Clueless

My thoughts on 'Being Bad'

2007-05-09T06:25:00.000Z

Q1. Age?
44

Q2. Sex?
Female

Q3. What is your degree subject (both if joint)?
Social Policy/Social Care

Q4. Does ‘Being Bad’ relate well to the other modules you are taking?
No, not at all.

If so, how? And if not, why not?
I cannot see the link between any of the topics in this module and Social Policy/Social Care. What has body modification got to do with anything?

Q5. Have you found ‘Being Bad’ too demanding, too easy, or at an appropriate level?
An appropriate level.

Q6. Do you think the list of topics covered on the module was appropriate?
Appropriate to the module I suppose, but not appropriate to the subjects I am studying

Q7. Are there any topics not included in the module that you would like to see included?
Possibly football hooliganism.

Q8. Do you think that the format for classes has worked well?
No, not at all, mainly due to the appalling behaviour of some students and the inability of some lecturers to control the situation.

Q9. What did you think of the module team?
Lecturers need to take tougher stance on disruptive students - eject them if necessary - you'd probably get a round of applause from the rest of us who come to lectures to learn. Whilst I understand there is currently a retention issue at the university, surely quality is better than quantity?
Lecturers were friendly and approachable, particularly Mark Jones.
George Chryssides is an outstanding lecturer.
Assignments not returned to students in 3 weeks' turnaround time - not good enough!

Q10. Do you think it would have been better to have had more:

Small group discussions?
No, because this would give some students more opportunities to chat and use their mobile phones.

Discussion and debate among the class as a whole?
Yes, if it doesn’t descend to the depths of the Jeremy Kyle Show or a group therapy session - I really don't want to hear about people's personal issues in a lecture and I'm not in the slightest bit interested if the person sitting three rows behind me has slept with her boyfriend's dad's sister's husband's cousin.

Information and talk from lecturers?
No

Q11. The approach taken in the module is interdisciplinary (drawing on perspectives from English Literature, Film Studies, Creative Writing, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Media Studies and Politics): do you think this a useful way of approaching the topics covered in the module?
No, I don’t want to write short stories, I’ve come to university to do academic writing not creative writing – it is of no use to me at all.

Q12. Do you think that interdisciplinary modules are a good idea?
No

Q13. Do you think you have benefited from the interdisciplinary approach taken in the module?
No, not at all.

Q14. Would you like to see more modules that cover this kind of subject matter?
No, definitely not.

Q15. Are you planning to take the follow-up module PH2004 ‘It Shouldn’t Be Allowed’ at level 2?
No, definitely not.

Q16. Would you recommend ‘Being Bad’ to a friend?
No, I would actively discourage them (unless they were studying philosophy).

Q17. Do you think that the blogs (web logs) were a good idea?
Yes, because it forced technophobes like me to learn more about IT.

Q18. What did you think of the other assessments (e.g. would it be better to have one longer assessment rather than two shorter ones?)?
One assessment would be better as it’s really difficult to give any substance to an assignment in 600 words.

Q19. What have you learned from the module?
To research the module content in more depth before registering for it! I thought it would be about criminality.
On a positive note, learning how to 'blog' has been good - 44 and setting up my own weblog - how cool am I? Not very - my kids reply!

Q20. What parts of the module have you found most useful and why?
None of it.

Q21. What parts do you think were a waste of time and why?
All of it!

Q22. Are there any other comments you wish to make regarding ‘Being Bad’?
In my opinion this module should not be a core option for Social Policy/Social Care. I just can’t see the connection (unless I’m missing something). I attend university part time, I work full time and my employer allows me day release and pays my fees because Social Policy/Care are highly relevant to my job. This module has been a complete waste of my time and my employer's money, I want to learn about things that actually matter like addressing social injustice, child poverty, etc., not genital piercing and masturbation! Please also see my post dated 26th March for further rantings about this module.

The content of some of the lectures was fairly shocking but what has shocked me most with this module is the behaviour and total lack of respect and consideration of some students. I would estimate that 80% of the students on this module have come straight from sixth form and, if this is an indication of the way they behaved at school, no wonder so many teachers I know want to leave the profession. When I was at school we used to stand up when our teachers entered the classroom and if anyone dared to chat to the person next to them they would be ordered out and woe betide them if the headteacher happened to walk past. I really do fear for the future of this country if the behaviour of these young people is indicative of what is coming out of our education system.

On one positive note, I enjoyed the lectures on Being Too Religious and Smoking. This is because the lectures were interesting and the style of the lecturers held my interest, not because they had any relevance to what I'm studying.

Maybe I'm too old and out of touch but I just don't get the point of this module at all. I'm sorry to be so negative but in my opinion the module should be removed as a core option for Social Policy and Social Care.

Bad comedians/comedy

2007-05-08T20:36:00.000Z

In my view the most unpleasant comedian (I use the term loosely!) is Bernard Manning - I don't think there is ever a place for racism in comedy. I can remember when Bernard Manning first appeared on TV - it was on a programme that started in the 1970s called 'The Comedians'. Also on the programme were comedians like Frank Carson and a black man from Yorkshire called Charlie Williams (who was really funny) - I wonder how he felt having to work alongside Bernard Manning?

Having said there is no place for racism in comedy, I'm now about to contradict myself. Little Britain ticks all the politically incorrect 'ist' boxes; ageist, racist, disablist, fatist, chavist (OK, so the latter two don't exist, but you get the point). OR IS IT racist, disablist, etc, or, is it merely comedy depicting racism, etc? Or is it a class thing? Is this type of comedy more acceptable because it's coming from two southern, middle class, seemingly well educated, 'cutting-edge' comedy actors, whereas Bernard Manning is seen as a northern, working class, uncouth slob. This has got me thinking now. The reason so many people love Little Britain is very basic - because it's funny, which cannot be said about the ghastly Bernard Manning.

I wonder if anyone else is old enough to remember a 1970s TV sitcom called 'Love Thy Neighbour'? The story was of two couples living next door to each other - one black, one white - and the two men worked together. Whilst the wives got on well together, the white man hated his black neighbour simply because he was black. Words like 'nig-nog' were commonplace and the programme has been pilloried over the past two decades for its racist overtones. However, whilst the language used and the racism was totally unacceptable, the one good thing about the programme was that the black man (played incidentally by Rudolph Walker, aka Patrick Trueman in Eastenders) always got the better of the white bigot. For more information on this programme visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/l/lovethyneighbour_7774180.shtml

Talking of the 1970s which, as we all know, were the epitome of good taste (not!) - The Black & White Minstrel Show - what was that all about? White men, their faces painted black, white lips and eye sockets, acrylic wigs and top hats. It always used to be on TV on a Saturday evening after Dr Who. I used to hide behind the sofa, not because of the daleks - I was fine with them - but I was terrified of the Black & White Minstrels. This was what passed for high quality light entertainment when I was little - oh how the evenings flew by! Even in those politically incorrect times, what on earth was the BBC thinking of?!! Apparently the programme ran from 1958 until 1978 when someone at the BBC must have finally come to their senses. Bizarre! For more information on this TV 'classic' go to http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/tv/variety/blackwhite.htm

Gambling

2007-04-29T21:25:00.000Z

I wasn't able to attend the lecture on Thursday 26th April due to work commitments, however, I've taken a look at some of the posts on other people's blogs and it seems that the topic was gambling. Here are my thoughts on gambling.

I can see the attaction in gambling as I've been to horse racing and the thrill of winning is great, even if your stake is only £1.00. The problem is when gambling gets out of control and becomes an addiction in much the same way as alcoholism or drug addiction. I knew someone many years ago who committed suicide due to gambling debts, he was only in his 20's and no-one, not even his closest friends and family, knew about his gambling addiction. Gambling can destroy lives.

I've been watching TV this evening and an advert came on for on-line bingo, promoted by the self-styled 'woman of the people' Sharon Osbourne - see http://www2.galabingo.co.uk/bingogames.go?page=splash10for5&p_ref=MSNNB2. I think this, and TV competition lines, is a worrying trend. Going to the bookies to place a bet requires some effort whereas TV competition lines don't involve people leaving their homes, all they have to do is pick up the phone. The temptation is to keep ringing and ringing in the belief that the more times one enters the more chance one has of winning. I think these competitions are aimed at the most vulnerable people in society, people who whether for reasons of disability, having children to care for or other reasons, do not go out to work, and these are the people who can least afford the high phone bills. TV companies exploit these people.

Lying with integrity/Suggestion for an 'alternative' field trip

2007-04-19T18:34:00.000Z

Firstly, I'd like to suggest an 'alternative' field trip - I think Jeremy Kyle should come and film an outside broadcast at one of these lectures - the subject matter and some of the discussion would certainly fit the bill. But I've already made my views on this module pretty clear so I won't start ranting again.

Anyway, here are my comments on lying. Those people who say that lying is always wrong are seriously kidding themselves. In my working life I lie quite a lot- I work with communities, elected councillors and others and managing community conflict, dealing with community politics and generally trying to create community cohesion is a large part of my job. But I consider myself to be a really honest person - when I say lying I don't mean that I maliciously deceive people or deliberately give them wrong or mischievous information - my lies are 'professional' lies (white lies perhaps?) that often involve denying that I know about certain issues or pretending to be surprised when people tell me things that I already know about - I find I have to do this to 'keep the peace'. As Adrienne Rich suggests, "lying is done with words and also with silence" - more quotes on lying can be found at http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_lying.html. I wouldn't do my job very well if I always told the truth but I prefer to call it diplomacy rather than lying and I think I'm really good at it!

Another situation where people might lie is when applying for jobs. I'm sure everyone at some time has exaggerated their level of experience on application forms and at interviews - I know I have.

I agree with the people who said that lying to protect someone was OK. However, I sympathise with the story of the friend of one student who grew up not knowing that she had a different father to her siblings and felt bitter because she missed out on the opportunity to get to know her 'real' dad. But I can also understand why her mom didn't tell her the truth - as a mother myself I would have no hestitation in lying if I thought my children needed protecting or shielding from the truth.

Response to Beingbadviran (Viranjit Kaur)

2007-04-04T06:23:00.000Z

Hi Viranjit

I agree the film Kids was a bit like a fly on the wall type documentary which I think made it feel realistic. Like you I found this film shocking but I can’t say I was surprised by any of the content. This film was set in the USA 12 years ago, but it could just as well have been here in the UK today; having spent the last 4 years working in some of the most deprived areas of a city in the West Midlands, I know this behaviour goes on.

I think I found the scene where the man was beaten up most disturbing. The level of violence involved was distressing and the way the bystanders stood laughing and appeared to be enjoying it and encouraging the perpetrators was sickening.

I think the opening scene where Telly was telling the young girl how much he cared about her so that he could have sex with her was quite upsetting – she only looked about 13 – and I desperately wanted Jennie to ‘save’ the 14 year old (whose name I can’t remember) at the end of the film but sadly there was never going to be a happy ending to this film.

I grew up on a council estate in the 1960s/70s. When I was 16/17 (many years ago) I used to go to parties and misbehave sometimes. I knew people who took drugs but I never got involved and was certainly never offered any – I would have been too scared of my dad finding out anyway. I know STDs were around back then but to be honest the worst fear was of getting pregnant. There is so much more to be worried about nowadays. As the mother of 17 year old and 12 year old daughters I like to think I know what they’re up to but I’m not with them 24/7 and I can’t help but worry.

Best wishes,
Joanne

Response to Pearls of Wisdom (Claire L Lee)

2007-04-03T21:34:00.000Z

Hi Claire

I studied the topics of euthanasia and assisted suicide in a legal studies module I did in Semester 1 - thought I'd share my research and thoughts with you.

The ethical issues of euthanasia and assisted death are subject to much debate. Statistics suggest that the vast majority of the general public in the United Kingdom (86%) think that euthanasia should be legalised. In the UK, although there is no specific legislation in relation to euthanasia, a health care professional who deliberately ends the life of a patient is likely to be charged with either murder, manslaughter or attempted murder. In addition, the Suicide Act 1961 deems that “aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the suicide of another is a criminal offence”.

Two notable legal cases that highlight the dilemmas faced by the medical and legal professions involve Mrs Diane Pretty and Ms B, both of whom wished their lives to be ended at a time of their choice.Diane Pretty, who gradually lost all her functions due to motor neurone disease, but remained mentally competent, went to court in 2001 to challenge section 2.1 of the Suicide Act 1961 . She requested the courts to allow her husband to be allowed to assist her to die at a time of her choosing, ie, active euthanasia, without the threat of him being prosecuted. After failing in the domestic courts, she took her case to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that her human rights were being denied her, but again she was unsuccessful. Ms B, on the other hand, was irreversibly paralysed from the neck down and was being kept alive on a ventilator. Prior to her illness Ms B had made a living will stating that if she suffered from a life threatening condition, she required treatment to be withdrawn, ie, passive euthanasia. Despite attempts from the medical team caring for her to prevent it, Ms B was eventually given sedation and her ventilator removed; she died four weeks later.

The distinction in law between these two cases is that Ms B was exercising a negative right not to be treated against her will, whereas Diane Pretty was claiming a positive right to be helped to die. There are those who argue that if voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide is legalised, there is a danger that ‘involuntary’ euthanasia will occur, ie, the ‘slippery slope’ argument. On the other hand, as The Guardian argued in 2004, “the current law allows doctors to accelerate death by withholding a drug, but illogically rules administering a drug to achieve the same end is illegal”. I believe these two cases illustrate the anomalies that exist within the law. You can find out more on these two cases on these links:

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=754604201&sid=1&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;Fmt=28&cli
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/
http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/think
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=79370509&sid=1&Fmt=28&cli

I agree with you Claire and I think what we have at the moment is bad law. I do have some sympathy with the 'slippery slope' argument but in my view the law should be changed to allow assisted suicide by medical practitioners.

Best wishes
Joanne

References:
Campbell, R and Collinson, D Ending Lives (Blackwell Oxford 1988)
Holt, J Euthanasia (NT Books London 1999)
Pedain, A “The Human Rights Dimension of the Diane Pretty Case” 2003, 62(1) Cambridge Law Journal, pp. 181-206

Kids - bad cinema?

2007-04-02T07:01:00.000Z

Is this film bad cinema? Well it caused a great deal of controversy when it was made. There were some very young children acting in this film (ie, the girl in the first scene and the boys who were at the party) and I don’t think it’s right to involve them in this kind of cinema. However, having said that, if the publicity for the film is to be believed, these kids were plucked from the streets of New York anyway and had probably already been exposed to this way of life. It makes me very sad and fearful for the future.

Other comments about Kids can be found at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113540/board.

Response to Nathaniel's Being Badnesses (Esson, Nathaniel C.)

2007-03-28T07:14:00.000Z

Hi Nathaniel

Just wanted to comment on your post about drunken football fans and to point out that football fans don’t have to be drunk to behave like idiots.

I am a devoted Wolves fan – I have a season ticket and go to all home games (and occasional away games). AND, YES, WE DID BEAT THE BAGGIES 1-0. We love you Wanderers we do, oh Wanderers we love you … sorry, getting carried away there but it was fantastic and we were magnificent.

Anyway, back to my point. Every home game I go with my husband and my daughters to watch our team. We park on the Science Park car park (A449 Stafford Road) and walk up to Molineux. 9 times out of 10 the coaches carrying the away supporters pass us as we’re walking. I’m a middle aged woman and I have grown men mooning at me, sticking their fingers up at me and simulating masturbation at me just because I’m wearing my Wolves scarf. What’s that all about? These men are someone’s brother, dad, or, worse still, granddad. I could quite easily be lying next to one of them on my sun lounger round the pool in Spain this Summer and exchanging light hearted football banter. I think this behaviour is down to the ‘pack mentality’. Some interesting sociological theories on football hooliganism can be found at http://www.le.ac.uk/footballresearch/resources/factsheets/fs1.html

Finally, did I mention that we BEAT THE BAGGIES 1-0?

Best wishes,
Joanne

Response to Badsmurf (Abigail Butler)

2007-03-27T22:42:00.000Z

Hi Abigail

Just wanted to comment on your suggestion for a field trip to the dog races. Take a look at some of the messages and images on http://forums.virtualfestivals.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t71299.html. Greyhound racing is a really cruel ‘sport’. When their racing days have finished many of these dogs turn up at animal sanctuaries in an appalling condition. Some even have their ears cut off to prevent their racing number being identified and traced back to the owner, thus avoiding prosecution. Going to dog racing perpetuates this appalling abuse of animals.

Joanne

Bad is bizarre

2007-03-26T07:01:00.000Z

As this module continues I find myself becoming increasingly baffled as to why I come every week. I am studying Social Policy/Social Care and have taken this module because it is 1 of only 2 choices of Core Option modules (the other was Volunteering in the Community which I couldn’t take because I couldn’t get a placement sorted out in time). What on earth has genital piercing, masturbation, Jesse James, etc, got to do with the subjects I am studying?

I’m a part time student; I work full time and am allowed day release to come to university. I’m also really fortunate to get my fees paid by my employer. I work for a Local Authority and my job is all about delivering locally the government’s strategy for renewing deprived neighbourhoods – Social Policy therefore is particularly relevant to my job which is why I get my fees paid/day release. My boss takes a keen interest in my studies and is really supportive. Every Friday morning when I go to work he always asks me about the lecture the previous evening – the look on his face is a picture when I tell him about some of the topics!

I have enjoyed a couple of the lectures, ie, Smoking and Being Too Religious, but this is merely because I’m interested in these two topics, not because they have any relevance to the subjects I’m studying (apart from the health implications of smoking).

Still, I’m not a quitter and I will persevere with this module. It just gets more and more BIZARRE!

I didn’t stay until the end of Thursday’s Body Modification lecture; I left during the clitoral piercing – I’m quite squeamish and I couldn’t watch any more. As to whether body modification is bad, I suppose if it's not harming anyone else then each to their own - frankly, I couldn't care less!

Incidentally, when I was 18 (I’m in my 40s now) I had my ears pierced 3 times – I thought I was so cool – but my 17 year old daughter tells me how ‘chavtastic’ I look in photos.

NRMs/Criminal Activity

2007-03-25T16:24:00.000Z

I’ve been doing some more reading on New Religious Movements (NRMs) and have come across a catalogue of cases where NRM’s have been involved in criminal activity or unsavoury activities (Barker, 1989, 2nd ed). These include:
· The mass suicide at Jonestown (leader – Jim Jones – pictured above left)
· The Manson murders (leader – Charles Manson – pictured above centre)
· The Children of God ‘Hookers for Jesus’ and allegations of incest
· Scientologists (including the founder, L Ron Hubbard’s wife) convicted of theft of US government documents
· Sun Myung Moon (Unification Church, aka the ‘Moonies’) convicted of tax evasion
· Allegations of Krishna followers involved in child abuse and drug trafficking
· Branch Davidians (leader – David Koresh - pictured above right) - child sex abuse and the subsequent siege at Waco resulting in the death of 53 adults and 25 children
… to name a few.

Barker (1989, 2nd ed) argues, however, that crimes like these have also been committed by people who do not belong to New Religious Movements. I take Professor Barker’s point but I still think some of these NRM’s are dodgy!

More information on NRMs can be found at http://www.religion-cults.com/Cults/Christian/C-CULTS.htm

Reference:
Barker, E. (1989, 2nd ed) New Religious Movements. London: HMSO Publications.

New Religious Movements

2007-03-22T07:23:00.000Z

This image is of a mass wedding in Seoul, South Korea, in February 2000 where 60,000 members of the Unification Church from 150 countries around the world got married - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/641588.stm.

I didn’t really know much about New Religious Movements (NRMs) before last week’s lecture and I was quite surprised about the level of commitment required to be part of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the level of control exerted on its members. I’ve been thinking about what type of person might join a NRM such as Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Unification Church (Moonies).

I’d have thought that people joining NRM’s would be weak, susceptible to manipulation or vulnerable and in search of some sort of order in their lives. However, according to Barker (1989, 2nd ed), this is a wrong assumption to make. Barker (1989, 2nd ed, p.33) goes on to argue that “members of NRMs are human beings who happen to be in a movement that is considered, both by them and by outsiders, to be ‘different’” and that “both history and anthropology clearly illustrate that what one group of people considers to be ‘natural’ or ‘proper’ behaviour, another group is quite capable of thinking bizarre, insane, ‘unnatural’, ‘improper’ or dangerous. Sorry Professor Barker, I’m not convinced!

Professor Eileen Barker has set up an independent charity called INFORM that is based at the London School of Economics - details can be found at http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1503041. INFORM provides information about NRMs.

Reference:
Barker, E. (1989, 2nd ed) New Religious Movements. London: HMSO Publications.

