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

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

I'll take the risk

Apparently Brown's idea to reduce the nuclear fleet from four subs to three is unworkable, as we need four to adequately defend Britain

I think I'll take the risk on something that has never been used, and never should be used

[John Hutton] (former defence secretary) added that Britain would 'rue the day' it became vulnerable to blackmail or aggression.

Do you find it a bit odd that John Hutton (who incidentally is the only named critic) is being cited by the Mail as some sort of expert because he was Defence Secretary, when they regard his successor, Bob Ainsworth, as the devil?

Maybe Hutton was a far better candidate with some sort of defence background? Nope he's a lawyer and career politician who held the job for 8 months....

I don't doubt this is a foolish move, but at least bring me a general!

I understand the arguments for 'the deterrent' - but seriously, what does it achieve? It protects us from aggression and blackmail - I guess Germany, Canada, Japan and Australia are all under someone's thumb?

I appreciate that if we gave it up we'd be weakening our defences, we could be bullied by the Yanks, Russians, or Chinese (not the French) if they so wished - but seriously, are we the last line of defence for Europe? It's giving away a very big weapon that makes it look like we could deal with the big boys on our own, but in reality what does it do?

Like I say, I understand the rationale for it - it's very hard to give up and place this sort of capability solely in the hands of other nations, having to trust the US essentially - it's hard, and my ideal preference would be to get all the powers to disarm, I have little fear of anything North Korea decide to send our way, but let's face it - this is all about saving face - we want to think we're independent

But the question remains - how do Germany, Japan etc. survive on relying on other nations - do they even fear the threat? Maybe because I'm now in Australia I can be a bit more reflective - because they certainly don't regard it as an issue - the issue for Britain is not about having them, it's about giving them up

I would say that while I like having an independent deterrent of our own, primarily because I dislike the idea of the yanks having all the cards, if there need to be countries like Britain and France there to maintain the balance for everyone else in the western world then they shouldn't be funding it on their own

If the other countries don't even care about the balance then I think we should become as grown-up as them and ditch the bomb - it's all about ego, because while it 'could' be useful, it's far more likely to result in the end of the world if we start having to use the bloody things - think about it - there's actually a world situation where Britain needs to defend itself with cataclysmic weapons, where it can survive as a nation in a world where probably no-one else would? I think a lot of the world just accept that if they do get used then we're all toast - it's just bravado to keep them

Of course what I really love is that Brown, by taking the middle route, has completely fudged the issue - all he would do is undermine the military capability to save a paltry £2 billion, pleasing absolutely no one

*I must also admit one of my favourite bits was this

There are also concerns about the impact on jobs. Some 15,000 posts are claimed to be connected to the Trident replacement programme. The submarines are likely to be manufactured by BAE at Barrow-in-Furness, a constituency represented by Mr Hutton, with their nuclear engines made by Rolls Royce in Derby. The submarines are maintained and decommissioned in Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth, and operate from Faslane naval base in Scotland. Aldermaston in Berkshire, where the missiles are made, employs 4,000. The weapons programme also supports jobs at the nuclear reactors that create the bomb-making material, including Sellafield.

In my recollection, the government creating non-profit, public-sector jobs (or using financial stimuli) is bad in the Mail 's eyes

Unless it's to make bombs, of course

Role models

In what hardly qualifies as news, apparently David Beckham and Cheryl Cole are the top role models for our children...this will not do!!

More than half of the adults questioned - 55 per cent - said the former England captain was a good, or very good, role model.

However, not everyone believes that Beckham is someone to look up to, with 18 per cent saying he sets a bad example.

The chief role model for girls was Cheryl Cole, who came second in the poll, with 40 per cent rating her positively. She was regarded as a bad role model by 27 per cent.

Homer Simpson was voted the worst role model for children.

Hardly the most hard-hitting conclusive poll ever done, but it raises a few interesting questions

For starters - what is wrong with Beckham? Aside from the tattoos the bloke is one of the best behaved people in football - he has showed absolute commitment to his country and barely ever puts a foot wrong, for some reason the Mail focus on that Rebecca Loos thing, but I would hope most people remember the 11 years of football and 100+ England caps he gave us

I think he's an excellent role model and have always respected him as a player - even if he hasn't got a left foot...and can't run - all the more impressive really

Cheryl Cole on the other hand - more famous for being a judge on a talent show and getting into fights with her husband and nightclubbers, is perhaps less so

It is a shame that she is perhaps the most famous woman in Britain and says a lot more about our celebrity culture than children - it is the media that choose to make her the news over far better female role models - such as athletes or real singers

And why? Because she is attractive, fortunately for the males of this world we have to at least have some sort of talent to be famous (being pretty just helps) - but it is of course us who are only interested in women for their looks, and I don't doubt having these sort of people as role models has an effect on young girls

But then, when haven't we? It's always been pretty women or no-one - why do we need 'popular' role-models, our whole lives are dictated by the media, and this is just a tiny aspect of that, if you're smart you will form your own opinions and won't be a sheep who follows Cheryl Cole or Lindsey Lohan - you'll find your own role-models, a la Lisa Simpson

So in short - why should I care about the sheep?

