THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO

The statute must be altered so that people can be assisted to take their own lives without having to schlep off to Switzerland. Sir Keir Starmer who was in charge of drawing up directions that spelt out how people who took steps of empathy might stay away from prosecution for aiding someone who wanted to take their own life.

He’s now set his mind that it’s time for a new statute to rescue dozens of Britons every year from making their way to Zurich clinics of Dignitas to end their lives.

The statute has to be altered, and the important thing is to have precautions. The present recommendations have inbuilt restrictions, which mean that there can be unfairness in a number of instances.

One of the fundamental troubles was that doctors weren’t permitted to assist, which meant that chronically ill people might have to depend on friends or relatives to help them pass away.

It’s hard when a loved one is terminally ill to know what to do, or even do the right thing, and there are a large amount of people who are terminally ill who want to pass away with dignity, however, they are governed by rules and regulations.

Everyone should be allowed to pass away with dignity.  We come into this world with dignity, and then we are looked after by the hospital to make certain that everything is done right. So why shouldn’t we be permitted to go out the same way? – Well, I shall tell you the reason why.

When a child is brought into this world, it has possibility, and is viewed as a resource.  That child will in due course go to school where it will be conditioned by the authorities, then go out to work, where it will slave its little ass off making the government filthy rich.

Once you arrive at a certain age, and you’ve had your children, you’re of no use to the government because you can’t work any longer.  The only way I can describe it, is like this.  If you were a greyhound, that animal labours hard to win its owner money, then when they get too old they are thrown to one side, and not wanted any longer, this is how the government works.

The only distinction in the space separating the greyhound and a human being, is that greyhounds are pursuing a rabbit, and they have no idea why – they have no idea it’s for financial gain.  Nevertheless, we human beings know that what we’re doing is profit-making for the government, however, we need to work to obtain a living to support ourselves, and our families, so we are driven by fear.

Once we get older, the government has no use for us, so they have no motivation to support, or give us anything, especially if it’s going to cost them money, and they’re not getting anything in return.

At the end of the day, we come into this world with nothing, and we all go out with nothing, but most of us have worked our butts off – okay some might not have, but we should still go out with a little bit of dignity, and not only that, it shouldn’t cost us a penny, the government should foot the bill for that.

The only good thing about dying is that VAT is not invoiced for funerals.

Straight forward no frills direct cremation is £895, which includes the coffin.  It doesn’t seem a lot, but when the family doesn’t earn a lot of money, and the departed hasn’t left any money to deal with funeral costs, it’s an enormous amount of money to find, especially when you’re mourning a loved one.

There should definitely be something put in place by the government, so that when a loved one dies they can be buried with peace of mind, and not have to worry about cost, and when a loved one is terminally ill, they should have the decision on how they would like to die.

After all, we think nothing of having a pet put to sleep, it’s the norm these days.  If a pet is suffering, the vet will automatically put the animal to sleep so that it does not suffer.

We’re pretty eager when it comes to animals, however, when it comes to human beings that are suffering, we’re less likely to help them out of pain, and we’re pretty inflexible to that idea.

People appear to be against to certain concepts, if they think it’s injurious because they have been conditioned to that lie, then they will be against the concept, because we have been powerfully conditioned on the foundation that it’s quite normal to euthanise an animal when it’s suffering, however, when a person who is suffering such pain that they just want to stop the agony that they’re in, then we would sooner allow them to be in pain because we have been conditioned that it’s okay because they’re human, and not an animal.

Humanity constructs these building blocks to devise notions in our minds, so much so, that we give way to those ideas because we in truth believe that they’re true. Of course, there are those few of us that wrestle against those ideas because we know that it’s a lot of nonsense.

We are individuals, and as people we should be permitted to do what is most important to our well being, however, it seems that we’re not allowed to do this one thing. The notion that death is a bad thing is not invariably so, particularly when one is suffering from a terminal disease.

Society can attempt to fashion us as to what they want, but there will still be some of us that will be opposed to this, and everything that we now believe is reversible, like cultures and trends, they can alter at any moment because most people have the creative power to do so, we cannot be conditioned forever.

There are contrasting euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics interprets mercy killings as an intentional intervention undertaken with the express intentionality of ending a life, to alleviate uncontrollable suffering. In the Netherlands and Flanders, euthanasia is accepted as ending of a life by a doctor at the plea of a patient.

A mercy killing is classified in different ways, which comprise elective, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Elective euthanasia has been legalised in some countries, such as the United States, and Canadian Provinces. Non-voluntary euthanasia is unauthorised in all countries. Involuntary euthanasia is normally reviewed as murder. As of 2006, euthanasia is the most active area of investigation in contemporary bioethics.

In some countries, there is an alienating national disagreement over the ethical, moral, and legal matters of euthanasia. Those who are opposed to mercy killings may argue for the sanctity of life, while advocates of euthanasia rights stress about reducing the patient’s pain, and preserving the physical integrity, self-determination, and individual freedom to do as one wishes. Control where euthanasia or aided suicide is legal comprise the Netherlands, Colombia, Switzerland, Japan, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Estonia, Albania, the United states of Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Vermont and, starting in 2015, the Canadian Province of Quebec.

Individuals who are terminally ill do not make a decision on euthanasia for pleasure.  It’s a really grave commitment that someone who is terminally ill decides upon.  They have given considerable thought to what they want to occur, and they more often than not, have talked about this at great length with their loved ones.

Euthanasia is the ending of a very sick person’s life in order to alleviate them of their pain. And in nearly all instances euthanasia is carried out because the person who passes away asks for it, however, there are cases called euthanasia where a person can’t make such an appeal.

