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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)