Saturday, January 06, 2007

A steep learning curve

Sometimes you need some distance.

I've decided to revisit the battlefield of Outrageous 2. Now that time has passed and I've reread the arguments, I can see it with a bit more perspective. At the time I was aware that I had lost objectivity. Communication had broken down and I knew that had to be partly my responsibility.

The only solution I could see at that point was to withdraw, concentrate on other things and then come back with a fresher eye and hopefully more balanced perspective.

So - this is how I see it now:

I take full responsibility for my initial post, which was intended to express my exasperation about bureaucracy. Perhaps naively, I never expected the issue of defining or proving the existence of 'unaccompanied children' to become the focus. Among my own circle it would not have been. But a blog isn't only seen by my mates!

I can't talk about individual cases or risk identifying people so I'm unable to provide the kind of information necessary to prove the specific claim made in the post.

On the general issue of unaccompanied children, I'm going to do some research to see if I can provide evidence that will not compromise any individuals. If anyone reading this has relevant information, please pass it on in the comments section or email me at info at debialper dot co dot uk.

However, I accept that the way I phrased the original post has led to frustration. I stoked up emotion but then failed to equip people with the means to do anything practical to try to make a difference. If I was unable to do that, I should not have published the post in the first place.

Would I do it differently if I had my time again? Yes, definitely.

I will be very careful in future not to dash off posts on such vital subjects without thinking through the implications. I clearly hadn't done that in this situation.

I'm still getting used to having these global conversations via my blog with my direct voice 'out there' and available to everyone.

I'd imagine that's true for all of us. It's a steep learning curve and I'm still climbing.


Unknown said...

And so you should take responsibility for it Debi - it was written from your so-called 'Bleeding Heart', and thank the Goddess that some still have them.

I will still stand by my comment on your original post and add this:-

These are CHILDREN. If we ask no questions then we must live by the possible consequences of our silence.

Anonymous said...

Debi I respect the fact that you have now chosen to revisit the debate and clarify a number of matters. If it descended into the depths of personalised arguments, then I whole heartedly apologise for this too. Sometimes this happens when very passionate individuals become frustrated by an argument.

You have to remember that people working within a system you decribe as a "bureacracy" are doing their very best to actually protect and care for the very people you feel so passionately about. Whether it be Immigration Officers, Social Workers, Police Officers or even Intelligence Officers...some have children, some have partners who may be not be British, all have families with children in them. All care. Yet all are attacked by all sides for either doing too much or too little, being too hard or too soft. Sometimes it can feel like a very lonely and frustrating world for these people who can be kicked around like political footballs.

I won't pretend it has always been perfect or is still. But the claim that unaccompanied minors are left to sort themselves out in the UK, not only is wrong...but demeans all the hard work people put into this area. Since the Victoria Climbie tragedy years ago much has been done to ensure something like that never happens again. Of course, there will be human error, things may go wrong, none of us are perfect, but no child ever entering this country alone is ever just left to go one their way and sort our their own lives.

You say this point was taking away from the main issue...I have to disagree. The main issue of the original post was that some refugee children at your children's school couldn't get free school meals as there was no responsible guardian for them in the UK. Any child, whether a recognised refugee or one still awaiting the outcome of their asylum application, will have a legal guardian or be a ward of court. So there will always be someone to sign such forms. However, what I really suspect is that these Children were already receiving full funding towards meals from the National Asylum Support Service amd therefore would not be entitled to a free school lunch as they would, in effect, already be getting one.
This ultimately is linked to whether children are left to fend for themselves. It is the whole crux of the post.

What I did take umbidge to, was the way you tried to lump me in as Daily Mail type reader who can never see good in anyone foreign coming into this country. It may help if I point out that my wif is Ukrainian and my own family were poor Irish catholic migrants who came to the UK back in the 1930s for work. I'd be the last person to ever thing along Daily Mail lines. I have also temporarily fostered two children in the past from Belarus who have cancer as a direct result of the after effects of the Chernobyl disaster.

However, as I say, I also see and recognise great abuses of the system on a professional basis on a daily basis. I see both the good and bad and so I do tend to resnt being told what my views are, or that I don't see both sides or that general asumptions are made simply from comments I attributed to unaccompanied minors.

