An open letter to the **** (just joking) Jeremy Clarkson

An open letter to the **** (just joking) Jeremy Clarkson

From a mentally ill ex public service worker.

Dear bigot (just joking) Jeremy,

I wonder if it's because you grew up with the initials JC that you believe you have some sort of God-given right to mock, abuse, and denigrate people whose lives you do not understand. Sad as that would be, for surely it would mean that you are suffering from some sort of delusional mental illness, I think that would be preferable to the alternative, i.e. That you are a loudmouthed, bigoted, sociopath who is unable to walk in the shoes of others. (That's not an invitation to walk in mine, I can only afford to buy one pair at a time and I fear that your aura might distort them beyond the point where they are useful to me. (Just joking: obviously.)).

Before I get to the nitty-gritty I suppose I ought to come clean and say that I am not a fan of either you or your television programme. In the days when I did watch motoring programmes on the television it was because I wanted to know about the sort of motorcar that I could afford to buy, it was not to watch grown men having the sort of conversation about cars that any group of 13-year-olds might have while playing a game of Top Trumps in the playground. It's about that age, 13 to 15, most young people realise that threatening to kill people is a fairly stupid thing to do, and yet you, an adult, told the world this week that you would like to shoot people like me.

Have you ever had any psychological tests Jeremy, I'm not qualified to say such things - (though that's never stopped you has it) - but I'm wondering if you're suffering from some sort of delayed cognitive development (joking?).

Am I being unfair, would I be saying these things if I really knew you? (I suspect I would be, don't you?). But it is unfair when someone does something like that isn't it? And yet this week you have used, possibly abused, your privileged position as a public mouthpiece to insult, to abuse, and to (attempt, (I think it failed)) ridicule me and thousands like me.

I am a public service pensioner. I was retired "on health grounds" when my spine collapsed and I lost the ability to remove myself quickly from the vicinity of the most violent of the people I worked with and supported in your name.

When I was 40 years old I had moved from "industry" to "social work" for ethical reasons, I knew that I would earn nothing like the salary I could have earned in industry doing a job with a similar level of stresses and responsibility, but was told that would be compensated for when I retired, when, because of the not insubstantial contributions I would have made, I would receive a "good" pension.

(No one needed to explain to me, after all, it's common sense isn't it? that many public servants, police, firemen, ambulance staff, have an upward age limit on the time they could continue in their jobs. It's always been obvious to me that these folk would require a reasonable pension if they were not to be impoverished when they retired in their 50s.

That says nothing of the dangers these folk face in your name, the dangers faced by the three examples I name above are self evident but teachers are attacked by pupils and the parents of those pupils, nurses and doctors by their patients, and social workers and probation officers, and the low paid office workers who make it possible for these people to do their job efficiently, are attacked frequently.).

The only time I have ever taken industrial action was in 1989 when we social workers discovered that the secretaries who were typing our court reports and our notes were taking home less money than the "impoverished" people we were employed to act on behalf of. The media and right wing politicians of that time, just like their counterparts this week, used their disproportionate control over written and televised media in an attempt to ridicule the strikers, by attempting to minimise the statistics regarding the number of people taking direct action, and to obscure the real purpose of our action by repeatedly quoting examples of the salaries of the most senior social work staff to drown out valid union representation of the least well-paid of its members. (Incidentally, those "High Earning", senior members of staff were not striking, they were staffing the telephones and emergency services so that social service users were not disadvantaged). Interesting isn't it that here we are over 20 years later listening to the same arguments from both sides (On the Government side from some of the same people!).

Now Jeremy, what I am in reasonably unique position to know is that those striking public service workers have contributed a great deal more to their pension schemes in the past than those in the private sector did. This is what the argument this week (this year) has been about, not what might happen in the future but what will happen to the money that these workers have, in effect, put by to support them when they retire. If this government were to say to you that they are going to retrospectively tax you on any savings you have made since you began work I suspect you might have some sort of opinion about that.

This week the coalition government has been laughably "talking up" the miniscule new tax they are applying to banks and bankers, but there is no talk of this being applied retrospectively, back to the time when banks first began making extortionate profits.

Know what Jeremy, I suspect that (like the true child of Thatcher you are) you do not like the term "unfair", I suspect you would like to see people with a problem get off of their arses and do something about it. Well Jeremy, that is what the public sector workers did this week, in accordance with "Laws" laid down by Thatcher's Government, yet you, and the right wing politicians who think the way you do, attempted to lampoon them for doing it. I realise that you were probably "Only Joking" but, I think you should know that the 2 million strikers and millions like me who supported their action, did not find any of it very funny.

The other thing I do not find funny is that my public sector pension, which you are all so envious of, is worth less than £100 a week to me. (And I'm not joking).
 

And now to your second "funny" remark of this week, the one during which you claimed that people who commit suicide by throwing themselves under trains are being selfish.

The sad thing about this for me is that it is different from "funny?" remarks you made about shooting strikers. Those remarks, along with your previous "humorous" soliloquies regarding the "Green" movement; and those you make to reinforce the gender stereotypes which some of us have been working as long as you have lived to remove; can be put down as the ranting of an uninformed bigot. Here my concern is that unlike those occasions, you appeared to have some knowledge of the subject you sought to ridicule. After all, in one of your interviews you made it clear that you are aware that those who choose to die in this way have a very high success rate.

You might like to know that among those of us who fight daily against the desire to end our own lives it is well known that those who have "had enough" will jump, (from bridges, buildings, or under trains), or, they will shoot or hang themselves (and my contempt of you is even greater because you chose to value being able to drive your car through traffic free London above the loss of human life during a week when the family of Gary Speed have had to begin the journey of coming to terms with his choosing to end his life in that way.).

When, like me, you have sat in waiting rooms or on wards full of people who really do see, and are genuinely terrified of, little green men, other people who desperately want to take "that way" out of a life haunted by televisions that speak to them, or hearing voices which constantly tell them to harm themselves or those they love, or hallucinations which play out before them scenes far more horrific than the most talented creators of horror films can imagine. Once you have got to know those people you will be entitled to begin to think you might have a right to apply cruel labels to us, to my people, and to my friends, the most courageous people I know.

In a society that uses the word "depressed" to describe the feeling when one loses a mobile phone or is upset by a remark made by another, it is easy to forget that Clinical Depression, and Bipolar Disorder are terminal illnesses, terminal because they cannot be cured and more often than not will end with the premature death of the person with the illness. (The impact of the second illness on the sufferer and those closest to them is further discounted by the way the term "Manic" has been so distorted through common, inappropriate, media usage).

