It was Rudyard Kipling who wrote one of my favourite lines in one of my favourite poems - 'Beware the Jabawock my son'. In this case, I'll adapt that line to 'Beware the hidden university course costs Freshers'. For, what many fail to realise, there are many, many expensive additions to your educational future.
Hidden course costs are extra costs added to the total of your university experience, excluding the tuition fees. These are often over-looked, not considered or forgotten about by many Freshers.
When I started university, I was aware that there would be extra costs, but I was shocked about the extent and amount. I didn't realise initially that university was so expensive!
Tuition fees are the most obvious form of cost. People know they will have to pay them back after graduating and also know that they will total more than £3,000 a year (for my cohort) or now £9,000 a year for future Freshers. £9,000 with no solid guarantee of a job? Daylight educational robbery! I'm just happy/very lucky I made it in before the fee rise!
My accommodation costs more than £4,000 a year. Ironically, this means that my accommodation costs more than my actual degree course. This is again covered by Student Finance (which is handy) but also means that - just like tuition fees - you have to pay it back (which isn't so handy). Including accommodation, my total fees pass £7,000 a year.
Then comes the cost of studying. You need paper, pens, books (I've had to spend over £150 this year on several very dull textbooks that our tutors hardly ever reference or use) and all sort of little extras - I'm thinking of highlighters, staplers, folders etc. All these seem like little things but they do add up over the course of a four year degree.
To add insult to injury, you've been charged an extortionate amount for rent, and then have to pay for all the extra costs on top. Council tax (depending on the borough you live in - we don't have to pay it), TV licence, food, gas, electricity - all this is an addition to your accommodation costs. If you don't want to run the risk of buying the 'Value' stuff (for fear of suspiciously horse-looking spaghetti bolognaise) then the 'nicer' food will cost you more.
Some university's offer a placement year, where you go away from campus and work for a year to get experience of the 'real world'. Many of these placements are unpaid. Additionally, you have to pay a set fee to the university, cover your own lunch and travel expenses and (if you live away from home) cover the cost of accommodation. Doing a placement year should be carefully considered, it will add costs to your course if you choose to commit to it.
How about the social side of things? Clubs and societies are free to join, but being part of them will cost you (albeit mostly small amounts). Nightclubs, cinemas and other activities are also not free - however much all of us students love free stuff, sadly there just isn't enough free stuff going around. Sad times.
When I was at college we had a session where we went through hidden costs and were each given a table we could use to estimate how much extra we would spend. This was not just an awesome idea; it helped me to plan my spending and also partly scared me to economic-related death.
Growing up you are always taught that debt is bad. 'You shouldn't have debt', 'Pay back what you owe' etc - the average student graduating in 2011 owed £27,000, after the fee rise that could potentially be as much as £56,000. I was never told at any open day I attended at any university about extra costs - I guess as they don't want to put future applicants off (very sneaky of them, but remember to your uni you will be a walking bag of money) - make sure you ask about costs you are likely to face.
So, what's my advice to you future Fresher? Did deep in to your pockets, dust off your wallet, go down to your bank with a wheelbarrow, tell your parents that if they loved you they'd give you an unlimited access to the 'Bank of Parents', and spend your student loan wisely. Don't waste it, and remember that it's better (for your bank account and your stomach) to buy nicer horse-free food than booze.
MOST importantly, beware the university hidden course costs!
Monday, 18 March 2013
Tuesday, 25 September 2012
London 2012: Life as a Games Maker
All my life I'd watched and wanted to go to an Olympic games. As soon as London won the bid in 2005, I knew I wanted to be part of it. After all the training and preparation, it was time for me to begin my job. This is a little snippet of what I got up to whilst at the Games...
Before I'd began at the Games, I'd told people that I would be involved as a Games Maker. Many were sceptical and asked why I'd bothered and if there was a point to it if I wasn't being paid. One thing I noticed was that as the Games got closer people became increasingly enthusiastic and began to tell me about how it sounded great to be involved and they were annoyed with themselves for not applying.
I began my journey by going to see the Olympic torch as part of the torch relay; little did I know I'd be holding a torch outside the Olympic Stadium soon after I'd watched someone carrying it down my road! Although I wasn't working or in my uniform, it was great to see so much support and enthusiasm from the public who cheered like crazy whilst the flame manoeuvred its way down my road and away in to the sunset of Olympic history.
The Olympic Park was amazing. Truly an incredible, incredible place to get to work. I was so happy when I was placed there as I knew I wanted to be right in the heart of the Games. The atmosphere was like nothing I've ever experienced - walking through the gates and seeing the 'Welcome to London 2012' sign each morning gave you the most amazing buzz and everyone in the Park seemed so happy. The excitement was contagious and athletes always ventured out of the village to walk around and take everything in - often stopping for autographs and pictures with excited fans and Games Makers. Every athlete I met was friendly and many gave me pins from their countries and high-fives. The various arenas and stadiums were breath-taking, if you walked through the park you'd hear roars delight pouring in to your ears from all angles as various events went on simultaneously around the Park. The Stadium and the Aquatics Centre were the two venues I found especially impressive.
One of the most rewarding parts of the job was the appreciation and attention from complete strangers. People would talk to me on the train, a few came up to me in the street and thanked me. One evening, a lady tapped me on the shoulder on the train and said 'Thank you, all you guys are doing an amazing job'. Tourists were eager to have pictures with you and commuters were hanging on your every word as you described what you'd done that day. People actually talked to each other on the train!
I was lucky enough to experience many venues both inside and outside of the Park, including: Wembley Stadium, the Olympic Stadium, the Aquatics Centre and Earl's Court. Each venue was completely covered in London 2012 logos and was always packed with fans. The noise was amazing, especially for Team GB - the noise became deafening when any British athlete was competing. That's the part of the venues I'll remember most - the noise. Especially walking out in to the Stadium - a wall of sound hit you and made every bone in your body vibrate with excitement and the sheer level of noise.
Across both the Olympics and Paralympics I was lucky enough to get to watch several sports, including: football, volleyball, swimming, cycling and athletics. It was inspiring to get to see some of the greatest athletes in the World compete before my eyes. My favourite sporting moment that I'd witnessed was watching Oscar Pistorius win gold in the last event on the last night of the athletics during the Paralympics. Everything about the race was special, something I'll remember for a long time.
I also got to experience the opening ceremony of the Olympics and the closing ceremony of the Paralympics. Knowing an audience of one billion people were watching at home felt surreal, but seeing the staging and feeling the absolute electric atmosphere was something I'll never forget. The opening of the Olympics was nothing short of outstanding - Danny Boyle spoke before the show and encouraged the crowds to enjoy it, give it everything and keep it secret to not spoil the surprise for people watching it live after the rehearsal. My favourite moment was seeing the Olympic rings form and the sparks falling down on the the set - something I'll never forget. The closing ceremony of the Paralympics was also spectacular and I was lucky enough to be with the athletes - speaking to many of them who all seemed to appreciate the show and be impressed by what they were witnessing. Two special moments stick in my mind from the closing ceremony - Coldplay singing 'Yellow' and the whole stadium turning yellow and standing outside the stadium with the athletes (as we began to get them back to the village) and watching the spectacular fireworks at the end of the ceremony. I felt a great sense of pride an achievement as I watched those fireworks shoot off the roof of the Stadium! I was there at the beginning for the Olympics opening and there at the end for the Paralympics closing - a nice touch I felt, as I'd gone full circle.
My uniform was very nice. I'd had some reservations, but the trainers were comfy, the trousers weren't too stuffy on hot days and the shirt was also very comfy. Although in the early morning or evenings it would get quite cold and the jacket provided little protection or warmth against the chill. The bags were small, yet you could fit a surprisingly large amount in them. I didn't like the bag straps though - they were a bit uncomfortable after much bag carrying. The watch was snazzy, although the 'tick' was incredibly annoying! We'd also been given an Oyster card to get to work and back for free - this was a great idea and really appreciated by many volunteers. Our accreditation was slightly annoying due to the size of it - if it was windy it would blow around like it was in some way possessed - but you learnt to put up with it!
My fellow volunteers were brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. There was a real sense of pride, excitement and eagerness that spread through everyone. I made friends, got on with everyone and had a laugh whilst working with them. Everyone was really nice and chatty. There was a real sense of togetherness and community that could warm the heart of everyone involved. I learnt some valuable team work lessons whilst working with them - I'd meet people all the time who I didn't know, yet we respected each other and worked together instantly as if we'd been a team for a long time.
Speaking of life skills, I've learnt many. Not just to do with the team work, but coping with being in several different environments (i.e. stadiums) as we were moved around the Park to a different area for each day. I learnt to cope with crowds (crowd management etc), dealing with the (rare) slightly angry spectator, how to treat VIPs (athletes, dignitaries etc), some few tips on broadcasting from various camera crews and journalists I met and - most importantly - how important the Olympics and Paralympics is to society. The Games changed society.
I was pleased with the things that we were given. Yes, we got endless amounts of Nature Valley bars, bottles of Coke and other sponsor-owned things, but we did get some really nice stuff too! As well as being able to keep our uniforms, I was happy to collect my certificates and my silver relay baton (which was a really lovely touch) and it was a very pleasant surprise to see a letter from the Prime Minister drop though my letter box! I really hope that LOCOG continues to recognise the volunteers and that, just maybe, we could be offered volunteer opportunities (such as a World Cup) in future - it would be sad to just let the 70,000 of us slip away in to the midst of volunteering-time.
I know the phrase 'once in a lifetime' is often attached to an event like the one we have seen this summer, but this for me personally really was a once in a lifetime experience. Everything I experienced was truly amazing and I'll carry it with me for the rest of my life. I'm so pleased I went for it, and so thankful that I was lucky enough to get to do it.
London 2012. Simply amazing.
(Although I loved my time as a Games Maker, I just want to add that I have no connections with London 2012 or with any of the partners of the Games. All views expressed here are my own).
Before I'd began at the Games, I'd told people that I would be involved as a Games Maker. Many were sceptical and asked why I'd bothered and if there was a point to it if I wasn't being paid. One thing I noticed was that as the Games got closer people became increasingly enthusiastic and began to tell me about how it sounded great to be involved and they were annoyed with themselves for not applying.
I began my journey by going to see the Olympic torch as part of the torch relay; little did I know I'd be holding a torch outside the Olympic Stadium soon after I'd watched someone carrying it down my road! Although I wasn't working or in my uniform, it was great to see so much support and enthusiasm from the public who cheered like crazy whilst the flame manoeuvred its way down my road and away in to the sunset of Olympic history.
The Olympic Park was amazing. Truly an incredible, incredible place to get to work. I was so happy when I was placed there as I knew I wanted to be right in the heart of the Games. The atmosphere was like nothing I've ever experienced - walking through the gates and seeing the 'Welcome to London 2012' sign each morning gave you the most amazing buzz and everyone in the Park seemed so happy. The excitement was contagious and athletes always ventured out of the village to walk around and take everything in - often stopping for autographs and pictures with excited fans and Games Makers. Every athlete I met was friendly and many gave me pins from their countries and high-fives. The various arenas and stadiums were breath-taking, if you walked through the park you'd hear roars delight pouring in to your ears from all angles as various events went on simultaneously around the Park. The Stadium and the Aquatics Centre were the two venues I found especially impressive.
One of the most rewarding parts of the job was the appreciation and attention from complete strangers. People would talk to me on the train, a few came up to me in the street and thanked me. One evening, a lady tapped me on the shoulder on the train and said 'Thank you, all you guys are doing an amazing job'. Tourists were eager to have pictures with you and commuters were hanging on your every word as you described what you'd done that day. People actually talked to each other on the train!
I was lucky enough to experience many venues both inside and outside of the Park, including: Wembley Stadium, the Olympic Stadium, the Aquatics Centre and Earl's Court. Each venue was completely covered in London 2012 logos and was always packed with fans. The noise was amazing, especially for Team GB - the noise became deafening when any British athlete was competing. That's the part of the venues I'll remember most - the noise. Especially walking out in to the Stadium - a wall of sound hit you and made every bone in your body vibrate with excitement and the sheer level of noise.
Across both the Olympics and Paralympics I was lucky enough to get to watch several sports, including: football, volleyball, swimming, cycling and athletics. It was inspiring to get to see some of the greatest athletes in the World compete before my eyes. My favourite sporting moment that I'd witnessed was watching Oscar Pistorius win gold in the last event on the last night of the athletics during the Paralympics. Everything about the race was special, something I'll remember for a long time.
I also got to experience the opening ceremony of the Olympics and the closing ceremony of the Paralympics. Knowing an audience of one billion people were watching at home felt surreal, but seeing the staging and feeling the absolute electric atmosphere was something I'll never forget. The opening of the Olympics was nothing short of outstanding - Danny Boyle spoke before the show and encouraged the crowds to enjoy it, give it everything and keep it secret to not spoil the surprise for people watching it live after the rehearsal. My favourite moment was seeing the Olympic rings form and the sparks falling down on the the set - something I'll never forget. The closing ceremony of the Paralympics was also spectacular and I was lucky enough to be with the athletes - speaking to many of them who all seemed to appreciate the show and be impressed by what they were witnessing. Two special moments stick in my mind from the closing ceremony - Coldplay singing 'Yellow' and the whole stadium turning yellow and standing outside the stadium with the athletes (as we began to get them back to the village) and watching the spectacular fireworks at the end of the ceremony. I felt a great sense of pride an achievement as I watched those fireworks shoot off the roof of the Stadium! I was there at the beginning for the Olympics opening and there at the end for the Paralympics closing - a nice touch I felt, as I'd gone full circle.
My uniform was very nice. I'd had some reservations, but the trainers were comfy, the trousers weren't too stuffy on hot days and the shirt was also very comfy. Although in the early morning or evenings it would get quite cold and the jacket provided little protection or warmth against the chill. The bags were small, yet you could fit a surprisingly large amount in them. I didn't like the bag straps though - they were a bit uncomfortable after much bag carrying. The watch was snazzy, although the 'tick' was incredibly annoying! We'd also been given an Oyster card to get to work and back for free - this was a great idea and really appreciated by many volunteers. Our accreditation was slightly annoying due to the size of it - if it was windy it would blow around like it was in some way possessed - but you learnt to put up with it!
My fellow volunteers were brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. There was a real sense of pride, excitement and eagerness that spread through everyone. I made friends, got on with everyone and had a laugh whilst working with them. Everyone was really nice and chatty. There was a real sense of togetherness and community that could warm the heart of everyone involved. I learnt some valuable team work lessons whilst working with them - I'd meet people all the time who I didn't know, yet we respected each other and worked together instantly as if we'd been a team for a long time.
Speaking of life skills, I've learnt many. Not just to do with the team work, but coping with being in several different environments (i.e. stadiums) as we were moved around the Park to a different area for each day. I learnt to cope with crowds (crowd management etc), dealing with the (rare) slightly angry spectator, how to treat VIPs (athletes, dignitaries etc), some few tips on broadcasting from various camera crews and journalists I met and - most importantly - how important the Olympics and Paralympics is to society. The Games changed society.
I was pleased with the things that we were given. Yes, we got endless amounts of Nature Valley bars, bottles of Coke and other sponsor-owned things, but we did get some really nice stuff too! As well as being able to keep our uniforms, I was happy to collect my certificates and my silver relay baton (which was a really lovely touch) and it was a very pleasant surprise to see a letter from the Prime Minister drop though my letter box! I really hope that LOCOG continues to recognise the volunteers and that, just maybe, we could be offered volunteer opportunities (such as a World Cup) in future - it would be sad to just let the 70,000 of us slip away in to the midst of volunteering-time.
I know the phrase 'once in a lifetime' is often attached to an event like the one we have seen this summer, but this for me personally really was a once in a lifetime experience. Everything I experienced was truly amazing and I'll carry it with me for the rest of my life. I'm so pleased I went for it, and so thankful that I was lucky enough to get to do it.
London 2012. Simply amazing.
(Although I loved my time as a Games Maker, I just want to add that I have no connections with London 2012 or with any of the partners of the Games. All views expressed here are my own).
London 2012: The Games Maker Journey
As soon as London was announced as the host city for the 2012 Games I instantly knew I wanted to be involved. This is a little snippet of the beginning of my Games Maker journey and what we had to do before the Games began...
In 2010 I saw the advert for volunteers and answered it without even thinking about it - I just knew I wanted to do it.
The application form was slightly tedious - lots of questions - but it certainly wasn't the worst form I've had to fill out. I knew it was for something as big as the Olympics which made it a little more exciting. But the thought did cross my mind 'I bet loads of people apply for this - I'll never get an offer'. I put my application in anyway.
Days, weeks and months past and I heard nothing - so I assumed I'd been unlucky and hadn't got anything. By the time it got to October 2011 and it had been a full year since I put my application in, I had completely forgotten about it.
Then, I got an e-mail with an offer of an interview - which was exciting (Plus it reminded me that I'd applied in the first place!)
I dragged myself out of bed early one Saturday morning (I had the dreaded early morning slot) and - a train journey later - with a day old newspaper I'd found on the train in hand and a slightly tired expression, I emerged and wandered in to the building.
What immediately struck me was how 'modern' it looked. A purpose built 'set' had been constructed with London 2012 logos covering just about every inch of wall space. Bright colours were all around you and pictures of those involved in the bid (Beckham, Coe etc) stared back at you from each wall.
I registered and went through to a waiting area where LOCOG had created a mini 'museum' for us with a room full of displays. Each corner of the room covered a different topic, ranging from the history of the Olympics to when London won the bid and finally a bit about how they thought the whole Games-time operation would run.
I had a bit of a brainwave and noticed that certain emotive words (i.e. 'Inspiring') were scrawled across the walls of the room. I thought that it would be good to remember these words and then casually drop in to the interview like I had planned to say them. This proved effective as I used all the 'key words' I'd learnt from the walls - I later suggested to others I knew who had interviews to do the same.
After this we had a brief chat with a lady who claimed she was from our 'team'. She briefed us on the very basics of our roles and what we would have to do.
We were taken in to a tiny cinema with about twenty seats, but no popcorn or premier seating! Eddie Izzard appeared on a screen and began to talk about the very basics of the 'Olympic Dream'. He continuously congratulated us for being offered an interview and seemed to chat to us like we were best mates who'd known each other for years.
Then came the interview itself, or the interrogation. Although, it wasn't really much of an interrogation - any fears of dark rooms with a single lamp were quickly dispelled by a friendly smile and an offer of water. We sat in small 'pods' with a tiny table and two chairs - on the wall was a time line showing the process of the run-up to the Games.
We were asked quite a few questions in an interview that lasted about twenty minutes. All the ones you would expect were there - 'Why do you want to be a Games Maker?', 'What skills do you have?' The one that slightly threw me (due to it being so random) was 'When was the last time you helped someone?'
It was a friendly chat, with the occasional laugh (it was a nice laugh, not an awkward one after a rubbish joke). After we said our farewells and I was greeted by a large wall covered in virtually ineligible scribbles. We were encouraged to draw on the wall and sign it, so I scanned over it with my eyes hunting like some wild creature, searching for a small patch of white to fill with my own name and a somewhat cheesy sentence.
That was it. The interview process was over. I surpassed an urge to waste money in a strategically placed gift shop full of tat before wandering out the door and going home.
A couple of weeks after the interview I got an email with an offer. This was quite exciting and my phone was going mental for several hours after whilst I decided to spread my happy news.
I looked at the portal website and went carefully through my job once again; I also looked at all the details about training. After hardly any consideration, I decided to go for it.
I did it. I pressed the 'Accept' button. I was pleased with myself.
I got (yet another) e-mail from LOCOG explaining what would happen next and telling me that I had to wait for further information about training.
A couple of weeks later I got an e-mail offering some training dates. It suggested we'd have a range of dates to choose, yet helpfully only gave me one.
I'd not mentioned to many people that I'd applied, in case I wasn't offered a role.
So, I'd made it through the application process and accepted my offer, now it was time to prepare for training.
The training was split in to three parts: Orientation, Role Specific and Venue.
First up was Orientation, at the iconic Wembley Arena. I remember going to shows there when I was little, so for me it was quite weird to be there 'working'. It was nice to say 'Training for the Olympics at Wembley Arena' when people asked what I was doing that weekend though!
Orientation was essentially an introduction to the whole project, presenting was BBC Sport presenter John Inverdale. We were shown the key things to do, how to speak to people and what our uniforms would be like. An interval featuring karaoke was followed with more training. Some of the top people from LOCOG were there to speak to us about subjects ranging from a day in the life of a Games Maker to security.
The second training day was role specific training. This was similar to orientation but consisted of us being told the specific details of our role. We were shown more videos about dealing with people and told more about exactly what we needed to do and what the place we would be working in looked like. After much free biscuit eating and free tea drinking we went through what our security passes looked like and how they worked. We had a little quiz and then left. The biggest thing I noticed from the day was how amazingly friendly everybody was and how excited each volunteer seemed to be about the impending London 2012 adventure.
Our final training session was Venue specific. This would involve us training inside the venue(s) we would be based at for the Games. Essentially, it was a run-through of the exact details we needed to know about for where we had been placed. It was also my first taste of the Olympic Park, which was very exciting. We had a tour of the Park to get a feel for what it was like there, everyone was extremely friendly and excited!
The final stage involved us collecting our uniforms. I battled my way through the tourists and made it to the distribution centre, trying on various different sizes of uniform like you would in the changing room at any clothes shop. I also collected my security pass and various other 2012-themed bits, like a watch, bag, umbrella, water bottle and pocket guide with a map. What was annoying was that I had to go all the way to the distribution centre to collect it on a day different to my training; it would have made it much easier to train and then collect our uniforms on the same day.
After completing all my training we were given our timetables, which had to be changed several times as the start and end times for shifts were when no trains were operating. One week before the Games I was transferred to a different role, meaning I started without any new training - although I didn't mind as other than the Venue training it was the same training for each role. We were also left in the dark over whether we'd be accepted for a role - I'd not known until just a few weeks before whether I'd actually have a confirmed place or not, my section of the Games Maker portal just forever showed 'Under Review'.
