Parenthood and Identity

Does being a parent make one more invested in the future?  It may do,  on the flipside of that opinion is the fact it could make you only interested in your own progeny’s future at the expense of all others.

Does being childless make a person less worried about the future? It may do, on the flipside it could make you more motivated to build a different kind of legacy in the world.

What I do know is that generalisations and attempts at one upmanship based on flimsy unprovable summations is wrong, shows a significant lack of awareness and will crumble at the most cursory examination.

All lives matter, everyone has value. The second that any stigmatisation of any group happens, moral high ground disappears.

IDS Resigns

I can’t help being pleased that IDS is resigning, his reforms to welfare have been brutal to the wrong people. Those who are disabled, vulnerable and who are unable to work.
These people are now thought of by many as scroungers who have chosen a lifestyle at others expense. The constant drip that spurious claims are costing all tax payers has seeped into the public consciousness deftly distracting attention from the real frauds and shirkers: those who avoid tax and others whose expense claiming sense of entitlement leech money from tax payers at every level.
I am glad he’s going, did I mention that already?
Not for one nanosecond do I believe that his conscience has been pricked by the budget led demand for more cuts to Independent Living Allowance. If this was the case he would have been vocally challenging HIS government for longer. I know how he disregards the vulnerable in his own constituency. I have counselled people who have been to see him to lay out their difficulties exacerbated by his reforms. Not one mentioned his empathy and compassion or subsequent help.
What worries me now is the stark truth that he was only one man doing his government’s bidding. There are many more within the government who can and will step in and take up the reigns with enthusiasm. Is this a case of better the devil you know? What IS going to happen next? I can only see more devastation. After all the Tories are the party of the people, those who are vulnerable clearly don’t meet that criteria
Namaste Jules

Related post Honour

Nobody

I am nobody,
Nobody special you say
I say that is truth,
let us examine that…

Nobody is the same as you
Nobody can walk your path

Nobody is needed to complete you
Nobody has a place in my heart like you

Nobody could ever replace you:
Nobody

It is truth then.
You are nobody,

Nobody *special*

Degrees of Inclusion part 2

As ever, @DedicatedPeeler has stepped in to clear muddied waters: My blog on Friday was a direct response to the emotional hurt that was related to me by officers. In his second paragraph Gareth highlights that that is an important issue to address.  He recognised that the wellbeing of officers is critical to maintain if meaningful debate is to be had:

“The reason I’ve decided to blog, is that the info that is out there is sparse. I can’t comment on other’s communications, or indeed other people’s opinion, as it is theirs. I also don’t contend how people ‘feel’ about this. It is their prerogative and totally individual. I can shine a light on some of the research that I found and why a lot of the myths/concerns around at the minute don’t stack up. It may help paint some foreground and some background into the debate, and context is always so important.”

He then goes on to explain exactly what the decision means and frames it in a wider context.   It is vital for Officers to have clear information and where the college of Policing has neglected to provide this clearly Gareth has stepped up.

You can read his full blog here: http://http://wp.me/p4UkzN-1y
It is an excellent example of his work which is always factually based, and mindful of the audience he is speaking to.  He finishes his blog with another statement which highlights why I have so much time and respect for him:

“As a final note, the slating of graduates as police officers has just been shocking. I have met some cops who have been poor who have been graduates, I’ve also met some cops who weren’t graduates, who were also poor. That is a recruitment/development issue and not an educational one. Tarring educated cops as ‘bag carriers’ is nothing but anti-intellectualism and serves no other purpose than to divide. Gone are the days when graduates entering the profession was rare, it’s just a pity that the same attitudes have stuck around despite the world moving on. This is a debate that we need to have, at least keep it civil and respectful – as befits the service which we represent.”

I sincerely hope that the debate can continue with this same level of mindfulness, I just wish that the source had of been the College itself, not an individual.

Namasté  Jules

Degrees of inclusion

I just wanted to congratulate the College of Policing, no, seriously.  In one glorious stroke you have denegrated every Police Officer without a degree.  As if the media and gvt attacks upon their credibility were not enough to chip away at their self esteem and well being!  You appear to have said that their personal experience, commitment and dedication is worth not a jot!  Good morale boost that.  From the outside it looks like a ploy to give your own existence meaning and sustainability.  At what price?

How are you ever going to get inclusion right if you can’t even include the bulk of your own workforce?  Is a degree the only way to prove that on one day at a particular time critical thinking skills were apparent: ok, that was under exam conditions, with weeks to prepare and not during a life and death scenario those who do that and have done that haven’t got the paper to prove it so it doesn’t count right?  That can’t be measured. 

I am not usually so critical (well not often) how are you going to rebuild the officers you have just knocked down?  How are you going to ensure that those already there are going to have their experience and competence recognised, particularly in the future when a *qualified* officer and an established one are applying for promotion a few years down the track?  That’s supposing that the established officers stay around that long to find out!  Hmmm, mass leaving would certainly save money on redundancy pay when compulsory severance comes in wouldn’t it?

Jules

Million Mask March

I am a simple person, I try not to be judgemental. I do hold strong opinions and stand up for what I believe is just.  Sometimes that means supporting the right to express views that chafe against everything I hold dear.  Many times I have literally stood in the way of oppression.
I support the Anonymous  #MillionMaskMarch,  I believe that we need to all join together, nationally and globally to oppose tyranny and injustice.
The ideal way to show the strength of feeling against the government we have today is where no criminal damage is caused, no fighting occurs and everyone attending walks shoulder to shoulder with their neighbour, silently, slowly, purposefully: A wall of humanity moving as one united in their desire for a better way, a better world.
This is what I would love to see.  This type of action is hard to achieve.  This kind of demonstration is harder to discredit.

Namasté Jules

Honour

If you had a relationship with a person who consistently told you lies, which you totally accepted as truth because you trusted them, what would you do?  Until you knew that they were lying, you’d probably defend them to others and continue to invest your own time and energy into keeping the relationship alive and healthy.  Until you are equipped to see the things they say and do as falsehoods you cannot really be blamed for your actions.  You were acting with honour.
What about when you are given proof that their words had no real meaning, they were merely a tool being used to manipulate you into compliance or even worse to actively gain your support to keep that person in a position of authority, not just over you but over others too?  Would you do everything in your power to expose that person’s falsehoods and take their authority away from them?  It’s not easy to do, but it’s the honourable thing to do.  It may result in suffering on a personal level.  Is it still the honourable thing to do?

What about if the person lying to you is part of a strong group?  Is it even more important to expose and challenge them?  The range of people their lies affect is vast.  Does that make it ok to be silent?  Questioning those around us, whether on a personal relational level or on a less personal level is not wrong.  It equips us with the information we need to regulate our behaviours in line with our conscience.  The way we question needs to be mindful and not just to deliberately cause harm for no reason.  Questioning doesn’t have to be a threatening stance, we can moderate our questions to fit the context of the situation we are in.  This is healthy behaviour.

Our government lies to us, as a unified body, as individual departments and as individuals who are elected as MPs.   Not just in one party,  no one party or individual only ever speaks the truth, we need to question everything and everyone with whom we have given the trust to represent us.  We need to press for changes to allow liars to be removed from office.  We need to be able to discuss policies and make informed choices.  This is impossible if we know that we are being constantly lied to and nothing gets done about it.  How can we bring about the changes needed to rout out deliberate deception?  How can we retain our personal integrity and honour if we do not?

Namasté Jules

Entrenched thinking and relationships

I decided to blog this thought train instead of writing a myriad tweets, if it feels relevant please share/comment, although it is response to @DedicatedPeeler and @moderndayman18

As I was driving I thought about how the best way to *challenge* entrenched thinking would look: the first thing that is needed in my view is a positive relationship with the person/s whose thinking you wish to challenge.  This is slightly easier on a one to one or small group level than in an organisation.   If challenged in a *wrong* way where defense mechanisms kick in, the entrenched thought gets buried deeper into the persons psyche and is harder to  root out.  They may outwardly follow the new way  but with the thinking unchanged the genetic code of the organisation stays the same and anything that challenges the way the code is connected gets attacked by the organisation’s white blood cells.
I think about organisations as bodies… positive change and entrenched thinking as viruses.  The quickest way to change an organisation is to affect it’s genetic code: so that thinking whether positive or negative is bonded to the cells and is there for generations.
If entrenched thinking is likened to cancer in this symbolic way it helps to understand how pervasive it can be and how harmful attempts to remove it can be (surgery or chemotherapy) although the result is a body without cancer it is not always as healthy as it could be…
IF, there are good relational bonds and the members of the organisation feel valued and not ostracised for their beliefs  they are more likely to be open to change.  This positivity infects the organisation as a whole and a new, stronger, healthier genetic code is embedded by the contact of one changed thinker positively engaging with another colleague and the results snowball.
The biggest danger that I can see is that negative changes, due to poor relational challenge are more virulent.

I hope this helps explain my thoughts 🙂
Namasté Jules

Workfare and Anti-Slavery Legislation

Beastrabban\'s Weblog

Left-wing bloggers against workfare, like Johnny Void, have repeatedly pointed out that workfare constitutes a form of slavery. Under the government’s welfare to work reforms, benefit claimants can be forced to work for companies for no pay, if they wish to receive their benefits. This applies even if the claimant has been sanctioned, so that they receive no benefit payments whatsoever, and are forced to use their savings or go to a food bank. Even if this does not constitute slavery, it certainly constitutes forced labour, which is almost the same and just as offensive under international law.

Yesterday I put the oath medieval slaves took in seventh century France, when poverty forced them to give up their freedom and become a lord’s slave. I pointed out how close this was to current workfare and in particular the use of workfare labour when the claimant has been sanctioned.

Sasson commented…

View original post 1,054 more words

Medieval Slave’s Oath: Now Applicable to Workfare

As ever Beastrabban gives an interesting perspective, here he looks at Medieaval Slave oaths comparing them to Workfare…

Beastrabban\'s Weblog

Looking through the books and materials I’ve got on slavery the other day, I found the oath slaves took when they formally renounced their freedom and became the property of a feudal lord in 7th century France.

‘Everyone knows that great poverty and very bad harvests oppress me, and I have nothing with which to feed or clothe myself. At my request you have given me some money and some clothes. As I cannot repay you, I cede to you my liberty: you may dispose of me as your other slaves.’

Well, it’s now fifteen centuries later, and we’re in the 21st century not the seventh. The attitude still seems to be the same at the DWP. It’s certainly the idea behind workfare, where in exchange for receiving the pittance to relieve hardship and allow the claimant something to eat, they are put on the work programme to labour for…

View original post 190 more words