The strategy used by many sufferers of mental illness, and the professionals who treat them and care for them, is to combat their wish to be dead through invoking and visualising thoughts of how their deaths will affect those who love and care for them. Wife's, Husband's, Children, Grandchildren, Partner's, Boyfriend's, Girlfriend's, the Cat, and the Dog, the feelings of all of these take on massive significance when the thought patterns of those with mental illness become dominated by the wish to die. Many of us will have been using these images and thoughts for the benefit of others for years, even though they keep us trapped in an endless cycle of fear, anxiety, loneliness and alienation.

For many of us our first thoughts on waking are occupied with deciding strategies we will employ that day to hide our innermost thoughts and feelings from those we love so they do not become worried or distressed about, or by, us.

Many of us travel to work praying that this will not be the day when something happens to cause enough extra stress for us to betray the torment in our heads. For some of us that means running through every possible eventuality of the coming day so that we are not "caught out" and do not betray our "true" self. This of course means arriving at work already mentally exhausted and travelling through the rest of the day on automatic pilot.

The same process begins on the journey home in an attempt to predict situations or actions by us, which cause worry or sadness for those we live with. While we sit and watch the TV with you we are constantly monitoring the affect of "our selves" on you while trying to grasp enough of the TV programme to answer you if you ask about it. (We are the best multitaskers in the world and I can tell you, because I've done both, it's a lot more tiring than driving very fast a car designed for that purpose).

Tomorrow begins the moment we get into bed tonight, when, instead of being able to celebrate the achievements of getting through the day just passed, we are compelled to begin plotting how we must be from the time we wake in the morning. A process that might take several hours, meaning that by the time we sleep, tomorrow is already here and we wake troubled, and un-refreshed, as the cycle described above inevitably re-occurs.

Selfish Jeremy, I don't think so, most of us who finally escape the cycle require more real courage to do so than you need to drive across a traffic filled London. We are often glad for a colleague who has managed to find that window of escape from the cycle, and those whose windows of opportunity lead onto a railway platform, onto the roof of the building, or onto a bridge, deserve the most respect because they chose a route from which they knew there was not the remotest possibility of return. These are often those of us whose previous escape attempts had been derided as "a cry for help" or "acting out".

When "our" day comes and the fog clears from our eyes, the voices in our heads are quietened, and our hallucinations are of kindly persons taking our hands and leading us to some calm and peaceful place, it will not be selfishness that drives us forward, quite the opposite in fact, for many of us it will be because prior to these wonderful things happening we have finally convinced ourselves that the best thing we could do for those we love the most: Wives, Husbands, Children, Grandchildren, Partners, Boyfriends, Girlfriends, the cat and the dog: is to save them from the future fears, and worries, and from the sadness and pain that we know we will continue to bring into their lives.

That's about it really Jeremy. I don't really expect any of this to change what you might do or say in the future. I, like many others, watched in disbelief as you and your playground pals vandalised and ruined the garden of Steve Redgrave in the name of "good television" and "charity" a few years ago, and we realised on that day what a massive Kant you are. Interestingly two other modern day massive Kant's; named Cameron and Johnson; are also very skilled at obscuring and minimising acts of vandalism perpetrated by themselves while spreading callous and damaging gossip about those whose lives they have made no attempt to understand.

In my opening paragraph I advocated that you should walk in the shoes of others before making condemnatory statements about them. I've changed that view. While placing your words of this week under greater scrutiny I've come to the conclusion that I do not want to subject my vulnerable and sensitive friends and colleagues to your adolescent, unfeeling rhetoric.

I would still like you to call them together before you next pass ill informed, right wing propaganda led judgements of them. I would still like you to ask them to remove their shoes, but, rather than placing those shoes on your feet, I suggest you place them between your lips and hold them there until the desire to pontificate in the uneducated, ill informed, manner of a bigot, leaves you.

 

For theBrokenOfBritain campaign “Left Out In The Cold” - 2

The Welfare Reform Bill and You.

http://thebrokenofbritain.blogspot.com/p/our-mission.html

If you are following te Guardian Link you want this one

http://brianbeesblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/for-thebrokenofbritain-campaign-left.html

In my first blog for the "the Broken of Britain: Left Out In The Cold" campaign I told you some things about my life and related those to the welfare state as it once was, and then I related my current life situations to the welfare state as it will be if the Welfare Reform Bill is passed by Parliament. In this second blog I would like to talk about what the Welfare Reform Bill might mean for you. Yes, you.

If you read the first blog you will be aware that for most of my life I did not consider myself to be disabled at all. That disability had crept up on me, impairing my mobility when I was in my mid-40s, and completely disabling, (if we take that word to mean putting out of action), me in my mid-50s. What I hope this tells you is that however you feel now there is no guarantee that life and the rigours of living will not play the same trick on you or one of your loved one as it did on me. Before we carry on I would like you to click on the link beneath this paragraph which should open a web page at the top of which there is a photograph I would like you to look at for a moment and then return here when you are ready.

http://bit.ly/dJ6zVs

Welcome back, what did you see? Some might have seen a brilliant artistic image which expresses some facet (your interpretation) of living with a disability, some might have interpreted the photograph as a representation of soft porn and some might have been reminded about an old joke of Billy Connolly's in which he used to talk about finding a place to park his bicycle.

I'm with that first group, when I first saw this image I also saw a breathtaking piece of art but, unlike you, I was already aware of what the model and the photographer were wanting to convey. What you've been looking at is a woman who has exposed herself to discomfort, pain, and possibly illness to fulfil her desire of conveying to you just how it feels to be a member of the community of disabled people who inhabit Britain at this time.

You see someone who is alone, someone who is possibly distressed and who is certainly very vulnerable. Someone who requires assistance but there is no one there who can help. Although it may not have occurred to him or her at the time, the Photographer is a metaphor for the majority of our current society, the “able bodied”, who are observing the helplessness and vulnerability of the disabled community at this time but who are doing little or nothing about it because they also feel helpless, a feeling we sometimes invoke just through our presence.

If you belong in that spectator group it doesn’t mean you are automatically a bad person. Us “Bendies” and “Loonies” become very skilful at interpreting the moods of others and we realise there may be several reasons for your feelings of impotence. It might be because you simply do not know what you should do to help us, it may be because you can't think what you might say to a person whose vulnerability is so obvious, it may be because you've digested the current political ideology which implies that all people with disability could do more to help themselves, or, because of your lack of knowledge regarding persons with disabilities, it possibly hasn’t occurred to you that there is anything to be done. Finally, if you are a member of the current Tory Party you will believe that Kaliya Franklin has exercised her personal responsibility and chooses to lay down eating mud on a wet and freezing cold beach.

With one exception these are all valid points of view regarding the situation I am describing. Many of us "Bendies and Nutcases" would have felt the same way when we were you. We know that now we, through stubbornly refusing every offer of help we receive even when we need it, can leave people wary of offering assistance even when the need for it is obvious. However, I promise you that you would view a scenario like the one above very differently if you were to become one of us.

Right now we do need your help. The reason this government, and the previous one, have targeted disabled people instead of their historic victims, single parents and immigrants, is because those groups now account for a large proportion of eligible voters. They consider we do not. Just as the mentally disabled have been the impoverished, money starved, portion of the disabled Social Services and NHS provision since 1948 because they are comparatively small in number, so the whole disabled community is now considered fair game for institutional abuse and financial disregard by a government who do not consider us to be a significant voting force. They have a point if they are just counting us, but they are forgetting that we all have friends and relatives who also have friends and relatives and that among those people is YOU and you are interested in US or you wouldn’t be reading this, so if you come and join us, and bring your friends and family with you, suddenly WE will become, in voting terms, a significant number.

Whether you are joining us because you have seen the light and now realise that you, or a loved one might become one of us one day, or you are joining us for purely altruistic reasons, WE think we all should have some knowledge of the decimation the Welfare Rights Amendment Bill will bring down on OUR social care and health services which we and our parents paid for with our taxes and National Insurance contributions.

Cleverer people than I have analysed and summarised the bill so I will not try to outdo them because I couldn’t. What I can do is point you to some of the information the politicians are ignoring so that you can form an informed opinion. Okay? Lets go.

Regarding Housing Benefit

In Sept 2010 Citizens Advice Said:
“Proposed cuts to housing benefit will result in higher levels of poverty, debt, rent arrears and homelessness and should be delayed, national charity Citizens Advice says today.”
And much more HERE: http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_20100910

And in December 2010 The Guardian said:
“Housing benefit cut could double homeless numbers, charities warn
Coalition of 17 charities warn government that cut announced in spending review could put 8,000 more people on streets”
And much more HERE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/29/housing-benefit-cut-homeless

And on March 7th 2011 The Daily Mail Said:
‘Welfare payments cuts 'will force 200,000 benefits claimants out of London and into the suburbs'
Mind you it was an article warning the suburbs that the scroungers are coming. Still, there’s truth in the headline. You can read more here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323327/Welfare-payments-cuts-force-200k-benefits-claimants-London.html#ixzz1FvX8KgSL

Regarding Homelessness

On Monday March 7th The Daily Mirror said:
“Feeding homeless to be banned by Tory-run Westminster council”
Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/03/01/heartless-tory-council-plans-to-ban-charities-from-feeding-the-homeless-with-soup-runs-115875-22957295/#ixzz1FvZ4LAeI

Regarding Unemployment Benefit

On 23rd Oct 2010 The Welsh “Public and Commercial Services Union” said
“Nine jobseekers for every job in Duncan Smith's Cardiff”
And much more at: http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/805C3E5F-1FBC-4647-8542B4A1D9A439F6

Regarding Incapacity Benefits

On March 6th 2011 The (Scottish) Daily Recorder said:
“Sickness benefit clawback firm tells GP people are 'claimants, not patients”
And much more at: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/03/06/sickness-benefit-clawback-firm-tells-gp-people-are-claimants-not-patients-86908-22970435/
And
On 26th Jan 2011 Full Fact.org said:
“The latest welfare figures have again been subject to misinterpretation among certain newspapers. Yet the Daily Mail has gone further than most - suggesting 94 per cent on incapacity benefit can work. However the figure did not stand up to much scrutiny.”
And more Here: http://fullfact.org/factchecks/incapacity_benefit_94_per_cent_can_work-2458

Regarding “The Cuts”

On 5th March 2011 “The Guardian” said:
“Benefit cuts will leave a third of UK 'too costly for low-income households'”
And more Here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/05/benefit-low-income-households

Because there is a great deal of info on DLA on the tBofB site I have not included that here

PS: If you are still wondering, the comment in paragraph 4 that wouldn’t be acceptable in paragraph 5 was:

“if you are a member of the current Tory Party you will believe that Kaliya Franklin has exercised her personal responsibility and chooses to lay down eating mud on a wet and freezing cold beach.”

Did you get that? Good, you’re learning fast.

http://thebrokenofbritain.blogspot.com/p/our-mission.html

Broken Brian



Charities: Working 4 or Doing 2? - 2

This is the second of an occasional series of blogs pointing out incidences of Charities forgetting who it is they exist to represent and, sometimes, becoming self-serving instead. I write this as someone who has requested help from charities when at my most vulnerable and then experienced what it feels like to be rejected and betrayed for not fitting into any of the shapes on their eligibility puzzle. You know, like those children’s story puzzles where the child fits different cut out characters into the corresponding hole in a picture attached to a wooden base.

Today I have faced with a dilemma. How should I deal with the actions of a charity which I hold in great esteem, - not least because I have met, and trained in one aspect of their work, several of its employees and was always extremely impressed by the work practises they described – which has allowed itself to be used by the Daily Mail to validate the callous, vindictive, uncaring, and, worse still, "ethnically cosmetic" intentions of the Conservative Westminster Council to ban other charities from delivering food to "the homeless" who live "rough" on its streets.

The unattributed article was even more nauseous than that newspaper's reports of social issues usually are because it was couched in the terminology of a caring society. The “Daily Mail Reporter” used quotations from the chief executives of both "St Mungo's Homeless Charity" (who I was referring to above), and the "Thames Reach Homeless Organisation", to justify the actions of the Council and to override criticism from Labour councillors and other charities.

As someone who has had his own words manipulated by the media to present a picture that was not intended, I do not think for one minute that the cherry picked quotations were the only things that these chief executives said in response to a question the content of which I do not know, but in the absence of any retraction by either of them I have to assume that they were satisfied that what was printed represented their true view.

In my previous posting on the subject of charities allowing them-selves to be manipulated to suit government policy I pointed out that whatever the true intentions of those charities their words and their compliance would be used to justify unpalatable government intentions. In the case of St Mungo's I sincerely hope that is what has happened here, and that they learn a lesson from the chief executive’s gullibility.

Regarding the dishonesty and lack of integrity demonstrated throughout the Daily Mail article, it is highly relevant that at no point does the author draw attention to the previously stated "cosmetic" wish to remove rough sleepers from the streets of London before the 2012 Olympics take place. Yet another charity chose to see that intention as something they could support and, as you will see below, did not intervene when physical discomfort was deliberately inflicted on their “client’s”. An article on this subject entitled “How the 2012 Olympics will end rough sleeping” by Jeremy Dunning in Community Care.co.uk on December 21, 2009 (link 1 below) contained the following regarding the “tidying-up” of rough sleepers:

“Homeless Link chief executive Jenny Edwards says the Olympics "gives us a very nice, particularly high-profile timetable around which to achieve a once-in-a-lifetime offer", while Richard Blakeway, director of housing for London mayor Boris Johnson, says it is taking "a unique moment in time" to end something that has been "symbolic in London for several decades".”

The article went on to describe how, since 2008, funding had been made available to various charities and organisations to assist them in setting up schemes to offer alternatives to rough sleeping in the capital. Towards the end of his article Jeremy Dunning says:

"The initial focus has been on the 205 most entrenched rough-sleepers, of whom only 67 now remain on the streets."

I will proffer my opinion of why those 67 might still be choosing to live "rough" below, but first, another quote from Jeremy Dunning's article, one which shows how the original collusion of the charities was abused once the "caring approach" had not completely eradicated the problem. Jeremy Dunning said:

“However, there have been criticisms over the use of enforcement measures such as antisocial behaviour orders, dispersal zones and the practice of "wetting down" doorways in the City of London through the Corporation's Operation Poncho, run in partnership with the police and homelessness charity Broadway”

I wonder whether those who donate to the "Broadway" charity are aware of how their donations were used.

Those Charities who purport to represent the most vulnerable members of current British society need to become "streetwise" and wake up to the fact that the Conservative Party Ideology of the 2000’s demands a return to the days of the "Deserving" and the "Undeserving" Poor, a concept retained by a minority of very small, mainly religion orientated, charities since the early 1900s, but discarded by most as a flawed concept since then.

Regarding the 67 rough sleepers, their reasons for preferring to sleep “rough” deserves to be understood, not used as an excuse to “ethnically cleanse” them from the streets of Westminster. I know from my own experiences as a social worker that there are people among us who quite simply find it impossible to live securely in either a family or a structured communal setting.

One fairly common scenario is this: a child is removed, or escapes, from a family in which he or she suffered abuse. The Children Act 1989 rightly states that wherever possible that child should be placed with another family, usually a foster family. Unprepared for the fact that even abused children will miss their family, the foster family, and sometimes, disgracefully, the social workers involved, fail to read the signs when that child begins to display the aggressive and/or disruptive behaviour which is a necessary component of the grieving process. Based on their own experience of family, and the belief set that says any child will be grateful, and happy, and compliant, once they are removed from their original situation, the child is labelled uncooperative, disrespectful, even, dangerous or mentally ill, because he or she is unable to make use of the help that is provided in the way the foster parents and the social worker believe they would do in a similar situation. The next step for our hypothetical abused child, or for any child who enters the care system above the age of about 10 years, is a move to "Residential Care" where another grieving process begins but where staff will already have made up their minds about them based on what they have been told. Staff will consider them to be either potential troublemakers or damaged Angels. Those who label them “troublemakers” will soon find evidence to prove their assumption correct; those who take the damage angel approach will feel rejected when the child is unable to return kindness and will become as disillusioned as the foster carers were, excusing their original, caring, stance, by labelling the child a manipulator who initially “took them in”.

Whichever path they followed within the statutory care system all children leave that "Supportive Environment" emotionally abused by the experience. Some will also have been physically or sexually abused by other residents or by individual staff members.

To expect those who have experienced rejection and/or abuse from family members, from friends, or from professional carers, to fit willingly, seamlessly, and gratefully into another family or residential environment is ridiculous.

While the scenario described above will fit many of the 76 "unwilling" rough sleepers referred to in Jeremy Dunning's article, it is probable that the biggest group represented by that statistic (which will also include many of those described above) will be those with some form of mental illness.

Among those of us who live daily with psychiatric illness will be some who are afraid of people, some who are afraid of society, some who are afraid or mistrustful of the police and the psychiatric care services (because those professional groups have misinterpreted their thoughts or words in the past and, in the opinion of those who are ill, will have locked them up just because they are who they are). Then there are those who are afraid of all of these things. Whichever group they fit into most of those 76 will be afraid of life itself.

Every one of us who has been diagnosed with a psychiatric illness has been emotionally abused, usually unknowingly, by a "Care System" that claims to protect us. Some of those who have spent time either willingly or unwillingly as a patient in a psychiatric hospital will possibly have been physically attacked, sexually abused, or raped by another patient, or, by a member of staff.

To expect those who have lived through the worst extremes of the mental health "care system" to fit willingly, seamlessly, and gratefully into another residential environment is ridiculous.

In my opinion these are the things that the chief executives of St Mungo's and the Thames Reach homeless organisation should have been saying to the Daily Mail yesterday. They should not have been colluding with the ongoing persecution and abuse of those they purport to represent.

Regarding what was said in the unattributed Daily Mail article (link 2 below): I have contrasted it with a report from Jason Beattie of the Daily Mirror (link 3 below).

"Unattributed" begins his or her article in terms which are as devious as those being used by Westminster Council regarding this matter:

“Proposals for a ban on soup runs and rough sleeping in a part of the centre of the capital have sparked a political row. Westminster City Council is seeking to pass a bylaw that would prohibit soup runs from operating in a designated area around Westminster Cathedral. Labour councillors have attacked the proposal as 'cold-hearted and callous' but the council says soup kitchens perpetuate homelessness and insists it has the support of interested charities.” (authors emphasis).

I am not sure if this is the first instance of the words of charities being used in the manipulative manner I previously predicted, but it certainly will not be the last. You will note that it is the support of the charities that Westminster Council and the anonymous reporter use to counter the socialist perspective. That ploy is based on the assumption that we all believe that charities only act in the best interests of those they say they care for and protect.

Jason Beattie began his article on the same subject like this.

“THEY spent much of the run-up to the election trying shake off their image as the nasty party. But a heartless group of Tories have ¬revealed their true colours by banning charities from running soup kitchens for the ¬homeless.

Conservative Westminster council in Central London also wants to make it an offence to sleep rough – while slashing £5million of funding to hostels. Astonishingly, town hall chiefs claimed soup kitchens only “encourage” people to sleep on the streets.”

It goes without saying that Jason Beattie is also reporting from a politically ideological perspective, one which is opposite to that of Mr or Miss "Unattributed", but it is the words used by the council, and not those of some supposedly independent and unattached body, that he uses to emphasise his point. The truth is that Mr or Miss Unattributed could not use the terminology of the council to support the proposition because it is clear as you read the remainder of the article that everything that the council said exposes its true intentions to anybody with half of a social conscience brain cell.

The Daily Mail first uses a verbal gift from a co-operative charity like this:

“Jeremy Swain, chief executive of Thames Reach homelessness organisation, said: 'Street handouts do little to help people make the step away from rough sleeping. Instead they frequently prevent people from facing up to the reality of the harmful life-style they have adopted.'”

Here we have a classic return to the deserving/undeserving poor ideology. The deserving are those who go along with what their "betters" say is good for them. The undeserving are those who do not. If you didn't understand why I was illustrating my intentions with the description of the wooden jigsaw puzzle above, hopefully you do now. Interestingly it is also similar to the ideology that the Nazis propagated to justify putting vagrants into concentration camps. It comes down to this, everyone is entitled to make choices regarding their lifestyle but if those choices are out of step with the ideology we propagate, then they are both inferior to us and undeserving of any form of help other than the help that we have decided they need. Since they do not agree with us they do not deserve to be helped.

"Unattributed" then uses what was said by Charles Fraser of St Mungo's to present the uncaring face of charity as influenced by Conservative Party ideology.

“Charles Fraser, chief executive of St Mungo’s homeless charity, added: “While we recognize the compassion involved in providing food to vulnerable people, those in distress and rough sleeping need services that will support them off the streets for good and give them the opportunity for longer term better housing, health and work as they move on with their lives.””

I was very sad when I read this assumption that people are failing if they do not “move on with their lives”. The St Mungo's front line workers whom I have met all understood, without needing to be taught, the potential scenarios I described above to explain why some people will always find it difficult, even impossible, to live comfortably in a residential setting. It would appear that Charles Fraser does not share the awareness of his frontline workers, either that or he has lost sight of the fact that his charity exists to serve the mentally ill and the homeless and has chosen to serve the ideology of the current Conservative Party instead.

This ideology returns social care provision to the position it filled before human rights legislation led to it adopting the "client" or "patient" driven services we have become used to since the early 1990s. With that change came a period during which the government took money away from local authorities and gave it directly to "service users" in the form of Disability Living Allowance. One knock-on effect of this was that the local authorities reduced the money they gave to charities, rightly claiming that the “service users” now controlled the money in order to purchase whatever services they required from whoever they wanted. The charities were threatened by this, they were now accountable to the purchasers of their services in a way they had never been before. The current government has decided to take the DLA from some people who receive it now and to give the money they recoup to charities. This is why the charities need to be extra careful of the way the current government is manipulating them, dangling this new money over their heads as motivation to begin behaving in the way the government wants them to.

The terms "Personal Responsibility" and "Personal Choice" were endlessly repeated by the governments of both Margaret Thatcher and John Major who oversaw the removal of monies paid to local authorities and charities and given directly to service users in order for them to exercise their personal responsibility and their personal choices. David Cameron also talks about personal responsibilities and choices quite a lot. In fact, both Thatcher and Cameron have used this terminology to declare the concept of "Society" obsolete, redundant or non-existent. In the context of what is being written about here there appears to be a massive ideological dissonance.

The reasons given by both Mr or Miss "Unattributed" and the ultra-right wing Westminster Local Authority to justify the removal of choice from the approximately 76 people who choose to continue living on the streets of Westminster is that society knows better then they do what is good for them.

That dissonance leads to remarks that would be laughable if they were not so abusive and potentially dangerous. Remarks like this quoted by Jason Beattie in the Daily Mirror:

“Conservative Westminster council in Central London also wants to make it an offence to sleep rough – while slashing £5million of funding to hostels. Astonishingly, town hall chiefs claimed soup kitchens only “encourage” people to sleep on the streets.”

That same piece of obscene nonsense is repeated by Unattributed of the Daily Mail in support of the actions of Westminster Council.

“Daniel Astaire, Westminster Council's cabinet member for society, families and adult services, responded by saying: 'Soup runs have no place in the 21st century and it is wrong and undignified that people are being fed on the streets. Handing out free food only serves to keep people on the streets for longer, damaging their health.'”

Unattributed precedes that little gem with this:

“'If approved, the by-law could be in place by October,' the spokesman added. 'Vulnerable individuals will not be enforced against, and all individuals will be asked to leave the area before being subjected to any enforcement.'”

In nearly 30 years of reading misleading documents prepared by National or Regional Government, District and Town Councils, Hospital Managers and Primary Care Trusts, and local football or youth club committees: I have never read such a deliberately ambiguous statement. I have been reading it on and off for over 24 hours and I still cannot make sense of it. It would have been more honest if "The Spokesman" had said: "We will ask them to leave and if they don't go we will make them".

Before closing I will repeat a few quotations from Jason Beattie's article in the Daily Mirror which, although I presume they were available to "Unattributed" of the Daily Mail, were not included in his or her article.

“Westminster council, one of the richest in the land, wants to bring in a bylaw making it an offence to “give out food for free”, punishable by fines. The twisted move blows apart David Cameron’s Big Society boast that an army of ¬volunteers will flock to help those worse off.”

“And it sparked a storm of ¬criticism. Reverend Alison Tomlin of the Methodist church in ¬Westminster said: “The proposals are nothing short of disgusting. This bylaw punishes people solely for their misfortune and belongs in a -Victorian statute book, not the 21st century.””

“Labour’s London mayoral ¬candidate Ken Livingstone added: “Only the Conservatives would try to make it illegal to give food to the homeless. With Tory mayor Boris Johnson cutting affordable housing to a trickle, the number of people sleeping on the streets is rising and cuts to housing benefit threaten ¬thousands more with eviction and homelessness.””

“Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, leader of the Labour Group, said: “Nothing illustrates the cold-hearted and callous approach of the Conservatives than this attempt to criminalise those offering help to ¬homeless people.

“I thought this was what the Big Society was supposed to be all about, generous-hearted people giving their time to those less fortunate, at no cost to the public purse. This is a nasty, mean move from a nasty, mean party.””

So, what do you think? Are the homeless charities Broadway, St Mungo’s Homeless Charity, and Thames Reach Homelessness Organisation, “working 4” their target group of vulnerable people or are they “doing 2” them? Are they forgetting who it is they exist to represent and becoming self-serving instead?

I believe they have lost sight of their purpose and are guilty of negatively “doing 2” their clients. I also believe that as potential beneficiaries from another Draconian change proposed by the coalition government i.e. the changes to Disability Living Allowance, that it is highly unlikely that these charities have been able to remain totally objective in their dealings with their paymasters, Westminster Council.

During what is a very anxious and frightening time for us “vulnerables” Scope remains the only major charity which is consistently challenging the Government on our behalf while The Green Party and Plaid Cymru are the only major political parties who are publicly declaring their support for our causes.

I expect the three Charities named above to say that without their input the legislation would have gone ahead anyway, and they will probably be right, but, it would be going forward without the endorsement of those "respected charities" whose names have been used in an attempt to convince the public that the abuse of the vulnerable, abuse of “US”, is right.

In conclusion: I have been discussing matters on which all three of the major political parties in this country are refusing to either represent or support us in our fight. The least we “vulnerables” expect of those individuals and organisations who purport to represent us in our absence is that they would publicise and draw public attention to this disenfranchisement: not collude with it.

1 http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/12/21/113458/how-the-2012-olympics-will-help-end-rough-sleeping.htm

2 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361198/Callous-council-wants-ban-soup-kitchens-homeless.html

3 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/03/01/heartless-tory-council-plans-to-ban-charities-from-feeding-the-homeless-with-soup-runs-115875-22957295/

Charities: Working 4 or Doing 2?

This is the first of what will be an occasional series of blogs pointing out incidences of Charities forgetting who it is they exist to represent and, sometimes, becoming self-serving instead. I write this as someone who has requested help from charities when at my most vulnerable and then experienced what it feels like to be betrayed for not fitting into any of the shapes on their eligibility puzzle. You know, like those children’s story puzzles where the child fits different cut out characters into the corresponding hole in a picture attached to a wooden base.

The views expressed below are mine, supported by friends, family and the professional carers who assist me in various aspects of living. They have read the report under discussion during visits to my home. I have also taken account of views expressed by members of disability forums I visited prior to writing.

1: In March 2011 people who are still receiving “Incapacity Benefit” because they were already on that benefit when ESA was implemented, will be “Re-Assessed” at a “Work Capability Assessment” where an “Assessor” will have the power to remove them from the higher, health or disability related component of ESA, and place them on the lower, work related component of that benefit.

2: Because both the WCA process and ESA have already proved to be unfit for purpose three charities: Mencap, Mind and the National Autistic Society were asked by Professor Harrington, head of the Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), to propose amendments to the WCA descriptors relating to mental health, autism and learning disabilities. The scope of this piece of work was defined by Professor Harrington. This is our response to their combined report dated December 2010. It is not clear whether any “users” of these charities were involved in the consultation process, though what is written in the paragraph (see c) below suggests this is very unlikely.

We are amazed, but not surprised, that the three charities in question, namely, the National Autistic Society: Mind: and Mencap: have taken it upon themselves to represent all psychological and psychiatric service users for the following reasons.

a) As potential beneficiaries from another Draconian change proposed by the coalition government i.e. the changes to Disability Living Allowance, we believe it is highly unlikely that these charities have been able to remain totally objective in responding to Professor Harrington.

b) It is our belief that all individuals and organisations who purport to represent persons with disability should be loudly opposing all of the proposed reductions to assistance for the most vulnerable members of our communities. In particular, the proposed changes to WCA, ESA and DLA would appear to be being rushed through at a dangerous and inconsiderate speed based on political ideology rather than any benefit to the people whose lives they were implemented to enrich.

c) We are surprised that the following paragraph appears in the report compiled by the charities:
“We believe that Professor Harrington has presented us with a unique opportunity to reform the descriptors that underwrite the WCA, and we were keen to engage with this opportunity. However, it should be understood that this work has taken place within a very short period of time. Because of the time restraints imposed on this piece of work, it has not been as extensive or comprehensive as it should have ideally been.”

At best this is an outstanding admission of betrayal of those these charities purport to represent. At worst it demonstrates that these charities were seduced into undertaking a purely cosmetic exercise. How dare these people who claim to represent us let us down by undertaking a “piece of work, it has not been as extensive or comprehensive as it should have ideally been”.

We believe that by colluding with Government in this way these charities have returned to pre-1980’s philosophy that promoted the view that the long-term sick and disabled should be grateful for any crumbs that fall from the tables of the well off and the able bodied. They have given government the message that all we are worth is a rushed, cobbled together, incomplete piece of work. If they truly represent the people they claim to they should have refused to embark on this task under these conditions. They should have insisted, on our behalf, that government should postpone the planned changes in WCA and ESA until a comprehensive and far reaching piece of research that includes the views of the long-term sick, of the disabled, of the mentally ill, and, of those with learning disabilities, along with the views of the medical professionals, carers, and others who support these people in the community.

We believe that in their indecent haste to dance to the government's tune the three charities have published a report that fails to adequately address the hasty and poorly thought out propositions of the government. We believe that in the time allowed they could have made the following challenges to the government's propositions and the discriminatory and stereotype laden language that is used therein.

i. Incapacity Benefit was paid after assessment by at least one, and usually several, medical professionals. For any organisation purporting to represent those who receive this benefits to collude with a system which seeks to remove that benefit with no reference whatsoever to the medical professionals involved in the original decision, either in writing or in person, is both dangerous and outrageous. The assumption of the coalition that the medical professionals on whom persons of disability rely are somehow involved in perpetrating fraud is arrogant and undermining of the medical professions. We believe no person or organisation purporting to represent us should have embarked on any discussion on "Work Capability Assessment" without insisting that professionals of any discipline, along, where necessary, with the carer of the person being assessed, are involved in any reassessment of the abilities of the person under assessment. We believe we have been let down in this instance.

ii. An assumption of guilt underpins the philosophy behind the Work Capability Assessment of those who've already been deemed to be deserving of benefit. This is implicit in the proposal to reduce the amount of benefit paid to vulnerable, ill and disabled persons before the assessment is carried out. No other members of British Society are treated in this way. It should be the role of individuals and organisations representing persons with disabilities to remind government that persons who have been moved up to the long-term rate of incapacity benefit are, by definition, long-term disabled and therefore regularly in touch with medical persons who are qualified to assess whether returning to the workplace is in the best interest of that person. We believe that no person or organisation purporting to represent us should have embarked on this exercise without first insisting that this assumption of guilt be removed. We further believe that by colluding with this presumption of guilt the charities have assisted the government in increasing the stigmatisation with which we daily live. We believe we have been let down in this instance.