Field trip - gambling

2007-03-21T07:31:00.000Z

I would like to suggest that for a field trip we go to Wolverhampton Races http://www.wolverhampton-racecourse.co.uk/raceday/fixtures.html. I've been on a number of occasions and the thrill of winning (even for a £1.00 stake) is a brilliant experience.

I've noticed that a couple of people have suggested a 'Night at the Dogs'. I am against going to greyhound racing because the cruelty involved. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) outlines the appalling ill-treatment of greyhounds on its website http://www.peta.org.uk/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=148

Response to Bad Girl Being Bad (Alison K. Humphries)

2007-03-20T19:54:00.000Z

Hi Alison

I agree with your comment about people who keep talking during lectures. This is really off-putting to those of us who come to learn.

I'm lucky as my employer pays for my fees (I'm a part time student)but I sympathise with those students who are paying over £3,000 per year for their studies (even more for the international students).

I think some of the lecturers should take a harder line on these disruptive, rude students. I took a legal studies module as an elective in Semester 1 and the lecturer (Jennifer Hulme) took a zero tolerance stance on lateness, talking and mobile phones. If students were more than 10 minutes late for a lecture they were not allowed in, people talking and texting were told to leave and not come back! I think this is a model of good practice that should be replicated throughout the university.

Why do they behave this way? I really can't answer that and I'd welcome one of them explaining it to me through the 'comments' facility. Do they really want to be at university or is it through pressure from their parents that they're here?

Sorry for the rant but this behaviour really does annoy me.

Joanne.

Response to Donnie's blog (Adonis A. Bradshaw)

2007-03-18T18:23:00.000Z

Hi Donnie

Just wanted to take issue about your comment stating you can't understand why non-smokers have to get involved in the smoker's life choices. Can I point out that us non-smokers have no choice but to get involved when we're passively smoking their cigarettes!

I lived with my parents until I was 22 and my dad smoked about 30 per day. I had recurring throat problems during the time I lived at home which has left me with a weak throat (I'm 44 now) which I believe was caused by passive smoking. My mum died of cancer 4 years ago having never smoked a cigarette of her own in her life but 'sharing' my dad's fags for the previous 47 years. OK, so I can't prove a link but I can't help but wonder.

Give up as soon as you can Donnie; I've witnessed at first hand someone dying of lung cancer and it's not pleasant.

Best wishes,
Joanne

Being too religious

2007-03-15T20:50:00.000Z

Excellent lecture this evening - best one yet! Good debate too after the break - once all the rude students who persist in talking and walking out mid-lecture had left. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE LECTURES, DO US ALL A FAVOUR AND STAY AWAY!

I am a practising Christian but I felt uncomfortable when George read out the prayer at the start of the lecture. I felt it was forcing people into prayer and it was also insensitive to students of non-Christian religions.

George mentioned that most people who attend church do so because their parents did. This is not the case for me. Although my parents would have called themselves Christians we didn't go to church when I was little. I was very anti-religion in my teens and 20's. I found my faith by accident when I was in my early 30's when I went to church with my daughter who was involved in a Brownie parade. I think I had what one might describe as a 'religious experience'; it's difficult to explain but it was just this overwhelming feeling that this was where I belonged. I don't believe in the virgin birth, etc, but I believe that Jesus was a thoroughly good and decent bloke and I try to live my life by following his teachings - I don't always get it right but I do try to be a good Christian.

I don't talk to other people much about my religion, but yet we're encouraged at church to spread the message of god. Like a lot of people I get mildly annoyed by the man who evangelises in Wolverhampton city centre but is he a better Christian than me because he does spread the word? I'm not sure.

Infidelity

2007-03-12T18:09:00.000Z

I’ve been thinking about the extract from ‘would you buy a love affair from this man?’ I know it’s easy to be judgemental when you’re not in the situation yourself, however, in my view, cheating can never be justified. Katy talks about her ‘duty’ to her children and it being ‘best for children to have their parents together’, which, as a parent myself, I totally agree with but surely she is taking too many risks, (a) about her personal safety – if she got hurt or worse, how would that affect the children? and (b) if her husband finds out – she risks destroying her family, as Glass (in Silverton, no date, at http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.innersource-inc.com/images/pix_newsletter/pix_news_0904/infidelity.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.innersource-inc.com/_pages/articles/newsletter/newsletter_2004_fall/silverton_infidelity_0904.htm&amp;h=245&w=325&sz=38&tbnid=Ve4vYmyb9v_j6M:&amp;amp;tbnh=89&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dimages%2Bof%2Binfidelity&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=) suggests, “It’s not the sex, it’s the deception that destroys a marriage.”

