I am getting increasingly sick of the hysteria surrounding the inclusion of Marie Stopes in a series of Royal Mail stamps commemmorating 'Women of Distinction'. The PC-brigade have pounced on this, saying Ms Stopes was a eugenicist, sent poems to Hitler and advocated the compulsory sterilisation of those she saw as 'unfit for parenthood'. I'm not arguing with any of this - there is bountiful documentary evidence that Stopes did indeed believe in and do these things but my point is SO DID AN AWFUL LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE AT THE TIME.
Once again, we are up against the ignorant and poorly-educated activitists who simply can't see the wider historical picture outside their own beliefs. The sad fact is that people in the past wholeheartedly believed in quite a number of things which would be condemned outright today; it's called context, and to condemn the remarkable achievements of historical figures just because other parts of their lives or belief-systems wouldn't pass scrutiny when viewed through 21st-Century goggles is frankly pathetic. For example, there is some debate as to whether Winston Churchill had anti-semitic beliefs (my opinion is he would have been highly unusual given his social class and the period in which he was brought up if he HADN'T), it is generally agreed that Shakespeare did too, despite his 'hath not a Jew eyes' speech from The Merchant of Venice, and even the Iron Duke of Wellington is a bit suspect in this regard. Are we therefore to condemn Churchill, Shakespeare and Wellington and demand their achievements are not honoured? Virginia Woolf is on record as saying imbeciles (her word) should be 'killed' - should we demand therefore that Mrs Dalloway and To the Lighthouse are taken off school and university reading lists? (Personally I'd take them off on grounds of their navel-gazing self-indulgent tediousness, but that's just me). Of course nobody's going to suggest this, and I think the real reason for Marie Stopes being singled out for such venom has absolutely nothing to do with some of her more questionable opinions and an awful lot more to do with the fact she's mostly remembered for the impact she had on people's sex-lives.
The English have always had a peculiar attitude to sex, and their nudge-nudge wink-wink prudery combined with a distasteful sort of prurience when faced with the subject was bound to be in conflict with Marie Stopes' direct, objective and unsentimental approach. Naturally at the time a lot of this was subliminated through 'the Church' - that all-purpose convenient cloak for a whole number of quite questionable inclinations - and a mention of Stopes' work in the field of contraception is enough to get a few Churchmen writhing in condemnation even today. The fact Stopes was a WOMAN made the situation even worse - she flew in the face of the social conventions regarding femininity and 'what nice girls say/do/know about'. You'd think, given the almost 24 hour exposure to all things sexual we experience in modern society and the tedious 'wimmins' rights' movement shoving their particular concerns down our throats at every available opportunity people would have got over this by now... obviously this is not the case. We have a situation here where somebody's profound achievement working OUTSIDE the social mores of their time is being ignored in favour of the areas in which they corresponded with prevailing opinion. Thus, the so-called 'liberal' fraternity are merely displaying their own cultural facism - ie. 'you have to think like us or we'll suppress you' - and what is worse, trying to eradicate or diminish historical record too.
I'm not sure whether the Royal Mail has actually already produced the controverial stamp in question, or whether it's just discussing it, but I sincerely hope, if the latter, that they'll stick two fingers up at the ignorant lentil-knitting PC-mob and allow Marie Stopes' image to appear in the series. To honour somebody who made such a difference to the lives of women in particular (and indeed family life in general), from all classes, is surely a worthwhile thing, regardless of what she believed in other areas. An explanatory leaflet telling the aforementioned mob where they can learn a bit of historical context wouldn't go amiss either...
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Monday, 13 October 2008
For once, a gripe which has nothing to do with the BBC news website...
Today it was my intention to catch up on some outstanding tasks, including making some sweetcorn relish out of the cobs which Riverford have been delivering lately (none of us really like corn on the cob in the raw, as it were). This not being the sort of thing one does everyday, I had a trawl around the net for suitable recipes, selected one and then remembered the black ink cartridge in the printer needed changing. Obviously this would have to be done before I could trot back to the kitchen and get started on stinking the house out with boiling vinegar again.
