Blog

Recent research has shown that for the majority of people choosing to pay the utility bills over eating, or vice versa, has not really been an issue for most of us, thankfully! 



And this is a fantastic result! Quite frankly, no one should ever have to make a decision between getting to eat or paying the bills, and 80 percent of those surveyed have never been put in such a tight spot. However, twenty percent of those polled have admitted that they have been faced with the choice of paying for heat or eating. 

To be fair, there is no indication about when that 20 percent had to make this tough choice. It could have been years ago when they were just starting to get their feet under them, or perhaps it occurred more recently during a period of transition for them. A large portion of that 20 percent have probably had to make that decision recently. While it is great that 80 percent have never been faced with such a task, it is kind of troubling that 20 percent have. 

At the moment the unemployment rate in the UK is at 5.8 percent. This number isn't too shabby overall, but why are there an additional 14.8 percent who say they have to choose between heating and eating? Are the prices of bills that excessive that even working people struggle to pay for heating?

Let us know in the comments what you think it could be!

 

Do you consider your partner/lover to be your best friend? How you answer that question inadvertently implies many things about you.


If you answer "no," are you in a healthy relationship? If you answer "yes" on the other hand, what does that say about your childhood's best friend? None of these implications are necessarily valid, but the partner/best friend conundrum is sure to spark conversations.

So we're not surprised that when we looked at the poll results from Charlotteock's submitted poll this week about just that question, a significant amount of people stood on either side of the coin. The majority, 77 percent, answered with yes, while 23 percent said no. Some of those votes may be swayed by social stigma - even if the poll is anonymous, there is always a subconscious commitment to "say the right thing."

Calling your partner your best friend certainly qualifies, as most people see the healthiest relationships as those that don't just rely on physical intimacy but a healthy dose of communication and innocent fun together. By the time you enter a serious relationship or even marriage, you will spend more time with your partner than anyone else you know. Not calling him/her your best friend immediately raises questions about whether your relationship is as healthy as it could be, so it's more convenient to answer the question with "yes." 

But let's be honest: the more time you spend with your partner, the more likely one of two things is to happen: you either grow together or you grow apart. As you begin to discover the more hidden elements of your partner's personality, you either find yourself compatible or not. If it's the latter, the relationship won't last much longer, and the question is moot. But if it's the former, it's easy to be both truthful and say the right thing when calling your partner your best friend.

What do you think? Is your partner/lover your best friend, and why or why not? Do you think that long-established couples should always consider themselves to be best friend, or are there valid examples in which that isn't necessary?

In an age of eternally rising gasoline prices and increasing environmental awareness, riding your bicycle has become an increasingly popular method of getting around.


Riding to work on your bicycle is a great way to get that Christmas weight off, while at the same time feeling great about yourself and the impact (or lack thereof) you make on your environment.

But cycling to work is not entirely rosy. Especially during the colder months, it can become dangerous if the roads aren't cleared properly or in bad shape generally. Our community was asked whether they felt safe cycling to work on the UK roads, an astonishing 90 percent answered with a resounding no. What does that mean?

First, it's important to understand the question correctly. Cycling to work means leaving early in the morning, when it may still be dark out and the roads haven't yet been properly cleared. It also means a larger emphasis on time effectiveness, as most people cycling to work are not necessarily engaging in a leisurely pace.

With that being said, even taking those mitigating factors into account doesn't completely answer why no less than 90 percent feel unsafe cycling to work. There can only be one explanation: the roads simply aren't safe enough. During a time when we are consistently told about the negative aspects of driving a car and the importance of environmental awareness, there should be more incentives to ride our bicycles.

This winter, that means an increased emphasis on clearing the snow and sleet that has been hitting the roads lately. A bike ride to work should be an easy commute, not a dangerous adventure.

What do you think? Do you feel safe cycling to work on the UK roads, and if not, how do you propose that problem could be solved?

They are a staple of every major city and minor town in the UK.



In fact, homeless people are an unfortunate part of every capitalist society, a living reminder that not everyone can or has struck it rich. And during winter, it's especially easy to feel bad for these unfortunate people who are stuck in rain and snow with no place to go. But just how passionate are you about helping the homeless?

According to a poll run by Charlotteock, most would not go as far as actually supporting the homeless. When we asked our community whether they give to homeless people or buy the Big Issue, a newspaper sold by and benefiting the homeless in England, 70 percent noted that they did not while only 30 percent did.

There are several possible explanations for this result. First, the notion of capitalism - that everyone can make it in this world if they only work hard enough - seems to suggest that at some level, homeless people are in their current state through their own fault. Giving them money or supporting them in any way, in this case, would only give them more incentive not to work hard and get out of their slump.

Another possible reason is that interacting with homeless people is often uncomfortable; we don't like to be reminded of our own success, especially not when staring the alternative directly in the face. Avoiding sellers of the Big Issue instead of approaching them for a newspaper is simply a way of avoiding the feeling of guilt.

But there's a more positive way to look at our survey results as well. While the majority of respondents do not give to homeless people, 30 percent do. If our poll is representative of the English public of over 50 million people, that would mean that no less than 15 million people support the homeless in some way. That's an impressive number of people looking to make a difference and helping their less fortunate peers.

What do you think? Are our poll results an encouraging or discouraging reflection of the British people? Would you give to the homeless, and how would you support them?

So many of you enjoy the Polls feature of our site and ask our other members for their opinions on all sort of topics!

Are you shocked with the results or do you expect them? 

Polls 2.0 is coming very soon. . . 

What if our highest government officials could influence what the public sees or doesn't see on television?

That question arose earlier this week, when the Royal Family vetoed two BBC programmes presumably aimed at investigating members of the family for past transgressions. 

2015 marks the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, the legendary document that first brought separation of church and state as well as basic ideas of liberty and human rights to England. In light of this important anniversary, it seems unfathomable that in the modern information age, heads of state can directly influence what the public sees or doesn't see.

Yet, that's exactly what seems to be the case. In the waning moments of 2014, BBC announced the postponement of a documentary produced by respected journalist Steve Hewlett that focused on the difficult relationship between the Royal Family and the media. As it turns out, the reason for that decision came directly from the Family's lawyers, who (exempt from the Freedom of Information Act) refused to supply necessary footage and thus effectively vetoed it because of its critical nature. 

One of the most important aspects of any democracy is transparency, the ability by anyone to investigate - and publicise - criticism and potential scandals connected to the country's leader. So it's no surprise that according to a poll submitted by Manseydoll, a clear majority believes that the Royal Family should not be allowed to veto any kind of programme. No less than 79 percent of respondents said no one should have that kind of power.

Those clear results make sense. If any politicians, from Tony Blair to David Cameron, would attempt to block the attempts of a well-respected journalists to produce a documentary, we should be in arms. But because it's the Royal Family, with its figurehead status and presumed lack of any decision-making power, it doesn't seem to be as big of a deal.

What do you think? Should the Royal Family be exempt from any laws and veto documentaries that are potentially harmful to them? 

Just before Christmas, Steharlow submitted a poll of which the results showed little controversy. . . 

With the vast majority believing that slang words do not warrant recognition in the Oxford Online Dictionary, when asked if they believe that words such as, "yolo," "adorbs," "binge-watch," "mansplain," and "cray" are appropriate for inclusion in the dictionary, 87 percent of respondents simply said "no." 

In recent years, the online dictionary has found itself in the center of controversy due to its biennial entry of "trendy" slang words.  While these words are subject to a lengthier test of time before they are included in the hard copy dictionary, many people still find this recognition inappropriate.  For many, this acknowledgement simply adds to growing concern that "text speak" is becoming a serious detriment to the English language.  

Conversely, supporters find these slang words appropriate for the online dictionary, as they are important phrases through which a culture is able to express itself.  These supporters believe that a language continually grows to include a vernacular more relevant to the day-to-day lives of its speakers.  As such, it is common belief that dictionaries should be upkept to include modern words and phrases, regardless of informality.

As the debate goes on, the 87 percent can at least cling to the hard copy Oxford Dictionary and its stricter guidelines.  Ideally, for those opposed, there will remain a separation between academia and Urban Dictionary-esque entries, keeping traditional grammar and formality in modern English.

This really made us laugh this week!

Have you seen many poor attempts at festivity this winter? 

Comment with the photo below - Best one wins £10!

Closes midday Monday 22nd!
 

This week, Manseydoll (won £10) decided to ask our community a hypothetical question that may not be so theoretical in the near future. Myself being Inspired by the first trailer for Jurassic World, a continuation of the movie franchise in which Dinosaurs are brought back to life, we were curious to know what the public thinks about the concept also. If or when scientists have the ability to bring back animals forced into extinction by humans, should we do it? How would you feel about reintroducing the Tazmanian Tiger or Dodo into today's world?

According to the poll, a majority does not support playing God - or maybe they've just seen a previous Jurassic Park movie. Only 40% supported the notion of bringing back previously extinct animals, with a 60% majority strictly against the concept. 

The reasons for this result could vary wildly. Reports earlier this year suggested that science is close to accomplishing just that feat, and religious communities immediately expressed worry over humans dabbling in what was previously a role reserved for God - playing creator. Others had more practical concerns: since these species have gone extinct, their habitats have changed wildly and adapted to today's global environment. Even if we did have the ability to bring back extinct animals, could they survive in this changed world? Would it be cruel to bring them back to a world that has since moved on and is no longer hospitable?

Again other groups may feel negatively about the notion that specifically bringing back  species that have been made extinct by humans is akin to admitting a mistake. Similar to those rejecting man-made climate change on the basis that we shouldn't accept responsibility, they would argue that efforts to re-establish these animals would be out of misplaced feelings of guilt.

What do you think? Do you support the notion of bringing back extinct species? If not, do you think reintroducing animals that have been extinct for centuries could have a negative impact on today's habitats? If you do support these efforts, which animals would you most like scientists bringing back?
-Rob