What is right and what is not

I've been hearing about a new film involving owls. Some people have been getting steamed up about it because children are asking their parents for an owl as a pet and they are simply not suitable as pets. They feel the film is irresponsible.

Why are they directing their ire towards the film-makers? Children want things, it's natural. They want sweeties, they want to go out in the snow in their pyjamas, they want to poke their fingers into electric sockets to see what happens. Just because they want things is no reason why parents should agree to them. The parents' role in these situations is to teach children which of their demands are reasonable and which are not.

Children have been told stories and fairytales down the years. They entertain and teach. They make childhood a wondrous joy, but we grow up. We learn what is real and what is fantasy, what is acceptable and what is not, first from restrictions imposed by our parents and later from our own experiences. Parental restrictions should impose a morality that ensures our later experiences do not come at the expense of others.

No, as I see it, the blame for any craze of keeping owls as pets lies at the feet of the parents, not the storytellers.

Unreasonable benefits

I'm getting very frustrated with the media and people in general. There are plenty of complaints about the Spending Review, about how unfair it all is, but how many complainants come up with alternative suggestions? Mostly it's the media; if the government jumps one way the media automatically seem to jump the other. I know it's about selling papers but what about responsible reporting? They can sway public opinion so they should make sure they're not simply rabble-rousing for the sake of profits.

The comment that finally tipped me into writing this post was about how the measures are not fair to poorer parents with large families.

Has it been fair that any single woman who wanted children - but didn't have them because she cared enough not to want them to grow up without a father - should have to fund single mothers who had children for the sole purpose of obtaining benefits. (Yes I have met at least one who did just that and know of others).

Has it been fair that any single or couple who wanted a large family - but couldn't afford and it restricted their family - should have to fund others who have chidren willy nilly?

Yes, bringing up children is costly and hard work and I've no objection to taxes going towards schooling, school clothing, school meals, health etc. Children are essential to our society's future (as well as being - mostly - a joy) and should be everyone's responsibility, but only up to a point. Paying for others to stay at home while the rest of us work to pay to raise their offspring is taking it too far.

It's only fair that long-suffering tax-payers should stop seeing their money being frittered away unfairly by those who do not want to work.