Which of the following stories do you not believe?
Yulia Skripal, said to be at death's door after being poisoned in Salisbury by the Russians with a nerve agent at the start of last week, has recovered consciousness and looks likely to make a good recovery. The police officer involved in the 'attack' has already left hospital but there's no news of her father's condition.
Jeremy Corbyn, one of the rebel old boys of the Labour Party, is revealed to be an anti-semite, despite never having expressed any anti-semitic views over the last - oh, I dunno - 40 years. And a few of his allies are having to resign from jobs as a result.
Theresa May and co are doing a grand job of steering the UK through Brexit. Business people don't agree but hey, what do they know?
Meghan Markle is a useful addition to the Royal Family and won't cost the tax payer a penny.
Ant and Dec are great entertainers. Poor Ant (or is it Dec) is to be pitied, given how ill he is.
A few comments:
1 Bread and circuses to keep the plebs happy: that would be the Meghan Markle and Ant and Dec stories. Harry and Meghan's security bill for the tax payers comes to about 30million quid so far.
2 Distraction: there are local elections coming up in England, so a Corbyn story that puts him in a bad light is excellent. He can't be electable on this basis, even if it's all a lie.
3 Brexit is a disaster, so let's get something else going. That allows the media to run the Skripal story for days and days and days...and lets Theresa May get EU, US and Commonwealth governments to pile in, thus showing the power and influence of the UK.
So which story do I not believe? Well, I don't believe any of them. Especially after listening to a Sky News Review on Saturday night which described 2,000 people defending Corbyn and concluded with 'And there's an anti-semitic trope right there.'
Saturday 31 March 2018
Thursday 29 March 2018
Calanais
One of our library clients has a son in law from Harris and my library buddy Alex quick as a flash dobbed me in as someone who knows the islands. I always find this a bit tricky. A lot of Scottish people are totally ignorant about anywhere outside Glasgow and Edinburgh (and maybe Dundee and Aberdeen but definitely not Inverness or anywhere north or west of there).
Still, I'm happy to admit to knowing a bit about the islands. I've visited quite a few bits of Lewis and Harris but it is a vast island - at least compared to places I know in Argyll and Bute. Heavenssake, Stornoway has traffic lights! An island with traffic lights - how amazing is that!...Islay once had traffic lights when there were roadworks. We all went out and took photos.
But that's really all it took: a wee bit of a chat and I was off on a journey back in time. I used to go to meetings in places like Aberdeen, Inverness and Stornoway. I got fed up with people telling me how far away these places were (only if you live in the Central Belt), how difficult they were to get to (what, 45 minutes on a plane from Glasgow or Edinburgh?). It was like people imagined the earth was flat and you'd drop off the edge if you crossed the Minch.
The big word was 'remote.' I've grown to hate that word. When families of Syrian refugees went to live on Bute, UK media were beside themselves: It's so remote! Aye: 30 minutes on the boat and 30 minutes on the train and you're in Glasgow. How remote is that!
I have to say I've seen lots of sites of historical interest: the priory at Oronsay (though I would spell it Oransay), the Kildalton Cross, Cladville at Portnahaven on Islay, Kilnaughton Chapel, Kilmartin Glen. I could go on.
But Calanais blew me away. There's a visitor centre, with a gift shop full of paintings and craft work and a cafe. Just as you would expect these days. But nothing prepares you for the Calanais Stones. It's like you've walked into someone's back garden and a prehistoric monument has been set up there for your enjoyment. It is magnificent. Partly it's the setting: there are houses all around, so it seems as if the Stones are just part of the village. But there's also the quiet, the views of water and hills and the absolute peace. All of it makes you wonder why the Stones are here. What purpose did they serve in their time? Do they still fulfill a purpose?
I would like everyone to enjoy a few hours at Calanais or at a similar site. And ask: Where did these people come from? What did they want to tell us? Because every group wants to tell the coming generations something.
But above all, just accept what a wonderful country Scotland is. Who knows how old? Just look and enjoy - and respect.
If you're not into DIY
And I'm not. I'm a mechanical, electrical, practical idiot. As my mother would have put it: Plenty brains, jist nae common sense...
So here are my current household nightmares:
So here are my current household nightmares:
I found this in the plastic rim of my washing machine. The machine is about 2 years old. Yes, it's still working fine. No funny burning smell. No odd noises. Should I ignore it and assume this 'nut' (if that's what it is) came from somewhere else and somehow found its way into the washing machine? Where from, I wonder?
Then there's this:
I found it underneath my chair. It's a very old revolving office chair. Maybe dating from the 1920s. I've had it renovated but sadly it no longer revolves. I've looked at the mechanism that holds it together but I can't see where this wee screw could have come from. The chair seems quite solid still. No squeaking. No tilting. I'm sitting on it right now. Can I safely ignore the screw?
Are these mystery objects breeding in my wee flat? What will I find next? Is this some kind of torture? If it is, it's not going to work.
It's amazing the things I can ignore if I have to. I once bought a phone that was meant to be attached to the kitchen wall. I followed the instructions and then discovered, no matter what I did, the phone fell off its wall mount. I stood it on the kitchen counter where it stayed for about 8 years until I changed my phone system, and then I threw it out, having never worked out why it didn't stay on the wall.
I suppose being a practical eejit, I have to disagree with the saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. My motto would be: If it's broke but you can live with it, ignore it. This approach bothers other people more than me: after my birthday party, my retired joiner friend brought stuff up from the lounge for me. Instantly, he was bothered by the hasp (is that the word?) on my front door. It's a bit loose which can make it hard to turn the key. But I've found if I lean on it, the door locks no bother. He offered to come out of retirement to fix it.
Looking at all this, I come up with two other words to describe my approach to life: laziness and procrastination. In fact, the Scottish expression Ah canny be ersed comes to mind. Works for me.
Tuesday 27 March 2018
Boris Johnson - again
My sleep pattern is shot to hell since the clocks went forward, so since I'm awake I might as well post something.
What is Boris Johnson's role in the current Westminster Tory government?
Yeah, I know he's the Foreign Secretary (I would say allegedly) but he's obviously out of his depth in that role. Just have a look at his performance dealing with Emily Thornberry (Shadow Foreign Secretary) in Westminster, when he addresses her by her husband's name as 'Baroness someone', and has to be called to order by the Speaker.
Johnson's been around politics and Westminster long enough to know which way is up, so this was definitely intended as a put-down. That would be because Emily Thornberry has had a good run for the last few months, making Johnson look like what he is: an idiot. Now he looks like a patronising, sexist idiot.
He's not employed for his skill as a diplomat as far as I can see, although I heard last night he managed to phone a few people around the world in Theresa May's search for backing in the Salisbury Affair and avoided making a complete arse of himself. Major triumph for Johnson.
