Having been a carer for two elderly parents (now deceased), I have am aware of something that affects the lives of many elderly, infirm and sick people: that taking prescription medications can have side effects. These obviously vary in type and severity from person to person and those unfortunate souls who have serious conditions can often find the very powerful medicines they are on have side effects that are powerful and unpleasant.
We know that some British Gazette readers are affected this way and you have our utmost sympathy in these times of trial. Be assured, you are in people’s prayers. For those readers happily unaffected…. there but for the Grace of God…..
Unpleasant side effects however are not confined to medicine and pharmacology. Today’s online Guardian reports: “Greater Manchester chief constable Sir Peter Fahy says government strategy could alienate Muslims and damage free speech and religious freedom.”
This organ is of course very critical of this nation’s political establishment. That is not to say there is an automatic condemnation of every government policy and initiative. Sir Peter Fahy may well be critical of Home Secretary Theresa May who, as the Guardian reports, wants to introduce banning orders on non-violent extremism suspects. But Mrs May is not wrong in her conclusion that these measures are necessary.
Of course, British Gazette readers will be saying out loud; “There is more to it that taking the medicine!”
You are of course right Dear Reader.
For many with long term conditions taking the tablets is just one aspect of tackling their condition. There is often a requirement for a change of lifestyle such as a change of diet – for those with heart conditions or diabetes for instance. There may be a need to increase or indeed commence a regime of daily exercise. One of the great annoyances of life for such people is the realisation that if they had not adopted their previous lifestyle (e.g.; smoking, lack of exercise, a diet of “junk” food from the local take-away) they would not have developed the condition in the first place! As it so often is, the medical professional will very strongly advise that their patient desist from this behaviour.
This is why the organ is among those who urges the present government not to make the problem worse by taking in MORE Muslims.
Of course the politically correct will condemn this as outrageously racist and Islamophobic.
We rebut this with this simple analogy:
Anyone who has been to the town of Blackpool on the Flyde coast of Lancashire will know that it has had many bed and breakfast establishments, in the past known as “boarding houses”. These often family run establishment offered basic, inexpensive accommodation for people on a budget.
With the change of economic conditions today, many of these establishments have new owners who let them out as multiple occupancy lettings. What this means is that instead of an expensive conversion to separate apartments or letting the generally large house to a single tenant, the landlord lets the property to a number of lodgers, each of whom will rent a room and inter-alia, a right to use common facilities such as kitchen/s, bathroom/s and toilet/s.
Such lettings offer low cost accommodation to people on low incomes.
Of course such letting schemes do not come without the potential for problems. In order for these “house shares” to work well, it is necessary that the multiple occupiers get on with each other and co-operate. Sadly, in many cases this does not occur and indeed, some occupiers can be people who are vulnerable or have chaotic lives and cause problems. There have been reported instances of such people causing their rooms to become extremely unkempt, sometimes to such an extent that these rooms have insect infestation that go onto cause problems for the other occupiers. In other cases the problem is not insects but noise. There are instances of an occupier playing loud music in the “wee small hours” – whilst other occupiers wish to sleep.
Inevitably the police are often called to deal with such situations.
Clearly, there is a COMMON SENSE answer to these problems: that prospective multiple occupiers are in effect selected by the landlord and/or the other occupiers to ensure that everybody “fits in” and “gets on.”
The problem is that this has not been applied to immigration policy in this or many other countries. Indeed, the UK is NOT the most blatant example of wrong-headedness. That must surely go to Sweden. In the 1960s and the 1970s, Sweden was famous – some would say notorious – for its liberal attitude towards life. At that time, Sweden was a racially, socially and culturally a homogeneous society – although many will refer the Editor to the ethnic northern peoples who are racially, socially and culturally different from the Nordic population of the south of that country.
In recent times this has changed. Imbued with a desire to create a culturally, racially and religiously diverse society, Sweden’s liberal minded politicians encouraged large numbers of generally but not exclusively Muslim people to migrate to Sweden. The results have sadly been predictable and disastrous. The numbers of rapes – to Swedish women – have sky-rocketed. In nearly all cases the assailant has been either a Muslim man or a group of Muslim men. This is because these men have been brought up with a completely different attitude towards women. When some of these men see a woman dressed in say a mini skirt and a top which reveals her shoulders and décolletage; they regard such a woman as a prostitute. Furthermore since they regard her as an infidel as well they feel themselves at liberty to force themselves upon her. These men do not feel guilt and do not have feelings of remorse as they do not believe they have done anything wrong!
Now clearly, not every Muslim man is a rapist or potential rapist but with many Muslims deciding to leave such countries as Sweden and the UK to live under the regime of the terror group known as “IS” there is a clear difference of outlook on life between the post industrial liberal secular societies in such as Sweden and the UK – who celebrate those people who like to describe themselves as “Gay” – and people who would see such persons thrown off the tops of tall buildings.
This is of course why Mrs May intends to introduce much tighter laws and regulation. To control and manage the situation. These laws – and probably much tougher and more restrictive laws still – will be necessary as the situation gets worse. And be warned, this situation will only get worse. It will not get better.
There are many British Gazette readers who are justly proud of this nation’s tradition of liberal attitudes and that we still do not have to carry an identity card. This however will change. It will have to. Compulsory identity cards – that will have biometric information such as DNA and finger prints – will be introduced. We will ALL have to possess and carry them. In this cash strapped country most of us – save those on benefits – will have to pay for these. It is possible that OAPs – across the income range – will be exempt but purely because these people tend to vote whereas the younger people do not!
Then of course there is the issue or principle of the Quid Pro Quo.
This was a tradition at the core of British colonial administrations: the need to be seen as being even handed.
Often, being seen to be even handed was often deliberately not being even handed. If there was one group causing problems the colonial authorities would put measures in place to deal with this. However, to ensure acceptance, or to reduce the level of protest, these same authorities would often apply the same or similar measures to another group, even when the actions or behaviour of this other group was not a problem and did not justify it. This was often “rough justice” and ended up harshly treating a particular group. The colonial authorities did this however as they regarded it as necessary to manage the situation with the problem group.
Therefore we can be fairly sure that the long term future of organs such as the British Gazette is in doubt.