Where are the normal families?

I have to confess to a sneaking liking for Coronation Street. (I'm from near Manchester, I am obliged to. It's an old charter or something.) But I do think it is high time the Street was allocated a permanent family counsellor. Because its children are suffering like no others in the UK.

At the moment, Coronation Street features approximately 15 children under the age of 18. These are:

Faye - adopted
Craig - lives with mother, father unknown
Simon - mother died, lives part time with father and part time with (separated) stepmother
Amy - lives part time with mother and part time with (separated) father
Hope - father died, lives with mother and boyfriend
Joseph - lives with mother, separated from father
Liam - father dead, lives with mother
Ruby - lives with father, separated from mother
Dev's children (2) - mother dead, live with father
Cal's children (2) - mother dead, live with father
Kylie's children (2) - one father unknown, the other lives with mother and father (though they were separated until recently)
Tina's (surrogate) baby - living with genetic parents, but not birth mother

I might have missed the odd one, but that's most of them. And here's the thing. I know a 'normal' family where a child lives with its mother and father is less common than it used to be, but this is ridiculous. According to government statistics, around 75% of children under 2 live with both parents and the majority of all children live with both parents. Yet on Corrie, only around 7% of children live with both parents. And the only child with an 'ordinary' family has David Platt for a father. I mean, really. Come on.

Oh, yes, these people need a counsellor, and they need one quickly.

Image from Wikipedia

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog