WorkingMummy

There's a woman near Ruskin Park who'll take a few bob off you to let you lie under her crystal strewn, adult jungle-gym play mat thingy, while she connects you to something or other. Not sure if the something is dead though. Something tells me it might as well be...

The Sky is so Blue - Jane Sibbery

I don't believe that the (at least) two catholic priests this cardinal is stating ought to be protected from the criminal law could possibly have been unaware that their behaviour was neither normal nor ok. Recovering from that kind of experience as a child must be very challenging. Probably endlessly so. But a lot of people with a history of child abuse might find the theory that part of what they need to recover from (as well as their own pain) is a latent desire to hurt others in the same way they were hurt, a tad slanderous. But just say (as might well be the case) there is statistically proven link. And just say that link can be proved to be causal, as opposed to an indirect link via another (actually causal) factor, such as genes. (As far as I know, no such evidence exists.) That wouldn't make it not a crime, which is what this catholic cardinal is saying. In the eyes of our own criminal justice system (which unlike the catholic church has a very well formulated policy towards punishing sexual offences against children) it is not even a "mitigating factor". The fact that you were abused as a child does not entitle you to a reduction in your sentence. And forgetting secular penal authority, what moral code is this bloke applying when he says, if it happened to you first, you had no choice and are not to blame/ responsible? Is that moral code also going to excuse a man from a charge of GBH or murder if he proves he has a gene for aggression, that makes it harder for him to control his temper? Or excuse a fraudulent banker who pleads that his father was a Walter Mitty character who failed to give him a stable model of personal integrity? If you are going to get all relative on the (quite possibly illusory, but socially indispensable) concept of free will, that's where you'll end up. And like I said, the hypocrisy of a bloody catholic cardinal taking this relativistic stance is breathtaking . What other crime would a catholic cardinal seek to suggest should not be punished because the perpetrator cannot be blamed for the way he is, and "therefore" (it doesn't even follow) for the things he does. This is someone who peaches that unbaptised humans burn in hell for the sin of Adam. It's a perfect bloody example why religion and religious leaders should not be credited with any special moral authority/wisdom. This is just another religious leader spouting whatever crap suits.

Bring Me Sunshine - Brenda Lee

Walk on the Wild Side - Lou Reed

Driftwood - Travis

I see your point (although do not understand - to any degree - the mother you describe) but it really was not his point. He was talking about established paedophiles who should not be held criminally accountable because they had themselves been damaged. The BBC quotes him as talking about at least two priests whom he knows, who have abused children, but whom he believes to have been abused themselves as children: "Now don't tell me that those people are criminally responsible like somebody who chooses to do something like that. I don't think you can really take the position and say that person deserves to be punished. He was himself damaged." This is just more evil cover-up/grant them amnesty crap. It's also a pretty incoherent concept of free will/choice/human agency which lets child rapists off if "they were abysed too", but condemns the human race to hell for original bloody sin. Just can never get over the power this self-interested, make it up as it suits you institution continues to have.

Miss You Nights - Cliff Richard

Of course people who have an urge to rape children do not have minds in apple pie order. Of course it's sick. But to say it is not a crime??? Penal policy in this country is very clear that the urge to fiddle with kids (or the tendency to act on that urge) is not an urge/tendency which can be treated.

Thank you Otta.

Cardinal Napier of South Africa, is this 's name.

"We believe that the adult entertainment industry should be just that: for adults only. We support a system that requires internet users to opt in to view pornographic websites. We support proposals by the online video regulator to urge banks not to process payments for websites that let children see pornography." Dudley, you say you are pro opt-in for under 18s only, and that this marks you out from Mary Whitehouse. I checked, and as per the above quote, the website linked to your OP does not make the same distinction. It wants universal opt-in. How on earth do you have a system of opt-in Internet access which only applies to kids anyway? Seriously. On top of all the technical problems Huguenot describes, how would this central censorship machine know to switch itself on whenever a minor touched a keyboard? I am not being rhetorical; I want to know what you are proposing. Who is the "online video regulator" whose proposals you support? And what measures would enable banks to reassure themselves that children were not accessing pay-per-view porn sites? (A completely futile measure even if enforceable, since heaps of hard porn is free online.) To be clear about where I am coming from, I can't say I'm all that thrilled about the idea of 10, 11 and 12 year old kids watching hard core porn either. I don't believe that there is a simple link between such exposure and rape, but there doesn't have to be for me to feel that way. But unless you can answer the above questions satisfactorily, it's obvious: we can't prevent young people watching porn. "Circle jerking" is not an unfair description of what you are doing. I'm not knocking your instinct to protect. I share it. It's just, like it or not, Huguenot is right that the way you are proposing being protective is misguided. More than that: it's part of the problem you are trying to solve. You say Dutch liberalism won't suit the uk because we have a more "hyper-sexualised" culture overall. Could you entertain the possibility that THOSE two things might be linked? I write in all sincerity when I say this: if you truly want to reduce or destroy the negative influence of pornography on the young, introduce an element of pornographic literature to their formal education and get them thinking about it/critiquing it with adult teachers. "The youth is to be respected." If adults, parents, educators, law makers would only remember that one rule, we wouldn't go too far wrong.

