Tiger Woods Hiding Away

Tiger Woods is certainly not doing himself any favours by hiding away. It seems strange that a man who deserves to be brimful of self-confidence is demonstrating an inability to face up to the consequences of his actions.
Burying himself away, refusing to meet the police seem pretty obvious indicators of the fact that he has something to hide. But how bad can that be? What can he possibly be afraid of?
The trouble is that by shunning the police and the press, he’s only brought more attention to himself. The press and gossipy websites are now free to speculate....and they’re not holding back!
If only he’d had the courage to face the press and make light of whatever it was that happened, the attention could well have eased off. Instead, he finds himself the centre of a media storm.
I can only imagine that he’s not easily able to handle bad feelings. Presumably, he feels thoroughly ashamed and unable to accept the fact that he somehow brought the accident upon himself. And whereas some people might lash out and blame others in this situation, he’s taking the opposite tack – going into denial. But neither course of action is ultimately helpful...the best way to move on from any embarrassing episode is to face up to it, admit guilt, and deal with the consequences.
I’m sure there’s an appropriate golfing term for confronting difficult shots......perhaps some keen golfer could inform me?

Police Reprimanded

I’m so glad the report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has decreed a new, softer approach to policing in the UK is needed.
It’s bothered me for a long while that the attitude in this country seems to have moved away from a presumption of innocence and towards one of guilt.
I recall berating a boss of the Met back in the 70’s - in Thatcher’s day – for the heavy-handed policing of a demonstration in Hyde Park. Before the demo had even got going, there were dozens of coaches parked along the Bayswater road filled with expectant cops all eager, it seemed, to get out and control the masses. I put it to him that having the coaches so visible was tantamount to a challenge, likely to rile some demonstrators enough to encite violence. And that it would surely have been better to keep the police at a distance until, or in case, there was any suggestion of violence.
But he couldn’t see my point of view, and it was around then, I believe, that things deteriorated until we reached the desperate situation of police thinking it’s OK to hurt people with their shields, kettle people without even letting pregnant women leave a demonstration for the sake of their health or in order to pee, and basically, assume every one of us is a criminal in the making.
It's been a nasty insidious form of bullying that has crept in.
What upset me most about the tragedy of Ian Tomlinson’s death, was that it was a member of the public who went to check he was OK and attempt to help him up while the police in their riot gear stood unfeelingly watching.
I’m sure I’m not alone in wanting to live in the kind of society where the police are on our side, there to look after us, protect us and help us when we’re in trouble rather than looking upon innocent people like Ian Tomlinson as trouble-makers and standing idly by while they suffer....and die.

Student Loans Fiasco Staff rewarded by Bonuses!?!

Sometimes it's hard to believe what we read in the press. A story today tells us that 'most universities in England have bee forced to hand out emergency cash to students whose loans and grants have been severely delayed. This is according to a recent survey.

Yet, surely I was reading only earlier this week that the bosses at the Student Loans Company are to receive bonuses?

So I check back, and yes, apparently £2 million was handed out in bonuses to the staff there who've so totally stuffed up students' lives. Ten executives, indeed, are alleged to have received 5 figure sums.

Unbelievable. Aboslutely unbelievable. Who is it, do you think, who can square this kind of thing? Who OK's it?

And why isn't there an outcry? Why don't we British do 'anger' any more? That's what I can never understand. I gather the Lib Dems have made a fuss but why isn't this plastered over all our newspapers and broadcast news outlets? And have we just become too too accepting?

EuroMillions Lottery Win

So we're all thrilled for the euromillions winners, but what I'm wondering is why no one is questioning a system whereby an individual wins more money than he or she can possibly need in a lifetime. It's a bit like the bankers' bonuses except that it's not arousing the same passion. I mean surely it would be far far more sensible, and far fairer, if there could be 90 winners of a million pounds....?

For who needs more than a million to make them feel secure and happy ever after?

One million pounds would change most peoples' lives dramatically and, if properly invested, ensure a worry-free future.

And wouldn't we all feel better about the lottery if we knew more people had a chance of winning? If we could feel the profits were going to be more widely distributed?

I'd like to see our attitude change towards this just as it has over bankers' bonuses and huge payouts to chief executives. We all know deep down that no one really needs more than a million pounds as a windfall, salary or bonus. So why don't we just put a cap on the lottery payouts so that more people can wake up as millionaires?

Sun not helping Jacqui Janes - Misplaced Anger of Max Mosley

There seems to be a lot of misplaced anger around today. Jacqui Janes, the mother of Jamie Janes who lost his life in Afghanistan is, rightly, angry at the premature death of her son who was only 20 when he bled to death.
Yet it seems she’s being egged on by the Sun newspaper to lash out at the Prime Minister for his spelling mistakes. It’s quite clear that nothing could make her feel better at the moment. It’s also obvious that when someone writes a letter of condolence they should strive to get the spelling correct – or start again. Crossings out simply won’t do at times of raw grief such as this.
However, I would suggest that Mrs Janes isn’t exactly being helped through her grief by the Sun. Of course she’s angry, and it’s often very useful during grief to be able to express anger, to get it out rather than keeping it inside to fester. But if the Sun continue to encourage her to direct all her anger at one man, she’ll most likely end up embittered anyway for there’s nothing Gordon Brown can possibly say that will make her feel any better.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/video/article300101.ece?vxSiteId=6247211d-66e0-4454-b73a-3f1610efa39a&vxChannel=Sun%20Exclusive&vxClipId=1347_SUN27343&vxBitrate=300


