Immigration - How the newspapers have it so wrong.

In my work of producing investigative reporting packages, and a more researched based component, there have been many differing issues that have come to light through looking at immigration in the UK. These insights have allowed for a greater understanding of journalistic responses to these issues, and public awareness and opinion.

This blog article will review in brief some of these issues that were major components of the subjects.

Immigration is a topic that currently dominates the political arena, and not only inside Westminster, but on the lips of the British public as well.  This is hugely facilitated by the media and the newspapers who’s extensive coverage and continual provocation of the ‘issue’ of immigration, firmly fixes the idea of there being a problem in the far too opaque glass case that surrounds public opinion.

It is clear that it is now so deeply embedded in widespread discourse around the country that it can not be ignored, but that does not give rise to attack immigration through the strength of the pen like a war-raged, medieval, pitch-fork wielding mob.  Rather, an ethical, balanced and reasonable approach should be taken, and this especially so with the way in which journalists should report on it, with a responsibility to uphold those concepts.

However, it’s apparent that the newspapers conform to the agenda which best sells, and that is the one which is often ill informed, misguided and wholly misrepresentative of immigration, keeping the fires ablaze for negative public opinion, generating a hatred towards those that cross our borders.

There is also a distinct misunderstanding of the difference between immigration and migration. If the newspapers can’t always get it right, how can we expect any other than a public that gets it wrong as well?  Migration happens to be financially rather fruitful for the UK, providing a source of workers to fill the gaps in areas of the employment sector that are open, and ploughing that generated income back in to the system for their durational stay in the UK.

If newspapers are so unabashedly reporting on immigration in a negative way, is it not the responsibility of the readership to question why? It isn’t all bad, but it could be a lot better, and more ethically produced. A huge part of the problem is the balance of objectivity when writing journalistically and covering such an important topic. Simple things can improve this though; such as the use of more constructive language rather than demonising immigration through words like: shocking, dismay, carnage, ruinous. If we cant change the way in which we talk about immigration, we will never change the way we manage it, and we will bring ourselves closer and closer to a narrative that is too far gone, and be unable to bring back reason and logic to the debate.

Frequently, immigration is used as a scapegoat to other big issues with in society, and is particularly played on when infrastructure is under the looking glass; the NHS is too strained, immigration. Crime is on the up, immigration. Our education system is failing, immigration. A lack of housing, immigration.

This is so out of proportion, biased and unjust that there is no surprise that hatred towards immigrants is at an all time high. The reality is also a league away from this representation. Yes, immigration will undoubtedly cause some strains on UK infrastructures, but not to the extent that we can weigh all our problems upon it. Pocketed incidents and one-off stories are often sensationalised and then re-versioned to depict immigration as being the square root of all-evil. This is especially apparent where crimes involving Eastern European immigrants are reported, often using language that represents them as being inherently criminal, and estranging them more and more by widening the gap with an ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality. We have of course been here before, in 1939-1945.

Unfortunately, immigration becomes another card in the political hand.  The current political turbulence we are experiencing in the UK at the moment is largely fuelled by immigration, and each party who try to best exploit it to provide an answer that they think the public want. In particular this has given rise to the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), who believe they give a voice to the people that no other party now provides.

Disappointingly, this has put immigration once again on sale to the highest bidder. Using it as a campaign objective rather than spending any time truly addressing it. There is little in the way of reform put in place to try and change public opinion or put down radical views.  So as we see the general election looming ever closer, we also see the media and the newspapers regurgitating ‘official views’ or ‘official sources’ that represent immigration in exactly the way they want it to be. This leaves no room for challenging the establishment, and newspapers give us the contents of Downing streets press office rather than reporting the story from source, making us chase the rabbit further down the hole.

We then end up with a newspaper printing an article on immigration that is already censored before its picked to bits by the daily politics show, and one of its guests gives you a further censored version of the truth.  By the time the reader establishes what they think is their own opinion, it’s too late. What they’re actually thinking is what some corporate executives, several political advisors, and a gaggle of newspaper editors, want them to think, whilst craftily letting them believe it’s their own.

What can be taken away from this are our abhorrent methods of reporting and the readerships indulgence to soak it up.  If journalists were to step back and look again at the story, considering it in a different light and creating a narrative that questioned the rise of immigration in the first place, we would start to see beyond the issues right in front of us, and look at resolving it at its origins. No one truly wants to leave their home country without severe cause, it is after all part of us. So ask yourself the question; what would make you want to leave your country? The situation would have to be pretty dire, before you left your entire way of life behind.

