On the sauce.

One of the biggest disappointments I have had recently was the failure of Diane Abbott in the Labour leadership contest. I mean, yes, it was very entertaining to see Miliband minority knife Miliband majority right between the shoulder blades, I love the way his lisp comes out when he gets excited and I think it is great the way that the unions rode roughshod over the wishes of the party membership and imposed their own leader. It is also wonderful the way that he’s completely failed to come up with a single policy idea thus far. But then, look at Cameron, it worked for him. Not a word, and then it was cast-iron, but turned out to be polystyrene.

But if only we’d had Diane Abbott, we could have enjoyed so much more. Like this:

Calls for a minimum price for alcohol are intensifying as ministers prepare to outline the latest steps to make drinking less affordable.

But shadow public health minister Diane Abbott said the government should go further and explore minimum pricing.

Oh go on, explore it.

Of course, what she means by ‘explore’ is best translated as ‘do what I bloody say whilst I smile, nod and talk down to you as if you’re a stoat with learning difficulties.’

Before the election, Labour refused to give its backing to minimum pricing.

Well, of course they did, only the SNP are stupid enough to kick someone in the bollocks and then ask for their vote. Not even Gordon Brown was that disconnected, and that’s saying something. (Say, whatever happened to him? I understand he won his seat, but we’ve not seen hide nor hair of him.)

But Ms Abbott told the BBC if a pilot showed it would reduce alcohol-related harm she would be in favour of the move.

Well, now I’m all for innovative thinking, but what does a pilot know about the price of booze and the harm it does? Firstly, the last person I want hanging around booze is a bloody pilot, plus they’re very well paid, so it probably won’t make much difference to them, plus theres' all that duty free they can pick up whilst jetting around the place, the slags. No, pilots are well qualified, but I don't think their skills are suited to this job.

Hmmm?

Oh, a pilot scheme? Well why didn’t they say that?

"It is wrong that very young children can get out of their skulls for less money than it takes to buy a bottle of coca cola.

How young are we talking here, Diane? Four? Five? There’s nothing less dignified than seeing a pre-schooler slurring the words to a nursery rhyme, pissed out of their head on booze in the park, before losing their lunch as they come down the slide.

I think it’s terrible that we see these gangs of eight year olds, challenging adults in the queue for the NiteKlub to a fight, absolutely spanked on Advocaat.

Do you know why it takes less money than a bottle of coca cola, Diane? Do you? It is because they’re very ickle, and so don’t take much booze at all.

I’ll submit my definition here. Baby – toddler – annoying little bastard (pre-school) – annoying little bastard (primary) – annoying middle sized bastard (junior school) – annoying big bastard with no sense yet all the answers, much like Diane Abbott (senior school) – adult. OK? Annoying little bastards are ‘very young children’ in my book. Once you hit the teens, the annoyance changes form, but is still as annoying.

It’s the teens you need to worry about Diane. 

Obviously the best way of preventing these ‘very young children’ from hitting the sauce is by making everyone pay more for it. But even then, I’m not entirely sure putting a minimum price is going to make all that big a difference. If only there was another way we could solve the problem.

Hmmmm.

Ooooh! Ooooh! I know, how about the Licensing Act? You know, the one your lot introduced in 2003? The one that prohibits the sale of alcohol to persons under the age of 18?

This is such a Labour solution to a perceived problem. Ignore the existing laws which obviously aren’t well enforced enough and bring in a new one, which does the same job but in a slightly different way, will have a shedload of unintended consequences and won’t be enforced properly either.

Trebles all round.

The article continues, but Dong Shitker’s name is mentioned and at that point I had to navigate away before I put my head through the screen.

Even out of government Labour boil my piss hotter than a Japanese nuclear power station’s pool.

The One That Is Going On And On And On And On . . .

The story in the news today about Haringey council putting a foster child into the care of the family of one of the wannabe liquid explosive suicide plane bombers has been commented on by a number of bloggers today. Whilst not the focus of today’s rambling, I will pass brief comment.

