This was first posted at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com on March 12th, 2010
Last week we raised our concerns about the harm of poverty wreaks on the majority of the children who live on our planet and about the current distribution of wealth. Comments mailed to us have been largely sympathetic towards re-distributing wealth but they have been accompanied by what seems a despairing wringing of hands that implies there is little we can effectively do about it. At the risk of causing wide offence we wondered if the consensual liberal concern for the poor is but a simulation which covers for an indifference with intent. Perhaps we are not prepared to go through - both individually and collectively - the great sea change that would be needed if we are to make sure that every child has sufficient food, sufficient shelter and clothing, the means to enjoy recreation, and the opportunities that may be provided by education.Material poverty so often goes along with emotional poverty. The latter may have figured largely in Jon Venables’ early experience and have contributed to the part of him that became capable of the pitiless and dreadful killing of Jamie Bulger, a very vulnerable, very young, defenceless child. Yet instead of investing our emotions into thinking what needs to done to ensure that we do something to prevent such an awful event in the future a great many of us spend our time venting the same destructive feelings upon Jon Venables that he acted out so cruelly upon Jamie Bulger. It may be very difficult for us to accept that these feelings are - to one extent or another - present in each of us. What prevents most of us from acting out our anger is that we were given enough of the right kind of nurture by our parents. In such a materially and emotionally impoverished childhood environment such as that Jon Venables experienced it can be guessed that there was no space for imagination, healthy play and creativity. It is much easier for parenting figures to offer this if they have sufficient emotional and material to provide this for their children. Perhaps we need to think about how we ensure that families never live in this wider kind of poverty.We continue to draw attention to poverty and what it brings because though there are many fine examples of human beings taking their own individual practical steps to redistribute material and emotional wealth, these initiatives may not be enough unless we all - individuals and institutions – do this in our own communities and as members of the global community.Perhaps it will never be possible for us as a species to give everyone a reasonable opportunity to lead a tolerable life. If this is so then perhaps we need to look at why this it is so. If this sounds “holier than thou” it is not meant to, for apart from these words we have done nothing but exercise an intimation of guilt. We are just wondering if it is a sensible notion that the poverty experienced by the majority of people who live on our planet can be alleviated. If so we would like to hear about it. We would like to join others in initiating action. (Posted, March 12th).
Reference : Neil Young (Performer and composer, 1991) Keep on Rocking in the Free World USA Reprise Records Accessed at : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQccK0F1_iY
Comments
Cynthia Cross writes , "As a pacifist I have no difficulty in deciding where we could save money and also, I believe, it would make our country a safer place to live. (I am not sure where that leaves us with our present commitment in Afghanistan) I have also often wondered what we were doing sending things to the moon, when we were in such a mess down here. I do not really think that the concept of the Lottery is a good one, but if we do have it what is the point of giving winners more than a million, there ought to be more winners or the money should be better distributed to deserving causes. Of course people who have millions which must become meaningless in terms of the quality of daily life should be taxed at a very high level. Helping people move from a life of poverty is not just about giving them money it is also about enriching there social and emotional experience. To care people have to have been cared for and feel cared for, going through the benefits system hardly does that. As an aside I remember a little girl, about 10 years old, who had a Christmas present which seemed much too young for her, I asked who gave you that; she replied “the committee”! As Mark Smith says there are not many people going to do a Bob Holman, but maybe there are other ways to foster caring and community spirit and helping people to feel that they have some control over their lives (note I did not say empowering) Jeremy Millar mentions cooperatives which certainly could be revived to good effect as could the old Settlements which did sterling work in some parts of London. The old Family Service Units (which originally was a pacifist organisation) acted as a community resource where “professionals” were not unhappy getting their hands dirty, cleaning and making things and caring for children. Perhaps getting involved in such endeavours could be something young people could do in their gap year and we could revive the idea that volunteering can be quite fulfilling and exciting even in your own country. To achieve any of this we would have to start trusting more and blaming less. Surely the pendulum has to swing back sometime soon".
Iain Sharpe comments , "I am probably one of the hand-wringers who will the ends of reducing inequality but are painfully aware of the difficulties of doing so when we have to persuade people to vote for such things. But we should never give up trying. At risk of giving a party political broadcast I would commend the Lib Dem 'pupil premium' policy to make sure funding for schools benefits those whose need is greatest".
Monday, 19 April 2010
The redistribution of Health
This piece first appeared at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com on March 19th, 2010
It is welcome news that 32 million citizens of the USA who previously had little or no access to effective health services now do so. On a global scale this may seem a small step towards alleviating the consequences of poverty but it represents an unprecedented caring and nurturing initiative taken on behalf of all the people of the USA by its democratically elected government. Barack Obama’s, as well as his supporters’ determination and achievement should not be underestimated. Since the 1930s when these ideas were first mooted, there has been, and there remains, a great deal of opposition in the USA to the kind of health legislation the government is introducing. To citizens of the European Union where basic health services are, as far as we are aware, accessible to all what Obama and his government have done may not appear remarkable but the symbolic message it sends throughout the world is immense. If all political leaders could for a moment get off the fence of expedience – an expedience fuelled by the power of wealthy interests - and follow Obama’s determined lead and confront poverty we may begin to hold out hope that the social, educational and material riches of our world will be available to all children and be shared more equably. (Posted March 19th)
Comments
Nancy Mohindra writes "When we live in a wealthy society or when our way of living is comfortable words such as poverty, inequality, or empathy are just terms without connection to real people or real experiences-let’s remember that it is not always the case!. For this reason, among others, is why I consider so relevant research on social realities and its impact on mental health, well-being and social cohesion. Financial solvency is important to our welfare; however, inclusion and acknowledgment of our existence by our fellow citizen is what increases or reduces health status and life expectancy. That it sounds pathetic to resort to hard evidence to push for new legislation and reforms to protect less favoured communities, I agree. Hence, my call is for it, let’s do qualitative and quantitative research on the effects of inequality and indifference on the quality of life of our fellow citizens and so in our own lives. Let’s show and prove that a society which includes everybody pays and it pays well to everybody".
It is welcome news that 32 million citizens of the USA who previously had little or no access to effective health services now do so. On a global scale this may seem a small step towards alleviating the consequences of poverty but it represents an unprecedented caring and nurturing initiative taken on behalf of all the people of the USA by its democratically elected government. Barack Obama’s, as well as his supporters’ determination and achievement should not be underestimated. Since the 1930s when these ideas were first mooted, there has been, and there remains, a great deal of opposition in the USA to the kind of health legislation the government is introducing. To citizens of the European Union where basic health services are, as far as we are aware, accessible to all what Obama and his government have done may not appear remarkable but the symbolic message it sends throughout the world is immense. If all political leaders could for a moment get off the fence of expedience – an expedience fuelled by the power of wealthy interests - and follow Obama’s determined lead and confront poverty we may begin to hold out hope that the social, educational and material riches of our world will be available to all children and be shared more equably. (Posted March 19th)
Comments
Nancy Mohindra writes "When we live in a wealthy society or when our way of living is comfortable words such as poverty, inequality, or empathy are just terms without connection to real people or real experiences-let’s remember that it is not always the case!. For this reason, among others, is why I consider so relevant research on social realities and its impact on mental health, well-being and social cohesion. Financial solvency is important to our welfare; however, inclusion and acknowledgment of our existence by our fellow citizen is what increases or reduces health status and life expectancy. That it sounds pathetic to resort to hard evidence to push for new legislation and reforms to protect less favoured communities, I agree. Hence, my call is for it, let’s do qualitative and quantitative research on the effects of inequality and indifference on the quality of life of our fellow citizens and so in our own lives. Let’s show and prove that a society which includes everybody pays and it pays well to everybody".
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Lost for Words : It’s not the economy, it’s the poverty and the avarice, stupid!
This article was published on the goodenoughcaring.com homepage on March 5th, 2010
Forgive this crude play on a tired old headline. It is a reaction to the BBC's broadcasting on February 15th,
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/uk_news/education/8513340.stm )
of a report about a research study carried out by the Sutton Trust which found after looking at the results of vocabulary tests given to 12.500 British children that those from the poorest homes are almost a year behind middle class pupils by the time they start school. Whatever all this means – after all such studies are loaded towards the cultural values of the “haves” rather than the “have nots” - we wonder how many more research studies are needed to tell us that children who live in poverty are bequeathed failure at school, defeat in what is called the “world of work”, and life long poor physical and psychological health. All this is known, so why spend money on more research about it ? Let’s spend time on working out how we go about redistributing wealth. This is easier said than done, but no human being is worth, let’s say 10 times as much as the poorest. Should any person be worth any more than another ? If as adults we conscientiously address our responsibility to protect and nurture all children then surely each of us would be prepared to give up income she or he does not require in order to make sure that all children have what they need to flourish. When fair minded people who are not rich, but who know they could exist quite adequately on less than they have, think about such a commitment they may feel a moral compunction towards it but they may also be fearful of it. "What if," they ask, "we do this and then we fall upon hard times ? Who will protect and look after us ?" Such a poignantly ironic question. We know the answer we ought to be able to give.Other than those who suffer so wretchedly from poverty in all or any of its aspects, the people we should perhaps worry most for, and about, are the excessively avariciously powerful and wealthy. Surely it is not healthy to be the way they are. These people need help. Thought needs to be given as to how we can best support them in addressing their problems. Still, even if we knew how to redistribute wealth effectively, we may have to accept that those with no experience of having anything will need a period of adjustment to spend as unwisely as we, “the haves” did in recent years. This jumbled collection of thoughts and statements is not altogether naïve, yet it would be easy to become cynical about its chances of being taken up seriously, and so, decide to do nothing. The redistribution of wealth is not a simple exercise but someone – perhaps one or more of us - needs to start to consider it seriously if we are to do the very best we can to make sure all children grow up healthily. This is not an argument for an absolute answer. Every human being is unique but we are left with the pluralism and the conflict of freedom and equality. How long can we wait before we begin to confront this problem? What do we wish for our children ? We may have to acknowledge that freedom and equality are not necessarily harmonious, but somewhere along their continuum a choice should be made. As one kind of start we would truly welcome comments and ideas about this. (Posted, 5th March, 2010).
Comments
Jeremy Millar comments, “ I concur completely. I have a regular rant against 'research into the bleeding obvious' and encourage the students to spot it. my grandfather was a mill owner but ran a workers cooperative so i have been raised in the knowledge that other forms of capitalist endeavour can work. there was an interesting prog on radio 4 regarding john lewis in this respect. also I have an alternative solution to the bank meltdown. sadly too late to impliment as the government bailed the banks out. Anyway what the government could have done was bought off the population’s credit card and personal loan debt. They could have included mortgage for those facing repossession and the debt would have been repaid by individuals over 20 years at a 1% rate of interest. This could have been done through income tax. The government would have then been able to do future investment planning on a secured additional income. The banks would have got their money back. The populace would be solvent and able to start consuming again. Obviously this is just like raising income tax but at least it would make the people feel better rather than disillusioned and angry with the whole system.”
Iain Sharpe writes that “it may be true that studies are loaded towards the cultural values of the haves rather than the have nots, but one step towards giving the have nots a better chance is to make sure they have the knowledge, language and understanding, including vocabulary to challenge the haves.”
Mark Smith comments "I'm not going to disagree with a word of that. I regularly get a niggling voice of conscience questioning whether I should do a Bob Holman (and just as regularly come up with reasons/excuses as to why I don't). Are you aware of Wilkinson and Pickett's book, 'The Spirit Level'? Have a look at www.equalitytrust.org.uk/ “
Forgive this crude play on a tired old headline. It is a reaction to the BBC's broadcasting on February 15th,
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/uk_news/education/8513340.stm )
of a report about a research study carried out by the Sutton Trust which found after looking at the results of vocabulary tests given to 12.500 British children that those from the poorest homes are almost a year behind middle class pupils by the time they start school. Whatever all this means – after all such studies are loaded towards the cultural values of the “haves” rather than the “have nots” - we wonder how many more research studies are needed to tell us that children who live in poverty are bequeathed failure at school, defeat in what is called the “world of work”, and life long poor physical and psychological health. All this is known, so why spend money on more research about it ? Let’s spend time on working out how we go about redistributing wealth. This is easier said than done, but no human being is worth, let’s say 10 times as much as the poorest. Should any person be worth any more than another ? If as adults we conscientiously address our responsibility to protect and nurture all children then surely each of us would be prepared to give up income she or he does not require in order to make sure that all children have what they need to flourish. When fair minded people who are not rich, but who know they could exist quite adequately on less than they have, think about such a commitment they may feel a moral compunction towards it but they may also be fearful of it. "What if," they ask, "we do this and then we fall upon hard times ? Who will protect and look after us ?" Such a poignantly ironic question. We know the answer we ought to be able to give.Other than those who suffer so wretchedly from poverty in all or any of its aspects, the people we should perhaps worry most for, and about, are the excessively avariciously powerful and wealthy. Surely it is not healthy to be the way they are. These people need help. Thought needs to be given as to how we can best support them in addressing their problems. Still, even if we knew how to redistribute wealth effectively, we may have to accept that those with no experience of having anything will need a period of adjustment to spend as unwisely as we, “the haves” did in recent years. This jumbled collection of thoughts and statements is not altogether naïve, yet it would be easy to become cynical about its chances of being taken up seriously, and so, decide to do nothing. The redistribution of wealth is not a simple exercise but someone – perhaps one or more of us - needs to start to consider it seriously if we are to do the very best we can to make sure all children grow up healthily. This is not an argument for an absolute answer. Every human being is unique but we are left with the pluralism and the conflict of freedom and equality. How long can we wait before we begin to confront this problem? What do we wish for our children ? We may have to acknowledge that freedom and equality are not necessarily harmonious, but somewhere along their continuum a choice should be made. As one kind of start we would truly welcome comments and ideas about this. (Posted, 5th March, 2010).
Comments
Jeremy Millar comments, “ I concur completely. I have a regular rant against 'research into the bleeding obvious' and encourage the students to spot it. my grandfather was a mill owner but ran a workers cooperative so i have been raised in the knowledge that other forms of capitalist endeavour can work. there was an interesting prog on radio 4 regarding john lewis in this respect. also I have an alternative solution to the bank meltdown. sadly too late to impliment as the government bailed the banks out. Anyway what the government could have done was bought off the population’s credit card and personal loan debt. They could have included mortgage for those facing repossession and the debt would have been repaid by individuals over 20 years at a 1% rate of interest. This could have been done through income tax. The government would have then been able to do future investment planning on a secured additional income. The banks would have got their money back. The populace would be solvent and able to start consuming again. Obviously this is just like raising income tax but at least it would make the people feel better rather than disillusioned and angry with the whole system.”
Iain Sharpe writes that “it may be true that studies are loaded towards the cultural values of the haves rather than the have nots, but one step towards giving the have nots a better chance is to make sure they have the knowledge, language and understanding, including vocabulary to challenge the haves.”
Mark Smith comments "I'm not going to disagree with a word of that. I regularly get a niggling voice of conscience questioning whether I should do a Bob Holman (and just as regularly come up with reasons/excuses as to why I don't). Are you aware of Wilkinson and Pickett's book, 'The Spirit Level'? Have a look at www.equalitytrust.org.uk/ “
The Howard League shows the way : raising the profile of training for residential child care workers
First posted at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/ on September 4th, 2009
It is good news that on September 3rd, the Howard League was able to make the BBC headlines about the need for professional training for prison officers.
Link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8233001.stm
We suggest that national government and interested lobbying bodies concerned with the training of residential child care workers should promote a wider public awareness of the needs of children in residential child care and raise the profile of the training needs of those who look after them. The lone voice trying to achieve this in recent years has been the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care but it needs further support to do this from others, particularly from the DCSF.
Our media seems fearful too that we will tire of hearing of the suffering of children over a sustained period of time. It prefers to stick with short-term, blaming sensationalism, or the filling up newspaper columns or news bulletins with children's matters only when there is no political or international crisis brewing. We know that residential child care needs the sustained interest of the public if really healthy developments in the service are to take place. If we - people in one way or another involved in residential care - can sustain wider public interest in our work then we may go even further than the Howard League has done by publicising the issue of prison officer training. We may even manage to foster a wider and more informed public debate and use it to help us achieve the implementation of a national programme of professional training for residential child care workers. This will require the same kind of determination from everyone in our field particularly the DCSF to stick with the task in the same tenacity that is expected of residential child care workers in their care of children and young people.
It is good news that on September 3rd, the Howard League was able to make the BBC headlines about the need for professional training for prison officers.
Link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8233001.stm
We suggest that national government and interested lobbying bodies concerned with the training of residential child care workers should promote a wider public awareness of the needs of children in residential child care and raise the profile of the training needs of those who look after them. The lone voice trying to achieve this in recent years has been the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care but it needs further support to do this from others, particularly from the DCSF.
Our media seems fearful too that we will tire of hearing of the suffering of children over a sustained period of time. It prefers to stick with short-term, blaming sensationalism, or the filling up newspaper columns or news bulletins with children's matters only when there is no political or international crisis brewing. We know that residential child care needs the sustained interest of the public if really healthy developments in the service are to take place. If we - people in one way or another involved in residential care - can sustain wider public interest in our work then we may go even further than the Howard League has done by publicising the issue of prison officer training. We may even manage to foster a wider and more informed public debate and use it to help us achieve the implementation of a national programme of professional training for residential child care workers. This will require the same kind of determination from everyone in our field particularly the DCSF to stick with the task in the same tenacity that is expected of residential child care workers in their care of children and young people.
"Disposing" of the case : the right of a young person to attend meetings
First published at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/ on December 3rd, 2010
Over the last two years during supervision sessions with residential child care managers in England, I have often heard them talk about being invited by social workers and social work managers to attend meetings without the presence of a young person to discuss future plans for the said young person. The young people are frequently over the age of 15 and are old enough and have enough understanding of their situation to attend and inform such discussions. Amongst the terms which seem to have developed to describe such a meeting are “professionals' meetings” and “strategy meetings”. I am informed that these meetings are sometimes conferred in order to decide how to “dispose” of the case. I am sure there is something obvious I am overlooking here but I do wonder why those who wish to be part of such a meeting do not want to invite the young person. My understanding is that a young person’s right to be at a meeting which will make decisions about her or his future is enshrined in legislation and legislative guidelines. I would be grateful for comments on this.
Over the last two years during supervision sessions with residential child care managers in England, I have often heard them talk about being invited by social workers and social work managers to attend meetings without the presence of a young person to discuss future plans for the said young person. The young people are frequently over the age of 15 and are old enough and have enough understanding of their situation to attend and inform such discussions. Amongst the terms which seem to have developed to describe such a meeting are “professionals' meetings” and “strategy meetings”. I am informed that these meetings are sometimes conferred in order to decide how to “dispose” of the case. I am sure there is something obvious I am overlooking here but I do wonder why those who wish to be part of such a meeting do not want to invite the young person. My understanding is that a young person’s right to be at a meeting which will make decisions about her or his future is enshrined in legislation and legislative guidelines. I would be grateful for comments on this.
What's our problem with families ?
First published at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/ on November 19th, 2009
On November 18th, 2009, commenting on the Queen’s Speech, Anne Longfield OBE, Chief Executive of 4Children released the following press notice :
“Families want better information about their school, beyond simply the academic performance. They want to know their children are getting the best advice and information including about sex and relationships; and to be more involved in the life of their school. The Children, Schools and Families Bill will be a welcome advance and we call on MPs from all Parties to pass the legislation before the end of the Parliament.”
Anne Longfield's comments on the Children, Schools and Families Bill made me wonder if it might be important for us as a society that schools should not be the primary providers of 'the best advice and information about sex and relationships' - as an aside I would put relationships before sex - but we as parents or parenting figures should be doing this through example by relating to our children and young people in a nurturing, respectful way and by helping them appreciate the excitement of sexual relationships that are engaged upon through respect and tenderness toward the other. I don't think kids should learn about relationships through Powerpoint and electronic whiteboards in a schoolroom but through their parents. Some parents may struggle to carry out this part of their responsibility for their children, and if this is so, it is they we should help first if their children are to flourish. This is not to deny the important yet secondary role a school teacher may play in modelling respectful , supportive and caring relationships for children, but it is to say that it is the parenting role which is fundamental. It may be complained that what I am suggesting is somewhat eccentric. If so, then in my view there is a need for us to re-examine what, if anything, the role of society is, as well as our own roles as individuals who, notionally at least, may pride ourselves on having a care for others. In relation to helping struggling parents I am not talking about inclusion or exclusion which are rather demeaning notions but about saying as members of a supportive caring community, " If something is not going right for you, it is not going right for me".
I am sure Ms Longfield does not dismiss the importance of families in the rearing of children, but I believe we are increasingly asking schools and other agencies external to the family to do - and not surprisingly they mainly fail to do - parenting tasks for children. This should be done by families and parents. I think the symbolism of the order of title of the Children, Schools and Families Bill says it all, just as the name Department of Children, Schools and Families does. Why not Children, Families and Schools or indeed Families, Children and Schools. Why use schools as a means of separating the significance of families from the children who are integral to them ?
On November 18th, 2009, commenting on the Queen’s Speech, Anne Longfield OBE, Chief Executive of 4Children released the following press notice :
“Families want better information about their school, beyond simply the academic performance. They want to know their children are getting the best advice and information including about sex and relationships; and to be more involved in the life of their school. The Children, Schools and Families Bill will be a welcome advance and we call on MPs from all Parties to pass the legislation before the end of the Parliament.”
Anne Longfield's comments on the Children, Schools and Families Bill made me wonder if it might be important for us as a society that schools should not be the primary providers of 'the best advice and information about sex and relationships' - as an aside I would put relationships before sex - but we as parents or parenting figures should be doing this through example by relating to our children and young people in a nurturing, respectful way and by helping them appreciate the excitement of sexual relationships that are engaged upon through respect and tenderness toward the other. I don't think kids should learn about relationships through Powerpoint and electronic whiteboards in a schoolroom but through their parents. Some parents may struggle to carry out this part of their responsibility for their children, and if this is so, it is they we should help first if their children are to flourish. This is not to deny the important yet secondary role a school teacher may play in modelling respectful , supportive and caring relationships for children, but it is to say that it is the parenting role which is fundamental. It may be complained that what I am suggesting is somewhat eccentric. If so, then in my view there is a need for us to re-examine what, if anything, the role of society is, as well as our own roles as individuals who, notionally at least, may pride ourselves on having a care for others. In relation to helping struggling parents I am not talking about inclusion or exclusion which are rather demeaning notions but about saying as members of a supportive caring community, " If something is not going right for you, it is not going right for me".
I am sure Ms Longfield does not dismiss the importance of families in the rearing of children, but I believe we are increasingly asking schools and other agencies external to the family to do - and not surprisingly they mainly fail to do - parenting tasks for children. This should be done by families and parents. I think the symbolism of the order of title of the Children, Schools and Families Bill says it all, just as the name Department of Children, Schools and Families does. Why not Children, Families and Schools or indeed Families, Children and Schools. Why use schools as a means of separating the significance of families from the children who are integral to them ?
Has anyone seen a NEET to WEEP for ?
First posted at http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/ on 9th November, 2009
Has anyone met a NEET ? NEET is one of the latest of a long line of acronyms used to reify unique human beings. I won't bother to write out what NEET* stands for because by doing so I would be if validating the notion. It is an acronym coined by wise people who I will call - at the risk of being hoist by my own petard - WEEPs, that is people who are they are Wise, Educated, Earning and entitled to Pontificate on what others - specifically, younger adults - should be doing. According to WEEPs the very least we must expect from NEETs is that they should be getting a job, or getting an education or joining some imaginative project out of which a well sponsored WEEP will be earning a very government sponsored living.This is the kind of project which though it will pay NEETs nothing will enrich them in so many other sublime ways. I suggest that each and every WEEP should get in touch with an individual NEET and say, "Not only am I going to make sure you get the education you want and that will be of relevance to you but also until this is achieved and you get a job I am going to give you half my pay. This is the least and the greatest service a WEEP can provide for a NEET.
Footnote : it may be coincidental but following the publication of this piece, Doctor Tony Ord, an Oxford academic who researches ethics, has decided to give 50% of his future earnings to others. To read more about Doctor Ord go to - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8360098.stm
OK after countless requests to construe, a NEET is a young person Not in Education, Employment or Training.
Has anyone met a NEET ? NEET is one of the latest of a long line of acronyms used to reify unique human beings. I won't bother to write out what NEET* stands for because by doing so I would be if validating the notion. It is an acronym coined by wise people who I will call - at the risk of being hoist by my own petard - WEEPs, that is people who are they are Wise, Educated, Earning and entitled to Pontificate on what others - specifically, younger adults - should be doing. According to WEEPs the very least we must expect from NEETs is that they should be getting a job, or getting an education or joining some imaginative project out of which a well sponsored WEEP will be earning a very government sponsored living.This is the kind of project which though it will pay NEETs nothing will enrich them in so many other sublime ways. I suggest that each and every WEEP should get in touch with an individual NEET and say, "Not only am I going to make sure you get the education you want and that will be of relevance to you but also until this is achieved and you get a job I am going to give you half my pay. This is the least and the greatest service a WEEP can provide for a NEET.
Footnote : it may be coincidental but following the publication of this piece, Doctor Tony Ord, an Oxford academic who researches ethics, has decided to give 50% of his future earnings to others. To read more about Doctor Ord go to - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8360098.stm
OK after countless requests to construe, a NEET is a young person Not in Education, Employment or Training.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)