So what? I hear you all shout, 'Surely she's not so technophobic as to be completely incapable of changing a printer cartridge?'. Well, you'd think this would be a relatively simple task, wouldn't you? Dream on, gentle reader. Opening the new cartridge box (a trial in itself as it seemed to be packed to withstand several nuclear winters) I discovered these cartridges have chips attached, which you have to transfer from old to new before the things will do their job. Prising the annoying little item out of the old cartridge was next to impossible and I only succeeded by levering it off with that most old-fashioned of implements - a HB pencil. Then ensued the pantomime of trying to get the wretched little thing into the new cartridge - into a space which bore little resemblance to its corresponding part on the old cartridge. Bear in mind this chip is about 2mm square. Several minutes of swearing, crawling around on the floor trying to see where the chip had decided to leap to now, and still not having any luck persuading it into the space where it was meant to go, I attempted to stick it in with a tiny piece of folded-up Sellotape. This at least held it in place, and I got it into the printer OK, but then the printer didn't seem to recognise the fact the new cartridge was fitted. (I suspect the sellotape wasn't letting it make a connection with something crucial). Taking it out again, I realised the thing was leaking everywhere and quickly bunged it into the nearest waterproof receptacle - a milk jug. My hands looked as if I'd been doing an audition to play Al Jolson, but thankfully none of the ink seems to have gone on the carpet.
I am sure all of you who know me can imagine what a rage this fiasco put me in. Scrubbing my hands free of black ink, the levels of abuse directed at printer and cartridge manufacturers, inventors of microchips and whichever muppet had the bright idea of chipping printer cartridges in the first place gradually subsided until I could think more philosophically about the issue. What sort of society do we live in where people will go to the trouble to microchip small pieces of plastic so they can grub more profit out of printer-consumables than they do out of selling the printer in the first place - but aren't prepared to give old people enough money to keep themselves warm over the winter? It just shows where the community's priorities are, doesn't it? I hope if any of my readers are involved in the printer consumables industry they are royally ashamed of themselves.
For your information, my recipe was duplicated by the Neanderthal means of my copying it by hand from screen to paper with the help of the aforementioned HB pencil. The cartridge and its Godforsaken chip is now in the bin.
So what? I hear you all shout, 'Surely she's not so technophobic as to be completely incapable of changing a printer cartridge?'. Well, you'd think this would be a relatively simple task, wouldn't you? Dream on, gentle reader. Opening the new cartridge box (a trial in itself as it seemed to be packed to withstand several nuclear winters) I discovered these cartridges have chips attached, which you have to transfer from old to new before the things will do their job. Prising the annoying little item out of the old cartridge was next to impossible and I only succeeded by levering it off with that most old-fashioned of implements - a HB pencil. Then ensued the pantomime of trying to get the wretched little thing into the new cartridge - into a space which bore little resemblance to its corresponding part on the old cartridge. Bear in mind this chip is about 2mm square. Several minutes of swearing, crawling around on the floor trying to see where the chip had decided to leap to now, and still not having any luck persuading it into the space where it was meant to go, I attempted to stick it in with a tiny piece of folded-up Sellotape. This at least held it in place, and I got it into the printer OK, but then the printer didn't seem to recognise the fact the new cartridge was fitted. (I suspect the sellotape wasn't letting it make a connection with something crucial). Taking it out again, I realised the thing was leaking everywhere and quickly bunged it into the nearest waterproof receptacle - a milk jug. My hands looked as if I'd been doing an audition to play Al Jolson, but thankfully none of the ink seems to have gone on the carpet.
I am sure all of you who know me can imagine what a rage this fiasco put me in. Scrubbing my hands free of black ink, the levels of abuse directed at printer and cartridge manufacturers, inventors of microchips and whichever muppet had the bright idea of chipping printer cartridges in the first place gradually subsided until I could think more philosophically about the issue. What sort of society do we live in where people will go to the trouble to microchip small pieces of plastic so they can grub more profit out of printer-consumables than they do out of selling the printer in the first place - but aren't prepared to give old people enough money to keep themselves warm over the winter? It just shows where the community's priorities are, doesn't it? I hope if any of my readers are involved in the printer consumables industry they are royally ashamed of themselves.
For your information, my recipe was duplicated by the Neanderthal means of my copying it by hand from screen to paper with the help of the aforementioned HB pencil. The cartridge and its Godforsaken chip is now in the bin.
Saturday, 11 October 2008
Now I've heard it all...
Having a swift second pint of tea after the weekend cooked breakfast, I was, surprise surprise, flicking through the BBC News website when I came across this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7664523.stm
Now, on some levels, it's quite reassuring to know that some councils are taking school nutrition seriously. So bravo Ceredigion Council (that having been said I'd love to see what they serve the kiddies for lunch as I'd put money on there being chips on the menu somewhere). I'm also chuffed, and not at all surprised, to see this is all going on in Wales - God's own country and somewhere where people take food seriously. On the other hand, you'd think some basic common sense could be applied, wouldn't you?
Chateau Angevin is a Bovril, not a Marmite, house it has to be said, but the same rules apply and we tuck into the black sticky stuff on toast on a fairly regular basis. Yes, it has salt in it, but it also is a good source of Vitamin B2 and niacin - substances which are shoved into breakfast cereals one notes. Amongst all the hysteria about salt I think people have lost sight of the fact we do need SOME in our diet, and whilst cutting down for most people is a good idea, cutting it out entirely is extremely foolish. As I don't use salt AT ALL in my cooking, not even in potatoes etc (I find if you use herbs instead nobody notices the difference) I don't see what is so wrong with the odd plate of Bovril on toast. I suspect Ceredigion have few scruples about using salt in their cooking, so perhaps they should look at this before they start banning Marmite at breakfast.
Another point - Ceredigion admit they use (low sugar) jam and marmalade, which is as far as I'm concerned merely adding to the training of childrens' palates to enjoy sweet things rather than savoury, something I'm quite keen to avoid with regard to Mini. I've long been of the opinion that children only like sweets etc because they are given them, which is why I'm fairly Stalinist when it comes to sugar. It's very noticeable that Mini, given the choice during his early morning unsupervised raids on the fridge, happily scarfs up cheese or prawns rather than the dessert remnants which are usually lurking in there (even when one of the lurkers is chocolate mousse). He'd much rather have really dark chocolate than rubbish like chocolate buttons and has in fact been known to hand the latter back to anybody who has given him a packet with the comment 'I don't like that'. The immunologist who 'does' his vaccinations says he Mini is one of only two children he's encountered in a 30-year career who would rather have raisins as a treat after the evil deed than chocolate. This is not to say that the poor little lad is totally deprived - he loves (home-made) strawberry jam sandwiches or a proper cream tea, but the crucial point is it's all IN MODERATION. He'd equally as happily scoff a ham sandwich or a sausage roll or have a banana. So as far as I'm concerned, I've done him a favour by not making him have the sweet-tooth cravings which are the legacy of the woolly-minded 'this is what kids do' mentality which in my opinion is half the cause of childhood obesity. Children eat what they are given and if they are routinely offered sweets or crap or fast food they assume that is the 'norm' and their palates are adjusted accordingly. Again, Ceredigion might think about that before it happily shoves jam, even low-sugar jam, down kiddies at breakfast.
Which brings me on to my next point... breakfast clubs. Again, I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, I can see they are a pretty good idea for working parents, who can drop their kids off early and know they are safe, being given a decent meal and having a good time with their pals. I'd also put money on the stuff being served for breakfast at the club being generally better for the children than some of the things they'd have at home, if indeed breakfast even makes an appearance in the home routine which is so often does not. The Chateau Angevin breakfast is an extremely important part of the day, it has to be said made much easier to accomplish by the fact Mini is home-schooled and I don't have a 9-5 job - the issues of school-bus, school run and timekeeping at work do not apply.
The downside, I feel, is the fact that if parents are dumping their kiddies off as early as they can in the morning, it's yet another erosion of family life. As so many parents also take advantage of afterschool clubs too, I suspect quite often they don't see their children between 8am and 6pm most days. As the weekends are probably spent catching up on housework or other essential things, or even just having some relaxation time which everybody needs if they are working a full week, I have a creeping feeling that most parents these days just don't have the same level of contact with their children that our parents or grandparents had with their offspring. Is it therefore, then, any surprise that the media is full of articles about the breakdown of family relationships and indeed, communities if we as a society have created conditions in which it's difficult for families to even start the day together because they have to rush off to earn enough to keep the financial ship afloat?
I know there isn't an easy answer to all this and in most cases both parents HAVE to work just to survive. But given every study I've ever read about confirms my beliefs that children are happier, better adjusted and thrive more when there is a parent at home surely the Government should be taking this issue a lot more seriously? Oh, silly me.... I forgot that two parents working means two sources of taxation for the Treasury... which sadly explains why all the 'initiatives' and 'pilot schemes' have been and I suspect will continue to be aimed at getting mothers back to work as soon possible after they leave the maternity ward. Never mind the mental health of both parent and child, or indeed the social health of our country....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7664523.stm
Now, on some levels, it's quite reassuring to know that some councils are taking school nutrition seriously. So bravo Ceredigion Council (that having been said I'd love to see what they serve the kiddies for lunch as I'd put money on there being chips on the menu somewhere). I'm also chuffed, and not at all surprised, to see this is all going on in Wales - God's own country and somewhere where people take food seriously. On the other hand, you'd think some basic common sense could be applied, wouldn't you?
