Category Archives: children

Relax, everything is fine. Everything.

Posted on by
3

Well, it must be mustn’t it? I’m so glad about it, because things have been a bit of a state recently, but obviously everything’s been made all nice and neat and tidy.

It is the only explanation, when we read of the Prime Minister:

Britain’s biggest supermarkets are today given an ultimatum by the Prime Minister: Radically reduce  the number of plastic bags you hand out by choice, or I will force you to by law.

David Cameron warns that unless stores deliver ‘significant falls’ over the next 12 months, they could either be banned outright from giving out single-use bags or be legally required to charge customers for them.

Excellent, because if we can worry about plastic bags, we’ve obviously got the really important stuff sorted. In line with my new optimistic outlook on life, I will not point out that ‘bags for life’ and chargeable carriers probably attract taxation.

Still, it’s not just Cameron who is obviously happy, as the leader of the opposition has enough time to concentrate on television programmes.

MISERYGUTS Ed Miliband angered millions of TV fans yesterday by telling viewers to switch off Big Brother.

Excellent, all the important stuff is sorted. Isn’t it?

Only 60 children had adoptions completed by their first birthday, compared with 70 last year and 150 in 2007. Overall adoption numbers fell 5%.

Right, so we see stuff banned and demonised for the sake of the chiiiiiildren. We see Headteachers taking ridiculous decisions to make kids play with a sponge ball for fear that a conventional football will kill them to death, or something, but when it really matters, when the actual, physical, appreciable welfare of children is at stake we still have a system which precludes people with diabetes from adopting, smokers and people with a bit of extra padding are turned away, people agonise over prospective adoptive parents’ race, religion, sexual orientation and a million other issues, we still have children who just want to be loved and cared for separated from people that just want to love and care for them.

Fuckers.

Can someone explain to me what Cameron, Miliband and the other one are for?

Are you excited, peasant? Well why not?

Posted on by
1

Pravda is almost exploding this morning, you see it is a year until the Olympic Games starts. The breakfast show seemed to be coming from the olympic park on Radio 5, and there have been regular live links to the venues on the TV breakfast show. I’ve learned that the stadium is quite big, the aquatic centre has a pool, and, wait for it, hairdryers in the changing rooms! We’ve also learned that the site isn’t finished yet.

The media is trying to chivvy us along on a wave of faux excitement, yet surprisingly, not everyone is feeling it. I’ll let Christina Ohuruogo take over:

young people she has met are “not really interested” in the London 2012 Games.

Whaaaaaaaat? The ungrateful little bastards. This has all been for them. This will be the event of their lives, and they’re not interested? Do you think the politicians have railroaded this through for their own satisfaction and vanity? No. It’s all been for the kids. Bloody hell.

Ohuruogu told the BBC: “I’ve seen, not apathy, but it is like, ‘We don’t take part in sports, what’s in it for us?’.

 

I’d love to see your definition of apathy then, because that sure sounds like it to me. Shall we investigate why the kids don’t take part in sport? I’m not sure if I’m certain what the answer is, is it because most of our playing fields have been sold off and had houses built on them? Is it because on the remaining patches of land signs spring up saying ‘no ball games’? Is it because anyone who wants to run a kids sports club is treated like a prospective paedo and has life made as difficult for them as possible? Is it because parents and kids are conditioned to think that as soon as they set foot out of the house that the child will be leapt on by the pack of nonces lying in wait in the bushes at the end of the road? Is it because the government is so keen to harvest our taxes that it makes it impossible for women (or indeed men) to stay at home to raise the kids due to an eyewatering cost of living and guilt trips about not going back to work as soon as the umbilical cord is cut?

And she added: “The general impression I get is that they are not really interested.

“I am fortunate enough to have been to two Games so I know how brilliant it can be.

“They don’t really see what is there for them. It is very hard to get people to understand how amazing it actually is.

Well, Christine, sweetheart. I’m sure when you’re training seven days a week with a definite goal in mind and you then find yourself wearing the national vest in a full stadium with the gaze of the world’s media on you as you get a gold medal it is pretty fucking amazing. But if you’re a 14 year old abandoned in a sinkhole school with a system that couldn’t give a damn about you, no future or aspiration surrounded by debt and urban decay, I’m not sure how interested you’re going to be in the 5km steeplechase.

“It is almost like it is for everybody else: people who are athletes, the sponsors, the older generations, all the ones who have money.

Well, I’m sorry, it is. The games are all about corporate money. It’s the only way this behemoth will return any of the piles of cash it has had poured down its maw. The irony being of course that the people of London have had their taxes ramped up to pay for this, assuming the games return a profit, and there’s a decent chance they will, I can’t help but wonder how much of a tax cut the people of London will receive.

