Our Short Hot Summer

With pictures in recent days, of firebombers, and looters, having gone around the world, and reports of five or so deaths, I have had to reassure my friend Jessica, (Li Jie,) that Norwich wasn't on fire, in fact that 99.9 per cent of England wasn't on fire. But the commotion and the spectacle of young people helping themselves with gusto to stolen goods, and the general ringing of hands in the aftermath, has caused me to recall my own youth, and my misdemeanors.

If you have read my poem, School, you will know that the Catechism played a central part in our formation. Not only did it tell us about the life to come, but about how we are expected to live here; and one of the injunctions was: "thou shalt not steal."

Well the catechism was a heavy dose of indoctrination, that on reflection, and when it suited us, we abandoned with alacrity, which was why, on the way home from school we targeted a shop called the Bonnie Bush. I don't know who the instigator was, or even if there was one, but the adrenalin rush that we got, must have been akin to an anarchist raiding the Houses of Parliament, for it was a splendid shop with a very high ceiling, and counters opposite: a design calculated to maximise the income from holidaymakers in summer, but as such, it was a hopeless place to have to patrol in winter. From time to time we crowded in, operating, I think, on a primeval instinct, for while one group kept the elderly cardiganed shopkeeper stretching for jars of sweets from high shelves, and deliberately changing their mind, so as to buy time, the rest of the herd, at the counter opposite, and using their schoolbags as camouflage, were busy helping themselves from a low shelf. As to what I stole, almost certainly an eye-catching comic. And I recall one lad coming away with a large bottle of lemonade.

But my criminal background was worse than that,  for in this next story I can't blame the seductive influence of the crowd.

We had a Home Bakery in the town, run by two old ladies in white coats, to which, from time to time, my mother sent me in search of wheaten and soda bread. Well these old ladies were never quick on their feet, and when the one on duty on this particular day, went through to the back to get the bread, my eye fell on a set of false teeth; and quick as a wink I put them in my pocket. Well the good lady never noticed, and when I got home, the house was sufficiently large for me to disappear into the obscurity of my room, and surprise surprise, I hadn't stolen one set of dentures, but half a dozen. You see, the dentures were chewing-gum in disguise.

Well some how or other my mother found out, there was an inquisition and I was severely admonished. But when news of a similar crime committed at the far end of town, reached me, I found myself reflecting, with unease, on the vagaries in the justice system, for when this boy's mother found out, (as mothers seemed to do in those days,) she marched him back to the shop to tell the shopkeeper what he had done, and to tell her that he was sorry. 

Now all this happened in an era when adults had authority, as demonstrated in this, the last of my confessions.

While still a schoolboy, age 9 or 10, I was hiding in a shelter waiting to ambush a seagull. I had a stone and was just about to launch it, when an old  man passing, and seeing what I was up to, with authority, gave me a piece of his mind. So never again did I think of finding excitement in stoning the local wildlife. 

And having indicated that I have no more confessions to make, I do have something else to tell you, which is part confession and part a moral tale.

On this occasion I was in the kitchen at home, and had just whacked one of my sisters across the ear, when my own ear became red hot; and when I twisted around in shock, it was to see my father stooping over me, and telling me with unmistakable clarity, that that was as nothing, compared to what would happen if, ever again, he caught me lifting a hand to one of my sisters.

It was a salutary moment, when I felt compelled to reflect on the contradictions in my fathers addictive personality, the consequences of which, you can confront in all their awfulness in my poem, The Vigil. At its most crude, my father was not a wife beater, but in the context of his addiction to alcohol; he was at times violent, and I have at least one recollection of my mother  being physically abused. It might have been nothing more than the pulling of hair, but it was physical abuse none the less. So slowly, and with my ear burning, it began to dawn on me, especially in the context of alcohol, that my father's condition, (however difficult it was to accept,) was a condition that was to be pitied, rather than something for which, he was to be condemned.  

Well the biggest difference, as I see it, between then and now, in terms of the human condition, is, that in those days, there were unmistakable structures in place, for the guidance of the young. Parents were preeminent, and they shared their role with priests, teachers, doctors nurses and anyone else in a position of responsibility. It was a pyramid in which children were at the bottom.

Now I don't want to be misunderstood. I am not suggesting that this was not a flawed structure. Of course, there were bad parents and abusive teachers. Again, returning to my poems, to, School, and Master Fitzpatrick, he whacked the knowledge into people, in the same way that it had been whacked into him. He had a black leather strap, and he called it the Black Doctor; and when the passage of time decreed that we were ready for "the Master's class," by way of induction, and while flexing it, he explained the process. "I prescribe the dose," he told us, "and the doctor gives it." And when he was in flailing mood, the injustice was, that the boys, (girls were never whacked,) who bore the brunt of these beatings, were the "working-class" boys who were grouped together at the back of the room. Why? because in taking his frustrations out on them, he was less likely to have to answer to their parents. But I must also tell you as I was "middle-class", that had a teacher ever complained to my parents about me, I would have got double the punishment: in the first instance because teachers were believed, and secondly as a means of reinforcing in me, the idea that I was accountable for my behaviour. My parents were not stupid. Even if they knew or suspected that a teacher had failings, they would have done nothing to undermine their authority, in the mind of the child.

So in this clearly defined hierarchical structure, I have no wish to delude myself, or deceive you, into believing that all was right with the world. There were abuses, and some hapless individuals paid a heavy price at the hands of their elders. 

Nor do I want to claim to know what it is like to be young today, or to make the mindless assertion that it is infallibly the case, that things were better in our day. Things were certainly different, and perhaps, the most obvious difference, (the hierarchical structure accepted,) was that in our day, there was no such thing as the instant and unremitting means of communication that exist today. What children consider today as the norm, simply didn't exist. Until I was twelve there was no television, and it didn't become widespread until I was sixteen. And children simply didn't make phone calls, that was an adult thing to do, and in the context of the home, very few had phones. Very often you stood outside a call box and tried to wait patiently for the person inside to finish. And the sort of topics that make the news for breakfast, these days, without regard to who might be listening: or the effect it might have: the brutality and horrors of war, teenage pregnancies, the rights and wrongs of abortion, sexual abuse inside and outside the home, or discussions of children's rights. or the extent to which adults should be vetted before they can be trusted to work with children,  didn't exist as general topics of conversation. Yes, difficult issues were discussed, well out of the reach of children, with the exception perhaps of the now defunct News of the World, that wasn't in the business of tact. And then there is the Internet, where children today have ease of access to behaviours, explicitly sexual, and otherwise, that far outstrip their emotional and social development. So I am in effect, making the case, as to why it is harder to be a child today, than when I was boy. While there was a lot that we could be curious about, by comparison, we lived sheltered lives.

Now as I am not a social scientist, I can't quantify the issues, but what I know is, that something, or some things, fundamental, have changed, and not necessarily for the better. Just at what point A became B, or B and C came to equal D, I have no means of knowing, but what I know is, that we have passed through phases. The "permissive sixties," a reaction perhaps to the Second World War. In this era authority was challenged, the drug culture got off the ground, and we were told that: "all you need is love," which I think I am right in saying was equated with sex; and running parallel to this, was the "women's liberation movement". The symbol for which I think, was the burning of bras.  And while the pill made it easier, for those women who wanted, to be promiscuous, (another blow to authority and the moral guardians,) it also made women more aware of their potential to follow chosen careers, rather than having to be tied to dead end jobs, or worse, to the kitchen sink. And once the idea of the widespread advent of career women, got going, its wasn't long before men, struggling to cope with the new reality, were being defined as chauvinist, or more crudely, as "male chauvinist pigs." And so, the war of the sexes had begun. And my own church, the Roman Catholic Church, known for its enduring qualities, was in on the act. Truthfully, I can tell you, that in the late 1960's I found myself wondering about a Church in which the sermon was replaced  by a homily: a few fairly benign words that lasted five minutes at most. Sitting in the packed church and knowing something of the temptation and distractions  that were out there, it seemed that the Church had lost the will to exploit that brief moment in the week, where it might exert some influence. And somewhere in the midst of this upheaval, came the breakdown of family life on an unprecedented scale. There was no shortage of sex, or people wanting stable relationships, but something, somewhere, was going wrong. So today the divorce rate in Britain outstrips that of most of Europe, and teenage pregnancies and abortions are among the highest in Europe.