Chateau Angevin is a Bovril, not a Marmite, house it has to be said, but the same rules apply and we tuck into the black sticky stuff on toast on a fairly regular basis. Yes, it has salt in it, but it also is a good source of Vitamin B2 and niacin - substances which are shoved into breakfast cereals one notes. Amongst all the hysteria about salt I think people have lost sight of the fact we do need SOME in our diet, and whilst cutting down for most people is a good idea, cutting it out entirely is extremely foolish. As I don't use salt AT ALL in my cooking, not even in potatoes etc (I find if you use herbs instead nobody notices the difference) I don't see what is so wrong with the odd plate of Bovril on toast. I suspect Ceredigion have few scruples about using salt in their cooking, so perhaps they should look at this before they start banning Marmite at breakfast.
Another point - Ceredigion admit they use (low sugar) jam and marmalade, which is as far as I'm concerned merely adding to the training of childrens' palates to enjoy sweet things rather than savoury, something I'm quite keen to avoid with regard to Mini. I've long been of the opinion that children only like sweets etc because they are given them, which is why I'm fairly Stalinist when it comes to sugar. It's very noticeable that Mini, given the choice during his early morning unsupervised raids on the fridge, happily scarfs up cheese or prawns rather than the dessert remnants which are usually lurking in there (even when one of the lurkers is chocolate mousse). He'd much rather have really dark chocolate than rubbish like chocolate buttons and has in fact been known to hand the latter back to anybody who has given him a packet with the comment 'I don't like that'. The immunologist who 'does' his vaccinations says he Mini is one of only two children he's encountered in a 30-year career who would rather have raisins as a treat after the evil deed than chocolate. This is not to say that the poor little lad is totally deprived - he loves (home-made) strawberry jam sandwiches or a proper cream tea, but the crucial point is it's all IN MODERATION. He'd equally as happily scoff a ham sandwich or a sausage roll or have a banana. So as far as I'm concerned, I've done him a favour by not making him have the sweet-tooth cravings which are the legacy of the woolly-minded 'this is what kids do' mentality which in my opinion is half the cause of childhood obesity. Children eat what they are given and if they are routinely offered sweets or crap or fast food they assume that is the 'norm' and their palates are adjusted accordingly. Again, Ceredigion might think about that before it happily shoves jam, even low-sugar jam, down kiddies at breakfast.
Which brings me on to my next point... breakfast clubs. Again, I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, I can see they are a pretty good idea for working parents, who can drop their kids off early and know they are safe, being given a decent meal and having a good time with their pals. I'd also put money on the stuff being served for breakfast at the club being generally better for the children than some of the things they'd have at home, if indeed breakfast even makes an appearance in the home routine which is so often does not. The Chateau Angevin breakfast is an extremely important part of the day, it has to be said made much easier to accomplish by the fact Mini is home-schooled and I don't have a 9-5 job - the issues of school-bus, school run and timekeeping at work do not apply.
The downside, I feel, is the fact that if parents are dumping their kiddies off as early as they can in the morning, it's yet another erosion of family life. As so many parents also take advantage of afterschool clubs too, I suspect quite often they don't see their children between 8am and 6pm most days. As the weekends are probably spent catching up on housework or other essential things, or even just having some relaxation time which everybody needs if they are working a full week, I have a creeping feeling that most parents these days just don't have the same level of contact with their children that our parents or grandparents had with their offspring. Is it therefore, then, any surprise that the media is full of articles about the breakdown of family relationships and indeed, communities if we as a society have created conditions in which it's difficult for families to even start the day together because they have to rush off to earn enough to keep the financial ship afloat?
I know there isn't an easy answer to all this and in most cases both parents HAVE to work just to survive. But given every study I've ever read about confirms my beliefs that children are happier, better adjusted and thrive more when there is a parent at home surely the Government should be taking this issue a lot more seriously? Oh, silly me.... I forgot that two parents working means two sources of taxation for the Treasury... which sadly explains why all the 'initiatives' and 'pilot schemes' have been and I suspect will continue to be aimed at getting mothers back to work as soon possible after they leave the maternity ward. Never mind the mental health of both parent and child, or indeed the social health of our country....
Sunday, 5 October 2008
How to apply money?
