Monday, October 26, 2009

Conservatives to restore grandparents to the heart of the family

The Bible does not talk of grandparents, but it does talk of one’s children’s children, and they are presented as a gift to the righteous and a symbol of God’s love and faithfulness. There is little doubt that the elderly and their children’s children were intended to forge a bond in order that wisdom, experience, learning and faith may be passed on and preserved through the generations. Grandparents are meant to be a second set of parents: their influence in a child’s emotional and social development can be as great as that provided by a mother and a father – for good or ill. They are not only caretaker guardians, but the archivists of family history; principal storyteller, mentor, confidant, and diplomatic intermediary between child and parent. Not to mention banker and debt counsellor. And where else can a child find the role model for their own twilight years?

Yet, for many grandparents, their children’s children have become little more than a picture on the sideboard or a charm on grandma’s bracelet.

The Conservative Party intends to restore the primacy of grandparents to the family unit by granting them rights in law which used to be theirs by tradition. But with changes to society (or ‘Breakdown Britain’), there has been an increase in incidences of separation, divorce and the rise of the single parent, such that millions of grandparents have simply lost touch with their children’s children, some even barred altogether from the access they request. And with rampant paedophilophobia, we are moving into the realms of having to subject all grandparents to a Criminal Records Bureau check before they are even permitted to mind their grandchildren.

The breaking of the grandparent-grandchild bond is heartbreaking for both parties, and a cause of irreparable deprivation to the youngest especially. Stories abound of the children of divorcees, the abused and the bereaved being palmed off to complete strangers or homosexual adoptees, irrespective of the wishes of the grandparents who presently have no rights in law over the future and care of their children’s children. Indeed, step parents have greater rights: water has become thicker than blood.

And so the Conservative Party has pledged to put the needs of the child to the fore, and where deemed appropriate the courts will be able to place grandparents at the front of the custody queue if their grandchildren face being fostered or taken into care. In the hierarchy of rights, ageism will no longer be trumped by homophobia.

Unless, of course, the grandparents happen to be practising Christians.


Anonymous Zach Johnstone said...

On the surface, this sounds like a good proposal. My grandparents were instrumental in my formative years, and I certainly wouldn't be the same person if I had missed out on their experience and guidance.

I would, however, like to see a patching up of the law with regards to fathers' rights before we move on to the next stage of family access.

26 October 2009 at 09:37  
Blogger Gnostic said...

A good post, Your Grace. If all grandparents were as wonderful as my maternal grandparents then the world would be a much happier and safer place.

26 October 2009 at 09:48  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

Four more resons to vote Conservative next time.

26 October 2009 at 10:14  
Anonymous Bethel said...

But what of the lot of elders themselves?
These measures will do nothing to underpin the assumption that, as members of a throwaway society, elders can then themselves be politely ignored once they become vulnerable.
Consider Baby P. Splashed across the tabloids. Or a sick horse being shot. Or your favourite dog being put own. Or an old person in domicilary or residential care being subject to a wee few low level regulatory offences if neglected or abused.
Which party will finally take on the job of formulating a set of provisions which place old vulnerable people on the same statutory footing that children enjoy under Section 1 of the Children Act 1989?

26 October 2009 at 10:16  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

The principle to honour our grandparents I think could be inferred from the fifth commandment: honour thy father and thy mother. What is fascinating about the position of that commandment (in fifth place) is that it sits between those commandments before it that instruct us to worship our creator, and those that follow it to look after our neighbour. It is as if God is indicating that the family is the fundamental building block of society.

What is even more vital are the values that provide support to this fundamental building block: God’s Word. There are many who point out that their parents had no difficulty in rearing them without the assistance of God’s Word; however, one could suggest that their parents may have been acting on Judaeo-Christian values without consciously being aware that they were.

I can understand, but not excuse, why the Marxists attack what they call the traditional ‘bourgeois family’. It is an institution which stands as a monument against justifying other family lifestyles; and because it does so, it must, according to them, be deconstructed.

It is that deconstruction, which is taught within our universities with its accompanying justifications (made easier to defend with the collapse of Judaeo-Christianity) that has led to ‘Broken Britain’.

The multi-dimensional role that Judaeo-Christianity once played in the family, community and civic spheres has been replaced by State interference financed by ever increasing taxation and expenditure.

What is interesting about Mr Cameron is that he is taking two steps forward and one step back. On family policy Cameron is vulnerable to the Marxist method of reducing one’s opponents to contradiction or pointing out inconsistency. Cameron supports civil partnerships. For Cameron to remain consistent and without contradiction, he should therefore support any type of family unit such as a brother marrying his sister. For if you permit another type of family unit, other than the norm, what justification and upon what basis can there be to prevent any other?

26 October 2009 at 11:34  
Anonymous Brian E. said...

Children need grandparents because as they get older they need a trusted adult to talk to other than their parents. I remember a teenage friend of my daughter (25 years ago!) who had virtually everything you could think of, her own TV, video recorder, you name it, she had it. My daughter was really jealous. But what she didn't have was her parents at home. Her father was a director of some multi-national, and her mother so involved with charities and other local organisations that she hardly ever saw them. So when she need someone to talk to, she always came round to talk to my wife, even when she'd fallen out with may daughter as teenagers do. My wife talked to her about all those things a teenage girl needed to know and occasionally went shopping with her. I'm sure these days it would be totally banned; no doubt some one would accuse my wife of "grooming" her, but all she needed was a sensible adult to talk to on a one-to-one basis. This is what's missing from most youngster's lives these days, and grandparents, if they don't live too far away perform a valuable and underestimated role.

26 October 2009 at 12:02  
Blogger RS said...

what is a practising christian? Surely one either believes unto eternal life or one has not come to faith. You cannot practice christianity just as when you inherit an estate you cannot practice being the inheritor. You hgave either inherited or you haven't. 'Practicing christian' sounds like evangelical salvation by works of the flesh, human will, morals, all that guff. Christianity is a state of eternal heavenly existence gifted to believers by christ - not something you do, it's something you are!

26 October 2009 at 13:16  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...


Ohh how wrong you are. I think there are a lot more "practising" religious people in this world than there are actual religious people in the world.

This is easily shown by the sheer amount of people that don't practice what they preach.

I however am an atheist, which according to many a practicing religious person would mean that I am devoid of any morals and can not be trusted. Yet I find myself more accepting, forgiving and loving than many a religious follower.

You are judged by your actions, not by your words.

26 October 2009 at 14:05  
Blogger Kenpachi said...

Sadly, all but my maternal grandfather had passed away before I was even born, and even the time spent with him was relatively short.

I've always felt like I missed out on many experiences during my childhood because of this and I think it's very sad indeed that current government policy can actually isolate grandparents from their grandchildren in such a way that it deprives them of something special, which is was sadly lacking in my own life.

26 October 2009 at 14:53  
Anonymous evergreen said...

Here in the US I've noticed a general shift in the attitudes and behaviors of grandparents, particularly grandmothers. Grandparents used to uphold parental authority and now they're just as likely to undermine it. They used to be friendly but strict, whereas now they often spoil the grandchildren to win their favor. Their primary concern seems to be that their grandchildren like them. These are my general observations, and I agree there are exceptions to these, but here's a challenge: ask today's grandparents what their own impressions were of their grandparents and I think you will see the difference.

26 October 2009 at 15:12  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

And a few more points on this. Cameron is unlikely to permit grandparents to look after their grandchildren before those who apply for adoption as civil partnerships. EU law is likely to ensure that.

The status of Cameron’s premiership will be subordinate to the EU’s federal law. Indeed, one can see tomorrow’s headline: ‘President rebukes Prime Minister’ or ‘President snubs Prime Minister’.

Furthermore, the Left-liberal elite is beavering in its attempts to bring in assisted euthanasia. Their solution for the old is to terminate their lives. It is Marie Curie Cancer charity that has recently argued that teams making decisions about whether or not to withdraw ‘care’ would eliminate concentrating power in the hands of just one decision-maker would suppress the risk of another Shipman. It would nothing of the sort. Responsibility shared throughout a team makes it more difficult for the plaintiff or the prosecutor to attribute responsibility for murder.

One can see it now, just as in the movie Logan’s Run where the old are taken to the place of execution and the young enthusiastic mob in the theatre shout:




26 October 2009 at 15:21  
Blogger Bill Sticker said...

Your Grace,

When will it become apparent to all that the source of many problems is political interference, from whatever quarter, in family life? Marriage and child rearing is a tough enough rope to walk without outsiders sticking their eternally damnéd oars in at every turn.

26 October 2009 at 15:34  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

Your Grace has hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. We can change the party of government, and we probably will, but what do we do about the ideologically-driven heads of services who will have children removed from some parents for not much more than being Christian, but leave others in abusive households being tortured to death because the mother lives an "alternative" lifestyle.

26 October 2009 at 15:35  
Anonymous not a machine said...

It sounds reasonable to me , a start perhaps on what has been the deliberate undermining of moral family values in favour of do as you please and spend as you wish. The family unit is important , society is little without it , it can hold and work upon/with the personal joys of life itsself . indeed it is perhaps such a fundamental point of life itsself that the socialist nutters deserve to paraded around the streets naked for ever contriving its deliberate destruction.

The systematic indoctrination of sex in the socialist ideal, to bring about the permissive and alledged free society always did have an element of a well that no one mentioned needed replensihing with christian values .

well the bucket has hit the bottom , all we find is a disgusting sludge that is undrinkable and unworkable , people are suffering all the problems through lack of love moral tution/value and family.We are at a point when people are unable to know any other than govt spin .

It is interesting that other voices long ago sent out under hoots of socialist victory are now in a position to sum up the post war era in a more devasting conclsuive light , we do not have the socialist utopia, indeed it is a myth for it turns out that we were better living in family unit under laws common and understood by all. Some cite the cerimonial endorsemant of marriage/family as being unworkable , yet when entered into with honesty it is the most joyous journey to set out upon .

all the double speak and minority priorities that have been foisted upon this country and its ingabitants has given such passive and small minds , much to the cheer of the legal professions coffers .

Tell you what lets make a radical proposal , let parents have responsiblity for the life choices of there children , then see what the grandparents and parents value . I bet your bottom dollar its not all the pc health and saftey overeach , or the regualr doses of state endorsed fear.

Socialism is utterly wonk and I am even more puzzled how one can be a christain socialist .

26 October 2009 at 16:45  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

I suppose I’ve been away from the UK so long that I’m out of touch, but it strikes me as extraordinary that it should ever have crossed any politician’s mind at all, whether left, right, or centre, to introduce legislation governing the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren. My wife and I are in constant contact with our grandson. We pick him up from school once or twice a week, he comes to lunch with us from time to time, and so on. As far as I'm aware, this contact is wholly unregulated by any legislation of any kind, which in my view is exactly as it should be.

26 October 2009 at 17:04  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"Yet I find myself more accepting, forgiving and loving than many a religious follower."
Well, good old you! Reminds me of the publican and the pharisee.

26 October 2009 at 17:06  
Blogger Pavlov's Cat said...

Good proposal if the grandparents involved are as happy and photogenic as the ones with the accompanying picture. I fear in reality the situation is rather different and the vast majority of elderly have nothing to contribute except a lifetimes accumlated bile.

Personally, my grandfather was a ghost in armchair, and my grandmother with alzheimers and a particularly evil streak towards her own children.

26 October 2009 at 17:09  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

It will be fascinating to see how far a Tory government gets with this proposal in the jaws of EU dominance.

26 October 2009 at 20:53  
Blogger RS said...

dear glovner

but u are still an atheist!

The heavenly rest world is for the chosen, to which I belong and have an inheritance, not unbelievers like you who wander the earth lost in a myriad of deceptions and phantoms.

You are dead. I am not.

26 October 2009 at 21:20  
Blogger RS said...

31:14 All this is in order that no trees by the waters may grow to towering height or set their tops among the clouds, and that no trees that drink water may reach up to them in height. For they are all given over to death, to the world below, among the children of man, with those who go down to the pit

Let us not be disturbed by the world of men - it is finished as christ said 2000 years ago. They grow as the grass of the field and then they disappear like phantoms. The word of the Lord remains forever and I am one of His offspring. Now that is cheery.

26 October 2009 at 21:38  
Blogger objet petit a said...

Well said, your Grace.

26 October 2009 at 23:52  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

I agree with Zach, children need fathers too, and at this moment in time 100,000 per year have to apply to the courts simply to get their vindictive Ex's to honour contact arrangements.

The state has engineered our troubles, it os not accident or incompetence it is all by design.
The West is under attack, and the Tories are part of the Problem, this move is a few crumbs to herd the masses their way.

That is all we will get from them, crumbs, nothing substantial. it is a lure for the Geriatric vote, meanwhile Bigger issues go unaddressed, like immigration, the EU.
what is going on is electioneering, a few hundred thousand votes with this policy, a few hundred with another minor policy, who needs to address the Bigger issues when the sheep can be coralled in this fashion who will not see that in the end, the EU and Immigration will mean the crumbs they have just been thrown mean nothing.

Treanor News Website

27 October 2009 at 05:48  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"Well, good old you! Reminds me of the publican and the pharisee."

And yet here you are, true, good and religious with the almost obligatory mocking undertone that accompanies it.

27 October 2009 at 08:17  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...


Lets take that bit by bit then shall we?

"dear glovner"

Does a hellbound unbeliever like me not warrent a capital letter in "Dear" or in my name? My, you must deem me lower than the low.

"but u are still an atheist!"

I am, does this mean I am a bad person that deserves the scorn from someone who practices (so I am told) a loving and forgiving (so I am told) religion?

"The heavenly rest world is for the chosen,"

And you know this how? A book that consists of many parts each part written by a group of different authors and the best one selected and put together, all of 1700 years ago? For the purposes of stopping an impending civil war.

"to which I belong and have an inheritance,"

And you demonstrate it beautifully, you would be just as well screaming Kaffur at me. But silly me you have an inheritence to it, so you are chosen, a tad egotistical don't you think? Doesn't your religion say something against the ego?

"not unbelievers like you who wander the earth lost in a myriad of deceptions and phantoms."

Ahh, that ould chesnut, I do so love it when the people that have so much proof to show that their holy ghosts are real tell me that my life led in logical assumptions backed up by emperical evidence is false.

If you don't see the irnoy in that statement you just made then there is not much point discussing this matter further.

"You are dead. I am not."

I beg to differ, I live every day like it's my last, but I am far from dead yet and have far to much to live for. I think this is another point where the emperical evidence is on my side.

However I fully expect you now to point out that all this mindless drivel was metophorical and an unbelieving fool like me couldn't begin to properly understand anything a true chosen believer like yourself would say.

27 October 2009 at 08:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You are judged by your actions, not by your words." And, in your passive construction, who Judges, Glovner? You?

And if words are so pointless - why do you use them against us? Or - wait; does the posting of your words count as action?

Oh - and how about the heart, mind, and spirit that inform a person's words? By what power do you presume to understand those, in the name of your Justice?

28 October 2009 at 06:01  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Apologies, been sick and not been on to answer your reply.

Back now, so here goes.

"You are judged by your actions, not by your words." And, in your passive construction, who Judges, Glovner? You?

I judge, you judge, we all judge. The courts judge, the law judges and so in the end the people judge.

Who doesn't judge in my opinion is sky ghosts, since I have never seen (and I suspect nobody in the world has ever seen and can provide evidence of) that judgement ever taking place.

"And if words are so pointless - why do you use them against us? Or - wait; does the posting of your words count as action?"

Who said words are pointless? Oh wait, my mistake, that's just you taking something that was said, twisting it and turning its actual meaning into something that was never said and using it to back up your train of thought, would that be about right?

"Use them against us"? Oh right are we fighting a war of us and them now as well? Get a grip. Just because someone doesn't agree with you then you instantly put up a wall and have them on the other side, in the other team as the enemy? Says a lot really doesn't it. Instead of trying to understand you just start spouting your disgust without even begining to think about what you are saying before it escapes your mouth.

Just think about what you are asking even a little and you probably wouldn't need to raise the questions in the first place.

If I said in a spurious drunken conversation that I think all religious people should be shot. Then clearly people may pass some judgment on my personality or perhaps even go as far as my state of mind but it would generally be left at that. If I actually went out and starting murdering groups of religious people then I think the judgements would become a bit more official.

In other words you are judged by your actions and not your words, that doesn't mean that words are pointless. They can be powerful and should be used carefully.

2 November 2009 at 13:25  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"Oh - and how about the heart, mind, and spirit that inform a person's words? By what power do you presume to understand those, in the name of your Justice?"

Speaking literally, the heart doesn't inform any words. It provides the ablility to circulate blood round the body. The spirit doesn't inform people's words as the human spirit is nothing that can be proved to exist. It is a feeling of me, there have been a number of experiments carried out showing that the sense of me/I that gives rise to the theory of a spirit/soul is something that takes place in the mind though so we can probably just get rid of the word spirit and say mind instead.

Speaking metophorically about the heart and spirit then I think what you are talking about emotions, which are still (no matter how you want to look at it) controlled by the mind since that is the only organ in the human body which provides the ability to think.

So if it is a genuine logical question (which I fear it isn't, it is more likely you just spitting out nonsense and disgust in a manic style against anything you don't agree with, feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that you are trying to raise it should be worded a little more like;

"Oh - and how about the mind/brain that inform a person's words? By what power do you presume to understand that, in the name of your Justice?"

If that is what you are trying to say I don't actually get your question.

In the name of my Justice? What exactly are you talking about? It isn't my justice, it is justice that's it. My mind has nothing to do with it. It's everybodys mind since the birth of justice. It's what the majority social group find acceptable over thousands of years which has led to our various forms of justice which we learn growing up and thus have an effect on our indivdual judgements that we make on people. All this takes place in the mind due to nurture over the course of our lives.

If that doesn't answer your actual question then I'm just getting slightly confused by your post to be honest. You don't seem to be articulating a point that I can reply to. It is almost at the level of "I know you are but what am I" type arguing.

2 November 2009 at 13:25  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older