So, almost two years after my initial application I was ready to go - everything was in place and the real Games Maker journey began...
Click here to read the second London 2012 blog about what I got up to during the Games!
(Although I loved my time as a Games Maker, I just want to add that I have no connections with London 2012 or with any of the partners of the Games. All views expressed here are my own).
In 2010 I saw the advert for volunteers and answered it without even thinking about it - I just knew I wanted to do it.
The application form was slightly tedious - lots of questions - but it certainly wasn't the worst form I've had to fill out. I knew it was for something as big as the Olympics which made it a little more exciting. But the thought did cross my mind 'I bet loads of people apply for this - I'll never get an offer'. I put my application in anyway.
Days, weeks and months past and I heard nothing - so I assumed I'd been unlucky and hadn't got anything. By the time it got to October 2011 and it had been a full year since I put my application in, I had completely forgotten about it.
Then, I got an e-mail with an offer of an interview - which was exciting (Plus it reminded me that I'd applied in the first place!)
I dragged myself out of bed early one Saturday morning (I had the dreaded early morning slot) and - a train journey later - with a day old newspaper I'd found on the train in hand and a slightly tired expression, I emerged and wandered in to the building.
What immediately struck me was how 'modern' it looked. A purpose built 'set' had been constructed with London 2012 logos covering just about every inch of wall space. Bright colours were all around you and pictures of those involved in the bid (Beckham, Coe etc) stared back at you from each wall.
I registered and went through to a waiting area where LOCOG had created a mini 'museum' for us with a room full of displays. Each corner of the room covered a different topic, ranging from the history of the Olympics to when London won the bid and finally a bit about how they thought the whole Games-time operation would run.
I had a bit of a brainwave and noticed that certain emotive words (i.e. 'Inspiring') were scrawled across the walls of the room. I thought that it would be good to remember these words and then casually drop in to the interview like I had planned to say them. This proved effective as I used all the 'key words' I'd learnt from the walls - I later suggested to others I knew who had interviews to do the same.
After this we had a brief chat with a lady who claimed she was from our 'team'. She briefed us on the very basics of our roles and what we would have to do.
We were taken in to a tiny cinema with about twenty seats, but no popcorn or premier seating! Eddie Izzard appeared on a screen and began to talk about the very basics of the 'Olympic Dream'. He continuously congratulated us for being offered an interview and seemed to chat to us like we were best mates who'd known each other for years.
Then came the interview itself, or the interrogation. Although, it wasn't really much of an interrogation - any fears of dark rooms with a single lamp were quickly dispelled by a friendly smile and an offer of water. We sat in small 'pods' with a tiny table and two chairs - on the wall was a time line showing the process of the run-up to the Games.
We were asked quite a few questions in an interview that lasted about twenty minutes. All the ones you would expect were there - 'Why do you want to be a Games Maker?', 'What skills do you have?' The one that slightly threw me (due to it being so random) was 'When was the last time you helped someone?'
It was a friendly chat, with the occasional laugh (it was a nice laugh, not an awkward one after a rubbish joke). After we said our farewells and I was greeted by a large wall covered in virtually ineligible scribbles. We were encouraged to draw on the wall and sign it, so I scanned over it with my eyes hunting like some wild creature, searching for a small patch of white to fill with my own name and a somewhat cheesy sentence.
That was it. The interview process was over. I surpassed an urge to waste money in a strategically placed gift shop full of tat before wandering out the door and going home.
A couple of weeks after the interview I got an email with an offer. This was quite exciting and my phone was going mental for several hours after whilst I decided to spread my happy news.
I looked at the portal website and went carefully through my job once again; I also looked at all the details about training. After hardly any consideration, I decided to go for it.
I did it. I pressed the 'Accept' button. I was pleased with myself.
I got (yet another) e-mail from LOCOG explaining what would happen next and telling me that I had to wait for further information about training.
A couple of weeks later I got an e-mail offering some training dates. It suggested we'd have a range of dates to choose, yet helpfully only gave me one.
I'd not mentioned to many people that I'd applied, in case I wasn't offered a role.
So, I'd made it through the application process and accepted my offer, now it was time to prepare for training.
The training was split in to three parts: Orientation, Role Specific and Venue.
First up was Orientation, at the iconic Wembley Arena. I remember going to shows there when I was little, so for me it was quite weird to be there 'working'. It was nice to say 'Training for the Olympics at Wembley Arena' when people asked what I was doing that weekend though!
Orientation was essentially an introduction to the whole project, presenting was BBC Sport presenter John Inverdale. We were shown the key things to do, how to speak to people and what our uniforms would be like. An interval featuring karaoke was followed with more training. Some of the top people from LOCOG were there to speak to us about subjects ranging from a day in the life of a Games Maker to security.
The second training day was role specific training. This was similar to orientation but consisted of us being told the specific details of our role. We were shown more videos about dealing with people and told more about exactly what we needed to do and what the place we would be working in looked like. After much free biscuit eating and free tea drinking we went through what our security passes looked like and how they worked. We had a little quiz and then left. The biggest thing I noticed from the day was how amazingly friendly everybody was and how excited each volunteer seemed to be about the impending London 2012 adventure.
Our final training session was Venue specific. This would involve us training inside the venue(s) we would be based at for the Games. Essentially, it was a run-through of the exact details we needed to know about for where we had been placed. It was also my first taste of the Olympic Park, which was very exciting. We had a tour of the Park to get a feel for what it was like there, everyone was extremely friendly and excited!
The final stage involved us collecting our uniforms. I battled my way through the tourists and made it to the distribution centre, trying on various different sizes of uniform like you would in the changing room at any clothes shop. I also collected my security pass and various other 2012-themed bits, like a watch, bag, umbrella, water bottle and pocket guide with a map. What was annoying was that I had to go all the way to the distribution centre to collect it on a day different to my training; it would have made it much easier to train and then collect our uniforms on the same day.
After completing all my training we were given our timetables, which had to be changed several times as the start and end times for shifts were when no trains were operating. One week before the Games I was transferred to a different role, meaning I started without any new training - although I didn't mind as other than the Venue training it was the same training for each role. We were also left in the dark over whether we'd be accepted for a role - I'd not known until just a few weeks before whether I'd actually have a confirmed place or not, my section of the Games Maker portal just forever showed 'Under Review'.
So, almost two years after my initial application I was ready to go - everything was in place and the real Games Maker journey began...
Click here to read the second London 2012 blog about what I got up to during the Games!
(Although I loved my time as a Games Maker, I just want to add that I have no connections with London 2012 or with any of the partners of the Games. All views expressed here are my own).
Thursday, 19 July 2012
The Necessary Evil of Olympic Sponsorship
Sponsorship is seen across all major sports competitions, teams and competitors today. We have got ourselves to a stage where the sponsorship of a team is as crucial as having players to compete.
There is no better example of this than the Olympics. Big sponsors of London 2012 include the likes of McDonald's, Adidas and Cadbury.
The commercialisation of sport spoils the competition itself. You can't buy a shirt, bag, hat, jumper (or any item to support your team) as everything you buy is covered in the logo of a company. You walk around the streets giving sponsors free advertising every time you publicly support your team, whether it's Team GB or a football team, say Manchester United for example.
Then every time you watch sport, advertising boards are splashed across the side of the arena and various company logos invade your living room. If you watch on a channel other than the BBC, you're bombarded with adverts intertwined with the sport, as various sports men and woman pose in cheesy adverts to show their apparent 'love' of a product - such as a sports drink - when in reality they probably never use it in real life anyway.
Many stories have emerged this week of sponsors flexing their expensive muscle to ensure the dominance of their product. This was illustrated with the tales of chips being banned (unless with eaten with fish) in the Olympic Park, unless they were chips from McDonald's - a main sponsor of the Games.
However, sponsors are key to sport and are growing in importance. The central issue is that many competitors and organisations need money - for example, government funding is being cut for investment in sport, whilst many Premier League clubs are drowning in debt and held to ransom by their own players, who demand extortionate wage levels.
Without sponsors, the quality would not be as high as less money would be available for investment. Additionally, the inclusion of sponsors helps to limit the cost to the average fan - millions spent on sponsoring the Olympics is a positive both in terms of investment and the finances of taxpayers.
Money has often been used as a way to gain power and influence. What is clear is that sponsors contributing more and more money to sport ensures they have more control over who they sponsor - something which must be monitored. LOCOG need to be careful that the sponsors stay 'partners' with the Games and do not take control over it.
It's also questionable that companies such as McDonald's and Cadbury are sponsoring the Olympics, with London 2012 pushing Britain to use the Games as a chance to become more involved in sport. The companies sponsoring the Games are the opposite of what you would expect - producers of unhealthy foods which do not get you fitter. It's also ironic that the Olympic Park just so happens to have the biggest McDonald's ever built.
A world of sport without sponsorship would be far better than the logo-drenched world our athletes currently occupy, however, the money from sponsors is so crucial, thus making sponsorship of the Olympics (and other sports too) a necessary evil of modern sport. We don't want it, but we need it.
This blog forms part of an Olympics-themed debate on the BBC show 'Free Speech'. You can join in the debate and have your say on:
Twitter: www.twitter.com/BBCFreeSpeech
Facebook: www.facebook.com/BBCFreeSpeech
Or online on the Free Speech website: www.bbc.co.uk/freespeech
There is no better example of this than the Olympics. Big sponsors of London 2012 include the likes of McDonald's, Adidas and Cadbury.
The commercialisation of sport spoils the competition itself. You can't buy a shirt, bag, hat, jumper (or any item to support your team) as everything you buy is covered in the logo of a company. You walk around the streets giving sponsors free advertising every time you publicly support your team, whether it's Team GB or a football team, say Manchester United for example.
Then every time you watch sport, advertising boards are splashed across the side of the arena and various company logos invade your living room. If you watch on a channel other than the BBC, you're bombarded with adverts intertwined with the sport, as various sports men and woman pose in cheesy adverts to show their apparent 'love' of a product - such as a sports drink - when in reality they probably never use it in real life anyway.
Many stories have emerged this week of sponsors flexing their expensive muscle to ensure the dominance of their product. This was illustrated with the tales of chips being banned (unless with eaten with fish) in the Olympic Park, unless they were chips from McDonald's - a main sponsor of the Games.
However, sponsors are key to sport and are growing in importance. The central issue is that many competitors and organisations need money - for example, government funding is being cut for investment in sport, whilst many Premier League clubs are drowning in debt and held to ransom by their own players, who demand extortionate wage levels.
Without sponsors, the quality would not be as high as less money would be available for investment. Additionally, the inclusion of sponsors helps to limit the cost to the average fan - millions spent on sponsoring the Olympics is a positive both in terms of investment and the finances of taxpayers.
Money has often been used as a way to gain power and influence. What is clear is that sponsors contributing more and more money to sport ensures they have more control over who they sponsor - something which must be monitored. LOCOG need to be careful that the sponsors stay 'partners' with the Games and do not take control over it.
It's also questionable that companies such as McDonald's and Cadbury are sponsoring the Olympics, with London 2012 pushing Britain to use the Games as a chance to become more involved in sport. The companies sponsoring the Games are the opposite of what you would expect - producers of unhealthy foods which do not get you fitter. It's also ironic that the Olympic Park just so happens to have the biggest McDonald's ever built.
A world of sport without sponsorship would be far better than the logo-drenched world our athletes currently occupy, however, the money from sponsors is so crucial, thus making sponsorship of the Olympics (and other sports too) a necessary evil of modern sport. We don't want it, but we need it.
This blog forms part of an Olympics-themed debate on the BBC show 'Free Speech'. You can join in the debate and have your say on:
Twitter: www.twitter.com/BBCFreeSpeech
Facebook: www.facebook.com/BBCFreeSpeech
Or online on the Free Speech website: www.bbc.co.uk/freespeech
Thursday, 21 June 2012
The Great Euro Enigma
The Euro is the currency of the European Union, introduced by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and now adopted by 17 of the 27 EU Member States.
It replaced the national currencies for states (encompassing more than 300 million citizens) including Holland, France, Germany, Spain and Portugal in what many saw as an enthusiastic attempt to enhance European integration, and bring the EU closer to a more federalist union as opposed to a supranationalist one. An attempt to 'blur the boundaries of nationalism' if you like, as the EU looked to impose itself further on those signed up to membership of it.
Has the Euro been a success or nothing more than an expensive experiment which has ultimately failed?
I argued several years ago that the Euro was damned to fail and consigned to the metaphorical 'bin' of political concepts and ideologies from the outset. Two years ago, in June 2010, I published a short blog about Greece ('Greece Exposes EU Money Problems') and appear to have been right in my (albeit somewhat brief) predictions. I look upon this within my own area of expertise, politics and law - not economics, as I'm not an economist; however I have given my opinion based upon the knowledge I know. This is a long blog, as this is such a detailed subject, however, I could easily continue on for several thousand words more due to the complexity of what we are here to debate.
The creation of the Euro started off badly enough; with some states so eager to join they manipulated financial statistics in order to attempt to get in as soon as they could. This lack of clarity, truth and plain lying undermined the project from the start.
The greatest flaw I saw with the Euro was the different levels of requirements within Member States. GDP, unemployment, benefit systems, debt and various other needs were so varied that it made it hard to manage. Combine this with having rich and poor states together and development occurring at different times - a 'two-tier Europe' - and you have a recipe for disaster.
If the Euro remained within a small number of states it would be much easier to manage. The more states join the currency, the more complicated these typical state requirements become and therefore the more difficult the currency becomes to manage. Enlargement - forever championed by those desperate to increase the influence of the EU - is ironically the greatest threat and downfall for the Union's own currency. In order to have an effective currency, these levels need to be reflected by each state - if everyone was equal, the Euro could flourish.
When a new Member State joins, it is expected they will adopt the Euro once certain criteria are met. Is this really a useful rule at a time of such economic uncertainty and European turmoil? Surely, the greater enlargement of the EU will only make the Euro harder to manage and more unstable - the last thing anyone wants?! The UK and Denmark negotiating exemptions and Sweden rejecting the currency in a 2003 referendum only serves to undermine the political value to the currency itself.
The bail-out deals for Euro countries are also highly costly and politically toxic. The ECB tries to suck-up the debts like a sponge to a spillage of water (or wine if you prefer that analogy), however only so much can be absorbed before the large and expensive 'ECB sponge' becomes saturated and can take no more. Giving multi-billion Euro bail-outs to states is like sticking a plaster over a wound, yet this plaster won't last forever - as the media continue to speculate with Greece and the possible exit from the currency all together.
The austerity plans introduced as part of the debt-relief are also causing great hardship. Just look at the terms of the agreement for Greece, the economy continues to contract whilst citizens become increasingly frustrated and apathetic towards both the currency and the Union. The protests on the streets show the level of anger directed at Europe's leaders - yet despite the implementation of these measures, debt continues to grow, economies continue to contract, jobless totals continue to rise and apathy amongst citizens towards the EU continues to spread like wild fire.