“I think that is a shame and there is more that needs to be done over the next year to make sure we include our all young people.”

Yes, absolutely. But how do we do it? I’m not sure, but I’m certain it isn’t this:

Earlier this month it was announced 2,000 people aged 16 and 18 were being sought to help out at the Games alongside the 70,000 adult volunteers.

 

A separate scheme will create young ambassadors from across the country whose challenge will be to help increase participation in sport and physical education.

 

Other school programmes include lessons in entrepreneurial skills, citizenship, healthy lifestyles and the Paralympics.

Oh, Jesus. Really?

So, you’re after two thousand kids to ‘help out’? I’m guessing they’ll get the job no-one else wants. I’ll guarantee you this, you’ll not see a 16 year old showing the VIPs to their seats in the royal box for the opening ceremony. Before the men’s 100m final starts you’ll not see a 17 year old stood behind the blocks collecting the kit or manning the little warning markers they put up for a false start. Unless these kids know they stand a fighting chance of getting some of the good stuff, they ain’t going to be interested.

Then we get on to ‘Young Ambassadors’. I’m always naturally hostile towards anyone who is nominated as an ambassador if they don’t work at an actual embassy. You want to know who’ll get into that gig? I’ll tell you, it will be the kids doing their politics and sociology A-levels who want to go to Uni to do their politics degrees who can then go into the party machineries. You’re breeding the next generation of party drones.

And for those who don’t have the wit or inclination to be part of the machinery? The citizenship lessons and health nazi bullying.

This isn’t a global sporting event, this is social engineering.

Still, only 380 or so days until it is over.

Oh I do like to be beside the seaside, but no-one has told me how to do it.

Posted on by
3

I’m struggling to comprehend this:

A council spokeswoman said: “Data has shown there are people who don’t go to the beach.

“We have families in Margate and Ramsgate – the more deprived areas – who have never taken their children.”

She said when children from Newington Kids Club in Ramsgate were taken to Dumpton Gap, some of them said they had never been to the beach before.

And when council project officers go into schools, they regularly ask children if they have visited the beach. In nearly every session, there are some children who say no.

Whoa there. You mean to tell me that the reason some parents have never put a pair of shoes on and walked, for free, to the beach, which is free, in their own town is because they are deprived?

*boggle*

That is to say, that it has never occurred to these parents, on a nice day in the school holidays when the kids are bored and climbing the walls to take them down to the bloody beach?

Thanet (Ramsgate, Margate & Broadstairs) has much going against it, however one of the greatest strengths it has are its beaches, most of which are gorgeous sandy affairs. Ramsgate has a corker, Margate’s beach is enormous, literally a five minute walk from the town centre and probably the only high spot in a town which is so faded it is almost transparent. Just outside Broadstairs is the sublime Joss Bay, a beach so beautiful that it could make angels cry, it has surf, numerous rockpools, caves, sea eroded arches in the magnificent cliffs that surround the beach which can be explored at low tide. It’s a great place, look:

You see? Who wouldn’t want to take their kids there? Which child wouldn’t want to go and play in the rock pools looking for crabs and shellfish, or explore the caves and arches? Incidentally, through that arch you see is another enormous beach which on the far side turns into a moonscape of chalky rocks, it really is a wonderful place. And it is free.
How is being deprived preventing you from using this?
Still somebody has a job to protect and so has made sure that a problem is identified. Of course now that the problem has been identified, we need the solution. Can we guess what it is?
The authority has received £100,000 from the Big Lottery Fund to encourage locals to explore the coast.
Whaaaaaaat? A hundred grand, to tell people to walk out from their own bloody front door? You are joking aren’t you?
No, of course not, these are council people, their sense of humour is surgically removed upon induction to the office.
OK, look, perhaps an advertising campaign for the beaches isn’t such a bad idea, there are people from all over Kent who would love using them, plus it could bring some much needed revenue into the towns. It’s going to stop there though, isn’t it?
Activities coming up include a fun day on Margate beach and a “fit and healthy” day on the sands at Ramsgate.
Oh, no, come on, you’re ruining it. A fit and healthy day? Why does everything councils touch have to turn to bland? Kids don’t want that, they want danger, excitement. They want pirates and smugglers, they want a tide race. A tide race is so fun that it would probably be banned if it became widespread. The idea is that on a sandy beach you divvy people up into teams and at low tide, with the aid of shovels, you dig out and build the biggest sand castle you can, at the sound of a whistle, everyone in each team has to jump on, the tide comes in and the last team to be washed away wins.
But no, it’ll have to be an eco-friendly, tofu pimping, five-a-day, socially inclusive, fit and healthy fun day.
Give me strength.
Once again, the state steps in and tells parents; “we will tell you how to raise your kids. Indeed, you can’t be trusted, so we’ll do it for you.”
This is why kids aren’t being taken to the beach – it’s nothing to do with deprivation, it’s to do with being told that your kids aren’t your responsibility and you can only do things when someone organises it for you.
How very tragic.

Bloody kids.

Posted on by
1

What has happened to the children in our country? Why do they hold the laws of the land in such scant regard?

Take a look at this little blighter:

A criminal. Thankfully, he appears to have been given the sack already.

Sam starts work at 6.45am every day, but because he’s only 15 legally he cannot begin work until 7am – and if he does that, he could miss the start of school.

He’ll have to give up work then, won’t he? If he misses the start of the school day, his parents must be prosecuted. Of course, if he misbehaves at school, disrupts lessons, bullies smaller children and intimidates female members of staff, that’s fine, it’s his human right to express himself.

He won a national award last year for looking after a terminally ill pensioner.

He should be forced to give the award back, and the terminally ill pensioner must be prosecuted for incitement to employ a child before 7 am. Did the terminally ill pensioner undergo a CRB check? I doubt it. This is a scandalous exploitation of child labour.
Thankfully, a public spirited civillian contacted the local council and tipped them off about this. This stout yeoman of our green and pleasant land should be held up as a public hero, stopping the abuse and exploitation of children is a sacred duty for all of us. Perhaps he or she should be given the award handed out to the criminal little mite in recompense?

Now he could be forced to ditch his round after CEO [Child Employment Office] officials threatened the shop owner that employs Sam.

Vicky Onions, from Vicky’s Convenience Store, could be taken to court if she continues to employ the 15-year-old.

Well now, hang on. Why are we just going for the employer here? Certainly she’s had a major part in facilitating the offence here, but then there’s the people who paid her for the service, they should all be fined. There’s the parents who have aided and abetted their progeny being used in the manner of a child being sent up the chimney. There’s the lad’s friends and their parents, are we to believe they weren’t aware of this flagrant breach of the law? They are all accessories in my eyes. Then there’s the boy himself. He has wilfully broken the law here, he has drawn in people to have contact with him, in direct contravention of child safety protocol, he has endangered his chances of getting a drone certificate from his local school, and has knowingly put himself in an environment where he is likely to be snatched from the street by a paedophile, exposed to non-approved literature and to see products containing tobacco, alcohol and high levels of sugar and salt.

Look people, it is perfectly simple, if we have children, their parents and local employers talking and making decisions without the benefit of the State’s Solomon like wisdom, where will it all end? They should all be fined and imprisoned before this sort of thing gets out of hand.

The bell is a message for me, not for you.

Posted on by
2

I quite enjoyed school, mainly because I derive a great deal of enjoyment from learning stuff. It makes me smile. Even as an adult, being shown things I had no comprehension of and being shown how to do or use it can still induce a fit of excited giggles. I really like learning stuff.

But, you may also be surprised to know that I could be a right pain in the arse at school as well. I have a habit of asking inconvenient questions like ‘why do you say that?’, ‘why is it not done this way?’, what difference does it make if I wear a tie or not, will it have any influence over the speed or depth of my learning?’ I was annoyed by stupid rules which made no sense, or imposed inconveniences which seem to benefit nobody. When I was in the 5th year (is that year ten in new money?) I grew a beard, a beard you could lose a badger in. It didn’t say I couldn’t in the rules, so I did it, it annoyed quite a few people.

When in the sixth form I went to visit some family friends in Washington state during term time. The head of sixth form tried to carpet me for going out of school in term time without permission. I pointed out that I was in the sixth form because I chose to be, not because the law required me to be in education so where was the beef?

I turned 18 in the sixth form, and was subject to an attempted bollocking for pissing off home at lunchtime once a week because I had no lessons in the afternoon (this was a school, not a college), I pointed out that had I been in a college it wouldn’t have been an issue. It was, I was told, for my own protection, that the school had a duty of care for my welfare. Which expired when I ceased to be 17, I explained.

I was an intransigent, obstinate, yet polite, annoyance. I think they were quite pleased when I pissed off to university. I steadfastly refused to do what I was told unless I could be provided with a reasonable explanation as to why certain rules were in place. ‘Just because’, or ‘Because we say so’ was never going to cut the ice.

Even now when I read stories like this about the imposition of ridiculous rules in schools it makes me bristle:

Dozens of pupils were sent home from a city secondary school this week – for wearing the wrong kind of shoes.

