Maa - Mother

Maaan 

Koi Hath Ha Mere Hath Mein

Koi Hath Ha Mere Hath Mein

Zindagi Tera Falsafa

Zindagi Tera Falsafa

Forward

Magic happens when one begins to follow their heart.

That's how these poems have come.

ACIM says that Miracles are natural, and when they don't happen, something has gone wrong.

A journey towards Miracles is a journey away from worry, and away from regret. It's a path that leads to no particular place, yet one that takes one just where one needs to go. It's a path of gentleness and acceptance, where one finds themselves not complaining any more, not finding fault with everything around, not trying to blame everyone for their own failings.

Poetry is just an outlet, a side dish of the journey.

These poems were inspired by A Course in Miracles. (ACIM) They use ACIM terminology, and were written as part of my own imaginary journey back to God. I started studying ACIM in 1994 as part of my own search for meaning. I never thought I'd be writing poetry. Nevertheless, it seems to come, so I guess I'll write it. Maybe you'll find it helpful, or at least entertaining.


If you are new to ACIM, the poems reflect various themes in A Course In Miracles, but in rhyme. At times, they have adult content, but then so does the six-O'clock news. If they shock you, you can simply forgive me and use them in your journey helping you to learn to forgive. They after all are written for me, from my journey & my experience.

When I began to write these, I had no idea where they will go, or how they will end. I simply started with an idea or a question, and watched how the poem would answer it.

I offer them to you, as they are, and wish you the best in everything

D. Chandonnet

“Sense of an Ending” by Julian barnes

           As we study about to new literature in very famous and also psychological thriller novel “Sense of an Ending” by Julian Barnes published in 2011.  It is first person narration.  It is talked about to literary fiction, psychology of character, memory novel etc.  So now we explain how narrator talks about his memory and we have doubt of them. It may be say that Novelist himself deconstructed idea of his own narratives.

•         We read novel that when Veronica replayed “Blood Money” means from someone’s spilled blood the money is given Antony.  Tony has helped them to Mrs. Sarah Ford. At End of her life, she gave that money to Tony because of that she was happy in relationship with Adrian. One day Tony Suggested to Adrian that Met to Mrs. Sarah Ford. Later one Mrs. Sarah ford Die at that time she was happy them. But in later on Adrian committed suicide. So may be Veronica not happy of them. That’s why she tells that this money was not pure and that is why she just replayed “Blood Money”. 

•         In this decipher the Education that when Adrian committed suicide several things come out to Tony’s life. He noted down in his dairy. And Tony has tells that to Veronica that given Adrian dairy. But she given Pages of that dairy. There is one Equations that b= s – v *+ a1. Later on resolved by Tony.  B = Baby, S = Sarah, V = Veronica, A1 = Anthony or Adrian. We know that Adrian call to tony as Anthony.  When he talked about to any formula in His dairy that he remembered them.  It is that Veronica’s mother Mrs. Sarah and Adrian son as baby (Adrian). This equation as to be put relationship to Mrs. Sarah Ford, Adrian and Anthony as Tony.

•         Adrian’s Dairy owned by Sarah Ford because of that she was wife of Adrian. At dying last days both are happy. But at Adrian and Sarah Ford Die that his child Adrian as desist. Adrian has brother of Veronica. At that time she was caring and possession of society. And how Veronica has Burdon of that Adrian care and his diseases. 

•         It may be that Adrian has no father and Mother. As we see that this only for Tony’s memory that Adrian has Trauma. The death spot Arian’s death body was found.  Adrian death was First class Suicide. And He was Philosophical ideas and Mentally Strong person. Adrian death has to be true that Possibilities not lie there. And there is the clarification of Suicide note. Adrian believes that there is nothing wrong in suicide. That’s why there are not possibilities of Adrian living with hidden identity.

•          As we see that Tony point out that it is seems like that because of the curse of Tony. Tony thinks that Veronica’s child Adrian suffering from mental disease. Veronica as mother suffering in care in the community. But in later on time passes that Veronica was not mother of Adrian but she is sister of Adrian. Adrian mother Sarah Ford die that as a sister she carries her brother Adrian.

•          As we know that this book “Sense of an Ending” falls under category of Psychological thriller novel. There is not a single missing scenes or some dot which is not connected with the whole narration. It is only for Narrator Tony Webster’s memory. It may be that whole narration as falsified in the end. So My observation and point of views that no any some dot which is not getting whole novel.  

•         As we read Novel no any clear cut reason for Adrian committed suicide. It is not in narration because of that Tony as Novelist not given reason. Why Adrian Finn committed suicide. As we minutely observes that  there are multiple reason like he suffering from Trauma, Father & Mother die, Love & Relationship with Sarah Ford, Fear of Sarah ford’s Husband, Burden of Dieses child born, Society accepted or not etc. So these are the reasons. But it is not clear that Adrian die only for this reason. 

•         The Novel in we find that Tony as Narrator and is point of view we look at every characters. But we see that Veronica characters definition as different.  Veronica emerges in our mind as instructive, Manipulative, Calculative, stubborn and haughty but as time passé in the story unfold in front of our eyes she emerges as sacrificial, intelligent, trustworthily and Good Samaritan. It is all about to narrator Tony’s point of views. It may be that these types of Veronica not in real one but narrator talk as their limitations.  Tony can’t thought about beyond the boundaries that she is real that or not. Or maybe something Good and humble Veronica.   

•          Yes, it is Classifiable as Unreliable narration. As we know that At beginning that narrator Tony has tells story and as end of the novel He himself create doubt and falsified his own narration. It is deconstructed ideas of narration and at end reconstructed his story. Also we can say that Tony Webster as Unreliable narrator. In novel First part as story told that in end it falsely in second part by provided documentary. May be we can says that this is Tony memory and he deconstructed his memory. At end of novel we can say that Tony Webster memory totally wrong and may Tony‘s dream. That’s why Tony classifiable as Unreliable Narrator. We doubt to Tony narration, what he told in begin and end.  

                    So it is my point of view about Psychological Thriller novel Sense of An ending. It is talk about to Memory of narrator.

Is Emma Woodhouse a likeable heroine?

Austen once famously remarked that Emma is “a heroine whom no-one but myself will much like,” and her rationale for saying this is obvious: unlike Fanny Price or Anne Elliot, Emma is not a particularly admirable character. Indeed, many of the novel’s greatest disasters (Box Hill, for instance) or near-disasters (Harriet’s near damnation to the fate of being “an old maid at last, like Miss Bates”) are caused by Emma and her famous lack of judgement. Emma, despite being clever, is, in the words of Claire Tomalin, “consistently wrong”. Moreover, she is an arrogant heroine, particularly when it comes to her obsession with class and hierarchy. And yet, despite her flaws, there is a certain appeal and allure in Emma that is perhaps lacking in the somewhat bland Fanny Price. We are attracted to Emma’s desire for excitement and her undeniable charm, and thus, though Emma is not a particularly admirable character, she is certainly a likeable protagonist.

One of Emma’s least attractive traits is her obsession with class, which comes across on a number of occasions in the novel but particularly in her attitudes to Miss Bates and the Coles. Austen emphasises the extreme differences in Emma and Miss Bates’s situation: Emma is “handsome, clever, and rich with a comfortable home,” whilst Miss Bates is “neither young, handsome, rich,” with “no intellectual superiority” and living “in a very small way.” Indeed, it is worth noting that Austen herself was very much like Miss Bates: a relatively poor spinster living on the benevolence of her brother Edward Knight with her mother (as Miss Bates does) and sister Cassandra. Austen’s arguable similarity to Miss Bates perhaps explains Austen’s pity for Miss Bates in Emma’s arrogance (Emma “seldom went near them” because she was afraid of “falling in with the second rate and third rate of Highbury”) and lack of concern (she does not contribute “what she ought” to their comfort), despite the fact that, when Emma does visit, she is “most cordially and even gratefully welcomed.” Emma’s attitude to Miss Bates, the novel’s moral compass, determines our opinion of her, and can be contrasted to Mr Knightley’s benevolence and care towards the Bateses (giving the rest of his apples and lending his carriage). Emma’s attitude towards the Coles is similarly unattractive (and also rather comic): she at first refuses to go to their party because they are “only moderately genteel” (not a “superior family”), preferring to remain in “solitary grandeur”. Again, this is another unattractive perspective on Emma.

Emma also shows her arrogance when it comes to her confidence in her own flawed judgement, which leads her to persuade Harriet to reject Robert Martin and to fall in love with Elton, who “never thought of Miss Smith” in the whole course of his existence. Emma mistakes Elton’s false and excessive gallantry regarding the painting and his charade to be directed at Harriet, when really it was directed at her (despite John’s warning her that Elton has “a great deal of good will” towards her). Emma mocks Martin’s proposal of marriage, despite the fact that he “expressed good sense” and rented “a very large farm” (with espalier apple-trees, indicating wealth), because he is a farmer and “must be coarse and unpolished”. This generalisation is also seen in her attitude to the poor family she visits, who must have no “extraordinary virtue” because of their poverty. Again, we see here Emma’s obsession with class, in this instance exacerbated by her lack of judgement.

However, there are a number of reasons that the reader cannot help liking Emma. Firstly, Austen’s use of free indirect discourse forces us to see the happenings of the novel largely from Emma’s own perspective, encouraging us to sympathise with her. As Gard argues, it is free indirect discourse that makes us pity Emma after Box Hill when Austen writes: “How could she have been so brutal, so cruel to Miss Bates?” Thus, the reader forms a connection with Emma, making it almost impossible to dislike her, though we are still more than aware of her faults. Moreover, this free indirect discourse means that, on first reading the novel, very many readers suffer the same ignorance and lack of judgment that Emma does: we may not notice that Mr Elton’s gallantry is in fact directed towards Emma, and we may not realise that Jane and Frank are engaged, although Mr Knightley does suspect Frank of “some indication to trifle with Jane.” Thus, we cannot help pitying Emma and sympathising with her mistakes.

We also pity Emma because she does, in fact, change throughout the novel, and thus the novel can be read as a so-called Bildungsroman. With the help of Mr Knightley, Emma learns to treat others less as objects and generalizations (she begins wanting to befriend Harriet because she will find her “useful”) and more as people (at the end “She wanted to be of use” to Jane, offering her carriage). This development breaks down the reader’s moral distance from Emma, allowing us to warm to her and pity her in her lamentations: “I seem to have been doomed to blindness.” Indeed, she changes her bigoted opinion of Mr Martin completely, telling Knightley “at that time I was a fool” and the narrator says: “It would be a great pleasure to know Robert Martin.” And though it is possible to argue that Emma’s acceptance that her and Harriet’s “intimacy must sink” shows how she is still obsessed with hierarchy, this is perhaps more because Emma and Harriet never were good friends for one another: Knightley was right when he noted that Harriet’s “ignorance is hourly flattery.” Emma also makes amends with Miss Bates, and Austen uses the words “repentance” and “contrition” to emphasise Emma’s moral change. Thus, Emma’s change makes her a more likeable character.

Emma is also not, in fact, an ill-natured person: her mistakes are not caused by malice or cruelty, but by boredom. Her sense of the superiority of her own judgement can in a large sense be put down to the fact that she was, from a young age, “directed chiefly by her own” and was mistress of her house in a town that “afforded her no equals” (though this is not exactly true). Thus, Emma is not entirely to blame, just as Lydia is not entirely to blame for Mr and Mrs Bennett’s bad parenting that leads to her moral transgressions. It is the dullness of Emma’s society and life (she has never been to the sea or to Box Hill, despite its proximity, and her father “was unfit for any acquaintance”) that causes her greatest mistakes, particularly her venturing into match-making and her role as an imaginist.

Moreover, Emma is inherently a good person, as the narrator observes: “There were moments of self-examination in which her conscience could not quite acquit her.” For every section devoted to her mischief, Booth argues, “there is a section devoted to her self-reproach,” and it is this that makes Emma such a relatable figure. Despite her relapse (when she considers, after her resolve not to matchmake, whether Harriet could marry one of the Coxes or later Frank Churchill), she eventually learns the dangers of her meddling through her constant cycles of mistake and repentance. Thus, Emma’s unattractive qualities and actions, Box Hill for example, can be put down to her boredom rather than a purposeful cruelty. Unlike Mr and Mrs Elton at the ball, Emma does not purposefully harm anybody, and she always repents her mistakes.

Thus, it is clear that though Emma is a flawed heroine, she is still a likeable one. Austen is often seen as an anti-Jacobin, neo-Classical or Augustan writer, rejecting the obsession with the imagination and fancy that became prominent in the Romantic period. This is most evident in her two novels “Northanger Abbey” and “Sense and Sensibility”, and it is also evident in “Emma” as the heroine gradually realises she must submit to a “subjection of the fancy to the understanding.” Nonetheless, the reality is that Emma’s great attraction lies in her imagination and her “desire to make life vivid” (Morgan). As Gard argues, “she is the victim of her marvellous ideas,” marvellous because of their attempts to enliven a rather dull life. It is Emma’s emphasis on the imagination that, though it leads her astray, we so admire and love. Indeed, we applaud Knightley when he allows for “the momentary conquest of eagerness over judgment,” showing that Emma’s exciting attributes and charm have influenced Knightley (he remarks that he, too, has changed). This exciting charm and obsession with the imagination leads Knightley, and indeed the reader, to view Emma as “the sweetest and best of all creatures, faultless in spite of all her faults.” Emma’s sin is, as Lionel Trilling observes, the poet’s sin, and it is this that makes her such a likeable heroine.

Is Caryl Churchill’s “Top Girls” a feminist, socialist drama?

What differentiates Caryl Churchill’s “Top Girls” from many other feminist dramas is that, not only does it criticise the cruelties of patriarchy, it also points out the flaws of feminism and the dangers of what is known as intra-sexual oppression. “Top Girls” is a feminist play – Churchill once wrote that “what I feel is quite strongly a feminist position, and that inevitably comes into what I write.” However, it is not unequivocally so, since the play also dwells on the unattractive aspects of modern, radical, and capitalist feminism. “Top Girls” was influenced by Thatcher’s coming to power (a figure who embodies this capitalist feminism) and by Churchill’s trip to America touring her play “Vinegar Tom”. In America, she came across a type of feminism much more associated with business and success within capitalist structures, rather than the more traditional, socialist feminism she was used to. It is this capitalist approach to female emancipation that Churchill criticises, and in this sense it is a feminist, socialist drama.

The first act of the play begins as a celebration of female success and of Marlene’s recent appointment as Managing Director. However, this celebration swiftly transmogrifies into a chaotic scene of female suffering. Although we applaud the feminist attitudes held by these women, seen in Nijo’s questioning of male power (“Priests were often vagrants, so why not a nun?”) and Joan’s expression of female achievement (“I never obeyed anyone. They all obeyed me…”), these attitudes are soon proven to be somewhat ironic. These women, though they have achieved success, are all undeniably conditioned by society. This explains Isabella’s feelings of guilt (“Whenever I came back to England I felt I had so much to atone for,”) and Nijo’s blaming of herself for the flaws and cruelties of society: “The first half of my life was all sin and the second all repentance.” These feelings of guilt demonstrate the fact that these women still believe that male power is a part of the order of nature, thus making their success somewhat sardonic.

This is not to trivialise the success of these women: Joan became Pope and Isabella was asked to join the National Geographical Society. What it does show, however, is how these women have been conditioned. This is also seen in their responses to their own suffering: Joan describes her death with particularly bland language (“They took me by the feet and dragged me out of town and stoned me to death”), perhaps suggesting that she feels she deserved to die. After all, Joan does refer to herself as a “heresy”, reinforcing this idea of self-blame. It is these feelings that make these women ignorant of their own incredible suffering, epitomised by Nijo’s response to Marlene’s questioning her experience of rape: “I belonged to him. It was what I was brought up for from a baby.” It is not until they hear of Griselda’s immense ordeals and they are spurred on by Marlene that they really comprehend the extent to which they suffered, epitomised in Marlene’s words: “O God, why are we all so miserable?”

