Ed Miliband appears to be having a wonderful time on the campaign trail this year, released from the restraints of being in charge of the party. Miliband has been filmed doing a bit of Bingo calling and it might be exactly what you need to take the edge off Tory manifesto day.

The former Labour leader pulled out the numbers at the Winning Post, a social club in his Doncaster constituency.

A few weeks ago he was filmed harvesting somebody’s garden while tapping on doors.

Plus he drew recognition for his bingo calling, with one Twitter user saying that Ed Milliband had bingo skills or did they mean bingo wings, as Mr. Miliband seems to have been enjoying social media renaissance recently. He’s been snapped in a series of selfies and videos with dazzled young people, giving cool-as-a-cucumber quotes to an adoring online populace.

He brought extensive recognition for his debut on The Last Leg, where he parodied along to A-Ha’s Take On Me.

And last year he was filmed giving a destitute man £10 to help him obtain a place to stay. But really, sometimes this man makes me lose the will to live, he must be so tight fisted, I mean £10 to help a destitute man get a place to stay, honestly, how insulting.

That should have really been a test, making people see that Ed Milliband is not such a kind man after all. Most people know that a place to stay would cost much more than that and somebody should have challenged his logic of why he only gave this person £10 towards a place to stay, knowing full well that £10 wasn’t going to serve this guy at all.

Talk about deflating a man’s self-respect. This chap was already on the underside of the barrel and Ed Milliband couldn’t have driven him any lower if he wanted, and why would another human being want to disparage somebody less able than themselves?

But as politicians tour the nation seeking to gain votes for next month’s General Election, Ed Miliband has chosen to fulfill his time in another way, by calling bingo numbers.

The former Labour Party leader, who is the MP for Doncaster North, treated his constituents in the South Yorkshire town to a fleeting appearance in a local hall. He started calling out the numbers but decided to disregard the famous menu of popular bingo nicknames and just called them out one by one.

The 47-year-old was filmed by somebody from the Thorne Branch Labour Party who posted the clip on Twitter. The politician, who was famously snapped munching on a bacon sandwich in May 2014, opened by saying: ‘8 and 0, 80’ followed by ‘All the 3s, 33.’

Throughout the two-minute clip, which has been retweeted 131 times, he called out 29 numbers and got a chorus of giggles when he called out ’19’ without saying the ‘1 and 9’ first. He atoned for neglecting to do so and humorously said sorry to the group whilst he perched himself on the meager platform.

The only bingo nickname he did say was unlucky for some, 13. It must be his true vocation, he’s used to roaring out to the public from his pulpit, after all, he never does anything with a murmur, aside from when it comes to giving out ten-pound notes.

Following his party losing the General Election in 2015, Ed Miliband stepped down as party leader and has remained a Member of parliament, a post he has retained for 12 years.

But honestly, is he not scraping the barrel, or has he not got anything else better to do? Perhaps now he understands that people are human beings and not beasts that you can control. The answer is of course, that every action has a reaction.

Well, at least he now has a job that he’s moderately competent at. I speculate that a good few more characters like himself will be doing the very same in several weeks time.

Ed Milliband, another Labour politician who can never get their numbers right, which is extremely entertaining.

They call this the information age and Social communications has reformed the shift of knowledge globally, enabling people to connect instantaneously and share knowledge as its happening. While this seems to be a good idea, and in many cases it is, we must take into account who are the ones that are managing these programs, what are their plans and how much influence do these mega companies actually have?

Too many people, these tech monsters may seem to be nothing more than opportunistic companies that have transformed the industry and are simply seeking profits and development.

Let’s begin with this enigma, are Google and Facebook more than simply a search engine and social media program?

Many of you would have responded to this enigma with a single yes or no but to completely understand the impact that these tech monsters use, not only in our own individual lives in the observation of fact, but on issues, people and governments encompassing the world.

To demonstrate this there is a current article by Tony Cartalucci. Google and Facebook have verifiably worked for the US State department in pursuance of regime change and toppling governments whilst forming the public perception to achieve social political goals on behalf of Wall street and Washington for years.

Furthermore, this can be observed and documented in countries such as Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen amongst others. Now clearly there’s some more going on at Facebook and Google, than internet searches and profile updates.

The fact that these companies are operating so intimately with the US government and other governments should be a cause for concern for everyone.

These programs have secured a global monopoly that enables them to control what information you have access to, and we frequently see that the limitations or restriction that is taking place on these platforms is politically motivated.

For instance, it was announced Facebook suspended 30,000 french accounts just prior to the french election. In an attempt to supposedly prevent the spread of false news and misinformation.

Critics are suggesting that this was politically motivated suppression, targeting Le Pen’s support.

Google and Facebook have been all over the news concerning censorship and your free speech is at risk.

In Germany, the tech monsters could face up to $54 million penalties for not banning false news and hate speech.

Immediately next door to Germany, an Austrian court had just announced that Facebook is expected to stamp out regionally defined hate speech all over the globe. Therefore, if this decision holds up, Facebook and by extension, its users will be subservient to a foreign government, nevermind your first amendment.

As Cartalucci shows, other countries are starting to take more seriously the control of the respective information space. Following years of allowing US-based tech monsters Google and Facebook to monopolise and abuse them.

Vietnam is the latest country to take steps to start promoting local options in the search engine and social media network, in order to re-balance the monopoly over information.

The US government can lawfully access your Facebook information.

It’s 2016 and the end of the year is nearly approaching, and information concerning government ill-usage of power started streaming in and according to Facebook’s Global Government Requests Report, government’s appeals for Facebook account information increased 27 percent in the first half of 2016.

Facebook’s official statement revealed that demands for user information went from 46,710 in the last half of 2015 to 59,229 in the first half of 2016. At least 56 percent of these requests included a non-disclosure order that banned them from informing the user.

Furthermore, Facebook acknowledged that governments made use of them to spread information.

Facebook has openly acknowledged that its program has been used by governments trying to manipulate public thinking in other countries, including during the presidential elections in the US and France, and agreed to clamp down on such information operations.

In a white paper authored by the company’s security team, the company reported well-funded and ingenious methods used by countries and other groups to cast misleading information and lies for geopolitical purposes.

These efforts go well beyond fake news and incorporate content seeding, targeted data gathering, and false accounts that are used to elaborate one particular view, plant distrust in political institutions and spread chaos.

They have had to increase their security focus from conventional sadistic performance, such as account hacking, malware, spam and monetary scams, to include more indirect and stealthy methods of abuse, including efforts to manipulate civic discourse and deceive people.

In its attempt to clamp down on information operations, Facebook suspended 30,000 accounts in France before the presidential election. The company announced it was a priority to eliminate suspicious accounts with large amounts of posting activity and the largest audiences.

The company further disclosed how it watched several situations that match the design of information operations throughout the US presidential election. The company discovered malicious actors utilizing social media to distribute data taken from other sources such as email accounts with the intent of harming the reputation of specific political targets.

This method involved constructing dedicated websites to host the stolen data and then generating social media accounts and pages to point people to it.

At the same time, a separate collection of malicious players designed bogus Facebook accounts to erroneously elaborate stories and reports linked to topics shown in the stolen data.

Facebook did not stipulate which stolen data it was pointing to, but we know that tens of thousands of emails were hacked from Clinton operations chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account and published by Wikileaks.

Neither did Facebook credit the manipulation to any nation-state, although it stated that the company’s inquiry does not contradict the conclusions of a January report by the US Director of National Intelligence that outlined Russian involvement in the election.

Russia has further been linked to the hacking of French presidential frontrunner, Emmanuel Macron, according to a report by researchers with Japanese anti-virus firm Trend Micro.

Facebook promised to monitor endeavors to manipulate the program, to generate innovative ways of distinguishing fraudulent accounts, teach at-risk people about how to keep their information secure and support civil society programs around media literacy.

In today’s information climate, social media plays a sizable position in promoting information, not just in terms of civic affairs, such as elections, but in daily expression. In some cases, nevertheless, they must acknowledge that the danger of malicious players attempting to use Facebook to cheat people or otherwise promote inauthentic information can be higher, especially if they are supposedly one of the malevolent participants.

Numerous privacy advocates are concerned about the degree to which tech companies are becoming unofficial government intelligence agents, giving over data about their users to the feds without the users ever realizing it except if they’re charged with a crime.

It came to the front when Twitter argued back against a gag when the Department of Justice called it for information about Wikileaks advocates, supporters who then claimed that Facebook and Google had probably complied with government demands for information that they had obtained.

It turns out that users may never realize their social media accounts were scrutinized even if they are charged with a crime. Reuters went through years of court filings to produce real proof of tech firms complying with law enforcement warrants without warning their users.

Reuters obtained two dozen cases following 2008 of judges letting agents from the FBI, DEA, and ICE poke around in individuals’ Facebook accounts in incidents of speculated pyromania, seduction, and terrorism.

In some instances, the parties hadn’t realized this until Reuters called them about it.

Several of the warrants asked a laundry list of personal data such as communications, status updates, links to videos and pictures, schedules of future and past events, wall postings and declined friend requests. Really, declined friend requests, now that’s getting personal.

In a 2008 handbook for law enforcing, Facebook defines the sort of data it provides, extending from Neoprints, typically a user profile page screenshot and Photoprints, a snap of all the photos a person has uploaded, to IP logs, contact details, and group members.

Secret, closed-door negotiations were ultimately made public after an agreement was reached by the US Government to buy the social media giant Facebook for $10 billion. Negotiations started in March 2015 when Mark Zuckerberg chose to step down from his podium, cash out and concentrate on being a family man.

Exactly what does that mean for you, and the additional 1.06 billion Facebook users, and the privacy concerns that may encircle you with Facebook’s new keeper, the United States Government.

