never grateful

Just watching some British classics. Here in the Great Expectations 2012, the story line sounds: “Why is it that the young are never grateful”, could be answered with an attitude by the actress in “Educating Rita” who doesn’t want to get pregnant because of an expectation but because she wants to choose it.

But when I chose to have children, I did not have the essential securities needed to make a totally free choice. Free choices need to be made not out of need but out of choice with several choices being available. Most of us do not have that freedom to make totally free choices. We always either have an economic or other essential need.

Only those with too much money, can actually make real choices.

Children probably are never grateful because they feel pressured into compliance. But compliance is necessary to get the necessary survival skills to make something out of life, to contribute towards society and become useful. Children can develop that ‘never really satisfied unless you give me what I want attitude’ just to get more out of adults.

I am proud to say, – though pride is actually never a good thing -, that I enabled my children to get on in life.

Unfortunately for all of us – within this family – my children have decided they are now so independent that they no longer need to communicate on equal terms.

My grown up children are all on my naughty list this year, but then they can go to Tesco, who do not have a naughty list, instead of coming round mine.

I just find it intolerable that my sons think they can come round mine whenever it suits them but they do not even give me their address, so that I could visit them. I actually only know the address of 2 of my grown up children and one doesn’t communicate much and the other was quite abusive.

So the lock-down reallly doesn’t bother me. I told my grown up kids not to come around because they are so independent, they don’t even find it necessary to tell me their addresses or have been – in one case – quite abusive.

I wonder whether it’s only in films, which are about families with lots of property where people keep in touch after reaching adulthood. Where kids can inherit, they are probably more inclined to stay on friendly terms.

Indeed in my own – Germany based family – people keep in touch because they share property ownership or have business together. My uncle’s carpentry business was handed down the generation since 100s of years.

Paul McCartney’s interview with Idris Elba also was a nice revelation, who fondly remembers the great relationship he had with his dad, who taught him music.

In large cities, where kids grow up in micro households with nothing to own, they do not feel a need to stay in touch with parents after they grown up. Kids who grow up in small homes with little space to be creative will not get such strong bonds to their families.

Perhaps that is something to think about.

learned behaviour

I am thinking a lot about family obligations lately.

To explain this imagine three scenarios.

  1. Your family is Mafia and you learn how to grow up in that and you have to stick to your family and support them no matter what or you get killed
  2. Your family is police and you see your parent put on that uniform every day and you learn keeping up the law is all that matters.
  3. Your family runs a business and you learn to think about profits and losses and how to make people buy your products.

Everything in between is a mix of those.

There is a lot of underlying crime about and I think it is difficult for kids who are not trained from the start either to be maker/seller criminals or law enforcers to find a way to recognise what is right or wrong these days.

Just read that some Apps like Snapchat are now used to sell drugs. Kids tend to have to learn and once they made the mistake they know it doesn’t work.

I think much more should be done to explain to kids where the dangers are.

Perhaps in schools there should be one lesson per day and good advice on what to avoid and how not to fall for dangers, which are not apparent to anyone unless they’ve made the mistake.


Fewer children? Where?

Sir David Attenborough’s ideas would definitely work out if it were only possible to get all people throughout the world to have fewer children. Yet it is those child-rich countries that keep on hassling us for aid and then overtake us economically that cause the mayhem.

Childcare costs are only high in our region, and that is where Sir Attenborough’ theory has a serious hole. It would only be us to reduce child numbers but those with no child care costs they keep on having them and then in the end we – as a people – will be completely dying out.

Populations in Asia and Africa will still be rocketing when we Europeans are down to 1 child per family to reduce our high child care costs. Sir David doesn’t seem to know how the world works.

Studio Studiosis

Having just read about Studio schools I think they are an excellent idea and exactly the best path to help young people into employment. Some of my children also gotten employment from similar schemes and have never been unemployed since.

It is a bit silly to say that it is too early to cement a young person into any particular career. Just look at the off-spring of many celebrities who mostly follow in their parents’ footsteps because that is what young people do, they grow into an environment and like to stay in it as they know it well.

Sadly today many young people do not have parents with businesses to rely upon, so they have to carve their own paths but many like to start working earlier rather than later.

When I was young one started an apprenticeship, working at least 40 hours per week and spending 8 of those in school to learn the theory.

Studio schools are the next best thing to apprenticeship and are also sponsored by companies. Of course it would be one better if those companies could teach and let learn by employing the young people outright whilst doing so.

