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 media puppets

For entertaining useful general up-lifting watch Healthcheck life each day.

Shame, that I’ve taken the Christmas decorations down this year, as this time now, feels just like a loooooong Christmas. Even better because it recreates the time of rest we used to have in the older days.

Yet around Christmas time there was a hype in the media about people with mental health problems and an increase in domestic violence.

But all that talk about mental health suddenly died down completely. The Sunday Times, published a graph showing the real impact of deaths from Corona Virus and it is microscopically small, in relation to the mass of the population.

But this outbreak has been played up so much by the media, that they are literally seem to be under some kind of threat not to report about other problems occurring as a result of Corona Virus isolation.

Today we hear reports that even the Police will no longer investigate some crimes, criminals being released early. People have to stay with those they normally live with and some manage that only because they know they can leave each day.

But, I suppose the isolation policy will bring crime down that relies on transport and distribution, such as drug dealing.

What about those who need restbite from looking after others.

I think we will get some stark statistics later on in the year with regards to secondary problems caused through the Corona Virus isolation.

There are some voices who question our freedoms being taken away like movement and certain basic human rights of association and family life.

Thankfully most of us can manage because of the Broadband and energy provisions not being disrupted.

Assange has got to go to face the investigation

The reasoning of the court is quite proper I think and it is fair in my view. Assange thinks an appeal is of general public importance but if all the technicalities were in order the only general public importance is now to find out whether Assange is guilty of rape.

I am sick and tired of those politically motivated bastards who mix sexual harassment with political aims. Something must be wrong in Assange’s mind who wears a poppy after endangering the lives of army soldiers who fight for this country. He disclosed army secretes of serving soldiers and pretends to support soldiers with his poppy, idiotic.

So I wonder how much weight can be given to Mr Assange’s statement that his unauthorised biography was sold without the personal assurances he said he was given. Surely a man who escapes questioning for rape is not worth the paper the book is printed on in any case. That 644 people actually spend money on the book surprises me but its a relatively low number.

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.

The Giffords attack should have been prevented

Reading this latest report, thanks to God, the Congress woman Giffords is still alive, though in critical condition. The report says she has been shot right through the brain. As described in my previous post late last night, which was not completed because I have to have some sleep each day, I linked to both an MSN report and the attacker’s own YouTube posting in which he describes himself as Terrorist. Here is another chronology.

I am more than surprised that the local law enforcement and crime prevention officers did not pick up on this guy and that he was not under surveillance to carry out this most disgusting crime not only on one politician but on the whole community, killing innocent bystanders like a 9-year old child and a judge. Please click on this link becasue police believe the attacker was driven to carry out his attack and did not act alone.

This man deserves the death sentence as he obviously systematically prepared his crime and was well aware of his actions. He describes himself as well-educated.  I am astounded that the US police agencies did not have this man on their most potentially dangerous persons list. This is of great concern to me as to what law enforcement reckon to be a dangerous person because the criteria with that terrorist is quite clearly, self-detached, happy to call himself terrorist and listing all sorts of books, which were written by mass murderers as his favourite, his left-wing involvement and – what is not known to me – his own life-style and he is most likely not a family man and therefore should have been under constant surveillance.

We had an attack on a local politician carried out by a single woman with a knife, which only severely harmed the politician concerned, yet this matter of attacks on local politicians is of great concern in today’s world and  I shall make enquiries how well our local politicians – and the community around them – are protected  from potential attack.  I am more than surprised, that the Americans despite all their well-developed security services have been unable to detect this most dangerous man’s postings on YouTube and/or that they had been dismissed as harmless.

I can also again only reiterate that the slow introduction of violent argument into politicians campaigns makes it much more difficult for the police to determine danger because when such rhetoric becomes common place, it is hard to distinguish who means it and who doesn’t.

I think we should clean up political campaigns and politicians should lead by good example and not make any violent threats to the other parties,  not in word, picture, not jokingly or in any other capacity. Police forces cannot go around and watch all those who use threats as a matter of speech in every-day situations. Yet this particular attacker was also a left-wing loner who posted some very weird video with terrorist content  on YouTube. The content of that video sounded like a last good-bye.

It also does  not make the job of the security services easier if all sorts of people post false accusations about other’s potential involvement with terrorism now or in the past as the police will spend valuable time checking up on this when in fact the really dangerous people, like that terrorist in the US by nam of Jared L Loughner, carry out their vile trade undetected.

I am not convinced that the actual politics involve play any role as it should be a matter of principle that all politicians are protected from attack and that matters of democracy must be dealt with strictly within the law. We cannot tolerate that politicians with controversial views are gunned down to make a point.

To add to this post, I would like to remark that I find it naïve to say the least, that the Congresswoman did not have any type of security at that event I understand that she had already received threats before and knowing that she supported firearms ownership, and knowing that in the USA there exists a sad history of murdering politicians with firearms, it would have made sense if she had put in place some personal security measures.  Here in the UK we have a register of vulnerable persons and I do not know whether the US authorities make protection available to politicians who have received threats of that nature.

Internet Stalking

I came across the concept of Internet Stalking yesterday for the first time when I saw an article on the BBC about it. I instantly felt that this applies to me. Today I also saw an article on MSN about how Facebook plans to deal with stalkers.

What is most interesting in this article is the statement by an officer of the CPS that Internet stalking affects all walks of life, which involves also politically active persons. So far I have constantly been told that political activists have to put up with all sorts of nasty online comments and activities.

On Wikipedia we can read about Cyberstalking and there is an interesting definition where it says “Stalking is a continuous process, consisting of a series of actions, each of which may be entirely legal in itself.”

On a BBC article we read that service providers are reluctant to crack down.  The same BBC article also mentions the following: “Groups that support victims of online harassment say those targeted can suffer from anything from low level abusive messages to orchestrated campaigns.”

Researchers are trying to find the true level of Internet stalking at the moment. The CPS (Crown Prosecution Services) has unveiled new guidelines to prosecutors.

Blog Stats

  • 54,341 hits