A note from an old curmudgeon.

Following an internal link in Lynne Murphy's excellent Separated By A Common Language blog I found the post from November 2007 about the differences between British and American autumnal traditions. I read it with interest because I am one of those who consider Halloween to be a "nuisance or menacing form of begging". It's a good, well written article in a recommended blog, but I'm not sure that she isn't missing something important.
Halloween isn't celebrated here the way it seems to be in the US. (I've never been in the US at this time of year and can base my view only on things I've read or seen on TV.) If it were celebrated here like that, with groups of supervised children in colourful costumes going from house to house trick-or-treating, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. I certainly wouldn't. The trouble is not with perception it's with experience. What we have where I live (near to Wolverhampton) is quite different to these benign festivities. This year has been very peaceful. A couple of times we had kids at the door. Both times it was a pair of unsupervised older teenagers whose costumes consisted of a pair of plastic fangs (in one case being held in his hand rather than his mouth) whose mumbled "trick-or-treat" definitely sounded menacing. It was also clear that what they wanted was money not sweets or chocolate.
In previous years it's been similar though more prolonged. They have sometimes started more than a week early and come to the same houses with the same attitude several times. Personally I just tell them "No" and apart from the odd bit of rubbish on the front lawn not been bothered by "tricks". On the other hand, my Dad is almost ninety and he feels very menaced by anyone coming to the door, people demanding money are especially worrying for people like him.

The attitude of the adults here towards Halloween isn't driven by some kind of general antipathy, it's driven by their experience. Maybe if schools or youth clubs organised and supervised larger groups of children with better costumes* we might take to it more kindly.
Maybe not, but it's probably worth a try.

(*and no, I don't think anyone would mind a Spiderman, Gypsy or whatever costume.)

I'd advise checking a dictionary

There's been a lot in the news this week about Professor David Nutt.
For anyone who doesn't know he's a Government advisor on drugs who has been asked to stand down (that is "sacked")* after offering the advise that ecstasy is not as dangerous as horse-riding, cannabis should be downgraded and alcohol and tobacco are worse than LSD.

His advice may or may not be good. What's caught my ear about the piece is his reaction and the reaction of those using the incident to criticise the Government. They have constantly implied that there is something wrong with getting advice and not taking it. He, and others, have paraded across the TV screens, saying that there is no point in paying an advisor to advise if you are not going to follow the things he comes up with.
Surely this is nonsense?
Ten different advisers might give ten different answers and you can't follow them all. The purpose of advice to inform you of the range of opinions and options, to give suggestions and guidance. It's up to you whether you take them or not. It's very rare that I agree with anything that comes out of Jacqui Smith's mouth but on Question Time she said "an advisor's job is to advise, a government's job is to decide", and for once she was absolutely right.

To anyone who thinks that advice is somehow binding, I'd advise checking a dictionary.

(*Incidentally, also contrary to his post-sacking remarks and those of his supporters, he wasn't sacked for giving advice that they didn't like, he was sacked for going on television and into the press criticising the Government policy after they had said they wouldn't be taking his advice - in short, for publicly bad-mouthing his employer, something that would get most of us sacked.)

Time for a rethink on the CRB process?

A serious post on a serious subject for a change.

Let's make a couple of things clear from the start. I'm a teacher, I have regular Criminal Records Bureau checks, I think CRB checks are, in the circumstances that they were originally intended for, necessary, useful and important things. I have, as I've said before, a few issues with the ways they are organised and administered but none whatsoever with their existence or their use.

Things are changing though. Over the last few months there has been a drip-drip-drip of stories coming through that have seriously undermined the whole CRB process.
First there was the story that writers, poets and anyone visiting schools would need to be CRB checked even if they were supervised for the whole time they were there. Personally I have no particulr problem with that, though many of the writers and poets seemed to, but it started the ball rolling on the stories.
Next came the story of the two women who looked after each other's children when they were on opposite shifts. They had been close friends for many years and trusted each other completely. They were, though it isn't actually relevent, in responsible jobs (as policewomen) in which they would already have been CRB checked. They were told that their arrangement was illegal and that in order to look after their friend's children they would need to be CRB checked as child-minders or to pay to put their children into nurseries to be looked after by strangers.
On the back of that we had a lot of press stories about how this approach to child safety meant that you can't look after your friends kids or your neighbour's kids for more than a very limited time each day, how kids sleeping over at a friend's house would be illegal, about how the rules, if applied in this way would put an end to school exchange trips and so on.

