So, I Guess They Will Just Be Left With 'Harsh Language'?

Or with this:

Or this:

Or I guess about 10 of these (with body armour) could flatten the 'child':

I'm sure none of those methods are likely to cause 'potentially fatal health problems'...

...yesterday a campaigner condemned the use of Tasers on children, and called for an outright ban on firing the devices at under-18s.

And how are they supposed to tell if they are under 18..? Who could possibly come up with something so stu...

Oh. Of course.

Sophie Khan from McMillan Williams Solicitors...

No-one anyone needs to pay the slightest bit of attention to then.

On The Twelfth Day Of Christmas, The Progressives Gave To Me...

...the reversal of traditional morality. Because it's something those icky conservatives do:

Sex is good whether you're married or not, and certainly folks who wait until marriage can have a lot of sex once they tie the knot. But waiting until marriage often means both early marriage and conservative views on marriage and gender...

Also, dithering and indecision, a blissful ignorance of how they come across, moral equivalence between the bullies and the bullied, a curious belief that criminality 'just happens', a strange blindness in hiring staff, the unshakable belief that their desires should be everyone's desire, their belief that extortion and protectionism is just fine and dandy, shameless opportunism before the blood's even dry, the continued infiltration of the justice system, bah humbug, please save the Earth! and irrefutable evidence that, at heart, their desire to control the language knows no bounds.

On The Eleventh Day Of Christmas, The Progressives Gave To Me...

...dithering and indecision:

Although the teenagers that were arrested played for Nieuw-Sloten, some of them lived in other parts of Nieuw-West, an area with a diverse ethnic mix and not without its problems. Baadoud, who was born in Morocco, says that parental responsibility is a big issue there. "We have a group of parents that when they come with their children [to football], you really don't want to have them there. And we have another group of parents, they don't come. They even don't know in which team their children are playing; they deliver them at the door and they drive away. There are people who don't even know the teacher of their son or the team leader of the club. There is a lot of work to be done."

He will not, however, accept that the finger of blame can be pointed at one group of people. "It's very easy to scream and to say it's a Moroccan problem. On the other hand, I don't want to say we have no problems. I am very open and clear that we have to discuss. Families really need help and I'm trying to open their eyes. But if you stand outside and you scream it's a problem, it won't be solved and it might create another problem – people will feel: 'We are not welcome.'"

And someone else, later in the article, wonders why they have a population that has no respect for authority...

Also, a blissful ignorance of how they come across, moral equivalence between the bullies and the bullied, a curious belief that criminality 'just happens', a strange blindness in hiring staff, the unshakable belief that their desires should be everyone's desire, their belief that extortion and protectionism is just fine and dandy, shameless opportunism before the blood's even dry, the continued infiltration of the justice system, bah humbug, please save the Earth! and irrefutable evidence that, at heart, their desire to control the language knows no bounds.

On The Tenth Day Of Christmas, The Progressives Gave To Me...

...a blissful ignorance of how they come across:

The so-called Jessica Ennis Generation (those born in the 80s and 90s, like me) was portrayed as more tolerant of, and essentially not bothered by, mixed race families.

It followed other recent reports which claimed that mixed race people are more attractive, more intelligent and biologically superior to their single race counterparts. But have the prejudices which blighted mixed race people and couples completely disappeared over the last 20 years?

Yes, you read that right - someone who writes approvingly of how reports suggest his kind are better than everyone else is pontificating on racism.

YCMIU!

Also, moral equivalence between the bullies and the bullied, a curious belief that criminality 'just happens', a strange blindness in hiring staff, the unshakable belief that their desires should be everyone's desire, their belief that extortion and protectionism is just fine and dandy, shameless opportunism before the blood's even dry, the continued infiltration of the justice system, bah humbug, please save the Earth! and irrefutable evidence that, at heart, their desire to control the language knows no bounds.

On The Ninth Day Of Christmas, The Progressives Gave To Me...

...moral equivalence between the bullies and the bullied:

So, I put it to the head teacher: what punishment are you giving these boys for making my son’s life a misery? ‘Oh, none,’ she replied. ‘We’re going to set up a drama group to help the three of them (including Monty) deal with their social responses.’

Social responses? What on earth was she talking about? I felt like she had swallowed a whole political correctness dictionary!

I rushed from the room, went straight home and told Monty that if either of those boys came anywhere near him again he had my permission to punch them — a social response I felt was quite appropriate under the circumstances. But I knew he wouldn't  He’s no angel, but punching is not his style.

Then the school suddenly changed tack. ‘This isn't actually a bullying matter,’ the head teacher informed me at the beginning of week three. ‘Bullying is the relentless targeting of one individual, and these two boys behave like this towards every child in the class.’

She then suggested — with Monty present — that it might be best to just ‘put up with it, and stop taking their behaviour so personally’.

And people wonder why the teaching profession is increasingly despised..?

Also, a curious belief that criminality 'just happens', a strange blindness in hiring staff, the unshakable belief that their desires should be everyone's desire, their belief that extortion and protectionism is just fine and dandy, shameless opportunism before the blood's even dry, the continued infiltration of the justice system, bah humbug, please save the Earth! and irrefutable evidence that, at heart, their desire to control the language knows no bounds.

On The Eighth Day Of Christmas, The Progressives Gave To Me...

... a curious belief that criminality 'just happens':

At that time, Sodiq dreamed of being a doctor and was planning to go to college. I left to focus on film school.

When I came back, I couldn't understand how it had all gone so wrong.

Sodiq, now 20, is starting a 30-year jail sentence in Feltham Young Offenders Institution for murder. The teenager who died was Sylvester Akapalara, who had been to the same school as Sodiq and was a very promising athlete. Both he and Sodiq had dreams but both had got caught up in street life.

Why did it happen? It's complicated.

Get that? It's complicated....

Also, a strange blindness in hiring staff, the unshakable belief that their desires should be everyone's desire, their belief that extortion and protectionism is just fine and dandy, shameless opportunism before the blood's even dry, the continued infiltration of the justice system, bah humbug, please save the Earth! and irrefutable evidence that, at heart, their desire to control the language knows no bounds.

On The Seventh Day Of Christmas, The Progressives Gave To Me...

...a strange blindness in hiring staff:

"He asks a lot of questions. Every day he asks if Omar is alive or dead. He knows what happened, he was there, but he needs to make sense of it," says his father, Jihad Misharawi, whose family was devastated in an inferno on the first full day of last month's war.

That's BBC freelance video operator Jihad Misharawi to you..!

Also, the unshakable belief that their desires should be everyone's desire, their belief that extortion and protectionism is just fine and dandy, shameless opportunism before the blood's even dry, the continued infiltration of the justice system, bah humbug, please save the Earth! and irrefutable evidence that, at heart, their desire to control the language knows no bounds.

On The Sixth Day Of Christmas, The Progressives Gave To Me...

...the unshakable belief that their desires should be everyone's desire:

A Conservative MP has claimed "most parents" don't want their children to be gay. How can he possibly know? How many has he asked? Certainly not me; if he had, I'd have told him I like having a gay son so much I think everyone should have one.

I mean...what does one say to narcissism like that? Does she want a child, or a prize?

Also, their belief that extortion and protectionism is just fine and dandy, shameless opportunism before the blood's even dry, the continued infiltration of the justice system, bah humbug, please save the Earth! and irrefutable evidence that, at heart, their desire to control the language knows no bounds.

On The Fifth Day Of Christmas, The Progressives Gave To Me...

...their belief that extortion and protectionism is just fine and dandy:

In 1947 Congress acted to rein in “Big Labor” by passing (over President Truman’s veto) what came to be known as the Taft-Hartley Act. Among its provisions was a section permitting states to outlaw union shop agreements between workers and management– what some anti-union PR genius labeled “right to work” laws.

These laws bar unions and employers from requiring all employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement to either join the union or pay the equivalent of dues to the union. However unions almost always represent employees who refuse to join or make payments. So these employees receive all the benefits of being union members– the wage and benefit increases negotiated by the union, the right to union representation in grievance and arbitration cases– without paying a dime of the costs. Which is why some of us call these people freeloaders.

Yes indeed, as far as Gene at 'Harry's Place' is concerned, those people who don't want to kick back part of their salary to a cabal they don't want to join are the freeloaders...

Also, shameless opportunism before the blood's even dry, the continued infiltration of the justice system, bah humbug, please save the Earth! and irrefutable evidence that, at heart, their desire to control the language knows no bounds.

On The Fourth Day Of Christmas, The Progressives Gave To Me...

...shameless opportunism before the blood's even dry:

All of them convinced that if Obama can just somehow seize the moment and overturn the 2nd Amendment, everything will be sunshine and kittens.

What's that? China? Oh.

