#JusticeForJohnnyDepp

An open letter to Johnny Depp

"Tell the world, Johnny, tell them, Johnny Depp,

I, Johnny Depp, a man, I'm a victim too of domestic violence,

and see how many people believe or side with you." - Amber Heard

Well, sir... you did. And they did.

A lot of people believed you from the start. People called them Deppford Wives and misogynists.

A lot of people came to believe you over time. The media wrote them off as fans and trolls.

A lot of people came to believe you during the trial, hearing your story properly, and with all the facts finally available to us. Still the media wrote articles about 'the internet' siding with you. Like we're not all individual human beings with eyes and ears and the ability to think for ourselves. They tried to paint it as a war of words rather than of evidence, and the public as idiot sheep who'd huddle together without discernment.

What it came down to was what seven people on a Virginia jury thought.

They believed you.

They sided with you.

Unanimously.

Sorry, I'm British. I had to.

I can't begin to imagine what it has cost you - physically, emotionally, psychologically - to do this. To lay yourself bare before the world. To have all the lowest points of your life scrutinised, dissected... I imagine you feared the world would judge you harshly, but you did it anyway. 

I am so proud of you.

Not to suggest that you were in any way selfish but I know you told your truth for yourself, for your kids, for the people who matter to you... but this has done so much GOOD. I have seen so many people, men and women, opening up about the DV / SA  / false allegations they have suffered. Men especially are often talking about it for the first time because of you. Whether they were fans before is irrelevant, you're a fucking HERO now.

I really hope you've made inroads to changing the dialogue. Everything has been skewed in favour of women for far too long. A lot of people couldn't even imagine that being the wrong mindset before this. People have seen for themselves how messed up it is that she was believed on her word alone; her word that didn't ring true and a lot of times lacked even basic logic. I suspect there's a long wad to go before there's any real change toward true equality but that's not your battle.

You've fought so long and so hard for this I really hope this is the end of your nightmare.

I wish you healing, rebuilding... I hope your ability to love and trust will recover in time because you truly do deserve all the very best.

With the greatest of respect,

Heggie

JDvsAH

IF YOU CAN'T TELL WHAT THE TRIGGER WARNINGS ARE FROM THE TITLE DO NOT READ

THIS IS AN OPINION PIECE. AN EXPLANATION OF WHY I TOOK A PRO-JOHNNY STANCE LONG BEFORE THIS CASE WENT TO TRIAL AND WHY THAT STANCE HAS REMAINED UNCHANGED

I have been #TeamJohnny from the get-go. Not because I am a fan, but because it was, for me, the logical stance.

I am a female of the species but I identify as agender and I am egalitarian. Oppression, violence, victimhood... these things can be caused or exacerbated by gender but it's not all one way, and the Depp Vs Heard case is a prime example.

Amber Heard was believed because she is a woman. That's it. Not because her claims were proven true, supported by evidence or even plausible. Because of her sex-slash-gender-identity. Like women can't / don't / won't lie. Like they wouldn't lie about THAT.

Can you hear the eyeroll as I typed?!

Anyone can lie. Some more effectively than others. But believing a lie because of the sex of the person telling it? Beyond stupid.

I've had rows on social media with feminazis (so shall I call them if so shall they act) who would believe ANY woman, regardless. They would literally throw their fathers, brothers, partners and sons under the bus on the word of a stranger who just happens to be female. Zero loyalty, zero faith in the men in their lives. Nice.

So yeah, that's my starting point.

I do not #BelieveAllWomen or even #BelieveAllVictims as a default setting. Which is not to say I disbelieve them, of course. But it's this little thing called critical thinking: the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.

I can at least start at the chronological beginning.

When Johnny married Amber my knee-jerk reaction was OMFG he's got himself a gold-digger, she's gonna bring him down. Call it a premonition. I knew NOTHING about this woman.

When Amber first made her claims my knee-jerk reaction was OMFG she went THAT FAR???

First Allegations

In the first instance I don't know either of these people, obviously. However there's always unconscious bias - this is where gender is a very strong factor, along with race. Most people will lean toward the female, especially a pretty blonde one (see Missing White Woman Syndrome) whether they are overtly sexist or racist or not; it's almost a learned behaviour as the news more heavily reports missing white women / children creating the idea that men and women or children of colour are less vulnerable. Meanwhile, there are others who will default in favour of men, wealth, fame, or perceived power.

I defaulted in favour of Johnny Depp. Why? Because I am a misogynist who respects fame & wealth? I certainly hope not. I certainly believe it's because I know OF Johnny (whereas I only knew of Amber as his Mrs), and had been aware of him / his career for decades. I knew the man had substance abuse issues but from the outset it seemed curious that there had never been a sniff of violent or sexual scandal around his name.

Of course you never *know* but the fact he'd worked repeatedly with certain directors (eg. Tim Burton) and actresses (eg. Helena Bonham Carter, Keira Knightly) suggested that he wasn't a monster to work with.

This was a very short time later amplified by two of his highest profile exes (Vanessa Paradis and Winona Ryder) saying publicly NOT me too. Along with a number of co-stars (inc. Penelope Cruz and Kate Winslet) speaking of him positively. Of course, being an abuser in one relationship does not mean you will be in all of them. But, for me, it was telling that a number of high profile women said 'he wasn't like this with ME'. Naturally some of that might have been their fans asking them to say #MeToo or offering sympathy for their presumed past suffering at JDs hands. But again, respect for saying openly that it didn't happen.

Even more telling has been the distinct lack of anyone coming forward to say #MeToo. For a man now 58 that seems pretty solid. The only ex who spoke against him was Ellen Barkin who recalled him once throwing a bottle at a wall, had no idea of the context, and couldn't even remember how long their relationship lasted.

Honestly, at this point I've lost the plot as to when exactly which photos / statements came into the public eye so I'm just gonna look at the salient points individually.

The Photos

The newspapers carried photos of a 'bruised' Amber Heard coming out of court having applied for a restraining order. Even in grainy newsprint it looked like nothing. Looking at the photos presented in court with the 'bruises' supposedly shown in the 'best light' of the apartment and ignoring, for the moment, the idea of filters, resolution discrepancies etc etc I looked at the pics... is that a pimple? is that a mosquito bite? is it blusher? why can't we see her OTHER cheek for comparison?!

That's not to say she didn't have a bruise. *I* don't bruise well, especially on the face for some reason. *I* have tried to photograph injuries and failed. But then *I* have never tried to use my inadequate photos as 'evidence' in the press or in a court room.

Then there's the black eyes, broken nose, split lip that she supposedly had on the James Corden show. Yeah, not believing that either. Makeup on a split lip? I don't think so. Also, where's the show's make up artist testimony? And the mouth stretched wide photos? Lord, give me strength...

The Cabinet Video

When the cabinet video first came out several things were obvious:

• Amber was recording Johnny without his knowledge in his own home which is pretty gross
  
• He's clearly distressed
• She's clearly goading him
• The video was clearly edited

Did I believe it proved anything? Hell no.

Is violence against cabinetry illegal? Not if you own it. Criminal damage at most if you don't.

If fact, I felt it proved the opposite - he's upset, he's goaded... he slams a cabinet door? Fair amount of restraint there. If that's the most damning video you can leak there's a problem with the claim. And before anyone starts with the 'imperfect victim' argument as stated in the summing up:

“If you didn’t take pictures, it didn’t happen.

If you did take pictures, they’re fake.

If you didn’t tell your friends, you’re lying.

If you did tell your friends, they’re part of the hoax.

If you didn’t seek medical treatment, you weren’t injured.

If you did seek medical treatment, you’re crazy,” - Benjamin Rottenborn

She did take photos - but they don't fit with her testimony. We can SEE they're filtered, so yeah, FAKE. She also took videos - none of which managed to capture what she claims was happening. All the way up to this case she's been saying she has copious amounts of damning evidence. The evidence we've now seen, extensively, is 'meh' at best. If she'd made these claims on her WORD alone it would have looked better!

The Bottle Incident

This really needs its own headline but most of my reaction to this is the same as in testimony... it doesn't ring true. It's implausible in the extreme that she could have been assaulted in the way she described.

Sadly there are a LOT of comments online calling this out BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUFFERED IT.

There is NO WAY you can be raped with a bottle and 'not know' if it broke. If you were bleeding and in pain to the point you thought it was broken EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE is not an optional extra. Ms Heard was in no way prevented from seeking medical care - she didn't. She was in no way unable to access medical care due to poverty or location either.

I've seen repeated claims she made and was photographed THE NEXT DAY walking and acting and dressed normally. Things many victims says is simply not possible.

I can't speak for whether those photos were taken the next day but every victim of this kind of assault, bottles broken or intact, says of her account THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. Why do I believe these self-confessed survivors over Ms Heard? Because IT MAKES SENSE. The very idea of being violated with a potentially broken bottle is enough to make most females, if not most people, wince and cross their legs.

We're supposed to believe that Ms Heard was vulnerable, intimidated, trapped in an abusive relationship but where many / most DV survivors are separated and isolated by their abusers - she was surrounded by her employees, her friends, her sister. Many / most DV / SA survivors (in the US) don't have medical insurance or can't access healthcare due to cost, or fear that it'll be reported back to their abuser. That was never her situation and a lot of survivors are pretty angry that a woman with her wealth and privilege is claiming their level of disadvantage.

As with the Rottenborn statement above it's hard to imagine anyone being assaulted the way Ms Heard describes and deliberately NOT seeking help. If she had sought help she certainly wouldn't be 'crazy' for it - there'd be records, PROOFS of what did or did not happen.

The same is true of her alleged broken nose. I got my nose broken. It was on straight, it was not bleeding profusely, so I followed the NHS advice to just let it heal. Therefore it's not on record. It's perfectly possible Ms Heard did the same... but HER FACE IS HER LIVELIHOOD. It stretches credulity that she wouldn't have at least called a professional for advice or get it checked.

The Testimony

I have said it over and over throughout the trial... I expected acting. Both parties are professional, Hollywood actors for heaven's sake. Despite having the above detailed pre-conceived ideas I still expected to have to watch closely for tells and inconsistencies.

Boy, was I wrong.

If Johnny was acting it was immaculate. There are those who criticise his smiling in court but y'all expect stoic, stone-faced for six solid weeks?! He smiled at his team, with whom he clearly had a good rapport. He smiled at certain things that were said on the stand. There was context.

Amber on the other hand... What the HECKAMAJIG was all THAT about?! On the stand she was over-acting in the style of a dramatic five year old. Only most five year olds are more convincing. Fake tears (and I do think she had something untoward in that tissue - not least cos every damn time she wiped her nose on the back of her hand anyway). All the wrong facial expressions. The borderline rage when she was interrupted or corrected. Y'all don't need to be an expert in acting or body language to see that was dodgy AF.

Off the stand she was the epitome of a cold fish. Example: if Dr Curry had been saying such things about me I'd have been in floods of tears, bright red. Telling the world I'm totally unbalanced? There should be emotion. Nothing. Nose in air, perfect Ice Queen. It's not normal, it's not natural, and no power on this earth can convince me it's genuine.