Speaking of Lisa, it is sad to see Homer as the worst role-model - I expect the poll had a list to choose from and no doubt he was very clearly the most idiotic of the group

But Homer, who was voted the best TV character ever, remember, is actually a decent role-model - aside from the regular child-beating, gross incompetence and alcoholism, of course

He is an average man, albeit exaggerated - he is of low intelligence, has a job going nowhere, a family tying him down and has a pretty dull existence at the root of the show (we're going back a bit, before the 'crazy adventure' Simpsons) - he is all about making us feel better about how crummy and average our lives are - for the majority of us who can't become David Beckham or Stephen Hawking I think he's a pretty good role model on how to just survive everyday life (as I said...old Simpsons...like 1994 Simpsons) - he takes pleasure in the small things

Or perhaps he is the opposite - a warning to what we can become if we live by what the TV tells us and just coast through life - the Simpsons has always been critical like that, just because most people can't see through the silliness doesn't make it a negative influence - it just reminds me of George Bush's ignorant comment about the show

So frankly if you can't see past the bilge in the media, and life in general, then it's not surprising you can't find a good role model

The role models you get, you deserve, as Greg Lake might put it

Brilliant piece on the new paedophile scheme

Chris Stevenson, the detective who was responsible for the capture of Ian Huntley, puts it brilliantly in the Times today

Commentators constantly refer to Huntley and the events in Soham as the reason for this. I am sure Sir Michael Bichard, who chaired the inquiry into the murders, did not intend such a wave of recrimination over one case. Yes, changes were necessary: Huntley lived a charmed life in Humberside, where he was investigated for a number of crimes. He was charged with rape, but after he spent a week in custody the case was dropped for lack of evidence.

As a result of poor intelligence, Huntley was appointed a school caretaker in Soham. Did that give him access to children? Yes, hundreds. Did he abuse them? No. In fact he reported to the headteacher that several teenage girls had made inappropriate comments. What Huntley did to Holly and Jessica was as bad as it gets, but did he come into contact with them through being a caretaker? Not exactly — he was caretaker of Soham Village College, a school for the over-11s. The two girls attended St Andrew’s Junior School. Different building, different caretaker. Huntley had contact with them because Carr was employed at St Andrew’s as a classroom assistant.

Speaks for itself...

Back to School again

There is a little bit of defence going on in the magazine over Media Studies

Apparently Chemistry is easier

Is it? - I downloaded the pdf they provide and would question this, apparently if I question the intelligence of the students taking it instead I will face a problem with Maths, which has an even lower pass mark...

All true - however, take a look at the pdf, and you would think a statistics nut such as Michael Blastland, who is normally very good, would spot something

Let's take a look:

Media Studies had roughly 68,000 students, pass rate of 65.6% - Chemistry 92,000 pass rate: 93.9%

So, wow, Chemistry is obviously statistically easier according to this data - they are certainly comparable in size

Except for one thing, which a pure look at statistics would never notice (perhaps the whole point of this exercise) - Chemistry is not 'Chemistry' - you need to look at the human factors here, the Chemistry that the vast majority of us study is in fact what is now called 'science' with an uptake of 493,000 and 'additional science' with 397,000 (that's the old double award - which sadly only had 15,000 entrants and a pass rate of over 80%)

And so the pass rate is actually:
Media 65.6%
Additional Science: 62% (approx)
Science: 60% (approx)

Ah...so that's nearly 900 thousand students with a lower pass rate than Media

Now, no prizes for guessing why the single subjects - all studied by roughly 100,000 students, were at the very top?

Yes that's right, individual sciences are only taken by the best students and the best schools (mine didn't even offer it, but then it didn't offer Media either)
So let us add those extra 95,000 or so students (I will assume they all did three, which is why the figures are so close) who didn't do 'pleb science' as I once heard it called

Average students = 94,000
Average pass rate = 93% roughly
Meaning 87,500 students passed, give or take

Meanwhile 896,000 took the other versions of science, with an average pass rate of 61%

That's 546,500 passes

Add 87,500 = 634,000 passes out of 990,000

= 64.04% with even the best and brightest included...

That's below PE and just above Business Studies

It is of course, virtually impossible to identify if Media is a doss subject just from the figures - the pass rate does not indicate that it is particularly easy, but it says nothing about the way it is taught, who takes it, and of what use it is - my only experience of it was at A-level where my school mates (none top students) all treated it as a doss (and it looked one) but they then all failed the exam...so I don't know, having never studied it, but regardless I felt it misleading to claim that Chemistry was somehow comparable without factoring in the general science qualifications

But that said, what we can see is that Maths and Science generally have a lower pass rate, as does English (but not Eng.Lit) - which most likely shows that the compulsory subjects are dragged down by the dimwits forced to do them

Instead, to compare Media we must look at it in relation to other optional subjects, and subjects with a similar take-up - such as Music, which has a pass rate of about 77% - from that we can assume that Media is far harder (a much fairer argument than Chemistry, although just as flawed)

But of course, we can prove nothing because we don't know why Media gets such a low pass rate - whether it's hard or easy and the students are just thick - we just can't tell without the variables

I have however found the stats I needed for my earlier post on History!! - History second only to DT and beating it's nearest rivals (Geography) by 20,000 students

---

I also meant to comment on this feature on ties a little while ago but never got round to it

For one, the ideas of 'Superfat' and 'Bonsai' ties was around nearly 2 decades ago, when I was at primary school, even though I have never encountered these particular labels before, so it's not news

A bit like the idiot woman who blamed Chris Moyles (on air for a whole five years) for inventing the use of the word 'gay' as a pejorative (it's somewhere in the archives)

Truth is, kids need to rebel and you'll never get them to all do up the silly things properly, except perhaps at the very poshest private schools

And why shouldn't they rebel? - I took the line that there was no sensible reason to wear one, and I still take it now - there isn't, the concept of 'smart' never appealed to me as a child and it still doesn't - it's a social construct from the 19th century

I do of course, conform for job interviews and the like - because let's face it, 1) I'm a hypocrite and 2) there's also economic benefits to conforming in that instance - there is none in the school environment - you are forced to conform to an arbitrary dress code in a place where you have to go (often against your childish will) - it is fascism incarnate

I don't say that as an anarchist or anything, I'm not saying it's wrong (or right) but I think school is very comparable to the authoritarian state - the whole concept encourages rebellion, not respect (which probably is what makes teachers jobs so horrible, but that's another argument)

So in short, you won't solve the tie problem because they'll rebel in some other way, unless you give them a reason to wear something (such as a lab coat or hard hat) they won't respect it - that's a fairly basic bit of human nature

And let's examine the point of a tie - what is the point of a tie?

from wikipedia:

The necktie traces back to the time of Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) when Croatian mercenaries from the Military Frontier in French service, wearing their traditional small, knotted neckerchiefs, aroused the interest of the Parisians. Due to the slight difference between the Croatian word for Croats, Hrvati, and the French word, Croates, the garment gained the name "Cravat". The new article of clothing started a fashion craze in Europe where both men and women wore pieces of fabric around their necks. In the late seventeenth century, the men wore lace cravats that took a large amount of time and effort to arrange. These cravats were often tied in place by cravat strings, arranged neatly and tied in a bow.

So basically they are a fashion article from the 17th century French - adopted by the vain Georgians like pantaloons and the idiotic powdered wigs

Meanwhile, fairly obviously it evolved as the lower classes mimicked their betters during the 19th century - the idea of being 'smart' comes from looking as though you aren't working in a mine:

The industrial revolution created a need for neckwear that was easy to put on, comfortable and would last an entire workday. The modern necktie, as is still worn by millions of men today, was born. It was long, thin and easy to knot and it didn’t come undone.

So why do we still wear these pointless things? It's just an archaic piece of fashion that really should have gone out a century ago - all fashion is pointless to me, so I guess I'm more interested in why we think children 'should' wear them

Because it's traditional no doubt...

...in that case fetch me my pantaloons!

School daze

According to the Mail, History is 'in danger' with only 30% taking it at GCSE, while 30% don't teach history as a stand-alone subject at key stage three (years 7-9), and one in three primary school children thought Churchill was the first man on the moon

Amazingly even the Independent have taken a negative view, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown writes:

History may soon become extinct in our secondary schools, go the way of domestic science and handwriting classes, only less missed and less lamented than either. A major new study by the Historical Association and teacher training experts found that three out of 10 comprehensives no longer bother to teach the subject, which isn't part of the core curriculum after the age of 13. Only 30 per cent do GCSE history.

Right, so only 30% take history, pretty bad eh?

Well actually considering it's totally optional that's not a bad figure is it? 30%...

Let's have a look at the top 10 GCSEs (2008), sorry I couldn't find percentages:

1. Maths
2. English
3. English Lit
4. Science
5. Additional Science (that replaced 'double science' we oldies did)
6. DT
7. History
8. Art
9. Geography
10. French

So it's seventh - and five of those above it are compulsory...

So basically it's the second most popular optional subject - hardly dying is it? It's beating French, which became completely optional more recently than history, and even Geography (and gasp...media studies!)

So where exactly is the problem here? I can understand the argument that more people should appreciate their history, but the fact that 30% of kids are choosing to take it is not a bad thing taken in context - it's actually doing very well at GCSE, if the argument is that all kids should do it then take that to the government and the people who made the curriculum - because right now all you're saying is that every optional subject (bar perhaps D.T) is 'dying'...

If it's a shame that so few are taking it then lobby the government to make it compulsory because you believe it is more important than geography and art, but don't try and present a 30% take-up as a failure simply because you believe everyone should study it

Speaking as someone with a GCSE, A-level and even a bachelor's degree in the subject I am a tad biased, I admit - but somewhat oddly you might think, I would not want all kids to do the subject - history, while I may love it, is not as vital as Maths, English and the sciences to our skills or understanding of the world, it's close, but you simply won't get all kids to 'do' history as a proper subject if they aren't into dates, wars and dead people - I'm pretty sure we had under 50% of my year doing when I did it ten years ago, and of that there were probably only a handful of us who really were interested - 100% of kids doing history would just relegate it to the forced battle we already have in English and maths classes, things which we actually need to try and teach the blighters, it's not as important so it wouldn't be worth the bother, frankly

Yes, a basic knowledge of history is a good thing, but you don't need to force kids to learn something they don't see as ever needing (and possibly won't) and you can teach history in far more ways than as a formal subject - we can see history in the sciences - I remember learning about Newton, Faraday, Darwin, Curie, Einstein, Boyle et all and how they discovered things, and likewise English literature basically is history - we all learn bloody Shakespeare! The man was a historian, just put him and Dickens into a bit of context and you're pretty much there, and you can use religion just as easily with the reformation, 'Bloody Mary' and other various religious wars, even geography uses historical case studies (e.g. migration in the industrial revolution, general world trends etc...) - history is all around us!

As for one in three primary schoolchildren kids thought Churchill went to the moon - here is the old story about it

It was a survey of 4-10 year olds (I think - I can't find the actual survey there) and 30% got Churchill wrong - now forgive me but within that age range 30% would approximately represent 2 years - I would hazard a guess that more 4-6 year olds got it wrong than 8-10 year olds - would I expect my 6-year-old nephew to know about Churchill? He might, but I don't expect him to - I would hope he'll know soon, but six is still pretty young, he's still learning writing and numbers...hardly reciting 'we will fight them on the beaches...'

Indeed if I remember the early 90s correctly I'm pretty sure year 6 was very heavy on World War 2 and I can't remember doing it before then - Romans in year 3 or 4, dinosaurs before that, the reformation and Henry VIII was in year 5...

So if they would like this figure to have any real weight how about they just test kids leaving primary school at ages 10-11, rather than asking 4-year olds about Winston Churchill

Jesus wept...

----

In other related news, there's been some backlash from 'the right' with regard to a survey that

'found three-quarters of teachers believed it was their duty to warn pupils about the danger of patriotism ' (Mail)

Intriguing, here you can read the lovely Melanie Philips' take on it, and it's even doing the rounds in the blogosphere, here's Cranmer's take (see: Sat 12 Sept 09)

Bad lefties ruining our national pride, that sort of stuff

But why exactly should we promote 'patriotism' - or love of one's country? Why in particular, should a science/maths/art teacher be interested in promoting a patriotic view - 'here we have Newton's first law, he was English you know, BE PROUD OF BRITAIN!'

Wouldn't simply allowing children to know Newton was English suffice? There are plenty of reasons to be proud of our country - why do teachers need to tell us to be proud? And does that mean we should view Newton and Darwin as 'better' than Einstein or the Curies? It doesn't seem to fit in the remit of a teacher to me

Certainly the most obvious area for this would be in history - now history to my mind is all about analysis, debate and critical thinking - saying 'the British Empire was excellent' like they did in 1950s O-levels is opinionated rubbish and barely anything to do with understanding history - force-feeding sentiment about our past is not a good thing for historical studies

It is of course, great for the Right in this country, because it's what they want to hear - in reality people should be given the facts and make up their own minds on whether they are proud of their country or not - brainwashing kids into saying 'Britain's great' is not particularly worthwhile - kids get enough nationalism through the press as it is, and younger ones aren't capable of understanding why it's great except that's what they're told - it's like religion, even I came out of school pretty nationalistic and ignorant about this country

And can you blame teachers for avoiding patriotism when they have the fun of teaching the two world wars? - Both were fuelled by blind patriotism and nationalism - and to those who say there's a major difference, I say poppy-cock - both encourage blind loyalty to a nation, nationalism is just the political principle that has been marred by its association with modern far-right groups - in its very essence it simply believes in the nation as a sovereign political entity, patriotism is the love of that nation (in our case anyway) - they're interlinked, how can a child who is told that their country is worth loving more than others not view other countries as lesser and end up with some degree of nationalism?

Of course, they hype it up to say that these teachers are lefties bent on communism and strengthening the EU, when in reality they are probably just being mindful of the fact that telling impressionable young children to be proud of their country just breeds trouble - I am proud of my country, hate the EU and yet would want my children to be wary of unquestioning patriotism - so am I a Marxist?

It's not that I mind British patriotism, I am proud of my country - but I can make up my own mind, and I don't think everything this country has done is great - surely telling children to be unquestioningly proud for reasons they can't question yet is just brainwashing, and I would be a hypocrite to suggest pushing my point of view on children when I oppose religion for doing the exact same thing

Give them the facts, this doesn't mean that you have to teach that Britain is bad - nor does that survey indicate anything of the sort, it just means letting them make up their own minds about our history

---

I have read lots on this new ISA vetting agency - and let's face it, I agree with pretty much everyone in this country, and would only echo the press with my views on it, it's Orwellian and pretty sickening

But what I will ask is this: Is this a step towards needing a licence to have children?

You are being vetted based on pretty limited contact with kids, even to the point where other parents are being vetted for being near your kids - surely the next logical step is to vet all parents - probably one of the biggest risk areas for abuse?

Answers on a postcard...

Because we need a Continence Management Strategy

This is not a joke, it's from Australia:

www.toiletmap.gov.au

Yes that's right, a comprehensive listing of every single public toilet in Australia (including caravan 'dump points'), because let's face it, we've sorted out the rest of the world's problems

But what's really surprising is our own government do not have their own national listing of toilets across the UK

Sure, there are maps for local councils like Cambridge, Scarborough and Sheffield, but where is the co-ordinated strategy across the country? - surely the incontinent should not have to go to every district in Britain's website if they intend to travel? This is the government that can create an expensive and daft flashy tax site for 'the kids' to be taught in schools, but can't make a google map to link up the national network of toilets

The incontinent have rights too!!