But I repeat: what is his role? In my opinion, he started off as that awfully popular chap off Have I Got News For You, the former mayor of London who didn't mind making a fool of himself on zip-wires and in river clean-ups. Despite his campaign to build a new airport on the Thames and a bridge with a garden along its length, and despite being sacked in his early days for dishonesty by a Fleet Street newspaper (now there's a novelty), he was capable of making a run for the job of prime minister. Good Ole Boris. What a laugh.
But he's not so popular now. And yet, he's still there.
He is now, I think, in a very special category: he's Theresa May's clown. He probably still thinks he's in the running to be prime minister, but I suspect Theresa and her 'people' have long since got the measure of him and are happy to hang him out to dry. Theresa May, who is a 'better' (that is, a craftier) politician than many of us give her credit for will trot out Johnson to explain what's happening with the Russians, just as David Davies is trotted out to explain what's happening with the EU. Neither is convincing and for the same reason: neither of them is able to think on their feet.
But that won't matter because the longer plan is to make sure the Tories stay in power, getting the UK out of the EU, enforcing austerity, etc.
And if you think the current anti-semitism charge against Jeremy Corbyn is suspect, you're right. And it isn't a coincidence that the charge is aimed only at Jeremy Corbyn - to prove he's unfit for government - or that it emerged right now, as the Salisbury Affair is dying down.
So what is Boris Johnson? A dupe of Conservative Central Office, like many others before him.
What is Boris Johnson's role in the current Westminster Tory government?
Yeah, I know he's the Foreign Secretary (I would say allegedly) but he's obviously out of his depth in that role. Just have a look at his performance dealing with Emily Thornberry (Shadow Foreign Secretary) in Westminster, when he addresses her by her husband's name as 'Baroness someone', and has to be called to order by the Speaker.
Johnson's been around politics and Westminster long enough to know which way is up, so this was definitely intended as a put-down. That would be because Emily Thornberry has had a good run for the last few months, making Johnson look like what he is: an idiot. Now he looks like a patronising, sexist idiot.
He's not employed for his skill as a diplomat as far as I can see, although I heard last night he managed to phone a few people around the world in Theresa May's search for backing in the Salisbury Affair and avoided making a complete arse of himself. Major triumph for Johnson.
But I repeat: what is his role? In my opinion, he started off as that awfully popular chap off Have I Got News For You, the former mayor of London who didn't mind making a fool of himself on zip-wires and in river clean-ups. Despite his campaign to build a new airport on the Thames and a bridge with a garden along its length, and despite being sacked in his early days for dishonesty by a Fleet Street newspaper (now there's a novelty), he was capable of making a run for the job of prime minister. Good Ole Boris. What a laugh.
But he's not so popular now. And yet, he's still there.
He is now, I think, in a very special category: he's Theresa May's clown. He probably still thinks he's in the running to be prime minister, but I suspect Theresa and her 'people' have long since got the measure of him and are happy to hang him out to dry. Theresa May, who is a 'better' (that is, a craftier) politician than many of us give her credit for will trot out Johnson to explain what's happening with the Russians, just as David Davies is trotted out to explain what's happening with the EU. Neither is convincing and for the same reason: neither of them is able to think on their feet.
But that won't matter because the longer plan is to make sure the Tories stay in power, getting the UK out of the EU, enforcing austerity, etc.
And if you think the current anti-semitism charge against Jeremy Corbyn is suspect, you're right. And it isn't a coincidence that the charge is aimed only at Jeremy Corbyn - to prove he's unfit for government - or that it emerged right now, as the Salisbury Affair is dying down.
So what is Boris Johnson? A dupe of Conservative Central Office, like many others before him.
Sunday 25 March 2018
The first news I saw about the arrest of Carles Puigdemont under a European Arrest Warrant was on Facebook. The first pictures I saw of demonstrations in Spain against the arrest of Puigdemont were also on Facebook. Sky News Review had a little video footage of a demo on its 10.30pm edition. Its news website, like the BBC news website, did not carry any news of this. Clara Ponsati's decision to hand herself in was on the BBC Scotland website at teatime. The Sky News at 11pm had a short interview with her lawyer, Aamer Anwar. I don't watch BBC news any more so it may be they also featured these events.
I'm sure twitter was alight with comments but I don't use that.
The newspapers will catch up - at least partly - in the morning.
But the entire weekend, I've been reading about Facebook - mainly the evils of Facebook: how they set out to dupe us, how they work in cahoots with companies like Cambridge Analytica, how irresponsible they are, how they need to be curbed, etc. (I even read that Facebook needs to be controlled in the same way the BBC is controlled and my first thought was: Yes, that's working well, isn't it?)
I think I'd like to put the record straight: if you want a true assessment of what and how Facebook and other media forums are doing, you won't get it from newspapers or TV stations. Facebook etc are the principal enemies of MSM (mainstream media). MSM hate these Johnny-come-latelies. These online chappies, with their instant responses and up to the minute news, are responsible for newspapers closing, journalists losing their jobs and - above all else - a lot of the public asking awkward questions, like: Why did the BBC's Newsnight programme put up a picture of Jeremy Corbyn wearing a Russian hat against a Soviet backdrop? What message were we all supposed to take from that?
The way people in MSM talk about online entities like Facebook and twitter sounds to me exactly like how newspaper people used to talk about TV when it first got started in the UK. You may not remember - but I do - TV was blamed for everything: kids not working hard at school, not playing outside, having no respect for their elders, aping every fad and fashion from the USA (and later from Australia). Interestingly, my hairdresser (aged 30) liked the TV programme Gogglebox but had never heard the word and thought we were all talking about Googlebox. When I think that the gogglebox was what my elderly relations called the TV in an attempt to stop us watching it. (Didn't work, of course).
The anti-TV stuff died down when video games appeared. Now these 'violent' games get the blame for lawlessness or at the very least bad behaviour.
The fact is, the kids don't care about this MSM stuff any more now than they did 40 years ago. They still don't read newspapers. They never watch TV news. They may catch on to something on twitter that's 'trending' but there's a good chance they're not even interested in that. It's their phones they're into. Texts especially. Their mates, girlfriends and boyfriends. Facebook is mainly for the middle-aged and elderly.
It's worth remembering that the internet only went live in 1991. Facebook only started in 2004. Twitter in 2006. Facebook and twitter are, in human terms, adolescents and you know what that means: they've got a lot of growing up still to do, with a bit of sulking (as Zuckerberg showed this week) and the odd tantrum, but they're bright kids - they'll come through in the end.
They both need direction from wiser heads: get the trolling under control, not to mention the anti-semitism, the fascism and the jihadi publicity. Invest some of the money you're coining in making your bit of the internet safer for users. Because if you don't, you'll lose your audience.
