An Exploration of Decision-Making Processes

Power, Exclusion, and Ethics

Recently, the world has witnessed a series of international negotiations and peace talks, such as those involving the United States and Russia. These discussions often exclude the most crucial party: Ukraine. This exclusion raises essential questions about the nature of power dynamics, insecurity, pride, and the ethical implications of such decisions. Is it power at play, the insecurity of the decision-makers, pride, or simply plain wrong?

Historical Exclusions: A Recurring Pattern

This pattern of exclusion is not new. In "The Mystery in Being a Gypsy," Gentylia Lee documents numerous instances where governmental meetings are held to decide the fate of the Gypsy community, often excluding the very people most affected by these decisions. The powerful conduct these meetings behind closed doors, leaving the Gypsies uninformed and without a voice in matters that directly impact their lives. This persistent exclusion prompts us to question whether it is power, pride, insecurity, or merely a grievous error in judgment.

Modern-Day Exclusions

Another contemporary example can be found in the fostering community, where foster carers are responsible for the care of children 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Despite fostering children for ten years, social work professionals often convene meetings to decide the children's futures, excluding both the children and the foster carers from the process. Again, this raises the question: is it pride, insecurity, stupidity, or just plain wrong?

Power Dynamics

One might argue that these exclusions are deeply rooted in power dynamics. Those who hold power may feel the need to assert their dominance by keeping decision-making processes exclusive. This ensures that they maintain control over the outcomes and the narrative. In the case of international negotiations, the powerful nations may exclude smaller or directly affected nations to preserve their strategic interests and geopolitical influence.

Insecurity Among Decision-Makers

Insecurity among decision-makers could also play a significant role. Decision-makers may fear that including the affected parties could challenge their authority, expose their vulnerabilities, or lead to outcomes that are less favourable to their agendas. This fear can drive them to exclude those who are most impacted, believing that their own positions are better protected in a closed setting.

The Role of Pride

Pride can be another contributing factor. Decision-makers may feel a sense of superiority and believe that they are best equipped to make decisions, even without the input of those who are directly affected. This hubris can lead to a dismissive attitude towards the voices that truly matter, resulting in decisions that are disconnected from the realities on the ground.

Ethical Implications

The ethical implications of such exclusions are profound. Excluding the most affected parties from decision-making processes can lead to decisions that are not only unjust but also detrimental to the well-being of those communities. It undermines the principles of democracy, fairness, and transparency, resulting in a loss of trust in the institutions that are supposed to protect and serve the people.

Case Studies in Exclusion

To further understand the impact of exclusion in decision-making, it is essential to examine specific case studies that highlight the consequences of such practices.

The Paris Peace Conference of 1919

The Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which aimed to establish the terms of peace after World War I, is a historical example of exclusion in decision-making. The conference was dominated by the Allied powers, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy. The defeated Central Powers, including Germany, were excluded from the negotiations. This exclusion led to the imposition of harsh terms on Germany, contributing to economic hardship and political instability, which eventually paved the way for World War II.

The Camp David Accords

The Camp David Accords of 1978, which facilitated a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, also illustrate the consequences of exclusion. The negotiations were primarily conducted between the leaders of Egypt, Israel, and the United States, with little input from the Palestinian representatives. This exclusion has been criticized for failing to address the broader issues affecting the Palestinian people, leading to ongoing conflict and unrest in the region.

Exclusion in Environmental Decision-Making

Environmental decision-making processes often exclude indigenous communities and local populations who are directly impacted by environmental policies and projects. For example, the construction of large dams and pipelines frequently moves forward without adequate consultation with the affected communities. This exclusion not only leads to environmental degradation but also displaces communities and disrupts their way of life.

Addressing the Issue of Exclusion

To address the issue of exclusion in decision-making, several measures can be implemented:

Inclusive Dialogue

Creating platforms for inclusive dialogue ensures that all voices, especially those of the affected parties, are heard and considered. This can lead to more equitable and sustainable outcomes.

Transparent Processes

Transparency in decision-making processes is crucial. Decision-makers should provide clear and accessible information about the proceedings and invite participation from diverse stakeholders. This transparency fosters trust and accountability.

Empowering Marginalised Groups

Empowering marginalized groups through education, capacity-building, and representation in decision-making bodies can help address power imbalances. Providing them with the tools and opportunities to participate meaningfully can lead to more just and informed decisions.

