Is this country morally bankrupt?

You're shovelling a pit, Glorianny and falling into it.

Glorianny
So you think living in a country which is being raised to the ground with indiscriminate bombing and gunfire is a better place to leave a child.

Another excellent example of twisting things or accusing people of things they didn’t say!
Whatever keeps you happy.

GrannyGravy13

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

I have family experience of looked after children the safe guarding of these or any orphaned children must be paramount.

There are hours and hours of interviews with the prospective foster/adoptive parents. Multiple references , and interviews with employers and close family members, before the legal process can begin and the adults get to meet the child/ren.

It is not as simple as putting them on a plane to the U.K.

I would not like to see any short cuts taken which could leave any overseas orphans, wherever they come from in a situation which could be more detrimental than that they are already in.

So you think living in a country which is being raised to the ground with indiscriminate bombing and gunfire is a better place to leave a child?

I assume you would be/are happy to ship these children to the U.K. with no safeguarding checks, and to a family they probably have no knowledge of, to a life totally alien to them?

As a former teacher I would have thought you would put the safeguarding of any child uppermost.

Safeguarding requires that a child be in a safe place first. The safe comes before the guarding for a reason.

Fgs Glorianny, stop digging.

Glorianny I didn’t report your post that has been deleted, despite saying I was going to, real life got in the way.

If I had I would have owned up.

Callistemon213

You know perfectly well what I meant Glorianny

Why you have to make such offensive attacks on other posters all the time by making out they said things they did not, I do not know.
Does it make you feel more virtuous?

You said

Compared to Hamas very few of our politicians could be called morally bankrupt
How is that not comparing the UK to a terrorist organisation?
You then went on to claim it was OK
because the children are from Gaza.
I'm sorry but I find both of those statements offensive. You may not like that but it's my view.

You know perfectly well what I meant Glorianny

Why you have to make such offensive attacks on other posters all the time by making out they said things they did not, I do not know.
Does it make you feel more virtuous?

Message withdrawn as it quotes a deleted post.

Callistemon’s words were entirely clear to me and were not offensive. However Glorianny is an expert in the twisting of words to suit her agenda and consequently insulting the poster.

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

I have family experience of looked after children the safe guarding of these or any orphaned children must be paramount.

There are hours and hours of interviews with the prospective foster/adoptive parents. Multiple references , and interviews with employers and close family members, before the legal process can begin and the adults get to meet the child/ren.

It is not as simple as putting them on a plane to the U.K.

I would not like to see any short cuts taken which could leave any overseas orphans, wherever they come from in a situation which could be more detrimental than that they are already in.

So you think living in a country which is being raised to the ground with indiscriminate bombing and gunfire is a better place to leave a child?

I assume you would be/are happy to ship these children to the U.K. with no safeguarding checks, and to a family they probably have no knowledge of, to a life totally alien to them?

As a former teacher I would have thought you would put the safeguarding of any child uppermost.

Dickens

Callistemon213

Yiu are twisting completely what I said. What a truly offensive post, Glorianny.

I can see - quite clearly - how what you have said has been twisted so that it implies something entirely different to the point you were making.

It's something many of us have experienced from posters who want black or white answers.

You have said "xxx" which therefore means that you are "xxx" - type of debate.

Please explain it to me I can't see it.
Is it OK to compare moral standards in the UK with a terrorist organistaion or not?
I see that as a black and white situation. And I'd say definitely NOT!

Callistemon213

Yiu are twisting completely what I said. What a truly offensive post, Glorianny.

I can see - quite clearly - how what you have said has been twisted so that it implies something entirely different to the point you were making.

It's something many of us have experienced from posters who want black or white answers.

You have said "xxx" which therefore means that you are "xxx" - type of debate.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Gloriannny you are an expert at reading posts and putting your spin on them.

GrannyGravy13

I have family experience of looked after children the safe guarding of these or any orphaned children must be paramount.

There are hours and hours of interviews with the prospective foster/adoptive parents. Multiple references , and interviews with employers and close family members, before the legal process can begin and the adults get to meet the child/ren.

It is not as simple as putting them on a plane to the U.K.

I would not like to see any short cuts taken which could leave any overseas orphans, wherever they come from in a situation which could be more detrimental than that they are already in.

So you think living in a country which is being raised to the ground with indiscriminate bombing and gunfire is a better place to leave a child?

I have family experience of looked after children the safe guarding of these or any orphaned children must be paramount.

Yes, absolutely.

