Beyond Satire, It's Sick Charity

 Who will save the children of Falluja?

SATIRICAL song writer Tom Lehrer remarked that when US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize, satire became obsolete. Since then we've had further occasions to feel cynical about the choice of Nobel candidates. But what can we say about a man whom many regard as a war criminal being honoured by a well-known children's charity?

Here is a report from the Independent:

Tony Blair was last night recognised for his humanitarian work at a glamorous gala to raise funds for a global children's charity – in front of guests including Lassie the dog.

The controversial former Prime Minster received the Global Legacy Award at the Save the Children Illumination Gala 2014, which was held at The Plaza in New York City.
The star-studded event boasted a guest list featuring Save the Children President and CEO Carolyn Miles, acting couple Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner and Twilight actress Dakota Fanning – as well as the much-loved collie dog.

Upon receiving his award Blair praised aid workers fighting Ebola in West Africa, as well as the increase in the amount of foreign aid donated by the UK over the past 10 years, according to the Mail Online.

“From the beginning of humankind there has been brutality, conflict, intrigue, the destructive obsession with a narrow self-interest,” he said.“But throughout all human history, never has been extinguished that relentless, unquenchable desire to do good. To act not only in self-interest and sometimes to even to act in defiance of it.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/tony-blair-honoured-with-save-the-childrens-global-legacy-award-at-charity-gala-attended-by-ben-affleck-and-lassie-9873596.html

Well Lassie should have cocked his leg or thrown up his dinner at this point, but he is not available for comment.  Tony Blair must know all about brutality, conflict and intrigue, having lied his way into the war on Iraq, as well as presiding over the continuation of policies that increased the gap between rich and poor in this country, and Tory legislation tying trade unions hand and foot from doing much about it. As for self-interest, Tony Blair was not short of a few bob before he became prime minister, and since then he must have lost count of the millions he has amassed from various jobs and sinecures.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/10981122/Tony-Blair-Im-worth-less-than-20-million-and-Im-not-interested-in-making-money.html

Save the Children and other charities have portrayed some heartrending scenes of child poverty and suffering at home and abroad to stir the public's conscience. We don't expect aid charities to do anything as controversial as discussing the underlying causes - though some, such as War on Want, do remind us that policies have consequences. 

But even at the level of just showing us how bad things are, before Save the Children goes all gooey fawning on Tony Blair it could focus its attention on just one Iraqi town, Falluja, attacked and bombed twice by US  forces with British participation. At first they denied the use of white phosphorus, supposed to be banned under international law, and depleted uranium munitions. But these things came out. And whatever the precise causes, the effects of war on Falluja have continued.

In 2010 it was reported that an academic study^[38] had shown "a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer." since 2004.^[39] In addition, the report said the types of cancer were "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout", ^... (Wikipedia)


"Iraqi physicians have also long reported a spike in cases involving severe birth defects in Fallujah since 2004. They have reported children born with multiple heads, serious brain damage, missing limbs and with extra fingers and toes."
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/08/2012815458859755.html

 The BBC's John Simpson reports from the central Iraq city of Falluja, where ... in Falluja had warned women that they should not have children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8548961.stm

There is plenty more.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-children-of-fallujah--the-hospital-of-horrors-7679168.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYnDw1ReVhw

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10721562

No need to labour the point.

But what was the reason for Save the Children honouring Blair anyway? Was it supposed to attract more money?  Blair is hardly the most popular figure in Britain today.  But then maybe there's a clue in them holding this ceremony in New York, which is also home to JP Morgan Chase, the bank which gave our former Prime Minister a part-time job this year, a mere £2 million to supplement his pension.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tony-blair-appointed-senior-advisor-to-jpmorgan-chase-56871787.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/1575247/Tony-Blair-to-earn-2m-as-JP-Morgan-adviser.html


Though some charities have to be increasingly careful these days to avoid anything "political" which might affect their status, others seem to be drawing closer to government and big business, so that sometimes it becomes harder to see the difference. While still relying on public generosity and unpaid volunteers, they may also serve as conduits for government funds and corporate tax-exempt donations with or without strings attached. While expecting lower-ranking staff to work enthusiastically for low pay or even workfare, they insist that top bosses merit salaries at least comparable to those of major company directors or government ministers. My landlord, a registered charity, finds it necessary to increase our rents each year, while its CEO reportedly earns more than the Prime Minister.

During the recent dispute at St,Mungo's where Unite union members fought off attempts to lower grades and do away with consultation, the union was interested to see how this charity's board had been filled with newcomers after a merger with another, less well-known charity; and how these included someone linked to Serco, a commercial outsourcing business keen to acquire new profitable activities even as it has been losing or having to divest from others in which it has not been doing so well.

And so back to Save the Children, and from the Daily Mail (August 8, 2013) we learn that:

Executives at one of the UK’s most prominent international aid charities were handed bonuses worth more than £160,000 last year.

Save the Children increased performance-related pay to executives by a third compared to the previous year, a move that could prove controversial following criticism of the huge pay-packets enjoyed by charity bosses.

The charity’s chief executive Justin Forsyth, a former advisor to Tony Blair, was among nine Save the Children executives handed the bonus in 2012.

It was revealed earlier this week that Mr Forsyth earned a salary of £163,000, which is now known to include £22,560 in performance-related pay.

He is one of six staff at the 14 charities which make up the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) that earn more than the Prime Minister’s £142,500 salary.

The revelation prompted the International Development Secretary Justine Greening to say that the finances of major aid organisations - which receive hundreds of millions of pounds from taxpayers - must be open to scrutiny.

William Shawcross, the chairman of the Charity Commission, also said that ‘disproportionate’ salaries in the face of decreasing charitable donations from the public risked ‘bringing the charitable world into disrepute’.

Save the Children paid its executives £120,000 in performance-related pay in 2011 but said that Mr Forsyth declined the money due to being ‘relatively new’ in his role.

The payments increased significantly to £162,000 last year after the company ‘restructured’ the way it offered bonuses.

The charity said the payments encouraged the ‘very best’ from staff and helped to ‘save the lives of more of the world’s poorest children’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2386616/Save-The-Children-bosses-160-000-bonuses-MP-calls-greater-scrutiny-charity-finances.html

Pony Express

WITH the Tories trumpeting their intention to slash benefits and tear up the European Convention on Human Rights, and their papers plainly convinced they're on a winner, we have to face two of the less pleasant features of British politics.

