Rural economy suffers as sector confidence plummets

17 May 2013 | By Olivia Midgley

Fenland Folk

Are called Yellow Bellies

There are several derivations

A Frog with a yellow belly

The natives will expect you to correctly sort their “bellies” out

White ,pink, sunburnt or yellow

A “Staghorn”

A standing prick has no conscience

Documents reveal sexual assaults in military a growing epidemic

by: Associated Press

May 8 2013

Sexual assaults in the military are a growing epidemic across the services and thousands of victims are still

unwilling to come forward despite a slew of new oversight and assistance programs, according to Pentagon

documents.

Troubling new numbers estimate that up to 26,000 military members may have been sexually assaulted last year,

according to survey results released against a backdrops of scandals including an ongoing investigation into

more than 30 Air Force instructors for assaults on trainees at a Texas base

The report comes just days after the Air Force's head of sexual assault prevention was arrested last weekend on

charges of groping a woman in a suburban Virginia parking lot. And it follows a heated debate over whether

commanders should be stripped of the authority to overturn military jury verdicts, such as one officer did in a

recent sexual assault conviction.

President Barack Obama delivered a sharp rebuke Tuesday, saying he has no tolerance for the problem, and he

said he talked to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel about it. He said that any military member found guilty of sexual

assault should be held accountable, prosecuted and fired.

"I don't want just more speeches or awareness programs or training, or ultimately folks look the other way," he said. "We're going to have to not just step up our game, we have to exponentially step up our game to go after this hard."

The Associated Press obtained documents and memos related to a new Pentagon report slated for release

Tuesday. The documents show that the number of sexual assaults actually reported by members of the military

rose 6 percent to 3,374 in 2012. But a survey of personnel who were not required to reveal their identities showed

the number of service members actually assaulted could be as many as 26,000, but they never reported the

incidents, officials said Tuesday.

That number is an increase over the 19,000 estimated assaults in 2011.

The statistics highlight the dismal results that military leaders have achieved in their drive to change the culture

within the ranks, even as the services redoubled efforts to launch new programs to assist the victims, encourage

reporting and increase commanders' vigilance.

Hagel ordered a series of steps and reviews to increase officers' accountability for what happens under their

commands, and to inspect workstations for objectionable materials, according to memos and documents

obtained by the AP.

Hagel ordered military leaders to develop a method to assess commanders and hold them accountable on their

ability to create a climate "of dignity and respect." He has given commanders until July 1 to visually inspect

workspaces to make sure they are free of degrading materials, and military leaders have until Nov. 1 to

recommend ways to assess officers and hold them accountable for their command climates.

"Sexual assault is a crime that is incompatible with military service and has no place in this department," Hagel

said in a new response plan the department will release Tuesday. "It is an affront to the American values we

defend, and it is a stain on our honor. DoD needs to be a national leader in combating sexual assault and we will

establish an environment of dignity and respect, where sexual assault is not tolerated, condoned, or ignored."

While the latest cases involve Air Force members, the problem extends across all the military services.

Across Capitol Hill, lawmakers demanded the Pentagon take more aggressive steps to address the growing

problem and they announced renewed efforts to pass legislation to battle the problem.

"When our best and our brightest put on a uniform and join the United States Armed Forces, they do so with the

understanding that they will sacrifice much in the name of defending our country and its people. However, it's

unconscionable to think that entertaining unwanted sexual contact from within the ranks is now part of that

equation," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. "Not only are we subjecting our men and women to this disgusting

epidemic, but we're also failing to provide the victims with any meaningful support system once they have fallen

victim to these attacks."

This week's sexual battery arrest of Air Force Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, who headed the Air Force Sexual Assault

Prevention and Response unit, provided a rallying point for lawmakers, who held it up Tuesday as an example of

the Pentagon's failure to make progress despite the increased effort.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., told Air Force officials at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday that

"while under our legal system everyone is innocent until proven guilty, this arrest speaks volumes about the

status and effectiveness of (the Defense) department's efforts to address the plague of sexual assaults in the

military."

Members of Congress are putting together legislation to essentially strip military officers of the authority to

overturn convictions for serious offenses such as sexual assault. The measure stem from congressional outrage

over an Air Force officer's decision to reverse a jury verdict in a sexual assault case.

Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., are drawing up legislation that likely will be included

in the annual defense policy bill that will essentially strip military officers of the authority to overturn convictions for

serious offenses such as sexual assault.

Separately Murray and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., introduced legislation on Tuesday to provide victims with a

special military lawyer who would assist them throughout the process, prohibit sexual contact between instructors

and trainees during and within 30 days of completion of basic training or its equivalent and ensure that sexual

assault response coordinators are available to help members of the National Guard and reserve.

"We have learned of an increase in the amount of service members experiencing unwanted sexual contact and a

decrease in the rate that those incidents are reported," Turner said. "The exact opposite direction of what would

indicate a cultural and statistical shift on a problem that affects mission readiness and overall morale of our

forces," he said in a statement. "It's clear much more needs to be done both legislatively and structurally, to root

out this problem."

According to Pentagon documents, the key conclusion of the report is that "sexual assault is a persistent problem

in the military and remains vastly underreported."

The report says that of the 1.4 million active duty personnel, 6.1 percent of active duty women - or 12,100 - say they

experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012, a sharp increase over the 8,600 who said that in 2010. For men, the

number increased from 10,700 to 13,900. A majority of the offenders were military members or Defense Department

civilians or contractors, the report said.

Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force's chief of staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and Air Force

Secretary Michael Donley were "appalled" by the charges against Krusinski.

"As we have both said over and over and over again, sexual assault prevention and response efforts are critically

important to us," Welsh said. "It is unacceptable that this occurs anywhere, at any time, in our Air Force."

Welsh said that while the Krusinski case is being adjudicated by the ArlingtonCounty prosecutor, the Air Force has

requested jurisdiction. He said Krusinski will be arraigned Thursday on one count of sexual battery and that an

ArlingtonCounty prosecutor will decide the jurisdiction question.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., one of the most vocal critics of the military's efforts to stop sexual assaults, pressed

Welsh on what qualifications Krusinski had for the job and whether Welsh reviewed his personnel file since his

arrest to see if there were any red flags.

Welsh said he found nothing irregular in Krusinski's file.

Photo: Capt. Penny Ripperger, the 119th Wing sexual assault response coordinator, reads a poem written on a t-shirt July 28, 2010, at a Clothesline Project visual display on the Veteran's Administration Hospital grounds, Fargo, N.D. The Clothesline Project display USES t-shirts created by victims of military sexual trauma to "break the silence" and to bear witness to sexual violence. (Senior Master Sgt. David H. Lipp/DoD)

Why teenagers really do need an extra hour in bed

• 22 April 2013 by Russell Foster

Radical says -Every hour of sleep before midnight is worth two after

HOWEVER, 1ST THIS INTRO...

The eco-sex activists who want to save the world

Fuck for Forest use porn to spread their green message.

In a new documentary, they are taken to the Amazon to meet a threatened Peruvian tribe.

But how can they rescue the planet when they can barely look after each other?

•  
• Steve Rose
• The Guardian, Thursday 11 April 2013 19.00 BST

Activists from FFF were taken to the Amazon in Marczak's documentary.

"Blood and sperm.

The perfect mix," says a tattooed hippy, as he licks both off his hands, having just had sex with a woman in front

of a small audience in a Berlin basement.

"Life-giving fluids we are all so afraid of.

We're so afraid of ourselves! It's all organic."

It's not everyone's idea of popular entertainment, but this scene can be experienced at a safe distance in a new  

documentary, F*ck for Forest, detailing the activities of the group of the same name (without the asterisk).

They enjoy confronting society with sex, nudity and bodily fluids, but what Fuck for Forest (FFF) really want to

do is save the world.

So this isn't just pervy performance art; it's also fundraising.

Few people would imagine any overlap exists between pornography and environmentalism, but FFF smash the

two concepts together right there in their brutally blunt name.

It's a concise signifier of what they do and how little they care about what you think of it.

The live displays are a sideline; funds are primarily raised via their website, which has images and videos of its

core staff members and whatever volunteers they pick up on the street in myriad sexual permutations, from

naked people up trees to chaotic orgies.

Subscribers pay about £10 a month, and the proceeds go towards rainforest conservation projects in South America.

It's difficult to know how to categorise such an enterprise. Is it kinky eco-activism? Porn for foliage fetishists?

Exhibitionism with the fig-leaf of a good cause? FFF have a better question:

What is more obscene, they ask, the depiction of people enjoying their sexuality or the destruction of our natural

environment?

"Sex is often shown to attract us to buy all kinds of bullshit products and ideas, so why not for a good cause?,"

says Tommy Hol Ellingsen, FFF's Norwegian co-founder.

"The human body is considered more offensive and threatening than most things in the industrial world around

us, like cars, but I don't see the naked body in itself as a threat to the morals or values of modern society.

I think it's more a mass psychosis people have. Why we are destroying the planet may be somehow connected

to the values modern humans have created for themselves."

Tommy and his Swedish partner Leona Johansson can talk at great length about the ills of western society,

freedom of expression, the sanctity of nature and nobility of indigenous tribal life, but in the documentary their

philosophy is put to the test.

The first half details their eco-hippy existence, wandering the streets of Berlin, propositioning strangers to

contribute to the website, getting stoned, having sex, and subjecting audiences to their performance art (if the

"blood and sperm" part sounds shocking, wait for their terrible folk songs).

But then FFF's dreams are confronted with reality, in the form of a journey to their much-idolised Amazon

rainforest, at the request of a threatened Peruvian tribe.

It would spoil things to reveal what happens when they get there, but let's just say it's not quite the tribal

connection they hoped for.

"I really don't want to judge them, but my first reaction was, they're trying to save people on the other side of the

planet when they can hardly help each other," says Michal Marczak, director of the documentary, who spent

seven months filming FFF in action.

"They live in a little fairytale wonderland, according to their own rules.

They never plan anything, even what they're going to do the next day.

There are no rules. That's what intrigued me about them."

But Tommy and Leona dispute the impression Marczak's film creates of them as naive hedonists.

From a cheap guest house in Mexico, where they have been attending a "worldwide rainforest gathering", they

explain how the encounter was set up by the film-makers.

"They pulled strings to get us to that specific tribe," says Tommy.

"For eight years, Fuck for Forest has already been working with different native people all over South and

Central America, and we know a lot about the conflicts there.

If we had organised that trip we would have known a lot more about that group and specifically what they

needed help with, but when we got there, nobody knew anything about us.

We wouldn't have ended up in that situation if it wasn't in some way manipulated by the movie directors."

FFF does in fact, have a solid record when it comes to the "forest" part of their equation.

While accounting may not look like their strong suit, Leona estimates that the non-profit organisation has made

in the region of €100,000 (£85,000) a year, since it started in 2004.

Their website details how the money has been spent on buying up land and promoting permaculture and

indigenous lifestyles in Brazil, Peru and other countries.

And as the film attests, they also live a frugal lifestyle, wearing clothes and eating food they find in rubbish bins,

rather than spending the charity's money.

Marczak admits that he facilitated the expedition seen in the film, but he never set out to prejudice viewers

against FFF, he says.

In fact, compared to other NGOs he spoke to in the Amazon, their methods are relatively effective: "A lot of aid

workers there seemed to have a kind of post-traumatic stress disorder, where they come in full of hope and full of

western money, then after a couple of years they feel depressed that there's not a lot they can do to help.

In some cases, 80% of their money gets lost to middlemen before it reaches the people they're trying to help.

[FFF]'s idea is to work with little eco projects where they can oversee them and give money directly. In a sense,

they're doing it the right way."

FFF's method of directly funding small projects isn't entirely down to strategy.

It's also because most major aid organisations have rejected them.

Both the Rainforest Foundation and the Norwegian World Wildlife Fund turned down their donations once they

discovered what they did, claiming that other donors would disapprove of their fundraising methods.

It's no wonder FFF feel such affinity with isolated tribes on the other side of the world; they don't seem to have

many friends, and at times they seem determined not to make any.

When Tommy and Leona first started the website in Oslo, they received a grant from the Norwegian government

– a decision the authorities regretted when Tommy and Leona caused a stir by having sex on stage at a

Norwegian music festival later that year, while a hardcore band called the Cumshots played along.

That led to an obscenity trial, at which Tommy pleaded for the cause of public nudity and dropped his trousers in

court.

Shortly after, they relocated to Berlin, where they've continued to make enemies.

In 2009 they were ejected from an anarchist congress in the city for insisting on the right to remove their clothes

during a workshop entitled "Anarchy and Sex".

The controversy resulted in the entire congress being shut down early. In 2011, they took things even further by

interrupting the Ascension Day service in Oslo Cathedral with a naked protest (in defence of a priest who was

sacked for writing about sex).

Shocked members of the clergy had to drag them off the altar.

For advocates of sexual freedom, they sure rub people up the wrong way.

If FFF's rose-tinted ideology and confrontational stunts haven't made them enough enemies, there's also the fact

that they deal in pornography.

But few of the complaints traditionally levelled at the porn industry really apply to FFF.

There are no airbrushed, hairless, cosmetically augmented "porn star" types to be found on their pages.

The "models" are regular members of the public.

There's no policy towards gender, body type, sexual orientation or disability, although the majority of their 1,300-

odd contributors seem to be healthy, young and white.

The people decide what they want to do.

Nobody is paid.

You could call it Fair Trade porn.

"My first impression was, who the hell would ever watch this?" says Marczak.

"And even if they would, who would pay for it?

It's really vulgar and its very … hairy.

Nobody shaves their armpits, and it's really badly lit.

But I noticed that the people mostly seem happy in it.

