NORMAL LIFE

When I was at school, I was brilliant at maths.  It all seemed so straightforward that I didn’t really know why it was included in a lesson.  I mean who can’t add and subtract or convert everything to quadratic equations?  Consequently, I was often bored and never studied very much.  In my other lessons I tended to get bored anyway and didn’t study very much there either.  Everything seemed either obvious or irrelevant.  My teachers alternated between extreme pride and extreme irritation; reward and punishment. 

I was also shy in groups and nervous of people who stared.  I have of course now taught myself to overcome these weaknesses, as I have also learned empathy and other things I wasn’t taught at school.  These days I would probably be diagnosed as suffering from some syndrome or other and given special treatment or put in the IT class. 

There weren’t any syndromes in my youth (or IT!), just naughtiness or laziness or giftedness in one subject or another.  But, as an adult, none of this applies.  I am just normal.

Along with recognition that some children think differently from others has come a greater awareness that such differences are not bad, nor even necessarily worse than others.  A number of famous experts – musicians, composers, authors, etc,-  have been outed in recent years as probably being at some particular point on the autistic spectrum.  And, more recently, there has been a rash of dramas on TV, film and stage featuring main characters with ASDs.

I like the fact that society has come to terms with this and that it is so comfortable with the resultant openness.  There are of course examples of bullying, etc of those with ASDs, but that is not the point of this post.  I just find it so refreshing that we can recognise skills in those with ASDs and can even be comfortable laughing at situations in which they find themselves, whilst feeling sympathy and without actually being unpleasant towards them. 

The first dramatisation I took note of was Mark Haddon’s book, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time.  This was a delightful book, narrated by Christopher, whom we gradually assume to have Asperger’s or similar, who sees the world in surprising and revealing ways.  He fixatedly pursues the mystery of the dog of the title and gets on with his difficult life in the process.  I was constantly chuckling at Christopher’s views and deductions and ended having enormous affection for him, rather than ridiculing him as might have happened at a time when I was his age.

The book is currently on the London stage and I believe Brad Pitt is making a film of it.  It is a very popular play such as might not have been the case before Asperger’s was recognised.

It is not a coincidence that the title echoes that of a Sherlock Holmes story. 

    Inspector Gregory: “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”

    Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

    “The dog did nothing in the night time.”

    “That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

I have only recently, thanks mainly to the TV series, begun to think of Sherlock as on some sort of spectrum.  Of course, half the characters in the TV series display autistic tendencies.  But the point is that the series is played with humour, as well as a great deal of reverence.  It is exciting, with many unexpected twists and turns, but also peopled with fascinating characters with a totally different way of approaching the world from you or me (well, me anyway).  Watson is of course the complete antithesis.  Nothing could have been funnier than Holmes’ attempt at a wedding reception speech, with almost complete lack of empathy or proper understanding of his role.  Despite the hilarity though of his awkwardness, there was absolutely no suggestion that we should have laughed ­at­ him.  Indeed we understood and suffered with him.  I wonder how Basil Rathbone would have played him today.

But by far the best example though is Saga Noren in The Bridge, played brilliantly by Sofia Helin.  Saga is also Asperger’s, although it’s never spelt out.  I guess it is not a new premise that an autistic detective might have special skills (viz Holmes), but, in addition, much of the second series of The Bridge features Saga struggling to learn how to laugh at jokes, how to interact with her boyfriend, how to tell white lies, rather than the painful truth, etc.  When she takes out a stack of post-mortem photographs to study whilst lying naked in bed after sex, or when she sits all evening at home reading books on relationships, we are highly amused.  And the dialogue, with her failing to grasp at all the emotional sub-text of any conversation, is hilarious.  Yet, again, there is no way we feel anything but sympathy for the character.  In fact this series might be all about the entertaining interaction between the pair – one highly emotional, trying unsuccessfully to recover from a breakdown, and the other emotionally bereft, but both equally in need of sympathy.  Indeed, in a neat twist, it is the Asperger’s detective’s blunt honesty that gets through to her ‘normal’ partner, rather than any amount of counselling. 

I hope that this uplifting change in the viewing of ASDs reflects a better popular understanding of the disorder, or at least contributes to a better understanding of its naturalness in society.  Indeed it would be nice to see other conditions featured in entertainment in this way.  But I fear we have a little way to go and we still seem to feel less empathy with people over their body size, appearance, mobility, mental health, etc.  Maybe we need more black humour about the minority of ‘normal’ people who feature in celebrity magazines?

JUSTICE OPINION

There have been some interesting commentaries on the justice system this week.  In Peru we had the sort of action I believe is common in America - the two British girls charged with drugs smuggling have been protesting their innocence in court, but, with the prospect of 15 years in prison, were advised to plead guilty and receive a mere 6 years sentence.  This says nothing about their guilt or innocence of course, but merely that the local justice system is punitive.

In the UK, we are less punitive in this way.  But there remain anomalies.  Voting rights for prisoners is one.  Although a recent decision in Parliament was not to afford voting rights to prisoners, that decision is now being re-examined.  It is generally acceptable here that those convicted of a crime may be incarcerated (not quite as readily as in the US).  But it does seem inequitable that, if you have a penal system based on rehabilitation, as we have here, you should deny prisoners access to basic rights throughout the process of their return to society.  The possibility of restoring voting rights towards the end of a sentence is now being considered.  This makes good sense, although one has to accept that the voting pattern of prisoners may not be in line with patterns throughout the country.  The world is divided on this question.  US State legislatures have also taken differing views.  What public opinion may make of the new proposal is to be seen; one possibility may well be that the public will see crimes as lying on some sort of scale of awfulness - it may be OK for burglars to vote, although maybe not child killers.  But I like that there is a debate.

With the death of the notorious/famous gangster Ronnie Biggs, the media has been replaying his life and some of his public statements.  One that struck me was from while he had been on the run 12 years (I think) after he had escaped from prison.  He was asked whether he didn't feel that he ought to return to UK to finish his prison sentence.  'No,' he said.  'The aim of incarceration is rehabilitation.  I have been living outside of prison for 12 years during which time I have committed no crime of any sort.  I am therefore completely rehabilitated and have no need to return to prison.'  Good point!  Would that more criminals could achieve rehabilitation without the cost to the State of their incarceration.

One issue which seems to raise people's blood pressure more than others is that of MPs' or Lords' parliamentary expenses.  There have been a number of criminal convictions now of members who made false statements in order to claim expenses.  This is as it should be and should satisfy the public that such matters are properly policed.  But recent cases of Lords attending the House for 30 minutes and thus claiming an attendance allowance has caused further ire.  I just wanted to say that actually, however mean you might think this practice to be, it is not illegal.  If you attend your place of work, you are entitled to the payments due from that attendance.  Until the rules are rewritten or laws passed, even if it seems that 30 mins is an unacceptable length for a working day, it is the rules not the members' practices that are at fault.  One member of the public interviewed on this subject, however, was so incensed that he demanded that all Lords should be sacked - thus effectively destroying any reasonable argument there might be for doing something about this situation.  He then compounded his irrational outburst by saying that 'they only do the job for the money.'  Er, yes, that's the general idea of employment.

