A sedentary lifestyle is bad for you and children spend too long looking at screens, so one way to fix that is to reduce the amount of homework.
To the pupils who are showing this to their parents, you should rip the paper at this point because the research isn't quite as it seems.
Firstly, the study was done in China. It's a nation where they already do way more homework than we do in the UK. We'd have to do more homework to make the level they reduced theirs to.
That's exactly the kind of detail your parents would focus on but the general point still remains. Doing homework these days requires being on a computer screen of some sort and screentime isn't good for you.
The study found that less screentime resulted in children spending 45 minutes less a day sitting down and they also had earlier bedtimes. Once again, I hope you trimmed this off before showing it to your parents.
When you dig into the details, like only someone who did a lot of homework at school can do, you notice that the study looked at reducing time playing online games and homework. Yet the headlines tell us to reduce homework. How about we reduce the online gaming first? It's like saying being a big building is bad for teenagers, so should we reduce time spent in school or in the local Wetherspoons?
The study suggested changing the laws to prevent online gaming providers letting children play on week nights and stopping schools handing out too much homework.
One of the researchers said: “We know that leaving it to parents doesn’t work. It is much easier for parents when they can tell their children that any more screen time would be against the law.”
Say that anyway. Your children don't know what the law is. They'll believe you if you say something is illegal. My son thinks it's against the law to buy ice cream on a day with a Y in it.
If they want to know the actual law they'll have to do their homework.
| ☕ TIP (Help by donating)
| 📻 LISTEN (to the new radio podcast)
| 📺 WATCH (YouTube)
Show off.
In the Stormy Daniels case, Michael Cohen, Trump's former right-hand man, is giving evidence. Given the details we had from Stormy, “right-hand man” has already sent my mind off in the wrong direction.
Here’s a recap. Stormy slept with Trump just after his wife had given birth to their child, so it’s not like the wife would have had the energy to spank him with a magazine with his own face on it. A magazine with your face on it, or as Boris Johnson calls that, voter ID.
Trump got her to sign a NDA and paid her hush money. All perfectly legal in America. Have you met many Americans? They could all do with a lot more hush money.
Cohen made the payment, Trump paid him back but may have listed that money as an election payment. And that might be the crime.
It’s so upsetting that the actual crime isn’t a sexy scandal. It’s accountancy.
As Cohen described working for Trump on his 2016 presidential campaign, Cohen testified in court that the ex-president warned him his run for presidency would lead to negative stories surfacing. “You know that when this comes out … just be prepared. There’s going to be a lot of women coming forward”, Cohen claimed Trump told him.
The candidate for the evangelical Christian America there.
The one thing I don’t understand about this situation is why they tried to cover it up. When Trump gets sued or fined his base love him even more. A scandal where he slept with an adult actress seems like the kind of thing he’s pay $130,000 for now.
| ☕ TIP (Help by donating)
| 📻 LISTEN (to the new radio podcast)
| 📺 WATCH (YouTube)
If you were making a list of the policies that lack common sense you may have started with the Rwanda plan, but they have decided to start with lanyards.
This is Esther McVey, the minister for common sense, which isn’t a job, so she’s actually a minister without portfolio, but they call her the Minister for Common Sense. It's a title on a par with that of Boob Inspector you'd get on those hats at the seaside.
This feels like the kind of thing you just want to mock. Minister for Common Sense, as if you can own such a thing. You want to know what most people think? They’ll tell you in a General Election.
So I thought I'd look at some of the changes she plans on bringing in, ready to mock them all
She wants the rainbow lanyards gone. If you work in the civil service you’re meant to be a-political, so to make sure no politics sneaks in, ban ALL lanyards that aren’t the standard issue. OK, so it's not only the rainbow ones, it's saying all lanyards should be standard. That's actually kind of fair. You want the Civil Servants to be kind of grey and boring so stick to that palette in the standard lanyard scheme.
She says universities must prioritise domestic students. Well, if you have to prioritise any, I suppose every nation should prioritise its own.
She plans to crack down on staff networks for minority groups. Ha, what crackpot scheme is this to look more racist? What have staff networks ever done that’s a problem?
Ah, the Civil Service Muslim Network was suspended after officials discussed how to change government policy on Gaza during its meetings. Damn it!
She said consultancy contracts for equality, diversity and inclusion services will be banned. Well, who’s going to be looking out for diversity? Oh, the ministers will do it, to save money.