Not me. I'm staying on Facebook. I use it to keep up with friends all over the world. I'm aware that there's no such thing as a free lunch and I keep an eye out for traps. I'm not interested in signing up for personality tests that allow a data grab to take place. I don't worry about my privacy. Seriously, as I already said to someone this week: if you're worried about your privacy, don't go on Facebook.
I'm sure twitter was alight with comments but I don't use that.
The newspapers will catch up - at least partly - in the morning.
But the entire weekend, I've been reading about Facebook - mainly the evils of Facebook: how they set out to dupe us, how they work in cahoots with companies like Cambridge Analytica, how irresponsible they are, how they need to be curbed, etc. (I even read that Facebook needs to be controlled in the same way the BBC is controlled and my first thought was: Yes, that's working well, isn't it?)
I think I'd like to put the record straight: if you want a true assessment of what and how Facebook and other media forums are doing, you won't get it from newspapers or TV stations. Facebook etc are the principal enemies of MSM (mainstream media). MSM hate these Johnny-come-latelies. These online chappies, with their instant responses and up to the minute news, are responsible for newspapers closing, journalists losing their jobs and - above all else - a lot of the public asking awkward questions, like: Why did the BBC's Newsnight programme put up a picture of Jeremy Corbyn wearing a Russian hat against a Soviet backdrop? What message were we all supposed to take from that?
The way people in MSM talk about online entities like Facebook and twitter sounds to me exactly like how newspaper people used to talk about TV when it first got started in the UK. You may not remember - but I do - TV was blamed for everything: kids not working hard at school, not playing outside, having no respect for their elders, aping every fad and fashion from the USA (and later from Australia). Interestingly, my hairdresser (aged 30) liked the TV programme Gogglebox but had never heard the word and thought we were all talking about Googlebox. When I think that the gogglebox was what my elderly relations called the TV in an attempt to stop us watching it. (Didn't work, of course).
The anti-TV stuff died down when video games appeared. Now these 'violent' games get the blame for lawlessness or at the very least bad behaviour.
The fact is, the kids don't care about this MSM stuff any more now than they did 40 years ago. They still don't read newspapers. They never watch TV news. They may catch on to something on twitter that's 'trending' but there's a good chance they're not even interested in that. It's their phones they're into. Texts especially. Their mates, girlfriends and boyfriends. Facebook is mainly for the middle-aged and elderly.
It's worth remembering that the internet only went live in 1991. Facebook only started in 2004. Twitter in 2006. Facebook and twitter are, in human terms, adolescents and you know what that means: they've got a lot of growing up still to do, with a bit of sulking (as Zuckerberg showed this week) and the odd tantrum, but they're bright kids - they'll come through in the end.
They both need direction from wiser heads: get the trolling under control, not to mention the anti-semitism, the fascism and the jihadi publicity. Invest some of the money you're coining in making your bit of the internet safer for users. Because if you don't, you'll lose your audience.
Not me. I'm staying on Facebook. I use it to keep up with friends all over the world. I'm aware that there's no such thing as a free lunch and I keep an eye out for traps. I'm not interested in signing up for personality tests that allow a data grab to take place. I don't worry about my privacy. Seriously, as I already said to someone this week: if you're worried about your privacy, don't go on Facebook.
Friday 23 March 2018
Boris
I was going to write a bit about the problem with the Tories who are in power right now and why they hate the EU. My own theory is that none of them have ever lived anywhere else but England - in fact, most of them have never lived outside the south-east of England and that little bubble of middle class life that the wealth of that region can offer.
For most Tory politicians in Westminster, the idea that there are places in the UK that are closer to Norway or to Ireland than they are to London, or that there are quite a few languages spoken in these islands that are not English but are still definitely 'native' languages probably comes as a shock. Witness the confusion of MPs in Westminster faced with the constituency of Na h-Eilanan an Iar in a recent debate on refugees. A bit like the amazement some Tories experience when they find out real people live in the Highlands - as against tourists and land owners.
But then I googled Boris Johnson and lighted on his wikipedia page. On paper, Boris had a wonderful international early life: born in New York, attended a range of exclusive schools like the European School of Brussels and Eton College. Parents very well off. Ancestry Circassian-Turkish, German, French and English. His name is in fact Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. He chose to be called Boris when he went to Eton.
But honestly, he's a poor soul.
With a father who was an aspiring academic (for a long time) and a mother with mental health problems, he and his siblings were mostly brought up by au pairs or in boarding school. They moved constantly between England and the USA, till they settled 'in the family farm' near Cheltenham and then in London and then Brussels. Boris also had health issues. When he went to Eton on a scholarship, reports complained about his idleness, complacency, and lateness. Given his background, I'm surprised he could function at all. In fact, if his family wasn't so posh, the Social Workers would have been in.
He went to Oxford and studied Classics. I wonder if that included any part of Roman or Greek history or philosophy that could equip him for his current job as Foreign Secretary. Doesn't look like it.
So in answer to my original question to myself that started this post off: would travel have broadened the minds of the Tories currently in power? The answer has to be: you can only get out of the bubble if you leave the bubble behind you. Poor Boris and family obviously never did.
For most Tory politicians in Westminster, the idea that there are places in the UK that are closer to Norway or to Ireland than they are to London, or that there are quite a few languages spoken in these islands that are not English but are still definitely 'native' languages probably comes as a shock. Witness the confusion of MPs in Westminster faced with the constituency of Na h-Eilanan an Iar in a recent debate on refugees. A bit like the amazement some Tories experience when they find out real people live in the Highlands - as against tourists and land owners.
But then I googled Boris Johnson and lighted on his wikipedia page. On paper, Boris had a wonderful international early life: born in New York, attended a range of exclusive schools like the European School of Brussels and Eton College. Parents very well off. Ancestry Circassian-Turkish, German, French and English. His name is in fact Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. He chose to be called Boris when he went to Eton.
But honestly, he's a poor soul.
With a father who was an aspiring academic (for a long time) and a mother with mental health problems, he and his siblings were mostly brought up by au pairs or in boarding school. They moved constantly between England and the USA, till they settled 'in the family farm' near Cheltenham and then in London and then Brussels. Boris also had health issues. When he went to Eton on a scholarship, reports complained about his idleness, complacency, and lateness. Given his background, I'm surprised he could function at all. In fact, if his family wasn't so posh, the Social Workers would have been in.
He went to Oxford and studied Classics. I wonder if that included any part of Roman or Greek history or philosophy that could equip him for his current job as Foreign Secretary. Doesn't look like it.
So in answer to my original question to myself that started this post off: would travel have broadened the minds of the Tories currently in power? The answer has to be: you can only get out of the bubble if you leave the bubble behind you. Poor Boris and family obviously never did.
Thursday 22 March 2018
These pesky Russkis part 2
I'm avoiding the TV news. The BBC 6 o'clock news and the ITV and STV news at 10 are full of lies and half-truths. C4 news is usually okay but this week they've gone all hysterical over Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. So tonight I was reduced to watching Sky News Review as it happened. A lot of the 10.30 programme was about Putin, Russia and events at Salisbury.
Yasmin Alibhai Brown was on with someone called Brendan O'Neill (?) from Spiked (an online newspaper of the far right sort) but in all honesty neither got to say much because the presenter was in there from the start of the programme. I've googled her and she's called Anna Botting. And she was there to give the Sky view of events. Ms Botting conflated quite a few stories: the Skripals, the poisoning of Alekzander Litvinyenko, the invasion of Crimea, the shooting down of a passenger plane, bombing in Syria, interference in elections all over the world.
Now I have to say Valodya, as his mammy probably called him, is not my cup of tea. But the accusations Ms Botting made against him - apart from the invasion of Crimea - should all be bracketed by the word 'alleged.' There's no evidence Sky can produce to prove he was behind any of the other events.
Ms Alibhai Brown gave a good account of herself, although she had both Ms Botting and Mr O'Neill to contend with. When the talk turned to Boris Johnson's insensitive comments about similarities between the World Cup in Russia and the 1936 Olympics, I was so pleased to hear Ms Alibhai Brown holding her own with Ms Botting. It went something like this:
- Alibhai Brown: Boris Johnson must know that 20 million Russians died in the Second World War-
- Botting: 25 million.
- Alibhai Brown: No. 20 million - I know my history.
By the way, the USSR boycotted the 1936 Olympics, while the UK team went and gave Nazi salutes on the field of play.
What Yasmin Alibhai Brown was getting at was this - if she'd been allowed to finish a sentence: the Soviet Union entered World War 2 as an act of self-defence. The Nazis regarded the Slavs as Untermenschen - sub humans - and planned to invade the USSR and wipe out or enslave the population. The Russians don't even call the events of 1940-45 by the name we use. They call it the Great Patriotic War. They defended their country street by street, village by village. This had happened to them before and they knew how to handle it. Try reading Antony Beevor's Stalingrad if you want to see how bad things were. If you live in a country that hasn't been invaded since 1066, the sacrifices Russian people made may be hard to take in.
For Boris Johnson to use Russia and the Nazis in the same sentence was bound to be offensive to the Russians. I'm quite sure civil servants in the Foreign Office pointed out to him the need to avoid inflaming the situation. But Boris is to diplomacy what Theresa May is to negotiating.
Meanwhile, we're being told the UK government know the Russians are responsible for the attack in Salisbury. They have evidence - they just can't share it with us. Aye, right. And Sky - and no doubt other right-wing media - go on stirring up hatred that will surely lead to a second Cold War.
Welcome to the UK, 2018-style. Led by Tories who haven't a clue what they're doing or what's happening and are reduced to begging for help from the EU - which they want to leave.
Yasmin Alibhai Brown was on with someone called Brendan O'Neill (?) from Spiked (an online newspaper of the far right sort) but in all honesty neither got to say much because the presenter was in there from the start of the programme. I've googled her and she's called Anna Botting. And she was there to give the Sky view of events. Ms Botting conflated quite a few stories: the Skripals, the poisoning of Alekzander Litvinyenko, the invasion of Crimea, the shooting down of a passenger plane, bombing in Syria, interference in elections all over the world.
Now I have to say Valodya, as his mammy probably called him, is not my cup of tea. But the accusations Ms Botting made against him - apart from the invasion of Crimea - should all be bracketed by the word 'alleged.' There's no evidence Sky can produce to prove he was behind any of the other events.
Ms Alibhai Brown gave a good account of herself, although she had both Ms Botting and Mr O'Neill to contend with. When the talk turned to Boris Johnson's insensitive comments about similarities between the World Cup in Russia and the 1936 Olympics, I was so pleased to hear Ms Alibhai Brown holding her own with Ms Botting. It went something like this:
- Alibhai Brown: Boris Johnson must know that 20 million Russians died in the Second World War-
- Botting: 25 million.
- Alibhai Brown: No. 20 million - I know my history.
By the way, the USSR boycotted the 1936 Olympics, while the UK team went and gave Nazi salutes on the field of play.
What Yasmin Alibhai Brown was getting at was this - if she'd been allowed to finish a sentence: the Soviet Union entered World War 2 as an act of self-defence. The Nazis regarded the Slavs as Untermenschen - sub humans - and planned to invade the USSR and wipe out or enslave the population. The Russians don't even call the events of 1940-45 by the name we use. They call it the Great Patriotic War. They defended their country street by street, village by village. This had happened to them before and they knew how to handle it. Try reading Antony Beevor's Stalingrad if you want to see how bad things were. If you live in a country that hasn't been invaded since 1066, the sacrifices Russian people made may be hard to take in.
For Boris Johnson to use Russia and the Nazis in the same sentence was bound to be offensive to the Russians. I'm quite sure civil servants in the Foreign Office pointed out to him the need to avoid inflaming the situation. But Boris is to diplomacy what Theresa May is to negotiating.
Meanwhile, we're being told the UK government know the Russians are responsible for the attack in Salisbury. They have evidence - they just can't share it with us. Aye, right. And Sky - and no doubt other right-wing media - go on stirring up hatred that will surely lead to a second Cold War.
Welcome to the UK, 2018-style. Led by Tories who haven't a clue what they're doing or what's happening and are reduced to begging for help from the EU - which they want to leave.
Sunday 18 March 2018
Virtual Reality - math tha
I'm starting to think virtual reality is where I live.
East Renfrewshire Council is going to to give out Virtual Reality headsets to all its schools:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-43451583
This will cost £250,000.
Isn't that wonderful? This is clearly a local authority with its eye on the future. It has no doubt done a deal with a manufacturer of VR headsets. Let's just hope the council and the company have worked out what they plan to do with the headsets. Otherwise, in the time-honoured fashion of Scottish local authorities, they'll be wasting their time - and our money.
And that would be a shame, because there are other things East Ren could be spending the taxpayers' money on. For example, recently a group of East Ren parents got together to ask for Gaelic Medium Education to be set up in the authority's schools. GME, as it's called in the trade, already exists in 19 out of 32 local authorities in Scotland, so it's not that weird a request to make. Scottish Government funding is available to get things going. We know that half the Gaelic speakers in Scotland live in the Central Belt, and that the nearest Gaelic schools to East Ren - in Glasgow - are full up - so what could be the problem with East Ren setting up its own provision?