Clearly, MPs and Lords have a lot of PR work to do.  But also I do find interesting this apparent view that our actions should not only be legal, but also fair and perhaps moral.  There is currently no way for the courts to consider such a concept, but nor do I believe that all we humans behave all the time in such an equitable way.  But maybe we should try to bring more of this moral consideration into the justice system.  Perhaps we could start with sentencing.  I was fascinated that the police managed to persuade the courts that the Great Train Robbers, Biggs included, should be given prison terms of up to 25 years.  This was pure vindictiveness on the part of the police, at a time when more serious crimes received lesser sentences (or am I constructing my own scale of awfulness?).  Or perhaps the sentences were a message to the criminal underworld that we frown on organised crime.  But this was a crime unique, or perhaps just of its time, in that no guns were used.  25 years for an unarmed robbery was not a good message to criminals though even then and the justice system did not in that case appear to have considered for example that the robbers might have tried to minimise injuries and have been less brutal than say a mugger or a rapist.

Finally, I can't finish this piece without a comment on the Charles Saatchi case.  Two employees of the Saatchis (Charles and Nigella Lawson) were on trial accused of stealing or misusing several hundred thousand pounds from Charles' bank account.  The defence case was that Nigella Lawson had condoned the theft of Charles' money in exchange for their concealing her drug use.  In these unusual circumstances, although Nigella was not charged with any offence, indeed although it was the employees who were on trial and she was a witness for the prosecution, the judge permitted her cross-examination.  The net result is that the only details of the trial that emerged were the employees' unsubstantiated allegations of Nigella's lifestyle and their criticism of her household management and her childminding abilities.  I am appalled.  Nigella denies the allegations of course.  But, even were the allegations true, no proof has been offered to the court; as far as I know, Nigella has committed no crime; and an opinion poll seems to have found that the public are still content that Nigella's alleged lifestyle is acceptable.  Yet Nigella's life has been pulled apart in the media, through no fault of her own (arguably) and hardly anything has been said about the accused's dissolute lifestyle.  The jury has decided to accept the word of two women who clearly dipped freely into Charles Saatchi's bank account to treat themselves to holidays and expensive clothes, which, whether condoned or not, is entirely irrelevant to their employment, two women who claim that they were in effect paid off to conceal evidence ie allowed to commit a crime by dissembling to their employer and keeping a confidence which they have now anyway broken, and who one might say have now revealed their true characters by selling their stories immediately to the media, no doubt aiming further to justify their nefarious activities and blacken further the name of a woman who has been neither accused nor convicted, nor given the opportunity to defend herself.  This seems to be the opposite of fairness in court.  The justice system has done itself no good in my eyes today.

SOCIAL NOT WORKING

I was sitting in a restaurant the other evening when I heard a lady behind me ask her daughter, 'why do you have to sit there with your mobile phone in one hand?'  And the reply, in that slightly whiny, questioning way that teenagers have, was 'I need to take a photograph of my dinner?'  Ah, yes of course.

Well, we've all been guilty of that, but it reminded me of an interview with a teenager I heard on the radio the other day about Facebook releasing personal information.  She said two incidental things that struck me - firstly that she spends a large amount of her online time managing her relationships with 'friends' she has never met.  Well, we all do that too.  But she made the point that a chance, ill-considered remark could ruin her relationships in a flash, so she has to devote time to picking words and phrases judicially.  Actual friends of hers who didn't take such care have been devastated by the transformation of peaceful exchanges into battlegrounds.  And it is not just one or two 'friends' who turn - the hostility quickly snowballs into hate campaigns from anywhere on the website with distressing results.  I hadn't viewed social networking sites as quite such a minefield before.  It makes one think seriously before embarking on a new one.

The interviewee therefore makes sure she never ignores any online friend and also that she responds appropriately.  So much so in fact, that she has to interrupt interaction with friends she is with in order to manage the online relationship.  I can see how this would happen.  And of course you don't have the benefit of facial expression and tone of voice to add meaning to your words.  But the natural conclusion is that the online friendship is more important than the real one. 

But then she said something quite extraordinary.  Her friends understand when she ignores them to attend to her mobile device; they are likely to do the same.  'And anyway', she added.  'We have already sent each other tweets about how we felt this morning and what we had for breakfast, so we don't really have anything to talk about.' 

So it seems that, far from bringing us all into happy contact with each other and improving our comfortable interaction, the Internet has trivialised and hollowed out our relationships and given us instead a compulsive Russian roulette of a lifestyle with all the anxiety and insecurity we used to have only in the playground, but without the physical contact.

Actually, it hasn't done that for me.  I value the online friends I have, but, unfashionably, I don't take the online friends with me when I meet my real friends.  I manage the real friendships as carefully as I can and also try to meet up when I have something to say, rather than sending a text and then meeting with nothing left of importance to talk about.  But clearly I am now past the young fogey stage. 

But I also wonder, if meeting up with friends has become so unnecessary, whether texting and tweeting and online ineraction won't lead to more isolation and alienation.  There must also be the danger that, with online relationships taking over, we wish more and more to meet up with strangers we have met online, without really knowing who or what they are.  Young people remain remarkably indiscreet online and the trend for selfies has probably increased that.  The girl in the interview saw no problem incidentally with Facebook releasing her personal details.

Anyway you are all lovely.  Honest.  Yes, even you.

TRUE CRIMES

The police have been going through a bad spell again.

The Andrew Mitchell case grinds on. For those who haven't been following this saga - Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell was forced to resign after allegedly calling police officers “plebs”. Whilst this sounds daft enough, even to me as I type it, the affair has become the stuff of a Hollywood drama. Mitchell has always denied the 'official' version of events and subsequently, it transpired that the three police officers involved lied about Mitchell, but also that their bosses decided not to instigate misconduct proceedings against them. The Home Affairs Select Committee are now investigating. There have already been two internal enquiries and it has just been admitted that police actions so far, mostly improperly defending the police against Mitchell, have cost more than £230,000. Apart from the MPs enquiry, there is still the possibility of criminal charges being brought. No estimates yet of what all that will cost. As I say, if this wasn't real, it would probably be an amusing, if expensive, incident in a fictional story.

In a separate incident, a policewoman was arrested in April after whistle-blowing to the press that the Cumbria Police and Crime Commissioner had used a chauffeur-driven car on journeys costing £700, despite having an official car. Although there is nothing illegal (provided certain steps are followed and I confess I have no idea whether they were) about whistle-blowing, the woman was detained by the police. The police commissioner has now apologised for his "mistakes", although it seems no action will be taken against him. The woman has now also been released and will face no criminal action (for what offence it's anyway difficult to imagine). I've no idea what the cost was of pursuing this women whilst the person actually doing wrong was the police commissioner, but at least it was eventually acknowledged that she did nothing criminal. (The commissioner is apparently now hiring a PR consultant . . .).

Another current activity is the policing of anti-fracking protesters in Sussex. I have mixed feelings about this. Clearly such protests can become violent or criminal in some way. But, actually, there is nothing illegal in the protesters sitting on the roadside with their posters and banners. However the police have admitted that the estimated costs so far of police presence has reached a stunning £4m.

Of course policing costs money, but here we have police operations against an MP, on charges which appear to have been fabricated, but no action taken against the offending police; the arrest of a woman who revealed profligate spending by a police commissioner, where similarly the object of the police action turned out to have been not guilty, and again no action against the police representative who did wrong; and the policing of persons exercising their civil rights. In these police operations alone, several million pounds have been spent. But where is the wrongdoing?

The latest case involves a woman in Lincolnshire who was injured in an unprovoked attack by a person who was later arrested and who admitted their guilt to the police. The victim now claims that the police have offered her £150 to drop charges against the attacker because the time and cost involved in pursuing the case could not be justified. I admit that something sounds very odd about this, so I guess there may be more to it, but, as the woman did not accept the 'compensation', the attacker has now been released anyway without charge. That seems odder.

So, yes, policing costs money. But there are questions about whether the police are spending their time on the right priorities or their budget on pursuing the right criminals.

WHAT AM I LIKE?

I was walking through a strange town yesterday, trying to find my way to Waitrose, where, after going our separate ways to do our own shopping, I was going to meet up with She Who Likes a Cup of Tea During the Afternoon.

I have always prided myself on looking normal.  But what is normal?  Maybe my normal is not the same as other people's.  And what do I mean anyway by normal?  Looking my age?  Looking British?  Looking upper class?  All of the above?

So, finding myself in a road with no Waitrose, I asked a passer-by where it was.  He looked at me as though I was mad and said, 'Well, it's just over the road from Lidl'.  So I look like the sort of person who is familiar with Lidl, but not how to get to Waitrose.  Hmmm.

WHO'S BENEFIT?

There is much talk here at the moment about welfare benefits.  The Government has been trying to do something about the enormous sums of benefits being paid out by encouraging more to seek work, by limiting the receivable sums, making benefits less than the minimum wage, etc, etc.  Of course the newspapers are very good at finding individuals who milk the system and I have strived to bear in mind that these are individuals, not necessarily typical.

But I have been struck by a recent change of direction and the media's depiction of individuals who 'can't afford to live' on current benefit levels.  In many cases I am sure that might be a real problem, but the article I read today was something of a double edged criticism.  Maybe that was deliberate?

One individual was diagnosed with a degenerative disease and was wheelchair bound.  But, interestingly, he complained that he couldn't afford to pay for his house with current benefit levels and now had to move into a home.

I suppose, for someone who had always had a certain amount of independence, and his own home to boot, moving to some sort of public authority accommodation must have a further depressing impact on his life.  But, actually, isn't this what welfare is for?  If you are unfortunate enough to be unable to work and can't afford your own house, we have a complex system of public provision available, whether you're infirm or simply temporarily unemployed and whether you're without housing or income to pay for it.  I should have thought that this individual was exactly of the category for whom the welfare system was established.

But it's interesting, isn't it, that even he felt that benefits should give him an income sufficient to live and buy/rent the house he wanted, rather than provide a fallback position for unfortunates like him.  I have always seen the welfare system as a safety net to prevent poverty or immobility, not a ladder to somewhere wage earners and able-bodied citizens have reached.  I would accept benefits myself, if not with regret, at least with a certain amount of humility, not as an option.

The second example that caught my eye was perhaps the classic 'benefit scrounger'.  I shan't go into detail about her complaints and suspicious special needs; it was her criticism of the system that was significant.  She said that she had worked for 22 years and 'paid her dues' and now she was entitled to benefits.  'I just want my money,' she said.

I hadn't I don't think seen quite that argument before, as though the welfare system is a savings account or an insurance policy to which you contribute over the years.  Of course to some extent she's right - workers do contribute to a public pension and to a fund from which unemployment benefit is paid, and of course the free healthcare system is based on contributions.  But the thought that at some stage you might have earned the right to be paid by the State, rather than work, is an interesting extension. 

Clearly, such a proposition is unsustainable.  With longer life expectancy, even State pensions have proved unsustainable.  If we all stopped working before retirement age and received a living wage from the State, Britain would be even more bankrupt.  But it does make you think.  Do we all benefit sufficiently from all the taxes and salary deductions we pay?  Should we demand our 'fair share' or is it right to expect us all to pay for the benefit of all and perhaps not get anything back?  Is welfare in fact a right which we are entitled to claim whenever we wish.

Of course thinking of payments as being towards individual benefits is probably an argument for private insurance, but that would be as unacceptable to most of us as this woman's attitude is to many.  That would probably mean the gradual dismantling of the Welfare State, which I don't think we're quite ready for yet.  Perhaps the main problem we face today is simply that the system was set up nearly 70 years ago and few of us remember how things were and why the original plan was so revolutionary.  The 70th anniversary of the creation of the Welfare State is in a couple of year's time; maybe that will be the time to publicise the whys and wherefores and make a fresh start?

KICKING THE HABITUE

You may remember me writing that I once went into a pub (wait for the rest of the sentence!  It isn't such an unusual event so far) and, whilst waiting for my drink, the barman suddenly shouted out, 'Hello Bill!  Happy birthday.'  All the locals had gathered to greet him and a jolly nice party atmosphere developed.  Everyone greeted Bill and offered him a drink.  In fact I suspect he didn't buy a drink all day.  I was so taken with that. 

Not with the free drinks I don't mean, although there was I admit a certain attraction in that, but it was the fact that the local community knew Bill, knew it was his birthday and wanted to celebrate it with him, and that moreover the barman also knew him well enough to greet him, that appealed and made my heart jump slightly with envy.  When I retire and settle down, that's what I want, I commented at the time.  I dearly want to live in a community, to visit my local and have the barman (or preferably an attractive barmaid) greet me with, 'Hello Neil.  Pint of the usual?'  I will feel I have arrived.

Part of the reason for this is of course that I have spent my life wandering the world (which I shall continue to do in fact, mostly because it is what excites and motivates me) and clearly there is somewhere within me a gene which hankers after being settled, retiring, not just from work, but from travelling too, from being forever unknown in strange cities or empty countrysides.

But, hang on a moment, I can hear you cry, you are retired.  Yes, OK, I don't engage in any salaried occupation, but I do drive for my local charity, I am getting more involved in the administration of my local bridge club, and I do lead walking groups around the world.  One day maybe I'll stop doing those things and just sit at home.  I could do that.  I'd probably last about a week before I started walking off somewhere, or learning a new trade, or building an extension to the house, or joining the local movie-making club, but I could do it.

But that feeling of belonging, when you walk into your local and people in there greet you by name . . .  Wonderful!  I must say it has begun to happen a little here.  I do now often meet people in the street who say hello.  But, when I wander into Hemingways or the Crown and Cushion, nothing -  beyond normal politeness (except for that lad with the bleached hair who keeps saying, 'no probs'; he needs to improve his customer friendliness I always think).

We went into Petersfield today.  It was market day and The George was packed at 10.30.  I counted 60 people in the bar and the garden was full, as were the few table outside at the front, so I reckon 100 people having coffee, breakfast, brunch, etc.  Well, I don't expect anyone there to remember me by name, but actually the atmosphere was really comfortable.  I wondered then whether what I really want is comfort instead of that frisson of awkwardness that you feel in an unfamiliar establishment.

But, no, I think it's the human contact, that sense that, not only do you feel have you been accepted into a community, but also that you have welcomed by its other members, a private club maybe in which strangers aren't included, however nice they are and however friendly the welcome, and one in which you don't just wear a badge or a T-shirt, but where the individual participants have interaction and genuine personal contact with each other.

With these thoughts as ever in my mind, the other day I went into the chemist.  'Hello Mr Hook.  How are you today?' smiled the pharmacist.  Not what I dreamt of for my retirement, but maybe I have now arrived?

ALL MANOR OF THINGS

It was a glorious day today and we went down to Hove Park.  When I was young, I think this park was just a semi-wild grassland.  Now it has facilities for children, sportsmen and those just out for a stroll.  It is also people-friendly.  This is one of the meadows for kids to play in.

Not sure what to make of this.

Nearby is the Emmaus project, in a converted 12th century manor house.  There are very few Norman manor houses left now in Britain.  There's not a lot left of this one.
 

The main building was converted  in the 17th century and then built into a convent in the 19th century.  Part of the original manor is on the left.  The rest of the building is typical Sussex Georgian.

 

Emmaus is a French charity that has become international.  The Emmaus philosophy is that the house offers a place of support for those in need, but that somewhere there is always someone suffering more and in need of even more help.  'Companions' who stay in the house are therefore encouraged to work to give help to others.  The main building houses a 'retro' furniture and furnishings warehouse; a second-hand product superstore (the largest in the south of England) is in an outbuilding, and there is a garden centre and a cafe, all run and maintained by the companions, who also run projects in the community, such as a mobile soup kitchen and the provision of sleeping bags and footwear for rough sleepers in the town.  

What struck me most though is the solidarity of the local community, which frequents the cafe and shops, donates to projects and generally contributes to the welfare of companions.  Local residents got together for example to create this mosaic floor for the companions in the cafe patio.

 

Not only that, but tea is 50p a mug and fish and chips cost £3.50!

INTERESTING TIMES

It is always fascinating to note how news items reflect the times in which they make it to the newspapers. There was a flurry of concern recently when it was announced that Wetherspoons were to open a pub on the M40. The licence granted to Wetherspoons allows them to sell alcohol at the motorway service area from 08.00 to 01.00. The road safety charity Brake said that the firm was "putting temptation in front of drivers". 

Well, it's a sign of the times that this is the first pub on a motorway and it's another that there is general acceptance of the opening.   Of course, Wetherspoons are as famous for their cheap meals as they are for being pubs and many consumers welcome the fact that there will be serious competition to the expensive fast food outlets currently in most service areas. But I wonder whether this really will be a temptation to drink. Shops selling bottles of wine are not uncommon in motorway service areas, which is a pretty strong temptation to me already, and of course pubs do exist just off motorway junctions where drivers can pull in when they want a break. Personally, I always make sure I've consumed my alcohol at home before I set out on a journey, so I have no need to stop at service areas. Although Wetherspoons are also well-known for their excellent toilets . . .

Down here, where I am at the moment, in the West Country, the urban seagull is a major problem – blamed for scattering litter, stealing food from picnics and café tables, damaging vehicles and even attacking humans. The debate between scientists and ornithologists over the best ways of dealing with the menace and checking a feared explosion in their numbers, including trying to disrupt their breeding patterns, continues. 

But in the midst of this problem, Torbay Council has decided to halt the demolition of a building in Brixham, which was planned as part of a vital town centre road widening scheme, after discovering that a herring gull was nesting on its roof. Despite the problems that gulls in general cause, especially in these seaside holiday resorts, the herring gull is a protected species and the proposed redevelopment will now have to wait another year! The building has already been under demolition order for 3 years; the gull problem has been around even longer . . .

But the article in the local paper that really does reflect the age in which we live was the account of bouncers at an Exeter tattoo convention being jailed for attacking customers. The judge was shocked at the CCTV images. He said “the CCTV shows graphic, prolonged and intentional violence” and was some of the worst he had ever seen. But the significant factor wasn't that this incident took part at a tattoo convention, or that it was captured on CCTV, nor even that the footage was used in evidence in the trial to show how dreadful the attack was. No, the point was that the newspaper article ended with a QR code and a note saying, 'scan here to view the CCTV footage'. Of course having a smartphone with a scan app is another sign of the times . . .

LITTLE BENEFIT

When Sir William Beveridge set out his plans for the modern welfare state in 1942, he said that he wished to banish want by providing assistance from cradle to grave, a welfare system to which all would pay and from which all would benefit.   We don't have that now; many don't pay and many don't benefit.  He set out his vision of every citizen willing to serve according to his powers, having at all times an income sufficient to meet his responsibilities.  Now, whether a citizen is willing to serve or not, that income is available and is often more than the minimum UK working wage.  What was once a fall-back position, a safety net for those citizen's who fell on hard times, is now a foundation stone of modern society, the starting point for many to calculate their income needs, the desirable object of many out of work migrants, the bedrock of many people's lifestyle.

Even without the European Union, which makes it possible for the peoples of at least 29 countries (members plus accession countries plus, through a quirk, some others able to obtain EU passports), that's well over half a billion people, to receive a whole range of benefits in the UK without actually paying a penny towards them, or even contributing towards the UK economy, Beveridge's plan has been perverted, his vision lost.

It was three years ago that George Osborne stirred up controversy by suggesting that there were those who had made living on benefits a lifestyle choice.  One or two recent cases have reopened that debate, notably those of Heather Frost and Tracey MacDonald.  The former is a 37-year old single mother of 11 children (with several different fathers), for whom the Council is building a 6-bedroom house because it doesn't have one a large enough to house them all.  The latter, also single and I think about the same age with a daughter, lives on the Eastlands Housing Association complex which recently asked residents to cut down on luxuries in these hard times; whereupon Tracey went on television to argue that it was her right to spend her money however she wished and that it was indeed her lifestyle choice to live on benefits and to spend them on 'luxuries'.  