Ethical Leadership

Promoting ethical leadership that values inclusivity, empathy, and fairness is essential. Leaders should prioritize the well-being of all stakeholders and make decisions that reflect the principles of justice and equity.

Conclusion

The exploration of decision-making processes reveals the complex interplay of power, insecurity, pride, and ethical considerations. The recurring pattern of exclusion in various contexts highlights the need for a more inclusive and ethical approach to decision-making. By addressing the root causes of exclusion and implementing measures to promote inclusivity, transparency, and empowerment, we can move towards a future where decisions are made with the voices and interests of all stakeholders in mind.

W, 970

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

22.02.2025

 

Dangerous Liberals.

I keep hearing comments, primarily from across the pond, but in the UK, too, how dangerous the liberals are. They will ultimately destroy everything.

I also heard a comment by two people in discussion. One answered some question by saying, “But I am a Christian!” The other person answered, “What kind of Christian? A Republican Christian? Or a Jesus Christian?”

That set me thinking. I wonder if Jesus was anti-liberal, or maybe was he a “dangerous liberal.”

So I wondered, wasn't this Jesus the one that turned water into wine? My friend Gerald Coates always said, “The Evangelical Christians had spent the last 2,000 years trying to change it back again.” Such a liberal thing to do, don't you think?

Then I note the story of the stoning of the lady caught in adultery. I have always wondered how she committed adultery by herself. What happened to the man? Jesus said he did not condemn her. Indeed, that is far too liberal. we should be in the condemning business, shouldn't we?

Another time, Jesus says, I must go via Samaria. Did He not know that good religious people never went to Samaria? Yet Jesus said he MUST go there? Such a terrible liberal thing to do.

If you know anything about history, you will know that the Samaritans were the immigrants in the land with a different religion. No wonder anti-liberals would have nothing to do with them. Jesus, it seems was just too liberal.

I just saw a list of things that Jesus never said on the internet. By Jame Martin, SJ. It goes like this: Jesus never said, "Feed the hungry only if they have papers." "Clothe the naked only if they're from your country. "Welcome the stranger only if there's zero risk." "Help the poor only if it's convenient." "Love your neighbour only if they look like you".

So, in the UK, there is a protest in a particular part of the country, as a supermarket has just opened in that area on a Sunday. There are people outside parading with posters on sticks saying, “Keep the Sabbath Holy,” i.e. “Don't work on Sunday”. Jesus was just too liberal and was reprimanded on several occasions for doing just that, working on the Sabbath.

I think I will be a Liberal Jesus follower; it seems a much better way to go.

Jesus was definitely a dangerous liberal; I want to follow that.

W. 411

Adrian Hawkes.

www.blogspot.co.uk

 

 

Far-Right Protests.

 

Interestingly, there has been quite an explosive news response to both social media and certain parts of the newspaper industry for using inflammatory language.

A long-held contention of mine is that words carry power and create an effect. When people react to our words, claiming that the reaction had nothing to do with us is somewhat disingenuous.

The old adage, 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,' is, to say the least, incorrect. We understand that words spoken to children can inflict lasting damage on their adult lives.

As said, I am pleased to see the new backlash against rabble-rousing presented by social media, and aspects of the press. However, what seems to be missing from recent discussions, and the calling out of such wrong words, is the responsibility of politicians, the nation's leaders, to call out the same wrong expressions being uttered. They have so far failed to do so, and worse, they claim that when things react, such as recent right-wing riots, it has nothing to do with them.

Prime Ministers who announce that they would like to create a hostile social environment for certain people, should not be surprised if some people become hostile to others and act in accordance with politicians' words. Some people find it easy to take encouragement from terrible words and believe that they are pleasing such leaders.

While it is encouraging to see social media and the press being called out for their harmful practices, we must not absolve politicians from their responsibility. They too must be held accountable for their inflammatory speech.

If one looks across the pond, we will have to be blind and unthinking not to notice that the words spoken by so-called leaders have caused death, riots, and almost the overthrow of democracy.  Words have power, let us not forget that, and claiming otherwise is just plain dishonest.

