Ghost Wards

Hospitals are mothballing scores of wards, blocking them to patients despite the NHS’s continuing beds crisis and at the last tally in September 82 ghost wards were shown containing 1,429 vacant beds, the equivalent of two complete hospitals.

It draws a clear development on the 32 wards and 502 beds that were unused four years earlier.

The closures, frequently a consequence of hospitals not having enough personnel or the funds to keep wards open, have happened at a time when the health service is under unusual pressure and fighting to cope with the demand for beds.

Doctors’ managers responded with disbelief to the revelations, and this came after the NHS was facing its worst winter for numerous years and when many hospitals ran out of beds.

Given the demands on the entire system, which imply the NHS was 5,000 beds short of what is required, the situation was astounding and is virtually always caused by not having enough funds or personnel.

This winter there was a widespread alarm that the NHS’s management of continually cutting beds had gone too far, with A&E units full of patients on trolleys and people being looked after by paramedics in ambulances.

Bed occupation ran at 95 percent for much of December, January and February far beyond the 85 percent safe level as flu, cold weather and breathing difficulties led to unusual amounts of patients being admitted as medical emergencies.

Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, who received the figures, necessitated that ministers examine why so many hospitals are using a method that he called a scandal.

Doctors predicted that the winter pressure was expected to grow into the summer and now research exposes the amount to which beds that could be used to attend suffering patients have been locked away and Tory ministers have allowed 14,500 beds to be trimmed from the NHS in the past eight years.

Wards have been left vacant and available and it’s a disgrace and ministers should be ensuring beds are used at this time of emergency for the NHS.

Continuing deficiencies of nurses and doctors and the NHS funds squeeze are forcing hospitals to shut beds and these conclusions will not startle any clinical workers in the NHS.

It shows problems around staffing hospitals reliably and in any comparison the greatest expense is personnel.

In years and years of attempting to balance books and realise efficiency savings, numerous hospitals will have taken the chances to close clinical domains if they at all can.


North Tees and Hartlepool NHS foundation trust stated a shortage of doctors and nurses determined it had nine wards containing 270 beds lying vacant in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, the greatest number in England.

Overall 92.7 percent of its beds were filled last winter, well preceding the 85 percent level that health authorities and A&E doctors think is needed to decrease hospital-acquired infections and guarantee great care.

Last September one of its nine wards had been mothballed for 1,460 days, four years.

In 2013, the trust implemented its transformational strategy which involved optimising the use of space in our hospitals to better patient pathways and as a consequence, it transferred a balance of inpatient activity from University Hospital of Hartlepool to University Hospital of North Tees.

As with numerous NHS trusts, the deficit of professional medical personnel to fulfil openings and the unwillingness to negotiate on patient safety meant that it felt this was the correct judgment to make.

Severe bed deficiencies this winter pushed NHS trusts to open up an approximated 4,000 escalation, extra beds, to help them cope, but staffing them proved challenging and multiple trusts had to hire high-priced agency employees to look after patients.

At a time when patients are facing unacceptably long waits to be examined and the affront of being treated in hospital hallways, it is illogical for hospitals to have additional beds available but also unavailable because they have been taken out of use and it is essential to look at why these aren’t being used when the NHS is under such tension.

Funding and staffing restrictions mean it isn’t always feasible to keep beds open and this is far from perfect given the NHS has at times been running at full capacity, with some patients left idling longer than they should for treatment given the shortage of accessible beds.


The NHS’s beds dilemma was highlighted when the IT manager Martyn Wells reported that he was put on a trolley in a windowless hospital store cupboard in Birmingham to recover following an operation to tackle a stage four malignant melanoma cancer that had spread to his stomach.

The Department of Health and Social Care stated: “It is misleading to say hospital beds are being mothballed – trusts control the number of beds to meet demand and that’s why they were able to open 3,000 more at peak periods this winter.”

One moment we’re being told the problem is that there are no beds, then we’re being told there is not enough staff, there appears to be a deficit of organisation here, so what does the simpering Jeremy Hunt say about that? He will probably rent them out to patients.

If all these beds are available, then why are people being told that they have to remain in hallways for hours before they get to see a doctor, this doesn’t make any sense at all.

We don’t appear to have money for beds and to pay staff, but we have the funds for combat. This is feckless behaviour on the part of our government and there appears to be frugality where the NHS is concerned but when it comes to funding the war effort they’re pretty thrifty.

They would sell our souls if they could get away with it because they appear to have an infinite wealth of funds when they want it but not for the stuff that truly matters.

I’m not a romanticist but there are some things I am passionate about and that’s keeping our NHS intact. The government are corrupt and singularly occupied in making a buck or two and it’s okay wanting to line your pocket, so long as it doesn’t affect sick and deteriorating patients.

When you muck up a service with cuts and no salary increases it becomes a surprisingly unproductive service.

There are loads of locution from the government about privatising the NHS so that they can revamp the service to make it sound but it won’t make it sound. It’s like putting the service into rehab in the dream that they can make it better but like everything else, it will run well for a while and then it will sink and petrify into the service it was before.

However, if the government financed the NHS correctly so that they could pay their workers correctly and hire the relevant quantity of workers, it’s not rocket science. The government must do the right thing and not palm the NHS off, slice it up and auction it off the highest bidder so they don’t have the burden of it anymore.

The NHS is one of the greatest institutions, it’s talked about all over the globe. People rave about how great it is, all over the globe and it is a great institution if the government put enough energy into it. Sadly, the government are disconnected from anything kind-hearted and they have no unconditional regard for the people of this country.

My father used to maintain that there’s a little bit of good in everybody, even killers and you simply have to free yourself to see it, well I’m still looking with regards to our government but I’m powerless to recognise anything great about them and the only thing that has evolved from them is a culture of whimsicality, indulgence and peculiarity.

Then there are the staffing jobs in the thousands, government ineptitude in suspending salary for years, failure to recruit and hire doctors and nurses and chasing EU workers out of the NHS via the Brexit mood and we contribute less to healthcare than most of the developed world.

As a portion of GDP, the United Kingdom used less on healthcare than the USA, Japan, France and Germany and a comparable rate to Canada. The USA used the most on healthcare at a rate of GDP at 16.6 percent.

Our government seems to have no empathy and they’re indifferent to people that are not like them. They’re only understanding when they’re in their own class of people. Other than that, they’re cruel and uncaring.

They have this hardness of heart and there is no reachability and there is no decency in their heart, it’s almost as if they’re an advocator of supremacy.



















The Home Office Wants To Deport Me

Dr Luke Ong was five months away from becoming a GP when he made a single mistake with his application to remain in the United Kingdom. A year ago he had a steady job working as a trainee GP in Greater Manchester and was scheduled to pass in February this year. He was in a relationship, had his own vehicle and everything was excellent.

Yet for the last eight months, it has been a living purgatory and his problems started towards the close of last year when he applied for indefinite permission to live in the United Kingdom.

He is from Singapore and was five months away from qualifying as a GP and had studied medicine at Manchester University, starting as a doctor in the NHS in 2012.

He scheduled an appointment and paid for it before his visa ran out. He thought everything was fine but in fact, the application is made when you attend the appointment, by which time his visa had been invalid for 18 days.

He was denied residency for that reason, and since then it’s been a struggle to change the ruling and an immigration judge ruled that it would not be proportionate to remove him, but the Home Office lodged an appeal.

His lawyer told him it is reviewing his initial application.


Everything flies in the face of common sense. NHS England is paying £100 million to recruitment agencies to get GPs to work in England and here he is, five months away from becoming a GP, and he’s being kicked out.

In the meantime, demand in the NHS is rising and falling.

He hasn’t been permitted to work since the first appointment and when he was told, his first thought was about all the patients he had scheduled for the coming week and who was going to see them.

He’s not allowed benefits so he’s been living off his savings and aid from his parents.

His mental health has declined and there have been days when he’s woken at 5 am, his heart racing, and thinking about what he should do, or whether they’re going to deport him or be detained. All of this has been constantly on his mind.

It put a lot of pressure on his relationship, which has now ended, partly because of the pressure he’s under.

Everything has ground to a standstill and it takes a lot to be resilient and for him to say that he’s going to carry on regardless of what happens.

If he can’t complete his training, everything will have been for nothing and he would have to go to another country, Singapore or Australia and start over again as a trainee.

He has loved the UK since he visited as a boy and when it came to university, his mind was set on the United Kingdom.

He took general practice because he liked having the opportunity to sit with patients and build up a connection.

It’s always nice to see what happens to them.