Just to see that Studio schools are themed around one particular science or practical craft is very encouraging. For example

  1. Dorset Studio School in Dorchester, will focus on environmental and land-based studies and is backed by groups including the National Trust, RSPCA and the Royal Veterinary College
  2. Sir Frank Whittle Studio College in Leicestershire, will specialise in engineering, retail and logistics and hospitality and leisure
  3. Space Studio Banbury in Oxfordshire, will focus on space, science and maths, with the involvement of The National Space Centre, UK Space Agency and European Space Agency
  4. Apollo Studio Academy in Durham, specialising in Stem (science and maths) subjects, health, care and early years and with the involvement of the NHS Northumbria Healthcare Foundation Trust
  5. De Salis Studio College in Hillingdon, which will specialise in business and finance and be supported by Accenture, PWC, and HMRC, among others
  6. Future Tech Studio in Warrington, specialising in ICT, with involvement of National Nuclear Laboratories, Barclays Global Technology Centre, and Talk Talk
  7. Island Studio School on the Isle of Wight, jointly proposed by Southampton City College and the Isle of Wight Council, specialising in marine manufacturing
  8. Knutsford Academy: The Studio in Cheshire East, specialising in digital technologies and “employability skills”; links with Barclays, Deloitte and Manchester Airport
  9. Manchester Creative Studio, led by the founder of the Collective Spirit Free School in Oldham which is due to open in September this year. It will specialise in the creative industries, particularly in design, interactive media and digital technology
  10. Studio West in Newcastle, proposed by Kenton Academy and with links to various local employers
  11. The Bath Studio School, proposed by a group of five schools; specialising in business, IT and administration
  12. The Digital Studio College in Derbyshire, proposed by Derby College and backed by local employers including Age UK
  13. Vision Studio School in Nottinghamshire, proposed by West Nottinghamshire College; specialising in health, care, engineering and transport and backed by employers including Sherwood Forest NHS Trust and Ilkeston football club

All these school ideas sound fantastic and I am just wondering how a kid from London can go there because they are all over the country and I am not sure if people from further away can attend and get somewhere to live if not from the vicinity.

Doctors against obesity

I am really glad that doctors have spoken out on obesity and about taking positive steps to make the purchase of fizzy drinks and sweets more difficult.

Of course it also doesn’t help to constantly get junk food shops, junk food advertisements and the sweets always near the cashier’s desk at the shops.

Yet I think fizzy drinks have gone up in price. A bottle of coke is dear and so are cans of fizzy in small shops though they are cheaper to buy in supermarkets.

Often parents buy a carton of fries at the nearest take-away shop rather than prepare a healthier option at home. It is now cheaper to buy ready meals rather than cook yourself.

I can testify to this because when I raised my own children 25 years ago, it was cheaper to cook at home. Nowadays it is cheaper to purchase the ready made product, from cakes to Hot Cross Buns.

But when I make my own I know what’s in it, I choose the ingredients and I tend to cook more healthy and with a conscience.

But I would like to point out that I was at my leanest and healthiest when my washing machine was broken and I had to wash by hand the laundry for a family of 7, and could not afford taxis and had to walk 2 miles to the nearest supermarkets to get the cheapest offers. We had no computers and the TV was so small it could hardly be seen.

No housing, just hotels

It will only get worst, the amount of people that are going to present as homeless when benefit caps come in soon. Westminster doesn’t know what to do with large homeless families and whilst keeping them on the old housing benefits at £700 per week was cheaper, the new 4-star hotel solutions  cost that per night.

Where are councils supposed to house the homeless that will be evicted when they are unable to afford their rents? Are there any housing solutions available that fit their budgets, after the benefit caps have been fully implemented. Perhaps garden sheds would be affordable but then that is not in keeping with Human Rights legislation.

Another fine mess this government has gotten us into and an ill thought through policy is going to fill our news papers and Internet news channels with ever increasing problem reports about housing from April 2013.

It is possible that landlords will have to lower rents if they had no choice but to evict their tenants on the high rents they can’t afford but the chances are that in London there will be plenty of takers for expensive flats.

Will it all pan out or will somebody scratch their heads and wonder how it all came about?

Obviously we cannot place families into sheds and bunkers or even let them sleep under bridges, so where is all the cheap housing going to come from?

It’s quite amazing that the government warned Westminster council that they are breaking the law by paying hundreds of thousands of pounds to 4-star hotels to house the homeless but where are they supposed to put the people? Will they have forcibly to be moved into the cheap country side or will they try to house them all in East London,which is already a favourite dumping place for homeless people?

Tower Hamlets is trying to accommodate the situation by building the highest residential tower block,the Canary Wharf Tower, which doesn’t sound too safe, considering the fire stations in the area are going to be reduced. If I had to live on the 50th floor I definitely would buy a parachute, just in case a fire breaks out at floor 41.

Videos as this one from the BBC website will send a chilling message around the world that large families seeking asylum in Britain are no longer receiving the luxury large houses they used to get.

downtrodden mums

It doesn’t surprise me at all to read that both ante-natal and post-natal depression amongst mothers is on a steep rise. After all the DWP makes sure that every new mum doesn’t enjoy their motherhood.

Especially single mothers are ordered to attend employment interviews within a day of being due or 3 days after having given birth or they get threatened that their benefits are cut. Many young mothers get their benefits withdrawn completely once their child reaches the age of 7, with the excuse that they do not do enough to find work.

Being a mother has become out of fashion in public perception and Iain Duncan Smith’s department has a lot to do with that.

It used to be more fun getting pregnant and becoming a mum as one used to get much more support from benefits agencies in the past.

Even if a woman is not on benefits, the expectation of having to earn before conception is very much greater nowadays.

Universal benefits could break up families

To avoid poverty I think some larger families will resolve to breaking up as a family and re-group as smaller families and splitting up children between them.  That seems the only way of avoiding the less money trap that the government has laid for those in large families with many children.

It seems ironic that such a resolve will be the almost only way out of the poverty trap that universal benefits have laid for us.  It will increase the strain on housing resources, will be less environmentally friendly as smaller family units will consume larger amounts of white goods etc.

Old-fashioned values

What the Conservatives always wanted to make us belief is the fact they they defend the “good old-fashioned” values. We often enough get the comparisons to Victorian Times, how well the economy was then, and how powerful the British Emporium worked worldwide.

Today we have a Conservative government that makes up numbers with the Liberal Democrats and it is this partnership that waters down government. In fact we are in such a puddle by now, that there is nothing left of the “good” old-fashioned values but what is left now is a lot of old cobbles. But then in Victorian times we did have cobbled roads.

This government now wants to make us belief that the institution of marriage is as important as ever but in Victorian times no 2 men or 2 women would have dared live together as man and wife or asked to get formally married.

Family values were grouped around raising children and women were unable to make a career for themselves but were tied to the stove. Women had no choice but to find a man or end up in the workhouse. We are very tolerant these days but want to see good old-fashioned stern discipline and workaholic people who work hard and save hard. But the singles lifestyle these days is very expensive more expensive than living in a tightly knit family that can save a few pennies by doing things in a type of cooperative way. When large families still lived under one roof, where several generations shared a household,then savings could be made but today they all live in single flats, all need their own washing machines and pay their own individual rents.

What the government has forgotten is the fact that family is a child-related matter and not a marriage certificate related matter alone.  We do not get married to own the other person to say that is the only person I am going to live with for the rest of my life, we used to get married to have a firm basis to bring up our children and build a business or make a career to support that family.  But now, since so many jobs are being done by those who do not have the time to have a family, those with family are increasingly dependant on handouts.

What government now does is run after donors who have the most money and they say anything to get to that cash. In the end the customer is always right and in the end powerful men always ruled the world.

From G(c)rime to shine

It is an extraordinary public drama and mind-boggling to follow the public discussion that is the result of the decriminalization of homosexuality and the efforts of governments world-wide (almost) by now to change laws to enable gay couples equality to same-sex couples.

Looking at the history of it, same-sex marriage has always been the way to create a partnership, in which property was shared and it enabled the ground for a married couple to reproduce and leave possessions and often land and property to the off-spring.

Marriages were made for the purpose to amalgamate whole kingdoms, properties were made larger by using marriage and children could inherit considerable fortunes and power when they were in the best households.

The idea of gay marriage is entirely not fitting into this concept as gay couples cannot produce any children but can only adopt them. So it does not surprise me that Ben Summerskill chief executive of Stonewall, a pro-gay lobby group, argues that gay couples could produce a stable home for children who are condemned to grow up in single parent households because regular couples have broken up. He practically supports, in my personal view, that gay couples could take over raising children in a ‘stable gay family’ once the heterosexual couple has broken up and therefore save children from growing up in single parent households.

As if that is the most important thing to consider.

The fact is that gay couples have no reason to marry within the traditional boundaries of marriage because they do not produce off-spring to pass possessions onto.

An important fact has to be established and that is the first reason for marriage in he first place is to form a hub for raising off-spring produced within that marriage and not just to get married for the sake of being married and that is what Stonewall tries to achieve I think, they try to achieve that you can get married for the sake of being married without further purpose.

I think that law makers have fundamentally mishandled the marriage question and equalised something that has no equal because it naturally is incapable of producing children. It would be wholly inappropriate to allow gay marriage just to produce a gay subsidy where heterosexual families have failed.

There is another mistake in Stonewall’s argument in that gay marriage does not guarantee that it lasts forever, gay couples break up just as other ones do. So just because gay marriage exists, this does not guarantee the ability to place children into ‘stable families’ forever.

I think it is more than obvious that some very influential and rich gay men could influence the law making process into allowing homosexuality and now the rest of the legal world struggles to integrate this newly produced equality into all areas of life.

It is not possible to produce a legal total equality where nature has not gotten the ability to be totally equal itself. Nature and/or God’s creation is not equal for all, it is for those who follow the correct path of life, which is very well described in the bible.

The Independent online newspaper reports that David Cameron was today presented with a 500.000 strong petition against gay marriage.

added 26/12/12, apparently this article supports everything I said. Frankly it is a complete shambles that the Conservatives emphasize gay marriage so much, presumably just because they have some strong donors among them. Political parties should be forced to declare money donations from homosexual people.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,047 hits
%d bloggers like this: