Sorry folks, but it was all so predicatable. Of course Jacqui Smith did wrong. Of course an investigation would return that verdict. Of course she would be made to show contrition, although how you can show what you do not have is a mystery to me, it's akin to shoving the wierd kid into the stinging nettles at school and being made to say sorry, even when it is obvious that you aren't. It's what nice people do, and we must appear nice, even if we're not.
Of course she wouldn't get punished. It's an inside job.
Of course those with relatively small amounts of moody expenses would be told to pay them back.
Of course they, in the main, know that this will make it all OK. It would happen to you if you 'mis-claimed' benefits. If you paid it back, you'd be fine.
Wouldn't you?
Nothing will change. Oh, the rosettes worn by the people walking into the offices of state will change, but there will be no change.
That's not their fault, it is our fault. We are, as a nation, stupid enough to vote for them time and again, expecting change and then scratching our heads when none comes.
Perhaps the penny will drop, but I doubt it.
I am a Libertarian Party member, and believe that we should effect change via the electoral system. However I also understand that I am in a minority, both in my party membership and in my desire to do things by the book.
Look out for the EDL, look out for the enviromentalists, look out for the BNP, look out for the disapproving groups hurling abuse at returning soldiers.
Every single group has no confidence in those elected to represent them, nor in the system that gives them access to the levers of power. Increasingly desperate stunts will take place. Protests will increase and become increasingly more forceful. Increasingly desperate people will turn to violence. Hatred and resentment at anyone representing authority will grow.
Who is to blame? Well, to borrow a phrase from good old Gordon; we're all in this together. The politicans have abused and taken advantage of us, like an abusive partner. Like a weak, abused partner, incapable of breaking the cycle, we keep letting them back in.
We have no-one to blame but ourselves, and we will reinforce the cycle by returning the same people again.
When will we learn?
Perhaps we already have, perhaps these groups are like the abused partners, smacked in the mouth once too often. Divorce court? Pah! The iron or the frying pan are in easy reach, and they'll resolve the situation much quicker than some avaricious divorce solicitor.
I wouldn't want to win this coming election for all the tea in China.
Showing posts with label rage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rage. Show all posts
Monday, 12 October 2009
Tuesday, 11 November 2008
The One That Thinks They Are Thinking Of The Wrong Children . . .
Sky have been leading with the story of a thirteen year old girl refusing a heart transplant all morning.
Hannah Jones, who I have just seen being interviewed on Sky News, is a very mature, articulate, intelligent and well brought up young lady who has suffered from Leukemia and now 'needs' a heart transplant. Having been in and out of hospital for the vast majority of her short life, she's decided she's had quite enough of that thank you very much and has elected to refuse treatment. A right which I understood to be the most basic a patient has. She has the full support of her parents (her mother is a former ICU nurse, so has some idea of what is going on), but the local 'Child Protection Officer' sees things differently, and threatened that the police would turn up with an ambulance and forcibly remove her from her home and cart her off for this operation.
There is no certainty that this most traumatic of operations would extend her life by any meaningful period. One can only wonder what quality that life would offer as well. Local health officials even went so far as to go to the High Court to apply for an order enforcing Hannah to go and have the operation, but thankfully the procedings have been dropped.
You see, Hannah is a child. Therefore her opinion on her own destiny is irrelevant. Everybody knows better than her. Her parents agree with her (and can you imagine the sheer horror of having this conversation with your thirteen year old daughter?), as they do not share the views of the The Righteous individual(s) dealing with this case, they must be threatened with the courts, police and criminal procedings. How dare those parents have the temerity to question the infinite wisdom of these officials? They are going to lose their daughter, and because they've not toed the line, they must lose everything else. These dissenters cannot be tolerated.
If only these efforts had been employed in the case of 'Baby P' a 17 month old boy who was covered in sores and bruises, had eight broken ribs, had been smashed in the mouth so hard that it was ripped, along with his nose, and had swallowed a tooth. His fingertips had had their tissue destroyed and he was missing a number of fingernails he had also broken his back. He had been a regular visitor to the hospital and a number (five, I believe) of social workers had accepted the accounts of the child's mother as to how his continuing injuries came to be. Perhaps unsurprisingly he now lies dead.
When released from hospital, with previous injuries, Met Police recommended that he not be handed back to his mother. Haringey Social Services chose not to follow this advice.
Predictable calls for an inquest have been made, and the question 'has nothing been learned from the Climbie case?' will be an oft-heard cry over the next few days.
What the fuck? What where these individuals doing? I appreciate that social workers have a tough job, but this is their equivalent of a policeman happening across a jewellers with alarms ringing and some men with shotguns and bulging bags marked 'swag' running out and jumping into a waiting car, and then accepting the explanation that it is an elaborate practical joke.
How could you not see what was going on? Even bloody plod managed it, I can only imagine the immense anger that the police involved in this case feel, and can only wonder if the Social Services wonk's first thought is 'well, that's my job then.'
Perhaps if you'd spent a little less time on people like Hannah Jones and rounding up slightly tubby kids to be taken into care, irrespective of how good, loving and supportive their home life is and spent more time thinking 'Hey, how'd that little baby break eight of his ribs?' This situation would have been avoided.
Call me an old cynic, but as no details of the boy's mother or her boyfriend have been released, I'm betting they're black. I'm not suggesting that this abuse took place because that is what is expected of black parents, I'm suggesting that the authorities would tip-toe all around the abuse issue for fear of being labelled racist.
One final point. Whilst driving home from work yesterday I was listening to a debate on Simon Mayo's show on BBC Radio 5. It was about adoption, and the ridiculous policy that the racial, cultural and linguistic heritage of a child is the most important consideration in adoption placements. In short, if you are white, forget adopting a black child. If you are black, forget adopting an Asian child. If you are Asian, forget adopting a white child.
Quotes attributed to the powers that be included such things as 'it would be more beneficial for a child to remain in care than to join a trans-racial family' and 'given the history I could never let a white family adopt a black child.' As a result of this odious and racist policy there are scores of Black and Asian children who are denied a stable and loving family environment for no other reason than the colour of their skin. This is repellent.
I do not respond to the dogwhistle of 'won't somebody think of the children?' But when the children really do need somebody to give them very serious thought, they are the secondary consideration behind what the political implications of the situation are.
It fills me with near incoherent, violent rage.
UPDATE
Some of the Social Workers have been given written warnings. I do not have the words to comment on this.
It would appear that the lodger in this case was white. It is therefore reasonable to assume the rest of the characters involved in this were white. That makes the Social Service's timidity even more incomprehensible.
Hannah Jones, who I have just seen being interviewed on Sky News, is a very mature, articulate, intelligent and well brought up young lady who has suffered from Leukemia and now 'needs' a heart transplant. Having been in and out of hospital for the vast majority of her short life, she's decided she's had quite enough of that thank you very much and has elected to refuse treatment. A right which I understood to be the most basic a patient has. She has the full support of her parents (her mother is a former ICU nurse, so has some idea of what is going on), but the local 'Child Protection Officer' sees things differently, and threatened that the police would turn up with an ambulance and forcibly remove her from her home and cart her off for this operation.
There is no certainty that this most traumatic of operations would extend her life by any meaningful period. One can only wonder what quality that life would offer as well. Local health officials even went so far as to go to the High Court to apply for an order enforcing Hannah to go and have the operation, but thankfully the procedings have been dropped.
You see, Hannah is a child. Therefore her opinion on her own destiny is irrelevant. Everybody knows better than her. Her parents agree with her (and can you imagine the sheer horror of having this conversation with your thirteen year old daughter?), as they do not share the views of the The Righteous individual(s) dealing with this case, they must be threatened with the courts, police and criminal procedings. How dare those parents have the temerity to question the infinite wisdom of these officials? They are going to lose their daughter, and because they've not toed the line, they must lose everything else. These dissenters cannot be tolerated.
If only these efforts had been employed in the case of 'Baby P' a 17 month old boy who was covered in sores and bruises, had eight broken ribs, had been smashed in the mouth so hard that it was ripped, along with his nose, and had swallowed a tooth. His fingertips had had their tissue destroyed and he was missing a number of fingernails he had also broken his back. He had been a regular visitor to the hospital and a number (five, I believe) of social workers had accepted the accounts of the child's mother as to how his continuing injuries came to be. Perhaps unsurprisingly he now lies dead.
When released from hospital, with previous injuries, Met Police recommended that he not be handed back to his mother. Haringey Social Services chose not to follow this advice.
Predictable calls for an inquest have been made, and the question 'has nothing been learned from the Climbie case?' will be an oft-heard cry over the next few days.
What the fuck? What where these individuals doing? I appreciate that social workers have a tough job, but this is their equivalent of a policeman happening across a jewellers with alarms ringing and some men with shotguns and bulging bags marked 'swag' running out and jumping into a waiting car, and then accepting the explanation that it is an elaborate practical joke.
How could you not see what was going on? Even bloody plod managed it, I can only imagine the immense anger that the police involved in this case feel, and can only wonder if the Social Services wonk's first thought is 'well, that's my job then.'
Perhaps if you'd spent a little less time on people like Hannah Jones and rounding up slightly tubby kids to be taken into care, irrespective of how good, loving and supportive their home life is and spent more time thinking 'Hey, how'd that little baby break eight of his ribs?' This situation would have been avoided.
Call me an old cynic, but as no details of the boy's mother or her boyfriend have been released, I'm betting they're black. I'm not suggesting that this abuse took place because that is what is expected of black parents, I'm suggesting that the authorities would tip-toe all around the abuse issue for fear of being labelled racist.
One final point. Whilst driving home from work yesterday I was listening to a debate on Simon Mayo's show on BBC Radio 5. It was about adoption, and the ridiculous policy that the racial, cultural and linguistic heritage of a child is the most important consideration in adoption placements. In short, if you are white, forget adopting a black child. If you are black, forget adopting an Asian child. If you are Asian, forget adopting a white child.
Quotes attributed to the powers that be included such things as 'it would be more beneficial for a child to remain in care than to join a trans-racial family' and 'given the history I could never let a white family adopt a black child.' As a result of this odious and racist policy there are scores of Black and Asian children who are denied a stable and loving family environment for no other reason than the colour of their skin. This is repellent.
I do not respond to the dogwhistle of 'won't somebody think of the children?' But when the children really do need somebody to give them very serious thought, they are the secondary consideration behind what the political implications of the situation are.
It fills me with near incoherent, violent rage.
UPDATE
Some of the Social Workers have been given written warnings. I do not have the words to comment on this.
It would appear that the lodger in this case was white. It is therefore reasonable to assume the rest of the characters involved in this were white. That makes the Social Service's timidity even more incomprehensible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)