Many of the ideas brought up seem like good ideas. Look, no one is going to change the world with a lanyard but the principle behind the plan is OK.
If they didn’t sell this as some anti-woke, culture war crusade, you’d realise some of this is common sense. Oooh, that’s a good title.
| ☕ TIP (Help by donating)
| 📻 LISTEN (to the new radio podcast)
| 📺 WATCH (YouTube)
Apparently it’s unclear whether Intelligence Corps members among those whose details have been taken in massive hacking operation. Let’s hope they’re not because that’s embarrassing. People working in intelligence should be more uncrackable. Let’s hope it’s not a case of passwords being set to “password”. They’re in intelligence. Surely they can manage “Password1!”.
I suppose there’s one saving grace, we were hacked by a country that looks like it’s good at IT. They make most of the kit we have. I have a Huawei rooter at home, so there’s a non-zero chance the hack started from my house.
One thing we know is that the Special Forces have not been caught up in the breach, as they use a different, more secure system. Quick question. Why don’t we use that one for everyone? I suppose it wouldn’t make those forces feel special and that’s a bit part of their deal.
The missing information includes identities and bank details and in a few thousand cases, addresses and national insurance numbers. Experts think they’d use this to find people who’d be willing to do their bidding for money. You don’t need to find the poor ones. Just find the ones who drive. With the cost of petrol, I’d turn mole to cover my fuel bills.
Meanwhile, the defence secretary, Grant Shapps, briefed the Commons but he didn’t blame the Chinese state as being culpable. That makes sense. If every there was an MP who China had some compromising online info about, it’s Grant Chapps. Even we know that he’s used several online fake names to set up schemes and we’re on his side.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said, “I do want to reassure people that the Ministry of Defence has already taken the action of removing the network offline and making sure that people affected are supported in the right way.”
So, we’ve turned off the router? That’s our high-tech solution to being hacked? We pulled the cable out the back and hoped it would go away. That’s one above turning it off and on again.
Feel safe now?
| ☕ TIP (Help by donating)
| 📻 LISTEN (to the new radio podcast)
| 📺 WATCH (YouTube)
Here is your little remainder that (almost) every weekday we have a podcast that covers the news, free and around ten minutes long, to easily fit into your busy day of listening to podcasts while you pretend to be working.
In this episode we're covering the big news...
Worrying Will Ferrell news (is it proof that he's a wrong 'un?)
Long bread in France. Bigger than a baguette. So, a bag?
A common cause of bum ache that involves your mouth.
And a swift look at the frontpages.
Go on, treat yourself to a subscribe.
| ☕ TIP (Help by donating)
| 📻 LISTEN (to the new radio podcast)
| 📺 WATCH (YouTube)
“Civil service union tries to BLOCK Rwanda crackdown” – Daily Mail
“Civil Service union tries to stop Rwanda flights with judicial review” – The Telegraph
Uh! Typical. Flippin’ civil servants. Uncivil servants more like. The Blob. *angry sounds off*
If you feel upset at this, I understand. But there’s one thing that should cheer you up. That’s not what’s happening.
The headlines tell you the story that civil servants are doing this to thwart (you only really get that word in these kind of stories or superhero films) the will of the elected members of our parliament.
The civil servants haven’t teamed up to sue the Government. The First Division Association (FDA), which is a union that represents senior civil servants in the UK, has initiated a judicial review. Their worry is that, under the current situation, civil servants could be forced to break the law or the Civil Service Code in carrying out the actions the politicians are requesting.
The UK government introduced the “Safety of Rwanda” legislation, which overrides a Supreme Court decision from last November. The court had ruled that Rwanda was not a safe place to send genuine refugees because they could face torture and abuse upon return to their home countries.
I suppose they were saying Rwanda isn’t a safe place to deport to because the home countries of the refugees aren’t safe, which is probably a reason a genuine refugee left there in there first place. It wasn’t saying Rwanda wasn’t safe in and of itself, but that’s a tangent for a different post.
The Government’s bill fixed this problem. They passed a bill which allows ministers to ignore the European Court of Human Rights and directly instruct officials to organize flights to Rwanda. Sorted.
Meanwhile, if you’re a civil servant you signed up to the Civil Service Code. The first rule of the Civil Service Code is, “You do not talk about the Civil Service Code!” The same goes for the second, but further down the document is where it gets good.
