Tv – misleadingly disturbing

Like so many of us, I spent a lot of time watching TV during lock-down and I am pretty terrified.

The days when TV programs acted as good role models seem to be truly over.

When the whole nation bemoans the steep rise in domestic violence, Eastenders comes up with Gray, the wife murdering solicitor , who seems to get away with his crime, the crime family boss Phil now has a serious contender in the Asian female boss, helping her son who murdered someone else’s child. The whole purpose of Eastenders seems to be, is showing the nation how easy it is to get away with crime.

But the BBC doesn’t stop there misleading the nation. The latest instalment of Inspector Montalbano portraits it as somehow OK if a man shoots his seriously learning disabled brother in the head after blindfolding him as a game. Quit alarming that this sense of Italian justice seems to get condoned.

Whilst the Swedish female sex made detective SAGA demands intercourse or she won’t mix with male colleagues.

Surely freedom of expression has come a long way to get away from wanting to display good examples.

Let’s not say that historical moral values of heterosexual matrimony like we see it in Lewis or Midsomer Murders are even valued in today’s moral climate, Grandchester sees to that. What is important is that TV programs should have an easy to understand message of what is wrong and right , at least in law but that is no longer the case.

It must be very difficult for young people these days to find role models from the media.

It’s shocking that we have to pay a license for TV when the content is not what we can choose.

Power that counts

Yesterday we saw how DCI Banks was able to save his daughter from the clutches of a criminal.

He was in a position to take direct action because as a police officer he actually could pursue and arrest the criminal, who abducted, drugged and imprisoned his daughter, so that an associate criminal could put pressure on the DCI to let vital evidence disappear so that his daughter could be set free.

It was a clever script of emotional bond and professional conduct.

For the vast majority of people, we are completely powerless when it comes to saving kids from the clutches of criminals. Because kids can make their own decisions and it is against the law to stop a young person from making their own choices, normal parents have no power to interrupt the relationship between people.

A parent can’t save a child from involvement with criminals without getting involved themselves. But getting involved without lawful purpose puts a person on the wrong side of the law. The average person just can watch and hope for the best.

All parents can do these days is actually give advice and offer support but how far that support can go is also quite restricted. It all depends how far a child is involved in crime.

The old saying it takes one to know one still holds water.

New TV fun

My favourite detective stories are starting to repeat and I am looking for other stuff to watch.

The Rebel Wilson LOL:Australia comedy on Amazon Prime was quite interesting as it showed the problems comedians have these days. They practically can’t mention most things without upsetting someone.

One comedian joked about the most basic thing in life, our waste products and he didn’t win the contest.

Untypically yesterday I decided to try something new and watched Chrisley knows beston ITVBe. Amazingly good.

It described to a T the bullying older people suffer having to proof that they are not too old to do things.
Fair enough, redo your driving license. I don’t even drive and for me it’s having to repeat my date of birth or post code when I collect prescriptions from the Chemist. Or having to proof in the street that I can walk along without problems, whilst looking around would earn me questions of whether I know where I am at this time.

In the days when kids could be smacked, the respect for older people was more apparent. Now kids can’t be smacked anymore the abuse of older people seems to be on the rise.

There are two sides to any coin.

 

 

the Eureka moment

positive young african american lady holding light bulb in hand on gray background

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

Just having this Bingo feeling. The pain from my Arthrities in my knee woke me up early. One of two medical conditions I do not get any medical treatment for and which keep me unable to do much but blog. Firstly I got the arthrities in the knee and secondly I can’t wear my denture and I am toothless, which makes me less than photogenic.

So I blog.

There was a moment when my mind started associating things, namely when I learned that the father of Shamima Begum is in Bangladesh. Apparently one of the suspected rapists of my daughter also originates from Bangladesh, so I believe. I have some nice pics of two of the men who were accused by her of being rapists but they had expensive cars, sports coupees and they weren’t the run of the mill local lads. They drove BMW’s.

Could that have been one of the reasons why the CPS didn’t want to prosecute them?

But so far, we never associated anything to do with ISIS with Bangladesh at all.

Well of course the testimony of a learning disabled person is always difficult to believe but there we are. But then, when my daughter was in school they never even bothered to even give her an assessment or statement of special educational needs.

It just seems that the parents are the last people to find out about what is actually going on.

The second thing that alarmed me was when I watched the interview with the Chinese Ambassador on the Andrew Marr show yesterday. He was shown a pic or film of ethnic people being driven to a camp and women of being forcibly sterilised.

Of course here in Britain we do not forcibly sterilise women, we just make it very hard for them to get benefits and somewhere to live with their children.

I believe the Chinese Ambassador when he says, they treat all people equal, equally bad he should have said. They do have the one-child policy for anyone in cities.

Talking of equality. When I came to Britain women were equally pushed into child-bearing with generous benefits and easy housing. Now they are relentlessly prevented from having lots of kids by making benefits very difficult and housing even harder to get.

One could argue that sterilisation is one option to stop women from having lots of kids so they do not need housing or benefits but can work instead. So whilst the Chinese may carry out these procedures, the British attitude is not to intervene physically and so direct but indirect by policy instead.

But, to say the truth, my learning disabled daughter has now been sterilised here in Britain, so I have heard, as she has problems coping with further pregnancies and making sensible choices.

So there are those policies and diplomacies that seem to override directly naming and shaming what is actually going on.

morals or steady relationship no longer the issue

I don’t really care about gender issues, as it is anybody’s free choice, what I am concerned about is that the reduction of steady relationships systematically breaks down the security of our country and society.

  1. the more kids you have, the more friends they acquire from backgrounds you do not really know much about. You also are not able to stop your children from going out as it is against the law and seen as keeping someone hostage against their will. You are not even legally able to stop your child from going out, even if they are drug addicts and only want more drugs.
  2. the more kids you have from different partners, the less you know what outside influences they are under and your own personal integrity gets endangered.

To 1. The best example to this is my learning disabled daughter, who was never formally statemented whilst at school. She always completely lied how she spend her time, until she was pregnant and not even then did she tell me the truth about her relationships until years later. But hat is OK under the law as it has to do with personal freedom and privacy.

To 2. If you are in a security sensitive occupation, all those relationships various partners and children and their relatives form, combined with less financial seucrity because all these extra children cost extra money, weaken your own secure lifestyle. You just imagine how many more people you share your life experiences with if you have several children from severeal partners who in turn also have relatives and friends attached to them. You become more susceptible to corruption.

I don’t think that just having a job is the issue any longer. Just having a job doesn’t solve people’s problems with forming good relationships in their personal lives and keep steady and secure relationships going.

broken heart love sad

Photo by burak kostak on Pexels.com

Less secure housing, less secure jobs, less steady relationships but an increase in gang culture and crime.

According to the Guardian in 2002 a third of British men had a criminal record. That does not include cautions.

The more people divorce, the less steady and secure becomes the world the children live in. The more people change partners the more do the children from these relationships have to adjust to constantly changing social issues whilst that takes away from their ability to concentrate on learning.

self-esteem and inheritance

Watched ‘Rambo, last blood’ last night and the story is not dissimilar to a story line inthe Sinner where Cora Tannetti gets kidnapped drugged and abused. In the Sinner it was to make Cora forget that she saw a murder but in Rambo it was a prostitution racket.

Apparently Rambo’s adopted daughter had everything going for her, she had a big house, her own car and was about to start university when she asked a ‘friend’ to find out where her natural father lived.

people gathered inside house sitting on sofa

Photo by Daria Shevtsova on Pexels.com

This desire to meet birth parents is the worst irrational emotional mistake a child can make. I still have not found out why they even would want to do it.

Perhaps it has to do with hearing friends talking about mums and dads. Many kids are adopted and do not know they were but it’s just the atmosphere the problems the adoptive parents themselves have between them and the conversations children overhear that make them wonder whether that birth parent is the path out of all problems.

Baby-boomers of the 80s are replaced now with rich parents who can afford to pay for surrogacy. That new generation of surrogate babies will grow up and will find out that they have been bought.

I saw a lot of films and documentaries dealing with the problems it caused when children suddenly found out that they are not actually the natural children of the people they live with.

Anyhow the birth father of Rambo’s daughter was not the least bit interested in the child, which then ended in tears for her and the suggestion by her friend to go to a fun evening to a night-club, where she was drugged immediately and put on heroin and put into a pool of prostitutes. All the girls were made dependant on regular heroin injections to keep them on the job. Threats of getting them killed kept them in their place.

The effort men make to have regular intercourse. They stop at nothing. Those bordellos are hotbeds for germs and diseases.

It is up to the society to make the rules and to ensure that nobody gets enslaved into any type of trade. A society is only as good as it’s weakest member. If the politicians allow slavery and exploitation to happen then it will.

Rambo of course managed to kill a whole army of drug dealers by himself, though his daughter was in her grave by that time already.

I do not understand why he drove her in the car and did not bring her to a doctor first thing after freeing her from the drug pushers. She died on the way home, having been filled with drugs. I reckon a hospital bed could have saved her.

But then I suppose he was more interested in his own ego being bruised. In the end the fight between him and the crime brothers was just about themselves, to see who was stronger.

I reckon every parent feels deceived if kids just run off and drop out of the chosen path for them.

I think how many years I put into caring for my children. In the end, there is nothing else to do but to try and care for off-spring. Therefore it is now better that women get encouraged to get jobs whilst also being mothers. Because there is something else to do but looking after the little ones.

Parents easily get sucked into the caring pose and promptly get exploited by children who ask for those extra treats to keep them happy.

But parents who also have jobs are probably better equipped to stave off lazy kids who just want to have an easy ride.

Most importantly adoptive parents should always tell their children that they are adopted or otherwise acquired. The reality of knowing the facts helps a lot if things come to a crunch. Because not even the relationships of adoptive parents are guaranteed never to go wrong. What if the arguments set in and the adopted kids get exposed to the quarrels of the parents later on?

Ideally children need to get the ability to work out their path into live on a rational basis. Any type of emotional trauma only serves them wrong.

I think those parent-child relationships whereby all work together on a family business probably have the best chance of success for longivity. What often keeps kids friendly with parents is the prospect of inheriting the house. I really think that inheritance laws should change in that relatives should not have an automatic right to inherit because they are some document like a birth certificate or related through marriage.

Unless a person specifically names a person as beneficiary of a will, anybody who has no actual connection to a person should not be able to inherit the property or money. I see those heir hunters who try to find long lost relatives to inherit. That should go to charity instead because the long lost relative is actually like any other stranger to the deceased.

It’s all about building relationships.

 

 

the young people of tomorrow

protest-bannerTower Hamlets is doing its best to close down public services like schooling for children. There are various applications in the council to close and amalgamate schools.

A recent TV report claimed that Tower Hamlets moves homeless families up north but that the councils there do not get informed of the new arrivals. So if they don’t know how can they make enough school provision?

Incidentally when my daughter had been homeless – because her violent partner had smashed up her flat – we went to Westminster and Chelsea council and they said they send their homeless to Tower Hamlets.

Moving on is the motto these days. The poor working classes are moved on relentless and getting a secure tenancy is like gold dust.

Children will become much more flexible in their approach because they need to take in that education whilst they get it. When I was young we used to have the same teachers in the same schools for life but now it’s constantly new teachers and constantly moving on.

People are strongly discouraged now to have kids whilst on benefits but only a few decades ago, women were encouraged to stay at home and have kids.

Those kids born in the 80s needed a lot of schools. Now, with benefits being cut and employment encouraged for all genders, the amount of schools needed is reduced.

But with the large increase of an older population, who is going to keep the country going if not the young people of tomorrow?

I think this government is playing with this country as every country needs a strong younger generation to carry the flag.

Whilst people with jobs like Boris Johnson can father various children with various women, those on low incomes can hardly afford one child. But then if a richer guy fathers various children with different women, the sheer amount of maintenance will reduce the quality of life for all of them.

I know because one of my daughters has two children with a guy who also has two other women who have his children.

Those changes in the set-up of standards will greatly affect the nation. On one hand, we’ve got the Royal Family cast in stone. Permanent marriages with permanent partners and on the other hand we got – the Prime Minister included – the folks who constantly change partners and have kids with whoever they meet.

On top of that are children borne from surrogacies.

For a grandparent like myself, that priviledge now only exists on paper because with constantly changing relationships the amount of various children from various partners all make a great big mix, which I did not sign up for and I doubt that most grandparents can afford to maintain gifts to all those extended families over a long period of time.

 

No gift horse

I’m going to stop the series on grandparents and grandchildren now because it has exhausted itself.

The simple rule is that if children want to stay in touch, then they do but if they do not want to stay in touch then they don’t.

I don’t think there is any point in asking for access as relationships of that nature have to be consensual and friendly with plenty of good will.

Children already have to cope with relationship changes of their parents; having to deal with all the grandparents is a chore.

I think it is up to the parents to explain to their kids why they do not see their grandparents. Nans and Paps really do have plenty to do with their lives in any case and I am certain most would love to support their children and grandchildren.

Yet in today’s society, whereby legal responsibility stops age 18 and people no longer live together in large family homes the old idea of the family down the generations doesn’t continue for everybody.

Of course in institutions like the Royal Family, the connection is a must and almost part of the job. The people in the community don’t have that obligation.

It would be more damaging for kids if they just get gifts from somebody far away, that they never meet, I think. I suppose the question of continued relations has become a point for many grandparents and it is the choice of the younger generation if they want to lose touch. Good luck to them.

 

 

Where is the love?

photo of baby breastfeeding

Photo by Cleyder Duque on Pexels.com

Could not help chuckling pleasingly when Camilla Parker-Bowles announced that she looks forward to hugging her grandchildren.

Good on her. I suppose it is easy to get to know the grandchildren when their parents actually involve the grandparents into the process, e.g. like

  • getting to know partners of children prior to marriage or conception of grandchildren
  • regular visits
  • communications that are meaningful
  • Family of grandchildren live a meaningful lifestyle and are responsible.

I hardly see any of my grandchildren. I have not met my daughter’s partners prior to them moving in together. I have not been involved in the process of decision-making, e.g. what is best for the child.

Nowadays the modern families change quickly, e.g. partners change, the family set-up is no longer the same as it was, but, people really need to communicate to keep family members up to speed, so that all know what is going on.

I would not even want to dictate what kind of a family my daughters want to form but it would be good to be kept informed and be involved.

I would want to see that my daughters make responsible decisions. Like

  • Have they got housing
  • Do they have an income
  • Are there plans to improve the quality of life and how
  • Do they raise their children positively
  • How safe is the relationship they are in? Do I approve of the partner?
  • Will they keep me up-to-date with developments e.g. pregnancy, childbirth, getting to know the grandchild.

Unfortunately I had non of this. Some of my grandchildren live in Wales and I am not allowed to see them because my daughter there is afraid I could get social services involved.

Some of my grandchildren live in Scotland but my daughter didn’t introduce me to her partner until the day she moved out. I then went to visit in Scotland and had to ring the council there because their whole communal backyard was filled with rubbish bags. I went to visit a couple of times but since then my daughter split up with her partner and now replaced him with a snake and a dog.

I hardly get to see the kids. They do not contact me via Facetime or any other form of chatting to talk and get to know each other.

Some of my grandchildren live in London and I have not even known that my daughter decided to break up with the partner of her first son. My daughter then gotten into deep trouble with domestic violence with another partner. The latest new partner I did meet occasionally but he has changed beyound recognition since I first met him. He used to wear neat suits and looked like he jumped straight out of a dressmaker’s window. Now he wears tracksuits and sports a liberal beard.

I had not met my newer granddaughter till my daughter suddenly announced they are coming round for Christmas and of course they expected presents.

I made everything nice but the grandchild was very much afraid of me because she had never met me. The last time I met her she only spoke to me when I asked her what gifts she wanted for Christmas.

Otherwise I received abusive and threatening phonecalls from my daughter.

From that I can deduct that breastfeeding and not smacking children doesn’t make them more sensible. My youngest daughter is the only child I breastfed for a long period of time and one of my children, which I never smacked. Yet, I get insulting phonecalls.

I think the concept of grandparent needs some involvement so that everybody is on the same page. Grandparents are not just gift suspenders whenever people think they would want to come round to collect them.

I think that grandparents should means-test their gifting. And not just give because somebody has a grandparents on a birth certificate somewhere.

 

 

Can’t go back

Can completely understand the sentiments of the Durrell woman, who asked herself what she did wrong, when her kids displayed an attitude attributed to single mothers in the old days.

She loved her husband and was blessed by the fact that he had died whilst she still loved him. He must have been a good man.

It is very hard to raise kids with a husband in a cvilised society if that husband is a more than liberal dreamer.

My husband turned out to be one of those and had no discipline and no ambitions.

I don’t know what’s worst; mourning a loving husband or living with a total dreamer who is incapable of earning any money.

Better to have good memories than bad ones.

Not liking hot climates, going to Greece or south of the Alps is not an option. I stick it out in Britain, though my then divorced husband died years ago of cancer.

During my marriage I was always the disciplinarian. My husband didn’t mind his five children swinging on the handles of underground traines during long journeys through London, whilst I tried my best to get them to sit down.

His favourite modern song was ‘another brick in the wall‘ by Pink Flloyd in defiance of education.

That constant state of surrealistic freedom made it hard for the children to fit in. The memory of the father who allowed everything is overpowering.

Now expectations have changed, children have no choice but to make a working life the rule and looking back to the Hippie years of the baby boomers is not an option.

The influence of the father is always very strong and nothing is harder for a parent than to overcome a non-disciplined head of the family who can’t hold down a job.

Schools should teach children the rules of life and not just subjects in the sciences and art or drama. How to earn money, how to pay bills, how to navigate society are lessons some children do not learn at home.

I found that those kids who want to listen to sensible advice are the only ones making life succesful and understand that a career is the only way to improve one’s lot.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,977 hits