Yiu are twisting completely what I said. What a truly offensive post, Glorianny.

I have family experience of looked after children the safe guarding of these or any orphaned children must be paramount.

There are hours and hours of interviews with the prospective foster/adoptive parents. Multiple references , and interviews with employers and close family members, before the legal process can begin and the adults get to meet the child/ren.

It is not as simple as putting them on a plane to the U.K.

I would not like to see any short cuts taken which could leave any overseas orphans, wherever they come from in a situation which could be more detrimental than that they are already in.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

If the orphaned children can be identified and have actual family here then of course they should come here. How that can be achieved easily I do not know.

A close eye would need to be kept on their subsequent welfare.

GrannyGravy13

Glorianny

Callistemon213

Oh fgs.

Compared to Hamas very few of our politicians could be called morally bankrupt.

Why choose Hamas? Is that the only thing you think we should examine our actions against? That is in itself rather morally questionable.
Why not choose Italy? Italy is treating over 100 Gazan children in its hospitals.
Or France
They've treated over 1000 casualties in a hospital ship moored off the Gaza coast.
How's our standard of moral bankrupcy doing against them?

Just had a quick Google, the U.K. sent a fully equipped field hospital to Gaza in March this year.

The hospital ships are being coordinated by the UN, not individual nations.

The hospital ship was funded by UK-med a charitable organisation already active in Gaza.
The French shiip is a French warship and is using military helicopters to ferry patients to treatment.
www.politico.eu/article/palestine-conflict-israel-france-medical-treatment/

Spot on Doodledog.

I'm not sure any country which broadly supports a liberal democracy can be categorised - one way or another - can it?

As you point out, being morally bankrupt means different things to different people anyway.

And whatever it means, the judgement surely can't be based on the Home Secretary's response to a question about orphaned children in Gaza?

However sensitive the subject matter - do politicians ever give direct answers to questions? It's dangerous ground for them to tread so they tippy-toe around it. They're particularly wary of answering any questions that require personal or emotional responses.

I believe Tony Blair was the master when it comes down to answering questions directly - the master in avoidance. When asked a direct question, he would waffle around the boundaries of the matter, and then plough into his own agenda on the subject.

It's a politician's survival technique and I think they all have it - have to learn it, to stay in the business of government.

Glorianny

Callistemon213

Oh fgs.

Compared to Hamas very few of our politicians could be called morally bankrupt.

Why choose Hamas? Is that the only thing you think we should examine our actions against? That is in itself rather morally questionable.
Why not choose Italy? Italy is treating over 100 Gazan children in its hospitals.
Or France
They've treated over 1000 casualties in a hospital ship moored off the Gaza coast.
How's our standard of moral bankrupcy doing against them?

Because the subject is children in Gaza?

Mollygo

Very emotive blanket accusation *We see these children as some sort of threat*

I don’t see them as some sort of threat.
I do want to have children defined.
I do want to know what you propose should happen to those children who have no families claiming them. They would feel it a double disaster to have lost their parents and see others being claimed and them being abandoned.
What shall we do about those we see on the news who are being looked after by friends or relatives who are not in much better state to care for them and who would like to come with them? Shall we turn away the remaining familiar links of these children?
It just isn’t that easy and making a quick response which would inevitably be twisted would not help.
I don’t have the answers, but reading the accusations I have seen makes me wonder exactly who is morally bankrupt.

Mollygo there are of course many questions to be sorted out about children and families who are suffering such hardships, however the basic question is "Should those children have the right to come to family in the UK?" and surely the answer is "Yes" even if conditions need to be sorted before they do.

As for the age. I would say up to 18, with a proviso that children able to understand the process are asked if they want to leave Gaza.

As we aren't even allowing orphaned children to come the issues of permitting extended family to come would seem to be irrelevant. And if it were possible the UK family here would already be claiming them.

As for accusations I haven't made any I have simply expressed my views on why the children of Gaza present such a problem.

Glorianny

Callistemon213

Oh fgs.

Compared to Hamas very few of our politicians could be called morally bankrupt.

Why choose Hamas? Is that the only thing you think we should examine our actions against? That is in itself rather morally questionable.
Why not choose Italy? Italy is treating over 100 Gazan children in its hospitals.
Or France
They've treated over 1000 casualties in a hospital ship moored off the Gaza coast.
How's our standard of moral bankrupcy doing against them?

Just had a quick Google, the U.K. sent a fully equipped field hospital to Gaza in March this year.

The hospital ships are being coordinated by the UN, not individual nations.