Facebook considers sueing the Mail, but shouldn't kids be better protected anyway?

Facebook have threatened to sue the Daily mail over potentially libellous claims in a story published earlier on in the week.

The article entitled "I posed as a girl of 14 online. What followed will sicken you" is the headline you can currently read on the website, but the title once contained Facebook which can still be seen in URLs and searches. However, the site that was used has been only indentified by not being Facebook.

The scare mongering article, written by ex detective Mark Williams-Thomas, outlines that when he posed as a 14 year old girl online he was approached within seconds by older men who wanted to perform a sex act in front of them.

With the tragic death of a teenage girl who was murdered by a deeply disturbed individual at the forefront of most people’s minds this week, it is no wonder that parents and the authorities are worried about the impact social networking can have in the increase of these crimes.

This is why Facebook want the site named, so that appropriate security measures are taken to stop crimes as barbaric as those that have recently happened from happening again. The author of the article, however, has different plans. He claims that by releasing the information it will only cause panic and create a stream of perverse offenders to the site.

I believe Facebook have every right to be angry for something that wasn’t anything to do with them. The name of Facebook being added to the article was probably by a middle aged news editor who does not fully understand social networking and as they had heard of that site, they added it. Of course their reputation has now taken a battering in middle England, by those who also do not fully understand social networking.

Social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Bebo etc were never meant to be as big a phenomenon as they are when they were created. Facebook was designed for college students in America to keep up to date with each other on assignments and activities. In fact, even when the site started becoming popular in the UK, it was still only university students who could use it because you had to select your university as your network.

However, the increase in use and invariable popularity has seen 23 million people in the UK have an account. Because of this Facebook’s security controls have been tightened. I have held an account for about 5 years and only accept fiend requests from people I know and have never had any problems at all. Not one sick message or comment. Nothing. A couple of people I know have had pervy comments, but they’re the ones who insist on putting up pictures of themselves falling out of their clothes.

I can’t believe for a second that this guy who wrote for the mail joined Facebook, set up a profile and a picture, added information and found some friends and innocently ambled along on the site until some bag bad nasty man posed as a teenager. That’s why I KNOW it couldn’t have been Facebook. As far as I was aware you had to be 18 to use Facebook anyway. When did that change?

The only way to combat misuse of social networking sites it through improved security, i.e. pages for people under 16 are blocked by those over 16 unless approved by a parent, and through better education. Parents should research and learn about social networking and what the potential threats are, and children should be taught only to speak to people that they know and if they are not sure to raise the alarm. As soon as people become aware that it is not all Facebook’s fault and they have to think about their own personal security too, the panic will stop.

If anything MySpace is the one that should really be monitored more closely, I had a page when I was about 20 and got some very crude messages and pictures sent to me, that was slightly disturbing, but as soon as Facebook came along I deleted my page.

Parents should listen to their children when it comes to social networking and learn how it works so that if they want to intervene they can. It is pretty irresponsible to allow children that much time on the internet in the first place. Haven’t they got homework to do, or even an activity that keeps them fit and healthy? Some parents are allowing children to potentially become victims and it should be their responsibility to protect them.

Why the Daily Mail really irritates me

I won’t use the word hate in this blog, although my feelings sometimes edge towards that direction, as that is exactly what they want – a reaction. A reaction either way is fine, as long as it is a reaction.

My first reaction is disgust and blood boiling anger when I come across some of their stories. They are designed to provoke their readers and with they language they use, it is always in the way that they want them to think.

Morality issues, injustices, immigration and plain scare mongering tactics are employed to make their readers, by definition middle aged women from middle England, think the world is a bad bad place.

As a former student of journalism, I read all sorts of news sources. I’m not happy with reading one article on a subject, I read a few. Why? Because I gain a clearer picture on what is going on in the world. This is why it worries me that some people’s only news source is the Mail.

Take the MailOnline today (I’m not going to buy a copy, why on earth would I do that?) the term ‘Broken Britain’ is mentioned quite a few times. This is one of my favourite phrases they spout out, as it just makes me laugh out loud. If it was a reference to Britain’s mounting financial crisis and looming economical implosion, it would make sense. However, they are referring to society. As far as I am concerned, there are the minority who spoil it for everyone, but doesn’t every other country in the world have this too?

The term ‘Broken Britain’ lets the readers know what ‘class’ of society is causing all the trouble in their ‘cricket and village green’ country and encourages them to stereotype everyone who may dress or live like the troublemakers. I am from a good family, am well educated, settled in a relationship and have a good job but society is let know that I am a contributing factor to society’s troubles as I like to go out, possibly to a club in a busy town centre, and drink more than a small dry sherry.

Fair enough that the reference to Broken Britain today was a story on a 90 year old woman being held at knife point as she opened the door, but the offender is in no way the story of Britain’s society today. This is an extreme crime and one that must, and will be, punished. It is a sad fact that it happens, but it does not characterise the way Britain is becoming. Sorry it’s not all tea and cakes at fetes, but times change and it is constantly raining or cold.

The scare mongering is what gets me too, it’s as if the Mail’s readers do not live in the real world. I have a few older relatives that take what the paper says as gospel. ‘Oh Sam, you’re not going to have the cervical cancer jab are you, it kills you!’ Firstly, the relative that uttered this wasn’t informed well enough by the article that I am, in fact, too old to have the jab, but also decided to gloss over the FACTS that the girl who died has underlying health problems, as did those who had swine flu.

The issue that has annoyed me most over the past few weeks is the newspaper’s hell bent plans on disgracing every member of the England football team. I am also infuriated they let Piers Morgan write for them, but it is the football thing I am most annoyed about. So, you’re going to start a public hate campaign against the (then) England captain less than 4 months before the world cup. Fantastic, thank you. I read stories and readers comments on a lot of newspapers websites and blogs, but the Mail’s was the worst. People that do not normally care about football were sticking by their views on an issue that was in John Terry’s private life. Did it matter that he is fantastic at his job and is realistically the only player that could lead us at the world cup? No, some even wanted him dropped from the team. One of our best players. Imbeciles.

This was then followed up this weekend with some model claimed to have spent the night with Rio Ferdinand – the now current England captain. Great to fill the gossip pages with, but they will be the first to shame the players when they come back from South Africa with nothing.

Although I dislike the newspaper, it is very well written, I might say too well written. The persuasive language leads the reader to have the view of the paper rather than thinking about it from a different point of view. I can tell the Mail’s point of view coming out in group conversations over immigration, Muslims, same sex marriages and those on benefits and it disappoints me. Why can’t people expand their horizons and experience and see new things instead of worrying about problems that really aren’t.

In case you’re wondering I read The Times…. The Guardian, The Telegraph, FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, BBC and various specialist magazines, websites and blogs. If you’re reading this getting angry that I’m lampooning your favourite middle class newspaper, try reading a few of the sources of news I read. You may be surprised.

I'm all for airport security, but should there be alternatives?

Like most people I would rather not have the outline of my bits on show if I had to be scanned before I went on holiday. However, if I was made to do it I would, just for the pure reason that I wanted to get on the plane.

For those who have strong views whether moral or religious about the full body scanners in airports, there should be another option open to them. Although I agree that more should be done to eliminate terrorist threat in the skies, authorities have their hands tied as we are all protected by fundamental human rights.

The case today widely reported in the press about two muslim women refusing to be scanned, and therefore not allowed on their plane to Pakistan, came as no surprise. Muslim women are subject to harsh sanctions should anyone but their husbands see their body, this is why they cover up. For them to be scanned at an airport where the picture pretty much reveals anything goes against every moral fibre of their culture.

As the Timesonline reported: "She was warned that she would be stopped from boarding the plane but she decided to forfeit her ticket to Pakistan rather than submit to the scan. Her female travelling companion also declined to step into the scanner, citing “medical reasons” for her refusal."

Fair enough, they didn't want to go through it so forfeited their tickets willingly. Good for them. However, it does make you wonder why they were picked 'at random' to go through the scanners in the first place. Manchester Airport claim that 15,000 people have been through the scanner since it was put in place after the events in America on Christmas Day. It would be handy to know the statistics of who exactly had been picked to be scanned. Surely to make it fair there would be and even number of people from different races going through the scanners at Manchester and Heathrow. You would certainly hope so anyway.

The point though is that there is obviously no alternative procedure in place for those who have a legitimate reason not wanting to go through the scanner. A private room with a couple of female staff patting the women down would have been more than enough. What about those who have been terminally ill and truly believe a scan could put their health at risk, there should be alternatives for them too.