He can remember learning about the NHS at school in Singapore. It’s this huge system that takes care of you from when you’re born to your very last days.

You always have to pay something for healthcare in Singapore and the NHS is astounding and it’s unthinkable for other nations to have a method that gives you what you need when you need it.

And he’s so happy to have worked for it.

He feels he has a personal debt to the NHS. It has invested in him and it costs hundreds of thousands of pounds to train a GP from medical school through to qualification.

Some of that he paid for, but he’s immensely thankful and he actually wants to be able to give back to the NHS.


If you’ve ever been at the receiving end of the Home Office pen pushers, you couldn’t make up this stuff that happens and the left hand never knows what the right hand is doing.

Nobody knows how to use their brains and they treat people with limited regard and dignity, try reading their convoluted guidance for applications and this should be sorted so that it doesn’t have a long-term impression on his fate personally or professionally.

The home office is vile and we, as a country, are culpable for standing by and letting this authoritarian government get away with it and this man has devoted more to British society than some who were born here have.


In the meantime, Jeremy Hunt’s simple administrative error ends in a slap on the wrist and a public acknowledgement waives off everything.

This whole position is being replicated over and over again and is sick and the government should be ashamed of what they’re doing. There are some really obnoxious characters living in this country, they’re called the wealthy Tory patrons.

He has been in this country for a long time, he has paid his taxes like everybody that works and still, they can’t give him license to stay.


It’s time for the Head of the Commonwealth i.e. Queen Elizabeth II to intercede, after all, Singapore is part of the Commonwealth and he is a doctor, already giving back into the United Kingdom and deserves to stay.

Any blunder he has made was an honest one.

This should make people really cross, he has struggled so hard to get where he is and to give to a country that is not even his own, whereas there are many people from other nations who fraudulently make matrimonies to just get a visa to live in the United Kingdom.

Once they have that visa, they stay with their spouse for perhaps a year or so, they necessitate a divorce and are home and dry, immigration won’t touch them and they can stay even though the union ended.

He attempted to get a date before his visa ran out but the first possible time was after that and it shouldn’t matter what profession or occupation that person is in, anyone who has been here for that long and is making a contribution should be given proper consideration, so why can’t the Home Office use a little common sense?

Maybe he should have put his application in a little earlier to avoid all of this tension but the Home Office must take a more common sense approach as we are all inclined to neglect stuff, particularly being a doctor and working extremely long hours, after all, he was a doctor who was adding to society.

This is yet another unfortunate blunder by the Home Office. Who is dealing with this situation, whoever they are, they’re utterly inept and shouldn’t we have workers at the Home Office who can actually do their job correctly?

Makes you actually question what kind of people govern the United Kingdom and some of us are questioning what the hades are going on? Common sense and propriety went out the window in support of red tape.

This is total insanity and what a disgraceful misuse of resources to deport someone who wants to work in this country and has made a life for himself here and who has invested so much in our NHS, where is the common sense?

This is what normally occurs when the all-powerful and all-knowing single people out. These people are ruthless and it does become a living hell, but we see that in many other nations where civilians are brutally misrepresented.

The time and money it took to train this doctor are enormous and the Home Office wants to get rid of him, which is quite odd, some might believe, but it’s not, they actually don’t mind how much money it necessitated, they want him out because they have to make a stand.

The reason the Home Office has to make a stand is that they keep going on about how many immigrants are being allowed into our country, therefore if they make a big argument of this, people will then believe they’re doing something about it.

Nevertheless, removing one person does not eliminate all that should not be here, particularly those that come into the United Kingdom, sit on their backsides and do nothing, yet the government are prepared to give them houses and money for doing nothing at all.

This guy has strived really hard and they want to make him a scapegoat. One would have assumed that the nincompoops who keep shooting themselves in the foot would realise they will require a doctor.

But this is how we’re supposed to attract professionals to work in the NHS or any professional sector in the United Kingdom. Following this debacle, no one from overseas will want to come and train here again because they’ll be worried that they will be deported after.

Well done to our government and the abuse on immigration who I can see ultimately lettering their own eulogy which is weird indeed, seeing as they have simply addressed this poor man’s notice to maybe leave the country.

This is hellbound for the necropolis because the magnifications of their efforts will be the Home Office’s deterioration if they deport this man for simply doing his job. They can transport him back off to his country of origin but the stigma will still remain here in England.

Will that stigma wear off in time, I pretty much suspect not. Our relationships with other nations are already extremely tense and our government is not lily-white and virginal at all and it only takes one huge mistake by them to exhaust some of the ideas that the people of the United Kingdom have of them, which isn’t really much and this disaster will simply put them at the bottom of the league table.

This is an application of the law without any common sense, which is really damaging and corrupt.

What is wrong with the Home Office? They’re endangering peoples livelihood, have they nothing better to do with their time but to agitate peoples lives, people who are serving and giving to the United Kingdom and they still want to suck the blood from peoples body like blood-sucking zombies.





Synthetic Marijuana Approved

The Drug Enforcement Administration DEA has now announced that the same producer of the ill-famed fentanyl has created an artificial marijuana product they believe more medically valuable and reliable than real cannabis.

The announcement was made a few weeks ago in the Federal Register by the DEA that the drug Syndros, a liquid form of manufactured THC, will now be listed as a schedule 2 regulated substance, which implies it can be legally prescribed by doctors.

In the meantime, natural marijuana continues to be classified right beside heroin among Schedule 1 regulated substances. This classification is kept for drugs that have no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.

Other drugs that have proven time and time again to hold curative benefit appear to be held in this category as well, even though some things are improving.

Because the Food and Drug Administration FDA has cleared Syndros for approval, it will be hitting the market shortly. Syndros is made by Insys Therapeutics, an Arizona-based pharmaceutical firm that has been cited of using dishonest marketing methods to market Subysys, a spray form of the very powerful artificial opioid fentynal, which has been recommended by the FDA for treatment of pain from cancer.


Some top Insys officials, such as John Kapoor, the company’s billionaire originator, have been detained and charged with bribing doctors and deceiving insurance companies. Insys and its past leaders are also facing numerous prosecutions from states and individuals for supposedly triggering America’s opioid crisis and now they are seeking to take over the good old homegrown pot.

John Kapoor has pleaded not guilty and dismissed any and all wrongdoing. After being detained, he was freed on a $1 million bail.


Evidently, the launch of Syndros is a pivotal milestone for the company. Syndros is pretty comparable to Marinol, another manufactured THC product that was previously recommended by the FDA to manage anorexia induced by aids and cancer.

THC is the chief psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. It’s what creates the user to feel high and frequently enhances hunger. However, if THC has medicinal advantages, why do we need to make an artificial variant of it in order to treat people?

The explanation is obvious because you can’t patent cannabis and profit from it.

Syndros was awarded preliminary Schedule 2 standing and was placed alongside Oxycontin, Percocet, cocaine, methamphetamine and other drugs also thought to contain some medicinal advantage but have a high potential for abuse.

The DEA addressed criticisms from people who are averse to making artificial products Schedule 2 while retaining marijuana Schedule 1. The two commenters verbalized concern that pharmaceutical firms are making a profit from legalised drugs comprising marijuana components.

The DEA notes that FDA-approved products of oral suspensions comprising dronabinol [THC] have an accepted medical use, whereas marijuana does not have an accepted medical use and consequently remains in Schedule 1.

This is clearly a sell-out, as there have been numerous reports of adverse reactions coming from the use of manufactured THC products. We all know that just because something has to be medically prescribed by a doctor by no means that it is trustworthy or will be kept out of the hands of children.

With enough information, people will see through this deception and cannabis will come one step nearer to becoming legal across the whole nation, and ultimately across the globe. Cannabis is a flower and has various well-documented uses for healing.


Both THC and CBD have already helped millions suffering from a broad spectrum of infirmities. The only reason cannabis remains banned is that it cannot be licensed or controlled and consequently it cannot be capitalised on.

There are numerous reports about the marvellous healing potential of cannabis. The problem is we live in such a dishonest and money greedy nation that will authorise the use of things that are known to cause cancer and/or death sooner than approve something that has been known to heal, it’s all about the all-powerful dollar.

Sadly, gluttony is a serious sin. It will overwhelm the very essence of the human soul and there’s something dangerously wrong at the moment, although, most countries suck as well and we should take care when it comes to insane fruit loop governing and it’s like watching Rome fall apart, but with Wi-fi.

If they approved it, it would put large pharmaceutical firms out of the game and lose billions as well as the lobbyists. It’s bureaucracy at its finest and they want us to get sick so the pharmaceutical business can make more money.

Most approved medicines have loads of side effects but here they are producing artificial medications every day but if we give them enough rope, ultimately they will hang themselves because these people who are simply human beings end up making inept blunders in the end.

They manipulate the people into thinking that what they dish out is the best for us. I questioned my GP once, does this medicine have any side effects, he stated they all have side effects of one sort or another. Therefore, I’m now thinking do I take the medicine or don’t I?

Well, the response is, I have to take it if I want to get rid of what I’m taking it for but whilst taking it I’m now putting something else bad into my body that I never had before which I then have to go back to my GP and get some other medication to get rid of that and then I take that medication that gives me something else, hence we go round on this wheel of medication that does nothing, but makes us sicker.

Furthermore, unless your child has had no infancy sicknesses and did not need to be medicated for whatever reason, the pharmaceutical firms have been making our kids unhealthy from day one, beginning with the shots they give to our children during infancy.

They approved the synthetic to make people ill so we have to buy more medications from big pharma. Do you all see what is happening now? Or when people get sick from it they can maintain how dangerous marijuana is.

Welcome to the land of the enslaved and home of the sheep.

The possibility of dying from marijuana alone is remarkably remote, even though marijuana use can lead to death because of the activities people engage in when high and research conducted in California comprising 65,177 men and women aged 15-49 found following 10 years, marijuana users died no sooner than those who did not smoke it.

Another study looked at 45,450 Swedish army recruits aged 18-20 and found following 15 years, both users and nonusers had a comparable life expectancy and according to a 1988 decision from the U.S a Drug Enforcement Administration, a marijuana smoker would have consumed 20,000 to 40,000 times the quantity of THC in a joint in order to risk dying.

A 2009 study in American Scientist on the comparative toxicity of recreational drugs indicated one would have to use more than 1,000 times the effective dosage of marijuana in order for it to be possibly fatal, not even a certain death.

Marijuana may not be dangerous like other drugs, but it can affect physical and mental health. Health consequences of marijuana misuse include a chronic cough and recurrent respiratory infections.

Mental and cognitive problems, including difficulties with learning and retention, hallucinations, anxiety, panic attacks and psychosis, particularly in juvenility and a 2012 study indicated people who smoked marijuana before age 17 were 3.5 times more inclined to attempt suicide than those who began smoking marijuana later in life.

Those reliant on marijuana had a greater chance of experiencing extreme depression and self-destructive thoughts and responses and subsequent investigation published in 2014 indicated regular teenage users were 18 times more prone to become reliant on marijuana, seven times more prone to attempt suicide and eight times more prone to use other illicit drugs in the future.

A German investigation published in Forensic Science International in February 2014 is the first known documented instance of somebody dying from marijuana use alone, other than car accidents in which marijuana was involved, or polydrug usage.

Other investigation on marijuana mortality researchers discovered the drug was to blame in two separate incidents out of 15 investigated, in two apparently healthy people, aged 23 and 28.

Post-mortems showed the younger man had a severe undetected heart problem, suggesting people with cardiovascular problems should be conscious of marijuana risks, and the older man had a history of alcohol and drug use.

Supposedly, these are the first instances of suspected fatal cannabis intoxications where complete post-mortem examinations were carried out and following the elimination of other causes of mortality it was thought that the young men endured fatal cardiovascular complexities provoked by smoking cannabis.

In late January 2014, British media reported the unfortunate demise of a 31-year-old mother of three named Gemma Moss, who reportedly died as a result of cannabis poisoning but medical science was doubtful that marijuana was the reason of death.


Gemma Moss was reportedly a pot smoker for numerous years but had ceased using two years before her death, but had recently begun smoking just half a joint at night to help her fall asleep.

Even though no organ impairment was discovered throughout her post-mortem, medical examiners proposed she may have undergone cardiac arrest triggered by what they considered moderate to high levels of the drug in her system.


There’s been no history of any confirmed reports of a death from cannabis ever. Dr Alan Shackelford is a high-profile, Harvard-trained Colorado physician who assesses people for medical marijuana medicines and he challenged the medical examiner’s judgment when questioned about the incident.

Cannabis can cause an exaggerated heart rate, and there’s a likelihood that it could create a problem with someone with a pre-existing heart disease, for example, somebody with a raised heart rate but there’s no known measure of cannabis that could kill an individual.

Generally referred to as artificial marijuana, artificial cannabinoids for example spice, K2 and kush are sadly sold as reliable options to real marijuana. They include an increasing amount of manmade mind-altering substances either sprayed on dried, shredded plant matter to be smoked (herbal incense) or vaporised and inhaled in e-cigarettes and other methods (liquid incense).

More than 150 distinct kinds of artificial marijuana composites currently exist and chemical tests reveal the active, mind-altering components are cannabinoid composites made in laboratories.

They may alter the brain far more severely than marijuana and the real consequences can be variable, critical and even life-threatening.

To date, numbers of people across the United States have overdosed on artificial cannabis and 20 deaths have been associated with its use and large overdose explosions created by faulty quantities of artificial cannabis led to almost 70 people being hospitalised over a brief period in June through July 2016.


On June 23, 16 people in Houston’s Hermann Park overdosed on K2 and were hospitalised and on July 12, 33 people in a particular neighbourhood in Brooklyn, New York, were suspected of overdosing on K2.

Several weeks following the Brooklyn incident, 20 people in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, were treated for Kush overdoses in a two-day stretch. Kush is unlike heroin, where people overdose and usually die quickly.

People on Kush roam into traffic, have fits or strokes not easily traced back to the drug or are left paralyzed and fighting for their lives.


Emily Bauer, a teenage girl in suburban Houston, suffered five strokes linked to her 2013 overdose. Doctors said 70 percent of her brain tissue was dead and she would never recover. Yet, as of 2016, she was gradually reacquiring some functioning.

One of the newest outlawed artificial pot substances, MDMB-CHMICA is believed to be responsible for 42 overdoses and 29 deaths in Europe.

The disastrous effects of driving intoxicated are well-documented, but investigations confirm marijuana is catching up. If a motorist is under the influence of alcohol, their chance of a fatal collision is 13 times greater than the risk of the motorist who is not under the influence of alcohol. However, if the motorist is under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, their risk increases to 24 times that of a sober person.

Drugged driving caused more than 28 percent of mortality in 2010, opposed to 16 percent in 1999 and marijuana was the primary drug responsible for this rise, adding to 12 percent of 2010 collisions versus 4 percent in 1999.

Most tests look for delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive element in marijuana, and 11-OH-THC, its active metabolite and the mixed use of alcohol and marijuana dramatically doubles a driver’s chance of dying.

American Automobile Association fine.jpg

A report by the American Automobile Association (AAA) discovered that the portion of motorists who were high on marijuana during fatal accidents in Washington state more than doubled within 2013 and 2014, with 85 deaths involving THC in 2014.

In 2007, 8.6 percent of weekend night motorists tested positive for THC versus 12.6 percent of motorists in 2013 to 2014, a 48 percent rise and the number of fatal car pileups in the state in which motorists tested positive for marijuana increased from 11 in 2012 to 38 in 2015, an uptick from 6 percent of collisions to 15 percent.

Analysts stated the uptick in marijuana-related collisions may be bound to legalisation in nearby states. Concurrently, the rate of motorists in fatal collisions tested for drugs grew from 42 percent in 2011 to 62 percent in 2015.

Seven of nine analysed studies presented the risk of a motor vehicle crash increased when motorists had used cannabis a few hours before the collision. The same meta-analysis revealed acute cannabis consumption almost multiplied the prospect of a motorist being involved in a motor vehicle accident ending in serious damage or death.

Proponents of recreational marijuana legalisation point to its comparative safety and the reality medicinal marijuana has some curative advantages.

Nevertheless, it is said that in some nations, those that use marijuana have the most salubrious people on the planet, along with Asians because of the mere fact that cannabis was part of their everyday dietary supplement.

Cannabis was and still is a primary healing remedy in many tribes, where there has never been a reported death or overdose because our bodies adapt the same specific thing. Consequently, for those tribes, they will only stick to the one and only original cannabis.

The DEA promote that original cannabis will kill you because they’re aiming to kill thousands if not millions of people with their artificial garbage.

There’s no cure for gluttony and ignorance and the DEA and government are totally corrupted with both.



Meghan Markle So Far…

Who is Meghan Markle really? She’s an actress, philanthropist, and presently Prince Harry’s wife-to-be and her profile has skyrocketed.

Anti-Social, a 2015 crime drama starring Meghan Markle, was fated to be an insignificant blip on the cinematic panorama, a film you’d seemingly find by chance during a Sunday-afternoon Netflix journey.

However Meghan Markle’s profile has grown dramatically, and everything from her past—interviews, movie and television appearances, social-media posts is resurfacing, and inspired with a new meaning.

She is the most googled woman of 2016 and she is the star of USA’s Suits and founder of the lifestyle Web site The Tig. She has 1.4 million Instagram supporters, oh, and she’s also currently engaged to the world’s most desirable man, Prince Harry.

Unless you’re a keen spectator of Suits, her USA procedural, you have only likely become conscious of Meghan Markle when rumours of her and Harry’s courtship first surfaced, and the tabloids have recorded her every move.

Her yoga class has been staked out and her travel agenda analysed. Her mother has been doorstepped and in brief, Meghan Markle has received the treatment we’ve come to expect of royal romantic interests.


However unlike past Harry sweethearts, like Cressida Bonas and Chelsy Davy, who were essentially private subjects before the paparazzi descended, Meghan Markle was something of an identified quantity.

The 35-year-old has been acting in movie and television and making the accompanying press rounds and developing the important social media appearances for near to 15 years. While she has naturally maintained mostly radio censorship since her involvement went public including refusing to be interrogated for a story, Meghan Markle has left an atypically strong file for the people to familiarize itself with the woman who would be Duchess.

Her initial credit was in 2002 when she performed on an instalment of General Hospital. She has since performed in a variety of television shows, 90210, Without a Trace, Fringe, The League, CSI: Miami—as well as a throng of movies, including Get Him to the Greek and Horrible Bosses.

Meghan Markle is a bit of a Gwyneth Paltrow. She has a lifestyle Web site, The Tig, which, on the third week of December, offered among its pieces one on how to be a great impromptu host and another on how to hunt down holiday gifts that give back.

She wrote on the site that The Tig is a heart for the discerning palate, those with a desire for food, travel, fashion and beauty. She wanted to design a place to share all of these desires and to invite friends to share theirs as well and to be the breeding ground for concepts and enthusiasm.

On her Instagram, she has an affinity for posting inspirational quotes, well-lit food, and shots of dogs.

She’s a star, a writer and Editor-in-Chief of her cosy lifestyle brand The Tig, a rather good cook and a staunch believer in handwritten notes.

In an anecdote that almost makes you question if she always knew she would be destined for the magazine-profile treatment, one day when Meghan Markle was 11, she addressed a letter to Hillary Clinton, who was, at the time, the first lady.

Meghan Markle explained in the letter that she had noticed an ad put out by a soap company that implied women belonged in the kitchen, and it agitated her. As a consequence of the letter which she further posted to other distinguished personalities, the company ended up modifying the advertisement.

Some decades later, in 2015, Meghan Markle would, as part of her commitment with the United Nations, give a talk on International Women’s Day about gender identity that would earn her a standing applause.


She is also a global envoy for World Vision Canada and has travelled to Rwanda for the organization’s Clearwater Campaign and it was her philanthropy work that led her to Prince Harry.

Harry was in Toronto where Suits films for his Invictus Games when he met the actress at a charity event.

In her article for Elle U.K., Meghan Markle wrote about attempting to balance her duties to her work and the entertainment industry with her charity work, noting one particular time when she was in a van traveling back from a refugee camp in Rwanda and got an e-mail from her managers inquiring if she would be able to visit the BAFTAs.

At that instant, her gut answered no because while her two worlds can co-exist, she’s learnt that being able to keep a foot in both is a fragile balance and they’re not together exclusive but guiding her heart through the swaying pendulum from Hollywood fantasy to third-world reality is testing in its own way.


Gregg Sulkin a 24-year-old British actor best recognised for his performance on MTV’s sharp series Faking It was Meghan Markle’s co-star and love interest in Anti-Social and it’s questionable, when he was on scene in Hungary shooting the film, that he thought he would be delivering discussions for years about his co-star’s personal involvement with a prince, no less.

Gregg Sulkin was familiar with Suits before meeting Meghan Markle on set and was really enthusiastic about working with her. She’s a pretty unique person and such a skilled actress, poised, a well-mannered classy girl who takes her job seriously, and who is really passionate and Gregg Sulkin and Meghan Markle clearly spent a lot of time together.

They were both in a different country together where they knew nobody and the two would consume their days off travelling the city. Gregg Sulkin describes Meghan Markle a well-educated human being and that she’s the greatest out of all the stars he’s worked with inside 12 years.

Meghan Markle’s father is Caucasian and her mother is African-American, and her mixed-race history is something she has addressed and talked about on many occasions and while her mixed heritage may have built a grey zone encompassing her self-identification, keeping her with a foot on both sides of the fence, she has come to embrace that.

She is who she is and will share where she’s from and will assert her self-confidence in being a strong, confident mixed-race woman.


Once she was connected to Prince Harry, Meghan Markle became the prey of racially induced outrage and insults, so much so that the palace went to bizarre lengths to issue a statement in aid of Meghan Markle and demanded the media to respect her privacy.


Heather Cocks and Jessica Morgan, are also known as the Fug Girls and both long-time royal obsessives, and writers of a book, The Royal We, that even highlights a plot line about a prince falling in love with an American.

However, when they saw the letter from the palace, that is when they knew that the bond was genuine and pretty legit. Also, a good indication perhaps the palace has realised that they shouldn’t simply hang those girls out to dry, referencing to past girlfriends of William and Harry who had gained great media scrutiny.

When Gregg Sulkin was questioned about Meghan Markle’s involvement with Prince Harry, Sulkin reflected sedately for a second. He had learned that Meghan had got some cold press since the story broke and he was not happy about it.

Meghan Markle acts accordingly and acts well-mannered and in a classy, cultured way and we should be nothing but happy for her, especially if she partners Prince Harry and represents our country.

Meghan Markle is not similar to Harry’s former sweethearts. She’s already been partnered once and she has a thriving career based in America. There is much on paper, at least, that would symbolise Meghan Markle would not precisely be a possible future sister-in-law to Kate Middleton.

However, as her relationship with Prince Harry proceeds to progress, it appears the two may make a lot more sense as a match than people might have originally imagined.

Many have remarked that Meghan Markle’s charitable responsibilities align her with the Prince, as Harry’s public life has been mainly devoted to service, as was his late mother’s and even though Meghan Markle has been on two US Weekly covers since the relationship started, she has kept up the level of discretion expected of someone in the royal circle.

She has not talked or heightened her profile, or her association with the Prince. However, she has discovered ways to hint at and be moderately humble about the relationship.

Meghan Markle did not spend Christmas at Sandringham with the Queen and Kate did not get invited until she was married to Prince William, and Meghan Markle never wanted to be a woman who dines she’s always wanted to be a woman who works.

Furthermore it’s likely this is one of the numerous things that might have attracted Harry about Meghan and that she’s already used to the spotlight and while royal life is never going to be entirely comparable to anything else, it’s less likely that she’s going to run away frightened from that, than it is somebody who’s coming into it cold.

The engagement of Britain’s Prince Harry to actress Meghan Markle lifted eyebrows on both sides of the Atlantic for a particularly British set of reasons. She’s a mixed-race woman who will be the first American divorcée to partner with the royal family in almost 81 years.


Harry, the second son of Prince Charles and the deceased Princess Diana, unostentatiously proposed to Meghan Markle and the royal family announced that Meghan Markle will become a British citizen before she partners Harry during a May 19, 2018 service in Windsor Castle.

The young couple will reside in Nottingham Cottage, part of London’s Kensington Palace.

The famously tight-lipped royal family made the engagement known and in an interview that evening with the BBC’s Mishal Husain.

Meghan Markle met Harry in July 2016 on a blind date set up by a mutual friend, then cemented their relationship during a camping excursion to Botswana and Harry asked her to marry him during what she characterised as a cosy night at home.

It was sweet and sincere and really romantic. Harry got down on one knee, but Meghan could hardly let him finish proposing.

The engagement initiates the spotlight for the first royal wedding since Harry’s beloved brother William, the heir to the British throne, partnered Kate Middleton in 2011.

Approximately 23 million Americans viewed TV coverage of the union, surpassing the amount who had watched Charles’s wedding to Diana in 1981.

The engagement further ends months of speculation about the fate of Harry’s involvement with Meghan, who took the extraordinary measure of cooperating with a lengthy Vanity Fair profile. However, it won’t stop the broad public attention in the couple.

That’s not simply a representation of Harry’s diverse public image, a British soldier who served in Afghanistan, and Harry had years earlier sparked contention for attending a dress party in Nazi regalia.