Believe me! I am not trying to get you depressed, nor am I claiming to have all the answers, but in the light of recent events, I have some ideas as to what needs to change.

Somehow, we need to address the imbalance in the nature of the relationship that now exists between adults and children. As I see it, in this context, the law should represent the framework by which our society is judged; and it is not an acceptable excuse to say, that something should not become law, because it maybe difficult or impossible to enforce. The law should define the boundaries by which, as a society, we aspire to live. So to that end, the authority of parents and teachers needs to be reasserted above the rights of children.

The difference between adults and children, as demonstrated in the opening of this blog, is, that adults can draw on a lifetime of experience, (including their mistakes,) so as to be a guide, and a correcting influence for children, who lack that experience. If a child perception is, that we are all equal, why should they pay any attention to adults, and especially if they are not capable of comprehending the consequences of their actions. So when it comes to schools, there should be no ambiguity as to who is in charge, and what the purpose of school is. The idea that children can come in to school, and think that it is fun, or clever, to disrupt a class, or provoke a teacher to the point where they are humiliated and photographed on mobile phones; (as was the case with one teacher recently,) who, vulnerable on account of a recent illness, lost control and attacked a pupil, for which he received a prison sentence, should not be tolerated. Teachers should be empowered to address these issue, with authority, and know that that authority extends all the way up to the school governors, who if necessary will exercise it in respect of the parents. Be assured that such a dysfunctional world does exist, as two of our Italian students discovered when they spent an afternoon in one of the city schools. Feet on the desk, playing with mobile phones, pulling hair etc went on throughout the lesson. And when we asked what the teacher did about it, the reply was, "nothing."

As for family life, the high rate of divorce or separation, and its consequences on children, also needs to be addressed, and to that end, the change that I believe needs to be made, in law, is, that where there is a family breakdown, there should be an assumption in law, of the right of fathers to share in the custody and care of their children. I use the word "fathers," because in most cases it is fathers who have to fight through the courts, often at considerable cost, to gain reasonable access to their children, and even then, court rulings can be ignored, to say nothing of fathers who can't afford to go to court. Clearly I accept that gender in this matter should be irrelevant. But why should children respect authority, or have any sense of direction, when they are left helpless, when the mother, with impunity, can deprive her children of the natural right to see and have contact with their father, and in many instances, with their grandparents. 

Now an argument that might be used against this presumption of the right of the father to have equal care of his children, in law, is, that in the bitterness that is often associated with the break up of the relationship, and as a means of preventing the father having access to his children, the mother may accuse the father of being a child abuser. Well I would hope that in the age in which we live, the law could be framed in such as way as to cause someone to think twice before making such an accusation. But this giving of fathers (or mothers,) equal rights in respect of their children, brings me back to the idea that the law, (which will not apply equally in every case,) should define the values by which society aspires to live. And if you find it hard to believe, that children can be seriously exploited by separating parents, here is a story from my past life, that I believed to be true, as the man telling the story, was believable, and I had heard many similar stories. Lets call him John.

John was making regular, and voluntary payments of child maintenance to his ex, in cash, every Friday. He had paid £1,000, by the time that the Agency, for which I worked, made an official assessment, as well as a calculation of arrears owing to the mother. Contacting us, John asked for these cash payments to be taken in to consideration. But when the mother denied receiving them, and in the absence of evidence that he had paid, John was confronted with the reality, that he was going to have to pay again. The reason why the mother denied receiving the payments, was because she was on state benefits, (in which child maintenance was included,) and to have received such money without declaring it, was fraud. When I asked John the obvious question, why he had made the payments without insisting on a receipt, his answerer was straightforward and believable, but I wasn't prepared for the sting in the tail. The paying of the cash each Friday, was conditional on him being allowed to see his son, for two hours, "in the garden." It was as brutal as that.