One is the readiness of too many people to forgive and forget whatever our rulers are doing to us, so long as we are persuaded it is doing things a damn sight worse to "them", the less deserving poor, and "foreigners"  (that category can be extended to include "the enemy within", whom Thatcher was preparing to denounce before the Brighton bombing). This is what some are satisfied and even proud to call "British justice".

The other is that whatever contrary facts or pictures of reality you try to raise will only exasperate those who are already, while waxing indignant, comfortable in their prejudice.  It is thus out of a sense of duty to their readers and viewers that some media endeavour to keep nurturing ignorance and are reluctant to admit anything which might disturb it.

As my fellow blogger Tom Pride reveals this week:

The Daily Express - like most of the UK press - doesn't like to be criticised. And - like most of the UK press - it doesn't like to give a right of reply to anyone, not even to respected organisations such as the British Red Cross.

That's why the newspaper is refusing to publish a joint letter from the British Red Cross, Refugee Action and the Refugee Council which is critical of it. This is the letter the Daily Express doesn’t want you to see. So please share it as widely as possible.

Dear Sir,

The stream of aggressive stories about asylum seekers appearing in this paper in recent days is of serious concern to all of us who work with and support people fleeing persecution.

Your readers would be forgiven for thinking the UK is being flooded by asylum seekers. This couldn’t be further from the truth, with asylum applications around the 23,000 mark a year the UK is home to less than 1 per cent of the world’s refugees and takes proportionately below the EU average.

To characterise the people housed in Folkestone as having a ‘lovely break’ by the sea that Brits would be envious of is hugely misleading and dangerous.

Asylum seekers are people who have often fled horrifying experiences in their home countries. Some have been raped. Some have been tortured. Many have witnessed the death of a loved one. Be assured, people who have suffered extreme trauma and whose lives are hanging in the balance will not be focusing on the sea view of temporary room.

There are no refugee visas available for people fleeing persecution. The fact that people are forced to travel clandestinely is recognised within the Refugee Convention and British Law. Entering Britain illegally can be a necessity; it is not an indication of the validity of someone’s asylum claim.

Additionally, appealing a refusal does not indicate someone cheating the system. Decisions on asylum claims can be life or death and the appeal overturn rate shows the Government frequently gets it wrong the first time.

Stirring up hostility against asylum seekers is as unwelcome as it is unsavoury in a country with a proud tradition of protecting refugees.

Maurice Wren, Chief Executive, Refugee Council
 Mike Adamson, Acting Chief Executive, British Red Cross
 Dave Garratt, Chief Executive, Refugee Action

.

Which reminds me, talking of human rights, I'm sure we'll be hearing they are safe in the Con Dem government's hands, but I wonder how the government is getting on with its Lobbying Bill, not the price of big business lobbying, but the law which besides requiring trade unions hand over lists of their members, restricts what charities like the Red Cross can spend or do on putting their views across.

That could be handy before the elections coming up.

But hang on. Besides his ownership of the Express, over whose contents he modestly disclaims control, Richard "Dirty" Desmond likes to be known for his charitable works. He started up the Health Lottery, and has even donated to the Labour Party. Perhaps he will come out against what the government is doing?  Not that I'm holding my breath.


That pony?  Pony and trap, cockney rhyming slang.




http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/daily-express-censors-letter-from-british-red-cross-criticising-it/

https://www.publicaffairsnews.com/articles/analysis/unanswered-campaign-questions


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/4/contents/enacted

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&article=106& 

Another Battle of Britain

MORE news of  people threarened with loss of their homes to the relentless drive for profit in London. And the culprit is a registered.charity. This is Cameron's Big Society at work!

Wally Kennedy is a former Labour councillor in the London Borough of Hillingdon, who still runs a regular advice surgery for people in his ward, and is chair of Hillingdon Against the Cuts. Where there's a battle to be fought, or someone needing help, you'll see more of Wally than of many remaining councillors combined.

Here's a note he posted this morning:

I attended a packed meeting on Sunday 17th at 4pm at the Battle of Britain Club on the Uxbridge Road ... called by Sara Carson ... to start the campaign to stop the eviction of 64 families who have lived at the Former RAF base for almost 2 years. Their landlord is Nottinghill Housing Trust who has issued them with Possession Orders and £175 court costs ... even though there were no Court hearings. 

We are organising legal advice and representation through the Law Centre in Hayes and I will be in the Civic Centre in Uxbridge today to chase up the Housing Dept.  The MP, the Councillors and the Press were invited to attend the meeting ... did they turn up ... I will leave that to your imagination.

Well done to Sara Carson and her daughter Emma for all the hard work and welcome to all those who agreed to be on the action committee ... let battle commence. Bail out our communities - not the banks. Build council and affordable housing for all. Take all empty properties into public ownership and sustainable use.

Wally is a Socialist Party member.  He does not protest local injustice without talking about broader alternatives; but nor is he one of those people who tell us how nice the socialist future might be,. without doing anything in the here and now. 

The same could be said for left-wing Labour MP John McDonnell in the neighbouring Hayes and Harlington constituency, but unfortunately Uxbridge is represented by a Tory, John Randall MP.

RAF Uxbridge has quite a history, containing 60 feet below ground the RAF’s 11 (Fighter) Group Operations Room, otherwise known as  the ‘Battle of Britain Bunker‘. During the Battle of Britain this Operations Room coordinated the air defences for London and the entire South East.

Following on its near neighbours at RAF Eastcote, and RAF West Ruislip, the  site has been earmarked for development, including housing and commercial use and a riverside park.. At 110 acres it is the biggest development site in West London.

The Notting Hill Housing Trust has a more recent, but also more chequered history, dating back 50 years to when Bruce Kenrick, a Scottish Reformed church minister, and one of the founders of Shelter, moved to Notting Hill and was shocked at the housing conditions, as well the numbers of homeless. He started raising funds and bought one house to house several homeless families. Within a year this had grown to five houses. Today, with Dr.Kenrick long gone, the Notting Hill Housing Trust has the Duchess of Gloucester as patron, and owns 25,000 houses in London. It is credited with contributing to the gentrification of Notting Hill.

If that is not gratifying to all the working class families whom the Trust was supposed to help, or some of its dissatisfied tenants, it helps sustain Notting Hill Housing Trust's CEO (since 2004), Kate Davies, on an estimated £165,000 plus per year back in 2009.now over £196,000. Mind you, in these austere times the trust has imposed cuts and poorer conditions on junior staff.  That must have really come hard on Kate Marshall, as she was known when general secretary of the Revolutionary Communist Party (Living Marxism).