Having a quick flick through, you've guessed it, the BBC News front page, I noticed an article saying the Coleridge Collar is coming up for sale:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7653348.stm
Knowing my obsession with history you won't be surprised to learn I read it with some interest - it seems this article is going to auctioned early next month, the first time it has ever come up for sale.
So what? I can hear you all shout. Well, firstly, this is quite a unique piece - it's the only surviving entire livery collar from the Tudor period. Henry VIII only had about 20 or so of them made, for his special pals, and all the rest have either been broken up or their eventual demise has been lost in the centuries between then and now. Even the, regretfully usually fairly philistine, BBC have described it as "one of the most important surviving relics of the Tudor age", and if it's managed to penetrate their dumbed-down cerebral corteses it MUST be fairly significant. Secondly, the workmanship is quite extraordinary - those readers who know me beyond the pages of this blog and are therefore familiar with the seriousness with which I approach my own 'craft' activities, and those of others, therefore won't be surprised to discover I'm fascinated by the design and skill required to make such a piece. Lastly, and again those who know me and my avid reading of detective novels will not find this out of character, the collar was only discovered recently, lurking in the house of the poet Samuel Coleridge Taylor. So it's really like a bit of long-hidden treasure - an notion which is appealing to my kiddie 'let's find a secret' side.
What is bugging me is WHY for pity's sake is an item of this national importance going up for sale in a public auction house? SURELY, even in this credit-crunched environment somebody in charge of one of our collections (most appropriately the V&A I would suggest) must have noticed this item pop out of obscurity and recognise it really should be on public display? NO mention of that in the BBC article.
My hope is that the collar WILL indeed be purchased for the nation, or at least some enlightened public figure will dip in their own pocket to secure it. After all, if the ghastly J K Rowling can manage to stump up £1m for the Labour party - surely its not unreasonable to ask for a third of that amount to be used to to secure something of far, far more value to our cultural and historical life than a bunch of over-exposed self-publicising third-rate politicians?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7653348.stm
Knowing my obsession with history you won't be surprised to learn I read it with some interest - it seems this article is going to auctioned early next month, the first time it has ever come up for sale.
So what? I can hear you all shout. Well, firstly, this is quite a unique piece - it's the only surviving entire livery collar from the Tudor period. Henry VIII only had about 20 or so of them made, for his special pals, and all the rest have either been broken up or their eventual demise has been lost in the centuries between then and now. Even the, regretfully usually fairly philistine, BBC have described it as "one of the most important surviving relics of the Tudor age", and if it's managed to penetrate their dumbed-down cerebral corteses it MUST be fairly significant. Secondly, the workmanship is quite extraordinary - those readers who know me beyond the pages of this blog and are therefore familiar with the seriousness with which I approach my own 'craft' activities, and those of others, therefore won't be surprised to discover I'm fascinated by the design and skill required to make such a piece. Lastly, and again those who know me and my avid reading of detective novels will not find this out of character, the collar was only discovered recently, lurking in the house of the poet Samuel Coleridge Taylor. So it's really like a bit of long-hidden treasure - an notion which is appealing to my kiddie 'let's find a secret' side.
What is bugging me is WHY for pity's sake is an item of this national importance going up for sale in a public auction house? SURELY, even in this credit-crunched environment somebody in charge of one of our collections (most appropriately the V&A I would suggest) must have noticed this item pop out of obscurity and recognise it really should be on public display? NO mention of that in the BBC article.
My hope is that the collar WILL indeed be purchased for the nation, or at least some enlightened public figure will dip in their own pocket to secure it. After all, if the ghastly J K Rowling can manage to stump up £1m for the Labour party - surely its not unreasonable to ask for a third of that amount to be used to to secure something of far, far more value to our cultural and historical life than a bunch of over-exposed self-publicising third-rate politicians?
Friday, 3 October 2008
October, and..
... I've been in bed for two days with the first lurgi of the new season. Ho hum.
Emerging from my pit, mostly because it's Friday and therefore 'Graham the Veg-man Day' I was disappointed when I missed the guy as he was off up my drive like a ferret up a drainpipe once he'd delivered my order - I guess Veg Men too have busy days! Not having spent time scarfing back tea and having a chin wag, I decided to Do Something about the stockpile of apples from the orchard. Unfortunately, these don't really 'keep' and therefore rather than see them go wrinkly and end up as chicken-or-compost-bin-fodder I decided chutney was probably the best bet. Pottering around with industrial quantities of dark soft brown sugar, cider vinegar and a varied selection of jars from my spice cupboard, I think I may have discovered the new remedy for the remnants of lurgi as the resulting heady miasma permeated the house - it certainly cleared out my sinuses. Several hours later and more jars have been added to the store cupboard - fondly nicknamed the 'Ray Mears Nuclear Survival Store' owing the amount of stuff hoarded in there. It's just a matter of waiting the requisite 8 or so weeks now until the syrupy gloop matures....
