Tuesday 24 January 2012

Public Sector Says No

The little Ps just received another valuable life lesson, that being the rigid refusal of the public sector to embrace common sense. What's more, it has made yours truly seem like I possess the predictive powers of the Oracle at Delphi.

The girl has been rehearsing hard for a theatrical production to be performed next week, and the boy's school has been invited to watch it during the day, before evening performances for parents and others.

The girl's school is a 5 minute walk away from Puddlecote Towers, the boy's school a bus ride of a couple of miles and, to attend the show, he is expected to be there 20 minutes earlier than usual. This is to give enough time for the long walk ... back to where he has come from.

As such, the girl had a quite brilliant plan. She would ask her school if her brother could walk to where the show is being held that morning (her school) with her and her friends. You know, maybe wait in reception or somewhere like that. I mean, what's the point of all the otherwise unnecessary palaver, eh?

I said it was a brilliant idea, but confidently told her/them that at least one of the schools wouldn't allow it. "Why ever not?", they both cried! I simply replied that the public sector didn't understand common sense and would think up some way of avoiding employing it.

The girl returned home today with an incredulous look on her face. Yes, her school had flatly refused to consider it. Stifling my amusement and accompanying smug grin, I enquired as to which of the many public sector "more than my job's worth" excuses they had used.

"They said they have no-one to look after him", she spluttered.

A school. Designed to cope with 1,500 kids. With a payroll of over 100 staff. Unable to find somewhere for a 10 year old to sit quietly for 30 minutes.

As an example of statist Britain's pathetic administrative intransigence, you've got to admit that's a cracker.


WitteringWitney said...

Have linked to this, DP, with some comments of mine......

Forgive one of the questions asked but in view of the stupidity shown by the school it warranted a similar level of question!

Twenty Rothmans said...

Bu....bu.....but - a PEADO might get him!

To an extent, I can understand them. For all they know, you might be the next swivel-eyed moron on the front page of the Mail claiming some form of neglect.

"My poor little Dicklet could have been murdered! This is Soham all over again!"

It's much easier to fight for compliance than to fight for freedom. Why would the teachers give a shit about you or your children? In their eyes, they don't work for you. You don't pay them.

Are you going to get them fired? Have their bonuses clipped? Stain their character?

Your son is meatware and must be processed in accordance with guidelines.

Thomas said...

Best tell the kids not to show too much emotional sentiment or high level of enthusiasm in whatever reaction they have to school officials' stuptifying proclaimations, for they, the numbskulled control-freak establishment, has its ways of dealing with it these days. Here in the US where TV drug-company advertising is legal and as common now as were tobacco ads a few decades back, a new ad came on last night for an Attention Deficit Disorder compound guaranteed to curb childrens' enthusiasm and bright common sense outlooks. In the ad, mother and son are shown walking through a hedged in garden maze. The young son gets excited and begins to dart off and express happiness vocally, a desire to play, to which the mother immediately recoils, in fear. The next thing is showing him at the doctor's getting this new ADD drug prescribed to "cure" his "illness". While the voice-over recommends highly the use of this drug for as many children possible and lauds the greatness of the pharmaceutical "solution" to today's "problems", the scenes shown in background include drugged up son in front of classroom doing a demonstration while teacher is satisfied he is doing as he is told, son at dinner table doing as he is told while under the influence of being drugged up and under control, other lovely domestic scenes of bliss, where the child, being well drugged up, is quiet and under total control of the school authorities and does not bother the parents at all, since he sits sullenly and obeys as he is commanded. Given that, I would be careful not to over-react with any strong emotion while at the school grounds, or else school officials will begin demanding that next, as the "cure" for over-imagination, enthusiasm, happiness, free-thinking, love of life, desire to play, running, skipping, jumping, thinking unapproved thoughts and other such "diseases" of childhood that nanny finds appalling these days.

Matt-dawes said...

Sounds great. When can we get it in the UK? Most of the little yobs here are far too noisy shouting and hollering.  And so unpredictable--always dashing about running around playing with footballs --and that is just in restaurants.  And Supermarkets.   You describe a peaceful and pleasant new world.

Edgar said...

Jeez, Thomas, what an appalling state of affairs: have we really sunk to this?

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Yes, no doubt it's a bacon slicer arse-covering exercise, WW. Hence why I was confident in the girl being told it was a no-no. You're too shy in not adding the link, BTW.


Dick_Puddlecote said...

In some ways, Thomas, I quite like the attitude schools here take. It nobbles the other kids while mine get taught self-determination and common sense. Must do wonders for their future prospects while other parents trust the state implicitly and destroy their kids' independent thought in the process. ;

Thomas said...

Yes, but chemical lobotomies at a young age, to myself, don't seem like a good way to approach those sort of problems. Plus, if it is over-used and normalized at that young an age, it just sets up a class of non-thinking lobotomized drones, who on Ritalin and under chemical control, in total obeyance, while young, turn into adults drugged up on anti-depressants and in total obeyance to the status quo when they grow up. It also demonstrates the dichotamy of tobacco advertising decades earlier versus drug advertising today. Back then, those ads were supportive of independence, individualism, alertness, anti-establishment, pro-free choice and liberty. The ads nowadays are the exact opposite, promoting drugged up sluggishness, inability to think, conformity to authority, support for non-critical non-thinking among the general population and is targeted to all age groups, starting with the young. Spare the rod and spoil the child might also come into play in the issue of young noisy run-arounds in the restaurants. Another solution might be to have separate rooms in restaurants, including one banning children - or else a smoking room, in which children would not be permitted at all. But drugging everyone up, from an early age on, to me seems a bit much.

Junican said...

When my daughters were children, from time to time, for various reasons, I took them with me to work. I sat them in the kitchen with rubber stamps and inkpads and stuff, and they amused themselves happily for a couple of hours.

All far too much trouble for 'education professionals'.

None said...

"While the voice-over recommends highly the use of this drug for as many children possible and lauds the greatness of the pharmaceutical "solution" to today's "problems"...

Roll-up, roll-up come and get your Soma here