Guest post : Nancy Taaffe why i'm against food banks

This post below is a republishing of a fantastic post written by my comrade Nancy Taaffe who lives in London, a really well put piece highlighting the hypocrisy of Labur Mp's and those who think they are doing good but are not tackling povety at al. “When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor are hungry, they call me a communist” Helder Camara, Liberation Theologian Nancy Taaffe speaking out Every Saturday the Anti-Cuts Union has a stall in Walthamstow campaigning against cuts. The Labour Council passed a budget that has taken £65 million away from local services. I lost my job in a library, a job which I had for over 10 years. Children and young peoples’ services have been decimated by cuts, with some services, such as careers, being cut by almost a third. The three main political parties say it wasn’t their fault, that there isn’t any money but… …THAT’S A LIE. A report in The Guardian last year stated that there is currently £750 billion locked away in banks by the rich who see no immediate way to make a profit and so they just sit on the money and let it collect interest, £120 billion is squirrelled away through tax evasion and one thousand of the riches people in this country increased their wealth by £155 billion last year, enough to wipe out the nation’s deficit overnight. Meanwhile my local foodbank runs a stall in a market on a Saturday next to the Anti-Cuts Union stall where they ask the poor of Walthamstow to donate tins and toiletries to the destitute of Walthamstow. Food banks need to get political My annoyance at foodbanks is that we are not in debt, there is money to feed everyone, and we, the poor, shouldn’t pay for a crisis we didn’t create. I understand that foodbanks are often set up by well intentioned people who want to help, but I would question whether a foodbank without politics does actually help. Poverty is not like a hurricane or a flood, it’s man made and it can be man solved. I stood on the Town Hall steps for over a year asking Labour Councillors to set a needs budget and reject cuts but, to a man and woman they all voted for them. I stopped my local MP Stella Creasy (a big proponent of foodbanks) in the street (as I was losing my job) and asked her to make a public statement condemning cuts to libraries and children’s services but she just wouldn’t. Why? Because getting behind the consequence of cuts is far easier than fighting a preemptive battle….. if you are a career politician. When 3 million public sector workers took industrial action last November for decent pensions to prevent poverty in old age the same MP who stands behind the foodbank stall and campaigns against poverty wouldn’t support them. Strikes me, if your simpering and crushed by poverty then you get patronised and pitied but if you stand with a straight back and lean look and assert yourself through your trade union then you get condemned. I suppose it’s the hypocrisy I can’t stand, the Councillors who voted to sack me all support foodbanks. The smell of fresh tar My Liverpool Grandmother would tell me stories of the poverty her family endured in the 30′s, of picking up orange peel by the side of the road to gnaw on to alleviate hunger pains or sniffing the air when fresh tar was laid on the road because it smelt like food. But she also described the humiliation that many mothers had to endure at the hands of “charitable organisations”, how it was common to have to stand in a cold church hall with children clawing at your skirts and put your case to the parish fathers as to why you should have money to survive. Often these “parish fathers” were local businessmen and factory owners who paid poverty wages to their workers and were vicious if the workers went on strike for decent pay and decent working conditions. Rebellion against charity The rebellion that took place in the working class after the Second World War was not just a reaction to the horror of war but was a revolution against the humiliation of poor relief and welfare administration built on “charity”. I suppose if foodbanks get political and mobilised those they feed to get organised, then I could support them. If, like the unemployed movements of the 30s, they not only fed people but stirred them up to fight for revolutionary change, then I would get right behind them. If I could sum up my opposition to charity without politics I would have to do it with the help of the inimitable Oscar Wilde who said: “We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. …Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue” …Long live disobedience! with thanks to http://thefoodbankers.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/guest-post-nancy-taaffe-explains-why-shes-against-foodbanks/

Some observations from a NHS health worker on the risk register

undearneath i publish a special guest post from a comrade who works in the NHS and holds the service close to her heart. her name is helen ridett a proud member of the socialist party like myself and i'm more than happy to share with you her thoughts on the NHS risk register she has kindly let me have to share with you all. Hope they make a echo and get shared far and wide to help people understand what is to happen to our NHS.

Some Observations on The NHS Risk Register…



The government is proceeding with this bill blindly not knowing the impact of recent amendments to the bill. They don’t really know how much these changes will cost or whether they can afford to implement the new ones, all during a period when the country is in masses of debt. The bill does not guarantee that the treasury will be able to get new savings i.e. efficiencies out of the NHS when the system is put into place



New NHS structures are being created and old ones dismantled and no one knows whether the old or the new teams will control the budget and when the Gps’ will be in a position to take over holding it. Also no one really knows who will be accountable if things go wrong as there are no clear lines of responsibility. This means that if things fall apart and the new NHS system doesn’t work everyone will point the finger at everyone else and there will be no one to take responsibility. If, for eg; a private company takes over a community health team and a patient suffers harm or neglect and that same company then goes bust what happens then? Where does the patient or their relative get redress during the transition to the new system?



