by Kung Fu Zu 4/20/14
from The Inspector George Gently Series; Continuing Propaganda From the Left • For years, the public has been assaulted with dishonest homilies from the Leftist media. My most recent encounter with such ethically challenged entertainment was The Lost Child from the Inspector George Gently series, presently, being broadcast on PBS television.
The show opens with the camera panning down an upper middle class street. It settles on a house in spotless condition with a verdant garden. Life must be good for those living there. Or is it?
The scenic calm is shattered when it is discovered that a baby has been kidnapped from the very house which had appeared so tranquil.
In march Inspector George Gently and his Detective Sergeant John Bacchus. During their interviews with the parents, the inspectors learn the child is adopted and has been with the family for less than a month. This being the case, the birth-mother becomes an immediate suspect and the inspectors trot off to the adoption agency. The agency, full of pregnant mothers and screaming babies, is run by a rather forceful woman named Ester Dunwoody. Miss Dunwoody has her own ideas about how illegitimate children and their mothers should be handled. And she carries out her ideas in an efficient and single-minded manner.
From the agency’s records they are able to ascertain the identity of the birth mother, named Susan. After some leg work, they find her and learn that she did not really want to give up her children for adoption but felt pressured by Miss Dunwoody to let two families adopt one of her twins, each. She gave in on the little girl, but balked at giving up her son and bolted the agency.
Since Susan does not have the kidnapped girl, the inspectors begin to search elsewhere. They are sent on something of a wild goose chase when they hear, from the Groves, that someone is demanding 10,000 pounds for the return of the child. A drop-off is arranged and the police catch the man who extorted the money just after he receives the cash. It turns out that he has nothing to do with the kidnapping. He is just a cuckold seeking revenge on Mr. Groves who was boinking his wife.
The inspectors now begin to focus on the Groves as possible culprits. First they wonder if Mr. Groves murdered the child. He didn’t want to adopt her in the first place. He and his wife have been married for over twenty years and are in their middle to late forties. In his mind it is too late for him and his wife to raise and infant, particularly one that is not their natural child.
After some sleuthing, it becomes clear that Mr. Groves had nothing to do with the crime. So the inspectors start to follow Mrs. Groves. It appears she may be having an affair with a younger man. They keep an eye on her and she promptly gets into a car with a younger man who drives off. After following the car to an abandoned windmill, the cops observe things from afar with binoculars. They believe the meeting is the end of an affair, but this is wide of the mark.
It transpires that the young man has kidnapped the girl and Mrs. Groves knows this. The young man tells Mrs. Groves the child is fine and says he will take her to the girl. As the pair are about to drive off, the inspectors rush in and confront them. The young man, feeling betrayed, starts to choke Mrs. Groves and is given a couple of stout punches to the face by Sergeant Bacchus. He falls, hitting his head on the bumper on the way down, unconscious and badly injured. Unfortunately he has not told Mrs. Groves where the child is. He had only said, that “she was in the last place you would want her to be.” The young man is then taken to a hospital and we see him motionless in bed connected to a heart monitor.
Back at the police station, it comes out that the young man is the natural born son of Mr. and Mrs. Groves. He was conceived just before Mr. Groves went off to war in Burma in the 1940’s. Mrs. Groves, being very young and not Mrs. Groves at the time, was in a quandary as to what to do. She did not hear from Mr. Groves and it was rumored he was dead. Under these circumstances she went to the same adoption agency run by Miss Dunwoody, and gave the boy up for adoption. After this revelation, the scene shifts to the young man’s hospital room and shows the heart monitor flat line.
Inspector Gently figures out the kidnapped child is back at the adoption agency and picks her up. In the next scene, he delivers the baby to her birth mother Susan who is living with Miss Dunwoody’s former assistant at the adoption agency. She of course, also has an illegitimate child.
The show’s final two scenes are of the Groves in a melancholic mood digging together in their garden. And the hard-ass, resentful, working class, somewhat ethically challenged Sergeant Bacchus crying in his father’s arms because he has accidentally killed someone.
A perfectly neutral TV program which might not be Shakespeare, but it straightforward and pretty much reflects reality, right? Not quite.
To begin with, the script is written in such a way as to make adoption more bad than good. And Gently, who is supposed to be a man of the world and understanding of human nature, clearly thinks children should stay with their mothers regardless the circumstances. I am not so sure that many children who have been adopted over the years, including some personal friends, would agree with the good inspector.
Miss Dunwoody is cast in a somewhat unsympathetic light and Bacchus implies she is selling babies. She rebuffs him by telling him she does no such thing, but people do give donations to the home as otherwise it could not be run. Understand that the agency is like a small hospice with rooms for the pregnant mothers and babies. It is not some shady operation where babies are secreted around in back alleys. Miss Dunwoody keeps meticulous records and clearly fulfills an important community need. But Leftists can’t help but take any small opportunity to take a jab at anything which is government run.
When going through the agency’s registry book, which contains the details of the birth mothers, children adopted and adoptive parents, Bacchus observes that Miss Dunwoody classifies children in all sorts of ways. To this Gently asks disgustedly, “like by race”, to which Bacchus replies yes. We can see that Gently is a morally superior man, as upon hearing this he is thoroughly disgusted and sneers as he turns away.
This is a particularly politically correct and dishonest scene, oh I repeat myself. To insinuate that it is wrong to keep records of a child’s race is stupid and misleading. In the U.K., the PC crowd has made the race of the child just about the primary consideration in adoptions. Unless the law has recently changed, English social services will only allow parents of the same ethnicity as the child to be considered for adoption. I have an English friend who married an East Asian woman and they were told they could only adopt a child who was half East Asian and half Caucasian. Apparently this is to save the child from the trauma of looking different from his parents. As the series was written in 2012, the writers must have known this, thus they are fundamentally dishonest people.
Another scene shows Susan at the police station being questioned by Gently and Bacchus. She is asked the name of the father, but refuses to give it saying, “he doesn’t know he has a child.” Bacchus asks if the father doesn’t have a right to know. Then being terribly insensitive he suggests that perhaps the father and Susan might get back together, tut, tut. A morally indignant Susan replies, “you must be joking”, she doesn’t want to have anything to do with the father. She would “never marry him because he is a half wit.” Both Bacchus and Gently are duly chastened. Nothing is mentioned about the good of the child or how Susan is going to support a family of three being an unwed mother without a job. Forget about the morals of living on the dole.
I particularly liked the scene after Gently drops off the little girl with Susan, who has decided to invoke the three month probation clause during which she can abort the adoption.(Miss Dunwoody had not told her of such a clause, but the good Mr. Gently did.) It is framed by two young women, about nineteen or twenty years old, sitting serene and secure in a pleasant, well appointed, clean room resting in large comfortable chairs, with their happy babies surrounding them. They are looking out a half moon glass window and all is right with the world. The feeling is one of subdued contentment. No future worries at all. No council estate for them.
A more dishonest representation of single motherhood would be harder to find. Only in the minds of prurient ideologues could such a scene take place. No visible means of support? That’s ok, social services will take care of us and we can live like little ladies. If anyone seriously thinks this is the case, I would suggest they read any of Theodore Dalrymple’s books which deal, in great detail, with the sordid and sad lives of Britain’s single mothers.
All in all, “The Lost Child” is one of the more dishonest representations of a fairly dishonest genre, i.e. modern TV. One can only hope those who watch this program will have the brains to realize that just about everything in it is a lie. This is the type of sludge which we must try to rid ourselves of. Man the shovels. • (5168 views)