Vagueness and the Aftermath - A sporadic diary

[RED-DOG]

Click to see full-size image.

I bet you think that's funny....

[tikay]

Wait till you see how much I've piled on. Your turn to laugh then.

[RED-DOG]

Wait till you see how much I've piled on. Your turn to laugh then.

Lol. When I opened your pic I laughed my socks off.


Remind me to tell you a story about Mr Pickles.

[Karabiner]

I've pinched an old photo from Twitter too - a famous sporting event:

I believe this was the world marbles championship just in case anyone was wondering..

[tikay]

I've pinched an old photo from Twitter too - a famous sporting event:

I believe this was the world marbles championship just in case anyone was wondering..

Forgot all about that one, though I'd never have guessed where it was. Aided by your clue.....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_and_World_Marbles_Championship

Click to see full-size image.

[The_nun]

Against the odds we arrived at the theatre with time to spare so we so we sat near the door in the bar so that we could people watch.

People watching is one of our regular pastimes. It's amazing what conclusions you can draw from the way they dress and the little snatches of conversation as they go by. Our favourite one of the night was from a boho type lady in her 40s to her more conventionally dressed friend: "....I like it, but after half an hour it makes my back ache...."

One of the men that came in was a snappily dressed black man, he was, at a conservative estimate, at least 6ft 4in tall and his hair seemed to defy gravity. I laughed and Mrs Red asked me what was so funny. "I'm just just thinking about the boor bugger who manages to get sat behind him" I said with a smile.

I wasn't smiling 20 minutes later. (What are the odds?)

Click to see full-size image.

Fortunately there were a few empty seats, (Probably no-shows because of the floods) so we managed to move to where we could actually see the stage.





The show was 'The Pyjama Game' a musical based on the 1953 novel 7½ Cents by Richard Bissell.

I like musicals. Whoda thunk?

About 15 minutes in I noticed that the man playing one of the main characters had a right arm that was totally useless. it was quite wasted and just hung at his side like a rag but he was incredibly talented at animating it using his other hand. For instance he would throw it around a girl's waist and then hold it in place just like an embrace, and when they danced she would hold it up and twirl and it looked like he was holding her hand up.

I spent a while admiring the way the man with the crippled arm dealt with his disability and how unselfconscious he was about it, and then, I'm sure he would be pleased to know, I forgot all about it and just got on with enjoying the show.







Unneeded MOT sweeter for test man: £10

Meal at Prezzo's 2 for 1 courtesy of Meercat: £30

Theatre tickets to Pyjama Game: £34

42 years with Mrs Red: Priceless!

Love it. Happy belated anniversary both. Xx

[Doobs]

Scotland to ban smacking.

I'm as big an opponent of child abuse as you are ever likely to find, but I think being unable to discipline your children will ultimately cause them more pain than the occasional smack on the bum.


I mean, what do you do if your 10 year old decides to paint your car and kicks you in the shins whilst shouting fuck off every time you try to stop him?

What if he keeps putting a plastic bag over his little sister's head when you are not looking?

What if your 5 year old keeps trying to stick hair-pins in the plug sockets despite constant warnings and explanations about the consequences?

We almost never got a smack because we knew the threat of it wasn't empty. If my dad said, "Don't do that or you will get a smack" it was simple, we didn't do it.

Everyone has to learn what reasonable behaviour is, whether they start as a child or an adult.

The argument against smacking children says that they should be afforded the same protection as an adult, but guess what? Parents aren't responsible for adults and the courts won't deal with your child if he jumps off the sofa on to the cat's head.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49908849

I think the biggest problem with the idea of hitting children to control them is - it doesn't work.

For example, with your idea of a 10 year old like that- do you think it would be likely that would be the first time they've ever misbehaved like this and responded violently to a reprimand? Because I would assume it wouldn't be, and if that's the case then surely the previous response would have been to also smack them. If it didn't alter their behaviour before, why would it by doing it again?

There might be more of a case for it altering behaviour for younger children, but it won't necessarily alter it in terms of making them stop doing dangerous behaviour - it might just mean they do the same behaviour and make sure you're not watching when they do it. So the consequence actually makes it more dangerous for them.

