Newspapers are the biggest threat to the nation’s mental wellbeing

I'm a lightweight; always have been. I didn't get properly drunk until I was 25, on a night out which culminated in a spectacular public vomiting in a Chinese restaurant. Ever wondered what the clatter of 60 pairs of chopsticks being simultaneously dropped in disgust might sound like? Don't ask me. I can't remember. I was too busy bitterly coughing what remained of my guts all over the carpet. These days I'm sickeningly lily-livered, by choice rather than necessity. I don't smoke, I drink only occasionally, and I'd sooner saw my own feet off than touch anything harder than a double espresso. I don't want to get out of my head: that's where I live.In summary: if I've learned anything, it's that I don't much care for mood-altering substances. But I'm not afraid of them either. With one exception.It's perhaps the biggest threat to the nation's mental wellbeing, yet it's freely available on every street – for pennies. The dealers claim it expands the mind and bolsters the intellect: users experience an initial rush of emotion (often euphoria or rage), followed by what they believe is a state of enhanced awareness. Tragically this "awareness" is a delusion. As they grow increasingly detached from reality, heavy users often exhibit impaired decision-making abilities, becoming paranoid, agitated and quick to anger. In extreme cases they've even been known to form mobs and attack people. Technically it's called "a newspaper", although it's better known by one of its many "street names", such as "The Currant Bun" or "The Mail" or "The Grauniad" (see me – Ed).In its purest form, a newspaper consists of a collection of facts which, in controlled circumstances, can actively improve knowledge. Unfortunately, facts are expensive, so to save costs and drive up sales, unscrupulous dealers often "cut" the basic contents with cheaper material, such as wild opinion, bullshit, empty hysteria, reheated press releases, advertorial padding and photographs of Lady Gaga with her bum hanging out. The hapless user has little or no concept of the toxicity of the end product: they digest the contents in good faith, only to pay the price later when they find themselves raging incoherently in pubs, or – increasingly – on internet messageboards.But then I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to narcotics. Like I said, I'm a lightweight. I can absolutely guarantee my experience of drugs is far more limited than that of the average journalist: immeasurably so once you factor in alcohol. So presumably they know what they're talking about. It's hard to shake the notion half the users aren't trying to "escape the boredom of their lives": just praying for a brief holiday from society's unrelenting bullshit.

Source: Adapted from (‘The most dangerous drug isn't meow meow. It isn't even alcohol ...’ by Charlie Brooker), The Guardian, 22/03/2010 

Newspapers are the biggest threat to the nation’s mental wellbeing

I'm a lightweight; always have been. I didn't get properly drunk until I was 25, on a night out which culminated in a spectacular public vomiting in a Chinese restaurant. Ever wondered what the clatter of 60 pairs of chopsticks being simultaneously dropped in disgust might sound like? Don't ask me. I can't remember. I was too busy bitterly coughing what remained of my guts all over the carpet.These days I'm sickeningly lily-livered, by choice rather than necessity. I don't smoke, I drink only occasionally, and I'd sooner saw my own feet off than touch anything harder than a double espresso. I don't want to get out of my head: that's where I live.In summary: if I've learned anything, it's that I don't much care for mood-altering substances. But I'm not afraid of them either. With one exception. It's perhaps the biggest threat to the nation's mental wellbeing, yet it's freely available on every street – for pennies. The dealers claim it expands the mind and bolsters the intellect: users experience an initial rush of emotion (often euphoria or rage), followed by what they believe is a state of enhanced awareness. Tragically this "awareness" is a delusion. As they grow increasingly detached from reality, heavy users often exhibit impaired decision-making abilities, becoming paranoid, agitated and quick to anger. In extreme cases they've even been known to form mobs and attack people. Technically it's called "a newspaper", although it's better known by one of its many "street names", such as "The Currant Bun" or "The Mail" or "The Grauniad" (see me – Ed).In its purest form, a newspaper consists of a collection of facts which, in controlled circumstances, can actively improve knowledge. Unfortunately, facts are expensive, so to save costs and drive up sales, unscrupulous dealers often "cut" the basic contents with cheaper material, such as wild opinion, bullshit, empty hysteria, reheated press releases, advertorial padding and photographs of Lady Gaga with her bum hanging out. The hapless user has little or no concept of the toxicity of the end product: they digest the contents in good faith, only to pay the price later when they find themselves raging incoherently in pubs, or – increasingly – on internet messageboards.But then I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to narcotics. Like I said, I'm a lightweight. I can absolutely guarantee my experience of drugs is far more limited than that of the average journalist: immeasurably so once you factor in alcohol. So presumably they know what they're talking about. It's hard to shake the notion half the users aren't trying to "escape the boredom of their lives": just praying for a brief holiday from society's unrelenting bullshit.

