Ian Huntley is to get legal aid.
Pathetic.
No other comment is necessary.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6168919.stm
Monday, December 11, 2006
Monday, November 13, 2006
Morals (?) and the Church of England
According to today's edition of The Times, the Church of England has now said that it is morally acceptable to allow sick babies to die.
The Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, said that the economic cost of long-term health care and education must be considered when deciding whether a child's life should be saved.
Perhaps he would like to consider some points that he appears to have forgotten - or chosen to ignore.
Firstly; there is an issue with the long-term health care costs - it is impossible to predict at birth which individuals in the general population are going to need long term health care. Some will suffer from degenerative diseases needing long-term health care, others will need transplants, some will need long-term care because of smoking, alcoholism, drug abuse and numerous other health issues that could occur. Because they will cost a lot of money, should we withdraw treatment and let them die?
The only difference between these people and sick babies is that that we are not aware of their health problems when they are born. Suggesting that we allow sick babies to die simply because we know that they are going to need more health care than other babies is not morally acceptable now, and has never been. Tom Butler is not the first person to suggest that disabled people should die, he shares that dubious "honour" with an Austrian "gentleman" by the name of Adolf Hitler.
Tom Butler states that "all life is a gift from God, whether inside the womb or outside, whether disabled or not...we cannot therefore accept as a justification for killing them the argument that their lives are not worth living"
Given this, why is it acceptable to consider the economic cost of long-term health care and education when deciding whether to accept a gift from God? Few, if any, gifts from God come without associated costs (financial or otherwise) yet we do not question the morality behind accepting those gifts.
I have been fortunate enough to have my own two gifts from God, according to recent news reports they will each cost me in the region of £180,000 to raise. It would not be morally or legally acceptable for me to decide to stop striving officiously to keep them alive and if I were to do so I would, quite rightly, be spending a long time in prison. If they were disabled then would it be morally acceptable for me to decide not to strive officiously to keep them alive?
If not, then why is it acceptable for a Church of England Bishop to say that it is morally acceptable to withhold or withdraw treatment, knowing that it will possibly, probably or even certainly result in death?
If one of my children had a serious medical condition and I decided to withhold medical treatment which would result in death then I can see an situation occurring involving Social Services and the courts in an attempt to take the children away from me and prevent me from having any option to refuse their medical treatment. I think that the right of my children to have medical treatment to save their life is greater than my right to refuse. Given that, why should any unrelated adult be allowed to specify that babies should be allowed to die.
Finally, what does Tom Butler think he is suggesting by using the word "allow", as in "allowed to die". That implies that these babies have a choice, that they want to die and are being prevented from doing so. They are defenceless individuals with a right to life, and deserve the support of an organisation that claims that they are a gift from God. They do not deserve to be treated as an expensive liability that can be killed off.
How can it claim to to uphold, and encourage others, to follow the Ten Commandments and live a good and moral life if it's own Bishops cannot do so.
Thou Shalt Not Kill - not thou shalt not kill unless it is too expensive to keep the person alive.
The Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, said that the economic cost of long-term health care and education must be considered when deciding whether a child's life should be saved.
Perhaps he would like to consider some points that he appears to have forgotten - or chosen to ignore.
Firstly; there is an issue with the long-term health care costs - it is impossible to predict at birth which individuals in the general population are going to need long term health care. Some will suffer from degenerative diseases needing long-term health care, others will need transplants, some will need long-term care because of smoking, alcoholism, drug abuse and numerous other health issues that could occur. Because they will cost a lot of money, should we withdraw treatment and let them die?
The only difference between these people and sick babies is that that we are not aware of their health problems when they are born. Suggesting that we allow sick babies to die simply because we know that they are going to need more health care than other babies is not morally acceptable now, and has never been. Tom Butler is not the first person to suggest that disabled people should die, he shares that dubious "honour" with an Austrian "gentleman" by the name of Adolf Hitler.
Tom Butler states that "all life is a gift from God, whether inside the womb or outside, whether disabled or not...we cannot therefore accept as a justification for killing them the argument that their lives are not worth living"
Given this, why is it acceptable to consider the economic cost of long-term health care and education when deciding whether to accept a gift from God? Few, if any, gifts from God come without associated costs (financial or otherwise) yet we do not question the morality behind accepting those gifts.
I have been fortunate enough to have my own two gifts from God, according to recent news reports they will each cost me in the region of £180,000 to raise. It would not be morally or legally acceptable for me to decide to stop striving officiously to keep them alive and if I were to do so I would, quite rightly, be spending a long time in prison. If they were disabled then would it be morally acceptable for me to decide not to strive officiously to keep them alive?
If not, then why is it acceptable for a Church of England Bishop to say that it is morally acceptable to withhold or withdraw treatment, knowing that it will possibly, probably or even certainly result in death?
If one of my children had a serious medical condition and I decided to withhold medical treatment which would result in death then I can see an situation occurring involving Social Services and the courts in an attempt to take the children away from me and prevent me from having any option to refuse their medical treatment. I think that the right of my children to have medical treatment to save their life is greater than my right to refuse. Given that, why should any unrelated adult be allowed to specify that babies should be allowed to die.