As Doobs suggested - for every situation that can be controlled by smacking, there's always a better alternative way of doing it.

I think we kind of agree Jon. The discipline, and we're talking a light smack and a stern tone here, not 'Hitting' is usually over by the time the child is old enough to reason with.

NB Sometimes the reasoning might include the phrase, "If you don't behave, I'll kill you"

I think, as Doobs alludes to, the problems start when parents smack children because they are angry.

Consistency is key.

I don't think Jon is agreeing with you, as he doesn't think smacking your kids consistently is key, he was pretty clear that he thought not smacking your kids was key.

Do you think they should set the law based on how a perfect parent would smack their kids* or how the other 99% of parents smack their kids?  I really don't see how this perfect smacking parent would need to worry too much, as I can't see people getting charged for minor taps on the bottom in the near future.

FWIW I am not sure threatening to kill your kids is a great idea either, or that there is a distinction between smacking and hitting (though the switch wasn't deliberate in my original post).  

*Assuming there is a perfect way to smack kids.

[RED-DOG]

It's a huge and complex discussion Doobs. As you say 99% of parents won't be perfect smackers but then 99% of smackers won't be prosecuted.

I just think this type of legislation is nothing more than PC gone too far and if it does anything at all, it will target good conciecious parents as far more than it will spiteful or sadistic ones.

[nirvana]

The idea that a parent should never lose their temper with a recalcitrant child places too high a burden on a parent. If this translated into an occasional smack or hit then the idea of this requiring external intervention is obviously ridiculous.

Not bothered too much about bans if it makes people feel better to ban something.  I do know that not one child who is about to be chastised, hit, smacked will avoid that fate as a result of a ban

As we all know, voice, attitude, tone, verbal bullying, nagging, controlling, ignorance, shows of impatience etc etc are all just as likely (arguably more likely) to cause harm than the odd smack

[RED-DOG]

The idea that a parent should never lose their temper with a recalcitrant child places too high a burden on a parent. If this translated into an occasional smack or hit then the idea of this requiring external intervention is obviously ridiculous.

Not bothered too much about bans if it makes people feel better to ban something.  I do know that not one child who is about to be chastised, hit, smacked will avoid that fate as a result of a ban

As we all know, voice, attitude, tone, verbal bullying, nagging, controlling, ignorance, shows of impatience etc etc are all just as likely (arguably more likely) to cause harm than the odd smack

I'm consumed with eloquence envy. (Or should that be BY eloquence envy?

[Doobs]

The idea that a parent should never lose their temper with a recalcitrant child places too high a burden on a parent. If this translated into an occasional smack or hit then the idea of this requiring external intervention is obviously ridiculous.

Not bothered too much about bans if it makes people feel better to ban something.  I do know that not one child who is about to be chastised, hit, smacked will avoid that fate as a result of a ban

As we all know, voice, attitude, tone, verbal bullying, nagging, controlling, ignorance, shows of impatience etc etc are all just as likely (arguably more likely) to cause harm than the odd smack

I'm consumed with eloquence envy. (Or should that be BY eloquence envy?

Saying not one person will change their mind is patently false.  That suggests there isn't a single person who will respect the law.  Like drink driving and seat belts, all the change won't be immediate, but disobedience of the law will reduce over time, and over time it will become more frowned upon.    Looking at current support for corporal punishment in schools, it is pretty clear that people's attitudes to that have changed over time; so why wouldn't this law affect people's attitudes to corporal punishment in the home?  If only 10% of parents comply, or if it only leads to a partial reduction in spanking and/or more aggressive hitting then that is a better result than not doing anything.  I don't expect masses of prsecutions.

Are people really arguing that showing impatience is more harmful than smacking kids?  Does that apply in adulthood too?  All the times I have shown my displeasure at someone's timekeeping or a missed deadline, it would have been much better for their mental health if I had just given them a quick smack on their arses?  I would love to see how that works out in the office. 

[nirvana]

The idea that a parent should never lose their temper with a recalcitrant child places too high a burden on a parent. If this translated into an occasional smack or hit then the idea of this requiring external intervention is obviously ridiculous.

