Even as I wander the streets of London today, I realize that the London Underground, also known as the Tube because of the Tube shaped tunnels the trains run through, plays a huge role in a Londoner's daily life. The London Underground first began operating in 1863 in response to an overwhelming amount of traffic on the roads, it was the first underground rail system in the world. The original London Underground had six stops: Waterloo, London Bridge, Euston, Paddington, King's Cross, and Bishopsgate. However, slowly but surely London began expanding its lines as demand grew more and more.
The London Underground first started off as a trolley/ train type system in which the cars were powered by steam, however soon enough the trains transferred over into an electric system. The first system of its kind. As the trains slowly advanced into an electric system, each line (which was owned by a different company at the time) began to construct deep underground tunnels for the trains to cause less disturbance to the people who were above ground.
In 1948 the London Underground was Nationalized and each line became the property of the government. This began the start of what we would call the modern Tube system.
Today, the tube system is owned by TFL (Transport for London) and houses 11 lines that travels all around the city of London, and into some of the suburbs also. It has over 260 stops and about 250 miles of track. Currently the tube is not only used for traveling, but is also used as a means of showing off the art of the city. In each tube station there are not only many independent musicians looking to scrape up some spare change, but there are also posters that exhibit lots of artwork and poetry made up by famous artists and poets such as R. B. Kitaj.
I do not think that London would be a good city to live in if it did not have the tube. Although it is admittedly a little expensive, it really gets you exactly where you want to go and when you want to go.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Smoking Ban
On July 1, 2007, England's House of Commons passed by an overwhelming majority a piece of legislation that prohibited smoking in enclosed public places and work places. The purpose of this legislation according to the Department of Health is to reduce the occurrence of second hand smoke, make quitting smoking easier for the general public, and make the air inside enclosed places cleaner. The legislation also requires that those places that prohibit smoking put up a sign that indicates that it is non smoking facility. Although there was some disapproval of this legislation in the beginning, a survey conducted by the NHS in July 2008 revealed that 76% of the general public supported the smoking ban. Many said that they felt that the ban not only made them feel as if they were living in a cleaner environment, but that their overall health was benefiting also. Businesses also felt that overall the smoking ban made a positive impact on their business. However as seen with the rapid closing of pubs around London, not everyone felt a positive from the ban.
As a non smoker and an asthmatic, I think that the ban was a good idea. In America, I hate having to go into areas that allow smoking. When people puff away on their cigarettes and blow the smoke around the room, I feel as if I am absorbing the effects of their bad habits. Plus, it makes it so hard for me to breathe in general. Often times when in a smokey area, I have to leave, or use my inhaler in order to be able to properly function. In London, I no longer have this issue. Even going to pubs is easier for me because I no longer have to worry about the health of my lungs that night. On the other hand though, I can see why many still do not like this law. Even though I do not like it, smokers DO have the right to smoke. It is really no one else's business what they do. Most of the times, at least in America, smokers and non smokers are separated in enclosed spaces so that both groups' needs are accommodated. Other times, smokers are usually willing to take their smoking outside. Thus, they see no real need for this new law.
As a non smoker and an asthmatic, I think that the ban was a good idea. In America, I hate having to go into areas that allow smoking. When people puff away on their cigarettes and blow the smoke around the room, I feel as if I am absorbing the effects of their bad habits. Plus, it makes it so hard for me to breathe in general. Often times when in a smokey area, I have to leave, or use my inhaler in order to be able to properly function. In London, I no longer have this issue. Even going to pubs is easier for me because I no longer have to worry about the health of my lungs that night. On the other hand though, I can see why many still do not like this law. Even though I do not like it, smokers DO have the right to smoke. It is really no one else's business what they do. Most of the times, at least in America, smokers and non smokers are separated in enclosed spaces so that both groups' needs are accommodated. Other times, smokers are usually willing to take their smoking outside. Thus, they see no real need for this new law.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Drugs!
I have always thought that the United States had a seriously wacky drug policy. I understand the need to outlaw some drugs that really endanger people, but even as a extremely anti-drug person, I see no real need for laws surrounding soft-drugs such as cannabis. In the US we waste so much time working to win the war on drugs that we don't even understand what we are doing to the country as a whole. We over fill our jails, and make all sorts of drugs, including prescriptions, seem like a bad thing, when aren't necessarily.
I think that the US should take on a policy more the The Netherlands. They believe that since they can't logically put a ban on smoking pot and have everyone abide by it, they instead just regulate it. Although cannabis is illegal in the Netherlands, the government has issued a non-enforcement policy for soft drugs called "gedoogbeleid". Under gedoogbeleid, it is said that anyone who is carry under 5 grams of cannabis or who is growing less than 5 cannabis plants should not be prosecuted. I think this is an excellent idea! If the US implemented this sort of drug policy then we would have more room in our jails for people who actually committed a crime that hurt someone.