Finally, what does Tom Butler think he is suggesting by using the word "allow", as in "allowed to die". That implies that these babies have a choice, that they want to die and are being prevented from doing so. They are defenceless individuals with a right to life, and deserve the support of an organisation that claims that they are a gift from God. They do not deserve to be treated as an expensive liability that can be killed off.
How can it claim to to uphold, and encourage others, to follow the Ten Commandments and live a good and moral life if it's own Bishops cannot do so.
Thou Shalt Not Kill - not thou shalt not kill unless it is too expensive to keep the person alive.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Danielle Wails
When I first heard about this tragic case I was horrified.
Now I am no less horrified. As a parent, I find it very hard to read about the death of any child
and do not understand how any mother can kill her own child.
Despite that, I feel very sorry for Danielle Wails as she did not seem to have the support that she needed after the birth when she was suffering from post-natal depression - not from her partner or any authorities.
An independent investigation has apparently concluded that her behaviour was unpredictable and that her son's death could not have been prevented.
Presumably the authorities were unable to understand that post-natal depression is unpredictable, when they should have been only to aware of this. I hope that the professionals who showed so little compassion to Danielle both before and after her son's tragic death
Reading a report into the sad events, Danielle had sought help from mental health charities, social services, hospitals and the local mental health services trust. She is reported to have had problems with the quantity of alcohol that she consumed, homelessness, finances and with establishing relationships with men. Given this history, there should have been more care offered to Danielle and her son.
To have been put on a train with just a travel warrant and £5.20 is patently obscene; how is any offender, let alone one with Danielle's sad history, meant to cope. The lack of support is appalling and and those responsible should be ashamed of themselves.
Now I am no less horrified. As a parent, I find it very hard to read about the death of any child
and do not understand how any mother can kill her own child.
Despite that, I feel very sorry for Danielle Wails as she did not seem to have the support that she needed after the birth when she was suffering from post-natal depression - not from her partner or any authorities.
An independent investigation has apparently concluded that her behaviour was unpredictable and that her son's death could not have been prevented.
Presumably the authorities were unable to understand that post-natal depression is unpredictable, when they should have been only to aware of this. I hope that the professionals who showed so little compassion to Danielle both before and after her son's tragic death
Reading a report into the sad events, Danielle had sought help from mental health charities, social services, hospitals and the local mental health services trust. She is reported to have had problems with the quantity of alcohol that she consumed, homelessness, finances and with establishing relationships with men. Given this history, there should have been more care offered to Danielle and her son.
To have been put on a train with just a travel warrant and £5.20 is patently obscene; how is any offender, let alone one with Danielle's sad history, meant to cope. The lack of support is appalling and and those responsible should be ashamed of themselves.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Little Monsters?
It is only too easy to read articles that portray boys in a negative light - right from before birth until adulthood.
When I was pregnant with my son there were times when he would not move much, on more than one occasion a midwife would comment "Oh, he's just being a lazy boy".
When articles are written about school they frequently portray boys as underperforming compared to girls, worse still they claim that boys disrupt girls education and say that girls perform better in single sex schools.
Boys apparently are ready for formal education later than girls (where is the problem in that given that we start formal education far earlier than any other European country, including Finland which has one of the best literacy rates in Europe yet doesn't start teaching reading until age 7) and will apparently charge around the playground causing mayhem and frightening girls.
It doesn't end there; when we try to find clothes for our little boys there is an excess of clothes with "Little Monster", "Cheeky Monkey" and even clothes with logos about the wearer being "naughty". By contrast, little girls are princesses and other supposedly desirable attributes. Clothes for little girls seem designed to make other people think that they are cute, loveable and need looking after whereas boy's clothes send out the message that they are naughty, cheeky, and generally badly behaved.
It gets worse; they are more likely to be given ASBOs, less likely to be trusted when out and about - who would you trust most/least - a group of teenage girls or teenage boys hanging around on a street corner after dark? Which would make you worry for their safety and which would make you worry for the safety of passers by?
When they grow up and hopefully have their own families, they are still criticised; fathers don't read to their sons enough, fathers are not a good role model because they work too long hours, fathers don't set a good example for their children, fathers are not there at all, resulting in children being more likely to turn to crime and do less well at school.
All this time and energy is spent putting stereotypes about boys out there, then we bemoan the fact that boys are not performing as well as girls and that they get in more trouble than girls, we complain that there are not enough male primary school teachers yet we have spent the best part of the last 20 years teaching children that men cannot be trusted - and worse, teaching mothers that they cannot trust other children's fathers with their children.
As for my own "little monster", he is affectionate, loves books, knows how to say please and thank you and is so keen to help. Yes, he can be naughty, cheeky and go charging around the house bursting with energy and expend some of it by jumping on the sofa when he thinks he can get away with it (think again!) but then so could his older sister at the same age.
I hope that society will let him carry on and develop his own personality without heaping unhelpful stereotypical attributes on him that simply don't apply.
Similarly, I hope that society will let my daughter carry on being her enthusiastic self and not dampen her spirit by continually portraying little girls as princesses who should mainly be concerned with how pretty they look, how nicely they do things to help other people and so on.
When I was pregnant with my son there were times when he would not move much, on more than one occasion a midwife would comment "Oh, he's just being a lazy boy".
When articles are written about school they frequently portray boys as underperforming compared to girls, worse still they claim that boys disrupt girls education and say that girls perform better in single sex schools.
Boys apparently are ready for formal education later than girls (where is the problem in that given that we start formal education far earlier than any other European country, including Finland which has one of the best literacy rates in Europe yet doesn't start teaching reading until age 7) and will apparently charge around the playground causing mayhem and frightening girls.
It doesn't end there; when we try to find clothes for our little boys there is an excess of clothes with "Little Monster", "Cheeky Monkey" and even clothes with logos about the wearer being "naughty". By contrast, little girls are princesses and other supposedly desirable attributes. Clothes for little girls seem designed to make other people think that they are cute, loveable and need looking after whereas boy's clothes send out the message that they are naughty, cheeky, and generally badly behaved.
It gets worse; they are more likely to be given ASBOs, less likely to be trusted when out and about - who would you trust most/least - a group of teenage girls or teenage boys hanging around on a street corner after dark? Which would make you worry for their safety and which would make you worry for the safety of passers by?
When they grow up and hopefully have their own families, they are still criticised; fathers don't read to their sons enough, fathers are not a good role model because they work too long hours, fathers don't set a good example for their children, fathers are not there at all, resulting in children being more likely to turn to crime and do less well at school.
All this time and energy is spent putting stereotypes about boys out there, then we bemoan the fact that boys are not performing as well as girls and that they get in more trouble than girls, we complain that there are not enough male primary school teachers yet we have spent the best part of the last 20 years teaching children that men cannot be trusted - and worse, teaching mothers that they cannot trust other children's fathers with their children.
As for my own "little monster", he is affectionate, loves books, knows how to say please and thank you and is so keen to help. Yes, he can be naughty, cheeky and go charging around the house bursting with energy and expend some of it by jumping on the sofa when he thinks he can get away with it (think again!) but then so could his older sister at the same age.
I hope that society will let him carry on and develop his own personality without heaping unhelpful stereotypical attributes on him that simply don't apply.
Similarly, I hope that society will let my daughter carry on being her enthusiastic self and not dampen her spirit by continually portraying little girls as princesses who should mainly be concerned with how pretty they look, how nicely they do things to help other people and so on.
Friday, September 29, 2006
A strange experience
Today I had a very strange experience. I went to the toddler group and one of the other Mums who I know had a new baby about 3 weeks ago.
Anyway, she is breast feeding but also supplementing with formula and has started on baby rice as her baby is so hungry all the time. I was holding him for a while and his Mum went off with her older son, when she came back she had a bottle of formula and just handed it to me to give to the baby.
I've never given a baby a bottle of formula and I had no idea at all what to do with it, I felt very sorry for the baby as he could smell my milk and was rooting around but then got a bottle. Fortunately he knew what to do and got on with it but I felt very awkward; what I was doing was alien to everything I believe in as far as infant nutrition goes so I was very glad when my son needed me and I handed the baby back as soon as possible.
Anyway, she is breast feeding but also supplementing with formula and has started on baby rice as her baby is so hungry all the time. I was holding him for a while and his Mum went off with her older son, when she came back she had a bottle of formula and just handed it to me to give to the baby.
I've never given a baby a bottle of formula and I had no idea at all what to do with it, I felt very sorry for the baby as he could smell my milk and was rooting around but then got a bottle. Fortunately he knew what to do and got on with it but I felt very awkward; what I was doing was alien to everything I believe in as far as infant nutrition goes so I was very glad when my son needed me and I handed the baby back as soon as possible.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Steve Irwin was a man who undoubtedly loved animals and was passionate about their welfare.
No doubt he would be very sad to read reports on the BBC that suggest that some Stingrays have been killed by his fans in a misguided, and cruel attempt, to gain some sort of revenge.
They should be ashamed of themselves and think what Steve Irwin would said to them if he were able to do so.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5338118.stm
No doubt he would be very sad to read reports on the BBC that suggest that some Stingrays have been killed by his fans in a misguided, and cruel attempt, to gain some sort of revenge.
They should be ashamed of themselves and think what Steve Irwin would said to them if he were able to do so.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5338118.stm
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Germaine Greer
According to Germaine Greer, Steve Irwin was an embarrassment.
This is the same Germaine Greer who has openly criticised Mr. Irwin just after his death and had the audacity to refer to his mourners as idiots. Presumably Ms. Greer is unaware that his mourners include his family and close friends, who are no doubt less than pleased at her comments.
I think it is fairly clear precisely which of the two is an embarrassment.
This is the same Germaine Greer who has openly criticised Mr. Irwin just after his death and had the audacity to refer to his mourners as idiots. Presumably Ms. Greer is unaware that his mourners include his family and close friends, who are no doubt less than pleased at her comments.
I think it is fairly clear precisely which of the two is an embarrassment.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Ian Huntley
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5314944.stm
reports the sad news that he has survived an overdose attempt. What a shame.
reports the sad news that he has survived an overdose attempt. What a shame.