As I say to my students, it is always better to engage your brain before putting your mouth into gear. We need to be aware of not only the immediate, but also the long-term consequences of what we say - particularly if we are political leaders. Words spoken cannot be unspoken.  

 

adrianhawkes.co.uk

www.blogspot.co.uk

w. 373

08/08/2024

 

 

 

Management

 

I have always thought that Paul's comments in the New Testament of the Bible, when writing to the church at Corinth, are interesting.  In 2 Corinthians 11:16-33, he says “I did so and so, I experienced such and such. but boasting is so awful. How else do I get through to you?” My paraphrase, of course.

Let me put my cards on the table. I have difficulty with the idea of management as used in companies and businesses. It seems that the management of people is a bit like herding cats. Have you ever tried to do that? My position is that we manage things, but we lead people. So, we manage schedules, timetables, and work requirements, but we lead people.

Again, leadership is also a misused word. Our Western thinking is, leading by telling people what to do. When I use the word, “leadership”, I have a different thought in mind: The “King-Jesus-Leadership” thinking says, “I am coming to wash your feet.” Or “Do not do it like they do – i.e.: Lord it over people.” Meaning, by God’s own definition, leadership is all about “servanthood”.

Now to the boasting. When I was leading a large church community, I often overheard people ask other people how they got to be part of the leadership in this community. It's funny how people aspire to that. I was always delighted by how the long-standing community members almost always answered that question, which was, “Can you sweep up well?”. That told me that they understood the principle of servant-leadership.

Working in a medium-sized company with several different areas and the need for departmental managers, I observed that some believe it's their job to tell people what to do. Usually, we were met by those being told with “a face”, not in front of the person telling them but usually behind their backs. We need to be observant.

I observe that the “tellers” are not good “sweeper-uppers”, “washer-uppers”, or “cup-clearer-awayers,” instead having “told”, and appointing themselves as “tellers” instead of “leaders”, they enjoy relaxing.

Again, to the silly boasting, I often clear the cups, top up the water cooler, etc., because Leadership is exampling, serving, and going in front.

People who want to lead people need to understand the delight/ reward of seeing others succeed. My wife and I have fostered for many years; I am delighted to hear about the success of those we have fostered. It is rewarding.

The company I work with looks after Unaccompanied Asylum Seekers. Do you know what? I am thrilled to hear of one of these young people, who I reckon will become the new Mo Farrar. Another one will shortly become a trained Paramedic, and others who have started businesses are doing exceedingly well. That, in my book, is rewarding.

If we aspire to leadership (not management in the way that word is thought of, i.e. managing people -a thing which we shouldn't), we should look for the developement of others. We should aspire for their best good. If we are the teachers, we should plan for those we teach, to become better teachers than we are. If we lead, we should prepare for those we lead to become better leaders than we are. That truly is a success.

More silly boasting. I have been in situations where I have told the leader, “What you have produced is fantastic. How did you do it?” Their answer was the reward. “Indeed,” they said, “We only did what you taught us to do.” Reward indeed.

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

w. 592

11/07/24

 

 Equality is Not Easy to Come By.

Did you know that there are politicians in the USA who would like to remove the vote from women?  I guess the argument goes that “they are such busy people looking after homes that they should not be bothered by voting and politics.”

A certain African parliament tried to pass a law making it illegal for husbands to beat their wives.  The law did not make it onto the statute book. It was opposed by women MPs who explained that being beaten was a sign of love. Seems strange to me.

There are all sorts of ways of not acting equally. It could be the colour of a person's skin, accent, or known economic position. Then there is language, whether it is their second or third language or their perceived education. 

I feel as though I am on a mission to bring about greater equality for foster carers. For those who are not involved in the sector, let me tell you about some of the reasons for the lack of equality. 

There are foster carers who have fostered children for eight or more years, with the same child or children.  I heard of one foster care being told that there was to be a meeting to decide what would happen next to the children they were fostering.  On responding with, “Oh, I don’t have that in my diary when is it?” The response was “Oh! It's not for you. This is a professional meeting.”  Is that sensible to exclude someone who has been looking after those children for eight or more years 24/7? Maybe the put down of, “You are not a professional,” is a good way of avoiding equality.

What is professionalism anyway? 

What Is Professionalism? One clever and, I think, correct description says, “Professionalism is not the job you do; it's how you do the job." 