Around 100 pupils at Cardinal Newman Catholic School were sent home on Monday with a letter for parents explaining boots, trainers and pumps were banned.

Disgruntled parents claimed as many as 400 pupils had fallen foul of the footwear crackdown, but the school insisted the figure was nearer 100.

Why? What bloody difference does it make what sort of footwear someone wears?

I’ve heard the arguments over uniform for years, and I’ve never been convinced about them. There’s the preparation argument; wearing an acceptable mode of clothing will give the child an understanding of what will be expected when they enter the world of work. And yet, the shcools will send kids out who are functionally illiterate and innumerate. How is that useful perparation? They can tell you when Eid is, quote chapter and verse on global warming, or tell you what it was like to be an Aboriginal child in the horror of the stolen generations, but they can’t write a letter, construct an argument or balance a cheque book. But hey, they’ll be able to pick out a nice pair of shoes (imitation leather, to avoid offence to others, naturally).

Then there’s the argument about fairness and bullying; if you don’t have a uniform then the poorer kids will be subjected to bullying because they don’t have the latest or coolest kit. Well, bollocks. Firstly, there may well be kids who can afford it, but just couldn’t care about the shallow materialism. Secondly, and this is a point illustrating an awful lot about what is wrong with this country today, how about actually dealing with the problem of bullying? Merely removing one focal point of bullying will just move the gaze of the bullies from one subject to another or one item to another. Any headteacher who tells you bullying isn’t a problem in their school is either a fool or a liar. Don’t remove the opportunity to bully, remove the bully him or herself. Teach a worthwhile lesson. That lesson is not ‘Conform!’, that lesson is ‘your actions have consequences, you acted in such a fashion, here is the consequence’. Schools all over Europe and north America seem to survive quite happily without a uniform policy, why should the UK be any different?

My mind goes back to my term-time trip to Seattle. I was given the impression that those lessons were gone, irreplacable. I’d taken the trouble to speak to the teachers beforehand, to see what I would be missing out on and how to catch up. I think one of the problems was that I’d done it off my own back, rather than asking for permission and having some plan drawn up for me. Going away in term time, to see a foreign country, and to spend a good deal of time kicking around on the University of Washington campus with the daughter of the family friend who studied there was an education in itself, but I was made to feel it was an act of heresy. And yet, schools will send kids home, missing these vital, never to be repeated lessons, because they’re wearing the wrong shoes? Really? I’m calling bullshit, it means either the lessons aren’t all that important, or the school feels its arbitrary rules are more important than the education the teachers are paid to dish out. Which is it?

Not only is it dress code which gets educationalists juices flowing, there are other ways to get the authoritarian beating stick out, another method of teaching the kids that the most important lesson they can learn is to simply do as they are told, all throughout their lives.

New search powers being given to schools over mobile phones are more suitable for terror inquiries, human rights pressure group Liberty says.

England’s head teachers will be allowed to search for phones without consent in a bid to combat cyber-bullying.

The Education Bill, to be debated in the Commons next week, also allows heads to delete data from the phones.

The government says heads asked for the powers and will be expected to use them sensibly.

What. The. Hell?
Search without consent? Just wait for the kiddie fiddling claims.

Delete data from the phones? Uh-uh. Not even the police can do that. If my kid is being cyber-bullied, I want the data retained, because I’m going after the little shit.

Heads asked for the powers? Did they know? Is there anything else they asked for? Will you give that to them? In my experience headteachers are used to being kings of their castles, I used to have regular contact with teachers, outside of schools but on school business, and they love to stamp their feet and make demands of everyone, expecting to be obeyed by all. They quite upset when it doesn’t happen, and are not used to hearing the word no, not unlike many of their charges, really. Will they use the powers sensibly? Some won’t. Once again, go after the bullies, not the tools of the bully.

I don’t like this. The problem with giving people authoritarian tools of control is that they will use them. And then seek to expand them.

Finally, when we do get someone who absolutely tries to do the best for the kids, she gets pilloried, insulted, smeared and sacked. Anna Raccoon has the latest quest she is on. Please do pop over and read about it.

Where to start?

Posted on by
Reply
A few days of silence broken by a roaring avalanche of stupid.
I’ve been trying to think about how I could split these up into separate posts, but sod it, I’m sure some common thread, beyond stupidity, will reveal itself before the end of the post. I make no apologies for sourcing entirely from Nanny Beeb, the tone is so wonderfully patronising.
Right so, exhibit A:

Newly qualified young drivers should be banned from night-time motoring and carrying passengers of a similar age, Cardiff University researchers say.


They said such “graduated driver licensing” for those aged 17-19 could save more than 200 lives and result in 1,700 fewer serious injuries each year.

I didn’t start driving until I was fairly old, I’d certainly left uni before I got my licence.
There is no doubt that young people are much more likely to be involved in an accident than older drivers. But I would submit that it is lazy to attribute this solely to their age. Surely the biggest factor in this statistic is the question of experience?
We already have this crazy rule whereas a learner is barred from driving on a motorway with (in the main) a professional instructor at hand, but once they pass their test, which has no element of motorway driving in it (I’m assuming the theory test does, I never took one) they are free to go and drive on the motorway with no supervision at all. The answer to this is not to say ‘you can’t go on a motorway until you’ve been passed a year’ the answer surely is to make this an element of the learning and testing experience.
Without the experience of driving in the dark, with passengers, on the motorway, towing a trailer or a caravan, any driver is likely to be at increased risk of having a prang when driving in that situation.
Merely bringing in a rule that says ‘no driving in these conditions until you’re twenty‘ will surely only serve to postpone the vulnerability of not having that experience.
Young people can’t be trusted is the message here. More restrictions are the answer, because it looks like you are doing something. Even if that something will actually do nothing to alleviate the problem.
It’s not just on the roads, either:

A study of 10 to 11-year-olds in the area revealed that almost one in five was clinically obese and that more than a third were overweight.

What’s the cause of this then? I’ve transposed the headline and the first paragraph here.

Fast-food outlets could be banned from operating near schools in Medway as part of an effort to cut child obesity.

Right, so it is nothing to do with the wholesaling of school and public playing fields for development, nothing to do with the constant warnings that your children can’t leave the house without being hit by a car, injected with drugs, playing hopscotch on the high speed rail link, buggered by the nonces hanging around the bushes at the end of the street, stabbed, held at knifepoint until mobile phones and MP3 players are handed over or inducted to the Hare Krishnas.  It is certainly nothing to do with the state telling mothers that they’re worthless if they don’t go back to work as soon as the stitches have healed or both sets of parents that it would just be better all round if they let the State bring up their children for them.
These kids are fat, not because of the above, but because there’s a place selling chips near the school. The Righteous have declared this to be the case, therefore it is fact. It is unfortunate that these businesses will have to close, and these people will lose their jobs. It is unfortunate that the people who work in these places are probably poor and just above the poverty line themselves, but despite all the Righteous bleating about helping them, they really couldn’t give a toss. They’re not thinking of you today, they’re thinking of the chiiiiiiiiiildren.
Despite the attempts of successive governments, children are actually very creative problem solvers, especially when it is a problem close to their hearts that needs solving. So when you read;

In 2008 Waltham Forest Council in east London set up a 400m exclusion zone around schools, parks and youth centres to tackle child obesity

I’m willing to bet that the kids were very quick to identify the fried chicken shop that was 405m away from the school gates. It certainly betrays a clarity of thought sadly absent in some of our politicians and civil servants.
And whilst we’re on the subject of fat (have you seen what I’ve done here? God I’m good!):

The British RMT union has criticised the boss of Stena Line for making comments calling British workers “fat” and “tattooed”.

Fair enough, it seems only fair, I criticise the RMT on an almost daily basis for being petulant, childlike Communist fantasists. I’ve seen many workers who are British, and many of them are fat. Many of them are tattooed. A good number are both. An equally good number are neither.

Pim de Lange said he was quoted out of context and has apologised.

Oh, Pim. That’s your second mistake there. Never apologise. Those Righteous bastards never do, so why should you?

But Steve Todd, head of maritime at the RMT, has called for a fuller apology.

Naturally.

Mr de Lange’s comments appeared in a Dutch newspaper, in which he also said it was hard to find British workers who were young and fit for the job.

It’s all because of those fast-food restaurants near the schools, you see, Pim.

He later said in a statement: “I regret any offence caused and apologise.”

But Mr Todd said this did not go far enough.
Not nearly far enough.

“RMT is demanding a full retraction of all the statements he has made and a full apology to all British seafarers for his behaviour,” he said. “We are also demanding that he be stripped naked, flogged, dragged on a hurdle through Harwich town centre to the docks, before being keel-hauled on the trip back to Holland. Once there, his remains should be ground into dust, mixed with some petrol in a glass bottle and set alight before being thrown through the window of his house, where his wife and kids will be bound to large objects of furniture, unable to escape the ensuing conflagration.”

