My best friend is a woman and I am one myself so I’m obviously not a misogynist. Having said that, it’s more than my feminist sensibilities can bear, to see women vying for space in the political arena.
First we had three women making cameo appearances in the leadership debate here in the UK. Then this week, Hilary Clinton threw her hair net in the ring for the US presidency.
Has she not learned anything from her previous attempt at the presidency? All those men who interrupted her speeches to chant “Iron my shirt”, were not the sexist pigs that the political correctness brigade would have us believe, but rather the voice of a frightened, marginalised, increasingly alienated group in American society. The white male.
It’s not that these men hate Hilary per se. It’s what she represents. In the unlikely event that she was to become the first female president of the US, what kind of role model would she be to the young women of America? It would be bye bye babies and hello back room deals. What message would it send to young men, who have been raised on the absolute promise of higher pay and male dominance when it comes to the jobs that matter? Suddenly they’ll have to accept equal pay and share power with women. Societal order, the thing that makes us feel safe (apart from nuclear weapons) would collapse.
The writing has been on the wall for sometime. We only have to look at other women who’ve made similar bids for power to know it always goes tits up. The Times (UK) captured the outstanding victory of Sonia Gandhi 10 years ago with the headline “The Italian housewife with a lot on her hands”. Voted for by 675m people, the focus of the article was that of her gender “handicaps”.
When Segolene Royal made her presidency bid in France the media questioned who would look after her 4 children if she were successful. Women who have children are mothers first, and everyone knows a good mother wouldn’t leave a 16 year old child at home with flu while she swanned off canvassing to be the first female president. She was lambasted for allegedly doing that and rightly so. That’s tantamount to child neglect.
Of course the same rules don’t apply to men. In a meritocracy, we have to accept that men are better at leadership, that’s why they have wives to whom they can delegate child care duties, leaving them to get on with the business of war mongering and creating global economic carnage. After all, if there’s no crisis there’s no fear and without fear the masses are far less malleable.
At least Angela Merkel had the good sense not to enter politics with womb manufactured baggage. She didn’t have children so she can never be accused of neglecting them. Genius. She may also be the most powerful woman in the world and preside over the strongest economy in the euro-zone, but she can’t dress for toffee and she reads from her notes, for gods’ sake. It’s only a matter of time before she’s toast.
Commentator, Janet Street-Porter, recently outed Leanne Woods for reading from her notes during Question Time. Rule number 1 of politics, it’s not what you say but how you say it that matters. Street-Porter was so irked by this that she attacked Wood for criticising HRH David Cameron. Dismissing any criticisms of the Tory austerity regime, S-P shouted “If that’s true, why is everyone so bloody happy, as proven in a recent happiness survey commissioned by the happiness society (or some such)? Eh eh? Cat got your tongue? you bloody Welsh, note reading upstart”. I’m paraphrasing slightly but I feel I captured the essence of the occurence.
Coming back to the UK leaders’ debate, various commentators picked up on crucial, vote losing faux pas, committed by the female panellists. One of them was far too intellectual for her own good (as evidenced by the fact she was wearing flat shoes), the other was too confident (for a woman) to be credible and the other had a wardrobe malfunction. She turned up wearing a casual collarless ensemble. Everyone knows that’s political suicide.
I toyed with the idea of becoming more engaged with local politics. If plans to close our A&E succeed, it would be quicker to drive to Luton (300 miles away) and catch a Ryan Air flight to Australia (that’s where all the best doctors go when they burn out here) than to dial 999. When you factor in the 3 hour wait in this county for an ambulance, then the added journey time to the next nearest A&E (1.5hours) then waiting in the queue of ambulances that backs onto the motorway, you’re looking at about 8 months before you get to see the inside of a cerise A&E cubicle.
When you do get in, the nurses and doctors will have lost the will to live and will have emigrated to Australia, so why not just go straight there in the first place?
I digress. I put the notion of political activism to my 7 year old who was horrified. “We’re supposed to be making Victoria sponge tomorrow” he protested. “What would you rather have, a mother who stays at home making cakes all day or one who makes a stand for social justice?” He didn’t miss a beat, “I’ll take the cake option”. Obviously children are not naturally predisposed to decisions that involve deferring gratification but nonetheless, that was my dalliance with politics over. A woman’s place is in the home.
The harsh truth is that politics is a precarious career choice for women. Hilary Clinton’s presidency bid won’t be decided on her stellar track record or her proven competence. It’ll be decided on where she stands on ironing shirts, what she wears and whether her ambitions undermine her ability to be a good mother and grandmother. Even if she overcomes those hurdles, she’ll know better than most that, however well she thinks she’s doing, it takes just one bad hair day and its curtains.
Tuesday, 14 April 2015
Thursday, 2 April 2015
The NHS Conspiracy of Silence
I’d have more luck publishing a piece about colonic irrigation than the NHS right now.
Despite the fact that it’s the one thing that unites the electorate, the NHS was airbrushed out of the budget. That should have been a media talking point, but it wasn’t. In the first of the leaders’ non debates (King Cameron threw Milliband to his Tory attack dogs, Paxman and Burly, instead), there were no scripted questions about the NHS. As soon as random audience members were allowed to speak, it was the NHS that stirred the audience. One woman accused Cameron of breaking his promise about no more top down restructuring. “You broke your promise before, how can I trust you again”. The answer is, you can’t.
This week 100 business bosses, who happened to have either OBEs after their names, or Lord/Baronness before them, signed a letter supporting the Tories. Shut the front door! There’s no other group in society that can cheat the exchequer of tax and get away with it.
This week Sports Direct hit the headlines for giving staff in one of their warehouses 15 minutes notice of their redundancies. The subsidiary was put into administration then immediately bought back by Sports Direct, wait for it, without the debts. The taxpayer was left to pick up the bill for the staff redundancies and suppliers. Then there’s the unpaid tax bill, which comes to almost £700,000. What is staggering about this scandal, is that none of what Sports Direct did was illegal, apparently. A Conservative Government has presided over a system that allows big business to exploit loopholes at the taxpayers’ expense.
Trillions of pounds that should be going to our health service is being siphoned off into offshore tax havens. The Conservatives had 5 years to redress this injustice but chose not to. They chose instead to clamp down on the disabled and the most vulnerable in society. Many of whom have been driven to suicide as a result of the hideously inhumane bedroom tax and other savage benefit cuts, which after all, are not a nice to have but the difference between eating and starving. Keeping warm or freezing to death.
Last Tuesday, David Cameron got heckled by an Age Concern audience for presiding over, what actor Michael Sheen described last month as, “a systematic dismantling of the NHS”. A report published on the same day, showed that mental health related absences in the NHS, due to stress, depression and anxiety, have doubled under the Tory administration. Apart from the tragic human costs, sickness and absence costs the NHS millions every year.
There has also been a 3 fold increase in the use of agency staff, who can charge as much as £1,600 a shift (most of which goes to the private company). The total agency bill to the NHS this year is expected to be £980 million. Peter Carter, RCN chief executive, said: "This report shows the true financial cost of a health service which takes a 'payday loans' attitude towards workforce planning”.
One NHS hospital paid more than £3,200 for a locum doctor to cover a single 24 hour shift over the Christmas crisis. No organization could withstand this level of gross mismanagement. It's no wonder the NHS is on its knees. We know from history that running down public services is a precursor to privatization (see Privatising the World by Tory MP Oliver Letwin).
The coalition’s Health and Social Care Act (waved through under the media’s radar) means CCG's (Clinical Commissioning Groups) can privatise chunks of the NHS without the inconvenience of consultation. Taxpayers, won't know about it until it's a done deal. Last week, leaked documents showed this is exactly what's happening at Staffordshire, where the CCGs are pushing through plans to privatise cancer care. A contract worth £1.2bn is up for grabs without any safeguards for quality of patient care or provision for what'll happen when it goes belly up. This barely got a mention in the mainstream media.
Despite the disastrous failed privatization experiment at Hinchingbrooke hospital (which was recently handed back to the NHS when Circle Holdings were exposed by the Care Quality Commission as having scant regard for quality of patient care), CCG’s are still blindly pursuing the reckless strategy of outsourcing to private companies, who are driven by profit, not patient care.
That, in the words of one of the doctors interviewed in the incisive documentary “Sell-Off: The Abolition of the NHS, “is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank”.
Despite the fact that it’s the one thing that unites the electorate, the NHS was airbrushed out of the budget. That should have been a media talking point, but it wasn’t. In the first of the leaders’ non debates (King Cameron threw Milliband to his Tory attack dogs, Paxman and Burly, instead), there were no scripted questions about the NHS. As soon as random audience members were allowed to speak, it was the NHS that stirred the audience. One woman accused Cameron of breaking his promise about no more top down restructuring. “You broke your promise before, how can I trust you again”. The answer is, you can’t.
This week 100 business bosses, who happened to have either OBEs after their names, or Lord/Baronness before them, signed a letter supporting the Tories. Shut the front door! There’s no other group in society that can cheat the exchequer of tax and get away with it.
This week Sports Direct hit the headlines for giving staff in one of their warehouses 15 minutes notice of their redundancies. The subsidiary was put into administration then immediately bought back by Sports Direct, wait for it, without the debts. The taxpayer was left to pick up the bill for the staff redundancies and suppliers. Then there’s the unpaid tax bill, which comes to almost £700,000. What is staggering about this scandal, is that none of what Sports Direct did was illegal, apparently. A Conservative Government has presided over a system that allows big business to exploit loopholes at the taxpayers’ expense.
Trillions of pounds that should be going to our health service is being siphoned off into offshore tax havens. The Conservatives had 5 years to redress this injustice but chose not to. They chose instead to clamp down on the disabled and the most vulnerable in society. Many of whom have been driven to suicide as a result of the hideously inhumane bedroom tax and other savage benefit cuts, which after all, are not a nice to have but the difference between eating and starving. Keeping warm or freezing to death.
Last Tuesday, David Cameron got heckled by an Age Concern audience for presiding over, what actor Michael Sheen described last month as, “a systematic dismantling of the NHS”. A report published on the same day, showed that mental health related absences in the NHS, due to stress, depression and anxiety, have doubled under the Tory administration. Apart from the tragic human costs, sickness and absence costs the NHS millions every year.
There has also been a 3 fold increase in the use of agency staff, who can charge as much as £1,600 a shift (most of which goes to the private company). The total agency bill to the NHS this year is expected to be £980 million. Peter Carter, RCN chief executive, said: "This report shows the true financial cost of a health service which takes a 'payday loans' attitude towards workforce planning”.
One NHS hospital paid more than £3,200 for a locum doctor to cover a single 24 hour shift over the Christmas crisis. No organization could withstand this level of gross mismanagement. It's no wonder the NHS is on its knees. We know from history that running down public services is a precursor to privatization (see Privatising the World by Tory MP Oliver Letwin).
The coalition’s Health and Social Care Act (waved through under the media’s radar) means CCG's (Clinical Commissioning Groups) can privatise chunks of the NHS without the inconvenience of consultation. Taxpayers, won't know about it until it's a done deal. Last week, leaked documents showed this is exactly what's happening at Staffordshire, where the CCGs are pushing through plans to privatise cancer care. A contract worth £1.2bn is up for grabs without any safeguards for quality of patient care or provision for what'll happen when it goes belly up. This barely got a mention in the mainstream media.
Despite the disastrous failed privatization experiment at Hinchingbrooke hospital (which was recently handed back to the NHS when Circle Holdings were exposed by the Care Quality Commission as having scant regard for quality of patient care), CCG’s are still blindly pursuing the reckless strategy of outsourcing to private companies, who are driven by profit, not patient care.
That, in the words of one of the doctors interviewed in the incisive documentary “Sell-Off: The Abolition of the NHS, “is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank”.
Sunday, 22 March 2015
Trevor Phillips is to Race Relations What Margaret Thatcher Was to Feminism
A saboteur. This statement was true when I said it 6 years ago and Phillips’ party political broadcast on behalf of UKIP last week, proves it’s still true today.
The Channel 4 documentary, Things We Won’t Say About Race That Are True, had more holes than my grandmothers hair net. For those of us who spent our time cleaning up after the mess Phillips made as head of the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC), this mocumentary was no surprise.
Phillips never understood what racism meant or the manifold, sinister ways in which it manifests itself. Having spent a number of years working with the police service, implementing recommendations from the Macpherson report (which examined the Mets mishandling of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence) I got a call from a senior met officer who was distraught. He had just come from a board meeting where he said Trevor Phillips announced it was time to forget about institutional racism because it made white officers feel alienated.
Rather than explain what institutional racism means, i.e. it’s not about individual officers being “racist” but about policies (such as stop & search targeted at young black men) and a predominately white leadership, that produces unconscious outcomes, such as alienating and criminalising black and minority ethnic people, he threw the (black) baby out with the bath water. Even now, the Met cannot retain their black recruits amid constant reports of race discrimination and harassment.
Then there was the "sleepwalking into segregation" chestnut, for which Phillips was later forced to apologise, having misrepresented research to support his case. Having advocated integration and warned against creating neighbourhood "ghettos", Phillips later did a bizarre U-turn suggesting black and white boys should be segregated at school.
A few years ago I challenged Trevor Phillips on his suggestion that the solution to black boys' educational underperformance was to segregate them. Speaking at a Confederation of British Industry conference, I pointed out that there were some barriers to achievement beyond the individual's control and that those barriers had a disproportionately negative impact on black boys. For example, black pupils are more vulnerable to negative stereotypes by teachers, resulting in their being three times more likely to be excluded than their white peers.
Even though experts constantly urge political leaders to address the "festering abscess" of institutional racism, Phillips belligerently ignores their recommendations.
Although at a loss for words on the podium, Mr Phillips sought me out afterwards. Towering over my slight, 5ft 3in frame, Phillips, a big man, jabbed his finger and insisted "someone like you" (I’m white) had no right to question "someone like me" (he’s black) on the subject of race. In the same way that being a woman does not automatically predispose one to feminism, being black alone does not qualify someone to be an authority on race.
Despite having no apparent experience, interest or aptitude in campaigning for human rights, Phillips was appointed by New Labour to lead the EHRC. In my opinion, he did more to sabotage race equality than Jeremy Clarkson. It was out with multiculturalism and in with "Britishness", as defined by the willingness to "honour Dickens and Shakespeare". Post 7/7 he singled out Muslim men and told them how to integrate. His comments came at a time of heightened Islamophobia.
In the past decade the gap between rich and poor (black & white) has widened and inequality has soared. To make people of all communities feel included and part of British society, they need to have a representative voice at the highest levels. It's this lack of a legitimate voice and the power to influence that leaves communities, including impoverished white people, feeling disaffected and misunderstood. But Phillips still doesn't seem to have grasped that.
Tuesday, 17 March 2015
A Paddy's Day Limerick Dedicated to David Cameron
There once was a gombeen called Dave
Who didn’t know how to behave
His mates were all loaded
T’was the poor that he goaded
And took the man in the street as his slave
* Gombeen is an old Irish term for feck'n eegit.
Who didn’t know how to behave
His mates were all loaded
T’was the poor that he goaded
And took the man in the street as his slave
* Gombeen is an old Irish term for feck'n eegit.
Thursday, 5 March 2015
How Did a Nurse & Actor (Michael Sheen) Succeed Where "Bland" Politicians Fail?
By rousing an audience with their passion and conviction. In the words of Michael Sheen in a speech that went viral on the internet this week,
" You must stand up for what you believe, but first of all, by God, believe in something."
His blistering criticism of the coalition government’s systematic dismantling of the NHS touched a national nerve. With few exceptions, “bland” politicians struggle to communicate a belief in anything, other than their own aggrandisement.
Last week BBC's Question Time was televised in Telford and, despite politicians’ attempts to ingratiate themselves with the audience by giving immigrants and Islam a good kicking, they just weren’t biting.
Then a nurse spoke, from the heart, with candour and courage. The audience erupted in whoops and cheers (when was the last time a politician generated that kind of reaction?). She gave voice to the one thing everyone cares about, irrespective of political persuasion, our beloved NHS.
The nurse from Telford said she was disgusted with herself for voting for the Tories, “I helped put you in your jobs and now I’m having to fight for a 1% pay rise, I’m facing my unsocial hours pay being scrapped and I’ve lost all my increments, despite there being a signed contract. As far as I’m concerned, You’re [pointing at Tory party chairman Grant Shapps] in breach of contract with NHS nurses”.
Agency and temporary nurses are costing the NHS millions and are reported to provide poorer quality care. NHS bosses say they can’t recruit nurses, but why not? Nurses I’ve spoken to locally who have left the profession say they felt they’d been forced out of their jobs for the crime of highlighting poor patient care.
One senior A&E sister who left the local hospital in the last few years said, “It’s like being in a war zone every day”. There were never enough staff on duty to cope with demand, so nurses and doctors were working under constant stress and burn out levels were high. “Every time you’re forced to deprive a patient of the care you know they need and deserve, it chips away at your soul until eventually there’s nothing left to chip away at and you just stop caring. That’s when most of us realise it’s time to leave the profession”.
A previous colleague of hers, a highly respected A&E consultant, left around the same time, in protest she said at repeated failures of management to recognise that lack of funding was compromising, sometimes fatally, patient care. That consultant, like many others interviewed in a recent BBC Radio 4 documentary, fled to Australia to work in an A&E system that funds proper patient care and allows doctors and nurses to work adequately staffed shifts as well as affording much more work life balance. It’s not rocket science.
Whilst agency and temporary staff may cost the NHS millions in exchange for poor quality care, they have the advantage of being easily disposed of if they become too gobby/principled. No messy employment rights to be circumvented.
A couple of months ago my child was seriously injured in a car crash. The quality of care he received at our local A&E was first class, for which I will be forever grateful. That intense experience of the NHS made me realise just how the government has eroded the structural underpinning of the institution by starving it of the investment it needs to thrive.
I learned that my A&E is under threat of closure, which would mean a journey that already takes over an hour (in excruciating pain), could be extended to over 1.5 hours. I also learned that my local Clinical Commissioning Group (that’s the board who hold the local NHS purse strings) had opted out of meeting national ambulance response targets (the only county in the country to do so) rather than fund the service to operate at a safe level. Medical campaigners warn this will inevitably result in higher mortality rates.
Still, in a move that seems to acknowledge, albeit implicitly, the likelihood of increased mortality, the Trust has just announced it’s investing £1.4m in extending the mortuary. It’s one thing having ambulances backed up nine strong out the door of A&E, it’s another thing entirely to have the DOA’s (dead on arrival) spilling out into the car park. It would kill tourism.
In order to take a temperature check of my local NHS, I went along to a recent hospital board meeting, which opened with the chairman’s award. The recipient, like the three previous recipients, was a manager. I clapped because I don’t doubt his worthiness. At the same time, I’ve been told by a source inside the hospital that front line medics are feeling aggrieved. The winter months put unprecedented pressure on nurses and doctors who are already over worked and underpaid yet they see managers who make financial savings, not those who save lives, disproportionately, in their view, recognised and rewarded.
Next, the chairman invited the gathering to accompany him on a journey. First stop was a heart rending patient story about appalling end of life care. The patient’s wife outlined a catalogue of medical errors, shoddy hygiene, poor patient care and interdisciplinary communication. The patient’s wife said that although it was too late for her husband, who died alone (she was not informed of his deteriorating condition), she asked that doctors and nurses be reminded that the person in the bed could be their father, brother, husband, and to see them, not as just a collection of symptoms, but a human being.
I was moved to tears and thanked the family for their candour and courage afterwards.
The board move on to examining the Clinical Commissioning Groups, "Future Fit" (FF) proposal. This is their vision of our local health care "offer", "going forward" (AKA: cost cutting measures). He says its viability depends on the setting up of Urgent Care Centres (UCCs) throughout the county in order to alleviate some of the pressure on A&E’s. Problem is they’ve only planned 2 prototypes, only one of which seems operational (reports indicate that it's run by a private company) & it seems it’s not taking pressure off A&E. One of the reasons for this, according to the CEO, is that it’s not a proper UCC yet. Staff haven’t been sufficiently trained so it’s all a bit, well, up in the air.
The chair said he was concerned that wasteful models that don’t deliver could cost more than before. Someone said there was no point in building a new hospital if beds there just get clogged up too. There were concerns about the integration of FF with other providers.
The CEO’s body language grew restless. “We’ve been standing on a burning platform for months now. We must make the best set of assumptions and move forward”. Health warning: When it comes to transformative change of any kind, let alone on an NHS scale (which involves people’s lives), “best assumptions” don’t cut it. Decisions need to be based on evidence, including detailed financial modelling. General Motors famously carried out a cost benefit analysis before deciding whether to recall known faulty cars. They concluded that it would be cheaper to pay out when sued over resultant fatalities than to recall & repair the cars. Private corporations are not driven by customer safety, their allegiance is to profits.
The medical director says it’s deliberate that no detailed costings have yet been forthcoming. If that’s true, it’s deeply disturbing. For example, one of the options is to build a new hospital, which would mean diverting vital funds away from patient care and front line staff. It wouldn’t solve the problem of bed blocking (as noted by the board), which means the problems remain but the funds have been recklessly depleted, all because financial modelling wasn’t provided at the outset. Asking people to respond to hypothetical options that may be unfeasible/dangerous seems to me to be a gross waste of time and money (how much does it cost to despatch an army of highly paid clinical commissioners to every consultation and pop up stall around the county only to have to do it all again once they’ve had a chance to think things through a bit better)?
The CCG had asked the board to endorse their shortlist of proposals but they declined on the basis that there wasn’t enough detail.
Next, the CEO told the board that there’s no capacity to transfer patients off the wards, “We’re working 100 miles an hour but the rest of the system is working 10-20 MPH”.
A board member interjected, “When do we say as a board, enough is enough. How do we support colleagues”? He spoke of the burden on A&E staff and the need for shared ownership with other providers (of social care). He said “we need to draw a line in the sand”, critical of his perception that social care & community trusts ration their contribution. This is problematic because the Future Fit model depends on shared ownership and these partners making beds available in the community.
Someone else chipped in, critical of the local authority (LA) who he said is using money provided for the social care pot, to make savings rather than use it to fund vital infrastructure in the community.
Yet more flashes of brilliance only to dissipate into the ether.
The chairs solution? Using Health Care Assistants to plug the nursing gap. “We already use agency nurses but they don’t give the love”. I look around the table. No sharp intakes of breath. The corporate governance director seems unperturbed so I focus my gaze on the director of nursing, who when asked what she thought by the chair said, “I’m happy to consider it if the board is happy to accept the increased risk”. No one objected.
If we accept the narrative that there’s no money for the NHS then it follows that we accept privatisation as inevitable. If we relinquish the principal of public health care for all, we’re signing our NHS over to corporate providers, for whom profit will always come before patients. As Sheen so eloquently put it, “There is never an excuse to not speak up for what you think is right”.
" You must stand up for what you believe, but first of all, by God, believe in something."
His blistering criticism of the coalition government’s systematic dismantling of the NHS touched a national nerve. With few exceptions, “bland” politicians struggle to communicate a belief in anything, other than their own aggrandisement.
Last week BBC's Question Time was televised in Telford and, despite politicians’ attempts to ingratiate themselves with the audience by giving immigrants and Islam a good kicking, they just weren’t biting.
Then a nurse spoke, from the heart, with candour and courage. The audience erupted in whoops and cheers (when was the last time a politician generated that kind of reaction?). She gave voice to the one thing everyone cares about, irrespective of political persuasion, our beloved NHS.
The nurse from Telford said she was disgusted with herself for voting for the Tories, “I helped put you in your jobs and now I’m having to fight for a 1% pay rise, I’m facing my unsocial hours pay being scrapped and I’ve lost all my increments, despite there being a signed contract. As far as I’m concerned, You’re [pointing at Tory party chairman Grant Shapps] in breach of contract with NHS nurses”.
Agency and temporary nurses are costing the NHS millions and are reported to provide poorer quality care. NHS bosses say they can’t recruit nurses, but why not? Nurses I’ve spoken to locally who have left the profession say they felt they’d been forced out of their jobs for the crime of highlighting poor patient care.
One senior A&E sister who left the local hospital in the last few years said, “It’s like being in a war zone every day”. There were never enough staff on duty to cope with demand, so nurses and doctors were working under constant stress and burn out levels were high. “Every time you’re forced to deprive a patient of the care you know they need and deserve, it chips away at your soul until eventually there’s nothing left to chip away at and you just stop caring. That’s when most of us realise it’s time to leave the profession”.
A previous colleague of hers, a highly respected A&E consultant, left around the same time, in protest she said at repeated failures of management to recognise that lack of funding was compromising, sometimes fatally, patient care. That consultant, like many others interviewed in a recent BBC Radio 4 documentary, fled to Australia to work in an A&E system that funds proper patient care and allows doctors and nurses to work adequately staffed shifts as well as affording much more work life balance. It’s not rocket science.
Whilst agency and temporary staff may cost the NHS millions in exchange for poor quality care, they have the advantage of being easily disposed of if they become too gobby/principled. No messy employment rights to be circumvented.
A couple of months ago my child was seriously injured in a car crash. The quality of care he received at our local A&E was first class, for which I will be forever grateful. That intense experience of the NHS made me realise just how the government has eroded the structural underpinning of the institution by starving it of the investment it needs to thrive.
I learned that my A&E is under threat of closure, which would mean a journey that already takes over an hour (in excruciating pain), could be extended to over 1.5 hours. I also learned that my local Clinical Commissioning Group (that’s the board who hold the local NHS purse strings) had opted out of meeting national ambulance response targets (the only county in the country to do so) rather than fund the service to operate at a safe level. Medical campaigners warn this will inevitably result in higher mortality rates.
Still, in a move that seems to acknowledge, albeit implicitly, the likelihood of increased mortality, the Trust has just announced it’s investing £1.4m in extending the mortuary. It’s one thing having ambulances backed up nine strong out the door of A&E, it’s another thing entirely to have the DOA’s (dead on arrival) spilling out into the car park. It would kill tourism.
In order to take a temperature check of my local NHS, I went along to a recent hospital board meeting, which opened with the chairman’s award. The recipient, like the three previous recipients, was a manager. I clapped because I don’t doubt his worthiness. At the same time, I’ve been told by a source inside the hospital that front line medics are feeling aggrieved. The winter months put unprecedented pressure on nurses and doctors who are already over worked and underpaid yet they see managers who make financial savings, not those who save lives, disproportionately, in their view, recognised and rewarded.
Next, the chairman invited the gathering to accompany him on a journey. First stop was a heart rending patient story about appalling end of life care. The patient’s wife outlined a catalogue of medical errors, shoddy hygiene, poor patient care and interdisciplinary communication. The patient’s wife said that although it was too late for her husband, who died alone (she was not informed of his deteriorating condition), she asked that doctors and nurses be reminded that the person in the bed could be their father, brother, husband, and to see them, not as just a collection of symptoms, but a human being.
I was moved to tears and thanked the family for their candour and courage afterwards.
The board move on to examining the Clinical Commissioning Groups, "Future Fit" (FF) proposal. This is their vision of our local health care "offer", "going forward" (AKA: cost cutting measures). He says its viability depends on the setting up of Urgent Care Centres (UCCs) throughout the county in order to alleviate some of the pressure on A&E’s. Problem is they’ve only planned 2 prototypes, only one of which seems operational (reports indicate that it's run by a private company) & it seems it’s not taking pressure off A&E. One of the reasons for this, according to the CEO, is that it’s not a proper UCC yet. Staff haven’t been sufficiently trained so it’s all a bit, well, up in the air.
The chair said he was concerned that wasteful models that don’t deliver could cost more than before. Someone said there was no point in building a new hospital if beds there just get clogged up too. There were concerns about the integration of FF with other providers.
The CEO’s body language grew restless. “We’ve been standing on a burning platform for months now. We must make the best set of assumptions and move forward”. Health warning: When it comes to transformative change of any kind, let alone on an NHS scale (which involves people’s lives), “best assumptions” don’t cut it. Decisions need to be based on evidence, including detailed financial modelling. General Motors famously carried out a cost benefit analysis before deciding whether to recall known faulty cars. They concluded that it would be cheaper to pay out when sued over resultant fatalities than to recall & repair the cars. Private corporations are not driven by customer safety, their allegiance is to profits.
The medical director says it’s deliberate that no detailed costings have yet been forthcoming. If that’s true, it’s deeply disturbing. For example, one of the options is to build a new hospital, which would mean diverting vital funds away from patient care and front line staff. It wouldn’t solve the problem of bed blocking (as noted by the board), which means the problems remain but the funds have been recklessly depleted, all because financial modelling wasn’t provided at the outset. Asking people to respond to hypothetical options that may be unfeasible/dangerous seems to me to be a gross waste of time and money (how much does it cost to despatch an army of highly paid clinical commissioners to every consultation and pop up stall around the county only to have to do it all again once they’ve had a chance to think things through a bit better)?
The CCG had asked the board to endorse their shortlist of proposals but they declined on the basis that there wasn’t enough detail.
Next, the CEO told the board that there’s no capacity to transfer patients off the wards, “We’re working 100 miles an hour but the rest of the system is working 10-20 MPH”.
A board member interjected, “When do we say as a board, enough is enough. How do we support colleagues”? He spoke of the burden on A&E staff and the need for shared ownership with other providers (of social care). He said “we need to draw a line in the sand”, critical of his perception that social care & community trusts ration their contribution. This is problematic because the Future Fit model depends on shared ownership and these partners making beds available in the community.
Someone else chipped in, critical of the local authority (LA) who he said is using money provided for the social care pot, to make savings rather than use it to fund vital infrastructure in the community.
Yet more flashes of brilliance only to dissipate into the ether.
The chairs solution? Using Health Care Assistants to plug the nursing gap. “We already use agency nurses but they don’t give the love”. I look around the table. No sharp intakes of breath. The corporate governance director seems unperturbed so I focus my gaze on the director of nursing, who when asked what she thought by the chair said, “I’m happy to consider it if the board is happy to accept the increased risk”. No one objected.
If we accept the narrative that there’s no money for the NHS then it follows that we accept privatisation as inevitable. If we relinquish the principal of public health care for all, we’re signing our NHS over to corporate providers, for whom profit will always come before patients. As Sheen so eloquently put it, “There is never an excuse to not speak up for what you think is right”.
Tuesday, 17 February 2015
The Poor Pay With Their Lives While the Rich Laugh all the Way to the (HSBC) Bank.
On the 8th of February 2012 Peter Williams, a gifted engineer and Guinness World Record holder, committed suicide after falling into arrears on his council tax.
Having paid these off months later, the council then sent him a £1,350 bill for court costs. Unable to pay in full he offered to pay in installments, an offer which was rejected. Despite a letter from his GP stating he was severely depressed and suicidal, still the council hounded him and set a date to evict him from his home which he had bought outright. His bill inexplicably escalated to £70,000 and with his eviction imminent, Peter wrote: “I have had enough and cannot stand any more of the mental turmoil”. Then he stepped in front of a train.
Had Peter not killed himself the council would have been obliged to rehouse him at the taxpayers’ expense.
David Clapson, a former soldier and diabetic, died in July 2014 after his benefit was cut. Clapson had no food in his stomach, £3.44 in the bank and no money on his electricity card, leaving him unable to operate his fridge where he kept insulin.
Jacqueline Harris committed suicide in November 2013 after her benefits were cut. She was disabled. Her sister Chrisitine, a nurse said, said: “If you’ve got a great education, if you have great health, you’re OK. But if you haven’t, you have to fight against the odds.
An inquest found that Harris, who was partially sighted, committed suicide after months of constant pain and following a “fit for work” ruling that replaced her incapacity benefit with jobseeker’s allowance.
These are just a few of the people who have been driven to death as a result of the Con Dem’s fatally flawed austerity measures. In previous blogs I’ve named others who have died, as reported in the media, as a result of fuel poverty and hunger and those driven over the edge by the beleaguered bedroom tax.
The Con Dem attack on the most vulnerable in society has been relentless, brutal and as unyielding as it is ill conceived. If you default on your council tax or you’re late with your income tax, they’re down on you like a ton of bricks.
Meanwhile, HSBC has been exposed as helping the rich to dodge taxes. That’s millions of pounds that should have gone to the NHS and education. Taxes the rest of us are charged at source and have to pay.
Despite HMRC knowing for several years that HSBC has helped over 1,000 of its UK customers dodge tax, only one prosecution has been pursued on behalf of UK taxpayers. It seems, if you rob a bank and de fraud the HMRC dressed in a designer suit and armed with a rolex and a top of the range “tax planner”, it’s not illegal. The more money you have the more you can steal from those that have nothing without ever facing criminal charges, because the laws of morality and criminality that apply to the rest of us have an opt out clause if you can afford to buy it.
The Con Dem government has managed to fast track legislation that squeezes the life blood (literally) out of the most vulnerable in society, yet known loopholes that allow the rich to dodge paying their fair share of taxes, remain conspicuously open. It will remain ever thus unless we make our voices heard.
International campaign group Avaaz has an online petition calling for HSBC prosecutions. It already has half a million signatures. In the UK, campaign group, 38 Degrees has the same online petition directed at George Osborne with over 100,000 signatures and counting.
Having paid these off months later, the council then sent him a £1,350 bill for court costs. Unable to pay in full he offered to pay in installments, an offer which was rejected. Despite a letter from his GP stating he was severely depressed and suicidal, still the council hounded him and set a date to evict him from his home which he had bought outright. His bill inexplicably escalated to £70,000 and with his eviction imminent, Peter wrote: “I have had enough and cannot stand any more of the mental turmoil”. Then he stepped in front of a train.
Had Peter not killed himself the council would have been obliged to rehouse him at the taxpayers’ expense.
David Clapson, a former soldier and diabetic, died in July 2014 after his benefit was cut. Clapson had no food in his stomach, £3.44 in the bank and no money on his electricity card, leaving him unable to operate his fridge where he kept insulin.
Jacqueline Harris committed suicide in November 2013 after her benefits were cut. She was disabled. Her sister Chrisitine, a nurse said, said: “If you’ve got a great education, if you have great health, you’re OK. But if you haven’t, you have to fight against the odds.
An inquest found that Harris, who was partially sighted, committed suicide after months of constant pain and following a “fit for work” ruling that replaced her incapacity benefit with jobseeker’s allowance.
These are just a few of the people who have been driven to death as a result of the Con Dem’s fatally flawed austerity measures. In previous blogs I’ve named others who have died, as reported in the media, as a result of fuel poverty and hunger and those driven over the edge by the beleaguered bedroom tax.
The Con Dem attack on the most vulnerable in society has been relentless, brutal and as unyielding as it is ill conceived. If you default on your council tax or you’re late with your income tax, they’re down on you like a ton of bricks.
Meanwhile, HSBC has been exposed as helping the rich to dodge taxes. That’s millions of pounds that should have gone to the NHS and education. Taxes the rest of us are charged at source and have to pay.
Despite HMRC knowing for several years that HSBC has helped over 1,000 of its UK customers dodge tax, only one prosecution has been pursued on behalf of UK taxpayers. It seems, if you rob a bank and de fraud the HMRC dressed in a designer suit and armed with a rolex and a top of the range “tax planner”, it’s not illegal. The more money you have the more you can steal from those that have nothing without ever facing criminal charges, because the laws of morality and criminality that apply to the rest of us have an opt out clause if you can afford to buy it.
The Con Dem government has managed to fast track legislation that squeezes the life blood (literally) out of the most vulnerable in society, yet known loopholes that allow the rich to dodge paying their fair share of taxes, remain conspicuously open. It will remain ever thus unless we make our voices heard.
International campaign group Avaaz has an online petition calling for HSBC prosecutions. It already has half a million signatures. In the UK, campaign group, 38 Degrees has the same online petition directed at George Osborne with over 100,000 signatures and counting.
Friday, 6 February 2015
Child Abuse Inquiry: Survivors' Approval of New Chair is a Step in the Right Direction
The following was published in today's Independent:
Cathy was a child and a prostitute. From the age of four her parents had sex parties where adults would abuse each other’s children. On the few occasions that Cathy found the courage to tell trusted adults, no-one believed her. Her parents were both doctors and “respectable” people don’t behave like that. She was living on the streets at 12, a drug addict at 13 and by the time I met her, at 14, she was “owned” by a pimp in central London. I spent Christmas night with her in casualty. She had been raped with a broken bottle and was severely traumatised.
The psychological theory I studied at university did little to prepare me for that night in A&E almost 20 years ago. As someone with professional experience of working with survivors of child sex abuse, I welcome the appointment of Justice Lowell Goddard, with reservation (she has a lot to prove). The credibility of the inquiry was at risk of derailment when two previous chairs were forced to resign due to their links to the establishment.
The outgoing chair, Fiona Woolf, vehemently denied being an establishment figure but was about as convincing as Jim Davidson claiming to be a feminist. Watching Woolf talk about her dinner parties with senior political figures and her (personal) Christmas card list of over 3,000 , yet concomitantly claiming to be just an ordinary gal, would have been comedic were her appointment not so ill conceived .
In the end, the survivors’ objections were heard. If they don’t trust, absolutely, in the integrity of the process, starting with the appointment of the chair, they will (rightly) boycott it and the whole process will unravel. If their views were treated with contempt at this stage, why should they put themselves through the nightmare of reliving historical sexual traumas?
Cathy, though writhing in agony, refused to be examined by the belligerent male doctor. Under the circumstances, I didn’t think her request for a female doctor was unreasonable, but he clearly did. He lectured me on his innumerable professional accolades. I pointed out that Cathy didn’t get to choose not to be raped with a broken bottle, particles of which remained lodged in her vagina. That having found herself ripped asunder and in A&E on Christmas night, she didn’t choose to be bullied by a condescending doctor. But she did have one choice left. She chose not to have another man anywhere near her, let alone her private parts, for the foreseeable.
We did get a female doctor, though it was a long wait. Hopefully Theresa May has learned something I realised as a graduate advocating for a traumatised child, that sometimes, the most important criteria for a role can’t be found on a CV alone. It doesn’t matter how many letters you have after your name or what university you went to. If you cannot command the trust and confidence of your key stakeholders, you’re not the right person for the job.
A credible and therefore qualified candidate will be able to command the trust of survivors by having the capacity to relate to them on a personal level. Ms Goddard appears to meet this criteria.
There was no fairy tale ending for Cathy. But to do her and other survivors of child sexual abuse justice, this inquiry must proceed apace and be unimpeachable.
Cathy was a child and a prostitute. From the age of four her parents had sex parties where adults would abuse each other’s children. On the few occasions that Cathy found the courage to tell trusted adults, no-one believed her. Her parents were both doctors and “respectable” people don’t behave like that. She was living on the streets at 12, a drug addict at 13 and by the time I met her, at 14, she was “owned” by a pimp in central London. I spent Christmas night with her in casualty. She had been raped with a broken bottle and was severely traumatised.
The psychological theory I studied at university did little to prepare me for that night in A&E almost 20 years ago. As someone with professional experience of working with survivors of child sex abuse, I welcome the appointment of Justice Lowell Goddard, with reservation (she has a lot to prove). The credibility of the inquiry was at risk of derailment when two previous chairs were forced to resign due to their links to the establishment.
The outgoing chair, Fiona Woolf, vehemently denied being an establishment figure but was about as convincing as Jim Davidson claiming to be a feminist. Watching Woolf talk about her dinner parties with senior political figures and her (personal) Christmas card list of over 3,000 , yet concomitantly claiming to be just an ordinary gal, would have been comedic were her appointment not so ill conceived .
In the end, the survivors’ objections were heard. If they don’t trust, absolutely, in the integrity of the process, starting with the appointment of the chair, they will (rightly) boycott it and the whole process will unravel. If their views were treated with contempt at this stage, why should they put themselves through the nightmare of reliving historical sexual traumas?
Cathy, though writhing in agony, refused to be examined by the belligerent male doctor. Under the circumstances, I didn’t think her request for a female doctor was unreasonable, but he clearly did. He lectured me on his innumerable professional accolades. I pointed out that Cathy didn’t get to choose not to be raped with a broken bottle, particles of which remained lodged in her vagina. That having found herself ripped asunder and in A&E on Christmas night, she didn’t choose to be bullied by a condescending doctor. But she did have one choice left. She chose not to have another man anywhere near her, let alone her private parts, for the foreseeable.
We did get a female doctor, though it was a long wait. Hopefully Theresa May has learned something I realised as a graduate advocating for a traumatised child, that sometimes, the most important criteria for a role can’t be found on a CV alone. It doesn’t matter how many letters you have after your name or what university you went to. If you cannot command the trust and confidence of your key stakeholders, you’re not the right person for the job.
A credible and therefore qualified candidate will be able to command the trust of survivors by having the capacity to relate to them on a personal level. Ms Goddard appears to meet this criteria.
There was no fairy tale ending for Cathy. But to do her and other survivors of child sexual abuse justice, this inquiry must proceed apace and be unimpeachable.
Saturday, 24 January 2015
MSF Hospital Bombed in Sudan but UN Pursues Failed Policy of Appeasement in the Face of Genocide
The international community’s excuse for failing to prevent the genocide in Rwanda was that they did not know what was happening until it was too late. A feeble, disingenuous defense which was discredited and lambasted by those who raised the alarm but were met with deaf ears, such as General Dallaire.
The words “Never again”, like the victims of the first genocide this century, in Darfur, have no worth, hold no significance and imbue no moral compulsion to act. Despite the genocide convention (1948) compelling us to intervene to prevent genocide and instructing us that failure to do so makes us complicit, still the UN remains on the sidelines, occasionally adding fuel to the genocidaires’ fire but never, never invoking its duty to protect the beleaguered, butchered civilians of Darfur and increasingly Southern Sudan.
The international community’s policy on Sudan seems to be that of silence. Whether it’s the rape of 200 women in girls in Tabit or the bombing of an MSF hospital a few days ago, say as little as possible and it’ll all blow over.
Excerpts from the MSF press release:
“A hospital operated by the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) was directly targeted in an aerial bombing in Sudan on January 20, forcing the suspension of medical activities, MSF announced today [22 January 2015]. The hospital, located in the Nuba Mountains village of Frandala in the South Kordofan region of Sudan, was bombed by the Sudanese Air Force (SAF). Repeated and targeted bombings in the region prevent the safe operation of medical activities, depriving the local population of lifesaving care...
“Approximately 150 patients and staff were in the hospital when a SAF fighter jet [almost certainly a Sukhoi-24 air-to-ground attack plane] dropped a cluster of 13 bombs, two of which landed inside the hospital compound. The others struck just outside the hospital fence. One MSF staff member and one patient were injured. The property also suffered damage... [The Mother of Mercy Hospital was also attacked by a fighter jet from Khartoum's air force, identified from its profile by Dr. Tom Catena, surgeon at the hospital, as a Sukhoi-24—ER.]
The eminent Sudan scholar, Eric Reeves, had this to say:
“If we want moral clarity in understanding the Khartoum—as opposed to the political "complexities" adduced whenever the regime is the subject—then let us look to Frandala. This deliberate bombing attack on an MSF hospital, by an advanced military jet aircraft, is the very face of the Khartoum regime. It is what the world should see when it looks at these men. Instead, the feckless Europeans, with only a couple of exceptions, accept the legitimacy of the regime and several have done substantial commercial business with it, at least before the collapsing Sudanese economy made the regime's ruthless survivalists even more desperate to do whatever it takes to maintain their monopoly on national wealth and political power. In the process they've made further commercial investment highly unlikely, and the economy will sink even more quickly”.
When I asked a Sudanese friend how she felt about the increasing attacks on schools and hospitals and the international community’s silence, she said:
“They will say nothing. They will do nothing. They do not care about us. Our children are being killed and no-one cares”.
If we allow our hearts to harden in the face of genocide, look away when we should bear witness and remain silent when we should speak up, what hope is there for humanity?
The words “Never again”, like the victims of the first genocide this century, in Darfur, have no worth, hold no significance and imbue no moral compulsion to act. Despite the genocide convention (1948) compelling us to intervene to prevent genocide and instructing us that failure to do so makes us complicit, still the UN remains on the sidelines, occasionally adding fuel to the genocidaires’ fire but never, never invoking its duty to protect the beleaguered, butchered civilians of Darfur and increasingly Southern Sudan.
The international community’s policy on Sudan seems to be that of silence. Whether it’s the rape of 200 women in girls in Tabit or the bombing of an MSF hospital a few days ago, say as little as possible and it’ll all blow over.
Excerpts from the MSF press release:
“A hospital operated by the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) was directly targeted in an aerial bombing in Sudan on January 20, forcing the suspension of medical activities, MSF announced today [22 January 2015]. The hospital, located in the Nuba Mountains village of Frandala in the South Kordofan region of Sudan, was bombed by the Sudanese Air Force (SAF). Repeated and targeted bombings in the region prevent the safe operation of medical activities, depriving the local population of lifesaving care...
“Approximately 150 patients and staff were in the hospital when a SAF fighter jet [almost certainly a Sukhoi-24 air-to-ground attack plane] dropped a cluster of 13 bombs, two of which landed inside the hospital compound. The others struck just outside the hospital fence. One MSF staff member and one patient were injured. The property also suffered damage... [The Mother of Mercy Hospital was also attacked by a fighter jet from Khartoum's air force, identified from its profile by Dr. Tom Catena, surgeon at the hospital, as a Sukhoi-24—ER.]
The eminent Sudan scholar, Eric Reeves, had this to say:
“If we want moral clarity in understanding the Khartoum—as opposed to the political "complexities" adduced whenever the regime is the subject—then let us look to Frandala. This deliberate bombing attack on an MSF hospital, by an advanced military jet aircraft, is the very face of the Khartoum regime. It is what the world should see when it looks at these men. Instead, the feckless Europeans, with only a couple of exceptions, accept the legitimacy of the regime and several have done substantial commercial business with it, at least before the collapsing Sudanese economy made the regime's ruthless survivalists even more desperate to do whatever it takes to maintain their monopoly on national wealth and political power. In the process they've made further commercial investment highly unlikely, and the economy will sink even more quickly”.
When I asked a Sudanese friend how she felt about the increasing attacks on schools and hospitals and the international community’s silence, she said:
“They will say nothing. They will do nothing. They do not care about us. Our children are being killed and no-one cares”.
If we allow our hearts to harden in the face of genocide, look away when we should bear witness and remain silent when we should speak up, what hope is there for humanity?
Wednesday, 14 January 2015
I am Not Charlie. France's Mantra of Equality, Liberty & Brotherhood, Like "Free" Speech, Has Been Exposed as a Lie.
The following was published in today's Independent Voices:
I was giving a lecture shortly after 7/7 when a participant arrived late. He had been jumped on by a gang of “skin heads” who shouted Islamaphobic obscenities while beating the crap out of him, ending with “Go home Paki”? He was a cockney atheist but, to be fair, he was flaunting a deep tan at the time, which, under the circumstances (media whipping up hatred of any one “foreign looking”), was foolhardy.
The Paris killings were barbarous and my heart goes out to the victims’ loved ones. There is no justification for murder. There is however a duty to properly debate critical societal events. The attribution of heroic status to the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo ignores the role it may have played in normalising xenophobia in France. It has ironically served to close down debate and fails to acknowledge the fact that freedom of speech comes at a cost.
As someone who believes that the pen is mightier that the sword and who engages the potent properties of satire, I also accept the (ethical) rules of its engagement. Mockery as a tool to hold a mirror up to the powerful, is legitimate and strengthens democracy. Wielded against the marginalized and disenfranchised minority however, it’s cruel, divisive and its proponents threaten the democratic principles they claim to uphold.
I do not accept the narrative that the Paris massacres were an attack on free speech. On the contrary, the brutal, tragic, murders were, in my view, indicative of a society wherein “free” speech is seen as a privilege afforded only to those who can afford to buy it. There are 5m Muslims in France, more than in any other European country (except Turkey), yet they are conspicuously absent from the legislature and the media.
In contrast, 60% of prisoners in the country are Muslim and hail from poverty stricken suburbs, where youth unemployment is around 40% (Two of the three Paris killers, brothers Kouachis and Chérif, were orphaned early and having occupied menial jobs, got involved in petty crime ending up in prison where many Muslims become radicalised). Add to the mix the rise of the far right in France and the daily attacks on immigrants, Muslims and blacks, all of which is disseminated by the media and fuels inter community hatred. France’s mantra of Equality, Liberty and Brotherhood has been exposed, like free speech, as a lie.
When I criticized Charlie Hebdo’s original cartoons depicting Islam as being synonymous with terrorism it summoned the charge of “political correctness”, as though it is shameful to avoid “forms of expression that are perceived to exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against”, which is the largely forgotten meaning of the term (source: OED). It is disingenuous for those in the media to defend their “entitlement” to free speech for the mere sake of it and to rail against a concept that might render their gratuitous attacks on the powerless and voiceless, as socially unacceptable.
The Paris killers, like those who brutally murdered Lee Rigby in the UK, were deranged, sick individuals. They were terrorists certainly but they are no more representative of Islam than I am of Catholicism.
As well as the unequal distribution of “free speech” and economic resources, there’s another player in the dock. Foreign policy that sanctions torture abroad will always come back to bite. There’s no greater recruiting sergeant for terrorism than torturing innocent civilians. We know from history that if we oppress and deny people their right to self determination, abuse them and deprive them recourse to justice, they will fight back. Whilst the killings in Paris were indefensible and abhorrent, spare a thought too for all the thousands of innocent Muslims in Iraq, Palestine, Darfur and Afghanistan, for example, who have seen loved ones slain but will never receive justice.
A generation of young Muslims throughout Europe are faced with the prospect of long term unemployment, alienation and anger. Inequality and injustice on this scale is a recipe for social unrest. Terrorists are filling a position made vacant in the minds of some of our most disaffected young people by a world that will bail out miscreants in suits but starve our youth of investment, care and any hope for the future. If you have nothing, there’s nothing left to lose.
I was giving a lecture shortly after 7/7 when a participant arrived late. He had been jumped on by a gang of “skin heads” who shouted Islamaphobic obscenities while beating the crap out of him, ending with “Go home Paki”? He was a cockney atheist but, to be fair, he was flaunting a deep tan at the time, which, under the circumstances (media whipping up hatred of any one “foreign looking”), was foolhardy.
The Paris killings were barbarous and my heart goes out to the victims’ loved ones. There is no justification for murder. There is however a duty to properly debate critical societal events. The attribution of heroic status to the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo ignores the role it may have played in normalising xenophobia in France. It has ironically served to close down debate and fails to acknowledge the fact that freedom of speech comes at a cost.
As someone who believes that the pen is mightier that the sword and who engages the potent properties of satire, I also accept the (ethical) rules of its engagement. Mockery as a tool to hold a mirror up to the powerful, is legitimate and strengthens democracy. Wielded against the marginalized and disenfranchised minority however, it’s cruel, divisive and its proponents threaten the democratic principles they claim to uphold.
I do not accept the narrative that the Paris massacres were an attack on free speech. On the contrary, the brutal, tragic, murders were, in my view, indicative of a society wherein “free” speech is seen as a privilege afforded only to those who can afford to buy it. There are 5m Muslims in France, more than in any other European country (except Turkey), yet they are conspicuously absent from the legislature and the media.
In contrast, 60% of prisoners in the country are Muslim and hail from poverty stricken suburbs, where youth unemployment is around 40% (Two of the three Paris killers, brothers Kouachis and Chérif, were orphaned early and having occupied menial jobs, got involved in petty crime ending up in prison where many Muslims become radicalised). Add to the mix the rise of the far right in France and the daily attacks on immigrants, Muslims and blacks, all of which is disseminated by the media and fuels inter community hatred. France’s mantra of Equality, Liberty and Brotherhood has been exposed, like free speech, as a lie.
When I criticized Charlie Hebdo’s original cartoons depicting Islam as being synonymous with terrorism it summoned the charge of “political correctness”, as though it is shameful to avoid “forms of expression that are perceived to exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against”, which is the largely forgotten meaning of the term (source: OED). It is disingenuous for those in the media to defend their “entitlement” to free speech for the mere sake of it and to rail against a concept that might render their gratuitous attacks on the powerless and voiceless, as socially unacceptable.
The Paris killers, like those who brutally murdered Lee Rigby in the UK, were deranged, sick individuals. They were terrorists certainly but they are no more representative of Islam than I am of Catholicism.
As well as the unequal distribution of “free speech” and economic resources, there’s another player in the dock. Foreign policy that sanctions torture abroad will always come back to bite. There’s no greater recruiting sergeant for terrorism than torturing innocent civilians. We know from history that if we oppress and deny people their right to self determination, abuse them and deprive them recourse to justice, they will fight back. Whilst the killings in Paris were indefensible and abhorrent, spare a thought too for all the thousands of innocent Muslims in Iraq, Palestine, Darfur and Afghanistan, for example, who have seen loved ones slain but will never receive justice.
A generation of young Muslims throughout Europe are faced with the prospect of long term unemployment, alienation and anger. Inequality and injustice on this scale is a recipe for social unrest. Terrorists are filling a position made vacant in the minds of some of our most disaffected young people by a world that will bail out miscreants in suits but starve our youth of investment, care and any hope for the future. If you have nothing, there’s nothing left to lose.
Thursday, 8 January 2015
To Women's Magazines & Ched Evans, I Have This to Say: Yes We Bloody Well Can!
Arguing with inanimate objects is not my thing. It tends to be pretty one sided. Such was the ire invoked by listening to Radio Four yesterday that I found myself yelling “yes we bloody well can” at the car radio. Futile perhaps, but therapeutic nonetheless.
The subject of my wrath was the editor of You magazine, which is part of The Mail on Sunday’s (MoS) “package”. She was a guest on Woman’s Hour discussing the future (or not) of glossy women’s magazines. When asked whether she felt compromised by being part of the MoS news package, she lamented that there are a lot of terrible things happening in the world but alas there’s nothing we (women) can do about them. The good news is that we (women) can at least cook a nice meal for our loved ones (husband & children) & sit back with a nice cuppa afterwards to escape in an orgy of airbrushed surgically enhanced bodies & “aspirational” lifestyle envy (my words not hers).
The message is, don’t worry your little heads ladies. Let men get on with the business of ruling/making a complete hash of the world. I have nothing against hot pots & bake offs (I’m just rubbish at both) & I’m not averse to making do & mending but the fact is, the world needs more women to get involved in news & politics. Women’s magazines that still peddle 1950’s stereotypes have no place in the present, let alone the future.
Yes we bloody well can is my response to the defeatist acceptance of impotence. There’s plenty we can do about the horrible things happening in the world & burying our heads in the sand is not one of them. Our engagement now will determine the legacy we leave our children. Be it climate change, social inequality & oppression (which threatens democracy & acts as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism), it’s all happening on our watch.
What can I, just one individual, do? I hear you ask. Plenty. Take the debacle over convicted rapist Ched Evans, for example. When Sheffield United announced their intention to sign him last year it provoked public outrage. One of those angry individuals set up a petition, then 170,000 other angry individuals signed it. Collectively those simple individual actions resulted in Sheffield United backing down. This powerful democratic tool was employed to achieve the same outcome when Oldham United announced their intention to sign the convicted rapist this week. Again the petition was set up & within days 70,000 individuals, including myself, signed it. One by one the sponsors threatened to pull out of the club if Evans was signed. Oldham United announced today that they would not be signing the convicted rapist after all. Every single individual act accumulates to effect societal change.
For overseas readers who aren’t familiar with the Ched Evans case, it’s worth noting that, having served 2.5 years in prison for raping a 19 year old girl, he emerged, not contrite but inciting revenge against his victim. A website has been set up in his name which discloses the victim’s identity & address. She had to change her name & has moved 5 times because of threats made to her by Evans’ supporters. She continues to be persecuted, vilified & threatened & lives in constant fear of reprisals.
In the UK over 85,000 women are raped and 400,000 sexually assaulted every year. Three months ago the Office of National Statistics (ONS) reported that rape had increased 29% in the UK & that rape at knife point had increased by 48%. The rape crisis centre warned that these stats, though damning, were “just the tip of the iceberg”. It’s thought that 80% of rapes never get reported. Not surprising when judges make sympathetic overtures to the perpetrators, such as when female judge, Ms Mowat, told a teacher convicted of child pornography offences that she would not criticise him for being attracted to children. David Armstrong, 63, a supply teacher, escaped with a suspended sentence after admitting possessing 4,500 indecent images of children.
Ms Mowat is the same judge who last year indicated that women who drank too much & were then raped had no-one but themselves to blame if they don't get a conviction, on the grounds that they can’t recall exact details in court. As a judge she should know that the legal responsibility is on the defendant to explain how they sought and received consent, not on the survivor to recall every detail.
The objectification of women in the media & advertising contributes to the rape culture. Among comedian Jimmy Carr’s rape jokes repertoire is this side splitter, “What’s the difference between football and rape? Women don’t like football”. Nuff said.
Thanks to the lose the Lads’ mags campaign, several lads’ rags have folded in the last year & those remaining have cleaned up their act. They’re starting to get that their in your face porno representation of women was frankly, uncool. That happened because thousands of individuals signed petitions, wrote letters, or in my case, serially put copies of The Lady or Good Housekeeping (the lesser of evils) in front of all the Lads’ mags wherever I saw them on display.
My rancour at the paralysing creep of apathy is exacerbated by discovering today that my local A&E is on the verge of closure. No consultation, no concerted local political opposition & negligible local media coverage (despite buying the local newspaper I knew nothing of this). It took one hour for an ambulance to take my 6 year old to the nearest A&E after he has injured in a car crash in November (all the while in agony strapped into a hard plastic stretcher & head blocks). That was bad enough, but closing our A&E could mean up to twice that length of time to get to another one. If this closure happens, people in this rural, often isolated community, will needlessly die on route to A&E. Not something that will keep our lacklustre Tory MP awake at night. Fortunately, some angry people have mobilised and formed a campaign group to block the move. Now that I know about it, I'll be supporting their noble efforts. If we don't join forces against expunging critical services on which our families & communities depend, they'll be gone forever & we'll only have ourselves to blame.
If I’ve incited just one reader to get into the bloody well can mindset, I’ll take solace from that. Following the gender based theme, if anyone is bloody well fed up with The Sun’s sexist Page 3, there is something you can bloody well do about it. Join the 216,700 other individuals who’ve signed the No More Page 3 petition at https://www.change.org/p/david-dinsmore-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3
The subject of my wrath was the editor of You magazine, which is part of The Mail on Sunday’s (MoS) “package”. She was a guest on Woman’s Hour discussing the future (or not) of glossy women’s magazines. When asked whether she felt compromised by being part of the MoS news package, she lamented that there are a lot of terrible things happening in the world but alas there’s nothing we (women) can do about them. The good news is that we (women) can at least cook a nice meal for our loved ones (husband & children) & sit back with a nice cuppa afterwards to escape in an orgy of airbrushed surgically enhanced bodies & “aspirational” lifestyle envy (my words not hers).
The message is, don’t worry your little heads ladies. Let men get on with the business of ruling/making a complete hash of the world. I have nothing against hot pots & bake offs (I’m just rubbish at both) & I’m not averse to making do & mending but the fact is, the world needs more women to get involved in news & politics. Women’s magazines that still peddle 1950’s stereotypes have no place in the present, let alone the future.
Yes we bloody well can is my response to the defeatist acceptance of impotence. There’s plenty we can do about the horrible things happening in the world & burying our heads in the sand is not one of them. Our engagement now will determine the legacy we leave our children. Be it climate change, social inequality & oppression (which threatens democracy & acts as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism), it’s all happening on our watch.
What can I, just one individual, do? I hear you ask. Plenty. Take the debacle over convicted rapist Ched Evans, for example. When Sheffield United announced their intention to sign him last year it provoked public outrage. One of those angry individuals set up a petition, then 170,000 other angry individuals signed it. Collectively those simple individual actions resulted in Sheffield United backing down. This powerful democratic tool was employed to achieve the same outcome when Oldham United announced their intention to sign the convicted rapist this week. Again the petition was set up & within days 70,000 individuals, including myself, signed it. One by one the sponsors threatened to pull out of the club if Evans was signed. Oldham United announced today that they would not be signing the convicted rapist after all. Every single individual act accumulates to effect societal change.
For overseas readers who aren’t familiar with the Ched Evans case, it’s worth noting that, having served 2.5 years in prison for raping a 19 year old girl, he emerged, not contrite but inciting revenge against his victim. A website has been set up in his name which discloses the victim’s identity & address. She had to change her name & has moved 5 times because of threats made to her by Evans’ supporters. She continues to be persecuted, vilified & threatened & lives in constant fear of reprisals.
In the UK over 85,000 women are raped and 400,000 sexually assaulted every year. Three months ago the Office of National Statistics (ONS) reported that rape had increased 29% in the UK & that rape at knife point had increased by 48%. The rape crisis centre warned that these stats, though damning, were “just the tip of the iceberg”. It’s thought that 80% of rapes never get reported. Not surprising when judges make sympathetic overtures to the perpetrators, such as when female judge, Ms Mowat, told a teacher convicted of child pornography offences that she would not criticise him for being attracted to children. David Armstrong, 63, a supply teacher, escaped with a suspended sentence after admitting possessing 4,500 indecent images of children.
Ms Mowat is the same judge who last year indicated that women who drank too much & were then raped had no-one but themselves to blame if they don't get a conviction, on the grounds that they can’t recall exact details in court. As a judge she should know that the legal responsibility is on the defendant to explain how they sought and received consent, not on the survivor to recall every detail.
The objectification of women in the media & advertising contributes to the rape culture. Among comedian Jimmy Carr’s rape jokes repertoire is this side splitter, “What’s the difference between football and rape? Women don’t like football”. Nuff said.
Thanks to the lose the Lads’ mags campaign, several lads’ rags have folded in the last year & those remaining have cleaned up their act. They’re starting to get that their in your face porno representation of women was frankly, uncool. That happened because thousands of individuals signed petitions, wrote letters, or in my case, serially put copies of The Lady or Good Housekeeping (the lesser of evils) in front of all the Lads’ mags wherever I saw them on display.
My rancour at the paralysing creep of apathy is exacerbated by discovering today that my local A&E is on the verge of closure. No consultation, no concerted local political opposition & negligible local media coverage (despite buying the local newspaper I knew nothing of this). It took one hour for an ambulance to take my 6 year old to the nearest A&E after he has injured in a car crash in November (all the while in agony strapped into a hard plastic stretcher & head blocks). That was bad enough, but closing our A&E could mean up to twice that length of time to get to another one. If this closure happens, people in this rural, often isolated community, will needlessly die on route to A&E. Not something that will keep our lacklustre Tory MP awake at night. Fortunately, some angry people have mobilised and formed a campaign group to block the move. Now that I know about it, I'll be supporting their noble efforts. If we don't join forces against expunging critical services on which our families & communities depend, they'll be gone forever & we'll only have ourselves to blame.
If I’ve incited just one reader to get into the bloody well can mindset, I’ll take solace from that. Following the gender based theme, if anyone is bloody well fed up with The Sun’s sexist Page 3, there is something you can bloody well do about it. Join the 216,700 other individuals who’ve signed the No More Page 3 petition at https://www.change.org/p/david-dinsmore-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3
Tuesday, 23 December 2014
It's a Mother's Job to Pull Rank
Apart from boardrooms, the other places I’ve encountered a high concentration of psychologically dysfunctional individuals were, in the enclaves of Westminster and at a British Psychological Society (BPS) conference. I was invited to exhibit my research on agency v’s structural manifestations of sex discrimination within organisations. When I turned up, my pitch was facing a rear wall. When I protested that no-one would see my exhibition, I was blithely informed, “Well, it’s a bit controversial, you’ve got some pretty bold images (he was referring to actual recruitment adverts featuring testosterone charged images of men). We don’t want to alienate [male] delegates”!
Despite the initial resistance, I persuaded the organisers to take the radical move of relocating my pitch to a more prominent position. No cash exchanged hands.
At lunchtime, there was only one seat free in the dining hall. Out of politeness I asked the man opposite if I could join him. He looked at me as though I had killed his cat and stuffed it with out of date horsemeat from Tesco. Ignoring the pregnant pause, I smiled and sat down. About to take my first mouthful of chargrilled potato soup, the man said, “I was hoping to be alone”. Strange thing for someone who paid £150 to be surrounded by other people to say I thought. I assured him that a soon as another seat became available, he could be alone with someone else. In the meantime, I was comfortable with eating in complete silence. Thirty minutes later, I still didn’t know the stranger’s name but I could give you chapter and verse about his unresolved Electra complex. He was a psychologist and "an expert" (in something to do with the mind)but that didn't prevent him from being a psychological mess himself.
So when I found myself in A&E last month advocating for my 6 year old and my husband, the words “Trust me I’m a doctor” were never going to wash. Letters after your name and titles do not infallibility make. If there’s one thing I learnt hanging out with so called eminent folk, it’s that everyone is fallible and no-one should ever be beyond scrutiny. In fact, the less accountability, the greater the likelihood of error.
In this year’s BBC Radio 4 Reith lectures, US based Dr Atul Gawande, grappled with why doctors Fail. He examined how much of failure in medicine remains due to ignorance (lack of knowledge) and how much is due to ineptitude (failure to use existing knowledge). He advocates putting systems in place, such as checklists for surgical teams to go through before embarking on surgery. Despite medical practitioners railing against the system on the grounds that “we know our job, we do this every day”, those teams that followed the system reported significantly reduced errors and better surgical outcomes. In short, even experts make mistakes and cross checking can save lives.
I hadn’t heard Dr Gawande’s lecture before I got the phone call we all dread. My loved ones had been hurt and were en route to hospital. A **** came ‘round the bend on the wrong side of the road and hit my husband’s car head on. Our 6 year old child was in the back. They both sustained injuries and were hospitalised for two days. In A&E I was inwardly distressed but outwardly calm.
I never left my sons side. I asked the nurse responsible for my husband’s care to give me an update every 10 minutes. A&E is a frenetic, overwhelming environment. Not somewhere any parent wants to find themselves with their child. By way of slowing the pace down enough to allow my brain to assimilate what was happening, I asked everyone who entered the room to identify themselves to myself and my child and to explain to us what they would be doing, before doing it. I needed to feel I had a semblance of control, some level of involvement in decisions that were being made, from the start.
Fortunately, my son’s presence was like an enchantment. The staff came in their droves to meet the boy who, despite his injuries, never complained. Every-one was lovely and very tolerant of my constant questions, which were always posed in a respectful, appreciative way. Then the big cheese came in. The doctor. He was authoritative. But did he really know what he was doing? After examining my son he ordered x-rays. I asked why he didn’t order more. He explained that he’d been satisfied by his physical examination that it wasn’t necessary. “But how can you know for sure…” I challenged, politely, but earnestly, “…if you can’t see what’s happening inside”.
A junior doctor said the big cheese knew what to look for. Not moving my gaze from the big cheese himself, I said, “Then I’d be grateful if you could impart that knowledge in a way that I can understand”. To my amazement, he did. There was no hint of reproach in his tone. There was no jargon, no condescension. Just facts delivered with compassion. He explained the protocol of minimising unnecessary exposure to radiation. He knew what he was doing. I could trust him and I did. I made the usual self-deprecating apologies for being an anxious mum but he rebuked them, “You’re just doing your job, which is to make sure I’m doing mine”. You could have knocked me over with a cardboard bed pan.
Over the course of spending 2 days in an NHS hospital, my little boy was superbly well looked after. On the second night, my child was exhausted. The previous night was punctuated by intrusive, though necessary, hourly obs. By the second night, having spent the day in hospital and spoken to a number of doctors, I was looking forward to him getting more sleep. But the hourly obs continued. By 10pm, he had had 4 interruptions and was crying for sleep. Emboldened by my A&E big cheese experience, I asked the nurse (with whom I had struck up a warm rapport the previous night) to explain why my son was still on hourly obs and if the reason wasn’t medically compelling, I would like him to have an uninterrupted (as much as possible on a children’s ward) nights sleep. She explained that the instruction hadn’t been amended by the doctor. She kindly offered to confer with the on call doctor.
The doctor came on the ward and very politely told me he was down for hourly obs but couldn't help me understand why, other than, “doctors orders”. He was a very affable junior (i.e. big cheese in training) doctor who was just following orders. I didn’t want to make his life difficult but this wasn’t about him, or me, it was about my sick child. In a haze of sleep deprived angst I tried to convey my concerns. To communicate that every maternal bone in my body told me that what my child needed more than anything else right now, was a few hours of uninterrupted sleep. I argued that his body needed rest in order to heal and that being poked and prodded by beeping equipment that startled him every hour could only hinder his recovery. I told him I wanted the obs’ to stop until morning and that I would take full responsibility. I offered to put it in writing.
I pulled rank as a mother and to my amazement, it worked. Turned out the junior doctor wasn't a "big cheese in training". He was already a brilliant doctor. He possessed two qualities you can't teach in medical school. The ability to listen and compassion. He put my child's wellbeing before his career that night, and for that I'll be eternally grateful. My son had a solid 8 hours sleep and awoke rested. Ready to fight another day.
When I tucked my little boy in tonight he said he didn’t care if Father Christmas didn’t bring any toys (delayed concussion?) as long as I promised him my undivided attention on Christmas day. “No work for a whole day mum. Do you think you can do it”? “I can do better than that”, I said, “I’ll disconnect until January!” I'm sure that rabbit in the headlights look in his eyes, was an expression of sheer joy. Definitely not dread...
I’m not religious but I embrace the opportunity that Christmas affords us to wind down and reconnect with the people and things that matter. In that spirit, I wish you all fond festive greetings, wherever you are in the world.
*Had this not been such a personal story involving my role as a mother, I would have used the word “parent”. Pulling rank applies as much to fathers as mothers, in my view.
Despite the initial resistance, I persuaded the organisers to take the radical move of relocating my pitch to a more prominent position. No cash exchanged hands.
At lunchtime, there was only one seat free in the dining hall. Out of politeness I asked the man opposite if I could join him. He looked at me as though I had killed his cat and stuffed it with out of date horsemeat from Tesco. Ignoring the pregnant pause, I smiled and sat down. About to take my first mouthful of chargrilled potato soup, the man said, “I was hoping to be alone”. Strange thing for someone who paid £150 to be surrounded by other people to say I thought. I assured him that a soon as another seat became available, he could be alone with someone else. In the meantime, I was comfortable with eating in complete silence. Thirty minutes later, I still didn’t know the stranger’s name but I could give you chapter and verse about his unresolved Electra complex. He was a psychologist and "an expert" (in something to do with the mind)but that didn't prevent him from being a psychological mess himself.
So when I found myself in A&E last month advocating for my 6 year old and my husband, the words “Trust me I’m a doctor” were never going to wash. Letters after your name and titles do not infallibility make. If there’s one thing I learnt hanging out with so called eminent folk, it’s that everyone is fallible and no-one should ever be beyond scrutiny. In fact, the less accountability, the greater the likelihood of error.
In this year’s BBC Radio 4 Reith lectures, US based Dr Atul Gawande, grappled with why doctors Fail. He examined how much of failure in medicine remains due to ignorance (lack of knowledge) and how much is due to ineptitude (failure to use existing knowledge). He advocates putting systems in place, such as checklists for surgical teams to go through before embarking on surgery. Despite medical practitioners railing against the system on the grounds that “we know our job, we do this every day”, those teams that followed the system reported significantly reduced errors and better surgical outcomes. In short, even experts make mistakes and cross checking can save lives.
I hadn’t heard Dr Gawande’s lecture before I got the phone call we all dread. My loved ones had been hurt and were en route to hospital. A **** came ‘round the bend on the wrong side of the road and hit my husband’s car head on. Our 6 year old child was in the back. They both sustained injuries and were hospitalised for two days. In A&E I was inwardly distressed but outwardly calm.
I never left my sons side. I asked the nurse responsible for my husband’s care to give me an update every 10 minutes. A&E is a frenetic, overwhelming environment. Not somewhere any parent wants to find themselves with their child. By way of slowing the pace down enough to allow my brain to assimilate what was happening, I asked everyone who entered the room to identify themselves to myself and my child and to explain to us what they would be doing, before doing it. I needed to feel I had a semblance of control, some level of involvement in decisions that were being made, from the start.
Fortunately, my son’s presence was like an enchantment. The staff came in their droves to meet the boy who, despite his injuries, never complained. Every-one was lovely and very tolerant of my constant questions, which were always posed in a respectful, appreciative way. Then the big cheese came in. The doctor. He was authoritative. But did he really know what he was doing? After examining my son he ordered x-rays. I asked why he didn’t order more. He explained that he’d been satisfied by his physical examination that it wasn’t necessary. “But how can you know for sure…” I challenged, politely, but earnestly, “…if you can’t see what’s happening inside”.
A junior doctor said the big cheese knew what to look for. Not moving my gaze from the big cheese himself, I said, “Then I’d be grateful if you could impart that knowledge in a way that I can understand”. To my amazement, he did. There was no hint of reproach in his tone. There was no jargon, no condescension. Just facts delivered with compassion. He explained the protocol of minimising unnecessary exposure to radiation. He knew what he was doing. I could trust him and I did. I made the usual self-deprecating apologies for being an anxious mum but he rebuked them, “You’re just doing your job, which is to make sure I’m doing mine”. You could have knocked me over with a cardboard bed pan.
Over the course of spending 2 days in an NHS hospital, my little boy was superbly well looked after. On the second night, my child was exhausted. The previous night was punctuated by intrusive, though necessary, hourly obs. By the second night, having spent the day in hospital and spoken to a number of doctors, I was looking forward to him getting more sleep. But the hourly obs continued. By 10pm, he had had 4 interruptions and was crying for sleep. Emboldened by my A&E big cheese experience, I asked the nurse (with whom I had struck up a warm rapport the previous night) to explain why my son was still on hourly obs and if the reason wasn’t medically compelling, I would like him to have an uninterrupted (as much as possible on a children’s ward) nights sleep. She explained that the instruction hadn’t been amended by the doctor. She kindly offered to confer with the on call doctor.
The doctor came on the ward and very politely told me he was down for hourly obs but couldn't help me understand why, other than, “doctors orders”. He was a very affable junior (i.e. big cheese in training) doctor who was just following orders. I didn’t want to make his life difficult but this wasn’t about him, or me, it was about my sick child. In a haze of sleep deprived angst I tried to convey my concerns. To communicate that every maternal bone in my body told me that what my child needed more than anything else right now, was a few hours of uninterrupted sleep. I argued that his body needed rest in order to heal and that being poked and prodded by beeping equipment that startled him every hour could only hinder his recovery. I told him I wanted the obs’ to stop until morning and that I would take full responsibility. I offered to put it in writing.
I pulled rank as a mother and to my amazement, it worked. Turned out the junior doctor wasn't a "big cheese in training". He was already a brilliant doctor. He possessed two qualities you can't teach in medical school. The ability to listen and compassion. He put my child's wellbeing before his career that night, and for that I'll be eternally grateful. My son had a solid 8 hours sleep and awoke rested. Ready to fight another day.
When I tucked my little boy in tonight he said he didn’t care if Father Christmas didn’t bring any toys (delayed concussion?) as long as I promised him my undivided attention on Christmas day. “No work for a whole day mum. Do you think you can do it”? “I can do better than that”, I said, “I’ll disconnect until January!” I'm sure that rabbit in the headlights look in his eyes, was an expression of sheer joy. Definitely not dread...
I’m not religious but I embrace the opportunity that Christmas affords us to wind down and reconnect with the people and things that matter. In that spirit, I wish you all fond festive greetings, wherever you are in the world.
*Had this not been such a personal story involving my role as a mother, I would have used the word “parent”. Pulling rank applies as much to fathers as mothers, in my view.
Tuesday, 9 December 2014
Pornographic Images of Boobs Abound But it's Breastfeeding Mums we Berate
Laura McKenna was a 22 year old nursing student. Jordan was a glamour model. Both got their breasts out in public, one to breast feed her baby, the other for male titillation. Guess which one was thrown off the bus for offending the driver?
Last month a privately owned café in Surrey put a “polite” notice in its window informing breastfeeding mothers that they were welcome to breastfeed in their new, expansive… disabled toilet. For their convenience, the sign read, a chair would be left outside. Groups of breast feeding women were welcome (in the toilets but not at the table). As long as they were happy to sit on the toilet/floor and take their own disinfectant, presumably.
Last week a breastfeeding mother in top London hotel, Claridges, was lectured about “discretion”. The manager helpfully provided a starched white linen napkin for mum to hide, not just her boob but her baby too. Ironically, the ridiculous, indiscreet starched shroud is what drew everyone’s attention to the woman, who said she was made to feel humiliated and uncomfortable by the hotel’s intervention.
Breastfeeding in public is not some perverse form of exhibitionism. It can be a daunting, intimidating experience. Although around 80% of women start off breastfeeding their baby, by 12 weeks the percentage still exclusively breastfeeding drops to 7%. Only around 1% of women are still breastfeeding when their baby is 6 months old. It’s not surprising given that women who dare to breastfeed in public are labelled “tramps” on social networking sites, such as Facebook.
Perversely, TV coverage of the Claridges story showed a photo of a female guest with her bare boobs on show in a see through dress. I have a feeling she wasn’t asked to sit in the corner and cover up. I somehow doubt that she was lectured on “discretion” by the waiter
Becoming a mother for the first time is a joyous, exhilarating experience but it’s also overwhelming and all consuming. In those early days, weeks, even months, I worried that I’d break my baby if I held him too tight. New mothers are preoccupied every waking hour by doing the best for their baby. Yet, we can’t do right for doing wrong. “Breast is best” we’re told, but the social stigma attached to breastfeeding in public is too much for many women to endure. If it’s not prats like Ukip leader Nigel Farage lecturing us about sitting in the corner, it’s the hostile starers, the tutters and the complainers.
I’m no shrinking violet but it took me weeks before I had the courage to breast feed in public. Anxiety about judgemental comments/glares was preventing me from going out. When I arranged to meet a non lactating friend in a well known high street coffee chain, I got there early so I could feed my baby in a quiet corner before she arrived. A few minutes later, the waiter approached and told me a customer had complained about my “offensive” behaviour.
In a state of perma sleep deprived comatose, I doubted my own sanity. Had I in fact just done the lambada on the table in my off white Mothercare bra and elastic-less pants? Had I forgotten to put any pants on and caused offence by inadvertently exposing my rear? No, I was definitely wearing pants because the woman in the chemist told me my skirt was tucked into them at the back, so it couldn’t be that (I untucked the skirt but was too jaded to give a flying feck as to how many people saw the off white undies). Dignity is the first thing to go when you become a mother. Or is that just me….
Being in the aforementioned comatose state, the best I could muster for the waiter was a glazed gait like stare. Clearly irked by my not cottoning on to the sub text, he told me I’d either have to cover up or leave. His tone, more than the words, struck a chord. I found my pre baby brain and asked the waiter who had complained. Realising from my tone that he had crossed a line, he pointed at a man in his 60’s sitting with a woman the same age. He was reading The Sun and I could see it was open on page 3!
I pointed this out to the waiter but the irony was lost on him. Why? Because, as a society, we have normalised the visibility of surgically enhanced, pneumatic breasts gratuitously exhibited for male sexual titillation. So much so, that breast exposure for this purpose has become acceptable. For the frivolous purpose of feeding a baby, however, it’s “scandalous”, “exhibitionism” and “tramp” like behaviour. There’s something seriously wrong in a society in which a nursing mother is considered an aberration.
I told the waiter that I was “offended” by the complainants’ ogling of pornographic images of a woman’s naked full frontal boobs in a public place and asked if he could please request that the man either be more discrete or leave. Incensed that I clearly had no intention of being bullied, the man and his female accomplice left in a huff. The waiter scowled at me in a “see what you’ve done now” manner. By the time my friend arrived I felt like I had done 10 rounds with Mike Tyson (I came out for a coffee not to fight my corner).
Eighteen months after this experience the Equalities Act 2010 made it illegal to do what was done to me, i.e. discriminate against a woman for breastfeeding. For the avoidance of doubt, it is illegal to approach a woman breastfeeding in public and tell her to be “discrete”, or to cover up, or to sit in the corner. Mothers, fathers, midwives and supporters staged a protest outside Claridges Hotel on Saturday to remind the management of this legal duty. It was co-ordinated by Free to Feed, an organisation set up in March by Emily Slough after she was described as a “tramp” on Facebook for breastfeeding in public.
The following spoof poster is doing the rounds. I can’t not share it:
BREAST FEEDING MUMS WELCOME
If you are a Ukip supporter we politely ask, for the comfort of other customers, that you eat in the corner, or in the toilet, or under a large tablecloth that we can drape over you.
We’re sure you understand that, when people are eating, they don’t want to have to look at a complete and utter tit.
Thank you.
Last month a privately owned café in Surrey put a “polite” notice in its window informing breastfeeding mothers that they were welcome to breastfeed in their new, expansive… disabled toilet. For their convenience, the sign read, a chair would be left outside. Groups of breast feeding women were welcome (in the toilets but not at the table). As long as they were happy to sit on the toilet/floor and take their own disinfectant, presumably.
Last week a breastfeeding mother in top London hotel, Claridges, was lectured about “discretion”. The manager helpfully provided a starched white linen napkin for mum to hide, not just her boob but her baby too. Ironically, the ridiculous, indiscreet starched shroud is what drew everyone’s attention to the woman, who said she was made to feel humiliated and uncomfortable by the hotel’s intervention.
Breastfeeding in public is not some perverse form of exhibitionism. It can be a daunting, intimidating experience. Although around 80% of women start off breastfeeding their baby, by 12 weeks the percentage still exclusively breastfeeding drops to 7%. Only around 1% of women are still breastfeeding when their baby is 6 months old. It’s not surprising given that women who dare to breastfeed in public are labelled “tramps” on social networking sites, such as Facebook.
Perversely, TV coverage of the Claridges story showed a photo of a female guest with her bare boobs on show in a see through dress. I have a feeling she wasn’t asked to sit in the corner and cover up. I somehow doubt that she was lectured on “discretion” by the waiter
Becoming a mother for the first time is a joyous, exhilarating experience but it’s also overwhelming and all consuming. In those early days, weeks, even months, I worried that I’d break my baby if I held him too tight. New mothers are preoccupied every waking hour by doing the best for their baby. Yet, we can’t do right for doing wrong. “Breast is best” we’re told, but the social stigma attached to breastfeeding in public is too much for many women to endure. If it’s not prats like Ukip leader Nigel Farage lecturing us about sitting in the corner, it’s the hostile starers, the tutters and the complainers.
I’m no shrinking violet but it took me weeks before I had the courage to breast feed in public. Anxiety about judgemental comments/glares was preventing me from going out. When I arranged to meet a non lactating friend in a well known high street coffee chain, I got there early so I could feed my baby in a quiet corner before she arrived. A few minutes later, the waiter approached and told me a customer had complained about my “offensive” behaviour.
In a state of perma sleep deprived comatose, I doubted my own sanity. Had I in fact just done the lambada on the table in my off white Mothercare bra and elastic-less pants? Had I forgotten to put any pants on and caused offence by inadvertently exposing my rear? No, I was definitely wearing pants because the woman in the chemist told me my skirt was tucked into them at the back, so it couldn’t be that (I untucked the skirt but was too jaded to give a flying feck as to how many people saw the off white undies). Dignity is the first thing to go when you become a mother. Or is that just me….
Being in the aforementioned comatose state, the best I could muster for the waiter was a glazed gait like stare. Clearly irked by my not cottoning on to the sub text, he told me I’d either have to cover up or leave. His tone, more than the words, struck a chord. I found my pre baby brain and asked the waiter who had complained. Realising from my tone that he had crossed a line, he pointed at a man in his 60’s sitting with a woman the same age. He was reading The Sun and I could see it was open on page 3!
I pointed this out to the waiter but the irony was lost on him. Why? Because, as a society, we have normalised the visibility of surgically enhanced, pneumatic breasts gratuitously exhibited for male sexual titillation. So much so, that breast exposure for this purpose has become acceptable. For the frivolous purpose of feeding a baby, however, it’s “scandalous”, “exhibitionism” and “tramp” like behaviour. There’s something seriously wrong in a society in which a nursing mother is considered an aberration.
I told the waiter that I was “offended” by the complainants’ ogling of pornographic images of a woman’s naked full frontal boobs in a public place and asked if he could please request that the man either be more discrete or leave. Incensed that I clearly had no intention of being bullied, the man and his female accomplice left in a huff. The waiter scowled at me in a “see what you’ve done now” manner. By the time my friend arrived I felt like I had done 10 rounds with Mike Tyson (I came out for a coffee not to fight my corner).
Eighteen months after this experience the Equalities Act 2010 made it illegal to do what was done to me, i.e. discriminate against a woman for breastfeeding. For the avoidance of doubt, it is illegal to approach a woman breastfeeding in public and tell her to be “discrete”, or to cover up, or to sit in the corner. Mothers, fathers, midwives and supporters staged a protest outside Claridges Hotel on Saturday to remind the management of this legal duty. It was co-ordinated by Free to Feed, an organisation set up in March by Emily Slough after she was described as a “tramp” on Facebook for breastfeeding in public.
The following spoof poster is doing the rounds. I can’t not share it:
BREAST FEEDING MUMS WELCOME
If you are a Ukip supporter we politely ask, for the comfort of other customers, that you eat in the corner, or in the toilet, or under a large tablecloth that we can drape over you.
We’re sure you understand that, when people are eating, they don’t want to have to look at a complete and utter tit.
Thank you.
Sunday, 30 November 2014
Is Britain Not Bothered about Raped Children in Darfur?
An edited version of this is published in todays Independent on Sunday. Heartfelt thanks to my Darfuri friends who risk their lives in order for the truth to be known and to James Hanning for allowing their voices to be heard.
On October 31st, when most of our children were playing trick or treat, enjoying their childhood innocence, 200 women and girls (as young as 7) in Darfur, were raped. According to locals, the perpetrators were the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). One month later the victims of this egregious assault are no closer to justice.
Rape has been a weapon of genocide in Darfur for decades. The attack in the village of Tabit however, is on an unprecedented scale. Despite numerous sources verifying it, the discredited hybrid UN/AU force (UNAMID) issued a press release claiming, “None of those interviewed confirmed that any incident of rape took place in Tabit”. What the press release neglected to mention is that, according to a UNAMID officer, military personnel accompanied the UNAMID delegation so, “No one could speak freely to anyone”.
UNAMID’s chicanery emerges at the same time that a UN investigation exonerated the force of previous allegations of cover up. Despite finding instances in which UNAMID officials withheld evidence indicating the culpability of Sudanese government forces in crimes against civilians and peacekeepers, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon concluded, “There was no evidence to support the allegation that UNAMID intentionally sought to cover up crimes against civilians".
To the uninitiated, withholding evidence of crimes against civilians, particularly given that protection of civilians is UNAMID’s remit, may sound like a cover up. But in UN land, unless the scandalous event was the result of an intentional cover up, and you can prove that, it doesn’t count as one.
Where is the UK in all this? Instead of calling for an independent investigation into the mass rape in Tabit at the time, our government diverted attention away from it. Issuing a press release about food vouchers for displaced people in Darfur (440,000 beneficiaries over 7 months) was in my view, an act of either willful obfuscation or gross ineptitude.
The cash/vouchers have been in place since 2011 apparently, but there’s no evidence, that I could find, that anyone other than the government of Sudan benefits from the UK’s £11m contribution. A local UN official told me he was unaware of the scheme. The 3m Darfuris living in camps want the humanitarian organizations that were expelled by the genocidal regime in 2009, to be reinstated. Not gimmicks. They want enough food for every child (not just the percentage calculated to hit millennium goals).
Eight years ago, having visited Darfur, David Cameron said, “This is ethnic cleansing and we cannot remain silent in the face of this horror”. He knows that rape is a weapon of war and that mass rape constitutes a war crime. He is therefore obliged under international law, to ensure that the perpetrators in Tabit are held to account.
Ban Ki-Moon once said, "Break the silence. When you witness violence against women and girls, do not sit back. Act." Here’s Ban and Cameron’s chance to put those laudable words into action. Speak up, the world is listening.
On October 31st, when most of our children were playing trick or treat, enjoying their childhood innocence, 200 women and girls (as young as 7) in Darfur, were raped. According to locals, the perpetrators were the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). One month later the victims of this egregious assault are no closer to justice.
Rape has been a weapon of genocide in Darfur for decades. The attack in the village of Tabit however, is on an unprecedented scale. Despite numerous sources verifying it, the discredited hybrid UN/AU force (UNAMID) issued a press release claiming, “None of those interviewed confirmed that any incident of rape took place in Tabit”. What the press release neglected to mention is that, according to a UNAMID officer, military personnel accompanied the UNAMID delegation so, “No one could speak freely to anyone”.
UNAMID’s chicanery emerges at the same time that a UN investigation exonerated the force of previous allegations of cover up. Despite finding instances in which UNAMID officials withheld evidence indicating the culpability of Sudanese government forces in crimes against civilians and peacekeepers, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon concluded, “There was no evidence to support the allegation that UNAMID intentionally sought to cover up crimes against civilians".
To the uninitiated, withholding evidence of crimes against civilians, particularly given that protection of civilians is UNAMID’s remit, may sound like a cover up. But in UN land, unless the scandalous event was the result of an intentional cover up, and you can prove that, it doesn’t count as one.
Where is the UK in all this? Instead of calling for an independent investigation into the mass rape in Tabit at the time, our government diverted attention away from it. Issuing a press release about food vouchers for displaced people in Darfur (440,000 beneficiaries over 7 months) was in my view, an act of either willful obfuscation or gross ineptitude.
The cash/vouchers have been in place since 2011 apparently, but there’s no evidence, that I could find, that anyone other than the government of Sudan benefits from the UK’s £11m contribution. A local UN official told me he was unaware of the scheme. The 3m Darfuris living in camps want the humanitarian organizations that were expelled by the genocidal regime in 2009, to be reinstated. Not gimmicks. They want enough food for every child (not just the percentage calculated to hit millennium goals).
Eight years ago, having visited Darfur, David Cameron said, “This is ethnic cleansing and we cannot remain silent in the face of this horror”. He knows that rape is a weapon of war and that mass rape constitutes a war crime. He is therefore obliged under international law, to ensure that the perpetrators in Tabit are held to account.
Ban Ki-Moon once said, "Break the silence. When you witness violence against women and girls, do not sit back. Act." Here’s Ban and Cameron’s chance to put those laudable words into action. Speak up, the world is listening.
Friday, 21 November 2014
It's Road Safety Awareness Week
It was road safety awareness week. Tell that to the 61 people who were seriously injured today by other road users, and the 61 victims the day before that and the day before that and everyday in the UK. According to Road Safety Charity Brake, who launched a campaign this week calling on road users to “Look out for each other”, in addition to 61 serious injuries daily, on average, 5 people die every day on UK roads.
Other sobering facts include:
• Two fixed penalties for 'careless driving' or speeding issued every minute
• Two in five (41%) UK primary school children say they have been hit or nearly hit by a vehicle while on foot or bike
Yet, the fixed penalty for driving offences, including speeding and mobile phone use, is currently £100 plus three penalty points. “Brake believes this is woefully inadequate, given these crimes can and do lead to terrible crashes, injury and death. Minor crimes that do not pose a direct threat to human life, like littering and smoking in a public place, can be met with a fine of £1,000+. A £100 penalty for driving offences sends out a dangerous message that offences like speeding and phone use at the wheel are not real crimes, and important safety laws need not be taken seriously. Brake argues a fixed penalty of £500-£1,000 would have a significant effect on compliance with these laws, which are in place to protect and safeguard the public.
Brake is also concerned the penalty points system is not working as a way to protect the public from dangerous repeat offenders who show disregard for the law. Brake recently revealed 40% of drivers who have reached 12 points are not disqualified, due to a loophole allowing drivers to keep their licence in 'exceptional circumstances'. This loophole should be closed urgently: those who reach 12 points have been given ample opportunity to comply with the law, and should be automatically disqualified to protect themselves and others”.
Brake is calling on road users to sign up to the following pledge:
Slow
Drivers – I'll stay under limits, and slow down to 20mph around schools, homes and shops to protect others. I'll slow right down for bends, brows and bad weather, and avoid overtaking.
Everyone – I'll speak out for slowing down and help drivers understand that the slower they drive, the more chance they have of avoiding a crash and saving a life.
Sober
Drivers – I'll never drive after drinking any alcohol or drugs – not a drop, not a drag.
Everyone - I'll plan ahead to make sure I, and anyone I'm with, can get home safely and I'll never get a lift with drink/drug drivers. I'll speak out if someone's about to drive on drink or drugs.
Secure
Drivers – I'll make sure everyone in my vehicle is belted up on every journey, and kids smaller than 150cm are in a proper child restraint. I'll choose the safest vehicle I can and ensure it's maintained.
Everyone – I'll belt up on every journey, and make sure friends and family do too.
Silent
Drivers – I'll never take or make calls or texts when driving. I'll turn off my phone or put it out of sight and on silent, and stay focused on the road.
Everyone – I'll never chat on the phone to someone else who's driving.
Sharp
Drivers – I'll get my eyes tested every two years and wear glasses or lenses at the wheel if I need them. I'll take regular breaks and never drive if I'm tired, stressed or on medication that affects driving.
Everyone – I'll look out for friends and loved ones by ensuring they only drive if they're fit for it, and rest if they're tired.
Sustainable
Everyone – I'll minimise the amount I drive, or not drive at all. I'll get about by walking, cycling or public transport as much as I can, for road safety, the environment and my health.
Why not sign up & help prevent the daily carnage on our roads. Any one of us and our children could be innocent victims of reckless road users at any time. Lets do our bit to raise awareness, and safety standards.
Other sobering facts include:
• Two fixed penalties for 'careless driving' or speeding issued every minute
• Two in five (41%) UK primary school children say they have been hit or nearly hit by a vehicle while on foot or bike
Yet, the fixed penalty for driving offences, including speeding and mobile phone use, is currently £100 plus three penalty points. “Brake believes this is woefully inadequate, given these crimes can and do lead to terrible crashes, injury and death. Minor crimes that do not pose a direct threat to human life, like littering and smoking in a public place, can be met with a fine of £1,000+. A £100 penalty for driving offences sends out a dangerous message that offences like speeding and phone use at the wheel are not real crimes, and important safety laws need not be taken seriously. Brake argues a fixed penalty of £500-£1,000 would have a significant effect on compliance with these laws, which are in place to protect and safeguard the public.
Brake is also concerned the penalty points system is not working as a way to protect the public from dangerous repeat offenders who show disregard for the law. Brake recently revealed 40% of drivers who have reached 12 points are not disqualified, due to a loophole allowing drivers to keep their licence in 'exceptional circumstances'. This loophole should be closed urgently: those who reach 12 points have been given ample opportunity to comply with the law, and should be automatically disqualified to protect themselves and others”.
Brake is calling on road users to sign up to the following pledge:
Slow
Drivers – I'll stay under limits, and slow down to 20mph around schools, homes and shops to protect others. I'll slow right down for bends, brows and bad weather, and avoid overtaking.
Everyone – I'll speak out for slowing down and help drivers understand that the slower they drive, the more chance they have of avoiding a crash and saving a life.
Sober
Drivers – I'll never drive after drinking any alcohol or drugs – not a drop, not a drag.
Everyone - I'll plan ahead to make sure I, and anyone I'm with, can get home safely and I'll never get a lift with drink/drug drivers. I'll speak out if someone's about to drive on drink or drugs.
Secure
Drivers – I'll make sure everyone in my vehicle is belted up on every journey, and kids smaller than 150cm are in a proper child restraint. I'll choose the safest vehicle I can and ensure it's maintained.
Everyone – I'll belt up on every journey, and make sure friends and family do too.
Silent
Drivers – I'll never take or make calls or texts when driving. I'll turn off my phone or put it out of sight and on silent, and stay focused on the road.
Everyone – I'll never chat on the phone to someone else who's driving.
Sharp
Drivers – I'll get my eyes tested every two years and wear glasses or lenses at the wheel if I need them. I'll take regular breaks and never drive if I'm tired, stressed or on medication that affects driving.
Everyone – I'll look out for friends and loved ones by ensuring they only drive if they're fit for it, and rest if they're tired.
Sustainable
Everyone – I'll minimise the amount I drive, or not drive at all. I'll get about by walking, cycling or public transport as much as I can, for road safety, the environment and my health.
Why not sign up & help prevent the daily carnage on our roads. Any one of us and our children could be innocent victims of reckless road users at any time. Lets do our bit to raise awareness, and safety standards.
Friday, 14 November 2014
Mass Rape of 200 Girls and Women in Darfur
On October 31st, 200 women and girls (some as young as 7) in Darfur were raped. Locals say the attacks were carried out by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).
Rape has been a weapon of genocide in Darfur for years, as documented regularly on the reputable local media outlet, Radio Dabanga. This attack in the village of Tabit however, is on an unprecedented scale. Despite numerous sources verifying it, the discredited hybrid UN/AU force (UNAMID) issued a press release claiming, “None of those interviewed confirmed that any incident of rape took place in Tabit on the day of that media report”.
What the press release neglected to mention is that, according to a UNAMID officer, national security staff, police forces, and military personnel accompanied the UNAMID delegation so, “No one could speak freely to anyone”.
The Coordination Committee of Refugees and Displaced Persons in Darfur sent a delegation to Tabit in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. They spent 2 days interviewing women and girls and reported, “We looked into their eyes while they told us they were raped by soldiers”.
UNAMID’s handling of, what has been confirmed by numerous sources to be mass rape, has been marred by incompetence and complicity. Its chicanery emerges at the same time that a UN investigation exonerated the force of allegations of cover up. Sort of. It found that there were instances in which UNAMID officials withheld evidence indicating the culpability of Sudanese government forces in crimes against civilians and peacekeepers. It also concluded that UNAMID self-censored their reporting on Sudanese abuses, leading to "under-reporting of incidents when government and pro-government forces were suspected to be involved".
More on this story on Sunday. Watch this space.
Rape has been a weapon of genocide in Darfur for years, as documented regularly on the reputable local media outlet, Radio Dabanga. This attack in the village of Tabit however, is on an unprecedented scale. Despite numerous sources verifying it, the discredited hybrid UN/AU force (UNAMID) issued a press release claiming, “None of those interviewed confirmed that any incident of rape took place in Tabit on the day of that media report”.
What the press release neglected to mention is that, according to a UNAMID officer, national security staff, police forces, and military personnel accompanied the UNAMID delegation so, “No one could speak freely to anyone”.
The Coordination Committee of Refugees and Displaced Persons in Darfur sent a delegation to Tabit in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. They spent 2 days interviewing women and girls and reported, “We looked into their eyes while they told us they were raped by soldiers”.
UNAMID’s handling of, what has been confirmed by numerous sources to be mass rape, has been marred by incompetence and complicity. Its chicanery emerges at the same time that a UN investigation exonerated the force of allegations of cover up. Sort of. It found that there were instances in which UNAMID officials withheld evidence indicating the culpability of Sudanese government forces in crimes against civilians and peacekeepers. It also concluded that UNAMID self-censored their reporting on Sudanese abuses, leading to "under-reporting of incidents when government and pro-government forces were suspected to be involved".
More on this story on Sunday. Watch this space.
Tuesday, 4 November 2014
Fiona Woolf’s Replacement Should be Approved by Survivors of Child Sex Abuse
As someone with professional experience of working with survivors of child sex abuse, I was relieved by Fiona Woolf’s resignation as chair of the historical child sex abuse inquiry. That she was considered an appropriate candidate in the first place is staggering, particularly in light of baroness Butler-Sloss’ resignation just three months earlier due to her links to the establishment.
In the end, the survivors’ objections were heard. If they don’t trust, absolutely, in the integrity of the process, starting with the appointment of the chair, they will (rightly) boycott it and the whole charade will unravel. If their views are treated with contempt at this stage, why should they put themselves through the nightmare of reliving historical sexual traumas?
Alison Millar, the solicitor representing around 50 survivors, wants the inquiry to be given statutory powers, such as the ability to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses. She also wants those who give false evidence to face criminal charges. Perhaps the involvement of the Home Affairs Select Committee, chaired by Keith Vaz (who has had flashes of brilliance in the past), will advance the survivors’ bid to secure some teeth for the inquiry, and focus the terms of reference to ensure it is conducted in a timely and transparent, manner.
In the end, the survivors’ objections were heard. If they don’t trust, absolutely, in the integrity of the process, starting with the appointment of the chair, they will (rightly) boycott it and the whole charade will unravel. If their views are treated with contempt at this stage, why should they put themselves through the nightmare of reliving historical sexual traumas?
Alison Millar, the solicitor representing around 50 survivors, wants the inquiry to be given statutory powers, such as the ability to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses. She also wants those who give false evidence to face criminal charges. Perhaps the involvement of the Home Affairs Select Committee, chaired by Keith Vaz (who has had flashes of brilliance in the past), will advance the survivors’ bid to secure some teeth for the inquiry, and focus the terms of reference to ensure it is conducted in a timely and transparent, manner.
Monday, 27 October 2014
Micheal Buerk's Misogynistic Comments Expose Moral bankruptcy of The BBC's Moral Maze
Michael Buerk’s misogynistic comments about the rape victim of Sheffield United footballer, Ched Evans, this week should come as no surprise. What is far more sinister, in my view, is that someone who has form when it comes to vocalising his contempt for women, should be allowed to chair the BBC’s Moral Maze.
The trailer for this week’s programme aired Buerk pontificating that neither Evans, nor the woman he attacked emerged “with any credibility because she was so intoxicated she could barely stand”. Thus positioning the victim of rape as morally equivalent to the rapist.
As someone who specialises in ethics, I had to stop listening to the programme several years ago, predominately because of the sanctimonious, self righteous, alpha male tones of the two female presenters, Melanie Phillips and Clare Fox. Why they, or indeed Michael Portillo, qualify to make moral judgements of the day, alludes me. Giles Frazer is a theologian at least. For the moral Maze to be relevant in contemporary Britain, it should reflect it. The panel should be made up of different faiths and people of no faith who deal with ethics (academics & practitioners who help institutions navigate the real world on a daily basis).
Michael Buerk and three of the current panellists are out of touch (Portillo, Phillips & Fox) and have a pompous &/or combative approach, which is completely at odds with getting the best out of witnesses. It’s like a blood sport. Listening to Melanie Phillips’ verbal attempts to annihilate anyone with opposing views is worse than watching Benefits Street. Having my finger nails pulled out with a pliers would be preferable to listening to Phillips and Fox in action.
I digress. Buerk sort of apologised but implied that there was substance to what he said. A similar position to that which he took in 2005. In a toe curling mockumentary (supposed to be serious) he made of women, he railed against the plight of men moved to the margins of a woman’s world. Back then he claimed women set the agenda in the media. He claimed it was run by women for women.
Nearly 10 years on there are even fewer female editors and media executives, so there was no need to panic about the “femocracy” Michael. Male domination prevails. Viewers of week-end TV will know that it’s a veritable lads’ fest. Mock the Week is to be renamed “Mock the Women”. I have a game I play with friends (we need to get out more) called “spot the women” on the male dominated panel shows (QI, Have I Got News for You, 9 out of 10 cats, soon to be renamed 9 out of 10 times the panellists are white men…). Sometimes there’s a token female pitted against the otherwise all male panellists, and if she’s an ethnic, that ticks 2 boxes. Actually, if there’s an ethnic male they often don’t bother with the token woman.
Buerk played down his choice of words as “Clumsy”. Not a good enough defence for a highly paid journalist where, words are your craft. Perhaps if he hadn’t referred to Tess Daly as “that pneumonic bird brain from Strictly” a few years ago, he might have gotten away with a gloss over, half hearted apology. But, he did say that about Daly and he referred to other female colleagues as “air heads”. Stooping to such vitriolic sexist epithets isn’t just morally reprehensible, it’s sloppy journalism. Rather than articulate a case to illustrate a point, he uses the short hand of prejudice, effectively conflating any perceived professional shortcomings with gender. What a Buerk.
The trailer for this week’s programme aired Buerk pontificating that neither Evans, nor the woman he attacked emerged “with any credibility because she was so intoxicated she could barely stand”. Thus positioning the victim of rape as morally equivalent to the rapist.
As someone who specialises in ethics, I had to stop listening to the programme several years ago, predominately because of the sanctimonious, self righteous, alpha male tones of the two female presenters, Melanie Phillips and Clare Fox. Why they, or indeed Michael Portillo, qualify to make moral judgements of the day, alludes me. Giles Frazer is a theologian at least. For the moral Maze to be relevant in contemporary Britain, it should reflect it. The panel should be made up of different faiths and people of no faith who deal with ethics (academics & practitioners who help institutions navigate the real world on a daily basis).
Michael Buerk and three of the current panellists are out of touch (Portillo, Phillips & Fox) and have a pompous &/or combative approach, which is completely at odds with getting the best out of witnesses. It’s like a blood sport. Listening to Melanie Phillips’ verbal attempts to annihilate anyone with opposing views is worse than watching Benefits Street. Having my finger nails pulled out with a pliers would be preferable to listening to Phillips and Fox in action.
I digress. Buerk sort of apologised but implied that there was substance to what he said. A similar position to that which he took in 2005. In a toe curling mockumentary (supposed to be serious) he made of women, he railed against the plight of men moved to the margins of a woman’s world. Back then he claimed women set the agenda in the media. He claimed it was run by women for women.
Nearly 10 years on there are even fewer female editors and media executives, so there was no need to panic about the “femocracy” Michael. Male domination prevails. Viewers of week-end TV will know that it’s a veritable lads’ fest. Mock the Week is to be renamed “Mock the Women”. I have a game I play with friends (we need to get out more) called “spot the women” on the male dominated panel shows (QI, Have I Got News for You, 9 out of 10 cats, soon to be renamed 9 out of 10 times the panellists are white men…). Sometimes there’s a token female pitted against the otherwise all male panellists, and if she’s an ethnic, that ticks 2 boxes. Actually, if there’s an ethnic male they often don’t bother with the token woman.
Buerk played down his choice of words as “Clumsy”. Not a good enough defence for a highly paid journalist where, words are your craft. Perhaps if he hadn’t referred to Tess Daly as “that pneumonic bird brain from Strictly” a few years ago, he might have gotten away with a gloss over, half hearted apology. But, he did say that about Daly and he referred to other female colleagues as “air heads”. Stooping to such vitriolic sexist epithets isn’t just morally reprehensible, it’s sloppy journalism. Rather than articulate a case to illustrate a point, he uses the short hand of prejudice, effectively conflating any perceived professional shortcomings with gender. What a Buerk.
Tuesday, 14 October 2014
Human Rights Are For All Not Just Those Who Can Afford to Buy Them
The stale, pale, male aphorism associated with our political elite is far from defunct. The run up to the election is invariably dog whistling O’clock. I can set my watch by them. Be it Enoch Powell (rivers of blood), Michael Howard (“Are you thinking what I’m thinking”?), Gordon Brown (the Britishness test) or UKIPs bongo bongo land (though in fairness to UKIP, they wear their racial epithets on their sleeves).
Homogeneity and inbreeding leads to a lack of creativity and ideas, a by product of which is poor decision making. A phenomena described by George Orwell as, “The decay in the ability of the ruling classes”. Given 54% of Tory MPs have been educated privately (versus 7% of the overall population) and indoctrinated in establishment ideology, it’s little wonder the same old clichés emerge in the run up to every election. I can imagine the pre-election brainstorm at Tory HQ, “How about, go home foreigners, discreetly written on the side of vans cruising immigrant “hot spots”? Or, “Islam is the new IRA” (though I never heard the phrase “Catholic fundamentalism” on Newsnight).
This time they came up with scrapping the Human Rights Act (HRA). In practice, the government has cut legal aid to the point where only the rich can afford to access many aspects of the HRA. Only women on 6 figure salaries, for example, can afford to take their case of sex discrimination to an employment tribunal. In theory, the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is a watchdog, there to uphold the rights of ordinary people. In practice, it’s a toothless organistion, so bereft of funding, and gumption, to render it almost extraneous.
In practice, the most vulnerable in our society have less access to the HRA now than ever before. Under the Con-Dem coalition we have seen the legislature lurch to protect the interests of the state and the powerful, such as large corporations (Amazon, Google, Starbucks, energy giants, banks etc etc) at the expense of the individual. In addition to cutting legal aid (resulting in an 80% reduction in tribunal cases), criminalising peaceful protests and making freedom of information requests more difficult, have, in my view, eroded what little recourse ordinary people had to justice.
Human rights laws are supposed to protect the marginalised from the powerful. This is why a bill of rights (the alternative proposed by the Tories), decided solely by the parliamentary majority, is so perilous. The HRA serves as a check on the majority.
McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris is a case in point. McDonalds sued 2 environmental activists (known as the Mc Libel two) over a leaflet they claimed was libelous. Two hearings in English courts found some of the leaflet's contents to be indeed libelous and others to be true.
However, in 2005 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the original case (heard in the UK) had breached Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In its ruling, the ECHR criticised the way in which UK laws had failed to protect the public right to criticise corporations whose business practices affect people's lives and the environment (which contravenes Article 10). It also ruled that the trial was biased because of the defendants' comparative lack of resources and what they believed were “complex and oppressive UK libel laws”.
In particular the Court held: "in a democratic society even small and informal campaign groups, such as London Greenpeace, must be able to carry on their activities effectively and that there exists a strong public interest in enabling such groups and individuals outside the mainstream to contribute to the public debate by disseminating information and ideas on matters of general public interest such as health and the environment".
It is thanks to the HRA that Jacqueline Carmichael (who has spina bifida) and her husband /carer, are not homeless. They successfully challenged the grossly unjust bedroom tax (AKA tax on poverty). They appealed against the crippling cut to their housing benefit on the grounds that it contravened their human rights. It was physically impossible to fit 2 beds into their tiny flat so Jacqueline’s carer husband had to sleep in a separate room.
It seems the bedroom tax (together with benefit cuts) is also forcing some soldiers, disabled by combat, into destitution. The newspapers regularly report stories of war heroes having to sell their medals to pay for care homes and to avoid eviction. Evictions are at a 10 year high yet, William Hague is reportedly living in a luxury London residence costing the taxpayer £2,000 per day (disclaimer: I have been unable to corroborate the facts of this story..). A charity boss responded, “Who exactly are the scroungers in our society”? Fear not, a government spokesperson reportedly said, “We monitor usage for good value for money”. That’s alright then.
As the Human Rights Group Liberty recently reminded us, the HRA protects victims of crime. For example, as a result of a case brought in the European Court under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, rape victims no longer have to suffer the indignity and trauma of being cross-examined in person by their alleged attackers.
It’s thanks to the Human Rights Act that children with SEN in this country still enjoy the right to mainstream education. Funding for which has been under threat recently by unscrupulous local authorities around the country.
We’ve seen how state powers can be used to abuse the rights of the individual. Undercover police officers spying on the Lawrence family in the aftermath of their son Stephen’s death, rather than looking for his killers. Yet more under cover officers “infiltrating” environmental activists, engaging in sexual relationships and, in some cases, fathering children. The women who fell victim to such “surveillance” described it as “like being raped by the state”.
Finally and compellingly, Liberty warns us, “Anybody’s privacy could be breached by the prying eyes of the state or big corporations, anybody can be wrongly accused of a crime, and anybody could fall foul of careless and insensitive decision-making by public authorities. Hopefully this won’t happen to you but if it did, you might find you need to rely on the Human Rights Act or the European Court of Human Rights to help you”.
Homogeneity and inbreeding leads to a lack of creativity and ideas, a by product of which is poor decision making. A phenomena described by George Orwell as, “The decay in the ability of the ruling classes”. Given 54% of Tory MPs have been educated privately (versus 7% of the overall population) and indoctrinated in establishment ideology, it’s little wonder the same old clichés emerge in the run up to every election. I can imagine the pre-election brainstorm at Tory HQ, “How about, go home foreigners, discreetly written on the side of vans cruising immigrant “hot spots”? Or, “Islam is the new IRA” (though I never heard the phrase “Catholic fundamentalism” on Newsnight).
This time they came up with scrapping the Human Rights Act (HRA). In practice, the government has cut legal aid to the point where only the rich can afford to access many aspects of the HRA. Only women on 6 figure salaries, for example, can afford to take their case of sex discrimination to an employment tribunal. In theory, the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is a watchdog, there to uphold the rights of ordinary people. In practice, it’s a toothless organistion, so bereft of funding, and gumption, to render it almost extraneous.
In practice, the most vulnerable in our society have less access to the HRA now than ever before. Under the Con-Dem coalition we have seen the legislature lurch to protect the interests of the state and the powerful, such as large corporations (Amazon, Google, Starbucks, energy giants, banks etc etc) at the expense of the individual. In addition to cutting legal aid (resulting in an 80% reduction in tribunal cases), criminalising peaceful protests and making freedom of information requests more difficult, have, in my view, eroded what little recourse ordinary people had to justice.
Human rights laws are supposed to protect the marginalised from the powerful. This is why a bill of rights (the alternative proposed by the Tories), decided solely by the parliamentary majority, is so perilous. The HRA serves as a check on the majority.
McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris is a case in point. McDonalds sued 2 environmental activists (known as the Mc Libel two) over a leaflet they claimed was libelous. Two hearings in English courts found some of the leaflet's contents to be indeed libelous and others to be true.
However, in 2005 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the original case (heard in the UK) had breached Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In its ruling, the ECHR criticised the way in which UK laws had failed to protect the public right to criticise corporations whose business practices affect people's lives and the environment (which contravenes Article 10). It also ruled that the trial was biased because of the defendants' comparative lack of resources and what they believed were “complex and oppressive UK libel laws”.
In particular the Court held: "in a democratic society even small and informal campaign groups, such as London Greenpeace, must be able to carry on their activities effectively and that there exists a strong public interest in enabling such groups and individuals outside the mainstream to contribute to the public debate by disseminating information and ideas on matters of general public interest such as health and the environment".
It is thanks to the HRA that Jacqueline Carmichael (who has spina bifida) and her husband /carer, are not homeless. They successfully challenged the grossly unjust bedroom tax (AKA tax on poverty). They appealed against the crippling cut to their housing benefit on the grounds that it contravened their human rights. It was physically impossible to fit 2 beds into their tiny flat so Jacqueline’s carer husband had to sleep in a separate room.
It seems the bedroom tax (together with benefit cuts) is also forcing some soldiers, disabled by combat, into destitution. The newspapers regularly report stories of war heroes having to sell their medals to pay for care homes and to avoid eviction. Evictions are at a 10 year high yet, William Hague is reportedly living in a luxury London residence costing the taxpayer £2,000 per day (disclaimer: I have been unable to corroborate the facts of this story..). A charity boss responded, “Who exactly are the scroungers in our society”? Fear not, a government spokesperson reportedly said, “We monitor usage for good value for money”. That’s alright then.
As the Human Rights Group Liberty recently reminded us, the HRA protects victims of crime. For example, as a result of a case brought in the European Court under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, rape victims no longer have to suffer the indignity and trauma of being cross-examined in person by their alleged attackers.
It’s thanks to the Human Rights Act that children with SEN in this country still enjoy the right to mainstream education. Funding for which has been under threat recently by unscrupulous local authorities around the country.
We’ve seen how state powers can be used to abuse the rights of the individual. Undercover police officers spying on the Lawrence family in the aftermath of their son Stephen’s death, rather than looking for his killers. Yet more under cover officers “infiltrating” environmental activists, engaging in sexual relationships and, in some cases, fathering children. The women who fell victim to such “surveillance” described it as “like being raped by the state”.
Finally and compellingly, Liberty warns us, “Anybody’s privacy could be breached by the prying eyes of the state or big corporations, anybody can be wrongly accused of a crime, and anybody could fall foul of careless and insensitive decision-making by public authorities. Hopefully this won’t happen to you but if it did, you might find you need to rely on the Human Rights Act or the European Court of Human Rights to help you”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)