OK, Here's How the Legal System has to Work...

Yesterday Bill Roach was cleared of the allegations of sexual assault that had been brought against him. I'm not a legal expert. I have no clue as to the details of this case as I didn't even really follow it on the news so I don't feel qualified to comment on the verdict or trial. I am, however, a resident of the United Kingdom and therefore I do have a right to comment on the reaction I saw last night.

 

The Twitter search function is completely useless so I couldn't find the tweets I read last night that made me so angry to quote so this is probably going to read a bit like story time. But please bear with me. There is a point. Someone re-tweeted a tweet into my time line calling the women who'd brought the complaints against Roache 'disgusting', 'liars', 'the worst kind of people', 'whores' etc. I clicked through to the hashtag and saw that this tweeter was not alone in their feelings.

 

Because Roache was found innocent it seemed OK to declare open season on the prosecution. Clearly they had to be lying (and 'money grabbing' to boot, although I never found an explanation for this). And because they were lying they themselves should go to prison, have their right to anonymity removed and probably whipped through the streets.

 

THIS CANNOT BE HOW A LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS!

 

How anyone can think it is alright to punish people who bring unsuccessful cases to court is staggering. Can you imagine what kind of a world we would live in if that were the case? The only people who would report a crime would be those who were certain of the verdict going in their favour. It would be a tiny minority who had the power and influence to ensure cases were ruled the way they wanted them to be. Everyone else would be terrified to make a complaint in case they themselves were prosecuted. It would be an outrageous way to conduct things. It wouldn't just leave the most vulnerable amongst us without access to the justice system, it would leave damn near all of us without it.

 

That, and there is a reason it is called 'not guilty' rather than 'innocent'. It means the jury didn't feel the case had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It doesn't meant it didn't happen (although I feel I should point out it also doesn't mean it did, and Roache may very well be innocent. I just don't know). For what it's worth I think this should be how it works. Any doubt and the jury should go with 'not guilty', but that's a rant for another time. My point is these women could have been telling the truth. A 'not guilty' verdict does not automatically mean the prosecution were lying and it's not up to random upstarts on Twitter to decide that they are.

 

Incidentally, I noticed a lot of people last night railing against the CPS for bringing the case to trial. This also baffled me. If every case the CPS brought to trial went in favour of the prosecution what would be the point of the trial? It also irked me that these people assumed the CPS 'hadn't done their job'. Who are you, disgruntled avatar, to tell the CPS how to do their job?

 

The other thing that really made my blood boil is that this was a sexual assault trial. The CPS has recently been criticised for the dwindling numbers of such cases that they refer to the courts. That suggests to me that this would not have gone forward had it not been felt the case was pretty robust. 

 

And now we come to the delightful misogyny these views betray. 'The worst type of people', 'whores', 'money grabbing sluts'. Yet again the myth that being accused of rape or sexual assault it worse than being raped or sexually assaulted. That, my friends, is cast iron bullshit. It must be awful to be accused of such a serious crime if you haven't done it, but it's a whole lot worse to have to life with the aftermath of rape and sexual assault (that, and regardless of what idiots may say, false rape allegations are pretty damn rare). Yet we seem to live in a culture where it's acceptable, even expected, that women in these cases are not believed. That doesn't hold for any other crime, and it is not OK. I can't help but feel these women would not be vilified to the same extent had Roache been cleared of stealing their handbags. Also, I think we can see from the aftermath of Ched Evans' guilty verdict, they wouldn't have been treated any differently had Roache been found guilty.

 

As for naming the women involved....just read this post at Sian and Crooked Rib because it explains the reasons why those who report rape and sexual assault should remain anonymous far more eloquently than I could. 

 

In short, random angry people baying for the blood of women who may not even have done anything wrong, get the fuck over yourselves.      