According to "Today", one of the cardinals who elected the new pope has just come out and said: paedophillia should not always be treated as a crime. But as an illness, requiring treatment, not punishment. *^>>>>~}~~

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > WM you say you are not making a big thing of it > being crap, but it does > seem to be a big thing for you.I think i'd be more > worried my conceern would > cause confusion. I'm sure you said earlier you've > discussed things whilst reading it. > Your children will encounter many gender > stereotypes in life and meet people who have been > abused, but as children the innocence of liking a > story, without > having to think of all that shit, should be > celebrated. I have not made a big deal of it bring crappy TO MY DAUGHTERS (not shouting, can't do italics). A big deal, to them, would be hiding/removing the book, refusing to read it. I haven't done those things. Yes I made a comment a couple of days back. It didn't confuse them. Everyone is allowed their own tastes/thoughts in this house. My 2 year old knows that Mummy doesn't think that much of this book. My comment hasn't stopped her from asking me to read it each night since Monday, nor from enjoying it herself.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ending discrimination > for me is an end in and of itself. Liked.

Wild Wild Life - Talking Heads

Tillie I'm not in the ban and censor camp either. If I were, this book would have vanished on Monday. My 2 yo old picked this book out for herself at the library. I'm not making a big thing of it being crap, as I don't want her to feel like she shouldn't like whatever she likes. And the library would be no fun if they couldn't choose their own stuff. We have lots of Cinderella at the moment, all if it pretty shite. Askew's version is by no means far-out. It's typical. It's only the explicit comment/question at the end which marks it out.

I agree about mothers being role models for girls (and boys?) but you can't ignore thousands of years of tradition of story telling as a means of communicating values to children. And to make this point for me, at bedtime tonight I read (again!) the version of Cinderella which inspired my OP: Amanda Askew's work (i use the term loosely) in which Cinders is particularly meek and forlorn looking. I noticed for the first time this evening, right at the back, a page entitled "Notes for Parents and Teachers". There is then a list of questions for discussion. The last question states: "Cinderella is hard-working and is rewarded by the Fairy Godmother. Ask the Children what jobs they could do at home and what rewards they could receive." I kid you not. There is absolutely no spin, no satire, no angle on the modern-standard version of the tale in this book. Take it from me, where the question says, "hard working", read "obedient domestic slave". (It's straight up, unpaid labour with "nothing but scraps" for Cinderella to eat and in which "only when evening came was she allowed to sit for a while by the fire, near the cinders".) For "reward" read (of course) "a frock and a husband" (whom there is no reference to Cinder's actually having wanted or asked for). If Cashewnut, I and others are in a minority in believing that fables/mythological stories of this kind carry moral and social messages, it is at least a minority which includes the publishers of this book. The message, "scrub the floors and you'll live in a clean house" I wouldn't mind. This book was published for the first time in 2010.

He certainly looks a bit like Morrisey. Still think Jim Jeffries is way superior. Saw a clip of him being heckled at Edinburgh. Bloke shouted, "I've seen better than this." "Course you've seen better you thick [c word]. I've seen better. I watched a Richard Pryor video the other night and I was [f'ing] depressed." Which reminds me that I must get hold of some Pryor as I really don't know him at all.

Echo what Reren says about sharing the house. Au pairs do not generally want to sit around watching tv with you in the evenings. We never saw ours at the weekend at all. Everyone is apprehensive about sharing, and then everyone says its fine, or even enjoy it. I also do not think your job description would be too much for an "au pair plus" (?100 a week). But you might need to be a bit flexible with the cleaning - au pairs normally want to attend language classes in the day. A dedicated cleaner for a few hours per week might fill the gap?

midivydale Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "can I be a feminist and a stay at home Mum? > > Hell yea! > It is about freedom of choice! I have just > returned to work this week after a year off with > my son. I am heartbroken. If I had the option to > stay at home I would do so in a heartbeat and > would most def not see myself as any less of a > feminist. In fact, I hope that we are all > feminists in our own way working to teach our > children about equal opportunities. 100% agree with this. It is also possible (in fact, very easy) to be a working mother and buy into a fairly unreconstructed mindset of what a woman should be and what her duties are. Feel your heartbreak Midivydale! How many Kleenex a day are you on?

Thanks radhabee. My 2.5 yo presented me with this to read to her last night: http://www.amazon.com/The-Princess-Pig-Jonathan-Emmett/dp/0802723349/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top It's very good. Very funny. And quirkily rationalist. (Everyone comes up with a different supernatural explanation for the same freak accident.)

As in, the clip you get if you google "youtube Mintys Comedian of the Month May 2007"?

Best physical comic, Robert Webb: http://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=comic+relief+dance&tnr=21&vid=445682103113932526c2794d426bd342&l=108&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DU.4935639929585990%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcomic%2Brelief%2Bdance%26docid%3D4935639929585990%26mid%3DCA5EFD873D6F8507908BCA5EFD873D6F8507908B%26view%3Ddetail&sigr=146d468b1&tt=s&tit=Robert+Webb+performs+What+a+Feeling+-+Let%26%2339%3Bs+Dance+for+Comic+Relief+...&back=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.search.yahoo.com%2Fmobile%2Fs%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dcomic%2Brelief%2Bdance%26first%3D1%26_tsrc%3Dapple&sigb=12ltontlg Best stand up, Jim Jeffries. Worst in both above catgories, Michael Macintyre

Maybe the church is so venal, no one towards the top of the heirachy is unimplicated in villainy of some kind. Maybe this appointment was not sheer stupidity. Maybe this guy was actually the best candidate.