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.

The family man

Phil Mitchell from East Enders is a proper family man. I just wonder whether there is a psychological mechanism that compels people wanting to be in control of blood related people.

It would frighten me if someone came up to me, saying we are related and that we have to be friends.

I think a connection between people has more to do with common cause.

A lot of crime gets committed in the name of family. More people get murdered by someone they know than by a stranger. Strong emotional bonds seem a recipe for disaster.

Family members covering for each other, providing alibis or planting evidence against others whom they find repulsive for purely emotional reasons.

As a mum or dad you do not have a life-long obligation to your kids. If you have a good relationship fine but if you drift apart, have little to say to each other, then you are not obliged to be there to supply gifts for birthdays or Christmas for the rest of your days.

A terrible Christmas?

I don’t know whether this is just my impression but it seems to me as if there were a number of really terrible crimes going on this Christmas time. Another taxi driver has lost his cool and shot a few people in his home before committing suicide. Licensed to kill so to speak as he was allowed to own 6 shooting machinery.

It seems that restricting public use of firearms doesn’t really stem gun crime as now those who we thought we could trust with weapons are the ones who lose their marbles. Not knowing what went on in those people’s lives it is a possibility that drugs play a role because normally a lot of blokes are really stoic when it comes to their personal lives and nothing ever gets them to loose their composure. It is very important that best mates inform the authorities at the first sign of craziness when someone who owns weapons behaves in a way that could become dangerous.  Gun clubs normally also have strict rules of members having to leave their weapons in the club and not take them home. Why would anyone need six weapons in a detached semi in a small town street?

The Irish scene was set within a stable community where people never would have thought that something like that could happen. Therefore drugs seems an explanation because it is something so much out of the ordinary.

I often condemn the use of drugs and that people just kind of get used to them being dealt and used by others or in their neighbourhoods and cannot reiterate enough how important it is to rid ourselves of the drug menace and constantly report incidents of drug dealing to the police.  There are so many substances around today, which are modern and completely unknown to many including myself.

There were other substantive violent crimes committed over the holiday period. We had a kidnap and murder in Homerton, a student shot in the head in the West End and other murders going on as well.

This case of the taxi driver having all those licensed weapons at home, and losing his nerve over arguments with women in the house, is an important example to show that the government’s plans to arm more civilians along the plans to widen the Territorial army, which means that more arms are kept in people’s houses, are badly designed.

Impact statements from victims of crime

It should not be a new thing but something that should have happened all along that a victim of crime and others who suffer from the impact of crime can have taken all their financial and personal injuries taken into account. Why is that only a new thing in Britain since about a year?

It is in my view because Britain just does not want to know about victims very much. Even the impact statements today are flawed and faulty and incomplete. The resounding problems of violence from housing to mobile phone contracts, to extra travel costs and phone calls are wide and far-reaching and there is little or no financial help available to those who need it. In fact a victim  of domestic violence can be out of pocket for thousands of pounds just because of housing problems by having to flee domestic violence and housing providers refusing to pick up the cost of this.

I am coming under the impression that victims of crime are still the underdogs and are the real victims not only from physical violence but also from the aftermath of having to attend to the social and financial problems caused. Especially when perpetrators are part of the establishment, the families that are top dogs in the UK today the victim stands little chance to ever recover from the ordeal in any which way you can think of.

healthy attractions

I find this approach of Canadian women quite refreshing because it shows a demo with a difference. It doesn’t condemn females wanting to be attractive and dressing as such but it condemns that typical lazy attitude that says:” because you dressed invitingly someone had the right to violate you”.

Of course in our culture women and men can dress any way they like without making others think that they can violate that person just because they feel gay and happy and express it in their clothing. Wanting to attract others does not mean that anybody is invited to take what they want without asking. It’s as simple as that.

Crime falls with exception of the soft option

Crime has fallen all around in England and Wales but for sexual offences. Of course sexual offences are seen as soft crimes, crimes that do not really hurt society and do not harm property. Yet it is the victims and their families who suffer in silence. The new government seems to have taken fancy to accepting these figures as rapists are set for early releases as well.

Yet courts do take a tougher stance on domestic violence, but for the sake of social safety and well-being, more must be done to root out sexual crimes and make them “socially” unacceptable among the predominantly male population, which seems to me the only way forward to stop perpetrators from re-offending.

We must however be very careful not to restrain freedom of expression  in order to blame those who show off substantial parts of their bodies as a fashion statement. Really, the question of ownership over a body must not lay in the amount of clothes a person wears but in the mutual respect people have for each other.

The ever consistent robberies are often a by-product of drug abuse and more must be done to combat that crime in any event.

Abusing vulnerability to restrict freedom of movement

The amount of persons on the vulnerable adults and children’s list is growing rapidly and councils use this principle to restrict people’s right to move out of the borough.

Children are being put on the “At risk register” without any real evidence of abuse being present but on the sheer chance that abuse could be taking place. This is then used to check families, or study them as you may wish to call it, and then refusing those families full rights of housing.

It is a policy that abuses the Baby P case. It is very costly and absurd to use mere presumptions, and assumed risks to justify the employment of more social workers to watch families, when there is no real evidence of any abuse having taken place. It is an abuse of the Children’s Act to breach the “Right to a Private and Family Life” threshold to poke into people’s private life to gather intelligence and watch their families when no abuse has taken place.

I think this is a serious tendency to restrict people’s right to move freely to live in the privacy of their own homes and for health or social professionals to snoop into their lives and gather data for social “research”.

For example a person can be ‘attacked’ repeatedly to be declared at risk, their children to be declared at risk and that will then allow social workers to enter the families’ home at will without appointments and at least every 10 days. The Children’s Act further allows Social Services to start care proceedings if they want.

False reports can be used to initially assess families to gain entry into their homes and snoop around. That is just not good enough and it is a sin that the tragic Baby P is taken as an excuse to reduce people’s freedoms and rights.

Ironically a person at risk cannot be moved to an area of safety with the influence of Social Services or Social Workers who  have no say on housing needs or geographical area of housing of a person. But if a vulnerable person, like for example an abused women is housed next to an ex-partner, who threatened her before then this woman is put on an “At risk register” instead of moving her in another location on recommendation of social services. This situation is then again used as an excuse to keep the child of that woman on an “At Risk Register” because the former partner is in the vicinity and could potentially be harming the child.

Instead of moving that woman and child to a different location, and into safety, the councils now rather leave them in the danger zone and declare them at risk.

Enough said, its crazy.

Yet to add a further sad twist to this story, victims of abuse in Tower Hamlets are housed within the vicinity of their tormentor and asked by social workers to prove how well they can defend themselves. If they do not well enough, defending themselves, then their children are taken into care. It is true and absolutely despicable that something sadistic as this can happen under the mantle of child protection in Tower Hamlets today.

Tower Hamlets council now uses ‘Agency Social Workers’ these are obscure persons who come into homes and use a set agenda, one of which is to be provocative to “test” a person’s mental stability. Nobody knows what qualifications that Agency social worker has, where they come from, what their own personal qualifications or problems are. This is held strictly confidential so that anybody today can become an agency social worker and is send around people’s homes to assess them.

That can include social workers that do not speak sufficient English, Social Workers that have no transparent qualifications. They do not need to show any sign of any qualifications that is easily recognisable, they can be from any walk of life and work as social workers via an agency. Any query about a social worker’s actual qualifications are refused because of the data protection act.

Social workers do not seem to need any proper and long-standing qualifications before they are send into people’s homes to mess with their emotions and/or lives, that is dangerous and puts people’s lives at risk.

Rally against Domestic Violence

This is literally up my street and takes place on Tuesday 19 October 2010 outside the Labour Party rooms at 349 Cambridge Heath Road, London E2. I shall not miss this spectacle, which will be held on a pavement with speakers and stalls.

The announcement in this week’s London Bangla, issue 04/06 on page 8 shows a poster sporting the words: “Stop wife-beating Mayoral candidate Helal Abbas”.

I do not know whether Helal Abbas is indeed wife-beating, nor do I wish to accuse him of wife-beating, but merely do I repeat the words of the advertisement in London Bangla.

I have noticed a change in Social Services recently and already complaint about this. Just a few days ago, a Social Worker in Tower Hamlets told a battered woman who wasattacked by her partner, that it was her own fault, because she should have gotten herself a job. That is a woman with a child below the age of 2.

In any case a victim with or without child, a Social Worker should not blame a woman for becoming a victim of domestic violence because she did not get herself a job and that she brought all this on herself.

I believe that some religions always blame women for everything and wonder whether this is going to become a norm in Tower Hamlets now.

It was with surprise that I took this free London Bangla newspaper from my letterbox because I had not been aware of its existence previously and thought that East End Life is the only free newspaper within Tower Hamlets. Also in that issue is a lengthy explanation of the Lutfur Rahman and Helal Abbas controversy. It shows the utterly ridiculous state of the Labour Party and the left scene in general and should warn us all not to vote in anybody who has to do with that lot.

Blog Stats

  • 53,977 hits