City Fathers Revolt. Better Late Than Never.

Probably the most incendiary movement to hit the city since Occupy London is Cityfathers. A charity set up to lobby city employers to recognise the role of fatherhood in male employees’ lives. That it exists, is the single biggest threat to capitalism since the abolition of slavery.

Capitalism is founded on the principle of having control over its workforce. Clearly demarcated gender roles are integral to that. With women paid less than their male counterparts they’re often the ones to be the stay at home parent. The Equal Pay Act proved to be a surmountable threat (devised & [not] implemented by a predominately male judiciary). With women at home looking after the baby, the pressure is on the sole remaining breadwinner to provide for the family. No pressure.

City employers know that sole breadwinners don’t tend to rock the boat and are easily exploited (though the mega buck earners could hardly be described as vulnerable). It’s generally considered career suicide to resist working long hours and a request for parental leave could result in dismissal on grounds of insanity.

Cityfathers wants to change that culture. In a recent survey of its 750 members 44% of its working fathers said that missing their children was their greatest daily challenge. Yet, only 29% of them said they availed of their legal entitlement to parental leave. All 2 weeks of it. For some it comes down to finances. Paternity leave pay amounts to 90% of the average weekly wage, which is less than the minimum wage.

The government plans to introduce shared parental leave from April 2014, whereby apart from the first two weeks, parental leave can be shared between both parents. Sounds good, but even the government has predicted a poor uptake, around 4-8%.

The devil, as always is in the detail. Whilst it’s being sold as shared parental leave, it has been criticised for being “transferable” leave, i.e. it’s still essentially maternity leave which can be transferred to Dad if he so requests it. Cityfathers wants fathers to have the same automatic rights as mothers & wants city employers to tackle, what Nick Clegg describes as an “Edwardian” approach to gendered roles in the workplace.

Research that I did 10 years ago, interviewing young fathers in particular, exposed the myth that men are happy to have walk on parts in their children’s lives. When I presented these findings at a city business conference at the time it was as if I had announced the bar was out of Bollinger. It was considered highly controversial to suggest that the city’s malleable male workforce might be so miserable that at some point in the future they may stage a revolt. It’s a bit late coming but welcome nonetheless.

As more men assert their rights to work reduced hours, there will be more room for women to share those top positions, thus allowing both fathers and mothers to have an equal role at home & in the workforce. This isn’t just good for families. It’s good for society and the economy.

Irish Parenting Wisdom: It Involves Jam, a Door Handle & a Bottle of the Hard Shhstuff

Dia daoibh mo chairde! I’ve just returned from my annual pilgrimage to my homeland to 1) ensure my 6 year old can brush up on his “Oirish”, which usually involves him saying “dia dhuit” to random strangers who invariably say “whah”? and him saying “howya”, 2) provide said child with ample opportunity to inform the aforementioned strangers that he’s Anglo Oirish but that he feels “more Oirish than English” (see Pete McCarthy’s hilarious book, “McCarthy’s Bar”, for more Anglo Irish angst and, 3) stock up on items from The Dunnes Stores Homeware range. Where else would you get door stops filled with ammonite rock in the shape of a leprechaun. For 5 Euro?

The day before I left for Ireland a piece I wrote was published in The Independent. It marked the 20th anniversary of the Rwanda genocide, as well as highlighting the current genocide in Darfur. It was scathing of the UN’s failure to learn from its mistakes. Cue a barrage of abuse and threats. Whilst supping on a pint of the hard shhstuff and enjoying a chin wag in a local watering hole, a relative commented on the minefield that is my chosen profession. But, the truth be told, the hardest thing I’ve ever done was becoming a parent. It’s a rare day when I can kick back my heels and pat myself on the back for a job well done. Invariably, the Mother Mary Consumpta, Ignacious, of the holy child of Jesus, voice in my head bellows, “shite, shite, shite. Must try harder. Shite”.

Since an incendiary device was planted in my head on the day of my first holy communion (guilt), it’s hard to shake off the proclivity for self reproachment. Especially when it comes to being a mammy. However, on my recent pilgrimage to Knock (the airport as opposed to the shrine itself….) I came across a little gem that has proved to be the missing link in my arsenal of parental armoury. You won’t find it in any of those nauseatingly “knowing” and judgemental parenting books in WHSmiths. This nugget of wisdom was wrapped up in a beautiful Irish poem that I had known as a child but since forgotten. It’s “Subh Milis” by Seamus O'Neill.

"Bhí subh milis, Ar bhaschrann an dorais, Ach mhúch mé an corraí, Ionam d'éirigh, Mar smaoinigh mé ar an lá, A bheas an baschrann glan, Agus an láimh bheag, Ar iarraidh." ("There was jam on the door handle, but I suppressed the anger that rose up in me, because I thought of the day that the door handle would be clean, and the little hand would be gone.")

So, now, when my child is, I don’t know, lassoing an OAP with his Bob the Builder belt in the middle of the spirits isle at Aldi, instead of pretending he’s not mine (God forbid) whilst making a frenzied B line for the nearest exit with a bottle of Paddys in one hand and an own brand chocolate gateaux in the other, I simply take a deep breath, think of the jam on the door handle and all the guilt inducing rage evaporates from my being. Then, I pretend he’s not mine and make a calm, composed B line for the nearest exit.

Twenty Years after Rwanda the UN is Accused of Covering up the Genocide in Darfur

This piece will be published in The Independent tomorrow.

It grates that the head of the UN, an organization accused of complicity in the Rwanda genocide, could unceremoniously hijack its 20th anniversary as a tawdry PR opportunity, airbrushing out the current Darfur genocide in the process.

That’s what Ban Ki Moon did in last week’s Independent on Sunday. Although the UN failed in Rwanda, "lessons have been learned", he said. His contrition came amid reports in the US’ Foreign Policy of leaked UNAMID (UN and African Union Mission in Darfur) documents proving, not only that lessons haven’t been learned from Rwanda, but that there is evidence of "a pattern of denial, disingenuousness, concealment of data and reports and outright mendacity in downplaying the continuing genocide in Darfur".

Ban talks of UN “eyes” and ears” being deployed where civilians are under threat. Given the Khartoum regime forbids a media or human rights presence in those areas where it’s slaughtering its own people, the only “eyes” and ears” is a multimillion pound US embassy in the capital which is being built, not to protect Darfuri, but US citizens. The Foreign Policy report indicates that the US’ silence on the Darfur genocide is the price for anti-terrorism intelligence, considered necessary to avert attacks on the US.

White blood, it seems, always trades higher than African blood on the open human rights market. General Dallaire, who headed the UN's small peacekeeping mission in Rwanda at the time of the genocide, lambasted the international community’s reticence to act in Africa, but meanwhile hundreds of millions of dollars were pouring into Yugoslavia. Were some human beings "more human than others”? he asked.

Ban Ki Moon boasts about the UN’s Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the “United Against Impunity” slogan. This catchy rhetoric is meaningless. In a recent attack in March, the leaked documents indicate that government forces destroyed an entire camp for displaced people adjacent to the UN compound. The attackers are reported to have burned to death a sheikh, injured multiple others, kidnapped local leaders, looted property and livestock while also destroying water wells, homes, and a hospital. UN peacekeepers apparently did nothing to intervene despite their mandate to protect civilians. The head of UNAMID later expressed only general concerns about the “escalation of violence”.

On Monday a UN spokesperson admitted that “There is tension between the necessity to preserve the consent and good will of the host government (whose president is indicted by the Hague for war crimes and acts of genocide against his own people) required to allow peacekeepers (The UN seeks permission from a despot to protect the civilians his regime is attacking) to do their jobs and the sometimes contradictory imperative to report accurately and candidly on any and all incidents of violence”. That he thought it okay to admit covering up “any and all incidents of violence” against civilians is terrifying.

The former UNAMID spokesperson, Aicha Elbasri, who resigned in protest in December, said that much of the evidence is withheld from public reports. Due to self imposed evidentiary restrictions, UNAMID disallows the testimony of local witnesses so, despite numerous aerial bombardments constituting violations of the UN ban on air strikes, they are rarely reported to the UN Security Council.

Michael Gaouette, A former UN official who led the Darfur peacekeeping team in 2008, said that many of UNAMID’s deficiencies were predictable. Without a ceasefire in place the peacekeeping mission was set up to fail. To achieve that would have meant implementing some of those 16 UN resolutions that were passed but never enforced, such as no fly zones to prevent aerial bombardments. Only when civilians are protected can political settlements be pursued. That requires political will on behalf of the international community. Unfortunately, in Darfur, as in Rwanda before it, that doesn’t exist. Today, as 20 years ago, the international response is marred by indifference and incompetence.

When, as head of the UN, Mr Ban says, “Let us show people facing threats that they are not alone or abandoned and that the lifeline they need is on the way”, we must hold him to account. Darfuris have waited 11 long years for that lifeline. Still, those hanging on by a thread will grab it with both hands. The world is watching, waiting for you to throw that lifeline Mr Ban. Act now or face the opprobrium incurred by your predecessor, Kofi Annan, for his failure in Rwanda.

Porno Lads’ Mag “Nuts” Goes Bust!

Readers of this blog will know that I’m not above employing guerilla tactics in order to thwart the sale of pornographic lads’ rags in family spaces. I routinely put copies of “Good Housekeeping” or “Country Living” in front of the merchandise usually displayed on the top shelf (i.e. women’s body parts).

So, the announcement this week of “Nuts’” demise was music to my ears. It marks another huge victory for the “Lose the Lads’ Mags campaign, led by “UK Feminista” & “Object”. The news comes just two months after “Front” magazine announced its closure.

If the publishers of Good Housekeeping &/or Country Living are reading this, those rise in profits didn't happen by themselves. My commission is very reasonable...

Oh Do Shut Up, Dear: The Silencing of Women in Public Life

An all male panel make a presentation. A woman in the room spots some gaps in their argument and seeks clarity. Her questions are interpreted as a threat and attempts are made to silence her. She is spoken over, sneered at and ultimately shouted at for a sustained period of time, by another man in the room, without any intervention from the [male] chair.

Afterwards one of the people present expresses outrage to a colleague that someone could be treated so disgracefully on their organisations’ premises. To which the colleague responds, “If she had kept her mouth shut she wouldn’t have been subjected to a barrage of abuse. She provoked them [the men]”. The message is clear. A man, or group of men, can shout at and subject a woman to a barrage of verbal abuse but it is not the mens' behaviour that comes under scrutiny, but the woman’s.

The woman, in this case, was me and the conversation was relayed to me by the person who initiated it. The discourse is instructive. There is no attempt to deny that the behaviour of the men was “disgraceful”, rather the prevailing social transgression was deemed that of a woman, first speaking out, and then refusing to be silenced when attempts were made to do so. For exhibiting such willful disobedience, I deserved, in this person’s mind, to be punished, taught a lesson. It is all the more galling (though sadly not surprising) to know that this person was a woman, who unlike me, chooses to acquiesce to gender biased social mores.

The fact that I wasn’t deterred from my line of questioning and attempts to silence me were thwarted does not diminish the actions. Being on the receiving end of snide, rude remarks and being spoken over is never pleasant. It forces the person into, either submission/silence or having to exercise uncharacteristic rigour in ensuring they are heard. It’s a no win situation. You’re either cast as a mouse or “strident” or “combative”.

When I watched the esteemed Mary Beard’s incisive lecture, "Oh Do Shut Up Dear", on BBC4 last week, I recognized the irony. Her lecture addressed the historical aversion to women being afforded a voice in the public sphere. For example, In Homer’s The Odyssey, written around three thousand years ago, Telemachus tells his mother Penelope: “Go back to your quarters… Speech will be the business of men, all men, and of me most of all, for mine is the power in the household.”

In the early 4th Century BC, Aristophanes wrote a comedy about women taking over the running of the state. The men thought it was uproarious, since women were “unable to speak properly in public.” In Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Zeus turns one female character into a cow therein reducing all her utterances to “moo.” Zeus’ wife, Hera, punishes Echo, by reducing her speech to that of repeating what others say.

Women remain silenced and gagged in modern life. The emergence of social media has turned the abuse of outspoken women into a veritable past time for some. Caroline Criado Perez’s recent success in securing a female head on a bank note incurred the wrath of Twitter’s thriving misogyny community. Death and rape threats were her comeuppance for not knowing her place. For the audacity of having a voice and daring to use it, and with such powerful effect.
.
Beard recounted her own experiences of abuse. When she objected to an abusive tweet she replied that she was “gobsmacked,” by one male commentator’s behaviour. He responded, "The misogyny is truly gobsmacking," she whined.” The same commentator, she said, runs a “lighthearted” sideline. A contest to find “…the most stupid woman to appear on Question Time.”

I’ve documented my own experiences of death threats in the past. To some, a woman with a voice is the equivalent of storming the pentagon with a Kalashnikov. Wielding such a lethal weapon makes her a threat to civilization as we know it. Brutal force, including water boarding, should not be ruled out in a bid to disarm women found to be in possession of a voice, especially where there is known intent to use it.

*Are you struggling to find your voice/inner kalashnikov? If so & you’re a woman, I’m now scheduling dates for another women’s empowerment course. A number of you have been in touch asking me to run another one, which I’m now doing. For anyone who hasn’t been in touch before, if you contact me via my website contact page I’d be very grateful (tessfinchlees.com).

It's St Patrick's Day: There'll be Humour & Heartache in Equal Measure

[A more evocative/historical piece I wrote for the Huffington Post was published today. Variations thereof were also published in US outlets].

Fifty years ago signs such as, “No blacks, dogs or Irish” were commonplace. Nowadays, [well behaved] Irish and dogs are welcome in most British establishments.

As recounted previously, before I left my native Dublin to live in the UK I took elocution lessons and words like “feck” were banished from my vocabulary. I dyed my carrot red hair black and reduced my daily alcohol intake from 10 to 8.5 pints. You won’t find U2 or The Script on my ipod. I changed my name from Mary Gobnit O’Reilly to the more British sounding Tess (short for Tessandra) Finch-Lees. My assimilation was complete.

As a people we Irish have learned to lighten up a little. Not take ourselves so seriously. In the past we would be incensed at acts of oppression and injustice. The literary elite would compete to capture the political pulse of the people. Each vying for a place in history with arty alliteration and perennially portentous prose (what can I say, it’s in the blood).

The Irish genius for creativity didn’t stop at the door of literature. Their ingenuity knew no bounds when it came to circumventing the 17th century equivalent of austerity measures, known as the penal laws. Just as today, the penal laws provided a legal framework to steal from the poor for the benefit of the rich. The tax on chimneys was resisted by making a fire in the middle of the room. The tax on outbuildings saw animals brought into the house and tethered to the wall. We resisted glass tax, or tax on light, by using horse placenta and splitting doors in two, hence the expression, “day light robbery”.

You need look no further than Kilburn to see the Irish solution to the bedroom tax. It involves minor demolition and open plan sleeping.

Contemporary Irish culture is exported in more palatable packaging. Focusing on personal relationships rather than political angst. Maeve Binchy is the literary equivalent of freshly baked soda bread, smothered in artery hardening butter and homemade jam, washed down with a nice cup of Barry’s tea.

Whilst Father Ted embodied a more anarchic, 7 pints of Guinness washed down by a Jameson chaser, approach to exposing cultural warts, Mrs Brown’s Boys is more a cocktail of mind altering drugs mashed up with boiled bacon and cabbage.

Humour is part of Irish DNA and, historically, has been a powerful bulwark against heartache. But, when the pain of a people is so palpable, jocularity sometimes demeans it.

There are haunting resonances between the Ireland of the past and present. A profusion of People begging in the streets, half built houses abandoned and boarded up. Rural towns, once vibrant are now jaded and deserted. Young people yet again are leaving in their droves to seek gainful employment abroad.

The window tax has been replaced by a roof tax. Anyone lucky enough to be able to keep their home is being punitively taxed for that. The burden of austerity is hitting the poorest the hardest. Ordinary Irish people have their begging bowls out again. The St Vincent De Paul occupying the role of soup kitchen for the homeless and destitute.

If ever there was a time for the Irish to recapture the spirit of defiance, employed so effectively by our ancestors, now would be it.

RIP Tony Benn

The last of the British conviction politicians died on Friday. Reading his diaries it’s clear that Tony Benn was driven, not by personal ambition, but by political conviction and clarity of vision. He never wavered, never compromised, never lost his way, ethically or politically.

He resisted Labour’s courtship of corporations and refused to prostitute his principles in a bid for power. He doggedly opposed the re branding of “New Labour” & recognised it as a sinister sop to the right & a betrayal of the working classes. He remained true to his values to the end.

His words & presence were always inspiring. I’ve chosen just one quote (below) but would highly recommend his incisive, warm, wise & witty diaries:

"For our greatest enemy is the fear that our opponents seek to instil in our minds to force us to accept the unacceptable, and so to paralyse our will and render us incapable of thinking out the alternative or working to bring it about,"

He added: "We all have it in our power to deny them that victory and to establish a better society by our own efforts, provided that we remember our own history and the lessons of unity and courage that it teaches us."

The loss of Tony Benn leaves a gaping hole at the heart of [what’s left of ] British democracy. He'll be sadly missed.

Co-Op Trust: A Positive Petition

The following petition is available to sign in Gwythers, Simpsons & the library in Bishops Castle:

“We, the undersigned, note from Appendix B of the consultation documents that it is currently proposed that the community “Trust Forum” will only be allowed to elect 3 Trust Board Members compared to the 4 External Partner Trust Board Members. We would like to express our support for the proposed Co-Operative Trust but only if the proposals are amended so that External Partner Board Members can never outnumber Trust Forum Board Members.”

After just a couple of hours on Saturday, 5 of us managed to secure 100 signatures.

The diagram on the back of the petition, taken from the consultation materials, sets out the situation very clearly. The trust is made up of 3 distinct groups; Schools (of which there would be only 3 full members), each one entitled to 2 votes, Trust forum (made up of the diverse range of community interest groups), which is entitled to 3 votes in total & External partners (there’s no cap on numbers & the intention has been expressed to invite private industry) who are entitled to a vote each. Given the diagram states that one of the roles of the Trust forum is to hold the other two (schools & external partners) to account, that task is rendered impossible. With just 3 votes they’ll always be in the minority.

This is being sold as being based on Co-Op principles of equity, fairness & democracy. Amending the distribution of votes to reflect this is the first test. I flagged this inequity on the local radio this morning but the 2 heads seemed to be confusing the issue. They argued that school votes would ensure external votes could never have the upper hand.

The school vote is not part of the community, even in their own materials, so to conflate the two appears to be misleading & disingenuous, albeit unintentionally. Their separation is crucial, not least because, should a school, or schools become dependent on any private sponsors, their ability to vote against said sponsor is compromised. That’s one good reason why the Trust forum is separate & needs enough teeth to safeguard the interests of the community.

One of the heads said on the radio that this isn't about finances. The other one in the same interview indicated it was. At the public consultation meeting the heads announced that the local authority funding was drying up and the words "jump before we're pushed" were used. As one of you commented in my previous blog, the communications on this are as clear as mud.

Why do the heads continue to package schools as part of the "trust forum" & why the apparent resistance to concede that the Trust forum is stand alone & needs as many votes as external partners in order to be effective in safeguarding community interests?

Apologies to my overseas followers for the recent UK centric entries, although galvanising community democracy is a globally relevant endeavour.

Risks Associated with the Co-Operative Trust Model & Suggested Safeguards

Thank you all for your comments, thoughts etc. I've come up with some suggested safeguards, that you might want to ask your respective schools to consider.

Under the current model community members, made up of a diverse range of interests, are entitled to 3 votes/representatives. Each school also has 2 votes. In contrast, the proposed “External partners”, which has no cap on numbers, have a vote each. When considering the weighting of community votes against external partners’, one should consider the fact that school membership is not binding. Of the 7 schools currently expressing interest, all but 3 would be associates members, making it much easier for them to opt out at any time, leaving just 3 (or less) full members.

I’d also caution against assuming that the school representatives will always act in the community’s interests. Schools governance is driven by 3 core functions (community interests isn’t one of them), with financial viability as the one generally given most weight. If a school isn’t financially viable, its future is at stake. This, in my view presents a risk that, should a school or schools become dependent on any external partners’ sponsorship, the influence of even one corporate member could be disproportionate. Additionally, what happens should that sponsor withdraw its support?

My primary question, which hasn’t been addressed in the consultation process, including the public meeting, is, what safeguards have been considered to mitigate the risk of external partners overriding the wishes of the community?

In the absence of any reassurances being forthcoming, I’ve suggested the following safeguards;

1) My preferred and safest option: Exclude industry from board positions. Land Rover was originally included as an external partner. When I asked for the thinking behind this, rather than address my concerns, it was simply removed. I would actively encourage a link governor role to forge relationships with all businesses in the community but not allowing them to have influence over educational strategy. I believe the ethos and values that drive children’s education is diametrically opposed to that of corporations and are therefore ethically and legally incompatible.

 
2) If however, the community is fully appraised of the risks (my concern is that no-one I’ve spoken to is even aware of the potential involvement of industry, let alone the risks) and make an informed decision to allow industry involvement, I’d suggest the following:

• In the spirit of Co-Operative values (not least fairness & equity), the most democratic would be to at all times ensure there are as many Membership Trust Forum board members as there are external partner board members. That still allows for additional votes from each school. Given the strong focus on community, I can't see why there would be any objections to this safeguard. It ticks all the Co-Op boxes. The importance of this is compounded by the fact that any external partners who might in the future contribute financially or engender other forms of dependency would yield far more influence than their one vote suggests.

Whichever option, if any, is chosen, it should be written into the memorandum of association before a final vote is taken.

It isn’t just the potential private industry involvement that concerns many people, it’s also the religious element, particularly where the school is non-denominational. If a parent chooses to send their child to a non-denominational school they don’t expect a subsequent layer to be created allowing religious organisations to be involved at a strategic & decision making level.

The Co-op College argue that schools’ assets can only be used for educational purposes and cannot be for profit. However, case precedence already exists in this country allowing a Trust school to operate for profit, thus undermining any previously espoused legal safeguard in that regard.

Without the above safeguards, I see nothing (legally) from preventing a scenario whereby schools’ assets are converted into sports facility, for example, sponsored by McDonalds and Coca Cola (as trustees), who will have their wares on sale therein. As I said before, as long as you can wangle an educational angle, anything is possible. We need look no further than the US to know this is not beyond the realms of possibility.

It has been claimed that the Trust board would hold no powers. If that’s the case, what are their voting rights for? This is another question that hasn’t been bottomed out. In my experience, when you create a legal, hierarchical entity, the layer at the top always wields influence as well as power.

In summary, whilst I’m all for collaboration & sharing of resources, formalising the arrangement, creating a board of trustees to whom we transfer our community land & assets, brings with it, risks. As such, appropriate due diligence should be carried out to mitigate any potential risks to our community.

I don't doubt the heads' good intentions (I hold them all in high esteem) but when seeking to change the structure of any organisation, it's incumbent on us to put legal safeguards in place to mitigate against unforeseen circumstances, such as future changes in trustees with different or differing vested interests.

Half Term & Hanging Out

It's half term in the UK (some parts)so I'm immersing myself in rocket and den making activities as opposed to work. Not that I'm complaining about work. I've just been invited to speak at a global human rights summit in Paris at the end of April. I'll need to brush up on my French!

Until I get back into the swing of things next week I just wanted to acknowledge all of you who responded to my last blog on Co-op trusts. Thank you for the phone calls & emails & kind words of support. They're coming in thick & fast. Many of you are flagging up concerns & asking questions I hadn't thought of, which is great. I will attempt to respond to you all over the coming week.

In the meantime, take care one & all, wherever you are in the world, this wonderful day.

PS: No, you're not a bad (or is that, good?) parent for not wanting to make your comments public. As long as you include them in the "consultation" form, that's all that matters.

Co-Operative Trust Schools Are a Back Door to Privatisation. Discuss

There was a time when staging 3 day strikes was considered a militant expression of democracy. Nowadays it’s turning up at a public meeting and breathing.

When I went to a public “consultation” meeting last week, which the public didn’t know about until a couple of days beforehand, via literature that indicated (to many) that attendance was superfluous to requirements as the outcome had already been decided, it came as no surprise to find a practically deserted hall. What I didn’t expect, was for the chair to open the meeting with the words, “It’s great to see so many of you here”. Out of a combined population of over 2,000, there were 20 odd people present

It reminded me of the first time I attended an all party parliamentary debate in the House of Commons. I took up my place in the press gallery, just as the then secretary of state for International Development, Hilary Benn, stood up. His opening words served as my first lesson in political chicanery, “I am delighted to see such a full house”. There were 6 people present, including himself.

Afterwards, in the commons bar, I asked my then MP, the affable current speaker, John Bercow, what was behind Benn’s remarks. He said, “One word Tess. Hansard” (the official public record of proceedings). Poor representation with a variety of voices, opposition and dissent, undermines the democratic process, ultimately leading to poor decisions.

So when I found myself in a hall to rubber stamp, I mean discuss, the proposal for local schools to form a Co-Operative Trust, with the chair exaggerating the turnout, it went down hill from there.

A friend of mine once opined, if you don’t want your child to be the donkey’s backside in the nativity play, just keep your head down and your mouth shut. To do her bit as a good parent, she became a school governor for the sole purpose of ingratiating herself with the head. That would explain why Ofsted warns that governing bodies are too weak and not challenging enough of their heads.

A good parent may wonder why a pugnacious (as described by a consultee) Co-operative College rep was chairing a process about whether or not our schools should have anything to do with his organisation. They may query what’s in it for the Co-Operative College, given there’s ostensibly nothing to gain from cash strapped schools. What they won’t know, is that the Co-Op College offers a “consultation package (which includes “chairing discussions & collating feedback)”, which will cost the first school £4,000 and £700 for all other schools involved in the consultation process. If there are 7 schools involved, like in my area for example, they won’t get much change out of ten grand (incl VAT), shared out collectively. That’s not counting the legal costs, which could be double that.

The Co-Op College also offers an all inclusive, “Package of consultancy and project management services throughout the conversion to academy status process”. They anticipate more red tape after conversion so have another package to help schools with that too. In fact, there’s a package for just about everything. At a cost.

With so many vested interests, and with schools having invested so much in the consultation process alone, it’s little wonder the purveyors of awkward questions are made to feel verbally kettled. The Co-Op man is hardly impartial which, to my mind, risks gravely undermining any trust in the integrity and independent outcome of the process.

Good parents may have consulted the aforementioned Hansard and discovered that schools that have first converted to Co-Operative Trusts find less resistance when converting to academy status later. They may have gleaned that the conversion rate from Co-Operative trust to academy status is rising and are concerned about the risk of becoming an academy by the back door. But they will keep their counsel. There is inevitably a bad parent in the audience who will ask the question for them.

The Co-operative trust governance model creates several additional layers of bureaucracy (many rural schools are already working collaboratively, so why add layers of unnecessary bureaucracy and cost?). There’s the board of trustees, to whom the schools’ land and assets will be transferred to be held indefinitely. There will also be a community membership forum, of whom there will be 3 representatives elected to the trust. In contrast, according to the National Governors Association, any number of corporates, for example, can become trustees as “external partners”, each with their own vote.

Good parents might be tempted to ask what due diligence has been carried out to safeguard against the possibility that, in 5-10 years time, our children’s nativity plays aren’t entitled, “Driving Jesus to Bethlehem in a Land Rover Jaguar iX35, sponsored by Tesco, because for struggling schools, “Every little helps”.

