Do we need daddies?

In the aftermath of these riots-cum-looting, or general thuggishness, whichever you prefer, much has predictably been made of fatherless families

For example IDS has just said:

“We’ve been ambivalent about family structure in Britain for far too long.”

Of course, we all know this means single-parent families, predominantly single mothers, but are they really to blame?

Well, yes and no, I think

Undoubtedly the rise of the Vicky Pollard style teenage mother with her feckless brood is a problem - arguably if there were good hard-working fathers in those lives those children would be much better off (or alternate partner if you wish, I don't necessarily think it has to be a male, although generally it's going to be)

But this does not simply mean a single parent is worse, or a problem in itself

I come from a single parent family, did I go and out and rampage through the streets? I can't prove this here of course, but I'd like to think you believe me

You see it's all well and good to bang on about families and how bad people like me are, how I'm so much less likely to have a degree (masters) or a job (I do) or have a family (married), but the real issue is hidden in what I said earlier - 'good' and 'hard-working' - it is the stable environment that is vastly more important

I bet you we all know a single parent, and I bet, unless you roam around inner city ghettos that the kids are fairly standard, and likewise you may have right terrors born to 'proper' families

The statistics bear out of course, but they also bear out for black people - anybody want to suggest that's inherent to what they are rather than where they are?

You live in a place where young women are poorly educated, have little respect for themselves and are treated like dirt by feckless young men, who also have no respect for themselves or anything, then you are going to get social problems and out of control kids - even if you were to force marriage, and even fidelity, upon them, you are not addressing the root of the problem - the single mothers in question are a symptom, not the cause

So there's no need to worry about young Mrs Smith down the road, whose husband just buggered off with his secretary, producing the next gun-toting hoodlum

I do think welfare is misguided - we effectively encourage people to breed and be irresponsible, because we won't let anyone starve, but this just encourages dependency, ironically my mother never did, and never would, claim welfare

Ultimately this is about those willing, or able, to engage with society and play by the rules, and those who can't, or won't - a breakdown of respect, particularly for themselves, the individual family structure has little to do with that

So how could I ever say single parent families are to blame? I couldn't, and frankly anyone who says that is a dimwit, or just hateful

What I do say is a lot of these problems do happen to come from single-parent families, but what is needed is a stable and loving home, the culture that happens to create single mothers in deprived, inner-city areas rife with gangs is to blame - attacking the notion of single parenthood itself is, at best, just plain daft

Am I Missing Something?

From a BBC magazine article

Job-hunting IT worker Christian Romane, 53, lives in a bedsit in leafy Earl's Court, west London, with £125 a week in housing benefits
"At the moment I spend 40 hours a week looking for work, but if these changes go through that would stop.
To make up the shortfall in rent I'd have to cancel my broadband so it would be harder to search for jobs and keep up my IT skills. I have no other spare funds - as it is I get by on one meal a day right now.
I could move further out of London, but most of the work I'm looking for is in the city and the increased transport costs mean I'd be no better off.
I've lived here for 20 years, this is my home. It doesn't seem fair that I could be thrown out because of a political decision."

Now, I may be missing something vital about the policy, so feel free to weigh in - but the lowest cap is £290 for a flat

He's getting less than half that...why would it be cut? He's getting £6,500 a year to live in a bedsit

Maybe I am missing something obvious - but nowhere in that article does it point out why a person getting this modest amount would be hit - the only change mentioned is the cap, as always - as far as I'm aware he's well under it and shouldn't be affected, the BBC should explain the reason here

On Yer Bike

What is so wrong with the concept of 'on yer bike' (Tebbitt never actually said it)

The broad idea is that if there isn't work where you live, go and look for it - this has in IDS' terms become related to fairly simple commuting to nearby towns, not even upping sticks

Jeremy Vine is currently talking about Welsh people from Swansea or the famously deprived Methyr Tydfil getting, shock horror, a 50 minute bus ride to Cardiff

The irony strikes me that the poor must have jobs on their doorsteps, but no one bats an eyelid that the 'wealthy' in the south east have to sit on the M25 for an hour or catch a 7.05 train to London

I happen to live by the busiest commuter line in the country (Cambridge-London), it carries thousands every morning into King's Cross and Liverpool St, and if you've ever been on one of these trains you would know that you will not get a seat 9 times out of 10 - people in business suits crammed in reading their iphones while standing, some sit on the floor in their suits - it is not a pleasant experience

I admit the pay accommodates this, we're not talking min wage, but most of these people are not paid masses (check the slightly later trains for them), and train fares are thousands a year, so much that my commuter friends have loans for them - these people are getting on their bikes every day, and my other friends have either moved into London, or commute to nearby big towns - none work where they live or grew up, and nor do they all work in offices being paid well (some do), I refuse to be a commuter and in turn am paid worse - every day workers are expected to get on their metaphorical bikes, but the unemployed can't?

