TotallyNotPC

BBC report highly biased and shamefully fails to give the full picture of the situation. Where were the parents of these girls? The parents of the boys responsible? Didn’t their own family members abandon them?

Thousands of us saw the heart-wrenching story about women forced to give up their babies for adoption at breakfast this morning on the BBC.

Hundreds of women who were forced to give up their babies for adoption in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are now demanding Prime Minister Boris Johnson to issue an official government apology, following in the footsteps of Australia, in apologising for forced adoptions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57231621

The BBC report quoted Jill Killington, who described being un unmarried mother at the age of 16 in 1967 as a “fate worse than death.”

She said she was forced to stay upstairs at home to hide her growing tummy to ensure no visitors saw her and she was asked by her mother to wear a wedding ring when she left the house.

“It was a deeply humiliating time,” she was quoted as saying by BBC.

Another victim, Veronica Smith who became pregnant in 1965 was sent to a mother and baby home in London when her mother found out about the pregnancy.

So, at what point of time did the government play a part in forcing Jill to confine herself to her room and to wear a wedding ring.

Did the government tell her parents to keep Jill indoors locked in her room, away from the prying eyes of her neighbours?

Did the government send Veronica to a mother and baby home in London?

No. No and No. Their parents did. Their own flesh and blood were humiliated and embarrassed that they had an unmarried pregnant daughter under their roof. They did not want anyone to know.

Pressure from professionals or their own parents?

The BBC report further claimed that lawyers looking into the issue found that about half of the women who were forced to give up their babies between 1945 and 1975, faced sustained pressure from professionals, which included doctors, midwives, workers in mother and baby homes and adoption staff in religious and council-run homes.

So where exactly were the parents of these girls? Their grandparents? The boys/men responsible for getting the girls pregnant and even their parents?

Did they not play a part in these forced adoptions?

Now this is what I call biased reporting. Shame on you BBC.

Only one side was presented. But in reality, there were so many sides to this story. The fact is, the report by BBC does not give the full picture. The BBC report was not complete.

BBC took the research report and flogged it with some human interest interviews to pull your heartstrings. Did it work? Yes, even I was touched by what these women went through. I am still upset that they had to go through what they did.

I would never wish this on any parent. I would never want to go through this or for anyone I know to go through this type of pain. It should never have happened. End of. But it did.

The women in the story claimed they never gave consent and if they did, it was forced consent to the adoption.

Who gives legal consent?

In the 1940s, 1950s and even 1960s …. what was the legal right of a 16-year-old? Could they vote? Could they sign a medical consent form? Or do they still need a guardian or a parent to do so?

The BBC report was sadly lacking on these simple facts to give the full factual story.

So who gave consent? Their parents. Their parents, who were not coerced. The parents who only gave up their grandchild because they were too ashamed to acknowledge that their daughters had ‘strayed’ and had a child out of wedlock.

In a paper ‘40 years hard labour‘ published by the Ulster Medical Society by Dame Lorna EF Muirhead in May 2008, said: “1964 predated the contraceptive pill and the abortion act and there were many unplanned pregnancies for married and unmarried women alike. It was a huge social disgrace to be pregnant out of wedlock, so much so that girls finding themselves in this situation used to go “on holiday” to another town where they delivered their child, often having it adopted, and then conveniently arrived back home “from holiday.”

It will be difficult for today’s midwife and obstetrician to contemplate childbirth or the practice of midwifery and obstetrics within this context; just as in forty years time it will be difficult for the midwives and obstetricians of the day to contemplate the practice you do now. Professional life moves on, and goalposts and expectations constantly move.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516441/

Pain relief

The paper also talked about pain relief. In the BBC report, Ann Keen, who was 17 when she fell pregnant, in 1966, accused the midwife to not giving her any pain relief during the child birth.

Personally, I cannot imagine going through childbirth without pain relief. But in those days, alot of women never had pain relief.

In her report, Dame Lorna EF Muirhead continued: “It was 1964 when childbirth was not viewed as the normal life changing event, which it is today, but a frightening painful experience, which women had to endure in order to become mothers. It was a time when antenatal education was almost non-existent and women came to childbirth hardly knowing what to expect. Many were forced to deliver at home because there were not enough maternity beds for them to have their baby in hospital, which is what women then aspired to do. Hospital birth was becoming all the rage! Labours were longer and experienced without the support of husbands and family, who generally left them at the labour ward door, coming back later to see mother and baby.

“Women laboured in Nightingale wards with only a curtain in between them. They often laboured with inadequate pain relief. 50 or 100mg of pethidine was the standard analgesia for labour, topped up by gas and air towards the second stage.”

BBC, when you do report on research reports, or even do your own investigations, please put the story in context.

It is so easy to blame the government for everything. But let’s face it, society i.e. people like you and I, our social perceptions of right and wrong at that point of time, was what allowed this to happen.

The parents of these girls, their grandparents, their immediate families and even the girls’ partners and their families should be held responsible.

What I would like to know from these interviews: What did their parents say years later? Did they apologise? Did they want to know what happened to their grandchild? Did they want to trace the grandchild? Did they compensate their children for the pain they forced them to go through in giving up their child?

