Personal Blogs

 Onwards an upwards !

Hoping your New year will be all that you wish it to be .

Listening to Radio 4's Women's Hour the topic catfishing was discussed .  The discussion centred around a  fictional story  based on true events called , 'Sweet Bobbie' however behind the façade it discussed the lengths a person   went to desecrate another persons   life and what was more disturbing  the perpetrator was a family member.

Although l have heard about the online scams that had been perpetrated by  random con men and women what l found disturbing is the thought of a family member using this guise for whatever reason to humiliate and  ruin someone's life. What l also found disturbing   was the lengths this person went to deceive and ruin the other family members life.   The discussion went on to explain  although this family member used extreme methods, it was not so unusual to catfish relatives.  

What can be the benefit for the perpetrator ? Is it  the thought that the person would be too humiliated to talk about it ? Could it be the thought of the power and control they can have over that other family member ? Jealousy ?

Ultimately  this leads to the question of how does that kind of abuse benefit anyone?

For the victim the psychological impact can be devastating culminating in trust issues with family, friends and the wider circle . For the perpetrator maybe the thought that their victim could speak out  could also have damaging  implications psychologically . 

For a moment of madness, be it for a laugh or spite  lives are ruined in one way or another and just like throwing a stone into the water  it ripples out into all parts of peoples lives.

Surely just like gas lighting this is abuse and should be criminalised. In my opinion by criminalizing this kind of abuse, it would make people think twice and prevent many other lives and families being ruined through a moment of  the perpetrators  heightened state of euphoria. 

Woman's Hour - 10/12/2021 - BBC Sounds (35.54 - 51.22)

Sweet Bobby | Podcast on Spotify

The morning starts well, birds singing weather hot and on the television news of the conflict growing closer but  of course  this does not worry you as you feel protected and of course it will not reach this far. Children off to school and hubby out the door to work and you off to the job you love. By mid morning your life is changed and out of your control. The complacency you had about the conflict has changed as you are confronted with it head on. The feeling of security has been stripped from you and all that you are left with is fear. You frantically ring to find your husband and collect the children from school. The bank has  been destroyed like wise your home.  What do you do ? Where do you go ?  Stumbling block all your papers and passports have been left at home, and so the journey begins. You become easy pickings for the traffickers with the promise of safe passage for the right price. If you do not have the money up front many will tell you that they can assure you work when you arrive and then you can start to repay your debt. What they do not say  is what kind of work you will be doing and how much you will have to actually repay. But you are desperate so you take the chance.

 This  could be you. How would you feel knowing everything you knew that made you feel  safe and protected  had gone and the only option was to get out of the country? What could be  worse for us is that many of us do not speak a second language ! Would that heighten your anxiety ?  The news that is broadcast mainly focuses on  the men that are fleeing but what the majority of us do not understand is the culture and background as to  why this happens. Do we really care or want to understand?  Many people now are fleeing from conflict, but through the generations there have always been people that have been fleeing famine and persecution. We take it for granted that it will never happen to us and  the closest many here ever get  to conflict are the video games they play.     

As well as the traffickers, other companies and people are making profits out of , the cheap labour that is offered to companies through networks of gangs within this country. The government uses private security companies that  also benefit from the profits and other people misery and fear. The system needs  a radical overhaul. Where is the  collaboration with the rest of Europe regarding this  issue? Have there been talks as to how to resolve the conflict issues ? Would it be beneficial to keep  Peace Keeping  troops in the conflict zones so that people would feel safe again? Would making the system easier to navigate for those seeking refuge and educating  refugees with a  true picture what life is actually like in the countries they seek to be in  assist in making the traffickers redundant ?  Many of the refugees only wish to stay until the conflict ends. How many people from the UK move to where the  glorious sun shines and the climate is hot such as  Spain and other warm countries ? How many actually speak the language of that country ? When asked if they  wish to go back to the UK the majority answer   'no' .So why would you automatically think others would want to stay here and not in their own country  if they had the choice ? 

Maybe we need to rethink our strategy of how we receive refugees and asylum seekers. The framework needs to be changed.   We should be assisting by listening , using resources such as  education to equip them with the knowledge and know how to rebuild  after the conflict. We may also learn and discover more in return. Why do we see  all asylum seekers and refugees as  the enemy? Why are we unable to to see the positives ?

