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.

 

 

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.

 

Not so free after all

Having watched Charles I: the killing of a King, I got a sharp reminder how unfree Britain really is. Remember Extinction Rebellion have been listed as terrorist organisation and ‘order, order’ is the most important value Britain has.

I grew up in the 70s in Germany, the time of the student revolt. Despite never having even taking part in anyone of the many student demos, I was arrested and locked up for 3 months just because the security services felt like it. Of course they eventually came round to admitting that it was all a mistake.

My arrest came about because I was sofa-surfing and one address I stayed at for a few days was under the watchful eyes of the security services.

So, any individual can become over-scrutinised if a national security situation becomes frightful through activities such as XR these days do. Thankfully, XR has not committed any terrorist offences yet.

I saw it coming and I mentioned previously, do not get involved in those street demos of XR or XR as they will suffer the same fate.

Of course I am not certain whether they will eventually grow into a radical movement just as German students did with the Baader-Meinhof gang but the radical ideology is not dissimilar. Yet XR is funded by Western Billionaires and Baader-Meinhof were German rich kids too who gotten trained by Gaddafi and the like.

It shows ‘the being in 2 minds uncertainty’ Western power figures are. On one hand they are really powerful and on the other they want to throw it all over.

So what is the point in having even a monarchy. Either you have a monarch, who is a real ruler with all the power that comes with it or you don’t. Monarchs tend to be despots with no regard for the rights of their subjects. They just rule and abuse.

Today’s monarch seems more like a display of puppets who do a function, which looks good but has little power.

In fact looking at the reality of it, they can’t do much at all without being constantly watched, criticised and controlled.

Some would call it stalking. Yet, it is their job to be stalked and written about and having their photos taken and being discussed. If that was a private individual, they would have better rights.

Who is really pulling the strings in Britain. It can’t be the monarch, who despite having use of an impressive real estate portfolio has very little actual power but a mere ceremonial function.

Boris Johnson seems to have been selected into post only because of his personality. He comes across as somber and believable. You can hardly resist his voice. When he is together and has his suit on, on TV, Boris is a great actor.

The people of Britain are tightly controlled. Made to work all hours. Kids are taken from their parents at the earliest opportunity and stuck into schools for about 8 hours a day, making the influence parents actually have over their children negligible.

There is really no other way of making it in the public domain other than through kinky affiliations or by being a useful tool and doing what you are told by the ruling elite. And who are they?

I think Britain has a superb publicity machinery, which gives the impression that there is an actual democratic process but if you really look at it, its all talk and no input.

I won’t even go into how proper elections are but think people have not much real choice who to vote for. The public broadcasters and the press are all set to promote private ownership at present.

Whilst that is the mood of the moment, remember please once they stop making a profit from their businesses, we are on our own.

Whilst Labour with a nationalisation strategy gets ridiculed by the press, it seems the only viable solution to guarantee continuation of services when the going gets tough.

There is a general consensus, I would always support that we do like our basic strategy of personal freedom, and liberty of individuals, we should always defend it, that we do not enslave women and that we allow people the right to choose whether to have a religion or not but what seems the complicated part is how our life-styles affect our planet and those questions will rule our minds for some time to come.

We do need an army to defend ourselves from freakish countries like Iran and Northern Korea or Daesh because they are real dictatorships.

Yet so much relies on how our societies are run. Personal freedom often is only possible because we have the luxury of relying on services being available.

One always has to look at the greater scheme of things.

Wait for the manifesto

Quite right, lets not get swept away in a torrent of election promises. I would vote for Labour if they actually put the Free University education into their election manifesto. All the parties now start to outdo each other with promise after promise and that will of course steer the forecasts.

Yet all the other stuff, the increased living wage I am concerned about.

Since we have the living wage, I saw an immense rise in food and household item prices. Especially the low-cost budget items supermarkets had, have now doubled in price. This makes it even more difficult for those with income problems to survive.

When I was raising my children in poverty, I could manage on my benefits, which came on time and when they did not come on time, I once even went to the police station and accused the DWP of theft because they kept my benefits back. That was possible then because they had to pay your benefits by law within a certain time. Now they have changed the rules, they now can keep benefits back.

Strictly speaking I also was able to substitute my income on credit cards, and as I was very good with money, I always managed to pay them each month, with the minimum payment, which increased my interest payments astronomically. We then also had to pay the insurance, which was as much as the interest and doubled the payments.

But thankfully somebody then reaslised how wrong the PPI was. That happened during the Conservative government, that we gotten the chance to claim that back.