She should surely be encouraged, instead to have some proper emotional support, some counselling possibly, to allow her to express her angerin a safe place at all the agencies that may have contributed to her son’s death. She probably needs the time and space also to explore her own range of feelings which may include guilt at having ‘allowed’ her son to join the army and go to war even though she can’t possibly be held responsible; and her helplessness in the face of such a huge loss which is clearly having a dramatic and tragic impact on her life.
With help like that, she’s more likely to be able, eventually not to get over Jamie’s death, but to become more accepting of it and be able to get on with the rest of her life. If she doesn’t, she’s likely to be in for a tempestuous time ahead and her health is bound to suffer.

The other example of misplaced anger - on a much more trivial scale – is that of Max Mosley, who once again, it seems is railing at everyone and everything except himself.
He’s apparently challenging the law of privacy in the European court of human rights in Strasbourg.
His argument as ever is this: “I think it’s wrong in a civilised society that a tabloid editor can destroy a family and wreck a life without being answerable to anybody.”
It never seems to occur to him that he destroyed his family and wrecked his life by his own actions. He was the one who deceived his family and lived a lie. But it’s the newspapers who are guilty of wrecking everything for him!!
It’s a very common that when someone feels deeply guilty or ashamed of their own actions that they try to deflect criticism away from themselves and cast blame onto others instead. But doesn’t he realise that he’s only drawing more and more attention to his past actions, to his kinky sex-life, and to his inability to accept that he was the one who messed up.

So who are the Nutters now?

The government's attempt to gag Professor David Nutt over his views on the correct classifications for drugs and his desire to spell out the true facts over their various dangers is shocking.

It's such a clear case of trying to make the facts fit the story rather than letting the story tell the facts. And surely we've all had enough of that from this particular government?

Why employ independent advisors at all if you're not interested in listening to their advice?

Anyone who's worked with young people knows how important it is to tell the truth about the various dangers they face growing up. It's no good a parent who drinks to excess lecturing a son or daughter about the risks of cannabis without first of all confronting their own addictive behaviour. Information has to be given in context and if the professor has determined that horse riding is more dangerous than ecstasy, it's because he's researched the subject so who are the government to decide these facts should not be publicised?

Let's hope all the resultant publicity helps Professor Nutt get his message across loud and clear.

MP's Expenses (again) and Fairness

One word keeps popping into my head over the MP’s expenses scandal: fairness. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting their treatment has been unfair but because of the way some of them are being disciplined (or asked to pay money back) and others aren’t, it does seem that the experts called in to sort out the sorry saga are only making it worse.
I have no sympathy for all those who got on the gravy train and rode is as hard and fast as they could. But I do feel that when (some) people acted in good faith within the rules and checked again and again that their arrangements were approved, then it is hard to punish them retrospectively.
However, it’s also scandalous that some MP’s appear to be going to get away with huge cons – as in avoidance of capital gains tax, flipping homes, and, it seems, acquiring additional homes that they get to keep at our expense.
So I would just put in a simple word for fairness. All should be treated equally. If retrospective payments are to be required of the few, they should also be of the many. If some people are being required to pay back a few thousand pounds, how does that make it right that others are getting away with profiteering on a much bigger scale?
It’s all a big muddle at the moment, but one think I’ve learned over years of counselling is that unfairness can be the cause of huge turmoil.
Young people, for instance, (and this applies to the tiny ones as well as the troubled teens) can be deeply affected by situations they deem unfair. If they’re told off for something they know is not their fault, or if they’re misunderstood or misrepresented, or not listened to, they can develop a deep sense of injustice. If this happens often, they begin to feel the whole world is against them, and resentment can fester. More often than not, this leads to them acting out or playing up, simply because they’ve learned this is what’s expected of them (even when they’ve not been guilty) so they just conform to other peoples’ expectations of them. This, obviously then leads to more rows, more shouting and on to more bad behaviour.
It’s all so obvious really, isn’t it?
But it seems we need constant reminding that if we want people to perform to their best, they need to feel they’re treated fairly.
I dare say this whole expenses fiasco could have been avoided if only the MP’s had realised long ago that we the public would not have deemed many/most of their expense allowances fair.

BBC DG's £834,000 salary

I heard Sir Michael Lyons on the World at One today telling listeners that BBC Director General Mark Thompson is having his £834,000 salary frozen for 3 years. Poor man, doesn't your heart just bleed for him?

It also came out the Mark Thompson earns 60 times the salary of a junior Grade 2 employee working outside London who'd be on around £14,000.

Once again it makes you wonder about the sensitivity of people in 'high office'. I mean how can Sir Michael Lyons believe that this news about Mark Thompson will elicit sympathy? Or was in any way a good example to justify how tough the BBC is being with its employees.