iii. While taking part in this paper exercise the three charities have utilised case studies which serve only to reinforce stereotypes of disability. Only persons ignorant of the reality of living with disability would facilitate laypersons in reducing the symptoms of multifaceted conditions such as MS or Depression to a micro-level that assumes all persons with those conditions are the same. We believe that no person or organisation purporting to represent us should allow others to perpetrate the stereo typing of disabled persons in this way. The least we expect of those purporting to represent us in our absence is that they challenge any act that encourages the stereotyping or stigmatising of those with disability. We believe we have been let down in this instance.

iv. Through undertaking an exercise that used assessment based on "descriptors" the charities have further colluded in reinforcing stereotypes. The assumption that all persons who live with a particular condition or disability will behave in the same way during the interview is an outrageous and insensitive one. Although, through the reports, the three charities challenge most of the descriptors, they then embark on the collusive act of coming up with their own suggestions. We believe that any individual or organisation purporting to represent us in our absence should have refused to embark on this exercise. The least we would expect of those representing us in our absence is that they would continually reinforce the individuality of each of us and the quality of each of our lives. We believe we have been let down in this instance.

v. The vast majority of people who live with disability would love to be able to work, earn money and further their independence. Many of us already do voluntary work which we now feel we may have to give up because this will work against us at our WCA assessment. We live with the realities of our condition knowing that although we may be able to work in an unpressurised and supportive environment, the commercial workplace will not be like this. We know, many of us from experience, that the moment we need to take time off for illness, aggravation of an existing condition, hospital appointments etc. Employers and/or work colleagues will view us as a liability rather than an asset and that many of us will be asked to leave for that reason. The result will be trying to live on a benefit that is inferior in value to incapacity benefit even though our impairment renders us unemployable in the job market. Many of us, through being deemed "fit for work" will have lost our DLA because of the new criteria in assessing that. We believe that through colluding with this exercise those who purport to represent us have condemned us to a life spent in a deprivation cycle. The least we would expect of those purporting to represent us in our absence is that they would require others to consider the long-term implications of what is being proposed. We believe we have been let down in this instance.

vi. The government have warned us that many people will become unemployed over the coming years. To expect persons with disability to compete in the job market at this time is a callous and uncaring act because the disabled person competing for a job with someone who is able bodied will be at an immediate disadvantage for many of the reasons stated above. The three charities, in becoming involved in this exercise, have added their support to legislation that is no more than a cynical attempt to remove disabled persons from invalidity benefits and place them on the inferior jobseekers allowance. For the reasons stated in this paragraph there can be no other outcome. The least we would expect of those purporting to represent us in our absence is that they would challenge such a cynical move, not collude with it. We believe we have been let down in this instance.

vii. Mencap, The National Autistic Society, and, Mind, are guilty of colluding with a government who show total disregard for Human Rights Legislation and to seek to wipe out the progress made under the Disability Discrimination Act and the Social Inclusion policies of the previous government. This is being done purely to suit political ideology, while claiming to be acting in the best interest of disabled persons these three charities and the government are doing precisely the opposite. The least we would expect of persons and organisations purporting to represent us in our absence is that they stand up in the face of political bullying and seek to remind those in power of our rights. We believe we have been badly let down in this instance.

Finally: by their own admission the three charities have undertaken a rushed and incomplete piece of work which will be used to support the policy of the government in March. We would argue that Mencap, the National Autistic Society, and, Mind, demonstrate that they are not fit for purpose through their collusion with the government over these matters. Those who purport to advocate on our behalf have allowed themselves to be drawn into a consultation process the purpose of which is to gain respectability for acts which amount to bullying and victimisation of some of the most vulnerable in our society. We believe that individuals and organisations that purport to represent us in our absence should, at the very least, refuse to be used in this way. We believe that the three charities named above have betrayed those they purport to represent. We expect them to say that without their input the legislation would have gone ahead anyway, and they will probably be right, but, it would be going forward without the endorsement of those "respected charities" whose names will be used to convince the public that what is being done is right.

In conclusion: We are discussing a matter on which all three of the major political parties in this country are refusing to either represent or support us in our fight. The least we expect of those individuals and organisations purporting to represent us in our absence is that they would publicise and draw attention to this disenfranchisement: not collude with it.

A heartfelt contribution to: One Month Before Heartbreak: A Broken of Britain Blogswarm

Today I feel quite anxious, almost afraid.

I have lots of reasons to feel this way. My son, my daughter and her partner might all lose their jobs in the current recession. My two granddaughters aged 10 and 8 are daily fed images of the female form airbrushed, enhanced by plastic surgery, and Botoxed, while being told that if they do not grow up to look "this way" they will not be accepted by their peers, or by society at large. I watch the son of a close friend struggling to pay off a 10-year-old student loan while the son of my niece has just begun university and is about to accrue an even bigger debt.

But I live with these thoughts every day without the physical symptoms of anxiety so what is it about today that is causing the headache and the gastric churning.

Well: it's this: Just this. These words appearing on my monitor while I talk to myself. But here again, I write for a part of almost every day. Poetry, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, I've even started to write a book about my love of music, so why, today, is this very familiar and natural act causing a physical backlash?

I'll try to explain.

I am writing these words today because many of us, concerned at the way the coalition government is bullying, victimising, stereotyping, abandoning and, stigmatising those of us who live with disability, have decided to publish blogs almost simultaneously to draw attention to these injustices being perpetrated in your name. As someone who feels it is important not to write things that cannot be corroborated I have been doing some research just in case (although I was fairly certain of my original opinion) I had misunderstood what I have been hearing and reading.

The results of this research are quite upsetting. I discover that none of the three major political parties are prepared to support us in combating ill-conceived legislation that will affect every member of the disabled community. I have discovered that major charities, who have taken our money and yours claiming it would be used for our benefit, have been colluding with the government and have assisted them in stereotyping and stigmatising the disabled of this country by labelling them as benefit scrounging thieves. No dissent from any major public figure on our behalf. Ex-politicians like John Prescott and David Milliband, seem to re-tweet on Twitter almost any request to do so, regardless of the dubious origins of some of the tweets, yet they do not acknowledge requests from the disabled community to support it. We have, to all intent and purpose, been politically disenfranchised.

Now that all makes me angry, not afraid, bloody angry: so what is this anxiety about?

I'll try and explain. As I began to write this I realised that without the support of the media in this country; without the support of the politicians (both past and present) of this country; without the support of the charities who have taken your money and mine under the false pretence that it would be used for our benefit; and without the support of the public who have been fed lies and misinformation by all of those named above: I, and all of my colleagues, could be "at risk" simply for writing these words.