I might have made that last bit up.
Bloody RMT, it’s perfectly acceptable for them to make everyone else’s life a misery, but as soon as someone suggests that on occasion it might be an idea for one or two of their members to pass on the odd bacon roll and perhaps be a little more discerning in the subject of body art, it’s the end of the world.
I thought you were supposed to be big roughty-toughty sailors, picking the weevils out of biscuits, pouring hot tar down hatches, drinking huge amounts of rum, all buggers’ grips and golden rivets? Don’t be so fucking precious.

Oh, won’t somebody think of the children?

Posted on by
1

Dick Puddlecote and Leg Iron have been banging this drum for some time now, it isn’t entirely clear which vice will be next, will it be eating or drinking? Perhaps the eaters and the drinkers will be played off against each other to ensure mutual destruction.

One thing is for certain, now the smokers have been dealt with, it is time to paint at least one other group as the evil, murdering architects of society’s downfall. Today it is the drinkers.

Children as young as five are contacting a charity helpline to talk about their parents drinking or using drugs.

Note the weasel words in there. Not about their parent or parents alcohol abuse or alcoholism, but just the act of drinking.

Of course there are parents that are alcoholic. Of course there are parents who are alcoholic who become abusive towards their partner. Of course there are parents who are alcoholic who become abusive towards their children. To pretend otherwise is stupid, blinkered and short-sighted.

Just go and read Inspector Gadget or Bystander. You’ll see plenty of evidence that courts will accept a sob story of alcoholism as a mitigating factor. It’s been an interesting tactic, stab someone who has broken into your house and is threatening you and yours and that mitigation will not hold as much water as the mitigation of ‘it was the drink wot made me do it’. It would seem from the above that the tide is slowly turning, the victim is being turned into the perp.

I for one think that is a good thing, ‘was pissed’ is no defence. Alcohol cannot be a shield to hide behind. But, and here’s the very big but, how many people who have a drink at any one time end up in court because they’ve acted like a clot? Very few.

Slowly, slowly the creep towards the denormalisation of drinkers has changed, almost inperceptably the pace has picked up, we’re not in the final sprint towards the finish line yet, but the signs are there.

Notice how the act of drinking is up there with the use of drugs? Smokers were painted as drug users a long time ago. The same brush is being loaded with tar for the drinkers now.

How best to apply that tar? Well, getting the kids as soon they enter school and tell them how any act of drinking is something to be frowned upon. Next year’s intake will be told how an act of drinking is to be objected to. The year after will be told how an act of drinking is something to be reported to nanny. Nanny will keep you safe.

I remember Childline being set up, I was a child myself when Esther and her teeth launched it way back when, I can still remember the jingle that advertised the phone number. As I remember, Childline was an independent service giving the kids the opportunity to speak to advisors on a range of subjects from sexual abuse to bullying.

I wasn’t aware that one of the worst fake charities out there, the NSPCC, had taken it over. I suppose the Righteous have struck again, we can’t have people helping without their say so and their all seeing guidance. Those people might make the wrong decisions. The Righteous are incapable of making mistakes. The Righteous are never wrong, the fault lies entirely with you.

Give the kids a bogeyman. Give the kids a friendly uncle or aunt to tell on the bogeyman. Give the kids a free method of doing it.

Give the kids a uniform, perhaps a badge for doing the right thing.

1984, anyone?

The drinkers still think it won’t happen to them. They’re going to very disappointed and very, very angry. But it won’t matter, no one will listen to them. They are untermensch, after all.

UPDATE

I’ve just seen this over at Dick’s.

I’ll be Kevin Costner, you can be Sean Connery.

The One That Is Shocked But Not Surprised. . .

Posted on by
Reply

Sky News have been promoting a video investigation carried out by them today, video is here, relating to the grooming of a 13 year old girl for sex on the internet.

Whilst the story is a sadly familiar one, one aspect does jump out at me. Doubtless the story will raise more concerns about the dangers of the internet, there’ll be calls for more regulation, bans, etc. This is of course, rubbish. Some people purposefully drive their cars at pedestrians with the intent to kill them, this doesn’t mean cars should be banned. But factor in the children and the spirit of freedom on the internet and it is a different story.

Anyhow, what is so remarkable about this story? (Emphasis mine)

Simon Beard, 57, a former development officer at the National Youth Agency, was caught in a sting operation by Sky journalists after he arrived at a pre-arranged location to have sex with a 13-year-old girl.

On his website, Beard claims to have worked with young people “for 20 years”.

Sky News can also reveal that in 2007 he ran a two-day training course in Manchester advising youth workers how to counsel teenagers about sexual relationships.