Also, the continued infiltration of the justice system, bah humbug, please save the Earth and irrefutable evidence that, at heart, their desire to control the language knows no bounds.

On The Third Day Of Christmas, The Progressives Gave To Me...

...the continued infiltration of the justice system:

But examining a dossier of Rowe's work, Judge Henry Blacksell said while he understood public frustration at the damage caused by the vandals, he did not want to jail them.

He said: "I will pass the least possible sentence. These are young men and people care about them.

"I don't endorse it but I understand the adrenaline rush and the feeling it gives them and they may be isolated in their families.

"I don't want to be doing this and I will by as lenient as I can be. They've got talent and some of Mr Rowe's portfolio you would be proud of."

"Clearly they are talented artists," the judge added.

Also, bah humbug, please save the Earth, and irrefutable evidence that, at heart, their desire to control the language knows no bounds.

On The Second Day Of Christmas, The Progressives Gave To Me...

...bah humbug, please save the Earth!

So effectively have governments, the media and advertisers associated consumption with prosperity and happiness that to say these things is to expose yourself to opprobrium and ridicule. Witness last week's edition of Radio 4's The Moral Maze, in which most of the panel lined up to decry the idea of consuming less, and to associate it somehow with authoritarianism.

When the world goes mad, those who resist are denounced as lunatics. Bake them a cake, write them a poem, give them a kiss, tell them a joke, but for God's sake stop trashing the planet to tell someone you care. All it shows is that you don't.

I won't bother to soil my hands tearing the Moonbat's column to shreds because Tim Worstall has already done a splendid job...

Also, irrefutable evidence that, at heart, their desire to control the language knows no bounds.

Baccalaureate Blues (For Some)...

The proposed English Baccalaureate. Will it be a winner?

Well, it's annoying the right sort of people:

...critics including Dr Vardy fear the move will result in arts subjects being sidelined as schools and students increasingly focus on the EBacc.

"Well-placed people I have spoken to say Michael Gove is adamant that this is the way things should be going and will push it through," Dr Vardy explained, adding: "I fear that it is because he wants to create economically effective units who will encourage growth, but that is short-sighted.

"Look at the financial crisis. We need young people with a broad range of skills and understanding, not a narrowing of education."

Yes! Who wants the next generation to learn how to be 'economically effective' when they could study so much more progressive and rewarding things instead?

On The First Day Of Christmas, The Progressives Gave To Me...

...irrefutable evidence that, at heart, their desire to control the language knows no bounds:

Monday 10 December 2012 is national Plain English Day which recognises the best and worst of written and spoken communications.

Who could argue with that? Does anyone like governmentspeak?

Ah, but wait!

To raise awareness of the importance of using plain English when speaking to people with autism, we’re encouraging people to tweet their favourite silly phrases and everyday sayings to @NatAutisticSoc using #literallydaft. Here are a few examples to get you started:

It’s raining cats and dogs

Let’s go out for a run in the car

We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it

Not my cup of tea

Sayings like these are used in everyday situations but to some people with autism and Asperger syndrome they are taken literally and can cause confusion and, in some cases, fear and anxiety.

*speechless*

Which is, I guess, just how they want us to be...

What A Great Idea!

Residents are demanding the council holds a public meeting to address antisocial behaviour stemming from a house occupied by teenagers.

Eh? How can such a thing exist?

Well, would you believe, on charity money?

Neighbours living near the property, in which charity CAYSH hosts a project to support homeless young people, claim they have been subjected to a reign of terror. And they have said it is due to a lack of supervision from the authorities.

And when I say 'charity money', no, they aren't going out rattling a tin!

But Alan Hiscutt, the council's head of commissioning for vulnerable adults and supported housing, said: "CAYSH has been recognised nationally as a good quality and innovative provider of services for homeless young people.

"The house is not unsupervised. CAYSH support workers visit regularly. Complaints about the behaviour of two of the residents were made in 2011. CAYSH took appropriate action to manage the situation, including by increasing visits to the property and working with the Council to evict them. The eviction took place in May 2012. "

 The neighbours aren't impressed:

The SCCA, however, has said the troubles are ongoing and enough is enough.

Mrs Davies said: "I am absolutely appalled at his complacent attitude about safety in my community and his complacent attitude to under-age homeless residents in this Borough, who are left for long periods unsupervised.

"This project has cost South Croydon Residents thousands of pounds – it is absolutely unacceptable. If it is such a great project let us move them to Mr Hiscutt's street."