Job Centres even pay for travel to interviews this sort of distance - so why are they so loathe to move? They say low wages don't make up for the transport (a bus ride is probably an hour's pay of each day at most), but welcome to the real world - thousands of pounds a year to commute either by train or car will see you lose masses of your salary, let alone taxation, people don't want to pay this - but they have to!

Most people do not think it is right to claim benefit and do not weigh their benefits against employment - if I could claim more on benefit than my salary I would still work, because I had a job and that's my money, benefits are not another form of income

And what is so wrong with moving? As I've said, I have friends who moved to London for fairly humble work, I even used to have a teacher from Methyr who railed against those who refused to leave, I know fairly well to do people who became very hard up - they moved, in a period of less than five years, down to Dorset, then to Sussex and finally to Suffolk chasing whatever jobs they could find - Polish immigrants are, fairly obviously, moving from their homes in search of work, we were doing it centuries ago, as the poor rural workers headed to the cities for work, and we still do - there is simply a small group who refuse to accept this notion (I admit that local government may hinder this, and it should be reformed)

This issue about it being more profitable to not work should not even come about - it's wrong, and clearly people don't appreciate that, having grown up on it probably, so the government should cut benefit to non-workers - it should always be better to work than sit on your arse, people seem to forget that those who work are putting themselves through hardship, paying for everything themselves, waking up at 7am, maybe getting home after 6pm after spending the whole day at a desk, or whatever, and they have to pay for everything themselves, probably about a fifth of their earnings on getting there in the first place!

Meanwhile people who do nothing to get their own money whinge when it is cut - not realising that they get to stay at home all day, which workers would love to be able to do - see the kids more, do the housework, cook more etc

I don't mind state support - but it is not a lifestyle choice, so I think it is right that the government want to cap benefits, and I also agree with 'on yer bike' - we all bloody do it! Do not provide free houses to non-workers, do not give them unlimited pay cheques, but limit it to a year or two and then on reduce it to a very basic level - use the savings made for other incentives, subsidise transport, subsidise rent and pay benefits to those on minimum wage, who truly are the ones suffering - do not pay people to stay unemployed, who say it costs more to work!

*This was meant to be a short and concise rant...oops

Punishing bigger families?

Now, while I can see inherent problems of fairness with the child benefit cut (yawn) - I do not have any issue with capping a family benefits at 26,000, or rather a 'salary' of 35k

What is wrong with this? That's a pretty nice amount to live on for an earner, why should someone on benefits take more when most workers will earn less?

I perfectly agree with helping people at the bottom - I don't people to be trapped in poverty, but I also want work to pay - this principally involves big tax cuts at the bottom and probable tax rises at the top (sorry), not giving massive hand-outs to people who don't, or won't, work, I do agree with benefits, supplements, tax breaks, but not funding a lifestyle that is actually better than the poor saps who work in the worst jobs can afford - that is not 'fair'

So capping benefits at a very reasonable level, seems rather appropriate to me

The only argument against this is that it hits large families, as your benefit won't keep going up as you pop out more dependants

But I'd like someone to explain to me, why it should keep going up with the amount of kids you have? - 35k is a decent amount for a typical family, and they do not get a salary rise with every kid - they budget, if they have nine kids on a salary of 35k that's their own fault...but if they are on benefit and not working, they should have their rising number of kids paid for by the state?

That's both unfair and economic madness - taxpayers do not get paid for children (except CB of course...), but major benefit claimants do - they are not subject to the same restrictions to those who actually work and live within their own means

I have every sympathy for the poor, but I don't see why they apparently have a right to reproduce ad infinitum, when the rest of us don't

Give them a salary and let them stick to it, like we do!

(also: for Diane Abbott's rather tetchy response that it punishes the ones who are already born - just make it a new contract, applies to children born after X date - then it's parents' own fault for their declining standard of living)

A Labour MP I can agree with

 Paul Flynn, who is already somewhat of a legend with his rebellious drugs stance, has come out and said people who use bone-crushing handshakes should be charged with assault

Now of course, I would never support another bloody law, but he's jesting (see, he's not a normal Labour polly) - and let's face it, people who do bone-crushers are, excuse-my-french, wankers out to prove how tough they are, who normally occupy some sort of business role and have small dicks

Personally I always go for the attempt to out-crush said idiot, but I do like his sarcastic approach - just give them a funny look and say 'what are you doing?' Although unfortunately I may have to wait til I'm a bit older, as I generally have to be pleasant

I can't wait to be a cantankerous old git

still easing my way back in...

When marriage is at all time low, is it a good idea to insult everyone who isn't married?

The Tory marriage plan really irks at me - first and foremost it's based on flawed analysis and shallow reasoning - and secondly, it's just insulting to all those from 'broken homes' (like me!)

The Tories say marriage will become exclusively middle-class, and that will be detrimental to lower-income people, right... Forgive me if I find that a little bit patronising

I'm middle-class (perhaps upper-lower-middle-class) and my mother never married, on principle - she may just be being bloody-minded but we seem to have done quite well, and I'm telling you I know of few people who agree with this 'marriage is great' rubbish - the younger ones who do want to get married have no issue with co-habiters and blended families, they're so common it's impossible not to accept them

The only people likely to go for it are the Tory hardcore - the sort of people who believe Peter Hitchens is real, perhaps it's to shore up the core vote as the Tories drift increasingly to the middle, much like Labour ramp up benefits and protect public sector jobs for their core

This is the one socially conservative policy the Tories have - but I question it, traditional old ladies may agree with it, but I would say a lot of people dislike it and it's probably doing more harm than good by annoying those swing voters who tend to sit in the middle and could see this as old fashioned bigotry

It may be that other issues take precedence in the election, but it does nothing for me but turn me off Cameron - I find it to be judgemental, another minus point for the Tories - not that I'm the sort of voter they want, of course

*Apologies for the lazy entry - it's Christmas, I'm busy and can only devote so much of my time to being angry

Glug

Ah, good old sir Liam, he was the one who warned us all about swine flu deaths...remember?

Now he's saying parents (specifically middle class ones) who let their teenage kids 'taste' booze will make them more likely to be heavy drinkers as adults

Any stats for that?

I'm not saying he's wrong...but if you've been wrong before you can be wrong again, right?

Far be for me to use anecdotal evidence - but I was tasting booze from about 14, drinking possibly too much at 17 and 18, but nowadays I barely drink at all - I got bored of it once I got away from the first-year student culture, and I'd have to blame my friends and the culture of binge-drinking far more than my parents for my occasional excesses back then, I was a teenager - teenagers are quite stupid

Yet, here I am, faculties in order, with a proper academic degree and writing in prose - we all know alcohol is harmful, worse than a lot of illegal drugs in many ways - but it's not a substantial risk to drink it, particularly in moderation, we have a life expectancy of what? 78? And we've been drinking the stuff for millenia, while kids all over the world do fine after drinking, the stats do show that more liberal countries in Europe don't get nearly as much alcohol-related-violence so there's some balance to this debate, Liam

But don't take my uninformed opinion on it, thankfully the BBC love a good counter-argument

here's Jeremy Todd of Parentline Plus

He said: "Parents can have a huge influence on their child's drinking choices.
"Rates of teenage drunkenness are higher amongst both the children of parents who drink to excess and the children of parents who abstain completely.

So irresponsible and draconian approaches don't work - meaning being responsible does work, unfortunately no amount of government interference can make people responsible - stop trying, Liam

"Whilst parents have a greater influence on their children's drinking patterns early on, as they grow older their friends have a greater influence.
"It is therefore crucial for parents to talk to their children about alcohol and its effects."

Quite right, and banning stuff = not talking, I'm not sure if Sir Liam has ever met a teenager

I particularly liked Professor Ian Gilmore:

"We know that adults who drink sensibly tend to pass these habits on and that some families choose to introduce alcohol to their children younger than 15 in a supportive environment."
He stressed that not drinking alcohol at all remained the "healthiest option" for children.

Spot on - why isn't this man Chief Medical Officer? (He's already president of the Royal College of Physicians)

What we do not need is more bloody preachy adverts:

"He announced a major publicity campaign on the subject in England, which will get under way in January 2010."

 Stop wasting our bloody money on 'don't drink' adverts! Unless they actually return a profit through less cost to the NHS then they are a frivolous drain on our ever-growing deficit - don't they know there's a recession on?

It's her again

Last week, Allison Pearson got on my tits a bit with her claims of how great marriage is for society

On that entry I received a comment (anon) that pointed out she herself is divorced, and has children with a man she isn't married to

Wikipedia confirms this, as much as it can confirm anything (it also states she is my near-neighbour - so many annoying media types seem to take up refuge in my dear city)

So while I cannot claim certainty on the matter, I do have to question this article

My husband would kill to defend our family... so why has Munir Hussain been jailed for protecting his? [italics mine, of course]

Far be it for me to suggest she is lying, I have no proof of that, but I do have to question the headline, and would ask her to confirm her status, perhaps on her wikipedia entry - considering how she slammed unmarried mothers last week I would hate to think she is a hypocrite, or indeed, misleading the public on this issue

Badge of Honour

Allison Pearson has written a lovely load of Daily Mail bilge about how marriage is better and will save society, I've said it plenty of times that this marriage thing is just a false correlation and complete bollocks, but still they appeal to lowest common denominator thinking...sells papers I guess

So I therefore take great pride in having my comment in the worst rated section, where you will always find the best comments on the Mail site

I'm only on a mere -22, nothing compared to this eloquent delivery from Cindy, Essex on -68:

I am no fan of Harriet Harman, but I agree with her on marriage. I am 42, single and have worked and paid taxes since I was 18. I feel as if I have paid my debts to society, but still David Cameron would have me treated as a second class citizen?

The top rated meanwhile, cover such insights as:

Batty Hatty must be trying to get in favour with the masses of single, uneducated, one night stand mums who are scared that their subsidised life of idleness may be stamped on by Cameron.
I am not saying that all single parents are like this, but an astounding number are, and those are the most dangerous to society as a whole....

Thankyou, Sandra ...in Spain (+83)

and this from JN in Wiltshire on +55:

Well, of course, Sarah Brown would admire anyone who hurls the odd mobile 'phone, doesn't her "hero" hubby indulge in this activity !!!

Is the Mail rating system supposed to be some sort of in-joke?

Fight the gloom

You know something? It can get pretty depressing reading the various stories about this government, and indeed depressing when I think about the future policy-less Tory government and Parliament full of nodding dogs, oh and the increasing power of the EU

It all feels rather hopeless, like I'm looking into a pit of despair - I'm still young, but it feels that there is little I can do - few are willing to protest, and without money or contacts we are restricted to the fairly small world of blogging - the media try a bit but what do they really achieve? Even the MP expenses scandal has resulted in a few slaps on wrists, if such public outrage can't change our political landscape, what can?

No it is very depressing, particularly reading stories at Old Holborn or Dick Puddlecote about our liberties, or Dan1979 about the creeping EU - never mind the right-wing tabloids - some of it may be sensationalist bull but this government IS destroying civil liberties, any quick look at recent legislation and the documented actions of the state will tell you that, however you want to view it, even as well-intentioned perhaps - but it is happening

I can write my blog, I can scream and shout, I can beg, plead and even cry, but short of procuring rocket launchers I will have little impact on these politicians

Except, there is a way, there is a way of damaging the human spirit of those who who wish to control us

Laugh at them



Laugh your bloody head off, the truly British form of protest

Without respect they have no legitimacy

They are only human, and they are as weak as us mere plebs

Blow it up...?

There's a reasonably interesting article in the Mail today about whether we really should just blow Parliament up, it being the 5th November and all

I can agree with a fair bit of it but this stuck out

"And to ensure we have a political class with a record of achievement - in other words, people who have had real jobs and real lives, rather than overgrown teenagers plucked straight from Oxford to work as special advisers before being parachuted into safe seats - I would raise the age threshold from 18 to 35"

I don't think it's meant to be tongue-in-cheek, it always surprises me how the older generations view parliament as 'too young' - Peter Hitchens calls the Tory front bench 'teenage' - average age: 51, with two MPs under 40

'Incredibly unrepresentative' I hear some jowly old man roar, while I do have time for the 'experience' line I have always found it interesting that some people bemoan the representation of a whole generation of adults, particularly when there are at present *two* MPs under 30 - the world's going to hell in a hand cart!

Here's a handy table, lifted from Iain Dale

They have obviously aged since 2005, leaving only one of those three currently under 30, and Chloe Smith (27) entered through a by-election

So we shall take a conservative guess at 45 current members being under the holy age of 35, despite it being obvious after four years that it is more likely that only about 20 are currently 'under-age'

That's 7% to represent...wait for it...

About 18% of the population who are [young] adults, according to the 2001 census

Meanwhile, the youthful number of MPs has clearly shrunk since the 97 election, from a whole ten!

And those in their fifties has only swollen - 249 MPs [or 39%] represent about 12% of the country - yes we definitely need more 'wise owls'

Meanwhile those over 40, at the last election represented 84% of MPs, despite only making up about half the population - so we really need to keep those young 'lickspittles' out of politics don't we? With all their fake mortgages and student children to pay off?

Of course I don't really support proportionate representation across the ages, but I see no problem with having young MPs, when they already face massive hurdles - it's just fogeyism from the older generations, who are incredibly over-represented anyway (and who also think 40 is 'young')

The reason I bring it up is that Dominic Sandbrook thinks that the older generations don't get their own MPs and that we need more 'grey hairs' in there - so he doesn't want special representation for 'slack-jawed twentysomethings', as no-one else gets such treatment, but then advocates the very same thing for older people, who already have far more of their own kind in parliament - little confusing and hypocritical? (again, I stress, if this is satire, it's not very good)

I also bring it up because politicians are so keen on ethnic minorities and women yet ignore an even bigger disparity - age, which is very important to society (and one look at the Youth Parliament should quash any feelings that they would be any worse)

Massage, Ms Harman?

Harriet Harman's office has been told to stop using that ridiculous 22.9% pay gap figure

But what I wanted tp pick up on was this:

The Government's equality watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the ONS report was 'important' but insisted it should also have compared the pay of full-time men with part-time women - which gives a 39.9 per cent pay gap in men's favour.

Now the logic of including this escapes me - it's clearly designed to simply maximise the gap - is it fair to compare part-time jobs with full-time ones? Considering men earn even less part-time surely it reflects the gap between full and part-time, not gender?

But I thought I'd work out the alternative

Full-time men vs part-time women = 39.9% gap
Full-time women vs part-time men = 33.5% gap [in favour of women]

Surely Harriet should be using both?

Unless she just has an agenda...

Cameron's shameless, amid other things

Am I going to say David Cameron 'reneged' or 'betrayed' eurosceptics?