The register highlights that GPs are not trained properly to either hold the budgets or to buy the care that you and I might need in future. When GP’s are spending their time training for this new job they will have less time to spend with patients. The GP’s haven’t even reached an agreement with the government regarding how they will operate within the new system



It is worth noting that if the new system falls apart or doesn’t work there are no plans in place to deal with emergencies that may arise off the back of this and there appears to be no fall back plans



Staff morale will be low because of the changes and with commissioning and senior management staff at risk of loosing their jobs but being expected to dig their own graves by setting up the new system. Frontline NHS Staff are already being shifted from post to pillar around the NHS and staff may be redeployed to sites miles away from training and occupational health facilities. This problem is likely to get far worse as the NHS gets more fragmented and bits of it get taken over by more and more private firms (any qualified provider). Industrial relations are getting increasingly strained and unions may have no choice but to ballot for industrial action if the pay and conditions of NHS staff are attacked even more. Unnecessary and awkward redeployment plans add complication to an already complex situation.



Healthcare records will also become an open book as the Health and Social Care bill is going to loosen the regulations and make sharing our personal information much easier to accommodate ‘any qualified provider’. In what appears to be a chaotic, less regulated and less accountable system change patient confidentiality will be an early casualty.



The risk register also seems to readily admit that patients are not being listened to during consultations and this problem is likely to accelerate thus giving the lie to the catchphrase ‘no care about me without me’.

guest blogpost from an old friend from school

Well this is something a little bit different for you all now. a friend from secondary school approached me earlier in the week claiming to enjoy my blog, thanks for that by the way glad your reading. His name is Steven Basing who attended Richard hale school in Hertford between 1999 and 2006 like myself. He has attended University thanks to low tuitian fees and a good education he appears to have recieved too the wonders of investing in higher education ay Mr clegg ?

Well here is a piece of work steve has done all about David CCameron his views on HRA which he outlines below in great accurate detail. I feel more than happy to publish any of my friends work on my blog if they wish me to do so. Although these are not my views i feel a blog is more than just sharing your own views, if you like what someone else has to say then why not republish their work and spread it out there to the world. Afterall it will hopefully encourage debate and discussion.

Well here below is Steve's post to me please have a read if you can. I'll be sure to pass on any feedback to him if you like.

In 1950 the European Convention of Human Rights was drafted by the Council of Europe, and intended to ensure the protection of basic human rights, such as the right to life, privacy and a fair trial, to every man, woman and child of Europe. The catalyst for the drafting of the document was largely a response to the horrors of Nazi Germany, and an attempt to ensure, such atrocities as the Holocaust would never again occur.

When the ECHR came into force in 1953 every citizen of the UK had bestowed upon them the rights it contained, subject to certain limitations. However until 2000, the rights we all had, could only be enforced in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

If an individual felt their rights had been impeded by an employer, a local authority or the government, they were required to first exhaust the British courts, without raising their rights under the ECHR. Only after the House of Lords had found against the individual, could they proceed to Strasbourg, and make accessible the full rights owed to them.

So although, the magnificent ECHR applied universally in principle, in practice, it was only those privileged enough, with time and money, who could pursue a case long enough to actually enforce their rights. Add to this the enormous cost to the taxpayer, of cases proceeding from Magistrate Courts all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, via the House of Lords, and it was clear the system was not working.

It thus became a cornerstone policy of the 1997 Labour election campaign to ‘bring rights home.’ The simple idea was, to introduce a piece of legislation, which brought the rights we all already enjoyed, into a domestic sphere, so all could enforce them, simultaneously making the system easier and fairer, for the individual, as well as more economical for the nation. Born of this was the Human Rights Act, which came into force in 2000.

Under the HRA, the ECHR could be applied to UK legislation, as well as being admissible, in any court of the UK. For me, this could not be a more uncontroversial piece of legislation, but for some on the right, the HRA has come to represent, all that is wrong with the world. This right-wing point of view is perhaps unsurprisingly, championed by such media as The Daily Mail and The Sun, however more surprisingly and a lot more worryingly; this is also the view of the man resident in Number 10. Prime Minister David Cameron also adheres to this misinformed, right-wing belief, that the HRA is ‘rotten to the core’ and needs repealing.

During the election campaign of this year, David Cameron pledged to repeal the HRA, although this ludicrous policy seemed to disappear in a haze of broken promises, student demonstrations and disenchanted Lib-Dems after Cameron took office, this week it raised its ugly head again.


After an Iraqi man, Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, won his right to stay in the UK using the HRA, after killing a child in a hit and run, Mr Cameron restated his desire to repeal the HRA.

Mr Cameron’s, views on the HRA worry me in two distinct ways; firstly, it worries me that the man in charge can misunderstand the law so much. How can the Prime Minister of the UK, vow to repeal the HRA and free us from Human Rights cases which lack common sense, whilst we remain tied to the ECHR, which grants us all those rights anyway?

But secondly, and more worryingly, it worries me, that in the 21st century, the leader of a free and democratic nation, who supposedly hold fairness, equality and justice as core principles, could ever consider so dramatically undermining a system of human rights, which does far more good, than ill.

If Cameron repealed the HRA although, he would not lower the amount of rights an individual has, he would make their implementation much more difficult and elitist. But he would also send a message to the world, and the message that the world would receive loud and clear is that the United Kingdom government does not care about human rights, and protecting individuals or minorities.

As I have already explained, repealing the HRA would not end the Human Rights available to individuals. But it would make it a lot more difficult to enforce. And if the rights are more costly and time-consuming to enforce, it would be the ordinary citizen who would lose out.

The general outrage towards the HRA, which emanates, from The Sun and Daily Mail, forced upon their readers and designed to purposely mislead, comes mainly from cases which allow terrorist suspects the right to stay in the UK or allow failed Asylum Seekers, like Mr Ibrahim, to stay in the UK despite committing a crime. Whatever the rights or wrongs of these cases, we would not see a reduction in such cases, should the HRA be repealed. For a terror suspect facing deportation to a homeland where he may be killed, would probably be more inclined to use his money or legal aid money, and time to fight the deportation all the way to the Strasbourg. Whereas the single mum made redundant from her job, because she wanted to take time off to care for her sick child, would probably not fight such a redundancy all the way to the top. However under the HRA a Mum in this exact position, was able to successfully take action against her employers.

I do not for one minute believe Mr Cameron misunderstands the law, I believe he knows exactly how the HRA works and its close relationship with the ECHR, which leads us to one very important question, why does Cameron want to repeal the HRA?

It seems totally clear that Mr Cameron desire to repeal the HRA is born absolutely out of political calculation, The Prime Minister, has seen the contempt with which large portions of the public view the HRA, and has thus seized upon this as a way of increasing his popularity. I do not criticise the public for disliking the HRA, although I obviously feel they are very wrong. But for most people the only contact they get with the HRA is what the right-wing press tell them. People are understandably too busy to go and research the cases or the laws, and equally understandably believe that the media is not trying to mislead them, for their own gains.

However I do not have the same understanding for our Prime Minister, his job is not to pander to popular opinion, it is to do what is right for the nation, and regardless of your views on Human Rights, it is clear that repeal of the HRA would be a costly, time-consuming waste of time, which achieves nothing, but create a two-tier system of rights, where instead of applying universally, would apply alone to those wealthy enough to enforce them.

My second gripe with Mr Cameron’s pledge, is that any reduction in Human Rights, even a partially symbolic one that the HRA’s repeal would be, is just plain wrong. When the Labour government of Tony Blair, bought the HRA into effect, they should the people of Britain, the down-trodden, the forgotten, the abused, as well as the people of Europe, that the UK cares about individual rights, and also that the UK feel it is vital that the actions of Employers, Local Authorities, and even the Sovereign Government, are liable to being limited if they breach certain inalienable rights.

However, when Mr Blair did this, he did not do it without regard for the process of Government, or public safety. Under the ECHR certain checks were already in place which allow individuals rights to be limited, in situations which are, ‘necessary in a democratic society.’ In fact under the ECHR, only the prohibition of Torture is absolute and without qualification, the ECHR also allows derogations under Article 15, when ‘there is a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.’ Furthermore the ECHR under section 3 makes it necessary for legislation to be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the ECHR, but only as ‘far as it is possible.’

Should Mr Cameron succeed in his desire to repeal the HRA, he would undermine all of the progress made in Human Rights by the UK since 2000. Mr Cameron has already largely done this, and when he refers to the Act as, a ‘criminal charter,’ a phrase taken straight from the front page of The Sun, it leaves me with great panic for the equality in this nation under Tory rule.

Cameron’s assertion that the HRA only protects criminals and terrorists, may play well for the right wing vote he so needs, but it does not represent the truth. And just like Murdoch and co, Cameron is misleading the public, by scaremongering them into believing, an act which allows them unprecedented rights, is going to allow a failed asylum seeking Muslim terrorist ex-offender, to come and kill them, and then avoid any sort of punishment.

The HRA has done considerable more good than ill, and even when prima facie the decision appears wrong or to as Mr Cameron stated, ‘fly in the face of common sense,’ upon closer inspection it often makes huge sense.

The HRA has, in the decade since it became law, helped pave the way for homosexuals to serve in our armed forces, kept the government in check by holding their policy of treating foreign Terror suspects as different to domestic terror suspects as discriminatory, and allowed injunctions to be won to prevent tabloid newspapers printing lies or private matters. This is without mentioning the literally thousands of cases, where honest citizen have won against, local authorities, the government, or their employers, who seek to discriminate or mistreat them.

It seems clear to me, that Cameron is playing a political game; he is trying to score points and win votes, whilst misleading the public, and undermining the rights we all have, and should have. His pledge is simply an empty promise to appease the right.

This nation has faced down fascists intend on ending our freedoms before, and at this time, we need a lion to roar against the tide and defend the HRA,