Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A SURVEY TODAY found less than half of Irish parents read to their children every day.
The survey by St Michael’s House, which provides services for children and adults with intellectual disabilities, revealed 44% of adults believe they read more as a child than their children do now.
It got us feeling all nostalgic for the days of being tucked up cosy in bed, battling the sleep so we could hear whether Little Red Riding Hood’s granny would be alright or just to laugh at our parents’ funny impressions.
Here are some of the memories that came back to us…
We’re Going on a Bear Hunt. I remember it being really soothing and kinda almost musical in how it would be read. The illustrations are really nice and since I loved it so much my mum recommended it to other parents and for each it became one of their favourites.
I had a Ladybird version of Goldilocks and The Three Bears before I even started talking and my mam read it to me every day because I was really into books. The words in it made up some of my first and when I was two my parents managed to convince my cousin I could already read because I had memorised all the pages and murmured things like “too hot” or “just right” as I turned the pages.
Enid Blyton was the one and only in my house and if my parents has guests over I would demand they read me my bedtime story – I think I just liked to mix it up a bit. They had a BBQ one night and I asked for ‘the man with the funny accent’ to read to me. The poor man – from Northern Ireland – gave in to my request and read Goldilocks or something to me. (Sorry I wasn’t a very PC child – in fairness I thought his accent was great!)
I have an abiding memory of this book being read to me as a child:
Absolute nerd alert. Does anybody remember the Childcraft series of books? They were like the World Book but for young kids. We used to get read them. They were nature, science, maths, geography and other fun learning! It also had a Stories one with fairy tales. I think they were mostly Aesop’s Fables. There was also another set of moral tales called Chicken Licken.When we were allowed have fun, we loved the Mr Men and Little Miss books.
My dad did an amazing Gollum impression reading The Hobbit. I can’t believe he was overlooked for the films.
I can’t really remember the specific books from when I was really young, but there was no shortage of Famous Five / Secret Seven / Roald Dahl books in the house after that. My dad always used to ask “Will I read it to you or give you the synopsis?” And that’s how I learned the meaning of the word synopsis.
And this classic was a favourite with one of our staffers:
Your turn – share your memories and preferences in the comments below.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
It’s like a dictatorship without due process and no justice
@Joe Johnson: why were these witnesses not called during the House proceedings?
The case has been made in the House and the Senate has the right to review the case as presented.
@milton friedman: eh “they; Trumps lot and he blocked them there as well , make no mistake a dictator in the making
@milton friedman: Because Trump BLOCKED them.
You know this.
Stop being disingenuous!
@Joe Johnson: ha what are you on about, the republicans were not allowed to call joe/hunter Biden as witnesses,,swings both ways
@milton friedman: They were called… but they either refused to stand witness or were blocked by the White House from doing so. Documentation requests were also refused by the White House.
@RAYZ88: How would either of the Bidens be witness to the phone calls and actions by Trump and his administration? This is an investigation in to abuse of power and obstruction of congress by Trump. It’s not an investigation in to the Bidens.
@RAYZ88: And did Joe/Hunter Biden have evidence relating to Donald Trump using the power of the office to force a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election? OR ARE YOU DEFLECTING?
@PeterC: Are you reading my mind!!!?
@Declan Crowley: ah so these are the White House staff the wish to call as witnesses. Ok fair enough Trump did block them.
@Tricia G: you’ll find that the republicans tried to call witnesses in the first hearings and were blocked by Shiff. Now the democrats are calling new witnesses(which weren’t called in the first one) and now the republicans are blocking them.
It’s all a game of one up man ship. Both sides know the end result it’s who can cause the other side more damage. If I was American I’d be looking for both houses(and Trump) to be fired and new people in.
@Cormac Flanagan: You are LYING. They were called. They refused.
There were many subpoenas issued by the House that were NOT honoured.
Both for documents AND witnesses.
And the witnesses the Republicans wanted to call the Bidens.
What the Republicans want you to believe it those that are refusing to testify under oath are telling the truth and those that testified under oath are lying.
If they’re telling the truth why won’t they testify under oath?
You are attempting to deflect from the Republican’s blatant cover-up by suggesting the Dems are at fault.
That’s nonsense.
@Tricia G: they actively blocked the whistleblower(the person who started all this) from testifying. Now they may have there reason but to block the person making the allegation makes a joke of the process.
They tried to get him with the Russiagate and it failed. This is just another(poor) attempt to get him. Which is worse. Trump has admitted in speeches to far worse and they haven’t gone after him(yet).
What will happen is they’ll lose in the senate. They’ll wait till November. If Trump gets in and they get a majority in both houses they’ll try again. As I said it’s all a game.
@Tricia G: you cant reason with some. Nor do these same people bother with facts, only what they want to believe or twist. Sort of like brexiteers.