The chaos of the scene’s end, as all the women describe their singular acts of triumph (even Griselda begins to challenge patriarchy), undercuts the previous sense of celebration In the act, with Joan crying and being sick in the corner. Thus, it is clear that Act 1, rather than simply focusing on the success of these women, demonstrates the ways in which women have been conditioned by society (as seen in Nijo’s obsession with clothes) and the ways in which they have suffered, epitomised by Griselda’s stoic submissiveness. Thus, Act 1 is the act that introduces and develops the theme of feminism through encouraging pity for the plight of women throughout history.

Act 2, on the other hand, presents us with a very different image, emphasising the brutality of modern feminism and so-called “yuppie” culture. It seems that the women of Act 2, particularly Nell and Marlene, have adopted typically negative male stereotypes of drinking and promiscuity in order to gain power. For example, Nell celebrates the fact that she has slept with two men over the weekend (“One Friday, one Saturday”), a story to which Win, in a typically macho-man style, responds, “Aye Aye.” This belligerence is also seen in the women’s reaction to the news about Howard: Marlene calls him a “Poor sod” and Nell brutally remarks: “Lucky he didn’t get the job if that’s what his health’s like.” These ideas of cruelty are also seen in the way in which Nell and Marlene seem to oppress other women. Marlene is brutal in her interview with Jeanine (she tells her that advertisement agencies are “looking for something glossier”), who ends the interview as a feeble wreck with the unconvincing words, “Yes, all right.”

Nell’s interview with Shona is similarly telling. Nell and Win both celebrate “Tough birds” like them, and Nell warms to Shona because she sees her as driven and successful, particularly when she says: “I never consider people’s feelings.” However, when Nell realises that Shona is lying about her identity and qualifications, she at once holds back any assistance she might be able to give her. This demonstrates the biggest problems with modern feminism and intra-sexual oppression: these women are prepared to help other “Tough birds”, but they will not lend a helping hand to those who need it most, those who, as Marlene says, have not “got what it takes.” This is perhaps most clear in Marlene’s cruel (though somewhat understandable) reaction to Mrs Kidd: rather than helping Mrs Kidd and comforting her in her realisation that her own life relies on the success of her husband, Marlene simply tells her to “Piss off”. Though Win is not quite as cruel as the others (she shows sympathy for Angie and Louise), the overwhelming sense of Act 2 is one of a lack of concern for the plight of other women, and thus Churchill criticises capitalist feminism. This is an idea also glimpsed at in Act 1 in the overlapping dialogue (showing a disinterest, perhaps, in the problems of others) and in the silence of the waitress. This implies that, throughout history, many women have been reluctant to help their female counterparts. Though there are moments of collective triumph in Act 1 (in Nijo and Gret’s stories), the self-obsession of these women demonstrates the need for a more socialist approach to feminism.

By placing the Angie and Kit scene before the office scene, Churchill ensures that Act 2 does not appear to celebrate the structures of capitalism. Moreover, the placement of the scene creates an ironic juxtaposition between Angie’s dismal circumstances (her garden has “a shelter made of junk”) and the cold glamour of the office scenes. This juxtaposition lingers until Marlene’s final words of the Act: “She’s not going to make it.” The futile and dreary depiction of Angie’s life (she is forced to invent tales of ghosts and vampires in order to add excitement to her life), along with the hopeless desire of Angie to escape (“If I don’t get away from here I’m going to die”) makes Marlene’s condemnation of Angie as a “Packer in Tesco” even more poignant and harsh. The inability of Marlene to recognise her daughter (“Have you an appointment?” she asks), along with Angie’s struggle to communicate with Mrs Kidd (Angie answers the wrong question) emphasise the brutality of Marlene’s abandoning of her child. Indeed, Marlene’s decision to abandon her daughter has created an irreversible rift between the two, a rift that is obvious through an analysis of vocabulary in particular. Marlene has had to reject a family life in order to succeed, and the image presented of Angie in Act 2 encourages us to dislike Marlene’s decision. In fact, Churchill commented that she “did want people to feel that Marlene was wrong… in rejecting Angie,” and thus Churchill criticizes the lack of humanity in capitalist feminism, since it necessitates the abandonment of an inherent maternal instinct.

It is in Act 3 that Churchill really drives home this feminist, socialist message. In the denouement, Churchill confronts two completely polarized political beliefs through the two sisters: Marlene believes “in the individual” and Thatcherism, whereas Joyce is a socialist who spits when she sees a Rolls Royce. The dismal circumstances of Angie and Joyce’s lifestyle (Joyce can only offer Marlene an egg) demonstrate once again the cruelty of Marlene’s attitude, an attitude summarized in her rejection of the working class as “lazy and stupid”. Marlene then goes on to defend Angie, telling Joyce “You run her down too much”, even though a year later she tells Win that Angie is “not going to make it”. The overwhelming sense of Act 3 is that it highlights the cruelty of Marlene: she has rejected her sister and her daughter for six years, and she tells Joyce she should not bother visiting her elderly mother. And although Joyce is not a perfect role model (Churchill herself said she was “limited and bad-tempered” as seen in her calling Angie a “fucking rotten little cunt”) she is certainly more humane than Marlene, as when she says: “Or what? Have her put in a home? Have some stranger take her would you rather?” Thus, though Joyce is not perfect, what Act 3 demonstrates is that the loss of humanity necessitated by success in a capitalist world is crippling and uncaring for other women.

What Churchill seems to advocate in this play is a collective, socialist form of feminism: she celebrates Marlene’s ambition, whilst also celebrating Joyce’s humanity and kindness. Likewise, she condemns the cruelties of Nell and Marlene, whilst also condemning Joyce’s inertia (though Joyce does at least go to evening classes and works four jobs). The real sadness of the play is that Marlene is prepared to subject her own daughter to the very life she herself desired to escape. It is this self-centred approach that Churchill condemns. Indeed, Roberts noted: ““Top Girls” states unequivocally that success within a system that ignores humanity must necessitate an analysis of motive and achievement.” If feminism, and indeed society itself, does not change its approach to female emancipation and the female predicament, then the future really will be “Frightening…” A collective, socialist feminism is, for Churchill, the way forward to a brighter, more equal future.

The Government Must Protect the Unaccompanied Children in the Calais "Jungle"

Read the article as published in The Huffington Post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-bailey2/calais-jungle_b_9334460.html

Squalid hovels; flooded tents; expanses of mud, rubbish, and faeces: the conditions of the Calais ‘Jungle’ are truly awful. Indeed, in a recent Upper Tribunal decision, Mr Justice McCloskey stated that the camp’s conditions are “about as deplorable as any citizen of the developed nations could imagine.”

According to a recent census carried out by volunteers, there are currently 5497 refugees living in the makeshift camp, a number that has been gradually increasing over the last year. It is no wonder, then, that the French authorities have finally decided to address the problem: on the 12^th of January, refurbished shipping containers supposedly able to hold about 1800 refugees were introduced into the camp.

Soon after this, a huge swathe of the camp was bulldozed and many refugees were moved into the new accommodation. Of course, the fact that these refugees now have secure and sanitary housing is a good thing, but by no means does it solve the problem.

In fact, on Thursday evening a French judge gave the local authorities the green light to demolish the southern part of the Calais camp. They estimate that 800-1000 residents would need to be relocated to the containers or to alternative centres of accommodation located around France.

But these numbers wildly underestimate the true population of this area, in which about 3455 refugees currently reside. With only 1156 alternative places presently available across France (as claimed in court), this eviction could leave hundreds of refugees stranded. To make matters worse, the French have stated that once the southern section of the camp is cleared, they will begin on the northern section, which houses 2042 residents, including 137 Syrian households.

The greatest victims of these demolitions are, without a doubt, the children. Latest figures show that there are 651 children living in the Jungle, 423 of whom are unaccompanied. These children are vulnerable to dangers like trafficking, violence, exploitation, and abuse, not to mention the risk of carcinogenic disease caused by the toxic white asbestos found throughout the camp.

It is estimated that 91 of these unaccompanied children have close family in the UK, explaining their presence in the camp. Under the current Dublin Regulation (“Dublin III”), if an unaccompanied refugee child has a relative with protection status in another EU member state, they can request to be reunited. The EU member state might then make what is known as a “take charge” request to the other member state in respect of the child’s protection claim. The child would then, in theory, be admitted into the country and reunited with family.

All sounds great, doesn’t it? But there’s a catch. The legal advice offered in the Jungle is extremely limited, and unsurprisingly, unaccompanied foreign minors are not legally competent to make a claim for asylum. These claims must be made on their behalf by a legal representative (appointed by a state-funded agency), and the process of registering a child’s asylum application takes at least three months. Indeed, the whole process of addressing “take charge” requests can take up to a year, making it a long and difficult procedure for anyone, particularly a child traumatised by war and violence. The complexity and red tape involved in the process perhaps explains why, during the whole of 2015, France made only 4 “take charge” requests to the UK, and none related to unaccompanied minors.

But this is where Article 8 of the 1998 Human Rights Act comes in. Article 8 states that, “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life…” Making use of Article 8, the aforementioned Upper Tribunal ruled that three child refugees and one adult refugee with a disability should be admitted immediately to the UK from the Jungle in order to be reunited with family members. The Upper Tribunal also stated that, in cases of similarly vulnerable refugees, the same course should be followed.

This means that a large number of the children in the Jungle have a legal right to live across the Channel. That’s why we need the government to introduce a physical presence of immigration officers in Calais who are ready, willing and able to give assistance and advice, ensuring that those minors who can assert a credible claim can make an application for asylum in France, so that they can then be admitted into the United Kingdom.

These actions would be consistent with the Upper Tribunal ruling in January (“Zat”) and the UK government’s August 2015 promise to monitor the camps in France for vulnerable individuals, offering advice and support in their applications for asylum in France, a commitment that has thus far been overlooked.

Citizens UK have details of all the unaccompanied children who fall within the Zat principles: all they need is for the UK government to take control of the situation so that young boys and girls, lost in the alien world of Northern France, can be reunited with their loved ones. The government must act if it wants to avert the possibility of a true humanitarian tragedy, a tragedy which would involve young children dispersing from the camps to become the victims of abduction, abuse, and worse.

The demolition is expected to begin next week. There are real human lives at stake, and there is only a small window of opportunity to make them just a little better. That’s why the government can, and must, act.

“Harry potter and Deathly Hollow”

As My view point about the novel Harry Potter and Deathly Hollows…

              “Harry potter and Deathly Hollow” written by J.K. Rowling in 2007. It is speculative fiction.  It’s all about Fantasy, Children's Literature, Quest, Bildungsroman, Magical world, Adventure life. And we found in novel Light & darkness. This novel in Third person narration. It is thriller, adventure, brooding, emotional, suspenseful. In novel J.K. Rowling use of many imaginative worlds and it is magical world, use symbols. So now we explain Harry potter in Many  thinks like that:

1.  Feminist reading of Hermione’s character in Harry Potter:

                            

                    “Harry potter” series in Hermione is center Female character in novel. As feminism is range of political, ideological, cultural, personal and economical equality that not foe only men but also for women. She is beautiful and intelligent girl. She knows about her magical tricks and how uses them. She is Intelligent and worries girl. At begin film in Hermione is brave girl; her friends are Harry & Ron. As Rowling is female writer as portrayed of women are intelligent and smart, not for weak & dumb characters.

             This novel all about to Feminine perspective but in other thought not margin of Women. But it is all about to Anti Feminine ideas. She is confident, and constantly stood up for herself and her friends.  But we see that Women works are smarter than men. As we say about Hermione has central women protagonist. As we see Hermione character in film we see that Men (Harry & Ron) use of Hermione. She loves Ron.  Harry and Ron rescue Hermione from a troll, but instead of holding it over her head and acting superior, they treat it as a bonding experience. And also she jealous to other female characters. As we thinks about to critical that in film every time magic, talk to Dumbledore, Fight with Veldemor & Harry, Broken to Horcruxes at that point Hermione not there. It means that as something brave or mysterious work women not do that. Hermione broke only one Horcruxe.

              In one scene Hermione solves a logic puzzle. she and Harry realize that only one of them can go on to save the Sorcerer's Stone. Whereas the other will have to go back. Harry tells Hermione to go back, trusting her to save Ron and find Dumbledore while he tries to save the Stone... which means that he trusts her to save his life. As it is she does not know. She thought that she every time do good. Relationship to these boys. 

 Rowling’s argument that as intelligent and something done as humanity at that time women are not present. So in novel we see other women like: GINNY, PADMA – PARVATI, HARRY’S MOTHER LILY, LUNA, HELENA,  MINERVA, DOLORES UMBRIDGE etc. We see not only Hermione but other women are present as good and evil thinks. We know Man would be proud to call himself wizard, but will women be proud in calling her witch? Definitely not. Because there is something wrong in the structure and language of society. It is constructed language and Rowling point of view. It is problematic. They are powerful and intelligent one. But at end Rowling has portrayed as weak character.

2.  Discourse on the purity of Blood and Harry Potter:

             

    Harry potter film as related to Purity and Blood. It is  identity of human hood. It means that Rowling has given Humanity are not free by birth. As person becomes power and destiny change that it may become pure. Harry Potter in Concept of purity of blood (race, Caste) is very much present in the Harry Potter. Establishing social order by master race is not a new idea. Killing other as inferior race is very prominent in the history. “Harry potter” in main Protagonist like:  Harry Potter and Hermione Granger are Mud -blood. Ron Weasley is a pure blood. Draco Malfoy is also pure blood. Where as evil Voldamort is Mud Blood but craving for pure blood. We see entire narrative is MUD BLOOD. Main concept that Rowling proof that MUD Blood Protagonist as powerful & intelligent rather than Pure Blood person.

 Rowling main ideas that Mud Blood has good not, as mud blood person as crave of purity. we have to keep in mind that Rowling is not despising Pure blood. Voldamort is evil and he is also mud blood. if writer make Voldamort as a pure blood, is problematic.  As witches & Wizards are powerful of magic and it may be that Race & Connection of Blood. This novel Rowling Criticize that Pure Blood people.  This Entire novel connected to racism working within the magical world. It may be Rowling Satire on Society. They believe in pure blood and difference in their mind.  So we can say that the novels play with the thesis of pure blood (Master Race) – Ron, Malfoy, giving an anti-thesis by belonging protagonists to half-blood / Mud-blood (Harry, Hermione, Voldamort).  

E.g. : INDIA CASTE SYSTEM.

3).   The theme of Choice and Chance:

                                The question of choice versus chance runs throughout the Harry Potter series. In Novel We see that when Riddle & Voldemort tells Harry that "IT WAS MERELY A LUCKY CHANCE THAT SAVED YOU”. Harry is self - sacrifice to only for his chance. In one scene Dumbledore subsequently tells Harry that IT IS OUR CHOICES  THAT SHOW WHAT WE TRULY ARE, FAR MORE THAN OUR ABILITIES.

              Throughout the series, Voldemort continues to insist on chance as the cause of his downfall, right up to the bitter end. Harry Potter contains magical prophecies; the prophecies come true only because people choose to act on them. And Even the magical hat takes people's choices into account, as Harry reminds his son in the epilogue. Here WE CAN SAY THAT HAT & ELDER WAND CHOOSE HIS USER NOT PERSON CHOOSE HIS/HER HAT & ELDER WAND. Similarly, if Harry's choice to sacrifice himself has truly broken Voldemort's power.  So that Voldemort's spells are no longer binding, then Voldemort would also be unable to defeat Harry even if he had gained ownership of the Elder Wand. Unless the Elder Wand was powerful enough to overcome the charm on Harry's blood. it is choice rather than chance that decides the issue. Rowling herself has written that she does not believe in fate, but in "HARD WORK AND LUCK, AND THAT THE FIRST OFTEN LEADS TO THE SECOND." We see Rowling point that Not fate, then’ but is the outcome due to choice or chance in the end? We see Harry use his magical power as misuse. But Veldemort use power as his desire and cavity of pure blood.  Veldemort has evil but it means that his choice not for chance. 

                     E.G. Karana belongs to Royal family. But as fault of Kunti that Karana as Sutputra. That is not Karana’s Choice. He Becames poor & Sutputra. But As Karana’s Chance rather choice to Upper caste or leave Royal Family.

       So the ending of Deathly Hallows contains three possible resolutions an ending driven by choice alone. And an ending driven by chance and an ending driven by both choice and chance.