The Civil Service Code says that you cannot break international law. So, the Safety of Rwanda Bill declares Rwanda safe but the international law still remains. The Government can legally ignore our Supreme Court but the civil servants are left is a tricky situation.
They have to do what the ministers tell them to AND they have to stay within international law. If they are told to put on a flight to Rwanda you’ve just created a paradox. This is like going back in time to kill your own grandfather. An action I hope is also frowned upon in the Civil Service Code.
The union wants the High Court to rule on whether this aspect of the legislation would put civil servants in conflict with their legal obligations or not.
If the union is successful it could likely see the Government ordered to remove the conflict by holding another parliamentary vote to either specify in law that the UK will ignore the injunctions or to amend the Civil Service Code.
It’s important to note that those outcomes won’t stop the Rwanda plan, they’ll simply stop civil servants having to pick which sackable offence to commit; breaking their own code or not performing their job.
That explains headlines like this:
“Sunak ‘confident’ civil service will enact Rwanda bill despite legal concerns” – The Guardian
Of course he’s confident. He knows this case won’t stop it.
The kind of people who are filling X with comments like, “Typical Civil Servant activists. Oh, they’ll come into the office to thwart some will of the people, won’t they?” are the people who would love one of the outcomes of this case. The UK could be legally ignoring the ECHR. They’d love a bit of that.
Look, I understand that the actual details of the legal action being brought in no way disproves the claims that the Civil Service has been captured by lefty activists, but this story isn’t proof that it has.
You may think the union's claim is a sly way to scupper the flights. Then say that. Knowing the real story doesn't mean you have to start loving the Civil Service. With this story we have a choice. We can understand the details of the real story or we can stay angry at the false one and we can see which option a lot of the newspapers think you prefer.
| ☕ TIP (Help by donating)
| 📻 LISTEN (to the new radio podcast)
| 📺 WATCH (YouTube)
Incest monster Josef Fritzl's lawyer insists her client 'is going to be released' from high security prison after 'repeatedly showing remorse' for his crimes as court considers moving him to normal jail
It’s worth noting that “normal jail” part because that’s not the same as saying he’s being released but it still leaves many questions. Is prison even a punishment for someone who liked being a bunker so much?
The Regional Court of Krems met to decide whether a recent court ruling trying to block his bid for freedom should be reversed. What do you have to do to be actually locked up for life?
His lawyer said: 'My client has co-operated with the experts, submitted himself to countless medical assessments, including brain scans, undergone therapy and experts have already long concluded he no longer poses a threat to society.'
I mean, I suppose he isn’t going to do it again at 89. He’d struggle on the stairs.
It’s not about the threat we fear. He isn’t likely to come for us now. At his age you could probably outrun him. But he was never going to come for us anyway. He was a criminal who focused on his own family.
The issue is about the message a prison terms sends telling people not to do something for fear of how strict the punishment would be.
This is a thing where the criminal system should be used to put people off. It’s not like some activities where harsh punishments will just make it go underground. That’s already the problem here.
| ☕ TIP (Help by donating)
| 📻 LISTEN (to the new radio podcast)
| 📺 WATCH (YouTube)
This 40-year-old has drink-drive charge thrown out after it emerged he suffers with ‘auto-brewery syndrome’. Well, they say “suffers” but I bet he has a great night in.
This condition is where the body brews alcohol within it. Some call it auto-brewery syndrome. Some call it the next step in human evolution. They may be the ones who survive the cost of living crisis now that a pint has hit £7.
Here’s the worrying bit… the man in question works in a brewery. Talk about taking your work home with you.
He makes alcohol for a living and in his body, so if the factory has a problem would he wee in bottles? And now I will never drink anything from Belgium again.
Currently, only around 20 people globally have been officially diagnosed with the condition but it could be more common and some people are just low-level piss-heads and we don't notice. Scientists are not sure what causes it, but believe it is linked to specific strains of bacteria and yeast found in the gut.
What has he been doing at work that he has brewing yeast up his bum?
In case you are worried about ABS here are some of the official symptoms:
Vomiting
Belching
Dizziness
Loss of coordination
Telling friends you love them
Sleeping with a solid 4
| ☕ TIP (Help by donating)
| 📻 LISTEN (to the new radio podcast)
| 📺 WATCH (YouTube)
Oh no, don’t do this. Some groups get offended by anything and instead of judging that, every other groups tries to copy. It’s a race to the most offended.
Now it’s old people pretending that saying they’re old is like dropping an age-related N-word. (Which would would be “codger”. But with an A.)
Nursing assistant Margaret Couperthwaite - who is in her 60s - sued for age harassment, alleging a younger colleague suggested an operation had been free on the NHS 'back in your day'.
Firstly, I bet that op was free back then. The NHS was great.
Secondly, it’s worth considering that Margaret was actually given a warning for taking 4 days off with a cut finger (understandable if it’s the finger you use to turn the front door key – how was she supposed to get to work?). She was later late go from her role but only after being fired did she complain about this ageism attack.
And she forget when someone said it to her. I know the memory goes with age but that doesn’t help your case.
So, she lost the tribunal, but in a “let’s have a look what you could’ve won” moment the tribunal said, “If that phrase had been used it would have been 'unwanted conduct'.”
Don’t do this. If you can’t say “back in your day” we won’t be able to say, “Kids these days…” and that’s half the conversations old people have.
| ☕ TIP (Help by donating)
| 📻 LISTEN (to the new radio podcast)
| 📺 WATCH (YouTube)
The reason behind the longer hours isn’t anything to do with childcare for tired parents, but that’s why I’m not complaining about it. It’s a bid to tackle pupils’ addiction to smartphones.
The idea is that while the children are in school they can’t be on their phones so to keep them off their phones for longer they will simply stop the children going home. This is like 1% putting them in care.
Pupils at All Saints Catholic College in Notting Hill will be expected to arrive at 7am and stay until 7pm. That’s longer than an average workday. I know that school is suppose to prepare you for the world of employment but you don’t need to be ready to pull 12-hour shifts. Let’s be honest, with AI, you don’t need to be ready for a 2-hour work week.
The school plans for the children to do dodgeball, basketball, art and drama. So don’t worry, these extra hours in school won’t lead to anyone getting cleverer.
I didn’t know a school could just keep you kids if they chose to. There will be some children who don’t even have a phone and they’re being kept away from their family because a headteacher has decided.
Is it the job of a school to teach children to get of their phones? The people loving this are the same people who lose their minds about the nanny state when we see plans for schools to teach children how to brush their teeth.
“It should be the parents doing that,” they will say. “It’s not that expensive to buy a toothbrush and get to work. Tut.”
Well, how about this? “It should be the parents to teach their kids to use their phones a proper amount.” “It’s not that expensive to not buy a phone.”
Or just go in to the school physics lab and get them to build you a massive Faraday cage to go around the school. Problem solved.
| ☕ TIP (Help by donating)
| 📻 LISTEN (to the new radio podcast)
| 📺 WATCH (YouTube)
She has said the Government’s Rwanda bill 'as drafted' would not achieve the goal of stopping the boats. I agree. We may come at this from different sides. I think the flan is fundamentally flawed, she thinks it’s not hard enough, but it’s a thing of beauty when both sides of the political divide can agree.
Meanwhile Rishi Sunak is excited that he might finally get the plan and some planes off the ground. MPs and peers are getting ready for a long night of voting, how the heart bleeds.
Many would agree that it’s not the role of the House of Lords to scupper Government legislation. Even the House of Lords thinks that and after a bit of ping-pong they tend to stop fighting. It’s worth remembering that there are more Conservative members of the upper house than Labour members, so this is a case of the Tories failing to convince their own people about this bill.
What does a win look like? When the bill passes Rishi will try to claim that. He has said , "No ifs, no buts, these flights are going to Rwanda." I’m sure they are. Probably empty, but I’m sure they’ll fly. Best case scenario, a few dozen people might take part in the scheme. That won’t be enough to put people off making the small boat crossing they have planned.
They’ll think, “What are the odds that I’ll end up in Rwanda?” Those odds will be low, and for context, let’s remember that the pill is only 99% effective. And we still get up to a lot of rumpy-pumpy.
Worst case, no one will go. Either way, the UK has given Rwanda £240million so far for pretty much nothing, and last week we heard the news that the scheme could be rolled out to other countries. How? We just give hundreds of millions of pounds to some random countries? Is this what’s replacing Comic Relief now that Lenny has quit?
MPs rejected some of the amendments suggested by the House of Lords including a report on the safety of Rwanda. We know we don’t need that because the Government passed a bill declaring Rwanda safe. That sorts that then. If we could only pass another declaring London safe we will have fixed all that knife crime.