And there is something else, that in the context of recent events I want to touch on. Not because I want to be contentious, but because it is something that has bothered me for some time, and which I have seen as unquestionably undermining the authority of parents; though I accept, that this was not, and is not, the intention of those working in the area of child sexual health. It is, if you like, an unintended consequence of their concerns. But if we are serious about redefining our values and changing the direction in which society appears to be going, then it has to be discussed.

The age for consensual sex in this part of the world is 16, yet it is legally possible for an under age girl to seek advice from her doctor, even to the extent that it might result in an abortion, without her parents knowing. The doctor is required to take into consideration the maturity of the young person, and to encourage them to confide in their parents, but they can not, for reason of the child's right to confidentially, tell the parent or seek to involve them in the consultation. They are however, required, by law, to take steps if they suspect that the child is the victim of sexual abuse. As far as I understand it, in Northern Ireland the rules are different, in that where the girls is under the age of 17, they have to be accompanied by one of the parents.

Now I don't need to be persuaded that there are young girls living in dire circumstances, for whom it is wholly appropriate, in the first instance at least, that they should be able to seek help without parental consent. But this brings me back to where I began, to the law, and to the idea that, (in broad terms,) it should be the point of reference for the values by which we, as a society, aspire to live. So from my point of view, the idea of a young girl being able to seek and be given confidential advice in a manner that excludes her parents, and that may result in an abortion, when that child is below the age required for  consensual sex, that is considered lawful,  is wrong. I can't think of anything more calculated to undermine the confidence and role of parents, than such a provision, though I repeat, that I accept that those working in the area of children's sexual health, have not had this as a motive. And when I think of the angst that goes with being a teenager, and the reality of parents not knowing what it is that they might be dealing with, because of concealment, I find it impossible to believe, that we haven't got it wrong.

And something else that might help the young, and leave our society in better shape, is politicians who are inspired by personal ideals, and who are prepared to risk all politically in pursuit of those ideals, of which restoring the supremacy of parents, as discussed above, might be one.

I have often reflected on the extent to which politicians rely on focus groups, so that they can find out what the public are thinking, or likely to think, and use that as the benchmark for their careers. But as I see it, politicians should be opinion formers: men and women who from a point of knowledge  and belief, seek to convince us of the value of their ideas. This has obvious risks, but it certainly wouldn't be bland, and the young might feel inclined to listen. In my own case, I did not realise how disengaged I had become from politics, until the phone hacking scandal took off. Suddenly I found myself interested, and paying attention, because this was an issue that gets to the heart of how the democratic process works, or should work, and as to how and why decisions are made the way they are; as to where the power really lies and who it is that exercises it. Up to that point, politics was bland: more dappling with the health service, more dappling in the running of schools etc ever recurring themes in the absence of an Empire, that leave the impression that forward planning, and stability, are about as relevant as footballers contracts of employment.

And how about politicians avoiding predictable knee-jerk reactions in the aftermath of some appalling tragedy such as 9/11. Men and women who, are prepared to to raise their voices, and risk all, in defence of our day to day liberties, rather than see them eroded, piece by piece, so that the custodian of good order is the policeman with a sub machine gun, rather than the citizen, who, in looking out for their neighbour, can be made to feel that they have a positive and worthwhile contribution to make to the wider society, and whose vigilance, in both the short and long term, will be the biggest single factor, in defeating the evil doer, and preserving the evidence, for the fact that we do live in a democracy.

So perhaps, for the sake of the young, I should end with the example of a politician who had an ideal, risked his political future for it, and won over public opinion, in a referendum. It was Edward (Ted) Heath.

Edward Heath, a gifted musician, and intellectual, (from a working-class family background,) was about as telegenic or cuddly as Gordon Brown. But as leader of the Conservative Party, and against much opposition within his own party, he fought to persuade the public to join the EU. Having fought in the Second World War, he wanted to help to create an economic union of nations, as a means of preventing European countries, from ever going to war with one another again. In the present economic climate, that ideal, seems to be hanging by a thread - But surely, and for the same reason as Edward Heath, it is something that we as a society, should consider worth fighting to preserve?

__________

© Cormac McCloskey

Edward (Ted) Heath - here
The image used in this blogs was taken from Public Property UK. com