Should we have gone to Glastonbury this Summer, Lollipop?

As the week draws to a close Lollipop and I are definitely wishing we were somewhere else. Not somewhere Hot and tropical. But somewhere grey and muddy…Glastonbury!

“I can’t believe your friend managed to get tickets! How come you didn’t get us any sis?”

“Because I’m not loaded, Lollipop. A standard ticket was £195 plus £5 booking fee and £4.95 for postage and packaging. Then we would have to buy camping gear and sort out transport arrangements.”

“I guess it would cost you a bomb.”

“Yeah. We’ll just have to wait till 2013. It’ll still be worth it. You’ll still be underage though Lollipop and even if you weren’t mum would still disapprove.”

“Why? Because I’d be going with you. My crazy irresponsible sister.”

“No. Because of the Guardians’ recent report has revealed that Glastonbury festival has vetoed the first major attempt to test the use of legal highs and illicit drugs at a British festival by sampling sewage.” I explained to my Lollipop.

The exercise would have been carried out by analytical toxicologists, involving the use of the emerging science of “wastewater analysis”, which can detect even very low concentrations of illicit drugs in liquids and was supported by the police. However Festival’s founder Michael Eavis totally disagreed with the new technique for monitoring drugs and argued: “The drug culture these days has changed beyond belief. What a cheek to even suggest there’s a problem.”

Yet the BBC reported that the Police made 36 arrests after the gates opened on Wednesday morning. Thirty of the arrests were for drug offences while the remainder were for assault, theft, and being drunk and disorderly.

Perhaps Eavis had not seen these figures before he made this statement. Or perhaps he just didn’t want the exercise to cause a scene. Or perhaps he truly believed the investigation wouldn’t uncover any shocking figures. Whatever Eavis’ reasons his decision doesn’t hide the fact that there is clearly still a huge drugs problem when it comes to British festivals like Glastonbury.

Most of the comments from the Guardian’s readers joke about the issue suggesting that: “Big brother is watchin’ yo ass,” or wondering,  “Where’s Gillian McKeith when you need her?” However should such a serious issue just be joked about Lollipop?

“No, we should look at it seriously, but there must be an easier way to monitor drugs use than examine loads of people’s poop, sis.”

“Yeah It is pretty disgusting. I definitely wouldn’t want to be the toxicologists examining your poop, Lollipop.”

“You never know if this writing thing doesn’t work out you might be wading through sewage in 2013,” laughs my Lollipop as I simply stare at her. Clearly unimpressed.

This new technique needs a lot of work and a lot more support if it is ever going to be used to tackle the drug problem at festivals. However if it is established in the near future would it really solve anything? Or just prove something all of us, apart from Michael Eavis, already know?

Oh my goodness have you heard that poor Justin Bieber was attacked by a crazed man during a promotional event at Macy’s Manhattan, New York? I hope he’s ok. He didn’t speak to reporters, sis.”

“Would you speak to reporters if you’d just been attacked Lollipop? But yeah. How sad.”

Will You be applying for US universities, Lollipop?

As usual my sister, Lollipop is more interested in celeb gossip then current affairs as she insists that the slating of Cher Lloyd’s leaked music is headline news. “It’s all over the Daily Mail’s website sis. So how can you say it’s not headline news?”

“Its just mere TV gossip, Lollipop and has nothing to do with current affairs.”

“Well Twitter begs to differ. You should see some of Cher’s latest updates.”

“I don’t care Lollipop and neither should you. Instead you should be more interested in the Guardian’s story on the sharp rise in UK students applying for American Ivy league universities.”

“Why should I be more interested in that? I’m not even thinking about university. I’m thinking about my GCSEs.”

“Exactly,” I say. Since May my sister has been more obsessed about her GCSEs than she is about Justin Bieber. She’s become a bookworm.  So it seems blatantly obvious at the moment that she will be heading to university in the future. However whether she’ll be studying in the UK or the US is up for debate.

Figures obtained by the Guardian from seven prestigious US institutions show that hundreds more British students are following in the footsteps of the Harry Potter star Emma Watson to further their education at elite US universities.

The primary target appears to be Harvard, which has received 500 applications from UK students for undergraduate courses this autumn, a jump of more than a third on last year. British enrolments at Yale and Princeton, also Ivy League institutions, have doubled in five years.

If the figures continue to rise my Lollipop could be heading overseas. Tuition fees are still huge though. The cost of studying at an Ivy League university for a UK student can reach £37,000 ($60,000) a year. Most undergraduate courses last four years. Fees at state-funded universities are substantially lower, but it can be difficult to obtain a place without US citizenship.

Head of the advisory service at the US–UK Fulbright Commission, Lauren Welch encourages educational exchanges between UK and US students and believes that many US universities and colleges see this year as “an unprecedented opportunity to enlist British students”.

“They know tuition fees are increasing threefold and that places for UK pupils will be capped. They want to make students aware of the American alternative.”

US dramas like Gossip Girl and 90210 have definitely made my Lollipop aware of the “American alternative.” But with such costly fees my sister won’t be going anywhere. Many believe only the rich, like Harry Potter star, Emma Watson, can afford to travel overseas and study.  Yet King’s College school is holding a conference – the American Dream – this September for headteachers and pupils to discuss applying to US universities, which suggests a growing interest in studying in America. Plus, by the time my Lollipop is ready to make decisions about her higher education tuition fees in the UK may have risen so much that there might not be a great difference in costs between the two institutions.

Whatever her financial situation, my Lollipop is definitely interested in going to the US. “I would get to see Justin Bieber!”

“You would also get to major in English literature.”

“Who cares? Do you think Justin will go to university?”

Have we really missed out on the 2012 Olympics Lollipop?

Like most of the newspapers this week my sister Lollipop is shocked by Ryan Giggs’ latest affair.

“Can you believe he’s had an eight year affair with his brother’s wife?” cries my sister as she flicks through The Sun newspaper who wittingly entitled the story: “The Nookie, the cheat, his wife and his brother.” I nod in reply to my celebrity obsessed sister but am more interested by the news that so many have missed out in the first ballot for 2012 tickets. Around 1.8 million households applied for the 6.6 million public tickets available but approximately 55% missed out. Unfortunately I was one of them. However I was not surprised and a tad relieved that hundreds of pounds weren’t taken out of my account. This week London 2012 organisers will contact an estimated 90,000 successful applicants for Olympic tickets who have been unable to complete their orders because they do not have enough money in their accounts or have had their credit or debit cards stolen. Due to my usual lack of funds I would definitely be on the organisers’ contact list.

Other hopeful applicants will be quiet frustrated over the ticket sales process. It has emerged that there could be as many as one million applicants who got nothing at all in the first round of applications and so will be offered the first chance to apply for those remaining in the second phase.

The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games insisted that it has been as fair and transparent as possible in allocating the 6.6m tickets available to the British public. Which? and some applicants who feel the balance was tilted in favour of those who could afford to risk large sums have criticised the committee. In fact organisers have not even revealed when successful applicants will be told which tickets they have got, only that they will do so before 24 June.

Although Locog’s chairman, Lord Coe, has admitted the system was “not perfect” they should have at least anticipated the huge over-demand for high-profile events at low prices and notified applicants via email about such possible difficulties. Shouldn’t they Lollipop?

“Yeah, I’m really disappointed that we can’t go. I was so ready to cheer on Usain Bolt. I’ve even been practicing his signature lightening bolt pose.”

“I know,” I smirked, “but organisers already knew the 100m final would be over-subscribed. Even less popular and cheaper events like BMX and archery are sold out.”

“That’s crazy sis. Is there any chance we can we apply again?”

“Well, there will be a second ballot as seats are still available for events like the hockey tournament. But others are using Olympic ticket selling sites in Denmark, France and Germany. I wouldn’t try the German ticket outlet Dertours.de though as they suffered a computer crash after being inundated with British demand.”

“Seriously? I might try the French website then www.eventteam2012.fr instead. Hopefully we still have a chance sis.”

I nod at my Lollipop but am worried by other comments that claim the system was biased towards the rich who could afford to overbid. A spokesperson for the committee still believes the ballot was the fairest way to allocate tickets however we don’t know how many cheaper £20 tickets were available in comparison to how many more expensive tickets were available. The committee have explained the ballot process on the official London Olympics tickets website , however that doesn’t mean we truly know how the tickets are allocated. We get that no system the committee could have used would have been “perfect” but applicants should have been given more information. Then maybe people like my Lollipop would not have been so hopeful or excited. And now disappointed.

 

“Did I tell you Justin Bieber won Best Jaw dropping Moment for when he ripped his top off on tour at the MTV movie awards 2011 last Sunday? His speech was amazing he thanked the fans as usual.”

“Yes Lollipop. You made me watch it twice. Remember?”