SEX OFFENDERS,HUMAN RIGHTS, PARTY POLITICS & A PCC

LETTER PUBLISHED EADT 10TH MAY 2013

 

I was dismayed to read your important lead article by Matt Stott ‘Outrage as rapists taken off offenders register’ very quickly turn into party political posturing and fear mongering about the European Courts of Human Rights by our Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner Tim Passmore.

The issue of sex offenders being taken off the register is a real concern to me and many of your readers. Critically though this EU Court ruling does not take away the existing review structures already in place by the police and other agencies to keep dangerous offenders on the register. This is the point made by Detective Superintendent Alan Caton. The importance of which was reiterated by Cath Elliot from Suffolk Rape Crisis who asked how it is decided that sex offenders are no longer a danger. The EU Court ruling essentially said that a blanket ‘life time’ on the register with no opportunity to request a review by offenders breaches their Human Rights. This is no ‘opening of the floodgates’

Mr Passmore refers to the ‘higher power’ of the EU Court implying that it dictates to the UK. In fact the Supreme Court interprets the law and it is up to our Parliament to decide how to proceed with that interpretation. Mr Passmore refers to the UK as a ‘sovereign nation’ The UK exercised its ‘sovereignty’ sixty years ago by becoming party to the European Convention on Human Rights and deciding that rulings from the court would be respected by UK governments.

 Mr Passmore asserts that the EU Courts are unelected and unaccountable which is simply not true. In fact the United Kingdom nominates its own candidate, has 18 seats on the Parliamentary Assembly and our own elected MPs vote on which judges to appoint. This is more power than they have to elect domestic judges and some people believe we could take advice from the EU courts on how to make our own justice system more democratic and accountable.

It is concerning that leading political figures; and by default, the organisations they lead; do not see the damage they do by distancing themselves from the principles of upholding human rights. In doing this they are responsible for the further erosion of public trust and confidence in human rights.

 Were Mr Passmore’s comments motivated by the Conservative Party losses in the local County Council elections last week in the face of growing  ‘anti Europe’ sentiment? If so in my opinion there should be no place here for these types of politics for they serve no useful purpose for our police service or the people of Suffolk.

THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME...

I met a woman from Lithuania who asked for help a few years ago (around 2006). She was a single mum, who had not completed her education. She had lived with her father in relative poverty in Lithuania. She and some friends were recruited through an agency to work in a factory in England. She left her teenage son with her father not wanting to interrupt his education. She hoped to build a better life in England and that he might be able to join her. In the meantime she planned to send some money back home. As a mother she wanted her son to have more opportunities in life than she had

Through an interpreter she described the many people living in the cramped house in Suffolk she was placed in. She explained that rent was automatically deducted from her pay. She told me how she and others were picked up by a minibus in the early hours of the morning and how these transport costs were also automatically deducted from her pay. She talked of her 12 hour shifts: 6 days a week in a factory and of tough work conditions.

After a few months she suffered a serious accident at work, allegedly caused by a malfunction of the packing machine she was working on. She passed me a torn cardboard folder, stuffed with paper. In here I saw the photographs and medical reports from the hospital. She showed me the surgical scars on her wrist as a result of her injury.

Amongst the papers were demands from her employer to attend occupational health appointments. Letters she never received in time because of the chaos of the house she lived in. Letters in English that she would not have been able to read anyway, including the dismissal letter.

She had no income and so was kicked out of her accomodation. She was offered a sofa in a flat in a house that she described as being full of men - some young and some old. Some she thought were alcoholics, criminals and drug dealers. My impression was that she was becoming a victim of her circumstances. She explained that it was better than sleeping on the street. She talked of her shame and how she got messages back to her father and son about how well she was doing.

She talked of her attempts to seek justice from her employer in relation to the accident at work. She had secured a half hour free legal advice appointment in Essex and it was clear that a complaint had been lodged. She was leading an increasingly chaotic lifestyle. This coupled with her inability to communicate in English meant she was an unreliable client. She missed appointments, and so the case was not pursued. The interpreter talked her through the letter in the file from her employer which denied any responsibility for her accident. It was the first time she had understood their position and she was able to outline all of the health and safety failures clearly and credibly.

She took one further letter , this time from her bag. It was from a hospital, with an appointment for her to have day surgery the following week. It was accompanied by a letter setting out important do's and don'ts. The female interpreter and I gently questioned her and identified she had attended her GP and a subsequent Consultant appointment with gynaecological problems. She was frightened, and until that point had no idea what was going to happen to her.  

I undertook to help her as did the interpreter. We made phone calls while she was with us to see if we could get her some immediate help.We were able to arrange an interpreter through the hospital and that was about it. I took her contact details and pursued her case with little sucess.

I was unable to contact her ever again. I found out just a few days later she was no longer at the address she had given and her mobile was unobtainable. The hospital called and were frustrated that she had not attended her appointment.

I have been thinking of this mother this week as the words 'immigration' seem to be like blazing neon signs. The current debate seems to me to focus on skewed statistics, unemployment and unfounded accusations about crime perpetrated by 'immigrants'.This debate is sucessfully dividing communities and laying blame for the rising costs of benefit payments at the feet of 'foreigners'

We should remind ourselves that we are talking about people first and foremost. Maybe mothers and fathers; brothers and sisters; grandparents. People who come here or indeed to any other country to work; to contribute; to make a better life often for unselfish reasons.

Is it too much to ask that we change the debate. That we debate our humanity and what sort of society we want. That we do not accept shallow and throw away comments like ' let them speak English'  Rather we debate whether there is an absolute right for all of us to work wherever we choose, and recognise the economic and social benefits of such a right. A debate that addresses the absolute right for all of us to be treated within the law and with dignity and respect when and if we do. A debate that includes our moral and financial imperative to provide help and support when and if it goes wrong.

THE CLUB

I attended a meeting of Suffolk County Council's Cabinet today as a member of the public. It took place in West Suffolk House - the hub of localism and local authority partnership working in Bury St Edmunds. Positioned well out of the town centre it  perhaps discourages attendance by local people.

I was quite surprised at the lack of real welcome, bearing in mind these meetings are open to members of the public. No offer of refreshment (even water) nor checking if I or any of us had any specific needs. No introductions of the Councillors present and as a member of the public I was expected to pre-read huge swathes of documents and only able to ask questions submitted in advance. With no opportunity for debate and discussion.

I sat there wondering how many people across Suffolk directly impacted by the issues set out in the papers discussed and decided upon today knew anything at all about this meeting. Who is responsible for promoting democracy? Is it local Councillors? Local Authorities?  the Voluntary and  Community Sector? No one?

On the agenda was the budget - which was largely cheered through, meaning privatisation, including the erosion of public sector staff jobs and security continues to gallop along at pace.  One comment from Councillor Newman seemed to describe the end of social workers 'turning up with clipboards', ignoring the role and needs of communities. I reflected that the picture he painted was surely not a fair description of the hundreds of highly qualified and committed social workers working across Suffolk. Certainly not the many I have met.

There was another comment from Councillor Storey along the lines of the freeze in Council Tax being welcomed by those not on benefits and proud to be working. What I wondered of those proud to be working, but also unavoidably on benefits because of low pay in Suffolk? Or of those on benefits but desperate to be working – perhaps previously employed in the public sector in services cut based on decisions presided over by Councillor Storey?

Questions about poor attainment in Suffolk schools seemed to be batted off. Amongst other things Councillor Newman blamed 'coasting schools' that had not had a recent OFSTED inspection. It seemed to me that there was no acceptance of any lack of appropriate investment or failures in political leadership. Rather, we were encouraged to believe the Raising the Bar initiative (£700,000 set aside for this) and growth of Academies would fix things. Not sure if there were any parents or carers in the audience today whose children are being let down.

The new all singing and all dancing travel card was also cheered through. The intelligent question about the impact on her (as her disability meant she would be studying longer), put by the only young person in attendance, went unanswered by Councillor McGregor. Other questions by Councillors Page and Martin about consultation with young people; information on the detail of the scheme; why concessions apply only up to the age of 19 and how the goodwill of bus services to offer a 25% discount would be monitored, again remained largely unanswered. Why cut the Explore card in the first place and offer no alternative for 2 years? Shocking. I was involved (as the leader of a local Charity) in meetings around the time it was cut. I know that the concerns of young people and their parents/carers were sought, half heartedly, at the time and then completely ignored.

There was a lengthy discussion about Sizewell C and significant criticisms levelled at EDF Energy consultation documents - who I am not sure were in the audience. I have an aversion to public criticism of anything where there is no automatic right of reply.

I have an aversion also to inappropriate discriminatory comments that go unchallenged by leaders. Councillor McGregor referred to people 'either being deaf or not listening' when describing the concerns of people in local villages as to the impact of Sizewell C.  Offensive.

I wondered whether the voices of the women I met in Leiston when on the Police & Crime Commissioner campaign would be sought when discussing what the impact might be on Leiston. These women had talked with me about their hopes and fears for their young people.

 

The 'Health and Well Being Strategy' was tabled and praised for its content and accessibility.  For me the discussion lacked detail and I wonder again how many members of Suffolk's communities know what the plans mean for them in terms of health provision. Mental ill health is a priority I was pleased to note. I was surprised, therefore, that there was no discussion or any assessment of the impact of the savage cuts facing Suffolk and Norfolk Mental Health Trust.

Overall this Cabinet meeting felt like an expensive unrepresentative club running along tramlines with a  predetermined direction. Praise was heaped upon those who represented the majority in the club; those who were in the minority were met with political point scoring or dismissively.

Local democracy then - by turns unrepresentative, unwelcoming, unfair, discourteous, shocking and offensive.

Surely it’s time for a new type of local politics before it is too late?

 

TWICE AS GOOD....

I have been listening to debates today on the proposal by Sir Peter Fahy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police to change the law. He wants to introduce positive discrimination to address the woeful lack of Black Asian and Minority ethnic (BAME) police officers across the ranks in the police service. Apart from the absence of female commentators on the issue - leading to conversations largely referring to police officers in the masculine - I was struck at the lack of voice from BAME individuals, campaign groups and officers.

I have worked in the police service with responsibility for recruitment. I have worked locally and nationally with BAME officers (& women too for that matter), all facing sarcastic comments when gaining promotion (notably only to Sergeant level) that it was their skin colour (or gender) that secured it for them. They have told me that they always felt they had to be twice as good as the majority (largely white men) & of their fear of challenging the institution.

What is needed is much more than a change in the law. As it happens this Government is not only eroding equality and general employment rights, it is also making sure only those of significant financial means can access justice. The law is really of no consequence if it cannot be accessed or enforced.

The definition of Institutional Racism was a sound one as set out by Lord McPherson in the Stephen Lawence report 1999, but one that never really led to cultural change. A leading race equality public figure once told me that 'we were sold a pup' when referring to the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. I know from direct experience that it became a public sector paper exercise to prove how 'non racist' services were, rather than to achieve meaningful change.

The legacy of this is the lack of significant progress towards race equality in recruitment in Suffolk Police and across criminal justice agencies. Additionally the continued rise in racial inequalities, again across criminal justice agencies, as evidenced, for example, by unfair use of stop and search powers. Unequal treatment by institutions is certainly a deterrent to some people from BAME communities when making career choices.

Government policy, as it translates locally also plays its part to deter BAME individuals from applying to be police officers. The PREVENT agenda (part of governments attempts to address the 'threat of terrorism') led to the police and other agencies taking more time to work with the 'muslim community'. To engage with communities only because of the 'threat' of terrorism is a flawed engagement model and not conducive to building trust and confidence.

I remember once meeting Mr Neville Lawrence (the father of Stephen Lawrence) when I was leader of the local race equality council. I  was facing a sea of indifference & active resistance in Suffolk when bringing concerns from BAME communities  to the attention of institutions. I spoke with him about my aspirations that one day Britain would no longer need a race equality movement. He advised me with no bitterness that there would always be such a need. I believe him.

Today there was talk of the need for political will to effect change along with changes in the law. David Hanson Shadow Policing Minister spoke about the loss of current Government leadership on the issue of race and policing. The 2009 National Black Police Association report (Crichlow) 10 years on from the murder of Stephen Lawrence identifies the continuing barriers facing BAME officers and staff.  

In these times of austerity we need the courage to radically rethink policing services. If we can fundamentally shift attitudes towards entrenched racial inequalities, we could start to make the changes needed. I was told during my Police & Crime Commissioner campaign that because of the cuts Suffolk Police '.. are replacing leadership with procedure' Procedure does not allow for innovation, empowerment and change.

Suffolk's Police and Crime Plan (PCP)currently up for consultation, refers to the need for increased numbers of BAME officers. It makes no reference however to this being important across all the ranks and is prefaced with bland words 'where possible' - these words are negative.

The plan  (PCP) is supported by a Performance Assessment Framework which is supposed to identify how the Police and Crime Commissioner will measure performance against the Police and Crime Plan. This framework makes no reference to measurement of inequalities of any kind, let alone recruitment and promotion of BAME officers.

There are some inspirational individuals pressing for change within the service. Sadly their impact either stops when they move on, or they have insufficient power to infuence & deliver lasting change.

So that is it and in reality how it has always been. The achievement of race equality in policing reduced to just a few words in a glossy document. This combined with leaders and policy makers who seem bereft of any strategy or operational plan to make it a reality.

Individuals, organisations, communities are there with the answers. Leaders, policy makers and practioners need the humility to listen and then act on what they are hearing.

Should we ask more of our Police and Crime Commissioner on this issue. I think so - do you?

CHANCELLOR'S CUTS ARE NOT FAIR

LETTER PUBLISHED BURY FREE PRESS DECEMBER 14th

In response to the Chancellors Autumn Statement West Suffolk MP Matthew Hancock was quoted as stating that it was ‘fair to hold down increases’ on benefits and that ‘Those going out to work are the people who pay for benefits’

 

 

 Perhaps Mr Hancock has not yet found the time to review the excellent Joseph Rowntree report ‘Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion’ This report revealed the extent of in work poverty and impact of an under employed work force. The report identifies that 6.1 million people in poverty are in working households. Excluding pensioners, in-work poverty now outstrips workless poverty at 5.1 million households.

 

Low income households will suffer a double disadvantage because of income related and housing benefit changes. Planned changes to disability benefit could mean additional hardship for disabled people. Additionally House of Commons library research shows further inequalities in that out of the total £16bn George Osborne is raising in direct tax, credit, benefit, pay and pension changes, £12bn is being paid for by women.

What is happening is far from fair and the growth of families dependent on Food Banks in West Suffolk should be a warning to all of us who care about those made most vulnerable by our society. Mr Hancock’s comments are disappointing in that they endorse this governments continued onslaught and demonisation of those who are unable to work or perhaps live a decent life without needing some additional help.

LETTER PUBLISHED EAST ANGLIAN DAILY TIMES 11 DECEMBER 2012

 

I was impressed with the level of coverage your paper gave to the Autumn statement delivered by George Osborne (Thursday 6 December) but wanted to comment on additional impacts.

It is perhaps no surprise as for the first time in 16 years there is no female minister at the Treasury (or several other departments) that the House of Commons library research shows that 81 per cent of the key additional direct tax, tax credit, and benefit changes announced yesterday will come from women (£867 million of the £1.065 billion raised) The earlier increases in public sector pension contributions, cuts to attendance allowance and social care hit women harder too. Research shows that out of the total £16bn George Osborne is raising in direct tax, credit, benefit, pay and pension changes, £12bn is being paid by women.

 

 

 

Child tax credits and child benefit will be cut even further in real terms. This on top of the previously announced real cuts in Working Tax Credits and childcare. Appallingly Maternity pay is also being raided. £180 will be taken from the pockets of new mums by 2015/16. Taking away real choice.

 

There are other factors at work here in Suffolk. We know that more women than men work in Public Sector and Health Care, and we are seeing pension rights eroded.  Women already receive very modest pensions, due to their lower pay and broken employment records. According to UNISON research the median pension for women who have worked in the NHS for example is just £3,500 a year (£67 a week)

 

We are seeing privatisation of many of our public services such as NHS Community Health Care to SERCO and care homes to Care UK. We know privatisation inevitably means that redundancies and erosion of terms and conditions swiftly follow. This combined with the announcements yesterday means increased inequality and poverty for women in Suffolk.

fawcettsociety.org.uk

 

The slow plod of women’s equality is in real danger of grinding to a halt.

Whose pound is it anyway?

In a relatively small article in this weeks East Anglian Daily Times the people of Suffolk were told of the imminent sale of more of Suffolk County Councils services. This time it is the turn of our hard working public sector personnel who keep our roads well lit and free from ice and snow, amongst other things. Known as the Highways Department the 'deal' could hit £500 million over a 10 year period. This figure was not mentioned in the paper.

Some 200 staff will be transferred to Balfour Beatty. Yes thats right. The firm who lost a High Court injunction earlier this year having threatened to sack all staff who refused to sign up to new lesser terms and conditions.

In Suffolk too we have seen significant redundancies announced just a month after SERCO were given our Community Health Care services to run. SERCO also have a chequered background when it comes to workers rights,  having lost a similar High Court injunction. Our Council Care Homes have just been sold to the private firm Care UK. G4S have a foot in the door of our police service through the provision of medical services as part of the new custody facilities.

This week also saw an Early Day Motion (No 773) put forward by Grahame Morris Labour MP for Easington, Chair of LabourLeft and a member of the House of Commons health select committee. Mr Morris is rightly concerned about the role of lobbying firms and their influence; the procurement model that favours private firms; the lucrative contracts given to previous government health advisers; the unfair advantage given to private firms and the ability of private firms not to comply with FOI requests eroding transparency and accountability to the public.

Seems to me that here in Suffolk the sell off of public services is happening at pace with little public debate.

These are our services are they not? Paid for by our taxes are they not?

I've written to my MP Tim Yeo asking him to support the EDM - why don't you write to yours?