Deorccwen

Entry open to all, whether resident in Shetland or not. Unst Writers Group present their 1st National Open Poetry & Prose Competition 1st Prize - £100, 2nd Prize - £50, 3rd Prize £25 £25 Prize to best entry from a Shetland Isles resident not on prize list. Entry fee £3, or £5 for two entries (Paypal via website or cheque to 'Unst Writers Group') Please supply postal address Poetry minimum 14 lines, Prose maximum 1500 words typed. Closing date: 7th of November 2014. www.unstwriters.wix.com/unst Authors submitting entries agree to UWG having the right to publish their work. Email unstwriters@gmail.com Unst Writers Group, Hamar, Baltasound, Unst, Shetland ZE2 9DS

I honestly think private sector providers are a terrible idea. You can't get more for less: if they're trying to provide kids with an education *and* make a profit, you know that it's the education or other provision for the kids that's going to suffer, not the profits. Besides, a private provider would only take on a potentially profitable school, and if it is potentially profitable, then the council should hang onto it and make it profitable itself. Private companies are not answerable to the people they (supposedly) serve in the way that a council or other government is, and they *will* take advantage, take the profit, and run when it doesn't suit them anymore, leaving devastation behind them.

Much as it might benefit Lerwick pupils to be educated in a quieter, out of town environment, it's not practical simply because there are more of them, so transport costs would be higher than to transport a smaller number of pupils the same distance. I take issue with the rather sweeping comment made by Staney Dale that a rural education is necessarily detrimental to children, or is a sign of the parents 'having issues'. The fact is that most (I would say 'all' but I have no evidence of that) children in outlying islands visit Lerwick on a fairly regular basis from an early age, and are perfectly capable of managing in a town. I don't wish to erase Staney Dale's personal experience here, but I would argue that rural teens, at least in the 2000s, may even be *more* independent and resourceful than town teens, because they travel long distances to Lerwick on public transport with their friends, unsupervised, spend the day in town, including budgeting for their own meals and other refreshments, unsupervised and then get themselves home unsupervised, on public transport. From Unst, that is nearly a five-hour round-trip commute, not counting the time they spend in town. While there may well be one or two parents who have issues, that does not apply to most people, or they wouldn't let their kids go to Lerwick without them. Neurotic parents are not particular to rural areas - they are universal - and they are a burden that their children have to bear until they can leave home wherever they live, town, city or country. In that respect, the children of neurotic, rural-dwelling Shetland parents are probably at a distinct advantage compared with others in their situation, since they get to be weekly boarders from age 16. Speaking as someone who was raised exclusively in towns and cities and only managed to escape my parents' home when I went to university, I can honestly say that I would have been delighted to have their opportunity.

Oh that's great! Thank you! I thought it looked as though he had been taken off in an ambulance. I'm so glad he was OK.

There was (what appeared to be) a road traffic accident outside Lerwick Ferry Terminal yesterday morning, just after the ferry got in. Does anybody know if the person who was hurt is OK? It's been haunting me.

I think it really depends on where you would be living, and on whether the local school is able to meet your child's educational needs. What we did was to decide where we wanted to move to, then contacted the local school and the education department to ask what educational provision would be available. They were able to advise us further, and we were then able to make a final decision about our move. There is a central special needs school in Lerwick, but your local school may be very able to meet your child's needs. It is also worth checking up to what age the local school can take children, as most local children may attend the Anderson in Lerwick after a certain age. Best of luck with your move!

Loved my scooter, but only had it up to about age 7. I sorely envied my friend his pedal car when I was 3. My little sister and I had a few dolls between us, but they were mostly just extras in our games. I liked lego, but never had enough blocks to do anything interesting with. Plus mine only came in three different sizes of block - one square and two different sizes of rectangle - so options were a bit limited. They make fantastic lego/megablocks now! Monopoly or scrabble when we really couldn't think of anything to do. I had a really cool doll's pram that was big enough for a child to sit in, so my sister and I took it in turns to sit in it while the other shoved it across the grass as fast as she could (I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did!). What I really wanted, and was never allowed to have, was a "catty" (catapult) which kids made themselves out of a robust Y-shaped bit of fallen wood and a strip of bicycle inner tube Mum was probably right not to let me have one, though, considering how much damage I did to windows with just a tennis ball... When I was 9, we visited my mum's friend for a month. They owned a little shop and had barrels in the back that they didn't mind you walking around on. That was fantastic once I'd got the idea of walking backwards to go forwards, though I got a fair few bumps/cuts/grazes. My favourite "toys" were always books and my imagination, though. You can never have too many books (as long as they're well written: there's some real rubbish out there!).

I expect the WHO knows what it's talking about and is basing its predictions on firm epidemiology studies. But a single death in Britain due to swine flu, although obviously devastating to the family involved, doesn't seem worth panicking over on a national level. For those who haven't been exposed, it's just a matter of common sense: if you're frail/elderly/pregnant (immune response is lowered in pregnancy) or have a young baby, avoid large gatherings; avoid people you know have been exposed; eat healthily etc. Death rates are bound to be higher in areas where health care is poor or non-existent and people are impoverished and probably poorly nourished. The fact is that flu has always been a killer, especially of the vulnerable. My granny died of it at age 97 (technically heart failure, but brought on by flu), and my mum was hospitalised a couple of years ago with double pneumonia brought on by an otherwise mild dose of flu. In 1998/1999, I was living in Norwich and pregnant during a terrible flu outbreak. My baby was delivered in a hospital which had refrigerated lorry parked outside to house the corpses that could not fit into the morgue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/249038.stm). Now that was really worrying, given the combination of factors (young baby; and for myself, weakened immunity due to pregnancy, plus an underlying health problem). My sister had the flu at the time, and she didn't see her neice till she was three weeks old, because she wouldn't risk infecting her (for which I was deeply grateful!). As a result, baby didn't get the flu that year, and nor did I.

Kirsty McColl. bouncy music, bitter lyrics: "with a pocket full of plastic like a dollar on elastic In this free world"

There have always been people, perhaps the majority, who need a religion of some kind. It gives people (an illusion of?) hope when times are tough; a sense that they have some control over even hopeless situations in that they can appeal to a higher power for help. For those Christians who live their whole lives in poverty and misery, there is the hope of a deliriously happy hereafter, which also makes things easier to bear. Nietzsche described Christianity as a slave religion because it encourages its adherents to accept their lot with humility, in the trust that heaven will make up for it, rather than fight to improve their circumstances (though lets not forget that this is the man who had the arrogance to write an essay "On Why I am a Genius:" it's a bit hard to take much of what he says seriously after that!). There are also people who want/need a "Big Daddy" god with a big stick and a set of rules, because it is simply easier than thinking things out for themselves. Nothing wrong with that, particularly, if that's want they want in their lives. There were many religions before Christianity, and some which have started since, a lot of which are still around, and these offer the same benefits. For societies, religion operates as a form of social control. It means the basic rules of social interaction are not optional but mandatory by celestial decree. Again, this is fine as long as it only means that pressure is put on co-religionists to behave in a way that doesn't harm others. I have no argument with decrees against murder or theft. The problem arises when societies, communities or individuals use their religion in order to impose their petty prejudices on their co-religionists or others, or when a religion encourages (or is manipulated to make it seem that it encourages) causing harm to others. I would say the stance that some major world religions take on homosexuality is causing harm. People are entitled to follow the rules of their own religions, and to expect the courtesy of respect for their beliefs. But they are not entitled to apply the rules of their particular religion to those around them who do not share their beliefs.

Tired. The autism fairy woke my son at 3:30am... He's awake: I'm awake.

Medziotojas Congratulations!

Bizarre. Were they very religious (Christian)? That might explain both. Or is my personal worldview (and personal prejudices ) just getting the better of my reason? . Maybe it's just the people I know who don't have a problem. (Halloo down there! I can just see you from my ivory tower... )

Not sure whether it was clear that I was being sarcastic in my last comment! I suspect the reason we still have some of these views is really because Christianity has been such a widespread force in so much of the world (thanks, Roman Empire!). The Romans themselves (pre-Christian) were not - officially at least - keen on homosexuality in any case, or adultery etc. which is not to say these things didn't go on anyway! So they had a dual reason for spreading the belief. As for current attitudes, I think these things are all still fairly widely frowned upon: it's just a matter of degree of social acceptability. So we'd still think it revolting if someone had sex with an animal, but neighbour's wives etc is a bit more of a grey area because we (rightly, in my opinion) think the issue of mutual consent is more important than the mechanics of the act itself. Though we deplore the social upheaval that can result. But homosexuality is mostly still the big problem (IMHO) because so many men feel threatened by it. I had a temporary job working in a veg-prepping factory in my student days, when a new worker was to join the force. Two people who had worked with him before and liked him revealed that he was gay. The following days were rendered horrible with "backs to the walls, lads!" jokes and angry comments about gay men from the men working there. When I suggested that they had no need to worry, since he was unlikely to fancy them anyway as, after all, they weren't attracted to every woman they met despite being heterosexual, I was told that I simply didn't understand. The man never started work there (presumably he was fore-warned). So he was deprived of a job that he presumably needed, because of the prejudices of other people. Another man told me in hushed (but amused) tones of the time he and a couple of friends wandered into a gay bar accidentally. Needless to say, he told me, they necked their drinks and left in a hurry. I asked him why, to which he said, in some surprise, "Well, how would you like to look around and find yourself in a pub full of lesbians?" He was even more surprised when I told him I knew it would not bother me at all, as I'd been in exactly that situation a number of times and never felt in the least threatened. I have honestly never met a heterosexual woman who felt this degree of personal insecurity (and anger) in the presence of lesbians.

So, apparently, according to the Bible online anyway, it's the same penalty whether a man has sex with another man (20:13), with an animal (20:15) or with another man's wife (20:10). But there's a lesser penalty if the woman is your aunt by marriage (20:20). And apparently, according to this, it's not so bad to have sex with your sister (20:17) as with another man's wife. Hmmm.... It's made pretty clear (20:23 & 20:24) that these rules were made specifically to differentiate the Israelites from the former inhabitants of the territory they had taken by force of arms (the Caananites). So. A good guide for life today, then.