There is no doubt that Facebook has been a runaway triumph, but for who? It has been long speculated that Facebook has been supplying data to the NSA, CIA and other government entities and that they excessively use this site to watch the online activity of Facebook users.

The US government has already been found taking dodgy steps with personal privacy. Consider that the NSA has been frequently censured for bulking masses of data from cell phone corporations without the awareness or permission from cell phone users.

With this in mind, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that a government agency might want access to your Facebook data.

There’s no disputing the data obtained by Facebook from its users is relevant to a point and there is no issue that the US government has been found collecting private data without people’s approval. Does this suggest the government now has an even greater agenda before them?

The government has made increasingly frequent requests for information from ISPs (Internet service providers), telecom firms and other social media sites. However, the data created by Facebook users has been the government’s main source of the American people.

Insiders with confidential information state that Mark Zuckerberg is weary of the growing requests from government entities. Finally, it has driven him over the edge to sell. Nevertheless, $10 billion is not a bad payday.

But will you keep your Facebook account? And are you concerned about the privacy concerns?

Savage Tory cuts could force schools onto a four-and-a-half day week, and the extreme action would be the last resort imposed on them by ministers disregarding the schools funding disaster.

Ministers are disregarding their situation and simply regurgitating the same old mantra that spending on schools has never been higher.

Ministers should examine every feasible alternative accessible to schools and it is immoral to cut funds to schools, and this sort of behavior by the government should be reversed now.

This sort of behaviour from our government will turn our educational system upside down, and this kind of caper from our government is shocking. It’s not only vile but unforgiving since the children are our tomorrow and the government plan to design our children and our children are going to be their exemplars.

This is the plan for the 21st century you’re living in today, for a brave new world where all that you value and held true will no longer exist.

They will ultimately restructure the family unit and there will be the suicidal undermining of the family and eventually, your children will be owned by government or the state.

The question I asked myself numerous times is how the people who are executing these things expect to do this and make it last?

The answer to that is that you steal a generation of children and you teach them so that they believe these concepts and they become global subjects in the effective global community. The whole idea of second-grade social studies is the transfer the loyalty from the family to the government, and they have been doing it for years, and people haven’t even realised it.

You are being manipulated layer by layer. They are already your children’s guardian without you even knowing it.

It is illegal for a parent or carer to spank their child, except where this amounts to reasonable punishment.

Whether a smack amounts to fair discipline will depend on the circumstances of each situation taking into consideration factors like the age of the child and the nature of the smack.

However, Boris Johnson supported calls for parents to be permitted to spank their children to teach obedience.

The Mayor of London expressed following a senior Labour MP accused his party’s partial prohibition on spanking children for the August riots.

The former education minister David Lammy asked for a return to Victorian regulations on restraint, stating that working-class parents needed to be able to use corporal discipline to prevent violent kids from joining gangs and brandishing knives, and he is correct.

There are countless parents out there that are far too afraid to spank their children, just in case they get into trouble or are faced with a conviction or even a prison sentence. It is right that parents should not be beating their kids to a pulp, however, there is a distinction between smacking and beating.

There were the days when smacking was allowed and caregivers at school to teach some compliance into their children. I know it did me no wrong and it unquestionably did not do my children any wrong, they were all raised to become decent citizens.

Countless parents have been brainwashed into thinking that it is wrong to smack their children and that simply saying “no” and aiming a finger at them will serve well, but regrettably, that is not the case.

I can remember in around 1989 I was getting ready to go someplace and as I stepped out of my front door, there was a young boy of around 7 years old outside all on his own, he should have been at school, but as I strolled out the door he simply stared at me and said to me quite bluntly, “Fuck off”. I was completely astonished and responded back to him that his mother should rinse his mouth out with soap, he thereupon responded, “If she did that, I would phone the police and have her nicked”.

I can remember reflecting and answering, “Watch this space” and I was right, things simply began to get worse, violence rose on the streets and children believed they could do as they desired since their parents now had no authority over them.

Over time parents have become more brainwashed because now I learn of parents who will actually go into schools to have a go at teachers because a teacher has yelled at their son or daughter, and everything has got proportionally worse.

It’s essentially grown into a fear with parents, that they just won’t smack their child for worry that they will be prosecuted for simply smacking their child and legislation should be lifted as the system leaves families feeling concerned that they would risk prosecution if they endeavored to force authority over their children.

The reasoning was basically that lifting the embargo that smacking would help to put a close to rioting, gangs and knife violence.

Numerous parents stated that the action of smacking counts as child molestation and neglectful parenting. Others, nevertheless, believe there is a distinct difference between smacking which is an efficient disciplinary tactic and abuse which can be carried out in a diversity of ways that are detrimental to the child and would be done so whether there are grounds against smacking or not.

So what do you think?

There is an apparent distinction between discipline and abuse that the majority of parents understand. It is more dangerous to children to grow up with no restraint or control in their lives and has led to many of the stigma suffered by young people today.

There is a distinction in tapping or smacking to correct a behavioural problem and beating a child and losing direction. If a child is disciplined by smacking in a caring environment where the majority of the time the child is appreciated and loved then the random smack will not cripple their growth.

Firstly, since a reasonable smack is a short-term shock that tells the child in no uncertain terms that he/she must grasp the rules. Furthermore, because screaming at a child, is more traumatic. Either the child turns out to be a tormentor or else becomes withdrawn and afraid of others.

They tell you that beating a grown-up is never acceptable, so neither should beating a child. If you lock an adult in his or her bedroom and denied him/her the right to leave, you would be guilty of false imprisonment.

If you seized an adult’s property, you would be guilty of stealing. Will the anti-smacking lobby make it impossible for parents to do this to a child too? Should adults only be able to punish a child after the case has been brought before a court or another legally constituted tribunal?

Mind you, saying that, bailiffs appear to believe they have the right to take a person’s possessions because they have been disobedient and have not settled their outstanding bills, perhaps that should be discontinued as well?

After all, if it’s good enough for a child, surely it’s good enough for an adult. Furthermore simply because an adult for whatever reason can’t manage to meet their bills, sometimes through no wrongdoing of their own, why are we not allowed to have the equivalent allowances as children, after all, we were all children once.

Smacking should be down to the individual. There will always be parents who abuse smacking, but that is because they are not good parents, and does not suggest that smacking in itself is not an acceptable method of controlling children.

Parents are no longer sovereign in their own homes and worry that social workers will take their children away if they discipline them, and the current law was confusing, suggesting that parents do not know how far they can go in terms of smacking their children.

People feel uneasy about inflicting punishment on their children, and whether the law will support them. Of course, they won’t support them, because the government doesn’t want parents to have control of their children anymore, they want authority over them since all they want to do is educate them about is sustainable economic consumption.

Where students create their own perception of reality and realise that objective reality is not visible, so why bother?

The truth is, the truth, what keep men free is being defeated in order to prop up the attitude training agenda. They discover that mathematics is man-made, that is arbitrary, and good solutions are reached by agreement among those who are recognised as masters.

Most of us believe that 2×2=4, you’re wrong, we might reach a new consensus 2×2=5.

Our children have become mathematically illiterate by design.

Generally, more highly educated people, who have greater incomes, use more resources than badly educated people, who tend to have lower earnings. In this instance, more education increases the threat to sustainability.

This is a deliberate dumbing down.

The four-and-a-half day week must be seen as ultimately, the very last option. However, it won’t be, and it’s not all about money, it’s about sustainability, and we hear that word more and more.

All children start out naturally inquisitive and love to learn. When they’re sent to school, rather than learning, it’s a repeated method of learning and repeating knowledge.

The better you are at regurgitating this knowledge, the better you will do in the school system.

The true education is obeying authority.

We are instructed to request permission and we are instructed to not think outside the box. We are taught multiculturalism, drugs, sex, and death education. We are taught to remember and repeat information, an input-output method, not much different from a machine or a slave.

We are taught to react to a bell, just like a factory floor. We are taught to keep our head down and just make it through the day and we are taught to lower our expectations, and that is simply inside of the school.

Outside of school, our communication is impaired as people literally lose the capacity to speak and relate to one another.

Our economic culture is one of slaves, promoting debt. Our political system is one of erroneous decisions. Our media is normalising narcissistic behaviour and we are not taught to develop evaluative reasoning.

We are not taught about debt based money and the principles that our originating ancestors strived for. We are not taught to help and see each other as a team, with different skills and abilities and we are not taught to challenge authority or even the actions required of us.

We are brainwashed not taught. Brainwashed like little slaves.

The secret of education is that it doesn’t teach the way children learn nor is it supposed to. Schools were invented to assist the economy and the social order rather than the children and the families, that is why it’s mandatory.

As a result, the school cannot help anyone grow up since its prime directive is to hinder development. It does it by teaching that everything is hard, that other people control our lives, that our neighbours are unreliable and even bad.

School is the first impression children get of society because first impressions are usually the most crucial ones. School imprints children with doubt, mistrust of one another and specific addictions for life.

It ensnares natural foreknowledge, faith, and the enjoyment of venture. Wiping these out in support of reasonable behaviour and rational management.

In 1880 in England education was made mandatory until the age of ten, following campaigning by the National Education League. Under the Elementary Education (School Attendance) Act 1893 it was raised to 11 and the right to education was extended to deaf and blind children. In 1899 the leaving age was raised again to 13.

The 1870 Education Act stands as the very first piece of legislation to deal particularly with the requirement of education in Britain. Most importantly, it showed a dedication to provision on a national scale.

The Act granted voluntary schools to carry on unchanged but installed a system of school boards to develop and maintain schools in areas where they were required. The committees were regionally selected groups which drew their funding from the provincial rates.

Unlike the voluntary schools, religious education in the board schools was to be non-denominational. A separate Bill extended comparable requirements to Scotland in 1872.