And how does Adam Crozier sleep at night knowing that he earns £3million a year while his posties - the ones who do the real hard graft - are on so much more lowly wages.

And I feel the same really about MP's spouses who are now creating about the fact they may be banned from working for them in future. If it's true that they've been on £30,000 a year, how come? The average pay for most secretaries is surely much more likely to be around £18,000 so how come MP's partners are entitled to so much more?

What really bothers me is the lack of sensitivity, the lack of empathy. People on huge salaries never seem to stop and think how they come across to the rest of us. They don't seem to feel embarrassed at all. Do you really think someone can believe he is worth £3 million? Particularly when he seems to be so spectacularly bad at people management....?

One can only imagine that their general attitude is that they think they're worth these big salaries; that they think they're somehow special.

I wonder if the thought never occurrs to them that gross inequality matters, that it sends a bad signal to staff and society in general, that it can contribute to bad staff relations and divisions in society?

Planned Closure of St. Marks Minor Injuries Unit in Maidenhead

So I’ve just come back from the Minor Injuries unit at St. Marks Hospital in Maidenhead where I received wonderful and speedy treatment. The staff are friendly and helpful, the waiting areas clean and tidy, the quality of nursing care superb, and the facilities ideal........yet inspite of this, the unit’s under threat of closure in the New Year.
It beggars belief really - for the place is clearly popular with locals and provides an excellent, efficient service. It means that patients can get treated for minor injuries speedily without having to go through their GP. And it helps relieve the pressure on local A&E departments.
So you would think, wouldn’t you, that all in all, everyone would be satisfied with this situation?
But as far as I can understand it, the GP’s are having to fund the unit and are finding it expensive. So even if the system works really well for all parties, it may not be allowed to survive purely because of a funding issue.
So from the New Year, if the unit does indeed close down, patients like me will either have to waste everyone’s time by going to our GP- who will then presumably refer us on to someone else for appropriate treatment - or clutter up the country’s already overstretched A&E departments.
It all seems so counter-intuitive, particularly when a system works well. But isn’t that so often the case nowadays.....anything simple that works well gets over-hauled until it’s complicated and less user-friendly. More’s the pity.

Nick Griffin's body language

Nobody likes to watch another human being squirm.....unless it's Nick Griffin, that is.

I imagine many of us will have felt the BBC's decision to invite him on to Question Time was vindicated simply because we all got the chance to check him out properly - not just listening to his extremist views but also to watch how he presented himself and how comfortable or uncomfortable he appeared whilst voicing them. I was fascinated by his body language: his use of the smile to cover embarrassment, even when it seemed most inappropriate and his use of laughter to deflect attention away from the seriousness of some of the remarks - both seemed to be studied tactics he's developed to try to wrap up some of the more outrageous things he says and make him appear soft and cuddly while he says them.

But it didn't work for me; instead these feeble attempts at appearing human only made him more slippery. And by the end of the programme, he was looking truly uncomfortable. Interesting that most of his discomfort seemed to surface whilst he was defending his position on gay rights (or rather his view that there shouldn't be any). At this point he really did look as if he wished he were somewhere else. I wonder what that really says about him?

Overweight children removed from parents

Despite newspaper and media reports, I can’t believe that Social Services have removed a couples’ children purely on the grounds of weight.
I’m sure the professionals involved will have taken a broad view on this, not simply based a decision on the fact that the whole family is over-weight.
Some people, it must be said, do have issues around food, believing it to be more than simply nourishment. I’m sure many of us have had times when we’ve used food as a comfort rather than as fuel. But for some, this becomes an obsession so they end up fully believing in the power of food to make them feel better.
Sadly, it doesn’t work. Instead of feeling happy after stuffing themselves, they end up feeling guilty. And feeling guilty makes them feel worse, so the viscious cycle of comfort- eating can get perpetuated as they try yet another bar of chocolate to cheer them up. And we all know that the more you eat, the more you want, so it becomes so easily to pile on the pounds.
I’m not in a position to know what’s been happening in this particular family but if they’ve all got caught up in a merry-go-round of comfort eating, it’s easy to see why Social Services might be concerned. Anyone who’s obsessed by food can easily get confused into thinking that food somehow equates to love.....and that by pressing food on people, you can demonstrate your love for them.
But as most of us know, there are far better ways of showing love and affection. Sadly not everyone learns this – and if this couple never learned how to express love more appropriately, it’s possible they’ve focussed on food instead.
Sad though, that it has come to this. You’d think there would be better ways to help the family resolve their problems than by putting them through the heartbreak of separation.

Working Dads too scared to take Paternity Leave

How sad that fathers today feel unable to take paternity leave when they’re entitled to it.
It seems that business can’t shake off the idea that people need to be at their desks, working long hours in order to prove themselves. Why can’t we wake up to the fact that happy staff are likely to be more productive ? And that someone with a new baby is also likely to be distracted and unable to give their full attention to the task in hand if they feel they’re missing out on being at home with the new arrival?
It’s obvious that new babies need to see as much of both parents as possible and that if their father is not around in the early days bonding is likely to be difficult for both. It’s obvious too that new Mums need as much help as they can get.
And yet it sounds as if fathers are worried they’ll be frowned on for asking for time off......in much the same way as women have learned never to mention the kids whilst at work.
It’s almost as if there’s a great conspiracy to pretend that most people don’t have families. And what’s bizarre about that is that surely most people go to work in order to be able to have a family, and then to support that family and ensure a decent standard of life....?
So why can’t we all acknowledge this and get on with making the workplace a family friendly place instead of somewhere that exists on an altogether different planet?

Goldman Sachs Bonus Culture and MP's Expenses........still they don't 'get it'

How are we ever to address our broken society until those in power, and well-paid jobs , learn how it must feel to be totally powerless and poor, or unemployed.
I know we don’t learn empathy in school......but i would surely help if we did? If only our MP’s could understand that most of us, let alone those on benefits, would give anything to be able to afford cleaners and gardeners. And that the idea of having these services paid for by somebody else (ie the tax-payer) sounds really too good to be true. After all, most of us manage to do our own cleaning and gardening. And we fit it in around our full-time jobs....so why are MP’s so different, many might ask.
And this is the point, surely, that MP’s (or many of them at least ) seem to have become detached from the rest of society. They’ve been gradually seduced by their ‘allowances’ into feeling entitled to a grander life-style, with better pay and more luxuries than the rest of us. And this is surely why we’re finding it hard to forgive them for transgressions or understand their current petty grievances.
And something similar seems to have been going on with the bankers who have gradually grown so accustomed to their own extravagant expectations, that they’re jumping back on the bonus gravy train at the earliest possible moment, even though it seems indecently early to the rest of us.
If only they too could put themselves in other peoples’ shoes.....not the shoes of the poorest, necessarily, just the shoes of the everyday working man and woman whose average salary is around £24,000. These people, the majority after all, can only dream of having half a million pounds and probably never will even if they slog their guts out for a lifetime. The idea that some fat cats who happen to work in the financial sector can expect such hand-outs once a year purely for doing their jobs is what sticks in the gullet. I can’t help wondering how we’ve got to the stage that some people feel this is their entitlement. How did banking salaries and bonuses become so out of skew with the rest of us?
And what do these people who are in receipt of such huge amounts of money think about the rest of us who aren’t? Do they ever stop and give a thought to how they’re reinforcing a great divide in society? How what they feel to be ‘appropriate’ rewards feel like greed to the rest of us?
Don’t you just wish that for once, a banker would speak out and express some guilt or at least humility? That one of them would acknowledge publicly that such rewards probably contribute to resentment amongst those less fortunate....and how damaging that can be? How refreshing would that be?
And the same goes for MP’s. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if one of them really spoke the truth for a change and acknowledged that they’ve become far too easily accustomed to a lifestyle which is way out of sight for most of their constituents. And that anyone who’s so out of touch can hardly be expected to know how to govern in the interests of the majority.
Then we might begin to feel they ‘get it’.

Women who don't value themselves except through work

Following on from the piece below, I’ve been thinking today about the film Julia and Julie which I saw over the weekend.

It gives two interesting examples of people (both women, incidentally) who can’t seem to value themselves in any other way than through work.
Julia Child (apparently well-known to any American for bringing the art of French cooking to the US) and her modern-day fan Julie (who devotes a year of her life to creating every recipe in her mentor’s book and blogging about it) both seem to need some form of public acclaim before they can be satisfied with their lives.
But being totally immersed in these projects isn’t enough: they both need more than that, they need to know that other people are appreciating what they’re doing before they can feel satisfied with it....or themselves.
Julia Child wasn’t satisfied with being an extraordinary cook. She felt a desperate need to get her work ‘out there’, to be published.
And during the course of writing her blog, Julie is forever saying to her husband, ‘I’m going to be a writer!’ It’s her husband who has to remind her that by very virtue of following all the recipes and writing about it, she is a writer.
But she’s clearly not going to be satisfied until she knows people are reading her blog. And then she’s only truly excited when she gets calls from agents and publishers who want to turn her blog into a book and publish it.
I believe many of us can relate to this, but it raises an important issue. How much is doing some intrinsically valuable...and how satisfied can any artistic person feel simply pursuing their art if there’s never any likelihood that others will get to see/hear/read/listen to it....and appreciate it?
And following on from that, can writers, musicians, artists ever achieve total satisfaction if their work goes unpaid? Or is it only by receiving a financial reward that insecure, artistic types can finally feel they’ve arrived? Does the fact that someone else is prepared to reward their efforts convey the final seal of approval they so desperately crave?

Stressed out young people

Sad news today of the suicide of two young girls in Glasgow, following on from a report of anxiety overload in young people aged from 18 t0 24. 66% questioned in a recent survey report feeling stressed out or worried about money, jobs, and school or university pressure.
None of this is surprising in these uncertain times. There's more pressure on everyone nowadays to be well-educated in order to secure on of the few jobs available, and then keep it. And prospects for our young today are so bleak. I've blogged previously here about the hell of being unemployed and it's certainly no way for young people to begin their adult lives. Then if they are employed they're likely to be on a relatively low wage, so hardly surprising that this incurs money worries.

Something I'd like to see addressed here though is this habit we seem to have aquired in the last 20 or so years to label people according to their work - and then to judge them accordingly.

Young people easily fall into the trap of thinking they don't amount to anything unless they've got work, and yet, as I so often say to their parents, they are so much more than the sum of their exam results!

Why don't we stop and value our young people for who they are rather than what they're capable of? If we could only bring ourselves to do that - as families as well as society - then we could help them see that there's always something to get up for.

Most people have skills to impart - a young musician, for instance, could help inspire other youngsters at a youth group. Kindly types could volunteer to befriend the lonely. Out-going jolly young people would be hugely welcome visitors for the elderly.

There's huge scope for matching up people with time on their hands, to local needs. And if we could only begin to value the things that people do in their spare time, as well as in paid work, we might begin to encourage some of today's young to use any enforced period of unemployment to broaden their experience of life whilst contributing greatly to society.

How on earth can parents handle not knowing if their child's been abused...?

How our hearts go out to all those poor children who were so horrifically abused at their nursery.

And all those of us who are parents must be wondering how on earth their parents are supposed to cope when they don't even know if their own children were amongst the abused. Uncertainty is always hard to cope with, and it sounds as if they're going to have to live with uncertainty for a while yet.

I'm sure the whole nation is struggling to get its head around how this kind of thing can happen....and so many parents today must be wondering if their own offspring are safe in their nurseries or play-groups, or schools.

The first piece of advice I'd suggest for the Plymouth parents is to try to stay calm and keep a clear head. Going into a panic won't help anyone, and particularly the children. It's probably far better to hope for the best, not to fear the worst at this stage. For fearing the worst and stressing out risks passing your own fears and anxieties on to your youngsters.

But if the news is confirmed and your child was involved, then there's a lot you can do to help yourselves and her - or him - for we don't even seem to have been told at this stage if one or both sexes were involved.

First of all, take care of yourself. Everyone is saying that the children were too young to know or understand what was going on. This doesn't necessarily mean they won't be affected at some time in the future, for trauma has a nasty habit of lurking around and coming out at a later date. But for now, you'll need someone to talk to. You're bound to be going through a whole turmoil of emotions from guilt - as in 'how could I have let my child into this situation', to bewilderment and disbelief that something so dreadful could happen, to anger at anyone and everyone who allowed/permitted/facilitated it.

All these feelings are perfectly normal and the best way to deal with them is to talk about them. Try to find a counsellor nearby who will listen to you carefully and help you make sense of all your mixed up feelings. You need to work towards getting over any guilt, for you can't possibly be held responsible for what happened to your child. You weren't there, watching over him or her, all day every day. But you'll still need to be able to express your guilty feelings and go over and over them until you've managed to see that you are not at fault .

Any anger that you feel is perfectly understandable but the key thing here is to let it out in an appropriate way and in appropriate places. Don't let those nearest and dearest to you be the butt of any outbursts but learn, instead, with the help of a counsellor some useful ways of getting rid of your anger without harming others. There are tricks that are helpful, like learning to recognise the beginnings of anger building up inside...and then giving yourself the choice of letting it all out, or deciding to cam yourself down for now and let it out later. You may find that going for some vigorous exercise works for you, or attacking a punch-bag. But your anger will be directed mostly against the perpetrators of this horrendous crime....and you may find it difficult to think of ways you can express your anger towards them. Some may find that writing things down helps...so you could write some letters to these people, probably ones that you never post, but that allow you to get everything you feel off your chest.

Above all, find some help. Find a good counsellor and build up a relationship of trust so that you can discuss everything that's going on inside. And together you can work out a strategy for how to deal with your child as he or she grows up. It'll probably be important to let your child be your guide here, for all of us react in different ways to different events so every child will need a different approach. But work with some professionals so that you and your child are in good, safe hands.

Emotional Intelligence

It seemed to me yesterday watching Gordon Brown's speech that he must recently have had some advice about trying to 'connect' with his people. Peter Mandelson gave a speech which demonstrated a great degree of emotional intelligence. He was able to make fun of himself, acknowledge his weaknesses and build on his strengths. And I guess that Gordon Brown's advisors have been working really hard lately on trying to make their leader more appealing, and sound more in touch with real life. But did it work? I don't know. He came across as caring and sincere but what he was saying was much of the same old stuff so it was difficult to work out if he really is making an attempt to empathise with the rest of us, put himself in our shoes. I've recorded a piece below about Emotional Intelligence....and will follow this up shortly with more details about why it matters so much in all aspects of life.

Security checks for those driving children to and from school and club events

So why are the Daily Mail (and other news outlets) getting so agitated about the new security checks for people who drive other peoples' children to school or club events...?

Do they not value our childrens' safety and security? Do they not want to ensure all steps are taken to protect them from harm and abuse?

Imagine the outrage the Daily Mail, in particular, would express if a child sometime in the near future were to be assaulted by one such parent who hadn't taken a check. They would surely me some moral grand-standing then.

It's not as if there's any moral dilemma on the issue. We need to protect our children as best we can. Enough said.

Princess Michael - control freak?

So Princess Michael has apparently been unable to resist intervening (actually ‘taking over’) the wedding of her son Lord Freddie to Sophie Winkleman.
This is making headlines all over the UK press as HRH apparently has chosen the bride’s dress, settled on the venue at Hampton Court, invited the world’s royals and now finds herself in difficulties because the bride’s parents’ generous ‘contribution’ (hardly what it’s normally called when the bride’s family pay for a wedding!) doens’t stretch far enough to provide all the delights she’s planning. As a result, it is alleged she sent her chauffeur to France to pick up Champagne from a French supermarket.
So, she’s apparently hi-jacking her soon-to-be daughter-in-law’s wedding, which is troubling enough in itself. How does she think their relationsip will develop from now on? If she thinks she’s equipped to take over such big decisions for the bride on her most special day...where will it stop?
Will she be still there muscling in on their honeymoon? Will she choose their first home, their decor, their whole lifestyle? Will she decide when they should have their first baby, be there and then be the one to decide on the name? I do hope not.
But those fanciful suggestions only help to underline just how wrong her current intervention is. It is not HER big day; it belongs to her son and daughter-in-law. One dreads to think what might happen in future years when they realise she’s stolen it from them.
And this leads me on to ponder about the whole complex relationship. I have never forgotten watching Princess Michael arrive at Wimbledon a few years ago in the company of her son. She appeared to dote on him. Indeed, their interaction suggested that she hang on his every word, laughed at his every joke. I remember thinking to myself that she was in love with him.
If anything signaled a mother who couldn’t ‘let go’, that was it. So, if she still thinks of Freddie as an extension of herself, if she still feels the world revolves around him, if he’s still the very focus of her world....what a disastrous start that is likely to portend for a marriage.
I don’t envy Sophie when they’re on honeymoon and he has to keep taking calls from his Mum. I don’t envy her the rest of her life, basically.
Her parents, who seem to be being side-lined in this whole affair would do well to be very very wary. We all know mothers-in-law who emasculate their sons. They need to make sure their daughter gets and keeps a say in every decision from hereon in....even if she finds it easy to give way to ‘the boss’ right now.

Children who Torture

So here we go again – 2 young boys accused of a violent assault on another couple of youngsters.
We ask how can it happen that boys of an age more suited to playing with Lego ( as one of the victim’s fathers apparently said) end up feeling it’s OK to amuse themselves by torturing others.
The answer’s quite simple, sadly. If a child is born into a chaotic environment where love is either absent or may be offered sporadically; if their parents are unable to offer them a basic level of care so that they often go hungry; if one parent is perpetually stoned so that she doesn’t recognise their needs or answer them; if the father shows them violent videos featuring scenes of torture.....well, hey ho, surprise, surprise, the children are likely to grow up damaged!
It all comes back to emotional intelligence. If a child doesn’t know love, how can it learn to love others? If a child is perpetually being told to go away, or shut up, or leave its mother alone because she can’t be bothered, that child is learning that his needs, including his hunger or thirst, don’t count and don’t matter to anyone. If he’s then in pain through this neglect, and no one pays any attention to his pain, how is he going to learn the value system that most of us grow up with, whereby we try to look after each other, avoid hurting others, and try instead to pay them attention and surround them with love and care?
He learns instead that people inflict pain on each other as a matter of course. He thinks from the videos that he’s witnessed that torture is normal. He has no barometer to measure his feelings against, so when he’s feeling bad, which is probably most of the time, he thinks this is normal. So the idea of making other people feel bad doesn’t bother him one bit.
Deep down, we all know this. We must all understand how these cruel children develop, how it’s their very upbringing (or lack of it) that turns them this way. So why don’t we do something about these chaotic families within our midst?
These boys were apparently known to everyone around – on the estate where they lived, by the schools they were excluded from, by the police and Social Services.
So it sounds as if basic joined-up thinking was missing.....or surely some kindly soul in one of these departments/offices/areas would have intervened sooner to take care of this large chaotic family?
And that’s what bothers me really, that our sense of kindness, our sense of humanity seems to be being eroded somehow by a culture of ‘turning a blind eye’ that’s grown up around us.

Denial or Dishonest - Ted Kennedy, Chloe Madeley and Harlequins

Strange that examples of ‘denial’ seem to be everywhere since I wrote that piece about Gordon Brown.
First up we learned that Richard and Judy’s daughter Chloe Madeley apparently abandoned her car having crashed into another. Then Ted Kennedy dies and everyone is thinking back to the time when he drove into the water at Chappaquiddick and left his companion, Mary Joe Kopechne to die in his semi-submerged car.
The news of the rugby team’s cover up over using fake blood to simulate an injury so that they could substitute a player seems - at first glance - to be yet another example, except that this isn’t denial so much as outright lying. After all, they knew what they were doing; it was a deliberate, pre-meditated act so they can’t be said to be in ‘denial’. Just dishonest.

Will Carling talks about the 'Bloodgate' scandal
Uploaded by itnnews. - Watch the latest news videos.

