Nairn man may face jail, but there's another aspect to the incident

A young Nairn man has been told he may face a jail sentence, even if the preferred punishment is a 'restriction of liberty' order (I presume this is something like a curfew enforced by an electronic tag?) for having fired an air-gun over the heads of three boys and a girls (aged between 12 and 15) who were engaged in throwing snowballs at his door. Apparently he asked them to stop doing this, but when they ignored him he used his air-gun.

It is clear that the domestic circumstance of the man who fired the air-gun are somewhat precarious and that if he cannot supply a permanent address the only alternative may be some kind of custodial sentence.

Obviously it is not acceptable for someone to use an air-gun in this manner and he requires punishment, but I wonder if the children who were making a nuisance of themselves will be admonished in any way at all? The article certainly gives no clue about this. Will their parents take them in hand and ensure they do not make a nuisance of themselves in future? Presumably they were discussing the incident (jokingly or in a terrified manner, we are not told) when their 'Guidance teacher' (whatever that is!) overheard them. Will their 'Guidance teacher' be telling them the facts of life about what it takes to be a 'good citizen'? Obviously the man possibly facing a jail sentence needs to learn about this too, but those kids need to know that they shouldn't be going around annoying their neighbours 'for a lark'!

Dodgy expenses claims infect academia, too

We've been hearing a lot in recent months about the, ahem, 'padding' of expenses by certain MPs, now I come across what seems to be questionnable claims by an academic.

Professor Peter Gregson is vice-chancellor at Queen's University. For anyone who doesn't, by chance, know it this is located in Belfast, Northern Ireland. It seems the university is funding his membership of the Athenaeum, an exclusive private member club in London; it has bedroom accommodation bookable by members, just like an hotel, when rooms are not already booked.

Anyway, accepting for a moment that Professor Gregson requires to visit London on a reasonably frequent basis in connection with his university employment, perhaps the membership is justified, given that room costs in a private club tend to be more reasonable in cost, particularly when compared with hotels in similar parts of London's clubland. Some clubs [traditionally] have mediocre dining arrangements, but others maintain fine tables and from all that I have ever heard, the Athenaeum is certainly amongst the latter. Passing on, though.

This matter has come to light as a result of a 'freedom of information' inquiry by the Irish News newspaper. Professor Gregson has, according to the information revealed about his expenses, however, also made claims for 'at least two out of five recent visits to the capital city when he stayed in a[n] hotel'. And not just any old hotel either. No sirree! Professor Gregson likes to do things in style. For example on 23rd October last he claimed for a night at the 5-star Mayfair Hotel (part of the Radisson Hotels group). I certainly don't begrudge the man his 'perks' within reason, but it does look a little as if he is going slightly over the top - I think there are perfectly comfortable, but somewhat less epxensive, hotels in that part of London where he could stay should the Athenaeum not have a room available when he needs to be there for professional purposes - but on that point his expenses claim seem to be silent, making one wonder just what is the necessity for these regular visits; do they not have telephones or video-conference facilities at Queen's? Or are these visits, in reality, purely 'social' in that they permit him and other academics to swan around the swankier parts of the capital city at public expense, whilst enjoying fine dinners together? Just asking ...

Palin on McCain's skills as a wordsmith

I'm sure the poor lady doesn't mean what she seems to be saying in this interview with FoxNEWS:

HANNITY: Let's talk about, Governor, obviously, the economy is on the minds of many Americans. We've got Lehman, we've got Merrill, we've got AIG. Senator Barack Obama yesterday was attacking Senator McCain for saying that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong." Do you believe that the fundamentals of our economy are strong? PALIN: Well, it was an unfair attack on the verbiage that Senator McCain chose to use because the fundamentals, as he was having to explain afterwards, he means our workforce, he means the ingenuity of the American. And of course, that is strong and that is the foundation of our economy. So that was an unfair attack there, again, based on verbiage that John McCain used. Certainly it is a mess though, the economy is a mess. And there have been abuses on Wall Street and that adversely affects Main Street. And it's that commitment that John McCain is articulating today, getting in there, reforming the way that Wall Street has been allowed to work, stopping the abuses and that violation of the public trust that too many CEOs and top management of some of these companies, that abuse there has got to stop. It is, somebody was saying this morning, a toxic waste there on Wall Street, affecting Main Street. And we've got to cure this.

