Skip to main content

Channel 4 piece on refugees


Thanks to "liarpolicians" for the youtube recording.

Comments

Laura Halligan said…
if the emotional damage that is done to the child by seperating them from their family is worse than the damage that WILL be experianced by leaving them as they be, then the child should NOT BE REMOVED.

The Risk of emotional damage law they act upon is a mockary to emotional damage in itself. The law creates emotional damage and it is an insult to the complete concept and idea behind emotional damage.

Since we cannot predict other peoples future and as we see everyday, it does always suprise us of the horrors and the blessings that occur in our world. The suprisers and the predictions.

With the unpredictability of human nature, nature itself and our complete life and existance. We cannot base such a drastic decission as to seperate a child from their family with the "Risk" of emotional damage. Only if this is a probable risk proven by facts. Not just a feared one by unpredictable/emotional/individual humans.

We do not understand everyones lives and it is impossible to assume that the small amount of time spent with families can determine the potential emotional risk that could occur. Unless there are clear facts.

Keeping the child with the family is +90% of the time going to cause the least emotional damage. This really does need to be understood and for people to make choices based on their hearts.

Also peoples different ideas and personal preference in bringing up their child needs to be valued and respected.

If the social services does fear risk of emotional damage then they should watch the family closely and give them much "help and support". to illiminate all risks and to give best advice.

Everyone has there bad times in life and we cannot seperate a child from their families everytime there is problems within the families.

The wise will just stay away frrom the system and the naive will get affected.

The naive should be educated and the real bad parents should be seaked out and looked for, while the good and morral families should be given much help and support, some trust and the basic benefit of the doubt. Given some respect that they have happy, healthy children now and there is no reason that this will not continue as it is .. unless worste case scenario does occur . however this scenario may never occur and could just be the fear of the social worker.

Different personalities and people will view every event from their own unique stand point. Alot of these people may not understand them selves what a real loving family is.

Respect should be given to law abiding people and help and support should be offered and maybe insisted upon if necessary. but children should not be seperated unless their is evidence that any damage will deffinetly occur if the child is left with its family. Not that there is a risk it will occur. There is always going to be a risk of emotional damage within every family. As life is unpredictable to the naked eye.
Laura Halligan said…
A Government cannot expect a rational and humane society when it is not a rational and humane government. The Government sets the example of what is sociably accepted, and within my situation I have experienced first hand for a year and a half the lack of love and care for the children by the social services. They are robotic and it is not realistic human behaviour. They are a unique group and they are mostly very disturbed people!!! Yet these disturbed people get to make huge choices on our families... it is true that I can see a lot of these social services are very egotistical. They have little experiance in life and with family... their family was not particularly loving. I can see they must not of recieved much love themselves or they would value that love and value it within the families they deal with.
Laura Halligan said…
The social services need to be educated on what really matters in life. What matters the most is that we have love around us and within us.

A loving family is what we want, not a robotic one.

The Social services and cafcas need to be educated on what a real loving family is. With real emotions and with real feelings.

They try and stop you expressing all the positive, they just find a reason to call it negative. Oh it has been so hard. I have not had the freedom to do anything with my daughter for 1.5 years apart from sit in a room and play while someone watches.

Even then they find problems with me... We are just their little guinnee pigs. Keep us in a cage and have a laugh and a joke. Me and Gracie belong to God and NOT the system. Set us free!!!!

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: