the young people of tomorrow

protest-bannerTower Hamlets is doing its best to close down public services like schooling for children. There are various applications in the council to close and amalgamate schools.

A recent TV report claimed that Tower Hamlets moves homeless families up north but that the councils there do not get informed of the new arrivals. So if they don’t know how can they make enough school provision?

Incidentally when my daughter had been homeless – because her violent partner had smashed up her flat – we went to Westminster and Chelsea council and they said they send their homeless to Tower Hamlets.

Moving on is the motto these days. The poor working classes are moved on relentless and getting a secure tenancy is like gold dust.

Children will become much more flexible in their approach because they need to take in that education whilst they get it. When I was young we used to have the same teachers in the same schools for life but now it’s constantly new teachers and constantly moving on.

People are strongly discouraged now to have kids whilst on benefits but only a few decades ago, women were encouraged to stay at home and have kids.

Those kids born in the 80s needed a lot of schools. Now, with benefits being cut and employment encouraged for all genders, the amount of schools needed is reduced.

But with the large increase of an older population, who is going to keep the country going if not the young people of tomorrow?

I think this government is playing with this country as every country needs a strong younger generation to carry the flag.

Whilst people with jobs like Boris Johnson can father various children with various women, those on low incomes can hardly afford one child. But then if a richer guy fathers various children with different women, the sheer amount of maintenance will reduce the quality of life for all of them.

I know because one of my daughters has two children with a guy who also has two other women who have his children.

Those changes in the set-up of standards will greatly affect the nation. On one hand, we’ve got the Royal Family cast in stone. Permanent marriages with permanent partners and on the other hand we got – the Prime Minister included – the folks who constantly change partners and have kids with whoever they meet.

On top of that are children borne from surrogacies.

For a grandparent like myself, that priviledge now only exists on paper because with constantly changing relationships the amount of various children from various partners all make a great big mix, which I did not sign up for and I doubt that most grandparents can afford to maintain gifts to all those extended families over a long period of time.

 

No gift horse

I’m going to stop the series on grandparents and grandchildren now because it has exhausted itself.

The simple rule is that if children want to stay in touch, then they do but if they do not want to stay in touch then they don’t.

I don’t think there is any point in asking for access as relationships of that nature have to be consensual and friendly with plenty of good will.

Children already have to cope with relationship changes of their parents; having to deal with all the grandparents is a chore.

I think it is up to the parents to explain to their kids why they do not see their grandparents. Nans and Paps really do have plenty to do with their lives in any case and I am certain most would love to support their children and grandchildren.

Yet in today’s society, whereby legal responsibility stops age 18 and people no longer live together in large family homes the old idea of the family down the generations doesn’t continue for everybody.

Of course in institutions like the Royal Family, the connection is a must and almost part of the job. The people in the community don’t have that obligation.

It would be more damaging for kids if they just get gifts from somebody far away, that they never meet, I think. I suppose the question of continued relations has become a point for many grandparents and it is the choice of the younger generation if they want to lose touch. Good luck to them.

 

 

Where is the love?

photo of baby breastfeeding

Photo by Cleyder Duque on Pexels.com

Could not help chuckling pleasingly when Camilla Parker-Bowles announced that she looks forward to hugging her grandchildren.

Good on her. I suppose it is easy to get to know the grandchildren when their parents actually involve the grandparents into the process, e.g. like

  • getting to know partners of children prior to marriage or conception of grandchildren
  • regular visits
  • communications that are meaningful
  • Family of grandchildren live a meaningful lifestyle and are responsible.

I hardly see any of my grandchildren. I have not met my daughter’s partners prior to them moving in together. I have not been involved in the process of decision-making, e.g. what is best for the child.

Nowadays the modern families change quickly, e.g. partners change, the family set-up is no longer the same as it was, but, people really need to communicate to keep family members up to speed, so that all know what is going on.

I would not even want to dictate what kind of a family my daughters want to form but it would be good to be kept informed and be involved.

I would want to see that my daughters make responsible decisions. Like

  • Have they got housing
  • Do they have an income
  • Are there plans to improve the quality of life and how
  • Do they raise their children positively
  • How safe is the relationship they are in? Do I approve of the partner?
  • Will they keep me up-to-date with developments e.g. pregnancy, childbirth, getting to know the grandchild.

Unfortunately I had non of this. Some of my grandchildren live in Wales and I am not allowed to see them because my daughter there is afraid I could get social services involved.

Some of my grandchildren live in Scotland but my daughter didn’t introduce me to her partner until the day she moved out. I then went to visit in Scotland and had to ring the council there because their whole communal backyard was filled with rubbish bags. I went to visit a couple of times but since then my daughter split up with her partner and now replaced him with a snake and a dog.

I hardly get to see the kids. They do not contact me via Facetime or any other form of chatting to talk and get to know each other.