Haringey are idiots who couldn’t tell their arse from a sky-scraper made of edam and lego. I don’t think we should be surprised at this latest news story. That being said, it is my belief that most people in the intelligence community do not play well with others. I understand why to an extent. Given that these arse-clowns were under surveillance, and seemed fairly committed to the idea of making a plane go bang in spectacular style, it makes perfect sense for the cops and spooks to keep schtum until they have enough evidence to pick these guys up and charge them. That practice is preferable to keeping people locked up for however many days whilst a case is built.

By keeping them under surveillance you can build the case on the hoof whilst making sure the muscle is ready to step in if they make a move before the suspected scheduled time. I would imagine, given the history of Haringey social services, that the big hat in spook circles wasn’t all that enthusiastic about calling Haringey Soc. Serves and telling them that the foster family were connected to these people. That wouldn’t work at all.

That being said, why they thought that the unemployed and seemingly unemployable were suitable foster carers is a mystery to me. Haringey are an easy (and justified) target, but I bet one of their head honchos could pick up some government policy document and say ‘well it says here. . .’

One line hits me square between the eyes:

"Muslim children can only be placed with people of the same faith and the need
to find foster parents could mean that corners were cut in the vetting process."

There are some real issues with that policy.

Firstly, does this mean a child’s cultural heritage trumps considerations over its safety? If so, this is shameful and tantamount to abuse. You could have a loving couple from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster who would provide a secure and stable environment for any child, being passed over for a Muslim individual with a fondness for stretching seven year old sphincters. That is madness.

Secondly, does this mean Jewish children can be placed with Christian families? Taoist with Hindu? Is it just the Muslim children who cannot be placed outside their faith? If so, this is shameful and tantamount to abuse. What happens to the kids if there are no beds available with Muslim foster carers? In order to be in foster care, you have to be under a clear and present threat to your wellbeing, are the kids to be returned to an unsafe environment for the want of a Muslim foster family? Or are they to be placed in some home, cold and institutional, where they will feel that they are being punished? Do Haringey council run homes for the Muslims? If not, then where’s the difference to the policy for foster caring? This is bad news for the kids, the non-Muslim community who seemingly can’t be trusted to look after anyone of an Islamic background, and the Muslims themselves because. . .

Thirdly, this means that either the Muslim community demands that children be left in danger or a miserable home rather than be in a comfortable, loving environment, or (as is most likely) some lack-wit has decided that cultural sensitivity is the beginning, middle and end of the consideration, and indirectly tells those who aren’t Muslim they aren’t good enough. Either way mistrust and hatred is going to be the only outcome. Non-Muslims will hate the Muslims as they will see them as insulting, prejudiced and not caring about the kids. The Muslims will hate everyone else for hating them as the siege mentality takes over, and the kids will really hate the ‘liberal’ hand-wringing people at the council for making bloody silly policy which cost them their childhood in part or whole.

But here’s the rub. When last I looked, Muslim people breathe oxygen, drink water and need food to eat. There’s no real difference between them and anyone else. Their faith is an accident of birth. There is no Muslim genome, nothing binds the Bosnian Muslim, the Algerian Muslim, the Bangladeshi Muslim and the Malaysian Muslim beyond their faith. Muslim people come in all different sizes, shapes and colours.

Does this mean that a one year old Muslim kid has to be kept by people of ‘his’ faith? He’s a bloody kid. He could quite easily have been born a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, it is a total and complete lottery. It isn’t HIS faith, it is the faith that has been imposed upon him by his parentage and his society.

That sounds like an impassioned argument about the futility of religion, perhaps with an undertone of bansturbation. It isn’t. I don’t care for religion myself, in my experience each of the three biggies in the mid-East, Europe and Africa seem to espouse values of love, peace, forgiveness and understanding, but those who bang on about it most display those qualities least. I don’t need it in my life.

But here’s the thing, just because I don’t need it in my life, doesn’t mean other people don’t need it in theirs. If they feel they do, then carry on, I sincerely hopes it makes you happy. I will not try to force my lack of faith (although it is more a lack of faith in Man and his organised church, than in God) upon you. I will not seek to kill you because you believe differently to I (this may be because as I have no church to ‘learn’ from, there’s no-one telling me to do it). I will treat you with respect, good manners and politeness. I do this willingly and without passing judgement upon you. In return I ask that you do not try to force your faith upon me, that you do not seek to kill me because I believe differently to you and that you treat me with respect, good manners and politeness and do this willingly and without passing judgement upon me.

On the whole, this arrangement works very well. Down my street in very homogenous Canterbury we have Ahmadiyya Bangladeshis running the grocers, Shia Kurds running the barber, very Christian women running a charity shop and Greek orthodox running the chip shop. All within forty paces of each other. They refrain from smashing in each others windows, which is nice, and will normally change each others banknotes if pound coins start running low. I use all the businesses regularly because they are all nice people and I believe in supporting local commerce.

Very few people would turn purple and start shouting about a Muslim kid in danger of being beaten, raped or killed being moved out of that environment and placed in the care of someone who will give them a nice dinner, a warm bed and a bed-time story. Those that would are detestable, these really are the cheeeldren we should be thinking of.

So what’s the message? On the whole we all get on fine, tolerate and in some circumstances actually show an interest in our differences. Some people through idiocy hate the different as their way is the only way. These people shout loud. Next time you hear an idiot shouting loud, get together, sensible, ‘normal’ people and shout louder. Perhaps that way the idiots will realise they are outnumbered and stop trying to kill us all. Perhaps that way council officials will realise that the policy of putting kids in the foster care of suicide bombers is more offensive to us, that being society, than it is to those who think Muslim people should have their own little world.

I’ll sign off with a quote from a well respected and much loved dramatic piece.

‘Be excellent to each other.’ – Rufus; Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.

The One That Is Speechless. . .

A junior school head teacher has defended the use of CCTV in toilet blocks in an
effort to deter vandals.
Len Holman, from Angel Road Junior School in
Norwich, said pupils had asked for the cameras to protect refurbished toilet
blocks.

Really, what can you say about a society where people in authority think this is an acceptable way to carry on?

The One That Finds Them Inspiring. . .

Kids. They get a bad press.

Fear not, the skills of problem solving, lateral thinking and sticking it to the man are still very much alive in our kids.

Children taking part in a study to measure how much exercise they do fooled researchers by attaching their pedometers to their pet dogs.

That'll teach the researchers to mind their own fucking business, won't it?

All is not lost.

The One That Will Examine Some Points. . .

I was directed by (I think) Obo the Clown towards Tom Harris' blog (he's a Labour MP for a Glasgow constituency) where he said some, frankly, amazing things on the subject of benefits. Attracting scorn from some of his party colleagues, but a good deal more praise from a wider range of readers. It was Tom who so nonchalantly batted away the message contained in his copy of 1984 that all MPs received as part of a Libertarian Party campaign. I've found it almost impossible to agree with anything he's said in the past, until the other day. Suggestions that he's been taking brave pills whilst his boss has been tucking his trousers into his socks, not getting his makeup done properly, not having a press conference with Obama and addressing a load of wonks bussed into the Capitol Building in DC are pure conjecture.

I for one will be delighted if he keeps it up.

Anyhow, in my rather jokey posting below, a correspondent named 'Andromeda' posted a link and a list of points for consideration my responses are underneath each point:

(a) deprive a single mother of child benefit if she cannot produce a marriage certificate
Marriage is irrelevant, just because you get hitched doesn't mean you're a fit mother or that you're not going to screw the system for what you can get. It isn't a magical cure, people who think it is are living in the 19th Century.

(b) fine the single mother for producing an illegitimate baby, say £1000, if she does not name the father
Irrelevant. I am proof that being brought up by a single parent (although in my case it was my father's death that caused this) does not mean it is going to be a disaster. This is about stopping paying out sums to those who do not deserve it. Why is there this obsession with taking money off people? The State arbitrarily taking cash from people because they do not comply with their moral code is no better than people demanding the State support their lifestyle choices. Stop it.

(c) require her parent(s) to pay this sum if she cannot or will not
See point b above.

(d) fine the father of an illegitimate child a sum of money, say £1000
See point a above. Legitimacy of birth doesn't matter. A bit of paper does not make anyone a model parent.

(e) require the parent(s) of that father to pay this sum if he cannot pay it himself
See point a and point b above.

(f) require that the mother give up the child for adoption before more lives are ruined
Perhaps one of the most odious, repugnant and authoritarian measures I have ever heard.

I'm surprised that point (g) doesn't read: 'require that a single woman undergo a termination in the first instance of becoming pregnant out of marriage, and undergo termination followed by sterilisation in the second instance.'

All these points do is stifle freedom and liberty. I have no problem with people having kids in wedlock, in a stable non-formal relationship, as single parents, in same sex partnerships, whatever. What I do object to is the expectation that I and all the other taxpayers will foot the bill because people have decided to have kids they cannot afford to look after.

I don't have any kids as yet, we have neither the income nor the space to do it, and it will be a cold day in hell before I become beholden to the State to help bring up my kids. My kids, my choice, my responsibility. I do have a dog. Substitute dog for child and the whole thing is shown to be the ridiculous situation it is.

Getting a puppy means that State will provide you with housing and an income. The State will pay for your puppy to be trained, vaccinated and have its healthcare assured. If you are having problems with your puppy, the State will send someone round to assess the situation, and they will tell you it isn't your fault that you can't look after your puppy, which it is your right to have, and will send you on dog walking and tripe making classes. All this will be paid for by the taxpayer.

The message needs to be sent out, if you can't feed them, don't breed them. Benefits have ceased to be a safety net. When I was a kid, receiving State assistance was a situation of great shame, you didn't want to be the kid being given the vouchers for free dinners. Now it is a valid lifestyle choice, and a lifestyle that is funded in such a way that when I look at the deductions on my payslip each month, I am unable to follow the lifestyle I would like.

What do you call a system where one way of life is supported and encouraged to the detriment of all others?

The One That Will NOT Comply. . .

More bollock juggling from a government department and a 'charidee'.

I'm not going to do a full fisking here. I don't have the patience, but two quotes jump out and hit me in the face.

Firstly:

children's lives in Britain have become "more difficult than in the past [...] more young people are anxious and troubled".

Well I should think so. Without getting all misty eyed and nostalgic, when I was a kid and off school, my mum wouldn't see me for hours and hours, although she would always know what I was doing, who I was with, where I was doing it and when I would be back. There was nothing uncommon or unusual about my social and recreational life as a child.

Now there are two camps. There are those whose parents couldn't give a toss about, have no direction, no aspiration and no self respect. Then there are those who aren't given space to breath by their parents who are petrified that the nonces on every street corner hiding in the bushes will screw their arses raw, or they'll have drugs forced upon them, or will have an accident from scraping a knee to breaking an arm, so are kept inside. Or (and) they are brow beaten my a government that is obsessed with measuring, charting and appraising every facet of their development, whilst telling them they are too fat/stupid/unhealthy/clever/dangerous/in danger and a whole host of other things.

Kids aren't free to be kids any more, just like rest of us they are hectored and lectured all day, every day. Kids aren't stupid and they know what's going on, they just know there's sod all they can do about it.

Then there's little nugget:

Individual freedom and self-determination bring many blessings, [. . .] But in Britain... the balance has tilted too far

No. Fuck you. The balance is not skewed by individual freedoms and self-determination it is skewed by the complete removal of any responsibility for one's self or one's children.

The report says that selfish parents are a bad thing. Well tell us something we don't know. Of course it is. But how have these parents been made selfish? Is it down to the fact they are told that they are entitled to free money, for doing nothing? Is it down to the fact that those who decide to support themselves without the asphyxiating grip of the state are punished for their decision and must work twice as hard to get that which is given to those who take the handouts? Is it down to the fact that some people are just selfish bastards and would be bad parents regardless?

The answer to all the above is 'yes.'

The One That Wants A Yacht . . .