But the first two examples are similar. Chloe Madeley presumably hoped that by running away, she might avoid getting into trouble. Perhaps she was worried about being breathalysed and thought her famous parents would be able to organise a cover-up. Perhaps she’s still young enough to think first of her parents in times of trouble. Could be she just wasn’t thinking straight, but it certainly doesn’t sound as if she’s been brought up to deal honestly and openly with the consequences of her actions.
Similarly, the Kennedy family, sad to say, often felt they didn’t have to suffer any consequences of their actions. They came across as firm believers in the theory that they were above normal procedures, even above the law. They knew everyone who was rich and powerful and instinctively tried to make this work for them. Edward Kennedy’s penalty for leaving the scene of the accident was pretty minimal. The Kennedy’s seemed to think that if they stuck together in times of trouble, closed ranks and shut out the rest of the world, they could overcome most difficulties that came their way. That’s denial, if ever I’ve seen it.
Even much more recently Edward Kennedy was involved in an attempted cover-up of an alleged rape by one of his nephews, for which I believe he has since apologised. So it sounds as if in later years he had begun to learn that attempting to hide things, and trying to circumvent the law are not useful tools for life.
Interesting though, that with all this in his background, he should have gone on to win such huge respect from the American people, and the rest of the world. It seems he managed to redeem himself by working for most of his life for the underdog, for those without the same voice as the Kennedy’s, with those who were impoverished and suffering through no fault of their own.
So perhaps the lesson here is that Kennedy’s experience in manipulating the system, maybe eventually opened his eyes to the fact that there are others much less fortunate who can’t, and who are much more deserving of help than the richest and most powerful members of society. So maybe that’s why he focussed so much on legislation to improve the lives of others in his later years.
One imagines he came to see that none of us is an island, that each of our actions impinges on others, that we can face up to what we’ve done and learn from it, that it is possible to own up, admit a mistake and ask forgiveness. And that that is usually a far healthier way forward than pretending something didn’t happen.

Gordon Brown in Denial over Lockerbie bomber release

Gordon Brown seems to have gone into denial over the release, on compassionate grounds, of Mergahi. I’ve been waiting eagerly to watch his body language as he first speaks out on the subject.....yet even today, at his first press conference since the news came out, it seems he’s ducking the issue.
Does he really believe that if he doesn’t acknowledge what everyone’s talking about, namely whether or not the alleged Lockerbie bomber should have been released, then we’ll all just think the problem’s gone away?
Can he be that stupid? People who won’t acknowledge difficult things, or who shy away from difficult issues, people who can’t handle confrontation or who choose to avoid sensitive issues don’t come across as strong or able. Instead they appear weak and pathetic. That doesn’t mean I wanted to see him plough into the argument all guns blazing, putting on a strong act to cover up whatever his own part in it was.
But I would have liked to see him engaging in some discussion over whether the release was, in essence, a good idea: whether Mergahi would have received the same compassionate treatment under English law, if he’d been in an English jail; whether it can ever be right to release someone who has the blood of 270 innocent victims on his hands; whether the need for trade ever outweighs the need for justice; whether we are a more compassionate people than all those Americans who are so angry at this result.
A good Prime Minister, one who was at ease with himself and comfortable in his role would surely have been able to take these awkward arguments in his stride.
http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js

Results, Results, Results....How should parents react to kids' exam results?

Today’s the big day for so many of our young people and it’s really important for their self-esteem and confidence that they get their ‘moment’. For some, quite lowly grades will be a huge achievement. Others will be disappointed that in amongst a string of ‘A’s’ lurks just one ‘B’. But most, if not all, will have done their very best and are entitled to this one day of self-satisfaction.

So it’s hugely important that parents don’t bring their own expectations to bear on this emotional day. You may be disappointed in your child’s results but now is not the time to say so. As long as you know they’ve worked really hard, please just let them enjoy today. Nothing is more guaranteed to bring a young person down, than a bit of niggling from a parent. Most will have worked really hard for months before their exams, and will already be in a state of emotional turmoil about the results. And the very best outcome for everyone is for the young person to be allowed to feel their own feelings in their own way without anyone else imposing their judgements, or criticisms or disappointment.

So, even if your offspring haven’t quite come up to your expectations, it’s really important that for this one day you put your feelings aside. You let your child have his or her ‘moment’.......it’ll never be possible to recapture this day or this time, so just let them go with the flow.

If more work needs to be done, if re-takes are on the horizon, you can sort it all out tomorrow or the day after. But for today, let them bask in their own glory if they can, or, if they’re disappointed in themselves, try to perk them up by reminding them how hard they work and how much you still value them. Exam results do not make a human being...and it may be kind to remind them of that.
http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js

To be Young and Unemployed in 2009

What must it be like to be young and unemployed in the current difficult climate? To have left school or university recently and find little or no prospects of a job in your area must be devastating.

Anyone who's been unemployed - or been given the sack - knows what a huge dent it makes in your morale. We're conditioned nowadays to value ourselves through our work; a huge number of the good feelings we have about ourselves are often tied up with what we do for a living. So the loss of it - or the prospect of never getting any - can set up a sadness akin to bereavement. It is a real loss, after all..... a loss of self-esteem, a loss of hope, a loss of power. For only when we're earning are we truly able to have control of our lives, to organise things as we want them.

So I feel particularly sorry for this new generation who have no job prospects in front of them. It means many will have to stay living at home with their parents for far longer than they'd hoped. It means many will have acres of time on their hands and no money to spend doing anything with it.
It'll mean a loss of dreams for many and the abandonment of ambition....they'll instead be marking time until they can find someone to employ them.