I've seen commentary that Johnny presented badly on the witness stand. I disagree. It's not about 'performance'. A person can be low IQ, mentally impaired, struggle to express themselves and still they deserve to be heard. Johnny was not eloquent, he was not reciting a script; he was hesitant, nervous, embarrassed. 

Aside from expert witnesses, many of Johnny's were friends & employees of long-standing. And an ex girlfriend calling BS on one of Amber's lies about her.

Amber's witnesses included her sister. And a bunch of friends who admitted they'd been freeloading off Johnny.

Johnny's account gelled with what the experts set, what his other witnesses said. At times, even with the opposition testimony!

Amber's made no sense in and of itself and did not match with anyone else's. How can you ever reconcile that? Her testimony didn't gel with the people she and her team *chose* to back her up.

So, I was working on this opinion piece explaining my personal stance between summing up and verdict. I am literally typing this waiting as the clock ticks down and the courtroom filling up... I think I better leave my reaction for another blog. YIKES!

I shred comments like these for breakfast...

If you've had the misfortune to read my blogs before you'll know where this rant is going.

I am an EGALITARIAN. I believe that fundamental equality is an ABSOLUTE BASELINE of where we should be working from as a society. The fact people think there's equality when there blatantly isn't is INFURIATING.

In the interests of full disclosure I identify as agender which basically means keep your gender stereotypes and expectations out of my cornflakes.

I am also an opinionated potato meaning I can't keep my rants to myself if my life depends on it.

And no, I do not apologise for swearing.

So, I saw this comment and just had to shred it:

"How ridiculous, what inequality has his wife suffered because of her "race", she's excelled & married a Prince to boot. His children will thrive just like other children, regardless of their "race", with the added advantage of their wealthy parents which others don't have. As for his daughter having to deal with "gender equality", this is the real world & women are quite able to hold their own with men these days. I doubt very much that Harry and his family will experience the problems that ordinary working class families will."

1) "What inequality has his wife suffered because of her "race"" - first up, FUCK OFF WITH THE SCARE QUOTES. How dare you imply that it's anything less than a real and valid factor in how she's been treated?! How goddamned BLIND are you that you can't see the racism in the thread you are currently commenting on??? One thing that particularly gets me in every damn thread is the microaggression of misspelling her name. Honestly, there's an article where (9 times out of 10) it's in the headline but somehow y'all type 'Megan' over and over.

Here's an example of a multitude of times Meghan has been disrespected for doing the EXACT SAME THINGS as her white sister in law: https://www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

Catherine is disrespected in two ways - calling her Kate which she hates, and referring to her by her maiden name ten years and three kids into her marriage - but never once have I seen her called a gold-digger or a monkey.

Sure, there are a couple of other differences, Meghan is American, an actress and a divorcee... but I personally have never seen one comment that has even implied those factors have anything to do with the constant stream of hate she's been subjected to.

TBH I think that the public's general loathing of Meghan has a lot to do with her cutting out her toxic af abusive father... who just so happens to be her white parent. If she was seen to be 'embracing' her white family (even though they're the worst trash) I imagine the public might be a little kinder. Which is the stupidest reason for keeping a man like Thomas in your life.

2) "she's excelled & married a Prince to boot" - you really can't see this as being the cause of a lot of her problems?! I don't know how much sh*t she got on a daily basis before she was linked to Prince Harry but I am willing to bet vital body parts that it was a drop in the ocean compared to what she's dealt with over the past few years.

3) "His children will thrive just like other children, regardless of their "race", with the added advantage of their wealthy parents which others don't have" First up, not all children thrive... lots of minority ethnic and mixed kids really suffer, especially in an education system which expects them to fail, and often leads them by the hand to that eventuality.

Even if Harry & Meghan opt for private education Archie & Lilibet will still be in a minority. They'll be additionally othered by their royal status too.

And just go look at the substance abuse and suicide rates among the kids of celebrities. Rather than growing up in an ivory tower they tend to burn up under the magnifying glass of public scrutiny. Wealth provides many privileges but it causes many more problems; but more than that it's the royalty aspect... they can never escape. Wealth provides no protection or respite.

4) "As for his daughter having to deal with "gender equality"" again with the scare quotes like gender equality is a thing that exists. Women are asked about babies & relationships in interviews, men are asked about their work. Women serve less time for the same crime, men are less likely to get custody of their children.

There are DOZENS of articles on the sexualisation of young female celebrities, with special attention to how gross it gets when they 'come of age':

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniesoteriou/millie-bobby-brown-18th-birthday-creepy-sexualized-child

https://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/slideshow/2509093/celebrities-sexualized-young/

What on earth makes y'all think Lilibet will escape this???? Even if she's fortunate enough to grow up fat and fugly enough not to be targeted that way she'll be forever disregarded and disrespected as a human being because women pretty much only have value if they're attractive.

Similarly Archie will run a very minimal risk of public comment on his looks or body type. That, my dear gammon, is why gender equality doesn't exist.

5) "this is the real world & women are quite able to hold their own with men these days" Again, the 'real world' (which this guy clearly knows very little about) is rife with gender inequality but women shouldn't have to 'hold their own' like it's a goddamned battle!

6) "experience the problems that ordinary working class families will" Gatekeeping suffering is a really bad look. The bizarre idea that only the 'working classes' experience problems in life... IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT!!! I'd rather be 'poor, obscure, plain and little' than face the wrath that the royal family, celebrities and other in-the-public-eye people face.

The idea that rich people don't suffer like poor people supposedly do is nonsensical. Take the sad, current story about footballer Cristiano Ronaldo and his partner Georgina Rodriguez. Y'all think they don't suffer the loss of their twin baby boy any differently than any working class family?! *Maybe* they're better placed to pay medical costs, funeral costs, therapy to cope with their bereavement... but that's as far as money, status, or privilege goes. The practical aspects only, the pain itself is universal.

