giffgaff

Ok, first of all, apologies for a bit of an off-topic post, but I have recently changed mobile networks and I rate my new network, giffgaff, so highly that I could not stop myself from sharing it with you, my blog readers. However, I should point out now that this is only relevant to UK readers.

Giffgaff was founded in November 2009 by the head of brand strategy at O2, and is wholly owned by O2. As a result of this, it uses O2's network and thus has as good a coverage as any other network. However, giffgaff is a lot cheaper than O2, and in fact, giffgaff is a lot cheaper than any other UK based mobile network. For £10 a month, you get 250 minutes, unlimited texts and unlimited internet - better than contract value but without a contract. On top of this, you get free calls and texts to other giffgaff customers (if you've topped up in the last 3 months) and texts and calls to non-giffgaff customers are half the price of most other networks.

Giffgaff isn't just a cheap network though, it has a strong community spirit. Below is a video of the most recent advertising campaign giffgaff has been running. The scheme involves giffgaff paying for the release and rehoming of a battery hen every time someone 'unlocks' one of their sim cards.

Customers of giffgaff can get money back from the business - in the form of credit, straight into your bank account or as a donation to charity - by spreading giffgaff and referring friends, and by helping other customers with problems. It is this second point that is so crucial to the business. The reason it is so cheap is that giffgaff only employ 20 people, they do not have call centres and technicians. They rely on giffgaff customers to help each other with small problems although they do have agents to help with more serious difficulties.

Now, I'm not just writing this blog to inform you of how wonderful giffgaff is as a company. I'm writing this to offer you a chance to join this brilliant, cheap new network and as an added incentive, if you order a sim card from the link below, you will get £5 free credit when you top-up by £10 or purchase a £10 goodybag.

Free £5 Credit - Sign up to giffgaff

Thanks for reading,
The Opinionated Genius

Secularism: Good for Society

10 days ago, Baroness Warsi, Britain’s first female Muslim cabinet minister, wrote in the Daily Telegraph that religion was being ‘sidelined,marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere.’ Personally, I could think of only one response to this comment: good.

Warsi claims that Europe needs to be more comfortable and confident in its Christianity, and that to create a more just society, people need to feel stronger in their religious identities. As far as I am concerned, this is complete nonsense – religion has no place in the governance of society and the secularism that Warsi believes is threatening Britain, is just the next step in modernising our country which will encourage fairness and equality.

One has to assume that Baroness Warsi believes that religion will help society, and make it more just, because religion is the source of morality. However a recent study for the Richard Dawkins Foundation has shown that only 1 in 10 Christians seek moral guidance from their religion. A very brief look at the Catholic Church pretty much leaves the argument that religious people are more moral dead in the water.

David Cameron said last December that the UK was a Christian country, and ‘should not be afraid to say so’ but is this really true? In the 2001 census, 72% of the public considered themselves to be Christian but this figure is expected to drop to 54% in the 2011 census. When 1,136 people who said they had recorded themselves as Christian in the 2011 census were asked why this was, only 31% said it was because they genuinely try and follow the Christian religion. Using these figures, we can estimate that only 17% of the British population are genuinely Christian.

So why should Christianity be at the forefront of our society, helping to shape laws and define our communities?  When over 8 out of 10 Brits are not Christian, why should we force them to follow laws that are influenced by a religion based on a book which orders homosexuals to be stoned to death?

In the past, Warsi has claimed that Islamophobia, or prejudice against Muslims, is socially acceptable in the UK, and I think a big cause of this is that the UK is still primarily, a Christian state. Because religion is allowed to play a role in society, there is less acceptance of other religions such as Islam and this works both ways. Muslims feel aggrieved and in some, more extreme, cases may protest violently about this leading to non-Muslims discriminating against them. This is a vicious cycle.

In the past, I have argued against fee-paying schools, and against single-sex schools and so logically, I have to argue against faith schools as well. Faith schools cause a divide in society, strengthening antipathy between religions and segregating Christians from Muslims and Jews from Hindus. Not only this, but they spend valuable time in which they should be teaching students knowledge to help them in the world about myth and legend which is of no real benefit. Many may argue that faith schools perform better than average, but personally, I think one has to assume that this is because faith schools are selective and so can choose the best students.

I have no problem with people following and practising religion. It is an age-old tradition and people should be allowed to believe what they wish to believe. However, I do have a problem with religion being shoved down the throats of our society and I honestly believe that our country would be more seamless if we became a truly secular state.

The Opinionated Genius

Cities Fit for Cycling Campaign

First of all, I’m back to blogging after 6 weeks off for revision and exams! I have plans to finish off my mini blog series about the education system, and also plan to give my views on prisons and the welfare reforms being pushed through by the government at the moment. However, my post today is going to be to add my support to the Times Cities Fit for Cycling Campaign.

111 cyclists died on UK roads in 2010, and although this figure is tiny compared to the number of car occupants that die each year, it is a 7% rise from 2009. Compare this to a 21% fall in car occupant fatalities, 19% fall in pedestrian fatalities and a 15% fall in motorcycle fatalities and it seems that cyclists are not getting the attention they deserve.