So think again when you next pick up a newspaper and read an article on immigration, try and read between the lines, and look at what’s really being said. Usually, it’s pretty damn wrong.

‘Venezuela’s hidden truths – a disturbance of the peace ’

It is complacency that prevents us from truly appreciating the freedom that we in the UK enjoy daily. It is also what stops us from relating to the fear felt by those that live in other countries that struggle against repression, deprivation and emotional turmoil.

The world has recently watched on as countries that lack democracy and the security of civil liberties, rise up, and seize the moment. The people have found their voice and through that, have found the power in public unity. With events such as the ‘Arab Spring’, in less than three years rulers and governments had been removed in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Libya and now most recently with movements in the Ukraine. They have become beacons to all who strive for peace and freedom.

Venezuela is one such country that has taken a stance against its government. However, Venezuela has important differences from the episodes of revolution and counterrevolution in the Middle East and the Ukraine. Venezuelans have fifty years of experience electing their leaders, as well as constitutional mechanisms to remove them from office if and when they become unpopular with the people.

What generated its current situation arguably started with the death of one man, the countries late President, Hugo Chávez. Venezuela holds huge political divide, split between ‘Chavistas’ those who were devout supporters of Chávez’s ideologies and the recently formed party of Mesa de la Unidad Democatica whom make up much of the opposition with a more socialist line of policy.

With Chavez’s passing, the opportunity was created for opposition supporters to rally against the government, with this, the incoming President Nicolas Maduro and his government responded by applying economic sanctions, enforcing curfews, halting utilities and preventing the distribution of goods. The effects of this political discourse on the people of Venezuela were vast, and as such they too responded.

In the hope that the situation would go away, the government tried not to acknowledge any of the hostilities that were growing. State run media showed no coverage of what was really happening, but instead, held a stance of ‘business as usual.’

Students in the Andes states, Tachira and Merida, many of whom attend the Universidad de Los Andes, were involved in the initial protests against the government and have continued to resist and rally together. With the press and media of the country not representing the people, a reliance on social media was formed, as used before with great effect in Egypt.

I have travelled to Venezuela; it is a beautiful country with majestic landscapes and the most hospitable of people. I have friends there who are my age, and have been caught directly in the line of these troubles. When I spoke with them about what is happening, very few of them would tell me about their experiences knowing I was writing for LSJ News, the only one that did was so scared of me publishing her name, I had to promise I wouldn’t. If her fear of being indentified doesn’t highlight the oppression they are experiencing, very little more will.

“Amorella”, 22, who lives in the town of Merida and studies at the Universidad de Los Andes shared with me her feelings, her fear and her passion for change.

‘I live in Mérida, a beautiful and quite place, surrounded by mountains and magical landscapes: my home. It ceased to be peaceful in February when a wave of violence from the government came, they entered family residences and destroyed their cars and they scared people with their guns.

For this reason, students in the state began to join together, then the police repressed them and finally the protests were spread to the other states. Gradually, more issues joined the protest: insecurity, food shortages, social discontent and the economical crisis. We had a group on Whatsapp and every member used to send pictures, videos and voice notes of the situation: the situation was crazy.

When people realised that they were not safe even in their homes, they started to build barricades with old things: ovens, beds, refrigerators, sofas, garbage -  everything and anything we could find. Every time that the police, the military or the security forces approached these barricades, the atmosphere became complete war. I was worried because of my friends and my older sister who live in the city, sometimes my sister called me while she was locked in her bathroom, crying and scared, and I could hear the shooting by the phone.

The university closed, the shopping centres closed, almost everything closed. The anarchism was in the streets: stores were pillaged. I was terrified, I did not even want to leave my home, it was not the Mérida that I love.

Emotionally, I feel terrible because I have not gone to the university in two months, I want to learn, I want to be a normal student, I want to graduate, I want to be someone and I want to give a little piece of me to Venezuela. But if the government does not do anything to solve this issue, this will not cease and therefore I will not be someone while I am at home feeling useless because I cannot study and move forward with my life. Sadly, Venezuela is divided. People do not respect the ideologies of each other and I think that the reality of our country is not going to change if we keep acting this way. We need to join together and respect each other, we need better leaders, leaders who love this wonderful and beautiful country.’

