of bringing our economy together, then vote UKIP!

Was Benefits Street a fair portrayal of the unemployed?

Benefits Street, the TV series is called: Benefits Street, the short but narrow minded concept of St James Turner street in Birmingham, where the majority of  residents are critized for living a benefit-dependant lifestyle. Don't get me wrong, but a lot of us rely on benefits at some point in our lives, but why people feel the need to blame St James Turner residents for relying on benefits, when many of us do, too. Ever since  'Benefits Street' had been showed, the BBC news has claimed that over 50,000 people signed a petition suggesting the show exploited residents and should be pulled from the air. They also claim it has had over 5 million viewers so far.

The controversy has led to vast quantities of visitors, treating the street as if it were a tourist attraction. Vunerable children cycling down the pavement are left too traumatised to play outside,or even go to school. This is all due to the publicity of this show,  and how it results in people throwing abusive comments towards these unfortunate families.

My overall conclusion of this news is that not everyone who is benefit-dependant chose to be this way:
MAYBE they can't find a job.
MAYBE they are refugees.

But the only soloution for a possibility of peace in this street, is to stop influencing the public with more 'Benefits Street'. We do NOT want theese poor residents to be looked down on like peasants.

My thoughts on the Tube Strikes

The TFL strike troubled many underground users a couple of days last week; this was all due to Boris Johnson who refused to nagiotiate with unions on behalf of the ticket office workers. Boris Johnson seemed to have an ambition to make all the ticket office workers redundant, and replace them with ticket machienes. Hang on Boris, what about tourists? You can't expect tourists who stay temporarily buy a £10 oyster card, when they will probably never use it for future use anyway!! There is ALWAYS a use for ticket offices, especialy if the machienery breaks.  Because you didn't want to discuss or comprimise this situation with the unions, you pissed off 2 million people that day.

Why I Despise Michael Gove's Education Policies

Over the last week I have viewed a series of interviews and read various articles which all associate to Michael Gove ambitions to refine the standard of state schools. He has claimed that the private schools in England currently have to offer are the best independant schools in the world, yet why shouldn't our state schools be just as good? One of the articles by the daily mirror mentioned Michael Gove believes that children should be having detentions, (as if we don't already!) and teachers should be more stern with their students.Although there have been many surveys providing the statistics/evidence that private schools tend to do better at GCSE than public, I think its highly unreasonable to make children from the age of 11 arrive at school for 7 am-5pm(10 hours!-Times 5 is fifty hours a week, almost equvalent of a lawyers timetable!) From my own experience, even waking up at 7 is a struggle; Its praticaly still night time during winter and the moon is still shining through my bedroom blinds. So arriving at school in the dark would be an awful lifestyle for me, and the same opinion would probably apply to the vast majority of my public schools, as well as my own.

This goes to all students, or anyone who works in the early hours of the day: Do you ever find yourself  knackered and exhausted by the time you arrive at school/work? This is the result of lack of sleep, which if this new policy ever did arise to attend school so early, growing children would no longer have sufficent sleep. Scientific studies reccomend children to get at least ten hours sleep a day, but if you have to wake up af 5-6am you would have to go to bed at 8! You may think 3 hours free time is adequate, but if you take into account extra ciricular activities (for example: sewing, sports etc) and PARTICULARLY homework; consequently you will find youself having hardly any free time to embrace-nothing to LIVE for exept a weekend here and there. Futhermore, Michael Gove seems to have no knowledge of the current presence of after school clubs in STATE schools, so that establishes my point about how he should find some facts before expecting more from teenagers/children! Then on, its the same struggle everyday, stress and hard work, and a little sleep if your lucky. Its totally disrespectful for Michael Gove to not take into account how this will take such a huge impact on young students lives. Many students theese days seem to be very tired in the morning already, due to lack of sleep. Therefore, the few extra hours in the morning would in No WAY shape or form make a diffrence, It will just ware the teachers and children out.

I have a numerous amount of friends who went to private schools, aswell as myself. Yes, the education was obviously better, however alot of private schools theese days have reputations of ruining peoples outside lives. I found myself and from other peoples experiences getting incredibly hung up on work, homework etc. Its not a way of living for children, doing more hours than the average working hours of an adult is completely preposterous. 

Another thing, If i had the opertunity to speak to this selfish man I would yell him down to quit assuming that teachers haven't been giving out detentions, before deciding for teachers to be more strict and increase working hours. Think about your peoples LIFES rather than what people are going to think of England's reputation.