Students behaving badly

2007-03-11T18:57:00.000Z

I thought the behaviour of some students in the lecture on Infidelity was appalling! Talking, walking out, mobile phones going off - very rude and disrespectful to Meena. What is the point of them coming to lectures if they're not going to listen? It’s really distracting to those of us who come along to learn. I myself didn't come back after the break - totally pointless as I couldn't hear what Meena or fellow student contributors were saying - went to the library instead.

I can't find any guidelines on University of Wolverhampton website about dealing with disruptive students but I did find some information on the University of Westminster website http://www.wmin.ac.uk/pdf/EffectiveLectures.pdf.

Shoplifting

2007-03-10T16:07:00.000Z

I can understand why people might shoplift, if a person had no money and it was to get food or nappies for their children for example. Thankfully I've never been in a situation where I've had to do this but if I had to, I suppose I would steal. Some shoplifters steal to order - I guess this could be to feed a drug habit. The bottom line is that shoplifting is wrong - it's theft.

There can, however, be mitigating circumstances. Back in the 1970’s an elderly great-aunt of mine was arrested for shoplifting (she’s been dead for many years now). At the time she was suffering from mental health problems and probably the start of Alzheimers – she didn’t need to shoplift as she was fairly well off. She was prosecuted, fined and had her name printed in the local newspaper. In my opinion the authorities acted very badly towards my aunt, she never got over the shame and the shame that she thought she had inflicted on her family – she died a very sad old lady.

There was also the case of Lady Isobel Barnet, who had been a TV celebrity in the 1970’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isobel_Barnett. She was convicted of shoplifting in 1980 when she clearly had mental health problems. She committed suicide 4 days after her conviction.

The forgotten costs of smoking

2007-03-09T16:38:00.000Z

I've been looking at presentation slides of smoking lecture and came across the quote by Jeremy Clarkson http://wolf-nt.wlv.ac.uk/common/newframeset.asp?modid=wlv1508 who says that for every £1 smokers cost the NHS they give back £3.60. But what about the cost to families/carers who have to deal with the practical and emotional consequences of watching a loved one die of cancer? These are detailed in the CancerBacup website http://www.cancerbackup.org.uk/Resourcessupport/Relationshipscommunication/Emotionaleffects/Adviceforpartnerscarersandfriends
Having worked in a hospital palliative care team, I have seen at first hand the effect on families that someone dying of lung cancer, which can often be a long, drawn out process can have.

Smokers are selfish

2007-03-08T08:01:00.000Z

Did a google search today and came across a website by John Williams, who grew up in Liverpool http://www.liverpooltales.com/stories/smoking.shtml. Williams talks about the people who influenced him to smoke, ie, 40's/50's film idols, peers and his parents - this is also discussed at http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/smoking/psychologicalinfluences_000509.htm. It made me think about my reason for being a NON-SMOKER. My dad smoked and throughout the time I lived 'at home' - mum didn't smoke, but yet hers and my clothes always stank of cigarette smoke, I had constant throat problems caused, I believe, by passive smoking - see http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html - which I believe has left me with a weakness to my throat (hence the image of woman - not me sadly, she's about 20 years younger - with sore throat! yes, tenative I know, but I've got to get the required number of images in somehow).

To conclude, SMOKERS ARE SELFISH AND VERY, VERY BAD!

Smoking

2007-03-07T21:15:00.000Z

Really enjoyed lecture on 8.03.07 about smoking. I'm in my 40's and my mum was a huge Bette Davis fan. I was brought up on a TV diet of old black and white films, Bette Davis, Humphrey Bogart, Spencer Tracey, Katherine Hepburn and, yes, when I think back they all smoked. I'd never given any thought before to the sexual connotations in some of these films, eg, the Big Sleep, so next time I watch one of the old films (on the rare occasions they appear on TV these days) - I'll view them from a whole different perspective.

I think this might be the topic of my essay.