RANT: Marriage Is Not An Outdated Institution (YB)

I recently heard someone say that marriage is an "outdated institution" and that inspired me to write a blog post...

I have been married for 17 years. I got married when I was 17 years old (and Paul was 19) and we've been together ever since. Not because of the unwritten rules of marriage being for life, but instead because we love each other very much.

I'm pretty sure people thought it wouldn't last. They were wrong...

I think in this day & age, people don't take marriage seriously though. Most people see marriage as a reason to dress up like a princess and spend insane amounts of money on the big day - each seemingly trying to outdo someone or everyone by having a more expensive dress, a bigger party, more vintage wedding cars or whatever and that's just not what marriage is about.

I've heard that a lot of people who get married in such a way, end up arguing lots about the money troubles they find themselves in from the cost of the wedding and it ends in divorce - wow, that seems worth it.

If you're happy and in love, you should marry that person because you love them and you want to show commitment to them. And that should be your only motivation.

It most definitely shouldn't be about other people - of course you want the people you care about to be there and share your special day with you, but haven't you gone a bit far when you're inviting your neighbours or friends of friends' friends?!

Our wedding was a simple, unflashy affair in a registry office on Valentine's Day in 2000. A small group of people who were important to us attended. We had a small (buy your own drinks) after party in an hired room in our local pub. We didn't have enough money for a honeymoon, but you know what? It didn't matter.

In hindsight, I guess at least a night away would have been nice, but we had each other, we had committed to each other, and at the end of the day, that was all that mattered.

If back then I entered competitions like I do know, I would have loved to win a "white wedding" - but only because it would be paid for and it's traditional - but neither of us would have ever wanted the expense and worry of a great big unnecessary affair of a wedding.

I would renew our vows "white wedding" style, but again only if I won it or we won the lottery and could afford it with ease (i.e. no borrowing). And the main reason I would like to do that, is simply so that our boys could be there and we could have some lovely family photo's to treasure. We didn't have children when we got married, but now that we do, it would be amazing to renew our vows with them at our sides.

I wish more people would respect marriage for what it is instead of turning it into some fairytale affair.

And don't even get me started on celebrities and rich people... If you need to have a pre-nuptial agreement, you shouldn't be getting married. Marriage is about commitment - if you have a pre-nuptial agreement, from the offset that means you're not sure it's going to last, and if that's the case, why get married? Why not just wait and see how it goes and only get married when you're SURE it's going to last and there's no need for the pre-nuptials?!

RANT: Childhood Obesity - What Is To Blame? (YB)

It seems everywhere you turn, there is some talk about childhood obesity and I wanted to voice my opinion.

You've got know-it-all chefs like Jamie Oliver telling the world and their children what they should and should not eat, when really, all he cares about is getting his name out their, and making money.

Then there is the government dictating to people what their children should and shouldn't be allowed to eat. Acting like people are incapable of looking after their own children, treating adults like children!

And that brings me onto my opinion...

When I was a young child - 25 years ago, I was 7 years old - my spare time was spent playing out - be that with the kids that lived nearby, my friends from school, on my bike on my own, using my imagination - but always active. Then, 20 years ago, I was 12 years old, almost a teen and at senior school, a lot of my spare time involved going for a walk with my best friend or going into town shopping or just looking around the shops.

Kids nowadays, get not near enough exercise - has anyone stopped to think that this could indeed be the cause of childhood obesity?

When my eldest was younger, we always tried to encourage to play, but the more technology became and everyday piece of life, the less he wanted to do. Now as a 12 year old, despite our protests, he spends most of his time glued to his iPad - be it playing games or watching TV! Sometimes we take away his iPad as we get so sick of it, and get him crafty stuff to at least try and promote creativity and imagination, if he can't be encouraged to go out with his friends and play or do something.

His life is centred around technology. He's not obese, but his lifestyle could make him so. What I'm saying is, maybe the biggest cause of childhood obesity, is technology - the distraction from real life, the thing that stops children going out with their friends and playing as instead they can sit there on their tablets playing online games against each other and chatting online.

So there is the government preaching about childhood obesity, the very people who force technology on people more and more - insisting that absolutely everyone should be online. So instead of forcing ridiculous food changes to stop childhood obesity, maybe they should stop forcing technology on everyone and start making more ways for and encouraging children to get out there and play and interact in person with their friends more often!

Just recently, I saw that Tesco had took Ribena off the shelves in an effort to help solve childhood obesity. And of course, most supermarkets you go into now sell only oven chips rather than frying chips. All in a bid to force people to be more healthy while the real problems get ignored.

We are babied by the government, they even treat us adults like children that need telling what they can and can't do, what they can and can't eat. And then they feel the need to take over the upbringing of our children as well - OUR children.

I think exercise and a good diet are essential to curb childhood obesity, but that does not mean we need to take away every scrap of fun food and drink - it's all about doing it in moderation, making sure they eat a good varied diet with plenty of fruit and veg but also get plenty of exercise.

So if Jamie Oliver and the government really care, they need to stop solely preaching about the food children eat and get out there and make more children get active and get away from technology!

RANT: Children's Clothing Sexism (YB)

Having two sons, I hope I'm not the only parent who has noticed sexism with children's clothing ranges in shops?

My eldest is 12 and he picks his own clothes nowadays, but he has commented on it too. I had the problem when he was little and now with little man who is 1.

No matter what shop you go in, there are always stacks and stacks of girls clothing and yet very limited amounts of boys clothing.

Now, I realise that girls have skirts, dresses, trousers & shorts and that boys only have trousers & shorts, but that's no excuse.

The lack of imagination in terms of variation, styles, colours etc. is absolutely unbelievable. Not just with the trousers & shorts, but with the t-shirts & shirts too.

It makes me so frustrated that there is such an amazing range for girls, yet barely anything for boys. Boys exist too! Boys want nice clothes and variety too!

Most shops even have a larger selection of girls nightwear than boys! Why can't there be an equal amount of both boys AND girls clothing?!

RANT: Media: A Scourge (YB)

OK, as always a ranter I am, but this one really needed saying. I am so fed up of the media, be it newspapers or television and their ill portrayal of anything that actually matters in the world. Maybe, even worse still, is the people listen to it, get sucked in by it and then actually start to believe it!

When are people going to learn that the media only shows what is provocative to gain the best response from their readers/viewers and that they are not showing a broad spectrum of things as a whole.

One of the biggest culprits in my opinion are The Daily Express (a newspaper which has the audacity to call itself 'The World's Greatest Newspaper'), who are always spouting propaganda and spreading xenophobia. Some examples:

EXAMPLE 1:
Today, whilst perusing Facebook, I came across an article (here) from them about a man who has been unemployed for 20 years and is demanding the council create a bigger home for him and his 18 children at the cost of the taxpayer.

As soon as a story such as this is run, everyone starts having a go at everyone who claims benefits and casting them all with the same negative opinions. So basically, The Daily Express finds the most outrageous thing they can to publish as they know it will provoke the biggest negative response towards people claiming benefits and then everyone 'gets their guns out' for each and everyone who claims benefits, regardless of their individual circumstances. So people who have been working for many years and lose their job through no fault of their own and then claim jobseeker's allowance are then cast with the likes of this person. So too are disabled people who are genuinely unable to work and the list goes on.

Personally, I see a story like this and other than knowing it is just provocative crap, I think far better than giving them a big house and lots of benefits, would be to find a piece of land and a cheap home, stick them in it, give them a stack of seeds and say get planting! No more benefits, this is all you're getting, use it and survive or rot. They can grow their own stuff and live off that. That's the best way to deal with breeders in my opinion. Mine is a far more viable option than the mindless responses on their post on Facebook or on their website such as 'cut it off' or 'set fire to them' which are quite frankly mindless and childlish in my opinion. I do feel with a family of that size, they need to do something other than cater for their every whim, but silly answers like those are just ridiculous.

EXAMPLE 2:
This article (here), in my opinion, was again published solely to provoke rather than to supposedly question if the sentence was correct. This sort of thing happens around the UK regularly, but The Daily Express chose to publish a story where the perpertrator happened to be a black person, in my opinion, this was published with the sole intention of inciting race hate, something The Daily Express seem to do on a regular basis.

Basically, a white man (who suffered from aspergers) had said something (not sure what as the story seems to purposefully refrain from giving all of the facts) to the black man who had taken offence and punched the white man once. The white man fell and hit his head which resulted in his death.