Owning Words

There’s been a lot of excitement over the last week or so in the feminist blogosphere (which I spend a great deal of my time hanging about in, although can’t really claim to contribute to) generated by this piece in the New Statesman by Sadie Smith. In the interest of fairness I want to point out it was responded to eloquently in the same publication the next day by CN Lester and they addressed many of the points well so I’ll leave you that one to read, and I thoroughly recommend that you do.

But one of the most contentious points of Smith’s article was her discomfort with the word ‘cis’. This was answered in Lester’s piece (as well as by Stavvers and Cel West here), and that got me thinking. I’ve never really thought about the word before. I understood that it described me, as many words do, but I had never thought about it as being particularly problematic. I then came across this article (I have linked to it, but please be aware that some of it, especially the comments, is very transphobic. Seriously. This is pretty hurtful stuff) also arguing against the use of the word cis.

The main gist of it is that the word is being applied to a large swathe of women who had no say in it. I understand how this might tick someone of, but I honestly think there’s been a bit of wilful misunderstanding going on here. This wasn’t something that was just dropped on people with little or no basis in lived experience. The concept already existed. There are people who are trans and people who are not trans. It seems obvious there should be a simple, succinct word that means ‘not trans’. That word is cis. Stated like this I realised that cis actually benefits me because it means I don’t have to define myself in negative. I don’t like defining myself by what I’m not. There is a recognised word that describes me and that can only be a good thing.

The article also takes issue with cis by claiming it is reductionist and separates people into two discrete camps, reducing their identities down to a narrow definition. Again I think this is wilful misunderstanding. There is not one way to be a cis man or cis woman, or a trans man or trans woman, or anything in between. There’s not one universally understood way of being lesbian, British, Northern, White, socialist, feminist or agnostic but I use all these words to describe myself and understand what other people are getting at when they use them to refer to me. There’s nuances and differing definitions and a whole spectrum of identities encompassed in these words but I like to think they have space to allow these interpretations. I also like to think that people respect the way I chose to use these words and are prepared to allow me to explain myself. I see no reason why cis should be any different. Equally the claim made that it makes gender a concrete, immovable thing is also flawed. Having equivalent but different terms illustrates that there is a range of expressions of gender and all are equally valid. All words are somewhat blunt instruments that are open to interpretation. None of them are perfect in all situations but its how we communicate. Seeing people refusing to engage with language this way is just frustrating.

Smith’s article also highlights the use of terms such as ‘cissexist’ and ‘cisfascist’ that she claims are freely thrown at cis women in an attempt to silence them. I’m not sure about this. I’ve never come across the term cis being used as a direct insult, but that doesn’t mean that it’s never happened. The terms Smith quotes seem more likely to have come from someone being frustrated at how trans people are seen as ‘abnormal’ and how society is set up on the assumption that everyone is cis. This is something that needs to be challenged so I don’t really accept Smith’s argument in this place.

Ultimately I think the resistance to the word cis comes from people who previously assumed they were the norm, the default, and this position has now been challenged. There is no such thing as normal and if the term cis is used as freely and frequently as trans then it will help work towards a more equal, inclusive society.

My Personality Tests Keep Coming Back Negative

I have lost count of the number of jobs I have applied for since October. I could go back through the wee notebook I’ve been keeping and count them all (after the sheet the dole office gave me was filled up in about a week) but I’m not really inclined to. I have come across every way of applying for positions you can think of. I have emailed CVs, handed CVs in to actual people, done online and paper applications, even just chatted to a charming pub landlady by means of applying for a bar job. I could write a detailed analysis of the process of applying for jobs, and if anyone feels like employing me to do such a thing I will certainly oblige.

One things I have noticed is the increased use of ‘personality tests’ when applying for jobs online. So far I’ve only come across them when applying for jobs in the financial sector, but these things have a tendency of spreading like bird flu so it probably won’t be long before McDonalds want to know if you’re a fire type or a water type and family run solicitors are making you do those inkblot tests.