Simples. East Ren doesn't want it.
When parents made their 'bid' for GME in East Ren, they were told to look for 50 - yep, 50 - possible enrolments. Frankly, I can't imagine an area anywhere in Scotland that could produce 50 children to enroll in Gaelic Medium Education. Most new starts involve as few as 6 children, since most councils expect the kids coming in to be only in P1 and P2 and that kinda limits the recruitment. Of course, the parents and Comann nam Parant (the national parents' group for Gaelic) did their best - as they always do - but it was clear that their bid to get Gaelic in East Ren wasn't going to succeed.
So let me lay it out for East Ren officials: parents who want their kids educated through the medium of Gaelic are taxpayers and council taxpayers, same as the rest of us, and all they want is equality of opportunity for their children. The money has to be spent on their kids' education anyway. Is that so hard for council education staff to understand?
I believe parents were told that the Gaelic Medium provision would be in Barrhead. Not in leafy Giffnock or Newton Mearns. I can't see it being a problem to get kids there since transport costs are provided by the Scottish Government. Or wait - could it be that East Ren thought some parents wouldn't want their weans going to secondary schools in Barrhead rather than secondary schools like St Ninian's or Williamwood and were counting on that being a deterrent? Surely not!
It disgusts me to hear of local authorities that still behave like this. The views of Gaelic-speaking parents are quite clear and surely no one believes the propaganda put out by the Tories (and their friends in the press) that Gaelic education is some sort of plot by the SNP to - as I read recently - 'teuchterise us all.'
I hate the thought of children and their parents getting caught up in all this...
East Renfrewshire Council is going to to give out Virtual Reality headsets to all its schools:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-43451583
This will cost £250,000.
Isn't that wonderful? This is clearly a local authority with its eye on the future. It has no doubt done a deal with a manufacturer of VR headsets. Let's just hope the council and the company have worked out what they plan to do with the headsets. Otherwise, in the time-honoured fashion of Scottish local authorities, they'll be wasting their time - and our money.
And that would be a shame, because there are other things East Ren could be spending the taxpayers' money on. For example, recently a group of East Ren parents got together to ask for Gaelic Medium Education to be set up in the authority's schools. GME, as it's called in the trade, already exists in 19 out of 32 local authorities in Scotland, so it's not that weird a request to make. Scottish Government funding is available to get things going. We know that half the Gaelic speakers in Scotland live in the Central Belt, and that the nearest Gaelic schools to East Ren - in Glasgow - are full up - so what could be the problem with East Ren setting up its own provision?
Simples. East Ren doesn't want it.
When parents made their 'bid' for GME in East Ren, they were told to look for 50 - yep, 50 - possible enrolments. Frankly, I can't imagine an area anywhere in Scotland that could produce 50 children to enroll in Gaelic Medium Education. Most new starts involve as few as 6 children, since most councils expect the kids coming in to be only in P1 and P2 and that kinda limits the recruitment. Of course, the parents and Comann nam Parant (the national parents' group for Gaelic) did their best - as they always do - but it was clear that their bid to get Gaelic in East Ren wasn't going to succeed.
So let me lay it out for East Ren officials: parents who want their kids educated through the medium of Gaelic are taxpayers and council taxpayers, same as the rest of us, and all they want is equality of opportunity for their children. The money has to be spent on their kids' education anyway. Is that so hard for council education staff to understand?
I believe parents were told that the Gaelic Medium provision would be in Barrhead. Not in leafy Giffnock or Newton Mearns. I can't see it being a problem to get kids there since transport costs are provided by the Scottish Government. Or wait - could it be that East Ren thought some parents wouldn't want their weans going to secondary schools in Barrhead rather than secondary schools like St Ninian's or Williamwood and were counting on that being a deterrent? Surely not!
It disgusts me to hear of local authorities that still behave like this. The views of Gaelic-speaking parents are quite clear and surely no one believes the propaganda put out by the Tories (and their friends in the press) that Gaelic education is some sort of plot by the SNP to - as I read recently - 'teuchterise us all.'
I hate the thought of children and their parents getting caught up in all this...
Thursday 15 March 2018
These pesky Russkis
Let's get this right:
The Russians are accused of interfering with voting in the USA elections. The president denies any link with Russia, although his family is implicated.
The UK is desperate to do a trade deal with the USA once it leaves the EU but the USA is not keen.
The president of the USA signs a deal to protect US steel and aluminium industries, cutting out UK industries.
The UK allows Russian oligarchs to buy up property in the UK and the ruling party admits to receiving £800,000 in funding from Russian oligarchs.
A Russian double agent is in hospital along with his daughter and a UK police officer after being attacked with a 'nerve agent' only produced in Russia. In broad daylight. In public view.
The UK government accuses the Russian government of being behind the attack. The Russians deny it. The USA supports the UK government's accusation, as do the EU and the UN.
The UK minister of defence who has been agitating for more money to spend on the armed forces gets more positive publicity than his department have ever had.
The UK media go wild: what a great story! Every single newspaper and every TV channel support the strong stance the Prime Minister is taking against the Russians.
Brexit is off the front page.
The leader of the opposition demands proof that the Russians are behind the attack and is pilloried by the media.
The Prime Minister, who has been pretty well absent from the public eye, is suddenly out there, walking the walk. But not talking the talk, because she's useless at that.
Just watch for a new UK-USA trade deal any day now. After all, as Trump said tonight on the UK news: the UK is the USA's closest ally.
The Russians are accused of interfering with voting in the USA elections. The president denies any link with Russia, although his family is implicated.
The UK is desperate to do a trade deal with the USA once it leaves the EU but the USA is not keen.
The president of the USA signs a deal to protect US steel and aluminium industries, cutting out UK industries.
The UK allows Russian oligarchs to buy up property in the UK and the ruling party admits to receiving £800,000 in funding from Russian oligarchs.
A Russian double agent is in hospital along with his daughter and a UK police officer after being attacked with a 'nerve agent' only produced in Russia. In broad daylight. In public view.
The UK government accuses the Russian government of being behind the attack. The Russians deny it. The USA supports the UK government's accusation, as do the EU and the UN.
The UK minister of defence who has been agitating for more money to spend on the armed forces gets more positive publicity than his department have ever had.
The UK media go wild: what a great story! Every single newspaper and every TV channel support the strong stance the Prime Minister is taking against the Russians.
Brexit is off the front page.
The leader of the opposition demands proof that the Russians are behind the attack and is pilloried by the media.
The Prime Minister, who has been pretty well absent from the public eye, is suddenly out there, walking the walk. But not talking the talk, because she's useless at that.
Just watch for a new UK-USA trade deal any day now. After all, as Trump said tonight on the UK news: the UK is the USA's closest ally.