Nowadays not suprisingly she is closer to the Tory party, though still in touch with some of  her old chums apparently. As for her partner Nick Davies, having quit a local government job in Bromley on "health grounds" he recovered enought to join Tory Hammersmith and Fulham, running its arms length housing agency which is divesting itself of council housing and closing its waiting list. Registered as a company Davies is collecting £310,000 a year according reports. Just the couple to understand and sympathise with the ordinary tenant facing eviction. Charity begins at home, as they say..

It looks like RAF Uxbridge is due to be another battle in the class war which Living Marxism told us was over.


Kate Davies file



Nick Davies Ltd - but not his salary!

UDM Charity Ended at Home

NEIL GREATREX, gone to jail and told to pay, alas DAVID HART, gone away 

AFTER Jimmy Saville, another "idol" of the Thatcher years, and this a live one though less popular, who has crashed down. Neil Greatrex might not have been a Christmas guest at Checqers, but as leader of the breakaway Union of Democratic Mineworkers(UDM), he served Thatcher's crusade by championing strikebreaking in the Nottinghamshire coalfield.

Instead, Greatrex became a guest of Her Majesty earlier this year when he was convicted for stealing funds that had been supposed to go to a retired miners' care home. 

This week the former UDM leader was ordered to pay back the £148,628 he stole from charity. He has been given 28 days to pay it back or face a further three years in prison.

The Charity Commission welcomed the order and sai it would serve as a warning to others.

In April, Greatrex was jailed for four years for stealing from the Nottinghamshire Miners Charity, of which he was a trustee. The charity ran a care home in Lincolnshire for sick and elderly miners.
Between 2000 and 2006 diverted £148,628 to two building companies and a joiner for work that was never done at the home. Instead it paid for items such as granite worktops and a pool for koi carp at Greatrex's own home.

Greatrex claimed in court that the diveretd funds were in lieiu of salary, though it had emerged in 2004 that he and a fellow officer were receiving salary packages worth £150,000 while leading a union with only 1,431 members.

The total amount he is now ordered to pay is £201,327.51, adjusted for inflation and including costs.
Michelle Russell, the Charity Commission's head of investigations and enforcement, said: "Stealing from a charity of money that's intended for people who really need it is a pretty awful crime.
"We are obviously really pleased that some of that money will be recouped and go back to where it was intended to be spent."

The commission said the money would either be returned to the charity or its beneficiaries or other charities. The order was made under the Proceeds of Crime Act at Birmingham Crown Court.

It might be interesting to compare the amount of coverage this affair gets with the way the media - and not least the supposedly Labour-supporting Daily Mirror hounded Arthur Scargill and the National Union of Mineworkers over phoney allegations of funds misuse during the miners' strike. (Admittedly for the Mirror this may have reflected attention away from what its then owner, Robert Maxwell was up to financially).
 
Perhaps now that Neil Greatrex is in serious difficulty some of the UDM's old backers could get together and have a whip round? One of the UDM's most helpful funders, if not inspirers, was the shady billionaire friend of Thatcher, David Hart, who provided not just funds but former SAS personnel to protect strikebreaking miners.


Two years after the strike Hart  formed the Campaign for a Free Britain,^[1]  with backing from Rupert Murdoch, and in 1993 he was appointed an adviser to Malcolm Rifkind as Defence Minister, a post he kept when Michael Portillo replaced Rifkind. He went on to be implicated in various intrigues at home and abroad, and undertook lobbying for Boeing and BAE. A report in the Guardian in 2007 alleged Hart had received £13 million in secret payments from BAE via an anonymous company registed in the Virgin Islands. 


Unfortunately for Greatrex, the UDM's past backer, who could surely have helped pay for the ornamental fishpond and other extras, died a year ago.  But you'd think his associates in big business and the secret state would be willing to step up to the plate and help poor Greatrex out. Or maybe not. These are hard times, and the government is attaching importance to us placing our trust in charity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-17602275 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136156/Greedy-union-boss-jailed-4-years-stealing-150-000-charity-care-home-miners-just-home.html 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/03/neil-greatrex-guilty-miners-union-theft

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-20760736 

http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/jailed-former-udm-president-neil-greatrex-ordered-to-pay-back-money-he-stole-from-charity-1-5230078

Underneath The (Mon)Arches: Cameron's Big Con

SIR – The ancient meaning of jubilee meant a time when debts were cancelled, land was redistributed and slaves freed.

With the Queen’s Jubilee we have a time of forced austerity when debts are increased (as wages and benefits are cut), very few people can afford to buy a house (let alone land) and wage-slavery/exploitation is the name of the great capitalist game.

Letter in the Western Mail.
Read More http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/letters-to-the-editor/western-mail-letters/2012/06/06/western-mail-letters-wednesday-6-june-2012-91466-31120231/#ixzz1x7Cn3Oxt

MORE information is coming out about the young people left to kip under London Bridge after coming to play their unpaid part in the Royal Pageantry, and the episode is beginning to epitomise the shoddy reality behind David Cameron's 'Big Society' - the 'Big Con' has others have described it.

Eighty people - 50 unpaid jobseekers and 30 "apprentices" on £2.80 an hour - were bussed in from Bristol, Bath and Plymouth to work as stewards along the river.

While the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh made their stately voyage downstream on a golden barge, and the crowds stood dutifully in the rain and waved their union jacks, these stewards were on duty for 14 hours, having been brought to London and dropped off at 3 am, and been told to sleep under London Bridge so as not to be late for work.

They had to change into their security gear in public and had no access to toilets for 24 hours. then were dropped off at a swampy campsite in outer London after a 14-hour shift in the pouring rain.

As Bristol Labour MP Kerry McCarthy writes in the New Statesman:

The steward I spoke to yesterday had been on the Work Programme with Tomorrow’s People for a year, but apart from occasional sessions with an adviser (she’s on her third, as they keep leaving) ‘nothing had happened’ until March this year when she was put on the NVQ Level 2 in stewarding. She’d already done a stint of unpaid work experience in late March. I don’t think she was much impressed by the quality of training but she’d stuck with it, hoping to get paid work.

Close Protection had said they’d pay the jubilee stewards £450, and it would lead to well-paid stewarding work at the Olympics. But she ended up calling home in tears and being rescued by a relative, after 36 hours without sleep, soaking wet and without being paid a penny for it.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/questions-must-be-answered-over-unpaid-stewards

As a friend has commented on my previous posting, the "charity" which helps provide recruits for such work is run by someone close to Cameron's government. Here's the Political Scrapbook blog:

The boss of the charity which arranged a compulsory work placement in which Jubilee pageant workers were forced to sleep rough in central London is a Conservative peer. Baroness Debbie Scott heads Tomorrow’s People, who were responsible for botched arrangements which saw 30 jobseekers told to sleep overnight under London bridge — before being woken at 5:30am and told to change their clothes in public.

Baroness Scott appears on page 14 of the Conservative manifesto backing the Tories’ Work Programme. However she was later censured by the Charity Commission, who ruled that “By agreeing to contribute to the manifesto, the charity has provided support to the party”, a breach of the rules on political activities of charities.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/06/jubilee-stewards-tomorrows-people-debbie-scott/

That is Baroness Deborah Stedman-Scott, to be more formal.

Pity the job was not entrusted to another Tory peeress, Baroness Warsi.

She could have taught the trainees how to find more comfortable but still buckshee accomodation in London, and claim generous expenses for it. Our young people are just not being given the right skills to succeed in the Big Society.

So who is the boss of the firm entrusted with the training and welfare of these young people, as well as security at major public events? Obviously it must be someone with sound business background in security, and a solid reputation. Here is Political Scrapbook again:

The director of a security company who forced unpaid jobseekers to sleep rough before assisting at the Jubilee pageant has had a string of previous companies ‘struck off’ by regulators after a failure to submit accounts. The revelation could further bring into question the professionalism of an operation awarded security contracts for the Olympic Games.

Molly Prince was a director of the following businesses, which were were all compulsorily struck off by Companies House using powers under the Companies Act — having failed to submit any accounts whatsoever:

• CPUK.COM
• Voluntary Event Services
• Angel Event Solutions
• Event Safety Solutions
• Venusec

Prince’s current company, Close Protection UK, hit the headlines after it used unpaid jobseekers to steward the weekend’s jubilee celebrations, forcing them to camp overnight under London Bridge. The incident soured the celebrations, and has once again shone a harsh light on government workfare schemes.

Earlier we revealed that the boss of Tomorrow’s People, the back-to-work charity which referred jobseekers to Close Protection UK, is Conservative peer Baroness Scott. Scott and Tomorrow’s People had already been reprimanded by the Charity Commission for breaching rules on political activities, with their links to the Tory Party.

That might go a little way towards explaining Downing Street’s off-hand dismissal of the scandal, a spokesman saying:

“This is a one off … This is an isolated incident. The company has apologised.”

Interestingly, Close Protection UK’s last accounts appear to indicate the company was operating with substantial liabilities — and a bank balance of just £1,317.

Obviously it is one "one off" "isolated incident" after another.

We mentioned Molly Prince before as head of a training company, Learning Development Centre, apparently based at Salford University. The Guardian gives a more accurate picture:

The website for LDC states it "launched from Technology House @ The University of Salford's Campus" lists its address at the university. A spokeswoman for the University informed the Guardian that the company holds only a "virtual office" - or a mailbox - at the premises. Training and courses are provided at the offices of its sister company Close Protection UK Ltd, in Hindley, Wigan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/06/unpaid-jubilee-stewards-downing-street?intcmp=239

According to one commentator, CPUK was operating from a caravan park in Wigan. It seems to have acquired a reputation in the North West.
http://socialwelfareunion.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/diamond-jubilee-security-firm-must-answer-questions-over-slave-labour-claims-says-mp/

But now the firm seems to have got in among the big boys. Here's the Guardian again:

Next month, CPUK is to supply about 200 fire marshals who will be responsible for making sure fire exits are clear and people evacuate buildings safely at Olympic Games sites, along with security officials.

The London Olympic organising committee (Locog) said it had sought assurances from the company that all the staff involved would be paid the London living wage and provided with "suitable accommodation".

"CPUK were appointed via a competitive tender process and will be providing accommodation for staff where necessary (ie where they don't live locally)," said a Locog spokesman. "Following the recent media reports, we have spoken to CPUK and we have been assured that appropriate accommodation will be provided."

Locog said CPUK was also providing some security staff to private company G4S as part of the security workforce at the Olympics and that G4S had received assurances from the company.

However, trade unions expressed concern about CPUK's involvement in the Olympics. Paul Embery, the Fire Brigade Union's regional secretary for London, said: "If the stories about this company are true, they should be kept as far away from the Olympics Games as possible, and we certainly wouldn't want them having responsibility for ensuring fire safety laws are enforced or other such work. The Olympic Games generates colossal levels of wealth and those whose job it is to protect the public at the Games should be properly trained, well cared for and sufficiently paid."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/06/unpaid-jubilee-stewards-downing-street?intcmp=239

Mention of G4S raises other questions. This firm certainly has experience. In everything from security for Shell oil in Nigeria to equipping Israeli prisons. In this country it is moving into the privatisation of police services and already handles treatment of asylum seekers. A man called Jimmy Mubenga died from asphyxiation whilst being deported by two G4S (Group 4 Securicor) security guards.

There's a demonstration today outside G4S annual general meeting in the City of London. A number of organisations concerned with issues from Palestinian rights to opposing privatisation have come together for this protest.

The Olympics is just another lucrative job for G4S, and not surprisingly they are putting some of the work out to cheaper bidders. But G4S itself is using workfare placements. The security firm is after all the second biggest private employer in the world.

Welcome to 21st century capitalism.

BBC's shameful "impartiality" shows inhumanity

DEMONSTRATORS will gather outside the BBC in Portland Place today for another march in support of the people of Gaza. Just when I'd guess many people were, like myself, hoping the ceasefire would give us time to relax, and reflect, and the people in Gaza the chance to bury their dead and try to rebuild their lives. But today's demonstration, at the initiative of Media Workers Against the War, who wanted to highlight bias and under reporting, has been given added point by news from the BBC itself.

I received this from a friend yesterday:

BBC PULLS CHARITY APPEAL FOR GAZA VICTIMS

The BBC has broken a 45 year-old agreement with overseas aid charities
by refusing to broadcast a Disasters Emergency Committee fundraising
appeal for Gaza “to avoid any risk of compromising public confidence in
the BBC’s impartiality in the context of an ongoing news story”:

http://tinyurl.com/dedpz5

Would the BBC have done the same for Burma, Georgia, Zimbabwe or Tibet?

Complain online here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/ "
"


Julia Bard, who sent me this information, appended the letter of complaint which she had sent to the BBC:

"As a journalist and a human being who has frequently made donations as a result of appeals on BBC radio and television, I am horrified that the BBC has refused to broadcast a Disasters Emergency Committee fundraising appeal for Gaza 'to avoid any risk of compromising public confidence in the BBC’s impartiality in the context of an ongoing news story'.