Source: Adapted from (‘The most dangerous drug isn't meow meow. It isn't even alcohol ...’ by Charlie Brooker), The Guardian, 22/03/2010 

Newspapers are the biggest threat to the nation’s mental wellbeing

I'm a lightweight; always have been. I didn't get properly drunk until I was 25, on a night out which culminated in a spectacular public vomiting in a Chinese restaurant. Ever wondered what the clatter of 60 pairs of chopsticks being simultaneously dropped in disgust might sound like? Don't ask me. I can't remember. I was too busy bitterly coughing what remained of my guts all over the carpet.These days I'm sickeningly lily-livered, by choice rather than necessity. I don't smoke, I drink only occasionally, and I'd sooner saw my own feet off than touch anything harder than a double espresso. I don't want to get out of my head: that's where I live.In summary: if I've learned anything, it's that I don't much care for mood-altering substances. But I'm not afraid of them either. With one exception.It's perhaps the biggest threat to the nation's mental wellbeing, yet it's freely available on every street – for pennies. The dealers claim it expands the mind and bolsters the intellect: users experience an initial rush of emotion (often euphoria or rage), followed by what they believe is a state of enhanced awareness. Tragically this "awareness" is a delusion. As they grow increasingly detached from reality, heavy users often exhibit impaired decision-making abilities, becoming paranoid, agitated and quick to anger. In extreme cases they've even been known to form mobs and attack people. Technically it's called "a newspaper", although it's better known by one of its many "street names", such as "The Currant Bun" or "The Mail" or "The Grauniad" (see me – Ed).In its purest form, a newspaper consists of a collection of facts which, in controlled circumstances, can actively improve knowledge. Unfortunately, facts are expensive, so to save costs and drive up sales, unscrupulous dealers often "cut" the basic contents with cheaper material, such as wild opinion, bullshit, empty hysteria, reheated press releases, advertorial padding and photographs of Lady Gaga with her bum hanging out. The hapless user has little or no concept of the toxicity of the end product: they digest the contents in good faith, only to pay the price later when they find themselves raging incoherently in pubs, or – increasingly – on internet messageboards.But then I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to narcotics. Like I said, I'm a lightweight. I can absolutely guarantee my experience of drugs is far more limited than that of the average journalist: immeasurably so once you factor in alcohol. So presumably they know what they're talking about. It's hard to shake the notion half the users aren't trying to "escape the boredom of their lives": just praying for a brief holiday from society's unrelenting bullshit.

Source: Adapted from (‘The most dangerous drug isn't meow meow. It isn't even alcohol ...’ by Charlie Brooker), The Guardian, 22/03/2010  

Newspapers are the biggest threat to the nation’s mental wellbeing

I'm a lightweight; always have been. I didn't get properly drunk until I was 25, on a night out which culminated in a spectacular public vomiting in a Chinese restaurant. Ever wondered what the clatter of 60 pairs of chopsticks being simultaneously dropped in disgust might sound like? Don't ask me. I can't remember. I was too busy bitterly coughing what remained of my guts all over the carpet.These days I'm sickeningly lily-livered, by choice rather than necessity. I don't smoke, I drink only occasionally, and I'd sooner saw my own feet off than touch anything harder than a double espresso. I don't want to get out of my head: that's where I live.In summary: if I've learned anything, it's that I don't much care for mood-altering substances. But I'm not afraid of them either. With one exception.It's perhaps the biggest threat to the nation's mental wellbeing, yet it's freely available on every street – for pennies. The dealers claim it expands the mind and bolsters the intellect: users experience an initial rush of emotion (often euphoria or rage), followed by what they believe is a state of enhanced awareness. Tragically this "awareness" is a delusion. As they grow increasingly detached from reality, heavy users often exhibit impaired decision-making abilities, becoming paranoid, agitated and quick to anger. In extreme cases they've even been known to form mobs and attack people. Technically it's called "a newspaper", although it's better known by one of its many "street names", such as "The Currant Bun" or "The Mail" or "The Grauniad" (see me – Ed). In its purest form, a newspaper consists of a collection of facts which, in controlled circumstances, can actively improve knowledge. Unfortunately, facts are expensive, so to save costs and drive up sales, unscrupulous dealers often "cut" the basic contents with cheaper material, such as wild opinion, bullshit, empty hysteria, reheated press releases, advertorial padding and photographs of Lady Gaga with her bum hanging out. The hapless user has little or no concept of the toxicity of the end product: they digest the contents in good faith, only to pay the price later when they find themselves raging incoherently in pubs, or – increasingly – on internet messageboards.But then I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to narcotics. Like I said, I'm a lightweight. I can absolutely guarantee my experience of drugs is far more limited than that of the average journalist: immeasurably so once you factor in alcohol. So presumably they know what they're talking about. It's hard to shake the notion half the users aren't trying to "escape the boredom of their lives": just praying for a brief holiday from society's unrelenting bullshit.

Source: Adapted from (‘The most dangerous drug isn't meow meow. It isn't even alcohol ...’ by Charlie Brooker), The Guardian, 22/03/2010 

Breakfast

Until very recently, common wisdom held that breakfast was the most important meal of the day. We’ve anecdotally tied all sorts of ills to a failure to sit down to a “complete breakfast.” But health research has proven that skipping that fried egg or bowl of cereal does not, in fact, lead to weight gain, health issues or underperformance.Our reverence for breakfast is actually relatively recent. Before the late 19th century in the US, breakfast didn’t have any particular importance ascribed to it. But all that was changed by a small group of religious fanatics and lobbyists for cereal and bacon companies.Historically, breakfast didn’t come with its own list of prescribed foods, says Abigail Carroll, author of Three Squares: The Invention of the American Meal. People simply ate whatever they had around for breakfast, which was often leftovers from the night before.By the 1800s, what Americans think of as a farmer’s breakfast started showing up at the table. Eggs have always been a popular breakfast food, says Heather Arndt Anderson, author of Breakfast: A History. Chickens lay eggs in the morning, and egg dishes are easy and fast to prepare. Meat that did not have to be slaughtered that day and could keep was also incorporated. Chicken was never a breakfast food, points out Arndt, as no one is going to kill a chicken first thing in the morning, but cured meat from a pig that was previously slaughtered could be.In the late 19th century, however, people began to worry about indigestion as the Industrial Revolution saw people move from farm labor to factories and offices, where a lot of their time was spent sitting or standing in one place. Heavy farm breakfasts before work got the blame for indigestion, a major preoccupation at the time, and a lighter version became the ideal.It was around this time, in the middle of a general healthier living fad, that breakfast cereals got their start at sanatoriums founded by followers of the newly formed Seventh-day Adventist religion.These religious health gurus opened sanatoriums and introduced people to vegetarian diets and eating bland, whole wheat as a way to counter ill health. The first cereal, invented by James Caleb Jackson, and the better known Kellogg’s brand, invented by John Harvey Kellogg, were both born at sanatoriums.Jackson was a preacher, and Kellogg a religious man who believed that masturbation was the greatest evil, which bland, healthy foods like corn flakes could prevent. Both Jackson and Kellogg were early Seventh-day Adventists, further tying a sense of religious morality into their ideas around the importance of healthy eating.Using moralizing rhetoric to sell the idea of a healthy breakfast in the 19th century changed how people thought about the meal, says Carroll. That moralization wasn’t just around religion and health: it also incorporated our reverence for hard work. In the early 20th century, the idea that if you ate a lighter, healthier breakfast you were going to be more efficient and productive at work added “another moralizing layer”, according to Carroll.The cliche that breakfast is the most important meal – and one with very specific food groups – developed from those early days of cereal.

Source: Adapted from Guardian (‘How lobbyists made breakfast 'the most important meal of the day’), 28 November 2016 

Breakfast

Until very recently, common wisdom held that breakfast was the most important meal of the day. We’ve anecdotally tied all sorts of ills to a failure to sit down to a “complete breakfast.” But health research has proven that skipping that fried egg or bowl of cereal does not, in fact, lead to weight gain, health issues or underperformance. Our reverence for breakfast is actually relatively recent. Before the late 19th century in the US, breakfast didn’t have any particular importance ascribed to it. But all that was changed by a small group of religious fanatics and lobbyists for cereal and bacon companies. Historically, breakfast didn’t come with its own list of prescribed foods, says Abigail Carroll, author of Three Squares: The Invention of the American Meal. People simply ate whatever they had around for breakfast, which was often leftovers from the night before.By the 1800s, what Americans think of as a farmer’s breakfast started showing up at the table. Eggs have always been a popular breakfast food, says Heather Arndt Anderson, author of Breakfast: A History. Chickens lay eggs in the morning, and egg dishes are easy and fast to prepare. Meat that did not have to be slaughtered that day and could keep was also incorporated. Chicken was never a breakfast food, points out Arndt, as no one is going to kill a chicken first thing in the morning, but cured meat from a pig that was previously slaughtered could be.In the late 19th century, however, people began to worry about indigestion as the Industrial Revolution saw people move from farm labor to factories and offices, where a lot of their time was spent sitting or standing in one place. Heavy farm breakfasts before work got the blame for indigestion, a major preoccupation at the time, and a lighter version became the ideal.It was around this time, in the middle of a general healthier living fad, that breakfast cereals got their start at sanatoriums founded by followers of the newly formed Seventh-day Adventist religion.These religious health gurus opened sanatoriums and introduced people to vegetarian diets and eating bland, whole wheat as a way to counter ill health. The first cereal, invented by James Caleb Jackson, and the better known Kellogg’s brand, invented by John Harvey Kellogg, were both born at sanatoriums.Jackson was a preacher, and Kellogg a religious man who believed that masturbation was the greatest evil, which bland, healthy foods like corn flakes could prevent. Both Jackson and Kellogg were early Seventh-day Adventists, further tying a sense of religious morality into their ideas around the importance of healthy eating.Using moralizing rhetoric to sell the idea of a healthy breakfast in the 19th century changed how people thought about the meal, says Carroll. That moralization wasn’t just around religion and health: it also incorporated our reverence for hard work. In the early 20th century, the idea that if you ate a lighter, healthier breakfast you were going to be more efficient and productive at work added “another moralizing layer”, according to Carroll. The cliche that breakfast is the most important meal – and one with very specific food groups – developed from those early days of cereal.

Source: Adapted from Guardian (‘How lobbyists made breakfast 'the most important meal of the day’), 28 November 2016 

Breakfast

Until very recently, common wisdom held that breakfast was the most important meal of the day. We’ve anecdotally tied all sorts of ills to a failure to sit down to a “complete breakfast.” But health research has proven that skipping that fried egg or bowl of cereal does not, in fact, lead to weight gain, health issues or underperformance.Our reverence for breakfast is actually relatively recent. Before the late 19th century in the US, breakfast didn’t have any particular importance ascribed to it. But all that was changed by a small group of religious fanatics and lobbyists for cereal and bacon companies. Historically, breakfast didn’t come with its own list of prescribed foods, says Abigail Carroll, author of Three Squares: The Invention of the American Meal. People simply ate whatever they had around for breakfast, which was often leftovers from the night before.By the 1800s, what Americans think of as a farmer’s breakfast started showing up at the table.Eggs have always been a popular breakfast food, says Heather Arndt Anderson, author of Breakfast: A History. Chickens lay eggs in the morning, and egg dishes are easy and fast to prepare. Meat that did not have to be slaughtered that day and could keep was also incorporated. Chicken was never a breakfast food, points out Arndt, as no one is going to kill a chicken first thing in the morning, but cured meat from a pig that was previously slaughtered could be.In the late 19th century, however, people began to worry about indigestion as the Industrial Revolution saw people move from farm labor to factories and offices, where a lot of their time was spent sitting or standing in one place. Heavy farm breakfasts before work got the blame for indigestion, a major preoccupation at the time, and a lighter version became the ideal.It was around this time, in the middle of a general healthier living fad, that breakfast cereals got their start at sanatoriums founded by followers of the newly formed Seventh-day Adventist religion.These religious health gurus opened sanatoriums and introduced people to vegetarian diets and eating bland, whole wheat as a way to counter ill health. The first cereal, invented by James Caleb Jackson, and the better known Kellogg’s brand, invented by John Harvey Kellogg, were both born at sanatoriums.Jackson was a preacher, and Kellogg a religious man who believed that masturbation was the greatest evil, which bland, healthy foods like corn flakes could prevent. Both Jackson and Kellogg were early Seventh-day Adventists, further tying a sense of religious morality into their ideas around the importance of healthy eating.Using moralizing rhetoric to sell the idea of a healthy breakfast in the 19th century changed how people thought about the meal, says Carroll. That moralization wasn’t just around religion and health: it also incorporated our reverence for hard work. In the early 20th century, the idea that if you ate a lighter, healthier breakfast you were going to be more efficient and productive at work added “another moralizing layer”, according to Carroll.The cliche that breakfast is the most important meal – and one with very specific food groups – developed from those early days of cereal.

Source: Adapted from Guardian (‘How lobbyists made breakfast 'the most important meal of the day’), 28 November 2016 

Breakfast

Until very recently, common wisdom held that breakfast was the most important meal of the day. We’ve anecdotally tied all sorts of ills to a failure to sit down to a “complete breakfast.” But health research has proven that skipping that fried egg or bowl of cereal does not, in fact, lead to weight gain, health issues or underperformance. Our reverence for breakfast is actually relatively recent. Before the late 19th century in the US, breakfast didn’t have any particular importance ascribed to it. But all that was changed by a small group of religious fanatics and lobbyists for cereal and bacon companies.Historically, breakfast didn’t come with its own list of prescribed foods, says Abigail Carroll, author of Three Squares: The Invention of the American Meal. People simply ate whatever they had around for breakfast, which was often leftovers from the night before.By the 1800s, what Americans think of as a farmer’s breakfast started showing up at the table.Eggs have always been a popular breakfast food, says Heather Arndt Anderson, author of Breakfast: A History. Chickens lay eggs in the morning, and egg dishes are easy and fast to prepare. Meat that did not have to be slaughtered that day and could keep was also incorporated. Chicken was never a breakfast food, points out Arndt, as no one is going to kill a chicken first thing in the morning, but cured meat from a pig that was previously slaughtered could be.In the late 19th century, however, people began to worry about indigestion as the industrial revolution saw people move from farm labor to factories and offices, where a lot of their time was spent sitting or standing in one place. Heavy farm breakfasts before work got the blame for indigestion, a major preoccupation at the time, and a lighter version became the ideal.It was around this time, in the middle of a general healthier living fad, that breakfast cereals got their start at sanatoriums founded by followers of the newly formed Seventh-day Adventist religion. These religious health gurus opened sanatoriums and introduced people to vegetarian diets and eating bland, whole wheat as a way to counter ill health. The first cereal, invented by James Caleb Jackson, and the better known Kellogg’s brand, invented by John Harvey Kellogg, were both born at sanatoriums.Jackson was a preacher, and Kellogg a religious man who believed that masturbation was the greatest evil, which bland, healthy foods like corn flakes could prevent. Both Jackson and Kellogg were early Seventh-day Adventists, further tying a sense of religious morality into their ideas around the importance of healthy eating.Using moralizing rhetoric to sell the idea of a healthy breakfast in the 19th century changed how people thought about the meal, says Carroll. That moralization wasn’t just around religion and health: it also incorporated our reverence for hard work. In the early 20th century, the idea that if you ate a lighter, healthier breakfast you were going to be more efficient and productive at work added “another moralizing layer”, according to Carroll.The cliche that breakfast is the most important meal – and one with very specific food groups – developed from those early days of cereal.

Source: Adapted from Guardian (‘How lobbyists made breakfast 'the most important meal of the day’), 28 November 2016 

Ceuta and Melilla

The Southern Border

The autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla are both located in the north of Africa, 382 kilometres apart. These two cities, together with the regions of Tangiers and Nador, are where the majority of the migrant and refugee population trying to reach Europe – whether by land or by sea – can be found.

Ceuta and Melilla

The city of Ceuta has some 85,000 official inhabitants and occupies an area of 19 square kilometres. It is ringed by an 8 kilometre fence. Melilla has around 84,000 inhabitants within an area of 12 square kilometres, which is surrounded by a fence 12 kilometres in length. There is a heavy presence of security forces in both cities. There are also a surprisingly high number of street names and statues of generals dating from the Franco era.

The border crossings

Between Melilla and Morocco there is an international border crossing known as Beni Ensar, for use by anyone who does not possess an entry permit based on the neighbourhood agreement between Spain and Morocco. Ceuta has an international border crossings known as Tarajal. It usually takes between two and five hours to cross these frontiers, particularly if crossing by car in the busiest periods. In Melilla there are three further crossings for people from the region and a similar crossing has recently been set up in Ceuta a few metres from the international crossing points. The fence border apparatus is made up of a fence three metres high on the Moroccan side, covered in razor wire. It is followed by a ditch a number of metres wide. Just after it is the first Spanish fence, six metres high and inclined in such a way as to make climbing it more difficult, equipped with at least two lines of razor wire and an anti-climb mesh. It is followed by an array of steel cables and a second, three-metre-high, inclined fence. The final fence is straight and six metres tall. Police violence at the fenceAt the border apparatus, numerous situations have arisen involving violence on the part of the state security bodies and forces. There have been situations in which unjustified acts of aggression have taken place, as well as interventions that have provoked falls and situations in which Moroccan forces have been permitted to attack people within the Spanish perimeter. However, no official registry exists of said situations and they have not been adequately investigated by the judicial and administrative authorities. Illegal “hot returns” Through the reform of the Law on Citizen Security [Ley de Seguridad Ciudadana], the Spanish government modified the law on foreigners so that immediate pushbacks at the borders are permitted. Nevertheless, this rule is contrary to international human rights law with regard to returns, as well asylum and the protection of children.

Source: Adapted from “Spain’s southern border: steps towards restoring legality” from www.statewatch.org 

Ceuta and Melilla

The Southern Border

The autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla are both located in the north of Africa, 382 kilometres apart. These two cities, together with the regions of Tangiers and Nador, are where the majority of the migrant and refugee population trying to reach Europe – whether by land or by sea – can be found.

Ceuta and Melilla

The city of Ceuta has some 85,000 official inhabitants and occupies an area of 19 square kilometres. It is ringed by an 8 kilometre fence. Melilla has around 84,000 inhabitants within an area of 12 square kilometres, which is surrounded by a fence 12 kilometres in length. There is a heavy presence of security forces in both cities. There are also a surprisingly high number of street names and statues of generals dating from the Franco era.

The border crossings 

Between Melilla and Morocco there is an international border crossing known as Beni Ensar, for use by anyone who does not possess an entry permit based on the neighbourhood agreement between Spain and Morocco. Ceuta has an international border crossings known as Tarajal. It usually takes between two and five hours to cross these frontiers, particularly if crossing by car in the busiest periods. In Melilla there are three further crossings for people from the region and a similar crossing has recently been set up in Ceuta a few metres from the international crossing points.

The fence: The border apparatus is made up of a fence three metres high on the Moroccan side, covered in razor wire. It is followed by a ditch a number of metres wide. Just after it is the first Spanish fence, six metres high and inclined in such a way as to make climbing it more difficult, equipped with at least two lines of razor wire and an anti-climb mesh. It is followed by an array of steel cables and a second, three-metre-high, inclined fence. The final fence is straight and six metres tall.Police violence at the fenceAt the border apparatus, numerous situations have arisen involving violence on the part of the state security bodies and forces. There have been situations in which unjustified acts of aggression have taken place, as well as interventions that have provoked falls and situations in which Moroccan forces have been permitted to attack people within the Spanish perimeter. However, no official registry exists of said situations and they have not been adequately investigated by the judicial and administrative authorities.

“Hot returns”: Through the reform of the Law on Citizen Security [Ley de Seguridad Ciudadana], the Spanish government modified the law on foreigners so that immediate pushbacks at the borders are permitted. Nevertheless, this rule is contrary to international human rights law with regard to returns, as well asylum and the protection of children.

Source: Adapted from “Spain’s southern border: steps towards restoring legality” from www.statewatch.org