There are moments when they just left camera on for little while after they've finished and you see genuine

emotion in people, like you hardly ever see in porn films."

As a film-maker, Marczak grimaces at FFF's amateurish methods, but the amateurism is entirely deliberate, says

Leona: "Usually the porn industry treats sex more like a product, but we have a more impulsive relationship with

sex and nudity.

Sex, for us, is something that works best when you're not thinking too much.

The main idea is to have fun, not to make a product.

We don't stage anything.

It's all based on what people are willing to do for us.

They don't even use the term 'pornography', she says.

"It's more like a documentary, or a nature programme about human sexuality in the modern world."

That put the makers of F*ck for Forest in a tricky position.

"Whenever they were filming, we were waiting to film, and whenever they stopped, we started," says Marczak.

"And there were moments when we were filming at the same time and I was asking myself, 'Wait a minute.

Am I missing something?'"

You could possibly argue that F*ck for Forest, the movie, is only slightly less pornographic than FFF themselves.

But the film views the raw sexuality of the real pornographers through the filter of professional documentary

presentation.

Blood and sperm are kept at a safe remove.

It's sex with a condom.

The movie also exposes the ethical and moral jungle of modern society, where it's not necessarily

straightforward to gauge what's right and wrong, and it does so entertainingly, at times hilariously.

FFF aren't all that happy with the documentary but nor are they particularly bothered by it.

They're into freedom of expression, after all.

And as Marczak observes, even negative publicity about the group tends to drive up their recruiting.

What annoys FFF more is the suggestion that they live lives of carefree indulgence.

"That's bullshit," Tommy says.

"We have so much responsibility.

We have so much to do with these projects.

It's a really heavy subject to work with sexual repression and ecology.

With the website, all the uploading and emailing, we're a small group keeping it together and it's an incredible

amount of work.

But we're subject to so much suspicion, and we have to answer for so much of what we're doing.

We're giving so much of ourselves to this."

• F*ck for Forest is available now on iTunes and in cinemas in the UK from 19 April

Nervy flyers be warned: warming will boost turbulence

• 15:03 08 April 2013 by Colin Barras

The Radical says- avoid listening to the airline captain tell you how high your plane will fly today

When do the clocks change?

The clocks go forward 31 March

The Telegraph, brings us the news that British girls can expect to live shorter lives than many of their continental

cousins, according to a World Health Organisation (WHO) report.

The UK is 19^th on the list in Europe, lagging behind all major western European countries and others including

Greece and Slovenia.

A Spanish girl born between 2006 and 2010 can expect to live to 85 - the longest in Europe - but British girls born

at the same time can expect to die almost two and a half years sooner.

French women will live until they are 84.8 years old, Italian women until they are 84.5 years old and German

women until they are 83.1.

As British women are among the fattest in Europe, with almost a quarter of British women so fat their health is

suffering according to recent European Commission research, lifestyle is thought to account for some of the

differences between countries in Western Europe.

Sleep is not the new sex. It's more important than that

We're all tired, but what lies behind our national self-diagnosis of insomnia?

Like most things, I blame this one on Thatcher

•  
• Suzanne Moore
• The Guardian, Wednesday 6 March 2013 20.00 GMT

You should associate your bed only with sleep – not insomnia.

Everyone is tired. Except babies.

Teenagers are tired even if they sleep till 3pm.

Many of us wake up tired, then spend the day alternately pepping ourselves up and then knocking ourselves out.

I have heard of creatures who wake up feeling refreshed and jump out of bed thinking: "I have had exactly the

right amount of sleep" – but I don't live among this tribe of Gwyneth Paltrow types and the people in my local

health-food shop look to be on the verge of serious illness however many seeds they peck at.

Modern Britain feels tired and somehow lacking.

We don't get our eight hours.

Doctors are quite strict, saying that

most of us can function on five or six hours' sleep and we exaggerate the hours tossing and turning.

According to reports, sleeplessness can cause heart disease.

So are we just greedy?

What lies behind our self-diagnosed notion of sleep-debt?

My sleep deficit is bigger than anyone can know …

Though I must not think this way.

I learned in therapy not to call myself an insomniac because that is to hang on to an identity that I have to let go of.

Yet the difference between functioning on little sleep and having a real sleep still feels huge.

Stupidly, I don't do much to help myself.

Most of us don't.

We watch telly in bed, fiddle around, drink.

Sleep studies tell us that people can die after 11 days without sleep and I think back to the days when everyone

took loads of speed.

Is it true that some went mad but at least some housework got done?

Lots of scientists are studying sleep right now as there is money to be made from our general fatigue.

Rats die after 21 days without sleep.

In the middle of the night I find these things comforting.

At least I am not a rat: that would be torture.

Horses nap standing up for only three hours a day, and some whales and dolphins don't sleep for a month after

giving birth, so you moaners with babies think about that!

Sleep is not the new sex.

It's more important than that.

Anyone can have sex any time.

Technology has made the sleep problem worse.

We overstimulate ourselves while sedentary.

(This is National Bed Month, by the way – but which month isn't?)

You should associate your bed only with sleep.

I learned this as my poor doctor sent me on a sleep course.

The alternative was antidepressants (though I am not depressed) and they won't give you sleeping pills any more.

The sleep course is basically cognitive behavioural therapy, which the NHS increasingly uses because it is cheap.

The evidence that it works, however, is patchy.

One of the things that concerned the therapists were my "thoughts" during those nocturnal spells of

sleeplessness.

Sometimes I think about rearranging the furniture or sometimes about the pointlessness of human existence.

My mind must be taught not to think these things if I am to have a good night's sleep.

Anyway, I did four weeks at the "insomnia club" and soon realised that "not sleeping" is an umbrella term for

everything from depression to physical problems to unemployment and the non-specific but epic stress of

poverty.

The stress of those in high-powered jobs pales in comparison.

On the course, we were taught "sleep hygiene": you must only associate your bed with sleep.

No TVs, no laptops, not even books.

I think sex was allowed, but I imagine it would have to be scheduled because you must do nothing stimulating for

two hours before you hit your "sleep window". The course was too short and there were too many people, but it

definitely helped one man who had had terrible problems.

The other cure–all is mindfulness – which is now used everywhere.

Who can knock meditation?

Not even me.

Mindfulness is basically Buddhism without Buddha but tally-ho.

What is certain is that my problem is more and more common.

Like most things I blame this on Thatcher and her boasts of three hours' sleep a night, as if sleeping were a weakness.

The reality is the opposite.

We need to sleep because we need to dream.

While I accept technology has possibly made my sleeping patterns worse, I am thrilled to hear that scientists are

now developing masks and probes that they can stick straight into my prefrontal cortex, which will induce the

best kind of sleep.

Drugs ruin the dream-sleep and increasingly dreams are seen as a way of increasing memory storage in the brain.

Gamers interestingly report more active participation in their dreams, so I don't see technology in itself as bad.

It is how we use and react to it that matters.

When we constantly complain about feeling tired, we are not actually talking about sleep deprivation but about

something else.

What is it then, this lethargy, this lack of energy, this malaise?

It is a very strange deprivation, is it not?

Maybe like Dali we should hold a key in our hand over a plate and the moment it drops, wake and produce

something from our lucid dreaming.

Instead we buy Nytol, whine and feel permanently knackered.

Plus just as that cartoon with the man on the computer says: I can't come to bed just yet, someone has said

something wrong on the internet. I'll sleep when I am dead, I say to myself.

Whatever gets you through the night … Sometimes that's the only thing that does

Just check the test and see how stressed you might be

   
  
 
 
       
     
    
          
   
       Retiree  Test . . . .



Watch Closely

Are the patterns  moving?
Or are they perfectly  still?








 








 

The patterns are used to  test the level of stress a person can  handle.

The slower the pictures move, the  better your ability of handling  stress.

Alleged criminals that were  tested see them spinning around  madly.

However, senior citizens and kids  see them standing still.

None of these  images are animated - they are perfectly  still.

Financial hardship?

Over 13,000 UK households still use £49 black and white TV licence

Budget TV licence option favoured by thousands of UK households

By James Temperton News Entertainment 21/01/2013

Computeractive

 Feature-packed HD TVs aren't for everyone, TV Licensing has revealed

Colour TV may have been available for 46 years, but more than 13,000 households are still using black and white TV sets.

TV Licencing revealed that a total of 13,202 black and white TV licences were still in force across the UK.

In 2002 there were 212,000 households with a black and white licence, but the number has been dwindling.

Currently some 25 million TV licences are issued in the UK each year.

London topped the table of black and white TV licences, with 2,715 households being issued with one.

Birmingham and Manchester completed the top three.

TV Licencing spokesperson Stephen Farmer said the figure was "remarkable", especially given the recent

switchover to digital TV.

TV and radio historian John Trenouth offered a different interpretation, saying that continued use of black and

white TVs could be a result of financial hardship:

"The continued use of black and white TV sets, despite the obstacles, is more likely to be driven by economics than by nostalgia.

For low-income households the black and white licence fee is an attractive alternative to the full colour fee."

A black and white TV licence costs £49 a year, while a colour licence costs £145.50.

The Radical and his Rose are taking a time out

Going to foreign parts - weather permitting

Downsizing the site for a while

Have you tried our search engine ?

Its full of information

Just type in a word or two and hey presto....

And then there is our sister site - People in History

Just use it as a reference guide ?

Also -Hope you like the jokes today

Keep checking

"I may be gone some time"

"But I will return"

The Radical

Does being fat make you more jolly?                        

   17:20 23 November 2012 by Debora Mackenzie

The news has been full of headlines this week about a gene that supposedly explains the "fat and jolly" stereotype.

Can it be true?

We seek out the science behind the story.

What was the actual discovery behind these stories?

David Meyre of McMaster University in Hamilton,Canada, and his colleagues found that a gene mutation associated with obesity is also associated with an 8 per cent decrease in the risk of depression.

"This is the first gene ever convincingly associated with depression," says Meyre.

Early candidates for "depression genes" have failed to stand up, he says – which has been frustrating, as family studies show that genetics determines nearly half our risk of depression.

How did they make a genetic connection between obesity and depression this time round?

The FTO gene makes a protein associated with obesity and fat mass. In 2007, Meyre was part of a team that discovered mutations in FTO that, he says, are "clearly associated with an increased risk of obesity".

Obesity is a risk factor for depression, and vice versa.

What's more, FTO is heavily expressed in the brain. Meyre put these facts together and came up with the hypothesis that the variant gene would increase the risk of depression.

Instead, it decreased it.

The team was so surprised when this emerged from two large Canadian studies that they looked at two more, by British and Swiss researchers, in the end pooling data from 28,000 people worldwide.

All four studies gave the same result: having one copy of this mutant in your genome decreases the risk of depression by 8 per cent; two copies doubles that dip.

The effect was independent of whether a person was actually obese or not.

What's the explanation?

Meyre suspects that the gene, which methylates DNA and therefore turns other genes off and on, is able to independently influence several disorders – all of which may involve "appetitive" drives such as eating, and the mood that goes with them.

How does the FTO gene affect humanity as a whole?

Meyre is happy to call it a happiness gene. "It makes a modest contribution [to happiness]," he says.

Based on its prevalence among ethnic groups, it should prevent 6.7 per cent of the cases of depression that would otherwise afflict Africans, 5.3 per cent of cases in Europeans, and 2.2 per cent in Chinese.

This varying prevalence suggests it was selected for in the past by different histories, probably involving famine, when being better at storing fat was an advantage.

A tendency to have a positive attitude as well, Mayre speculates, also had survival value.

Is this really why fat people have a reputation for being more jolly?

No, for the simple reason that, in Western society, they are not: obese people are more likely to be depressed. Also, not being depressed isn't quite the same as being jolly or happy.

And this study certainly does not show that getting fatter makes you happier, only that a gene that predisposes you to obesity also predisposes you to be less likely to be depressed.

Still, in the distant past, chronically underfed peasants may have noticed that fat people tended to be happier, and so the legend of the jolly, fat person – Santa Claus and the like – was born.

Of course, anyone who got fat then probably had other reasons to be happy.

Journal reference: Molecular Psychiatry, doi.org/jtn

Beat rising supermaket prices by becoming self-sufficient

Last updated: Nov 15th, 2012
Feature by Sam Barrett
Household bills  | 

If you're fed up with handing over more and more money for your groceries in the supermarket, why not pick up a trowel and grow your own instead?

Rising food prices mean that more people are considering swapping the supermarket trolley for a trowel and a few packets of seeds.

But, while the path towards self-sufficiency will give you the freshest fruit and vegetables and shelter you from food price inflation, it's not without its challenges.

On the plus side, growing your own can save you a significant amount.

John Harrison, a 57-year-old web designer and author of several self-sufficiency books including Vegetable Growing Month by Month, estimates that the average family could save as much as £1,200 a year by growing their own fruit and vegetables.

"It's surprising how much you can contribute towards the cost of your shopping by growing your own," he says.

Harrison's been growing his own veg for many years, and has now also got chickens and ducks to produce eggs.

Renting an allotment is one of the simplest ways to start growing your own if you don't have a garden but, with high demand, you can wait several years before you get a chance to pick up a spade.

Luckily, even a small space can generate big savings.

Andy Hamilton, 38, has been into self-sufficiency since he was a kid and his parents had a vegetable patch in the garden.

While he's had allotments in the past, he's recently moved to Bristol and, although he's yet to plant next year's harvest, he has sorted out his herb garden.

"Fresh herbs make such a difference to your cooking but I also use them for herbal medicine.

Fresh mint is great for the digestion; valerian root helps me sleep; and yarrow is perfect for shaving cuts," he says.