I'm all for security at airports, but not everybody that goes through the terminal is a potential suicide bomber and there should not be treated as one. However, there should be alternatives for those who have deep rooted reasons as to why they should not go through the scanner.

The most worrying thing about the whole article were some of the comments left by readers. I sincerely hope they get to know what it feels like to get a body scan. Bet they feel violated, and we live in a democratic society where sexuality is encouraged.

Celebrity marriage problems: are they any of our business?

As a nation, why are we so obsessed with the world of celebrity affairs and divorce? Are we finding a way of escapism from our own sometimes mundane lives, or is it the more slightly voyeuristic side to our personalities that love prying into other people’s business?

The press give us coverage of the times Kate Moss goes to a party or an MP is found to be doing something normal. Do we really care? They seem to think we do, that's why it makes the front pages. Can I just point out right now that celebs are human too, they are (mostly) not some kind of awe inspiring entity that makes it right to follow them around while they eat, chat to friends and just generally try and live a normal life outside of work. Because let’s face it when they’re not promoting, filming, on telly, modelling, in commons, playing a sport, making music etc they are trying to take on some wind down time like the rest of us.

Every time Kylie set foot out her front door, then there are the paps, the pictures end up in the Mail where they don’t really have a story to write about, but just comment on what she is wearing or how tired she may be looking.

The whole John Terry saga made me realise that the public take too much pleasure in berating someone in the public eye before any of the real facts are known. Yes, we know John Terry had an affair, that much is clear, but why was nothing else made of the fact that the person he was having an affair with – Vanessa Perroncel – has generally worked her way around the married ex players of the Chelsea team?

I’m not for a second saying that John Terry has the butter wouldn’t melt look about him, but what about her? It takes two to tango. Other than those juicy bits of gossip we have nothing else to go on about why and how the situation unfolded, how both parties felt and even if the whole mess is entirely true. Why? Because no parties have said a thing or set any record straight, we therefore do not know what really went on, but are made to speculate.

The whole ‘affairgate’ has been splashed around with no concern for both party’s families, the team mates of JT and Wayne Bridge and also the World Cup preparations – do the press not want the team to be focused come South Africa? Anyway, across the gossip columns today was the happy couple – JT and Toni all smiles having worked things out in Dubai. Good. We are not to judge her decision as we don’t know the couple. Hopefully a line is now drawn under this and captainless Terry can now focus on his job as a footballer.

But wait, what’s this today? Ashley Cole has apparently now done the dirty on Cheryl. Does Cheryl know about this or is she to find out about it in the papers like us? So the press are going on the say so of the secretary he was supposedly bedding. Right OK, call me a cynic, but becoming a WAG, or bedding a footballer and selling the story is big money, some girls will stop at nothing to get a slice of the action. Who are we to say that this is how it happened or whether it’s fair for Ashley to be portrayed as a ‘scumbag’. This again focuses on another star player of the Chelsea and England team before vital matches.

As a woman and a football fan, I am disgusted by the apparent behaviour of quite a few members of the England football team. However, as a football fan, I believe that the players should be left to play. John Terry and Ashley Cole are both world class players and their football does the talking on the pitch. Many men are found out the be cheating every day, some more high profile than footballers, normal men do it too - this is a factor in why the divorce rate in the UK is so high.

I believe the sooner we stop glamourising the world of footballers and WAGS these kind of sensationalist stories will stop.

Do think tanks ever think about the consequences?

Two news stories have bemused me this week and both have come from reports from think tanks.

The first was reported on Timesonline on Thursday. The think-tank Policy Exchange announced that middle class parents should be forced to put up their house as collateral against their children's student loans. In addition, they also suggested an interest charging private loans scheme for wealthy students which would be repaid when they left university, rather than when they reach the earnings threshold.

Two things come to mind when I read this story. Firstly, who are they to judge who is a middle class parent or wealthy student, and secondly, in this age of recession and record house repossessions, what if the so-called middle class parents are renting a house?

Not content with brandishing class tags on families, the think tank also said that tuition fees must rise to £5,000 a year "in order to protect the quality of universities", or rather, what I personally believe, to plug the gap in spending scaled back by the government.