Mini, however, was not impressed. "What's the stink?" was his comment on proceedings. Which beggars the question what is he going to make of tomorrow's effort - pickled pears, to be ready in time for the Christmas cold meat feasts?
Emerging from my pit, mostly because it's Friday and therefore 'Graham the Veg-man Day' I was disappointed when I missed the guy as he was off up my drive like a ferret up a drainpipe once he'd delivered my order - I guess Veg Men too have busy days! Not having spent time scarfing back tea and having a chin wag, I decided to Do Something about the stockpile of apples from the orchard. Unfortunately, these don't really 'keep' and therefore rather than see them go wrinkly and end up as chicken-or-compost-bin-fodder I decided chutney was probably the best bet. Pottering around with industrial quantities of dark soft brown sugar, cider vinegar and a varied selection of jars from my spice cupboard, I think I may have discovered the new remedy for the remnants of lurgi as the resulting heady miasma permeated the house - it certainly cleared out my sinuses. Several hours later and more jars have been added to the store cupboard - fondly nicknamed the 'Ray Mears Nuclear Survival Store' owing the amount of stuff hoarded in there. It's just a matter of waiting the requisite 8 or so weeks now until the syrupy gloop matures....
Mini, however, was not impressed. "What's the stink?" was his comment on proceedings. Which beggars the question what is he going to make of tomorrow's effort - pickled pears, to be ready in time for the Christmas cold meat feasts?
Saturday, 27 September 2008
If' you are feeling down or stressed...
... grab yourself some cherry tomatoes, find where your nearest chickens are, lob the tomatoes near the chickens and stand back and watch the fun... I can thoroughly recommend it - Edgar and his gang had me in stitches today when I discovered some tomatoes which had been left somewhere they shouldn't have been.
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Sometimes I wonder why I bother...
...reading the BBC News website because there's usually something on there to at least mildly annoy me; most of the time I don't even blog about the minor stuff because I'd spend all day at it, such is the volume of crap out there. However, today, there's an article reporting NICE's (National Institute of Clinical Excellence for the uninitiated) latest pronouncements on ADHD children and their treatment which has really got me going.
Now I feel I have a personal stake in this because at various points it's been suggested Mini probably 'has' ADHD. My usual response is to say 'And?' because, firstly, I don't want to do down the road of smacking labels on children merely to make things convenient for myself/other people and I don't think I need to give myself a crutch to excuse Mini's bad behaviour to others. To put it succinctly I think there's a huge pressure to put children (and for that matter, adults) into convenient 'diagnosis boxes', merely to leave them there. 'Job done' is pretty much the attitude once somebody's found the right label. Secondly, I am also sick of people letting their children get away with murder and pulling the 'syndrome' card whenever they are criticised for their lack of involvement in dealing with their childrens' behaviour: I don't want to give anybody a reason for even thinking I might be part of that crowd. Thirdly, the only thing the professionals seem to be interested in doing once they have managed to slap the ADHD label on some unfortunate sprog is to medicate it to the eyeballs. As I am manic about NOT giving Mini medication unless I have to - he doesn't even get Calpol unless there is a real problem - shoving Ritalin into the little darling is just not an option. Instead, I 'manage' his naughtiness through good diet (something I am positively Stalinist about), close involvement in his daily life (admittedly easier because he's home educated) and extremely firm old-fashioned discipline (and YES I DO mean smacked bottoms when he's really naughty). Not wishing to blow my own trumpet, but I must be doing something right, because Mini is, by and large, disgustingly healthy, and has a reading age several years in advance of his numerical age - not something most ADHD children can say.
So, I suppose I should be please that NICE are now saying children under five should not be medicated, and those over 5 should only be drugged if their behaviour is really extreme. And, it's true to say I think this is a step in the right direction. However, they are also talking of introducing 'parenting classes' to "teach parents how to create a structured home environment, encourage attentiveness and concentration, and manage misbehaviour better." This, although I can see in principle might have some appeal to the woolly-minded PC thinkers, I suggest would be a total waste of time and public money. It doesn't take Einstein to work out the only people who will actually go to such classes willingly are those who are concerned about their child's behaviour and are honest enough about their own capabilities to realise they might need some help. A minoriy? I think so - and these are the people who are probably motivated enough to do something off their own bat anyway. Those who are made to go (I believe some ARE actually made to attend such programmes for various reasons) are going to automatically be resentful and resistant to anything which might be suggested which sort of defeats the object of the exercise. There are also always going to be those who just can't be bothered - and I would suggest these are the vast majority; and there is absolutely nothing anybody can do about this in the current atmosphere of political correctness.
So, yes, I am annoyed by NICE's inability once again to face up to the ugly reality that some parents just can't be bothered with their children no matter what label the said children have put on them. The effectiveness of the proposed classes is even questioned in the course of the article, and I quote:
Andrea Bilbow, chief executive of the ADHD charity ADDISS, welcomed the NICE recommendations but questioned how helpful the parent training programmes would be to parents.
"Parenting programmes are extremely important, but they need to be specific for ADHD.
"The ones that NICE are recommending were designed for the parents of children with conduct disorder, which is completely different from ADHD," she said.
So think again, NICE.
All this having been said, these are not the issues which really have stuck in my craw. There is a video clip included in the article, which shows a typically worn and brow-beaten 'parent of ADHD child' discussing how her family cope with the sprog's behaviour. The spiel is the usual one might expect in this situation - we've all heard it 100 times before - although I have to say I was impressed to see the house (and what I could see of its occupants) was tidy and spotlessly clean, which is more than you can usually say when faced with a BBC 'Joe Public' interview about juvenile bad behaviour. There were even plenty of books on display. However, rather than listening to what Mrs Parent of ADHD Child was saying, I was watching what the offending ADHD child was up to... and surprise surprise I went up like a rocket when I saw it eating a particularly foul looking sandwich made with 'plastic' white bread and what looked like 'plastic' cheese as well. Watching its mother making the said foul concoction I also noticed she was using 'spread' rather than butter and there was also a large family pack of crisps lying around. All this whilst Mother was calmly mentioning the 'various forms' of Ritalin which she was feeding the child.
From experience, I know exactly what happens when Mini eats anything resembling what I saw on the video clip - and it isn't pretty. I am aware my attitude towards food and its provenance is extreme, and I can't realistically expect everybody to be as meticulous, but the bottom line is my attention to what goes into my child's mouth means we can, as a family, live a far less stressed existence than if he received the sort of 'food' this child is obviously used to. Mini, for example, would have had stoneground wholemeal bread (usually with added seeds because he likes them and they contain some substances which are particularly good for him), organic butter (Welsh by preference because I admit I'm a bigot!) and either organic cheese, ham, tuna or similar. As a treat he might have some smoked salmon, which he loves, or as a real indulgence, some home-made jam. To follow, a banana, or an oat-based biscuit, or some yoghurt. None of this is beyond the reach of 'ordinary people' and none of it is bizarre 'special food'. Because of it, we don't NEED medication - it really is that simple, I'm afraid, based on my own experience. (I am prepared to admit there may be cases where this just wouldn't work - so I'm not THAT smug and complacent, honest - but I'd love to see what I could do with some previously-medicated children if they were left in my care for, say, three months).
So, dear NICE-bods, might I suggest you scrap the parenting classes and instead insist people are made to take cooking lessons instead? Not a popular move if you are a 'spread' manufacturer or a member of the Walker's Crisps dynasty, but it might just make a difference not only to ADHD children, but their parents and extended families too?
Now I feel I have a personal stake in this because at various points it's been suggested Mini probably 'has' ADHD. My usual response is to say 'And?' because, firstly, I don't want to do down the road of smacking labels on children merely to make things convenient for myself/other people and I don't think I need to give myself a crutch to excuse Mini's bad behaviour to others. To put it succinctly I think there's a huge pressure to put children (and for that matter, adults) into convenient 'diagnosis boxes', merely to leave them there. 'Job done' is pretty much the attitude once somebody's found the right label. Secondly, I am also sick of people letting their children get away with murder and pulling the 'syndrome' card whenever they are criticised for their lack of involvement in dealing with their childrens' behaviour: I don't want to give anybody a reason for even thinking I might be part of that crowd. Thirdly, the only thing the professionals seem to be interested in doing once they have managed to slap the ADHD label on some unfortunate sprog is to medicate it to the eyeballs. As I am manic about NOT giving Mini medication unless I have to - he doesn't even get Calpol unless there is a real problem - shoving Ritalin into the little darling is just not an option. Instead, I 'manage' his naughtiness through good diet (something I am positively Stalinist about), close involvement in his daily life (admittedly easier because he's home educated) and extremely firm old-fashioned discipline (and YES I DO mean smacked bottoms when he's really naughty). Not wishing to blow my own trumpet, but I must be doing something right, because Mini is, by and large, disgustingly healthy, and has a reading age several years in advance of his numerical age - not something most ADHD children can say.
So, I suppose I should be please that NICE are now saying children under five should not be medicated, and those over 5 should only be drugged if their behaviour is really extreme. And, it's true to say I think this is a step in the right direction. However, they are also talking of introducing 'parenting classes' to "teach parents how to create a structured home environment, encourage attentiveness and concentration, and manage misbehaviour better." This, although I can see in principle might have some appeal to the woolly-minded PC thinkers, I suggest would be a total waste of time and public money. It doesn't take Einstein to work out the only people who will actually go to such classes willingly are those who are concerned about their child's behaviour and are honest enough about their own capabilities to realise they might need some help. A minoriy? I think so - and these are the people who are probably motivated enough to do something off their own bat anyway. Those who are made to go (I believe some ARE actually made to attend such programmes for various reasons) are going to automatically be resentful and resistant to anything which might be suggested which sort of defeats the object of the exercise. There are also always going to be those who just can't be bothered - and I would suggest these are the vast majority; and there is absolutely nothing anybody can do about this in the current atmosphere of political correctness.
So, yes, I am annoyed by NICE's inability once again to face up to the ugly reality that some parents just can't be bothered with their children no matter what label the said children have put on them. The effectiveness of the proposed classes is even questioned in the course of the article, and I quote:
Andrea Bilbow, chief executive of the ADHD charity ADDISS, welcomed the NICE recommendations but questioned how helpful the parent training programmes would be to parents.
"Parenting programmes are extremely important, but they need to be specific for ADHD.
"The ones that NICE are recommending were designed for the parents of children with conduct disorder, which is completely different from ADHD," she said.
So think again, NICE.
All this having been said, these are not the issues which really have stuck in my craw. There is a video clip included in the article, which shows a typically worn and brow-beaten 'parent of ADHD child' discussing how her family cope with the sprog's behaviour. The spiel is the usual one might expect in this situation - we've all heard it 100 times before - although I have to say I was impressed to see the house (and what I could see of its occupants) was tidy and spotlessly clean, which is more than you can usually say when faced with a BBC 'Joe Public' interview about juvenile bad behaviour. There were even plenty of books on display. However, rather than listening to what Mrs Parent of ADHD Child was saying, I was watching what the offending ADHD child was up to... and surprise surprise I went up like a rocket when I saw it eating a particularly foul looking sandwich made with 'plastic' white bread and what looked like 'plastic' cheese as well. Watching its mother making the said foul concoction I also noticed she was using 'spread' rather than butter and there was also a large family pack of crisps lying around. All this whilst Mother was calmly mentioning the 'various forms' of Ritalin which she was feeding the child.
From experience, I know exactly what happens when Mini eats anything resembling what I saw on the video clip - and it isn't pretty. I am aware my attitude towards food and its provenance is extreme, and I can't realistically expect everybody to be as meticulous, but the bottom line is my attention to what goes into my child's mouth means we can, as a family, live a far less stressed existence than if he received the sort of 'food' this child is obviously used to. Mini, for example, would have had stoneground wholemeal bread (usually with added seeds because he likes them and they contain some substances which are particularly good for him), organic butter (Welsh by preference because I admit I'm a bigot!) and either organic cheese, ham, tuna or similar. As a treat he might have some smoked salmon, which he loves, or as a real indulgence, some home-made jam. To follow, a banana, or an oat-based biscuit, or some yoghurt. None of this is beyond the reach of 'ordinary people' and none of it is bizarre 'special food'. Because of it, we don't NEED medication - it really is that simple, I'm afraid, based on my own experience. (I am prepared to admit there may be cases where this just wouldn't work - so I'm not THAT smug and complacent, honest - but I'd love to see what I could do with some previously-medicated children if they were left in my care for, say, three months).
So, dear NICE-bods, might I suggest you scrap the parenting classes and instead insist people are made to take cooking lessons instead? Not a popular move if you are a 'spread' manufacturer or a member of the Walker's Crisps dynasty, but it might just make a difference not only to ADHD children, but their parents and extended families too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