@RAYZ88: They are impeachment hearings of Donald Trump! What does Hunter Biden know about Donald Trumps conspiracy to withhold congressional and senate approved aid to Ukraine? Nothing because he isn’t involved thus can’t be a witness as he has nothing to testify to.
@Cormac Flanagan: Glad you brought up the whistleblower. Democrats argued, rightly in my opinion, that the whistleblower had a statutory right to anonymity. Notwithstanding that the whistleblower merely exposed the breach which was then clarified by a number of those actually involved (what would the whistleblower add?), you only have to look at the damage and false attacks done to Maurice McCabe for rightly lifting the lid on the corruption within our own Garda Siochana. If whistleblowers didn’t have the right to anonymity, how do you adequately protect them?
@Tricia G: Great minds!
@Cormac Flanagan: because there are laws protecting whistleblowers and the whistle blower followed the correct channels given trumps vindictiveness to anyone who speaks out. The substance of the complaints have been confirmed anyway by the state department witness that were called during the hearings.
@PeterC: and I agree he should have been protected. But a quick google search will get you the name of the whistleblower, rightly or wrongly he will now have to give evidence.
@Cormac Flanagan: After the release of the phone transcript there was no requirement to interview the whistleblower.
Using the argument of the GOP that individual overheard the phone call, but the White House actually released the transcript which is primary source info.
@Jonathan Morgan: well if that’s the argument then most of the witnesses were irrelevant because most just gave evidence of the phone call, who was there etc. If he had so little evidence to give and he’s name was out why not allow him be called. Then we don’t have the situation there in now with the republican acting like babies saying well you blocked out requests so we’re blocking yours.
The Dems are doing the right thing, for the wrong reasons and wrong way. All this is about the primaries in November. There all getting their sound bites in. And for those in the red/blue states they have to follow party lines or not get back in
@Joe Johnson:
Trump and his legal reps were denied due process in the House, don’t you recall? if it’s good enough for the Dems then it’s good enough for the Republicans
@Cormac Flanagan: Right then, if that’s your logic, the whistleblower is also just another to give evidence of a phone call he heard but was not actually party to. Which brings us back to original argument – Why not let those who were actually on the call or played a specific part in the contents of the call, testify during the impeachment?
@Raven: “Denied due process”? That’s a fairly blanket statement. Care to elaborate?
@Paul Furey: you can’t reason with TDS victims.
@PeterC: I’m saying by blocking the whistleblower from giving evidence even tho as you said his evidence is not that important it gives the Reps the opportunity(which there taking) to block other witnesses.
Also why bring in new witnesses now. If there evidence is so important why weren’t they called in the first hearing. And if there evidence is not important(like the whistleblower) why call them.
@PeterC:
Didn’t the Dems interview their “witnesses” in the basement of capitol hill, Trump and his lawyers were denied access to cross examine the very same witnesses. Clear enough?
@Raven: that wasn’t what happened – and that wasn’t the ‘trial’ – try to keep up
@milton friedman: they were called, they just refused to come
@Dave Hammond:
I’m sure Trumps legal team have a better grasp of what happened than you with your third hand, hear say, he said, she said , CNN fairytales.
And where did I mention trial? – try keep up. :)
This is a joke
This was always going to happen. Everybody knew this. The democrats are wasting time and money.
@Marcia Craine: Attempting to show that a President isn’t above the law by circumventing Congress and obstructing justice? It would be a constitutional failure if they didn’t impeach him. Not allowing key witnesses by the Republicans is a two fingers to the US people, constitution and rule of law.
@Marcia Craine: BS! They’re doing their jobs!
This is such a rubbish argument. Don’t do your job because the people you’re depending on to do theirs are refusing.
Democratic voters are also watching. The polls make it clear that the population want to see witnesses. They’re pretty damning!
@Tom Cullen: correct. Abuse of power is an impeachable offence and the list of impeachable offences still grows.
An absolute farce, the Senate should hold their heads in shame, a dictator in the making, and they are letting it happen, all because they want to get voted back in and keep their jobs , utterly biased, and guaranteed he will be found not guilty , even tho the dogs in the street know he is guilty…
@Declan Crowley: “dictator in the making”… “want to get voted back in” Consistent stuff.
Title should read; Democrats Hoax Impeachment Proceedings Get Underway.
@BOH®: No, it should not.
@Tricia G: oh wait, I’m wrong. Just like the Russian Collusion, and the Stormy Daniels thing, and all the other lies. So, the most harassed man on the planet should get impeached over a phone call he made to another guy, even when that other guy says nothing wrong happened. The harassed man even releases the transcript to show he’s nothing to hide. God, it all makes perfect sense now. Impeach Trump. WOOOOOOO!!
It would be too exonerating
There isn’t a snowball in hell’s chance that “Impartial Justice” will be served in the US Senate during this trial!
@Joe L: Just like the impartial House that put it through?
The eye balls of politicians are not connected to their brains!
have your say