The small Caribbean island of Haiti was struck by a massive earthquake with a magnitude of 7.0 (the largest in two centuries) on 12 January, that left the country in complete devastation with thousands of people buried under the rubble of collapsed buildings. Two weeks after the disaster, emergency provisions had still not been distributed to many areas, leaving people injured, starving and without shelter.

In addition, disease began to spread rapidly due to the absence of healthcare and sanitization. Such as Abigail Charlot, a 14 year old girl who survived Haiti’s cataclysmic earthquake, but sadly not what followed as she was brought to the capital’s hospital where she died from diarrhoea and a fever.

Amidst the chaos, many resorted to looting as a means of finding food for items they could sell. In an almost hopeless attempt to keep order, the police tried to stop the looting and shockingly, a young girl was shot in the head for stealing a painting from a shop.

According to a statement by the Haitian government on 10 February the death toll was estimated to be around 230,000. Already this equals the death toll of the Asian tsunami in 2004, but it could still rise with many still missing and around one million homeless people jammed into germ-infested camps with the spread of disease fairly likely.

In terms of the short-term future, the Haitian president, René Préval, aims to rehouse 400,000 people in tent villages outside Port-au-Prince, as 235,000 have already fled the capital. What is more worrying is the long-term future; Haiti’s Prime Minister has claimed the rebuilding of the country would require ‘at least five or ten years’ and with the country already having been in a weak economic position before the disaster, it will most likely take a large input of foreign assistance for the country to ever fully recover.

What are the benefits and problems associated with the immigration of Poles to the UK?

There is much dispute over whether or not the influx of Polish immigrants to the UK has had a positive of negative effect on the UK. Since the inclusion of Poland along with other Eastern European countries to the EU, Britain has welcomed immigration because it is an easy and effective way of increasing the labour force.
For UK businesses such as construction companies, the Poles are extremely beneficial because in general, they are extremely hard working, take few brakes and are willing to receive fairly mediocre pay. According to Ian Bovington, Director of Rochester-based company Classic Filters, the Poles are always willing to go the extra mile: 'The main thing is that they turn up for work every day, on time.'
What's more, these immigrants are content to work for relatively low wages because in comparison to those in Poland, UK wages are very good. The average salary in Poland is £7,746 compared to £18,846 per annum in the UK. This means they are able to afford a reasonable standard of living and sometimes pay remittances.
However, some people believe 'jobs should be for local people', not foreign workers, and in some cases, whole towns can become overwhelmed by the large influx of foreigners as exemplified by Peterborough in the BBC documentary 'The Poles are Coming', an article of which can be found here: http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/The-Poles-are-Coming-your.3869794.jp

Looking at the UK economy as a whole, it benefited from the immigration because it was able to maximise its production possibilty and efficiency. 'It's basically been like adding the consumer demand of Liverpool to the economy in just two years. These people work hard, often 10-hour days, six days a week, so they certainly do have considerable spending power.' -Doug McWilliams, Chief Executive of the CEBR.
On the other hand, should the welfare of British residents who feel directly affected by the issue also be considered? Possibly limiting immigration so that is does not get out of hand, but the economy is still able to benefit would be a better solution for the government.
An article based on this argument can be found here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/content/articles/2006/12/11/polish_working_feature.shtml

Are education opportunities for girls in India lesser than those for boys?

The literacy rate for women in India was just 54.5%, compared to 76.9% for men. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India), only around 40% of girls under 14 are not in education. A prominent cause of this is that the status of women in India is lesser than that of men. In many cases, girls have their marriages arranged by their parents at very young ages and this can mean they have to compensate their education in order to care and support their husband.
Although it is written in India's constitution that women are legal citezens and have equal rights to men, the social normaties and traditions still suggest that women are less important than men.
Could this therefore suggest that the best way for the government to help improve the status of Indian women is to encourage and support the education of girls in schools. A girl who is well educated is likely to have far greater prospects in the future. Many women become dependant on their husbands for income and would not be able to survive alone even if they wanted a divorce. An educated woman however, would be more likely to find a good job and be able to gain financial independence.
This article supports the need for the equality of women in India:
http://global_india1.tripod.com/current.htm

To what extent is gender discrimination an issue in working life in the UK?

Data from 2008 showed that a greater proportion of men than women in the UK were in employment. In the second quarter of 2008, 79% of men and 70% of women were in employment, showing no change since 1999(data from Office for National Statistics). What's more, despite laws against discrimination of gender in the workplace, there is still a pay gap between men and women. However, from 2008, this has fallen from 12.6% to 12.2%. The full article can be found at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=167
Could this inequality in pay suggest that women are directly being descriminated by employers for their gender? It could be said that a combination of factors such as the maternity leave or lower retirement age could comensate for this pay inequality.
In addition to pay, there are many other issues surrounding discrimination that need to be considered, such as a lack of promotion opportunity, the fact they may take long maternity leave, or even forms of harrasment. This article explains some of these issues in greater detail:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/gender-discrimination-at-workplace.html