While this can be a quick way to benefit from home produce, extending it to growing your own vegetables can still work in a small space.

Harrison says one of his friends has successfully converted his three-square metre patio into a vegetable patch.

"It's very carefully planned so he doesn't waste an inch, but he manages to grow most of the veg for himself and his wife," he says.

GETTING STARTED

If space is available, it's possible to take a step closer to being self-sufficient.

Pat Gardiner, 68, and his wife, also named Pat, 69, did just this, building up a small holding when they moved to a rundown property in Norfolk in 1998.

"I'd always wanted to do this," says Pat, who runs go-self-sufficient.com.

"I'd retired and the children were off our hands so we had plenty of time to work on it.

"Over a five-year period we put together a small holding with plenty of space to grow produce as well as some livestock such as chickens, sheep and a cow.

We grew all our fruit and vegetables, even oranges and lemons in our conservatory, and we had our own eggs, dairy products and meat.

My wife even knitted from the sheep's wool.

The only things we had to buy from the supermarket were cleaning products."

Brain teaser for the day.. 

Don’t ask me how this works….

At the end of this message, you are asked a question.

Answer it immediately..

Don't stop and think about it.  Just say the first thing that pops into your mind.

This is a fun 'test'...AND kind of spooky at the same time!

Give it a try, then e-mail it around (including back to me)and you'll see how many people you know fall into the same percentage as you.. 

Be sure to put in the subject line if you are among the 98% or the 2%. 

You'll understand what that means after you finish taking the 'test..'

Now - just follow the instructions as quickly as possible. 

Do not go to the next calculation before you have finished the previous one..

You do not ever need to write or remember the answers, just do it using your mind..

You'll be surprised..

Start: How much is: 15 + 6

21

3 + 56

59

89 + 2

91

12 + 53

65

75 + 26

101

25 + 52

77

63 + 32

95

I know! Calculations are hard work,but it's nearly over..

Come on, one more! .....

123 + 5

128

QUICK! THINK ABOUT

A COLOUR AND A TOOL!

Scroll further to the bottom....

A bit more...

Scroll down:

You just thought about a red hammer, didn't you?

If this is not your answer, you are among 2% of people who have a different, if not abnormal, mind.

98% of the folks would answer a red hammer while doing this exercise.

If you do not believe this, pass it around and you'll see.

Gay 'cures' don't work but banning them helps nobody

29 October 2012

by Christopher J. Ferguson

Therapies that claim to make gay people straight are hateful and dangerous, but banning them won't win over their supporters

CAN therapy make gay people straight?

It might seem strange to ask that question in this day and age, but reparative (or conversion) therapy is back in the news.

Last month the governor of California Jerry Brown signed legislation banning reparative therapy for minors.

Within days, Christian legal group, the Pacific Justice Institute, sued to stop its implementation, on the grounds of both freedom of speech and intrusion of privacy into relationships between therapists and families.

Reparative therapy is used primarily in conservative religious communities where homosexual behaviour is considered a sin.

It is based on the flawed assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder - a position that was comprehensively rejected by mainstream psychiatry in 1973.

So it may seem that California's ban is a good thing.

Not necessarily.

The case raises important questions about the role of government in promoting equality for repressed minorities.

First, let me be clear that I am not defending reparative therapy.

Far from it.

The American Psychological Association has warned that it is at best useless, and at worst potentially harmful, stigmatising unchangeable sexual orientation.

Studies cited by the APA suggest the therapy may lead to anxiety, depression and raised suicide risk in some people.

The main evidence in favour of reparative therapy came from a 2003 report published in Archives of Sexual Behavior (vol 32, p 403) by Robert Spitzer of the New York State Psychiatric Institute.

He reported that some participants self-identified as heterosexual after therapy.

However, the study did not look at actual sexual inclinations or erotic fantasies, and the sample consisted mainly of religious conservatives eager to identify as heterosexual.

Spitzer's study was subjected to severe criticism and Spitzer himself disavowed it in 2012, apologising to the gay community.

Put simply, current evidence suggests that reparative therapy is useless or even dangerous. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be banned.

First, it is worth noting that many forms of psychotherapy are harmful. In a classic report in Perspectives on Psychological Science (vol 2, p 53) Scott Lilienfeld of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, details a number of therapies which evidence suggests are harmful.

These include well-known lemons such as rebirthing therapy, recovered memory therapy and facilitated communication, which supposedly allows children with severe developmental disorders to communicate.

But they also include mainstream approaches such as boot camps for youths with conduct problems, Drug Abuse and Resistance Education (DARE) and Scared Straight, which aims to frighten adolescents away from a life of crime by exposing them to prison.

If the intent of California's ban is to eliminate potentially harmful therapies, why not ban these too?

Of the harmful therapies enumerated by Lilienfeld, only rebirthing has been banned, and only in two states.

Even the lobotomy is not banned in the US.

Boot camps and DARE programmes are mandated by the justice system or schools for some children.

As such, their potential negative impact is just as great as for reparative therapy.

Of course the issue of reparative therapy fits with a broader narrative of gay rights and the truculence of religious conservatives in acknowledging equality for homosexuals.

Perhaps reparative therapy simply seems more hateful and thus is particularly distasteful.

But programmes such as Scared Straight and boot camps are aimed at adolescents and are arguably just as hateful - as sociologist Mike Males of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco notes, adolescents tend to be a perennial societal punching bag.

Though reparative therapy may indeed be an awful thing, I'm not convinced government regulation is the best way to address it.

The heart of this issue is some people's stubbornness to accept the fact that consenting adults lead sexual lifestyles different from their own.

I doubt that regulation will address this fundamental problem. It could even backfire, further convincing religious conservatives that they are under fire from an increasingly secular and liberalised culture.

It seems unlikely that families and therapists who have not listened to the APA's warnings about reparative therapy are now going to be swayed by the state of California.

On a broader level, I believe government must be careful when tackling social issues, especially when using social science data.

Spitzer's study is perhaps a case in point, but increasingly in this field we acknowledge we have a problem with flexible methodology, meaning that our data analysis procedures are so wishy-washy, it's possible to "prove" anything.

Consensus at any point in time is largely irrelevant.

Today's scientific sure thing is tomorrow's junk science.

That was evident during last year's US Supreme Court case when an attempt by California (again) to ban violent video game sales to minors was struck down, in part because the scientific case had unravelled.

Ten years ago scholars were sure violent video games caused aggression; it is increasingly clear the evidence never was there.

I doubt reparative therapy will ever be similarly redeemed, but I do worry when social science becomes the basis for policy.

Gay men and women have benefited from a general liberalisation of our culture.

I don't believe this is something that can be enforced through legislation, though.

The drive to ban reparative therapy is understandable, but apart for the symbolic victory, I worry it won't have the intended effect.

Christopher J. Ferguson is an associate professor of psychology and criminal justice at Texas A&M International University in Laredo

DEMENTIA QUIZ:

FIRST QUESTION:

YOU ARE A PARTICIPANT IN A RACE. YOU OVERTAKE THE SECOND PERSON. WHAT POSITION ARE YOU IN?

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~

ANSWER : IF YOU ANSWERED THAT YOU ARE FIRST,
THEN YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG! IF YOU OVERTAKE THE SECOND PERSON AND YOU TAKE HIS PLACE, YOU ARE IN SECOND PLACE!

TRY TO DO BETTER NEXT TIME.
NOW ANSWER THE SECOND QUESTION,
BUT DON'T TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS
YOU TOOK FOR THE FIRST QUESTION, OK?

SECOND QUESTION:

IF YOU OVERTAKE THE LAST PERSON, THEN YOU ARE....?
(SCROLL DOWN)

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~

ANSWER: IF YOU ANSWERED THAT YOU ARE SECOND TO LAST, THEN YOU ARE.....
WRONG AGAIN. TELL ME SUNSHINE, HOW CAN YOU OVERTAKE THE LAST PERSON??

YOU'RE NOT VERY GOOD AT THIS, ARE YOU?

THIRD QUESTION:

VERY TRICKY ARITHMETIC! NOTE:
THIS MUST BE DONE IN YOUR HEAD ONLY.
DO NOT USE PAPER AND PENCIL OR A CALCULATOR.
TRY IT.

TAKE 1000 AND ADD 40 TO IT.

NOW ADD ANOTHER 1000 NOW ADD 30.
ADD ANOTHER 1000. NOW ADD 20 ..

NOW ADD ANOTHER 1000.
NOW ADD 10... WHAT IS THE TOTAL?

SCROLL DOWN FOR THE CORRECT ANSWER.....

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~

DID YOU GET 5000?

THE CORRECT ANSWER IS ACTUALLY 4100...

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT, CHECK IT WITH A CALCULATOR!
TODAY IS DEFINITELY NOT YOUR DAY, IS IT?

MAYBE YOU'LL GET THE LAST QUESTION RIGHT.... MAYBE...

FOURTH QUESTION:

MARY'S FATHER HAS FIVE DAUGHTERS: 1. NANA, 2. NENE, 3... NINI, 4. NONO, AND ???

2. WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE FIFTH DAUGHTER?~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~

DID YOU ANSWER NUNU?

NO! OF COURSE IT ISN'T.
HER NAME IS MARY! READ THE QUESTION AGAIN!

OKAY, NOW THE BONUS ROUND,
I.E., A FINAL CHANCE TO REDEEM YOURSELF:

A MUTE PERSON GOES INTO A SHOP AND WANTS TO BUY A TOOTHBRUSH.
BY IMITATING THE ACTION OF BRUSHING HIS TEETH HE SUCCESSFULLY EXPRESSES HIMSELF TO THE SHOPKEEPER AND THE PURCHASE IS DONE.
NEXT, A BLIND MAN COMES INTO THE SHOP WHO WANTS TO BUY A PAIR OF SUNGLASSES; HOW DOES HE INDICATE WHAT HE WANTS?

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~

IT'S REALLY VERY SIMPLE
HE OPENS HIS MOUTH AND ASKS FOR IT...
DOES YOUR EMPLOYER ACTUALLY PAY YOU TO THINK??
IF SO DO NOT LET THEM SEE YOUR ANSWERS FOR THIS TEST!

Government got sums wrong on tuition fees, says report

by Tim Lezard - 25th October 2012, 8.30 BST

The government has underestimated the cost to the public purse of its controversial changes to university funding, warns a report released today.

The report, from the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), says optimistic assumptions made by the government over the average level of university fees and how much money it would get back from graduates’ salaries mean the actual cost will be much more than the government budgeted for.

The UCU said the report was further evidence that the government’s decision to hike up university fees was an ideological move, rather than a financial one, and will cost far more at a time when the government is preaching austerity.

UCU general secretary Sally Hunt said: “This timely report highlights the inaccurate assumptions and optimistic predictions made by a government determined to push through higher fees, rather than properly consider the financial consequences of the move.

“We warned at the time that fees close to £9,000 a year would be the norm and that the calculations for repayment by graduates were flawed.

We take little pleasure in being correct, but it is clear now that forcing the burden of paying for university education onto students was an ideological move, not a financial one.

“This report highlights how lower earners are likely to see their salaries rise at a far slower rate than the top earners, which is another reminder that we really are not all in this together.”

NUS president Liam Buns said: “The government has told us these changes needed to be made to save money but despite the tripling of tuition fees their system costs the treasury billions more and creates even more instability for universities.

“In their rush to abdicate their responsibility for funding higher education the coalition got their sums badly wrong and have left a mess that will take years to fix.

“Higher education funding must be a key issue at the next general election and politicians of all parties must come together to recognise the public benefit it brings and the proper investment it requires.

ATL head of pay conditions and pensions Martin Freedman said: “The government’s higher education policy is now in tatters.

Almost every assurance that the government has given about the new fees system has been shown to be false, from the predicted average fee levels to the amount of money that students would repay.

“Universities have had their funding reduced by 80 per cent and students have been faced with a trebling of fees, and all this pain has been for nothing.

The government should apologise to all those students who have suffered so it can make an ideological point.”

The report challenges a number of assumptions made by the government including:

·         The average tuition fees is closer to £8300 than the £7,500 predicted by the government.

·         The average graduate salary in real terms 30 years after graduating will be £75,000 per year, far less than the government’s assumption of £100,000 – and still an extremely optimistic assumption given the nature of the world economy and the UK’s in particular.

·         The rate of salary increases will be evenly spread among all graduates – despite the fact that over the past 30 years highest earning graduates have increased their salaries very substantially whereas those earning the median or less have had very much more modest increases, if any at all.

Things that go bump in the night

Having two days off- back Friday

Thanks for being understanding.

The Millennium Green, North Hykeham, Lincoln

The Trust Deed dated 14th April 1999

 The object of the Millennium Green Trust, a registered charity
Now taken over by NKDC – North Kesteven District Council, Sleaford.

Objects

To provide and maintain an open space to be known as “Hykeham Millennium Green” for the benefit of the inhabitants and to be used forever as an area for informal recreation, play or other leisure-time occupations, a meeting area or place for community events and for any other lawful purpose consistent with these trusts and for the general benefit of the community.

Operation – NKDC now

What – Sport/recreation,Environment/Conservation/Heritage
Who- General Public/Mankind
Who – Provides buildings/facilities/open space

It does not say it is a wildlife park for some airy fairy organisation to manage it as such.

The stated objects are not being met.

For “Hill Holt Wood”, contracted by NKDC are interested in protecting and promoting wildlife and that in itself is admirable, but that is not what the object of the Millennium Green is.

The Community would be happy to share the Park with the wildlife plants, birds and animals as long as they are controlled, managed and are not seen as the priority.

There are other parks nearby at Whisby for that.

The footpath around the lake needs regular repair and a recognition that we cannot fence the sea in to protect those stupid enough to injure themselves in the lake.

I recognise there is an element of anti – social behaviour and some damage has been done. Dogs are exercised off the lead and cyclists do use it,mostly children learning to ride their bikes.

As the place is unkempt and under used it is not surprising that scant regard is paid to  protect it.

It does need some imagination and better facilities to increase use and to fulfil the objects.

It would be a pity to see it commercialised so I challenge NKDC to put some ideas to the local community and ask for their support.

They should review the contract with Hill Holt Wood, draw up a plan with the community to meet the objects and take action as the responsible authority,charged with providing a service to that community.

So far NKDC have not shown they are fit for purpose.  

The Radical

The British abroad expats not immigrants

The British living abroad see themselves as expats rather than immigrants –

but Indians in the UK don't get that choice
• 
o Ritwik Deo
o guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 July 2012 10.58 BST
o 
 
A retired British couple living on Spain's Costa Blanca.

If you only read the British media, you would think there are no British immigrants anywhere in the world. Instead, there are only legions upon legions of expats.

The word conjures up groups ripening in the sun on recliners by the pool, lounging in bars festooned with union flags, combing foreign supermarket aisles for Marmite and HP Sauce, and decrying bronzed natives and their lack of work ethic.

For a year or two I fancied I was an expat myself. I came from India to study at St Andrews on a bursary.

I mingled with classmates who had multiple passports, whose parents were expats in Zurich, Dubai, New York and Tokyo.

But as I marvelled at the ease with which they glided into France, took trains in Croatia and made friends with Bedouins in Jordan, I was having protracted arguments with customs, who jabbed at my documents every time I tried to nip over to Ireland or France.

Such treatment made me realise I would never been an expat – only an immigrant.

It seems it's impossible to be an Indian expatriate.

Even Lakshmi Mittal, the richest man in Britain, and an Indian passport holder, wouldn't dare to call himself an expat.

So what is the difference?

It seems expats have a special prerogative.

It is an entitlement with far-reaching consequences.

Not long ago, I won a free trip to the Caribbean.

On my flight was a senior executive from a large London-listed company heading back to his tax-haven paradise in the Bahamas.

 He had been an expat for nearly 25 years.

The Londoner loathed Britain and its tax regime.

He foamed at the mouth and gesticulated wildly as he nursed a glass with fluctuating levels of scotch.

I learned of his disgust at the dross pouring into his once-beloved country and the horrifying prospect of them benefiting from his tax money.

I nodded gamely as he told me how he hated immigrants and wished they would all bugger off to where they came from. Then he leaned back, closed his eyes, clucked his tongue, and said: "It's a good thing we have tame natives in the Caribbean.

 None of that PC nonsense."

The British in Spain number close to a million, and they positively abhor being called immigrants.

The most common argument given by the expat community is that they contribute to the local economy, take nothing, and create jobs.

They are not job-seeking flotsam and, after all, where would the Manuels and the Josés be without their money.
The irony of complaining about immigrants in their own country while living the life of an expat escapes the British. I don't blame them.

It is mere cognitive dissonance born out of centuries of dominion over large swaths of the world. From Delhi to Darfur, the correct way to drape a napkin on your knees or manipulate dinner cutlery was the British way.

The Indian just off the plane at Heathrow, the Pakistani out for his maiden walk on Oxford Street, the Lithuanian finding his way around St Pancras are all too acutely aware that this is not their country.

They must ingratiate themselves as soon as possible.

 Our expat has no such dislocations.

Australia, Canada, America, New Zealand and scores of pins and flags on the world map were once firmly and exclusively Anglo-Saxon in identity.

 Not any more.

The last few decades have seen planes and boats disgorge people of other, newer ethnicities, and they and their children have gained momentum in their adopted countries.

In face of this rising demographic pressure there is an even more urgent need to distinguish themselves as British.

Meanwhile, in France, the term immigré has negative connotations, almost always indicating either a clandestine or a Magrebhi.

 In Greece, being a metanastis is as good as being unwanted cargo from Africa.

The term expatriate is a stamp of superiority and is reserved for those who have the right passport – and look the part.

I, sadly, will never fit that mould

Proof a plastic bag tax works:

Welsh levy has seen the amount of bags given away fall 96%Wales introduced 5p tax on bags in October last year

Support for the scheme has risen 70% in six months

Scotland and Northern Ireland introducing similar schemes as pressure mounts for England to follow suit

By Sean Poulter and Tim Shipman
PUBLISHED: 00:57, 5 July 2012 | UPDATED: 00:57, 5 July 2012

..A tax on plastic bags in Wales has seen the number given away by shops fall by up to 96 per cent.

The news will heap pressure on David Cameron to make good his promise to tackle the blight of plastic bags and introduce a levy in England.

As well as cutting bag use, the Welsh scheme has raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for charities.
 
Plastic poison: Single-use bags are a blight on the environment and harm wildlife such as this Herring Gull in Portland Dorset struggling to free itself from a white plastic carrier bag

The country has seen public support for the 5p tax rise from 59 per cent to 70 per cent since its introduction last October, according to researchers.

And the programme is set to be the template for similar schemes in Scotland and Northern Ireland, while cities and countries across the globe are pursuing similar controls. 
 

More...'Hugely undervalued' English forests will not be sold off after U-turn by the Government
Does it pay to eat organic?

 'Natural' tomatoes are packed with more disease-fighting antioxidants, claim scientists
Country life costs £2,000 a year more than living in the city: Rural inflation running twice as high

The tax’s success is a vindication of the Daily Mail’s Banish the Bags campaign, which has won support from across the political spectrum and campaign groups including the Marine Conservation Society and National Trust.

A Cardiff University study into the Welsh bag charge, published yesterday, found that support for the scheme rose to 70 per cent six months after its introduction.

Opposition dropped to just 17 per cent.

Over the same period, the number of shoppers who said they used their own bags on their  latest supermarket visit rose from 61 per cent to 82 per cent.
 
Banish The Bags: Most of the 13billion plastic bags given away for free in the UK end up in landfill
Figures provided to the researchers by a sample of retailers, including Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s, the Co-operative, McDonald’s and John Lewis, revealed a big reduction in bag numbers.

Supermarkets reported a drop of up to 96 per cent, while numbers were down 95 per cent at DIY warehouses, 85 per cent at mobile phone shops, 75 per cent in clothing stores and 45 per cent at fast food outlets.

 But despite these encouraging Welsh statistics, official figures published today are expected to show the number of bags handed out by major stores has increased by at least 350million in a year.

The Prime Minister repeatededly promised both before and after the general election to tackle the blight associated with plastic bags.

It is understood that the idea of introducing a charge in England has the support of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the Chancellor George Osborne and the Treasury have – to date – blocked it.

The Prime Minister’s spokesman said: ‘We do want to work with retailers to see if we can reduce the number of bags they hand out. We are looking at the results of the scheme in Wales and the Scottish consultation.
‘Defra has been having meetings with retailers to discover how we can achieve that [reduction].’
 
Blight on the landscape: Plastic bags often litter the streets such as this one near Preston in Lancashire
A source close to Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman added: ‘All options are on the table.

‘The Welsh scheme seems to have had a downward pressure on the use of plastic bags.

We appreciate the positive effects that has had but there is an issue that any extra cost, however small, at a time when people are short is difficult. We are keen to encourage the use of bags for life, particularly light cotton ones.’

The Welsh study found women and older people were particularly supportive of the bag charge.

Consumers were also keen on the idea that money raised by the levy goes to charities, rather than the government.

The research team concluded: ‘This evaluation of the behavioural and attitudinal impacts of the introduction of the single-use carrier bag charge in Wales has shown that the policy is popular and effective.

‘The charge has helped to greatly increase own-bag use in Wales across all age groups and for men and women alike.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2168985/Proof-plastic-bag-tax-works-Welsh-levy-seen-bags-given-away-fall-96.html#ixzz1zhvM2k1u

Why gay marriage divides the world

22 May 2012

by Sarah Estes and Jesse Graham

For similar stories, visit the Love and Sex Topic Guide
The split over same-sex unions is more than ideological.

It has deep moral and psychological roots

SO NOW we know: US president Barack Obama is in favour of same-sex marriage.

After evading the question for months, he finally made his position clear in a TV interview.

"For me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married," he told ABC.

The battle lines are thus drawn over what is sure to be an explosive issue in the US election.

Proponents of gay marriage in the US could take a few pointers from the British prime minister, David Cameron. Last September, he famously addressed the Conservative party conference with a plan to legalise gay marriage before 2015.

 "Yes, it's about equality," he said, "but it's also about something else: commitment.

Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us... So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative.

I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative."

Cameron's take on the issue is unusual. Supporters of gay marriage usually argue from a liberal perspective.

They see the ability to marry as a basic civil and human right, and are deeply disturbed by injustice done in the name of morality.

Conservatives see the issue through a different moral lens.

 Over 70 per cent of US conservatives still oppose gay marriage, often citing the affront to social stability, tradition and the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

Like abortion, gay marriage is one of those hot-button issues in the culture war between liberals and conservatives.

Why do people disagree so fundamentally, and why are they so convinced morality is on their side?

Over the past few years, psychological research has begun to offer answers to this question, and a surprising number of them boil down to disgust.

In 2008, a team led by Simone Schnall of the University of Plymouth, UK, found that inducing feelings of disgust - by a flatulent smell, dirty surroundings or a movie clip of a filthy toilet - increased the severity of people's judgements about a range of morally suspect actions, from pilfering cash from a found wallet to eating a dead dog (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 34, p 1096).

This effect has since been confirmed and extended.

A group led by Kendall Eskine at the City University of New York found that the effects of disgust on moral judgements were particularly strong for those on the political right (Psychological Science, vol 22, p 295).

And several studies led by Yoel Inbar of Tilburg University in the Netherlands have found that conservatives are more easily disgusted (Cognition & Emotion, vol 23, p 714).

This year, Inbar's team found that exposure to disgusting smells can amplify negative attitudes toward gay men in both liberals and conservatives (Emotion, vol 12, p 23). Interestingly, it had no effect on attitudes towards other social minorities such as lesbians, African-Americans or the elderly.

So there seems to be an intuitive link between disgust and moral judgement, and this link seems to be much stronger for conservatives than for liberals.

This, we believe, explains some of the differences in opinion on gay marriage.

 In short, conservatives are more likely to find homosexuality disgusting and therefore morally unacceptable; liberals might feel some disgust at the idea of gay sex but consciously reject it as a basis for moral opinion.

Other research has found that liberals tend to see moral issues in terms of individual suffering or unfairness, whereas conservatives have more group-level concerns, such as loyalty, patriotism and respect for authority and tradition.

Across dozens of countries, liberals are more morally offended by the idea of kicking a dog or cheating at cards than by ideas of betraying their family, cursing their parents, or doing harmless-yet-disgusting things like urinating in public.

Conservatives find all of these equally repugnant.

All this research not only shows why disagreements about gay marriage are so intractable, it also suggests ways that those who support the idea can get through to people morally opposed to it.

Because liberal supporters of gay marriage see morality as a matter of minimising harm and unfairness, these are the terms they exclusively use in their arguments about why banning it is wrong.

Conservatives might agree about the importance of equality, but are more likely to have an intuitive aversion to homosexuals, seeing them as out-group members trying to infiltrate the sacred in-group institution of marriage, flaunting their disrespect for traditional gender roles, and doing what they see as disgusting things to each other in the bedroom.

In our home state of Missouri, a flyer sent out by the Republican party included images of what would happen if liberals came to power: immigrants flooding in, the Bible being banned and gay men kissing in public.

Ridiculous as this seems (especially to liberals), such moral button-pushing has been an effective strategy for the right, in part because those on the left aren't addressing the deeply held moral intuitions triggered by such caricatures.

Again, difficult as it may be for liberals, they should follow Cameron's lead. By explicitly associating gay marriage with conservative values, Cameron went beyond simply repeating that banning it wasn't fair.

If opponents can be persuaded that homosexuals are crucial members of the national in-group (often fighting for their country, for example), that legalising gay marriage would be part of a rich tradition of expanding civil liberties, and that gay marriage is more about love and commitment than sex, then marriage equality could be achieved much more quickly.

Sarah Estes is a science writer based in Los Angeles.

Jesse Graham is assistant professor of psychology at the University of Southern California

Supermarkets accused of ripping off shoppers with 'misleading' offers

Which? survey reveals that buying single items can often be cheaper than attractive-looking multipack promotions

Martin Hickman  Thursday 24 May 2012 
 

Many items in shop multibuy promotions, such as "two packs of Innocent smoothies for £5", were actually cheaper if bought singly, an analysis of thousands of prices by a consumer group found.

In an exhaustive check of supermarket offers, Which? found several deals which looked attractive at first glance actually end up hitting consumers in the pocket.

Examples include raising the price of an item for only a few days shortly before putting it "on sale" for months, and advertising a higher "before" price than the one prior to the discount period beginning, both of which give the impression of greater savings.

The supermarkets said they had made honest mistakes and apologised to customers.

Which? tracked 700,000 prices over a year from 31 January 2011 and 1 February 2012 at the shopping website Mysupermarket.co.uk.

The consumer group did not quantify how many offers it considered to be potentially misleading because there were "so many", but highlighted 24.

Thirteen were at Asda, six at Tesco, two at Sainsbury, two at Morrisons and one at Ocado.

Among them, Tesco raised the price of a pack of blueberries from £1.80 to £3.99 for a fortnight before offering it for 52 days at £1.99 – still 19p more than before it was increased.

Asda marked down Aquafresh milk teeth toothpaste to between £1 and £1.17 with a "was" price of £1.74, but Which? could only find it as having been sold previously at £1.17.

Among examples of dubious multibuy offers, Asda doubled the price of a single Müller yogurt from 30p to 61p; the price went back down to 30p when the offer ended.

And Tesco put wine on promotion for up to three months longer than it was sold at the advertised "was" price.

Which? called for a tightening of government guidelines on pricing, saying there were too many loopholes for retailers to exploit.

The guidelines state that the "was" price should be the most recent a product was sold at for 28 consecutive days, and that a product should not usually be on offer for longer than it was at the higher price.

Richard Lloyd, Which? executive director, said: "At a time when household budgets are squeezed and food bills are going up, many people are on the look out for a bargain.

 It's unacceptable that shoppers are confused into thinking they're getting a good deal when that might not be the case. Consumers shouldn't have to worry about whether a special offer is really 'special'."

Most of the supermarkets said the offers highlighted were occasional lapses, though Morrisons disputed Which?'s findings.

Asda said: "We are only human and occasionally we make mistakes.

By and large our systems and procedures ensure those instances are kept to an absolute minimum."

Tesco explained that it changed millions of price labels in store and online each week "and we sometimes make mistakes, for which we apologise".

Morrisons said the lower prices on multibuy items quoted by Which? were promotional discounts, emphasising: "The multibuy price is always cheaper per unit than the standard price."

Sainsbury said it had "accidentally" put the wrong "was" price on packs of The Black Farmer sausages but said the other offer highlighted by Which? – selling asparagus at higher price for only a fortnight before discounting it for two months – was within its guidelines.

Ocado regretted its "one isolated" example – a sharp increase in the price of pack of strawberries for 13 days before it went on offer.

Real deals? Offers that may save less than you think

Asda

Aquafresh Milk Teeth Toothpaste 0-3 Years (50ml)

Was: £1.74

Offer price: £1/£1.16/£1.17

Days on offer: 35

Highest price during Which?'s tracking was £1.18

Asda

Pedigree Chunks in Gravy Selection (12x400g)

Was: £7.21

Offer price: £6/£5

Days on offer: 77

Highest price during Which?'s tracking was £6.25

Products that were not sold at the 'was' price immediately before offer

Morrisons

Innocent Pure Fruit Smoothie Mangoes & Passion Fruits (750ml)

Price each before multibuy: £2 promo discount

Price each during multibuy: £2.79

Multibuy offer: two for £5. The multibuy offer makes the product more expensive per carton than it was before the offer.

Tesco

L'Oréal Elvive Colour Protect UV Filter Conditioner (250ml)

Price each before multibuy: £2

Price each during multibuy: £2.25

Multibuy offer: 3 for 2. It looks like the saving is 75p per bottle, but it is really only 50p per bottle.

Sainsbury's

Asparagus (250g)

Was: £3

Offer price: £1.50

Days on offer: 63

Only spent 14 days at the higher price before the offer was introduced, with a sign explaining the offer.

Asda

Philadelphia Original (300g)

Was: £2.37

Offer prices: £1, £1.77, £1.97, £2.12

Days on offer: 73

The only time the spread was sold at the 'was' price was 42 days earlier, when it went up from £2.12 for 11 days.

The expats who are far too happy to be homesick

 (but they still miss a good old-fashioned British pub)

By Steve Doughty, Social Affairs Correspondent
PUBLISHED: 22:48, 20 April 2012 | UPDATED: 12:35, 21 April 2012

You might expect them to pine for the countryside, hanker after the beer or at least wonder what's happening on EastEnders.

But these days, it seems British expats are too busy enjoying the customs and cuisine of their adopted countries to feel homesick in the slightest.

The majority of those who have left the UK don't miss British television, food, culture or the sense of humour, a study has found.
 

Warmer climes: The majority of those who have left the UK don't miss British television, food or culture - but enjoy warmer weather in places like Syney (Bondi Beach pictured) and Spain

And they even get by quite happily without their family and friends – content with using the internet to keep in touch instead.
In fact, the only thing that most emigrants still crave is the sociable atmosphere of the good old British pub.
 

Missed: The only thing most emigrants crave is the sociable atmosphere of the good old British pub
A poll of 1,800 expats in a dozen countries found that only a quarter of those living abroad miss British television, while just 41 per cent miss the British sense of humour. 
 

More...Do I need a French will if I own a home there, or is my English one enough?

British expat Neil Heywood left his family so broke a business associate had to pay for plane tickets for them to attend his funeral

Fewer than one in ten hunger for British groceries or crave items such as HP Sauce, baked beans and Marmite.

And nobody at all said they pine for the countryside or cultural heritage. The study also found that the numbers who do long for the trappings of British life are in decline.
 

Pride of the English tea-table: Fewer than one in ten expats hunger for British items such as HP Brown sauce

All of the things that expats are supposed to miss have less hold on them than they did four years ago, when 40 per cent said they yearned for the countryside and a third felt nostalgic for the cultural heritage.

The survey, carried out by the Centre for Future Studies think-tank in Kent, found that instant internet communication means homesickness and isolation no longer bother emigrants.

It concluded: 'Missing family and friends was once at the top of the list of regrets, but it is not such a key issue today.

'The number of expats who miss their nearest and dearest has dropped by nearly a third.

'One explanation for this is the internet which is changing the way people live their lives abroad, and bringing family ties online.'

Emigrants are now more concerned with adapting to their new countries, it added.

Dave Isley of NatWest International, which commissioned the study, said: 'Technology has lessened the extent of the emotional trauma or guilt of not seeing an important family event. Expats are experiencing new cultures, traditions and customs.'
WHERE ARE  OUR 5.6M BRITISH EXPATS?
Brits have often favoured warmer climes when deciding to leave their motherland.

Spain and Australia continue to be the most popular destinations for British expats.
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) estimates the size of the British community abroad at 5.6 million.

The largest British expat populations are in Australia (more than a million), Spain, the United States, Canada and France.

Around one million British expats live in Spain, particularly around Marbella and Malaga, and some 50,000 in Portugal.

The institute's report, 'Global Brit: Making the most of the British Diaspora' published in 2010, states that communities of more than 1,000 Britons exist in more than 100 countries around the world.

China and the United Arab Emirates have also seen significant growth in British expats since 2006 - 30% and 20% respectively.

Most British emigrants tend to move abroad for work-related reasons. Students also make up a big proportion, as do pensioners.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132916/The-expats-far-happy-homesick.html#ixzz1spNmRSlD

'Our 19-year age gap was only an issue to other people'

By Emily Payne |

Yahoo Lifestyle –

Tue, Apr 10, 2012 17:17 BST

Samantha Booth was 21 and working behind a bar at her local pub in Glasgow, when Martin, a man nineteen years her senior, walked into her life.

“People are just people, no matter how old they are,” says Samantha.

“They have the same worries, hopes and fears.

 You think by the time you’re 50 you’ll be a completely different person but you’re the same in essence.”

While others were shocked by her decision to start dating a considerably older man, Samantha was determined to make it work.

Now, 35, the freelance PR says: “I don’t look at Martin and think, 'oh my gosh, you’re only ten years younger than my mum'. I just see him as the man I love.”

How we met

Martin, a truck driver, now 54, was a regular in the pub Samantha had begun working in after moving home following a trip to America, and the pair were introduced by her brother.

She says: “I think it was love at first sight.

There was a definite “wow” moment.

It sounds a bit twee, but it felt as if we’d met before.

[Related feature: Should older women date younger men?]

[Related feature: Signs that they're the one]

“He wasn’t the kind of guy I normally went for.

He didn’t look old, he just looked like a 39-year-old guy.

But I was 21, so there was an obvious gap.

He had a slightly lived-in face, very dark hair, a nose that has been broken so many times it’s a bit crooked and these lovely hazel eyes.

“He wasn’t this buff and toned guy, but he was cheeky, loved to joke. I knew I wanted to get to know him.

We used to chat during the quiet moments and eventually, one night, he asked me for a drink.

That was it, really.

“He was more grown up than my previous boyfriends.

There was none of the testosterone-fuelled silliness I’d seen among friends’ boyfriends. I think I got him just at the right age.

“The age gap was never an issue for us– only for other people.

There was a lot of gossip about it when we met.

He got hassled about having a younger girlfriend and I could tell my friends were thinking ‘what on earth are you doing?’”

How people reacted

While Samantha’s parents were supportive, others were quick to judge.

She says: “When my nana first met Martin, she looked over him with a steely gaze and asked me if I was looking for a father figure. I wasn’t even looking for a boyfriend.

And I certainly never thought I would find him in a local pub that I’d avoided all my life!

“All I remember my mum saying was ‘If you love him, you love him and that’s that’.

“But my friends were shocked, I remember them looking at him as if to say ‘what does she see in you?’

 It was a shame.

“Martin once came with me to a nightclub full of teenagers.

He was up dancing and this young boy came over and asked ‘who’s the granddad on the dance floor?’

“But when people got to know him, nobody even thought about it – we were just Martin and Sam.

Eight months later, the couple moved in together.

“We bought a house and I went back to university.

Martin was a huge support.

I think a younger man would have tried to encouraged me to go out more, and would have distracted me,” says Samantha.

“We talked about marriage in the early days, but it never quite came together.

It might be nice, but we feel committed to each other anyway.

He has been married before when he was in his early twenties.

“I am aware of the clock ticking but children are not a huge priority for us.

 Martin has a 21-year-old daughter from another long-term relationship who stays with us every weekend.

She was six when we met, so I was taking on quite a lot at the age she is now.”

Overcoming obstacles

“For me the hardest time was when I started working in an office at the age of 24.

Suddenly a new social life was opening up.

I wanted to do all the things my friends were doing, but Martin, who was in the ‘I’d rather have a Chinese and watch a movie’ stage', was bit a grumpy about it all.

“There were times when I thought, no matter how much I love him, maybe it would be better if I was with someone closer to my own age, but it was always fleeting.

You can’t be together for 15 years without at some point wondering: ‘Am I in the right place here?’

“We used to go to concerts but now he can’t deal with crowds and the thought of a shopping mall on a Saturday afternoon would horrify him.

On holiday, I want to hire bikes and ride horses, but he draws the line when it comes to anything too active.

“Sometimes I wish I had met him in his twenties, but from the stories I’ve heard, he was a bit of a wild child so I am glad I met him when I did.

Men and women have different emotional cycles and maybe a man five or ten years older than you is just the right level.

True love

“I think we are pushing the appropriate age gap.

More than 20 years may have been an issue.

I do wonder if I’ll have a baby, and I’m aware that it will be different having an older dad, but what is most important is that we are still together.

“Everything else falls into place if you are certain you love someone for who they are.

People say we are a great team. Martin has a fantastic take on life.

He always had a wise old owl way of looking at things, which is born from experience.”

The best thing about him, says Sam, is that he never fails to make her laugh.

“If I’ve got a bit of a strop on he can bring me out of it within minutes,” she says.

“If I had children, it wouldn’t bother me at all if they went out with someone a lot older – if you love them nothing else really matters does it?”

Are you in a relationship with somebody a lot younger or older than you?

What are the benefits or drawbacks?

ONE. Give people more than they expect and do it cheerfully.

TWO. Marry a man/woman you love to talk to.
As you get older, their conversational skills will be as important as any other.

THREE. Don't believe all you hear, spend all you have or sleep all you want.

FOUR. When you say, 'I love you,' mean it.

FIVE.. When you say, 'I'm sorry,' look the person in the eye..

SIX. Be engaged at least six months before you get married.

SEVEN. Believe in love at first sight.

EIGHT. Never laugh at anyone's dreams.
People who don't have dreams don't have much.

NINE..... Love deeply and passionately.
You might get hurt but it's the only way to live life completely.

TEN.. In disagreements, fight fairly. No name calling.

ELEVEN. Don't judge people by their relatives.

TWELVE. Talk slowly but think quickly.

THIRTEEN. When someone asks you a question you don't want to answer, smile and ask, 'Why do you want to know?'

FOURTEEN. Remember that great love and great achievements involve great risk.

FIFTEEN. Say 'bless you' when you hear someone sneeze.

SIXTEEN. When you lose, don't lose the lesson.

SEVENTEEN. Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for others; and Responsibility for all your actions.

EIGHTEEN. Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship.

NINETEEN. When you realize you've made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it.

TWENTY. Smile when picking up the phone. The caller will hear it in your voice

TWENTY- ONE. Spend some time alone.

Now, here's the FUN part!

Send this to at least 5 people and your life will improve.
1-4 people: Your life will improve slightly.
5-9 people: Your life will improve to your liking.

9-14 people: You will have at least 5 surprises in the next 3 weeks
15 and above: Your life will improve drastically and everything you ever dreamed of will begin to take shape.


A true friend is someone who reaches for your hand and touches your heart.

What are the chances todays baby will live to 100?

Diet and lifestyle will help you reach a ripe old age, but genes are more important.
 
Looking good: a third of all babies born in the past year are likely to live to be 100 years old 

By Max Davidson
7:30AM BST 02 Apr 2012
 
Am I going to make my century? It is a question more and more of us ask ourselves as 70 becomes the new 60, 80 the new 90 and 90 the new 80.

The odds are still against getting to 100, but they are shortening all the time: last week, the Office for National Statistics predicted that a third of all babies born in the past year are likely still to be alive in 2112 – and the number of centenarians will rise to almost half a million by 2050.

Science, meanwhile, is coming up with some crucial answers to the all-important question: what is the secret of reaching the magic number?

A healthy diet and lifestyle are clearly key, but research at the University of Boston, published earlier this year in the science journal PLoS One, suggests that genetic factors may be more important.

