A Nation of Cowards

Well, that's what it seems we have turned into in the UK. We just let governments and "authorities" walk all over us and do nothing and say nothing. There's a point where being patient and tolerant turns into being trampled all over by anybody who wants to because we are too gutless to stick our necks out stand up and shout "This is WRONG! STOP IT NOW!".

Well, I've just about had enough of all sorts of things so I'm starting a campaign. I'm saying "Enough is Enough" because too many people in too many places are buggering about with my country, with my language, with my culture. I've had enough. I may be a lone voice crying in the wilderness but I'm going to start shouting anyway.

As a start I am complaining about:

1. Local Councils using anti-terrorism laws to spy on people's rubbish. I'm also complaining about the people who get accused of littering (even though they didn't do it) who don't put up a fight but just pay the fine. How dare they?! If they didn't leave their rubbish where the council says then they have no business paying the fine. Have they lost their senses? Have they no guts? Unless the council can prove that they left their rubbish in the wrong place at the wrong time then the council can take their fine and their spying, sneaking activities and shove them somewhere it hurts. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If enough people stood up to the council and said "I didn't do it, if you want money sue me" the councils would soon stop being so stupid, because they can't afford to take lots of people to court. I pay the council's wages so I want to know how come they can waste so much time on hounding people over rubbish when there are pavements that need mending, all the public toilets are closed, and people who need a home help but can't get one. In the meantime, lets amend the legislation to stop the councils snooping.
2. People who want me to change my religion to theirs. Any people who want to change my religion to theirs, regardless of what their religion is. If their religion faith was so fantastic, so right, then everybody would follow it anyway. Except of course that's not going to happen. We have to remember that most religions are interpreted and defined by men. Holy books aren't the "Word of God" but some man's interpretation or translation of what he thinks the "Word of God" ought to be. When I say "man" that's what I mean, men. This is one situation when men means men and not humankind. I don't care what methods the would-be converters use, whether dropping leaflets through my letter box or trying to blow me up, I'm not converting. In any case, a "religion" which seeks to convert people, or promote its message by using violence isn't a religion but a gang and I want no part of it.
3. People who keep mucking about with my language and telling me I what words I can and can't say and when I can and (especially) can't say them. Blow that for a game of soldiers. I realise that some words in some context might be offensive to some people. That's OK you don't say them because it's rude, like wishing Jewish people a "Happy Easter". Unless of course you really want to upset somebody. But the latest thing is that we aren't allowed to use certain Latin abbreviations and phrases because they are "elitist" and people don't understand them. Now that's what I call patronising offensive rubbish. I work part of the week with kids aged between 14 and 16 who are classed as "low achievers". They are not academically the brightest buttons in the box though they are lovely people. Those kids use Latin abbreviations and phrases all the time! How is me telling them they are too stupid to use them going to help their self esteem? Help them develop their language skills? Help them get to grips with their culture? I would never dream of saying to anybody that they shouldn't participate fully in the linguistic culture that makes up one of the richest languages on the planet. My students understand what e.g. means, they know the difference between that and i.e. they use etc. on a regular basis. They know what NB means. They possibly don't know they are using Latin, but if they understand and use it then so can anybody. Some of the students have English as a second language - maybe I should only simplify my use of language for them. But surely that's racist? In the meantime the dumbing down brigade are getting it all their own way.
4. People who think that elites and elitism are "wrong". If elites are wrong we don't need BBC Sports Personality of the Year to celebrate the achievement of the sporting elite of this country. After all, any idiot can drive Lewis Hamilton's car, maybe instead of Paula Radcliffe in the 2012 Olympics I'll have a go. How about that for an idea? We can recruit the England Soccer team from the local park a couple of days before the next World Cup qualifying match and everything will be fine because quite clearly everybody has to be treated as if they were equal. Listen, listen very, very, carefully, everybody is not equal and they aren't supposed to be. I thought we were supposed to encourage and promote diversity, clearly not in this case. By lowering our expectations and standards we aren't making more people feel included, we are making the average level of attainment lower; the midpoint is going down, not up. People have nothing to aspire to apart from getting as much money as possible for the least possible effort. Forget training for a job and working hard to achieve something that you can be proud of, just go on some reality TV show and get lots of money for being a talentless layabout.
5. People who are so terrified of discriminating against some imagined minority that they discriminate against everybody else. Somebody suggested to me that lining children up in a classroom alternating boys and girls somehow infringes their "human rights". Their what? I can't even begin to imagine what that's all about. Lining kids up, in any order, is certainly a matter of human rights; the teacher's human right to be allowed to do their job, control their class and impose some order and discipline so that all the pupils can learn and develop and grow to their full potential. It affects the human rights of every pupil in the class, who must be allowed to grow and develop and learn without the threat of disruption. Under some circumstances it may be necessary to line kids up in a certain order, under all circumstances it is necessary for a teacher to have control of the class. I suppose what they ought to do is just say "off you go" and let the kids sort themselves out. Oh but of course that would infringe the human rights of the little kid who gets trampled in the rush to the door, or the slower kid who is still putting their things away when everybody else has gone, or the biggest kid who is always out or the room first because they won't have the opportunity to experience what it's like to be last.

In a minute I have to go and do something housetrained and domestic that doesn't infringe anybody else's human rights and isn't elitist (unless owning plates is somehow elitist) but the washing up must be done. I haven't finished ranting as yet. There's lots more, but in fact, what really, really gets me mad isn't the nutcases who come up with these stupid ideas, it's all the people who are too scared (or too lazy) to stand up and say "enough is enough". It's time somebody started fighting back. I'm fighting back. Watch this space.

Date posted: 03 Nov 2008

The Dreaded Lurgy Strikes

It's that time of year again. The cold germs are going mad and everybody is getting them. They laid waste to our family last week. We shared between us a particularly vicious virus that made everybody miss at least one day off work/school. Nasty. Luckily we are all getting back to normal now. Even more luckily for me the worst days I had were at the weekend, if they had happened during the week I would have had to miss work and if I don't work I don't get paid. Not that I am getting paid at the moment. The bozo organisation for whom I do a lot of supply work hasn't organised itself well enough to actually pay me for the work I did for them in September. If I hadn't been working for them then I would no doubt have been working elsewhere and they would have paid me. Surprising though it may seem there are some supply teaching agencies who not only find me work (I found my current contract myself) but also pay me for it. Now that kind of arrangement I can live with. Not getting paid stinks!

Date posted: 06 Oct 2008

We really don't need this

"Parents will be able to ask if someone close to their family is a sex offender under new pilot schemes in England.Under the measures, police will be able to tell families if someone with access to a child has convictions or has been previously suspected of abuse." This from the BBC website

Have we taken leave of our senses? It seems like it only takes one guilt-ridden parent to get the government to take away even more of any right to privacy we may have. I mean, look at it. Notice the bit that says "had previously been suspected of". This means that innocent people (and do I mean innocent since they haven't been convicted of anything and indeed they may not have been prosecuted because there was no evidence that they had done anything wrong) who come into contact with children can have other people going to the police and asking for information about them.

Imagine the case where little Timmy's parents have heard a rumour about somebody they see maybe at school or maybe walking their dog in the park or who is the parent of little Timmy's friend. So Timmy's parents go to the Police and say "This person has unsupervised contact with my child, please tell me about them" and the Police (who probably haven't got the time or resources to check that the person really does have access to little Timmy say "Oh yes Mr/Mrs X was suspected of having done something naughty to a child twenty years ago but nothing was proved and they were never charged with anything and the charges were withdrawn". Little Timmy's parents tell little Timmy not to go near Mr/Mrs X and even if they don't tell little Timmy why little Timmy makes a guess and tells his mate Johnny and Johnny tells his parents what Timmy's parents said and suddenly Mr/Mrs X gets beaten up because little Johnny's dad or mum says there's no smoke without fire and tells Janie's mum and she tells somebody else and somebody takes it into their own hands to "teach this pervert a lesson".

It's insane, it's dangerous, and it doesn't do one darn thing to keep our kids safer because it just makes it more likely that sex offenders and people who are a threat to the safety of our kids will just vanish from police and probation service radar and nobody will ever know who they are or where they are. People who have offical contact with kids (teachers, playleaders, people who run clubs and other activities for kids) are routinely checked for criminal offences. In my job I get checked for almost every new school I go to (at a cost of 36 quid each time somebody's making an awful lot of money out of this), it's a pain but it's necessary. Even so, an expired conviction (not that I have any convictions for anything, expired or not) doesn't automatically get you barred from formal contact with kids but as far as I can tell, once suspected of any kind of inappropriate contact with kids then always a "pervert" even when there's no proof, no evidence and no conviction.

If we really want to keep our kids safe then this isn't the way to do it.

Date posted: 15 Sep 2008

After the Lord Mayor's Show

2 weeks (so I am told - I missed most of the first week being away on holiday of course) of fantastic Olympic Games. Smooth running, well organised, a real triumph. The closing ceremony a masterpiece of organisation and a spectacular show by the Chinese, just like the Opening ceremony had been. A real class act. What does London offer in response? Leona Lewis. I am already embarassed for my city. They do all that amazing stuff with a cast of thousands and the best we can do is Leona Lewis. I mean, she's OK, but when push comes to shove she's not actually that good. Half the time she's unintelligible - has nobody taught her about enunciation and how to breathe? The rest of the time she's nasal. But she's the popular choice so she must be brilliant. Hmp. If that's the best we can do then we might as well all crawl into a hole and fill it in afterwards. Cheap and tacky is what I thought our presentation was and I bet I wasn't the only one.

One ray of hope. They haven't finalised anything yet. Maybe Boris Johnson can knock some sense into the organisers. Popular with the UK public isn't going to be good enough. The Olympics is about celebrating the sporting elite. Let's have a bit of elitsim in the opening and closing ceremonies as well. We can "do" culture. The UK has some of the best choirs (ask any Welsh person) the best singers (Classical and Jazz as well as Pop) the best orchestras in the world (the BBC has two of them all by itself), let's hope that some of the best this country can produce is invited to participate rather than the mediocre display we saw a few days ago.

If we are going to celebrate being British and London and the whole thing then let's do it properly. London is about more than wet weather and umbrellas (what a cliche) and jive or hip hop and David Beckham kicking a ball off the top of a tourist bus. London has history, it has art and music and literature produced by people who write on paper and not on walls let's use some of that.

Date posted: 26 Aug 2008

My son, the terrorist

Yes, you did read that right. Apparently my 12 year old son looks like some kind of religious terrorist, so do I, so does my husband. Which is why we were stopped from taking a walk across the University campus in Canterbury tonight. We were actually there originally because Himself works there and is in the process of moving office. He needs a table moved from the old office to the new one. At the moment he has his desk, his books and all his other stuff in one office and his computers on the table in another office in a different building. Elf and safety means that he's probably "not allowed" to move it himself or even with the aid of the local Porter so he is supposed to wait another week or two until somebody from outside can be hired (presumably at considerable expense) to do it for him. It was quicker for me to go in with him to help him shift the table. We did it tonight. We took number 2 son with us to hold doors open and also to get him out of the house and thereby stop him fighting with his brother. It must have taken all of 10 minutes to shift the table. Afterwards, we thought it would be quite pleasant to take a stroll round the campus and see what they had done for the Lambeth Conference. We had already observed that the car parks that weren't going to be used for the Conference were full - at 8pm on a weekday outside term time. I may be wrong but I bet those weren't student or staff cars. One thing they have erected is some kind of circus tent. So we wandered off in that direction to see. We weren't allowed. The area was fenced off and there was a small girl (she looked about 14 years old but I assume she was older) who stopped us and demanded ID. Himself produced University ID but apparently that wasn't enough and we were told we weren't allowed down that path. If we'd taken our original route across the grass there was a gap in the fence we could easily have got through onto the same bit of path, it looked like there was a gateway between two large shrubby things. We didn't go that way because there were some of the University's rabbit population out on that area of grass and we didn't want to disturb them. We were already a few yards down the path when we were accosted, I wonder what would have happened if we'd just pretended not to hear and kept going? Would they have arrested us? Could we have spent the night in the cells? Would Himself have been fired? Next time, watch out bunnies I'm coming through. It's very tempting to go back another time and see what happens. After all the Lambeth conference is on for three weeks....

Date posted: 17 Jul 2008

Don't these people have something more productive to do with their time?

The Fabian Society, that bastion of middle class left wing sensibilities, alleges that we shouldn't call people "chavs" any more as it's a derogatory term. Is it any more derogatory than "Patronising, arrogant, nitwit with no social life and not a clue about the real world"? I notice that both the people they interviewed were twenty-somethings (maybe thirtysomething) with southern, middle class, educated accents. I certainly don't need the likes of them telling me that certain words are derogatory. I can work that out for myself. I had to grin though when the local news went to Chatham, allegedly the source of chavvyness and intervewed people there, because they didn't care and they didn't see it as derogatory and were proud of being chavs. The Thought Police are alive and well and living in PC laa-laa land.

Isn't the idea that somebody can tell you what to think and what to say actually the antithesis of PC-ness? It doesn't show much respect for diversity does it?

Date posted: 16 Jul 2008

They got something Right!

Or Have They?. There was an item on the morning news programme on the BBC today about how some parents are allegedly "confused" about whether they can leave their children at home alone. This issue raises its ugly head every year. Parents work, kids are off school, what is a parent supposed to do? Of course they got the usual prat "If you can't look after your children until they are 16 years old then you shouldn't have them" who quite fails to grasp the reality of life these days. My kids will be paying for that person's NHS treatment and their pensions when they have retired. With the way the economy is these days and has been for years the number of people who can afford to stay at home with their kids is tiny. I wish I could, but having had the kids it is my responsibility to make sure that they are fed and have a roof over their heads, to do that I have to go to work.

Anyway, back to the point. Some children's charity (of course nobody would suspect them of having a vested interest in this - not) has asked for specific legal guidelines because at the moment there aren't any and parents are "confused". How the heck can you be confused about whether it is safe to leave your kids unsupervised or not? I mean, they are your kids. You should know them well enough to be able to determine if it's safe. With us we have sometimes left No. 1 son at home on his own for maybe an hour or two at a time since he was about 11 years old. We checked back with him by phone quite a lot but he was OK and we were OK. He knew that he could go to a neighbour's house if he wasn't happy. We wouldn't do that for No. 2 son even now and he's 12. No. 1 son is a bit of a scaredy cat and also quite thoughtful. He thinks before he acts and is generally aware of safety in a way that the other one doesn't and isn't. Not that No. 2 son is a risk taker but he gets focused in on a task and gets carried away and then he gets into trouble or awkward situations. What we wouldn't do is leave them at home together for any length of time without permission to play computer games and watch TV as much as they like. When they are together they bicker and fight, games and TV at least keeps them in separate rooms or gives them something they can do together without bickering and fighting. It's enough of a rarity that they don't want that privilege taken away and they behave.

Of course what this is really about is fear and, sickeningly, it's not fear that something might happen to your child when they aren't supervised, but that somebody (read Social Services or some children's charity or some other bunch of interfering no-good time wasters who can't get a real job and who have nothing better to do) will take your children away for no reason because you can't point to a law that says' it's OK. That's the scary thing.

This is the real reason we have feral children. Parents are so scared by Social Services and the do-gooders that they won't discipline their children in case "somebody" complains and the children are taken into care.

Every so often we get stories in the press about kids who were taken into care for no real reason, because somebody thought that something had happened that hadn't and then refused to listen to sense, or fact or anything else. We hear about people who have their kids taken into care on the basis of no evidence at all and then are threatened that if they talk about it with anybody they will never see their kids again. It takes a lot of guts and real desperation before anybody will go against that. You could end up in prison for contempt of court and then Social services have a "reason" for taking your kids away because now you have a criminal record. Social Services have targets for adoptions. They have a target number of adoptions they have to process each year. If nobody wants the kids they have already got in care (or if social services deem the available parents unsuitable because they aren't the "right" colour) it seems like they go and find some child that they can, basically, steal so that they hit their targets.

The law is fine as it is. What we need to change is the attitude of some parents and most Social Service departments. The key part of the name I would suggest is the second part Service. They are paid, by us, to Serve, not to hinder, not to terrify, not to threaten, not to bully but to serve. If they concentrated on doing their job properly maybe parents could concentrate on doing their job of parenting and we wouldn't have so many problems.

Date posted: 11 Jul 2008

How stupid do you have to get?

I swear this govenment (the UK one that is, though there are lots of others probably just as daft) needs to have whatever it is using for brains re-examined - if they can find it. Clearly another case of somebody coming up with a "clever" idea wehen in fact what they are doing is talking out of the wrong orifice.

If I had the energy I would be leaping up and down screaming, but it's so much a waste of energy. Just another indication that MPs really should have a proper job before they try to get themselves elected because for sure they don't have much grip on reality. Harriet Harman is a case in point. This is from the BBC Website. I quote "Equality minister Harriet Harman has set out plans to allow firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minority job candidates. She said firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they wanted to - or vice versa." I dunno what planet she lives on but that whole thing is a complete waste of time. What does it mean? Firms are already able to chose a woman over a man of equal ability if they want to. But they don't want to. That's the problem. People on interview panels have a whole range of criteria upon which they base their judgement of candidates. There are never, ever, going to be two equal candidates. You are never going to get two people with exactly the same qualifications, exactly the same experience so the whole "equal ability" is a nonsense. If a company wants to appoint a white man, then they will fix the criteria so that they can. The easiest way to do that is to simply say that candidate A performed better at interview than candidate B. There's no way that can be proved or disproved, you don't have more than one candidate in an interview at any time. Though they may carry out part of the selection process in groups, when you get right down to it it's the interview that matters. The question then is not whether you are highly qualified or experienced, but whether your face fits. Quite frankly, if my face doesn't fit and I don't get on well with the people who are doing the interview and with whom I will be working then the chances are I wouldn't be happy there anyway.

I suppose the next thing will be to have "advisors" to sit on interview panels to make sure people stick by the rules. It's only one step from there to positive discrimination and that way madness lies. I want to be appointed to a job on the basis of my ability. I don't want that to be devalued by even the chance that people think I got there on the back of some political or social engineering. I worked hard to get the professional and academic qualifications I have and the thought that they might get devalued by that kind of "bright idea" makes my blood boil.

Perhaps it would boil less if the Governmenthemselves hadn't already come up with some spectacularly stupid bits of legislation that just makes it more likely that job criteria will be written to make it easier to select male candidates. If I were a small business owner who knew that employing a woman meant that I would incur huge costs if I employed somebody who became pregnant and went on statutory maternity leave, I'd make certain that I employed a man. At the worst you only have to cope with 2 weeks paternity leave (which I believe is unpaid), not a whole year of having to pay somebody who isn't at work. If it's important for women to have the right to have time off when they have a baby (and I certainly believe that's true) then the Government should fund all of it - including the costs to their employers. That'll help. But of course they'd actually have to spend money then so this is another initiative that somebody else pays for.

Date posted: 27 Jun 2008

War on Terror?

It's been a busy day today, blog-wise. Lots of instances of politicians being even more ridiculous than they usually are. Can you tell I don't much like politicians?

The latest thing on the "war against" terror is that the UK government is apparently going to be requiring ISPs and telecomms companies to keep a record of all phone calls and e-mails. They are thinking about adding this into the Communications Data Bill. So we can be safer from terrorism and organised crime. Maybe they want other people to store the data because they have a tendency to lose stuff they are supposed to keep safe - like child benefit details.

This is going to be such a good idea isn't it. Nobody will ever be able to get an e-mail address using fake details, use it to communicate with somebody else also using fake details and then just get rid of it or stop using it. No of course not. Do these people have even half a clue?

Watch this space, this rant will run and run.

Date posted: 20 May 2008