There are people bitching about why they were having more children anyway when they already have a daughter together and Ronaldo has other kids via surrogacy (er, large families are okay?), people posting crying-from-laughter emojis, people choosing to make nasty jibes at his skill as a footballer. And I know there's been worse, although thankfully most threads have been good at getting the most offensive stuff deleted fairly quickly.

Even some of the gestures of sympathy are dubious af - everything happens for a reason and it's God's will are incredibly hurtful things to say. Then there's this:

"Liverpool fans are planning a minute's applause in the seventh minute for Cristiano Ronaldo during Manchester United's visit to Anfield this evening following the heartbreaking news of his baby son's death.

Absolutely class!"

How the hell is applauding a dead baby an act of respect or 'class'?! the time-honoured gesture is a SILENCE. I hate to think how the public would react if Archie or Lilibet passed... Commemorative tat memorabilia perhaps?! Just think how Meghan was treated when she revealed she'd miscarried another child... accusations of her cashing in on the loss mama label. Speculation she was lying.

At least most working class families get to suffer their problems, bereavements, etc. etc. in relative obscurity and comparative peace.

Title Fight: Rock vs Smith

 I haven't done a blog in A G E S cos I prefer to vent my spleen at humanity over on Twitter (@HeggieFVK again - my boys are back!!! ;; ) but this one is a gnarly situation...

The Cast
Chris Rock (b. 1965), a 'comedian' of dubious humour
Will Smith (b. 1968), an actor
Jada Pinkett Smith (b. 1971), Will's wife / an actress

The Plot
Rock is presenting the Oscar for best documentary (going to Questlove for 'Summer Of Soul') at the 2022 Academy Awards. Smith is up for (and eventually wins) best actor (King Richard - which it turns out is about tennis and not Shakespeare). But before that can happen Rock goes off script and makes a 'joke' about Pinkett Smith and G.I. Jane 2.

The Event
Smith strides up to the stage and slaps Rock across the face (a lot of reports and comments say it was a punch, depending on exactly what you think you see in the footage, personally I'm not interested in trying to analyse it although I will say that I thought it looked FAKE) before returning to his seat.

The Fall Out
Naturally enough the morning after the night before it's practically the only thing the interwebs are talking about. There are a whole bunch of takes that I'll tackle in no particular order.

1) Violence Is Always Wrong
I don't think there's any disagreement that Smith was at fault. It was an unacceptable reaction. However the calls from certain people (mostly, from what I've seen, outraged white men) for Smith to be stripped of his well-deserved Oscar is also an unacceptable reaction. Sure, Smith may have lowered the tone but Rock used a joke that was not pre-vetted and consequences were had. I feel it is worth noting that Smith apologised to the Academy for his actions... but not to Rock.

2) It was a G.I. Jane joke
This was Rock's response although TBH I'm not clear what he could have meant by that. My INITIAL response was that he was making a rude comment about Pinkett Smith's career. G.I. Jane (1997 movie starring Demi Moore in the title role) was a rubbish film - Moore got a Worst Actress Razzie and it made a loss at the box office Meanwhile Pinkett Smith's movies include a number of sequels, remakes, cameos, voice roles, etc. It's not an exaggeration to say she's most famous for being Mrs Will Smith.

3) Ableism
The G.I. Jane character is most famous for being BALD. Pinkett Smith suffers from alopecia areata, an autoimmune disease. Smith, and a large proportion of the internet denizens putting in their tuppenceworth (myself included) that 'making fun' of people's illnesses, disabilities, visible differences and so forth is entirely unacceptable.
If a 'joke' of that sort was made in a classroom or playground it would be classed as bullying; if it was in a work environment it'd be 'creating a toxic working environment'. The context of an awards ceremony does not make it okay.

4) Political Correctness Will Kill Comedy
First off, Chris Rock isn't remotely funny. Secondly this was not a skit in which fun was made of bald people or bald women, it was a specific comment directed at a specific woman. That's not 'political correctness gone mad', it's being 'anti-bullying'. I dislike the whole 'roasting' thing anyway but certain topics SHOULD be off limits, especially when aimed at individuals.
Since my mum's incapacitation my tolerance for stroke jokes has become non-existent but try to be funny at her expense and I'll show you an alternative meaning of the word 'punchline'.

5) The "maybe Chris Rock didn't know about the alopecia, I didn't" argument
This one is REALLY hard to swallow. Unless Rock had been living under a rock it's really damned unlikely. I don't follow celebrity shit beyond what pootles past my nose when scrolling Twitter but I've known about her alopecia for ages (she was diagnosed in 2018). It's had a lot of publicity.

6) It was just a joke
Okay, so this isn't REALLY a point here but following on from the maybe-he-didn't-know idea... In 2009 Chris Rock PRODUCED AND NARRATED a documentary called Good Hair, on the subject of the importance, social acceptance, and desirability of black American women's hair.
There is literally NO WAY IN HELL he didn't understand that a woman like Jada would hold their hair as an integral part of their identity and grieve its loss. Even if a woman has chosen to shave her head joking about people's appearances is never a good move.

7) Smith is henpecked / cuckolded / at his wife's mercy yada yada yada
Obviously, I don't know these people but I've seen bits and pieces over the twenty four years of their marriage. Whether she has cheated on him or whether they have an open marriage is entirely their business. Personally I dislike the dynamic they have as a couple but if it works for them it has nothing to do with anybody else.
The idea that Will hit Chris because 'Jada made him do it' is not outside the realms of possibility but I dislike the inherent sexism. When a woman is seen to be 'controlled by her husband she is an object of pity; when the reverse seems to be the case he is seen as pathetic, an object of ridicule.
IMHO it looked like Will was laughing uncomfortably at Rock's joke (knowing full well he was on camera, being seen by the world) and then caught the expression of hurt on Jada's face. Knowing that she'd just been insulted before an audience of over fifteen million at the most prestigious awards ceremony in the cinematic world must simply have been too much.
I also want to note here that in a long and prestigious career this is the VERY FIRST TIME I have seen Will Smith's name linked to any kind of questionable behaviour, let alone violence.
Rock however had insulted Jada at the 2016 Oscars too, making fun of her non-appearance as she hadn't been invited to attend. He's been in hot water for other controversial jokes and has not exactly led a squeaky-clean life. People in glass houses and all that...

My Review: Three Stars (wink-wink, get it???)
Violence is a pretty poor response but I can understand it. I have been bullied and I abhor trying to pass off hurtful behaviour as comedy or banter. Everyone sucks here, but Rock somewhat more than Smith.

Unpopular Opinion is Borderline Eugenicist

Original post (numbers are provided for points I'll be elaborating on):

[An Unpopular Opinion post transplanted from Reddit to Instagram]

Older children should not expect children to become unpaid babysitters (1a) for their younger siblings.

Entitled parents should not expect (2) pre teens / teens to share parental duties (1b). Don't have additional kids if you do not have the resources to hire childcare (3). Older children can learn responsibility in other ways that enriches their life (4). They should not be saddled with the burden of parenthood (5).

My response: 

Jeez, not everyone has resources and even if they do circumstances can change (6). Single parents don't have the luxury of paying for childcare so they can go out to earn a minimum wage (7). By the same logic don't get old if you can't afford care... (8)

Annoying bloody human response:

Don't have children if you do not have the resources to care for them (3, 6, 7). YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CHILDREN (9). On top of that, children do not owe their parents anything (10).

My further reply:

I have so many questions... So what are you supposed to do if once having had kids you lose those resources (6)? Lose your job, your partner, your savings, suffer illness, become disabled (6 & 7)? Will you magic your kids out of existence cos you can no longer afford childcare?! And sure children don't OWE their parents anything but when your mum is incapacitated by a severe stroke will you be able to turn your back on her (10)? Is it nice being such a horrible excuse for a human being?

(1) There is a massive difference between babysitting (1a) and parentification (1b). Asking ANY family member to watch a child (or children) on occasion is a normal and acceptable thing to do; asking that person to be a parent to your child is not. That's a given whether it's a grandparent, aunt / uncle, older offspring... The post would have had some validity if it had been taken as the latter but most people seemed unable to differentiate, seemingly saying an older sibling (of any age - 12, 14, 33) should never have to shoulder any responsibilities within their families whatsoever.
If this were purely about parents pumping out sprogs for their older kids to actually parent I would be in absolute agreement. That is most emphatically a form of child abuse (see the 'buddy system' implemented by families such as the Duggar clan - in their case with added sexism cos it's only the GIRLS who are forced to parent their siblings).
I've seen a lot on social media about dads 'babysitting' and pointing out that as a parent it's his DUTY to PARENT and he is emphatically not babysitting. Let's work on that point for a sec... Parenting duties usually fall predominantly on one person regardless of how many adults are involved and people refer to a non-parental duties adult (dad, step parent, poly partner etc) as 'babysitting' when they do it. If the non-parental duties adult(s) are supposed to raise the children - regardless of biological relationship (the number of times I've seen 'don't date someone with kids if you won't be a parent to them' (which is also BS, *IF* you take on parenting duties as a step parent it should *ONLY* be with the express consent of the custodial parent(s)) - is it really any different or extreme to expect older siblings to help out?!
Ever heard of the expression "it takes a village to raise a child"? Yet somehow we expect, nay DEMAND, that a couple (or single parent) do the job 100% alone unless they can AFFORD help.

(2) There is a massive difference between expecting / demanding childcare and needing / asking for it. Again, whether the potential provider is an older sibling or a grandparent or whoever. Taking advantage is wrong.
There is a world of difference between getting your 14 year old to watch their siblings so mum & dad can have a date night or somesuch bollocks and getting the same kid to do the same thing so mum can go to work to earn enough to feed them (see #7).
I'd say this was a thread of entitled lazy brats rather than a legitimate complaint against entitled parents who're actually being shitty.

(3) OP is literally a hair's breadth from eugenics here, essentially arguing that only the wealthy (and presumably those immune to mental and physical weakness) should have breeding rights.
Yikes.
This point also assumes that even if you have one child you will never acquire a step sibling or cousin or whatever for whom they may have childcare responsibilities foisted upon them. It also seems to presume that an only child cannot be neglected to the extent that they have to SELF-PARENT.
Furthermore I be people who spout this shit are the same people who endlessly complain that the people in power on this planet are all part of a super-elite of inherited wealth and status.

(4) Looking out for younger siblings is a principal way in which childcare skills are learned. But yeah, lets just focus on generalised 'responsibility'. 

(5) Assumes all parents chose to be parents. Newsflash sunshine, some of us never wanted kids but they happened anyway. TBH if I'd done babysitting at some point in my youth I'd have been far more careful and far more afraid of what I was getting myself into.
Also having parents is a burden and I never asked to be born (see point #10). Life comes with responsibilities - get over yourselves.