The Netherlands also invests lots of money into drug prevention and also drug rehabilitation. The government is about to support about 90% of people who are looking to be rehabilitated, a population that is rapidly increasing through the years
Although soft drugs such as marijuana are often tolerated in small amounts. There is absolutely no tolerance for hard drugs. Importing and exporting can get one about 14-16 years in jail.
I think that the US should take on a policy more the The Netherlands. They believe that since they can't logically put a ban on smoking pot and have everyone abide by it, they instead just regulate it. Although cannabis is illegal in the Netherlands, the government has issued a non-enforcement policy for soft drugs called "gedoogbeleid". Under gedoogbeleid, it is said that anyone who is carry under 5 grams of cannabis or who is growing less than 5 cannabis plants should not be prosecuted. I think this is an excellent idea! If the US implemented this sort of drug policy then we would have more room in our jails for people who actually committed a crime that hurt someone.
The Netherlands also invests lots of money into drug prevention and also drug rehabilitation. The government is about to support about 90% of people who are looking to be rehabilitated, a population that is rapidly increasing through the years
Although soft drugs such as marijuana are often tolerated in small amounts. There is absolutely no tolerance for hard drugs. Importing and exporting can get one about 14-16 years in jail.
Pubs
As I will admit, being newly 19, I do not have much experience with bars back at home. However, I do know that, at least in my household, bars are not exactly seen as a good place to be hanging around. Bars are places that old men go and drink their lives away whilst puffing on a cigarette with a missing filter, or, it is the place to go when you are young and stupid and want to get wasted on a Friday night.
In England, going to the pub is a totally different thing. Going to the pub is never a bad thing here, it is considered a normal thing to do on a regular basis. Pubs are normally quieter than bars in the US and most also serve "real" meals, sort of like a restaurant. Pubs are a place where you can get together with your friends after a long day at work, have a pint, and possibly play some trivia, watch the football game, or even do some karaoke. Pub culture in England is something that every native here knows and loves and thus are very proud of.
Sadly enough however, because of the recession and the new ban on smoking, many pubs are being forced to close down on a DAILY basis. Although an outsider may think that a couple of pubs closing down each week is not at all a big deal, many natives are very upset about this because they feel as if their pub culture is slowly being stripped away.
In England, going to the pub is a totally different thing. Going to the pub is never a bad thing here, it is considered a normal thing to do on a regular basis. Pubs are normally quieter than bars in the US and most also serve "real" meals, sort of like a restaurant. Pubs are a place where you can get together with your friends after a long day at work, have a pint, and possibly play some trivia, watch the football game, or even do some karaoke. Pub culture in England is something that every native here knows and loves and thus are very proud of.
Sadly enough however, because of the recession and the new ban on smoking, many pubs are being forced to close down on a DAILY basis. Although an outsider may think that a couple of pubs closing down each week is not at all a big deal, many natives are very upset about this because they feel as if their pub culture is slowly being stripped away.
CCTV
The United Kingdom is undoubtedly the biggest user of what is called CCTV (closed circuit Television). Although this may sound fancy, CCTV is nothing more than security cameras placed all around cities, neighborhoods, stores, car parks, and military areas. It is estimated that the UK itself houses over 2 million CCTV cameras in the whole country, making for about a 1 camera for every 14 people ratio.
Although it is obvious that cameras are numerous and possibly bit exaggerated, I continued to wonder if they really did anything for society except for possibly invade privacy. After doing a bit of research, I found an unsatisfying answer. CCTV has been used over and over again to help solve bigger, media hyped cases in the UK. For example, CCTV helped to identify the two 10 year old boys who led 3 year old James Bulger out of a shopping mall and then killed him. However, on the other hand, a survey taken by the BBC showed that only 13 out of 24 cities had seen a decrease in crime since installing the CCTV cameras and furthermore 4 of the remaining cities had seen a significant rise in crime. Also, because the camera picture is said to come out quite grainy and are often positioned so high up that they only catch the tops of people's heads instead of their faces, which in the end does not really help to solve any sorts of crimes.
Myself, I am not concerned with the CCTV, I think that it helps more than it hurts, so why not have it? Even if the crime rate does not fall in every location that CCTV occupies, it doesn't matter. It helped someone, somewhere, at some point.
Although it is obvious that cameras are numerous and possibly bit exaggerated, I continued to wonder if they really did anything for society except for possibly invade privacy. After doing a bit of research, I found an unsatisfying answer. CCTV has been used over and over again to help solve bigger, media hyped cases in the UK. For example, CCTV helped to identify the two 10 year old boys who led 3 year old James Bulger out of a shopping mall and then killed him. However, on the other hand, a survey taken by the BBC showed that only 13 out of 24 cities had seen a decrease in crime since installing the CCTV cameras and furthermore 4 of the remaining cities had seen a significant rise in crime. Also, because the camera picture is said to come out quite grainy and are often positioned so high up that they only catch the tops of people's heads instead of their faces, which in the end does not really help to solve any sorts of crimes.
Myself, I am not concerned with the CCTV, I think that it helps more than it hurts, so why not have it? Even if the crime rate does not fall in every location that CCTV occupies, it doesn't matter. It helped someone, somewhere, at some point.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Fashion
As I walk the streets here in London, I always seem to notice how classy every female on the street looks. No one really walks out of the house without their makeup and fancy clothes on. It is rare that I do not see a female in one of the following outfits: skirt, tights(or panty hose in some awesome-looking pattern), heels, and a long fashionable coat.. or skinny jeans, high heeled boots, and some sort of fashionable coat.
I guess I just don't get it. I mean sure, some of those women really do have to look good. They're going to work, or really just starting their day, or whatever else. But why do they ALWAYS have to look so good? Can't I just see one woman on the street who has her hair up in a messy bun with no makeup on and wearing sweats? No, of course not. It's just me out there.
I'm convinced that these people are very focused on image. Image seems to mean more here than it does in America, which is sad. People who dress like I did for the first few weeks seem to be treated like second class citizens. We are looked down upon. Why? What is the point of all of this? To be successful in London, you must look good on the outside. How about the inside? Does that matter? Or is it just like the US, where all that matters is how big your chest is, how thin you are, and how many wrinkles you have.
The whole idea of image is ridiculous. Although I do believe that for a job and what-not you need to look good, a woman should not always have to put in a bunch of effort just to run to the store. I will not miss having to wear make-up to run to McDonalds at 11am when I go back to America.
I guess I just don't get it. I mean sure, some of those women really do have to look good. They're going to work, or really just starting their day, or whatever else. But why do they ALWAYS have to look so good? Can't I just see one woman on the street who has her hair up in a messy bun with no makeup on and wearing sweats? No, of course not. It's just me out there.
I'm convinced that these people are very focused on image. Image seems to mean more here than it does in America, which is sad. People who dress like I did for the first few weeks seem to be treated like second class citizens. We are looked down upon. Why? What is the point of all of this? To be successful in London, you must look good on the outside. How about the inside? Does that matter? Or is it just like the US, where all that matters is how big your chest is, how thin you are, and how many wrinkles you have.
The whole idea of image is ridiculous. Although I do believe that for a job and what-not you need to look good, a woman should not always have to put in a bunch of effort just to run to the store. I will not miss having to wear make-up to run to McDonalds at 11am when I go back to America.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Wilders
Geert Wilders, a controversial member of Dutch Parliament tried to make his way into London on February 12, 2009 to show his short movie, Fitna to the members of the British Parliament. Though this is a seemingly innocent action, one must take into account that Fitna is a movie that tries to prove that the Qur'an encourages terrorism. He also explores Islam in the Netherlands, as well as the religion as a whole. Obviously Wilders seems to have a problem with Islam. He seems to believe that pretty much all of Islam is about violence and that it has absolutely no place in modern Holland. He fears that soon it will consume the land and turn everyone violent.
Anyways, when Wilders announced that he would be flying to the United Kingdom, the Home Secretary of the UK banned Wilders from the country because of his extremist views. Despite the banning, Wilders still attempted to fly into the United Kingdom. However, he was denied entry at the border. The reason behind all of this? He is too extreme, and the country did not want to cause lots of chaos within the country.
Although I do not agree with Wilders' view of Islam.. I do not think that he should have been denied entry into the United Kingdom. Isn't there something here called freedom of speech?
Many people have the same views of Islam as Wilders does, I just don't quite understand why he was denied when other radicals are able to be let in. He wasn't staying long.. just to be there for the showing of his film and to discuss. It is ridiculous that he was denied entry JUST because of his views.
However... because he was denied entry into the UK...he was on my plane ride to Schipol.. and there was a huge media frenzy on the plane and I got to be interviewed by Dutch National Radio. Of course, i made all Americans look stupid and uneducated as usual. Its my calling in life, I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEMqnCgPHOQ
Anyways, when Wilders announced that he would be flying to the United Kingdom, the Home Secretary of the UK banned Wilders from the country because of his extremist views. Despite the banning, Wilders still attempted to fly into the United Kingdom. However, he was denied entry at the border. The reason behind all of this? He is too extreme, and the country did not want to cause lots of chaos within the country.
Although I do not agree with Wilders' view of Islam.. I do not think that he should have been denied entry into the United Kingdom. Isn't there something here called freedom of speech?
Many people have the same views of Islam as Wilders does, I just don't quite understand why he was denied when other radicals are able to be let in. He wasn't staying long.. just to be there for the showing of his film and to discuss. It is ridiculous that he was denied entry JUST because of his views.
However... because he was denied entry into the UK...he was on my plane ride to Schipol.. and there was a huge media frenzy on the plane and I got to be interviewed by Dutch National Radio. Of course, i made all Americans look stupid and uneducated as usual. Its my calling in life, I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEMqnCgPHOQ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)