The political landscape in Venezuela is shifting, and the protests of the people have outlived the government’s capability to control them. They cannot stop the resounding voice of the people. It is our responsibility to give a voice to those that don’t have one, giving them the chance to be heard. There is hope, recent government meetings have met with civil society sectors, business leaders, and those in the opposition parties with a hope of coming together and pulling back from the edge of self destruction, addressing economic and security issues.

Real change will only come if and when the government acknowledge what their citizens want, and peace and democracy will only be restored when those who have caused the friction, protests and riots, realise there are better ways to achieve their goals.

Interview Story, a Q&A with – Dheeraj Bhasin: RAF Fighter Pilot

"My first memory of wanting to join the Royal Air Force was when I was about four standing outside the hospital where my dad was at, seeing a contrail in the sky. I asked my big sister what is that, and she said it was an aeroplane, and that was it, from that age I was going to somehow be involved with flight." Dheeraj Bhasin, a qualified RAF pilot, racking up over 10,000 hours flight time in over 15 variants of aircraft, but one of his biggest claims to fame, as a British Indian he was the first none white fighter pilot in an Air force that for many years was shaped around the white, affluent public school boy image.

What ethnic origin do you class yourself as?

Well, I class myself as a Yorkshire man, born in Rotherham, but both my parents are from India, and are now British citizens. I suppose my official ethnicity is British-Indian. I do very much have a good deal of my Indian heritage in me, but it’s a tough question when you ask me whether I support England or India when they’re playing cricket.

You were the first Asian fighter pilot, how was that?

From my knowledge I was the only Indian fast jet pilot for the duration of my career, how was it? It was fun. It was really no different from being any other brand of pilot in the RAF I was respected for my proficiency in the role and we had a good amount of banter, making fun of whatever we could, across the board. Be it a chaps big nose, whether he was short or tall or had this colour hair or wore those kind of clothes, the differences amongst us were something to be celebrated. The bottom line was, it came down to your professionalism and your proficiency.

You were used, consequently, as part of a public relations campaign because of your ethnicity?

Yeah, several PR campaigns actually, from the recruitment side I appeared in quite a few publications, when people were making documentary programmes whether on the TV or Radio I was often used when it was a case of needing a fighter pilot. Some which were specific to my ethnicity and some that weren’t. In actual fact I ended up being a volunteer with the RAF’s ethnic minority recruitment teams and motivational outreach programme. Lecturing in schools and different areas of say, ethnic strongholds, to be a living example of the military as an equal opportunities employer, tackling the different ideological tensions between being from one background and fighting for another.

In your younger years in the RAF did you encounter any racism against yourself?

No not really, it was amusing sometimes what people would do in the initial stages they would assume that I was a foreign and commonwealth student. The RAF training a lot of people from other common wealth nations, we had Omani, and Tobagans. When it came to the flight photograph, they’d ask for the foreign nationals at the end, assuming I couldn’t speak English talking louder so id understand. I only remember one example that got even close to racism, was just a chap taking the banter further than he needed to. I was on exercise in Alaska flying the Jaguar’s and before I even acknowledged what had been said, my colleagues had sorted the situation having some stiff words with him.

Did you ever encounter any problems that were clearly because of your race?

Again, not really. The only factor that became a problem for me was security clearance. My parents at the time were common wealth citizens not British, and it became easier for them to become fully British citizens to facilitate my security clearance issues. No body ever said you couldn’t do this job or that job, because you’re a different colour, it was always completely equal.

Were you accepted by your colleagues, did they ever treat you differently?

My colleagues just saw me as another one of those blokes, there was never any difference, interestingly enough, there were individuals who were more politically motivated that would be overly nice or overly surprised when I did well, or made a big deal of the fact I was fitting in so well. But for us as peers, it made no difference at all.

A ‘Diversity in the RAF’ exhibition opened at the RAF museum at Cosford, was described by its curator as: ‘It explains a side of our story that isn’t recognised – that the RAF is not just a white public school boy occupation.’ Do you think that this is still the general opinion of the RAF by the public?