You also say you didn't expect the post/discussion to go beyond your own circle of friends. But then you should be careful about elevating someone's comments ina thread, into a post of its own.

I don't doubt for one second you were well meaning with your original post, but sometimes such emotive subjects lose sight of what may be the actual truths. We sometimes never get told the full facts by others and the leap to dubious conclusions.

Maybe we should be getting angy at those who benefit from trafficking children or whose policies lead to their home countries falling into dire circumstances, rather than attacking a system that is trying to do its best for these children. And as I said a lifeline compared to what may have happened to them.

So thanks, again, for having the integrity to readdress the issue.

MINX - again I don't doubt you are also well meaning, and 20 years of working with Children means you get to see and hear much. And I'm not suggesting no one should not be asking questions, but the very fact is, people are on a daily basis.

Debi said...

I couldn't be more delighted that we now seem to be able to talk about this so much more calmly now.

I have said all along that I know and respect your experiences. Maybe I haven't done so sufficiently articulately ... I think we both now accept that we suffered a complete communication breakdown.

One new misunderstanding - I didn't say that I didn't expect the post to be read by people outside my circle. My meaning was that it's easy to forget that the wide world holds many more diverse views than those shared by one's own friends and I need to remember that when blogging.

My intention in publishing the 2nd post was to enable your voice to be clearly heard in your own words. Somehow this also was misunderstood in the general confusion.

Anyway, glad we've got to a point where we can discuss this calmly and agree to disagree if necessary but with mutual respect.

Confucious Trevaskis said...

Dear Debi,
I've come into this late, and as a consequenec haven't been able to read all that was written - I missed dba'a second deleted post. But I feel I must say this in support of you ....You did nothing wrong in highlighting what you saw as an injustice, and shouldn't be afraid to do so in the future. Nor should any of us. It is irrelevant if it offends the sensibilities of someone working in this field, because these things have to be brought into the open. If it turns out that the children are receiving some other form of support, then great, all is well. But if not, then at least something might be done about it.

I too have worked with children in social care, and I have also been on the receiving end of misunderstanding and suspicion. And yes, it made me angry, very angry!
But I was also aware that it was necessary for people to question the provision of care, in order to maintain high standards. Otherwise, we could return to the "bad old days", when the profession was targetted by abusers.

Contentious issues cannot be avoided or kept quiet. It is by intelligent debate, that we all learn and promote change and understanding.

Lastly, I would like to say that, as in all walks of life, there are good and bad people. I have seen and worked with people who were unbelievably good in this field. But also there have been some who were extremely poor. I have made myself unpopular in the past by highlighting this, but I don't regret it, this was about the children.

I've no doubt that dba was so angry because he is one of the people who genuinely cares, but I never saw this as a personal attack and I don't think anyone else did!

So please....continue to highlight perceived injustices, and if you're wrong, then so be it, we can all move on after the debate.........and look forward to the next one!!

And to dba.....I have nothing but admiration and respect for people working in this field, I know how hard it is. I am aware that the system is extremely stretched, probably always has been, and likely always will be. But surely you agree, people must raise their concerns. I know that in your field of work, you would be encoouraged to.............standards would surely drop if we didn't.

There was no harm meant in Debi's post, only an honest concern voiced.
I felt that some of your comments were hurtful and unnecessary and beneath your standing in your profession. I am sure Debi would have been deeply hurt by them.

It would be nice if future debates, however emotive, could be conducted on a less personal level.

Debi said...

Thank you for this balanced analysis, Confy.

I think part of the problem was that, due to the timing, no one else was doing what you've just done so it ended up as just Lehane and me shouting at each other.

It wasn't a healthy or constructive place to be for either of us, which was why I needed to withdraw for a bit. The current sensible debate of the real issues makes me feel my instincts to pull back and get some space were right.

Everything happens for a reason and I think we've all learned something along the way.

Of course we all know that if something rattles my cage in the future, I'll still be hammering the keyboard and shrieking!

Unknown said...

I didn't follow the earlier debate but I will say this: It takes strong and wise people to be able to steer through the miscommunication so inherent in electronic communication and to be able to take responsibility for what they've said and how it's been perceived. Well done to both of you for sorting out your differences and getting back to constructive discussion.
Perhaps there is hope for humanity after all...

Anonymous said...

I recently posted in a rather hasty manner and inadvertently annoyed a couple of people. I highlighted a post on Susan Hill's blog in which she had criticised a person's letter in the Times. I opined that I agreed. This annoyed some visitors who have "issues" with Susan Hill and her previous writing. Again, we all managed to resolve it amicably -- essentially we all agreed on the facts, but Susan's way of writing about the Times letter was very forthright, and in endorsing her views, my commenters assumed I also endorsed the manner of expressing them.

As I said, it all ended OK (I think/hope) as we were able to communicate about it, but like you I wish I hadn't posted in haste as if I'd posted less quickly I may have realised that the phraseology at Susan's might cause offence. (I used a trackback to write my post so the title of Susan's post, which was rather confrontative, was in the body of mine).

I've seen quite a bit of this kind of thing on other blogs too. I think it is very hard to anticipate every sensititity, and the written word can be ambiguous - different people can read different meanings into exactly the same words.

Glad that everyone is writing in with their views anyway, it can only help! I think you did well to turn it around in this later post, Debi. And I think Lehane you've done well to write a peacemaking comment that still makes your view clear.

Anonymous said...

Debi. I don't have a lot to say on this other than that you have no reason to feel any guilt about the way you wrote your first post. The world isn't perfect and neither are those of us living in it. All we can hope for is that some of us (well... most of us really) will understand that a caring nature is far more important than facts and details. You care, and that makes you one of the most special people out there. Never change.

Anonymous said... last word on it...but what people seem to be missing is that yes, of course wherever we feel there are injustices we should ask questions and challenge on it. But what I took offence to was a baseless claim rather than a question being asked. There's world of difference between the two...and I'm afraid that nepotism and sycophancy is blinding some to this. But, hey, steep learning curve for me too...

Suzan Abrams, email: said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Suzan Abrams, email: said...

Hi Debi,

I hope you don't mind my comment on your space. I know we are not friends.
Please feel free to delete this if you wish:

I think it's common-sense logistics that when you make a claim - if you spell it in black & white - then you have to back this claim with a truth and not simply by using the word 'truth'. And especially when you have employed someone's full name - even with the best of intentions - to challenge the dialogue on to a further situation and at the risk of a newer collision, thanks to the emerging disagreements that you must have seen coming!

Had your article been printed in a publication and a professional authority decided to take it up straightaway, so as to inspect the situation you mentioned - you may not then have time to ask people to quickly email you the desired information. This may straightaway question your credibility and raise eyebrows as it did mine.

Instead, you may have found yourself in a spot - you can't at the time say, you're protecting friends and family, there is no room for maternal protectiveness or sentimentality i.e. a court of law, if investigations start taking place.

The professional investigating authority will raise the subject of immediate facts.

I don't see too that your excuses as depicted in this related post will be entertained.

If you say you didn't realise blogging (the internet) would attract diverse views, just imagine the reaction you would receive from any kind of an investigating officer over such a strange remark, as I thought it to be.

So it's best never to make claims in public or challenge anyone openly unless there is an immediate professional accountability to it.

So how would you protect yourself if something similiar happened and you still felt you had to voice out your fears?

Then you contact the person you challenged privately - whose reputation you may have inadverdently put on the line - and offer the facts privately and sort it out privately.

At least, that part of the problem is immediately repaired for fear of further reprisals & you can carry on the fight for your causes in peace.

As a reader who watched the entire episode snowballing from afar, I thought it didn't help matters too, when you went on in the tone of..."my truth is better than yours...kind of appeared schoolgirlish to me in all frankness & also increased irritations that could have been easily avoided.

I suggest you avoid these kind of potshots in the wake of any similiar future dialogue, Debi.

At the end of the day, there is a clever art or talent to holding intelligent debates, I would think and perhaps there is a need to secure these for the future.

Without fishing for any kind of mawkish sentimentality, I wouldn't be much of a friend if I couldn't say that I have known DBA Lehane for longer than any of you.

He is immensely passionate and dedicated to his job for the areas, he mentioned he had been working on. I know enough about Lehane to say that he would drop any of his heartfelt writing projects or other things really on the spot, for the demands of his job. I believe his passion to that particular industry as an individual & employee stays as a top priority.

