Following the finally of

The young singer broke down after forgetting her words and messing up her performance, causing the judges to give her a second chance, something  which is not regularly practised on the popular Television show.

Having performed a second time in her a more smoother fashion, young hoolly sailed through from both audince and judes votes to the finals however not without causing a stir from viewers. Over 200 hundred complaints were made to the ITV regulators from viewers arguing that it was unfair she received another chance as no other contestants received the same treatment.

Although many complained that the youngster should not have been allowed to perform twice as it goes against the shows rules and sets an unfair advantage amongst the contestants, the underlying message that was portrayed in these complaints was that if a contestant of her age breaks down in the way she did then maybe she’s too young to handle the pressure and to be performing on stage.

The show has fetaured other acts also of Holly’s age, yet none seemed to act in the same manner rather the opposite, Aidan Davies also 11 took a very mature attitude when receiving both positive and negative comments from the judges also last year winner George Sampson was 14 when he entered and went on to win which suggests that not having an age limit and allowing young kids to enter the competiton is justifiable as some are able to handle the pressure of the show.

So what to you think should there be an age restriction on Britain’s got talent, where kids as young as 11 would not be able to enter the competition?

As millions of people regularly use social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook to interact this opens up many options for those both job seeking and those recruiting to advertise positions and look for potential candidates.

This method of looking for employers searching online for workers as not many peopel might not sound like the most conventional method as oppose to the traditional methods such as job adverts publishes through offcial more well known employee and job search sites such as Gumtree yet as there has been an phenominal boom in online interaction the avenues of online usages are becoming endless. The time and cost saved of seeking for employees would be highly beneficial given the current market situation as fewer companies posting job adverts.

Some may think this idea of looking to social networking sites for applicants as currently as not many user of such social networking sites present thier profile accounts in a professional enough way to attract employers, yet even the information such as previous jobs and location can be useful pieces for any business looking at the profiles for employees.

Could your Twitter or Facebook profile be suitable for a job position?

I don’t know about you but to me what news is does not consist of so called celebrities relationships ending, surely the war or epidemics such as swine flu constitute as more newsworthy.

This rise of celebrity culture has grown substantially in the last few years, hearing about life event such as births, deaths or other information is acceptable as they are important yet to hear about breakups or makeup’s i think are one step to far in the whole celebrity interest occupying the news.

Does all this media coverage actually result in these celebrites breaking up, with rumours starting almost every day from anonmyous sources outing celbrites for cheating and paprazzi paping celbrities in suggestive ways its no surprise these realtionships end.

The public seem to love to read about who has dumped who in the world of entertainment, or which celbrity is nect in the firing line for divorce butshould we as the public have a rigth to dwelve into the personal relatonships of these celebrities they are after all human and feel and reacting in the same ways as us

Jennifer Aniston was in magazines and in the news over 18,000 times during her break up with brad, surely thats enough to drive any couple apart?

If everytime you were papped arguing with your partner or out with a person of the oppsoite sex would you or your partner be able to cope.

Big brother which first started back in  2000  was greeted with mass ratings due to its orignality and unpredicable nature yet 9 series on, and  having covered pretty much all the controversial issues in society-homosexuality,racism,disability, you’d think the producers would know when to stop.

I think the idea of reality shows have lost there novelty, particularly as many seem to lack the meaning of ‘reality’. Many seem pre-constructed to cause some type of reaction.

Long runnig Host Davina comments to the daily star:

”As long its attracting viewers, and making money for channel 4 why should it stop?”

So what do you think?

Should a tenth series be made, or is it all just abit boring now?

Why has this sudden and quick rise occured in todays society where emailing people rather than meeting them has become the norm. One reason is social networking sites such like Facebook and Bebo allow people to communicate regulaly with others all over the world in a cost effective and conveniant medium. Users can swap pictures, play games and leave messages.

Research and cautions like the ones from Dr Sigman are constantly ignored,as over the top advice. Almost on a daily occurance new resaecch is put into the public eye with Doctors forewarning people of the dangers in using mainstarem popular services.

Is it case of a large sense of molly coddling the public by these Doctors assuming that everyone will be affected in the same way when using services like Facebook, or even that everyone uses these so called harmful services in equal quantities.
The only way that people will pay attention to the resaerch facts stated by Doctors such as Dr Sigman are when a significant amonunt of individuals feel these possible harmful effects.

So would this research put you off using your online social networking accounts?

Why has this sudden and quick rise occured in todays society where emailing people rather than meeting them has become the norm. One reason is social networking sites such like Facebook and Bebo allow people to communicate regulaly with others all over the world in a cost effective and conveniant medium. Users can swap pictures, play games and leave messages.

Research and cautions like the ones from Dr Sigman are constantly ignored,as over the top advice. Almost on a daily occurance new resaecch is put into the public eye with Doctors forewarning people of the dangers in using mainstarem popular services.

Is it case of a large sense of molly coddling the public by these Doctors assuming that everyone will be affected in the same way when using services like Facebook, or even that everyone uses these so called harmful services in equal quantities.
The only way that people will pay attention to the resaerch facts stated by Doctors such as Dr Sigman are when a significant amonunt of individuals feel these possible harmful effects.

So would this research put you off using your online social networking accounts?

The results came from research a group of international students were carrying into the effects of electromagnetic fields and radio frequency radiation on living cells and human health.

But why is nothing being done to stop phone companies from selling these dangerous tools you may ask?

Well according to the official goverment agency incharge of monitoring the public health is that there is not enough scientific evidence to detemine that all cell phones pose a risk to human health. Yet more and more studies conductign are in driect contarst to this and ar eporvong that yes damage is inflicted. Isthere ever enough sdcontific eevidence to help create mass chnage in socity other then those that are obviously visible to people.

The cell phone industry has grown to be a multi-billion pound company and will be impossible to change with any amount of scientist evidence it is shown.

Whos job is it to enusre that childre are not subjected to this potential cancer at a young age, if not the goverments. Some may argue its the family. Yet with the pressure kids of todays society face from having the latest gadgets, wearing the most trendest clothes and geneal weight and image problems how are parents able to say no?

What do you suggest is a practical sollution of gaining awarness to the damage of mobile phones and helping prevent young people gaining  cancer?

Years ago it was safe to let your kids out from a young age, like it was safe to leave your door open without the fear of being attacked or robbed.

Ultimately the correct age of allowing children outside alone depends on whether its the day or night?. Letting kid soutside is healthy as it leads to the deveoplent of freindships and is crucial to a good childhood. Unfortunatley be out in the day leads to wanting stay out in the evenings and night which is where most of the trouble is seemed to start.

Also the pressure that children have them is far greater, with constantly being bombarded with new technology information and challenges th at generation sprevious hadnt even faced.

So is it that the kids today are growing up to fast and therefore are feeling the need to be able to act like adults and stay out late alone?

Have your say at what age should kids be allowed to be out alone? are parents wrapping them up in cotton wool?  and how safe are the streets and playgounds for children?

In large if this change spread worldwide  in the long run much of the worlds land would be free from pasture and be able to grow natural  forest which in turn would soak up large amounts of co2 which at the moment is constantly on the rise.

Whether this change is possible however is debatable as the success of the plan ultimately depends on how society rather than individulas alone welcome this change in lifestyle. Those in favour of a vegetarian diet argue for the positive health implications of switching to a vegetatrian diet and suggest tips on healthy meals that can be made, yet fail to see that  currently in todays society it’s more conveniant to follow a meat diet.

With  multiple meat takeouts and retaurants constantly opening and advertised through media outlets younger generations are being socialised into accepting that takeouts such as Mcdonalds are the norm. The number of fast food restaurants is constantly on the rise with more and more competing offering cheaper meals consisting primarily of meat.

As a result the  financial conveniance of a meat diet is appealing, in supermarkets fruit and vegetable meals are almost double the price of meat based food again restricting people not able to afford swithching thier diets.

The idea of switching diets from meat to vegetarian to help save the evnironment can only work if all institutions of society work together such as the family to introduce fun vegetarian meals and businesses like fast food outlets to introduce more vegetarian options for those people on the move who rely on conveniance and cost.

Scientist at University College of London are within 10years of putting a form of minding reading in use for police investigations.

The way in which the technology would function is  through a combination of virtual reality and magnetic resonance imaging,which will allow the user to see the subjects thought processes.

Currently the technology is at the stage where a subjects location is able to be seen by looking at thier brain activity within the hippocampus the area of the brain where long-term memory,emotion and behaviour is stored. The neurons in the hyppocampus, also known as ‘place cell’ activate when we move to tell us where were going these discernable patterns in brain activity signalled where they were.

The new technology is not only intended to help with police investigations but also to aid in reseacrh into brain diseases such as alzheimers as understanding how memories are formed may help researchers discover how the processs goes wrong and could help patients in the rehabiliation process.

Athough a world where genuinely reading someone mind is still along way away, a question of whether the privacy of human minds  is going to be lost and if its a step to extreme in technology helping us in a positve  manner.

The ethical implications of this new technology are endless and is likely to recive a number of protests from human rights activtis and other ethical groups.

What do you think will this mind reading technolgy be a  positive introduction for society or be an extreme human invasion?