The black man shouldn't have hit the white man, that goes without saying, but if you punched someone, you wouldn't expect them to die as a result. My point here, is not really about the outcome, so much as the choice of story they chose to run - there are more incidents such as this that occur in the UK, but they didn't choose to run a story where a white man punched a white man which resulted in death or where a white man punched a black man which resulted in his death. Because they like posting racist propaganda, they chose to run this story instead.

At the end of the day, this person took someone's life and they should be punished, and normally I am all for life-for-a-life, but I don't think this was an intentional murder - if I punched someone once, I would not expect them to die as a result, so it is manslaughter. If this person had intentionally aimed to kill the other person, I'd say a life sentence was't enough, I personally think life-for-a-life should be just that - if you willfully take a life (murder as opposed to manslaughter), then in return your life should be taken too. I'd have this opinion regardless of the race of the perpertrator. The person did not lie either, they took responsibility for their actions and pleaded guilty which should count for something.

The Daily Express never pick up on stories (deliberately, in my opinion) that portray racism from white people to black people in action, such as this horrific attack from 2 Scottish white men on a black man who has never claimed benefits and busks to earn a living which was published by The Daily Record in an article (here).

Anyone would think The Daily Express bosses are in the pockets of those who are high earners - those favoured by and including the current government (Conservatives) and also big corporations, hence the constant posts supposedly 'in favour' of the taxpayers, slandering absolutely everyone who claims benefits, regardless of circumstances or who is on a lower income.

That plus they must get nice sideline bonuses from the likes of the BNP, EDL and UKIP for all the racist propaganda and xenophobic views they seem to spread on a regular basis.

Isn't it about time people stopped being so single minded and realise that media publications printing crap like this are probably in the pockets of relevant companies and organisations and only print what they know will provoke the biggest reactions from people and help spread hate. Before people respond to their purposefully provocative posts with mindless insults, they should at least look up facts and see that the shit being spouted by the media in no way offers any sort of factual information which can be found by looking at an unbiased source instead.

Another on my list of shit-stirrers is Channel 4 - they love nothing more than to show programmes that will provoke the nastiest responses. Whenever they run a so-called 'documentary' - they find the worst of the worse people in the communities they are 'documenting' to portray on television - because it makes 'good viewing' - if they made a documentary that actually showed the majority of what each group is like, it would be dull, boring, average people who wouldn't make for interesting television.

EXAMPLE:
Benefits Street - Here's another fine example of a media outlet showing the worst of the worse to provoke a response.

So many people watched this programme and even the most unbiased person was coaxed into believing this was representative of everyone who claims benefits. Responses were very violent and threatening, with people wanting to burn, mutilate or otherwise harm everyone claiming benefits.

But this show is no more of any real value than the Jerry Springer show or the Jeremy Kyle show - 2 programmes whereby the most outrageous stories and the most outrageous people were allowed on because it made entertaining viewing. Let's face it, no self respecting person would want to drag their private business through the public like the type who go on these shows. And Benefits Street is no different. Channel 4 sought out the most outrageous benefit claimants they could possibly find and put them on telly because they knew that would be far more entertaining than putting a true representation of benefit claimants on TV. After all, would it make good viewing watching someone scrape together the pennies to put their electricity or gas back on or to buy a loaf of bread or a bottle of milk? Of course it wouldn't!

My next example of crap comes from the online media section, and this one falls a lot closer to home. It was an online reality series on Vimeo called 'This Is Liverpool' - quite frankly, this could be made by a bunch of foreigners who have never visited Liverpool before in their lives and it has caused quite a stir amongst us Liverpudlians and this is a very poor portrayal of even the dregs of Liverpool (or anywhere else in society for that matter!).

Our city has had its ups and its downs. We are not the only city to have ever had problems, but we've come a long way from that now and it's crap like this series that drag it straight back down into the dumps.

Liverpool was crowned 'Capital Of Culture' back in 2008, quite a prestigious title for our fair city. This year, we were placed 3rd in the top 10 cities according to the highly respected Rough Guides. Yet what this video will show you is enough to scare off even the most open-minded person from visiting this city. To be honest, it doesn't even bare mentioning. But I feel it is important for people to realise this is not what Liverpool is like at all.

The people of Liverpool are mostly very approachable and friendly. I guess scousers as we are known, are quite loud (but not in an abrasive manner) and that might be a shock to people from certain places, but they soon realise that everyone is friendly and approachable. I'm actually not very scouser-like despite being born here and living here, I'm quite quiet (not that you'd know that from my ranting!), and there are other people like me in Liverpool as well, but for the best part, scousers are quite chatty and outgoing.

Of course, I wouldn't claim all Liverpudlians are saints, just like in every other part of the country, you get some good-for-nothing types, but no more here than anywhere else. It's certainly not something you encounter all over the place.

People have the attitude like we are all scallys who take drugs, drink too much and steal cars and you couldn't be more far from the truth. Like I said, you get some trash here, but no worse than anywhere else. In fact, in the most recently published crime statistics, Liverpool where nowhere to be seen in the list of worst offenders! So to all those who claim other wise, let factual statistics prove you wrong! In fact, it was actually our 'beloved' capital London that came out worst through and through!

Anyway, I've come to the end of my rant, else I'd be here forever, I just wanted to vent about how annoying I find the media. I wish people would start to think for themselves instead of paying attention to the scourge that is modern day media and realise they only show you what makes for good entertainment. I'd love to hear other people's constructive thoughts on the matter - please, if you only have a mindless comment, don't bother as I don't want to hear it!

RANT: School Fines: Right Or Wrong? (YB)

OK, it's been a while since I had a good old fashioned rant about something, but this one's been brewing for a while...

In your opinion, are fines from schools/education welfare justified and reasonable? Is a £60 fine reasonable for poor attendance? Is a £60 fine reasonable for repeat lates? Also, should you really not be able to take your child(ren) for a short holiday in term time?

Firstly, I'm going to talk about the fines for being off school ill and how this has personally affected me.

Well, we have had fines on more than one occasion for our son being off school ill. I must point out, we'd never keep him off with a sniffle, we keep him off only when he is genuinely too ill to go to school. We are due to go into his school again next week regarding his poor attendance. But I feel that poor attendance is based on a statistic - should children or adults be classed as a statistic? Because, let's face it, everyone is different, whether school/education welfare/governments admit it or not. So because the average child is able to attend school 95% of the time, does that mean all children should be able to?

When I was a child, I was off school ill quite a lot, much of which was caused by my asthma amongst other childhood illnesses - I was genuinely ill a lot of the time, this for me continued into adult life and I still get ill a hell of a lot more often than the average person. My husband on the other hand, he's always been in really good health, he very rarely gets ill at all. It's unusual if he gets a cold in a year - the most ill I've seen him since we met is a couple of days whereby he had a stomach bug! Our son, seems to be just like me though, he is ill a lot and ends up at the doctors more times than I care to mention. Maybe me and him have lower immune systems or something, I don't know, but there must be a reason why we get so ill, so much more often.

But the school/education welfare do not see it that way - because all they ever look at is statistics, rather than treating each child as the individual that they are. The last time the person from the education welfare visited us, she basically said something along the lines of "well the doctor must be wrong" - I'm sorry but do you happen to have a medical degree then? I thought not! Initially, they said we should always take him to the doctors when is ill so we have proof for them that he is ill, so we did as they said and apparently that's still not good enough! If the doctor is saying he is too ill to be at school, well that's good enough for me and I think it should be for them as after all, I'm pretty sure none of them have a medical degree!

In my opinion, those people who send their children in when they are ill are selfish - you are sending your child to spread germs around the school to all of the other children, one or more of those children may end up significantly more ill than your child was thanks to your selfishness! The school's don't help either - my son's school incentivises coming into school no matter how ill with the chance to win an iPad Mini at the end of the school year if your attendance is perfect! Even doctors say that schools are to blame for children being ill so often, as they demand children go in with all sorts to pass it on to everyone else. In fact, seeing as they love statistics so, if you look at the statistics for how quickly germs spread in this country, it's a lot higher than some other developed countries - in my opinion, this is because children spread germs like nobody's business! It's not their fault, especially young children aren't as careful with their hygiene as senior school age children or adults (though a lot of them are poorly educated too and are as bad as little kids when it comes to hygiene - honestly, the looks you get sometimes when you're out and about and going to eat and bring out some hand sanitiser before you touch your food, it's like forbidden fruit!), so one selfish person sends in their child with something or other and a few days later, everyone has it!

So, should children be treated as a statistic, or should each case be looked at individually before the school.education welfare decide on giving out a fine or worse? Because, I would feel much more fairly treated if they stopped treating my son as a statistic - stopped saying that because he isn't an average person when it comes to illness, that we must be keeping him off for no good reason, and actually look at the circumstances on an individual basis.

Right, onto the fines for being late to school. I only heard about this today, but apparently they are going to charge you a £60 fine if your child is late more than 10 times in 12 weeks (i.e. the equivalent of 2 out of the 12 weeks) - do you think this is fair?

Well again, a look at each child's/parents circumstances is important I think. And also, by how much they are late - yes being late is disruptive, but there's a difference between 1 minute late and 1 hour late. Occasionally, my son gets there late - well literally just as the school gates are closing and has to go in through the office, this gets him marked as late, but in reality, the other kids haven't even gone into class or settled by this point, so I'd hardly say that was causing disruption. It is very, very rare that he is more than 5 or 10 minutes late, but he is very hard to motivate to get going in the morning - both me and my husband are not morning people at all, we always manage to get up early for school though and wake him and try and prompt him along, but sometimes he just can't get going. Sometimes I put this down to illness - as I know he sleeps bad in the night sometimes and walks around sleepy looking all day long, but he still goes to school, he has to, but on those days in particular it's very hard to get him to wake up, get out of bed, have breakfast and get ready for school and get there on time. He's 11 years old, I'm not going to barge into his room and dress him, throw him over my shoulder and carry him to school! I can try to inspire, encourage and even tell him off, but if that doesn't work, how is fining me going to help him get there on time?  On the days he is ill, but goes to school, but has slept bad in the night, I don't really think that is something they should fine you for though. At the end of the day, he's there even though he really looks beyond worse for wear.

I think fines aren't really a good punishment anyway for lateness. If a child is late for school because they have stood around in the shop or chatting to their friends or something, then yes, punish them, give them detention or something deemed appropriate. I'm not sure fining the parent(s) is the way to go though. Particularly with senior school children, most go to school on their own, so the parent wouldn't know. And they may say, well you should take them to school and make sure they get there on time - that's a fair enough idea, but... What if they take themselves to school and their parent(s) go to work, I'm not sure their parent(s) boss(es) would appreciate them saying they'd have to come in to work an hour later as they had to walk their teenager to school every morning!

A single parent with 4 children of different ages, may well struggle to get their children to school on time due to the sheer lack of help, should he/she be punished for this with a fine? Or should their individual circumstances be looked at? Again, should the children be looked at on an individual basis and not just as a statistic?

Right, finally, onto the ban from taking your children out of school in term time for a holiday - do you think this is right?

As long as your child(ren) have good attendance, it used to be at the school's discretion as to whether they could have an holiday of up to 14 days during term time, but now, they say you're not allowed to at all.

Right, this one hasn't particularly affected us, but some people work hard year round, but may only be able to afford a family holiday in term time, as let's face it, especially with these new rules, the price of an holiday during school holidays is going to zoom up even higher than it already was! Should the hard working parent(s) be unable to take a short holiday with their child(ren) during term time when they can actually afford a holiday? Don't they deserve it? And would it really make that big a difference to their learning?

When I was young, at my schools (both primary and secondary), there were a lot of Muslim children, I remember some of them being granted (on more than one occasion) 2 or 3 months at a time off to go back to their country and visit their family - hardly seems fair, that children from this country in the first place aren't even allowed a short break with their family. It shouldn't be one rule for some people, and a different rule for everyone else! And, on the subject of fairness, Muslim children are allowed time off for Eid Mubarak, even though this is during term time, regardless of it being of significant importance to them, should they be allowed to take time off? If children get fined for being ill or going on holiday, then it's not at all fair that they are allowed time off during term time, is it? I don't mean to specifically use Muslims as my source of rage, it's just as there were a lot in my school and now in my son's school, it's easy to see what is different and acceptable for them compared to us and point it out.

I would love to know what other people's opinions on all this are, so please leave me a comment and let me know what you think...

RANT: Whose Child Is It Anyway? (YB)

A question that popped into my mind after a discussion/rant the other day is 'Whose child is it anyway?'...

It feels like the government lay claim to our children from the day they are born and that we don't really get a say in anything related to our children. It seems no-one else stops to question this though...

'Why?' I hear you ask. Well...

1) You get fined if your child is off school too often

Let me elaborate. Whilst I agree that some people would keep their child off school because they are too lazy to get off their arses and take them, other parents, like myself, only keep their children off when they are genuinely too ill to go into school. Like myself when I was a child, my son is off school maybe more than the average kid as he is simply ill more often. Whilst unconfirmed, I wonder if both he and I have a weaker immune system which makes us more susceptible to illness in the first place and/or makes it worse for us.

But averages... That's what it all boils down to. We are not individuals, merely statistics. If the 'average' child is off school for 5-10% in a school year, and another child is off say 15% in a school year, then that child must be off for no reason and not genuinely ill. WRONG. If only these idiots would realise an average is just that! NOT EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD IS EXACTLY THE SAME! They are not even satisfied when you take your child to the doctor and the doctor agrees they should be off school - the idiot from the education welfare still insists she knows better than both us (me & hubby), the parents AND the QUALIFIED doctor at the GP surgery! Absolutely absurd!

2) Your child (or yourself) cannot leave the country without prior permission (i.e. a passport)

OK, it is apparent that from the day we are born, our country OWNS us. Yes, you heard right. Think about it... You are NOT allowed to leave the country without first requesting permission to do so. I'm sorry, but when did I ask to be born here? OK, I don't hate England, that's not the point in this post, I'm simply making a point. Whenever a child is born in this country, they are bound to stay here and they CANNOT leave without permission. Again, I didn't realise us or our children were OWNED by the country, but apparently we are. Yet no-one questions this. Has the world gone mad???

3) Your child must eat like this

Next up, we are basically given commands as to what our children can and cannot eat. Are we a bunch of idiots that need to be given specific instructions to raise our own children? Apparently the government thinks we are.

We are apparently not capable of deciding what OUR children should and shouldn't eat. OK, feel free to educate both adults and children as to what is good for you and what isn't, but don't dictate it!

I'd like to think we have a reasonable diet. Yes, we sometimes have chips cooked in oil, or sausages or burgers or bacon... BUT, we also have vegetables, grilled meals etc. too. Oh and yes, we sometimes have chocolate or biscuits or sweets... BUT, we also have fruit and salad. So the moral of the story is, can't we be left to figure out what is and isn't good for ourselves and our children?

Kids these days seem to be afraid of fried food - the schools have them worried what will happen to them. That is so wrong! Some fried food is OK, scaring the living daylights out of kids, albeit INCORRECTLY too is absolutely infuriating as well as ridiculous! A few years ago when my son was about 7 or 8, he refused to eat rice at home because his teachers had told him it was bad for him - rice!!!

I've seen friends posting on Facebook about how their children aren't allowed to take a chocolate biscuit to school or a carton of juice - insane!!! When I was little, when I had a packed lunch, I had a sandwich, a packet of crisps, a chocolate biscuit (like a Penguin/Taxi/Club/Breakaway or something) and a carton of juice. It did me no harm whatsoever. I was not an obese child. In fact, I was just your run of the mill, average child  in terms of weight.

While I'm on the subject, don't even get me started on this crap about obesity!! Let's get children eating really healthy so we don't have obese children, oh but lets promote techonology...

OK, when I was little, I played out with my friends, rode my bike, used my imagination (I'm only 30 by the way!)... Kids these days don't want to go out and play with their friends... They want to chat with them on their iPads/iPhones etc. Use their imagination? No need, they can just play games on their console! In my sons school, day to day they actively use iPads for lessons (not all, but too many in my opinion). What was wrong with good old pen & paper, conventional teaching and good old brainpower? Oh and the government wants every household in the UK to have internet access - hmmmm...

I read an article online saying how our brains are changing because of technology. Basically devolving. If we have a problem, we don't stop and think about it, we just hop on over to Google to find the answer. Children don't need to use their imagination to play. They just pop the 360 or PS3 on and play a mind-numbing game.

Personally, I try to actively encourage my son to write, draw, play board games, basically to think for himself, though he never seems to keen, but he enjoys it once he gets going. I want him to think for himself before he becomes just another drone in the world.

My hubby often jokes about a zombie apocalypse. I feel like it's already here! OK, so not zombies like you see on telly walking around mindless and chomping on living people, but as good as. People who are programmed from the moment they start school on how they should and shouldn't act, what they should and shouldn't eat, where they should and shouldn't go, how they should live, what they should never aspire to be (i.e. free thinking). It's a sad world in my opinion and it's only going to get worse the more technology progresses. Perfect for a government in a growing country. Mindless servants make the best citizens after all!