(note: I do not actually want the idiots to make such a map as they would probably spend (waste) millions on it when someone's probably already done it for free)

Can't marry til 21?

I came across this article in the Mail (ssh..)

It's about a Canadian who fell in love with and married a British man - she unwittingly overstayed her tourist visa and is being deported, not realising you still need to apply for a marriage visa

Fine, I appreciate the rules that these days you need to apply for a marriage visa - however, why exactly do you need to be 21?

The age of consent is 18 - why does this lady need to wait 18 months to be eligible? The age was apparently raised to prevent forced marriage...ok then...

I would ask two things - 1) would it not be better to increase scrutiny on foreign marriages rather than apply an unfair blanket ban on those under the age of 21? and 2) Is this a breach of human rights? Sounds like age discrimination to me...

Religion...you think it's a fair fight and then you realise...

..That there's a perfectly reasonable reason why most of our PMs have been religious (or rather, Christian)

You see, this article in the Tablet assesses the religious motivations of all our post-war leaders - they even do us unbelievers the service of not including Churchill, who was a sceptic but nominally a Christian (as pretty much everyone born before the 1980s is)

Nice of them you think, sparing us the debate over Churchill's religious beliefs (particularly when you get those annoying 'Hitler and Stalin were atheist' lines)

They are taking a line that historians may well gloss over religious motivation of the most recent leaders, as few have dared to embrace religion in public, and that would be a bad thing apparently - well fortunately their case falls pretty flat when they get on to Major, who admitted in his memoirs that the church he never belonged to 'appealed' to him - whoop de doo - I'll leave it up to the future historians to assess how worthy that musing is for tying into his various policy decisions

Nope, this is really a thinly-veiled attempt to highlight that religion still is very, very, (hurumph) important in British life and that our leaders have been supportive of morality despite the social trend towards secularism

If anything Major is indicative of most Brits - baptised for no reason but tradition and raised secular, a few thoughts about something he had little experience of hardly qualifies him as a religious mind

Blair of course is the shining light - we all know he was religious, and somehow I don't think anyone will be glossing over that aspect of him (so again you wonder, why the worry?), although you might argue that catholic-convert Blair is hardly normal and one man does not indicate a trend, and with Major cut out it's looking like a pretty weak case

But what-ho - all I really felt I needed to say was that all you need to do is look at when our youngest Prime Minister was born - 1953, to see that current social trends have sod all to do with a man who was an adult by 1971 - as always, politics is a good thirty years behind 'society'

Give it twenty to thirty years and we get someone my age, born in the 80s and educated in the 90s and then you might see the shift - I think you'll be unlikely to find someone who was brought up remotely religious - most baby-boomers abandoned the religion of their parents, subsequently the rest of us didn't even get any forced down our throats and don't even have that piece of the brain that is a little child being brainwashed, in our heads

Cameron is of course, an official, worshipping Anglican - for what it's worth...

..The Camerons just so happened to have been going to the church allied to the CofE primary school where their little daughter was enrolled last year, for a mere three years - make of that what you will, Peter Hennessey

I see you, Cameron

Cameron to axe MPs subsidised food and drink (and a load of other wastes of money)

Great, finally something we can agree with - the idea that somehow MPs should have taxpayer funded chips and beer is preposterous and they're bloody lucky they kept this sweet deal until now

So all in all a great vote winner for Cameron - attacks qangos, expenses, salaries all in one go

Good lad - one thing I will say about Cameron is, even though I think he's a truly shameless opportunist (that's a compliment btw) he is at least very in tune with the public (compared to his various bumbling 'grandees') - he's giving the people what they want, and in that regard he's already light years ahead of Brown

But there is still no substance - opportunism is all well and good to achieve your ends, but what are your ends? All I can see is power for the sake of it - there is no vision, no desire to reform anything major - Cameron has taken a few harmless populist measures - great, but where are the brave decisions? Where are the major cuts to public spending? Things that will actually hurt people and cause a backlash, these require bravery and commitment - there are no principles behind this, it's just a shameless vote-winner - Cameron has yet to show me that he has anything to offer

True, against Brown I'm happy we've got someone doing anything remotely sensible - but this isn't enough to warrant 4-5 years of government...at least Blair had plans

Odd, very odd

I'm not usually one to harp on about BBC slants, but I was puzzled by this entry to their magazine:

Could the UK drive on the right?

This is in response to Samoa changing from the right to the left

Some could argue it's somewhat inclined towards EU integration, most would I think, see it as the usual oddball stuff that comes out of magazine - they are just engaging in debate after all, and they have to apply it to Britain after all - there's not much point in asking, 'should France move to the left?'

But I was bemused by this:

And cars with steering wheels on the left could be cheaper.