People have a specific right to die. And a separate right to die is not necessary, because our other human rights suggest the right to die. Death is a personal matter, and if there is no impairment to others, the state, and other people should not get to impede that decision.

We could ask the question, is death a bad thing? And that if death is not a bad thing, then many of the grievances of euthanasia disappear.

Is it because human life is intrinsically precious, or is it because our existence and demise are God’s business with which we shouldn’t impede upon, or because most people don’t want to die, or because most people believe that it breaches our freedom in an extreme way?

Everyone has a route that they want to go down, or a pathway that they want to stroll along. It’s not about the order of life, it’s about the direction that we want to go, and we can be directed on a specific path, however, at the end of the day we all make our own choices.

We are all in charge of our own existence, we are the building block of our own future, and no one can contest that, because we all dance to our own tune. Our aim is to exist in life, how we see suitable, full of aspirations, hopes, and determination.

What we do at the end of our life is very much the same. We are single people, and individually we can determine about how we exit this mortal coil, we don’t need anyone’s consent.

Anne Robinson may be worth an estimated £50 million, but that doesn’t stop her from foraging for food in a bin. The Weakest Link presenter gets into the Freegan spirit by helping to hunt for out of date food that has been thrown away by fancy supermarkets.

In the BBC documentary Britain’s Spending Secrets, Anne is spotted calling on eco-warrior Jedi and his girlfriend who live free of charge in the woods.

They don’t pay out money on food. Instead, they skip food from bins and prepare healthy meals. Jedi explains that every single thing they consume essentially comes from a bin, however, Anne is not ado and happily tucks in to her meal.

The 70 year old contentedly joins in with her recently developed friends as they head out in the dark for a splash of shopping at Waitrose, as she helps them find such opulent treats like salmon, feta and carrot homous prior to being chased away by a security guard.

It appears Anne’s standing helps the three get away with roughly £50 worth of skipped food, however, Anne admits she hasn’t been changed, and still requires her luxury comforts.

Anne as well spends time with wealthy people to differentiate the dissimilarity between spending habits between the rich and the poor.

He may be one of the most wealthy men in the United Kingdom, who made his millions from building trailer parks, but Alfie Best is still frugal by nature and refuses to send his son to a private school.

The reason that he hasn’t sent his son to a private school is because he’s desperate to install the will to achieve success, and no one can do that better than Alfie Best.

It’s understandable that Anne is a wee surprised that with all Alfie’s millions he doesn’t want to send his child off to somewhere he could get a higher quality education, but following the meeting with the self-made millionaire, Anne said that what she loves about Alfie is he is refreshingly blunt about his financial affairs.

His bank balance may have altered, but Alfie has the selfsame values that he grew up with as a child in a roadside caravan.

Anne also talks with single mum Charlotte, who has racked up £5,000 worth of arrears while she aspires to live the life of a footballer’s wife.

Mum of two talked honestly about her incomings and outgoings after greeting the presenter, and welcoming her into her home, but Charlotte, who lives on £213 a week, refuses to let that limit her from getting what she wants.

Anne Robinson is worth at least £50 million.

The television hostess, who gathered her enormous fortune throughout her lengthy profession as a presenter as well as overwhelming America with The Weakest Link, maintains she doesn’t know precisely how much she is worth, however, said she would like to think it’s more than £50 million.

The 70 year old Watchdog presenter, stated a lot of her money is in property, comprising a living quarters on Fifth Avenue in New York, a portion of a house in the Hampton’s, and a place in Gloucestershire.

If you question Anne on how much she’s worth, she doesn’t exactly know, but she’s got sufficient funds to have everything she desires.

Money is something we’re all captivated and controlled by. Yet it’s very British not to actually talk about it.

People will discuss their sex life, their mother’s dementia, their operations, and whatever else at a dinner party, however, people won’t chat about money.

Nearly all people that are wealthy have no difficulty frittering it away, and they definitely don’t appear to care what they lavish it on.  So, Anne can present her most recent show called “British Spending Secrets”, and she appears to be enjoying herself presenting the show, and then gives over the impression that being poverty-stricken is a walk in the park, but of course she can go back to her affluent way of life, and forget about the people that’s she’s been dealing with.

She, without question consistently gives a superior show, however, what people fail to remember is that these people are not putting on a show, this is actual life, and these are actual people.

Many of these people once worked for a living, however, through no failing of their own were either made unemployed, either because of redundancy or ill health, and it’s not a joke, and a subject that should be taken very seriously, and the show makes a mockery out of people that are genuinely trying to make ends meet.

Researchers have widely known for more than a decade that the pharmaceuticals we consume are inclined to turn up second hand in wildlife. Occasionally this can have dreadful results.

Chemical hormones in birth control pills, for example, pass into the urine and are set free through municipal sewage plants into the environment, where they can become powerful endocrine disruptors. These drugs change the reproductive physiology and behaviour of fish downstream, with effects comprising feminised or intersex males.

But so far, society’s response has mostly been a common disregard, because these are fish, not people. Why should we care? Attempts to perimeter drug contamination have mainly gone nowhere.

Fish counters in community supermarkets where 14 different types of fillets were bought.  They were then tested for the presence of various human pharmaceuticals, comprising the antihistamine found in drugs like Benadryl, and the anti-anxiety amalgam found in medications like Valium.

Eleven of 14 fish portions comprised raised levels of the two drugs.

Furthermore, the fish weren’t just freshwater varieties, such as catfish, or its Asian cousin swai, which might predictably pick up wastewater treatment byproducts in river environments. Saltwater fish, including mullet, cod, red snapper, ocean perch, bay scallops, mahimahi, Atlantic salmon, sole, and Spanish mackerel have been just as likely to be polluted.

So while eating fresh fish may well spur your levels of thriving omega-3 fatty acids, it also advises that it could as well mean unwittingly absorbing a cocktail of unintended drugs, not to mention mercury, PCBs, and other pollutants.

One baffling feature was that a great deal of fish examples came from Thailand, Vietnam, and China, countries that are well known for unlawful fishing, but not usually related to hefty pharmaceutical use.

However, prescription medication usage is quickly growing as those countries adopt the Western way of life. Numerous Asian countries have as well become general drug manufacturers, however, have hardly any, or no rules on what pharmaceutical manufacturers dump into the habitat.

The level of drugs established was comparatively tiny in human terms, because you are not going to handle your anxiety, or your runny nose by consuming fish. Even the biggest absorption recognised would still produce less than a thousandth of the normal therapeutic measure for either drug.

Unintentionally consuming many drugs with the same result could still present a health risk, and some medicines are dangerous if taken with each other. The anti-anxiety medication diazepam, for example, shouldn’t be incorporated with a lengthy catalogue of other prescription medication because it changes their potency.

The significant concern is for fish eating wildlife, because animals like cormorants and leopard seals. Their whole diet consists of fish.

The absorption of pharmaceuticals in any one meal is really small. However, as these animals dine on the same predator fish, and feed on them day after day, the contaminants accumulate in their bodies, and they weren’t designed to be eating any of these drugs.

A drug that is favourable in one species can have astounding and unforeseeable consequences in another. In India in the 1990s, for example, farmers began administering the drug diclofenac to alleviate arthritis symptoms in cattle. However, that drug causes fatal kidney failure in vultures, and because vultures forage on dead cattle, one of the biggest vulture populations in the world plunged 99 percent in just five years. Today, three vulture species are still flirting with extinction.

The effects of a single species can as well cascade through whole ecosystems. A short time ago, a human contraceptive by-product was added at typical levels in a tiny, remote lake. Because of the disruption to their procreative lives, fathead minnows, a common prey fish, disappeared inside of two years. After four years, slimy Sculpin, a further prey species, were down to 1 percent of their previous numbers.

The devastation worked its way up the food chain to lake trout, the crown predator, which decreased as much as 42 percent over a seven year study.

Removing drug residues from wastewater treatment plant waste is very costly, particularly for expanding countries that haven’t yet constructed even the most basic sewage treatment. However, in nearly every ecosystem, humans are at the summit of the food chain. What takes place in the plant and wildlife close by will eventually happen to us.

Consider that, and let your lawmakers know what you think the next time you step up to the seafood counter, or reach for a prescription medication.

Pharmaceutical companies have developed the vast number of medicines known to humankind, however, they have financially gained handsomely from doing so, and not at all times by legal methods.

The United States pay a good way more than anyone, anywhere else in the world for brand name prescription medications, and pharmaceutical companies spend a lot more money on experimentation, however, they pay out almost twice as much on marketing as they spend on research. They as well make more in financial gain, on average, as they spend on experimentation.

Making medication by pharmaceutical companies is not done with any empathy at all. There is a specific structured preparation when making drugs for ailing people. It’s an administration of parasites that don’t care how they make money, or what is seeping back into the environment, and it’s horrifying. Not only is it unpleasant, but people are unwilling to do anything about it.

It’s clear that medication is imperative, we would be stupid to believe otherwise, however, every new medication that comes out is costing billions of pounds to manufacture, however, they make more than that in revenue.

The conclusion, is that making medication is profit making, however, it still overflows back into the environment, there are no two ways about it, and they know that people that are sick require pharmaceutical companies.

Circumstances make the demand, and it has an effect on all of us at some time or another. We are the architect of our own design, and we are the motivating force that drives them along to make another medication for its profit making scheme.

We supply them with enough ammunition that sustains them, and we cultivate a thriving business – we make it possible.

Kensington Palace, the home and workplace of Prince William and Princess Kate, have written to the press imploring them not to issue pictures taken by paparazzi, who have been going to increasingly great lengths to get images of Prince George.

A line has been crossed by the paparazzi over the last couple of months, and their methods have become menacing, and typify a very tangible safety risk for the two year old prince.

Photographers’ conduct has caused William and Kate to be worried about their capability to supply a childhood for Prince George and Princess Charlotte that is free from intimidation and scrutiny.

The statement as well mentioned an event where a paparazzi parked outside a children’s play zone, and lay down in the trunk in the expectation of catching a picture of the young prince.

A paparazzo leased a car and parked in a discreet place outside a children’s play zone. The car was hidden by blackened windows. He then took the additional step of draping sheets inside the car, and made a secret stash of food and drinks to get him through a full day of surveillance, remaining there in hope of catching pictures of Prince George.

The police force found him laying down in the boot of the car, trying to shoot photographs with a long lens through a small gap in his hide. It is of course distressing that such tactics are aimed at doing more than taking pictures, which shouldn’t be done anyway, but these people also profit from what pictures they can take.

They’re taking images of a two year old boy, in a play zone, along with other children that would be there as well. If it were anyone else, they would be apprehended, not just for taking the images, but as well for pedophilia.

This is a criminal offence, and whether this guy was from the press or not, he should be arrested, because taking pictures of somebody else without their permission, makes that person a victim.

