Far-Right Protests.

 

Interestingly, there has been quite an explosive news response to both social media and certain parts of the newspaper industry for using inflammatory language.

A long-held contention of mine is that words carry power and create an effect. When people react to our words, claiming that the reaction had nothing to do with us is somewhat disingenuous.

The old adage, 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,' is, to say the least, incorrect. We understand that words spoken to children can inflict lasting damage on their adult lives.

As said, I am pleased to see the new backlash against rabble-rousing presented by social media, and aspects of the press. However, what seems to be missing from recent discussions, and the calling out of such wrong words, is the responsibility of politicians, the nation's leaders, to call out the same wrong expressions being uttered. They have so far failed to do so, and worse, they claim that when things react, such as recent right-wing riots, it has nothing to do with them.

Prime Ministers who announce that they would like to create a hostile social environment for certain people, should not be surprised if some people become hostile to others and act in accordance with politicians' words. Some people find it easy to take encouragement from terrible words and believe that they are pleasing such leaders.

While it is encouraging to see social media and the press being called out for their harmful practices, we must not absolve politicians from their responsibility. They too must be held accountable for their inflammatory speech.

If one looks across the pond, we will have to be blind and unthinking not to notice that the words spoken by so-called leaders have caused death, riots, and almost the overthrow of democracy.  Words have power, let us not forget that, and claiming otherwise is just plain dishonest.

As I say to my students, it is always better to engage your brain before putting your mouth into gear. We need to be aware of not only the immediate, but also the long-term consequences of what we say - particularly if we are political leaders. Words spoken cannot be unspoken.  

 

adrianhawkes.co.uk

www.blogspot.co.uk

w. 373

08/08/2024

 

 

 

Management

 

I have always thought that Paul's comments in the New Testament of the Bible, when writing to the church at Corinth, are interesting.  In 2 Corinthians 11:16-33, he says “I did so and so, I experienced such and such. but boasting is so awful. How else do I get through to you?” My paraphrase, of course.

Let me put my cards on the table. I have difficulty with the idea of management as used in companies and businesses. It seems that the management of people is a bit like herding cats. Have you ever tried to do that? My position is that we manage things, but we lead people. So, we manage schedules, timetables, and work requirements, but we lead people.

Again, leadership is also a misused word. Our Western thinking is, leading by telling people what to do. When I use the word, “leadership”, I have a different thought in mind: The “King-Jesus-Leadership” thinking says, “I am coming to wash your feet.” Or “Do not do it like they do – i.e.: Lord it over people.” Meaning, by God’s own definition, leadership is all about “servanthood”.

Now to the boasting. When I was leading a large church community, I often overheard people ask other people how they got to be part of the leadership in this community. It's funny how people aspire to that. I was always delighted by how the long-standing community members almost always answered that question, which was, “Can you sweep up well?”. That told me that they understood the principle of servant-leadership.

Working in a medium-sized company with several different areas and the need for departmental managers, I observed that some believe it's their job to tell people what to do. Usually, we were met by those being told with “a face”, not in front of the person telling them but usually behind their backs. We need to be observant.

I observe that the “tellers” are not good “sweeper-uppers”, “washer-uppers”, or “cup-clearer-awayers,” instead having “told”, and appointing themselves as “tellers” instead of “leaders”, they enjoy relaxing.

Again, to the silly boasting, I often clear the cups, top up the water cooler, etc., because Leadership is exampling, serving, and going in front.

People who want to lead people need to understand the delight/ reward of seeing others succeed. My wife and I have fostered for many years; I am delighted to hear about the success of those we have fostered. It is rewarding.

The company I work with looks after Unaccompanied Asylum Seekers. Do you know what? I am thrilled to hear of one of these young people, who I reckon will become the new Mo Farrar. Another one will shortly become a trained Paramedic, and others who have started businesses are doing exceedingly well. That, in my book, is rewarding.

If we aspire to leadership (not management in the way that word is thought of, i.e. managing people -a thing which we shouldn't), we should look for the developement of others. We should aspire for their best good. If we are the teachers, we should plan for those we teach, to become better teachers than we are. If we lead, we should prepare for those we lead to become better leaders than we are. That truly is a success.

More silly boasting. I have been in situations where I have told the leader, “What you have produced is fantastic. How did you do it?” Their answer was the reward. “Indeed,” they said, “We only did what you taught us to do.” Reward indeed.

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

w. 592

11/07/24

 

 Equality is Not Easy to Come By.

Did you know that there are politicians in the USA who would like to remove the vote from women?  I guess the argument goes that “they are such busy people looking after homes that they should not be bothered by voting and politics.”

A certain African parliament tried to pass a law making it illegal for husbands to beat their wives.  The law did not make it onto the statute book. It was opposed by women MPs who explained that being beaten was a sign of love. Seems strange to me.

There are all sorts of ways of not acting equally. It could be the colour of a person's skin, accent, or known economic position. Then there is language, whether it is their second or third language or their perceived education. 

I feel as though I am on a mission to bring about greater equality for foster carers. For those who are not involved in the sector, let me tell you about some of the reasons for the lack of equality. 

There are foster carers who have fostered children for eight or more years, with the same child or children.  I heard of one foster care being told that there was to be a meeting to decide what would happen next to the children they were fostering.  On responding with, “Oh, I don’t have that in my diary when is it?” The response was “Oh! It's not for you. This is a professional meeting.”  Is that sensible to exclude someone who has been looking after those children for eight or more years 24/7? Maybe the put down of, “You are not a professional,” is a good way of avoiding equality.

What is professionalism anyway? 

What Is Professionalism? One clever and, I think, correct description says, “Professionalism is not the job you do; it's how you do the job." 

Professionalism involves consistently achieving exacting standards, both visibly and "behind the scenes," whatever one's role or profession.

8 Characteristics of Professionalism:

 

1. Competence

2. Knowledge

3. Conscientiousness

4. Integrity

5. Respect

6. Emotional Intelligence

7. Appropriateness

8. Confidence

 

Fortunately, this foster carer was quick to respond with the right answer: “I needed that date, and I will be there as I am a professional foster carer.” 

When I worked as a foster carer for a Local Authority, I chaired their Foster Care Association. It seemed to me that to increase that level of equality it would be good to have training along with the social workers. I spoke with management, who agreed that this is good. We managed to get one training session together, but then the social workers announced they would come to no more.  “We are social workers, and we should not be expected to do training alongside foster carers.” I wonder if those foster carers were somehow lesser individuals, certainly not equal.

 

Now I am trying again, but guess what I am hearing? “You do not understand. Foster carers are too busy.”  Sure, they are busy, but they are required to attend all sorts of training.

 

Or another one: “Maybe they are not academic like the social workers.” Really?

 

Or how about the old chestnut, “It's about language, and with some of them, English is their second language.” In my book, this makes them clever and maybe academic.

 

We need to remember that when women were trying to get the vote in the UK, all sorts of reasons were put forward to deny and denigrate the idea.

 

Here are some of the five most bizarre and ridiculous ones:

 

1. The mental exertion of voting would cause infertility in women.
2. Women’s brains were inferior to men’s, and so women were incapable of participating in politics.
3. Many women did not want to vote.
4. Women would neglect their homes and families, causing society to unravel.
5. Women were too good for the dirty nature of politics.

Perhaps it is the same slant: they are too busy, do not want to, or are not academic enough.

 

Nothing changes much, does it?

 

I guess it's my age, but it seems that people think that Europe has had universal suffrage for ages. Here are some surprising dates for when some European states introduced equal female suffrage: 

 

Switzerland (1971).

Portugal (1976).

Liechtenstein (1984).

 

We need to keep pushing.

Adrian Hawkes

www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

W. 727

 

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!  WHICH GROUP ARE THEY?  WHERE ARE THEY?

 So, the biggest group of immigrants to the UK turns out to be students. They could be paying up to £48000 per annum to be here. Are these the “illegals” the government is talking about.