(6) The 'don't have additional kids if' bit REALLY gets me. You can be gainfully employed, a homeowner, have savings, be married when you conceive and lose the whole damn lot before the child is born. You never know what shit life is going to throw at you and only the ultra wealthy are likely to have any immunity against that kind of catastrophic life change. And if that can happen between conception and birth imagine what can happen before a kid reaches adulthood?!
Your partner can leave / refuse to pay child support / die.
You can lose your job / your home / your savings.
You, your partner, or one of your kids could suffer an illness, injury or disability that swallows up everything you have (medical bills, care bills, living aids, being unable to work due to incapacity or hospital visits etc etc) and / or require you to need physical help in looking after the kids you already have.
I find it incredibly elitist and ableist to assume that circumstances will not change. Imagine you are stable, working, have some kids... then a family member gets diagnosed with MS or cancer or something. Most families can't absorb the financial burden of an even like that. And that's assuming only ONE such catastrophic event hits your family.

(7) Personal story here: I was obliged to come off welfare and work instead. Fair enough in principle but I also had to take whatever job I was offered or suffer financial penalties. What I was offered was a split shift cleaning job 0545-0745 and 1700-1900. As I have no car / bike and buses weren't running (not that I could afford them anyway) at that time of the morning I was out of the house a minimum of 6 hours a day (I often did errands and grocery shopping en route cos all that walking destroyed my feet) when my kids were home alone... to earn £7/ hr (minimum wage at the time) for 4 hrs.
Assuming there are any babysitters who would come out at 5am and still only charge minimum wage (which, lets face it, for those antisocial hours isn't going to be a thing) I'd be paying £42 to earn £28 - a £14 loss with NOTHING left to pay the rent, fuel, food etc.
So yeah my then 14 yr old was responsible for her younger sister because there was literally no alternative. And yes, my younger child nearly died and was hospitalised as a direct result of this arrangement. I'm emphatically not recommending this lifestyle BUT I DIDN'T MAKE THE GODDAMNED RULES.
When I had my kids it's not even remotely the circumstances I thought I'd be in - for one thing at that time parents weren't obliged to work until their youngest was 16! Now it's something insane like 3 and I should consider myself 'lucky' it was 'only' 11 in my day.
How is a single parent supposed to feed their kids if they can't work?! Again, back to point #6 that just cos you have a partner at conception doesn't mean they'll stick around and not die. Anyone can end up a single parent and trust me, it's HARD.

(8) If you need to be able to 'afford childcare' (to an unknowable extent, at an unknown future rate of pay) to have kids what about getting older? Sure, paying into a pension and having a savings pot against incapacity would be good for those of us on a low or no income basis what do you suggest? Should I guzzle a case of quince gin and go for a swim when the time comes so as to reduce the burden on my kids? I certainly can't 'afford' to get old, especially if I end up like my mum...
I think we should have a Hurling Day like that episode of Jim Henson's Dinosaurs where elderly & infirm members of the herd are hurled (often by a son-in-law) off a cliff and into a tar pit. Okay, if it were actually a thing it'd probably be a rather kinder form of euthanasia but I hope I've made my point: we all face expenses we can't meet. The 'fortunate' among us won't encounter them or will die before we reach such a state of vulnerability. The rest of that need is largely met by a veritable army of unpaid carers without whom society would grind to an abrupt halt (see also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0yPZYBCuQU). And in that, lets not forget that an awful lot of those unpaid carers are themselves CHILDREN who society as a whole does little to nothing to assist. Yes, it's a bloody disgrace but blaming the parents for their own hardships is NASTY.

(9) Agreed. Children are NOT an entitlement or a fashion accessory. But coming back to point #3 berating poor or disadvantaged people for choosing to have a family is elitist, eugenicist bullshit. And if poor / disadvantaged people aren't 'entitled' to have a family what are you gonna do? Penalise them into greater poverty? Bring back workhouses or forced sterilisations? GENOCIDE???

(10) While I agree in principle many countries require children to pay for their parents' old age care and China has a law forcing adult kids to visit their elderly parents. In parallel we maybe should argue that kids aren't owed a particular type of childhood.
There's been at least a proposition of a law that parents have to love their kids... Sorry but that's not a thing that can be forced. Just because you have crotch goblins doesn't mean you automatically love or even like them.
Again, my personal story: my mum was a cold fish; I could never have described our relationship as close. But when she had a severe incapacitating stroke not only could I not in a gazillion years afford her care I also couldn't face dumping her in one of those awful places. The 'care' she got in an NHS hospital was appalling so heaven knows how bad it gets in those death waiting rooms.
Maybe I don't 'owe' her care in her decline but I am not such a terrible person as to ditch her. I don't even know if I could do that to my dad and he's a right toxic asshole.
I wonder if OP / asshat commenter would really be so agreeable if their beloved and pampered only child (as I would presume their crotch goblin to be if they stick to their principles) leaves home at 18 and never contacts them again cos "I don't owe you anything!"?

I may have asked the questions but I don't care to return to see if they answer any of them.
It is against my beliefs to ill-wish them but I kinda hope karma gives them a wake up call such as they end up a single parent of a half dozen kids with no familial support and minimal income and see how they fare. Their complete lack of empathy or understanding of hardships is staggering.
I privately judge other people's life choices as much as anyone; I'm particularly harsh on myself for ending up in this mess. But telling people they shouldn't have had their kids is VILE.
Mind you, I almost wish I was a callous, heartless individual who'd managed to dump my kids and my parents and have a life of my own but it wasn't to be.

Conquering 2021

Following on from 'My name is Heggie and I am an Addict' I decided to kick off 2021 with a The Conqueror / My Virtual Mission themed resolution. This is what was available at the start of the year:

In 2020 I completed NINE virtual challenges:

• Inca Trail, Peru (walking) 42 km
• Grand Canyon, USA (rowing) 451 km
• Ring Of Kerry, Ireland (cycling) 200 km
• Camino de Santiago, France-Spain (walking) 772 km
• Great Ocean Road, Australia (rowing) 240 km
• Alps to Ocean, New Zealand (cycling) 290 km
• Mount Fuji, Japan (climbing* + walking) 74 km
• Cabot Trail, Canada (cycling) 297 km
• Conquer 2020 (all of the above but with some extras - total 2020 miles)

I started in May and completed everything in advance of the New Year with the intent of having all 2021's challenges similarly completed within the calendar year.