We need to take care of this generation, to offer them what help we can. I can only hope that some of the government schemes set up to help re-train them or occupy them or encourage them into volunteering are actually delivering on their promises. For if not, we face a future with a lost generation growing up never knowing what it's like to have a reason to get up in the morning, and a purpose to life.

What Hillary Clinton's outburst says about her, and her relationship with Bill

Hillary Clinton's outburst at a press conference in DR Congo seems to have been interpreted as a feisty, ballsy response from a strong-minded feminist. But to me, it seemed there was far more to it than that. Her response was so quick, and instinctive it appeared to indicate a long history of troubled feelings, of insecurity in relation to her husband, of years spent in his shadow.



It's interesting in retrospect that the questioner apparently made a slip of the tongue, and had really wanted to ask her about President Obama's view...not President Clinton's. And any truly relaxed human being might have taken a minute to ponder the question, put it back politely to the questioner in order to verify that she'd properly understood. That would then have given the questioner time to apologise and re-phrase the question.

But no, Hillary ploughed right on in.....giving away, I think, the fact that even now, even as Secretary of State for the USA, she still feels she has to justify herself and her position, still has to point out to people that she's 'made it', still needs to remind herself and others that she has a life apart from her husband's.

It's sad really for she is clearly a strong woman in her own right. It's just that maybe years of conditioning as the wife of a president have left even her not really believing it.

Baby P's Murderers - Born Evil or Turned Evil?

The newspapers are full of vitriol today about Baby P’s mother, step-father and brother....variously described as evil, vile, wicked, tramps. And, of course, their behaviour towards the tiny innocent little boy was precisely that and we all continue to be horrified at the torture they inflicted on him, at how he must have suffered, how it must have hurt, and how utterly lonely and bewildered the little chap must have felt for most of his life; never knowing love and tenderness; never being swept up in his parents’ arms for a cuddle; never feeling comfortable, well-fed, changed; never being able to trust those around him; often, if not always, probably in pain.
Most of us cannot begin to understand how other human beings can treat a baby like this. But surely herein lies a lesson for us all. When will we begin to realise that there are cycles of violence, that a child brought up in a violent home, without love and attention, lacking in affection, neglected for most of its life will go on to inflict the same kind of desperate neglect on their own children? Almost inevitably.
It’s about time we tried to break these cycles, to intervene earlier, to give young people from chaotic homes the chance to improve their lot, to offer them parenting classes long before they think of starting a family, to help them learn empathy and compassion and become emotionally intelligent.
Only people who are totally without empathy can inflict cruelty on others. And anyone who’s experienced gross neglect as a child is likely to be unable to empathise. All they know is pain, for them it’s normal which is why it doesn’t seem that difficult to inflict it on others, indeed it often seems OK because they believe this is how the world is.
It’s a tough nut to crack but we should surely be investing resources in catching young vulnerable people in their early teens, offering them chances to be cared for loved, respected and valued; helping them with their social skills, encouraging them to think of others, training them up to be good parents in their turn. If we don’t do something, more and more cases of child neglect will continue to stun us.

Mark Lester claims he is true father of Michael Jackson's daughter Paris...but why do this through the Press?

There’s a lot of wisdom in the old adage that if you really care for someone you only want the best for them.....so why, if Mark Lester truly believes he might be Paris Jackson’s biological Dad, would his first move be to go to the press?
Surely as her Godfather, he’s supposed to be taking care of her welfare and well-being, and the kindest course of action (if he truly had her interests at heart) would have been to raise the issue quietly and privately with those closest to her who are caring for her.
He seems to be volunteering to undergo a paternity test – but for whose sake? Obviously Paris has the right to know who her true parents are, when she’s old enough and ready to ask. But at the moment, surely she needs to be left alone to grieve the enormous loss of her only constant parent?
And if he should turn out to be the father, what does he propose to do about it? Is he going to break her heart by telling her about it? Is he then prepared to support her financially until she’s 18? Hopefully, he’s not planning to separate her from her siblings and bring her to the UK to live with him? So what possible good can it do for her to have this uncertainty raised at this stage?
You have to wonder about his motives...and indeed about the motives of all those who feel they have to live their lives through the pages of the newspapers, the world-wide web and on television .
It sometimes seems nowadays that everyone feels a need to ‘validate’ their feelings in public. As if things can’t be ‘real’ until they’ve divulged their innermost thoughts and feelings and seen them splashed across the world; as if they don’t fully exist until they’ve participated in this ‘reality’ circus foisted on us by today’s media.
Think how everyone feels obliged nowadays to speak out when they lose a loved one, or after a court case....they all trot out to say their piece about how ‘devastated’ they are and how their lives will never be the same etc. etc. But we all know that...we don’t need to hear it from them...and they’d probably be better off going away quietly, being with their families and supporting each other. But for some reason it’s become the norm now for people to get things off their chests publicly. Maybe it helps – for a second or two – but surely we should be trying to learn that our lives and our feelings can be just as valuable and worthwhile and authentic even when not ‘framed’ by a tv screen.