http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2983734/Lewis-Hamilton-charged-over-burnout.html

Lewis charged over ‘burnout’’

by staff reporter

published 23 may 2010

Lewis Hamilton, the 25 year old formula one star, was stopped by the police for showing some tricks such as a ‘’burnout’’ and ‘’fishtail’’ in front of fans. This happened two days before the Melbourne Grand Prix in March. After he got caught , close to the Albert Park Circuit, his silver Mercedes was impounded by the police. He was charged with intentionally losing control over a vehicle and his court date has been set on August 24. However it is not sure he is present as he is expected to race in the Belgian Grand Prix three days later. Lewis Hamilton made a statement in which he said ‘’What I did was silly, and I want to apologize for it’’

reaction

I am not really a fan of sports but I do not mind watching the Grand Prix. I definitely know Lewis Hamilton and I was surprised to see this article in the Sun. Is this really big news?

I do not think so. However it is in the newspaper and I think he responded well by apologising for his behaviour. Everyone makes mistakes and you learn from them. He either learned his lesson or will be more careful next time.

http://www.guardian.co.u
k/politics/2010/apr/19/marriage-not-help-child-development

Marriage does little for child development, study finds

Rachel Williams guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 April 2010

Conservative plans to give tax breaks to couples who are married would have little affect on the development of children. This shows in a study released today. It states that the development of children who have married parents is not better than of children who have parents that cohabit. The number of children born without married parents has raised up to 30% in the past 25 years. The study concluded there is a ruggedly academic and political debate on whether encouraging couples to marry will be a better environment for children. Although other studies show that there are slight differences this study states that there are no longer any statistically significant differences in child outcomes between children of married and cohabiting parents.

Reaction

There are several studies on this subject all shown different results. I do believe that there is a difference in growing up in a family with married parents. Not that there is anything wrong with cohabiting parents. I think that children have a different experience growing up in a family with married parents. Whether this experience is for the better or worse I do not know but I do believe there is a difference. I think marriage is not to be taken lightly as many people do looking at the divorce rates of the last couple of years. To get married but not believe in it just to get a tax break sounds incomprehensible and silly to me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2010/apr/15/england-on-stage

This is England – on stage

Many recent plays now in theaters are confronting us with national identity as they cover a wide branch of patriotism, racism and tacking nationalism. The audience is almost force to sit back and think of England. Although not every play is to be condemned by this statement many plays do run deeper and tack the nationality head on. Perhaps they stand as retaliation against society recently alluded to by Gordon Brown. Perhaps they mark the election of sincere choice and let people think in what kind of Britain they want to live in. Whatever the reason might be it is clear that recent politics has come to stage.

reaction

This was a very boring article to read. They mentioned so many different plays that it got me confused what the article is about. Only at the end of the article it made things clear as I can know see the point they want to make. If I agree with them I could not really say because I never go to theaters and especially not in England. However I think it is only natural with the upcoming elections to think about your country and introduce this topic into different plays. It is a hot topic at the moment and sells. So why not use it in plays?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/21/airports-pull-daily-star

Daily Star pulled from airports over volcano ash splash

John Plunkett and agencies guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 April 2010

Copy’s of today’s daily star which shows an 747 with an engine ablaze on the cover and the words ‘’terror as plane hits ash cloud ‘’ has been removed from airport newsagents shelves. Reason is that it causes panic among the travelers. The image used in the newspaper was a reconstruction of an incident with a BA 747, 28 years ago. Gatwick airport's director of communications, Andrew McCallum said that it was inappropriate at this time with the volcano ashes being relevant today. The pictures do show the horrific reason why the flights where grounded for 5 days, however it is clearly designed to sell papers as anyone would think it is happening at this moment. Because of the many negative feedback from passengers on the newspaper they are thinking of getting it of the shelves permanently. The daily star did not want to respond at the time of publication.

reaction:

The decision to ban the newspaper on the airports is I believe a good thing. As they already mention in the article it could have caused massive panic among the passengers. At this time reading the headline immediately lets you think this is a current event. I think it is inappropriate and unprofessional to publish such an article at this time. Whether they should ban the Daily star permanently I do not know. Maybe a warning should do the trick as well and let them think about what they publish. For those flying home I would not let newspapers or headlines stop me from going home and neither should you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/29/england-lung-cancer-survival-rates