I do actually sympathise with Tracey - everyone should spend their income as they wish; the Housing Association request was a mistake.  But it is the thought that the various benefits she receives are considered her income that is so depressing.  She made clear that she had no intention of working.  That does seem to me a travesty of the Beveridge vision.  Heather, well, I don't know, she is so beleigerent about her rights to be looked after that I don't know where to start.  All sorts of derogatory terms have been bandied about, because of such cases - the feckless underclass, problem families, etc, but plans to restructure the welfare system have also led to more publicity for the political problems faced by the present Government over benefits.  I suspect that more such cases will be unearthed before the new measures are welcomed in.

Never the less, apart from the two ladies mentioned above, there does seem to be a significant part of the British population for whom benefits are now seen as a initial basic right, rather than a final dire necessity.  And it's not just those without visible means of support.

A recent caller to a radio programme, on which Nick Clegg was answering questions, berated the Deputy Prime Minister for a new policy under which an allowance would be paid to working mothers to help with the cost of childcare.   She claimed it was discriminating against mothers who elected to give up their careers to look after children themselves.  'There is absolutely no provision within the tax system to help families like myself, and our family is no doubt a net contributor to the Exchequer.'

It's an interesting thought, isn't it.  Britain is a net contributor to the EU, but can there be net contributors to the Exchequer?  I suppose Beveridge had people like her family in mind when he said 'every citizen willing to serve according to his powers, having at all times an income sufficient to meet his responsibilities'.  And, she continued, there is no provision within the tax system to help 'families like myself '?  Do we think that there should be a welfare system, or a tax system for that matter, which helps everyone, however well off?  And wouldn't that mean that those that really need it would have to receive a little more?   And yet this a lady in what we might normally consider to be very well-off circumstances – a very well-paid husband, nice house in nice area, in fact professionally qualified and able to return to her career in due course, feels that the Welfare State should support her too.

She did acknowledge that the various free education provisions we now enjoy were actually assistance to all families, but she took exception to the language about helping 'hard-working families', which she described as offensive to stay at home mothers who were also hard-working and that it sent out a message that staying at home to raise your children was 'the lazy option'.  I can sympathise with her affront.   But she's wrong about the substance.  Staying at home is a lifestyle choice, but it doesn't make sense to pay stay at home mothers an allowance designed to help those who are not at home to look after their children themselves.  It doesn't, as she suggested, make staying at home seem like a lazy option; it simply recognises the difficulty those having to work out of the home will have in looking after their children during the day.  Many mothers make the opposite choice to this lady, because they can't afford not to work.   They are the ones Beveridge intended to help.   The allowance is also of course designed to make it possible for mothers to go out to work if they wish to do so . . .

There was another example at about the same time.  A Mrs Stephanie Demouh and her children had lived for around three years in a £2million four-bedroom house in Belgravia, one of the most exclusive areas of London, provided almost entirely by housing benefit (of several thousand pounds a week).  New rules, limiting benefits to £400 a week, designed to stop taxpayers’ money being spent on houses in the most expensive areas, meant that she had to be moved somewhere cheaper.   But she has now appealed to the Council to find and fund another home in Belgravia, so that her children can continue to attend their primary school and she can continue her courses at Westminster University.  She is married incidentally to a businessman and has a 50 per cent share in his fashion business, but she does not live with him.

I don't know, nor understand, all the details of this extraordinary case, but again, we have a person, a student at that with a well-paid husband (who presumably lives somewhere) who seems to believe that state-funded accommodation is some sort of right and that she should be able to choose which house she lives in.  I haven't heard how this case has played out, and obviously I hope that the lady's appeal is ignored, but it is the fact that someone thinks that it is OK to be provided with a house, while they are studying, and despite her apparent income, that suggests that the view of benefits has gone awry.   Perhaps the fact that the case wasn't just thrown out publicly means that someone else thinks such a situation is normal too.  As I say, I know nothing of the background here, but the apparent shift in the principle of welfare is an interesting development.

So, Beveridge's plan (I hope) is being fulfilled.  There are those for whom benefits provide a welcome safety net.  But the envy shown by those needing the welfare system has now been replaced with envy from those not receiving its benefits.  Somehow we are now beginning to believe that we should all receive something from the State.  Come to think of it, maybe I should get child benefit too.  I don't have children at home, but that's no reason why I should be discriminated against, is it.

KNIT PICKING

Since the explosion of interest here in Scandinavian thrillers, both written and on television, I suppose it was inevitable that we should start seeing British thrillers based on the same tenets - dark scenes, broody, troubled detective, lots of suspects, every character with a mysterious secret, all the players somehow inter-connected, each episode meandering mysteriously and slowly on, each ending with yet more unanswered questions and maybe a new suspect, women in jumpers, etc.

I watched the 2-part thriller Shetland last week.  It was quite good.  It was set in a bleak landscape (the Shetland Isles unsurprisingly), there were lots of secrets, the community was close-knit, the jumpers were even more closely knit, everyone seemed to have a secret, the detective was broody, but . . . I don't know, it finished somehow rather unsatisfactorily.  I think they missed the point about making it slow.  Two episodes was just not enough.  When we found out whodunnit, it wasn't really such a big surprise and, since there had been little time for many plot twists, it ended with a phut.

There was great scenery though.  And an obscure Viking festival was featured; I had never heard of that and was fascinated that it has survived.  It could have added an even more sinister atmosphere to the context of the crime, but again, it sort of passed by.  The series was as if a producer had demanded a British rival to The Killing and someone had made the leap from Icelandic jumper to Shetland jumpers, but hadn't really followed the thought through.  The disillusioned detective's daughter had the best jumpers and all the best lines - he said to her, 'you can see Iceland over there.'  She responded, 'what the supermarket?  Oh no, I forgot, there are no supermarkets on the islands are there.'  Later she added, 'I can't even go out and climb a tree.  There aren't any!'  Unless you want to see what The Shetlands look like, don't bother to look for this series on catch-up.

I am in the middle of the longer Broadchurch at the moment.  Broadchurch beach is actually Bridport and is based around the high cliffs you may remember I featured in a recent post.  The main actors are David Tennant and Olivia Colman.  If you are a fan of David Tennant, he is brilliant.  If you're not, you might think he acts too hard.  He is the broody detective with a past to hide and, as with others in this genre, he seems to be emotionless.  But it's hard to tell whether he's trying to look like someone who's trying hide something and struggling to suppress his emotions for risk of giving too much away although not being quite broody enough to be charismatic and likeable or whether he's trying to look like someone who's a brilliant impassive detective with a broody nature, but isn't quite succeeding.