The issue of making education mandatory for children had not been established by the Act. The 1876 Royal Commission on the Factory Acts suggested that education was made obligatory in order to prevent child labour.

In 1880 an additional Education Act eventually made school participation mandatory amid the ages of five and ten, although by the early 1890s attendance within this age group was falling short at 82 per cent.

Numerous children worked outside school hours, and in 1901 the number was put at 300,000, and truancy was a significant dilemma owing to the fact that parents could not afford to give up revenue made by their children.

Charges were further obligatory until a shift in the law in 1891. Additional legislation in 1893 increased the age of obligatory participation to 11, and in 1899 to 12.

Meanwhile, in America amid 1906 and 1920 a handful of world-famous manufacturers and investors came together, schoolmasters, private companies, handpicked university officials, house legislators contributed more consideration and more capital towards forced schooling than the national government did.

Andrew Carnegie and Johnny Rockefeller contributed more funds than the government did mid-1900 and 1920 on education.

Mandatory education Rockefeller to blind and deaf children under the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act of 1893, which installed special schools. A similar plan was made for physically impaired children in the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act of 1899.The method of modern schooling was created outside of the public eye and outside the public’s representatives.

In our thoughts, people accept themselves with complete obedience to molding hands. The modern education practices of intellectual and character education evaporate from their thoughts and unhampered by tradition they work your own good will upon a vast structure of responsive people.

They will not work to make these people or any other children into philosophers or men of science. The purpose was not to raise them up to become authors, educators, poets or men of letters. The purpose was not to hunt for great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen all of who they had an adequate supply of.

The assignment is easy, they organise the children and teach them in a certain way, the things their parents are doing in a flawed way.

The purpose of public education is not to fill the young of the species with knowledge and stimulate their mind, nothing could be further from the truth. The objective is solely to conquer as many as children as possible, the same sustained level, to develop and nurture standardised citizenry, put down dissidence and imagination, that is the plan.

This lowest common denominator citizen is most valuable in a corporate, military or welfare state. Companies, governments, and militaries do not deal with disagreement efficiently, so it’s in their best interest not to have participants that question everything.

In the military, they don’t beat around the bush about this idea. In boot camp, they want instant and compliance to regulations. Throughout life, you will learn the same education, only more subtly. This is why military men are more solicited for corporate positions.

Education should be directed at suppressing free will so that after students leave school they shall be incompetent throughout the remainder of their lives of reasoning and performing differently than their schoolmasters would have hoped.

Our education policy is centred on an input-output method of knowledge. Our achievement or failure depends on our ability to take what the teacher tells us and then repeating that corresponding knowledge to an exam.

Those that are able to instinctively repeat that knowledge the best are compensated with higher grades and they are told that they are smart but in fact, they are completely brainwashed.

This input-output method is no different than a machine or what a slave does. You give it a command and it just does it without question. This method was deliberately designed to fashion us into what we are today.

The masses foolishly stream through this education system and directly fed into centralised systems that want good little loyal workers who take orders without issue. We all know that person who is really smart or brainwashed, that exceeds in a business, military or government position and still, they lack any street smarts, to see what’s really going on in their lives.

When you realise that the mind only performs on what you are shown, it becomes obvious to you, that you are only able to become victorious in a centralised method where taking orders is a way of life.

I think, therefore I am. It is a classic, philosophical declaration on human cautiousness and survival. But what about the people who don’t actually think, do they truly exist?

This input-output mindset is reinforced outside of school in the career world. Our society is about what is actually popular. From early on in our lives, we are pressured into doing what is popular and not what’s best for you.

This is the way a collective gets people to sacrifice what is different and unique about themselves, to become the lowest common denominator in a group that really doesn’t care about you at all.

The most profound publicity technique will produce no progress except if one key principle is displayed in the mind continually. You must restrict it to a few points and duplicate it to them repeatedly.

When you watch the headlines or political discussion on TV, it is encouraged by talking points, where they are reconstructed with such skill it scary. Where you see news reporters repeatedly say the identical information in a corresponding way on various channels.

It’s all the alike but reformed perhaps in a somewhat unconventional way.

If this works for late night TV, what else could this be beneficial for?

All politicians will tell you that duplicating everything is good because in their line of work they keep having to recite themselves over and over for the facts to soak in because they have to catapult the propaganda.

They will tell you about terror, terrorists, terrorist groups, terrorist strikes, terrorist networks, instruments of terror, terrorist sales, terrrorising terror and murder and then they will tell you but we have to keep going over the facts because they have to soak it into the people and catapult the propaganda.

Intelligent debate in the society somehow passes for those who can screech their talking points over the other. This is done intentionally to get a confrontational impassioned response from the brainwashed and to prevent the logical and objective intellectual from even joining the debate.

Through this method, the collective is intellectually sheltered from any challenge to its control.

Do thoughts help to free you or to simply make you freely serve?

These talking points are designed by people who do think about how to dominate society. They manufacture this input-output slave thought into a Hegelian Dialectic that they control. They basically have a society that argues over problems that have no true bearing on the real power of the world.

Revolutionists in power have built financial turmoil, deficits in food and fuel, confiscatory taxation, a disaster in education, the intimidation of conflict, and other deviations to shape Americans for the New World Order.

The method is as ancient as politics itself. It is the Hegelian Dialectic of bringing about transformation in a three-step process. Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis.

The first action (thesis) is to generate a dilemma. The second action (antithesis) is to create hostility to the dilemma (panic, fear, and confusion). The third action (synthesis) is to give the answer to the dilemma generated by step one.

A change which would have been unlikely to force upon the people without the proper mental conditioning performed in steps one and two.

Using the Hegelian Dialectic, and overwhelming economic power, hidden change agents try to destroy cultural and political structures by which independent men govern themselves, antiquated monuments built at great sacrifice in blood and riches.

Their goal is to weaken sovereign countries, unite societies under universal government, centralize financial powers, and control the world’s people and resources.

Millions of American’s support free speech. They strongly think that they are the only nation to have free speech and that anyone who even questions free speech had damn well better shut up.

However, European nations and Israel ban specific kinds of address, Nazi emblems, anti-Semitic accusations, and Holocaust rejection, and address that encourages prejudice on the grounds of nationality, faith, and so on.

The American rule of free address believes that the single purpose of the legislation is to defend people against bodily injury, but it allows extensive emotional abuse. The new investigations (not quoted) point that emotional abuse is similar in magnitude to that encountered by the body, and is even more long-lasting and traumatic.

Therefore, the victims of hate address, experience as much as or more than victims of hate crime. So, why should speech be excluded from public welfare matters when its social costs can be even more dangerous than that of bodily harm?

I firmly believe in free speech, however, I believe that the supporters of free speech must face two factors, first, the American policy of free speech is not the only one, most liberal governments maintain comparatively open societies under a separate collection of rules. Next, the system isn’t cost-free. Controlling speech has costs, but so does allowing it. The only mature way to resolve the system is to look at both sides of the ledger.

We all have the freedom to express any viewpoints without restriction and that would be almost true so long as you’re not on the receiving end of it.

Hitler had freedom of speech and look what transpired there, thousands of Jews became his target and he took over nations solely because he had freedom of speech, and he was a great speaker, and people listened to him like lambs to the slaughter.

Of course, you can’t imprison a person’s freedom of speech but when it transforms people’s behaviours in such a way that it’s harmful to another’s well-being, that’s when freedom of speech becomes dangerous and we lose perception of why we needed free speech in the first place.

However, we should be entitled to preserve our free speech, so long as it doesn’t take over an entire race of people or harm their dignity or harrass.

Most people that want their freedom of speech is usually to do with politics and what they avoid telling us, therefore obviously people want their say on things, and rightly so. Nevertheless, freedom of speech was never about that at all, it was getting people to say what they needed to say and to create anarchy and disorder so that the people would end up competing against one another since obviously not everybody’s mindset is identical.

But have you met the Stepford students? They’re everywhere. On campuses across the country. Sitting stony-eyed in lecture rooms or secretly patrolling beer-fuelled banter in the uni bar. They look like students, dress like students, smell like students.

But their student’s brains have been replaced by brains deprived of critical faculties and processed to conform. To the untrained eye, they seem like your average book-devouring, ideas-discussing, H&M-adorned adolescent, but anyone who’s spent more than five seconds in their company will know that these students are far more interested in closing debate down than lighting it up.

Stepford concerns are over-amplified on social media. No sooner is a controversial topic raised then a university campaign group emerges on Facebook, or a hashtag on Twitter, demanding that the debate is closed down.

Technology means that it has never been simpler to whip up a fake sense of mass abuse and target that false outrage at those in charge. The authorities on the receiving end feel so attacked that they yield to the demands and threats.

Heaven help any student who doesn’t kneel before the Stepford reasoning. The students’ union at Edinburgh recently passed a proposal to End lad banter on campus. Laddish students are being ordered to abandon their bantering ways.

Last month, the rugby club at the London School of Economics was dismissed for a year after its members gave out flyers encouraging rugby boys to shun mingers (ugly girls) and homosexual lewdness. Under pressure from LSE bigwigs, the club openly recanted its unforgivably disgusting performance and announced that its members have a lot to learn about the harmful consequences of teasing.

They’re being made to take part in fairness and diversity education. At British universities in 2014, you don’t simply get training, you also get re-education, Soviet style.

The censoriousness has reached its depth(s) in the rise of the safe space policy. Loads of student unions have established large swaths of their universities and listed them safe spaces, that is, areas where no scholar should ever be made to feel unsafe, repellent or depreciated, whether by teasing, bad reasoning or Blurred Lines.