English patients have lower chance of surviving lung cancer, study shows

James Meikle guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 April 2010

A study shows that survival lung cancer rates are lower in England than in Norway and Sweden despite there similar levels of health spending. Five years survival rates showed rigorous differences. English patents were less likely or delayed to be treated with surgery or drugs soon after being diagnosed and when they did the disease was often to far advanced. The authors said that the number of people getting lung cancer has descended since the 1970 and that the morbidity of smoking was higher in the UK than in Norway or Sweden. However we cannot exclude that difference in treatment play a role. The team compared these three countries because of the similarity in health spending and infrastructure and shows that in both woman and men England has the lowest survival rates. Sweden has the best survival rates which is shown in a remarkable difference in percentages.

Reaction

This article is very interesting to read. It is hard to believe that people who get lung cancer in EnglandNorway or Sweden. However the research could be questioned and maybe be not entirely accurate they do show a difference in treatment and the results of that difference. For me it is unacceptable that when you spend the same amount on health care people have more change to survive cancer in Sweden than in England. Now knowing these results we should learn from each other and improve healthcare to the level it should be. For those currently living in England and suffering from lung cancer I say; go to Sweden and get the treatment you deserve. have a lower survival change than people in

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/apr/29/uk-film-smoking-product-placement

Doctors issue health warning over smoking in British film blockbusters

Denis Campbell The Guardian, Thursday 29 April 2010

Doctors say that recent British films are more likely than Hollywood films to display specific cigarettes brands. They claim a stricter classification system so that films which include certain types of tobacco’s and cigarettes, depending of the amount, have a higher age rate. Researchers from Nottingham University say this is necessary because the attendance of smoking in films is likely to influence young viewers. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) however are rating two thirds of the films in which regular smoking is shown suitable for teenagers under the age of 18. It is peculiar that this is permitted in a country where not only smoking is prohibited under of the age of 18 but also where tobacco advertising is against the law. A BBFC spokeswoman says in her defense that they have asked the public if they should change this and the answer was very clear ‘’no’’. As the public does not want this to convert they are carrying on their current policy. Fortunately, partly because of the 2007 ban ‘ no smoking in public places ‘ films containing smoking are mainly set in the past.

Reaction

In this article I agree with the doctors. Children often see their favorite TV personages as hero’s. They can easily be influenced by seeing their hero’s smoking. It might encourage them to smoke as well. I think it is strange that this is no problem in a country where smoking under the age of 18 is prohibited. It should not have to matter if the public wants it or not. The government sets an age limit and I think you have to respect that and set an example. I think it is a matter of public health in which we all share responsibility. We should make young teenagers aware of the dangers of smoking and we should not promote this behavior in films.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/29/court-dismisses-christian-employment-appeal

Christian Counsellor loses Court fight over Sacking
Press Association guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 April 2010

Gary Mcfarlane, a Christian relationship counselor, is challenging the decision of being sacked as he refused to give sex therapy to a gay couple. It has led to a serious collision between the Christian lobby and the judiciary. The Bishop Lord Carey had sent a statement to a judge hearing the appeal application by Gary Mcfarlane. The senior church called for a special panel of judges to hear the case. The application to appeal ended in a powerful demission by lord Justice laws. Lord Justice laws says in short that everyone has different believes but therefore one should not be placed above the other in law. Those who stand in the cold would otherwise be less citizen. Lord Carey disagrees and says that by calling this breaking of discrimination laws it shows a lack of sensitivity to religious believes.

Reaction
When I read this article I found it difficult to form my own opinion. I believe this is a very delicate issue with many different views and ideas. For both parties there is something to say but I believe that the real issue here is when is something discrimination and when not. Can you refuse to do something because of religious believes and if so are you by doing this breaking the discrimination law? Quiet frankly I do not know. Why should a gay couple sue a relationship counselor because he refuses to help him? I would say forget about him and find someone else who is willing to help you. However I am aware that not everyone shares my opinion.