That sounds ridiculous doesn't it? As if I'm describing the extreme violation of human rights once prevalent in Communist Russia and now prevalent in other countries. But it is here, and it's will work like this.

The plans to brand disabled persons as workshy include an assessment of our capabilities. That sounds reasonable doesn't it, but this assessment will be carried out by a private company and will take no account whatsoever of the reasons why medical professionals consider us to be unfit for work, or, of any change in our circumstances since that assessment was first made. The assessment will be based on a number of "descriptors". That is, aspects of illness, impairment, or disability that have been reduced to a single line of description. These “descriptors” are deemed to be the same for every person who receives additional benefit to enable them to live more enriched lives regardless of their disability.

"Okay" you say, but what's that got to do with your ability to write this?

Well, I could understand it if, at first glance, anybody, even you, might say that if I am able to write these words then I must be perfectly able to sit in an office and use a word processor. Understandable, yes. Except, in my case, while you are reading this, you cannot see the headset I wear to enable dictation directly into my computer. I need to do this today because my arms feel extremely heavy and painful so typing, today, would not be possible. Headset aside, you have not been able to see the number of times I have needed to alter my position while doing this. At the moment I am leaning backwards so that my whole body is at an angle to the floor. When I began I was leaning forwards. I've not needed to during this exercise, but at some point of everyday I will need to lay on the floor for a while. On occasions I need to adopt the only position which offers me relief from the most extreme pain, that means laying on the floor with my bum against the sofa and my feet on the seat of the sofa in a Z shape. I'm not sure how many offices could accommodate my needs in this respect.

Another descriptor refers to the ability to concentrate. "Well surely you have just demonstrated that you are able to do that". I hear you think, and am not surprised, because I often say that to myself.

The truth is though that for a number of reasons, although I can do this today, it might not be possible tomorrow and it might not have been possible yesterday. It also might not have been possible earlier today and might not be possible later today. In my case this is for a number of reasons. Maybe the pain in my back and legs on any given day or night is so severe that I need to take painkillers in quantities that affect my cognitive functioning and render me both unable and unsafe to drive.

Maybe, physically I feel quite well. That, in my case, means the pain I experience can be "relieved" by finding my most comfortable sitting or laying position for a while. But then again, it might be a good day for my spinal condition but a bad one for my depression. Oh, did I mention that. I've been "a depressive" since I was about 11 years old. The extremes of my depression, come upon me roughly every seven years or so. In between times, until my spine collapsed, I was able to remain employed and was very skilful at masking my depression from others who remained unaware of it until such time that it once again overwhelmed me and began to influence my judgement and my actions. Because of my depression, I might have gone to bed last night with my ideas for this piece already formulated in my head, but, I might have woken up this morning a different person in a different body in a different place, and it might have been several days or even weeks before I was able to sit here and complete this.

I would love to be able to go to work again but specialists in both disc disease and depression tell me this would be unwise. In the case of the former this is because certain movements could lead to me losing my mobility completely, in the case of the latter it is because subjecting myself to intense pain for whole days will aggravate my attempts to overcome the depression. So, I am frustrated and angry that after several years of chastising myself for this, and several years of input from others convincing me that that work is not a feasible proposition, suddenly, just as I have come to terms with the reality of the remainder of my life, people who do not and who will not know me are about to make judgements about me with regard to this.

So there you have it. I hope that by reading this you have gained some insight to my world which, as disability goes, is not such a bad one. I hope it will help your understanding of the unpredictability of disability and of the ridiculousness of a proposition that the same "descriptors" can be applied across the board to all persons who live with disability. If I have succeeded you will now understand why the simple act of putting a few words onto a piece of paper, or a computer screen, can be fraught with anxiety and even danger for those who live within the disability culture at this time.

I also hope I have added to your understanding of disability and the folk who live with it as an aspect of everyday life. I hope I have been able to undo some of the damage being caused by a callous, cynical, vindictive, publicity campaign being waged by the government and some charities, to convince YOU that people of disability are not deserving of your support and consideration.

brokenbrian: January 2011.

WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

This is the big society we are all in together.


1. A reduction in child benefit for the wealthy will be easy to cheat and there are no plans to check up or enforce it.

2. The children of disabled parents are having the food taken out of their mouths because their parents benefit is being reduced for up to three months while people without medical information decide whether they should "seek work".

This is the big society we are all in together.

3. A new "airport tax" has come in to force. The BBC has already had tax experts on radio programs telling those who can afford to fly how to get around the new tax.

4. The BBC broadcast the news that 85% of people in Burnley who had their disability benefit cut had it given back as soon as a judge sought medical advice about their disabilities. The BBC did not question what this must be costing. Knowing the exorbitant rates of legal costs, one suspects it is a lot more than the money saved from the other 15%.

This is the big society we are all in together.

5. You may have read or seen that Rupert Murdoch told 30 business men that he supports the way Cameron is carrying on Thatcher's work.

6. You will not read, or learn, via Murdoch’s many media outlets, that people newly diagnosed with schizophrenia are being told they must seek work they have no chance of obtaining. The alternative, to stay in psychiatric hospitals that have no room for them, because Thatcher shut all the big psychiatric hospitals down.

This is the big society we are all in together.

7. You will have heard about Cameron’s stamp down on immigration.

8. You are not being told that asylum seekers whose cases are taking too long to investigate are being told they can stay before the investigation is completed. Remember this when dealer Dave Cameron tells you there are less asylum seekers in the system.

This is the big society we are all in together.

9. Cameron and the other 20 millionaire members of his cabinet are worried that the value of their investments will fall.

10. I am worried that even though I have been told by specialists who deal with my back, and psychiatrists who help with my depression, that I should not attempt to work again: and even though I have been retired from two very different occupations on medical grounds, meaning I am uninsurable and therefore unemployable: that someone who has not had access to my medical notes WILL decide I must look for work when I am honest and tell them that on a very good day I can stand at my cooker, while leaning against my sink, long enough to fry an egg. Does that sound extreme, it is already happening to people.

This is the big society we are all in together.

11. William Hague’s mate Lord Ashcroft, the tax dodger who gives millions to the Tory party and said he would move to the United Kingdom if Cameron won the election, has decided not to move here after all. There has been no mention of whether the Government will now attempt to obtain the tax he owes.

12. Dealer Dave said on Wednesday that people on housing benefit, “Have no right to live in houses they could not have dreamed of if they were working”. Here in London this means that hundreds of old people who were once taxpaying workers but who have fallen on hard times, will be moved out the homes they have lived in throughout their lives and put into bed and breakfast. This will be coming to an area to you soon.

This is the big society we are all in together.