Happy 30th Aniversary Childline!

 

Having grown up watching Dame Esther Rantzen on That's Life I was delighted to meet her today, when we ended up blowing out candles on a cake we had sponsored for Childline who are celebrating 30 years of providing help, advice and support to children throughout Wales.

More than 50 people attended the event at the Senedd where the Minister for Social Services and Public Health Rebecca Evans was among those who joined Dame Esther in speaking to the audience.

Dame Esther spoke about her experience of setting up the service in 1986 and called on people to volunteer and help make a difference to children’s lives.

Dame Esther spoke about her experience of setting up the service in 1986 and called on people to volunteer and help make a difference to children’s lives.

Wales currently has 175 Childline volunteers across 2 bases in Cardiff and Prestatyn. Last year more than 7,600 children in Wales contacted the service seeking help, advice and support.

Love me Tinder – tales from the frontline of modern dating

As reported in The Guardian this week -
Blind dates and set-ups may be things of the past, but are the apps that have replaced them any
better?

Modern love is digitised. Letters and unrequited love have been replaced with modern iterations
(saucy pictures and ghosting). You do not go on blind dates, you go on dates with people whose
best photos you deem, at best, attractive and, at worst, passable. No one asks each other out in
person any more, probably.

There are merits and disadvantages to Tinder, Happn, Grindr, Bumble and the rest. They dismantle
the high stakes normally associated with the terror of asking someone out, but in doing so they
also cheapen the act. Post-Tinder, love feels disposable; people become something to consume.
This is what love online looks like.

‘I asked the first guy out after exchanging three sentences’
Libby, 27, customer services assistant

In January this year I downloaded Tinder, Bumble and Happn. It seemed like the only option to
meet someone these days if you don’t work with, or hang out with, men.

I asked the first guy out after exchanging approximately three sentences on Tinder. He announced
he was emigrating the moment we met. I realised we were mismatched after approximately three
minutes, anyway. He now lives in New York; I stayed in the country.
One evening I got chatting to someone: skip forward three hours and I had agreed to meet him in
central London. I stumbled up the stairs at Oxford Circus, spotted his bad shoes and realised
that I just wasn’t Samantha from Sex and the City. I promptly ran across the road and down
another entrance, and texted him to say: “I’m so sorry something has come up, I can’t make it
tonight.” He sent me a lovely response that it was totally OK and we should go for a drink
another night.

We did. He had just been diagnosed with ADHD and they were experimenting with his medication,
which tended to wear off at the end of the day, so he didn’t like to sit still for too long.

But I really liked how weird he was and was totally thrilled when he texted me the next morning:
“That was fun, we should do it again some time.” We did; three days later he hadn’t texted me. A
week later, I was drunk and I sent him a meme of Celine Dion letting go of Leonardo DiCaprio in
Titanic whispering, “Jack, I’ll never let go, Jack” because his name was Jack and I thought I
was hilarious.

The worst part of online dating is the first awkward face-to-face hello. Your preconception of
the person you have been speaking to is always very oddly different to whoever it is you meet.
And I also seem to make my mind up very quickly on how the night will go.
I once heard a story about a man who turns up to dates early and buys himself a drink, so that
when the girl arrives, he can send her up to the bar to get a drink and do a runner if he thinks
they aren’t up to his exacting standards. That’s almost a reason to give up.

One evening, I started speaking to a man – really interesting, engaging, all very effortless –
and after three hours of constant messaging, we arranged a drink for the next day. He asked for
my number – taking messaging off Tinder is a big deal – and then texted at 5pm to ask me where
we should go. I texted back suggesting a bar, washed my hair and never heard back from him.
For the full story click here.

Call me old fashioned but it would seem even Bridget Jones chose "the boy next door" eventually....or did she?

High Court judge uses emoji in official ruling

A recent article in The Telegraph caught my eye.
It is the kind of document in which one might expect to find daunting legal terminology,
interspersed with Latin phrases or even a smattering of Norman French.

But one High Court judge has gone to previously unheard-of lengths to make a judgment in a
family court case comprehensible even for the children it affects – by replacing dry terminology
with a battery of down-to-earth phrases and even a smiley face symbol.

The ruling handed down by Mr Justice Peter Jackson and published online is thought to be the
first in English legal history to incorporate an emoji, or web symbol, to explain a point of
evidence.

In what is being hailed as an exemplary instance of plain English, Sir Peter carefully navigates
issues from domestic abuse to religious fundamentalism and even a complex anti-terrorist
investigation in a brief 17-page ruling which he said he hoped the children would read for
themselves.

It explains to the children, aged 10 and 12, why they should have only limited contact with
their father, a white British Muslim convert who, the judge said, wanted to spirit them off to
Syria under the guise of a trip to Disneyland Paris.

The father, who can be named only as Mr A for legal reasons, was facing trial for trying to buy
guns and ammunition when the judgment was drafted earlier this year. It is understood he has
since been convicted.
It describes Mr A as a “loudmouth” and a “bigot” who talked “nonsense” about supposedly being
persecuted for his faith and saw himself as the victim of a conspiracy by “sneaky liars” in the
police and social services.

The children’s mother, who also cannot be identified, is described as having been “under Mr A’s
thumb” – one of the main reasons why he was deemed a risk to the children – and that he had “got
inside her head” making it hard for her to “see what everyone else can see”.

Others involved in the case include a teacher who was left “frightened to death” by his
threatening behavior.

Before detailing the evidence, the judgment attempts to allay fears about the courts the
children may have had.
For more information click here

The Archers: Verdict revealed in Helen Titchener trial

The Archers' Helen Titchener has been found not guilty of attempting to murder her abusive
husband Rob.
Millions of listeners to the BBC Radio 4 soap were expected to tune in as the fictional
trial drew to a close with the jury's verdict.
The high-profile domestic abuse plot culminated in the first hour-long episode in show's
65-year history.
A star cast of jurors, including Dame Eileen Atikins and Catherine Tate, were heard
deliberating Helen's fate.
After a week-long trial, the jury at Borchester Crown Court also found her not guilty of
wounding with intent over the incident, in which Rob was stabbed.

Discharged from the court room following the majority verdict, Helen had an emotional
reunion with her parents.
Her mother Pat told her: "You're a survivor, all right. You didn't deserve any of this - that's
what the jury decided, remember that."
But moments later, Helen was confronted by Rob. "Congratulations Helen, you must be chuffed with
yourself," he said.
Issuing a chilling warning, he added: "You might have fooled everyone else but you haven't got
rid of me - and as long as we have a child together you never will."
She replied: "The whole world knows what you are now Rob... You've failed, I'm free."

A family court hearing has been set for September 14, where the custody of Helen's two sons -
Henry and Jack

The stabbing, which took place in April, followed a much-debated storyline.
It has gripped listeners, sparked a national debate about domestic violence and brought a
flood of donations to the women's charity Refuge.

Rob's long-term emotional abuse of Helen had been slowly drip fed to listeners of The Archers
over two-and-a-half years.
Avoiding the standard depiction of abuse as daily physical violence, the drama centred on his
systematic undermining of her personality.
Throughout the trial, listeners heard evidence from both sides, building up to the jury's
deliberations.
The plot was inspired by a new law against "coercive or controlling behaviour" in relationships,
with writers consulting lawyers, charities and abuse survivors to get the details right.
For the gentle soap opera set in the fictional English village of Ambridge, the storyline has
proved a sensational departure from the cosy country life usually depicted.
The relationship between organic cheesemaker Helen Archer and farm manager Rob Titchener began
in 2013, leading to marriage and a baby.
Listeners were slowly introduced to Rob's darker side as he began to bully and control her,
isolating her from family and friends.
Programme editor Sean O'Connor said while he was aware the storyline was controversial, he had
been "surprised by the intensity of the reaction to it and how it has inspired a national debate
about a previously hidden issue in British culture".
Mr O'Connor added: "In many ways, while this is the climax to the story it's not the end of the
story - because Helen and Rob are still married, they have two children, one of whom they share
together...
"In many ways this story could be a 20 or 30-year story - as long as Helen and Rob share that
child between them."

Drama in Ambridge

I confess that I am looking forward to listening to the court case involving Rob and Helen
Tichner from BBC 4's The Archers next week.
Briefly, Rob (Helen's husband)  is a control freak and Helen is currently in
prison awaiting trial for attempting to murder him.
So traumatised by the incident, Helen has blocked out what actually happened and is unable to
inform her "brief" of the truth of the situation.
(He discovered she was trying to leave him, they argued, he goaded her into holding a
knife, he then attempted to assault her young child Henry.  She did what came naturally, and in trying
to defend the boy, ended up stabbing her husband.)

All very dramatic from the gentle drama in the fictional village of Ambridge.

Sadly though, this is so true in "real life" which is what makes this storyline so fascinating.

The story is exceptionally well written, the characters plausible and believable and we are all
left wondering if Helen will actually end up behind bars.....


The Archers BBC Radio 4   7 pm daily

10 Strangest British Laws

Did you know it's still against the law to beat your doormat after 8am or to go to a fancy party
dressed as a soldier? The chances are you’re breaking the law without realising

We try to do our best, don’t we? We pay all our taxes, drive at 29mph and say “please” and “thank
you” whenever the need arises.

But the chances are you’re breaking the law without even realising. The great and the good have
been making laws in Britain for hundreds of years.

They’re pretty good about creating new ones, but no so efficient at getting rid of the old ones
we no longer need.

Which is why it is still against the law to beat your doormat after 8am or to go to a fancy
party dressed as a soldier.

OFFENCE 1

Carrying your shopping home

It is a crime to walk home from B&Q if you’ve just bought a ladder or a plank of wood.

OFFENCE 2

Flying a kite

It is that same Metropolitan Police Act 1839. It threatens a £500 fine for any person “who shall
fly any kite or play at any game to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers, or who shall
make or use any slide upon ice or snow in any street or other thoroughfare, to the common danger
of the passengers”.

OFFENCE 3

Wearing fancy dress

Been invited to a fancy-dress party? Make sure you don’t go as a sailor or a soldier. The
Seamen’s and Soldiers’ False Characters Act 1906 prevents you from passing yourself off as a
member of the armed forces.

OFFENCE 4

Getting drunk in a pub

Everyone knows it’s against the law to be “drunk and disorderly”. You may also know that it’s
illegal for a publican to serve you if you’re drunk.

OFFENCE 5

Playing knock-down ginger

Do kids still play this game? If they don’t, that’s wise. Because ringing on someone’s doorbell
and then running away also contravenes the Metropolitan Police Act 1854.

OFFENCE 6

Keeping pigs outside your house

If you're in the city, you need to watch where you keep your porky pals

OFFENCE 7

Cleaning your doormat after 8am

It’s our old friend the Metropolitan Police Act 1854 again. Section 60, subsection 3 makes it an
offence to beat your carpet in the street.

OFFENCE 8

Asking a stranger for parking money

You’ve parked the car and you don’t have any change for the ticket machine.
Don’t dare ask anybody for a pound coin.It may only be a quid. You may never have asked a
stranger for money before - but it’s still begging under the Vagrancy Act 1824.
The punishment? Being sent to “the house of correction” for a month or less.

OFFENCE 9

Hailing a moving taxi

The London Hackney Carriages Act 1843 states even if a licensed taxi has its “for hire” light on,
the driver is only allowed to seek trade when at a standstill
According to section 33 of the Act: “Every driver of a hackney carriage who shall ply for hire
elsewhere than at some standing or place appointed for that purpose” shall be committing an
offence, for which the current maximum fine is £200.

OFFENCE 10

Handling salmon in suspicious circumstances

No, I don’t know what it means either.
But section 32 of the Salmon Act 1986, specifically outlaws “handling salmon in suspicious
circumstances”. So please stop doing it.
For more information click here

Divorcees reveal the tell-tale signs your marriage is doomed

An article in the Mail yesterday, tells us that Divorcees reveal the tell-tale signs your marriage
is doomed.These include

•  How they disagreed and going to sleep on an argument
•  For one bride she said she was in fact always afraid of her partner
•  Another person says they were married to someone who would never say they were sorry.

Apparently it's not what you disagree on, it's how you disagree.
'There's no such thing as two people perfect for each other, and how you approach the friction
is what either strengthens or eats away at a relationship,' the user writes.

'When you disagree, do you discuss the issue of the person? Is it, "I want sushi, but you want
pizza", or is it, "You always want sushi, I never get pizza".'
Whilst this difference is subtle, it's 'so much more important than most people realise'.
Basically, with the second approach, the person is being made out to be the problem instead of
the problem itself, and it shows that one person in the relationship is holding on to negative
emotions.
As a trained mediator I see this all to often.
When relationships break down emotions run high and talking face-to-face can seem like the
hardest thing to do.
Sometimes you need a hand to help get the talking started and focus on what really matters to you. That's where mediation comes in.

Mediation is a process to help couples who have decided to separate or divorce to talk things
through.
Mediation can help by:

• Reducing tension and hostility
• Helping you make informed decisions that are right for your circumstances
• Keeping communication channels open
• Saving the cost of expensive court battles
• Helping children by showing parents working together to resolve issues

For more information on the article click here