This is a young two year old boy that can’t fight his corner, and there should be a line that the press should not be permitted to cross. It’s quite straightforward in fact, leave this little man alone – he’s a little darling, like all other children his age.

He is a human being, and like everybody else is entitled to his simple human rights, so, the paparazzi should just leave him to grow up like any other child.

I’m not saying that the paparazzi should not be allowed to take images of this little man, however, they should only take them when permission has been given, and not at any other time.

Kensington Palace as well stated that in recent months photographers have used long range lenses to catch images of Kate playing with Prince George in a number of private parks.

They have also monitored Prince George and his nanny’s movements around London Parks, and the movements of their household workforce were as well monitored by photographers, as well as children of individuals calling on the home of William and Kate were photographed.

Additional children were used around play areas to draw Prince George into view, and photographers have been found hidden in grasslands and woods around the Duke and Duchess’s home in Norfolk.

In addition to this, in order to take photographs of Prince George playing with his grandmother, they concealed themselves among the sand dunes on a beach.

In a raised security domain, such tactics are a danger to all involved. The concern is that it will not always be feasible to swiftly differentiate between somebody taking photographs and someone planning to do more instantaneous harm.

As I have specified in many preceding articles that I have written, I am not a Royalist in any way, shape or form, however, I do have an agenda on ones Human Rights, whether it be Mr Joe Public or the Royal family, everyone qualifies to that right.

Nevertheless, we are purely a zealous game for the paparazzi as they flash their camera’s at anyone that will make the front line page. With their zoom lenses, they will put emphasis on anybody that will make them the most money, but it’s not only that, it’s the amusement that goes with it, like a fox-hunt, its not congenial, its in for the kill – and snap!!

Thousands of Polish people working in Britain are expected to take part in the first ever migrant workers strike in this country later this month. The protest, proposed for Thursday 20th August, is the outcome of talks on Polish Internet forums by people irate at immigrants being held responsible for Britain’s financial difficulties.

The unofficial strike, which does not require any trade unions, is being backed by the Polish Express newspaper which has produced a Facebook group to promote the gathering. A red T-shirt has been made for the remonstration which states: “Enough! Stop blaming us. ”

The proposal of a strike came from one of their readers, and it’s just a way to show people in the United Kingdom that immigrants are a significant part of Britain. They want to pinpoint that they’re here, and that they want to feel appreciated.

At more than 680,000 people, the Polish populace is part of the largest in Britain. About half a million Polish employees are depended upon in area’s such as construction, healthcare and catering.

Ultimatums to strike come in the middle of a government crackdown in opposition to unlawful immigrants, induced by recurrent endeavours by migrants seeking to cross the English Channel from Calais in recent weeks.

However, judgement is split over the proposed remonstration. This is not the sort of thing they would be willing to reinforce, for the simple rationale it might be more harmful to individuals with consequences from employers, than any benefit that could be obtained.

The concept of a one day strike can be filled with problems. The lowest obligatory conditions for a legal strike movement, comprising the existence of a trade debate, would not be present, so any employees considered to be striking would not have the safety that is extended to employees taking legitimate strike action.

Yesterday saw the take off of a remonstration of a more favourable kind. Using the Twitter hashtag #Polishblood, organisers want Polish migrants to give blood on the 20th August, rather than not turning up for work. Hundreds of people have already promised to donate blood since the campaign was launched on Facebook and Twitter yesterday.

Everyone will find something for themselves in this remonstration, if someone senses they’re being discriminated against, they will be able to display the most favourable thing that somebody can do, a really humble thing of just giving blood. It’s an entirely good thing to encourage the British/Polish relationship.

Far from being a drain on the country, migrants in fact make Britain a more flourishing place, as stated by a major account by researchers at University College London last year. It established that immigrants from the European Union who came to Britain in the space separating 2000 and 2011, paid out £20 billion more in taxes than they were given in benefits.

Britain’s financial resources could come to a halt if hundreds of thousands of Polish employee’s went on strike, and many Polish people are worried that their ethnic origin has been assessed, and they’re now the fall-boy in the immigration dispute.

However, now is not the right time for such endeavours.  Lately relationships have tremendously improved, and they have not observed any outstanding assaults on the Polish from the mainstream press or politicians.

The call for Polish employees to give their blood, rather than a strike, has cross party support, and while striking is of the last resort, they completely support alternative community ingenuity, such blood donations.

The blood giving initiative is extraordinary, and they should be doing more to merge migrants better with the communities, to also motive favourable relations, and work with each other for common objectives.

Giving blood is one illustration of how people can high point their supportive donation to the United Kingdom in a useful and favourable way.

There are more than six million foreign born employees in Britain, accounting for one in seven of all in work. They make up more than a third of employees that are in the food and clothing assembly, and more than a quarter of warehouse employees.

There are 31 percent of cleaners and people employed in food preparation and hospitality, extending from butchers to cooks, and bar managers that are migrant workers. And about 30 percent of NHS doctors, and 40 percent of nurses, are from overseas.

One in five of careers is overseas workers, and tens of thousands of migrants work as fruit and vegetable pickers. And more than one in three of all overseas born workers live in London.

It doesn’t really matter where they all reside, what matters is that they will do the work that us Brits won’t because most foreign born workers will take less money for what they do, and eventually most will go back to their country, because the money they earn here is worth a hell of a lot more where they come from, so when they take their stash of money back home, they’re loaded.

