shuggy's blog
Bugger the 80s. With the (welcome) exception of the homosexuals, we are probably less free, de facto if not de jure, than when I was growing up in the 50s.
Shuggy, I generally agree with you on this piece. You nailed an important point. We are less free than we were - and it seems those in power over us are bent on ensuring we become still less free.
They seem to want to control almost every aspect of our private lives. Often one suspects using lies, false statistics and harnessing fear and prejudice to do so.
Most insidiously socially engineering us to do their work for them.
We are all prone to this form of manipulation – even you, as your comment about 4x4s perhaps suggests.
Certainly they are generally inappropriate for those who live in cities, but try living in the country without one. They and those who drive them are not necessarily any more ‘evil’ than smokers.
I think many of us of a certain age are conscious of the gradual closing in of the state on our personal freedom, like being surrounded by a closing circle of hungry wolves…
As an aside re: ”Teachers can no longer use corporal punishment - which is good.” A serious question - Why exactly do you think that is necessarily entirely good?
I attended what might be regarded as a ‘rough’ school. As a pupil I never felt it was a particular problem, sometimes a bit random, but that was a problem with those that welded this particular power rather than the thing it’s self. A problem with the odd lax judge, poor investigation, so to speak.
I was, even then, acutely conscious that corporal punishment was often all that kept some of my fellow pupils even partially civilised, allowing those willing to make the effort to at least attempt get what benefit they could from the system - and from conversation with others I know my impression was far from isolated.
They had it when I was a school too - it was banned when I was about halfway through secondary school. It's the 'bit random' thing as much as anything else - although at my primary school, it was used gratuitously. Even if we could convince ourselves it was a good idea to allow teachers to hit children - which personally I think is hard to do - at my schools corporal punishment was a rather arbitary affair. I was belted at school and I did have a problem with it: I felt teachers used to use it if they'd lost the plot, were in a bad mood that day or whatever. I also recall one or two sadists who rather enjoyed it. Not good overall, I reckon - I'm glad it's gone. I know teachers so I certainly wouldn't tolerate any of them belting my son.
Your wish is my command:
http://nevertrustahippy.blogspot...ee-or-
less.html
I remember the single occasion the cane was used on a pupil at my state Grammar back in the late sixties. A senior lad had got hold of a little first year kid, and dangled him out of a second floor window.
If you know teachers, then you probably know bullies. One side or the other, will end up belting your son. Do you want it to be the teachers, the side with scruples and something to lose? Or do you want it to be the next generation of prison fodder? (The latter often carry knives to school, so the choice should be fairly easy.)
In terms of personal freedom, I broadly agree with you. We are less free, and liberty itself is becoming an unmentionable concept. But this is not just down to the state. We as individuals have helped usher in this dreadful era in which we stroke our own egos by denouncing the next man's dinner, car, holiday plans, lightbulbs, body-mass index, cigar, and wheelie bin contents.
Maybe it's time we all got the ruler across our hands. Then we can take it out on the folk who nominally work for us.
The subject of freedom needs a list of sub-headings. Apply it to different aspects of your life and you find gains here, losses there.
As far as what might be called classic freedoms – assembly, speech – there have been losses, and that really does piss me off.
For women, the gains since the sixties have been huge – being able to enter professions and take out a mortgage in your own name are two that spring to mind and not being sacked on getting married or pregnant. A lot more social freedom as well.
For cyclists, freedom of movement within this city at least have increased (cycle paths and lanes and roads bollarded). That has been to the cost of the internal combusters, of course. I heard one (Jackie Collins) whining our unfree Britain has become since the congestion charge won’t allow her to drive around London at her pleasure. I suppose Jeremy Clarkson’s idea of freedom and mine would vary hugely.
What annoys people most I think is the health and safety aspect that curtails freedoms. Having to have a licence in England and Wales if you’re publican and want to have a couple of guys in your pub strumming guitars and singing. Having to take out insurance if you want to put on a pageant or a gala day.
But it’s a huge subject.
If you know teachers, then you probably know bullies. One side or the other, will end up belting your son. Do you want it to be the teachers, the side with scruples and something to lose?
I know what you mean and a part of me sort of agrees with you. On the other hand, I don't really think there's a situation where there's an irreducible lump of violence and that whoever ends up using it is a zero-sum game. When I was at school, violence from teachers was sanctioned and there was more tolerance, or maybe simply more ignorance, of bullying than there is now. I know I spend a lot of time being cynical about education on this blog but this is one area where I really think it's better today.
The logical conclusion of Margaret Thatcher's ideas would have been to completely decentralise education by means of privatising the whole shooting match.
You're right about freedom in general though. I'm not sure about your trying to share the blame between the Tories and Labour. Almost all of the losses of liberty you describe were down to Blair.
The logical conclusion of Margaret Thatcher's ideas would have been to completely decentralise education by means of privatising the whole shooting match.
"Logical conclusions" are one thing - then there's what actually happened, which was an unprecedented centralisation of education, what with the National Curriculum, testing etc. I have to say, Major was worse than Thatcher here. Then Blair was worse than Major. Can it not be argued, though, that the problem with Blair was that he rather had this tendency to follow Thatcher's ideas to their logical conclusion?
I agree with what you say about Major. I think the National Curriculum was naive and has been a disaster for education in this country. I don't think there's any doubt that Mrs T would have privatised the education system if she had have had more time - this was her basic ideology after all. But even the Major government was experimenting with vouchers, presumably as a prelude to privatisation, prior to 1997.
The problem that politicians have with education is that the LEAs will try to screw up anything that is proposed by Westminster that they see as threatening to their control over schools. This gives the politician a stark choice - total privatisation, or central control. Thatcher didn't have time for privatisation, Major didn't have the majority and Blair didn't have the balls or perhaps the inclination. Which is why we have central control. That's the tragedy of the British education system.
'...legally we're objectively less free'.
O indeed. That's because this Government has agreed to hand you over to a foreign state on demand.
But of course your Euston chums might construe mention of this as 'anti-american'...
Sorry. I've done a second reply. And it's long-ish.
http://nevertrustahippy.blogspot...d-
culprits.html
Apologies again.
Who the hell wants to be free??
"Certainly they are generally inappropriate for those who live in cities, but try living in the country without one."
Aw, ya great big softy! I drove all round rural Ireland in an 18-year old Peugeot hatchback. Spent years driving in rural Yorkshire in a variety of crap little cars like Minis, Ladas (ok, laugh) and the like. If middle-class refugees can't handle rural roads they should be living in Cheltenham 
Kit,
If you have kids, you will be probably soon be under arrest.
You can't transport children in some old jalopy. You have to have booster seats, and a minimum space envelope around them. It's a legal requirement. Hence the popularity of the Chelsea tractor.
Monty
Exactly right. I bought a dirty great big people carrier to accomodate three in child seats. It wouldn't have been necessary without the new booster seat legislation.
Commenting by HaloScan