Professionalism involves consistently achieving exacting standards, both visibly and "behind the scenes," whatever one's role or profession.

8 Characteristics of Professionalism:

 

1. Competence

2. Knowledge

3. Conscientiousness

4. Integrity

5. Respect

6. Emotional Intelligence

7. Appropriateness

8. Confidence

 

Fortunately, this foster carer was quick to respond with the right answer: “I needed that date, and I will be there as I am a professional foster carer.” 

When I worked as a foster carer for a Local Authority, I chaired their Foster Care Association. It seemed to me that to increase that level of equality it would be good to have training along with the social workers. I spoke with management, who agreed that this is good. We managed to get one training session together, but then the social workers announced they would come to no more.  “We are social workers, and we should not be expected to do training alongside foster carers.” I wonder if those foster carers were somehow lesser individuals, certainly not equal.

 

Now I am trying again, but guess what I am hearing? “You do not understand. Foster carers are too busy.”  Sure, they are busy, but they are required to attend all sorts of training.

 

Or another one: “Maybe they are not academic like the social workers.” Really?

 

Or how about the old chestnut, “It's about language, and with some of them, English is their second language.” In my book, this makes them clever and maybe academic.

 

We need to remember that when women were trying to get the vote in the UK, all sorts of reasons were put forward to deny and denigrate the idea.

 

Here are some of the five most bizarre and ridiculous ones:

 

1. The mental exertion of voting would cause infertility in women.
2. Women’s brains were inferior to men’s, and so women were incapable of participating in politics.
3. Many women did not want to vote.
4. Women would neglect their homes and families, causing society to unravel.
5. Women were too good for the dirty nature of politics.

Perhaps it is the same slant: they are too busy, do not want to, or are not academic enough.

 

Nothing changes much, does it?

 

I guess it's my age, but it seems that people think that Europe has had universal suffrage for ages. Here are some surprising dates for when some European states introduced equal female suffrage: 

 

Switzerland (1971).

Portugal (1976).

Liechtenstein (1984).

 

We need to keep pushing.

Adrian Hawkes

www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

W. 727

 

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!  WHICH GROUP ARE THEY?  WHERE ARE THEY?

 So, the biggest group of immigrants to the UK turns out to be students. They could be paying up to £48000 per annum to be here. Are these the “illegals” the government is talking about.

 The Second Largest group

I have noticed that whenever the government minister for immigration is doing an interview on ,whatever channel, the title comes up as “Illegal immigration minister”. I hear the PM is considering two ministers, one of whom is the above, and the other as the, “legal immigration minister”. Certainly, now, one can easily get the impression that all immigration is illegal.  As I have said, the biggest group of immigrants are Students paying lots of money to be in the UK.  Statistics show that the second largest group of immigrants are workers in the NHS, presumably all paying taxes. I wonder if they are illegal immigrants.

 

The third largest group of immigrants to the UK are those working in the Care Sector.  Again I guess that they must be paying tax. Even though they now are not allowed to bring their family to the UK. Recently I have seen this kind of operation in other countries where the lucky immigrant gets to see his or her partner every two years for about two weeks.  Great. Again I have to ask : Is this, the third largest group of immigrants to the UK,  illegal?

The final group of immigrants to the UK, in fact the smallest group, are those arriving in small boats. That group represents less than 3% of the total immigration numbers.  Yet one would have to wonder why it is that this seems to be the most talked about group.  Of course they don’t all come in small boats.  I have personally been present and watched police stop a lorry which when opened revealed mothers and babies, young children, and lots of other desperate despondent people, unloaded, and sitting on garden walls alongside the pavement.

It has been mentioned on FB that I use the exceptional person as a demonstration. Of course, what the writer of that comment does not know is that I have met hundreds of such people.  And, been to the hotels where the state dumps them.

Why is it that we hear so much about such people?  Maybe because it covers other bad news that the government does not want us to talk about. The ‘Friday news dumb. Or as the advisor to the transport minster put it :

“The now infamous phrase stems from a memo from an adviser to the then-UK transport secretary Stephen Byers, who coined the term in an internal memo, written on 9/11/ 2001, saying it was, “a good day to bury bad news”.) Maybe government highlights this small minority of people that deflects from us discussing all the wasted money on PPE. Billions given to their friends, that then did not work. Better talk about this, “less than 3%:” problem than talk about those friend’s and billions of wasted taxpayers’ money.

But back to this less than 3%.  What happens is that that when they arrive, boat, lorry, or plane they  then apply for asylum.  They are then given ‘legal’ papers to stay, until their case is assessed, to see if they genuinely are an “asylum seeker”. Yes, I know that that is where the problem lies, as I have friends that have waited 14 years for their claim for asylum to be properly listened to.  Fortunately, now they are British Passport holders. So my question again, as they have now applied for asylum, even if they did not have any papers, arriving here in a strange way, but now they have legal papers to stay, while they await a hearing – are they now illegal immigrants.  Of course, you know my answer. But if they are now legal, whilst they await a hearing, where are these illegal immigrants?

Adrian Hawkes

17^th March 2024

W. 665

Blog

 .Let us Have Another View on this Immigration Problem!

 

I listen to the news on immigration and “how terrible” it is for the UK. I cannot help thinking that the government uses sound bites as a divide-and-rule strategy. I have often heard that governments need an enemy to blame for everything, pointing out that their party is the only one able to protect us from such terrible things.

I also note that, like others in the past, there is the use of untruths like 'Illegal immigrants', as Lord Dubs said recently. Since when has it become illegal to claim asylum? The conservative member he was in discussion with kept repeating the mantra, “But they are illegal,” and repeating the lie makes me accurate. Maybe, as George Orwell said, that is how it works. It makes the lie truth and the truth a lie. I work in the sector, and constantly, in terms of housing, I have had trouble with insurance brokers and housing authorities. “We cannot insure you”, they say, “because you are housing illegal people”. “No, I am not. I am accommodating people with government papers, ID cards and the like to be here”. That doesn't work as they “know -whatever” they are illegal. The Prime minister keeps saying so. So, that must make it true?

I have been trying to work out the figures that the government keeps throwing at us in order to consider the actual situation. This is hard to work out, even from the government departments, because they often don't know the true picture.

But here is another way to look. Away from the noise of them being illegal.  “They are illegal!” “They are illegal!” 25% of these “illegal” people are students studying in the UK, and probably paying into UKPLC around 1400 pounds a month, i.e. £16,000 per year.   Then there is the NHS, which we are constantly being told has a shortage of workers. However, 25% of the workers they have are also part of the big “illegal” problem!

On top of the problems of the NHS, there is the Care Sector. Oh dear! The government has recruited more “illegals” for that sector, and apparently, according to the latest figures, that represents 58% of this “terrible” immigration problem we need protection from.

And that leaves those small boats. So; what percentage of the big “illegal” problem does that represent? According to the best figures I can find, that amounts to slightly less than 3%. So, let's try some additions:

·         Students bringing in £16,800 a year = 25%

·         NHS workers, I guess working and paying tax = 12%

·         Coming to work in Care Sector, again paying tax = 58%

·         Small Boats (not illegal to claim asylum no matter how you get here. Let's be generous = 3%,

That gives us a grand total of 98%

Then I know that others come other ways. I have met them. Maybe that is the additional 2% giving us the total 100%.

                                                                                                         

To tackle those other problems, the housing numbers of “long-term empty homes” rose again in 2023 by 12,556 (or 5%) to 261,189. The number of asylum seekers waiting longer than six months for a decision now stands at 128,812. That means there must be around 132,377 spare ones if we accommodate all those asylum seekers. And wouldn't that money spent on hotels be better spent on bringing those empty homes back into good use?

“What a lot these people are costing us!” cry government ministers. However, if we allowed them to work and pay tax at the basic rate, it would earn the UK coffers at least half a billion pounds annually. It would not prevent or hinder processing their asylum application. It would undoubtedly help the system.

Of course, if you solve these problems, what will you use as sound bites? 'Stop the Boats!'  What else could be used to persuade you to think “We, the government are protecting you. This means you really need to keep us in government.”

Does anyone leave the UK with, maybe, a bit of balance? In the year ending December 2022, approximately 557,000 people emigrated from the United Kingdom, 92,000 of whom were British citizens, 202,000 were EU citizens, and 263,000 were non-EU citizens. So, doing those sums again:

·         Out = 557,000

·         In = 128,812

·         Net loss = 428,188

W. 723

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk