Have found a very interesting new web browser called Flok.
Perhaps it stands for "Flog you too, buddy!"
It may be more obscure, and therefore even more secure, than Firefox. It is supposed to be the "bees knees" for posting photos to a blog - but I have yet to figure it out!
When I know what I'm doing, I'll let you know!!
CPRE?
That Good 'Ol Boy, Bill Bryson, has been selected at the Chair of CPRE, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England. That Bill Bryson sure takes some beating!
Like me, Bill isn't even English, though he has lived here for many years and has an English wife. Also, he lives in rural Norfolk. His new job? Protect rural England. From what? From people. If I meet him on Wymondham High Street, I may have to give him a good smack and remind him of a few unpleasant truths.
Number one. England ain't Iowa. He instinctively knows this for he says, "You are very lucky to have so much. Iowa is the same size as England, but I would struggle to find six places to show you. Here you have a wealth of beautiful places. You have taken them too much for granted."
Poor old Iowa – bit short-changed there Bill!
What Bill has neglected to tell you is that the population of Iowa is just under three million. Yes, that's three million in a whole state the size of England.
A CPRI (Campaign for the Protection of Rural Iowa) is not needed. In fact, a campaign to get anyone from England to visit Iowa might be more in order. Folks here go to Florida in the summer (mad as a June Bug!), or trek off to shop in NYC (voted the worst place in the world in my official self-centred poll), or head for California (which, as everyone knows, is not really a part of the U.SA. at all!). No-one goes to Iowa, or Missouri, or Kansas. And, it's not because there isn't anything there to see or do. It's because it's in the middle. Planes don't fly there.
Therefore, the CPRE is charged with an impossible task. How to squeeze the 60 million people of the UK into an area the size of Iowa without causing damage to the countryside?
Pretty good trick if you can do it!
Bill's solution? Bugger the people, just make sure the litter they produce is dealt with in an efficient and environmentally friendly way.
Bill old buddy, you can afford to be cavalier with the countryside in Iowa. Here – it's a bit different. England suffers from a shortage of housing. No matter how many are built, there are never enough. It's a bit like the South Sea Bubble that never bursts. So, the NIMBY's have held sway in rural England since the Conquest. (NIMBY – not in my back yard – which in England means not anywhere, since the back yard in question encompasses the whole of the rest of the country!)
What we need is a CPPHN (Campaign for the Protection of People's Housing Needs). Getting folks to pick up their litter is a worthwhile project for Bill to sponsor. When he tries to balance the need for affordable housing in our rural areas with the NIMBYs chronic short-sightedness, he may find the leadership of the CPRE a bigger challenge than he imagines.
Good luck 'Ol Boy – you may need it.
Creased up recently when I spied with my little eye a letter to the Editor in the EDP from a fellow Wroxham-ite, a Mr Potter of Hartwell Road (that's the posh part of Wroxham for you out-worlders) writes under the title: This boring game should be banned.
Although the accuracy of his assertion is questionable, his sentiments are to be applauded. Brian believes that football is a minority sport which enjoys an enhanced reputation chiefly die to the employment requirements of the nation's football journalists.
I sympathise. I've been banging on for ages about the pathetic standard of journalism surrounding football in the local press. Brian's advice to families to keep their children away from football matches if they want them to grow up to be decent citizens is hard to argue with.
Two anecdotes to illustrate the point. Charlton Athletic versus Colchester United at the “old” Valley was the first professional match I ever saw live. Students of the “funny old game” will know that the Valley could hold 100,000 spectators on the massive old terraces. There were only about two thousand of us present for a mid-week Division Three match.
What struck me was the language of the players. We are all used to lip-reading the antics of the foul-mouthed pros paraded on out TV's every week. In person, with only a few bored spectators between you and the players, the language bordered on the criminal. I thought, “What kind of a game is this where the object seems to be to out-filth the opponents and officials?” It's still the same today.
And, over my garden fence, my next door neighbour, who attends most of the Wroxham F.C. matches, recounted a football moment that illustrates the sort of people who play. Apparently, in a recent reserve team match, one of the Wroxham youngsters was smacked in the mouth by an opponent. Broke his jaw and removed a few teeth. Referee was trying to sort out a fight somewhere else on the pitch and didn't see anything. Luckily the referee's assistant did. Young lad is going to sue said thug. So he should. Hope he goes to jail. But, of course, the real problem is the game itself. Brian from Hartwell Road says that “ a few hundred thousand obsessed morons and drink fuelled idiots make the game a real pain in the butt”. Hard to argue with that.
Descent people don't go to football matches.
Brian reminds us that football started in the Middle Ages as a game for local ruffians in the streets of English villages. Not much has changed then.
I like his comment that football is boring and repetitive. He contends that for most of the game nothing much happens. Hard to argue with that.
When Brian insists that more people go to museums at the weekend than attend football matches, I presume he means professional matches. Otherwise he is telling “stretchers” (I'm sure you'll remember “stretchers” - that's what Mark Twain attributed to Huckleberry Finn as a replacement for lies – Huckleberry insisted he never lied – he just stretched the truth sometimes!) Perhaps Brian is a Twain scholar.
I like Brian's style and substance. His peroration that football is likely to die a well-deserved and early death - were it not for the obsequious attentions of the media - is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
The real solution is down in the grass roots. Why parents allow children as young as eight to play football is a mystery to me? Yes, let them kick a ball, but organise them into leagues, have cup competitions and endless fitness sessions? It's madness. So's the game.
Spoiled Brats?
What sounds like a rather high-class firm of solicitors from South Kensington is, in reality, a disturbing bunch of spoiled brats and poor role models.
We live, for better or worse, in a society where hype is not just important – it is everything. Disregarding the talent required to be a top sportsman, what is important is a good press. Some talent is good, but you don't really have to keep it up – a few good performances will do – then you can take it easy, for the media will continue seek you out and build you up. The result? Spoiled brats.
Rooney is a classic. More than Beckham he appears to have difficulty in stringing two sentences together. He has a face like the north end of a south-bound skunk. His only “talent” is on the football pitch. Unfortunately, he has forgotten what he is famous for. And, he is increasingly being “found out” by opponents. Instead of trying to compete with him on the pitch the opposition finds it far easier to wind him up. He spends most of the game arguing with either the officials, the opponents or both. He leaves little time to actually play football. Only Sir Alec Ferguson seems able or willing to get him top concentrate on football and keep his mouth shut. In Europe, or wearing an England shirt he is a liability. He is a talented muppet.