Monday, September 04, 2006
RIP Steve Irwin
A remarkable man who was passionate about his work has sadly died.
He inspired my daughter's interest in animals.
RIP
He inspired my daughter's interest in animals.
RIP
Friday, July 28, 2006
Conditional medical treatment
If you were to ask your average person in the street whether or not patients should only be allowed surgery if they agreed to take part in medical trials I think it is fair to say that the answer would be a resounding no.
Yet one of the more recent Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority proposals, now approved by the Fertility Regulator, suggests something even worse - that patients can only have treatment at a reduced fee if they agree to their potential offspring taking part in medical trials. Furthermore, the trials are of a medical technique that many disagree with - human cloning.
If a couple have tried naturally to have children and have suffered fertility problems along the way they are going to have suffered more distress than many people can imagine and perhaps also suffered the loss of a child(ren) along the way.
Yet, it is considered acceptable to make reduced cost IVF conditional on donating half of their eggs in order to create cloned embryos. It is illegal to pay egg donors directly, therefore this is just introducing payment by the back door - and a very dubious payment at that.
Yet one of the more recent Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority proposals, now approved by the Fertility Regulator, suggests something even worse - that patients can only have treatment at a reduced fee if they agree to their potential offspring taking part in medical trials. Furthermore, the trials are of a medical technique that many disagree with - human cloning.
If a couple have tried naturally to have children and have suffered fertility problems along the way they are going to have suffered more distress than many people can imagine and perhaps also suffered the loss of a child(ren) along the way.
Yet, it is considered acceptable to make reduced cost IVF conditional on donating half of their eggs in order to create cloned embryos. It is illegal to pay egg donors directly, therefore this is just introducing payment by the back door - and a very dubious payment at that.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Wife Swap - Deirdre
It seems that my opinion of the Wife Swap participant is correct.
Channel 4 have kindly shared an interview with Margaret with us at
http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/W/wife_swap/shows/02/
In this interview, Margaret clearly states that she likes the idea of having the opportunity to transform someone's elses way of living by showing them that there are other ways to do things. Obviously this includes completely dominating the situation, refusing the child any comfort by his parent and refusing to accept that the parent of the child has the ultimate say.
Sadly, Frankie's father was only to willing to admit that Margaret's way is right. What a shame that Frankie has a female parent (I can't bring myself to call her a mother) who is prepared to leave him for 2 weeks and a father that is prepared to let a complete stranger dictate how he parents his son at bedtime, a time that should be relaxing and comforting for the child.
She goes on to compliment the way that the other wife has raised her children. Why, then, could she not resist the temptation to interfere with the bedtime routine, or lack of given that this is something that is most likely vitally important to the child in that he needs to feel safe and secure before a night of separation from his parents if they are not co-sleeping.
Deirdre, Frankie's mother, comments that taking part in the experiment has improved her self esteem. It certainly wouldn't, and shouldn't, improve my self esteem to know that I had let my son be without me for a fortnight and let him have his usual bedtime routine disrupted by a complete stranger who had no regard for his well being whatsover.
Apparently Frankie loved his new room, what planet is this woman on? Since when has a hysterical child loved his new room? She might have wanted to think that to salvage her own conscience, if she has one, but all the evidence suggests that this was one desperately unhappy little boy who undoubtedly deserved better.
Channel 4 have kindly shared an interview with Margaret with us at
http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/W/wife_swap/shows/02/
In this interview, Margaret clearly states that she likes the idea of having the opportunity to transform someone's elses way of living by showing them that there are other ways to do things. Obviously this includes completely dominating the situation, refusing the child any comfort by his parent and refusing to accept that the parent of the child has the ultimate say.
Sadly, Frankie's father was only to willing to admit that Margaret's way is right. What a shame that Frankie has a female parent (I can't bring myself to call her a mother) who is prepared to leave him for 2 weeks and a father that is prepared to let a complete stranger dictate how he parents his son at bedtime, a time that should be relaxing and comforting for the child.
She goes on to compliment the way that the other wife has raised her children. Why, then, could she not resist the temptation to interfere with the bedtime routine, or lack of given that this is something that is most likely vitally important to the child in that he needs to feel safe and secure before a night of separation from his parents if they are not co-sleeping.
Deirdre, Frankie's mother, comments that taking part in the experiment has improved her self esteem. It certainly wouldn't, and shouldn't, improve my self esteem to know that I had let my son be without me for a fortnight and let him have his usual bedtime routine disrupted by a complete stranger who had no regard for his well being whatsover.
Apparently Frankie loved his new room, what planet is this woman on? Since when has a hysterical child loved his new room? She might have wanted to think that to salvage her own conscience, if she has one, but all the evidence suggests that this was one desperately unhappy little boy who undoubtedly deserved better.
Wife Swap?...or child abuse?
Tonight I had the misfortune to watch Wife Swap on E4.
The visiting wife was adamant that the little boy (Frankie) was going to be in bed at 7pm regardless of whether or not he was tired.