But the show is actually all about Colman.  She is just extraordinary.  Knowing all the members of the community well, her character has to help conduct an enquiry that appears to suspect any or all of them.  And of course she still wishes to be one of them and is distraught for all of them and shares all their suffering.  When she looks at the camera, you don't need any words, nor anyone else in the scene, you just feel what's going through her mind and what's going on.  Fabulous!

So far the series has followed all the rules - dark scenes, broody, troubled detective, lots of suspects, characters with secrets, all the players somehow inter-connected, each episode grinding slowly on, each ending with unanswered questions and maybe a new suspect, and a woman, not in a particularity memorable jumper, but in a nice boating waterproof anyway.  I hope it continues to unravel in this way (the series, not the jumper) (although, on the other hand . . .).  Broadchurch will be appearing on US TVs later in the year, so look out for it.

In contrast, I have just finished watching Spiral, the French detective series.  In many respects this series also followed the Scandinavian rules.  In fact it beat Shetland and Broadchurch by also having subtitles.  They both had tricky Scottish accents to contend with, but there's something about subtitles that adds to the mystery.  Or maybe that's just by association with the Scandinavian language thrillers.

Anyway, Spiral also had a woman in a jumper.  Again, not a particularly memorable one, although I might have just been distracted by the fact  that it kept slipping off her shoulder.  All the police here  seemed to interpret 'plain clothes' as down-and-out scruffy blousons.  What a waste of an opportunity for the French fashion knitwear industry.  One of the criminals disguised himself as a policeman at one stage by not shaving and putting on a leather bomber jacket.  Even he saw that it was some sort of uniform.  But I suppose it must have had an element of realism in it, otherwise it wouldn't have been accepted on French TV.  Perhaps all those louche men hanging around on French street corners with cigarettes in their mouths are actually police officers.

Spiral was also a police procedural thriller, like most of the dark, mysterious Scandinavian ones.  I am in the process of reading through the 10-book Martin Beck series, which was the forerunner of all of today's police procedurals.  The main premise there, apart from the gloomy, dedicated detective with a consequent hopeless homelife, was that society was rotten, mostly because of the actions of Government.  So most of the action takes place in run-down public housing, with understaffed police, illegal immigrants living outside the law, citizens with their lives ruined by public servants or wealthy industrialists, etc and most of the criminals evoking more sympathy than the representatives of the law.

Spiral had the dingy, run-down back streets, rather than the grand frontages one is used to in scenes of Paris, it also had the illegal immigrants and down-trodden citizens and uncaring, self-serving authorities.  The police characters too all had the usual personal problems.  But it didn't seem to have the political message of the Martin Beck procedural.  What it did have though was a great premise - instead of the gloomy, bleak, wintry, nocturnal environment of The Killing or Shetland, the atmosphere was built up with intertwined stories of crooks, lawyers and police, and every one of them operating outside of the law with greater or lesser degrees of venality.  Maybe that was the political message ie real life in France is not the one promoted in all the superficial fashion and holiday magazines?  Anyway it was fascinating to watch at every level.

We were not invited to like the thuggish police officers that much.  Nor did I have much sympathy for the criminals, certainly not for the anarchists among them.  But, if the environment revealed in this series was indeed realistic, what a dystopia!  I guess there will be another series in due course.  Watch it!

RAGE AGAINST THIS AGE

I've been so occupied in the last week or so, I've hardly had time even to look in and say, 'hello'.  So, hello!

But I have, with my usual diligence been monitoring life in Britain.  And hasn't it all been going downhill!  I have been getting a bit concerned about this judgement actually.  When I was young and we had to choose whether we were mods or rockers and of course had to go down to Brighton seafront for mammoth punch-ups, I remember my parents saying that it was all terrible and the end of life as we know it.  Every time from then on that fashion changed - long hair, flared trousers, promiscuous sex, biscuits with jam in them, etc, my parents would tut and shake their heads and tell me that the world had gone mad and society itself was in free-fall.  I, on the other hand, would say, 'get with it, daddyo,' or some such catchy, up to date phrase, indicating that my aim was keep up with current trends when my parents didn't.  So, here I am, however, decrying aspects of modern British society.  I suspect I might have turned into my Mum.

Is that inevitable, I wonder.  When we become older and wiser, do we realise that our parents spoke sense and thus do we eventually agree with them?  Or do we just slow down gradually and fail to keep up with a rapidly changing world, as our parents failed to do before us?  Can't be that, because I still keep up with all the latest fashions and dance crazes, like hustling and jacking and that other dance where you just jump up and down.  Can it be that I'm just old - as old as my parents were then?  But it can't be that, I expect to live twice as long as my parents did, so I'm only part way through my life, whereas they were in the twilight of their years.  Weren't they?  Of course it could be that Britain really is going down the drain and my parents were the first to spot it.

Earlier in the week, I took someone to the hospital down in Portsmouth.  While I waited for their treatment, I bought myself a coffee in the waiting lounge.  'Don't bother to fix the plastic cap on the cup', I said.  'I'll drink it here'.  'Oh, we have to put the caps on,' the barista replied.  There's another major change in Britain - she used to be a shop assistant, or if you were really lucky, a waitress.  It's all self-service now though and the shop assistants call themselves fancy names and I pay twice as much for my coffee.

Where was I?  Oh yes, caps on coffee cups.  Actually it wasn't a cup either.  Despite paying twice as much for the coffee,  it was served in a paper cup and I had to stir it with a wooden stick.  'Yes, we have to put the caps on for health and safety reasons,' she said.  Health and safety again!  What do they think I am going to do with it?!  The cup already has HOT written on the side of it anyway.  Of course I had to take the cap off to put sugar in and in fact I threw the cap away before I took the cup to my table.  But did I feel unsafe or unhealthy?

A day or two later, I read in the paper that a teenager had complained of panic attacks after taking a drug called Blue Cheese.  She was complaining either about the sale of the drug or the shop she bought it from; it wasn't clear.  Perhaps if she didn't take drugs, she would be more lucid.  But apparently you can buy this drug legally over the counter without an ID.  So now I really am feeling out of touch.  And maybe old.  Why did I not know before that it is now possible legally to buy and use drugs?  In shock and disbelief, I looked up Blue Cheese on the internet and found myself in a chartroom where they were discussing the merits of various drugs and where to get the best Blue Cheese.  I don't believe it!  Oh no, now I'm turning into Victor Meldrew!!  But, seriously, when did it become legal to buy drugs over the counter?

Today I was reading about the case of Lord Ahmed.  He was arrested for driving his car into the back of a parked car and killing the driver, whilst sending a text on his mobile phone.  My first thought at the time this happened was that this is a very modern crime.  This could not have happened just a few years ago.  Looking at a young lady on the side of the road, instead of at the road ahead, now that's what used to cause accidents.  Of course Lord Ahmed should have been jailed.  He could plead that killing someone was an accident, but hardly that he wasn't driving irresponsibly and making himself a danger to other road users - proven by what actually happened.  Never the less he escaped a charge of causing death by dangerous driving and was given a minimum custodial sentence.  A very modern judgement!  THAT judgement was criminal in my view, but what do I know?

