Aardvarks, Horses and Parenting

Nineteen Minutes by Jodi Picoult

2007-04-30T17:11:00.000+01:00

I have not yet read this book, but was saddened to read the following on Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Minutes)

"Picoult has received some backlash on message boards, with people claiming that her book contributed to the Virginia Tech massacre that took place a little over a month following the book's publication. Picoult made a statement on her website, concerning the shooting:

“As a parent, my deepest sympathy goes out to the victims and families of the Virginia Tech community. Although shootings on college campuses are often motivated by different factors than the ones I researched for high school shootings in Nineteen Minutes, any time something like this happens it is tragic and raises questions. However, the one we should be asking right now is: How can we help this community heal?”

Also, as a result, the message boards located on Picoult's website have been indefinitely removed."

I found it very sad that she should have been criticised in this way and had to defend herself via her personal website. The United States of America is a democratic country which allows free speech for those who complained about Picoult's book as a possible contributor to the Virgina Tech. massacre but also for Jodi Picoult herself.

Why, in this day and age, is it seen as necessary to try and find somebody to take the blame for what has happened. One day it is authors and many seem to have criticised Jodi Picoult on this occasion. To those who blamed her, next time it could be you who the finger of blame is pointing at without reason - and think how that would feel.

April Fool's Day seems to have come early

2007-03-30T13:35:00.001+01:00

Martin Johnson, the acting deputy general secretary of The Association of Teachers and Lecturers wants the national curriculum to be scrapped and also wants the testing system abolished.

I do agree that there needs to be work done on the SATs that children currently do at intervals throughout their time at school, however what Mr. Johnson is proposing is not simply verging on the ridiculous, it is completely ridiculous.

He is actually proposing the abolition of national examinations in subjects such as history and geography and replacing them with tests on life skills such as walking and thinking. He justifies this with the incredibly foolish statement :

"There's a lot to learn about how to walk," Mr Johnson said. "If you were going out for a Sunday afternoon stroll you might walk one way. If you are trying to catch the train you might walk in another way and if you are doing a day's cliff walk you might walk in another way. We need a nation of people who understand their bodies and can use their bodies effectively"

I sincerely hope that this is an April Fool inadvertantly issued a day earlybut sadly I think it is likely to be all to genuine.

Perhaps Mr. Johnson would like to observe just about any 2 year old in the country and realise that we are already bringing up a nation of people who understand their bodies and can use their bodies effectively without the need for ridiculous advice like this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article1588751.ece

Left to die....but who by?

2007-03-07T17:11:00.000Z

This news/human interest story on Yahoo (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/07032007/397/woman-weighing-42st-die-0.html)
caught my eye and reminded me of the recent story about an 8 year old boy who weighed in at approximately 14stone.

In the case of the b0y, Social Services were facing criticism for considering taking the boy into care. In this case the National Health Service are being criticised for not providing treatment for a women who weighs in at 42 stone.

Surely it can't be right for Social Services to be criticised for considering action that would ensure the boy lost weight when the National Health Service are being criticised for being unable to take action to ensure weight loss?

Firstly, Social Services are trying to support the family of the obese 8 year old boy.
Secondly, the National Health Service have offered psychiatric care to the excessively morbidly obese women in the form of psychiatric care (which has been turned down) as she has suffered from Post Natal Depression.
Thirdly, the National Health Service previously paid for Sharon Mevsimler to have treatment at The Priory at a cost to the taxpayer of £5000 a week, resulting in a weight loss of 7 stone. That hardly seems to be doing nothing.

It seems that everything is the responsibility of the authorities one way or the other; they are criticised if they take action and now criticised if they don't. Why can't people accept responsibility for their own health and that of their families?

The mother of the obese boy told the BBC that "He refuses to eat fruit, vegetables and salads - he has processed foods. When Connor won't eat anything else, I've got to give him the foods he likes."

The husband of the obese woman (who apparently is confined to one room and has been for the past 18 months so presumably is not doing her own food shopping) has denied being a so called "feeder" - somebody who deliberately provides a loved one with an abundant food supply in order to cause weight gain.

The English language has a very powerful word that the mother, husband and wife would do well to learn.

That word is No. Just how difficult can that be?

