Only getting it twice a week

Copyright: claudioratti973 / 123RF Stock Photo

Obviously I'm talking about the most recent idea from our interfering overlords, about schools meals. And I'm referring to fried foods and pies.

My daughter is 14 and I'm fairly sure that if these rules are brought in at her school canteen then the children will just use the chip shop along the road on the three days that no chips are served. 

But even if the "fried food" twice a week maximum is applied at other schools, it's ridiculous. Why is fried food seen as unhealthy but macaroni cheese is not? I'm guessing a cheese dish has plenty of saturated fat, while chips can be fried in vegetable oils. (oh, hang on ... "we have introduced a new restriction on how often cheese can be served as the vegetarian option." from 'The Rules')  And a restriction on pastry? pastry?! Really? So quiche is out along with vegetable pies, fruits pies...(DD cried out "No strudel!" in horror)

I'm starting to wonder what will be left that children can eat, as a mum of a teen girl who is underweight and like many children worried about 'getting fat' I am concerned that this is going to adversely affect her.

Drinks with too much sugar are in the firing line too including fruit juice, but presumably diet drinks with aspartame will sneak through this unhealthily cordon? Water will be pushed as the best drink...good luck with that, if you have a fussy drinker prepare yourself for the inevitable cystitis when they go all day without drinking. Milk will also be promoted.

Bread crumbed food is classed as fried too apparently? Honestly it's the usual stupid interfering that in the long run won't change anything all it will do is anger parents and children, make it difficult for schools and cause bloggers to rage! (DD had confirmed they have oven cooked potato wedges often...) Crisps are also banned, as are all sweets, chocolate and cereal bars.

If the all powerful government want to really make a difference they will have to do better than banning things, they will have to actually look at what is healthy, create recipes and stick to them. (and take away some choice, like in the 'olden days' where the choice was take it or go hungry)

My daughter will continue to take a packed lunch, a habit we got into as local schools all had their kitchens removed in the 90s to save money (!) and no doubt many children will do the same, lunch box police not withstanding.

I don't have a problem with children eating healthily, when I was on the primary school PTA I actively campaigned for more fruit for the children and it was implemented very successfully, but I think it's about choice, making healthy the attractive option, not banning things. From experience forbidden fruit (or in this case forbidden junk) will become the preferred option for most children.

Banning things never works. Encouraging an interest in eating and new and interesting menus might (Jamie Oliver tried this technique but the government are now saying it's too complicated)

oh and tuck shops are out too. 

Do not get me started on the lack of playing fields, teachers car parks in play grounds and the banning of many 'active' kids games....

A Utopia of Dystopias

utopia - 1 ( usually lowercase ) an ideal place or state.
            2 ( usually lowercase ) any visionary system of political or social perfection.

Dystopia - noun, a society characterised by human misery, as squalor, oppression, disease, and overcrowding.

I can't help noticing the influx on the YA (young adult) reading scene of the 'dystopian novel'. It seemed to catch fire (see what I did there?) with The Hunger Games and has continued with the Divergent series. Both sagas have been made into films.

There are so many of these novels on the shelves now. Uglies, Matched, Gone, I'm sure you could name dozens. 

Of course dystopian novels are nothing new. There was 1984 and Brave New world. The brilliant Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep (filmed as Blade Runner) and Fahrenheit 451.

But lately two things have struck me. The first is that they are very firnly aimed at young adults rather than adults and the second that they seem to also be aimed at girls. Female leads and heroines have been popular for a long time, Mina Harker in Dracula, Julia in 1984 to name a couple. But suddenly it seems the female lead is back with rather a bang!

Suddenly the 'feisty' (I hate that word!) female is the norm, the woman that notices the rot in the supposed utopia, revealing the horror beneath. The young girl  that dares to kick out against the society that controls everyone including her.


Is this only a blip? Or are our authors (male and female) seeing the important role the female lead can have in society?


Or maybe, they just realise that it's still the girls that do the most reading...


What do you think?


(and are there any great Dystopian Novels I've missed, with excellent female leads?)

 

LOCOG - Crushing the Dream, one day at a time

I was really excited about the Sports even that shall not be named. Not at first I admit, but gradually I came round to realising that it was going to be a historic event, something good in a  time of recession. I stopped worrying about how much it would cost and concentrated on what it would achieve. 

Sport would be highlighted in schools. Kids and young athletes would be encouraged. The Paralympics would show disabled people in a positive light, moving them away from the 'benefit scrounger' image they seem to have gained.

The Ticket 'lottery' was horrible. It felt weird, and unfair, to order more tickets than you needed? or to just order what you required and risk disappointment? To order in some kind of 'double guessing' way by selecting sports that you imagine to be 'unpopular' ... but what if everyone did that? To order in the highest price band or the lowest? It was a nightmare and in the end I ordered the cheapest options in what I wanted to see and only what I could afford.

I was one of the lucky few it seems as I got nearly all the tickets I applied for! So the excitement grew again. The thought of seeing top athletes in a massive new arena  or pool, cheering on my country with DD at my side.

Kindly donated by @Kungpofanda at Twitter

The  transport looked like it might be tricky. We live close to London (an hour on the train) but even so the journeys seems long and complicated, we were advised to leave 'extra time' so I did. I booked the tickets on the train even though they cost more than the tickets. I felt smug and organised.

And then the emails started...and the texts telling me to read and observe the rules in the emails ... "or else you may not see your event". That sounded ominous and threatening. 

Suggestions to arrive TWO HOURS earlier than the event, after I had purchased tickets (planning to arrive 30 minutes early) Suddenly an early morning train journey became a dawn/milk train journey - 5.14am for an event that starts at 9am. And then the searches, the rules on 'excessive' food (what is excessive? who decides how many maltesers is acceptable?) the ban on liquids, on large flags, umbrellas, kittens. Where was the fun? Where was the excitement?

And now missiles on roofs of ordinary peoples flats ('you are at no danger' they are told - 'so why the missiles and armed guards then?' I would reply) A lack of security from the company PAID and CONTRACTED to provide them. Soldiers brought in from our troops aroud the world to patrol a sporting event! Allegations of free tickets to top events for the great and 'good'...., And finally the crown, we can no longer even mention the games (and possibly the year, the word summer or the metalic colour of the medals) without getting sued..

I admit, I'm losing the love. I want to get the love back. I want the Sports Event that cannot be named to feel like a Sporting Event of a Lifetime, not a War.


Toy Soldier Picture Credit : National Museum of Play Online Collections

edited to add  the no kittens pic

Last night I got out of bed and padded into the tiny room we call the library...

I went into the box room (grandly titled 'The Library' due to it's being floor to ceiling shelved and filled with books) because one of my author friends(?) heroes(?) crushes (?) all of those(?) @AndyStantonTM had asked a question about grammar in the George Orwell novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, and I knew I had a copy and could check.

I checked and then of course I lay in bed and read a little, and found myself thinking of the recent riots (which I have trouble sorting in my mind, are people rioting for *more* state involvement in their lives?) when I read this...

Ignorance is Strength

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other --
.

'Julia, are you awake?' said Winston.

'Yes, my love, I'm listening. Go on. It's marvellous.'

He continued reading:



. The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.


I went to bed sad, I'm still sad. Sorry folks, what sort of crappy blog post is this! I'd ask for your money back if I were you.

If you want to read more, the entire novel is online here for free

Do we need a silence?

Every year, once a year, we have silence, quiet, hush.
We say it is to remember the dead, the lost, the harmed.
Some say it glorifies war, horror, pain.
Some say it is boring, useless, unimportant.

Today the sky is filled with clouds, rain, tears
and again we will stand, sit, wait
for the two minutes, the 120 seconds, the pause;
and find a gap in our busy lives, our work, our family
a time we can remember, think, consider

but will we?

In a short 2 minutes what will you do?

How old is too old? (or 'sniff it and see')

Every now and again on social media someone says they have chucked away a yoghurt 3 days past the 'use by' date, or asks if bread 2 days past the sell by date is OK to eat or........well you get the idea. They want to know if they can safely consume an item of food that seems to be saying  

NO! DON'T EAT ME, YESTERDAY I WAS FINE 

BUT TODAY I AM FILLED WITH POISONOUS BACTERIA 

THAT WILL KILL YOU IN AN INSTANT 

WITH PAIN YOU CAN ONLY IMAGINE 

or something like that anyway.

I am old enough to know that expiry dates are a fairly new invention. Yes young people you read that right, we have not always been told when food is 'past it's best'. For hundreds, indeed thousands of years we used our own judgement! We looked at things, smelled them, touched them and decided 'is it still good'? (* when I say 'we' I do not, obviously, mean me! I mean the human race, I'm not thousands of years old, or hundreds come to that!)

And in some cases we still do. While supermarkets may wrap your vegetables in a plastic bag with a sticker proclaiming 'use by 9 Feb 2010' your local green grocer is unlikely to do the same, my local green grocer sells cucumbers, they are long and firm and green and that's it! I have to fondle the cucumber and decide how fresh it is! Is it soft? getting limp? then I'll ask if it's discounted or buy a firmer one! (are you all right? some of you appear a little flushed?)

Likewise my butcher does not put 'use by' dates on his pork products, i have to admire his loins and decide if they are fresh, are they greenish in hue? Do they smell? If not, I'm happy, a pink fresh loin is most women's dream, as are his sausages and his faggots! but I digress.

Until 1973 no stores in the UK used best before dates at all! And it was Marks and Spencer that began the trend purely as a marketing technique, to show how 'fresh' their food was! Of course all other food sellers leapt on to the bandwagon to be sure and keep up with the new trend.

It's true that some foods nowadays are hard to see. How can I tell if a tin of beans is 'fresh' or if a carton of orange juice is? and the simple answer is of course that I can't, like the rest of society I rely to some degree on labelling of the packets, but wouldn't it be easier to tell me when it was packed rather than a use by date? When I bake a cake I estimate how long it will last (bad example - 10 minutes in my house) by the date it was baked and then I use judgement.

When I open a loaf of bread and it had a patch of mould on it, I tear off the blue bit and toast the bread! I only throw away the whole loaf if it's more mould than loaf or if the flavour is totally tainted. Marmite can disguise a multitude of tastes.

And yoghurt is gone off milk! As is cheese, it can't go off! Sniff it! how does it smell? I've often eaten yoghurts 2 weeks past their 'use by' dates with no ill effects at all. And cheese can usually just have the mould cut off - after all cheddar is often already 24 months old by the time you buy it! So why would another month make any difference?

But I'm not alone, I am aware that many of you eat food that you have judged to be OK. Just remember it's a skill, learn it, pass it on, don't be afraid, trust your instincts.  My good friend Donna on Twitter sent me this handy link to get you started.

And don't come crying back here if you get sick.


Remember that this advice is just from a boring old person, not anyone clever and don't take risks with the elderly, the very young or the infirm. (No testing mouldy yoghurt out on your granny!)

PS   A website called Love Food Hate Waste perpetuates the myth by saying NEVER eat food past the use by date, which is just silly IMO. They even tell you 'if it looks fine, still throw it away!  I still say that for cheese and many other products this is ridiculous.


If you would like to buy some out of date food to practice on - look here for some cheap deals. Yes indeedy, an online retailer that specialises in old food!

Who is the boss of me?

BBC Website Article

Image courtesy of Graeme Weatherston / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

So France has decided to tell women what they cannot wear. They cannot wear the full face veil in public. Men that force women to wear a veil are also punished. (with a prison term, while the women are ‘only’ fined)

At what point is a government wrong when it tells people how to dress, is telling a woman she cannot wear revealing clothes wrong? Is telling her she cannot cover up wrong? Where is the line? Is there a line or a long shadow of grey.

I am tempted to wear a veil in public purely to spite governments that say I can’t. Much as I enjoy supporting the Naked Rambler in his attempts to prove nudity is a personal choice, and not illegal, much as I sunbathe topless where it is ‘forbidden’.

Who controls our bodies? Who should decide what we wear.(or don't wear)?

Can a government ever proscribe our dress while claiming to be on our side?

Comments actively welcomed, but not stupid racist ones (which will be deleted) thank you

PS My lovely twinny VBinCatalunya blogged beautifully on this subject here