Musings of a 21st Century Stay At Home Mum

Fade to Grey

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Tue, 14 Oct 2025 11:07:00 +0000

Hot on the heels of "The Century of the Self"—of which they are its ultimate product—millennials have sought to redefine Western society as a kinder, gentler upgrade. To their credit, they have crafted a narrative that aspires to transcend the hard-nosed world I grew up in, substituting the communal support systems that once kept society turning with a benevolent ‘Good Samaritan’ ethos, rooted—perhaps unconsciously—in a Judeo-Christian moral framework. This is particularly striking given their generation’s public rejection of faith.

Education has been reimagined in an inclusive, outward-looking embrace of both those we know and those we don’t—a final renunciation of the self-serving, archaic narratives best left to the distant past. Few would disagree with such humanist generosity of spirit: respect for all, acknowledgement of past faults, and aspirational intent for the future. Yet how has a narrative so well-intentioned given rise to the self-flagellating tribalism now fracturing Western society? How can an educated critique of the past produce so bleak an offering for the future?

This, I think, is the fundamental problem we face: the complex issues we have identified in the world cannot be solved with despair—they demand hope. And if we cannot instil that hope in the next generation, we rob them of agency; and in doing so, we condemn ourselves to extinction.

I’ve wondered whether this refusal to engage with nuance arises from fear. Deprived of the social belonging once offered by community—a deficit only deepened by the pandemic—we all hunger for meaning and allegiance. The isolation imposed by lockdowns intensified this loss, but also introduced a more insidious moral dimension. By conflating identity with opinion, it ushered in a new era of identity politics—one that operates as a moral as well as a political creed.

This moral polarisation of opinion also arises from detachment—ironically, the very form of subjective judgment we have long sought to eliminate. As human interaction has migrated online, we have recreated systems of judgment, only now with different allegiances. Deprived of personal knowledge or nuanced understanding, many form loyalties on the basis of superficial messaging and shared condemnation. I'm reminded of the Facebook posts from friends supporting Palestine, Trans rights and the NHS, based more on weaponised empathy than accurate messaging. Because what we fear most is being seen as unworthy, uncaring and unkind.

How is this a problem? Surely these are desirable human qualities? Tragically, this badge-engineered kindness helps no one. In a busy world overconsumption of slick messaging has replaced diligent, detailed scrutiny. Forget rainbows and diversity, we've created a world in which only monochrome is acceptable. Yet without better appreciation of the grey areas in any discussion - which is where intelligent, informed debate resides, we place ourselves in grave danger of manipulation. Inaccurate messaging, the distortion of reality and appropriation of concern is as useful to authoritarianism now as in the past.

A clear example can be seen in the ‘Free Palestine’ movement, presented as a moral crusade. Powered by Qatari funding and deploying Soviet-era tactics, it harnesses a sophisticated social media presence to mobilise activists seeking moral belonging in an increasingly chaotic world. Yet rather than providing practical support for the marginalised, such campaigns primarily exist to satiate the hunger for moral virtue among their followers. The ease with which Western activists repeat slogans without consulting primary sources—or even glancing at Hamas’s own charter—illustrates how rhetoric has replaced thought. Some historians have long argued that the PLO itself was conceived as a KGB destabilisation project, designed to weaken pro-Western Arab states such as Jordan and Lebanon, transforming anti-Zionism into an exportable revolutionary cause. The same playbook—destabilise, divide, demoralise—is now being executed across the West, this time with hashtags instead of Kalashnikovs. The consequences are plain to see: mounting division, confusion, and unrest. None of this is accidental.

Whether the fault line is Gaza versus Israel or illegal migration versus 'racism', we must remember the world is never that simple. Corporations and authoritarian regimes spend vast sums shaping public policy, and our willingness to capitulate to them is both polarising politics and deepening division. There exists an entire spectrum of reality and opinion on these issues; to assume people are either right or wrong, good or bad, according to their views, is both ignorant and dangerous. It is, in fact, entirely possible to support Israel while condemning specific operations in Gaza—and to recognise that the situation is far more complex than a simplistic narrative of genocide.

Likewise, one may believe in the necessity of migration, welcome refugees, and still acknowledge that illegal migration poses social, economic, and national security challenges. If we are genuinely fearful of dictators and the so-called ‘right wing,’ we must wake up to the fact that figures like Putin and extremist movements play a long game. Their goal is to divide us, to erode national identity, and to weaken the cultural cohesion on which democracy depends. Patriotism should not be mistaken for nationalism.

The current array of performative allegiances is, moreover, intellectually incoherent. Many are weary of this moral theatre, and silencing them by branding dissent as racism/fascism/cultural elitism only fuels genuine extremism. Every person who amplifies this polarised rhetoric contributes, however unwittingly, to the rise of Trump, Farage, Meloni, and their ilk. These are mainstream issues, and they must be discussed—openly, honestly, and without fear.

We have allowed ourselves to inhabit a black-and-white reality, persuaded by the illusion that our only power lies in moral allegiance. Our instinct for kindness and empathy—noble qualities born from our own historical reckoning—is now being weaponised against us. Any reader of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four would recognise the warning: this was both predictable and predicted. It is time to talk again—to reconnect with the world as it is, rather than skim its surface in search of simplified choices. Only by reclaiming nuance, curiosity, and genuine dialogue can we hope to rebuild the trust and humanity we have so carelessly abandoned.

Fade to grey.

Why the Church of England is Failing Women

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Tue, 28 Jan 2025 20:42:00 +0000

The place and position of women within the Church of England, both within the clerical hierarchy and their accepted status within the wider congregation has been a controversial subject since the Reformation. Indeed, the Reformation in England was essentially institutional change to accommodate the needs of a man; women were incidental to its form and function, and it was never intended to accommodate women. The role of women in this patriarchal religious world has been to gauge orthodoxy, whilst defining their proper roles has been the focus of numerous church councils, theologians, and religious authorities. (Ruth Adam : "Reclaiming the power of women in the early church.") The early church focussed on the biological functions of women - capitalising on pre-existing pagan fertility worship which celebrated the fertility of the land and people, and the union of the divine masculine and feminine. Mary as the Mother of God was central to Catholic worship and women's subservient roles as procreators and carers were reinforced, a model acceptable to traditional pagan societies. Yet there is plenty of evidence women played a key evangelical role in the early church, albeit informally. (Smith : Women & their Roles in Early Christianity")

Image from Mikail Duran on Unsplash

Small wonder that association of power and maleness led many women who aspired to play an unorthodox role to jettison their femininity, believing the patriarchally enforced myth that femaleness personified weakness. So powerful has this association been over the passage of time that this process is still played out in the West today with a powerful element of gender in eating disorders, and anorexia in particular. Certainly for female sufferers, arresting female development is exerting control over one's body and for many teenagers, whilst this might have little to do with their personal views on their femininity it feels the only part of their lives they have any control over. By losing weight, a girl loses her femininity. She androgenises herself. It is a deep and fundamental rejection of what is female and feminine, embracing the asexual and often masculine, whether intentional or not. Female hormones are no longer produced as body fat is depleted and curves vanish. Menstruation stops and the figure remains or returns to looking boyish. There is considerable evidence of women deliberating doing this in history. Female "anchorites" in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period used self starvation as a means of gaining a foothold in a male-dominated world, their views and opinions were given a level of credence otherwise denied to women at the time.

The fundamental difficulty with women in the C of E is that their role, position and function has always been a male problem. Right from the scribing of the Book of Genesis, women were considered secondary to men, Eve's sin a female problem for men to bear - and indeed for mankind. Femaleness does not sit well within a fundamentally male institution. But how does one solve a problem like Maria?

As Rev'd. Martine Oborne wrote in 2022, sexism is alive and kicking in the CofE: -

"In 2014, with great fanfare, women were finally allowed to be bishops as well as priests. But, in almost complete silence, provisions were then made so that parishes who didn’t accept female vicars and bishops could avoid their ministry. And this situation remains."

Source : WATCH (Women and the Church)

Women now account for almost of third of all clergy, but research initiated by the College of Bishops identified more barriers to the ordination of younger women than their male counterparts. However as in wider society women are more acceptable when their role and purpose (fertility and reproduction) is obvious. Victoria Smith's book "Hags" eloquently expands on the challenges faced by women beyond their reproductive years, challenges mirrored within the church where ageism seems to only apply to women, their role in senior leadership is still woefully out of date.

Women and their participation in the CofE is still viewed as a problem to be solved, something to be managed. But perhaps it's time to reverse-engineer from the obvious solution - women have so much to offer the church, how can we solve the issue of male domination? This may seem obtuse, precisely because the church is fundamentally patriarchal. But does it need to be? Jesus would arguably have had an even more challenging time on earth as a woman, it certainly served God's purpose to take a human male form since the church was founded at a time when women had no voice.

Beyond the role of women in the clergy, the CofE also struggles with the role of women in the congregation. The church seems capable of all manner of mental olympics to accept the Trans agenda, the ultimate hypocrisy in which the body God gives us can somehow be unacceptable and would seem to challenge God's divinity. Or perhaps it is a modern expression of androgenisation, today's anchorites who acknowledge yet reject the anachronistic place for biological women? Many in the CofE miss women who knew their place - neatly behind men, in a supportive role. This is of course a problem for a generation of women; women who have had opportunities, a sniff of equality and a life beyond the mundane. Women who are having to sit back whilst men steal female spaces and rights, the “new women” who believe the female sex is merely a cloak of feelings & identity.

Congregations today are largely composed of the older generation - post-retirement and beyond, and a new influx of millennials. In 2023, 36 percent of people that were regular attendees of Church of England services were aged 70 or over, with just under half being aged between 18 and 69, and 18 percent being 17 or younger. (source here) Much has been made of the growth in attendance of the younger age group, but the most important statistic for me is the failure to retain and involve middle aged women. Women like me. Women who have tried to participate at grass roots level beyond domestic assistance and failed or who have been side-lined.

Because what the CofE really wants, is a battalion of silent, domesticated support. They miss the women of the 1970s, the WI contingent who unquestioningly signed up for the flower rota, the Sanctuary Guild and those who made coffee and cake. The unpaid "staff" who knew their place and left the thinking to the men. The problem is this anachronism doesn’t fit with parity in choirs, women priests, or celebrating difference. It's as if the Church of England is having many different conversations in separate rooms to keep as many people happy as possible. The noise is deafening, but few are listening.

Why Christianity must not lose faith in its past.

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Sun, 25 Feb 2024 13:46:00 +0000

I admit I struggled conceiving of a suitable title for this article. A faith which began over two millennia ago is likely going to be firmly rooted in the (very ancient) past, and having thus far stood the test of time surely it's pretty future proof? Yet in recent years the Church of England has demonstrated an alarming trend towards denial of the fundamental founding principles of our faith, with a kind of apologetic embarrassment leaving us with a "Christianity-lite" offer. Whilst wonderfully convenient and less controversial, this is becoming further and further removed from where we ought to be. A collection of books compiled over a period of five thousand years by a people in transition as the foundation of faith would not seem to offer an obvious modern handbook for the future. Except ironically it can and it should.

What is holding Christianity back- and specifically the Church of England, is its insistence that creating a modern veneer for today’s worshippers can offer a new, relevant representation of the faith fit for today. I personally feel this is selling out; an enduring ethos and way of life should not need a shiny new wrapper to ensure its survival. It’s not how Jesus operated and it misses the fundamental point of our faith; that superficial acceptance of the world we live in is not the way forward. Standing up against the tide, however difficult, is the only option when following Jesus.

Christ Driving the Money Changers from the Temple

Benvenuto Tisi da Garofalo (c.1481–1559)

I might not be a Biblical scholar, but I'm pretty certain Jesus was a revolutionary- from overturning the moneylender’s tables in the Temple to riding a donkey through the side gate into Jerusalem in contrast to the Roman Governor arriving in pomp through the main entrance to the city. These are not the acts of someone hoping to go along with the status quo to achieve acceptance, they are confrontational acts designed to precipitate strong feelings. Jesus did not choose the easy path, he chose what he believed to be the correct one- and yet today convenience and acceptance triumphs daily in the CofE. The mental gymnastics required to avoid "offending" any person or group whilst simultaneously remaining relevant is astonishing. Ironically this is precisely what Jesus objected to; it is fundamentally UNChristian to avoid challenging something immoral, unethical or which causes persecution. Worse still, they have confused seeking justice and speaking out with persecution, in collusion with a "woke" agenda seeking to subvert society.

Religion and leadership thereof should not be a popularity contest, and the dependence on political acceptance is a dangerous path. Since the Reformation the Church of England has been unequivocally linked with the State, through the monarch as Head of the Church. In its infancy it is easy to see why political acceptance was essential, given the monarch's power over the Church. But those days are past and King Charles prefers to be considered "Defender of Faiths" with little real involvement in the affairs of Parliament. One could argue that our bishops play a more active role than the monarch within the legislature as members of the House of Lords. As active politicians who don't require election it beggars belief that they don't feel compelled to be more Christian - more Christ-like even, and speak out more often on controversial matters. Worse still, the Church is not only blind to compromise and conflict of interest but actively condones it. Anglican priest Paula Vennells was shortlisted for Bishop of London whilst Chief Executive of the Post Office, her application supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby.

Where was the voice of the church when buildings were closed during lockdowns? Whilst the pandemic presented opportunities as well as restrictions for congregations (which I wrote about here) the church fundamentally failed as an institution during this time; permitting self-serving compliance with both reactionary public policy and selfish fear to override their raison d'être. There was always a middle way, and this golden opportunity for relevance was missed. Similarly, where is the voice of condemnation against the Trans agenda? The silence is deafening. Perhaps the insidious homophobia which is an intrinsic part of Trans ideology is morally convenient for the Church, along with the denial of women's rights and spaces. But acceptance of a body which is God-given is surely taught multiple times throughout the Bible. From the trials of Job, the barrenness of Elizabeth, to the identity of Jesus we are told being a Christian is not meant to be comfortable. Or convenient. Acceptance that we are merely instruments of God, with a wider role to play in society is unassailable and an obsession with the self, with identity and appearance surely misses the point?

Faith is never supposed to be easy, or comfortable. We might include "Comfortable Words" in the liturgy, but they are intended to bring comfort to those finding their chosen path a trial, to offer support to Christians who struggle with what is asked of them, vital words to the Body of Christ (us) to reassure and convince. And absolutely not to make us feel safe and cosy.

My generation has perhaps enjoyed the longest ever stretch of peace and prosperity in Britain, and misinterprets this as an excuse to avoid confrontation. We do this at our peril, because tacit acquiescence of problematic events and developments only precipitates future conflict. It also dilutes the relevance of the Christian faith today. Of course there are fundamental tenets common to all the mainstream faiths but love and respect for others is not the same as avoiding opportunities to speak out against evil, hatred and persecution.

One of the most beautiful anthems we sing at our church is Phillip Moore's setting of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's prayers. A German pastor and theologian, Bonhoeffer met his end in a Nazi concentration camp in April 1945 just a fortnight prior to the camp's liberation by the Allies. A staunch opponent of Hitler's regime, Bonhoeffer faced condemnation as a pacifist and state adversary as early as 1936. Following his arrest in 1943, he endured two years of imprisonment, with his fate sealed when documents surfaced in 1945 exposing his close ties to the German Resistance. Unlike the Pope who preferred to avoid direct confrontation with Hitler to protect and preserve the Catholic Church in Germany, Bonhoeffer remained constant in his convictions. Challenging authority is not without risk, and I am not advocating we all become revolutionaries. What I do firmly believe is that connecting with what being a Christian really means involves occasionally speaking out, refusing to blindly accept something which appears wrong because it is more convenient to keep quiet, or avoiding difficult choices for fear of becoming unpopular.

Perhaps a degree of confusion over our responsibility for speaking out stems from the claim that “the meek shall inherit the earth”. However the true meaning of the word "meek" is perhaps not humility, but strength or power that is under control. It's about appropriateness and responsibility, meekness before God. King David was not meek before Goliath or the enemies of Israel, but chose meekness in front of Saul. There is a time to speak, and a time to be silent. Trusting in God does not absolve us of our personal responsibilities, and sitting on the fence between two difficult positions is surely unChristian? Erecting such a fence from which to sit and cast judgement is blatant hypocrisy.

What I believe we desperately need is a crash course in “Back to (Christian) Basics”. To peel off the comfortable veneer & reassess our place in the world because the patronising avoidance of conflict is suffocating. We need more bishops like Dr. John Sentamu; and we need to listen and connect, rather than indulge in introspection. This week the resistance of Alexei Navalny has been celebrated the world over. I have no idea if he had a faith, but I strongly suspect Jesus would have related. And whilst Jesus is our Shepherd, the “lamb” analogy does not necessarily mean we should be passive. “For we, like sheep, have gone astray…” and need to re-evaluate. What we need is constancy, within the frame of reference taught for millennia.

TRANSferring responsibilities

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:22:00 +0000

I've had many discussions with my teenage children about society's current obsession with gender ideology. They are as baffled about it as most adults. For their entire lives they have felt marginalised and excluded due to restrictive prescription diets, debilitating gastrointestinal symptoms and associated anxiety. So, you'd be forgiven for assuming that they were passionate about recognition for all. Except that is exactly what they do indeed want, but in a less individual way. They are well-placed to understand the difference between acceptance and belonging, versus the current "ME, ME, ME!" craving for individual recognition. Real acceptance has nothing to do with labels, with foisting your beliefs, sexuality or preferences on others. It comes from doing away with labels and focussing on what really matters - personality and belonging.

The Noughties saw the rise of the individual to stratospheric levels. Born of the 1980s, the Century of the Self was not, as Adam Curtis suggested, the twentieth century, but merely a product of it. Its parents were affluence and independence, but the coming of age of self-centred existence was without doubt the year 2000. Millenials who became parents had an entirely different focus from generations before, most had more time and money to lavish on their offspring, subscribed to the philosophy of indulgent pandering to their every whim with the justification that disposable income was to be disposed of. The long term ramifications of this went unnoticed at the time.

Children saw their status and needs - individual needs - elevated beyond reason. Schools started to see even children from supportive, educated families behave badly as they expected lessons to be exciting and thrilling. Learning for learning's sake went out of the window, as children became totally reward driven. Even OFSTED expected lessons to be exciting, as learning for the sake of itself had all but vanished as the currency of attainment became devalued. But self esteem receives no boost from this reward system, and children have little control over it. There is no endorphin rush from the process and no sense of real achievement.

This lack of goal motivation in a world of instant gratification has had an enormous impact on our mental health. Too few "see the point" in striving or working for something. Their echo chambers tell them the answer to this profound unhappiness lies within the individual - because after all hasn't their entire life been about them, rather than their place in a wider society? Cue the panacea of obsessing further about themselves, and descending into the trap of "gender dysphoria" in a perfect storm of fake news, misinformation and ignorance about the real world. Heartbreakingly, children are better connected than ever before, but have never been more lonely. The pandemic accelerated this trend but it was already happening https://www.familyzone.com/anz/families/blog/our-kids-more-connected-yet-lonelier . This makes them exquisitely vulnerable to the media's outpouring of "solutions", offering answers entirely disconnected from the cause of their pain.

This descent into instant gratification permeated adult lives too. Brands seized the opportunity to invent reasons to buy. If you could offer something unique for every occasion, gender, age then you are going to increase sales. We've seen family Christmas pyjamas, holiday-specific T shirts, hoodies for every stage of school - and every sports team. If you can define it, you can sell it.

In many respects, the society of the late twentieth century showed positive signs as it neared it's close. The 90s movement in young adults saw a hugely positive campaign for gay rights with recognition of "feminine" boys and "masculine" girls, suggesting for a while that society was finally growing up. However our obsession with labelling, defining and putting kids in boxes has since taken us on a toxic journey from when children were children, to now identifying every like, action and choice as gender-based.

Gender branding permeated society with even colouring books stating a preference. The impact on aspirations was soon evident though, with significant negative effects on those it excluded. For example, the number of girls taking STEM subjects in school plummeted after a promising couple of decades where women had begun to stake their equal claim to maths, science and technology. By the early 2000s brands realised they had a problem. Having polarised childhood into pink and blue, they had left many children out, and needed more options. Campaigns such as "Pink Stinks" and "Let Toys be Toys" robustly advocated for those excluded from the pink and blue camps, as I discussed here. . But the logical endpoint of that realisation is surely the acknowledgement that everyone is different, and that no one can be accurately or narrowly "labelled" or defined?

But instead of accepting narrow identification as too exclusive, unrepresentative and not fit for purpose - certain groups decided to capitalise on it and increase the number of options. No box for you? Let's create another box! At the last count I believe we have 79 "genders".

This was seized upon by young people who had felt constrained by unrealistic gender descriptors available to them. My youngest son summed up this dilemma quite well only recently. "Many people my age rejected the extreme options of pink and blue. Adults forgot to tell our generation that there were more than two options for representing male and female… They removed their choice and chance to be themselves & so young people have created new options."

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

My children say so many of their peers dislike the roles offered by a generation they don’t relate well to, and feel constrained by. To be fair that's nothing new. But whereas previous generations responded with external rebellion- now it’s all internalised. Similar to Anorexia, gender identity is the new body control. People can identify as whatever they want with the world of social media endorsing this obsession of the self, where image is everything.

Photo by Alexander Shatov on Unsplash

So our social media addiction has compounded a labelling conveyor belt and children today are taught they must choose their gender, and that preferences can direct this choice. It's unscientific, misinformed and we have permitted a fringe ideology to take over. Stonewall used to support gay rights, now it pushes both these and women's rights to the margins. It is a nasty, intolerant, abusive cult. Children who haven't entered into puberty cannot know their sexual preferences for certain, and no child should be lied to about biology, or have certainties ripped from under them. We've created a generation of insecure, depressed and anxious children, parented by an over-indulged generation who genuinely believe they have the answers to society's ills. What we need is universal acceptance, which ironically necessitates an end to judgement, labelling and coercive control.

Sadly there is little sign of common sense or intelligence prevailing. Brands believe they are "saving us" and care nothing for the outrage when trans "women" advertise products such as bras and tampons. Driven by this need to obsess about the individual the Trans campaign for "acceptance" has become a crusade to infiltrate women-only spaces and destroy decades of progress for feminism. Not even men stealing women's sport is sufficient to wake people it up it seems. The very definition of sport is fair competition, which is why there are so many categories in the Paralympics. Much of the drive to push the Trans agenda comes down to funding. Stonewall has a trans billionaire offering grants to schools, universities and businesses who promote it, pushing for ubiquitous use of pronouns, gender neutral toilets etc. But changing language which was intended to describe factual detail to pander to anyone's sensitivities is absurd. "He" and "she' are not optional descriptors, they inform and communicate about scientific fact. Identity is intrinsic. Demanding control over other’s perceptions and speech & attempting to alter material facts & shared language — which, unlike their thoughts/feelings, are not their exclusive domain — is not about identity.

Photo by Alexander Grey on Unsplash

The Trans agenda is regressive, it's anti-women, anti-LGB rights and denies the wonderful spectrum of humanity. It seeks to classify and convert - there is clear evidence that paediatric gender identity services amount to conversion therapy. LGB youth, particularly effeminate boys and masculine girls, are being pressured into falsely identifying as transgender, thereby “transing away the gay.” How can anyone believe this is progress?

As Konstantin Kisin eloquently said at the Oxford Union recently, the problem with this "Woke" culture is that it convinces our young people they are victims, without agency. We've taught them identity and image is their life goal, not education and attainment. We've encouraged them to focus on the very aspects of themselves which they have little control over, precipitating a mental health crisis. Surely it's time to admit we have taken the wrong path? It's certainly time to resume our responsibility as parents, teachers, and adults. We've indulged young people long enough.

Child Protection - or Protected by Children?

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Mon, 24 May 2021 11:21:00 +0000

As the UK continues to roll out it's impressive Covid vaccination programme, you could perhaps be forgiven for thinking you could drop your guard, focus on the future and leave the strings of control in the hands of those elected to take care of us.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Such is the progress on reducing deaths and cases of Covid that we are in danger of falling into the "Zero Covid" trap, a false goal with enormous costs for society, notably for the young. On social media, this impossible, undesirable goal is promoted by Independent Sage; a hard core, left wing extremist group of scientists who have an impressively big voice right now. Given that their very existence is questionable as Covid ceases to become the threat it once was this it is perhaps understandable. Indeed they are now having to crowdfund to continue their "work", so it's understandable they need to shout loudest. But I believe they have become victim to the very fear they have created & promoted, and this fear risks causing untold damage to society, and the younger generation in particular. Some, like Deepti Gurdasani have persistently clamoured for children as young as five to be masked. She has constructed detailed infographics detailing measures schools should implement to contain the threat children posed - in any other time she would be investigated by social services as the fringe radical she is, her brand of fabricated illness and the demonising of children is extremely disturbing. As a lecturer in machine learning, it beggar's belief that people have given her air time, responded and permitted her to escalate fear, but it fits with the current narrative and has been permitted to continue unchecked.

The deliberate control of the population by inducing disproportionate levels of fear has been written about by Laura Dodsworth, in a highly readable book "State of Fear". It's a concern Lord Jonathan Sumption, former Lord Chief Justice, has voiced many times- that we are sleepwalking into authoritarian control based on false legitimacy from the premise that government decisions are for our benefit. Driven by the fear and panic deliberately created by government we have acquiesced to a level of control over our lives previously considered the remit of authoritarian regimes like Russia and China. Even SpI-B, the behavioural advisory subgroup which reports to SAGE have admitted the excessive use of fear to control the population was regrettable and "totalitarian", yet still it continues.

Now once again the Zero Covid brigade are focussing on the "threat" posed by children, or more precisely the escalating number of positive tests for the Indian variant in school children in the official report from Government this weekend . But there are numerous problems with viewing the positive tests reported in Bolton and other areas (where the Indian Variant is a concern) as "cases" and even as threats, and plenty of well qualified scientists are pointing this out far better than I could. My issue is CONTEXT - or complete lack thereof, and the implication of this obsession over "cases" in children.

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Context

First, as an anonymous molecular biologist working in the Moderna labs points out, all 300 000+ variants of Covid known to us respond to our vaccine arsenal. ALL of them. The WHO backs this up, as do many recent scientific reports. Even the PHE data on the Astra Zeneca vaccine demonstrates that a single dose offers more protection against the Indian B.1.617.2 variant of Covid than any flu jab does for flu. The variant has been known in England since March 23rd 2021 and as Meaghan Call points out England's case numbers for B.1.617.2 have been persistently flat, with only a few minor outbreaks. Context matters.

Second, the vulnerable have had two jabs already. Most of them weeks if not months ago.

With the vulnerable largely protected, it is imperative that we appreciate the context here and remember a) how we got to this point, and b) where we hope to be in one, five and ten years time. In March 2020, although there are many criticisms which can be levelled at government (Jonathan Calvert and George Arbuthnott's book "Failures of State" is the best summing up of the entire sorry tale) one luxury no decision maker really had was time. We DO have some now. And given that lockdowns have caused 282 times the loss of life years than it saved, we owe it to society to get it right!

Any society is judged by how it cares for the weakest. The children & the elderly, the disabled & vulnerable. Quite honestly, when Judgement Day comes those doing the judging won't look very favourably on the Covid pandemic years. Compulsory discharge policy to care homes & a failure to ascertain how they operated led to widespread infection and high death rates. Many perished from sheer loneliness, or have reached such a desperate state whilst incarcerated away from loved ones. Loneliness kills. The NHS knows this, although the page on loneliness where this was stated has been conveniently replaced with bland advice relating to Coronavirus. Of course it has - because that's currently all government and many in society appear to care about.

Photo by Alex Boyd on Unsplash

As for the young, the statistics from the recent Children's Society report makes sobering reading. "Generation Covid" have had to deal with school closures, not seeing friends, youth unemployment, climate crisis, and face uncertain futures. In the last three years, the likelihood of young people having a mental health problem has increased by 50%. Now, five children in a classroom of 30 are likely to have a mental health problem. That's 1 in 6. That is a crisis for 'years to come', as lockdowns have put children under 'unprecedented' levels of distress. Covid legislation also suspended SEND law, meaning students like my son had no further support, and dropped out of college; and families with disabled children have been shamefully neglected since last Spring. (Special Needs Jungle is an excellent resource if you need support around areas of SEND and disability.)

50% of all mental health problems start by the age of 14
75% of young people with mental health problems aren't getting the help they need
34% of those who do get referred into NHS services are not accepted into treatment

Those that are, face lengthy waiting times. A three day "urgent" request from a GP to the "Emotional Wellbeing Hub" for triage is currently a seven month wait. And that's just for triage. The Hub was created to artificially reduce the statistics for CAMHS, whose waiting times were considered unacceptable a few years ago. The Hub can be accessed by anyone, with professional referrals carrying no more weight than a parent's. Unfortunately creating additional layers in an already over-stretched and dysfunctional system doesn't improve outcomes for anyone, least of all desperate children.

Of course, this is not a situation totally down to Covid. I wrote about the persistent transfer of adult anxieties on to our children, and the impact it is having in 2018. But after the past year and a half the situation is desperate. I wrote this then, but it resonates even more now:-

"The irony ... is that we are micromanaging our children's .... because we ourselves feel helpless. Unable to control the world we are bringing our children up in, we transfer our anxieties onto the next generation. Borne out of adult insecurity because we ourselves cannot control the worrying trends in society."

The cavalier way children are discussed in the media really alarms me, and bears little relation to the facts. Michael Absoud, Clinician and Clinical academic pointed out this weekend that 7 day case rates in England and Wales have actually dropped by two thirds since schools opened on March 8th. And testing has gone up 54% to achieve the current results in Bolton, which will increase both positive and negative results. Yet local school closures are once again being discussed. Health economists CM Whaley and Dr. Neeraj Sood, the authors of a study on transmission in schools were dismayed when it was used to demonstrate school closures were necessary, when they believed it demonstrated the opposite. At national level longer school days and optional summer schools have also been proposed to help our children "catch up" on time missed in school, as if they are somehow empty heads needing filling - not small humans who have been collateral damage in an adult world. We've all seen the photos of children sat in solitary circles away from their friends in school, in lines 2m apart; prevented from accessing outdoor play areas despite there being little or no evidence of spread outside. We've become obsessed with data - but selective data, taken entirely out of context.

Young children often see each other as an extension of themselves, and any Reception teacher will tell you how frequently they need to remind their small pupils that their friends need their personal space. Touch is so vital for us all, but fundamentally essential for children. It's not an "optional extra" in development, close proximity to others is essential. Covid is not a threat for the vast majority of young people - their isolation and neglect has been solely for our own protection, and in theory, that of the vulnerable. In suppressing Covid via lockdowns we may also have created a health emergency for the young. Respiratory viruses are predicted to surge as our freedoms are restored, which disproportionately impact the very young.

Then there is the question of vaccinating under 18s. This presents a huge ethical dilemma, since under 18s are not, on the whole, at risk from the disease. We would be enrolling them in what is still a clinical trial of vaccination to reduce cases in order to protect adults. Our children would in effect be human shields for our fears. Fears which have been exaggerated, propagated and perpetuated to induce cooperation and control in a relentless obsession with a disease for which the average age of death is above the average life-expectancy. Historically, adults have protected their children. Put themselves in the firing line so their young can survive. Shamefully the adults of today are showing just how selfish they are. True children of the eighties, the "me first" generation have become so divorced from reality they have lost the ability to assess risk, protect the vulnerable and see the bigger picture. How ironic that this is also the generation so obsessed with "Child Protection", perhaps that should now be children for protection.

If this doesn't sit well with you either, then now is the time to act. The younger generation deserve better, they have given so much over the past year, a youth agenda is the only way forward. After all, they are the generation of tomorrow, something we claim to be collectively focussed on.

Photo by Jan Kopřiva on Unsplash

It's time to put our children FIRST, and I don't mean in front of us, like a shield.

Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill

The coronavirus pandemic has shown we need more long-term thinking and planning in Government. The ‘Wellbeing of Future Generations’ Bill, if passed into law, will help tackle threats such as the climate crisis, poverty, pandemics, head on. It will force policy makers to consider the next generation - and those which follow - when reacting and managing. It will hopefully, reduce the knee-jerk "crisis management" which has become the hallmark of British politics, and promote long term, sustainable thinking. It's a step in the right direction.

Now is the time to make a long-lasting, positive change for current and future generations. Together, we can create a better tomorrow. Support the Bill and email your MP today to ask them to attend the virtual parliamentary launch of our report, on Wednesday 30th June at 2pm, to support the #futuregenerations Bill.

COVID-19; a reality check.

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Sun, 02 Aug 2020 15:10:00 +0000

The weekend before lockdown, we were all isolating at home, suffocated with the panic our media were propagating and utterly paralysed by fear that one or more of us would be dead by the end of the week.

Photo by Tonik on Unsplash

My birthday (also Mother's Day) was a day to remember, for all the wrong reasons. Our youngest son had been unwell with a bad cold, slight temperature and really stingy, painful eyes. Nothing major - like a mild flu. He has reduced immunity so it was all very normal and the sneezing was not a feature of COVID-19. Then his 18 year old brother got sick - and this was different. A temperature of 41C which wouldn't budge on paracetamol, mild cough and shortness of breath. By day 3 - Mother's Day - he was coughing up blood spatters and with his eccentric droll sense of humour he was drafting his final words.

Except it wasn't funny at all.

We had to call 111 that night, it took FOUR HOURS to get an initial response, which turned out to be from an advisory team only. We'd picked the wrong option on the initial call. (This was infuriating, since we picked the "concerned about COVID" option, which we very clearly were!!) Another THREE hours later we got a call. Yes it sounded like COVID, despite the fact that with ASD, ADHD, OCD and anxiety he never left the house. (Even more odd the only other person in the family who was ill was his younger brother - yet we've all heard that children can't pass this on to adults.) They offered no advice, except to call back if we were concerned and they would call an ambulance. By this point we had figured you either needed an ambulance or you didn't, and we would be calling 999 not 111 if we did, since no one could wait that many hours for emergency care!

I didn't sleep for three nights, I barely ate. I have honestly never been so terrified, utterly convinced I was going to lose a child. Three days later he asked for pizza, and we knew he was over the worst!

In retrospect, our panic was not in line with the level of threat before our eyes. Our anxiety fed that of our son's and he also believed he could die. And as the country waited with bated breath our government seemed unable to plan for the epidemic coming our way and we gradually lost all perspective. We lost our comprehension of relative risk, convinced we are all going to die without extreme measures and government control.

I'm not scared now. But I am very, VERY angry, and I think you should be too.

It's understandable that a new disease would precipitate extreme caution, and promote fear of the unknown. But governments the world over - and especially ours here in the UK - have clung to modelling which has been proved to be wrong time and again, listened to "experts" who have been discredited a significant number of times in spite of clear research and factual information saying otherwise.

This is akin to rigidly sticking to the weather forecast and forgetting to look out of the window!

The modelling
Neil Ferguson from Imperial College, London based his modelling in March on the Foot and Mouth epidemic modelling he used in 2007 - where he also got it badly wrong. It’s one thing modelling and predicting, but when the view outside your window is sunshine you cannot keep forecasting torrential rain. He advocated contiguous culling, which cost the farming industry between £1 and 2.4 billion, was later deemed unnecessary and contradicted the available information at the time.

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

In March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code at the end of April, after a six-week delay. The public have NOT been told this clearly - yet Ferguson's modelling was the reason our government initiated lockdown.

So the decision to go into lockdown was based on panic precipitated by a discredited epidemiologist who was so wide of the mark in other circumstances it would be quite hilarious. Worse still, a steady stream of chaos and government incompetence has continued since.

Lockdown
We locked down our country's residents, yet kept the borders open. 1300 vectors of disease entered the country during the last two weeks of March! There is some evidence that lockdown has not helped and that given the delay from spread to peak it was too late to achieve anything. Certainly no country which locked down has avoided the now all-too-familiar "curve" and the only country in Europe which seems to have managed the disease effectively is Sweden. Their economy and services have remained intact, have not been overwhelmed and whilst they will suffer from the wider European recession have come out of this remarkably well.

Lockdown was enforced on the premise that we were "saving the NHS" and "Flattening the curve". The former was quickly disproved, with hospitals deserted except from busy COVID wards in some parts of the country. I have friends who are consultants who have had little to do for months, and are deeply concerned about the long term impact of deferring non urgent care. We haven't saved the NHS anything - we've postponed 90% of care and will now not have the finances to address this new crisis. Waiting lists are rocketing and the suspension of chronic illness and non-urgent care has created a ticking time bomb in our health service.

Lockdown itself has contributed significantly to the number of excess deaths according to the British Medical Journal. They estimate only ONE THIRD of excess deaths are clearly attributable to COVID 19. There is evidence people avoided seeking treatment during lockdown prompting doctors to plead publicly to encourage people to seek help. We literally "saved our NHS" by dying at home.

There is increasing evidence lockdown is actively killing people.The government now estimate the long term impact of lockdown will cost 200 000 lives. The mental health impact of lockdown is also considerable with the Royal College of Psychiatrists disclosing that people with no history of mental illness are developing serious psychological problems for the first time as a result of the lockdown, amid growing stresses over isolation, job insecurity, relationship breakdown and bereavement. They state that adults and children are having psychotic episodes, mania and depression, with some taken to hospital because of the heavy toll on their mental wellbeing. Even the NHS website states that loneliness and isolation actually kills people yet our government has failed to recognise this appropriately!

As for protecting the elderly, we had direct experience of the fiasco that was the one hour clinical discharge policy and the impact of no visitors. My dad with advanced dementia was sent to hospital with no advocate, no idea why he was there, then sent to a Covid ward “in error”. Then, in line with a government policy I have now seen they attempted to compulsorily discharge him to a care home he’d never been to- we were so lucky to learn this by accident and get him home.

Statistics - the context
But what irritates me most is the daily quoting of statistics with absolutely no provision of context. In England, roughly 10 000 people die every week. The range varies from around 9000 to 11 500 but is pretty static. Any excess over this range is viewed as "excess death" and this is the indicator for an unusual event happening which is impacting society. It doesn't specify causality, just numbers of deaths. Did you know 2017/18 had 49 410 “excess deaths” due to swine flu? Most of us carried on as normal, oblivious. Our economy continued to thrive and we did nothing to shut the country down. And once you account for the fact that many excess deaths are believed to have been caused by lockdown, and not COVID 19, that total is in fact higher than the number who have died from COVID in 2020 in the UK. Yet we’ve destroyed our economic future and will have no resources to pay for any future “curve”- and those who will suffer most are least at risk due to a reliance on incorrect and flawed modelling and an over-reaction by government.

Photo by Laura Anderson on Unsplash

Then there are all those who have tested positive for COVID 19, and died months later of something entirely different. Public Health England count COVID deaths by checking all positive tests, then checking to see how many of those people are still alive. If they are dead, they are recorded as a COVID death - but you might recover then get hit by a bus 3 months later, but you would STILL be counted as a COVID death! Thankfully Matt Hancock has now ordered an enquiry into this but it just goes to show how the stats get inflated. Loughborough and Sheffield Universities have estimated that government COVID death stats exaggerate the total by 54-63%.

Similarly, emeritus professor of epidemiology Beda M Stadler has explained why those who have recovered from COVID can still sometimes test positive due to viral debris. It was this which led to the (now retracted) claim by the Korean government that there was evidence you could get the virus more than once. With increased and more frequent testing it is hardly surprising we are getting more positives, what SHOULD concern is admissions to hospital and the IFR - case fatality rate. These are NOT rising. (He also explains why it's not possible for asymptomatic people to be infectious - pain is one of the five cardinal symptoms of infection and at the very least a person would have a sore throat.)

Indeed, the "surge" in cases last month is likely attributed to the start of Pillar 2 testing, as explained by Carl Heneghan from the Oxford University's Centre for Evidence Based Medicine.

In an interesting article in the Spectator by Carl Heneghan also explains the specificity of testing which is often not mentioned, since focus is usually on sensitivity. Even assuming a high specificity of 99.9% the chance of accurately detecting the disease is actually below 50%, with false positives and negatives. As the prevalence of disease falls and false diagnoses increases this rises, and with current testing practice it's actually possible the disease would never disappear due to the persistence of false positives! (The article is free for three months and makes for an interesting read.)

Masks
Regarding the wearing of masks, there again we are being offered limited and frequently conflicting information. Even the World Health Organisation page on masks is inconsistent and still states:-

At the present time, the widespread use of masks everywhere is not supported by high-quality scientific evidence, and there are potential benefits and harms to consider.

Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash

Studies by one membrane specialist at Eindhoven University found that while the coronavirus particles are caught by an electrostatic layer in medical masks, they can penetrate bigger pores found in cotton and even vacuum cleaner bags. Dutch scientists have decided the information on face coverings is limited and contradictory, and their government have decided not to enforce the wearing of them after review by the country's National Institute for Health. There is more here, where it's noted that COVID 19 particles are only 0.06-0.14 microns, about half the size of most viruses and too small to be blocked by fabric masks and even some medical masks. Curiously, while cloth masks and face coverings are far less effective for blocking respiratory droplets, the WHO recommends that cloth or non-medical masks "should only be considered for source control (used by infected persons) in community settings and not for prevention". Alarmingly, social and political reasons are instead cited for mask wearing:-

Masks in Schools
One of the largest studies in the world on coronavirus in schools carried out in 100 institutions in the UK confirms “there is very little evidence that the virus is transmitted” there. Professor Russell Viner, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and a member of the government advisory group Sage, said:

“A new study that has been done in UK schools confirms there is very little evidence that the virus is transmitted in schools. “This is the some of the largest data you will find on schools anywhere. Britain has done very well in terms of thinking of collecting data in schools.”

Teachers are uniquely privileged, working with the only group in society with virtually no evidence of transmitting the virus and almost exclusively not at risk. The government is abundantly clear that pupils should not wear masks, yet still teachers' unions complain, egged on my social activists. There is also some evidence that immunity gained from exposure to colds further protects children since some immune cells that recognise coronaviruses that cause the common cold also respond to SARS-CoV-2. A letter from two consultant anaesthetists to the BMJ flagged up that every single discarded mask is a potential biohazard which should be disposed of like a hypodermic syringe. And whilst the medical "jury" is very much still out on whether face coverings are the best route forwards, Public Health England is absolutely clear that children should not be wearing masks in school - yet still the unions are pressurising the government to enforce mask wearing in children.

Source - Public Health England

There have also been NO EXCESS DEATHS in England for 5 weeks now. Which means yes, even accounting for lockdown caused and COVID caused deaths we are at normal level. Which is why it seems so odd that our government is only now enforcing face coverings and dialling up the fear factor again. In fact, recent data coming out of India suggests the CFR would not change without a lockdown. Whilst 57% of slum inhabitants tested positive for COVID, the CFR was no higher.

It’s been very hard work, but here are the results of the Mumbai sero-prevalence commissioned by @mybmc @NITIAayog and @TIFRScience, which @IDFCinstitute was part of. 57% aero-prevalence in slums, 16% non-slum, implying an IFR of 0.05-0.10%, which is incredibly low. https://t.co/IA7Ob78IiG
— Reuben Abraham (@nebuer42) July 28, 2020

Shielding
The shielding programme is also seriously questionable. It was initially proposed to protect the 15% of the population who were deemed "vulnerable", whilst the 85% achieved herd immunity. Yet it still happened despite herd immunity plans being abandoned. As the Guardian mentions here, shielding is often not possible due to multigenerational living, and isolating elderly people leaves them needing more visits and contact with strangers providing services a small family group may have previously provided. It actually increases you risk of exposure! This certainly proved true in our case. We were isolating thinking we had had COVID 19 and my parents had less care, both ended up in hospital, needed significantly more contact and were exposed to very real - and avoidable risks.

My kids all received shielding letters due to their reduced immunity. Thankfully, I checked with the government website and our GP - they had received letters erroneously, I simply dread to think of the adverse impact on my children's mental and physical health had I locked them up at home for 5 months, it doesn't bear thinking about. Then there's my elderly mum with severe atrial fibrillation who is the carer for my 92 year old father with end stage vascular dementia - she had been missed off! My eldest son only received his shielding letter in the last week of June, rendering it completely and utterly useless, but he has however had a call from the Leicestershire shielding service, where he is a student. The rest of us have not had any contact from anyone, and I have had to deliver all my mum's shopping throughout lockdown as she was denied access to the supermarket delivery slots.

Progress in treatment
We understand the virus better now too. It’s not a respiratory virus but a vascular one with respiratory entry. It causes massive hikes in clotting factors such as D-Dimer which can precipitate strokes and brain damage in a tiny minority. Certainly some people are at increased risk, with those who are overweight being most at risk. Better understanding also brings better treatment- we have literally been killing people by ventilating them, assuming it was poor lung function contributing to low oxygen saturation when it was in fact a vascular clotting issue.

So it's really time we got a grip and learned about this disease from the experts, not the politicians.

Photo by Habib Ayoade on Unsplash

As human beings we have to live with relative risk, there is a risk doing anything - crossing the road, buying a sandwich, flying in a plane - singing in a choir. Everything has a level of risk. Currently, for 99.3% of the population COVID does not present a significant risk. One thing you can be absolutely sure of though, whilst we are all so scared at home accepting this "new normal" this government will sneak through a No Deal Brexit, just as China is imposing harsh restrictions on Hong Kong and Russia is threatening Ukraine once more. Politicians always have an agenda, and rarely have a handle on what matters to individuals like you and me.

Boris Johnson is said to have exclaimed whilst driving through London:

"Where are all the people?"

He simply has no understanding of what he has created. A broken country which our children will pay to rebuild. With their physical health, their mental health, their education, their future careers and their economic wealth. We’ve destroyed our economic future and will have no resources to pay for any future “curve”- and those who will suffer most are those most at risk whose lives we might have done a better job at protecting.

History is irrelevant without context.

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Sun, 07 Jun 2020 18:46:00 +0000

My children are fed up with one of my favourite historiographical quotes, so apologies if you've heard this one before....

"A fact is like a sack. it won't stand up until you put something inside it." Pirandello.

Perspective is so fundamental to history, I would go even further.
Facts are irrelevant without context.

Today the Bristol Black Lives Matter protest saw a minority tear down the statue of Edward Colston, (a racist and a murderer by today's standards) and drag it to the river.

But Colston was a Bristol-born English merchant, philanthropist, slave trader, and Member of Parliament. He supported and endowed schools, almshouses, hospitals and churches in Bristol, London and elsewhere. His name is commemorated in several Bristol landmarks, streets, three schools and the Colston bun.

He was also a slave trader who made his fortune from the trade of human beings as commodities, and on reaching St Peter at the pearly gates, I've no doubt his deeds would have been considered carefully. In context.

Born in 1636, Colston lived at a the dawn of "Great Britain" during the reign of Queen Anne. As Wikipedia states:

"In 1680, Colston became a member of the Royal African Company, which had held the monopoly in England on trading along the west coast of Africa in gold, silver, ivory and slaves from 1662. Colston rose rapidly on to the board of the company and became Deputy Governor, the Company's most senior executive position, from 1689 to 1690; his association with the company ended in 1692. This company had been set up by King Charles II and his brother James, Duke of York, (later King James II, who was the Governor of the company), together with City of London merchants, and it had many notable investors, including John Locke, English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as the "Father of Liberalism" (though he later changed his stance on the slave trade), and the diarist Samuel Pepys."

Colston was a product of his time and status. And this was an entire century before the likes of William Wilberforce led their opposition to the slave trade; which was abolished in 1807.

How do you think 2020 compares with 1920? Pretty similar? I don't think so. Yet how many people think we can compare the actions of a person three hundred years ago with the moral standards of today?

You'd be surprised. The "holier than thou" attitude spreads faster than COVID-19 on social media.

Colston was actually in many respects ahead of his time - a philanthropist who sought to support his community. He was no saint, and judged by today's standards was indeed a murderer and racist - but that's just my point. We can't judge the past through the lens of today.

Churchill's statue has also been defaced today. A man who was able to see the "bigger picture", who refused to dwell on each individual airman he sent to his death helped us win the Battle of Britain. The man who led an Allied coalition us to a seemingly impossible victory in 1945. He was no saint, his WW1 record was pretty shabby and his views were unpopular even during his lifetime. He was a product of his time and social circumstances - but was nonetheless a man with much to offer our nation at that time in history.

As John Donne asserted - "No man is an island."

And whilst he intended this to mean that we are all interdependent, it is also true that no man exists in isolation in time.

We do not need to suspend opinion, or judgement to appreciate this. To the contrary our perspective is significant & vital! If Churchill, or Colston were alive today, they would be viewed very differently. But - and this is key - they would probably have BEEN very different also. Just as we are products of our lifetime - our education, family, social position, geography etc, so are all men and women of history.
There is no objective history, and no objective historical individual.
What perhaps disturbs me even more than the misjudgement of men dead for centuries, is the desperate virtue-signalling which clouds people's perspective of those who lived only yesterday. Twitter is awash with clips of Muhammed Ali, repeating his scripted comments on racism. Without even a quick google search "truth" is ascertained in isolation, and judgement flies out of the window.

Ali was perhaps an even more "toxic" individual than Colston. He preached strict racial segregation and advocated the lynching of mixed race couples.

“Black people should marry their own women,” Ali declaimed. “Bluebirds with bluebirds, red birds with red birds, pigeons with pigeons, eagles with eagles. God didn’t make no mistake!”

As the Boston Globe correctly recorded "Ali was many fine things. A champion of civil rights wasn’t among them. Martin Luther King Jr. at one point called him “a champion of segregation.” If, later in life, Ali abandoned his racist extremism, that is to his credit. It doesn’t, however, make him an exemplar of brotherhood and tolerance. And it doesn’t alter history: At the zenith of Ali’s career, when fans by the millions hung on his every word, what he often chose to tell them was indecent and grotesque."

So what led otherwise sensible consultants, journalists and politicians to share his scripted comments that served their purpose, whilst simultaneously applauding the tearing down of Colston's statue?

Context.

Because during a "Black Lives Matter" demo weekend all that mattered, in the heat of the moment, was being seen to be "on the right side"; and a black person was blindly flagged up as a saint whilst a long dead philanthropist was sent down the river. Literally.

HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING?

Skin colour must be irrelevant. Our humanity is what matters - in the eyes of God, family, society and the world. Just as Osiris weighed the souls of the dead on their way to the Underworld, so must we weigh up the deeds of those we seek to glorify or destroy. And that requires perspective.

History must be in context - a human context. No one is one hundred per cent good or evil. There is no black "antidote" to slave traders like Colston. The only way forwards is education; education and action with the value of hindsight.

And hindsight is a wonderful thing - and it only exists in context.

An emergent disease or a matter of convenience?

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Sat, 23 May 2020 18:51:00 +0000

Note:- This was written in 2018, but has bizarrely republished today. Worth a read - but in context!

Supporting, treating and establishing good practice for an emergent disease is never easy. It takes individuals and teams taking a leap of faith in trying new strategies, putting their heads above the parapet and bidding for funds for research to support new theories. This last is a gargantuan task - as I've stated previously on this Blog, less that 1% of all research funding goes on gastrointestinal conditions. Absolutely NONE goes on paediatric gastrointestinal conditions. Although eosinophilic disorders do indeed affect adults (my father has EoE) adult treatments are less controversial.

In the UK, few medications are licensed for under 12s. Tertiary level consultants can, however prescribe them - and many do, it's surprisingly common. But prescribing medication for an emergent disease in under 12s is VERY challenging, and should always be carefully monitored.

My Recipe Blog Stats bear out the fact that many come across the Recipe Resource looking for information on EGID - Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease. I therefore felt in particular I need to write something to give the little information those in the EGID community have to my readers.

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children is the tertiary referral centre for many who suffer allergic gut complaints, and have over the years established themselves as a centre of expertise on EGID, trying to define it, better understand it, quantify it and treat it. Because it is such a newly defined and controversial disorder even consultants at GOSH have not agreed about treatment and, much to the consternation of families, patients with very similar presenting symptoms have been treated in very different ways. Medications not licensed for EGID have been used to suppress symptoms very successfully in many cases, and attempts have been made to work with hospitals in the USA to research into this condition and underpin new treatments.

A few years ago I attended an APG seminar on EGID. It was hugely enlightening and hopeful. It felt we were heading in the right direction with our understanding of this newly defined condition. EoE is fairly well recognised, but EGID affecting the bowel less so. As a founder member of the GOSH Gastro Parent Network I decided to write this to help explain EGID to my readers.

The advice from APFED on EGID is pretty much unchanged:-

What Is an Eosinophil-Associated Disease? Eosinophils are a type of white blood cell and they play an important part of our immune system. Eosinophils help us fight off certain types of infections, such as parasites. They are named because of the characteristic microscopic stain that gives them a reddish color under a microscope. Many different problems can cause high numbers of eosinophils in the blood including allergies (food and environmental), certain infections (caused by parasites), eosinophil-associated gastrointestinal disorders, leukemia, and other problems.

However the situation in the UK is very, very different.

EoE is pretty non-controversial still in the UK, since there should be NO eosinophils in the oesophagus. Zero. But the threshold for diagnosis elsewhere in the digestive tract is less well agreed upon. Families have seen their diagnosis removed, replaced, or challenged as these thresholds change. Over the past two years close scrutiny has been given to the surge in EGID diagnoses and almost routine treatment of symptoms. A "rare" disease has become almost commonplace in some areas which has alarmed many professionals. Suddenly, it's the diagnosis no one wants to give, no one wants to support yet *everyone* has an opinion on.

Whilst we as a family have had direct experience of less than ideal care at times, by and large the focus has been on supporting the very real symptoms our children have. That is no longer the case. As Rachel explains well in her Blog post here many families previously supported to whatever extent at GOSH are no longer welcome, and neither is the diagnosis of EGID. Families have had no information, the rumour mill is rife and many have had treatment regimes cancelled, support withdrawn and children discharged with no explanation. Indeed, I for one would be interested to know the view of Nutricia on this change in direction on EGID. Nutricia sponsor NEAW in the USA and work with Apfed. Some GOSH Gastro consultants are also linked with Nutricia. How does the company reconcile these two opposing views of EGID?

So many questions unanswered.

So as a parent of children with non IgE food allergies (and one with a previously confirmed diagnosis of Eosinophilic Enterocolitis) at the coalface dealing with symptoms I couldn't care less what name you give them. But a diagnosis is useful in paediatrics where there is a "Name It or Fix It" culture, where you have to keep testing to diagnose if the symptoms do not go. This in itself causes all sorts of problems, not least the ultimate flowchart dead-end where no diagnosis and no cure leads to one end point only - suspicion and possible referral to Social Services.

And this is what makes me so mad.

Doctors disagree all the time. But they have a professional responsibility to discuss and evaluate, to involve families and above all, to focus on the patient. The inability to name or cure should not automatically lead to suspicion, and referral to Safeguarding should never be used as a stick with which to beat parents when professionals disagree - yet this is precisely what is happening to far too many people in the UK right now.

EGID is therefore currently one of the most controversial paediatric diagnoses the UK. That controversy is having a huge impact on families who never cared about a name, never sought any particular intervention except perhaps that their child might feel better. The irony is that the people suffering as a result of these national changes in thinking are the patients. The children.

It's hardly progress - and this is probably one of the most depressing NEAWs ever. After all, as a friend said - Awareness requires acknowledgement that something exists.

The existence of EGID in the UK is no longer certain.

The Lady Vanishes

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Sun, 19 Apr 2020 18:38:00 +0000

I would say it's been a while... but I'd be repeating myself. I haven't been idle however, since the nationwide lockdown began (on my birthday weekend no less!) I've been blogging over at "Viral Music" in an effort to find a suitable outlet for my passion for Anglican choral music whilst also assisting our local church and choir community during the pandemic.

Pandemic. Not a word I thought I would be writing in 2020 - nor indeed one you perhaps thought you would be reading either. A word from a bygone era, it has catapulted us into a world of Big Government, economic inertia and community driven enterprise. After an initial, highly commendable explosion of positivity and enthusiasm, many I speak with now are feeling this energy wane as the weight of uncertainty over the short, medium and longterm human reality becomes all consuming. The difficulties in working from home - or indeed, lack of difficulty for some - are well reported, as are the problems in delivery of food supplies, PPE and the subject of our children's education. Concerns about shielding the vulnerable, supporting key workers, flattening the curve have all been well scrutinised and reported. What I am increasingly aware of however, and which almost no one is talking about - is the impact of lockdown on women of a certain age. More specifically the stay at home mums; the middle aged women who were quietly breaking free from the confines of the home and starting to spread their wings.

Photo by Edgar Hernández on Unsplash

I've joked on social media that I've "levelled up" on the domestic front and will soon be at "Abigail's Party" level, although I'm not sure if that's serving amazing canapés or quietly drinking gin in the corner...... but I was neither incapable before, nor lazy. I've spent years catering for exclusion diets, reinventing the wheel, cooking for a large family and supporting my parents. We can only self cater when we go away and I only have a cleaner because of a severe dust allergy - without her the house is spotless even if I do have a permanent sniff.

It's just that I want more.

Having a family is without doubt my greatest success, source of happiness and fulfilment. Whilst not aspiring to Felicity Kendall's dizzy heights of domesticity in "The Good Life" I've always been one for getting stuck in, parenting every moment to the max - and I love it. I've dedicated two decades to my children and wouldn't have it any other way. In fact their successes have inspired my own and I have their passion for music to thank for reigniting my love of choral singing. In recent years I've experienced my world expanding beyond the home, beyond the kitchen and it's been liberating, hugely enjoyable and immensely satisfying. Whilst many mums struggle to move beyond the early years, finding their teenagers difficult to connect with; I can say hand on heart I have grown with mine and enjoy an excellent relationship with all of them, perhaps because I've spread my wings as they've spread theirs.

To find this new freedom suddenly withdrawn and the door slammed shut has been surprisingly difficult to cope with. My life has reverted to one of pure domesticity, three loads of washing a day and constant requests for food. I joked on Facebook today that it feels as if we've returned to the 1970s - but it wasn't really a joke. My world is suddenly much smaller, much quieter and 90% of it revolves around the kitchen.

Once again I'm the invisible woman in the kitchen, facilitating rather than participating. That's not to say the family don't help, they do - and we've also had some brilliant family time whilst the younger two have learned to cook meals themselves and gained some valuable life skills. I just feel the balance has gone as a whole chunk of my current life has vanished which was somehow counterbalancing the domestic demand! I'm not being asked to do things differently - I'm being asked to not do things, and that's completely different.

Photo by Alex Iby on Unsplash

It is of course a minor consideration at a time of national solidarity against a deadly disease, but one which compounds an issue I have felt compelled to write about before. In our healthcare system, the elderly and the young are seemingly well catered for - I have evidence of both ends of the spectrum functioning well within our NHS. My parents see the GP regularly, have significant health issues which are regularly followed up, community care where appropriate and inclusive care. My children's care has been less consistent for reasons I've written about previously, but recently it's been pretty well managed and I've gained confidence that they are less likely to "slip through the cracks". My own health is another story and it sometimes feels as if women cease to exist once they reach 40, only to reappear around age 65.

In the fashion world, the same phenomena manifests and I frequently struggle to find stores selling anything aimed at women of my generation. It's as if during the years of peri-menopause we literally fade into the shadows, until society can redefine us post-retirement.

I've found this odd, since for me this time in my life is the antithesis of fading away. Having been defined as someone's mum for the past two decades (and before I am merely someone's carer) I've been slowly emerging from the cocoon of motherhood, rediscovering who I am and spreading my wings. Granted this can be difficult with a 16-18 year old adolescent with ADHD and ASD at home 24/7 , but given he's mostly nocturnal mornings in particular had become my own. Which is why the lockdown has come as such a profound shock. I don't have a "job" to do from home, I'm not at school, working towards any specific goal. I've just lost a large part of myself.

So for all my friends feeling the same- I hear you. I see you. There is life beyond the kitchen, waiting for the day we can reclaim it, celebrate it and live it. Solidarity sisters.

EHCPs - not worth the paper they are written on?

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:17:00 +0000

There is much in the media about Education, Health and Care Plans (which replaced Statements in Education several years ago) and how challenging it can be to obtain an assessment for one, let alone succeed in securing one which adequately supports your child. But if your child HAS one, has had one (and a Statement prior to that) for many years you might be forgiven for assuming his or her needs were recognised, addressed and that they were receiving support in school or college. You might breathe a sigh of relief that there was relative calm after years of stormy campaigning for adequate support. You might assume that you could go back to parenting, relish the mundane and take a back seat - because the "professionals" are doing their job.

That was my mistake this academic year - after over a decade of fighting for our son I made the classic mistake of taking my eye off the proverbial ball. As a result he's now on the brink of dropping out of college after six traumatic months - after nine months since his last Annual Review; during which time not a single professional has viewed his EHCP - or even commented on the fact that they haven't viewed it- because the local authority "forgot" to issue an updated one last May.

For Real. They "forgot".
Beggar's belief doesn't it?

We had an early Annual Review before his GCSEs and in good time before leaving High School, carefully scheduled to ensure transition took place in a timely manner, before our son was cut loose for an extended summer. The draft stated it was "essential" he was not "left to cope with his SEMH issues alone". And yet that is precisely what DID happen, and has continued to happen until now. Despite many questions, emails and enquiries only this last week have I discovered how badly he has been let down.

Council for Disabled Children's advice on the Annual Review

In Suffolk, EHCPs can take months to issue they are so behind. A review inspection at the start of this year produced a scathing report on their SEND services. Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission inspected Suffolk's SEND provision in January following a series of concerns raised two years previously which precipitated demands for improvements. The new report was published on March 4th and both watchdogs stated the county's Health and Education teams had "not made sufficient progress" in three out of four areas identified. The DofE is deciding what further intervention is necessary. The county's backlog of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) at the first inspection was apparently "so vast" that it needed to triple the issuing rate to complete them, and even then only 8 months late.

The wonderful Special Needs Jungle website has LOTS of good advice

Which is all very well, but it doesn't exactly fix the situation for our son and so many others. Clearly, they took many short cuts in the process with many falling through the cracks in the meantime. What is poorly understood though and rarely acknowledged is the phenomenal impact this rollercoaster of support has on young people. These "Plans" exist because a child has endured significant difficulties and challenges in their life. Because they have recognised issues which the local authority, school and health have decided collectively cannot be met without one. This is pretty significant since "School Action" and "School Action Plus" no longer exist and the vast majority of kids are now expected to manage with in-school support, and you would be forgiven for thinking that EHCPs are pretty important, given a high profile and frequently referred to once issued. However our experience suggests nothing could be further from the truth and H has been left to manage without one over nine months of crucial transition from school to college causing significant trauma and damage to his mental and physical health, and to our family.

Aside from the LA "forgetting" to issue his EHCP, his school never chased college after receiving no response to an invitation to meet and discuss him. College never received or processed the paperwork they should have received and despite me reminding them on four occasions that he had an EHCP and it was only in October that it became obvious that he was not being supported adequately. This on top of enforced transition to adult health services at 16 (meaning absolutely no continuity in healthcare, no communication between any professionals and no support) it was a perfect storm for a terrible summer. He lost 5 kg, barely left the house, went from obsession to obsession and became very depressed. He picked up a bit in September but without travel training and support I spent the first six weeks finding him when he would get on the wrong bus, end up in the wrong part of town or just wait at the bus stop for an hour because he wasn't sure which bus to get on - or because the number he wanted didn't arrive. Once he even got hit by a bus wing mirror because he wasn't sure where to stand and wait outside college. He hasn't kept up with any of his courses, in fact he's already had to drop one and has not bee motivated since the New Year since it's been obvious he's not keeping up.

So now we have a meeting with the LA and college to decide what we do next. To be honest I really don't know. Dropping out is the preferred option, to restart next year - but what on earth is he going to do for the rest of the academic year? And can he even cope with restarting? To be honest I don't have the answers, and the stress it's caused us collectively has been huge. When will professionals stop thinking about EHCPs as admin, and start thinking about them as representing young people? Because if they can't see the child behind the EHCP its central purpose has been lost.

As my friend said, it's time to get the Wonder Woman spandex out again. I thought I'd done fighting though, is it too much to ask that professionals do their job?

Mental Health Crisis in our Teens - are we deflecting our own insecurities?

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:58:00 +0000

As a parent of four, not least of a young man with mental health problems, I have read recent headlines with interest, concern and despair.

But not for the reasons you might think.

We are facing a crisis in child - and particularly teen - mental health in the UK. A recent Guardian article stated:-

"Children and teenagers are facing an “intolerable” mental health crisis and an urgent cash injection is needed in schools to prevent a lifetime of damage, teachers, doctors and MPs have warned.”

But what actually IS the mental health reality in our young people, and what can we do about it? Is the “Mental Health Crisis” a recognition of pre-existent, long-standing issues, or a new phenomenon? Are we failing our children, or struggling to respond to a new, previously unseen problem which is escalating in our society? Should schools be doing more - or are parents the root cause? Or is Social Media to blame?

The reality may surprise you.

The teenage brain is a fragile thing. We now understand that between age 11-14 the brain is still physically growing. However it doesn’t finish maturing until our late 20s and the front part of the brain, called the prefrontal cortex, is one of the last brain regions to mature. It is the area responsible for planning, prioritising and controlling impulses. No amount of discipline or eye rolling on the part of parents or teachers is going to rush this process, and crucially the teenage brain is primed ready to learn from experience. And this is fundamentally important if we want to learn from, and turn around the mental health crisis amongst teenagers in the UK.

The Mental Health Foundation states:-

“Mental health problems affect about 1 in 10 children and young people. They include depression, anxiety and conduct disorder, and are often a direct response to what is happening in their lives. ”

Many mental health disorders appear during adolescence. All the big changes the brain is experiencing may explain why disorders such as anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, eating disorders and schizophrenia emerge during this time. but the teenage brain is surprisingly resilient - if we are willing to work with it - not against it. Vulnerable yes, but not without resilience. And yet despite this accepted knowledge recent changes in education, society and family life are actively reducing the chances of so many of our teenagers travelling through this all-important time unscathed. I watch, listen to and despair with the many teens I know as the mismanagement of their lives pushes them down paths they do not need to go.

Almost all children want to please, want to engage and possess all the necessary attributes for success. However our persistent attempts to define, reduce and distil our concept of success moves this achievable goal out of reach for too many. Success comes in many forms, for me as a mum it’s actually quite simple though - health and happiness.

It really IS that simple.

Photo by Alex Iby on Unsplash

Or perhaps I should say MENTAL health and happiness, because we DO have a degree of control over the mental wellbeing of most of our children.

I was genuinely shocked to read that schools are being urged to put more support in place to reduce the mental health difficulties so many students are facing. Why shocked you may ask? Because many of these problems are CAUSED by schools, the school environment, and by the education system itself. Putting support in place is like medicating for a perceived problem, but the new medication causes side effects so you add in another medication to treat those side effects. But what if the original problem was caused by the environment, instead of having an organic origin? You should really address the environment, remove the problem and thereby the need for any medication.

As long as we reclassify ability, re-evaluate attainment and perpetually raise the bar, we raise the chance of subjective “failure” and the impact that has on our youth. Recent GCSE changes are not a bad idea per se, but just amplify the pressure on schools to “raise standards” and meet successive government targets. In a closed system, that pressure has to go somewhere - and it does. It’s transferred on to pupils, with schools anxiously telling pupils as young as 11 that their GCSEs are on the horizon and they need to work hard.

Let me be completely clear about this. Telling a pre-pubescent child about national exams taken at 16, making them loom large as a monstrous fear on the horizon, is theft and abuse. Theft, because you remove their childhood, their innocence and most importantly their focus on the present; and abuse because you transfer your fears as a parent, educator or administrator on to those powerless to do anything about it. Children embarking on years of brain rewiring cannot plan that far ahead. They cannot prepare for and have no control over future events, yet they are being handed a worry they have absolutely no chance of managing. More importantly, their mental resilience relies on optimism, on living in the moment, not fearing for the future. So why do we do it?

Because we are scared ourselves.

The irony here is that we are micromanaging our children's futures because we ourselves feel helpless. Unable to control the world we are bringing our children up in, we transfer our anxieties onto the next generation. Borne out of adult insecurity because we ourselves cannot control the worrying trends in society.

Photo by Apollo Reyes on Unsplash

It’s widely acknowledged that children should only worry about things they have control over. For everything else, they have adults. So yes, forgetting your swimming kit should cause mild concern, and increased effort to remember it next time. Preparing for external qualifications you barely understand should not even be on your radar. Stress and anxiety come from feelings of loss of control - and many will tell you this is the source of many mental health disorders. We should be teaching our children that whilst it’s useful to worry about the things in life they CAN change, ruminating on anything else is a waste of time. The same is largely true for us as adults in a complex world, because we are feeling similarly out of control and are transferring our anxiety to our children.

Social Media capitalises on this anxiety. It's 24/7 intrusion into our children’s lives means there is no such thing as privacy which is crucially important during this fragile phase. Despite their online networking teens are becoming more isolated as communication is reduced to superficial interaction and many are painfully lonely. Aware of this but unable to help, we try and increase OUR control over them in a feedback loop which helps no one. Gone are the days of hanging out at the Rec after school, getting a Saturday job with ease and finding solidarity with friends at local clubs and groups. Too many teens are facing increased pressure to achieve, becoming socially isolated yet believing hope lies in the number of “likes” on social media platforms. We are all as lost as each other, and layers of response will not tackle the underlying problem.

Adults need to accept this changing world and face up to it. With college, university and employment opportunities at a premium we need to diversify and recognise talent we might previously have dismissed. Accept ALL results are as much to do with the administration and teaching as the application and ability of the student. And most importantly, focus on community and mental health as a priority over all.

Perhaps the most important message we can give our children then is of adult fallibility, and of multiple chances, choices and opportunities. That the criteria for success will always change over time; doing what makes you happy and what you excel at is far, far more valuable as a long term goal. That we as grown ups struggle with the the world, making sense of it and planning for the future - but together we are stronger, and we will all look out for each other. Don't define your child at a time they are trying to discover themselves.

The youth of today will have many lives, many opportunities and chances that they cannot even know about yet. Public exams are only one - one route amongst many. Yes they matter, and yes they should give them their very best shot, but be encouraged to not let any one event define or limit them. School is just one path in the complex web of life and there will be others, so many others. If you went on a journey and the road was blocked, would you go home? No, you might curse then try a different way. That's all these life events are, a test in map reading the Atlas of Life. You only fail the test if you give up and go home. Imparting that sense of resilience is the very best support we can give our young people as they navigate their way through adolescence.

Truth or Dare? Why fake news might be the end product of democratic society.

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 12:23:00 +0000

Now available on "Musings", my article in full on "Fake News" from Open Thoughts.

As I scroll through my Twitter feed, I truly despair. In a week when Jeremy Corbyn has apparently won the Nobel Peace Prize it would seem that soundbite-friendly fake news has finally triumphed over informed and verifiable information. We are hurtling towards a Brexit it seems none of us really wants, a manipulated result of "fake news" generated and sustained by bots filling echo chambers we cannot escape from. If this isn't some dystopian parody of "Brave New World" I don't know what is. We have a President of the Free World who self selects his truths and our media is fighting for its right to free speech. It's a long way from our imagined past, and I am reminded of a favourite history quote: -

"Fact is sacred, opinion is free." C.P. Scott

Yet this assumes a fact is an objective thing, verifiable and incontrovertible. This is rarely the case. As E.H.Carr eloquently explains in his book "What is History?" raw data (such as the dates of famous battles) is difficult to dispute, but the vast majority of "factual" data with which historians grapple daily is less certain. Most need justification, as Pirandello wrote,

"A fact is like a sack, it won't stand up until you put something in it." Pirandello

Facts are also subject to observation, interpretation and (not least) manipulation and they are no more reliable than statistics. Facts rarely speak for themselves and are open to selection and arrangement to suit the purposes of historian, writer and commentator.

The nineteenth century was perhaps the great age of "facts", with historians attempting to chronicle the events of the past in total denial that by selecting events and themes, imposing their own education and philosophy on their work and neglecting vast areas of the past they were in fact being entirely subjective. Men like Macaulay and Trevelyan made sweeping generalisations to facilitate their seemingly impossible task of chronicling History to portray the bigger picture. As an historian myself I abhorred the obvious neglect of the less important individual, of social and economic trends and the use of the past to justify the present; but undoubtedly without their brave attempts to achieve so much we would have been deprived of the fascinating stories which contributed so much to the understanding and appreciation of our shared past. Inadvertently perhaps, these men were using past "facts" for a political purpose - the justification of British world supremacy and the growth of our Empire. Nothing new, this was the use of facts for a purpose, for propaganda.

Photo by Jingda Chen on Unsplash

For many though propaganda is a dirty word, which smacks of war-time desperation and government control. Used for the public good in times of dire need it was accepted as a necessary tool. But in the twentieth century it gained a new, more respectable name - Public Relations. "PR" as it became known, was both a product of the growth in democracy, and a direct result of the need to control it.

At the dawn of the twentieth century the developed world had an emergent consumer society, with money in their pocket and opinions on everything. Then followed the First World War 1914-1918 which had a far reaching impact on the ordinary man - and woman in the street. This growing social and political involvement alarmed many, but one man saw an opportunity. Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud lived in New York. Now known as the father of PR and master of propaganda he initially harnessed the power of persuasion in business. Then he went further and in his book "Propaganda" (1928) he incorporated the literature from social science and psychological manipulation into an examination of the techniques of public communication, using the ideas of his uncle Freud.

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society." Edward Bernays

Far from seeing propaganda as a unique tool for social persuasion - crowd control - during times of national crisis, Bernays believed you could (and should) manipulate society to precipitate cohesion, avoid anti-social behaviour and direct individuals in desired behaviours. In business this was marketing, using basic factual information (initially) to drive demand. This worked extremely well in the car industry in early 20th Century America, but marketing products to an emerging consumer society was not always so straitforward. Selling cigarettes to women is famously one of Bernay's biggest PR successes, and represented a crucial diversion from fact to persuasion with little basis in truth. Cigarettes were branded as feminist "Torches of Freedom", neatly falling inline with the campaign for female emancipation the wake of the First World War and uniting the themes of democracy and PR.

But Bernays went much further, and his work for the United Fruit Company connected with the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected Guatemalan government in 1954. Bernays early manipulation of politics paved the way for modern electoral campaigning, arguably culminating in recent years with the election of Donald Trump in America, and the result of the Brexit vote here in the UK. (Boris's Brexit bus was straight out of the Bernays' school of PR.) Just as Bernays believed that public opinion should be directed and controlled, modern political parties fundamentally campaign along the same lines. Information is sourced, selected and manipulated and "facts" are as rare as hen's teeth. However, although "Fake News" is not new, the supremacy of social media has certainly made it more blatant. The exaggerations, misinformation and sheer untruths clicked and shared today work faster than Bernays could ever dream of, "free speech" permits free lies, truth comes at a cost. Obtaining "truth" today, costs time, education and resilience.

What the present political climate makes abundantly clear however is that we are still a society of individuals, with overlapping, similar yet fundamentally different needs, desires and aspirations. Obtaining political consensus today is far more of a challenge than it ever was in the past and is illustrated well by the Trump/Clinton Presidential campaign in America. Two candidates attempting to bring millions of people together in support of extremely vague political aims, people from such different states as California and the Carolinas, Kentucky and New York. The bigger picture is at the heart of American politics, a truth appreciated by the Trump campaign in an ironic denial of the needs of the very voters they relied on to make the White House.

Uniting ever larger groups of voters with access to partial information via social media is a futuristic challenge of gargantuan proportions. Making sense of millions of voices with their valid, "free" opinions requires some level of distillation and control. Bernay's techniques might controversially be the only way of political progress in a democracy, and who dares most wins. But victory doesn't come without a cost. Like Trump, Brexit is the end product of mass democracy and how government and society attempt to define and control mass involvement in politics. It is a clear warning of how focussing on the desired bigger picture can disenfranchise swathes of individuals in the process. We should heed this warning, otherwise democracy will be a victim of its own success.

And so it begins...

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Fri, 11 May 2018 21:53:00 +0000

So next Monday is D Day for son #2. Or rather, GCSE day. The first day of his GCSE exams which continue for the next calendar month. But not so very long ago, I didn't believe we would get to this point. That this would not be his future, and we needed to consider "alternative options" as advised by so many professionals. But our son is testament to the fact that you can never - and should never let a diagnosis, multiple diagnoses, a previous reality and complex difficulties define you. As a mother, I have learned more from my second son than my other three children combined. I've learned patience (!), resilience, that a glass of wine on Friday night can solve a multitude of problems... but most of all I've learned to believe in my kids. I have faith; faith that you can only do so much, and that actually - it really will be OK.

To give you an idea of the significance of Monday, here is a reminder of where we've come from...

Never one to subscribe to a predicted trajectory, our ever-so-unique, exquisitely frustrating and unbelievably resilient young man has outdone every single prediction of progress. And some. I only hope his primary school teachers get to read this.

H was non-verbal until school age, he was asked to leave his private nursery, "expelled" from Tumble Tots (quite an achievement I'm told!!) and a total, complete and utter full-time liability. Blessed with a determination which does him credit, he started Reception at a new school and spent the first term under a table throwing books at the teacher's legs. But his meltdowns were extreme and so the Head tried a pop-up tent in her office for him to calm down in, since he absolutely couldn't cope with the sensory overload in the classroom. The tent didn't work, and he kicked her shins twice so a space behind a couple of bookcases was made where he could be 'safely" barricaded in.

His coats were always fluorescent yellow or orange - easy to spot on the large school field so lunchtime supervisors could keep track of him. Or he could be spotted as he "did a runner" and headed for the road. He could find his jumper in the "jumper box" by smell alone (out of 30+) and would put his lunch in his hair rather than eat it. He started mark making but would not comply with any school work, and appeared to learn nothing but a few words.

Year 1 wasn't much better, with 46 fixed term exclusions before he turned six. Desperate, and knowing there was a bright child locked inside this whirling dervish I appealed for help. However I was told we would "never get a Statement", because he was too bright, and too young. My response was much like my son's...

"Just watch me."

I used every trick in the book, researched and wrote letters and never gave up. Sure enough, he got his Statement, and not only just a Statement but a full time, 30+ hour one. Things were looking up. But shortly after his school reality went from bad to worse as he just couldn't cope with the requirements in school and he was placed on a part-time timetable. At this time we were told he was a risk to himself and others, that a risk assessment had been carried out and an "escape plan" drafted to "rescue" the other children when he kicked off.

I think part of me died that day.

But you carry on, find your proverbial Wonder Woman pants and get on with it, don't you?

So we had an emergency meeting with the Council SEN Officer, who explained to the Headteacher that she had to exclude him permanently so alternative provision could be found. But the Headteacher in question broke down in tears and said she had never permanently excluded any pupil and couldn't do it now.

How selfish - or so I thought. But I must confess my view has altered in recent years, and I've amended my interpretation of this conversation. Miss D - if you are reading this, thank you. Thank you for being as bloody stubborn as H and I and for refusing to give in. Thank you for giving him the chance he needed and helping avoid him being labelled and thrown in the educational ghetto - because that's exactly where Suffolk SEND services were headed, and currently reside.

Soon after we decided to move, to a town with a large primary school used to dealing with complex needs, where H wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb, and would have the chance of mainstream provision. It was a rocky start, but with the most wonderful teaching assistant he thrived. Mrs C, if you are reading this, I cannot put into words the gratitude I have for you, for not only believing in H, but for supporting him, understanding him, fighting his corner and just being amazing. I hope you know the young man H has become. I am so glad I refused the advice to look for a Special School and that you supported me in this; he has flourished and exceeded expectations.

Going up to High School, H had a poor set of SATS results but had started to engage. He was reading prolifically - voraciously even, and had turned a corner. No homework was done for the next 4 years - and precious little over the past year either, but he had a reading age of 20+ when aged 12, an impressive general knowledge and a vocabulary that outdid his older brother. Not bad for a previously non-verbal child!

In fact, he hasn't looked back. but that doesn't mean to say it's been plain sailing. Still volatile and emotionally all over the place he's a daily challenge. And he's done absolutely NO revision. not a jot. No homework since Christmas and he's so "bored" of GCSEs that most days he's late, and sometimes just plain refuses to go in. He might not even make all his exams, but do you know what?

He has nothing to prove.

He's read the reading list for A Level Ancient History already. He has a phenomenal grasp of Philosophy, advanced Chemistry, computing and Linux systems, Politics, Engineering, Literature... the list is endless and his biggest problem is narrowing down subjects for A level study. He enjoys dystopian novels, discussing current affairs and gives me the run around in every discussion we have. He cannot read a note of music but has taught himself to play all the Etudes and Metamorphosis series by Phillip Glass.

And I mean *really* play.

He's set up a company with two friends to launch amateur satellites into lower space and is working for his HAM radio license. He wants to learn the guitar - and he will. He sees absolutely no limits, no boundaries, and no horizon to the endless possibilities of life. It is the most wonderful gift that he has an innate assumption that everything is possible, available and a real option for him.

Which is why my heart breaks when I see him crippled with anxiety, consumed with depression and overwrought from sleepless nights, worry about expectations and judgement from others. Because he has accomplished more than most sixteen year olds will ever do.

So what will be will be. He might make all his exams, or some, or none. He might overcome the anxiety, fight the fear and recover his happy-go-lucky attitude in time, and prove to the world and those who've judged him that he is so very capable, gifted and talented.

Or he might not. But he has nothing whatsoever to prove - at least not to me. I am so incredibly proud of him and every little thing he has achieved. He's far from perfect, and picking up his laundry might be a bonus, but not in my wildest dreams did I think we would be here ten years ago. Or even five. And that stomach jerking anxiety I will experience on Monday morning as I drive him to his first exam will be savoured - because it's an achievement in itself. And I will probably cry.

Great Ormond Street : The Child First and Always?

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Sat, 21 Apr 2018 10:53:00 +0000

Last night we waited for the ITV programme on Great Ormond Street with trepidation. So many families I know feel violated all over again by the articles over on The Bureau of Investigative Journalism which although ground breaking in many respects fall short of holding the Gastro department at GOSH to account. They - and we - have had to endure years of poor care/no care/false accusations whilst being kept in the dark about what was really happening at the hospital. For some it's cathartic that some of the truth is coming out at last, but for many it's opening old wounds.

Our thoughts?
It was a good start. We thought the documentary was quite clear the disease exists, but is rare. It covered the accusations of over diagnosis and over treatment simplistically but fell short of making it clear how desperate many families are for help by the time they get to GOSH. More concerning was that it also came across on the programme that it was clear cut this had occurred and that this was founded on an agreed definition of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease - EGID.

Anyone who has any experience of EGID will tell you there is no such thing.

There is no agreed diagnostic criteria for EGID beyond EoE (Eosinophilic Oesophagitis but the acronym uses the American spelling of Esophagitis) which has been recognised for years. EoE is far simpler to diagnose therefore, and there is a broadly agreed consensus on diagnosis and treatment. There should not be any eosinophils in the oesophagus - which makes it fairly straitforward to diagnose EoE if you find some!

Indeed, as I understand it Addenbrookes Consultant Dr Rob Heuschkel has in fact had patients he himself has diagnosed with EGID and treated similarly to GOSH. I've heard some families who have then been seen at the Royal London Hospital who took away medications and feeding tubes. I've also heard the reverse - The Royal London's treatment plans removed by Addenbrookes. This was not mentioned, the documentary should have made it much clearer that it’s controversial area of medicine.

EGID is an "emergent disease". Poorly defined, inadequately understood with senior consultants seeking to make a name for themselves rectifying this. The gastrointestinal departments at the three hospitals mentioned - particularly Addenbrookes and GOSH, are not known for collaborating or even getting along. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there when less than 1% medical research funding goes on gastrointestinal research - and none on paediatric gastro research. Private funding and international collaboration is often the only way to further research programmes into diseases like EGID. This is where research conflicts with patient interest. Families are too often caught in the middle when consultants seek to further their research - and careers - by pursuing ground breaking treatment programmes.

Nothing I've seen or read this week has made clear the referral process to GOSH.
Your child doesn't get referred to GOSH unless other avenues locally have been fully explored. It's not a natural process as implied by the documentary. You don't attend a few local appointments then get a quick referral. Your child will have waited weeks or months for a local appointment. Then you are seen for months or years locally (unless particularly acute but this is less common in Gastroenterology) before anyone discusses a tertiary referral. Indeed many hospitals dislike referring to GOSH who are known locally as "God's Own Service" because once there, local hospitals lose control over patients they are expected to care for locally. So by the time your child reaches GOSH, you've been through the mill a bit, your child will have had symptoms for months if not years and you are likely to be feeling pretty desperate. It's a place of last resort! The system is further complicated by NHS rules which mean smaller local hospitals, like District Generals, cannot perform surgeries or interventions on any child under 2, and many children under 12. This then means tertiary hospitals like GOSH sometimes see patients earlier than they might normally but it works well in other specialities and children visit GOSH for procedures but then return home.

I've also read little about the genuine good intentions of the consultants at GOSH.
Hand on heart I know our consultant wanted to help our children. That may have got in the way of best practice, but he absolutely cared. But in a department where there were several consultants treating the same symptoms in completely different ways with no working together, no overlap, absolutely no consensus this wasn't enough. Administration was a nightmare and there was zero communication with local teams. It was a recipe for disaster.

For us, the biggest "gap" in the story being told this week is how the hospital sought to scapegoat parents to avoid culpability for the criticism and errors being levelled at them. As Amazing Productions pointed out in last night's documentary GOSH are still hiding information. There HAS been lasting harm to many families from this whole saga. There has NOT been a full and candid apology from the Trust. Families have NOT been kept informed about care for their children and many were not even officially diagnosed, just dropped!

The right to obtain information
We’ve had an open Statutory Access Request for Information (SAR) for a year and and a half now. Parents have a right to see medical notes and emails between professionals, MDT minutes etc. but these are being withheld. We actually learned that until December 2017 there was not even a procedure for answering these requests and the hospital had just sat on them since the impact of the 2015 RCPCH Review started to be felt! They have now appointed someone to deal with all SARs but it will take months - if not years. This is simply not good enough if you have been falsely accused of FII, or your child has no care.

Ironically, the reason given for not supplying information is that it "might cause harm" - which given the scope of this week's exposé on the hospital is quite staggering. Apparently it’s ok to supply drugs that might cause harm, but data you are legally entitled to is withheld for that reason!

I would encourage parents similarly unable to obtain more than a few photocopies of medical records to report Great Ormond Street to the Information Commissioner for breach of the Data Protection Act. Their website is here.

I set up The Recipe Resource after years of struggling with debilitating gastrointestinal symptoms. Our story is here. But there are still many families still dealing with similar issues, whatever their diagnosis, and the last thing they need is a backlash which removes all understanding and support. That would be as bad as blaming parents for requesting interventions, and as damaging for the children who are supposed to be the focus for care. Gut food reactions need MORE awareness and MORE understanding. Otherwise there is no hope of a consistent, helpful approach for parents living the nightmare that is feeding and caring for a child whose gut cannot perform the basic functions it was intended to AS it was intended to. My children and all the other children I know suffering with gut allergies and related diseases deserve better. FAR better.

The Child First and Always.

A Post Fact Era

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 11:29:00 +0000

- or how Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children managed to avoid the factual information of their damning Investigative Review in 2015 from going public whilst parents took the blame.

So today, you have probably read The Guardian article on over diagnosis and over treatment of EGID at Great Ormond Street Hospital over the past seven years. Having been in the middle of this for all of those seven years, I can assure you there is MUCH more to the story. There is more info here, sadly the Syrian situation meant the Guardian article was cut down. It's STILL not the whole story though.

Warning: This is super long. The events at Great Ormond Street over the past few years have left many of my friends and I reeling, collateral damage as the Gastro department attempted to extricate themselves from a hugely damning - and damaging, had it been made public - investigation by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. What followed their investigation in 2015 should make you angry. Very angry. This hospital persistently campaigns for charitable funding over and above any other hospital in the UK. Many departments are centres of excellence, but not Gastro. The RCPCH identified considerable failings, but in an attempt to restore order the proverbial baby went out with the bath water. Good doctors were scapegoated along with parents and the biggest losers of all were the patients.
Children.

Our Story

We first went to GOSH at the end of July 2010. With a very strong family history of reflux and associated gastro issues, also seemingly non-associated non-gastro issues, we were desperate for answers. As per our story here http://thereciperesource.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/why-i-set-up-recipe-resource-long.html we were making progress on the reflux but struggling with motility issues, distension and a host of other issues.

We initially saw our new consultant privately, following an NHS referral from our local hospital being moved to another Consultant. (Our local paediatrician was keen for us to see this particular doctor because she had several patients under him and felt he was most expert on allergic gut conditions and would aim for the most normal approach possible, unlike some consultants at GOSH who were renown for pulling all food and imposing formula only diets when EGID or similar was suspected.)

Our consultant was quite thorough but very quickly fitted both twins into the allergic gut camp during our discussion.

The photo below of our son’s hugely distended abdomen concerned him considerably. He later said he was concerned this was symptomatic of Pseudo Obstruction but in actual fact it was more connected with the 12 sachets a day of Movicol he had been prescribed locally for some time - something I had long been concerned about. Movicol is the same plastic that is in disposable nappies. All parents have no doubt seen what happens when a toddler in a nappy sits in water.... it's a great drug for those with hard stool, but if your gut can't move loose stool, it certainly isn't going to do a great job of moving large volumes of loose stool...

We were prescribed medication - cetirizine daily, sodium chromoglycate and maintained our high dose of PPI medication (acid production suppressant) and were booked for review. Unfortunately our son’s motility issues were no better so he was booked for a gastroscopy and colonoscopy. This was no knee jerk reaction. Our son was going 2-3 weeks without passing stool then blocking the toilet, and was in huge discomfort. We were told that significant eosinophils per hpf were found throughout his bowel, in addition to lymphoid hyperplasia and he was diagnosed with Eosinophilic Enterocolitis.

There was discussion as to whether Lymphoid Hyperplasia is EGID “waxing” or “waning”, and I actually asked how he knew eosinophils were intrinsically bad - or whether they in fact be part of the repair process? I know of many families for whom LH became the sole reason for diagnosis, and later many more who were diagnosed on symptoms alone. I suspect the desire to reduce invasive testing was the paramount concern for our consultant, but however well intentioned this meant some were perhaps labelled without supporting evidence. This should however be weighed against the merits of trialling treatments to produce resolution as quickly and easily as possible though with minimal discomfort and maximum gain for the patient. For this reason we never queried his assertion that our daughter was also an EGID patient.

Over the next few years our children never really became symptom free, although treatment DID mean they were better managed, growing properly and thriving.

This should not be understated. Gt Ormond Street is not a local hospital. It's usually a place of last resort, where children with chronic or seriously acute problems go when no one else can help. Families are often desperate - like us - and grateful for help. It's also a place of novel and slightly unusual treatments, doctors are at the cutting edge of paediatric medicine and are always trying to push boundaries to help children. We embraced the plan - and the early results it brought.

We were also told their hypermobility issues often went hand in hand with EGID, and certainly as a family we fitted the picture he was describing. (Indeed, my father, who has suffered severe reflux all his life and almost died of aspiration pneumania when younger had an endoscopy locally a few years back. He too was over threshold for an EoE diagnosis. )

Appalling Errors from GOSH

We did have concerns about the slapdash way GOSH in general dealt with clinic letters, appointments, records and medication. Their inability to lease with local teams was shocking. Over time we have had to deal with the following errors:-

Our consultant himself suggested Jej (small bowel) feeds for our son after yet another poor set of impedance study results, forgetting he ate (ie used his stomach).
Our son was overprescribed Gabapentin by a factor of 5 which I picked up, after collecting £1000 worth of the drug from the pharmacy…
Our son was also overprescribed steroids by a factor of 10 (this one the pharmacy picked up)
Secretaries repeatedly wrote “Azathioprine” (cancer drug) instead of “Azithromycin” on the twins’ clinic letters
All GOSH letters were typed in India during this time and incredibly, a year’s worth of Rheumatology letters went to Ipswich Hospital, Australia
The secretary sent me results and admission plans plus sensitive data by email for another child, when I pointed this out she replied by email “HELL! Sorry!” .
Someone merged our older son’s record with another boy of the same name born a day later, apparently also in in our town, we had admission letters for urology, neurology etc
Admin did not transfer all private notes to the NHS file leaving gaps, especially in our daughter’s notes.
Our consultant “diagnosed” our daughter with eosinophilic disease despite never having cytological evidence. He also had the twins’ older brother on a similar regime despite 2 out of 3 kids not having evidence for diagnosis of EGID. She was prescribed swallowed steroids (Flixotide swallowed not inhaled) for EoE that she didn’t have according to gastroscopy results, because he thought it was worth a try. (Perhaps it was?)
At least twice I had to call our consultant from the ward of our local hospital when our children were admitted locally, because there was no treatment plan shared from GOSH. I was expected to be the "go between" and pass on messages.
Similarly clinic letters never arrived at local clinics before our next appointment - so I had to verbally relay plans from our GOSH consultant. All highly inappropriate.
Our consultant enrolled the twins on the Cincinnati “Twins EoE Research Project” despite neither having EoE and only one having a clear EGID diagnosis.

Eventually you just “expect” errors, you expect clinic letters to take months on end to arrive, to have to explain appointments to local teams because there is never any communication or feedback - but it never, ever felt right. Someone else pointed out our consultant “never looked back” to check anything. What he didn’t remember, he assumed, and if you were not on the ball you wouldn’t pick it up.

In fact I and others were invited to be part of a Gastro Parent Network to improve relations between patients and clinicians, in an attempt to manage some of these appalling errors. It was also a requirement of a massive private donation which founded the APG - Academy of Paediatric Gastroenterology. This Network wasn't popular though, and was quickly shut down.

Many times I’ve wondered what would have happened if I had not picked up the above errors - or didn’t understand things better. Would I now have a child with a stoma, unable to poo out of his bottom and dependent on a bag? Unable to eat? It’s enough we have mega rectum, mega colon and a colon 30cm longer than it should be due to years of over prescription of Movicol. We escaped far worse.

Our second son was referred there for testing after years of serious impaction. Once puberty hit his previously mild constipation became uncontrollable and he was referred to GOSH. Immediately after scoping him our consultant gave me photos and said he was “more of the same” ie like our other children. He prescribed the same medication regime, but oddly this did not change after our son’s histology reports came back. Previously unmedicated and on an unrestricted diet his results were as near as your can get to an objective scope. However his eos levels were “unusually low”. Yet still he remained on the same medication regime for EGID. The gluten free diet DID however make a massive difference, and we reduced his laxative intake successfully.

Many times we were redirected to private care to get quicker results, or access testing unavailable on the NHS. This would be all very well and good - but there never seemed to be an informed change in care following such tests, which later made us decline. Once we were even invited - encouraged even - to travel to Belgium for oesophageal manometry for our daughter, because it was “so easy”. Using private healthcare is all very well but the notes were rarely copied across to the NHS. Having successfully become NHS patients we felt strongly we were DONE with the miscommunication and haphazard treatment and wanted to stay that way if possible. Obviously this should not be the case, administration should be able to cope with a mesh of private and state healthcare, it reduces waiting lists for others and speeds up results for many. But sadly GOSH admin couldn’t even cope with straightforward NHS communication.

Our consultant explained there was a strong link between EGID and EDS3, now called hEDS, which we hadn’t really heard of. Our older son was also under GOSH Rheumatology though and they suspected similar, and our eldest - and myself - later received an EDS diagnosis independently from local adult services so this did not seem surprising in retrospect. What WAS perhaps odd was that our consultant wrote it as a diagnosis on the twin’s clinic letters and when we participated in his research projects. We pointed out they did not have a formal diagnosis but this remained. This caused huge problems locally. GOSH Gastro tend to “own” their patients, unlike other tertiary hospitals/departments. Communication with local hospitals is at best poor, at worst dangerously absent. (Doesn’t help if your clinic letters are in Australia either…)

So although not ideal, our children remained patients at GOSH Gastro because they were the only ones willing and able to help them.

We escaped many of the unpleasant side effects of treatment others I know endured because we were very wary of additional treatments if they caused unnecessary side effects. Steroids made reflux a million times worse, never mind the behaviour issues, so the blood sugar regulation issues many experienced we only had mildly. (Steroids kill ALL eosinophils, which are “exquisitely sensitive” to them according to our consultant. But they are also involved in the insulin recognition pathway.) Likewise tube feeding impacts on insulin production because continual or more constant feeding is not normal for the body and it adapts. If that is withdrawn then blood sugar dips. How many children do I know who cannot now stop tube feeds for this reason? If I had not picked up on the Gabapentin overdose, which our pharmacy did not spot either, my youngest son could have been left with permanent kidney damage. I knew I needed to be vigilant.

2015 GOSH Gastro Review 1

In 2015, unbeknown to us a comprehensive review of the Gastro department at GOSH - and specifically those handling EGID patients - was undertaken.

Separately, the Royal College reviewers wrote an urgent, confidential letter to GOSH’s medical director warning that the service “may be causing avoidable harm to children” - a claim which GOSH has subsequently denied.

The College had been told that the gastroenterology team was diagnosing some conditions, including the rare allergic disease EGID, “excessively, without…consistent criteria or thresholds”, the letter added.

Initially a study of 40 complex cases was requested but the Royal College. They didn’t get past 10 - so concerned were they that a full investigation was launched. They found over-prescription, over intervention, poor substantiation of treatment plans, over diagnosis on little or no evidence and poor outcomes for children.

NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY SHARED WITH FAMILIES.

The head of Department, who also was responsible for the EGID cohort left GOSH and went to Dubai, perhaps to avoid further scrutiny or to avoid the fallout that ensued. This left our consultant in charge - and also carrying the can for the investigation’s findings. This has seemed to many families to be rather harsh. His patients had collectively had the most “normal” of lives under treatment, avoided harsh interventions and done best. This has been forgotten in the ongoing investigation by the RCPCH.

Consultants at GOSH have long used EGID patients for their own idiosyncratic research.

One is renown for over-use of TPN, and another for similar and for removing all food at the drop of a hat. Our consultant at least favoured normality and medication over extreme restriction, for that we were grateful. I have made friends with other families over the years, and have truly heard some horror stories. When I contacted the Royal College who undertook the review with our experiences, they said they were actually very familiar and in line with many others. They urged us to complain. Complaining however, involves sticking your head above the parapet, and there are always consequences…

Worse still though, this investigation has not only NOT been shared with families, but the comprehensive review of all patients that followed has been conducted without clarity and with considerable subterfuge.

Following the investigation it was decided that EGID no longer existed in its previous form.

But there remained the problem of what to do

with all their EGID patients.

Accusations of FII

These were subdivided into three groups and shared between three Consultant Paediatric Gastroenterologists to evaluate. These three assessed all cases, having been previously advised by Dr Danya Glaser, psychiatrist and specialist in FII - formally known as Munchausen’s Syndrome. http://www.expertsearch.co.uk/cgi-bin/find_expert?2184

Dr Glaser has an “interesting” previous career. Obsessed with FII her recent publications on it are now used nationally. Even the Royal College of Nursing has had them on their website for guidance. However her “catch all” description of possible candidates for scrutiny includes almost every parent I know. If you’ve ever blogged, fundraised, challenged a health professional, searched for health information on Google, been identified on the Autism Spectrum, had ANY mental health issues in your life, had a difficult birth… the list is endless…. you are to be under suspicion.

Shockingly Glaser has in the past even defended Dr Southall - struck off for experimenting on children then accusing parents of deliberate FII http://www.standard.co.uk/news/the-doctor-who-destroyed-families-southall-struck-off-for-accusing-parents-of-killing-their-children-6692927.html - to the GMC saying

“Professor Southall has made a very significant contribution to the welfare of children who have been subjected to maltreatment. His commitment to children and their wellbeing has been exemplary and remarkable. A strong leadership of the nature which Professor Southall has provided in this field has been an invaluable attribute.”

In an exercise which can only be assumed is to avoid taking the blame, the Gastro Department have used Glaser - who chaired ALL multi disciplinary meetings in the department -to shift the blame from the over-enthusiastic, cavalier doctors to families. Many parents have been accused of FII, including us, and some have even faced having their children removed.

NONE of these families have even been told that GOSH Gastro has been under such scrutiny- the pathetic letter to families tells you nothing. GOSH were told to admit more children for long observation periods to assess symptoms and decide if treatment - and indeed diagnosis - were genuine. But the manner in which this is carried out is appalling. Children were brought in to a tertiary care ward where people waited up to 9 months for a bed, where MRSA was rife and only one toilet is available for the whole ward….. and were given a carrier bag of snacks to try during their time there. Many of the children are too scared to try. Some know they have reacted to foods, some associate food with discomfort and pain, and others have no stay in appointments listening to consultants telling their parents they have food allergies and must avoid certain foods. ALL will have had debilitating gastro symptoms and are nervous of new foods. It’s a no-win situation. If they don’t eat you are a controlling FII parent - or if they do and don’t react, or react yet it is not accepted any longer as a true reaction. (All due to changes in hospital categorisation, not parent reporting.) And God forbid your child reacts whilst no one is available to observe - ie much of the time - because it’s then definitely false!

This is all EGID families at GOSH were offered. That or being threatened via letter with reporting to Social Services for FII if they didn’t stop all medicine and reintroduce all food. A friend received a letter stating this and was threatened at their appointment. We were already reported and “invited” for a two week admission. Three otherwise well children taking up 3 out of 10 beds on a tertiary care ward with the above “bag of food” plan. We declined - or rather the kids, one aged 15 - point blank refused. The *anxiety* it created was criminal, none had ever spent more than the odd night in hospital. It’s left scars to this day.

No one was been given any information beyond this letter all families received (which offers no information whatsoever) and the marginally more useful information on the Trust website. http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/2016-press-release-archive/review-gastroenterology-services-great-ormond-street-hospital.

Three consultants were asked to review these concerning EGID cases - "perplexing presentations". PALS refused to get involved and did not respond to parents, and Glaser seriously believed innocent doctors had been hoodwinked time and time again. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7303038.stm

"We have become impaled, hooked on a few cases which have been used by the media to cast doubt on the extent of child abuse. We need to start thinking the unthinkable."

Yet how a psychiatrist can be leading the Gt Ormond St Gastro Department is quite beyond me. She is not a clinical Doctor, not a paediatrician and she is NOT a paediatric gastroenterologist. Yet somehow, she was suddenly the ONLY authority on whether parents were telling the truth - or whether children’s symptom reporting was genuine. And don’t kid yourself that admission means observation, these are busy wards with very sick children - there is little, or no observation. Just judgement.

Since then the department has been moved away from the infamous Rainforest Ward in the Southwood Building. Most EGID patients have been jetisoned, and research canned. We were completely vindicated, but the kids lost 18 months of care, and of course nothing has changed - because it wasn’t ever made up! The whole process has been incredibly stressful, and until now it has been difficult to say anything. GOSH have largely escaped any penalty and parents have had to put up and shut up.

Social Service Referrals

Obviously, referrals for FII should never have been the way a tertiary level hospital seeks to get out of trouble, blaming parents and avoiding addressing important issues is not only a coward’s way out but it completely runs contrary to their raison d’etre.

Yet it’s a symptom of a bigger problem.

Currently in the UK, 1 in 9 children under 5 are referred to Social Services. Of those, 1 in 5 are referred for suspected Child Abuse. Parents are suspected as a matter of course, it’s the default option. No easy answer? Suspect the parents. But is this REALLY the “Big Brother’ Culture we want to live in? Are we going to let parents take the blame for cavalier doctors, and professionals covering their backsides? Do we seriously believe that nearly 10% of the children in our country are being neglected, abused or maltreated? One child is removed every TWENTY MINUTES in the UK. 365 days a year. How on EARTH have we come to this? That’s an awful lot of “hoodwinked” doctors, and social workers following Glaser’s flow charts.

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/news/childrens-services-uclan-study.php

This doesn’t make comfortable reading. The UK reality is not in line with other European Countries, and I’m not sure it’s indicative of a society I want to be part of either. I’m guessing you are thinking (if you’ve read this far!) that no false accusations would ever get far. But a S47 or FII enquiry is done without the parents’ knowledge. You never get the chance to hear the accusations and refute them. They can be completely wide of the mark - you only have to look at the errors made in our care, and I have friends whose children’s notes have been tampered with to avoid doctors taking the blame. And what few people realise is that in the Family Courts parents have fewer rights than accused murderers in the Criminal Courts. You are guilty until proven innocent. Parents cannot speak, are not informed and have no means to appropriately defend themselves. Social Services are utterly unaccountable, with “professionals” like Glaser endorsing their every move.

The bizarre thing is, GOSH consultants are supposed to be professionals at the top of their game. Doctors who have reached the pinnacle of their career - or not far off. Yet we are apparently supposed to believe that these experienced professionals have been duped by a large number of unconnected parents from across the country in some bizarre mass FII conspiracy!

It’s utterly ludicrous!

As President Lincoln said:-

“You can fool some of the people some of the time, but

not all of the people all of the time.”

This “Post Truth Era” is a frightening place indeed. Desperate to make sense of an ever expanding, complex world in a global, technology based interconnected world, we have sought to explain our life experiences via statistics, predictions and trends. But as William Davies explained here in The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/19/crisis-of-statistics-big-data-democracy this ceases to be meaningful the larger the data sample. Individuals get lost in the process and descriptors apply to a relatively smaller and smaller average group. Trying to identify child abusers in this manner is an utterly meaningless, futile activity.

Dr. Lauren Devine explains eloquently in her research here http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/29438/1/NewRethinking%20Child%20Protection%20Strategy%20-%20progress%20and%20next%20steps%20-%20Seen%20and%20Heard%20-%20Dr%20Lauren%20Devine.pdf that the self-fulfilling Theory of Child Protection is no more reliable than rolling a die in identifying children at risk, or those likely to abuse, with over-predicted risk running at 97%. The impact on families falsely accused is enormous. Family Law holds parents guilty until proven innocent, unable to have a voice and condemned by a system weighted heavily in favour against them. Add that to the mismatch with a society which believes only the guilty are scrutinised and you have a perfect storm.

The Future for Gastro at GOSH

July 2017 saw a Follow-Up Review by the RCPCH. Whilst some things had definitely been tackled by the department, unfortunately there seems to be an embedded culture of superiority and disinterest in working with others amongst the consultants. You can obtain a copy of the Review yourself, if you have a relationship with the Department, The number to call is 020 7762 6041.

What I particularly take issue with in the Follow-Up Review is the claim there has been no long-term damage to patients or families from the Departmental Failings prior to Special Measures in 2015, nor as part of the process to rectify the concerning problems uncovered by the RCPCH. In reality though, there has been no demonstrable benefit to children or families from this process. There has been no fulfilment of their Duty of Candour - no sharing of the results of the original investigation by the Royal College of Paediatricians. The losers in this entire process are the children and families.

Children who have had years of exclusion diets with minimal supervision (we had no NHS dietician for years, despite a tube fed child on elemental feed!).

Children with feeding tubes and repeat interventions. (Our daughter is now terrified of hospital interventions).

Accusations of exaggeration levelled against families when there was insufficient evidence for diagnoses given. (*surely* the responsibility of doctors?!)

GOSH Gastro refused to work with local teams so there was no local care to return to.

Children "cut loose" from the system, often denied access to NHS care - for example following our experience we had to wait 10 months for care to restart at our local hospital, one son waited two years for a Rheumatology referral requested by GOSH on discharge, he's still waiting for testing and treatment. We now have to privately pay for his orthotics as we don't live in the community catchment of our new local and cannot access NHS orthotics.

Diagnoses removed which explained complete symptoms which then all need retesting for and reconfirming.

Permanent evidence of Social Service intervention taints future treatment. This impacts on emergency care AND care for chronic illness. It colours all future involvement with health professionals.

I would challenge anyone from the RCPCH to claim our family has not been permanently affected, both by failings at GOSH and by their plan to put things right. GOSH gastroenterologists gave parents the impression they had defined an emergent disease and took ownership of their symptoms and care. They owe it to the children they profess to care for to provide appropriate ongoing care. After all, they would like us ALL to think their level of care is as their motto says-

The Child First and Always

Sadly that only applies if the hospital’s proverbial a*se is covered, and it suits the department's cavalier consultants. Otherwise you are cut loose with a local referral to Social Services.

"Identity" Politics and the cost of feminism today

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 18:49:00 +0000

So another "International Women's Day" rolls round and Twitter is awash with discussions and comments on "feminism" - whatever that is or may be. But as a woman, I feel the elephant in the room is not any of the topics being discussed under the umbrella of feminism.

The biggest issue facing women in the West is loneliness.

If we are really going to change the world for women in the 21st Century, it is vital we address the silent majority of women - often older women - who are as concealed in our society as those shrouded in hijab. We are largely invisible, ostensibly superfluous, and yet without the veritable army of middle aged women the country would pretty much grind to a halt. This week BBC Radio Suffolk have aired an excellent discussion about women in the workplace going through the menopause, and how their needs need to be met. With an ageing population and the elevated age of retirement we *need* older women to fill job vacancies, and must recognise their needs. But I would venture as a tentative start before this can happen their existence and daily reality needs to be acknowledged.

Historically older women held a senior social position in communities - and still do in traditional cultures. But in the West we seem to have liberated younger women, at the expense of their mothers. Feminism has been hijacked by the young, who have redefined and liberated it to make it "fit for purpose" today. Or perhaps have they merely rebranded it to meet acceptable, liberal norms that metropolitan society find acceptable?

Gay rights - a hugely important movement - gained mainstream credibility and acceptance during the 1980s and 90s at the same time as women were raising their profile in the workplace, staking their claim to traditional male roles and trying to "prove" their worth as mothers and professionals. It seems to me that this was a useful train that feminists unconsciously boarded more recently to further their cause and raise their profile, but in doing so real feminism, the practical focus on the role of women in society has been tossed aside as a worthwhile sacrifice whilst concepts of gender are discussed ad infinitum. Meanwhile, the fundamental position of women in society beyond those groups goes under the radar. But feminism is not a closed box of discussion and debate, it is alive and kicking in 2018 and should embrace the older generation of women.

Today we live in a society where little girls can be boys, boys can be girls and both can be parents and professionals. But it's a world where too many older women are invisible carers, feeling disconnected from society and lacking a sense of self worth with little sense of identity. An historic social casualty of the modernisation of the role of women, the irony of the feminist tradition is the blow it's dealt the older generation.

I am reminded of my past work on Social History and the sad trend for social isolation as communities break down. There are many reasons for this - increased geographical and economic mobility being the most obvious. Our lives are also so frantically busy that we constantly try to juggle everything and have precious little time to support any notion of "community". Families live miles apart and grandparents frequently continue to work full time as their lives continue to be hectic and demanding. Mothers "lose" their children, often thousands of miles away, and have to reinvent themselves with an empty nest. Rarely sufficiently local to have a regular grandparent role, women of this age are often emerging from years of isolated parenting with a false hope of time to "do something for themselves" only to find society barely acknowledges their existence and they are subsumed into the role of carers for elderly relatives.

It's as if the conveyor belt runs out and you get tipped off into this pool of older women who are all equally confused who they are and where they are headed.

Then there is the lack of confidence. So many women my age have precious little self confidence. Often degree holding, multi-talented individuals, they've sustained years of being told how to parent, how to educate their children, how NOT to parent, how to look, how to cook, how to have it all and hold down a job whilst running the family home. It's not surprising that making choices for themselves is incredibly daunting. But too many of us feel utterly trapped and devoid of options.

I blame much of this on the breakdown of communities. Governments seek to advise, interfere and even dictate "choice" to women in the absence of extended families and close knit communities. My generation have been told to aim high, work and parent, but no one discusses what happens after. Wonder Woman is only a useful role model for so long but as she doesn't age few over 40 can continue to live at that pace no matter how hard we try!

There are few clothes retailers for older women, few role models for those emerging from childbearing years who want to reinvent themselves and few opportunities which take the needs of older women into consideration. Loneliness affects so many, and a higher percentage of women than men report feeling lonely some of the time or often (Beaumont, 2013).

The "have it all society" I grew up in has destroyed communities, the backbone of society and ultimately our collective emotional wellbeing. It's liberated younger women - to a point, but left many out. People need roots, need to be part of a bigger whole and most importantly, they need to belong. Denying this whilst fostering a virtual social reality is unsustainable and leading to emotional unhappiness and the breakdown of society. There is huge focus on the mental wellbeing in the young, but too many older women I know are struggling too.

Further up the chain of belonging I believe this is precisely why populist political parties are gaining strength across Europe. People need to belong, and have so little control over their lack of family, local and extended social connections, that increased immigration and social migration feels far more threatening and disturbing than it might need to. Losing national identity on top of personal and local identity is just one step too far. We fundamentally need to belong, to understand whom we are and where we fit in. Like millions of other older women, I'm not sure I do.

I've been watching "Back in Time for Tea" on BBC iPlayer with interest. Like its sister series, "Back in Time for the Weekend" for me the most revealing observation was by the mum of the family who observed "The 1960s seem to have passed me by". Just as they did for millions of older women, whilst the younger generation let their hair down and felt liberated. The mums in both series feel the same way, that the 1970s were a glorious decade of family, local community, less hard work due to modern technology but without the all-encompassing, isolating and individualist rise in tech and social media which came later. For older women, and society as a whole, it's been downhill since then in terms of belonging and identity.

So let's refocus today on what we mean by feminism. With an ageing population it's about time older women felt noticed and valued. Women may well have been liberated from the kitchen, but the front door is still fundamentally locked to too many.

Bittersweet Birthdays - from my Recipe Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:33:00 +0000

This post is shared with my Recipe Blog , it marks the tentative first steps back to writing and I thought I would share it here. More soon!

Unbelievably, my twins turned twelve yesterday. TWELVE!!! Scarcely seems possible. And yet, in so many ways they are proving extremely mature and sensible beyond their years.

Well, sometimes.

Their birthdays are always a little bittersweet. Usually when the children reach a milestone, or celebrate a birthday we think back on their early years, and I invariably fish out an older photo (or two) to post on social media. How cute they were! Except with the twins. They were so, so unwell for weeks - months - that their early photos bring pain and sadness, and not a little anger.

Despite a strong family history of reflux, despite suffering myself, my father also, despite knowing EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT when I took them to the GP at 3 weeks old, *nothing* was done for SIX MONTHS. Nothing. Just weekly weights, the odd blood test, the usual fobbing off - and the ward social worker visiting me to see "how she could help me" and "what I could change" to help feed them more/help them gain weight. Because of course, it had to be my fault - how could I be so naive to try and continue breastfeeding twins?!

But it stands to reason if you regurgitate every feed until it's time for the next one, you are not going to gain much weight. And if you are in awful discomfort from burning acid reflux which is so bad you develop a hoarse cry and torticolis, go rigid and display symptoms of Sandifer's that you may very well not want to feed. Because it HURTS.

Eventually, we had to go private, and the twins were given medication. We had tried an elemental feed but it was so thin that until the inflammation had been reduced, and their reflux slightly improved it wasn't going to stay down. So I embarked on a strict maternal exclusion diet and breastfed them, on new medications until such time as they were well enough to take the formula as a top up - and guess what. They started gaining weight.

It's really not rocket science.

And yet this is what happens all over the NHS. Twenty years after I dealt with this with my eldest son the NHS STILL blames parents - mothers - first, and thinks outside the box second. And using private healthcare brands you a diagnosis-seeking, desperate-for-intervention type of parent. Not a good image at a time when 20% of ALL under 5s are referred to Social Services and MBP or FII referrals are sky high. But I would do it again in a heartbeat, and no baby should be left to suffer months on end like they did.

Anyway... this birthday was all about CAKE! Both twins wanted a unique cake, to fit with their current favourite flavours. K loves apples and apple muffins. My Mum has always made a Cranks Apple Cake, from her recipe book dating back almost 40 years. Wheat and Gluten free is easy, as is dairy free, but egg free - and she had no egg replacer - is more of a challenge. The result was so successful that I thought I must share - particularly since some of my readers have children who cannot tolerate egg replacer!

It's best setting this out in stages, so there are two sections each for Ingredients and Method - make sure you have all you need, not just the first section!

Ingredients

Line an 8" tin with non stick paper (a springform tin or one with a release base works best)
8oz SR white gluten free flour (we use Dove's Farm, don't use a heavy flour for this cake)
4oz safe margarine (not all are good for baking, we use the Stork foil wrapped block)
4oz Demerara sugar (and a couple of tablespoons for the topping)
1 1/2 teaspoons each of cinnamon and mixed spice
2oz ground almonds
2oz finely chopped dates (which have been previously softened in boiling water)

Method

Soak the dates for half an hour in boiling water, then chop
Combine the dry ingredients
Rub the marge into the flour
Add dates

Ingredients 2

2 1/1 tbsp cornflour
1tbsp safe baking powder
1/2 pint almond milk, or alternative
3-4 cooking apples (Bramleys) peeled, cored and roughly chopped)
a little more gluten free flour

Method part 2

As soon as you have chopped the apples toss them in flour - this prevents them going brown and helps stop them sinking whilst the cake is cooking.
Put a couple of tablespoons of apple to one side, for the top of the cake, add the rest to the mixture with flour, dates and spices.
Mix together the cornflour, baking powder and almond milk, first making a paste then whisking the rest of the milk in.
Slowly add the milk/cornflour/baking powder to the rest of the ingredients and transfer to the cake tin.
Sprinkle the remaining chopped apple on the top, followed by the Demerara Sugar.
Bake for one hour at 190C, 175C fan

Allow to cool, do not attempt to take out of the tin beforehand!

Can be further decorated should you wish to do so!! My daughter is panda mad and made some fondant pandas to decorate her cake!

It will keep a couple of days in the fridge (if it lasts that long!) Or you can freeze in wedges.

We ALL want our country back.

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:10:00 +0000

What a week. I've found myself agreeing with Laurie Penny's perspective on events, the winners of the Referendum seem to have scored an own goal and backtracked on their campaign commitments and both main political parties seem to be spontaneously combusting.

The Telegraph is reporting on the economic chaos with portents of Doom - all initiated by it's protege Boris Johnson who founded his coup on annihilating the cartoon caricature of the EU that he painstakingly thrust down our throats via his weekly column. Yet Boris is now advocating a Free Trade deal with free movement - otherwise known as what he campaigned against, but without the benefits of membership. The world has gone mad.

Of course, some Leavers still genuinely think we are going to "push" the EU for a good deal. The reality however is very different:-

For Leavers in denial about what we can expect from EU, here's Michael Fuchs, vice chairman of the CDU @BBCr4today pic.twitter.com/rCqIEc3PUJ
— William Wright (@Williamw1) June 27, 2016

Of course, Cameron should have known better than to offer a Referendum, but he needed to retain as much support from the Eurosceptics as possible to win a majority last year. Some believe he assumed the LibDems would still have sufficient power to vote down a Referendum Bill - but it was a massive gamble and one he has paid for with his job - and perhaps his legacy. If we break with Europe, it looks likely that Scotland will demand another Independence Referendum and he will have not one, but two schisms on his epitaph.

It was said the other day that usually working class revolts are not led by people like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. I would argue that the leaders of the Leave campaign did nothing of the sort - they used the anti-immigration vote to topple Cameron, their motive was totally self-motivated, purely power seeking. Boris certainly didn't want to Leave, it was a useful banner to motivate those who have felt disenfranchised, ignored and abandoned, people he cares little for and his flippant column yesterday was evidence of this. Trump's campaign used the same strategy. It's not many months since he was publicly advocating remaining in the EU either.

It is a fact that the Conservative vote changed little during the course of the campaign. It was a 10% swing of Labour voters who saw their opportunity to "stick it to the man" after years of cuts which cost Cameron his Remain win. This group believe Corbyn is their leader, but could not back a Remain vote. Blaming much of the pain of austerity on rising population due to immigration rather than an ageing population and a contraction of public services, they needed a scapegoat. Boris gave them one - and Farage rubbed his hands in glee. Corbyn was caught in the middle, left fighting for a campaign he did not associate with and there is emerging evidence that Corbyn attempted to sabotage his own LabourIn campaign, something I find highly likely. He has no love of Europe.

This is where Corbyn is such an anomaly. Voted in by a system which gives enormous weight to the party electorate over Westminster he really is a man of many people- but his role is to lead his party, which in Westminster consists of elected MPs, in opposition to the elected government. And now facing an overwhelming Vote of No Confidence he's dug his heels in further. But it's not that he doesn't understand or respect the system, he's not part of it - and doesn't want to be.

I actually doubt ‪#‎Corbyn‬ is going anywhere. He rather likes the idea of bringing the establishment down. I respect his commitment to those who elected him leader, but his mandate went beyond heading up the swathes of disenfranchised people currently unrepresented at Westminster. If he wanted the job of providing an opposition to Her Majesty's government he would have quit since that post is clearly untenable. No one survives two thirds of their cabinet resigning - but he's not "surviving", he's leading an internal revolution - at least in his head.

So we are left with political chaos and economic uncertainty. Sterling has crashed - although recovered slightly - and the markets are in Bear mode once again. The Labour party is on the brink of splitting, with a revolutionary leader who believes he is the voice of the people - people who have voted for more cuts, another recession, and ironically a further right wing government than they have endured the past year. If nothing else, I hope a new era of politics might dawn as a result of this bonfire of vanities. We might not have a plan, we might be up a creek without the proverbial paddle - but one thing we all know is that we've had enough of soundbites, of electioneering, of being lied to, conned and used by power-seeking careerists politicians. It's time for change.

Thus we find ourselves in a stalemate. There is no one with any political power at Westminster with any stomach for leaving the EU. Meanwhile the war continues in Syria, the migrant crisis persists and Matthew Elliott, CEO of the Vote Leave campaign reckons we all need a holiday.

As if.

Less Free Speech than EU think.

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Mon, 23 May 2016 21:41:00 +0000

I'm losing the will to live with the EU referendum campaign. Watching politicians, experts and even celebrities sharing the latest soundbites and half-baked statistics whilst shedding their previously valued veneer of respect is often entertaining but it's currently worse than watching a car crash in slow-motion.

What really bothers me is the complete avoidance of the key topics most people I converse with wish to discuss. All campaigners are so keen to steer our thinking towards their next half baked statistic that in their arrogance they remove the opportunity for free speech which might avoid the unthinkable - which is playing out like some sinister horror movie across the Atlantic right now.

The single biggest reason for Donald Trump's appeal is not his success, his offer of something different or his manifesto. It's something much simpler. Trump offers a forum for American voters to voice their concerns, speak their fears and discuss their opinions. And we should find that rather scary.

You see people are actually capable of independent thought, despite the prevailing view of campaigners in the EU Referendum here in Britain. We do have concerns, views, opinions and - shock horror - some of them might be informed and educated. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away - it just polarises opinion and pushes such concerns into extreme territory - which is actively encouraged at present in the way the question of immigration is viewed by the Remain campaign. But unless such concerns are aired, discussed and evaluated in a moderate forum, people are either pushed or pulled to the extremes, which invariably offer the opportunity to do so - at great cost to the Centre ground which is daily losing moderate voters. The irony is, political correctness, and political arrogance are costing this debate it's moderate centre ground.

Personally I have two very simple questions I would appreciate an answer to before 23rd June. Firstly, the question of economic migration. At the very mention of the word "migration", half of social media have added me to their "Crazy UKIP Voters" list and every other word I might add is ignored. But branding me a racist prohibits me from discussing this question sensibly, and I am utterly uncomfortable with either the far right or far left groups who would encourage me to voice my concerns - then offer an unpalatable response.

For me it's about numbers. Numbers of people in the country, a country already heavily populated, a country which has suffered a massive cut in public spending already, and a country in which public services are already trimmed to the bone. I would not expect the people already struggling in this country to have their expectations, support and services cut further because we have an open door policy.

And that's it. That's my concern.
I wish to know how this might be addressed - but not by an anti-muslim, anti-immigrant or anti anybody politician, by someone who respects this as a reasonable concern. It's not loaded, I'm not a racist and agree people are not numbers, but when there is a six week wait for GP appointments, when my son's Statutory SEN support is required to help teach new arrivals English and when I hear Health Visitors have case loads of 8000 children it IS a valid concern.

My second concern is more of a question, which absurdly no one seems to be able (or willing) to answer.

What is the net cashflow to the EU from the UK? How much do we pay them, and how much do we gain in subsidies and investments? I find it hard to fathom how someone as allegedly well-educated and well paid as George Osborne is completely unable to ever answer the first part of that question. In the news we have heard wildly different figures from £130m to £330m per week. If my son can cope with AS Core 1 Maths then seriously, can these "experts" not provide me with an answer? And whilst I appreciate A Level Statistics is probably significantly harder now than in George Osborne's sixth form days, he really should make more effort than his recent offerings.

Joking aside, this referendum has demonstrated clearly the insidious results of limiting free speech, of directing people, fobbing them off with "road closed" signs on discussions that people *need* to have. The result is a Carnival of Animals - or a Chimps Tea Party might be more precise. In a democracy, you ought to respect your electorate, even if you are unable to control them and Free Speech is one of the few weapons we have against extremism.

Enough is enough.

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Fri, 20 May 2016 13:08:00 +0000

If I hear one more comment about "raising standards" in schools I might scream. As a (previously) staunch advocate of improving teaching in our schools, of promoting excellence and raising aspirations, I'm vaulting over the fence now and saying STOP.

Enough is enough.

The UK (and England in particular) has an unprecedented teenage mental health crisis. At least one teenager you know will be suffering from mental health issues, which will be a product of the environment in which they live. I know many - far too many. Children suffering so acutely some threaten to take their own lives. Why? Because at a desperately young age they believe they are failures - and that every door to a possible bright future is closing.

Now I'm not about to suggest that attempting to raise standards in schools is the only factor in the emotional welfare of our young people but it's a pretty big one. The student who works flat out, many hours a day and regularly attains top scores in past papers deserves to have a satisfying experience in their public exam. To be challenged yes, to be stretched but not to the limit of their human endurance. When I hear of students leaving exam halls early, or rushing to the toilets straight afterwards to be sick, sobbing in hallways and saying their "life is over" because their University place is lost to them... my blood boils. These are not kids who can't be bothered, those who struggle academically or those who are outside the system. Indeed some of these are model students with offers from Russell Group Universities and bright futures ahead of them. But all these young people are the adults of tomorrow, whom we will rely on to run this country long after we have retired. Do we really want to break them before they have got started in life?

Our young people have so much to contend with. Social lives that intrude on their every waking moment - there is no escape now with the tentacles of social media permeating into previously safe spaces. There are many, many more applicants for sixth forms, apprenticeships and university places - partly due to a rising domestic population and partly due to migration from the EU. University tuition fees which are set to rise from next September and costly living expenses. They repeatedly hear how "exams are getting easier" and "it was much harder in my day" from every form of media plus family and friends, yet no one fully appreciates the insidious impact "raising standards" is having on all our children.

My ten year old sat a reading comprehension on Dickens' Pickwick Papers this week. He's a bright kid - near top in his year at a selective school. But the first thing he said on arriving home afterwards was that he was "certainly never going to read any book like that in future".

What a tragedy. To gain a certainty that the works of Dickens (and probably similar classic authors) holds nothing for you at age ten is up there with killing off the Tooth Fairy or Father Christmas for a preschooler. You see, artificially injecting age inappropriate work several years down doesn't raise standards. It raises anxiety, raises a sense of failure, raises a real lack of confidence which permeates into other areas of life and raises the incidence of mental health problems in our children.

And you can hardly have missed the news this week that Finnish schools rank top in the world for academic achievement. Whilst scoring is always subjective and this might be questionable, they undoubtedly do well. I wonder if you watched the videos of countless interviews with Finnish teachers, asking them what their secret was?

HAPPINESS.

Sounds so twee doesn't it? Yet it's a widely accepted fact that the happy child learns fast and unhappy children rarely learn at all. In actual fact, children learn in spite of Eduction, in spite of teachers and in spite of schools. They are learning all the time and until we realise this our education system will remain stuck in the Dark Ages back to where it is currently hurtling. We can guide, enthuse, challenge and mentor young people - but the idea formal Education should be the transferral of a body of knowledge into the brain of each and every young person is so very wrong.

Children are innately curious, eager to learn and naturally enthusiastic. Many times I have written about my second son who has Autism. How he craves knowledge and once his interest is piqued he will devour information and visibly grow as a person as he learns and gains confidence. But the second you impose a requirement to learn too fast, to tackle anything he is not developmentally ready for - the anxiety kicks in, the panic ensues and he ceases to function. This is a more obvious process that all children and students go through when forced to "learn" something they are not yet ready for. And they end up learning nothing at all - because no one can learn when in an acute state of anxiety.

But what of our older students, do too many receive an A*? Have exams become easier? And should be not be aiming to have the most accomplished school leavers in the World?

There might indeed have been a time when this was the case, but I assure you nothing could be further from the truth now. The stakes have never been higher, and neither has the insurmountable mountain which must be climbed to gain a good grade. Too many young people are dropping hobbies, skills and not nurturing talents in activities which promote mental wellbeing because they are focussing solely on their school work - because the message they are hearing is that it matters above all else, to the exclusion of all else and that success is the only thing which is important. And yet the inconsistency is crippling! Deprived of any broader perspective by this false ethos, students are then robbed of any credibility or reliability in public exams. An A grade this year will not be comparable to last, to another subject, to another A level years ago. Explain that to employers and universities. This injustice of this expectation escalation is quite shocking.

Me: *gets A's on most past papers*
Me: *sits #ocrmaths 2016
Me: pic.twitter.com/VjSv9zs4LQ
— Enrique Moolis (@emily_mullis) May 18, 2016

So if I had one message for anyone studying for public exams this summer it is this:-

You are lucky enough that you will have many lives, many opportunities and chances that you cannot even know about yet. This is only one - one route amongst many. Yes it matters, and yes you should give it your very best shot, but don't let it define you, or limit you. It's just one path in the complex web of life and there will be others, so many others. If you went on a journey and the road was blocked, would you go home? No, you might curse then try a different way. That's all this is, a test in map reading the Atlas of Life. You only fail the test if you give up and go home.

The following websites offer advice and information for parents and young people dealing with mental health difficulties:-

There's no "I" in "Team"

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:35:00 +0000

Finally I have found a spare moment to jot down the endless sea of words in my head- it's been a busy few months and writing has had to take a back seat. However despite little slowing down of the rollercoaster of life, sanity preservation has now kicked in and claimed "shotgun" position, asserting itself to gain my attention as only a teenager on a mission to get "one up" over his older brother can do.

It will hardly have eluded any parent of a school age child today that group work has been elevated to an alarmingly superior place in the curriculum. Initially a buzzword(s) in the business world to encourage team work amongst disparate members focussed on a single goal, "working together" has infiltrated education and our schools. The need to achieve a joint outcome, share experiences and "work together" may seem entirely admirable, but it is letting down large groups of individuals in the process.

I believe the intentions of educators are good, the natural Darwinian tendency of young humans to self-focus does indeed need taming and children must learn to share, take turns and collaborate. But when "working together" means relying on the loudest/most confident/most able group member to complete the work then few are benefitting. I have lost count of the number of times my eldest has taken the lion's share of a "group project", whilst lazier individuals contribute little. Unwilling to forfeit the high mark he could obtain as an individual he shoulders the burden of the entire project. Similarly, my daughter often comes home to tell me she's not sure what the work they covered in Maths today was all about, "but it's all right as our group finished, I didn't have to do anything."

Then there are the other two boys, one possibly on the spectrum and one very definitely there. Both hugely able and utterly mystified why they cannot complete work alone- after all, they would make a significantly better job of it. A was distraught that in Art, a hugely individual subject he is passionate about he was forced to collaborate. In H's high school this is misinterpreted as arrogance, when in actual fact it's the truth. He could do a significantly better job on his own. Why on *earth* should he sit there bored rigid discussing maths three levels below his own? Unless it's so he can teach the others this is absurd and he gains nothing. Apart from the blindingly obvious point that those with Autism work better alone (since the diagnosis involves developmental delays in communication and social interaction) unless all members of a group stand to benefit from collaboration it is pointless exercise.