That’s a very good question; a lot of the issues I have dealt with when I have met the public surround that exact subject. When I was applying for the air force everyone discouraged because they thought it was racist and quoted, you’re going to have to be ten times better than the average white guys to achieve the same thing, which was absolutely not true. But the perception of the public was that, about 25 years ago. Over times, it has changed, which is a functional result of the RAF’s focus as selling themselves as equal opportunities employers. Now this isn’t a big deal for them being that it’s the law, but they did go out there and push the campaign to try and change the opinions that they were institutionally racist. I think they did a good job, I still think public opinion is lagging that the reality within the air force is changed which is partly due to a negativity produced by the media with isolated cases. But the important thing is, is that the military automatically prosecutes to the maximum extent of the law where any sort of discrimination is proven.

Did you enjoy your time in the RAF?

I absolutely loved it; the military in general I think is extremes of good times and extremes of bad times. I think I have experienced things you don’t get in normal life, done things that money can’t buy, and made friends for life that are exactly that within less than three minutes. You trust them to watch your back, even if you think is doesn’t need watching. The professional skills are just a bonus to get you where you are. Its nice working in an environment where you know people are going to do the right thing.

To aspiring young men and women from other ethnic backgrounds, that want to serve, what would you say to them?

Id say do it, Id say apply. There are no barrier what so ever to being in the British Armed forces just because you are from another ethnic background, it’s the best thing I’ve ever done, its set me up in life, really really well, given n me a reason to respect myself, and I’ve had a great time. There is no issue with, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything like that. Its is truly, in fact, the closest thing I’ve ever seen in all the career paths and job descriptions that I’ve looked, this is the place that actually does equal opportunities. A lot of places just talk about, but the military actually does it.

UK withdrawal from Afghanistan - A bridge too far?

In my opinion...

The British Military are scheduled to withdraw from Afghanistan by 2014; the implications are many and troublesome. Secretary of State for Defence, Phillip Hammond has only recently commented on the situation as ‘messy’.

Mr. Hammond said there was little prospect of the Kabul-based government defeating the Taliban "outright", and the most it could hope for was securing key cities and infrastructure.

After more than a decade in Afghanistan postings there for UK personnel have become normality, even affecting the way we now plan, prepare and train for warfare, with some predicting that any future wars will be fought in similar environments with similar aspects of operations. A daunting yet probably truthful thought.

The reality is Afghanistan is a country steeped in history of failings where others have concerned themselves in its issues, did we learn from this? Clearly not, and now it has reached the point of no return, the cry is to withdraw, which will more than likely conclude in a clambering debacle in much need of revisiting, making Mr. Hammonds words pretty poignant, ‘its best hope is to secure key cities and infrastructure’ almost an open admittance that we haven’t achieved bringing stability and peace.

The rational is to be gone by 2014, removing 3,800 troops this year alone. In discussion a reasonable goal but the practicality means that a large burden will be left with those that stay behind in the country to provide security and to assist with the overwhelming task of the removal of assets and equipment, that is all the more likely to take longer than the benchmark of 2014.

2014 as a date is unrealistic, and if it follows any formula to the past then it probably isn’t true and some form of excuse will raise its head and an extension will be made. If this prediction made by many is what’s coming, why does the government not just state so in the first place?

The idea is admirable, and where the public is concerned it wants to see a total withdrawal after years of money, resources and its men and women have been thrown into a war that neither they, nor the government seems to totally understand. 

FUTURE FORCES 2020. A SLY ATTEMPT AT CHEAPER SOLDIERING?

Another old post reclaimed... 

Late last year in November, the Secretary of state for defence Mr Philip Hammond announced the release of a new policy, the FF2020. Once you've managed to navigate your way around the different versions, that for reservists to read, the speech Mr Hammond made at the BT tower in London (conveniently, a provider of jobs for ex service personnel) about the policy and then the actual green paper itself, what is actually outlined is merely a set of promises. To which I'm sure they were laid out with the best of intentions, quite honourably Mr Hammond acknowledges that our UK reserves across the military perspective are in a decline. Something which probably has a great deal to do with a lack of specific role tasking for reserve squadrons, currently performing more as substitutes in a game of tag than being given a defined and permanent operational tasking. 

The jewel in the crown of the policy is most likely the injection of funding into the reserves,  £1.8bn, a sum that will both sustain current personnel strength and see it grow exponentially over the next 10 years as wanted and planned for. However, as bright as this all seems I can't help but refrain from asking the question, is this the beginning of the UK armed forces being primarily reservist led? We've seen the continuing descaling of the Navy, Army and RAF. With a colossal loss to the Army with numerous regiments disbanded and total count of few more than 80,000 men and women now. Is it any surprise though, with reservists being forfeit of pensions, medical and dental care, housing and many other 'regular' entitlements. Same job, same effort, half the price. No wonder Mr Hammond's smiling. 