Now admittedly, more people are starting to cycle in the UK – there was a 1% increase from 2009 to 2010 – but this surely means that cyclists need to be looked after more than ever. With the government calling for more people to walk and cycle for numerous reasons including the obesity crisis, global warming and traffic congestion, they need to make sure that the roads are safe for cyclists to cycle on.

The Times’ Campaign will not only save people’s lives, it will have benefits to the economy and will help to reduce the rate of global warming. As well as the 111 deaths, there were thousands of injuries to cyclists on UK roads, which cause traffic delays losing the economy money as people are late for work, and which take up the time of emergency services. By making the roads safer, more people will cycle, which will help the UK reach its target on carbon dioxide emissions as less people drive and more people will live healthier life styles.

To read more about the campaign, and to pledge your support, see http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/contact/

Thanks for reading,

The Opinionated Genius

IVF - A Crime Against Humanity

Over 12,000 babies are born in the UK every year as a result of IVF fertility treatment.  This is both morally wrong and economically not good for the country. I’ll start with the economic side of the argument.

In 2010, there were 57,652 cycles of IVF treatment in the UK. Each of these cycles costs about £4,000, meaning the total cost for IVF treatment in the UK last year was about £23m. Now, not all of this was paid for by the government – by piecing together figures from a variety of sources, my best estimate is that about 30% of that was paid for by the NHS. This, however still comes to about £7m a year spent on IVF by the government. Now, admittedly, £7m is not a lot of money when it comes to the UK Government’s budget, and although I do subscribe to the view that every little helps (without trying to advertise Tesco too much), this is clearly not enough money to kick up a fuss about.

However, there are other costs involved when it comes to IVF. Studies published over the last decade have found that IVF babies are 30% more likely to suffer from a birth defect including heart valve defects, cleft lip and palate, and digestive system abnormalities. As well as these, they face an increased risk of rare genetic disorders including Angelman Syndrome and Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome. These defects are going to cost the NHS more money over the long-term and it is impossible to estimate how much money will be drained away as a result of these extra disorders.

Furthermore, there is a cost to humanity, and now I will move onto the ethical side of the argument. Now, don’t worry, I’m not an idiot and I have nothing against IVF due to pathetic reasons like: ‘it’s murder’ or ‘we shouldn’t play God.’ Firstly, it’s not murder, embryos are not alive and so those that do not get used are not being killed. Secondly, why shouldn’t we ‘play God?’ If God didn’t want us to ‘play God,’ he wouldn’t have given us the ability to do it. However, I do believe we have a duty to the human race, and IVF interferes with the process of natural selection.

As well as the data I have already given about IVF causing birth defects and genetic disorders more often than natural conception, it also means infertility will carry on existing in the human race. Infertility, or rather sub fertility, is at least partially inherited. Therefore, by not helping infertile and sub fertile couples to have children, inherited infertility will die out. Other causes of fertility problems include being obese, smoking, or having STIs. I would say that these are also characteristics we do not want to continue in the human race. Some might argue that these could be ironed out by genetically testing the embryos, and creating 'designer babies.' I am kind of against this because again, it interferes with natural selection, however it could be argued that this speeds up the process and that can only be a good thing.

On a side note, this will also help with the population crisis in the world. Just saying.

I know what many of you are thinking – this is cruel, to not allow couples who want children help with becoming pregnant. In a lot of cases, I would disagree and say that the couple partially deserves it, and have brought it upon themselves. If they smoke, or they’re obese, or they have contracted an STI, they do not deserve help to have a child that they can ruin and continue to drain the government and society in general. However, in a few cases, it may be that two lovely people, who have nothing wrong with them apart from the fact they were unlucky enough to inherit fertility problems or even have an unexplained loss of fertility, want a child and need IVF to do so. What I would say to them is that: there are 17,000 un-adopted children in the UK. Adoption rates need to improve, and stopping IVF treatment will do this. I know this is not the same as having a child of your own, but life’s not fair. Sorry.

Education Overhaul: Single-Sex Schools

Last week, figures were released which showed that divorce rates in the UK had risen for the first time in seven years, with over 132,000 marriages ending in 2010. You may be thinking: what on earth has this got to do with education?  Well, a study published in 2009 shows that boys taught at single-sex schools are more likely to be divorced or separated from their partner by their early 40s than those who attended a mixed school.

Now, clearly, single-sex schools can’t just be closed down because they lead to higher divorce rates for men, however this is not the only thing they lead to. It has been shown that isolating boys can increase aggression, and they are more likely to develop behavioural problems whilst isolating girls can lead to them accepting gender stereotypes. In fact, students taught without members of the opposite sex in the classroom can often be more sexist, show stereotyped attitudes towards one another and have a distrust of the opposite sex.

Educating students without their counterparts from the opposite gender does improve exam results though, doesn’t it? The answer to that question is quite simply: no. There is no evidence to suggest that educating students in single-sex schools leads to a better learning environment and improved results. The reason why single-sex schools are often close to the top of school league tables is that they are often independent, fee-paying schools, or otherwise, they are selective and only take on the brightest students. In fact, Dr. Mary Bousted, general secretary of the ATL, says that ‘all the research shows that single sex schools are bad for boys – in terms of academic performance and socialisation.

Many of you probably already know what my solution to this problem is going to be and I’m not going to surprise you when I say that we should abolish single-sex schools in this country. Although there seems to be less of a negative impact on girls being taught without boys, single-sex boys’ schools don’t seem to be of any benefit to anyone. However, my plans for education mean that schools need to be as uniform as possible and so single-sex schools for either gender should not be allowed to operate in this country.

Step 1: Abolish Private Schools

Step 2: Create a single exam board, run by the government.

Step 3: Abolish Single-Sex Schools

Future steps will be outlined in my blog over the next week so keep checking back.

Euthanasia - Right or Wrong?

Recently, a friend of mine, known as The Psychonomist wrote in his blog post, 5 Ways To Stop Population Growth, that euthanasia could, or maybe even should be legalised. I’m not going to try and hide my view that we do in fact need to do something about the size of the population of the Earth – see previous blog posts and particularly Population Crisis – however in this post, I’m going to try and focus on the ethical debate surrounding euthanasia.

Euthanasia is without doubt a controversial topic. Although, many people support the legalisation of euthanasia   - at least to some extent – many more seem to be against it. At the present moment, active euthanasia is only legal in the three Benelux countries (that is, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg), and assisted suicide is only legal in Switzerland and three US states. For those that don’t know, active euthanasia is, most commonly, the act of administering the drugs that will kill the patient, whereas assisted suicide is just providing the drugs to the patient for them to effectively commit suicide.

Personally, I don’t believe there should be any controversy around the issue. If a patient has an incurable, painful disease, then they should be allowed to end their own life and so assisted suicide should not be considered a crime in my eyes. It is the patient that has made the decision, and the patient that has committed the act, and it is senseless to force someone to suffer, sometimes for years on end when they do not want to live any longer.

Furthermore, if assisted suicide was legalised, then it only makes sense for active euthanasia to be legalised. If the patient is going to be given the drugs they need to take their own life, then the drugs may as well be administered by a doctor who has the knowledge needed to make the process as swift and as painless as possible. I would say that no doctor should be forced to carry out this process if they view active euthanasia as homicide.

Much of the opposition to euthanasia comes on religious grounds. I will focus on Christianity as this is the most familiar religion to me, and as it is the largest religion in today’s world. Christian teaching, and I believe also the teaching of the other Abrahamic religions, believe that euthanasia is a crime against God and quote the ‘sanctity of life.’ As well as this, suicide is seen as a sin in The Bible and so not even assisted suicide is acceptable to the majority of Christians.

Now, to qualify as a Christian, one has to be hypocritical and many seem to forget that The Bible, and Jesus, the saviour of all mankind, also teach that we should do the most loving thing. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t see how forcing someone to live through immense suffering when they have suffered for too long already is a loving thing to do. In my opinion, Christians have no right to stop non-Christians, or even other Christians who do agree with euthanasia, from going through with it. It does not affect them in any way, apart from the fact that Heaven may be a little less crowded if euthanasia was legalised.

Therefore, I have to conclude that Euthanasia should be legalised as everyone should be able to have their life, and its evil twin, death in their own hands. If the first step is only legalising assisted suicide, this is a step that I would fully support.

Note: the euthanasia I am discussing in this blog post is strictly limited to voluntary euthanasia. I do not condone involuntary euthanasia in any way at this present moment in time.

For more information on Euthanasia, see:

Dignitas

Dignity in Dying

Exit International

Education Overhaul: Exam Boards

This isn’t something that I had originally included in my plans to change the education system, however with the recent news about exam board ‘cheating,’ I feel I should add my views to the topic.

Two examiners were suspended yesterday after claims they had tipped off teachers about questions that were likely to feature in next year’s exam papers. Exam boards have also come under criticism in recent years for making exams easier, and over the summer for making too many errors in exam papers which affected tens of thousands of students.

There are currently four exam boards in England and Wales: AQA, OCR, Edexcel and the Welsh Joint Education Committee. The question I have to ask is, why do we need 4 exam boards? I am not alone in this view, and I’ll admit that I am in fact only thinking about this now as growing pressure is placed on the government to close down the existing exam boards and create a government led single board.

Now you could argue that having multiple exam boards actually produces higher quality exams as they compete against each other to win over schools and students. However, in reality, the exam boards seem to be winning clients by making their exams easier and easier, with schools mixing and matching to get the most generous exam board for each subject.

This cannot be good for our education system, especially when some examiners are giving away hints and tips to schools to help their students achieve higher grades. Therefore, I fully back the proposal, which Shadow Education Secretary, Stephen Twigg, has also pledged his support to, which suggests we create one exam board for the whole country. All students should sit the same exams so that a fairer comparison between them can be made and only the brightest, most talented students can win a place at university as intelligence will shine through and not the ability of the schools to pick the easiest exams.

The Opinionated Genius