The poor little boy was crying so much that it was obvious that he was really really distressed. He was being forced into bed earlier than he was used to, in a manner that he was not used to, by a complete stranger and was told that he couldn't have his father. He was so hysterical that I, as a parent, was sure that he was going to be sick.
She wanted the father to spend more time with the children yet is happy to deprive a little boy of his father at a time when his mother is absent and he is struggling to make some sense of what has happened in his life.
Since when has it been acceptable to manipulate and abuse children in the name of entertainment?
The relevant companies, and individuals involved, should be ashamed of themselves.
The visiting wife was adamant that the little boy (Frankie) was going to be in bed at 7pm regardless of whether or not he was tired.
The poor little boy was crying so much that it was obvious that he was really really distressed. He was being forced into bed earlier than he was used to, in a manner that he was not used to, by a complete stranger and was told that he couldn't have his father. He was so hysterical that I, as a parent, was sure that he was going to be sick.
She wanted the father to spend more time with the children yet is happy to deprive a little boy of his father at a time when his mother is absent and he is struggling to make some sense of what has happened in his life.
Since when has it been acceptable to manipulate and abuse children in the name of entertainment?
The relevant companies, and individuals involved, should be ashamed of themselves.
Over ambitious parenting
The current issue of the excellent Junior magazine has a short piece about how a father's parenting style and influence his child's career choice.
On the same page, there is a piece about a 6 year old boy from Mexico who is already an expert (though the piece doesn't go on to say how this has been determined) in diabetes, osteoporosis and anaemia as a result of studying medicine on his own.
He now wants to become a doctor and has applied to go to university but, quite rightly, has been refused a place because he is too young to study at such an advanced level. The refusal to allow him to study is now to be challenged in the courts.
I wonder what his father's parenting style is if he is prepared to deprive his son of a childhood and what future career awaits him if he is burnt out due to stress before he is even a teenager as a result of relentless pressure from an over-ambitious father?
On the same page, there is a piece about a 6 year old boy from Mexico who is already an expert (though the piece doesn't go on to say how this has been determined) in diabetes, osteoporosis and anaemia as a result of studying medicine on his own.
He now wants to become a doctor and has applied to go to university but, quite rightly, has been refused a place because he is too young to study at such an advanced level. The refusal to allow him to study is now to be challenged in the courts.
I wonder what his father's parenting style is if he is prepared to deprive his son of a childhood and what future career awaits him if he is burnt out due to stress before he is even a teenager as a result of relentless pressure from an over-ambitious father?
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Insanity!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/5193184.stm
Clearly the heat is going to some people's heads; or perhaps they are just a jobsworth.
Who in their right mind would be this inflexible in this heat?
Surely we need head teachers who can use their own initiative, after all isn't that one of skills we want our children to learn in school?
Clearly the heat is going to some people's heads; or perhaps they are just a jobsworth.
Who in their right mind would be this inflexible in this heat?
Surely we need head teachers who can use their own initiative, after all isn't that one of skills we want our children to learn in school?
Friday, July 14, 2006
Good for Wakefield Council
The BBC have reported that a father of a two year old boy has been fined £50 as a result of his two year old dropping a sweet on the floor because he didn't like it.
The father is quoted as saying: "How can they expect a two-year-old to be able to put litter in the bin?
Presumably he is one of those parents who think that they are not responsible for their child's behaviour? Our children obviously do not always do what we want but we are responsible for their behaviour and for setting a good example.
When I take my 19 month old out we take one of his Organix snack bars with us. When he has finished it he will put the wrapper in the bin. Already he knows that it is not acceptable to do otherwise; I have not had to tell him this time and time again but have led by example - we put our rubbish in the bin and he sees this behaviour time and time again from his parents and sisters. To put rubbish in the bin is second nature to him, as it should be for all children.
Sadly the father in this news story also seems to have problems understanding what litter is, at least that seems to be the impression given by "And it was a sweet, not litter - it wouldn't have been long before the pigeons ate it."
Perhaps the father in this news report should consider whether he is setting a good example to his son. If he did then I am sure that he would soon be able to answer his own question.
If what Wakefield Council said is accurate (and I don't doubt it for a minute) and the father in question was throwing the sweets, then he deserves the fine he has been given. What a shame that the council are not able to insist that he goes on a parenting course to improve some of his parenting skills - what chance does this boy have of developing a good standard of behaviour when his own father appears ignorant of the correct way to behave in public.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/5179638.stm)
The father is quoted as saying: "How can they expect a two-year-old to be able to put litter in the bin?
Presumably he is one of those parents who think that they are not responsible for their child's behaviour? Our children obviously do not always do what we want but we are responsible for their behaviour and for setting a good example.
When I take my 19 month old out we take one of his Organix snack bars with us. When he has finished it he will put the wrapper in the bin. Already he knows that it is not acceptable to do otherwise; I have not had to tell him this time and time again but have led by example - we put our rubbish in the bin and he sees this behaviour time and time again from his parents and sisters. To put rubbish in the bin is second nature to him, as it should be for all children.
Sadly the father in this news story also seems to have problems understanding what litter is, at least that seems to be the impression given by "And it was a sweet, not litter - it wouldn't have been long before the pigeons ate it."