Some of my grandchildren live in London and I have not even known that my daughter decided to break up with the partner of her first son. My daughter then gotten into deep trouble with domestic violence with another partner. The latest new partner I did meet occasionally but he has changed beyound recognition since I first met him. He used to wear neat suits and looked like he jumped straight out of a dressmaker’s window. Now he wears tracksuits and sports a liberal beard.

I had not met my newer granddaughter till my daughter suddenly announced they are coming round for Christmas and of course they expected presents.

I made everything nice but the grandchild was very much afraid of me because she had never met me. The last time I met her she only spoke to me when I asked her what gifts she wanted for Christmas.

Otherwise I received abusive and threatening phonecalls from my daughter.

From that I can deduct that breastfeeding and not smacking children doesn’t make them more sensible. My youngest daughter is the only child I breastfed for a long period of time and one of my children, which I never smacked. Yet, I get insulting phonecalls.

I think the concept of grandparent needs some involvement so that everybody is on the same page. Grandparents are not just gift suspenders whenever people think they would want to come round to collect them.

I think that grandparents should means-test their gifting. And not just give because somebody has a grandparents on a birth certificate somewhere.

 

 

Can’t go back

Can completely understand the sentiments of the Durrell woman, who asked herself what she did wrong, when her kids displayed an attitude attributed to single mothers in the old days.

She loved her husband and was blessed by the fact that he had died whilst she still loved him. He must have been a good man.

It is very hard to raise kids with a husband in a cvilised society if that husband is a more than liberal dreamer.

My husband turned out to be one of those and had no discipline and no ambitions.

I don’t know what’s worst; mourning a loving husband or living with a total dreamer who is incapable of earning any money.

Better to have good memories than bad ones.

Not liking hot climates, going to Greece or south of the Alps is not an option. I stick it out in Britain, though my then divorced husband died years ago of cancer.

During my marriage I was always the disciplinarian. My husband didn’t mind his five children swinging on the handles of underground traines during long journeys through London, whilst I tried my best to get them to sit down.

His favourite modern song was ‘another brick in the wall‘ by Pink Flloyd in defiance of education.

That constant state of surrealistic freedom made it hard for the children to fit in. The memory of the father who allowed everything is overpowering.

Now expectations have changed, children have no choice but to make a working life the rule and looking back to the Hippie years of the baby boomers is not an option.

The influence of the father is always very strong and nothing is harder for a parent than to overcome a non-disciplined head of the family who can’t hold down a job.

Schools should teach children the rules of life and not just subjects in the sciences and art or drama. How to earn money, how to pay bills, how to navigate society are lessons some children do not learn at home.

I found that those kids who want to listen to sensible advice are the only ones making life succesful and understand that a career is the only way to improve one’s lot.

The consent with family

As I was ranting on about the term family being used for all kinds of amalgamations, I noticed that the distinct difference between family concepts is the matter of consent. Any child that is born into a family never gave consent for that in the first place but if you are part of a professional association that calls itself a family, you are there by consent.

Children born into families without their consent – the children’s – need to grow into the lifestyle they are encouraged to.

In our society, that means getting education and then professional development.

But, the matter of education will need consent from the child to participate in from the time, the kids can do so. If children go off the rails and refuse to attend school or get themselves into relationships, the parents do not consent to, then I would say that the relationship has broken down and parents no longer have any obligation to help out if things go pear-shaped. Of course there is the problem of providing abode for under-age kids.

I often hear that emotional black-mail that a child is part of the family but a family can only stay in tune and be successful if all members therein contribute positively to it.

Nowadays the law replaces family pressure, especially when it comes to a duty to attend education, which is provided by the state (unless parents pay for it privately). Regardless of who pays for schooling, the kids still need to attend. Parents can be held responsible and made to pay fines if children play truant.

photograph of a burning fire

Photo by moein moradi on Pexels.com

If a child stops attending education and gets involved in unlawful activities or anything that stops that education to result in qualifications then they are in fact in a breach of contract.

So, I don’t think that parents forever have to take the hot coals out of the fires that delinquent children have created.

Especially if that results in further off-spring with children being borne out of relationships the parents didn’t consent to in the first place.

There is no natural duty to be a parent forever regardless of what happens or what kids get themselves involved in.

Social engineering via free school travel

man in gray shirt walking on pathway

Photo by Ben Herbert on Pexels.com

Whilst I read that head teachers warn of the effect of ending free school travel for under-18s, I was reminded that the free travel to school had all along a big impact on the ability of schools to attract pupils.

Whilst being on a board that deals with dissolving Raine’s Foundation school in Bethnal Green East London, the argument that a lack of pupil numbers makes the school not viable to stay open, was dominating all considerations to approve the closure of the school.

Especially church schools as well as those catering for secondary pupils and sixth formers, rely on good transport to their schools.

During the last couple of years I went on the bus to the London Aquatic Centre for early morning swims and incidentally that same bus also transports pupils to the nearby Bobbie Moore Academy. Many of the pupils went on the bus locally to me and those pupils would potentially have applied to Raine’s Foundation had it not been for the Bobbie Moore Academy and those pupils could do so in the knowledge that the journey to the school was free as bus travel was free.

In the case of Bishop Challoner Catholic school, also many pupils take the bus to there from our area.

Social engineering has taken place through free school travel.

And whilst Tower Hamlets schools are now phasing out sport as a curriculum choice in Sixth Form, pupils have less choice to travel to schools which do still teach it.

Morpeth School became famous as provider of facility for a Table Tennis Olympic Team in 2012, but suddenly now, Morpeth has declined to teach sport in Sixth form. Raine’s affiliated to Sport England and had to close.

Parents enrol children to schools with an expectation of cost and time committment and that is along-term plan. For many parents calculating the cost of travel is very important and pulling away the rug under families’ feet to suddenly charge for travel, is quite unfair to those who heavily rely on that perk, which seems minute and small to those who have it all.

 

dream on Boris

women looking at cellphone

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

Whilst our Prime Minister today announced the closing of all schools from Friday PM, Boris said that children should not be looked after by grandparents, as they are more vulnerable in catching diseases.

I don’t want to use improper language in commenting but instead say that a recent YouGov poll, on behalf of Age Uk established that 40% of grandparents, over the age of 50, provided regular childcare for their grandchildren.

Either Boris wants all working parents to take an extended holiday and full government funded pay or start to become realistic to the fact that grandparents do look after children.

Additionally, there are naturally older parents, who conceived and bore children later in life.

The general attitude that all older people are unsuitable to look after children because they are more susceptible to catching Corona are cobbeles.

There are also quite a number of grandparents who took over full-time childcare because the parents are unable to do so. At least 10% of children in London looked after by family members other than the parent, so-called kinship carers.

Boris Johnson’s remarks are purely age-discriminating.

Corona virus used to restrict civil liberties

Every other news flash, article or mention is about Corona Virus. No wonder people are getting hysterical. Supermarked isles are bare, especiallly in the soap departments. I stood there, hand in my pocket to feel my sanitizer gel whilst other shoppers feverishly searched for some on the empty shelves. Remember so far only three (3) people died in the UK so far but look at the deaths from flu cases.

It is very concerning that we  get so much less fuss about the common flu.

I suppose I could have made a few quid if I sold my hand-sanitizer but hei, its worth more to me than the money I could make from it.

Flue-guardian-2018_edited

Guardian article from 25. Jan 2018, shows the rise in deaths from the flu. Yet we never heard then about restricting mass-meetings or paying people for taking time off sick.

The Guardian article also mentions that the common flu is especially dangerous to children, yet we did not hear about closing our schools.

Corona_death_ratio_v2640-nc

BBC articleshowing cause of cases in China, affecting old and sick people in particular.

Whilst the Corona virus is especially dangerous to sick and old people we get constant warnings that we need to stop mass-gatherings, restrict public transport despite only 3 deaths in the UK so far.

 

The Lorelei effect

bee beehive bloom blossom

Photo by Anton Atanasov on Pexels.com

Heinrich Heine, a German author published his version of the Lorelei, as the beautiful blonde lady, who sat on the rock, above the river Rhine and lured men to their deaths.

I am very sceptical about blaming women only but today, the luring with charm applies to all genders.

There are just some people who are very convincing and irresistable to the point of distraction.

I would call the decision to allow the planting of lots of fruit trees all over the estate and the installation of a bee hive on a busy London council estate such a decision-making process.

I can predict that the combination of lots of sweet fruits, which will be rotting on the ground, will drive those bees wild and also invite wild wasps to our housing estate and cause a lot of problems.

Yet nobody seems to care or want to look ahead into the future and predict this is going to happen. Grown adults are blind to the reality of the situation.

Of course from a naturalists point of view, that is sheer heaven but if you look what happened to the countryside where the Mayan temples once stood, they are over-grown now with jungle, perhaps that is what will happen to our estate in the future, if those environmental extremists have their way.

People in cities often get romantic ideas of what nature is like and that we need to be more in tune with nature, yet we need to be sensible and have policies, which are suitable for our environment.

We are very densely built up, with a school and surrounded by busy roads, those bees have nowhere to go to let off steam. Talking to someone at Tower Hamlets Homes, they say, THH would never purchase a bee hive for the estate, yet, that is what they did.

Seems charming somebody in some department worked.

same lies

Whilst President Trump explains in his state of the Union speech that there is now record employment, also amongst the multi-cultural population in the US, the BBC reports that there is record child-homelessness in the US.

How does this all work out?

Obviously the wonderful world of high-yield economy should work for the people and not just for the employers.

The same strategy gets used in the UK. One of the most used arguments in parliamentary debate is, to rebuff Labour, yes, but the unemployment rate is very low.

Whether that creates the highest number of working poor and other problems does not seem to be the problem for the governments on either side of the oceans.

The standard of living is very important and voters really have to stop creating poverty for children.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,791 hits