Can You Spare a Room?

So, as of next month, the current administration is introducing a bedroom tax to council properties, which means that those considered to have a spare bedroom will have to pay an extra tax for the priviledge of. If haven't already read the guidelines, they're just HERE for you.

Now, the theory of this tax, I do completely agree with. I would use personal examples, but I'm not sure how certain people in my family would feel about that, so let's go with a hypothetical. If you have a couple living in a three bedroom or four bedroom home which is provided by the council, with council waiting lists so long, is it really acceptable for them to be wasting space that could house a whole family.

What I don't agree with is the government essentially prescribing to people where their children ought to sleep. I freely admit that I'm pretty priviledged, but at no point in my life - living at home anyway - have my brother and I had to share a bedroom. Under the rules of this tax, until the age of 10, my brother and I would have had to share a bedroom. If that had happened, only one of us would have reached age 10... The same rules state that until the age of 16, children of the same gender would have to share. I can't imagine anything worse than that really.

I remember what I was like in my early teenage years. I was a pain in the arse and I spent a long time in my room, on my own. At that age, being able to have time on your own, being able to have somewhere to go to that is private and that is your own can be very important, and yet we're essentially saying that's only okay if you're parents have the money to pay for it.

Before I start sounding a bit too left wing - come on, I don't want to mislead anyone around here - I would like to say that I do believe that if it's because parents are just on job seekers and always have been, then that's a little bit more understandable, but the issue I have is HERE. Cases like that of the Egglestone's.

It's just something to think about...

The Paperboy

I went to see a film this weekend, purely and simply because it had three actors in it that – quite frankly – I wouldn't kick out of bed for keeping their socks on. (Guys, this is a real, serious offence). Anyway, on occasion, such things go really well and I really enjoy the film, but this one was just difficult to watch and there was a point when I very nearly puked.

We read the synopsis, and were expecting something a bit more light hearted and jovial. It was really difficult to watch however, and I don't think I will ever be able to watch Magic Mike in the same way again (this film has given me a different view on the beautiful Matthew McConaghhgfhglsh), or Serendipity (because who wants to think of that beautiful man welding a machete while attempting to find that girl that got away – changes the entire concept me thinks) or High School… I'm not evening going to finish that sentence because, much as I do love Zac Efron (go watch Charlie St Cloud if you don't and then tell me that he's not a gorgeous little bambi) I still hate those films.

Maybe it's because I'm just SO sensitive – and I have a Waldo Pancake notebook that proves it! – but films like The Paperboy, Water for Elephants and all that sort of thing REALLY GET ME. I was watching a show where they trained fathers to be the perfect birthing partner the other night and I was blubbering at the end of it because it was how sweet how much they loved their children and… yeah, I know, get a grip of yourself.

Being very cynical about it, everything is just to do with a rush of chemicals and our body's reaction to those chemicals. In the film, I was hopped up on adrenaline, making me scared and anxious and the other night it was all serotonin and whatever the lady hormones that make you instantly love all babies are, but whatever. I like my chemical reactions.

If however, you are sensitive like me, I would strongly advise either not going to see that film or taking a big box of Kleenex man sized…

~For the benefit of Miss Sophie Greene,

My most sincere apologies go out to all those (aka Sophie) who waited up all night searching Amazon for the release of the new novel. As people (aka Sophie) may already be aware, I'VE BEEN A LITTLE BIT BUSY and I BEYOND HATE editting, so I haven't quite got it finished yet.

I will however prescribe you an almighty dose of DWI (Deal With It - for those who aren't fluent in Sophie Greene's mottos) and remind you that the damn thing will be free for the first five days after it's release so stop being so ungrateful.

Much love to everyone else :)

Dear BBC,

This is just going to be a quick blog because I found this really funny. 

So, BBC news is the homepage on my college computers. The first thing I saw when I connected to the internet today was the headline "Does the Modern Childhood End at 12?" followed by an article offering PARENTING ADVICE FROM THE BBC. BBC, are you serious? 

It feels like only weeks ago that the Jimmy Saville scandal broke into the public eye - and if you believe the Daily Mail then there is still news to be printed about this scandal (article linked to was published three day ago) - and now the BBC wants to give out parenting advice. I don't think so. 

Even still, I'd love a definition of what is the modern childhood. The age at which childhood ends has always been somewhat ambiguous and I think it fluctuates over time, dependent upon geography and actually varies person to person. 

During the times of the industrial revolution, childhood ended when the child was around five and could be put to work cleaning machines - because of their conveniently tiny little fingers - or up chimneys, because they were small enough to climb up them. 

After the passing of the Elementary Education Act 1880, the age at which childhood ends could be classed at age 10, when a child leaves compulsory education.  

Obviously from then there has been a progression into the modern era, where we seem to deem childhood as over by either 16 or 18, or even at 21 in America, depending on how you would determine the end of childhood, but considering we allow things such as the sexualisation of children through fashion trends and beauty pageants, as well as making children essentially adults in training by bringing in all the technological advancements we have in the working world - netbooks, iPads, iPhones etc - into the classroom, we can argue as to whether a pure form of childhood really exists. I really miss the days when I'd do stupid things like go on a bike ride for the whole day or go outside skipping or just general make-believe games that I remember as framing my childhood. Now, when I go home, most of the kids are on motorised scooters, sat on the corners of our street playing on the Nintendo DS or whatever the latest handheld games console is. 

The real issue that I'm having a moan about isn't whether or not the above paragraph is a destruction of what childhood should be in my view, it's that we're even complaining about things like this at all when some cultures actually believe that when a girl gets her first period which can be anywhere between the ages of 10 and 15, although the average is 12, that a girl has become a woman and it's time to have her married and having her own family. 

The adverts are all over the underground, and let's face it, there is barely more of an end to childhood than having your own child. This has ended up being a bit of a rant-gent (ranting tangent) from the original BBC parenting advice LOL but the point I'm making is Okay BBC, maybe we're pressuring kids to grow up too quickly and maybe a return to the days of playing hula hoop in the yard and then coming in for a bag of Hula Hoops when you've got home from school would be nice, but at least our 12 year olds aren't starting to raise their own families.

Childhood: When is it meant to end?