While our genes are only thought to influence our chance of living to 85 by about 20 to 30 per cent, the Boston study suggests that they could play a far greater role in our survival chances into the late eighties and beyond.

When researchers scanned the genomes of 800 centenarians and compared them with similar samples from a control group, they identified 281 genetic variants that appeared to play a role in ageing.

These were grouped into 26 different ''genetic signatures’’, shared by 90 per cent of the centenarians in the trial. (The genome is someone’s entire hereditary information, encoded in their DNA.)

In other words, while going to the gym and staying off cheeseburgers is all very well, your best chance of reaching 100 could simply be having a centenarian for a parent or grandparent.

Although there is no single ''ageing gene’’, the genetic signatures revealed by the Boston study could yield “a better understanding of the genetic basis of delaying or escaping age‑related diseases”, says Dr Thomas Perls, a lead author of the report and director of the New England Centenarian Study.

Whatever conclusions the scientists come to, and wherever further research leads, the elders of the tribe, living decades longer than their contemporaries, will always be an object of veneration and fascination.

Every centenarian has a different story to tell, with some seemingly reaping the rewards of living a healthy life while others defy the years despite having, in some respects, outrageously unhealthy lifestyles.

As this cavalcade of centenarians past and present shows, there are almost as many ways to live to 100 as there are to die young.

Lovers of life

Wisecracking comedian Bob Hope reached the 100 mark in 2003, and died a few weeks later.

“I’m so old, they cancelled my blood type,” he once joked.

The British-born star was as physically active as he was quick-tongued.

A voracious womaniser, Hope was also a fanatical golfer, playing well into his nineties.

Whatever his secret, it was clearly infectious.

His wife Dolores lived to 102.

The late Queen Elizabeth, who lived to 101, cheerfully broke the medical rules, consuming, according to some estimates, 70 units of alcohol a week – five times the recommended number for a woman.

Her favourite tipples included gin, Dubonnet, claret and champagne.

She was famous for her sense of mischief, led a busy social life, and relaxed by reading PG Wodehouse novels.

The oldest centenarian whose birth date has been reliably documented was a Frenchwoman, Jeanne Calment, who died in 1997 at the age of 122 (and therefore qualifies as one of the world’s few supercentenarians – people who have lived beyond the age of 110).

She attributed her own longevity to the copious amounts of olive oil she poured on her food.

 She kept active and cycled into her nineties, but also had her fair share of vices.

She drank port, consumed a kilogram of chocolate a week, and smoked, in moderation, until she was 117.

One centenarian who gleefully confounded medical opinion was the American comedian George Burns, who died in 1996, shortly after his 100th birthday.

Burns smoked between 10 and 15 of his trademark cigars a day, often accompanied by a martini.

He dedicated one of his books to “the widows of my last six doctors”.

Creatures of habit

Christian Mortensen, who died in California in 1998 aged 115, summed up the secrets of his longevity as “friends, a good cigar, drinking lots of good water, no alcohol, staying positive and lots of singing”.

A former milkman and factory worker, he had a mainly vegetarian diet and boiled all his water.

The Japanese centenarian Tane Ikai had a diet of stultifying monotony that would have tried the patience of a saint. On a typical day, she ate three meals of rice porridge.

But it did the trick. Ikai pegged out in 1995, at the age of 116.

Great-great-grandmother Ada Marley, from Oxfordshire, who turned 100 in January, combines an abstemious lifestyle with an active mind: “I have never smoked or drunk, but I have kept myself busy with things like needlework and embroidery.”

 She keeps herself mentally alert by doing a crossword or word puzzle every day.

Minnesota railway clerk Walter Breuning, who died in 2011 at the age of 114, practised callisthenics (a type of exercise to increase body strength) daily almost until his death.

His diet consisted of a large breakfast followed by smaller meals later in the day. In old age, he skipped his evening meal altogether and ate fruit instead.

Natural-born survivors

The German film-maker Leni Riefenstahl, notorious for her Nazi propaganda films in the Thirties, was also renowned for her stamina and physical resilience.

She survived a helicopter crash at the age of 100, and was still a keen scuba-diver when she died in 2003, at the age of 101.

One of the last survivors of the First World War, Henry Allingham was briefly the oldest man in the world before his death in 2009, at the age of 113.

As well as witnessing the horrors of war, he suffered two nervous breakdowns, but he remained upbeat.

He jokingly attributed his longevity to “cigarettes, whisky and wild, wild women”.

Another man to weather an inauspicious start in life was the songwriter Irving Berlin, whose family fled Russia during the pogroms of the late 19th century.

The composer of White Christmas was a workaholic, often making do with very little sleep, and was prone to bouts of depression; but he passed the century mark in 1988, shortly before his death

Grim future predicted for baby-boomer generation

 as millions approach 65th birthday

By Sam Dunn

PUBLISHED: 23:20, 27 March 2012 | UPDATED: 14:21, 28 March 2012 

They were born in the afterglow of the end of World War II, when there was the hope and promise of a better, wealthier future.

But today, as millions approach their 65th birthdays, the last of the baby-boomer generation faces a gloomy future.

Their pensions are being wrecked by attempts by the Treasury and the Bank of England to get the UK economy on track.

 Under pressure: The Budget delivered another hammer blow for baby-boomers

Last week’s Budget delivered another hammer blow when Chancellor George Osborne scrapped the higher personal allowance for the over-65s, leaving many as much as £323 a year worse off.

Here we highlight the plight of the tail-end baby boomers...

An OAP’s perk

Since 1925 the UK tax system has recognised that pensioners often live on small fixed incomes and so need a little extra help.

'GRANNY TAX' PETITION

Sign the ‘e-petition’ started by Arthur Streatfield, 63, from Bath, calling for a reversal of the Chancellor’s plans.

If it gets 100,000 signatures, it has a chance of being debated in the House of Commons.

Add your name here.

As a result, the elderly currently enjoy a higher tax-free personal allowance — the amount of income they can earn before paying tax — than ordinary workers. Anyone aged from 65 to 74 currently has a personal allowance of £9,940, and this will rise to £10,500 on April 6.

It’s even higher for those older than 75: £10,090 today and about to rise to £10,660 next month. This is considerably more than the current £7,475 allowed for everyone else, a sum due to rise to only £8,105 in April. 
 

More...Fury as full scale of 'Granny tax' emerges
How YOU are affected by the 'Granny Tax'

However, wealthier pensioners don’t benefit from this higher allowance. It is withdrawn once incomes rise above £24,000 a year.

For over-65s, the extra allowance applies up to a total income of £24,000 in the 2011-12 tax year (rising to £25,400 in the 2012-13 tax year).

Above this threshold, the higher personal allowance is then cut by £1 for every £2 earned above the limit. What that means is that after a pensioner’s income reaches £28,930, the amount they can earn free of tax is the same as it is for ordinary taxpayers.

 An estimated five million pensioners qualify for the extra allowance. It means they pay less tax, which allows their cash to stretch further — a lifeline when, as a pensioner, income is quite often fixed.

So compared with a worker on exactly the same income, a 65 to 74-year-old can end up paying up to £493 a year less tax.

And anyone aged 75 or older has a slightly higher allowance again, meaning they pay £523 less tax than a worker on an identical income.

Benefits stripped

Money Mail has frequently reported about how baffling the withdrawal of the higher personal allowance can be for pensioners.

We sent thousands of your letters to the Office of Tax Simplification earlier this year after it asked pensioners to describe which bits of the tax system they hated.

You told how you never realised the withdrawal of the higher allowance existed, felt the income level at which it was taken away was too low, and described how you had been given incorrect tax bills and made to fill in self-assessment forms because of it.

The OTS suggested the confusing withdrawal of the allowance should be scrapped.

But in his Budget speech, Mr Osborne moved to get rid of higher allowances altogether.

Anyone turning 65 after April 5, 2013 will now lose this tax perk. Instead of benefiting from the planned higher allowance of £10,500, they’ll now qualify for the same one as workers of all ages — £9,205 from April 2013.

 If you’re already 65 or older and retired, your allowance will be frozen at £10,500.

If you’re 75 or over, the allowance will be frozen at £10,660 from April 2013 — and those rates will stay frozen until they match up with everybody else’s personal allowance as it’s raised, as expected, by the Chancellor over the next couple of years.

Allowances frozen
Pensioners with incomes between £10,800 and £26,200 and who are turning 65 next year would be £323 worse off thanks to the Budget, the Institute of Fiscal Studies calculated last week.

According to figures from HM Revenue & Customs, the freezing of the allowances will see 4.4 million pensioners lose out by an average of £83 in the 2013/14 tax year.

Around half of all pensioners do not have sufficiently large incomes to be taxed, so they will be unaffected.

And wealthier pensioners will also avoid the changes, as they never benefited anyway.

By freezing allowances, any pensioner who already pays tax will get only 80p for every £1 increase in the basic state pension, because the amount they can earn tax free will not change and, as a result, every extra pound in income above the allowance is taxed at the basic 20 per cent rate.

Pension crunch

Those nearing retirement are already facing one of the toughest times in a generation.

The number of people paying into company pensions has slumped to its lowest level since the Fifties.

Final salary schemes are vanishing and ‘money purchase’ schemes, where you exchange a pot of cash built up over a working life for an annuity, or annual income, until you die, are shrinking. Here, the amount you can get in exchange for your pension pot at retirement has fallen off a cliff.

There are several reasons for this: rock-bottom interest rates, stock market slumps and our increased longevity.

But one of the main causes is the Bank of England’s policy of ‘quantitative easing’. While it can help mortgage borrowers and the High Street, it is punishing savers who are seeing real returns close to zero, as the inflation caused eats into interest earned.

Savings shortfall

The Bank of England base rate has been at a historic low of 0.5 per cent for more than three years.

 In March 2008, a pensioner drawing on £10,000 savings in a bank account could expect an average annual interest of £381 from an easy-access savings account.

Today, the average account would provide just £98, according to data provider Moneyfacts.

What you can do

Sign the ‘e-petition’ started by Arthur Streatfield, 63, from Bath, calling for a reversal of the Chancellor’s plans.

If it gets 100,000 signatures, it has a chance of being debated in the House of Commons.

Add your name to the petition here.

And write to your MP, asking them to directly lobby the Chancellor to consider the proposal or to raise the issue in Parliament.

JAMES CONEY: The Chancellor must postpone the Granny Tax

Today Money Mail calls on the Chancellor to postpone his ill-conceived scrapping of higher age-related tax allowances for pensioners.

 We believe the Government should put on hold plans to strip this vital perk from anyone turning 65 from April 6, 2013, until the new, higher basic state pension is launched.

Without this delay, up to 700,000 people a year who turn 65 will not only end up paying more tax, but will also be consigned to spending their retirement on a lower pension.

George Osborne’s Budget announcement was a brutal attack on pensioners’ incomes, masquerading as a way to make their lives easier.

By freezing allowances, he has stopped some pensioners who have saved for their retirements from getting the full benefit of increases in the basic state pension because they would lose part of any increase to tax.

The Treasury sought to justify this change by saying all pensioners would be better off because they would qualify for a new flat-rate basic state pension of around £140 a week — also announced by the Chancellor.

But since this was first proposed, it has been clear the new state pension will only be for future pensioners — those who retire after it is introduced.

The remainder, including up to 700,000 a year who will turn 65 from April 6, 2013, will miss out.

If the £140 a week state pension is not introduced until 2016 — which is the earliest it seems likely to come in — it could leave as many as 2.8 million paying more tax and deprived of a higher pension.

While Money Mail is supportive of plans to simplify tax for pensioners, stripping the allowance altogether only penalises those who have strived to put away a small pot of savings for their retirement. It is not those on generous final salary pensions who are benefiting — many of whom already pay higher rate tax — but those on limited incomes.

They have already seen their retirement incomes stripped by policies — supported by this Government — that have led to three years of rock-bottom interest rates, and pension payouts hitting an all-time low.

The Tories have abandoned a principle set out by Winston Churchill in 1925 that those who have worked throughout their lives and are now on limited incomes deserve a tax break in their retirement.

As it did with changes to the retirement age for women, this Government has again moved the goalposts for people without warning, and with little time for those retiring to change their plans.

And in an attempt to simplify tax for pensioners, it has simply created a three-tier system where, due to a pure fluke of birth, some will be left with a higher tax bill and a second-rate state pension.

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/

Whatever happened to Sundays?

The Chancellor may want to get tills ringing but we deserve our day of rest, argues Clive Aslet.
 
Open all hours: could rules regulating Sunday shopping be lifted altogether? 

10:40PM GMT 18 Mar 2012

Of all the days in the year on which to announce the imminent death of Sunday, George Osborne picked about the worst.

Mother’s Day has, perhaps, been a bit overdone by the greetings card manufacturers and Interflora, but remains one of the great festivals of the family.

True, children of churchgoers are taken to services and leave them clutching daffodils; the Church embraces the day as an occasion to give thanks — a maternal equivalent of Harvest Festival.

It comes halfway through Lent, making it a good time to have a big meal.

Otherwise, though, religion needn’t come into it.

It falls on a Sunday because that is the day on which people are least likely to be doing something else.

Sundays are special — specially dull, the compulsively over-active might say, but only because the pace is slower, and many people, Christian or not, find on this one day of the week time to see their parents, children, siblings, friends.

Opening the major stores all day, as the Government proposes, means that, for many people, that won’t be possible. Mothering Sunday? From now on, it might as well be Mothering Tuesday. Every day of the week will be the same.

I know it’s only supposed to be for the Olympics, but who can really imagine the supposedly temporary change won’t stick? Assuming that it does, it will represent a legacy, but not a benign one. Not just shop workers but the spirit of the nation as a whole will be the worse for it.

Stand by for triumphalism in the Richard Dawkins camp.

The secularists will be pulling their party-poppers in celebration of another victory, as they may see it, over Christianity.

They may believe that the state is wrong to support ancient superstitions by distinguishing one day from another. But that runs counter to the Prime Minister’s vision of a Big Society.

Sunday is when the Big Society is most likely to become manifest.

Think of the street parties that are being planned across Britain for the Jubilee.

We got to talking about ours last week, and realised that Sunday was the only day on which it would be possible to close the road; there’s a market in it from Monday to Saturday.

Should Sunday trading laws be scrapped?
No, Sunday trading laws are important for families

Yes, but only for the Olympics and not after

They are a relic and should be scrapped altogether

VoteView Results

Share This

What a long way we’ve already travelled in the course of a generation.

When I was a child, you had to plan for Sundays.

You (or to be realistic, your mother) had to stock up with all the necessaries of life by the end of Saturday afternoon, because that is when the shops closed, not to reopen until Monday morning.

You had make sure you had something to do; no football, cricket or racing fixtures took place.

Dad had to have pre-filled the car with petrol, in case the garage was closed.

Drinkers couldn’t count on an afternoon in the pub, because it closed at 2pm.

(When I worked, briefly, as a barman, I found that a blessing.) Instead, our family, like thousands of others, looked forward to Sunday as the day when we sat around the table to eat, if we were lucky, a roast chicken (then a more expensive article than today), or a joint of lamb, beef or pork.

I mustn’t make it sound like a Norman Rockwell painting.

There was a good deal of watching the rain trickle down the windows, if only we had realised that child psychiatrists would say that boredom is actually a creative part of growing up (it makes you get on and find something more interesting to do).

Now that era has gone so completely that I can hardly believe I lived through it.

Life is generally better. In our London street, we use the “Food and Wine” store opposite as a larder, crossing backwards and forwards every time we need provisioning, several times every day.

I cannot use a library on Sundays, but otherwise I am spoilt for choice of the activities on offer.

Some churchmen claim that the decline of Sunday congregations does not reflect a collapse of belief, simply a change of lifestyle; people who are busy on Sundays now worship at other times.

The change has, in other words, been comprehensive, and yet Sunday clings to a tiny vestige of its old self.

It is small enough: on this one day out of the seven, big shops can only open for six hours.

Now they want to snatch away this last thread of the sacred robe in which Sunday used to be dressed.

Let not me be the one to shout conspiracy, but the change to Sunday comes hard on the heels of the proposed gay marriage.

 You do not have to be observant, in the religious sense, to feel that both marriage and the special character of Sunday are sanctified by tradition as much as God.

As the art critic and homosexual Brian Sewell brilliantly explained in the Evening Standard, holy matrimony is a sacrament which means more than partnership; people may be inclined to forget it — indeed I did not know until the other day — but the word matrimony derives from mater, meaning mother.

It’s the state which the Church blesses for the procreation of children.

Gay matrimony, or marriage, is therefore a contradiction in terms.

Who knows how that one will play out.

But I wouldn’t blame traditionalists for feeling themselves victim of a concerted attempt to undermine their world.

Strange that this should happen under a Conservative-led government, or is it?

 It merely adds to the topsy-turviness of things.

The speed of change has left some of us behind.

The first Sunday Trading Bill was introduced in 1986, when the prime minister was not Gladstone or Disraeli but Margaret Thatcher.

Such was the strength of feeling that it was roundly thrown out.

 In fact it has the distinction of being one of the few pieces of legislation in the 20th century to be defeated on the second reading, because 150 Tories voted against the party line.

They were old-school Conservatives who saw themselves as shepherds to the national flock.

We had to wait until John Major’s government for the libertarians to triumph and relax the rules.

 I don’t know whether the swings in the Outer Hebrides are still chained up on the Sabbath, to prevent children from disporting themselves in an unseemly fashion.

But the Caledonian MacBrayne ferries do operate a Sunday timetable, rather than leaving passengers marooned. In the big cities, shopping at Bluewater or Westfield has become the destination of choice for a family day out, rather than the countryside or the local park.

Only on Easter Day do the big stores close completely.

I ought, at this point, to declare an interest.

On Sundays, I may go to church. I don’t do that every Sunday; I am not that disciplined or devout.

But a Sunday without some space set aside for spiritual contemplation doesn’t feel complete. I look to the day to provide a refuge from the relentless materalism of the week.

I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in finding this to be important. Were it not so, one day would roll meaninglessly into another. Reader, you are clever enough to realise that this article was itself written on a Sunday.

Journalism is one of the many trades, like nursing, bus driving and being a fireman, that does not stop for weekends. It makes me doubly sympathise with shop workers, who need home time as much as anyone.

Of course, we know where Osborne is coming from on this.

He’s the man who wants to kick-start the economy by concreting over the countryside.

Sunday trading may provide a fillip to his figures for a time.

But surely there is only so much money that can be wrung out of the consumer at the present.

Opening longer hours on Sunday will simply impose more costs on shops who feel they have to stay open to compete.

And more misery on those of us who find that more of our lives are spent in them.

Roll on Easter.

Briquettes not charcoal

Why briquettes instead of Charcoal?

Briquettes burn for at least 2–3 hours whereas charcoal is usually burnt out after about 1 hour.

Using briquettes means you will not have to keep adding fuel when barbecuing larger pieces of meat or whole chickens etc that need a longer amount of cooking time.

Another important reason for using briquettes is to avoid the unpleasant taste that ash from charcoal can bring to your food.

Traditional charcoal produces ash which will whirl around the food in the barbecue and attach to the food giving that gritty taste. Lump charcoal also has a tendency to spit sparks out at you and the food.

You will also find with good quality briquettes (don’t buy cheap briquettes) that they will burn consistently and at a more even temperature. They will also work out cheaper as they can be re-used…

Once you have finished cooking, simply limit the air to the briquettes and they will extinguish and you can reuse them over and over again until they have completely turned to ash.

The Weber kettle BBQs are great for this as you can simply close the vents at the top and bottom and the briquettes will extinguish themselves and be sat waiting for you the next time.

Radical says Lumpwood Charcoal pellets / blocks impregnated   is an option. Buy for about  £1 per kg some includes vat a nd delivery - Suggest stocking up for the summer by checking online offers 

Defra announces 12 new nature areas

27 February 2012 | By Alistair Driver

Farmers Guardian

Ancient Chinese medicine could fight ageing

Inter Nation Weekly

2. Events and Get-Togethers around the World

Will you be my Valentine?

For everyone who already has a Valentine’s date this year, for everyone who is still waiting for the right one, and for everyone who couldn’t care less about the patron of lovers:

Our LA Community is having a Pre-Valentine mixer on 13 February to get you all in the mood for romance.

There will be roses for the first 20 ladies to arrive, and who knows what else Cupid might have in store…

Love’s colour may be red, but our Athens Community is keeping it white for their next event.

Leave your little black dress in the closet and put on your best whites (shirts, dresses, blouses or trousers) for the occasion!

The InterNations Athens White Night promises to be a magical experience in a newly opened venue with oriental decorations, nargiles and chill-out music to delight your senses.

Our Maputo Ambassadors have organised a Special Beach Event for their Community.

The InterNations Explores Event provides you with the opportunity to see the countryside of Maputo Province by train and spend a day at a beautiful beach in Marracuene District, where you are free to explore the 17 kilometers of beach by yourself or simply lounge in the sun.

Enjoy!

InterNations Weekly

1. What’s on on InterNations

“Thirteen month old baby broke the lookin’ glass”

These lines from the Stevie Wonder song “Superstition” jokingly sum up some of the most common superstitions in Western (and some other) cultures.

Broken mirrors and the number 13 are synonymous for bad luck, while picking a four-leaved clover and hanging a horse-shoe above your door are considered good luck.

If you kill an albatross (the bird, that is, not your fellow InterNations member!), your ship will sink, but a cat on board a ship guarantees a safe journey.

In Turkish and Middle Eastern culture, cutting hair and nails at night is wrong, says one InterNations member.

In some Latin American countries, single women are told to steer clear of the caretaker, because if he passes his broom over their feet, they will never get married.

What are common superstitions in your culture?

And where do they come from?

We are curious to read your comments on this or on any other thread in the InterNations World Forum.

Save a million square kms of ocean

Tuesday, 31 January, 2012 22:55

From: This sender is DomainKeys verified"Stephanie B - Avaaz.org" <avaaz@avaaz.org

Dear Friends,

The Australian government is about to decide whether to create an enormous marine park to ensure the survival of the majestic Coral Sea (and its amazing creatures!).

 Right now, our support could make or break their decision.

Click here to sign the petition   
 
On the table: a one-million-square-kilometre marine park to give these playful but endangered inhabitants a real shot at survival.

The Australian government is receiving public comments now and is on the cusp of creating something truly legendary – but without a jolt of encouragement from people around the world, the Environment Minister could settle for preserving a much tinier area that wouldn’t satisfy any of the core conservation needs for this magnificent patch of ocean.

 
The next parliamentary session starts in a few days – let’s help lawmakers make history in the run-up to the Rio+20 Earth Summit and set the global standard for saving our planet.

Click to send your message to the public consultation, and for every 10 emails once we reach 200,000, we’ll add a fish to a giant, colorful school greeting parliamentarians as they take their seats – then forward to everyone you know:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_coral_sea_2_nm/?vl

  
In 2010, Avaaz members helped create the world’s largest marine reserve around the Chagos islands -- let’s do it again and stand up for the future of our oceans!

With hope, Stephanie, Ian, Antonia, Maria Paz, Emma, Wen-Hua, Ricken, Wissam and the rest of the Avaaz team

More information:

Global Oceans Legacy - Coral Sea (The Pew Environment Group)
http://www.pewenvironment.org/campaigns/global-ocean-legacy-coral-sea/id/85899358183

Valerie Taylor joins battle for the Coral Sea (The Cairns Post)
http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2012/01/23/201901_local-news.html

Does the Coral Sea marine park proposal provide enough protection? (The Conversation)
http://theconversation.edu.au/does-the-coral-sea-marine-park-proposal-provide-enough-protection-4474

Coral Sea Commonwealth marine reserve proposal (Australian Government website)
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/coralsea/consultation/index.html

Impacts of fishery activities (FAO)
http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/12273/en

Queenslanders support coral sea protection (Pew Press Release)
http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/press-releases/queenslanders-support-visionary-protection-for-our-coral-sea-85899365934

Fuchsia 'Riccartonii'

Radical Recommended

Still flowering in December !!!!!!!

Key info

Plant type

Deciduous shrub

Flower colour

Red

Feature

Flowers

Hardiness

Hardy

Skill level

Beginner

December in my Garden

The success of our first year was limited by the lateness of getting access until May, but I have reported the huge successes from the vegetables and fruits we did grow and the not so successful.

December is a not a dull month but a dormant one in our Kitchen garden.

We have purchased and planted 30 raspberry plants and pruned the 3 from last year, we have purchased and planted 24 strawberry plants in our two Kitchen frames – one metre high 2.2 metres long and 0.45 metres wide and 0.2 metres deep. The three thornless blackberry plants have joined the tressle frame supporting the spreading plum tree and the 3 blackcurrants plants had to be planted at the edge of the flower border in the lawn to give them the room they need.

We have 7 raised beds now, two have cabbages and sprouts that will have to give way in the summer to other plants.

Two are planted, one with  with seeds including onions cauliflower, carrots and leeks in one with peas and broad beans, which are transplanted into the greenhouse and the garden respectively. Radish in between the others rows.

The garlic is up as are the greenhouse radish and lettuce.

 We have scores of bulbs and annuals coming on in pots and the new second hand electric convector heater was switched on for the first time for last night’s heavy frost.

The garden bulbs have had a covering of compost and the two 1000 litre water tanks are full for the first time this year.

In the Greenhouse I have created a three stage shelving and so far so good for light, watering ,drainage and ventilation. The three shelves house the seed and young plant trays.

I am convinced the raised beds will prove more effective this season making ease of weeding and concentrated growing possible.

I have found a fertilizer supplier as the one kg boxes of 7:7:7 pellets one buys at the garden centres is expensive and some claim not very effective.

We have our own wood ash bin and the compost bins are filling up with household waste.

I have bought some debris netting 30 metres by 2 metres.

To cover the raised beds this summer.

The idea is to allow rain to penetrate but not fly and birds.

At present the raised bed seed beds are covered with plastic sheeting bought for £3.48

For 6metres by 2 metres I can cover one 3.6 m raised bed with overlap and still have some left over for other protective uses.

The Rose and I wish our readers the compliments of the season and a productive New Year.

Today its Christmas Cake making and next week I am on the search for some Seville Oranges to make a Bitter Orange Marmalade.

Emigration – A short Story

Radical says- What this story does not tell is the number of Brits who Emigrate but who return within a six month period to claim "Ordinarily Residence" and that goes with it including  Pension increments,health care services,property management

Introduction

Long term international migration estimates have shown a recent increase in the levels of net migration. Whilst the general level of immigration has remained steady, declining emigration has been the main driver in this increase of net migration.

This article summarises the main findings of analysis into the characteristics of emigrants, looking at; what the main patterns of emigration are; who is emigrating; where they are emigrating to and; why they are emigrating.

This summary uses Long Term International Migration (LTIM) estimates and International Passenger Survey (IPS) estimates to provide commentary on emigration from the UK.