Well, I don't really want a yacht, I was just using it as a bit of allegorical illustration.

The story went something like this; A friend of mine had been exposed to the suggestion by a young lad of about 13 or 14, whilst he was on the way in to the late opening newsagents getting his pint of milk, that he should buy a packet of ten cigarettes for the boy who would then reimburse him for his expense. Needless to say my friend was doubtful that if he bought these cigarettes for this young gentleman that his money would be returned to him, the lad replied that the alternative was getting a kick in the head.

My friend is something of a martial artist and pointed out to the boy that police involvement or no police involvement, any attempt by the rosy cheeked little scamp to visit harm upon him would be met with an introduction to a level of physical pain hitherto unknown to him, or words to that effect. The lad wisely decided that it was time to beat a retreat and pick on a more vulnerable target.

My friend is one of those who looks at me a little oddly when I go off on one of my rants, but like so many others he is starting to 'get it' even though it takes him a short while to shunt his brain from the sidings on to the track. My friend isn't thick, far from it, he's just become so used to accepting what he is told that it takes him a while to shift out of neutral and drive for himself.

He passed comment on the young lad outside that newsagents and wanted to know, as this was approaching 11pm, on a weeknight, and during the school term, what were the parents doing and were they not in the least bit concerned that their offspring was out on the streets, unsupervised at such a late hour?

My friend was missing the point. The point (most likely) is that having been born, the lad has done his job, he has served his purpose and his only duty now is to exist. The chances are that the lad wasn't born because he was the result of a stable and loving relationship, he was born because his mother had the (probably subconscious, I'm not suggesting that many people are that cynical) realisation that his existence would provide accommodation and an income. I explained to my friend that I resented paying for other peoples' children when my lifestyle choices are not funded by the taxpayer.

My friend gave a wince and said to me 'I see what you're saying, but it was his mother's right to have a kid.' I explained the situation thus:

I want a yacht. It is my right to have a yacht if I so wish. My friend agreed that it was my right to own a yacht.

I pointed out that I don't actually know how to sail a yacht, so I'd be forever bumping into other yachts and squaring up against ferries and container ships. Any attempt to put a pilot on board my yacht to steer it for me would be met with hysterical abuse and hostility. I'd be damaging the berths in the marina, but as it was my right to moor the yacht I am entitled to, the Harbour Master wouldn't be able to stop me from using the marina, even though I'd be getting right on the wick of all the other responsible yacht owners. Also I can't actually afford a yacht. I can't afford to pay for its upkeep, for its fuel or its mooring fees, so the taxpayer will have cover those costs.

My friend made the entirely reasonable point that if I don't know how to handle a yacht and can't afford it, I shouldn't have one.

I then said that if people can just have kids and expect the taxpayer to fund them, I want a taxpayer funded yacht, thank you very much. My friend said I was being silly and that the right to have children is more important than the right to have a yacht.

'Ahhh' I said, 'We live in a country where we must promote and value diversity. You cannot say that my desire to have a yacht is any less valid or valuable than someone's desire to have children. It is my right to have a yacht and your responsibility to fund it. So give me the money.'

The penny finally dropped. People seem to accept that having children paid for and brought up by the taxpayer is perfectly reasonable. And yet, when you substitute the word children for the word yacht, the whole situation becomes quite absurd.

This is why I have no children, at the moment. I don't have the money, I don't have the houseroom (and to any of you tempted to point it out, I do have a willing parnter, thank you). I don't have a yacht for those same reasons, plus having lived in a town with a number of marinas in my youth I am well aware that yachties, on the whole, are utterly charmless individuals who have awful taste in clothing. I have no desire for any child of mine or my family to be in the thrall of the state.

Unfortunately children in this country have been turned into a commodity, they have ceased to be human beings with dreams and aspirations, indeed dreams and aspirations are discouraged. Children and their woefully ill-equipped, state dependent parents are just items for collection and control by Leg-Iron's righteous and it is quite, quite tragic.

The One That Is Saying Bollocks To The Lot Of Them. . .

Sean Lock, the comedian, came up with a good idea some time ago. His plan was to run the next series of Big Brother along identical lines to how it is run now, with one fundamental difference. Not one second of it would be broadcast, they'd be no media coverage at all. So, when the wannabes finally left the house, expecting hundreds of cheering proles and the paps with their flashbulbs popping, all they would be greeted with would be a bloke in a flat cap and overalls sweeping up the carpark. 'They've all gone home, love.' He'd tell them.

Isn't it about time we took this attitude with Israel/Palestine? I'm sick to the fucking back teeth with this collection of arsewipes. Rockets fly into Israel so Israel conducts airstrikes against Palestine.

I used to have sympathy for the 'ordinary' people on both sides of the divide, their daily lives disrupted and if particularly unlucky, lost by rocket attacks and air strikes. But now? I don't want to sound hard-hearted, but I really couldn't give a flying fuck.

Palestinians: Stop voting for Hamas. All they are going to do is agitate against Israel. By allowing yourselves to be whipped up into a frenzy and firing off rockets and blowing yourselves up on a Tel Aviv bus, the only thing you are making sure of is that Israel continues to drop bombs on you. Hamas gets an even tighter grip on power. What do they want it for? How much UN and EU aid gets pumped into Palestine? I'd like to see the accounts going in from New York and Brussels and the Palestine accounts at the end of the year. I wonder. . .

Israelis: Stop voting for arseholes who think the only course of action is to bomb Palestine. Rocket comes over the wall? Scramble the planes! Bus blows up? Scramble the planes! Drop a bottle of milk? Scramble the planes! Stop treating the Palestinians like shit. There's something very sinister about a power that rounds up a different religious and ethnic group puts them in a ghetto and then restricts their supplies, don't you think? C'mon you've been on the receiving end in the past, try some empathy. Perhaps if you treated them a bit better they wouldn't be so keen on making things go bang in an entertaining fashion.

It's always the extremists who get the attention. Fine, go ahead, vote for them. Don't expect me to mourn your lost husbands, wives, children, siblings, parents and friends. YOU chose this course of action. Get the fuck off my TV screen. If you're going to behave like squabbling children, I will treat you as such and ignore you completely.

I'd build a fucking great big wall around Israel and Palestine. Blockade the ports, shoot down any plane attempting to enter or leave their airspace. No supplies, no water, no food, no fuel, no arms, no communications.

Then in ten years you can go back in and arrest anyone left alive for war crimes.

The One That Is Thinking Of The Chiiiiiiiildren. . .

Some people would rather Gary Glitter look after their kids, than this bastard.

We have kids leaving school unable to read, write or do basic mathematics. We have kids in school who are subjected to violent attack on a daily basis (more on this later during the week) whilst the teachers stand there wringing their hands over the reputation to the school and the 'rights' of the kids perpetrating that violence. We have kids born into a life of state dependency where they grow up learning the lesson that there's no point in trying to get on, because the government will penalise you for trying to do so.

But all that pales into insignificance compared to the threat posed by Tony the Tiger.

Which? have branded Tony the Tiger, Snap, Crackle & Pop and others as villains for failing to promote healthy eating.

Well here's an entertaining perspective. It isn't the job of these companies to promote healthy eating. It is their job to promote their products. I'm not about to start criticising BA for failing to promote taking the Eurostar (and following my experiences with the World's Most Arrogant Airline, that's about the only thing I won't criticise them for). Here's another entertaining perspective; why don't we criticise the parents of these little porkers for putting this shite down their throats in the first place? We've removed junk food advertising from kiddies TV, we've pointed out that eating this shit has the result you'd expect, why do we need these people to do more?

The parents have more than enough information to make a choice, it is plastered all over the packaging. Don't give me the bullshit that it is 'confusing', this is the worst kind of patronising testiculating*. It is akin to ruffling people's hair and saying 'it's very complicated. Don't worry your pretty little head about it, I'll read it and tell you what to do. Go and have this little sugar free lollipop.'

Just in case there's any doubt: If you feed your children shit that is full of fat, sugar, salt and preservatives, they will grow fat, ugly, inattentive, stupid and suffer huge mood swings and behavioural problems. Clear enough?

Well, obviously not as the self-important arse-clown at Which? says that:

'If the industry fails to act, the government should step in.'

Give me strength, look just stick to telling me how much car X does to the gallon, if fridge Y is going to catch fire and if satelite system Z lets me pick up specialist German hardcore porn. Do not get involved in policy and lobbying. It is none of your fucking business. Just say that coco-mallow-sugar-flakes are shit, and shredded wheat is good. That is all that is required of you, thank you very much.

*testiculating - waving your arms around in the air, whilst talking bollocks.

The One That Thinks It's All Arse About Face. . .

I had a very interesting conversation with a friend of mine on Sunday morning. Her 14 year old daughter was recently attacked by a gang of 12 girls in Ashford, Kent. Now, I've never considered Ashford (the town where I grew up) to be a particularly bad town, it has one estate of local bad repute, but it certainly isn't Fallujah.

The disturbing thing, beyond the obvious, is this; two of the girls in the gang were classmates of the unfortunate young lady. As far as I can gather even though the ringleader and other members of the gang, including these two girls, have been identified, the school has declined to take any real action as the incident happened out of school.

Now, dear reader, if you set about a colleague outside of the work-place you would expect to lose your job as a result.

Another friend of mine, who works as a foster carer, recounted an incident involving one of her charges. This time there was an assault in the classroom by a young man on the girl in her care that involved her being punched in the stomach and the face. The school in question requested she attend the campus and take her foster daughter home as a result.

'Have you called the Police?' she quite reasonably asked.
'No.' came the reply. 'We would only summon the Police in the event of a serious incident.'
'She has been assaulted. If I were to do the same to you, now, would you call the Police?'
'Well, yes.'
'So what's the difference?'
'Well, we're adults.'

Now, there's a difference between a scrap in the playground (although a scrap in the pub car-park would probably attract the attention of the local constabulary) and a focused assault in a classroom. To say that the Police are not needed suggests that a child has less right to protection against assault than an adult. Or worse, children have a right to assault other people, a right that adults do not have.

Of course the foster mother reported the incident to the Police, who said they preferred not to get involved with incidents such as this. Yeah, I fucking bet you don't. Any other areas of law enforcement you don't feel like getting involved with? Arson? Murder perhaps? What about detection and solving of crimes? Too much for you? Perhaps you'd be better off attending another diversity workshop.

The thing is, we'll criminalise someone for dropping a fag butt on the ground, but actually get a proper crime with like, a real victim, and they'll run a mile. The message sent out is two-fold, to the wrong-'uns it says 'Do what you want, you have carte-blanche, neither the educational nor judicial authorities will take any action.' To those that act as responsible, pleasant human beings it is 'Forget it. You are sooooooooo fucked. Oh, is that an apple core you just put in that bush? Tut tut, see you in court.'

Is it any wonder that kids are taking to carrying knives? No-one is going to defend them, so they might as well do it themsevles.

Then we have the case of Sarika Watkins-Singh, the Sikh girl who was suspended from school for wearing a bangle as a sign of her faith. This, apparently, contravened the school's no jewellery uniform policy. She won, thankfully. What a ridiculous state of affairs. What is a 14 year old girl doing in the High Court defending her right to express her faith? Is a bangle really that important to the school?

No, the only reason this went all this way is because this young girl didn't shut the fuck up, sit down and do as she was told. Who the hell does she think she is? How dare she challenge these totally arbitrary rules set down on a whim. The only winners were the lawyers, the whole lot would have paid for by public funds. That's our money, by the way.

So we have one girl, excluded from school for wearing a bracelet* that you wouldn't even notice unless you looked for it, whilst no action is taken against those who violently assault their classmates. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture?


*I understand that the bracelet shouldn't have been classed as jewellery anyhow. The school apparently only kicked up a fuss about it when the girl's parents complained of racist bullying. Obviously it was her fault for drawing attention to herself by wearing it. That's a great bullying policy isn't it?