The word I'm focussing on from the interview above is 'verbiage'. I know what I think this word means, but surely Palin couldn't really be saying this about what her running-mate for President was saying, could she? Then I thought that perhaps there is some other usage of this word, particularly in the US, that I was not familiar with; maybe she meant simply to refer to the 'words' he had used, not express a comment on these words, so I thought I should consult a dictionary and particualry an American dictionary to see what it had to day. According to Merriam-Webster, a well-known and respected American dictionary, this is what it means:

Main Entry: ver·biage Pronunciation: \ˈvər-bē-ij also -bij\ Function: noun Etymology: French, from Middle French verbier to chatter, alteration of Old French verboier, verbloier, from Old French (Picard dialect) werbler to trill — more at warble Date: circa 1721 1 : a profusion of words usually of little or obscure content 2 : manner of expressing oneself in words : diction

- so the main meaning in the US is just the same as it is here - words or speech with little substance.

It's possible that she was using it in the less common 2nd sense given above, but my view, having listened to her speak over the past few weeks, is that it is simply a further instance of her ignorance and her mangled verbal gymnastics. She could simply have used the word 'words' instead of 'verbiage' and her meaning would have been clear and unambiguous, but I suspect she was using a less-familiar word because she thought it would sound more 'learned', when all it has done is make her look, once more, quite silly. Whatever one may think of her boss McCain, he at least knows how to use the language. She, on the other hand, seems to be wallowing way out of her depth. Not of course that her 'ignorance' is necessarily any worse than Jo Biden's gaffe-prone public appearances (even if his ability to think quickly on his feet usually manages to defuse the situation, or at least give people a laugh); he is Obama's Vice-Presidential running mate.

No, this is not Bill taking sides in US politics; I've come to realise that US Presidential politics, in particular, is a complete mystery to me - both McCain and Obama seem, from the carefully-groomed public images they display to the public, to have some virtues, but some glaring defects (to this outsider, at any rate). The level of partisanship among their supporters and the wild statements made by both sides about the other seem to me to reduce the whole thing to a circus show - glitteringly wonderful on the outside, but with uncertain depth and substance. In recent years it seems one doesn't come fully to understand what a particular President is made of until after they are elected and some unexpected situation has to be dealt with. It seems to me to have been, for recent Presidents, well-nigh impossible to have any objective idea about their capabilities until after the deed (i.e. the election) has been done, when it is far too late to change things at least for the following four years. To some extent this is the same in the UK too, or in France and some other western democracies, where media presentation is probably more important than the substance of the candidates, but I think it is fair to say that the cult of 'image' and 'media' has been taken a lot further in the US than elsewhere. I might not have liked the idea of having a president Hilary Clinton (and I wouldn't have liked it one little bit), but no one could possibly doubt her intellectual capabilities or her fundamental grasp of issues and despite the mockery in some quarters of Ronald Reagan before he became President he had at least been Governor of probably the most important State in the US and a pretty successful one in most people's eyes as well as having been years earlier President of the Screen Actors Guild, a shark-infested pond if ever there was one, so he obviously had something going for him, even if he was not, to most non-Americans, an obvious choice, but he is certainly one of the more successful Presidents of recent US history from either political party. Maybe a President Palin might confound us all, if something were to happen to McCain (if he were to become President), but I think it is an amazing gamble on a complete unknown and , as we now realise, a rather 'controversial' figure in her own backyard.
(A completely different point about this interview was made by Andrew Sullivan in his post here, the source of my link to the FoxNEWS article, as I am obviously not an habitual reader of that particular media outlet. Andrew has been running a series of posts in recent days with the theme "The Odd Lies of Sarah Palin" - he's reached number eleven in the series so far, plus various other stories of which this is one.)