They’re clearly based on some pseudo-scientific bullshit. They ask you to describe yourself in ways which are just, frankly, odd. You have to click on statements on a computer screen and, usually, rank them in some sort of order. The statements used are usually sweeping and either complete common sense (I am a good worker) or make no sense at all (I would rather write a letter with crayon than eat soup with a fork). This is clearly to stop people sussing them out and just lying to try and get the job. Usually they group qualities together in such a way that it’s impossible to work out which one they value the most highly. Are you organised or motivated? Er, can’t I be both? There’s some algorithm at work there that I just can’t crack.

It also must be a pretty flimsy way of getting to know someone. Selecting from a pre-thought up list of qualities must be extremely limiting. It also offers no opportunity for explanation, but you have to get through this crap to be able to properly talk about yourself. You don’t even get to fill out an online application before you go through this lot. Some computer sits there and appears to randomly allocate you a personality and, if you are deemed worthy, you can talk to an actual person and this actual person can see if you’re actually going to be any good at the actual job.

They also don’t work. By that I mean they can’t tell who is going to be good at a job and who isn’t. I know this for a fact because I used to work for a building society. I applied through their website and failed their personality test. A few months later I was offered an interview through an agency and, because once I was looking at a real person and could explain my skills and relevant previous experience they decided I might be able to do the job, I was offered it. I then went on not just to work in the customer service role I’d applied online for but to specialise in ISAs and Bonds which are considerably more complicated. The digital personality test didn’t know anything about me, let alone how shit hot I was when it came to advising people on tax free savings.

So they’re demoralising, confusing, infuriating and they don’t work, so why keep using them? Simple, despite what IDS says about there being thousands of jobs vacancies there just aren’t. There are, however, thousands of job seekers so putting some daft cyber roadblock to eliminate most of them in the early stages probably saves a lot of time for companies. It’s a pretty shitty way to treat people though. Yes, if there are eight thousand people applying for twenty vacancies you’re works cut out for you but at least have the common decency for it to be a person who turns you down, not some low-rate psychobabble squit of software. This is why everyone I know is emigrating to Australia*.

I would absolutely love it if these things disappeared. I'd love it even more if the irritating ones people keep putting up on Facebook disappeared as well. No, I don't care which Scrubs cast member I am (it's always Dr Cox, by the way) and if you need to build up a picture of yourself using a test someone else wrote to kill time you have bigger problems than I can fix.

I can haz job now plz? Kthnxbai

*True story.

Workfare and the Loss of Self

Workfare is a terrible, inhumane policy thought up by a government that specialises in terrible, inhumane policies. As I’ve said before it is a truly awful time to be unfortunate and vulnerable enough to rely on the state. Not only are the benefits that allow you to survive being seriously eroded but you are treated like lying, cheating scum. Workfare is one such manifestation of this. And then there’s the ridiculous (I’d laugh if I could stop gnashing my teeth in anger) situation the government now finds itself in of Workfare having been declared illegal, but they’re going to retro-actively change the law.

Let’s have a quick re-cap of the case against Workfare.

If you are on the dole for nine months they can pack you off to a work programme. This may or may not involve you working for a company for free. They will tell you that you are doing it in exchange for benefits, but the companies are getting free (or slave) labour. Often you will be doing a job for free next to someone who gets paid for it. Imagine how that much feel for both of you. The unemployed person is being told they’re not worth the same as someone else doing exactly the same thing, and the employed person is being told their job is so worthless they can get someone else to do it for free. You may be told its work experience. It won’t be. They won’t listen to you and place you somewhere worthwhile or that may help you with your long time career aspirations and goals. They will place you with someone who has a cosy little partnership with the DWP. It also is taking jobs away from your fellow job seekers. Why would a company hire someone and pay them when the dole bunnies will do it for free? Many promises of permanent, paid employment at the end of the placement are just guff.

