Bus travel with the young man from ‘Ull. Reactions to the news from here and there.

At the end of this morning I caught a bus to Greenfield Tesco. Very efficiently I filled a couple of shopping bags and went to check out the buses for my return trip. On one side of the main road the 356 bus stop informed me there was a bus at 12.51. It was then 12.44. On the other side of the road the 350 bus stop informed me there was a bus at 1.00. So I crossed back to the 356 stop. That bus does a scenic route through Diggle and Dobcross but, even though it’s a slightly longer journey, if it arrived on time I would at least be on my way home. 

1.00 approached. The 356 did not. I decided to go across to the 350 stop. At 1.05 that bus had not shown up either. At that point the 356 came round the corner, so I crossed the road again and hopped on board. I was working on the principle that an actual bus, even if slower, was better than a promise of one - a bird in the hand and all that sort of thing! 

The driver was almost an old friend, the young man from ‘Ull (his pronunciation of Hull) who I’ve travelled with on more than one occasion on that bus route. So we had a chat. Not a bad way to finish a shopping trip.

I arrived home in time to miss the radio news, which is probably just as well as everything is singularly depressing at the moment. Between Liz Truss possibly hurtling us into an escalated conflict, even war with Russia, and evidence of MPs behaving badly - being caught watching pornography once can perhaps be explained as accidental but twice sounds rather deliberate - it’s not cheerful listening. If a teacher or a nurse were to be caught concentrating on any kind of app on their phone in the classroom or the hospital ward no doubt there would be an outcry. So why do MPs feel they can mess about on their phones in the House of Commons? The generous say it’s their team sending them answers to difficult questions. Really?! I am not convinced.

Here’s a bit of news about Italy:

“Italian children should be given the surnames of both parents, the constitutional court has ruled, overturning the tradition by which all newborns are automatically named after their fathers.

The practice was “discriminatory and harmful to the identity” of the child, the court said in a statement, adding that both parents should be able to choose the surname.

Children should be given both parents’ surnames in the order they decide, unless they agree their children should take just one of them, the court added in a statement.

New legislation, to be approved by parliament, is required to implement the decision.”

Two Italian friends of mine are waxing mildly indignant about it on social media, declaring that it is more important and necessary to bring in further legislation to protect women and children from domestic violence. Quite so!

Having seen that, later I came across yet another report of parents causing the death of their baby, almost certainly because of the father shaking the child. In this case the mother hid her pregnancy and baby Eleanor was born two weeks premature, ending up in intensive care for a few weeks before being allowed home. Not a good start: “Hospital staff referred the family to social services after noting they seemed to have little interest in the newborn, leaving bottle feeding to staff and rarely visiting her in intensive care.” So why was she even sent home?

It went on: “A Norfolk county council social worker who visited the family on the day Eleanor was allowed home “noted little communication or interaction” between them and Eleanor. In October, health visitors noticed bruising and scratches to Eleanor’s face, which her mother said were due to an ill-fitting car seat and that the baby had scratched herself.”

There followed a series of mistakes (mistakes?) resulting in the baby’s death. “Elizabeth Marsh QC, mitigating for Carly Easey, said Eleanor “was killed through no action or inaction” by her mother. “She feels extremely guilty for failing to protect her baby from the man who deceived her,” she said.

Sally O’Neill QC, mitigating for Christopher Easey, said he would “carry to his grave … the knowledge what he did cause the injuries to his baby daughter”. She described him as a “very inexperienced father”.”

“A very inexperience father”? I’m pretty sure most fathers are inexperienced when they start down that path. These two parents clearly needed a lot more support!  The system needs fixing!

On that depressing note, I shall finish.

Life goes on. Stay safe and well, everyone!