Protection from physical attack is one thing, but protection from words, concepts, Zionists, boys, pop tunes, Nietzsche? We appear to have trained a new age that thinks its self-esteem is more superior than everybody else’s freedom.

This is what those complaining Cambridger’s meant when they kept stating they have the right to be comfortable. They weren’t speaking about the freedom to lay down on a chaise longue, they meant the right never to be challenged by disturbing ideas or mind-battered by offensiveness.

At precisely the time they should be jumping brain-first into the rough and tumble of grown-up, testy debate, scholars are cushioning themselves from anything that has the smell of debate. We’re seeing the conquest of political precision by underhandedness.

As the irritating PC gone mad army clattered on and on about extreme examples of PC, schools forbidding ‘Baa Baa, Black Sheep’, et cetera, nobody appears to have noticed that the key principles of PC, from the desire to stop bad language to the urge to re-educate clearly warped minds, have been eaten whole by a new age.

This is a tragedy, for it suggests our universities are growing into breeding grounds of dogmatism and if we don’t allow our judgment to be sufficient, frequently, and fearlessly addressed, then that opinion will be handled as a stagnant doctrine, not a breathing truth.

One day, these Stepford followers, with their desire to ban, their fight on foul dialect, and their terrifying discussion of pre-crime, will be controlling the country. And then it won’t only be those of us who occasionally have reason to attend a campus who have to bear their lifeless doctrines.

Labour accused Theresa May of going into hiding as Jeremy Corbyn stepped up requests for a head to head TV contest.

The Labour leader announced she was appearing only at staged events in the presence of party followers, whilst he was attending public functions and facing everyday citizens.

Theresa May has made a few meticulously stage-managed appearances over the past 10 days amid tight security.

Only requested Tory activists and reporters have been let in, aside from one appointment to a toothpaste company where operators questioning the PM were observed by their managers.

But when will she go out and engage with the people?

The reality of a Theresa May visit, for what it’s worth, is pretty thin really.

Nevertheless, Theresa May has laid a catchword “strong and stable leadership” at the center of her crusade, endlessly echoing the slogan.

The Prime Minister’s unwillingness to engage in newscast confrontation discussions or everyday citizens on the crusade trail is possibly a sign of weakness.

A clear bulk of citizens views TV discussions as essential in helping them determine how to calculate their ballots.

Theresa May is hiding from the people, she won’t take part in TV discussions and she won’t speak to voters, and declining to debate Labour in this election isn’t a symbol of strength, it’s a symbol of frailty.

In displaying disdain for the people in this way, the Prime Minister is showing that it’s Labour that stands up for the many, whilst she articulates only for the few.

What is she scared of? Voters deserve to know what political parties are offering.

Theresa May has so far further declined to surrender to pressure to take part in any televised confrontations alongside her competitors, although she may take questions from studio audiences.

A poll for the Electoral Reform Society saw 56% of voters, increasing to 71% amongst 18-24 year-olds, which implied most voters back TV contests, which have been a focus of election crusades since 2010.

The Mirror Chicken has been following the Tory leader about the land in an attempt to dishevel feathers and give the frit PM a roasting over her TV snub.

Labour has indicated Jeremy Corbyn would only take part in a contest if Theresa May was also included, and almost half (46%) of voters surveyed believe all major party leaders should commit to participating, against only 23% who replied there was no need.

A majority of Conservative fans (52%) agreed the contests are necessary. However, Tory voters were divided over whether leaders should commit to taking part, with 37% stating they should versus 38% who opposed it.

These numbers reveal how voters presently view TV contests as part of the furniture of a general vote. That’s especially the case for younger voters, suggesting it’s, therefore, essential for youth engagement that they take place.

With both Conservatives and Labour voters agreeing TV contests are necessary, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn should immediately both commit to taking part.

It would be a mockery for the contests to be discarded just because one party chose to torpedo this now-crucial part of 21st-century politics.

We haven’t seen Jeremy Corbyn out and about being questioned by the general public yet, only May is being scrutinized for it. Furthermore, Jeremy Corbyn criticized Theresa May for not debating with him, but there is nothing preventing him appearing in front of the cameras and presenting his policies with the voters, you would have assumed he would have leaped at the opportunity but oddly he has also failed to appear.

UKIP apparently believe in giving public assistance for the long term. Defending the border and using the taxpayer’s money with respect. How we treat the vulnerable in our society mirrors the society we are and seemingly UKIP is the only party that will support the most defenseless in our society.

Basically, UKIP is what Labour was before the far left took over and also before the neoliberals took over. UKIP is the classic working man’s Labour.

Theresa May did a disappearing act throughout Brexit too, then she plummeted into manage Brexit, and she flip-flops more than Trump. She aspires to destroy the NHS, she wants extra food banks, she wants to punish the working class, she wants to increase VAT, take away pensions, take away tax credits, take away disability subsidies, whilst shielding the wealthy and rich.

When George Osborne stated that the worst off will pay for Brexit, he wasn’t joking, and the only reason it didn’t happen was because the Tories didn’t have the majority to do it. With a big majority, they knew they would have 5 years to make certain that the working class bear the brunt of Brexit the same way they made them pay for the bank crash whilst the multi-millionaires got tax breaks and were allowed to shift their money elsewhere in offshore accounts.

Yet, Theresa May can barely open her trap without speaking the words strong and stable, and she and other Tories used the expression a whopping 11 times throughout this week’s Prime Minister’s Questions.

And about as frequent was the claim Labour can only succeed by creating a coalition of chaos, which was applied four times in the same sitting.

Furthermore, TV spectators are certainly feeling a certain amount of Deja Vu as top Tories roll out the catchphrases endlessly on TV, radio and in public.

And they’re not only announcing it on TV and radio.

There have been loads of posts on Twitter.

Theresa May stated on Twitter, that each vote for her is a vote for strong, stable leadership in the national interest-building a stronger, more secure future for this country.

Does she really think that she has supremacy over everything or is it because she has an inferiority complex, perhaps it’s conversational narcissism? After all, she does have a tendency to make every conversation about her, so she might be a conversational narcissist and not even know it.

I don’t believe she means to be ignorant, she’s simply caught up in her own drama, often of her own making. Perhaps Theresa May isn’t a conversational narcissist, she simply doesn’t have any self-awareness, or perhaps it’s because she doesn’t have much awareness of other people.

It can happen in casual discussions among friends, family, and coworkers, and if that is the case, then everyone articulating in parliament must be some sort of conversational narcissistic since they all appear to like the sound of their own voices without actually listening to what is actually going on.

Conversational narcissism occurs much more subtly than making a U-turn in the discussion to bring it back to you. Most people know that it’s rather insulting to at least not pretend to be interested in what the other person is saying when you’re having a discussion with them.

Nobody wants to be labeled a self-centered fool, except if they’re in show business or politics.

Haven’t we all felt that strong urge, and that increasing enthusiasm, to take over the conversation? You feel as if you’re going to explode if the other person doesn’t quit talking so you can take over.

You pretend to be totally centered on what they’re saying, but you’re actually only catching keywords every now and then. You’re not listening, but preparing your next entertaining tale that has to do with the issue being addressed, well, kind of.

Every person makes initiatives. These initiatives can either be attention-giving or attention-getting. Conversational narcissists concentrate more on attention-getting since they’re more engaged in getting their own needs met.

With active conversational narcissism, how a person answers can either be the shift-response, as in shifting the attention back to themselves or the support response, holding the concentration on the speaker and the topic he/she has introduced.

Ahead of the 2015 General Election, people began to notice a long and somewhat clunky expression showing up in Tory TV appearances, and in use on the floor of the House of Commons. That expression was ‘Long Term Economic Plan.’

According to Parliamentary reports, by the time the election rolled around the expression, Long Term Economic Plan has been said 607 times in the House of Commons. And that’s not counting the occasions it was announced on TV, particularly on BBC Question Time, where it became a running joke.

But by the time people started to notice the parrot-fashion expression, it had been repeated so frequently the message had been absorbed.

Furthermore, the picture of economic ability was built around the party which helped Torie’s secure success in the 2015 general election. And it appears like strong and stable is Crosby’s follow-up hit, with a coalition of chaos on the b-side.

Well, on the first point, let’s look at the Tory administration.

David Cameron made a similar promise before the 2015 referendum, tweeting: Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice – stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband.

So how did that work out?

Not well.

Since the 2015 election, Britain has seen the collapse of the EU election which was David Cameron’s design. The departure of David Cameron. Leadership battles for all three principal parties. And the calling of a snap general election, three years early.

Not extremely strong and stable. In fact, the term most people would use for the last two years in politics would be CHAOS.

In the meantime, talking of coalitions of chaos, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have ruled out a coalition of any sort following June’s election.

Of course, these facts won’t end Theresa May and her crew of Tories adopting the expression over and over again for the next six weeks.

Therefore the question is, are you going to let Theresa May and Lynton Crosby indoctrinate you?

Theresa May was nicknamed Theresa Maybe by her own party because she flip-flops on so many subjects that no one knows where she stands from one day to the next.

She isn’t strong and stable, she is crazy and incompetent.

Even though there were many people that disliked him, David Cameron was a rather good public mouthpiece, and normally accomplished to work long term economic plan into viable and relevant sentences.

Theresa May is a lousy public talker, very repulsive to watch and is making herself look more and more like a robotic fool as the days go by, it’s no surprise she won’t do a TV debate.

Is it likely the Maybot has failed and requires a reboot?
Or, she’s trying to indoctrinate the population.

Many paid Torie’s troll, all bleating the identical faceless tiresome baloney as ever, and they are revolting despicable greedy shallow excuses for human beings who display their stupidity and their corrupt weak minds every time they open their foul mouths.

This woman is the Angel of Darkness and the pictures of her just confirm it. Oh my goodness, she is vulgar just like her tactics.

And we should make “June the end of May”, that is a catchword people should be sharing, so keep sharing it, folks!

The Tory Health Secretary made the firm warning despite facing reiterated allegations he is already not giving the health service enough money.

There will be limited funds for the NHS if Brexit discussions go bad.

If they get a poor result, it will be disastrous for British economics.

They won’t be able to lock in their recovery, there will be limited money for the NHS, and all public services.

The Tory minister’s point was that Labour, whose health chief accused Theresa May of lying and dishonesty, couldn’t achieve its promise to stop the wicked nurses’ pay cap if it wins the general election.

However, his statement also lays open the dangers confronted by Theresa May, who has declared that no deal is better than a bad deal as she leaves the European Union. Furthermore, it comes almost a year to the day after Brexit campaigners including Boris Johnson promised £350 million a week for the NHS.

The Health Secretary toured Television and radio studios this to showcase a day of election campaigning on health by Labour.

Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth promised to stop the 1% pay rise cap imposed on nurses, midwives, and other workers in years of belt-tightening.

He accused Theresa May of being dishonest in her claim the NHS is getting £10 billion additional funding because much of it is eaten up by the social care emergencies.

This election is all about Theresa May saying that you must trust her. We all know she lied about whether she was going to have a general election or not. But further, she’s been misleading about whether she’s given the NHS the funds it asked for.

Mr. Hunt insisted NHS funding was climbing but acknowledged the service is facing an extremely difficult period financially. You can say that again.

There used to be a point when waiting for a referral to the hospital was relatively quick, but presently if anyone foolishly believes it’s going to be sooner than later, they are mistaken. A person can expect to wait up to 18 weeks before they get an appointment, some people won’t have to wait anymore because either they have got better or have died.

There’s a predicted £30 billion shortfall in NHS funding over the next Parliament. It costs £110 billion per annum presently but the population keeps aging and growing, treatments get more diverse and more costly, so do management consultants.

Additionally, the last two parliaments have put some really crazy reformations through the NHS that have killed clinician productivity, especially GPs.

The NHS is certainly under pressure, and will only be more so if its shortfall is not considered. Despite being the world’s 6th biggest economy, we are 16th when it comes to healthcare, spending per capita, yet we manage to have the greatest healthcare in the world.

Heaven forbid if a future government manages to sell the NHS to the private sector, the shortfall needs to be made up, however, neither major party can obtain the reserves required to do this, it’s crazy.

Jeremy Hunt declared Jeremy Corbyn propped up by ragtag of other political parties would do no better with NHS funding. However, Jeremy Corbyn has ruled out an alliance with the SNP and the Lib Dems have ruled out an alliance with anybody.

Mr Hunt told ITV’s Good Morning Britain: “Look, if you want to get more money into the NHS, if you want to pay nurses more – and we all want to do that – there is only one thing that matters in this election and that is getting a good outcome for the Brexit negotiations.”

He added: “The choice is very straightforward: who is going to get that good outcome for those negotiations?

“Is it a strong Theresa May or is it Jeremy Corbyn propped up by ragtag of other political parties?”

Next, he reiterated his position on BBC Radio 4’s Today program, where he could not answer if the Tory manifesto will incorporate additional funding.

Evidently, they want to raise funding for the NHS, but what is absolutely important is to get a good result from those Brexit negotiations so they can protect the economy and continue to support the NHS.

Even if they do get a good result from Brexit, does anybody really believe that they will support the NHS, Jeremy Hunt is all about breaking it up into little pieces and selling it for the highest price.

After all, Jeremy Hunt is estimated to receive approximately £17 million for the sale of an education website company amid the NHS emergency.

The deal will make Mr. Hunt the richest man in the Cabinet because
Jeremy Hunt is to land a £15 million windfall from an education business he helped to set up as he faces mounting tension over the latest crisis in the NHS.

Hotcourses, the company Mr. Hunt founded with business associate Mike Elms in 1996, is on the brink of being sold for between £30 and £35 million. Papers registered at Companies House reveal that Mr. Hunt controls about 48 percent of the company, indicating he stands to make up to £16.8 million if the business sells for £35 million.

Mr. Hunt’s own claim in the registry of members’ interests asserts that he controls merely 15 percent of the company, which employs about 200 people.

It is understood Mr. Hunt stood down as a director in 2009 and has performed no actual position in the company since becoming an MP in 2005, however, his share of the business has proceeded to profit him large amounts of cash.

The timing of this reported agreement could prove embarrassing for Mr. Hunt, with the government facing the anger of numerous GPs who say they feel scapegoated by plans to make surgeries accessible seven days a week.

And Theresa May pledges to drive forward with 7-day GP services to take the weight off A&E departments.

All doctor’s surgeries in England will open from 8 am to 8 pm, seven days a week, Theresa May has promised, except if they can show there is no demand from patients.

Ministers hope increasing admittance to GPs will reduce stress on hospitals, which has become hazardous. There is a growing exasperation in Government that the shortage of GP appointments is forcing patients to seek treatment in hard-pressed hospital accident and emergency departments.

If they believe that’s going to work, they have another thing coming since most GP surgeries open around 8.30am in the morning and close long-standing 5.45pm, however, they further close for lunch mid 1 pm and 3 pm, not giving much time for their patients, and in some surgeries they make afternoon appointments for emergencies alone, however, that can alter from place to place.

Drop in centers were much more helpful if a patient could get there, and obviously, if they couldn’t, then A&E was required.

It’s imperative that we have the right sort of stability for patients and doctors, and a drop-in center would be much safer because then GPs would run on a rota and would then get the rest they needed.

Almost half, 46 percent of GP surgeries were still closing at some point during core weekday working hours. This was in spite of three-quarters of them having received additional funding to implement extended cover.

Nevertheless, doctors’ groups have kicked back at Theresa May, blaming her of attempting to scapegoat GPs. In addition, GPs will be informed that in future, money to surgeries which are not accessible when patients want to attend will be cut.

It has recently been determined that 30 percent of the patients visiting A&E would be properly attended for elsewhere in the system. Meanwhile, the latest official numbers revealed more than four in 10 hospitals in England announced a major alert in the first week of the year as services came under growing tension.

Most GPs do a wonderful job and have their patients’ interests firmly at heart. Nevertheless, it is obvious that a lot of surgeries are not giving access that patients demand and that patients are suffering as a consequence since they are then forced to go to A&E to solicit care.

It’s also bad for hospitals, who then face further stress on their assistance.

Ministers have announced they are giving an extra £528 million a year for practices by 2020-21 to guarantee that the target for implementing seven-day opening is reached by that time.

Furthermore, the Government is concerned about surgeries closing early and facilities failing to disclose the availability of extended hours appointments, which was further a design of the Cameron government.

The British Medical Association also kicked back furiously, attacking ministers of attempting to scapegoat doctors rather than address the funding mess in the NHS.

They are already giving care 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and much of the demand on A&E has nothing to do with general practice, it has to do with severely sick patients for whom attending a GP would not stop a hospital admission.

This is not the chance to divert liability or victimize overstretched GP services when the primary root of this dilemma is that funding is not keeping up with demand.

The Government should take responsibility for the mess of its making and draft a contingency strategy to get to grips with the underlying problem, which is the constant under-resourcing of the NHS and social care.

The Prime Minister’s intervention was very unfavorable and the policies were misled.

For practices closing transitorily throughout core opening hours, there are usually pretty solid grounds for doing so, related to ensuring high-quality patient care, including compulsory staff training, and just because the surgery may appear closed, it does not indicate that care isn’t being given.

Nevertheless, if staff training is mandatory, then it should be given when the surgery is shut, not closed when patients could be given care. However, if the government want practices to open on a 7-day basis, then there would be no opportunity to train personnel at all, there should be at least one day in the week for staff training or at least once a month.

We appear to have hit rock-bottom and there is no trust in the system anymore, and it is the patients that become the victims and the doctors that become the whipping boy.

It certainly isn’t the doctor’s liability, therefore maybe it’s the government’s blunder for not putting enough money into the system? If we are not going to have a government that is going to put money into the most prestigious and continuing enterprise, then why do we have a feckless government in control?

It’s contemptible that our own government don’t want to put the NHS first and will ultimately trade it off and make it a private enterprise. Why make such a long-standing enterprise, like the NHS private, when it has worked so well for such a long time? It just doesn’t make any sense, particularly when it will affect the health of millions of people.

The NHS is our pattern of British culture, people talk about how tremendous it is all over the globe and that we have the best health system in the world, which leaves me speechless since our government has a problem with it.

It’s a system that is ingrained into our society and our government is prepared to let it diminish to nothing by not putting enough funds back into a culture that has been long established, and with the right funds, operates well and has done so for years.

It might seem like nothing has changed in the national health service, but actually, the government have legally destroyed it and are working to make that eradication an actuality.

Nobody’s mentioned it, but the government’s Health and Social Care Act has legally destroyed the NHS. On the surface, it seems that nothing has diminished. You can still consult your GP or go to the hospital and get care free at the point of delivery.

However, behind the scenes, something else is going on, the NHS is being privatized. Over the last 30 years, continuous governments have destroyed our national health service, and here’s how they did it.

Ken Clarke, Health Secretary under Margaret Thatcher, got the ball moving by introducing a market into the NHS. This added competition by turning hospital trusts into providers of services and GP/Community trusts into buyers of services.

The effect? Administration expenses actually increased, and this internal market alone accounts for up to 10 percent of the budget or £10 billion a year.

New Labour developed complex financial models known as Private Finance Initiatives (PFI), basically developed under John Major’s government and designed to decrease government borrowing by bringing private investors into public sector projects, to develop infrastructure including new hospitals.

The initial price of hospital PFI schemes is calculated at £11.6 billion. Nevertheless, repayments are now predicted to reach around £80 billion, for hospitals that are already built. The cumulative PFI cost will exceed £301 billion, despite an initial cost of £54.7 billion.

The difference of approximately £250 billion would cover the entire NHS budget for more than two years.

From 2003, Foundation Trusts were started transforming hospitals into semi-independent businesses. These trusts, which control and manage hospitals, can now make up to half their revenue from private patients.

In the meantime, the privatization of Out of Hours Care by the likes of Harmoni and Serco has been accompanied by accusations of cost-cutting and sub-standard care. GP services have further been outsourced.

Virgin Assura alleges to look after 3 million GP patients.

A sequence of health secretaries and ministers went off to work for private healthcare after leaving government. NHS Chief Executive Simon Stevens previously served for the colossal US healthcare corporation UnitedHealth following a stint as Blair’s senior health policy advisor.

The top tiers of the Department of Health and NHS executives have been penetrated by management experts. Monitor, the independent lever of the NHS, exemplifies this practice of regulatory arrest with practically the whole board having a corporate background.

Private groups are employed in an arms race to get NHS contracts. Virgin, Circle, Bupa, Serco, UnitedHealth and even Lockheed Martin are all in the race. Last year alone, out of £9.63 billion contracts approved, £3.54 billion (nearly 40 percent) went to private firms.

The Government’s argument for reform mainly rests on the assumption of the NHS no longer being affordable and that it must be improved. Although we use significantly less than the EU average and the likes of France, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Out of the G7, only Italy has the equivalent level of spending. The Commonwealth Fund ranks the NHS as the greatest healthcare system in the world and the OECD defines it as one of the greatest performers in the world.

It is overwhelmingly successful with the people.

The Health & Social Care Act eliminates the Government’s accountability for the NHS, passing it down to a range of other groups instead. Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are forced to open contracts to unlimited privatization.

Private corporations are cherry-picking profitable contracts leaving NHS trusts with limited money. CCGs are to set to be privatized, and it is hard to accept but CCGs are now legally required to provide only emergency care and ambulances, the remainder is up to their consideration.

This translates into unlimited rationing.

A series of 1980s think tank papers, one of which was authored by Conservative MPs Oliver Letwin and John Redwood, provided the plan for key policies. Back in 2005, Jeremy Hunt co-authored a book Direct Democracy asking for the NHS to be demolished.

It included the line: “Our ambition should be to break down the barriers between private and public provision, in effect denationalizing the provision of health care in Britain”.

David Cameron’s health advisor Nick Seddon, once of private healthcare group Circle, implies that CCGs should be consolidated with private insurance corporations and those who can afford to should contribute towards their health care.

The Government consistently maintains the health budget is protected. In fact, the NHS has been forced to make cuts of up to £15-20 billion and these are being increased. Tens of NHS trusts are in jeopardy of going bust with PFI deficits as a key factor.

Sixty-six hospitals face closures of some sort. Never mind that buying out or renegotiating PFI contracts would resolve this dilemma at a stroke.

Therefore how will this brave, new world look? Our health service will have clinical commissioning groups working as insurance pools, getting care from private businesses. The NHS will become a state insurer along with the lines of Medicare in the United States.

In the meantime, personal health budgets, which enable patients, rather than doctors, to determine how funds are used in managing their health, will be increased to 5 million people by 2018. This is expected to lead to co-payments financed through private insurance.

The Government’s attempts to eliminate universal healthcare from each and every one of us, and who gave consent to smash up our NHS and peddle it off?

It’s now over to the people to protect our NHS. It’s up to you.

Yet, forced privatization of the NHS is being forced through at pace and scale as leading Labour MPs and a union boss has combined forces with figures from across the political rainbow to demand Theresa May does not sacrifice the NHS and Britain’s environmental protections in the name of a trade deal with Donald Trump.

A list of notable people, including shadow cabinet minister Jon Ashworth, and Unison general secretary Dave Prentis cautioned upon a quick settlement with the US president that could endanger the fate of important characters of British life.

Donald Trump told Gove, the Brexiteer former education secretary, that his incoming government would work really hard on delivering a Britain-US trade agreement done quickly and done properly as he supported this nation to flourish outside the European Union.

MPs who support the Open Britain campaign warned of the dangers, that a settlement could be employed as a cover for trading off parts of the NHS, and a hurried trade deal with Trump may give Ministers protection for their terrible Brexit plan but it will not obscure the prospect that this could be a Trojan horse for NHS privatisation.

The government must give compelling promises that this won’t be part of any eventual UK-US trade agreement. Britain has to succeed outside of the European Union, but they won’t do that by cutting spending and trading off our public services to Donald Trump.

Prince Harry stated for years he pushed the pain away before understanding he required help.

But now he has been speaking to promote knowledge about mental health.

Britain’s Prince Harry has confessed that he sought counseling four years ago to deal with the pain of losing his mother, Princess Diana.

In a frank interview with British newspaper The Telegraph, the fifth in line to the throne said the death of his mother at such a tender age had led to a period of total chaos.

“I can safely say that losing my mum at the age of 12 and therefore shutting down all of my emotions for the last 20 years has had a quite serious effect on not only my personal life but also my work as well,” he told The Telegraph in a podcast interview.

Prince Harry said he sought expert guidance at the age of 28 after enduring “two years of total chaos. I didn’t know what was wrong with me.”

“My way of dealing with it was sticking my head in the sand. Refusing to ever think about my mum because why would that help? It’s only going to make you sad. It’s not going to bring her back,” he said.

The Princess of Wales died in a car accident in Paris on August 31, 1997. Her unexpected passing sent shock waves throughout the world and plunged Britain into a time of grief.

Known as the people’s princess, Diana married Prince Charles in a sumptuous service at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London in 1981, and she gave birth to son William in 1982, and his brother Harry in 1984.

The younger Prince has at times grappled with the press attention. Five years after his mother’s passing, at the age of 16, his father sent him to a drug rehab center for a day after he admitted to heavy drinking and using cannabis.

He later had a thriving occupation in the British Army before leaving in July 2015.

Prince Harry informed the Telegraph that he elbowed aside his emotions for years before recognizing that they had to be faced.

“From an emotional side, I was like ‘right, don’t ever let your emotions be part of anything.’ So, I was a typical sort of 20-, 25-, 28-year-old running around going ‘life is great, or life is fine,'” he continued.

“Then I started to have a few conversations and then, all of a sudden, all of this grief that I’d never processed came to the forefront. I was like, ‘there’s actually a lot of stuff here I need to deal with.'”

Prince Harry did the interview to boost his mental health charity, Heads Together, and encourage people to be more open with their personal feelings and struggles.

He explained how his brother, the Duke of Cambridge, Prince William, pushed him to seek professional guidance.

He stated the stress of being in the public eye caused him to be “very close to a complete breakdown on numerous occasions.”

Presently, because of the process, he has been through, Prince Harry stated that he believes he’s in “a good place.”

Nevertheless, not everyone that has mental health difficulties ends up in a good place since everybody’s mental health is different, and their difficulties are not all the same. Some people with mental health difficulties have really unusual behaviors since we are all individuals with difficulties that need various interactions.

Coping with depression, or coping with grief, is different from somebody coping with ways to manage their Asperger’s Syndrome, or Bi-Polar, Tourettes, Obsessive, Compulsive Disorder, and there are much more that could be appended to the list.

We wake up and it’s an ordinary day, but not all people are ordinary. Some are more memorable than others, some are more unusual than others, though we are all unique in our own small way.

Picture your next door neighbor, we will name him Bob and he’s a car mechanic. Bob’s neighbor is called Sam and he works for the government, and next to Sam is William and he works in a bakery down the road.

Remember we are all different in our own little ways, so imagine that Bob is grief, and Sam is troubled and then we have William who is confused. They are all separate, from various walks of life and consequently will not be managed in the same way when it comes to Mental Health.

In fact, some of them won’t be helped at all because of the NHS shortage of funding, and the reality that there are more people with Mental Health difficulties than ever before. It might all appear a little tiresome, but the fact is, it’s a genuine problem, and most hospitals are not equipped to deal with the influx of Mental Health patients.

Therefore, many are assigned to counseling to dispense with the rush, and some don’t even get as far as that, they are simply advised by their doctors to pop some tablets, and then perhaps they might get seen by Mental Health.

More frequently, for the more severe cases of Mental Health patients those medicines that are given out by the doctor don’t help the patient or is not the best medicine for that patient, and more often than not, their manifestations either don’t get any better or make them worse.

Most Mental Health patients don’t even get to see a Mental Health doctor and start thinking that it’s their fault which makes them depressed and often self-destructive.

There are a lot of Mental Health patients, particularly those with Autism and Asperger’s syndrome that simply want somebody to talk to about how they feel and how their situation affects them, so they are assigned to a self-help group where a crowd of sufferers talks about their problems. However people with Autism and Asperger’s can’t do group gatherings, therefore they require 1-1 help, which isn’t easily accessible.

We appear to have drop-in centers for people with drug problems, and we appear to have drop-in centers for people with Alcohol misuse but we don’t appear to have drop-in centers for people with Mental Health issues.

What are these people supposed to do? They are the ones suffering and the government can cover it up as much as they want, but things will only get worse. They require quality of life and at the moment they are not getting it and they might have their own slight peculiarities, but they are not crazy, they have a Mental Health problem that must be addressed.

William and Harry are at the vanguard of this problem that needs to be greeted with open arms, and if William and Harry actually value the field of Mental Health and want to help out, then they must help out in all fields of Mental Health and go the distance like their mother would have done.

Theresa May has been accused, of distorting the issues behind the NHS emergency. Theresa May has shown consistently that the NHS got more funding than it requested, and that the origins of the dilemma lay in surprisingly large demand on the service.

However, Simon Stevens, the Chief of NHS England, has declared to a parliamentary select committee that this is wrong.

More than 20 NHS trusts declared black alerts, suggesting they can no longer support patient protection, and across social media, the news could be to heard live from frontline NHS workers fighting to protect lives in the light of the government’s wild under-funding and under-resourcing of the service.

This is a completely fabricated crisis and it has resulted in needless distress, pain, and even death.

During the emergency, Theresa May and her Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, have continued to say that under-funding and under-resourcing have had no part to play in the crisis. Theresa May herself declaring that they have provided the NHS more than the additional money they announced they needed for their five-year plan.

However, when talking to the Public Accounts Committee, Stevens said that the Prime Minister was stretching the truth, stating it was a matter of fact that like seemingly every element of public service, they got less than they asked for in that process. It would be stretching it to say they got more than they asked for.

He proceeded that in 2018/19, in real terms, that NHS spending was going to go down, 10 years following Lehman brothers and austerity started and that in the here and now there are very real tensions. This was not because hospitals are being feckless, and that it doesn’t benefit anyone to pretend there aren’t finance gaps.

This is not the first time that the government and the Department of Health have been found misleading the finances of the NHS. The government is known for regularly announcing the same additional funds designed for the NHS, whilst the money never appears to arrive.

In fact, something very unusual is happening to health spending in Britain. As Stevens says, funding is falling below that which is required to implement the service.

Reacting to the government’s 10-year budget forecast in 2015, the King’s Fund said that the ten years up to 2020/21 are expected to see the greatest continued decline in NHS spending as a percentage of GDP at any time following 1951.

As a consequence, the NHS is fighting to meet its responsibilities to patients.

The numbers are unambiguous. Hospitals are striving to cope with the most severe period of financial belt-tightening in the history of the NHS. Claims of unprecedented demand have proven incorrect. The NHS is not overspending or being over-utilised by immigrants or an aging/obese population. It is being gutted by cuts in funding which leave it powerless to meet demand.

In attempts to reallocate liability from the government, Conservative MPs and compassionate media outlets have engaged in a smear crusade. Under-funding becomes overspending, and the crisis in supply, contributing enough funds and resources becomes a crisis in demand, with too many people exploiting the service.

This smear crusade is summarized by the 10 January on the front page of The Daily Mail, and Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt draws a completely inaccurate statistic out of thin air, accommodating newspapers then prints it, and the bloke in the pub attacks it, and so on.

This is the politics of despair, with a government that has consistently under-resourced the NHS and social care services, panicking in the light of the outcomes, and eager to pin the blame on everything but its own ideology.

Nevertheless, apparently the Tories are giving more NHS funding to Private corporations, in actuality, this suggests that NHS loses at least a third of that funding.

Most corporations set aside one-third for profit, therefore for every £100 million a private business gets, they will steal £33 million. This amounts to a lot of lost funding over a period of time, which is simple to understand how this is showing up now and getting worse.

Nevertheless, if the government didn’t steal your money and decide how it was used, you could determine how much of your money you wanted to designate to medical care, and how much you wanted to designate to fighting unnecessary hostilities, and how much you wanted to designate to charity.

What a Brave New World it would be, if these decisions were in the hands of the people, and not of the maniacs that run the asylum.

Despite the reiterated persistence of women for years that the contraceptive pill has an adverse impact on their mental and physical health, the first extensive research on how hormonal birth control affects women’s well-being has just been published.

The research, led by the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, discovered that, unsurprisingly, oral contraceptives reduce general well-being in healthy women.

The double-blind research used 340 healthy females aged mid 18 and 35 over the course of three months and treated them randomly with either placebos or contraceptive pills. The latter contained Ethinylestradiol and Levonorgestrel, the most common form of the contraceptive pill in Sweden and several other countries.

Despite nobody knowing which pills were supplied to which females, those who were given contraceptive pills rated their quality of life to be lower. This was across areas of mood, well-being, vitality, and self-control, all of which were affected negatively.

Surprisingly, no notable rise in depressive manifestations was apparent.

The research notes that these differences were insignificant, however, that they may be of clinical value. The conclusion that the pill negatively alters women’s well-being is unsurprising, and the fact that it has taken so long, despite a form of the pill being available since 1960, is not.

Regardless, as of late, the investigation is accumulating. A study by JAMA determined that the use of hormonal contraception, particularly amongst teenagers, was associated with subsequent use of antidepressants and diagnosis of depression.

Earlier this year, The Debrief published a study called Mad About The Pill, looking in particular at the adverse mental side effects of the oral contraceptive pill. They discovered that whilst numerous females reported a rise in depression, stress, and panic attacks whilst on the pill, they didn’t feel they were taken seriously when they described these symptoms to their doctor.

The results of The Debrief’s study, overall, are rather dreadful, however, they don’t come as any sort of surprise to those who have been prescribed birth control.

There are various kinds of hormonal birth control, and some teens have been on the pill since they were 15 years old. Many are not prescribed it for contraceptive reasons, but also to control periods or for acne.

Relevant or not, one wouldn’t say that those women would describe their mental health or well-being as great, and the outcome of nearly ten continuous years of hormonal contraceptives on a body is staggering, and when some women have voiced their views to their doctors and questioned if it would be smart to have a rest, the doctor simply waves off their concerns.

Some females originally were on the contraceptive jab and quit since it made them aggressive for no reason throughout the first few weeks, and was later informed that the mini pill would be more reliable.

Understandably, virtually all medications come with side effects, some more than others, however, some of those side effects can be catastrophic on a person’s body, and it’s the translation from the person taking that medicine and how it is affecting them that the doctor should be taking note and not waving them off with some justification.

Everyone’s body is diverse and consequently, we respond to these medications in various ways and doctors should not be playing a deduction game, they should be informed of the facts before dishing out prescriptions.

How long does it take to make a doctor? Currently, doctors in the United Kingdom can train for up to 16 years before qualifying. 5 years for their degree, or six if you intercalate and take a beneficial topic like, say, History of Medicine, 2 years for a post-graduate foundation course, and then 3 to 8 years in specialist training.

Pharmacists train for five years, one year less than a doctor and a year more than a nurse. So pharmacists were said to be enlisted into GP practices to further reduce demand and combat a lack of family doctors.

The plans could see pharmacists placed in surgeries to further meet the day-to-day requirements of patients with long-term infirmities, including diabetes and asthma.

It appears like a great plan since doctors know about medical stuff and pharmacists know about medications and their side effects, well seemingly so. Tons of medicine is given out by doctors, most of whom look in a book before they give them to you since numerous doctors are not certain if they are giving out the correct medicine, or if it will interact poorly with a different medication that their patient is receiving.

We put our trust in our doctor and trust they know what they are doing but when your doctor is relating to a book on what medications they should be giving you, that doesn’t rest well, and we should be amazed at how numerous doctors don’t really know what medicine they are giving out to their patients.

It’s a little unsettling indeed, yet they dismiss our concerns by assuring us that all medicine has side effects and that is quite right. Not that it should deter patients from taking their medicine because in some situations coming off their medicine could have really unfavorable consequences, but so could taking ones we don’t require as well.

Of course, some women previously had crappy mental health long before they popped any progesterone, but as The Debrief’s and several others present, it’s not the same for all females.

There are infinite studies, and heaps of anecdotal data accumulating that will hopefully provide the incentive for medical experts to consider more thoroughly about prescribing the pill, the impact it has on our brains and bodies, and a real long-term solution that won’t totally screw us up.

Of course, if it was men reporting in their thousands that they were suffering from a loss of energy, severe depression, tension, and overall bad well-being because of an extremely accessible and over-prescribed medicine, maybe we’d have seen sufficient investigation done sooner.

It is great that the contraceptive pill was introduced since it discouraged births that were not wanted, even down to sexual predators who violated, females were not getting pregnant by them.

It was the swinging sixties, and it may well have been okay to tune in, turn on and drop out in a flower power dress if you lived in London and visited Carnaby Street, however, for most girls in the provinces it was a tough slog to get GCEs and A-levels and possibly be the first in a family to get to university.

Becoming an unwed mum was an unpardonable crime. Some girl’s in school made the error and was ousted from school and rebuffed by her parents. Most teenagers were sent elsewhere and their newborns adopted.

This generation was only too conscious that propagation was an undeniable no-no. It would bring their dreams to an end, and in many cases, some mothers would have such a frozen fit and that teen might never be allowed to cloud her door again, a warning that my mother made on numerous an occasion. ‘Don’t you bring shame to this house, my girl,’ still reverberate in my ears.

However, sex was a different thing. Girls knew, generally, about the newly available Pill, a mythic medication, identified not by its trademark name but by the widespread general terminology ever used, simply The Pill.

It was approved in the United States on May 9, 1960. Inside three years, 2.3million American women were taking it and usage soon expanded throughout the Western world. Now it’s taken by more than 100 million women.

The creativity of the Pill corresponded with a cataclysmic turning point in British history. Even for those a significant distance from Swinging London, the sense of change filtered down.

Gone were the twinsets, pearls and stiletto heelpieces our mothers dressed in. Teenagers wanted mini skirts and Cuban heels. Chicks opposed their mothers’ demand of refined perms and wore their hair long, straight and in curtains on either side of their head.

Tommy Steele and Buddy Holly records went to the base of the pile and teenagers saved for weeks to afford the 6s 9d it required to obtain the newest single from The Beatles or Rolling Stones.

Furthermore, for the first time, significant amounts of teenagers, inspired by the quality of education and the burgeoning Women’s Movement, proposed to move home and design a profession. The modern girls of the late Sixties learned about the Pill that was being presented in the headlines and learned about it in magazines and papers.

However, officially it was not for us. It got to the United Kingdom in 1961, however, as in the United States, was open just to espoused females on prescription. Additionally, it cost two shillings a month, a tremendous cost on an allowance of £400 a year.

Although, as modern fans of Women’s Lib who desired to be free to make their own decisions about sexuality and they desired to be in charge, self-supporting of any man. No method of contraception was as efficient as the Pill, more than 99 percent efficient when taken accurately. Therefore, modern ladies desired it, but how were they to get it?

Lady Helen Brook, who worked for the Family Planning Association (FPA), was the first to demonstrate that contraception should be accessible to females who were not espoused. Lady Helen Brook started her job in the department in the Fifties when an investigation revealed an increase in premarital coital activity.

By 1960 the normal age of first coupling had dropped from 21 to 19. It’s presently 15, according to research conducted in 2000. In the Fifties, more than 250,000 single women were having unprotected sex every year.

They were usually, secretaries in their 30s and 40s and men in those days frequently utilized their secretaries as concubines, but these ladies had no means of getting hold of birth control information. They were dying at the hands of back-street abortionists.

The code of the FPA would not allow her to summon single ladies for advice, however, in 1964, two years following the loss of British birth control campaigner Marie Stopes, Lady Helen Brook started her own London clinic, the Brook Advisory Service, to do precisely that.

Nevertheless, for ladies furthest from the metropolis, deception was still required to get the Pill. In 1968 there was no Brook Clinic in Hull, where some were suffering a do-I-or-don’t-I predicament, however, Woolies did a great trade in inexpensive wedding bands.

A number of teenagers purchased one and rolled in at the district FPA as espoused women. Others purchased a fake engagement ring and manufactured about an imminent union.

It was dishonest, but it worked. These girls were not being extravagantly lewd, but they wanted the option, after all, many of them went to work, paid their way in the home, yet they were not entitled to have a say because if you had sex before you were partnered you were deemed a loose woman, no more than a whore.

However, it is really how one is regarded, how society regards us. Sex was discouraged and I would get a shove from my mum if I even petted a boy. The advantages of that era were that the sexual rebellion had given women the right to say yes, and the women’s campaign gave women the courage to say no, and the Pill made certain women never figured in the abortion or unwanted baby statistics.

The development of the Pill came out of an unusual mix of motives and ethical principles. The feminist campaigner Margaret Sanger was born in New York in 1879 to Roman Catholic parents, six years after Congress had enacted a statute preventing information about birth control as offensive.

Her mother had died aged 50 following 18 pregnancies, and Margaret Sanger is supposed to have faced her father at the grave and challenged him, declaring that he prompted her mother’s passing, from having too many babies.

Most females did not have the opportunity of getting an education. Only higher-class women would occasionally get a basic education in mathematics, writing, and reading. Children were thought of as property.

The father could do all that he desired with the child. He could savor the fruits of his labor, exploit him, et cetera, however, it was his duty to support him. Children were frequently abused, even to death sometimes.

Females had hardly any of the powers the men had in that time. Men were permitted to own property, including the woman and all of her legacy, they could get an education like most women couldn’t, and they could have a lot of jobs that women couldn’t.

It wasn’t until 1839, when Mississippi awarded women the freedom for women to own property with their husband’s consent, that women were permitted to own land.

Most of us have come to realize how different today’s society is that that of the 1800’s.

Men were the head of the house, though they were where off opposing hostilities or working. The average lifestyle of females in the 1800’s was sometimes considered a kind of slavery. The only thing females were required to do was to partner a man and then donate the rest of her life serving him.

If she remained single, she would be mocked by society, and when the female married a man, he then had a claim to all of her legacy and all the woman had.

The everyday life of a wife in late 1800’s through early 1900’s was pretty uniform. Get the kids up, make breakfast, clean the home, make luncheon/dinner, and if they lived on a farm they would mind the animals and sometimes help harvest the crops.

Furthermore, numerous women were quite religious and would go to church regularly. Where most women then found their spouse to be. Even some women were into politics and would have nonviolent walks for equality and be able to vote.

Women had few to no rights in the government and were deemed secondary. The principal goal was the generation of babies and cleaning the home, and they fought to break ideal concepts about how women should be.

An espoused woman had no separate identity from her spouse.

Pursuing professions and better educations had very few rights and if they did achieve it, it was for really low wage and no pension. To be a teacher meant you couldn’t be espoused or have a family.

Conditions in a classroom were shocking. Dark, packed, and it felt like a factory.

Teachers were extremely disciplined and had stringent rules to follow.

The familiar position of women in the late 1800’s throughout early 1900’s was a peculiar thing, such as when they were barely 15 throughout to their middle 20’s many women had their children and many of them.

Additionally, numerous women had numerous friends because of all there related difficulties in life. When they were in there groups many of them began social associations and literary clubs to discuss their feelings.

Ultimately, they also started to become more productive in their neighborhood such as calculating votes, serving in their church’s, and more started to go to college to study subjects for work.

Leading residents desired to address problems however, churches declined, so they built their own meeting hall, and the land was donated.

Reproduction in much of human antiquity has been a class action. The upper classes were encouraged to procreate as much as possible, and a female who was expecting or recuperating from delivery took the time to rest whilst attendants took charge of her and the baby.

The lower classes worked right up to and shortly following delivery, as they had to work to eat. The upper classes further had the latest medical knowledge at their fingertips, however, this wasn’t always such a good thing.

Class distinctions in pregnancy throughout the Renaissance period in 15th-century Florence, women were coupled as teenagers and usually had five to ten children, depending on if she endured delivery.

Delivery was so dangerous that a woman would make out her will as soon as she discovered she was expecting. An age-old technique of birth control was continued breastfeeding, which is nature’s way of spacing out babies.

Nevertheless, the practice amongst the upper classes was to farm out breastfeeding to wet nurses, which meant that the mother would quickly be pregnant again.

It was throughout the Renaissance that medical doctors started to take on a role in the delivery, though not without a fight. Women as a whole were screened and their bodies were covered with lots of clothing.

It was improper for any man to take a role in the private process of birth, and midwives did not want to give up their ability or expertise in the field. Midwives had knowledge on their side, doctors had the power that came with the title.

Consequently, most of the writings and information from that period come from leading doctors, and much of their information was guesswork.

Three women were expecting when they embarked on the Mayflower on its voyage to America. One child, Oceanus Hopkins, was born while on the journey and died during the first winter in Massachusetts.

Another, Peregrine White, was born shipboard off Cape Cod and lived to an old age. The third child was stillborn at Plymouth, the mother perished during the delivery. Such accounts were not at all surprising, as a woman’s probabilities of dying during delivery were between one and two percent for each birth.

If a woman gave birth to eight or ten children, her odds of eventually dying during delivery were rather great. The infant death percentage was even greater. The possibilities of a child dying before his fifth birthday were expected to be about 20 percent, depending on the neighborhood, but accurate documents are limited.

In addition to the dread of dying or the concern of the child dying, there was no pain medicine during labor, except for whiskey in some areas. In Puritan villages, pain throughout labor was God’s retribution for Eve and all women who came afterward.

Motherhood in early America was even more terrifying for slaves. Infant death amongst African and African-American slaves in the 18th century extended from 28-50 percent, and death in children below ten was 40-50 percent, owing to maternal starvation, exhaustion, illness, and lack of medical access.

Slave masters rebuked the mothers for infant mortality, and there is proof that some newborns were intentionally suffocated to spare the baby from a life of servitude, but other circumstances contributed considerably to the infant mortality rate.

Childbirth improved dramatically in the 19th century with the introduction of anesthetics. Dentist William Morton developed the application of ether for surgery in 1846. Obstetrician Sir James Young Simpson introduced chloroform as an anesthetic in 1847.

Queen Victoria used chloroform throughout her eighth birth in 1853.

The method of childbirth anesthesia spread swiftly afterward, despite objections from the priesthood, who insisted that labor pains were God’s will.

In 1914, a method called Twilight Sleep was developed, which involved morphine and scopolamine. The mother slept through labor, but the drugs further affected the newborn, and sometimes the baby didn’t breathe at all. The morphine further caused some mothers to die during labor.

Childbirth, though still an ordeal, is much safer now for mothers. Babies are much more likely to survive to adulthood, and widely accessible birth control gives women the right of choosing when and how many babies to have.

However, the difficult part comes after birth, supporting a family, which is more difficult every day.

We might be mad about the Pill, or the Pill might be making us go mad, and your birth control tablets can make you a little crazy, but by crazy, means an over-emotional mess who acts and responds to everything and later regrets and never really understands.

All teenagers have a moment in their life when they first contemplate going on birth control pills. At some point in your life, whether you’re 14-years-old or 26, you decide that you want to start having sex, but you don’t want to get pregnant.

And what better way to do that than going on the pill?

For some, the Pill is an almost safe medication to stop reproduction, but it is further utilized to control periods and while it can make you a little mad at times, it usually does the job it’s supposed to do. I guess it depends on your concept of safety or the side effects the Pill has on a woman.

However not everyone gets those side effects, and one Pill might be okay for one woman, but not for another, similar to any other medication that a doctor prescribes to you.

Not wanting to become pregnant is an incentive towards taking the Pill, since not everyone wants an unwanted fertilization and it’s absolutely not safe for the body to be having too many babies. We have options now and without those choices, undesired fertility would start to become overflowing once again.

I believe a woman needs to look at the for and against and then determine what is best for her, but all medications have consequences and it’s critical that we reflect on what we are putting into our bodies since the Pill can alter your state of mind, but so can any other medicine you are given.

If we are familiar with the facts, then we are completely acquainted and can then make the appropriate decisions, but if they remain unclear then we can’t make the best decisions, so we all need to be familiarized…