You were fortunate, Debi, that you had this conversation with him and not with someone else who may not have left the situation so kindly or been too forgiving. Not all of us make a hue and cry about our 'bleeding hearts' but it doesn't mean we don't have them.

Take care Debi & all the best

Unknown said...

I would echo Confucious' very telling comments, that it is easy to get emotive about an issue that you care passionately about.

Having said that, I don't understand why people can't be passionate about an issue, as long as the focus doesn't get lost.

Confusing the person with the issue is not conducive to dealing with the issue at heart. Dba says that these foreign national children could not be defined as being 'guardian-less'. Debi says that they do seem to be, in terms of the free school lunches, etc.

Was it better that Debi kept her mouth shut originally and said nothing at all? Are we to go through life with our heads down ignoring all that goes on around us, without comment or opinion for fear that it may be taken the wrong way or that our perceptions of a situation are less valid than any others?

I have watched this debate from afar, saying very little, because I have seen this sort of thing before, on other message boards - Comment posted, counter comment, and so on and so on, until the original argument put is buried under a slew of bad feeling and the debate has lost its intial impetus.

I have read this particular post and the comments by dba and debi with great interest. I commend both of you for revisiting this issue with a much calmer frame of mind.
I look forward to seeing what transpires, because I know that Debi won't leave this one alone, until she has possession of the full facts.

equiano said...

Dear Debi
Well, I missed all the original kerfuffle because I was gallivanting (it being December and all), so I am entering the fray with an overview etc.

It is true that we should all be careful on our blogs to try and check facts to the best of our ability, be willing to provide evidence, and be careful about the wording of arguments, and it is right that we should also call each other out if we feel an argument needs some further attention.

HOWEVER, blogs are many things; for most people as yet they are not academic treatises, lawsuits or newspapers. I think it is perfectly appropriate for you to air a concern of yours which happens to be affecting your local community and give us your views on it. I think it would be a shame if you didn't do so because you felt you hadn't researched it thoroughly enough and did not have all the facts at your fingertips. This might lead you to never discuss the issue at all which, again, would be a shame.

I personally enjoy your blog's mix of life experiences, your work as a writer, and your frequent comments about all sorts of social issues. I feel that it is my responsibility to find out more about a subject if something you have said grabs my interest. It would be irresponsible of me to simply accept everything you say at face value. But I value your take on issues close to your heart.

Open, constructive discussion is a really healthy thing.

I hope the year ahead is a happy and healthy one for you and yours, and I look forward to further blogging from you.

Debi said...

First of all - a huge thank you to everyone who has joined in this debate. I'm definitely feeling now that something good is coming out of it.

I know that everyone who has commented has done so with sincerity - there may be a confusion between nepotism/sycophancy and genuine support and agreement with views expressed. To dismiss this as sycophancy is to undermine those commenters - not the way we want to go again!

Susan - welcome to my blog. I wouldn't dream of deleting your comment. Hopefully I've already demonstrated my desire for constructive and open debate and I'm not about to censor opinions I don't agree with.

To get back to the real issue of child refugees, I'm currently working very hard on a new post. It may take a little while - it's obviously crucial to get it right and I'm not about to rush it!

Suzan Abrams, email: said...

Thank you your kindness, Debi and for your reply which signalled an intelligent retrospection.
I appreciate it.
Lehane has gone away and I admit to feeling saddened by everything that has happened.
I know from my heart that he was extremely sincere and did not mean offence in anyway.
He is skilled at his job, thrives on it, loves it & happened to work in the very areas you mentioned and so had planned to check out that claim for you.
That's why he wanted it verified; to help you out.
And perhaps too, some earlier closure to this dialogue that had stayed unfinished in a disturbing sense, over the Christmas break.
He was passionate about his photography & writing and was keen to meet other writers in the same vein where we could all learn and grow together.
I just feel so sad by all that's happened.

Unknown said...

Susan, don't feel sad. If this healthy debate between intelligent adults has brought about some kind of change, raised some questions on all levels, and opened a few eyes, then is this not to be celebrated?
There have been no nepotists or sychophants here, on either side - only people with deep concern and a need for knowledge. Two very basic human instincts, and two attributes that I hope will never be taken for granted - by anyone.

Suzan Abrams, email: said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Suzan Abrams, email: said...

Dear Debi,
I returned to your blog to say sorry for my own part earlier that my first ever comment to you would come across as harsh and a little impudent. Though I still meant everything I said, I could have been kinder. Especially that I too have weaknesses & am always learning. Thank you for being gracious in your reply.

Dear Minx, There isn't anything to celebrate because I don't see it as a healthy debate at all. Lehane was trying his best to make amends and had apologised upfront and was starting on a new footing with Debi. Debi had expressed her delight. Having observed everything from the start, I thought that part was real progress. But never mind. It's a bit late in the day now.

btw, we seem to be bumping in extraordinary places...Atyllah's & here. Why don't you come and visit me properly? :-)

S. Kearney said...

Just one little thing I'd like to say:

I really hated the use of the term "bleeding hearts" in this context.

That's what got me going here, quietly.

It's to say it's a bad thing. It's to pour scorn on those who care.

Don't mock someone as a "bleeding heart" when they are right in tune with their heart.

There. That's all.

Suzan Abrams, email: said...

Are you talking to me Shameless? You sound vague.

No one's mocking anyone.
and even as if you've just fuelled that thought, the phrase "pouring scorn" sounds like Greek to me.

It's your interpretation & possibly others I'm sure , but the emotions you described were not anywhere in my spirit while I was writing that line.

If you need me to explain:
"Many have bleeding hearts. Some are obvious, not all are."
So my conscience is clear.

Still you have a free will & what is real to you is real to you. There's no need for all that hate.
No need to hate anything.

Suzan Abrams, email: said...

I feel from the above comment made by Shameless that so shocked me, that such a situation could on forever in different ways.

Nitpicking on phrases, punctuations & all of that. Things that didn't exist are said to exist. Everyone has different views & opinions. Explanations could go on till the cows come home.

I was here to stick up for my friend DBA Lehane who it is my belief made valid points and meant no harm or offence to anyone on the entire issue.

And he apologised upfront willingly & I'm so glad he did.

I'm not here for anything else but to stick up for my friend who I believed in and I'm glad I braved myself to do this even in a difficult situation.

Debi I thank you that you afforded me all this time and space to say my few heartfelt pieces.
I stay grateful & appreciative.

But the sticking up is done - I have observed everything from the start and said what I felt & that's all I ever came here to do."

But now enough.

I know most of you. You are like my family with past comments and camaraderie. I don't think any kind of hostility ever solves anything.

So take care & from now the nitpicking on anything I said, will just have to go on without me. I really don't want to end up drained. It's not worth it. Especially when people will always want to believe what they choose to believe.

And Debi, I'm sure you will do well. Not to worry. we're all learning; all of us.

Let's think about the real issues at hand.

Anonymous said...

tLet me just assure everyone I've not "gone away" because of ill feeling over this - I've gone away simply to complete a writing project which I just felt I was being detracted from by commenting not just here, but in a number of places.

However, I apologise if the term "bleeding heart" offended. We do need to realise that simply by being well meaning doesn't mean our view is either correct or right. To feel something with the heart doesn't equal right as many a crime of passion attests.

Sometimes it's simple to live in an idealistic world where something may seem outrageous at first. As I have said before, I have no problem with anyone asking and challenging, and so we should any issue we hold dear, but we should not confuse this as basis to make unfounded claims as the original post appeared to do so.

S. Kearney said...

Thanks for apologising for the use of the term bleeding hearts. I really do admire your humbleness.

Please accept my apologies if you you felt my line was directed at you. It wasn't. I don't even know you. I didn't even realise you'd used that term. Rest assured I don't have any hate in me. Today I am playing the piano, writing and drinking Christmas tea. Sorry if you took that badly. Lehane, whom the message was directed at, has answered my point. Again, sorry if I ruffled your feathers, it was not intentional. I like your blog by the way.

Suzan Abrams, email: said...

Hi Shameless,

Please do take my word for it that Lehane meant no harm to Debi. In fact, he admired her work. It was just heated emotion for the same cause.

Yes, I like your blog too, Shameless. I was actually going to suggest you play some music. :-)
Some Beethoven would be nice as you drink your Christmas tea.
And I'm sorry that I misunderstood you.
I don't know how many times this year I've said sorry and it's only still January 9th. :-)

Anonymous said...

Susan, accustomed as we are to your mind-numbingly stupid comments, this is getting ridiculous. Please try to put aside your inexplicable defense of Fieldmarshal Lehane long enough to realize that you are completely out of touch with reality. Why don't you follow the good example of your paramour and skulk away back to your unlit corner with your tail--that is a tail, isn't it?--between your legs? I''d say more, but my heart is bleeding, and I must lie down.

Anonymous said...

Susan, I'm just a visitor here but it sounds to me like you might have issues to deal with, linked to your apparent feeling of being personally attacked. He who protesteth ... !? You seem to quickly jump and scream without thinking.

S. Kearney said...

Gosh, sorry, didn't mean to cause this ... eeeks!

Debi said...

Oh no! Now I feel awful again!

I take partial responsibility - if I had managed to do the next post on the subject of refugees as promised we could all be focusing on the issues now instead of the personalities.

This is so much bigger than any of us as individuals ...

The reason I'm taking so long creating the new post is that it's so crucial to get right and I'm waiting for contacts to get back to me.

In the meantime PLEASE let's steer away from the personal. Although some of the comments have been negative, they honestly haven't hurt me and I wouldn't want anyone else to be hurt here either.

Anonymous said...

Debi, I regret it if my comments have made you or your readers uncomfortable, but I can't apologise for being forceful and direct, because the discussion had veered to defending bureaucratic and personal turf and the real questions you originally raised were being lost in the noise. But you were--are--right. Reality is out there, doing its multifarious, shape-shifting best to confound our best efforts even to get a handle on it, much less ameliorate its nastier aspects. Every sociologist knows that the models we create and maintain to deal with the problems in our society are flawed at best, and sometimes terribly flawed. This will be true no matter how we refine them, because reality is recalcitrant--it resists our best efforts to pin it down. So we do the best we can, aware that our efforts will invariably fall short. There aren't cracks in the system. There are yawning chasms.

Maybe I was a case in point: when I was in grammar school my family was middle class; compared to the rest of my schoolmates, I felt well-off. But Dad was a thirsty man, and increasingly thirsty the more he drank. He could drink up the grocery money in an evening, and often did. And the car payment, and the rent. We managed on what Mom earned, but only barely, and sometimes the soup got a bit thin. I was often hungry at school, but we didn't advertise our distress. We were shamed by the old man, and determined to keep our troubles secret, so I couldn't get on line in the caf and get a lunch on the arm. To get a free lunch, you had to be registered, and carry a yellow cardboard ticket that everyone could see. Unacceptable. So, sitting there in my nice clothes, I went hungry much of the time.

No unsupervised kids at large? There are more than you could count, or more than would be comfortable to count, whether they're immigrants or depend on parents who've gone off to the sauce or the pipe or the needle, or are simply overwhelmed by a rat race society they just can't understand well enough to thrive in. They don't get counted, because they take pains not to be counted, for their own reasons, good or bad. But whatever you think of that, no kids should go unfed at school because they lack a credential. The system that shovels tons of food into he bin at the end of every day can easily absorb them, no questions asked. If a kid is in school, there is at least that much right in their lives. If they need to eat, FEED THEM, without interrogation. The real worry is that they'll stop coming to school.

It goes back to the loaves and fishes, doesn't it? I'm not a theist, but I think Jesus was the best rabbi ever. The "miracle" of feeding the multitude was simply a man giving what he had and encouraging his listeners to follow his example. The system can do the same thing, by extension, and if it can't, it isn't worth much. If it's too rigid, the people working in it have to bend it so that it can accomplish its purpose. If they won't, or can't, then they're not worth much either.

Anonymous said...

JTA what absolute waffle and nonsense, not to mention the most hurtful personal attack I've so far seen in these parts. It's sad that those who claim there is no nepotism or sychophancy around here are not condemning you for extremely crude insults when they are much quicker to jump in elsewhere. To be direct and forceful doesn't excuse the kind of personal comments you make, let alone adds anything useful to this debate.

I'm just astounded that everyone here, most of whom have no real idea what goes on in this field and who are just informed by whatever political rag they read, proclaim Debi's claim was right and correct.