 A migrant is defined as someone who changes their country of residence for a period of 12 months or more.
Figure 1: Long-Term International Migration Estimates of Emigration from the UK, 1991 to 2010
 
Source: Office for National Statistics
Download chart
• XLS format
(24 Kb)
Figure 2: Long-Term International Migration Estimates of Emigration by British/Non-British from the UK, 2000 to 2010
 
Source: Office for National Statistics
Download chart
• XLS format
(18 Kb)
Figure 3: Emigration by British citizens to the top 5 2010 countries of next residence, 2006 to 2010.
 
Source: International Passenger Survey (IPS) - Office for National Statistics
Download chart
• XLS format
(32 Kb)
Figure 4: Emigration by non-British citizens to the top 5 2010 countries of next residence, 2006 to 2010
 
Source: International Passenger Survey (IPS) - Office for National Statistics
Download chart
• XLS format
(25 Kb)
Figure 5: Emigration by British/non-British citizens by Reason for Migration, 2006 to 2010
 
Source: International Passenger Survey (IPS) - Office for National Statistics
Download chart
• XLS format
(32.5 Kb)
Get all the tables for this publication in the data section of this publication.
1. What are the main patterns seen in emigration from the UK?
Figure 1 shows that the level of emigration appears to have been rising from 1998 to 2008 and recently has been decreasing. Recent emigration levels for all migrants leaving the UK show a sharp decline after reaching a peak in 2008 of 427,000 to 339,000 in 2010. This year to year decrease is similar to that seen between 2006 and 2007, when the number of emigrants dropped from 398,000 to 341,000. Figure 1 shows the level of emigration is now at a similar level as that last observed in 2007 (341,000).
Figure 1: Long-Term International Migration Estimates of Emigration from the UK, 1991 to 2010
 
Source: Office for National Statistics
Download chart
• XLS format
(24 Kb)
Notes for 1. What are the main patterns seen in emigration from the UK?
1.   Long-term International Migration (LTIM) is the most comprehensive measure of long-term international migration and relate to those migrants changing their country of residence for 12 months or more.

These estimates are based mainly on data from the International Passenger Survey (IPS), supplemented with data on flows to and from Northern Ireland.

 Other data sources are used to make adjustments for asylum seekers and their dependants not counted by the IPS and for switchers (people who change their intentions and, therefore, their migratory status).

Estimates based only on the IPS allow a more detailed analysis of the characteristics of international migrants. This report includes data from both sources.
Further information on LTIM and the IPS can be found in the Background Notes: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=International+Migration
Figure 2: Long-Term International Migration Estimates of Emigration by British/Non-British from the UK, 2000 to 2010
 
Source: Office for National Statistics
Download chart
• XLS format
(18 Kb)
Figure 3: Emigration by British citizens to the top 5 2010 countries of next residence, 2006 to 2010.
 
Source: International Passenger Survey (IPS) - Office for National Statistics
Download chart
• XLS format
(32 Kb)
Figure 4: Emigration by non-British citizens to the top 5 2010 countries of next residence, 2006 to 2010
 
Source: International Passenger Survey (IPS) - Office for National Statistics
Download chart
• XLS format
(25 Kb)
Figure 5: Emigration by British/non-British citizens by Reason for Migration, 2006 to 2010
 
Source: International Passenger Survey (IPS) - Office for National Statistics
Download chart
• XLS format
(32.5 Kb)
Get all the tables for this publication in the data section of this publication.

2. Who is emigrating from the UK?

Long term emigration of both British and Non-British citizens has decreased at a similar rate since 2008 (by 20 per cent). Final LTIM figures show that the peak in emigration in 2008 (427,000), was due in part to an increase in EU citizens returning home to their country of origin.

This was particularly true of Polish citizens returning to Poland.
In 2008, emigration of Non-British citizens was at its highest level recorded.

Almost half (202,000) of all emigrants left the UK for the EU, with twice the number of EU citizen leaving the UK in 2008 (134,000) compared to 2007 (69,000).

Of these 134,000 EU citizens, just over half were from the A8 countries.
Figure 2 shows British emigrants now make up 40 per cent of all migrants leaving the UK for twelve months or more accounting for 136,000 of a total 339,000 emigrants, with EU and Non-EU citizens contributing 30 per cent each (99,000 and 104,000 respectively).

British long term emigration levels have been declining since they reached a peak of 207,000 in 2006.

The number of British migrants leaving the UK in 2010 (136,000) is now at it's lowest for over a decade, since 1998 (126,000), although recent provisional IPS rolling annual migration estimates have indicated this decreasing trend has stabilised over the past couple of quarters.
Figure 2: Long-Term International Migration Estimates of Emigration by British/Non-British from the UK, 2000 to 2010
 
Source: Office for National Statistics
Download chart
• XLS format
(18 Kb)
LTIM figures show that the proportion of all long term emigrants of working age leaving the UK has increased over the last 5 years. In 2005, 86 per cent of emigrants were of working age (311,000 of 361,000), whereas in 2010, this had risen to 93 per cent (316,000 of 339,000).

The number of migrants of existing retirement age has decreased over this same time period from 21,000 in 2005 to 6,000 in 2010. The latter directly relating to fewer British citizens retiring abroad.

IPS figures for 2010 show that just over a third of migrants leaving the UK had professional or managerial occupations prior to migration (113,000) and just over half of these emigrants are British citizens (60,000).
Notes for 2. Who is emigrating from the UK?
1.   In May 2004, 8 countries joined the European Union (EU).

These countries were: Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. These countries are known as the A8 countries.
Figure 3: Emigration by British citizens to the top 5 2010 countries of next residence, 2006 to 2010.
 
Source: International Passenger Survey (IPS) - Office for National Statistics
Download chart
• XLS format
(32 Kb)
Figure 4: Emigration by non-British citizens to the top 5 2010 countries of next residence, 2006 to 2010
 
Source: International Passenger Survey (IPS) - Office for National Statistics
Download chart
• XLS format
(25 Kb)
Figure 5: Emigration by British/non-British citizens by Reason for Migration, 2006 to 2010
 
Source: International Passenger Survey (IPS) - Office for National Statistics
Download chart
• XLS format
(32.5 Kb)
Get all the tables for this publication in the data section of this publication.

3. Where are people emigrating to?

There are a number of differences between the migration destinations of British citizens and Non-British citizens.  
IPS figures show that a third of all British citizens (41,000) leaving the UK for 12 months or more go to Old Commonwealth countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa) and this pattern has remained fairly steady over the last 5 years. In 2010, just a quarter of British citizens (34,000) took advantage of the freedom of movement between European Union state opportunities and moved to these countries, compared to just over 40 per cent in 2005 (74,000).
Figure 3 shows the top 5 destinations of British migrants over the last 5 years. Australia remains the favourite destination.

Spain and France have become less popular destinations over the last two years.

This reflects the declining trends of British emigrants retiring overseas and may also reflect the down turn in the economic climate of the EU.
Figure 3: Emigration by British citizens to the top 5 2010 countries of next residence, 2006 to 2010.
 
Source: International Passenger Survey (IPS) - Office for National Statistics
Download chart
• XLS format
(32 Kb)
In 2010, nearly half (46 per cent) of all Non-British long term emigrants migrated to countries within the EU, this reflects the fact that nearly all EU citizens (83,000 of 91,000 based on IPS figures) migrate to EU countries. This EU dominance is reflected in Figure 4 below with Poland remaining the most popular destination for Non-British and more specifically, EU citizens, over this period. It should be noted that a large majority of emigrants going to Poland were Polish citizens (98 per cent).
Figure 4: Emigration by non-British citizens to the top 5 2010 countries of next residence, 2006 to 2010
 
Source: International Passenger Survey (IPS) - Office for National Statistics

4. Why are people emigrating from the UK?

Latest final LTIM figures show that for the majority of migrants leaving the UK for 12 months or more, work related reasons were the main reasons stated (189,000 out of 339,000) in 2010.

This does not necessarily mean this is the only reason for migrating but it is the main reason given, for example, migrants may be leaving the UK to join a relative but also aiming to work while they live there.
LTIM figures show emigration from the UK for work related reasons broadly increased between 2004 and 2008 (from 151,000 to 218,000). Since 2008 however, this number has decreased by 13 per cent to 189,000 in 2010.

 For every year over the last decade, emigrants stating ‘definite job’ as their main reason for migration have outnumbered those ‘looking for work’.

Between 2003 and 2006, higher numbers of people left the UK for 12 months or more for non work related reasons (accompany/join, study, other, no reason stated) than for work related reasons, but as Figure 5 shows, since 2006 work related reasons have been the dominant reason given.

The estimated number of migrants leaving the UK for ‘formal study’ has seen its highest figures in the past three years, and reached 29,000 leaving the UK to study in 2010. Formal study is the only main reason stated that has increased over the last calendar year.

Using information from the IPS, British emigrants are most likely to leave the UK for a definite job with an estimated 40 per cent (49,000) of emigrants stating this as their main reason compared with around half this number (22,000) stating their main reason for migrating was to accompany or join friends or family.

Over 60 per cent of all Non-British citizens emigrating from the UK left with either a definite job to go to or to look for work (114,000), compared with just over 50 per cent of British citizens (67,000).

The latest final IPS figures (2010) show that over two thirds of non-British emigrants arrived to live in the UK within the last 5 years. A slightly larger proportion (70 per cent) of Non EU citizens lived in the UK for under 5 years than citizens of the EU (66 per cent).

This could suggest migration for Non EU citizens was more likely to be temporary in nature possibly reflecting the number of migrants coming to the UK for formal study.
Figure 5: Emigration by British/non-British citizens by Reason for Migration, 2006 to 2010
 
Source: International Passenger Survey (IPS) - Office for National Statistics

5. Conclusions

Decreasing emigration between 2008 and 2010, combined with steady immigration levels have resulted in increases in net migration over the same period.

British emigrants now represent 40 per cent of all emigrants and final LTIM data show these annual estimates of the number of British emigrants to be the lowest for over a decade.

Working age migrants leaving the UK for 12 months or more are now a higher proportion of all migrants leaving the UK than they were 5 years ago, with 93 per cent of emigrants being of working age, compared to 86 per cent in 2005.
The most popular destination for British citizens is the Old Commonwealth countries, particularly Australia.

The most popular destination for Non-British citizens is Poland (majority of whom are Polish citizens returning home), with half moving to the countries within the EU. Practically all EU citizens left the UK for EU countries.

More emigrants are now leaving the UK for work related reasons than non work related reasons, however the overall numbers reflect the decrease in the level of emigration from the UK.

A large proportion (two thirds) of all Non-British citizens leaving the UK, stayed less than 5 years of arriving.
Note: The published tables referred to above can be found on the ONS website, see: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-235204
Notes for 5. Conclusions
1. You may use or re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London, TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk">psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk
Get all the tables for this publication in the data section of this publication.

Summary: UK households spent an average of £474 a week in 2010

Emigration - Please release me ,let me go -

Fewer Britons are emigrating because falling incomes and pensions mean hundreds of thousands have abandoned the dream of retirement or a new life abroad.

The recession has also reduced the number of Britons able to take jobs elsewhere in the world.

Emigration fell by more than a fifth in two years after the recession began in 2008.

'Emigration has continued to fall, down over 20 per cent since 2008, meaning that "net inward migration", the Conservatives' chosen target, remains high at 239,000, a 21 per cent increase on 2009.'

A personal view.

The reasons why fewer people are emigrating is given that many have abandoned the dream of leaving Rotten Britain because of falling incomes and pensions but nothing could be further from the truth.

Moving abroad is a complex business and the time has come for the UK Government to see what obstructions it puts in the potential emigrant’s way.

I am mainly referring here to the retired and early retired who collect occupational, private and state pensions, because other countries have rightly closed the door on many immigrant taking their national jobs.

What are the main reasons why “pensioners” don’t emigrate ?

1. Pension increments – refused in so many countries the UK law is absurd if you look at the list of countries where emigrants can and cannot get their pensions transferred to and UK increments honoured. For example in the Philippines you can and Thailand you can’t. Just look at the ridiculous list of countries where reciprocal “arrangements’ with the UK do and do not exist.

2        Health – Leave the UK for a day over six months and a UK citizen loses the right to  remain on a GP list, receive treatment and for free NHS treatment other than emergencies.

What right minded pensioner can afford that? One who paid into the NHS all his life.

3        Money – Taxation and off shore banking, transfer of pensions and capital are fraught with complications for those not based in the UK. This is not always made easy by other countries but if you live abroad why pay full tax on UK pensions. Even reclaiming tax rebate on interest earned in the UK while abroad is complicated and often refused on spurious grounds.

4        British Embassies abroad treat British emigrants as pariahs and I am speaking from experience. I shall say no more unless paid for the information.

5        UK Property – apart from the obvious of not burning ones boats, retaining a property in the UK is a safety net. However getting an Estate Agent to manage it with the duty of care expected is impossible due to current laws against own home letting Landlords and legal obstructions against fair trading standards of Estate Agents.

If the UK Government could address these matters seriously then half the pensioners in Britain would gladly leave to live abroad. And I don’t just mean in Europe.

Emigrants need to feel that there is a safety net which is the simple opportunity to return. The country they want to reside in only has certain obligations to respect.

I do not think these 5  are impossible to overcome.

I believe once a citizen has retired they should be able to live where they wish with all their pension entitlements as those who remain at home. In fact while they are not using UK resources special dispensations should be given.

There are other issues to moving abroad  :-

Moving your stuff

Renting or Buying

Cost of Living

Wills and Inheritance

Other legal issues including safety

Language

Pets

Culture shock

Entertainment

Discrimination against colour, creed and gender

I was able to overcome or at least come to terms with all these other issues but what I could not overcome was the obstructions placed in front of me by the UK Government.

Because of the problems stated I returned to the UK to live after 5 years abroad.

The Radical.

Get in touch if you agree !