So, Workfare is damaging and dehumanising. Companies and the DWP are exploiting vulnerable people. What could make this worse? How about if charities were doing it? Yes, charities are using people on Workfare placements. The very organisations that claim to be helping the vulnerable in society are taking advantage of those same people, and, just because someone is a volunteer, don’t think they can’t be undermined. The message is clear; why would you want to do this because you think it is right? These fools are being forced into it. They could also, once again, be taking away hours that people rely on for social contact or to keep themselves busy in retirement or work towards a career in a specific field. I expect private companies to be prepared to do anything to make a buck, but charities? I honestly expected better.

There’s been calls for boycotts of companies using Workfare, and charities have been no exception. Frankly I think any organisation that takes advantage of people in such a way should be stripped of their charitable status. But much of this I already thought before. Then I came across this piece by Sarah Ditum expressing her regret that the Salvation Army, a charity close to her heart, were using Workfare.

I was disappointed as well. The Salvation Army are a charity that work with the poorest and most desperate people in society. I can imagine few poorer or more desperate than those on the dole, especially those who have been on the dole for so long they’ve been shipped off to a Workfare programme. It sounds like a sick joke. Ditum notes that the YMCA have similarly let the side down.

Then she made a very interesting point, and one I hadn’t considered before. The Salvation Army are an overtly religious charity. What happens when someone who, for example, is a hard line atheist and disagrees with any kind of organised religion, is asked to work for them for free? This could go for a number of charities. Suspicious of Oxfam’s practices in the UK and abroad? Tough. Can’t stand Help for Heroes rhetoric or over-simplification of complex issues? Don’t care. Disagree with the NSPCC’s  emotional blackmail in their adverts? None of our concern.

Of course, this could go for private companies as well. Someone who holds deep anti-capitalist or anti-globalisation beliefs would be loathed to be forced to work for Walmart partner, ASDA. Would an anti-sweathshop campaigner feel comfortable working in Primark? The examples can go into the thousands. No company is perfect and no charity has a cause that everyone can get behind.

Resistance, however, is pointless. Refuse and they will stop your benefits. Not only have they taken your freedom and dignity by forcing you to work for free but they’ve taken away your right as a human being to express your thoughts and views. The DWP is successfully dehumanising the unemployed, and this, although an issue burning for a long time, is just another reason to boycott Workfare.

Dying for a Biscuit; The Tragic Story of James Best

During the riots that broke out in August 2011 a man named James Best walked past an already looted bakery in Croydon, went in and took a gingerbread man. His actions were probably illegal but, given other events happening that day, seem somewhat small fry. This, however, was not the view taken by Croydon magistrates court. They remanded him in custody to await sentence as part of the ‘fast track justice’ that kicked in after the riots subsided and the fires were put out. Once held in prison he died of a heart attack believed to have been brought on by over exercising.

Best was ill, both mentally and physically. He suffered from Crohn’s disease, arthritis and asthma. He had also recently been sectioned under the Mental Health Act as it was felt he was a danger to himself. He was a vulnerable man who made a daft decision, but one that no decent thinking human being could think was dangerous, or even morally objectionable. He was not cared for as someone with his health concerns should have been. He was overlooked at a time when prisons and police stations were full to bursting with people who had committed only minor offences. They were being kept there as an examples. The government could not address the resentment and sense of disenfranchisement that was at the heart of the riots, but they could try and look hard and order lots of people locked up.

An inquest into James Best’s death had now been called.

During the riots everyone panicked. For those caught in it I can only imagine the terror. I do count myself lucky that there were no riots in the city I was living in at the time. However, no amount of fear, no amount of uncertainty can excuse the death of a vulnerable man in the care of the state. During that restless August cases were rushed through and sentences handed down quickly. The government was adamant that they would show the disobedient population who was boss. As a result a man died. No one cared that he was ill, they just wanted to illustrate what happens when you get caught up in a publicity stunt such as the handling of the rioters.

Had Best stolen a gingerbread man during any other week of the year it is unlikely he would even have been taken to court, especially in light of his health issues. This is a truly tragic example of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. No explanation about how busy the police were at that time will suffice. If they were that busy they should have been focussing on those individuals who were actually posing a danger to people, not just those who felt a bit peckish. I don’t want to think of the British justice system as one that would not give an individual a proper, fair consideration, in any circumstance.

How can the system that let James Best die pass judgment on the rest of us? He should not have been in that prison, and even if he should have, he should not have been treated as he was. This is the worst outcome of the riots, the disregard for the freedoms, rights and lives of individuals. This is a system trying to prove a point as to how righteous it is by coming down too hard on people who haven’t done anything wrong. A man died for no good reason and that has destroyed their moral authority and undermined the entire justice system.

Review*: In The Flesh

*Yeah, I do these now.

I was quite looking forward to In The Flesh. I love me a bit of zombie. Also, since Being Human became unrecognisable from the first series that I loved with all my heart (no programme can survive an entire cast change and still be the same) I was looking for some Sunday night supernatural BBC Three action.
 
I wasn’t disappointed. I would have been quite content with the usual zombie apocalypse fare, but In The Flesh offered something interesting and different. Set a few years after the dead became reanimated it focuses on those who’d been ‘infected’ (exactly how the undead became the undead wasn’t gone into. Hopefully that’s a treat for later in the series). The zombies were taking medication to help them live again amongst their friends and families. It also showed those who thought there was no place for them back in society.

If focuses on the story of Kieran (Luke Newberry) who relies on daily shots to stop him reverting to a flesh eating monster when he moves back in with his family. He's described, rather brilliantly, as having Partially Deceased Syndrome. His sister, Jem (Harriet Cains), is part of the HVF, the Human Volunteer Force who are anxious to stop the undead coming back into the community and prepared to use violent means to stop them if necessary.

I think it’s fantastic to set a zombie drama after the chaos and bloodshed and it not be just another ‘they’re all dead, Dave’ post-apocalyptic scenario. I can’t think of another film or TV series that has given the zombies back their humanity and tried to imagine how they would be received. It’s pretty interesting stuff.

Last night’s episode touched on a lot of quite complex, often moral, themes. Horror and fantasy (also sci fi, but to a lesser extent) often skirt round anything contentious or political and instead. It’s implicitly understood that supernatural dramas don’t need to do that. All the more reason why In The Flesh is so new and exciting.

Firstly it addresses the idea of redemption. Can someone who has done such evil things ever truly be sorry and be forgiven? Also, should acceptance be forced on those who don’t want it, and what might the consequences be if it is? Parallels can be drawn with every violent criminal you can think of.

There’s also the question of medication. Is someone truly ‘cured’ if they still rely on medication, and can they truly be sorry if it’s a chemical that makes them appear so? Also, these people were dead (the programme was very clear that they all died and then were brought back as zombies rather than become zombies from being healthy, living human beings) and once someone is gone is it perhaps better to accept that they are gone rather than try and bring them back? This is quite a well explored theme already. We’ve had mummies trying to bring back their dead girlfriends and vampires killing people they love to make them immortal. In a majority of cases this does not end well, but it’s still an area ripe for exploration.

The plight of the undead can also be read as a metaphor for intolerance. Many people living in Kieran’s village, particularly members of the HVF, will not accept the return of the PDS sufferers regardless of what evidence is put in front of them. But it’s because they’re scared. They’ve seen friends and family be killed and don’t want to see it happen again. It’s quite a mature representation. These people have a genuine reason to be nervous and its fear that fuels their hatred.
 
It’s set in ‘the North’. I know this because there was a poignant shot of Kieran being driven by his parents over the Humber Bridge. Also, the cast all have Manchester/Lancashire accents. This adds to a sense of isolation. The focus put on ‘the cities’ during the initial trouble is brought up several times, indicating a community that feel abandoned. Anyone who is not from London will know this feeling well. Roarton, the village its set in, is described as being ‘radical’ in its anti-zombie attitudes. This could easily be seen as a nod to the northern towns who are caricatured as backwards and resistant to new ideas. You know, the racist ones.  

In The Flesh made me think of these questions, but it didn’t give me any answers. In a way I’m glad. I’m not really one for heavy and clumsy moralising. Perhaps some of these themes will be addressed more closely in the rest of the series. But I’m still delighted that the programme goes into such unconventional territory. This is the kind of thing we need to see more of. Something genuinely imaginative and innovative that isn’t afraid to engage with the difficult questions that often come up when life and death are explored. 

In The Flesh on iPlayer and IMDB.

GUU and the Sense of Entitlement at Uni

Over the last week there has been a lot of excitement and comment generated by the misogynist abuse directed at two female debaters who were attending an event at Glasgow University Union. The university paper has been covering it, and so have national news outlets including the Huffington Post and the Guardian. The behaviour of a few individual members of GUU is absolutely appalling, but, sadly, not all that shocking. As has been seen recently women who speak out in the public realm are subjected to abuse not for their opinions but because they are women. It is, quite frankly, pathetic that we are still in this state in 2013.

However, the problem of misogyny seems to be endemic in the GUU, as detailed in this blog post by a former Glasgow uni student. Reading her words (which I encourage you to do, although I know I have already been quite link happy in this post) really made me feel sorry that she and other students like her had suffered in this way. I’m not going to discuss what happened at the GUU debate, that has already been done extremely well (see links above, and Google) but I have been thinking about the mindset that seems to have been betrayed by these men.

The things shouted at the women (‘get that woman out of my union!') are very telling. These appear to be privileged young men from wealthy backgrounds who feel able to dismiss anyone who isn’t exactly like them out of hand. This got me thinking about the greater environment of universities and how they are can very easily become places where a specific elite call the shots. Anyone who doesn’t fit the mould can be made to feel very uncomfortable.

I’ve been to three unis in two countries (Oooooooo! Get me!) and I have to say that I, thankfully, was never made to feel uncomfortable because I was a woman. I was never even made to feel uncomfortable for being British when I was studying abroad. I was, however, in England, made to feel uncomfortable about my accent.

I don’t have that strong an accent, but it is there. I did my first degree at Manchester (a place where Northern accents I assumed would be commonplace) but I still was once told in a seminar that I was ‘a chav’ because of how I talked. I was also aware that some societies were closed off from me because of either disproportionate joining fees or astronomical equipment costs. Those people who’d taken a proper ‘gap year’ (rather than a year out to work in a call centre, which was what my ‘gap year’ was) and gone travelling exuded a self-belief that came from the experiences they’d got. Then, when it came to my final year, there were those who could be set up with jobs or internships through existing family connections. They were the ones least concerned (particularly about revising. It makes sense. If you don’t need a 2:1 why bust your gut?) about the future.

There was a clear class of people far more comfortable than the rest of us. I’m not saying by any means that those from wealthy backgrounds were all dicks (you can be a tool regardless of where you’re from) but I can see how those young men in Glasgow, brought up believing that they were entitled to be there, came to the conclusion that they were above others. They were the best, the privileged, the elite and they could talk down to anyone they wanted. This sense of entitlement is there in British universities and anyone who doesn’t fit in with the clique is open to abuse. It’s not right, but it’s a world view held by people like this.

And it’s only going to get worse. With the increase in fees certain universities will become more and more homogenised as only a small section of society can afford to go. The original idea of university (to open your mind and expose yourself to new thinking, people and ideas) will suffer if everyone who goes there is from a similar background. The ideas held by misogynistic spoilt brats will be more likely to go unchallenged if they rarely come across someone whose lived experience is different from their own. Of course, I don’t think for a moment that everyone who is lucky enough to come from a comfortable background will think like this, but the evidence is that there is a portion that does.

We are on the verge of further segregating universities. Incidents like what happened at GUU will increase, and it won’t just be women who suffer. It will be everyone who doesn’t already enjoy the comfortable life of the elite.