Nope - as Hague says:

'now that the treaty is going to become European law and is going to enter into force, that means that a referendum can no longer prevent the creation of the President of the European Council...'

The referendum was about the treaty, it was always said in the 'cast-iron' guarantee that if the treaty had been ratified then they couldn't do anything, there is no 'U-turn' or reneging here, I believe it is in fact, worse than that

Maybe they have honestly been scuppered by the final ratification, or, as I theorise, this was the plan all along, promising a referendum in the Sun, of all places, to get the backing of the eurosceptic majority in this country two years ago - while knowing full well they would never have to go through with such a dangerous idea

Now time will tell how this pans out - he will suffer an initial backlash for seemingly 'betraying' people, but what he will be betting on is having made enough anti-EU noise to keep the support of the voters, while not actually having to do anything but make a few vague sentiments about 'repatriating powers' - clever, huh?

Cameron just wants power, anyone who actually bought that he had any intention of giving us a referendum on the treaty was being played for a fool

---

Maybe people WANT a new TV

Apparently the digital switchover in the North-West, which will affect 7.2 million people, may cause 'chaos' as TVs are needlessly thrown away

I remember talking about this back in 2007, when a YouGov survey revealed that 57% of people believed that the government had provided 'insuffiecient or no information' about the switchover, and 83% did not know when the switch would be in their region (survey at YouGov archives, Society - 2007)

Neither do I in fact...but does it really matter, because in 2007 '80% of adults [had] digital television in their home'

So while a majority don't have a clue about how and when (like me), they are already completely covered and already watch digital - surely all that matters is that they have digital

The fear is that people will throw away a perfectly good tv when they could just buy a set-top box

In the past year in Cumbria, 50,000 TVs wee recycled - 'This represents an increase of nearly 70 per cent compared to same period last year.' (so that's an extra 20,500 TVs), in the south west they had an increase of just under 40,000 TVs - so we can say 60,000 extra TVs were recycled

Of the ones in Cumbria, 30,000 could have been converted - so that's at least ten thousand TVs that would have been recycled anyway, curiously the Mail do not report how many could have been saved in the South-West

So we have 20,000 'wasted' TVs reported - is that a bad amount? Does that indicate that people are confused, after adverts every five minutes saying 'all you need is a set-top box' for what, five years?

I happened to throw away a convertible (?) TV last year, it even had a digi-box on it, the reason I got rid of it? - because it was crap and we got a new LCD, it was damaged and of no use to anyone, but this would've been counted as a TV that could have received digital and was 'needlessly thrown away' - plug it in and you would throw it away too

And when the switchover happens, would you not expect a few people to think, 'time to update the TV' - maybe they don't actually want a box on their old TV and decided to get a new one - I can't honestly believe little old ladies haven't had it drilled into their skulls that they don't need a new TV, I've never met anyone who thought they need a new one - but I know plenty who bought a new one - a little upswing in dumping TVs is surely expected

It could also be explained by the chucking of bedroom tvs - I have a little old sony, I have no intention of upgrading it - would you seriously go out and get 3 or 4 boxes for every tv in the house? No, I'd just buy a new one, it's 200 quid either way - I'm not surprised if a few of those get chucked out (mine isn't btw, it can be put to other use)

I can't find good figures for the populations of the TV regions, but you can assume there are at least 1 million households in the South-West and Cumbria combined, so that's 60,000 extra TVs thrown away - 6% of households threw away more TVs than the previous year, at a ridiculously conservative guess, and assuming they were all compatible (and how many TVs are there in the regions, let alone houses)

Is that such a catastrophe?
 
---

The Mail really do need to stop trying so hard

More BBC controversy - they attacked the Queen!! (again!!1!1!!)

Miranda Hart, on HIGNFY, described the Queen and the DoE as 'that Greek twit and his Kraut wife'

ooh, nasty racist jibe there - which in fairness it is, stinks of hypocrisy after they pulled that silly Hobnob joke doesn't it?

Only, the Mail left something out until a bit further down the story (after the outrage comments...)

At a Buckingham Palace event in honour of Indian president Pratibha Patil, Philip said to businessman Atul Patel: 'There's a lot of your family here tonight.'
Miss Hart joked: 'There is no place for racism in the modern world and the sooner that Greek twit and his Kraut wife realise it, the better.'

Now, does that not make a teeny bit more sense? It's satire - I am not foolish enough to believe the writers at the Mail actually think it's offensive in any way, but if anyone actually found that offensive they need a humour-rectomy

It's not actually racist, so it doesn't become an inconsistent piece of handling or 'double standards', as the Mail conclude, once again they wilfully mislead their readers in their attacks on the Beeb

There are of course some that feel that the Queen is out-of-bounds for humour - fortunately most people are not annoying royalists

...only Rebecca Adlington is granted such status

Boobs Ahoy!

Yes, The Mail actually are running an article entitled

'Mummy, why do those ladies have no clothes on?'

Superb, truly superb - While Viv Groksop says she doesn't want to censor anything (natch), 'it seems the prudes have got it right.'

Ah, yes, the good old 'I don't want to agree, but I must, for the public good' line, it works much better than antagonistic campaigner mode (also known as Hattie's second law), an alternative title for this would be 'I'm not racist prudish but..'

So, what's the story? Well, a five-year-old picked up a lads mag - conveniently the offending article is not actually pictured, but a similar one is lifted from Loaded - I don't see the relevance of using a different magazine with a different picture, particularly when Loaded (or 'Porn for wusses') is, in my experience at least, generally in the Men's interest, section while Nuts and Zoo are weeklies usually placed nearer the newspapers (now, I'll leave it up to whether I know this from buying them, or stocking them) - but we do actually have no proof of:

"two nubile girls in a steamy embrace, both completely nude but for a generous slick of lip gloss"

I guess we'll have to take your word for it, Viv - but isn't the picture rather misleading? As it implies that it's proof of the offending article, and if she's anything like my mother she'll be massively over-exaggerating - in mum speak 'completely nude!' normally means 'they have a small bikini on!'

And I really would like the Daddy's opinion on this, a man behind Viv was sniggering (as I would), and as I was reading this I was thinking 'if that was his Dad he would've found it hilarious', she conveniently brings him in at the end:

Three days later he returned to the same newsagent with his dad and pulled the copy of Nuts out from where he had remembered it was: 'Dad - take a look at this!' Pandora's Box is well and truly open.

Note how there is no reference to how Daddy reacted...probably pissed himself laughing

Truth is, I do actually agree with not putting these mags with children's comics, but the thing is - do they? I can't say I've ever been in a shop where Dora was next to Nuts, the weeklies are generally quite visible, but not in with the kiddie stuff, maybe the football stuff, but not comics - this really comes down to a question of what should be visible and what shouldn't - they want 'age appropriate stickers' and to remove them from 'toddler head-height'

Effectively what that means is somehow covering them up - because a sticker will do nowt unless it covers the images, it's not going to stop a toddler picking it up (not that a five year old is a toddler - toddlers, by definition, 'toddle') - and out of sight is top-shelf, like really high top shelf, because while you may be able to protect your under-4s from looking at things and noticing magazines, once they get to five and over they're a bit more observant, kids have eyes after all, the top shelf is there because 1) they can't reach, and 2) because it's a steeper angle for the little munchkins

They are far more aware, and I'm afraid I have to tell the author here that your boy is going to find all this out pretty soon - right now it's just new and entertaining, but he won't forget the image like a toddler would, and soon enough he's going to want to find these pictures, start seeing rude things on tv when he sneakily stays up late and becoming 'interested' in the female form by about the age of eight, if I'm anything to go by (and why do you think we men are amused by this? - Because we all did it!) - all she's trying to do is prevent her son seeing such images because she doesn't want him to see them, but it's an uphill battle that requires censorship of pretty much everything

She is perfectly entitled to try of course, but why should everybody else pay the price for her world view - in effect we'll be asking teenage boys to return to the days of reaching up to the top shelf, purchasing a sealed bag, and then probably carrying it home in a brown bag because it's 'taboo' again, and what will the age restriction be? Will 'Prudes United' (new tag!) allow a rating of say, 12 or 13, bearing in mind this is not even nudity and is the obvious demographic of these things? Or will it be a ridiculous 18 or 16? And will it be legally enforceable? Despite there being no nudity, and no breach of the Obscene Publications act

Those poor boys, denied their own fix of non-nudity, while the pseudo-feminists cheer and read their equally revealing fashion mags (but that's artistic) from the pram-height shelves, all because some people feel that:

These ladies' poses are not 'cheeky' or 'saucy' as the editors behind these magazines argue - their purpose is far more blatant than that.

In her opinion...given all the more (false) weight by the fact that the author knows sexy, because she worked for Esquire in the 90s - well that's settled then...

I'd like to know what the justification is, does it cause mental problems in young children? Does it create half-pint perverts? Or is it just that some people don't like these images and think they're inappropriate and want to force their opinions on a democratic society? Because as far as I can tell, all these do is use the female form to arouse males, there's no sex, not even frontal nudity, just body shape and a bit of flesh, something little boys can work out themselves without any literature

There have always been Mary Whitehouses, and they have always lost - lighten up and accept that you can't protect your little babies forever

Meanwhile, I'm think I'm going to be taking my six-year-old nephew shopping...

Why do we pay for this?

Imagine if you will, giving an MP or a minister breakfast in bed every morning, personally delivered by a tax-payer funded lackey who cooks all your meals and even gets your clothes out

Imagine the outrage - Brown got it in the neck for having a cleaner, Smith decorated her house, Tories cleaned moats - our elected officials were living the high-life at our expense, the audacity to have someone deliver them breakfast at 8am when most of us are already on our way to work on a rushed down piece of toast

But no-one ever mentions this side of the Queen - unelected, with no practical purpose, and yet she receives far more money than any individual elected politician, and not a peep from the press about our taxes wasted on butlers and footmen, in fact, while politicians constantly have to engage in hairy-shirt contests, the taxpayer-funded lives of royalty are practically praised and seen as something interesting and quite acceptable

Is it not a tad strange?