Barely, if at all - one of the reasons Samoa changed was because of Japan's influence - obviously they make right-hand drive cars (that's Japan, the world leader in car and electronics manufacturing) - most of the Pacific rim countries drive on the left, as we do

So if we were to change we would be the same as the EU - it would mean European cars wouldn't have to be altered for us, but we would instead receive altered cars from Japan (the no.1 producer of cars) - and bear in mind we get a fair bit of employment from people like Nissan, we would lose that were we to go 'continental'

Plenty of the world still drives on the left, there is still a big market out there and the differences are well entrenched in car manufacture - I doubt to make us another outpost of the EU would change anything when we already have a market of 50 million (inc. Ireland) for the Japanese, who also have India and the petrol-heads of Australia to export to

It might make your Citroens, VWs and Peugeots slightly cheaper but who really cares? It's a very minor change to make - the parts are still the same, and Japanese cars are much cheaper in maintenance despite us being next to the blooming continent

We don't have American cars, and we don't want them, so that's out too - so what exactly do we gain?

Bugger all is what, the pretence behind this article is really that if all the world drove on the right it would be better - but is that going to happen? I don't think so, unless Japan, India and Australia are forced right then nothing will change economically - all that will happen is we pay billions (4 billion is a very conservative estimate apparently) and probably cause some needless deaths to pointlessly change the traffic direction and come out of the Chunnel on the right side...

Fortunately the article does end with a 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' but it does seem to be a little too pro-Europe on this, are they just coming from the point of view of the booze cruise?

On the BNP...

September and already the news is getting more interesting

No doubt you have heard the news that the BBC may invite the BNP onto Question Time (or will, according to other outlets)

Well personally I'm all for it - as far as I can see the BBC are 100% right to represent a party with two MEPs, there's no way anyone could justify not giving them airspace while seeking to be 'fair' - hence, I do not agree with 'anti-fascist' groups like Searchlight, who are just as scary to me - and nor do I agree with Labour's strange boycott, more reason why I could never be a leftie

But I thought I should take a look across the spectrum at who thinks what

The Indie, as I would expect, agrees with me

The Times, again unsurprisingly is quite happy to promote free speech with an article from Matthew Syed and gets a kick in at Labour as well, happily pointing out the Tories are happy to debate with racists

The Telegraph do much the same, again criticising Labour for being cowards

The Gruniad next: they've gone for the liberal approach and are still shying away from Labour

Now we move onto the tabloid hacks: The Mail have predictably gone for the man (or the Aunty), rather than the ball and apparently support Labour MP Denis MacShane and Searchlight...anything to get a dig in at the BBC, eh, boys? I can't find any other comment on that so therefore I must conclude they are pro-Labour on this

The Express ('crusading for a fairer Britain' these days) don't seem to have covered it...

The Sun have tried to have their cake and eat it - there is only 'anger at the BBC' in the headline, and they have been 'blasted' apparently - but it then goes on to say Labour (the only people doing the attacking) are in a 'panic' and presents a two-sided argument...some truly great journalism there

And the Mirror...sigh, I guess I have to...have gone for the attack on the BBC route and put more weight against giving them airtime - they call it a BBC stunt and give MacShane the most space, allowing him to imply the BNP aren't a 'democratic party' (aren't they? Racists maybe, but I think they like the whole voting thing)

So in conclusion, pretty much all the papers are happy with debate, and only the Mirror really have a problem, the Sun and the Mail just want the BBC's blood

And also, if you subscribe to the Mirror you're a moron, but we already knew that

This is quite amusing

Peter Hitchens and some bloke called Medhi Hasan at the New Statesman are having a public debate over BBC bias

Here is PH's latest entry

Here is Hasan's response

I shall leave you to work out who is making the better case, and I am struggling not to make too many comments.........

All I shall say is that according to Hitchens, Andrew Neil is not conservative, and neither are the neo-liberal policies of the free market

We're going back to 1836!!

Bagehot was smarter than me

I've always felt that Bagehot's advice in the English Constitution was a bit outdated, the whole needing the majesty of the monarchy and lords to deflect attention from the real politics of the Commons seemed like it belonged in a time where most people were uneducated and believed in the natural order of things

But recently I've been rethinking this position in light of the death of Ted Kennedy, who seems to have been revered for who he was rather than what he did

What does a Kennedy have to do with Bagehot's famous work? Not a lot really, but his death made me remember the bizarre nature of American politics and how regal a lot of it seems to be - the Kennedys are by far the best example of that - champion of healthcare reform 'Teddy' may have been but if you think he, and his siblings, got where they did on merit alone you're a loon - it was all down to their father's wealth and influence

This is a family of attractive people who are (or were) more worthy of celebrity than politics, the reverence shown to them in Massachusetts is extraordinary - they have held at least one of the Senate seats for the past 57 years and the last one was re-elected as he was dying and unlikely to see his term out, this is common practice - the most 'senior' senator, Robert Byrd, is on his last legs too

This is of course common in America - the senate basically is a club of white-haired old men with a bizarre concept of 'seniority' in place - these are the elder statesmen of America and their position is more usually down to parentage than democracy

We suffer the same problems of course - once people have a stranglehold on a political position they have a natural advantage to give to their children, this is just as rife in our House of Commons as it is their Congress

However there is a difference - we don't like politicians, not all yank ones are beloved of course, but no son of a famous family will come back from Parliament a hero, a celebrity, a 'lion' on an open-topped bus - Joanna Lumley might, but we don't show respect to those 'above' us

Except of course, we do - the difference is it is the royals that receive this odd reverence - a family who are famous and a big part of our constitution and yet are powerless, the Kennedys have been called 'virtual royalty' too many times to remember this week - and yet we don't give our 'actual' royalty a jot of real power

So whereas the American dynasties are an active part of their democratic process and have control over their politics, ours is a merely an image, a shiny trophy to distract us from the nasty world of politics - the irony of a system intended to better ours being more firmly entrenched should not be lost on us

This was the thrust of Bagehot's idea - that we need a family to focus on and revere, idiots who will go out and get drunk and intrigue us by who they last slept with, and that it is very useful to have the real politics happen behind all that - I used to think we had no need for this theatre any more, and that it would be quite insulting to 21st century people to say that we need this trickery

But it's all true! Look at the stories about royals, they are akin to celebrities in a national role - we humans seem to need our sportstars, celebrities and popular heroes for some reason and it would appear that managing to keep that aspect out of our legislative and executive apart from it is still a huge part of the British constitution

...Bagehot was aware of the human condition far more than I gave him credit for

Tess, Toby and Teabag

Seen the news about the children's' book about travellers? Probably not, only the Mail regard a book choice as news

But they don't like travellers very much, neither do I really, but there is a line..somewhere

So Littlejohn went for his usual vileness, and I actually nearly agreed with him - I think most of us have experienced 'travellers' and it's never nice - but that's his trick, identify the broad sentiment and then take it to the extreme, but my object of criticism is more subtle than that - I would never shut up about the hateful bloke if I chose to write whenever I disagree with him

Where I found the bullsh*t was here:

Once upon a time there was Janet and John, who lived with their mummy and daddy in a neat suburban house. Their harmless adventures helped millions of children to read.

The perfect existence

Needless to say, Tess, Toby and Teabag lead an airbrushed, romanticised existence. This well-scrubbed trio roam the land, attending traditional gipsy dances, horse fairs and even an eco-camp.

Now pray tell, were not Janet and John rather romanticised? A perfect upbringing, father off to work in an office, mother at the sink, nice garden - in short a perfect suburban life

So we're allowed to venerate a romantic version of middle-class living, (which belongs in the 50s) to help us read, but not allowed to gloss over the existence of travellers

Now bad as the gipsies may be, the middle classes have plenty of their own foibles - the behaviour of their youths, indebtedness, affairs, domestic violence, and quite often - two working parents!

So we should aspire to this glossy romantic version of middle-class life where everything is rosy, but it's somehow wrong to do exactly the same thing to travellers? It would appear there is only one 'right' way to live, and it looks like a second world war poster

Then there's this:

Nowhere is there any mention of Toby's father. Tess is a strong, capable single mum who can turn her hand to anything, including mending a flat tyre on their caravan.

The 'diversity' brigade can't bring themselves to acknowledge that fathers have any part to play in bringing up children.

'Single parenting is wrong!!' Apparently we shouldn't be promoting this image to children...

Right - I appreciate that the Mail believe there should be two parents, and I think most would agree, but to not accept that single-parent families happen, for whatever reason, is ludicrous (I will concede his point that travellers are actually a bastion of the nuclear family, however)

What purpose would it serve to always make a child in a children's' book have two parents - does the image of a single parent make those kids want to grow up and get a child just for themselves? Or is it far more beneficial to show real-life situations and show them to kids who may grow up in that same situation? I have no intention of deliberately following my mother, and I suppose Neighbours were wrong to kill off new-mother Bridget and leave a single-father, nothing bad happens to real people, after all (sorry if I spoiled any plots there)

As far as I can tell all their policy does is tell children that there is something wrong with their home, as it always presents a two-parent situation as the norm and leaves single-parent kids left out

That's very much wrong - similarly they had a go at books about black and Asian children (they dared to include a minority in a 2001 revamp of the J+J books), as it was 'excessive for a mainly-white nation' - again they are saying that white is somehow better, the ideal - and again all this does is leave people feeling different - the best kids' shows and books have always strived to include a variety of races (see: Sesame Street) - this helps kids to understand some people look different to them, rather than growing up in a totally white environment where they could become hostile to things that are different later in life - I'm being speculative, but I fail to see any problem with the alternative anyway

The Mail may want a perfect, white, middle-class existence for all but the underclass, but this is not reality and nor do their ideas on conformity address the issues they want to fix - it just sweeps them under the carpet, and at worst - breeds hatred

p.s. Women changing tyres is wrong!!

----

A follow up from my story about Mandy's plan to help poor students - I am actually agreeing with Dominic Lawson

It would appear there are very few sections of the press supportive of this idea, although I've given up on the Guardian lately

Is feminism an anachronism?

I've been reading across the feminist debate the past day or two, why? Mainly because the other (political) news is boring, and I came across this debate in the Times

Now I'm sorry but I cannot address the issues of sexualisation and the influence of the rise of 'normalised porn' (lads' mags, lap dancing clubs, the internet etc) - it simply doesn't work on my level

As far as I'm concerned I'm a liberal and believe in freedom of opportunity and a broadly free market, I don't like people who want to stop consenting adults doing what they like, and nor am I interested in how society affects the behaviour of girls and if it's bad - it's of little interest to me

What does interest me is politics, if I believe in freedom I cannot believe in discrimination and gender balancing - so as long as women have an equal opportunity to succeed that's fine by me, the outcome only interests me if there clearly is an impediment based on sex, which I struggle to see

On this point Janice Turner points out, briefly:

These are truly boomtime girls, part of that first generation to beat boys at A level, outnumber them at university and often out-earn them in the workplace. A decade of national prosperity won them that feminist ideal: economic equality.

That for me, is it - that's the goal, and in my view, today, girls are no more discriminated against than boys - if anything the system is weighted towards them - I have yet to find a young woman who feels held back by their gender

It seems pretty clear that most of the issues regarding opportunity come out of those educated prior to the 80s - I know and appreciate that my mother was discriminated against and it prevented her getting very far, but she was educated in the 60s and 70s - there's very little we can do about that now, she still has over a decade left til retirement and so remains a discriminated part of the workforce

And yet still people like Harman push on with these plans and their (dodgy) stats - their plans will only 'benefit' future generations, not those people still in the workforce who did have it worse

Why can't people like her appreciate that? You won't change working habits in the over-50s, those who were denied an education in sciences and told to be secretaries - you should surely be looking at the under 30s and 40s - how are they doing? As Janice points out, it's clear to all that young women are doing pretty well, given an advantage in education, given preferential treatment in the best graduate jobs

But still they persist with their agenda - trying to balance a gender gap that still exists in the cold war, there is no study of age groups used in their publications - which show that younger single women are virtually the same as the males (if anyone would like to wade in with stats, feel free) - and yet they address the gender gap so evident in the older workers by focusing on education and university leavers...

It boggles the mind - it just seems to me that it's common sense to say, 'look at the women coming out of education today' and note that there's obviously going to be a 40-year lag on this issue

And that is also why feminism is pretty much dead - women know that their daughters are facing no real hurdles, all the barriers have gone, they did win, and now people like Janice Turner want to focus on abstract issues about sexualisation and morality - the common person has never really taken to academic debate and it's unlikely the average woman will concern herself with such theories, that's for the chattering classes, for people with too much time on their hands (like me!)

Feminism will continue to exist in academic circles, as pretty much every line of thought does - but it is no longer necessary for the masses, because it has no tangible aims, and that is why Hattie looks absolutely raving, because most women know she's at least 20 years late

Atheist Brainwashing Bootcamp!!@1!!1!!!

The Mail asks should we be worried about Britain's first atheist summer camp?

Well, ummm, no, not really - why should we be worried about it when most camps are already run by Church groups or the Christian Scouts/Guides?

Are we particularly worried about camps run by those with a specific religious agenda attempting to place their ideas about God and what-not on our kids?

Not really...so why should I be any more worried about one that doesn't preach any religious dogma?

Even if a case is made that they do promote an agenda, how is it any different from what Christian (or other faith) camps do?

As far as I'm concerned this is just a feeble defence from the Christian-minded who think their religion should be the only viewpoint allowed

In fact it's such a weak jibe that I don't even need to rant about it, which is a shame really because I need a good rant...

A very messy affair

Another big smear-gate story!!

But this time it's about the Tories! And the Guardian have it!!1!1!

I don't know about you but I have this image of the Guardian as the poor kid who has picked up another's discarded toy and thinks it's the bee's knees

It's all incredibly exciting, the left think they have got the Tories stitched up like they did them with McBride...Unfortunately they haven't

As the Guardian are quick to point out, they have nothing on Coulson himself, just a lot of suspicion surrounding him and his former paper

No doubt this is a legitimate story, but there is no 'smoking gun' as it were - no e-mail telling McPoison what a good smear campaign he was running

In actual fact the McBride saga was completely about public opinion, there was no criminal act - which is ironic because it was far more damaging politically than the criminality of the NoW saga

McBride was seen to be completely underhand and dirty and was offloaded for the sake of image, Coulson has only been implicated in a potentially criminal act involving his underlings a few years ago - there won't be an email saying he was involved

Now that doesn't mean he won't be up against it - this still has the potential to damage the Tories by association and he may be forced out, 'spin doctors shouldn't be the news etc' but this seems unlikely to be as damaging as the McBride affair - that was a story about how the government was conducting itself, this is a skeleton in the closet for someone employed by the Tory party - in that sense this doesn't look anywhere near as damaging

He may well lose his job, but the Guardian should tread carefully because they already look like they've gone overboard here - this may begin to look like a hatchet job on the Tories by the left-wing media

*And no I'm not being put up to this - I don't even vote Tory

No I.Didn't

Bleurk:

"To scrap the scheme now, as the motion demands, would be an extremely expensive mistake which would deny the British people the practical and pragmatic step which they voted for in 2005 and have supported ever since."

I love how politicians can lie and say what we want...is it based on some old poll or something? Latest research definitely shows the public is very anti-ID

Then there's 'the British people voted for it' - and you can't deny the people, right? Well in actual fact, considering both opposition parties are against it that means 14.7 million people voted against it, only 9.5 million voted for it

That may not be our system, but start bringing in those voting arguments then you're going to get the inevitable reply - the government do not have majority support and cannot say the voters support anything, all they can say is they have enough seats - you can't deny a representative system in one hand and then try to use it for your own justification in the other