I could manage with the basic food items (that was all before the year 2000)  and my kids are all healthy. We had cheap fruit stalls in Bethnal Green, just opposite Tescos and the lady who ran it gotten up at 3am to buy from the fruit market and then sell it to us.

We could buy cheap household cleaners. The size of the cleaners has since doubled and so has the price. That is not good if you have to manage on weekly payments. A basic tube of toothpaste used to cost 20p in Sainsbury, now its 50p.

But now benefits are paid monthly and so they increased the sizes and prizes of goods. So now people end up having food banks; I never had any food banks, when I raised my children. We had benefits on time and cheap food in the shops.

Husbands could also get work on the grey market, which were paid in hand and that helped with the budget. That was then ended by stricter benefit laws. Then people started snooping on each other.

So lets wait for the manifestos to see what voting could be good. I need to see whether they claw back on the triple Pension and the Freedom pass to pay for some promises they make.

 

 

Good luck Greta

I feel much more relaxed about Greta Thunberg’s trip to the US, since I’ve heard on a news story that actually one of her parents will be on the boat. It is a 60 x 12 foot boat without a toilet and amenities we are just used to.

It can’t do any harm to keep the discussion about climate change warm by constantly reporting about that trip of Greta.

What also interests me is how much Greta may miss her luxury home comforts during the journey for the sake of fighting climate change.

Lets hope all goes well.

I also hope that it will be easy to follow the media reports.

More telling off for Tower Hamlets

Now the Ombudsman has upheld a claim against Tower Hamlets Council for obstructing investigations. See report from ELA here.

What is the point in Tower Hamlets having a Mayor when nothing good comes of it. First there was the scandal around Lutfur Rahman, allegations of election fraud, led to his downfall and then the government sent in observers to shadow the council administration.

But whilst the investigators left satisfied that things are in order the Ombudsman finds otherwise. And of course the legal action against the council in respect of the illegal activities trying to close down schools make me question how effective any Mayor in Tower Hamlets may be.

There are obviously huge muddles going on, which even the Mayor cannot resolve.

I have never negatively spoken about Tower Hamlets and especially not John Biggs, with whom I sat on the Police and Community Safety Board for years until John Biggs decided to close down a 300 year old school, which is attended by my daughter. We love Raine’s Foundation school #300moreyears.

 

 

 

 

detachment is responsible

standing family near fireplace

Photo by Victoria Borodinova on Pexels.com Family

I think that the reason for the rise in the crime rate and especially gang related crime, e.g. knife crime, gangs, drugs is the destabilisation of family life.

As I stated in my previous post about renting, currently in Britain, an average renter only stays for 4 years in a flat. People are moved around the country, into areas they do not know anybody just to get a roof over their head. Some call it de-gentrification of inner cities like London.

Renters conditions have been changed, so that a permanent tenancy is now hard to come by. the old-fashioned flats for life, people could pass on to a relative have largely gone.

Additionally the emigration rate through wars in far away lands has unsettled large amounts of people around the globe who also add to the new additions to society.

group of people in a meeting

Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com Work place

Families are destabilised because in families now all family members have to work. Decades ago one family member could stay at home until a child reached the age of 13, that is now reduced to the age of 5.

In practise that means if a family has older children in schools, those kids often find themselves without a parent after school.

The close family contact between people no longer exists. Employment conditions have become more and more unpredictable, income can vary tremendously with times of hard-ship, e.g. reliance on food banks.

All these uncertainties contribute considerably to making gangs attractive to young people. Especially vulnerable youngster get picked off the expelled pupils registers to work for Post code drug gangs.

It really has nothing to do with the keeping people busy, it has a lot to do with giving people the right to be the boss of their own life, to have a right to a family life and give kids the guidance they need.

man lights legs silhouette

Photo by Tookapic on Pexels.com     Gang member

Gang bosses can give plenty of guidance and that is why they are so successful recruiting youngsters. Those youngsters then are led to believe that carrying a knife is the only way to stay safe, its either kill or get killed. That is the terrible fact about the current crime scene.

Whilst youth funding is cut back, police officers reduced and parents are stuck into jobs through the work program, there is nobody available to give a shoulder to lean on for our young people.

Families just can’t help each other out any longer easily, they often live apart, have been moved to different parts of the country or world and have no longer any time for each other.

Until a government restores our sense of family, gives people the dignity of having permanent homes and permanent jobs, I do not see an end to the current problems. People need to belong and feel they are safe and increasing the instabilities is not going to help. The government needs to show some sympathy, emphathy for people. We are not just all robots who follow work rosters.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,791 hits