I never enjoyed group work, although I benefitted from limited collaborative efforts. Group work has its place, but currently it has been artificially elevated out of it. Working together can be derived from multiple sources, such as sports teams, drama or choir groups. Of course, its natural place on the sports field has been largely beaten out of existence with the artificial suppression of competition. (Perhaps that's the understated intention of heralding group interaction in the classroom as the ideal modus operandi?) But there is little need to ram group work into every subject on the curriculum.

There is indeed no "I" in team. Team work invariably stifles the individual and for many it is an exercise in descrimination- however well intentioned. It reduces linear progress and permits some to overly rely on others. The most able almost never stand to gain and it is yet another example of our education system focussing on the less able at the expense of others. It should never be used as a blunt instrument- a check box for every subject that needs ticking to gain OFSTED credit, and recognition should be given that it has limited use.

So to the (several) teachers who wrote on H's report that he finds group work challenging, can be obstructive and reluctant- I'm not surprised. Working together is of occasional benefit and should always take the individual needs of all members of the group into consideration. Judging a child with ASD by a "one size fits all" theory of collaboration is inappropriate and discriminatory.

There is no "I" in any team, and there's no "you" either. But there are three in "Individual". And he's definitely that. Unique, entertaining, exhausting, inspiring, and a real individual...

Facing Facts - Name your Nemesis

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Mon, 16 Nov 2015 19:44:00 +0000

The events in Paris on Friday 13th have precipitated a great deal of thought, comment and consideration across the internet.

The excusers are out in force, confusing the obvious truth that no one wants war, or death or killing, with the need to excuse terrorists, blame ourselves or just quite simply rearrange the facts to suit an ostrich mentality which prefers to live in a happy bubble - or a self-deprecating one at least.

Image courtesy of Melbourne Streets Avant-garde via Flickr

Why do we DO that? Why are a subset of British people (in particular) some of the world's best at self-effacement? Why do we deny every ounce of national pride, and drown our self respect in shame? Shame for what? For a history that is not purely glorious? Can any nation boast such a past? Surely recognition of past wrongs, past less-than-ideal choices is precisely what can make a country great?

A country with a conscience has two choices. Sit and watch on the sidelines, opting out of the present, or capitalise on that conscience to improve the future for all.

Right now, too many people are choosing the former option. The group calling themselves Islamic State have claimed responsibility for the horrific attacks in Paris. These are religious extremists for whom dying for their cause is the ultimate goal. These are not moderate Muslims, whom are as disgusted, appalled and distanced from this extreme version of Islam as the rest of us. An excellent article in The Atlantic magazine today pointed out that this group is religious, extremely so, with a warped version of Islam that has no place in modern society. It is vital we recognise and address this, or we have no hope of ending the terror. With Armageddon as their end game, diplomatic talks are just not going to cut it...

Unfortunately, as I wrote in January following the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the dumbing down of information is leading to an overly simplistic world view for many, with the harsh realities in today's world blurred around the edges for mass media. This lends a degree of softening, making brutal facts seem distant and unreal, suggesting they can be ignored as we choose. But denying that ISIS jihadists are not a religious group is the same ostrich response the Republicans give in America when there is another mass shooting. It IS a religious issue, and precisely due to the nature of their religious convictions talking is never going to work. To these terrorists the fight is everything to do with religion, it is the culmination of their literal interpretation of the Quran. And like the Bible, the Quran is prone to contradictions and there is plenty to support their jihad.

The same extremists can be found in any major religion, but the main difference with some of the Islamic faith is that their "normal" verges on many people's "extreme". It is simply not acceptable in the 21st Century to stone people to death for speaking out, whip them for having a drink, mask women, enforce their servitude and remove their human rights. That's the thin end of the wedge which is the base these extremist groups have grown from. Men whose arrogant delusional supremacy is born from a society that doesn't respect its women and still chooses to apply a Law that belongs in the years before civilisation. And what do we do? Sanction these archaic traditions by permitting, encouraging and turning a blind eye.

Look at Saudi Arabia. A country which by rights, should not be afforded the hand of friendship by the West, and should never have been elected to the UN Council for Human Rights. Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom released a report analyzing a set of Saudi Ministry of Education textbooks in use during the current academic year in Islamic studies courses for elementary and secondary students. The textbooks promote an ideology of hatred toward people, including Muslims, who do not subscribe to the Wahhabi sect of Islam. But our thirst for oil has diluted our response to such extremism, and thus the boundaries of acceptability are pushed outwards. This is explained well in Adam Curtis' BBC film Bitter Lake.

So we should bear some responsibility for the present situation, but with that comes a responsibility to safeguard the future. Not just for the West, but for the many Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists and HUMANS who are dying daily at the hands of this group. And because these terrorists fight and die in the name of their God we must recognise the religious nature of their fight or we cannot respond appropriately. Just like guns kill people unless carefully regulated, extreme beliefs kill people too- neither goes away because we pretend they don't exist.

And not only are many people refusing to face the reality that is the extreme religion of ISIS, the apologists are lining up to take the blame. Jeremy Corbyn even stated today that Al Quaeda did not exist until the USA began their war on terror in 2003. Apart from wondering whom he thinks was responsible for the 9/11 attacks over a year earlier, I wonder at the thinking behind such a comment. You see, taking the blame for something so complex not only elevates the blame taker to an unrealistic level of importance, but it suggests the perpetrators were puppets at the hands of our mistakes. It fails to accept responsibility and neatly sidelines the issues for another day.

Accepting responsibility for the past should never preclude taking responsibility for the future. Any shame we have about the not-so-great parts of Great Britain should inspire optimism and change and drive us towards building a better future, not turn us into doormats whilst other nations have a go at getting it wrong. Sure, we made mistakes - we are human after all, and to deny our humanity would deliver up the future to those who have no conscience, no sense of responsibility and no qualms about self interest above all.

World Politics is about team work today, and Britain should be proud to be IN that team, not apologising on the sidelines. No nation should lose its sense of self, but instead take pride in its improved outlook having learned from mistakes in the past. A blanket rejection of all aggressive means to keep people safe is, in fact, the ultimate expression of selfishness, a delusion of grandeur that is simply breathtaking. It is a failure to embrace other humans as equally precious and support their protection because you wish to put your own safety, and your ideals before humanity.

Without History, there is no Future. There is only the chaos of Today. Let's learn from the past, not spend an eternity apologising for it.

Action not Sympathy

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:20:00 +0000

Syria has been in the news for so long that many people have stopped listening. The unfolding media story about the current refugee crisis has appeared almost as if by magic - the underlying causes distant and poorly understood because they don't make headlines. But understanding the causes is always important because that is the key to improving the future. Increased objectivity requires subjectivity - not snapshots of current events divorced from their past.

The civil war in Syria appeared to many to be part of the so called "Arab Spring", a wave of cries for independence from those subject to authoritarian rule in the Middle East. However, as this cartoon succinctly explains, the biggest underlying cause of the Syrian War was in fact, Climate Change. The exodus from the rural areas of Syria when crops failed during the worst drought in the region on record destabilised urban areas - and what might have been a simmering dissatisfaction exploded.

Syria should be a lesson for us all.

The current, tragic refugee situation is also in no small part due to our intervention in Iraq under Labour which destabilised the Middle East and precipitated the "Arab Spring". The West then misguidedly, largely under public pressure, supported and funded the opposition to Assad in Syria. That initial opposition was in no small part what we today know as ISIS.

For all these reasons international responsibility should be accepted and consensus sought to respond to the situation. All agree crisis management is not enough, a coherent long-term policy is needed to deal with the problem at source. That would need renewed international efforts to sort out the civil war in Syria and destroy IS, yet neither is likely to happen any time soon. We can't even get past the initial emotional response, let alone begin to tease apart the facts. The public got it wrong before - and should bear a large chunk of responsibility for the current strength of ISIS and Russian support for Assad, people should think carefully about an over-reaction to a heart-wrenching situation. The power of social media and our thirst for a "quick fix" of news perpetuates knee-jerk responses to events. We must not lose sight of the bigger picture though and engage our brains as well as our hearts before responding. Even worse, viewing events elsewhere through the spectacles of our own lives distorts reality further.

Allison Pearson wrote succinctly in The Telegraph,

"Most Syrians want to stay in their country or close by. Instead of the siren calls luring them across the sea to an uncertain fate, they need our practical help on the ground to give them food, shelter and the strength, one day, to take their homeland back."

True. We should never forget the appalling reality that is life for many, in a war-torn country struggling to survive and leave fellow human beings to "get on with it". The video below has a powerful message.

This isn't new, and I've seen it before, which is perhaps even sadder since the war in Syria is now so old. But the...

Posted by Musings of a 21st Century SAHM on Wednesday, 9 September 2015

Images like this video and the photo below matter, because we live in a global environment, where ignoring events on the other side of the planet no longer buys you peaceful and ignorant isolationism. We can't pick and choose which parts of the world take our interest, we have a responsibility to consider the whole which in turn impacts on every one of us. But images that focus on individuals are only part of the story. No conflict is ever won by identifying with the individual - and the same is true of international crises.

Courtesy of Bengin Ahmad

The media's current obsession with a "refugee crisis" - which is very real and affecting many people in different areas of the Middle East and Africa - neglects the migrant crisis and the longer term impact of the "Arab Spring". In fact most of those people you see on TV are not asylum seekers, but migrants who are opportunistically seeking to enter a more affluent country at a time when national borders are struggling to cope. Many have even held jobs for several years in countries they have already claimed asylum. Today the BBC began to acknowledge this. Confusing refugees with migrants has also precipitated an hysterical response from many including celebrities engaged in an unpleasant "caring one-upmanship" because a boy died tragically crossing from Turkey. But that's just a tiny part of the real situation.

The real people suffering are those in the refugee camps, who have yet to claim asylum, whom the World Food Programme and UNICEF are trying to support. Those people whose funding has been cut by all governments except the UK as they struggle to finance the mass migration of those who have already successfully claimed asylum, but who seek to move further to better themselves.

Whilst that's highly understandable no one mentions that according to the Dublin Agreement refugees must claim asylum in the first country they reach and cannot make multiple claims. That some fellow muslim nations nearby are doing nothing and Saudi Arabia has tens of thousands of air conditioned tents on their border close to Syria. That many people on the boats are seizing the opportunity when they have been several years in Turkey, with jobs and homes there. That those taking vast sums to smuggle these migrants are bankrolling ISIS who are also using the current crisis to get fighters across into Europe. And that the boy who tragically died was not even a refugee. He had a home in Turkey for 3 years and his mother wanted to stay. His father wanted to join family in Canada but lacked legal means to do so.

Last week I said that Europe wouldn't maintain its open borders and already many countries are closing theirs. There is little support for free migration in any country in the world, and most leaders recognise that their first duty is to the people whom they represent. Increasing a population by even 1% overnight has an enormous long term impact on resources and prosperity, can threaten national security, national health and well being. We should be helping the refugees, those rendered stateless due to conflict in Syria, but evacuating vast numbers in an uncontrolled way is sure to precipitate dangerous tensions across Europe and leaves a vacuum in the Middle East which will destabilise the situation further.

Short-termism has become endemic in world (as well as domestic) politics, but we must take our heads out of the proverbial sand and look beyond the here and now or the future will take us by surprise once again.

Round we go again....

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:41:00 +0000

This is H, aged 5, at his sports day many years ago. He's looking confused, and not a little distressed. You see he'd just run the 50m running "race" and won by a mile. Fastest boy in his year group. The day is forever etched into my memory - but not because of this great achievement. Let's face it this was in Reception, when at least half the year can barely coordinate themselves sufficiently to hurtle down the track let alone understand the point of it all. No, the reason I will never forget the day was because of the comment made by the teacher running the event.

"Round you go again!" she said.

You see, his school didn't believe in competitive sports. Ever. "Everyone's a Winner" was the school's motto, and very commendable it sounded - if a little overly politically correct. But to put this ethos into context you should know that this little boy had never, ever been a "winner" in his life.

Non verbal until well past the age of three, he found school impossible to comprehend. He spent most of Reception under the table, a convenient place from which to lob heavy books at any passing teacher! With 46 fixed term exclusions to his name by the age of six school was not somewhere he shone. Rather he endured, they crisis managed and I cried. A lot.

So when my little Cygnet (as his class was known) raced down that track, completely engaged and utterly focussed on that finish line, I could have cheerfully strangled the insensitive, dismissive voice that expected him to keep re-running the absurd "race" until it was time to move on to the next activity.

WHAT ON EARTH FOR???

There is a reason children participate in a huge variety of activities in school, beyond the academic, and it isn't just to give the teachers a break. Children learn in a huge variety of ways, and learning is never solely about reading and writing. Emotional and social education is a fundamental part of any child's education, and many children - particularly younger ones, gain most social and emotional learning from activities outside the classroom, in addition to the holistic environment they are in. My child had, at that moment, made an enormous breakthrough. He had been engaged in a group activity, focussed on a delayed result which required immediate engagement and participation, and appreciated the potential reward of any effort he made.

Which was swiftly taken away from him with that single sentence.

Unsurprisingly, the children who excel in the classroom are rarely those who are equally talented at sport. Or music, or art. All children are individuals with gifts, talents, difficulties and challenges as diverse as their faces. So denying children the opportunity to redress any imbalance within the classroom by removing competition outside, is misguided and potentially damaging.

So why am I telling you this now?

You may well ask. Two reasons really. H is nearly 14 and we've seen a complete turnaround over the years. Still hugely challenging at times, he now excels in the classroom, whilst the athletics track brings more of a challenge. Due to poor management of joint hypermobility and a huge delay in obtaining appropriate support he not only has completely flat feet but also something known as external tibial torsion. Basically his legs curve outwards below the knee, offsetting his entire skeleton and he simply cannot run fast anymore. Indeed, before he started wearing day splints, night splints and summer in casts to stretch his calf muscles last year, he could barely run at all.

The second reason for remembering this event is that we do seem to be "going round again" with the twins. Unable to play much sport because of health issues my youngest son is a gifted chorister. But no amount of persuasion could prompt his school to permit him to shine. Their obsession with group work and "equal opportunity" blinded them to his lack of opportunity in other areas. His singing gives him confidence and since joining our local church choir he is a different child.

Similarly, his twin is incredibly good at art. Whilst that might seem rather boastful, I can honestly tell you that she's really not much good at team games, struggles with Maths and finds friendships quite a challenge at times. Art is her "thing". But try convincing anyone that's it's ok to excel publicly and gain opportunities to work outside of a group and it's as if you've suddenly grown a second head.

H himself summed it up best after his enthusiastic and commendable participation in his High School Sports Day in July this year. He tried so hard and wasn't last but was quite thoughtful after. He hadn't forgotten that day eight years ago either.

"I was fast once, wasn't I Mummy? When it didn't count."

Except it did. It counted HUGELY for me. I observed and recognised every little achievement in those 50m and will never, ever forget that day. It's made me want to celebrate all goals reached, to recognise all my children's talents and appreciate where they are NOW, and let them feel good about themselves. Because none of us are equal - and difference isn't a bad thing. That child winning the race may well be fighting battles you have no comprehension of - and deserves to be a winner, to come first. It might be the only time they do.

A Lion Named Cecil

noreply@blogger.com (Twinsplustwo) — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:47:00 +0000

The internet is buzzing to the hashtag #CeciltheLion, so the topic barely needs an introduction. Butchered by American dentist Walter Palmer, a father of two from Minnesota. the story is abhorrent and distressing, but also profoundly informative on our views on humanity and man's place within the animal kingdom.

The world wide web has galvanised itself as judge and jury and I suspect despite his apology Walter Palmer's days as a dentist are over. According to The Mail he has lied about the location of a bear he hunted and killed in the past, and further allegations continue to surface. He has apologised - but his apology further highlights the bizarre way we categorise animals in our attempt to understand our place in the world. Palmer said he didn't realise that the lion had a name or that he was breaking the law by killing an animal that had been coaxed away from the game reserve it lived on.

It's this response that has had such a profound impact on me.

What is it about a wild animal with a name?

Does naming a wild animal somehow grant it "pet" status, or assumed human control? Certainly naming suggests identification, some connection being made between man and beast. We name our pets carefully, and enjoy reading stories about wild animals we've named, in some way imposing characteristics and personality upon them with that name. Tarka the Otter, Fantastic Mr Fox, Shamu the Killer Whale - better known as Free Willy in the film - what they all have in common is their fundamental predator status, but once named and seemingly domesticated (in the case of Mr Fox in the fictional guise of a country gentleman) they are not only acceptable, not even just likeable but loveable.

This unsettles me. Can we only respect wild animals if we can relate to them? Do we need to like them and understand them to consider their right to life? Human personification is insulting in the extreme to a majestic animal like Cecil, our niche in earth's ecosytem is fragile at best, arrogant and destructive at worst and the barbaric, deliberate, unprovoked murder of another species member for an adrenalin surge is despicable.

What also saddens me is the hypocrisy surrounding the killing of a named animal. Every day we as a species face choices that impact on our planet and the myriad of creatures who share it with us. Just last week I discussed the problem of aggressive seagulls with a friend- who rightly pointed out it is human action that precipitated the surge in the herring gull population. We now face tough decisions over possible culling, in an attempt to reverse this unpleasant trend. But what if someone writes a story on "Sammy the Seagull"? Would that make a cull less desirable? Why should it have an impact whatsoever?

Yet it most certainly would.

Should we name the Polar Bears, the Orang-utans, the Rhinos? Certainly it's a policy that has worked well in the conservation world, and who can blame them for capitalising on our innate need to connect when the animals themselves stand to benefit? Our local Zoo names all its animals, this is far more than an identification and logging process. But whilst all creatures exhibit unique personalities we should take care to avoid the anonymity trap - where a truly wild animal - one with no name - is somehow less worthwhile, less worthy of life than another.

The discussion at Westminster on revoking the hunting ban exposed my own hypocrisy. I do believe there are times when careful culling benefits animal populations, not only the human one. And I don't have a problem with pest control by farmers trying to protect their livestock. But fox hunting IS barbaric, and has little to do with farming, culling or animal husbandry, I would vote against any lifting of the ban. A fox shouldn't need to be called "Fantastic" to earn his right to live as nature intended - and it shouldn't have taken a lion named Cecil to point this out to me.

It is actually bizarrely ironic that a lion named for a racist, imperialist white man should now personify the argument of tolerance and freedom. I've only found one article on the web that picked up on this irony. It just goes to show that there is less in a name than we think, and those receiving it - be they human or animal - are beyond our easy classification.

How we treat other animals defines our humanity. Blessed with great intelligence as a species it would reflect better on us if we chose to use it occasionally. Animals - and people- don't need names to elicit respect. They don't earn their right to exist based on our patronising interest, their "value" is not dependent on the number of "Likes" they gain or hashtag shares they generate. I don't care what the lion was called or where he came from. He was brutally murdered for a human being's pleasure.

A name is a human invention superimposed on an animal we try to identify with, not their passport to freedom. Walter Palmer shouldn't apologise for killing Cecil - he should apologise for assuming his intellectual superiority, wealth and status granted him power to decide whether another animal lived or died, and for thinking a name made a difference.