Not bothered too much about bans if it makes people feel better to ban something.  I do know that not one child who is about to be chastised, hit, smacked will avoid that fate as a result of a ban

As we all know, voice, attitude, tone, verbal bullying, nagging, controlling, ignorance, shows of impatience etc etc are all just as likely (arguably more likely) to cause harm than the odd smack

I'm consumed with eloquence envy. (Or should that be BY eloquence envy?

Saying not one person will change their mind is patently false.  That suggests there isn't a single person who will respect the law.  Like drink driving and seat belts, all the change won't be immediate, but disobedience of the law will reduce over time, and over time it will become more frowned upon.    Looking at current support for corporal punishment in schools, it is pretty clear that people's attitudes to that have changed over time; so why wouldn't this law affect people's attitudes to corporal punishment in the home?  If only 10% of parents comply, or if it only leads to a partial reduction in spanking and/or more aggressive hitting then that is a better result than not doing anything.  I don't expect masses of prsecutions.

Are people really arguing that showing impatience is more harmful than smacking kids?  Does that apply in adulthood too?  All the times I have shown my displeasure at someone's timekeeping or a missed deadline, it would have been much better for their mental health if I had just given them a quick smack on their arses?  I would love to see how that works out in the office. 

Are you mantis in disguise. Love the analogy with adults in an office

[Pokerpops]

The idea that a parent should never lose their temper with a recalcitrant child places too high a burden on a parent. If this translated into an occasional smack or hit then the idea of this requiring external intervention is obviously ridiculous.

Not bothered too much about bans if it makes people feel better to ban something.  I do know that not one child who is about to be chastised, hit, smacked will avoid that fate as a result of a ban

As we all know, voice, attitude, tone, verbal bullying, nagging, controlling, ignorance, shows of impatience etc etc are all just as likely (arguably more likely) to cause harm than the odd smack

I'm consumed with eloquence envy. (Or should that be BY eloquence envy?

Saying not one person will change their mind is patently false.  That suggests there isn't a single person who will respect the law.  Like drink driving and seat belts, all the change won't be immediate, but disobedience of the law will reduce over time, and over time it will become more frowned upon.    Looking at current support for corporal punishment in schools, it is pretty clear that people's attitudes to that have changed over time; so why wouldn't this law affect people's attitudes to corporal punishment in the home?  If only 10% of parents comply, or if it only leads to a partial reduction in spanking and/or more aggressive hitting then that is a better result than not doing anything.  I don't expect masses of prsecutions.

Are people really arguing that showing impatience is more harmful than smacking kids?  Does that apply in adulthood too?  All the times I have shown my displeasure at someone's timekeeping or a missed deadline, it would have been much better for their mental health if I had just given them a quick smack on their arses?  I would love to see how that works out in the office. 

Are you mantis in disguise. Love the analogy with adults in an office

I can think of a number of workplaces where a spot of spanking would have been an encouragement to miss deadlines rather than a deterrent.

[RED-DOG]

Now here's a conundrum. We'll it's baffled me, perhaps one of you know the answer.


See the dwarf conifer below? Well while I was cutting the hedges I noticed that a frond/branch from one of the leylandii had fallen in to it.

Click to see full-size image.

When I tried to pull it out I realised that it hadn't fallen in there, but was actually growing from the dwarf conifer.

On close inspection it's sprouting from the trunk just like all the other, regular branches.

Anyone with half an eye can see that this branch is alien to the rest of the tree. I can't think of a rational explanation.

Click to see full-size image.

[Doobs]

Women and MOTs continued.

A couple of weeks ago, she had to take the car in for an MOT, and asked me to check the tred on her tyres, as they felt a bit funny when she drove. 

So I look at them and said they look ok, maybe a bit more worn at the sides.

The car passed its MOT two weeks ago.  She has just rung me up and asked me to check her tyres again, as they still feel a bit funny. 

"But it passed its MOT, and they know better than I do if the tyres are too worn."

"Look up the 20p test on google and do that when I get home, I don't want to drive it if the tred is too low". 

Me  

I haven't much idea on the tree either, but could the conifer have had a damaged trunk and a bud from the laylandi fell into the damaged crack?  or was carried there by a bird or animal?  It isn't something I have come across