A fair cross-secton?

Apparently the audience of QT last week was "slanted towards the young, multi-cultural and metropolitan"

Was it really? Here is the picture the Mail use as evidence

Click to enlarge, but here's a run down, starting from the back down

1: Old white guy, white guy, ethnic lady in veil, ethnic man, white woman, white man
2: Old white guy, old white guy, old white guy,old white woman, old white guy, ethnic man
3: White guy, ethnic lady, white guy, slightly dark-skinned lady, white guy, white woman
4: White guy, white guy, black guy, white guy, white guy, old white guy
5: White guy, white woman, black woman. ethnic woman, white woman, ethnic woman
6: Black guy, white guy, white guy, ethnic man, white guy, white guy
7: White woman, white guy, white woman, possibly-ethnic woman, black woman, white guy
8: White guy, ethnic man, white guy, white guy, white woman, old Chinese man

Hmmm, I wrote 'white' quite a lot there, notice I separated 'black' and 'ethnic' - mainly for the reason that I have little doubt that the black people would be British Londoners, and second it's harder to identify people who look vaguely foreign, let's do a quick tally

48 people - 33 were white, 11 were ethnic in some way (and that's the conservative estimate), 4 were black

So that's 69% white, 23% ethnic, and 8% black

From Wikipedia (source: ONS)

According to the Office for National Statistics, based on 2006 estimates, 69.4 per cent of the 7.5 million inhabitants of London were White...Some 13.1 per cent are of South Asian descent. 10.7 per cent of London's population are Black, with around 5.5 per cent being Black African, 4.3 per cent as Black Caribbean and 0.7 per cent as "Other Black". 3.5 per cent of Londoners are of mixed race; 1.5 per cent are Chinese; and 1.9 per cent belong to another ethnic group.^[3]

That appears to be a scarily representative group there - white people almost perfectly represented, m sloppy label of 'ethnic' is a bit over-represented, and black people are slightly under-represented

So can I ask what exactly the Mail have a problem with? London is full of people who are non-white and they put up a picture showing a clear majority of white people and claim it is slanted to 'multicultural' people, and god knows what 'metropolitan' people are - by definition people who live in a metropolis (otherwise known as 'London') - funny that, it being filmed in London and all...

I hope anyone who read that noticed the idiocy of the suggestion with that photo, and the underlying theme that, in my opinion, was 'it wasn't white enough', despite being shot in London - all the while the Mail go out of their way to publish articles condemning the BNP, while railing against immigrants and implying non-whites are unfairly over-represented. This is surely a new height of ludicrousness for the Mail, having a go at the audience for being too young and multicultural, while providing the evidence that totally smashes their argument

So was it a fair cross-section? Yes, you idiots!

Finally found an argument to give 16yos the vote

Some prudish bastards MPs want to cover up so-called lad's mags because they might harm young children (because nudity, or rather non-nudity, is so harmful)

Now, I have no idea what the scientific reasoning for this is - maybe they cause schizophrenia in the under-12s or something, but let's face it, these things are aimed at teenagers - also known as 'children'

Why can the politicians get away with such an attack? The answer is simple - because the people it affects cannot vote - do you see them going near Knitting weekly? No, because as we all know, little old ladies are required for election purposes, but when it comes to teenagers they can do whatever they want to these poor scapegoats

So, while I couldn't find a real reason to give them a vote a few months ago, I have now found the issue - as they are being denied their right to access pictures of women in revealing attire and must no longer be denied political representation

Tarquin solves yet another of the day's throbbing political issues

Get it right..or maybe left

I seem to remember that a while back the Mail was unhappy at councils abusing no-drinking rules to cover all areas, such as parks and suburbs, as an attack on people's liberty

Now however, they are all for it in Nottingham, because they dislike the 24-hour drinking rules

But wait a minute, binge drinking existed long before the licensing changes, and there's no evidence to suggest that the liberalisation increased it, nor did it reduce it, as was the intention - this was what the government admitted when it said it was 'not working' - hence why there are absolutely no facts in this article, because they would show that little has changed and barely any establishments use the new licensing laws (late-night clubs where all the trouble actually came from already existed...)

They are simply against a measure that didn't really do anything - good spot, guys, but hardly a triumph, seeing as you opposed it for encouraging more drinking, rather than it being a waste of time - I'm yet to see evidence that says supermarkets shouldn't sell booze at 4am...

But then, in a rare show of balance for the Mail, they provide criticism from the civil liberties brigade:

However, there are concerns that some councils may be too heavy-handed in the way they introduce new byelaws, possibly putting an end to picnics in the park.

