By Ian Silvera
Getting sources in the middle of a disaster zone was once a problem, now, in a world where an extraordinary amount of people own smart phones, you can connect to victims instantaneously from almost anywhere on the globe.
But what software is on offer to help reporters find those affected? Well, simple searches on Twitter or social networking site Facebook may yield some contacts. However, you have to wade through an endless list of ‘junk leads’. This time consuming process means that you will lose out against your competitors.
Another, and more favourable approach, would be to use a piece of technology like TweetDeck. The social media dashboard allows users to scan through tens of Facebook messages and Tweets. The application will speed up the process of filtering through mass Tweets and statuses, but what if you were able to geo-locate social media users? Surely that would be a much more efficient method? Well, the good news is that there are numerous websites out there that offer this opportunity.
Read more here.
Originally found here.
Consider the example of two workers: Bill and Ben. Ben receives £59.30 in return for his ten hour shift at the local restaurant. In contrast, Bill receives £49.20 for the same shift at the same restaurant. Now, ask yourself would the £10.10 difference be justified if the workers were members of a different sex? Surely, you would answer “no”. Equally, ask yourself would the £10.10 difference between the workers be justified if the workers were members of a different race? Again, you would answer “no”. You answer no because discrimination is wrong. It contradicts your belief in equality, justice and fairness. So why, today, is pay inequality legally accepted? Continue reading →
Laurie Penny,a political journalist and blogger, was recently exposed for offering a research role for less than the minimum wage (£5.93) and the proposed living wage (£7.85) – a campaign she resolutely supports. Taking into consideration Miss Penny’s socialist leanings and unyielding criticisms of the right of British politics, I would like to affirm my shock and outrage with Miss Penny’s gross hypocrisy and ignorance.
In this article I do not want to concentrate on Miss Penny. I wish to discuss the left’s hypocrisy with regards to paid internships. Continue reading →
“I hereby declare that the said Debbie Abrahams is voted in as Member of Parliament for Oldham East and Saddleworth”
In the early hours of Friday 14th January Debbie Abrahams – a former public health consultant- was declared the Member of Parliament for Oldham East and Saddleworth. The Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election had been brought about by corruption and mistrust. Since Phil Woolas was found guilty of breaching article one hundred and six of the Representation of the People Act 1983, Party leaders and senior party officials of all political parties have flocked to Oldham East and Saddleworth in order to persuade overwhelmed residents to vote for their party. Despite hysteria and media hype concerning the Oldham by-election, what can we, the Labour party, learn from the by-election victory?
Ms. Abrahams’ convincing victory- commanding a 3,558 majority- Continue reading →
Mr Howells’ article on Labour Uncut attacks the Coalition government for cutting EMA. Here, I argue against him.
The 1942 Beveridge Report outlined five ‘Giant Evils’: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease. The real enemy of social mobility, to which the Report alludes, is idleness. EMA promoted idleness – the detestable enemy of aspiration.
To Mr Howells I respond that I believe the cutting of EMA is one of the Coalition’s best polices (perhaps its only good policy). His article reflects a middle-class, neo-liberal approach to social mobility which, although its outlook sincere, little reflects reality.
It seems the majority of students receiving EMA would spend it on driving lessons, video games or other non-educational pursuits. Continue reading →
Recently, I received a letter from young Labour, Labour’s youth wing. Nothing new, I thought, probably trying to promote another public affairs event with the persuasive allure of free tea and biscuits. However, my inclinations were wrong. I had been asked, with thousands of other members, to consider taking part in the party’s youth elections. The particular election that stood out to me was the regional representative election. I was elated that I had been given an opportunity to represent my home region, the West Midlands, on young Labour’s national committee.
Alas, in the rest of the letter I was presented with some bad news. Although I had a gender – “there are rules relating to gender” – my gender was the wrong one. I have a penis. Apparently, the letter explained, Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) has agreed that half the regions will be required to elect women and the other half will be open to men and women. Skilfully, the NEC has alienated roughly half of their young members (the ones with penises) in the following regions: East Midlands, Eastern, London, South East, West Midlands and Yorkshire.
Young Labour’s discrimination against men is wrong. Continue reading →