The Co-Op man will protest that the schools’ assets can only be used for educational purposes and cannot be for profit. The bad parent will have done their homework. They will know that case precedent already exists in this country allowing a Trust school (in Suffolk) to operate for profit, thus undermining any previously espoused legal safeguard in that regard. They will also know that there’s nothing (legally) from preventing a scenario whereby trustees convert school assets into a high tech sports facility, sponsored by McDonalds and Coca Cola (as trustees), who will have their wares on sale therein. As long as you can wangle an educational angle, anything is possible.

Principled parents with inside knowledge of corporate shenanigans are the worst troublemakers. They will object on ideological grounds. They will argue that there’s no place for private industry in a decision making / vote holding / power wielding role in children’s education. That their ethos and values (making profits, to hell with people) are diametrically opposed to that of pastoral care and critical thinking (as opposed to corporate indoctrination) that educational institutions are charged with nurturing in our children. They will point to the recent spate of student protests against the marketisation of university campuses which is killing democratic debate and dissent. The pragmatic bad parents will be enthusiastic about building links with all businesses in the community but will argue vehemently against them influencing educational strategy.

One of the arguments for becoming a trust is that it will open up new revenue streams. The bad parent will say, “Show me the money”. Schools that already enjoy charity status are not exactly flush. The only way of generating revenue, that I can see, is from private investors or "sponsors".

It would be a mistake to confuse being a nice person and having good intentions, with due diligence. With the best will in the world, being a head teacher (even the excellent ones in my area) doesn’t necessarily lend itself to grasping the legal, political and strategic ramifications associated with substantive organisational change. In the same way that my expertise in governance, ethics and organisational change doesn’t qualify me to be a head teacher or conduct brain surgery.

I want my local high school to be there for my child in 5 years time but not at any cost. If the price of having a high school in my community, which has thus far resisted any corporate takeovers on the high street, is having “Sponsored by Land Rover” above the front door, it’s a price I’m not willing to pay.

If my local authority attempted to close down our high school I would fight it tooth and nail. I wouldn’t be deflected by claims of there being no money left for schools. If there’s money in the pot to rescue failed banks and to pay RBS’ bankers’ bonuses, there’s money in the pot for our children.

If we participate in a process that will potentially change the landscape of children’s education for ever, we’d better know what we’re doing. Our children and grandchildren will judge us harshly if we get this wrong.

Toxic City Culture is Killing Men

* An edited version of this posting (Yes, I've blogged about it before &; I'll continue to do so) was published in today's Independent.

Yesterday, a JP Morgan employee died after falling from the roof of the European headquarters in Canary Wharf. On Sunday, a former senior executive at Deutsche Bank was found dead in his home after an apparent suicide.

Last week, a communications director at Swiss Re died. The cause of death has not been made public. In August, a 21-year-old Bank of America intern died after reportedly working consecutive all-nighters at the bank's London office.

In the same month, the finance chief at Zurich Insurance Group committed suicide and it was reported that he left a note blaming the company's chairman for creating an unbearable work environment. It’s time we started joining up the dots. The City’s culture is killing people.

On a couple of occasions, whilst advising some of the UK’s largest organisations on ethics, I came across coded data I wasn’t supposed to see. There were secret budgets ring fenced for law suits in relation to discrimination (mostly sex and race). In amongst stats breaking down staff attrition along gender lines, I once came across a column marked “deaths”. In one of the organisations there were 6 in the past 12 months (globally). All of whom were men.

I was told the information was “classified” but gleaned that it related to deaths suspected to be work related. In one global behemoth I was told that an executive had committed suicide while on assignment overseas. Apparently he got extremely stressed before making presentations. Rather than ease up, his manager forced him to “man up”. Unable to cope with the stress, away from his family, the night before a presentation he threw himself off the balcony of his hotel room.

Elsewhere, I was told that an executive who worked notoriously long hours dropped dead of a heart attack. He was in his 30’s. The corporation’s response? Invest in a gym for employees to “de-stress in”. It was spun, by HR mind, as a fitness issue, completely unrelated to his being pushed by his employer to breaking point. It’s not HRs’ job to look after people, it’s their job to optimise their productivity. In my experience though, people are far more productive when they’re alive.

It was bonus week at JP Morgan last week. Men earn approximately £150,000 more than women on bonuses alone. Given most decisions about who should stay at home to take care of the kids, is finance driven, it’s hardly surprising it ends up being predominately women.

The career penalties for women relating to the gender pay gap are well documented, though little is spoken about the burden this puts on men. As primary bread winner, there is increasing pressure to work ever longer hours in order to garner favour with the boss. HR departments like to hold up stats to show it’s only women who avail of flexible working polices. Men, they say, love the cut and thrust of long hours. Really?

When I carried out research on the long hours culture, I asked men with small children (mostly in their 30’s) why they didn’t request flexible working arrangements to spend more time with their children. They all concurred that it would be career limiting. One said he took a promotion to compensate for the loss of his [more qualified yet less paid] wife’s income. He was promised his travel would only increase by 10%. It increased by 70%. He was struggling to cope with the stress and actively looking for a job elsewhere.

It’s detrimental to society and the economy to reduce fatherhood to a walk on part, whilst at the same time driving women out of the workforce when they become mothers. Families need fathers as well as mothers and UK plc needs women as well as men at the helm. After all, they’ve got plenty of practice cleaning up after other peoples’ mess.

Organisations are structured around the indoctrination of its workforce. The more malleable the better. Conscience and values to be left at the door. The Milgram (electric shock) experiment highlighted the power of blind obedience, which saw 80% of participants continue to administer the maximum shocks despite the screams of pain from those they believed to be genuine recipients. It’s in this context that decent people can be persuaded to make unethical decisions. Like sanctioning polices that discriminate against some employees, whilst working those who aren’t driven elsewhere, or off sick, to despair and sometimes death.

Despite working the longest hours in Europe, the UK has the lowest productivity rate. Not surprising, as all the studies show that, most people are not motivated by greed but by quality of life. Most people would rather sacrifice some pay than time with their family and friends. Most people think their wellbeing is too high a price for work. Most people, that is, except the testosterone charged dinosaurs that dominate the City and whose recklessness and depravity is unravelling the fabric of our society.

There's Nothing Liberal or Democratic about a Party That Demeans Women

There’s nothing liberal or democratic about the Liberal Democrat party. A more representative name would be “The old Boys’ party”. Of course, that wouldn’t necessarily differentiate them from Labour or Tory. That moniker would be true for all of them.

By claiming democratic superiority, the Lib Dems should at least show willing when it comes to being a party representative of the people, 50% of whom are women. The branding machine, no doubt a testosterone charged power house, has missed the fact that there’s a stark disconnect between what the Lib Dems claim to be & what they are.

I knew Nick Clegg was struggling to connect with women when he plucked a woman, who makes porn films, from obscurity & put her forward as a parliamentary candidate in 2010. Despite Anna Arrowsmith having no political experience, Clegg obviously thought having a porn baroness in the party would be “liberal” & “edgy” & after all, she’s a “feminist”. At the time I wrote, “If Arrowsmith is successful (she wasn’t) jobs for porn “stars” & lap dancers will be advertised in your local job centre (oops they are already). Failure of girls to apply would result in benefits being removed. If she’s a feminist, I’m Jeremy Clarkson”.

The sex industry is dominated by men who profit from the degradation of women and young girls. They’re called pimps. The fact that Arrowsmith seemed to uphold the stereotypes assigned to a marginalised group in the interests of getting ahead in a dominant group, didn’t bode well. If she was a fundamentalist feminist banging on about mad extremist stuff like equal pay or the sexual stereotyping of young girls, she wouldn’t stand a chance in the so called Lib Dems.

Clegg’s confusion between the prostitution of women and feminism has contributed to a culture where women are more likely to be seen as sex objects as opposed to political players. Lord Rennard’s indignance at being suspended for refusing to apologise over sexual harassment claims indicates the extent to which sexism is endemic in the Lib Dem culture. This week another disgraced Lib Dem MP, Mike Hancock, was suspended from the party for alleged sexual misconduct against a female constituent with known mental health problems. In both cases Clegg has been criticised for being slow to act & ineffectual.

The lack of women MP’s in the party, a mere 12% (7 MPs), none of whom hold cabinet positions, is another damning indictment. Clegg’s failure to give some of his greatest female talent, such as Sarah Teather, key roles, will be his undoing. Instead, the hapless Danny Alexander, the right wing, disgraced, banker (David Laws) and the lacklustre, career (as opposed to conviction) politician, Simon Hughes take up seats at the Lib Dem top table.

The fact that one of the most principled and respected talent in the party, Sarah Teather, is stepping down at the next election, because of Clegg’s stance on immigration & welfare, is further evidence that the party has lost it’s way. Those within the party with moral compasses, it seems, are ditched in favour of self serving sycophants. Some say women need to toughen up & play the game. I disagree. As Alison Pearson said in The Telegraph this week, “It’s the game, not women, that needs to change”.

South Sudan Must Not Deflect from the Invisible Genocide in Darfur

* The below was published in today's Independent on Sunday under a different title.

Remember Darfur? It’s a country the size of France in the Western region of Sudan. In the last decade an estimated 500,000 civilians have been slaughtered with some 4 million forced into refugee camps.

Despite Sudan’s President, Al Bashir, being indicted by The Hague for crimes against humanity, the UN continues to treat this despot with deference. Despite their strategy of appeasement being proven to prolong the agony of Darfuri and Southerners alike, there has been no change in tack at UN HQ.

Those of us who have been involved in Sudan for a number of years will know that the ongoing violence in the South (it never stopped, the media just got bored) is the legacy of the botched Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. After 20 years and an estimated 2 million killed, President Bashir was forced to concede the South’s right to self rule. The cost of so called peace in the South though, was silence on the oil rich region of Darfur.

This theory was confirmed by an Amnesty International representative. When I asked why Darfur seemed to be absent from their agenda, I was told that the UN had issued warnings to NGOs to be silent on Darfur. Why? So as not to upset Bashir, therein risking the derailment of the CPA. To which I replied, “How can a human rights organisation agree to turn a blind eye to genocide in one part of the country in order to secure a band aid peace agreement in another”? I never did get a reply.

The strategy was fundamentally, and fatally, flawed from the start. History tells us that you don’t do deals with despots. The cessation of the genocidal campaign in Darfur should have been one of the conditions of the CPA.

The truth is that the CPA was ill conceived and bereft of detail (in terms of land ownership involving coveted oil, infrastructure and constitution). Alas, as everyone (except UN diplomats) knows, the devil is in the detail and the devil has been reeking havoc in the region ever since.

Last month Aicha Elbasri, a former spokesperson for the UN/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) told the Dutch Newspaper Trouw of her dismay at the “lies” UNAMID tells about itself. She expressed frustration at the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon’s, willingness to perpetuate what she described as an inherent misrepresentation of the reality on the ground.

According to the renowned US academic Eric Reeves, who has spent 14 years as a Sudan researcher and analyst and has testified before congress, from the beginning of 2011 to May 2012, there were 100 eye witness accounts of aerial attacks on civilians in Darfur. Ban Ki-Moon’s UNAMID report documented 2. Despite rape and sexual violence against girls and women being systematically used as a weapon of war in Darfur, the epidemic is air brushed out of Ban Ki-moon’s report. Car jacking and kidnapping is diligently recorded but rape, known to be a sensitive issue with Bashir, is shamefully ignored.

In 2005 I attended a cross party International Development Committee hearing on Darfur. Listening to Dr Kapila, a previous UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator in the region, give evidence, I was moved to tears.

Despite his position of power, Dr Kapila’s absolute impotence resonated with me when he said, To me, the greatest regret to my dying day will be that we failed in Darfur. He told the committee that UN member states, including Britain, had exerted pressure on him to downplay the severity of the Darfur crisis, which he believed (since proven) amounted to genocide. When he refused to be silent, he was forced out of his job.

In order to understand the current crisis in the South, we must consider Sudan as a whole, as opposed to isolated regions and “complex ethnic tensions”. The elephant in the room, that the UN (which some Sudanese officials believe to be controlled by the US) refuses to address, is President Bashir. President Obama’s political sensitivity at being seen as anti- Muslim in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan, takes precedence, it seems, over any moral obligation to the black African victims of genocide.

Before Salva Kiir took over as (democratically elected) President of South Sudan almost 3 years ago, the country had been pulverised by 2 decades of war. It bore the scars, physical and psychological, of its brutal battles. The task ahead of Kiir was mammoth and in order to succeed he needed as much support from the International Community as possible. Since secession Kiir has been plagued by attacks from his neighbouring tyrant, Bashir. None of which have been condemned by the UN.

My contacts on the ground, one of whom was involved in all the previous peace talks in Darfur are certain that Bashir is one of the architects behind rebel leader (previously Kiir’s Vice President) Machar's attempted coup. Yet another bid to destabilise the South whilst publicly claiming to support Kiir.

Having briefed David Cameron’s office ahead of a visit to Darfur in 2006, he returned protesting, This is ethnic cleansing and we cannot remain silent in the face of this horror.

Yet, with the reins of power firmly in his grip, Cameron’s righteous words evaporated into the ether, obliterating any vestiges of hope that sustained the souls of the persecuted. Not only had they been abandoned by those who promised to protect them, their cowardice has fuelled the genocidal campaign.

While the media, rightly documents the spiralling events in South Sudan, the world’s eyes are diverted, yet again from the very same, and worse, suffering, in Darfur.

The Day Jesus Came into my Life: Part 2

* Scroll down to see Part 1 first (otherwise this will make no sense..)

In a trance like state I took a seat as near to the elderly gentleman as I could. “You can’t just get on a bus without paying” shouted the cantankerous bus driver. “Im sorry”, I said. “I don’t know where I’m going”. I looked at the kind man who said “you’re getting off at the next stop”. Having paid, I sat down in silence adjacent to my good Smaratin & after a few moments said, “You do know where I’m going”? He nodded sagely. “You know it’s an hour & a half round trip for you”? He nodded again before phoning his wife & asking her to take the car out of the garage. He proffered no explanation. It’s as if she was expecting me too.

We took the short walk from the bus stop to Mike’s house where I briefly met his wife. I started to explain my predicament & how Mike had saved the day but she just smiled serenely as though she was in on the whole thing. Once in the car & on our way, after thanking Mike for the umpteenth time, I said, “I know this may sound odd, but it feels like you & your wife were somehow expecting me? To which he replied, with a mischievous grin & a twinkle in his eye, “We were!”.

Mike explained that he & his wife, who are devout Christians, prayed over breakfast that morning & asked God/Jesus to send someone into their lives to help today. He said when I got on the bus in need of help, he knew it was me. Even I, a non Christian, was struck by the serendipitous sequence of events that led to our chance encounter. Mike wasn’t having any of it. It was meant to be. I agreed but whereas Mike believed it was the work of god, I believe it was fate. A spiritual, as opposed to religious, destiny. I promised I would at least think about the significance of this & I certainly have. Although Mike will no doubt be disappointed that I didn’t convert to Christianity, I was touched by his humanity & unconditional kindness.

Mike was a retired police officer from London. He became a Christian during the war and has remained devoted ever since. He & his wife have always reserved a bed in their home, “the lord’s bed”, for anyone who might need it. He told me tales of working the beat in Brixton, years ago, & coming across young girls abandoned at train stations & of others who took a wrong turn in life & ended up sleeping rough. With 2 small daughters of his own, Mike, wherever possible, would offer these young women some food & a bed in his family home until social services could either contact their family or find a more long term solution.

I asked if Mike ever worried for the safety of his children, taking random strangers into their house. He admitted that his job served as a useful deterrent, “Who’s going to rob a copper”?

“Weren’t you concerned about allegations, I mean, being accused of…”, I was struggling with this one. “Was it allowed, back then, for police officers to offer stranded girls beds for the night”? It wasn’t, & still isn’t allowed, but he risked his job for the well being of others “in the lord’s name”.

I’m glad it’s not allowed. I’ve worked in child protection so I know how easily less scrupulous colleagues could abuse their position of power to exploit vulnerable young girls and boys. At the same time I’m glad that people like Mike exist. People who are prepared to risk their jobs, reputations & their lives for the wellbeing of others.

Mike, for me, is the personification of Jesus. He lives & breathes his faith & I admire & respect that, as I would any individual who has a moral compass, irrespective of religion, even though it’s pointing in the opposite direction to mine. The problem is, I know lots of Christians who aren’t like Mike. People who go to church yet concomitantly worship at the alter of hate, avarice & prejudice. If more so called Christians did embody their faith, in the way that Mike & his wife do, I might be tempted. In reality, he’s one in a million & I had the privilege of meeting him.

He has made me take stock of my life & how much (or little) time I make for others. Yes, I’ve always got a smile for strangers, will help the person struggling with their pram up the steps & I volunteer some time to human rights campaigns, but there’s lots more I can, & should, do. There are things I’ve started to do since meeting Mike which, I hope, would make him feel that his time, energy & kindness wasn’t wasted on me. Under the radar things that are between me & the individuals concerned. Giving the time of day, to complete strangers, for the sake of it, is the most precious gift you can give. Mike, reminded me of that.

Contributing to food banks, if possible, helps but there are lots of things we can do that cost nothing. A kind word & a helping hand can go a long way in a world where we’ve become increasingly hardened & indifferent to the plight of others.

As for the stand off with my 6 year old (outside the food bank on Christmas Eve), I persuaded him to part with the coveted toy. When I say “persuaded”, I bribed him with sausage & chips in the local pub. What? I never claimed to be a perfect parent.

The Day Jesus Came into my Life: Part 1

Having a stand off with my 6 year old, outside the local food bank, wasn’t quite how I envisaged Christmas Eve. It had been brewing since before we left the house. He was having second thoughts about donating some of his toys, which were thrown in (by me) to make the box of food we had prepared look more joyous.

When I say “donated”, it was more a case of arm wrestling said child to the ground & when that failed (he eats his greens), good old fashioned emotional blackmail. “Think of all those children whose parents can’t afford to buy them toys this Christmas. Don’t you want them to have a soft toy to cuddle when they lie hungry & cold, as a direct result of savage government cuts, in bed? And, you’ve never even played with this one (holding up exhibit A)”. He thinks for a moment & replies, “Yes, I want them to have toys to cuddle but not mine & by the way I did play with that toy once when I was 5 & by the way, you said Santa brings presents to ALL children so it doesn’t matter if their parents can’t afford to buy them any does it?”. He’ll either grow up to be a prosecution lawyer or a serial killer.

In child development terms, he’s still at the id stage (world revolves around them) so guilt trips are futile. Realising this, I invoked straight forward blackmail (“Santa will be soooo disappointed with you if you don’t give those toys that you don’t play with anyway to less fortunate children”) to induce him into parting with the disputed toy & others, as well as a brand new designer outfit, bought by his guardian (& my, so called, best friend) on the basis that, “she only buys you boutique outfits to wind me up (she has never forgiven me for producing my library card when I was 5 & telling her it was “a licence to kill”).

It was a chance encounter with a complete stranger, days earlier that touched me so profoundly that I felt I had to raise my game this Christmas.

Being a one car family in a rural area where public transport is practically non existent, can be tricky. Having finished a hospital appointment early, I had a 3 hour wait for the next (& last) bus to take me the 45 minute journey home. Despite the torrential rain, I got to the bus stop 30 minutes early, just in case. When the bus arrived, on time, it sped right past leaving me standing there with my arm out & mouth open. Realising that was the last bus, I chased after it, waving my arms like a maniac, hoping I’d catch it up at the traffic lights. I didn’t. I arrived sodden & forlorn at the next bus stop & without thinking hailed the next bus down, even though I knew it wouldn’t get me home.

I jumped on &, still panting, blurted out that I’d just missed my last bus & asked the driver if this bus was by any chance taking the same route, at least part of the way, so that we could catch it up & I’d be able to get home in time to put the crib up for my little boy like I promised.

The crib was made by my father (complete with original straw on the roof) for us when we were children. It’s the only thing I wanted when he died, at Christmas time, a couple of years ago. It was our first Christmas to have the crib & I wanted to mark the occasion by passing on stories about my childhood Christmases, which centred around this crib, and my much adored father & son’s grandfather. I realised later just how emotional I felt about the prospects of missing this event & disappointing my son.

I don’t actually remember saying “help” but apparently it featured somewhere in my opening monologue to the captive, if reluctant, audience of passengers on the number 1 something, the destination of which I never did discover. Mike (as I came to know him), who was sitting behind the grumpy bus driver, for whom empathy did not feature in his job description (who can blame him, he probably gets paid sod all, works longer than his required hours for no extra pay & if he complains gets threatened with redundancy. Either that or he’s a gob shite) assured me later that the word “help” was uttered by me & that was his call to action (more on this in part 2). “Get on the bus”, he said, at once calmly and authoritatively, “I’ll get you home”. I looked at the stranger’s serene, knowing, advanced in years face, which indicated no compulsion to qualify his statement, & I complied. I had no idea who he was or where I was going but I somehow knew, he would get me home safely.

Log in on Friday for Part 2, where you can find out more about Mike, my encounter with Jesus & how the stand off with my 6 year old outside the food bank ended. It’s not that I’m gratuitously building an air of suspense to this story, I’ve just run out of time. Hasta Friday.

Wishing You a Gadget, Internet & Guilt Free Christmas!

As someone who lives & breathes ethics, it’s easy to become overwhelmed. In any given week there are innumerable ethical transgressions reported in the press (not to mention those that I witness in my work/life). Choosing which one to write about, or rather, to omit, is an ethical minefield in itself. The guilt of an Irish (ex catholic) should never be underestimated.

Sometime during middle childhood, when most children's super-ego (a Freudism), or consciences to you & me, are developing, Irish children are rounded up & taken to an undisclosed destination. Whilst heavily sedated (Guinness, Poitin, or in my case, home brew) an incendiary device is implanted in their heads. Said thingymajig is programmed to detonate at the mere thought of breaking any of the 10-150 commandments (my parents added a few, such as “thou shalt not forget your mother's birthday or wear skirts above the knee, especially whilst donning a pair of patent shoes - they reflect your knickers). Thinking about kissing someone of the opposite, or worse, same sex, before the age of 21 has been known to result in spontaneous detonation.

I’m riven, daily, by an irrational fear that I will self destruct if I press the wrong ethical button. In the same week that Nelson Mandela died, other stories were vying for my attention. It was International Violence against Women Week, Amazon was accused of potentially exploitative employee practices & the BBC’s Panorama exposed the Military Reaction Force (MRF), alleged to be an unofficial wing of the British army which operated in Northern Ireland at the height of “the troubles”. The BBC reported that the MRF gunned down unarmed, innocent catholic civilians. Shooting & killing with impunity.

Inevitably, I choose one story and wait for the hook for the others to re-emerge. The guilt I often experience for neglecting the others can be all consuming.

The editor of the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington, a woman who knows all about tough choices, has announced she’s unplugging for christmas. She’s urging others to join her. For one week she won’t be accessing email or social networking sites or using her mobile phone. That’s brave for a journalist, let alone the editor a respected international, online news outlet.

Yet, if we never extricate ourselves from the constant noise that pollutes our lives with internet connection, there’s a danger our minds & souls will become scrambled & full of spam. There’s a thin line between technology being an enabler & a catatonia inducing disabler. An energy vampire sucking the life blood out of us. Distracting us from the things that really matter. Family, friends, having time to stand & stare. To think, to breathe & to be present in the moment.

I started this blog in April as an outlet to publish some of my work that the malestream media considers too “controversial” to print. I didn’t think anyone would actually read it, though obviously I hoped they would. I’ve been overwhelmed by the reaction, which was pretty much instant. I have followers all over the world & am often inundated with responses to issues I tackle on the blog.

Whilst I’m humbled by the response this blog has generated, it brings with it a certain pressure. To generate regular content that is topical & insightful & to be constantly available.

In order to do my family, friends, you (my readers) & myself justice, I need to recharge my batteries from time to time &, to do that, I need an internet detox (otherwise I'm a gadget free gal). I’m going to accept Arianna Huffington’s challenge by unplugging today until January 8th. As I write I’m racked by guilt. The unfolding events in South Sudan serve to undermine my resolve. Just one more story before I press the off button. But the reality is, I’ve said it all before. The piece I wrote on South Sudan last year predicted the descent into anarchy if the UN continued to neglect its International human rights obligations (see press section of my website www.tessfinchlees.com) for the piece I wrote in The Independent, “South Sudan Needs Our Help, Not our Silence”.

From today, I’m going to trade my computer in for snakes and ladders, charades, baking biscuits (something I did for the first time yesterday!), foraging and taking “midnight” walks (anytime after dark) with my 6 year old, whereupon we will rendezvous, as per, with Mr Badger in the woods. I’ll be swapping Newsnight & The Moral Maze for repeats of The Wizard of Oz, The Snowman & The Railway Children. I’m going to unashamedly bask in the warmth & laughter of the people in my life that inspire me & make me want to be a better person.

Whether or not you join the burgeoning band of unpluggers, wherever you are in the world, I wish you a gadget, internet & guilt free christmas. Peace & joy will surely follow…

Nelson Mandela's Death Leaves a Vacuum of Moral Leadership

A edited version of this posting was published in the Huffington Post.

Margaret Thatcher’s steadfast dismissal of Nelson Mandela as a terrorist exposed one of her (many) great shortcomings. Her failure to engage with the psychology of oppression. Be it the ANC, the IRA or the PLO, they had to be beaten. Mandela, on the other hand, understood that, when generational injustice prevails and in the absence of hope, otherwise peaceable people will fight back.

As world leaders queue up to pay tribute to Mandela, the absence of successors of his caliber is plain. We have lost the only world leader that was driven by principle, not privilege, morality, not political expedience and compassion for the oppressed, not deference for the oppressors. There is a situation vacant for visionary, ethical leadership but no obvious candidates in the wings.

Tony Blair started off with such potential. His role brokering peace in Northern Ireland is irrefutable, though the real (unsung) hero of the day was Mo Mowlam. But his achievements in Northern Ireland were soon to be overshadowed by his failings in Iraq and Palestine. His empathy for the historical injustices visited upon Catholics in Northern Ireland did not extend to oppressed Muslims throughout the world.

The ongoing trial of the Woolwich killings should serve to shine a spotlight on the psychology of oppression and the legacy it bequeaths. My heart goes out to the family of Lee Rigby who was brutally murdered in May and my thoughts are with them as they’re forced to relive his last moments.

When the story first broke it was hijacked by Islamaphobic media coverage sparking revenge attacks on Mosques and Muslims throughout the country. The media’s propensity to conflate Islam with terrorism is not new. Shortly after 7/11 I was running a seminar 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 he was flaunting a deep tan at the time, which, under the circumstances (media whipping up hatred of any one “foreign looking”), was foolhardy. Tanning booths in Dale Winton’s neighbourhood were on the brink of bankruptcy for a fortnight.

Blair and Bush lost the plot, pursuing their deluded "war on terror" that effectively equated to an indefensible war on Muslims. They acted in defiance of public outrage and as a consequence, I believe, they systematically destabilised the world.

Foreign policy that sanctions torture abroad, such as Guantanamo, will always come back to bite. There is 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 eventually retaliate.

Austerity measures (a euphemism for stealing from the poor to give to the rich) seems to escape media scrutiny in all this. Even before the recession, minority ethnic young men, such as the Woolwich defendants, were more likely to be excluded from school and be over represented in prison, social and psychiatric services, and twice as likely to be unemployed as their white counterparts. A recent report showed that, although this has been known for decades, nothing has been done to stem the crisis.

A generation of young people 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 men by a society that will bail out miscreants in suits but starve our youth of investment, care and any hope for the future. Nelson Mandela inherently knew what his contemporaries fail to grasp, if you have nothing, there’s nothing left to lose.