Perhaps the father in this news report should consider whether he is setting a good example to his son. If he did then I am sure that he would soon be able to answer his own question.
If what Wakefield Council said is accurate (and I don't doubt it for a minute) and the father in question was throwing the sweets, then he deserves the fine he has been given. What a shame that the council are not able to insist that he goes on a parenting course to improve some of his parenting skills - what chance does this boy have of developing a good standard of behaviour when his own father appears ignorant of the correct way to behave in public.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/5179638.stm)
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Some people are never happy
To satisfy the person who complained about the lack of aardvarks (you know who you are!), here is a link especially for you:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/aardvark/
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/aardvark/
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Angling against ASBOs
I was curious why Labour's Angling spokesman, Martin Salter (Reading West MP) would be so against the idea of canoeists having access to the waterways given that he presumably has an appreciation of the waterways as a place to spend leisure time.
Suddenly it is all much clearer. Recently there has been negative publicity for the Government as a result of the levels of Anti-Social Behaviour and the number of ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) that have been issued. Presumably the government, mindful of their poor election performance recently, are keen to ensure that they do something about this problem and have encouraged their MPs to see what they can do - something which I agree with as Anti-Social behaviour is a blight on the lives of too many people in this country.
However, I am not in favour of the government's political ambitions and aims resulting in a part of the community being prevented or discouraged from enjoying their hobby, and that seems to be one result of the new Angling Action project that is a partnership between NACRO, Reading Borough Council and the Environment Agency (http://www.reading.gov.uk/pressarticle.asp?id=sx9452-a780d952)
Organisers will be targeting schools, clubs and communities in order to encourage young people to take up this so-called sport and thus reduce the anti-social behaviour.
Why not encourage them to take up canoeing, support the proposed access to waterways for the canoeists and kill two birds with one stone?
It all comes back to the same thing, Labour think that Angling is a "sport" popular with traditional, working class Labour voters and so they want to encourage that at the expense of the more middle class interest of Canoeing, especially as Labour are now moving away from the left and becoming just another middle of the road political party.
Suddenly it is all much clearer. Recently there has been negative publicity for the Government as a result of the levels of Anti-Social Behaviour and the number of ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) that have been issued. Presumably the government, mindful of their poor election performance recently, are keen to ensure that they do something about this problem and have encouraged their MPs to see what they can do - something which I agree with as Anti-Social behaviour is a blight on the lives of too many people in this country.
However, I am not in favour of the government's political ambitions and aims resulting in a part of the community being prevented or discouraged from enjoying their hobby, and that seems to be one result of the new Angling Action project that is a partnership between NACRO, Reading Borough Council and the Environment Agency (http://www.reading.gov.uk/pressarticle.asp?id=sx9452-a780d952)
Organisers will be targeting schools, clubs and communities in order to encourage young people to take up this so-called sport and thus reduce the anti-social behaviour.
Why not encourage them to take up canoeing, support the proposed access to waterways for the canoeists and kill two birds with one stone?
It all comes back to the same thing, Labour think that Angling is a "sport" popular with traditional, working class Labour voters and so they want to encourage that at the expense of the more middle class interest of Canoeing, especially as Labour are now moving away from the left and becoming just another middle of the road political party.
Up a creek without a paddle?
Canoeists reportedly want access to every waterway in the country, so reports Valerie Elliott in The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2160308.html).
As ever, there are environmental impacts. There is (according to Martin Salter, Labour MP for Reading West and Labour's Spokesman on Angling) the risk of canoeing over shallow spawning beds. Now the destruction of spawning beds is something that we should be concerned about, but can Mr Salter really claim to be concerned for the environment given his role in the Labour Party. After all, if the canoeists are not allowed access then the spawning beds will be preserved, but for what?
Surely the spawning beds are worth preserving for the sake of natural survival of the fittest and natural biodiversity and not just so angling enthusiasts can go and kill off the fish at a later stage in their life cycle?
Mr Salter goes on to say that the pressure of the canoes can make angling impossible in small streams and non-navigable rivers. This seems to me to be a case of Labour favouring one leisure activity over another?
Where is the Labour Canoeing spokesman in all this? Are our government in the position of favouring one so-called sport that is common with many people who have historically voted Labour when ignoring another sport that is not linked with traditional Labour voters?
As ever, there are environmental impacts. There is (according to Martin Salter, Labour MP for Reading West and Labour's Spokesman on Angling) the risk of canoeing over shallow spawning beds. Now the destruction of spawning beds is something that we should be concerned about, but can Mr Salter really claim to be concerned for the environment given his role in the Labour Party. After all, if the canoeists are not allowed access then the spawning beds will be preserved, but for what?
Surely the spawning beds are worth preserving for the sake of natural survival of the fittest and natural biodiversity and not just so angling enthusiasts can go and kill off the fish at a later stage in their life cycle?
Mr Salter goes on to say that the pressure of the canoes can make angling impossible in small streams and non-navigable rivers. This seems to me to be a case of Labour favouring one leisure activity over another?
Where is the Labour Canoeing spokesman in all this? Are our government in the position of favouring one so-called sport that is common with many people who have historically voted Labour when ignoring another sport that is not linked with traditional Labour voters?
mud hut schools
At first reading this idea (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2160313.html) of building a mud hut school seemed like a really good one to me.
Pupils would be able to learn about sustainable development, the building would be one that would not cause damage to the environment and would be eco-friendly. What a wonderful idea.
Reading the article again I have started to have second thoughts; perhaps less resources would be used than in conventional building but these resources are going to be of limited availability in the local area (Cornwall in this case).
If this form of building becomes more popular (unlikely in my opinion) or even mainstream (even more unlikely) then the local resources will soon be severely challenged and will result in damage to local environments and habitats. Assuming demand for this type of building continues then materials are going to have to be brought in from elsewhere in the country or even in the world .
I am all for sustainable building which does not damage the local environment but this project does not seem to have been thought through as comprehensively as perhaps it should have been.
Pupils would be able to learn about sustainable development, the building would be one that would not cause damage to the environment and would be eco-friendly. What a wonderful idea.
Reading the article again I have started to have second thoughts; perhaps less resources would be used than in conventional building but these resources are going to be of limited availability in the local area (Cornwall in this case).
If this form of building becomes more popular (unlikely in my opinion) or even mainstream (even more unlikely) then the local resources will soon be severely challenged and will result in damage to local environments and habitats. Assuming demand for this type of building continues then materials are going to have to be brought in from elsewhere in the country or even in the world .
I am all for sustainable building which does not damage the local environment but this project does not seem to have been thought through as comprehensively as perhaps it should have been.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Designer babies? No thanks.
I read this article recently
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2230764,00.ht ml
Designer babies? Well for starters we all have one of those, each baby born has been lovingly designed and created with great care. Give the credit to Mother Nature, credit God if that is what you want, but we don't need people to try and design babies when it happens well enough as it is.
Nature has it's own way of designing babies, sometimes the process goes wrong and that is when a miscarriage occurs. Occasionally another problem will occur and the pregnancy is ectopic or fails for some other reason, it's sad but it is one of those things - for some reason the baby just was not meant to be born.
Those that are not lost are born with whatever conditions nature intended, with the sad exception of babies who experience problems as a result of their birth. We should accept babies that are born as they are and not put conditions on the love of our children before they are even born.
We could put into place all kinds of screening of embryos as part of IVF, we could even go further and make all women have IVF rather than natural conception and screen out anything that was considered slightly undesirable - club foot? a child likely to be left handed? brown eyes not blue? black hair not blonde? Why not, after all children could be teased for being left handed, maybe they have a squint, let's save them the indignity of glasses?
Being a parent means you have unconditional love for their child, so how can a couple expecting a baby decide that they have to have a child who is 100% perfect with no disabilities, no little flaws in their appearance.
Such a parent is saying that they cannot have unconditional love for a child, so how will they cope when they have used IVF to conceive that perfect child and then find that they have undesirable physical or psychological characteristics? Will they then say that they can't love this child and want to have him or her put down as if they were a pet? Of course not, after all that is socially unacceptable and would never happen - or so you may think.
What is proposed now was once seen as socially unacceptable and was unthinkable, yet here we are doing it. How much further are we going to go?
After all, we went to war with a certain Herr Hitler as a result of various atrocities including the murder of nearly 2 million disabled people. We thought he was wrong, yet we are now seeing it as acceptable to prevent people with disabilities being born. That is only one step removed from what Hitler sought to achieve.
Look at your own families and the people you value, how many of them would not have been born if this policy had been in place then? Would you have been born?
Now do you approve of this?
http://www.timesonl
Designer babies? Well for starters we all have one of those, each baby born has been lovingly designed and created with great care. Give the credit to Mother Nature, credit God if that is what you want, but we don't need people to try and design babies when it happens well enough as it is.
Nature has it's own way of designing babies, sometimes the process goes wrong and that is when a miscarriage occurs. Occasionally another problem will occur and the pregnancy is ectopic or fails for some other reason, it's sad but it is one of those things - for some reason the baby just was not meant to be born.
Those that are not lost are born with whatever conditions nature intended, with the sad exception of babies who experience problems as a result of their birth. We should accept babies that are born as they are and not put conditions on the love of our children before they are even born.
We could put into place all kinds of screening of embryos as part of IVF, we could even go further and make all women have IVF rather than natural conception and screen out anything that was considered slightly undesirable - club foot? a child likely to be left handed? brown eyes not blue? black hair not blonde? Why not, after all children could be teased for being left handed, maybe they have a squint, let's save them the indignity of glasses?
Being a parent means you have unconditional love for their child, so how can a couple expecting a baby decide that they have to have a child who is 100% perfect with no disabilities, no little flaws in their appearance.
Such a parent is saying that they cannot have unconditional love for a child, so how will they cope when they have used IVF to conceive that perfect child and then find that they have undesirable physical or psychological characteristics? Will they then say that they can't love this child and want to have him or her put down as if they were a pet? Of course not, after all that is socially unacceptable and would never happen - or so you may think.
What is proposed now was once seen as socially unacceptable and was unthinkable, yet here we are doing it. How much further are we going to go?
After all, we went to war with a certain Herr Hitler as a result of various atrocities including the murder of nearly 2 million disabled people. We thought he was wrong, yet we are now seeing it as acceptable to prevent people with disabilities being born. That is only one step removed from what Hitler sought to achieve.
Look at your own families and the people you value, how many of them would not have been born if this policy had been in place then? Would you have been born?
Now do you approve of this?
Friday, June 09, 2006
Mass Observation
I read a book recently that was the diaries of participation in this project at the time of the 2nd world war.
I was amazed to find that the project is still going (www.massobs.org) and is based at Sussex University.
Meanwhile, some of the participants have blogs at:
http://startwritingfiction.blogspot.com/2006/05/help.html
It makes interesting reading.
These blogs also refer to Mass Observation:
http://tigerbombuk.blogspot.com/2006/02/dear-diary.html
http://valleylost.blogspot.com/2006/01/our-hidden-lives_05.html
http://stressqueen.blogspot.com/2006/01/our-hidden-lives.html
http://historianheidi.livejournal.com/10388.html
http://liz-henry.blogspot.com/2005/12/excerpts-from-mitchison.html
http://nounsandverbs.livejournal.com/304915.html
http://benpeek.livejournal.com/360042.html
http://glacons.blogspot.com/2005/11/post-war-diaries.html
http://jackfuller.blogspot.com/2005/10/english-towns-subject-of-covert-sex.html
http://huskyteer.livejournal.com/192095.html
http://lafreebie.blogspot.com/2005/09/how-little-we-know-of-our-neighbors.html
http://bloodandtreasure.typepad.com/blood_treasure/2005/10/nasty_sordid_fr.html
I was amazed to find that the project is still going (www.massobs.org) and is based at Sussex University.
Meanwhile, some of the participants have blogs at:
http://startwritingfiction.blogspot.com/2006/05/help.html
It makes interesting reading.
These blogs also refer to Mass Observation:
http://tigerbombuk.blogspot.com/2006/02/dear-diary.html
http://valleylost.blogspot.com/2006/01/our-hidden-lives_05.html
http://stressqueen.blogspot.com/2006/01/our-hidden-lives.html
http://historianheidi.livejournal.com/10388.html
http://liz-henry.blogspot.com/2005/12/excerpts-from-mitchison.html
http://nounsandverbs.livejournal.com/304915.html
http://benpeek.livejournal.com/360042.html
http://glacons.blogspot.com/2005/11/post-war-diaries.html
http://jackfuller.blogspot.com/2005/10/english-towns-subject-of-covert-sex.html
http://huskyteer.livejournal.com/192095.html
http://lafreebie.blogspot.com/2005/09/how-little-we-know-of-our-neighbors.html
http://bloodandtreasure.typepad.com/blood_treasure/2005/10/nasty_sordid_fr.html
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
B&Q Kitchen Problems
In the last 12 months we have spent nearly 25k with B&Q on a new kitchen, bathroom and conservatory.
The bathroom and conservatory are fantastic, so was the service from Jamie and Glenys in our local B&Q Store - they were marvellous and Glenys especially was fantastic and went well beyond the call of duty when it came to sorting out any problems.
Sadly, the wonderful local store staff have been badly let down by their colleagues in the Installation Service Centre and the fitters.
Firstly, we made the mistake of opting for a washing machine by Indesit. The machine has always vibrated a lot from day 1 to the extent of drowning out conversations in the lounge even when the two doors between the rooms are closed.
This vibration caused the door in front of the washing machine to be damaged, and also three adjacent doors - which were eventually replaced after numerous phone calls of complaint. An Indesit engineer was called out and he advised that the washing machine had not been fitted correctly. B&Q came back out and attempted to fix the problem - the washing machine had been incorrectly fitted on a piece of old worktop!!!! Whilst this was all going on we had a leak from the washing machine and water all over the kitchen floor, so were unable to use it - with three children that was a nightmare and a neighbour was helping us with laundry for the duration.
Some time passed and we had yet another leak; on that occasion a plumber came out and fixed the problem.
This morning (nearly 7 months later) I used the washing machine to wash one coat, how unreasonable of me! I came back from taking my daughter to school and found water all over the kitchen floor and so phoned B&Q Customer Services and spoke to a lady (Phil B, I won't give her surname for her privacy, she knows who she is) who took all of the details and came across as being very professional and very helpful. She is now dealing with our problem.
After talking to her I went into the kitchen to clean up and empty the cupboard. I discovered that the washing machine must have been leaking for weeks but leaking under the cupboard where the leak is not obvious. The cupboard smells like there is a dead dog inside it and there is mould growing up the back of the cupboard and on the base of the cupboard - fortunately it is a cupboard where we keep cleaning materials on the whole but I have also been keeping baking tins ont he top shelf in there! I have fed my children food cooked on baking tins stored in a mouldy cupboard - I am horrified. It was only when I got on my hands and knees and emptied
the cupboard (and had to throw away my now rusty pasta maker) that the full extent of the damage can be seen.
I only hope that B&Q can get this problem resolved once and for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)