How to lose credibility and alienate people

The third story which makes me want to bite my own hands off is that of Natalie Woods, her partner Elizabeth Knowles and their new baby Lily-May Betty Woods. You see, Natalie gave birth to their daughter via a sperm donor. Yet Elizabeth Knowles has been named on the certificate as “parent.”

This means that conveniently, Miss Knowles is granted parental responsibility for the child – rather than having to go through the courts. Miss Woods said: “We started forward on this journey together so it is fitting that we can both sign the register.” Which is fair enough – it must be a right palaver to sort out the paperwork, and if the two of you have committed to having a baby together, there should be an official way to record the fact.

However, the giant elephant in the room is that they will be, um, how can I put this? “TELLING BIG FAT LIES” on an official document. Elizabeth Knowles may be parent in the all important “love” sense, but the fact remains that she has no biological connection to the child whatsoever.

I’m sure there are plenty of people who would like to change the paper trail of their lives. A marriage you regret? Wish that loser hadn’t fathered your baby? Wanted a 2:1, not a 2:2? What a great solution – write what you wanted to happen, instead of what actually did happen!

If birth certificates are going to be nothing more than a record of your own wishful thinking, I’m sure an awful lot of women will be erasing the true fathers of their offspring and putting “Brad Pitt” as “parent.” (I can’t be the only one planning this, right....?)

100 lines - I must watch more Bruce Willis films until I see teenage boys for the weedy, illiterate little oiks they really are.

Yikes. Boys, postcards like this are a sign that your teacher needs to get out more.

The second news story to catch my attention was that of Hannah McIntyre, the teacher acquitted of seducing a sixth form student.

I’ve thought for a while that the laws should be changed to protect those accused of sexual crimes; they should be anonymous until they are found guilty. As the law stands, anyone accused of a crime has their name dragged through the mud before any evidence has been heard.

Having said this, wouldn’t it be prudent also to pay closer attention to the relationship between students and teachers?

Hannah McIntyre opened the door to three students while “drinking wine in her pyjamas.” Ok, that was stupid, but not everyone has a peep hole.

She told the court “They barged in. They were very loud and boisterous. I asked them to leave but they did not take any notice. I was trying to be non-confrontational – not trying to provoke anything.”

She tried to get them out of the flat by saying she had to go out to the local shop. They followed her and persuaded her to buy them cider, then returned to her flat to drink it.

Wait. Hold on a second. She was trying to get them out of her flat, this I can understand. It would be intimidating to have three large teenage boys in your house, and I would probably try to get them out at any cost, too. But they managed to “persuade” her to buy them drink, and then they “followed” her back?

In the end, she went to bed leaving the boys downstairs in her living room. She didn’t call the police, thinking the boys would get in trouble with the school and make life in her classroom even more difficult than it already was. (She was “bullied” in her classes.)

Another recent case of a teacher accused – and acquitted – of seducing a 16-year-old boy was that of Teresa McKenzie. Like Miss McIntyre, the whole situation was muddied by her own insane actions.

During the course of her supervision of the unnamed teenager, Mrs McKenzie exchanged hundreds of text messages and calls with him, as well as sending him love letters. In one, she described how she couldn't concentrate on a school meeting for thinking of his “beautiful eyes, strawberries-and-cream hair, soft hands, gorgeous laugh, strong shoulders and delicious lips,” and “Such sweet anticipation makes my heart race.”

(To think, the only notes I got from my teachers were “Could do better” and “This is not an hour’s work”.)

In another, she wrote to her “gorgeous pirate. Dreaming of hiring a pirate ship and sailing across the seven seas, finding a deserted beach, just palm trees and lapping waves, soft sand and hot sun. What do you think? Would you like to come?. . . Ah, it would be bliss, even for one day, to play...I will love you forever and ever and ever xxxxxxxx.”

She told the court that the first letter was an attempt to emulate the language of Shakespeare, since Romeo and Juliet was being taught in class, while the second was a “silly” idea to try to make John smile, sparked by the game of pirates she had played with her pupils earlier in the day.

Later she said “I'm the sort of person who sends a lot of gushing cards. To now think that they might be interpreted in the context of some kind of sexual relationship makes me feel sick.”

Let’s just say, it might be best if she didn’t teach any more.

Now, am I crazy, or has the teacher / pupil relationship got weird lately? There seem to be more and more of these stories popping up, always with a background of phone calls and texts. Is it etiquette now to be facebook friends with your students? Is it essential that they have your home number, in case they have a question about the homework?

Personally I can’t think of anything worse, as an adult, to be available to students 24/7. And thinking back to my school days, I can’t think of anything nerdier than wanting your teacher’s number and actually using it for non-prank calls. What’s wrong with the kids of today? Has Bart Simpson taught them nothing?

The only thing weirder is grown women even beginning to contemplate relationships with teenage boys. (Outside of Sweet Valley High books, they are uniformly sullen and unattractive.) The last time I fancied anyone aged sixteen, I was about twelve.

Is it just me or is everyone stupid?

Trust me, I'm a politician.

Before you ask, no. I am not suffering from PMT. I’m just finding the news especially IRRITATING this week.

First and foremost, I can’t quite believe how the great British public has taken Nick Clegg to their hearts. Yes, he was blessed with a) the novelty factor – it was the first time we’d really seen him speak – and b) the good fortune to not be Gordon Brown. But... was I the only one who found him kind of phony?

Never trust a man who starts every sentence with “I want to be straight with you...” Nick over-emphasised his honesty so much it was tempting to offer him a job as a second hand car salesman. Insisting that you are the one to be trusted – “Not like those other two” – can only be convincing if you're not a politician.

Meanwhile, Gordon Brown waffled incomprehensively about how we should save money by spending more, to “invest in the economy.”

Poor old “Call me” Dave actually answered his questions pretty well, but it was Cleggy’s night. Next time we have the three of them on screen together, I would like to propose a drinking game. A shot every time you hear the following:

Anyone: “What David / Gordon / Nick isn’t telling you...”

Nick Clegg: “I want to be straight with you...”

Gordon: “It’s a global problem...”

Dave: “What small business, or big business, hasn’t made cuts....”

Any others that will result in drunkeness and hilarity?

One last thing – have you tried http://www.votematch.org.uk/ ? It’s a great little tool which tells you which of the parties your beliefs line up with closely. Do it – with an open mind! You might surprise (shock / disgust) yourself.

If you haven't got anything intelligent to say....

"Beware of these teachers of religious law! For they like to parade around in flowing robes and love to receive respectful greetings as they walk in the marketplaces. And how they love the seats of honour in the synagogues and the head table at banquets." (Luke 20:46)

So, Jesus was saying it 2000 years ago, and it remains frighteningly true today. (Especially disturbing when said leaders actually claim to be followers of Jesus. The guy who explicitly disapproved of the kind of pomp and circumstance that surrounds them. )

Perhaps the Pope has tired of his "infallible" label? He seems determined to disprove it by being wrong about EVERYTHING. Every day seems to bring a new opinion on something utterly irrelevant. Who does he think he is, Peaches Geldof?

The latest news from the Vatican's newspaper L'Osservatore Romano concerns the Beatles. The front-page article proclaims: 'It's true they took drugs, lived life to excess because of their success, even said they were bigger than Jesus and put out mysterious messages that were possibly even Satanic. They may not have been the best example for the youth of the day but they were by no means the worst. Their beautiful melodies changed music and continue to give pleasure.”

So, let me get this straight. The Beatles were Satanic. But they made nice music, so that’s ok? Ummm.... Whatever you say.

You might also be interested to know that, two years ago, the Vatican "forgave" John Lennon for saying The Beatles were 'bigger than Jesus', saying it was the "boasting of an English working-class lad struggling to cope with unexpected success". Well, thanks for clearing that up. (Dare I wonder if that headline-grabber coincided with a bout of paedophilia, too?)

You’ll be happy to know that, while the Vatican may be iffy on child abuse, they DO want to tell you which films your children shouldn’t be watching.

When New Moon (the second of the Twilight movies) hit cinemas last year, Vatican officials were moved to condemn it as "a moral vacuum with a deviant message". Evidently the Pope’s thoughts on teen fiction are based on what middle-of-the-road Christians want to hear.

Said Monsignor Franco Perazzolo, of the Pontifical Council of Culture:"The theme of vampires in Twilight combines a mixture of excesses that as ever is aimed at young people and gives a heavy esoteric element. It is once again that age-old trick or ideal formula of using extremes to make an impact at the box office. This film is nothing more than a moral vacuum with a deviant message and as such should be of concern."

Nothing more? Sir, you jest. The Twilight series has awakened a generation of teenage girls to romance, passion, and the joys of sexual abstinence. You’d think the Catholic church would be grateful that finally someone has managed to make it seem cool, desirable and even a bit sexy to "save yourself" for marriage.

Just to make it really obvious that they have read no more than the blurb on the back of the books, they completely miss the religious symbolism which permeates every line. (Yes, I finished the book and I loved it. SPOILERS AHEAD!) Hands up if you can spot the significance of:

a) the transformation into a Heavenly, indestructible body with eternal life

b) a baby that is born to a human mother and immortal father, and 

c) a false prophet causing a battle over the child.

If you noticed the common thread, congratulations! You're more intelligent than a Vatican official.

It’s imperative to monitor what your children are reading, of course. But sexual abuse? Pah.

At a Palm Sunday service, The Pope claimed that Faith in God, leads "towards the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion". Dominant opinion being that PAEDOPHILIA IS WRONG?

On the plus side, he has managed to apologise for the abuse. Well, sort of.

Addressing the victims of abuse, he wrote: "You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated... I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel." He said those guilty of abuse must "answer before God and properly constituted tribunals for the sinful and criminal actions they have committed".

However, the massive cover-ups within the Catholic church is glossed over. The only direct reference is to "a misplaced concern for the reputation of the church and the avoidance of scandal".

Although the Pope said Vatican officials would visit Ireland to inspect some dioceses, he did not call for any restructuring of the church in Ireland. Nor has he called for the resignation of any bishops, although a few have already volunteered to leave their posts.

The head of the Catholic church in Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady, has resisted calls to resign over his handling of abuse allegations in the 1970s that saw victims sign confidentiality agreements.

Sounds like they need to brush up on their New Testament reading – "How terrible that you should boast about your spirituality, and yet you let this sort of thing go on. Don’t you realize that if even one person is allowed to go on sinning, soon all will be affected?" (1 Corinthians 5:6)

And don’t even get me started on the ban on contraception. Rebecca Hodes, of the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, pointed out that if the Pope was serious about preventing new HIV infections he would focus on promoting access to condoms. "Instead, his opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans."

The Roman Catholic Church believes marital fidelity and sexual abstinence are the best way to prevent the spread of HIV. Which would be fine, if people weren’t raping babies in a bizarre effort to "cure" themselves.

The pope has pointed out that condoms cannot cure HIV. Cure, no. But prevent from spreading? Yes, yes, yes!

Three-quarters of all Aids deaths in 2007 happened in South Africa. Maybe it’s time to stop listening to ill-informed men in frocks and use some common sense.