I'm not normally one to speak out - nor am I one for opening my mind to a multitude of different views on topics.
But here's one that might set you all thinking.
I mean, with the advanced development of technological gadgets, there should be a security warning label. Yes. Such a thing as a mobile phone (particularly ones run on a 12-24 month contract basis), require personal information. Where is this all stored? I'm not sure. Is this a security risk? Sure thing. If the information fell into criminal mastermind hands, it would not take a rocket scientist to work out the risk level of the multitudes of personal information used.
Credit cards. Student loans. Car purchases (on a monthly basis). E-mails. Payday Loans.
Basically, anything with an application process - could send personal information into the risky hands of another. With the advancement in the technology that we use, there are newer/faster/sleeker devices with increased capacity for storage of this information. But with this, comes the riskiness of the security breach. Fraudsters are out in the world and they thrive on discovering this kind of information.
Yet there seems no intent to fully "safeguard" the general publics personal information. There has been a high profile incident in which this personal information was lost - when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister. Ironic really, that this was related to child benefit records that the current Conservative Government have been hacking away at reducing (Iain Duncan Smith has no concept of supporting those who paid into the system over those who haven't) - literally destroying lives and for what? Purely personal gain where those in government get pay rises of extortionate amounts - use excessive fuel, claim extreme expenses that most general corporations wouldn't pay to their front-line staff.
Sometimes when I look at the current crop of politicians - I wonder how they could have so many "easily led" people running the country into the ground. They seem to have everything they need - but instead of clamping down on the millions lost from those avoiding paying their share of tax (we are talking at least several millions here, if not billions) - they'd rather let them get away with it and widen the gap between the rich and the poor.
After all, there's a Minimum Wage, and a Living Wage. Why are they both separate figures, and why is the Living Wage so contrastingly higher? What makes it so much harder to live on minimum wage? It is seemingly complex. But again, money is currently taken from the poor to feed the increasing expenses spend from those in power.
Bankers and the larger global corporations are the ones feeding the finances for the government. Yet they want to sell off something which is more valuable than any price tag. The NHS. In a nutshell, they want to privatise health which will affect the general public and life. It is not a game, it is highly unfair, and yet people are not allowed the chance to live because they are used as pawns in a chess game between the political parties and their differing opinions in how things should be run. They are "sheep".
Isn't it rather peculiar that there's a multitude of intelligence levels, but there's the brand of "crazy" that is attributable to those who don't conform to the societal "normalities" of behaving like the sheep that the government wants full control over? I'd say they are more clued up to the shortcomings of the way politics currently is, therefore more likely to be averse to conforming to those "societal norms". I myself do not fit into "social situations" that well, so maybe it's because I am getting wise to these failings of our land.
Do I want to speak out? I'm not sure how I would be received. Would I be perceived as crazy because I do not agree with the majority of what goes on?
On to another hotly debated topic now. And this one is going to cut pretty deep to some people. Religion. For me, a non-believer, I find it absolutely appalling that it's fed down our throats that "Muslims are terrorists". Muslim, I don't believe is a religion, but the name coined to the religion of Islam. Yet all I ever seem to see floating around the likes of facebook or other social sites, are clips of minority groups flouting their religious beliefs or taking literal translation from certain extracts of their religious texts. It doesn't mean that all people of that faith are going to behave in that way, because the majority don't, and usually condemn the behaviours of those in these videos.
Personally - I would rather not have this force-fed down my throat that "these groups are bad/these groups are good" - because it is so anti-human to categorise people and chastise a whole following for the acts of a current minority. I've also seen that it's "terrorism" that the people from the areas like Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein were perpetuating, but there are a few grey areas with this. How is it that the US used Saddam to do their dirty work in Iran when things fell apart in the 1980s? How could they then justify fighting against someone who helped them so willingly get what they initially wanted? Lets just say that the current "war on terrorism" is a scaremongering tactic to divert the attention away from the real terrorists, dare I say it, the US, UK, Russia, China and Japan? I mean, it's highly unlikely that these other countries would have got so advanced so quickly without the aid of someone somewhere within those 5 afore-mentioned areas, that it now beggars belief that they are trying to justify what they are doing is right, costing thousands of lives in the process, of both soldiers and innocent civilians - for what? Population control? Stopping us from seeing what they are all doing because there are too many "illegal" acts commited by those like the CIA/MI5 or the FEDs, that they'd rather cover up than expose?
Kinda sounds like an illuminati style. They rule the world, we follow their laws, controls, restraints, and have no issues, nothing happens. How is it a coincidence that Kennedy was assassinated when he would have broken up wars (like Vietnam), or the Cuban overthroing of Castro, even down to the Mafia expulsion from the cuban casinos? Things like that would lose money for key figures (ie, the Mafia of the time), but that was a stark difference to how a number of other presidents have/had been. He dared to try to change that "stranglehold" that money had as a bargaining tool of power, and by being different, lost out.
Really makes you stop and think? It wouldn't stop me speaking out because I believe that the truth is being kept from us while we're force-fed Rupert Murdoch style media propoganda that rarely drops in kind words. It's splitting up the unity of the HUMAN race (the key word being human, as people are all of one race, just a multitude of colours, religions, faiths), and creating so much animosity that the "self-entitled" want a piece of for themselves when something minor doesn't go the way of them/their children, they want to kick off about it. This is barely helped by the media circus and behaviours of journalists (paparazzi's role in Lady Diana's death in 1997 may have been a lot more significant than we were led to believe?).
All in all - there's probably more that I could add on a few other topics (like educational facilities and why they do NOT fully prepare us for working life, when people can spend 11 years in school and then struggle to get work, or even spend a further 7-8 years getting degrees/doctorates and then being classified as too "overqualified" for a role). But I'll carry that on another day.