 The Second Largest group

I have noticed that whenever the government minister for immigration is doing an interview on ,whatever channel, the title comes up as “Illegal immigration minister”. I hear the PM is considering two ministers, one of whom is the above, and the other as the, “legal immigration minister”. Certainly, now, one can easily get the impression that all immigration is illegal.  As I have said, the biggest group of immigrants are Students paying lots of money to be in the UK.  Statistics show that the second largest group of immigrants are workers in the NHS, presumably all paying taxes. I wonder if they are illegal immigrants.

 

The third largest group of immigrants to the UK are those working in the Care Sector.  Again I guess that they must be paying tax. Even though they now are not allowed to bring their family to the UK. Recently I have seen this kind of operation in other countries where the lucky immigrant gets to see his or her partner every two years for about two weeks.  Great. Again I have to ask : Is this, the third largest group of immigrants to the UK,  illegal?

The final group of immigrants to the UK, in fact the smallest group, are those arriving in small boats. That group represents less than 3% of the total immigration numbers.  Yet one would have to wonder why it is that this seems to be the most talked about group.  Of course they don’t all come in small boats.  I have personally been present and watched police stop a lorry which when opened revealed mothers and babies, young children, and lots of other desperate despondent people, unloaded, and sitting on garden walls alongside the pavement.

It has been mentioned on FB that I use the exceptional person as a demonstration. Of course, what the writer of that comment does not know is that I have met hundreds of such people.  And, been to the hotels where the state dumps them.

Why is it that we hear so much about such people?  Maybe because it covers other bad news that the government does not want us to talk about. The ‘Friday news dumb. Or as the advisor to the transport minster put it :

“The now infamous phrase stems from a memo from an adviser to the then-UK transport secretary Stephen Byers, who coined the term in an internal memo, written on 9/11/ 2001, saying it was, “a good day to bury bad news”.) Maybe government highlights this small minority of people that deflects from us discussing all the wasted money on PPE. Billions given to their friends, that then did not work. Better talk about this, “less than 3%:” problem than talk about those friend’s and billions of wasted taxpayers’ money.

But back to this less than 3%.  What happens is that that when they arrive, boat, lorry, or plane they  then apply for asylum.  They are then given ‘legal’ papers to stay, until their case is assessed, to see if they genuinely are an “asylum seeker”. Yes, I know that that is where the problem lies, as I have friends that have waited 14 years for their claim for asylum to be properly listened to.  Fortunately, now they are British Passport holders. So my question again, as they have now applied for asylum, even if they did not have any papers, arriving here in a strange way, but now they have legal papers to stay, while they await a hearing – are they now illegal immigrants.  Of course, you know my answer. But if they are now legal, whilst they await a hearing, where are these illegal immigrants?

Adrian Hawkes

17^th March 2024

W. 665

Blog

 .Let us Have Another View on this Immigration Problem!

 

I listen to the news on immigration and “how terrible” it is for the UK. I cannot help thinking that the government uses sound bites as a divide-and-rule strategy. I have often heard that governments need an enemy to blame for everything, pointing out that their party is the only one able to protect us from such terrible things.

I also note that, like others in the past, there is the use of untruths like 'Illegal immigrants', as Lord Dubs said recently. Since when has it become illegal to claim asylum? The conservative member he was in discussion with kept repeating the mantra, “But they are illegal,” and repeating the lie makes me accurate. Maybe, as George Orwell said, that is how it works. It makes the lie truth and the truth a lie. I work in the sector, and constantly, in terms of housing, I have had trouble with insurance brokers and housing authorities. “We cannot insure you”, they say, “because you are housing illegal people”. “No, I am not. I am accommodating people with government papers, ID cards and the like to be here”. That doesn't work as they “know -whatever” they are illegal. The Prime minister keeps saying so. So, that must make it true?

I have been trying to work out the figures that the government keeps throwing at us in order to consider the actual situation. This is hard to work out, even from the government departments, because they often don't know the true picture.