An excellent suggestion! How about it, Mr Hiscutt? If it's such good quality and innovative service, how could you possibly object?

Zoe Williams Asks The Wrong Questions Again…

On ‘poverty’ in the UK:

Whose work is it to make sure children in the UK aren't hungry? That they have shoes, that they're not sleeping with their cots jammed up against a mouldy wall, or in a house infested with rats?

It’s the work of their parents, Zoe. You’re welcome.

She isn’t finished, though:

The charity Action for Children published figures showing that two thirds of their centre managers were seeing children without enough to eat. Its chief executive, Helen Donohoe, spoke to Radio 4's Woman's Hour about the pressures families were under, giving the example of a rat-infested house – the children couldn't sleep, the father was so sleep-deprived that he lost his job, the mother had mental health problems anyway, and "we enabled them, through housing support and advocacy, to get rehoused". That's great, but I'm left with unanswered questions: who thought that was appropriate housing for a family?

Surely a better question would be ‘who thought it appropriate to start a family under those conditions?’..? Zoe, however, thinks the problem is with…charities!

Really?

There are three problems. First, charities need access to ministers; if they alienate them, they won't even get into the room, and that is more important than worrying about what concessions you've exacted before you leave.

Charities don’t seem particularly bothered about alienating the government; they are always issuing scathing press releases and commissioning reports claiming that the government isn’t doing enough.

The government never seems to mind, either. It never blacklists any particular charity. No CEO has to stand in the cold with his nose pressed up against the window on No 10 Downing Street, watching forlornly as all the other charity bigwigs tuck in to champagne and canapés.

One might almost conclude from this that it’s all a game they play…

Second, charities are legally excluded from party politics, and in the more consensual age just passed, this meant avoiding saying anything directly critical of the government. This message got so deep into the political bloodstream that when Save the Children launched its campaign in September, to help UK children who were going hungry and without shoes, it was slated in right-wing circles for "politicising" the issue, even though to avoid politics would have meant avoiding poverty altogether.

Yes, I’m sure the ‘Guardian’ would happily sit by and refuse to criticise a charity which, say, pointed out that unrestricted immigration was putting pressure on our infrastructure…

Third, the relationship between government and larger charities has been compromised by the fact that charities run so many services. Barnardo's gets around three quarters of its income from commissions to run services, and only a quarter from fundraising. The Children's Society only gets a third of its budget from government, but that's enough to make an adversarial position impossible.

Ah, now you’re talking! Good idea, Zoe, let’s immediately abolish government funding for charities! Let ‘em stand on their own two feet with the donations from the public, hmm?

Who's opposing the benefit cap? Who's calling for a ringfence of council tax benefits for families in need? Who's arguing to maintain the child tax credit threshold? Who's fighting against families being rehoused miles away from their children's school? Who's calling for more social housing?

Looks like it’s just….well, you, Zoe. And the rest of the progressives. Judging by the comments, though, the rest of us are finally getting a bit hacked off with it all...

Humans Are Not Bees Or Ants, Owen, That’s Why…

Owen Hatherley again. This time extolling the virtues of communal living:

Communes are not, as a rule, taken particularly seriously as possible living arrangements for the majority of the population. For some reason, it is still considered common sense for housing, irrespective of its quality, to be as private as possible.

Well, yes. Just as the privately-owned car will always be superior to public transport.

It’s a bit of a no-brainer really.

But in practice, especially in larger cities, housing is collective by accident. It's not just students – the housing crisis is pushing people into flatsharing into their 30s and beyond.

Ah, yes, the ‘housing crisis’, or rather more accurately, the ‘housing (where houses are too expensive where the jobs are) crisis’…

But luxury flats rented to groups of aspirant junior clerks or sold-off council housing and private rented accommodation subdivided into multiple profitably lettable units both ensure that basic facilities – such as toilets and kitchens – have to be shared, without the space or the design being prepared for that. Could collective housing, where the sharing of communal spaces is assumed from the outset, be the answer?

Probably not, no.

But little Owen’s off to find an example that works, which can then be used to prove the same thing will work in a different country with a different social history:

Berlin's Lebensort Vielfalt (Diverse Living Space) is the kind of housing project that no developer or municipality in the UK would consider for a split second. An LGBT housing scheme, with 60% allocated to older tenants, it's the kind of quietly successful project that undemonstratively shows other ways of living are possible.

