Sacha Baron Cohen to make Saddam Hussein film

Controversial British actor Sacha Baron Cohen, is going to play a dictator in a new film on a book which was supposedly written by Saddam Hussein. However, the CIA believes that the book was written by ghost-writers under the influence of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and was published under his name. The Book is about a Heroic Story of a dictator who risked his life to ensure that democracy would never come to the country he so lovingly oppressed. The comedy movie is going to be released worldwide on May 11, 2012. Some of the co-writers will be, Alec berg, Jeff Schaffer ,and David Mandel, the team who worked on the US comedies series Seinfeld. Some claimed that many studios began a bidding war for the production rights.

I was fond of the Ali G series. I watched them all and I also watched the movie. However, after that Sasha Baron in his act as Borat started to make fun of some groups of people , that was when I lost respect for his acting skills. Because, when a comedian starts to make jokes about groups of people or about a particular culture then he becomes just another cheap comedian to me. However, I am anxious to see how this new character is going to be and which controversy it is going to create.

Source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/sacha-baron-cohen/8272469/Sacha-Baron-Cohen-to-make-Saddam-Hussein-film.html

Watch out - our libraries are living on borrowed time

Duo to government’s cuts many libraries are going to be shut. In Oxfordshire alone the country council wants to axe 20 of its 43 libraries. There are plans to remove more than 400 libraries across the country. Most of them are local libraries; central libraries are most likely to stay. For some residents the thought of losing their local library can cause quite an extraordinary pain. For some of them the library is a second home. The councils’ defence is that people can run the libraries themselves if they want. But the government should not think of the libraries as just another public service. It is rather a place where you can find a cultural encounter which might have life changing effect on people, or simply a calm, quiet place to get some homework done.  Offering people access to a library is not just a public duty but also a statement of faith.

I understand why many libraries are not needed any more. I think it is because people are nowadays more likely to find what they are looking for on internet than in a library. However, I am against any cuts made to any thing that has an educative purpose. I think cuts of this kind are bound to worsen the crisis problem in the long term. I also agree that libraries are symbols of a modern society and removing them would be taking a step backwards. Today libraries offer more than only books, they also offer a lot of community services. I dislike the idée of passing this responsibility to the residents. Because then the only way to keep a library affordable is to commercialize it.

Source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/8272479/Watch-out-our-libraries-are-living-on-borrowed-time.html

One Hyde Park, the world's most expensive apartments, opens its doors for the first time

The world’s most expensive residential apartments at One Hyde Park have been unveiled. Around 350 guests were invited to see the apartment which reportedly starts at £6.5m for one bedroom. The buildings have shared features including, a 21m swimming pool, saunas, a gym, and many more. The owner can also use various services such as valets, concierge, and butler room services. Many critics say that the development would never sell duo to the current financial crisis. But owners of the project claim that 60pc of the 83 apartments have already been sold, mainly by foreign buyers from the Middle East and Asia. One of these apartments is a penthouse which has been sold for a record-breaking £140 million. The new owners will also have access to 24-hour room service and protection from SAS-trained security guards.

I also like to buy one of these apartments. Although, I have to sell my laptop first, but I think it will be worth it. Of course my laptop will then have to be £6.5m worth. Unfortunately, it is not. Anyway, I do not see why an apartment should cost that much, especially when people in other parts of the world are dying of hunger. Overall I think that the apartments are overpriced. I also wonder whether or not the people who buy an apartment will spend a lot of their time in it, because most of them probably have a tight business schedule.

Source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/8268909/One-Hyde-Park-the-worlds-most-expensive-apartments-opens-its-doors-for-the-first-time.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertynews/7937291/One-Hyde-Park-penthouse-sells-for-record-breaking-140m.html

Unilever backs small farmers





Unilever makes Knorr Soups and also owns

brands such as Flora and Hellmann's.



Unilever has announced a unique partnership with Oxfam. The partnership came after Oxfam shared its findings of a two-year study by NGO into supply chains in developing countries. This partnership will improve the livelihoods for farmers in developing countries and it will also widen the pool of suppliers. They hope to reach that by incorporating 500,000 smallholder farmers and small-scale distributors into their supply chain by the year 2020. This ongoing work also shows that businesses are starting to consider how they source their produce to have an impact on the lives of people living in poverty. Mr Polman from Oxfam said: "Unilever's Sustainable Living Plan sets out our ambition to double the size of our business while halving our environmental impact”.

I totally agree with this plan. I also think this should be a general target for all food retailers across the EU. It will not only improve the livelihoods for people in developing countries but in the end it will also be profitable. It is also known that companies who stand still and do not work on innovative strategies will not make it that far in any industry. However, there are critics who say that British companies like Oxfam should give British people a priority over people from other countries. I think that they are forgetting the fact that this operation will not harm anyone in the UK but it will rather improve the British economy.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/8224339/Unilever-backs-small-farmers.html

Far from being a drain on the public purse, new power plants will be major boost to UK economy



The energy infrastructures in the UK are ageing and many power stations are going to reach the end of their lives before 2016. The government is putting forward two separate proposals in which they want to put a floor for the carbon price and a reform of the energy infrastructure. In the first proposal they want to address the carbon pricing problem and discourage high-emitting plants. The second proposal will include four new nuclear plants in the UK, which could safely provide enough power to meet the needs of 40pc of UK homes. Critics suggest that the reform will be a drain on the public purse. In its defense the government stated that the reform will be far from being a drain on the public purse, instead new plant will provide a major boost to the UK economy. Building the plants will in edition create 5,000 new jobs during construction and 1,800 permanent jobs during operation.

 

“The plants we are proposing would contribute hundreds of millions of pounds per year to public funds, through corporation tax, business rates and income tax”

According to what they stated it looks to me as if it is inevitable to reform the energy infrastructures. I believe that with the coming of four new nuclear plants there will be an economy boost like they said. However, when I was reading this article I could not stop thinking of the fact that the UK is one of the countries who opposes against the idée of Iran having a nuclear plant. And here they are building four of them. However, that is a deferent topic. I think the critics did not make a good calculation of what the impact of those plants might be. In contrary to the government which I think did make a good effort and by that presented a very realistic case.



Miliband condemns coalition 'myth'

Some are blaming the Labour party for the bad state of the economy. They say that the Labour overspent and that’s the reason the deficit went up. Mr Miliband angrily rejected this and called it a deceit attempt to blame Labour. He also claims that the government statement that deep and fast cuts are needed is only a “myth”, and that the rise in VAT is a damaging part of it. A higher bank levy would be a better alternative to the VAT rise, he suggested. However, many criticized him by saying that he is wrong and even demanded an apology for the mess that Labour left behind. MP Matthew Hancock: “the more Ed Miliband tries to deny his involvement in bringing Britain to the brink of bankruptcy and deny the need to deal with Britain’s debt, the more Labour’s economic credibility sinks”



The rise in VAT is a damaging part of the Government's "myth" that deep and fast cuts are needed to rescue the economy, Labour leader Ed Miliband has said.

First of all I am not really in to politics. However, having read this article the question arises, is it necessary to put the blame on someone or even make him apologise? I mean what good can come out of it. I think the people should move on and rather put their energy in thinking of a way to overcome the crisis. Furthermore, not only Britain has to make deep and fast cuts but almost every country. So he may think it is a myth but the reality shows different. People should not forget that sometimes economical changes can be effected by external factors which you don’t have any control over. By knowing that most countries are effected people should not search for some one to blame, and it is because the problem is clearly on a bigger scale.

source :

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20110106/tuk-miliband-condemns-coalition-myth-6323e80.html

Toxic egg alert

Some products where withdrawn from the shelves of supermarkets that contained tainted eggs. The eggs where imported from German farms and were found to contain dioxin, which can cause miscarriages and cancer. The eggs where contaminated after oil which was intended for bio-fuel became mixed up with oil destined for chicken food. However, most of the products had already been sold, but according to the Food Standards Agency they posed “no food safety risk”. One theory is that the only reason the egg powder made out of these eggs was considered safe was simply because they knowingly mixed it with tons of untainted egg powder. Many British people are mad because the warning came so late and are suggesting not importing food any more.

The suggestion of not importing food cannot be taken seriously. It is also knows that many countries do not want to import eggs from Britain because it contains a higher quantity of salmonella than the legal limit. But in any case, I think this misfortune has to wakeup people and make them aware of the waste that is put in our food and protest against it. For example, I saw a TV program on chickens’ breasts and on how they are actually being filled with water to sell for a cheaper price. To top that, sometimes they use protein made out of cow or even pig bones to make the chicken meat suck in even more water. All of this sickens me and makes me want to isolate myself from this treacherous society.

Source:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3337478/Toxic-eggs-alert.html#mySunComments

Royal Family granted new right of secrecy

Like the headline says the Royal Family is going to be exempt from the FOI, (Freedom of Information act).This legal reform means that there is going to be even more secrecy surrounding the Royal Family’s affairs. This includes letters, emails and documents related to the monarch, her heir and the second in line to the throne. This information is not going to be disclosed to the public even if it is in the public interest. Many argue that this reform does not serve the interest of the public or the Royal Family, especially because when the royal finances where examined in the past there where many discrepancies found. However, the parties who are pushing for this reform argue that this law is necessary because the Freedom of Information act had failed to protect the constitutional position of the monarch and the heir to the throne.

It is as if there is something that they want to cover up. I also read that this has something to do with stories, which they didn’t want us to know about, but instead where published. However the stories go, I think it is not right to exempt any one from the FOI act. Yes, I believe that the Royal Family should be treated in a manner that will be fit to their status, nevertheless there should always be transparency the way they operate. The main reason for this is that otherwise the people will not trust them, and for what else does this monarchy exists if not for the people?

Source:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-family-granted-new-right-of-secrecy-2179148.html