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.

Turncoat

Football players

Football players

Ever since the football associations lost control over the players, e.g. final say of who could play for whom and for how much, the players got the status of employee or self-employed and fell under the free market regulations that they were seen as workers and had the right to play for whom they liked and/or the highest bidder.

The recent loss of Manchester United reiterates the fact that Ronaldo, normally plays for Man U, played for the opposition Barcelona on that occasion and Barcelona won.

For the matter of emotional support it can be a bit difficult for local fans to manage the fact of players changing allegiance.

To compare that with party politics, a lot of people would not tolerate chopping and changing, e.g. see Dave Osler’s and John Gray’s reaction to me leaving the Labour Party, calling me all kinds of things, but when it comes to football, players can change sides as frequently as their underwear, whichever is the most frequent, I don’t know.

Is there a certain ideology in Football? There sure is, a football team traditionally was bound to the geographical location it is based in. E.g. Manchester United is exactly the football club of that town, together with Manchester City.

In the case of political representation we get elected “players” like MPs and Councillors and that used to be similar with footballers in a sense they were elected by the Football Association to play for a certain club and the amount of transfer fees was also determined by the football association. Whereas politicians could not transfer for a fee but change political parties without a contractual payment.

Magna Carta the original contract giving powers to elected parliamentary repreesntatives of the people

In the case of MPs who do work for a wage, they cannot change allegiance as per the locality they represent but they can change allegiance as to the party they work for whilst they are in office; though some constituents have already asked can we sack an MP if they don’t act up to scratch. In the case of footballers that localised connection has long been broken

Court rulings important in that respect are Simuldenkov and I have to look up the case whereby one footballer went to court to challenge the situation that he could not determine himself where he could play and for what price. He won and since then footballers are treated like workers who can negotiate their own contracts, rather than depend on decisions of the football association.

That is the main difference, that the local affiliation, the basic principle of personal conviction for a cause, does not exist any longer in football but that it has become a profession.

The only other profession we see acting according to a personal conviction are political activists, local MPs who are elected according to the post code they stand for.

With the recent situation of MPs having to resign over irregularities we might see a change coming in, to do with the legal status of Members of Parliament.  Parliamentarians representing the local people who are bound to that local land, have to reside in the constitutions but as we’ve seen in the case of Galloway can travel to a constitution and represent the locals there, if they are voted in.

In Football, the club used to be bound to the locality too, and the players were representatives according to their local affiliations.

This bound to the land connection seems to be driven further and further into the background, also comparing this with the House of Lords, that traditionally was a House of long-standing peers, bound to certain geographical areas of Great Britain. In line with the internationalisation of all our affairs, the hereditary peer is in danger of extinction too.

Lets imagine MPscan now start to choose to make their own contracts, they are voted into office in one locality but then can be sacked for miss-conduct, that theoretically makes the contract of being elected invalid, as the electorate does not vote in an MP specifically on the conditions that they always stick to the rules and are not allowed any indiscretion, that is a matter of expectation. Because if voters can claim expectation damage and their elected MP has to stand down because they broke that expectation and some locals depended on that particular representation, then we are having big problems. One can also apply that to football clubs and footballers that play for them.

I think the matter of contract and any type of local representation, whether in sport or politics lacks direction.  People’s convictions and personal beliefs do not count any longer as soon as an elected representative can be disposed of without seeking the agreement of the electorate.

In the recent scandals involving MP expenses, properly elected parliamentarians have been put on public trial without any proper investigations and the matter of their ‘guilt’ established. All sorts of accusations flew through the media and MPs forced into resignation before the matter was even properly investigated.

I think that is intolerable and can lead to a political swing into the wrong direction if it happens to enough MPs.

In that respect I actually want to come to the defence of Gordon Brown when he spoke about local jobs for local people. We have local schools for local children and those local children have to go to local schools. Yet in working matters we suddenly have the free movement of labour throughout Europe and that clashes with the interest of locals who because of other circumstances cannot undercut the prices for jobs on offer. The emphasis of local needs has moved into the background in football, work and parliamentary representation.  We even see the Conservatives arguing for more local government control don’t we? There is a very interesting contradiction appearing I think.

Imagine that once a politician is voted in he can then choose to change constituency and work for the highest paying constituency, so that we get better paid highly efficient MPs in some areas and not so good ones in others. That already works with lawyers, the best ones can demand the best prices, that would lead to a deterioration of some areas. Yet this principle is happily applied to football.

In education we certainly do have a post code bound system but in local government in general we are going away from it by now altering local housing services into national and commercial ones.

I think these changes go against the interests of local people in general whether in football, parliamentary representation or local government administration, its all become a business and profit venture that doesn’t allow much local choice at all. Especially the dismantling of the National Health Service that found strength in the ability to allocate national resources to local areas has suffered.

In particular that is why I assume the leader of the Church of EnglandDr Rowan Williams was concerned about the recent scandals to do with MPs because it takes away power from locals who elect representatives that they can be sacked on such issues or at least forced out with public pressure. Why call our Members of Parliament Right Honourable when we then treat them with disrespect. We devalue our own choices and the people we trust in if we do not find a more suitable system to handle discrepancies of what should be done and what shouldn’t be done especially in the area of expenses.
It seems to me there is so much uncertainty amongst a lot of MPs of what they can and what they can’t claim that it is hardly their fault but the fault of a slack system that pays out whatever.
Incidentally the Parish Councillors have lost a lot of power in the recent shake-ups of local authority organisation too.

In particular the disturbing incidence I had with the above mentioned George Galloway in that any letters of mine remained unanswered and that he invited me to come to the Hackney Empire, pay £15 entrance fee and ask questions there. This is political representation as per sale. I remarked about that in the East London Advertiser at the time and think this is a taste of things to come, in that Galloway is the fore-bearer of bad news.

The international and national elitism that this professional level of football creates has the positive effect of creating international bonds, which are good for peace but it throws away the importance of locally grown talent to compete on their own strength and ability as actual representatives of that local talent.

If MPs are no longer accountable to their constituency who can represent the constituency? It’s the constituents who vote them in and it should be the constituents to vote them out and not reporters and news coverage.
We need a more earthly approach to local issues and not neglect those local matters for the benefit of internationalism that is not always in our best interest. It was Policy Network under Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair making head-waves on international governance. I suppose a middle ground has to be found to satisfy the need for good international relations and local need.

We cannot argue away the local people who want jobs, who need recognition, personal fulfillment, who make our communities . We cannot live on the basis that all our people have to constantly move around to find the jobs within the EU, people like to live steady in the homes they bought, the flats they rent with the family they nurture, especially children need a permanent home.

What we have at the moment is mass unemployment with cheap goods delivered to our doors and great sport on the TV and I suppose a lot of us are happy as long as they can afford that season ticket. We want more personal local involvement to strengthen our communities and we have to get jobs to make us feel like we are important makers of our communities and don’t just live somewhere.

Blog Stats

  • 53,791 hits