Tuesday 13 March 2018
What to do about Mark McDonald
The SNP is not my party and Mark McDonald is not my MSP. I'm also not a constituent of any of the three Westminster MPs accused of abusive behaviour against women they work with. I find the accusations of bullying and harassment of his staff by the Speaker at Westminster, John Bercow, pretty shocking.
I read an interview with Mark McDonald in the National on Saturday and I wasn't impressed. I also heard him being interviewed on STV last night and my opinion hasn't changed. He struck me as glib and a wee bit too keen to declare himself 'rehabilitated' and then to challenge the voters to accept what he says at face value. I think maybe rehabilitation involves - or should involve - a bit more than losing your party's endorsement, followed by you claiming that you're all better now and asking plaintively: 'Don't you believe in rehabilitation?'
I'm also not sure a man accused of harassing women is 'morally justified' in keeping his job (and his salary and expenses). That is surely for the voters to decide in a by-election, once the facts are known.
Today I've seen a lot of comments on Facebook and twitter defending Mr McDonald. The concern (not always from men - some from women too) is that his career is in tatters, he has lost 'everything', his family life is 'shattered', etc.
As soon as I saw these comments, I knew the SNP was in serious trouble over Mark McDonald.
What's happening to the woman involved in the case is not that different from what happens to rape victims. Because sexual harassment and bullying are a 'he-said-she-said' business, it is very difficult for the victim to prove what has happened to her. Westminster and Holyrood seem to handle these cases badly: everything is hidden and the whole story drags on month after month, so that in the end all of us - men and women alike - start to wonder if the delay in investigating is deliberate, intended to torture the accused and the victims alike.
Worst of all in my opinion is the fact that these cases occur in the very places where our laws are enacted (87% of UK laws are enacted in the UK, not in the EU). It seems our law-makers can't get things right. In fact, a small number of our politicians behave as if the law doesn't apply to them.
I don't want to go down the road of 'why do these men do these things' because it hasn't been proved that they did anything wrong. If they did, I want the police called in. And I want all the support and counselling available out in the community to victims to be made available in both parliaments.
But most of all, like most people, I want people to be treated with respect at their workplace. Is it that difficult to create a working atmosphere in which people are treated with consideration?
What's happening to the woman involved in the case is not that different from what happens to rape victims. Because sexual harassment and bullying are a 'he-said-she-said' business, it is very difficult for the victim to prove what has happened to her. Westminster and Holyrood seem to handle these cases badly: everything is hidden and the whole story drags on month after month, so that in the end all of us - men and women alike - start to wonder if the delay in investigating is deliberate, intended to torture the accused and the victims alike.
Worst of all in my opinion is the fact that these cases occur in the very places where our laws are enacted (87% of UK laws are enacted in the UK, not in the EU). It seems our law-makers can't get things right. In fact, a small number of our politicians behave as if the law doesn't apply to them.
I don't want to go down the road of 'why do these men do these things' because it hasn't been proved that they did anything wrong. If they did, I want the police called in. And I want all the support and counselling available out in the community to victims to be made available in both parliaments.
But most of all, like most people, I want people to be treated with respect at their workplace. Is it that difficult to create a working atmosphere in which people are treated with consideration?
Friday 9 March 2018
Mhairi Black
Although I'm not an SNP supporter, I recognise talent when I see it and Mhairi Black is very talented. She has a first class honours from Glasgow University - which she got while she was standing for Westminster - and she has made her mark since she got there, particularly on behalf of WASPI women deprived of their state pensions. She is clearly a person of ability and undoubtedly the kind of person the rest of us would want to have serving us in public life.
Tonight I was browsing through Facebook and came across a link to an article in the Evening Times in which Sam Heughan - an actor in Outlander - defended Mhairi Black on International Women's Day and expressed his shock at the way she has been treated on twitter.
You can see it here:
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/16075088.Sam_Heughan_stands_up_for_MP_Mhairi_Black/
Please read this and then look at the comments that follow. There are 5, although one has been deleted (you may wonder why), but between them they have managed to send me into a state of real depression.
One objects to the language she used in reporting to the committee how people address her on twitter, as if she was using the bad language herself rather than reporting language that has been used against her.
One objects because she has made comments about Rangers football club. Another points out she has made similar comments about Celtic. As if either remark was relevant to the issue.
One points out she's a Catholic. I have to ask: so?
One describes her as coming from the wrong end of 'the ned spectrum.' Does that mean she's poor or poorly educated or from a working class background (none of that is true). Coming from a working class background myself, I find these assumptions most offensive.
So there we have it, folk: why Scotland is struggling to get its independence:
- sectarianism
- religious bigotry
- snobbery
- small mindedness.
Not one of these people deals with the fact that Mhairi Black has been treated with the most awful misogyny or that women have the right to take part in public life without being insulted on a daily basis. Not one even mentions Sam Heughan's comments.
It's time to get our heads out of the gutter. I'm just not sure how we do it.
Monday 5 March 2018
Dear Jo Swinson
I see you want a statue put up to Margaret Thatcher.
I had a wee look at your online biography and I see you were born in 1980, which means you are too young to have endured (or enjoyed) the full effect of Thatcherism, since she was gone by the time you were 10.
It's also doubtful if the constituency you serve - East Dunbarton - is the kind of place where you would see the full effect of Thatcher's policies either. For that, you would have to take a wee road trip. Maybe to Motherwell to see what happened to the iron and steel trade there. or to Govan where you can play the 'spot-the-waste-ground-that-used-to-be-a-shipyard'. Or Linwood for a similar game but with old car factories. Then there's Fife and Ayrshire where you can see the coal mining communities abandoned by Thatcher's ideologically-driven purge. And then there's fun to be had in places like Kilmarnock trying to find all the engineering works and carpet factories replaced by brownfield sites.
All of these places were meant to go out and get replacement jobs in the 'service' economy. And it would have gone fine if only we hadn't had a major economic crisis caused by the part of the service economy that Thatcher - and later, Blair - were most proud of: banking and financial services. Their shenanigans were, of course, signalled early on to the Westminster government which chose to ignore them, believing as they did in an unregulated banking service. So come 2008 and the 'banking crisis' is was left to us, the tax payers, to pick up the bill. And when the Tories got back into power, they came up with another jolly wheeze: to squeeze public sector wages, and social security payments to the poorest, sickest people in the community. They call it austerity. People don't like it and they got the chance to register their protest by blaming the EU. Now we're leaving that too in an absolute shambles of a Brexit.
So that's how we got to where we are today.
There's one way in which I agree with you, Jo: if we have to have statues, they should be of women. But you must have realised inside your wee Westminster bubble that politicians are not looked on with affection right now, and suggesting a statue of Thatcher is not going to meet with any favour.
