Failing

Tuesday, May 6, 2003 ~ 1 comment so far

Is this the best we can do?

Playing 5-a-side football last night (soccer), the ball flies over the high-fencing to the path behind the pitches. This is a regular occurance. Three young boys (around 10 years old) spot the ball and one jogs over to get it. We shout our thanks “Cheers!”. He then grabs the ball, and runs off. “Little bugger!” we thought and a couple of the (fitter) guys head off after him. The young boy and his mates head along the path and turn into the adjoining park (separated from the football pitches by a large hedge).

I jog after them too, and on turning into the park we are confronted by around 15 ‘kids’.

“Come on then” one of them shouts, “come and get yer football”.

The two guys ahead of me sprint forward, knowing that the kids will split up and that the chance of getting the ball back is slim, but I guess we are thinking they will muck about for a bit then kick the ball back. We presume they will split up and run in different directions.

But they don’t split up. The kids stand there, egging us on.

Then one reaches inside his jacket and pulls out a hammer. Another bends to the ground and picks up a large stick from the long grass. The others all start looking around for weapons. We stop running towards them.

They run at us, shouting, swearing, threatening.

Bear in mind these are kids, the oldest is maybe 15, the youngest is easily 7 or 8. We back off, and give up, what choice do we have?

This is the country we live in and it sickens me. Sickens me that these kids already have little to no chance, sickens me that their parents can’t even be bothered trying.

Discipline? They don’t know the meaning of the word, and with the recent news that smacking is set to be banned altogether how are they supposed to learn? I could easily generalise and say that all of those kids live in council flats and at least one of their parents is on the dole and not that bothered about finding a job. It’s the snob in me that leaps to those assumptions. But am I wrong?

Every week another government report comes out detailing that people are screwing the benefit system to the tune of £xx million, that TVs in childrens bedrooms are bad, that spanking is bad, that another realignment of benefits will mean an extra £xx per month for ‘poor’ families. It’s all the same, tweak this, blame that, and ultimately ignore the problem.

So why should I support these families? The ones that live off the state, whose children wear £100 trainers and yet can’t speak properly. Who skip school and seem to have no ambitions other than to follow in their parents footsteps. Why are we making it so easy for them? Where is the political party that will set things right? Where is the politician willing to alienate the sleeping vote? Compulsory voting? Why? Why should people who care only for themselves get a say in what goes on in our country?

This society is rotten. It’s not the only one I know, but the problem with Britain is it’s size. You can’t get away from it, or I would just stay in my middle-class, suburban lifestyle and not care about these lay-abouts. That’s the attitude I should take, isn’t it? Well that’s what I see when I hear a lot of politicians harping on about the lower classes and how they need to nurtured along and cared for and all that claptrap.

I am liberal on many many issues, but not this one. Clamp down now. Make these people contribute, or stop baby-sitting them. Give them enough to have a roof over their head and food on the table and be done with it… if they don’t like it, ask them to try the slums in Mexico.

September 11th

Wednesday, September 11, 2002 ~ Comments Off

One year on.

Over the days leading up to the first anniversary of this atrocity I’ve been talking to friends and family, trying to make sense of what transpired a year ago today. In a way this is my generation’s JFK assassination. The defining event where we will always remember where we were and what we were doing when we heard the news.

I was in an office in Hamilton, in the kitchen. The radio was on. The broadcast interrupted with the news of a plane crash. Unconfirmed reports. World Trade Center. Passenger Jet. Several of us rushed to the TV.

Sky News had tapped into the CNN feed. A camera on the ground, a tower burning. Was it an accident? Confusion. How did it happen? No facts. Confusion.

Under the voice of the newsreader we can here reaction, people shouting, the camera jostling for a better picture. Then a scream. The camera pans wildly. The second plane.

Silence. Unbelieving.

We stood there until the towers fell. We stood there for hours. Hardly a word. We listened to reports at the Pentagon. We listened to reports of a plane crash. We wondered if it would end.

I thought of a friend in New York. I worried. I felt sick.

At around 5pm, we all went home. The TV turned on, dinner missed as the details came in. Hijack. Terrorists. Disbelief.

Over the following days the facts solidified, reaction kicked in, anger, hatred, revenge. Then the human stories, survival, loss, pain. Unity?

I can remember the day itself in all too vivid technicolour, but it is beginning to blur. Interference of reports and documentaries turn my memories in a stream of images, not all mine. The planes impacting the towers, the Pentagon on fire, desperate people jumping, camera’s rushing for cover in the dust, firemen escaping the collapse, bewildered people wandering, crying, holding strangers tight. Grief and anguish meeting confusion and uncertainty.

I remember hearing from my friend. I remember seeing the reactions of those in New York, one man in a crowd of differing races and religions, ranting, shouting, confronting. One man with a big voice being asked to calm down, why shout? “Because I don’t know how to process this”.

All the pain and suffering. The shocking images, still raw a year on. Still numb, still hollow, still unable to comprehend the scale.

I’ve spoken with Muslim friends and co-workers, I’ve read up on situations I previously knew little about. I’ve tried to understand why. I’ve listened to those with a different view point. I’ve heard the stories of people who should’ve been in the buildings but weren’t, of the last phone calls from the planes, of the man who stayed in the building with his wheelchair bound friend, of the heroics of the many, and the tragic deaths.

One question remains.

What have we learned?

Have we gained an understanding of why this happened? Is there a compromise? Should there be a compromise? How do we stop it happening again? Are more deaths necessary?

What will it take for the suffering to stop?

I could write so much more, but I fear I wouldn’t be able to stop.

Remember this day. Not every year, but every day. Learn the lessons, stop the hatred.

Parents

Tuesday, May 14, 2002 ~ Comments Off

Truancy prosecution was LEA’s ‘duty’.

The responsibility of ensuring our children attend school is a joint effort between school and parent. The school tried everything in it’s power to correct the situation and without support from the parent in question, failed. One half of the party did it’s job, the other didn’t. Yes it’s a harsh sentence, but Ms Amos had already broken a parenting order and knew the consequences of her actions.

I totally agree with this sequence of events. Parents are increasingly leniently treated these days, and it’s unfortunate that only the ill-mannered, poorly-educated parents, inflicting the same conditions on their children, make their way into the spotlight.

My sister-in-law is a single mother with four children. Four polite, well-behaved children. She manages, why can’t others? Is the answer simply to take issue with the current generations parents? The parents parents if you will. Where does it trace back to? Is there any point tracing it back as we can’t change the past?

So how do we right the current situation? There is a large section of society who live in contempt of the law and authority, who seem to believe that they can do what they like, and seem to be happy living off the rest of us. And who wouldn’t be? I would be more than happy to receive enough income, topped up with occasional cash jobs, to live a comfortable life. I know where to buy stolen goods, if you live near Glasgow I’m sure you do (no big secret, it’s called the Barras).

Are these the same parents who can be regularly heard to say “It wisnae ma boy!” or “It was good enough for me?” Is this an outcome of the British ailment of settling for less? Why do I need an education when I can live quite happily on handouts, benefits and the goodwill of others?

How do we correct this? I’m willing to make some assumptions here:
1. The people in question are usually poorly educated.
2. Don’t vote.
Thats the only assumptions I need to make. I don’t want to generalise further, not everyone in council housing, or living on benefit is on the take, or poorly educated, and most vote. I’m taking about the core group of people who don’t contribute to society.

They don’t vote, so politicians and political parties need not fear them. So why has no action taken place? I’m quite sure if you asked local councils for a hit list of the offenders, they could produce a large dusty tome with each family member listed in triplicate. Take these lists, and slash their benefits. Why not?

Because you can’t upset the children.

Despite the fact that these parents, who are being given help and opportunities by schools and local authorities, fail to uphold their half of the deal, they are protected to a degree because we don’t want there children to be disturbed or affected. Yet the self same children are being denied an education. Go figure.

The crux of the problem appears to be a lack of understanding. Why do some parents not bother if their children attend school and get an education? Only when we answer that question do we stand a chance of finding a solution.

Censor

Monday, April 29, 2002 ~ Comments Off

This site is mine.

OK, which of the above statements are true? Well you’d think all of them, wouldn’t you. At the very least the first two. Surely?

When I started this site, it was merely a placeholder for my thoughts and rambles. The bulk of the content was longer ‘pieces’, either about me directly, or about a topic or article I’d recently read.

I moved to a ‘blog’ format and the bulk of the content now sits there. I react to articles and feelings, without much forethought in many cases, but I still fight the desire to write exactly what I think. Why?

Why should I censor myself?
“The views expressed here are my own and do not represent those of any other party mentioned within or by this site.”

If I choose to lower myself to the level of name calling, that is surely my right. If I want to complain about a current situation at work, that is surely my right. If I want to spout forth about the way I see things and how everyone else is wrong, that is surely my right.

It’s obvious that the main issue here is not the possiblity of what I write upsetting people, but a matter of appropriateness. I try NOT to comment on anything about my work, there are well documented and previously mentioned cases of people losing jobs over comments made on their personal website concerning work conditions or colleagues. It is sorely tempting, especially with the current climate in the I.T. industry, and, as with every place of work, there are plenty of problems. The ability to rant about these problems, to ‘no-one’, is ever present, and I am constantly fighting the base desire to speak out.

From a professional point of view, any comments I post here would be pointless anyway, if the problems lies within the company, then I should be tackling the problem directly, so is it cowardice that makes me want to turn to my website? I don’t think so, and hopefully anyone who has sat in a meeting with me would agree, I am usually very vocal, and I’ll quite happily be the person who speaks out, even if it is to the detriment of my own standing. (Never liked office politics, and try and stay out of them if I can).

Personal issues are a different kettle of fish. Mainly because I see them from a differing viewpoint. Professionally criticism is a necessity, and I understand that if someone has a dig at me in a meeting, I can still share a joke and a pint with them afterwards. There is rarely a personal agenda at work.

So how do I handle personal issues? Things I feel passionately about – prejudice, particularly rascism, my thoughts about religion, particularly catholicism – all fall into my field of vision, but rarely do I bite. I have made a few acquaintances through this website, and my views differ from theirs on a few things. That’s only to be expected, I’m very much a believer in live and let live, but only when you apply it to others, I don’t seem to be able to extend the same philosophy to myself. I am constantly aware of what I say sounding obnoxious, contrite, or insulting to someone, so I don’t say it. Is this denial worthwhile?

The essential problem seems to be the difference between what I would say and what I would write. I’ve always found it easier to write down my thoughts and feelings. This can easily be attributed to avoidance of conflict, and a lack of confidence in how others perceive me. This appears to be a common problem, with many others, venting/ranting/moaning online, on a multitude of topics, many of which I doubt they would take up with the people they are talking about.

So why do I self-censor?
Is it healthy, where else can I release this? Friends, family and work colleagues know about this site, and a few may be reading this (hello!), are there things I would say about them that I wouldn’t say to their face(s)? Of course there is, if the internet didn’t exist I would still self-censor myself, it’s part of who I am.

I self censor to control my thoughts. I self censor to ensure what I say accurately reflects what I am thinking. I self censor for that’s who I am.

World leaders take note, it actually works.

Wellbeing

Wednesday, July 11, 2001 ~ Comments Off

My employers have started a Wellness scheme. All the (voluntary) participants have to undertake a physical examination, which will gain us a rating and a set of goals to achieve personal ‘wellness’.

What intrigues me is how the mind and body are so inextricably linked. If I am physically tired and sore, I don’t think straight, and don’t function 100%. If I am really tired I get emotional. I get a lump in my throat at the slightest schmaltzy thing on T.V.

I also heard an article on the radio about a primary school that has introduced T’ai Chi at their morning assembly. The aim is to ensure the kids are fit and healthy and can concentrate and learn in class.

I had a couple of weeks off from football (well exercise in general), and getting back to it I noticed I had regained my drive, my work ethic. Is this the definition of ‘wellbeing’?

How can this be? Wellbeing is, by my definition, a contentment of mind. A happiness in your own space, your own place and definition in the world. Friends of mine have been through a lot recently, and as they make their way back to happiness they will establish their own sense of wellbeing, far different from mine, or yours. This wellbeing is not linked or related to physical fitness, or attributes. It is a strength of mind.

Like every strength, it can be exercised. You can practise and train it to perform to you advantage, and with it you can build an alliance strong enough to get you through anything. Anything.

So take heart, wellbeing is a state of mind. You can control it, you can alter it in any direction you desire.

Bulger email

Monday, January 22, 2001 ~ 2 comments so far

I was sent an email by a well meaning friend. My initial reaction was ‘Yeah! I agree with that….’. However after reading it again I started thinking, hold on… not sure if I agree with this. Here is the email, included with my reply first.

—–Original Message—–
From: Gordon McLean
Sent: 22 January 2001 10:40
Sorry I can’t do this.

Much as I agree with the general feeling that these boys should be punished
I can’t leap on this kind of moralistic bandwagon. I doubt very much that
this is as black and white as is painted (nothing ever is). I have no doubt
the boys knew they were doing wrong, but to what level was their
understanding? The email below seems a tad hysterical and presents no
evidence (I do not count – ‘One paper even stated…’ as evidence). I also
have not seen any evidence concerning paint, batteries, or leaving him on a
railway track. Is this a virtual lynch mob?

“If Robert and Jon could be so evil at 10, imagine what they could do as
adults?” Do we have reason to state this? Is it not possible they have been
rehabilitated? They, as children, probably stand a better chance of
rehabilitation than adults as there minds are still open enough to accept
new ways of thinking.

I DO AGREE with the general sentiment, but do not agree (and never will)
with this kind of knee-jerk reaction. I will be contacting Lady Justice
Butler-Sloss with my own message, it will support the main aims of this
email (namely to ensure that the public voice is being heard) but won’t be
putting my name to this.

I have written about this on my own site – www.snowgoon.co.uk
See also – http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_992000/992233.stm

Apologies if this upsets – I have the same agenda as you, I just don’t value
this approach.

Gordon

—–Original Message—–
On February 12, 1993 a small boy who was to turn three in March was taken
from a shopping mall in Liverpool by two 10 year old boys. Jamie Bulger
walked away from his mother for only a second and Jon Venables took his hand
and led him out of the mall with his friend Robert Thompson. They took Jamie
on a walk for over 2 and a half miles, along the way stopping
every now and again to torture the poor little boy who was crying constantly
for his mommy. Finally they stopped at a railway track where they brutally
kicked him and threw stones at him and rubbed paint in his eyes and pushed
batteries up his anus. They then left his beaten small body on the tracks so
a train could run him over to hide the mess they had created. These two
boys, even being boys understood what they did was wrong, hence trying to
make it look like an accident. This week Lady Justice Butler-Sloss has
awarded the two boys anonymity for the rest of their lives when they leave
custody with new identities.

We cannot let this happen. They will also leave early this year only serving
just over half of their sentence. One paper even stated that Robert may go
on to University. They are getting away with their crime. They need to pay,
and we have to do something to make them pay for their horrific crime. They took Jamie’s
life violently away, and in return they get a new life. Please add your
name and location to the list and forward to friends and family. Please copy
this e-mail instead of forwarding so we do not get at the beginning of
sentences. If you are the 200th person to sign please forward this e-mail
to – cust.ser.cs@gtnet.gov.uk for the
attention of Lady Justice Butler-Sloss.

the list over again and sent to your friends and family. The
Love-Bug virus took less that 72 hours to reach the world. I hope this one
does too.

We need to protect our family and friends from creatures like Robert and
Jon. One day they may be living next to you and your small children without
your knowledge. If Robert and Jon could be so evil at 10, imagine what they
could do as adults?

Bulger

Friday, January 19, 2001 ~ Comments Off

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson (now both aged 18) killed James Bulger (who was 2) in February 1993

Yesterday (08.01.01) they were granted a secret identity

Should they have been granted the right to anonymity? That is not for me to decide, greater minds than mine have discussed the matter. But what now for the boys? should I say men?

I don’t know, and don’t want to know, what went through their minds. I remember the case, but didn’t follow it, confused about the motives and actions of two young boys.

Now they have aged, what goes through their minds? I would imagine, as it is all I can do, that their sentence will be served in a much harsher reality. They will have to live with themselves, recreating the moment in their minds over and over. A horrible reality.

Should they have the right to walk free? Start new lifes? The killed, surely the punishment should fit the crime – a call I am often heard to cry.

They have received their punishment, was it enough? Well would you sentence two young boys to serve the rest of their life in jail. With a strong possibility that the boys were not fully aware of the outcome of their actions, what can you do?

The hurt, pain and anguish suffered by the parents and family of James Bulger is unmeasurable, and their anger and hatred expected and understandable. Do I condone it? No. Do I agree with it? Yes. Would I react the same way? Probably.

Anonymity has been assured by the courts. However two faces will look in the mirror and know the truth. They will understand what they did. I hope they feel sorry, and lucky, and remorseful. I hope they look in that mirror and cry. I think that is a suitable punishment.