The reality was, everyone was ashamed. The parents, the families and the poor unmarried mothers.

Benefits available for unwed mothers in the 1940s?

Another issue that was brought up in the BBC report: the unmarried mothers were not told they were entitled to benefits. Shocking!

But read the following story by BBC in 2012, which looked at benefits for single mothers and what they needed to do to get any funding.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17159966

So taking everything into context, do you really think even if they had the knowledge about benefits, would an unmarried 16-year-old, go against her parents’ wishes, humiliate them and approach the authorities, in this case and ask for money to support herself and her child?

Where would she live? Not in her parents house because they would be too mortified to acknowledge what had happened. Perhaps in another town?

Abandoned babies

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/ireland-s-abandoned-babies-stories-of-unimaginable-fear-1.4134033

Here is a thought to ponder: If the government or other institutions were not around to help with keeping these girls/women safe until after the birth, and arranging for the adoption – what would have happened?

In Ireland, a lot of them were abandoned. This may come as a surprise to many in the UK but in a lot of developing and third world countries, babies are still being abandoned.

Whether it is poverty, shame because the child is born out of wedlock, rape or whatever. Cases of abandoned babies are especially high in countries with so-called high religious beliefs – so go figure.

Taking responsibility

So explain again why it is the government that needs to apologise? Let’s take a closer look at these girls’ parents, the boys’ parents, grandparents …. stop blaming everything on the government.

I am not saying the government has no responsibility at all. But one thing is true: The full story is yet to be told.

There are times when the government is at fault, but we need to start taking responsibilities for ourselves at some point of time. And this is one of those times.

The £36.50 cake that cost UK taxpayers £250,000 – and there is still no cake!

marriage-equality-749536_1920

The Ashers ‘gay cake’ court decision has stirred a hornet’s nest and has set the stage for a major showdown between supporting freedom of speech and freedom of choice.

For those who are not in the loop – The UK Supreme Court ruled that a Northern Ireland baker’s refusal to make a cake with the slogan “support gay marriage” in 2014 was not discriminatory.

The customer, Gareth Lee sued Ashers for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and political beliefs.

Lee felt the refusal to deliver a cake by Ashers made him feel like a second-class citizen.

The baker, on the other hand, said the refusal was based on the slogan and not the customer.

Ashers general manager Daniel McArthur had this to say: “Family businesses like ours are free to focus on giving all their customers the best service they can – without being forced to promote other people’s campaigns.”

The £500,000 legal battle that took four and a half years and was paid for by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ie taxpayer’s money – or in simple terms, our money), while the baker’s bill was picked up by The Christian Institute, a charity and lobby group.

These are some comments made on the ruling:

John Larkin – Northern Ireland AG

“This decision provides an important protection against any misapplication of our equality law that would seek to compel citizens to express views with which they may disagree on grounds of their deeply held political or religious beliefs.”

Peter Tatchell, Human Rights Campaigner

“If the original judgement against Ashers had been upheld, it would have meant that a Muslim printer could be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed and a Jewish printer could be forced to publish a book that propagates Holocaust denial.”

Traditional Unionist Voice leader Jim Allister

“The effort to impose the LGBT agenda on Christian businesses by compelling promotion of their political demands, irrespective of the conscience or religious belief of the business owner, needed to be reined in.”

John O’Doherty – The Rainbow Project

“We believe this is direct discrimination for which there can be no justification.”

DUP leader Arlene Foster

“This now provides clarity for people of all faiths and none.”

Robert Hill, UKIP Northern Ireland

“This is a great decision in favour of religious freedom and in favour of freedom of speech and expression.”

Some of the comments above are beyond belief.

The decision does not provide clarity. It is not in favour of religious freedom nor is it in favour of freedom of speech and/or expression.

The judges looked at both arguments and decided to give more weight to the freedom of the baker (ie small businesses) against a client (ie you and me). It was not an issue of who was right or wrong. It seems like the judges had to rule on whose rights were more important!

The honourable judges, rightly or wrongly, looked at the reasons why service was refused and decided it was not discriminatory but in fact, had ruled in favour of the exercise of personal belief and right OVER that of a customer’s.

To tell you the truth, both sides of the case have their own merit. But giving credence to the baker, simply gives the message to all that services can be refused if the customer’s request does not comply with the management’s beliefs.

No doubt, it was not an easy case BUT this simply cannot be acceptable – not in this country and not in the world we live in today.

There are so many countries where freedom of speech does not exist, where freedom of thought can attract dire consequences.

At the end of the day, all of us have the right to express ourselves. Have we lost this right?

PS Purely on a commercial, contractual basis, the baker took Lee’s money and only a few days later refused to honour the deal and deliver the cake.

I am a bit perplexed. Did anyone raise the issue that there was a breach of contract? Shouldn’t that be the issue, especially if Lee is supposed to have a cake with the slogan for an event? Did he have time to have another cake made?

Shouldn’t breach of contract be the issue? That would have been a fairer way to go!