In what way is it ‘diverse’ if it only caters to LGBT people?

Meanwhile, squats, long the major laboratory of experiments in group living, are being criminalised, not coincidentally at the time when they're most needed. Squatting is usually – and especially now – a response to emergency, a matter of improvisation, taking somewhere dilapidated, removing the trees growing into the floorboards and getting electricity and drainage working.

But as we’ve seen before, squatting is not – and rarely has been – ‘a response to emergency’. And it rarely results in an improvement to the building, in fact, quite the opposite.

… collective living no longer needs to be attached to a "lifestyle" or an easily parodied stereotype. As the crisis of private housing rages, it looks increasingly sensible.

Then, as I asked before, Owen, where do you live?

Why You Are Wrong To Put Your Faith In Councils...

Alison Benjamin (editor of the Guardian's Society section and co-author of A World Without Bees and Keeping Bees and Making Honey) thinks parks are the bee’s knees:

More adults want councils to protect spending on green spaces, including parks and playgrounds, than spending on libraries, youth clubs and helping people find work. Nine out of 10 adults in the Ipsos Mori poll commissioned by environmental charity Groundwork said green spaces are an important factor in making somewhere a good place to live or work.

Yes, well, that’s the problem with surveys – they tend to provide the answer the people running them seek.

It's all in the way you phrase the questions, as S Weasel shows us.

I'm pretty sure if the libraries people ran a survey, or the association of youth club leaders, it’d miraculously find a quite different answer!

… a range of environmental bodies will argue in Manchester on Wednesday that failure to maintain investment in green space is a false economy.

Well, yes. Of course they will.

Green spaces near our homes give us valuable places to get to know our neighbours, and build the social glue that reduces crime, says a report on the benefits of green space.

"High-quality, well-maintained parks and green spaces make a significant contribution to the establishment and retention of stable and law-abiding communities," it says.

It also states that if everyone had easy access to green spaces, obesity costs to the NHS could be reduced by up to £2bn, and that the calming effect of green spaces has been shown to reduce hospital admissions for mental illness in deprived urban areas in the US.

Far-fetched claims?

Well, almost certainly, but that doesn't usually stop people, does it?

Not if we remember the origins of public parks. The first official acknowledgment of the need for my local park in east London came in the 1839 annual report of the registrar general of births, deaths and marriages.

Recording a mortality rate far higher than the rest of London, brought about by overcrowding, insanitary conditions and polluted air, he wrote: "A park in the East End of London would probably diminish the annual deaths by several thousands … and add several years to the lives of the entire population."

And in 1839 it was indeed a good idea, but then, in 1839 we were a vastly different society to the one we have now, weren't we?

I rather doubt that in 1839 they had gangs of disaffected youth, muggers, drugs dealing, litter, dangerous dogs, disrespect for property… all things which plague modern day parks.

Today in the UK we don't need parks to prevent diseases spreading, but they still provide a range of vital benefits. So how can we pay for them? The majority of those polled want councils to pay for their upkeep.

But 40% said money from sponsorship by local companies should foot the bill. In Manchester, MPs worked closely with major industrialists to bring parks to cities.

Is that the way forward 150 years on?

Well, as a commenter points out, it better not be left solely to the public sector!

Agir

I have been waiting 10 years for this article: I worked as a ranger in Ealing (2nd greenest borough in London) and was shocked at the sheer incompetence of the management, not only in wasting money but also in a complete lack of environmental or social knowledge. A few examples : A fountain in Walpole park used mains water pressure (i.e. was simply a large bore tap) running all day, all year because there was no budget for installing a motor or simply even putting a timer on it. Grass cutting contracts were so badly managed and written that in a particularly sunny wet year the grass that had been cut was longer than that that had been left (grass grows until it seeds and then grows much much less - apparently not one contracts manager was aware of this fact of nature) that was a waste in excess of £1 million each year, plus all the unnecessary noise and air pollution from the grass cutters. We couldn't take a deposit from contractors wanting to put a temporary access road across a park because the accounts were zeroed each year and thus we couldn't hold the funds. The contractors were paid to do a variety of things but the actual completion rate was below 40% i.e paid to fertilise raised beds but never did (nor even had the equipment to do so - despite being paid for the job. All tree work was done on a job basis regardless of the amount of work involved, felling 6 trees cost the same as removing one limb from each tree. Several members of staff did zero work but couldn't be sacked as the process would take so much work effectively you would need to hire someone to watch the person every day for a year to see that they had done nothing. The vehicle maintenance (not fuel) contract cost £7,000 per vehicle each year (the vehicles weren't even worth that). Play parks were overhauled without any research into user needs (and there is no point building a BMX track if no one on the estate has access to a BMX. By now you have got the picture. Lessons learned: I could have saved at least half the budget just by not cutting the majority of the grass and then by removing rose bushes, enforcing the contracts that were already signed, sacking the bad staff and a few things could have delivered better service for 20% of the cost. Also the guy whose kid was injured in the foot by a roundabout in Acton would probably like to know that yes we knew about the potential danger (it had happened before and was highlighted every year by external auditors, and by me every month) and was not a non-preventable accident, and yes the management lied utterly and destroyed evidence to hide this..

Is anyone surprised by this? I'm not.

Doughnut Wars!

A primary school which refused a healthy free milk scheme is instead flogging its pupils fattening doughnuts in the playground.

*GASP* Call the ….well, who?

Cuddington Croft Primary School has already sold sugary Krispy Kreme doughnuts twice this year to children…

Hang on! Eating doughnuts (even those ghastly Yankee things) twice a year is hardly likely to be perpetuating the obesity ‘crisis’, is it?

… in an attempt to raise funds for school projects. Meanwhile, the school opts out of a European Community subsidy scheme to offer under-fives free milk, needed for healthy bones and teeth.

Oh noes! How can it possibly turn down an EU directive!

Astonished parents claimed the doughnut sale could encourage vulnerable children to buy more and increased the risk of obesity.

Note that the term ‘parents’ is used – however, it seems to be just one that has a bee in her bonnet about this.

Paula Dolijanin, a health visitor, of Cheam, said the school’s inconsistent stance on healthy eating confused young minds.

Oh?

The mother-of-three said: “Young children are vulnerable to such organisations through daily life, but I find it unacceptable that these organisations are welcomed into a position of trust inside school grounds. “They are allowing Krispy Kreme to push their product in the school at the expense of children’s health, but yet it doesn’t offer milk, which is good for healthy bones and teeth. “It’s sending mixed messages to children.”

Oh, boy! One of those.

A school spokesman said the provision of milk was not viewed as a priority because of “significant disadvantages in relation to the logistics, administration, storage and distribution of the milk including the implications of spillage during warm weather”. He said the school had examined the provision of free milk and felt while there were “marginal benefits” , the disadvantages “would have diverted valuable staff time away from the provision of a broad and balanced curriculum in other areas”.

They’ve clearly had run-ins with this woman before:

The spokesman said: “We are more certain, however, that the vast majority of parents at the school believe they should have free choice as to what they will and will not buy.”

Ouch! In the comments, the battle rages:

Twopenneth says...

A rather hysterical article I think!! The "Health Visitor" mentioned is a parent whose name I have seen bandied around on whinging correspondence before!! Just don't buy the Donuts if you don't want your kids to eat them - everything in moderation I think. How many other Primary schools in the area have a swimming pool where all the children (including the 3 year olds in the nursery) have weekly lessons? I don't know of any others. Cuddington Croft is great at promoting physical exercise and healthy living and is a fantastic school. I think us parents can ensure our under 5's get the calcium they need too without having to be provided with it and as the school points out, the kids get free fruit which I know is very popular.

Oooh, controversial! We can’t put Ms Dolijanin out of a job now, can we? She does have at least one supporter:

healthyeater says...

I am astounded at the negative response to such apparently obvious issues. The provision of milk to young children was a decision taken by health care professionals. What authority or qualification does a local school head have to override such a decision? Children are a blank canvas - if you tell them fruit is a treat then they will want fruit. If you tell them donuts are a treat then they will want donuts. It is not difficult to see that companies such as the one described are exploiting children in what should be a safe environment. They want children to consider donuts a treat so they keep buying them - otherwise known as a loss leader.... If the donuts are for the mothers as stated above, then why not provide them for the mothers in an environment where the mothers are able to make an informed decision…..maybe at the gym….so they can work off the 200 Calories before it causes them any serious health issues – that will be 30 minutes on the cross trainer per donut!! Education is not something which should be taken so lightly. We need to give our children the best start possible and protect them from those who either too ignorant or too lazy to resolve such situations themselves. I praise the efforts of the "Bully" parent you mention. Without such people, teachers might still be selling Coka Cola in the hallways, smoking at the school gate, and beating children with canes. Society needs people who are prepared to fight for what is right and not hide behind the established norms.

And with that, the blue touchpaper is lit!

mumster says...

In response to the post by 'healthy eater' Cheam (who in most of the Mum's opinions is actually Paula Dolijanin, the health visitor, of Cheam quoted in the article!) I am a Cuddington Croft Mum who regularly chooses to eat Krispy Kremes & buys them for her children but still adopts a healthy lifestyle so we really don't need someone like you telling us we should be buying our donuts at the gym to burn off 200 calories! Get off your high horse & do something useful for our school instead of whingeing please. Whilst there are ongoing major concerns about the safety of our children as a result of the recent attacks in the area, you and the Guardian should be more concerned about protecting our children from strangers rather than Kripsy Kremes.

Safer, clearly, to get between an angry grizzly sow and its cub than between a Cheam parent and the Krispy Kremes!

mumster says...

I wonder which stall Paula is volunteering to help on at the PTA Summer Fair at Cuddington Croft tomorrow? Presumably the salad bar?

Ouch! Miaow!

Someone purporting to be the lady herself shows up in the comments. I suspect it really is her, as the insufferable sense of righteousness dowse tend to give it away:

Paula Doljanin says...

There seems to be some confusion after the recent publication of my comments in the Guardian and although I feel it is necessary to clear up some basic facts. I believe the school is generally a good school and recognise their achievement in attaining good inspection results. I appreciate all the efforts made by the school in provision of fruit and the focus on healthy lifestyles in PSHE. I also realise there are a number of issues at the school which are being discussed at the moment such as the issues with Mrs Flynn, the security concerns and the high staff turnover. Please realise that I am a Health Visitor and so, my professional interest is in all health related issues. I have discussed the staff issues with many people and feel that issue is being progressed at the right levels. I have discussed the security issues with Surrey Police and believe they have that under control. I have chosen to focus on those issues where I can offer the most assistance to the school. These are the hygiene of the toilet facilities, the provision of drinking water in the toilet facility, the provision of milk (as provided under the European School Milk Scheme) and the impact that eating habits will have on Children's long term health. When dealing with issue at any school, there is a simple process you should follow. Initially, it should be raised with a teacher. If unresolved then you should raise it with the Head. If still unresolved to your satisfaction then you should go to the Board of Governors. I have followed this course regarding the European School Milk Scheme and I am still unhappy with the outcome. As such, I have raised the issue of the School Milk and the donuts with the Surrey Council, the District Councillors - Nigel Petrie (also a Governor) & Christine Howells and our County Councillor - David Wood. I will continue to raise this with professionals in this aspect of Child Health until I feel I have received a reasonable outcome. When evaluating the long term benefits of milk, it is simply not good enough to say that it is too difficult. When contacted by the Guardian, I gave my opinion regarding the doughnuts and the milk and also raised a lot of positive points about the school. I did not see the final story before it went to print and had no say in which comments I would be quoted on. In any case, I am happy to stand by my comments and have not acted under any pseudonym when stating my case. I am prepared to state my beliefs and be judged accordingly. I can understand why some others have used that approach when stating that allowing corporations into schools is acceptable. The House of Commons Health Committee published a report on Obesity in 2004. This can be found at: http://www.publicati ons.parliament.uk/pa /cm200304/cmselect/c mhealth/23/23.pdf. For ease I have copied the following statements for your review.

 (Ed: huge wall-o-text snipped for brevity – you can read it at the original comment if you really want to)

Against the reports recommendations, the Government has set this as an issue for local determination so it is the responsibility of all parents to make their views known. I believe parents should make an informed decision so please review the House of Commons Health Committee report and make your opinion known. The school dinners should also be reviewed and I have not yet looked into them with sufficient detail to form an opinion. The point here is not about freedom of choice - if you want doughnuts.....buy them at Tesco, Waitrose, Asda, Morrison's or Sainsbury along with your alcohol, cigarettes and ****. If you think it is worth saving a few dollars (Ed: Huh? Wrong currency, love!)now at the risk of your (and my) Children's health then that is your right but please do not think I will stand by and allow that to happen without voicing my opinion. Finally, the PTA did a great job today. The school fair was enjoyed by all of our family. We caught up with lots of parents and made good use of the bouncy castle. We did not have any fairy floss or doughnuts but stuck to the home made cakes and soft serve ice cream - I don't believe their was any impact on our level of enjoyment! I am happy to discuss this further.

