(for S.)
id been fretting about starting a blog for about 2 years having gone from the sort of luddite resistance of some,i guess,in particular of my generation to an enthusiast of the idea,that left me eager to get going but with a level of technical incompetence that left me getting nowhere.
i did make some effort.but what those who are computer literate take for granted has to be spelt out to the letter for someone like me.indeed what drives me absolutely nuts is how very often in my experience,even tutors leave out steps which completey sabotages the efforts of someone like me.it seems children learn fast because they dont follow the rules but play and get there by a speeded up version of trial and error.all i ever got in formal comuter training was a version of"dont worry your pretty little head about that"(i write it in its sexist version to make my point).playing with the computer can result in mistakes for adults like me-and mistakes cost you your job!it also drives me nuts when i folow instructions and what comes u in front of me is NOT whats in the instructions or the manual,nor indeed does i bear any relationship to it.there is NEVER any guidance as to what to do next.what is described as on the bottom of a left hand column is never there.o no you have to do something else thats not in the instructions and where the toolto do it with is compketely obscure or obscured.
that said i did have some help from friend who did everything they could from a distance or in the circumstances we were in.
meantime,i got so frustrated that i started a blog on friends reunited.this did not meet all my hunger but it gave me a start.until that site revamed itself,not to meet the wishes of users who i can only hazard at a guess were using the site to make contact with old and often lost friends,and then to keep in touch with them and organise things like reunions.
i wrote on that nearly every days for many months.lots of the material were reminiscences and memories about music or socialist politics.three things happenned when the site got revamped.
friends were reduced to contacts and the information collected or that could potentially collected was reduced to the minimal and incomprehensible.so if you have a friend caled say ahmed muhammed or john smith there is no possibiility of trackin them down now.a search of paper telephone directories is more likely to produce a result.
when i recently attended a reunion,in which i was intentonally somewhat out of place,the friends who had organised it had abandoned friends reunited as an organising too.
thirdly and most personally-the site now makes great claims about placing,keeping and storing memories safely and permanently.i assume PROMISE is spelt b****x,because i can nether work out how to make it work,nor save antyhing i might cal my own-it all seems to be there and at a price(and frankly it makes me so angry i no longer care whether my perception is accurate,so dont waste your time telling me).they are more interested in whether i/we remember events involving the family of leading parasites,than my own memories.and they were perfectly happy to just dump all my material.
but then i got lucky.i got very lucky.very lucky indeed.
i went to apublic meeting about someting else entirely-i mean NOT anything to do with computers in any way,except in a discussion about using computer technologies there was at least one person in the room who knew what they were talking about.i noticed....across the room,we had an exchange about "self activity".i noticed.
we seemed to be talking the same language-about the campaign.i noticed.as for computers i was lost except in trying to undertand what we were being told,to my surprise i did understand,though looking back i regret that some of the exchange was typically sexist(me)-in hearing a woman speak and then reinterpreting,except is was soe of us men(me certainly)being dense-not our comrade.
when the meeting broke up,we did what"lefties"typicall do and went to the pub.but then"its(always)good to talk"and much of it was networking and organising-the detailed stuff that turns good intent into real concrete activity,without which it is all dreams and easted good intentions.my comrade and myself quickly found ourselves deep in conversation about marxist books and reading.and no-one ticked me off for not making small talk!
when we met asecond time to talk books and theory,we went on to arrange to meet to set up my blog.we did subsequently and i could not believe(I DO,but you know what i mean) that within 20 minutes(not even the 30 minutes she committed to)i had my blog.
the fate of the rest is i guess in my hands.its not very sophisticated yet-but thats about me,and that indeed i want to make learning how to do it properly,part of the process and outcome.but its very much my friends efforts that got me here.she may not think its much,amongst all the material in her intellectual and practical abilities but its important for me.
and i have comradeship and friendship too
what more could i ask for?
so,that was then and this is now.
from here,i want to collect the material ive scatterred over the internet.,i want to bring together most if not al the interests that make up at least part of who i am(or who i think i am).i wont pretend that it will ever be a seamless"garment",nor that interests fit tgether neatly-life is not like that.in addition i hope to recover and reconstruct the material i have already lost to friends reunited or in certain other sorts of"breakdown".
as they say"that was then...this is now!"
(for S)
Sunday, 19 August 2012
some thoughts on the olympics-social theory
there are some ideas in some sections of "the welfare state"and/or"caring professions"about how these"disciplines"think" about themselves and their own histories.these might be"academic",or"intellectual"or"rational"but they are certainly ideaologically informed.
it seems to me for example that some,perhaps much of the radical thinking of the 1960s and 1970s is reduced in such modernised accounts to simply being negative.some of it was undoubtedly negative but i would suggest that much was liberatory and in the process tried to explode some of the previous intellectaul assumptions,and yes sometimes"we"threw out"the baby with the bathwater",or at least we tried to do so.....the new"theory"criticises the someties radical,liberatory theories for conclusions that i believe the new simply assume attach to the old.in this case,that it all concluded"nothing works".a state and its policies could not decide to"leave us alone"on this basis,nor can it accept that nothing works.one of those teories had indeed been"radical non-intervention(ism)".it was indeed very challenging.
then there was the development of what i believe is called meta-theorising in which social theorist and researchers look at all the infomation/research with a particular brief and seek to analyse and drawer conclusions from what might be very diverse,different and even antithetical material.this seems i have to say to be a "dodgy enterprise" at best-forcing material into a shape it may not fit,in order to well-drawer conclusions that may neither fit nor be appropriate.this in turn drives what is suppossed to be a methodology for further research and construction of projects and policies based on "what works?" which is supposed to be evidence based.
however,this is itself a ery ideoalogically informed view.there is extensive criticism of it at a number of levels-to pick a few,that comebviously to my mind:
*.in reality the researchers/theoreticians choose which material they include in their assessment of "what works".those choices are rarely explained or rationaly justified.
*.the only things in practice which does not seem to have an evidence based foundation is that in most/all agencies of social policy is that everything has to be filtered through a"business plan"menatality/focus.
*.mostly pilot projects are no longer testing grounds but are simply the vanguard of programes,poolicies and initiatives that WILL be imposed once politicalky decided.
*.there a wide use of subtle,sophisticated"soca friendly"terms which actually lack content or forensic clarity but make for the kind of language and discussion which makes disagreement increasingly difficult and places any critic in a negative position.any critic can then be characterised as"spoiling the party"
*.i think it was dr.geobbels,the nazi propoganda minister who suggested i think rightly(yes he was a fascist,but just occassionally an insight can still be right)that if you keep it simple and repeat the same lies long,loudly and frequently enough they become accepted and believed.evenetualy it becomes difficult to challenge the climate of lies and illusions.appaearance replaces reality.
*.i would also argue that rather than being analyticaly sound,the very"battering"of informatin into a common shape,reflects how and what social policy is now designed to do-which is to modufy behaviour and attitudes at an active and aggressive level,and to"batter"us with the consequences.i believe this wil apply with both"olympic legacy"and"welfare reform".any distance between the two is reduced by the common attitude of state,caitak and corporations to all of it and to all of us.
i am not claiming by any means that i have the whole picture for a critique here,but id suggest that actually if we applied these ideas-and i know there are other critical tools,to the rhetoric of"olympic legacy"and any other issue relating to the olympics,we might actually get a truer picture of the what is going on.
indeed,i suggest marxist method and critical(social)theory are keys too,i also suggest that the word rhetoric gives us a clue.for me one of its-rhetorics-modern meanings hints at the gap between the way something is spoken of,"the spin"and the actual,material outcome.
vigilance is also a very useful tool.i think if there is to be any substantive"legacy"for society as well as simply those sections that dominate it,including the state itself and the various fractions of capital,then we have to be vigilant.we will have to ask detailed questions and follow through to wherever that leads.and we cannot give them any"benefit of the doubt".we must make sure the standard is according to"the letter of the law"in relation to even the smallest of their promises.we have to go well beyond"reasonable doubt".that very notion can be manipulated,and their class are good at it."reasonabe doubt"is indeed the standard of their class.ours ought to be for"absolute proof"and"absolute truth".yes,its a tall order.i make no apologies for believing they simply cant and wont be able to meet it. those who know me personally that i gave up being"reasonable"a very long time ago.i would reply with"be realistic-demand the impossible".i dont just want the"pound of flesh",i want every detail of every commitment met in full and in detail.my standard will be to demand nothing less.
it seems to me for example that some,perhaps much of the radical thinking of the 1960s and 1970s is reduced in such modernised accounts to simply being negative.some of it was undoubtedly negative but i would suggest that much was liberatory and in the process tried to explode some of the previous intellectaul assumptions,and yes sometimes"we"threw out"the baby with the bathwater",or at least we tried to do so.....the new"theory"criticises the someties radical,liberatory theories for conclusions that i believe the new simply assume attach to the old.in this case,that it all concluded"nothing works".a state and its policies could not decide to"leave us alone"on this basis,nor can it accept that nothing works.one of those teories had indeed been"radical non-intervention(ism)".it was indeed very challenging.
then there was the development of what i believe is called meta-theorising in which social theorist and researchers look at all the infomation/research with a particular brief and seek to analyse and drawer conclusions from what might be very diverse,different and even antithetical material.this seems i have to say to be a "dodgy enterprise" at best-forcing material into a shape it may not fit,in order to well-drawer conclusions that may neither fit nor be appropriate.this in turn drives what is suppossed to be a methodology for further research and construction of projects and policies based on "what works?" which is supposed to be evidence based.
however,this is itself a ery ideoalogically informed view.there is extensive criticism of it at a number of levels-to pick a few,that comebviously to my mind:
*.in reality the researchers/theoreticians choose which material they include in their assessment of "what works".those choices are rarely explained or rationaly justified.
*.the only things in practice which does not seem to have an evidence based foundation is that in most/all agencies of social policy is that everything has to be filtered through a"business plan"menatality/focus.
*.mostly pilot projects are no longer testing grounds but are simply the vanguard of programes,poolicies and initiatives that WILL be imposed once politicalky decided.
*.there a wide use of subtle,sophisticated"soca friendly"terms which actually lack content or forensic clarity but make for the kind of language and discussion which makes disagreement increasingly difficult and places any critic in a negative position.any critic can then be characterised as"spoiling the party"
*.i think it was dr.geobbels,the nazi propoganda minister who suggested i think rightly(yes he was a fascist,but just occassionally an insight can still be right)that if you keep it simple and repeat the same lies long,loudly and frequently enough they become accepted and believed.evenetualy it becomes difficult to challenge the climate of lies and illusions.appaearance replaces reality.
*.i would also argue that rather than being analyticaly sound,the very"battering"of informatin into a common shape,reflects how and what social policy is now designed to do-which is to modufy behaviour and attitudes at an active and aggressive level,and to"batter"us with the consequences.i believe this wil apply with both"olympic legacy"and"welfare reform".any distance between the two is reduced by the common attitude of state,caitak and corporations to all of it and to all of us.
i am not claiming by any means that i have the whole picture for a critique here,but id suggest that actually if we applied these ideas-and i know there are other critical tools,to the rhetoric of"olympic legacy"and any other issue relating to the olympics,we might actually get a truer picture of the what is going on.
indeed,i suggest marxist method and critical(social)theory are keys too,i also suggest that the word rhetoric gives us a clue.for me one of its-rhetorics-modern meanings hints at the gap between the way something is spoken of,"the spin"and the actual,material outcome.
vigilance is also a very useful tool.i think if there is to be any substantive"legacy"for society as well as simply those sections that dominate it,including the state itself and the various fractions of capital,then we have to be vigilant.we will have to ask detailed questions and follow through to wherever that leads.and we cannot give them any"benefit of the doubt".we must make sure the standard is according to"the letter of the law"in relation to even the smallest of their promises.we have to go well beyond"reasonable doubt".that very notion can be manipulated,and their class are good at it."reasonabe doubt"is indeed the standard of their class.ours ought to be for"absolute proof"and"absolute truth".yes,its a tall order.i make no apologies for believing they simply cant and wont be able to meet it. those who know me personally that i gave up being"reasonable"a very long time ago.i would reply with"be realistic-demand the impossible".i dont just want the"pound of flesh",i want every detail of every commitment met in full and in detail.my standard will be to demand nothing less.
some thoughts on the olympics
we appear now,already to be into a period of some sort of public discussion about olympic legacy.of course irecognise that"those who(think)are in charge",have a responsibilty to do alot of thinking about it well before now.i dont doubt they have-but that will have been with a corporate and statist agenda in mind,not a communitarian or social agenda,and certainly not an outlook that takes any of us into consideration.
i always have doubts that what"public debate"actually amounts to is discussion that excludes us,ordinary folk,but mainly engages those in power"discussing"-meaning manipulating-in the kind of places and spaces that we cant see.accountability means nothing.some discussion might occur in parliament.there will be some talk in the media and that might even engage a few of"us"chosen for say a 15second soundbite.i say 15 second soundbite,in the context of thinking about andy wrahols comment from i think the 1960s,when he expected we would live in asociety where we each got 15 minutes of fame.that was not a future i wanted but a 15 second soundbite is a pale shadow of even that.we might get to choose the colour of the paint on the walls of some project to do what?"bring sport to somebody,somewhere,sometime?"
i am not a cynic,nor am i cynical but real experience teaches me that whereas 40 years ago projects may well have emerged in the community,to meet expressed community need,things are very different now.it seems to me then that activists would come together around a theme or purpose and some money,always a shoestring budget would be found to pay for a law centre,a woamans refuge,"release",Bit,many other things.now THEY seem to set up heavily controlled and managed projects to TELL us what to do,for a while-they control access and information,involvement and engagement very much n THEIR terms and then move on,when"flavour of the month"or political. control,at the top changes.
it therefore seems to me that this will be very much the organisational context in which the so called olympics legacy wil take place.
i always have doubts that what"public debate"actually amounts to is discussion that excludes us,ordinary folk,but mainly engages those in power"discussing"-meaning manipulating-in the kind of places and spaces that we cant see.accountability means nothing.some discussion might occur in parliament.there will be some talk in the media and that might even engage a few of"us"chosen for say a 15second soundbite.i say 15 second soundbite,in the context of thinking about andy wrahols comment from i think the 1960s,when he expected we would live in asociety where we each got 15 minutes of fame.that was not a future i wanted but a 15 second soundbite is a pale shadow of even that.we might get to choose the colour of the paint on the walls of some project to do what?"bring sport to somebody,somewhere,sometime?"
i am not a cynic,nor am i cynical but real experience teaches me that whereas 40 years ago projects may well have emerged in the community,to meet expressed community need,things are very different now.it seems to me then that activists would come together around a theme or purpose and some money,always a shoestring budget would be found to pay for a law centre,a woamans refuge,"release",Bit,many other things.now THEY seem to set up heavily controlled and managed projects to TELL us what to do,for a while-they control access and information,involvement and engagement very much n THEIR terms and then move on,when"flavour of the month"or political. control,at the top changes.
it therefore seems to me that this will be very much the organisational context in which the so called olympics legacy wil take place.
Saturday, 18 August 2012
prison for what?
so Pussy Riot were found guilty of"hooliganism"yesterday and began 2 years sentences.
russia is not britain nor is it somewhere else but whilst we in britain and elsewhere think we can see the absurdity of that ussian law,it ought amongst other things make us think about some of the absurdities about probably more than some of the laws in our own countries.
that said,lets not turn our attention away from the fate of these courageous women in russia.
amongst the long litany of banalities read out and spoken about in court was that they stirred religious hatred.rather it seems t me,it demonstrates that the church and state have no sense of humour.and if god is so great why does the godhead need the protection of human beings,to come down in such an oppresssive way on these women.i am not a bible quoter-that usually consists of believers"intellectually clobberring others"or trying to prove their superiority to other people-but i cant help but point out that jesus christ preached the idea of "turning the other cheek"when we christians are"attacked".it seems to me that at worst this was a performance attack on ideas,so why does the church bring down the wrath not of god but the state on these women?
i believe that in britain,at worst this would have been a breach of the peace usually dealt with by a ind over to keep the piece,with fine for breach as the"sting in the tale".even if they were to receive 2 years custody for something more serious-for what-it is highly likely that the sentence would be suspended given the responsibilities or"vulnerabilities"of the women(i make no assumptions here)my view is that they are entirely innocent of anything............
even at the level of notinally accepting the actual sentence,i believe that the following might apply.i can imagine wriitng reorts fr sentencing which would spell out both their morally informed choices,but also the consequences of sentencing on others in the ambit of an individual.in english law it is acknowledged that whilst the court has the right to punish,it has to be very circumspect of the impact on others such as children and other deendents.
the"numbers" are relevant.even if the sentence were not suspended or an alternative imposed,having served 5 months,which is almost half,they could be released at the midway point giving them another 7 months to serve.with the application of various early release schemes.thes women could be released in weeks if not days.
but i come back to the same point,that essentially i believe these women are guilty of nothing.at the absolute limit i might conceed that they have offended others.in a "mature liberal democracy offending others is not just NOT a crime(mostly)but it is a positive right.
id rather see an end to autocracy and authoritarian rule.id rather see order without government,certainly without the current arrangements that constitutes the state.we have to be able to do this another way.and these couragoous women are showing,like many others over many issues-that everything can be contested and that there are other ways.
russia is not britain nor is it somewhere else but whilst we in britain and elsewhere think we can see the absurdity of that ussian law,it ought amongst other things make us think about some of the absurdities about probably more than some of the laws in our own countries.
that said,lets not turn our attention away from the fate of these courageous women in russia.
amongst the long litany of banalities read out and spoken about in court was that they stirred religious hatred.rather it seems t me,it demonstrates that the church and state have no sense of humour.and if god is so great why does the godhead need the protection of human beings,to come down in such an oppresssive way on these women.i am not a bible quoter-that usually consists of believers"intellectually clobberring others"or trying to prove their superiority to other people-but i cant help but point out that jesus christ preached the idea of "turning the other cheek"when we christians are"attacked".it seems to me that at worst this was a performance attack on ideas,so why does the church bring down the wrath not of god but the state on these women?
i believe that in britain,at worst this would have been a breach of the peace usually dealt with by a ind over to keep the piece,with fine for breach as the"sting in the tale".even if they were to receive 2 years custody for something more serious-for what-it is highly likely that the sentence would be suspended given the responsibilities or"vulnerabilities"of the women(i make no assumptions here)my view is that they are entirely innocent of anything............
even at the level of notinally accepting the actual sentence,i believe that the following might apply.i can imagine wriitng reorts fr sentencing which would spell out both their morally informed choices,but also the consequences of sentencing on others in the ambit of an individual.in english law it is acknowledged that whilst the court has the right to punish,it has to be very circumspect of the impact on others such as children and other deendents.
the"numbers" are relevant.even if the sentence were not suspended or an alternative imposed,having served 5 months,which is almost half,they could be released at the midway point giving them another 7 months to serve.with the application of various early release schemes.thes women could be released in weeks if not days.
but i come back to the same point,that essentially i believe these women are guilty of nothing.at the absolute limit i might conceed that they have offended others.in a "mature liberal democracy offending others is not just NOT a crime(mostly)but it is a positive right.
id rather see an end to autocracy and authoritarian rule.id rather see order without government,certainly without the current arrangements that constitutes the state.we have to be able to do this another way.and these couragoous women are showing,like many others over many issues-that everything can be contested and that there are other ways.
Tuesday, 14 August 2012
combatting misery by grasping the nettle.....part 1
i came home from a meeting of kuwg/kilburn unemployed workers group which was basically about looking for"a way forward"to fight the miserable impact of"austerity"and"crisis"and "savagely ideologically directed"attack on OUR class,and some of the real people whose lives are devastated by it all.
ive failed because the experiences and the analysis and the solutions posited are too complex to just rush at.i want to honour ALL the people who came to the meeting,and some who did not.
so what i will say is this:that there was lots of pain and distress in the room,as we discussed several personal situations of families coming to terms with very real trauma and difficulty.the 50 or so people present at the meeting went on to discuss meeting the very real needs of the families and many others in the community who are victims of cuts,austerity and plain abuse and insensitivity from"authorites"who should be addressing the needs of vulnerable people and people in distress.after all as my friend cj said"if you take people's livelihoods and money,it creates vulnerable people".
there was a lot of anger about and towards brent council,who increasingly are seen to not even raise the posibility of resistance.and this is a council led by labour who are seen to have failed ALL OF US.there was some discussion about putting up indpendent,alternative candidates in elections,conducting militant fight backs across boroughs and the whole of london,of co-ordinating the various struggles against our ills,and not least impacting to support the very real needs of vulnerable people/families,in a sensitive manner and which might actually"roll back a cut"that no-amount of co-ordination and networking by itself,seem able to shift.
i admit,my own feelings oscillated between the usual points of alienation(i dont fit.i dont belong here)rage(the way our rulers treat us so carelessly)and love(distress provoked by empathy with others,and i like to hope a real care for other human beings)
those feelings are powerful and overwhelming.they are shared feelings to.
i need to give this more attention in order to do this situation justice.i will return to this soon.meantime,some of us plane to meet on saturday,at least to leaflet and campaign,and to plan further"actions"that will take the issues"home"and/or to some of the"power points"in our communities.a number of people agreed to form a committee to co-ordinate campaigning that might make it possible to make real change in our lives and the circumstances in which we live them.
it seems to me this has to be to seek to establish communities in which human need and vulnerabilty,and indeed creativity and value come first,last and in the middle,over profit,greed,exploitation-or indeed"political careerism".
and in the meantime,it was a real privelege to be in the room with about 50 other people who clearly have skills,talents and commitment to make those changes with each other.it is not careers that count here but a willingness to fight back and to work together!
ive failed because the experiences and the analysis and the solutions posited are too complex to just rush at.i want to honour ALL the people who came to the meeting,and some who did not.
so what i will say is this:that there was lots of pain and distress in the room,as we discussed several personal situations of families coming to terms with very real trauma and difficulty.the 50 or so people present at the meeting went on to discuss meeting the very real needs of the families and many others in the community who are victims of cuts,austerity and plain abuse and insensitivity from"authorites"who should be addressing the needs of vulnerable people and people in distress.after all as my friend cj said"if you take people's livelihoods and money,it creates vulnerable people".
there was a lot of anger about and towards brent council,who increasingly are seen to not even raise the posibility of resistance.and this is a council led by labour who are seen to have failed ALL OF US.there was some discussion about putting up indpendent,alternative candidates in elections,conducting militant fight backs across boroughs and the whole of london,of co-ordinating the various struggles against our ills,and not least impacting to support the very real needs of vulnerable people/families,in a sensitive manner and which might actually"roll back a cut"that no-amount of co-ordination and networking by itself,seem able to shift.
i admit,my own feelings oscillated between the usual points of alienation(i dont fit.i dont belong here)rage(the way our rulers treat us so carelessly)and love(distress provoked by empathy with others,and i like to hope a real care for other human beings)
those feelings are powerful and overwhelming.they are shared feelings to.
i need to give this more attention in order to do this situation justice.i will return to this soon.meantime,some of us plane to meet on saturday,at least to leaflet and campaign,and to plan further"actions"that will take the issues"home"and/or to some of the"power points"in our communities.a number of people agreed to form a committee to co-ordinate campaigning that might make it possible to make real change in our lives and the circumstances in which we live them.
it seems to me this has to be to seek to establish communities in which human need and vulnerabilty,and indeed creativity and value come first,last and in the middle,over profit,greed,exploitation-or indeed"political careerism".
and in the meantime,it was a real privelege to be in the room with about 50 other people who clearly have skills,talents and commitment to make those changes with each other.it is not careers that count here but a willingness to fight back and to work together!
Monday, 13 August 2012
the deleted
in spain,the people at the bottom of the economic pile who suffer most the indignities of austerity policies form state and capital,as the capitalists attempt to resolve the crisis now endemic in their own capitalist system,call themselves"the indignant"(los indignacios-excuse me if this ignorant brit has that in damaged spanish)
perhaps now,in britain in a similar position could call themselves"the deleted".
let me explain.
until the start of 2012,i worked in the london probation trust(lpt),part in turn of the national offender management service(noms)which in turn leads back to the ministry of justice/criminal justice system.as part of the ideologically driven political and economic attack on OUR class(the working class,or the 99%)of the tories,and the equally ideologically driven attack of the con-dem gang(sorry i refuse to acknowledge they have any legitimacy.they are NOT a government,they are a gang)on our class as part of austerity and cuts-these"clowns" are privatising a key element of london probation trust in a sale of community payback(what used to be called community service)to the private sector.
that involves amongst other things the transfer of some probation staff to that private sector employer,with certain limited protection of the terms and conditions of those staff.this process is supposed to involve consultation and disclosure to staff and unions key information inrelation to contracts,terms and conditions etc.despite persistent and very patient efforts by our trades union,our employer is hiding behind business confidentiality to hide everything,and in the process appears to be lying to,misleading and misinforming staff-and surprise,surprise blaming the union.
neither individual not groups of staff are being properly informed about anything.its ok for me im no longer employed by them,but colleagues only know anything because of aleaked letter sent it appears in error to another unrelated staff member in error which refers insultingly and shocking to the 66 members of staff to be made redundant as"deleted".
nothing is clear,and when management fails to provide any information suspicion and distrust and worse are the predictable outcome.the numbers are not reliable.some staff are being refused time out to seek alternative emloyment-against both the law and the specific redundancy agreement.they are being bullied.senior managers are unwilling to vary anything about the 20minute interview to which each redundant worker is entitled.a certain key senior manager is more concerned with filing her nails or talking about sporting events than serious discussion with trades union officers in formal meetings.in a single breath she casually refers to these"deleted"colleagues,and makes another 'phone call.this is crass insensitivity that reveals a profound contempt for human beings.
it is a pity that management in an activity that should be about work with vulnerable and sometimes difficult human beings,seems so incapable of showing even the palest reflection of the standards it expects from staff dealing with such a client group.....
today i attended my branch meeting,where a substantial eriod of time was devoted to what might prove a key,if not the only opportunity for comrades/my broters and sisters to share their pain and their feelings,let alone their opinions and ideas about defending their jobs and livelihoods,and fighting back.many struggle dto comprehend,many gave clear indications of distress and hurt.some were in tears.many were aghast,and there was plenty of controlled,intelligent rage too.
any euphoria about the olympics amongst my brothers and sisters was short lived,as the brutal reality crashes in on their lives.it is perfectly clear,if nothing else is that our employer simply does not care and does treat highly caring and professional people with contempt as if they were ants.
in atime of choosing sides that kind of management indicates very clearly whose side they are on,and is is not alongside working people.they may pose and pretend but they really do not and cannot understand the realities of our lives or what we do.....
solidarity with "the deleted"!it is very clear that we have more in common with"the indignant"and many others struggling elsewhere in both this society and across the world.
i am however confident that we will stand together and fight back,in any and every way we can!
in response totheir indifference-they need to know-we will not forgive or forget-and that we are coming!
living in such a society,poses the stark choice between barbarism and and alternative which values human beings and their creative self activity over profit and greed every time.we might well be living with the barbarism already.what they dont seem to realise is that the more they immiserate us into barbarism,the more likely the barbarism will engulf them too.no matter how much money they accumulate,money will not save them from a barbarism far greater than anything they can visit on us.they cannot kill us all,adn we can choose to fight back!i will be working for that fight back-and we will bury them.
solidarity with"the deleted"!lotta continua!
perhaps now,in britain in a similar position could call themselves"the deleted".
let me explain.
until the start of 2012,i worked in the london probation trust(lpt),part in turn of the national offender management service(noms)which in turn leads back to the ministry of justice/criminal justice system.as part of the ideologically driven political and economic attack on OUR class(the working class,or the 99%)of the tories,and the equally ideologically driven attack of the con-dem gang(sorry i refuse to acknowledge they have any legitimacy.they are NOT a government,they are a gang)on our class as part of austerity and cuts-these"clowns" are privatising a key element of london probation trust in a sale of community payback(what used to be called community service)to the private sector.
that involves amongst other things the transfer of some probation staff to that private sector employer,with certain limited protection of the terms and conditions of those staff.this process is supposed to involve consultation and disclosure to staff and unions key information inrelation to contracts,terms and conditions etc.despite persistent and very patient efforts by our trades union,our employer is hiding behind business confidentiality to hide everything,and in the process appears to be lying to,misleading and misinforming staff-and surprise,surprise blaming the union.
neither individual not groups of staff are being properly informed about anything.its ok for me im no longer employed by them,but colleagues only know anything because of aleaked letter sent it appears in error to another unrelated staff member in error which refers insultingly and shocking to the 66 members of staff to be made redundant as"deleted".
nothing is clear,and when management fails to provide any information suspicion and distrust and worse are the predictable outcome.the numbers are not reliable.some staff are being refused time out to seek alternative emloyment-against both the law and the specific redundancy agreement.they are being bullied.senior managers are unwilling to vary anything about the 20minute interview to which each redundant worker is entitled.a certain key senior manager is more concerned with filing her nails or talking about sporting events than serious discussion with trades union officers in formal meetings.in a single breath she casually refers to these"deleted"colleagues,and makes another 'phone call.this is crass insensitivity that reveals a profound contempt for human beings.
it is a pity that management in an activity that should be about work with vulnerable and sometimes difficult human beings,seems so incapable of showing even the palest reflection of the standards it expects from staff dealing with such a client group.....
today i attended my branch meeting,where a substantial eriod of time was devoted to what might prove a key,if not the only opportunity for comrades/my broters and sisters to share their pain and their feelings,let alone their opinions and ideas about defending their jobs and livelihoods,and fighting back.many struggle dto comprehend,many gave clear indications of distress and hurt.some were in tears.many were aghast,and there was plenty of controlled,intelligent rage too.
any euphoria about the olympics amongst my brothers and sisters was short lived,as the brutal reality crashes in on their lives.it is perfectly clear,if nothing else is that our employer simply does not care and does treat highly caring and professional people with contempt as if they were ants.
in atime of choosing sides that kind of management indicates very clearly whose side they are on,and is is not alongside working people.they may pose and pretend but they really do not and cannot understand the realities of our lives or what we do.....
solidarity with "the deleted"!it is very clear that we have more in common with"the indignant"and many others struggling elsewhere in both this society and across the world.
i am however confident that we will stand together and fight back,in any and every way we can!
in response totheir indifference-they need to know-we will not forgive or forget-and that we are coming!
living in such a society,poses the stark choice between barbarism and and alternative which values human beings and their creative self activity over profit and greed every time.we might well be living with the barbarism already.what they dont seem to realise is that the more they immiserate us into barbarism,the more likely the barbarism will engulf them too.no matter how much money they accumulate,money will not save them from a barbarism far greater than anything they can visit on us.they cannot kill us all,adn we can choose to fight back!i will be working for that fight back-and we will bury them.
solidarity with"the deleted"!lotta continua!
Sunday, 12 August 2012
taking risks
like a kid opening a new toy,or apparently,most adults with new products purchased,im eager to get started.yesterday my much more computer"savvy"friend,helped me make the key start by helping me establish this blog.one of the key things i said i wanted to do was to integrate my learning into the process of what im doing.here is another paradox-my life is full of them-in that i know what i want to do,but i dont know what im doing.soon i will read th" how to"instruction book alongside,what im doing,but at this stage im at the introduction,the formalities.ignorance is not bliss,and a little knowledge is dangerous so i suppose this is the time,the long moment of greatest risk.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)