Sometimes reporters from mainstream outlets are so keen to follow the left wing narrative that they either don’t ask the important questions that should be asked or promote fake victimhood stories of those who are unlikely to gain the sympathy of the public. A good example of this comes from an opinion piece, one without a byline at the time of writing, on the Sky News site.

Sky has been running a story, based heavily on information supplied by the left leaning charity Shelter, on temporary housing built from shipping containers that have been erected in West London. In this latest instalment of the story Sky is featuring a Muslim single mother of four who is whining loudly about the conditions in the temporary container housing.

Sky is promoting this woman, a Lulu Abubakar, as the victim of a cold hard system that keeps, as Shelter claims, families in terrible conditions that put children at risk. Now, I have some sympathy for those with children who live in temporary accommodation and have been put there through no fault of their own such as job loss or other legitimate reasons, But I have little sympathy for Lulu Abubakar or her situation. Her problems are somewhat of her own or rather her children’s making.

You don’t have to read far into the Sky article to find that the reason that she and her children are in this temporary shipping container home is that one of her children, whom she claims is on the Autistic Spectrum, is a behavioural nightmare. This particular Muslim whinger whom Sky are promoting as a ‘victim’ has disclosed that the reason they are in such dire accommodation straits is because they were having to continually move because of the child’s behaviour. It appears that whilst in private rented accommodation (probably paid for by UK taxpayers) her child’s behaviour is so outrageously bad that the landlords keep evicting the family from their temporary housing.

As landlords are primarily interested in the money they make from their properties, in my opinion it is unlikely that this family was evicted for no good reason. If the money was rolling in from housing benefits, which is likely, the landlords had every incentive to keep Lulu Abubakar and her family in their property. It appears that her child, the one she claims is on the Autistic Spectrum but for which she provides little or no proof is the case, had engaged in conduct that so enraged the landlords that they had no alternative to kick her out. This is a situation that Ms Abubakar has claimed has been going on for four years. If the situation has been going on for that long and there are multiple landlords who have evicted her then it causes me to wonder just how bad her child’s behaviour must have been for the landlords to have to take such a drastic step as to evict the family from their properties?

There must have been some pretty awful behaviour by this woman’s child for them to be evicted so many times? I suspect that this may have involved anti social behaviour, criminal damage to a landlord’s property or causing gross disturbance to other tenants or to neighbours for this situation to occur. I’ve known families with children in temporary accommodation in the past who have not had out of control children and they have had quite cordial relationship with their landlords, the fact that this has not been the situation in this case tends to make me believe that Ms Abubakar’s problems are partly her own fault. Also where are the father or fathers of the children in all this? Why isn’t he or they not helping? Why should the taxpayer be burdened with supporting this woman and her brood including an out of control child?

Of course I understand and accept that children with Autistic Spectrum disorders can be challenging and can exhibit odd behaviours, but I get the impression that this child is beyond being a bit different or socially awkward as some children on the Autistic Spectrum can be. To be evicted so many times due to her child’s behavioural problems suggests that this child is violent, disruptive and destructive and unfit to live in normal accommodation. If this child is that bad when it comes to behaviour why should any decent person, even those who have fallen on hard times and are in temporary accommodation, put up with living with him or near him? If you live in council property would you want this family housed next door to you? I know I would not. My impression is that this child may be better off in a long term institution of some form where he can get the help he may well need rather than being placed in private accommodation that he may well be continually wrecking or disrupting.

If there is one phrase that keeps popping into my mind when reading Ms Abubakar’s story it is the phrase ‘gimmee, gimmee, gimmee’. Ms Abubakar basically wants the moon on a stick. She wants to be housed, along with her burdensome and disruptive child, in accommodation that she cannot be evicted from, no matter how awful her son behaves. That I believe is not something that she should be given. This whining Muslim mother is basically upset that the state will not cater for her every whim or absolve her from the responsibility of caring for and controlling her behaviourally difficult child. I don’t think that she should be given housing any better than she is in at the moment. In fact she’s getting a far better deal when it comes to a roof over her head than many who have served in Britain’s armed forces manage to get when they leave the military. Basically she is living in a tin box because her child is behaving like a little shit. This is not the fault of any of her previous landlords, or Ealing council or anybody else apart from her, her child and the father or fathers of her children who seem to be mysteriously absent from the scene. Ms Abubakar should either accept the situation she is in and try to make the best of it or bugger off somewhere else if she is upset about the situation that she and her family have created for themselves.

Sky News used to be, when it started up in 1989, a somewhat different alternative to the BBC. It did once cover stories without the heavy handed ‘house style’ and bias that I had noticed coming from Britain’s state broadcaster. It also had a fresh and active feel about the way it broadcast the news. Unfortunately those days are long and it is now just another left leaning, social justice obsessed propaganda channel that seems more interested in promoting a narrative than telling the unvarnished truth or asking the awkward questions that sometimes need to be asked. Sure there are still decent reporters working for Sky, but there are also those who just want to lazily rehash the words of politicised charities and left wing advocacy groups. This story of Ms Abubakar and her brood is one of those stories that are driven by the narrative fed to them by lefty charities and it is so obvious that this is the case here.