In November 2012, the Secretary of state for defence Mr. Philip Hammond announced the release of a new policy, the FF2020. Once you've managed to navigate your way around the different versions, the speech Mr. Hammond made at the BT tower in London about the policy and then the actual green paper itself, what is actually outlined is merely a set of promises. To which I'm sure they were laid out with the best of intentions, quite honorably Mr. Hammond acknowledges that UK reserves are in a decline. Something which probably has a great deal to do with a lack of specific role tasking for reservist units, currently performing more as substitutes in a game of tag than being given a defined and permanent operational tasking. The jewel in the crown of the policy is the injection of funding into the reserves,  £1.8bn, a sum that will both sustain current personnel strength and see it grow exponentially over the next 10 years as planned for.

However, as bright as this all seems I can't help but refrain from asking the question, is this the beginning of UK armed forces being primarily reservist led? We've seen the continuing rescaling of the Navy, Army and RAF. A colossal loss to the Army with numerous regiments disbanded and a total count of few more than 80,000 men and women left. Is it any surprise though, with reservists being forfeit of pensions, medical and dental care, housing and many other 'regular' entitlements. Same job, same effort, half the price. No wonder Mr Hammond's smiling. 

ARMY RESERVES - AN OVERSTRETCHED TARGET?

An old post reclaimed...

Earlier this year Defence Secretary Philip Hammond MP and the MoD (Ministry of Defence), set out a ostentatious target for massively overhauling the UK reservist Armed Forces. With figures to increase by 30,000 personnel across all three components, Army, Navy and Air Force, 10,000 of those being for the newly named Army reserves, (formerly Territorial Army) it has come to light that these targets are not being reached. A fear now growing within the House of Commons that this may significantly damage the effectiveness of our Armed Forces as this stagnation in recruitment is not matching the rate at which ‘regulars’ are being devolved.

Earlier this November, John Baron MP tabled an amendment to the coalitions bill that would try to serve up more transparency when it comes to the actual statistics at the rate of recruitment. Whilst the need for this can be understood there are a couple of factors to consider; definitive incentives still haven’t been outlined which are necessary to encourage recruitment. There are few who exist because they wish to ‘do their bit’ for their country.

What has also seemed to come from this recent outcry for the failings in Mr Hammonds plans is a criticism towards reserve forces, with terms once again bouncing around such as ‘weekend warriors’ and the SASB (Saturday and Sunday Brigade) If knocking the credibility of the services to which individuals willingly volunteer to join up to is the way forward, then the government and the media are certainly going the right way about it. What hasn’t changed regardless of the uncertain future of recruitment, is the professionalism, dedication and commitment of our reservists who strive to achieve like for like capability of regular service personnel. If the targets are seeming to be unrealistic, then alter them. Don’t discredit an arm of the services which does its best. 

When did education become so seclusive? How technology is shaping the future of education.

The days of chalk boards and slates are something that only reside in the memories of the parents of those of us that are in our late twenties and early thirties at best. To ask a child in the education system of today if they remember the roll down boards which I know I even remember at the grand age of twenty-three, you would more than likely be greeted by a rather bemused expression and a head beginning to lean to the right. Even exercise books are slowly in some sectors starting to see the end of the line as the use of technology in our enlightened period of the 21^st century grows and grows as we are trickled new ventures, gadgets and gizmos on a quarterly basis.

In the final stages of a Masters myself, and going through the sometimes difficult periods of essay writing and endless amounts of reading, my mother might occasionally pass comment on her education in response to my moaning. The tales she spins in my mind almost feel Victorian, with horror stories of standing on chairs and recanting the times tables, doing long hand on slates, slates! And of course, being cautioned with board erasers and punished with a whip of the cane to the knuckles. Truly dark times in the spectrum of education some might comment, however, this is only some forty to fifty years ago.

So are we now truly enlightened? Blessed that technology has graced our classrooms, lecture theatres and teachers staff rooms? In a lot of ways yes, but I believe there is a counter argument. I’ll begin by assessing one of the positives though.

Paper. A commodity that we have for centuries taken for granted as being one of the only ways to harbour our knowledge and information. From the countless rows of books in libraries, to the endless circulation of the daily printed newspapers, paper is still a strong runner in our every day lives but it does come at a cost. Our source for paper is trees, and their yearly cultivation although replanted and nurtured, greatly affects our environment. Not to mention the significance the process of making the paper has on the world’s carbon footprint. So, the technology hero here has been quite literally the creation of virtual storage.

With hard drive capacity now in a region that we wouldn’t have dreamt of ten years ago, its possible to store nearly the entire catalogue of books your community library would hold on a tablet no bigger than a sheet of A5 paper. Access to such material has exponentially altered this magic also, with the ease and low price of getting a hold of digital material now through sources such as Amazon and hardware to put it on such as the craze of the kindle, reading has become an altogether different venture.

In the classroom, this now means fewer textbooks, because they’re on the five hundred iPad’s the school bought, and writing up your notes? That’s covered too, because there’s an App for that, in fact, there are more Apps for that than you need. Remember all those handouts you would get as well? Yep, it’s all good! Because you can store those on your tablet, laptop, phone, mp3 player, in fact, any device that has a screen and memory, will just about have the capability now to hold software that will let you read a simple document file. Handouts lead to the next point actually…

Like I have already alluded to, I’m twenty-three, so I’m not really that old, but when I left school, we had just moved to ‘wipe boards’ rather than chalk boards and that was pretty impressive, and not just because we loved the smell of indelible markers. We still had OHP’s (over head projectors) and the A4 transparent slides that the aforementioned pens also wrote on, and they were also pretty cool!

Just before I left sixth form for the lofty heights of a University education, there were projectors and there was this thing being talked about that was beginning to make its name but was spoke of only in rumour. I never saw or used it before leaving, but have since come to rely on a version of it. The VLE (virtual learning environment)

The VLE has seen the death of conventional homework, the creation of poster boards and physical handouts. Now at school, you have a username, which is usually an eight digit number and an assigned password which you change on first login. Much like a new online shopping account. Once you have access, there is an abundance of educational wonders at the end of your fingertips. This rumour I heard of the virtual learning environment at school became the way in which I would near enough complete my entire undergraduate course. My university had a different name for it, but it was the same thing. My entire years worth of modules were on there with nearly every lecture, seminar and group piece of work for each week, and all course work assignments and essays. I’d edge my bets that I could have completed my degree with next to no human contact whatsoever. This brings me to a bad point.

The possibility to interact with technology on the level that we do is making a huge impact on our sociological standing. I have personally had some of the most mind-altering experiences in the terms of my education, in the company of others, through group debate, the exchange of ideas, and the flurry of an open floor forum. A concept not too dissimilar from that of the Romans some two thousand years ago. The point I’m trying to make is that sometimes the old and trusted ways don’t need technological advancement, that they in fact inhibit them.

We’re beginning to loose a sense of what society is meant to be simply because we don’t interact with one another on a personal level as much anymore, and its also making us lazy. Children now have a language of their own, abbreviating and shortening words for ease and to make the length of a message or passage of writing shorter is ruining the literacy of an entire generation. We openly encourage it, with words like ‘selfie’ even finding their way in to the Oxford English Dictionary. This is in my view is no virtue. Some will address it as progression, I think in this small way we are regressing.

I don’t doubt for a second that on the whole, technology in the education arena has been something to marvel at and even revel in. Something I particularly congratulate is the opening up of knowledge and the access to education it has given us. Those who before couldn’t do that course because of time commitments, because they couldn’t afford that kind of education, can now access the world’s database of knowledge and even subscribe to courses offered online by open-end sources and some Universities. This is a remarkable feat.

The way in which we now communicate is also truly wonderful.  At any one point I am never usually more than an arm stretch away from connecting with the other side of the world, ordering dance shoes from a shop in Beijing, reading about civil unrest in Venezuela, or deciding which holiday I want next. Using Google Earth and zooming right in on the water front beach resort in Los Angeles.

What we can now do is fantastic and in the terms of education, we have never been so greatly connected, which allows for our knowledge to strengthen continuously as we consult internationally, with minds across the world and produce research that we once would have had to be on location to collect and assess.

However what we must not forget is the dangers of becoming completely reliant on these technological advancements. We were doing fine before they came along, and were still producing some of the greatest minds that we have ever known. Albert Einstein never had the use of Google and he still delivered enough to keep us both quoting and using his work and discoveries.