Still, there are other women who deserve our thanks. In Govan, this Thursday, International Women's Day, they're unveiling a statue of an amazing woman: Mary Barbour, a true public servant.
I had a wee look at your online biography and I see you were born in 1980, which means you are too young to have endured (or enjoyed) the full effect of Thatcherism, since she was gone by the time you were 10.
It's also doubtful if the constituency you serve - East Dunbarton - is the kind of place where you would see the full effect of Thatcher's policies either. For that, you would have to take a wee road trip. Maybe to Motherwell to see what happened to the iron and steel trade there. or to Govan where you can play the 'spot-the-waste-ground-that-used-to-be-a-shipyard'. Or Linwood for a similar game but with old car factories. Then there's Fife and Ayrshire where you can see the coal mining communities abandoned by Thatcher's ideologically-driven purge. And then there's fun to be had in places like Kilmarnock trying to find all the engineering works and carpet factories replaced by brownfield sites.
All of these places were meant to go out and get replacement jobs in the 'service' economy. And it would have gone fine if only we hadn't had a major economic crisis caused by the part of the service economy that Thatcher - and later, Blair - were most proud of: banking and financial services. Their shenanigans were, of course, signalled early on to the Westminster government which chose to ignore them, believing as they did in an unregulated banking service. So come 2008 and the 'banking crisis' is was left to us, the tax payers, to pick up the bill. And when the Tories got back into power, they came up with another jolly wheeze: to squeeze public sector wages, and social security payments to the poorest, sickest people in the community. They call it austerity. People don't like it and they got the chance to register their protest by blaming the EU. Now we're leaving that too in an absolute shambles of a Brexit.
So that's how we got to where we are today.
There's one way in which I agree with you, Jo: if we have to have statues, they should be of women. But you must have realised inside your wee Westminster bubble that politicians are not looked on with affection right now, and suggesting a statue of Thatcher is not going to meet with any favour.
Still, there are other women who deserve our thanks. In Govan, this Thursday, International Women's Day, they're unveiling a statue of an amazing woman: Mary Barbour, a true public servant.
The statue's been paid for by public subscription.
Back in 1915, with menfolk off at the Front, and
the city's factories working all the hours to feed the war effort, the city saw
a huge influx of new workers. With decent housing already in short supply, the
landlords decided to up their rents, and evict any tenants who couldn't, or
wouldn't pay the increased rate.
Mrs Barbour was having none of that; she knew the only way to beat bullies was to stand up to them, and so formed the South Govan Women’s Housing Association.
From protesting and postering, they soon began protecting their fellow citizens; blockading close mouths against sheriff officers sent to enforce evictions. Rent collectors were also targeted, pelted with flour bombs (and worse), with some even being debagged by gangs of angry women.
At the first sight of the rent man in a street, pots and pans would be banged, and he'd soon find himself facing an immovable force - the working women and housewives of Glasgow.
In November 1915, when a group of landlords took some tenants to court to force their eviction, Barbour organised one of the biggest marches ever seen in Glasgow, as thousands of women headed for the sheriff court, joined by the men pouring out of the shipyards and munitions works.
By the time they reached Jail Square (now Jocelyn Square) outside the court, the crowd was estimated at 20,000-strong
Outside the court trade unionist and Red Clydesider Willie Gallacher, teacher and radical John MacLean and Independent Labour Party (ILP) leaders addressed the crowds.
Inside the court there was such alarm that a phone call was made to Lloyd George, at that time the munitions minister in the wartime coalition government.
He instructed them to let the tenants go and said he would deal with it.
Outside a massive cheer went up. The celebrations went on for hours.
In a matter of days, Lloyd George pushed a Bill through Parliament restricting rents for the duration of the war and six months after. This was the first rent protection legislation of its kind anywhere in Europe.
And Mrs Barbour wasn't done battling. She joined the Co-op Women’s Guild and the ILP. She campaigned against the war. In 1920 she became the first female Labour councillor in Glasgow, only having won the right to vote two years before.
Then she got to work. She fought for baths and wash houses, child welfare centres and play parks. Better housing was a key demand.
She was the first to organise a family planning centre in the city, facing down opposition from the church.
She fought for home helps and free, pure milk for schoolchildren. She proposed having municipal banks that could lend at lower rates and build funds for the city’s needs.
And, if all that doesn't deserve a statue, I don't know what does.
Mrs Barbour was having none of that; she knew the only way to beat bullies was to stand up to them, and so formed the South Govan Women’s Housing Association.
From protesting and postering, they soon began protecting their fellow citizens; blockading close mouths against sheriff officers sent to enforce evictions. Rent collectors were also targeted, pelted with flour bombs (and worse), with some even being debagged by gangs of angry women.
At the first sight of the rent man in a street, pots and pans would be banged, and he'd soon find himself facing an immovable force - the working women and housewives of Glasgow.
In November 1915, when a group of landlords took some tenants to court to force their eviction, Barbour organised one of the biggest marches ever seen in Glasgow, as thousands of women headed for the sheriff court, joined by the men pouring out of the shipyards and munitions works.
By the time they reached Jail Square (now Jocelyn Square) outside the court, the crowd was estimated at 20,000-strong
Outside the court trade unionist and Red Clydesider Willie Gallacher, teacher and radical John MacLean and Independent Labour Party (ILP) leaders addressed the crowds.
Inside the court there was such alarm that a phone call was made to Lloyd George, at that time the munitions minister in the wartime coalition government.
He instructed them to let the tenants go and said he would deal with it.
Outside a massive cheer went up. The celebrations went on for hours.
In a matter of days, Lloyd George pushed a Bill through Parliament restricting rents for the duration of the war and six months after. This was the first rent protection legislation of its kind anywhere in Europe.
And Mrs Barbour wasn't done battling. She joined the Co-op Women’s Guild and the ILP. She campaigned against the war. In 1920 she became the first female Labour councillor in Glasgow, only having won the right to vote two years before.
Then she got to work. She fought for baths and wash houses, child welfare centres and play parks. Better housing was a key demand.
She was the first to organise a family planning centre in the city, facing down opposition from the church.
She fought for home helps and free, pure milk for schoolchildren. She proposed having municipal banks that could lend at lower rates and build funds for the city’s needs.
And, if all that doesn't deserve a statue, I don't know what does.
Friday 2 March 2018
Sexual harassment at Holyrood
I've been reading about the harassment of women in the Scottish Parliament.
Nicola Sturgeon says she is:
"shocked, saddened and disappointed" to learn that 30% of women working at Holyrood have experienced sexism and/or sexual harassment and that 45% of the perpetrators are MSPs.
Unlike Nicola, I'm neither shocked nor saddened nor disappointed. I'm incandescent with rage. Who are these men - there may also be some women among them - who, according to the Times newspaper:
Nicola Sturgeon says she is:
"shocked, saddened and disappointed" to learn that 30% of women working at Holyrood have experienced sexism and/or sexual harassment and that 45% of the perpetrators are MSPs.
Unlike Nicola, I'm neither shocked nor saddened nor disappointed. I'm incandescent with rage. Who are these men - there may also be some women among them - who, according to the Times newspaper:
‘abuse their’power to harass and belittle female employees'?
Everyone who works at the parliament is of necessity educated and informed and they must all surely be aware that what they are doing is being scrutinised - constantly - by their colleagues and the media. So why do they harass women?
Maybe because they can?
Maybe it's a power thing?
Maybe because that behaviour has been allowed for centuries. Maybe because some of them still think of themselves as top dog and believe they can do what they like. Maybe because the behaviour is so ingrained, they don't even see it as a problem. And maybe journalists who work at Holyrood condone this behaviour just by not seeing it.
If the sexist and sexual behaviour is that ingrained maybe the whole lot of them need some - what should I call it? - oh, let's call it anti-bullying training. We don't allow bullying behaviour in schools and we're trying to stamp it out in the rest of the workplace. So why should people in the Scottish Parliament be allowed to get away with it?
It's time to grow up, people.
I look forward to seeing what the Parliament does about this situation. The nearest to it I can remember is when the director of education in Strathclyde Region (half the population of Scotland) asked a group of us in the 1990s why more women didn't apply for promoted posts in schools. Almost all of us answered: what's the point? Men set the agenda. They determine the format of the interviews. They decide who they want - and it isn't women. They want people who look like them and will play the game. It took 15 years, but - to their credit - that group of men turned things around. The Scottish Parliament can do the same but it needs firm action by a strong leader. Over to you, Nicola Sturgeon.
PS The formatting of this post has gone nuts - sorry!
Everyone who works at the parliament is of necessity educated and informed and they must all surely be aware that what they are doing is being scrutinised - constantly - by their colleagues and the media. So why do they harass women?
Maybe because they can?
Maybe it's a power thing?
Maybe because that behaviour has been allowed for centuries. Maybe because some of them still think of themselves as top dog and believe they can do what they like. Maybe because the behaviour is so ingrained, they don't even see it as a problem. And maybe journalists who work at Holyrood condone this behaviour just by not seeing it.
If the sexist and sexual behaviour is that ingrained maybe the whole lot of them need some - what should I call it? - oh, let's call it anti-bullying training. We don't allow bullying behaviour in schools and we're trying to stamp it out in the rest of the workplace. So why should people in the Scottish Parliament be allowed to get away with it?
It's time to grow up, people.
I look forward to seeing what the Parliament does about this situation. The nearest to it I can remember is when the director of education in Strathclyde Region (half the population of Scotland) asked a group of us in the 1990s why more women didn't apply for promoted posts in schools. Almost all of us answered: what's the point? Men set the agenda. They determine the format of the interviews. They decide who they want - and it isn't women. They want people who look like them and will play the game. It took 15 years, but - to their credit - that group of men turned things around. The Scottish Parliament can do the same but it needs firm action by a strong leader. Over to you, Nicola Sturgeon.
PS The formatting of this post has gone nuts - sorry!
Thursday 1 March 2018
World Book Day
What the hell happened to World Book Day?
One minute, it was a great idea to get kids reading, and a good way for primary schools to raise a wee bit of money by getting parents to donate books to the library in their kids' names, a terrific excuse to get writers into schools to talk to their readers. Next I heard, it was a full-blown catwalk event, involving parents shelling out for costumes for their kids that they can't afford - and a new one every year, for heavenssake - so kids can look like characters in books.
And don't tell me parents can make their kids' costumes rather than buying them, please. First, you have to know how to do that and second you need time. Not so easy if you're a working or studying mother (I can't somehow see too many dads lining up to do this) and definitely not easy if you've got maybe three kids.
Are there any parents out there prepared to tell the kids' schools to tone it down?
I remember having the utmost respect for a secondary headteacher who told the school there would be no more proms. The kids were not happy but she was sickened by the amount of money parents were prepared to spend on their young people who were doing no more than celebrating leaving school. Of course, the kids whose parents couldn't afford the limo, the prom clothes, the ticket for the night out - well, they just didn't go. Like the kids who thought it was an utterly naff American idea and boycotted the whole thing.
Has anyone else come across nursery schools - nursery schools - celebrating with a 'graduation' ceremony at the end of the school year? I have and I'm horrified. Nursery isn't the end of anything, as graduation from a university is the end of a major stage of formal education. It's the start of the great adventure of learning and that doesn't involve wearing gowns and mortar boards (which university graduates in Scotland don't even wear by the way).
And yes, I know boring old farts like me don't move with the times and we do rabbit on about education for its own sake and reading for its own sake. But the whole point of Scottish education - like the Scottish NHS - is that is should be free at the point of delivery. And anything that excludes some families from taking part should not be even considered.
Is there any way we can stick to that?
One minute, it was a great idea to get kids reading, and a good way for primary schools to raise a wee bit of money by getting parents to donate books to the library in their kids' names, a terrific excuse to get writers into schools to talk to their readers. Next I heard, it was a full-blown catwalk event, involving parents shelling out for costumes for their kids that they can't afford - and a new one every year, for heavenssake - so kids can look like characters in books.
And don't tell me parents can make their kids' costumes rather than buying them, please. First, you have to know how to do that and second you need time. Not so easy if you're a working or studying mother (I can't somehow see too many dads lining up to do this) and definitely not easy if you've got maybe three kids.
Are there any parents out there prepared to tell the kids' schools to tone it down?
I remember having the utmost respect for a secondary headteacher who told the school there would be no more proms. The kids were not happy but she was sickened by the amount of money parents were prepared to spend on their young people who were doing no more than celebrating leaving school. Of course, the kids whose parents couldn't afford the limo, the prom clothes, the ticket for the night out - well, they just didn't go. Like the kids who thought it was an utterly naff American idea and boycotted the whole thing.
Has anyone else come across nursery schools - nursery schools - celebrating with a 'graduation' ceremony at the end of the school year? I have and I'm horrified. Nursery isn't the end of anything, as graduation from a university is the end of a major stage of formal education. It's the start of the great adventure of learning and that doesn't involve wearing gowns and mortar boards (which university graduates in Scotland don't even wear by the way).
And yes, I know boring old farts like me don't move with the times and we do rabbit on about education for its own sake and reading for its own sake. But the whole point of Scottish education - like the Scottish NHS - is that is should be free at the point of delivery. And anything that excludes some families from taking part should not be even considered.
Is there any way we can stick to that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)