Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have just witnessed my first non-competitive sports day, and am devastated. I was expecting my hyperactive, can't-sit-still-in-the-class-room-long-enough-to-learn-much daughter to ace all the races, jumps and other sports events, as usual, but no.


The bloody fat-arse, sitting-playing-computer-games, neeky kids have ruined her one chance to shine by whining so much when they don't win anything, that sports day is now NON BLOODY COMPETITIVE!


I'll be more than happy to have sports day as non competitive if they do the same with SATs and GCSE's, in the meantime, let my daughter be better than the other kids at something will you!!


Title changed from "What the F**k is a non-competitive sports day??!" - The Administrator

Hasn't it been that way for years now? I thought it all kicked in a couple of years after I left school ('91).


Apparently Brown wants to scrap the non-competitive onsense as he instils victorian values in the country, very 21st century!!


Mind you it's the geeks who are all uber-competitive playing counterstrike and wii bowling.

She does Taekwondo and dance and swimming and climbing on everything taller than her, but that's not the point.


She now has no way of showing the brainy kids that she is better than them at something, so they will leave school thinking they are the bees knees, when they aren't.....ok... maybe that's the whole idea!


Tony Blair was crap at sports, and hated feeling inferior to anyone, so he's reconstructed all the schools with posh or neeky kids in, in such a way that their superiority will never be called into question.


Now I've got it.


"Mind you it's the geeks who are all uber-competitive playing counterstrike and wii bowling" - exactly! The only competition allowed now, is on THEIR terms!!

It's true I was raring to leave the other parents in the dust, but it's more than that.


It was my daughter's time to kick ass too, and that was cruelly taken away from her by adults who probably lost every race they entered at school or felt intimidated by kids bigger and stronger than them in an age when brains wasn't worshiped as it should have been (in their eyes - not mine!).

But what about over zealous academic parents making our lives a misery. Why is academic competition something to be applauded, but sporting competition something to be avoided?


Because the people deciding this crap are academic, not sporty.

I for one am glad CWALD has re-found her feisty setting ;-)


Isn't one of the arguments for non-competitive sports days (and I'm not saying I'm for them) that the reason people get so competitive and ruthless in the workplace is that they are (or were) encouraged to compete at an early age - so if we take that competitiveness out of them in school it will lead to a nicer world etc ?? Maybe that was just one of the arguments


And if I was in CWALD's shoes this morning I would be fuming too - I would run 'em all into the ground ;-)

I also agree that it is stupid PC gone mad stuff - I didn't make that clear in my posting.

I was jumping up and down and saying "you won you won" when my son won his 'non-competitive' race in the infants' school, to disapproving looks from some other parents (parents of the losers ha ha), they did have actual races just nobody acknowledged a winner, I think that's worse. I wasn't going to ignore his victory.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of Smoke Control law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, AFAICS, the "civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300" were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all per se, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...