But here is another way to look. Away from the noise of them being illegal.  “They are illegal!” “They are illegal!” 25% of these “illegal” people are students studying in the UK, and probably paying into UKPLC around 1400 pounds a month, i.e. £16,000 per year.   Then there is the NHS, which we are constantly being told has a shortage of workers. However, 25% of the workers they have are also part of the big “illegal” problem!

On top of the problems of the NHS, there is the Care Sector. Oh dear! The government has recruited more “illegals” for that sector, and apparently, according to the latest figures, that represents 58% of this “terrible” immigration problem we need protection from.

And that leaves those small boats. So; what percentage of the big “illegal” problem does that represent? According to the best figures I can find, that amounts to slightly less than 3%. So, let's try some additions:

·         Students bringing in £16,800 a year = 25%

·         NHS workers, I guess working and paying tax = 12%

·         Coming to work in Care Sector, again paying tax = 58%

·         Small Boats (not illegal to claim asylum no matter how you get here. Let's be generous = 3%,

That gives us a grand total of 98%

Then I know that others come other ways. I have met them. Maybe that is the additional 2% giving us the total 100%.

                                                                                                         

To tackle those other problems, the housing numbers of “long-term empty homes” rose again in 2023 by 12,556 (or 5%) to 261,189. The number of asylum seekers waiting longer than six months for a decision now stands at 128,812. That means there must be around 132,377 spare ones if we accommodate all those asylum seekers. And wouldn't that money spent on hotels be better spent on bringing those empty homes back into good use?

“What a lot these people are costing us!” cry government ministers. However, if we allowed them to work and pay tax at the basic rate, it would earn the UK coffers at least half a billion pounds annually. It would not prevent or hinder processing their asylum application. It would undoubtedly help the system.

Of course, if you solve these problems, what will you use as sound bites? 'Stop the Boats!'  What else could be used to persuade you to think “We, the government are protecting you. This means you really need to keep us in government.”

Does anyone leave the UK with, maybe, a bit of balance? In the year ending December 2022, approximately 557,000 people emigrated from the United Kingdom, 92,000 of whom were British citizens, 202,000 were EU citizens, and 263,000 were non-EU citizens. So, doing those sums again:

·         Out = 557,000

·         In = 128,812

·         Net loss = 428,188

W. 723

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

 

Just

You will find all positive alternatives, if you check a thesaurus for the word, “JUST”. Why is it, then, that I see it used as a negative putdown? Maybe it's the tone of voice, a look, or a context.

I often hear people use the word, “Just”, in terms of 'Oh, they are JUST a student. JUST a cleaner.”  JUST … fill in the blanks. In that sense. The word is not used positively but rather as, in my view, an insult, a negative and a putdown.

Why do people put others down, I muse? Is it because they feel inferior? Are they insecure? Or do they think they can climb higher if they push someone else down?

If it's the, “climb-higher-syndrome”, they must understand that that action means both fall down. It is interesting to note that Jesus, the King of all Kings, in his discussion with his disciples when they were pushing for status and hierarchy, said to them, “Whoever wanted to be the top, leader, needed to be the servant of all.” Strange, hey? Perhaps not, as it came from the “Servant King”.

I'm not too fond of putdowns. I'm not particularly eager to watch it. It makes me sad to see it. I am sad because I feel I am looking at insecurity attempting to push others into insecurity, which is unpleasant.

I remember one day at a large conference, a person approached me and said he had read one of my books. I gave him a genuine, “Thank you”. However, he continued in a relatively insulting tone and said, “You have done for literature what “so and so” has done for music.” To which I replied, “Thank you!”(I liked the person's music). Exceedingly irritated, the speaker responded, " I knew you would take that as a compliment,” which I indeed had. What he had said was clearly intended as an insult.  LOL. With that, he walked off. It's great being so highly complimented.

