The Nepalese and Tibetans I know

here are genuinely lovely people. They have all made a lot of effort to fit in to the community around them. They volunteer. They have made the effort to learn English. They expect their children to be polite and work hard in school.

These people have come from one of the most beautiful areas of  the world. It is also one of the most dangerous.

I am not sure the rest of us really appreciate this. Tourists head off with the idea that it will be interesting, perhaps even exciting. They think they know it will be "different" and that they will "experience another culture". There is an idea there that somehow they are being courageous in going somewhere so different. One or two of them might try and learn a couple of words in what they believe is the "local language".  They will usually travel in a group. 

There are also the "spiritual" travellers. I will not call them "tourists" because many of them are Nepalese who are returning for genuine spiritual reasons. Among them there will be a tiny number of other people, often "Westerners" who are genuinely in search of an experience which can be impossible to explain to other people. They are not those caught up in some sort of mystical belief imposed on them by an experience at a temple somewhere but those who have spent years trying to come to some sort of limited understanding of the world they are experiencing. 

And there are aid workers I work with who go in and out for limited periods of time who, like the spiritual travellers, may experience something a tourist will not experience.  They know there are risks but something drives them to go anyway. There are schools, hospitals, bridges and roads to be built. Nothing happens there the way it happens in their comfortable western existence. They need to be prepared to learn as much as they must be prepared to teach. Their work is nothing like the work of those who go in with aid organisations. Aid organisations have teams of people who can work together and support each other. They will have equipment and more.

Yesterday I sat down with three people who know the disaster region well. We went through the old communication boards. We updated them. Phone calls were made. Emails were sent. Funding for air tickets was found. There are people we know who have now packed their backpacks and are on their way. They will help the local people with rebuilding things like bridges in Nepal.

In Tibet it is a different story. The Chinese government has so far not asked for assistance and has actively denied entry to outsiders. The Tibetans need help too but will they get it?  Think of them too please. 

  

Parents are threatening legal action

because their little darlings were filmed shouting obscenities and using some very threatening language at the "protest" last week.

Apparently it is acceptable for their children to behave in this way but not acceptable for others to film them doing this.

I have no time for most protests. They are a waste of time. They simply irritate everyone else. They are "feel good" events for those protesting but they do little, if any, good. They often do more harm than good. They can even bring about more support for the cause they are protesting against. 

In this instance they are likely to be doing more harm than any good at all. The protestors were missing school classes and university lectures. They were using far left rhetoric in order to protest against far right ideals. Neither group is balanced.

Some of the school based students would have been there with the support of their parents. They were likely told they had to have excuse notes from their parents in order to attend. It is likely these are the parents who are now complaining the loudest. They are likely the one who are threatening legal action.  

The reason they are doing it? There is the possibility that the protestors might be seen. They might be seen not just for the time they were there at the protest but at some point in the future. If the footage appeared on the internet then someone else might not view it favourably. It could affect their future employment. 

All that is speculative of course. How many employers for the most everyday and mundane sort of positions are going to trawl through protest footage to find those involved? In reality it will be very few. 

But yes, there will be some and it will have consequences. There will be people who will miss out on employment in more sensitive areas later because they behaved foolishly when young. They will learn the hard way that actions have consequences.

In this case though parents and schools also need to be held to account. Both need to teach students there are other ways to make themselves heard. Teach them how to do that in an acceptable and responsible manner. Quite a number of those protesting will be able to vote at the next election.  

There was a letter in the state paper

yesterday, the first letter. I finally got around to reading it after several people had asked things like, "Did you see...?" and "Was that you? and "Do you remember?"

The letter was talking about the writer's experience of the school library at a school where I was the librarian for a year. It, embarrassingly, mentioned me by name. 

I do not remember the child that was then. If they came up to me in the street and introduced themselves I may still not remember them. This would not be through any lack of interest on my part. There were around six hundred children there and I simply cannot remember all of them. I wish I could. 

I especially wish I could remember all those who came rushing into the library at lunch time to change their library books before going off to play. I wish I could remember all those who came to learn the basic chess moves or call me over to demand an end to a dispute about the way a word could be used in Scrabble. I wish I could remember the name of the child who, not having finished a jigsaw puzzle, wanted to know if I could "keep it safe".  I would be really interested to find out about the career of the boy who wanted to know about dinosaurs other than the muttaburrasaurus. He would have been about six at the time and it was not the usual childlike interest. It would be so good to know whether the regulars went on reading and what they read now.

The school library was the place where I felt I could make an actual difference to the lives of children who came from mostly poor backgrounds. The library was "free". All they had to do was come to school and head for the library at lunch time. I know the other staff thought I was odd. I could have done occasional lunch time "yard" or "playground" duty like they did. Instead I kept the library open. Often it meant I had a ten or fifteen minute "lunch break" and not the half hour I was supposed to get. It did not matter. I had children in there and reading. I had mothers coming in to help cover new books and talk to me about what book to buy their child for a birthday or Christmas present.  There were parents who thought reading was not important but I hope I changed that. I know at least some of them told others how important reading was for their children.

I almost stayed in school libraries. Being a school librarian then was a fascinating job. Encouraging children to read was something I felt passionate about. It was very difficult to leave but I knew it was only part of what I needed to do with my life. I went on to other things.

I know I made the right decision but it was a difficult one. To stay in school libraries would have been easy in many ways. I miss the thrill of a child asking, "Are there any more books like this?" or telling me, "It's an absolutely super book and you really ought to read it." Now there are schools without libraries. Those that do seem to have computers rather than books. If a child wants to read fiction then they need to belong to the local council library network. 

We have lost something along the way, something important. The letter in the paper might have caused me some embarrassment but at least it told me that there is one former child out there with grandchildren. Those grandchildren are being encouraged to read because the child is now a grandparent who had access to a school library. The expense of rebuilding school library resources has to be met if we are going to meet the needs of all children. 

Yes I do have "private health insurance"

and yes it is essential and yes it is a lot to pay. It will soon be even more. 

I resent paying it but it really is essential. I am not just older but, when I need a hip replacement or cataract surgery or something else which comes with age, I cannot afford to wait for years.  Nobody can afford to wait for years but, for me, it really will be the difference between living reasonably independently or existing in a nursing home. 

I cannot expect my family to care for me. In my case "family" means Middle Cat. The reality, as our GP pointed out to Middle Cat, is more likely to mean that I will be doing things for Middle Cat. We live close to one another and she has multiple health issues which have led to time in hospital.  Middle Cat is the one who travelled with a backpack of medication. 

Yes, she has private health insurance too. Without it she would likely not be alive. 

Brother Cat would almost certainly have had a lower limb amputated if he had been forced to wait for treatment for a serious infection. It was initially thought to be something else but help brought in because there was insurance to help cover the cost means he is walking around on his own feet. The long term saving and his ability to go on helping his family and his community is surely worth it? 

Private health insurance really is not an "indulgence". You are not "fortunate to be able to afford it". You are simply doing the responsible thing. It is not, as some people suggest, "queue jumping". It is saving the public health system for others who also need it and ensuring you can give back where possible.

The present government sees this differently. They are about to make private health insurance for older people more expensive. It means I will struggle to pay for it but others will not be able to afford it at all. They will go on to the "waiting lists". They will become less rather than more able. Eventually it will cost more to care for them. The move is a short sighted one designed to suggest they are "saving" money and spending it in areas where it is needed even more. In typical government fashion they can make it sound good until you start to actually think about the consequences.

Does the government really want me to stop paying a contribution to my own health cover?    

It seems "Book Week" is now

more about dressing up in a costume than reading a book.  Has this happened because books are not being read any more? 

This morning's editorial is talking about some schools no longer having libraries and there is the inevitable article about "bought" or "home made" costumes. Going to school dressed up as a character in a book is becoming competitive it seems.

I worked in school libraries for a time. I might have stayed there if I had not had the burning desire to see that as many people as possible had a means by which to communicate, that they could read and enjoy books. School libraries were important back then, very important. There was actually a "School Libraries Branch" for the Education Department.  Money was spent on school libraries. 

Other staff thought I was odd because I took just a few snatched minutes to eat a sandwich at around lunch time. It meant I could keep the library open through the lunch hour. It meant the library was over flowing with children almost all the time. Libraries should be like that. 

And "Book Week"? Yes, we had Book Week. It was the week I would talk to the "Mothers' Club" and the School Council about how much the books we had bought were being used and how many more we needed. It was the week I would talk to the young readers about more "book things" as they would call information about how books actually came to be. There was the competition run by the state newspaper where you "wrote a book" and illustrated it. Much of that would be done in the classroom but there would be children lined up in the library to get help from me or older children. The best of these would go up to a big store in the city centre to go on display. There would be author visits to schools. New books would come out just in time for Book Week.

There was not a costume in sight. There was no need for them. The children would draw pictures of their favourite characters and there would be "morning talks" about books they had been reading. There were endless questions around "are there any more like that?"

Half a century later we seem to have lost sight of what a library is in a school. Some schools do not even have libraries. They have become classrooms. The textbooks and any non-fiction material is sought on line. Reading fiction for pleasure? It is still done of course but it is not considered nearly as important any more. 

I am not sure how we expect school students to move to university and do the research of the future if their imaginations have not been stimulated by fiction.  Putting on a shop bought "costume" is not going to help much. 

I don't have much time for the "Brethren"

by which I mean the "Exclusive Brethren" or "Plymouth Brethren". My personal contact with them has been varied but I am wary of them. Let me explain.

Those that I know, and they vary from place to place, lead lives which are separate from the rest of the community. They mix as little as possible. They do not eat with anyone outside their own church and those people must be "in fellowship". They do not live in any form of communal housing. There must be no common walls or shared facilities. 

Out in the community they do not normally engage in social conversation with other people. Their manner with shop assistants is abrupt. Self-serve in the supermarket suits them nicely although their use of computers is otherwise limited to business use or essential study. Their children are now educated separately if at all possible. While certain things must be taught the Brethren elders will remove "unsuitable" material from the text books.

Outsiders are not welcome to attend their Sunday services. Inside their buildings women sit separately from men. Their participation in the service is limited to singing the hymns and, sometimes, choosing them. During the week there are prayer meetings and Bible study. They use a version of the Bible that is slightly different as well.

Women are subject to the authority of men. They must wear skirts or dresses. Their hair must remain long and they wear a "token" (ribbon) or headscarf to show their "submission" to male authority.

I have known several of them from time to time. There were quite a number of them living in this area some years ago. I still see some of them around. I came to know them through their children. 

They are not barred from voting but many of them abstain from voting on the grounds that only God has authority over them. This does not mean that they feel free to break the law, far from it. They are generally very law abiding people. They will drive excessively hard bargains but they generally do not break the law. 

There is an inquiry of some sort going on in another state at present which has, among other things, been questioning their involvement in an election campaign. Their involvement has been considered very right wing. The left wing dominated inquiry is trying to suggest their support for the opposition candidates amounted to a "political donation".  I find this curious.

I find this curious and a little disturbing. I am not sure I would welcome their involvement if I was attempting to enter politics. It may actually have done more to harm than to help. 

There is however something very odd about all this. Those running the inquiry have apparently not considered that, on the left, there are organisations like the union movement and "Get Up" and more which also involve themselves in political campaigns. 

Is the involvement of the Brethren really any different or is it because they are seen as a "cult" by some and they are involving "God"? I may not like all the Brethren do and believe but, so far, they have not harassed me the way some union members and the Get Up group have.  So, tell me, are they so different they need to be stopped from their political activities? 

I have never eaten and Oreo

and I am not likely to do so by choice. The same goes for all the other sugar laden "cream" biscuits on the supermarket shelves. I had the occasional "Monte Carlo" or similar as a child. This would happen if we were visiting someone else and they were offered to us. We had to check with Mum first and there was no guarantee she would say "yes" but, on most occasions, permission would be granted and we would "remember our manners" and then nibble them slowly to make them last. I still prefer shortbread (the sort which is homemade with a recipe which comes from Scotland and is made with actual butter) or ginger nuts.

Now it seems the "Oreo" is a thing. I have seen them on the shelves in the biscuit aisle of the supermarket and apparently they appear in school lunch boxes. It is their appearance in school lunch boxes which is apparently cause for "jealousy" and a mother has demanded they not be allowed because her child is envious of a child who gets one when her child does not.

I wonder what on earth is going on here. Since when did the appearance of a biscuit in a lunch box mean your precious little darling was so upset no other child could have one. No, we are not talking about an allergy here. We are talking about "I want one too" and a parent saying "no" for some reason or another. 

I can totally understand the allergy issue. It would only be the most irresponsible of parents who would knowingly pack something which would cause another child to have an allergic reaction. The question apparently does not arise with the biscuit. There may be little or no food value in the biscuit as such but they appear to be sweet and it is likely a small treat in a lunch box that probably contains a sandwich or a wrap and perhaps some celery or carrot sticks and some fruit which has already been cut up in the hope that it will be eaten. 

The idea that all children should be denied something because the parent of one child cannot afford or does not want their child to have something is plainly ridiculous. Where on earth would that have to stop? 

I remember all those days at school when the "lunch orders" would be brought in by the "lunch monitors" and the classroom would be filled with the smell of hot pies, pasties and sausage rolls or fresh yeast buns. These would be for those we thought lucky enough to be buying their lunch that day. Envious? Of course we were but we would not have demanded they stop buying their lunch. My brother and I were allowed to do it just once a term. It would be on the last day of term and we had to get full marks in arithmetic, mental and spelling in some weekly tests in order to do it. Yes, we worked for it. We might have thought it was "not fair" but we did not dare say it and the idea of our mother complaining other children bought lunch more often would have been unthinkable.

I wonder about the mother who made the demand. What is she teaching her child? Does she also demand her neighbours do not have a new car or a holiday because she cannot afford it? 

"Oreo envy" is surely part of childhood. It teaches us we cannot have everything we want and that is surely a good thing.  Telling us other people should also do without is not.