Madonna Continues To Rob Malawi Of Their Children
Eighties (not her age) pop superstar Madonna has successfully adopted two more children from Malawi and taken them to Trump’s America to be rebranded. The two children are twins whose mother died soon after childbirth before being targeted by Ms Ciccone as a nice addition to her family. She has already adopted two children, Mercy and David, from the African country and of course no money changed hands in these transactions, it was all above board. The process has taken over two years as the courts considered whether it was in the best interests of the children to be taken from the country of their birth to the US. Activists in Malawi are not happy; Ken Mhango local head of the African Network for the Protection and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (ANPPCAN), said that Madonna was portraying Malawi as ‘having a pool of poor children on the market for adoption.’ The case was not a transparent one, indeed the process has been surrounded in secrecy. So, is it right that mega-rich film and pop stars can ‘buy’…adopt freely… (no one was bought or sold) kids from desperately poor countries? It is true to say Madonna has used some of her riches to help children in Malawi but is she saving youngsters from a life of extreme poverty or helping herself to a couple of black kids because it’s ‘trendy’, saying ‘look at me, aren’t I a wonderful example of motherhood and the milk of human kindness?’ It’s a difficult one to judge but if she (or others) were to be spiriting away children from care homes in this country I find it hard to conceive of a British court allowing such a thing. If she were not a high profile, high wealth individual, would there be the slightest chance of her successfully adopting 4 children from Malawi? I suspect not. How does Madonna change a lightbulb? She just holds it and the world revolves around her. She is quite a divisive figure; on the one hand she speaks out against injustice, on the other she uses her wealth and power to get exactly what she wants, when she wants it. There appears to be a soupcon of hypocrisy here. It is well known that in quite a number of corrupt African countries those exercising power can be ‘persuaded’ to make rulings based on how much money the claimant gives over to them. Just saying, that’s all.
Lords Of The Demise?
The House of Lords (currently comprising 760 unelected members) will soon be debating and voting on the Britain Exiting the EU Bill. It is expected that they will take their lead from the House of Commons and the British electorate by passing the bill by a large majority. However some people, namely me, are not so sure. If the bill is defeated by these privileged, unelected peers the question for Theresa May is should the House of Lords be abolished in favour of an elected second chamber? In a Parliamentary democracy it is quite anachronistic that the second most powerful political body in the country has not earned a single vote from the populace. Peers can sign in, not make a single contribution in the chamber or elsewhere and claim £300 per day + expenses. That’s a possible £1500 per week of taxpayers money for doing zip. Governments of all colours have long been accused of cronyism for proposing peerages, amongst other reasons, for those who donate to their parties. Or cash for peerages as it’s better known. Celebrities also feature prominently e.g. Sir Bradley Wiggins, who was inducted into the Lords on a TUEs day. The SNP have a great idea how to modernise the Lords; by turning it into a tourist attraction full of stuffy peers dressed like ‘demented Santa Clauses’. There was a move to have ‘People’s Peers’ in the House, however hundreds of ‘ordinary people’ who applied were overlooked for the rich and powerful. None of the ‘ordinary’ (for which read ‘common’) people made it to the shortlist. Not one lollipop lady, nurse, fireman, teacher or care worker.