Most disasters are ongoing news stories and they all have at least two sides to them.
That doesn't mean leaving people to die for lack of food, medicine and shelter. I am a Jew who, along with many Israelis and other diaspora Jews, has been watching horrified as Israel systematically smashed up an enclave crowded with civilians -- actions which both the Israeli government and the Jewish communal leadership in Britain claimed were being carried out in our name.

I am fortunate in knowing how to donate to the appeal for Gaza without getting this information from the BBC but you must be well aware that this is not the case for most of your audience. By refusing to carry this appeal you are condemning untold numbers of people to continuing suffering. I can think of many words to describe standing by while innocent civilians suffer and die for lack of humanitarian aid. 'Impartial' isn't one of them."

I think Julia's view will be shared by lots of people.

On the news today we were told that the BBC took its decision after consulting its
news editors. This does not entirely surprise me. I've noted before where the BBC's peculiar idea of "balanced reporting" led. It conspicuously failed to cover the regular suppression of civil demonstrations at Bil'in in the West Bank, even though these were drawn to its attention by British participants, and even when Nobel peace prize winner Mairead Corrigan was injured by rubber bullets. It censored out an interview with the main singer and organiser of the Skies Are Weeping concert for Rachel Corrie, held in London, giving the last word to the man from the Zionist Federation. During the recent Gaza massacre we kept seeing Israeli government spokespersons on the news, while the Palestinian envoy in London, Manuel Hassassian, didn't get a look in.
We also heard today that this refusal to broadcast an aid appeal is not the first time. They previously did it after the war in Lebanon. Consistent in one respect, then.

Of course the BBC is not alone in the British media. Just more full of shit about its "impartiality" perhaps. But this weekend Murdoch-owned Sky News was saying it would follow the BBC's lead, and it looks like others will do the same.

Nor is it only on the Middle East that BBC 'balance' has been heavily loaded. I still remember the time, early in the Bosnian war, when we were told on the news that "Muslim authorities" in Zenica were investigating the killing of an aid worker. For a moment I wondered why a police matter was being handled by a religious body, half expecting to see a turbaned imam on my screen, whereas what we saw was an ordinary-looking police officer in an ordinary police car. Then the penny dropped. Although the British government had reluctantly recognised Bosnia and Hercegovina, the country which, unlike Israel, had invaded nobody but was the victim of aggression, was under an arms embargo (unlike Israel). The Foreign Office line was that this was a three-sided war between Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Muslims. Douglas Hurd told us lifting the embargo would only create a "level killing field"; and throughout the conflict the Bosnians resisting the carve up were called "Muslims".

Tuzla, with its Social Democrat mayor and mixed population was described by the BBC as a "Muslim stronghold". When a mortar attack on the town centre killed 75 youth celebrating Yugoslav Youth Day the BBC rshowed its "impartiality" by refusing to interview a Tuzla parent who happened to be in London. Instead Radio 4 Today programme had the men from the right-wing Serb information centre in its studio. When General Zivjak, who commanded the Bosnian forces at Sarajevo, came here and spoke at a rally, I waited to see if the BBC would call him a "Muslim commander" - he happened to be a genuine Bosnian Serb - but no worry - the BBC did not interview nor mention him. Likewise they mised the opportunity to interview diplomat Sven Alkali on his way back from Washington. I had been waiting to hear how they would describe this Bosnian ambassador to the US who went on to become a government minister - would he be a 'Muslim Jew' or a 'Jewish Muslim'?

Of course back then one could trace the line which the BBC had adopted to
the position being taken by the Foreign Office. More generally, I am inclined to suspect Britain's colonial past has left its governing classes with a mentality which not only deals in stereotypes but assumes the lesser breeds will keep to their allotted places. Tell them a Serb is defending Sarajevo, or a Jewish woman is supporting the Palestinians and you're just not playing by their rules, old boy.

Anyway, after upsetting the Blair government, by reflecting the crisis in British politics over the Iraq war(which is when Media Workers Against the War sprang into life), the Beeb backed down with the loss of a director general and moved to the Right. Except, this time, it seems to have even gone too far for the government.

On Friday BBC director general Mark Thompson turned down a request from International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander to reconsider his decision. Another minister Ben Bradshaw has urged the BBC to "stand up" to the Israeli authorities and broadcast the appeal to raise emergency funds for Gaza. Bradshaw, himself a former BBC journalist, said that broadcasters' decision not to screen the appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) was "inexplicable" and dismissed the Corporation's explanation for its position as "completely feeble".

Labour veteran Tony Benn and other MPs and celebrities taking part in today's demonstration will deliver a letter to the BBC demanding that it reverse its decision.

TO COMPLAIN TO THE BBC
PHONE: 03700 100 222
TEXT: 03700 100 212
ONLINE:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complaints_stage1.shtml

I know some BBC staff are ashamed and disgusted by their bosses' stand. But they have enough trouble keeping their jobs and trying to tell the truth, without trying to have any say in the running of things. As for we the public, we all pay for the BBC one way or another, without it seems having much influence on "our" public service broadcaster, unlike some well-funded professional lobbyists with sway in the media. It may be time to try making ourselves felt by other means.

The Tory Daily Mail is not my normal preferred reading but a friend, an old age pensioner who keeps asking me to join him down the British Legion, has drawn my attention to this item. It's a change from the Mail's usual targeting of immigrants, welfare claimants, and trade unionists.

The housing chief who earns

£1,000a day from the taxpayer

By Steve Doughty and Daniel Bates

A public sector housing boss has secured an earnings package worth almost £1,000 a day.

John Belcher, whose organisation runs subsidised homes for the elderly, received taxpayer-funded salary and perks worth more than £360,000 last year.

This is nearly twice the £189,994 earned by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and dwarfs the earnings of the public servants who are traditionally the best paid.

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, who as Lord Chief Justice is head of the judiciary in England and Wales, earns £236,300, while Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, is paid £290,000.

Dr Belcher, 61, chief executive of the Anchor Trust, has more than doubled the value of his pay package over seven years. He is thought to be the first public servant outside industries such as the Royal Mail, the railways and the BBC to earn more than £300,000.

Canadian-born Dr Belcher also serves on the Audit Commission, the public spending watchdog.

Last year he earned £327,000, including a £72,000 bonus and a car allowance of £15,000. He also received £1,000 in medical insurance and £32,880 in pension contributions, bringing the total to £360,880.

The package was condemned by critics of public spending waste.

The TaxPayers' Alliance said it was 'outrageous', while the Housing Corporation, which regulates housing associations, warned that 'salary increases should be proportionate'.

The pay of housing association chiefs shot up after the organisations expanded when councils hived off their housing estates to independent associations, which are often run by former town hall officials.

Many associations like to style themselves as businesses but a High Court judgment this summer ruled they were public bodies.

They are due for a further boost of £400million over the next few months under Gordon Brown's plans to build more social housing to ease the impact of the credit crunch.

Anchor Trust, once a small Oxford association, provides housing for 50,000 elderly people. It runs care homes and sells sheltered housing but its biggest operation is as a landlord of subsidised housing. It receives £600 million in housing grants from the Treasury.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052888/The-housing-chief-earns-1-000-day-taxpayer.html

------------------------------------------------------------

What is not unusual about this story is the headline, focusing exclusively on how money is coming from the taxpayer. Papers like the Mail assume all their readers are middle-class home owners whose only concern is with the value of their homes and how much tax they are paying. Judging from such comments as the Mail has published their conditioned regulars can't tell the difference between a charity boss and a public servant anyway, and are most excised that a "foreigner" has got the job.

The reason this item interested my friend is that he is an Anchor Housing tenant, living in "sheltered accommodation" for the elderly, and has seen his rent go up each year. Many of his neighbours could not afford these rents without council housing benefit, which is of course means tested.
Each year Anchor provides information about its costs and the budget for his scheme, but he cannot remember it mentioning the chief executive's salary.

Lower down the scale, Anchor staff who look after the schemes, seeing to anything from dealing with contractors, repairs and security, to calling doctors and ambulances for tenants who take ill, are not so well-paid. Not all have accommodation provided, and we hear of a woman asked to travel some distance attending more than one site but not allowed to claim for petrol or fares.

The reason I'm citing the case of Dr.Belcher and his dosh is that for many years now, housing associations and trusts have been extolled as the happy answer to housing problems, and as the Mail story says, local authorities, prevented from building new council houses, have been encouraged to pass on responsibility for existing housing to them. But it is also part of the bigger picture of public service provision being either privatised or passed on to the so-called voluntary sector, sections of which have increasingly become like
competing businesses, with overpaid bosses and lower paid staff. This kind of charity is a byword for generosity - to some.

Caller deserving our support

OLD fogies like me are forever lamenting the removal of factories and docks from London, which has left us with empty places in our union councils, among other things; and forever getting pissed-off with such features of modern life as call-centres, whether or not they are to blame for delays in contacting services while we explain to some remote operator where exactly we are; or for cold calls from charities and companies anxious to tell us of their generous special offers.

They usually call while you're having your tea. I could unplug the phone, or find somewhere that sells rubber-clad handsets suitable for bouncing off the wall.

But passing from my Victor Meldrew mode, let's consider the poor sods who work in call-centres. Part of the new-style capitalism - how well it manages to blend modern technology and Dickensian conditions. Permanently stressed, and under pressure, having to put your hand up to ask permission to go to the loo. Trapped between supervisors watching your rate and success of calls, and uncharitable people like me telling you where to go, as we slam the phone down.

Yesterday by way of a change, I had a friendly face to face chat with a London call centre worker, It was just for a few minutes, so I did not get to ask whether his conditions had been as bad as all that. Pat Carmody had come to the National Shop Stewards Network conference where he said call centre workers were organising, despite the difficulties, and staff employed by his company had even won a 15 per cent pay increase. But Pat, a member of the Communication Workers Union, had just been sacked as a result of his union activity.

It seems the trouble started when Pat's boss saw this item in Socialist Worker:

"Standing up for call centre staff" (June 7, 2008)
A well attended meeting of CWU union members at Pell and Bales, a call centre in Old Street, central London, launched a campaign to defend a fellow worker last week. The caller was suspended pending a disciplinary hearing following a complaint made about him during training For asking some pertinent questions. he was accused of "playing to the crowd" and "scowling at the carpet" Many colleagues have signed a petition calling for the charges to be dropped.

The item was signed Pat Carmody, CWU member.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=15062

Well, it's a free country isn't it? No, evidently. I wonder if Pat's boss just happened to be reading Socialist Worker, or was it drawn to his attention by someone? It seems putting your name to a news item is even worse than scowling at the carpet, because Pat was told he was in breach of contract, and sacked. He is appealing the decision, and should have his union's support.

Pell and Bales is a small company, and until this case I'd never heard of it. Apparently it claims to be "ethical". Some of its clients are well-known. They include:
Cancer Research UK
Macmillan Cancer Care
World Wildlife Fund
NSPCC
Barnardos
Oxfam
Action Aid
and the Cats Protection League.

Don't know if there's a call centre workers' protection league.

But friends and union colleagues of Pat Carmody are recommending letters to Pell and Bales' CEO, Mr. Karl Holweger, pointing out that the sacking of union rep Pat Carmody is an attack on trade union rights and freedom of speech, and reflects badly on the company. The letters should urge Mr.Holweger to revrse the decision, and reinstate Pat.

You can e-mail letters to kholweger@pellandbales.co.uk.
They would like you to please cc to pnbunion@googlemail.com

If you are involved in charity work or as a supporter or worker for any of the organisations that might use Pell and Bales services you could mention that you would raise your concern that the firm they are using is taking an anti-union attitude.

To contact the campaign and keep in touch:
pnbunion@googlemail.com

Sweet Charity, Bitter Competition

HERE'S another example of the bitter competition between charities and voluntary organisations for resources and public business.

Regular readers of this blog will know about Southall Black Sisters' battle to save the grant from Ealing borough council which enables them to do vital advocacy and advice work, focussing on the particular problems of immigrant and ethnic minority women.

Southall Black Sisters have never turned away any woman who came to them for help. Though they originated mainly from the Asian community they are currently helping Somali women. But they point to their specialist knowledge of religious and cultural backgrounds, as well as language, and readiness to confront issues from arranged marriage and domestic violence to genital mutilation and 'honour killings '. The Tory council thinks a "general" service will do, though it has not come up with extra funds.

The Southall Black Sisters have gained wide respect for their work, well beyond their area and the field of social work, and it not surprising their campaign to continue has won wide support both locally and nationally.

Not from some people in the charity business it would seem. Here's a message recently posted to
supporters on the Save the Southall Black Sisters Facebook group.

Refuge We are extremely disturbed to note that the organisation Refuge has decided to make a bid for the recycled funds that should be awarded to SBS. Refuge is a national domestic violence charity that has considerable resources at its disposal. In 2006/7 for instance, its total annual income was £9.4 million. Refuge has made a bid for the £100,000 to provide a domestic violence service in Ealing. Needless to say, this move undermines our struggle for funding and for our autonomy. By way of a gesture of support, Refuge wrote to Ealing Council requesting it to make reserve funds available for SBS following the bidding process! It is a matter of great disappointment to SBS that a well known, well resourced national organisation like Refuge is colluding in the closure of a vital specialist organisation. Given its annual income, its bid for the £100,000 represents a ‘drop in the ocean’, but the same funds will make all the difference to our work with black and minority women. Its attitude displays a patronising, unprincipled and indifferent approach to our struggles as black and minority women.'

This case raises special issues, but it is also part of a wider pattern. Another contest I heard about the other day apparently involves Shelter and the St.Mungo's Trust, bidding for work concerning the prison service and ex-offenders.

The competition between charities for the public's money has already been highly profitable to the advertising and PR business. Smaller, community-based groups do not have the same resources, nor may they want to divert what funds they have from the purpose for which they were raised.

The competition to take on tasks for government may well make the business-like charity organisations cautious about saying or doing anything that those in power might not like. Southall Black Sisters have earned their reputation by standing up for their cllients against authority whenever it was necessary, whether that of a bullying husband, religious leaders, or the Home Office. Will those after their council money do the same?

Why Shelter faces storm

IT is over forty years since millions of people in Britain were shocked into awareness of social reality by a television drama about one woman and her children. It was called 'Cathy Come Home', and depicted the nightmare of poor people desperately trying to find and keep a roof over their heads, in one of the world's richest cities.

Cathy set new standards in TV drama realism and it gave a boost to the housing charity Shelter that was formed soon after, combining help with campaigning so that it did not give politicians an excuse to dodge responsibility, but tried to inform and set their agenda.
How well it succeeded, as authorities accepted the need for a safety net, but failed, as housing as a social need was forgotten in the Thatcherite rush to suck people into the property game, was discussed on the anniversary.
http://england.shelter.org.uk/home/home-7230.cfm

Nowadays the BBC is better-known for endless programmes about buying and selling property than hard-hitting social dramas. Of late if we have heard the words "working class" used on the box they have been prefixed by the words "white", at once patronising us and promoting a political agenda in which we fight each other for attention and scarce resources, rather than asking why there's a shortage or whether they are just over-priced. That might lead to us upsetting the property racket, and that would never do.

Shelter too, once the favourite good cause of the educated young as they moved from student revolt to respectability but retained a conscience, is losing or has already lost its halo. A few months ago Ken Loach, who took the camera out of the studio and the social issues into our homes, starting something when he directed 'Cathy', announced that he was boycotting Shelter. A lot of people, including unions, who have given their respect and support to the housing charity, may follow his lead. They fear Shelter is moving away from its social aims, and don't like the uncharitable way it is treating its staff.

The charity employs some 850 staff, about 60 per cent of whom are members of the TGWU Unite. In March they held their first ever strike, and they took further strike action the other day. Shelter workers are dedicated people, They don't expect the big salaries earned by some of their old college chums who went to work in business, the fat cat city bonuses awarded by firms that do well out of the housing market (or even to directors of banks that lost money speculating in ill-judged mortgages). But just because they chose to work for a charity doesn't mean they can afford to be one. Today's charities are big business, Shelter disposes of some £49 million a year, and the staff are not Victorian do-gooders from wealthy families, dabbling as a hobby with the poor, they are full-time professionals, and they too have families to keep, rents or mortgages to pay.

Shelter staff are not in dispute because they want big money or shorter hours. They are having to strike because they are battling to stay where they are. Under a plan introduced last year Shelter frontline staff have been downgraded, suffering pay cuts of around £3,000 a year.
The charity also wants to abolish its incremental pay scheme, so anyone who is on the lowest pay now can look forward to no improvement no matter how long they stay. No wonder the union says that the 30 to 40 staff who have already been downgraded would number more if it had not been that people have left the job. To add to this bleak picture, Shelter wants to increase working hours by what amounts to three weeks a year - with no increase in pay.

The way things are going some Shelter staff fear they could end up needing the kind of services they are supposed to provide. The Guardian instanced a worker who was given a choice - work the extra hours, which would mean having to spend more on childcare, or lose £2,000 a year. "One worker, who asked not to be identified for fear of dismissal, said: 'I'm the main breadwinner in my household and am living in a one-bedroom flat with two children. If I have to pay for more childcare, it's going to be very difficult to pay the mortgage and see my kids.'"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/24/socialexclusion.filmnews

Shelter bosses say the changes are necessary so Shelter can compete with such major private-sector companies as Capita - itself set up to take on work which the civil service has farmed out - in providing legal aid contracts. Chief executive Adam Sampson emailed all Shelter employees informing them: 'Those who decide that they are not prepared to work under the new arrangements will, with regret, be issued with notices of dismissal".

Sampson says the public give Shelter money to help the poor and homeless, not to pay Shelter staff. This is rich, coming from one of the charity's top tax bracket earners, who gets an estimated 25% more than the heads of other big homelessness charities. Shelter wants to make staff redundant, yet it has found the money to hire well-paid business consultants (not unlike our cash-strapped NHS) and spent £750,000 on refurbishing its head office. We won't know whether the generous public will approve such spending, since the charity does not give supporters any say in the way it is run.

Shelter's battle with its workforce is part of a wider picture, of charities becoming more like private businesses at the same time as competing with each other and with commercial companies to win contracts to do the government's work, by offering to do it on the cheap.
At the Greater London Association of Trades Union Councils AGM last weekend,while we were waiting for our guest speaker from the Shelter workers, a Barnet trade unionist updated us on the Fremantle care workers dispute. Fremantle is a 'charity' that took over residential care homes previously run by Barnet council, and last year terminated staff contracts, re-engaging them at up to a third less pay,

Besides reducing workers' pay and conditions, and making out that people ought to be prepared to put up with it for the sake of "charity", the handover to the 'voluntary sector' enables national and local government to evade questions of democracy and accountability. We might also guess that previously concerned and campaigning charities which could embarrass those in power may be less inclined to do so if they are intent in keeping in the government's good books. Especially when top executives become attached to bigger rewards and perks. Virtue may be its own reward "but you realise if we are to attract and keep senior executives of this calibre we must pay a competitive salary" - while competing to keep the lower-paid staff wages down.

Donations made payable to Shelter Strike Fund can be sent to Shelter Stewards, c/o 48, Swindon Close, Gorton, Manchester M18 8JQ. You can also invite a speaker.

Messages of support to shelterstewards@googlemail.com

Protests can be sent to adam_sampson@shelter.org.uk


Two Early Day Motions that you can ask MPs or MSPs to sign:
Westminster EDM - no.1016 Shelter and its staff.
Scottish EDM no.S3M01475 Solidarity with Shelter Workers

Supporting my sisters in Southall

SOMETIMES it's tears, sometimes
triumph! But Southall Black Sisters'
hard work and bravery has brought an all-too rare success story we ought to support.

SOME years ago, at the height of the row about Salman Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses'. a group of brave women stood holding placards on a road island in central London. Across the road from them on one side were angry young Muslim men whipped up by religious leaders to clamour for the burning of books, and death to whoever they were told had blasphemed against the prophet.

On the other side of the road, a bunch of white racists bellowed their hatred of the Muslims, the liberal Asian writer, and the women, who stood their vigil for their freedom and ours, against fascists and fundamentalists. I think the women's demonstration may have been organised by Women Against Fundamentalism. I was not there. But I was told that among them were several prominent members of Southall Black Sisters.

If so, their presence was appropriate and symbolic. Based in an outer west London area with a large Asian population and a history of social and anti-racist struggle, the Southall Black Sisters have grown up taking their stand against the prejudices of British society and the reactionary, patriarchal and backward forces in their own communities.

Formed in 1979, their choice of name may reflect a now no longer fashionable identity by "colour" label put upon them by enemies, but it remains a valid assertion of unity, no matter whether your family roots are in Gujarat or Punjab, East African or Afro-Caribbean, and whatever your religious background. This has renewed importance today, when street gangs and 'respectable' politicians alike foment and exploit sectarian division.

I've met some Southall Black Sisters at various meetings, demonstrations and social occasions. But along with campaigning, their main work to change things and challenge outmoded authority has taken the practical form of providing help, advice and support to women who come reporting problems, domestic abuse and violence.
http://www.southallblacksisters.org.uk/

Their work has been the subject of academic theses, and sometimes news headlines. Their success in helping free Kiranjit Ahluwalia, jailed for murdering her husband after suffering ten years of his abuse and violence, set a precedent, and inspired a movie, "Provoked". This has also been made into a book.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=395633&in_page_id=1879&in_a_source

Deputy prime minister Harriet Harman MP referred to the Southall Black Sisters by name in a speech last July, as to what sort of organisations deserved support. Already honoured with an award by the civil rights group Liberty, last week Southall Black Sisters were at Westminster to recieve the Asian Voice Lifetime Achievement Award for service to the community.

Yet ironically, amid such recognitions, comes the news that the future work of Southall Black Sisters, if not their existence, is threatened. In a letter sent out recently, Pragna Patel warns : " We are currently facing threat of closure as a result of our local authority's (Ealing) decision to withdraw our funding as of April 2008.

Since the mid eighties our 'core' funding has been provided by Ealing. Over the years we have on average received £100,000 per annum from the local authority and this is utilised to provide advice, advocacy, counselling and support services to black and minority women in the borough who experience violence and abuse. The experience and insights gained through this work has led us to become a strategically important service, providing advice on policy and legal developments to government, and international, national and local organisations and
professionals. The Ealing grant has, of course, had to be supplemented by funds raised elsewhere.

The local authority's decision is based on the view that there is no need for specialist services for black and minority women and that services to abused women in the borough need to be streamlined. This view fails to take account of the unequal social, economic and cultural context which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for black and minority women to
access outside help or seek information about their rights. In effect the council proposes to take away essential life saving services provided by SBS. Ealing council suggests that we either extend our service to cover the needs of all women in the borough or that we set up a
consortium of groups to provide such a service for the same sum of money. The amount of funds available to the voluntary sector in Ealing has shrunk year in, year out, but the withdrawal of funds to SBS will have a number of far reaching consequences.'

Southall Black Sisters say they have never denied their services to any women who came to them for help. But pretending as the council seems to do that all women are equally in need of their services only ignores reality and strengthens inequalities. Problems such as forced marriages, about which some politicians have pontificated lately, 'honour' killings, and immigration difficulties, are bound to affect Asian women more than others, and Southall's ethnic make-up gives it an obvious emphasis. Women from a particular background or 'traditional family are bound to feel more confident approaching a friendly face with their troubles, and talking to someone who understands because they have been there.

We have already read of the tragedies in the child welfare and protection field, elsewhere in London, caused by the uncertainty of professional social workers faced with what seemed like a different culture.

If Southall Black Sisters are forced to reduce their services, or diffuse the expertise they have acquired and been able to offer other parts of the country, the consequences could be just as serious. As they point out: "The suicide rates of Asian women for example, are already three times the national average and homicides - where abusive men and families kill their wives, daughters or daughters-in-law - are also high within some black and minority communities. In all likelihood, any reduction in our services will see a rise in suicide and homicide rates amongst black and minority women".

Ealing's pretence to be cutting support in order to back more generalised services is undermined anyway by the news that amid all the talk of cohesion and "integration", the council has not only chosen to undermine a group that cuts across religious and ethnic divides and bridges differences, but is seeking to set up Muslim women only groups!
Southall Black Sisters say there is no demand for such groups, so I wonder whose idea was it? What are the chances, I wonder, that a young Muslim woman who goes to religious counsel will be encouraged if she wants to resist religious and patriarchal authority, whether on dress code, choice of partner, or escape from an oppressive marriage? How will separate groups counter the hostility which some persons have tried to incite between Sikhs and Muslims in Southall?

Southall Black Sisters have asked supporters to write to the leader of Ealing Council, Jason Stacey, and to send them a copy, as well as messages of support. They are also calling a demonstration tomorrow evening, 6pm -7pm at Ealing Town Hall. This time I think I will be there.

DEMO DETAILS

SAVE SBS PICKET

26th February 2008
6pm to 7pm
Outside EALING TOWN HALL

7pm onwards: we need to pack out public gallery
in the Liz Cantell Room (Ealing Town Hall) on the
Ground Floor to support Southall Black Sisters

Ealing Town Hall, Uxbridge Road, Ealing W5 2BY
Bus: 65, 83, 207, 297, 607, 112, E1, E2, 37, E8, E9, E10, N23, N2
British Rail & Underground - Ealing Broadway
Other transport: nearest major roads, A406, M4, M40, M25
Parking at rear after 5pm Mon-Fri. A Small charge
applies between 8am and 6pm at weekends. Large
multi-storey car parks within a five-minute walk
at Springbridge Road and Ealing Broadway Centre.

CONTACT:
mailto:southallblacksisters@btconnect.com