Tiger has lost the plot. Watching him “lose” the Masters reminded me of his character flaws. He is so universally acknowledged as the greatest golfer ever that he has begun to expect that the golfing gods will do exactly what he wants. When they don't, he pouts, cries, gazes plaintively at the heavens and throws his clubs about. Watching him fling his putter into the air on the sacred Augusta greens makes me wonder if anyone else did it would the members ban them? There are many less illustrious clubs where he would not be welcome.
It's a strange world when the best rapper is a white guy, Eminen, and the best golfer is a black guy, Tiger. Some of Tiger's petulance is the result of the media hype which he has begun to believe as gospel. He will win many more majors. I wish he was a better role model for young golfers and young people in general. The temper tantrums have no place in golf. I'd like to see more black people in golf. Maybe then Tiger wouldn't feel so “me against the rest”. In any event Tiger is only half-black. He's Asian on his mother's side.
Petersen has been reading too many of his acolytes press reports. He is a talented player. It's been rumoured before that he is not a “team player”. I'm beginning to think this is the case. He plays for Kevin, not the team. Yesterday was a good example. When the England innings stalled on the way to something near 300 – which might have been a winning score – our Kev decided that his quest for a one-day hundred must take precedence. A favourable position was thrown away as he pushed and prodded painfully to his century.
Likewise like our other two heroes, he has perfected the incredulous look when he is out. Commentators comment on his arrogance when batting. Less arrogance in his demeanour might not go amiss.
It's a shame when three talented sportsmen lose the plot. Let's hope they find it.
Surrender Anyone?
Cricket fans are a forgiving lot. Most are realists when it come to England's chances in the World Cup. Discounting the media-hype which surrounds almost all international sport now-a-days, knowledgeable fans will realise that the team is just not very good, or, perhaps just not good enough.
Nevertheless, it is important if any progress is to be made to understand why and where improvements need to be made. England have more professional cricketers than any other nation. This can be a blessing. It can also be a liability when selecting teams.
The fact is England seems to be the only country who picks a specialist one-day squad and ignores the Test team. Yesterday's defeat to Sri Lanka abjectly illustrates this policy.
All morning the news was afloat with rumours that Andrew Strauss would be recalled to the team as opener. Ed Joyce had failed and failed again. Strauss is a proven Test opener who “suffered” some very bad umpiring decisions and some “unlucky” dismissals in the one-day series against Australia. Joyce was his replacement and had only amassed a few decent scores. Pretty much a no-brainer there. Strauss to be recalled – Joyce to be dismissed. What happened? Nothing. Whoever was spreading the Strauss recall rumours ( maybe it was his Mum? ) shut up. Joyce played. Scored a few. Got out.
His opening partner, Michael Vaughan, faired little better. Cricketers and commentators all agree that when you are caught down the leg side you are a bit unlucky – particularly with the keeper standing up to a medium-pacer. Unlucky or not that's exactly what happened to Vaughan and his run of very low scores continued. Result? England on the back foot. Vaughan provides his own conundrum. Captaining the side expertly he engineered a gettable Sri Lankan total to chase. His own contribution to the cause was woeful. Unlucky or not.
Ian Bell flatters to deceive. The photo of him standing with his bat well-behind the popping crease and neatly poised a few centimetres above it should be pasted on every school notice board. Watching him bat is like watching a disaster unfolding. He may get a score – but it's not likely. When all that was need was for one top-order batsman to survive most of the innings and get 80 or 90 – he failed again.
Kevin Petersen is supposed to be the number one one-day batsman in the world. Crazy. He does score large hundreds, but mostly when they are not needed. Pressure? Don't think he handles it well. Murali slipped him the doosra, and Petersen lobbed it back to him. I don't like cricketers who behave like footballers. When they make a mistake or choose the wrong shot they should accept it. Petersen nearly cries. Or mutters an obscenity under his breath. Completely unacceptable. He's beginning to look like a prima dona – without the requisite talent and temperament.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Collingwood is a good county pro. He is neither a Test batsman nor a one-day specialist. If he's the best number five we have in England then it will be a long time before there is any improvement in results.
Flintoff hasn't recovered from the pedalo yips. I remember when he was a batting all-rounder who bowled a bit. Now he bowls but has forgotten the basics of one-day batting. He should be sentenced to watch his dismissal over and over and over. Attempting to slog a slower ball with two runs to your name and your team relying on you to salvage the match makes Freddie look just about as stupid as you can on a cricket pitch.
So it was left to Bopara and Nixon to get England close to the total. I was beginning to wonder what Bopara was doing in the side? I thought he would be bowling – but Collingwood does all that ( fairly ineffectually! ) and he never got a chance. At least he was up for the fight. If he is to make an impact next time around he needs to be bowling and batting. Time will tell if he's good enough.
Nixon will not be around long. He's too old and it that respect it is churlish to begrudge him a few days in the lime light. He did very well, but England should be playing a younger, more long-term keeper. If he was Duncan Fletcher's choice, then Dunc should follow him into honourable retirement.
It's possible that events may overtake my gloomy forecast. I hope so, but I doubt it. After the Aussies hammer us on Sunday, it should just be a matter of a few days before the lads come home.
Some joined-up thinking by the selectors and administrators in time for the next World Cup might not go amiss.
Watching a interview on television about climate change is as easy as turning it on. They are everywhere. Just turn the TV on – rather like buses there's bound to be one on the way. Whether or not it will make any sense of course is more problematical.
Fascists get a bad press. Deservedly. Queuing up to rubbish other folks ideas can be boring. Much easier just to label them or their ideas as fascist and save a lot of time. The climate change messiahs are getting to be bores in this regard. Their tactic: anyone who doesn't agree with their view is either incredibly stupid or on the payroll of the oil industry – and everyone knows what fascists they are.
One charmless chappie was on TV a few days ago arguing that anyone who didn't believe, as a matter of faith, in mankind's responsibility for carbon-based climate change was either a moron or, worse, a dangerous ideologue. These extreme views stifle debate. It's not a numbers thing. Just because many, or most, or a majority of scientists take a certain view does not make it correct. You can't have a vote on scientific principles. Either a theory has merit or it doesn't. Ask Galileo or Copernicus. Their minority of one proved to be the “correct” answer.
What's dangerous about these Ubermenshen is the virulence with which they present their arguments.
There are responsible scientists who genuinely believe that the major factor in global warming is burning carbon-based fuels. Some of them are open to an examination of their theses and a debate on the validity of their evidence. I have no quarrel with them. Their views are genuinely held and have some logical basis.
The climate fascists are in a different league altogether. They will not allow that there can be a debate, much less engage in it. Their language is meant to denigrate and ridicule the ideas they don't agree with. This is not only dangerous but downright evil.
What's so surprising is that so many people are taken in by this pseudo-science. In the name of science (but only climate-change science) only those who parrot the party line are in receipt of the research grants. Only those who think Al Gore is a prophet are allowed to roll the barrel or get their snout in the trough.
Not only is this bad science – it's bad for the future of the planet and the carbon-based units currently infesting it.
“They can't continue when this has happened. The spirit of the Cup is gone and nobody is safe. I feel that the forces at play behind the scenes will stop at nothing to get the results they want - I shudder to think what will happen if India get knocked out by Sri Lanka today.” - comment on the Times web site.
The Woolmer family's very human tragedy is overshadowed by allegations that the darker side of betting and bookmaking may, in some way, be involved in his death.
This is a tragedy for the game.
This is not the first time a betting scandal has been involved in the death of a cricketer. Remember Hansie Cronje? Bob Woolmer was the South Africa coach at the time. So, although Woolmer's death has not been attributed to anyone as yet, the speculation is now focusing on the shady betting syndicates on the sub-continent. Why? Because these sorts will, apparently, stop at nothing to make money by fixing cricket matches.
It's easy to point the finger at the Pakistani players, officials, supporters or bookmakers. It is possible that they were involved in some way. The track record of the cricketers is not impressive. We have just “recovered” from drug allegations regarding two of the best Pakistani bowlers, Shoab Aktar and Mohammad Asif. They were left out of the team, perhaps on the coach's recommendation.
It's not a great leap to imagine that some people didn't agree with that decision. Would such people be motivated to either take revenge on Woolmer, or, even more shockingly, need to make sure he didn't speak out about this issue. Very likely.
It is ungracious in the extreme to suggest that Bob Woolmer had any hand in cricketing sharp practices. Nevertheless, there must be a thorough investigation to ensure that the public will continue to remember him as a fine cricketer, an excellent coach and a very good human being.
If the opposite is the case, it would truly be a tragedy for the World Cup in particular and cricket in general.
Being The Fredster Just Got Tougher!
News from the Caribbean is just about all bad. In the wake of the England cricketers' romps in the sea and visits to local bars comes the report of the tragic death of Bob Woolmer. Whereas one event is laughable, the other puts into perspective the role of sport in modern society. Freddie may just be an idiot, but Bob is dead.
Reading the papers, and between the lines, it now appears that Freddie has always been a bit of a bad boy. He has been “spoken to” by the England management on numerous occasions. He has received many “warnings” about his behaviour – and has chosen to ignore them.
It's hard to feel any sympathy for him. As a talented and highly-paid sports star, he really ought to know better. When he reflects on how “demon rum” ruined the careers and lives of Gazza and George Best, he really ought to take stock of the situation and moderate his imbibing. And, I bet Rachel isn't all that pleased with him either.
By the way, where are the Wags?
Little has been seen or heard of the cricket Wags this tour. Maybe they are at home. If so, this is a mistake. Presumably, Freddie might have been in the hotel with the wife and kids instead of pedalling around the Caribbean were that an option. If there are no Wags on the tour – why not? Is this policy? If so, it's the wrong one. Lads left alone with plenty of money and not much to do in the evening are likely to drink too much and get into trouble. This is hardly rocket science. It's a bit sanctimonious for the England officials to climb on a high horse and express disappointment and chagrin from such a lofty height if they have done nothing to obviate the problems of a long tour.
Before the media jump on Freddie's case, which they seem all too ready to do, they might do well to examine the tour arrangements.
Of course, this does not excuse silly behaviour from the team, but it does, perhaps, put it into perspective.
Hopefully, in addition to his public contrition, Freddie might spare a thought for the family of Bob Woolmer. An excellent coach and an excellent ambassador for cricket, he will be missed as well as mourned.
If Freddie's antics shift the focus from the human tragedy that surrounds Woolmer's death then that alone should be reason enough for him to feel guilt and need contrition.
Hopefully Freddie will learn from his peccadillo and become a better person for it. After all, it truly is only a game.
Not in my back yard!!
The NIMBYs are out in force in West Norfolk. Some enterprising farmer would rather like to cash in on the wind power craze – but his nimby neighbours are not all that keen.
One of the reasons I so like going to Yarmouth is to catch up with the goings-on at Scroby Sands Windfarm; or, as I prefer to call it – Scroby Stands Still Windfarm. This off-shore alternative energy development really takes the biscuit!
There are 30 of the little rascals 3 kilometres off the coast. I love to watch them turning as I drive the last 8 miles down the (otherwise) boring Acle Straight. What a sight. Bountiful energy provided by Mother Nature and not a carbon atom in sight. Bootiful -as we say in Norfolk – at least we used to say bootiful until bird flu arrived at Bernard Matthews.
What's wrong with our brethren out in the Bermuda Triangle that is West Norfolk? Surely they would want to have some of these tourist attractions out in the boondocks? (that's what they are billed as on the Powergen website – tourist attractions in Great Yarmouth – I'm not making this up! ) Apparently not.
The West Norfolk NIMBYs are out in force to put a stop to what should be a real boon to the local tourist economy. How short-sighted can you get?
Then again, perhaps they are not as daft as they appear? Certainly if Scroby is anything to go by, maybe the West Norfolk NIMBy's are on to something. Have you ever counted the number of turbines actually turning as you drive down the Acle Straight? I have never seen them all turning all at once. Never. I must have been to Yarmouth hundreds of times since the turbines appeared and, I repeat, I have never seen them all turning at the same time.
We have been treated to an analysis of the pathetic power output of the Scroby turbines in the local press. Substantially, this is what is really going on at Scroby:
UK government has published its first annual report into the performance of the Scroby Sands wind farm, built off the Norfolk coast.
The report from the Department of Trade and Industry found the 30 V80 2 MW turbine wind farm near Great Yarmouth generated less energy than originally forecast, with capacity on average at 28.9%.
Mechanical defects including the replacement of 27 intermediate-speed and a dozen high-speed gearbox bearings as well as four generators 'significantly' cut production, the DTI report said.
According to the DTI, the problems at the £67m project had 'serious implications for resources, costs and downtime'.
Despite the slowdown, Jason Scagell, director of E.ON UK Renewables, the owners of the site, said the wind farm generated 153Gwh, around 90% of forecast annual output.
'Scroby Sands was and remains a pioneering project from which lessons will be learned,' he added.
Although the wind farm is expected to produce sufficient electricity to power 41 000 homes, last year only 12 000 properties were actually powered by Scroby.
Meanwhile, Scira Offshore Energy Limited is planning to build the Sheringham Shoal wind farm, comprised of 70 turbines, in the Great Wash.
When completed, the firm said offshore wind power could supply up to 176 000 homes with electricity.
The DTI said it had invested £107m in the first round of offshore wind farm development.
OK – call me stupid – but have you noticed that these figures don't add up? You can't reconcile 12 000 homes supplied versus 41 000 homes planned and call it 90% planned output! Even my maths won't let that one go!
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention: this project cost £67 million pounds. I calculate that each of the 12 thousand houses consuming the Scroby-generated electricity should have paid 5500 pounds a year for the privilege of being so renewable. I think I'll pass on that one!
So, now let's build a bigger farm at Sheringham and lose even more money. This is nice work if you can get it.
I've got a better idea. Halvergate Marshes. Why not put the turbines there? There is nothing else there except for a few cows, horses and sheep. I reckon you could put a few hundred on the marshes for a lot less money. Do you think the cows would complain?
Chances of this happening? Virtually none. It makes too much sense, and there is no mileage in interviewing spokespersons for the Coalition Ranged Against Poofy-Power – or as they are acronymly known - CRAP.
Bryson Blogs on Baseball
Nothing quite satisfies like a good Bill Bryson book. I know. I've read them all. Imagine my surprise when I found one in the library today that I hadn't read! I thought that I'd read them all, but no. Apparently, I confused Notes from a Big Country with some other one; and, consequently, forgot I hadn't read it. Silly me!
Bill is, of course, not only a very well-know travel writer; but also, the world's most well-known Anglophile – and a “close” neighbour. He lives, nowadays, near Wymondham – bout 20 miles from me. He never pops round for a cup of tea – even though we were neighbours back in the States – he from Iowa; me from Missouri.
Back to Bill's book.
Amidst all the trivia in this book is Bill's critique of cricket; and, correspondingly, his enthusiastic endorsement of that great American pastime – baseball. Summing up: Bill thinks cricket is a bit silly and loves baseball with a purple passion. Perhaps this is explained by his undying affection (quite rightly) for his now-deceased dad who was, by all accounts, one of the great sports writers of America. At least according to Bill he was.
Strange then that Bill never took to cricket. The games aren't that dissimilar. They both use a bat to hit a ball, and they are both obsessed with statistics. The true baseball fan will bore you endlessly telling you Warren Spahn's lifetime E.R.A. and Stan Musial's lifetime batting statistics.
But, you can always tell a true baseball fan – for he will bore you endlessly with: “There’s nothing quite like taking in a game at historic Wrigley Field!” However, before you can get into the Friendly Confines of Wrigley Field you will need Chicago Cubs baseball tickets. Even though Cubs tickets are notoriously tough to find, GoTickets.com has tickets for every game on the 2007 Chicago Cubs baseball schedule. Order your Cubbies tickets now!
Last time I was in the States we had a few days in Chicago and got tickets for the Cubs. My host let their offspring find tickets on the internet and (apparently) he paid an exorbitant amount for them. It was explained thus: some time ago the Cubs sold all the tickets to an agency and the agency charges exorbitant prices for tickets. Still people come to the ball park. You would think they would blame the Cubs for this blatant misuse of the free enterprise system – but, apparently, not.
It was a night game (one of the few at Wrigley) and we spent the pre-game hours in the pub in downtown Chicago. Sensible plan I hear you say. Very sensible as it was raining. The game was delayed – so we decided to stay in the pub. Good plan I hear you cry.
Eventually, we got word from someone at the ball park that they were going to start the game. It was now getting on for 10 pm.! We rushed to the elevated and raced to Wrigley Field. We poured from the train and into the hallowed halls. We found our seats – the game had only just started. Heaven!
Except we discovered that a goodly proportion of the crowd had been in the ball park for some hours, sheltering from the rain under the upper deck and drinking beer. I mean all the beer. They had run out and we not selling any more, either on public health grounds or simply because the vendors were exhausted.
Baseball without beer! Unthinkable!
I did manage to find a few very sorry looking hot dogs.
Four guys sitting not far from us were more drunk than I can ever remember being. They must have consumed most of the missing beer themselves. It turned a bit chilly. We were poorly prepared for cool weather – even though it was now approaching mid-night. Most of our party decided to retire to warmer more liquid surroundings. I stayed on with a buddy until after the seventh-inning stretch. Tradition!
I expect that's the last game I will ever see at Wrigley. Saw my first game there when I was about five. Fifty years had passed, but it was still better than sliced bread.
Cricket's like that, Bill. I'm surprised you never noticed.
Seconds Out – Round Three?
Arsenal and Chelsea footballers have been brawling again – this time at a reserve team match. Coupled with the fracas at the Inter Milan v. Valencia match we now await Round Three to break out, somewhere.
No doubt, some do-gooders will claim society is tearing itself apart or predict the imminent demise of the national game. Fortunately, neither case is true or likely.
Football is a violent game. Twenty-two athletic men run about trying to kick a ball. Mostly they succeed. Sometimes they kick each other by mistake. Sometimes they kick each other intentionally. That's pretty much inevitable. Perhaps deplorable but almost certainly inevitable.
When they do kick each other, either by mistake or on purpose, they get angry. Sounds reasonable so far. You and I would get angry if someone kicked us. There however the similarity ends; for, if you or I decide to kick or punch or bite or whack over the head with a shoe our assailant, we would find ourselves in court. Footballers don't.
Why you might ask?
Perhaps if footballers were prosecuted for assault there might be less assaults. Certainly it's worth considering.
Clubs and players find themselves in front of the FA Disciplinary Committee instead. This is where the fun starts. If not fun, then, at least, laughs.
Having looked at the referee's report and viewed the video evidence, the FA then dispenses “justice”. Players, managers and clubs get fined. The problem is the fines are not really very expensive. Some money ( nothing like what the players earn! ) maybe, and a few weeks of forced rest. Everyone moves on – until the next time.
Is there a better way? Probably. Could we stop footballers from fighting? Not likely.
So, what's to be done? First, make the players primarily responsible. Second, get some independence into the investigation and punishment process. Third, make the “punishment” fit the “crime”.
Making clubs responsible is really just a cop out. If there is evidence that a club actively or even surreptitiously supports or condones violence by their players, throw the book at them. I doubt this happens. Players lose their tempers and irresponsibly retaliate. Players who are violent to each other should be banned (for a substantial period – months not weeks) and their clubs should not pay them while they are banned. Their salaries could go to support youth football or battered wives.
The FA should not be judge and jury when dealing with violence among the players. An independent body composed of members of the public, serving magistrates, retired judges and ex-professional footballers should adjudicate on appropriate punishments for acts of violence in football.
By removing wages from banned players, some kind of self-regulation just might ensue.
Yesterday's laughable slug-fest between Valencia and Inter Milan would be a good place to start. A UEFA panel will decide what to do with the players who spent quite a long time chasing each other about the pitch trying to hit, kick or otherwise injure or maim.
Whoever said, “It's a funny old game!”
Exasperation Rules! OK?
With uncommon regularity, reports of teachers suffering abuse at the hands of pupils appear in the local press.
For example: Teachers have demanded proper protection as a survey revealed a shocking catalogue of physical and verbal abuse launched against them every day by children in Norfolk's classrooms. - EDP
Sounds familiar? It should do, for I have commented on this before.
See http://malkauffman.blogspot.com/2007/02/another-brick-in-wall.html
This is becoming what I call a Quarterly Story: i.e. four times a year it will appear in the press and nothing will be done, therefore, it will appear four times the next year.
Almost 150 incidents were recorded in a week chosen to provide a snapshot of some of the extreme behaviour that goes on in the county's schools. Among the incidents recorded were foul-mouthed racist and homophobic abuse, physical attacks, assaults with objects, threats of violence and verbal attacks by parents. - EDP
Charmed, I'm sure.
The survey by three Norfolk teaching unions paints a chilling picture of the intimidation and fear endured by people who are trying to give the next generation a good start in life. Some teachers said they were so ground down by the constant abuse that they were looking to quit the profession. - EDP
Sound familiar?
The latest findings show an extraordinary lack of deference to teachers and raise serious questions about Tony Blair's much-heralded Respect agenda.- EDP
Lack of deference? I'd be surprised if any teachers complained of a lack of deference! I would hope they would only want and expect the amount of respect people performing a public service are entitled to.
Colin Collis, Norfolk secretary of the NASUWT, stressed that some schools did not have a problem, while others dealt with incidents very well.
But he said: "I would like to know what makes youngsters think it's okay to abuse their teachers.
"I think it's a disgrace that they feel they are in a position to do that. Part of the problem is that they don't believe there are any consequences for doing it.- EDP
Yes, Colin, congratulations, you have identified the problem! The questions is: what consequences are you recommending?
"We are in discussions with the county council about it. It's not about getting at the council - we want to work with them to find solutions.
"One of the things I'm very unhappy about is the number of times an incident was reported and there was no proper follow-up by the management. That's not good enough." - EDP
Great! Let's have some discussions! That will solve the problem, oh yeah!
Tony Mulgrew, county secretary of the NUT, said: "The issue of it not being dealt with properly is a big factor in people leaving the profession." - EDP
So, Tony, what makes you think some more discussion groups will help?
Mr Collis added: "There needs to be proper support to our members under the duty of care.
Excellent! What I don't understand is why, if and when their staff are assaulted, the NHS policy is to call the police and prosecute. Why don't schools do the same? Don't they have the same duty of care? Obviously not.
At the county's joint consultative committee in January, union leaders and school bosses agreed that all schools should display notices like those in doctors' surgeries and hospitals, warning parents and pupils that verbal or physical attacks would not be tolerated. - EDP
Excellent! They have read my mind! Now convince me, let's see a prosecution. You can't have it both ways. If assaults are happening all the time, prosecute them. It's not rocket science!
Lisa Christensen, director of children's services: "We have an expectation that everyone working for the county council should be treated with dignity and respect and work was already under way on a county wide behaviour strategy. - EDP
I am so comforted. Just what we need – another discussion group. You're in the hole lads – stop digging!
My solution is simple. Expel pupils who assault, verbally or physically, either their teachers or other pupils. Give them a week off. Twice. Then, permanently. Let them and their parents come to school and beg to be let in.
I think it's called Zero Tolerance. Dashed good idea!
Tripe masquerading as entertainment!
I compulsively watch Waterloo Road. There, I've confessed. Perhaps I'll now feel better.
It all started by accident. I was vaguely aware that this programme had something to do with schools and I had nothing much else to do, so I turned it on. I watched for a bit, puzzled. It clearly had something to do with schools, but I couldn't really figure out what that something was.
Eventually the penny dropped. It's a soap opera masquerading as a drama about school. I was so pleased with myself for figuring this out I forgot to switch it off. I don't “do” soaps. Never have. Never will. But, the sheer grotesqueness of the characters and the idiotic story had me mesmerised. Never have I seen such tripe paraded before prime time audiences.
The characters are completely unbelievable. That's just the teachers – the pupils are worse. The plots make the machinations of a hundred hashish-smoking Bedouin horse-buggerers seem pale by comparison.
This programme should be banned. Many parents and (worse) pupils probably think that Waterloo Road is a kind of documentary dealing with contemporary issues in education; for, occasionally, the writers attempt to introduce some topical educational issue, like Academy funding, as a sop to the viewers. This is disastrous! The unsuspecting viewer will only have their prejudices reinforced. According to Waterloo Road, Academies are all funded by dodgy blokes who make a killing selling porn and then return to their Alma Mater to make things better by ensuring that the present generation get a worse education than they did.
I'm not kidding. That's as good a précis as you might get of a recent plot.
The producers imagine that the teachers spend all day either bickering or bonking – or possibly both at the same time. The children swagger around in various states of scruffy dress or possibly undress. The administrators' plots to undermine each other rival any plan personally stamped by Machiavelli himself. The unwholesomeness of the relationships between staff and pupils is a disgrace and a travesty of real life. Need any more reasons for a ban?
Waterloo Road is so bad that it has become compulsive viewing in my house.
Here's an episode “taster”: “. . . a student teacher struggles to learn the ropes when he takes on the Waterloo Road kids ( yeah, Guv, better not send any weedy student teacher to Waterloo Road – we'll 'av 'em for breakfast! )– Steph ( a grown woman and, supposedly a responsible teacher ) continues to help Maxine ( a teenage girl with a drug habit and abusive step-father who hates school but has been dragooned back by the aforementioned Steph ) by trying to find her a new home – Lorna finds comfort in Tom ( who up until last week was living with and expecting a child with one of the other teachers ) as she gradually comes to terms with her illness, ad nauseaum, ad infinitum, ad circulum !
That's it Sweeties, please pass the hemlock, I think I might need it.
Cricket's Umpiring Woes.
News that Darrell Hair is to sue the cricket authorities makes it clear that the authorities have bowled themselves a bouncer.
Whatever happens, cricket is going to be the loser.
Hair alleges, quite rightly, that the authorities are being racist because he has been hung out to dry whilst his colleague, Billy Doctrove, continues to officiate in Test Matches. It's going to be difficult not to agree with him or for the authorities to claim that there is no case to answer
What is in danger of being lost in this mess is what the laws of cricket say about unfair play.
First: the umpires shall be the sole judges of fair and unfair play (Law 3.7). Therefore, it is for the umpires appointed for the match (Hair and Doctrove) to decided if any unfair play has taken place, without reference to any outside body!
Second: Under Law 42.3 the umpires are empowered to change a ball they think has been tampered with – without any reference to anyone else, or without apportioning blame to any one person. This is precisely what happened. The umpires changed the ball and the Pakistani captain was responsible, even though he may not have personally done anything to the ball.
Third: Under Law 3 it is clear that both umpires must agree before any action can take place under Law 42. Therefore, Darrell Hair's contention that since Billy Doctrove is still on the umpires circuit he is being discriminated against is, without a doubt, valid.
At the press reported at the time: On 20 August, Hair and Doctrove awarded England a five-run penalty because they believed the ball had been interfered with.
A spokesman for the Pakistan Cricket Board said, "It is crass for him (Hair) to say a black West Indian was let off [whereas] he was a white man and therefore he was charged.
"Mr Hair was the senior umpire and he literally took over that Oval cricket match. I was present there. "There was only one man that evening that did not want cricket to be played. [It was] a black spot on the history of cricket thanks to Mr Hair."
This is nonsense. The match was awarded to England under the laws when Pakistan refused to take the field.
An ICC spokesman stated that Doctrove's status was not discussed at the meeting to discuss events at the Oval. If that's not discrimination, I'm not sure what is!
Both umpires must agree, or the status quo must be maintained. The Laws do not sanction the idea of a “senior umpire”.
The Pakistan team refused to resume play after the tea interval in protest against the decision, leading to the first forfeiture in 129 years of Test cricket.
ICC adjudicator Ranjan Madugalle later cleared Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq of ball-tampering charges. Unfortunately, this verdict, which is a disgrace (insofar as it does not support the match umpires) has not and probably will not be made public. Likewise the ball in question may not be seen again.
Try to imagine the scenario. Umpire Hair sees the ball suddenly moving in strange ways. He is concerned that the ball has been tampered with. He calls “Dead Ball” and moves to the middle of the wicket to consult with Umpire Doctrove.
What was said? Here's my version.
Darrell: Well, Billy, this ball has clearly been tampered with. I examined it just a few minutes ago and now its condition is clearly not the same. And, it has begun to move in a way that it wasn't moving just a moment ago.
Billy: Yes, Darrell.
Darrell: I'm going to award 5 penalty runs to England and change the ball.
Billy: Ok, Darrell.
That's pretty much it. And, most importantly, that's exactly what the laws of cricket stipulate. The umpires confer regarding unfair play (Law 42). They reach a joint decision and impose penalty runs if they both agree. The concept of a “senior umpire” does not exist in law. Both umpires must agree or the status quo is maintained.
For the ECB or the Pakistani Board to now insist that the whole thing is Darrell Hair's fault is ridiculous. Darrell, unfortunately for cricket, has a good case for unfair treatment. The fact that Billy is still employed and the ECB “leaked” his memo regarding compensation are prima facie evidence that he has been discriminated against.
The authorities would do well to pay up to shut him up. He may get the 500,000 dollars in an out-of-court settlement. Cricket is the loser.
Steve Downes' investigation into the state of teachers and teaching in the EDP, “Who'd want to be a teacher today”, confirms what everyone already knew. Teaching is tough and getting tougher.
A Yougov survey showed six out of ten teachers suffering from stress. I'm surprised it's so low. What are the other four doing? They were probably off sick the day the survey was taken.
A survey for Teachers' TV says half of all teachers have considered quitting because of stress. The other half must be downing prodigious quantities of Valium.
Teaching is stressful. I could have told them that and saved them the effort and money involved in taking a survey. This is not news. What Steve has brought to the table is some insights into why teachers may be stressed. Some of these bear closer inspection.
Quoting John Barnes of the ATL, Steve reminds us that society today is much different than it was when teachers who are in their 50's started their careers. Putting it another way, most people expect, as they reach the years approaching retirement, things will become “easier” at work. Their long experience of the job should lead to less stress and more in the way of financial rewards. With teaching it's the opposite. Those older teachers surveyed are reporting that the job is just getting harder. Leaving aside the government initiatives, it's society, in the shape of the raw materials provided (the kids) that is causing the stress.
Mr Barnes' take: “Parents have an attitude very often, which passes on to their children, that “you are paid to do this job and the pupil's job is to make it as difficult as possible for you”.
This is interesting. We are awash with signs in the hospital, doctor's surgery, post office, shops, supermarkets, pubs and other public places which inform the public that abusing staff will not be tolerated. You've all seen them.
Ever seen one in a school?
Mr Barnes goes on: “It's now automatically assumed that the child's rights are paramount. The assumption is that the child is always right and the teacher is always wrong.”.
The rest of the article is a litany of children swearing, being truculent or being downright violent towards their teachers. Little in the way of support from management is in evidence.
So, what is to be done? No-one has addressed solutions to teachers' problems for many a long year – and it would not be that difficult. It would be painful but not too difficult.
First. Insist that parents take responsibility for their children's actions. How? Install CCTV in every classroom. Then, instead of having meetings to discuss children's behaviour, just show the tape.
Second. Make parents' responsibilities truly extend to their children's education. Exclude the pupils who the teachers can't teach. All of them. No “ifs, ands or buts” . Remove them, now. The onus to get them back into school is now where it really belongs, with the parents. They can either educate them at home (and they better do it right – cause I'd be inspecting the devil out of them!!) or make sure they behave well enough to go to school. Simple. Sample scenario: teacher takes pupil to head teacher; informs head that pupil has sworn at them; head suspends pupil for that day; head informs parents to collect child; parents collect within an hour or the suspension becomes a week. Pupil returns from suspension and does it again. Same scenario repeats. Pupils and parents may begin to get message.
Third. Stop treating teachers as baby-sitters. Let them teach. Pupils who are violent towards their teachers (or other pupils) should be prosecuted by the police. Let the courts deal with them and their parents.
A sea change is needed in the way parents and pupils view education. Teachers, administrators and government must make it clear to parents that education is a privilege, not a right. If parents are not happy with what the teacher/school is doing – let then do it themselves.
I confidently predict things would improve.
The gun crime crackdown is well under way. I confidently predict that it will be ineffectual. The government's recipe is to lower the age that criminals who carry guns can be jailed for the mandatory five years from 21 to 17.
Has anyone in the government remembered that there are no prison places? Apparently not.
Sixteen year-olds will only receive a smack on the bum and be told to go home.
Magic. Absolute magic!
Gangsta Rap is inexorably intertwined with young, mostly black, men and their penchant for joining gangs and shooting people. This U.S. based music phenomenon glorifies gang culture and violence.
My favourite paper, The Sunday Times says,
“The notion that young people carry guns as a fashion accessory has by far exceeded its sell-by date. But what is increasingly true is that turf wars built on a gang culture are fast becoming the basis for retribution in the inner city. The existence of “street role models” and gangsta rap artists and the role of the media in glamorising crime have also been a growing negative influence on young people. “
So, young people mimic their music and movie heroes. Right. So what's new? Not a lot.
In the 1950's parents were outraged at the antics of one Elvis (The Pelvis) Presley. Establishment media figures queued up to heap outrage on Elvis. Parents were savagely opposed to Elvis' brand of music becoming mainstream and acceptable. In some respectable areas of society he was seen as The Anti-Christ and an instrument of the Devil – hell-bent on corrupting young people. His live performance on the Ed Sullivan show is legendary, not because of the music, but because the network famously refused to show his movements from the waist down.
This was only the start. Elvis could not be banned, he just cloned himself into a semi-respectable figure by moving via the Army and the movies into mainstream popular. His “pop-clones”, Jerry Lee Lewis, The Rolling Stones, Guns and Roses, Sid Vicious, Gary Glitter, et. al. simply invented new ways to offend parents and become massively popular.
So, perhaps parents, the media, and the establishment should get together and “ban” Gangsta Rap? Not a good plan! Banning Gangsta Rapping would simply create a massive demand for it and promote the very thing we ought to be trying to overcome.
What's wrong with Gangsta Rap is nothing to do with its musicality. The Rappers are making a tidy sum from their efforts. Good for them. At least they are not out in the community shooting people. What matters it if their lyrics seem to glorify violence and anti-social behaviour? It's the wrong message for young black men to aspire to – that's what's wrong with it. How do we convince them that Gangsta Rap is bad? Here's a radical solution. Ban Barry Manilow.
By banning Barry we could instantly make his particular brand of insipid, middle-of-the-road mish-mash “anti-establishment” and extremely popular. Barry could put the rappers out of business overnight. Young black men could return to those halcyon days of hanging around street corners practising their harmonies – instead of shooting each other.
This could work.
At least it's worth a try. It's got more chance of success than the government's daft plan to lock them all up.
I say – let's go for it. After all, Barry has had a good career and would probably sink quietly into oblivion with his new-found notoriety clutched firmly between his cheeks.
Children are precious - maybe too precious!
News that GB Ltd has come dead last in a survey of child well-being seems to have outraged the media and sent the Government scrambling to explain that the statistics are out of date/meaningless.
The truth is, of course, the first commodity to get lost in the debate. Or, to put it another way, the truth is that the debate is focussing on the wrong issues.
Britain's children are last in family and peer relationships, and behaviour and risks (whatever they are ?) and almost last in subjective well-being and material well-being. Overall the impression is one of deprived and chronically abused children as the norm. What a load of old rubbish!
The fact is: children (and families in general) have never had it so good!
Sociologically speaking we are on the crest of a wave and riding along at breakneck speed towards a bright and beautiful future.
So, why the gloomy survey? Simple. They asked the wrong questions of the wrong people. Unicef sponsored the survey. Therefore, presumably they surveyed young people. On their website Unicef conclude: in rich countries children’s basic needs have been generally met but there is scope for further progress in child well-being. In other words, things could be better. If someone could specify some aspect of human civilization that could not do with some improvement, I'd be grateful. To characterize children in Britain as somehow falling behind others in Europe is just nonsense.
Unfortunately, nowhere on the web site does it tell us the methodology involved in gathering the data for this survey. I've got money to bet that the “statistics” came from the children themselves. Ask any child if, for example, they find their peers kind and helpful (one of the actual questions) and it's not hard to predict the answer. Perhaps the question seems somehow better when asked in Norwegian or Swedish? Who knows?
These type of surveys are next to useless in determining the basis for providing services. Ask any group in society if things are great and you will get the same answer, “Of course not!” Anyone who thinks differently is either very naive or very intellectually challenged!
What is important, however, is how children live today. Their life style goes a long way to explaining the results of the survey. There is no doubt that children's aspirations and expectations have changed dramatically in the last 40 years. Just look at your street. Most of the houses will be the traditional 3 bedrooms. Many will have been built more than 50 years ago. What was the average family size in, say 1900? From the net: Family size declined between 1800 and 1900 from 7.0 to 3.5 children (4). In 1900, six to nine of every 1000 women died in childbirth, and one in five children died during the first 5 years of life.* Distributing information and counselling patients about contraception and contraceptive devices was illegal under federal and state laws (8,9); the timing of ovulation, the length of the fertile period, and other reproductive facts were unknown.
Family size increased from 1940 until 1957 (Figure 1), when the average number of children per family peaked at 3.7 (14,15; CDC, unpublished data, 1999).
Without blinding you with science, the facts are family sizes are now very much smaller than they have been. Therefore, each child is by definition more precious than ever – and treated as such with their own room and own TV, stereo, computer, Uncle Tom Cobley and all! When one in five of your children would be dead before they reached 5, it did not pay to get too attached to them or spend too much of the families limited resources on them. No doubt that parents were just as distraught then as now when a child was lost – but at least they were prepared for it. Whole families were wiped out by diseases that today are just a nuisance. It was the norm.
The result? Children were viewed very differently and saw their roles differently as well.
Now, instead of being an investment for the future, children became a precious commodity to be indulged and acquiesced to at will. Instead of being a source of pride in their achievements children became a mirror of their parents insecurities. When each child is likely to live, parents devote more time and effort into each individual and have far fewer children. Therefore, the child who struggles at school must be a victim of the system. The child who is uncontrollable at home and in the community must be pandered to and the state's responsibility.
Children have become too valuable for parents to ignore. Children who are a disappointment to their parents are not allowed to be. It must be someone else's fault.
The Unicef survey simply confirms what thinking people already know. In Western industrialised society children have everything they need to succeed, yet some fail.
This is not society's fault. It's just the way things work.
Highways Agency Pockets Your Cash!
News that the long-awaited Attleborough by-pass improvement has opened was greeted with less than enthusiasm by the EDP when they discovered that the costs had risen from the published £22 million to £30! Now they want some answers. I suppose it is better late than never, but I would have thought the time for asking questions was a long time ago!!
I don't k now why we should be surprised. The cost of building roads in Norfolk is a scandal and always has been .
You may remember that the reason the Attleborough by-pass had to be improved is that the loonies who were in charge when it was built decided that one bit would be single carriageway. That's the bit they have just dualled. The fact that everyone in Norfolk told them that they should have built it as dual carriageway has, seemingly, been forgotten. Maybe some enterprising EDP journalist would like to add this to his list of questions to ask!
You may remember a similar story afflicting the Thetford by-pass. One section was originally built as single, only to be dualled a few years later. What a waste!! Building a road is not something you can do with a bucket and spade. So, while you have the men and equipment there, why not do the job all at once! Too sensible. Too simple.
That's the main reason why we are still waiting for the whole of the A11 to be dualled today. It has been 25 years in the expectation, planning, building a bit and pausing.
Much better to go away for a few years while the costs rocket. Then, have a lengthy planning process whilst the costs continue skyward. Then, attempt to scrimp and save by cutting a valuable part of the original plan (like the Besthorpe junction) thus ensuring that the original plan is emasculated in order to save a paltry sum. Finally, spend £8 million more than planned on “preparation, supervision, land compensation claims and land costs” and pretend that no-one will notice! Are they seriously saying that they didn't think that there would be any costs to do with planning, supervision or buying land when they started? How can they get away with this!
We may not live long enough to see the last bit done. You know the bit – from Thetford to Barton Mills. Must be all of 5 or six miles. Perfectly flat. Farm land on either side. No rivers to cross. Me and Paddy could do it with a wheelbarrow! Cost? By the time they ever got to it, I suggest it will be £50 million. It is a scandal!
There's a phrase for this: highway robbery.
Maybe the lads who rallied around Kett's Oak and marched on Norwich had the right idea. Only when the Norfolk Dumplings get mad enough to hang a few Highways Agency bean-counters from the walls of Norwich Castle might we get any sensible answers and sensible plans!
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.
The return of Jonny Wilkinson has galvanized the England rugby team into action – finally. After as dismal a run as you would not wish on your enemies, the team finally looked capable of winning a match in the Six Nations and duly did.
Is this a false dawn or a turning of the corner? (Nice mixed metaphor that, don't you think?)
There is no doubt that Jonny's return was little less than miraculous. Despite not playing seriously for years he seemed in a class of his own. Other players who have suffered the slings and arrows of recent fortune seemed suddenly to believe that all would be well, and it was. Such was his contribution.
Surely it has been a long time since the addition of just one player has made such an impact on what is very much a team game. Put Jonny behind a pack of useless forwards and give him service from a scrum-half without either a pass or a brain and the result would have been a lot different.
So, where do England go from here?
Today they have a home game against Italy who, despite the hype, seem again to be the milch cow of the Six Nations. Their much vaunted pack of forwards could not cope with the (so the pundits told us at the time!) “poor” pack of Frenchmen! Their backs are simply not up to international standard. Ergo – England will win comfortably. So the story goes.
No doubt this is the line the experts will be pushing today. They may well be right. But, some caution should be observed. Italy may not be as bad as they appeared last week. If they are it's going to be a long season for them!
Jonny may be stretchered off in the first ten minutes – or tweak something in the warm-up. England probably cannot survive such a psychological, never mind physical and tactical, blow.
Hopefully all will be well for Jonny and England. The real tests are down the line. Whoever makes up the schedule has been very kind to England. A mediocre Scots team followed by Italy in disarray – not a difficult start.
Let's hope England play well and Jonny comes through unscathed.
Let's also hope that Andy Robinson continues to show such dignity in the commentary box. Having been deprived, through no fault of his own, of most of England's world class players during his disastrous reign as coach, it is good to see him taking it on the chin and revelling in England's successes under a different, luckier coach!
Super Models.
Concern over the size of Super Models is well-founded. I listened attentively to a designer explaining how his clothes look better when hung from a super waif.
In other words,it's the public's fault. We demand nice-looking clothes. Clothes look nicest when hung on a skinny girl. Ergo – it's our fault.
Rubbish!
The public are not crying out for more emaciated models. In fact, the public can not accurately judge. The public are just as much tools of the fashion industry as the models themselves. The public should know better, but that's not the same as using them as a scapegoat for the fashion industries less than savoury practices.
What's really disturbing is the relationship between the waifs on catwalks and child sexual exploitation. No-one seems to write about this relationship, so I will.
I'm old enough to remember when all the Hollywood sex goddesses were full sized women. The epitome of the female form was fully-grown and fully rounded. Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, Jane Russell and their peers were very much in need of artificial help in holding up their attributes – not a place to hang clothes from their frame and in need of a good meal. I can't remember the fashion industry complaining that clothes did not look good on Norma Jean! Her iconic, and fully-fleshed image lasted throughout the decades following her death.
Is there a relationship between what is perceived as the ideal female form and misplaced desire? I think so.
When the Queens of Hollywood were fully-rounded, no-one had ever heard of paedophilia. It may have been in the dictionary, but no-one discussed it or concerned themselves with it. For all intents and purposes it did not exist until the 1990's.
It would be ridiculous to imagine that Super Models “cause” perversion. But, and this is a big but, they probably encourage it.
If men are constantly bombarded with what is purported to be the ideal female and she is the same size as a pre-teenage girl, is it altogether surprising that some will get the wrong message? If Hollywood stars – like Keira Kneightly – are so thin they have to sue newspapers for reporting on their (supposed) eating disorders, what message is this sending out to young girls and (more importantly) to men of all ages?
Could this be at least part of the cause of misplaced sexual desire?
There are no statistics, and, I suspect, very little research is being done in this area. Just by mentioning this in a blog I may find my name on a database. I suspect it would be impossible to research the relationship between sexual perversion and size zero models. Either you would be arrested or the fashion industry would have you so discredited that the work would be useless.
