Matt Osborne

I’ve recently decided to re-educate myself – although I’m sure in these seemingly politically-correct days I should use the correct management parlance and confirm that I am on an upskilling programme. Whatever.

At a recent class, I was somewhat bemused as the lecturer drew a timeline on the whiteboard (is that an acceptable term still?) and annotated a vertical line with ‘BCE’ to the left, and ‘CE’ to the right. Before I could raise a hand, it was explained that we don’t use BC and AD anymore…

Apparently ‘Before Christ’ and ‘Anno Domini’ are terms that are no longer used – who knew (not me – clearly)? The new terms on the block are ‘Before the Common Era’ and the ‘Common Era’.

I realise I may not be breaking any news here – the London Evening Standard wrote about this back in 2002; writing that:

“The term ‘Common’ refers to the fact that the Christian calendar is the most frequently used around the world”.

So why have we adopted a secular approach to this chronological convention? Was anyone offended by the term ‘Before Christ’?

All of the Abrahamic religions acknowledge that Jesus existed – accepting that His role was either the son of God, a Prophet or a joiner (depending on one’s beliefs).

I don’t recall any outcries from the non-Christian faiths; nor can I bring to mind any campaigns to eradicate the terminology from secular sections of society – so why the change?

I’m not offended when I visit other countries and see a map of the world with the country I’m in at the centre (instead of the Greenwich Meridian) – although it does look ‘weird’ I confess – I simply accept that I’m seeing the world from a local perspective.

If I travel to Ethopia I wouldn’t be offended by their use of the Coptic calendar – and nor would they be with our use of the Christian one.

The irony of this change is that ‘Common’ was used, I believe, by ancient Christian monks in the 3rd century to denote the change from the ‘Vulgar’ years – those before Christ!

If we accept that those who use the Christian calendar are of a Christian denomination; or reside in a country that is predominantly so (and therefore ‘common’), whose sensitivities does this change seek to protect?

I realise I’m massively behind the drag curve here – but where and when does this kind of nonsense stop?

Many people are happy to celebrate the 25th of December with their family without wishing Jesus a ‘Happy Birthday’ – or did I miss the point when atheists stopped giving presents and having good cheer?

Maybe they do just get up and mumble ‘Merry Common Day’ into their cornflakes after all?

If religious historians can’t agree whether Yeshua of Nazereth (Jesus) was born in the autumn or the winter – or whether the term BC actually has Christian origins, then surely it’s about time (predominantly) white apologists stop wreaking havoc by stopping offence before it is created.

Maybe they already have – I’m 13-years late already it would seem.

Did you know about this move away from BC and AD? What are your thoughts on the change? Let everyone know in the comments section below.

‘Prevent’, ‘Safeguarding’, ‘Early Intervention’, ‘Child Obesity Intervention’ are but some of the UK Government’s action plans that charge public servants with looking out for the myriad of warning signs in our nation’s youth population.

But how much reliance is society placing on our over-stretched public sector in order to prevent our young from becoming fat jihadists who struggle at school and have a penchant for burgers? Who is responsible for our kids?

Whilst the general public bemoans the mistakes of social workers, teachers, healthcare professionals and others; and as the media contentedly rolls out the latest guffaw over how a pupil’s use of the phrase ‘eco-terrorism’ results in a chat with Special Branch – or worst still when an ‘avoidable tragedy’ is laid bare for all to see – at what point do parents and guardians step up to the plate and accept some responsibility?

‘If my kids become radicalised; it’s my fault – I haven’t talked to them enough.’

‘If my kids become fat; it’s my fault – I haven’t managed their diet or healthcare well enough.’

‘If my kids are rude and arrogant; it’s my fault – I haven’t brought them up to be polite and respectful.’

‘If my kids fail at school; it’s my fault – I haven’t impressed upon them the importance of education.’

‘If my kids break the law; it’s my fault – I haven’t taught them virtue, morality and respect for others.’

‘If my kids become embroiled in a ‘sexting’ scandal; it’s my fault – I haven’t taken the time to discuss the perils of social media with them, or the importance of respect and consent.’

‘If my kids don’t turn out to be rounded individuals (balanced – not body shape) then it isn’t the fault of teachers, nurses, police constables, vicars, imams, phone companies, internet service providers or agony aunts – its mine.’

Whilst government interventions are of value, they must be a second or third line of defence; the first line of defence rests with parents (mums, dads, grandparents, foster parents, social workers, carers and extended families).

This is a utopian vision I know – and many kids out there don’t have the support of a traditional modular family; but I’d rather see tax payers’ money invested in mentoring programmes – not ‘interventions’ based on sound-bites for the media.

How would you ensure all children receive these vital conversations as they grow? Who should facilitate them? Perhaps you have a different view on intervention programmes.