The current Government stance on the Gurkhas and their rights to stay in this country have set me thinking. Does anyone else think that they seem to be going out of their way to be as difficult as possible, and do exactly the opposite of what common sense should dictate? And its not just the Central Government that is guilty of this, Local Authorities seem to have the same issue with consistency as far as policy is concerned.
The Gurkhas have proved through sacrifice and dedication that they are decent, hard- working people, and no matter what your views on war, you cannot deny that so many of these people laid down their lives for our country that we have no right to prevent them from living out the rest of their days here with whatever the state can afford to give them. By stark contrast to the obstructions placed in front of the Gurkhas, the fact is, we have a lot of immigrants in this country who have not proved anything at all, least of all their genuine eligibility for maximum benefits etc. I accept that immigrants come here for all sorts of reasons, and I have no problem with that, Britain has long welcomed the desperate and down- trodden- even when we have been in that situation ourselves.
What I am questioning is the kind of mind- set that allows people with dubious intentions to come here, get away with what ever the hell they want, and then goes out of its way to obstruct a group of people who have shown their dedication to their country by dying for it!
As a side note I believe that people like Abu Hamza are here for the benefit of the media,the War on Terror agenda, to stir up as much trouble as possible, and he also gives the Popular media a hate figure! (Osama- Lite!)
And its not just Immigration policy, Social Services are doing their bit in the war against common sense. Roughly the same time as the Baby P case appeared in the papers, there were a rash of 'minor' stories about mothers being threatened with having their un-born babies taken and adopted as soon as they were born. Their terrible crimes? To have had such things as depression in their teens!
In one case I can remember, the girl who was in her early 20's had had depression when she was 15, but had improved greatly and her family GP had testified that she was of sound mind and perfectly fit be a mother. Yet social services had told her that they were going to have to take her baby straight into care for its own protection.
When Baby P died, the social workers said things like, 'oh, we didn't realise that the mother would be a danger', and, even though there was reams of evidence and he was constantly being taken to hospital, 'we couldn't go against her human rights and take the child away', 'there was no evidence that they deliberatley harmed him (hundreds of times!) so we couldn't justify putting him in care'.
So let me get this straight- one group of social workers can justify taking a child by basing everything on the fact that the mother previously had depression, and another group, despite the fact the baby had already been hurt, couldn't take the child into care?
The list of obvious contradictions goes on and on. If you already have your eyes open you'll know just how frustrating the minor things can be, as well as the major lies and diversions!
What the hell is going on here? Why is everyone in 'authority' determined to do the opposite of what any half- decent person would do? Is it deliberate? Or just huge incompetence and inconsistency?
I think its important to know the answer to those questions, I think once we know, the bigger stuff will start to fall into place.........!
Any Ideas?
No comments:
Post a Comment