I try to do each challenge in an apt way for the route (so I won't be doing the English Channel until I can swim it). I have an old rowing machine, in mid 2020 I acquired a recumbent exercise bike and climbing machine and, at the end of the year, I finally got an elliptical cross trainer.

I started 2021 with SIX challenges live and a SEVENTH code in the pipeline:

• Pyramids of Giza, Egypt (climbing* + walking) 75 km
• Mount Everest, Nepal (climbing* + elliptical) 64 km
• Ring Road, Iceland (cycling) 1332 km
• Land's End To John O'Groats (AKA LE JOG), UK (walking) 1743 km
• Appalachian Trail (AKA AT), USA (climbing* + elliptical + walking + rowing) 3167 km 
• Conquer 2021 (all of the above) set at 4040 miles being double 2020's target

* Climbing elements are the minimum amount required to cover the height of the whatever using a climbing machine and the conversion chart (1 min = 0.22 km); so the height of Mt Fuji, the sum heights of the principal pyramids, the height of Mt Everest, and the heights of TWELVE specially selected mountains of the Appalachians (namely: Mt Mitchell - the highest point, Currahee, Bear's Paw, Owl's Head, Goose Eye, Camel's Hump, Peaks Of Otter, Dick's Knob, Kitty Ann, Seven Sisters, Pixie, and Misery)

So here we are, in mid September (I meant to revisit this mid year but it's been a bit hectic, as always)... how's it going?!

Well, I got Giza and Everest completed pretty quickly although I have since decided to re-do the distance for Everest as ALL climbing and add that to AT. AT has been extended into 2022 to the max number of weeks as I am MONTHS behind. Not least as the goddamn cross trainer BROKE after a couple of months! I consequently changed my Conquer 2021 to a more attainable 4444km.

In the end I gifted that seventh code (for Hadrian's Wall) to my daughter (who I introduced to The Conqueror gifting her codes for Flower Route and Conquer 2021).. and bought several more for myself:

A Kruger Park challenge was introduced and then withdrawn due to complaints the route was too long & boring (they'll be relaunching it soon) so I signed up to the original before it was discontinued - I am cycling that in tandem (separate distances) with Ring Road. I am close on target with both - catching up and slipping behind again - but basically on track.

I bought the Marathon To Athens one and did the full thing overnight* August 27-28 styled as my Stupidly Long Walk™. I set out before 8pm, walked to Reading, caught a train to Slough and then walked back again via Eton, Windsor, Ascot, Bracknell... Bumped into my dad and daughter at Woosehill and didn't have the willpower to refuse a lift home at which point I discovered I was 1.3 miles short... which I did around the block! It was quite the adventure. The route through Windsor Great Park was impossible as gates were locked overnight so I ended up on country roads with no footpaths or lighting. I took a wrong turn outside Bracknell and ended up having two rest breaks on the same bench!

*I LOVE walking overnight. Less people, less traffic, less heat in summer (so less fluids to carry) and infinitely easier to take comfort breaks whenever needed!

As I set out - 7:50pm

My trainers after a good trashing, just north of Martin's Heron - 4:30am

Fortunately I took spare (if equally pre-battered) spare trainers. Unfortunately I neglected to take spare socks.

I have bought codes for a number of challenges I want to do when I've finished my current lot: Mount Kilimanjaro, Cote d'Azur, Trek to Petra, North Coast 500 and Pacific Crest Trail (PCT).

I will be doing PCT post mum. It's 2485 miles / 4000km but I have a cunning plan:

"They say you don't know someone else's struggles until you have walked a mile in their shoes? Well, I'm adding a mile for every day I've been looking after my mum. She suffered a severe stroke, unusually affecting both hemispheres of her brain, on 16th April 2018. While she was in hospital I visited her and ran errands and prepped the house to become her carer. None of my other challenges has included any distance from physically caring for her... from doing up to six loads of laundry in a day or dealing with the second major stroke which hit during lockdown and we honestly believed was the end... so I have no qualms about having covered an actual mile for each of those days - right up to her passing on [TBC]"

Will I finish LEJOG by New Year's Eve?! Who the hell knows... but I'm still trying.

I bit off more than I could chew this year but I am set to carry on indefinitely!

Rant-19

The advert ends on the note: "look them in the eyes and tell them you're doing all you can to stop the spread of Covid-19"

WHY??? The vast majority of people who contract Covid-19 do not get seriously ill. Indeed, at least a third never develop any symptoms at all. Yet all are obliged - by law and by force and by threat and by fine - to suffer for a proportionally small minority. And now they add emotional blackmail.

Let's have them, those who are seriously ill, those who have lost loved ones, LOOK THE REST OF THE POPULATION IN THE EYES and say I don't give a fuck for your life, your death, your mental health, your education, your future. Because that's what it boils down to. Sure, if you get covid or lose someone to it that SUCKS but so does cancer or stroke or heart disease or cot death or suicide or any disease under the sun.

Babies are suffering abnormal development and non-existent socialisation. This is the largest involuntary social experiment of all time and may well have lifelong negative consequences. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-babies-toddlers-education-development-school-playgrounds-b1042852.html

Children are losing out on their educations. Disruption in the early years we have known for decades is immensely harmful but we also have kids getting 'results' for exams not sat! IF my daughter graduates this summer it will be from having HALF her time at university stripped away. £9000 per year student debt for NO support, NO services, NO library, NO facilities and precious little by way of education. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1390586/coronavirus-news-university-students-fees-online-learning Will her degree even be respected by employers who'll know she didn't attend lectures?!