Another story: When I was just a small boy, the deputy head teacher of my junior school called me forward in front of the class. I must have been about 10 or 11 years old. He said. “Hawkes, you are the most stupid boy that I have ever met. You will never be able to do anything, not even sweep up.” Not being given to insecurity, I did not reply but thought to myself that, “What you believe, “sir”, is a clear demonstration that you obviously don't know me at all.” I am not recommending my actions, but on leaving school and driving a new, rather swish company car, I drove past the school of my youth at the very time I knew the deputy head teacher would be leaving. On seeing him, I swished down my window as he came down the school path and said, “ Oh! Hello sir! Are you still riding that rusty old bike? He looked at me in astonishment, mouth open, no words coming, and I drove off.

Neel Burton MD, author of “Heaven and Hell: The Psychology of the Emotions,” in one of his online articles, says “one of the ways of dealing with putdowns is humour.” I am unsure if my window-down car driving was humorous, but it felt fun. But Neel Burton quotes two anti put-down stories that I think are worth repeating:

George Bernard Shaw, it is said, once invited Winston Churchill to his new play. The invitation read: "I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend—if you have one." Churchill replied: "Cannot possibly attend first night; will attend second—if there is one."

An example, just for the fun: The American actress Ilka Chase wrote several novels. One day, an anonymous actress told her: "I enjoyed reading your book. Who wrote it for you?" Chase replied: "Darling, I'm so glad you liked it. Who read it to you?"

So, think before using that, “JUST” putdown: Why am I doing this? Is it because I am insecure?

Lift people up, and you will find that that deals more effectively with your insecurity.

 

Adrian Hawkes.Blogspot.co.uk

W. 694

 The Destructive Use of Percentages

I remarked that there are almost 100,000 children in foster care in the UK. On top of that, there are 125,000 children being looked after not by their birth parents but by other family members or friends.

That means there are two hundred thousand children who are, in one way or another, in the UK care system. I am told that if there are one hundred thousand in foster care, there is probably another one hundred thousand on the “At Risk Register.” In other words, children are in danger of going into foster care.   So, conservatively, three hundred thousand children in the UK are at serious risk.

My listener responded, "But ah! that is quite a small percentage of the UK total population."

The current population of the UK is 67,756,193. So, I guess that all those children represented by my figures above are a small percentage of the total UK population. Another note is that the number seems to go up yearly.

Now I am not sure what you think about this.

First, I want to say that I find percentages interesting. However, on this occasion, the reply that it is “a small percentage” offends me.

I am sure that if you are one of those young people who have been traumatized, now being looked after by a locum “parent”, who at first will be a total stranger to you, you would not be interested in the fact that you are currently being regarded as a percentage, a number – and a small number at that.

I am old enough to remember “The Prisoner”,  a 1967 UK science fiction-allegorical television series about a man (Patrick McGoohan) kidnapped from his London home and awakens in a secret location known to its inhabitants as “The Village”, where he is known only as Number Six. The Prisoner constantly complains that he is “not a number.”

The problem with the destructive use of percentages is that it dehumanizes people. “You are not a percentage. You are a person.” I know the names and stories of many of such young people - and turning them into a number is frankly destructive and disturbing.

I guess we people do not like to face specific awful situations, so we dehumanize people. In war, it is not dead people. It's “collateral damage”. For the surgeon, you are often not a person but, “My appendix patient.”

Politicians love it.  Those people dying on the boats seeking safety are not people. They are “illegals” (which they are not). The 6 million people on the planet currently displaced from stable homes because of war, famine, and bad politics are not, after all, “people”. They are “refugees” or “aliens” or merely “undocumented immigrants”, or other worse descriptions.

Maybe, we should think again about our word usage, and casual dismissal of, “well, it’s only a small percentage.” We should perhaps think again about what Martin Niemöller often said and often called “The Bystander's Credo”:

“First, they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I did not speak out.

 Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out.

 Then they came for the Jews, but I was not Jewish, so I did not speak out.

And then they came for me, and no one was left to speak out for me.”

Adrians Blog

www.blogspot.com

W. 575