Surely if this think tank's plans were taken seriously, it would just be an excuse for universities to attract more foreign students as they are 'lucrative buisness'. It is disgraceful that foreign students are charged so much anyway when they are just doing the same course and same work as the rest of the student body.

Here's an idea: instead of worrying about maintaining the quality of universities do something about it. There are numerous course and subjects at university which have a reputation of being the 'easy way out' while the student decides what they want to do with his or her life. A good portion of these students will go through three years of university with doing just enough work to get by and turning up to just enough lectures to avoid getting kicked off the course. Why not prevent these people from going to university in the first place and attract those who really want to?

The UK could even adopt systems like that of other countries. In Brazil only those who pass an entrance exam are admitted and receive free education. In Italy students pay low tuition fees and are based on the wealth of a family. they acitively encourage children from porr families to go with scholarships handed out in different regions. This is all, of course, based on working hard.

Excuse me for pointing this out, but the decision on whether children go to university or not should not be decided on a class or wealth system, but whether they are intelligent and wish to do a course that could benefit both them and the economy.

The second think tank story I came across was today on the BBC News website. A think tank has said that the working week should be cut to 21 hours to help boost the economy and improve quality of life. it is claimed that the reduction in hours of work would help to ease unemployment and overwork.

Now, I'm not saying for a second that the people at the New Economics Foundation are a bunch of work shy so and so's, but how an earth do they envisage working less will help heal the economy?

The average working week is 37.5 hours so if this is cut down to 21 hours a week, people will on average, not be working for about a third of the year, which means a hefty chunk out of the pay packet. What do people do when they realise they don't have enough to live? That's right, they find an additional job. This will take you back to square one with unemployment figures. In addition, if people are out of work will they all necessarily have the skill set to fill the new vacancies by those working 21 hours a week?

The recession in this country hit the manufacturing and construction industries the hardest with over 115,000 jobs lost in the first three quarters of 2009 alone. I can't imagine someone with manual skills wanting to sit at a desk in a suit all day attempting to sell somebody life insurance.

It strikes me that this think tank were under pressure at 4.30pm on a Friday to come up with some sort of suggestion to ease unemployment in the UK. They came up with a few half baked suggestions, fell upon this gem and exclaimed "yeah, that'll do," before sodding off to the latest trendy wine bar and complaining that their jobs make them too tired.

Ban on Valentine's Day Cards in School Killjoy or Forward Thinking?

A rather topical piece caught my eye on the BBC news website today on Valentine's cards being banned at a primary school in Weston-Super-Mare.

Pupils at the Ashcombe Primary School have been prevented from exchanging cards in time for the big day on Sunday for fear that some puils who not receive any are " not emotionally mature enough to cope" - the headteacher's words, not mine.

The Head, Peter Turner, went on to say: "Children should wait until they are mature enough emotionally and socially to understand the commitment of having a boyfriend or girlfriend."

This, of course, nearly made me spit out my Lemsip on to the computer. Children are not nearly emotionally and socially mature to face up to most things throughout their lives, they have to learn to accept their actions and feelings that they experience as they grow up. It was like the conker being banned from the playground, shrouded in the health & safety tag. Most schools banned it because pupils didn't like losing. Even at school sports day the competitive element has been taken away so that children will not feel like they have failed at something.

For children to experience the feeling of rejection just because another 7 year old does not like them back is healthy. The sooner they experience the feeling and move on, they are better equiped at dealing with the situation should it happen again. I believe not getting a card on the day is - as my dad would say - character building. After all, it is a bit of card forced upon us by companies trying to make money out of people showing their true love on February 14th every year. Surely we should tell kids that if someone really means so much to them, they should just let them know?

Let's face it, no one is really all that emotionally and socially mature when it comes to feeling left out on Valentine's Day as they are made to feel inadequate by the advertising on the TV. I would rather not get a card than being faced with the anonymous one sent to me one year when I was at university. I was freaked out as firstly, how did they know my address including postcode? Secondly, why go through the effort of purchasing a stamp and posting it? Thirdly, if you wished to stay anonymous why delete me from Facebook and start a rumour about me just because I didn't realise you 'like me'?

Personally I think the Valentine's cards sent at school signify what the day is about, and the children will be more able to handle the day without a card or with rejection than the psycho of Kingston was. I sometimes believe that the adults in authority underestimate children in this country.