As I've said previously, if any element of the claim that unaccompanied childiren are let into this country on their own to look after themselves on their can be proven then there would be a scandal to hit the very core of our establishment that would make the current Home Office worries today look like small fry.

So with all due respect JTA, if you can't say anything worthwhile based on fact, and without insult to others who merely have a differing view...then please say nothing at all.

After all, if comments like "bleeding heart" shock so many others, the term "Fieldmarshall" with its obnoxious nazi like connections should have most decent minded persons here horrified. How very sad no one else has taken offence. Which my earlier nepotistic comments prove.

Anonymous said...

So, again, a challenge I've made elsewhere goes to every single person claiming this is happening: Take your story to the media and prove it. If unnacompanied minor refugees are being allowed into the UK on their and being forced to care for themselves by this uncaring bureacracy...then prove it. After all, all sides of the media would love to attack the establishment on this. Stop the well meaning waffle and go out and prove it. WE'VE SEEN THE CLAIM. WE'VE HEARD THE WAFFLE. WE'VE READ THE INSULTS. NOW LET'S HAVE THE PROOF. Or will it be back to more unfounded waffle?

Debi said...

Please see the next post where I hope the debate will continue in a constructive way even where we agree to differ with one another.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I don't know, DBA, about the nepotism and sycophancy. Maybe people saw some justice in those comments.

As for waffles, I really don't see any of those, either. I'll readily admit that no unaccompanied minors are let into the UK or the US without some guardianship arrangements being made, but that in itself says very little. What happens then? They can easily become under-supervised and deprived by the inattention of professional fosters once here, and without question it happens. And native citizens often find themselves in the same straits. The narrow question of "admittance" is simply irrelevant. These kids exist, and denying it isn't getting them any help.

But no one's going without help, are they? The bureaucrats have everything under control, nice and tidy, right? I'll alert the media.

Anonymous said...

JTA...maybe others would rather comment on whether they saw justice in the crude insults you made, rather than have you speak as the mouthpiece of the circle. Very dictorial of you, I must confess.

If you wish to move the argument on to what happens to people once they enter the situation, then yes, that's fine and a different argument...but my only bone of contention was with the initial claim in the first post which you first supported and now seem to accept isn't right.

So, explain, why I should continue to listen to the comments of someone who just publishes a cruel insult and then undertakes a u turn on the argument.

As I said before, unless you can add anything meaningful its best not to stoke up peoples anger and emotions.

Anonymous said...

Because, Lehane, you're talking out of the wrong end of your alimentary canal, and have been from the first. When I "admitted" that point, it was by way of saying that it was irrelevant, which I stated clearly. You, characteristically, take your own lack of understanding as an excuse to not listen. Neat trick!

Also, DB, I'm dictating to no one. I simply suggested a reasonable inference from observable facts, using the word "maybe." Try it. You might like it. You fail to acknowledge your relentlessly insulting and condescending manner--"boorish" springs to mind-- all through this discussion, but had it not been for that (coupled with the fact that you were so clearly wrong), I wouldn't have done it. In other words, it wasn't an accident. I insulted you for a reason. Get over it.

Anonymous said... are irrelevant. If all you can do is offer personal and immature insults as a means to try and make a point in an debate you have no clear understanding about, and then seemingly boast about it, then I feel very, very sorry for you. Carry on, please, it's like watching a 5 year old child having a tantrum because he can't explain what he wants or means. There's a certain perverse pleasure in watching it.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debi said...

I find this really offensive, Lehane. I thought we had moved on from this and no longer wish to host these kind of personal attacks on my blog.

jta's last comment was written before I did the next post where the debate has moved onto the real issues. Are you so determined to have the last word? And you're not only criticisng him but also others you describe as 'mute cronies'. (I have no idea who you're referring to. Am I one? Actually don't answer that. I don't want to know.)

If you want to continue with the personal attacks please do so on your own blog. I will continue to allow my blog to be used for debate, as you have done with your extensive comment on the subsequent post.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Lehane, at first I only questioned your omniscience (and we've seen how much to make of that), but you're making me question your sanity.

I hope you're only drunk.

windscreen:fly said...

as far as i can see from following this u dont have much to look so smug about jta. u have been pretty rude and nasty.

Anonymous said...

Yes I have, Son