Nearly all overseas born workers will take less money for more hours. Whereas, British born people will not work for less money, and will certainly not work additional hours.  Us British are not that foolish – Not that foreign born workers are stupid, in fact their very smart cookies as a matter of fact, that’s why nearly all of them are not sitting on their arses in front of the TV doing the couch potato dance, however, then they have an incentive, and our government gives us nothing.

It’s not that they have a fondness for money, but they know that the money that they are being paid will be more valuable in their own country to sustain their families, and that’s all the motivation that they need.

We clearly wish to provide for our families, but refuse to do it for next to nothing, and that’s the difference between us and them.

In the United Kingdom people consider that they warrant to be treated with reverence, and we lay claim to that. The problem is, our government doesn’t see eye to eye on this, and has absolutely no respect for its workers.

After a long time our attempt to keep away from processed foods and Frankenfoods is paying off.  For the first time in decades, McDonald’s is struggling and has to close more restaurants than it opens after global falls in sales, consumers are clearly “Not loving it” anymore.

Earlier this year the fast food whopper reported the closure of 350 under performing locations, however, recently admitted it had to close an extra 350 restaurants in the U.S., Japan, and China. The closings incorporate both franchises and company owned locations.

While this number may appear minute in contrast to their total of about 14,300 locations, the iconic “Golden Arches” are under fire.

McDonald’s has announced an 11 percent drop in revenue, and a 30 percent fall in profit for the first three months of 2015. This is a continuance of their struggle as the competition in the US and Europe is getting more resilient, and food safety issues in Asia had to be addressed.

Other growing fast food chains, like Burger King, Five Guys Burgers, and Chipotle, are tempting patrons to their side with better deals and healthier choices. However, that’s not their greatest concern at the moment. The ascending attentiveness in nutrition and the call for healthier, organic foods is what’s truly troubling them.

The fast food giant has known a vast increase in size through history. Since McDonald’s opened its doors for the first time in 1955 it has known considerable growth and success by offering affordable and habit-forming food. It even flourished throughout the financial crisis with the Dollar Menu.

However, times have altered, and people are getting more conscious about what they’re putting into their body, and are demanding natural, unprocessed ingredients in their menu choices.

As of today, McDonald’s remains the largest fast food chain globally. By launching new sandwiches like the Sirloin Third Pound and closing under performing stores, it expects to address the declining sales.

Occasionally the closure of stores may assist with general plans to further expand, however, it’s not certain if this will help America’s most iconic fast food chain.

The only thing that will put an end to the expansion is relevancy to the consumer.  So the dispute is, is McDonald’s still relevant, or is the increasing eagerness for clean, pesticide-free, whole foods taking over the world?

This has taken place in the past and people kept coming back, and McDonald’s carried on getting bigger anyway.  The closing of McDonald’s is nothing more than cutting back the tree, and constructing a more powerful foundation.

However, people are becoming more health aware in their food choices, which are unquestionably the greatest threat that makes the Golden Arches twitch on their foundation.

However, there’s actually a good diversity in the McDonald’s menu, and it’s really impassioned about food and nutrition, and it seems that McDonald’s can be a really healthy way of life.  People love to be in good health, and love diversity.

You can have a marvelous grilled chicken salad today, and a quarter pounder with cheese tomorrow, or a grilled chicken.  You can have your food prepared fresh, and they won’t have no difficulty doing it for you – you might have to stick around a little longer, but they will still do that for you.  If you don’t want mayonnaise on your burger, they will leave it out, it’s all about satisfying the consumer, and the company does a great job of supplying balance and choices.

McDonald’s appears to care about their customers, and treat them like they’re important, even though they in all likelihood have had some grievances over the years, however, if you look at all the success that they’ve had, they haven’t done so bad.

You plainly couldn’t live off McDonald’s on a day-to-day basis, it just wouldn’t be practical, since there just wouldn’t be enough vitamins and minerals in to live healthily.  However, as a treat now and then, it’s the perfect treat.

The problem is. McDonald’s isn’t eaten as a treat anymore, and eating any monotonous diet can damage health, and raise the risk of future diseases.  Eating chicken nuggets and chips in fact supply enough calories and vitamin C levels for a teenager, however, essential nutrients in charge of skin, eyes and bone health are very restricted.

Lack of calcium elevates the chances of bone disease (osteoporosis), and an overabundance of salt can raise blood pressure.  Iron insufficiency can lead to difficulties with brain function.

Fruit and vegetables are essential to long term health. Without them, it considerably escalates the prospect of developing long-standing conditions such as heart disease and cancer.

It’s going to be a rough road for McDonald’s unless they make their meals healthier, because if consumers become uncomfortable consuming them, their sales will decrease, and at the moment every single thing is overemphasized on talks of how harmful fast foods can be.

I wouldn’t say that it should be downplayed, or that the realities are not being exaggerated, however, McDonald’s should not be stamped out entirely.  Clearly McDonald’s don’t force people at gunpoint to go and purchase food from them every single day – people opt to go in there and buy food from them, they don’t have to, people have choices, and if they make the incorrect choices, then that’s up to them, and the responsibility should not be put upon McDonald’s themselves.

The people that should be held responsible are commercials that tell you on TV that McDonald’s is the finest place to go if you want something to eat, and they make it look so magnificent.

Nevertheless, I don’t think I’ve ever gone into a McDonald’s where the food ever looks like it does in a TV commercial, unless, of course it’s been freshly prepared.  Commercials are a construction of indoctrination, you view the same commercial over and over, until in the end your mind believes what it see’s, and you have the need to go out and sample it for yourself – I dare say it’s a form of entrapment.