14 people a year a killed by vending machines falling on them. Quick, declare them safe before I get my Twix.
Another amendment said those who had worked with UK forces should never to be deported there. If they’d have phrased the same amendment but using the term “our boys” they Government would have been forced to get behind it.
The prime minister described the plan as an "indispensable deterrent " that removes the incentive for people to make the dangerous Channel crossing.
Under the terms of the deal Rwanda can return to the UK any asylum seeker who commits a crime. So another way to look at this is a great system to make sure that we only keep the criminal element in the UK while deporting the rest to Rwanda. And it only costs us £240. So far.
| ☕ TIP (Help by donating)
| 📻 LISTEN (to the new radio podcast)
| 📺 WATCH (YouTube)
It's been a long while since an album has been noticed by so many people. Years ago we'd go to record shops each week to see what was released but the new ways to consume music means its presence is just assumed.
The new Taylor Swift album, called The Tortured Poets Department, has already broken records. It was streamed more than 300 million times in one day. One of those streamers was me.
I thought I should listen to it all so I know what I'm talking about as I do my afternoon radio show on Time 105.7fm, which I'm sure you listen to online. The whole album is over 30 tracks, running at over 2 hours long. I didn't fully understand that when I started my research listening.
Here's what I learned from listening to the biggest album of the year.
Taylor has had a lot of break-ups. Most of the songs seem to be about the end of relationships and from listening to the lyrics, all of the break-ups were the guys' fault. That's quite impressive. It also feels statistically unlikely, but I'll take her word for it.
Her main complaints seem to be that the men she dated told her that they'd settle down and start a family when they first met. Then, as the relationship fizzled out and the couple separated, Taylor seems upset that those early promises weren't kept.
We used to call that changing your mind and it used to be something you were allowed to do. Plus, ever relationship starts full of optimism. No one goes into a new relationship thinking, “Well, this should fill a year or two.”
There's one song where she sings about not wanting to get out of bed in the morning after a break-up. But she's Taylor Swift. It must be great being her. Imagine how hard it is to start the day for the rest of us.
The opening track is about a two week relationship she had. I don't think you can really call that a relationship, it's only just about a fling. It's a long tryst. I've had longer relationships with pimples.
We learn that the end of this fortnight fling was so upsetting for her that she now wants to kill the man and his wife.
Could we possibly stop normalising this? Going crazy at the end of a two week hook-up isn't OK? Feeling upset shouldn't lead to murderous thoughts and it shouldn't be a cool thing to confess.
It was still an excellent album as Taylor Swift is an amazing artist. I hope she brings out another recording breaking album again soon. Let's hope she has lots of break-ups between now and then to make sure it's a good one.
| ☕ TIP (Help by donating)
| 📻 LISTEN (to the new radio podcast)
| 📺 WATCH (YouTube)
In America they have their separation of church and state. In the UK we haven’t managed the same. While the census tells us we are finally no longer a majority Christian country, it’s not just atheists making up the rest of the figure.
Still, here’s some good news for the godless. A school prayer ban has been upheld by the courts as a pupil loses her High Court challenge. Don’t worry, it won’t affect their pocket money, we paid for this through legal aid.
It’s the Michaela Community School, lead by Katharine Birbalsingh. She’s the self-proclaimed “strictest head in Britain”. It’s easy to self-proclaim anything. You should see how good I look in my self-assessment form, but I digress.
The school has a rule that you can’t have public displays of religion. A Muslim pupil complained and, to cut this long story short, the mum took the school to court and lost.
The meat of the dish is this. The school isn’t a faith school. Parents are told that before they sign their kids up. One mother did that and then the child wanted special rights to pray.
It’s a bit like going into a library that has a “shush” rule, and you know it has that “shush” rule but you go in anyway and when you’re in the someone shushes you and you lose your sh*t about it.
The best about this story is that the mother, who was so appalled with the school she sued it, plans to send her next child there as well. This mother is also working on the next case for suing the school. I think we have found the mega-Karen.
Think about it. To join a school that calls itself the strictest school, when knowing the rules but then when your daughter has to stick the school’s rule, which you know they’ll enforce because they’re strict, you sue! And you don’t even pay for it. They don't teach confidence like that in schools these days.
| ☕ TIP (Help by donating)
| 📻 LISTEN (to the new radio podcast)
| 📺 WATCH (YouTube)
.jpg)