Government 'spin' disallowed by advertising watchdog

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned an advert by the Training and Development Agency for Schools, for implying that a newly-qualified teacher could earn substantially more (70 per cent more!) than the pay-scales allow for. Whilst the Agency says it will abide by the ruling, it disputes the ASA findings although the justification it offers is not particularly convincing. Government departments need to know that their advertising campaigns (i.e. propaganda) must abide by certain minimum standards, unlike and very unfortunately a lot of the pre-election promises of political parties.

ASA dismisses complaints against "Some people are gay. Get over it!"

At the end of February I wrote a post about the "Some People are gay. Get over it!" poster campaign being run by Stonewall.

Predictably enough, this poster campaign generated a significant number of complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) on all sorts of [spurious] grounds, generally from people with a 'religious' axe to grind, in short 'homophobes'. I am pleased to read that the ASA has rejected all these complaints and the full ruling reproduced below is shown on the Facebook campagining page:

ASA dismisses complaints against "Some people are gay. Get over it!" The Advertising Standards Authority has refused to uphold any of the 54 complaints it has received about the "Some people are gay .Get over it!" billboard campaign. Complaints about the 600-billboard campaign will not now prevent it being re-run later this year. The ASA said in its ruling: ‘Although some people might disagree with the advertiser’s approach, the ad did not contain language or imagery that was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, or particular offence to heterosexuals or religious groups. The ad did not imply that heterosexual people were homophobic, and did not promote homosexuality as an attractive lifestyle choice or as taking advantage of issues arising from children’s sexuality for political gain.’ Six hundred billboard panels, donated by Titan Outdoor Advertising, were displayed across the UK in February. The visual was developed by Warwick Worldwide in collaboration with 150 secondary school pupils and teachers for Stonewall’s Education for All campaign. Ben Summerskill, Stonewall Chief Executive, says: ‘We’re delighted at the ASA’s decision. This was a carefully-designed campaign which has had a significant impact. We’ve received supportive messages from teachers and young people across the country saying it has helped them raise the issue of homophobic bullying in their schools for the first time. This sort of bullying, which blights the lives of young people, has festered in the past precisely because it has been invisible. ’ Among the complainants, seven claimed the ad was ‘inappropriate for display where it could be seen by children’. Five objected that the ad was ‘particularly offensive to Christian and other religious groups’. Two objected that the ad was offensive because it discriminated against heterosexual people and implied that all heterosexuals were homophobic.

The ASA ruling means that the campaign can be run again later in the year. Quite frankly the fact that the original campaign provoked the number of hostile reactions it did shows just how necessary this campaign is. When such campaigns no longer attract the negative feedback this one did the first time around, that will be the time to declare that campaigns like this are no longer necessary. Meantime it is quite obvious that the simple message that:
"Some people are gay. Get over it!"
is still one that people need to hear.

Some people are gay. Get over it!

This is the simple message for a campaign currently being run by Stonewall and is part of Stonewall’s Education for All campaign to tackle homophobic bullying in schools:



Seemingly (or at least allegedly!) innocent remarks can lead to big problems if not tackled before they get out of hand. Last November efforts were launched (see video news reports) in Northamtponshire and in Leicester which show what can be done if the will is there.

Conservative volte face on grammar schools

It's happened; I've obviously been asleep for many years and suddenly awakened to a world where some dystopian nightmare is being played out; it's the equivalent of the Conservatives choosing to redefine the meanings of words as if they had suddenly decided that the colour hitherto known as 'white' will henceforth be known as 'black'.

David 'Two Brains'(*) Willetts has spoken these words, which one must presume reflect his current beliefs:

"We must break free from the belief that academic selection is any longer the way to transform the life chances of bright poor kids. "We just have to recognise that there is overwhelming evidence that such academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it."

(*) But amazingly so often 'no sense' and gaffe-prone to boot!

This is at complete variance with the facts as I have experienced them. How many members of the Shadow Cabinet (or the Cabinet, for that matter) send any school-age children they may have to the local school within their catchment area? Not very many, I think!

No doubt in localities with relatively small populations it is sensible to have only one secondary school and perhaps to 'stream' by ability within that school, but in larger population centres the differences between secondary schools (i.e. comprehensives) have come to reflect in practice the social position and level of affluence (or lack of it) experienced by those living in the various schools' catchment areas. If you live in a 'poor' area you tend to have a 'poor' school and children, of whatever academic ability, are less-likely to be exposed to people from different kinds of backgrounds. In more affluent areas it is likely that parents will be more aggressive in ensuring that the local comprehensive in their area provides a 'good' education for their children and because they will probably tend to be better educated themselves will have more ability to have their voices heard. Affluent parents can afford to buy property within the catchment areas of 'good' schools so perpetuating the social divisions politicians of all parties say they wish to diminish - but it is noticeable they take very good care that their own children have the opportunity to receive the best education, often by using their own resources and often outside the state-funded educational system.

In my own case I passed the dreaded '11 plus' barrier and so was eligible to go to one of the three selective schools in the city I lived near at the time (Aberdeen); two of the schools are no longer 'selective' (the two where no fees were payable) since the introduction of comprehensive education. I did not come from a 'poor' background, but I did come from a 'modest' background, but going to a grammar school gave me not only a good education, but equally importantly allowed me to mix with school-friends some of whom came from much more affluent backgrounds than I did. Quite frankly it opened my eyes to what was possible in the world and gave me aspirations to 'better' myself - that there was a wider world out there which I could participate in to the full extent of whatever abilities I might have. In my adult life I have been able to mix pretty easily with a very wide range of people, whether viewed from a social, ethnic or economic perspective and the fact that I spent many years working abroad amongst people of different cultures to my own only added to my social mobility. I believe my 'life chances' would have been severely affected had I been consigned to the local secondary school where I would inevitably have failed to find the intellectual stimulation I could have benefitted from amongst my fellow pupils and the teaching staff there

The affluent in society will always organise themselves to ensure that their own offspring receive a 'good' education. Less affluent people often have similar aspitrations, but find themselves trapped in their own areas and by the lower-quality educational opportunities that are often the only ones available in their catchment areas.

However this idea that 'selection' is somehow wrong is not only harmful to academically-gifted children, but to children who are not so academically-gifted, too. They too need an educational regime geared to their particular capabilities, not to be judged to have somehow 'failed' because they don't have high academic abilities, so it doesn't really matter what kind of second-rate educational opportunities they have available; this was the stigma associated with failing the '11 plus'. Undoubtedly the world needs nuclear physicists, doctors, accountants, teachers, etc., but it also needs engineers, mechanics, designers, hairdresser etc. (and yes, shop workers or call-centre workers, too), where conventional ideas of what it means to be 'intelligent' are not necessarily appropriate. And adequate resources need to be devoted to their education, not simply the 'leavings' after the educational needs of the more academically-gifted have been accommodated - I'm afraid it is this idea that somehow the less-academically gifted are 'failures' that led to the resentment which in turn led to grammar schools being almost completely abolished. All this has led to is a catastrophic skills-gap in the UK, where the be-all and end-all has become a university degree, sometimes of dubious quality and worse, low-value in the employment market. At the same time we have ended up with a situation where people with skills that society badly needs (plumbers, electricians, proper nurses, etc.) are in short supply. Normally in a market-led economy such shortages would lead to such people being able to command higher rewards and indeed this has happened in some respects with people such as plumbers where more people have been attracted into such trades because of the lucrative financial rewards that have become more prevalent, but the state-funded occupations (nursing, teaching, etc) have badly-distorted normal market mechanisms.

However the fundamental problem is that some occupations are seen, even by 'socialists' nominally devoted to the concept of equality for all, as 'high status' and others as 'low status'. Frankly I can live my life quite confortably with a shortage of certain of these highly academically-gifted people, but if I need an electrician or an engineer and one isn't available life becomes uncomfortable quite quickly. We really do need to re-assess how we look at tradtionally low-status occupations, even where essential to the smooth functioning of society, and reward them accordingly both financially and terms of the status they are accorded. My feeling is that soon enough market forces would then correct the shortages which currently exist.

I really don't think the Conservatives latest 'wheeze' for short-term sound-bite gratification, by pretending that selection is 'damaging' to the poor, is at all convincing; if their own children had to live with the consequences of the damage this kind of thinking has wreaked on British education in the last 30 or 40 years then I don't think they would be making such absurd policy proposals based on a flawed analysis.