Dylan Sharpe of Big Brother Watch said: 'This is yet another piece of legislation with the potential to create criminals out of law-abiding people.'

Don't know which way to turn, do they...

This is what happens when you rely on the state to tell you what to do

News today that the Children's Minister has ordered a review of the case of two female coppers who were told off by Ofsted for looking after each others children

Common sense would lead most of us to ask why on Earth were friends/colleagues being investigated for looking after each others' children?

Because the simple answer is

"Generally, mothers who look after each other's children are not providing childminding for which registration is required, as exemptions apply to them, for example because the care is for less than two hours or it takes place on less than 14 days in a year." (Ofsted)

Close relatives of children, such as grandparents, siblings, aunts or uncles, were exempt from the rules, he added.

So basically, anybody who is not closely related to you cannot look after your child on a regular basis (more than 14 days in a year, or more than a two-hour session...) without being registered and subject to a criminal check - unless there is no 'reward'

However

"Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward."

Were you paying someone (even a close friend) for childminding, then fair enough, it is somewhat harsh, as it's a bit like forcing someone who privately sells their car to become a registered dealer - but when 'reward' extends to people sharing childcare to save themselves money it's got beyond a joke

So, basically you cannot have any sort of reciprocal agreement with someone who isn't related to you without undergoing criminal checks - truly we have given up our freedom to make decisions to the state when women from a mothers' group can't help each other out without asking the government first

As usual, a measure to protect us (registering childminders) has resulted in a much more wide-ranging measure that can hugely affect our personal decisions - at best it's sloppy legislation, at worst it's another move to control us with databases

The minister has ordered a review - which is not bad by Labour's standards, but I can't help thinking that they only picked up on this because 1) the Mail pointed it out (no internal checks), and 2) it was about 'hard-working' policewomen returning to work - politically dangerous

This does I admit, show a surprising amount of shrewdness from Labour - so maybe I'll believe they actually care in this case, but still, once again we're seeing that the masses of legislation passed in the Labour years probably does more harm than good

---

Speaking of the Mail, I don't normally agree with them but on this I have to

A burglar with a port-wine birthmark cannot be identified because the police cannot find the compulsory 12 people to show in a photo-identity parade, and if he was in a real line-up, they'd all have to hide half their face to avoid using the birthmark as identification

Is that not ridiculous? I can understand where the law is coming from, having 12 broadly similar people for a line-up, and no doubt the law protects a black guy who has being arrested if he's stuck in a line-up with 11 white guys - but birthmarks are not a racial thing

Presumably if the guy had one arm they'd have to cover that up too? Or find a dozen one-armed bandits...?

How about if they had a big knife-induced scar across their eye? Would that be an unfair way to identify someone? It's just silly

Distinctive personal features are identifiers, and I doubt for the amount of people with one of those birthmarks that twelve people is a fair sample, and also that the probability of getting the suspect right is a little higher than simply using the suspect's skin colour

Once again, it's sloppy law-making where a distinctive feature can be used to essentially protect a criminal from prosecution

He's got a point

Strong words from Johann Hari this week, now, I am no fan of this ultra-leftie (he's a male feminist for god's sake), but this week he has left an impression on me

Firstly for his language - rarely does one so politically correct as Hari use language like this:

He has to present a cruel, bigoted snob who fleeced millions from the British taxpayer as a heroine fit to rule over us. His mind turns to mush.

Not the sort of thing I expect from a 'progressive' - although he is often alarmist (we're all dead by 2015, for example..), this was a sort of anti-Littlejohn diatribe, usually such language is being used to scare and vilify, and I don't like it, especially in a broadsheet

But while I found the language distasteful, I have to admit, he has a point - why the hell do we venerate the Queen Mother?

We are all guilty of glossing over our ancestors' indiscretions - 'Grandad was a racist...but he was from a different time, different attitudes' etc - who hasn't said that one? All well and good, but most of us don't write best-selling books in our cover-ups, had Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon been my Granny then it wouldn't have be an issue, let's all laugh at the little old lady with her quick wit and love of horses, we all tend to remember the dead fondly, regardless of the reality, but let's not write a book about it that ignores her true nature and believe she was some sort of idol

This particular old lady spent her whole life mooching off the state, taking advantage of taxpayers' money and being a self-serving elitist - all of what Hari says is true - the quotes from Lamont are true, her spending record is a historical fact, but we just put up with it - why?

What is this irrational love affair with the monarchy? Why do we elevate one family, for no real reason, into such a position, and pay them for the privilege, when we apparently hate unfairness, as shown recently by the reaction to the politicians who lord it over us?

The fact is, the actual monarch has to behave impeccably, if the Queen hadn't done such a good job then she would've been out on her ear a long time ago - that's a testament to her, but it really shows something about our national (or personal) psyche when we defend and even admire people like her mother, who we simply let get away with it - it defies logic, and any monarchist who decries MPs expenses, or people who live off benefits, is a massive hypocrite

I don't usually like Hari, and I didn't like his choice of words, but I am in total agreement with him on this