Harpymarx

Children are unbeatable

harpymarx — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:09:13 +0000

You kinda expect it when there’s a discussion on the physical disciplining of kids. There’s always one who will bleat with authority that, “Being smacked didn’t do me any harm”… I bet somewhere deep in that individual’s psyche it did. And now we see David Lammy advocating physical discipline towards kids as apparently lack of discipline caused the riots….apparently!

I have to say when this was first raised with me I was pretty disparaging. But I started to listen. These parents are scared to smack their children and paranoid that social workers will get involved and take their children away.

Lammy, who admitted to smacking his three- and five-year-old sons, said working-class parents should be able to physically discipline their children to prevent them from joining gangs and getting involved in knife crime.

He added: “The law used to allow ‘reasonable chastisement’, but current legislation stops actions that lead to a reddening of the skin – which for a lot of my non-white residents isn’t really an issue.”

“The ability to exercise their own judgment in relation to discipline and reasonable chastisement has been taken away,” he said.

Firstly, I am appalled Lammy smacks his young children and secondly, what the hell is “reasonable chastisement”… Reasonable chastisement is an elastic term that can be stretched beyond the limits.

Victoria Climbié and “Baby P” lived in Tottenham. The parental figures for both these two children could have argued that they had the moral right to “chastise” them. Both of those children were murdered by either a parent or a close relative (great aunt regarding Victoria Climbié ) yet Lammy doesn’t seem to understand the political significance. Where do you draw the line? Parents who beat their kids senseless could happily argue that they were simply telling them off…”Never did me any harm”…

Violence in families exposes power relations, kids are seen as an addendum of parents and a kind of property therefore physical discipline is deemed acceptable. In the past, patriarchal norms dictated that a man could discipline his wife and kids with a stick or whip no wider than his thumb. Would Lammy argue that if a woman misbehaves in the home she should get a hard slap (as long as you don’t leave a mark same with the kids)? She’s stepping out of line, arguing back and misbehaving…. You need to teach her a lesson and to show who has got the power. Because, let’s face it, it’s on similar lines to what he’s advocating!

Violence is about power and control. When you hit someone who is far less powerful than you it gives a sense of relief, a rush of adrenaline and seeing that the immediate result is that the kid or young person is behaving themselves gives a sense of victory. But what of the individual who has been exposed to the violence? Some victory….

Violence begets violence. I know adults who have experienced violence in the home and school say you become desensitised by it and it becomes normalised. And it also instills a belief that if you want to get by as a kid in life and you want to assert your own authority then the only way is to resort to violence…cos that solves everything, doesn’t it?

Lammy sees it all from the parents point of view (and with his emphasis on working class families is rather interesting and insulting….) and not from a kid. If as a kid you were hit, how did it feel like? Painful? Humiliated? Hurt? Angry? Shocked? Worthless? Is Lammy concerned? Has Lammy spoken to children’s charities?

This is what the NSPCC say:

Research commissioned by the DCSF (IPSOS MORI 2008, Sherbert Research 2007) shows that a significant number of children continue to be hit. Focus group research commissioned by the government with children and young people highlights the extent to which physical punishment can be routinely used; children recounted experiences of being smacked for forgetting to tidy their bedroom, talking back or for accidentally knocking something over (Sherbert Research, 2007).
Most children taking part in an earlier NCB and Save the Children research study described a smack as a ‘hard hit’ or a ‘very hard hit’ (NCB, Save the Children 1998).

And

A total of 23 countries worldwide have now legislated to make all forms of physical punishment against children illegal in all settings. The UK is now one of only five EU countries that have not yet legislated, or committed to legislating, to give children equal protection from assault.

So instead of encouraging violence against kids, Lammy should be arguing that kids and young people should be treated as equals and as the same as adults. Nobody should experience violence.

I remember as a kid myself that some of the biggest bullies in the playground were ones who were experiencing violence in the home. It’s about being able to assert your power and authority over someone who is less powerful. Is that what Lammy wants to instil? Who is the biggest bully? Violence has a negative impact on self-worth, confidence and self-esteem. Does Lammy want to see more damaged adults out there?

The riots in the summer weren’t about lack of discipline but about deprivation, poverty, victimatisation, criminalisation, unemployment, racism, racist policing with the trigger being the shooting of Mark Duggan which all exploded on the streets. Lammy prefers to indulge in the politics of distraction as examining the real underlying issues would implicate the previous New Labour government which Lammy was a part of.

Violence solves nothing, if anything violence begets violence.

Maybe Lammy should be reading the articles on Children Are Unbeatable. Might learn something!

URGENT ACTION: Stop the Welfare Bill

harpymarx — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 08:37:28 +0000

From the LRC website

MPs will be debating the Welfare Reform Bill on Wednesday 1 February 2012, which is the day after the Lords final debate. This is quite clearly a tactic to prevent campaigning and lobbying of MPs which is an attack on democracy. There are important issues at stake – protecting the disabled, including young disabled people and those with cancer, people on housing benefit, lone parents and larger families (details below).

Please email your MP today to lobby them to support the amendments passed by the Lords. If you don’t know who is your MP, find out here.

If you do not have time to write your own letter, you can use the PCS template letter here to email your MP.

Amendment 12 – Protecting Housing Benefit
The amendment seeks to prevent a change to the definition of under-occupation currently used by the Department for Communities and Local Government. The Bill paves the way for a much tougher test than at present, with a hefty under-occupation penalty – a cut to the housing benefit – for those whose accommodation fails the new test.
This amendment has been supported by housing charities as it penalises people with extra bedrooms. This means for instance that someone who becomes unemployed who lives alone and has two small bedrooms will be driven further into debt and may face homelessness. In many parts of the country there may not be a supply of one bedroom flats for people to live in.
As an alleged social evil under-occupancy has only really been trailed by the government since the summer. There has not been any period of research and debate about what the effects of these measures may be.

Amendment 36A – Protecting young disabled people
To ensure young people who are very severely disabled and who are assessed as qualifying for the support group continue to be entitled to contributory employment support allowance (ESA) in the future.
This is an important social object as this specific benefit gives independence to young disabled people. Stopping this benefit would not save much money but would wreck lives. The typical disability would be a young person who has learning difficulties. Having contributory ESA makes people much vulnerable to exploitation. Many will go onto means test ESA instead and will require greater support to do so as a result of the greater complexity instead with barely any saving (as the means tested benefit will be for the same amount for most people) to the public purse.

Amendment 38 – oppose the introduction of a 12-month limit on which those in the work-related activity group (WRAG) are able to claim contributory ESA
12-month limit on contributory ESA will cause much more poverty as after one year the benefit will become means-tested. A couple living in the same house, one working just above the minimum wage the other on contributory ESA, the salary of the worker is not taken into consideration BUT once it becomes means-tested it will. Therefore it will increase poverty and takes away independence. Particularly affected will be claimants who have a low paid working partner. Ironically in the view of the policy objective of making sure work pays if partners of contributory ESA claimants move back into work they will be worse off under the government’s proposal. If some moves back into work while their partner is on contributory ESA then the ESA is unaffected and the household gets a clear increase in income. If the contributory ESA is replaced by a means tested benefit any income from a start in work will be drastically reduced by the tapers that exist in the means tested regime.This tapers will become much steeper with the introduction of Universal Credit.

Amendment 38A – Protecting those with limited work capacity due to cancer
(a) where a person is receiving treatment for cancer when entitlement shall continue for so long as the person has (or is treated as having) limited capacity for work; or
(b) the person has (or is treated as having) limited capacity for work as a consequence of a cancer diagnosis.
When people are fighting cancer they need support not being bullied by the state to find work. People with their jobs being held open for them until they get better will be unable to claim JSA as one of the conditions of entitlement of JSA is that you do not have a job. Again the irony is that people will be asking their employers to dismiss them for incapacity in order to have food to eat! Some people will be forced from work and on to long term benefits by this measure. It will also force people into pointless job searching to comply with the JSA rules when they should be concentrating on getting better.

Amendment 59 – Exclude Child Benefit from the benefit cap
The arithmetic does not make sense a household with an earned income of £26000 will be getting the full amount of Child Benefit for the children within it. The important social policy objective of giving women independence within a relationship will be lost. The children will suffer if a male claimant holds back money from his female partner. This does happen in abusive relationships. It also makes escaping domestic violence much more difficult by women in abusive relationships also caught by the benefit cap.

Amendment 62C – Oppose government proposals to charge single parents for using the Child Support Agency
Most women caught in poverty do not have the resources to pursue absent partners. Whether they are on benefit or balancing work with being a lone parent they are not often in a position to deal with getting money from an unwilling or in impecunious absent parent.

Report on yesterday’s TUC seminar on disability and emplyment

harpymarx — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:06:45 +0000

Yesterday, I attended the TUC seminar on A positive agenda for disability and employment: A seminar on the Government’s Cuts and Reforms

Speakers included Prof Paul Gregg, Declan Gaffney, Kaliya Franklin (‘Bendy Girl’) and TUC economist Richard Exell, former member of the Disability Rights Commission. Unfortunately Sue Marsh (‘Diary of a Benefit Scrounger’) couldn’t attend due to illness. It was chaired by Nicola Smith Head of Economic and Social Affairs Department at the TUC.

The seminar was about the changing to the benefits system. The new Welfare Reform Bill is skyrocketing through the commons, fortunately the Lords has voted down certain elements of the draconian Bill. But this hasn’t stopped the ConDems who will continue their ideological onslaught on the poor. I attended the seminar mainly to listen to Kaliya (who I know mainly through her blog/Twitter account as “Bendy Girl”) especially as she was one of the authors, along with Sue Marsh and Declan Gaffney, of the “Spartacus Report”. I was also interested in what Paul Gregg to say bearing in mind his recommendations were included in the previous Welfare Reform Act under NL and James Purnell as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Declan Gaffney was not someone I had heard speak before but had read articles by him in the Guardian. And Richard Exell, I have heard on many occasions at these events before.

Paul Gregg (Labour market analysis) started his presentation with the statement that the cuts are falling on families and the disabled, who will also be experiencing the “sharp end of the stick” when it comes to the changes in the WRB. He’s right when he says that there’s this myth being peddled that the benefits system is “out of control”. It’s not. The problem I have with Gregg’s analysis (other than his part in the previous Welfare Reform Act) is that he states that during the recession of the late 1980s onwards, disabled people were pushed out of the workforce due to employers seeing them as “nonproductive”, which was undoubtedly true but there are also other explanations as to why sickness benefits rose, such as the actively seeking work rules come in. Until then someone could claim benefits for being unemployed without having to show they were looking for work. This meant that a lot of people with health problems could sign on. This coupled with the supplementary benefit rules for additional payments meant there was no reason for people to go onto the forerunner of Incapacity Benefit, Invalidity Benefit. Therefore people bumped off signing on and bumped out of their jobs claimed Invalidity Benefit and later Incapacity Benefit.

Gregg concluded that because disabled workers were pushed out, they stayed out. He believes that people should be moved back into work by support and engagement. Incapacity benefit to ESA (which he was involved in) was designed to get people back into the job market with “generous financial incentives for providers”. But, as I stated during the Q&A, that’s not what is happening in reality. Before Purnell and now IDS spout the language of “support” and “help” all fluffy and meaningful words yet the reality is coercion, sanctions and conditionality. Also, I stated, that the Work Capability Assessment was a travesty and a total mess. It’s trial by computer. These providers are not interested in need they see pound signs in their eyes. Profits to be made, gagging orders, and “parking and creaming”. I also argued that the private sector should be removed from the benefits system and that the state should run all of the functions. Yes, the state has problems but 1. it’s accountable and 2. nobody makes a profit. The continued privatisation of the benefits systems has made things utterly worse. Purnell, Gregg and Freud unleashed a Frankenstein monster with previous Welfare Reform legislation along culture of dependency and now the ConDems are continuing the trend.

Gregg presented Powerpoint presentations and statistics in a very anodyne manner but the reality is for blunter and brutal. Funny as well, Gregg never referred the intervention I made about the privatisation of the welfare system, incompetency of Atos nor the fact that conditionality and sanctions should be removed confined to the dustbin as they are an insult (to applause from the audience).

Kaliya Franklin argued that the changes to benefits will create perverse incentives. There is cross party consensus (Liam Byrne supports the cap on benefits). And in times of austerity, a powerless group in society is stigmatised, vilified and demonised. There has been shift in now in blaming the individual. During the past couple of years, benefits have been tightened and withdrawn altogether. Kaliya outlined some of these perverse and pernicious clauses:

Clause 51: Limit contributory ESA to 1 year.

At the moment if someone is on contributory ESA and they have a partner who works, the salary of the worker is not taken into account. BUT with this proposal, after one year, your partner’s salary will be taken into consideration and means tested.

Clause 52: Abolition of youth ESA for new claimants. Existing claimants at that date will be able to continue claiming, but entitlement will be limited to one year from the time entitlement began, disregarding time in the support group. Time spent on youth ESA prior to April 2012 will count towards the time limit.

This will affect young disabled people as it will take away independence.

She also spoke about Local Authority’s cutting social care, rationed or withdrawn completely (this began to happen under NL). Birmingham Council, for example, has changed the criteria for care as “super critical” it is nothing more than a cut cutting exercise that puts disabled people at risk. See this report about Elaine McDonald to illustrate the barbarity of these cuts.

The argument and justification by the ConDems for the replacement of DLA to PIP (Personal Independence Payment) is fraudulent claims, which is misleading. One of the reasons why the Responsible Report (Spartacus Report) was published to counteract these claims but to also show that the ConDems cherry picked responses and that they refused to publish all of the responses hence why the authors of the report put in Freedom of Information requests. Around half a million disabled people will lose access to DLA. This is where the “Big Society” is expected to paper over the cracks of cuts and replacing state support. With the attacks on benefits and also housing benefit many, including Kaliya, won’t be able to afford the rent where they live. Access to Work is being tightened, rules being changed and so on. It also means taking away independence. Along with the increased demonisation of people of benefits, there has been a 75% increase in hate crime towards disabled people within the 12 months. So much for a responsible media! The constant abuse will lead to do distress, despair and suicide. This is a perfect storm. Becoming more punitive and oppressive towards disabled people.

Richard Exell’s introduction included a history of the progress made in the past few years regards to changes with the DDA and Equality Act. Civil rights have progressed for disabled people but not economic equality. It has got worse for women and disabled people (especially with the onset of this recession and unemployment). NL foreshadowed the problems. He argues that there should be socially sanctioned income for people who can’t get work. Factors will include exhaustion, nausea, pain and so on. People experiencing these won’t be expected to work. Exell supports the idea of sanctioning people (he’s stated that before) even if it is with the best intentions you are still siding with an ideology that believes people can’t be trusted and punished. Even if you oppose the overall ideology of the right (which Exell claims he does) supporting sanctions still puts you on the side of the right. Sanctions (and conditionality) are wrong and don’t work!

Declan Gaffney started his intervention with the fact that the grievances the ConDems (and NL….Ed Miliband and Liam Byrne) have about “scroungers” is imaginary along with the deserving and undeserving poor as there’s no distinction nor any given basis. John Humphrys awful programme on the welfare state and benefits portrayed the unemployed as static, that things don’t change, immobile block. It’s creates two homogenous groups. Yet the reality is much more complex (mental health doesn’t get mentioned as much as it should). UK employment for disabled people is not exceptionally low when comparing with similar wealthy European economies but for those with “more severe work-limiting restrictions” is weak compared to some other countries. And for those with lower qualifications and more severe restrictions UK performs very badly!

One question from the audience was about Labour’s narrative. The panel had really nothing to say about Labour’s narrative because there isn’t one except to agree parrot fashion the ConDems. There’s no coherent alternative from Labour or opposition.

Vote for squirrel… Please!!

harpymarx — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:01:17 +0000

I entered this FaceBook Mind photograph competition and it is open now for the public vote. My pic is of a squirrel here. So if you “like” the pic it would be really nice of you. Also, think of the squirrel, it’s the animal to think of during autumn, other than leaves turning, collecting nuts, scampering around and running up trees. So think of the squirrel, they need the nuts and the positive advertisement. Ohhh… and those bushy tails. If you have a FaceBook account please “like” the bushy tailed rat with good PR.

Vote for squirrel.

Thanks in advance……..

Work Capability Assessment and the ATOS experience

harpymarx — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:16:14 +0000

It was raining heavily and the trains were on time. I rushed along the road trying not to miss the building but it kinda stuck out like a sore thumb and it would be hard not to notice it as it had all the charm and quaintness of an old DSS building. Instead it’s welcome to Atos Healthcare, where I have an appointment for an assessment. I am buzzed in and have to sign a few forms, then show ID such as a bank card. Then I sit down in the airless windowless waiting room looking at other anxious souls waiting for their turn.

I am called kind of promptly, introduced to a male nurse (had he any training in mental distress?) and then swiftly taken into another airless, windowless and extremely stuffy room. The light is very sharp on my vision along with the heat I become sleepy due to the anti-depressants and anxiety.

The nurse tries to put me at ease and explains the procedure. Do I feel at ease? Don’t think I do. His voice is soft and welcoming but it all sounds rehearsed.

I am asked how I got to the place (helpfully Atos on the back of the referral letter give you travel instructions) and how long it took me approximately. Then it is routine questions about my depression such as whether I am able to cook, socialise, carry out house work, dress myself and so on. While I speak he is tapping away on the computer rarely looking up at me. The questions become more personal and intrusive such as asking me about whether I have been suicidal (thinking it or attempting it). My own respond betrays my own nervousness and anxiety of answering this question as it is deeply personal. He swiftly moves on about what support I am getting, GP, counselling service, partner, friends and so on. Hobbies and interests, what do I do during the day and so on. Very basic and indeed opaque questions. It occurred to me how they could they extrapolate information about me based on quick questions where you can’t really go into that much depth. Asking very superficial questions will only get a one-dimensional answers.

My own interview lasted 20 minutes and most of that was with the Atos nurse tapping away on the computer without looking at me that much or even apologising for all the typing. The only eye contact was when he looked up to ask questions. This style of computer-based quick-fire questioning will either make or break my entitlement to benefits. With all that constant typing surely concentration is lost and mistakes inevitably made.I was told I would be contacted within 3 weeks.

I was contacted within 3 weeks and was, surprised not in the least, unsuccessful. I have followed the legions of other claimants knocked back by this flawed approach. Apparently 400,000 appeals (and the number is growing) have been lodged against decisions not to grant the benefit since it was launched in October 2008, and 39% have been successful. I wonder what my own scores will be again will it highlight the haphazard hit and miss of this assessment.

With all the negative media headlines generated to attack claimants accusing them of being workshy and scroungers creates more fear and anxiety. Sitting in an Atos room answering deeply personal and intrusive questions about your life is soul destroying, humiliating and upsetting. Your life is exposed and put under a microscope, jumping through countless hoops just to continue to receive a meagre amount of benefit which isn’t about living it’s about barely existing.

Vigil outside Parliament – Welfare Reform Bill

harpymarx — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:30:59 +0000

I attended the vigil and lobby outside Parliament regarding the Welfare Reform Bill and the ongoing attacks on welfare benefits.

Anna Chen Presents ‘Traders’

harpymarx — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:56:20 +0000

Mark this date in your diary, 16 Feb 2012!
This is will be a very good night. Satirising and spoofing the blood soaked history of British imperialism and the Opium Wars. I will be playing one of the biggest drug addicts of the ruling class, Queen Victoria, explaining in, no uncertain terms, why the Opium Wars was good for business, free trade and drug smuggling. Queen Victoria cares not one jot about the oppression of the Chinese or to be more exact, forcing Opium on them by violence and brutality.

So if you want to see me dressed as a regal Queen reading poetry and listen to performances by Anna Chen and friends. Come along….The evening includes legendary writer Charles Shaar Murray on guitar, and former Flying Lizards singer Deborah Evans-Stickland performing her classic mega-hit, ‘Money (That’s What I Want)’. Oh and historical characters connected to the Opium Wars battling it out on stage……

Please come along………..

Thursday 16 February
Anna Chen Presents Traders’ requires booking but the event is FREE .  Online: www.rmg.co.uk/tickets  (Tel: 020 8312 6608)  The Bookings Office is open 10.00-16.00.

Experience a unique evening of live performance, poetry and music in the company of our flamboyant hostess and cultural provocateur Anna Chen.

China and the Opium Wars of the 19th century are the theme of this satirical extravaganza, written and performed by Anna Chen and friends. The evening includes legendary writer Charles Shaar Murray on guitar, and former Flying Lizards singer Deborah Evans-Stickland performing her classic mega-hit, ‘Money (That’s What I Want)’.

The evening will feature a poetry slam led by UK slam poetry pioneers Farrago Poetry Slam. Historical characters from the Opium Wars will battle it out on stage, led by slam maestro John-Paul O’Neil. You will have the chance to join workshops and write your own poems too.

Also on the night, see a very alternative tea ceremony and follow a Chinese Lascar sailor on his journey through the Traders gallery. DJ Zoe Baxter (of Resonance FM’s Lucky Cat) will be playing from a fabulous selection of 1920s and 30s Chinese music throughout the evening.

Part of the Traders Unpacked season, 25 September 2011—25 February 2012. Events programme sponsored by Sharwood’s.
Established by a group of London merchants, the East India Company was given its first royal charter by Elizabeth I. By the time it was abolished 250 years later, Queen Victoria was on the throne. Traders: the East India Company and Asia is a new gallery at the museum which examines the history and relevance of Britain’s trade with Asia, through the East India Company.

Image of Anna Chen, credit Jan Jefferies

Workfare … welcome to the nightmare

harpymarx — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:12:03 +0000

Every time I go to a supermarket I wonder how many of the staff are on workfare placements and how many are paid a wage. And it is no surprise that retailers are taking liberties when it comes to exploiting unpaid labour especially ones whose profits are nose diving. There’s an excellent piece by Anne-Marie O’Reilly and Warren Clark on plans to extend ‘welfare-to-work’ (it includes first hand experiences of workfare). False Economy will be publishing a series of posts on workfare with journalist Kate Belgrave’s post on workfare in the USA.

Workfare is building momentum. Retailers, councils and charities are seeing unpaid labour as a way of beating the cuts coupled with the ideology of attacking pay and conditions, driving down salaries. Legal challenges are in the pipeline and it will be interesting how the courts interpret “forced labour”. To fight workfare we need an organised political campaign with the trade unions at the forefront as, to reiterate, it’s a wholesale attack on pay and conditions, workers rights, criminalising the unemployed and it’s all ideological. One day we will wake up finding ourselves part of an unpaid labour force.

In the coming months:

People who have been unemployed for more than two years and haven’t secured sustainable employment could be referred onto compulsory community work placements under plans being considered by the Government.

As Boycott Workfare state:

In a clear sign that the government intends to use forced labour to replace the gaps left in public service delivery, the provider guidelines suggest that a community placement would be appropriate at Local Authorities and Councils, Government Departments and Agencies, Charities and third sector organisations, Social Enterprises, and Environmental Agencies.

If your council isn’t involved in “work placements” there’s a good chance they will be. It is imperative that we put political pressure on councils and councillors to refuse to take part and pledge that they won’t engage in compulsory work-for-benefits placements. And you may remember Islington Council a couple of months ago stated:

We are also not a work programme contractor, so will be asking the DWP to correct this mistake. The council did look into the programme when it was first announced, but the decision was made many months ago not to proceed.

Yet look at what they are proposing now, child labour. Gosh…. the stench of the Dickensian is becoming more and more obvious.

Schoolchildren as young as 14 are to be offered adult jobs such as repairing roads and clerical work in a bid to give them a “work ethic”.

Islington council wants to pay new “junior assistants” £25 to work up to eight hours a week, which it hopes will break the cycle of unemployment in deprived areas of the borough.

Council leader Catherine West said: “It may be entry-level jobs like delivering post to schools or helping with highway repairs or photocopying and filing, or making tea and coffee for meetings. These are real council roles and it’s about trying to develop a work ethic earlier than 17 or 18.

“We hope young people can get into jobs before they get a lot of free time on their hands and start mixing with people who may not be the best mentors in the world.” She added that child staff would be supervised by adult workers and hoped the move would lead to the council returning to being the “employer of choice” of local people.

Furthermore

The Labour-run authority faces an £18 million cut in its government grant and will soon sack 140 more staff, but denied using children to fill adult posts. Islington’s bylaws state that 14-year-olds can undertake light work as long as their safety or education is not compromised.

Child labour dressed up as instilling young people with the “work ethic”. This will have an impact specifically on working class young people, working for peanuts when education should be integral not child labour. And this coming from a Labour controlled council! These are shocking proposals and we should be challenging it. Even the opportunistic and hypocritical yellow Tories don’t like it.

Opposition Lib-Dem leader Terry Stacy said: “This project is ill thought-out and a return to Victorian workhouses. How many council roles happen after 5.30pm or on Saturdays? What they should be considering is viable work experience linked to the curriculum.”

Combined with all this:

Contractors delivering the programme also have to gain approval before making any press announcements
Charities and other groups delivering the Work Programme have signed up to a contract that says they will “not do anything which may attract adverse publicity” for the Department for Work and Pensions, Third Sector has learned.

And

The provisions came to light after an employee at a charity delivering the Work Programme, who had been in contact with Third Sector, said she could not speak about the programme because she had learned of the restrictions in the contract.

The provisions are in the contracts between the DWP and the Work Programme’s prime providers. Third Sector understands that the adverse publicity clause has been passed to some charity subcontractors through a condition added by some primes that all terms in their own contracts with the DWP also apply to groups in their supply chains.

Interesting. I wonder if the private companies involved in the work programme have put pressure on the DWP to include this clause? This is a problem when the state brings in the private sector to mess up the public sector. Private companies will be able to gag you with the bourgeois defamation laws and corporate confidentiality, combined with wielding power and control over people and what they say/write (claimants who speak out and expose the behaviour of contracted-out providers of the benefits system… and the result being they get gagged…). There will be increased secrecy, transparency and accountability will be fundamentally eroded.

Welcome to the dystopian present/future of workfare!

H/T regarding Islington Council and child labour goes to Mark from Boycott Workfare. Boycott Workfare have a meeting tomorrow (unfortunately I can’t attend)

Wednesday 11th January, 7pm, 11 Goodwin Street, Finsbury Park, N4 3HQ

To keep informed about Workfare check Boycott Workfare and Corporate Watch regularly.

Wouldn’t be 2012 without a heron photo……

harpymarx — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:15:33 +0000

It wouldn’t be 2012 without a picture or two of a heron….

Justice 18 years on

harpymarx — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 22:20:11 +0000

Justice prevailed today. It had come after 18 years. Two of the suspects in the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence have been found guilty. In the words of Doreen Lawrence:

How can I celebrate when I know that this day could have come 18 years ago if the police, who were meant to find my son’s killers, had not failed so miserably to do so.

Indeed 18 years. A case that exposed institutionalised racism within the cops. Tenacity and bravery of the Lawrence family who constantly fought for justice. Doreen Lawrence wrote a book a couple of years ago called, “Still I Rise” inspired by the poem by Maya Angelou.

Still I Rise - Maya Angelou

You may write me down in history

With your bitter, twisted lies,

You may trod me in the very dirt

But still, like dust, I’ll rise.

Does my sassiness upset you?

Why are you beset with gloom?

’Cause I walk like I’ve got oil wells

Pumping in my living room.

Just like moons and like suns,

With the certainty of tides,

Just like hopes springing high,

Still I’ll rise.

Did you want to see me broken?

Bowed head and lowered eyes?

Shoulders falling down like teardrops,

Weakened by my soulful cries?

Does my haughtiness offend you?

Don’t you take it awful hard

’Cause I laugh like I’ve got gold mines

Diggin’ in my own backyard.

You may shoot me with your words,

You may cut me with your eyes,

You may kill me with your hatefulness,

But still, like air, I’ll rise.

Does my sexiness upset you?

Does it come as a surprise

That I dance like I’ve got diamonds

At the meeting of my thighs?

Out of the huts of history’s shame

I rise

Up from a past that’s rooted in pain

I rise

I’m a black ocean, leaping and wide,

Welling and swelling I bear in the tide.

Leaving behind nights of terror and fear

I rise

Into a daybreak that’s wondrously clear

I rise

Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave,

I am the dream and the hope of the slave.

I rise

Michael Mansfield on the verdict

Kevin on Some Thoughts on the Stephen Lawrence Convictions