Leaving The Argus

Argus title : Farewell – and thank you all for reading

This will be my last column, at least in this newspaper and for the time being. I’ve been writing it for four and a half years and it seems strange to think I will be stopping now.

My family won’t regret the demise of what my daughter and I called “scary Thursday”, the day before the Friday deadline. If I was going to be anxious or grumpy, that was the day it would happen.

In other respects, writing for the newspaper has fitted very well around family responsibilities. It allowed me to earn some money while helping care for my father in the last year of his life. Since then, I’ve been able to fit writing days around my mother’s care and I’ve been grateful for that.

Caring for people with dementia is stressful and mentally taxing. Carers have to engage with lost memories and distorted perceptions – and though they must be alert at all times, they have also to operate largely without intellectual stimulation. So I’ve been lucky. Writing has allowed me to explore new ideas – and at the same time to step away from the anxious delusions that rule my mother’s world.

I am deeply grateful to the Argus for hiring me as a columnist. In 2003, when I first approached Simon Bradshaw the Argus’ then editor he took a great risk in taking me on. He can have had no certainty that I would be able to deliver on a weekly basis. I had absolutely no training as a journalist and had written only once for commercial publication.

In fact, there have been times when I unexpectedly couldn’t deliver, always due to family demands, but Simon – and subsequently Michael Beard the present editor – remained supportive.

Of course, Michael Beard would never express it in terms of good employment practice or commitment to equalities. He’d laugh and say “It’s cheaper when you don’t write. You’re too expensive anyway.” Of course, I wasn’t, but nobody expects good pay on a local newspaper.

Several people have asked me whether I found it difficult to think of things to write about, but it was no problem. As I’ve often said “The column’s just a way of getting rid of my temper”. I haven’t really been joking.

In the years before I had the column, I would fume impotently about what I had read in the newspaper or heard on television. Once I had the column I would cease ranting and simply write about it. It was hugely cathartic.

The problem has been the opposite. There have been too many topics. As the years have gone by I have found that I have been approached on a regular basis by people wanting to promote particular ideas or causes. Many have been from charities and I’ve been happy to oblige.

Some have represented more controversial organisations and in their case I have helped when I could. In general, I’ve had a remarkable amount of leeway, though from time to time subeditors (and lawyers) have removed what I have considered to be the best bits.

Very occasionally the editor has put his foot down and removed whole articles, but to his credit that has been extremely rare. I am very conscious that not many local newspapers engage columnists who are declared socialist feminist christians. There can hardly have been a week that I haven’t managed to seriously rile someone. And some of the people I’ve upset have been very powerful indeed – though most I think have forgiven me.

Fortunately, there have been many who’ve enjoyed reading the column, even though some of the ideas expressed there may have seemed challenging. I’ve been intrigued over the years to notice a distinct pattern of response. Pensioners, community activists and socialists – and the old communists and peaceniks who thrive in our city – tend to like the column and have used it well, frequently contacting me to politely insist I cover issues of importance to them.

Middle aged men and Conservatives have tended to say, kindly and I think sincerely, “I often don’t agree with you, but I enjoy reading the column”, while male manual workers often tease me by telling me it’s not controversial enough. Some radicals (usually young males) have veered between being graciously patronising when I write what they want or grossly insulting when I don’t – while interestingly their female counterparts tend to claim loftily that they “never read the Argus”. Fortunately for me other women do read the Argus and in general seem to like the column.

In fact, the thing that has brought me the greatest professional satisfaction over the past few years has been walking into shops, supermarkets and the occasional office and hearing staff behind counters and reception desks say triumphantly “I know you. I read your column”. On these occasions I’ve always left exhilarated.

Many people think the column is written for Guardian readers, but it isn’t. I write for people who buy The Argus – and I’m very conscious that for many of them, this may be the only newspaper they have money to buy or the time to read.

This is why, though I know the editor would have liked me to focus more upon local issues, I’ve often chosen to deal with national or international issues, though almost always with a local perspective. There are not many people who have the time to read 3 or 4 newspapers a day as I do. I have trawled the broadsheets and, as readers will know, have unashamedly pillaged and quoted from journalists I admire – such as Johann Hari, Robert Fisk, Joan Smith, John Pilger and Polly Toynbee.

There are 2 things I regret. One is that I was often unable to respond to readers’ letters. I apologise for that. The second is that there were articles I wanted to write and didn’t. I wanted to do more on the Tubas delegations to Palestine, on the EDO factory and St Peter’s Church, but couldn’t for reasons that were beyond my control. However, there were other articles I could have written, but didn’t. In several cases I gathered information, even interviewed people, but something blocked the process of writing.

Looking back on it, I realise that the people I couldn’t write about had often been involved with me in the Labour Party of the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was a painful time during which disciplinary action was taken against local Labour activists and councillors, of whom I was one.

I tried and failed to write about Ian Fyvie, a gentle man and former Labour activist, who for years has promoted folk music in the city. I admire Ian’s dedication to the music of the people and I wish I could have written about it. Somehow the words just wouldn’t flow.

I wanted to write about Joyce Gould, a former senior Labour party official who was on the other side of the dispute. At that time we called her the “witchfunder general” – but subsequently I came to know a different side of her, as a good friend and trusted colleague working for women’s rights. While we would never have agreed on Labour Party history, it should have been possible to write about her – but I never achieved it.

The unwritten article I most regret is the one I planned in honour of Rod Fitch. I wish beyond anything that I had written about him. A former Labour parliamentary candidate and anti-fascist organiser, he could be gentle like Ian, but was as iron-willed and fierce in his loyalties as Joyce. He was a man of formidable gifts and his death was a waste and a tragedy. I wanted to write about him, but it simply hurt too much.

I suppose there will be people who are delighted at the demise of this column. Some will be sad as I will be and others will disapprove. Still others, like my friend Tony Greenstein, will be furious, and say that it is a lost opportunity. I am sure that Rod would have agreed.

However, I have a part-time job at Age Concern to go to – and a book to write. And if I don’t do it now, it will never get done.

The right to work for asylum seekers

Argus title : Let asylum seekers work

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has been in Brighton this week. Most of its deliberations have focussed upon ways of defending workers’ rights, wages and conditions in the face of recession – and on influencing the Brown government to change direction.

However, the TUC has never confined its interest solely to UK workers’ rights. It is also concerned about the rights of those who are unable to work – and is committed to international solidarity with trade unionists abroad.

The trade unions’ record in this regard has not always been heroic. At times, in the past, they seemed less concerned about workers’ rights than about protecting the limited work-place privileges of white male workers against the incursions of women and immigrants. However, those days are long gone. The TUC is at its best when it flexes its muscle to defend those who are unable to protect themselves from injustice. It has done so this week.

On Wednesday, at a meeting in Brighton’s Friends’ Meeting House, Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the TUC joined with individual leaders of many of the UK’s major trade unions to support the Refugee Council’s national campaign to allow asylum seekers in the UK to work.

Currently, the vast majority of asylum seekers are forbidden to work – despite the fact that many have no immediate prospect of returning home. Those whose applications for asylum are still in progress are forced to live on benefits which are set at just 70% of the level of Income Support. Those who have been refused it, receive nothing even though in many cases the government accepts their countries are too dangerous for them to return. Individuals are left in a state of limbo, with no recourse to benefits or services provided through public funds.

At Wednesday’s meeting – which was jointly organised by the Refugee Council and Brighton Voices in Exile – trade unionists pledged themselves and their unions to campaign against this injustice.

A spokesperson from the Refugee Council said: “These are people who fled persecution in their own countries looking for a place of safety….they want to work, support themselves and their families, pay taxes, and contribute to the economy. But they are being denied these opportunities. Instead they are forced to live on handouts…or are denied support altogether and end up destitute. It is unhumane to treat people in this way and it makes no economic sense.”

Helen Connor, of the Educational Institute of Scotland, said: “The right to work is a fundamental right – one the trade unions have founght for through the centuries throughout the world.”

She criticised the myths that fuel media attacks, saying: “Asylum seekers are often referred to as economic migrants or illegal immigrants, which is very misleading to say the least. They have not come to the UK for economic reasons, neither are they here illegally. They have been driven from their homelands by persecution, conflict and human rights abuses They are exercising a legal right in making a claim for asylum – a human right we all share.”

The Refugee Council stresses that the majority of asylum seekers have skills and a high level of education. Some have been employed as journalists and civil servants in their home countries. Many are qualified nurses, teachers and academics. There are, for example, 1,500 refugee teachers in England – and 1,100 medically qualified refugees on the British Medical Association database. The Refugee Council points out that while it costs £250,000 to train a new doctor, it takes a mere £10,000 to prepare a qualified doctor from abroad to practise in the UK.

Donna Covey, Chief Executive of the Refugee Council said:

“We know asylum seekers want to work. Many are highly qualified and had good jobs in their home countries, and are desperate to contribute to the country that has taken them in. It is an outrage that they are left to rely on handouts from the state when they have so much to offer this country.”

Tendai is an example of this. She is Zimbabwean asylum seeker who lives in Brighton with her 2 children. She told the meeting:

“I worked as a Chief Cash Controller for a company in Zimbabwe until I began to have problems because of my political opinions. This forced me to flee leaving my one year old son. I arrived in 2001 to seek asylum and it has not been what I expected. I am able and happy to work and contribute to the British economy but I am not allowed, and I am being forced to live on handouts.”

She added:

“I do really appreciate the protection given to me by this country, which of course my country failed to give me. But what was taken from me is my right to work…Because of this my confidence is taken away, I am deskilled and it has an effect on my children and family life”.

She explained movingly that though she wishes to marry, she is prevented from doing so by government regulations.

The meeting heard that many refugees have become refugees because of their trade union activities. Luka Phiri, also a Zimbabwean, is a skilled toolmaker in his home country, trusted and relied upon by his employer. He told the meeting that the proudest achievement of his career was to design and build a die-casting smelting furnace. He said: “The furnace worked perfectly and the company had to make three more furnaces to sell to other companies. My ambition was simply to accomplish something as a family man and share my valuable knowledge and special skills with young people training to be engineers and toolmakers.”

Robert Mugabe’s government put paid to that dream. Luka was a trade unionist and became regional secretary of the Engineering Trade Union of Zimbabwe. In 2003, as the country began to slide towards anarchy, he was forced to leave because of his opposition to the government.

He said: “When I came to this country I thought it would be easy for me to integrate, since I come from a Commonwealth country. But my asylum case has not been an easy road. My case has been refused and I do not know what the future holds for me in the UK.

“The Home Office has said I cannot work. That deprives me of a lot of things as a human being – especially my dignity. But this policy has meant that the great skills I brought with me to this country have become rusty over the past 5 and a half years. Not only is this a tragedy for me, and wasted potential for the UK economy – it is a disaster for my country.”

He ended poignantly: “When it is safe, I would like to return to Zimbabwe to help rebuild my great nation and recover my shattered dreams and ambitions. How can I do that if I have lost my skills and work experience?”

Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the TUC, was evidently much moved by what he had heard and pledged his full support. He said:

“Forcing often highly skilled, highly trained individuals to sit idle for considerable periods of time is not only a personal tragedy for them but is also a huge loss to the UK economy, which is missing out on their many talents. The Government must think again and change the rules so that asylum seekers are allowed to work….”

The TUC and Refugee Council will now be working together to persuade the government to reinstate the right to work. Given the passion and deep commitment expressed at the meeting, it is hard to imagine they will fail.

Anyone wishing to help the campaign should contact the Refugee Council on 0207 3466700 or visit the website at www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/letthemwork. Trade unionists can email Wilf Sullivan, TUC Race Equality Officer at wsullivan@tuc.org.uk. Brighton Voices in Exile can be contacted on 01273-328598.

London Road and The Level

Argus title : Stop talking, start acting

We have read much of recent days about the plight of Brighton’s London Road – beset by shop closures and besieged by alcoholics and heroin addicts, whose behaviour is all too often intimidatory and abusive.

Small traders in the London Road are in the process of setting up a London Road Traders’ Association to demand action from police and council leaders. A meeting between council officers, police and traders is being arranged.

The response by officials may seem positive and timely – until one remembers that the council and police have known about problems in the London Road area for years. Local traders and residents have been voluble on the subject and this newspaper has called for action, not least in this column. Yet as the situation has worsened, there has been little effective action.

David Lepper, MP for Brighton Pavilion, says he has been asking the authorities for months to take action. He said: “I have been lobbying the police and council throughout this year because of the number of calls I have had from residents complaining about London Road. I keep being told the community safety team on the council knows about the problems and is working with the police.”

His frustration is understandable, for police and council representatives seem remarkably complacent. Chief Inspector Laurence Taylor of Sussex Police recently commented: “There are certainly issues in the area and that is why we put our resources down there. But we need to know who, where and when so we can target our resources effectively. We set regular patrols and covert work in the area but it is difficult to know what specific problems the traders are talking about because they haven’t spoken to me.”

Chief Inspector Taylor, unlike the rest of us, has access to up to date and detailed crime statistics. Does he seriously expect us to believe that he doesn’t know that, for example, Forfars bakery has been broken into several times? Or that there has been armed robbery in the locality?

Are the police really unaware that there is open drug dealing by vendors on foot and bicycle, all around the London Road from Francis Street to Gloucester place – to the extent that many old people avoid shopping after midday? Or that several pubs have so far annexed the public pavement that at times local residents can be seen to cross the road rather than pass by them.

Where issues of public order and drug dealing are concerned, it is surely not the job of local residents and traders to find out “who, where and when”, but the business of the police. The police and community safety team should not have needed to be prompted by traders, but should have made inquiries months ago.

It is simply unacceptable for the council’s spokesperson to loftily inform the Argus that: “The partnership work of the city council, the police, the health sector and others has been nationally commended in its success in tackling drug and alcohol-related crime and disorder.” Adding graciously “However, we realise there is still much to do and we are grateful for any information people can give us on substance misuse, crime and antisocial behaviour in the city.”

This is complacent and patronising nonsense. The truth is that some years ago a powerful coalition of traders and residents in St James’ Street and Kemp Town rightly demanded that something be done about the public drunkenness and drug usage which used to be associated with their locality. The police and Council subsequently agreed a series of actions which simply displaced the problem to the London Road.

This was entirely predictable and so begs the question why it was done. My cynical soul suggests it was because St James Street and Kemp Town are: visible to tourists; central to Gay Pride festivities; the home of many sophisticated restaurants and nightclubs; and accessed by many people on high income. London Road on the other hand has historically been the shopping area of Brighton people who live on low incomes.

The brutal truth is that the council’s much vaunted commitment to “diversity” has not extended readily to the unglamorous and unfashionable victims of prejudice and disadvantage such as the elderly, lone parents, the poor and the sick. Few tourists visit the London Road and there are no sophisticated clubs or restaurants – just struggling family businesses and a committed community with its back against the wall.

Though some individual politicians have been deeply committed to the locality, none of the political parties have really listened to residents and small traders. They are so sure that they know what is best for the area that they fail to properly consult, attending to vocal lobbies and powerful interests, failing to seek out those who are voiceless.

The state of the nearby Level provides a stark example. Just recently there have been press releases and letters from both Green and Labour politicians anxious to associate themselves with a campaign to build a new skatepark at the Level. This is despite the fact that the existing graffiti-strewn skate park – largely used by young adult males – has caused major difficulties for the adjacent children’s play area and paddling pool. It also ignores the fact that there is already a new state of the art skate-park on the sea front.

Just over 3 years ago, I wrote in this column about the great damage that had been caused by building a skateboard park inside the Level’s designated children’s play area. I commented then: “The development would have made perfect sense if it had been earmarked for the use of younger children wishing to learn to skateboard or cycle. However, no age restrictions were put in place. This is despite the fact that a little-known byelaw exists banning people over 15 from the children’s play area on the Level – unless they accompany a child.

“As a consequence, the skateboard area has become the exclusive domain of older boys and significant numbers of young men, some in their early twenties. It has become a ‘no go’ area for females and young children, and to a great extent has driven away elderly people who traditionally sat in the adjacent Rose Walk.”

I described some of the destructive behaviour which I had witnessed, from graffiti to drunkenness, bullying and sexual harassment, commenting that councillors and officials preferred to “accommodate the needs of older and adult skateboarders before those of families with young children who have little option but to use their local park.”

I added, presciently it seems: “In this atmosphere of disorder it is hardly surprising that abusive behaviour on the Level has become more widespread. Or that it is now being used by addicts and alcoholics displaced by the public drinking bans in adjacent areas and attracted by the many drugs outlets in the London Road area.”

Consultation with young and vocal adult skateboarders and a few “skateboard mums” is no substitute for genuine consultation with young people – or indeed women and parents.

The Myplace programme, funded by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), will be making grants to support projects across England that are working to create safe places for young people to go, where they can get involved in a wide range of activities and get information and advice.

The funding is intended to help young people, particularly those in deprived areas, take part in positive activities that will help them develop new skills and raise their aspirations. I am at a loss to understand how an expanded skatepark will achieve this.

The council could use the funding for many purposes useful to young people – not least improved facilities for under-resourced victims of bullying and teenage girls and young women who badly need safe services and activities.

I hope that as it contemplates change in the London Road area and funding bids designed to support this, that councillors will undertake genuine consultation with a range of different interest groups.

I hope too that politicians from all party backgrounds will begin to question the siren voices of council officers and some councilors, who may themselves have become part of the problem.