Have you looked lately at what's for sale on the Amazon website?
Not that long ago, Amazon was the place for books, CDs and DVDs. Then it branched out and started selling computer games, computers and then every kind of electronic gewgaw you could imagine. Then it got into baby stuff (rivalling Mothercare, etc) and then sports stuff (did this cause the loss of high street sports shops, I wonder?) and then groceries (what's that done to Tesco and other supermarkets, not to mention smaller speciality food suppliers?). Then it got into special offers (watch out Itison, Groupon, etc).
Amazon can also do you second hand stuff if you don't want brand new, so you feel you must be getting a bargain. But you have to look very carefully at Amazon's prices these days. The company seems to charge for books on a whim: a paperback can cost more than a hardback - and a Kindle book can cost more than either. And if you order, you need to double-check the delivery charges these days or you can find yourself paying for the special delivery service rather than the free delivery your Scottish heart tells you is a better deal.
And it's quite hard to avoid using Amazon: I use Lovefilm and I like the service: prompt, good library of movies, especially world cinema, good price. It's just been bought over by Amazon and they want me to use my Amazon password to access Lovefilm.
Now the founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, has bought a newspaper, the Washington Post - and finally, alarm bells are ringing. Peter Wilby in this week's New Statesman warns journalists not to rejoice too soon. It's unlikely Bezos will be the saviour of printed news. Amazon is not a philanthropic organisation.
He claims that 'Amazon is a threat to every form of retail life on the planet' and I tend to agree. Amazon lacks any ethical sense in the way it does business. It avoids paying tax. Not breaking the law of any country, you understand. Just using accountants to avoid paying the social dues the rest of us have to pay. It has admitted supplying information clandestinely about authors and its customers to the CIA and other law agencies. It treats its employees abominably. Amazon seems to have invented the 'zero hours contract.' It pays minimum wage and does all it can to discourage employees from joining a union.
So why has Bezos bought the Washington Post? It could be a platform for his own personal political views. It could be the start of a press empire owned by him. Forget Rupert Murdoch - so yesterday's news. What if you one day download a book to your Kindle and find you automatically get the Washington Post and its views - and the Washington Post gets access to your Amazon account and can target its reporting and advertising at you? And advertisers would love access to a huge audience like Kindle readers, wouldn't they?
Or maybe I'm just being paranoid. But then, I never imagined the first Amazon website would end up the size it is today. Who knows what it may become tomorrow?
Sunday, 11 August 2013
Saturday, 10 August 2013
The Glorious 12th
No, not July. That's of interest to urban dwellers in Central Scotland. The other half of the population lives in parts of the country where the 12th refers to the 12th of August, when the shooting season starts.
I read an article in today's Herald by a representative of PETA urging us to abandon shooting and blaming the gamekeepers on large shooting estates for the wholesale slaughter of birds of prey like eagles, hawks and harriers, shot to preserve the grouse, pheasant, partridge and other 'sports' birds.
The Scottish countryside is not full of large shooting estates. It has some and these bring jobs and money to areas where these are much needed. I used to travel on planes and boats to and from the Hebrides. I was always pleased to see passengers checking in large golf bags and in the departure lounge complaining about the hangovers they planned to have on their weekend away or about the hangovers they were suffering on their way home. Some carried home large plastic bags full of local whisky and beer. Some were dressed in their recently-purchased expensive tweeds and sat on the plane with sets of antlers on their knees (the jaggy bits stopped with corks). Everyone smiled at these people tolerantly because on their way to their destinations, they bought plane and ferry tickets and had meals in airports and ferry ports. In the countryside, they spent unimaginable amounts of dosh on rounds of golf, posh accommodation and meals and drinks that few locals could afford.
Mind you, more people in the Scottish countryside are employed in farming than in shooting estates. And man, they are having a tough time - and have been for a generation now. Every time you hear about a rise in the cost of electricity or petrol and diesel, think what that must mean to farmers.
Not that the other locals, employed or unemployed, are having it much easier. Most of them are employed in service industries (hotels, restaurants, farms, local government, shops) and while their living costs have increased in the past 5 years, their wages have declined. If they still have jobs, that is.
As usual after I've read one of these articles by animal conservationists, I want to set up my own organisation. I'm going to call it: PLHT. It stands for: People Live Here Too. Not very catchy, I know.
All I want to do through PLHT is to point out that everything in the countryside is connected.
Let's suppose we stop the grouse shoots as the Herald writer suggests, so that rare birds of prey don't get shot by gamekeepers and farmers desperate to protect the livestock that bring in the money. What happens then? On the shooting estates, work for gamekeepers and seasonal workers like beaters, cleaners, drivers, cooks - all these die out. Workers have to leave the area. Farms fail and jobs are lost. Housing stock lies empty and decays through damp. (If you've lived in the countryside, you'll know the damp is your worst enemy.) The community shrinks. Local schools close, with fewer jobs for dinner ladies, janitors, cleaners, etc. Local shops, petrol stations, post offices, medical centres - all are in danger of failing.
Or maybe I want PLHT to do a bit more: to point out that organisations like PETA - and especially the RSPB - don't have the right to dictate a whole way of life to the two million odd people in Scotland who live in the countryside because the days of the Clearances are over; that running a shooting estate or a farm is just like running a business in London (they export the animals we eat instead of goods people could actually manage without) and if you tried telling a business person there how to run their business you'd soon be told what to do with your opinion.
And no, I don't think animals have rights. I think people have rights and these are all too often overlooked.
I read an article in today's Herald by a representative of PETA urging us to abandon shooting and blaming the gamekeepers on large shooting estates for the wholesale slaughter of birds of prey like eagles, hawks and harriers, shot to preserve the grouse, pheasant, partridge and other 'sports' birds.
The Scottish countryside is not full of large shooting estates. It has some and these bring jobs and money to areas where these are much needed. I used to travel on planes and boats to and from the Hebrides. I was always pleased to see passengers checking in large golf bags and in the departure lounge complaining about the hangovers they planned to have on their weekend away or about the hangovers they were suffering on their way home. Some carried home large plastic bags full of local whisky and beer. Some were dressed in their recently-purchased expensive tweeds and sat on the plane with sets of antlers on their knees (the jaggy bits stopped with corks). Everyone smiled at these people tolerantly because on their way to their destinations, they bought plane and ferry tickets and had meals in airports and ferry ports. In the countryside, they spent unimaginable amounts of dosh on rounds of golf, posh accommodation and meals and drinks that few locals could afford.
Mind you, more people in the Scottish countryside are employed in farming than in shooting estates. And man, they are having a tough time - and have been for a generation now. Every time you hear about a rise in the cost of electricity or petrol and diesel, think what that must mean to farmers.
Not that the other locals, employed or unemployed, are having it much easier. Most of them are employed in service industries (hotels, restaurants, farms, local government, shops) and while their living costs have increased in the past 5 years, their wages have declined. If they still have jobs, that is.
As usual after I've read one of these articles by animal conservationists, I want to set up my own organisation. I'm going to call it: PLHT. It stands for: People Live Here Too. Not very catchy, I know.
All I want to do through PLHT is to point out that everything in the countryside is connected.
Let's suppose we stop the grouse shoots as the Herald writer suggests, so that rare birds of prey don't get shot by gamekeepers and farmers desperate to protect the livestock that bring in the money. What happens then? On the shooting estates, work for gamekeepers and seasonal workers like beaters, cleaners, drivers, cooks - all these die out. Workers have to leave the area. Farms fail and jobs are lost. Housing stock lies empty and decays through damp. (If you've lived in the countryside, you'll know the damp is your worst enemy.) The community shrinks. Local schools close, with fewer jobs for dinner ladies, janitors, cleaners, etc. Local shops, petrol stations, post offices, medical centres - all are in danger of failing.
Or maybe I want PLHT to do a bit more: to point out that organisations like PETA - and especially the RSPB - don't have the right to dictate a whole way of life to the two million odd people in Scotland who live in the countryside because the days of the Clearances are over; that running a shooting estate or a farm is just like running a business in London (they export the animals we eat instead of goods people could actually manage without) and if you tried telling a business person there how to run their business you'd soon be told what to do with your opinion.
And no, I don't think animals have rights. I think people have rights and these are all too often overlooked.
Tuesday, 6 August 2013
ITN News
I take back what I said about the English bias of ITN news - for today!
ITN national and international news - Tuesday 6 August:
1 NHS – England – no mention that this item doesn’t apply to
Scotland
2 Possible terrorist attack – international
3 Online bullying – UK-wide interest
4 Shooting at East Kilbride – local interest – Scotland
5 The economy – UK-wide interest
6 Control of dogs – England & Wales – no mention that
this doesn’t apply to Scotland
7 Army murders - USA
8 George Bush operation - USA
9 Snake kills children – Canada
10 Bumper year for English wine - England
A fair stab at being international though not a word about anything happening in Europe. Two UK-wide stories. One item - crime - from Scotland. No attempt to explain if any item applies to England only or to Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland too. It's as if the UK doesn't really exist!
Monday, 5 August 2013
That lightbulb moment?
I am sitting here in the gloom of two so-called reading lamps, so dim I think they must be powered by one of those 11 watt 'energy-saver' lightbulbs the local authority was giving away free last year. 11 watts - what exactly is the point of 11 watts?
More to the point, why would I spend £383 on eye tests and new glasses only to end up unable to see a damned thing in my own livingroom, despite having four - four! - table lamps strategically placed around the room? I swear it's so dark in the livingroom I wouldn't be able to have any kind of a lightbulb moment. To read I need to see, so I now read in a smaller room, with a table lamp and a floor lamp and still, with energy-saver bulbs, I can hardly see a damned thing.
I can see the point in A rated fridges and freezers - in fact, I own one of each. I also have temperature control valves on my radiators (they cost me £386 only last month) and an A rated economy washing machine. In addition, I only use the economy-wash on my dishwasher and when I use my oven, I try to cook 2 or 3 things at the same time.
I am an energy-saver - just me on my own. But our ancestors struggled long and hard to get out of the dark and into the light - I am old enough to remember when my Govan granny got the electric instead of the old gas lamps - so I'm not sitting here squinting at my thriller any longer. Time to buy yet another reading lamp - and to search the shops of Govan and Ibrox for any remaining old-style bulbs - you know, the ones you can actually see by.
More to the point, why would I spend £383 on eye tests and new glasses only to end up unable to see a damned thing in my own livingroom, despite having four - four! - table lamps strategically placed around the room? I swear it's so dark in the livingroom I wouldn't be able to have any kind of a lightbulb moment. To read I need to see, so I now read in a smaller room, with a table lamp and a floor lamp and still, with energy-saver bulbs, I can hardly see a damned thing.
I can see the point in A rated fridges and freezers - in fact, I own one of each. I also have temperature control valves on my radiators (they cost me £386 only last month) and an A rated economy washing machine. In addition, I only use the economy-wash on my dishwasher and when I use my oven, I try to cook 2 or 3 things at the same time.
I am an energy-saver - just me on my own. But our ancestors struggled long and hard to get out of the dark and into the light - I am old enough to remember when my Govan granny got the electric instead of the old gas lamps - so I'm not sitting here squinting at my thriller any longer. Time to buy yet another reading lamp - and to search the shops of Govan and Ibrox for any remaining old-style bulbs - you know, the ones you can actually see by.
Trolls - off their trolley or what?
About 5 years ago, I gave up using the Apple platform (cost, lack of compatibility, etc) and got into the pc platform for home use. I bought an Acer computer - bottom of the range but with a good monitor and an excellent printer and I kept my Apple laptop just in case. All went well until I wanted to move photos and then all sorts of software problems cropped up.
I googled an Acer user website and found a thread on one that looked hopeful, went in and left a query. I used my name - I don't believe in hiding behind aliases - and that may have been a mistake. When I went back a couple of days later, I was amazed to find not one but 4 replies: one turned out to be very helpful and in the end helped to resolve the problem, but the other three - three! - were from trolls. The replies went along these lines:
You stupid f****** cow.
Amateurs like you shouldn't be allowed to use the internet.
Typical f****** Apple user - you deserve all you get.
Get off this site, you stupid c***.
All quite inappropriate. The site was mediated by Acer so I complained. The comments were taken down after a few days. I've no idea if any action was taken against these people and I've never used the site since.
With the latest Twitter nonsense over the wish of a few women to have women represented on Bank of England notes - note, that's all - not world domination by the mass hordes of feminazis! - I've been wondering about these trolls.
I honestly don't care if they are male or female, young or old. One who trolled Prof Mary Beard last week was an Oxbridge student who backed off when she threatened to tell his mother what he was up to - and I don't know which of these facts is the funniest. Most of the others seem to find dealing with women a bit of a challenge. Their vocabulary is limited to threatening to rape and bomb women, though when you see who they are (after they've been arrested) you have to ask if they would know how to go about either. Mostly, what they have in common are the use of certain swearwords, often American (f***wit, a**hole, etc) some of which they can't spell, and they often use a part of the female anatomy as an insult whether it's appropriate or not. Misogyny (a word I'm so unused to I've had to have 4 shots at spelling it!) may be involved - or not.
I am interested in why they get so agitated. Do they see themselves are guardians of the internet against the madness of women - or people in general? Do they have some sort of sense of entitlement that makes them think they have the right to keep the rest of us in line? Are they maladjusted, anti-social geeks with nothing else going for them? Maybe we need some research. But meanwhile, people who want to use the internet and Twitter unmolested need protection, so perhaps it's time to abandon anonymity: if you want your opinion heard, you should be prepared to be identified.
What does everybody else think?
I googled an Acer user website and found a thread on one that looked hopeful, went in and left a query. I used my name - I don't believe in hiding behind aliases - and that may have been a mistake. When I went back a couple of days later, I was amazed to find not one but 4 replies: one turned out to be very helpful and in the end helped to resolve the problem, but the other three - three! - were from trolls. The replies went along these lines:
You stupid f****** cow.
Amateurs like you shouldn't be allowed to use the internet.
Typical f****** Apple user - you deserve all you get.
Get off this site, you stupid c***.
All quite inappropriate. The site was mediated by Acer so I complained. The comments were taken down after a few days. I've no idea if any action was taken against these people and I've never used the site since.
With the latest Twitter nonsense over the wish of a few women to have women represented on Bank of England notes - note, that's all - not world domination by the mass hordes of feminazis! - I've been wondering about these trolls.
I honestly don't care if they are male or female, young or old. One who trolled Prof Mary Beard last week was an Oxbridge student who backed off when she threatened to tell his mother what he was up to - and I don't know which of these facts is the funniest. Most of the others seem to find dealing with women a bit of a challenge. Their vocabulary is limited to threatening to rape and bomb women, though when you see who they are (after they've been arrested) you have to ask if they would know how to go about either. Mostly, what they have in common are the use of certain swearwords, often American (f***wit, a**hole, etc) some of which they can't spell, and they often use a part of the female anatomy as an insult whether it's appropriate or not. Misogyny (a word I'm so unused to I've had to have 4 shots at spelling it!) may be involved - or not.
I am interested in why they get so agitated. Do they see themselves are guardians of the internet against the madness of women - or people in general? Do they have some sort of sense of entitlement that makes them think they have the right to keep the rest of us in line? Are they maladjusted, anti-social geeks with nothing else going for them? Maybe we need some research. But meanwhile, people who want to use the internet and Twitter unmolested need protection, so perhaps it's time to abandon anonymity: if you want your opinion heard, you should be prepared to be identified.
What does everybody else think?
Friday, 2 August 2013
Job application
Dear Sir,
I wish to apply for the position of Princess of the United Kingdom.
It is quite clear to me what is expected of the holder of this position and while I have worries about being able to wear the 4 inch heels, not to mention the hats that the duchess of Cambridge wears, I believe I am in every other way ideally suited to this post.
I have a good level of education, having one degree and two postgraduate diplomas. I worked from the age of 15 to 60 and paid taxes and national insurance all that time. I am prepared to admit I wasn't always happy to pay up, but I hope my complaining won't be held against me, especially by the royal family who only started paying taxes thirty years ago. And I suspect my grumbling will not be a problem with the duke of Cornwall, who still doesn't pay tax on his earnings from posh duchy biscuits.
I have an impeccable history, and can so far trace my family back to 1837. All of my family were born in the various countries of the UK (which is more than the current house of Windsor can claim) and we are rooted in the agricultural and industrial history of the UK, having come from both good farming stock (although sadly kicked off our land in the West Highlands in the late 18th century) and including several generations of shipyard workers and railway builders. We have no ancestral home to boast of but I have photographs of our tenement room and kitchens in Govan and Springburn, now sadly demolished. These are obviously not as grand as Clarence House, where I believe the duke and duchess of Cambridge are taking up residence. I have to admit to having an ancestor who died in the poorhouse in Leith around 1880, at the age of 80, because she was too old and infirm to look after herself and none of her 9 children could take on her care. I don't think Queen Victoria had that problem but I feel sure she would have sympathised.
I have relatives who served in the army and the Royal Navy through several wars. My maternal grandfather was blown up at Gallipoli. I'm afraid this left him with a fairly jaundiced view of the aristocracy and I've often been glad he never met up with Winston Churchill whom he held personally responsible for that debacle. Likewise, while my father thoroughly enjoyed his service in the royal navy, retrieving the bodies of drowned seamen from the Atlantic, he was very eager to join the Labour Party and spent his free time from 1947 onwards trying to oust what he called 'Tory parasites' from government. I think he might be disappointed with our progress in this area.
Above all, I look forward to being able as Princess of the United Kingdom to pass on power and influence to my family. None of them have any qualifications to run the UK, but I feel sure that will not be regarded as a problem in a country that is prepared to accept loonies like Boris Johnston as suitable candidates for government.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Jean Nisbet
I wish to apply for the position of Princess of the United Kingdom.
It is quite clear to me what is expected of the holder of this position and while I have worries about being able to wear the 4 inch heels, not to mention the hats that the duchess of Cambridge wears, I believe I am in every other way ideally suited to this post.
I have a good level of education, having one degree and two postgraduate diplomas. I worked from the age of 15 to 60 and paid taxes and national insurance all that time. I am prepared to admit I wasn't always happy to pay up, but I hope my complaining won't be held against me, especially by the royal family who only started paying taxes thirty years ago. And I suspect my grumbling will not be a problem with the duke of Cornwall, who still doesn't pay tax on his earnings from posh duchy biscuits.
I have an impeccable history, and can so far trace my family back to 1837. All of my family were born in the various countries of the UK (which is more than the current house of Windsor can claim) and we are rooted in the agricultural and industrial history of the UK, having come from both good farming stock (although sadly kicked off our land in the West Highlands in the late 18th century) and including several generations of shipyard workers and railway builders. We have no ancestral home to boast of but I have photographs of our tenement room and kitchens in Govan and Springburn, now sadly demolished. These are obviously not as grand as Clarence House, where I believe the duke and duchess of Cambridge are taking up residence. I have to admit to having an ancestor who died in the poorhouse in Leith around 1880, at the age of 80, because she was too old and infirm to look after herself and none of her 9 children could take on her care. I don't think Queen Victoria had that problem but I feel sure she would have sympathised.
I have relatives who served in the army and the Royal Navy through several wars. My maternal grandfather was blown up at Gallipoli. I'm afraid this left him with a fairly jaundiced view of the aristocracy and I've often been glad he never met up with Winston Churchill whom he held personally responsible for that debacle. Likewise, while my father thoroughly enjoyed his service in the royal navy, retrieving the bodies of drowned seamen from the Atlantic, he was very eager to join the Labour Party and spent his free time from 1947 onwards trying to oust what he called 'Tory parasites' from government. I think he might be disappointed with our progress in this area.
Above all, I look forward to being able as Princess of the United Kingdom to pass on power and influence to my family. None of them have any qualifications to run the UK, but I feel sure that will not be regarded as a problem in a country that is prepared to accept loonies like Boris Johnston as suitable candidates for government.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Jean Nisbet
Thursday, 1 August 2013
Remember Daniel Pelka
Whose fault is it that Daniel Pelka is dead? If you watched ITV News tonight, it's the fault of the (now retired) director of social work for Coventry. They want him called to account for his department's 'negligence'. Not that we know there was any. According to Daniel's grandmother, the social workers are at fault - her daughter, Daniel's mother, is a 'good girl'. According to the local MP, it's the fault of the social workers and the school. Amazement is expressed that Daniel's headteacher has gone on to a new and better job despite his 'role' in the death of Daniel.
How do these people know who to blame? Well, they don't. They are just so keen to find someone to blame, they'll happily point the finger at anyone who's around.
Here are the facts in the case that we know:
Till 6 months before his death, Daniel Pelka was a healthy, happy wee boy. Then his mother took a new boyfriend into their home.
In those 6 months, his headteacher reported his concerns about the change in Daniel's condition to the local authority and to his GP. The GP arranged to see Daniel and prescribed medication because of his 'failure to thrive.' The family already had a social worker who visited and tried to take action. Other agencies may have been involved but there's no way of knowing that till a case review takes place.
These cases are always complicated. Myself, I have a few questions. Was Daniel the scapegoat child, the one who always got the blame in the family? Or the son of another man who wasn't wanted by the new man in the family? Was the mother so desperate to hang on to this new man she ignored Daniel's ill-treatment? Are the mother and boyfriend child abusers, cunning and capable of spinning a good tale to keep 'the authorities' at bay? Did his father keep in touch once he left the family or was he too busy setting up a new family? What about Daniel's grandparents - did they have any involvement with the family? What did the neighbours see and do? And the other parents at the school?
It is frankly naive - if not stupid - to start by accusing the 'professionals' involved in Daniel's case. Unlike parents, neighbours and family, the professionals have procedures to follow - and, bigod, they'd have to be utter morons not to follow those procedures, given the bad publicity there's been over child abuse cases in recent years, some of it leading to professionals losing their jobs.
If you're a parent, imagine how you would feel if your child was referred to a hospital on the grounds of their 'failure to thrive'. This happened to friends of my family. They had two kids aged 5 and 3. Both small and light in weight. The kids were fussy eaters. Not surprisingly, so were their parents. The parents are also small and light. The parents were absolutely mortified, not least because the father was a senior social worker and the mother a classroom assistant. More responsible people you couldn't meet. They made their views of the referral known to the 'professionals' they had to deal with on this matter: paediatrician, hospital social worker, headteacher. They were articulate and angry but they cooperated. Twenty-odd years later, their kids are still small and slight but doing fine, thanks.
Now imagine dealing with parents in the same situation but where the first language isn't English but Polish so there can be misunderstandings, the parents seem to have an explanation for everything that's wrong (Daniel has an eating disorder, etc) and don't necessarily accept the right of 'the authorities' to meddle in their family's affairs or where the mother is afraid of her partner.
Or is that too complicated? Isn't it easier to blame the obvious targets?
How do these people know who to blame? Well, they don't. They are just so keen to find someone to blame, they'll happily point the finger at anyone who's around.
Here are the facts in the case that we know:
Till 6 months before his death, Daniel Pelka was a healthy, happy wee boy. Then his mother took a new boyfriend into their home.
In those 6 months, his headteacher reported his concerns about the change in Daniel's condition to the local authority and to his GP. The GP arranged to see Daniel and prescribed medication because of his 'failure to thrive.' The family already had a social worker who visited and tried to take action. Other agencies may have been involved but there's no way of knowing that till a case review takes place.
These cases are always complicated. Myself, I have a few questions. Was Daniel the scapegoat child, the one who always got the blame in the family? Or the son of another man who wasn't wanted by the new man in the family? Was the mother so desperate to hang on to this new man she ignored Daniel's ill-treatment? Are the mother and boyfriend child abusers, cunning and capable of spinning a good tale to keep 'the authorities' at bay? Did his father keep in touch once he left the family or was he too busy setting up a new family? What about Daniel's grandparents - did they have any involvement with the family? What did the neighbours see and do? And the other parents at the school?
It is frankly naive - if not stupid - to start by accusing the 'professionals' involved in Daniel's case. Unlike parents, neighbours and family, the professionals have procedures to follow - and, bigod, they'd have to be utter morons not to follow those procedures, given the bad publicity there's been over child abuse cases in recent years, some of it leading to professionals losing their jobs.
If you're a parent, imagine how you would feel if your child was referred to a hospital on the grounds of their 'failure to thrive'. This happened to friends of my family. They had two kids aged 5 and 3. Both small and light in weight. The kids were fussy eaters. Not surprisingly, so were their parents. The parents are also small and light. The parents were absolutely mortified, not least because the father was a senior social worker and the mother a classroom assistant. More responsible people you couldn't meet. They made their views of the referral known to the 'professionals' they had to deal with on this matter: paediatrician, hospital social worker, headteacher. They were articulate and angry but they cooperated. Twenty-odd years later, their kids are still small and slight but doing fine, thanks.
Now imagine dealing with parents in the same situation but where the first language isn't English but Polish so there can be misunderstandings, the parents seem to have an explanation for everything that's wrong (Daniel has an eating disorder, etc) and don't necessarily accept the right of 'the authorities' to meddle in their family's affairs or where the mother is afraid of her partner.
Or is that too complicated? Isn't it easier to blame the obvious targets?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)