Medical treatment of premature babies

2007-03-01T12:55:00.001Z

Back in November Tom Butler, Church of England Bishop, said that it was morally acceptable to withhold treatment from premature babies even if their death results from that.

What a relief that others are not afraid to ensure that treatment is give, I refer to a recent case where a Canadian family had their premature babies taken in to care temporarily to ensure that they had life saving treatment.

I feel sorry for the family that they lost two of their babies but I think that there should be some gratitude on their part for they have been relieved of the responsibility of making a decision [whether to let their babies have a blood transfusion] when it was against their religion (Jehovah's Witnesses] and as a result they cannot be held responsible by the Church Elders and their children's lives have been saved.

What a fortunate situation that they are in, yet this family have an odd way of showing their gratitude. They are planning to sue the Canadian authorities for the action that they took as their opinion is that their children have been violated. They have also asked a court to block any future blood transfusions.

A spokesman for the Jehovah's Witnesses quoted this bible passage:

"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people," Leviticus 17:10-1

I can see nothing in that passage that forbids blood transfusions, clearly this bible passage has an exception to the consumption of blood yet blood transfusions are not taken orally and the infants have not therefore consumed any blood.

Other bible passages that also relate to this are (according to http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness5.htm)

Genesis 9:4 "But flesh (meat) with...blood...ye shall not eat"

I was interested in this so spoke to some JWs today; they do eat meat, but only meat that has been killed appropriately. For example, they will not eat an animal that has been strangled but will eat meat where the animal was bled; thereby minimising the amount of blood left in the meat.

2007-02-27T19:21:00.000Z

The Times reported today that childminder Elizabeth D'Arcy took on so many toddlers that she did not remember their names and had to physical restrain them by strapping them into car seats.

I note that The Times sensible avoided using the word caring, presumably recognising that whatever Ms D'Arcy was doing, she was not caring for the children.

I find it amazing that she has apparently been "caring" for children for 13 years yet she had not had any unannounced visits by inspectors until a parent informed the authorities that she was suspicious about Ms D'Arcy as a result of being asked to wait outside the house when collecting her child.

Surely with routine inspections there should be scope for the inspectors to turn up unannounced to inspect the premises of a childminder and ensure that care is suitable and kind and that children are not having their human rights violated and are being treated with compassion?

Pathetic

2006-12-11T22:07:00.000Z

Ian Huntley is to get legal aid.

Pathetic.

No other comment is necessary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6168919.stm

Morals (?) and the Church of England

2006-11-13T13:44:00.000Z

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.

Danielle Wails

2006-10-27T16:58:00.000+01:00

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.

Little Monsters?

2006-10-20T17:23:00.003+01:00

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.

A strange experience

2006-09-29T12:30:00.000+01:00

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.

2006-09-12T16:50:00.000+01:00

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

Aardvarks, Horses and Parenting: Germaine Greer

2006-09-07T16:46:00.000+01:00

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20366907-662,00.html

Germaine Greer

2006-09-07T16:30:00.000+01:00

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.

Ian Huntley

2006-09-05T10:13:00.000+01:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5314944.stm

reports the sad news that he has survived an overdose attempt. What a shame.

updated Animal Planet site

2006-09-04T16:14:00.000+01:00

Animal Planet have now added this:

http://animal.discovery.com/

RIP Steve Irwin

2006-09-04T10:54:00.000+01:00

A remarkable man who was passionate about his work has sadly died.

He inspired my daughter's interest in animals.

RIP

Conditional medical treatment

2006-07-28T13:32:00.000+01:00

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.

Wife Swap - Deirdre

2006-07-22T20:50:00.000+01:00

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.

Wife Swap?...or child abuse?

2006-07-22T20:44:00.000+01:00

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.

Over ambitious parenting

2006-07-22T14:43:00.000+01:00

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?

Insanity!

2006-07-19T13:33:00.000+01:00

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?

Good for Wakefield Council

2006-07-14T13:44:00.000+01:00

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)

Some people are never happy

2006-07-05T11:53:00.000+01:00

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/

Angling against ASBOs

2006-07-04T20:08:00.000+01:00

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.

Up a creek without a paddle?

2006-07-04T19:52:00.000+01:00

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?