Got that? Good!

The increasing irritation with this dogmatic, ‘I know best!’ approach is clearly getting on the parent's tits:

astonished2 says...

Unfortunately all i read then was..blah blah blah!!When you start hiding behind tedious quotes people stop listening. Its interesting that this parent has taken her issues so far and yet nothing has changed? Is it actually because this whole thing has been blown out of all rational propotion? I am interested to know whether this parent lets her children have birthday cake at their birthdays or at their friends birthdays..or is that banned ? Isn`t this about the old adage...everything in moderation. Please do not assume other parents are not as caring or concerned about their children as you are. We are all intelligent, articulate people who can make sensible decisions for our children without the forceful input of a ` health visitor`. I am so glad you were not my children`s health visitor as I would probably have found you pushy ,forceful and actually rather intimidating. Your professional role should be to monitor and offer guidance to new parents...not ram your views down people`s throats and make them feel inadequate for allowing their children an occasional treat.`

Well, well, well. Ms Dolijanin certainly knows how to make friends, doesn't she?

I would tell her you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but she’d probably claim honey had too many calories…

How The State Tricks You…

Meg Henderson on the changing face of adoption:

In 2003, the Guardian published an account of my family's experiences of the adoption system. We had fostered Louise when she was two and a half, and adopted her five years later, still optimistic – despite the hell we had lived through already – that all would end up happily. In the early years, she smeared herself with excreta, picked wounds in herself until she bled, attacked anything that moved, and screamed day and night. We told social services that we would not knowingly take a child with learning disabilities because we didn't think we could cope, but we were told Louise was suffering from emotional deprivation, and all she needed was tender, loving care.

You see, social services deliberately - and with malice aforethought - lied to her.

Back then we were naive and didn't understand the rules. For instance, if we wouldn't "knowingly" take a child with learning disabilities, they just wouldn't tell us.

Yes, it’s still lying if you do it by omission.

What they also failed to pass on was that she had brain damage from having been battered and had a family history of mental illness.

Quite a different kettle of fish, then, from a child with ‘emotional deprivation’?

The people at social services laughed when we wondered if Louise might have learning disabilities and by the time this became too apparent to deny, Louise was our child. That is what social services count on: if the child can be kept with you long enough, you will not want to give her/him up.

Just read that again. Blood chilling in it’s calculatedness, isn’t it?

I wrote the 2003 article in response to a surge of adverts featuring celebrities encouraging people to adopt smiling, but needy, children. Tony Blair was in office, feverishly burnishing his public image by volunteering as patron saint and saviour of little children.

And what’s changed? Well, as you might expect, just the faces…

What has changed since 2003? Well, David Cameron has assumed the mantle of patron saint and saviour of little children, abetted by Michael Gove, who was himself adopted as a baby. What they are ignoring is that adoption has changed from what they think it ever was.

Given the way our society has changed (in many ways, not for the better) it’d be amazing if it hadn’t.

For a start, there were never any well brought-up little orphans looking for loving parents. What we had were unmarried mothers who couldn't afford to raise children alone – though many did – and couldn't take the embarrassment and stigma of bearing an illegitimate child. But times have changed. Unmarried mothers are now single parents who have financial support from the state and there is no stigma these days – the "illegitimate" label that once marked children from cradle to grave has gone, and rightly so. What this means is that mothers are far more likely to keep their babies and there are virtually none available for adoption, so couples are encouraged to look at older children instead. And thereby a can of worms opens up.

Because if people can’t be ‘encouraged’ without being flat-out lied to, well, so what? They can hardly go to the Advertising Standards Authority, or the council’s Trading Standards team, can they?

The children available for adoption these days have often been removed from parents who have mental health, drug and alcohol problems. They have most likely been left with those parents until the bitter end because the state believes that children do better with their own parents. By the time these children are removed, they are already damaged by years of neglect and abuse. They are no longer children in need of an ordinary family; in fact often that is the last thing they can cope with, and they are the last thing an ordinary family can cope with.

But, to the adoption agencies, all that matters is getting them off the books. They have targets for that.

And they’ll hit those targets by any means possible…

But one thing that has changed since 2005 is that adopters are increasingly prepared to fight back. Social services are destroying marriages and lives, trying to get problem children off their books. It feels as though they will use any means, and that legal action against the local authorities concerned is the only thing that might stop them.

Except…they have shedloads of taxpayer cash to fight with. And adoptive parents rarely do.