RIP to all those that lost their lives in the channel seeking refugee. 

Footnote; if people wish to seek asylum  on the continent they are able  to be processed at the first country they enter and then move onto the country they wish to go to. For those coming to the UK this process is unavailable and therefore they can only be processed when they arrive in the UK.

UNHCR - Asylum in the UK    What is immigration detention? | AVID (aviddetention.org.uk)

Definition, n.pronunciation: 

Brit. Hear pronunciation/ˌdɛfᵻˈnɪʃn/U.S. Hear pronunciation/ˌdɛfəˈnɪʃən/

Forms:  α. Middle English–1500s diffinicioun, etc. (with usual interchange of i and y), Middle English–1500s diffinition, etc., 1500s Scottish diffinitioun; β. Middle English–1500s defi-, 1500s defynicion(e, 1500s– definition.

Frequency (in current use): 

Etymology: < Old French de-, def-, diffinicion (also definison ), < Latin dēfīnītiōn-em (also in manuscripts diff- ), noun of action < dēfīnīre : see define v. Compare Provençal diff-, deffinicio, Spanish definicion, Italian difinizio

 †1. The setting of bounds or limits; limitation, restriction. Obsolete. Rare

 2. The action of determining a controversy or question at issue; determination, decision; spec. a formal decision or pronouncement of an ecclesiastical authority. Obsolete except in specific use.

 3. Logic, etc. The action of defining, or stating exactly what a thing is, or what a word means.

4. A precise statement of the essential nature of a thing; a statement or form of words by which anything is defined.

a.        A declaration or formal explanation of the signification of a word or phrase. [Not recognized by Johnson.]

b.       definition in use: a definition which does not provide an equivalent for the expression to be defined, but instead replaces the whole context in which that expression occurs by an equivalent not containing that expression; a contextual definition (cf. contextual adj. b).

 5.  a. The action of making definite; the condition of being made, or of being definite, in visual form or outline; distinctness; spec. the defining power of a lens or optical instrument, i.e., its capacity to render an object or image distinct to the eye.

b. gen. Definiteness, precision, exactitude. Rare.

c.       The degree of distinctness of the details in a photograph, film, television picture, etc.; so high-definition, low-definition, used to designate television systems using different numbers of scanning lines.

d.       6. In combinations.

 Home : Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com)

All went to war with different ideals and views but came together as a collective to support one another. Some went because of the excitement of an adventure, some because they believed in their country and democracy and some because it was better than the thought of being stigmatised and prison.

Each going through their own thoughts as to why they were there.

For all those that fought and lost their lives and for those that are still living what have we changed to make them feel that they were and are still valued and honoured by society?

What have we done to honour these heroic people and keep their legacy alive?

How do we respect our forces?

·         Housing: How many veterans are on the council list still trying to find housing?

·          Benefits: Why are they not fast tracked to be able to get the assistance that they need?

·         Healthcare: Why is there no fast-track access to the needs they require?

·         Why is it the government believe that charities are the best people to deal with these situations when they know they need to find funding and are  blocked by the time-consuming bureaucracy of these services?

They appear to only be  respected with words and nothing else. 

How do we value their sacrifice for the so-called freedom of democracy?

We say we value diversity, equality, and inclusion but do we really?  These words can be a positive, but they are mainly used in a divisive and emotive context to suit the needs of groups, companies, organisations, and individuals.   How do we in ‘civvy street’ assist with those that have left the services to adjust to learning a different way of life? Do we accept that the language they use would be different from ‘civvy street’? That they maybe more direct in their language due to combat or do we ignore this and expect them to be, ‘just like us’? Do we value or respect the differences or even try to understand?

How do we appreciate and carry on their legacy of free speech?

 Cambridge Union blacklisted an historian for the Hitler salute what was the context of the salute?  If we cannot discuss and debate sensitive and emotive issues but blacklist, destroy and hide artefacts that do not suit certain groups how are we ever going to understand the mistakes and atrocities of the past and move forward to teach future generations? Hitler burnt books and destroyed artefacts and prevented those from speaking who did not agree with his opinions and his ideology, are we not doing the same? Are we inciting aggravation and aggression due to lack of debating skills?

 How do we honour and  respect those that have and still are  serving to protect our freedoms ,and what respect do we  really have for the legacy they left us to cherish?

 l struggle to see where they assist anyone into work or give that assistance that is required.  According to the universal credit if you earn roughly £400.00 a month £200.00 of of that is taken away your part time education grant is also taken away as well as your standard couples allowance, housing benefit and so the list goes on . 

The statement enticingly shows you what you could of had but as you decide to work and educate yourself into a better place, benefits are all taken away.  So instead of being entitled to approx. £1000.00 a month you are only entitled to approx. £100.00 .Is that discrimination ?  

How can you have highly a highly skilled workforce when the government insist on penalizing those that wish to help themselves ?   No amount of investment  in the workplace or education is going to assist if you can not get the basic fundamentals of society right.

Andrew Marr revealed  that Rishi Sunak is a fan of the previous Thatcherite government and has a picture of Nigel Lawson  on his office wall. There  is of course nothing wrong with who you chose to idolise, however l thought that snippet of information was telling as to how the party appears to see itself. It appears to me that this government instead of being progressive has one aim which is to continue in the footsteps of the Thatcher government.

Having lived through the era of the  1980's government, not as a child but  as a  teenager my perspective of the government at  the time was one of a lack of societal understanding  . Deprivation came due to the sweeping generalisation that the whole of society's circumstances where the same. For those that do not have tinted glasses and from what social history can show us their is no forward thinking from this government but a resurrection of the old. 

Education; 

 1980's  Huge emphasis put on academic subjects and not on manual  skills thus causing a big gap in the labour market due to the 'dumbing down', of the vital skills sectors such as the caring and  service industries. Privatising school meals  and selling off the playing fields.   

Employment.

  1980's  Youth Opportunity programmes where there to assist  teenagers and young people it is  now called 'boot camp' . Again many had passed through this process to find no job at the end due to business not being able to take on staff due to rising costs. 

 1980's Housing ; selling off council homes  was  great for those that could afford it but  like so many of these schemes, investing in building more houses to accommodate those that could not, fell beside the wayside, thus a housing crisis that has never been resolved. 

Denationalisation.

  The alleviation  of any responsibility for public services by trading it of to the highest bidder in the private sector. Several private companies each with their own policies and structures delivering their own  service for the likes of; transport, immigration, health and social care. Too many cooks? Each  company and organisation vying to make a profit for their companies and organisations . What is the benefit of this to the general public. Are they efficient services ? Have these companies invested in any infrastructure that benefits all and not a few? 

For some of us that have been here before the the schemes and projects are old hat. The derogatory language that is used by the government when referring to people in the caring sector and service industry and those that are on universal credit highlights their  ignorance. There appears to be no understanding of the core issues of  society and  what it needs to thrive. Sanctioning and penalizing many  is not the way to stabilise and promote a healthy nation.

Around in a circle we go, obviously we have not learnt our lesson yet. 

 1. Having looked at the government website with regard to getting everyone into work (suitable or not )  I  have to question what will happen to the small charities that rely heavily on volunteers to make up their workforce ? The majority of volunteers do happen to have a disability of one sort or another and hence the reason they volunteer as  'regular' working environment may not be suitable for them. How will these charities be expected to survive without this  silent but valuable workforce ?

2. The government promotes studying and training to get people into work but why do  they feel it necessary to hinder anyone that wishes to do just that when it comes to obtaining a  degree ? (Solely on their terms only ), they  cut the universal credit  to students because they get a maintenance grant to assist with their studies. Is that to hinder certain groups and those of a certain age to remain only where the government decides they should be in society ? 

3. Department for Work and Pensions. Why does it not surprise me to find that they have no grasp of how people have to attain their fit notes ! They send reminders to say they you're fit note is running out, (appreciated) but then if not loaded by the date the previous note expires you leave yourself open to sanctions ! Hmm! Dr's can only issue the next  fit note on the date the other expires. Have they tried getting hold of a GP recently ?  Surely someone  can operate a computer and change the thread to allow a weeks grace.  The threat of sanctions over an already vulnerable group  must be detrimental  to assisting the government plan to get the population up and running in the job market, . The  DWP  appear to be contributing to the nations already fragile mental health and well- being  and as such must be out to under mind the governments plan to get 'everyone job ready !' 

It appears that when it comes to article 25  ( Universal Declaration of Human Rights )   the government have  right to alter the wording and context to suit  it's needs. Can that be right ? 

The government certain knows what  to pick at the buffet and what to leave !