Earlier this week another new story came through. It was suggested that many more employed adults should be required to undergo enhanced CRB checks just in case they ever come in contact with children.

Now comes the news that Watford Borough Council has banned parents from entering play areas with their own children and that only council vetted "play rangers" will be allowed in to supervise the children's play.

This is an unpleasant and pernicious process of extending the scope of the CRB checks. Why don't we simply extend it to cover every adult? Why don't we set up enforced exclusion zones where every adult who fails a CRB check is forced to live segregated from any possible contact with children? Why don't we ban anyone who fails the check from becoming a parent and take the children away from any who already have them?

If you don't think the answer to those questions is obvious then heaven help us all. We don't do those things because they would be ridiculous, unworkable nonsense.

The problem is that these extensions to the scope of the CRB are just as ridiculous and unworkable. The checks are gradually encroaching into areas where they were never meant to be applied and the result is that with every new story they lose credibility. My CRB checks, and those of people like me, are important. I work in an environment that is full of children and vulnerable adults. It's important that I can be trusted with their welfare. These constant news stories undermine the value of the checks in the circumstances where they should be applied.
To suggest that you need CRB checks to look after your own kids is tantamount to suggesting that if you fail those checks you shouldn't be allowed to have the kids in the first place.

It's time to call a halt to the misapplication of the checks and the misinformation about them. Watford's case is basd on a misunderstanding of the law. Parents don't need and CANNOT get a CRB check because you can't apply for it yourself. Its applied for by your employer.

The whole scope and organisation of the CRB needs to be looked at. It needs to be returned to its original purpose of ensuring that people who routinely work with children and vulnerable adults can be trusted to do so. These oddball extensions need to be stripped away from it.
Common sense needs to prevail.

***

And that concludes this serious post. The frivolous stuff will be back soon.

How to talk to a salesman

Sitting here composing something to post on a message board I was interrupted by a knock at he door. It was a double glazing salesman. We already have double glazing throughout the house, a fact that clearly hadn't escaped his attention.

The conversation went like this.

"I hope you don't mind me asking but how long have you had your double glazing?"
"I do"
"Er, pardon?"
"I do"
"Do what?"
"Mind you asking."

Funny, he seemed rather nonplussed by my answers. I can't think why, they seemed logical enough to me. When he finally caught my meaning he asked, presumably in an attempt to engage me with humour,

"You're not going to hit me are you?"

He didn't stay much longer when I replied,

"Depends how persistent you are."

And how many is that exactly?

The sign at the rapid checkout in my local supermarket reads "about twenty items or less". As I waited in the queue I started to wonder exactly how many that is. It isn't the use of "less" that I object to, though I know some who might. I'm just wondering about that "about".

To me "about twenty" might be eighteen, it might be twenty two. Others might disagree with the specifics but I think most would agree that it includes a few above and a few below twenty.

It doesn't combine well with "less" though as I'd take that to mean 1-20 but not 21 or 22.

How would others interpret this unusual phrasing?

Curved Air at the Robin

Sonja Kristina may well be rather more Rubenesque than she once was. She may well dance about the stage like somebody's slightly mad granny after an afternoon at the cooking sherry. What's undeniable though, is that her voice is every bit as powerful as when I first heard Curved Air more than thirty years ago.
Maybe even more powerful.
Of course, with the exception of Florian Pilkington-Miksa on Drums, none of the other performers on stage at the Robin last night were part of that band - in spite of the name on the tickets. Darryl Way was billed to perform but was kept away by ill-health and replaced by Paul Sax on violin and Robert Norton on Keyboards. Chris Harris and Kit Morgan completed an excellent line up on bass and lead guitar.
None of which matters. What matters is what they sounded like and they sounded superb. Paul Sax made a particularly impressive figure on the violin but nobody put a note wrong all night in a set bursting with nostaligic favourites.
I came away wishing I'd never got rid of my albums when I had my big vinyl clearout a few years ago.

Be careful what you wish for

So, it sounds like thirty seconds of ringing, ten seconds of silence, thirty seconds of ringing, ten seconds of silence repeated until the building is empty and the alarm turned off.

At least it does when someone breaks the "in case of fire" glass.