Anyway, Lord Ahmed was then subsequently released by another judge, who accepted his claim that prison would hinder the good work he was doing in the Muslim community.  Ah, the Muslim community card!  It now turns out that Lord Ahmed has been making anti-western broadcasts in Urdu to Pakistan and even claiming that his original driving arrest was somehow the work of a Jewish conspiracy.  Not content with inciting Islamic extremism, in the pretence of fostering goodwill between religions, he actually promotes anti-Semitism.  Well, there's a lot of it about these days.  A very modern phenomenon!  But how does the judiciary ignore the serious crime he has committed and then, adding insult to the injury of you and I, release him anyway?  This is one of the trends in Britain today that I don't understand.  Why does Lord Ahmed get special treatment?  Because he only killed someone accidentally?  Because he's a Lord?  Because he's a Muslim?  Chris Huhne, a Secretary of State in the present Government, was similarly arrested for a driving offence and told the Court a similar string of porkies, but he got 8 months in prison.  And that was basically just for speeding.  And what about all these Muslim clerics we're deporting for preaching extremism?  Surely killing someone, preaching extremism AND anti-Semitism is worse than both those cases put together?
 

POLITICAL HITCH

There have been a number of events recently that puzzle me. That is not surprising these days; I am now constantly foxed by life, by parking meters, telephone answering machines, BOGOF offers at the supermarket, texts from Ms Sexylegs, etc.

But to deal with one of these events, you may have seen that on 5 February the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was approved by the House of Commons by 400–175. The legislation still has to pass the House of Lords, and who knows how they will vote, but the decisive Commons vote by more than 2 to 1 seems to be pretty representative of current public opinion. But the voting has split the Conservative Party. Bizarrely, more Conservatives voted against the bill than voted for. In fact, almost all the votes against were Conservative. Because of this, a number of questions have arisen.

Why has the Prime Minister pushed this legislation through? It wasn't in the Party manifesto and clearly wasn't supported within the Party. Passing legislation by enlisting Opposition support is not that unusual, but it's pretty odd for an issue of this kind, especially when you don't have your own party's backing at all. Moreover, although public opinion is onside, most people are actually fairly apathetic about the subject. They are much more likely to get excited about the tax on sausage rolls or a railway running through their garden.

Secondly, what has made half the Conservative Party vote against their leader's Bill? Surprisingly, their objections seem to be religious ones. 'Surprisingly' because no one else in Parliament seems to hold such strong religious views. I shan't go into the religious points here, you no doubt know, or can guess, what they are. Anyway, it will remain illegal to have a same-sex marriage in a CofE or RC church for some years I think, but some other religions have already accepted the principle, so church marriage will be possible when the law is passed.

Thirdly, what is the view of same-sex couples? Are they all as keen on the law change as their activist representatives? It is always the same with minority views, the activists are so vociferous, that one can hardly believe the whole world doesn't agree. But, as far as I am aware, there has been enormous support for the Civil Partnership, introduced at the end of 2005, a union which the Church accepts, but not much of a movement in preference for same-sex marriage. There remains a body of opinion within the LGBT community none the less that wants marriage on a par with heterosexual couples. But what exactly does 'on a par' mean here?

I confess my initial reaction was to bemoan the continual minority picking away at societal norms. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that's that. There's no reason of course why that can't change. Society is dynamic and views evolve. Changing the law is trickier and changing religious practice is something else. But the position can change and no doubt will, given the present momentum. Never the less, although LGBTs don't want to be different in marriage from everyone else, the fact remains that they are different.

Same-sex relationships tend to be based on the way one likes to have sex, whereas marriage is based on procreation for the survival of the species or the family line, depending on your view. Maybe those needs are less urgent these days, but this was the intention of the institution of marriage. Henry VIII would have had none of his problems if that was not the case. And, as you will have seen in the Tudors television series, sexual gratification was a separate matter. In some cultures, a marriage between members of different families and descent is still considered more important than love, certainly than sex.

However, in a ruling against marriage between transsexuals as long ago as 1967, Mr Justice Ormerod stated "Marriage is a relationship which depends on sex, not on gender". This rather defeats my initial conclusion. And anyway Henry VIII made some pretty radical changes to law and religion to accommodate marriage, so it it is clearly not impossible to do it again.

So how does civil partnership change the situation? I was rather irritated, to be honest, when, after all the fuss to get that legislation approved, gay activists continued to campaign for more. The recent case of Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson is also interesting, where their discrimination case (that not recognising their civil partnership as a marriage contravened their human rights) failed because "such discrimination has a legitimate aim, is reasonable and proportionate, and falls within the margin of appreciation accorded to Convention States." In other words, human rights legislation not only permits discrimination against same-sex marriage, but recognises that civil partnership confers all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. So, opening marriage to same-sex couples would confer no new legal rights on those already in a civil partnership, yet would require multiple legal changes and the definition of marriage would have to change for everyone. As I have said, that is no reason not to do it and it would certainly end discrimination.

So, the argument is between maintaining marriage and civil partnership, since there is no difference between them, or harmonising the two because there is no difference.

But, even accepting that, it is still a slightly odd debate. The trend to marriage has continually fallen (despite a slight recent rise, probably following the 2002 changes in the immigration laws). The fastest-growing type of family in the UK is of those living together without being married. The number of people who cohabit has quadrupled from 0.6% to 2.2% (5.9 million couples) since 1996. Over the last 10 years, the numbers of children born to cohabiting couples has also doubled, suggesting that the unmarried state is a genuine social choice over marriage. There is, moreover, no religious or society objection now generally to cohabitation or to children born out of wedlock, nor indeed to divorce. Since the Divorce Reform Act came into effect in 1971, the annual number of divorces has continued to rise. At the same time, although same-sex couples in civil partnerships appear to be less likely statistically to “divorce” than their heterosexual counterparts, dissolutions of such unions, particularly among females, are already occurring, despite only being made legal relatively recently, suggesting that legal union for homosexuals is no more binding than for heteros.

So we have a situation where growing numbers of couples live together, rather than marry, where indeed ambitions to marry have softened considerably in recent years, even where children are concerned, and where there is no inherent commitment to permanence in any legal union. Furthermore, of those that do marry, church is not now the first choice for marriage. Many still content themselves with a 'legal' marriage at the registry office and dispense with the ceremony altogether. Very many others choose mundane secular locations such as hotels or even beaches for their nuptials. This, coupled with the fact that divorce rates continue to increase, shows just how rapidly strict attitudes in society have relaxed in the last few years. It is not inconceivable, with presently proposed legislation supporting same-sex marriage and not especially encouraging heterosexual marriage (indeed for some couples cohabitation offers a preferential tax position), that at some stage only homosexuals will bother with marriage. That will provide an interesting divide.

Ultimately though this is a legal problem and, even without the public apathy, no one is much excited by a legal debate. The Bill may or may not drift through Parliament without much fanfare, except from a small minority whose euphoria will not be understood by the majority of us, from the quality newspapers who will call it a 'landmark', and from Zimbabwe which will call it an abomination. But my puzzlement at the Prime Minister risking his re-election on the strength of it remains. If we aren't much moved by same-sex marriage, we would surely prefer not to have to make this into an election issue. There are far more important things to worry about in this country. Personally, a manifesto offering cheap sausage rolls will get my vote every time.

ANTI-SOCIAL NETWORKING

Now here's an interesting thing.  Latest crime figures for the UK show a continual significant decrease in crime.  There are those who assume that the figures have been massaged in some way.  They may be right.  There are those who think that the way statistics are compiled has somehow been changed to give a more favourable complexion.  That may be true too.  And there are those who claim that the presentation is weaselly worded, that now only reported crime is recorded for example and that people do not now bother to report instances that have become commonplace or that minor instances are simply disregarded by the authorities.  I'm sure that there is some of that too.

But there are other factors at work here.  In a survey last year for example, those asked felt that crime in Britain had changed little over the previous year.  But when asked about crime in their local area, the reaction was different.  There they believed that the number of crimes was falling.  And this was the consistent answer each month over the whole year.

So what is going on?  Well, after giving my thoughts on children with smart phones and Internet connections, it seems that social networking sites may have other benefits.  Other than pornography that is.  I thought that this was an interesting theory.

Of course online aggression may itself be a crime.  But maybe we prefer it off the streets.

RAISING CAIN

I have been reading with amazement reports and articles in the media calling for greater control of children's online time, e-mails, texts, cellphone usage, etc.  All this has arisen because people seem just to have realised that children are exposed to porn, inappropriate messaging, online bullying, peer pressure (or whatever you call the silly compulsion to meet pre-adult fashion and quasi-adult societal norms), etc.  Of course there is pressure from advertisers; every business wants to increase its product penetration and the impressionable teen or pre-teen is a valuable market.  Of course there is also pressure from sexual predators; think of them as businesses and the same motivations apply.  But protecting one's kids from these is exactly what parents are supposed to be for.

Parenting is not just about applying bandaids or hugging when crushes don't work out or even just handing out placebos when hunger pangs or hormones strike.  There's a lot of advice and help and steering and general caring involved.  Look it up in the dictionary - a parent is 'an offspring's caretaker'.  And there's example setting.  Too many parents seem to want to be friends with their kids.  That can work, but what doesn't work is pretending to be a kid and doing things you should have grown out of long ago.  And nor does it work pretending that they're adults and letting them do things at home (or worse outside of the home) which they should do only when old enough.

Children need role models.  If parents don't offer them that, then children will fall for the role models seductively offered by advertisers, anti-social peers, petty criminals and pedophiles.

And the stricter you are, the more your kids will look elsewhere, where the lifestyle seems easier to achieve or persons seem more loving.  It's tricky, isn't it!  That's why parents sometimes need training too.

Anyway, back to online pressures and threats, where do these kids get their smart phones, iPads, Internet connections, etc from?  Well, the answer is that their parents pay for them.  Of course I understand why you might want your young son or daughter to have a mobile phone, but, let's be honest, how often are they used just so that you can contact each other in the event of an emergency?  And how much are they used additionally to send texts, to call others, to email, to log onto the Internet?  50% of the time?  75% of the time?  All the time?  Don't know?  And what are they taking photographs/videos of with their emergency contact device?

This, I believe, is the essential question.  If kids use their parents' equipment (equipment bought by parents for these emergency purposes), or their parents' Internet connection, or cellphone provider, then parents surely have the right to check usage of this equipment.  No, not just a right, an obligation.  If your child was speaking to strange adults in the park, you'd be concerned.  If they are doing the same online, and worse, given the pressures not to appear wimpy or boring, then surely you should know.  You should certainly be concerned.

Why am I saying 'you'?  Sorry, it's probably not you.  But I am surprised by the number of times I read letters from parents saying they don't like to read a child's e-mails or check their text messages, because of some misplaced sense of privacy or fear or even ignorance.  Yes, kids grow up too quickly these days.  But we can help slow the process down.  There are just so many cases today of adults who were psychologically damaged when young, who had childhoods interrupted in some way, who grow up to become anti-social in some way, that it's clear to me that the pre-teen and teen period is something valuable to sustain and nourish.  If humans leap from child to adult with no fun, development, nurtured, learning period in between, they must become incomplete adults and are liable to join the ranks of those we so much wish them to avoid.  And, oh so tempting though it is to be young again, we must try to act our age and only behave irresponsibly at those times when the kids are not around.  And if you have kids, sometimes those times are few and far between, (if they exist at all, now that pubs are full of kids . . .).

On the point about role models, I don't want to get into the discussion about sexy pop videos, except to say that they are one thing parents can limit access to or at least talk to their children about.  But I am struck by the number of publications that look harmless, but which are just as pressurising.  Comics and newspapers, apparently just for the young are often geared to push kids into consuming and thus to be more adult than they are.  Comic strips about 'normal' kids, who just happen to have the latest fashions or new technological products, or ads again, or just straightforward lives of celebrities that have appealing lifestyles for the impressionable young, can be just as pernicious as adults grooming the kids for something else.  And of course they create a demand for  products, ownership of which can be very seductive and dangerously compelling.

I leafed through the so-called autobiography of some teen star while in WH Smith the other day (I was waiting for someone.  Honest.).  I shan't query the ability to write an autobiography whilst still only just out of your teens, but there are two points about this - one, in the absence of actually having done something, there is a need to write trivial nonsense to fill the pages and to make it sound important, and, two, they set themselves up as role models (maybe unwittingly) whilst writing about their incredibly inappropriate lifestyles.  On the page I read, this young lady (I can't remember the name) was starting a new school, and found she was bullied because she had the wrong hairstyle and trainers.  But a really nice boy took her under his wing and helped her buy the right clothes and have her hair cut the right way and told her who to be friends with and who wasn't cool, etc.

Again, no explanation of where the money came from for buying all these things, but wouldn't alarm bells ring for you if you read this in your daughter's blog for example?  But, no, feeling newly confident now, the girl apparently went home and told her Mum, 'you can't stop me going out at night now.  I'm fourteen and I have to have my own life.'  And there it is - the moment real parenting begins, not where it ends.  Of course for her it ended and she went on and became famous among teens for doing something, or dating someone, and wrote an autobiography, etc.  She just has another 70 years in which to actually do something, but meanwhile she will be no doubt wish to be emulated by many girls even younger than she.