Their Agony, their Despair and our Inhumanity

The agony, the despair, the inhumanity of what we have created.

Mark Mullins and his wife Helen died in a suicide pact sometime in October this year after giving up on a life of grinding poverty .  Their bodies were undiscovered for several weeks in their home in the small market town of Bedworth, Warwickshire .

From what is known, the poverty was not simply about a lack of money.  That said, when the couple died, they were living in a wretched and appalling state. They had been living on £57.50 a week for the last 18 months. This tiny sum, just £4.10 each per day, was the unemployment benefit that was claimed by Mark.  Our systems and structures which provide the building blocks of what we call society have become poverty stricken - of humanity, dignity, decency and respect.

It has been reported that Helen had her Child Benefits stopped, but was unable to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance, as she was not deemed fit to work. She was then informed that she also did not qualify for incapacity benefit, due to her not being officially diagnosed with a medical condition.

Mark had found life hard since leaving the army and had been unable to find regular work. He was Helen’s full-time carer but he was unable to claim Carer’s Allowance (£53.10 a week), as he was told he was ineligible until she had been diagnosed with a disorder.

In December 2010, Mark and Helen, who had recently married, appeared in a short documentary about people living below the poverty line in Warwickshire.  Mark gave an interview to the Salvation Army [watch it via this link], whom the couple relied on for food parcels. He detailed their daily struggle for existence. They were interviewed at a soup kitchen in Coventry, where they came each Sunday for a “soup and food handout”. Unable to afford travel costs, the couple had to walk the 12-mile round trip. Mark told the interviewer at the time that they had been doing this for nearly a year.

He said that social services had taken Helen’s youngest daughter away from her, “because she was looking after Helen and doing everything for her”.

“My Helen is learning disabled, but it took her a very long time to get any kind of benefits or social security,” he said. “The job centre decided that she couldn’t sign on because she had no brain function, no numeracy, literacy skill, any mobile abilities. But the Incapacity [Benefit] and disability people wouldn’t recognise her until she had been fully diagnosed. We are caught in Catch-22 situation. We couldn’t sign on the dole. Couldn’t get the Incapacity established. Couldn’t get the disability established, so basically we are living on very little, hand to mouth.”

They could no longer afford food, he added, saying, “We’ve basically survived on a lot of your food handouts. We live in the one room of our property. Obviously we can’t afford all this heating in minus 10 and 15. We can’t afford to run the heating…. The food we gather here we basically put into a big pot and I keep one broth going continuously because your household bags gives us lots of fruit and veg, potatoes and there’s a lot of bread here. And we really have from week to week at times survived on what you have given us.”

They had to put the food parcels they got from the soup kitchen “out in the shed, because it’s cooler in the shed. We don’t have a fridge or a freezer. We bring it [the food] in piecemeal and add to the big broth pot as we go along.”

Commenting on their inability to claim the benefits they were entitled to, Mark said, “I think the system is very unkind. We have lost count of how many appeals we have had. We’ve had to fight tooth and nail every step of the way to get benefits.

“They have no problem in suspending benefits. It’s not an issue for them. They just put a tick in a box and a stroke across a piece of paper and they alter your lives, which is fundamentally unfair. You have those who have the power to do this to you and those of us who don’t have the power to resist it.”

'I think the system is very unkind....You have those who 
have the power to do this to you and those of us who 
don’t have the power to resist it.' - Mark Mullins

This happened within our society.  It will go on happening until we decide it must not happen on our watch again.  

That means more than a donation to a charity, of whatever size.

It means more than shedding a tear at the slick video clips with often heart-rending content shown on such as 'Children in Need'.

It means more than getting off your backside at elections once every few years, forgetting about the 'X-Factor' or 'Coronation Street' for one night, and getting down to the voting station to cast your vote for radical change.

It does mean you have to reclaim how we build and maintain our society from the numpties and eejits who have been left to get on with it at Westminster and Holyrood, for their model of society has failed Helen and Mark in the worst possible way.

It does mean you have to start holding your MP, your MSPs and your governments to account - fully and properly and regularly, not just at elections.  If you need training in how to do that, contact me via this blog.

I have borne witness to another human being driven to killing herself.  It is an experience beyond both comprehension and description, and yet my experience is nothing to what each of these human beings has endured.  For some, death is a better answer than life, as the system has nothing to offer and my personal experience has made me accept and respect that.  For Mark and Helen Mullins, the system changes needed to give them real support and real hope were so minor, the fact that they were missing tells us we have created a society where life is cheaper than than the average weekly shop.  We are but a heartbeat away from sliding into becoming a society where the value systems on display would not be unfamiliar to those who lived in national socialist Germany in the late 1930's.


One of the few who did challenge the cheapening of life of those who did not fit the Nazi model was Pastor Friedrich Niemöller.  His legacy to us is a piece of verse which is as relevant today as it was then:

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

With Helen and Mark, they did not have to come for them.  'They' [we, us, our society] simply stood aside and allowed them to fall to such depths of agony, despair and inhumanity, that death offered them a warmer, safer place.

Will the rooster crow for Nicola's thrice-times denial ?

a classic lesson in how the establishment
 [in this case men] will not give up their unfair
advantages [in this case, being paid more]
unless they are dragged, kicking and screaming,
into court

For some years now [since 1975], the law has required employers across the UK to provide women with equal pay for work of equal value. The Equality Act 2010 continues to place a legal obligation on employers to deliver equal pay for women. That Act also opens the door to pay systems being challenged if they deliver unequal pay for such as disabled people and other communities protected by the Act.

In Scotland, progress by the public sector in making equal pay for women happen, instead of always ‘working towards’ equal pay [not to mention equality generally], has been a classic lesson in how the establishment [in this case men] will not give up their unfair advantages [in this case, being paid more] unless they are dragged, kicking and screaming, into court. Even then, some public bodies will still throw money at lawyers to try and stave of the inevitable. The City of Edinburgh Council were still, as of November 2011, prepared to argue [and pay hefty legal fees in so doing] in court that its care workers, clerical and classroom assistants should not be allowed to claim equal pay with male refuse workers, gardeners and road workers. They lost.

Nicola Sturgeon, Cabinet Secretary for Health & Wellbeing, is doing her bit. But not for the sisterhood. No, no and no. Thrice nay. Nicola, who was 5 when the original equal pay legislation came in, is doing her bit on equal pay - for the brotherhood and the establishment.

Nicola, who was 5 when the original equal pay legislation
 came in, is doing her bit on equal pay - for the
brotherhood and the establishment

Michael McMahon MSP has been posing a series of questions to Nicola for some time now on why women in our NHS in Scotland are not being given equal pay for equal work.

But before looking at some of his recent questions, let’s flash back to October 2009. At a meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Equal Opportunities Committee, Nicola had a lengthy session exploring with Committee members just where the NHS was with equal pay. Amongst many other statements made by Nicola at that time, the Official Record shows that she said towards the end of the session :

 'It was indicated [at a previous Committee round-table discussion on equal pay reviews] that advice had been given to NHS boards not to perform equal pay reviews to ensure that agenda for change remains equal-pay-proofed. I want to clarify that that is not the case. There remains an issue about the extent to which such reviews can be carried out while agenda for change reviews are under way, but there is a clear expectation that all boards will get on and complete those reviews as quickly as they can, and that they will go beyond the letter of the law to ensure that they are exemplary employers that live up to all the duties required of them.' [6^th October 2009]

Seems clear enough ? NHS Boards to stop faffing about, get off their fat, predominantly male, and well fed corporate butts, and do equal pay reviews? There’s even some encouragement in there to go beyond compliance.

NHS Boards to stop faffing about, get off their fat,
predominantly male, and well fed corporate butts,
and do equal pay reviews

So why, when Michael McMahon tabled his three most recent questions on the subject, did Nicola respond, three times, as she did ?

Michael McMahon (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S4W-02826 by Nicola Sturgeon on 29 September 2011, whether a deadline will now be set by which detailed equal pay reviews will be carried out by each NHS board.
 (S4W-03421)Ms Nicola Sturgeon :
 Negotiations are currently taking place around remuneration for on-call commitments under the Agenda for Change pay system. The majority of Boards are awaiting the outcome of these before progressing equal pay reviews. These negotiations need to be allowed to take their course and it would therefore not be appropriate to set a deadline for carrying out equal pay reviews at this stage.

and then 

Michael McMahon (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S4W-02826 by Nicola Sturgeon on 29 September 2011, for what reason this was not an issue in NHS 24, in which details of any gender, age and disability pay gap have been available via equal pay reviews in each of the last three years. (S4W-03422)Ms Nicola Sturgeon : It is for NHS Boards as employers to decide when they can publish an equal pay review based on the information available to them. With the exception of NHS 24, NHS Boards are awaiting the final element of the Agenda for Change pay system involving remuneration of on-call commitments being put in place, and will then progress the equal pay review process.

and then 

Michael McMahon (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S4W-02826 by Nicola Sturgeon on 29 September 2011, (a) when and (b) how women in the NHS will benefit from their employers being required to “go beyond the letter of the law to ensure that they are exemplary employers” on equal pay. (S4W-03425)Ms Nicola Sturgeon : The Equality and Human Rights Commission have published a Code of Practice on Equal Pay. The Code recognises that regular review and monitoring of pay practices is not a formal legal requirement. However, it suggests that equal pay reviews may be the most effective means of ensuring that a pay system delivers equal pay. NHS employers will, therefore, wish to maintain an awareness of the Code in taking forward equal pay reviews as soon as this is deemed feasible.

why not email the Cabinet Secretary,
Nicola Sturgeon, and invite her to
stop disowning and denying her
sisterhood in the NHS workforce

Makes you really wonder just who is running our NHS [in case you are wondering, the Chief Executive of NHS Scotland is a guy].  

If you have a mum, a sister, a daughter, a partner, or a best friend working in our NHS and you want to give them a real, meaningful and lasting gift in the coming weeks, why not email the Cabinet Secretary, Nicola Sturgeon, and invite her to stop disowning and denying her sisterhood in the NHS workforce, and instead bring an end now to the state-sponsored theft from the wages of women.

Somewhere, over the rainbow ......... equality is being spat on and abused

Better Policy, Better Lives [sic]

The Equality & Human Rights Commission [EHRC] in Scotland has published a report, with the above working title, on 14^th November 2011 setting out the outcome of an assessment into Scottish Ministers’ progress in meeting the public sector equality duties.  It first said it was going to do this in July 2009, over two years ago.  

Some of us expected a substantial exposé of government’s failings and thus an opportunity to secure a major step change in work on eliminating discrimination at the heart of the public sector in Scotland.  Sadly, and as is increasingly the case with the EHRC, the report is at best tentative, lacks a tight focus, and heralds no brave new dawn in how the tempo and passion with which discrimination needs to be sought out and eliminated might be cranked up from its current snails pace to even just the kind of comfortable walking pace which wouldn’t so much as frighten  even the ponderous horses which lead COSLA.

That odd, faint sound you can barely hear when working your way through this turgid and heavy [92 pages long] report, is what you would expect to hear if Nicola Sturgeon was standing in the middle of a 2 metre diameter circle and an EHRC Scotland Committee member with a reach of 18 inches and wielding a metaphorical and very old, very wet and very smelly fish, was trying slap her with it.

If you are able to conjure up the energy to read the report, you will find some things which might well frighten not just the horses, but those dear to you and whom you know will need some robust protection from the daily abuse they experience in life simply because they are different.

On page 5 and as part of the EHRC’s ‘background’ to the report they suggest:

‘Other public authorities look to the Scottish Government for leadership in how they can effectively comply with the duties. Improving adherence to, and compliance with, the duties leads to better public services and ensures improved compliance with the public sector duties by other public bodies in Scotland’

I almost fell off my chair when I read this, convinced that Dorothy and Toto were going to appear any moment, that she would click her red shoes together and take us all back to Kansas. Well, OK, maybe not Kansas  – to West Lothian?  Scottish government has been breaching the disability equality duty since it came into effect in December 2006 by regularly publishing documents which are inaccessible to many people and which do not comply with the guidance of an organisation [SAIF] it funds to advise on how to publish accessible documents.  Nicola Sturgeon has been playing the Wicked Witch of the West on equalities for some time now.  The EHRC lion has yet to lay a paw on her.

Nicola Sturgeon has been playing the Wicked Witch
of the West  on equalities for some time now.
The EHRC lion has yet to lay a paw on her.

If the EHRC believes that this is leadership the rest of the public sector is looking for, they need to get out more.  A lot more.

The EHRC needs to get out
more - a lot more

On page 9, the report refers to staff within government who were interviewed as part of their assessment. At no time is there any reference to the rather odd situation where one of the senior staff in one of the policy teams in government is also a member of the EHRC Scotland Committee. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Even our recently departed role model from the bunga bunga scene, Silvio Berlusconi, might have thought this a tad cheeky.

On page 22, the EHRC notes in passing that COSLA, the mouthpiece of councils in Scotland, is ‘not subject to the public sector equality duties’. And this is a body that negotiates and agrees with government just how much funding councils will receive what council services need to be run?  Audit Scotland published a report in November 2008 on ‘The impact of the race equality duty on council services’.  This report offered a blunt and detailed analysis on the performance of councils, best summarised by the comment on page 3 of the report that 

‘Overall, we found that while councils have developed policies on race equality and have developed a range of initiatives, the duty has not yet had a significant impact on the delivery of services or on people from minority ethnic communities’.

Does the EHRC recommend as part of its findings in this report that COSLA should be subject to the equality duties?  Remember you only have an 18 inch reach and the size of the circle Nicola is standing in ?  If we are to be serious about eliminating discrimination, COSLA needs to be required to evidence that it, and those it represents, is exemplary across all the equality duties and regularly exceeds the minimum the law requires.

At the moment, COSLA’s position of micturition outside the equalities tent leaves it in a similar position to those churches with a celibate ministry and who regularly trot out a theological rationale against the use of condoms for safe sex.  COSLA needs to get hitched to the equality duties like the rest of the public sector, or sit quietly in the corner and play with itself while everyone else puts discrimination to the sword.

When you stagger your way to the finish line of this report, still clutching that very wet, very smelly, and very old fish, one of the many thoughts which come to mind is just what kind of warped humour in the EHRC comes up with a title ‘Better Policy, Better Lives’?  If you want to do something simple on this which reminds your government and the EHRC that Scotland’s citizens know the difference between rain and being pissed on from a great height, email Roz Micklem, Scotland Director at the EHRC, and ask:

‘How will implementing the recommendations in ‘Better Policy, Better Lives’ eliminate the discrimination I expect to face tomorrow at work because I am a woman/black/disabled/gay/Muslim/young/old, or just different?  If not tomorrow, when ?’

The killing fields of equality

Some of you may be aware that our governments, north and south, have decided that 'veterans' from the armed forces should be treated as special cases in any number of ways.  In other words, it has been decided that instead of creating an equal society where people who often encounter discrimination are given equality of opportunity, government has decided to scrap that approach when it comes to 'veterans'.  Instead, we will be expected, if we ever find ourselves in a queue for public services, to stand aside when a 'veteran' puts in an appearance and allow him or her to jump to the head of the queue.  Those who have been active on the killing fields of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan will be given accelerated and priority access to increasingly scarce public sector services.

I find this thinking offensive and repugnant on any number of levels.  It represents the creation of a hierarchy of equality.  In my world, a hierarchy of equality is a contradiction.  In my working life, it is something I oppose and will continue to oppose, no matter how much I may be bullied into complying with current corporate thinking in the public sector.

Just over two years ago a fireman was killed when he and his crew were dealing with a pub fire in Dalry Road in Edinburgh.  A huge sacrifice to ensure the safety of people living in the vicinity [I lived nearby and was aware of the impact of his death on the community].  Does this require that we put firemen to the head of queues for public services?

Next year will mark exactly 100 years since the Titanic sank.  Most people will recall some of the many stories told about that disaster.  Many will also recall that the values of the time found crew and passengers ensuring that women and children were given first chance to get away from the sinking ship and be saved.  Our governments would have us believe that values have changed to the extent that women and children should now be dumped out of the lifeboats of public sector services to allow 'veterans' first chance at being saved, especially at a time when the state of services in the public sector resemble the Titanic after she hit that iceberg.

A lot of this blog was prompted by a chance encounter with a picture posted on Twitter.  The picture was of a poster found on a suburban commuter train in England.  It is clearly a contemporary revisit of a poster issued during what is often referred to as the 'Great War' of 1914-18.  I found it got under my skin.  I hope it gets under your skin and that you will decide for yourself who if anyone should get priority access to what is left of our public services.