At the end of the day, you can find fault with it as much as you like.  No one is saying that it should be glorified, however, it keeps a large amount of people in employment, and by having to close a great deal of them down, means that there will be a fair amount of people having to be supplemented by the government.

An unemployed 26 stone mother is going blind after drinking 28 cans of Red Bull a day.  Lena Lupari, 26, from Newtownabbey in County Antrim, Northern Ireland, gained so much weight from having seven litres on a daily basis that her brain has become distended.

The mother of three, who drank more than 3,000 calories from the drink every day, was ignorant of the harm she was doing until she passed out in June.  Doctors found that she had developed a condition known as Idiopathic intracranial hypertension, which they said was a consequence of her being overweight.

Ms Lupari, who was dishing out almost £6,000 of her benefits every year, or £450 of her £1,800 monthly handouts, on the high calorie energy drink, says she was dependant on it.

She used to gulp down 28 cans of Red Bull in a day, and only have a meal at night, but it was normally something fast food like a takeaway or a packet of pasta, since she has three young children, one with special needs, and she didn’t have the time to make anything for herself.

She had been suffering from migraines and headaches for about five years, however, she just disregarded them and took pain relievers.  Then her eyesight went, and she couldn’t even raise her head off the bed, and she then ended up in hospital for six days.

Doctors said she has to lose seven stone in order to keep the symptoms at bay, and since she was hospitalised on June 18th, she has completely cut out Red Bull from her diet and lost two stone.

However, Ms Lupari she hopes that the NHS can assist her losing the additional five stone, or the 30 percent of her bodyweight, that will keep away the requirement for medical management.

She doesn’t want a gastric band or surgery, however, she is convinced that the NHS should provide assistance for someone with this, and to give them the drive, something like a boot camp.

Losing weight doesn’t mean that it will go away forever, however, it means that she won’t require surgery.

Intracranial hypertension means abnormally high pressure inside the skull, which might occur all of a sudden, or build up over time and is quite rare.

Idiopathic IH means there is no clear cause for the IH, however, it is most often spotted in overweight women in their twenties, and has been connected with certain medications including the contraceptive pill.

The most common indications are acute pulsating headaches, and changes in sight due to enlarged optic nerves.

A 250ml can of Red Bull contains 80mg of caffeine, which elevates the heart rate, and patients with high blood pressure or coronary heart disease and hypertension are advised to keep away from it.

The drink as well includes taurine, a building block of protein usually found in meat and dairy products, which are reviewed useful in small measures.

Austrian Dieterich Mateschitz, 55, who created Red Bull, is now a very wealthy man. He staggered across a health tonic in Bangkok and launched his version in 1987 with claims that it reinvigorates the mind and body, escalates tolerance, betters response and concentration and helps remove toxins from the body.

A single 250ml can of Red Bull contains 80mg of caffeine, which is about as identical as a cup of coffee, however, investigation has established that drinking more than three cups of coffee a day can escalate the risk of sight loss and blindness.

Even the average amounts of the drink make expanding the harmful eye condition glaucoma more probable.

Glaucoma happens when the drainage tubes inside the eye become somewhat blocked, stopping eye fluid from clearing properly and causing compression to build up.  This can destruct the optic nerve, which joins the eye to the brain, and the nerve fibres of the retina, the light sensitive nerve tissue that lines the back of the eye.

There is no connection with other caffeine products such as tea, cola or chocolate, however, it has been previously informed of other conditions connected more at Red Bull, comprising the larger chances of having a heart attack or a stroke.

A study of university students established consuming one 250ml can of the sugar free version of the energy drink increased the stickiness of the blood and raised the chances of life threatening thrombosis.

Red Bull itself gives guidelines on its website that no more than 400mg. The equivalent of five 250ml cans, should be drunk in a day to steer clear of possible improprieties and consequences of caffeine.

Hopefully, in the end, Red Bull will vanish from the shelves of our supermarkets and community stores before we develop into a generation of diseased heart attacks.

If they can take sugar added Ribena, and Rubicon off our racks in the supermarkets, then they can take Red Bull off as well.

Red Bull is a dangerous product which was once crafted to energise the body, and give additional vitality, however, at present reports are telling us that is dangerous for us, even more so, it’s dangerous for our children.

Nevertheless, it’s an activity that is very profitable, particularly on our funds.  More and more children are gulping down the stuff with very little knowledge on the outcome it could have on them if drunk on a large scale.

School children as young as nine and ten years old are drinking Red Bull and variants of it, and nearly all of these children have no idea of what its outcome could be.

These are just two energy drinks, but did you know that the amount of sugar in one Red Bull is comparable to the sugar level in an equivalent amount of apple or orange juice.

Half-litre cans of Red Bull comprise 52g sugar, and the same caffeine as four cups of coffee.  And biologists are saying that cans are unneeded and ingesting such a high volume can have health aftermaths.

A distinguished nutrition specialist is encouraging people to turn down half-litre cans of Red Bull and other energy drinks since they comprise dangerous levels of caffeine and sugar.  A 473ml can of Red Bull costs £1.99, and contains an astounding 13 teaspoons of sugar and 150mg of caffeine, about the same as four cups of instant coffee.

There is no need for such a high concentration of the substances, as the possible health ramifications comprise fast or irregular heartbeat, raised blood pressure, sleeping difficulties, weight gain, muscle spasms, diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, and even unforeseen death.

Every person has their own sensitivity for caffeine, and certain younger people or people with undetected cardiovascular difficulties are at higher risk of experiencing negative repercussions from caffeine.

In fact caffeine blocks signals which are crucial for a good regulation of blood pressure, heart rhythm and blood flow to muscle, kidney function and other tissues.

The amalgamation of high sugar and caffeine and alcohol clearly tricks the brain into the feeling of a high energy level while the rest of the body needs to manage with the opposing consequence of high caffeine and alcohol, occasionally leading to the serious aftermath, like instant death.

Thankfully, some supermarkets have put an embargo on anyone under the age of 16 from buying certain energy drinks.   Nevertheless, that doesn’t stop kids from getting hold of the lethal power drink, as there are a great deal of adults with children out there that still permit their children to drink the harmful concoction.

There should be no seal of approval for this drink, it should be made illegal, and if not suppressed, it should be prohibited like alcohol and tobacco.  Of course, there will still be the odd youngster who will get hold of a can of two, but at least it won’t be drunk in such volume as it is now.

Tesco is taking a range of well-liked soft drinks off its racks, comprising sugary varieties of Ribena and Capri Sun, owing to studies over child obesity.  The measures will see tiny boxes and bottles of added sugar Ribena and Capri Sun withdrawn from stocks as part of a drive to ensure that no-added sugar in any of its juice drinks aimed at children.

Cordial bottles and no added sugar versions of Ribena will still be obtainable, while lunchbox ranges of Rubicon will also be withdrawn owing to the concerns.  It comes after Tesco pledged to decrease the sugar content of its own label soft drinks by 5% each year.

Tesco aspires to assist its consumers to make healthier choices, and that’s why they have promised to continue to cut sugar from food and drinks on their racks.  From September, all the children’s juice drinks they offer for sale will have no added sugar in them because they know it will make a positive difference to children’s health.

Earlier this month, the British Medical Association called for a 20% tax on sugary drinks, noting that a third of the population was proposed to be overweight by 2030.  Poor selection of foods cost the NHS about £6 billion a year, a larger impact than alcoholic drink consumption, smoking or physical laziness.

Nevertheless, there is a broad scope of existing proof proposing that people who have a variation in a gene called FTO are more likely to be over-weight.

New research collated men with two copies of the high risk gene variation with men with two copies of the low risk variant. Men with two copies of the high risk variation had a smaller amount of hunger suppression and less suppression of levels of the appetite stimulating hormone acyl-ghrelin after consuming food. In addition, brain examinations found that their brains responded differently to the hormone and to portrayals of food.

This absorbing investigation puts forward how the FTO variant might change obesity unpredictability in humans. Nevertheless, these discoveries are unlikely to have an instant impact on resolving the obesity problem.

While it may be the manifestation that the FTO variant could make people more susceptible towards eating too much, that’s not the same thing as causing people to eat too much. It may take more willpower for people with the FTO variant to stay in good trim than for nearly all people, however, none of us are swayed completely by our genes.

Consuming a healthy balanced selection of foods, and taking consistent physical activity is a more achievable way to attain a healthy weight.  However, having genetically modified foods as part of our diet is not the way to go, as these are foods that are manufactured from organisms that have had specified alterations instituted into their DNA, using the technique of genetic engineering, and their ingestion is without doubt not healthy eating at all.

Experts say that almost two dozen studies show adverse consequences from GMO foods, such as difficulties with the kidneys, liver and heart, and other organs.  Adversaries say that besides perhaps preeminent to cancer. GMO’s can cause new allergies, and hurt the effect of antibiotics.

It appears our way of life will never be the same again, and we now have no natural habitat, because it’s all about making money, and they don’t care about us at all, whether we live or die.  They say that people that are obese cost the NHS billions each year, yet pharmaceutical companies flourishes on people that are sick, without people being ill, they wouldn’t make a pecuniary gain, and its undoubtedly all about profit making.

We know that smoking eliminates people on a day-to-day basis, however, the government wouldn’t dream of taking tobacco off it racks because they would lose too much money, however, they will tell you that overweight people are taking up too much of their money.

Once again, it’s one directive for us and another rule for them, while the government salivate over fancy dinner parties, banquets, fancy houses that they live in, and holidays whenever they feel like jetting off to some far away place.

They tempt you with commercials about food, however, they don’t want you to go out and buy it, yet they do want you to go out and buy it because the commercials tell you that the commodity that you’re watching on the screen in front of you is excellent, and it conditions the mind to go out and get it.

Nearly everything that we eat is genetically modified, the trouble is, we have no concept of which one is, and which one isn’t because there are so many of them out there that has been engineered.

Makes me wonder on occasion, if food can be genetically engineered, can we?

Tory star Priti Patel has sourced disapproval by labelling innocuous campaigners, some of whom were elderly and disabled, a thuggish gang.  Members of the group were upset and saddened by the Employment Minister’s assault on them.

The campaigners, comprising a wheelchair user, and at least two requiring walking sticks, called on Ms Patel’s constituency Headquarters to appeal to her to keep safe the health service.  After they braved the rain outside her place of work in Witham, Essex, she fired off an enraged letter to Unite union boss Len McCluskey, who she said was behind the campaign.

She said of the campaigners that the intimidation, coercion and thuggish conduct towards residents is shocking.  Comments by Ms Patel, topped as the coming Tory leader enraged the group who says the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will lead the way to NHS privatisation.

Malcolm Mead said: “At the age of 78 I never expected to be called a thug by my MP Priti Patel, and that she should apologise, and listen to our concerns. ”

Sandra Piscina, 56, said: “All I did was raise my concerns. ”

We should all be a tiny bit perturbed when MP’s don’t want to pay attention to the general public, who should in fact be keen to listen – that’s what their basic job is, to listen to the public.

She’s not going to be very triumphant as Tory leader if she’s not prepared to listen to her constituents.  She’s just going to drive away public opinion of her in the most disagreeable way possible, and she would be very stupid to be off-side with the public.

Nearly all MP’s wants the support of the public, and they should be clever enough to do so.  They should be familiarising themselves with the public, as this would reward their leadership for the times ahead.  It all goes with the donkey work of becoming a star in the making, and its very unhip to be done any other way.

Expense claims and a Westminster sexual impropriety were removed from MPs Wikipedia pages by computers inside the Parliament prior to the election. Particulars of a police arrest, electoral cheating claims, and the use of chauffeur-driven cars were as well being wiped by people inside the Commons.

The disclosure raises suspicion of MPs or their political parties that intentionally conceal these particulars from the public online to make candidates appear more electable to voters.

More than a dozen online biographies of sitting MPs were doctored from computers with IP addresses owned by the Houses of Parliament in the run up to the election, which should be of uppermost concern and considerable significance.

If online biographies are being doctored from computers, then there is a chance that something bad is amiss, and it should be looked into because if they’re taking off expenses and things about a sex scandal, then that has a very big impact on the public.

After all, we don’t really want perverts and paedophiles in our governments cabinet, even though it appears that anything is acceptable at the moment – anything from embezzlement to a bit of hanky-panky, anything goes these days amongst the hoi-polloi of government.

Calls for comment were made to all the MPs in question through their party press offices, however, just a few responded, saying the changes had nothing to do with them. It seems that an undetectable bot just messed around with their computer systems and removed material to conceal their fuck up…

What do they think that all us plebs out there are that simpleminded that we have no idea what’s going on behind closed doors? What, are we really that uncultured and irritating? Just because someone doesn’t have a degree of some kind, doesn’t make us all halfwits.

The only halfwits that can be spotted around are the government for in fact believing that we’re all dense. Holy cow, with a little bit of restraint, the government could actually be clever enough to realize that the wool can’t be pulled over our eyes for ever and ever, but I can see the government knitting a sweater!

Anyone can emend Wikipedia, an online encyclopaedia kept up to date for users. Nevertheless, each alteration is tracked and coupled to an IP address, a distinctive strand of numbers that recognises each computer using an internet network.

It has been found that tenacious changes have been made to MPs biographies made from Parliament in what appears to be an intentional endeavour to conceal shaming details from the electorate.

They must have been really stupid not to be aware that they would be caught out, and it’s preposterous speculation that they wouldn’t be found out in the end. Plainly these idiots have no idea how a computer system works, however, none of them live in the practical world.

Perhaps they should be more insightful and go back to school, then maybe they wouldn’t get caught out.

It’s not very encouraging when you think about how much they keep harping on about their facts and figures. Yet they can’t even use a computer system, no wonder there are so many poverty-stricken people out there.

Politics isn’t for the faint-hearted, and you need to be fearless as well as disloyal, and you have to know how to betray everyone around you, particularly the public.

Nevertheless, outwitting those that are less intellectual is how they prey on. It’s all about financial gain, and if anyone thinks it’s not, is very wrong. They will take casualties at any price, they have no soul, and they will ruin anyone they can.

However, the changes that have been divulged means that they have been caught with their pants down, following Tory backbencher Robert Blackman’s biography was altered, and it was found that he had been conducting a 11 year affair, which were then conveniently deleted.

Labour MP Geraint Davie’s entry was wiped off the reality that he exhausted £2,285 on his kitchen, and £1,500 on his living room at the taxpayers’ expense through parliamentary expenses.

Tory MP Craig Whittaker’s arrest for a claimed attack on his son in 2012 was removed from his Wikipedia page by somebody inside the Commons – Mr Whittaker was freed with no charges.

The whole segment about expenses on Joan Ryan’s page was removed. Ms Ryan depleted thousands on repairs and decorations at her residence in Enfield prior to flipping it to another property.

The alterations were made while Ms Ryan was not an MP, and she has contested any participation, and then she was re-elected to Parliament this month.

Numerous other MPs pages were added with complimentary segments ahead of the general election, so clearly they were convinced that the outcome in the election were going to be good, and not bad, which is quite insulting when you think about it, because it then makes people think that the whole thing was rigged.

The page of Gordon Birtwistle, a preceding Liberal Democrat MP, was given a whole 298 word record of delivery on the 14th January, four months prior to seeking re-election by his constituents. However, he lost…

Dozens of other tiny alterations to MP pages were made, including adding references to favourable newspaper reports, quoting political awards, and adding Rht Hn in front of names, however, some changes were subsequently reversed by additional users.

Mark Lane, managing director of the information security company Portcullis, confirmed that the alterations were all made from IP addresses that are personal to the Houses of Parliament.

A spokesman for the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats declined to make a statement, but said that all MPs were informed of these particular alterations, and had the chance to comment separately.

This is rubbish. Joan Ryan did not even have access to the Parliamentary Internet network from which these alterations were made.

In spite of his keenness for sports, Stephen Hammond does not particularly like walking. It has lately been divulged that he is one of the most frequent users of chauffeur driven cars, which convey ministers, or their red boxes across the United Kingdom. He, as well, only lives a piffling six miles from Westminster.

It’s crucial that we see a pattern surfacing here, and it might appear really insignificant to some, but to others it’s the greatest consequence. Together with, if the government is on the face of it, that inventive, then perhaps the public should become inspired as well.