From BBC News

Ministers rule out smacking ban

A complete ban on smacking has been rejected by ministers, after a review suggested most parents opposed one.

Laws were tightened in England and Wales in 2004, but minister Kevin Brennan said they appeared to be working and would not change further.

He told MPs that while many parents said they did not smack children, most said it should not be banned outright.

He said it was the "common sense position" but campaigners said the decision was a "missed opportunity".

Laws on smacking in England and Wales were tightened in 2004 to stop parents and carers who assaulted children using "reasonable punishment" as a defence.

Under the 2004 Children's Act, which came into force in January 2005 mild smacking is allowed but any punishment which causes visible bruising, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts can result in action. [snip]

In a statement to MPs Mr Brennan said: "The review found that smacking is becoming a less commonly used form of discipline as more parents recognise that there are more effective and acceptable methods of disciplining children." [snip]

So why not do the right thing, as opposed to the popular thing?

I really don't understand smacking. How can we teach our children that violence is unacceptable if we inflict violence upon them? Children copy what they see more than they listen to what is said. There are FAR more effective ways to discipline children - in ANY situation. The 'running across the road' and 'touching the fire' incidents are as easily dealt with by a sharp shout and a severe telling off as by a slap.

What parents who use violence don't like to face up to is that smacking happens when the parent loses control of themselves, rather than according to what the child does. I know because my mum used to smack us. We were able to judge how far we could push her because we knew when she was stressed her smack limit was lowered.

Later he told BBC News 24 "about 70%" of parents did not want a ban on smacking and did not want a mild smack to result in a parent being criminalised.

I personally think it is horrible that 70% of people think it is ok for parents to attack their children in a way they would never dream of doing if they were adults.

Smacking doesn't work. There are those who say it doesn't harm children. I disagree. It gives the message that they are less valuable than adults, that they are worthy of being hit, that their bodies are not their own, that they are without rights. How many of these smacking parents would allow their child to hit them back - even though it genuinely doesn't harm the parent?

"I think that is the common sense position and we've decided to keep that, and are happy that strikes the right balance," he said.

For the Conservatives, Tim Loughton said: "Clearly, if any adult is responsible for abuse and violence towards a child they need to face the full rigour of the law.

"But there is a world of difference between that and criminalising loving parents that use chastisement as they see fit in the interest of their child." [snip]

If they are so loving, why don't they go to parenting classes, or watch Supernanny and learn how to discipline their children in a loving way?

But Children's Commissioner for England Sir Al Aynsley-Green said it would send out "confusing messages" to parents and was a "missed opportunity" to protect children from violence in the home.

"Children and young people should have the same right to protection under the law on common assault as that afforded to adults," he said.

"There is no good reason why children are the only people in the UK who can still be lawfully hit."

Exactly. Violence is violence, whatever the age of the perpetrator or the victim, and whether the perpetrator thinks it harms the victim or not.

From BBC News

Minister defends abortion limit

Health Minister Dawn Primarolo says the government does not believe there is sufficient scientific evidence to lower the legal abortion limit of 24 weeks.

She said nothing had persuaded the Department of Health that survival rates had improved for extremely premature babies born before that time.

The Pro-Life Alliance wants the upper limit for terminations to be cut.

But the British Medical Association says the number surviving at 24 weeks is still "extremely small".

Ms Primarolo was giving evidence to the Commons science and technology committee, which is looking at medical advances since the Abortion Act was passed in 1967 - rather than the ethical or moral issues associated with abortion time limits. [snip]

Ms Primarolo told MPs: "The Department of Health's view and the advice to me is that - and that's why there is no proposals from the government to amend the act - that the act works as intended and doesn't require further amendment at the present time."

She said 89% of abortions were carried out before 13 weeks and 68% before 10 weeks. The viability of babies born at 21 weeks was 0%, at 22 weeks 1% and 23 weeks 11%, she said.

"The medical consensus still indicates that whilst improvements have been made in care that at the moment that concept of viability cannot constantly be pushed back," she said. [snip]

[Conservative MP Nadine Dorries] pressed her to say whether she was content with the 24 week upper limit, when viability rates for babies born below that age were quite high in NHS hospitals where there were good neonatal units.

Ms Primarolo said: "The department's view is yes, that's what Parliament has decided and that's where we are. It's for the House to decide on that." [snip]

Ms Dorries asked: "If the evidence shows that a foetus could feel pain at 20 weeks or less, would the department consider altering its guidelines or making amendments to the Act?"

Ms Primarolo said the department did not see a connection with the viability of a foetus, but it would continue looking at the issue through its research.

When the abortion law was passed, in the 1960s, babies born at 34 weeks only had a 3% chance of survival (they have a 97% chance of survival today). Better ventilation techniqies and nursing in specialist units meant that by the early 1980s, babies born at 26 weeks had a 30% chance of survival, and this was what pushed Lord Steel's reform of the act in 1990 so that the limit was changed to 24 weeks from 28 weeks. Nowadays babies born at 26 weeks have an 80% chance of survival (due to the invention of artificial surfactant, which helps prevent the collapse of lungs), and babies born at 24 weeks do have some sort of chance.

I think there are now good reasons to cut the time limit: even according to Ms Primarolo herself, most abortions are carried out well before then anyway. The 24 weeks survival rate is currently thought to be about 15%. What surprises me is that the Royal College of Nursing is supporting maintaining the current limit. So a nurse could be in the position of one minute watching a 24 week old foetus dying after abortion, and the next could be battling to save the life of a 24 week old premature baby - and being asked to see no conflict in those roles.

By keeping the abortion law acceptable to the majority of people, we safeguard it. I've already read many opinion pieces (by women) on how the law isn't acceptable, about how women use abortion as contraception etc. Lowering the time-limit, whilst maintaining what is in effect abortion on demand, would seem to me to be the best route to take.

What worries me is that the current limit allows anti-abortion groups to describe abortion as baby-murder. Lowering the limit to 22 or even 20 weeks would stop that, at least in the minds of the general public.

Still catching up on this year's books. The Norman Mailer took up a good bit of this month too (see 'January, February and Mrach's book')

The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie by Muriel Spark
This is a fantastic book, really quick to read, and so engaging that I read it in two nights. Miss Jean Brodie is a schoolteacher about my age, and I couldn't help but think that she was the sort of person I might have been if I'd been born in another century. Many women would think themselves over the hill at forty odd, but not her. She has her many faults, but you can't help liking her, and ultimately feeling sorry for her. Her girls are so entertainingly delineated, they are so human and recognisable, even today. I'm really looking forward to re-reading this. For me it was even more enjoyable (like the Rebus books) because of knowing the Edinburgh locations, but it stands alone as a brilliant book.
(93/100)

The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch by Philip K Dick
I really like Philip K Dick, and this is a typical book by him. If you've seen Total Recall you'll be familiar with the sort of story he writes where you're not sure if you're in reality or virtual reality. In this book the only release and recreation available to Martian colonists is a drug-induced virtual reality of being on Earth. Palmer Eldritch wants the monopoly on this, and has a new, improved drug. But is that all he wants? And if you try to stop him, how will you even know if you are on Earth or Mars?

It's one of those books where you end up not being sure of anything, and needing to re-read it to try to more fully understand it, whilst still being an engaging thriller throughout.
(88/100)

Oprah Winfrey has really raised the profile of thyroid disorders over the last month after revealing her own thyroid condition on her show. However, this has resulted in a barrage of criticism on sites such as About Thyroid, because the specialist she chose to have on her show was Dr Christiane Northrup, a holistic physician.

Here's what Dr Northrup has to say about hypothyroidism:

"In many women thyroid dysfunction develops because of an energy blockage in the throat region, the result of a lifetime of 'swallowing' words one is aching to say. In the name of preserving harmony, or because these women have learned to live as relatively helpless members of their families or social groups, they have learned to stifle their self-expression....It's no coincidence that so many more women than men have thyroid problems. Thyroid disease is related to expressing your feelings..."

Not exactly controversial to craniosacral therapists and others who are aware of how the body often does express itself metaphorically. However, this has been taken by many patients to mean that they are being blamed for their thyroid condition.

It's not unusual for patients to immediately switch off the minute anyone tries to say that there is a mind/body/spirit connection. For some reason they immediately assume that this means they are 'making it up' or 'to blame'. For these patients the only answer to their conditions is a medical one: ironic really, when the medical model ('blame the body') is increasingly being found to be inadequate in treating mental health problems and other conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome, chronic pain, fybromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome etc.

Usually, once you spend time with people and reassure and explain to them, they are perfectly willing to use other approaches, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, diet adjustment, relaxation etc.

Where Oprah is maybe being a bit unrealistic in thinking that everyone can cure their thyroid with relaxation and holidays, she has an important point to make. Thoughts change chemistry, and chemistry changes bodies (and vice versa).

By saying that supressed words can cause thyroid conditions, she and her doctor are not blaming patients, they are trying to empower them to tackle their disorders in a different way: a way that can be successful as an adjunct to thyroxine. Who knows, it may even be the cure. I wouldn't like to discount it, having cured the eczema I suffered for years by a combination of nutrients and mantras.

I'm not about to throw out my thyroxine (I know from experience that what works for one person doesn't always work for another as we are all so individual, with such differing bodies/mins/spirits), but I'll certainly be continuing my search for alternative methods to help myself.

When I was depressed, what got me out of it wasn't tablets or the comforting thought of 'it's my body chemostry, I can't help it'. It was cognitive behavioural therapy. It was hard to hear that my own thoughts had brought about my illness, and it was hard to change those thoughts. But it was empowering in the end: they are my thoughts, and they are under my control. Maybe my thyroid is too.

Everyone deals with life the best way they can. To point out that these 'best ways' are sometimes dysfunctional isn't blaming - it's ultimately empowering.

And what might happen to people who followed Oprah's advice? At worst, instead of being hypothyroid, they'd be relaxed, assertive and hypothyroid!

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that people in general don't have any sympathy with postal workers. After all, no one seems to have any sympathy with anyone who strikes nowadays, so fully Thatcherised has this country become.

The way the news reports the strike is part of the reason: it manages to ensure that people don't fully understand the issues. They report Adam Crozier's 'Spanish practices' comments, and talk about 'modernisation' in such a way as to depict posties as Luddite skivers who are driving their organisation to ruin.

In fact, the workers are revolting because they have a better understanding of working practices than their ivory-tower bosses.

Let's just take the example of one of those 'Spanish practices'. Some staff use their own vehicles to deliver some of their mail, then go straight home on finishing their rounds. This does mean that they finish earlier. However, what would happen if they didn't do this? The Royal Mail would be paying for their travel time back to the sorting office. This would also mean that some posties would have to take on less mail to ensure they finished on time.

I know this would end up costing Royal Mail more because we had a very similar situation happen in the NHS. East and Midlothian NHS Trust decided to stop the practice of domiciliary physios/nurses etc going home straight after seeing patients, because they suspected we were sloping off early. So then we all had to drive back to base before going home. This new practice resulted in fewer patient contacts occuring, because staff couldn't treat patients on their way home, and had to spend more time travelling to base. So the idea was scrapped.

And of course, the government thought it was getting a great deal when, for example, it decided to force physios to do a 'full' 37.5 hour week instead of their customary 36 hours. In fact, this lost the good will of staff who had routinely worked through breaks and lunch, and had been accustomed to doing unpaid overtime. Now they claim back their hours and take their breaks. What should have increased productivity has decreased it and changed the work culture.

This is what is called 'modernisation' by the government, and results in situations like that seen in Maidstone and Tonbridge Wells NHS Trust. Maybe if health staff had had the bollocks to take on the wrath of the general public by striking against healthcare 'reforms' (money-saving measures), those deaths could have been avoided.

No, I don't get up early or share a sofa with Sian Williams.

This morning Bill Turnbull talked about how he hates it when people are on public transport and put their bag(s) on the seat next to them to stop other people from sitting there. This infuriates me too, as I often struggle to contain piles of shopping on my lap, then see some git get on the train and plonk their teeny little handbag on the seat next to them. Obviously not when the train is practically empty, when the practice is entirely inoffensive. But when seats are in short supply, this is the height of bad manners.

But what really unites me and Bill is that we take the same action against these hideously misanthropic folk. Even when there are other seats to be had, we choose to ask, 'would you mind moving your bag please, so I can sit down?'

I think it is time for a serious campaign against these selfish people. Grumpy old commuters of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your inhibitions (and maybe a front tooth or two).

From BBC News

Iraq strike 'kills 15 civilians'

The US military in Iraq says 15 women and children were killed in an operation north of Baghdad in which 19 suspected insurgents also died.
It is thought to be one of the biggest losses of civilian life in a single US-led operation since the war began.

The US said it regretted the loss of innocent life, but said it acted in self-defence and blamed insurgents for putting the civilians in danger.

I'm surprised they don't blame the British military for putting their men in danger when they shoot down UK planes and bomb UK tanks.

Of course, they acted 'in self-defence', so that's alright then. Just like we acted in self defence when we were 45 minutes from destruction....

An official statement from the US military said Thursday's loss of life occurred during an air and ground assault aimed at senior leaders of al-Qaeda thought to be meeting in the Lake Tharthar region, 120km (75 miles) north of the capital. [snip]

The coalition said that after the first air raid suspects were observed fleeing to an area south of the man-made lake.

Ground forces attacked a building in which insurgents were believed to be hiding and were engaged by small-arms fire, the statement said. Further air strikes were then called in.

After securing the area, the troops found 15 dead suspected insurgents along with six women and nine children, the statement added. [snip]

'Suspected insurgents'. Sounds like US Newspeak for 'Iraqi-looking males' to me.

Black and Blue by Ian Rankin
It's the usual stuff you expect from an Inspector Rebus book: great plot, page-turner, nice characterisation, Edinburgh etc. Plus Rebus goes on the wagon! He visits B and Q! He eaves Edinburgh! It can't last....
(54/100)

Vanishing Acts by Jodie Picoult
I don't know why I keep on reading Jodie Picoult. Well, I suppose I do, because they are easy reads, totally lacking in effort, but then the pay-back is that ultimately they are unrewarding. I've yet to read one that has a decent ending. This is the nearest to it, but her heroine is so anodyne that you can't imagine her balls will last.

Unfortunately, to get to the end, you ave to wade through loads of stupid and pointless Native American rubbish in the middle. And you have to suspend your disbelief to the max when a father who abducted his daughter twenty odd years ago is defended by her fiance. That's the other annoying thing about Picoult: she tries to make her books more important than they are, tries to put in lots of 'themes' and stuff. It doesn't work, and comes over as mannered and forced. So the abducted child is now a woman who looks for lost things with her bloodhound. Yup, it's that bad.

Again, as is her wont, she writes from different points of view each paragraph. But it's all her really: take off the name at the start of the chapter and you'd have no clue who was 'speaking', as they all have the same voice. She must truly envy Ali Smith.

Picoult really can write a page-turner. I just wish she'd get on with it and cut the rubbish out.
(52/100)

One Good Turn by Kate Atkinson
This is the sort of book Jodi Picoult tries to write and fails. I really loved it, Atkinson can properly and unobtrusively bring themes and allegory into her books without it shouting at you off the page. I especially liked the sneaked in titles of other books, plays etc; there was something reminiscent of Anthony Burgess about the whole thing. It's a murder mystery that had me really confused at one point, and although there was one dangling loose end left, I didn't really care, and I'd read this book agian some time to pick up on the things I'm sure I missed.

My only criticism would be that Jackson Brodie, the hero, is less interesting than the peripheral characters. I really hope Kate Atkinson does a book on his girlfriend, Julia - I love her!
(90/100)

Non-fiction
What God Wants by Neale Donald Walsch
This book was supposed to contain a shocking revelation, and kept going on and on about how controversial it was, how revolutionary its consequences etc. But if you're familiar with paganism and the 'All is One and One is God' theory, it is nothing new at all.

What is nice is the combination of this 'revelation' with cognitive behavioural therapy (though not called such in the book), and the way it chimes so well with books like 'You Can Heal Your Life' by Louise Hay. This would be an excellent book for someone unfamiliar with the concepts, and is a handy refresher and a slightly new angle for those who are trying to put these ideas into practice already.
(53/100)