BAN SMACKING !!

A couple of years ago, the 'Children's Commissioner', a Maggie Atkinson, argued that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised from its current 10 to 12 years of age. Now, she wants parents to be legally banned from smacking their little darlings.

 

How this stupid woman gained her appointment is a mystery. Her background is as an English teacher in northern England followed by a variety of local authority roles, culminating as Director of Children's Services in Gateshead. She was appointed, against strong opposition, by the then Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the egregious Ed Balls. One has to assume that she has left wing views.

 

Anyone who's ever been in contact with children has to be aware that 10 year olds are more than capable of knowing right from wrong; why Ms Atkinson would want to deny this only she can explain. As for smacking, anyone who's ever seen a wildlife programme will know that the occasional thump being delivered to an unruly youngster is hardly something that is the unique prerogative of human parents; chimps, lions and others can be seen doing exactly the same. As long as the punishment is mild, there is nothing wrong with it and everything right about it. Children need to be taught that certain actions are unacceptable and simply talking to them or sending them to the 'naughty step' does not always suffice. Indeed, for their own good, there are occasions when a much sharper punishment has to be delivered.

 

Why does Ms Atkinson not understand this ? Is it adherence to left wing political doctrine, political correctness, plain stupidity or what ?

EDUCATION, PLAGIARISM AND SENSE.

A story on tonight's news refers to a problem with some "anti-plagiarism" software that is used by many UK universities. Apparently, this software system experienced difficulties over the last couple of days and it's meant that students' coursework deadlines have had to be extended.

 

The questions raised by this story are legion :

 

Why is "anti-plagiarism" software necessary ?

 

Why do students feel the need to plagiarise ?

 

Why are universities and their students so dependent on computer systems ?

 

Why does a problem with a computer system affect coursework deadlines ?

 

There are, no doubt, many more questions that could be asked, but I'll leave it there.

 

Plagiarism is cheating. To my mind, any student found cheating should be treated in a very simple way; first offence = a final warning and second offence = expulsion. No excuses, no exceptions.

 

As well as this issue highlighting yet another problem in our increasingly sick or, as the intelligentsia would no doubt put it, "not fit for purpose", education system, it is also a pointer to the extent of the dependence of our entire society on computers and other electronic gadgets. There can be little doubt that a sudden failure in the communications network, electricity grid or any associated systems could have a catastrophic effect on the performance of universities and of the achievements of their students; this is ridiculous. Students have lost not only the understanding of study, but also how to study; they no longer trawl books and journals in libraries, they us 'Wikipedia', assuming that this is the fount of all knowledge, which it is not. Many of today's degrees are worth nothing compared with those of  decades ago, and yet we laud them in ever more extravagant ceremonies; is this a case of trying to obscure mediocrity by a show of opulence, as happens on the television with programmes such as "X-Factor" ?

 

How can potential employers have any faith in the value of the degrees awarded to students if cheating abounds ? What is the point of telling students they've achieved top grades when the truth is that they've cheated or are simply the best of a bad bunch ?

 

Our education system is bust.

MANDELA : SAINT OR SINNER ?

I can't say I know that much about Nelson Mandela but I do know that he used to be a leader of the African National Congress (ANC), which became an overtly terrorist organisation in 1961. Mandela was one of those who led the terrorist wing of the ANC in conjunction with the South African Communist Party and he was imprisoned for life following conviction for conspiring to overthrow the government of the country. Nonetheless, his later life, after his release from prison in 1990, has been allowed to overshadow his earlier existence and he has been all-but sanctified.

 

Mandela's second wife, Winnie Madikizela, pursued her own brand of violence through the 'Mandela United Football Club', and has been accused of a variety of offences ranging from theft and fraud to murder, both before and after her then husband's release from prison and even as recently as 2003. Their divorce in 1996, ostensibly due to Winnie's adultery during Mandela's imprisonment, was also an attempt by Mandela to dissociate himself from her repeated criminal activities. Clearly, politics were in there somewhere.

 

Today, the world is mourning the death of Mandela, at least it is according to the BBC and most other media. In truth, I suspect that most of the world doesn't really care. Even before his release from prison, Mandela had been placed on a pedestal by his supporters and his subsequent life, including his 5 years as president of South Africa, has been granted a sanctitude with which no one is permitted to disagree. Again, one suspects that this is, to say the least, a little 'over the top'.

 

No one can deny that the South African apartheid regime was unjust and it had to go. Sadly, and using Mandela as its totem, what has now happened is the virtual destruction of South Africa as a functioning nation by his former friends in the ANC. Mandela's period as president ended in 1999 and his only role since then has been as a figurehead who, perhaps, acted as some slight brake on the more extreme ambitions of those who have led the party since. Now that Mandela has left the scene, one has to fear that the real nature of the likes of current president Jacob Zuma will be fully exposed and the country will descend rapidly into chaos. The dictatorship of the pro-apartheid National Party has been replaced by the dictatorship and corruption of the communist and acquisitive ANC. This is simply another Zimbabwe in the making.

 

Mandela will, no doubt, go down in history as a 'great man'; whether or not he really was such is debatable.

BALDING, HOMOSEXUALITY AND SIMPLE COMMON SENSE.

Clare Balding is one of those people beloved by the media who manage to make a name for themselves in one sphere and then gravitate seamlessly to a variety of others. In Balding's case, it's from horse racing, about which her family knows a lot, to presenting radio and television programmes about which she knows debatable amounts.

 

As a 'real live celebrity', as she now is, Balding appeared on the BBC's "Desert island Discs" last week and revealed that her grandmother had been disgusted by the revelation that Balding was homosexual; the word used may have been 'Gay' but the meaning is the same. What I find astonishing is that Balding should have mentioned this at all.

 

Her grandmother's generation did not discuss sexuality at all, indeed, the word 'sexuality' probably didn't even exist before 1970. Personally, I also find the homosexual sphere of life at least a little odd and even disturbing at times, though I am also a believer in 'live and let live'. Sadly, many homosexuals seem to adopt a different philosophy and take every opportunity to flaunt their predilection to a wider audience; Balding seems to be one of those who like to do this.

 

When she first appeared on the BBC as part of the horse racing team, Balding was a perfectly good addition to an established crew. She became a mainstay and her double act with Willie Carson was always enjoyable. However, in more recent times she has become a little too big for her boots and now seems to think that she's God's gift to us all; the story of her defection to Channel 4 and the ramifications of that little move seem to more than provide support for such a view. I don't like her.

 

Before anyone brands me a sexist, homophobic or whatever other '-ist' or '-phobic' they might invent, I also don't like Noel Edmonds, Graham Norton, John Humphreys or Kirsty Wark. I've never liked Paul Gambaccini and only recently discovered that he was another homosexual cruising the corridors of the BBC; it's his style and presentation that has always annoyed me, not whom he preferred to spend his nights with. Jimmy Savile always made my flesh crawl and I was never very keen on Stuart Hall whose affectation always made me cringe. I've always liked Rolf Harris and was a little distressed to hear that he's been drawn into the aftermath of the Savile enquiries; I really can't stand Jenny Murray, Fiona Bruce  or the one on the BBC's 'Breakfast' programme who's currently prancing around on some imbecilic dancing show; anyone more full of her own self importance would be hard to imagine, and I have no idea what her 'sexuality' is. I don't care about these peoples' private lives, I just don't like them.

 

Homosexuals are a part of life, just as heterosexuals are; the only fact is that there are a lot more of the latter than of the former; the normal state of human sexuality is 'hetero-' not 'homo-'. Homosexuality is abnormal in the same way that wearing the wrong clothes is abnormal; IT'S NOT NORMAL. For its practitioners to parade themselves before us, promote their deviance (another word which basically means 'difference')  and berate anyone who finds their activities distasteful is, itself, distasteful at least.

 

I really don't care who does what to or with whom, as long as no one gets hurt; I may not like some of the practices, but it's their choice. What I object to most strongly is the way in which the normal part of our society is constantly barraged with complaints that homosexuals are being treated unfairly, with gripes that 'they are the same as the rest of us, should be treated the same and should have all the same rights and privileges'; the simple truth is that they are not the same. The very idea of marriage between homosexuals is ludicrous; the idea that 2 men or 2 women can have a child is biologically impossible without the intervention of modern science - that makes it unnatural and anathema to any sane individual. The idea that 2 men or 2 women can have a biological child is to deny nature; to suggest that stating this is some sort of prejudice, is unbelievable and yet this is what the 'anti-homophobic' lobby does. In effect, they claim that abnormality is the same as normality, which is absurd. 

 

Even classical literature makes it clear that the very idea of a marriage between 2 men was a step too far; consider only the case of the Roman Emperor, Nero, 'marrying' his freed man, Sporus, and the way that was received by the wider audience.

 

In my lifetime, I've known a number of people whom I've understood to be homosexual; some I've liked and some I've loathed. The ones I've liked have tended to be people who have behaved like 'normal' human beings; their sexual preferences have not been on display. The ones I've loathed have been those who have announced their presence from afar, leapt into circulation with such camp abandon that it's hard to describe and, on one occasion, attempted to drill his tongue down my throat on first sighting.; I didn't like him. Ms Balding seems to be one of those who wants us all to know about her and one of those who will complain bitterly about any perceived prejudice. I don't like her.

 

I will, by the way, be enjoying my Christmas dinner with a group of friends that includes a young lesbian; a lovely girl she is, too.