EU leaders are continuing to stumble over a solution to the problem - all the while the G20 and the global markets are becoming increasingly negative towards the currency. This is not a time for dithering, yet nobody seems to be suggesting any solid plans - other than sniffing around for more bail-out funds and then looking to Germany as if one state has the answer to the great Euro enigma.
Many potential solutions have been suggested, but what frustrates me is how little appears to have become a reality. Politically, to secure the Euro the EU must become a closer union - creating virtually a European superstate. In a Euro-sceptic nation such as the UK, this is a good chance for David Cameron to exploit the political weakness or our neighbours and look to regain some political and legal sovereignty.
There are also many other factors connected with the Euro that have aided the demise of recent times. An interconnected world economy made it impossible to shield Europe from economic collapses abroad, whilst rising government debt levels have been out of control for years. The interconnected nature of Eurozone economies also ensures a 'domino effect' where a Greek default will extend difficulties to other states. There are also clear trade imbalances and structural problems within the EU operation.
In the UK, we are (thankfully!) not part of the Euro. However, our lack of commitment to the currency doesn't mean we escape unharmed from the struggles of our European neighbours. The EU is our biggest exporter; an economic collapse would certainly hit our exports hard, whilst our financial sector would also suffer due to money being invested in struggling countries. What is clear is that the Bank of England and Parliament are completely right to prepare for the consequences of a Euro collapse, just in case.
There are of course arguments that the Euro has been a success. It is the currency of over half the EU, whilst it also has the second highest combined value of banknotes and coins in circulation in the world, even exceeding the Dollar, belonging to (arguably) the largest world superpower - America. The Euro has enabled the EU to cement its place as the second largest economy in the world.
The creation of the ECB, which has sole authority to set monetary policy, has certainly led to a more interconnected and mutually-reliant EU. Additionally, trade and investment has increased since the Euro experiment was born. It must also be remembered that it would be unfair to blame the entire worldwide economy crisis solely on the Eurozone.
Something on the scale of the Euro project had never been attempted before. States accepted the currency by taking a leap in to the unknown, so at least a positive of this is that the political establishment is clearly willing to attempt to reform and update itself alongside current political concepts and ideologies.
The Euro could be deemed a success for pro-Europeans who would claim it has created an 'ever-closer-Union'. However, increasingly, just the sign for the currency is enough to strike fear in to the hearts of the most ardent European supporters. National opinion is more anti-Euro than ever and the financial difficulties are politically (and economically) disastrous, with European leaders being humiliated, and citizens being dragged kicking-and-screaming through austerity measures that have been enforced upon them by the very people in power to prevent such an economic catastrophe occurring in the first place. Once the global economy has stabilised (whenever that will be) it could well mean an end to the currency that so many are desperate to avoid. Is the Euro nothing more than an expensive experiment? Yes, I believe so. The whole Euro operation is nothing more than an enigma - puzzling and difficult to understand, and probably an expensive waste.
It replaced the national currencies for states (encompassing more than 300 million citizens) including Holland, France, Germany, Spain and Portugal in what many saw as an enthusiastic attempt to enhance European integration, and bring the EU closer to a more federalist union as opposed to a supranationalist one. An attempt to 'blur the boundaries of nationalism' if you like, as the EU looked to impose itself further on those signed up to membership of it.
Has the Euro been a success or nothing more than an expensive experiment which has ultimately failed?
I argued several years ago that the Euro was damned to fail and consigned to the metaphorical 'bin' of political concepts and ideologies from the outset. Two years ago, in June 2010, I published a short blog about Greece ('Greece Exposes EU Money Problems') and appear to have been right in my (albeit somewhat brief) predictions. I look upon this within my own area of expertise, politics and law - not economics, as I'm not an economist; however I have given my opinion based upon the knowledge I know. This is a long blog, as this is such a detailed subject, however, I could easily continue on for several thousand words more due to the complexity of what we are here to debate.
The creation of the Euro started off badly enough; with some states so eager to join they manipulated financial statistics in order to attempt to get in as soon as they could. This lack of clarity, truth and plain lying undermined the project from the start.
The greatest flaw I saw with the Euro was the different levels of requirements within Member States. GDP, unemployment, benefit systems, debt and various other needs were so varied that it made it hard to manage. Combine this with having rich and poor states together and development occurring at different times - a 'two-tier Europe' - and you have a recipe for disaster.
If the Euro remained within a small number of states it would be much easier to manage. The more states join the currency, the more complicated these typical state requirements become and therefore the more difficult the currency becomes to manage. Enlargement - forever championed by those desperate to increase the influence of the EU - is ironically the greatest threat and downfall for the Union's own currency. In order to have an effective currency, these levels need to be reflected by each state - if everyone was equal, the Euro could flourish.
When a new Member State joins, it is expected they will adopt the Euro once certain criteria are met. Is this really a useful rule at a time of such economic uncertainty and European turmoil? Surely, the greater enlargement of the EU will only make the Euro harder to manage and more unstable - the last thing anyone wants?! The UK and Denmark negotiating exemptions and Sweden rejecting the currency in a 2003 referendum only serves to undermine the political value to the currency itself.
The bail-out deals for Euro countries are also highly costly and politically toxic. The ECB tries to suck-up the debts like a sponge to a spillage of water (or wine if you prefer that analogy), however only so much can be absorbed before the large and expensive 'ECB sponge' becomes saturated and can take no more. Giving multi-billion Euro bail-outs to states is like sticking a plaster over a wound, yet this plaster won't last forever - as the media continue to speculate with Greece and the possible exit from the currency all together.
The austerity plans introduced as part of the debt-relief are also causing great hardship. Just look at the terms of the agreement for Greece, the economy continues to contract whilst citizens become increasingly frustrated and apathetic towards both the currency and the Union. The protests on the streets show the level of anger directed at Europe's leaders - yet despite the implementation of these measures, debt continues to grow, economies continue to contract, jobless totals continue to rise and apathy amongst citizens towards the EU continues to spread like wild fire.
EU leaders are continuing to stumble over a solution to the problem - all the while the G20 and the global markets are becoming increasingly negative towards the currency. This is not a time for dithering, yet nobody seems to be suggesting any solid plans - other than sniffing around for more bail-out funds and then looking to Germany as if one state has the answer to the great Euro enigma.
Many potential solutions have been suggested, but what frustrates me is how little appears to have become a reality. Politically, to secure the Euro the EU must become a closer union - creating virtually a European superstate. In a Euro-sceptic nation such as the UK, this is a good chance for David Cameron to exploit the political weakness or our neighbours and look to regain some political and legal sovereignty.
There are also many other factors connected with the Euro that have aided the demise of recent times. An interconnected world economy made it impossible to shield Europe from economic collapses abroad, whilst rising government debt levels have been out of control for years. The interconnected nature of Eurozone economies also ensures a 'domino effect' where a Greek default will extend difficulties to other states. There are also clear trade imbalances and structural problems within the EU operation.
In the UK, we are (thankfully!) not part of the Euro. However, our lack of commitment to the currency doesn't mean we escape unharmed from the struggles of our European neighbours. The EU is our biggest exporter; an economic collapse would certainly hit our exports hard, whilst our financial sector would also suffer due to money being invested in struggling countries. What is clear is that the Bank of England and Parliament are completely right to prepare for the consequences of a Euro collapse, just in case.
There are of course arguments that the Euro has been a success. It is the currency of over half the EU, whilst it also has the second highest combined value of banknotes and coins in circulation in the world, even exceeding the Dollar, belonging to (arguably) the largest world superpower - America. The Euro has enabled the EU to cement its place as the second largest economy in the world.
The creation of the ECB, which has sole authority to set monetary policy, has certainly led to a more interconnected and mutually-reliant EU. Additionally, trade and investment has increased since the Euro experiment was born. It must also be remembered that it would be unfair to blame the entire worldwide economy crisis solely on the Eurozone.
Something on the scale of the Euro project had never been attempted before. States accepted the currency by taking a leap in to the unknown, so at least a positive of this is that the political establishment is clearly willing to attempt to reform and update itself alongside current political concepts and ideologies.
The Euro could be deemed a success for pro-Europeans who would claim it has created an 'ever-closer-Union'. However, increasingly, just the sign for the currency is enough to strike fear in to the hearts of the most ardent European supporters. National opinion is more anti-Euro than ever and the financial difficulties are politically (and economically) disastrous, with European leaders being humiliated, and citizens being dragged kicking-and-screaming through austerity measures that have been enforced upon them by the very people in power to prevent such an economic catastrophe occurring in the first place. Once the global economy has stabilised (whenever that will be) it could well mean an end to the currency that so many are desperate to avoid. Is the Euro nothing more than an expensive experiment? Yes, I believe so. The whole Euro operation is nothing more than an enigma - puzzling and difficult to understand, and probably an expensive waste.
Thursday, 24 May 2012
Drugs: legal or illegal? That is the question...
Have we now reached a time when the legalisation of drugs would be deemed both beneficial and productive to the running of our society?
For as long as anyone can remember, it has been illegal to take various drugs. Nowadays, more than ever, there is increasing support for the drugs that are currently banned from society to be legalised and regulated.
I believe the legalisation of drugs is wrong. They are illegal for a reason - the substances are harmful to us. The fact that drugs are illegal is not because the law-makers with all the power wish to deprive addicts of their favourite drug-taking past-time, it's because the Law steps in to do exactly what it is there for - to protect.
Drugs are illegal to protect society from the consequences of substance abuse. I'm sure the majority of people wouldn't get involved drugs even if they were legal because most of us understand the consequences of addiction and the harm that drugs can do to your body.
If drugs became more widely available they would most certainly need very strict laws to monitor and control the use and availability of them. How the law would develop and the powers of the government to control them would obviously be a huge and difficult debate to work through.
Young people are already surrounded by references to drug use, with drugs featuring in films, song lyrics, music videos and images of celebrities 'exposed' by newspapers on the front pages of the tabloids. The battle against drug abuse isn't helped by the actions of many celebrities that young people look to as role models.
There are however arguments for making drugs legal. You often hear the term 'right' banded around as people claim that it is their right to take drugs should they wish to, to be fair to them, if we do live in a (supposedly) truly democratic and free society, to an extent they are correct. I tend to think that if drugs were legalised, it would send the wrong message to young people and only encourage people to take substances. Many people who do involve themselves with drugs do so sensibly and monitor their intake, however, for many others this wouldn't be the case - I fear deregulating drug use will 'legally' allow addiction to spread.
The argument could be made that having drugs more freely and legally available would kill off the illegal drugs markets that have emerged both in the UK and abroad, causing severe damage to violent criminal gangs across the world. Nobody would argue that an end to drugs-related violence is a bad thing.
The biggest debate is between punishment and rehabilitation. Is a drug addict a criminal or a victim? Do they need to be punished or do they need to be helped? Drugs addicts should be punished as everyone knows the law - there is no excuse of 'I didn't know it was wrong' or 'I didn't know it was illegal'. You could argue that it was their own choice to take drugs, so it is their own problem to deal with the consequences. Why should society and the NHS pay for others self-inflicted addictions? However, I do think addicts need to be helped - you need help to fight addictions and the government has a responsibility to help anyone who needs them. Sorting addiction problems before they spiral out of control could ultimately save money for the NHS in the long run, as well as save lives. We must strike a balance between the two, punish people for what they have done wrong, but help them to ensure it never happens again.
If we begin to reform drugs laws, should we then move on to reform other addictive substances such as alcohol and cigarettes? Drugs are addictive, but there are many other addictive substances within society that also have a negative effect on our bodies.
Should drugs be legalised? No, I don't believe so. But I also think addicts need proper help and support to overcome their issues. Getting the correct balance between punishment and rehabilitation is the key.
This blog follows the debate on Free Speech, the BBC show designed to give young people a voice. If you're interested in joining in the debate, you can have your say on:
Twitter: www.bbc.co.uk/freespeech
Facebook: www.facebook.com/BBCFreeSpeech
Or online on the BBC website: www.bbc.co.uk/freespeech
For as long as anyone can remember, it has been illegal to take various drugs. Nowadays, more than ever, there is increasing support for the drugs that are currently banned from society to be legalised and regulated.
I believe the legalisation of drugs is wrong. They are illegal for a reason - the substances are harmful to us. The fact that drugs are illegal is not because the law-makers with all the power wish to deprive addicts of their favourite drug-taking past-time, it's because the Law steps in to do exactly what it is there for - to protect.
Drugs are illegal to protect society from the consequences of substance abuse. I'm sure the majority of people wouldn't get involved drugs even if they were legal because most of us understand the consequences of addiction and the harm that drugs can do to your body.
If drugs became more widely available they would most certainly need very strict laws to monitor and control the use and availability of them. How the law would develop and the powers of the government to control them would obviously be a huge and difficult debate to work through.
Young people are already surrounded by references to drug use, with drugs featuring in films, song lyrics, music videos and images of celebrities 'exposed' by newspapers on the front pages of the tabloids. The battle against drug abuse isn't helped by the actions of many celebrities that young people look to as role models.
There are however arguments for making drugs legal. You often hear the term 'right' banded around as people claim that it is their right to take drugs should they wish to, to be fair to them, if we do live in a (supposedly) truly democratic and free society, to an extent they are correct. I tend to think that if drugs were legalised, it would send the wrong message to young people and only encourage people to take substances. Many people who do involve themselves with drugs do so sensibly and monitor their intake, however, for many others this wouldn't be the case - I fear deregulating drug use will 'legally' allow addiction to spread.
The argument could be made that having drugs more freely and legally available would kill off the illegal drugs markets that have emerged both in the UK and abroad, causing severe damage to violent criminal gangs across the world. Nobody would argue that an end to drugs-related violence is a bad thing.
The biggest debate is between punishment and rehabilitation. Is a drug addict a criminal or a victim? Do they need to be punished or do they need to be helped? Drugs addicts should be punished as everyone knows the law - there is no excuse of 'I didn't know it was wrong' or 'I didn't know it was illegal'. You could argue that it was their own choice to take drugs, so it is their own problem to deal with the consequences. Why should society and the NHS pay for others self-inflicted addictions? However, I do think addicts need to be helped - you need help to fight addictions and the government has a responsibility to help anyone who needs them. Sorting addiction problems before they spiral out of control could ultimately save money for the NHS in the long run, as well as save lives. We must strike a balance between the two, punish people for what they have done wrong, but help them to ensure it never happens again.
If we begin to reform drugs laws, should we then move on to reform other addictive substances such as alcohol and cigarettes? Drugs are addictive, but there are many other addictive substances within society that also have a negative effect on our bodies.
Should drugs be legalised? No, I don't believe so. But I also think addicts need proper help and support to overcome their issues. Getting the correct balance between punishment and rehabilitation is the key.
This blog follows the debate on Free Speech, the BBC show designed to give young people a voice. If you're interested in joining in the debate, you can have your say on:
Twitter: www.bbc.co.uk/freespeech
Facebook: www.facebook.com/BBCFreeSpeech
Or online on the BBC website: www.bbc.co.uk/freespeech
Friday, 20 April 2012
Should a criminal be punished or educated?
For years politicians have argued over the punishments criminals receive and the education that each offender receives during and after their time behind bars.
Should a criminal be punished? Yes, they should. Nobody in society would deny that criminals deserve to be punished for their actions. The strength of punishment handed down to offenders should reflect the offence(s) they have committed.
Punishment is a key part of the criminal justice system. To see punishment as 'revenge' for the victim would be wrong, rather it should be seen as 'justice' for those innocent people who have been somehow wronged by the inappropriate and criminal actions of another.
There will always be people who will claim prison is a last resort as we begin to run out of prison places. 88,000 offenders were behind bars in 2011, with only around 1,000 open places left. However, I'm sure that most taxpayers would rather have dangerous criminals in jail than walking past them in the street.
I've always been puzzled by the term 'life' sentence. Often people make the mistake of assuming 'life' means jail for the rest of your lifetime, yet this is not the case. Many criminals given 'life' sentences are released in their lifetime. The government should ensure criminals locked away under life sentences for the worst crimes (such as murder) are kept out of society for the rest of their days.
Can educating a criminal be a better form of rehabilitation than punishment? Or can punishment and education be intertwined to try and reduce reoffending?
I don't believe education is any substitute for punishment, all criminals should be punished to some extent for the crimes they commit. However, I do believe education can play a crucial role in ensuring criminals don't reoffend and also understand the consequences of their own wrongdoing.
82% of offenders have a writing ability lower than that of an average eleven year old. Does this mean that a reason for offending is that criminals have been let down by the education system? There are many critics who would argue this is the case and suggest ideas for reforming our schools. I'd argue you could incorporate offending and prisons in to the curriculum, but it would be wrong to reform the education system to look on young people as 'future offenders', rather it must show children how criminality can hamper their future potential and any success they may go on to achieve in their lives.
Crime has fallen in recent years, with youth offences down 11%. This is a positive, yet these statistics are rarely highlighted in the media who always opt for the horror stories of crimes as opposed to the work currently being done to target those who do not follow the Law.
We could even look beyond education and punishment to the wider society. With three-quarters of offenders receiving benefits, could we reform the benefits system to ensure than having benefits is seen as a help or privilege more than (as some see it) some kind of 'right' or 'entitlement'? Should criminals lose their benefits or would this only lead to an increase in reoffending? More schemes to get reformed offenders back to work would surely help to give them both an education and a purpose for their future, as well as get them back in to the working side of society.
Some suggest we could create more prison places by deporting foreign nationals (with 13% of current inmates coming from abroad) at the end of their jail sentences. The government could always increase funding to the NHS to help the 70% of people currently in jail who suffer from two or more mental disorders. The Home Office could also ask the government to reverse the budget cuts to lose 16,000 police officers if it wished to do so.
So, should a criminal be punished? Yes. Should a criminal be educated? Yes. I believe to get the best out of the prison system both punishment and education must be used together as one cannot function properly without the other. There is no point in educating people, yet allowing them to walk free from punishment. Likewise, there is little point punishing prisoners and then freeing them with no education - leaving them on the fringes of society. The best way to deal with a criminal is to rightly punish them for their crime, then educate them on the consequences and rehabilitate them effectively to ensure they can build a future for themselves.
This blog post forms part of the debate for the BBC show 'Free Speech'. The statistics used here can be seen in a very handy (and snazzy!) YouTube video. You can also get involved with the debate on Facebook (www.facebook.com/BBCFreeSpeech) and have your say on Twitter (www.twitter.com/BBCFreeSpeech). More information about the programme is available online on the BBC website -www.bbc.co.uk/freespeech - there's loads of extra content there too!
Should a criminal be punished? Yes, they should. Nobody in society would deny that criminals deserve to be punished for their actions. The strength of punishment handed down to offenders should reflect the offence(s) they have committed.
Punishment is a key part of the criminal justice system. To see punishment as 'revenge' for the victim would be wrong, rather it should be seen as 'justice' for those innocent people who have been somehow wronged by the inappropriate and criminal actions of another.
There will always be people who will claim prison is a last resort as we begin to run out of prison places. 88,000 offenders were behind bars in 2011, with only around 1,000 open places left. However, I'm sure that most taxpayers would rather have dangerous criminals in jail than walking past them in the street.
I've always been puzzled by the term 'life' sentence. Often people make the mistake of assuming 'life' means jail for the rest of your lifetime, yet this is not the case. Many criminals given 'life' sentences are released in their lifetime. The government should ensure criminals locked away under life sentences for the worst crimes (such as murder) are kept out of society for the rest of their days.
Can educating a criminal be a better form of rehabilitation than punishment? Or can punishment and education be intertwined to try and reduce reoffending?
I don't believe education is any substitute for punishment, all criminals should be punished to some extent for the crimes they commit. However, I do believe education can play a crucial role in ensuring criminals don't reoffend and also understand the consequences of their own wrongdoing.
82% of offenders have a writing ability lower than that of an average eleven year old. Does this mean that a reason for offending is that criminals have been let down by the education system? There are many critics who would argue this is the case and suggest ideas for reforming our schools. I'd argue you could incorporate offending and prisons in to the curriculum, but it would be wrong to reform the education system to look on young people as 'future offenders', rather it must show children how criminality can hamper their future potential and any success they may go on to achieve in their lives.
Crime has fallen in recent years, with youth offences down 11%. This is a positive, yet these statistics are rarely highlighted in the media who always opt for the horror stories of crimes as opposed to the work currently being done to target those who do not follow the Law.
We could even look beyond education and punishment to the wider society. With three-quarters of offenders receiving benefits, could we reform the benefits system to ensure than having benefits is seen as a help or privilege more than (as some see it) some kind of 'right' or 'entitlement'? Should criminals lose their benefits or would this only lead to an increase in reoffending? More schemes to get reformed offenders back to work would surely help to give them both an education and a purpose for their future, as well as get them back in to the working side of society.
Some suggest we could create more prison places by deporting foreign nationals (with 13% of current inmates coming from abroad) at the end of their jail sentences. The government could always increase funding to the NHS to help the 70% of people currently in jail who suffer from two or more mental disorders. The Home Office could also ask the government to reverse the budget cuts to lose 16,000 police officers if it wished to do so.
So, should a criminal be punished? Yes. Should a criminal be educated? Yes. I believe to get the best out of the prison system both punishment and education must be used together as one cannot function properly without the other. There is no point in educating people, yet allowing them to walk free from punishment. Likewise, there is little point punishing prisoners and then freeing them with no education - leaving them on the fringes of society. The best way to deal with a criminal is to rightly punish them for their crime, then educate them on the consequences and rehabilitate them effectively to ensure they can build a future for themselves.
This blog post forms part of the debate for the BBC show 'Free Speech'. The statistics used here can be seen in a very handy (and snazzy!) YouTube video. You can also get involved with the debate on Facebook (www.facebook.com/BBCFreeSpeech) and have your say on Twitter (www.twitter.com/BBCFreeSpeech). More information about the programme is available online on the BBC website -www.bbc.co.uk/freespeech - there's loads of extra content there too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)