We are facing a mental health crisis of unparalleled proportions. From the obvious stresses of those on the 'frontlines' https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jan/31/covid-stress-driving-hundreds-of-childcare-workers-to-quit-profession to the parents who're trying to work full-time from home while trying to teach their kids full time; or people like me who are caring for a loved one with no support and no respite. We're told to 'Protect the NHS' but the NHS has an appalling track record for mental health support. I told my GP I was suicidal; he replied "I don't care", it was SIX YEARS between my kid's suicide and the eventual referral to CAHMS. There'll be multi-generational depression, PTSD, social anxiety, eating disorders and substance abuse. TBH my family already had all of this BEFORE so you can only imagine what a mess we'll be afterwards. Then there's postnatal depression https://www.itv.com/news/2020-12-18/how-covid-restrictions-are-fuelling-a-postnatal-depression-crisis putting mother & baby's lives at risk. This is not a society but a sham; we are not supporting each other, we're cowering in fear and leaving the most vulnerable exposed.

Businesses are going belly-up at an alarming rate https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/0/job-losses-uk-coronavirus-covid/ the future is a terrifying prospect of unemployment, crushing national debt, devastating poverty, and empty high-streets. Y'all can argue that you can't put a price on people's lives but POVERTY KILLS.

People are suffering and dying of covid alone which is horrific and inhumane https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-55725812 but what of the (so far) hundreds of thousands of people who're suffering and dying alone of other causes or the (so far) tens of thousands of people whose cancer diagnoses have been delayed or missed entirely https://www.ajmc.com/view/diagnostic-delays-from-covid19-may-increase-cancerrelated-deaths-uk-studies-say.

Death rites are vitally important for the grieving process but we're severely limiting this crucial rite of passage from denying people contact with their loved ones to preventing funeral attendance. When my cousin Allister was dying of brain cancer his parents did a mercy dash to his bedside; his funeral was attended by hundreds. It was still devastating, especially for his parents, burying a second son in a year and a half, but seeing him one last time, seeing the church at standing-room only must've been some small comfort. To think of people like them being denied that is agonising.

"During the national lockdown, no more than 6 people can attend commemorative events such as stone setting ceremonies, the scattering of ashes or a wake." - www.gov.uk

Six people isn't even the immediate family in many instances!

Telling parents they can't even support each other at the side of their premature and critically ill baby is one of the most horrific, inexcusable things I can imagine https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-55840222 unless it's not being able to register and grieve a baby's loss https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-52663205. Or perhaps this https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-heartbreak-teenagers-funeral-limited-21741773 to lose a child after a life-long illness; having anticipated a celebration of her life as a means for the parents to cope with her loss only to have to settle for near enough nothing. It's beyond cruel.

Look a child in the eyes and tell them their education and future doesn't matter.

Look a stressed out and desperate single mother in the eyes and tell her that her isolation and trauma don't matter. Say it again over the grave of the baby she smothered when it all got too much.

Look a man who's gone bankrupt in the eyes and tell him that losing his business, his home, his relationship and his self-respect to the lockdowns isn't as important as a stranger's health. Look his widow in the eyes after he dies of suicide and say it again.

Look an old woman in the eyes and tell her she can't say goodbye to her husband at the end of her life. Tell her she can't see the children and grandchildren she now hasn't seen in a YEAR. Tell those children that they can't offer their father comfort at her funeral.

If you can do any one of those things you're a truly horrible person. But we're all sitting in our homes, protecting our own miserable little lives and allowing this to happen. History is not going to judge us kindly. The moment I knew we were beyond salvation was when the churches locked their doors. The faithful ministering to the sick and dying during times of plague is inspiring; this is the opposite. We have withdrawn kindness under the false guise of protecting others.

One person's life or death is not more important than another's; the many should not be sacrificed for the few.

Humans are mortal; we're all going to die. Diseases are normal and natural, especially one like this that kills the elderly and the chronically ill - the reason the 1918 flu pandemic was so horrifying was that it killed the young and otherwise healthy. Yet in 2009 when the Swine Flu pandemic killed children and pregnant women NOTHING closed, nothing changed. My kid had it - she wasn't tested or seen by a doctor; her school didn't close or even do a deep clean. She survived, 392 others didn't... but at the time of the first lockdown only 400 or so people had died in the UK. How come nothing was done on the back of nearly 400 YOUNG deaths when the entire country was shut for just over 400 primarily OLD people?! Sure, a lot more have died now but thousands die in every seasonal flu outbreak but we go on as usual. Our population is aged and unhealthy, people have been dying at proportionally slower rates for decades. The population crisis has been under discussion for years - we NEED a pandemic to redress the balance and, for the survival of the species, this isn't even the tip of the iceberg.

In 1900 the world population was approx. 1.6 billion; now it's nearly 7.8 billion and that's with two World Wars (WWI 15-22,000,000 dead; WWII 20-85,000,000 dead), the 1918 pandemic 17-100,000,000 dead), HIV/AIDS (32,700,000 dead), and the advent of birth control! More than quadrupled in 120 years with HUGE losses. Covid's currently at 2,230,000. The death toll, taken alone or in proportion to population, just doesn't warrant the devastation the INTERVENTIONS are wreaking.

I'm not afraid of covid; of dying myself or losing loved ones to it. I'm afraid of surviving this hell and trying to rebuild. People dying is sad but IMHO people who wrap themselves in cotton wool and leave the rest of 'society' to rot aren't worth saving.