Now, time for stating the bleeding obvious. You can’t tell if someone is a paedophile. They don’t wear a special t-shirt, a badge or a hat, and a CRB check is all very well, but it does pre-suppose that any paedophiles have been caught before, or are magically listed as being such.

But here’s an idea, perhaps one of the ways to prevent this sort of thing is to minimise the contact people can have with kids on a fairly anonymous level? Statistically, most sexual abuse of children takes place within the immediate family unit, and to be frank, there’s not a lot that can be done about preventing it beyond prosecuting and convicting the perpetrators.

Whilst abuse in the family is the more common context for abuse, I’d be amazed if the second most common context wasn’t people who work with children on a regular basis. The dirty mac clad nonce hiding in the bushes waiting to pounce is way down the list.

Teachers we need, the benefits of an education system far outweigh the cons of a small minority abusing their positions. But, do we really need ‘development officers’? Do we need a National Youth Agency? And I’m certain we don’t need youth workers counselling teenagers about sexual relationships.

This is one of the dangers of a pervasive state. So obsessed are they with getting involved in every single aspect of every single person’s life in this country that there will always be this sort of thing as a result. The State is impersonal, deaf, blind and unthinking. I’m sure the National Youth Agency was set up with most altruistic of intentions, but the fact is that the State is simply not equipped to look after and bring people up. It is a one to one, or two to one job, it needs a sensitive, considered and pragmatic hand, the State cannot do it, and in a reversal of the situation of the teachers, any benefits are far outweighed by the clumsy, unthinking harm caused by the State’s meddling.

More to point, what business of the State is the sexual relationships of any of us?

To be fair, attention should be drawn to the word ‘former’ in Beard’s job-title, however, he’s been ‘working’ with young people for 20 years. Are we to believe this was a one off?

Twenty years in a non-job has resulted in what amounts to State sponsored paedophilia. Granted he would probably have followed prediliction whatever his position, but by stupidly getting involved were there simply is no need, the State has given him the keys to the door.

The State must stop getting involved in the details of peoples’ lives, because all altruism flies out of the window to be replaced with political posturing, targets, box ticking and justification of existence. It will only ever do more harm than good.

The One That Is Blah Blah Blah . . .

Posted on by
Reply

The idea of a hung parliament really is scaring Labour and the Tories now. So much so that Gordon Brown has decided to do something about it.


Gordon Brown will become a more visible presence and meet more ordinary voters as he seeks to “up the tempo” of Labour’s general election campaign.

Yep. That’ll do it. Get Gordon out more, that’ll solve the problem once and for all, the Tories will waltz into a majority then.

Mr Brown will be prepared to meet more ordinary voters rather than party supporters, following the criticisms from rank-and-file members, Iain Watson says.

He will also take more questions and answers on Labour Party policy from undecided voters in various locations around country.

What? A party leader, speaking to the electorate? Instead of talking to their own party members? About policy? Well, that’s all well and good, but I can see a problem with that, what if Joe Soap stands up and says something like ‘That’s all well and good Mr. Brown, but with the greatest respect I disagree with your policy and feel that I am most likely to vote for someone else’? How will the goons resist the urge to bundle him to the ground, stamp repeatedly on his head and dump his body in the canal whilst the spin doctors brief against the poor sod and decry him as a BNP supporter?

The Tories are going to do something about this as well. This can never happen again.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are set to announce policies on electoral reform.

I’ve not gone into too much detail, but I believe that the Tories have cast their gaze over to Europe and have decided to follow the lead set in Switzerland by UEFA. Seats picked up from Labour will now count double.

Is that not it? Oh well, who cares?

Their policy would force a new prime minister without a mandate to hold a general election.

What? Like you’ve done since Brown took over?

He will also outline plans to select parliamentary candidates through postal primaries.

And that counts as reform does it? Give me strength.

Now, I’m no lover of the Lib Dems, but one thing this election campaign is demonstrating is the rotten system of first past the post. Sky News have been showing off their graphic design department’s work this morning. Their poll of polls shows Labour and Lib Dem with an equal share of the vote and yet Labour being returned with more than a hundred seats over the Lib Dems. How that is an advert for democracy, I’ll never know. I’d rather the Lib Dems didn’t get anywhere near the levers of power, but if the population vote for them, I’ll just have to accept it. To have a system which is so heavily weighted in favour of the Tories and Labour is a bloody disgrace, and this needs to change, preferably before the next general election.

Despite all this madness, there is an island of sanity and pure clarity. Suprisingly, it comes from the Mail. Unsurprisingly it comes from a bunch of children. A section of society that in my experience are the most adept at looking at bullshit and calling it just that. The whole article is a delight, the highlights are shamelessly stolen and reproduced here:

WHAT IS A POLITICAL PARTY?
NIAMH: It’s a group of people who are all trying to be your friend.

WHO ARE THE PARTY LEADERS?
SAM: I know their names and what their parties are called, but it’s hard to tell them apart because they all look quite alike.

WHAT ARE THEIR STRENGTHS ?
JAMES HOPKINS: [. . .] I can see Gordon Brown being a good drummer. I can see him randomly banging drums with the faces of the other leaders on the front.

WHO DO YOU LIKE BEST?
SAM: I just don’t know. I watched the programme (the debate) last night and I found it very hard to understand, because they all gave random answers to the same question. They only talked about what they think is interesting, which is quite rude really.

WHICH LEADER IS MOST HONEST?
JAMES HOPKINS: I think they should have to do lie detector tests, like on the Jeremy Kyle show.

WHO ARE THE LEADERS’ WIVES?
ABBY: I don’t know their names, but I do think it’s a bit strange that the politicians are taking their wives to work with them. My dad wouldn’t take my mum to work with him, and she wouldn’t want to go even if he asked her because she’s got her own job to do.

Certainly more incisive political commentators than I’ll ever be.

The One That Is Asking Can You Please Stop It? . . .

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been driving around all over the place for work today. I can’t stand commercial radio as it’s all the same four shite songs interspersed with adverts of toe curlingly bad quality. I can’t stand Radio 1 as it’s like commercial radio but without the adverts, that tool Evans is on Radio 2, Radio 3 is so ridiculously worthy and Radio 4 is as dull as ditchwater. So given I didn’t have the foresight to bring my CD’s with me that leaves Radio 5. And it’s been getting right on my wick today.

Two stories it’s been leading with all day have driven me to the edge.

Firstly, they’ve been reporting this story about a report about the number of children being admitted to hospital with preventable diseases such as tooth decay and obesity. Sigh. Well, you remove any meaningful cooking lessons from school for a generation and what did you think was going to happen? All this citzenship guff started creeping in during my last couple of years at school, and that was under the last Tory administration. Indeed I’m certain I did a project in the 5th year (early 90′s) in these extra-curricular yet timetabled lessons called ‘Challenge’ (God help us) about global warming and how we’d all be bollock deep in glacial melt water by the time 2000 came around. Nothing changes.

Anyhow, I digress. These lessons were at the expense of other lessons about how to cook and child development, and PE and useful stuff. This is what happens when you stop teaching and start indoctrinating. Good isn’t it?

So, when I arrived home this afternoon, I was not in the slightest bit surprised to see what the subject of tonight’s Panorama is.

From obesity to alcohol misuse, from rotting baby teeth to hearing problems caused by passive smoking – Britain’s largest children’s hospital is treating younger and younger children for health problems which are ultimately preventable. Many are the result of kids’ lifestyles and are, according to the experts, causing them unnecessary suffering.

BBC Breakfast News and 5 Live have form in this area. Look, arsewipes, it’s perfectly simple, if you are going to do news and current affairs programming, at the least I would expect the news to be reported. I do not expect you to make a programme and then build your news coverage around it. At best this is ethically questionable. I’d complain to them about it, but it would make no difference. The sooner this bunch of leeches lose their public funding the better. Let’s see how much takeup you get on subscription for pretend news, Eastenders, the promotion of Lloyd-Webber’s latest show and celebrities clearing out their lofts and heading off to the bootfairs.

The second story that has annoyed me is this constant whining from CEOP about Facebook not having a panic button. CEOP, which is like an elephant’s graveyard for retired senior coppers even went over to DC to demand, Demand, a panic button on Facebook.

You can already log complaints of inappropriate conduct and content with Facebook, but it doesn’t go to CEOP. You see, an American corporation who generate a huge amount of revenue off the back of advertising on their site have no vested interest in making sure that their users are safe, that their users’ parents are satisfied it is safe, and in making sure that their sponsors are happy to be associated with a safe product.

Any parent who allows their kids uninhibited access to the ‘net is just plain lazy and naive or neglectful, and it is not the place of a corporation to take over parenting duties for them.

Who the hell do CEOP think they are? How would we react if an American ‘law enforcement’ agency came over to London and started brow beating our corporations over how they do business?

Oh. . .

One final point in this ridiculous story. Isn’t it strange how CEOP start stamping their feet and shreiking about how awful this is, and how they are absolutely the only people who can sort this out just as it seems likely that a Labour government is going lose office and herald a round of significant cuts in the public sector?

It would be cynical of me to draw any connection and to point out that CEOP’s record thus far is not entirely glorious.