Meghan Markle is no Kate Middleton, who retained a low public profile while dating Prince William and has seamlessly slipped into the public function demanded of the woman who will be Britain’s next queen.

That’s not simply because Meghan Markle hails from Los Angeles, she is also divorced and biracial. Her mother is African American and her father is white. It’s also because Meghan Markle had a high-profile role on the USA Network show Suits and ran the Tig, a lifestyle blog.

Coverage of this prince-meets-commoner courting in the British tabloids became so extreme that Prince Harry took the extraordinary measure of announcing an official announcement in November 2016, four months after they started dating, rebuking the wave of abuse and harassment his sweetheart had experienced.

Furthermore, it’s right that Prince Harry was concerned about Ms Markle’s safety and was genuinely saddened that he has not been able to protect her and there was a reason for that. Many of the attacks were both discriminatory and sexist in nature.

The Daily Star Online reported that Prince Harry could marry into gangster royalty and that his current affection is from a crime-ridden Los Angeles area.

Meghan Markle, for her part, wasn’t the bashful and quiet type and in the Vanity Fair profile, she stated the huge media attention she meets because of her association with Harry has its challenges, and it comes in waves and some days it can seem more challenging than others.

One reason for those challenges, Meghan Markle’s divorce means she will make history when she partners Prince Harry and it’s not the first time a British royal has married an American divorcée. Meghan Markle will in some ways be following in the steps of Wallis Simpson, a divorced American woman who married into the British royal family almost 81 years ago. Then-King Edward VIII renounced his chair rather than end the association.


The association shocked Britain, in part because Wallis Simpson was still technically married to her spouse when she began the association with Edward and they got divorced in May 1937, almost six months after Edward abdicated.

There’s no such embarrassment here. Meghan Markle was divorced before she began seeing Prince Harry and assuming the wedding goes forward as intended, the forthcoming royal wedding will be a clear test of how much British public sentiment has changed in 81 years, and of just how diverse or how alike the Britain of 2018 will be to the Britain of 1936.

Perhaps she does want to be Princess Diana 2, but she will have to earn that right but, there will always be Princess Diana, the Princess of everyone’s hearts and Meghan Markle will never step into that role. Princess Diana might be dead, but she will always remain in people’s hearts.

Meghan Markle might have always been fiercely driven, strangely shrewd and indecently aspirational but of course, she’s a starlet and she should click into the character of Prince Harry’s wife, whether it be genuine or very showgirl fake.

Either way, she should fit into all the crap of royal life.

Meghan Markle might have been a party animal who liked staying out late, it’s not the most terrible thing in the world. After all Prince Harry was regarded as the more boisterous, less conventional sibling to that of his older brother Prince William, and Prince Harry preferred to party and have a jolly good time.

Prince Harry has had his good share of small embarrassments. Many drunk post-club scuffles with the paparazzi, and who can forget when he arrived at his pal’s costume party costumed as a Nazi in 2005?.

However, the crown jewel that surpassed them all was in 2012 when he was photographed traipsing exposed in Las Vegas after a high-spirited game of strip billiards with friends and naked strangers of the opposing sex.

Needless to say, the Royal Family was extremely unamused, and the Prince apologized for his actions.

Introduced by Princess Eugenie, Prince Harry’s cousin, Burberry British model Cressida Bonas and Prince Harry became smitten with each other and started dating in 2012. Cressida Bonas, who is a descendant of King Charles II, became the expected bride-to-be of the royal wild child and despite keeping their relationship moderately private, the lovebirds fizzled out in 2014.

The report has it that Cressida Bonas, just like Chelsy Davy, was turned off by the strong media attention encompassing their coupledom.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are without doubt made for one another. They are both positive about what they want from life and there appears to be no negativity about them and Meghan Markle has been given some bad address by the media which verifies that they can both go the distance.
















Plastic Bottle Waste

Consumers could face paying a security on drinks bottles and cans which is returned when they hand them in for recycling, under Government schemes to tackle plastic garbage and Environment Secretary Michael Gove confirmed ministers would introduce a deposit-return system for single use drinks containers such as plastic and glass bottles and aluminium cans in England, subject to discussion.

The move strives to increase recycling rates and curtail scattering of rubbish and comes amid rising concern over the problem of single-use plastic waste, much of which ends up as waste contaminating the countryside and oceans.

UK consumers use an expected 13 billion plastic drinks bottles a year, although more than three billion are burned, transferred to landfill or end up as litter in cities, the countryside and the ocean.

Some countries already have deposit return schemes which impose an upfront security on drinks containers, extending from 8p in Sweden to 22p in Germany, that is recovered when the empty bottle or can is rendered.

The consultation will examine how such a system could operate in England, besides other proposals to boost recycling charges, which have stalled in recent years.

Benefits of a scheme could include giving cash rewards for returning bottles and cans without an upfront security, through reverse vending machines where consumers insert the container and get money in return.

People need a reason to recycle their bottles and cans and it would increase their spirit if they could recycle their bottles and cans and get cash for doing so and you don’t need to be any Sherlock Holmes to understand that if people profited from such a system, they would be more ready to recycle because they would make a profit from doing so.

If people were getting 22p for every bottle or can they recycle then they would be more aware because they know they are getting something back for doing so.

German consumers kicked the can because ten years ago, a compulsory security for cans and other one-time use packaging was started. Since then, the amount of cans marketed has dropped, but the balance of reusable bottles has also decreased greatly.

When the then ruling coalition of Social Democrats and Greens passed the container deposit bill, there was an objection from all sides. Retailers and beverage businesses worried their company would be hurt and went to the Federal Constitutional Court in an endeavour to end the mandatory deposit on non-reusable containers. But it wasn’t simply the industry.

Jürgen Trittin MdB, Fraktionsvorsitzender Bü 90/Die Grünen

Jürgen Trittin, the environment minister at the time, had to protect himself from assaults from environmentalists because they perceived the deposit as a threat to the use of reusable containers.

But we must stop littering our landscape.

We live in a wonderful world that is full of beauty, charm and adventure. There is no end to the adventures that we can have if only we seek them with our eyes open.
Jawaharlal Nehru

There is litter washing up on the shores of the United Kingdom and it’s continuing to increase and much of the rubbish is plastic, driving the MCS to call on the government to urgently introduce a charge on single-use plastic items, such as straws, cups and cutlery.

Around 12 million tonnes of plastic litter enter the shores every year, destroying millions of marine creatures and people are further deemed to be unwittingly consuming the plastic, possibly tainted with poisonous chemicals, through seafood.

The MCS beach clean saw 7,000 enlistees search 340 beaches and accumulate an average of 718 pieces of litter every 100 metres and the survey uses a standard methodology and data from the last decade and shows a mounting stream of litter along the shore.

Most of the litter is tiny, unidentifiable particles of plastic, broken down in the ocean from bigger things and usually mistaken for food by fish and birds, but 20 percent of the litter is packaging from on the go food and drink, such as cups, bottles, cutlery, stirrers and sandwich packages.

The beach clean data reveals an unexpected increase in the volume of litter and our beaches are drowning in plastic and we urgently require some form of cash incentive on single-use plastic as the first line of action.

We should be concerned that this is a progressive uphill trend because plastic never goes away, it does not decay, it simply goes into tinier and tinier bits and becomes much more damaging to our marine environment.

I could never see why they began to use plastic, what was wrong with refundable bottles? Plastic bottles are a recycling disaster and Coca-Cola should have known better.


The Coca-Cola Company produced more than 100 billion plastic bottles in 2016 and this is a troubling revelation, reflecting on how much of the rubbish ends up outside plastic recycling systems.

Separately it has been determined that, on current trends, by 2050 the plastic in our seas may weigh more than all the fish.

In this dispute about rubbish, Coca-Cola has long been the scapegoat of environmentalists and it has a huge environmental footprint that some businesses can match and packaging is merely a portion of the story.

Exceeding the billions of plastic bottles, Coke puts huge demands on the Earth. As early as the 1920s, the company claimed that it was the biggest consumer of sugar cane on the planet. It further quickly declared to be the world’s largest buyer of processed caffeine.

Today, at its bottling plants it uses more than 300 billion litres of water a year and its total water footprint, needed to produce sugar cane and all the other ingredients, is 100 times greater.

Considering this desire for natural resources, it’s clear to understand why organisations such as Greenpeace have seen Coca-Cola as an ecological evil spirit but buried in the company’s archives are some valuable lessons.

Take the history of Coke packaging. In the preceding decades, Coca-Cola has strived carefully to stop communities around the world implementing deposit methods that would require drinks firms to attach a charge to the cost of their commodities, to be returned when consumers returned the packaging to the seller or retailer.

Deposit policies started to spread in the United States in the 1970s, as disposable steel and aluminium cans and substituted the returnable glass bottles that once dominated the beer and soft drink industries.

This change to disposables, which began with brewers in the 1930s and culminated in the soft drinks industry in the 1960s, was in part inspired by a consumer culture that craved convenience. It was further motivated by economics, as large beverage businesses attempted to gain economies of scale by combining their bottling systems, and realised they could save money if they didn’t have to truck returnable bottles back to companies.

However, those businesses did not like deposit policies because they thought government-imposed price hikes could hit sales. Coke, Pepsi and others organised to counter deposit laws. Their campaign was victorious, mostly because of a promise they delivered to discussions: kerbside recycling.

In federal and state government hearings, Coca-Cola and others claimed that municipal recycling operations, if financed and backed by government agencies, would reduce the requirement for deposits and by the mid-80s, this argument had won the day.

Following 1986, Hawaii was the only state to establish a deposit law, bringing the number of states with such enactment to just 10.

The ecological cost of not putting a value on packaging garbage loomed large in America and despite assurances that more kerbside support would considerably boost recycling, large amounts of garbage continued.

Plastic bottles, which appeared in the soft drink industry in the 1970s, were especially questionable.

Coca-Cola maintains its packaging is recyclable.

Plastic containers can be recycled, however current methods of recycling are failing to capture the large bulk of this rubbish, mostly because there are few financial incentives.

The overall public did not implement plastic bottles and aluminium cans. They were brought in by corporations as a means of investment, however, the people are like sheep and if plastic and cans had never been manufactured, the people would have still been drinking out of bottles and would not have batted an eyelid but monetary profit appears to be more powerful than the wonderful universe that we live in.

Businesses are not interested in our ecosystem, they’re just interested in profit and the sheep will simply go along with whatever they put in front of our eyes and advertising is the scourge and control of our behaviours.


If they want the people to reform their ways and views on recycling, then they should bring in an incentive to do that and to be putting a tax on bottles and cans is not an incentive. It will irritate the general public and they will still throw their plastics and cans into the trash.

Coca-Cola should have known this would be the result and in the early 20th century, industry journals scolded soft drink bottlers that did not put securities on their returnable bottles. In 1905, for instance, the Southern Carbonator and Bottler announced that the only rational, logical and lasting answer to the bottle problem is the deposit system.

About 80 percent of Coca-Cola bottlers viewed in 1929 had deposit arrangements in place, and studies of that time revealed that bottles did dozens of trips back and forth between consumer and distributor.

This was a re-use scheme that really reclaimed natural resources, and private enterprise was its largest advocate.

Coca-Cola put its fate in the plastic bottle because Coca-Cola thought recycling methods would enable the business to recover much of the plastic that is used.

The virtue of history is that we can glance back and see if this gamble paid off and using the US as a case study, the message is obvious. Failure to give monetary incentives has produced a wasteful recycling system.

Over 25 years since kerbside recycling started, 70 percent of plastic containers are never reclaimed. Only 30 percent end up being recycled.

The great discovery is that Coca-Cola is contemplating switching course and recently, the company stated it would consider approving a deposit scheme in Scotland. If this occurs, Scotland will probably notice raised recycling rates, much like Germany and other countries that have passed measures to put a price on pollution.

However, even if this is the start of a new age of environmental accountability for Coca-Cola, the company faces an even greater challenge than plastic packaging, what critics call the junk inside.

With countries around the globe facing frightening obesity rates, over 35 percent among American adults, Coke is expected to meet the increased scrutiny of its 330ml cans containing approximately nine teaspoons of sugar, no matter what container it decides to put them in.

We can be in no doubt that plastic is inflicting devastation on our marine habitat, destroying dolphins, killing turtles and diminishing our most cherished environments.


The tax on plastic bags started in 2015, which has seen their use fall by 85 percent, had a speedy influence, with the quantity of bags seen on shores down by 40 percent since 2014 and it’s truly fantastic to comprehend that a small charge totally transformed people’s performance.

The populated south-east of England had the biggest volume of litter, with 1,092 items per 100 metres of beach, a rise of 46 percent from last year. South-west England was second, with 1,036 items per 100 metres.

Apparently, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced that they are taking important actions to tackle plastic waste including proposals to introduce a prohibition on plastic microbeads and a proposal for proof around deposit remuneration and reimbursement plans for plastic bottles.

There is definitely more to do in this area and they need to be operating with industry to examine how they can further decrease the amount of single-use plastic consumption.


Iceland and the Co-op announced that they would support a UK-wide bottle deposit return system (DRS), while the Natural History Museum in London has declared it will end selling single-use plastic bottles to the 4.5 million people who attend each year.

The MCS 2017 poll discovered the second largest amount of litter in the 10 years for which there is similar data. The peak in 2014 is considered likely to be the result of unusually harsh storms early that year, which washed up more debris.

The MCS further noticed a huge leap in wet wipes litter in 2017, up 94 percent on the preceding year, although the cause is uncertain and most wet wipes contain plastic.


People should not flush them down the toilet and that labelling on wet wipes needs to change and if they don’t meet the water company measures, they should state non-flushable quite distinctly on the front of the packet.


If you go to the seaside you’re usually used to seeing a band of stinking algae tangled with all kinds of plastic, it’s simply part of the landscape now.

It shouldn’t be that hard to track plastic bottles, they have codes on them. You just have to look at the sides of roads, mainly on slip roads to roundabouts where people are waiting, to view the mounds of rubbish people are content to throw out of their vehicle.

In England, we don’t appear to mind that we throw our garbage anywhere but it’s all packaging of one sort or another and it’s so simple to stop. They banned free plastic bags in supermarkets, that worked, so there is no reason why we can’t do the same with bottles and cans, but there needs to be some kind of incentive with the deposit scheme, people always need an incentive.

After all, people purchase their bottles or cans that they already pay tax on, so why would they want to pay more tax on them? The other thing that comes to mind is that if we are expected to take our bottles and cans to the bottle bank to get our deposit back, that would make it extremely challenging for the elderly and disabled people to do and particularly single mothers with young children.

They just won’t be able to do it!

Two-thirds of our litter comes right from land-based sources. Litter that is being left on the beach or washed down rivers and drains and from litter being dropped in towns and cities. It comes from industry spills, poorly controlled landfill sites and bins close to the coast or by being flushed down the loo.

The rest is lost in the ocean by containers going overboard or lost fishing equipment and Tsunamis, when they retreat from across the land they take all sorts of trash back out to sea.

If you’ve never done a beach clean, the sad reality is it it’s made of plastic you’ll find it and bottles are the least of our concern because much of it is nautical in origin, not simply fishing pursuits. On your local beach, you can spot marine mesh and cordage in common and a pain in the posterior to assemble as it deteriorates to every size, from a few millimetres to metres.

Some of our shores and waters are wreathed with it and another big category is unknown pieces of hard plastic, pieces of pipe, cable, all kinds of material.

The population is growing, of course, this will raise the volume of garbage and packaging which has seemingly raised further but are we cultivating a culture of simply dumping stuff? Polluters on an extensive scale.

The verges and hedgerows close by main roads are jam-packed with trash these days and in the wintertime when the grass recedes, the volume of trash appearing in the undergrowth is shocking.

Perhaps some people notice it more these days but I suspect more and more people see nothing wrong with dropping or discarding their waste packing and we are becoming less environmentally aware, particularly with all the discussion of environmental problems these days.

It’s pretty interesting though with the continuous assault we get about the environment, sustainability and being greener, yet trash appears to be accumulating more and more. Perhaps we are simply becoming thicker as a whole and the public subconscious is being watered down by an ever-increasing population.

People only care about money and charging people to use the tips needs to stop because they only care about money and they will just dump a mattress or sofa by the side of the road. The council will charge £25 to come and take away an old mattress and the thing is, you put out your old mattress or microwave for the council to pick up and you’ve already paid your £25 for somebody else to come and take it because it’s a good find and then you’ve paid the £25 for nothing.

A washing machine was put on the front of my son’s flat some time ago, it seemed all right to my son so he took it in, had a peek at it and paid somebody to come take a look at it, there was barely anything wrong with it, so he had it fixed and it looks brand new now.



Somebody’s Trash is Someone Else’s Treasure.

There is no incentive to pay the council £25 now to take your stuff away when somebody else will take it for you for nothing. I myself, when I am getting rid of stuff, I will put it out and put a note on it “free to a good home”, honestly, it’s gone within around ten minutes, so why would I want to give the council £25 for the privilege?

Has austerity diminished the number of people hired to clean the sides of roads? And if the rubbish is picked up less frequently or never, then it will eventually build up. However, the government don’t want to pay out, they would rather that we the taxpayers pay for it ourselves and if they had a choice they would make us pay for everything, even the air that we breathe?

This is what occurs when our food production is delivered to us in plastic containers that they state are recyclable but their not, it’s all a deception as you can see by our shorelines. What happened to good old-fashioned cooking from fresh, especially before and throughout the war.

Furthermore, it’s not just about the plastic, it’s what occurs to that plastic when you’re cooking with it, especially microwave meals, where once the plastic is warmed up, the contagions filter into our meals.

If your idea of meal preparation is microwaving uneaten food in the plastic takeout package they came in, here’s some bad news. Some chemicals in flexible plastic can filter into your meal when you cook it, and even if you’re careful enough to convey the food to a bowl or plate marked microwave-safe, you still may not be protected.

By and large, that label implies they won’t disintegrate or break when cooked but it doesn’t indicate they’re safe.



The two elements in plastics that experts are most worried about are phthalates and bisphenol-A (BPA), which are frequently referred to as endocrine disruptors because of their ability to influence estrogen and testosterone levels in humans.

They further seem to have the potential to affect the development of the brain and reproductive organs in growing fetuses.

I could go on and on about the effects these plastics have on our daily life, how they influence us and what they will do to you over a long stretch of time but I believe there are a number of people out there that are more than knowledgeable of these factors and for those that are not so informed, then it might be worth a little peruse on what your subjecting your body to and not just your body, but if you’re expecting, what you might be putting your unborn baby through without even realising it.

The fact is that we don’t really need plastic bottles or cans and there was nothing wrong with glass bottles before plastic fantastic came out and when ready meals first came out, they were impossibly fascinating and impressive, they were magical things.

It all began with turkey and television and is presently an enterprise worth £2.6 billion in the United Kingdom alone. It’s safe to say ready meals are a crucial component in what the British eat.

The origins of the modern ready meal go back to 1950s America and a food company called Swansons, even though others had tinkered with them beforehand.


Left with a large overabundance of turkey after Thanksgiving in 1953, Swansons hit upon the thought of wrapping it up with all the other ingredients of the legendary American dinner, but the stroke of inspiration was stuffing it all into the aluminium trays used to serve food by airlines.

The containers served as both baking trays to cook the frozen meal and a plate off which to eat it.

With television taking a grip across the United States, the company called its new merchandise the TV dinner and one hypothesis for this being that you could eat and watch. The new meals were a tremendous victory, with 10 million reportedly sold in the first year.

It was a time before the ready meal took off in the United Kingdom. This is because household freezers did not become the norm until the late 1960s and early 70s and when there was a widespread domestic way of storing frozen food, businesses noticed the commercial possibilities connected with it.

However, it wasn’t simply the technology that fired the growth of such meals. Family life was also developing and more women were working and everyone was putting in long hours at the office.

Anything that could free up time was promoted as a great thing and it became all about convenience.

Ready meals at the time were shown to be beneficial and effective, and they were a relief from domestic labour, even if you had the time to cook from scratch.


From the mid-70s to the early 80s, frozen food took off and the likes of Findus Crispy Pancakes and Birds Eye Potato Waffles were being served up in homes across the United Kingdom. New frozen desserts also became popular, such as Black Forest Gateau, Wall’s Viennetta and Birds Eye’s Arctic Roll.

The model for the usual way to eat was and still is a meal at home, with your family, assembling around a table and dining alone was frequently seen as a symbol of social neglect. Not only were implications of loneliness attached to ready meals, their quality further began to be challenged, with frozen meals frequently seen as second-rate.

People roused up to the yawning abyss between the picture on the packaging and the brown junk served on the practical tray within.


Frozen food, previously a status symbol, had lost its shine. Customers wanted freshness and one retailer was eager to give it to them in a move that would transform the appearance of ready meals permanently.


In 1979 Marks and Spencer started its ready-made chicken Kiev. What made it distinct from everything that had gone before was that it was chilled, rather than frozen. This satisfied customer desire for freshness and made people feel a step nearer to the idea that they had made it themselves.



Chilled ready meal sales grew during the 80s and the appearance of microwaves in the family pantry only raised them more and by 2012, the chilled ready meal made up 57 percent of the UK ready meals market and the market as a whole now governed by supermarkets making their own meals is valued at £2.6billion.

Chilled meals appeared at a time when healthy eating was becoming more popular and again the industry responded with the likes of Findus Lean Cuisine and McCain Oven Chips which used sunflower oil, the healthy alternative to the deep-fried version.

Growing appreciation of healthy eating remained in the 90s, with people becoming more worried about e-numbers, additives and nutritional concerns and it prompted the development of premium products and ranges.

People were prepared to spend more for something a touch posher and there started to be a hierarchy of products and supermarkets started luxury ranges. Labels and packaging also began to change, they got much fancier with high quality, alluring images.

The centre for excellence lasted into the 21st Century and the growing number of people eating out also had an influence.

It affected what people wanted to consume at home but most of the time didn’t have the culinary abilities to make, and ready meals were the alternative and the industry is very adaptable and continually adding new products in acknowledgement to trends.

This has served to make ready meals aspirational again and Ready meals have developed immeasurably in recent years.


Ranges now on offer include the likes of Tesco’s restaurant collection and a Waitrose range produced by three-Michelin star chef Heston Blumenthal and the recession has simply served to heighten sales as cash-strapped customers have cut back on restaurant meals to stay in instead.

The market is realising the advantages of the double-dip recession.

However, the nutritional content of such food has drawn adverse reporting and a study printed in the British Medical Journal found that not even one of 100 supermarket ready meals it investigated completely complied with nutritional guidelines introduced by the World Health Organization.

Another study by the University of Glasgow branded ready meals as nutritionally chaotic. But, the market keeps on growing. However, some people were never enthusiasts and never will be.

When you open a ready meal up and peel off the plastic what you are left with is usually not pleasing to the eye or palate and how your food should arrive at your table is up to the person, contingent on whether you are the hunter or the gatherer.

























Completely Unlawful Claims Whistleblower


A Brexit campaigner has reported that Vote Leave cheated in the 2016 election by over-spending. However, the Prime Minister’s political secretary states the accusations are factually incorrect and misleading and revealed the accuser as homosexual.


A whistle-blower, who maintains he was outed as a homosexual by the Prime Minister’s political secretary in a fight over cheating allegations in the Brexit campaign, has maintained that the EU Referendum wasn’t legitimate.


In a discussion, Shahmir Sanni, who helped manage the BeLeave offshoot campaign, stated that people have been lied to, continuing that he knows that Vote Leave cheated.

He stated that leaving the European Union, he agreed with. However, he doesn’t agree with losing what it purports to be British in that process, losing what it means to follow the rules, losing what it means to be quite literally a functioning government.


Theresa May’s political secretary Stephen Parkinson has been blamed for outing Sanni after he was invited to answer to allegations of deception by Brexiteers and Stephen Parkinson states the two had been in a relationship for 18-months, which he later suggests distorted his judgement of events.


Channel 4 News can further reveal that Shahmir Sanni went to the Electoral Commission with two other pro-Brexit campaigning friends with their evidence.


They informed the Commission in detail why they believe Vote Leave violated the law throughout the Referendum and surpassed the legal spending limits.

Their lawyers gave the Commission signed statements from the three whistle-blowers and Channel 4 News has seen a copy of the 46-page report prepared by two top QCs, and three thick ring-binders of supporting reports.

The deception dispute centres around the links between Vote Leave and third-party campaign group BeLeave.

Under election laws, Vote Leave was only permitted to spend £7 million on its campaign. However, there were scores of other separate campaign groups who could each spend up to £700,000, if they registered as authorised members.

Nevertheless, spending by each of these groups had to remain really independent, and not governed by, the principal assigned campaigns.

Sanni states he was originally a Vote Leave outreach volunteer. However, he maintained Stephen Parkinson then assigned him to another Brexit group called BeLeave, where he worked with the group’s founder, Darren Grimes.

BeLeave’s headquarters were inside the Vote Leave headquarters and Darren Grimes was photographed holding a Vote Leave banner on the day of the Election and Sanni states that he and Darren Grimes always reported to Stephen Parkinson.

There was no time where anything BeLeave did that didn’t go through Stephen Parkinson. Any kind of article that Sanni posted or an editorial that Sanni wrote, he would run it through Stephen Parkinson and Sanni would ask if it was all right.

This was after they became a separate organisation and Sanni had sent Stephen Parkinson a draft of his speech, and he said ‘Hey, what do you think?’ and collectively, they allege they acted hand in glove with Stephen Parkinson.

In the last ten days of the campaign, Vote Leave donated a total of £625,000 to Grimes, who was listed as an authorised member and the contributions went straight to Canadian data firm Aggregate IQ (AIQ).

Sanni claims that Grimes was not really independent of Vote Leave and was not in control of how the funds were used and he maintains Grimes and BeLeave were used by Vote Leave to get around limits on how much they could legitimately use.

If correct, they could have overspent by about ten percent. Furthermore, there have been many connections between AIQ and Cambridge Analytica’s parent company SCL.

Talking about the donation, Sanni stated that when Darren informed him that it was nearly £700,000, the first thing Sanni asked was, okay so can I get some of my travel fees refunded, reimbursed?

Sanni wasn’t at work and he had only just come out of graduation and he was volunteering. Consequently, Sanni asked for money and Darren responded that he didn’t think they could and the only way for them to get it was if they gave it to AIQ, which Sanni thought was a little odd.

Questioned whether they could have declined to use the money on AIQ, Sanni stated that they didn’t ever feel like they had that level of power and that they never felt like they had authority over the or, over the organisation itself.

They were elected duties but in the terms of that kind of money, they never had a say over that. They never had power over that.
The outcome, they used BeLeave to over-spend, and not simply by a tiny amount, nearly two-thirds of a million pounds makes all the difference and it wasn’t legal.

They stated that it wasn’t coordinated, but it was and therefore the notion that the campaign was legal is misleading.

Stephen Parkinson issued a personal statement:

“I have seen the statements issued by Shahmir and his lawyers, and am saddened by them. They are factually incorrect and misleading. My statement to Channel 4 News and The Observer was issued in my personal capacity and was solely a response to the serious and untrue allegations made against me by Shahmir, Chris Wylie, and others.

“It would be surprising if Shahmir, Mr Wylie, or those advising them thought I would be able to defend myself against those allegations without revealing my relationship with Shahmir. Sadly, the allegations they have chosen to make are so serious that I have been compelled to do so. I cannot see how our relationship, which was ongoing at the time of the referendum and which is a material fact in the allegations being made, could have remained private once Shahmir decided to publicise his false claims in this way.

“The matters raised in tonight’s Channel 4 News programme are already with the Electoral Commission.

“At the relevant time during the referendum period, the Commission advised Vote Leave that it was permissible to make a donation in the way it proposed to do to BeLeave.

“Twice since the referendum, the Commission has investigated this matter, and twice it has found no evidence of wrongdoing. A third investigation into the same issue is currently taking place.

“The Electoral Commission has not contacted me in relation to any of these inquiries, but I will, of course, be happy to assist them if they wish me to do so.

“I firmly deny the allegations in the programme. I had no responsibility for digital campaigning or donations on the Vote Leave campaign, and am confident that I stayed within the law and strict spending rules at all times.”

A solicitor for Vote Leave said: “Vote Leave has twice been cleared on this matter by the Electoral Commission. There are a number of new accusations and allegations being made in what you have sent us. While many of them seem irrelevant or trivial, some are serious and potentially damaging to the reputations of those caught up in those allegations. As has been the case throughout, Vote Leave is obligated to review – to the extent it can after this long elapsed period since the referendum – all such allegations and is doing so. We will as appropriate share any relevant findings with the Electoral Commission, again as we have always done.”

Lawyers for Aggregate IQ said: “Aggregate IQ is a digital advertising, web and software development company based in Canada. It is and has always been 100 percent Canadian owned and operated. Aggregate IQ has never entered into a contract with Cambridge Analytica. Aggregate IQ works in full compliance with all legal and regulatory requirements in all jurisdictions where it operates. It has never knowingly been involved in any illegal activity.

“All work Aggregate IQ does for each client is kept separate. The services carried out by Aggregate IQ for Vote Leave were in accordance with the instructions of Vote Leave. The services carried out for BeLeave were in accordance with the instructions of BeLeave. The accounts were kept separate at all times and there was no overlap or merging in any way.”

Darren Grimes denies all the allegations, however, shouldn’t the police be examining the Tory party over the £700,000 benefaction, exploitation and embezzlement?

Some people might be all right with this but do we simply sit back and do nothing rather than addressing the distortions and dishonesty?

This sort of deception should come with a prison punishment for all those that have been shown to have lied throughout the campaigning in the elections or votes because it’s gaining an advantage through deception and until the perpetrators pay a personal price it will continue and losing their position is no deterrent.

There is no example that has been set that a specific level of electoral deception is acceptable and there should be prison time for people that intentionally grab the reins of control illegally.

I really feel sorry for this lad. He’s had to take safety precautions for his family in Pakistan because of the Tories outing him.

The government has attempted to make this all about Shahmir Sanni and his homosexual involvement as opposed to the information that was presented. They outed him and made him feel like he was a vile person because the snobbish fools had to cover their own butt.

The Tories actually are the most obnoxious people and what a farce this has become and they’re always bungling something or another. However, this time they should be allowed to flounder in their own faeces.
















What About The Rest Of The Public Sector?

More than a million NHS workers in England are estimated to get a pay increase, following seven years of having their salaries frozen then capped at 1 percent as part of the government’s belt-tightening plan.

This was dramatically cut because their pay was not keeping up with the growing expenses of living.

However, it’s not simply workers in the health service who’ve had their earnings reduced. Teachers, police officers, prison staff, firefighters and armed forces employees have all had real-term reductions in their salaries.

So does this NHS offer a spell the end of the cap on all public-sector workers’ earnings?

Firefighters, police and prison officers have now been offered salary increases in violation of the cap although the firefighters union has refused their salary proposal.

Police and prison officers, on the other hand, have accepted increases of 1 percent with a 1 percent gratuity, and 1.7 percent, respectively for the coming year.

There are two significant differences from the NHS proposal though.

First, the pay increases for NHS workers will be financed through additional money given by the Treasury. However, the police and prison officers’ salary increase will have to be financed from the current resources so sacrifices may have to be made in other regions of spending on the services.

Furthermore, NHS workers are getting an average of 6.5 percent over three years. However half of the nurses will get more than that, and the lowest paid NHS workers will get pay increases of as much as 29 percent. Therefore, numerous NHS staff wages will keep pace with the growing expense of living for the first time in seven years.

That’s not the case for police and prison officers.

Both of their salary proposals are under the 2.4 percent inflation rate forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility for 2018.

Prison Officers Association general secretary Steve Gillan stated at the time: “I have made it clear that it is a pay cut. It is not acceptable.”

The Police Federation of England and Wales had asked for a 2.8 percent rise in basic salary. The Prison Officers Association had requested for a 5 percent rise and in July, firefighters were offered a 2 percent basic pay raise from last July, with a possible further 3 percent increase in line for this April.

However, this was refused by their union.

Fire Brigades Union general secretary Mark Wrack announced in July: “This offer demonstrates that the 1 percent cap is dead in the water but the offer from our employers is simply not enough.”

Both teachers and military employees are expecting to learn what their salary proposal will be for the coming year.

The armed forces are awaiting a report making suggestions on their pay imminently and on 15 January, Defence Minister Tobias Ellwood informed Parliament the armed forces had been liberated from the 1 percent pay freeze.

However, a letter from Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson stated there was still a need for pay discipline and the then Education Secretary, Justine Greening, wrote to the teachers’ pay review body in December, urging it to consider the necessity to address staff deficiencies when making its recommendations.

In the latest review, some of the lowest paid teaching staff got a 2 percent pay raise but most were held at 1 percent and therefore it seems like employers have presently been given extra freedom by the government to give their workers higher salary increases the next time salary levels are established.

But if these raises aren’t going to be financed by the Treasury and already financially compressed services will have to finance them from their existing resources, the problem is will they?

The examples of police, prison and fire-service personnel suggest employers are willing to creep beyond the 1 percent cap but are not yet giving salary increases that will mean their workers have more cash in their pockets once inflation is taken into account.

As well as the outcomes for people of having their salaries restricted, unions have pointed to difficulties with recruiting public-sector workers as an argument for lifting the cap and over most of the public sector, there have been difficulties with recruitment and retention of workers since 2010, even though this differs across various fields.